You are not logged in.
Science Notes, 23rd May, 2103
Rover 3, Expedition, Personal Notes, J Richards,
Rovers are as far as I can see, camper vans. I leave Earth and we bring camper vans. Anyway the best way to describe them are as tough super grunt vehicles with crew comfort a second best. There are 4 of us and stores and we struggle, Still the trailer we are pulling carries a lot of gear that does not have to be kept under a decent atmosphere.
We have been on a hunt for aquifers and with the mineral survey of a raptor to give us good leads we have found one. The drilling nowadays is different than what our forefathers once used, we use sonics to disintegrate the rock ahead of the bit so we can drill a lot faster than those old riggers and drillers could imagine. Still we still have to be careful of actually releasing the aquifer as it would come out under enough pressure to literally send our rover miles from here. Aquifers are hydrothermal events and not only are they good sources of Hydro power and water but they may well be the best source for real Martian life. Still with the contamination of Terran bacteria it will be difficult to tell.
We note the aquifer and then delete it from the computers. Just like we have wiped the Raptors memory but then again it was never going to return to Von Braun. Still time to go back and with driving twenty four and a half hours it will take at least 7 days to get back. And still we have to check on the other drills a previous expedition had deployed
The actual loss is proportional to the amount that is transmitted and with power lines they can actually only hold so much before they melt
Your right, the 5% solar panel I was referring to is just the organic panel which would simply reduce the cost of purchasing solar equipment and not improve the energy supply. In order to do that we would need to, at least, double the efficiency of solar panels from 36% to 72%. Not sure if that is possible and even so it is likely very far into the future.
Actually its not the problems with the solar panels that is holding back there use but basically where it is sunny all the time is where there is few people. Transportation of energy is the real problem.
Electricity can only be transported so far before resistance of the medium used basicly uses all the energy up in heat etc. Which is why if we had a super conductor that worked well and at reasonable high tempatures then we would find our energy grids incredible.
We need regular power production stations just to keep the grid running in effect keeping the pressure on. And sometimes we have situations where there has to be a power station but it can only be the one type as this is the only fuel source that can be economically available.
That credit is base on the word of that United States and that when the US Government says that it worth this much, then they obligate themselvies to make it worth what they say worth. Also if the US Government is investing in the productive physical economy of the United States, they will have goods and services that will be generated by there credit,
Why would a foreign investor believe the Goverment of the USA.
There are twp things that supposdly give the dollar it value. The word of the Federal Reserve System which is a private bank and the exchange rate between other currencies from other countries.
Currently the Dollar is going down in value to most other currencies as people equate the USA as a faltering economy. If under your plan in the future you really have no control to do what you plan as it is the world in general that actually values the Dollar and if you do things which the world does not like you will get stung as in the Dollar becomes increasingly worthless
Derivatives are not a foundation for anything, but is a fiat money that has no real value.
They have value to the people who use them and rely on them to finance there buisness or to buy the fertiliser they need to grow there crops in the hope the harvest is great and the prices go up. Most trading of derivatives is based on this.
This is the forth time I have told you, it was the the Goverment that generated the credit and not the investor or banks that created the credit. I not those bank nor those investor that are holding that newly generated credit, but it the US Federal Goverment that holding that new credit.
Definition of credit = It is a financial term that refers to the granting of a loan and creation of debt.
So the USA Goverment creates this credit where does the money come from. Who invests in the USA to do this, You are creating an imaginery fund pot that is supposed to provide money if not then you are expecting people to invest in the USA to create this fund what surety do you give them and what if you default. You are creating a situation where the goverment simply prints money to pay for something and that causes only one thing devaluation of that currency.
"WHAT THE MATTER WITH YOU"
"THIS IS THE FORTH TIME THAT I TOLD YOU THAT IT THE US GOVERMENT HAS THE CREDIT, NOT THE BANK OR THE PRIVATE INVESTOR"
Thats easy its due to you never answering me, where does the money come from. Simple question, one you avoid.
Of course you could do this by saying that the USA would become like a bank and loan money to pay for construction of those things you want but then the Goverment would be paid back by those companies and those comapanies would own what they build and the right to charge what they like to use them. So in effect a privatising issue. Of course to spend trillions would basically result in no money in the USA Goverment to spend on anything else.
Remember what the Goverment has to spend is what it gets in taxes and earnings like issueing licences etc to do things. Spend more than this and your country is in deficit and it borrows money to pay for this with the intention to pay it back. As a countries debt grows through poor fiscal management then more and more of its money goes to servicing that debt. This is what is happening to the third world countries do you think they would love to be able to turn around and say we no longer have a debt we actually have X amount to spend each year just by say so.
And just why hasn't OPEC drastically reduced it's output since 1973? The world is at their mercy now just as then.
Maybe they haven't because strong American leaders have sent them a warning. Everybody complains about how much we spend on defense but they don't recognize the invisible successes that a strong military provides.
Yes supply vs demand is and will continue to drive the price of oil upward. You're just repeating what we've already said.
When we are given a challenge the US has the incredible ability to adapt. Third world countries will benefit, somewhat, from this. Imagine solar powered dehumidifiers providing water to desolate areas in Africa.
OPEC did reduce its output and actually kept a check on how much was produced just to keep oil prices at a stable rate. But with the increase in demand OPEC has had to up and up its production to stop OIL prices rising too high. Now the OPEC countries are mostly at full production or not far of it and cannot moderate the prices as they used too. The high price of OIL and the costs involved hurt the OPEC countries too believe it or not. They rely on oil for a lot like gas powered water reclamation systems and they are heavy users of cars too. Not to mention there repair and maintenance of the oil pumping system has had to be downgraded as they cannot pull any fields of production.
It has allways been in the Interests of OPEC to keep production and consumption relatively stable and it allows these countries where oil is there staple supply of currency to actually have a stable economy. The current situation is that with demand so high OPEC has tapped into all its reserves and in the future will run out a lot sooner than they are prepared for. Look at Bharain which is turning itself into the tourist trap of the gulf states so it has a future income after its oil is depleted.
And for those who want to know 5% efficiency solar panels are now well out of date tech we have solar panels that are in the 38% efficient stage and typical cheap commercial panels are of a minimum of 15%. Actually have a set of 18% ones which I was planning for a little home experiment of mine.
Condone the intimidation of OPEC to keep oil prices down? Of course. They have a monopoly on the worlds energy supply. They could reduce the output anytime they wanted to, the price would skyrocket and they would still make the same amount of money but it would hurt the USA a great deal. I would support a war for oil in that case.
Cheap oil is what made America go from a world power to a super power. Everything we have done in the last 100 years is connected to it. What do you think is behind China's economic boost? They were all about mules and push carts for thousands of years.
OPEC can't sell to china for $100 a barrel, while OPEC does set the price it isn't purely set by supply vs demand. The good ole USA puts a little political pressure on them from time to time to keep it reasonable.
OPEC does not have a monopoly on the production of Oil it is very powerful but it cannot control the prices rising as they have. Due to the factors now prevalent and this is unlike what occured in the past.
Actually, the last time OPEC and the USA tangled the USA came out worst and it was definitly a victory for OPEC. Epecially when OPEC managed to get the world to start paying 10 times more for its product and to gain a lot of respect and money.
This was in 1973 and resulted in the devalueing of the Dollar mass unemployment, national speed limits of 55mph and even in the USA having to change its clocks...
But OPEC is powerless to stop prices rising at the moment as it has zero spare capacity to pump oil as the demand for it is so great and the demand is not likely to fall greatly with the end of winter for the northern hemisphere. There are few places that have spare capacity to pump Oil and those are due to the inefficiency to do so. One of these is Russia and it is hiring a lot of people to get its inefficient backward oil system up to scratch and this hiring has increased in the recent months.
The use of nuclear reactors is diminishing.
Actually it was diminishing but with most nations relying on gas or oil burning power stations and with a lot of countries reducing there CO2 output has resulted in a reversal of this view.
It just has to be the UK, France, Germany have all increased there greener renewable sources of energy but it is still not enough so Nuclear is becoming the perfered option and the public seem to be willing to accept it as they perfer nuclear to higher electricity bills. Even the scandinavian countries are commisioning new Nuclear power stations.
The problem for these countries is that to turn to coal a resource they still have in plenty produces a rate of pollution which is totally unaceptable to the public now and though it has storage issues for nuclear waste it is still seen as cleaner energy and the public view of windfarms is actually becoming more anti as they are noisy and spoil the view.
You still have to answer me what would you base this credit on and who would value it. A Dollar is only as worth as much as the economic community think it is and this value is given at what the international community believe is the strength of the American economy. And the use and trading of derivatives gives a lot of this value by trading on what the Dollar will be worth.
Derivatives are based on something and Bonds are a good example who would buy a bond if it was not for the derivatives market. Actually no one. Derivatives are needed to finance and give interest to a bond otherwise they are a loan that has to be paid back by a goverment somehow and if you generate credit you will be coughing it back to the investors.
The derivatives are a means to an end do they need to be better regulised yes but if there was to be too much that it would seriously impose on them then our whole planets economy would suffer.
This commonwealth seems like an attempt to create a marxist state with overtones of China. China also claims to be a Marxist/Socialist state, like the Commenwealth there is only alowed to be one party, Like China child births are strictly controlled..The only real difference is that China does not insist that all members of its population must be communist party members and China is willing to work with other countries to get things done (even if unwillingly )
I understand the creation of credit and how to use it in both a private banking system and public banking system. I would outlaw futures beside outlawing of derivatives.
So you realise that it is the basic system of international and goverment buisness. Credit allows a company with a good rating to borrow to buy what it needs and then repay later when its money comes in. Without such a fluidic system a company would have to wait until it actually had its profit set down and could not take advantage of a good deal when it finds one.
About the only things I would leave in the stock market is the goverment bonds and the corporation stock
So how do people make money on something that will now have a set rate and will be worth less due to inflation than it was purchased on. This is what the derivative trade uses as one of its main items that shares and bonds will go up in value as people wish to purchase them. If they cannot be traded against then what use are they. So why buy them.
But, having a public banking system under goverment control where the goverment generates credit and how they should use it.
So letting civil servants basically run the show and a red tape heaven it would be too. And what could they invest in. That is how banks make money so they can pay interest, so getting customers to put there money in. Some pet senators project. That is certain to happen and with a likehood of 100% till the point it becomes the norm. It will start with a good cause till it is a vote buying standard. And all the time people will stop investing in anything belonging to the USA.
But, generating over two trillion dollars of new credit to restart the US Economy and generating another one trillion dollars per year for say fifty years.
So What you really are saying is to default on all those bonds and debts owned by banks and goverments outside the USA. And remember this what is a Dollar worth, There are more dollars in circulation than what was called the gold standard actually represents. And the Gold in Fort Knox is actually nothing like pure. A Dollar is only worth as much as the world believes it to be. If the USA decides then to show the fiscal stupidity of defaulting on all those bonds then it would get stung when people treat the Dollar as a worthless currency. To generate credit you must have something to base that credit on. Dont say the word of the USA it has already by defaulting proved to have none. So all this credit you now state you have would be worthless and it would be based on a dollar that is basically worthless and in a country in hyper inflation.
That would be 52 trillion dollars. With that kind of credit, the United States can finance building levitated national train system inside the entire United States, build several city's,
Sorry, had enough writing this down. As stated where would this credit come form what would it be based upon and who would buy it. And with a country where the Dollar is now worth about parity with the afghanistan Affra just try buying something or paying out wages. ( the Affra is worth 48 Affras to one Dollar). You would find that a lot of what was once American owned would now be foreign owned and like what occured to the USSR a case where the goverment and state authorities could not pay its employees or even garauntee food transportation.
We live in a world Larry where we are so interconnected that there is little room for grand economic experiments and our financial markets are what has been created over the centuries to the point we are pretty stuck with them here on Earth. One of the reasons I want to go to space is that we now have a place where we can try a different economy one which is more natural and better for people. But on Earth we cannot do it without highly possibly cripling ourselves. And having a lunar and asteroid and Mars economies trading with each other would make the Earth change itself especially if we went out of our way to ensure that we in space made sure we did it right in the firstplace.
But derivatives are based squarely on something and this something is mostly a Bond or Share and it is bet that the value of this share will go up, if it does not you loose your money. Many small people bet on this and so do many financial institutions across the world. What you do is to gain ownership of a share or bond and hope it gains in value but if it does not you still own that bond or share. Also many corporations play the lottery that is derivatives.
If you pull the plug on derivatives you can only do this by announcing the Bonds will no longer be paid back. You have defaulted on the Bonds value and you have hurt a lot of people playing the lottery when the owners of the Bonds loose there money. And since a lot of financial institutions are in the derivatives trade quess what you default on the Bonds they have purchased, and so goes my post above.
"I keep asking why you would want to drag atmospheric entry systems all the way to the Moon and back"
Answer:
#1: So you can abort directly to Earth if something goes wrong and not have to wait to synchronize orbits, rendevous, and dock if you need to get back down right now.You have the atmospheric vehicle with you during launch, you can abort and get down right now anytime. You would only transfer to the LTV after successful stable orbital insertion. In fact, you have to rendezvous and dock to make the transfer. If you run out of power or oxygen during return to Earth, you can rendezvous with ISS. We have a space station, it is the safe haven. There are people who argue it was a waste of money, but that doesn't matter now; we have it so use it. In fact, leave the atmospheric descent vehicle (lifting body or capsule) docked with ISS.
#2: Its easier and quicker since that method is proven. If you are aiming to contest that this isn't worth future operating costs being somewhat higher, then I would disagree with you. NASA needs results, on budget, and sooner rather then later.
Ohhh, the "easier quicker" argument. America was able to develop a Moon vehicle in the 1960s when no one had done anything like that before. Has America lost that? Was the only reason America could in the '60s due to competition? Does America need a firm kick in the pants to accomplish anything?
Or from another perspective, the current Shuttle was the option with low up-front development cost. That also had its reasons; NASA needed results on budget and sooner for fear they would be out of the space business. The result of that rush was a vehicle that now costs roughly $540 million per launch including amortized fixed costs, and only flies 6 times per year. Don't repeat that mistake, do it right this time.
What we have is an ISS in the wrong orbit for use as a waystation to the Moon or further. This was done so the Russians could get on board this was a political decision and it . It was also political decisions that made the ISS into the not very useful plan it is now and with each redesign it becomes more nad more a financial mistake. What we also seem to have is an unfinished ISS that may not survive until the shuttles replacement can fly it is a creaking, power failing, No stability, Poor enviromentals mess. And im not actually sure what real science potential it has.
The Shuttle was another example of politics over sense the shuttle was designed the way it was to meet everyones needs. It went rapidly over budget from the almost completely reusable design first envisioned and with each redesign more nad more weight was put on. The original shuttle would have been a lot smaller man only no cargo vehicle that would have paved the way to cheaper flight. It would have been a lot safer as it would have not had the solid rocket boosters which Von Braun noted should never be used to transport people. It would have had the actual shuttle located on the top of the rocket and its very vulnerable heat shield well protected from debris. Even the Airforce one of the reasons it cost overan and piled the pounds on pulled out when they saw the monster it was becoming.
In the early 70s the USA could have had a small reusable shuttle for launching crew and a variety of cargo launch rockets to transport cargo. This would have kept the mighty Saturns and they would have been improved on. Space access would have been cheaper and the Moon would already have a base on it.
Science Notes, 14th May, 2103
We have a lot of people in the team who have interests in other than our main fields. I'm an example, having mastered my Diploma in the field of Robotics I also have an interest in the now heavily regulated Genetic engineering. But what we have is that many in the team are gifted with more than one "Science". This was allways thought as a good idea so that in the case of accident we do not loose a whole discipline. As an example Dr Singh, She has admitted that she is actually primarily a Geneticist and that her Biology Diploma was gained to broaden her abilities. This is not a coincidence it has allways been noted that Mars would take a toll on us and we would have to "adapt" to be able to fit ourselves around this world. We could never simply bulldoze our way and take over especially with a planet that can kill you in so so many ways. Certainly just sitting and writing this is actually killing me faster than what would happen on Earth through my intake of Martian fines and the higher radiation count.
But we dont care we are just so happy to be here and free of the constant pressures of Earth. But there is a more serious side to this. We are finding that the first colonists also had Genetic engineers and they have been developing some really strange species to compliment themselves. War seems to have been on there mind and also it seems they wanted life to be harder on this planet with the creation of Sandworms and meat eating Rabbits.
We as a science team are finding though we are not free of Earth. Many "requests" have come for us to try out certain genetic experiments that have been banned on Earth since early last century. We also have found that "requests" for data on the breeding of these rabbits and how could we weaponize other species have also come through. But in this these Earth black suits are stupid they see Science as a proffesion where individual scientists keep themselves to themselves and do not share work. But the pressures of the voyage and the dangers of Mars have changed us we work more as a team and get on so well we are like another society amongst the 2nd Expedition crew. We do share notes and we see what is happening and now we see what we have to do about it. At the moment we are doing as we are told as we are not stupid there are bound to be others who work for this Earth conspiracy in the crew.
Dr Gryphon
Gryphon looked up from the small personal computer which he now routinely stored these statements. The computer was unusual in that it no longer was able to link with others and it had a truly powerful AI and security installed. "Link, Encrypt the last notes and wake me up a half hour before sunrise, please". Link replied "Certainly Doctor, Be aware this will give you less than 5.5 hours in which to sleep" Gryphon looked around the small place he had called home and said" Dont worry there is so much to do and I really would like to see the sunrise, So much to do and so little time"
Martian Republic
Now I have proposed that the US goverment should nationalize The Federal Reserve system and eliminate the debt of 300 to 400 hundred trillion dollars of worth paper and generate one to two trillion dollars of new credit.
What you are asking to do is all the bonds that are held will be defaulted. It is hardly in the trillions of dollars but it is Billions. And a very good percentage of this is held by various international banks of which the US goverment has borrowed money from and has given these bonds to as collateral. With a lot of Dollars being held as foreign currency reserves in various countries as well. Let me tell you what will happen if some idiot ever decided that they could do it.
1) Defaulting these bonds and loans would instantly make the banks holding these loans to loose all the money they have lended in good faith. Many may well collapse and it would certainly result in a monetary crisis the world has never seen. Many goverments would have to bail these banks out and it would hurt when the world went into a recession that has never been seen not even in the likes of the wall street crash.
2) The various countries holding Dollars would dump them as they would be weakened it would only take some itchy financial advisor to start it or even a computer currency market. Some countries would love to do this China would, it would basically make the dollar worthless.
3) America would find itself incapable of buying anything outside the USA unless it pays in money other than the now hyperinflationing Dollar. Electricity, Oil, Materials would all stop as they could not be purchased.
4) With this a lot of people will become unemployed the goverment will be unable to pay its employees (this happened to the USSR) Hyperinflation would basically mean that barter was the real means of purchase for the averadge citizen. There would be no water or lights, Heating would be provided by burning what you can.
5) American property would be seized outside the USA as compensation by those goverments at the actions of the USA, it would be done to alleviate the problems these goverments have after the reckless action of the USA. Worst would be that as the United States goverment has really little property outside the USA it would be American firms that would be in effect all nationalised. These corporations in the USA would recieve no compensation and even the biggest would likely collapse or have to "downsize drastically"
6) Since it is friendly goverments to the USA that really have the banks that would be defaulted against and that it is friendly goverments that have large American owned buisnesses in it the USA would quickly find itself with few friends even the staunchest ally would not forgive the USA for its actions.
This is just a taste of what it means to default on those loans and bonds. It would be inexcusable for this to happen and for the American people it would be a disaster if not for the world. Certainly it would knock the western world out of its premier spot on this planet.
Even if we tap some of this new oil, we will use it up very fast; this new oil may keep good old classical industrialism from totally fading away, but once "Peak Oil" hits, good old classical industrialism will quickly scale back to a much lower limit of activity than we've been 'enjoying(if that is the correct word)' for awhile now.
Besides that, there will be severe wars for the few areas that have new oil slowly(on human time scales) seeping out of the ground; rough times are indeed ahead.
100% wrong!
Current oil reserves will last 40-50 years, new oil sources are likely tougher to get but they will still produce oil, just at a higher cost. Industry will NOT scale back because of high oil costs. It will adapt. Some businesses will fail but that is evolution at work. The more adaptive, more efficient ones will prosper.
Oil prices, like any product, are a factor of supply/demand. OPEC has been nice enough, with a little threat now and then, to keep the price of oil at a reasonable level.
Fighting a war over oil is nonsense because the war costs more than the oil does. When oil becomes too costly we just switch to bio-diesel, solar, and hydrogen.
Im sorry to say you are.
Wrong that is.
Just take the Oil price rises in the last two years. These are the result of an industry in maximum production still getting more demand than the supply can produce.
This will only get worse when as far as the oil Industry is concerned the peak production of oil will if not happened happen very soon. And if you know the Oil industry and Oil production at all then you will know that once a field has peaked its production reduces at a predigous rate. This is due to the way we produce Oil and that we actually cannot get all the oil out of a field, actually we cannot get the majority out. Also the methods used to get Oil out begin to become prohibitively expensive and it is only a matter of time before cost outweighs returns.
And fighting over resources has occured so many times in History that it is counted as a standard. Why do you think the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour? But as resources become more and more scarce then pressures on countries become greater and we rely on Oil for so much and so do the developing nations and countries like China and India would be in real trouble if the flow ever faulted. And they do have places they can scrap over like the spratly islands, Antartica etc. Add that the countries that seem to be the main sources of Oil are often politically fragile if not in outright civil war. Or are becoming closer to countries willing to support them like China.
Yes ;Solar powered pyrolysis will outgas O2 from lunar regolith without major capital investment.
But the problem then is concetrating it under pressure and cooling it to liquify it. If we can not do that with the waste hydrogen from the ISS oygenation unit, then how will we get over that same hurdle on the moon.As for the adridge report some thing are or have been set into motion like in the down sizing of some Nasa facilities, getting rid of non space function and Hopefully there will be more.
The concentrating of the Oxygen could be done by pumping it to one of the permanently black areas of the Lunar poles and allow it to cool to form an ice. This also solves the storage problems.
When it is required for Fuel etc it can then be heated up and pumped back. And as these poles are a prime science and resource target then it is probable that many missions will go there and we can use it as our foothold and staging areas.
I don't know, do you? The thing is, oil wells do dry up (yes, unfortunately they are finite), there's plenty of evidence for that. So, if geological processes are still producing it at a rate greater than our consumption, where do you think it goes?
Well, you might want to tell that to the oil wells in the Gulf, they sure don't seem to be limited. They are producing more oil then they did years ago.
We have had this arquement and it is still that we have a lower geologic strata of Oil and that with the pumping of the upper source pressure and heat will simply force some of the lower strata to go up. But it is still a limited source and will peter out. This will happen to all the other fields of Oil and our rate of discovery of new ones has been slowing since the 1940s.
We have found Oil to be one of the greatest discoveries and it allowed civilisation to expand. It gave personal freedom and wealth to millions of the planets population. It has nasty side effects of course but it is now time we started to use a safer fuel that our technology now allows us to develop.
You scare me Cindy, especially right now.
The modern nation-state dates more or less from the Peace at Westphalia, as I recall. I do not believe the contemporary nation-state is the proper entity to undertake space settlement.
Subgroups of humanity formed around religion or culture might pay lip service to being multi-national and inclusive of all nations on Earth with the demographic reality being very different.
I daresay the Vatican was not pleased at ceding power to secular authorities. Today, a very real issue in Europe is whether Muslim immigrants will be more loyal to the flag or the faith.
I really went off topic sorry.
As far as I can see it we really have people nowadays who though they call themselves Scottish, American, English etc but are working for organisations that are truly multi national and quite willing to move countries if the conditions are not right.
I can truly see that soon we will have international companies that are so powerful that people will be citizens of the company.
For Mars we see that there is a lot less pressure on religous groups that there had been in what was the age of colonisation and also we still appear to have a high degree of nationalism but nothing like as strong as was present in the Early twentieth century. Also there is a sense also of international belonging to groups like the Mars society, Greenpeace etc.
So why is this important well we have to ask what will cause a group to decide to do what is a very powerful action and to seccede from its home nation/organisation. Only by having a sense of being Martians and to be under a feeling of schism from the home nations. This can be done by the home nations in some way ostracising there settlers or by policies that disenchant them. But also by a feeling of being seperated and it being a natural progression. There is also the possibility of a minority being able to manipulate the majority by the use of force.
I am no expert in European history yet I recall that Westphalia also codified the reality that the Catholics, Lutherans and Calvinists had beaten one another into a bloody three way stalemate.
I daresay the Vatican was not pleased at ceding power to secular authorities. Today, a very real issue in Europe is whether Muslim immigrants will be more loyal to the flag or the faith.
Do you really know what the Thirty years war was. It was a single family falling out. The trouble was was the family where the Hapsburgs and they provided the royal line for Germany, The Nertherlands, Austria and most importantly Spain. Spain at the time was the great waining power and it had been fighting in the Netherlands since it revolted.
Add in Religous intoleration, Feeble monarchs and greedy and treachorous local lords. France under a weak king but very powerful Cardinal feeling squeezed. A major new power forming in Scandinavia, Sweden and a whole crazed patchwork country still for all intents mostly filled with peasant serfs. Religion was involved but then again religion was allways involved until the twentieth century and you had a powder keg.
What the peace at westphalia really was was the peace of exhaustion and that was what all the sides where. It also provided a very well trained force of officers to really kick off the first stirrings of democracy over Monarchs in what was called the English civil war.
The problems with Robots is that we are rapidly progressing on movement and physical capacity. Even power systems and to a degree vision are improving. What is holding back the ability for us to have robots everywhere is that we cant seem to crack the capacity to give them limited AI.
And I have been studying the progress of Nanotech and am impressed. Here is one for you researchers in England are actually using parts of virus cells developed to function and provide motive power and an ability to target themselves. Could bring a new generation of medicine
The modern nation-state dates more or less from the Peace at Westphalia, as I recall. I do not believe the contemporary nation-state is the proper entity to undertake space settlement.
= = =
Subgroups of humanity formed around religion or culture might pay lip service to being multi-national and inclusive of all nations on Earth with the demographic reality being very different.
There has been more to nationhood than just the westphalian peace treaty. What westphalian did was to really acknowledge the status quo. The holy Roman Empire still remained a country dominated by local princes and this did lead to its dissolvement simply as it had no real power central power. And that 30 years war for all its horror was a manipulated war with almost all other European powers playing and manipulating events, The tensions where there before its just the other countries used what is Germany to play it out.
What really described modern states is the loss of power of the local lords to a drive to a more centralised power and an eventual lead to democracy from monarchism and an enfranchisement of the populace.
And the main players in the thirty year wars where countries we can easily recognise in existence now, this was correct before the War and afterwards.
But for that to happen Bill it would require a population on Mars counted in the minimum of millions. For that to happen a nation would need a really tremendous space transportation system a decent amount of space knowledge and a lot of political and financial will. It also would likely not be alone on the planet.
Still for a country to deny a whole planet to other nations it would need to be in control of a real majority of that planet. And it would have to be a very large majority too. Still there is the ability to control certain areas of the solar system that give a form of bottleneck situation and a real benefit to the nation that controls it.
But I really do not believe that any country will have the power to control Mars and to actually completely dominate space to that degree.
That is the problem the commonwealth is so hateful that it considers everyone who works or has been transported by it as property and as such as serfs.
Needless to say the rest of the world will treat the Commenwealth as a really evil organisation and as such one to be destroyed. You count me as a non citizen I take this as a recomendation especially to the Evil the Commenwealth espouses.
So we will break such a creation for we are sensible and you may call me a terrorist but Im only doing what the rest of the world espouses and if I have a letter of Marque let the commonwealth beware..........
so I have to ask where has time gone...
I have just been to a wedding where the Bride was once a bouncy 4 year old and now is 20... It scares me