NASASpaceFlight.com Forum

Commercial and US Government Launch Vehicles => Blue Origin => Topic started by: Pipcard on 10/31/2016 04:21 am

Title: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Pipcard on 10/31/2016 04:21 am
http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/10/jeff-bezos-dismisses-idea-of-a-backup-plan-says-we-must-protect-earth (http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/10/jeff-bezos-dismisses-idea-of-a-backup-plan-says-we-must-protect-earth)

Quote from: Eric Berger
During the last year Amazon founder Jeff Bezos has begun to open up about the scale of his ambitions with the rocket company, Blue Origin, explaining that he envisions millions of people living and working in space. Additionally, Bezos has talked about moving heavy industry off of planet Earth to create a garden paradise on our home planet.

In this view Bezos' philosophy differs significantly from the other titan of the new space industry, Elon Musk of SpaceX. Both men agree that reusable spaceflight is essential to lowering the cost of access to space, but they disagree about what to do once we get there. Musk has spoken openly of providing humanity with a "backup plan," and recently revealed his ultra-ambitious plans to colonize Mars with 100 passengers at a time via his Interplanetary Transport System.

Bezos dismissed this approach on Oct. 22, during the Pathfinder Awards at the Seattle Museum of Flight. In remarks first shared by GeekWire, Bezos said Earth should be zoned as a residential area. "I don't like the Plan B idea that we want to go into space so we have a backup planet," he said, noting NASA's efforts to send probes throughout the solar system. "Believe me, this is the best planet. There is no doubt this is the one you want to protect. This is the jewel. We evolved here, we're kind of made for this planet. It's gorgeous, and we can use space to protect it."

Humanity has two futures, Bezos said. It can continue to grow, or it can settle into some kind of population equilibrium. As an example of the planet's limitations he offered energy as an example. Taking the baseline energy use on Earth, and compounding it at 3 percent for 500 years, would require covering the entire surface of the Earth in solar cells to meet the demand by the year 2500. "We need to go into space if we want grow as a species," he said. "Another route would be just to face stasis, but I don't think that's as interesting. I don't think we want to just survive on this planet, I think we want to thrive and do amazing things."

With his reusable approach to lowering the cost of spaceflight, Bezos said Blue Origin will try to provide the infrastructure needed to enable humans to do interesting things in space. Bezos said he believes that if he can provide low-cost access to space, the next generation will figure out how to creatively use zero gravity, 24/7 solar power, as well as valuable resources on the Moon and asteroids.

Not sure what to think; he might be right - it might take too long for a Martian colony to become practically self-sufficient and a viable "back-up" to Earth. Or, both Musk and Bezos may be correct (about backups and industrializing space, respectively); their goals would even complement each other in expanding humanity's presence in space.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: RonM on 10/31/2016 04:47 am
Jeff Bezos is right. Earth is by far the best planet in the Solar System for us to live on. We should take care of it.

Mars as a backup for humanity is a feature of a fully sufficient Mars colony, but from a practical standpoint it is not a good reason to colony Mars. It will cost too much. Reaching a one million person colony that needs no input from Earth will be incredibly expensive. Good luck on getting funding if that's the primary reason.

For a fraction of the cost of a fully sufficient Mars colony, most of the civilization collapsing scenarios on Earth can be mitigated. Asteroid defense, civil defense, disaster relief, securing food production, reducing poverty, renewable energy, etc.

Humanity should try both ideas. Bezos' plan to utilize space to improve life on Earth and Musk's plan to colonize Mars (with less emphasis on doing it as quickly as possible).
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: GalacticIntruder on 10/31/2016 05:08 am
I seriously doubt that either the need or the economics of moving to space industrialization, space mining makes any sense in our lifetimes. Maybe in 200 years, and only after advances in space propulsion. That is where Mars comes in, as the driver of such tech and demands.

Bezos' ideas at best is a very long-term hope/wish. Musk's plan is a short-term concrete goal and destination for humanity.

Billionaires have no need to justify and rationalize their space dreams. It is there, and they want to go, and might have the means one day.

If Congress had to choose who to fund, Mr. Musk is the clear choice.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: b0objunior on 10/31/2016 05:50 am
I seriously doubt that either the need or the economics of space industrialization makes any sense in our lifetimes. Maybe in 200 years, and only after advances in space propulsion. That is where Mars comes in, as the driver of such tech and demands.

Bezos' ideas at best is a very long-term hope/wish. Musk's plan is a short-term concrete goal and destination for humanity.

Billionaires have no need to justify and rationalize their space dreams. It is there, and they want to go, and might have the means one day.

If Congress had to choose who to fund, Mr. Musk is the clear choice.
Then humanity will be bound to earth until it's inevitable death. If we can't learn to live in space, not on a actual body, we cannot go anywhere, even if the tech to go to other solar systems existed. What the point of technology even? Going to Mars, Jupiter? No, it's to find another planet like earth elsewhere. The Mars plans are futile. But again, my take on Mars is that people had their dreams crushed when they where younger, so they are now finding excuses to go to Mars, like the one of living there permanently for saving humanity. That's just funny now.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: WBY1984 on 10/31/2016 06:33 am
It's not about just saving humanity. It is about saving technological civilisation. It is arguable that creating an asteroid deflection capability will be cheaper than a Mars colony. I find it much less certain that such a capability could be maintained over the necessary millennia. Even an underground ark requires an effort of technology and more importantly, a consistency of will over many generations in order to serve its purpose.
 I don't worry about asteroids - I worry about the myriad ways in which our civilisations have fallen in the past and will continue to do so in the future. Amidst that chaos, maintaining a planetary defence capability is not something I'm comfortable relying on.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: guckyfan on 10/31/2016 06:37 am
Jeff Bezos is right. Earth is by far the best planet in the Solar System for us to live on. We should take care of it.

He may be right. But Mars will be self sufficient before his idea of industrializing space to make earth a nature reserve can even start to take effect.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: guckyfan on 10/31/2016 06:41 am
I don't worry about asteroids - I worry about the myriad ways in which our civilisations have fallen in the past and will continue to do so in the future. Amidst that chaos, maintaining a planetary defence capability is not something I'm comfortable relying on.

Full agreement. I am not so much worried about humanity being eradicated from earth. But technological civilization may fail, exactly because it is so easy to live on earth. We can afford to fall back on earth.If technological society fails on earth, industrial complexes in near earth space can be evacuated or just die.  Not so on Mars. A society there can only survive by maintaining a technological society and it can survive.

Edit: BTW I find it interesting and encouraging that ideas come forward to be discussed. It was always very fuzzy and unclear to me what Jeff Bezos is aiming for.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: The Amazing Catstronaut on 10/31/2016 01:01 pm

Then humanity will be bound to earth until it's inevitable death. If we can't learn to live in space, not on a actual body, we cannot go anywhere, even if the tech to go to other solar systems existed. What the point of technology even? Going to Mars, Jupiter? No, it's to find another planet like earth elsewhere. The Mars plans are futile. But again, my take on Mars is that people had their dreams crushed when they where younger, so they are now finding excuses to go to Mars, like the one of living there permanently for saving humanity. That's just funny now.


But that's the crux of it. You can't live -in- space. You have to live on, or in, a body. We cannot function without specific temperature, pressure and atmospheric enviroments. They require containers.

Earth is a natural container. Mars is a natural container.

The "had their dreams crushed when they are younger" thing is fallacy. I'm a millennial. I wasn't around for the Space Race and only for the tail end of the shuttle era, yet I am still incredibly passionate about manned spaceflight, and more so the colonisation of exo-Earth. I am not a generational freak. I see more passion for spaceflight in the post-lunar generations than the pre. People are now accepting that this is possible and actively moving along the realisation road. If SpaceX fails, somebody else will pick up the torch.


When you have to create philosophical and not technological reasons for why an act is impossible, you are doomed to be proven wrong. The same applied for flight, the same applied for polar exploration. Pessimism is unrewarding - if you are right, you get no satisfaction, nor are you going to be written into the history books. If you are wrong, nobody is going to commiserate you. The onus of proof is not on the dreamers why they dare to dream, but on the doubters who request the dreamers stop.


Nobody is expecting to go to Mars to find Earth. People are expecting to go to Mars, to find Mars.


Now, I would love for us to live in gigantic interplanetary Culture-esque archologies just as everybody else - but we're not going to get there by leaping a hundred steps at once. Did cave men whine about the lack of nuclear fission when we first started to harness wildfire?

Get to Mars. Develop another world, then industrialise the roads between.


Build the wagons to make the wagon train. Settle the towns. Build the interstates - only then do you start developing industries along the trade corridor.

Space is the future, but space itself is mostly worthless. Space is absence. We travel through Space in order to reach an entity of much greater objective value: Stuff.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: TrevorMonty on 10/31/2016 05:37 pm
Our best hope for colonising space is not living on planetary   bodies but artificial free floating habitats. Listen to isaac arthur youtube series and read Arthur Clarke Rama books. The technology  to build these type structures is not that far way, it does require us to mine moon or asteroids in a big way. The economic hurdle to overcome is probably more of an obstacle than technical hurdles.   
Economics requires any space asset to export something to earth to pay its way, energy/electricity is one thing that earth is hungry for and demand is only going to grow.

The infrastructure to build space solar power satellites from ISRU would also enable use to build these large habitats.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: b0objunior on 10/31/2016 05:43 pm

Then humanity will be bound to earth until it's inevitable death. If we can't learn to live in space, not on a actual body, we cannot go anywhere, even if the tech to go to other solar systems existed. What the point of technology even? Going to Mars, Jupiter? No, it's to find another planet like earth elsewhere. The Mars plans are futile. But again, my take on Mars is that people had their dreams crushed when they where younger, so they are now finding excuses to go to Mars, like the one of living there permanently for saving humanity. That's just funny now.


But that's the crux of it. You can't live -in- space. You have to live on, or in, a body. We cannot function without specific temperature, pressure and atmospheric enviroments. They require containers.

Earth is a natural container. Mars is a natural container.

The "had their dreams crushed when they are younger" thing is fallacy. I'm a millennial. I wasn't around for the Space Race and only for the tail end of the shuttle era, yet I am still incredibly passionate about manned spaceflight, and more so the colonisation of exo-Earth. I am not a generational freak. I see more passion for spaceflight in the post-lunar generations than the pre. People are now accepting that this is possible and actively moving along the realisation road. If SpaceX fails, somebody else will pick up the torch.


When you have to create philosophical and not technological reasons for why an act is impossible, you are doomed to be proven wrong. The same applied for flight, the same applied for polar exploration. Pessimism is unrewarding - if you are right, you get no satisfaction, nor are you going to be written into the history books. If you are wrong, nobody is going to commiserate you. The onus of proof is not on the dreamers why they dare to dream, but on the doubters who request the dreamers stop.


Nobody is expecting to go to Mars to find Earth. People are expecting to go to Mars, to find Mars.


Now, I would love for us to live in gigantic interplanetary Culture-esque archologies just as everybody else - but we're not going to get there by leaping a hundred steps at once. Did cave men whine about the lack of nuclear fission when we first started to harness wildfire?

Get to Mars. Develop another world, then industrialise the roads between.


Build the wagons to make the wagon train. Settle the towns. Build the interstates - only then do you start developing industries along the trade corridor.

Space is the future, but space itself is mostly worthless. Space is absence. We travel through Space in order to reach an entity of much greater objective value: Stuff.
By body I meant a planetary body.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: IRobot on 10/31/2016 07:16 pm
I seriously doubt that either the need or the economics of moving to space industrialization, space mining makes any sense in our lifetimes. Maybe in 200 years, and only after advances in space propulsion. That is where Mars comes in, as the driver of such tech and demands.
Makes more sense than a colony on Mars for... what is it really for?
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/31/2016 11:19 pm
This is a strawman. "Let's protect Earth." Well, duh. No one who is aiming to settle Mars disagrees with that.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 10/31/2016 11:54 pm
This is kind of ... dopey.

If either of them get what they are after, the cost of space drops for both. So ... doesn't matter. Except for ... ego.

OTOH ... the first one to bring off an operational mass spaceflight system ... might undercut the other. Being number 2 might carry a penalty.

Could envy or dominance play a role in this "plan B" dissing? Needs to be "my way"?

Sounds like Dr. Malthus is behind Bezos. While Musk fits more with D.D. Harriman. Musk's "win" might be more deterministic (a Mars city), while Bezos more subjective (how does one develop industrial space?).

Also, same means to setup a city on Mars could be applied to all other solar system bodies as needed, just the same two parts. Can the same be said of what Bezos lets us see?

No.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: woods170 on 11/01/2016 09:29 am
This is kind of ... dopey.

If either of them get what they are after, the cost of space drops for both. So ... doesn't matter. Except for ... ego.

OTOH ... the first one to bring off an operational mass spaceflight system ... might undercut the other. Being number 2 might carry a penalty.
Emphasis mine.

Or not. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_handicap_of_a_head_start
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Robotbeat on 11/01/2016 01:19 pm
Or yeah. Just because someone has a clever name for being second doesn't mean it's better.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 11/01/2016 04:54 pm
The arguments are about two different approaches that end in the same result - COLONIZATION OF SPACE.

Bezos wants to establish the industry first and Musk wants to establish the habitats first. At this point we do not know which approach will work or even both or neither will work. The settlement of the Americas had both approaches, industry establishment and the habitation "settler" approach. Both worked to some degree and resulted in rapid expansions in the Americas.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: daveklingler on 11/01/2016 05:27 pm

Then humanity will be bound to earth until it's inevitable death. If we can't learn to live in space, not on a actual body, we cannot go anywhere, even if the tech to go to other solar systems existed. What the point of technology even? Going to Mars, Jupiter? No, it's to find another planet like earth elsewhere. The Mars plans are futile. But again, my take on Mars is that people had their dreams crushed when they where younger, so they are now finding excuses to go to Mars, like the one of living there permanently for saving humanity. That's just funny now.


But that's the crux of it. You can't live -in- space. You have to live on, or in, a body. We cannot function without specific temperature, pressure and atmospheric enviroments. They require containers.

Yes!

Quote
Earth is a natural container. Mars is a natural container.

NO!

Good god, no.  Absolutely, categorically not.  Stop it, stop it, stop it, please stop.

Mars is not a "natural" anything.  Mars, for all practical purposes, is just another place in the universe not on the surface of the Earth.  It has a little bit of gravity, but that's at least as much of a disadvantage as an advantage, if not more so.

As O'Neill pointed out many times, it's very easy for people to look at Mars and imagine that humans might live there because all humans come from Earth, and Earth is a planet, and Mars is a planet, therefore humans should live there.

But ALL destinations for human beings offworld are built by human beings, whether in the space between planets or on them.  They all entail building pressure vessels and being limited to living in them.  Functionally speaking, there's no difference between living in a pressure vessel on Mars versus living in a pressure vessel in LEO, except that the pressure vessel in LEO is closer to help in an emergency, in addition to being easier to build and supply.

And as O'Neill pointed out, over and over again, there is no reason that a technologically-advanced civilization needs to live on a planet...except that people have trouble imagining it.

Quote
Get to Mars. Develop another world, then industrialise the roads between.

Build the wagons to make the wagon train. Settle the towns. Build the interstates - only then do you start developing industries along the trade corridor.

Space is the future, but space itself is mostly worthless. Space is absence. We travel through Space in order to reach an entity of much greater objective value: Stuff.

Keep the supply lines short.  The success of every human settlement depends on logistics.

Build an outpost village near civilization.  Industrialize the village and grow it into a town.  Now use that town to build more villages.  All of this can be done with spinning habs at one gee, bringing in resources from asteroids and Earth. 

A town in LEO that can produce materials from asteroid resources would be the biggest enabler of space exploration and colonization that can ever exist. 

As you said, space is worthless.  It's what we plonk into space that creates a destination.  Patiently plonking destinations into LEO, then into GEO, then points further out creates the best chances for success, instead of getting fooled by the mirage of Mars.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: daveklingler on 11/01/2016 05:36 pm
This is a strawman. "Let's protect Earth." Well, duh. No one who is aiming to settle Mars disagrees with that.

If we concentrate on developing the ability to utilize NEO material for industrial purposes in orbit, we also develop the ability to protect Earth.  Colonizing Mars doesn't protect Earth, and it sucks resources and mindshare for a task that's demonstrably unnecessary if we can build 1G colonies and breed in orbit.

Bezos seems to have read the High Frontier and glimpsed the Golden Path.  :)

Luckily, I think economics will lead us in the right direction.  LEO colonies are so much cheaper and more straightforward to build, and once the first spinning colony is built, the paradigm shift will begin.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: JasonAW3 on 11/01/2016 06:20 pm
This is a strawman. "Let's protect Earth." Well, duh. No one who is aiming to settle Mars disagrees with that.

If we concentrate on developing the ability to utilize NEO material for industrial purposes in orbit, we also develop the ability to protect Earth.  Colonizing Mars doesn't protect Earth, and it sucks resources and mindshare for a task that's demonstrably unnecessary if we can build 1G colonies and breed in orbit.

Bezos seems to have read the High Frontier and glimpsed the Golden Path.  :)

Luckily, I think economics will lead us in the right direction.  LEO colonies are so much cheaper and more straightforward to build, and once the first spinning colony is built, the paradigm shift will begin.

David, I can't say I can completely agree with you, but your point about using NEO's for resources is taken.

     The problem is the amount of delta V required to first rendezvous with a NEO, be it an asteroid or comet, (the delta V required for a comet rendezvous would be substantially more than with most asteroids) Fuel costs a lot.  In fact, depending on the NEO, it might actually cost less to go to Mars.

      Mars, on the other hand, is an excellent stepping off point for both the Asteroid Belt as well as the outer planets.  The Trojan Asteroids, preceding and following Jupiter, would likewise provide an abundance of resources for long term use.

      The use of stations and colonies around Earth is more of a step stone to other planets.  There is no reason to suppose that both they and a Mars colony are incompatible with one another.  In fact, the way space is colonized will largely depend on both which companies choose to concentrate on which approach to that colonization, and what the profit margins are for each approach.

      As much as many may wish it were otherwise, companies are in the business of making money, not for true altruism.  Some companies are simply taking a longer term approach, to maximize profits over the long term, rather than for the next quarter.  As companies see better and better opportunities to make a profit in space, they will come to depend less and less on the government for income.

     In fact, there will likely come a day where providing services for the government will be the least profitable customer that these companies will have.  true, this maybe twenty to a hundred years from now, but unless something catastrophic happens in the meantime, I have no doubt that this will occur.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Coastal Ron on 11/01/2016 06:26 pm
Not sure what to think; he might be right - it might take too long for a Martian colony to become practically self-sufficient and a viable "back-up" to Earth. Or, both Musk and Bezos may be correct (about backups and industrializing space, respectively); their goals would even complement each other in expanding humanity's presence in space.

In the whole scheme of things, I think both efforts can exist without interfering with each other.  And since both require reducing the cost to access space, both are complementary to a great degree.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: woods170 on 11/01/2016 06:32 pm
Or yeah. Just because someone has a clever name for being second doesn't mean it's better.
It does not have to be. But sometimes it can be. But I digress.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Coastal Ron on 11/01/2016 06:43 pm
Earth is a natural container. Mars is a natural container.

NO!

Good god, no.  Absolutely, categorically not.  Stop it, stop it, stop it, please stop.

Mars is not a "natural" anything.  Mars, for all practical purposes, is just another place in the universe not on the surface of the Earth.  It has a little bit of gravity, but that's at least as much of a disadvantage as an advantage, if not more so.

Our choices for living away from Earth are pretty much:

A.  Adapt to different (i.e. initially lower) gravity environments
B.  Adapt to zero G environments
C.  Create the ability to build massive artificial gravity structures in space

However we don't have enough information yet to understand which of these is achievable, and which are not.

Quote
Quote
Space is the future, but space itself is mostly worthless. Space is absence. We travel through Space in order to reach an entity of much greater objective value: Stuff.

Keep the supply lines short.  The success of every human settlement depends on logistics.

Sure.  And in comparing Musks plans to Bezos, once you send humans to Mars with minimum viable logistics they have a whole world of local resources to rely upon to fill in the rest.  In contrast, any in-space colony will never have local resources to rely upon.

Now I'm not arguing against space colonies, just pointing out that planets have an advantage in the ability to access resources, whereas with space colonies you have to ship EVERYTHING to them.  There is really no chance of a space colony becoming self-sufficient, whereas there is some long-term possibility that a Mars colony could.

Quote
Build an outpost village near civilization.  Industrialize the village and grow it into a town.  Now use that town to As you said, space is worthless.  It's what we plonk into space that creates a destination.  Patiently plonking destinations into LEO, then into GEO, then points further out creates the best chances for success, instead of getting fooled by the mirage of Mars.

I tend to take an "all of the above" approach to this.  I don't think it makes sense to limit humanity to only one path, especially since it will take centuries before we know which one is better (if any).  And since learning how to be competent traveling around in space helps everyone, we are not yet at a point where we have to make a choice about whether Bezos has the better approach or Musk does.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 11/01/2016 07:55 pm
The problem with "the conquest of space" ( ;D ) has always been (<objective>, <means>, <ROI>).

The "space race"  -> ("HSF to moon and back", <lunar stack>, <national prestige (or "soft power")>). With follow-on of "reusable HSF" -> ("SSF/ISS", <Shuttle>, <follow on prestige>).

Follow on to that appears to be "BLEO HSF" -> ("asteroid rendezvous mission", <SLS/Orion/whatever>, <prestige?>).

SX: Mars -> ("Mars city", <ITS+cargo>, <permanent off earth economy>)

BO: Space -> ("Industrial park", <NG/NA+whatever>, <orbital ecosystem>)

Going beyond governments requires an economic function. A Mars city is compact for concentrated logistical focus, while an "industrial park" is sparse in order to leverage disparate resources spread over vast distances.

While Mars is distant, the logistical path once bootstrapped (ISRU) is shorter - from Mars. The equivalent for the "often closer" Moon/NEOs is not necessarily always better - if you locate your "park" in LEO/GEO, you're still having to acquire resources from the gravity wells, not to mention that with the "working in space" coming/going back to earth for crew avoiding long term occupancy of space as Bezos claims.



Or yeah. Just because someone has a clever name for being second doesn't mean it's better.
It does not have to be. But sometimes it can be. But I digress.
Both of you just like to be oppositional to anything in principle ... ;)

Suggest more justifying content and less reaction.


add:

We don't yet know the resources, cost of production, ... economic "closed cycle" of either BO/SX vision.

For the moment assume they are the same, and that both optimize "access paths/costs" to needed off earth resources, and they're able to anticipate bootstrap needs from Earth (e.g. that both are smart and don't have any bad luck dominating either).

The compact case wins over the sparse case due to interaction "density" - classic bootstrap business.

The sparse case is more durable for exactly the same reason.

So ... Musk is playing the "short term", momentum investment game. Bezos is playing long term, growth game.

Neither are "net profit" businesses.

Exactly like the other businesses they've already succeeded at.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: IainMcClatchie on 11/01/2016 07:56 pm
Quote from: Dave Klinger
Functionally speaking, there's no difference between living in a pressure vessel on Mars versus living in a pressure vessel in LEO, except that the pressure vessel in LEO is closer to help in an emergency, in addition to being easier to build and supply.

I was going to write what you wrote.

Re: delta-V and thus fuel to get to near Earth asteroids and Mars and so forth.

Past colonies were founded to provide things back home that were more abundant in the new place than in the old.  If activities in space are going to provide stuff to us here on Earth, there is going to be more mass coming down than going up.  In the long run, we only have to get from the surface to LEO, the bulk of all movement after that can be done with momentum exchange tethers.

LEO is best when the thing you need most is on Earth.  What does LEO have that Earth does not?  Better access to the rest of space, somewhat more intense solar radiation, and proximal line-of-sight to billions of consumers.

Mars has propellant but not energy.  I've not yet seen what else it might have.

Some near Earth asteroids will have better ore than is available on Earth.  Some will be closer to the Sun, where solar panels deliver more watts/$ than in LEO.  Maybe mining will make sense.

When I wonder what is to be done that will benefit people here, I think about what is done here:
$1500B/year: oil ($0.40/kg)
$ 900B/year: cellphone plans
$ 420B/year: cement production ($0.10/kg)
$ 100B/year: aluminum mining and refining ($1.80/kg)
$   25B/year: nickel mining and refining ($10/kg)

If people on Earth are going to buy a lot of stuff from space, it's hard for me to see that it's going to be materials, as there is either not enough needed or it's not expensive enough per kg.  So at first, it's going to be communications (and already is, of course, but I mean many hundreds of billions $/year).  Later it might be energy.  Maybe solar power satellites will some day make sense.  I don't see how Mars figures in to any of this.  I think the idea of building satellites in space to avoid most of the cost of boosting them into orbit sounds... pretty far away.

So I think I like Bezos' plan a little better than Musk's Mars ambitions, but I like what I think is Musk's plan to launch lots of very large LEO comsats even better still.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: JasonAW3 on 11/01/2016 08:24 pm
Not sure what to think; he might be right - it might take too long for a Martian colony to become practically self-sufficient and a viable "back-up" to Earth. Or, both Musk and Bezos may be correct (about backups and industrializing space, respectively); their goals would even complement each other in expanding humanity's presence in space.

In the whole scheme of things, I think both efforts can exist without interfering with each other.  And since both require reducing the cost to access space, both are complementary to a great degree.

Dang...  Said it with far less words than I used...
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: savuporo on 11/01/2016 11:47 pm
Near earth space is already an industrial park, for the past few decades. With all the signs of any other industrial park to the point of creating a pollution problem. So Bezos is not wrong.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: leaflion on 11/02/2016 12:55 am

When I wonder what is to be done that will benefit people here, I think about what is done here:
$1500B/year: oil ($0.40/kg)
$ 900B/year: cellphone plans
$ 420B/year: cement production ($0.10/kg)
$ 100B/year: aluminum mining and refining ($1.80/kg)
$   25B/year: nickel mining and refining ($10/kg)

What if we add:

$200B/year: precious metals ($35,000/kg)

That and water (which presumably will quickly bootstrap to being an important in-space resource) are the first things proposed to be mined from NEOs.  The idea of LEO industry is that there is much more downmass than upmass. Doesn't take much prop to de-orbit from LEO, just a heatshield.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: leaflion on 11/02/2016 01:37 am
Imagine you are in space.  There are 4 main things in space that will kill you.

1. The cold and vacuum.  This is your fast death.
2. Gravity.  Judging by what happens after a year of zero G to things like eyes, bones, etc.  This is your slow killer
3. Radiation.  This is your least-fun way to die. Medium-term.
4. Things that crash into you with a LOT of energy.  This is your unlikely but random and not that unlikely killer.

Now, lets compare how LEO vs. Mars protect you from these 4 Killers

KillerLEOMars
Pressure/Cold >:( >:(
Gravity >:( :(
Radiation :-\ :(
Crashed Into >:( :)

Now lets assume that you have a habitat (space station, hab, etc)

KillerLEOMars
Pressure/Cold 8) 8)
Gravity >:( :(
Radiation :) :-\
Crashed Into :-\ :)

Now, lets see what problems we can solve my throwing mass at them (Shielding, big spinny space stations, etc)

KillerLEOMars
Pressure/Cold 8) 8)
Gravity 8) :(
Radiation 8) 8)
Crashed Into 8) 8)

My highly laboured point here is that initially, Mars seems like it protects you from the dangers of space.  But with our current space station tech, its hardly better than a space station.
As our lifting and in-space resource utilization skills increase, Space stations become more livable than Mars.  I contend that it is easier to design big cheap rockets than to solve the biological issue: living in low-G.

I personally wouldn't move permanently off earth until they are all at least  ;)
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: daveklingler on 11/02/2016 05:12 am
Earth is a natural container. Mars is a natural container.

NO!

Good god, no.  Absolutely, categorically not.  Stop it, stop it, stop it, please stop.

Mars is not a "natural" anything.  Mars, for all practical purposes, is just another place in the universe not on the surface of the Earth.  It has a little bit of gravity, but that's at least as much of a disadvantage as an advantage, if not more so.

Our choices for living away from Earth are pretty much:

A.  Adapt to different (i.e. initially lower) gravity environments
B.  Adapt to zero G environments
C.  Create the ability to build massive artificial gravity structures in space

However we don't have enough information yet to understand which of these is achievable, and which are not.

Huh?  C is a relatively straightforward engineering development process that begins with a spacecraft tethered to a spent stage.  A and B are, I agree, complete unknowns WRT possibility and timeframe.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Space is the future, but space itself is mostly worthless. Space is absence. We travel through Space in order to reach an entity of much greater objective value: Stuff.

Keep the supply lines short.  The success of every human settlement depends on logistics.

Sure.  And in comparing Musks plans to Bezos, once you send humans to Mars with minimum viable logistics they have a whole world of local resources to rely upon to fill in the rest.  In contrast, any in-space colony will never have local resources to rely upon.

Great!  Let's say I drop you directly on top of iron, copper and bauxite deposits on the Martian surface.  What riches!  Now you tell me how long it will take you to do anything with them, say, return ore to a settlement (loading it how and on to what?) and build an electric motor. 

Oh, hey, you've got lots of silicon there.  How long will it take you to refine that silicon to the point where you can build a chip or a solar panel?

Take your time.  No need to be more accurate than plus or minus a few decades. 

Quote
Now I'm not arguing against space colonies, just pointing out that planets have an advantage in the ability to access resources, whereas with space colonies you have to ship EVERYTHING to them.  There is really no chance of a space colony becoming self-sufficient, whereas there is some long-term possibility that a Mars colony could.

Okay, first of all, they're all space colonies.  That's my point.  This idea that Mars is somehow an easier place to start a space colony, because it's a planet and therefore easier because it's a planet and therefore easier, is an unfounded assumption. 

Regarding resources, some time soon (< 10 years) after we (humans) begin launching asteroid retrieval spacecraft, small asteroids measuring in the half-kiloton range can begin to arrive in cislunar space, ready for retrieval to wherever we place stations.  A station in LEO can make a relatively rapid progression, using conventional equipment shipped from nearby, to the point where it can refine and smelt small amounts of ore. 

But we're talking hundreds of metric tons, at the very outset, which is more than any human colony on Mars would be able to even lift on to their little red wagons. 

Please see the Planetary Resources and DSI websites for more detail on asteroid mining.

Quote
Quote
Build an outpost village near civilization.  Industrialize the village and grow it into a town.  Now use that town to As you said, space is worthless.  It's what we plonk into space that creates a destination.  Patiently plonking destinations into LEO, then into GEO, then points further out creates the best chances for success, instead of getting fooled by the mirage of Mars.

I tend to take an "all of the above" approach to this.  I don't think it makes sense to limit humanity to only one path, especially since it will take centuries before we know which one is better (if any).  And since learning how to be competent traveling around in space helps everyone, we are not yet at a point where we have to make a choice about whether Bezos has the better approach or Musk does.

I, however, have enough information to make a judgement call that it is more logical and economical to build colonies in LEO with one Earth gravity and very little required radiation protection, and near enough to Earth that off-the-shelf Earth tools can be easily shipped up.  Based on what we've learned from ISS about equatorial LEO radiation levels, guilt-free baby-making can start immediately. Al Globus says so.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: savuporo on 11/02/2016 05:17 am
Now, lets compare how LEO vs. Mars protect you from these 4 Killers

KillerLEOMars
Pressure/Cold >:( >:(
Gravity >:( :(
Radiation :-\ :(
Crashed Into >:( :)

You probably want to re-think the last part
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013JE004482/full
Quote
Recent orbital imaging of Mars has revealed new impact craters formed within the period of spacecraft observation. Beginning with discoveries by the Mars Orbiter Camera (MOC) [Malin et al., 2006] and continuing with the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (MRO) cameras, over 200 new craters or crater clusters have been observed [Daubar et al., 2013].
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: high road on 11/02/2016 07:00 am
Now I'm not arguing against space colonies, just pointing out that planets have an advantage in the ability to access resources, whereas with space colonies you have to ship EVERYTHING to them.  There is really no chance of a space colony becoming self-sufficient, whereas there is some long-term possibility that a Mars colony could.

So the big advantage of planets is that you can pollute them all you want without (in the foreseeable future) running out of the raw materials you're not bothering to recycle? That's the second most common argument against space exploration I hear all the time.

Bear in mind that not a single city on earth is self-sufficient, and that even our entire society isn't self-sufficient as we keep burning through mineral reserves and billions of years worth of fossil fuels. If anything, settlements become less self-sufficient as they grow, setting up satellite villages to focus on food production, and focussing themselves on producing what they already have too much of, to sell to others and pay for the things they don't have enough of. Any village that is self sufficient, will either die out because its self-sufficiency comes at a cost that is higher than the market price, or start importing luxury items and services as they build up wealth. Which at that point, they will see as a 'need'.

If self-sufficiency to you only means energy, air, food, water and habitation, I posit that any space station big enough to recycle its own waste into new crops would use the same techniques as any planet with no free oxygen or local biosphere. It would, as technology matures, no longer require a lot of inputs beyond compensating for population growth.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: leaflion on 11/02/2016 07:17 am

You probably want to re-think the last part
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013JE004482/full
Quote
Recent orbital imaging of Mars has revealed new impact craters formed within the period of spacecraft observation. Beginning with discoveries by the Mars Orbiter Camera (MOC) [Malin et al., 2006] and continuing with the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (MRO) cameras, over 200 new craters or crater clusters have been observed [Daubar et al., 2013].

Good point. Revised:

Have a habitat (space station, hab, etc)

KillerLEOMars
Pressure/Cold 8) 8)
Gravity >:( :(
Radiation :) :-\
Crashed Into :-\ :(

Now, lets see what problems we can solve my throwing mass at them (Shielding, big spinny space stations, etc)

KillerLEOMars
Pressure/Cold 8) 8)
Gravity 8) :(
Radiation 8) 8)
Crashed Into 8) :-\

Looks like a LEO space station is a better idea the whole way through now.

I recommend using smiley-face tables to perform trade studies.  I believe NASA has a spec for it.  ::)
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: john smith 19 on 11/02/2016 09:50 am
It's interesting that this thread has raised several of the questions I wanted to raise on the Martian Homesteading threads.

Unless a government commits to establishing an off Earth settlement regardless of cost then any such settlement must generate some kind of revenue.

Blue and SX can write off the start up costs but in some ways that's the easy part.  The settlement/facility must generate enough revenue somehow to cover it's operating costs, specifically to buy in all the things it needs that it is not self sufficient in.

A settlement that cannot do this is effectively a corporate vanity project that will last as long as it's parents management and stockholders continue to view it as part of their corporate strategy.

BTW Some people seem to think LEO is a place where everything has to be bought up from Earth but as our NEO surveillance improves I expect to see a great many more small(ish) objects that can have their orbital parameters adjusted to bring them to LEO for conversion either into living or working space (with much better radiation protection than anything you are likely to bring up from Earth) or raw material for mfg products.


The question remains what can you make in LEO that is light enough yet has high enough value to justify setting up the facility?
High purity specialized glasses for FO lasers and amplifiers seems to be possible. Possibly a couple of other lines.

Note putting the facility into orbit is not enough.

You need a)Down mass b)regular predictable resupply (where Shuttle fell down) c)Ability to swap out (or land the whole facility) sections for damage analysis, repairs or upgrade. I strongly doubt any facility, crewed or uncrewed, is going to be

Anyone who can't do this is doomed to a "big bang," sending up a stocked up facility, letting it run then de-orbiting the whole thing to recover the finished product. A very  clumsy ConOps.  :(
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: francesco nicoli on 11/02/2016 10:46 am

When I wonder what is to be done that will benefit people here, I think about what is done here:
$1500B/year: oil ($0.40/kg)
$ 900B/year: cellphone plans
$ 420B/year: cement production ($0.10/kg)
$ 100B/year: aluminum mining and refining ($1.80/kg)
$   25B/year: nickel mining and refining ($10/kg)

What if we add:

$200B/year: precious metals ($35,000/kg)

That and water (which presumably will quickly bootstrap to being an important in-space resource) are the first things proposed to be mined from NEOs.  The idea of LEO industry is that there is much more downmass than upmass. Doesn't take much prop to de-orbit from LEO, just a heatshield.

Any serious space industrialisation plan cannot rely on the falsehood "water is precious in space" to finance itself.
Yes, water IS precious in space because access costs are so high. But you won't have any serious industrialisation if space costs remain high. So, if Musk or Bezos or whoever manages to bring costs down (and hell, it looks like both companies' medium term plans could very well deliver that goal) then water in space is no longer precious.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Robotbeat on 11/02/2016 11:32 am

You probably want to re-think the last part
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013JE004482/full
Quote
Recent orbital imaging of Mars has revealed new impact craters formed within the period of spacecraft observation. Beginning with discoveries by the Mars Orbiter Camera (MOC) [Malin et al., 2006] and continuing with the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (MRO) cameras, over 200 new craters or crater clusters have been observed [Daubar et al., 2013].

Good point. Revised:

Have a habitat (space station, hab, etc)

KillerLEOMars
Pressure/Cold 8) 8)
Gravity >:( :(
Radiation :) :-\
Crashed Into :-\ :(

Now, lets see what problems we can solve my throwing mass at them (Shielding, big spinny space stations, etc)

KillerLEOMars
Pressure/Cold 8) 8)
Gravity 8) :(
Radiation 8) 8)
Crashed Into 8) :-\

Looks like a LEO space station is a better idea the whole way through now.

I recommend using smiley-face tables to perform trade studies.  I believe NASA has a spec for it.  ::)
Just in a spacesuit (no shielding), Mars at relevant landing sites has lower radiation dose than ISS. Please correct.

Also, gravity is an unknown. Mars may easily be good enough. And you CAN actually get to Earth gravity by "throwing mass at the problem". Mars also has the advantage that there are FAR more accessible resources than anywhere in the solar system besides the surface of Earth. And for some resources, like iron, it's even more easily accessible than Earth.

Also, WTf is "crashed into"? Mars surface relevant sites are fully protected from micrometeorites. LEO, on the other hand, will always have significant impact risk.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: vapour_nudge on 11/02/2016 12:07 pm

You probably want to re-think the last part
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013JE004482/full
Quote
Recent orbital imaging of Mars has revealed new impact craters formed within the period of spacecraft observation. Beginning with discoveries by the Mars Orbiter Camera (MOC) [Malin et al., 2006] and continuing with the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (MRO) cameras, over 200 new craters or crater clusters have been observed [Daubar et al., 2013].

Good point. Revised:

Have a habitat (space station, hab, etc)

KillerLEOMars
Pressure/Cold 8) 8)
Gravity >:( :(
Radiation :) :-\
Crashed Into :-\ :(

Now, lets see what problems we can solve my throwing mass at them (Shielding, big spinny space stations, etc)

KillerLEOMars
Pressure/Cold 8) 8)
Gravity 8) :(
Radiation 8) 8)
Crashed Into 8) :-\

Looks like a LEO space station is a better idea the whole way through now.

I recommend using smiley-face tables to perform trade studies.  I believe NASA has a spec for it.  ::)

Good internet etiquette is one smiley per post 😉😄
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: daveklingler on 11/03/2016 01:32 am

You probably want to re-think the last part
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013JE004482/full
Quote
Recent orbital imaging of Mars has revealed new impact craters formed within the period of spacecraft observation. Beginning with discoveries by the Mars Orbiter Camera (MOC) [Malin et al., 2006] and continuing with the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (MRO) cameras, over 200 new craters or crater clusters have been observed [Daubar et al., 2013].

Good point. Revised:

Have a habitat (space station, hab, etc)

KillerLEOMars
Pressure/Cold 8) 8)
Gravity >:( :(
Radiation :) :-\
Crashed Into :-\ :(

Now, lets see what problems we can solve my throwing mass at them (Shielding, big spinny space stations, etc)

KillerLEOMars
Pressure/Cold 8) 8)
Gravity 8) :(
Radiation 8) 8)
Crashed Into 8) :-\

Looks like a LEO space station is a better idea the whole way through now.

I recommend using smiley-face tables to perform trade studies.  I believe NASA has a spec for it.  ::)
Just in a spacesuit (no shielding), Mars at relevant landing sites has lower radiation dose than ISS. Please correct.

The Earth's magnetic field plays a huge role here.

Mars - around 255 mSv as measured by Curiosity, plus the 300 mSv the colonist incurs on the way to Mars
ISS as it crosses the equator - about 17 mSv (varies by altitude and inclination)
space station at 500km equatorial LEO - 17.7 mSv, acceptable for safe human breeding

Quote
Also, gravity is an unknown. Mars may easily be good enough. And you CAN actually get to Earth gravity by "throwing mass at the problem". Mars also has the advantage that there are FAR more accessible resources than anywhere in the solar system besides the surface of Earth. And for some resources, like iron, it's even more easily accessible than Earth.

Gravity is a known.  It's safe to say that humans are better adapted to 1G than any other value.  If you're proposing to "fix" Mars' gravity in order to make Mars a better place to colonize, that's all well and good and I wish you luck in your future endeavour.

Saying that there are FAR more accessible resources than anywhere in the solar system (false because asteroid belts) is misleading because even if said resources are lying around one's putative Mars colony, it would be several decades (at least) before anything meaningful could be done with them.

Quote
Also, WTf is "crashed into"? Mars surface relevant sites are fully protected from micrometeorites. LEO, on the other hand, will always have significant impact risk.

A previous poster pointed out that new impact sites are appearing before our very satellites.  The Martian atmosphere and the planet itself provide some protection against meteor impacts, but "fully protected" is not accurate.  Beyond that, though, micrometeorites are not that big on the scale of problems for LEO (or Mars). We've dealt with them for the past few decades.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: daveklingler on 11/03/2016 01:42 am
Bear in mind that not a single city on earth is self-sufficient, and that even our entire society isn't self-sufficient as we keep burning through mineral reserves and billions of years worth of fossil fuels. If anything, settlements become less self-sufficient as they grow, setting up satellite villages to focus on food production, and focussing themselves on producing what they already have too much of, to sell to others and pay for the things they don't have enough of. Any village that is self sufficient, will either die out because its self-sufficiency comes at a cost that is higher than the market price, or start importing luxury items and services as they build up wealth. Which at that point, they will see as a 'need'.

If self-sufficiency to you only means energy, air, food, water and habitation, I posit that any space station big enough to recycle its own waste into new crops would use the same techniques as any planet with no free oxygen or local biosphere. It would, as technology matures, no longer require a lot of inputs beyond compensating for population growth.

This is an interesting and extremely important point.  We talk about "self-sufficiency" as a goal for Mars settlements because (a) they're so difficult to reach and service that self-sufficiency is absolutely necessary for the colony to survive and (b) space colony people often cite "backup plan" as a reason to build space colonies. 

But LEO colonies don't have to be self-sufficient, because (relative to Mars colonies) soon after they're built they'd be functioning not that differently from terrestrial cities, selling products and importing what they can't make themselves. 

To wit, the bar for a LEO colony to "hold its own", i.e. support its population without heavy subsidies, is much, much lower than the bar for a Mars colony, which IS self-sufficiency.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Coastal Ron on 11/03/2016 01:44 am
Huh?  C is a relatively straightforward engineering development process that begins with a spacecraft tethered to a spent stage.

Such a configuration would be for testing purposes only, not for normal use.  And that type of configuration is certainly not scaleable.

Quote
Great!  Let's say I drop you directly on top of iron, copper and bauxite deposits on the Martian surface.  What riches!  Now you tell me how long it will take you to do anything with them, say, return ore to a settlement (loading it how and on to what?) and build an electric motor.

Oh, hey, you've got lots of silicon there.  How long will it take you to refine that silicon to the point where you can build a chip or a solar panel?

Take your time.  No need to be more accurate than plus or minus a few decades.

I think it will take many decades, maybe even centuries.  My career has been in the manufacturing world, so I know how hard it is to make things even in the middle of civilization.

But making the same size colony out in space, and not on a big lump of atoms, will take far longer.

Quote

Okay, first of all, they're all space colonies.  That's my point.  This idea that Mars is somehow an easier place to start a space colony, because it's a planet and therefore easier because it's a planet and therefore easier, is an unfounded assumption.

The same can be said about colonies not on a planetoid.  However I would characterize it as a calculated assumption.  And it's certainly one that many feel is worth pursuing.

Quote
Regarding resources, some time soon (< 10 years) after we (humans) begin launching asteroid retrieval spacecraft, small asteroids measuring in the half-kiloton range can begin to arrive in cislunar space, ready for retrieval to wherever we place stations.  A station in LEO can make a relatively rapid progression, using conventional equipment shipped from nearby, to the point where it can refine and smelt small amounts of ore.

All of our mineral extraction techniques here on Earth rely upon 1G gravity, free access to as much air as is needed, and in some cases bulk quantities of complex chemicals.

All we'll have in space is lots of heat and cold, so I'm not sure extracting minerals in space is going to happen at a very rapid pace.

Quote
Based on what we've learned from ISS about equatorial LEO radiation levels, guilt-free baby-making can start immediately. Al Globus says so.

Somehow I don't think there will be a rush to make babies in space right away.  But as I said earlier, I think in-space colonies and Mars colonies can exist at the same time, and even complement each other.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: daveklingler on 11/03/2016 01:55 am
It's interesting that this thread has raised several of the questions I wanted to raise on the Martian Homesteading threads.

Unless a government commits to establishing an off Earth settlement regardless of cost then any such settlement must generate some kind of revenue.

Blue and SX can write off the start up costs but in some ways that's the easy part.  The settlement/facility must generate enough revenue somehow to cover it's operating costs, specifically to buy in all the things it needs that it is not self sufficient in.

A settlement that cannot do this is effectively a corporate vanity project that will last as long as it's parents management and stockholders continue to view it as part of their corporate strategy.

BTW Some people seem to think LEO is a place where everything has to be bought up from Earth but as our NEO surveillance improves I expect to see a great many more small(ish) objects that can have their orbital parameters adjusted to bring them to LEO for conversion either into living or working space (with much better radiation protection than anything you are likely to bring up from Earth) or raw material for mfg products.


The question remains what can you make in LEO that is light enough yet has high enough value to justify setting up the facility?
High purity specialized glasses for FO lasers and amplifiers seems to be possible. Possibly a couple of other lines.

Note putting the facility into orbit is not enough.

You need a)Down mass b)regular predictable resupply (where Shuttle fell down) c)Ability to swap out (or land the whole facility) sections for damage analysis, repairs or upgrade. I strongly doubt any facility, crewed or uncrewed, is going to be

Anyone who can't do this is doomed to a "big bang," sending up a stocked up facility, letting it run then de-orbiting the whole thing to recover the finished product. A very  clumsy ConOps.  :(

I think you've framed this issue pretty well.  It's highly unlikely that any government on Earth is going to support a Mars colony in the foreseeable future, and any Mars colony would require constant support for the foreseeable future.  Therefore a successful Mars colony will not exist in the foreseeable future.

For an orbital colony, the necessary support is orders of magnitude smaller and yet still highly difficult to justify.  Tourism will be the first target, and although the market surveys look okay we'll have to wait and see whether that works.  There's also space-based power, a traditional hobby horse, but I tend to discount that because I think we're getting better at generating power near the point of use.

I've wondered myself whether, if we get better at bringing NEOs to LEO and sending products to the surface inexpensively, farming could turn out to be profitable, say on high-value crops that can be grown 24/7 without regard to seasons, insects, blights or natural disasters.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Coastal Ron on 11/03/2016 01:56 am
So the big advantage of planets is that you can pollute them all you want without (in the foreseeable future) running out of the raw materials you're not bothering to recycle? That's the second most common argument against space exploration I hear all the time.

I wasn't aware that we'd run out of any raw materials here on Earth.  Definitely not of the mineral kind.

And if given the chance to start anew on a new world, we certainly have a lot of lessons learned that we'll be able to apply.  For instance, recycling aluminum can significantly reduce the need to mine and refine more aluminum, so I think Mars colonists will be very good recyclers.

Quote
Bear in mind that not a single city on earth is self-sufficient, and that even our entire society isn't self-sufficient as we keep burning through mineral reserves and billions of years worth of fossil fuels.

Let's cut to the chase here - I don't know anyone that thinks Mars will be self-sufficient anytime soon.  If we're lucky maybe a century, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's far longer.

So self-sufficiency is not required to start colonization off of Earth, either for Mars or in-space colonies, since it's a long-term goal, not a near-term one.

Next subject...
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: daveklingler on 11/03/2016 02:09 am
Huh?  C is a relatively straightforward engineering development process that begins with a spacecraft tethered to a spent stage.

Such a configuration would be for testing purposes only, not for normal use. 

Yes, a first step in a relatively straightforward engineering development process.

Quote
I think it will take many decades, maybe even centuries.  My career has been in the manufacturing world, so I know how hard it is to make things even in the middle of civilization.

But making the same size colony out in space, and not on a big lump of atoms, will take far longer.

I can't see how you would arrive at that conclusion.  Making any size colony in LEO is many orders of magnitude more economical and straightforward versus one on Mars.

Quote
Quote

Okay, first of all, they're all space colonies.  That's my point.  This idea that Mars is somehow an easier place to start a space colony, because it's a planet and therefore easier because it's a planet and therefore easier, is an unfounded assumption.

The same can be said about colonies not on a planetoid.  However I would characterize it as a calculated assumption.  And it's certainly one that many feel is worth pursuing.

The difference between a calculated assumption and an unfounded assumption is that one can begin making plans based on calculated assumptions.

Quote
Quote
Regarding resources, some time soon (< 10 years) after we (humans) begin launching asteroid retrieval spacecraft, small asteroids measuring in the half-kiloton range can begin to arrive in cislunar space, ready for retrieval to wherever we place stations.  A station in LEO can make a relatively rapid progression, using conventional equipment shipped from nearby, to the point where it can refine and smelt small amounts of ore.

All of our mineral extraction techniques here on Earth rely upon 1G gravity, free access to as much air as is needed, and in some cases bulk quantities of complex chemicals.

All we'll have in space is lots of heat and cold, so I'm not sure extracting minerals in space is going to happen at a very rapid pace.

My assertions about LEO colonies are based on the presence of 1G gravity, i.e. SSI-type settlements.

Quote
Quote
Based on what we've learned from ISS about equatorial LEO radiation levels, guilt-free baby-making can start immediately. Al Globus says so.

Somehow I don't think there will be a rush to make babies in space right away.  But as I said earlier, I think in-space colonies and Mars colonies can exist at the same time, and even complement each other.

I am not sure what you are talking about when you say "in-space colonies".  To me, Mars colonies are, for all practical purposes, "in-space colonies" that have simply been placed very far away from Earth.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: daveklingler on 11/03/2016 02:14 am
Let's cut to the chase here - I don't know anyone that thinks Mars will be self-sufficient anytime soon.  If we're lucky maybe a century, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's far longer.

So self-sufficiency is not required to start colonization off of Earth, either for Mars or in-space colonies, since it's a long-term goal, not a near-term one.

I agree.  But near self-sufficiency is relatively necessary right off the bat for a Mars colony, given the difficulty of supporting one, and self-sufficiency is inherently necessary to meet the goal of establishing a "Plan B for humanity", which is the reason most often cited by putative Mars colonists when asked why in tarnation we'd ever want to try to colonize Mars.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Coastal Ron on 11/03/2016 02:25 am
It's highly unlikely that any government on Earth is going to support a Mars colony in the foreseeable future, and any Mars colony would require constant support for the foreseeable future.

For an orbital colony, the necessary support is orders of magnitude smaller and yet still highly difficult to justify.

Absent some currently unknown "National Imperative", I know of no reason the U.S. Government would spend any public money to directly finance or support a colony off of Earth - regardless where it is.  And I think the same applies to other governments too.

That's not to say that various governments wouldn't spend money to pursue "science", and pay Bezos or Musk to do what they already plan to do so that the governments can tag along.  But I don't foresee that being a majority of the overall funding.

I think colonizing space is going to have to be a primarily privately funded effort.  I'm certainly willing to throw some play money at it, and probably others would be too.  But I don't see any significant revenue streams coming in to help finance any of these efforts.

Quote
Tourism will be the first target, and although the market surveys look okay we'll have to wait and see whether that works.

Sorry, but no.  The market for "experiential travel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experiential_travel)" (which is what space tourism is initially) is not that big.  And overall tourism is a byproduct of humanities expansion, not a leader.  Plus, what is a space tourist supposed to do?

Quote
I've wondered myself whether, if we get better at bringing NEOs to LEO and sending products to the surface inexpensively, farming could turn out to be profitable, say on high-value crops that can be grown 24/7 without regard to seasons, insects, blights or natural disasters.

Unlikely.  Crops grown is space will be far more valuable supporting self-sufficiency in space.  Ironically crops grown in LEO could be sold to Mars colonists...
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Coastal Ron on 11/03/2016 02:34 am
But near self-sufficiency is relatively necessary right off the bat for a Mars colony, given the difficulty of supporting one...

That is not what Elon Musk is planning.  His plan is to double the number of ships going to Mars every synodic cycle.  No one knows if that will happen, but it's clear Musk plans to keep transporting people and materials to Mars in ever increasing amounts.  So the plan is not "one and done".

Quote
...and self-sufficiency is inherently necessary to meet the goal of establishing a "Plan B for humanity", which is the reason most often cited by putative Mars colonists when asked why in tarnation we'd ever want to try to colonize Mars.

Sure.  But there is no defined need date to make that happen, since we don't know when/if the end of the Earth is coming.

It is curious though that you're implying that LEO colonies will never become self-sufficient, yet you pan Mars colonists for trying.  Seems like a double standard to me...
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: daveklingler on 11/03/2016 02:42 am
But near self-sufficiency is relatively necessary right off the bat for a Mars colony, given the difficulty of supporting one...

That is not what Elon Musk is planning.  His plan is to double the number of ships going to Mars every synodic cycle.  No one knows if that will happen, but it's clear Musk plans to keep transporting people and materials to Mars in ever increasing amounts.  So the plan is not "one and done".

IIRC, he has explicitly stated that the support of multiple governments will be required. So he may plan...

Quote
Quote
...and self-sufficiency is inherently necessary to meet the goal of establishing a "Plan B for humanity", which is the reason most often cited by putative Mars colonists when asked why in tarnation we'd ever want to try to colonize Mars.

Sure.  But there is no defined need date to make that happen, since we don't know when/if the end of the Earth is coming.

It is curious though that you're implying that LEO colonies will never become self-sufficient, yet you pan Mars colonists for trying.  Seems like a double standard to me...

No, and of course yes.  LEO colonies may become self-sufficient, and I think it's easier for them to become so.  But it's not necessary.  They're not that far away, and they can effectively participate in most of the things other Earth cities do.

As I've said, Mars colonies have an explicit requirement to become as self-sufficient as possible in the shortest timespan possible because of the high difficulty in supporting them.  That is a completely different standard.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Coastal Ron on 11/03/2016 02:52 am
Just to be clear, I think there is a lot of things that are common between what Jeff Bezos wants to do in space and what Elon Musk wants to do on Mars.

And luckily both have the ability and resources to work on lowering the cost to access space, which is certainly a major barrier to expanding humanity out into space - anywhere in space.

Personally I have more near-term interest in creating LEO space stations, but that is because I've taken an interest in 1st generation rotating space station designs that are scaleable.  It's just a hobby, but I think I understand the challenges involved.

I'm also fascinated by Musk's plans for Mars, although I don't yet understand how his colonization plan is supposed to work, but based on his past success I'm willing to give him some time to figure it out.

In comparison, all we have from Jeff Bezos is the transportation part of the goal he supports, so there is less to get excited over - but hopefully that will change with time too...
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: daveklingler on 11/03/2016 02:53 am
It's highly unlikely that any government on Earth is going to support a Mars colony in the foreseeable future, and any Mars colony would require constant support for the foreseeable future.

For an orbital colony, the necessary support is orders of magnitude smaller and yet still highly difficult to justify.

Absent some currently unknown "National Imperative", I know of no reason the U.S. Government would spend any public money to directly finance or support a colony off of Earth - regardless where it is.  And I think the same applies to other governments too.

That's not to say that various governments wouldn't spend money to pursue "science", and pay Bezos or Musk to do what they already plan to do so that the governments can tag along.  But I don't foresee that being a majority of the overall funding.

I think colonizing space is going to have to be a primarily privately funded effort.  I'm certainly willing to throw some play money at it, and probably others would be too.  But I don't see any significant revenue streams coming in to help finance any of these efforts.

Yep.

Quote
Quote
Tourism will be the first target, and although the market surveys look okay we'll have to wait and see whether that works.

Sorry, but no.  The market for "experiential travel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experiential_travel)" (which is what space tourism is initially) is not that big.  And overall tourism is a byproduct of humanities expansion, not a leader.  Plus, what is a space tourist supposed to do?

I've seen several market surveys that disagree with your opinion, but I'm skeptical myself.  Regardless, I'm not in the space tourism business and I'm perfectly willing to wait and see.  Argue it out with Mr. Bigelow!

Quote
I've wondered myself whether, if we get better at bringing NEOs to LEO and sending products to the surface inexpensively, farming could turn out to be profitable, say on high-value crops that can be grown 24/7 without regard to seasons, insects, blights or natural disasters.

Unlikely.  Crops grown is space will be far more valuable supporting self-sufficiency in space.  [/quote]

That could be.  Or not.  It's all speculation until somebody sits down with a calculator.

Quote
Ironically crops grown in LEO could be sold to Mars colonists...

I think I've convinced myself (at least) that absent multi-government support, successful Mars colonies will not exist, and neither will any market for high-value crops grown in orbit and stored for a synodic cycle.  Elon's Mars colonists will have to eat each other. 

Which is exactly what I expect would happen.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Coastal Ron on 11/03/2016 02:54 am
As I've said, Mars colonies have an explicit requirement to become as self-sufficient as possible in the shortest timespan possible because of the high difficulty in supporting them.  That is a completely different standard.

That's your standard, not Musk's.  And he gets to set the goals for his Mars colony, not anyone else.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: daveklingler on 11/03/2016 03:07 am
Just to be clear, I think there is a lot of things that are common between what Jeff Bezos wants to do in space and what Elon Musk wants to do on Mars.

Hm.  I'm having a tough time coming up with a list.

Bezos is an avid chess player, as I was once, and chess players have a certain way of thinking.  Bezos researches and plans very carefully.  He has a personal goal, I suspect, of going to the lunar surface some day, and a goal for Blue Origin, which is to provide low cost access to cislunar space.

Musk's goal is explicitly to put human colonies on Mars.  I was once an avid mathematician, as well, and I think Musk's goal lacks rigor.  Of course, I lament the lack of rigor in nearly everything, so for me to say that something lacks rigor is not uncommon.

Quote
And luckily both have the ability and resources to work on lowering the cost to access space, which is certainly a major barrier to expanding humanity out into space - anywhere in space.

Personally I have more near-term interest in creating LEO space stations, but that is because I've taken an interest in 1st generation rotating space station designs that are scaleable.  It's just a hobby, but I think I understand the challenges involved.

Yes, that is my interest as well.  I believe that LEO space stations can be plausibly worth building, and it's much easier for me to see a realistic need to develop infrastructure in LEO.  Said LEO infrastructure makes everything else easier and more economical, so in my opinion LEO infrastructure is ideally a first priority.

Quote
I'm also fascinated by Musk's plans for Mars, although I don't yet understand how his colonization plan is supposed to work, but based on his past success I'm willing to give him some time to figure it out.

Yep.  I'm all for him doing everything he's done so far, and I'll cheer for him if he puts explorers on Mars.  Beyond that I wish that he would use his time and resources to build infrastructure in LEO.  If he does so, he and I will both be happier.

Quote
In comparison, all we have from Jeff Bezos is the transportation part of the goal he supports, so there is less to get excited over - but hopefully that will change with time too...

I'm looking forward to New Armstrong.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: daveklingler on 11/03/2016 03:10 am
As I've said, Mars colonies have an explicit requirement to become as self-sufficient as possible in the shortest timespan possible because of the high difficulty in supporting them.  That is a completely different standard.

That's your standard, not Musk's.  And he gets to set the goals for his Mars colony, not anyone else.

I believe that is actually Musk's standard as well as an axiomatic standard for anyone else who wishes to colonize Mars.  Especially for the reasons that Musk consistently provides.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: high road on 11/03/2016 07:03 am
So the big advantage of planets is that you can pollute them all you want without (in the foreseeable future) running out of the raw materials you're not bothering to recycle? That's the second most common argument against space exploration I hear all the time.

I wasn't aware that we'd run out of any raw materials here on Earth.  Definitely not of the mineral kind.

Have you quoted the wrong part of my post? I clearly say 'without running out of'.

Quote
And if given the chance to start anew on a new world, we certainly have a lot of lessons learned that we'll be able to apply.  For instance, recycling aluminum can significantly reduce the need to mine and refine more aluminum, so I think Mars colonists will be very good recyclers.

Exactly. Aluminum is not the best example because we're already doing our best to recycle as much as we can (well, in Europe at least, can't speak for the entire world), but phosphorus, fuel, water, plastics, etc. All things we carelessly throw away on earth because we have easily accessible reserves, will still be comparatively hard to extract and refine on Mars, and so more effort will go to recycling as much as we can. Hopefully before the other side of the production process, the waste material piling up in the environment, forces us to do so, like what's happening now on earth.

Same goes for a colony in space, which has to 'import' stuff from asteroids or the moon. They will use the same techniques, as far as spin gravity allows for using the same techniques, as planetary colonies will.

Quote
Quote
Bear in mind that not a single city on earth is self-sufficient, and that even our entire society isn't self-sufficient as we keep burning through mineral reserves and billions of years worth of fossil fuels.

Let's cut to the chase here - I don't know anyone that thinks Mars will be self-sufficient anytime soon.  If we're lucky maybe a century, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's far longer.

So self-sufficiency is not required to start colonization off of Earth, either for Mars or in-space colonies, since it's a long-term goal, not a near-term one.

That's the point: a colony that is set up with the only goal that it will eventually be able to sustain it's citizens, will not last unless it does more than just sustaining them. In economics, 'self sustaining' means raking in more revenue than what's needed to cover the cost. But this means exporting enough goods and services to pay for what needs to be imported.

i'll try and explain this more clearly: a colony on Mars that is capable of providing its citizens with food, water, air, and habitation, what people on this forum mean with self-sufficiency, but has no valuable export, will see a steady decline in population as people try to get back to the higher living standards of Earth. The only way to keep them there, is to screw up earth so it's a worse place ot live than Mars.

On the other hand, if there is an export, from Mars or anywhere in the solar system, the colonists can decide for themselves what standard of living they want to keep up with to make a living off that export, what they want to import to keep that standard of living, and as the population grows, what they can be bothered with to do for themselves rather than schlep it across the solar system. This is what a succesful colony has allways been. There is no reason to assume the future will be different.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: guckyfan on 11/03/2016 07:40 am
In economics, 'self sustaining' means raking in more revenue than what's needed to cover the cost. But this means exporting enough goods and services to pay for what needs to be imported.

But a Mars settlement will not use this definition. It will need to be self sustaining in the sense that they can survive when the supply line is cut. I agree that it will take a century but they would very conciously work towards that goal. It is the very reason for its existence. It would drive the financers and the settlers.

Edit: I wrote "for Mars". It seems the rationale for space industry and millions of people living in space as in Jeff Bezos' vision would have a different outlook.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: high road on 11/03/2016 08:14 am
In economics, 'self sustaining' means raking in more revenue than what's needed to cover the cost. But this means exporting enough goods and services to pay for what needs to be imported.

But a Mars settlement will not use this definition. It will need to be self sustaining in the sense that they can survive when the supply line is cut. I agree that it will take a century but they would very conciously work towards that goal. It is the very reason for its existence. It would drive the financers and the settlers.

Edit: I wrote "for Mars". It seems the rationale for space industry and millions of people living in space as in Jeff Bezos' vision would have a different outlook.

Yes, and no people will invest in cutting the supply line until there's a threat that the supply line will be cut. So either that is because 1) investors/funders are backing out, or because earth will no longer pay for 2) political reasons or 3) economic troubles. In scenario 2 and 3, self-sufficiency at a premium over importing cheap will only be preferable when the crisis is at the horizon. In scenario 2, it's even going to be a catalyst of that crisis. And if scenario 1 is the reason, investors REALLY don't want self-sufficiency at a premium unless 2 or 3 happens. If scenario 1 happens because the way to make money turns out to not make money anymore, the locals will not even want to stay. So in all three cases, self-sufficiency at a premium will be postponed until there's no other way. Doing everything yourself is a good way to fail.

This does not include doing things yourself because it's cheaper than importing. That is preferable no matter where you are: free space, asteroids, Mars, Earth, etc.

Unless you get people to pay for the idea of having a completely independent colony, there will be no other alternative. And only because in that case, these people limit their comfort levels to what is possible on the scale of the colony, rather than benefitting from everything civilization has to offer. Think doomsday preppers and mormons. Great idea, but such a colony will grow a lot slower, and will certainly not be the backup of a highly advanced society. Not without going trough another dark age, that is.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Robotbeat on 11/03/2016 11:52 am
You seem to think the Mars city will be growing for financial reasons, like metal mining. Musk, at least, strongly disagrees. His vision is essentially secular (or at least pluralistic) space Mormons. People who go to start a city because they think it's important for humanity, driven by a purpose beyond themselves, not because they think it'll make them rich.

Because it won't likely make you rich.

"Investors" more like philanthropists or philanthrocapitalists. People who've got the "space religion" and think it's important to establish a permanent human settlement eventually capable of self sufficiency. And also the raw adventure of it.

Mars is not going to become an oil boom town. Bezos seems to think the rest of space will. But I have serious doubts it'll work out that way, as I think the vast majority of space mining operations will be highly robotic even autonomous.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Coastal Ron on 11/03/2016 04:39 pm
Exactly. Aluminum is not the best example because we're already doing our best to recycle as much as we can (well, in Europe at least, can't speak for the entire world), but phosphorus, fuel, water, plastics, etc. All things we carelessly throw away on earth because we have easily accessible reserves...

We don't "carelessly" throw away as much as we make an economic decision.  It's not easy to extract the mineral components out of our waste, and in many cases it's less expensive to just mine new material and make new parts.

Those living in space or on another planet will have different economic incentives to deal with, and it's likely that they will have an incentive to recycle far more than what we do today.  But that is because of their local conditions, not because of any Earth norms.

Quote
Same goes for a colony in space, which has to 'import' stuff from asteroids or the moon. They will use the same techniques, as far as spin gravity allows for using the same techniques, as planetary colonies will.

I've been looking into rotating artificial gravity structures, and I don't think they will be as simple to implement and use as many people think.  Sure, the concept is likely sound, but we really don't know what materials to use to build large spinning structures that won't fly apart.  And the material required will be MASSIVE.  The energy required to find, process, and move that material to build a rotating space station will be massive too, which means it requires a very large upfront investment.

No doubt Elon Musk needs to find investors of all types to help fund his Mars colony, but building an industrial park in Earth local space could require the same or more in investment.  Which means the time scale for both efforts is beyond generational.

Quote
i'll try and explain this more clearly: a colony on Mars that is capable of providing its citizens with food, water, air, and habitation, what people on this forum mean with self-sufficiency, but has no valuable export, will see a steady decline in population as people try to get back to the higher living standards of Earth. The only way to keep them there, is to screw up earth so it's a worse place ot live than Mars.

Robotbeat said it pretty nicely - those going to Mars are not going there for economic gain, but because they are believers.  Those that fund the effort are not investing because they expect an ROI within their lifetimes, but because they believe the investment will benefit their descendants long after they are gone.

And Elon Musk has even stated that there is no economic engine of growth.  I believe his example was that even if they found pure cocaine on the surface of Mars, it would be uneconomical to ship it back to Earth.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: john smith 19 on 11/03/2016 07:28 pm

That's the point: a colony that is set up with the only goal that it will eventually be able to sustain it's citizens, will not last unless it does more than just sustaining them. In economics, 'self sustaining' means raking in more revenue than what's needed to cover the cost. But this means exporting enough goods and services to pay for what needs to be imported.

i'll try and explain this more clearly: a colony on Mars that is capable of providing its citizens with food, water, air, and habitation, what people on this forum mean with self-sufficiency, but has no valuable export, will see a steady decline in population as people try to get back to the higher living standards of Earth. The only way to keep them there, is to screw up earth so it's a worse place ot live than Mars.
I think that's a pretty optimistic description.   :(

The technology baseline a Martian (or LEO) settlement needs to sustain life is so much higher than that needed for subsistence on Earth that I cannot see how one of them would survive without something generating a cash flow from Earth to pay for all the little things that wear out/need replacing

Presumably a LEO settlement would be set up with some products as part of their core mission.

Mars is more tricky. So far people have suggested produce with the unique "Made on Mars" label, Reality TV shows of various sorts, research labs and retirement homes for the very wealthy. Other options would be to require everyone to come with their own trust fund, or a community chest established by SX and other philanthropists to support everyone who has taken the risk of coming to Mars.

This is not just a matter of closed loop life support. It's the hardware needed to build a closed loop ECLSS. ISRU and 3d printing will reduce the range of products needed but the range is vast to begin with, from EVA suits to LED lights. Most of them needing a  very substantial industrial infrastructure to mfg.

Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: su27k on 11/04/2016 01:24 am
Mars as a backup for humanity is a feature of a fully sufficient Mars colony, but from a practical standpoint it is not a good reason to colony Mars. It will cost too much. Reaching a one million person colony that needs no input from Earth will be incredibly expensive. Good luck on getting funding if that's the primary reason.

For a fraction of the cost of a fully sufficient Mars colony, most of the civilization collapsing scenarios on Earth can be mitigated. Asteroid defense, civil defense, disaster relief, securing food production, reducing poverty, renewable energy, etc.

It is a mistake to think Mars colony would be more expensive than fixing Earth, in fact it's the opposite. For example, Imperial College London estimates the cost to half CO2 emissions by 2050 is $2 trillion per year, that's just one of the problems in your long list. The cost of a Mars colony would be rounding error comparing to the resources we spent and will be spending to maintain Earth.

It is a common misconception to think Earth is better than Mars because we have "free" air, water and good temperature range, but none of these are truly free. They're the product of a super complex, global scale ecosystem and climate, which is being strained by 7 billion people. Maintaining and fixing this complex system is going to make the ECLSS for a Mars colony like child's play, and that's ignoring man-made problems like politics, religion and war.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Lar on 11/04/2016 01:39 am
And Elon Musk has even stated that there is no economic engine of growth.  I believe his example was that even if they found pure cocaine on the surface of Mars, it would be uneconomical to ship it back to Earth.

I believe he's wrong about that one. The ships are coming back anyway, so the incremental cost is the extra propellant needed. That's it.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: b0objunior on 11/04/2016 02:12 am
Mars as a backup for humanity is a feature of a fully sufficient Mars colony, but from a practical standpoint it is not a good reason to colony Mars. It will cost too much. Reaching a one million person colony that needs no input from Earth will be incredibly expensive. Good luck on getting funding if that's the primary reason.

For a fraction of the cost of a fully sufficient Mars colony, most of the civilization collapsing scenarios on Earth can be mitigated. Asteroid defense, civil defense, disaster relief, securing food production, reducing poverty, renewable energy, etc.

It is a mistake to think Mars colony would be more expensive than fixing Earth, in fact it's the opposite. For example, Imperial College London estimates the cost to half CO2 emissions by 2050 is $2 trillion per year, that's just one of the problems in your long list. The cost of a Mars colony would be rounding error comparing to the resources we spent and will be spending to maintain Earth.

It is a common misconception to think Earth is better than Mars because we have "free" air, water and good temperature range, but none of these are truly free. They're the product of a super complex, global scale ecosystem and climate, which is being strained by 7 billion people. Maintaining and fixing this complex system is going to make the ECLSS for a Mars colony like child's play, and that's ignoring man-made problems like politics, religion and war.
Right, lets scrap Earth... Do you understand WHAT are you talking about?
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 11/04/2016 02:23 am
Suggest you consider economics differently for Musk/Bezos.

Musk's economics are around the formation of a "bootstrap" economy and its ability to leverage local resources considerably, with the long term goal of weaning dependence.

Bezos, in contrast, is focused on reinventing industrialization around space, from resources (asteroids/moon/...) to products/components/WIP/FIGS ... bound for markets largely on Earth.

Both will generate some revenues from entertainment/adventure/tourism that don't work the above basic cycle,  but will advance the marketing/mindshare of interests.

Look to past history of colonization to gain insight into what it takes to achieve a bootstrap and how long dependencies last. Also, at some stage, economic interests will choose to diversify holdings to "buy in" early before value is established, because it is far cheaper, and often the risks are the same as later. Selling futures might likely be Musk's long term ROI. Also, since he has then a means of taking on planets, makes other "real estate" valuable for other reasons.

As to space industrialization, a Bezos might invest in highly automated vertical industries that function differently in space/zero G from the ground up, and without the need for safeguards or environmental concerns, gaining efficiencies impossible elsewhere. You've seen what "China strategies" have done to American manufacturing. What if you could get 100x below that? And perhaps fulfillment from orbit?

In a like way to Musk, Bezos might "sell the future" to various corporate/industrial interests, translating them for a revenue share into a space based reinvention of a specific business category, not priced off of immediate returns but again on projected future value. Again, like in the above Musk example, at some point a corporation might either diversify or hedge with an investment, fearing not being able to call the "tipping point" well.

One could create a "space bubble", much like we saw a "dotcom bubble" back a quarter of a century ago. We're still only partway through the existing Internet disruption, globalism, and nanofabrication. With the future arriving inconveniently and incompletely all the time.

That's a sneak peak at how big big might be.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: john smith 19 on 11/04/2016 04:56 am
I believe he's wrong about that one. The ships are coming back anyway, so the incremental cost is the extra propellant needed. That's it.
That's only part of the problem.

The price of whatever you're shipping back to Earth has to be high enough on Earth to make those costs and the delay worthwhile.

Musk didn't think even Crack had a good enough price/lb to justify this.

What commodity/product do you think is that valuable?
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Nilof on 11/04/2016 06:33 am
I believe he's wrong about that one. The ships are coming back anyway, so the incremental cost is the extra propellant needed. That's it.
That's only part of the problem.

The price of whatever you're shipping back to Earth has to be high enough on Earth to make those costs and the delay worthwhile.

Musk didn't think even Crack had a good enough price/lb to justify this.

What commodity/product do you think is that valuable?

It is not justifiable with a flags & footprint architecture. It certainly is justifiable with an architecture expected to be able of transporting a million people to Mars. Otherwise transporting people wouldn't be viable.

Of course, when instead of Mars you consider large-scale mining of the Moon or Asteroids, transport back to Earth can be made trivially cheap.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: high road on 11/04/2016 10:49 pm
I believe he's wrong about that one. The ships are coming back anyway, so the incremental cost is the extra propellant needed. That's it.
That's only part of the problem.

The price of whatever you're shipping back to Earth has to be high enough on Earth to make those costs and the delay worthwhile.

Musk didn't think even Crack had a good enough price/lb to justify this.

What commodity/product do you think is that valuable?

I know that Musk is the unquestionnable prophet saviour of humanity and all that, but in the same interview he said a trip to Mars would cost 500.000, and the return was free because he needed the ship back. Even ignoring that people need to eat, breathe and defecate once in a while, that's 6.22 bucks per gram. Elon must have a very cheap supplier. Or you guys should not overanalyse what he says in ethousiasm.

Products that would cost enough per gram, although still probably too little to fill up spacecraft: gems and minerals that only formed in Martian geological conditions, if any are found, Martian fossils, even basic ones that are unremarkable on earth, and 'untouched ' Martian water and talismans for the billions of crazy people back here.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: john smith 19 on 11/05/2016 08:26 pm
It is not justifiable with a flags & footprint architecture.
Isn't the fact it is a flags and footprint mission going to rule that out anyway?
Quote
It certainly is justifiable with an architecture expected to be able of transporting a million people to Mars. Otherwise transporting people wouldn't be viable.

Of course, when instead of Mars you consider large-scale mining of the Moon or Asteroids, transport back to Earth can be made trivially cheap.
Which makes Mars less competitive with those other locations.

The question remains, what is this material or product that is worth shipping 140 million miles to the Earths surface that cannot be made  more cheaply closer to Earth and is so valuable to justify doing it?  So far all I've got is something made on Mars specifically to have the "Made on Mars" label on it.

Outside of this it looks like everything else can be made cheaper or better in LEO (because access to very low pressure and/or microgravity is the point of being there). While Mars has lots of "raw material" it would still seem easier to move ever a fairly large NEO into LEO.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: meekGee on 11/06/2016 01:53 am
Quote from: Dave Klinger
Functionally speaking, there's no difference between living in a pressure vessel on Mars versus living in a pressure vessel in LEO, except that the pressure vessel in LEO is closer to help in an emergency, in addition to being easier to build and supply.

I was going to write what you wrote.


Anyone who thinks in terms of "living in pressure vessels on Mars" is missing the whole point.

Mars has resources and energy, which is enough to build a stand-along civilization.  Sunlight, water, CO2, an endless supply of oars and minerals. And isolation.  So it's inherently different from Cis-lunar space.


Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: john smith 19 on 11/06/2016 08:32 am
Suggest you consider economics differently for Musk/Bezos.

I get very suspicious whenever someone tells me normal economics does not apply to someones plan.  :(

It usually does, it just means people are not seeing all of the parts of the system that the business is a part of.

In SX's case I'd note the pretty generous NASA payments for CRS.  SX make much of their commercial manifest but the payments for ISS supply per unit mass are much higher.  SX mention NASA's assistance in the technical support they get but rarely mention that they make a serious amount of cash from those flights.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: MP99 on 11/06/2016 09:05 am


I get very suspicious whenever someone tells me normal economics does not apply to someones plan.  :(

It usually does, it just means people are not seeing all of the parts of the system that the business is a part of.

Are you including the cost of Dragon in ISS resupply?

Cheers, Martin
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: kch on 11/06/2016 10:09 am

Anyone who thinks in terms of "living in pressure vessels on Mars" is missing the whole point.

Mars has resources and energy, which is enough to build a stand-along civilization.  Sunlight, water, CO2, an endless supply of oars and minerals. And isolation.  So it's inherently different from Cis-lunar space.

Oars will be handy if you're up a creek without a paddle ... maybe there are canals on Mars?  ;)
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Chasm on 11/06/2016 02:53 pm
I see the difference between the two a bit more philosophical.

Elons basically said "Mars or bust!". Should Jeff answer "Me too!"?
It does not work that way, so he needs something else. (Ignoring for a moment who came first.)


Overall Jeffs approach and the Blue Origin origin story (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbT29lA322g) reminds me a bit of a SF book. Part of the set up was sending out colonization ships, not just to one star but several together in one go along the same line. Peeling one ship off every time a star gets passed. Not caring there are habitable planets or not. They simply don't need one as they have the tech not only to survive but to thrive as long as they find some resources.

If you jumps into the deep end, do need to care how deep it actually is? It's not like their goals will be reached any time soon. I think it's much more important to have a diverse set of ideas, priorities, funding and approaches if we ever want to get off this rock in any meaningful numbers.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Vultur on 11/12/2016 06:58 am
Sure.  And in comparing Musks plans to Bezos, once you send humans to Mars with minimum viable logistics they have a whole world of local resources to rely upon to fill in the rest.  In contrast, any in-space colony will never have local resources to rely upon.

Now I'm not arguing against space colonies, just pointing out that planets have an advantage in the ability to access resources, whereas with space colonies you have to ship EVERYTHING to them.  There is really no chance of a space colony becoming self-sufficient, whereas there is some long-term possibility that a Mars colony could.

Yeah. And while total self-sufficiency is long-term, <99% self-sufficiency is probably very quickly acheivable. (That is, propellant/breathing air/water/food/simple building materials produced on Mars, stuff like electronics & fancy alloys being brought from Earth.)

It shouldn't take too long even to get to the point of making solar cells.

I think people tend to overestimate the difficulty of making stuff with extraterrestrial resources because our current manufacturing is very complex. But there are often many other ways to do things that aren't economically viable on Earth... but with the different resources and constraints of Mars would make perfect sense.

Also, assuming 10-15 (on Musk's very optimistic timeline) or 20-30 years of advancement beyond today in things like 3D printing and bioplastics (probably extremely important for Mars)...
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: su27k on 11/12/2016 07:52 am
Mars as a backup for humanity is a feature of a fully sufficient Mars colony, but from a practical standpoint it is not a good reason to colony Mars. It will cost too much. Reaching a one million person colony that needs no input from Earth will be incredibly expensive. Good luck on getting funding if that's the primary reason.

For a fraction of the cost of a fully sufficient Mars colony, most of the civilization collapsing scenarios on Earth can be mitigated. Asteroid defense, civil defense, disaster relief, securing food production, reducing poverty, renewable energy, etc.

It is a mistake to think Mars colony would be more expensive than fixing Earth, in fact it's the opposite. For example, Imperial College London estimates the cost to half CO2 emissions by 2050 is $2 trillion per year, that's just one of the problems in your long list. The cost of a Mars colony would be rounding error comparing to the resources we spent and will be spending to maintain Earth.

It is a common misconception to think Earth is better than Mars because we have "free" air, water and good temperature range, but none of these are truly free. They're the product of a super complex, global scale ecosystem and climate, which is being strained by 7 billion people. Maintaining and fixing this complex system is going to make the ECLSS for a Mars colony like child's play, and that's ignoring man-made problems like politics, religion and war.
Right, lets scrap Earth... Do you understand WHAT are you talking about?

I'm talking about the technical difficulty and resources needed to maintain Earth's ecosystem vastly exceeds the technical difficulty and funding needed for a Mars colony, thus it's incorrect to assume we have to choose one over the other. How you get scraping Earth from this is beyond me.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: MikeAtkinson on 11/12/2016 08:09 am
Sure.  And in comparing Musks plans to Bezos, once you send humans to Mars with minimum viable logistics they have a whole world of local resources to rely upon to fill in the rest.  In contrast, any in-space colony will never have local resources to rely upon.

Now I'm not arguing against space colonies, just pointing out that planets have an advantage in the ability to access resources, whereas with space colonies you have to ship EVERYTHING to them.  There is really no chance of a space colony becoming self-sufficient, whereas there is some long-term possibility that a Mars colony could.

An in-space colony near an asteroid has that asteroids resources to call on, and probably several other asteroids which are only a short distance away in delta-v terms.

Creating the first in-space colony near an asteroid is difficult, but once it has reached a level that it can manufacture other colonies then exponential growth in colony numbers can occur.

Mars seems easier in the short term, the problems all seem manageable. Then given the ITS infrastructure (or similar) in-space colonies in cis-lunar space (for tourism?) can be created and the experience used to create in-space colonies near asteroids.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: john smith 19 on 11/12/2016 09:33 am
Yeah. And while total self-sufficiency is long-term, <99% self-sufficiency is probably very quickly acheivable. (That is, propellant/breathing air/water/food/simple building materials produced on Mars, stuff like electronics & fancy alloys being brought from Earth.)
Then you seriously underestimate the problems you're  facing.

There will be a 1001 products that the settlement can't make from scratch and won't be able to for a very long time afterward.
Quote
I think people tend to overestimate the difficulty of making stuff with extraterrestrial resources because our current manufacturing is very complex. But there are often many other ways to do things that aren't economically viable on Earth... but with the different resources and constraints of Mars would make perfect sense.
That's partly true and necessity is the mother of invention but now you're into an R&D cycle to replace a product. Given it's got to fit into a slot in the original equipment it doesn't just have to work it has to work in that slot. That original part may well have been through dozens of iterations spanning years to deliver that level of performance in that form factor. Mfg Tungsten Carbide cutting heads for drilling or excavating is a very specialized technology and if you're using diamond heads then even the raw materials may not exist on planet.

Another case in point. Semiconductors and LEDs (both for lighting and lasers) are the product of multi $Bn factories. While a small scale system (making ones and twos at a time) could be much cheaper no one knows how to build such a system.  And of course it's very doubtful the chip makers will supply the IP needed to duplicate their parts, so you'll have to reverse engineer them.

But these are comparatively simple components.

Personally I would say the EVA suit will be a massive challenge to make locally. It's got a very complex combination of materials (fabrics) and products combined together in a very complex thermoelectromechanical system.

How many people do you know who can make their own gloves? Can they do that in a 3 or 4 layer composite? Worn out EVA suits mean no surface access. No surface operations. That means not being able to access anything that is not directly connected to the settlement. Replacing humans with robot avatars does not help. The problem remains. What do you do when you run out of spares for the parts you can't make?

With humans on site to handle some of the tricky tasks basic ISRU looks pretty viable but self sufficiency as in no resupply from Earth is IMHO centuries away, even with a well worked out plan to do so, rather than letting "market forces" set the make/buy decisions.

This is why I think it's important to find ways for the settlement to generate cash flow from  Earth to buy in those parts it can't make on Mars, and won't be able to make on Mars for a very long time.

That in turn means there has to be a reason for people to be there long term to motivate themselves beyond "making humanity multi planetary."   :(

It's a great sound bite.  It's not really a reason for getting up in the morning on Mars.  :(
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: guckyfan on 11/12/2016 01:28 pm
I think, 99% by mass is achievable. But that may leavae 95% of complexity to  achieve. That's the hard part. That's why a large colony is needed, and time. It won't be done in a short time. But roughly from a certain level needed supplies by mass will remain constant while the population grows.

EVA suits may be very complex. One man movable units with manipulator arms will be an order of magnitude at least less complex and for most purposes at least as useful, often more so. VR will help as well.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Vultur on 11/12/2016 09:59 pm
Yeah. And while total self-sufficiency is long-term, <99% self-sufficiency is probably very quickly acheivable. (That is, propellant/breathing air/water/food/simple building materials produced on Mars, stuff like electronics & fancy alloys being brought from Earth.)
Then you seriously underestimate the problems you're  facing.

Mmm... how? In Musk's plan, propellant/air/water will be locally produced basically from Day One. (The smaller human needs for water and oxygen will just be side products of the propellant ISRU, which already involves melting ice and making oxygen.)

Growing food in greenhouses/artificial environments is well understood, simple building materials takes more development but not that much (sintering regolith, bioplastics, etc.)
Quote
Quote
I think people tend to overestimate the difficulty of making stuff with extraterrestrial resources because our current manufacturing is very complex. But there are often many other ways to do things that aren't economically viable on Earth... but with the different resources and constraints of Mars would make perfect sense.
That's partly true and necessity is the mother of invention but now you're into an R&D cycle to replace a product. Given it's got to fit into a slot in the original equipment it doesn't just have to work it has to work in that slot. That original part may well have been through dozens of iterations spanning years to deliver that level of performance in that form factor.

Spare parts in existing equipment, yeah, you have a point. But early on you WILL need that sort of thing shipped from Earth, I'm not arguing that. That 99% by mass I was talking about is "consumables".

Past that start-up period, though, you're talking about making equipment from scratch on Mars, not spare parts for Earth-made stuff. And there you've got much more flexibility to do things in different ways.

Quote
Mfg Tungsten Carbide cutting heads for drilling or excavating is a very specialized technology and if you're using diamond heads then even the raw materials may not exist on planet.

Huh? Diamond is just carbon - we know there's tons of that on Mars. It's in the CO2 atmosphere. And synthetic production of industrial diamond is well understood.



Quote
Another case in point. Semiconductors and LEDs (both for lighting and lasers) are the product of multi $Bn factories. While a small scale system (making ones and twos at a time) could be much cheaper no one knows how to build such a system.

Yes. Granted, semiconductors/LEDs are very low mass/high difficulty so they will be one of the last things made on Mars.

 On a 40-50 year timescale though, much less a century... there are a ton of potential pathways. By that point they may not even be making electronics out of silicon chips anymore, it might be quantum computing (though I am personally skeptical of the practicality of that) and As-S nanotube semiconductors. Or something totally unexpected.



Quote
How many people do you know who can make their own gloves? Can they do that in a 3 or 4 layer composite?

That's not really a fair comparison, as nobody on Earth really has the reason to get that capability on a small scale. I'd be surprised if the descendants of current 3D printing/additive manufacturing technologies 30 years down the line couldn't do that quite easily.

And I'm not sure Mars suits have to be as complex as existing EVA suits. No need for MMOD protection, and the thermal issues will probably go only one way (there is likely enough atmosphere on Mars to deal with cooling). And a real colony will be using simpler mechanical counterpressure suits.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: john smith 19 on 11/13/2016 10:18 am
Mmm... how? In Musk's plan, propellant/air/water will be locally produced basically from Day One. (The smaller human needs for water and oxygen will just be side products of the propellant ISRU, which already involves melting ice and making oxygen.)
Full self sufficiency means the settlement is self replicating. If you can't make in the settlement it has to be bought in from Earth so it will be somewhere between 80 and 120days+ to get there.

You're not making a product. You're making the supply chain to make the product. While some products can be made in multiple different ways there are limits. Also you need to factor in the scale of the operation you're talking about. Aluminum production is very energy intensive, which is why most Aluminum smelters are near hydro electric dams, because that is the only way they can get the huge quantities of electricity the process needs. Likewise Iron and Steel production use coke. In principal you can use Methane, but no one AFAIK does so. That's a major R&D project.

Quote
Spare parts in existing equipment, yeah, you have a point. But early on you WILL need that sort of thing shipped from Earth, I'm not arguing that. That 99% by mass I was talking about is "consumables".
That "existing equipment" you casually hand wave is very complex and to design and mfg replacements from local materials will take decades, during which you will need those spares or have a base that's gradually becoming un usable as its systems fail. I would not like to be someone living in such an environment, but if you're happy to do so.... :(
Quote
Past that start-up period, though, you're talking about making equipment from scratch on Mars, not spare parts for Earth-made stuff. And there you've got much more flexibility to do things in different ways.
And of course now they will not be interchangeable with the Earth supplied systems. You'd better hope you don't need any of them (or their space) so you can recycle the materials.
Quote
Huh? Diamond is just carbon - we know there's tons of that on Mars. It's in the CO2 atmosphere. And synthetic production of industrial diamond is well understood.
Again it's the supply chain. In particular a Gigapascal autoclave, which is large and heavy and difficult to make. Yes you can make a smaller one but you're still going to need a big billet of high grade steel, along with the tools to make it out of.

You'll no doubt be waving your hands and saying "But 3d printing can make anything" except something that calls for raw strength is very time consuming to make as it's going to be a solid lump of metal, and 3d printing is actually better at making things with holes in.
Quote
Yes. Granted, semiconductors/LEDs are very low mass/high difficulty so they will be one of the last things made on Mars.

 On a 40-50 year timescale though, much less a century... there are a ton of potential pathways. By that point they may not even be making electronics out of silicon chips anymore, it might be quantum computing (though I am personally skeptical of the practicality of that) and As-S nanotube semiconductors. Or something totally unexpected.
Re read that last paragraph to yourself.

Slowly.

For 4 to 5 decades IE from when a child is born on Mars to the time they are in early middle age, (at least) Mars will have to import parts of all kinds from Earth.

IOW it will have to be doing something to pay for those parts or live in a continually deteriorating base.
Quote
Quote
How many people do you know who can make their own gloves? Can they do that in a 3 or 4 layer composite?

That's not really a fair comparison, as nobody on Earth really has the reason to get that capability on a small scale. I'd be surprised if the descendants of current 3D printing/additive manufacturing technologies 30 years down the line couldn't do that quite easily.
It's a trivial prediction that 3d printing will get better. But pinning all your mfg on it and saying "3d printing will cope" is a very dangerous strategy if your life depends on it.   :(

You're really not seeing the bigger picture here. While careful planning can reduce the range of parts and materials that need to be made on Mars to become self sufficient that range will still be huge and for at least one human lifetime the colony will need to be continually resupplied with those parts

I've not even touched on any sort of medicines as off Earth medicine is practically unknown. AFAIK no operation has ever been carried out off Earth so far.

Likewise there are another 100001 specialized chemicals needed to make things or final chemicals. Examples would be the resins used in PCB and the photoresists used to coat them. Again for full self sufficiency you need to either make them on Mars or develop an alternative mfg process that avoids the more difficult materials.
Quote
And I'm not sure Mars suits have to be as complex as existing EVA suits. No need for MMOD protection,
Wrong. IIRC image analysis of Martian surface over about a 5 year period identified about 120-200 new craters using existing cameras more than 0.3m is size. Mars air pressure is good enough to suck the heat out of any uninsulated surface structure but not to protect it from meteorites.   :(
Quote
and the thermal issues will probably go only one way (there is likely enough atmosphere on Mars to deal with cooling).
So MLI is not likely to work and you'll need some kind of foam insulation. You would not want to rely on a double walled Dewar type construction with MMOD. Convection can be a very efficient system for removing heat from a surface structure.
Quote
And a real colony will be using simpler mechanical counterpressure suits.
Again you're pinning your hopes on a system that's not been under active development for decades  :(

Your idea of "self sufficient" is like that of a small farmer in the Mid Western US. The key resource they make that allows them to be "self sufficient" is money. If the industrialized civilization they are a part of failed they would continue only as long as they could find or make spare parts for all the technology they use and diagnose and treat any conditions they suffered from. If not they die.

Until you reach full self sufficiency  Mars will need a cash flow and I think that will continue for at least 50-100 years from first settlement.

I'm taking Musk at his word. He's talking about Mars as a "lifeboat" or a "backup" to Earth. That means (ultimately) being able to restart Earth in the event of a major catastrophe, and being able to survive without any resupply from Earth until that's possible.

That's is a very different proposition from what you seem to think a Martian settlement will be.  :(
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: guckyfan on 11/13/2016 08:14 pm
Musks idea of a backup for humanity might attract philantropic support, not sure but possible.

I don't see how an orbital industrial park could attract that kind of money.

So if both are not viable businesses, I see that Mars may happen, but cannot see the same for the in space industrial park.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Vultur on 11/13/2016 08:44 pm
Mmm... how? In Musk's plan, propellant/air/water will be locally produced basically from Day One. (The smaller human needs for water and oxygen will just be side products of the propellant ISRU, which already involves melting ice and making oxygen.)
Full self sufficiency means the settlement is self replicating. If you can't make in the settlement it has to be bought in from Earth so it will be somewhere between 80 and 120days+ to get there.

Right but we are talking about different stages of development, I think. I see 3 - 4 different stages if it works out at all.

1) Initial start up - melting ice and CH4/O2 propellant ISRU, which produces water & oxygen for human needs also. Everything else imported from Earth.

2) Second phase of start up - food grown on Mars. There would still be some foods brought in but they would be low mass, high value/hard to grow 'luxury' ones like coffee/chocolate rather than staples. Nearly all "technological" components still imported from Earth, but some use of 3D printing for tools/parts and some production of things like bioplastics starts.

At this point they're definitely not self-sufficient, but could probably survive a "missed" synod or two without shipments from Earth.

3) Transition to growth primarily being "Mars side driven". New habitats built on Mars with primarily Martian components, with only some very hard to make high-tech components imported from Earth.

 At this point the colony isn't indefinitely self-sufficient, but with a supply of spare parts can survive fairly long cutoff times (until they run out of spare parts) so a war or economic depression on Earth that cut off travel to Mars for say twenty years / 8 - 10 synods would not be fatal.

4) Complete self sufficiency. Total cutoff would still lead to a drop in standards of living on Mars (some stuff would probably still be cheaper to make on Earth) but colony can survive indefinitely (say at least thousands of years) without Earth input.

The question is how quickly they can move up stages. I think 3) can be reached in 40-50 years if the "Musk plan" lasts that long and thus there is still a commitment to getting to self sufficiency.  4) possibly not too long after that.

Quote
You'll no doubt be waving your hands and saying "But 3d printing can make anything" except something that calls for raw strength is very time consuming to make as it's going to be a solid lump of metal, and 3d printing is actually better at making things with holes in.

It's not just 3d printing. I'm well aware 3d printing isn't an universal panacea for all manufacturing.


Quote
For 4 to 5 decades IE from when a child is born on Mars to the time they are in early middle age, (at least) Mars will have to import parts of all kinds from Earth.

True.

Quote
IOW it will have to be doing something to pay for those parts or live in a continually deteriorating base.

Now that I'm not sure holds true. Depends on how the economics are set up. It's quite possible (likely, IMO) much if not all will be paid for by a "Mars Colony Foundation" nonprofit's investments on Earth. There needn't be actual Mars-side exports.

But there will be, by a few decades in. Maybe not physical exports, at least not primarily, but IP.

Quote
That "existing equipment" you casually hand wave is very complex and to design and mfg replacements from local materials will take decades,

I'm not convinced it would take nearly that long, given motivation to actually pursue it, especially given technology likely to be available 30 years from now (even assuming only incremental improvements in existing tech, no major breakthroughs).

Quote
Wrong. IIRC image analysis of Martian surface over about a 5 year period identified about 120-200 new craters using existing cameras more than 0.3m is size. Mars air pressure is good enough to suck the heat out of any uninsulated surface structure but not to protect it from meteorites.   :(

0.3m craters is way larger than micrometeorites. I don't think Mars suits will need micrometeorite protection, and an impactor large enough to make a foot-wide crater or more would probably damage a human regardless of the suit they wore.

Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: john smith 19 on 11/13/2016 10:28 pm
Musk won't have the ability to source deep industrial items on Mars for quite some time. So one compensates by having high lifetime items that are locally repairable/serviceable instead. Which means that obsessive maintenance would be necessary to stave off replacement.
Agreed. But the problem remains how do y ou pay for those parts.
Quote
Bezos OTOH has to reinvent manufacturing/resources/processing in a on-orbit environment, involving trial and error. So lots of facilities to "bootstrap" such need to happen first before you can scale-up and deploy.
Well on the upside the orbital facility has a reason for existing beyond "being there" and it's not entirely unknown territory. This has been under exploration since Skylab in the early 70's. Making a fully uncrewed station is tougher but the real issues with space industrialization has been the unreliability of transport to and from orbit. Set up an operation that allows regular deliveries and collections and things change quite a lot. Such a station is there for the micro gravity, the very hard vacuum and the abundant sunlight.
Quote
While we are not a species that have ever lived on Mars or needed to be supported so remotely, even more of an issue is being off planet in space itself.
Agreed. An atmosphere means you don't have to rely on radiation for cooling and some gravity simplifies design considerably.
Quote
Back to your issue - neither economics close, they are "bargaining" for existence under the same rules.

Same rules but different ways/priorities/means to apply them.

Again, read the past histories of colonization and industrial revolution for applicable examples for each.
Indeed. It's Musk has the more romantic vision, Bezos has potentially the more usable one.
Right but we are talking about different stages of development, I think. I see 3 - 4 different stages if it works out at all.

The question is how quickly they can move up stages. I think 3) can be reached in 40-50 years if the "Musk plan" lasts that long and thus there is still a commitment to getting to self sufficiency.  4) possibly not too long after that.
Without some kind of cash flow you don't move up the scale at all.
Quote
It's not just 3d printing. I'm well aware 3d printing isn't an universal panacea for all manufacturing.
Good to know.

Quote
True.

Now that I'm not sure holds true. Depends on how the economics are set up. It's quite possible (likely, IMO) much if not all will be paid for by a "Mars Colony Foundation" nonprofit's investments on Earth. There needn't be actual Mars-side exports.
I'd love to see if this has ever been done for any other settlement efforts and if so how they worked out.

Otherwise it sounds like wishful thinking on an epic scale.
Quote
But there will be, by a few decades in. Maybe not physical exports, at least not primarily, but IP.
IP in the sense of videos and scientific data of various kinds seems to be a viable revenue stream.
Quote
I'm not convinced it would take nearly that long, given motivation to actually pursue it, especially given technology likely to be available 30 years from now (even assuming only incremental improvements in existing tech, no major breakthroughs).
You are seriously underestimating how hostile the Martian environment is and the extent to which a habitat would have to have its environment monitored and maintained. We have limited knowledge on Mars dust but it's looking both chemically aggressive and toxic.
Quote
0.3m craters is way larger than micrometeorites. I don't think Mars suits will need micrometeorite protection, and an impactor large enough to make a foot-wide crater or more would probably damage a human regardless of the suit they wore.
The implication is that those are just the ones that can be seen from orbit.

AFAIK there is no reason to think that this is the lower size limit for objects making it the surface.

Being under a 3m of regolith is looking like a pretty good idea.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Coastal Ron on 11/13/2016 11:03 pm
True.

Now that I'm not sure holds true. Depends on how the economics are set up. It's quite possible (likely, IMO) much if not all will be paid for by a "Mars Colony Foundation" nonprofit's investments on Earth. There needn't be actual Mars-side exports.
I'd love to see if this has ever been done for any other settlement efforts and if so how they worked out.

Pretty much every non-profit works this way.  You and I provide money to a non-profit not for the money we get back, but the result we want to support.

And though I never plan to go to Mars, I would be willing to donate to a non-profit whose goal is to make humanity multi-planetary by setting up a human colony on Mars.  And I suspect I'll get the opportunity in the not too distant future.

As to industrializing space, that's a little harder to get emotional over, and I'm not sure who the target market would be.  But luckily Jeff Bezos is the 3rd wealthiest person in the world, so he can afford to do a lot of experimentation, and that will provide the assurance to many others that it's OK to experiment also since Bezos is dedicated to seeing this happen.

What Bezos is proposing complements what Musk is doing, and to some extent probably vice versa, and I fully support both.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: JH on 11/14/2016 12:19 am
Not that idle speculation isn't fun, but work has been done to provide real numbers for the micrometeor threat:

http://data.spaceappschallenge.org/ICES.pdf

This gives an impact probability of 0.7% per year per square meter.

Using a conservative interpretation of values from https://msis.jsc.nasa.gov/sections/section14.htm, you get a 95% spacesuited male as having a cross sectional area of 0.56 square meters inclusive of life support backpack (which might be notably smaller on a suit designed for the Martian surface).

This gives puncture-causing impact probability of 0.4% per year of someone standing outside on the Martian surface.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Robotbeat on 11/14/2016 12:53 am
Several flaws in that article, starting with the idea you'd ever make a pressure vessel on Mars just 25 microns thick (Mylar balloon-like). Second, things just 16microns wide (supposedly the critical limit of puncture) or even 100 microns present zero risk of puncture except at very high altitudes.  They reach terminal velocity which is far subsonic, not just below 1km/s as is claimed. Some day, I want to write a full paper debunking this kind of worry about micrometeorites on Mars.

In a space suit, you'd be extremely well-protected as your suit and helmet would be far thicker than that proposed paper-thin greenhouse.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: JH on 11/14/2016 01:37 am
I was actually trying to make the point that even with extremely conservative assumptions, the risk was quite low.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: guckyfan on 11/14/2016 09:38 am
Several flaws in that article, starting with the idea you'd ever make a pressure vessel on Mars just 25 microns thick (Mylar balloon-like).

I see the possibility that greenhouses would be built that way. The proposal was for greenhouses at low pressure.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: john smith 19 on 11/14/2016 11:08 am
Not that idle speculation isn't fun, but work has been done to provide real numbers for the micrometeor threat:

http://data.spaceappschallenge.org/ICES.pdf

This gives an impact probability of 0.7% per year per square meter.

Using a conservative interpretation of values from https://msis.jsc.nasa.gov/sections/section14.htm, you get a 95% spacesuited male as having a cross sectional area of 0.56 square meters inclusive of life support backpack (which might be notably smaller on a suit designed for the Martian surface).

This gives puncture-causing impact probability of 0.4% per year of someone standing outside on the Martian surface.
Very interesting paper.

With 42.5Kw per person needed to support a person with artificial (LED?) lit greenhouses that certainly makes a strong case for natural lighting. On that basis a 1000 people would need basically all the output for a naval sized nuclear reactor just for greenhouse lighting.

OTOH it does seem that plants are much more radiation resistant than humans, although that still leaves the question of long term mutation if next years crop is derived from seeds from this years.

Likewise while the risk of MMOD looks to be quite low for a person in an EVA suit greenhouses, by their nature, are large area structures. While any individual unit may be puncture free the chances of all of them remaining so are very slim. Especially given a Musk sized settlement. They will need regular patching and/or repair, although remote monitoring should be fairly easy.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: LouScheffer on 11/14/2016 11:51 am
If what you want is an Earth backup, the two essential requirements are (a) grow your own food, and (b) build your own shelters.  If you can do this, the colony can survive, though not pleasantly.   On Mars, this would seem to require early 20th century technology - you need to mine materials, refine them, and build engines, pumps, chemical processes, and greenhouses.  You don't *really* need computers, radios, modern medicine, etc.  If you can survive, and grow your colony, these can all be reconstructed.  Might be handy to have a set of paper encyclopedias, though.

This type of primitive independence seems much easier to achieve on Mars than in space.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 11/14/2016 01:44 pm
It is the gravity element.

For Mars it is an adaptation of existing Earth processes for manufacturing, etc.

For space in a microgravity environment new processes are required for manufacturing, etc. The alternate is to provide a large spinning platform to perform adapted existing Earth processes in an environment with gravity. This may end being the easier method for the majority of in-space materials processes. But that is not to say that microgravity new processes are bad. There is evidence that some new processes in microgravity result in higher quality materials.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: john smith 19 on 11/14/2016 01:59 pm
But that is not to say that microgravity new processes are bad. There is evidence that some new processes in microgravity result in higher quality materials.
Realistically microgravity and very high levels of vacuum (search wake shield facility) are the reasons to go to LEO for mfg, giving you access to something which is either impossible to get on Earth or very difficult to do on a large scale.

The (very) hard vacuum and high levels of UV also make for a quite effective bio isolation, which would be handy for medical research into highly toxic materials, assuming you car comfortable with the risks of launch and re entry contamination.

I think we should dispose of the idea that moving polluting processes to LEO reduces pollution on Earth.  Unless you're prepared to squirt those pollutants out at escape velocity what you're going to get is a pollutant cloud in the upper atmosphere, not the  lower atmosphere, since any discharge will still be within Earths gravitational field.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Lar on 11/14/2016 02:08 pm
If what you want is an Earth backup, the two essential requirements are (a) grow your own food, and (b) build your own shelters.  If you can do this, the colony can survive, though not pleasantly.   On Mars, this would seem to require early 20th century technology - you need to mine materials, refine them, and build engines, pumps, chemical processes, and greenhouses.  You don't *really* need computers, radios, modern medicine, etc.  If you can survive, and grow your colony, these can all be reconstructed.  Might be handy to have a set of paper encyclopedias, though.

This type of primitive independence seems much easier to achieve on Mars than in space.
"build your own shelters" on Mars means quite a bit more than it does on earth, of course. Same with food. But I could see a very steampunk style tech arising if some cataclysmic cutoff happened...
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: john smith 19 on 11/14/2016 02:22 pm

"build your own shelters" on Mars means quite a bit more than it does on earth, of course. Same with food. But I could see a very steampunk style tech arising if some cataclysmic cutoff happened...
With one problem.

No oil + no coal --> No steam.

There is a project to look at the smallest self range of machines and processes you need to self replicate mentioned on The Register but IIRC that used bootstrapping from more primitive versions IE wood, to get to mfg machines in steel.

On Mars you have 2 options for near term heavy energy use. a)Concentrated solar. Direct to the materials. Not PV arrays. and b)Methane AKA biogas systems.

Think "Mad Max:Beyond Thunderdome" in pressure suits.  :(

Amusing to watch. Not so much fun to live through.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Lar on 11/14/2016 02:26 pm
Steampunk STYLE. With solar arrays and electric motors, but no ICs.

Try to think out of the box and try not to be so negative. When I look at this thread and do a word count, what percentage is you being negative? If you're just repeating the same arguments? Save the electrons.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: bad_astra on 11/14/2016 02:38 pm
I think the Musk and Bezos rationales complement each other. Colonies historically have had various uses, political-military buffer zones, trade posts, resource gathering and idealisitic (often religious).

We don't know how long that has gone on. Perhaps the Maori's made it to New Zealand over religious differences or were just looking for a better place to live.

Some of the idealistic ones, like the New England colonies become ideal trading groups themselves.

I like the idea of the pre-IC tech colony approach. LES1, AMSAT-OSCAR 7, IMP-8 (not counting Pioneers, Voyagers) show that robust low-tech electronics can be used meaningfully for decades in extremely harsh environments.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: LouScheffer on 11/14/2016 03:31 pm
I like the idea of the pre-IC tech colony approach. LES1, AMSAT-OSCAR 7, IMP-8 (not counting Pioneers, Voyagers) show that robust low-tech electronics can be used meaningfully for decades in extremely harsh environments.
Here's  a video demonstrating home-made vacuum tubes (https://youtu.be/EzyXMEpq4qw) (and pumping them down with a home-made vacuum pump).  You can still have simple electronics without a huge industrial base. 
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: TrevorMonty on 11/14/2016 05:05 pm
Steampunk STYLE. With solar arrays and electric motors, but no ICs.

Try to think out of the box and try not to be so negative. When I look at this thread and do a word count, what percentage is you being negative? If you're just repeating the same arguments? Save the electrons.
Actual DSI have steam powered thruster, 150isp?.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Robotbeat on 11/14/2016 05:17 pm
You can even make simple ICs without a huge industrial base. People have done DIY semiconductor device fabrication on the cheap. Universities have the right equipment. If you're willing to compromise on 5-nm-scale feature sizes and live with 5-microns, then you can definitely do it. Instead of crazy multi core Multiteraflops CPU/GPU chips, you'd have an Arduino-like microcontroller for the same die size, but so what? There's a heck of a lot you can do with an Arduino, even a slow one.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: kch on 11/14/2016 05:23 pm

No oil + no coal --> No steam.

Hydrogen + oxygen --> Steam!  :)
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: john smith 19 on 11/14/2016 05:50 pm
Steampunk STYLE. With solar arrays and electric motors, but no ICs.
Actually concentrated solar and biogas are thinking outside the box compared to Earth systems, since neither is used for large scale smelting on Earth. There is a world of difference between the efficiencies of PV cells and motors you can make with primitive tech and what comes off the production lines of current generation mfg plants.
Quote
If you're just repeating the same arguments? Save the electrons.
As I said at that start of both of the "Martian Homesteading" threads I want the human race to expand into space. By the yardsticks of many people that alone makes me a reckless optimist.  :)

What I don't believe is that by someone saying "what we need is.." for example to make humanity multi planetary, that someone else will solve their problem for them.

I think that both LEO and Mars are very hostile environments not because I am "negative" but because they are. I think we can overcome those factors. In the case of LEO mfg to make things that cannot be made on Earth due to gravity or the difficulties of making large scale UHV systems. But that's a reason for setting up a factory, not a settlement.

Mars OTOH is a place you could see people setting up a settlement, but they have the opposite problem. What do they do on Mars that can't be done on Earth? The argument "We'll set up a charity to pay people to live there" sounds very unconvincing.

AFAIK the only time people have set up charities to settle places is for religious reasons. The rest went because someone was going to make profit in the process, either within the settlement (that I can see happening quite easily) or to make money from their home country.

That latter one is the problem I have and that's important because until Mars goes fully self sufficient it will always need supplies from Earth. All the raw materials US settlers got rich off shipping back to their home countries don't apply to Mars. Not my view. Elon Musk's view.

If you can't solve that problem the Mars settlement is like a Mid Western small farmer. It won't survive if anything happens to Earth, which I thought was sort of the point of being there in the first place.  :(

Either you take Musk at his word or you think he's joking. If people think he's joking why would they pay any attention to his plans at all? If people think he's serious then they should think about the problems they are going to have to face.

I want this to work. However wanting something to work does not switch off my faculties for critical thinking.  I'm with Dr Logan on that one.

Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: john smith 19 on 11/14/2016 07:16 pm
You can even make simple ICs without a huge industrial base. People have done DIY semiconductor device fabrication on the cheap. Universities have the right equipment.
Provided you source the wafers. They need a very substantial industrial base as well as a very large amount of energy to produce.

The alternative is to revisit thin film transistors, essentially the tech used for active LCD's
Quote
If you're willing to compromise on 5-nm-scale feature sizes and live with 5-microns, then you can definitely do it.
If you can do 5nm you're ahead of Intel. They've been struggling with 14.

Instead of crazy multi core Multiteraflops CPU/GPU chips, you'd have an Arduino-like microcontroller for the same die size, but so what? There's a heck of a lot you can do with an Arduino, even a slow one.
The problem with all semiconductor systems, which is not shared by say biological systems is the hardware to make them is orders of magnitude bigger than the end product and uses a completely different skillset to make to make it.

You cannot make a chip making machine out of a collection of chips, then use them to make a set of chips to make smaller chips.

Now if you could.....
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Lar on 11/14/2016 07:19 pm
If you're willing to compromise on 5-nm-scale feature sizes and live with 5-microns, then you can definitely do it.
If you can do 5nm you're ahead of Intel. They've been struggling with 14.

5 micron feature size. Not 5 nm...   5 microns is 5000 nm.   YCLIU.

As robotbeat said, that's quite a few generations back now and probably wouldn't still require billion dollar[1] fab lines

Also, fix yer quotes. It's not that hard. But it makes quoting YOU more work than it should be. I fixed yours this time.

1 - before shipping costs...
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Coastal Ron on 11/14/2016 07:50 pm
AFAIK the only time people have set up charities to settle places is for religious reasons. The rest went because someone was going to make profit in the process, either within the settlement (that I can see happening quite easily) or to make money from their home country.

Maybe you don't donate to non-profits, but non-profits already do here on Earth a lot of what Musk wants to happen on Mars.

For instance, I have a family member that supports a non-profit that pays people to go to Central America to teach locals how to grow food in a sustainable way.  In fact there are a lot of organizations that have similar missions for places here on Earth, so paying people to go to Mars to show Mars colonists how to grow food in a sustainable way won't be unusual.

And we shouldn't conflate "colonist" necessarily with "subject matter experts", meaning those willing to live out their lives on Mars may not be experts on food production or mineral extraction and processing.  But they could learn from experts that don't mind being "stationed" on Mars for a Earth-Mars synodic cycle or two.

Which means colonists would pay their own way there, and have to pay for some level of support while there, but non-profits would fund sending subject matter experts to Mars for getting the colonists up to speed on how to become somewhat self-sufficient.  And when I say "self-sufficient", my definition means that little by little the expertise and material needed for a colonists survival transitions to being on Mars.  Which might be decades or centuries.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: LM13 on 11/14/2016 08:17 pm

AFAIK the only time people have set up charities to settle places is for religious reasons.

The Polish Maritime and Colonial League (Liga Morska i Kolonialna) would dispute that.  They were an, essentially, private non-profit that funded Polish immigration to Brazil and Liberia for the purpose of establishing Polish ethnic enclaves that could become a colony in the future.  Their rationale was nationalism, not religion (they were upset at missing out on colonialism due to the whole "occupied and tormented" business through the nineteenth century).  They raised enough money through private donations to buy a new submarine for the Polish navy. 

Arguably, the German colonial empire also fits that definition--it was never profitable, but they kept on sinking funds into it for prestige, for the ideology of Germany's place in the sun. 

Quote
That latter one is the problem I have and that's important because until Mars goes fully self sufficient it will always need supplies from Earth.

Define "fully self sufficient."  Strictly speaking, all the technology needed to actually run a Mars colony once you get there could be built with nineteenth-century or early twentieth-century industry--nitrogen-fixing for fertilizer, the Fischer-Tropsch process, steelworking, turbines, electric motors, none of these require computers.  Supplies from Earth (particularly computer chips) can certainly simplify things and make them more effective, but I'm honestly drawing a blank as to which bare necessities for continued metabolism on Mars can't be made with the tools available to the Austro-Hungarian Empire.  You would need a source of initial capital to get things going (build the first power plant, so you can power the factories that make the second, for example), but it won't be needed all that long. 
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: LouScheffer on 11/14/2016 10:22 pm
[...] Strictly speaking, all the technology needed to actually run a Mars colony once you get there could be built with nineteenth-century or early twentieth-century industry--nitrogen-fixing for fertilizer, the Fischer-Tropsch process, steelworking, turbines, electric motors, none of these require computers.  [...] I'm honestly drawing a blank as to which bare necessities for continued metabolism on Mars can't be made with the tools available to the Austro-Hungarian Empire.   
The big missing piece is the energy supply.   The Austro-Hungarian empire had fuels (wood, coal, oil) they could burn for power and heat.  Nothing on Mars, as far as I know, can burn in the Martian atmosphere.   You might be able to build big solar collecting mirrors that concentrate heat, to heat stuff for chemistry or metallurgy, or to boil water to turn engines.  However, sunlight is not a very dense form of energy, and not available at night.  Everything else could be managed, *if* you have enough energy, but getting the energy seems the limiting problem. 
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: QuantumG on 11/14/2016 11:02 pm
I see the difference between the two a bit more philosophical.

Elons basically said "Mars or bust!". Should Jeff answer "Me too!"?
It does not work that way, so he needs something else. (Ignoring for a moment who came first.)

Let's not ignore it. Bezos has been a die hard O'Neillian since his youth. Musk only got interested in spaceflight this century.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: john smith 19 on 11/14/2016 11:07 pm
If you're willing to compromise on 5-nm-scale feature sizes and live with 5-microns, then you can definitely do it.
If you can do 5nm you're ahead of Intel. They've been struggling with 14.

5 micron feature size. Not 5 nm...   5 microns is 5000 nm.   YCLIU.

As robotbeat said, that's quite a few generations back now and probably wouldn't still require billion dollar[1] fab lines
5 Microns is about the level of the 6502 and Z80. However the problem with semiconductors is not the linewidth or the clock frequency it's the speed of manufacture unless you bring a full custom semiconductor fab line with you or you standardize around a small number of "array" type devices that can be made fairly easily and customized for different uses as and when needed, while making the bulk of the devices from standard masks (that will still need to periodically replaced).  This however needs deep insight into all pieces of equipment shipped to Mars.

Again it's not just the size of the hardware, it's the specialized consumables the conventional processes use. "Direct write" AKA "Maskless" systems to make individual transistors using lasers have been under development since the early 80's but they are painfully slow
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: john smith 19 on 11/14/2016 11:08 pm
Which means colonists would pay their own way there, and have to pay for some level of support while there, but non-profits would fund sending subject matter experts to Mars for getting the colonists up to speed on how to become somewhat self-sufficient. 
It's the how settlers will pay for that "level of support" that still seems quite hazy to me.
Quote
And when I say "self-sufficient", my definition means that little by little the expertise and material needed for a colonists survival transitions to being on Mars.  Which might be decades or centuries.
I think that's more in line with Musk's views, although that is quite a long window of vulnerability.
The Polish Maritime and Colonial League (Liga Morska i Kolonialna) would dispute that.  They were an, essentially, private non-profit that funded Polish immigration to Brazil and Liberia for the purpose of establishing Polish ethnic enclaves that could become a colony in the future. 
Then I stand corrected. We know more together than we know alone.

The obvious question is how successful they were in their goal of establishing those settlements and if they still recognizably exist today? If they are not that is not a very encouraging sign of long term survival for such an approach on Mars.
Quote
Arguably, the German colonial empire also fits that definition--it was never profitable, but they kept on sinking funds into it for prestige, for the ideology of Germany's place in the sun. 
That's a whole nation state deciding to do something. It would be an interesting idea if another country hired SX to do the transport for their settlement on Mars.
Quote
Define "fully self sufficient."
Being able to maintain all current systems and replicate the settlement at another site on Mars without any additional supplies from Earth. That includes stocking with consumables like medicinal drugs.
Quote
Strictly speaking, all the technology needed to actually run a Mars colony once you get there could be built with nineteenth-century or early twentieth-century industry--nitrogen-fixing for fertilizer, the Fischer-Tropsch process, steelworking, turbines, electric motors, none of these require computers.  Supplies from Earth (particularly computer chips) can certainly simplify things and make them more effective, but I'm honestly drawing a blank as to which bare necessities for continued metabolism on Mars can't be made with the tools available to the Austro-Hungarian Empire.  You would need a source of initial capital to get things going (build the first power plant, so you can power the factories that make the second, for example), but it won't be needed all that long.
The 19th century had plentiful supplies of coal, hydroelectric power and later oil. Duplicating that on Mars either needs a huge PV array, Methane on an industrial scale above that for propellant use or nuclear. It's possible Mars has Uranium or Thorium that can be mined

BTW Without semiconductors (not necessarily processors, just power electronics) 3d printing becomes much  tougher. An exciting challenge for anyone with a lot of free time on their hands perhaps.

This is not academic. If we take Musk at his word the worst case is an Earth that has to be "restarted" from Mars.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: LouScheffer on 11/15/2016 12:59 am
[...] Strictly speaking, all the technology needed to actually run a Mars colony once you get there could be built with nineteenth-century or early twentieth-century industry--nitrogen-fixing for fertilizer, the Fischer-Tropsch process, steelworking, turbines, electric motors, none of these require computers.  [...] I'm honestly drawing a blank as to which bare necessities for continued metabolism on Mars can't be made with the tools available to the Austro-Hungarian Empire.   
The big missing piece is the energy supply.   The Austro-Hungarian empire had fuels (wood, coal, oil) they could burn for power and heat.  Nothing on Mars, as far as I know, can burn in the Martian atmosphere.   You might be able to build big solar collecting mirrors that concentrate heat, to heat stuff for chemistry or metallurgy, or to boil water to turn engines.  However, sunlight is not a very dense form of energy, and not available at night.  Everything else could be managed, *if* you have enough energy, but getting the energy seems the limiting problem. 
On second thought, the Austro-Hungarian empire could have built a nuclear reactor, if they knew what to do.  The wartime reactors in the Manhatten project (Hanford and the X-10) were actually quite simple.  Natural uranium for the fuel, graphite for the moderator, water or air cooled.  They were re-fueled by hand, pushing slugs through long horizontal tubes with a long pole (used slugs simply fell out the other end into a pool of water).   Control was also by hand.   To make and maintain one of these, you need the ability to mine and purify carbon and uranium, and the rest is pretty simple mechanical engineering.   Probably some simple instrumentation is needed, but it can clearly be done with vacuum tubes since Geiger counters were built in 1928, and the reactors in WW-II.   So this might be the technology of choice if you must get and maintain independence quickly.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: john smith 19 on 11/16/2016 06:37 am
On second thought, the Austro-Hungarian empire could have built a nuclear reactor, if they knew what to do.   To make and maintain one of these, you need the ability to mine and purify carbon and uranium, and the rest is pretty simple mechanical engineering.   
The Germans tried and failed to build a reactor with Graphite in WWII. Their Graphite was contaminated with Boron and the either did not not have, or did not know they needed a process to remove enough of it to let the reaction go critical.

And then you're going to need a coal mine on Mars for the source of the Graphite.

Seriously you're absolutely right about growing a Mars settlement being constricted by resources, especially power. Once you're looking at processing from raw ore you realize just how handy coal and oil are as large scale, compact energy sources.

I'll note nuclear is not much direct use for this unless you're looking at a metal or gas cooled reacted running at 800c, not the 300c PWR's run at. Otherwise you're better at electric arc furnaces and using the "waste" heat from the cooling system for the settlement.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: LouScheffer on 11/16/2016 12:17 pm
On second thought, the Austro-Hungarian empire could have built a nuclear reactor, if they knew what to do.   To make and maintain one of these, you need the ability to mine and purify carbon and uranium, and the rest is pretty simple mechanical engineering.   
The Germans tried and failed to build a reactor with Graphite in WWII. Their Graphite was contaminated with Boron and the either did not not have, or did not know they needed a process to remove enough of it to let the reaction go critical.

And then you're going to need a coal mine on Mars for the source of the Graphite.
There is likely no coal on Mars (it's from old biology), so I was assuming that they would get the graphite from CO2 in the atmosphere.  This should also have no appreciable boron or other contamination.  I'm more worried about the uranium supply.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: LM13 on 11/16/2016 02:40 pm

There is likely no coal on Mars (it's from old biology), so I was assuming that they would get the graphite from CO2 in the atmosphere.  This should also have no appreciable boron or other contamination.  I'm more worried about the uranium supply.

That's how I would imagine it as well.  Breaking the CO2 into black carbon directly would be the harder way, I think (carbon monoxide apparently doesn't like to dissociate into C and O), but you could take some of the methane you're making for rocket fuel or plastics feedstock and break it back up into carbon and hydrogen and then recycle the hydrogen back into a Sabatier reactor. 
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Lar on 11/16/2016 02:45 pm
And then you're going to need a coal mine on Mars for the source of the Graphite. 

I think when you say stuff like this, people[1] have a hard time taking you seriously. As LouScheffer points out, coal is not the only source for carbon.

1 - at least this person.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: john smith 19 on 11/16/2016 03:57 pm
There is likely no coal on Mars (it's from old biology), so I was assuming that they would get the graphite from CO2 in the atmosphere. 
Yes, that was my point.

But let's run some numbers.

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/marsfact.html says the Mars surface atmospheric density is 0.02Kg/m^3, of which 95.32% is CO2 IE 19.06g/m^3 is CO2. Let's say CO2 is 44g/mol so 27% of that is actual carbon.
That's 5.2grams of Carbon/ m^3

Or about 193 cubic metres of atmosphere for 1Kg of carbon.

I'd estimate a reactor runs about 100 tonnes IE 19.3 million cubic metres of atmosphere.

But maybe you can do it with 1/10 that, so it's only 1.9 million cubic metres of atmosphere.

Most people would consider that a very large air movement problem, given the amount of atmosphere that had to be moved when people looked at the idea of extracting water from it for ISRU.

I can say it with a little humor or a lot of maths but the point is basically the same.   :(

I think when you say stuff like this, people[1] have a hard time taking you seriously. As LouScheffer points out, coal is not the only source for carbon.

1 - at least this person.
I wasn't being serious because (AFAIK) no one since at least the days of Viking have suggested that coal or oil could ever have formed to begin with, but that's is the scale of carbon extraction you're looking at to do this.

If there is coal (or oil) on Mars life gets a lot easier but Mars is tough because it has no concentrated oxidizer (IE a decent percentage of O2 in a reasonably thick atmosphere) or large supplies of well concentrated carbon (or AFAIK any other readily combustible element such as say Sulfur).

Perhaps you should try not taking things quite so literally?
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: john smith 19 on 11/16/2016 06:39 pm
Thinking about it a more plausible route would be to smelt Iron using limestone, giving a much more concentrated flow of CO2.

Now where to get the heat energy to do this on a enough scale.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Kryten on 11/16/2016 06:48 pm
Thinking about it a more plausible route would be to smelt Iron using limestone, giving a much more concentrated flow of CO2.

Now where to get the heat energy to do this on a enough scale.
Most limestone is 'old biology' too, it's not likely to be present on Mars in quantity.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: john smith 19 on 11/16/2016 08:22 pm
Thinking about it a more plausible route would be to smelt Iron using limestone, giving a much more concentrated flow of CO2.

Now where to get the heat energy to do this on a enough scale.
Most limestone is 'old biology' too, it's not likely to be present on Mars in quantity.
I totally forgot about limestone being the remains of sea creatures skeletons.

Not to say something similar can't be done with rock to be found on Mars, but again that's another area where what seems to be simple is in fact not simple.  :(
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: QuantumG on 11/16/2016 08:33 pm
Zubrin's suggestion for massive scale power generation on Mars is geothermal. The '92 summer space studies identified all the processes needed to make solar power generation from lunar materials, and a similar study could do the same on Mars. I think the argument relevant to this thread is that economic interaction between Earth and Earth-orbit colonies has always been an integral argument for why they some day will exist, whereas Mars colonization always seems to actively preclude economic interaction - most of which I've not really accepted. The shared ground between the O'Neillians and the von Braunians is the argument that launch costs have to come down before anything will happen.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Coastal Ron on 11/16/2016 09:17 pm
And when I say "self-sufficient", my definition means that little by little the expertise and material needed for a colonists survival transitions to being on Mars.  Which might be decades or centuries.
I think that's more in line with Musk's views, although that is quite a long window of vulnerability.

Not really.  The modern form of humans have been around for about 200,000 years, and the Earth has been around for 4.5 billions years.

So from that standpoint a century or two is not very long at all.

Quote
The 19th century had plentiful supplies of coal, hydroelectric power and later oil. Duplicating that on Mars either needs a huge PV array, Methane on an industrial scale above that for propellant use or nuclear. It's possible Mars has Uranium or Thorium that can be mined

BTW Without semiconductors (not necessarily processors, just power electronics) 3d printing becomes much  tougher. An exciting challenge for anyone with a lot of free time on their hands perhaps.

You are taking a very narrow view of what Musk's goal is.  In order to be successfully multi-planetary we don't have to rely on just Mars, or just Earth's Moon.  We just can't rely on Earth being around.  So a Mars population might have to rely on supplies from outside of Mars in order to survive on it's own, and that's OK.

Quote
This is not academic. If we take Musk at his word the worst case is an Earth that has to be "restarted" from Mars.

No, that is not what he has said.  You are putting up strawman arguments.

The test would be whether at some point in the future if the population of humans off of Earth can survive without Earth.  And luckily, as far as we know, today it's a goal, not a mandate, since we don't know of a threat to Earth.  But Musk would prefer not to wait, which is why he is pushing this effort forward.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: high road on 11/17/2016 06:49 am
Thinking about it a more plausible route would be to smelt Iron using limestone, giving a much more concentrated flow of CO2.

Now where to get the heat energy to do this on a enough scale.
Most limestone is 'old biology' too, it's not likely to be present on Mars in quantity.
I totally forgot about limestone being the remains of sea creatures skeletons.

Not to say something similar can't be done with rock to be found on Mars, but again that's another area where what seems to be simple is in fact not simple.  :(

That's the problem with this whole 'self sustaining' idea. It requires Mars to grow incrementally, slowly scaling up industry by industry required to grow, with the limits of every other local industry that also need energy, labour and replacement parts. The scale at which this becomes more efficient (let alone effective) than importing the stuff you need from an existing industrial base is gigantic.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: john smith 19 on 11/17/2016 09:19 am
Not really.  The modern form of humans have been around for about 200,000 years, and the Earth has been around for 4.5 billions years.

So from that standpoint a century or two is not very long at all.
There are various scenarios for trouble with Earth. Some can arise with very little warning and very few options to do anything about them. Some require such concerted action by so many that they are virtually impossible to stop. In that case a few centuries is too long.

Quote
You are taking a very narrow view of what Musk's goal is.  In order to be successfully multi-planetary we don't have to rely on just Mars, or just Earth's Moon.  We just can't rely on Earth being around.  So a Mars population might have to rely on supplies from outside of Mars in order to survive on it's own, and that's OK.
Well AFAIK only Musk has been talking about settlement IE people, eventually whole families living on another body in the solar system and not returning. By definition everyone else is talking "bases" or "factories." From our experience of Arctic and Antarctic bases none of those would survive without constant replenishment from more temperate areas.

Yes it would be wonderful if enough settlements were established throughout the solar system that their resources were diverse enough to set up inter-settlement trade but there is no evidence for anyone planning that on anything like the scale needed.

Quote
Quote
This is not academic. If we take Musk at his word the worst case is an Earth that has to be "restarted" from Mars. That's what having a backup in IT terms normally means.
The test would be whether at some point in the future if the population of humans off of Earth can survive without Earth.  And luckily, as far as we know, today it's a goal, not a mandate, since we don't know of a threat to Earth.  But Musk would prefer not to wait, which is why he is pushing this effort forward.
The problem remains how do they buy those things they cannot do for themselves while they are becoming able to do this.  :(
That's the problem with this whole 'self sustaining' idea. It requires Mars to grow incrementally, slowly scaling up industry by industry required to grow, with the limits of every other local industry that also need energy, labour and replacement parts. The scale at which this becomes more efficient (let alone effective) than importing the stuff you need from an existing industrial base is gigantic.
That's true to a point.

However AFAIK historically no settlement society set out with a plan to become self sufficient. They just grew till eventually they got to a point where they could source anything they needed internally. A settlement for which this was a goal could be more structured and hopefully faster.

While this could accelerate the process quite a lot it still leaves the limited labour, energy and materials resources to deal with. This suggests controlled immigration with priority for either people with necessary skills or a willingness to re-train. But that doesn't get you away from being energy limited.

With 42.5Kw per person just for an artificially lit greenhouse a solar array the size of the ISS one would only support 5 people with nothing left to do anything else.  :( Obviously artificial lighting is off the cards for plant growth but 42.5Kw won't melt very much metal. With no fuels from "old biology" that means either biogas or nuclear, both on a very large scale. Biogas is likely to scale with settler numbers. BTW A typical gas turbine fueled by gas from an old land fill site can run 5MW for about 30 years. An unusual definition of "decay heat."  :)

Or as you say just buy the stuff in from Earth, which I think will be the norm for a long time to come.  Which leave the other problem of how to pay for that stuff. 

It's interesting that the Bezos "factory" plan and the Musk settlement plan suffer from opposite problems. Bezos offers a cash flow (it's the reason it's there in the first place) but no option to expand to permanence. Has anyone moved to live on an abandoned oil rig (serious questions. sounds possible if you wanted to. but..) ? How self sufficient are they? How much money does it take to live there per month? while Musk's plan has a vision, but otherwise no real reason to stay other than the vision.  :(
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Lar on 11/17/2016 02:15 pm
We have went into the weeds talking so much about Mars, which is not the Bezos vision. Let's try to get back on track.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: high road on 11/17/2016 02:36 pm
It's interesting that the Bezos "factory" plan and the Musk settlement plan suffer from opposite problems. Bezos offers a cash flow (it's the reason it's there in the first place) but no option to expand to permanence. Has anyone moved to live on an abandoned oil rig (serious questions. sounds possible if you wanted to. but..) ? How self sufficient are they? How much money does it take to live there per month? while Musk's plan has a vision, but otherwise no real reason to stay other than the vision.  :(

However, settlements have sprung up around mines, railroads, etc. So building up the infrastructure on the 'half way to anywhere' point, aka LEO, will allow us to make the next step affordable: find things that are worth bringing back. If those things happen to be far enough out (and still valuable enough to bring them back), that is the point where people go to stay. The only option of 'permanence' history has ever known. Look up at the cities troughout history, from Alexander to the America's. No matter how self sufficient they are, if they don't have something of value to keep people from leaving, preferably other than being the only one left, they will die out sooner rather than later.

So most of that is Bezos' vision. That's on topic, right?
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Coastal Ron on 11/17/2016 07:16 pm
Not really.  The modern form of humans have been around for about 200,000 years, and the Earth has been around for 4.5 billions years.

So from that standpoint a century or two is not very long at all.
There are various scenarios for trouble with Earth. Some can arise with very little warning and very few options to do anything about them. Some require such concerted action by so many that they are virtually impossible to stop. In that case a few centuries is too long.

Neither Musk nor Bezos are doing what they are doing because they feel catastrophe is imminent, so stop creating artificial schedules and need dates just to make things look bad.

Quote
Quote
You are taking a very narrow view of what Musk's goal is.  In order to be successfully multi-planetary we don't have to rely on just Mars, or just Earth's Moon.  We just can't rely on Earth being around.  So a Mars population might have to rely on supplies from outside of Mars in order to survive on it's own, and that's OK.
Well AFAIK only Musk has been talking about settlement IE people, eventually whole families living on another body in the solar system and not returning. By definition everyone else is talking "bases" or "factories."

Bezos and Musk are talking about high level goals, so of course they are not detailing every single movement of a human.  And they would admit that they don't really know how everything will roll out.

For instance, in order to have factories in space it might turn out that we'll have colonies in space too (likely aboard artificial gravity stations).  Now Bezos doesn't talk about that, but he hasn't ruled it out either.

Quote
From our experience of Arctic and Antarctic bases none of those would survive without constant replenishment from more temperate areas.

By law both the Arctic and Antarctic are only for scientific use, not industrial or private industry.  So drawing conclusions about a future on Mars based on our experiences here on Earth is fraught with bad analogies.

Quote
Yes it would be wonderful if enough settlements were established throughout the solar system that their resources were diverse enough to set up inter-settlement trade but there is no evidence for anyone planning that on anything like the scale needed.

Yet with only the high level plans of Bezos and Musk you are making assumptions about what the details would be about their plans - even though you have not spoken with them.

If asked, I think both Bezos and Musk would not rule out anything at this point, since they are both knowledgeable enough about history to know that the future can unfold in surprising ways.  Meaning it's too early to rule out anything...
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: john smith 19 on 11/17/2016 09:23 pm
Neither Musk nor Bezos are doing what they are doing because they feel catastrophe is imminent, so stop creating artificial schedules and need dates just to make things look bad.
There's always plenty of time, until there isn't.  :(
Quote
Bezos and Musk are talking about high level goals, so of course they are not detailing every single movement of a human.  And they would admit that they don't really know how everything will roll out.

For instance, in order to have factories in space it might turn out that we'll have colonies in space too (likely aboard artificial gravity stations).  Now Bezos doesn't talk about that, but he hasn't ruled it out either.
So everything that's not ruled out is possible? Could be? Might be? Perhaps we could just go with what he's said and done?
Quote
By law both the Arctic and Antarctic are only for scientific use, not industrial or private industry.  So drawing conclusions about a future on Mars based on our experiences here on Earth is fraught with bad analogies.
Perhaps, but outside of Apollo, Skylab and ISS they are the only analogies we have.  :( No analogy should be pushed too far however.
Quote
Yet with only the high level plans of Bezos and Musk you are making assumptions about what the details would be about their plans - even though you have not spoken with them.
Have you? If you haven't and you're not telepathic the only way to know what he's thinking is to listen to what he says and see what he does.  So far Blue has done some test flying and said he'd like to see a million people living in space. So would I, but I've no idea how to do it, although lowering the launch price by about an order of magnitude would be a good idea.

But AFAIK that is an aspiration, not a plan.
Quote
If asked, I think both Bezos and Musk would not rule out anything at this point, since they are both knowledgeable enough about history to know that the future can unfold in surprising ways.  Meaning it's too early to rule out anything...
In theory perhaps.

IRL every stop you take opens up a set of options on the "possibility tree" and closes off others. As Blue progress they will have to commit to a course of action.

Keep in mind 1000 000 people means how many New Glenn flights at about 6 at a time? From how many launch sites?
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: john smith 19 on 11/18/2016 08:48 am
I'd like to make one general point.

Every time someone speculates about the future plans of Blue or SX or someone else and they add additional things to those plans that represents something else that has to happen for that plan to go ahead as you would want it.

I suggest that anyone doing so should consider the probability that the thing you want to happen will actually happen.

For instance (and OT for this thread) I'd like Bezos to implement this idea as a pair of captured NEO's which spin at either end of longish line to give reasonable gravity and plenty of work space and ultimately plenty of living room. The start of a O'Neillian space settlement. They'd be found by the telescopes currently on NEO search duties and brought in by special probes that would smooth the surfaces and take the resulting dust as reaction mass for a solar powered mass driver to make the necessary course and delta v changes. Fully reusable and using all in space resources and ready to repeat the process once it's ion drive (used to get to the NEO in the first place) was refueled.

But IRL the odds on bet is it will be a set of modules bought up from Earth as a mini station with zero g throughout, possibly from Bigelow, as they seem to give the best volume for launch mass.

"But that's so crude, so lacking in vision" some might say.

Unfortunately that's also the simplest, lowest risk and (when you factor in the substantial development costs for my specialist vehicles to process the asteroids and the tether) cheapest option.  :(

So which would you rather bet on to get done? My approach may never be implemented but the other way is fully viable now if you have a viable transport system (which is what Blue are working on) and valuable enough product, specialized glasses for FO amplifiers and sensors seems close or at the right price per unit mass.

I just ask whenever someone comes up with some neat idea (like using an in space power reactor) they consider the cost and risk that will add to the original plan.  You may have just turned a viable $500m project into a $10.5Bn unviable project.  :(
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Coastal Ron on 11/19/2016 07:42 pm
I'd like to make one general point.

Every time someone speculates about the future plans of Blue or SX or someone else and they add additional things to those plans that represents something else that has to happen for that plan to go ahead as you would want it.

I suggest that anyone doing so should consider the probability that the thing you want to happen will actually happen.

I think most of us do, to some degree, but since there is no standard for calculating the unknown future, it would be hard to judge how well anyone is calculating probabilities.

Quote
For instance (and OT for this thread) I'd like Bezos to implement this idea as a pair of captured NEO's which spin at either end of longish line to give reasonable gravity and plenty of work space and ultimately plenty of living room. The start of a O'Neillian space settlement.... [snip]

But IRL the odds on bet is it will be a set of modules bought up from Earth as a mini station with zero g throughout, possibly from Bigelow, as they seem to give the best volume for launch mass.

"But that's so crude, so lacking in vision" some might say.

I'm pretty sure most people that have a realistic idea about how things COULD unfold in the future (which I count myself part of) would NOT say it's crude or lacking in vision.

In fact I would say what Jeff Bezos wants is what we would call "vision", but "how" it gets done is details.  But you could have someone that focuses just on artificial gravity, and what their solution would be could be "visionary", yet how the bathrooms work on such a rotating station would just be "details".  So there is a hierarchy.

Quote
I just ask whenever someone comes up with some neat idea (like using an in space power reactor) they consider the cost and risk that will add to the original plan.  You may have just turned a viable $500m project into a $10.5Bn unviable project.  :(

Sorry, but you are attempting to throttle enthusiasm, and that doesn't sit well with people, especially when no one knows what will happen in the future.

You could just ignore those that you feel are clearly speculating irrationally?  Might make your life easier...  ;)
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 11/20/2016 10:15 pm
Step 1: a cheap $/kg SHLV vehicle to transport bulk, people and other things to LEO, etc.

Step 2: what makes business sense when using #1.


The business cases that could show up in step 2 is an open question because until you have #1 the evaluation as to what makes business sense is unknown.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: john smith 19 on 11/20/2016 10:31 pm
I think most of us do, to some degree, but since there is no standard for calculating the unknown future, it would be hard to judge how well anyone is calculating probabilities.
That's not quite true though is it? You can certainly say that "likelyhood" is inversely proportional to the cost of doing something and the risk and the amount of new technology needed.(to the doers, their surroundings and their neighbours).

So building a LOX/RP1 of X 1000 lb thrust has a certain likelyhood.
Building a NTR  of X 1000 lb thrust has a certain (lower) likelyhood
Building an anti-matter rocket of X 1000 lb thrust has  a certain (lower) likelyhood still.

All are (theoretically) possible but the probability of success ranges from strong in the short term to just about possible in the far future.
Quote
I'm pretty sure most people that have a realistic idea about how things COULD unfold in the future (which I count myself part of) would NOT say it's crude or lacking in vision.
It delivers only what is needed in space to directly  carry out the direct goal. It will leave nothing in space that can be used to expand into space. It's pretty much the baseline for any crewed "space factory" concept from the 1970's.
Quote
In fact I would say what Jeff Bezos wants is what we would call "vision", but "how" it gets done is details.  But you could have someone that focuses just on artificial gravity, and what their solution would be could be "visionary", yet how the bathrooms work on such a rotating station would just be "details".  So there is a hierarchy.
A want without a plan is basically an aspiration.  :( That's a hope, and depending on (again) the probability of it happening ranges from this-time-next-year to "Hail Mary pass."  :(
Quote
Sorry, but you are attempting to throttle enthusiasm, and that doesn't sit well with people, especially when no one knows what will happen in the future.
I love enthusiasm, along with imagination.  But I prefer both to grounded in the known.
Quote
You could just ignore those that you feel are clearly speculating irrationally?  Might make your life easier...  ;)
I already do.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: john smith 19 on 11/20/2016 10:37 pm
Step 1: a cheap $/kg SHLV vehicle to transport bulk, people and other things to LEO, etc.

Step 2: what makes business sense when using #1.


The business cases that could show up in step 2 is an open question because until you have #1 the evaluation as to what makes business sense is unknown.
The obvious answer is of course a corporation that concludes it can only make a decent return on its investment  by putting a very big payload into orbit and is also willing to fund the development of the LV to do so.

It's a variation on the "What's big enough yet impossible to sub divide to fit on smaller LV's so that SLS has to be used" question.

All I could come up with was a)Very large reflecting telescopes and b)MW sized (and above) nuclear reactors.

I guess the nearest to this would be the USG's need for "Liberty ships" to move a shedload of cargo across the Atlantic.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Ludus on 11/23/2016 02:59 am
Both Musk and Bezos want a future where humans are genuinely spacefaring. In the longer term that means there are more human descendants living off the earth than on it. It implies people making a living in a wide range of niches off the earth. Among other things that makes life in general and human descendants in particular harder to extinguish.

The only difference is whether starting from basically nothing, it's better to try to kickstart it in near earth space with a goal of O'Neill like habitats or on another planet. They've got both covered. Both are about getting so many people making a home off of the earth that spacefaring is irrevocable. Both have a sense of urgency that the window of opportunity to do this may not remain open indefinitely.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: john smith 19 on 11/23/2016 07:44 am
Reread the OP.

TL:DR Build it and they will come.

A million people at 6 passengers a time on 1 vehicle is 16 666 flights. At 1 flight a day from 1 pad that's 457 years.

With 10 vehicles from 10 launch pads and 5 flights per day/pad (IE pad refurb in < 5 hrs) you can do it in less than 1 year.  That's 24/7/365 operation.

Better make sure those pads don't have any close neighbours.

Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: TrevorMonty on 11/23/2016 08:02 am
Reread the OP.

TL:DR Build it and they will come.

A million people at 6 passengers a time on 1 vehicle is 16 666 flights. At 1 flight a day from 1 pad that's 457 years.

With 10 vehicles from 10 launch pads and 5 flights per day/pad (IE pad refurb in < 5 hrs) you can do it in less than 1 year.  That's 24/7/365 operation.

Better make sure those pads don't have any close neighbours.
NG would be capable of 20-30 passengers. ITS 200-300, New Armstrong 100+?.  Still going to take a few 1000 launches.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: FinalFrontier on 11/23/2016 08:15 am
Do both. Colonize and develop other planets and heavenly bodies and also use space for heavy industry so that perhaps just maybe we can clean up the Earth.

Both of these things can be enabled by efficient reliable low cost access to both LEO and deep space, therefore it doesn't matter what the differences of vision are, the more companies and other entities working on the problem the better.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: john smith 19 on 11/25/2016 10:51 pm
NG would be capable of 20-30 passengers. ITS 200-300, New Armstrong 100+?.  Still going to take a few 1000 launches.
At 100 passengers a time that's 10 000 launches

Still a lot of launches.

Basically that stretch of sea under the flight path will be permanently off limits. 
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Nilof on 11/27/2016 07:53 pm
Then again, modern air travel has reached ~100k airline flights worldwide every single day.

Rocket flights are a lot harder, but 10k flights within a decade or two should be possible to do by the time you really make reusable rockets practical and reliable and assuming there is an economic motivation to do it. Flipping it the other way around, it "only" requires a launch cadence on the order of one a day.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: john smith 19 on 12/01/2016 10:48 am
Then again, modern air travel has reached ~100k airline flights worldwide every single day.
A point the designers of Skylon were well aware of.
Quote
assuming there is an economic motivation to do it.
That's the biggest joker in the pack.
Quote
Flipping it the other way around, it "only" requires a launch cadence on the order of one a day.
Over what period were you counting?

If New Glenn is good for a 100 passengers that's 10 000  flights.

To move 1 000 000 people in a year to LEO with 10 vehicles takes 10 pads and a pad refurb time of 8 3/4 hours.

You appear to have increased vehicle capacity by a factor of 3.

Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Robotbeat on 12/02/2016 03:53 am
"On the order of"
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 12/04/2016 04:32 pm
As far as why a large SHLV is better vs a small LV is the mechanics of launch costs. There are many items that have fixed costs no matter the LV size. And other items that are almost so trivial in costs related to size they do not affect the end costs. But a semi-reusable LV that lowers the cost factor relative to size makes the fixed values more significant. Such that using larger LVs will lower the $/kg without having to work hard at lowering the costs. Other items also are incentives for going large and that is the cube rate for volume vs the square rate for costs of LVs. Volume controls the relative LV performance. Meaning with all other things equal a larger LV (up to a point for the manufacturing limits not requiring different methods) a larger LV will offer significantly lower $/kg prices than smaller LVs.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: john smith 19 on 12/05/2016 07:30 am
As far as why a large SHLV is better vs a small LV is the mechanics of launch costs. There are many items that have fixed costs no matter the LV size. And other items that are almost so trivial in costs related to size they do not affect the end costs. But a semi-reusable LV that lowers the cost factor relative to size makes the fixed values more significant. Such that using larger LVs will lower the $/kg without having to work hard at lowering the costs. Other items also are incentives for going large and that is the cube rate for volume vs the square rate for costs of LVs. Volume controls the relative LV performance. Meaning with all other things equal a larger LV (up to a point for the manufacturing limits not requiring different methods) a larger LV will offer significantly lower $/kg prices than smaller LVs.
As Jess Sponable noted during the DC-X project you need to be very careful with how cost scales with the square or the cube of length (in any direction). Larger surface area gives a bigger TPS but can also give lower per unit mass, hence higher entry and easier TPS requirements.

Lowering the $/lb was basically the Saturn V approach and the SLS approach. I'd agree scaling up is not as tough as some think, as long as you're below the intrinsic size limits of the mfg hardware but you still end up with a big absolute  launch price instead. A vehicle putting 16 tonnes into LEO for 62m. A vehicle that can put 160 tonnes into orbit for $160m is 1/3 the cost per Kg if fully  used. Otherwise it's about 3x the cost for the same 16 tonne payload.

True, things like range costs and GNC are about the same regardless of what TSTO is sitting on a pad.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 12/05/2016 10:23 pm
As far as why a large SHLV is better vs a small LV is the mechanics of launch costs. There are many items that have fixed costs no matter the LV size. And other items that are almost so trivial in costs related to size they do not affect the end costs. But a semi-reusable LV that lowers the cost factor relative to size makes the fixed values more significant. Such that using larger LVs will lower the $/kg without having to work hard at lowering the costs. Other items also are incentives for going large and that is the cube rate for volume vs the square rate for costs of LVs. Volume controls the relative LV performance. Meaning with all other things equal a larger LV (up to a point for the manufacturing limits not requiring different methods) a larger LV will offer significantly lower $/kg prices than smaller LVs.
As Jess Sponable noted during the DC-X project you need to be very careful with how cost scales with the square or the cube of length (in any direction). Larger surface area gives a bigger TPS but can also give lower per unit mass, hence higher entry and easier TPS requirements.

Lowering the $/lb was basically the Saturn V approach and the SLS approach. I'd agree scaling up is not as tough as some think, as long as you're below the intrinsic size limits of the mfg hardware but you still end up with a big absolute  launch price instead. A vehicle putting 16 tonnes into LEO for 62m. A vehicle that can put 160 tonnes into orbit for $160m is 1/3 the cost per Kg if fully  used. Otherwise it's about 3x the cost for the same 16 tonne payload.

True, things like range costs and GNC are about the same regardless of what TSTO is sitting on a pad.
It comes down to what are the goals
1) independent orbits of small (<10mt) satellites
2) bulk cargo and personnel to the same orbit (space station) or planetary body

For the 1st case a medium or medium heavy launcher may be the best fit.
For the 2nd case an SHLV where the more the better both for initially putting up the station and then support for a the large >12 person station.

Jeff Bezos goals align with the second case. Elon Musk's goals also align with the 2nd goal with the 1st goal only a signpost on the road to get there.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 12/18/2016 08:36 am
Both Jeff's and Elon's goals are enormous undertakings with no guarantees of success. In particular the economic viability of both are a huge unknown.

For example, can we afford the investment needed to get in space manufacturing to the point it can reasonably replace Earth based equivalents? Perhaps mining NEOs might generate a return to enable this but again completely unproven at this point.

In terms of technology development, being near Earth in my view allows a more incremental approach, due to support from Earth, ease of personnel rotation etc.

It's an interesting debate but I think too little data yet to conclude much.  To me all that matters right now is that there are people with considerable will, means and growing track records in space who are going to give it a go. That is unprecedented and in uncertain times is both inspiring and gives me hope for the future.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: meekGee on 03/06/2017 03:29 am
[...] Strictly speaking, all the technology needed to actually run a Mars colony once you get there could be built with nineteenth-century or early twentieth-century industry--nitrogen-fixing for fertilizer, the Fischer-Tropsch process, steelworking, turbines, electric motors, none of these require computers.  [...] I'm honestly drawing a blank as to which bare necessities for continued metabolism on Mars can't be made with the tools available to the Austro-Hungarian Empire.   
The big missing piece is the energy supply.   The Austro-Hungarian empire had fuels (wood, coal, oil) they could burn for power and heat.  Nothing on Mars, as far as I know, can burn in the Martian atmosphere.   You might be able to build big solar collecting mirrors that concentrate heat, to heat stuff for chemistry or metallurgy, or to boil water to turn engines.  However, sunlight is not a very dense form of energy, and not available at night.  Everything else could be managed, *if* you have enough energy, but getting the energy seems the limiting problem.

Can't emphasize this enough.  Mars has the upper hand in anything related to availability of physical resources, but power is the limiting factor, and solar power on Mars is weak. 

So either they can make solar panels, on Mars, at a very low energy cost (this has proven a tough trick on Earth, and required very large scale manufacturing) or they'll end up with nuclear.

For a polar moon base, it's exactly the opposite. Everything is incredibly hard - except for power.  Reminds me of Clarke's concept of Mercury being the most powerful planet in the Solar System since they have the most power.

I think at the end of the day, power on Mars will be easier to solve than everything-else on the moon, but it remains to be seen. 

I might actually get to see it, too!
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: meekGee on 03/06/2017 03:34 am
On second thought, the Austro-Hungarian empire could have built a nuclear reactor, if they knew what to do.   To make and maintain one of these, you need the ability to mine and purify carbon and uranium, and the rest is pretty simple mechanical engineering.   
The Germans tried and failed to build a reactor with Graphite in WWII. Their Graphite was contaminated with Boron and the either did not not have, or did not know they needed a process to remove enough of it to let the reaction go critical.

And then you're going to need a coal mine on Mars for the source of the Graphite.
There is likely no coal on Mars (it's from old biology), so I was assuming that they would get the graphite from CO2 in the atmosphere.  This should also have no appreciable boron or other contamination.  I'm more worried about the uranium supply.

For both Mars and Moon, and industrial chemical ecosystem based on ISRU is exactly the reverse of the one that exists on Earth.

Here, we extract complex, unpure materials from the ground, and spend a lot of time and energy distilling and purifying them.

In an ISRU system, we start from the most basic of feedstock material, and very methodically react them downward, to create what we need.

The Graphite was a perfect example, but you can also look at the petro-chemical industry for the same effect.

Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: savuporo on 03/06/2017 04:33 am
There are many items that have fixed costs no matter the LV size.
.. such as? Which fixed costs are similar between Pegasus, Dnepr and Atlas V?
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 07/17/2017 06:34 am
Quote
Jeff Bezos: reusable rockets will let a trillion people colonise the solar system
By Jamie Carter 11 hours ago World of tech 

Apollo 11 Gala sees Amazon & Blue Origin chief present his vision of space exploration

http://www.techradar.com/news/jeff-bezos-reusable-rockets-will-let-a-trillion-people-colonising-the-solar-system (http://www.techradar.com/news/jeff-bezos-reusable-rockets-will-let-a-trillion-people-colonising-the-solar-system)
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: guckyfan on 07/17/2017 07:27 am
There are many items that have fixed costs no matter the LV size.
.. such as? Which fixed costs are similar between Pegasus, Dnepr and Atlas V?

That's not my interpretation. Two methane architecture launch vehicles by SpaceX may have quite similar cost per launch. Even if one of them throws 3 or 5 times the mass of the other.

Edit: since this is a BO thread, the same may be true for New Glenn and New Armstrong, unless new Armstrong is a major development thread which would make it cheaper to operate even with higher capacity.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: blasphemer on 07/17/2017 07:43 am
Quote
http://www.techradar.com/news/jeff-bezos-reusable-rockets-will-let-a-trillion-people-colonising-the-solar-system

We should build permanent settlements on the Moon's poles where we can get water and solar power.

I have even more faith in this guy than Musk because of how realistic his near-term goals are. ITS and a Mars colony are cool to think about but often seem like a sci-fi in foreseeable future, with possible unknown unknowns that may complicate things. On the other hand, we know New Glenn and polar Moon settlements can be done and done for a reasonable price, it is only a matter of solid engineering and throwing enough money at it.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 07/17/2017 02:47 pm
Bezos is a slow and steady guy. He also has seemingly sufficient funds at least for the next decade, to keep funding development at the rate of $1B/yr. That is a total of development funds of $10B. SpaceX development spending so far over 15 years is a lot less.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: QuantumG on 07/18/2017 01:35 am
Bezos is a slow and steady guy.

We're not getting any younger here.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Lars-J on 07/18/2017 02:34 am
Bezos is a slow and steady guy. He also has seemingly sufficient funds at least for the next decade, to keep funding development at the rate of $1B/yr.

There is an interesting phenomenon going around space enthusiast circles, where there is a strong belief that: Bezos has a plan and everything is proceeding according to that plan. Thanks to his net worth, not only is failure unlikely, it is frankly inconceivable.
(Now oldAtlas_Eguy, I'm not saying you are one of them, I just used your statement as a launching point)

But is this faith grounded in any real evidence? Do people just assume that things are going smoothly just because there is no news? The last six months should at least disprove the part of unlimited finding and no setbacks... Lack of NS flights proves that they are resource constrained (most charitable interpretation of the flight gap), and then we have the BE-4 test setback and resulting delay.

That is a total of development funds of $10B. SpaceX development spending so far over 15 years is a lot less.
...yet they have achieved so much more (so far).

I really do root for Blue Origin to become a competitive alternative to SpaceX, but even getting to the SpaceX current status and capabilities is not a sure thing. Even for a man with the wealth of Bezos.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/18/2017 02:59 am
I believe the italics part. Kind of.

Also not sure if it's really the best plan. But I'm not the second richest man in the world, so not my call.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 07/18/2017 06:48 am
Consider another alternative.

We know that Musk almost went bankrupt with Falcon 1.

Private space has been known to make big millionaires into little ones. Many examples.

What if Bezos has a similar experience? Could you imagine what that might mean for the colossal cost that might be?

I also think Jeff Bezos is being more gradual in his choice of goals than Elon Musk. Starting with suborbital was no guarantee of success but I think it pretty much guaranteed that he would not run out of money. Blue might have failed and given up but hard to imagine many billions being lost (at least given a sound choice of architecture).

To bring it back more to this thread, I also think focussing on CISLunar & industry - while still very ambitious - is more likely than Mars and colonisation. Not least because there a number of others looking to work in that space (such as ULA and Bigelow). Also I think more likely, in time, to secure federal funding.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: woods170 on 07/18/2017 07:12 am
Bezos is a slow and steady guy.

We're not getting any younger here.

Bezos doesn't care. He doesn't have the craving to retire on Mars so he can go-slow down here on Earth for another couple of decades.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: high road on 07/18/2017 07:22 am
Consider another alternative.

We know that Musk almost went bankrupt with Falcon 1.

Private space has been known to make big millionaires into little ones. Many examples.

What if Bezos has a similar experience? Could you imagine what that might mean for the colossal cost that might be?

I also think Jeff Bezos is being more gradual in his choice of goals than Elon Musk. Starting with suborbital was no guarantee of success but I think it pretty much guaranteed that he would not run out of money. Blue might have failed and given up but hard to imagine many billions being lost (at least given a sound choice of architecture).

To bring it back more to this thread, I also think focussing on CISLunar & industry - while still very ambitious - is more likely than Mars and colonisation. Not least because there a number of others looking to work in that space (such as ULA and Bigelow). Also I think more likely, in time, to secure federal funding.

If there's money to be made on the moon, anyone who can supply launch services is going to profit from it, Profit that will be direly needed for Mars as well. So while I agree Bezos has the more realistic goals, Musk might be the one realizing them, regardless whether he's succeeds in his Mars goals.

That's why I would be quite disappointed if BO would decide to drop NS and go straight for NG. Considering they are careful and yet in no risk to run out of money, they are unlikely to be able to keep up with SpaceX in terms of development speed. So rather than continuously developing the next thing that will revolutionize access to space and changing direction whenever a competitor corners the market, I hope they go after the niches not supplied by SpaceX as soon as possible. Whether that be suborbital, lunar surface equipment, or whatever. If they manage to compete with SpaceX on price as well, that's an added bonus.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: QuantumG on 07/18/2017 07:45 am
Bezos is a slow and steady guy.

We're not getting any younger here.


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.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: guckyfan on 07/18/2017 08:28 am

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
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: spacenut on 07/18/2017 12:48 pm
Bezos has a lot of irons in the fire.  He is supposed to launch a new product to compete with Facebook and Snapchat.  He has Amazon, which is not always the cheapest products, we have found.  He may, therefore, at this time, may be concentrating on the BE-4 engine, and maybe a vacuum version of the BE-3 engine.  Both would be great engines for a large rocket.  He also needs to get the BE-4 working for the future Vulcan rocket.  To me sub-orbital joy rides will fall quickly to orbital or moon vicinity rides, so to catch up, he needs to concentrate on his engines, then New Glenn. 
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Jim on 07/18/2017 03:13 pm
Bezos is a slow and steady guy.

We're not getting any younger here.


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.


It isn't slowpoke


https://goo.gl/maps/mwF13q9Qitt
https://goo.gl/maps/HDiRrb8jsV92

Just not publicized
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: RonM on 07/18/2017 04:04 pm
Bezos is a slow and steady guy.

We're not getting any younger here.


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.

... and Bezos, NASA, and China doesn't care that you don't care.

This is about developing industry in space, not entertaining the masses. If people want entertainment from Bezos, I suggest seeing what's available on Amazon.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 07/18/2017 05:11 pm
This thread states his basic intentions.

But what is being discussed is his methods in getting there and whether he will reach his intentions and when.

One of his methods is spending $1B/yr. Another is the development of a partially reusable SHLV >50mt to LEO. Along with that his own set of engines to power said LV. As with Musk's SpaceX, Bezos BO has been able to attract the talent to be able to produce a J2-X class hydrolox engine. Now he is on the final phase of a methalox large engine development.

Now as to his timeline. With NG, his first step into the orbital regime at NET 2019. That is like to take 3 years to get to full launch rate. I don't expect to see a NA for at least 3 years after that point. He needs experience for his teams to be able to design a better SHLV probably 2,3 even 5X in size of the NG that has very low $/kg and is nearly fully reusable. This next step going from partial to fully almost demands that the development teams are experience with actual launch operations and the problems involved down into the fine details. That put his second step in the reaching of his goals somewhere about NET 2025. The next step beyond that is the start of in-space infrastructure build up. In order to support the kind of goals Bezos believes in requires a lot of support for the money makers. Supply, transportation, propellant, minerals/metals/chemicals from ISRU sources, and habitation [stations and bases].

Bezos will likely not worry about a ROI but take any profits made by NG and NA and reinvest them increasing BO's development budget from $1B a year to growing it past $2B/yr. Now what does such development spending by a pure commercial company get you? Using the SpaceX factors of NASA to SpaceX spending for same accomplishment of 3X to 5X Bezos development spending of $30B in 20 years is equivalent to NASA spending $90B to $150B. That is an equivalent NASA average spending rate per year of $4.5B to $7.5B. But that is only BO's spending. If all spending on commercial space over the next 20 years is accounted for the equivelent to if NASA did the same development would be greater than NASA total yearly budget and possible several times that value just in pure development work on space. This is where Bezos and Musk wants the industry to go. And what it will take is a lot of up-front development work in the transportation area of ability to get things into LEO cheaply (<$100/kg).
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: AncientU on 07/18/2017 08:11 pm
His basic intentions are not incompatible with EM's.  Both see low cost access to space as the key and both are investing a sizeable chunk in it -- and by competing, they are upping each other's game.  Having two distinct realizations of reusable rocket technology will vastly improve on having just one.

Quote
Bezos outlines vision of colonizing the solar system

https://thespacereporter.com/2017/07/jeff-bezos-outlines-vision-colonizing-solar-system/
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: QuantumG on 07/18/2017 10:19 pm
This is about developing industry in space, not entertaining the masses.

Last I checked their business was space tourism.

Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Lar on 07/18/2017 10:30 pm

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.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 05/10/2019 10:00 am
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.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 05/10/2019 11:01 am
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.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: TrevorMonty on 05/10/2019 01:31 pm
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. 
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: RonM on 05/10/2019 07:34 pm
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.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Tulse on 05/10/2019 07:49 pm
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?
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: TrevorMonty on 05/10/2019 07:54 pm


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.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: RDoc on 05/10/2019 08:32 pm
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.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: RonM on 05/10/2019 08:45 pm
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.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: punder on 05/10/2019 08:49 pm
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.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: RDoc on 05/10/2019 09:47 pm
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.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: punder on 05/10/2019 09:47 pm
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/
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: mulp on 05/10/2019 10:11 pm
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.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Stan-1967 on 05/10/2019 10:56 pm
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?   
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: RonM on 05/11/2019 01:59 am
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.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Nilof on 05/11/2019 02:13 am
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.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: RonM on 05/11/2019 03:41 am
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.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: ncb1397 on 05/11/2019 05:17 am
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.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: M.E.T. on 05/11/2019 05:51 am
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.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 05/11/2019 07:30 am
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.

When the population reaches trillions of people, we're going to need O'Neil cylinders, as there won't be any room left on Earth, Moon or Mars!
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: gin455res on 05/11/2019 07:30 am
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?

A space habitat moores law would be fun to visualise and witness.

Starting with an elite club of billionares and ending with everybody.

However, millions or billions of  'spacers' doesn't seem politically sensible at this point in our species' development.  Cant get the idea of some mad wiley coyote with a billion ton rock at the top of a gravity well with a multiple slingshot trajectory planned.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: FinalFrontier on 05/11/2019 07:39 am
The limiting factor going forward on plans such as these will increasingly be political problems, not economic or engineering problems.
Jeff has a great vision although it can cut both ways and result in an elysium timeline, but that is a risk with new technology and its somewhat unlikely.
What is likely is that political events prevent these things from happening same as they might for SpaceX and everyone else.

There are very powerful people who have a vested interest in humans NOT becoming multiplanetary or exo planetary. Some of these folks believe such a future would jeopardize their ability to enjoy God like status in the world. They are wrong of course without becoming multiplanetary there won't be a *world* to be a king of in the future, but such people cannot be convinced to change.

In short this will be a difficult vision to achieve. Both Bezos and Musk are right however even though their visions differ. We have to start getting people off planet and getting things going soon, or we will hit the resource wall and crash.
Title: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Lars-J on 05/11/2019 08:49 am
1) We cannot cover the surface of the Earth in solar cells to keep up with the demand of energy for the world's population.  But, the information age will demand blotting out the sky with communication satellites to transfer even greater demand for high bandwidth data via Project Kuiper &amp;/o SpaceX Starlink.

Earth surface not enough? Blotting our the sky? Oh please...:-) Come back when you have serious arguments to make, not ridiculous assertions that aren’t even close to being real.

You just invalidated all your other points.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: spacenut on 05/11/2019 09:21 am
It will take a whole lot of fossil fuel to make solar cells to cover the earth.

LNG is not environmentally unfriendly.  It is clean burning making two water molecules and one CO2 molecule.  The cleanest fossil fuel.  We have several hundred year supply of it.  Just moving power production from coal to natural gas cuts about 2/3's of the CO2.  There is estimated a 10,000 year supply in hydrates in the Bermuda Triangle.

As countries develop their population growth goes down.  India is experiencing this in their upper and middle class.  Same with China.  Africa has a long way to go. 

I predict we will have to go to nuclear power more so than today to keep up with the power demands.  Solar and wind won't cut it except in deserts and windy areas where a lot of people don't live.  We may have to go to breeder reactors to get rid of waste nuclear material or thorium reactors.

Whether on Mars, the Moon or in O'Neil cylinders, people are going into space, for exploration, mining, building, or whatever. 
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: hektor on 05/11/2019 10:35 am

5) A one gram meteorite could wipe out an entire orbiting colony. But this is all necessary because there is a need to save sprawling energy companies from destroying the Earth.  (Mental Note: Amazon will eventually be bought by one of the Earth's LNG companies before an O'Neil cylinder is ever built.)



Please do the following math : compute the volume of air in a 10 mile long O'Neil cylinder and how long it will take, starting from 1 bar, to reduce its pressure by say 1% with the hole punched by a one gram meteorite...
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: TrevorMonty on 05/11/2019 11:57 am

5) A one gram meteorite could wipe out an entire orbiting colony. But this is all necessary because there is a need to save sprawling energy companies from destroying the Earth.  (Mental Note: Amazon will eventually be bought by one of the Earth's LNG companies before an O'Neil cylinder is ever built.)



Please do the following math : compute the volume of air in a 10 mile long O'Neil cylinder and how long it will take, starting from 1 bar, to reduce its pressure by say 1% with the hole punched by a one gram meteorite...
A metre wide hole will take days if not weeks to reducec air pressure to dangerous levels. Thats assuming metorite makes it through metres of radiation sheilding.

If we have technology to build these structures, will surely have technology to defend against metorites, eg detect and destroy.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: spacenut on 05/11/2019 02:55 pm
From what I read on O'Neil cylinders, the glass is not one big continuous piece of glass.  It is or would be made of thousands of panels that snap together.  An astronaut could replace it quickly.  It would take a huge asteroid to destroy an O'Neil cylinder.  With radar, large asteroids can be redirected, or brought in to mine.  If the glass is like bullet proof glass, it can take a lot of small hits before cracking or breaking.  Do some research on O'Neil cylinders.  It is impressive.  Back in the 70's it was estimated it would take $1 billion to build one holding 10,000 people.  Today, maybe $5 billion with a lot of launches and in space construction.  There just has to be a will to do so. 
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Eric Hedman on 05/11/2019 03:37 pm
From what I read on O'Neil cylinders, the glass is not one big continuous piece of glass.  It is or would be made of thousands of panels that snap together.  An astronaut could replace it quickly.  It would take a huge asteroid to destroy an O'Neil cylinder.  With radar, large asteroids can be redirected, or brought in to mine.  If the glass is like bullet proof glass, it can take a lot of small hits before cracking or breaking.  Do some research on O'Neil cylinders.  It is impressive.  Back in the 70's it was estimated it would take $1 billion to build one holding 10,000 people.  Today, maybe $5 billion with a lot of launches and in space construction.  There just has to be a will to do so.
Today for $5 billion we can't even build a small gateway station near the Moon.  It's still going to be a while before we can build an O'Neil cylinder at any price.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: M.E.T. on 05/11/2019 03:51 pm
From what I read on O'Neil cylinders, the glass is not one big continuous piece of glass.  It is or would be made of thousands of panels that snap together.  An astronaut could replace it quickly.  It would take a huge asteroid to destroy an O'Neil cylinder.  With radar, large asteroids can be redirected, or brought in to mine.  If the glass is like bullet proof glass, it can take a lot of small hits before cracking or breaking.  Do some research on O'Neil cylinders.  It is impressive.  Back in the 70's it was estimated it would take $1 billion to build one holding 10,000 people.  Today, maybe $5 billion with a lot of launches and in space construction.  There just has to be a will to do so.

Let’s assume Starship succeeds in dropping launch costs to $100/kg to LEO. That’s $100k/ton. How many tons of material would an O’Neil cylinder consist of? 50000 tons? So that’s $5bn just in launch costs. And as we know, launch costs are only a fraction of the cost of the material and equipment for space hardware. Think of the full cost of each ISS module compared to its launch cost.

It seems to me an O’Neil cylinder would cost hundreds of billions of dollars at least. If not trillions.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Coastal Ron on 05/11/2019 04:01 pm
From what I read on O'Neil cylinders, the glass is not one big continuous piece of glass.  It is or would be made of thousands of panels that snap together.  An astronaut could replace it quickly.

No, not really. For a couple of reasons.

1. Whoever is working on repairing the hole has to work in a spacesuit that experiences close to 1G of simulated gravity. That won't be easy.

2. The biggest danger is not in how to repair the hole, but in the loss of pressure throughout the entire affected region of the space station. And then we never see where they keep the air reserves in these slick images, but I certainly don't see any.

Which is why I don't think we'll ever see such structures built, because failure is too dramatic.

Quote
It would take a huge asteroid to destroy an O'Neil cylinder.

Define "huge"? The 2013 Chelyabinsk meteor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelyabinsk_meteor) was thought to be only 20m in diameter, which it imparted the equivalent of 400–500 kilotons of TNT - which is about 30X more than the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima.

Quote
Back in the 70's it was estimated it would take $1 billion to build one holding 10,000 people.

Yes, and the same people thought the Space Shuttle was going to be able to put payloads into space for the price of $118/lb. We were horrible at making predictions about space-related things in the 70's...  :o

Quote
Today, maybe $5 billion with a lot of launches and in space construction.  There just has to be a will to do so.

As of today $5B gets you 81 launches of a Falcon 9, which could put 1,846mT of payload into LEO - that is about 4X the mass of the current ISS, which only supports six people. Yes the ISS is a research platform, so a lot of mass is science stuff, but O'Neil cylinders will have a mass penalty for the artificial gravity structures, so bottom line is that $5B is an absurdly low figure for an artificial gravity city in space.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/11/2019 04:02 pm
Bulk materials (i.e. like propellant and perhaps bulk building supplies?) to LEO for Starship are supposed to get around $10/kg to LEO based on 2016 ITS numbers. That matches up with what you'd need for point-to-point to close, too.

That's too low for a lunar mass driver to compete with. Need asteroids to make O'Neil cylinders work, IMHO. Demonstrations could be done using massive RLVs like Starship, but you'd really want asteroid materials. Gonna be a while before that's feasible, though, and unfortunately Bezos hasn't been doing much in that direction and most of the asteroid companies died out about when ARRM was cancelled (still sore about that).
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: geza on 05/11/2019 06:02 pm
There is no such thing, as The Future. There are wastly different time-scales.

Industrial society is little more than 2 centuries old - which is nothing on cosmic scale. We have concerns whether this kind of society survies an additional century. (Without the industrial society it will be impossible to feed so many people.) Probably the greatest risk on this scale is a big war induced by inequality and/or climate cathastrope. We should avoid this outcome by any means.

I am not optimistic about the continuation of the modern society on Mars in case of a total societal collapse on Earth during the coming century. I don't see either, why industrialization of space would have a major factor of avoiding such outcome. For instance, we need carbon neutrality, either in space, of here on Earth. If we can solve this, why not solve here? Rest of the problems are similar. Overpopulation can be a concern. However, if the exponenial growth of the human population is sustained, then no space activity will be able to provide the living space. Fortunately, societal development seems to reduce population growth.

Assume now that we will survive the coming centuries and stabilize modern society. Then, we will have such risks, as asteroid impacts, supernovae nearby, etc on million years time scale. (The last devastating impact occured 65 million years ago. It is not very frequent.) There are ways to avoid these risks. On this time scale I can imagine that Martian, or O'Nelian colonies provide continuation in case of a disaster - still, preserving Earth will be the preferred option.

On the billion years time-scale we have to relocate from the Solar System, for sure. On this time-scale we will not have any other options than O'Neil colonies with propulsion. Energy requirements for interplanetary colony ships will be huge, so  it will be a job. Finding a planet somewhere with human-breathable air, proper temperature, etc. will be extreemly difficult. At this point we probably should transfer to our existence to a fully artificialv environment. Or replace our biological existence with a different kind...

What SpaceX can do on the time-scale of coming years & decades is a Mars transportation architecture making permanent human presence on Mars easily affordable for mankind. Developing it into an independent, fully self sustaining society, that guarnties the continuation of humanity can be a dream of anybody, but it is on a different scale of time and money. I strongly belive that having a sustainable research outpost on Mars and later on other worlds in the Solar System will be an worthly achievement, which can contribute culturally to a more rational and more integrated human society. And we will need may Teslas and others to solve our issues here on Earth.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: TrevorMonty on 05/11/2019 06:29 pm
Bulk materials (i.e. like propellant and perhaps bulk building supplies?) to LEO for Starship are supposed to get around $10/kg to LEO based on 2016 ITS numbers. That matches up with what you'd need for point-to-point to close, too.

That's too low for a lunar mass driver to compete with. Need asteroids to make O'Neil cylinders work, IMHO. Demonstrations could be done using massive RLVs like Starship, but you'd really want asteroid materials. Gonna be a while before that's feasible, though, and unfortunately Bezos hasn't been doing much in that direction and most of the asteroid companies died out about when ARRM was cancelled (still sore about that).
Blue Moon has been design to run solely on LH and LOX to allow for refuelling in future. For now we need an expendable lander,  that can deliver equipment to build robot lunar fuel production facilities. Once lunar fuel becomes available we only need deliver goods to LEO. Reuseable OTVs and landers will take it from there using lunar fuel.
With this transport system in place a single  NG launch can deliver 46t anywhere in Cislunar space, no need for distributed launch.

The same transport systems can be used to access NEOs,  bring their fuel and materials back to cislunar space.
Long term asteriod fuel may well be cheaper than lunar fuel in space.

ULA CisLunar1000 roadmap is just this and they've done a lot of good work networking companies and individuals that want to be part of this plan. When richest man in world has same vision and is throwing money and resources at it, investors take notice. Its investor money that is critical to making this vision happen.

Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: dror on 05/11/2019 06:35 pm
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.

When the population reaches trillions of people, we're going to need O'Neil cylinders, as there won't be any room left on Earth, Moon or Mars!
And none of those will have any comforts for the trilions on Earth.
The only thing that can save future Earth from us is rationing and stagnation. The sooner the better.
Space exploration and exploitation is inevitable, and it is in no way a remedy.
 :-[
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Coastal Ron on 05/11/2019 07:41 pm
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.

When the population reaches trillions of people, we're going to need O'Neil cylinders, as there won't be any room left on Earth, Moon or Mars!

The UN is forecasting that the world population may reach 11 billion by 2100, and then start falling. Interesting historical and forecast interactive chart here (https://www.axios.com/birth-rate-every-country-population-demographics-d94b7551-3d16-4100-8798-5f7c1aa237dc.html).

If it turns out that humans can not only survive, but thrive in the 0.37G of Mars, then populating Mars will be far less expensive than building 1G space settlements.

However I think there will be demand for living in space, and artificial gravity space stations will be needed. O'Neil cylinders look inviting, but they also look very fragile and too easy to kill off thousands of people with one large pebble. Because of that I think we'll need to rely on more durable enclosures, which obviously will require far more mass (and money) than the proposed O'Neil cylinders.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: meekGee on 05/11/2019 08:39 pm
From what I read on O'Neil cylinders, the glass is not one big continuous piece of glass.  It is or would be made of thousands of panels that snap together.  An astronaut could replace it quickly.  It would take a huge asteroid to destroy an O'Neil cylinder.  With radar, large asteroids can be redirected, or brought in to mine.  If the glass is like bullet proof glass, it can take a lot of small hits before cracking or breaking.  Do some research on O'Neil cylinders.  It is impressive.  Back in the 70's it was estimated it would take $1 billion to build one holding 10,000 people.  Today, maybe $5 billion with a lot of launches and in space construction.  There just has to be a will to do so.

Let’s assume Starship succeeds in dropping launch costs to $100/kg to LEO. That’s $100k/ton. How many tons of material would an O’Neil cylinder consist of? 50000 tons? So that’s $5bn just in launch costs. And as we know, launch costs are only a fraction of the cost of the material and equipment for space hardware. Think of the full cost of each ISS module compared to its launch cost.

It seems to me an O’Neil cylinder would cost hundreds of billions of dollars at least. If not trillions.
A cubic meter of stuff is on the order of a ton.

The cylinders shown have a diameter of a mile, so lets call their surface area roughly 50 km2.  (A good size for an industrial ecosystem)

If their wall thickness is only 10 m (I'd have guesses 100), then the wall volume is 500E6 m3.  That's 500 Million tons, not 50,000 Tons.

O'Neill cylinders are much larger undertakings than something like a Mars or even an Asteroid colony.

Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: punder on 05/11/2019 09:14 pm
Any civilization that can actually build an O'Neill colony can certainly make it safe to live in.

But another thing to consider is, any civilization able to build an O'Neill colony might not have cause to bother, since everyone has long ago been uploaded into their own personal heaven in The Cloud.   ;D

Am I joking? I'm not sure.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Lemurion on 05/11/2019 09:21 pm
Personally, I'm just glad that Bezos and Musk do have different goals. We may all have guesses but nobody knows for sure how things will pan out and the more different approaches there are in action the more likely we are to see some kind of success.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: launchwatcher on 05/11/2019 09:21 pm
Quote
It would take a huge asteroid to destroy an O'Neil cylinder.
Define "huge"? The 2013 Chelyabinsk meteor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelyabinsk_meteor) was thought to be only 20m in diameter, which it imparted the equivalent of 400–500 kilotons of TNT - which is about 30X more than the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima.
That would be an extremely rare event.

The O'Neill "Island 3" design calls for pairs of 8km diameter, 32km long cylinders.   So its worst-case cross-sectional area is roughly 16x32km, which is about 1/260,000th of the cross-sectional area of earth (ignoring the effects of gravity)

So if earth gets hit by a one 20m-diameter Chelyabinsk meteor about once every sixty years, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_event) we'd expect more than 15 million years between Chelyabinsk-scale hits on an "Island 3" pair.

By the time there are enough such settlements that their cross-sectional area rivals earth I'd imagine that the solar system would be mapped well enough to provide ample early warning of potential collisions.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/11/2019 09:28 pm
From what I read on O'Neil cylinders, the glass is not one big continuous piece of glass.  It is or would be made of thousands of panels that snap together.  An astronaut could replace it quickly.  It would take a huge asteroid to destroy an O'Neil cylinder.  With radar, large asteroids can be redirected, or brought in to mine.  If the glass is like bullet proof glass, it can take a lot of small hits before cracking or breaking.  Do some research on O'Neil cylinders.  It is impressive.  Back in the 70's it was estimated it would take $1 billion to build one holding 10,000 people.  Today, maybe $5 billion with a lot of launches and in space construction.  There just has to be a will to do so.

Let’s assume Starship succeeds in dropping launch costs to $100/kg to LEO. That’s $100k/ton. How many tons of material would an O’Neil cylinder consist of? 50000 tons? So that’s $5bn just in launch costs. And as we know, launch costs are only a fraction of the cost of the material and equipment for space hardware. Think of the full cost of each ISS module compared to its launch cost.

It seems to me an O’Neil cylinder would cost hundreds of billions of dollars at least. If not trillions.
A cubic meter of stuff is on the order of a ton.

The cylinders shown have a diameter of a mile, so lets call their surface area roughly 50 km2.  (A good size for an industrial ecosystem)

If their wall thickness is only 10 m (I'd have guesses 100), then the wall volume is 500E6 m3.  That's 500 Million tons, not 50,000 Tons.

O'Neill cylinders are much larger undertakings than something like a Mars or even an Asteroid colony.
Based solely on the pressure vessel equation, I calculate that your 10km long, 1mile diameter O'Neil cylinder would require about 1 to 4 Megatons of material, depending on the usable (i.e. after factor of safety) specific strength (1 to 4 GPa/(g/cc)). If pressurized to 1 atmosphere and not counting centrifugal force.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: meekGee on 05/11/2019 09:40 pm
From what I read on O'Neil cylinders, the glass is not one big continuous piece of glass.  It is or would be made of thousands of panels that snap together.  An astronaut could replace it quickly.  It would take a huge asteroid to destroy an O'Neil cylinder.  With radar, large asteroids can be redirected, or brought in to mine.  If the glass is like bullet proof glass, it can take a lot of small hits before cracking or breaking.  Do some research on O'Neil cylinders.  It is impressive.  Back in the 70's it was estimated it would take $1 billion to build one holding 10,000 people.  Today, maybe $5 billion with a lot of launches and in space construction.  There just has to be a will to do so.

Let’s assume Starship succeeds in dropping launch costs to $100/kg to LEO. That’s $100k/ton. How many tons of material would an O’Neil cylinder consist of? 50000 tons? So that’s $5bn just in launch costs. And as we know, launch costs are only a fraction of the cost of the material and equipment for space hardware. Think of the full cost of each ISS module compared to its launch cost.

It seems to me an O’Neil cylinder would cost hundreds of billions of dollars at least. If not trillions.
A cubic meter of stuff is on the order of a ton.

The cylinders shown have a diameter of a mile, so lets call their surface area roughly 50 km2.  (A good size for an industrial ecosystem)

If their wall thickness is only 10 m (I'd have guesses 100), then the wall volume is 500E6 m3.  That's 500 Million tons, not 50,000 Tons.

O'Neill cylinders are much larger undertakings than something like a Mars or even an Asteroid colony.
Based solely on the pressure vessel equation, I calculate that your 10km long, 1mile diameter O'Neil cylinder would require about 1 to 4 Megatons of material, depending on the usable (i.e. after factor of safety) specific strength (1 to 4 GPa/(g/cc)). If pressurized to 1 atmosphere and not counting centrifugal force.

Heh I was gonna ask if you were counting centrifugal force...  That might end up being more than pressure containment...

Reason is that an ONeill cylinder is not a metal pressure tank...  There's soil there, right?  And the wall is used to house all the industry that's hidden from view,  I assume ..

Btw did you account for the mass of air?


EDIT: in your model, how thick is the wall, and from what material?
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: punder on 05/11/2019 10:08 pm
Building massive structures like O'Neill cylinders... Instead of transporting gazillions of tons of material from somewhere else to the building location, just build the cylinder at the material source. Find a small asteroid of acceptable composition, in an Earth-approaching orbit, and build the cylinder from it. I'm envisioning the structure growing from the asteroid like a plant from a seed. Structural metal, glass, regolith for soil and shielding, probably water and other volatiles (from what we're learning), and constant solar energy, all in the same place.

From day one the construction crew can use the regolith for radiation shielding. The only obvious downside is limited travel windows--but that applies equally for any destination outside cislunar. In the case of an Earth-approaching or Earth-crossing asteroid, the actual travel time could be conveniently short.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: TrevorMonty on 05/11/2019 11:05 pm
From what I read on O'Neil cylinders, the glass is not one big continuous piece of glass.  It is or would be made of thousands of panels that snap together.  An astronaut could replace it quickly.  It would take a huge asteroid to destroy an O'Neil cylinder.  With radar, large asteroids can be redirected, or brought in to mine.  If the glass is like bullet proof glass, it can take a lot of small hits before cracking or breaking.  Do some research on O'Neil cylinders.  It is impressive.  Back in the 70's it was estimated it would take $1 billion to build one holding 10,000 people.  Today, maybe $5 billion with a lot of launches and in space construction.  There just has to be a will to do so.

Let’s assume Starship succeeds in dropping launch costs to $100/kg to LEO. That’s $100k/ton. How many tons of material would an O’Neil cylinder consist of? 50000 tons? So that’s $5bn just in launch costs. And as we know, launch costs are only a fraction of the cost of the material and equipment for space hardware. Think of the full cost of each ISS module compared to its launch cost.

It seems to me an O’Neil cylinder would cost hundreds of billions of dollars at least. If not trillions.
A cubic meter of stuff is on the order of a ton.

The cylinders shown have a diameter of a mile, so lets call their surface area roughly 50 km2.  (A good size for an industrial ecosystem)

If their wall thickness is only 10 m (I'd have guesses 100), then the wall volume is 500E6 m3.  That's 500 Million tons, not 50,000 Tons.

O'Neill cylinders are much larger undertakings than something like a Mars or even an Asteroid colony.
A 1km asteriod is in order 500,000,000 tons see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/162173_Ryugu. Enough to build a few pairs of 8 x32km Oneil Cylinders and there are 100s of NEAs in this size range. DV to EML2 is about 1km/s.

I'd imagine building small Oneil mining habitat on site. The large colonies built from this asteriod would want be in cislunar for easy access to earth. Not sure if its better ship refined materials back to cislunar or completed Cylinder shell. Would still need lot of earth supplied technology to complete it.

In regards asteriod mining I recommend  Delta V scifi book by Daniel Suarez about first asteriod mining mission to Ryugu. He has based it on current or near term technology so no magical fusion drives.
There is podcast on http://www.thespaceshow.com 22apr with author, worth listening to for engineering behind it. If you decide to buy it please use http://www.onegiantleapfoundation.org/amazon.htm link
to help support show.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/40859000-delta-v





Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: RonM on 05/11/2019 11:22 pm
Here's an AIAA paper I found discussing a space habitat design called Kalpana One. A "modest" 250 m radius by 325 m long cylinder with room for thousands of residents. I skimmed through it and found the authors believe the hull would mass 4.5 tons per square meter of hull surface. This includes enough radiation shielding for adults.

Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: QuantumG on 05/11/2019 11:59 pm
Here's an AIAA paper I found discussing a space habitat design called Kalpana One. A "modest" 250 m radius by 325 m long cylinder with room for thousands of residents. I skimmed through it and found the authors believe the hull would mass 4.5 tons per square meter of hull surface. This includes enough radiation shielding for adults.

Even that's an outdated concept. Read:

http://space.alglobus.net/papers/RadiationPaper2014.pdf

Quote
The result that no shielding material may be necessary for settlement in LEO equatorial orbit
was surprising to the authors and has far reaching consequences because shielding above the
Earth’s magnetic field is about 90% of the mass of Kalpana One, a 3,000 person space
settlement design (Globus 2007), and Kaplana One is designed to minimize shielding mass.

Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Coastal Ron on 05/12/2019 12:20 am
Quote
It would take a huge asteroid to destroy an O'Neil cylinder.
Define "huge"? The 2013 Chelyabinsk meteor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelyabinsk_meteor) was thought to be only 20m in diameter, which it imparted the equivalent of 400–500 kilotons of TNT - which is about 30X more than the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima.
That would be an extremely rare event.

Human history is littered with catastrophes that were caused by "rare" events.

Quote
By the time there are enough such settlements that their cross-sectional area rivals earth I'd imagine that the solar system would be mapped well enough to provide ample early warning of potential collisions.

I fully support expand humanity out into space, and rotating artificial gravity space stations and settlements will need to be part of that. My concern is that in all of this imagineering that everyone will assume that basic safety standards will be ignored - but that is unlikely.

For instance, go to any public building and you will see clearly marked evacuation routes. The same is true for any form of public transportation - there are evacuation routes.

What is the evacuation route for an O'Neil cylinder? Maybe it's sealed rooms below the surface of the "ground" within the cylinder, or maybe there are lifeboats? These things are cheaper to design in than to kludge on after a bunch of customers are killed in a "rare" event.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: meekGee on 05/12/2019 01:31 am
Yes, my point about the mass of O'Neill cylinders was not that they are impossible, but that there's no point in thinking about them in terms of "number of launches necessary to lift mass".

Instead, O'Neill cylinders are just one thing we can do once we have asteroid mining, and I'm not talking about Planetary Resources type BS, but rather manned mining operations with output in the mega-ton range.

So forget NG and a 5 ton lunar lander.  Before you do anything significant in space, and this includes cis-lunar space, you need large long-duration manned ships, and the freedom to travel the inner solar system using techniques such as in-orbit fuel transfer and ISRU.

Hence the conciseness of the SpaceX plan, and the utter disappointment with BO.

Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: QuantumG on 05/12/2019 02:16 am
Which is precisely wrong.

There's this dumb battle of the nerds happening again...

"First we need cheap launch" vs "no! We just need space resources!“

Like some emacs vs vi flamewar.

When you start thinking in terms of markets you see that the answer is both, whenever appropriate, and who cares - just get back to work. Stop arguing, start doing. Don't tell me Jeff, show me. You've got the bankroll, go make some balls.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: daveklingler on 05/12/2019 02:52 am
Yes, my point about the mass of O'Neill cylinders was not that they are impossible, but that there's no point in thinking about them in terms of "number of launches necessary to lift mass".

Instead, O'Neill cylinders are just one thing we can do once we have asteroid mining, and I'm not talking about Planetary Resources type BS, but rather manned mining operations with output in the mega-ton range.

As has been pointed out already, O'Neill cylinders can be built in equatorial LEO without any shielding, eliminating the need for millions of tons of soil.


Quote
So forget NG and a 5 ton lunar lander.  Before you do anything significant in space, and this includes cis-lunar space, you need large long-duration manned ships, and the freedom to travel the inner solar system using techniques such as in-orbit fuel transfer and ISRU.

Not true.

If you're talking about O'Neill cylinders that require large amounts of shielding, you just need the ability to do asteroid capture, which doesn't require manned ships at all. Nor does it require large ships, or orbital fuel transfer.

Not sure what you're referring to with ISRU, again unless you're talking about large amounts of soil shielding.  Then your choices are ISRU from asteroid material, or launching large amounts of mass from the lunar surface, which doesn't require large long-duration manned ships and the freedom to travel the inner solar system.  Mass drivers, catapults or spin launchers can all start at a relatively low scale.

There's a chicken-and-egg problem to solve here, in that getting a stream of materials flowing to an orbital settlement enables processing enables construction enables more infrastructure enables larger materials harvest, and so on. But the advantage of beginning with a modest Earth-gravity space settlement is that much of the machinery for material refining can be conventional and off-the-shelf.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: meekGee on 05/12/2019 03:08 am
Which is precisely wrong.

There's this dumb battle of the nerds happening again...

"First we need cheap launch" vs "no! We just need space resources!“

Like some emacs vs vi flamewar.

When you start thinking in terms of markets you see that the answer is both, whenever appropriate, and who cares - just get back to work. Stop arguing, start doing. Don't tell me Jeff, show me. You've got the bankroll, go make some balls.
First of all, vi.

Second, markets are orthogonal to all of this. Of course they have to develop, and SpaceX is doing that instead of just talking about it.

But a technology roadmap is still necessary.  You can't talk about things like O'Neill cylinders without showing some sort of plan towards them.

I mean, you can, and Bezos certainly did, but then people naturally wonder how many NG launches it takes to put one up.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: daveklingler on 05/12/2019 06:03 am
[M]arkets are orthogonal to all of this. Of course they have to develop, and SpaceX is doing that instead of just talking about it.

But a technology roadmap is still necessary.  You can't talk about things like O'Neill cylinders without showing some sort of plan towards them.

I mean, you can, and Bezos certainly did, but then people naturally wonder how many NG launches it takes to put one up.

Let them wonder, I guess.

The markets Blue relies on for their investment stream have little to do with space launches, and more to do with how well Amazon is doing. Right now I believe that Blue has more $ to invest in development than SpaceX.

SpaceX's goal is to colonize Mars, and in order to do that they need to make as much profit as possible. (I sometimes worry that StarLink will eat SpaceX alive, given the history of Iridium and Globalstar.  My fingers are crossed.)

Blue's goal is to build orbital space colonies. That goal is sufficiently difficult and far out that their progress is frustratingly hard to evaluate. Blue could make no revenue whatsoever between now and 2025 and then suddenly start building mass drivers on the lunar surface.  Maybe they're way ahead of their internal schedule.  Who knows?

Launching payloads for SpaceX is crucial, but launching payloads for Blue is just testing hardware and getting paid for it.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: meekGee on 05/12/2019 06:23 am
[M]arkets are orthogonal to all of this. Of course they have to develop, and SpaceX is doing that instead of just talking about it.

But a technology roadmap is still necessary.  You can't talk about things like O'Neill cylinders without showing some sort of plan towards them.

I mean, you can, and Bezos certainly did, but then people naturally wonder how many NG launches it takes to put one up.

Let them wonder, I guess.

The markets Blue relies on for their investment stream have little to do with space launches, and more to do with how well Amazon is doing. Right now I believe that Blue has more $ to invest in development than SpaceX.

SpaceX's goal is to colonize Mars, and in order to do that they need to make as much profit as possible. (I sometimes worry that StarLink will eat SpaceX alive, given the history of Iridium and Globalstar.  My fingers are crossed.)

Blue's goal is to build orbital space colonies. That goal is sufficiently difficult and far out that their progress is frustratingly hard to evaluate. Blue could make no revenue whatsoever between now and 2025 and then suddenly start building mass drivers on the lunar surface.  Maybe they're way ahead of their internal schedule.  Who knows?

Launching payloads for SpaceX is crucial, but launching payloads for Blue is just testing hardware and getting paid for it.
To be precise, it's to make humanity an interplanetary species..  Mars is step 1 since it's the easiest.  I am sure asteroids will follow.  Maybe even artificial structures.

Moon, not so sure.  It's too close to have its own economic sphere, and doesn't have some of the advantages of asteroids.

Time will tell.  But you have to put the cart before the horse, and I still don't see BO really grabbing the bull by the horns, if you pardon the metaphor terducken.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: RonM on 05/12/2019 06:28 am
Here's an AIAA paper I found discussing a space habitat design called Kalpana One. A "modest" 250 m radius by 325 m long cylinder with room for thousands of residents. I skimmed through it and found the authors believe the hull would mass 4.5 tons per square meter of hull surface. This includes enough radiation shielding for adults.

Even that's an outdated concept. Read:

http://space.alglobus.net/papers/RadiationPaper2014.pdf

Quote
The result that no shielding material may be necessary for settlement in LEO equatorial orbit
was surprising to the authors and has far reaching consequences because shielding above the
Earth’s magnetic field is about 90% of the mass of Kalpana One, a 3,000 person space
settlement design (Globus 2007), and Kaplana One is designed to minimize shielding mass.

Ah, another PDF for my collection.

Good point about LEO. Eventually we'll be putting these things around other planets or near asteroids. Then shielding becomes important and massive.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 05/12/2019 08:03 am
Even that's an outdated concept. Read:

http://space.alglobus.net/papers/RadiationPaper2014.pdf

Quote
The result that no shielding material may be necessary for settlement in LEO equatorial orbit
was surprising to the authors and has far reaching consequences because shielding above the
Earth’s magnetic field is about 90% of the mass of Kalpana One, a 3,000 person space
settlement design (Globus 2007), and Kaplana One is designed to minimize shielding mass.

Thanks for posting the link. I think the whole abstract is worth repeating here, some interesting numbers:

Quote
Orbital Space Settlement Radiation Shielding
Al Globus
San Jose State University
Joe Strout
Luminary Apps, LLC
PREPRINT October 2014

Abstract
We examine the radiation shielding requirements for protecting the inhabitants of space settlements located in orbit. In particular, we recommend a threshold of 20 mSv/year based on the most relevant existing standards. Space settlement studies in the 1970s assumed that lunar regolith with a mass equivalent to Earth’s atmosphere above high altitude cities, roughly 5 tons per square meter, would be sufficient to meet a 5 mSv/year threshold at the Earth­Moon L5 point, their recommended settlement location. Using OLTARIS, NASA’s online radiation computational tool, we found this to be far too little for their 5 mSv/year threshold. Even at our 20 mSv/year threshold about 10 tons/m^2 of lunar regolith is required. Fortunately, radiation shielding mass requirements can be radically reduced by using better materials and/or by placing settlements in low Earth orbit (LEO) rather than above the Van Allen Belts. Specifically, 6-­7 tons of water or polyethylene radiation shielding per square meter of hull is sufficient in free space and settlements in a circular 500-­600 km equatorial Earth orbit may require no shielding at all to meet the 20 mSv/year threshold. This has strong implications for the best paths towards space settlement as the first settlements may not need extraterrestrial mining and processing. For settlements in LEO, transportation to and from Earth is (relatively) easy, implying a smaller step between large space hotels or low-­g retirement homes and the first settlements. It is important to note that there are significant uncertainties in our understanding of the effects of low-­level continuous high-­energy particle radiation on human tissue that, when resolved, may invalidate these findings.

Edit to add: final published paper from April 2017 is at
https://space.nss.org/media/NSS-JOURNAL-Orbital-Space-Settlement-Radiation-Shielding.pdf

Shorter abstract:

Quote
We examine the radiation shielding requirements for protecting the inhabitants of orbital space settlements. Following an extensive analysis of the literature, we recommend a limit of 20 mSv/yr for the general population and 6.6 mGy/yr for pregnant women based on the most relevant standards, existing data and background radiation on Earth. In a surprising result, radiation measurements on the International Space Station (ISS) and our calculations using OLTARIS, NASA’s online radiation computational tool, indicate that space settlements in Equatorial Low Earth Orbit (ELEO) below about 500 km are likely to meet this standard with little or no dedicated radiation shielding. This reduces the mass of typical orbital space settlement designs by 95% or more, suggesting that the easiest place to build the first space settlements is in ELEO due to proximity to Earth and relatively low system mass.

It is important to note that there are significant uncertainties in our understanding of the human effects of the continuous low-level high-energy particle radiation characteristic of space in general and ELEO in particular that need to be resolved. Thus, our conclusions should be considered preliminary.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/12/2019 12:45 pm
[M]arkets are orthogonal to all of this. Of course they have to develop, and SpaceX is doing that instead of just talking about it.

But a technology roadmap is still necessary.  You can't talk about things like O'Neill cylinders without showing some sort of plan towards them.

I mean, you can, and Bezos certainly did, but then people naturally wonder how many NG launches it takes to put one up.

Let them wonder, I guess.

The markets Blue relies on for their investment stream have little to do with space launches, and more to do with how well Amazon is doing. Right now I believe that Blue has more $ to invest in development than SpaceX.

SpaceX's goal is to colonize Mars, and in order to do that they need to make as much profit as possible. (I sometimes worry that StarLink will eat SpaceX alive, given the history of Iridium and Globalstar.  My fingers are crossed.)

Blue's goal is to build orbital space colonies. That goal is sufficiently difficult and far out that their progress is frustratingly hard to evaluate. Blue could make no revenue whatsoever between now and 2025 and then suddenly start building mass drivers on the lunar surface.  Maybe they're way ahead of their internal schedule.  Who knows?

Launching payloads for SpaceX is crucial, but launching payloads for Blue is just testing hardware and getting paid for it.
I don't think lunar mass drivers are as cost effective as people think.

I agree with everyone that I really wish Blue had shown some hardware actually showing how to get from here to O'Neil cylinders. They've got the cash to do this.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/12/2019 12:46 pm
Here's an AIAA paper I found discussing a space habitat design called Kalpana One. A "modest" 250 m radius by 325 m long cylinder with room for thousands of residents. I skimmed through it and found the authors believe the hull would mass 4.5 tons per square meter of hull surface. This includes enough radiation shielding for adults.

Even that's an outdated concept. Read:

http://space.alglobus.net/papers/RadiationPaper2014.pdf

Quote
The result that no shielding material may be necessary for settlement in LEO equatorial orbit
was surprising to the authors and has far reaching consequences because shielding above the
Earth’s magnetic field is about 90% of the mass of Kalpana One, a 3,000 person space
settlement design (Globus 2007), and Kaplana One is designed to minimize shielding mass.

Ah, another PDF for my collection.

Good point about LEO. Eventually we'll be putting these things around other planets or near asteroids. Then shielding becomes important and massive.
unfortunately, I actually don't think LEO is a particularly safe place for orbital settlements. Orbital debris is a major thing there and it's not getting better.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: daveklingler on 05/12/2019 01:42 pm
[M]arkets are orthogonal to all of this. Of course they have to develop, and SpaceX is doing that instead of just talking about it.

But a technology roadmap is still necessary.  You can't talk about things like O'Neill cylinders without showing some sort of plan towards them.

I mean, you can, and Bezos certainly did, but then people naturally wonder how many NG launches it takes to put one up.

Let them wonder, I guess.

The markets Blue relies on for their investment stream have little to do with space launches, and more to do with how well Amazon is doing. Right now I believe that Blue has more $ to invest in development than SpaceX.

SpaceX's goal is to colonize Mars, and in order to do that they need to make as much profit as possible. (I sometimes worry that StarLink will eat SpaceX alive, given the history of Iridium and Globalstar.  My fingers are crossed.)

Blue's goal is to build orbital space colonies. That goal is sufficiently difficult and far out that their progress is frustratingly hard to evaluate. Blue could make no revenue whatsoever between now and 2025 and then suddenly start building mass drivers on the lunar surface.  Maybe they're way ahead of their internal schedule.  Who knows?

Launching payloads for SpaceX is crucial, but launching payloads for Blue is just testing hardware and getting paid for it.
I don't think lunar mass drivers are as cost effective as people think.

Sigh.

Blue could make no revenue whatsoever between now and 2025 and then suddenly start building mass drivers Panda Express Restaurants on the lunar surface. 

Quote
I agree with everyone that I really wish Blue had shown some hardware actually showing how to get from here to O'Neil cylinders. They've got the cash to do this.

They have the cash to do all kinds of things, but Bezos likes to surprise people.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: meekGee on 05/12/2019 04:37 pm
...
They have the cash to do all kinds of things, but Bezos likes to surprise people.

He sure did on Thursday.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Lar on 05/13/2019 12:14 am
If you build habitats for millions with mass lifted from earth, you're doing it wrong. Habitats for millions presupposes heavy industrialization of the entire system out to the inner belt and maybe even out to the gas giants. At that point you're presumably moving bulk materials around from where they were refined (in the belt most likely for glass and steel, the gas giants for volatiles) to where they need to be used with mass drivers.

Lift costs from terra are mostly irrelevant.

...
They have the cash to do all kinds of things, but Bezos likes to surprise people.

He sure did on Thursday.

No he didn't.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Coastal Ron on 05/13/2019 12:33 am
If you build habitats for millions with mass lifted from earth, you're doing it wrong. Habitats for millions presupposes heavy industrialization of the entire system out to the inner belt and maybe even out to the gas giants. At that point you're presumably moving bulk materials around from where they were refined (in the belt most likely for glass and steel, the gas giants for volatiles) to where they need to be used with mass drivers.

I would agree that once we reach a certain population in space that ISRU will be mandatory from an economic standpoint. Especially if saving Earth is part of the reason for moving humanity out into space, because launching the number of rockets needed to support a vast population in space is not going to be eco-friendly.

However there is a big gap between the six people we support in space right now and millions, and O'Neill cylinders won't be the first habitats we build in space. Which means that soon we need to create one or more planning groups that can help identify the possible expansion plans we'll need to achieve a large population of humans off of Earth. Obviously such groups won't have any power, but just much of the internet is run by open-source software, I think there could be equivalent groups that come together to tackle different parts of the challenges that are holding us back from migrating out into space.

And I think NSF is a precursor group helping that along, but there will need to be more organized groups that self-assemble to do this.

My $0.02
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Lar on 05/13/2019 12:38 am
And that's my main beef with the announcement on May 9th... Not enough mid term pathing stuff. How do you get to that first asteroid mined? They've presented a roadmap before but this didn't flesh it out that much.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: QuantumG on 05/13/2019 04:11 am
But a technology roadmap is still necessary.  You can't talk about things like O'Neill cylinders without showing some sort of plan towards them.

If ya wanna talk about stuff, sure. If you just wanna /do/ stuff, you don't need to plan entire industries like you're some kind of Soviet administrative.

When there's people in space to buy space resources, the market will supply them. If there was space resource for sale, people would figure out what to do with them. Classic chicken and egg. Stop pondering and do one of those things.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: meekGee on 05/13/2019 07:59 am
If you build habitats for millions with mass lifted from earth, you're doing it wrong. Habitats for millions presupposes heavy industrialization of the entire system out to the inner belt and maybe even out to the gas giants. At that point you're presumably moving bulk materials around from where they were refined (in the belt most likely for glass and steel, the gas giants for volatiles) to where they need to be used with mass drivers.

Lift costs from terra are mostly irrelevant.

...
They have the cash to do all kinds of things, but Bezos likes to surprise people.

He sure did on Thursday.

No he didn't.

I was being sarcastic.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: tonya on 05/13/2019 10:53 am
And that's my main beef with the announcement on May 9th... Not enough mid term pathing stuff. How do you get to that first asteroid mined? They've presented a roadmap before but this didn't flesh it out that much.

You probably will never get that sort of answer from Blue Origin.

It looks like the same philosophy as AWS back in 2006. They're not going to mine an asteroid, they're going to build the basic services that would allow an asteroid mining company to be feasible for someone else. AWS never had a roadmap of products that would launch on it, just services it provides.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Lar on 05/13/2019 11:59 am
And that's my main beef with the announcement on May 9th... Not enough mid term pathing stuff. How do you get to that first asteroid mined? They've presented a roadmap before but this didn't flesh it out that much.

You probably will never get that sort of answer from Blue Origin.

It looks like the same philosophy as AWS back in 2006. They're not going to mine an asteroid, they're going to build the basic services that would allow an asteroid mining company to be feasible for someone else. AWS never had a roadmap of products that would launch on it, just services it provides.
Right, so what services are they going to provide? What is the general approach for sustainable deep space operations? Are they (planning on) offering crew transport? Freight transport? What? Their current tech portfolio doesn't provide the necessary things. It has gaps. 

SpaceX, by providing a Land Rover-ish vehicle that can go anywhere with refueling, actually does. (recall that people plowed their fields with Land Rovers.. not because they were best suited for the field plowing job, but because that's what people had, and it worked)

Even the post office, which Bezos compares Blue to, has a better future plan.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: hektor on 05/13/2019 12:21 pm
My advice would be to re read O'Neill. At that time he had given a lot of thought to these concepts.

The High Frontier: Human Colonies In Space ISBN-13: 978-0688031336

At the time the plan was to set a base camp on the Moon, start mining there, produced semi finished materials there and put the products in orbit with a non chemical system (mass driver).

So I think the first steps should be 1) Moon village/base/camp/mining facility/factory and 2) mass driver and then start building incrementally larger habitats. 2001 like station (ring) lower than the Van Allen belts could be a start.

Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: tonya on 05/13/2019 01:12 pm
And that's my main beef with the announcement on May 9th... Not enough mid term pathing stuff. How do you get to that first asteroid mined? They've presented a roadmap before but this didn't flesh it out that much.

You probably will never get that sort of answer from Blue Origin.

It looks like the same philosophy as AWS back in 2006. They're not going to mine an asteroid, they're going to build the basic services that would allow an asteroid mining company to be feasible for someone else. AWS never had a roadmap of products that would launch on it, just services it provides.
Right, so what services are they going to provide? What is the general approach for sustainable deep space operations? Are they (planning on) offering crew transport? Freight transport? What? Their current tech portfolio doesn't provide the necessary things. It has gaps. 

SpaceX, by providing a Land Rover-ish vehicle that can go anywhere with refueling, actually does. (recall that people plowed their fields with Land Rovers.. not because they were best suited for the field plowing job, but because that's what people had, and it worked)

Even the post office, which Bezos compares Blue to, has a better future plan.

I see it this way.

We have technical details (now quite a lot of details) about New Glenn, because it's a product about to be launched seeking customers. We now know the first details regarding Blue Moon, probably earlier than intended thanks to the unexpected emergence of a viable and important customer. The customer is the US government with a new interest in spending a large amount of money before 2024, and it's a customer that likes to be charmed.

Blue Origin is not a company that has any interest in sharing roadmap specifics in the public domain. You'll got a fluffy vision, but don't expect any details regarding products or services in public until 2-3 years away from the date it will be available. See for example New Armstrong, of which we know almost nothing and I expect that will continue.

We've been somewhat spoilt by SpaceX building things in the open, sometimes literally in the open. Having the US government support through COTS and its successors has also helped kept commercial developments in the public domain. If we move towards true commercial ventures and infrastructure, we're just not going to have that visibility. I referenced AWS before, and in software services products tend to be announced at annual events, often after planning over years, see Google I/O which has just finished. I suspect Blue Origin will operate in a similar fashion, even if the development timescales and then public visibility are over longer timescales.


Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Darkseraph on 05/13/2019 01:57 pm
It's premature to make detailed plans on how an orbital civilization could be accomplished and no one company will have all answers right now on how best to achieve that. It's best to create the road to space that enables path finding by all sorts of entities on how best to do this. Some attempts will certainly fail or be superseded by better approaches. It's also premature to do anything similar for Mars. We really don't have a frakking clue how 1 million people can be realistically be sustained on the surface of a planet as harsh as Mars without running out of money. There's plenty of vague ideas on how to do it but many of those are not going to pan out and some better ideas we haven't even discovered yet.

In a way, building a mulitplanetary civilization and building a space based one are similar problems and tackling one will greatly help the case other. They will both involve people being crammed into airtight tubes and trying to make the best of the resources available in space. The two key notes both Bezos and Musk have hit on are you have to use in space resources and you have to reduce the cost of launch massively through reuse. It's important to focus on the immediate problem that's solvable now and not get ahead of ourselves.

My own personal view on what the future of a space-faring civilization looks like is different to what Musk and Bezos have proposed. I see space colonization being more like deep-sea drilling with the total space population being way less than 1 million in various orbits near Earth and on the moon and asteroids. No one colonizes the oceans but people do work in them to drill for fossil fuels or fish. Space will be similar. Few will actually live there permanently. Probably only a few thousand will be up their in space and their jobs will be to maintain various machines and robots that produce goods and power for Earth. The population boom of the 20th century is peaking and trillions of people in an industrializing world are unlikely to ever happen. 11 billion people is probably the most we can ever expect to exist at any one time. Demand on for goods, energy and services will eventually peak too as the rest of the world climbs out of poverty. The demands for resources will still be huge but not such that it will make any economic sense for the majority of people to live off planet.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: spacenut on 05/13/2019 02:07 pm
I know that perfect ball bearings can be made in zero gravity, no machining.  Same with crystals.  Making metals in orbit from mined moon/Mars materials may work.  To me it would be easier to mine and smelt the metals on the moon, then ship the raw metals to a station for making the metal into something. 

I know on earth we don't mine iron ore like we once did.  We use recycled cars and ships for most of our scrap iron to be made into something else. 

What else besides the basic metals ores, silicone, oxygen, etc, can be mined on the moon?  Maybe some water, but that is limited on the moon.  There is asteroid mining. 

Will cis-lunar manufacturing be cost effective?  If so, how long will it take?
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: punder on 05/13/2019 06:24 pm
Watched the full presentation this weekend and found it inspiring.

Bezos said explicitly that those beautiful O'Neill colonies and Stanford torii wouldn't be built by him, they are for future generations to design and build. He simply presented his ideal future world and asserted it would have to happen roughly this way to avoid limits on civilizational dynamism and growth. I happen to agree, for all that's worth.

I wasn't offended by the lack of detail. SpaceX fanboi first, but as Elon likes to say, competition is good. Even if it doesn't happen on my preferred schedule.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Joseph Peterson on 05/13/2019 06:50 pm
My 2¢:

My biggest problem was Bezos mistakenly labeling new energy sources efficiency.  This is the type of mistake a Luddite will make.  Combined with other indicators my conclusion is Bezos has fallen for the no breakfast fallacy.  If so, I have little hope Blue Origin is the company us space geeks want* developing infrastructure.

https://www.amazon.com/No-Breakfast-Fallacy-running-minerals-ebook/dp/B00YHTIMHS/ref=sr_1_fkmrnull_2?keywords=the+no+breakfast+fallacy&qid=1557767275&s=gateway&sr=8-2-fkmrnull

* In general.  Some of us would be perfectly content getting the space version of Soviet coal mining.  We're not in space policy, so I'd rather not go down that rabbit hole.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Lar on 05/13/2019 07:18 pm
SpaceX has a complete coherent system of transport. Blue has a launcher and a lander but there are missing pieces before they are a transport provider. OK, we'll see what they do. Eventually.

But see the thread about whose business model is better. SpaceX will have competitors, for sure. 20 or 30 years out, they may not include Blue unless they pick up the pace. SpaceX has two speeds.. hair on fire, or "we're actually not doing that thing any more, we pivoted"   That's a hard act to compete with. Blue may find themselves irrelevant in 10 years. Even if they get this modified pork. (it's better pork than some pork but there's definitely a ham/bacon flavor to NASA's ask...)
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: b0objunior on 05/13/2019 07:54 pm
NSF tread in a nutshell : we begin by speaking about the actual subjet and we right away divert back to the idle of the site, SpaceX in all it's form. No tread shall be spared for it be too difficult to find anything else to talk about.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Coastal Ron on 05/13/2019 08:31 pm
I know that perfect ball bearings can be made in zero gravity, no machining.  Same with crystals.  Making metals in orbit from mined moon/Mars materials may work.  To me it would be easier to mine and smelt the metals on the moon, then ship the raw metals to a station for making the metal into something.

There is an advantage to processing material closer to it's final use, or in the case of building material, assembling it closer to it's final destination. And the promise of ISRU and producing finished product on the Moon as opposed to on Earth is that there is less energy required to move it to virtually anywhere off of Earth.

Quote
I know on earth we don't mine iron ore like we once did.

3.3 billion tonnes of iron ore was mined in 2018, and that is expected to rise to 3.4 billion by 2027. We mine a LOT of it.

Quote
We use recycled cars and ships for most of our scrap iron to be made into something else.

That supplements the supply chain, but it doesn't replace it unfortunately.

Quote
What else besides the basic metals ores, silicone, oxygen, etc, can be mined on the moon?  Maybe some water, but that is limited on the moon.  There is asteroid mining. 

Will cis-lunar manufacturing be cost effective?  If so, how long will it take?

ISRU in the early days of colonization of any off-Earth location will be for local demand, and that would likely be for building materials and other uses that require heavy and bulky metal parts.

But you ask good questions, and there is not enough we know about both the demand and supply side to answer them. And the only way to answer them will be to get out there and start mining and refining raw material.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: rakaydos on 05/13/2019 10:27 pm
NSF tread in a nutshell : we begin by speaking about the actual subjet and we right away divert back to the idle of the site, SpaceX in all it's form. No tread shall be spared for it be too difficult to find anything else to talk about.
To be fair, it's like a forum about the historical 1700s, and trying to avoid talking about what a small island off the coast of europe was doing.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: spacenut on 05/13/2019 10:53 pm
I've read that the US doesn't mine as much iron ore as it once did.  We recycle most of our steel.  I though Europe did also.  I guess the 3rd world is causing the mining increase.  One reason is cars today only use about half the steel as cars did in 1960.  I know old ships are being ran aground in Pakistan, and they salvage the steel out of them for their steel use. 

I maybe didn't make myself clear.  Manufacturing in lunar orbit, or L1 area would be more ideal if using lunar raw materials.  Then shipping finished products back to earth.  But, what would they make?  I know crystals and ball bearings are great in zero g, but what else can be made in space? 
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: QuantumG on 05/13/2019 11:07 pm
At the time the plan was to set a base camp on the Moon, start mining there, produced semi finished materials there and put the products in orbit with a non chemical system (mass driver).

... and a big freakin' nuclear powered catcher's mitt. Everyone seems to forget that part of the architecture for some reason  ;D
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: TrevorMonty on 05/14/2019 12:59 am
I've read that the US doesn't mine as much iron ore as it once did.  We recycle most of our steel.  I though Europe did also.  I guess the 3rd world is causing the mining increase.  One reason is cars today only use about half the steel as cars did in 1960.  I know old ships are being ran aground in Pakistan, and they salvage the steel out of them for their steel use. 

I maybe didn't make myself clear.  Manufacturing in lunar orbit, or L1 area would be more ideal if using lunar raw materials.  Then shipping finished products back to earth.  But, what would they make?  I know crystals and ball bearings are great in zero g, but what else can be made in space?
Space advocates holy grail of products is solar power stations in GEO that are built from ISRU material. Electricity is export product. With gigawatt stations producing 100s $M of revenue a year and we needs 1000s of 1GW stations to meet earth demands. $T a year market is quite realistic, given how energy hungry modern society is.

Rocket fuel and water exported to LEO is near term product.

ZLAN ( fibre optic ), while manufactured in LEO uses earth supplied raw material. Manufacturing the raw material from ISRU maybe big ask in early days as it chemically complex material.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: spacenut on 05/14/2019 03:12 am
I read back in the 1970s that a 1 sq mile of solar panels could produce as much electricity as a nuclear power plant on earth.  This is probably smaller by now since solar panels have improved.  Problem is beaming back the power using microwaves.  Any bird or plane in the way of a microwave power beam would be fried.  Receiving end would turn it into power for the grid.  Sounds good, but the path of reception would have to be strictly controlled. 
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: punder on 05/14/2019 03:34 am
I read back in the 1970s that a 1 sq mile of solar panels could produce as much electricity as a nuclear power plant on earth.  This is probably smaller by now since solar panels have improved.  Problem is beaming back the power using microwaves.  Any bird or plane in the way of a microwave power beam would be fried.  Receiving end would turn it into power for the grid.  Sounds good, but the path of reception would have to be strictly controlled.
That's the easiest part. The FAA creates a TFR for each beam path, and pilots better stay out of there. If not, believe me--I say this as a pilot--being fried by microwaves will be the least of their worries.   :D
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: RDoc on 05/14/2019 04:01 am
I read back in the 1970s that a 1 sq mile of solar panels could produce as much electricity as a nuclear power plant on earth.  This is probably smaller by now since solar panels have improved.  Problem is beaming back the power using microwaves.  Any bird or plane in the way of a microwave power beam would be fried.  Receiving end would turn it into power for the grid.  Sounds good, but the path of reception would have to be strictly controlled.
This is a bit of an urban legend. The intensity of microwave energy would be less than twice sunlight. Microwave conversion efficiency is much higher than solar so very high energy densities aren't needed.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: meekGee on 05/14/2019 05:33 am
NSF tread in a nutshell : we begin by speaking about the actual subjet and we right away divert back to the idle of the site, SpaceX in all it's form. No tread shall be spared for it be too difficult to find anything else to talk about.
To be fair, it's like a forum about the historical 1700s, and trying to avoid talking about what a small island off the coast of europe was doing.
Corsica?
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: tonya on 05/14/2019 06:52 am
NSF tread in a nutshell : we begin by speaking about the actual subjet and we right away divert back to the idle of the site, SpaceX in all it's form. No tread shall be spared for it be too difficult to find anything else to talk about.

Quite. I dare imagine the response if I questioned the financial viability or technical readiness of a business plan to begin colonising Mars within a few years on the same basis.

Both visions are an enormous leap of faith, but personally I lean towards Jeff's vision of industrialization over colonization as a more realistic one of what a commercially viable expansion into space will look like over the next century or two.

SpaceX might also conclude the same at some point, with the merits of their different rockets having very little to do with it.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: tonya on 05/14/2019 09:56 am
I've read that the US doesn't mine as much iron ore as it once did.  We recycle most of our steel.  I though Europe did also.  I guess the 3rd world is causing the mining increase.  One reason is cars today only use about half the steel as cars did in 1960.  I know old ships are being ran aground in Pakistan, and they salvage the steel out of them for their steel use. 

I maybe didn't make myself clear.  Manufacturing in lunar orbit, or L1 area would be more ideal if using lunar raw materials.  Then shipping finished products back to earth.  But, what would they make?  I know crystals and ball bearings are great in zero g, but what else can be made in space?
Space advocates holy grail of products is solar power stations in GEO that are built from ISRU material. Electricity is export product. With gigawatt stations producing 100s $M of revenue a year and we needs 1000s of 1GW stations to meet earth demands. $T a year market is quite realistic, given how energy hungry modern society is.

Rocket fuel and water exported to LEO is near term product.

ZLAN ( fibre optic ), while manufactured in LEO uses earth supplied raw material. Manufacturing the raw material from ISRU maybe big ask in early days as it chemically complex material.

An interesting factor in the context of Jeff Bezos, is how much of the World's energy is used in data centers (around 3% of global electricity) which is an upward trend without visible end. I could imagine a use case where the first large solar power satellites are built as orbital data centers which only export data.

Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: TrevorMonty on 05/14/2019 11:49 am
I've read that the US doesn't mine as much iron ore as it once did.  We recycle most of our steel.  I though Europe did also.  I guess the 3rd world is causing the mining increase.  One reason is cars today only use about half the steel as cars did in 1960.  I know old ships are being ran aground in Pakistan, and they salvage the steel out of them for their steel use. 

I maybe didn't make myself clear.  Manufacturing in lunar orbit, or L1 area would be more ideal if using lunar raw materials.  Then shipping finished products back to earth.  But, what would they make?  I know crystals and ball bearings are great in zero g, but what else can be made in space?
Space advocates holy grail of products is solar power stations in GEO that are built from ISRU material. Electricity is export product. With gigawatt stations producing 100s $M of revenue a year and we needs 1000s of 1GW stations to meet earth demands. $T a year market is quite realistic, given how energy hungry modern society is.

Rocket fuel and water exported to LEO is near term product.

ZLAN ( fibre optic ), while manufactured in LEO uses earth supplied raw material. Manufacturing the raw material from ISRU maybe big ask in early days as it chemically complex material.

An interesting factor in the context of Jeff Bezos, is how much of the World's energy is used in data centers (around 3% of global electricity) which is an upward trend without visible end. I could imagine a use case where the first large solar power satellites are built as orbital data centers which only export data.
Datacentres may actually be viable business for LEO stations, mostly unmanned with occassional human visitor for major service work. Once broadband satellite constellations are in place orbital datacentres will have high speed connects to anywhere in world.

I'm picking AWS will go this way.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/14/2019 12:41 pm
ISRU is harder than people think, PARTICULARLY structural materials. (Gas processing isn’t that hard.)

I don’t buy the whole “well *I’m* not the one that’s going to work on these things, look at how realistic that makes me.” Someone with the wealth of Bezos better be trying to bend that curve extremely hard, not shooting for rewarmed Apollo at a glacial pace (and often missing even these super conservative milestones), something NASA is already good at.

There’s no evidence that Blue Origin has a better batting average by shooting low than others have by shooting high. Yet people constantly repeat about how “serious” it makes Blue Origin to have low near-term goals.

Bezos should be acting as if he’s mortal and that whoever succeeds him may not exactly continue his legacy. Look at Paul Allen! Stratolaunch canceled their actually useful spaceplane as soon as Paul died. Acting like you’re completely immune to being made a fool of by faster players is not actually helpful.


New Glenn is great. The rest is disappointing.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: RonM on 05/14/2019 05:55 pm
An interesting factor in the context of Jeff Bezos, is how much of the World's energy is used in data centers (around 3% of global electricity) which is an upward trend without visible end. I could imagine a use case where the first large solar power satellites are built as orbital data centers which only export data.
Datacentres may actually be viable business for LEO stations, mostly unmanned with occassional human visitor for major service work. Once broadband satellite constellations are in place orbital datacentres will have high speed connects to anywhere in world.

I'm picking AWS will go this way.

Data centers require lots of maintenance as drives and server components fail. I guess the hot swap replacement process could be automated, but it won't be cheap.

Satellite constellations improve world-wide connections, so it makes more sense to keep data centers on the ground. Removing one hop by placing the data center in orbit won't be worth the effort.

Small-scale orbital systems hosting Netflix and other streaming services most popular titles could be a good solution for cutting down on most internet traffic. That would be at the server level, not entire data centers.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: mme on 05/14/2019 06:06 pm
I've read that the US doesn't mine as much iron ore as it once did.  We recycle most of our steel.  I though Europe did also.  I guess the 3rd world is causing the mining increase.  One reason is cars today only use about half the steel as cars did in 1960.  I know old ships are being ran aground in Pakistan, and they salvage the steel out of them for their steel use. 

I maybe didn't make myself clear.  Manufacturing in lunar orbit, or L1 area would be more ideal if using lunar raw materials.  Then shipping finished products back to earth.  But, what would they make?  I know crystals and ball bearings are great in zero g, but what else can be made in space?
Space advocates holy grail of products is solar power stations in GEO that are built from ISRU material. Electricity is export product. With gigawatt stations producing 100s $M of revenue a year and we needs 1000s of 1GW stations to meet earth demands. $T a year market is quite realistic, given how energy hungry modern society is.

Rocket fuel and water exported to LEO is near term product.

ZLAN ( fibre optic ), while manufactured in LEO uses earth supplied raw material. Manufacturing the raw material from ISRU maybe big ask in early days as it chemically complex material.

An interesting factor in the context of Jeff Bezos, is how much of the World's energy is used in data centers (around 3% of global electricity) which is an upward trend without visible end. I could imagine a use case where the first large solar power satellites are built as orbital data centers which only export data.
Datacentres may actually be viable business for LEO stations, mostly unmanned with occassional human visitor for major service work. Once broadband satellite constellations are in place orbital datacentres will have high speed connects to anywhere in world.

I'm picking AWS will go this way.
What will they do with all the heat datacenters generate?
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: TrevorMonty on 05/14/2019 06:36 pm
I've read that the US doesn't mine as much iron ore as it once did.  We recycle most of our steel.  I though Europe did also.  I guess the 3rd world is causing the mining increase.  One reason is cars today only use about half the steel as cars did in 1960.  I know old ships are being ran aground in Pakistan, and they salvage the steel out of them for their steel use. 

I maybe didn't make myself clear.  Manufacturing in lunar orbit, or L1 area would be more ideal if using lunar raw materials.  Then shipping finished products back to earth.  But, what would they make?  I know crystals and ball bearings are great in zero g, but what else can be made in space?
Space advocates holy grail of products is solar power stations in GEO that are built from ISRU material. Electricity is export product. With gigawatt stations producing 100s $M of revenue a year and we needs 1000s of 1GW stations to meet earth demands. $T a year market is quite realistic, given how energy hungry modern society is.

Rocket fuel and water exported to LEO is near term product.

ZLAN ( fibre optic ), while manufactured in LEO uses earth supplied raw material. Manufacturing the raw material from ISRU maybe big ask in early days as it chemically complex material.

An interesting factor in the context of Jeff Bezos, is how much of the World's energy is used in data centers (around 3% of global electricity) which is an upward trend without visible end. I could imagine a use case where the first large solar power satellites are built as orbital data centers which only export data.
Datacentres may actually be viable business for LEO stations, mostly unmanned with occassional human visitor for major service work. Once broadband satellite constellations are in place orbital datacentres will have high speed connects to anywhere in world.

I'm picking AWS will go this way.
What will they do with all the heat datacenters generate?
Larger radiators shaded from sun by solar panels.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: punder on 05/14/2019 06:57 pm
In regards asteriod mining I recommend  Delta V scifi book by Daniel Suarez about first asteriod mining mission to Ryugu. He has based it on current or near term technology so no magical fusion drives.
There is podcast on http://www.thespaceshow.com 22apr with author, worth listening to for engineering behind it. If you decide to buy it please use http://www.onegiantleapfoundation.org/amazon.htm link
to help support show.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/40859000-delta-v

Thanks for the recommendation. Read it over the weekend. It is an excellent near-future cliffhanger, very technically convincing, with content highly pertinent to this discussion.

Woo hoo! 600!!
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Coastal Ron on 05/14/2019 08:13 pm
Datacentres may actually be viable business for LEO stations, mostly unmanned with occassional human visitor for major service work.

I know someone that was working on this. Didn't get any traction at the time, but who knows, maybe the time has come?
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/14/2019 11:31 pm
Datacentres may actually be viable business for LEO stations, mostly unmanned with occassional human visitor for major service work.

I know someone that was working on this. Didn't get any traction at the time, but who knows, maybe the time has come?
This is actually a thing nowadays. People are trying to do data storage in space for some security reasons (questionable to me): https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/19/cloud-constellation-raises-100-million-to-store-cloud-data-in-space.html

(And apparently raised $100 million?)
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Ike17055 on 05/15/2019 01:14 am
Amusing to read some of the comments by folks who range from overly-enthusiastic to flat out delusional.  Mars is incredibly hard, so much so that going back to the moon is a cakewalk in comparison, and yet we struggle to accomplish that. The off-worlders have had it wrong for a very long time; we are not going to Mars (other than a possible flyby) “within 20 years.”  The issues are enormous, and the budget constraints will be equally so.  We will go eventually, but the type of “permanent” presence envisioned by many, will occur closer to 200 years from now, than it will to 20 years.

Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: QuantumG on 05/15/2019 01:23 am
We will go eventually, but the type of “permanent” presence envisioned by many, will occur closer to 200 years from now, than it will to 20 years.

You should be Jeff's speech writer.

Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Coastal Ron on 05/15/2019 03:13 am
Amusing to read some of the comments by folks who range from overly-enthusiastic to flat out delusional.

And which one are you?  ;)

Quote
Mars is incredibly hard, so much so that going back to the moon is a cakewalk in comparison, and yet we struggle to accomplish that.

Just like Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz wanting to go home, we've always had the ability to return humans to the Moon. We just haven't wanted to expend the money to do it. In other words, the U.S. Government has not had a sustained interest in sending U.S. Government employees back to the Moon, because there hasn't been a reason important enough.

We were able to land humans on the Moon and return them safely using 1960's technology, and we haven't regressed technologically since then.

Quote
The off-worlders have had it wrong for a very long time; we are not going to Mars (other than a possible flyby) “within 20 years.”  The issues are enormous, and the budget constraints will be equally so.  We will go eventually, but the type of “permanent” presence envisioned by many, will occur closer to 200 years from now, than it will to 20 years.

If you look at the history of Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos you'll see that they understand how to remove barriers to new markets, and for moving humanity out into space the #1 barrier is the cost of moving people and cargo to space. Which is why they are working on reusable transportation systems.

SpaceX has proven partial reusability, and it's not a giant leap to imagine that they can solve full reusability. And once the cost of transportation has plummeted, then the cost of going to Mars (or the Moon) drops dramatically too, which means more people will be willing to invest money and time into traveling there.

We may not have the systems and hardware needed for colonizing space and other planets sitting around, but I think we have the technology and ability to when the time comes. And that could happen far quicker than two centuries...  :D
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/15/2019 03:24 am
Amusing to read some of the comments by folks who range from overly-enthusiastic to flat out delusional.  Mars is incredibly hard, so much so that going back to the moon is a cakewalk in comparison, and yet we struggle to accomplish that. The off-worlders have had it wrong for a very long time; we are not going to Mars (other than a possible flyby) “within 20 years.”  The issues are enormous, and the budget constraints will be equally so.  We will go eventually, but the type of “permanent” presence envisioned by many, will occur closer to 200 years from now, than it will to 20 years.
If we're definitely going to go anyway in 200 years, what's the point of Jeff's investment?

There are a lot of great uses to apply $1billion/year to. Not just space travel. Education. Medicine. Development.

If Jeff is choosing space travel, I'd think that he plans to make a significant dent in the course of humanity, not just basically status quo. He'd better be shooting for something tangible towards those crazy O'Neil cylinders in the rest of his ~30 years, or else it's a waste.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Tulse on 05/15/2019 02:57 pm
Amusing to read some of the comments by folks who range from overly-enthusiastic to flat out delusional.  Mars is incredibly hard, so much so that going back to the moon is a cakewalk in comparison, and yet we struggle to accomplish that.
Mars is hard largely because of distance.  Once there, it is in many ways far easier than the moon -- more temperate, close to Earth's day-night cycle, some atmosphere, reasonably accessible resources.  I think the difficulty of travelling to Mars vs. the moon is much smaller than the difficulty of actually living on the moon vs. Mars.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: meekGee on 05/15/2019 03:59 pm
Amusing to read some of the comments by folks who range from overly-enthusiastic to flat out delusional.  Mars is incredibly hard, so much so that going back to the moon is a cakewalk in comparison, and yet we struggle to accomplish that. The off-worlders have had it wrong for a very long time; we are not going to Mars (other than a possible flyby) “within 20 years.”  The issues are enormous, and the budget constraints will be equally so.  We will go eventually, but the type of “permanent” presence envisioned by many, will occur closer to 200 years from now, than it will to 20 years.

Nice trolling.  :)

The good news is that in order to land people on Mars within the next 10 years, not everyone needs to be convinced that it's possible...  Only those that lead the project, and I think that they are.

Happy launch day!
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: tonya on 05/15/2019 05:10 pm
Amusing to read some of the comments by folks who range from overly-enthusiastic to flat out delusional.  Mars is incredibly hard, so much so that going back to the moon is a cakewalk in comparison, and yet we struggle to accomplish that. The off-worlders have had it wrong for a very long time; we are not going to Mars (other than a possible flyby) “within 20 years.”  The issues are enormous, and the budget constraints will be equally so.  We will go eventually, but the type of “permanent” presence envisioned by many, will occur closer to 200 years from now, than it will to 20 years.

Nice trolling.  :)

The good news is that in order to land people on Mars within the next 10 years, not everyone needs to be convinced that it's possible...  Only those that lead the project, and I think that they are.

Happy launch day!

That's the requirement for an exploration program, which is a vastly narrower scope than a viable commercial plan to colonise another planet.

I don't like the use of the word delusional, but accepting colonisation as a near term viable business plan is certainly something I'd put in the "quite enthusiastic" category. There are massive fundamental technical unknowns as to whether that is even possible, let alone whether there are enough people who will pay to find out.

That's the question (as I interpret it) that Jeff raised. It's which activities will dominate the space economy in a century or two, That won't be determined by who can build the biggest rocket the fastest in the next decade or two.






Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: meekGee on 05/15/2019 05:35 pm
Amusing to read some of the comments by folks who range from overly-enthusiastic to flat out delusional.  Mars is incredibly hard, so much so that going back to the moon is a cakewalk in comparison, and yet we struggle to accomplish that. The off-worlders have had it wrong for a very long time; we are not going to Mars (other than a possible flyby) “within 20 years.”  The issues are enormous, and the budget constraints will be equally so.  We will go eventually, but the type of “permanent” presence envisioned by many, will occur closer to 200 years from now, than it will to 20 years.

Nice trolling.  :)

The good news is that in order to land people on Mars within the next 10 years, not everyone needs to be convinced that it's possible...  Only those that lead the project, and I think that they are.

Happy launch day!

That's the requirement for an exploration program, which is a vastly narrower scope than a viable commercial plan to colonise another planet.

I don't like the use of the word delusional, but accepting colonisation as a near term viable business plan is certainly something I'd put in the "quite enthusiastic" category. There are massive fundamental technical unknowns as to whether that is even possible, let alone whether there are enough people who will pay to find out.

That's the question (as I interpret it) that Jeff raised. It's which activities will dominate the space economy in a century or two, That won't be determined by who can build the biggest rocket the fastest in the next decade or two.

Let me rephrase:

The good news is that in order to land people on Mars as the beginning of a boots-first colonization effort, starting within the next 10 years - not everyone needs to be convinced that it's possible...  Only those that lead the project, and I think that they are.

Happy launch day!
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: tonya on 05/15/2019 05:44 pm
Amusing to read some of the comments by folks who range from overly-enthusiastic to flat out delusional.  Mars is incredibly hard, so much so that going back to the moon is a cakewalk in comparison, and yet we struggle to accomplish that. The off-worlders have had it wrong for a very long time; we are not going to Mars (other than a possible flyby) “within 20 years.”  The issues are enormous, and the budget constraints will be equally so.  We will go eventually, but the type of “permanent” presence envisioned by many, will occur closer to 200 years from now, than it will to 20 years.

Nice trolling.  :)

The good news is that in order to land people on Mars within the next 10 years, not everyone needs to be convinced that it's possible...  Only those that lead the project, and I think that they are.

Happy launch day!

That's the requirement for an exploration program, which is a vastly narrower scope than a viable commercial plan to colonise another planet.

I don't like the use of the word delusional, but accepting colonisation as a near term viable business plan is certainly something I'd put in the "quite enthusiastic" category. There are massive fundamental technical unknowns as to whether that is even possible, let alone whether there are enough people who will pay to find out.

That's the question (as I interpret it) that Jeff raised. It's which activities will dominate the space economy in a century or two, That won't be determined by who can build the biggest rocket the fastest in the next decade or two.

Let me rephrase:

The good news is that in order to land people on Mars as the beginning of a boots-first colonization effort, starting within the next 10 years - not everyone needs to be convinced that it's possible...  Only those that lead the project, and I think that they are.

Happy launch day!

Yes. I think I've seen the same point made once, maybe even twice before in other threads on the site. Maybe even three times ;)

Just hoping the thread can be nudged back a little towards the original opening remark, because the big vision question is an interesting one that doesn't get explored as much on this forum.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: rakaydos on 05/15/2019 06:06 pm
Amusing to read some of the comments by folks who range from overly-enthusiastic to flat out delusional.  Mars is incredibly hard, so much so that going back to the moon is a cakewalk in comparison, and yet we struggle to accomplish that. The off-worlders have had it wrong for a very long time; we are not going to Mars (other than a possible flyby) “within 20 years.”  The issues are enormous, and the budget constraints will be equally so.  We will go eventually, but the type of “permanent” presence envisioned by many, will occur closer to 200 years from now, than it will to 20 years.

Nice trolling.  :)

The good news is that in order to land people on Mars within the next 10 years, not everyone needs to be convinced that it's possible...  Only those that lead the project, and I think that they are.

Happy launch day!

That's the requirement for an exploration program, which is a vastly narrower scope than a viable commercial plan to colonise another planet.

I don't like the use of the word delusional, but accepting colonisation as a near term viable business plan is certainly something I'd put in the "quite enthusiastic" category. There are massive fundamental technical unknowns as to whether that is even possible, let alone whether there are enough people who will pay to find out.

That's the question (as I interpret it) that Jeff raised. It's which activities will dominate the space economy in a century or two, That won't be determined by who can build the biggest rocket the fastest in the next decade or two.

Let me rephrase:

The good news is that in order to land people on Mars as the beginning of a boots-first colonization effort, starting within the next 10 years - not everyone needs to be convinced that it's possible...  Only those that lead the project, and I think that they are.

Happy launch day!

Yes. I think I've seen the same point made once, maybe even twice before in other threads on the site. Maybe even three times ;)

Just hoping the thread can be nudged back a little towards the original opening remark, because the big vision question is an interesting one that doesn't get explored as much on this forum.
The biggest problem with orbit as an industrial park is importing raw materials. Being just above an atmosphere, it's actually easier to import mass from the moon and aerobreak it down to the factory... at which point, why not just build the factories on the moon and direct-entry the goods? Zero gravity industry has unrealized potential but is it enough to overcome the resource problem?
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: punder on 05/15/2019 06:31 pm
I read this in the sci-fi book Delta V, so I can't vouch for its accuracy. The author notes that Mars' surface is covered with perchlorates, and that perchlorates are considered highly toxic.

"Perchlorates are so toxic that here in California the legal limit is one part per billion by mass... Anyone care to guess what the concentration is in Martian regolith? Anyone? It's six million parts per billion. The entire planet makes a toxic Superfund site look like a children's day care."

I found this at https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/phs/phs.asp?id=892&tid=181:

"The EPA has developed a Reference Dose (RfD) of 0.0007 mg/kg/day for perchlorate. The RfD is an estimate of a daily oral exposure to the human population (including sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be without appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime. This RfD leads to a drinking water equivalent level (DWEL) of 24.5 ppb. EPA calculates the DWEL using the RfD, multiplied by an adult body weight of 70 kg, and divided by a tap water consumption value of 2 L/day. EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response has provided guidance for perchlorate that indicates that the RfD and its corresponding DWEL of 24.5 ppb are respectively the recommended "to be considered" (TBC) value and the preliminary remediation goal (PRG) for cleanup under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA)."

Also found this: https://www.space.com/21554-mars-toxic-perchlorate-chemicals.html. The article implies that the risks as presented in the novel are perhaps a tad overblown:

"In many ways, managing calcium perchlorate exposure on Mars is viewed as no different than managing for example, uranium, lead or general heavy-metal-contaminated areas in modern mines, where dust suppression, dust extraction and regular blood monitoring are employed. Other ideas suggested by the study team include a wash-down spray that can clean suits and equipment of dust deposits.

"More proposals are on the table, too. For instance, Mars suits could be kept on the outside of extravehicular activity rovers or habitation modules. The astronauts would climb into their suits through a bulkhead opening, and then the suits would be sealed from within. Thus, Mars crews avoid coming into contact with outside materials.

"This approach was originally proposed as a way for astronauts to avoid back contamination when coming in contact with rock and regolith materials. But it might also help in dealing with perchlorates."

Interestingly the "clam suit" idea in this quote figures heavily in the novel.

Hope people don't interpret this as thread hijacking. It's a legitimate concern with respect to Mars/Elon vs. Jeff/orbit.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: rakaydos on 05/15/2019 07:12 pm
I read this in the sci-fi book Delta V, so I can't vouch for its accuracy. The author notes that Mars' surface is covered with perchlorates, and that perchlorates are considered highly toxic.
(...)
Hope people don't interpret this as thread hijacking. It's a legitimate concern with respect to Mars/Elon vs. Jeff/orbit.
In the Scaling Agriculture on Mars thread, they dismissed this on the grounds of how easy it is to use water to wash perchlorates out of soil. While Mars really needs a decent sized comet impact, (replenishing atmospheric volatiles, raising pressure, adding water and temperature) this is something manageable with martian water sources on the scale settlers would need.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: rakaydos on 05/21/2019 05:03 pm
So I've started to champion this idea elsewhere on this site, but it's relevant to this thread, too.

The downside to space industry is that you have to get resources to the industry, then get the finished product to market. Why not build the industry where the resources are?

In the MArs Export economy thread, however, it occored to me that transportation time from mars to earth could be made to be useful, if you didn't have to launch an entire factory every trip.

Manufacturing Cyclers. Every 6 years, they swing by a planet, get a bundle of materials, and spend the next 4 months cranking out goods. Then the goods are loaded only the supplies-ship, sent to the OTHER planet. The other planet send up things that need long term processing, (ageing wine, or something energy intensive) that rides the cycler for 5 and a half years, then is delivered to the first planet again.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Lemurion on 05/21/2019 05:40 pm
I do think there's a lot to Jeff Bezos' vision of space as an industrial park, and it may well prove to be more viable than Elon Musk's vision of Martian colonization. That's absolutely fine, we're early in the process so it's good that both approaches are being explored.

The catch is that Elon's architecture seems better suited to Jeff's goals than anything Blue Origin has released.

Starship with orbital refueling can get more cargo to and from the Moon than Blue Moon. Ships designed for Mars flights can also perform asteroid rendezvous and return missions. Everything we need to do to open up the process of creating an industrial park in space can be done with Starship, and with no other architecture currently known to be in development.

That's my problem with Jeff Bezos' publicly released plans: Baby steps, lofty goals, and in the middle a blank space that might as well be marked "here there be dragons."
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Semmel on 05/22/2019 10:52 am
You know what? To transfer all the industrial park to orbit makes no sense to me. The products are needed where the people live. That will be for a long, long time on Earth. Even if we get many people living and working in Space, it will still be Earth where the majority of the stuff (tm) is needed. So you would have to land it on earth, and launch, if not raw material, but at least the spacecraft back to space. That produces a hell of a lot more pollution than just do the industry bit on Earth. Not for ever of course if we populate the solar system, but for the next few hundred years for sure.

But assuming for a moment that you do need to put things into space. Then asteroid mining is the only viable way to get the stuff (tm) you need. But even then, mining and refining asteroids has its limits. But lets take the vision as truth for a moment. Just for the fun of it. Even then, you need massive support from the ground. You know what? If we had a self sufficient Moon and/or Mars colony (which is far easier to achieve than in space industry park), we have a far better launching ground than Earth to produce the stuff you need to build the industry in space. Simply because its easier to get stuff to orbit from there.

Musk tries to make the scify future 100 years from now a reality, and he has sort of a plan how to get there.
Bezos tries to make the scify future 1000 years from now a reality, but he has no clue how to get there.

Thats not to say that Bezos vision is somehow flawed, I think it has merit. I think it will eventually happen that we have more industry in space than on Earth. But its soooo far away.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Bananas_on_Mars on 05/22/2019 11:50 am
Moving heavy industries into space only makes sense on the same timeline as millions and billions of people working in space.

But for example there‘s a projection that in 2030 one fifth of global electricity use would come from internet infrastructure and the necessary data centers. Moving those to space and supplying them with solar power should be feasible and have huge impact on global energy consumption.

On the other side you won‘t be able to move the cement industry, responsible for about one tenth of global carbon dioxide emissions off earth in any sensible way.

Moving heavy industry off earth only makes sense if either the products are used in space, or are weightless (information). Or some where the processing is much easier and you have a very valuable product.

Of course for some stuff you have to look at the whole supply chain. Data centers are generally not considered heavy industry, but depending on where their energy comes from they have a lot of suppliers that meet the criteria.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: spacenut on 05/22/2019 12:13 pm
When I was an engineer with a natural gas company, the gas usage was almost equally divided.  One third going to large industrial or larger commercial users, one third going to small commercial and small industrial users, and one third going to residential use.  America lost a lot of the heavy industry users after free trade agreements, but that was taken up by electric utility companies switching from coal to natural gas. 

If a lot of the industrial applications move to space, that alone would be a huge transfer of power/fuel use from earth.  In space you can use either large solar applications, or nuclear power on the moon or Mars without having to worry so much about meltdowns or release of radioactive materials.  It would probably be much less with newer style reactors. 
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: woods170 on 05/22/2019 12:32 pm
You know what? To transfer all the industrial park to orbit makes no sense to me. The products are needed where the people live.

Bezos has specifically stated that he want millions and millions of people working and living in space.

So yeah, it makes sense to move (part of) the industrial park off-planet.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: daveklingler on 05/23/2019 02:27 am
You know what? To transfer all the industrial park to orbit makes no sense to me. The products are needed where the people live.

Bezos has specifically stated that he want millions and millions of people working and living in space.

So yeah, it makes sense to move (part of) the industrial park off-planet.

Once you have constellations up it begins to make sense to put data centers in orbit as well, especially because it also begins to make sense to gather power in orbit.

Once you've got data centers and associated power infrastructure, you can grow the power infrastructure to accommodate manufacturing as well. You probably have a fair number of human beings living and working in space by that point just to do satellite and power infrastructure maintenance.

When raw materials begin to arrive, either from the lunar surface or asteroids, manufacturing will probably start, along with real estate development; making an orbital space settlement is basically manufacturing real estate.  So now there are plenty of eggs and chickens in orbit, and it just grows from there. 

And yes, the majority of what gets manufactured in orbit is probably in heavy demand right there in orbit. There might be a time coming soon when basalt ballutes become a cheap way to get goods down to the surface, but that's not a necessity to build orbital manufacturing.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 05/23/2019 06:49 am
Surprise, surprise - Elon not a fan of huge in space habitats:

twitter.com/curiousmind44/status/1131441659550601221?s=21

Quote
What are your thoughts on O’Neil structures @JeffBezos talked about?

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1131442696537743362

Quote
Makes no sense. In order to grow the colony, you’d have to transport vast amounts of mass from planets/moons/asteroids. Would be like trying to build the USA in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean!
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: b0objunior on 05/23/2019 07:27 am
Surprise, surprise - Elon not a fan of huge in space habitats:

twitter.com/curiousmind44/status/1131441659550601221?s=21

Quote
What are your thoughts on O’Neil structures @JeffBezos talked about?

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1131442696537743362

Quote
Makes no sense. In order to grow the colony, you’d have to transport vast amounts of mass from planets/moons/asteroids. Would be like trying to build the USA in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean!
I don't get his thought. Does he think humanity will be stuck on Earth for eternity? I know he wants everybody to think that Mars is the panacea to all of our problems, but it's still a tiny baren planet and nothing will change that but us doing some very hard work that will need us to become a capable space faring civilisation.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Bananas_on_Mars on 05/23/2019 08:20 am
Maybe Elons vision isn‘t about humanity breeding themselves like rabbits to get to a trillion in the near future?

By the way, if we double the population with each generation, it would need about 7 generations to reach 1 trillion.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Yggdrasill on 05/23/2019 08:36 am
It's so far out in time that it likely doesn't matter to Musk. He's more focused on near-term issues.

I expect Mars to be fully terraformed by the time we build our first O'Neill cylinder.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: M.E.T. on 05/23/2019 10:06 am
Elon’s focused on colonising planets. So terraform Mars. Mine the asteroids for resources, not for habitation. Move to the outer planets. By then a thousand years have passed and you’ll probably have fusion or even antimatter propulsion to colonize nearby solar systems.

Why build O’Neil cylinders at great expense in Earth orbit if you could find and terraform new Earths instead?
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: rakaydos on 05/23/2019 12:59 pm
Surprise, surprise - Elon not a fan of huge in space habitats:

twitter.com/curiousmind44/status/1131441659550601221?s=21

Quote
What are your thoughts on O’Neil structures @JeffBezos talked about?

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1131442696537743362

Quote
Makes no sense. In order to grow the colony, you’d have to transport vast amounts of mass from planets/moons/asteroids. Would be like trying to build the USA in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean!
I don't get his thought. Does he think humanity will be stuck on Earth for eternity? I know he wants everybody to think that Mars is the panacea to all of our problems, but it's still a tiny baren planet and nothing will change that but us doing some very hard work that will need us to become a capable space faring civilisation.
You know there's planets, asteroids and moons other than earth and mars, right? Why build a space colony from lunar materials, when you can just build the colony on the moon?
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: sunworshipper on 05/23/2019 01:10 pm
You know there's planets, asteroids and moons other than earth and mars, right? Why build a space colony from lunar materials, when you can just build the colony on the moon?
Gravity.  No one knows how much gravity a human needs to thrive.  Maybe the species can evolve for lower gravity but what about people in the meantime?

But I agree that there's no good reason to think that the human population has to increase to a trillion.  The current global population growth is already slowing and may near zero in a few decades.

Edit/lar: fix quotes
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: tleski on 05/23/2019 01:22 pm
Yes, this is exactly the main reason for O’Neil colonies. They can be built to exactly match Earth's gravity but don't become gravity wells themselves, so travel between them requires minimal delta-v. We have no guarantee humans can live and/or reproduce in lower gravity (Moon/Mars). We know that zero-g causes serious health problems in the long run, we have no data on the influence of partial gravity on human health (not even animal models). Human race evolving to match the gravitational field of a planet is pure fantasy.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Yggdrasill on 05/23/2019 01:34 pm
We have no guarantee humans can live and/or reproduce in lower gravity (Moon/Mars). We know that zero-g causes serious health problems in the long run, we have no data on the influence of partial gravity on human health (not even animal models). Human race evolving to match the gravitational field of a planet is pure fantasy.
Obviously not. We know we've evolved to match earth gravity. The question is how many generations it would take - if it is at all necessary. Humans may need little to no adaptation to thrive at Mars gravity.

(My guess is that if it is necessary, we would probably start off with some genetic manipulation, to get the ball rolling. Modern medicine is so awesome that the evolutionary forcing function has lost a lot of it's effect. If every individual survives and procreates, there is no evolution.)
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: tleski on 05/23/2019 02:03 pm
Obvously?

So, we evolved from what gravity to Earths gravity? The truth is the whole biosphere evolved for billions of years in Earth's gravity. So, no, we have not a slightest idea if this is possible. Maybe lower gravity will have no significant health effects but we don't know this either. And the idea of genetically modifying humans to live on Mars will not fly not only because it would require years of research to even identify relevant genes but mostly for ethical reasons. 
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: tonya on 05/23/2019 02:14 pm
We have no guarantee humans can live and/or reproduce in lower gravity (Moon/Mars). We know that zero-g causes serious health problems in the long run, we have no data on the influence of partial gravity on human health (not even animal models). Human race evolving to match the gravitational field of a planet is pure fantasy.
Obviously not. We know we've evolved to match earth gravity. The question is how many generations it would take - if it is at all necessary. Humans may need little to no adaptation to thrive at Mars gravity.

(My guess is that if it is necessary, we would probably start off with some genetic manipulation, to get the ball rolling. Modern medicine is so awesome that the evolutionary forcing function has lost a lot of it's effect. If every individual survives and procreates, there is no evolution.)

The question is how many generations it would take - if it is at all possible.

There's no data. In an optimistic timeline, there's several decades of research ahead before anyone would risk producing a child in a reduced gravity environment. Genetic manipulation only solves these problems in Star Trek.

Biology is a slow science, because it's also a science underwritten by ethics. Before anyone suggests this can be done easily and quickly, pause and think what failure actually means.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/23/2019 02:51 pm
Musk’s point is right. Well, kind of. It’d be nice if Bezos actually showed some intent on processing asteroid materials to useful structural materials.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: tonya on 05/23/2019 02:58 pm
I was just trying to find something vaguely analogous to illustrate how slow and problematic adaption might be. Two nice quotes to take from this report.

https://news.berkeley.edu/2010/07/01/tibetan_genome/

Quote
"This is the fastest genetic change ever observed in humans,” said Rasmus Nielsen, UC Berkeley professor of integrative biology, who led the statistical analysis. “For such a very strong change, a lot of people would have had to die simply due to the fact that they had the wrong version of a gene.”

At the altitude quoted in the study, atmosphere pressure is about 60% of sea level. There's no direct comparison between adapting to gravity and adapting to atmospheric pressure, but the overall size of change is still considerably smaller and would have been achieved in very small increments per generation as they migrated to higher altitudes.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/23/2019 03:06 pm
We may adapt immediately or with help of some drugs or other treatments.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: tonya on 05/23/2019 03:10 pm
We may adapt immediately or with help of some drugs or other treatments.
Great, I'll plan for the baby now.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: rakaydos on 05/23/2019 03:13 pm
You know there's planets, asteroids and moons other than earth and mars, right? Why build a space colony from lunar materials, when you can just build the colony on the moon?
Gravity.  No one knows how much gravity a human needs to thrive.  Maybe the species can evolve for lower gravity but what about people in the meantime?

But I agree that there's no good reason to think that the human population has to increase to a trillion.  The current global population growth is already slowing and may near zero in a few decades.
[/quote]You realize you can have the spin habitat on the moons airless surface, right? Best of both worlds.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Yggdrasill on 05/23/2019 03:20 pm
Obvously?

So, we evolved from what gravity to Earths gravity?
We have evolved from surviving in no gravity environment to surviving in earths gravity environment. Yes, it's taken a long time, and it could potentially take a long time on Mars as well.

The truth is the whole biosphere evolved for billions of years in Earth's gravity. So, no, we have not a slightest idea if this is possible. Maybe lower gravity will have no significant health effects but we don't know this either.
We know zero-G has only somewhat detrimental effects. It's not like you instantly die if you go into space. Now, maybe there is some completely unknown effect where 0.38G is much worse than 0G, but it seems incredibly unlikely.

Everything we know about life is that it's quite robust, and unless the environment is just insurmountably unsurvivable, life will adapt. Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean that *humans* can evolve to live on mars. It is of course possible that one would have to start with something less than human, or that by the time a human has evolved to thrive on mars, it is no longer human.

But this does seem unlikely. Like I said, everything we know about zero-G is that it's not extremely detrimental, and we could most likely adapt to living in zero-G. And in all probability, adapting to living at 0.38G is much easier.

And the idea of genetically modifying humans to live on Mars will not fly not only because it would require years of research to even identify relevant genes but mostly for ethical reasons.
I'm not saying it will be done immediately. It may take decades of research, or maybe China has a colony on Mars in 20 years, and they just decide to go for genetic manipulation without doing too much research. (Or just start making embryos/babies and let evolution do it's job.) That could in turn trigger US or others to fast-track the research.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Coastal Ron on 05/23/2019 03:49 pm
The question is how many generations it would take - if it is at all possible.

We likely won't have the luxury of focusing on perfecting one environment at a time. Right now we have advocates for colonizing Mars (0.37 G), our Moon (0.17 G), and rotating space stations, which will be limited by a number of factors as to how much artificial gravity they can produce. Plus, take into account the radiation environments that everyone will be in.

The good news is that this could help with fast adaption, since we'll be running lots of parallel experiments.

Quote
There's no data. In an optimistic timeline, there's several decades of research ahead before anyone would risk producing a child in a reduced gravity environment. Genetic manipulation only solves these problems in Star Trek.

With over 7 billion people on Earth I think there will be a significant number of people out of that population that will inevitably be OK with experimenting with bearing and raising children in space. And I'm not advocating for it, I'm just pointing out that there will be people that feel it is their destiny to try and adapt humanity to space as quickly as possible - regardless the downsides.

Quote
Biology is a slow science, because it's also a science underwritten by ethics. Before anyone suggests this can be done easily and quickly, pause and think what failure actually means.

Agreed. Though the history of humanity has been to take risks in order to open up new frontiers. And I think there will be a large enough population of people that want to "get off this crazy world", and try to move humanity out into space.

And I'm not sure if anyone would be able to stop them...
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: tonya on 05/23/2019 04:34 pm

We likely won't have the luxury of focusing on perfecting one environment at a time. Right now we have advocates for colonizing Mars (0.37 G), our Moon (0.17 G), and rotating space stations, which will be limited by a number of factors as to how much artificial gravity they can produce. Plus, take into account the radiation environments that everyone will be in.

The good news is that this could help with fast adaption, since we'll be running lots of parallel experiments.


I'm not sure there's anyone proposing colonizing the Moon, or even space stations in the near terms. There are people talking about bases and industrialising them, and the O'Neill style stations are there as a long term vision. In near space there's no need to colonize anything to exploit it.

There's also the Musk vision that we will colonize Mars, and that we will start to do so over the next few decades, and that this is viable on a commercial basis.

Naturally I guess a lot more people who visit this site are interested in rocket science than life science. The fact that Bezos didn't bother to explicitly specify an asteroid mining scoop is seen as a problem to his vision. The massive lack of basic biological data for living on Mars, which for a colony also has to include child and prenatal development is waved away with generous assumptions that they are minor and can be solved easily.

There's a fairly good chance Musk's approach to engineering will put the first person on Mars. But the overall vision beyond that get's a very generous pass on its viability.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: TrevorMonty on 05/23/2019 05:26 pm
With 1G Oneil colony people can return to earth without any issues adapting to gravity. In case of Mars and Moon long term residents may never be able to return to 1G enviroment.

Our first attempts at ISRU needs to start with Moon due to its distance from earth. Long term NEAs will be better source of raw materials, due to lower DV, 0g enviroment and access to 24/7 sunlight for  refining materials.

Even when DV of NEA is higher than moon they still win out as higher ISP propulsion can be used. From lunar surface to LLO we are limited to 465ISP max, plus huge amounts of energy needed to produce LH and LOX fuel. Asteriod cargo ships can use 900ISP or greater water fuelled engines.
See https://momentus.space
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Lar on 05/23/2019 05:48 pm
There are other threads on adaptation to gravity levels other than 1g. Tangential answers to 'why this kind of settlement' are fine but discussion of how fast we will evolve, techniques for it, etc. are off...
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: rakaydos on 05/23/2019 07:02 pm
There are other threads on adaptation to gravity levels other than 1g.
I suspect he's actually answering my question, "Why Oniel colonies instead of building the colony on the moon/asteroid where you got the materials in the first place?"

My counterpoint being that there's no reason you cant have a spin habitat on the surface of the moon.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Yggdrasill on 05/23/2019 08:47 pm
My counterpoint being that there's no reason you cant have a spin habitat on the surface of the moon.
There are some complications with having it on the surface. It would need to have a pretty good bearing. And it wouldn't be a cylinder. Just off the top of my head, it would have to be a complex cone-shape, expanding up. And limited in height, if you want to keep the gravity at 1G, with the vector of gravity + centripetal force being normal on the surface. Or maybe you could have a more stepped approach. Examples below.

Also, you might run into issues with the gyro effect and the rotation of the moon/planet. Could destroy the bearings over time. Also could have lighting issues.

But yeah, I would think it would be fair bit easier to make such a habitat in a gravity well.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: punder on 05/23/2019 09:35 pm
It's a paraboloid:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36991.msg1343630#msg1343630

And it doesn't have to be huge. A "Stanford Torus" with a parabolic floor would work fine, as shown in my beautiful artwork.

Edit, it really has to be torus shape, because the g varies by radius at the fixed rpm. At the "bottom" edge of the floor, you weigh the least. At the "top" edge, you weigh the most. So it can't be very tall, unless you use the stepped design shown in Yggdrasill's diagram.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: tonya on 05/23/2019 11:42 pm
There are other threads on adaptation to gravity levels other than 1g. Tangential answers to 'why this kind of settlement' are fine but discussion of how fast we will evolve, techniques for it, etc. are off...

Agree that speculative discussion is largely pointless, because it's guesswork that doesn't provide any conclusions.

Discussion of current scientific knowledge (meaning the maturity of research and what is established at present) is of absolute relevance. The readiness of such dependencies and gaps in knowledge is a basic approach to assess their viability against suggested timelines.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: tonya on 05/24/2019 12:00 am
There are other threads on adaptation to gravity levels other than 1g.
I suspect he's actually answering my question, "Why Oniel colonies instead of building the colony on the moon/asteroid where you got the materials in the first place?"

My counterpoint being that there's no reason you cant have a spin habitat on the surface of the moon.

I think the answer would be "whichever is cheapest".

I think the massive Oneill habitats have always assumed a mature economy around asteroid mining. Smaller habitats might be more viable first on the moon as you describe, that sounds like a fairly big topic in itself. But if so and they do the same job, I'm not sure Bezos would care much either way. The function is the same, and he probably doesn't expect to be around to see either.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Semmel on 05/24/2019 06:10 am
You know what? To transfer all the industrial park to orbit makes no sense to me. The products are needed where the people live.

Bezos has specifically stated that he want millions and millions of people working and living in space.

So yeah, it makes sense to move (part of) the industrial park off-planet.

We are in wild agreement. My argument against Bezos idea is that he wants to move _all_  heavy industry to space, not only the one that produces products for people that are living in space. He wants earth to be light industry and residential only. That is rather impractical if you think about it.

What do you do? You build that cruise ship in orbit and drop it into the ocean?
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: b0objunior on 05/24/2019 06:42 am
You know what? To transfer all the industrial park to orbit makes no sense to me. The products are needed where the people live.

Bezos has specifically stated that he want millions and millions of people working and living in space.

So yeah, it makes sense to move (part of) the industrial park off-planet.

We are in wild agreement. My argument against Bezos idea is that he wants to move _all_  heavy industry to space, not only the one that produces products for people that are living in space. He wants earth to be light industry and residential only. That is rather impractical if you think about it.

What do you do? You build that cruise ship in orbit and drop it into the ocean?
So should we continue to detroy earth for our own pleasure of "cruise ships" and the likes? Or will we move beyond that and prosper through other means?
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Semmel on 05/24/2019 08:33 am
So should we continue to detroy earth for our own pleasure of "cruise ships" and the likes? Or will we move beyond that and prosper through other means?

How comes destoying the environment is the only alternative you see for production in space? For any production there is an environment friendly version of it. I suggest we produce goods without destroying nature, which is far more achievable than the space alternative.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: daveklingler on 05/25/2019 03:43 am
Surprise, surprise - Elon not a fan of huge in space habitats:

twitter.com/curiousmind44/status/1131441659550601221?s=21

Quote
What are your thoughts on O’Neil structures @JeffBezos talked about?

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1131442696537743362

Quote
Makes no sense. In order to grow the colony, you’d have to transport vast amounts of mass from planets/moons/asteroids. Would be like trying to build the USA in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean!
I don't get his thought. Does he think humanity will be stuck on Earth for eternity? I know he wants everybody to think that Mars is the panacea to all of our problems, but it's still a tiny baren planet and nothing will change that but us doing some very hard work that will need us to become a capable space faring civilisation.

This makes no sense to me, either.  It's like he hasn't thought about it much, or pulled out a calculator. You don't need an entire planet to create a surface a few meters thick on the interior of an O'Neill colony.  It's a lot of material, but it's comparatively thin, a tiny fraction of a continent.  Humans live on the surface of the Earth...

When O'Neill did his series of studies, NEOs were poorly quantified and mapped and it was thought that there were far fewer of them than there turned out to be, so the Moon was the only option. Even so, using solar power to launch material off the lunar surface is a workable plan, viable enough to make a lot of really large colonies possible.

But there will come a point in time when asteroids in a lot of different orbits begin to look like resources instead of threats to those who are living in orbital colonies.  We'll probably automate retrieval fairly early on, so that asteroid retrieval robots leave and return with an asteroid 10-20 years later; that's not an unusual time period for mine development and the amount of material is so large that a good-sized asteroid is enough to build a fair-sized colony. For later colonies, after we've hoovered up all the Apophis-sized asteroids, we'll start building out in the belts.

Nonetheless, when you can build 1G, radiation-shielded colonies anywhere you want them, with any climate, why would you ever limit yourself to a planet?
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: meekGee on 05/25/2019 05:46 am
Surprise, surprise - Elon not a fan of huge in space habitats:

twitter.com/curiousmind44/status/1131441659550601221?s=21

Quote
What are your thoughts on O’Neil structures @JeffBezos talked about?

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1131442696537743362

Quote
Makes no sense. In order to grow the colony, you’d have to transport vast amounts of mass from planets/moons/asteroids. Would be like trying to build the USA in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean!
I don't get his thought. Does he think humanity will be stuck on Earth for eternity? I know he wants everybody to think that Mars is the panacea to all of our problems, but it's still a tiny baren planet and nothing will change that but us doing some very hard work that will need us to become a capable space faring civilisation.

This makes no sense to me, either.  It's like he hasn't thought about it much, or pulled out a calculator. You don't need an entire planet to create a surface a few meters thick on the interior of an O'Neill colony.  It's a lot of material, but it's comparatively thin, a tiny fraction of a continent.  Humans live on the surface of the Earth...

When O'Neill did his series of studies, NEOs were poorly quantified and mapped and it was thought that there were far fewer of them than there turned out to be, so the Moon was the only option. Even so, using solar power to launch material off the lunar surface is a workable plan, viable enough to make a lot of really large colonies possible.

But there will come a point in time when asteroids in a lot of different orbits begin to look like resources instead of threats to those who are living in orbital colonies.  We'll probably automate retrieval fairly early on, so that asteroid retrieval robots leave and return with an asteroid 10-20 years later; that's not an unusual time period for mine development and the amount of material is so large that a good-sized asteroid is enough to build a fair-sized colony. For later colonies, after we've hoovered up all the Apophis-sized asteroids, we'll start building out in the belts.

Nonetheless, when you can build 1G, radiation-shielded colonies anywhere you want them, with any climate, why would you ever limit yourself to a planet?
Nobody said O'Neill cylinders are impossible.  It's just that the scale of the project is huge in comparison with setting up colonies on Mars or asteroids...   So start there, before building such structures. 

Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Archibald on 05/25/2019 06:06 am
Amusing to read some of the comments by folks who range from overly-enthusiastic to flat out delusional.  Mars is incredibly hard, so much so that going back to the moon is a cakewalk in comparison, and yet we struggle to accomplish that.
Mars is hard largely because of distance.  Once there, it is in many ways far easier than the moon -- more temperate, close to Earth's day-night cycle, some atmosphere, reasonably accessible resources.  I think the difficulty of travelling to Mars vs. the moon is much smaller than the difficulty of actually living on the moon vs. Mars.

And those huge lunar caves / underground  lava tubes, up to 4 miles wide, could very well tip the balance in favor of the Moon. Radiation hazards: gone. Temperatures shifts during day / night: gone. Abrasive surface dust: gone.

A lunar colony on the surface would be indeed much harder than Mars. But underground lava tubes change a lot of things.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: ncb1397 on 05/25/2019 06:25 am
Nobody said O'Neill cylinders are impossible.  It's just that the scale of the project is huge in comparison with setting up colonies on Mars or asteroids...   So start there, before building such structures.

The energy difference between building habitats in free space vs on an asteroid is very small. Even on the moon, its a couple hundred megawatts to orbit the ISS every hour of which there are nearly 100,000 hours in a decade. This of course has to be balanced against heating costs and <1/2 solar panel output at Mars distance. Anyways, it is a continuous spectrum between Skylab/ISS/Mir on the small end and full scale O'neil cylinders on the other end.

One particular data point may be the relative ease with which we set up permanent habitation in earth orbit compared to travelling to the Moon and Mars. Even the russians were able to do that while their lunar expeditions never panned out.

One possible medium term step on the way to full scale O'neil cylinders could possibly be a space station in orbit around the moon. It would be easier to ship goods there from Earth than the surface of the moon while low tech raw materials cold be shipped from the lunar surface at relatively low energy cost compared to coming from Earth or coming from the moon to LEO. Whether this is better than the lunar surface depends on the balance between the Earth shipping wieght and the lunar shipping weight. If 90% of the material you need comes from Earth, lunar orbit very well could be preferable to the lunar surface.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Coastal Ron on 05/25/2019 06:48 am
Anyways, it is a continuous spectrum between Skylab/ISS/Mir on the small end and full scale O'neil cylinders on the other end.

That is like saying there is a continuous spectrum of planets in our solar system, but in reality it's a lumpy distribution at best. And so it will be for testing out human habitation off of Earth.

Quote
One particular data point may be the relative ease with which we set up permanent habitation in earth orbit compared to travelling to the Moon and Mars.

The advantage Mars has over space stations is that once a method of sustainability is found it's far quicker and easier to scale up than building space stations. And I say that as a rotating space station advocate, since the habitable mass of a rotating space station is dwarfed by the structural mass required to keep the station from flying apart.

On a planet you may have to deal with digging, but humans won't have to bring the majority of the habitation mass required to the planet because they'll be able to leverage the existing material on the planet.

And we can run parallel experiments at the same time, with Musk leading the effort to colonize a planet with 0.37 Earth gravity (i.e. Mars), and rotating space station attempts in Earth local space - which is what I have an interest in BTW...  :D
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 05/25/2019 07:05 am
Nobody said O'Neill cylinders are impossible.  It's just that the scale of the project is huge in comparison with setting up colonies on Mars or asteroids...   So start there, before building such structures.

I’m not sure this is a like-for-like comparison, as Jeff Bezos is clearly not saying we start with O’Neill cylinders. Blue Moon and lunar bases are part of his short-term roadmap. IIRC a couple of centuries have been suggested as needed to fully achieve the vision.

The O’Neill vision is very much a long-term project. Personally I’d equate it with terraforming Mars, rather than initial Martian colonies.

Once we have the resources/technology to build O’Neill cylinders then I think they just have different trade-offs compared to, say, cities on Mars. For example, it may be that having 1g is much better than 0.38g. Conversely, there’s the potential for substantial ISRU on Mars etc.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: meekGee on 05/25/2019 07:07 am
My prediction:
A colony on Mars will start within 10 years or so.

It will be followed by asteroid mining, which will include long duration habitation, within 50.

I don't think anyone will bother with the moon, except for visits, research, etc.

O'Neill or similar structures might happen, but much later, not in the same time scale.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: ncb1397 on 05/25/2019 07:25 am
One pretty simple calculation you can do is take the following scenario. Suppose that we have a factory on the moon that produces these units:

https://www.amazon.com/Renogy-Watt-Monocrystalline-Solar-Panel/dp/B07HFMBF3G/ref=sr_1_1_sspa?keywords=solar+panel&qid=1558767998&s=gateway&sr=8-1-spons&psc=1

These have an item weight of 17.75 pounds or about 8 kg and produce 100 Ws in direct sunlight. Left on a planetary surface (except for rare limited locations at the lunar poles), their energy output is at maximum half that of what it would be sitting attached to a space station. The energy output in kilowatt-hours therefore is

planetary surface: .050 KW * hours
free space: .1 KW * hours

Since the factory is on the surface of the moon, deployment to the surface is essentially free. To get it into high lunar orbit on the other hand requires acceleration to about 2500 m/s. An 8 kg mass travelling at 2500 m/s has a kinectic energy of nearly 7 kWhs. Any acceleration technique would have losses though so lets say this is only 25% efficient and really requires 28 kWhs. We can get the break even point where the greater yield in free space is greater than the cost to get there

.05 KW * H = .1 KW * H - 28 kWh
H = 560 hours or 23 days

Seems like you shouldn't leave them on the surface and rather than beam power back, just live up there as well.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: TrevorMonty on 05/25/2019 02:04 pm


Anyways, it is a continuous spectrum between Skylab/ISS/Mir on the small end and full scale O'neil cylinders on the other end.

That is like saying there is a continuous spectrum of planets in our solar system, but in reality it's a lumpy distribution at best. And so it will be for testing out human habitation off of Earth.

Quote
One particular data point may be the relative ease with which we set up permanent habitation in earth orbit compared to travelling to the Moon and Mars.

The advantage Mars has over space stations is that once a method of sustainability is found it's far quicker and easier to scale up than building space stations. And I say that as a rotating space station advocate, since the habitable mass of a rotating space station is dwarfed by the structural mass required to keep the station from flying apart.


The shielding doesnt need to rotate. Place it in stationery outer shell. 
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: daveklingler on 05/25/2019 06:09 pm
You know what? To transfer all the industrial park to orbit makes no sense to me. The products are needed where the people live.

Bezos has specifically stated that he want millions and millions of people working and living in space.

So yeah, it makes sense to move (part of) the industrial park off-planet.

We are in wild agreement. My argument against Bezos idea is that he wants to move _all_  heavy industry to space, not only the one that produces products for people that are living in space. He wants earth to be light industry and residential only. That is rather impractical if you think about it.

What do you do? You build that cruise ship in orbit and drop it into the ocean?

Seriously?  Nobody with any common sense would build a cruise ship in orbit and then drop it into the ocean.

They'd lower it from orbit carefully, so it wouldn't get damaged.*  Sheesh.  Around here we call people who drop cruise ships from orbit "rednecks".  :)

* After all, what's the next thing you build after a decent LEO infrastructure?
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Coastal Ron on 05/25/2019 06:30 pm
The advantage Mars has over space stations is that once a method of sustainability is found it's far quicker and easier to scale up than building space stations. And I say that as a rotating space station advocate, since the habitable mass of a rotating space station is dwarfed by the structural mass required to keep the station from flying apart.
The shielding doesnt need to rotate. Place it in stationery outer shell.

I love to see how they machine the bearing that keeps the station from smacking into the outer shell...  ;)
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: daveklingler on 05/25/2019 07:24 pm
One pretty simple calculation you can do is take the following scenario. Suppose that we have a factory on the moon that produces these units:

https://www.amazon.com/Renogy-Watt-Monocrystalline-Solar-Panel/dp/B07HFMBF3G/ref=sr_1_1_sspa?keywords=solar+panel&qid=1558767998&s=gateway&sr=8-1-spons&psc=1

These have an item weight of 17.75 pounds or about 8 kg and produce 100 Ws in direct sunlight. Left on a planetary surface (except for rare limited locations at the lunar poles), their energy output is at maximum half that of what it would be sitting attached to a space station. The energy output in kilowatt-hours therefore is

planetary surface: .050 KW * hours
free space: .1 KW * hours

Since the factory is on the surface of the moon, deployment to the surface is essentially free. To get it into high lunar orbit on the other hand requires acceleration to about 2500 m/s. An 8 kg mass travelling at 2500 m/s has a kinectic energy of nearly 7 kWhs. Any acceleration technique would have losses though so lets say this is only 25% efficient and really requires 28 kWhs. We can get the break even point where the greater yield in free space is greater than the cost to get there

.05 KW * H = .1 KW * H - 28 kWh
H = 560 hours or 23 days

Seems like you shouldn't leave them on the surface and rather than beam power back, just live up there as well.

Just to be nitpicky, that 100W panel would be rated at 200W in orbit.  But your point stands.

I'd love to see those panels launching compacted soil ASAP.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: daveklingler on 05/25/2019 07:26 pm
Nobody said O'Neill cylinders are impossible.  It's just that the scale of the project is huge in comparison with setting up colonies on Mars or asteroids...   So start there, before building such structures.

I think you should spend some time with your calculator, after turning it on, of course.  :)

If taking people and cargo to Mars were easier than taking people and cargo to LEO...
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: mme on 05/25/2019 07:48 pm
Nobody said O'Neill cylinders are impossible.  It's just that the scale of the project is huge in comparison with setting up colonies on Mars or asteroids...   So start there, before building such structures.

I think you should spend some time with your calculator, after turning it on, of course.  :)

If taking people and cargo to Mars were easier than taking people and cargo to LEO...
Before you can take cargo to it, you have to build it. Do you really think that building an O'Neill cylinder is easier than building and supplying a small research station on Mars? There is no such thing as a small O'Neill cylinder and the effort to build one is huge both in material and engineering.

A small research station on Mars can iterate ISRU experiments relatively quickly in the actual environment. Once you get to the point you can build and supply a *small* research station on the Moon or Mars, resupply is just logistics. You oversupply up front with multiple missions in the first Synod.

Sure, once an O'Neill cylinder exists, it's less expensive to resupply. I bet we could learn to be close to self sufficient on Mars long before we can even build a functioning O'Neill cylinder.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: meekGee on 05/25/2019 07:57 pm


Nobody said O'Neill cylinders are impossible.  It's just that the scale of the project is huge in comparison with setting up colonies on Mars or asteroids...   So start there, before building such structures.

I think you should spend some time with your calculator, after turning it on, of course.  :)

If taking people and cargo to Mars were easier than taking people and cargo to LEO...

Yeah, Dave, most people you're speaking with here have a better grasp of the fundamentals than you do, and probably better calculator skills.  Don't snark them.

To your point, nobody said it's easier to launch a kg to LEO than to Mars.  We said it's easier to build a colony on Mars than it is to build an O'Neil cylinder.

And, your O'Neil cylinder is easier built by the asteroids than it is in LEO anyway.  After you have built indistry in the asteroids.  After you've colonized Mars.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: daveklingler on 05/25/2019 09:40 pm
Nobody said O'Neill cylinders are impossible.  It's just that the scale of the project is huge in comparison with setting up colonies on Mars or asteroids...   So start there, before building such structures.

I think you should spend some time with your calculator, after turning it on, of course.  :)

If taking people and cargo to Mars were easier than taking people and cargo to LEO...
Before you can take cargo to it, you have to build it. Do you really think that building an O'Neill cylinder is easier than building and supplying a small research station on Mars? There is no such thing as a small O'Neill cylinder and the effort to build one is huge both in material and engineering.

If we're going to talk about small research stations on Mars, as opposed to self-sufficient colonies, then we should shift the LEO target to a small research station as well, composed of a couple of B330-sized inflatable stations attached to a third B330-sized hub by cables. For the cables, we'll use a 8:1 safety ratio. For a 23mT B330 spinning at 1 rpm, we can fudge that to four 894m 87mT (minimum breaking force) steel cables, per side, each weighing 4725 kg.

So that's

3 x 23mT for the hub and habs
8 x 4.725 mT for the cables 
3 mT for two trams to run back and forth between the hub and the habs.

We need to spin the whole thing up. Integrating the whole mess, I get about 1.5mT of propellant with an RL-10C.

Rounded up, total mass for our 1G LEO research station of about 660 cubic meter volume is about 120mT, divvied up into five or six EELV-sized launches.  Triple all of that and use Falcon Heavies if you want to use BA2100s for about 4500 cubic meters.  Please feel free to check my numbers or add something in if I've skipped it.

Quote
A small research station on Mars can iterate ISRU experiments relatively quickly in the actual environment. Once you get to the point you can build and supply a *small* research station on the Moon or Mars, resupply is just logistics. You oversupply up front with multiple missions in the first Synod.

A small LEO research station of the type I've just described can process raw material brought up from Earth at first, using conventional 1G smelting and machining tools. Further on, it should be capable of refining raw material captured from NEOs and fired up from the lunar surface using solar-powered catapults or mass drivers.  As you said, resupply is just logistics, but it's LEO resupply, and you can do it any time you'd like.

Quote
Sure, once an O'Neill cylinder exists, it's less expensive to resupply. I bet we could learn to be close to self sufficient on Mars long before we can even build a functioning O'Neill cylinder.

I've tried to use the phrase "O'Neill station" or "O'Neill colony" on NSF rather than "O'Neill cylinder" whenever I didn't specifically mean a cylinder, the difference being important to distinguish. Apologies for where I've slipped up.

The station I've just described is not very far off, even using BA2100s.  Once we have a small capability to process asteroid and lunar material in orbit, that's probably still at least tens to hundreds of tons per month.  Building more capability is a matter of either adding more modules to the existing station (easiest) or building even larger ones. It could be less than twenty years until we'd be processing megatons of lunar or asteroid material to build larger and larger rotating stations. Each doubling of the habitable volume only requires four launches, not six, until the hub will no longer hold more modules.

I haven't spent the time to break down the launches required to either retrieve asteroid material or build a mining operation on the Moon that can catapult material to our station, but even so, a 4500 cubic-meter 1G station, no radiation shielding required because it's in 500km LEO, is still basically about six launches away.

I think five years is a reasonable time frame to build such a station, asking Bigelow or Sierra Nevada to build three habs in 60 months.  For bonus points, the hub could also be designed with a really big airlock, such as was originally designed for Space Station Freedom in the 1980's, to accommodate satellite or spacecraft repair in a pressurized environment. And the next time an ARM is proposed, we'd have a place to take it.

EDIT: Using two 50m Slingatrons near Shackleton, we could reasonably put a 10kg brick of compressed lunar soil into LEO about every 5 minutes, for about 1 million kg per year.  We'd need about 15mT of solar panels on the lunar surface to power the Slingatron, and I'll WAG another 5mT array to power a dozen small mining robots bringing in 10kg of material on average once per hour each. The 5mT array also powers a couple of compactors, which compress the soil and feed the resulting 10kg blocks into the Slingatrons. We'll call the mining robots 40kg each, and the compactors 1000kg apiece. So that's 1500kg...call it 2mT with the chargers.  So we're up to 22 mT not including the Slingatrons, not too bad, but I need to figure out how much a Slingatron masses.

That brick is about 12% aluminum by mass if it comes from around Shackleton, about 5% iron and about 20% silicon. The 40% oxygen would certainly be useful, or the material would fill the circumference of a small-ish O'Neill cylinder (894m radius x 1km width) to about 2 meters depth in about 16 years. Additional elements like charcoal needed to make the soil good for farming would have to come up from Earth or in on a C-type asteroid - call it 170 metric tons if you wanted to make 10% of the cylinder good for gardening with a 10% carbon composition. We'll round that up to 3 FH payloads.

EDIT 2: If you dedicated the mass coming from one small lunar surface mine and began producing basalt fabric, that's about 9 million square meters of medium-weight basalt fabric annually, enough to produce an O'Neill cylinder (894m radius x 1km width) about every ten years.  So if you have two mining operations, you could produce an O'Neill cylinder about, loosely speaking, about every 16 years, with two meters of soil depth.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: TrevorMonty on 05/25/2019 10:32 pm
The advantage Mars has over space stations is that once a method of sustainability is found it's far quicker and easier to scale up than building space stations. And I say that as a rotating space station advocate, since the habitable mass of a rotating space station is dwarfed by the structural mass required to keep the station from flying apart.
The shielding doesnt need to rotate. Place it in stationery outer shell.

I love to see how they machine the bearing that keeps the station from smacking into the outer shell...  ;)

Most designs have cylinders in pairs linked in parallel and spun in opposite directions. Single cylinders are unstable when spun. Yes they will need huge bearings. The shell would cover both cylinders.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: daveklingler on 05/25/2019 11:49 pm
Nobody said O'Neill cylinders are impossible.  It's just that the scale of the project is huge in comparison with setting up colonies on Mars or asteroids...   So start there, before building such structures.

I think you should spend some time with your calculator, after turning it on, of course.  :)

If taking people and cargo to Mars were easier than taking people and cargo to LEO...
Before you can take cargo to it, you have to build it. Do you really think that building an O'Neill cylinder is easier than building and supplying a small research station on Mars? There is no such thing as a small O'Neill cylinder and the effort to build one is huge both in material and engineering.

If we're going to talk about small research stations on Mars, as opposed to self-sufficient colonies, then we should shift the LEO target to a small research station as well, composed of a couple of B330-sized inflatable stations attached to a third B330-sized hub by cables. For the cables, we'll use a 8:1 safety ratio. For a 23mT B330 spinning at 1 rpm, we can fudge that to four 894m 87mT (minimum breaking force) steel cables, per side, each weighing 4725 kg.

So that's

3 x 23mT for the hub and habs
8 x 4.725 mT for the cables 
3 mT for two trams to run back and forth between the hub and the habs.

We need to spin the whole thing up. Integrating the whole mess, I get about 1.5mT of propellant with an RL-10C.

Rounded up, total mass for our 1G LEO research station of about 660 cubic meter volume is about 120mT, divvied up into five or six EELV-sized launches.  Triple all of that and use Falcon Heavies if you want to use BA2100s for about 4500 cubic meters.  Please feel free to check my numbers or add something in if I've skipped it.

Quote
A small research station on Mars can iterate ISRU experiments relatively quickly in the actual environment. Once you get to the point you can build and supply a *small* research station on the Moon or Mars, resupply is just logistics. You oversupply up front with multiple missions in the first Synod.

A small LEO research station of the type I've just described can process raw material brought up from Earth at first, using conventional 1G smelting and machining tools. Further on, it should be capable of refining raw material captured from NEOs and fired up from the lunar surface using solar-powered catapults or mass drivers.  As you said, resupply is just logistics, but it's LEO resupply, and you can do it any time you'd like.

Quote
Sure, once an O'Neill cylinder exists, it's less expensive to resupply. I bet we could learn to be close to self sufficient on Mars long before we can even build a functioning O'Neill cylinder.

I've tried to use the phrase "O'Neill station" or "O'Neill colony" on NSF rather than "O'Neill cylinder" whenever I didn't specifically mean a cylinder, the difference being important to distinguish. Apologies for where I've slipped up.

The station I've just described is not very far off, even using BA2100s.  Once we have a small capability to process asteroid and lunar material in orbit, that's probably still at least tens to hundreds of tons per month.  Building more capability is a matter of either adding more modules to the existing station (easiest) or building even larger ones. It could be less than twenty years until we'd be processing megatons of lunar or asteroid material to build larger and larger rotating stations. Each doubling of the habitable volume only requires four launches, not six, until the hub will no longer hold more modules.

I haven't spent the time to break down the launches required to either retrieve asteroid material or build a mining operation on the Moon that can catapult material to our station, but even so, a 4500 cubic-meter 1G station, no radiation shielding required because it's in 500km LEO, is still basically about six launches away.

I think five years is a reasonable time frame to build such a station, asking Bigelow or Sierra Nevada to build three habs in 60 months.  For bonus points, the hub could also be designed with a really big airlock, such as was originally designed for Space Station Freedom in the 1980's, to accommodate satellite or spacecraft repair in a pressurized environment. And the next time an ARM is proposed, we'd have a place to take it.

EDIT: Using two 50m Slingatrons near Shackleton, we could reasonably put a 10kg brick of compressed lunar soil into LEO about every 5 minutes, for about 1 million kg per year.  We'd need about 15mT of solar panels on the lunar surface to power the Slingatron, and I'll WAG another 5mT array to power a dozen small mining robots bringing in 10kg of material on average once per hour each. The 5mT array also powers a couple of compactors, which compress the soil and feed the resulting 10kg blocks into the Slingatrons. We'll call the mining robots 40kg each, and the compactors 1000kg apiece. So that's 1500kg...call it 2mT with the chargers.  So we're up to 22 mT not including the Slingatrons, not too bad, but I need to figure out how much a Slingatron masses.

That brick is about 12% aluminum by mass if it comes from around Shackleton, about 5% iron and about 20% silicon. The 40% oxygen would certainly be useful, or the material would fill the circumference of a small-ish O'Neill cylinder (894m radius x 1km width) to about 2 meters depth in about 16 years. Additional elements like charcoal needed to make the soil good for farming would have to come up from Earth or in on a C-type asteroid - call it 170 metric tons if you wanted to make 10% of the cylinder good for gardening with a 10% carbon composition. We'll round that up to 3 FH payloads.

EDIT 2: If you dedicated the mass coming from your first small lunar surface mine and began producing basalt fabric, that's about 9 million square meters of medium-weight basalt fabric annually, enough to produce an O'Neill cylinder (894m radius x 1km width) about every ten years.  So if you have two small mining operations, you could produce an O'Neill cylinder about, loosely speaking, about every 16 years, with two meters of soil depth, or call it two cylinders counter-rotating about 40 years out from when you started building your first rotating research station. Each settlement would be about 1388 acres, or at 50% farming and 50% San Francisco density population, that's about 30,000 people.

Assuming we don't stop building after the first small mine, it's reasonable to expect that we could hit about 100,000 people in orbit about 50 years from whenever we launch that first module. I would expect that once we hit about 3000 people in LEO, with 2/3 of them working on automating the process of building stations, we'd have room for 100,000 a lot sooner than that.

EDIT 3: Nope, I haven't figured out how to fill those O'Neill habs with air yet. Air is a challenge.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: meekGee on 05/26/2019 12:27 am
I have several friends who've always been involved with long-term ideas like space-based solar power, O'Neill cylinders, etc.

For whatever cultural reason, there is either lack of enthusiasm or outright disdain from them toward SpaceX and Musk's plans.

I think the reason is that he's "kidnapped their narrative". He's providing the future, now, and on his own terms, without much deference to those who for decades have owned the turf.

He has radical ideas like boots-first ISRU, and he makes these guys, in retrospect, look a little... ineffectual.

I think JB hangs out with that crowd, or at least is advised by some of its members.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/26/2019 01:21 am
There’s way too much dumb rivalry between the Moon, Mars, and Cylinder folk (hi, Venus folk, I haven’t forgotten you).
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: daveklingler on 05/26/2019 01:28 am
I have several friends who've always been involved with long-term ideas like space-based solar power, O'Neill cylinders, etc.

For whatever cultural reason, there is either lack of enthusiasm or outright disdain from them toward SpaceX and Musk's plans.

I think the reason is that he's "kidnapped their narrative". He's providing the future, now, and on his own terms, without much deference to those who for decades have owned the turf.

He has radical ideas like boots-first ISRU, and he makes these guys, in retrospect, look a little... ineffectual.

I think JB hangs out with that crowd, or at least is advised by some of its members.

I couldn't more strongly disagree.  I think your characterization is utterly non-factual.

My disagreement with Musk has only to do with my calculator and my own serious involvement in engineering, construction and operations studies in space for the past 36 years.  My own assessment of Musk's short-term plans is that they're great.  My assessment of Musk's long-term plans is that they're not based on rigor.  That's fine, because if I'm right he won't be able to hurt himself...much.  He's surrounded himself with rigorous people, and rigor almost always wins for a space launch company.

I can't imagine any narrative he's "kidnapped"; his narrative is solely his own.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: meekGee on 05/26/2019 01:30 am
I have several friends who've always been involved with long-term ideas like space-based solar power, O'Neill cylinders, etc.

For whatever cultural reason, there is either lack of enthusiasm or outright disdain from them toward SpaceX and Musk's plans.

I think the reason is that he's "kidnapped their narrative". He's providing the future, now, and on his own terms, without much deference to those who for decades have owned the turf.

He has radical ideas like boots-first ISRU, and he makes these guys, in retrospect, look a little... ineffectual.

I think JB hangs out with that crowd, or at least is advised by some of its members.

I couldn't more strongly disagree.  I think your characterization is utterly non-factual.

My disagreement with Musk has only to do with my calculator and my own serious involvement in engineering, construction and operations studies in space for the past 36 years.  My own assessment of Musk's short-term plans is that they're great.  My assessment of Musk's long-term plans is that they're not based on rigor.  That's fine, because if I'm right he won't be able to hurt himself...much.

I can't imagine any narrative he's "kidnapped"; his narrative is solely his own.
I was talking about my friends, and finding echoes of their thoughts in JB's..  not yours.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: daveklingler on 05/26/2019 01:39 am
I have several friends who've always been involved with long-term ideas like space-based solar power, O'Neill cylinders, etc.

For whatever cultural reason, there is either lack of enthusiasm or outright disdain from them toward SpaceX and Musk's plans.

I think the reason is that he's "kidnapped their narrative". He's providing the future, now, and on his own terms, without much deference to those who for decades have owned the turf.

He has radical ideas like boots-first ISRU, and he makes these guys, in retrospect, look a little... ineffectual.

I think JB hangs out with that crowd, or at least is advised by some of its members.

I couldn't more strongly disagree.  I think your characterization is utterly non-factual.

My disagreement with Musk has only to do with my calculator and my own serious involvement in engineering, construction and operations studies in space for the past 36 years.  My own assessment of Musk's short-term plans is that they're great.  My assessment of Musk's long-term plans is that they're not based on rigor.  That's fine, because if I'm right he won't be able to hurt himself...much.

I can't imagine any narrative he's "kidnapped"; his narrative is solely his own.
I was talking about my friends, and finding echoes of their thoughts in JB's..  not yours.

The crowd you're talking about is the National Space Society.  They spend most of their time hobnobbing about space settlements.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: meekGee on 05/26/2019 01:44 am
I was talking about my friends, and finding echoes of their thoughts in JB's..  not yours.

The crowd you're talking about is the National Space Society.  They spend most of their time hobnobbing about space settlements.
There are a number of societies, and yes, they (we!) hobnob.

Problem is (and you don't seem to be inflicted) that when SpaceX came along, in a cosmically ironic manner, they just wouldn't get it.

They'll come around, but they'll have missed making a difference when it finally mattered.

I see familiar memes in JB's remarks. They are all over BO's roadmap.

These are the men of the future, and they want to remain that way.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: daveklingler on 05/26/2019 02:05 am
I have several friends who've always been involved with long-term ideas like space-based solar power, O'Neill cylinders, etc.

For whatever cultural reason, there is either lack of enthusiasm or outright disdain from them toward SpaceX and Musk's plans.

I think the reason is that he's "kidnapped their narrative". He's providing the future, now, and on his own terms, without much deference to those who for decades have owned the turf.

He has radical ideas like boots-first ISRU, and he makes these guys, in retrospect, look a little... ineffectual.

I think JB hangs out with that crowd, or at least is advised by some of its members.

I couldn't more strongly disagree.  I think your characterization is utterly non-factual.

My disagreement with Musk has only to do with my calculator and my own serious involvement in engineering, construction and operations studies in space for the past 36 years.  My own assessment of Musk's short-term plans is that they're great.  My assessment of Musk's long-term plans is that they're not based on rigor.  That's fine, because if I'm right he won't be able to hurt himself...much.

I can't imagine any narrative he's "kidnapped"; his narrative is solely his own.
I was talking about my friends, and finding echoes of their thoughts in JB's..  not yours.

The crowd you're talking about is the National Space Society.  They spend most of their time hobnobbing about space settlements.
There are a number of societies, and yes, they (we!) hobnob.

Problem is (and you don't seem to be inflicted) that when SpaceX came along, in a cosmically ironic manner, they just wouldn't get it.

They'll come around, but they'll have missed making a difference when it finally mattered.

I see familiar memes in JB's remarks. They are all over BO's roadmap.

These are the men of the future, and they want to remain that way.

Well, I guess I left out the Space Studies Institute.  They're pretty important in any conversation about space settlements.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: meekGee on 05/26/2019 02:33 am
There are a number of societies, and yes, they (we!) hobnob.

Problem is (and you don't seem to be inflicted) that when SpaceX came along, in a cosmically ironic manner, they just wouldn't get it.

They'll come around, but they'll have missed making a difference when it finally mattered.

I see familiar memes in JB's remarks. They are all over BO's roadmap.

These are the men of the future, and they want to remain that way.

Well, I guess I left out the Space Studies Institute.  They're pretty important in any conversation about space settlements.
There are a few more, and some cross-group intelligentsia.

Since I haven't kept up lately, and wonder how much excitement is there in their announcements regarding F9 reusability, or around Starship.

I mean beyond an occasional polite congratulatory message..  how much OMG is there?

Because whether you believe JB is full of it or full of stars, anyone in any of these groups should be losing their composure on a daily basis ever SpaceX's acheivements starting about 3 years ago.

Are they?

Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Semmel on 05/26/2019 12:44 pm
There are a few more, and some cross-group intelligentsia.

Since I haven't kept up lately, and wonder how much excitement is there in their announcements regarding F9 reusability, or around Starship.

I mean beyond an occasional polite congratulatory message..  how much OMG is there?

Because whether you believe JB is full of it or full of stars, anyone in any of these groups should be losing their composure on a daily basis ever SpaceX's acheivements starting about 3 years ago.

Are they?

My experience with these people is (I have a few friends as well): They dont believe Musks motives. Musk in their mind is an industry giant, a person that leads multiple big companies. He is, in their mind, big money. And big money does not have ulterior motives. By definition. That is a very left wing sort of view but many scify-should-get -real people are primarily left wing. Musk, for them, is not supposed to exist. A person in his position is supposed to get rich and suck the living marbles out of the poor. Not construct a future that is worth living in. Therefore, Musk ultimately, cannot be believed to deliver that future. Nor can Bezos btw.. They dont think BO is the future either. But not because BO is moving too slow but because they think BO is not build on greed. Very weird that psychology stuff.

To make sure, this is not my view, that is the view of some of my friends that want a scify future. I have fantastic conversations with them, they are nice people but cant convince them because their premise is false. Or maybe they are right and Musk/Bezos are impersonations of the devil that sucks the living marbles out of people for their own benefit and I am too blind to accept that.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: meekGee on 05/26/2019 01:12 pm
There are a few more, and some cross-group intelligentsia.

Since I haven't kept up lately, and wonder how much excitement is there in their announcements regarding F9 reusability, or around Starship.

I mean beyond an occasional polite congratulatory message..  how much OMG is there?

Because whether you believe JB is full of it or full of stars, anyone in any of these groups should be losing their composure on a daily basis ever SpaceX's acheivements starting about 3 years ago.

Are they?

My experience with these people is (I have a few friends as well): They dont believe Musks motives. Musk in their mind is an industry giant, a person that leads multiple big companies. He is, in their mind, big money. And big money does not have ulterior motives. By definition. That is a very left wing sort of view but many scify-should-get -real people are primarily left wing. Musk, for them, is not supposed to exist. A person in his position is supposed to get rich and suck the living marbles out of the poor. Not construct a future that is worth living in. Therefore, Musk ultimately, cannot be believed to deliver that future. Nor can Bezos btw.. They dont think BO is the future either. But not because BO is moving too slow but because they think BO is not build on greed. Very weird that psychology stuff.

To make sure, this is not my view, that is the view of some of my friends that want a scify future. I have fantastic conversations with them, they are nice people but cant convince them because their premise is false. Or maybe they are right and Musk/Bezos are impersonations of the devil that sucks the living marbles out of people for their own benefit and I am too blind to accept that.
Heh, odd.

My friends are ones that admire the oldSpace structure, and are generally right leaning.

They do like to be the smartest in the room, and talk with a very serious face about the rocket equation and how space is hard.

The unbearable lightness of Musk is killing them.  It's disrespectful almost, the way he throws out all conventions.

They don't like saying "how wonderful, we were doing it wrong all these years. You can actually move fast, crack jokes, be a playboy, and still beat LMCO and Boeing at their own game and upend the entire industry".

Naw, they don't get past the word "wrong".  They spend all their energy on why SpaceX didn't actually invent the basic principle du jour, and why something Musk said a year ago is not consistent with what he does today.

They lost the "I know better" driver's seat, and do not enjoy watching someone else leading, even if he's doing a better job than they ever thought was possible.

JB OTOH gives them what they want  He's following their roadmap, he's not threatening, in fact he's just about invisible.  He's a rich benefactor, not an alternate leader.

--

But, all people are different.  We're describing two separate subsets that we know, but there are doubtless more.

The shared point is - if you're going to stick out, for whatever reason, you're going to get some hate.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: punder on 05/26/2019 09:13 pm
As the Wise Ones say: Embrace the healing power of and.

This is not a sports contest where one team walks out of the stadium with the win. Everybody wins! All the space nuts win!

Bezos will start with lunar resources, partly because of his O'Neillian background and sentimentality, but more immediately because he can leverage NASA's current Moon fixation to lower his development costs, get some "in" with NASA, and get some nice NASA-bro publicity. He'll move on to asteroids when the time comes.

Musk will start with Mars surface ops, and we all know why. (He might focus on lunar initially too, for some of the same reasons as Bezos, but with Mars always in mind.) But Starship (the system, not just the vehicle) is destination-agnostic and far more capable and flexible than anything in Jeff's arsenal so far. Musk has changed course so many times already, based on changing circumstances and/or newly acquired clarity, that he will also (imo) realize the energy and resource advantages of asteroidal materials.

Two things I've harped on before, for anyone bored enough to have paid attention   :D

1. 1g rotating habs on planetary surfaces are quite possible. A train on a banked circular track would do it. So if lunar or Martian g turn out to be detrimental to long-term health, an engineered solution is ready to hand. Doesn't mean the population is confined in the hab exclusively, just that it might constitute "home" in daily life. Such a train might begin with just a single pressurized "car" with additional cars added as needed. So no monolithic all-or-nothing gigantic structure is required as a prerequisite to occupancy.

2. Humans and their machines are totally at home in a gravity field. Virtually all the building and engineering we've ever done, was done under g. In-space construction, by contrast, is utterly unfamiliar, so alien to the point that every human EVA has months of training and choreography behind it for every move. But watch Apollo astronauts on the lunar surface--they are, in their core, familiar with the conditions! No problem! Help me heave on this damn drill, willya!!

Wish I was younger and smarter, so I could be more directly involved, but really just glad to be here, witnessing the slow unfolding of adolescent dreams. Can't wait.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: ncb1397 on 05/27/2019 09:45 pm
Before you can take cargo to it, you have to build it. Do you really think that building an O'Neill cylinder is easier than building and supplying a small research station on Mars? There is no such thing as a small O'Neill cylinder and the effort to build one is huge both in material and engineering.


The in space variant of a small research station on Mars is a small Artificial gravity space station that might mass somewhere around 4000 t and provide a fraction of a g. You could get a lot of the benefits of an O'Neill style space station but it would be far less expensive and difficult to build(natural areas, partial biological life support system, some gravity). 10x larger than the ISS. To compare a small research station on Mars to a O'Neill cylinder with a million inhabitants is not a fair comparison. The comparison would be to a million person city on Mars. Both are absolutely ridiculous engineering projects(in today's terms).
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: daveklingler on 05/28/2019 01:09 am

2. Humans and their machines are totally at home in a gravity field. Virtually all the building and engineering we've ever done, was done under g. In-space construction, by contrast, is utterly unfamiliar, so alien to the point that every human EVA has months of training and choreography behind it for every move. But watch Apollo astronauts on the lunar surface--they are, in their core, familiar with the conditions! No problem! Help me heave on this damn drill, willya!!

I see that as one of the huge advantages of any spinning 1G hab: the ability to buy even a used mill off Ebay (yes, presumably one could afford a shiny new DMG Mori) and take it up to orbit, where it can immediately be put to use.  It would be amusing if there were some future PBS program like "Connections" or "How we got here" detailing how all space habs use 60-cycle 120VAC or 240VAC because that's how the first bolo hab was wired...
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/28/2019 01:10 am
BTW, EVAs don't HAVE to take months of training. That's just what we do.

There are no "commercial EVA" companies. But I'd REALLY like to see someone try one.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Coastal Ron on 05/28/2019 02:15 am
I see that as one of the huge advantages of any spinning 1G hab: the ability to buy even a used mill off Ebay (yes, presumably one could afford a shiny new DMG Mori) and take it up to orbit, where it can immediately be put to use.  It would be amusing if there were some future PBS program like "Connections" or "How we got here" detailing how all space habs use 60-cycle 120VAC or 240VAC because that's how the first bolo hab was wired...

Agreed. It should significantly lower the cost of outfitting a 1G rotating space station if they can use standard catalog items found on Earth. It's the only way we'll be able to afford to expand humanity into space - by leveraging the existing commodity manufacturing capability on Earth.

Which is ironic since Bezos wants to move manufacturing out into space, but until there is a reason to manufacture CNC mills in space we'll have to settle for buying them from Earth.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/28/2019 02:33 am
I think it'll be way easier to build large things in microgravity. The key is pressurization, NOT the gravity level.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Coastal Ron on 05/28/2019 03:03 am
I think it'll be way easier to build large things in microgravity. The key is pressurization, NOT the gravity level.

Oh I think large space stations will be built in 0G, then spun up after the structural part is done. The outfitting will likely be done under some level of gravity since it will likely be easier for workers and easier for the constant cleanup required during any type of new construction.

But I think it's going to take several generations of progressively large space stations before we can start getting close to the size that fits the definition of a space industrial park. The amount of mass required will be immense, and finding sources of it in space is going to take a while...
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: TrevorMonty on 05/28/2019 08:59 am
The near term industries beside water for fuel could be construction space solar power stations. Not for supplying earth but cis lunar industries. Everything we do in  space and on moon needs lots of energy, especially ISRU activities.

While electricity on earth is 10c kwh, in space could sell it for $10-100 or more in early days. At $10 a 100kw power station could earn $88,000,000 a year.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: M.E.T. on 05/28/2019 09:44 am
Interesting question - which I don’t know the answer to: What is the comparative construction cost, excluding launch costs, of building a base on Mars vs building a comparatively sized space station. Including maintenance costs in the long term?

Say a permanent habitat for 1000 people.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/28/2019 11:18 am
The near term industries beside water for fuel could be construction space solar power stations. Not for supplying earth but cis lunar industries. Everything we do in  space and on moon needs lots of energy, especially ISRU activities.

While electricity on earth is 10c kwh, in space could sell it for $10-100 or more in early days. At $10 a 100kw power station could earn $88,000,000 a year.
Self-licking ice cream cone if it’s not for Earth use.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: rakaydos on 05/28/2019 11:53 am
Interesting question - which I don’t know the answer to: What is the comparative construction cost, excluding launch costs, of building a base on Mars vs building a comparatively sized space station. Including maintenance costs in the long term?

Say a permanent habitat for 1000 people.

Are you excluding all orbital transportation costs, or only earth launch?

Mars is harder to get to from earth, but has low-quality-but-dirt-cheap construction material just lying around. LEO is still fairly hard to get to from earth (but not AS hard), and you have to bring everything from somewhere else- whether it's earth, the moon, or fly out to an asteroid and put it into a useful orbit.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: meekGee on 05/28/2019 02:07 pm
Interesting question - which I don’t know the answer to: What is the comparative construction cost, excluding launch costs, of building a base on Mars vs building a comparatively sized space station. Including maintenance costs in the long term?

Say a permanent habitat for 1000 people.
If it's a colony, it's not about building the walls.

The space colony has to be fully closed.

A Mars colony is built open. Life support is open, agriculture is open, and pretty quickly a good part of construction is open.

There is a road to complete self-sufficiency, and even with 1000 people, you're well on your way towards that..  but nobody knows the schedule Musk has in mind, so it's hard to estimate costs.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/28/2019 02:15 pm
It'll take a million people probably to achieve anything close to self-sufficiency. It's even harder to achieve self-sufficiency anywhere but Earth (obviously) and Mars at this point due to the concentration and diversity and availability of resources.

Of course, Jeff Bezos isn't shooting for long-term self-sufficiency in the same way as SpaceX is.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: TrevorMonty on 05/28/2019 03:06 pm
Interesting question - which I don’t know the answer to: What is the comparative construction cost, excluding launch costs, of building a base on Mars vs building a comparatively sized space station. Including maintenance costs in the long term?

Say a permanent habitat for 1000 people.
If it's a colony, it's not about building the walls.

The space colony has to be fully closed.

A Mars colony is built open. Life support is open, agriculture is open, and pretty quickly a good part of construction is open.

There is a road to complete self-sufficiency, and even with 1000 people, you're well on your way towards that..  but nobody knows the schedule Musk has in mind, so it's hard to estimate costs.
Any colony is going to be reliant on earth imports for very long time. Which is fine if colony has exports to pay for those critical imports, other wise colony is financial burden on earth.

Don't expect import tonnage to drop as it becomes larger and more self sufficent.
Larger the colony more items it can make itself but also more of those items it can't make will have to come from earth.

Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: meekGee on 05/28/2019 03:48 pm
Interesting question - which I don’t know the answer to: What is the comparative construction cost, excluding launch costs, of building a base on Mars vs building a comparatively sized space station. Including maintenance costs in the long term?

Say a permanent habitat for 1000 people.
If it's a colony, it's not about building the walls.

The space colony has to be fully closed.

A Mars colony is built open. Life support is open, agriculture is open, and pretty quickly a good part of construction is open.

There is a road to complete self-sufficiency, and even with 1000 people, you're well on your way towards that..  but nobody knows the schedule Musk has in mind, so it's hard to estimate costs.
Any colony is going to be reliant on earth imports for very long time. Which is fine if colony has exports to pay for those critical imports, other wise colony is financial burden on earth.

Don't expect import tonnage to drop as it becomes larger and more self sufficent.
Larger the colony more items it can make itself but also more of those items it can't make will have to come from earth.
There's a large difference between self sufficient and just not having to import every ton of building material, or food, or oxygen.

A 1000-person space station has to do all that. It has no means to create material, and has a difficult time doing even simple things like heat rejection.

A 1000-person Mars colony has all the CO2 and water it needs so can run very low cost agriculture.   It can make basic plastics pretty easily, and one of the earlier goals will be to make the bulk mass of solar cells, because he only real limitation is power.

They may be importing fine copper wire and medicine even many years from now, but I absolutely expect the tonnage to drop.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: mme on 05/28/2019 04:11 pm
Before you can take cargo to it, you have to build it. Do you really think that building an O'Neill cylinder is easier than building and supplying a small research station on Mars? There is no such thing as a small O'Neill cylinder and the effort to build one is huge both in material and engineering.


The in space variant of a small research station on Mars is a small Artificial gravity space station that might mass somewhere around 4000 t and provide a fraction of a g. You could get a lot of the benefits of an O'Neill style space station but it would be far less expensive and difficult to build(natural areas, partial biological life support system, some gravity). 10x larger than the ISS. To compare a small research station on Mars to a O'Neill cylinder with a million inhabitants is not a fair comparison. The comparison would be to a million person city on Mars. Both are absolutely ridiculous engineering projects(in today's terms).
I want to be clear. I'm not opposed to O'Neill cylinders nor do I think they are impossible. I just think it's silly to "poo poo" Mars colonies and then offer O'Neill cylinders as the "easier" alternative.

It's pretty obvious how a Mars research station grows over time and becomes more and more self sufficient and complex.  It's not obvious to me how a small space station evolves into an O'Neill cylinder. Even if you can make a hoop and spoke style station and add rings, that is still nothing like an O'Neill cylinder.

O'Neill cylinders require more technological leaps, IMO.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: ncb1397 on 05/28/2019 04:38 pm
Interesting question - which I don’t know the answer to: What is the comparative construction cost, excluding launch costs, of building a base on Mars vs building a comparatively sized space station. Including maintenance costs in the long term?

Say a permanent habitat for 1000 people.
If it's a colony, it's not about building the walls.

The space colony has to be fully closed.


No it doesn't. It can send a vehicle out to pick up material just like mars colony does. The Navy's rail gun is not some massive ridiculous thing either. It accelerates projects to mach 7.5 in an atmosphere. That just happens to be 2.5 km/s or what is required to place mass into high lunar orbit.

see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moptTasAkVQ
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: rakaydos on 05/28/2019 04:42 pm
Interesting question - which I don’t know the answer to: What is the comparative construction cost, excluding launch costs, of building a base on Mars vs building a comparatively sized space station. Including maintenance costs in the long term?

Say a permanent habitat for 1000 people.
If it's a colony, it's not about building the walls.

The space colony has to be fully closed.


No it doesn't. It can send a vehicle out to pick up material just like mars colony does. The Navy's rail gun is not some massive ridiculous thing either. It accelerates projects to mach 7.5 in an atmosphere. That just happens to be 2.5 km/s or what is required to place mass into high lunar orbit.

see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moptTasAkVQ
There's Kilometers (per second) between a space colony going out for a bit of air to replace a (already fixed) leak, and a mars colony compressing new air to inflate a new greenhouse.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 05/28/2019 04:46 pm
Here’s Blue’s input to NASA study on LEO Commercialization:

https://twitter.com/ac_charania/status/1133401889075163136

Quote
Results from Low Earth Orbit Commercialization studies by @NASA conducted by commercial companies, including @blueorigin nasa.gov/feature/study-…

(Thread for whole study here (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48238.0).)
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: meekGee on 05/28/2019 04:54 pm
Interesting question - which I don’t know the answer to: What is the comparative construction cost, excluding launch costs, of building a base on Mars vs building a comparatively sized space station. Including maintenance costs in the long term?

Say a permanent habitat for 1000 people.
If it's a colony, it's not about building the walls.

The space colony has to be fully closed.


No it doesn't. It can send a vehicle out to pick up material just like mars colony does. The Navy's rail gun is not some massive ridiculous thing either. It accelerates projects to mach 7.5 in an atmosphere. That just happens to be 2.5 km/s or what is required to place mass into high lunar orbit.

see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moptTasAkVQ
Heh that's tte definition of needing to be closed..  sure, go ahead and rail gun over the water...  But that's not like having a planetary water reservoir.

Tonnage wise, consumable outweigh everything, and bull construction material is second.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: ncb1397 on 05/28/2019 05:23 pm
Interesting question - which I don’t know the answer to: What is the comparative construction cost, excluding launch costs, of building a base on Mars vs building a comparatively sized space station. Including maintenance costs in the long term?

Say a permanent habitat for 1000 people.
If it's a colony, it's not about building the walls.

The space colony has to be fully closed.


No it doesn't. It can send a vehicle out to pick up material just like mars colony does. The Navy's rail gun is not some massive ridiculous thing either. It accelerates projects to mach 7.5 in an atmosphere. That just happens to be 2.5 km/s or what is required to place mass into high lunar orbit.

see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moptTasAkVQ
Heh that's tte definition of needing to be closed..  sure, go ahead and rail gun over the water...  But that's not like having a planetary water reservoir.

Tonnage wise, consumable outweigh everything, and bull construction material is second.

You aren't considering how energy poor a Mars colony is going to be. Energy payback for solar panel production on earth is about 4 years. On Mars, it would be 2.25x that or 9 years. You could only organically and self-sufficiently grow your solar cell production at a maximum rate of doubling every 9 years. This is if you put 100% of your energy output into the mining/refining of material for and construction of more panels. Of course, it wouldn't be close to that. In free space at 1 AU, your rate of doubling would top out at about 4.5x as fast or every 2 years as the energy required to place the material there from the moon is inconsequential (payback is measured in days).

The hypothetical end point is a colony with a million people. Assuming that 200 MW of mean output solar power is imported from earth but the colony has to provide the rest, to provide the 10 kilowatts of average per capita useage in the United States for a million people would be 10 GW. To grow 200 MW to 10 GW doubling every 9 years would require about 6 doublings or 54 years. If the start of this is 15 years in the future, that is 69 years. Elon Musk is 47 years old, so he would be 116 years old. Bezos is 55 years old and would be 124 years old.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: rakaydos on 05/28/2019 05:41 pm
Interesting question - which I don’t know the answer to: What is the comparative construction cost, excluding launch costs, of building a base on Mars vs building a comparatively sized space station. Including maintenance costs in the long term?

Say a permanent habitat for 1000 people.
If it's a colony, it's not about building the walls.

The space colony has to be fully closed.


No it doesn't. It can send a vehicle out to pick up material just like mars colony does. The Navy's rail gun is not some massive ridiculous thing either. It accelerates projects to mach 7.5 in an atmosphere. That just happens to be 2.5 km/s or what is required to place mass into high lunar orbit.

see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moptTasAkVQ
Heh that's tte definition of needing to be closed..  sure, go ahead and rail gun over the water...  But that's not like having a planetary water reservoir.

Tonnage wise, consumable outweigh everything, and bull construction material is second.

You aren't considering how energy poor a Mars colony is going to be. Energy payback for solar panel production on earth is about 4 years. On Mars, it would be 2.25x that or 9 years. You could only organically and self-sufficiently grow your solar cell production at a maximum rate of doubling every 9 years. This is if you put 100% of your energy output into the mining/refining of material for and construction of more panels. Of course, it wouldn't be close to that. In free space at 1 AU, your rate of doubling would top out at about 4.5x as fast or every 2 years as the energy requires to place there material there from the moon is inconsequential (payback is measured in days).

The hypothetical end point is a colony with a million people. Assuming that 200 MW of mean output solar power is imported from earth but the colony has to provide the rest, to provide the 10 kilowatts of average per capita useage in the United States for a million people would be 10 GW. To grow 200 MW to 10 GW doubling every 9 years would require about 6 doublings or 54 years. If the start of this is 15 years in the future, that is 69 years. Elon Musk is 47 years old, so he would be 116 years old. Bezos is 55 years old and would be 124 years old.
Since you have the numbers on hand, can you break down that doubling time by process? I strongly suspect that, once you figure in transportation energy for raw materials, (for the sake of easy energy comparison, lets say you have infinite Krypton or Argon for ion engines) your "free space" solar panel will get a LOT less efficient.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: ncb1397 on 05/28/2019 05:53 pm
Since you have the numbers on hand, can you break down that doubling time by process? I strongly suspect that, once you figure in transportation energy for raw materials, (for the sake of easy energy comparison, lets say you have infinite Krypton or Argon for ion engines) your "free space" solar panel will get a LOT less efficient.

You would probably use oxygen for ion engines for the "last mile" to the colony as lunar ISRU would produce a lot of excess. The European Space Agency has an engine that uses a mix of oxygen and nitrogen:

https://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Engineering_Technology/World-first_firing_of_air-breathing_electric_thruster
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: meekGee on 05/28/2019 05:58 pm



You aren't considering how energy poor a Mars colony is going to be. Energy payback for solar panel production on earth is about 4 years. On Mars, it would be 2.25x that or 9 years.

Can you back that up please?  What PV technology are you referring to?

I completely agree that power is everything on Mars, and that energy payback time is the #1 metric for locally produced cells (as opposed to power mass density for cells brought from Earth) - but I think your numbers are wrong.

Also, there's a hybrid approach where you bring thinned cells from Earth (with insane power densities) and produce plastic substrate on Mars.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: rakaydos on 05/28/2019 06:06 pm
Since you have the numbers on hand, can you break down that doubling time by process? I strongly suspect that, once you figure in transportation energy for raw materials, (for the sake of easy energy comparison, lets say you have infinite Krypton or Argon for ion engines) your "free space" solar panel will get a LOT less efficient.

You would probably use oxygen for ion engines for the "last mile" to the colony as lunar ISRU would produce a lot of excess. The European Space Agency has an engine that uses a mix of oxygen and nitrogen:

https://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Engineering_Technology/World-first_firing_of_air-breathing_electric_thruster
That's a convient way to get infinite propellant (though you might be better off with a 200 km orbit ram air collector using that technology to maintain orbit, rather than importing it from the moon) but that doesn't answer the question. How much energy does it take to transport  raw silicon to your free-flying station, in terms of the resulting solar cell's own output?
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: ncb1397 on 05/28/2019 06:29 pm
Since you have the numbers on hand, can you break down that doubling time by process? I strongly suspect that, once you figure in transportation energy for raw materials, (for the sake of easy energy comparison, lets say you have infinite Krypton or Argon for ion engines) your "free space" solar panel will get a LOT less efficient.

You would probably use oxygen for ion engines for the "last mile" to the colony as lunar ISRU would produce a lot of excess. The European Space Agency has an engine that uses a mix of oxygen and nitrogen:

https://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Engineering_Technology/World-first_firing_of_air-breathing_electric_thruster
That's a convient way to get infinite propellant (though you might be better off with a 200 km orbit ram air collector using that technology to maintain orbit, rather than importing it from the moon) but that doesn't answer the question. How much energy does it take to transport  raw silicon to your free-flying station, in terms of the resulting solar cell's own output?

It depends. What propulsion technology are using? Electromagnetics, Nuclear thermal, hydrolox, methalox, ion engines, solid propellant (probably a mix)? What is the dry mass of your rocket if you are indeed using a rocket? Are the magnets on your electromagnetic propulsion system superconducting?

But see my earlier post for some idea if you haven't read it:

click quote link...

Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Barley on 05/28/2019 06:59 pm
A 1000-person Mars colony has all the CO2 and water it needs so can run very low cost agriculture.   It can make basic plastics pretty easily, and one of the earlier goals will be to make the bulk mass of solar cells, because he only real limitation is power.

They may be importing fine copper wire and medicine even many years from now, but I absolutely expect the tonnage to drop.
I find it fascinating what people think will be easy to make in space or mars.  Solar cells and plastics, but not fine copper wire.  Something we've been making on earth since the end of the stone age.  Personally I'd expect a 1000-person colony to be doing things very differently.  Maybe thermal solar and mineral insulated wire.

I'd expect the main exports to be scientific knowledge (and hopes and dreams).  And the main imports to be knowledge -- because there are far more brains on earth that can figure out the best uses for whatever manufacturing capacity they have.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: meekGee on 05/28/2019 07:13 pm
A 1000-person Mars colony has all the CO2 and water it needs so can run very low cost agriculture.   It can make basic plastics pretty easily, and one of the earlier goals will be to make the bulk mass of solar cells, because he only real limitation is power.

They may be importing fine copper wire and medicine even many years from now, but I absolutely expect the tonnage to drop.
I find it fascinating what people think will be easy to make in space or mars.  Solar cells and plastics, but not fine copper wire.  Something we've been making on earth since the end of the stone age.  Personally I'd expect a 1000-person colony to be doing things very differently.  Maybe thermal solar and mineral insulated wire.

I'd expect the main exports to be scientific knowledge (and hopes and dreams).  And the main imports to be knowledge -- because there are far more brains on earth that can figure out the best uses for whatever manufacturing capacity they have.
Yeah, I thought twice about the copper wire example..  To me it's a midway step between bulk plastic and medicine, simply because plastics are made out of precursor gasses that already have to be made, and can be made in small quantities, whereas fine wire requires mining infrastructure and larger volume machines, that's all....
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Coastal Ron on 05/28/2019 07:27 pm
A 1000-person Mars colony has all the CO2 and water it needs so can run very low cost agriculture.   It can make basic plastics pretty easily, and one of the earlier goals will be to make the bulk mass of solar cells, because he only real limitation is power.

They may be importing fine copper wire and medicine even many years from now, but I absolutely expect the tonnage to drop.
I find it fascinating what people think will be easy to make in space or mars.  Solar cells and plastics, but not fine copper wire.  Something we've been making on earth since the end of the stone age.

To make copper in volume requires a lot of chemicals and water, both of which will be in short supply on Mars initially. In fact many types of basic material we take for granted, such as aluminum, are very difficult to extract and refine.

Quote
Personally I'd expect a 1000-person colony to be doing things very differently.  Maybe thermal solar and mineral insulated wire.

Depending on who you believe, both necessity (https://hbr.org/2011/03/necessity-not-scarcity-is-the) and scarcity (https://hbr.org/2011/01/the-number-one-key-to-innovati) are the mothers of invention, and both necessity and scarcity will define the early days of Mars colonization.

Quote
I'd expect the main exports to be scientific knowledge (and hopes and dreams).  And the main imports to be knowledge -- because there are far more brains on earth that can figure out the best uses for whatever manufacturing capacity they have.

Yes, information will likely be the major export of Mars colonists, but Mars will need from Earth what we take for granted - products made from refined material of all types. Because mining will take a long time on Mars, for many reasons, meaning if a Mars colony is to grow it will require material from Earth to do that.

And the same is true for industrial parks in space. Until we can find sources of supply in space, and figure out how to extract, refine, and create end item products in large quantities, we will be relying on Earth for the material needed to expand humanity out into space - and relying on Earth will be a major gating item.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Tulse on 05/28/2019 07:32 pm
Yeah, I thought twice about the copper wire example..  To me it's a midway step between bulk plastic and medicine
I would think that a lot of medicine can/could be made via bioengineering, and thus while they may take some sophisticated gear many such substances may also be as easy to generate as beer, compared to large mining/refining operations.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: meekGee on 05/28/2019 07:39 pm
Yeah, I thought twice about the copper wire example..  To me it's a midway step between bulk plastic and medicine
I would think that a lot of medicine can/could be made via bioengineering, and thus while they may take some sophisticated gear many such substances may also be as easy to generate as beer, compared to large mining/refining operations.
From what I know, it's not that easy to make drugs.  Lots of underlying infrastructure, and lots of testing necessary since if you get the drug a little bit wrong, and it does the wrong thing, the outcome is generally bad.

I'm having a blast thinking about copper vs. plastic though.  That's a worthy bet.  I'm still thinking plastic FTW though.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Barley on 05/28/2019 10:58 pm
Whatever materials are produced locally I'd expect it to be easier to produce more of the same instead of starting to produce something new.  Local manufacturing might use relatively few materials and related byproducts.   Materials like copper or polyethylene can be used for a lot of things even if they are not optimal. 

What is produced first would be contingent on all sorts of things, such as finding high grade ores or even native metals, but once they can produce something in volume from local resources they'd start using it for everything they could.  So lots of things made out of a material you'd never use on Earth.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: TrevorMonty on 05/29/2019 12:56 am
Any Oneil colony would be built using already established in space mining (asteriods, moon) manufacturing industry. The colony revenue stream would be same as this industry. Most likely production of GW space solar power stations for supplying power to earth.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Mandella on 05/29/2019 02:43 am

You aren't considering how energy poor a Mars colony is going to be. Energy payback for solar panel production on earth is about 4 years. On Mars, it would be 2.25x that or 9 years.

Wait what? Is there a citation for that? If true, then the midrange panels helping to power my house right now took ~1200 kilowatts of energy to manufacturer apiece.

I suppose that might be possible, but it sure seems high.

Also, unless you are having a dust storm on Mars the sky is going to be clear -- you shouldn't have the frequent cloud cover that has to be factored into Earthside energy production.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/29/2019 03:34 am
Interesting question - which I don’t know the answer to: What is the comparative construction cost, excluding launch costs, of building a base on Mars vs building a comparatively sized space station. Including maintenance costs in the long term?

Say a permanent habitat for 1000 people.
If it's a colony, it's not about building the walls.

The space colony has to be fully closed.


No it doesn't. It can send a vehicle out to pick up material just like mars colony does. The Navy's rail gun is not some massive ridiculous thing either. It accelerates projects to mach 7.5 in an atmosphere. That just happens to be 2.5 km/s or what is required to place mass into high lunar orbit.

see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moptTasAkVQ
Heh that's tte definition of needing to be closed..  sure, go ahead and rail gun over the water...  But that's not like having a planetary water reservoir.

Tonnage wise, consumable outweigh everything, and bull construction material is second.

You aren't considering how energy poor a Mars colony is going to be. Energy payback for solar panel production on earth is about 4 years. On Mars, it would be 2.25x that or 9 years. You could only organically and self-sufficiently grow your solar cell production at a maximum rate of doubling every 9 years. This is if you put 100% of your energy output into the mining/refining of material for and construction of more panels. Of course, it wouldn't be close to that. In free space at 1 AU, your rate of doubling would top out at about 4.5x as fast or every 2 years as the energy required to place the material there from the moon is inconsequential (payback is measured in days).

The hypothetical end point is a colony with a million people. Assuming that 200 MW of mean output solar power is imported from earth but the colony has to provide the rest, to provide the 10 kilowatts of average per capita useage in the United States for a million people would be 10 GW. To grow 200 MW to 10 GW doubling every 9 years would require about 6 doublings or 54 years. If the start of this is 15 years in the future, that is 69 years. Elon Musk is 47 years old, so he would be 116 years old. Bezos is 55 years old and would be 124 years old.

Modern solar cells like state of the art CdTe have an energy payback more like 0.5-0.7 years on Earth, and this keeps improving over time (organic and perovskite cells are in the 3 months range, state of the art). It is suggested some cells could have an energy payback time of one day: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236017541_Solar_cells_with_one-day_energy_payback_for_the_factories_of_the_future
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Yggdrasill on 05/29/2019 08:48 am
What is produced first would be contingent on all sorts of things, such as finding high grade ores or even native metals, but once they can produce something in volume from local resources they'd start using it for everything they could.  So lots of things made out of a material you'd never use on Earth.
I'd agree with this. In theory, if you found huge deposits of gold, which requires very little processing, you would just use this for wiring, and maybe even pots and pans.

You can do a lot with very few materials. Steel, plastics, silicon and copper/gold/aluminium gets you quite far. Most of the rest can be imported without much problems.

Medicines definitely wouldn't be a problem to import. 1 ton of medicines would last a population of 1000 people for quite a while. Of course, you might want to make some medical supplies on Mars relatively soon. Like bags of saline, which are simple to make and are relatively heavy.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Mandella on 05/29/2019 06:33 pm
Interesting question - which I don’t know the answer to: What is the comparative construction cost, excluding launch costs, of building a base on Mars vs building a comparatively sized space station. Including maintenance costs in the long term?

Say a permanent habitat for 1000 people.
If it's a colony, it's not about building the walls.

The space colony has to be fully closed.


No it doesn't. It can send a vehicle out to pick up material just like mars colony does. The Navy's rail gun is not some massive ridiculous thing either. It accelerates projects to mach 7.5 in an atmosphere. That just happens to be 2.5 km/s or what is required to place mass into high lunar orbit.

see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moptTasAkVQ
Heh that's tte definition of needing to be closed..  sure, go ahead and rail gun over the water...  But that's not like having a planetary water reservoir.

Tonnage wise, consumable outweigh everything, and bull construction material is second.

You aren't considering how energy poor a Mars colony is going to be. Energy payback for solar panel production on earth is about 4 years. On Mars, it would be 2.25x that or 9 years. You could only organically and self-sufficiently grow your solar cell production at a maximum rate of doubling every 9 years. This is if you put 100% of your energy output into the mining/refining of material for and construction of more panels. Of course, it wouldn't be close to that. In free space at 1 AU, your rate of doubling would top out at about 4.5x as fast or every 2 years as the energy required to place the material there from the moon is inconsequential (payback is measured in days).

The hypothetical end point is a colony with a million people. Assuming that 200 MW of mean output solar power is imported from earth but the colony has to provide the rest, to provide the 10 kilowatts of average per capita useage in the United States for a million people would be 10 GW. To grow 200 MW to 10 GW doubling every 9 years would require about 6 doublings or 54 years. If the start of this is 15 years in the future, that is 69 years. Elon Musk is 47 years old, so he would be 116 years old. Bezos is 55 years old and would be 124 years old.

Modern solar cells like state of the art CdTe have an energy payback more like 0.5-0.7 years on Earth, and this keeps improving over time (organic and perovskite cells are in the 3 months range, state of the art). It is suggested some cells could have an energy payback time of one day: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236017541_Solar_cells_with_one-day_energy_payback_for_the_factories_of_the_future

I'm thinking the confusion might be that he is conflating financial payback with energy payback. In which case, yes, on Earth right now it will probably be on the order of four years or so to recoup the panel investment.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: ncb1397 on 05/29/2019 06:48 pm
Interesting question - which I don’t know the answer to: What is the comparative construction cost, excluding launch costs, of building a base on Mars vs building a comparatively sized space station. Including maintenance costs in the long term?

Say a permanent habitat for 1000 people.
If it's a colony, it's not about building the walls.

The space colony has to be fully closed.


No it doesn't. It can send a vehicle out to pick up material just like mars colony does. The Navy's rail gun is not some massive ridiculous thing either. It accelerates projects to mach 7.5 in an atmosphere. That just happens to be 2.5 km/s or what is required to place mass into high lunar orbit.

see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moptTasAkVQ
Heh that's tte definition of needing to be closed..  sure, go ahead and rail gun over the water...  But that's not like having a planetary water reservoir.

Tonnage wise, consumable outweigh everything, and bull construction material is second.

You aren't considering how energy poor a Mars colony is going to be. Energy payback for solar panel production on earth is about 4 years. On Mars, it would be 2.25x that or 9 years. You could only organically and self-sufficiently grow your solar cell production at a maximum rate of doubling every 9 years. This is if you put 100% of your energy output into the mining/refining of material for and construction of more panels. Of course, it wouldn't be close to that. In free space at 1 AU, your rate of doubling would top out at about 4.5x as fast or every 2 years as the energy required to place the material there from the moon is inconsequential (payback is measured in days).

The hypothetical end point is a colony with a million people. Assuming that 200 MW of mean output solar power is imported from earth but the colony has to provide the rest, to provide the 10 kilowatts of average per capita useage in the United States for a million people would be 10 GW. To grow 200 MW to 10 GW doubling every 9 years would require about 6 doublings or 54 years. If the start of this is 15 years in the future, that is 69 years. Elon Musk is 47 years old, so he would be 116 years old. Bezos is 55 years old and would be 124 years old.

Modern solar cells like state of the art CdTe have an energy payback more like 0.5-0.7 years on Earth, and this keeps improving over time (organic and perovskite cells are in the 3 months range, state of the art). It is suggested some cells could have an energy payback time of one day: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236017541_Solar_cells_with_one-day_energy_payback_for_the_factories_of_the_future

I'm thinking the confusion might be that he is conflating financial payback with energy payback. In which case, yes, on Earth right now it will probably be on the order of four years or so to recoup the panel investment.

Just checked the Tesla website. I configured a 4 system unit and their price after $12,000 federal tax credit was $28,000, or in other words: $40,000. With their recommended 4 powerwalls, at an additional cost of $27,900, the cost would be $67,900. They estimated it would generate $54,950 over 20 years. So, not even close to 4 years with or without storage (which would be required for near 100% solar use on Mars BTW).

Anyways, even if we assume 2 year energy payback and 70% of energy use going to panel production (the other 30% going to other colony needs), the rate of doubling at mars is still (2 x 2.25 )/.7 or 6.5 years. A bit better than 9.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: meekGee on 05/29/2019 07:03 pm
Interesting question - which I don’t know the answer to: What is the comparative construction cost, excluding launch costs, of building a base on Mars vs building a comparatively sized space station. Including maintenance costs in the long term?

Say a permanent habitat for 1000 people.
If it's a colony, it's not about building the walls.

The space colony has to be fully closed.


No it doesn't. It can send a vehicle out to pick up material just like mars colony does. The Navy's rail gun is not some massive ridiculous thing either. It accelerates projects to mach 7.5 in an atmosphere. That just happens to be 2.5 km/s or what is required to place mass into high lunar orbit.

see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moptTasAkVQ
Heh that's tte definition of needing to be closed..  sure, go ahead and rail gun over the water...  But that's not like having a planetary water reservoir.

Tonnage wise, consumable outweigh everything, and bull construction material is second.

You aren't considering how energy poor a Mars colony is going to be. Energy payback for solar panel production on earth is about 4 years. On Mars, it would be 2.25x that or 9 years. You could only organically and self-sufficiently grow your solar cell production at a maximum rate of doubling every 9 years. This is if you put 100% of your energy output into the mining/refining of material for and construction of more panels. Of course, it wouldn't be close to that. In free space at 1 AU, your rate of doubling would top out at about 4.5x as fast or every 2 years as the energy required to place the material there from the moon is inconsequential (payback is measured in days).

The hypothetical end point is a colony with a million people. Assuming that 200 MW of mean output solar power is imported from earth but the colony has to provide the rest, to provide the 10 kilowatts of average per capita useage in the United States for a million people would be 10 GW. To grow 200 MW to 10 GW doubling every 9 years would require about 6 doublings or 54 years. If the start of this is 15 years in the future, that is 69 years. Elon Musk is 47 years old, so he would be 116 years old. Bezos is 55 years old and would be 124 years old.

Modern solar cells like state of the art CdTe have an energy payback more like 0.5-0.7 years on Earth, and this keeps improving over time (organic and perovskite cells are in the 3 months range, state of the art). It is suggested some cells could have an energy payback time of one day: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236017541_Solar_cells_with_one-day_energy_payback_for_the_factories_of_the_future

I'm thinking the confusion might be that he is conflating financial payback with energy payback. In which case, yes, on Earth right now it will probably be on the order of four years or so to recoup the panel investment.

Just checked the Tesla website. I configured a 4 system unit and their price after $12,000 federal tax credit was $28,000, or in other words: $40,000. With their recommended 4 powerwalls, at an additional cost of $27,900, the cost would be $67,900. They estimated it would generate $54,950 over 20 years. So, not even close to 4 years with or without storage (which would be required for near 100% solar use on Mars BTW).

Anyways, even if we assume 2 year energy payback and 70% of energy use going to panel production (the other 30% going to other colony needs), the rate of doubling at mars is still (2 x 2.25 )/.7 or 6.5 years. A bit better than 9.
You're trying to infer energy cost from consumer pricing...  Which include anything from installation insurance to who knows what...

You'd get a better answer for energy payback if you research the actual energy requirements.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: ncb1397 on 05/29/2019 07:11 pm
You're trying to infer energy cost from consumer pricing...  Which include anything from installation insurance to who knows what...

You'd get a better answer for energy payback if you research the actual energy requirements.

I made the mistake of using the upper end of estimates. I didn't make the mistake of inferring energy cost from financial cost.

Quote
Energy payback estimates for rooftop PV systems are 4, 3, 2, and 1 years: 4 years for systems using current multicrystalline-silicon PV modules, 3 years for current thin-film modules, 2 years for anticipated multicrystalline modules, and 1 year for anticipated thin-film modules (see Figure 1). With energy paybacks of 1 to 4 years and assumed life expectancies of 30 years, 87% to 97% of the energy that PV systems generate won’t be plagued by pollution, greenhouse gases, and depletion of resources.
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35489.pdf

6.5 years is likely more accurate given reasonable colony draw and being on the lower half of 1-4 years depending on technology. This isn't counting that it is probable that Mars ISRU is going to be more energy intensive than Earth ISRU. Mining crews on earth don't need life support, equipment doesn't need heaters active to not fail, there is an extensive distribution network that minimizes transportation energy expenditure, everything is done at a larger scale, etc.

It should be pointed out that total output in 2017 globally was only 460 TWh[1] which is mean output of roughly 50 GW. To scale to 10 GW on Mars with 2.25x less solar insolation is going to be extremely difficult.

[1] https://www.iea.org/topics/renewables/solar/
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: meekGee on 05/29/2019 08:24 pm
You're trying to infer energy cost from consumer pricing...  Which include anything from installation insurance to who knows what...

You'd get a better answer for energy payback if you research the actual energy requirements.

I made the mistake of using the upper end of estimates. I didn't make the mistake of inferring energy cost from financial cost.

Quote
Energy payback estimates for rooftop PV systems are 4, 3, 2, and 1 years: 4 years for systems using current multicrystalline-silicon PV modules, 3 years for current thin-film modules, 2 years for anticipated multicrystalline modules, and 1 year for anticipated thin-film modules (see Figure 1). With energy paybacks of 1 to 4 years and assumed life expectancies of 30 years, 87% to 97% of the energy that PV systems generate won’t be plagued by pollution, greenhouse gases, and depletion of resources.
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35489.pdf

6.5 years is likely more accurate given reasonable colony draw and being on the lower half of 1-4 years depending on technology. This isn't counting that it is probable that Mars ISRU is going to be more energy intensive than Earth ISRU. Mining crews on earth don't need life support, equipment doesn't need heaters active to not fail, there is an extensive distribution network that minimizes transportation energy expenditure, everything is done at a larger scale, etc.

It should be pointed out that total output in 2017 globally was only 460 TWh[1] which is mean output of roughly 50 GW. To scale to 10 GW on Mars with 2.25x less solar insolation is going to be extremely difficult.

[1] https://www.iea.org/topics/renewables/solar/

Yeah, looked at same document:
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35489.pdf

Note that this is for a roof top installation, US average, so already includes a significant amount of de-rating due to weather.

Consider the bottom line, since a Mars system will be optimized for energy payback.  In fact, since "cost is not an issue" (since you're not competing with coal or gas) you can optimize the system further towards energy payback and less towards cost payback.

So expect 1 yr under average US illumination, so maybe 2 years under Martian, unless they make some trade of cost vs. energy (e.g. 2x concentration using mylar reflectors) in which case you're back down to 1 yr.

With that sort of payback, once you have production capability on Mars, you're off to the races, since land is practically unlimited.

Now, you can also bring in thin film cells w/o substrate (at an absolutely insane Watt/kg) and only make the plastic substrate locally.  That will allow you to bootstrap so that you don't have to start self-doubling process from zero...
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Mandella on 05/29/2019 08:48 pm
Quote
Just checked the Tesla website. I configured a 4 system unit and their price after $12,000 federal tax credit was $28,000, or in other words: $40,000. With their recommended 4 powerwalls, at an additional cost of $27,900, the cost would be $67,900. They estimated it would generate $54,950 over 20 years. So, not even close to 4 years with or without storage (which would be required for near 100% solar use on Mars BTW).

Anyways, even if we assume 2 year energy payback and 70% of energy use going to panel production (the other 30% going to other colony needs), the rate of doubling at mars is still (2 x 2.25 )/.7 or 6.5 years. A bit better than 9.

Okay, we're getting into "Not even wrong" territory, but I was just figuring your confusion was to do with the consumer pricing on just the panels. Adding everything else in, inverters, wiring, supporting frame and labor and my system should pay for itself well before the ten years calculated (I also did not go Tesla, and I haven't added in batteries yet). The individual panels aren't even that pricey, at less than $300.00 a piece, making my whole rack less than $6000.00.

But all that is way beside the point, since we were trying to figure out were you were getting the value for the energy requirements to *manufacturer* the panels, not the rate of consumer recoup on the investment.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Barley on 05/29/2019 08:50 pm

Consider the bottom line, since a Mars system will be optimized for energy payback.  In fact, since "cost is not an issue" (since you're not competing with coal or gas) you can optimize the system further towards energy payback and less towards cost payback.

Production requires energy, labor, machines, various raw materials, parts from other production lines and probably minimal but important imports from earth (e.g. micro controllers to run DC/DC converters).  All of these are scarce.  All of them are needed for many different purposes.

In a market economy we roll these into cost and let Adam Smith allocate resources.  In a functioning command economy we take all of them into account and allocate resources.  In a non-functioning command economy we ignore this, optimize for energy payback and everybody dies.

Costs matter.  Getting costs correct also matters.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: ncb1397 on 05/29/2019 09:35 pm
You're trying to infer energy cost from consumer pricing...  Which include anything from installation insurance to who knows what...

You'd get a better answer for energy payback if you research the actual energy requirements.

I made the mistake of using the upper end of estimates. I didn't make the mistake of inferring energy cost from financial cost.

Quote
Energy payback estimates for rooftop PV systems are 4, 3, 2, and 1 years: 4 years for systems using current multicrystalline-silicon PV modules, 3 years for current thin-film modules, 2 years for anticipated multicrystalline modules, and 1 year for anticipated thin-film modules (see Figure 1). With energy paybacks of 1 to 4 years and assumed life expectancies of 30 years, 87% to 97% of the energy that PV systems generate won’t be plagued by pollution, greenhouse gases, and depletion of resources.
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35489.pdf

6.5 years is likely more accurate given reasonable colony draw and being on the lower half of 1-4 years depending on technology. This isn't counting that it is probable that Mars ISRU is going to be more energy intensive than Earth ISRU. Mining crews on earth don't need life support, equipment doesn't need heaters active to not fail, there is an extensive distribution network that minimizes transportation energy expenditure, everything is done at a larger scale, etc.

It should be pointed out that total output in 2017 globally was only 460 TWh[1] which is mean output of roughly 50 GW. To scale to 10 GW on Mars with 2.25x less solar insolation is going to be extremely difficult.

[1] https://www.iea.org/topics/renewables/solar/

Yeah, looked at same document:
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35489.pdf

Note that this is for a roof top installation, US average, so already includes a significant amount of de-rating due to weather.

Consider the bottom line, since a Mars system will be optimized for energy payback.  In fact, since "cost is not an issue" (since you're not competing with coal or gas) you can optimize the system further towards energy payback and less towards cost payback.

So expect 1 yr under average US illumination, so maybe 2 years under Martian, unless they make some trade of cost vs. energy (e.g. 2x concentration using mylar reflectors) in which case you're back down to 1 yr.

With that sort of payback, once you have production capability on Mars, you're off to the races, since land is practically unlimited.

Now, you can also bring in thin film cells w/o substrate (at an absolutely insane Watt/kg) and only make the plastic substrate locally.  That will allow you to bootstrap so that you don't have to start self-doubling process from zero...

We need to pin this down a bit better. Solar insolation at the top of the atmosphere at Earth is 1.37 KW/m^2. Earth's average distance from the sun is 1 AU and Mars is 1.524 AU[1]. This puts solar insolation at Mars average distance at 1.37 /(1.524^2) or .59 KW. On Earth, 30% of sunlight is scattered and 19% is absorbed[2] leaving 51% of the 1.37 KW/m^2 or .7 KW/m^2. On Mars, you have blockage due to sand storms but also an atmosphere and suspended dust during normal conditions as well. Tau factors that I have seen measured indicate a normal optical depth tau measurement of about .5 which indicates ~40% of light is blocked (it can go way higher than that during mild/extreme sandstorm activity). This puts solar power at .59 KW/m2^2 * .6 or .35 KW/m^2. The ratio between earth and mars should therefore be .7/.35 or 2. 2.25 was slightly off but this isn't taking into account storm activity.

[1]https://www.universetoday.com/14822/how-far-is-mars-from-the-sun/
[2]https://www.sandia.gov/~jytsao/Solar%20FAQs.pdf
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: meekGee on 05/29/2019 09:37 pm
You're trying to infer energy cost from consumer pricing...  Which include anything from installation insurance to who knows what...

You'd get a better answer for energy payback if you research the actual energy requirements.

I made the mistake of using the upper end of estimates. I didn't make the mistake of inferring energy cost from financial cost.

Quote
Energy payback estimates for rooftop PV systems are 4, 3, 2, and 1 years: 4 years for systems using current multicrystalline-silicon PV modules, 3 years for current thin-film modules, 2 years for anticipated multicrystalline modules, and 1 year for anticipated thin-film modules (see Figure 1). With energy paybacks of 1 to 4 years and assumed life expectancies of 30 years, 87% to 97% of the energy that PV systems generate won’t be plagued by pollution, greenhouse gases, and depletion of resources.
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35489.pdf

6.5 years is likely more accurate given reasonable colony draw and being on the lower half of 1-4 years depending on technology. This isn't counting that it is probable that Mars ISRU is going to be more energy intensive than Earth ISRU. Mining crews on earth don't need life support, equipment doesn't need heaters active to not fail, there is an extensive distribution network that minimizes transportation energy expenditure, everything is done at a larger scale, etc.

It should be pointed out that total output in 2017 globally was only 460 TWh[1] which is mean output of roughly 50 GW. To scale to 10 GW on Mars with 2.25x less solar insolation is going to be extremely difficult.

[1] https://www.iea.org/topics/renewables/solar/

Yeah, looked at same document:
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35489.pdf

Note that this is for a roof top installation, US average, so already includes a significant amount of de-rating due to weather.

Consider the bottom line, since a Mars system will be optimized for energy payback.  In fact, since "cost is not an issue" (since you're not competing with coal or gas) you can optimize the system further towards energy payback and less towards cost payback.

So expect 1 yr under average US illumination, so maybe 2 years under Martian, unless they make some trade of cost vs. energy (e.g. 2x concentration using mylar reflectors) in which case you're back down to 1 yr.

With that sort of payback, once you have production capability on Mars, you're off to the races, since land is practically unlimited.

Now, you can also bring in thin film cells w/o substrate (at an absolutely insane Watt/kg) and only make the plastic substrate locally.  That will allow you to bootstrap so that you don't have to start self-doubling process from zero...

We need to pin this down a bit better. Solar insolation at the top of the atmosphere at Earth is 1.37 KW/m^2. Earth's average distance from the sun is 1 AU and Mars is 1.524 AU[1]. This puts solar insolation at Mars average distance at 1.37 /(1.524^2) or .59 KW. On Earth, 30% of sunlight is scattered and 19% is absorbed[2] leaving 51% of the 1.37 KW/m^2 or .7 KW/m^2. On Mars, you have blockage due to sand storms but also an atmosphere and suspended dust during normal conditions as well. Tau factors that I have seen measured indicate a normal optical depth tau measurement of about .5 which indicates ~40% of light is blocked (it can go way higher than that during mild/extreme sandstorm activity). This puts solar power at .59 KW/m2^2 * .6 or .35 KW/m^2. The ratio between earth and mars should therefore be .7/.35 or 2. 2.25 was slightly off but this isn't taking into account storm activity.

[1]https://www.universetoday.com/14822/how-far-is-mars-from-the-sun/
[2]https://www.sandia.gov/~jytsao/Solar%20FAQs.pdf
Right, I used 2x.  These are ballpark estimates anyway
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: ncb1397 on 05/29/2019 10:38 pm
Right, I used 2x.  These are ballpark estimates anyway

Well, we will see. My model suggests that with an energy payback of 4 years at Mars compared to 2 at Earth and 1 in  space at 1 AU, starting at 200 MW and using 70% of energy output for energy expansion staring in 2035, compounding every 3 months, the Mars colony reaches 10 GW by 2058 and the in space variant reaches 10 GW in 2041 almost 2 decades earlier. Maybe the nation of O'Neill city-states can go to war with Mars one day and we can really see who is better.

Quote
Consider the bottom line, since a Mars system will be optimized for energy payback.  In fact, since "cost is not an issue" (since you're not competing with coal or gas) you can optimize the system further towards energy payback and less towards cost payback.

Cost is a proxy for the amount of resources required in terms of human/energy/mineral. Unless the colony consists of a million gazillionaires, cost/resources will absolutely be a factor. I think, especially in the beginning, the solar cells will be of the less advanced variety (like drywall as Musk puts it).
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: meekGee on 05/30/2019 02:48 am
Cost is a proxy for the amount of resources required in terms of human/energy/mineral. Unless the colony consists of a million gazillionaires, cost/resources will absolutely be a factor. I think, especially in the beginning, the solar cells will be of the less advanced variety (like drywall as Musk puts it).

Initial pioneers will be employees of corps, and the corps will be there to develop the resources, with ultimate ownership remaining on Earth (same model as investing in any developing nation)

Doubtless some will stay after their contracts are done. Maybe most will stay. Being on the ground floor of a new economy is a very lucrative position, risk and all.

Where the gazillionaires come in is the ownership.  Every economy  irrespective of exports, has an inherent value based on what people are willing to invest in.  You invest in a two -taxi service in Beijing in 1980 because you think China will be a thing, and you win when that service grows with the growth of China.  No export necessary, and the investor can remain outside of China.

That's the economic model that builds new economies..  not the export, but the growth in inherent value.

So there will be an emphasis on growing home industries, and power production will be early on the list.  Viable local PV cell production depends on energy payback time, and so IMO they'll put a strong emphasis on that.

We're not talking self-sufficiency here - it's ok to bring the capital equipment from Earth.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: ncb1397 on 05/30/2019 07:49 pm
This is one way that you can build a large colony in space. As previously intimated, a rail gun at the lunar poles will fire aluminum canisters(manufactured on the surface using lunar AL2O3 weighing roughly 100 kg filled with lunar regolith or other material at a speed of ~2.3 km/s. I used to think that you would need something like a small solid motor to avoid recontact, but simulations that I have done(an example trajectory is in the picture below) suggest this is not needed and perturbation from the earth/sun/other bodies is enough to avoid recontact with the surface for weeks'months. The lunar regolith aluminum canister is then captured by a high isp solar electric tug and moved to your colony's orbit(near to the rail gun insertion orbit but with safety margin). The material is refined in space and the oxygen is seperated using the abundant solar power available in cislunar space. Excess oxygen is liquefied and used to fuel the electric ion engines on the in space tugs. The aluminum canisters are recycled and used in the expansion of the colony itself or disposed of on the lunar surface(the disposal areas potentially being mined later for aluminum to create more canisters).

This has numerous benefits compared to Mars colonization...
1.)live teleoperation and technical support from Earth
2.)Quick delivery from earth or evacuation to Earth
3.)more abundant solar power
4.)quick trip times which under re-use allows for more than a dozen transit vehicle cycles.
5.)Earth tourism and income (the length of Mars transit and stay would discourage this).
6.)faster test cycle times (a manufactured item from Earth doesn't have to wait for a launch window every 26 months before it can be tested on site).
7.)the colony can be designed for passive thermal control so power outage or other breakdown doesn't threaten colony survival.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: QuantumG on 05/30/2019 09:59 pm
I used to think that you would need something like a small solid motor to avoid recontact, but simulations that I have done(an example trajectory is in the picture below) suggest this is not needed and perturbation from the earth/sun/other bodies is enough to avoid recontact with the surface for weeks'months.

What software are you using for the simulations? I'd love to see your work, if you're willing to share it.

Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: ncb1397 on 05/30/2019 10:22 pm
I used to think that you would need something like a small solid motor to avoid recontact, but simulations that I have done(an example trajectory is in the picture below) suggest this is not needed and perturbation from the earth/sun/other bodies is enough to avoid recontact with the surface for weeks'months.

What software are you using for the simulations? I'd love to see your work, if you're willing to share it.

It is GMAT R2018a. NASA has other simulation software that isn't freely available. But it is maintained by Goddard and fully certified for NASA mission design use and I believe it was used for LCROSS (probably other stuff as well).

Download link:
https://software.nasa.gov/software/GSC-18094-1

video tutorials:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCt-REODJNr2mB3t-xH6kbjg/videos

Simulating a lunar railgun isn't a very impressive thing and only requires a few nodes to be set up so really not much point in sharing.

If you are a university student, I might suggest a commercial solution like a.i. solutions FreeFlyer: https://ai-solutions.com/freeflyer/freeflyer-university. Still free to use.
Title: Re: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup
Post by: Cheapchips on 07/19/2019 10:59 am
BTW, EVAs don't HAVE to take months of training. That's just what we do.

There are no "commercial EVA" companies. But I'd REALLY like to see someone try one.

Once access to orbit is cheap, train in orbit.

"Welcome to our dedicated EVA training hab. Your week's training includes suit familiarisation, in-hab task training  and five full EVA's to apply your newly acquired skills.   Congratulations! You are now qualified to be another underpaid EVA monkey on the the New New York O'Neil project, sponsored by Amazon Basics!"  :)
 
(My ad may need some finessing)