Johnny1a wrote:
O'Neill's plan called for totally unrealistic space access by the
standards of the 70s, he was assuming not only that the Space Shuttle
would live up to NASA's hype, but that it would do _better_ over time,
and he was assuming radically unrealistic constructions costs at every
stage of the game, including assuming the availability of working
models of technology that just hadn't been proven yet (and much of it
still hasn't been.)


He also assumed the development of huge reusable heavy lift boosters if
the SPS constellation was to be built using Earth-launched materials,
and if it ever is built, that's almost certainly the way it will be
done, rather than going to all the trouble of building the Lunar
infrastructure.
What really makes me a critic, though, is not that O'Neill dreamed
big, I admire that. The problem is that his dreams became so hyped
that they actually became a negative force from a POV of space
exploration and development. Critics used them as 'proof' that the
entire concept of space exploration/exploitation was silliness, empty
pipe dreams, while they raised supporters expectations to levels
guaranteed to be disappointed.


That probably had a lot to do with the enthusiasm shown by the aerospace
industry for the concept; they full-well knew that the thing was wildly
optimistic...but on the offhand chance it would get funded, they were
willing to to play it up as a brilliant idea, because it would make the
Apollo program look like a minor project by comparison.

Pat