tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post8656348326342903802..comments2024-03-19T00:19:09.117-07:00Comments on Rocketpunk Manifesto: A Little BlowupRickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16932015378213238346noreply@blogger.comBlogger211125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-40908252551666047122021-07-10T20:09:14.874-07:002021-07-10T20:09:14.874-07:00"Besides the reasons Jim stated, having a ..."Besides the reasons Jim stated, having a 'base camp' in the asteroid belt will help with logistics while exploring them; also, you can practice your techniques for building outposts on the moons of Jupiter and Saturn, but only going about an AU from Earth instead of several."<br /><br />Except distances and orbits in the Main Belt make the Base Camp concept useless. You may have to use up almost as much delta-V getting from some random asteroid to Ceres as you would getting to the Earth-Moon system.<br /><br />As far as "practice" on Ceres, it might be relevant for the larger Jovian ice moons, at least Callisto, but not for Io and the smaller bodies. Europa is too active to make it a close match of conditions; its thin surface flexes and moves and is bathed in much more radiation than Ceres.<br /><br />The Saturn system will be completely different; Ceres has too much sunlight and too little tidal heating for analogous environments.Saint Michaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-71137057324377960352011-06-22T09:30:45.037-07:002011-06-22T09:30:45.037-07:00Perhaps we should note here that the exploration o...Perhaps we should note here that the exploration of the major belt objects is already underway. The Daw spacecraft is scheduled to go into orbit around Vesta next month. After a year at Vesta, it will move on to Ceres.Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-22321779555085668422011-06-21T19:19:29.349-07:002011-06-21T19:19:29.349-07:00We probably won't explore 'the asteroids&#...We probably won't explore 'the asteroids' - just some individual objects in the Belt that look particularly interesting.<br /><br />If there is a base on Ceres (or Vesta or wherever), it provides no advantage for exploring the belt as a whole, but it turn out convenient for exploring objects that happen to be passing (relatively!) near to Ceres. <br /><br />If McGuffinite turns up on one of those objects, things get different, but McGuffinite is nothing to count on.Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16932015378213238346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-6887925029663621472011-06-21T17:55:31.848-07:002011-06-21T17:55:31.848-07:00Wasn't really talking about colonizing the ast...Wasn't really talking about colonizing the asteroid belt or building a civilization there; just talking about reasons why to explore it in general and Ceres in paticular. Before we have torchships, we will need to use some species of ion spacecraft to get deep into the Solar System; It would seem to me that having a multiuse outpost dedicated to asteroid exploration makes as much sense in this setting as launching individual missions directly from Earth to each asteroid.<br /><br />FerrellAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-33314253652802368942011-06-21T12:57:07.498-07:002011-06-21T12:57:07.498-07:00Jerry Pournell debunked the myth of an asteroid ci...Jerry Pournell debunked the myth of an asteroid civilization with "A Step Farther Out: Those Pesky Belters and Their Torchships" ...<br /><br />The asteroids are separated from each other by almost as much distance as the Earth is from Mars, so shuttling between asteroids is a non trivial exercise. As Pournell pointed out, if there was Torchship technology to allow you to casually flit among the asteroids, it would still make more sense to blast directly to and from from the asteroid in question to Earth, since torchships would not be adversely affected by Earths huge gravity well and all the good stuff is on Earth anyway. (Conversely, it also means the Earth Navy can blast out to the Asteroid belt to enforce bureaucratic edicts from Earth....).<br /><br />Asteroid civilization, if and when it comes, will be rather particularistic. Colonies will either be buried inside the asteroid or in a construct in close proximity to the asteroid being mined for materials, and settlers are probably not too interested in physically going to other asteroids or planets. <br /><br />The only places where we can even come close to the "classic" vision of asteroids (i.e flying mountains in close proximity like in the movies or the old Asteroid game) is the rings of Saturn, next best would be the Trojan asteroids of Jupiter.Thucydideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09828932214842106266noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-85142978191399001962011-06-21T12:01:23.306-07:002011-06-21T12:01:23.306-07:00Jim Baerg:
"The way I heard it the initial s...Jim Baerg:<br /><br /><i>"The way I heard it the initial setup at Massachusetts was very communist. It worked *poorly* & after a few years they shifted to something more capitalist with family rather than collective farms to avoid starvation."</i><br /><br />That was Jamestown in Virginia, and the failure was precisely the treasure-seeking nature of many of the (almost entirely male) colonists and a lack of social controls imposed by church and family.Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-45487924929866951622011-06-21T11:42:41.633-07:002011-06-21T11:42:41.633-07:00"What I was talking about was a social system..."What I was talking about was a social system something like the Puritans set up at first in the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Social control would minimize free-riding."<br /><br />The way I heard it the initial setup at Massachusetts was very communist. It worked *poorly* & after a few years they shifted to something more capitalist with family rather than collective farms to avoid starvation.Jim Baergnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-29399560367592794532011-06-20T21:23:17.545-07:002011-06-20T21:23:17.545-07:00Milo said:"Once again, asteroids are very far...Milo said:"Once again, asteroids are very far apart, and moving from one place in the asteroid belt to another ("orbital phasing") is actually quite difficult and expensive. A base camp on Ceres would not really make other asteroids notably easier to explore than a base camp on Mars."<br /><br />Except for the much deeper gravity well of Mars vs Ceres.<br /><br />"A base camp on Ceres would, of course, make Ceres easier to explore. But this would only justify some Antarctica-like outposts, not a full colony. Ceres isn't going to attract anywhere near as many immigrants as Luna, Mars, Mimas, etc." <br />Building proof-of-concept experimental habatats isn't really a 'full colony'.<br /><br />"And I don't find Ceres to even be that interesting scientifically. It's a ball of rock. We have plenty of those."<br /><br />Yeah? Point out yours for me. :)<br /><br /><br />"You forgot that Earth has a moon too. It's fairly similar in nature too, and if proximity is what you want, it can't be beat."<br /><br />Um, no. We were talking about Ceres,(well, dwarf planets), so that's what I commented on. Besides, Ceres, Luna, and Callisto are all different and thus all are worthy of exploration. In my opinion.<br /><br />FerrellAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-43852193850414655172011-06-19T20:29:45.629-07:002011-06-19T20:29:45.629-07:00Rick:
"I believe that classic immigration - ...Rick:<br /><br /><i>"I believe that classic immigration - wherever on the scale of voluntary to forced - has generally been associated with 'cheap land.' Which you won't have in space, short of magitech.<br /><br />So I would argue for a different model, where permanent settlement is a byproduct of other activities, and 'immigration' is a sub-case of 'travel.'<br /><br />(So long as deep space travel is Horribly Expensive, you won't have an awful lot of immigrants!)"</i><br /><br />I'm thinking a little bit further down the road than the pure exploration phase. A time should come when settling takes place above and beyond people who just never take a ship home. Still, there's not going to be anything to attract people except that Mars ain't Earth, and they'll have a guaranteed job there, even if it's just subsistence agriculture.Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-73169518660691495502011-06-19T20:22:30.147-07:002011-06-19T20:22:30.147-07:00Milo:
"Supply and demand.
That depends on h...Milo:<br /><br /><i>"Supply and demand.<br /><br />That depends on how many people want to go, and how much of an economic or scientific payoff Earth is expecting.<br /><br />...<br /><br />As long as anyone is willing to pay the price, the organization owning the ship might as well ask for one to recoup (some of?) their costs."</i><br /><br />1. Because what any individual or small group of individuals could contribute would be a token.<br /><br />2. I doubt very many, if any, of the first few generations of settlers will be volunteers. They won't be convicts, but they'll likely be either economically or socially cornered int ogoing rather than staying on Earth. <br /><br /><i>"And why wouldn't people pay, anyway? Earth money is likely to be worthless on Mars, until such a time that travel becomes easy enough for regular trade shipments. So you might as well fork over your entire fortune, beyond what you can spend on lightweight trinkets and tools that you can afford to bring to Mars, unless you had some next of kin that you were really dying to leave your inheritance to (pun intended)."</i><br /><br />I think the "volunteers" would likely be allowed to leave their Earthly estates to heirs and assigns.<br /><br /><i>"Tellingly, in both cases the immigrants were initially criminals and outcasts, and other people only started immigrating once the outcasts had managed (out of necessity) to build something at least vaguely livable to immigrate into."</i><br /><br />Plenty of intelligent, hard-working outcasts to be found in any technological society. Enough bad luck and even a magna cumn laude PhD might volunteer for Mars.<br /><br /><i>"Wait, weren't libertarians capitalists? 'If you don't do anything useful you don't get paid, and then you starve.' seems pretty accurate."</i><br /><br />Libertarians are ignorant of history -- or, to be more precise, exercise mad confirmation bias towards a version of history that fits their prejudices -- socially naive and inept, and, judging by the ones I've met personally, incapable of actually saving themselves from starvation if they actually had to work.<br /><br />What I was talking about was a social system something like the Puritans set up at first in the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Social control would minimize free-riding.Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-32058582938369989192011-06-19T13:27:28.659-07:002011-06-19T13:27:28.659-07:00=Milo=
Ferrell:
"Besides the reasons Jim ...=Milo=<br /><br /><br /><br />Ferrell:<br /><br /><i>"Besides the reasons Jim stated, having a 'base camp' in the asteroid belt will help with logistics while exploring them;"</i><br /><br />Once again, asteroids are very far apart, and moving from one place in the asteroid belt to another ("orbital phasing") is actually quite difficult and expensive. A base camp on Ceres would not really make <i>other</i> asteroids notably easier to explore than a base camp on Mars.<br /><br />A base camp on Ceres would, of course, make <i>Ceres</i> easier to explore. But this would only justify some Antarctica-like outposts, not a full colony. Ceres isn't going to attract anywhere near as many immigrants as Luna, Mars, Mimas, etc. And I don't find Ceres to even be that interesting scientifically. It's a ball of rock. We have plenty of those.<br /><br /><br /><i>"also, you can practice your techniques for building outposts on the moons of Jupiter and Saturn, but only going about an AU from Earth instead of several."</i><br /><br />You forgot that Earth has a moon too. <i>It's</i> fairly similar in nature too, and if proximity is what you want, it can't be beat.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-23569986574573705812011-06-19T11:48:46.815-07:002011-06-19T11:48:46.815-07:00Milo said:"Ceres? No reason to go there, at l...Milo said:"Ceres? No reason to go there, at least unless we're really strapped for land and have exhausted all other options."<br /><br />I disagree for one importaint reason; research and exploration. (yeah, I know, it sounds like two) Besides the reasons Jim stated, having a 'base camp' in the asteroid belt will help with logistics while exploring them; also, you can practice your techniques for building outposts on the moons of Jupiter and Saturn, but only going about an AU from Earth instead of several. <br /><br />FerrellAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-82528674056491637352011-06-19T08:40:44.080-07:002011-06-19T08:40:44.080-07:00Prior to the late 19th Century, immigrating to Ame...<i>Prior to the late 19th Century, immigrating to America or Australia was pretty much a one way proposition, except for the very richest persons. Immigrating to Mars will be even more expensive</i><br /><br />I believe that classic immigration - wherever on the scale of voluntary to forced - has generally been associated with 'cheap land.' Which you won't have in space, short of magitech.<br /><br />So I would argue for a different model, where permanent settlement is a byproduct of other activities, and 'immigration' is a sub-case of 'travel.'<br /><br />(So long as deep space travel is Horribly Expensive, you won't have an awful lot of immigrants!)Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16932015378213238346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-89161071628157746372011-06-18T22:19:02.457-07:002011-06-18T22:19:02.457-07:00"Ceres? No reason to go there"
Maybe no..."Ceres? No reason to go there"<br /><br />Maybe not Ceres, but determining which asteroids are the sources of the nickel iron meteorites will tell us where to go for siderophile elements, so we have catalysts for our chemical industries & fuel cells.<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siderophile_element<br /><br />If you've seen my comments on some earlier threads you already know I regard those as one of the less implausible McGuffinites for going into space.Jim Baergnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-65713544196908742832011-06-18T12:33:47.518-07:002011-06-18T12:33:47.518-07:00=Milo=
Ferrell:
"the nearest dwarf planet ...=Milo=<br /><br /><br />Ferrell:<br /><br /><i>"the nearest dwarf planet is Ceres; with the recent finding of water ice in the deep craters on the poles of Mercury"</i><br /><br />Yeah, the problem is that neither of those places have any appreciable advantage over, say, Luna, which is in the same "bland ball of rock but with usefully large supplies of water in the poles" ballpark, with the very significant advantage of proximity. Mercury might be useful if you really love solar power, but I feel solar power doesn't have enough advantages over fission/fusion to be worth settling such a difficult location for (particularly since cooling a hab will be harder than warming one). Settling on Ceres won't make it appreciably easier to access other, smaller, asteroids for mining.<br /><br />Luna has the advantage of proximity. Mars has the advantage of what looks like a richer world (some atmosphere, even if it's not enough, probably some other stuff), one that actually had liquid water in the distant geologic past, which incidentally also makes it interesting to scientists, and is the next largest place after Earth (already settled) and Venus (unsettlable without magitech), which might interest you depending on what you're after. Most gas giants give you several moons at once for cheap, and most of them also have places of scientific interest (Io, Europa, Enceladus, Titan, maybe Iapetus if you're easily amused...), and larger proportions of (frozen) water than more inward bodies - Jupiter and Saturn will likely be settled for these reasons alone, while Uranus is only interesting if helium-3 is an important MacGuffinite. Saturn's moon Mimas also has both the lightest gravity and the best sky view of any object in the solar system, which is likely to appeal to most of the kind of people who think that colonizing space is cool in the first place.<br /><br />Ceres? No reason to go there, at least unless we're really strapped for land and have exhausted all other options.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-48350325481871977162011-06-18T11:17:53.401-07:002011-06-18T11:17:53.401-07:00Milo: the nearest dwarf planet is Ceres; with the ...Milo: the nearest dwarf planet is Ceres; with the recent finding of water ice in the deep craters on the poles of Mercury, permanent outposts on Ceres may be much more doable then was previously thought. A trip of three or four months to get there, with a (desidedly) little world at the end to live off of now seems like a good prospect for an early exploration destination.<br /><br /><br />FerrellAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-47691391830223001832011-06-17T18:55:58.203-07:002011-06-17T18:55:58.203-07:00The dystopian one way colonization miodel is Austr...The dystopian one way colonization miodel is Australia; which was used as a dumping ground for the criminal elements that English society wold rather not have running around underfoot. Jerry Pournelle extended this trope in the CoDominium stories, which had BuReloc shipping entire ethnic communities, political exiles and other assorted "undesirable" elements (undesirable to the ruling elites of the CoDominium anyway) to distant solar systems.<br /><br />Of course, trying to do something like this today would both break the bank and be a death sentance to all the transportees, since very few would have the expertise to even plant and operate simple gardens (much less the various technical systems) and members of the criminal class would not have the mental skill sets to patiently work at things so they keep going. If they form roving bands of brigands to steal from the rest, the situation gets even worse in short order. Now some Earthy polities would see this as a feature, not a bug, but fortunatly we don't live in any of these places. It is still cheaper to tkae people out and shoot them anyway.<br /><br />The situation with the Americas was a bit different. Early colonization was essentially a land grab/gold rush to cash in on easily avalable resources. Later groups of settlers like the Puritains may be considered "outcasts", but still had enough wealth and ability to finance their own expeditions to seek out places where they could practice their beliefs free of persecution. These settlers were content to have self contained settlements with limited economic exchange back to the Old World, which may describe the situation for early colony efforts.<br /><br />The final waves of colonization were sponsored by elements in the New World seeking cheap labour, creating new markets or to solidify their claim(s) to the territory. The Canadian settlement of the Praries fulfills all three categories, the farmers were sought from Eastern Europe to create the bread basket of the Empire, create an inland market for business in Ontario and Quebec and prevent the Americans from settling and claiming the territories for themselves. Had the British and Dominion authorities had some more time and resources, they would also have liked to flood the Oregon territory with "British" settlers to extend their claim from British Columbia, but for various reasons this project never really got off the ground. (They also missed the boat when the Tsar of Russia put the Alaskan territory on the block; evidently Americans have always been better at land speculation [heh]).<br /><br />Some elements of the settlement of the New World may describe the situation leading to colonization and settlement in space, the gold rush/land grab trope is pretty common in stories based on the mining of McGuffinite, and should the ability to create self contained colonies become cheap in relative terms I can't see why some groups might not decide to strilke out on their own to practice their religious, social, political or economic beliefs free of interference from their neighbours.Thucydideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09828932214842106266noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-84647639422492623512011-06-17T17:11:07.837-07:002011-06-17T17:11:07.837-07:00=Milo=
Rick:
"Surely two-way travel will ...=Milo=<br /><br /><br /><br />Rick:<br /><br /><i>"Surely two-way travel will precede one-way travel!"</i><br /><br />Well, some people people actually have seriously proposed one-way travel preceding two-way travel, even with groups too small to form a sustainable colony. (Must get awfully lonely.) I don't <i>agree</i> with those proposals, mind.<br /><br />When I favor one-way ships for initial colonists, it's not because of the lack of availability of two-way options, but because of the much larger requirements compared to other space missions (you need a lot more people, and they need to carry enough tools to build a functioning industrial civilization in a hostile environment, and the vast majority of the mass on the ship is stuff that you need to land on the planet anyway so you might as well just land the ship itself), requirements that are likely to be fairly unique so after your colony ships completes its mission, you aren't likely to need another ship of the same type anytime soon (and this allows you to skimp on launch capability).<br /><br />Once the colony is properly established, further immigration would be on more ordinary two-way passenger liners. Perhaps most individual passengers only hitch a ride in one direction, but the ship itself gets reused.<br /><br /><br /><i>"Retirees and kids are non-productive, but still have upkeep costs."</i><br /><br />Simple solution: tell astronauts they're not allowed to have kids until they start growing their own food. Now the upkeep costs are the colonists' problem, not yours.<br /><br /><br /><i>"Putting it another way, a surface base on Mars is a LOT easier than one on Venus, and not even applicable to Jupiter."</i><br /><br />If there is a serious interest in a crewed scientific outpost on Venus, then I would expect it to be an orbiting station or survey ship (the latter is able to return to Earth/wherever under its own power when its mission is done). I don't expect Venus to be targetted for large-scale colonization until the development of magitech.<br /><br />But for colonists, the question isn't whether a surface hab is <i>always</i> better than a space hab. It's just where you can find <i>some</i> planets/moons where a surface hab works better than an orbital one. If so, colonists will aim for those worlds and ignore the others.<br /><br />In my opinion, good candidates for colonization are: Luna, Mars, most gas giant moons (exceptions are Io for lacking water, Enceladus and Europa for having icy surfaces, Titan for having a human-unfriendly atmosphere and far too much unique charm to be visited as anything except a nature reserve, and perhaps Triton for simply being too far away and there being no good reason to go there - which still leaves 13 moons if I counted right, although you're likely to settle only a few of those at first), and perhaps some dwarf planets if you get strapped for space (again, Kuiper belt objects have desirable compositions but are too far away).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-2430152532492467592011-06-17T17:10:57.328-07:002011-06-17T17:10:57.328-07:00=Milo=
Tony:
"Considering who is likely p...=Milo=<br /><br /><br /><br />Tony:<br /><br /><i>"Considering who is likely putting up the money, one trip, one way, from the Earth to somewhere else, will probably be free."</i><br /><br />Supply and demand.<br /><br />That depends on how many people want to go, and how much of an economic or scientific payoff Earth is expecting.<br /><br />If the number of people interested in a one-way voyage to Mars exceeds the number of people that can fit on the ship (yes, the first number may not be very large, but the second number is <i>also</i> not going to be that big), then those spots will be selected based on either who is willing to pay the most, or who has demonstrated the talents necessary to be a competent pioneer, or some of both.<br /><br />As long as anyone is <i>willing</i> to pay the price, the organization owning the ship might as well ask for one to recoup (some of?) their costs.<br /><br />And why wouldn't people pay, anyway? Earth money is likely to be worthless on Mars, until such a time that travel becomes easy enough for regular trade shipments. So you might as well fork over your entire fortune, beyond what you can spend on lightweight trinkets and tools that you can afford to bring to Mars, unless you had some next of kin that you were really dying to leave your inheritance to (pun intended).<br /><br /><br /><i>"Prior to the late 19th Century, immigrating to America or Australia was pretty much a one way proposition, except for the very richest persons."</i><br /><br />Tellingly, in both cases the immigrants were initially criminals and outcasts, and other people only started immigrating once the outcasts had managed (out of necessity) to build something at least vaguely livable to immigrate into.<br /><br /><br /><i>"And families will be welcome, but only to the degree they produce useful contributors and not idle mouths. No libertarian paradise on Mars or Ceres"</i><br /><br />Wait, weren't libertarians capitalists? "If you don't do anything useful you don't get paid, and then you starve." seems pretty accurate.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-13063667701954711832011-06-17T11:14:04.945-07:002011-06-17T11:14:04.945-07:00Rick:
"Yes, it is possible to make social as...Rick:<br /><br /><i>"Yes, it is possible to make social assumptions under which deep space missions are undertaken on a one-way 'kamakaze' basis, but this probably falls into heroic/dystopian Romance rather than PMF scenarios."</i><br /><br />Prior to the late 19th Century, immigrating to America or Australia was pretty much a one way proposition, except for the very richest persons. Immigrating to Mars will be even more expensive, so it will be a one way trip for everyone, except for maybe a political junket of two or three politicians once or twice a decade. I don't perceive anything particularly Romantic or heroic/dystopian in that. It's just economics.<br /><br /><i>"The really challenging transitions in this type of scenario are retirement and families. Whoever (Earthside) is paying the bills is probably happy to have productive crew re-up. Retirees and kids are non-productive, but still have upkeep costs. Until these costs are low enough to be paid from savings or salaries, you can't make the jump to proto-colonization."</i><br /><br />IMO there won't be any real retirement -- just decreasing or altered utility for people as they get older. And families will be welcome, but only to the degree they produce useful contributors and not idle mouths. No liertarian paradise on Mars or Ceres -- only serious (small "p") puritanism and social control will keep society moving forward.<br /><br /><i>"As for surface v space, I think that will be on a case by case basis. What is the additional cost of reaching the surface (and getting back), what is the additional cost of operating there, and how do these stack up against the costs/constraints of teleoperating from orbit?"</i><br /><br />I don't think one builds an industrial base somewhere where people won't benefit. So when you start colonizing the surface of Mars, for example, that's where the industrial base will be built. Building it in space is harder in absolute terms and removes the industry from its resource base. There's no real choice to be made.Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-73004650660684900502011-06-17T10:21:51.241-07:002011-06-17T10:21:51.241-07:00Surely two-way travel will precede one-way travel!...Surely two-way travel will precede one-way travel! Early exploratory missions will go, hang around for a while, then come back. At a later stage, permanent outposts will be established, with ships rotating crews in, and back home. <br /><br />In this scenario, any one-way trips are quite accidental - people who die during the mission. <br /><br />Yes, it is possible to make social assumptions under which deep space missions are undertaken on a one-way 'kamakaze' basis, but this probably falls into heroic/dystopian Romance rather than PMF scenarios.<br /><br />In the third stage of development, some people choose to defer their return passage, signing up for repeated tours of duty.<br /><br />The really challenging transitions in this type of scenario are retirement and families. Whoever (Earthside) is paying the bills is probably happy to have productive crew re-up. Retirees and kids are non-productive, but still have upkeep costs. Until these costs are low enough to be paid from savings or salaries, you can't make the jump to proto-colonization.<br /><br /><br />As for surface v space, I think that will be on a case by case basis. What is the additional cost of reaching the surface (and getting back), what is the additional cost of operating there, and how do these stack up against the costs/constraints of teleoperating from orbit?<br /><br />Putting it another way, a surface base on Mars is a LOT easier than one on Venus, and not even applicable to Jupiter. (Balloons in the clouds are a whole 'nother set of tradeoffs.)Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16932015378213238346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-32179539489060167582011-06-17T09:01:51.633-07:002011-06-17T09:01:51.633-07:00Milo:
"Although I suppose your "people ...Milo:<br /><br /><i>"Although I suppose your "people going one way only once in their lives" doesn't imply the ship is single-use. It could be a reusable passenger liner that's just expensive enough that most people can't afford more than one trip."</i><br /><br />Considering who is likely putting up the money, one trip, one way, from the Earth to somewhere else, will probably be free. And if the trip isn't that far -- say Earth to Mars -- there's no point in spinning or heavily shielding the passenger hab(s). They're only doing this once in their live's, for a few months, and they're not even paying (except of course with the rest of their lives on the frontier -- but who gives a crap about that?).Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-81271470043699101892011-06-16T20:44:16.784-07:002011-06-16T20:44:16.784-07:00By the time most people living off the Earth are l...By the time most people living off the Earth are living in space, There will be literally hundreds, if not thousands, of variations on the basic air-filled can. For the next several hundred (perhpas several thousand) years, living in space is going to be something you do out of justifiable necessity. That means exploring and not much else. Planets just have too much to offer to make living in space worthwhile for more than a very few, and then only on a temporary basis.Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-44850745462703566792011-06-16T19:19:41.067-07:002011-06-16T19:19:41.067-07:00Since what seems to be desired is a place to live ...Since what seems to be desired is a place to live and work after travelling to and then landing on the planet, I have something like the Mars Direct ship in the back of my mind, which is a "tuna can" with one or two levels to live in and the rest of the structure devoted to the various systems to keeping everyone alive and working in space.<br /><br />Since it is launched from Earth and travels in space for several months to get to Mars, it is "qualified", but I should perhaps use different terminology. Since the example is Titan, I would guess that the Mars Direct design would still be in service with suitable updates, and instead of spinning on the end of a tether connected to the Mars insertion stage it can be attached to a framework connected to a more powerful core module to get from point a to b.<br /><br />Remember my premise is most human activity will be done in space, not the planets, so it would be natural for designers to adapt space structures rather than custom building. The areoshell and engine for the Titan hab would be different than ones for Mars, but the hab itself would be largely the same.Thucydideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09828932214842106266noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-75739629866470538352011-06-16T13:50:31.054-07:002011-06-16T13:50:31.054-07:00=Milo=
I do agree that a one-way spaceship, a mu...=Milo=<br /><br /><br />I do agree that a one-way spaceship, a multi-use spaceship, and a stationary, umm, station, all have different design parameters.<br /><br />In the case of a one-way spaceship I probably <i>would</i> design it (or at least the hab and power plant parts) to be able to land on the intended destination planet and serve as a landbound base of operations thereafter - while a structure suited for both space and surface use would obviously have more costly engineering requirements than one limited to one or the other environment, it's still lighter than carrying a separate surface-use habitat that you don't get any use of until you arrive, and the people on your one-way ship are going to need <i>something</i> to live in once they reach the end of their trip.<br /><br />Although I suppose your "people going one way only once in their lives" doesn't imply the <i>ship</i> is single-use. It could be a reusable passenger liner that's just expensive enough that most people can't afford more than one trip.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com