|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#191
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#192
|
|||
|
|||
Questions about "The High Frontier"
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. |
#193
|
|||
|
|||
Questions about "The High Frontier"
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 |
#194
|
|||
|
|||
Questions about "The High Frontier"
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 |
#195
|
|||
|
|||
Questions about "The High Frontier"
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 |
#196
|
|||
|
|||
Questions about "The High Frontier"
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. |
#197
|
|||
|
|||
Questions about "The High Frontier"
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-) |
#198
|
|||
|
|||
Questions about "The High Frontier"
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 |
#199
|
|||
|
|||
Questions about "The High Frontier"
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 |
#200
|
|||
|
|||
Questions about "The High Frontier"
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The "experts" strike again... :) :) :) "Direct" version of my "open Service Module" on NSF | gaetanomarano | Policy | 0 | August 17th 07 02:19 PM |
Great News! Boulder High School CWA "panelists" could be infor it! | Starlord | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | June 2nd 07 09:43 PM |
"VideO Madness" "Pulp FictiOn!!!," ...., and "Kill Bill!!!..." | Colonel Jake TM | Misc | 0 | August 26th 06 09:24 PM |
why no true high resolution systems for "jetstream" seeing? | Frank Johnson | Amateur Astronomy | 11 | January 9th 06 05:21 PM |