Re: Delta Vee Map

On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 21:16:05 -0600, Joe Strout <joe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In article <mfr8e351vdhtftud7b5dfntbl88o1e1mqj@xxxxxxx>,
John Schilling <schillin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

First off, there's that whole "what we *may* do later" part. "May" and
"will" are two different things. If it turns out that we will not in
fact mine the asteroids for material to build orbital habitats, then his
plan is a whole lot of wasted effort that detracts from whatever it is
that we actually are going to do.

Since we're discussing this in sci.space.policy, I'm going to assume
that we all have at least some amount of agreement that ultimately
humanity needs to expand into the solar system.

That would be a foolish assumption. Even here, there are people who
are skeptical about the entire concept. And even among the space
enthusiast community, there are the robotic-exploration proponents
and the Mars or Bust! fanatics; there is not and never has been any
sort of consensus that orbital habitats built using asteroidal materials
are the One True Path.

I'm curious how you suppose we would do that without benefitting from
asteroidal materials.

We might do that by, e.g., going directly to Mars and using only Martian
materials.

Or we might simply not do it at all, content ourselves with sending out
robot probes and watching from our nice, safe, comfortable homes here
on Earth.

If you think we should instead go out into the solar system and build
orbital habitats using asteroidal materials, the *last* thing you need
to be doing, is to assume - even here - that everyone else agrees with
you that this is what we should be doing.

Best to start by figuring out exactly *why* it is that you want to be
doing that, and how to explain to other people who don't already agree
with you that this is what they should want to do too. Really, you
won't find a friendlier audience, nor gentler criticism, for that sort
of thing than right here. Assuming you make the effort, that is.


And if it turns out that we will in fact mine the asteroids for material
to build orbital habitats, well, why exactly would we want to do such a
thing? Is there some actual *benefit* to building orbital habitats, to
justify all the effort and expense?

Of course -- they provide us essentially unlimited living space to
expand into the solar system, with conditions very closely matching
those under which we (and any other species we might want to take with
us) evolved.

Why do we want or need unlimited living space? The human race exists
in limited numbers, currently projected to peak at about ten billion or
so people and slowly decline from there.

And that's not because we only have room for ten billion or so people
here on Earth. Especially if we're assuming people are willing to live
in space-colony-like environments, we could easily fit a hundred billion
people on Earth, and do it better and cheaper than we could in space.

The human race is going to peak at some ten billion people because we
happen to have about six billion people right now, at the point where
most of the three billion female-type people have finally learned to
read and write and whatnot, have thusly figured out that there is more
to life than making babies, and decided that probably one or two babies
is enough, thank you.

So unless you're postulating a mass return to the educational standards
of the ninteenth century, it looks like we've got all the living space
we will need for all the humans that are going to exist in the forseeable
future. With an order of magnitude or so to space.


And the worst thing about that argument is, everyone who has been paying
the least bit of attention has *known* that the whole Lebensraum thing
is nonsense, for at least twenty years. You really need a new shtick.


Because if so, what we should probably do is engage in some subscale
demonstration of the actual beneficial part that justifies the cost.

Such as... a space station? A lunar base? Good ideas. Follow that
with a larger, rotating space station, and a larger lunar base. This is
a very reasonable plan. Was anybody proposing otherwise? Did someone
suggest going directly from ISS to a Stanford Torus?

No; you suggested a whole lot of intermediate steps. We all understood
this.

What you neglected to do, was to explain why *any* of these steps, are
actually *beneficial*. What is it that makes a moon base anything more
than a money sink? Why is a larger rotating space station not just a
bigger money sink, ditto a bigger lunar base, and a Stanford Torus not
the Black Hole of money sinks?

You're trying to justify a series of money sinks by explaining how each
one will teach you how to build an even bigger money sink. That's not
going to work.

So, once again, what is the actual *benefit* of any of this?


If you can find a way to turn a profit, or otherwise demonstrate what
people with actual money will consider a real benefit worth paying
for, today, by doing on a small scale the sort of things you hope to
do on a large scale in an orbital habitat, that's what you should be
doing.

Sure. But also having an eye on future goals is a good thing, not a bad
one. Steering is easier when your eyes are open and looking forward.

Yes, but you have to be looking at the road that actually exists, not
the one you imagine that the rest of us agree *should* exist.

And the bit where anyone here is going to cut you any slack on getting
the facts completely wrong because you've got DREAMS!, well, no.


--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*schillin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx * for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Delta Vee Map
    ... fact mine the asteroids for material to build orbital habitats, ... suppose we would do that without benefitting from asteroidal materials. ... Oh yes, launch costs are too high to seriously develop space, and only ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Delta Vee Map
    ... fact mine the asteroids for material to build orbital habitats, ... asteroids for materials to make orbital habitats", ... Which brings us to the second problem: That cost is just too damn high ...
    (sci.space.policy)
Quantcast