From VM Fri Oct 1 09:59:27 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["9380" "Thursday" "30" "September" "1999" "19:33:50" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "211" "starship-design: FW: SSRT: X-33 Program in the Midst of Final Testing [...] (fwd)" "^From:" nil nil "9" nil "starship-design: FW: SSRT: X-33 Program in the Midst of Final Testing [...]" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 9380 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA13248 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 18:05:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA13240 for ; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 18:04:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from broadsword (p479.gnt.com [204.49.91.95]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id UAA21806 for ; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 20:04:54 -0500 Message-ID: <004301bf0ba8$d44869f0$0401a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Starship-Design (E-mail)" Subject: starship-design: FW: SSRT: X-33 Program in the Midst of Final Testing [...] (fwd) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 19:33:50 -0500 -----Original Message----- From: listserv@ds.cc.utexas.edu [mailto:listserv@ds.cc.utexas.edu]On Behalf Of Chris W. Johnson Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 1999 8:41 PM To: Single Stage Rocket Technology News Subject: SSRT: X-33 Program in the Midst of Final Testing [...] (fwd) Dave Drachlis Media Relations Department Sept. 28, 1999 Marshall Space Flight Center Dave.Drachlis@msfc.nasa.gov (256) 544-0034 http://www.msfc.nasa.gov/news Gary Grigg Communications Lockheed Martin Skunk Works gary.grigg@lmco.com (661) 572-6267 http://venturestar.com/ Update: 99-250 X-33 Program in the Midst of Final Testing and Validation of Key Components The X-33 program is in the midst of final testing and validation of key components as it aims for vehicle rollout in the first quarter of 2000. Currently, the first of two composite liquid hydrogen tanks and the first of four aerospike engines have entered validation testing. Once testing is complete, these components will be shipped to the Lockheed Martin Skunk Works, Palmdale, Calif., for installation on the X-33. The X-33 is scheduled to begin flight tests in the summer of 2000. X-33 Linear Aerospike Engine Scheduled to Be Fired this Week at Stennis Space Center The engine test team is scheduled to test fire the first of four linear aerospike engines being built for the X-33 at NASA's Stennis Space Center, Miss., this week. The first engine firing, which will last less than five seconds, is part of a series of 41 test firings on four engines. Two of the engines have been designated as test engines, while two will be used as flight engines on the X-33. The engine undergoing tests is the first test engine. The first six tests on engine No. 1 address engine ignition and start sequence development. Each test is planned to last five seconds or less. Once these tests are complete, Stennis crews will conduct eight additional tests, each running no more than 250 seconds. These longer tests will be used to verify engine performance at various mixture ratios and power levels, as well as demonstrate thrust vector control or steering. Planned total test duration on the first test engine is 1,142 seconds. Once the first engine has been successfully tested, two flight engines will be tested in 11 runs for a total of 1,042 seconds. After successfully completing the single-engine tests on the two flight engines in late 1999, the engines will be shipped to the Skunk Works to be mounted on the X-33. Beginning in January 2000, the two test engines will be placed on the test stand together in a dual-engine arrangement to mimic the flight configuration, and the two will undergo 16 test firings for a total of 2,646 seconds. The linear aerospike engines are being built by X-33 industry partner Boeing Rocketdyne, Canoga Park, Calif. Liquid Hydrogen Fuel Tank Enters Testing at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center A series of pressure and stress tests has begun on X-33's right-hand composite liquid hydrogen fuel tank at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala. The 29-foot, 4,600-pound graphite epoxy tank is designed to carry approximately 29,000 gallons of liquid hydrogen rocket fuel. The right-hand hydrogen tank, along with its twin left-hand tank, form the flanks of the X-33 and comprise roughly half its airframe. Engineers at NASA Marshall conducted the second pressure test on the composite tank by filling it completely with liquid hydrogen at -423 degrees Fahrenheit Sept. 21. One of the objectives of the test was to pinpoint seepage areas on the composite tank. When the tank was pressurized to 20 psi, as expected, some hydrogen seepage was noted. Technicians are applying sealant or patchwork to affected areas before resuming pressure tests. The tank passed an earlier pressure test with liquid nitrogen and a 5 psi helium leak test after it was shipped to Marshall. Similar patchwork was completed on the X-33's earlier 5-foot composite test tank or the "Double D" tank. The 5-foot tank has since successfully completed approximately 30 cryogenic cycles involving the filling, draining and filling again of liquid hydrogen at pressure. To fully validate the flight tank, six pressure and combined pressure and structural loads tests will be conducted over the next few weeks. Once validated, the tank will be shipped to the Skunk Works for installation into the X-33. The left-hand liquid hydrogen tank has completed assembly at Lockheed Martin Missiles and Space, Sunnyvale, Calif., and awaits transfer to Marshall in early October for its test series. Alliant Techsystems, Clearfield, Utah, fabricated components for the tanks, while a joint Lockheed Martin-Alliant team working in Sunnyvale completed the assembly. Umbilicals Tested, Installed on X-33 and Flight Operations Center The launch umbilicals -- which will connect the X-33 to the cryogenic gas, power and computer lines while the vehicle sits on its launch mount -- have completed testing at NASA Kennedy Space Center, Fla., and have been installed on the vehicle assembly. The vehicle's two 3-foot by 4-foot aluminum interface panels were installed on the aft section of the vehicle assembly in August, while two 15-foot-tall carbon steel tunnels that will house the launch mount's version of the interface panels were installed shortly thereafter. Just like a car needs a pump, hose and nozzle to fill its gas tank, the X-33 requires a complex system of panels, valves and hoses -- known as umbilicals -- to transfer its super-cold propellants from on-site tank farms, through the launch mount, and into the vehicle's internal tanks. Carefully positioned latches and actuators are used to ensure all connections are properly aligned and sealed during vehicle fueling, and then quickly retracted and covered as the vehicle lifts off. Software Build Nears Completion About 90 percent of the software that will autonomously control the X-33 from take-off to landing has begun integration, while months of testing and independent verification remains. The software will eventually be loaded on the X-33's three redundant mission computers, allowing the vehicle to fly itself from takeoff at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., to landing at Dugway Proving Ground, Utah, and later Malmstrom Air Force Base, Mont. The software also will give the Lockheed Martin-led operations team the ability to monitor the vehicle's flight from the program's eight-person control room at the Flight Operations Center at Edwards. Delivery is complete on five of the six segments of flight software. The final software segment -- which adds vehicle approach and landing to the current software -- is undergoing testing before delivery. Testing of this segment -- referred to as "Build No. 6" -- will be complete later this year. The entire software package will be put through its paces constantly until the start of flight testing to monitor accuracy and effectiveness. Industry partner AlliedSignal, Teterboro, N.J., created the software and is working with Lockheed Martin and NASA to test and integrate the software for the X-33. Avionics Bay In Place Installation of the X-33's avionics bay was completed Sept. 2 at the Skunk Works. The titanium avionics bay is 6 feet by 11 feet with an empty weight of approximately 300 pounds. The bay houses vehicle control systems such as the three redundant mission computers, communications gear, navigation equipment, and 28-volt and 270-volt power supplies. The bay sits in the center of the X-33 between the forward liquid oxygen tank and the vehicle's two liquid hydrogen tanks. It is positioned near the upper surface of the vehicle, directly below one of the vehicle's upper thermal blankets, to allow for easy access. This positioning allows for quick replacement of components, supporting one of the X-33 program's overall goals of demonstrating aircraft-like operations in a launch vehicle. Duplicate Liquid Oxygen Tank Testing at Glenn Research Center Testing will begin in November at Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, on a 6,000-pound aluminum liquid oxygen tank that is a duplicate of the tank previously installed in the X-33's assembly structure. The testing is designed to obtain data on a system designed to densify -- or further cool to make more dense -- cryogenic rocket fuels. The duplicate tank was built by Lockheed Martin Michoud Space Systems, New Orleans, and shipped to Glenn Research Center for loading into a test stand. Testing of the liquid oxygen tank is scheduled to be complete in December. By densifying cryogenic propellants, engineers hope to show that by further cooling the liquids, tanks will be able to hold a greater volume of cryogenic liquids, within the range of an additional 5 to 10 percent of volume. This process could greatly aid the design and eventual operations of a single-stage-to-orbit Reusable Launch Vehicle where weight and fuel carrying capacity is crucial. X-33 Flight Operations Center On Schedule to Support Vehicle Rollout The X-33 Flight Operations Center at Edwards is online and on schedule to support the X-33 vehicle arrival and flight test series, both scheduled to occur in 2000. Currently, all major ground system equipment has been installed at the launch pad area, and checkouts are being performed as software arrives. --- Andrew Yee ayee@nova.astro.utoronto.ca From VM Wed Oct 13 14:42:29 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["4458" "Wednesday" "13" "October" "1999" "16:14:37" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "93" "starship-design: The Case for Space" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 4458 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA10659 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 14:38:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA10624 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 14:38:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from broadsword (p478.gnt.com [204.49.91.94]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id QAA13712 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 16:38:11 -0500 Message-ID: <000a01bf15c3$3a0ab710$0401a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Starship-Design (E-mail)" Subject: starship-design: The Case for Space Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 16:14:37 -0500 The article included below set me to thinking. I have lately been exploring several current trends and how they relate to the case for space access. Please read the article and the ideas below it before you respond. =========+=========+=========+=========+=========+=========+=========+== World's wealthiest 16 percent uses 80 percent of natural resources October 12, 1999 Web posted at: 11:45 p.m. EDT (0345 GMT) >From CNN Correspondent Garrick Utley NEW YORK (CNN) -- As scientists note the arrival of the six billionth human being on the planet, they also are warning that 16 percent of the world's population is consuming some 80 percent of its natural resources. That's the estimated toll the wealthiest populations on the globe -- the United States, Europe and Japan -- are taking from the earth's natural bounty to sustain their way of life. In the U.S. alone, says Emily Matthews of the World Resources Institute, every man, woman and child is responsible for the consumption of about 25 tons of raw materials each year. Americans, while making up only four percent of the world's population, operate one third of its automobiles. U.S. citizens consume one quarter of the world's global energy supply. Perhaps a more graphic example is that of the lowly quarter-pound hamburger. To produce just one requires 1.2 pounds of grain to feed the cattle, and 100 gallons of water -- part of the hidden cost consumers never see. Resources safe for now, but what about pollution? Resources -- at least in the Western Hemisphere -- do not appear to be immediately threatened, leading some experts to reason that the real danger is not scarcity. "We are really working our way through the ocean's harvest," says Matthews. "And I don't think we will run out of fish. We will substitute fish-farming for ocean fisheries." And as other parts of the world continue to grow and develop -- Matthews believes projections of a global population of nine billion in 50 years are not unreasonable -- the pressures will become even greater. Scientists believe during that period demand for energy will triple. So will manufacturing and, unless changes in the current way of doing things are made, so will pollution. This may be the most serious problem facing the planet -- not how much is being taken away from it, but how much is being dumped back into it. =========+=========+=========+=========+=========+=========+=========+== Everyone on this list is quite aware of the pace of technology, so I am going to start by assuming some easily imaginable advances and expect that the reality will be far stranger. Let us start with the paragraph "Resources-...", the real danger is not scarcity, but accessibility and as they say later, pollution. Both of these "dangers" are easily within the means of western hemisphere nations to solve. Move mining and manufacturing off-planet. The resources are more abundant, easier to get at, and space borne manufacturing is about as pollution free as it gets. The next paragraph works into the world's food supply. Again, off-planet resources could not only supplement planet side production, but possibly even equal or surpass it. Imagine millions of acres of hydroponic farms on the moon, built, maintained, tended and harvested by automatic machinery. Within much less than fifty years this is easily realizable. Skipping a paragraph, the world's demand for energy...need I really go into detail here? Orbital energy farms, vast collections of solar cells or simple thermal collectors driving heat exchangers, it doesn't really matter which. There is more than enough energy to power ten thousand times our planet based manufacturing industry as well as beam power to ANY point on the planets surface. Moving the manufacturing to orbit will of course practically eliminate pollution on Earth. The final paragraph now becomes: by utilizing the benefits of space we no longer need to rape our planet and dump the toxic products back into the biosphere in which nine billion people will be living. We can make that planet a pleasant place for all of its inhabitants while creating a broad based orbital infrastructure capable of supporting 12 billion people or more. Of course I have long insisted that in order for our fifty year timeline for an interstellar probe to be realized we must first build the infrastructure in orbit and acquire the knowledgebase for sustained operations in deep space. Lee Parker From VM Wed Oct 13 16:54:03 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2926" "Wednesday" "13" "October" "1999" "19:42:47" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "74" "Re: starship-design: The Case for Space" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2926 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA12998 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 16:43:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-d04.mx.aol.com (imo-d04.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.36]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA12984 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 16:43:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-d04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id 4NHF0Yw89a (4360); Wed, 13 Oct 1999 19:42:47 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <0.2220efdd.253672f7@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 56 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by darkwing.uoregon.edu id QAA12988 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: lparker@cacaphony.net, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: The Case for Space Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 19:42:47 EDT In a message dated 10/13/99 4:41:20 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net writes: >The article included below set me to thinking. I have lately been exploring >several current trends and how they relate to the case for space access. >Please read the article and the ideas below it before you respond. > > >=========+=========+=========+=========+=========+=========+=========+== >World's wealthiest 16 percent uses 80 percent of natural resources > >October 12, 1999 > >Web posted at: 11:45 p.m. EDT (0345 GMT) > >From CNN Correspondent Garrick Utley > >NEW YORK (CNN) -- As scientists note the arrival of the six billionth human >being on the planet, they also are warning that 16 percent of the world's >population is consuming some 80 percent of its natural resources. >That's the estimated toll the wealthiest populations on the globe -- the >United States, Europe and Japan -- are taking from the earth's natural >bounty to sustain their way of life. We also produce 25% of the worlds natural resources. >== > >Resources -- at least in the Western Hemisphere -- do not appear to be >immediately threatened, leading some experts to reason that the real danger >is not scarcity. There expected to last for centuries at least. >== > >This may be the most serious problem facing the planet -- not how much >is >being taken away from it, but how much is being dumped back into it. >=========+=========+=========+=========+=========+=========+=========+== > >Everyone on this list is quite aware of the pace of technology, so I am >going to start by assuming some easily imaginable advances and expect that >the reality will be far stranger. > >Let us start with the paragraph "Resources-...", the real danger is not >scarcity, but accessibility and as they say later, pollution. Both of these >"dangers" are easily within the means of western hemisphere nations to >solve. Move mining and manufacturing off-planet. The resources are more >abundant, easier to get at, and space borne manufacturing is about as >pollution free as it gets. > >The next paragraph works into the world's food supply. Again, off-planet >resources could not only supplement planet side production, but possibly >even equal or surpass it. Imagine millions of acres of hydroponic farms >on >the moon, built, maintained, tended and harvested by automatic machinery. >Within much less than fifty years this is easily realizable. The mining and manufacturing do cause pollution, and moving it off planet would help, but I can’t see anyone agreeing to export a major fraction of our economy even ignoring cost problems. (Though I do expect Mining and manufacture will move off planet in the coming centuries, for these and other reasons, I don't think so in the next couple decades.) FOOD!! I'm doubtful space platforms would grow their own food, being able to compete with Earths domestic sources in domestic markets?!! No way! >Lee Parker Kelly From VM Wed Oct 13 17:01:30 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1276" "Wednesday" "13" "October" "1999" "18:02:55" "+0000" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "31" "Re: starship-design: The Case for Space" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1276 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA20669 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 17:00:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA20257 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 16:59:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (bfranchuk@dialin45.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.45]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA10719 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 17:59:20 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <3804C94F.CF092BB9@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.10 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <000a01bf15c3$3a0ab710$0401a8c0@broadsword> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Ben Franchuk From: Ben Franchuk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu" Subject: Re: starship-design: The Case for Space Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 18:02:55 +0000 "L. Parker" wrote: > > The article included below set me to thinking. I have lately been exploring > several current trends and how they relate to the case for space access. > Please read the article and the ideas below it before you respond. > > =========+=========+=========+=========+=========+=========+=========+== > World's wealthiest 16 percent uses 80 percent of natural resources > Our economy is based on greed of the disposable resources and the society does not require community living (an illusion) to survive. I want access into space as a option to where I live or work,Earth or Space. Your arguments are better for cleaning up our environment rather than space access, both things that need our (mankind's) energy. Access into space will force the realization of communities needing to share again because of the scarce "Green" resources in space,providing we can reduce the "automation" in and around the space habitats. The lower level of technology into space the better. I don't want my access limited into space because of QM37 mega-transitor that's on the cutting edge of stupidity. Ben. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." Albert Einstein From VM Thu Oct 14 09:28:29 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1573" "Wednesday" "13" "October" "1999" "19:15:11" "+0000" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "44" "starship-design: food in space." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1573 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA19947 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 18:12:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA19874 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 18:11:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (bfranchuk@dialin45.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.45]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA14231 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 19:11:36 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <3804DA3F.7B17FB30@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.10 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Ben Franchuk From: Ben Franchuk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu" Subject: starship-design: food in space. Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 19:15:11 +0000 KellySt@aol.com wrote: > > FOOD!! I'm doubtful space platforms would grow their own food, being able to > compete with Earths domestic sources in domestic markets?!! No way! > But at what cost to the earth's resources is the current domestic sources? A acre of rain forest is cut down for $2.00 profit after the after 5 years is worth less. Plastic and motor fuel is cheap, just pump the stuff free out of the ground, baring taxes. The last thing I want to see is real society like that of the typical "Future Sci-fi" movies with a Few Super high tech people having "slaves" do everything for them, in a collapsed world. Space could be very profitable for a few, as automated devices replace people, like in some sci-fi movies. 100% profit as no workers to pay and materials free. To bad nobody has any money to buy the products. The real variable is transportation costs and the level of technology used and the environment. A space platform could be so automated that people are not needed. A space hotel would still have prime rib steak brought from earth. "Today's special 'prime rib of rabbit'" does not quite cut it for $10,000 for the room rates. A L5 space station how ever would make "Farming community" as transportion would be something like the colonization of the new world from the old world. Ben. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." Einstein "We do not inherit our time on this planet from our parents... We borrow it from our children. From VM Thu Oct 14 09:28:29 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["581" "Thursday" "14" "October" "1999" "14:34:02" "+1300" "thing@xtra.co.nz" "thing@xtra.co.nz" nil "12" "starship-design: Re:Food in space" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 581 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA28723 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 18:34:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz [203.96.92.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA28716 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 18:34:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from oemcomputer ([210.55.148.165]) by mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail v4.01.01.00 201-229-111) with SMTP id <19991014013810.FESA2133645.mta2-rme@oemcomputer> for ; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 14:38:10 +1300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.11) Message-Id: <19991014013810.FESA2133645.mta2-rme@oemcomputer> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: thing@xtra.co.nz From: thing@xtra.co.nz Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re:Food in space Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 14:34:02 +1300 Everyone seems to be focusing on the finanial aspect of food and only at the consumption of the final product. The benifits of growing produce in space environments would be high, surely. The production and cleaning of air would rank up there. It is my belief that the proposed manned Mars mission is planned using hydroponically grown products to sustain air and oxygen levels as much as for the nutrition aspect. Correct me if I'm wrong ( which I know you will). My new ambition in life:- A 12 second fart which changes note 4 times and forces the dog to leave the room. From VM Thu Oct 14 09:28:29 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1133" "Wednesday" "13" "October" "1999" "19:56:59" "+0000" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "26" "Re: starship-design: Re:Food in space" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1133 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA04839 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 18:53:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA04826 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 18:53:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (bfranchuk@dialin45.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.45]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA16337 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 19:53:25 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <3804E40B.E3162F5A@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.10 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <19991014013810.FESA2133645.mta2-rme@oemcomputer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Ben Franchuk From: Ben Franchuk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu" Subject: Re: starship-design: Re:Food in space Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 19:56:59 +0000 thing@xtra.co.nz wrote: > > Everyone seems to be focusing on the finanial aspect of food and > only at the consumption of the final product. The benifits of growing > produce in space environments would be high, surely. The > production and cleaning of air would rank up there. > > It is my belief that the proposed manned Mars mission is planned > using hydroponically grown products to sustain air and oxygen > levels as much as for the nutrition aspect. > > Correct me if I'm wrong ( which I know you will). > My new ambition in life:- A 12 second fart which changes > note 4 times and forces the dog to leave the room. Remind me not to take you along to mars!, unless you curb your new ambition in life. That is true for distant locations, but for low earth orbit it may be cheaper to use mechanical methods. Mir dumps the CO2 into space and brings up O2 and food, I think. Ben. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." Einstein "We do not inherit our time on this planet from our parents... We borrow it from our children. From VM Thu Oct 14 09:28:29 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3260" "Wednesday" "13" "October" "1999" "20:26:08" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "65" "RE: starship-design: The Case for Space" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3260 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA17794 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 19:31:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA17788 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 19:31:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from broadsword (p456.gnt.com [204.49.91.72]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id VAA22653; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 21:31:46 -0500 Message-ID: <000c01bf15ec$3bb201d0$0401a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-reply-to: <0.2220efdd.253672f7@aol.com> Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: , Subject: RE: starship-design: The Case for Space Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 20:26:08 -0500 Hey Kelly, Now that I got your attention, let me expand with some details... > -----Original Message----- > From: KellySt@aol.com [mailto:KellySt@aol.com] > Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 1999 6:43 PM > To: lparker@cacaphony.net; starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu > Subject: Re: starship-design: The Case for Space > > The mining and manufacturing do cause pollution, and moving > it off planet > would help, but I can't see anyone agreeing to export a major > fraction of our > economy even ignoring cost problems. (Though I do expect Mining and > manufacture will move off planet in the coming centuries, for > these and other > reasons, I don't think so in the next couple decades.) There is a new method of dealing with waste that is being developed. It involves heating the waste in the absence of oxygen which produces a very unusual chemical reaction. Many of the basic chemicals simply break their bonds and can be extracted easily. They are expecting very high recovery efficiencies. This method is intended to work on Earth, but can you think of a better place to heat something in the absence of oxygen than in orbit? Even the heat is free! As for exporting a major fraction of our economy off planet, I assume by that you mean that there is a corresponding loss of income on-planet. This isn't true. Multinational corporations do not worry about whether the income came from one particular country versus another. They are only concerned with the profitability of that particular, unit, office or branch. Reams of bad science fiction not withstanding, that commercial model is likely to hold up very well in orbit. If Alcoa opens an aluminum extraction operation on the moon and a refinery in orbit and then ships the raw aluminum to a factory for processing into product before shipping planet side or elsewhere, the only thing that they are going concerned with is whether each of those individual operations are showing a profit or not. The profit or earnings still end up in the same place, in Alcoa's bank account, here on Earth. > > FOOD!! I'm doubtful space platforms would grow their own > food, being able to > compete with Earths domestic sources in domestic markets?!! No way! I was considering the possibility of a nanomachine built hydroponic farm. Suppose you had a handful of self replicating nanomachine that you could turn loose on a suitable part of the Moon's surface and they would build a hydroponic farm, just add water! There is certainly enough raw material available readily at hand on the surface. The programming would probably be pretty tricky, but I see no inherent reason why it couldn't be done before fifty years are up. As far as competing goes, if you are comparing such an orbital farm against a TYPICAL planet side farm, you are being grossly unfair - to the planet side farmer. Even modern farms in the Western Hemisphere would have a hard time competing unless they were using the exact same technology. There is a down side to all of this. Quite simply, the rich will get richer, and the poor will get poorer. If you are not part of a western economy with access to these riches and all that will spring from them, you will be left ever farther behind with little chance of ever catching up. Lee From VM Thu Oct 14 09:28:29 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["568" "Wednesday" "13" "October" "1999" "21:37:40" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "20" "RE: starship-design: food in space." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 568 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA22101 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 19:43:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA22095 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 19:43:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from broadsword (p456.gnt.com [204.49.91.72]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id VAA24280; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 21:43:30 -0500 Message-ID: <000e01bf15ed$e0c89f20$0401a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-reply-to: <3804DA3F.7B17FB30@jetnet.ab.ca> Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Ben Franchuk'" , Subject: RE: starship-design: food in space. Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 21:37:40 -0500 > A space platform could be so automated that people are not > needed. A space hotel > would > still have prime rib steak brought from earth. "Today's > special 'prime rib of > rabbit'" does > not quite cut it for $10,000 for the room rates. A L5 space > station how ever > would make > "Farming community" as transportion would be something like > the colonization of > the > new world from the old world. Hmmm, rabbit, now there is a novel idea! See, I knew something good would come of this. Small, easy to care for cheap to feed, and they taste good too... Lee From VM Thu Oct 14 09:28:29 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1009" "Wednesday" "13" "October" "1999" "21:43:00" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "26" "RE: starship-design: Re:Food in space" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1009 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA22034 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 19:43:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA21997 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 19:43:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from broadsword (p456.gnt.com [204.49.91.72]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id VAA24285; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 21:43:33 -0500 Message-ID: <000f01bf15ed$e24d4350$0401a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-reply-to: <19991014013810.FESA2133645.mta2-rme@oemcomputer> Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: , Subject: RE: starship-design: Re:Food in space Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 21:43:00 -0500 > > Everyone seems to be focusing on the finanial aspect of food and > only at the consumption of the final product. The benifits of growing > produce in space environments would be high, surely. The > production and cleaning of air would rank up there. > > It is my belief that the proposed manned Mars mission is planned > using hydroponically grown products to sustain air and oxygen > levels as much as for the nutrition aspect. > There have already been several studies that showed it was more practical to carry consumables than to manufacture them in a closed loop system for almost any limited duration mission. A permanent presence in orbit however, is by definition not a limited duration mission. The cost of setting up the initial self sustaining ecosystem can now be carried across dozens, even hundreds of years. I think Kelly has the data on this. Kelly, Was there a break even point in the studies? At what point (how many man-years) does it become preferable to build such a system? Lee From VM Thu Oct 14 09:28:29 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2009" "Wednesday" "13" "October" "1999" "22:03:21" "+0000" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "46" "Re: starship-design: The Case for Space" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2009 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA16034 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 20:59:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA16026 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 20:59:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (bfranchuk@dialin45.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.45]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id VAA22278 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 21:59:45 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <380501A9.B73A28FA@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.10 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <000d01bf15ec$3ef93d90$0401a8c0@broadsword> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Ben Franchuk From: Ben Franchuk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu" Subject: Re: starship-design: The Case for Space Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 22:03:21 +0000 "L. Parker" wrote: > > > The lower level of technology into space the better. I don't > > want my access > > limited into space > > because of QM37 mega-transitor that's on the cutting edge of > > stupidity. > > As long as you aren't being needlessly antitechnology - sure. If it wasn't > for the quote in your signature I would have thought you were doing just > that. I am not antitecholgy, but I am aware that deep space access requires independent human habitat far from earth, and like to keep things simple if possible ,and have several options open and alternate plans for development. I do how ever distrust BIG things because there is no longer any feedback to the people in control,or I can't fix it myself. > Nobody wants to trust their life, or their children's lives, to > untried technology. This is reflected in the current space program in > spades. Almost all computer hardware and software employed in spacecraft are > at least two generations out of date - and therefore thoroughly debugged! > There are similar situations for most other hardware components as well. > There still can be mistakes - look at the metric - english measurement that killed the latest mars probe. I hope Microsoft does not develop the life support. On the flip side of the coin, some the probes sent out in the 70's are still sending back data. I agree with most things but differ in details. Like the space station. I would have dumped the current design and the shuttle, and spent the 1/3 the money on international reusable launch vehicle, 1/3 on the ground with live testing and 1/3 to build it. I also still like the ring-wheel type space station. As a Canadian I can't really tell NASA how to run its job as I don't pay taxes to them. . - ----------------------------------------------------------------- "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." Einstein "We do not inherit our time on this planet from our parents... We borrow it from our children. From VM Thu Oct 14 09:28:29 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1830" "Wednesday" "13" "October" "1999" "23:03:09" "+0000" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "46" "Re: starship-design: Re:Food in space" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1830 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA02840 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 21:59:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA02830 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 21:59:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (bfranchuk@dialin45.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.45]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id WAA24924 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 22:59:32 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <38050FAD.5BC13C77@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.10 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <000f01bf15ed$e24d4350$0401a8c0@broadsword> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Ben Franchuk From: Ben Franchuk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu" Subject: Re: starship-design: Re:Food in space Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 23:03:09 +0000 "L. Parker" wrote: > There have already been several studies that showed it was more practical to > carry consumables than to manufacture them in a closed loop system for > almost any limited duration mission. A permanent presence in orbit however, > is by definition not a limited duration mission. The cost of setting up the > initial self sustaining ecosystem can now be carried across dozens, even > hundreds of years. > > Was there a break even point in the studies? At what point (how many > man-years) does it become preferable to build such a system? > I can't say in man-years but it would depend on 1) The population base. More people the better. 2) The flexibility of the environment. A lunar complex vs a transport craft. 3) The base level the system was designed with. A computer made up of TEL & simple memory chips would be easier to maintain than a multi-media 986 with holographic displays. 4) The level of independence. How long can you survive with a transportation loss to earth. 1 day, 1 week, 1 month, 6 months, 1 year, 5 years,35 years, no contact needed Build a few of the city-states here on earth is a good idea, and move to space some time later. A personal web site with ideas on space habitat I found on the net: "The Space Travel Web Site! This is not just science fiction. By Richard Doran" http://users.erols.com/richdoran/index.htm Ben PS. Anybody watch "2050 After the warming?". One item suggested was getting way from monolithic cities to smaller compact units. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." Einstein "We do not inherit our time on this planet from our parents... We borrow it from our children." "Autodynamics - Physics for the next millennium." www.autodynamics.org From VM Thu Oct 14 09:28:29 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["6205" "Thursday" "14" "October" "1999" "17:59:02" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "138" "Re: starship-design: The Case for Space" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 6205 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA00528 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 08:58:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.8]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA00520 for ; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 08:58:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id RAA24589; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 17:59:02 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199910141659.RAA24589@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa From: Zenon Kulpa Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl Subject: Re: starship-design: The Case for Space Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 17:59:02 +0100 (MET) > From: "L. Parker" > > ======= [...] > > NEW YORK (CNN) -- As scientists note the arrival of the six billionth human > being on the planet, they also are warning that 16 percent of the world's > population is consuming some 80 percent of its natural resources. > That's the estimated toll the wealthiest populations on the globe -- > the United States, Europe and Japan -- are taking from the earth's natural > bounty to sustain their way of life. > Still that longing for impossible "equality", whose only effect is stifling all development, and leading only to equality in misery. As the say in Poland - "Shit, but equally distributed..." [in Polish it is shorter, and with a rhyme]. Strange the "equalists" here are still wildly popular... [...] > > Resources -- at least in the Western Hemisphere -- do not appear > to be immediately threatened, leading some experts to reason that > the real danger is not scarcity. > Really, they at least rediscovered the wheel? ;-) [...] > > This may be the most serious problem facing the planet -- not how much is > being taken away from it, but how much is being dumped back into it. > Pollution is essentially the problem of recycling technology only - until we are only here on Earth, we really do not either take away or dump back anything - we only change the distribution of elements between various places... > ======= [...] > Move mining and manufacturing off-planet. The resources are more > abundant, easier to get at, and space borne manufacturing is about as > pollution free as it gets. > > Again, off-planet resources could not only supplement planet side > production, but possibly even equal or surpass it. > Imagine millions of acres of hydroponic farms on the moon, > built, maintained, tended and harvested by automatic machinery. > > Skipping a paragraph, the world's demand for energy... need I really > go into detail here? Orbital energy farms, vast collections > of solar cells or simple thermal collectors driving heat exchangers, > it doesn't really matter which. [...] > We can make that planet a pleasant place for all of its inhabitants > while creating a broad based orbital infrastructure capable > of supporting 12 billion people or more. > ... > From: "L. Parker" > To: , > > > ---- > > From: KellySt@aol.com [mailto:KellySt@aol.com] > > > The mining and manufacturing do cause pollution, and moving it off planet > > would help, but I can't see anyone agreeing to export a major fraction > > of our economy even ignoring cost problems. (Though I do expect Mining > > and manufacture will move off planet in the coming centuries, for > > these and other reasons, I don't think so in the next couple decades.) > [...] > > As for exporting a major fraction of our economy off planet, > I assume by that you mean that there is a corresponding loss > of income on-planet. This isn't true. [...] > The profit or earnings still end up in the same place, > in Alcoa's bank account, here on Earth. > [etc. etc.] It seems to me that you all think in this thread only in terms of "what profit space operations can bring to people living on Earth". Generally I must say it is a wrong perspective - space operations will be mostly directed at, and bring profits (and sustenance) to people living OFF EARTH. Because the real rationale for going massively into space is to install a self-sustaining populations of people living out of Earth. And it is not the matter of profit or building a comfortable paradise for growing amounts of people on Earth, but the matter of survival. Because, as I wrote recently in a discussion with one environmentalist (specifically, a leader of an anti-cassini group): > So, possibly we should simply not go to space? There are many > people saying just that, and promising instead an earthly paradise > of "living with the nature", or something along these lines. > However, whether we like it or not, it is completely Utopian > and sure to lead to termination of the very existence > of mankind, and all the life on Earth as well, sooner or later. > Proponents of indefinite stay on Earth oversight one single, > but all too important a fact: > Earth is NOT a closed, self-sufficient entity, completely isolated > from the rest of the cosmos. To the contrary - it is utterly dependent > on cosmic influences: on radiation from the Sun, on impacts of other > cellestial bodies, on galactic gamma radiation bursts, > and many other forces. Great many of these influences, > either separately or in combinatiom, may put an end to human > civilization, or to the whole life on Earth, at any moment in time. > The Earth's biosphere was very lucky to survive several > such near-extinctions in the past - the best investigated of them > occuring some 65 millions year ago, when, together with dinozaurs, > above 70% of all plant and animal species utterly perished. > The only chance to prevent an ultimate disaster of this kind > is to spread humankind, and the earthly life as a whole, > to other places except Earth - that is, to other planets, > and colonies in space. This is indeed a very difficult, > and a very risky business - lots of people will perish in the course > of conquering space, but the mankind, and the rest of earthly life, > will get a chance to survive thanks to their noble sacrifice. > It is our obligation, as the most conscious and able species of life > on Earth, to spread life elsewhere in the universe and in this way > to prevent its extinction in some catastrophic accident that may > happen to Earth. Sadly, as it was otherwise easy to predict, it did not change his views. Of course, the way to the really spacefaring civilization most probably will lead through an earth-bound civilization profiting from space exploration, but it will be a comparatively short, transitory phase only. -- Zenon Kulpa * * * URANOS: Club for Expansion of Civilization into Space * * * http://www.uranos.eu.org/ uranos@uranos.eu.org All civilizations become either spacefaring or extinct [Carl Sagan] From VM Thu Oct 14 14:01:04 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3952" "Thursday" "14" "October" "1999" "15:37:04" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "87" "RE: starship-design: The Case for Space" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3952 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA08708 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 13:40:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA08655 for ; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 13:40:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from broadsword (p452.gnt.com [204.49.91.68]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id PAA13302; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 15:37:36 -0500 Message-ID: <001601bf1683$ee26cbb0$0401a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-reply-to: <199910141659.RAA24589@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Zenon Kulpa'" , Subject: RE: starship-design: The Case for Space Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 15:37:04 -0500 Zenon, > Still that longing for impossible "equality", > whose only effect is stifling all development, > and leading only to equality in misery. > As the say in Poland - "Shit, but equally distributed..." > [in Polish it is shorter, and with a rhyme]. > Strange the "equalists" here are still wildly popular... Count me not among the number of those who insist upon an equal share, instead, grant me only an equal chance to do with as I will. 'Twill be my own hand upon my bootstraps, not someone else's however well intentioned they may be, that way lies only ruin... > > It seems to me that you all think in this thread only in terms of > "what profit space operations can bring to people living on Earth". > Generally I must say it is a wrong perspective - space operations > will be mostly directed at, and bring profits (and sustenance) > to people living OFF EARTH. Because the real rationale for > going massively into space is to install a self-sustaining > populations of people living out of Earth. And it is not > the matter of profit or building a comfortable paradise > for growing amounts of people on Earth, but the matter of survival. > Because, as I wrote recently in a discussion with one > environmentalist > (specifically, a leader of an anti-cassini group): > Ahh, but that was the point of the thread, what good might space do for the planet, not what good it might do for space. I do not deny that it will do as much or more for the 3 billion humans I expect will be living off planet in the next fifty years or so. In fact, I personally would prefer to look at in those terms. However, the case must be made for the benefit of the meek, who shall remain behind... > > The Earth's biosphere was very lucky to survive several > > such near-extinctions in the past - the best investigated of them > > occuring some 65 millions year ago, when, together with dinozaurs, > > above 70% of all plant and animal species utterly perished. I do not call this "surviving an extinction" when all higher life forms perish and naught remains but insects and rodents, I think it a fair call that all that was significant perished. > > The only chance to prevent an ultimate disaster of this kind > > is to spread humankind, and the earthly life as a whole, > > to other places except Earth - that is, to other planets, > > and colonies in space. This is indeed a very difficult, > > and a very risky business - lots of people will perish in > the course > > of conquering space, but the mankind, and the rest of earthly life, > > will get a chance to survive thanks to their noble sacrifice. > > It is our obligation, as the most conscious and able > species of life > > on Earth, to spread life elsewhere in the universe and in this way > > to prevent its extinction in some catastrophic accident that may > > happen to Earth. Ignoring the incredible hubris, I agree. There is of course an ethical question here of whether we have the right to spread (read infest) the rest of space with our particular form of life, but based on current evidence, we may be the ONLY life... > > Sadly, as it was otherwise easy to predict, > it did not change his views. What did I miss? Whose views? I seem to be missing a post here! > > Of course, the way to the really spacefaring civilization > most probably will lead through an earth-bound civilization > profiting from space exploration, but it will be a comparatively > short, transitory phase only. Of course you are correct, the near term will look much like it does now, but I think it will be more a matter of the corporate paradigm will evolve to encompass first off-earth and then extra-solar activities. Much beyond fifty years is hard to see. Just look at the changes the last fifty have wrought. Lee "History teaches us that it is not the rebels or the dissidents who endanger society but rather the unthinking, the unquestioning, the obedient, the silent and the indifferent." From VM Thu Oct 14 16:39:10 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["4200" "Thursday" "14" "October" "1999" "19:36:10" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "101" "Re: RE: starship-design: The Case for Space" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 4200 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA13996 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 16:36:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-d01.mx.aol.com (imo-d01.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.33]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA13988 for ; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 16:36:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-d01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id zYOU0frDnm (4315) for ; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 19:36:10 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <0.2b24aa0c.2537c2ea@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 56 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: The Case for Space Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 19:36:10 EDT In a message dated 10/13/99 9:32:02 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net writes: >Hey Kelly, > >Now that I got your attention, let me expand with some details... > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: KellySt@aol.com [mailto:KellySt@aol.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 1999 6:43 PM >> To: lparker@cacaphony.net; starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu >> Subject: Re: starship-design: The Case for Space > >> >> The mining and manufacturing do cause pollution, and moving >> it off planet >> would help, but I can't see anyone agreeing to export a major >> fraction of our >> economy even ignoring cost problems. (Though I do expect Mining and >> manufacture will move off planet in the coming centuries, for >> these and other >> reasons, I don't think so in the next couple decades.) > >There is a new method of dealing with waste that is being developed. It >involves heating the waste in the absence of oxygen which produces a very >unusual chemical reaction. Many of the basic chemicals simply break their >bonds and can be extracted easily. They are expecting very high recovery >efficiencies. This method is intended to work on Earth, but can you think >of >a better place to heat something in the absence of oxygen than in orbit? >Even the heat is free! Sounds like a good concept, but it would have to take less energy to heat the stuff down here, then to ship it up there for heating? >As for exporting a major fraction of our economy off planet, I assume by >that you mean that there is a corresponding loss of income on-planet. This >isn't true. Multinational corporations do not worry about whether the income >came from one particular country versus another. They are only concerned >with the profitability of that particular, unit, office or branch. Reams >of >bad science fiction not withstanding, that commercial model is likely to >hold up very well in orbit. If Alcoa opens an aluminum extraction operation >on the moon and a refinery in orbit and then ships the raw aluminum to >a >factory for processing into product before shipping planet side or >elsewhere, the only thing that they are going concerned with is whether >each >of those individual operations are showing a profit or not. The profit >or >earnings still end up in the same place, in Alcoa's bank account, here >on >Earth. But the jobs, and the jobs those workers support, would all move off planet. >> FOOD!! I'm doubtful space platforms would grow their own >> food, being able to >> compete with Earths domestic sources in domestic markets?!! No way! > >I was considering the possibility of a nanomachine built hydroponic farm. >Suppose you had a handful of self replicating nanomachine that you could >turn loose on a suitable part of the Moon's surface and they would build >a >hydroponic farm, just add water! There is certainly enough raw material >available readily at hand on the surface. The programming would probably >be >pretty tricky, but I see no inherent reason why it couldn't be done before >fifty years are up. As far as competing goes, if you are comparing such >an >orbital farm against a TYPICAL planet side farm, you are being grossly >unfair - to the planet side farmer. Even modern farms in the Western >Hemisphere would have a hard time competing unless they were using the >exact >same technology. Ignoring the construction costs, again, why could you compete with earth bound farms? Construction costs would have to be less, easier access to water, fertalizer, etc. Much lower transportation costs. I could see nanotech manufacture of food taking over for agriculture someday, but no way space farms would outsell earth side sources on earth. >There is a down side to all of this. Quite simply, the rich will get richer, >and the poor will get poorer. If you are not part of a western economy >with >access to these riches and all that will spring from them, you will be >left >ever farther behind with little chance of ever catching up. Not true. Oh the third world would lose its major current economic source of selling raw materials to us, but they have shown a very obvious ability to advance faster then us. Its far easier to copy then innovate. >Lee Kelly From VM Thu Oct 14 16:39:10 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2133" "Thursday" "14" "October" "1999" "19:36:17" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "63" "Re: starship-design: The Case for Space" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2133 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA14076 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 16:37:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-d03.mx.aol.com (imo-d03.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.35]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA14063 for ; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 16:37:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-d03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id zPPH0MBTlE (4315) for ; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 19:36:17 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <0.d02a1819.2537c2f1@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 56 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: The Case for Space Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 19:36:17 EDT In a message dated 10/13/99 11:01:51 PM, bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca writes: >"L. Parker" wrote: > >> >> > The lower level of technology into space the better. I don't >> > want my access >> > limited into space >> > because of QM37 mega-transitor that's on the cutting edge of >> > stupidity. >> >> As long as you aren't being needlessly antitechnology - sure. If it wasn't >> for the quote in your signature I would have thought you were doing just >> that. > >I am not antitecholgy, but I am aware that deep space access requires >independent human habitat far from earth, Where did you come up with that idea!!? >and like to keep things simple >if >possible, and have several options open and alternate plans for development. >I do how ever distrust BIG things because there is no longer any feedback >to >the people in control, or I can't fix it myself. How do you build a little city? Even with thatthe space platforms would be dependent on Earth techno-infastructure. >> Nobody wants to trust their life, or their children's lives, to >> untried technology. This is reflected in the current space program in >> spades. Almost all computer hardware and software employed in spacecraft >are >> at least two generations out of date -- and therefore thoroughly debugged! >> There are similar situations for most other hardware components as well. >> > > There still can be mistakes -- look at the metric -- english measurement >that >killed >the latest mars probe. I hope Microsoft does not develop the life support. >On the flip side of the coin, some the probes sent out in the 70's are >still >sending >back data. >I agree with most things but differ in details. >Like the space station. I would have dumped the current design and the >shuttle, >and spent the 1/3 the money on international reusable launch vehicle, 1/3 >on the >ground with live >testing and 1/3 to build it. I also still like the ring-wheel type space >station. >As a Canadian I can't really tell NASA how to run its job as I don't pay >taxes >to them. . No way is using decades old computers and software a better safety idea. Kelly From VM Thu Oct 14 16:39:10 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1463" "Thursday" "14" "October" "1999" "19:36:06" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "41" "Re: RE: starship-design: Re:Food in space" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1463 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA14048 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 16:37:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-d01.mx.aol.com (imo-d01.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.33]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA14039 for ; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 16:37:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-d01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id zJRZ0X_c9Y (4315) for ; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 19:36:07 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <0.3325ef6c.2537c2e6@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 56 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: Re:Food in space Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 19:36:06 EDT In a message dated 10/13/99 9:44:29 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net writes: >> >> Everyone seems to be focusing on the financial aspect of food and >> only at the consumption of the final product. The benefits of growing >> produce in space environments would be high, surely. The >> production and cleaning of air would rank up there. >> >> It is my belief that the proposed manned Mars mission is planned >> using hydroponically grown products to sustain air and oxygen >> levels as much as for the nutrition aspect. >> > >There have already been several studies that showed it was more practical >to >carry consumables than to manufacture them in a closed loop system for >almost any limited duration mission. A permanent presence in orbit however, >is by definition not a limited duration mission. The cost of setting up >the >initial self sustaining ecosystem can now be carried across dozens, even >hundreds of years. > >I think Kelly has the data on this. > >Kelly, > >Was there a break even point in the studies? At what point (how many >man-years) does it become preferable to build such a system? The details are on the web site. In general the farm weighs more then about 25-30 years food supply. Cost wise it may be even less desirable to build that much bigger a station to fit in a farm. I'm not certain it ever would make financial or resource sense to grow the food in space. Worse, the food verity and quality would be less. > >Lee Kelly From VM Thu Oct 14 16:39:10 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2110" "Thursday" "14" "October" "1999" "19:36:15" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "62" "Re: starship-design: Re:Food in space" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2110 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA14286 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 16:37:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-d03.mx.aol.com (imo-d03.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.35]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA14278 for ; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 16:37:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-d03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id zLGLfBW2d_ (4315); Thu, 14 Oct 1999 19:36:16 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <0.7b2aeb99.2537c2ef@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 56 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Re:Food in space Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 19:36:15 EDT In a message dated 10/14/99 12:05:46 AM, bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca writes: >"L. Parker" wrote: > >> There have already been several studies that showed it was more practical >to >> carry consumables than to manufacture them in a closed loop system for >> almost any limited duration mission. A permanent presence in orbit however, >> is by definition not a limited duration mission. The cost of setting >up the >> initial self sustaining ecosystem can now be carried across dozens, even >> hundreds of years. >> >> Was there a break even point in the studies? At what point (how many >> man-years) does it become preferable to build such a system? >> >I can't say in man-years but it would depend on > >1) The population base. More people the better. >2) The flexibility of the environment. A lunar complex vs a transport craft. >3) The base level the system was designed with. A computer made up of TEL >& >simple >memory chips would be easier to maintain than a multimedia 986 with holographic >displays. Actually the newer computers are usually more reliable and cheaper. Beyond that, you have no choice, they don't make old computers or parts to fix them. Military learned that the hard way. >4) The level of independence. How long can you survive with a transportation >loss to earth. 1 day, 1 week, 1 month, 6 months, 1 year, 5 years,35 years, >no >contact needed Without access to Earth supplies, the city infrastructure will crash in months to years. > >Build a few of the city-states here on earth is a good idea, >and move to space some time later. > > >A personal web site with ideas on space habitat I found on the net: >"The Space Travel Web Site! >This is not just science fiction. By Richard Doran" >http://users.erols.com/richdoran/index.htm > >Ben > > >PS. Anybody watch "2050 After the warming?". One item suggested was getting >way >from monolithic >cities to smaller compact units. The idea is laughed off by experts. Everyone is moving to subburbs around cities. Small towns and downtowns are losing folks. The whole show was out to lunch. Way below Burkes early work. From VM Thu Oct 14 16:39:10 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["508" "Thursday" "14" "October" "1999" "19:36:13" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "13" "Re: starship-design: Re:Food in space" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 508 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA14074 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 16:37:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-d02.mx.aol.com (imo-d02.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.34]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA14062 for ; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 16:37:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-d02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id zQJC0DaC1d (4315) for ; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 19:36:13 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <0.bd09d269.2537c2ed@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 56 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Re:Food in space Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 19:36:13 EDT In a message dated 10/13/99 8:35:10 PM, thing@xtra.co.nz writes: >Everyone seems to be focusing on the financial aspect of food and >only at the consumption of the final product. The benefits of growing >produce in space environments would be high, surely. The >production and cleaning of air would rank up there. Assuming you want to use plants for life support, planting trees rather then crops would make more sense. Much more even oxygen production (harvesting would disrupt ox output). Kelly From VM Thu Oct 14 16:39:10 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["768" "Thursday" "14" "October" "1999" "19:36:04" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "30" "Re: RE: starship-design: food in space." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 768 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA13991 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 16:36:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-d01.mx.aol.com (imo-d01.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.33]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA13984 for ; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 16:36:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-d01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id zLNAzinyI_ (4315) for ; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 19:36:04 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <0.1eb1739b.2537c2e4@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 56 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: food in space. Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 19:36:04 EDT In a message dated 10/13/99 9:44:26 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net writes: >> A space platform could be so automated that people are not >> needed. A space hotel >> would >> still have prime rib steak brought from earth. "Today's >> special 'prime rib of >> rabbit'" does >> not quite cut it for $10,000 for the room rates. A L5 space >> station how ever >> would make >> "Farming community" as transportion would be something like >> the colonization of >> the >> new world from the old world. > > >Hmmm, rabbit, now there is a novel idea! See, I knew something good would >come of this. Small, easy to care for cheap to feed, and they taste good >too... For a few bucks launch cost, I'll stick to steak (no not $10,000 a pound, that won't be allowed). >Lee Kelly From VM Thu Oct 14 16:39:46 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["5634" "Thursday" "14" "October" "1999" "19:36:20" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "139" "Re: starship-design: The Case for Space" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 5634 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA14441 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 16:38:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-d04.mx.aol.com (imo-d04.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.36]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA14403 for ; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 16:38:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-d04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id zHMDN7Tuq_ (4315) for ; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 19:36:21 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <0.792c1498.2537c2f4@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 56 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: The Case for Space Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 19:36:20 EDT In a message dated 10/14/99 11:00:20 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl writes: >> From: "L. Parker" >> >> ======= >[...] >> >> NEW YORK (CNN) -- As scientists note the arrival of the six billionth >human >> being on the planet, they also are warning that 16 percent of the world's >> population is consuming some 80 percent of its natural resources. >> That's the estimated toll the wealthiest populations on the globe -- > >> the United States, Europe and Japan -- are taking from the earth's natural >> bounty to sustain their way of life. >> >Still that longing for impossible "equality", >whose only effect is stifling all development, >and leading only to equality in misery. >As the say in Poland - "Shit, but equally distributed..." >[in Polish it is shorter, and with a rhyme]. >Strange the "equalists" here are still wildly popular... Generally rich countries who feel guilty for succeeding where others around them failed. Dumb! >[...] >> >> Resources -- at least in the Western Hemisphere -- do not appear >> to be immediately threatened, leading some experts to reason that >> the real danger is not scarcity. >> >Really, they at least rediscovered the wheel? ;-) > >[...] >> >> This may be the most serious problem facing the planet -- not how much >is >> being taken away from it, but how much is being dumped back into it. >> >Pollution is essentially the problem of recycling technology only - >until we are only here on Earth, we really do not either take away >or dump back anything - we only change the distribution of elements >between various places... I have wondered why noone notices that! ;) >> ======= >> > of our economy even ignoring cost problems. (Though I do expect Mining >> > and manufacture will move off planet in the coming centuries, for >> > these and other reasons, I don't think so in the next couple decades.) >> >[...] >> >> As for exporting a major fraction of our economy off planet, >> I assume by that you mean that there is a corresponding loss >> of income on-planet. This isn't true. >[...] >> The profit or earnings still end up in the same place, >> in Alcoa's bank account, here on Earth. >> >[etc. etc.] > >It seems to me that you all think in this thread only in terms of >"what profit space operations can bring to people living on Earth". >Generally I must say it is a wrong perspective - space operations >will be mostly directed at, and bring profits (and sustenance) >to people living OFF EARTH. Because the real rationale for >going massively into space is to install a self-sustaining >populations of people living out of Earth. And it is not >the matter of profit or building a comfortable paradise >for growing amounts of people on Earth, but the matter of survival. >Because, as I wrote recently in a discussion with one environmentalist Here we disagree. No one will build space colony, to build space colonies; and it will take generations - to centuries for them to develop a really autonomous economy. Cities and settlements ae built for profit of the builder s. If they fail that measure, they become ghost towns. We have many current Ghost towns / former idealistic colony. in this country. > >(specifically, a leader of an anti-cassini group): > >> So, possibly we should simply not go to space? There are many >> people saying just that, and promising instead an earthly paradise >> of "living with the nature", or something along these lines. >> However, whether we like it or not, it is completely Utopian >> and sure to lead to termination of the very existence >> of mankind, and all the life on Earth as well, sooner or later. >> Proponents of indefinite stay on Earth oversight one single, >> but all too important a fact: >> Earth is NOT a closed, self-sufficient entity, completely isolated >> from the rest of the cosmos. To the contrary - it is utterly dependent > >> on cosmic influences: on radiation from the Sun, on impacts of other > >> cellestial bodies, on galactic gamma radiation bursts, >> and many other forces. Great many of these influences, >> either separately or in combinatiom, may put an end to human >> civilization, or to the whole life on Earth, at any moment in time. >> The Earth's biosphere was very lucky to survive several >> such near-extinctions in the past - the best investigated of them >> occuring some 65 millions year ago, when, together with dinosaurs, >> above 70% of all plant and animal species utterly perished. >> The only chance to prevent an ultimate disaster of this kind >> is to spread humankind, and the earthly life as a whole, >> to other places except Earth - that is, to other planets, >> and colonies in space. This is indeed a very difficult, >> and a very risky business - lots of people will perish in the course > >> of conquering space, but the mankind, and the rest of earthly life, >> will get a chance to survive thanks to their noble sacrifice. >> It is our obligation, as the most conscious and able species of life > >> on Earth, to spread life elsewhere in the universe and in this way >> to prevent its extinction in some catastrophic accident that may >> happen to Earth. > >Sadly, as it was otherwise easy to predict, >it did not change his views. > >Of course, the way to the really spacefaring civilization >most probably will lead through an earth-bound civilization >profiting from space exploration, but it will be a comparatively >short, transitory phase only. Define short? North America was originally a profit center for Europe for centuries after settling started. > >-- Zenon Kulpa Kelly From VM Thu Oct 14 16:40:30 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["601" "Thursday" "14" "October" "1999" "19:36:12" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "19" "Re: starship-design: food in space." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 601 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA14112 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 16:37:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-d02.mx.aol.com (imo-d02.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.34]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA14106 for ; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 16:37:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-d02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id zSPC0fkJp9 (4315) for ; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 19:36:12 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <0.b9e1d4e9.2537c2ec@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 56 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: food in space. Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 19:36:12 EDT In a message dated 10/13/99 8:12:45 PM, bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca writes: >KellySt@aol.com wrote: > >> >> FOOD!! I'm doubtful space platforms would grow their own food, being >able to >> compete with Earths domestic sources in domestic markets?!! No way! >> > >But at what cost to the earth's resources is the current domestic sources? Negligible in the developed world (where the bulk of the worlds food is grown). Even increasing production tenfold in the same acreage is considered doable. Might want to start water reuse in some areas, but it doesn't generally seem a requirement. Kelly From VM Thu Oct 14 17:05:50 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1398" "Thursday" "14" "October" "1999" "18:06:53" "+0000" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "37" "Re: starship-design: Re:Food in space" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1398 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA29699 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 17:03:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA29663 for ; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 17:03:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (bfranchuk@dialin52.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.52]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA03248 for ; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 18:03:13 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <38061BBD.483CEF09@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.10 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <0.7b2aeb99.2537c2ef@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Ben Franchuk From: Ben Franchuk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu" Subject: Re: starship-design: Re:Food in space Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 18:06:53 +0000 KellySt@aol.com wrote: > > Actually the newer computers are usually more reliable and cheaper. Beyond > that, you have no choice, they don't make old computers or parts to fix them. > Military learned that the hard way. > Part of the idea of a independent community is that you make your own parts and supplies. > >4) The level of independence. How long can you survive with a transportation > >loss to earth. 1 day, 1 week, 1 month, 6 months, 1 year, 5 years,35 years, > >no > >contact needed > Without access to Earth supplies, the city infrastructure will crash in > months to years. I am claiming as soon as you get in space you cut all transportation off. This is a goal of that takes time to reach. > > The idea is laughed off by experts. Everyone is moving to subburbs around > cities. Small towns and downtowns are losing folks. The whole show was out > to lunch. Way below Burkes early work. We will know in 50 years, that may not be what happens but is a alternative future. Everybody expects the future to be just like today,but today is already past. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." Einstein "We do not inherit our time on this planet from our parents... We borrow it from our children." "Autodynamics - Physics for the next millennium." www.autodynamics.org From VM Thu Oct 14 17:38:05 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1198" "Thursday" "14" "October" "1999" "18:36:13" "+0000" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "29" "Re: starship-design: The Case for Space" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1198 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA12831 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 17:32:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA12808 for ; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 17:32:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (bfranchuk@dialin52.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.52]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA04613 for ; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 18:32:32 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <3806229D.A157C0EA@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.10 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <0.792c1498.2537c2f4@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Ben Franchuk From: Ben Franchuk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu" Subject: Re: starship-design: The Case for Space Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 18:36:13 +0000 KellySt@aol.com wrote: > > Here we disagree. No one will build space colony, to build space colonies; > and it will take generations - to centuries for them to develop a really > autonomous economy. Cities and settlements ae built for profit of the builder > s. If they fail that measure, they become ghost towns. We have many current > Ghost towns / former idealistic colony. in this country. We also have a lot of single industry towns and cities as well. Right now is the time to look at options for what kind of space colonies we want. We may not get into space but we can suggest ideas for it. > > Define short? North America was originally a profit center for Europe for > centuries after settling started. If I remember right, with profit making companies dealing in slaves, tobacco ,and rum. We still have problems with differnt race's ,smoking and drinking. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." Einstein "We do not inherit our time on this planet from our parents... We borrow it from our children." "Autodynamics - Physics for the next millennium." www.autodynamics.org From VM Fri Oct 15 10:13:50 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["4610" "Thursday" "14" "October" "1999" "21:26:42" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "95" "RE: RE: starship-design: The Case for Space" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 4610 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA25598 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 19:47:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA25590 for ; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 19:47:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from broadsword (p436.gnt.com [204.49.91.52]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id VAA31317; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 21:47:49 -0500 Message-ID: <001901bf16b7$a6267e30$0401a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-reply-to: <0.2b24aa0c.2537c2ea@aol.com> Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: , Subject: RE: RE: starship-design: The Case for Space Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 21:26:42 -0500 Kelly, > Sounds like a good concept, but it would have to take less > energy to heat the > stuff down here, then to ship it up there for heating? I was thinking more of dealing with the pollution produced in space by manufacturing and habitation. On Earth a typical mining operation sends ore to a refinery where basically it is heated to some temperature to separate the desired mineral from the rest of the ore's components. The remainder, called slag, is a waste product which must be disposed of. Earlier proposals have suggested simply using this slag as a radiation screen on the sunward side of the habitation. Not only does this seem wasteful, but there remains a great deal of usable material within the slag that using this new process, can now be cheaply extracted. Secondly, refuse and waste such as plastic bottles, foam cups, paper, etc. can be subjected to the same process, breaking it down into chemicals which can then be reused to make new plastic, etc. > > But the jobs, and the jobs those workers support, would all > move off planet. Here you have to start looking at multiple time spans. At first, it will not matter where the workers are, their money is kept and spent on Earth, in the nation, state and city in which they normally reside. This is true even after there is a permanent presence in space up until, there are people who live solely, or for the great majority of their lives anyway, in space. The next stage occurs when multiple consumer oriented industries are present off planet with money being exchanged solely between these businesses. Somewhere along this period a balance of trade MAY become important. It really depends upon how tightly coupled the economies of the off-planet institutions and the planet are. There is a good possibility that there will never be a problem at all. The last stage I doubt we will see within fifty years. This stage requires companies whose ENTIRE business is off-planet, having and requiring no ties with Earth at all. All monetary transactions including banking are now conducted without the money ever going planet side. Now at last there is a viable off-planet economy where your objection becomes real, the jobs, workers, AND THIER MONEY have moved off-planet. > Ignoring the construction costs, again, why could you compete > with earth > bound farms? Construction costs would have to be less, > easier access to > water, fertalizer, etc. Much lower transportation costs. I > could see > nanotech manufacture of food taking over for agriculture > someday, but no way > space farms would outsell earth side sources on earth. Farms in orbit might or might not be cost effective, but thousands of acres of hydroponic farms on the moon would be. Even allowing for construction costs, the cost of transportation is precisely what makes them cost effective. All else being equal, it is much cheaper to boost food from the Moon than it is from Earth. Like much else, technology developed for use in space would end up finding startling uses on Earth as well. The same nano tech used to construct hydroponic farms on the Moon could be used in countless ways on Earth to improve farms here, which would in turn lower the cost and increase the yield of Earth produced food also. This may turn out to be a draw. > Not true. Oh the third world would lose its major current > economic source of > selling raw materials to us, but they have shown a very > obvious ability to > advance faster then us. Its far easier to copy then innovate. But they can only copy what has already been done...so they can only advance to a very finite level. Besides, as has been already pointed out, we have almost all of the resources we need without importing, so perhaps we need to look at why we import, which is quite simply, cost of goods. The Third World is able and willing to sell both raw materials and manufactured goods for less than the equivalent domestic product. Something to remember when addressing an off-planet economy centered around mining and manufacturing. It must be able to either: 1) Provide a product which is available only from space, or 2) Provide a product for less than it can be purchased on Earth. I think both of these conditions will apply, and off-planet industry might eventually become sort of a high tech "Fourth World", supplanting the Old World, the New World and even the Third World. These things tend to run in cycles, after a century or so, the societies of the solar system will amalgamate and there will be a new frontier, the first colonies among the stars, and it will begin again. Lee From VM Fri Oct 15 10:13:50 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3737" "Friday" "15" "October" "1999" "16:16:33" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "92" "Re: starship-design: The Case for Space" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3737 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA22703 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 07:16:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.8]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA22651 for ; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 07:15:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id QAA25500; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 16:16:33 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199910151516.QAA25500@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa From: Zenon Kulpa Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl Subject: Re: starship-design: The Case for Space Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 16:16:33 +0100 (MET) > From: KellySt@aol.com > > In a message dated 10/14/99 11:00:20 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl writes: > > >> From: "L. Parker" > >> ======= > >Still that longing for impossible "equality", > >whose only effect is stifling all development, > >and leading only to equality in misery. > >As they say in Poland - "Shit, but distributed equally..." > >[in Polish it is shorter, and with a rhyme]. > >Strange the "equalists" here are still wildly popular... > > Generally rich countries who feel guilty for succeeding > where others around them failed. Dumb! > Exactly. The mankind has no future... [if that tendency prevails, that is]. > >[...] > >> > >> This may be the most serious problem facing the planet -- not how much > >>is being taken away from it, but how much is being dumped back into it. > >> > >Pollution is essentially the problem of recycling technology only - > >until we are only here on Earth, we really do not either take away > >or dump back anything - we only change the distribution of elements > >between various places... > > I have wondered why noone notices that! ;) > Me too... ;-) > >> ======= > > >It seems to me that you all think in this thread only in terms of > >"what profit space operations can bring to people living on Earth". > >Generally I must say it is a wrong perspective - space operations > >will be mostly directed at, and bring profits (and sustenance) > >to people living OFF EARTH. Because the real rationale for > >going massively into space is to install a self-sustaining > >populations of people living out of Earth. And it is not > >the matter of profit or building a comfortable paradise > >for growing amounts of people on Earth, but the matter of survival. > >Because, as I wrote recently in a discussion with one environmentalist > > Here we disagree. No one will build space colony, to build space colonies; > and it will take generations - to centuries for them to develop a really > autonomous economy. Cities and settlements are built for profit of > the builders. If they fail that measure, they become ghost towns. > We have many current Ghost towns / former idealistic colony. > in this country. > Generally you are right, but not exactly. Towns become ghost because there are other, compareatively near places where the inhabitants can go for better living, whatever that means. When the move is hard or costly, it may be more reasonable to stay and work hard to built a better place just here instead. Also, you should distinguish the case when the builders wanting the profit stay back home and transfer the profits form the colony back too, and the case when the builders stay in the built colony and eventual profits remain there too. Colonization usually starts from the first type of a colony, but soon - especially when the colonized land is far away from home - the second type starts to prevail and shortly after that the colony becomes more or less self-sustainable and (economically) independent. [...] > > > >Of course, the way to the really spacefaring civilization > >most probably will lead through an earth-bound civilization > >profiting from space exploration, but it will be a comparatively > >short, transitory phase only. > > Define short? North America was originally a profit center for Europe > for centuries after settling started. > Things run much faster nowadays... For space colonies, it will however depend critically on the technology advances, so it is hard to predict. However, let me play a seer for a while: with nanotechnology - some 50+ years, without - 150-200. OK? It may be still too conservative, I think - for North America it was about 200+ years only... -- Zenon From VM Fri Oct 15 10:13:50 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["5922" "Friday" "15" "October" "1999" "17:23:11" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "130" "RE: starship-design: The Case for Space" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 5922 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA11226 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 08:22:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.8]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA11125 for ; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 08:22:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id RAA25608; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 17:23:11 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199910151623.RAA25608@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa From: Zenon Kulpa Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl Subject: RE: starship-design: The Case for Space Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 17:23:11 +0100 (MET) > From: "L. Parker" > > > Still that longing for impossible "equality", > > whose only effect is stifling all development, > > and leading only to equality in misery. > > As the say in Poland - "Shit, but equally distributed..." > > [in Polish it is shorter, and with a rhyme]. > > Strange the "equalists" here are still wildly popular... > > Count me not among the number of those who insist upon an equal share, > instead, grant me only an equal chance to do with as I will. 'Twill be my > own hand upon my bootstraps, not someone else's however well intentioned > they may be, that way lies only ruin... > Of course, I did not intend to include you among "equalists" - my remark concerned the fragment of the article you quoted. And the phrase '"equalists" here' referred to "equalists" in Poland, from where I am writing these letters... > > It seems to me that you all think in this thread only in terms of > > "what profit space operations can bring to people living on Earth". > > Generally I must say it is a wrong perspective - space operations > > will be mostly directed at, and bring profits (and sustenance) > > to people living OFF EARTH. Because the real rationale for > > going massively into space is to install a self-sustaining > > populations of people living out of Earth. And it is not > > the matter of profit or building a comfortable paradise > > for growing amounts of people on Earth, but the matter of survival. > > Because, as I wrote recently in a discussion with one > > environmentalist (specifically, a leader of an anti-cassini group): > > Ahh, but that was the point of the thread, what good might > space do for the planet, not what good it might do for space. > I do not deny that it will do as much or more for the 3 billion > humans I expect will be living off planet in the next fifty years > or so. In fact, I personally would prefer to look at in those terms. > However, the case must be made for the benefit of the meek, > who shall remain behind... > Let them take care of themselves... To quote your quoting of the quote ;-)) : > 'Twill be my own hand upon my bootstraps, not someone else's > however well intentioned they may be, that way lies only ruin... ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > The Earth's biosphere was very lucky to survive several > > > such near-extinctions in the past - the best investigated of them > > > occuring some 65 millions year ago, when, together with dinozaurs, > > > above 70% of all plant and animal species utterly perished. > > I do not call this "surviving an extinction" when all higher life forms > perish and naught remains but insects and rodents, I think it a fair call > that all that was significant perished. > I wrote "Earth's biosphere", and it goes down to bacteria, so I have had no other option than to mention surviving of some parts of the entire biosphere. Also, just because they nevertheless survived, we have had something to start our own evolution from... > > > The only chance to prevent an ultimate disaster of this kind > > > is to spread humankind, and the earthly life as a whole, > > > to other places except Earth - that is, to other planets, > > > and colonies in space. This is indeed a very difficult, > > > and a very risky business - lots of people will perish in the course > > > of conquering space, but the mankind, and the rest of earthly life, > > > will get a chance to survive thanks to their noble sacrifice. > > > It is our obligation, as the most conscious and able species of life > > > on Earth, to spread life elsewhere in the universe and in this way > > > to prevent its extinction in some catastrophic accident that may > > > happen to Earth. > > Ignoring the incredible hubris, > Sorry for that - I am personally quite down-to-earth in everyday life, hence sometimes I must compensate with a few ;-) "great words"... Anyway, the activist with whom I have argued also used such words for his case, so I tried to outspoke him...;-) > I agree. There is of course an ethical > question here of whether we have the right to spread > (read infest) the rest of space with our particular form of life, > And what else that particular form of life had been doing through all that three or so billion years before? The very existence of life fundamentally requires, and is a result of, that ability to spread/infest, hence there is no ethical question involved here, I think. > but based on current evidence, we may be the ONLY life... > But even if we were not the only life, so what? There is no other, ethical or not, way to decide which form should spread to/infest other places except direct competition in spreading/infesting... > > Sadly, as it was otherwise easy to predict, > > it did not change his views. > > What did I miss? Whose views? I seem to be missing a post here! > You missed two lines just before my self-quote, which said: > > Because, as I wrote recently in a discussion with one > > environmentalist (specifically, a leader of an anti-cassini group): > > Of course, the way to the really spacefaring civilization > > most probably will lead through an earth-bound civilization > > profiting from space exploration, but it will be a comparatively > > short, transitory phase only. > > Of course you are correct, the near term will look much like > it does now, but I think it will be more a matter of the corporate > paradigm will evolve to encompass first off-earth and then extra-solar > activities. > Something seems to be missing in the above sentence - I do not catch well your intentions. Can you explain? > Much beyond fifty years is hard to see. > Just look at the changes the last fifty have wrought. > Yes, of course. Especially the practically impossible to predict technology advancec - real start of nanotechnology, for example, will turn any current predictions upside down. -- Zenon From VM Fri Oct 15 10:13:50 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1660" "Friday" "15" "October" "1999" "09:43:24" "+0000" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "36" "starship-design: Space colonies." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1660 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA19701 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 08:39:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA19691 for ; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 08:39:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (bfranchuk@dialin52.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.52]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA29750 for ; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 09:39:39 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <3806F73C.34E5B9A1@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.10 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <199910151516.QAA25500@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Ben Franchuk From: Ben Franchuk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu" Subject: starship-design: Space colonies. Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 09:43:24 +0000 Xenon Kelp wrote: > Things run much faster nowadays... > For space colonies, it will however depend critically > on the technology advances, so it is hard to predict. > However, let me play a seer for a while: > with nanotechnology - some 50+ years, > without - 150-200. OK? > It may be still too conservative, I think - > for North America it was about 200+ years only... With more advances in technology harder it will be to be self sustaining. This is because the base level to create the technology needs to be bigger for each new level. Look at computers and how they boot up. CP/M took a floppy disk. DOS takes small HD. Windows a BIG HD.Like goldielocks and the 3 bears one need to find the "just right" technology. Nanotech is not needed I think for space. New ideas yes, and some new technology yes. The Apollo project was done with 50's technology. The shuttle with the 60's, and the new projects of today with the 70's. Had the Apollo project been colonize space we would be their 20 years ago. It has taken 30 years for the governments to accept "space travel", yet it is still restricted for a few.I think if people wanted one could have the basic design for independent space colony with the first colony in space. But it will mean hardships too. No TV dinners,Only a few colors of Hair coloring, Simpler technology. Ben. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." Einstein "We do not inherit our time on this planet from our parents... We borrow it from our children." "Autodynamics - Physics for the next millennium." www.autodynamics.org From VM Fri Oct 15 15:36:02 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3128" "Friday" "15" "October" "1999" "17:32:56" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "68" "RE: starship-design: The Case for Space" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3128 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA18245 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 15:34:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA18228 for ; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 15:34:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from broadsword (p434.gnt.com [204.49.91.50]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id RAA30387; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 17:34:11 -0500 Message-ID: <001b01bf175d$62bf8820$0401a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-reply-to: <199910151623.RAA25608@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Zenon Kulpa'" , Subject: RE: starship-design: The Case for Space Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 17:32:56 -0500 Zenon, > Of course, I did not intend to include you among "equalists" - > my remark concerned the fragment of the article you quoted. > And the phrase '"equalists" here' referred to "equalists" in Poland, > from where I am writing these letters... We in America seem to have an even harder problem with such sentiments these days. Please forgive my vehemenence, but I do not believe that "equality" as it is currently practiced here in America, is a "right". There are many peoples in the world who would give anything for even half the chance we had when out nation was born. Most Americans truly do not appreciate what they have and at what cost it was bought. > Sorry for that - I am personally quite down-to-earth in everyday life, > hence sometimes I must compensate with a few ;-) "great words"... > Anyway, the activist with whom I have argued also used such > words for his case, so I tried to outspoken him...;-) That is okay, but there is the terrible homo sapiens uber alles attitude that seems to pervade our society... > And what else that particular form of life had been doing > through all that three or so billion years before? > The very existence of life fundamentally requires, > and is a result of, that ability to spread/infest, > hence there is no ethical question involved here, I think. > > > but based on current evidence, we may be the ONLY life... > > > But even if we were not the only life, so what? > There is no other, ethical or not, way to decide > which form should spread to/infest other places > except direct competition in spreading/infesting... So even though we are conscious of the fact, we should subscribe to Darwinism as an inviolable rule? Mind you, I am not taking sides, but I think that perhaps a little introspection may be called for before we cast our seed across the universe. > > > Of course, the way to the really space faring civilization > > > most probably will lead through an earth-bound civilization > > > profiting from space exploration, but it will be a comparatively > > > short, transitory phase only. > > > > Of course you are correct, the near term will look much like > > it does now, but I think it will be more a matter of the corporate > > paradigm will evolve to encompass first off-earth and then > extra-solar > > activities. > > > Something seems to be missing in the above sentence - > I do not catch well your intentions. Can you explain? The future evolves from the present, even though we may not be able to see clearly enough to predict its course in advance, it is always clear in retrospect how a certain set of events came to be as a result of the conditions that prevailed before. The current corporate paradigm that now drives society on Earth cannot help but to persist even off-planet for at least a little while, perhaps longer. So for the near future at least, I see the status quo, business decisions will drive the development of space and little else. After that, well, who knows? Perhaps more business, perhaps change, but for the next fifty years, I think we will still be in what you call the transitory phase. Lee From VM Mon Oct 18 10:06:52 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1477" "Friday" "15" "October" "1999" "23:02:33" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "52" "Re: starship-design: Re:Food in space" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil "starship-design: Re:Food in space" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1477 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA10118 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 20:03:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo15.mx.aol.com (imo15.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA10113 for ; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 20:03:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo15.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id zPJTa03806 (4420) for ; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 23:02:33 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <0.6306d7b3.253944c9@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 56 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Re:Food in space Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 23:02:33 EDT In a message dated 10/14/99 11:57:22 PM, bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca writes: >KellySt@aol.com wrote: > >> >> Actually the newer computers are usually more reliable and cheaper. >Beyond >> that, you have no choice, they don't make old computers or parts to fix >them. >> Military learned that the hard way. >> > >Part of the idea of an independent community is that you make your own parts >and >supplies. Not possible, even nations here have to trade for supplies and parts. No way a small base or even medium O'Neil, could support a population and industrial base to support itself alone. >> >4) The level of independence. How long can you survive with a transportation >> >loss to earth. 1 day, 1 week, 1 month, 6 months, 1 year, 5 years,35 >years, >> >no >> >contact needed >> Without access to Earth supplies, the city infrastructure will crash >in >> months to years. > >I am claiming as soon as you get in space you cut all transportation off. >This is a goal of that takes time to reach. Obviously impossible. >> >> The idea is laughed off by experts. Everyone is moving to suburbs around >> cities. Small towns and downtown's are losing folks. The whole show >was out >> to lunch. Way below Burkes early work. > >We will know in 50 years, that may not be what happens but is an alternative >future. >Everybody expects the future to be just like today, but today is already >past. The after the warming scenarios are based on no supported facts. Kelly From VM Mon Oct 18 10:06:52 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["6011" "Friday" "15" "October" "1999" "23:02:27" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "147" "Re: RE: RE: starship-design: The Case for Space" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil "starship-design: The Case for Space" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 6011 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA10187 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 20:03:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo11.mx.aol.com (imo11.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA10179 for ; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 20:03:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo11.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id 4NUPa15805 (4420); Fri, 15 Oct 1999 23:02:27 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <0.8aff233.253944c3@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 56 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: lparker@cacaphony.net, KellySt@aol.com, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: RE: starship-design: The Case for Space Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 23:02:27 EDT In a message dated 10/14/99 9:48:30 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net writes: >Kelly, > >> Sounds like a good concept, but it would have to take less >> energy to heat the >> stuff down here, then to ship it up there for heating? > >I was thinking more of dealing with the pollution produced in space by >manufacturing and habitation. On Earth a typical mining operation sends >ore >to a refinery where basically it is heated to some temperature to separate >the desired mineral from the rest of the ore's components. The remainder, >called slag, is a waste product which must be disposed of. Earlier proposals >have suggested simply using this slag as a radiation screen on the sunward >side of the habitation. Not only does this seem wasteful, but there remains >a great deal of usable material within the slag that using this new process, >can now be cheaply extracted. > >Secondly, refuse and waste such as plastic bottles, foam cups, paper, etc. >can be subjected to the same process, breaking it down into chemicals which >can then be reused to make new plastic, etc. Ok, that makes sence. >> But the jobs, and the jobs those workers support, would all >> move off planet. > >Here you have to start looking at multiple time spans. At first, it will >not >matter where the workers are, their money is kept and spent on Earth, in >the >nation, state and city in which they normally reside. This is true even >after there is a permanent presence in space up until, there are people >who >live solely, or for the great majority of their lives anyway, in space. > >The next stage occurs when multiple consumer oriented industries are present >off planet with money being exchanged solely between these businesses. >Somewhere along this period a balance of trade MAY become important. It >really depends upon how tightly coupled the economies of the off-planet >institutions and the planet are. There is a good possibility that there >will >never be a problem at all. > >The last stage I doubt we will see within fifty years. This stage requires >companies whose ENTIRE business is off-planet, having and requiring no >ties >with Earth at all. All monetary transactions including banking are now >conducted without the money ever going planet side. Now at last there is >a >viable off-planet economy where your objection becomes real, the jobs, >workers, AND THIER MONEY have moved off-planet. Ok, I buy this but given the platform in space can get workers and support as easy from any natio, one nation may not see jobs there as jobs in its district. >> Ignoring the construction costs, again, why could you compete >> with earth >> bound farms? Construction costs would have to be less, >> easier access to >> water, fertalizer, etc. Much lower transportation costs. I >> could see >> nanotech manufacture of food taking over for agriculture >> someday, but no way >> space farms would outsell earth side sources on earth. > >Farms in orbit might or might not be cost effective, but thousands of acres >of hydroponic farms on the moon would be. Even allowing for construction >costs, the cost of transportation is precisely what makes them cost >effective. All else being equal, it is much cheaper to boost food from >the >Moon than it is from Earth. Thats in invalid assumption. Theres no particular reason to assume it would cost less to boost from Luna to L-5, rather then Earth to L-5. For that mater if your trying to feed folks in L-5, why in hell put the farm on the moon?! >Like much else, technology developed for use in space would end up finding >startling uses on Earth as well. The same nano tech used to construct >hydroponic farms on the Moon could be used in countless ways on Earth to >improve farms here, which would in turn lower the cost and increase the >yield of Earth produced food also. This may turn out to be a draw. Earth hardly needs big improvements in farm yields! A large fraction of farms are being run out of business now. On the other hand Nanotech is so useful it would dwarf space! >> Not true. Oh the third world would lose its major current >> economic source of >> selling raw materials to us, but they have shown a very >> obvious ability to >> advance faster then us. Its far easier to copy then innovate. > >But they can only copy what has already been done...so they can only advance >to a very finite level. Besides, as has been already pointed out, we have >almost all of the resources we need without importing, so perhaps we need >to >look at why we import, which is quite simply, cost of goods. Yes, by your logic they are limited to advancing up to OUR level! Most of our resource inputs are for materials we don't want to mine here for pollution reasons (oil to a degree), shortages in north America (cobalt, titanium,..), or others can produce it at a lower cost (oil and some ores). >The Third World is able and willing to sell both raw materials and >manufactured goods for less than the equivalent domestic product. Something >to remember when addressing an off-planet economy centered around mining >and >manufacturing. > >It must be able to either: > >1) Provide a product which is available only from space, or >2) Provide a product for less than it can be purchased on Earth. Obviously. The key tech seems to be the cost of landing the material. >I think both of these conditions will apply, and off-planet industry might >eventually become sort of a high tech "Fourth World", supplanting the Old >World, the New World and even the Third World. These things tend to run >in >cycles, after a century or so, the societies of the solar system will >amalgamate and there will be a new frontier, the first colonies among the >stars, and it will begin again. They will all be assimilated. ;) I do think the plentiful ore, power, and transport ease (assuming you can land stuff economically) would draw heavy industry and manufacture into space eventually. Of course nanotech could turn that inside out. > >Lee Kelly From VM Mon Oct 18 10:06:52 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["5244" "Friday" "15" "October" "1999" "23:02:38" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "131" "Re: starship-design: The Case for Space" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil "starship-design: The Case for Space" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 5244 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA10145 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 20:03:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo19.mx.aol.com (imo19.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.9]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA10133 for ; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 20:03:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo19.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id zIa0001794 (4420) for ; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 23:02:38 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <0.dcc44232.253944ce@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 56 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: The Case for Space Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 23:02:38 EDT In a message dated 10/15/99 9:17:18 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl writes: >> From: KellySt@aol.com >> >> In a message dated 10/14/99 11:00:20 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl writes: >> >> >> From: "L. Parker" >> >> ======= >> >Still that longing for impossible "equality", >> >whose only effect is stifling all development, >> >and leading only to equality in misery. >> >As they say in Poland - "Shit, but distributed equally..." >> >[in Polish it is shorter, and with a rhyme]. >> >Strange the "equalists" here are still wildly popular... >> >> Generally rich countries who feel guilty for succeeding >> where others around them failed. Dumb! >> >Exactly. >The mankind has no future... >[if that tendency prevails, that is]. True, but such attitudes are fads, and fade in and out of favor. Obviously folks with such attitudes can't compete with less self pitying folks. >> >[...] >> >> >> >> This may be the most serious problem facing the planet -- not how >much >> >>is being taken away from it, but how much is being dumped back into >it. >> >> >> >Pollution is essentially the problem of recycling technology only - >> >until we are only here on Earth, we really do not either take away >> >or dump back anything - we only change the distribution of elements > >> >between various places... >> >> I have wondered why noone notices that! ;) >> >Me too... ;-) > >> >> ======= >> >> >It seems to me that you all think in this thread only in terms of >> >"what profit space operations can bring to people living on Earth". >> >Generally I must say it is a wrong perspective - space operations >> >will be mostly directed at, and bring profits (and sustenance) >> >to people living OFF EARTH. Because the real rationale for >> >going massively into space is to install a self-sustaining >> >populations of people living out of Earth. And it is not >> >the matter of profit or building a comfortable paradise >> >for growing amounts of people on Earth, but the matter of survival. >> >Because, as I wrote recently in a discussion with one environmentalist >> >> Here we disagree. No one will build space colony, to build space colonies; > >> and it will take generations - to centuries for them to develop a really > >> autonomous economy. Cities and settlements are built for profit of >> the builders. If they fail that measure, they become ghost towns. >> We have many current Ghost towns / former idealistic colony. >> in this country. >> >Generally you are right, but not exactly. >Towns become ghost because there are other, comparatively near >places where the inhabitants can go for better living, >whatever that means. When the move is hard or costly, >it may be more reasonable to stay and work hard to built >a better place just here instead. Over here even places that were very isolated were abandoned. Once you packed up to move somewhere, its pretty easy to do it again. >Also, you should distinguish the case when the builders >wanting the profit stay back home and transfer the profits >form the colony back too, and the case when the builders >stay in the built colony and eventual profits remain there too. >Colonization usually starts from the first type of a colony, >but soon - especially when the colonized land is far away from home - >the second type starts to prevail and shortly after that >the colony becomes more or less self-sustainable and >(economically) independent. The later only happens after the colony gets big an diverse enough to absorb the interest and money. That doesn't happen to most places unless they have a huge long term cash flow and are a place people want to stay at, in space it could take a very long time. >[...] >> > >> >Of course, the way to the really spacefaring civilization >> >most probably will lead through an earth-bound civilization >> >profiting from space exploration, but it will be a comparatively >> >short, transitory phase only. >> >> Define short? North America was originally a profit center for Europe > >> for centuries after settling started. >> >Things run much faster nowadays... >For space colonies, it will however depend critically >on the technology advances, so it is hard to predict. >However, let me play a seer for a while: >with nanotechnology - some 50+ years, >without - 150-200. OK? >It may be still too conservative, I think - >for North America it was about 200+ years only... As to time periods a big factor is when does a place become a preferred home? When will a filth rich space worker prefer to stay and raise a family on a O'Neil rather then go back to Earth (on Luna or Mars he/she couldn't). With nano-tech space industry may have the legs shot out from under them. Why worry about cheap high grade ore, if you can process anything and get pure materials? Why worry as much about cheap power it power plants can grow from nanotech seeds? Zero-G manufacture is a joke if you can assemble to the atomic scale down here. Investment funds to space stations and platforms would be diverted to the more profitable and promising nanotech development projects. Same way space development funds ae now being draw off by internet projects. > >-- Zenon Kelly From VM Mon Oct 18 10:06:52 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1066" "Friday" "15" "October" "1999" "23:02:35" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "31" "Re: starship-design: The Case for Space" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil "starship-design: The Case for Space" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1066 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA10144 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 20:03:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo17.mx.aol.com (imo17.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.7]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA10131 for ; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 20:03:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo17.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id zLSa017081 (4420) for ; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 23:02:35 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <0.78c72232.253944cb@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 56 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: The Case for Space Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 23:02:35 EDT In a message dated 10/14/99 10:51:43 PM, bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca writes: >KellySt@aol.com wrote: >> >> Here we disagree. No one will build space colony, to build space colonies; >> and it will take generations - to centuries for them to develop a really >> autonomous economy. Cities and settlements are built for profit of the >builder >> s. If they fail that measure, they become ghost towns. We have many >current >> Ghost towns / former idealistic colony. in this country. > >We also have a lot of single industry towns and cities as well. Right now >is the time to look at options for what kind of space colonies we want. >We may not get into space but we can suggest ideas for it. > > >> Define short? North America was originally a profit center for Europe >for >> centuries after settling started. > >If I remember right, with profit making companies dealing in slaves, tobacco >,and rum. We still have problems with different race's ,smoking and drinking. Also gold, cotton, wood. Either way thou, folks were sent here to return money. Kelly From VM Mon Oct 18 10:06:52 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2372" "Friday" "15" "October" "1999" "23:02:29" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "96" "Re: RE: starship-design: The Case for Space" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil "starship-design: The Case for Space" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2372 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA10112 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 20:03:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo12.mx.aol.com (imo12.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.2]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA10106 for ; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 20:03:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo12.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id zQWUa09316 (4420) for ; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 23:02:29 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <0.bd16f14f.253944c5@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 56 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: The Case for Space Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 23:02:29 EDT In a message dated 10/14/99 6:42:32 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net writes: >> It seems to me that you all think in this thread only in terms of > >> "what profit space operations can bring to people living on Earth". > >> Generally I must say it is a wrong perspective - space operations > >> will be mostly directed at, and bring profits (and sustenance) > >> to people living OFF EARTH. Because the real rationale for > >> going massively into space is to install a self-sustaining > >> populations of people living out of Earth. And it is not > >> the matter of profit or building a comfortable paradise > >> for growing amounts of people on Earth, but the matter of survival. > >> Because, as I wrote recently in a discussion with one > >> environmentalist > >> (specifically, a leader of an anti-cassini group): > >> > > > >Ahh, but that was the point of the thread, what good might space do for >the > >planet, not what good it might do for space. I do not deny that it will >do > >as much or more for the 3 billion humans I expect will be living off planet > >in the next fifty years or so. In fact, I personally would prefer to look >at > >in those terms. However, the case must be made for the benefit of the meek, > >who shall remain behind... 3 BILLION folks off planet in 50 years!!! Are you on any medication. > >> > The only chance to prevent an ultimate disaster of this kind > >> > is to spread humankind, and the earthly life as a whole, > >> > to other places except Earth - that is, to other planets, > >> > and colonies in space. This is indeed a very difficult, > >> > and a very risky business - lots of people will perish in > >> the course > >> > of conquering space, but the mankind, and the rest of earthly life, > >> > will get a chance to survive thanks to their noble sacrifice. > >> > It is our obligation, as the most conscious and able > >> species of life > >> > on Earth, to spread life elsewhere in the universe and in this way > >> > to prevent its extinction in some catastrophic accident that may > >> > happen to Earth. > > > >Ignoring the incredible hubris, I agree. There is of course an ethical > >question here of whether we have the right to spread (read infest) the >rest > >of space with our particular form of life, but based on current evidence, >we > >may be the ONLY life... Infest!! What's with this!! >Lee Kelly From VM Mon Oct 18 10:06:52 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1600" "Friday" "15" "October" "1999" "21:57:13" "+0000" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "39" "Re: starship-design: The Case for Space" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil "starship-design: The Case for Space" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1600 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA19264 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 20:53:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA19257 for ; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 20:53:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (bfranchuk@dialin60.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.60]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id VAA05172 for ; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 21:53:26 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <3807A339.2B12751F@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.10 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <0.dcc44232.253944ce@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Ben Franchuk From: Ben Franchuk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu" Subject: Re: starship-design: The Case for Space Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 21:57:13 +0000 > As to time periods a big factor is when does a place become a preferred home? > When will a filth rich space worker prefer to stay and raise a family on a > O'Neil rather then go back to Earth (on Luna or Mars he/she couldn't). > All the filthy rich investors stay at home, with everything run by nano-tech what workers would you have? > With nano-tech space industry may have the legs shot out from under them. > Why worry about cheap high grade ore, if you can process anything and get > pure materials? Why worry as much about cheap power it power plants can grow > from nanotech seeds? Zero-G manufacture is a joke if you can assemble to the > atomic scale down here. Investment funds to space stations and platforms > would be diverted to the more profitable and promising nanotech development > projects. Same way space development funds ae now being draw off by internet > projects. > Why does everybody think nano-tech is the be-all and end all of our problems? A person in the 3rd world is not going to need a tv-computer-datalink-T-shirt he just wants a phone for the whole vilage. What resources are there in space? LEO does not count as the raw materials are still from earth? moon mars. oil nope. nope land less more metals some more low g industry more less solar more less Ben. -- "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." Einstein "We do not inherit our time on this planet from our parents... We borrow it from our children." "Autodynamics - Physics for the next millennium." www.autodynamics.org From VM Mon Oct 18 10:06:52 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["304" "Saturday" "16" "October" "1999" "07:12:31" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "14" "RE: starship-design: The Case for Space" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil "starship-design: The Case for Space" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 304 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA23627 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 16 Oct 1999 05:24:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA23622 for ; Sat, 16 Oct 1999 05:24:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from broadsword (p451.gnt.com [204.49.91.67]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id HAA04468; Sat, 16 Oct 1999 07:24:50 -0500 Message-ID: <001f01bf17d1$6d5bce00$0401a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-reply-to: <3807A339.2B12751F@jetnet.ab.ca> Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Ben Franchuk'" , Subject: RE: starship-design: The Case for Space Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 07:12:31 -0500 > What resources are there in space? > LEO does not count as the raw materials > are still from earth? > > Asteroids Moon Mars. > oil more more more > land more more more > metals more more more > low g industry more more more > solar more more more > Lee From VM Mon Oct 18 10:06:52 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1355" "Saturday" "16" "October" "1999" "08:24:00" "+0000" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "38" "starship-design: Raw Facts." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil "starship-design: Raw Facts." nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1355 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA07761 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 16 Oct 1999 07:20:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA07754 for ; Sat, 16 Oct 1999 07:20:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (bfranchuk@dialin57.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.57]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id IAA18046 for ; Sat, 16 Oct 1999 08:20:10 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <38083620.10C62656@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.10 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <001f01bf17d1$6d5bce00$0401a8c0@broadsword> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Ben Franchuk From: Ben Franchuk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu" Subject: starship-design: Raw Facts. Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 08:24:00 +0000 > > Asteroids Moon Mars. > > oil more more more > > land more more more > > metals more more more > > low g industry more more more > > solar more more more > > > > Lee Oil - organic sludge made heated in the crust of a planet. Carbon & hydrogen together is rare. H & CO2 would be burned off on the inner planets atmospheres. Mars has CO2 but not much H. No life on near by planets and moons. Heavy metals are fewer on the moon,because it was formed from the lighter elements of the earths crust, when it was formed. Any heavy stuff would be at the core. Solar energy is 1/4 that of earth on Mars and 1/16 in the Asteroids. Much of the metals on earth are concentrated because of Organic processes or transport by water. Other than a few iron-nickel planetods you would have to sift through a lot of rock, for metals. Only a processing ship about that on the TV show "RED DWARF" would be practical. These are the facts as I see them. Ben -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." Einstein "We do not inherit our time on this planet from our parents... We borrow it from our children." "Autodynamics - Physics for the next millennium." www.autodynamics.org From VM Mon Oct 18 10:06:52 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3058" "Saturday" "16" "October" "1999" "17:29:10" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "70" "RE: starship-design: The Case for Space" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil "starship-design: The Case for Space" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3058 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA17739 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 16 Oct 1999 08:28:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.8]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA17734 for ; Sat, 16 Oct 1999 08:28:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id RAA26305; Sat, 16 Oct 1999 17:29:10 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199910161629.RAA26305@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa From: Zenon Kulpa Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl Subject: RE: starship-design: The Case for Space Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 17:29:10 +0100 (MET) > From: "L. Parker" > > > Of course, I did not intend to include you among "equalists" - > > my remark concerned the fragment of the article you quoted. > > And the phrase '"equalists" here' referred to "equalists" in Poland, > > from where I am writing these letters... > > We in America seem to have an even harder problem with > such sentiments these days. Please forgive my vehemenence, > but I do not believe that "equality" as it is currently practiced > here in America, is a "right". There are many peoples in the world > who would give anything for even half the chance we had > when out nation was born. Most Americans truly do not appreciate > what they have and at what cost it was bought. > If that tendency will persist, these people in the world will be forced to look in another direction. Say, at some space colony on Mars or somewhere... > > Sorry for that - I am personally quite down-to-earth in everyday life, > > hence sometimes I must compensate with a few ;-) "great words"... > > Anyway, the activist with whom I have argued also used such > > words for his case, so I tried to outspoken him...;-) > > That is okay, but there is the terrible homo sapiens uber alles attitude > that seems to pervade our society... > Ehmmm, terrible? See below... > > And what else that particular form of life had been doing > > through all that three or so billion years before? > > The very existence of life fundamentally requires, > > and is a result of, that ability to spread/infest, > > hence there is no ethical question involved here, I think. > > > > > but based on current evidence, we may be the ONLY life... > > > > But even if we were not the only life, so what? > > There is no other, ethical or not, way to decide > > which form should spread to/infest other places > > except direct competition in spreading/infesting... > > So even though we are conscious of the fact, we should subscribe to > Darwinism as an inviolable rule? Mind you, I am not taking sides, > but I think that perhaps a little introspection may be called for > before we cast our seed across the universe. > Sentiments aside, the facts of life are that the decision against casting our seed across the universe is exactly equivalent to the decision to cease our existence, sooner or later. Please do not blame the poor Darwin... We exist only because of that "terrible attitude", so "politically incorrect" nowadays. If we lose it permanently, we are doomed. No mountains of introspection will help. [...] > The current corporate paradigm that now > drives society on Earth cannot help but to persist even off-planet > for at least a little while, perhaps longer. > > So for the near future at least, I see the status quo, business decisions > will drive the development of space and little else. After that, well, who > knows? Perhaps more business, perhaps change, but for the next fifty > years, I think we will still be in what you call the transitory phase. > OK, you are probably right here. -- Zenon From VM Mon Oct 18 10:06:52 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["4861" "Saturday" "16" "October" "1999" "17:41:37" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "107" "Re: starship-design: The Case for Space" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil "starship-design: The Case for Space" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 4861 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA19639 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 16 Oct 1999 08:41:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.8]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA19634 for ; Sat, 16 Oct 1999 08:41:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id RAA26318; Sat, 16 Oct 1999 17:41:37 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199910161641.RAA26318@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa From: Zenon Kulpa Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl Subject: Re: starship-design: The Case for Space Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 17:41:37 +0100 (MET) > From: KellySt@aol.com > > In a message dated 10/15/99 9:17:18 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl writes: > > >> From: KellySt@aol.com > >> > >> In a message dated 10/14/99 11:00:20 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl writes > >> >It seems to me that you all think in this thread only in terms of > >> >"what profit space operations can bring to people living on Earth". > >> >Generally I must say it is a wrong perspective - space operations > >> >will be mostly directed at, and bring profits (and sustenance) > >> >to people living OFF EARTH. Because the real rationale for > >> >going massively into space is to install a self-sustaining > >> >populations of people living out of Earth. And it is not > >> >the matter of profit or building a comfortable paradise > >> >for growing amounts of people on Earth, but the matter of survival. > >> >Because, as I wrote recently in a discussion with one environmentalist > >> > >> Here we disagree. No one will build space colony, to build space colonies; > >> and it will take generations - to centuries for them to develop a really > >> autonomous economy. Cities and settlements are built for profit of > >> the builders. If they fail that measure, they become ghost towns. > >> We have many current Ghost towns / former idealistic colony. > >> in this country. > >> > >Generally you are right, but not exactly. > >Towns become ghost because there are other, comparatively near > >places where the inhabitants can go for better living, > >whatever that means. When the move is hard or costly, > >it may be more reasonable to stay and work hard to built > >a better place just here instead. > > Over here even places that were very isolated were abandoned. Once you > packed up to move somewhere, its pretty easy to do it again. > If we speak of space, it is all okay if some colony in Valles Marineris packs and moves to Tharsis Ridge (or even to Ganymede...) ;-) > >Also, you should distinguish the case when the builders > >wanting the profit stay back home and transfer the profits > >form the colony back too, and the case when the builders > >stay in the built colony and eventual profits remain there too. > >Colonization usually starts from the first type of a colony, > >but soon - especially when the colonized land is far away from home - > >the second type starts to prevail and shortly after that > >the colony becomes more or less self-sustainable and > >(economically) independent. > > The later only happens after the colony gets big an diverse enough > to absorb the interest and money. That doesn't happen to most places > unless they have a huge long term cash flow and are a place people > want to stay at, in space it could take a very long time. > Possibly, but in space there might be other factors that may change that - see below. > >[...] > >> > > >> >Of course, the way to the really spacefaring civilization > >> >most probably will lead through an earth-bound civilization > >> >profiting from space exploration, but it will be a comparatively > >> >short, transitory phase only. > >> > >> Define short? North America was originally a profit center for Europe > >> for centuries after settling started. > >> > >Things run much faster nowadays... > >For space colonies, it will however depend critically > >on the technology advances, so it is hard to predict. > >However, let me play a seer for a while: > >with nanotechnology - some 50+ years, > >without - 150-200. OK? > >It may be still too conservative, I think - > >for North America it was about 200+ years only... > > As to time periods a big factor is when does a place become > a preferred home? When will a filth rich space worker prefer > to stay and raise a family on a O'Neil rather then go back to Earth > (on Luna or Mars he/she couldn't). > A child raised on the Moon (and possibly on Mars too) cannot probably live back on Earth (gravity...). > With nano-tech space industry may have the legs shot out > from under them. Why worry about cheap high grade ore, > if you can process anything and get pure materials? > Why worry as much about cheap power if power plants can grow > from nanotech seeds? Zero-G manufacture is a joke if you can > assemble to the atomic scale down here. Investment funds > to space stations and platforms would be diverted > to the more profitable and promising nanotech development projects. > Hmmm, you seem to have a point here. I constantly have a hidden fear that it will be nanotech that finally gets mankind rather that other things... However, it will also make the space technology much cheaper, lighter, and more comfortable for humans to live in space, so maybe that side prevails. > Same way space development funds are now being > draw off by internet projects. > Ahh, so I now see the source of the "Space Internet" idea... -- Zenon From VM Mon Oct 18 10:06:52 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2220" "Saturday" "16" "October" "1999" "12:06:12" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "60" "Re: starship-design: The Case for Space" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil "starship-design: The Case for Space" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2220 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA23347 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 16 Oct 1999 09:06:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo13.mx.aol.com (imo13.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA23342 for ; Sat, 16 Oct 1999 09:06:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo13.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id zGYNa11027 (4575) for ; Sat, 16 Oct 1999 12:06:13 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <0.619a2bdd.2539fc74@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 56 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: The Case for Space Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 12:06:12 EDT In a message dated 10/15/99 10:54:14 PM, bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca writes: >> As to time periods a big factor is when does a place become a preferred >home? >> When will a filth rich space worker prefer to stay and raise a family >on a >> O'Neil rather then go back to Earth (on Luna or Mars he/she couldn't). >> > >All the filthy rich investors stay at home, with everything run by >nano-tech what workers would you have? Depends if you need folks there to run the Nano-workers, and folks to support those folks. All industry has the bulk of the real work done by machines. The machines are directed by workers. The workers derected by designers and managers. They work for investors and customers. >> With nano-tech space industry may have the legs shot out from under them. >> Why worry about cheap high grade ore, if you can process anything and >get >> pure materials? Why worry as much about cheap power it power plants >can grow >> from nanotech seeds? Zero-G manufacture is a joke if you can assemble >to the >> atomic scale down here. Investment funds to space stations and platforms >> would be diverted to the more profitable and promising nanotech development >> projects. Same way space development funds are now being draw off by >internet >> projects. >> > >Why does everybody think nano-tech is the be-all and end all of our problems? >A person in the 3rd world is not going to need a tv-computer-datalink-T-shirt >he just wants a phone for the whole vilage. Nano-tech as a technology is as major a step as steam or cybernetics were. As to the third world, they follow us - and obviously only their technically advanced representatives will get involved in space or cutting edge anything. >What resources are there in space? LEO does not count as the raw materials >are still from earth? > > moon mars. >oil nope. nope >land less more >metals some more >low g industry more less >solar more less You forget the asteroids and old comet cores in space itself oil, high purity minerals, zero G, high power solar are all in abundance. You have to build your own land, but their are plenty of minerals to do it with. > >Ben. Kelly From VM Mon Oct 18 10:06:52 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1678" "Saturday" "16" "October" "1999" "12:06:10" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "56" "Re: starship-design: Raw Facts." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil "starship-design: Raw Facts." nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1678 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA23331 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 16 Oct 1999 09:06:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo11.mx.aol.com (imo11.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA23326 for ; Sat, 16 Oct 1999 09:06:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo11.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id zAHNa05338 (4575) for ; Sat, 16 Oct 1999 12:06:11 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <0.33367321.2539fc72@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 56 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Raw Facts. Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 12:06:10 EDT In a message dated 10/16/99 9:20:41 AM, bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca writes: >> > Asteroids Moon Mars. >> > oil more more more >> > land more more more >> > metals more more more >> > low g industry more more more >> > solar more more more >> > >> >> Lee > >Oil - organic sludge made heated in the crust of a planet. >Carbon & hydrogen together is rare. H & CO2 would be burned off on the >inner >planets >atmospheres. Mars has CO2 but not much H. Asteroids and comet cores are rich in carbon. Near Earth comet cores are about 1/3rd oil by weight! You could get picky and call it a hydrocarbon sludge, which is the more generic term for compounds like oil, but a refinery wouldn't know the difference. > >No life on near by planets and moons. > >Heavy metals are fewer on the moon, because it was formed from the lighter >elements of the earths crust, when it was formed. Any heavy stuff would >be at >the core. But they are far richer in asteroids, even the ones near earth. >Solar energy is 1/4 that of earth on Mars and 1/16 in the Asteroids. You forget that the asteroids extend from inside earth orbit out past Jupiter. MOST of them are out between Mars and Jupiter, but their are vast amounts closer to us, and easier to get to. > >Much of the metals on earth are concentrated because of Organic processes >or transport by water. Other than a few iron-nickel planetoids you would >have to >sift >through a lot of rock, for metals. Only a processing ship about that on >the TV >show >"RED DWARF" would be practical. > >These are the facts as I see them. >Ben Kelly From VM Mon Oct 18 10:06:52 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["640" "Saturday" "16" "October" "1999" "11:54:07" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "22" "RE: starship-design: The Case for Space" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil "starship-design: The Case for Space" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 640 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA02594 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 16 Oct 1999 09:56:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA02588 for ; Sat, 16 Oct 1999 09:56:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from broadsword (p441.gnt.com [204.49.91.57]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id LAA29238; Sat, 16 Oct 1999 11:55:39 -0500 Message-ID: <002201bf17f7$42ace010$0401a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-reply-to: <199910161629.RAA26305@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Zenon Kulpa'" , Subject: RE: starship-design: The Case for Space Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 11:54:07 -0500 Zenon, > If that tendency will persist, these people in the world will > be forced to look in another direction. > Say, at some space colony on Mars or somewhere... I hope so > Sentiments aside, the facts of life are that the decision > against casting our seed across the universe > is exactly equivalent to the decision to cease our existence, > sooner or later. > Please do not blame the poor Darwin... > We exist only because of that "terrible attitude", > so "politically incorrect" nowadays. > If we lose it permanently, we are doomed. > No mountains of introspection will help. That was why I put the at the end! Lee From VM Mon Oct 18 10:06:52 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["4709" "Saturday" "16" "October" "1999" "21:43:26" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "120" "Re: starship-design: The Case for Space" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil "starship-design: The Case for Space" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 4709 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA02119 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 16 Oct 1999 18:44:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo19.mx.aol.com (imo19.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.9]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA02114 for ; Sat, 16 Oct 1999 18:44:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo19.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id zYRJa01793 (4421) for ; Sat, 16 Oct 1999 21:43:27 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <0.d03d620f.253a83be@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 56 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: The Case for Space Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 21:43:26 EDT In a message dated 10/16/99 10:41:50 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl writes: >> From: KellySt@aol.com >> >> In a message dated 10/15/99 9:17:18 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl writes: >> >> >> >>>> >> >> autonomous economy. Cities and settlements are built for profit of >> >> the builders. If they fail that measure, they become ghost towns. >> >> We have many current Ghost towns / former idealistic colony. >> >> in this country. >> >> >> >Generally you are right, but not exactly. >> >Towns become ghost because there are other, comparatively near >> >places where the inhabitants can go for better living, >> >whatever that means. When the move is hard or costly, >> >it may be more reasonable to stay and work hard to built >> >a better place just here instead. >> >> Over here even places that were very isolated were abandoned. Once you > >> packed up to move somewhere, its pretty easy to do it again. >> >If we speak of space, it is all okay if some colony >in Valles Marineris packs and moves to Tharsis Ridge >(or even to Ganymede...) ;-) But then your not talking colonies, as much as mining camps. >> >Also, you should distinguish the case when the builders >> >wanting the profit stay back home and transfer the profits >> >form the colony back too, and the case when the builders >> >stay in the built colony and eventual profits remain there too. >> >Colonization usually starts from the first type of a colony, >> >but soon - especially when the colonized land is far away from home >- >> >the second type starts to prevail and shortly after that >> >the colony becomes more or less self-sustainable and >> >(economically) independent. >> >> The later only happens after the colony gets big an diverse enough >> to absorb the interest and money. That doesn't happen to most places > >> unless they have a huge long term cash flow and are a place people >> want to stay at, in space it could take a very long time. >> >Possibly, but in space there might be other factors that may >change that - see below. Might is a little word to stack up against centuries of history. >> >[...] >> >> > >> >> >Of course, the way to the really spacefaring civilization >> >> >most probably will lead through an earth-bound civilization >> >> >profiting from space exploration, but it will be a comparatively > >> >> >short, transitory phase only. >> >> >> >> Define short? North America was originally a profit center for Europe >> >> for centuries after settling started. >> >> >> >Things run much faster nowadays... >> >For space colonies, it will however depend critically >> >on the technology advances, so it is hard to predict. >> >However, let me play a seer for a while: >> >with nanotechnology - some 50+ years, >> >without - 150-200. OK? >> >It may be still too conservative, I think - >> >for North America it was about 200+ years only... >> >> As to time periods a big factor is when does a place become >> a preferred home? When will a filth rich space worker prefer >> to stay and raise a family on a O'Neil rather then go back to Earth >> (on Luna or Mars he/she couldn't). >> >A child raised on the Moon (and possibly on Mars too) >cannot probably live back on Earth (gravity...). An adult living on the moon and Mars can expect dramatically reduced life expectancy due to declining imune and cardiovascular function due to lower gravity induced stress. A strong reason to discourage staying there long enough to start a colony. Mobile space platforms are sounding better. >> With nano-tech space industry may have the legs shot out >> from under them. Why worry about cheap high grade ore, >> if you can process anything and get pure materials? >> Why worry as much about cheap power if power plants can grow >> from nanotech seeds? Zero-G manufacture is a joke if you can >> assemble to the atomic scale down here. Investment funds >> to space stations and platforms would be diverted >> to the more profitable and promising nanotech development projects. >> >Hmmm, you seem to have a point here. >I constantly have a hidden fear that it will be nanotech >that finally gets mankind rather that other things... >However, it will also make the space technology much cheaper, >lighter, and more comfortable for humans to live in space, >so maybe that side prevails. Get us? We can read that as good or bad. As a tech, its possible capabilities are stagering. Up side we can all become rich, superhuman, and damb near immortal. Downside we could all get killed. >> Same way space development funds are now being >> draw off by internet projects. >> >Ahh, so I now see the source of the "Space Internet" idea... ?? >-- Zenon Kelly From VM Mon Oct 18 10:06:52 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2025" "Sunday" "17" "October" "1999" "00:33:01" "+0000" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "50" "Re: starship-design: Raw Facts." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil "starship-design: Raw Facts." nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2025 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA24102 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 16 Oct 1999 23:29:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA24096 for ; Sat, 16 Oct 1999 23:29:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (bfranchuk@dialin36.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.36]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id AAA01497 for ; Sun, 17 Oct 1999 00:29:05 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <3809193D.825E6BA8@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.10 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <002101bf17f7$415cb960$0401a8c0@broadsword> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Ben Franchuk From: Ben Franchuk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu" Subject: Re: starship-design: Raw Facts. Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 00:33:01 +0000 "L. Parker" wrote: > Wrong. Hydrocarbons up to and including oil have been identified in space > without even a planet attached to them. Current theories of oil deposition > on Earth are now being reviewed in light of this. Probability is very high > that oil is NOT of organic origin after all. > I too have heard theories on that idea as well. Mind you I problems with oil industry thinking we have oil for years to come, so I really don't know who to trust on the origin of oil.No doubt there is a lot of stuff floating up there, but even if you find oil what to do with it, as transportation costs in space are rather high, and planetary stuff has a deep G well to lift out. The plasma drive posted a few weeks back looks very use full but even with that I am guessing a 10% ISP out the potential 60,000 ,( 10,000 ) one would be still hard pressed to earth bound resources. http://peaches.niac.usra.edu/studies/9801/9801Final/SewardFinal.pdf > > You need to do more research on the availability, distribution and processes > for extraction of metals and other material from both the Moon and > asteroids. There is an entire college course on this subject available > on-line for free. > what no url? Right now I know with out a collage degree, transportation costs will be the majority of the costs from space.A lot of stuff is wasted,thrown away or misused on the earth. Space will not be the "CHEAP" answer. I see it being valuable in two ways. 1) It will force more people to learn how fragile our environment and work to save it. 2) It will be alternative place for life to habitat rather than just on the earth. I don't claim to know much on space,and it is hard to get too, but what we do or don't do in space will have a deep impact on humanities future. -- "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." Einstein "We do not inherit our time on this planet from our parents... We borrow it from our children." "Autodynamics - Physics for the next millennium." www.autodynamics.org From VM Mon Oct 18 10:06:52 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["294" "Sunday" "17" "October" "1999" "15:33:55" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "11" "RE: starship-design: The Case for Space" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil "starship-design: The Case for Space" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 294 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA04311 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 17 Oct 1999 13:34:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA04291 for ; Sun, 17 Oct 1999 13:34:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from broadsword (p437.gnt.com [204.49.91.53]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id PAA26563; Sun, 17 Oct 1999 15:34:42 -0500 Message-ID: <002701bf18df$06ace130$0401a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-reply-to: <0.d03d620f.253a83be@aol.com> Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: , Subject: RE: starship-design: The Case for Space Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 15:33:55 -0500 > >If we speak of space, it is all okay if some colony > >in Valles Marineris packs and moves to Tharsis Ridge > >(or even to Ganymede...) ;-) > > But then your not talking colonies, as much as mining camps. The first "colonies" in America were fish camps, followed by mining camps... Lee From VM Mon Oct 18 10:06:52 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3109" "Sunday" "17" "October" "1999" "15:31:10" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "113" "RE: starship-design: Raw Facts." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil "starship-design: Raw Facts." nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3109 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA04308 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 17 Oct 1999 13:34:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA04292 for ; Sun, 17 Oct 1999 13:34:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from broadsword (p437.gnt.com [204.49.91.53]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id PAA26548; Sun, 17 Oct 1999 15:34:35 -0500 Message-ID: <002601bf18df$020997e0$0401a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-reply-to: <3809193D.825E6BA8@jetnet.ab.ca> Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Ben Franchuk'" , "Starship-Design (E-mail)" Subject: RE: starship-design: Raw Facts. Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 15:31:10 -0500 Ben, > I too have heard theories on that idea as well. Mind you I > problems with oil > industry > thinking we have oil for years to come, so I really don't > know who to trust on > the > origin of oil.No doubt there is a lot of stuff floating up > there, but even if > you find oil > what to do with it, as transportation costs in space are > rather high, and > planetary stuff > has a deep G well to lift out. The plasma drive posted a few > weeks back looks > very use full > but even with that I am guessing a 10% ISP out the potential > 60,000 ,( 10,000 ) > one would be > still hard pressed to earth bound resources. Other than as a source of raw chemicals for certain things such as plastics and fertilizers, petroleum and other hydrocarbons are not that big a deal. If we can obtain them (and water) from comets and asteroids, great. If not, well, now we have something to establish a trade pact with! I was simply pointing out your error... > > You need to do more research on the availability, > distribution and processes > > for extraction of metals and other material from both the Moon and > > asteroids. There is an entire college course on this > subject available > > on-line for free. > > > what no url? Gee, must I do everything? Alright, here you go... http://elvis.neep.wisc.edu/~neep602/neep602.html Also you should examine this list and perhaps read John Lewis' book (link below); Suggested Reading: Asteroid Mining http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/usaf/2020/app-r.htm (great background info) http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/usaf/2025/v3c16/v3c16-2.htm (another great source of background info) http://www.1stnetmall.com/finance/spdv/press1btm.html http://www.permanent.com/asteroid.htm http://www.nma.org/LAWMAY2.html http://silcom.com/~manatee/lewis_mining.html (buy the book) Industry and Nano Tech http://www.ae.gatech.edu/research/windtunnel/aclev/asi/NMBprop.html (pay close attention to this one) http://www.islandone.org/MMSG/McKendreeThesis95/PhdRsrchProp.html http://www.tdf.it/english/xplos_1.htm > Right now I know with out a collage degree, transportation > costs will be the > majority of > the costs from space. If you read the above material you will discover that transportation "in space" is cheap. Getting out of Earth's gravity well is expensive. Returning materials to Earth can even be done very inexpensively. A lot of stuff is wasted,thrown away or > misused on the > earth. > Space will not be the "CHEAP" answer. I see it being valuable > in two ways. > 1) It will force more people to learn how fragile our > environment and work to > save it. Nah, most people live their whole lives with blinders on. Space won't change anything for them. > 2) It will be alternative place for life to habitat rather > than just on the > earth. True. > > I don't claim to know much on space,and it is hard to get > too, but what we do or > don't do in space > will have a deep impact on humanities future. Ben, space IS the future... Lee The trouble with predicting the future is that it is very hard. -Yogi Berra From VM Mon Oct 18 10:06:52 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["435" "Sunday" "17" "October" "1999" "16:33:23" "+0000" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "16" "Re: starship-design: Raw Facts." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil "starship-design: Raw Facts." nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 435 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA03421 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 17 Oct 1999 15:29:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA03412 for ; Sun, 17 Oct 1999 15:29:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (bfranchuk@dialin47.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.47]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA28705 for ; Sun, 17 Oct 1999 16:29:22 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <3809FA53.C50A9B8D@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.10 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <002601bf18df$020997e0$0401a8c0@broadsword> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Ben Franchuk From: Ben Franchuk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu" Subject: Re: starship-design: Raw Facts. Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 16:33:23 +0000 "L. Parker" wrote: Thank you for the urls. Today I am too much a vegetable today do a web search for the resources. > Ben, space IS the future... Think the future is more in the lines of Piers Anthnony's "Geodyssey" series. But there is doubt that once we get more than a "token" foothold in space mankind will have made a major step in his development. Ben. "Autodynamics - Physics for the next millennium." www.autodynamics.org From VM Mon Oct 18 10:06:52 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["339" "Sunday" "17" "October" "1999" "16:40:05" "+0000" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "11" "Re: starship-design: Raw Facts. corrected" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil "starship-design: Raw Facts. corrected" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 339 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA05500 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 17 Oct 1999 15:36:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA05492 for ; Sun, 17 Oct 1999 15:36:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (bfranchuk@dialin47.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.47]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA28852 for ; Sun, 17 Oct 1999 16:36:04 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <3809FBE5.1678AB21@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.10 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <002601bf18df$020997e0$0401a8c0@broadsword> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Ben Franchuk From: Ben Franchuk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu" Subject: Re: starship-design: Raw Facts. corrected Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 16:40:05 +0000 "L. Parker" wrote: > Ben, space IS the future... Think the future is more in the lines of Piers Anthnony's "Geodyssey" series. But there is NO doubt that once we get more than a "token" foothold in space mankind will have made a major step in his development. Ben. "Autodynamics - Physics for the next millennium." www.autodynamics.org From VM Mon Oct 18 10:06:52 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2841" "Monday" "18" "October" "1999" "15:50:21" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "76" "Re: starship-design: The Case for Space" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil "starship-design: The Case for Space" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2841 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA29496 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 06:50:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.8]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA28535 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 06:49:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id PAA27717; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 15:50:21 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199910181450.PAA27717@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa From: Zenon Kulpa Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl Subject: Re: starship-design: The Case for Space Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 15:50:21 +0100 (MET) > From: KellySt@aol.com > > In a message dated 10/16/99 10:41:50 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl writes: > > >> From: KellySt@aol.com > >> > >> In a message dated 10/15/99 9:17:18 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl writes: > >> [...] > >> Over here even places that were very isolated were abandoned. Once you > >> packed up to move somewhere, its pretty easy to do it again. > >> > >If we speak of space, it is all okay if some colony > >in Valles Marineris packs up and moves to Tharsis Ridge > >(or even to Ganymede...) ;-) > > But then your not talking colonies, as much as mining camps. > But just such a mining camps have a weird tendency to grow up into big colonies with time... [...] > >> The later only happens after the colony gets big an diverse enough > >> to absorb the interest and money. That doesn't happen to most places > >> unless they have a huge long term cash flow and are a place people > >> want to stay at, in space it could take a very long time. > >> > >Possibly, but in space there might be other factors that may > >change that - see below. > > Might is a little word to stack up against centuries of history. > One example of a particular "might" I have given later on in my letter. [...] > >> With nano-tech space industry may have the legs shot out > >> from under them. Why worry about cheap high grade ore, > >> if you can process anything and get pure materials? > >> Why worry as much about cheap power if power plants can grow > >> from nanotech seeds? Zero-G manufacture is a joke if you can > >> assemble to the atomic scale down here. Investment funds > >> to space stations and platforms would be diverted > >> to the more profitable and promising nanotech development projects. > >> > >Hmmm, you seem to have a point here. > >I constantly have a hidden fear that it will be nanotech > >that finally gets mankind rather that other things... > >However, it will also make the space technology much cheaper, > >lighter, and more comfortable for humans to live in space, > >so maybe that side prevails. > > Get us? We can read that as good or bad. As a tech, its possible > capabilities are stagering. Up side we can all become rich, superhuman, > and damb near immortal. Downside we could all get killed. > I referred to your downside here. > >> Same way space development funds are now being > >> draw off by internet projects. > >> > >Ahh, so I now see the source of the "Space Internet" idea... > > ?? > I am not sure if I remembered the name properly. I refer to the idea expreseed recently (was it by Al Gore, or Dan Goldin?) of setting an interplanetary Internet so that data from future space probes (especially on Mars) can be accessible by everyone online. Looks like trying to divert these funds going to internet projects back to space... ;-) -- Zenon From VM Mon Oct 18 10:06:52 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["887" "Monday" "18" "October" "1999" "15:56:54" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "24" "RE: starship-design: The Case for Space" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil "starship-design: The Case for Space" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 887 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA29986 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 06:56:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.8]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA29948 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 06:56:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id PAA27727; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 15:56:54 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199910181456.PAA27727@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa From: Zenon Kulpa Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl Subject: RE: starship-design: The Case for Space Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 15:56:54 +0100 (MET) > From: "L. Parker" > > > Sentiments aside, the facts of life are that the decision > > against casting our seed across the universe > > is exactly equivalent to the decision to cease our existence, > > sooner or later. > > Please do not blame the poor Darwin... > > We exist only because of that "terrible attitude", > > so "politically incorrect" nowadays. > > If we lose it permanently, we are doomed. > > No mountains of introspection will help. > > That was why I put the at the end! > Sorry, Lee, I must have been in a battle mood then... ;-) The anti-cassinists enraged me particularly, probably in paert because Cassini carries also the apparatus from Poland (a battery of temperature sensors on the Huyghens probe for Titan). Anyway, I like to clarify things out - that sign might have been easily overlooked, not only by me... -- Zenon From VM Mon Oct 18 14:34:56 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["137" "Monday" "18" "October" "1999" "16:15:27" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "9" "RE: starship-design: The Case for Space" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 137 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA20533 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 14:16:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA20493 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 14:16:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from broadsword (p462.gnt.com [204.49.91.78]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id QAA23589; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 16:15:55 -0500 Message-ID: <002e01bf19ad$f2de8850$0401a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-reply-to: <199910181456.PAA27727@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Zenon Kulpa'" , Subject: RE: starship-design: The Case for Space Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 16:15:27 -0500 Zenon, > Anyway, I like to clarify things out - that sign > might have been easily overlooked, not only by me... No problem! Lee From VM Mon Oct 18 16:57:17 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2860" "Monday" "18" "October" "1999" "19:33:59" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "73" "Re: starship-design: Raw Facts." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2860 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA19381 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 16:35:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo13.mx.aol.com (imo13.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA19370 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 16:35:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo13.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id zJMPa10996 (4417); Mon, 18 Oct 1999 19:33:59 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <0.604fe244.253d0867@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 56 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Raw Facts. Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 19:33:59 EDT In a message dated 10/17/99 1:29:52 AM, bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca writes: >"L. Parker" wrote: > >> Wrong. Hydrocarbons up to and including oil have been identified in space >> without even a planet attached to them. Current theories of oil deposition >> on Earth are now being reviewed in light of this. Probability is very >high >> that oil is NOT of organic origin after all. >> Its more correct to say not ALL oil is the remains of a biosphere. >I too have heard theories on that idea as well. Mind you I problems with >oil >industry >thinking we have oil for years to come, so I really don't know who to trust >on the origin of oil. Its pretty much a no brainer. How much oil have you found in geological structures of a certain type. How many structures of that type are their on the planet. >No doubt there is a lot of stuff floating up there, but even >if you find oil what to do with it, as transportation costs in space are >rather high, and planetary stuff has a deep G well to lift out. Actually, transport cost in space can be really dirt cheap. Free power, no need to shove cargo at high G. Getting into space can be a real bear! Landing heavy tonnage cheaply is the big issue. I've ran some numbers on it, and given an electric steam boosted lander, with extremely minimal servicing needs (big, dumb, tough, flying wing) could profitably land crude oil. The plasma drive posted a few weeks back >looks very use full >but even with that I am guessing a 10% ISP out the potential 60,000 ,( >10,000 ) >one would be >still hard pressed to earth bound resources. >http://peaches.niac.usra.edu/studies/9801/9801Final/SewardFinal.pdf > >> >> You need to do more research on the availability, distribution and processes >> for extraction of metals and other material from both the Moon and >> asteroids. There is an entire college course on this subject available >> on-line for free. >> > what no url? > >Right now I know with out a collage degree, transportation costs will be >the majority of the costs from space.A lot of stuff is wasted, thrown >away or misused on the earth. >Space will not be the "CHEAP" answer. I see it being valuable in two ways. >1) It will force more people to learn how fragile our environment and work >to save it. >2) It will be alternative place for life to habitat rather than just on >the earth. > >I don't claim to know much on space, and it is hard to get too, but what >we do or don't do in space will have a deep impact on humanities future. Well, its not that hard to get to space. No more so then Australia for example. The big question is why would folks move there rather then many other easier to settle areas of earth. As to the fragile environment. Perhaps if we get good at building completely independent ecospheres, this one won't seem as critical to us? ;) Kelly From VM Mon Oct 18 17:17:04 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1254" "Monday" "18" "October" "1999" "18:01:55" "+0000" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "31" "Re: starship-design: Raw Facts." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1254 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA00551 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 16:58:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA00460 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 16:58:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (bfranchuk@dialin52.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.52]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA28490 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 17:57:54 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <380B6093.E932BF7A@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.10 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <0.604fe244.253d0867@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Ben Franchuk From: Ben Franchuk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu" Subject: Re: starship-design: Raw Facts. Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 18:01:55 +0000 KellySt@aol.com wrote: > > Actually, transport cost in space can be really dirt cheap. Free power, no > need to shove cargo at high G. Getting into space can be a real bear! > Landing heavy tonnage cheaply is the big issue. I've ran some numbers on it, > and given an electric steam boosted lander, with extremely minimal servicing > needs (big, dumb, tough, flying wing) could profitably land crude oil. > But unless you come up with a better ISP on your boosters from earth you will never get your lander up into space. And environmental people would have your hide if your super-tanker crashed. > > Well, its not that hard to get to space. No more so then Australia for > example. The big question is why would folks move there rather then many > other easier to settle areas of earth. As to the fragile environment. > Perhaps if we get good at building completely independent ecospheres, this > one won't seem as critical to us? ;) > > Kelly I think the $200,000 a lb is the factor. -- "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." Einstein "We do not inherit our time on this planet from our parents... We borrow it from our children." "Autodynamics - Physics for the next millennium." www.autodynamics.org From VM Tue Oct 19 10:07:19 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["405" "Monday" "18" "October" "1999" "21:56:44" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "14" "Re: RE: starship-design: Raw Facts." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 405 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA16210 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 18:57:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo20.mx.aol.com (imo20.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA16196 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 18:57:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo20.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id zINUa14284 (4574) for ; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 21:56:44 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <0.740fd7f2.253d29dc@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 56 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: Raw Facts. Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 21:56:44 EDT In a message dated 10/17/99 3:35:28 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net writes: >If you read the above material you will discover that transportation "in >space" is cheap. Getting out of Earth's gravity well is expensive. Returning >materials to Earth can even be done very inexpensively. > > ?? I read them all and don't remember a cheap landing concept! I need one for something I'm working on too. Kelly From VM Tue Oct 19 10:07:19 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1033" "Monday" "18" "October" "1999" "21:56:50" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "40" "Re: starship-design: The Case for Space" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1033 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA16326 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 18:57:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo17.mx.aol.com (imo17.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.7]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA16318 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 18:57:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo17.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id zUWAa17081 (4574) for ; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 21:56:51 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <0.304a697c.253d29e2@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 56 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: The Case for Space Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 21:56:50 EDT >> >> >> >If we speak of space, it is all okay if some colony >> >in Valles Marineris packs up and moves to Tharsis Ridge >> >(or even to Ganymede...) ;-) >> >> But then your not talking colonies, as much as mining camps. >> >But just such a mining camps have a weird tendency to grow up >into big colonies with time... Tell it to the oil folk at Alaskas North Slope. >[...] >[...] > >> >> Same way space development funds are now being >> >> draw off by internet projects. >> >> >> >Ahh, so I now see the source of the "Space Internet" idea... >> >> ?? >> >I am not sure if I remembered the name properly. >I refer to the idea expressed recently (was it by Al Gore, >or Dan Goldin?) of setting an interplanetary Internet >so that data from future space probes (especially on Mars) >can be accessible by everyone online. >Looks like trying to divert these funds going to Internet projects >back to space... ;-) Must have been Vice Pres. Al Gore Goldin would know its all been on line for years. > >-- Zenon Kelly From VM Tue Oct 19 15:36:16 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1462" "Tuesday" "19" "October" "1999" "18:33:49" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "44" "Re: starship-design: Raw Facts." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1462 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA00551 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 15:34:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo12.mx.aol.com (imo12.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.2]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA00539 for ; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 15:34:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo12.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id zNOMa09294 (4223) for ; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 18:33:49 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <0.774cd556.253e4bcd@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 56 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Raw Facts. Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 18:33:49 EDT In a message dated 10/18/99 7:00:51 PM, bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca writes: >KellySt@aol.com wrote: >> > >> Actually, transport cost in space can be really dirt cheap. Free power, >no >> need to shove cargo at high G. Getting into space can be a real bear! >> Landing heavy tonnage cheaply is the big issue. I've ran some numbers >on it, >> and given an electric steam boosted lander, with extremely minimal servicing >> needs (big, dumb, tough, flying wing) could profitably land crude oil. >> > >But unless you come up with a better ISP on your boosters from earth >you will never get your lander up into space. And environmental people >would >have your hide if your super-tanker crashed. Not really. A high temp electrically heated steam rocket would do it. Course you need to produce or beam the power to the ship. Environmental people are always a pain. If they were clever they would look at the bright side that theirs less drilling and shipment on earth. Third world would have a fit of course. >> Well, its not that hard to get to space. No more so then Australia for >> example. The big question is why would folks move there rather then >many >> other easier to settle areas of earth. As to the fragile environment. >> Perhaps if we get good at building completely independent ecospheres, >this >> one won't seem as critical to us? ;) >> >> Kelly > >I think the $200,000 a LB is the factor. Ha? $200 K /pound for what? Kelly From VM Mon Oct 25 09:43:55 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["227" "Sunday" "24" "October" "1999" "11:56:44" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "14" "starship-design: Re: Lunar Institute of Technology" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil "starship-design: Re: Lunar Institute of Technology" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 227 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA18762 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 24 Oct 1999 08:57:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo21.mx.aol.com (imo21.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.65]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA18757 for ; Sun, 24 Oct 1999 08:57:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo21.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id 8GXZa29634 (4004); Sun, 24 Oct 1999 11:56:45 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <0.423c4b34.2544863c@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 56 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: a2z1@bigfoot.com, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: Lunar Institute of Technology Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 11:56:44 EDT In a message dated 10/23/99 12:15:53 PM, a2z1@bigfoot.com writes: >aloha > >what is status of the institute? > >tia Not much activity the last couple years. No new ideas among the group, so not much to talk about. Kelly From VM Thu Dec 30 14:49:54 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["831" "Thursday" "30" "December" "1999" "14:48:19" "-0800" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "16" "starship-design: \"warp drive\" in January 2000 _Scientific American_" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 831 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA27274 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 30 Dec 1999 14:48:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from clavin.efn.org (root@clavin.efn.org [206.163.176.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA27269 for ; Thu, 30 Dec 1999 14:48:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [206.163.182.194]) by clavin.efn.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA26967 for ; Thu, 30 Dec 1999 14:48:24 -0800 (PST) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA08835; Thu, 30 Dec 1999 14:48:20 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14443.57651.750301.251910@tzadkiel.efn.org> X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 21.1 (patch 8) "Bryce Canyon" XEmacs Lucid Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: "warp drive" in January 2000 _Scientific American_ Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 14:48:19 -0800 (PST) The January 2000 issue of _Scientific American_ has an article on negative energy and its potential applications to FTL travel and time travel. Of course, as usual, the problem is that theoretically a large amount of negative energy could be used to accomplish either of those things, but quantum physics makes it essentially impossible to create and hold on to any large quantity of negative energy. The article is quite informative and includes recent results like the improved "warp bubble" that requires much less negative energy than Alcubierre's original theoretical construct. Although the article is not currently available on the sciam.com web site, there is a shorter item about why superluminal travel is not directly prohibited by general relativity: http://www.sciam.com/askexpert/physics/physics57/physics57.html