This is about developing industry in space, not entertaining the masses.
Quote from: QuantumG on 07/18/2017 07:45 amQuote from: woods170 on 07/18/2017 07:12 amBezos 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.
Quote from: woods170 on 07/18/2017 07:12 amBezos doesn't care.... and therefore I don't care. If I want a boring slowpoke program to watch I'll follow China... or NASA.
Bezos doesn't care.
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.
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.pdfPerhaps a solution is to make the clear areas with two layers of plexiglass and fill them with water.
Quote from: Steven Pietrobon on 05/10/2019 11:01 amOne 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.pdfPerhaps 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.
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 05/10/2019 01:31 pmQuote from: Steven Pietrobon on 05/10/2019 11:01 amOne 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.pdfPerhaps 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.
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.
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?
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.
Quote from: RDoc on 05/10/2019 08:32 pmThe 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.
Quote from: RonM on 05/10/2019 08:45 pmQuote from: RDoc on 05/10/2019 08:32 pmThe 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.
Quote from: RonM on 05/11/2019 01:59 amThe 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.
Quote from: Nilof on 05/11/2019 02:13 amQuote from: RonM on 05/11/2019 01:59 amThe 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.