Questions about "The High Frontier"

Damien Valentine wrote:
...So in other words, there is no justification for a kilometer-scale
O'Neill colony that doesn't involve either kilometer-scale SSPs (which
probably can't be built), or a national ideology based on the so-far-
unheard-of idea of "saving the human species" (which, for some reason,
forbids settling the Moon and Mars, even though to build the O'Neill
in the first place you'd have to have thousands of people on the Moon
already...).\

Forgive me if I sound frustrated.


I don't know where you get "forbids settling the Moon and Mars".

Personally I hope humankind will build habitats on both planetary
surfaces and from asteroids. But I believe the small bodies have a lot
more to offer than the planets.

Our real estate is limited by surface area. Mars and the moon may have
more mass and volume, but the asteroids have far more surface area.

Asteroids are resource rich. Metallic asteroids are thought to have huge
quantities of rich ores that would be hard to find in planetary crusts.
There are also thought to exist many volatile rich asteroids.

Asteroids have shallow gravity wells. This reduces the delta vee needed
to land on and leave an asteroid.

Hop

Mike Combs wrote:

We won't build orbital habitats because someone has forbidden the moon or
Mars. We'll build orbital habitats because there are significant advantages
to them over same-scale habitats built on either the moon or Mars. People
who insist on living on other planetary bodies will find themselves unable
to economically compete with those located in free orbit.


Remember what Sarah Silverman said:
"If we can put a man on the Moon, then we can put a man with AIDS on the
Moon...then someday, we can put everyone with AIDS on the Moon. So who's
with me?"
Listen to Sarah. :-)

Pat

On Oct 15, 5:23 pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
Pat Flannery wrote:

"Director-schmellector... you want to know what those God-Damned Nazis
were like, you watch "Jaws"; that's just what those *******s were like,
sneaking up on you when you weren't looking, and then...dead as hell.
It's no surprise they got a good Jewish kid like Richard Dreyfuss to
warn those goys about that damn thing, but do they take him seriously?
No, of course they don't. They just wait around to get eaten, that's
what they do."

PIMPROTFLOL XD

When you read about what went on in the Arab-Israeli wars, especially
in the days when they had inferior tanks, makes you really respect
them. In an attack on the Golan Heights, staff officers jumped into
immobile tanks that were undergoing maintenance and fought the Syrians
until they died. Incredible stuff, but I prefer my peaceful world of
no-one-wanting-to-kill-me.

Some have said that they should have tried cooperation and coexistence
with the Arabs, but it's quite debatable whether that would have ever
happened. One wonders if the Israelis will also get in on the SPS gig
one of these days. If the Pentagon becomes an SPS customer, then sure
as nuts the Israelis will follow suit.

On Oct 16, 12:07 pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
Mike Combs wrote:

We won't build orbital habitats because someone has forbidden the moon or
Mars. We'll build orbital habitats because there are significant advantages
to them over same-scale habitats built on either the moon or Mars. People
who insist on living on other planetary bodies will find themselves unable
to economically compete with those located in free orbit.

Remember what Sarah Silverman said:
"If we can put a man on the Moon, then we can put a man with AIDS on the
Moon...then someday, we can put everyone with AIDS on the Moon. So who's
with me?"
Listen to Sarah. :-)

Pat

Hmmm...if there was a sequiter in that, I don't quite see it.

Mike Combs wrote:
We won't build orbital habitats because someone has forbidden the moon or
Mars. We'll build orbital habitats because there are significant advantages
to them over same-scale habitats built on either the moon or Mars. People
who insist on living on other planetary bodies will find themselves unable
to economically compete with those located in free orbit.

Yes, asteroids are good sources of mineral resources, and not being in
a gravity well is an advantage.

I think, though, that the Moon and Mars still have a place, because
start-up costs are going to be way lower.

So we get the materials for the first few orbital habitats from the
Moon - because we will need orbital habitats before we can effectively
utilize the asteroids.

And if we want to create an off-Earth human settlement of a reasonable
size, Mars will let us do that before we're ready to start on the
orbital habitat project.

Of course, if only orbital habitats will pay off, and there's no
reason to create an off-Earth human settlement as quickly as possible,
Mars can be skipped. But I don't think a lunar mining base can be,
even if the human crew is kept to a minimum with teleoperation from
lunar orbit.

John Savard

On Oct 16, 4:02 pm, Hop David wrote:

I don't know where you get "forbids settling the Moon and Mars".

Personally I hope humankind will build habitats on both planetary
surfaces and from asteroids. But I believe the small bodies have a lot
more to offer than the planets.

Our real estate is limited by surface area. Mars and the moon may have
more mass and volume, but the asteroids have far more surface area.

Asteroids are resource rich. Metallic asteroids are thought to have huge
quantities of rich ores that would be hard to find in planetary crusts.
There are also thought to exist many volatile rich asteroids.

Asteroids have shallow gravity wells. This reduces the delta vee needed
to land on and leave an asteroid.

Hop

Hmmm, I've been tossing this planets vs. asteroids problem back and
forth in my head for quite a while now.

***Asteroid Pros:
Minimal gravity well, low delta-vee
Near-term prospects
Proximity to Earth
Near-term ability to supply Earth orbit market
Ability to drop asteroid on enemies
Ability to destroy larger dinosaur killer; technology to deflect
asteroids
Rotating space colonies with 1g
Radiation shielding
Nice selection of elements
24 hour a day sunshine
Ion drive access

***Asteroid Cons:
Difficulty in zero-gee manufacturing, operations
Little to "explore" - no rover expiditions, less exciting for public
punters
Nations may not like tame dinosaur killers in orbit (particularly
unstable Lagrange points where they can wander off)
Lunar resources may be near-term competitor
Micrometeorites may damage externals
Lack of cumulative infrastructure (except if towed into orbit)
RADIATORS FOR MANNED HABITATS

***Planet Pros:
Public attraction (whole world to explore / claim)
Fuel readily available (O2, Al on moon, CO2, H2O on Mars; CO2, N2,
some H2O on Venus)
Easy radiation shielding
Ambient gravity (but low)
Aerocapture (Mars, Venus)
Ease of construction (inflatable domes - Mars)
Planetary heat sink - no / few radiators
Justification for large scientific base of operations
Possibility of terraforming
Seen as "safer"
Can access with habitats in cycler orbits (use asteroids?)
Possibility of skyhooks, space elevator
Cumulative infrastructure
"Springboard" access to other planets

***Planet cons
LOW GRAVITY (except Venus) - long-term colonisation may require
drastic measures such as genetic engineering
Secondary radiation from cosmic radiation (except Venus) - heavy ions
plough into dirt, kicking up shower of ionising radiation, dangerous
for suited astronauts
High DeltaV access

I believe planets will be settled first, for the simple reason that
that is where the interest lies. Plans are being drawn up for a
permanent base on the moon, and that foothold creates an array of
options. Supply Earth orbit? You can export fuel and dirt, later on
structural components and solar cells. Develop the moon? Build lunar
hotels (who wants to see an asteroid, anyway?), build telescopes,
farms, factories, whatnot. Support space exploration? Supply fuel for
Mars and asteroid missions, make for a good training ground. It's
always easier to build on what's already there rather than build from
scratch.

Planets might have horrible gravity wells, but once you have advanced
drives that deltaV penalty is peanuts.

On Mars, once you're there, all you need is a big inflatable dome,
some plant seeds, and voila! Earthlike environment. Out in space, you
have to build everything from scratch, and that's where the rub is. An
inflatable hab in space is not habitable like it is on Mars.

You also can't get in a rover for a weekend drinking trip to Olympus
Mons. You're stick, either in a module, an inflatable hab or in rock
tunnels. The only way to go "outside" is in a suit or ship, and you
see the stars and your home rock, or maybe another. Psychologically,
humans are planetary chauvinists. Asteroids will be developed, but
they will serve to develop the planets. Only after planetary colonies
are well established will asteroids habitats be considered.

On Oct 13, 2:44 am, Pat Flannery wrote:
Johnny1awrote:
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.

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.

Pat

Yeah, but it's radically unlikely that computers/robotics will
continue advancing at their current rate for the next 50 years.
Technology tends to advance along an 'S' curve pattern, Moore's Law
won't continue indefinitely, and robotics is actually advancing rather
slowly by comparison with computer processing power (and software
development lags far behind hardware).

The idea of the purely automated exploration of the universe is as
speculative, in its own way, as O'Neil Habs.

Troy wrote:
On Oct 15, 5:23 pm, Pat Flannery wrote:

Pat Flannery wrote:



"Director-schmellector... you want to know what those God-Damned Nazis
were like, you watch "Jaws"; that's just what those *******s were like,
sneaking up on you when you weren't looking, and then...dead as hell.
It's no surprise they got a good Jewish kid like Richard Dreyfuss to
warn those goys about that damn thing, but do they take him seriously?
No, of course they don't. They just wait around to get eaten, that's
what they do."


PIMPROTFLOL XD

When you read about what went on in the Arab-Israeli wars, especially
in the days when they had inferior tanks, makes you really respect
them. In an attack on the Golan Heights, staff officers jumped into
immobile tanks that were undergoing maintenance and fought the Syrians
until they died. Incredible stuff, but I prefer my peaceful world of
no-one-wanting-to-kill-me.


Did you ever read about what happened the first time the Israelis ever
took on the Egyptians?
They needed a way to cut off the Egyptian communication lines, so they
sent their rag-tag piston-engined fighter force to fly in low over the
desert and cut the telegraph wires with their propeller blades. :-D
I have a lot of disagreements with their handling of the Palestinians,
but by Jehovah, does that crew have balls.

Some have said that they should have tried cooperation and coexistence
with the Arabs, but it's quite debatable whether that would have ever
happened. One wonders if the Israelis will also get in on the SPS gig
one of these days. If the Pentagon becomes an SPS customer, then sure
as nuts the Israelis will follow suit.


The horrible thing about it is that one gets the feeling that both the
Israelis and Arabs define themselves not by who they are, but by who
they _aren't_.
In short, the other side.

Pat

Johnny1a wrote:
Remember what Sarah Silverman said:
"If we can put a man on the Moon, then we can put a man with AIDS on the
Moon...then someday, we can put everyone with AIDS on the Moon. So who's
with me?"
Listen to Sarah. :-)

Pat


Hmmm...if there was a sequiter in that, I don't quite see it.


Yeah? Well, I'll bet you never wondered why dogs like licking their
butts so much either.
Catch the show, it's the most dadaist thing since "Get A Life" and
"Police Squad".
In a upcoming episode, Sarah shall pretend she's in love with Black God
to one-up everyone at her class reunion by having the creator of the
universe as her date.
No one has come up with such a completely self-absorbed, egotistical,
unthinking, and unintentionally cruel main character that you love since
Basil Fawlty, Eric Cartman, or the grand old days of Archie Bunker.
And the character is closest to Eric Cartman of all those three...except
Eric does if out of ego and cruelty, whereas her character does it out
of the fact that in her world she and her dog are only things that
exist, and what happens to everyone and everything around her is of no
importance to her whatsoever.
Which makes her character unique.
The that's pretty hard to do nowadays.*
And her songs are as catchy as the common cold; where else in the world
are you going to run into a song with lyrics like these?:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhhQvbXvOHw
This song has to be a major-league underground hit with first graders
everywhere.
Or her tragic song about the dysfunctional life of porn actresses:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQqCAZCMxdI
From her stand-up show "Jesus Is Magic".
And you know the thing about that song is...that's a pretty accurate
description of what a lot of them actually went through, and do to this day.
When you can do something that on the surface of it seems pretty
funny...that's also a accurate description of something very tragic when
you get down to thinking about it, that's a mighty impressive thing to
be able to pull off.
She got fired from "Saturday Night Live" a few years ago, because her
skit ideas were too radical for them...and thank God for small favors,
because that moribund mess of a fossilized institution from the half a
lifetime ago would have stopped her brilliant creativity dead in its
tracks if they had kept her on staff.

*Except, for of course, Prince dropping his name...and taking up a
strange symbol with no pronunciation associated with it. Which AFAIK, is
the first time in the history of humanity someone ever came up with that
idea, since even the God of the Israelites just got coy by dropping the
vowels from His name to leave everyone in the dark as how exactly to
pronounce it.

Pat

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 05:21:36 -0500, in a place far, far away, Pat
Flannery made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:


The horrible thing about it is that one gets the feeling that both the
Israelis and Arabs define themselves not by who they are, but by who
they _aren't_.
In short, the other side.

The only people who "get that feeling" are people who understand
little or nothing about Israelis, or Jewish people.