Re: Building Real Spaceships

On Feb 7, 5:43 am, "Dimensional Traveler" <dtra...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Willie.Moo...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Feb 6, 9:49 pm, "Dimensional Traveler" <dtra...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Willie.Moo...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Feb 6, 4:28 pm, Gene Ward Smith <g...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Willie.Moo...@xxxxxxxxx wrote in news:42274ef1-c454-4f61-
84df-9e810d64b...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

How are you going to plant a self-
sustaining colony of subsistence farmers on Ceres,

I never said anythinig about be self sustaining. That's
what you
don't get.

In which case we cannot possibly afford to keep it going.

I note your total lack of numbers. So, this is another of your
gratuitous assertions.

_ANY_ endeavor that requires payment for nothing in return is pretty
much by definition too expensive to afford.

This is a separate issue - you are accepting that we can do it and can
do it at the price I said.

Actually, no, I'm not.  First you have to convince me there would be some
kind of payoff before I'm even going to consider what the costs might be..


I noticed you mentioned costs below. So, you are being illogical.
You either are considering costs or you are not. You are wise to ask
this question first. It is only after you ask this question, that you
can then determine a reasonable course of action. Yet you can see can
you not if you ask this question and believe at the same time nothing
out there justifies the expense, then you have pre-judged
illogically. I mean if you don' t know what the benefits are, you
don't know what the costs might be.

This sort of illogical prejudgement leads to lost opportunities.
AMPEX sold the rights to SONY for the video recorder for far more than
they thought it was reasonably worth. At the time, AMPEX thought SONY
mad. Of course, their view was that spinning head recording
technology was so delicate, so complex, and so costly, only TV studios
could afford it. The idea of a portable VCR machine to replace the TV
film news cameras (film at 11) or home video equipment, didn't enter
their minds. SONY took a different view - the correct view in
analysis of opportunity - what does the technology NEED to cost to
open a market? This directed their research effort.

So, first and foremost we need to ask this question, but ask it
without pre-judgement. Then we can decide how much a thing NEEDS to
cost before we proceed, and that organizes our research efforts.

So, to proceed without prejudgment you are only looking at the
potential returns, then we can look and see what sort of resources are
out there in the cosmos that might be brought to bear on human affairs
- what that might be worth, and only then ask about costs and what
sort of effort is requires to achieve those needed costs.

First off, we launched tiny payloads from one spot on Earth to another
ballistically. We can see that investment in space technology has
already had immediate payoff. I gave the outline below. We developed
ICBMs and that created the possibility of global thermonuclear war,
and that led to the need to end global scale conflicts among nuclear
combatants. We haven't had a world war since the development of these
weapons, and fear of such a conflict is a central thesis of
international affairs these days. The desire to be taken serious
propels all manner of people to seek access to these weapons. This is
propelling us to take other issues seriously, issues such as
motivation - since of the 100,000 weapons created by humanity, the
odds that a handful are in the 'wrong' hands is high and eventually if
nothing concrete is done, one will be used - and once that threshold
is reached, we may find all of them being used in short order. So,
this benefit is rather sizeable. Industrial development led by 1914
the first world war. In 1939 we had the second world war. That war
ended in a nuclear attack on the loser. Missiles were developed that
bombared London during the Blitz. By 1946 these two innovations were
put together into the first operational nuclear tipped missiles that
could wipe out a city at a single stroke. There have been no world
wars ever since. A growing number of weapons, but no use. This
doesn't seem like a benefit to humanity, but the long run up in the
stock market - recall the Great Depression following World War One was
due to the war. Nations tried to stay on the Gold standard at prices
previous to the War, without accounting for the fact the 4/5ths of all
industrial production had been bombed out of existence. So, after
great strains - the money supply not being able to adjust its value -
and wages being regulated - it fell to the value of stock companies
and the market for the same to adjust for that. After World War Two
we were wiser coming out of the previous Depression, and so, that war
was followed by a Great Global Deflation - the value of currencies
were revised downward, so that business could take advantage of the
destruction to expand markets and economic activity. That combined
with the plan to rebuild Europe, created a great business boom after
the war, which led to the fiction that war caused prosperity.
Actually, war causes huge destruction. It was the ending of the war
that created prosperity, and had there not been the destruction of war
in the first place, business would have been farther ahead than
otherwise. I guess what I'msaying is that the nuclear ICBM brought an
uneasy global peace - and that the world benefitted greatly by the
longest peace time and longest peace time rise in prosperity from
about 1948 through 2008. The peace the prosperity we take for granted
in the modern world is a direct consequence of the develeopment of the
ICBM - and this is the first step in the momentum curve of space
development. The world today creates about $66 trillion - there is
about $300 trillion worldwide in assets - there are 9.5 million
millionaires in the world who control about $40 trillion in liquid
assets - who are the source of capital formation - and so, the world
grows between 4% and 12% depending on tax rates. This is about 100
times larger in real terms than the world 60 years ago - which is a
steady 8% rise. This stands in marked contrast to the world between
1900 and 1950. In that time period there were strong economic
periods, punctuated by war - which converted all technical advance
into important weapons systems - which tempted one party or another to
try to take advantage. Which resulted in war the the destruction of
any economic progress. Since the 1940s, governments screened and
controlled the range of products available to the marketplace and
excluded those that had obvious military potential and more important
nations even undermined the development of militarily important
programs involving new technologies. The need to do this resulted
from the creation of the nuclear missile. The need to carry out one's
mission in the face of nuclear attack, gave us the impetus to create
communications systems that could operate without central control.
This gave us IMP (interface message protocol) which eventually became
the basis of IP - internet protocol. The need to limit our
destructive impulses in an age of high technology is an ongoing
process released by the development of sub-orbital spacecraft.

Second, we orbited larger payloads. This gave us the communication
satellite, the weather satellite, the spy satellite, the navigation
satellite - collectively I call these infosats. These give us for the
first time an easy low cost global communications network. This in
turn gave us the ability to observe, organize and benefit from
resources, talent, and markets anywhere. It also led to major
political transformation. Color TV reports from the battle fields of
Vietnam transformed the nations attitude towards war. The military
and intelligence response to this transformed public attitude toward
the military and intelligence operations. TV reports of a Civil
Rights march from Selma Alabama, and the response of the governor to
his own people's plea for fair voting rights - transformed the nation
overnight on racial issues. Beyond the US global coverage of a single
man's defiance of a Chinese tank at Tienamen spelled out for all the
power of an individual against overwhelming odds - and gave heart to a
nation to stand up to opression and radically transformed Chinese
affairs, similar images in USSR - led to revolution and the military
officers refusal to crush the revolution led tothe collapse of the
USSR. These are merely the tiniest twinges of the change of
conciousness that space travel will bring to this planet - On a more
practical note, since economic activity is a reflection of the best
possible outcomes - things don't take place in a free and open market
unless all parties benefit - and of all opportunities presented to
each party, only those opportunities that provide the greatest benefit
are acted upon. Obviously the more resources talent and opportunities
one has available, the greater the benefit. Since this is a
combinatorial problem, increasing the range of things only slightly
increases the permutations possible factorially - so like the
automobile - which allowed owners to transact business over a larger
area - the communications satellite generated tremendous capabilities
and tremendous opportunities for business growth - large and small.
As bandwidth increased well beyond the limited capacities of
telegraphic cables laid under the oceans along old steamship routes,
IMP gave rise to packet switched radio - and eventually resulted in a
global internet - which is the heart of nearly all business
transactions today. This is the point of greatest growth potential
with today's rockets - hold-overs from the 1950s. We no longer build
the rockets of the 1960s which took us to the moon, and abandoned the
rocket plans of the 1970s - which would have allowed us to develop
other worlds (which was my original point) - but satellite
development is continuing along these lines. Point to Point has given
way to satellites capable of One to Many transmissions (DirecTV and
Sirus and XM) - this will eventually give way to satellite
constellations that perform Many to Many transmissions (satellite
telephone, satellite direct internet, Teledesic) - the value of this
is over $100 billion per year. The cost of a system is likely to be
$40 billion over 40 years - a tremendous advantage. The economic
activity carried out over such a system - is likely to generate
another trillion or so dollars annually for users of the system, and
another tens of trillions of dollars in economic activity. Bandwidth
will not only bring UHDTV to every laptop, but also telepresence and
telerobotics - which will allow people to live anywhere and do any job
anywhere else. So a French restaurant can get real American cuisine by
hiring an American to cook for them. A worker in a village in China
can assemble automobiles in Detroit. A surgeon in London can treat a
patient in Tokyo, and Sydney and New Delhi in an afternoon without
travelling. Robots like Honda's ASIMO will be deftly and naturally
driven around by everyone from police officers to army personnel to
surgeons, housekeepers cooks, factory workers you name it. A longer
cooking transformation was started with remote sensing of Earth and
the Sun informed space scientists like James Lovelock of deep seated
mysteries of life. The sun we learned is twice a bright today as when
it was first formed. We also learned that the temperature on planet
Earth remained relatively constant -while CO2 levels had dropped
dramatically. This led Lovelock to the Gaia hypohthesis which started
the environmental movement. Communications and information revolution
is still ongoing - set in motion by satellite technology.

Third - manned payloads to the moon - the image of Earth floating
alone and vulnerable in space - without national borders - galvanized
a generation- it made the crazy notions of extremists mainstream- and
generally raised conciousness about the Earth as a place all people
share together - and like apples on a tree, where the health of all
apples rise or fall with the health of the tree. So, too do our
fortunes rise and fall together. That image released the idea of the
Earth as a place we all share. A more powerful image was not
produced in the 20th century. Meanwhile the hard boiled genius
fighter jocks we sent to the moon at this time were transformed by
their experience. This was first seen as a mental aberration. Aldrin
was even treated for it by psychologists. Others fared better. None
were taken sufficiently seriously for the nation and the world to
benefit as yet. Even so,some lunar explorers have entered religious
orders, became artists, or created their own new-age religions
(Noeticism) in response to their insights gained on that journey.
The conciousness raising potential of flight far from Earth - well
beyond the range where space travel is merely high altitude flight -
is an as yet untold story whose power to transform and enlighten the
world - has yet to have its major impact. It is this ability to reach
into the heart and gut of everyone and elicit - against their will - a
cooperativeness that makes terrorism and warfare unthinkable. Stokely
Carmichael wrote a moving story in LIFE magazine in the spring of 1969
where he described a march against NASA 1968 moon launch. He
protested the money spent on the flight and contended that it would
have been better spent paying black families in America for the labor
taken from black slaves prior to the Civil War. He and his marchers
gained access to the launch. While there he describes the scene in
the aritcle. He watched the silver rocket climb into the blue sky -
the pale white moon in the distance - and he was overcome with the
sheer human excitement of the journey. The privileged white military
officers who were taking the journey no longer elicited the hateful
responses which he felt was their due - rather he felt a presence, a
spirit, an indwelling conciousness of something that he shared with
those men and their journey and felt excitement and yes, pride - a
pride the nation and society had denied him all his life - and against
all logic all reason - he wished them well and was proud of the money
and the effort and the talent that made such a journey possible - and
because he felt pride in these men and their journey - for the first
time really he ever felt proud of being an American - he loved them
and truly and deeply wished them well. This is the power of the stuff
we are working with here. It is the power of the frontier to
transform and enliven a dying center. This has always been the power
of the frontier. We deny it and ignore it at our risk and pain of
death. To embrace it is the cost of greatness the cost of life
itself. It may seem insane to those who don't get it. Maybe you
don't get it still. Eisenhower never got it. Kennedy did, but he got
killed before his second term. No President after him got it. We are
all suffering because of this lack. It is as illogical as a kiss, and
as fruitful as a summer romance - but it is the stuff of life - and
because it is costly because it involves deadly serious issues - it
has the power to transform and enlighten our most serious problems and
expand the range and breadth and depth of every aspect of our lives.
This is why today we need to build cities on the moon and mars and
Ceres and we need to explore a larger vision and give voice to those
astronauts who have been so long silenced and ignored. This will help
us win the war on terror by transforming the heart and mind and soul
of our enemies by showing our enemies our heart and soul by these
great voyages of exploration and settlement.

This is obviously worth the price - even though initially - there is
no direct financial reward.

We do many things that have no direct financial reward.  In fact some
of the most noble things we do as a nation is done for no direct
financial reward.  If we concluded that we couldn't afford to to
anything unless there was a direct financial benefit today for it -
then we would not be doing some of the most important things we do as
a nation.  Furthermore, we would start doing things that we would be
better off regulating or limiting - even though they're quite
profitable financially

For example, paying police officers to combat crime, paying soldiers
to defend a nation, paying the State Department to maintain civilized
relations with foreign governments, paying the intelligence services
to get at the root of the real problems facing our nation, paying
teachers to educate our children, paying doctors to keep us well or
librarians to keep copies of books we can go to the bookstore and buy
- is all that too expensive to afford?  Or is something else going on.

None of these things provide real tangible results.  A cop on a beat
has a good day if no major crime occurs.  Yet if several weeks pass
with no criminal activity, do we really need a cop on the beat?   A
soldiers life is a good life if he's not sent into battle.  But if
years go by and no war breaks out, do we really need an army?  Can't
kids learn on their own?  Can't parents teach their kids?  or
employers?   Why does the government have to do it for everyone?  Why
does everyone need to know so much anyway?  Wouldn't it be more
efficient if people just paid attention to what they needed and did
that really well and leave thinking to others?  And doctors - isn't it
true that its really the body that heals itself.  Doctors at best,
only help what naturally occurs,  at worst they can do great damage.
So, why have a group of health professionals - why pay a doctor?  If
nearly everybody takes care of themselves and only a few sad sacks get
sick in a decade, do we really need that man doctors?   Won't they go
out and find sickness just to keep busy?  Why do we need the public to
pay to keep copies of books in special buildings?  Do people really
read that much?

None of these folks are providing a commercial service.  None are
capable of being organized into a for profit service - trust me people
have tried.  They can't make a profit like a whorehouse can or a bar
or a liquor store or a pornographer.  So, why should we respect any of
these services more than whores or bar keeps?  Why should my hard
earned money go into the public coffers to be wasted on things like
police, armies, schools or hospitals - a school teacher can't make as
much profit as a hooker, and a policeman or army officer can't make as
many people happy as a great bartender, so why should I respect honor
or even like police, army or school teachers?  Why can't I keep my
money to buy the beer i want?

Is the profit something can put in your pocket the only measure by
which public expenditures are made?

NO!  OBVIOUSLY NOT!

I never said the payoff had to be financial.  Building a moonbase is NOT the
same as paying for a police force

Good. and you are right, the people who live on the moon will benefit
our society to a far greater degree than any police officer or
military unit ever could.

Today we are involved in a war on terror.  We are involved in a war on
terror because there are those in the world who are motivated to
destroy us.  They are motivated to destroy us because they see us as a
great evil on the world.  A great plague.  A weight that the world
needs to throw off.  They see us this way because the 0.3 billion
people in the US, is only a small portion of the 6.6 billion people in
the world, yet we consume $15 trillion a year of the world's $66
trillion a year.  We do this because at the end of the Second World
War the US has pursued a policy of maintaining a large disparity of
income.favorable to the US.  It did this because it observed that poor
nations were never successful in attacking rich nations.  So, the
logic went, if we were wealthier than everyone else, we wouldn't be
attacked.  Combine this huge disparity of income, with denial of
capacity - and the logic went - the US would be secure from attack.

This was important because in the nuclear age, even a small attack can
be devastating.  This idea worked, the US wasn't attacked throughout
the Cold War - on 9/11 that paradigm failed when a rebel group in
Afghanistan - a poor cousin in one of the poorest nations on Earth -
successfully carried out an attack on the United States.  Now some
might argue that this wasn't a nuclear attack.  But, the collapse of
the Soviet Union left thousands of nuclear weapons in questionable
hands.  A survey done during the Clinton Administration (the first
Bush Administration didn't do this) indicated that as many as a dozen
nukes may be loose in the world - many of these are man-portable.
Likely sold for profit by Generals who weren't getting paid - during
the collapse of the USSR.  A terror attack under these conditions
could quite easily go nuclear.

Before this happens, the United States MUST take the lead in
motivating all people everywhere with a common vision of hope and
growth and peace.  The paradigms that served us well in the Cold War,
are failing us now, and re must re-address them if we are to maintain
our position in the future.

Building cities on the moon and mars, establishing the conditions for
private investment in opportunities as they arise, set the stage to
inspire the world for a generation with hope and open ended
possibility, and give the US a means to motivate the world toward a
common inspiring vision of the future.

All those things you are saying would inspire the world and set the US up as
even more of a leader would be just more reason for many to attack and try
to tear down the US.  

It depends on the details. There will certainly be turmoil. The TV
images from Selma made Martin Luther King a world hero. The response
of George Wallace and the Alabama National Guard caused them to
reviled and hated, and brought more protesters to the State. The
response of Lyndon Johnson elevated him and led to legislation that
was the greatest advance in Civil Rights in this nation's history
since the Civil War. While Watts burned that summer - it was only a
small conflict given the size of the problem and all American were
given their due as citizens without a second Civil War - in part
because of the images and ideas those images released and the sense of
what might be possible.

There are those who will think as you say - that will be their mind.
But there will arise in them a presence an identification with
something larger - that Stokely Carmichael talked about, that
astronauts talked about when they used to interviewed without NASA
handlers. Neil Armstrong in an interview once said after a world tour
that the most amazing thing to him was that people didn't say America
did it - they said WE did it. us - humans. There was an
identification with an accomplishment that transcended differences.
That connection that ability to make that connection is the reason it
is vitally important that we lead the way.

The alternative is to not lead the way and leave it to others to
inspire such feelings in the rest of humanity while we take a back
seat - the 4% of the people hoarding the 30% of the world they take
as tribute. The alternative will most certainly lead to our demise as
a great nation, while the course of action I am suggesting, will allow
us to maintain this postion for another generation or two - while we
search for ways to make good on the promises implied - in the face of
minor opposition.


Not to mention the "how dare you disturb the Heavens"
crowd.  

In any large and diverse population you can find any sort of idea
being promoted. You can also imagine things that aren't really
there. Whether or not an idea has currency has nothing to do with its
logic,and everything to do with the deep idntification people are
capable of. with the achievements and accomplishments of others. That
is why the Olympic games are so important. We all identify with
athletic skill and accomplishment no matter who the winner is. For
whatever reason, space travel has proven to have this effect on nearly
everyone - despite the odd hold out one might find.

I think its more likely that all those people you say are attacking
the US for "wasting" so much of the world's resources would see adding
another few trillion to the total as just even more "waste".

Yes, just like Stokley Carmichael went to the launch to protest the
waste and came away feeling the pride so long denied him - and against
all reason and all logic came away loving the white military officers
on board for giving him that feeling.

Nevertheless, it comes close to a legitimate question, so I'll
answer the implied question.

A fully resuable ship of the type I've described is capable of a
moon flight for $100 million. It is cpable of carrying 1,000 tons
of cargo - this is a cost of $100,000 per ton. User fees, and
commercial charges of this subsidized payload would likely recover
much of this - 60% to 70% -this would make the cost of living on
the moon double the cost of living in Hawaii. Since incomes would
likely be 50% to 100% higher - this is easily sustained. This
reduces the cost of a ton to the government to $40,000 to $50,000
per ton. This means that 120,000 people sustained by a fleet of 10
ships flying monthly to the moon, would cost $4.8 billion to $6.0
billion per year - out of our $50 billion per year budget.

WHY would we pay that?

For the same reason we pay a soldier or a teacher or a librarian.  It
provides a needed element to maintain our position as the greatest
nation in history. It provides a means for our country to inspire
others in the world with a hopeful inspiring vision of the future.  It
gives us an ability to make credible promises to the world that our
greatness will be shared with all in the very near future and that we
can all live together someday in plenty and in peace.

No, they are not the same.

No, you are right, the soldier the teacher and the librarian are part
of our mundane workaday world. They benefit our society directly and
in mundane - though not economic - ways. The astronaut is a public
hero on a scale far different than any of those other public heroes.
They transcend the mundane and tap into a deeper spirit and a deeper
realization and prepare teh ground for profound shifts in planetary
conciousness in all human beings. As a nation we can decide to lead
or follow these shifts. Investing in the next step in manned space
travel - building a city on the moon and mars - gives us the right and
the privilege to benefit from this transformation - even while some of
the changes may seem like trouble at first.


Once a source of water is found on the moon, the amount of resources

You mean IF a source of water is found.

I cannot predict that water will be found on the moon at the present
time, any more than you can predict that it cannot.

But your whole argument is based on there being water there.

No its not. I merely said that if water is there the mass needed to
keep a person alive is 1/10th that if its not there. If water isn't
there and its needed it will be imported. AT FIRST - it will be
costly. Water will be looked for. If it definitely isn't found in
recoverable forms, pressure will be on to reduce transportation
costs. Water will be imported, and the cost will drop over time as
transport techniques improve. Engineers are already aware of
technologies that will dramatically reduce space transport costs.

needed by each colonist will be reduced to 100 kg. The price paid
for this can easily exceed $100,000 per ton - and the way is open
for subsidies to end as commercial space operators supply materials
for a profit. At that point, populations can rise to any level
sustained by economic activity.

WHAT economic activity?

The economic activity that people engage in when they exist in a
community of 100,000

Which would be?

You are being illogical again. You eloquently stated that you
recognized that economic utility isn't the only social benefit
possible. Obviously if a handful of hardboild fighter jocks were
transformed spiritually by their journey, those more easily affected
by emotion will have similar experiences more easily. Word of this
lunar effect will lead to HUGE interest in lunar tourism. The Greeks
used to put temples on the tops of mountains - because of the
transformative potential of place - one can easily imagine hotels, and
a tourist industry exploiting the same impulse. Apart from that,
there are scientific and selenological research that the government
could support. Looking for water is one activity. Prospecting for
anything that's valuable. These are the first steps. Look at the
history of any Western town in the US. You had a fort to pacify the
region. You had business folk that sold stuff to the soldiers at the
fort. Prospectors looking for gold and other valuable stuff came
later. Hotel operators catering to visitors looking for adventure.
If a prospector found a sizeable deposit of gold a boom town would
form and rail would come in. Then, ranchers and farmers - and if the
region could support it, the ranch and farm product would be shipped
out on rail after the gold was long gone. Gold and products would
flow back to key cities transforming them - cities like Chicago.


The incomes of 30% to 40% of the people will be subsidized as well
-at the 120,000 level. At $100,000 per year this means that 36,000
to 48,000 people would be paid $4.3 billion to $5.8 billion out of
the $50 billion a year budget.

WHY pay those billions?

For the reasons already stated.

You mean glossed over and not stated.

I mean this is not my job to answer your damn fool questions. haha..
Read what i wrote - I didn't gloss over anything. You're just being
argumentative because you don't want to say you are wrong and i am
right.



Again, once water is found in recoverable quantities on the moon,
the

Again, IF water is found.

Again - I cannot predict the future, but neither can you, yet
Clementime's results indicated that the existence of water very
likely.  What information can you site to support your prediction of
no water?

The lack of water found on the moon.

If you are correct then there will be pressure to reduce the cost of
importing water by reducing the cost of transport, and there will also
be pressure to reuse water and air more efficiently. It merely
changes the mass flows - not the issues. I mean, The average family
in Hawaii imports over 14 tons of oil each year to maintain their
lifestyle (they use it in autos and also to generate electricity) The
average family on the moon will import about 4.5 tons per year of
water air and other stuff to maintain their lifestyle. While it may
be less costly today to import oil from half way around the world than
to import air to the moon with a small fleet of modest spacecraft - it
won't always be that way. Already engineers have ideas that once
fully developed will make space travel less costly than terrestrial
travel and ballistic transport between points on earth will be cheaper
than any other form.
.

economic picture changes, which drives the population to higher
levels, even while the core population of government workers,
remains constant.

And this is only one factor. Another factor is a falling cost of
transport over time - the result of fundamental propulsion research.
Another factor is the development of off world resources that earn
substantial profits when exported to Earth.

That's what you don't get. You consistently ignore economics,

No I don't.

starting by ignoring the question of what the return on this
vast investment is expected to be.

I am not ignoring that at all, because that wasn' t the subject of
my original post. The subject of my original post is that we have
the technical means and for the past 60 years have had the
technical means to settle the moon and mars, and have ignored doing
so. You have said I was full o f***. I am not. You have said we
cannot do it. We
can. You have said it is too costly. It is not. You have said there
is no compelling reason for the US government to support sucha
massive effort. I say there is and the effort is less massive than
the ones we are pursuing for far more specious goals. NOW you are
saying I am ignoring expected returns.

WHAT expected returns?

EXACTLY - I initially said only that we had the capacity to build
cities on the moon and mars - using today's technology at costs that
were less than the costs we spend today in Iraq.  I said that the
intangible benefits to us as world leaders would more than justify
this expense and would benefit us more than many of the specious
arguments used to justify huge expenditures in questionable conflicts.

Even so, since you demand to know what returns - please know there
will be returns -

And any board of directors that accepted that would be removed from their
positions and sued by the shareholders,

You are being illogical again. You said above that you recognized
that there were non-economic factors in any society. Now you're
saying we need to organize our society as if we were all shareholders
making an investment and demanding a monetary return. Which is it?
Obviously politicians and Presidents and social leaders make
statements like - sectarian violence is down, life is returning to
normal, and we can begin bringing our troops home.

Clearly these same people can say - with more rational basis the much
less specious notion - things like - for the eyes of the world now
look into space, to the moon and to the planets beyond, and we have
vowed that we shall not see it governed by a hostile flag of conquest
but by a banner of freedom and of peace.

WITH CAUSE under current law.  

I'm not making a business proposal to those who have already invested
money sir, I'm saying that as a society we must consider the benefits
doing all we can in our off-world frontiers will bring us important
benefits..

Even
the New World colonial expeditions of the 1500's and 1600's had _specific_
crops or raw materials they were expected to produce for shipment back to
the home countries.  

For the commercial enterprises yes. For the non-commercial ones no.
There are significant differences between the 16th century and today.
Despite that there are some similarities - those nations that invested
heavily in exploration dominated world affairs for centuries
thereafter. Those nations that abandoned those investments - wallowed
in the backwater of development clutching to their past glories while
creating nothing new.

They actually had detailed business plans that gave
them a reason to go on such a dangerous trip.

Absolutely correct for the commercial enterprises. For the non-
commercial enterprises it was a different story.

Which brings up another point you are ignoring.  The cost in lives.  

I am not ignoring that at all. The focus of my discussion was on what
was possible.

Major
construction projects such as the Golden Gate Bridge, the Empire State
Building and the Hoover Dam all had predicted death tolls.  Where's yours?

I am saying we can do it, there are tremendous social benefits to do
it, and that it is worth the cost as far as we can determine it which
we must pay to do it in money and lives. That's why these people are
heores.

In terms of a numerical estimate, in a city of 120,000 on the ground
we can expect 3 people a day to die from various causes. Now there is
a selection effects, because the people sent initially to this city in
space will be healthier, younger more vital and more directed and
engaged than people typical of the general population.

They will also not be exposed to violent crime suicide or drug abuse,
children won't die from playing with firearms and so forth - on the
same scale - going through comprehensive mental emotional and medical
screening will help at first. They will also not die in traffic
accidents and so forth. So at first I would be surprised if more than
1 person a day dies in a lunar city of 120,000 - or 10 per day in a
city of 1,200,000. of course as people have babies and as people
grow old - death rate will rise to a more normal rate of 3 a day for a
city that size.

Occupational related deaths which I think is what you are asking
about, would be rather low when compared to occupational death rates
on Earth In 2005 there were 1.7 million work related accidents and
268 non-fatal accidents along with 160 million work related illnesses
in the world. At this rate a lunar city of 120,000 would have one
death every two weeks, and a non fatal accidnt or illness every day.
A population of well trained intelligent and careful people well
selected, operating well designed equipment in well thought out
procedures - I would be surprised if more than one peson dies a
quarter in occupational accidents and if more than one person a week
got ill or in an accident. I would also suspect that any accident or
illness would result in an extensive analysis of procedures equipment
training and so forth, and result in immediate changes in everything
that contributed to the accident. So, I would expect these rates to
decline with time. This reduction in occupational death rate will not
impact death rates due to other factors present in a large population
- like heart disease.


This tacitly admits you were
wrong on all your earlier objections because asking someone the
benefit of paying a certain price for a thing admits that the thing
exists and costs what I say it costs.

The benefits to the nation are geopolitical at first, but over time
will become very tangible and practical as off world resources are
developed.

WHAT off world resources?

The same materials that exist on Earth exist throughout the cosmos.
The moon, mars, the asteroids, are made of the same stuff as our
planet.  That means there are resources there that are in short supply
here.

In addition, there is the energy of the sun, which is more easily and
reliably captured in space than on Earth.

Also, there is the resource of beneficial position.  A tower on a
mountaintop can be very valuable to a broadcaster.  A broadcast
station in space - even more valuable.

All of these resources can be developed to bring great wealth to Earth
- greater wealth than can be developed on Earth without these
resources.  In time VASTLY greater wealth.

The current prices of raw materials is not even in the ballpark of being
high enough to make such expenditures even worth considering.

You are prejudging which is causing you to undervalue the potential
monetary return on the proposed investment. Obviously before we make
a judgment we need information. If we do not have information, that
information is the first step. Even an oil company explores for oil
if they think it might be found in a place, even if they don't yet
have the technology to extract it today.

Rockets impart momentum to things. As investments in rocket
technology are made, the amount of momentum imparted for a given
cost increases. This is the fundamental measaure of economic
performance of rockets. As the cost of momentum declines, the order
of battle is fixed by the velocity difference between Earth's
surface and various points in interplanetary space. As we can see,
getting to orbit is energy wise, half the way to getting anywhere.
That's why it took only a very few years from orbiting the first
satellite to sending probes to the inner planets to sending probes
across the solar system and into interstellar space.

As we develop resources and capacities off-world, the relation of
those resources and capacities to Earth-bound populations is fixed
for all people of Earth. So these capacities and resources are seen
from Earth as affecting everyone everywhere equally. These
naturally lead to universally accepted points of view and universal
political paradigms. Taking control of this process and directing
it for the benefit of the United States is the immediate benefit to
the United States going forward. In time as costs fall and
capacities increase, vast new resources of whole planets are
developed that benefit everyone on Earth - with the US leading the
way and controlling development. Failure of the United States to
take this bold visionary step into the future, cedes control to
someone else, some other nation who will reap the benefits.

WE have been standing idle for too long, The time is ripe to take
the lead, before this opportunity bypasses us forever.

Here is the order of development as systems fall in price;

1) small suborbital systems - 1947 - ICBMs
political cosequance - global thermonucleear war
world peace

2) orbital systems - 1957 - satellites
political consequence - internet
world business

3) large cislunar systems - 1967 - Apollo
political consequence - environmental movement
world cooperation

Here is where we stopped. The next step beyond that was

4) very large interplanetaery systems - 1977 -space settlements
politicla consequence - one world one future
world growth

Beyond politics there are real practical benefits. Communications
satellites, navigation satellites, weather satellites, recon
satellites - provide important and valuable services that are still
growing today.

None of which benefit from a manned lunar base.

The environmental movement became mainstream as a result of Apollo 8s
pictures of Earth from the moon.  The first Earth Day following those
pictures - May 1 1969 - was a world event - because of those
pictures.  Earth day wasn't new in 1969 - but something had changed
for Earth because of those pictures.

My grandfather ran a construction business in 1969 and before December
1968 - he did a good business in bomb shelters.  People built them in
their backyards.  He didn't do a big business - but a steady one.  HE
made most his money doing roofing work for Union 76 gas stations in
the county and surrounding counties.  The work for bomb shelters dried
up - in December - never to return.  He blamed the moon pictures.
Something had changed.  And idea had gotten out.  An idea of the Earth
as a single place - that we all shared.  Hard to put into words
really.

What's the value of a single picture?  What's the value of a feeling
shared by everyone who sees that picture for the very first time?  I
don't know - but I do know that the world is a far better place
because that picture was taken.

I cannot predict the particular values of a city on the moon.  I can
predict with certainty however, it will lead us to greatness - and by
embracing rather than limiting the unpredictable effects of our
efforts in space - we will be greater still.

Those same arguments apply equally to 1972 when we abandoned the moon.  They
weren't enough then either.

The arguments were not taken seriously then. In the interim we have
continued the control paradigms of the post world war two era and they
have failed. So, the conditions the US finds itself in have changed.
We have been attacked and suffered a major loss we are now engaged in
a global war against terror for which we are generally reviled. We
are fighting this war largely alone in our efforts despite Europe and
Asia also at risk of terror attack. We are alone because these
efforts are seen by many as self serving and selfish.

A selfless investment in the future combined with an international
position appropriate to this investment would radically transform our
position in the world and allow the United States to maintain its
leadership role for another generation or two.

Should the US -God forbid- suffer a nuclear terror attack, and the
Chinese organize a dumping of US debts - particularly if we lose our
financial centers - the US will be unable to sustain such an effort
after that. Meanwhile China and India will pick up their demand for
oil and export to Europe while China and India spend more on internal
development. China will be the winner in such a show down, and would
likely expand its space program and carry out a settlement program
along the lines I have outlined. Their growing prosperity will be
seen as a direct consequence of their leadership position in space,
and they will gain the intangible benefits I outlined above - and
exploit those benefits to maintain a growing global hegemony against
the remnants of US military force.


Communication satellites for example have grown from
one to one - where a signal was sent from a satellite uplink to a
satellite downlink. to one to many - where a signal was sent to a
satellite to many recievers simultaneously (DirecTV, Sirius, etc) -
the next step will be many to many (Teledesic) which will bring
global wireless broadband. Once this is avaiable market studies
indicate it will be worth $100 billion or more. This will continue
to grow with a wide range of services. Telepresence, telerobotics,
for example has been tried - a surgeon in Chicago carried out a
surgery in Columbus Ohio via high speed internet using these
techniques in 1999 - robots like Asimo will be driven by such an
internet in the future - and allow people to live anywhere and work
anywhere else - this will be a market that will be worth trillions
and increase wealth by several tens of trillions of dollars per
year.

WHAT market? Why would anyone need to telecommute to the moon?

I'm not talking about telerobotics to the moon.  The moon is too far
away anyway.  The time delay makes telerobotics a problem.  But low
flying satellite constellations will make telepresence and
telerobotics practical on earth.  Apu won't have to live in
Springfield, in order to run the Quickie Mart in Springfield.  This
will be a huge economic benefit - bigger than the automobile.

Again, DOES NOT NEED US TO GO TO THE MOON!

No, I didn't say it did. I am merely reporting what benefits I know
rockets give us. The same rockets that take us to the moon give us
this. One wouldnot exist without the other.

The image of Earth taken from the vicinity of the moon galvanized
the thinking of a generation and made the environmental movement
mainstream. The Earth alone an vulnerable in space with no borders -
released an idea to the world - of the Earth as a single place in
the cosmos. Meanwhile, satellite data regarding the Earth's
environment led directly to the Gaia hypothesis giving sound
scientific basis to environmental concerns world wide. Also, the
emotional response of hard boiled fighter jocks who flew to the
moon, is an untold story that will be revisted with greater force
and greater benefit when large populations of more impressionable
people live and work on the interplanetary frontier.

As early as 1968 the success of the Saturn V rocket led some
engineers to propose gathering sunlight in space and beaming it to
receivers on Earth. As the cost of momentum delivered by rockets
fall, this idea will one day be economically competitive with more
traditional sources of energy. At that point, the Earth will begin
harvesting the first off-world resource profitably in a big way.
The Earth presently burns
28.3 billion barrels of oil per year, 5.5 billion tons of coal per
year, and 2.2 billion tons of natural gas per year. This could all
be replaced by 3.34 billion tons of hydrogen per year made from 30
billion tons of water made by generating 167 billion megawatt hours
of electricity from sunlight. To do that with terrestrial collectors
requires 98 trillion watts of panels covering over 550,000 sq km. To
generate this energy in space requires 19 trillion watts of panels
in space - covering 35,000 sq km of collectors on orbit beaming
energy to 45,000 sq km of collectors on the ground The Earth at
present spends $4 trillion per year powering its industry and
produces 40 billion tons of carbon dioxide a year. Eliminating this
source of pollution, overcoming the limits to supply, and reducing
overall costs of energy - are the benefits a practical space system
would provide.

All of which can be done in Earth orbit.

That is correct - I am giving a range of things that space travel can
do - based on what we can predict.

No need to go to the moon or
beyond.

Yes there is. Industry needs energy.  This makes energy costs of
paramount importance.  From 1860s to 1960s the price of a barrel of
oil dropped steadily at a 4% annual rate.  A barrel of oil in 1960s
was $2.  Over this period industry expanded rapidly on Earth- and the
future looked bright.  since 1960s the price of a barrel of oil rose
steadily at an 8% annual rate.  Over this period economic growth has
stalled and the future looks bleak.  The poorest and most ignorant of
us are blaming the richest of us, for the problem.  Carrying out a
program like the one I mentioned above, has the potential to return us
to declining energy costs.  If we stay on Earth costs will be higher
than if we move to orbit.  Yet if we stay on Earth orbit,energy costs
will decline slowly if at all.  To continue the decline in energy
costs from this source requires that power per dollar rise.  One way
to achieve this, is to process more energy with less material.  One
way to achieve this, is to move closer to the sun.  Moving from 150
million km from the sun to 3.5 million kilometers from the sun,
increases energy density from 1366 watts per meter square to 2.5 MW
per meter squared.  Potentially this can reduce costs by a factor of
1800.  To do this we must know how to operate well beyond Earth
orbit.

Airless or nearly airless bodies can dispatch raw materials off
their surface using rail gun or magnetic launcher technology very
large buckets of material can be precisely tossed across the solar
system using these techniques at very low cost. Methods of catching
a stream of precisely aimed materials have been worked out. In this
way hydrogen rich compounds may be transported cheaply from Mars to
the Moon. Materials may be transported from Mars, Ceres or the Moon
to Earth.

What hydrogen rich compounds on Mars, the Moon or Ceres?

water

Available in greater quantities and more cheaply here on Earth.

If you are on the surface of the moon water must be propelled from
earth with a speed of 15.8 km/sec through Earth's atmosphere and
biosphere to arrive safely on the moon. To recieve water propelled
from the surface of Ceres requires that it be projected from Ceres
airless surface - possible with a rail gun - at 8 km/sec - and anotehr
2.8 km/sec to land safely on the moon's surface - 10.8 km/sec total.
So, its cheaper to get water from Ceres than from Earth. A similar
analysis shows that its cheaper to get water from Mars than from Earth
if you're on th emoon. Of course if there's water on the moon, that's
cheaper still.

If you need
hydrogen, you can split water for massively lower costs

Agreed.  But you were the one who was saying water didn't exist on the
moon.  Whatever doesn't exist on one planet will be found on another
and low-cost means will be developed to transport what is needed in
one place to the other place.
.

You have yet to prove that there will be a need to put people on the moon or
Mars to create a need for water to be shipped there.

Yes I have you have merely ignored or gratuitously dismissed what I
said.


The US State Department has a list of 16 strategically important
metrials that are important to the continuation of the United States
as a great industrial nation. Once our energy shortages are
addressed with space power, these materials wil increase in
importance since economic growth will put upward pressure on the
prices of these materials as the US has greater competition for
these materials. Strategic reserves of many of these materials have
been established. Many of these mateirals came from space in the
first place.

Which ones would those be?

http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/doddict/data/s/05191.html

"strategic material (critical)
(DOD) Material required for essential uses in a war emergency, the
procurement of which in adequate quantity, quality, or time, is sufficiently
uncertain, for any reason, to require prior provision of the supply thereof.
"

Doesn't say what those materials are.

Obviously, they could be anything depending upon what uses were
required or essential in the situation.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1988/JGA.htm

Doesn't say anything about any of those materials being solely or even
significantly from extra-terrestrial sources.

So? I was answering your questions what strategic materials were.

 So I will again ask,

You mean now ask.

which
strategic materials came from off planet sources in the first place??

Oh, nickel. is one example. Palladium associated with the nickel is
another. In terms of supply, the Sudbury region of Ontario, Canada,
produces about 30 percent of the world's supply of nickel. The Sudbury
Basin deposit was created by a massive meteorite impact event early in
the geologic history of Earth. Russia contains about 40% of the
world's known resources at the massive Norilsk deposit in Siberia
which is also of extraterrestrial origin.

In terms of finding nickel off world, 16 Psyche is a very large Main
belt asteroid, well over 200 kilometers in diameter, and likely the
largest of the metallic M-type asteroids. It is estimated to contain
0.6 percent of the mass of the entire asteroid belt Radar
observations indicate a fairly pure iron-nickel composition. Psyche
appears to be a genuine case of an exposed metallic core from a larger
differentiated parent body. Unlike some other M-type asteroids, Psyche
shows no sign of the presence of water or water-bearing minerals on
its surface, consistent with its interpretation as a metallic body.
Small amounts of pyroxene appear to be present If Psyche is the core
remnant of a larger parent body, we might expect other asteroids on
similar orbits. Psyche does not belong to any asteroid family

Finding
and developing caches of these materials off world, and developing
them to supply growing industry on Earth will do much to ease
tension in the future, and establish the US in a leading role in
managing the economic development of the world.

Returning materials to Earth orbit from Ceres, Mars and the Moon,
and establishing a solar powered industrial capacity on orbit can
pay huge dividends. Particularly if people can report to work
telerobotically. Materials can be reduced and processed on orbit
without polluting the Earth. Materials and finished goods can be
deorbited with the precision of a JDAM to consumers anywhere on
Earth. With adequate supplies, large pressure vessels can be
constructed on orbit and used to grow food, fiber and wood - and
those products can be delivered anywhere they're needed across the
solar system - using the same rail gun launcher technology that
brough the ores to Earth orbit to begin with. In the end, the bulk
of human economic and industrial activity will take place on orbit
powered by the sun. The bulk of the Earth will be returned to a
vast nature preserve, and residential park.

These are just the benefits we can see today using technology that
is well in hand today. Those who actually live and work in space,
those who actually build the hardware and operate it across the
frontier, will have better more profitable ideas. All I am saying
is that we owe it to ourselve to give them that chance. Failure to
do so cedes the leadership position to others, and seals our fate
as a once great nation.

You seem to be of the mistaken notion that materials found on one
planet cannot be efficiently transported to another.  This is not
true.

But they can not be moved more cheaply between planets than they can between
locations on the same planet!

That's not necessarily true especially when you factor into the cost
the ecological disruption extraction of the Earth based mineral
costs.


.

Loading