Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    rec.arts.sf.science    |    Real and speculative aspects of SF scien    |    45,986 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 44,687 of 45,986    |
|    Mikkel Haaheim to All    |
|    Re: James S.A. Corey's answer to There A    |
|    26 Nov 16 09:29:57    |
      From: mikkelhaaheim@gmail.com              Le lundi 24 octobre 2016 02:54:10 UTC+2, Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw a écrit :              > 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.              Unless you happen to LIVE at the bottom of one of those wells. Even then,       unless you are using the material exactly where you get it from, you will need       to expend the energy to get the material from one orbit to another. It is       about as resource intensive        to get material from Earth surface to LEO as it is from lunar surface to       LEO... but this assumes that you already have a sustained presense on the       lunar surface (it costs MUCH more in terms of resources if you have to get to       the moon first). If you are        using a resource in Earth orbit, you will need to haul it from somewhere, and       that will take resources.                     > 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.              Thank you for your explanation. Not so much for your condescending attitude. I       simply asked you to explain the acronym. I was not asking you to guess what I       am familiar with or not. I was informing you I was not familiar, and       requesting information.              I think you have a gross misunderstanding of what CATS really means. When I am       refering to cost, I am refering to the absolute requirement in terms of actual       resources expended. CATS refers to trade value, which is not the same thing as       reduced use of        resources, and is actually commonly quite the opposite.       Cheap access is the result of a highly developed infrastructure producing a       vastly accelerated rate of resource extraction. This makes the resource       available to more people, but it also results in greater demand. Once you have       the public demand, those        resources are not as readily available to the government.                     > It's an analogy, besides: Even "deep sea" drilling is actually        > restricted to locations fairly close to shore.               Exactly my point. You are NOT going to look just anywhere. You are going to       gather your mining operations around your processing, machining, assembly, and       distribution resources. If the mines start to drift too far away from such       infrastructures, they        will be closed down in favour of more local resources.                            > > 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.              Incorrect. Unless you are dealing with an extremely strict dictatorship,       governments are subject to the demands of the constituency. All of those       resources are being provided by non-government, public interests (even if the       government is currently        footing most of the bill). Those public interests are going to answer foremost       to the public demand. Access to space will be cheap... NOT unlimited.       Consider the reason that so many very competent aircraft and naval vessels are       being retired. To a large extent, it is because the military can not afford to       keep them all fueled... despite the fact that their means of travel remains       fairly inexpensive.              --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05        * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca