As I wrote the other day, what a mess:
Even Nelson, who described Obama’s speech at KSC as “visionary,” has advocated continued Ares rocket testing because it could mean a few hundred jobs at the center, which is set to lose as many as 9,000 workers once the shuttle completes its final three missions.
Much of the gridlock over Obama’s plan can be traced back to one sentence inserted by Shelby into a spending bill last year that bars NASA from canceling Constellation programs this year without congressional approval. Not only has that sentence prevented NASA from quickly switching to Obama’s new plan, but it also has given Congress time to kill his proposal and save Constellation.
Indeed, the tactic has proven so effective that lawmakers loyal to Constellation are considering a similar move in upcoming spending bills. That possibility has bureaucrats on both sides of the issue combing through thick pages of appropriations measures to ensure that the other doesn’t gain ground.
With such scrutiny, the issue may not be decided until Congress ultimately approves its 2011 budget — which may not happen until the winter holiday season.
OK, someone explain to me why, if the government is operating on a continuing resolution into the winter, and the Republicans have taken over one or both houses, and will be in power in January, why they wouldn’t simply filibuster any “Mad Duck” attempt to ram through an appropriations bill in December, and then do a new one in February?
NEVER make blanket staments about 500 years. thats not just dozens of generations of technology –its several generation of physics! Its like your a few years after Columbus trying to foresee steam engines much less space shuttles and nuclear power.
Remember. Compared to space Earth never had any resources, no ore, oil, freash water, etc. Just because its not profitable now to use it for industry doesn mean in 50 years (yes 50 not 500) it would have a desisive edge over Earth reseources in cost effectivness to the markets of Earth.
I agree with this. I can’t figure out what’s supposed to take so long either. I doubt, for example, that Earth-side manufacturing and design would remain so limited that the manufacture of rockets wouldn’t decline in price (even given no increase in demand). My take is that even expendable chemical engine launch vehicles, perhaps the least economic means of getting to space, will trend to the cost of materials and propellant over a number of decades as manufacture continues to improve. That will, even in the absence of marked increase in launch frequency, result in a vast decrease of launch costs.
Hmmm, you have never taken an graduate level courses in statistics or mathematical economics have you?
Wrong again, Tom. Why do you keep making up crap?
Besides the challenge of developing space is not the engineering, but the economics.
Correct. Economics which you ignore. I’ve asked you time and time again about the financial numbers for Constellation, Shuttle-C, your Lunar Development Corporation, et. al. You never even try to answer.
Instead, you wave your hands and say that politicians must fund your pet projects because some other politicians (now long dead) funded the Egyptian pyramids, the Transcontinental Railroad, or the Erie Canal. Handwaving about historical analogies does not convince anyone, as you should realize by now, but instead of changing your tack and developing more rigorous arguments, you just get mad and blame the entire world for not listening to you.
That is the core reason the SSTO failed, lack of demand for it at the price level needed to supply it.
Yet, you want to the taxpayers to build a super heavy lifter that requires a 10-fold greater demand to sustain it. And you believe (or pretend to believe) that makes sense.
Logical contradictions like that are why it’s impossible to take your arguments seriously, Tom. You must surely recognize that, but you go on and do it anyway. Why?
Which is why as a New Space advocate I would be very worried about VG slashing its prices years before their first customer has even flown.
Suddenly you’re a New Space advocate???
CATS is a great slogan but won’t happen until sufficiently large markets exist to justify it.
Such markets already exist. You would know that if you weren’t obsessed with the Moon and mining He-3 or platinum group metals for hydrogen-fueled cars. You even acknowledged the existance of the suborbital science market, for a total of about five minutes, before you went right back to your Lunacy.
The Moon, Mars, and Alpha Centauri are not first-generation markets, they are Nth-generation markets. Successful startups don’t go after Nth-generation markets. They bootstrap and develop incrementally. You think you can skip all those steps just by getting the government to give you tons of money. That very rarely works. It never works economically.
Then you won’t need a government subsidy, private capital will finance it. But it won’t be new space firms building it, it will be Boeing, Lockheed-Martin and Northrup-Grumman, just as will be the case with Commercial Crew when the RFP finally comes out now that its in the critical path.
There’s no such company as “Northrup-Grumman,” Tom.
Northrop Grumman’s Scaled Composite subsidiary is working on Cheap Access To Space right now. For Virgin Galactic, which is pursuing real markets, not Helium 3 markets. Other companies are working on it, too. Masten Space Systems. Armadillo Aerospace. XCOR. Blue Origin.
They are not getting government subsidies, despite your constant slanders, which I’m sure will continue since the real world does not conform to your ideology.
I have never bashed the military.
I suppose you think it was a compliment when you said the only difference between the military and NASA was the cool uniforms?
> Karl Hallowell Says:
> May 7th, 2010 at 3:23 pm
>==
> My take is that even expendable chemical engine launch vehicles, perhaps
> the least economic means of getting to space, will trend to the cost of
> materials and propellant over a number of decades as manufacture
> continues to improve. That will, even in the absence of marked increase
> in launch frequency, result in a vast decrease of launch costs.
Its not manufacture but market size. Chemical rocket launchers in mass operations (at least RLVs) can get down to $20-$30 dollars a pound for cargo — but that needs a big market.
Bottom line, It costs about as much to develop a RLV as a similar cargo capacity trans pacific aircraft. But such aircraft sell in the thousands, each flying about every day. The shuttles only flew 130 times in 30 years – and they few more then any fleet ever fielded. All the overhead adn none of the economies of scale.
> Edward Wright Says:
> May 7th, 2010 at 4:30 pm
>> CATS is a great slogan but won’t happen until sufficiently large
>> markets exist to justify it.
> Such markets already exist. ==
Oh please. The current demand is droping. Theres effectivly no demadn for orbital launch now.
> There’s no such company as “Northrup-Grumman,” Tom.
??
You never heard of Northrop Grumman? Yet..
> Northrop Grumman’s Scaled Composite subsidiary is working on
> Cheap Access To Space right now. For Virgin Galactic,==
Actually no – they are developing suborbitals – not orbitals yet.
>== Other companies are working on it, too. Masten Space Systems.
> Armadillo Aerospace. XCOR. Blue Origin.
None of them are doing orbital launcher work yet.
> They are not getting government subsidies, despite your constant
> slanders, which I’m sure will continue since the real world does not
> conform to your ideology.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
>> I have never bashed the military.
> I suppose you think it was a compliment when you said the only
> difference between the military and NASA was the cool uniforms?
And you see that as bashing the mil how?
Karl Hallowell Says:
May 7th, 2010 at 3:23 pm
Look, txhsdad, you claimed that there wasn’t demand for many of these things. I demonstrate that is false
I disagree. You have yet to identify a single realistic commercially profitable objective beyond LEO.
Second, you grossly exaggerate the emptiness of space.
And 99.9% of the volume of space is the empty stuff between the stars. What’s your point? It’s not just empty, it’s barren. Lifeless. Inhospitable to humanity. Oh, there’s minerals, to be sure, but like has been pointed out, it’s not commercially viable to harvest them in any significant quantity with any technology we have now or in the near future.
You ever fly flight sims, Karl? You know how there’s usually a small area at the middle of the gamespace where you’re supposed to stay, and if you go beyond that it’s usually just endless flat featureless ground and sky? As far as I can tell, that’s what space is like. It’s pretty to look at, exciting to visit now and then, but pointless to linger. There is no there there.
You keep saying things like that. You aren’t in a position to know.
Oh, but you are. Because wishing makes it so, I guess.
How soon we do start colonizing space is going to depend on the development of technologies and economic strategies that haven’t been tried. When we’ve tried high launch frequency launch, ISRU, etc, and those things turn out to be harder than we thought, then maybe you’ll have a point.
a) They WILL be harder than you think. NOTHING is easy in space.
b) You won’t colonize space until you either terraform a planet (which I should hope we can agree is well beyond 50 years away) or else breed humans to be content to live in tin cans and eat hydroponic spinach and tofu for the rest of their lives. IMHO, terraforming is like artificial gravity, hyperdrive, subspace and force fields — a deus ex machina sci fi authors use to get around the harsh realities that make their stories, well, fiction.
But without it, you can’t colonize a planet, so it must be possible, right? Because we want to, and stuff.
NEVER make blanket staments about 500 years. thats not just dozens of generations of technology –its several generation of physics! Its like your a few years after Columbus trying to foresee steam engines much less space shuttles and nuclear power.
My point exactly. It took that long to get from Columbus to nukes, and it will take at least as long again to develop the sophistication of technology required to make your sci fi fantasies come true. If you had asked Columbus how long it would take for someone to walk on the Moon, you think he would’ve wagered it was closer to 50 years or 500?
If you can’t terraform, there’s no sizable commercial demand for colonization.
Edward,
[[[ Hmmm, you have never taken an graduate level courses in statistics or mathematical economics have you?
Wrong again, Tom. Why do you keep making up crap? ]]]
I am talking about real graduate courses, not the water downed ones offered in MBA programs.
[[[Suddenly you’re a New Space advocate???]]]
I thought you were one. So you are not worried that VG is slashing prices to fill seats? Hmmm, given you don’t understand Say’s law I could see why you wouldn’t get it…
[[[ I have never bashed the military.
I suppose you think it was a compliment when you said the only difference between the military and NASA was the cool uniforms?]]]
Which you are probably taking out of context and twisting as usual.
But how is comparing the USAF to NASA bashing given that NASA is a highly respected government agency? That its astronauts, most from military backgrounds, are seen as national heroes? Oh, wait, I forget, New Spacers like you see NASA as incompetent and useless, again showing how far out of touch New Spacers are with the rest of the country, which is of course why the backlash against President’s Obama clone of New Space policy is such a mystery to you…
You have yet to identify a single realistic commercially profitable objective beyond LEO.
You mean beyond GEO (since there’s a few profitable things in geostationary orbit). Sure, I can’t think of any because there aren’t any. But that’s now. We can’t just assume that the future, even a “mere” 50 years from now, will have the same cost versus benefit that today does.
And 99.9% of the volume of space is the empty stuff between the stars.
It’s a lot more of the volume than that. And that point is wholly irrelevant.
You ever fly flight sims, Karl? You know how there’s usually a small area at the middle of the gamespace where you’re supposed to stay, and if you go beyond that it’s usually just endless flat featureless ground and sky? As far as I can tell, that’s what space is like. It’s pretty to look at, exciting to visit now and then, but pointless to linger. There is no there there.
There are, according to Wikipedia, 22 objects within the Solar System (aside from the Sun) massive enough that they form round objects just due to gravitational force alone. The Earth is only one of these objects. Those are destinations. There are a vast number of smaller objects.
a) They WILL be harder than you think. NOTHING is easy in space.
I simply don’t know the challenges. That’s different.
b) You won’t colonize space until you either terraform a planet (which I should hope we can agree is well beyond 50 years away) or else breed humans to be content to live in tin cans and eat hydroponic spinach and tofu for the rest of their lives.
Why that’s like living in a city, minus the crime. I assert that we already have a considerable fraction, perhaps even a majority, of the human population living in such psychological circumstances. The technology side is going to be hard, but the psychological side is already known.
IMHO, terraforming is like artificial gravity, hyperdrive, subspace and force fields — a deus ex machina sci fi authors use to get around the harsh realities that make their stories, well, fiction.
It’s also something we do routinely on Earth. First, what really is terraforming? To make some region on a planet or other object more suitable for habitation by humans or other terrestrial organisms. Many regions of Earth have been modified to either grow plants and animals that humans want or habitats and infrastructure for humans themselves. Things like creating farmland, cities, road systems, etc. These are terraforming.
But without it, you can’t colonize a planet, so it must be possible, right? Because we want to, and stuff.
As I mentioned above, Earth is a working example of massive terraforming. Of the land, over 40% is farmland and 3% is urban areas. Toss in the road system (which I gather is somewhere shy of 5%) and you have almost 50% of the land area of Earth modified for human use.
The working period of time was roughly 12k years (from the start of agriculture) to get to the current point. Most of this development though has happened in the past century or so. This does demonstrate two things. First, that humans can do huge, long term projects like terraform an entire planet. And second, that they can do it over surprisingly short periods of time.
Karl said:
There are, according to Wikipedia, 22 objects within the Solar System (aside from the Sun) massive enough that they form round objects just due to gravitational force alone. The Earth is only one of these objects. Those are destinations. There are a vast number of smaller objects.
Destinations, perhaps. But not marketable products. Most of what is out there we already have here. Very little of what we don’t have here we have no use for, or could synthesize much more efficiently than we could retrieve it. What a way to build an economy.
Why that’s like living in a city, minus the crime.
Living in a city where methane freezes, or sulfur boils, or where the atmospheric pressure crushes structures like tin cans, or the vacuum rips you open like a pinata, or the gravity mashes you into chunky salsa. But hey, you could run for mayor! I doubt you’ll have much competition.
I assert that we already have a considerable fraction, perhaps even a majority, of the human population living in such psychological circumstances.
And I assert (lightheartdly) that if you think that’s the case, then we need to be talking about a different sort of psychology. 🙂
The technology side is going to be hard, but the psychological side is already known.
Yeah, just look at death row. Or suicide bombers.
Things like creating farmland, cities, road systems, etc. These are terraforming. … As I mentioned above, Earth is a working example of massive terraforming. Of the land, over 40% is farmland and 3% is urban areas. Toss in the road system (which I gather is somewhere shy of 5%) and you have almost 50% of the land area of Earth modified for human use.
The working period of time was roughly 12k years (from the start of agriculture) to get to the current point. Most of this development though has happened in the past century or so. This does demonstrate two things. First, that humans can do huge, long term projects like terraform an entire planet. And second, that they can do it over surprisingly short periods of time.
Are you friggin’ kidding me? Um, excuse me, but you left out the teensy part about a habitable atmosphere and temperature and soil that can, y’know, grow stuff. It’s not like Mars is Earth with weeds. It’s a little more difficult than plowing a field and getting the natives to leave you alone. Move the Sahara to the Antarctic, then replace all the air with some other gas we can’t breathe. Make THAT habitable, and then we’ll talk.
Destinations, perhaps. But not marketable products. Most of what is out there we already have here. Very little of what we don’t have here we have no use for, or could synthesize much more efficiently than we could retrieve it. What a way to build an economy.
Just because it’s not a marketable product today, doesn’t it won’t be in a few decades.
Living in a city where methane freezes, or sulfur boils, or where the atmospheric pressure crushes structures like tin cans, or the vacuum rips you open like a pinata, or the gravity mashes you into chunky salsa.
None of those conditions would hold inside the city aside from the gravity issues. And that’s only if you’re floating in the atmosphere of Jupiter.
And I assert (lightheartdly) that if you think that’s the case, then we need to be talking about a different sort of psychology.:)
Yeah, just look at death row. Or suicide bombers.
Or people who live in dense urban areas. Hence, why I brought it up.
Are you friggin’ kidding me? Um, excuse me, but you left out the teensy part about a habitable atmosphere and temperature and soil that can, y’know, grow stuff. It’s not like Mars is Earth with weeds. It’s a little more difficult than plowing a field and getting the natives to leave you alone. Move the Sahara to the Antarctic, then replace all the air with some other gas we can’t breathe. Make THAT habitable, and then we’ll talk.
No, I’m not kidding you. If we’re going to discuss terraforming, it makes sense to mention past examples of it. I grant that terraforming the whole of Mars to have an Earth-like environment would be much harder and perhaps even undesirable. But covering 3% of the surface of Mars (which has roughly the same amount of area as Earth has land area) with some sort of protected habitat and agriculture is comparable in effort to the construction of cities on Earth.
> txhsdad Says:
> …or else breed humans to be content to live in tin cans and eat hydroponic
> spinach and tofu for the rest of their lives. —
Or you could build them comfortable homes adn grow ship real food to them. Given the huge reserves of raw materials in space its not that hard to build cities in space with all the comforts of home.
Though first up I expect your talking more deep sea oil rig levels of comfort and rotate crews a couple times a year. But if you can develop a local resource and economy, a city floating in space that’s fully human habitable is far easier to build and operate then one on a world. Suplying gravity alone is far easier, and its easier to get materials to it.
Kelly,
Yep. And as Issac Asimov points out in his classic 1966 article “There’s no place like Spome” (published in “in Atmosphere in Space Cabins and Closed Environments”) all you need is to add a propulsion system and the Solar System, and then the galaxy is yours, in style 🙂
> Karl Hallowell Says:
> May 7th, 2010 at 9:28 pm
>>You have yet to identify a single realistic commercially profitable
>> objective beyond LEO.
>== We can’t just assume that the future, even a “mere” 50 years from
> now, will have the same cost versus benefit that today does.
Which again means you’ve identified nothing viable under any projections you can define.
>
>==
> There are, according to Wikipedia, 22 objects within the Solar System
> (aside from the Sun) massive enough that they form round objects just
> due to gravitational force alone. ==
Thats utterly irrelivent.
> Why that’s like living in a city, minus the crime. I assert that we
> already have a considerable fraction, perhaps even a majority, of
> the human population living in such psychological circumstances. ==
If you mean most people live in cities now – yes they do.
> =
> what really is terraforming? To make some region on a planet or
> other object more suitable for habitation by humans or other
> terrestrial organisms. Many regions of Earth have been modified
> to either grow plants and animals that humans want or habitats
> and infrastructure for humans themselves. Things like creating
> farmland, cities, road systems, etc. These are terraforming.
Ah, you thats not really teraforming, more like building space colonies. Which is something we can do – especially off planets – but it is different.
Terraforming a planet, giving it a human compatible biosphere, gravity, radiation levels, etc. Thats not even theoretically possible given anything we know now.
>== you left out the teensy part about a habitable atmosphere and
> temperature and soil that can, y’know, grow stuff. It’s not like Mars
> is Earth with weeds. It’s a little more difficult than plowing a field and
> getting the natives to leave you alone. Move the Sahara to the Antarctic,
> then replace all the air with some other gas we can’t breathe. Make
> THAT habitable, and then we’ll talk.
Yeah, some Mars advocates forget Mars will never be little house on the prarie.
😉
> Thomas Matula Says:
> May 8th, 2010 at 12:29 pm
> Kelly,
>
> Yep. And as Issac Asimov points out in his classic 1966 article
> “There’s no place like Spome” (published in “in Atmosphere in
> Space Cabins and Closed Environments”) all you need is to add
> a propulsion system and the Solar System, and then the galaxy
> is yours, in style 🙂
😉
Yup, order your city from the Lagrange ship yards, have it delivered to your target area with a tug. Send the colonist to your realestate development via faster ships– or the same kind of ships not pushing a a damn city.
😉
Saw a report that’s theres enough nickle iro asteroids out there to build O’Neil colonies with a internal acherage 10,000 times that of Earths continents. Ceres is thought to have 5 times more fresh water then Earth. Lots of oil and carbon compounds – and rock soil to make soil for lawns gardens etc. I expect you’ll ship food in from Earth. I mean trying to beat the costs of farming in the midwest on a space colony — its like starting a cattle ranch on Manhatten.
>== all you need is to add a propulsion system and the Solar System,
> and then the galaxy is yours, in style
Reminds me of a painting I saw with a O’Niel colony based starship pulling into orbit around a planet in another star system after a 500 year flight – finding a futuristic sat in orbit.
Caption, the sat was a becon transmitting “Hi, 80 years after you left Sol we developed FTL ships. We never could find you in interstellar space, so we skiped ahead and terraformed the planet for you.
Hope you like it.
Call using the sats FTL communication repeater.”
😉
–
Kelly,
Instead of a tug you just build the propulsion into it. That is where Asimov had a better idea then O’Neil. Then you load the residents in Earth orbit and take it where you want or where the opportunity is. Eliminates all the problems of deep space flights, including the problem of return flight. That is why it gives humanity the Solar System and beyond.
You want to explore Mars. No problem, just go into high Mars orbit and spend decades studying it, including human landings as needed. If its suitable for habitation then it could be a simple evolutionary process with all the support you need in orbit above.
Or want to explore Europa for life then just go into orbit above it. And study away for decades.
Which again means you’ve identified nothing viable under any projections you can define.
Nothing today. I think there’s a good chance asteroid or lunar PGMs become economic in 50 years.
> Thomas Matula Says:
> May 8th, 2010 at 2:41 pm
> Kelly,
>
> Instead of a tug you just build the propulsion into it. ==
Why? If you want to study or develop someplace – you’ll stay there for years. No use wasting a propulsion system that long when it can move other platforms in the meantime.
😉
Kelly,
But you may find it useful to shift orbits, or have a need reboost to stay in orbit as the ISS, or for other uses. Plus you really don’t want a habitat in a distance orbit to have to wait years for a tug to arrive if its needed. Remember, the mass and value of any propulsion system for a habitat would be a small component of any habitat mass, unlike a rocket.
As Asimov pointed out in his article, its a completely different mindset in terms of exploration. And its also much different from O’Neil’s narrow view of space habitats as just floating cities in La Grange points.
Continuing my thinking on profitable activities beyond Earth orbit in 50 years’ time, there’s also space tourism and science payloads (the profit being in the support services not in the research). In 50 years, I can see people visiting the Moon just because they can.
Even now, there’s a market in supporting small research activities in space which currently consists of standardized hardware like Cubesats and the ability to launch secondary payloads for a fraction of the cost of a main payload (a lot of rockets require ballast to complement and balance the payload, a secondary payload is effectively ballast that pays its way).
Edward Wright:
You say that without a trace of irony, when you refuse to use available rockets and want the government to spend tens of billions of dollars developing new “ships” for your Moon trips? But unlike the Spanish galleons, which reduced the cost of sea transportation, your “ships” would only increase the cost of space transportation.
Building a larger transport vehicle decreases per unit transportation costs in any kind of transportation system. You can reduce the number of parts, maintenance, per unit of transport this way. The issue is that if you do not use the full capacity you are losing a lot of money paying for something you do not need. Then there are the system development costs. This is why developing a super heavy lift vehicle is a bad idea.
Those voyages to the New World were not justified on the basis of hand-waving analogies to ancient history, Tom. They were justified by hard-headed men who sat down and ran the numbers.
The people who reached the New World were actually trying to reach Asia. They had knowledge of the prices and amounts of spice sold in the Venetian market via heavily taxed land routes. These were the hard demand numbers.
The question was how long would the new sea route be so you could estimate expenses. Or even consumables supply. You have to remember most of these admirals and captains had read The Travels of Marco Polo. Marco Polo traveled to Asia via land in a period when, thanks to the Mongol Empire, it was possible to travel from Europe to China with relative ease. Cost estimates were based on these relatively fantastic reports, plus some bogus numbers regarding the size of the Earth. Surprise, surprise, the estimates were wrong.
(And the so-called “riches” of the New World actually wrecked the Spanish economy, caused inflation, and contributed in the failure of the Spanish Armada because inflation prevented the Crown from buying as many ships and water barrels as were needed. Again, you should read more than one history book.)
That they did. Economies in Europe were based on a gold and silver standard. Gold and silver coins were minted and used as money. The vast influx of cheap gold and silver from the New World into the Spanish economy essentially debased their economy. It was sort of equivalent to a state today rolling the presses and printing a lot of money. Sure you injected a lot of money in the system, but you do not have more wealth. Wealth is a measure of human useful work x tools. You can do a lot of things to increase national wealth, but increasing the money supply is not one of them. Strategies which involve increasing the money supply usually work in the short term, with terrible long term consequences (inflation) as the market adjusts to reality.
However exploration of the New World did bring a lot of actual benefits. The Spanish Empire got a lot of slaves. Land. Resources, which were actually useful for something other than jewelry, like timber.
> Thomas Matula Says:
> May 8th, 2010 at 11:10 pm
>But you may find it useful to shift orbits, or have a need reboost to
> stay in orbit as the ISS, or for other uses. Plus you really don’t want
> a habitat in a distance orbit to have to wait years for a tug to arrive
> if its needed. Remember, the mass and value of any propulsion
> system for a habitat would be a small component of any habitat
> mass, unlike a rocket.
The kind of power it would take to boost for near earth to near mars or near a asteroid or something should dwarf anything needed for station keeping. Same way station keeping rockets on Sats or the ISS are laughable compared to the stages needed to get them there (in whole or in part) in the first place.
I.E. say your mining colony is boosted to a good nickleiron asteroid to mine adn mil the material into marketable ingots, beams etc for transport backto market. You’ll want it delivered there pretty quickly to get youre money back and not waste resources while its on route. But its likely going to be there for years – maybe decades. You’ll likely know years ahead of time when the ore is runing out, and getting a tug without a city on its nose out to you should take months – not years. If it can’t move that fast on its own- it would take it forever to move the city platform to a new rock light minuttes away.
This seems similar to how deep ocean floating rigs are manuvered around – etc. Can’t see a strong reason it would be different in the solar system.
Why keep that big engine docked to you doing nothing when it can be spending that time running cargo and supplies back and forth across the solar system?
For exploration also – you’ld want to say stay in Mars orbit indefinatly to support all the exploration of the whole planet. Or around Jupiter, etc. not hit one – wander to another, then another, etc. if you did just want to make quick surveys adn move on — why move a city there?
The crazy suggestion regarding a fleet of ships was mine and again I will explain why it is not at all crazy. It would not be built just because it could be (although that is a pretty darned important factor) but for the same reason things have been done in the past… for profit. Yes, that elusive thing that doesn’t seem to work in space but works. every. place. else. Also, it does NOT require access to LEO to be any cheaper than what we expect today. Cheaper access may increase volume so more profit can be made.
Got your attention, txhsdad? Alright! I’ll explain once again. Profit is found in niches. Space transportation has a very strong potential for profit even when surrounded by a sea of losses.
Transportation to and from the ISS will be profitable as long as the ISS is sustained… or do you think those private companies working to do it are charities? Once the ISS is gone (and we expect it will one day) other orbital destinations will continue those profitable activities (Bigelow hotels come to mind, but that’s not exclusive. How about that crazy idea? Orbital space hotels?) Before SpaceX, private transportation to orbit was a crazy idea… welcome to reality. Almost everything is crazy until someone actually does it and shows others how to make a profit doing it.
Now, what about transportation beyond orbit? Well we don’t have bases on mars or the moon right now. So it would take a real visionary to build that first ship now. They could. They could still sell tickets, but probably not make enough money to make it worth doing… Ah, but what if we do establish bases on the moon, mars or somewhere else? That would serve the EXACT SAME FUNCTION as the ISS does for the Dragon.
At that point a ship fleet owner can make a profit providing transportation. The fact that, that transportation might involve years rather than weeks is totally irrelevant. What is relevant is can that business provide transportation in the same manner as suppliers of the ISS do. Yes. They can and profit for the EXACT SAME REASONS.
So tell me again that it can’t be done, won’t be done, and is crazy. But start with the reasonable assumption that you have a base that requires logistics and you have the basis for profit even in a sea of losses.
You have yet to identify a single realistic commercially profitable objective beyond LEO.
Would you accept one if presented to you? I just did. You can argue those bases will never happen. You’d be on the wrong side of history for that one.
Kelly,
You need to think in terms of the size of these habitats. The propulsion units used will be probably nuclear/electric or nuclear thermal. Not one engine, but many built into the structure of the habitat. The amount of mass they would represent is minor. Also for a number of reasons you are not going to use accelerations higher then 1/100 G which is why they will stay out of deep gravity wells. And why tugs would not make any economic sense. The other part of the equation, fuel, most likely Oxygen or Water, will be designed to supplement the shielding and so would be renewed at the first opportunity. Yes, it will take them a while to get somewhere, but if you are taking your home with you there is no need to rush.
Yes, they are very different from Dr. O’Neil’s colonies based on a very different set of assumptions.
Instead of oil rigs think more in terms of “The World” type of Cruise ships.
http://www.aboardtheworld.com/
Tom
> Thomas Matula Says:
> May 9th, 2010 at 7:43 pm
> You need to think in terms of the size of these habitats. ==
Actually that could vary from a 2001 space Odyseey wheel space station sized researcgh base – up to someday a full Lagrange county where ever you’ld need that many folks. Course why you would move one to a given place would varry with what would need huge numbers of people?
>== The propulsion units used will be probably nuclear/electric or nuclear thermal.==
What is this the 1960’s?!
😉
In even a couple years fusion (See Polywell and Focus fusion designs under testing now) will shove ships around. Certainly be the time were moving big platforms and cities they will be the standard.
> Not one engine, but many built into the structure of the habitat.
That sounds very inefficent. At least cluster them
>== The amount of mass they would represent is minor. ==
Not as minor as you might think. Even fusion powered drives are lucky if they get 10 to 1 thrust to weight. Besides, tugs arn’t a huge fraction of the weight of the craft they shove around.
> == Also for a number of reasons you are not going to use
> accelerations higher then 1/100 G which is why they will
> stay out of deep gravity wells. And why tugs would not
> make any economic sense.
Ok, why 1/100th G specifically?
Your assuming you never orbit a planet?
Why would tugs make no economic sense?
> The other part of the equation, fuel, most likely Oxygen or Water, ==
Why?
>== Yes, it will take them a while to get somewhere, but if
> you are taking your home with you there is no need to rush.
There is if you want the job. No ones going to want to wait decades to start a production program and start getting their money back. That’s just wasteful.
>== Yes, they are very different from Dr. O’Neil’s colonies
> based on a very different set of assumptions. ==
Even with O’Niels you need them to make economic sence. Need them to give a return no nivestment ni a acceptably short period of time – just like cities on Earth.
> Instead of oil rigs think more in terms of “The World” type of Cruise ships.
True, but les luxurious, not (initially) built for permanent residents, more industry and mining gear, and crowded (residensea is like a vacation condominium, where most of the time most folks arn’t there.
🙂
I don’t think there’s really that much difference between the two of you. Even if the engines don’t generate much thrust, that can move you anywhere, given time and propellant. But it appears to me that there will be a market for getting there faster with a higher thrust strap-on engine. If I happen to have a high thrust, nuclear-powered rocket (say nuclear thermal, for example), I might get business just pushing large stuff through the Van Allen belts. Nobody wants a valuable piece of hardware lingering in those belts, so that’s a market for additional thrust.
Plus, if you are attempting to get out of some gravity well, then the benefit of thrust lower in the gravity well is amplified (this is the Oberth effect).
On the other hand, if you’re moving around the Solar System and don’t mind taking years or decades to get somewhere, then the standard maneuver engines probably can solve the problem (depending on propellant costs and energy availability, of course). Anything capable enough of reboosting you when you’re in LEO or around one of the unstable Lagrange points, can push you around the Solar System as well.
These both sound like viable means of moving large things around and I imagine whatever choice is made will depend on the owner and application.
It becomes more of a busness trade off then a technical issue.
though I do think high thrust tugs could be a viable market to start heavy platforms no their way – or shuttle out to start heavy cargo barges on route back – then have another tug “catch” them at the receaving area.
Kelly,
[[[Ok, why 1/100th G specifically?]]]
Visualize the force vectors involved.
Because unlike spaceship the habitats will have elements that are rotating to produce 1 G. Once they start rotating you are not going to stop them. Aside from the energy issues their are the infrastructure ones. Imagine subjecting a community of even a couple hundred, and their production and agricultural activities, to first zero G and then a major acceleration in a different direction.
Even 1/100 of a G is a major acceleration force, but one which could be designed into the system if applied at right angles. That is why habitats like these will be creatures of deep space only entering orbit around deep gravity wells like Mars in very high orbits.
Tugs may have a role in starting the journey, just as with large ships, but there role will be limited at best.
But space habitats will be built for permanent residents, with their families, not work crews that rotate out every week or two. That creates an entirely different set of conditions.
Kelly,
[[[On the other hand, if you’re moving around the Solar System and don’t mind taking years or decades to get somewhere.]]]
Exactly, when its your entire town going someplace the time factor becomes much less important.
> Thomas Matula Says:
> May 10th, 2010 at 8:00 am
>
>> Kelly,
>> [[[Ok, why 1/100th G specifically?]]]
>
> Visualize the force vectors involved.
I can visualize with bigger vectors.
😉
> = habitats will have elements that are rotating to
> produce 1 G. =
Thrust through axis. Even a 1/10th g shouldn’t be catastrophic – though big ponds might slosh.
😉
No need to despin.
Design for it – and put rubber pads on your cereal bowls.
>== But space habitats will be built for permanent residents, with
> their families, not work crews that rotate out every week or two.
> That creates an entirely different set of conditions.
This is flexible like with all towns cities. Folks come there to follow the jobs – they may or may not bring families (if you get a 6 month gig in wherever – do you bounce the kids back and forth?)
Smaller platforms will likely just cycle folks in adn out like on oil rigs, 6 months on, 6 off?
> Thomas Matula Says:
> May 10th, 2010 at 8:02 am
>
>> On the other hand, if you’re moving around the Solar
>> System and don’t mind taking years or decades to get
>> somewhere.
> Exactly, when its your entire town going someplace the
> time factor becomes much less important.
When the paychecks stop on route – it will seem much more important to speed up.
😉
Kelly,
[[[Even a 1/10th g shouldn’t be catastrophic – though big ponds might slosh.]]]
Think of a town setting on the level, then rising the entire surface the town is built on at a 8 degree angle and keep it there for days or weeks… Now think of how much this increases the complexity of the engineer. Just imagine in your mind the stresses on the entire system. And the increase costs of design as well as increased mass.
[[[This is flexible like with all towns cities. Folks come there to follow the jobs – they may or may not bring families (if you get a 6 month gig in wherever – do you bounce the kids back and forth?)]]]
You are still think in terms of O’Neil colonies. Think in terms of colonizing the New World. You sold or gave away all of you assets, invested everything in the venture and migrated for the duration. You are not just an employee, you are an investor in the venture. Your profit is driven by the success of the venture.
[[[When the paychecks stop on route – it will seem much more important to speed up.]]]
Again you are thinking in Earth terms. The agriculture and other systems are independent of Earth so paychecks will not have an impact on them. And your profit will be based on the success of the venture as in the old trading voyages of the 17th Century. Your investment at the start ensures your access to basic stores as a partner in the venture for the duration of it, which may be many decades.
A year on and a year off may work for lunar facilities and those Earth orbit, employees would make sense there, but beyond Cislunar space it will be a very different world.
And 99.9% of the volume of space is the empty stuff between the stars
Interestingly, we are made of atoms. So… using the classical model of nucleus and orbiting electrons with a huge amount of nothing between and between the atoms themselves…
We have no value????
Distance and time… is that the hangup?
>Thomas Matula Says:
>May 10th, 2010 at 6:47 pm
>> Kelly,
>> [[[Even a 1/10th g shouldn’t be catastrophic – though big ponds might slosh.]]]
>
> Think of a town setting on the level, then rising the entire surface
> the town is built on at a 8 degree angle and keep it there for days or
> weeks… Now think of how much this increases the complexity of
> the engineer. Just imagine in your mind the stresses on the entire
> system. And the increase costs of design as well as increased mass.
Think of your residensea example. Its not like you building a house no land, adn the comlpexities shouldn’t be a significan’t cost issue if you design for them. Besides, theres a lot of cost benifit to them since you need economically to be moveable ni this scenerio.
>> [[[This is flexible like with all towns cities. Folks come there to
>> follow the jobs – they may or may not bring families (if you get
>> a 6 month gig in wherever – do you bounce the kids back and forth?)]]]
> You are still think in terms of O’Neil colonies. Think in terms of
> colonizing the New World. ==
That is how people colonized the new world (except the prisoners of course) they came expecting a way to make more money.
>==You are not just an employee, you are an investor in the venture. ==
Doesn’t work that way. Theirs to much money involved. Same as with cities on Earth. If you can’t pay your way in trade, you go out of busness.
Though instead of becoming a ghost town, your sity is eiather sold off or scraped.
>> [[[When the paychecks stop on route – it will seem much more important to speed up.]]]
>
> Again you are thinking in Earth terms. The agriculture and
> other systems are independent of Earth so paychecks will not
> have an impact on them. ==
Not possible. A comon fatasy – but a fantasy. Even on Earth NATIONS aren’t big enough to be self supporting adn nidependant, adn they arn’t in a high tech machine ni deep space.
Think of your residencsea ship – not little house on the prairie (which also needed to trade to survive.).
> A year on and a year off may work for lunar facilities and those
> Earth orbit, employees would make sense there, but beyond
> Cislunar space it will be a very different world.
You assuming slow ships?
Kelly,
[[[Doesn’t work that way. Theirs to much money involved.]]]
Again, you are thinking O’Neil terms. This is the model for the original settlements of North American. The reasons the settlers at James Town were mostly nobles was because they had the money to invest in the project. Same with the Pilgrims, who also were financially successful. And you are not talking thousands, but more like hundreds for the first generation of habitats.
[[[Think of your residensea example. Its not like you building a house no land, adn the comlpexities shouldn’t be a significan’t cost issue if you design for them]]]
Its not the housing that will be the problem, but the landscape and agricultural production areas.
[[[Not possible. A comon fatasy – but a fantasy. Even on Earth NATIONS aren’t big enough to be self supporting adn nidependant, adn they arn’t in a high tech machine ni deep space.]]]
There is a difference between economic independence which you are describing and a sustainable life support system with only energy and simple matter inputs needed. Space habitats by their nature must come close to achieving this level of self-sufficiency if they are to be economically practical.
This is why the Moon is the critical first step. Its possible to sustain a lunar settlement with supplies from Earth, but very expensive, so there will be a major incentive to develop alternatives to reduce supplies from Earth. The Moon is the critical first step to developing the technology for ISRU will advance to the point to enable the construction of space habitats.
> Thomas Matula Says:
> May 11th, 2010 at 9:50 am
>> Kelly,
>>
>> [[[Doesn’t work that way. Theirs to much money involved.]]]
> Again, you are thinking O’Neil terms. ==
N I’m thinking busness terms. If your shelling out tens of billions to hundreds of billions – your going to want rapid returns –the colonists can’t do that-
Actually – the colonists in the new world couldn’t do that eiather, they weer funded by old world investers.
>== This is the model for the original settlements of North
> American. The reasons the settlers at James Town were
> mostly nobles was because they had the money to invest in the project.
?? You know Jamestown was a collosal failure right? They basically abandoned it to go hunting for gold and starved.
> Same with the Pilgrims, who also were financially successful. ==
Pilgrams had to fork over the bucks to escape Europe adn were shang highed by the New England company who brobed the captain to take them there rather then farther south so the new England company could make money off them.
You also overlook the fact they could lease a ship and then live off the land — though they failed at that to, and needed the charity of the locals to survive.
I space colony is a big chunk of bucks to build and support. No ones rich enough for that.
> And you are not talking thousands, but more like hundreds
> for the first generation of habitats.
Thous would just be research bases adn mining camps. They are far to small to be communities etc.
>> [[[Think of your residensea example. Its not like you building
>>a house no land, adn the comlpexities shouldn’t be a
>> significan’t cost issue if you design for them]]]
> Its not the housing that will be the problem, but the landscape
> and agricultural production areas.
Skip the agriculture areas, they’ld be uneconomical adn offer low food choices. Landscaping you hold off until you’re making some serious profit!
>> [[[Not possible. A comon fatasy – but a fantasy. Even on
>> Earth NATIONS aren’t big enough to be self supporting
>> adn nidependant, adn they arn’t in a high tech machine
>> in deep space.]]]
> There is a difference between economic independence which
> you are describing and a sustainable life support system with
> only energy and simple matter inputs needed. ===
I wasn’t just talking economic independence. I’m talking resources, manufactured goods, general supplies, etc. NO nation on Earth can build all the stuff it would need to continue – on space colony can AT LEAST until you get a population of millions to support al the trained specialists you needs to build all the different things.
Its irrelevant anyway. It would never be economical to try to do that. It would cost far to much rather then trading with Earth for supplies. Trying to build the ultimate completely self sustaining space colony that can build its own everything from pop tarts to PCs is insanely uneconomical!!
As to the advantages or disadvantages of flying a agricultural area on your platform, or just flying out suplies, just flying ont the groceries is a surprizing weight savings. I ran some numbers on it years ago.
http://www.ibiblio.org/lunar/school/InterStellar/Explorer_Class/Food_Mass_numbers.html
Kelly,
Just a note, but Earth II failed because they did not allow enough time for the concrete to cure, which tends to take a lot of oxygen.
The research on space farms is interesting, but it assumes a diet similar to Earth. Space habitats will be vegans by necessity. It sounds bad to us, but keep in mind food tastes are learned and the kids raised in habitats would not be familiar, or want, anything else. They will be used to getting their chicken from a vat.
As for the economics, space is long term, much more like the mining/energy industry where its not unusual to wait a several years to get to cash flow on a project. Also the first habitats will most likely be built and own by firms that have already made it in the lunar economy, which is again why you need the Moon for the transition to a Solar Econsystem. As Issac Asimov pointed out in his story, “The Martian Way”, folks born on Earth would be poorly suited to colonize space beyond the Moon and Mars. It will be the kids raised in space that will take humanity to the stars.
>Thomas Matula Says:
> May 11th, 2010 at 5:06 pm
> Just a note, but Earth II failed because they did not allow
> enough time for the concrete to cure, which tends to take a lot of oxygen.
That was one of the issues – though obviously suffocating tends to dominate ones thinking – all so they mixed in to may life forms and they went nuts, bugs exploded in numbers and were all over and in everything. Water processing had some issues as well.
Really it wasn’t a attempt to make a stable biosphere for the crews as much as a ecology statement tourist trap.
> The research on space farms is interesting, but it assumes a
> diet similar to Earth. Space habitats will be vegans by necessity.==
Necessity? Says who? And just assuming folks will get used to food they really don’t like – or assume they’ll be healthy (vegetarians need to be much more conscious and tactical about their diets) are to big no no. Talking to folks like submariners, armies, etc – food is one of the big moral boosters.
Also again, your ignoring the economic plus of shipping in normal food from earth rather then shipping farms and farmers and the extra systems they involve. The weight of farms in the Stanford study equated to 25 years of groceries for the inhabitants as I remember. So you save money shipping the lighter platform out faster and carrying supplies as needed, you don’t need to indoctrinate colonists to like what your limited agr stations can supply them, your capital investment isn’t as upfrount. Also, no one seems to consider folks come and go from stations – hard on folks if the ecosystems a little slow in catching up.
> It sounds bad to us, but keep in mind food tastes are
> learned and the kids raised in habitats would not be familiar,
> or want, anything else. ==
Spoken like someone who figures they’ll train their kids to love veggies and hate ice cream.
Good luck with that.
😉
> As for the economics, space is long term, much more like
> the mining/energy industry where its not unusual to wait
> a several years to get to cash flow on a project. ==
They work hard to make that as few years as possible. Investors want the shortest returns they can get.
>== Also the first habitats will most likely be built and own
> by firms that have already made it in the lunar economy, ==
What Lunar economy? Why would that be easier to develop then deeper in space, or why would developing on the moon help you field no big space lpatform?
Actually I’d argue even developing the moon you’d likely do it from a orbiting platform rather then a surface base due to medical issues..
As to the first hab platforms – likely they’ll be research stations for national pride or something. Its easier to see a base moved into Mars or Jupiter orbit from nits construction point in Earth moon space, placed there like the south pole station – for bragging rights, then them being done commercially.
>== Issac Asimov pointed out in his story, “The Martian
> Way”, folks born on Earth would be poorly suited to colonize
> space beyond the Moon and Mars. It will be the kids raised
> in space that will take humanity to the stars.
Interesting suposition – but it wasn’t the kids of east coast colonists who dominated colonizing the mid west or west. They were more waves of Euro colonists.
If nothing else, given no industrialized nation no Earth has enough kids to even maintain their population – why assume colonies would have enough kids to populate new colonies.
Actually that’s another issue. A platform comfortable to live no for years and do business no isn’t necessarily a place you’d bring and raise kids? No ones brought a family to the south pole stations, and hundreds live no them most of the year. No families moving to the north slope or mid gulf to be near oil rig workers and miners out in the wilderness. No families no air craft carriers with thousands onboard. You could argue this could be the dominant track for space? Folks move out to station for months or years to make a fortune then retire back “home” on Earth for a while, or for the rest of their lives? Not what were hoping – but reality and history has remarkably little interest in what we want.
Kelly,
[[[Interesting suposition – but it wasn’t the kids of east coast colonists who dominated colonizing the mid west or west. They were more waves of Euro colonists.]]]
Actually that was the second wave, mostly recruited by railroads to generate traffic along their route after the pioneer wave moved through.
[[[A platform comfortable to live no for years and do business no isn’t necessarily a place you’d bring and raise kids? No ones brought a family to the south pole stations, and hundreds live no them most of the year. No families moving to the north slope or mid gulf to be near oil rig workers and miners out in the wilderness.]]]
You are comparing travel times of a couple days versus travel times of many many months. The facilities on the Moon and Earth orbit will function like that, which each physical worker supported by dozens of teleworkers operating robots. That is why the Moon, not NEOs is the critical first step to creating a Solar Econsystem.
A vegan lifestyle, supplemented by artificial meat produced based on a expansion of existing technology is simply driven by economics and energy, not philosophy. Animals, even small ones, take a lot of space to raise, consumer a lot of resources and are labor intensive. So they will not be used. Yes, that was the mistake of Earth II, trying to create a biological balance using living creatures and not leveraging technology. Although you might see bees and earthworms on a space habitat there wouldn’t be any ants.
> Thomas Matula Says:
> May 12th, 2010 at 9:28 am
> > [[[A platform comfortable to live no for years and do
>> business on isn’t necessarily a place you’d bring and
>> raise kids? No ones brought a family to the south pole
>> stations, and hundreds live no them most of the year.
>> No families moving to the north slope or mid gulf to
>> be near oil rig workers and miners out in the wilderness.]]]
>
> You are comparing travel times of a couple days versus
> travel times of many many months. ==
Weeks or months, not many months. Your not going to do stuff like this and not field better faster ships. Its easier to do that then support folks for months of travel time. Papers by Bussard were figuring 3 months one way to Saturn with the drives he was talking about, Mars or the asteroid belts would be a couple weeks.
>== A vegan lifestyle, supplemented by artificial meat produced
> based on a expansion of existing technology is simply driven
> by economics and energy, not philosophy. Animals, even small
> ones, take a lot of space to raise, consumer a lot of resources
> and are labor intensive. So they will not be used. ==
Farms are very heavy, its cheaper to ship food for decades then ship out a farm.
Also vegrtarian farms have inefficencies since so much of plants are nidegestible to humans, but edible to farm animals.
>== Yes, that was the mistake of Earth II, ==
Just a nit, but it was Biosphere-II not the TV show Earth-II.
😉
Kelly,
[[[Also vegrtarian farms have inefficencies since so much of plants are nidegestible to humans, but edible to farm animals.]]]
In a space habitat that outputs would be inputs for a number of biochemical processes.
The one problem I always had when reading some of the old L-5 stuff is that it struck me as a hippie meets star trek view of space settlements.
[[[Just a nit, but it was Biosphere-II not the TV show Earth-II.]]]
Yes, Biosphere II.
[[[Papers by Bussard were figuring 3 months one way to Saturn with the drives he was talking about, Mars or the asteroid belts would be a couple weeks.]]]
Yes, a space habitats will be destinations for them once they are developed. But in the interim you need to create the econsystem first.
> Thomas Matula Says:
> May 12th, 2010 at 11:18 am
>> [[[Also vegrtarian farms have inefficencies since so much of
>> plants are nidegestible to humans, but edible to farm animals.]]]
> In a space habitat that outputs would be inputs for a number
> of biochemical processes.
Not if you want them to continue to support your biosphere.
What kind of processes aer you talking about?
> The one problem I always had when reading some of the
> old L-5 stuff is that it struck me as a hippie meets star trek
> view of space settlements.
How do you mean?
I have trouble with the little house on the prarie view of Case for Mars folks.
>> [[[Papers by Bussard were figuring 3 months one way
>> to Saturn with the drives he was talking about, Mars
>> or the asteroid belts would be a couple weeks.]]]
> Yes, a space habitats will be destinations for them
> once they are developed. ==
I expect yould develop them first. Its easier to do, cuts you costs a lot, and there’s not much point in a space colony it takes you years to go to.
Kelly,
[[[What kind of processes aer you talking about?]]]
Recycling them to product inputs back into the cycle.
There are also options to use them for other products like biodegradable plastics as part of a larger cycle or when a source of additional inputs is available for an NEO or planet.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/r08m67234685381q/
[[[How do you mean?]]]
Long debates on the merits of rabbits or guinea pigs as a meat source in O’Neil habitats, etc.
[[[I expect yould develop them first. Its easier to do, cuts you costs a lot, and there’s not much point in a space colony it takes you years to go to.]]]
Transportation technology is always a demand pull.
> Thomas Matula Says:
>>[[[What kind of processes are you talking about?]]]
> Recycling them to product inputs back into the cycle. ==
Farm animals do that and you can eat them.
😉
>== There are also options to use them for other products like
> biodegradable plastics as part of a larger cycle or when a
> source of additional inputs is available for an NEO or planet.==
Seems like a very uneconomical use of a platforms time adn resources?
>> [[[How do you mean?]]]
> Long debates on the merits of rabbits or guinea pigs as a meat
> source in O’Neil habitats, etc.
Just as soon rather mail order some steaks myself.
😉
>> [[[ I expect you’d develop them first. Its easier
>> to do, cuts you costs a lot, and there’s not much
>> point in a space colony it takes you years to go to.]]]
> Transportation technology is always a demand pull.
And a high leverage tech. Was the Vikings failure at colonizing North America due them, or the fact thats really pushing it for travel in a long boat – vrs Galleons?
Anyway I do think fast ships in space, and CATS RLVs launching from Earth are assumptions you need to make; given when you could do this, and what space operations environment would be necessary before folks would even consider doing them.
Kelly,
[[[Farm animals do that and you can eat them.]]]
But very labor intensive compared to semi-automated machinery.
[[[And a high leverage tech. Was the Vikings failure at colonizing North America due them, or the fact thats really pushing it for travel in a long boat – vrs Galleons?]]]
It was because it was the private venture of Eric the Red without the power of any governments (or tribes) behind it. By contrast the Viking settlement of the Novgorod region was supported by the Chief and leaders of the huge tribe of Rus and the resulting kingdom took their name as a result – Russia…
Columbus’ first settlement also failed, wiped out by the natives, but the Spanish government just kept sending people until they overcame them, and then finally, with the conquest of Mexico, turned a profit 30 years after the first voyage of Columbus.
Similarly privately funded attempts at English settlements in North American failed repeatably until King James got behind them in 1607…
That raises a whole question of can commercial space projects on the scale of cities or colonise work?
Course now-a-days major corporations have far more power then the kings of old. So a mobile O’Niel minnig blatfor out in the belt sponcered by a big firm like KBR or something?
Course they really are going to need quick returns to convince pension fund investors they haven’t lost their minds.
Kelly,
[[[Course they really are going to need quick returns to convince pension fund investors they haven’t lost their minds.]]]
If you started building an Asimov Habitat today that would be true, but the same would have been true if you asked for $5 billion to build an offshore production tower. When the technology reaches this point, perhaps in a couple of generations, the Solar Econsystem will be large enough to attract the investment needed just as no one raises an eyebrow over an $5 billion investment in an offshore oil platform today.
> When the technology reaches this point, perhaps in a couple
> of generations, the Solar Econsystem will be large enough
> to attract the investment needed just as no one raises
> an eyebrow over an $5 billion investment in an offshore
> oil platform today.
Course these are what would make the “Solar Econsystem”, and in a couple generations we don’t even know what kind of science, much less technology will be in use. By the end of the century O’Neils could be completly obsolete as folks just commute to the belt or outer solarsystem daily. Earth becoming the bedroom comunity.
😉
Hey, who a hundred years ago would beleave folks making daily commutees to jobs 60-90 miles frmo home? And technology and science will change far more ni the next hundred years then in the last.
I think what were really talking about is what in a couple decades could form a economic foundaction to build these. Generations later they could be all scraped out like old liners or oil tankers. But thats a next step — why keep them? What would argue for continued use by 2100 or later?
Kelly,
[[[What would argue for continued use by 2100 or later?]]]
The Oort Cloud and the Stars beyond.
Your really should read the article by Issac Asimov I referenced above. Asimov, Issac (1966) “There’s no place like Spome” originally published in “in Atmosphere in Space Cabins and Closed Environments”, but its been republished in a number of other place. For example in his 1967 essay collection “Is Anyone There?”
And in Skylife: Space Habitats in Story and Science by Gregory Benford and George Zebrowski 2000
Basically what Asimov does is presents an incremental approach to settlement of the Galaxy without breaking any of the laws of physics or any major breakthroughs, nor breaking the bank, instead just allowing for the normal expansion of human technology in response to the challenge of space. Its a pity the work of Dr. O’Neil overwhelmed the much clearer path that Dr. Asimov saw.
> Thomas Matula Says:
> May 14th, 2010 at 1:31 pm
>>Kelly,
>>
>> [[[What would argue for continued use by 2100 or later?]]]
> The Oort Cloud and the Stars beyond.
And more critically, and far more to the point even if the Oort cloud and the starts were of $ value to investors —wouldn’t using O’Neill/Spome / etc be completely obsolete by then?
You hit a couple issues.
First technology and science leaps ahead – so just using something faster to allow you to commute out to the outer solar system from “home” could make these as obsolete as worker housing across the street from factories. [I mean who a 100 years ago would think factories would deliberately be sited tens of miles away from any residences?]
Second – the Oort clouds – and interstellar space aren’t the more interesting places or rich in resources or value. So like most of the north American west, it could well just be skiped over for something better farther out.
Third – fully self contained biospheres – or nations – are stagnant as hell. Some folks have set out to build them (far far easier to do on Earth) and set up isolated villages as some utopia, religious enclave, etc. Virtually none stayed that way. By the grandchildren of the founders they either deliberately reconnected back to the world – or they were abandoned.
Likely the biggest counter example was Japan who foe centuries killed anyone from the outside who stepped on their soil, and forbid all external influences. After our civil war we sent a fleet into Tokyo bay to demand they knock it off. They weer stunned and ashamed to find the world had so passed them by in the centuries they had isolated themselves, they weer about as helpless as a ren fair performer against a squad of marines. And the emperor ordered the Samurai to put down swords etc, and quick study how to catch up be the 20th century.
>==
> Basically what Asimov does is presents an incremental approach to
> settlement of the Galaxy without breaking any of the laws of physics
> or any major breakthroughs, ==
Those are two major faults in the concept. 😉 Over longer terms history is constantly driven by major breakthroughs in physics and technology. Otherwise its like if in the 1800’s they started a multi century transoceanic floating railroad network as a way to expand — ignoring the possibility of us say developing aircraft.
Things change A LOT! Plans assuming your whatever will be a good idea for centuries are mere vanity. You need to respond quicker, and get results quicker.
This reminds me of a plot thread in the Series Babylon 5 (the title refered to the O’Neil type colony platform Babylon 5. A clever design for one actually.) One commander of the platform was shown a psychic vision of the future where the station is blown apart into bits. He fears it mean the future war that staion was build to avoid happened, or sabotage destroyed that station as it had Babylon 1-4 — at the end of the series you find out that the station had stopped the war and united the galaxy – but with the various groups willing to trade and deal directly with each other -the station was obsolete as interstellar neutral ground – and 20 years after the story time – the abandoned obsolete station was demolished by explosives.
>==nor breaking the bank, instead just allowing for the normal
> expansion of human technology in response to the challenge of space.==
The bank needs return on investment – if you can do that you can get funding, and the normal expansion of human beings and their technology is to rapidly jump all over the place rather then slowly and evenly spread over all the knocks and crannies.
Its like when folks settled the pacific. They didn’t build floating islands and spread though the deep oceans –they skipped ahead and settled the various interesting islands, and abandoned the deep ocean or boring islands.