You are not logged in.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Announcement
#801 Re: Science, Technology, and Astronomy » Asteroid Mining - profit from space » 2004-07-06 21:18:46
Hmmm, government control vs. free enterprise. I am a bit surprised to see so many Americans argue for government control. Socialism preferred over free market economy? Well, then what is Washington's complaint about how Canadian provinces manage their softwood lumber industry?
I'm also a bit surprised about the rant about banks. I guess I shouldn't be, Americans have always mistrusted banks. In Canada banks are just a service that's taken for granted. So you can deposit a cheque from anyone with an account in any financial institution anywhere else in Canada, and expect the cheque to be processed in 2 business days, sometimes 1 day. It used to be 2 weeks, but that was mid 1980's. When I lived in Chester, Virginia (outside Richmond) or in Miami, Florida, I found the banking system sucked. Banks did not offer foreign exchange, were not able to access my credit history from Canada (despite the fact that Equifax operates in both countries), couldn't give me a money order, often demanded ID that wasn't necessary, couldn't handle utility payments, and the ATM even in the bank itself didn't offer full service.
Ok, government incentive to industrialize space. But they haven't been doing so and, as you said, they're broke. Last time I checked the U.S. federal budgetary deficit was almost equal to Canada's national debt, after taking exchange of the dollar into account. NASA gets $150 billion (US dollars) per year; that's a hell of a lot compared to the CSA budget of $300 million (Canadian) per year. How can any government afford it? I'm middle-age now and not getting any younger. It's time to just DO IT!
As for unreasonable exchange rates: you'll get no arguement from me. I gave up fighting that one years ago.
When I talk about use to be know as the American system of economics. So I'm not talking about British Capitalistic, Free Trade, Free Enterprise system of economics or the Communistic economic system. But either the British Capitalistic or the Communist system of economics generally have private bankers controlling the monetary policies of those respective nation. Those private bankers that control the central banking system have the power to generate credit out of thin air and charge usury on it. You are basically giving a few people the right to create credit or write bank notes and give it to the rest of us and extract usury on those notes. You are basically, giving some one the right to rob you. Most of the U.S. debt and even most of the rest of the world debt was generated by these bankers for us to pay them. Most of that debt is illegitimate debt and can not be paid, nor should we even try to pay it. For example: Between the three biggest private banks inside the United States and Wall Street, there is about 50 trillion dollars in derivatives of worthless gambling debts. Worldwide, there about 400 trillion dollars of derivatives or worthless paper. The only thing we can do about it, is call a worldwide conference and agree with the individual nations that most of this debt is going to be canceled and any legitimate debt will be recycled and be addressed at a later date after the economy has recovered. So this economic system is dead and can not recover.
That where the American economic system come into play as a model. That where the government take over the central banking system. We are going to Federalize the Federal Reserve which is a private bank with a government charter. Now the U.S. tax base has collapsed and we can't use that to restart the U.S. Economy. But, now the U.S. Government has recovered the right to generate credit and there going to have to generate about one trillion dollars of new credit which they can use to restart the use to restart the U.S. Economy with.
So what do you do with that new government credit?
Instead of having to cycle this credit through private hand that are extracting wealth from the American people through usury, the Federal Government of the United States get first use of this credit. So the U.S. Government got the gold and make the rules, instead of having those private bankers having the gold and making the rules.
So let say the U.S. Government is going to build infrastructure, develop new technology, promote business actives in the productive sector of the U.S. Economy. So we take a certain portion of that one trillion dollars of credit that was signed into existence and we finance building subway, super, education, hospitals, power plants, water projects. This take care of the public utilities and services. Well, we would like a science driver so we go to NASA and we give mission that they can't do with present technology and we do it deliberately, because we want them to develop the technology and disperse it into the American economy. To do that, we are going to pick a target of some thing we want done space. This will generate about six million job and good paying jobs too. Now we going to help the private sector like farmer, manufactures, mining with 2% interest credit, deferred taxes, tax right off, etc. This will generate another 6 million good paying jobs and increase the tax base that collapsed.
This is basically what FDR, Lincoln did or some variation of this.
Larry,
#802 Re: Science, Technology, and Astronomy » Asteroid Mining - profit from space » 2004-07-06 19:50:05
They wanted a resource colony and not a colony that had industrial capability.
Like any British colony of that day I think.
That my point. We want a government based on a general welfare of the people that are going to be colonizing either the Moon or Mars and not a corporation seeking profit for profits sake. Now we want private enterprise in space and there a place for private enterprise in space, but we don't want it being the master of over what going on in space. Private enterprise does a really good job, competing for the business for good and service that are needed and providing them, but they do a lousy job over governing people and deciding the fate of people lives. Nor would you want private business making life and death decission over your life either.
Larry,
#803 Re: Science, Technology, and Astronomy » Asteroid Mining - profit from space » 2004-07-06 19:31:16
smurf you hit the problem on the head. It not cost effective to build industry space without having populated center in space. It not cost effective to build populated center in space with industry and a transportation system. It not cost effective to develop transportation system without have either industry or population center in outer space.
Find an aspirational reason to settle space, a motive that is price inelastic, and the ice breaks.
That why you have to have the government involved. There the only ones that don't have to make a profit in space and can actually be the lone space customer that make it profitable for private industry to get into space and make money in space. The government is the only one that can develop the technology and build the infrastructure or contract out developing the technology or building the infrastructure. If that government also has the power to generate it own credit and use it to finance that space venture. The defer it, tax right it off, government loans, tax incentives, etc. or even tear the note up and generate some new credit for round two. Without some one that has the power to do that, you are basically dead in the water when it come to colonizing space.
An example of that is the Kennedy Moon Mission. It was a worth while project for the U.S. Government and we made fourteen dollars for every dollars spent. But, that Moon Mission would not have been a worth while project for a private corporation. As a matter of fact, they would have gone bankrupt before they would ever have reached the moon.
Larry,
#804 Re: Science, Technology, and Astronomy » Asteroid Mining - profit from space » 2004-07-06 19:10:35
I dont think any buisness interest will build a lunar or similar base, It requires a goverment to do that. But a goverment could create a company to do it. What im thinking is a company like the British East India company. This companies duty is to create the bases and would recieve a stipend from the goverment to do so, which slowly reduces. This company would do the research that allows profits to be made and would be granted the only licence to get them and to exploit.
The East indies company became a patriotic thing to invest in, It attracted the cream of people to work for it, It made new trade routes and colonized new lands, It had its own army and navy and was responsible for the forming of the British empire.
I don't think we want a British East India company setting up it rule over our space colony. It will be like the British East India company that the American Revolution was fought over to free us from that Tyranny. What we want to do, is give NASA a charter like the Massachusetts colony had from the King of England. They had the right to promote the general welfare of the population of the Massachusetts colony. Once they were setup, that had the power and the authority to finance there own development and growth. With that power and authority, the Massachusetts became the biggest economy in the world. There was a power shift in England and the house of Windsor took over as in King George and under the suggestion of the British East India company they took away the authority of the Massachusetts to build itself up and they bankrupted the Massachusetts colony. They wanted a resource colony and not a colony that had industrial capability. The American Revolution happened forty years later.
Larry,
#805 Re: Science, Technology, and Astronomy » Asteroid Mining - profit from space » 2004-07-06 18:49:29
As for government being the only saviour: if that was going to happen it would have by now. This is July 2004, 35 years since the Apollo Moon landing. NASA and the U.S. government had that long to establish infrastructure in space to kick-start an economy, but has chosen not to. This demonstrates they just aren't going to. Don't get me wrong, if you want to seek money from NASA then please go ahead. Just don't expect giant space colonies or Moon cities built at taxpayers' expense.
The U.S. government must look for profit from its investments. Where will the profit come from? One mandate of NASA is to investigate high-risk high-reward technological development. But building a city of 100,000 people on a planet far far away, is a very expensive venture. That would take more than the combined budget of NASA and the entire U.S. military. How long do you think the taxpayer support that level of expenditure? It would take more than 1 term of office, so don't expect the venture to be completed before cancellation. Let's look at the record of cancellations: DC-X, X-33/VentureStar, X-43A/C, X-38/CRV. How many others?
===========================================
What we need is something modest that does not tap NASA for more than it has now, yet will generate profit to support its own growth. Once you start talking about profit in the short term, you gain access to venture capital (private investment).
By the way, Jim Benson runs SpaceDev as a separate company. Burt Rutan and his company Scaled Composites is just a major customer. Scaled Composites build Space Ship One and White Knight, SpaceDev build the rocket engine for SS1. And they aren't the only ones in the market today; Elon Musk is building Falcon X. The age of the space entrepreneur has started. The strangle hold of the big aerospace companies is now ending. The new corporate paradigm is "be efficient or be dead".
Brad Blair told me at PTMSS that we now have 3 decades of accumulated good ideas, we don't need good ideas we need the opportunity to implement them. But I argue that if the ideas were really that good we wouldn't need government funding. We still need to brainstorm a profitable business plan. Yes, it's still a matter of do it privately or wait for some other generation.
==========================================
George W. Bush is focusing on War (with practically everyone). He threw a bone to the space community when he recognised everyone in the community sees the need to give focus to NASA. So he had an opportunity: claim to provide that focus that everyone felt must come from the president, and gain political points for doing so, or fail to do so and suffer the political consequences. He really has no idea how to accomplish any of the goals he set out. He's just trying to cover his political butt, and attempting to turn a negative into a positive. Yes, this can be a benefit to the space community if we can capitalize on it; but it doesn't include any new money. Certainly don't expect money to pay for building a Mars city with 100,000 residents.
So, can we continue to brainstorm asteroid mining? This is a simple technique to gain direct profit from space. The directness of this profit will gain investor attention. I do expect to sell as much gold as a major gold mine on Earth, no more and no less. I also expect to sell as much platinum as a major platinum mine. And silver, etc. Those who are obsessed with precious metal cartels will notice this will either demand participation by those cartels or the cartels will be broken.
I am not talking about using tax payer money. If I were talking about using tax payer money then you would be right and it would be too expensive.
I am talking about government generated credit which has nothing to do with tax dollars that comes from tax payers. Instead of having private banks generating the credit, I would have the Federal Government generate the credit like FDR, Lincoln, Hamilton did. The young republic was financed by a Government Bank called the First Nation and it generated the credit. Lincoln and FDR used the Treasury Department and Kennedy was going back to the Treasury note to generate credit. The Green back dollar was a Treasury Note. If the United States Government take back the credit generating authority from the Private bank called the Federal Reserve System and put it back under it authority in accordance with the U.S. Constitution, the United States would have to generate one trillion dollars worth of credit per year. Alan Greenspan is currently generating five or six trillion dollars of credit per year, but it go for servicing debt and not building infrastructure. That one trillion dollars of generated Government credit, has nothing to do with the tax payer dollar or visa versa. Tax payer dollar will continue to be used to pay for government good and services, but the one trillion dollars will be used for investment purposes to develop new technology, build infrastructure and promote capital improvement in the productive private sector like Farming, Manufacturing and Mining.
This is basically how the transcontinental rail road was financed by Lincoln. This is basically how those big dams were financed by FDR in the 1930's and how FDR got America ready for World War II. On the final run before the war, people in America decided what they wanted to build for the war effort and then they figured out how do it. The decided we wanted to built 10,000 air planes a year and once they decide that, then they worked on the problem of building them. Round up the credit, rearrange the tax code and the U.S. Government even got into the business of building factories and handing them over to private companies so they could hit there target. It was this kind of actives that created those large aero-space corporation like Lockeed, Boeing, Bell helicopter, etc.
============================================
As for NASA, they retreated from the Kennedy vision after they got under funded and were forced to cancel many of there programs because of budget cuts. If Kennedy were still alive and that assignation did not happen, we would already have a Lunar Base and be on Mars right now. Not only that, Kennedy Moon Missions returned fourteen dollars for every one dollar invested. On the front end, for every one dollar invested, it will roll around three or four times. On the back end you had ten dollars increase for every one dollar invested in technology spin off. Like micro-switches, new alloy, improved machining tool and machines, etc. Now this would not have made any business since, but, from a government vantage point, the moon mission was a good investment. Where else can you spend one dollar and get fourteen back. Beside, it generally the government that builds the infrastructure like roads, rail roads, water & sewer plants, etc. and it usually private enterprise that builds there hotel along that road and hooks up to the city water and sewer lines and not the other way around. Let me give you an illustration. I live in the Dallas/Fort Worth area. Forty to fifty years ago, most of the built up areas was in Fort Worth or Dallas, because that were Government on some level built the infrastructure and that were most of the people congregated and that were most of the business were. Now there about thirty seven miles between down town Dallas and down town Fort Worth. In the 1950's most of it was farm land. Now there were a few small towns around, but, nothing over about 5,000 to 8,000 other than Dallas or Fort Worth. Then the government started building freeways like 635, 35E & 35w, 820, 30, 20 121, 183, 114 and built D/FW air port half way between the City of Dallas and Fort Worth. Every where those roads went those businesses were sure to go and did along with housing developments too. The city of Arlington went from 5,000 in 1950 to about 300,000 thousand today. Grand Pairie went from about 5,000 to about 150,000 thousand today. Irving where Texas stadium is was about 5,000 and it now about 200,000 people. Then we have the mid-city on the Fort Worth side that went from a few thousand to several tens of thousand people and we have North Dallas that has had that same kind of growth experiences.
My point is, those roads were put there before those business ever though of building a business there. It was the government on some level that decided that they wanted to build a road there and not business that decided to build a business there before there was a road there.
Whether it building roads in the Dallas/Fort Worth area or building a city on either the Moon or Mars, it will be the business that will follow the government lead and not the other way around.
===========================================
The reason that George Bush back down was because the United States is broke and can't afford even what George Bush is asking that we do. We might not even be able to go back to the moon, let alone build a base on the Moon.
But, John F. Kennedy sent us to the Moon. How he do that? Not only that, but if his effort would not have stopped, we would have a base on the moon and already be on Mars.
I have gotten into this argument on other space forum. But, we are dealing with two concepts of wealth and depending on which one is right, we can either colonize space or we can't colonize space. Most of the people of that forum, jump on the side that you support. But, there were two that said, you can't develop space or colonize it. One of them use a pencil as an example of why you can't colonize space. Just figure out what it would take to just produce pencil. He assured me that just pencil, now consider every thing else you have to make and you will see it can't be done. Now the other one said, he and his friends tried to figger out at what point the break even point would be in a self-sustaining Colony on Mars and they could not find that point. This was in the forum thread that I setup build a city of 100,000 people. But, I agreed with him that what he knew and what most of the people on the forum support would not work, he or they could not build city of 100,000 people. But, that I am working from different angle of attack and what I am doing you could build that city. Your trying to work from letting the bankers create the credit and you borrowing the money from the bankers and then pay it back with interest. All you will do, is generate debt and never get over the break even point and so you will drowned in debt. I am starting from government credit for the purpose of building infrastructure and generating business activities. That the purpose of the credit and not to pay some banker interest on fiat money or funning money.
I got into a pretty good discussion with the second guy on several post. He was old enough to remember John F. Kennedy and maybe even worked in NASA part of the time. But, I reminded him of what John F. Kennedy was doing and how he lined up all his ducks in a roll. He was going to go from one program to the next program using NASA as a technology driver. Going from rocket, to shuttle to next generation shuttle, etc. Going from chemical rockets to fission rockets and then going to fusion rockets. He understood that. But, not too long after the Kennedy assignation, they started retreating from the Kennedy space program. We still went to the moon, but change was in the wind. He chimed in, thing really took off in that period of time and I wish it would again. But, when Nixon signed the 1971 floating exchange rate that decuppled the dollar from the physical economy which was based on the Gold Reserve/Brenton Wood system, that was the end. That was when the NASA space effort became too expensive and the money started heading to the banks and to Wall Street.
Don’t take my word for it, but look through American History and see when American was really building internal infrastructure whether it the Kennedy Space program or the FDR building program or Lincoln industrial revolution or Hamilton, it was the U.S. Government that was generating the credit and not the bankers that was generating the credit. Matter of fact, the U.S. Government had to take the power to generate credit away from those bankers or at least regulate it, to keep the United States from being destroyed. Now you intend to use that system to create the bases for a space colony? I don’t think so.
Larry,
#806 Re: Science, Technology, and Astronomy » Asteroid Mining - profit from space » 2004-07-05 20:07:05
You know there is a difference between NASA and commercial space flight!?
NASA is more like: "To boldly go where no man has gone before" and commercial spaceflight is more like to exploit space where man has been before, technologies needed are sure and tested (by NASA) and do I get a "short" term profit?
So there is a big difference between NASA and others. They don't compete at all. NASA is for commercial spaceflight a free R&D agency and that’s good as long as they are American companies or pay for the knowledge gathered by NASA. If so with that NASA will have even more value then without commercial spaceflight.
I mean everyone knows that NASA and military agencies broke any record set by the X price decades ago. So technically what Burtan is doing is nothing special as a lot of knowledgeable people will tell you as most of his designs were from other (tested) crafts.
Disclaimer: I still think what he did is cool but nothing worth all the crap I see across the Internet.
---
About raw materials vs high tech industry in space.
If you are going for raw materials I see no future for your enterprise as Earth has more then its needs (at this moment and the next 100 years). Only force driving might be that materials in space are cheaper in general but not to ship to general populations. But who will make the initial trillion dollar investments? NASA can't compete with private enterprises so forget them. And at this moment the market is quite happy with what it has. They market is more looking into cheap labor and automation then cheaper raw materials.
If the space debris orbiting earth is becoming a real problem, I'm sure there will be measures to make sure that satellites or rockets-parts will burn in the atmosphere instead of circling the earth when they are not needed anymore.
Your arguments against the possibility of a high tech industry in space will work with the same arguments against a mining industry in space. Both are impossible at this time and in my opinion only a high tech space industry is needed. With that I mean a high tech industry that is able to make "parts" in zero gravity. And those zero gravity “parts” are special and worth more then their weight. There is no other need for a space industry. You can do everything else on Earth.
smurf you hit the problem on the head. It not cost effective to build industry space without having populated center in space. It not cost effective to build populated center in space with industry and a transportation system. It not cost effective to develop transportation system without have either industry or population center in outer space.
The only way you can break that loop is to have a Kennedy type space program of having a national mission like going to the Moon, but only a little and more aggressive. Is to give NASA the authority to build cities either on the Moon and/or Mar and/or L5 and maybe a few space station along with developing the technology and then open it up to private business to get government contracts from NASA. Beside building those city, use NASA to finance developing the new technology and use mostly private enterprise to internalize that new technology. That was basically what happened when we went to the Moon and we got 14 dollar pay off for every 1 dollars spent going to the moon in technological spin off and business activities.
That way you can hit the problem head on, instead of dipping and diving and trying to find the most cost effective way to do something. Because if you go the most cost effective with present technology, you will make what your doing impossible to accomplish.
I suggest we give NASA a list of perimeter that we want to accomplish to the goal we want to achieve in a certain time frame. We deliberately choose to pick some thing just outside of our technological capability to accomplish, but not to far outside our technological capability, because we want to be able to accomplish our goal in a reasonable period of time. We list out the technology that we need to develop and infrastructure that we need to build to accomplish the goal that we set. Any thing that private enterprise can do at or below the price that NASA can do it will be off loaded to those private companies or area’s that NASA does not get into, those private companies can have like tourism, hotel, private shuttle, deep space crews ships and space industries. This is basically what Kennedy did with the Moon Mission, but this is on a grander scale.
But, we pick our target and then we asked:
What it going to take to do that?
Let say we choose a big target for National Goal like build a city on Mars of 100,000 people.
Just exactly what would we need to accomplish our goal?
We need to question like:
To deal with bone loss because of weightlessness what kind of technology would we have to develop so we could put a one gee load on our space ship going to Mars half way and then rotate it and decelerate the half the way to Mars?
How many ships would you need and how big should they be?
What kind of cargo ship would you build?
How many space station would you need, beside the one in earth orbit and mars orbit?
Beside the four fusion electric powered, a nuclear powered desalting plant and a plasma steel plant, what else would you want to show up with on Mars?
Larry,
#807 Re: Exploration to Settlement Creation » Constructing a larger settlement - One idea » 2004-07-05 12:25:18
That for sure lots of babies, but dont you need a wife or some females. Science nerds have a hard time getting girls, most are too moral to use date durgs. So maybe people will clone them selfs or buy eggs and grow them in a fake whomb.
Maybe we could work some thing out with some of the women that are mars lover too. Like exterme dating show but on mars. At least with only .38 Gees the women can say they way 105 lbs and be truthful.
Beyond the sillyness people will be people, fall in love, have a family, and some will want to stay on their new home. Which bolds well for mars because I doubt that larg # of people could be transported to mars. Like hunderds not millions.
You may be right,!
But what do you think of this link and the possibility of building a city in forty years?
http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2 … ...eat.pdf
Unfortunately I don’t know if he can get elected though.
But, in the event he did, it would sure open up some possibilities though.
Larry,
#808 Re: Exploration to Settlement Creation » Constructing a larger settlement - One idea » 2004-07-05 11:56:39
That is very functional, but I think the colonists would like to be able to see broad vistas in every direction. The torus could be covered with sandbags, I guess. I just don't know which would be more efficient (for growing crops and heat insulation, etc.) -- small windows, mirrors, and sandbags, or transparent walls and heaters?
Another prospect for dealing with the outside radiation, would be to generate a local magnetosphere that includes the entire complex and use that for some of your shielding. But, you would still want some passive shielding encase of a power failure or your Magnetosphere generator breaks. But, that would assume that we are going to have a nuclear generator so you could generate enough power to generate that field, which we may not have for the first few years.
Larry,
#809 Re: Science, Technology, and Astronomy » Asteroid Mining - profit from space » 2004-07-05 10:11:43
What I would look for is an asteroid where a C and an M have collided, maybe with a stony as well, producing a composite body. Such an asteroid would be a "snowball" of chunks of all the different kinds, allowing you to harvest different things at different spots on the surface.
And to test the technology, Mars and the moon are littered with nickel-iron; I'd pick them up with regolith-moving equipment and a magnetic separator. It may very well be that once an operation starts on the moon and on Mars, the economy of scale and the presence of infrastructure because of other economic activities (science, tourism) may make asteroid mining too risky or uneconomic. The regoliths of both bodies have enough smashed nickel-iron for millennia of exploitation.
-- RobS
Actually, with the development of both the Moon and Mars and setting up industries on both bodies, the asteroid field would be the next logical place to go. I support building at least one major city on Mars of a hundred thousand people. If that happens, I would expect to have around two hundred space ship going between Mars, the Moon and occasionally swinging out into the asteroid field picking something up. We will also probably have between 6 to 12 space station scattered out between Earth, Moon and Mars Colonies and maybe even one in the L5 for dry docks, ship building yard and maybe even a space station big enough for a space city.
You can't just put people on the moon and mars in large number without having the infrastructure to get them there. You build those space ship and space station infrastructure to build those city on the moon and Mars, you will be going into the asteroid field or at least some will be.
Larry,
#810 Re: Science, Technology, and Astronomy » Asteroid Mining - profit from space » 2004-07-05 09:53:39
About the Plasma Steel process:
Is that similiar to the hydrocarbon-refining process where a hot gaseous heterogenous mixture is slowly cooled and different molecular weights come out (condense from gas to liquid). Except I assume in this case I assume the phase change is plasma to solid. I like it, provided huge amounts of energy are not wasted. It seems a lot of energy could be recovered, and the waste heat could keep your human habitat nice and cozy-warm.
Vive les asteroides!
Good definition of Plasma Steel furnace. You have to heat it up to I think a million degrees to get metal into a plasma state for that process to work. I would also assume that we could reverse the process to make alloys too, but I don't know for sure of that.
If we had to go with a regular blast furnace, there would be too much overhead and inefficiency to make it practical to use in space. In a blast furnace you need an atmosphere with a high oxygen content to work effectively. But, a Plasma Steel furnace would be a self-contained unit that would not have a smoke stack or need oxygen with coke to refine those metals. So, it would be a cleaner process that could be used on earth, moon, mars, space station or on asteroids. It would be a very versatile metal working process. By the way, the technology to do that already exist, but needs to be brought on line as a government inspired project of investments both inside the United States and in space. Also in space, you could make alloys that you can’t make on earth, because of gravity too and you could make ball barring super round with almost no imperfection in space too.
Larry,
#811 Re: Terraformation » Terraforming smaller bodies - SG spectrum of terraformability » 2004-07-05 08:27:28
Republic, with the same arguments you easily could prove that the conrtinental colonisation done by the europeans between 1500-1900 is not possible.
Regard the intrinsic for the economy bootstraping and self-feeding in the exchange loops by the products incrementally obtained by the activity itself.
My point is, with out the right kind of banking system, it will be impossible to colonize space. I have gotten into this argument on other space forums.
FDR restarted the U.S. Economy by generating Government credit and loaning that out to build the infrastructure like dam, power plants, roads, rail roads, museums, etc. He could loan it out at 0% to 2% interest. Now if he had to have gone through those private banks, he never would have been able to finance the American Recovery after the 1929 stock market crash. Also the United States was primarily built up by Federal credit system with State involvement and you have the private inventors and ownership of business and farms. But, it was the Federal and State Governments that built the rail roads and it was engineered by Army Core or Engineers. The transcontinental rail road was an Abraham Lincoln thing, done through the Federal Government. Trains were invented in 1829. Abraham Lincoln hear about those trains and what they do in 1832 and proposes that we build a transcontinental rail road across the entire country. In 1838, Illinois has the biggest rail road in the world. Over the next forty or fifty years the rail road was being built by either Federal or State government and even being run by the Government. In 1949 we have the California gold rush. We have about 100,000 people in California, but no infrastructure like paved roads or rail roads and only about 20,000 of the 100,000 are women. Just before the American Civil War, there taking trains to California around the horn of South America to start building rail roads in California. By the time of the American Civil War we had about 40,000 miles of track built by either the Federal or State Government. In the middle of the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln signs the transcontinental rail road act in 1862. In 1865, we start building the transcontinental rail road. In 1869 we are pounding the golden stake at promitory Utah to commemorate the finishing of the transcontinental rail road.
Look at these two web site, for more information.
http://www.john-f-kennedy.net/thefedera … eserve.htm
http://www.transhumanist.com/volume4/sp … /space.htm
If we really want to get serious about colonizing space, it going to be a combination of being a government project with private enterprise configuration. It will be the government that chooses to built the city on the Moon or Mars and finance big space station that might hold entire city inside. The Federal Government is the only source for building that kind of infrastructure to support that kind of population in space.
Now having said that, we don't want the government in the air line business or space line business or in the tourist business or the hotel business or the farming business or the manufacturing business or the groceries and department store business. Here is were we would want private enterprise in. But, we would want the government to control some of the vital parts of that space city like life support system, water, electricity, subways system, healthcare, etc., but we may have private sub-contractor to do some of the work on that government owned infrastructure.
Larry,
#812 Re: Science, Technology, and Astronomy » Asteroid Mining - profit from space » 2004-07-04 20:07:55
If you want to separate the different metals from each other. Why would you choose to use a very labor intensive process?
The best way to separate the metals would be to go to a Plasma Steel process. It is the third state of matter. At different temperatures, a different metal will roll out of that mess of metal you are working with. Instead of having several different process to separate the metal or trying to grind up an asteroid, you would be able to just cut chunk off the asteroid and let the Plasma Steel process separate it for you.
Except for the nono tubes or nylon that you would have to generate artificially like we do on Earth. But, the rest of the carbon based stuff, could be done on a cellular level of plants and animal process like it done on earth. That would be the most efficient way to generate oil, grease, rope, cloth, etc.
We would probably want a rock asteroid too. But, it would take time to create soil through a process of bio-mass and bacteria processes.
Larry,
#813 Re: Interplanetary transportation » The next step for private spaceflight - Thourough overview of current state » 2004-07-04 16:16:14
Although I support private venture in space, even with the fly at your own risk plan and the signing of that bill into law, I still don't see private enterprise doing anything in either the Tourist bussiness or much of anything else. Now if a government contracts were added and/or a Kennedy type Tax exemption with a posible tax credit system to encurrage it. Then I might see some thing happening in space for the private sector. Like posibly only using the shuttle half the time to go the the International Space Station and use the Private flight that other half the time. That would give those private companies some thing to shoot for and have an on going business once they achive it.
Larry,
#814 Re: Planetary transportation » Combustion engines ... - ... on Titan and Mars » 2004-07-04 15:03:25
On Titan: The atmosphere contains several percents of carbohydrates - methan, ethan, etc. The combustion engine -- turbine, scram-jet, Otto or Diesel or Stirling one -- sucks in the atmosphere and combusts it`s fuel content with O2 stored in onboard tanks. The reverse way as on Earth. On Titan could be flyed helicopters, driven off-road cars, boats and ships on the seas/rivers/oceans/lakes...
===========================================
On Mars: In the CO2 atmosphere could be used chemical engines as well. Compress the CO2. Feed in alluminium or magnesium in form of thin wire, band... powdered or jellied. Ignite it with electric sparc or by pressure ... the more active metals take the O2 from the carbon in exotermic reaction. Use directly the gass expansion, or by steam-engine the heat to drive a ground vehicle. The atmosphere is too thin for real airplanes or copters with combustion engines to fly. But a ind of CO2/Al or Mg rocket hoppers could be usefull.
Actually, I think we should forget about gas powered cars and go all electric or electromagnetic super trains system and/or cars. I would even skip putting wheel on trains and/or cars. That way you would neither have to generate Grease and rubber tires for the wheels or have to generate pollution to create it. It would be a much cleaner process to use in those self-contained colonies. You will solve three or four problems if we choose to develop and build this techonogy and we could also use it down here to deal with polution down here too.
Larry,
#815 Re: Human missions » Another opinion of the Space elevator - Questioning the sanity of the Space Elev » 2004-07-04 14:46:34
Well. that should put "finis" to any space elevator program for Earth. And to test the scheme on Mars you'd first have to take out Phobos--that satellite handed to us on a platter? That's poor value-engineering, to say the least. Tethered propulsion, based upon solutions to the problems posed, could and should be taken up right now, however.
Then that would leave just the moon as the only really viable candidate for space elevator. You probably would not do that unless you would be building a city on the Moon, because it would not be cost effective. Beside you could build a three or four mile rail system on the Moon and catapult your occupants into space instead of building a sixty mile elevator.
Larry,
#816 Re: Human missions » Europe goes to the moon and Mars! - Human space flight.... » 2004-07-04 08:53:58
I was reading more on the Smart-1 the ESA ion engine drives seems like a very good idea
http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/head … ...en.html
SMART-1’s ion engine will be used to accelerate the probe and raise its orbit until it reaches the vicinity of the Moon, some 350,000 to 400,000 km from Earth. Then, following gravity assists from a series of lunar swingbys in late September, late October and late November 2004, SMART-1 will be “captured” by the Moon’s gravity in December 2004 and will begin using its engine to slow down and reduce the altitude of its lunar orbit.
Testing breakthrough technologies and studying the Moon
SMART-1 is not a standard outer space probe. As ESA’s first Small Mission for Advanced Research in Technology, it is primarily designed to demonstrate innovative and key technologies for future deep space science missions. However, once it has arrived at its destination, it will also perform an unprecedented scientific study of the Moon. SMART-1 is a very small spacecraft (measuring just one cubic metre). Its solar arrays, spanning 14 metres, will deliver 1.9 kW of power, about 75% of which will be used for the probe's 'solar electric' propulsion system.
In its role as technological demonstrator, SMART-1’s primary goal is to test this new solar electric propulsion system. This is a form of continuous low-thrust engine that uses electricity derived from solar panels to produce a beam of charged particles that pushes the spacecraft forward. Such engines are commonly called ion engines, and engineers consider them essential for future, long-range space missions.
http://www.innovations-report.com/html/ … ...40.html
Ion engines have weak thrust, but they can provide almost endless power and continue on very long missions for huge times. I think we should use Ion engines in future Mars missions, very important. NASA should think about this method.
It would be fine to use Ion drive on an unmanned freighter going between the Earth and Mars supplies only, but you would not want to use it as a manned craft. Because of the Ion engines weak thrust, it would take several months to get through the Van Ellen Radiation Belt that surrounds the Earth. We really need to go either fission or fusion powered Space craft for humans.
Larry,
#817 Re: Human missions » Europe goes to the moon and Mars! - Human space flight.... » 2004-07-04 08:33:09
Theres politics there also, yes building a base on the moon is going to add more complications to such a mission like Mars but I think the USA might be thinking about political strenght, show its power in desgins, its powerful economy, its areospace, the US might want to go back to the moon before some person from Europe or Russia will go on a manned mission for construction of a lunar camp, and other ideas.
A Lunar Base may complicate a short term trip to Mars, but it would guarantee a long tern trip some time in the not too distant future. If all there going to do is give us a Lunar Base, I would go for the biggest Lunar Base they will let us have, because you will have to develop technology build the infrastructure to support it. Most of that infrastructure can be used to support a Mars Mission that bigger Mission with faster ships and we have to put a second space station up to support the Moon colony and that too could be used to support a Mars Mission.
Larry,
#818 Re: Human missions » Europe goes to the moon and Mars! - Human space flight.... » 2004-07-04 08:14:34
Well ruski,
My idea was that we would want to get people to Mars in our lifetime. Funny me! I guess if you want to spend most of this century on the moon, then yes, it would be easier to launch from there. I bet most of the hardware would still be imported from earth, though.
Since we're talking about the distant future, isn't it interesting that basic supplies will be easier to send to the Moon than from Mars?
Oh, since you're an engineer, maybe you could answer this question for me. Which has more of an effect on the mass of a rocket? Earth's atmosphere or gravity. I always thought it was gravity. Please enlighten me...and speak like an engineer for heaven's sake; I can handle it.
If all we want to do is do a glorified Apollo Mission to Mars, then go direct. We all agree on that. But, if you want to build a City on Mars, you would whined up going to the Moon first, because you have to build the infrastructure and develop the technology to do it and the moon is the best place to breadboard that new technology.
So it really depends on what goal are and who making the decisions of whether we go back to the Moon or go to Mars.
But, I would settle any progressive space program over the one we have right now. Just as long as we get going. We can tweak the system later for other projects, but if there going to hold it down or limit what were going to do, then you have to lower your sites whether you like or don’t like it. That was basically happened to NASA in the 1971 when Nixon started whacking NASA budgets to pieces. They had to pick a few projects that there were going to try and save and let the rest go. They had five to six generation of shuttle, fission powered, fusion powered, Lunar Basses, Mars Mission and it all got the hatchet.
Such is life.
Larry,
#819 Re: Human missions » Another opinion of the Space elevator - Questioning the sanity of the Space Elev » 2004-07-04 07:30:19
#820 Re: Martian Politics and Economy » How would you terraform mars? » 2004-07-03 09:37:27
I would do a feasibility study.
I would tend to have a go slow policy at first, because we don't know what our actives will do on Mars. We may get short term results that we like, but have long term bad effects. Like if we heat up Mars, will the moisture evaporate into space and we get warm dry Mars instead of having a wet cold Mars.
But, one thing that we should be able to do is to put a Magnetosphere around Mars to fend off the harmful radiation and it may also increase the air density on Mars, because it would fend off the solar winds from the upper Martian atmosphere.
But, any further terraforming action would have to be studied to see what affect it going to have on Mars.
Larry,
#821 Re: Terraformation » Terraforming smaller bodies - SG spectrum of terraformability » 2004-06-30 15:27:11
The nowaday economics and political situation has to do with the terraforming and generally space colonization less than the Space shuttle program with your federal budget in 1790. When such items come into agenda the status will be much too different. Indeed namely the private bussiness activity ONLY (strictly regulated under codex of special space laws issued by specialized global autorities like WTO and UN organs) could bring us in great scale into space. Hope, after several centuries the Earth generated incomes would represent a miniscule part of the Gross Human Product. On the new 'terraformitories' new political entities, hence new solar-political players should arrise -- the souvereinity establishment bussiness would be the ultimate evolutionary stage of the real estate property development one.
But, I think the theme for terraforming smaller bodies gone far from the point. I started it in order to be discussed the theoretical and physical plausibility of it. The next level is the economical feasibility -- do we have the money. The last step is to realize -- if we put the money in such project how much and when we`ll gain back from the investment. An equation with many variables. Even , you know, the restraint from certain economical action is measured in giving and taking money. If the profit pressuire is too big, the future humanity could forget again about the terraforming "ethical" issues. Or it may occur that it is totaly uneconomical to terraform some of the bodies. Matter of prices -- for air, machines, transport cost, bank credits..., the land per sq.km. at last.
So now we are dealing with the concept of wealth and how you measure it. If we are dealing with the concept of wealth they way most people think of wealth or what we were lead to believe is wealth. Then there won't be any Terraforming being done any where. Because it too expensive and there no return on your investment.
If you view money as wealth and to be pursued in your drive to obtain wealth. Then you would view Terraforming any moon or planet throwing money down rate hole. Because the infrastructure that your building to terraform some, will never be paid back to you. Even if you willed it to your grand children for several generation, both the principal and the interest even at 6% interest, could never be paid back. So trying to raise the money by either banks notes or selling stock won't work either.
However, if we have a different concept of wealth, that changes the variables a whole lot. For instance, if we view money as just a medium of exchange and nothing more. Which all money ever should be, just a medium exchange or save goods and service rendered in the past. But, the process of generating credit should be in regards to generation physical good and service or infrastructure for future use. But, real wealth is increasing the productive capacity of the labor force. An example of that would be working two hours so you can buy a bag a groceries. But, let say we increase your productive capability by 50% and now you can work one hour to buy the same bag of groceries. This would be another concept of wealth. You would view that credit created out of thin air as a mechanism for creating a more productive society and advancing the human race as wealth and not the other way around, like it is right now. You had this other concept of wealth and a sufficient number of Americans shared that opinion with you, then terraforming Mars would not be an issue and may terraforming other planets and moons would not be issue. Matter of fact we would already have a permanent base on the Moon and would have already been to Mars and maybe even setting up a permanent colony on Mars too.
A good example of this is Kennedy going to the Moon as a national mission or goal. For private individual, that is not doable. For private corporation it may or may not be doable with the money they may have at hand, but it would be a bad investment and they would probably go bankrupt, but before they could accomplish there mission. But, a government that controls it own money supply and credit, you can make some interesting things happen. If you go cheap, you actually lose money, but if you go more expensive rout, it actually cheaper. At first glance you may think that impossible, but it true. Let go back to our Moon mission, if we had the technology to go to the Moon 1963 when John F. Kennedy made that declaration to go to the Moon then we would have only made about 3 to 4 dollars for every 1 dollar invested in that Moon Mission. I say only, because that for every project like that they use current technology only rolls over about 3 or four time. But, the moon mission because we had to develop new technology to go to the moon rolled over 14 because of the technological spin off of that new technology. In other words it rolled another 10 more than it would have other, because of the new technology that developed. Kennedy understood this process, so he had a Lunar base planed and a Mars Mission. He knew we wanted to just wanted to pass through the chemical rockets and fission power and then pass through fission power to fusion powered. He was looking for that technological spin off return to the U.S economy. That why your concept of what wealth is, will either limit you or will give you the ability to achieve your goal complete on the way that you thinking. In some respects, what going on in your head can be a bigger impediment to terraforming than neither having the technology or the infrastructure in place. If we don't have the technology, we can develop it. If we don't have the infrastructure, we can build it. If we have a wrong idea as to what wealth is or money, then were screwed when it comes to terraforming, because we will try to make it happen in a system that can't work.
But, Kennedy sent us to the Moon, but George Bush can only make promises, but as things stand, we can’t even get back to the moon. Because, the United States can’t afford it. That the difference between the two different ways of thinking and the way they view Monetary and banking policies.
Larry,
#822 Re: Terraformation » Terraforming smaller bodies - SG spectrum of terraformability » 2004-06-29 17:56:17
I lost you, Larry. I don't know what you wanted to say by your last post. I am not advocating settling the Moon instead of Mars, if you meant that and I am not accusing you of fighting an illegal war. My point was purely theoretical - meaning, we could do this, if we had the will and the money.
Oh, then I must have mis under stood what you were really saying. I have both the will and I know where we can get the money to do these major project.
What your talking about doing can't be done on some individual effors or groups of individual.
What your talking about doing can't even be done with private corporation or groups of private corporation. The project would still be too big to be done.
Even the United State with it present banking system could not do it or even if the rest of the world government joined in, it would still be too big a project. Because, currently the United State would have to tax the American people to build it and the money just isn't there to do that.
At the risk of going political on you and talking about economics or monitery policies and banking system. With a major over haul of the American banking system, tax code and other things, the United States is just not going to be in the position to terraform the moon, mars or any thing else for that matter. For more information on that go to the web site below. Not only did Kennedy make going to the moon a national mission, he was also going to back the Central Banking system and it back under government control. That would have brought the Central Banking and the power to generate credit to the Federal Government which would line up with the U.S. Constitution and what it says. Now a U.S. Government that Controls the Centrol Banking System which creates credit, tax's, regulates economy can not only build massive infrastructure down here, but can also build massive infrastructure in space too. Depending on who controls the Banking system, will also determines whether or not we build infrastructure too and how much get built. If the private bankers control the credit system and the Centrol bank which also encludes the Federal Reserve System, then you can pretty much forget about terraforming other bodies in space. Because, most of there credit goes into usury and money chasing money and generating larger debt. But if the Federal Government is generating the credit, they get first use of that credit and the amount of credit that the Federal Government is going to have to generate is about one trillion a year and one trillion dollars every year from here on out. What most people don't understand is, that there a hole in the economy. If there were no population increase, you would still have to generate 3% of new credit or that economy would implode. Now if you had a 3% increase in the population then you would need about 6% increase in the money supply or credit or new money. The U.S. Constitution give that power to generate that credit to the Federal Government of the United States and not to some private bank or Banking system like the Federal Reserve. The reason that I'm making such a big fuss over it, is: Currently Alan Greespan is generation over 4 to 5 trillion dollars or more this year. But, even if the central government get the Central Bank back and only generates one trillion dollars, there going to be investing in build infrastructure like FDR or Abraham Lincoln did or John F. Kennedy did.
You can build a lot of stuff with the power to generate credit like that. The government can use that credit like Hamilton did in the First National Bank and create self-extenguation debt. It basically is credit you used to build something you need like a subway or a space station and we figer it going to take us ten years to build it. So we setup a line to finance and build the project through the government power to generate credit, but we put a ten year exporation date. That mean in ten year that note expire where it payed off or nothing is payed on that debt, it still expires. The reason for generationg that credit in the first place, was to build that infrastructure and generate business activities in the private sector which create a productive work force and to build up the country. Once that credit has served that purpose, then it serve it usefull purpose and it time for it to go. That is if the government creates that credit, but if the private sector banks create that credit, well they make money from usury of the credit they generated and they don't cancel it out. It keeps being rolled over and over and they charge interest on interest.
This link show that John F. Kennedy tried to retake the Centrol Banking system and the power generate credit that go with it.
http://www.john-f-kennedy.net/thefedera … eserve.htm
I hope this clear up what I was trying to say. I could also give you other links that go into more detail as to what I'm trying to say.
Larry,
#823 Re: Terraformation » Terraforming the Moon - Your opinion, please » 2004-06-29 15:20:13
But, I still favor magnetic field and possibly some kind of bubble technology that you could still fly through, but could be use to argument the lack of gravity on the Moon.
Anyway, some kind of active or passive atmosphere-protection mechanism must be applicated on Moon and other 'smaller bodies' terraform. Constant replenishing and leaving the atmosphere to escape is not so long-run and economical solution.
-
About the passive ones: There were proposed during the years many types of doming the entire world -- even incrementaly widened plastic envelope which to be lied on surface, pumped with air underneath and grown wider-and-wider untill it covers whole the planetary body -- finally hovering by the contained atmosphere, This is in the middle between 'parateraforming' using big towers with ropes run between them with tent cloth over and mere atmosphere contra-leakage measures. In the world-blanket concept we see way of simple mechanical deflecting the particles trying to escape -- and we should recognise that such method has some advantages -- it is power-supply independent, but needs constant repair; or even big hole in it, really substantial part of the canopy`s area loss would not mean immediate getting worse of the biospheres conditions. Repair it or rise new one and stop the leak. I met a proposal the blanket to consist of hexagonal grid of ropes with specially designed transperant plastic 'windows' -- a plastic which polimerizes and is quite rigid under UV radiation, but liquid in storage. Repair robots, like spiders run over the grid, and sqeeze the plastic to fill the gaps from meteors or passing SHIPS which 'dries' like soap bubble afetrwards...
-
The bubbling could be done by even not so rigid material. It couold consist of something like the Utility Fog -- countless thiny smart-dust particles which to interact (say creating by solar power mini-magnetospheres and to regulate the exchange of light and gass around the body.). Such swarm could consist either from quite big meso-units (cantimeters, or even meters wide) or host or real mature tech self-replicating nano-robots. The last version could be as sophisticated as the lower human-compatible protoplasmic biosphere and to amplify the homeostatic Gaia effect to super-extremes: to collect light from the necessary area for the distant world and to create hyper-greenhouse effect unachievable with any kind of gas, or vice versa to deflect the light, to filter it, to change it colour, to produce light, to arrange overall mag-field with very complex topology... Such way a habitable world could be very close or remote with accordance to any central star -- a nanotech multipurpose soletas!!!
-
But, AGAIN, the Moon is big enough so only artificial magnetosphere (generated by single equatorial superconducting ring -- a 'landed mag-sail') + exobase cooling should be enough the volatiles on it to stay indeffinitelly long - comparable with the rest of the Sun`s lifetime and longer.
You talking about putting the Moon in a plastic bubble around the entire Moon. Like you said, it going to be very high maitaince, but you would probably want two or three layer, because of the high maitaince of it and patch each of the separate layer. But, in a system like that, you would defenetly want an elevator to the surfice of the moon from orbit.
But, if such a project were to be under taken, you would have to have some major government to finance the start of such a major project. But once you get into such a project, then it would need to be turned over to the Lunar Central government to finish and maitain.
And even then it would have to be done in stages.
Larry,
#824 Re: Terraformation » Terraforming smaller bodies - SG spectrum of terraformability » 2004-06-28 20:42:05
In the Lunar thread, you said, it was impossible to terraform the Moon.
Please check the Mercury thread with my link to the document about terraforming smaller bodies. I believe we can terraform the Moon and even much smaller bodies.
I also favour terraformation of Mars, Venus, the Moon, Callisto, Ganymede (Jupiter), Titan (Saturn), Titania, Oberon (the 2 largest around Uranus) and Triton (the largest around Neptune), as well as Mercury - the only solid planet other than Earth that already has a significant magnetic field.
Yes, I did. Although I don't see how we could terraform the Moon with present technology or any technology within even the next fifty years or so. I would still support any prospect of terraforming the moon if I though it could be done. I read some where that if you poured out a class of water on the Moon that it would vaporize almost immediately, but it would take about two year for that water that water to leave the Moons influence. I realize that we are talking about more water like an entire comet of something, but you going to wind up with basically the same results. It might take a little longer, but the end results will still be same.
As far as I can see on the terraformation activities for the Moon would be to generate Magnetic field around the Moon to protect the people that might live there from radiation. I also read some where that the Moon also has a faint atmosphere too. It not very much, but it does have one. Now with a Magnetic field around the Moon, the solar wind would not be blowing the atmosphere away. But, even if we could do that, it would take century's for the moon to accrue much of an atmosphere, assuming that it would. Even to get the Moon at the level that Mars is right now.
Without one or more Technological break through that will change what we got to work with right now. Unless we can generate some kind of artificial energy field or some type of bubble of one type or another, no I don't see us Terraforming the Moon. At least not in the foreseeable future at any rate.
Larry,
Of course, it's all theoretical - people have other priorities - Iraq, etc. There was no human on the Moon in 30 years, nobody is interested in colonizing/ terraforming.
I am not convinced that the atmosphere will disappear soon, I tend to believe the optimistic estimates (Have you read the link I gave in Mercury thread). Some estimate the Moon to hold the atmosphere for thousands, some for millions and some indefinitely. We won't know for sure. Massive atmospheres are different from a glass water in your example because of it mass and the way the atmosphere works - the upper areas reflect some light. I am not even sure that water from that glass will go into space, maybe it will be soaked by sand instead. The lost atmosphere can be topped up gradually.
As for bringing atmosphere to Luna - some people already posted about rediverting the asteroids - cheap and easy, at least, it's easier than shipping volatiles from other planets.
The ingredients of the atmosphere are important too. Nitrogen is pretty heavy. (Titan has less surface gravity than the Moon but has a very thick atmosphere). Water vapour will create clouds and reflect light. Extra frozen water will stay around the poles.
Now that un-called for atitarev. I will have you know that I'm not interested in fighting some illegal war in Iraq. Not only that on another Space forum I was pushing the idea that we should build a city on Mars of a hundred thousand people and we should do it in say a forty to fifty year time schedule from today’s date. Or make it a national goal like a Kennedy Moon Mission goal. Now this going to Mars to build that city would include building a city on the Moon of maybe five to ten thousand people twenty year period to test the equipment that we are going to use on Mars. Then you would probably be in your third or forth generation Earth Shuttle and your second generation Lunar Shuttle and maybe your second or third generation Mars shuttle. Then figure on building about two hundred deep space space ships of various types from passenger to cargo to mining ships. Then we would want to build a city in the L5 point with agro-Industry-Mining ships from the asteroid belt along dry dock and Ship building yards.
If you don't have that kind of infrastructure to start off with, "YOUR DAY DREAMING"!
Now how would I build that kind of infrastructure in fifty to sixty year time frame?
I would put the Federal Reserve through bankruptcy reorganization into either a new Third National bank or put it under a new Treasury Department. The only way that the United States is going to get out of the mess it in and be able to afford a space program is to put Federal Reserve through Bankruptcy. Once the U.S. Government has got control of over it own money system again as laid out in the U.S. Constitution, then they will have to generate new credit to restart the U.S. Economy.
Well how do you do that?
You build infrastructure, like subway, super trains, power plants, water project, space station, city on the moon, city on Mars, etc.
Instead of having Alan Greenspan generating trillion of dollars to finance Wall Street and those Big Banks and generating trillion of dollars debt for us to pay off, we will have the U.S. Government generating a trillion dollars of credit a year and plowing it into the physical economy as mentioned above. Even just hundred billion dollars of that credit that been generated ove a sixty your period would be six trillion dollars to use in space and there is absolutly no way you can get that kind of money from the private sector either.
Larry,
#825 Re: Terraformation » Terraforming smaller bodies - SG spectrum of terraformability » 2004-06-28 16:56:06
I personally favor tarraforming Mars, Venus, the Earth moon, the four Moons of Jupiter, Saturn Moon Titian, Trenton on Neptune and I may or may not consider any of those asteroid. I would consider hollowing out those asteroid that are hundred miles or so, because you could put hundred million people inside and rotate the asteroid for gravity and have a pretty good habitat. But at some point it became not practical to tarraform some thing when it get too small unless you can create gravity platting like on Star Trek and increase the gravity at ground level and/or put an engine on it and make it like a super cruise liner for tens of thousand of people to travel through the solar system. Then that would change the variable and you might consider some thing smaller, but other wise no.
Larry,
In the Lunar thread, you said, it was impossible to terraform the Moon.
Please check the Mercury thread with my link to the document about terraforming smaller bodies. I believe we can terraform the Moon and even much smaller bodies.
I also favour terraformation of Mars, Venus, the Moon, Callisto, Ganymede (Jupiter), Titan (Saturn), Titania, Oberon (the 2 largest around Uranus) and Triton (the largest around Neptune), as well as Mercury - the only solid planet other than Earth that already has a significant magnetic field.
Yes, I did. Although I don't see how we could terraform the Moon with present technology or any technology within even the next fifty years or so. I would still support any prospect of terraforming the moon if I though it could be done. I read some where that if you poured out a class of water on the Moon that it would vaporize almost immediately, but it would take about two year for that water that water to leave the Moons influence. I realize that we are talking about more water like an entire comet of something, but you going to wind up with basically the same results. It might take a little longer, but the end results will still be same.
As far as I can see on the terraformation activities for the Moon would be to generate Magnetic field around the Moon to protect the people that might live there from radiation. I also read some where that the Moon also has a faint atmosphere too. It not very much, but it does have one. Now with a Magnetic field around the Moon, the solar wind would not be blowing the atmosphere away. But, even if we could do that, it would take century's for the moon to accrue much of an atmosphere, assuming that it would. Even to get the Moon at the level that Mars is right now.
Without one or more Technological break through that will change what we got to work with right now. Unless we can generate some kind of artificial energy field or some type of bubble of one type or another, no I don't see us Terraforming the Moon. At least not in the foreseeable future at any rate.
Larry,