Forrest Bishop (
Wed, 31 Dec 1997 21:53:46 -0600 (CST)

John Clark wrote:

>A first rate post by Forrest Bishop <>, but I can
>always find something to argue about.
> >Mars also may have so-called "fossil fuel" deposits similar to
> >Earth's oil and natural gas reservoirs.
>But of course such fuel is useless without free oxygen, and even as a chemical
>feed stock I question its value, especially in an age of Nanotechnology.

It is useful in chemical engines (rocket, IC engines, fuel cells) when combined
with free O2,
which of course has to be liberated first. Chemical energy is a fairly compact
storage system.
More importantly, HCs are more economical (less energy) for standard (current)
chemical processes, as well as for a nanotech feedstock.

> >It bugs me to see a concept [O'Neill-style colonization] named after
> >its popularizer.
>I think you're being a little hard on O'Neill, the man did some original work


>and he asked a very deep question, "Is the surface of a planet the best place
>for an advanced civilization?" His answer was no, and I think he was correct.

It was asked and answered many times before him. He did put the numbers to it.

>Besides, naming a concept for its popularizer is a tradition, 2 continents
>were named after one.


> >My reform proposals start with instant and total shutdown of the
> >Space Shuttle program.
>yes. Yes. YES! The space Shuttle started life as a terrible way to perform a
>dangerous job that nobody wanted done, huge expense and inept management
>did not improve things. Dump the white elephant.

The *operating cost* of one single Shuttle launch is enough to fund an entire
new generation of cheap boosters.

> >This [solar power satellite stations (SSPS)] has been studied since
> >the late '60s, it is just now starting to make economic sense.
>At one time I was a big booster of SSPS, but now I have doubts they will ever
>make economic sense in delivering power to earth, I certainly wouldn't invest
>my own money in such a venture. It's possible to transmit power by microwaves
>from 22 thousand miles, I'm just skeptical of its practicality given the

It's iffy, but still a contender. Lower launch costs and ultra lightweight cells
might tip the scales. Another proposal I like is to simply pave the Moon with cells
made from native material. This would need a powerline running part way around
the Moon, to use the cells on the far side during new Moon. My proposal here is
to use a Mass Drivers (or such) to launch and receive masses. The power is
transmitted in the form of kinetic energy.

Forrest Bishop