Keeping your habitat on the track

--- In spacesettlers@egroups.com, "Tom Tucker (Olympia)"
wrote:
>
> From: "Dr. Omni"
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2000 1:42 PM
> Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Keeping your habitat on the track
>
> > From: "Tom Tucker (Olympia)"
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2000 3:42 AM
> > Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Keeping your habitat on the track
> >
> > [snikt]
> > > Tom - The expenditure of mass for propulsion means that it must
be
> > restored
> > > from some source such as an asteroid.
> >
> > Indeed.
> >
> > > Recycling of all garbage should be a goal.
> >
> > Not necessarily. I'm kind of skeptical about the common notion of
a
> > *completely* enclosed ecosystem in all space habitats. The fact
is that
> > habitats anywhere in the solar system will have basically any
kind of raw
> > material at a range of a few months trip, and also would have
commerce
> (and
> > exchange of materials) with other habitats and planetary colonies.
> > Therefore, I think that a 100% efficient recycling will be needed
(and
> > effectively implemented) only in habitats for interstellar trips
and other
> > applications that need prolonged isolation.
>
> Tom - 100 % recycling is a worthy goal at this point in time,
espcially
> since such technologies would also have application to earth, which
is also
> a space colony :-)
>
> Perhaps we can only achieve 99 or 95%, I don't know since I have
yet to see
> a well researched study on this topic.
> Most plastics can be reduced to a handfull that can be sorted and
recycled.
> Compounds containing chlorine can and should be banned since they
are not
> natural and produce poison gas when burned.
> Organic matter can be recycled naturally.
> Our wide variety of alloys could be reduce to a handfull of alloys
to
> facilitate recycling.
> Chemicals that are not organic ??? perhaps they should be banned
if not
> recyclable?
>
> What concerns do you have for recycling - any particular product or
> compound?
>
> Regards,
>
> Tom
>
> > > A rock launched from the colony may oneday return unless
carefully
> > launched
> > > into an orbit that results in a slower orbital velocity than
the colony.
> >
> > It depends on how fast you launch your rocks. If they are thrown
at the
> > local escape velocity relatively to the Sun, then you can be sure
that
> your
> > rock will leave the Solar System and you'll never see it again.
However,
> > while the rock is still crossing the Solar System at blazing
speed, it
> could
> > be a threat to spacecraft in general (including other colonies).
> Therefore,
> > I have to concede that the use of mass drivers would have to be
carefully
> > planed.
> >
> > [snikt]
> > Lucio Coelho
> >
The Launch of Lunar Prospector to the Moon in January of 1998 was on
a Holeman transfer orbit. The Trans Lunar Injection module was
separated from the spacecraft after it had done its job and slowed
slightly with some nitrogen gas. Its return trajectory put it over
the ocean about the same time a spent third stage rocket was
mysteriously destroyed in about the same place. :< What goes up may
come down and a lot of what is up may come down and building cities
in the sky may add to a lot of spent rocket stages coming down. Hope
all of our hardware is included in the flight plans. Will see the
Mir come down probably next year and Iridium satellites soon. May
play a role in public opinion.