Author Topic: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup  (Read 112313 times)

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
This is about developing industry in space, not entertaining the masses.

Last I checked their business was space tourism.

Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13463
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11864
  • Likes Given: 11086

Bezos doesn't care.


... and therefore I don't care. If I want a boring slowpoke program to watch I'll follow China... or NASA.

That's mean. But you have a point.  ;D

(mod)
Out on the public internet there's a meme going around. People point out that they've never seen Game of Thrones, or that they don't care to. One of the immediate responses is "why should we care if you've seen it or not?" with the subtext being that it's rather pretentious to think others care at all about whether you care.

Same thing here. Flouncing in to a given thread and announcing that you don't care about the topic isn't helpful. Nor is discussing whether someone else should care or not, except if you can manage to tie it directly into success of the project (and that connection was already suggested and it's tenuous so you're good there)

If you don't care, don't watch the thread. But spare all of us the expressions of disdain. That's not really a request, ok?

Thanks.

PS - removed snark and countersnark comments that followed this one.
« Last Edit: 07/19/2017 04:32 am by Lar »
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48176
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 81677
  • Likes Given: 36941
Eric Berger's write-up of yesterday's Blue Moon reveal focuses on Jeff's bigger picture ambitions:

Quote
Jeff Bezos unveils his sweeping vision for humanity’s future in space
"It's time to go back to the Moon—this time to stay.”

Eric Berger - 5/10/2019, 2:22 AM

[...] We have seen bits and pieces of Bezos' vision to use the resources of space to save Earth and make it a garden for humans before. But this is the first time he has he stitched it together in such a comprehensive and radical narrative, starting with reusable rockets and ending with gargantuan, cylindrical habitats in space where millions of people could live. This was the moment when Bezos finally pulled back the curtain, in totality, to reveal his true ambitions for spaceflight. This is where he would like to see future generations one day live.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/05/jeff-bezos-unveils-his-sweeping-vision-for-humanitys-future-in-space/

Attached Blue Origin pictures come from the article and show various possible O'Neill style cyclindrical habitats for the millions of people Bezos eventually wants to see living in space.

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39215
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 32735
  • Likes Given: 8178
One concern is radiation protection for O'Neil Cylinders. O'Neil claims the air would stop cosmic radiation. A 1600 m diameter cylinder at 50% air pressure would be equivalent to 800 kg/m², compared to 10,000 kg/m² protection we receive on Earth. I don't think this enough, especially for solar bursts. This paper indicates you need 7 metres for polyethylene or water, while you would need 11 metres for regolith.

http://space.nss.org/media/Orbital-Space-Settlement-Radiation-Shielding-Globus.pdf

Perhaps a solution is to make the clear areas with two layers of plexiglass and fill them with water.
« Last Edit: 05/10/2019 11:03 am by Steven Pietrobon »
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline TrevorMonty

One concern is radiation protection for O'Neil Cylinders. O'Neil claims the air would stop cosmic radiation. A 1600 m diameter cylinder at 50% air pressure would be equivalent to 800 kg/m², compared to 10,000 kg/m² protection we receive on Earth. I don't think this enough, especially for solar bursts. This paper indicates you need 7 metres for polyethylene or water, while you would need 11 metres for regolith.

http://space.nss.org/media/Orbital-Space-Settlement-Radiation-Shielding-Globus.pdf

Perhaps a solution is to make the clear areas with two layers of plexiglass and fill them with water.
Rotating that amount of shielding mass requires a lot more structural strength. The other option is place the two counter rotating cylinders inside large stationary shell. Still need lot of shielding material but there is no load on it or shell holding it. 

Offline RonM

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3340
  • Atlanta, Georgia USA
  • Liked: 2231
  • Likes Given: 1584
One concern is radiation protection for O'Neil Cylinders. O'Neil claims the air would stop cosmic radiation. A 1600 m diameter cylinder at 50% air pressure would be equivalent to 800 kg/m², compared to 10,000 kg/m² protection we receive on Earth. I don't think this enough, especially for solar bursts. This paper indicates you need 7 metres for polyethylene or water, while you would need 11 metres for regolith.

http://space.nss.org/media/Orbital-Space-Settlement-Radiation-Shielding-Globus.pdf

Perhaps a solution is to make the clear areas with two layers of plexiglass and fill them with water.
Rotating that amount of shielding mass requires a lot more structural strength. The other option is place the two counter rotating cylinders inside large stationary shell. Still need lot of shielding material but there is no load on it or shell holding it.

Yes, an external non-rotating shield solves the radiation problem. Also makes an excellent Whipple shield to protect from debris. Can't have the big windows, but they waste valuable surface area and cause engineering headaches. A central lighting system using artifical lighting or light pipes would be better.

Offline Tulse

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 546
  • Liked: 395
  • Likes Given: 3
There seems to be a profound disconnect between Bezo's argument that space should be used as an industrial park, where all the dirty industries will go, and the gorgeous sci-fi images of O'Neill Cylinders with surfaces of parkland sprinkled with a few buildings.  He claims to be promoting a future something like the workaday space of Alien or Outland or The Expanse, but the pictures look far more like something from Elysium.  And having the world's richest man show off renders of a sparsely-populated orbiting resort utopia doesn't really help with the narrative of out-of-touch billionaires.

So where are the images of the space factories?  Of the asteroid ore refineries, or the fuel depots, or solar power plants?

Offline TrevorMonty



One concern is radiation protection for O'Neil Cylinders. O'Neil claims the air would stop cosmic radiation. A 1600 m diameter cylinder at 50% air pressure would be equivalent to 800 kg/m², compared to 10,000 kg/m² protection we receive on Earth. I don't think this enough, especially for solar bursts. This paper indicates you need 7 metres for polyethylene or water, while you would need 11 metres for regolith.

http://space.nss.org/media/Orbital-Space-Settlement-Radiation-Shielding-Globus.pdf

Perhaps a solution is to make the clear areas with two layers of plexiglass and fill them with water.
Rotating that amount of shielding mass requires a lot more structural strength. The other option is place the two counter rotating cylinders inside large stationary shell. Still need lot of shielding material but there is no load on it or shell holding it.

Yes, an external non-rotating shield solves the radiation problem. Also makes an excellent Whipple shield to protect from debris. Can't have the big windows, but they waste valuable surface area and cause engineering headaches. A central lighting system using artifical lighting or light pipes would be better.

Can use inner walls of shield for mounting 0g agriculture pods, no point in using precious cylinder space on crops that don't need gravity. Means workers would still be shielded from radiation.

The biggest issue I see is heat build up in cylinders.

Offline RDoc

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 516
  • Liked: 123
  • Likes Given: 12
I'd think that at least the first space habitats would be inside the Van Allen belts specifically to avoid major radiation issues.

The real question though, as has been discussed, for either Bezos' or Musk's notions is economic. We really need to come up with something that can be manufactured or found in space or on Mars that can pay for the colony, or at least most of it. So far I'm unaware of anything like that.

Offline RonM

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3340
  • Atlanta, Georgia USA
  • Liked: 2231
  • Likes Given: 1584
The real question though, as has been discussed, for either Bezos' or Musk's notions is economic. We really need to come up with something that can be manufactured or found in space or on Mars that can pay for the colony, or at least most of it. So far I'm unaware of anything like that.

That's the big problem, how to kickstart a space economy that needs people living off of Earth. Personally, I think it's going to take billionaires donating to the cause, like Bezos and Musk, to get it started. Once there's a sizable population out there business will follow, but there's no money to be made during the initial setup.

Offline punder

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1238
  • Liked: 1827
  • Likes Given: 1436
There seems to be a profound disconnect between Bezo's argument that space should be used as an industrial park, where all the dirty industries will go, and the gorgeous sci-fi images of O'Neill Cylinders with surfaces of parkland sprinkled with a few buildings.  He claims to be promoting a future something like the workaday space of Alien or Outland or The Expanse, but the pictures look far more like something from Elysium.  And having the world's richest man show off renders of a sparsely-populated orbiting resort utopia doesn't really help with the narrative of out-of-touch billionaires.

So where are the images of the space factories?  Of the asteroid ore refineries, or the fuel depots, or solar power plants?

The point of the pretty pictures is... they're pretty pictures. And really, just riffs on 1970s work by Don Davis and others, the stuff that blew my mind when I first saw it. Like those previous works, they are meant to inspire. Not to depict the grimy necessities.

Offline RDoc

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 516
  • Liked: 123
  • Likes Given: 12
That's the big problem, how to kickstart a space economy that needs people living off of Earth. Personally, I think it's going to take billionaires donating to the cause, like Bezos and Musk, to get it started. Once there's a sizable population out there business will follow, but there's no money to be made during the initial setup.
My crystal ball says that low cost and high availability of space access may spark enough interest and investment in really innovative ideas that something of value may be developed. My firm belief though is that the economics come first, then the population will follow, with the possible exception of space tourism. Which if low cost, might get people into orbit without an industry to draw them. It might be significant that Bezos is seriously into space tourism.

Offline punder

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1238
  • Liked: 1827
  • Likes Given: 1436
One concern is radiation protection for O'Neil Cylinders. O'Neil claims the air would stop cosmic radiation. A 1600 m diameter cylinder at 50% air pressure would be equivalent to 800 kg/m², compared to 10,000 kg/m² protection we receive on Earth. I don't think this enough, especially for solar bursts. This paper indicates you need 7 metres for polyethylene or water, while you would need 11 metres for regolith.

http://space.nss.org/media/Orbital-Space-Settlement-Radiation-Shielding-Globus.pdf

Perhaps a solution is to make the clear areas with two layers of plexiglass and fill them with water.

I seem to remember O'Neill's windows being built from overlapping "chevron"-shaped concrete pieces with mirrored surfaces. The pieces would stop cosmic radiation but bounce visible light into the colony.

Here it is: https://space.nss.org/colonies-in-space-chapter-12-the-shell-of-the-torus/
« Last Edit: 05/10/2019 09:49 pm by punder »

Offline mulp

  • Member
  • Posts: 72
  • merrimack, nh
  • Liked: 37
  • Likes Given: 9
The real question though, as has been discussed, for either Bezos' or Musk's notions is economic. We really need to come up with something that can be manufactured or found in space or on Mars that can pay for the colony, or at least most of it. So far I'm unaware of anything like that.

That's the big problem, how to kickstart a space economy that needs people living off of Earth. Personally, I think it's going to take billionaires donating to the cause, like Bezos and Musk, to get it started. Once there's a sizable population out there business will follow, but there's no money to be made during the initial setup.

You would have said the same about Christopher Columbus  et al era exploration, various colonial charters, about building the National Road, the Eerie Canal, the Louisiana Purchase, the Transcontinental railroad and all the many government subsidized railroads of mid 1800s, the Good Roads projects, the RFD Parcel Post expansion circa 1920, the National Defense Highway program, NASA (a way to justify the massive defense budget building rockets to put military spies in space over the commies).

Consider Bezos reference to Parcel Post (tm). I have been reading the attacks on thdpe Post Office since the 60s, claiming its existence has hampered innovation and cheaper package delivery.

But other than package from Europe under international postal treaties from Jefferson's era, the Post Office dellivered no parcels to anyone until experments leading up to the official start of Parcel Post(tm) service in 1920. More than a century had elapsed when the Post Office was prohibited to deliver packages, and it lost money delivering mail just to post offices, with some cities getting delivery to businesses and wealthy households.

Then with the Grange pushing for RFD, the Poost Office lost more money delivering mail to the people, followed by adding Parcel Post, the Post Office made so much profit that the fight in Congress was whether to pocket the profits Parcel Post(tm) generated, or to cut rates, which only increased demand requiring more government workers and more government buildings. But also more contracts with private shipping companies.

If incompetent government can make huge profits in just a few years after starting a business line, Parcel Post(tm), why didn't the private sector do it first?

Note, mail box regulations did not exist until well after RFD and Parcel Post were well established, pretty much in response to mail theft requiring the Post Office to investgate setup a police force to fight crime. Customers were required to provide the protected receptical for mail that was a crime for anyone but the Post Office or the customer to access.

And Airmail(tm) was invented by Congressmen who wanted to fly home to get out of DC every weekend. The laws fundiing ghe initial service require the Post Office contract  with private businesses to carry mail on regularly scheduled flights carrying private passengers and cargo. Which did not exist at the time.

By the way, Amazon shipped books and media initially which Congress requires the Post Office/USPS to subsidize. Congress once authorized funding to pay for this, but now requires other paying customers to pay more.

Offline Stan-1967

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1128
  • Denver, Colorado
  • Liked: 1183
  • Likes Given: 614
There seems to be a profound disconnect between Bezo's argument that space should be used as an industrial park, where all the dirty industries will go, and the gorgeous sci-fi images of O'Neill Cylinders with surfaces of parkland sprinkled with a few buildings.  He claims to be promoting a future something like the workaday space of Alien or Outland or The Expanse, but the pictures look far more like something from Elysium.  And having the world's richest man show off renders of a sparsely-populated orbiting resort utopia doesn't really help with the narrative of out-of-touch billionaires.

So where are the images of the space factories?  Of the asteroid ore refineries, or the fuel depots, or solar power plants?
 
Elysium inspires more rich & poor people to go live & work in space vs. a dark oxygen starved underground cavern with a freaky co-worker name Kuato.  Now go and get your a** to Mars.  I do find the vision of Bezos to resonate as equally if not more compelling than Musk as far as the optimistic future of humanity.  To suggest that humanity should have a population in the trillions is about as counter narrative to the doomsayers of today as you could ever get.

Both have serious problems in execution.   I could believe there are many high end resource intensive industries that could move off world, some like PGM's can even show the math that it is economically feasible within near term capabilities.   Moving those high end markets may in fact make a measurable difference in overall quality of life.  However I don't see that math working for steel, concrete, energy, food production, or high volume building materials.   That will take earth based technology & innovation to manage, and I don't think any improved solution to these problems allows for trillions of humans.  How many Oneil cylinders would it take to move 1billion people off Earth?  Can any Oneil colony truly make a biosphere comparable to earth, or will they all just be fancy high yield vegetable gardens?   

Offline RonM

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3340
  • Atlanta, Georgia USA
  • Liked: 2231
  • Likes Given: 1584
The real question though, as has been discussed, for either Bezos' or Musk's notions is economic. We really need to come up with something that can be manufactured or found in space or on Mars that can pay for the colony, or at least most of it. So far I'm unaware of anything like that.

That's the big problem, how to kickstart a space economy that needs people living off of Earth. Personally, I think it's going to take billionaires donating to the cause, like Bezos and Musk, to get it started. Once there's a sizable population out there business will follow, but there's no money to be made during the initial setup.

You would have said the same about Christopher Columbus  et al era exploration, various colonial charters, about building the National Road, the Eerie Canal, the Louisiana Purchase, the Transcontinental railroad and all the many government subsidized railroads of mid 1800s, the Good Roads projects, the RFD Parcel Post expansion circa 1920, the National Defense Highway program, NASA (a way to justify the massive defense budget building rockets to put military spies in space over the commies).

Consider Bezos reference to Parcel Post (tm). I have been reading the attacks on thdpe Post Office since the 60s, claiming its existence has hampered innovation and cheaper package delivery.

But other than package from Europe under international postal treaties from Jefferson's era, the Post Office dellivered no parcels to anyone until experments leading up to the official start of Parcel Post(tm) service in 1920. More than a century had elapsed when the Post Office was prohibited to deliver packages, and it lost money delivering mail just to post offices, with some cities getting delivery to businesses and wealthy households.

Then with the Grange pushing for RFD, the Poost Office lost more money delivering mail to the people, followed by adding Parcel Post, the Post Office made so much profit that the fight in Congress was whether to pocket the profits Parcel Post(tm) generated, or to cut rates, which only increased demand requiring more government workers and more government buildings. But also more contracts with private shipping companies.

If incompetent government can make huge profits in just a few years after starting a business line, Parcel Post(tm), why didn't the private sector do it first?

Note, mail box regulations did not exist until well after RFD and Parcel Post were well established, pretty much in response to mail theft requiring the Post Office to investgate setup a police force to fight crime. Customers were required to provide the protected receptical for mail that was a crime for anyone but the Post Office or the customer to access.

And Airmail(tm) was invented by Congressmen who wanted to fly home to get out of DC every weekend. The laws fundiing ghe initial service require the Post Office contract  with private businesses to carry mail on regularly scheduled flights carrying private passengers and cargo. Which did not exist at the time.

By the way, Amazon shipped books and media initially which Congress requires the Post Office/USPS to subsidize. Congress once authorized funding to pay for this, but now requires other paying customers to pay more.

The problem with your examples when applied to space is the Outer Space Treaty. Governments cannot claim territory in space and absent a national security issue will not fund humans settling space. It's not in the national interest. So, the private sector has to step up and it rarely does because they don't see profits the next quarter.

Offline Nilof

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1177
  • Liked: 597
  • Likes Given: 707
The problem with your examples when applied to space is the Outer Space Treaty. Governments cannot claim territory in space and absent a national security issue will not fund humans settling space. It's not in the national interest. So, the private sector has to step up and it rarely does because they don't see profits the next quarter.

Governments can own as much ship tonnage in space as they want. Ships belonging to a state are considered part of that state's sovereign territory while in international waters or in space.

Meaning that a government can't claim land on on other celestial bodies, but it can build a few billion square miles of land in ONeill cylinders and consider it its sovereign territory according to current international law.
« Last Edit: 05/11/2019 02:14 am by Nilof »
For a variable Isp spacecraft running at constant power and constant acceleration, the mass ratio is linear in delta-v.   Δv = ve0(MR-1). Or equivalently: Δv = vef PMF. Also, this is energy-optimal for a fixed delta-v and mass ratio.

Offline RonM

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3340
  • Atlanta, Georgia USA
  • Liked: 2231
  • Likes Given: 1584
The problem with your examples when applied to space is the Outer Space Treaty. Governments cannot claim territory in space and absent a national security issue will not fund humans settling space. It's not in the national interest. So, the private sector has to step up and it rarely does because they don't see profits the next quarter.

Governments can own as much ship tonnage in space as they want. Ships belonging to a state are considered part of that state's sovereign territory while in international waters or in space.

Meaning that a government can't claim land on on other celestial bodies, but it can build a few billion square miles of land in ONeill cylinders and consider it its sovereign territory according to current international law.

Good point, but that brings us back to the question why? Someone, maybe like Bezos, would have to convince the government it's in the national interest to have USA flag space colonies.

Offline ncb1397

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3497
  • Liked: 2310
  • Likes Given: 29
The problem with your examples when applied to space is the Outer Space Treaty. Governments cannot claim territory in space and absent a national security issue will not fund humans settling space. It's not in the national interest. So, the private sector has to step up and it rarely does because they don't see profits the next quarter.

Governments can own as much ship tonnage in space as they want. Ships belonging to a state are considered part of that state's sovereign territory while in international waters or in space.

Meaning that a government can't claim land on on other celestial bodies, but it can build a few billion square miles of land in ONeill cylinders and consider it its sovereign territory according to current international law.

Good point, but that brings us back to the question why? Someone, maybe like Bezos, would have to convince the government it's in the national interest to have USA flag space colonies.

It might come down to energy = power and these colonies are about expanding the available energy. The state that harnesses and controls the most energy is the biggest kid on the block with all that entails - security, prosperity, influence, etc.  These are all things that people desire individually which is inherited by the behavior of groups (countries being one of the largest conglomerations). We saw this in stark relief during the cold war where the countries that could harness the immense power stored in the atomic nucleus were the most secure and most influential. Previous times saw other forms of energy dictate geopolitical events - wind power during the age of exploration, and oil in the early 20th century and coal before that. In the prehistoric time, the harnessing of energy from biomass and animals likely determined the dominant, secure and prosperous tribe.
« Last Edit: 05/11/2019 05:25 am by ncb1397 »

Offline M.E.T.

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2313
  • Liked: 2912
  • Likes Given: 508
I don’t understand the appeal that living in a tin can in space has for so many. Even the “500 years in the future” end state captured in the nice pictures, showing parks and stuff.

You’re still living on the inside of a big cylyndrical metal can. With the horizon curving upward in the distance, and machinary no doubt humming day and night to keep you alive. With the ever present danger of micro meteorites punching holes through your habitat.

By contrast living on a terraformed Mars certainly holds appeal. Effectively a second Earth 500 years from now.

As for the near future (read our lifetimes). Building a domed city on Mars seems far more achievable than building an O’Neill cylinder. Look at the Space Station. It’s a cramped series of small pressure vessels. How much better than that can we do in the next 100 years, even with Starship level costs to orbit?

Certainly not a natural feeling, parklike environment I would wager. Over the timeframes to make both visions a reality a terraformed Mars seems more achievable. And an infinitely nicer place to live.
« Last Edit: 05/11/2019 05:55 am by M.E.T. »

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0