A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Only 33 billion for a space colony?? Thats only 15 B-2's!



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 5th 03, 12:41 PM
Tony Rusi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Only 33 billion for a space colony?? Thats only 15 B-2's!

Why hasn't anyone just gone to the bankers? It looks like Space
Colonies can pay for themselves.

Tamara (marian futerman) wrote:

Dear Monart,

Do you have the actual breakdown of how much it will cost to

construct a
habitat for 10,000 people?
Getting there and building one?


For O'Neill's original estimates (as low as $33 billion 1975 dollars),
see his "TESTIMONY BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE SCIENCE AND
APPLICATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY UNITED STATES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES JULY 23, 1975" in the section "Costs and
Payoffs"
http://lifesci3.arc.nasa.gov/SpaceSettlement/CoEvolutionBook/TESTIM.HTML
The site here http://lifesci3.arc.nasa.gov/SpaceSettlement/ is
brim-full of info.

In the 1977 Enclycolopedia Britannica Yearbook of Science and the
Future, the lead article, "Space Colonies" by O'Neill, gave a figure
of
$40 billion 1975 dollars for a habitat housing 10,000 on 750,000
square
meters of land.

As to the cost of "getting there" to build it: I've not seen any
estimates.




Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 19:15:35 -0600
From: Monart Pon
Subject: Costs of an O'Neill Habitat

Suppose that 10,000 families were to pay (in cash or in mortgages) an
average of $1,000,000 each for a home in an O'Neill habitat, then
there
would be $10 billion dollars towards the construction.

Suppose that 2 tourists per month, paying $20 million each, were to
visit the habitat, then there would be $480 million per year towards
the
construction.

Suppose the billions per year spent on tickets for football, baseball,
hockey, wrestling, etc., on burgers, pizzas, doughnuts, gambling,
tobacco, alchohol, cocaine, etc., were instead invested in shares of
an
O'Neill habitat, then...

Suppose the billions were NOT spent on fighting one war or another
every
year, then...

Suppose the billions spent on burning up petroleum as fuel were spent
instead on buying solar power from an O'Neill habitat, then ...

Suppose IBM, Intel, Microsoft, General Foods, Dupont, Exxon,
Johnson&Johnson, General Motor, Ford, etc., were to invest in
subsidiaries in an O'Neill habitat, then ...

Suppose the government were to give up their predatory practices, let
people mind their own businesses and let them keep their own money,
then ...

Add up all those billions and trillions, and there you'd have more
than
enough for several O'Neill habitats.

The issue is not how much it costs or how much people can afford, it's
what people choose, and are allowed to choose, to spend their money
on.
  #3  
Old July 6th 03, 01:00 AM
trakar
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Only 33 billion for a space colony?? Thats only 15 B-2's!

On 05 Jul 2003 16:11:01 GMT, "Jorge R. Frank"
wrote:

$33 billion in 1975 dollars equals $95 billion in 2003 dollars.

This is for a "big can" colony, however, I believe the estimates for
the stanford torus colonies would be much less.
  #4  
Old July 6th 03, 02:47 AM
Jorge R. Frank
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Only 33 billion for a space colony?? Thats only 15 B-2's!

trakar wrote in
:

On 05 Jul 2003 16:11:01 GMT, "Jorge R. Frank"
wrote:

$33 billion in 1975 dollars equals $95 billion in 2003 dollars.

This is for a "big can" colony, however, I believe the estimates for
the stanford torus colonies would be much less.


No doubt the 1975 estimates would have been less, I agree. But the
assumptions behind those estimates were deeply flawed.

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.
  #5  
Old July 6th 03, 06:38 AM
TangoMan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Only 33 billion for a space colony?? Thats only 15 B-2's!


"trakar" wrote in message
...
On 05 Jul 2003 16:11:01 GMT, "Jorge R. Frank"
wrote:

$33 billion in 1975 dollars equals $95 billion in 2003 dollars.

This is for a "big can" colony, however, I believe the estimates for
the stanford torus colonies would be much less.



I've seen reports that the cost of ISS has appraoched
$90 Billion. I've seen cost estimates all over the map
for ISS. Does anyone have a definititive number amd a source
they can point me to.

If the ISS did indeed cost $90 billion, then a rethink for
even a Stanford Torus is in order.

TangoMan


  #6  
Old July 6th 03, 07:15 AM
trakar
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Only 33 billion for a space colony?? Thats only 15 B-2's!

On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 05:38:18 GMT, "TangoMan"
wrote:

I've seen reports that the cost of ISS has appraoched
$90 Billion. I've seen cost estimates all over the map
for ISS. Does anyone have a definititive number amd a source
they can point me to.

If the ISS did indeed cost $90 billion, then a rethink for
even a Stanford Torus is in order.


The primary differences here are the methods of construction and
launch technologies. ISS did not truely try to optimize either.
It is hard for me to find any validation in O'neill's original
proposals, but, I'm relatively satisfied that with the proper
approach, a 10K pop orbital colony could be built for a few hundred
billion dollars and about a decade and a half of time. BDBs and mass
launch systems can make a dramatic difference, and a project like this
can more than absorb the costs of developing and implementing both
these and personnel transports within it's budget (infact they are
requisite to meeting the budgetary restrictions). Even using some
cargo varient of the shuttle and once a week launches you'd go way
over budget of money and time without getting anywhere close to
completing a colony.
  #7  
Old July 6th 03, 11:02 AM
John Ordover
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Only 33 billion for a space colony?? Thats only 15 B-2's!

trakar wrote in message . ..
On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 05:38:18 GMT, "TangoMan"
wrote:

I've seen reports that the cost of ISS has appraoched
$90 Billion. I've seen cost estimates all over the map
for ISS. Does anyone have a definititive number amd a source
they can point me to.

If the ISS did indeed cost $90 billion, then a rethink for
even a Stanford Torus is in order.


The primary differences here are the methods of construction and
launch technologies. ISS did not truely try to optimize either.
It is hard for me to find any validation in O'neill's original
proposals, but, I'm relatively satisfied that with the proper
approach, a 10K pop orbital colony could be built for a few hundred
billion dollars and about a decade and a half of time. BDBs and mass
launch systems can make a dramatic difference, and a project like this
can more than absorb the costs of developing and implementing both
these and personnel transports within it's budget (infact they are
requisite to meeting the budgetary restrictions). Even using some
cargo varient of the shuttle and once a week launches you'd go way
over budget of money and time without getting anywhere close to
completing a colony.


Whose few hundred billion are you going to use to build it? How much
does it cost to operate?
  #8  
Old July 6th 03, 12:16 PM
Alex Terrell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Only 33 billion for a space colony?? Thats only 15 B-2's!

These kind of estimates are always wrong.

The only way to do it would be to start smaller, and use that to build
something larger, funded by a major revenue source from Earth, which
could be a combination of Toursism, SSPS, or precious metal export.

Then go through the following stages (give or take) of construction:

1. A "can" station with a crew of 12
2. Multiple cans rotating round a hub to give a crew of 60 in
artificial gravity
3. Expand above to 300 crew
4. A small torus (like a 1/3 model of the Stamford Torus)
5. More of the above - they are fine for workers and hotel guests,
though not yet for colonists
6. A Bernel Sphere - able to take the first true "colonists"
7. O'Niell cylinders

The tricky bit will be to generate revenue with stage 1, or at least
with stage 2, both to start paying back the investment, and to
demonstrate a potentially viable business model.







(Tony Rusi) wrote in message . com...
Why hasn't anyone just gone to the bankers? It looks like Space
Colonies can pay for themselves.

Tamara (marian futerman) wrote:

Dear Monart,

Do you have the actual breakdown of how much it will cost to

construct a
habitat for 10,000 people?
Getting there and building one?


For O'Neill's original estimates (as low as $33 billion 1975 dollars),
see his "TESTIMONY BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE SCIENCE AND
APPLICATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY UNITED STATES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES JULY 23, 1975" in the section "Costs and
Payoffs"
http://lifesci3.arc.nasa.gov/SpaceSettlement/CoEvolutionBook/TESTIM.HTML
The site here http://lifesci3.arc.nasa.gov/SpaceSettlement/ is
brim-full of info.

In the 1977 Enclycolopedia Britannica Yearbook of Science and the
Future, the lead article, "Space Colonies" by O'Neill, gave a figure
of
$40 billion 1975 dollars for a habitat housing 10,000 on 750,000
square
meters of land.

As to the cost of "getting there" to build it: I've not seen any
estimates.




Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 19:15:35 -0600
From: Monart Pon
Subject: Costs of an O'Neill Habitat

Suppose that 10,000 families were to pay (in cash or in mortgages) an
average of $1,000,000 each for a home in an O'Neill habitat, then
there
would be $10 billion dollars towards the construction.

Suppose that 2 tourists per month, paying $20 million each, were to
visit the habitat, then there would be $480 million per year towards
the
construction.

Suppose the billions per year spent on tickets for football, baseball,
hockey, wrestling, etc., on burgers, pizzas, doughnuts, gambling,
tobacco, alchohol, cocaine, etc., were instead invested in shares of
an
O'Neill habitat, then...

Suppose the billions were NOT spent on fighting one war or another
every
year, then...

Suppose the billions spent on burning up petroleum as fuel were spent
instead on buying solar power from an O'Neill habitat, then ...

Suppose IBM, Intel, Microsoft, General Foods, Dupont, Exxon,
Johnson&Johnson, General Motor, Ford, etc., were to invest in
subsidiaries in an O'Neill habitat, then ...

Suppose the government were to give up their predatory practices, let
people mind their own businesses and let them keep their own money,
then ...

Add up all those billions and trillions, and there you'd have more
than
enough for several O'Neill habitats.

The issue is not how much it costs or how much people can afford, it's
what people choose, and are allowed to choose, to spend their money
on.

  #9  
Old July 6th 03, 03:23 PM
Christopher M. Jones
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Only 33 billion for a space colony?? Thats only 15 B-2's!

"Henry Spencer" wrote:
You *just might* be able to attract financing for such a venture once
transport into space is cheap and easy, large-scale infrastructure is
being built, the unknowns of building very large space structures are
largely solved (with the solutions demonstrated at scale in space), and
there is a thriving and rapidly-growing economy out there which is crying
out for an upscale local housing development to convince people to move
there permanently.

You can't get there (quickly) from here. That favorable environment has
to evolve a piece at a time; you can't force-feed confidence to a banker.


I don't see people buying mortgages on unbuilt space colonies
any time soon. But I do think we're about at the stage where
manned spaceflight will be able to pay for itself, and that's
really all you need to get anywhere that can be gotten to.

First, start of with sub-orbital joy rides, fast package
delivery, etc. Then go to orbital tourist flights, then build
a small orbital hotel (which would pretty much just be a
simple station with rather spartan accomodations). Then you're
set up, assuming there is a decent stream of profit, for bigger
space habitats, more robust space operations, etc, scaling up,
eventually, to building permanent living quarters in space.
Even if no one really wanted to live permanently in space, it
would happen eventually anyway. Because people still wan't to
visit, and tourism creates jobs. And where's the best place to
live if you work in orbit? Of course, there are plenty of
people who will want to live permanently in space, but don't
be fooled into thinking they will be the only ones who will end
up doing so.

  #10  
Old July 6th 03, 03:23 PM
Christopher M. Jones
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Only 33 billion for a space colony?? Thats only 15 B-2's!

"TangoMan" wrote:
I've seen reports that the cost of ISS has appraoched
$90 Billion. I've seen cost estimates all over the map
for ISS. Does anyone have a definititive number amd a source
they can point me to.


The major differences are in what you count as an ISS
cost and what you don't. Then, of course, you've got
to count, in an appropriate manner, the development
costs of everything involved. The highest cost
estimates come from two things: first, taking the cost of
all the Shuttle flights that will ever visit ISS and
adding it to the cost of ISS; second, adding in a lot of
the development costs of the ISS systems, the per-flight
development cost of the Shuttle, etc. The lowest cost
estimates come from simply adding up the ISS specific
budget, while ignoring the cost of the Shuttle flights,
etc.


If the ISS did indeed cost $90 billion, then a rethink for
even a Stanford Torus is in order.


Just because a certain amount of money will eventually be
spent, effectively, on ISS, don't think that the same
quantity of money could be allocated for any other use,
even related uses. Even *the exact same use*. Yeah,
congress is weird that way.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
National Space Policy: NSDD-42 (issued on July 4th, 1982) Stuf4 Space Shuttle 150 July 28th 04 07:30 AM
European high technology for the International Space Station Jacques van Oene Space Station 0 May 10th 04 02:40 PM
Clueless pundits (was High-flight rate Medium vs. New Heavy lift launchers) Rand Simberg Space Science Misc 18 February 14th 04 04:28 AM
International Space Station Science - One of NASA's rising stars Jacques van Oene Space Station 0 December 27th 03 02:32 PM
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide Steven S. Pietrobon Space Shuttle 0 September 12th 03 01:37 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:41 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.