Cost of launch and laws of physics

It can be very cheap, once the infrastructure is in place. It's making
that first step thats hard.

It is very interesting to me that when I dicuss this, the idea that
things will be cheap once the infrastructure is in place comes up.
Thing is, the infrastructure is crushingly expensive to build, and is
unlikely to be built because there isn't an economic motivation to
build it.

Consider if you will the middle of the Sahara desert. Much of what
you suggest for space is true there, too - cheap power from solar
energy, not much in the way of environmental concerns, etc. and it
even comes with its own air. If there was an infrastructure in
place, it would be cheap to live there. But the infrastructure has not
been built, there or in the Aussie Outback, because there is no
economic motivation to do so.

"Christopher James Huff" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(John Ordover) wrote:

And then theres the fact that many people consider it worth doing,
just
for the sake of doing it. Economics aren't the only human motivator.

You know, except for a few mountain-climbing folks, I can't think of a
single example of humans, as a whole, doing anything for non-economic
reasons.

Maybe I should rephrase that. Unless things change in such a way that
small groups of people can accomplish these things or someone with lots
of money decides to fund it, it's going to need to at least pay for
itself. But there are people who would consider it worth doing, even if
doing something else would turn a higher profit.

Pro sports industry.

I've mentioned microgravity manufacturing. Pollution of the environment
is no longer a problem. You have abundant power, an orbital factory
could use solar furnaces and solar panels. In essentially zero gravity,
you can make mixtures that would just separate out on Earth. Exotic
metal alloys, ceramics, composites that would simply be impossible to
produce on Earth. You have a high quality vacuum, vapor deposition of
metals is as simple as heating the metal to be deposited, oxidation
isn't a problem. Solar furnaces can create great amounts of heat, things
can be cooled down to cryogenic temperatures by putting them in shade
and letting them radiate the heat away. With gravity and vibration
isolation, you can grow large, perfect crystals for use in electronics.

I've been hearing this talk since Skylab days, since the filk song
"Home, Home on LaGrange" was popular. No one has come up with
something that is worth so much money it is worth going back and forth
to space to manufacture.



It will be most difficult to start the first one, but I believe it is
possible. After that, it will be much easier to expand, since there will
already be infrastructure to support it. Maybe a separate company will
take a gamble and put some of that infrastructure up there in the hopes
of someone else wanting it...riskier things have been done. I think it's
comparable to the early days of oil drilling and mining: a large
investment with high chance of failure. Lots of people failed, but some
succeeded.

Drilling for oil was a crap shoot, but had a huge, obvious, existing
potential payoff. Space just doesn't have that.




Either that, or a way has to be found to lower the costs by many
orders of magnitude, so that space travel can be done for relatively
trivial reasons.

A space elevator would do that better than anything else. I hope one is
built within my lifetime. Simple, safe, cheap...there's probably some
reason it can't be done.

It can't be done - the materials don't exist, and the political
problems would be huge.

(John Ordover) wrote in message . com...
A space elevator would do that better than anything else. I hope one is
built within my lifetime. Simple, safe, cheap...there's probably some
reason it can't be done.

It can't be done - the materials don't exist, and the political
problems would be huge.

Never say 'Never', John. The materials DO indeed exist; UT-Rice is
running small scale experiments that have yielded ribbons that, while
not having the requiste strength, are pointing in the right direction.
Once you have a ribbon material, the rest is a matter of finance.
What political problems?

~ER

(John Ordover) :

And then theres the fact that many people consider it worth doing, just
for the sake of doing it. Economics aren't the only human motivator.

You know, except for a few mountain-climbing folks, I can't think of a
single example of humans, as a whole, doing anything for non-economic
reasons.

Damn, I must be having delusions again.

I keep thinking that people a

Flying multi-million dollar ballons to fly around the world.

That they build and solo-sail multi-million dollar boats in a number of
dangerous races (Around the world, The Race, The Jules Verne race, The
Clipper Challenge ... etc) just to win a piece to put on thier mantle.

Custom build and fly planes on unusual routes (The twin poles route for
example).

Build multi-million dollar boats and cars to break speed records.

Keep trying to jump from higher and higher heights and are building custom
craft to do it from.

************************************************** ************************

As always you try to limit human behaviour to your limits only. Millions of
people every year spend money on things with no economic return to them (The
entire tourist industry alone is based on that), what is the economic return
on going to a sports event? Or buying a telescope? Bird-watching by those
who are really serious about it costs thousands a year, and the return in
some marks in a little black book.

It is time you open you eyes and look at the real world around you.

Earl Colby Pottinger

--
I make public email sent to me! Hydrogen Peroxide Rockets, OpenBeos,
SerialTransfer 3.0, RAMDISK, BoatBuilding, DIY TabletPC. What happened to
the time? http://webhome.idirect.com/~earlcp
--
I make public email sent to me! Hydrogen Peroxide Rockets, OpenBeos,
SerialTransfer 3.0, RAMDISK, BoatBuilding, DIY TabletPC. What happened to
the time? http://webhome.idirect.com/~earlcp

(John Ordover) :

I've mentioned microgravity manufacturing. Pollution of the environment
is no longer a problem. You have abundant power, an orbital factory
could use solar furnaces and solar panels. In essentially zero gravity,
you can make mixtures that would just separate out on Earth. Exotic
metal alloys, ceramics, composites that would simply be impossible to
produce on Earth. You have a high quality vacuum, vapor deposition of
metals is as simple as heating the metal to be deposited, oxidation
isn't a problem. Solar furnaces can create great amounts of heat, things
can be cooled down to cryogenic temperatures by putting them in shade
and letting them radiate the heat away. With gravity and vibration
isolation, you can grow large, perfect crystals for use in electronics.

I've been hearing this talk since Skylab days, since the filk song
"Home, Home on LaGrange" was popular. No one has come up with
something that is worth so much money it is worth going back and forth
to space to manufacture.

Because NASA built only the ISS instead of also free flying processing units.
Doing ZeroG research is hard if everytime the shuttle docks the station
rings for the next week. Yes I am making it worse than it is but NASA seems
to do everything possible to stop free flyers around the ISS where they could
be monitored and serviced easyly.

On top of this the ISS was to have a crew of 12 (10?) so that most of the
people could do ZeroG research, now with a cut-back crew of three, the crew
spends most of thier time doing maintenance. Thus we need more people in
space to get the research done.

So as long as NASA is the main way to get people into space don't expect
much. As soon as other craft start to fly expect a big up swing in ZeroG
research if only to fine out if the claims are true or not.

Earl Colby Pottinger

--
I make public email sent to me! Hydrogen Peroxide Rockets, OpenBeos,
SerialTransfer 3.0, RAMDISK, BoatBuilding, DIY TabletPC. What happened to
the time? http://webhome.idirect.com/~earlcp

We probably will have fusion eventually, and I don't think it's too
far-fetched that the moon will be the best source. It's quite rare on
Earth.

Sorry, let me put it another way - if you have to go back and forth
to the Moon to get fuel for your reactor, then the chances of you
being able to compete with standard power generating tech are
vanishingly small.

In article ,
"johnhare" wrote:

Maybe I should rephrase that. Unless things change in such a way that
small groups of people can accomplish these things or someone with lots
of money decides to fund it, it's going to need to at least pay for
itself. But there are people who would consider it worth doing, even if
doing something else would turn a higher profit.

Pro sports industry.

That a counterexample? Lots of people doing stuff that's completely
useless for the many millions of dollars they get in return... ;-)

For an example, look at the people trying for suborbital craft. Or
people who try to set other records. Rutan's Voyager flight around the
world. Archeologists. Some of these people are quite well organized and
funded, and do things for personal rewards rather than monetary ones.

--
Christopher James Huff
http://home.earthlink.net/~cjameshuff/
POV-Ray TAG:
http://tag.povray.org/

In article ,
(John Ordover) wrote:

Sorry, let me put it another way - if you have to go back and forth
to the Moon to get fuel for your reactor, then the chances of you
being able to compete with standard power generating tech are
vanishingly small.

Well...the production method I'm comparing it to is fission. Assuming
the costs of the plants themselves are about the same per megawatt
generated, and then taking into account the costs of securing and
storing hot waste, does it look any better?

And the fact that I'm talking about fusion and going off-planet for 3-He
should indicate that I don't expect this any time soon. I'm hoping for
some reductions in launch costs and improvements in technology. I just
don't think it's that far-fetched of an idea.

--
Christopher James Huff
http://home.earthlink.net/~cjameshuff/
POV-Ray TAG:
http://tag.povray.org/

In article ,
(John Ordover) wrote:

Not many people would want to live "downwind" of the space elevator,
in case it breaks and falls on them. That's a very large area to have
to clear out.

First, the concepts I've seen have it placed on the coast or on an
island off the coast of Australia. Not very high population density.

And second, if it does break, you get a bunch of ultra-light ribbon
falling from the sky...it'll make a mess, but wouldn't cause much
damage. The proposed material is flexible and has a lot of surface area
for its mass, so it has a very low terminal velocity. If it hit you on
the head, it'd hurt about as much as a piece of paper. Any elevators on
the way up or down either get stranded in the wrong orbit, reenter, or
parachute down. This would be the greatest danger, but not really any
different from a rocket gone off course.

--
Christopher James Huff
http://home.earthlink.net/~cjameshuff/
POV-Ray TAG:
http://tag.povray.org/