Discussion Earth: Space colonization a myth - ESA director.

[jedidia]

because sonic booms are pesky and cause property damage.

They... cause... property damage? Now, I know they're loud, I still remember the good old days when the swiss airforce was still alowed to breach the wall, but... property damage?? :blink:

 

[Andy44]

Well, sonic booms aren't a limiting factor in space colonization, but to tie it into the topic, SST airliners are an example of an expensive technological marvel that, because of limited utility, couldn't sustain themselves economically. A spacecraft to Mars will carry even fewer passengers, or less payload, for a much greater expense.

If the cyclical rumors about "quiet supersonics" ever turns into an actual aircraft the SST may make a comeback someday. Likewise, a technological breakthrough in space propulsion would certainly be welcome for would-be spacefarers.

---------- Post added at 03:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:42 PM ----------

They... cause... property damage? Now, I know they're loud, I still remember the good old days when the swiss airforce was still alowed to breach the wall, but... property damage?? :blink:

The USAF did a lot of studies back in the 50s and there were all kinds of problems, incuding broken windows and sometimes valuable items shaken off of shelves in people's homes.

 

[Ghostrider]

I still remember the good old days when the swiss airforce was still alowed to breach the wall, but... property damage?? :blink:

In Switzerland, sonic booms are not allowed to damage property without proper clearance and the authorization of the property owner.

 

[kamaz]

You are missing the point. There is no oil or its economic equivalent on Mars.

Today. That's the operative word. This statement is true today, an it does not have to be true tomorrow. And no, off-world mining does not require discovery of unobtanium.

Let us optimistically assume that industrial civilization will survive the 21st century crisis period caused by peak oil and global warming. This is contingent on moving the energy generation off carbon to renewables or nuclear. Now, assuming that this happens, then in ca. 2100, the civilization will find itself in another predicament: shortage of metals.

Take nickel for example: world reserves (at >1% abundance) are 130 million tons, and current production is 2 million tons per year. This means that there is at most 65 years worth of nickel left. (Actually less, because production is currently growing exponentially.) Let's take these 65 years for the purpose of argument; you can as well take 50 or 100, does not really matter for the purposes of the argument.

Okay, so the year is 2070, and the civilization is looking at an imminent (<10 years) exhaustion of nickel reserves. This, of course, causes the prices to increase. Now, what we would do in this situation is to start strip-mining lower abundance deposits.

But our descendants will not, because they will be just recovering from a major ecological and economical crisis caused by us doing just that. The proposals to strip-mine will be raised and rejected, because at the time, the mindset will be that the environment is too precious to destroy it just to get some nickel.

Instead they will realize that, having just recovered from an energy crisis caused by hydrocarbon depletion, they have an excess of energy. (In a positive scenario -- because they have mastered fusion or thorium, in a negative scenario -- because the population has been reduced due to starvation). As it turns out, excess energy is exactly what you need to launch stuff into space; either by means of mass drivers, or by more classical means of aluminum tanks filled with electrolyzed water.

So, someone will add two and two together, and realize that they can convert energy (which there is excess) into nickel (which there is deficit) by means of an off-world mining operation. Initial plan will be to mine nickel-rich asteroids, but it will be ultimately rejected due to long transit time which complicates logistics; but someone will remember that a lot of asteroids have crashed on the Moon in the past, and the Moon is just 3 days away by Hohmann transfer.

Yes, mining will be done by robots... but robots are stupid and they break. So sooner or later someone will realize that for large mining operations, it is better to have humans on site, then teleoperating (see Moon). Then, someone will realize that shipping refined nickel is more economical than shipping ore, which means more machinery (and more humans to fix it). He will also realize that he can get the taxpayer to pay for the venture, by arguing that moving such polluting operations from Earth to the Moon is in everyone's interest.

So, at the beginning of the 22nd century we have these tiny lunar outposts mining nickel (and other things). They are steadily growing, as industry is slowly being moved to the Moon (thanks to the generous support of the taxpayer). The crews are still being rotated on a reasonable schedule (say 6 months), so this is not yet a colony.

...Or is it? Because the charm of such far-off places is that they are outside of the reach of law. Say, for example, that someone is stalked by a pack of angry creditors (including, notably, his ex-wife demanding overdue child support payments) so he gets a job in the lunar mining colony because it pays well. At the end of the shift he realizes that all of his savings are going to go to his creditors, so if he gets back, he will be unemployed and with no money. On the other hand, the Moon is not that bad; after all, the room and board is free, and plus, that bitch is now as far away as technically possible. So the dude simply refuses to board the shuttle back home. The company does not really mind, as they save space in the shuttle, he just gets a waiver to sign that he absolves the company from any health injuries caused by prolonged exposure to hypogravity. Ta-da, please meet the first permanent lunar inhabitant.

By 2130, the lunar operation is growing steadily, as its operations are constantly expanded, mainly thanks to a certain politician who's election slogan was Garden Earth - Industrialized Moon. The crew now includes several women. An unexpectedly strong solar storm causes the crash of an automated supply shuttle, carrying medical supplies. Nobody thinks much about the incident, until about two months later, when one female crew member discovers that her period is definitely overdue. She refuses an abortion on religious grounds. The medical community on Earth criticizes her for gross irresponsibility, but tacitly admits an unprecedented opportunity to answer the main physiological question relevant to human colonization of the Solar System...

---------- Post added at 11:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:21 PM ----------

IIRC, the other issue with supersonic jet liners was that their original expected gains in fuel economy over subsonic evaporated once high-bypass turbofan jet engines entered service.

Damn those plucky engineers, going and finding a more-efficient, but less cool way of doing things :facts:

The general consensus among world's airlines was that Concorde would be profitable; after all, 74 a/c have been ordered in total by different customers. The orders were cancelled en masse in 1973, when crude oil price, which stayed below $20/bbl since 1927, suddenly rose to $50/bbl.

I heard that BA and AF were operating Concorde at break-even in 1990s, when crude price averaged $30/bbl, and the a/c was finally retired due to the general downturn in the airline industry after Sep. 11, 2001 (although if it wasn't, it would still have to be retired 4 years later when crude price shot to $100/bbl).

It was the increase in fuel price which led to change in the pricing models of the airline industry, and created interest in more fuel-efficient engines. You can say that Concorde was the first victim of Peak Oil.

This does not really apply to the space industry, because (quoting Elon from memory) fuel price is something like 1% of the launch cost. The majority of costs seem to be fixed costs (i.e. keeping technical staff on payroll) which are independent of flight rate.