/begin/

                  THE POLITICS OF SPACE COLONIZATION
 
                            Sid Goldstein

                           January 12, 2001


           (notes by Chris Churchill; missing concluding remarks)





* Life is fragile; it can be erased by global catastrophe.  This could
  be self induced or astronomically induced.  Presently (2001), we
  have no mechanism to deter or stop a near-Earth object (NEO).
  Meteor crater-like impacts happen about once every 100 years.

* Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 impacted Jupiter in 1994.  Scars the size of
  Earth were observed

* Conclusion: we are going to get hit by a NEO.  What are we going to
  do about it?





* Mass drivers are simple and economical on the Moon. There is no
  atmosphere and the gravity is weak.  Costs of pound per launch for
  the Shuttle (STS) is high, about 10-50 thousand dollars per annum
  [actually dependent upon number of launches (= total operation costs
  / number of launches)].

* In space, we need matter to live off- raw materials.  Getting it to
  space needs to be economical.  Once it is in raw form in orbit, the
  material can be refined in space.  The lunar regolith contains,
  oxygen, helium-3, water, and silicon.

* Once material is mass driven to escape velocity, it can be funneled
  into an orbiting mass driver to send it to another location, even
  Earth orbit.

* All this can even happen using asteroids, which have even lower
  masses!





* Space colony technology will be directly applicable back on Earth.
  The unique challenges and resulting solutions will find there way
  back to Earth: agriculture, recycling, material science...

* Space colonies can have all of the comforts of Earth and unique
  areas of zero- or micro-gravity.  Recreation will especially be
  unique and it follows that healthful activities will be more varied
  and more commonly used.





* All we need to do to make this so, is to make the decision to go.
  Natural course of events unfolding would probably take us 100+ years
  before we could be there, when we could decide to make it so in 20
  years.

* To make it so, we need to consider the whole picture.  Including not
  wasting the hardware we use to get there!  Skylab burned up 23 years
  ago when it fell from Earth orbit, which was happened because we had
  no desire/capability to boost it into a stable orbit. The shuttle
  uses an external tank that costs 100 million dollars.  It is burned
  up and wasted for each mission.

* We could use these external tanks as living space modules for a
  space station!  We need to take risks, which the government is not
  willing to do.  Only the commercial sector can do this effectively,
  but there is a catch-22.  In short, our dependence on fossil fuels
  is the heart of the matter.  [insert "The Problem" chart]

* Usage of fossil fuels, a finite resource upon which we depend,
  creates an unstable economic system.  Inflation, stagflation, high
  interest rates... and this is due to insider short sided, and
  selfishness because power is in the hands of so few, i.e. it is
  nearly impossible to research and develop new technologies because
  the power structure can control the flow of capital and is
  interested in the status-quo.

* The above is the catch-22. The research and development of new
  technologies are not funded by the elites who control the capital.





* We went to the moon in less than 10 years - a decision that was made
  when we had neither the infrastructure nor technology to go there.
  We did it.  Then we stopped.  Why?  Politics.  The popular support
  was not there and much that support was eroded away by the media.
  The media remained critical of the costs of manned space flights.

* Challenger 1986. Why did it explode?  Not because of engineering but
  due to politics.  First, the decision to launch was political.  But
  most of all, the design of the launch vehicle is flawed.  Solid
  rockets are not safe; they cannot be turned off nor their thrust
  regulated.  Liquid fuel, which is more expensive, was decided
  against because of its high cost.  This was a political decision.

* The commercialism of space is unlimited.  Consider the benefits to
  humanity due to the computer industry.  Communication satellites are
  an excellent example.  To make commercialism possible, we need to
  develop better space transportation technology.  We need to bring
  down the cost of putting objects into orbit.  The government,
  however, must seed the process to break the catch-22.

* The future of manned space is also unlimited.  Again, we have the
  technology to create a space faring civilization; we just need to
  develop it.  The hard part of getting the entire solar system at our
  finger tips it low earth orbit (LEO).  This is the most expensive
  step as things stand now.  Once we break this barrier, we then need
  to develop an infrastructure, or transportation system, that can be
  used time and time again.





* In conclusion: (sorry folks, didn't get it down)  Sid could provide?


/end/