Re: Mars colonization versus Stanford Torus
- From: "Brad Guth" <ieisbradguth@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 30 Mar 2006 15:46:25 -0800
G. L. Bradford; Stanford Torus near Earth in orbit of an L-pointWhy not focus upon utilizing the best and nearest do-everything
is all up front in two to three decades
location of a nifty station-keeping sweet-spot in town; that location
being our extremely nearby LL-1 which seems like a perfectly good and
relatively safe spot for your "Stanford Torus", whereas volume, shape
and mass are of anything you'd care to make them, and in addition to
clean solar energy you'd also have unlimited terajoules worth of tether
dipole energy to burn.
We're talking of residing this massive sucker at 58,000 and some odd km
away from the moon (possibly 60,000 km), and all the rest of the
package becomes a done deal. Upon average, that's parked roughly
318,000 km from the mostly pagan surface of Earth.
As little as one joule of energy could launch your personal pod or
unlimited tonnage towards the moon or towards Earth. Isn't that the
best ever Isp efficiency or what?
How about for starters we go into establishing a 256 megatonne Torus
unit that'll provide folks with 1e9 m3 of safe abode?
There's no question that establishing life upon or even the prospects
of getting such life safely to/from Mars in the first place is going to
be extremely spendy and downright risky business, as well as decades
down the road that'll take us past if not directly through WW-III,
that's of a nasty terrestrial road that's rather quickly running itself
out of viable fossil fuels, as well as getting itself submerged and/or
washed away due to global warming that's somewhat like having poked at
mother nature with a sharp and badly polluted stick long enough that
she's going postal on us.
I'll argue on behalf of utilizing the mutual gravity-well that's so
extremely nearby and so nicely remaining as interactively situated
between us and our moon, that this location is by far the most
efficient such location for us to transfer whatever tonnage into, and
it's also going to remain by far the most energy efficient zone for
having to station-keep whatever until the lunar side of the tether
element is anchored into that dark, nasty and somewhat salty deck of
our moon, at which time the station-keeping energy demand becomes
almost nonexistent if not representing an energy gain. I don't think
it gets any better than that.
My question is;
Are you and of those you've associated with interested in the R&D
that's LL-1, for the benefit of your Stanford Torus or not?
If so, I have a few thousand questions to ask, plus a few good ideas to
share and share alike.
-
Brad Guth
.
- References:
- Mars colonization versus Stanford Torus
- From: G. L. Bradford
- Mars colonization versus Stanford Torus
- Prev by Date: Re: Why Colonize Space? Because We Are Dealing In Absolutes
- Next by Date: Re: SpaceX armchair quarterbacking
- Previous by thread: Re: Mars colonization versus Stanford Torus
- Next by thread: Re: Mars colonization versus Stanford Torus
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
