Should there be any space outposts or colonies?

[JohnFornaro]

Backing up the thread a little:  There is no assumption whatsoever about the colonies becoming "quickly" sustainable, nor about establishing manufacturing capabilities "quickly" either.  The forty year timetable to independence is optimistic, symbolic and arbitrary, subject to real world developments.  Perhaps  some sort of totalistic planning paradigm can be supposed, but that is not being suggested either.

Darwinists may not like it, but there is nothing in evolution which requires HSF on the basis of survival. Speculations about asteroids seem to be less probable than full out nuclear war, or the more mundane and traditional, disease, famine and poverty.  Species survival is a necessary but small adjunct to the central idea.  I have not failed to put this issue in perspective.

Apollo has already landed on the Moon.  Any objection to mankind's future spread throughout space will have to acknowledge that chemical rocketry began, and thus bootstrapped the process.  This form of propulsion is the only means of getting off the planet, and will have to be used for any space based purpose for the near term future.  Chemical rocketry has already jumpstarted the colonization process.  It is strictly a matter of will regarding the speed of that colonization.  In any case, a global launch rate of between 100 and 3000 global launches per year seems to be theoretically possible with current technology and physical resource availability.

This is not to say that launch costs can stay where they are for these very high launch rates.  On another thread, there are nuclear propulsion proponents who speak of aneutronic systems almost as if they were deployable, but the claim is premature.  My sense is that nuclear propulsion can be demonstrated in space, far from any tree.  Or pony.  It is clear that the higher ISP's of nuclear propulsion will be able to shorten transit times and increase payloads by significant factors.  This needs to be demonstrated in space, both for safety and reliability, before it can be adopted on Earth.

On the sovereignty issue, I point out that footprints will become an outpost, then a colony, then a body of citizens demanding control over their density. (In a tip o' the pin to McFly)  Historically on Earth, colonies have often resorted to independence through violence.  Occasionally, as happened in the case of Hong Kong, peaceful transitions of power can occur.  This last is an imperfect analogy.  First, however, the issues of atmospheric availability can be discounted entirely regarding politics.  Second, the point is about peaceful transitions of power.  My suspicion is that the objections here will go back to the denial of benefit in long term planning.

It is only later that the outposts can grow their populations, as INSRU manufacturing facilities come on line, and as nuclear propulsion technology becomes proven.  The large mass is already in space  and the small mass, people and knowledge is launched chemically at first.  The atmospheric, water and INSRU objections are technical in nature and not show stoppers by definition, but they do need solution.  In the early stages, I have suggested that pure cargo rockets carrying only Antarctic ice to support the outposts at the earliest possible time.  It may be that UN resolutions can be crafted to allow a limited number  of Orion type launches for these purposes.

There are other cargo loads for the transport of initial materials.  Soil, perhaps?  Struts and glass for a two layered air tight geodesic structure?  A power plant? Excavation equipment?  I suggest that the launch vehicle reactors be designed for dual use, readily convertible to enable power generation for the outpost.  Cylindrical rocket components could be cut in half to provide ceiling structure for construction buried under the regolith.  All of these things can be debated, but to suggest them is not to stipulate them exclusively.

To argue for early nuclear launches before aneutronic technology is developed would imply a definite roadmap for the manifests of the expected launches, so a risk benefit calculation about ambient radiation could be made.  If this proves infeasible, then chemical rockets will have to be made do.

BTW, on another thread, there is speculation about HAB's as being sufficient justification for HSF.  I can go for that.  Beats ponies.

[JohnFornaro]

Jim is right about the 1400's.  We're at 1492.  Columbus proved it could be done, but there were no outposts at that time.  A strict adherence to that schedule,  means 284 years to 1776.  Naturally, this schedule is that of a less technological society; I think it unreasonable to posit three centuries.  Four tenths of one will do, IMO.

His A,B,C reasons are unsubstantiated opinions and as good as mine are.  His argument that a repressive government might not let it happen seems a bit conspiratorial to me, and my Illuminati contacts confirm this.

If William Barton is right in his comparison to our status with the Arab seafarers of 800, then I am probably too optimistic.  But I think our technology availability and population pressures are many  orders of magnitude greater now than then, and I'll hold on to my forty year timetable a bit longer.

With recent financial events, even tho the Fed can't just print money for too long, the argument of trillions of dollars  reeks of weakness.  There is a calculable possibility that we are seeing the first stages of a country spending itself into collapse.

Apollo is to an outpost what a camper is to a small village.

Bunnies.

[Lee Jay]

A strict adherence to that schedule,  means 284 years to 1776.  Naturally, this schedule is that of a less technological society; I think it unreasonable to posit three centuries.  Four tenths of one will do, IMO.

He was going to a place with water, atmospheric pressure, oxygen, suitable temperatures, a magnetic field and atmospheric shield, and abundant life already existing at the site, and he could take a large crew and he could get home in a matter of months.  You are going somewhere with none of those properties at all, yet you think it will take 7 times less time to accomplish.

[Pittsburgh]

But I think our technology availability and population pressures are many  orders of magnitude greater now than then, and I'll hold on to my forty year timetable a bit longer.

I'm sorry, I just can't take any population pressure argument seriously until the costs of space travel go way down.

Sit down and figure out the per-person costs of sending a population to the moon and supporting them (or setting them up to be self-supporting).  What is that number?  $100M?  $500M?  $2B?  If somebody came up to me at the age of 21 and said "I'll give you $500M if you have a vasectomy" I would have taken it in a heartbeat (well, so long as I saw the money first).  Heck, I would have done it for a good deal less than that.  I'm guessing that for the next few centuries at least it will be cheaper to pay people to not have kids that it will be to move people to colonies.

[Jim]

His A,B,C reasons are unsubstantiated opinions and as good as mine are. 

A is not unsubstantiated nor is it an opinion.  Putting something in the VSE about political independence of colonies would carry as much weight as Bush Sr's SEI speech.  The SEI speech has gone on the wayside and so the VSE will follow.

[Jim]

Apollo is to an outpost what a camper is to a small village.

An outpost is not a small village, it is just a few permanent campers

[Jim]

I'll hold on to my forty year timetable a bit longer.

Make your timeline more longer.

It is has been forty years since the first landing and now we are further away then when Kennedy made his speech. 

Next landing is more than 10 years away. 

a finished first outpost is at least 10 years more away (see ISS construction.  The outpost will have its own Columbia type delay)

Are we now thinking of a colony in orbit since the ISS is done?  No, we just looking at using the ISS for another 10 years.

There is hardly enough time in forty years to even think about starting a colony

[kevin-rf]

  I'm guessing that for the next few centuries at least it will be cheaper to pay people to not have kids that it will be to move people to colonies.

You are missing a key point about birth rates, as a population education levels increase, the birth rates decrease. It is hapening all over the civilized world. Why do you think we are gearing up for a whole lotta hurt with SS. One reason is the boomers never gave birth to enough new americans to pay for retirement. The good news is 2007 had the most live US births on record, bodes well for us that will have to pay for the boomers. Some one will be paying our part of the Ponzi in twenty odd years

( http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/19/health/19birth.html )

[Patchouli]

BTW massive amounts of money poured into space exploration or alternative energy would create jobs which would stimulate the economy.

What do you think the war on drugs pays for?

Pretty much it pays for nothing but does create an awful lot of trouble.

I could shoot down 99% of the pro war on drugs comments without even trying but I would risk getting the tread modded for being too political.

Besides I talking high quality jobs and revitalizing interest in science in math.


As for whither Skylon will work or not heck isn't that's why it's called rocket science?
Of course various systems should be tested on an X vehicle before there is a commitment to production.
SSTO may not be the way to go and instead a TSTO configuration may prove to be more cost effective.

They did called the designers of the Saturn V crazy at one point.
Of course history has it's failures too such as Navajo and Dynasoar but the money spent on them did not go to waste.
A lot of lessons learned on both projects did get used on later successful projects.

My big gripe with the X33 and Venture star is no attempt was made to learn any lessons from it or successful parts of the program such as the metallic TPS or aerospike engine applied to other programs as far as I know.
LM might be working on various classified stuff that makes use elements of the X33's technology.
My big complaint with CxP the system makes no effort to make new technology or systems to improve over the cost of STS.
It's an evolutionary dead end.
Even a system based off the EELVs,COTS LVs, and even a shuttle followon would have more long term benefit then Ares by increasing flight rates.

[mlorrey]

BTW massive amounts of money poured into space exploration or alternative energy would create jobs which would stimulate the economy.

What do you think the war on drugs pays for?

War on drugs pays for our police and prison industrial system, where for the price of educating 10 kids every year you can keep one adult incarcerated in a cage the rest of his life. Ya thats a huge return on investment.

[mlorrey]

You are missing a key point about birth rates, as a population education levels increase, the birth rates decrease. It is hapening all over the civilized world. Why do you think we are gearing up for a whole lotta hurt with SS. One reason is the boomers never gave birth to enough new americans to pay for retirement. The good news is 2007 had the most live US births on record, bodes well for us that will have to pay for the boomers. Some one will be paying our part of the Ponzi in twenty odd years

( http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/19/health/19birth.html )

Thats another reason why we've got issues with space funding.

I do, however, have a solution. I propose we start a company offering tickets on an interstellar space liner to senior citizens, headed for a planet called Youtenasia. All you have to do for a ticket is be over the retirement age and give us all your worldly wealth and posessions. They will travel in rejuvinating hybernation for the next century and wake up in a youthful body on a new world. Really. We promise.

[Jim]

1.  Pretty much it pays for nothing but does create an awful lot of trouble.

2.  They did called the designers of the Saturn V crazy at one point.

3.  Of course history has it's failures too such as Navajo and Dynasoar

1.  no it pays for jobs

2.  No one in engineering did such a thing

3.  Dynasoar wasn't a failure, it just got cancel

your lack of spaceflight knowledge is amazing, yet you still try to post 

[kevin-rf]

They will travel in rejuvinating hybernation for the next century and wake up in a youthful body on a new world. Really. We promise.

Just like Ted William cracked head in Cryo

What was the name of that 1970's scifi again, oh yeah "Coma". Sign the inlaws right up...

[Art LeBrun]

1.  Pretty much it pays for nothing but does create an awful lot of trouble.

2.  They did called the designers of the Saturn V crazy at one point.

3.  Of course history has it's failures too such as Navajo and Dynasoar

1.  no it pays for jobs

2.  No one in engineering did such a thing

3.  Dynasoar wasn't a failure, it just got cancel

your lack of spaceflight knowledge is amazing, yet you still try to post 

Navaho was canceled because of advancing ICBM technology. Regulus II was canceled because of money and Polaris.

[Patchouli]

BTW massive amounts of money poured into space exploration or alternative energy would create jobs which would stimulate the economy.

What do you think the war on drugs pays for?

War on drugs pays for our police and prison industrial system, where for the price of educating 10 kids every year you can keep one adult incarcerated in a cage the rest of his life. Ya thats a huge return on investment.

I could not agree more with your post.

[Patchouli]

Navaho was canceled because of advancing ICBM technology. Regulus II was canceled because of money and Polaris.

Dynasoar also was canceled because of the success for mercury and advances in automated spy satellites like corona.
http://www.fas.org/spp/military/program/imint/corona.htm

They likely may not have been able to make dynasoar work with the technology they had in 1963 as they did not have computer modeling as we know it today.
Big issues included the dynamics of a spaceplane on top of a rocket and hot spots on the vehicle.
The most powerful computer in 1963 was the Atlas computer at the University Manchester at 200K flops today you can buy a microcontroller for $7.99 that is orders of power faster then then that.
Most systems from that era such as an IBM 1400 series or PDP-1 were less powerful then a commodore 64.

If the X33 is a failure then the X20 also was one by the same definition.
But the X20's research did benefit all future vehicles including the space shuttle.

Perhaps the same will eventually be said of the X33.

1.  no it pays for jobs

your lack of spaceflight knowledge is amazing, yet you still try to post 

 Talk about trying and failing at a post yes lets throw an adult in a cage for life at 30K a year instead of educate ten kids.
Also those are not high paying nor rewarding jobs.
These same pro war on drugs people also are responsible for more deaths a year then Al Qaeda has killed on 9-11.
The federal ban in needle exchange programs is responsible for up to 250,000 preventable cases of HIV in the US alone.
http://war-on-drugs.suite101.com/article.cfm/financial_cost_of_the_war_on_drugs

[hop]

Talk about trying and failing at a post yes lets throw an adult in a cage for life at 30K a year instead of educate ten kids.

You are missing Jims point, which had nothing to do with efficacy or rightness of the drug war.

Your argument:
1) eliminate the war on drugs saving $$$
2) build rockets using $$$
-> money spent on 2) creates jobs

The error is that, to a crude approximation, 1) eliminates as many jobs as 2) creates.

If you prefer your tax dollars go to aerospace engineers rather than prison guards and narcs, that's a fine, but don't pretend shuffling the money around is going to create extra jobs.

[KelvinZero]

I agree, but it sure sounds like a good deal to me.

As far as I can tell, 'The war on..' is an americanism for 'The pouring of tax payer's money into the promotion of.. '

Im all for spending the money on engineers instead funding gangsta rapper lifestyles and police brutality.

Drugs should be sold at production prices (basically nothing) with heavy anticompetitive government subsidies. That is how you destroy a business. I am convinced there are only a few people who would chose to ruin their lives with drugs, and it is the pushers and the profit that makes drugs such a problem.

[Jim]

If the X33 is a failure then the X20 also was one by the same definition.

Incorrect again.  Dynasoar never reached flight article production.  X-33 was cancelled because of hardware failures.  X-20 was canceled because of mission and requirements changes

[JohnFornaro]

Seven times less time to construct something by a civilization that has to be 700 times more advanced has got to result in a shorter time frame.  Add in the additional degree of difficulty for implementing the already solved problem of atmoshpere and nutrition, and forty years may still indeed be too optimistic, I agree.  But it is the premise of colonization that I prefer to debate at first.  Without the general acceptance of the population that this is a good idea, time frame, shmime frame.  At the same time, forty to a hundred years is the time frame that I'm suggesting, largely because anything longer probably fails per Jim's observation.

Therefore, I'm seeking confirmation of the physical doability of this project within this timeframe so as to estimate costs and deduce the hopeful economic gains.  In seeking this confirmation, I am not insisting on physical fantasy, even as I do insist on the preliminary political fantasy.  My intent is to make the political argument after the "business plan" has widespread credibility.

If it is true that we are further from this goal than in Kennedy's time, then that is solid evidence of a political will, largely unseen, that is actively thwarting the establishment of any such colony.  If that's not the case, it's a harsh critique of our technical abilities, because in the past forty years all of the technical challenges to colonization have been addressed to some degree.  Including the often overlooked issue of atmospheric conditions.

Perhaps another business model could be suggested.  We can have the UAW make GM cars, and launch them into the asteroid belt.  The cars would be free to whoever could go get them.  This would certainly spur development.

Also, I looked on the star charts and I couldn't find Youtenasia.  Is this really a planet?  A Googol seach reveals 2.14159 instances of  "Youth in Asia".