From: chakatfirepaw@gmail.com   
      
   On Sun, 23 Oct 2016 10:52:46 -0700, Mikkel Haaheim wrote:   
      
   > Le lundi 26 septembre 2016 01:19:13 UTC+2, Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw a   
   > écrit :   
   >   
   >   
   >> >> Have you missed the whole bit about how you place these things in   
   >   
   >> > You might be constructing these things in space, but you will first   
   >> > have to transport all the raw materials from either the Earth or the   
   >> > moon (perhaps Mars, if you still control Mars space).   
   >>   
   >> I'm not assuming a particular political division.   
   >   
   > Nor am I.   
      
   Then don't make argument that rely on that assumption.   
      
   The way the physics works, everyone is going to have easy access to large   
   amounts of materials that don't need to be hauled up out of gravity wells.   
      
   >> Besides, you did   
   >> notice that I included that CATS would be a baseline for any reasonable   
   >> scenario.   
   >   
   > Sorry, please specifiy your acronym.   
      
   Let me repeat a bit of text that you happened to delete:   
      
   "Dude:  Stop talking about how we might launch such things from the   
   surface of the Earth.  In any scenario where this kind of thing matters   
   you will have to have _cheap_access_to_space_ as the very minimum and are   
   more likely going to be engaging in orbital manufacture."  (Emphasis   
   added.)   
      
   CATS is a standard acronym when talking about near- to mid-future space   
   issues.  I don't have the time to guess what basic information you lack.   
      
   >> (BTW:  The classic SF 'belter' idea is pretty much wrong.  Even the   
   >> asteroid belt itself is going to be more like deep-sea fishing than   
   >> anything else, any given rock will belong to whoever happens to get to   
   >> it first and there isn't that much of an advantage from your starting   
   >> position.)   
   >   
   > This depends quite a lot on the size of the "rocks". Deep sea drilling   
   > platforms would be more accurate... or various mines.   
      
   It's an analogy, besides:  Even "deep sea" drilling is actually   
   restricted to locations fairly close to shore.  (The whole "Howard Hughes   
   is going to mine the ocean bottom" thing was nothing but cover for an   
   intelligence operation.)  Asteroid mining will be about going out into   
   the middle of nowhere   
      
   > The realities of   
   > "claims" in space mining will undoubtably evolve over time. At first,   
   > you will probably have collectives of countries submitting bids and   
   > claiming various "rocks"... at the very early stages, your deep sea   
   > fishing analogy will be somewhat accurate.   
      
   It isn't going to change unless you somehow manage to get something   
   better than a high-thrust photon drive.  The most you can do is convince   
   someone to not contest your effort to be first to get there.   
      
   > This is ALL going to change once you have established communities that   
   > can afford their own navies.   
      
   OK, seriously:  You really need to learn a bit about orbital mechanics.   
   Remember my comment about how far the Trojan asteroids are from Jupiter?   
   The asteroid belt has the same problem except that it isn't a pair of   
   clusters but rather a whole bunch of individual hunks of rock that take   
   longer to go between than to go to or from Earth or Mars, (Jupiter may or   
   may not be closer.   
      
   >> > Also, cheap access into space is realtive, and is not entirely   
   >> > relevant in this case. The notion that LEO is halfway to anywhere (in   
   >> > the solar system, at least) is only applicable to transit along the   
   >> > solar plane. For solar polar orbits, not only do you have to start   
   >> > from scratch, but you also have to negate the velocities along the   
   >> > solar plane.   
   >>   
   >> CATS means that the cost of launching things has become trivial and   
   >> thus arguments based on modern launch costs are moot.   
   >   
   > Debatable. There is no such thing as unlimited resources. When I am   
   > talking about cost, I am not refering to modern monetary values. I am   
   > refering to available resources.   
      
   If you have CATS you are, by definition, not facing a resource   
   restriction for launches.  If there is a resource restriction then the   
   price will go up and you won't have CATS any more.   
      
   And again:  If you don't have at least CATS you don't have a space navy   
   and the entire issue is moot.   
      
   > OTOH, I suppose it would be on par with the resources required to shoot   
   > them down... assuming the ridiculously large scale spreads.   
      
   Not even close, sensor platforms need neither that immense amount of   
   material nor all that deltaV.   
      
   --   
   Chakat Firepaw - Inventor and Scientist (mad)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)