PRO/CON ~ ESE/LSE: (sorry about all the words)
I'm not your Starlight Express bad-guy, not one of those opposing the ESE technology potential, just somewhat opposed to our investing so much talent and resources into something that's so spendy for the decades to come, without offering a sufficient payoff for even reducing the annual CO2 impact for Earth, not to mention our not accomplishing what could otherwise have been accommodated for pennies on their bloated ESE dollar.
These ESE folks continue to use their Arthur Andersen accounting for just the gas in the tank, as that being their one and only energy consuming and thereby dollar consuming aspect worth talking about, as though all the rest of their ESE R&D and subsequent infrastructure isn't needlessly sucking away mass quantities of tax and privet dollars, while consuming energy as well as producing mass quantities of CO2.
I've noticed lately that the ESE huggers are supporting that their some-day spendy ESE is going to be insurable. Hardly folks, this is just more of their snookering on steroids. Perhaps if you want to receive a somewhat nasty taste of their insanity, goto this "Space Elevator or bust" site and read through some of their "pro everything ESE", then notice all of their "anti-everything other" that's been going on. It's as though morals are never considered, nor rational logic, nor even honest consideration for alternatives or even of others that don't take their ESE "hook line and sinker" policy to heart.
The only thing that's insurable is perhaps their retirement benefits (not even that much if the likes of ENRON or even Martha Stewart gets involved), or perhaps if nearly everything ESE works according to plan, of that prospect of what we're talking about insuring against might be a relatively insignificant glitch, such as a delivery delay issue or perhaps another scratch somewhere it's not supposed to be. Insurance adds great cost in order to satisfy those brokering whatever insurance policy, always foremost on behalf of the insurance company investors best interest and only secondly on behalf of those being insured, along with little if absolutely no expertise nor technology being offered from the insurance side of the equation, as it's only another masking layer that'll convince most folks that all is well and good within their ESE world, in spite of all the facts telling the rest of us folks otherwise.
ESE's insurable invincibility:
Insurance provides foremost a false sense of invincibility, always has and it always will. Using a seat-belt doesn't represent that you can drive 90 mph through commute traffic, though many have and the results are rather obvious (what good insurance does if you're dead or worse off isn't exactly clear). Unless you purchase enough policy, so that the reams of those policy documents creates a sufficient crash barrier that's more effective than seat-belts and air-bags, while somehow providing an alternative for intelligence, as whatever your invincibility status isn't going to cut it, certainly not beneficially for those unfortunate outsiders and/or bystanders that are simply in the wrong place when your insured invincibility kicks in.
In case some of you nice folks haven't noticed; anything space launch and or space travel related is risky business (period!). Insurance companies aren't total idiots, as they're in it only if there's a sufficiently guaranteed profit, thereby policy exclusions (usually within micro fine-print) is the name of their game. Of an analogy into vastly more insurable though big-fiasco events (9/11, flight 800 and so on), it has nearly always been the taxpayer and/or the consumers stuck with picking up whatever portion of the tab that the supposed insurance policy fails to cover (usually that represents the lawyers getting paid in-full prior to whomever else is getting a penny if anything), which would undoubtedly be inclusive of just about everything ESE, LSE, Shuttle, or you name it, especially if it has just about anything whatsoever to do with outer space (try getting life insurance as a civilian astronaut, as even those survivors of military astronauts don't get squat above their normal death benefit/retirement).
Other than smoke and mirrors, there's actually darn little if any honest dollar per dollar contest going on here. Since the first prototype ESE isn't likely to being payload functional for a couple of decades, then mostly of that for continuing tether repairs and of delivering a few expendable robotic missions, as otherwise conventional rockets will have been delivering the vast bulk of satellites, and of shuttle like craft will still have to accommodate the task of moving folks to/from space. Perhaps 5 decades from now we'll have those spendy (multi-trillion dollar apiece) ESE(s), capable of doing the task (just like I'd inferred a while back, as in 10 trillions worth), instead of a shuttle craft and/or even in place of those efficient reentry/return pods. Thanks but no thanks, I'll pass on the ESE investment, but not altogether upon their technology because, I believe it's doable, of at least some day and, preferably when I'm not the one having to be paying for it.
Though how about this alternative; instead of focusing so much talent and resources upon a rather spendy ESE, or even the likes of a relatively cheap rotovator technology, instead how about our reconsidering, as sort of a doable compromise upon a Lunar Space Elevator (LSE), that which could have technically been initially developed and deployed as of a decade ago?
If you honestly think we can't and/or shouldn't do the LSE, then perhaps we shouldn't even carry on with the ESE R&D, instead concentrate upon utilizing efficient and well proven robotics, those of relatively small/compact size, of somewhat like TRACE, although I'm including the lunar SAR aperture deployment so that we'll not even be requiring another mapping satellite of so many places, like whatever is within our solar system and then some. Then I'm also in favor of achieving interplanetary laser packets, of possibly quantum binary format that's also within our existing expertise, and doable for pennies on the dollar of anything satellite (good grief folks; just 1% of the preliminary "starlight Express" conception development funding is way more than what's needed for establishing interplanetary communications, of which has nothing whatsoever to do with those SETI folks).
However, for SE fans in general, and even beneficial for those diehard ESE huggers;
If the moon is mostly of basalt, as it perhaps should be, then of whatever bulk is required for sustaining humans in space, whether that's of simply obtaining mass for spacecraft shielding (for abating radiation as well as improving impact resistance) or of accommodating EMPD propulsion fuel considerations, I believe this substance is in fact available from the moon, and of the LSE affordably accommodating such within the context of the LSE-CM/ISS format is perhaps just the ticket, as in right here and now, not of some horrifically spendy day decades from now and solely dependent upon those CNT fibers taking the heat as well as the radiation as well as whatever other solar flak, not to forget about the year after year of dodging a few hundred thousand other not so insignificant objects in it's path (add up the total ESE tether surface area exposure, and then do the math, then you tell me what the annual chances are of any ESE tether, let alone several, surviving that gauntlet).
It seems like we can get ourselves to/from the moon rather quickly these days, thus a timeline of potentially lethal exposure of the Van Allen zone and otherwise the mostly solar radiation flux has become somewhat limited with respect to those testy Apollo days, and thereby survivable within minimal shielding, at least in terms of hours to perhaps a few days worth, unless of course you've got 341 g/cm2 of something (moon dirt) surrounding your butt, as then you can easily tolerate some extended mission related travel time without having all of your DNA/RNA chopped into bits by various TBI worthy radiation issues, that's not even to mention avoiding significant erosion if not a few too many of those pesky through-holes as a result of your impacting with a grain of sand, of which without sufficient shielding density is exactly where life as we know it will become downright difficult, and/or subsequently where your own immune system proceeds to further eradicate yourself from within, whereas I do believe as a backup plan (Plan-B), there are reasonably known limits as to what having banked bone marrow can even achieve.
I've learned from others, a whole lot smarter than myself, that sending technology efficient robotic missions off into a lunar orbit is apparently a whole lot easier if not more energy efficient than establishing most any Earth GSO, of which I suppose that includes the likes of Earth L2 or L1, as those positions being somewhat more complicated and thus more energy and/or time consuming in order to establish, whereas sending robotics off to visit a LSE-CM/ISS is not only efficiently doable but, I believe highly beneficial, especially once docked and/or snagged by the LSE-CM/ISS robotics and/or crew, as this is obviously where whatever final mission configuration outfitting takes place, as well as applied shielding of mostly moon dirt and/or basalt rock is accommodated, plus whatever refuel elements (most likely for the EMPD thruster formats) are supplied.
What we can't seem to afford to deliver directly into space from Earth, at least not without creating great amounts of global warming CO2 for Earth, is that of any sufficient volume of mass for radiation shielding, and/or of just offering sufficient physical shield density for surviving micro impacts that are more than a wee bit testy issues for human space flights, along with there being anything leftover for the likes of accommodating spare fuel, beer and pizza. Eventually, decades from now, after spending perhaps trillions, the ESE(s) will most likely become capable of accommodating those deliveries of such mass. Though most any ESE should be more efficient than rockets, the overall delivery process still offers a significant CO2 impact for Earth, not to mention an ongoing maintenance effort, defense thereof and logistics fiasco along with a list of "what if's" that should keep all of us on our toes.
This latest pro/con of the ESE/LSE report/argument needs a whole lot of work, as well as it could use your valuable input plus lots more expertise, as well as medications on my behalf. Within this delivery, I'm discussing or at least attempting to convey upon various issues of the ESE/LSE, though obviously I'm thoroughly confused and disorientated as usual, as I can actually foresee others and even myself being snookered again, just like those grand old Apollo cold-war days, along with all the dog wagging on steroids, plus all of that being so nicely packaged into the sorts of top notch NASA/NOVA produced and/or moderated infomercials that'll knock our socks off.
Since I'm not good at telling my stories, I may have to get myself back into this one as well as a few other pages, polish things up and otherwise continue to share in whatever I've learned, as well as sharing whatever warm and fuzzy favor returning that I can think of, as I'm certain of those opposing or merely silently playing along, or perhaps they're pretending at their playing "hide and seek" because, in reality these folks may actually be dumber than dumb (that's merely flaunting their arrogance without their being smart enough for realizing it), but obviously those folks would otherwise expect nothing less from my perspective. So, I'll keep trying to oblige, even though I'd rather be using their numbers and giving those folks all the credits.
For now, about the only credit towards my LSE, as opposed to their ESE, that I can tell about, is purely their negative flak, though this flak of their's is without their offering specific numbers, I thereby can't even support that those negatives are for real, sort of in the same light that I can't seem to prove that our astronauts ever walked on the moon, though nor can Johnny Cochran.
I've accomplished this latest effort (pro/con ESE/LSE) as yet another of my poor deliveries on the issues of the ESE/LSE. Have yourself another look-see, a few laughs at the expense of humanity, then give me some of that "all knowing" feedback and even flak if that's all you've got. Of course, of what's mostly in need are specific numbers, of doable "what ifs" and of whatever inventions you can devise upon, applicable for either the ESE or LSE. Actually the ESE needs a whole lot more help and of trillions more of your hard earned money than my LSE proposal, but I'll certainly take whatever you've got, even if it's just ESE leftovers.
PRO/CON ESE/LSE: http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-ese-lse.htm
Regards, Brad Guth / IEIS~GASA / the discovery of other LIFE on Venus
Besides way too many other topics, here's other ongoing LSE UPDATES:
Basalt tether update: http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-lse-gpa.htm
If you can't get manage to get an email through, simply creat a Google post that includes either subject phrase: "gv-bradguth-email" or "bradguth-email"
Include either within one of your own Google post subject line, as perhaps then I'll find you. This has only become necessary because of the orchestrated email bashings w/virus that's been tossed at myself from every which way but lose. If this still doesn't work (in other words, your Google post having the subject "bradguth-email" is mysteriously rejected or blocked), then simply send off a fax: 1-253-8575318 or directly call: 1-253-8576061 so that we can setup another email address that'll work until it's officially trashed by those opposing truths.