Re: Interstellar Shipping

One thing that has been approached, but perhaps not touched on, in the 
discussion of shipping/travel costs, is closely related to the 
exploration/colonization distinction.  Remember that both the cost,
hazards 
involved, and types of ships required is going to be different for
exploring 
new regions of space than it will be for colonizing explored regions,
which 
will in turn be different than those for transporting between two 
colonized/settled points.  The difference can be illustrated
historically, 
and actually seems to amplify itself as we progress in history.  Other
than 
the nature of the cargo, crew, and passengers, the difference between a 
merchant vessel and an exploration vessel in sailing ship days was
minimal - 
that seems like a huge "Other than", but my point is that if you looked
at a 
ship and didn't know who/what was aboard it, you wouldn't know which it
was. 
  Now compare a research vessel such as Beth might board to a modern 
freighter, and the differences are more pronounced. How different will a

future exploration spacecraft be from a bulk freighter?  The mind
boggles.  
In addition, the cost (In % of the entire US economy) of the Apollo
program 
will probably be considered staggering compared to the relative cost of 
shipping corn to the moon, once regular shipping commences.

This discussion hearkens back to one I brought up over a year ago when I
was 
on-list the first time.  I talked about "Push" and "Pull" pressures for 
exploration and colonization.  IIRC, my point was that in the early
stages 
of colonization (Not later immigration to establishred colonies), the
TREND 
will be that there's both a reason for someone to GO colonize (Escaping 
persecution, 40 acres and a mule, etc.), as well as a reason for someone
to 
stake that person's going (development of markets, new resources,
strategic 
importance of the location of the new colony).

Brian B2

>From: KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de (K.H.Ranitzsch)
>Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
>To: <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
>Subject: Re: Interstellar Shipping
>Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 19:45:01 +0100
>
>Nice analysis. A few comments:
>
>From: "Allan Goodall" <agoodall@att.net>
> > On Fri, 11 Jan 2002 07:02:29 -0800, Sean Bayan Schoonmaker
>
> > Traditionally colonization has been due to several reasons:
> > - population pressure resulting in famine and disease. (This is the
> > traditional reason in sci-fi, though historically this been a reason
for
> > populations to spread out, not set out for uncharted 
>islands/continents.)
>
>I guess the Irish potato famine and associated emigration might be
quoted 
>as
>an example. Though that was more crop failure than population pressure.
>
> > - escaping persecution. (Escaping religious persecution was a biggie
in
>the
> > 17th and 18th centuries.)
>
>Looking at the present day situation, there may be quite a lot of
people 
>who
>would like to emigrate to a cozy little planet for that reason - or to
any
>place on earth that would let them in.
>
> > The most likely reason for colonization in the Tuffleyverse would be
> > population pressure and wealth. I've heard that we've only got
easily
> > attainable fossil fuel reserves until 2030 to 2050. After that, it
gets
> > much harder to find oil (lets face it; they aren't making any more
> > dinosaurs...).
> > Pulling ore out of a planet and shipping refined metals and other
goods
> > would be a big incentive for colonies.
>
>The problem I see here is that most of these would require bulk
shipping of
>goods. Typically, it's high-value goods that drive initial trade and
>colonization. Bulk shipping comes last. Very rare materials that are of
>value in small quantities would be the first candidate.
>
> > Jon hasn't really postulated why the mass colonization effort. A
good
>sci-fi
> > reason would be some super bug or virus that's ravaging the
population,
>albeit
> > fairly slowly. That, however, would go against the whole idea of 
>colonies
> > having close contact with Mother Earth.
>
>A slow acting virus ravaging the population ? AIDS is not that far off
this
>mark.
>
> > The resource idea is probably the easiest one to live with. Food
>production,
> > ore mining, oil drilling (even if not used in fuels, it is still
needed
>for
> > plastics and polymers), to name the obvious ones. Would these
colonies 
>be
>nice
> > places to live? I could see some worlds being essentially strip
mined 
>for
>ore,
> > leaving a desolate wasteland in a couple hundred years. I can see
others
>as
> > being far more liveable.
>
>The model of space as a source of raw materials is, for me, fairly 
>plausible
>within the solar system. But over interstellar distances ?
>
>Greetings
>Karl Heinz
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com