Why space colonization never happened as envisioned

Although in the 1950s/60s it seems that space colonization was only a
few decades away (see: sci-fi at the time), even if we had continued
to fund space development through private commercialization, I doubt
we'd be much farther than we are at today. Aside from the dismantling
of the rocket program and the setbacks of the shuttle program and cost
of the space station , I say we still would not be any closer to
having habitable colonies in either earth orbit, on the Moon or Mars.

Why? Simple because there would be no economic basis for doing so by
the private sector. Given the costs of putting material into space
(on the order of thousands of dollars a pound) and assembling it, no
development could be structured such that it would generate a feasable
return. Even if one could replicate a Dennis Tito scenario, that
would just mean the platform would be vanity, not a real, long-term
livable habitat.

The reason why the New World was settled in the 16th/17th century,
aside from explorations for gold, was for governments to establish
outposts for their empires and for desperate and poor settlers to
enjoy a new life away from the European millieu. By international
law, governments cannot make soverign land claims. Space presents
both high costs and a hostile environment that would be impossible for
typical immigrants to afford and have the skill to work in.

The scenario that science fiction often lays out is one from where a
group of astronauts, scientists and engineers are sent into space to
establish a base colony on the Moon/Mars. After a few years of
development the colony expands to accomodate other professions
including miners, traders, et al. Life beings to simulate Earth
communities as the early settlers being to have families on the new
planet/colony. And so the story ends happily.

However, I do not see where such an enterprise could get started in
terms of massive financial support which would run into the hundreds
of billions for at least the first decade if the settlement was going
to be an actual colony and not just an outpost. Moreover, even if it
was backed by a Bill Gates or a trans-government entity I do not see
how the colony makes a return for the investment. It is just a
sinkhole. Using the base as an exotic research center or establishing
mining operations are nice to have but they won't recoup hardly any of
the costs and any eventual breakthroughs would take many years if at
all. Unless colony can discover the fountain of youth drug or Earth
resources are so depleted that it make transplanetary shipping cost
effective, I do not see why any rational business or government would
make such a speculative investment.

For the most part, the business model that drove New World colonies
was that sailing companies would be paid by would be (voluntary)
settlers, either upfront or as a portion of their eventual labor, to
make the journey across the Atlantic ocean. The boats were often
barely seaworthy and passenger safety concerns were not a high
priority, esp. for those who paid in advance. Also the crew were
often composed of former naval men, convicts and other low paid
laborers. This model is replicated today is the cases of Chinese
immigrant smuggling.

However, each of these circumstances which made settling so profitable
for the sailing companies would not exist in colonizing space. Either
they would be impractical or intolerable. The space vehicle would
have to be custom built to exacting specifications of tolerance and
performance. The crew would be drawn from the NASA's best. If the
settlers were to be scientists and engineers, they obviously could not
afford to pay the cost there, nor bring their families. And they
would not have any means of earning any money once they landed.

So, I do not see how even the most promising developments that could
have occured since the first Moon landed would have overcome these
impediments.

Ciao.

On 1 Sep 2003 20:43:14 -0700, in a place far, far away,
(garfangle) made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

Although in the 1950s/60s it seems that space colonization was only a
few decades away (see: sci-fi at the time), even if we had continued
to fund space development through private commercialization, I doubt
we'd be much farther than we are at today. Aside from the dismantling
of the rocket program and the setbacks of the shuttle program and cost
of the space station , I say we still would not be any closer to
having habitable colonies in either earth orbit, on the Moon or Mars.

Why? Simple because there would be no economic basis for doing so by
the private sector. Given the costs of putting material into space
(on the order of thousands of dollars a pound)

There is no intrinsic reason for costs to be this high.

rest of irrelevant analysis, based on flawed premise, snipped

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

G EddieA95 wrote:
Without habitable planets to go to, space becomes a route without destinations.
Putting up a trillion-dollar coke can for a few hundred people to live in
becomes beside the point.

Not if it makes money. People, *like* being in space. They love zero-g;
they love looking at the earth sweeping past from orbit.

So there is a market.

Sure, it's a tiny market right now, but it's growing. The only problem
is to get the cost down so that the market is bigger; and that's a lot
to do with economies of scale. If we get enough people on a tourism
kick, then the next step is using extraterrestial resources to build the
hotels and stuff.

It sounds crazy but it's cheaper that way- even though the asteroid and
lunar resources are physically much further away, the return of those
resources to earth orbit is still cheaper than launching them from the
earth. Rockets to roll the resources down into earths gravity well and
stabilise them in LEO are tiny- armchair sized rockets; whereas rockets
to launch from earth are multiple stories high.

Mike Combs wrote:
garfangle wrote:

Why? Simple because there would be no economic basis for doing so by
the private sector.

I can see one scenario. If there had not been a sudden resumption of cheap oil
from the Middle East, or alternately if we had turned away from fossil fuels
due to Greenhouse Effect concerns, I think we might have pursued SPS. That
might have lead to use of space resources which might in turn have lead to
permanent habitats in HEO.

It is very hard to imagine the lack of need for SPS or similar in the mid-term
future. Even optimisticly, most fossil fuel reserves will be gone in 30-50
years, and there is a real chance of the production peaking in not more than 10.

I happen to agree with you that one can hardly get from a small,
government-funded base of scientist/explorers to a thriving, economically
viable human community without a pretty compelling economic opportunity
presenting itself in between.


--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

optimisticly, most fossil fuel reserves will be gone in 30-50
years, and there is a real chance of the production peaking in not more than
10.

No, there's lots of coal out there, and using it will still be cheaper than
SPS, tho all the natureworshippers will need to be told to sit down and shut
up.

I agree though, SPS R&D needs to be done *now* so we will have it when we do in
fact need it.

Not if it makes money. People, *like* being in space. They love zero-g;
they love looking at the earth sweeping past from orbit.

So there is a market.

Sure, it's a tiny market right now, but it's growing.

Not fast enough to pay the staggering cost of development of infrastructure,
let alone transporting the human bodies *to* the infrastructure.

I agree that it *will* be there, I'm just not optimistic about the time frame.
It's like trying to set up a cruiseline industry in 1492.

Sander Vesik wrote:

It is very hard to imagine the lack of need for SPS or similar in the mid-term
future. Even optimisticly, most fossil fuel reserves will be gone in 30-50
years, and there is a real chance of the production peaking in not more than 10.

Ground-based sources will likely be cheaper, unless you play the usual game
of assuming that only SPS technology can improve.

Coal will last much longer than 30-50 years, and can be used without
global warming if the CO2 is sequestered by mineral carbonation. This
would also glut the market for metals that could be mined from asteroids,
since olivine and serpentine are loaded with nickel and PGEs.

Paul

This is exactly correct. The limitation to going into space is
economic, not technological - and that may well be the solution to the
Fermi Paradox.



On 1 Sep 2003 20:43:14 -0700, (garfangle) wrote:

Although in the 1950s/60s it seems that space colonization was only a
few decades away (see: sci-fi at the time), even if we had continued
to fund space development through private commercialization, I doubt
we'd be much farther than we are at today. Aside from the dismantling
of the rocket program and the setbacks of the shuttle program and cost
of the space station , I say we still would not be any closer to
having habitable colonies in either earth orbit, on the Moon or Mars.

Why? Simple because there would be no economic basis for doing so by
the private sector. Given the costs of putting material into space
(on the order of thousands of dollars a pound) and assembling it, no
development could be structured such that it would generate a feasable
return. Even if one could replicate a Dennis Tito scenario, that
would just mean the platform would be vanity, not a real, long-term
livable habitat.

The reason why the New World was settled in the 16th/17th century,
aside from explorations for gold, was for governments to establish
outposts for their empires and for desperate and poor settlers to
enjoy a new life away from the European millieu. By international
law, governments cannot make soverign land claims. Space presents
both high costs and a hostile environment that would be impossible for
typical immigrants to afford and have the skill to work in.

The scenario that science fiction often lays out is one from where a
group of astronauts, scientists and engineers are sent into space to
establish a base colony on the Moon/Mars. After a few years of
development the colony expands to accomodate other professions
including miners, traders, et al. Life beings to simulate Earth
communities as the early settlers being to have families on the new
planet/colony. And so the story ends happily.

However, I do not see where such an enterprise could get started in
terms of massive financial support which would run into the hundreds
of billions for at least the first decade if the settlement was going
to be an actual colony and not just an outpost. Moreover, even if it
was backed by a Bill Gates or a trans-government entity I do not see
how the colony makes a return for the investment. It is just a
sinkhole. Using the base as an exotic research center or establishing
mining operations are nice to have but they won't recoup hardly any of
the costs and any eventual breakthroughs would take many years if at
all. Unless colony can discover the fountain of youth drug or Earth
resources are so depleted that it make transplanetary shipping cost
effective, I do not see why any rational business or government would
make such a speculative investment.

For the most part, the business model that drove New World colonies
was that sailing companies would be paid by would be (voluntary)
settlers, either upfront or as a portion of their eventual labor, to
make the journey across the Atlantic ocean. The boats were often
barely seaworthy and passenger safety concerns were not a high
priority, esp. for those who paid in advance. Also the crew were
often composed of former naval men, convicts and other low paid
laborers. This model is replicated today is the cases of Chinese
immigrant smuggling.

However, each of these circumstances which made settling so profitable
for the sailing companies would not exist in colonizing space. Either
they would be impractical or intolerable. The space vehicle would
have to be custom built to exacting specifications of tolerance and
performance. The crew would be drawn from the NASA's best. If the
settlers were to be scientists and engineers, they obviously could not
afford to pay the cost there, nor bring their families. And they
would not have any means of earning any money once they landed.

So, I do not see how even the most promising developments that could
have occured since the first Moon landed would have overcome these
impediments.

Ciao.

"G EddieA95" wrote in message
...
optimisticly, most fossil fuel reserves will be gone in 30-50
years, and there is a real chance of the production peaking in not more
than
10.

No, there's lots of coal out there, and using it will still be cheaper
than
SPS, tho all the natureworshippers will need to be told to sit down and
shut
up.


You're forgetting nuclear as well. There's enough uranium to last at last
150 years if not more. Beyond that, fusion will most likely be a reality.

"Hop David" wrote ...

Mike Combs wrote:
or alternately if we had turned away from fossil fuels
due to Greenhouse Effect concerns,

Don't see the U.S. doing that. Too many Americans _like_ cooking frogs.

And many American companies have more realistic views than
Mr "post ice-age" and Mr "green conspiracy" of this group.