Re: Building L-5 habitats. [was Re: retrieving material from asteroids]
- From: "G. L. Bradford" <glbrad01@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 10:44:06 GMT
"John Savard" <jsavard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4410d168.2338885@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Thu, 9 Mar 2006 12:36:00 -0600, "Mike Combs"
<mikecombs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote, in part:
"Lawrence Gales" <larryg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Pine.WNT.4.63.0603032309430.2100@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Actually, I believe quite the opposite: the use of small Torus shaped
initial colonies and retrievel from asteroids like Nereus, should be
much
cheaper and easier than travel to Mars.
As critical as I am of some of the things Zubrin says, I think he's
successfully demonstrated his contention that one doesn't need enormous
spacecraft to get a small science expedition to Mars.
On the other hand, scientific expeditions and colonization are two
different
things. I certainly differ with those who foresee a future where Mars is
the second home for humanity while at the same time nothing is orbiting
the
Earth save a few largish ISS-type space stations.
Could we colonize Mars with a relatively small number of launches of the
type that would make for "scientific expeditions"? If so, would that be
cheaper than what we would need to do to establish a lunar base to
construct the first O'Neill space habitat?
Mars has a greater diversity of available substances than the Moon, and
a more equable temperature regime. It may have some advantages over
space habitats as a way to quickly and inexpensively establish a
permanent and self-sustaining human presence beyond the Earth. I do
*not* know the answer to this question in detail, but I think it needs
to be closely considered from both sides.
John Savard
The answer for the longer run beyond any initial setup on Mars is
emphatically no! You are forgetting the rear, this world and political,
social, economic, etc., change. You are thinking there would be time and
stability aplenty here on this end to base that end and such goes against
all history and nature. And infrastructure has to be in place at this end.
An in-space based spacefaring or space-maritime infrastructure in place.
You cannot equate Florida, California, Kazakistan, China or India with
15th century Lisbon, Porto, Cadiz, Brest, or Bristol. You can equate them
with inland shallow-river ports such as Paris, St. Louis, Moscow,
Strasbourg, etc. No more than that. To equate space portage to the on ocean
or sea port you have to reach out to the outer edge of the gravity well into
deeper space, the edge of deep space, most particular the Lagrange points'
orbital anchorages for city-state [deep-space] complexes.
In Earth's gravity well, the entire planet is deep inland rather than on
the ocean, the sea, of space. The same with Mars. And only a little less so,
Earth's moon. So you are not talking ocean-sea going vessels plying oceans
(seas) from deep water (deep space) ports. Or being built from them. They
will be in the space construction business among other things. Everything
from space suites to work pods, to custom ordered items and facilities, to
Earth and Moon shuttles, to deep space going ships and space colonies or
space arks. They will be in the space transportation, and space transit,
business. Centered upon it as their very lifeblood. And not being
Earth-centered, not being on Earth, no Nixon could sign it away into
oblivion with one stroke of a pen. Being space centered and mobile, being a
construction complex among so other things, being overall an in-space
cosmopolis capable of accessing the entire world of nations for its
business, needs, and wants, no one nation with higher priorities could do
away with it. It could not be isolated for evacuation of people and
termination.
It could not be isolated from Earth due to war, natural disaster, higher
priorities and end of government funding, or just plain tyranny or an end to
novelty and interest (it would not be "novelity" centered, nor "science"
centered, nor "exploration" centered, in the first place. In very short
order, in-space colonization would not be a puppet at the other end of any
single Earth bound string. Or any number of them. It would be Earth
increasingly dependent upon it for all further opening up -- for all
socio-economic opportunity and wealth "expansion and growth" continuance.
Nothing more than frontier history, Man's history, Life's history, repeating
itself all over again).
As with the ancients (and more recently Peter the Great of Russia), we
need deep water bays, harbors, ports, before we can do anything significant
regarding the sea (the ocean) whatsoever. We need deep space colony ports --
deep space city-state complexes and transit systems -- before we can do
anything significant regarding deep space (including any significant
transiting).
GLB
.
- References:
- Building L-5 habitats. [was Re: retrieving material from asteroids]
- From: H2-PV NOW
- Re: Building L-5 habitats. [was Re: retrieving material from asteroids]
- From: Mike Combs
- Re: Building L-5 habitats. [was Re: retrieving material from asteroids]
- From: Lawrence Gales
- Re: Building L-5 habitats. [was Re: retrieving material from asteroids]
- From: Mike Combs
- Re: Building L-5 habitats. [was Re: retrieving material from asteroids]
- From: John Savard
- Building L-5 habitats. [was Re: retrieving material from asteroids]
- Prev by Date: Re: Small interstellar payloads
- Next by Date: Re: Nasa/faa
- Previous by thread: Re: Building L-5 habitats. [was Re: retrieving material from asteroids]
- Next by thread: Re: Building L-5 habitats. [was Re: retrieving material from asteroids]
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
