Re: Re: starship-design: YES, we might do it.

[KellySt@aol.com]

In a message dated 10/19/98 8:18:01 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote:

>> From: KellySt@aol.com
>> 
>> In a message dated 10/13/98 1:40:52 PM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote:
>> 
>> >> From: David Levine <david@playlink.com>
>> >> 
>> >> > From: 	Zenon Kulpa[SMTP:zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl]
>> >> > 
>> >> > And there is a big bootstrap problem:
>> >> > space mining is impractical without developed human 
>> >> > space infrastructure, and building such infrastructure 
>> >> > is impossible without space mining...
>> >> > 
>> >> And that's where space-tourism comes in.
>> >> 
>> >Or something other we may not yet foresee.
>> >Usually sooner or later something surfaces.
>> >Space tourism may, but it may not, mostly because
>> >it will be rather short-distance (at most to the Moon) 
>> >until advances fuelled by other areas of space exploration
>> >make the trip to, say, Mars at least no harder 
>> >than trip to low orbit today.  
>> 
>> Space tourisms ability to leverage costs to LEO orbit down to current trans
>> ocean air-freght cost numbers is a big step up in accessing and using
space.
>> 
>I wonder why commsats, GPS, meteoats did not have 
>any significant impact on lowering costs to LEO significantly?

They are to few to spawn a large enough market.



>> >Hence I think that bulding a permanent base on Mars, 
>> >even by a governemnt agency, will be a good step in
>> >this direction. Necessity to sustain people there 
>> >for years will drive advances in cheaper propulsion 
>> >systems and other advanced technologies, opening
>> >this area for space tourism and early asteroid-mining 
>> >assessment missions.
>> 
>> Government programs like this or our arctic and deep sea bases tend to have
>> little significant impact.  They have no reason to develop or use practical
>> systems, and large reason to do flashy but useless projects for political
>> reasons.
>> 
>Yes and no. At least Mars Base will bring a lot of data
>on the conditions there, necessary to design and build
>further non-governemnt facilities and colonies.
>Hence, it will lower significantly the initial investment
>needed for the private exploration of Mars.

Ah ha.  Somehow I don't think we need to spend 100's of billions to figure out
ways to save tens of billions.


>The analogy of Antarctic or deep-sea exploration
>is not valid here - they are not pursued for quite different reasons
>(e.g., international treaties asking for leaving Antarctide
>pristine [e.g. banning assimilating any outside animal species],
>or exluding private rights to deep-sea resources).
>There will be one more fight needed from space-exploration 
>advocates: stopping atempts to make space & cellestial bodies 
>equally "protected" from human enterprise.

Well their are similar treaties for space, but that doesn't really mater.  If
there was money on the line those treaties would go the way of their
predisesors.  The big problem is they all proved not worth the bother.  So
Arctic bases arew maintained for political reasons (so all claiments keep
rights to Antarctica in case they want it in the future) and the undersea labs
have all been pulled out or sold.


>
>On the other hand, of course I would like better 
>the first Mars Base to be build privately by Mars Society 
>& private companies (possibly supported by government
>throuh the "Mars Prize" system)... 
>But just in case, let NASA try this too -
>some competition may be healthy here.
>
>
>> >I think NASA should abandon completely the ISS
>> >(which in current situation seems only a complicated 
>> >way of transferring funds to Russian mafia),
>> 
>> Big agree!!
>> 
>> >leave low-orbit human missions to space tourism companies,
>> >(or possibly to an occassional Hubble repair ;-)
>> >and use the money for frontier-breaking endeavors 
>> >like the Mars Base.
>> 
>> At least a Mars base would be pushing a frounteer. Its not in itself
usefull,
>> but its better then ISS. I think NASA should be leveraged out of launching
>> and routine ops and focused on cutting edge research and exploration
efforts.
>> 
>Exactly. 
>
>-- Zenon

Kelly