Questions about "The High Frontier"

On Oct 12, 7:05 pm, Thomas Womack
wrote:
In article .com,

Johnny1a wrote:
Given the cost of launching every kilogram, _any_ space operation has
to be as unmassive and uncomplicated as we can possibly make it.

I don't really buy an argument that space missions are generally
uncomplicated, for any meaning of uncomplicated that I can think of.

I'm talking about complicated in terms of the mission plan. For
example, if the mission goal is to build SPS, then O'Neil habs are a
huge additional complication that isn't necessary to the primary
goal. If you can carry out your science goals with two orbiters, then
don't send three. And so forth.

The problem with O'Neill's vision is that it piles complicated
luxuries on top of complicated luxuries, for the sake of complicated
luxuries.

On Oct 13, 12:07 am, Pat Flannery wrote:
Mike Combs wrote:

You might perform this experiment: Pick out about 10 friends, family
members, or coworkers. Outline your scenario, and then ask them how many
would pay 100,000 dollars (assuming they had it) to send off an embryo in
this fashion. Then ask them if they would pay 1 million dollars for a
property lot on an Island 1 habitat (along with passage for them and their
spouse).

My prediction: A fair number will say "no" to either scenario, but there
will be a big difference between those saying yes to the second scenario vs.
the first. That may provide a clue to which is most likely to come about.

Then ask them if they would spend 100,000 dollars on a really choice
beachfront condo in Belize...I'll bet you will get some takers on that
last one, because living in a really choice beachfront condo in Belize
is going to be a lot more fun than living in a space habitat.

That might well not be true forever, in the further future
environments as pleasant as any on Earth may well be possible. But in
the near-term future that's unquestionably true.

Johnny1a wrote:
I'm talking about complicated in terms of the mission plan. For
example, if the mission goal is to build SPS, then O'Neil habs are a
huge additional complication that isn't necessary to the primary
goal. If you can carry out your science goals with two orbiters, then
don't send three. And so forth.


Given the rate that computers and robotics are advancing and the likely
time frame of its completion (25-50 years from now), I can see the SPS
constellation being assembled and serviced entirely roboticly from
Earth-launched prefab parts, sort of a giant Lego kit project in the sky.
The use of mirrors to shine sunlight on a high temperature solar array
cuts costs over the many square mile sheets of solar cells, and by using
the circular mirrors shown in this artist's concept:
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Co...11a.hlarge.jpg
One could stack all the mirrors one atop the other for launch and have
them deploy via a inflatable structure, such as is used for some
military sigint satellites.
I think that's the sort of structure the artist's concept is intended to
show.
Certainly, if you can take people out of the whole assembly process you
have greatly simplified things as far as what you need to do in orbit -
no living quarters, food, life support, or radiation shielding needed.
I'm willing to bet if this gets done, that's how it gets done; rather
than orbiting habitats and lunar bases.

Pat

Johnny1a wrote:

That might well not be true forever, in the further future
environments as pleasant as any on Earth may well be possible. But in
the near-term future that's unquestionably true.



I think the first generation ones would be a lot like living at that
Antarctic science station I mentioned; you'd do it for pay, but not
voluntarily by choice.

Pat

John Savard skreiv:

On the overcrowded Earth of 2100, living space is at a premium.

Unbelievably unlikely. Current estimates show population topping out
around 10 billion in aproximately 50 years.

This cannot be allowed to get worse, and must be reversed. This necessity has
led to only one married couple out of 100 being issued a permit to have
one child.

From "unbelievably unlikely" to flat out silly.

Obviously, if average living-age is constant, then the steady-state is 2
children pro woman. If lifespan grows, as seems likely, the steady-state
will be somewhat under 2 children for each woman.

0.01 child/woman, as you suggest, would lead to the population being cut
by two orders of magnitude inside of one human lifespan. You'd end up
with literally 99.5% of the population being over 50 after 50 years of that.


Eivind Kjørstad

On Oct 12, 3:07 pm, (Damien Sullivan) wrote:
Which probably can be built, but probably don't actually need an O'Neill
colony to do.

My apologies; I should have said "probably _won't_ be built".

Well, it depends who's paying, and how expensive it is for them. If
we're talking investment by groundside capital, it's hard to find a
reason. If we're talking a dekabillionaire wanting to build his own
world, utterly free of intrusion by the hoi polloi, it makes tons of
sense.

But that's not "saving the human species", that's "isolating myself
from the rest of the world". And AFAIK, billionaires-plus can already
do that here on Earth, with time-tested techniques and relatively
cheap technology, rather than spending billions of dollars on R&D,
then billions more on designing an HLLV and launching millions of tons
of materiel into orbit to build a...private wilderness reserve or what-
have-you.

Damien Valentine wrote:
On Oct 12, 3:07 pm, (Damien Sullivan) wrote:

Well, it depends who's paying, and how expensive it is for them. If
we're talking investment by groundside capital, it's hard to find a
reason. If we're talking a dekabillionaire wanting to build his own
world, utterly free of intrusion by the hoi polloi, it makes tons of
sense.

But that's not "saving the human species", that's "isolating myself
from the rest of the world". And AFAIK, billionaires-plus can already

Exactly, which is a much more plausible motivation. Or at least more
commonly indulged in by the wealthy.

do that here on Earth, with time-tested techniques and relatively
cheap technology, rather than spending billions of dollars on R&D,

Sometimes, "relatively cheap" defeats the purpose[4]. "Relatively cheap"
means any old hekamillionaire can do it. A $10 billion[3] orbital mansion
could actually be quite desirable as an ultimate[1] status display, not
imitable by the hoi polloi[2]. Isolation, height... the ultimate
stalking point from which to literally look down on the masses.

[1] For a while.

[2] Anyone with less than $10 billion to spend on a home.

[3] Exact cost not important here.

[4] I just read about mansions with private movie theatres, or separate
swimming pools for the kids and their Solaria-candidate mother, and
someone who insists on a brand new mattress, sheets, and towels waiting
for him in his hotel room.

-xx- Damien X-)

Damien Valentine wrote:
But that's not "saving the human species", that's "isolating myself
from the rest of the world".

That depends on:

- how many people are being isolated from the rest of the world,

- what is going on in the world, and

- how good the isolation is.

Of course, it is certainly *unfair* if the only survivors of some
ecological catasrophe are the billionaires whose excesses brought it
about in the first place. But it would still meet the condition of
continuing the human species. (Of course, the problem here is that
it's likely the billionaires wouldn't really have planned seriously
for long-term isolated survival; a planned colony filled with trained
astronauts is more likely to manage in the long term.)

An Israeli colony on Mars might help to discourage the ambitions that
feed the frenzied minds of terrorists.

John Savard

John Savard schrieb:
On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 20:16:24 +0200, Matthias Warkus
wrote, in part:
Rand Simberg schrieb:

With associated losses.
With modern HVDC links, losses are negligeable, especially since there's
so much solar power to go around.

The loss of (usable) energy is hardly the problem.

The gain of heat, so hard to dissipate when one doesn't have convection
but only radiation to do the work, is the problem.

I think somewhere along you failed to get this is currently about HVDC
transmission *on Earth*.

mawa
--
http://www.prellblog.de

Matthias Warkus wrote:
John Savard schrieb:
On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 20:16:24 +0200, Matthias Warkus
wrote, in part:
Rand Simberg schrieb:

With associated losses.

With modern HVDC links, losses are negligeable, especially since there's
so much solar power to go around.

The loss of (usable) energy is hardly the problem.

The gain of heat, so hard to dissipate when one doesn't have convection
but only radiation to do the work, is the problem.

I think somewhere along you failed to get this is currently about HVDC
transmission *on Earth*.

Ah: I had seen earlier where someone had suggested using a cable to
link together multiple *solar power satellites*, and this was
criticized as impractical, and so it was noted that modern HVDC
techniques on Earth, which reduce electrical transmission losses,
_could also be applied in space_. Perhaps I got the thread tangled up.

John Savard