Kalpana One design (was Rotating space colonies)

"janet_baker76" wrote:
>
> The thread has compared cost between two scenarios. I wonder which strategy
>would be more dangerous to the workers? I was trying to imagine the actual work
>involved. It can't all be roboticized, just as work now on the ISS isn't. If it
>is related, also, which condition would be more dangerous, processing ore in low
>gravity, no gravity, or normal gravity? I mean, dangerous to the humans
>involved. I know you'll say, 'different dangers,' but would it be possible to
>consider this element as a 'cost factor' in any case, and make a decision as to
>which situation is the more costly in terms of human life?

If the goal is to minimize human risk, we would maximize use of telerobotics.
In the next 20 years expect robotics to undergo a revolution, developing far
greater capabilities and at far lower cost. As this occurs, an orbital facility
/lunar base would not inherentlly need human presence, just resupply of spare
parts.

Before expressing too much hubris about what humans can do better: any tool we
could use, we could still use with telepresence.
Looked at that way, if there is no premium to the human experience of working in
space, then we could reduce human life risk to where it is not a "cost factor."