Re: starship-design: Raw Facts.

[KellySt@aol.com]

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