You are not logged in.
For SpaceNut .... we have nearly two full pages of topics that contain the word "launch" in the title.
None of the existing topics match this one, although a few do cover similar ground in other locations.
This topic is offered for members who would like to help to develop a proposal for a space launch facility that would be constructed on the terrain under the Gulf of Mexico and located about 20 miles off shore.
What is a distinguishing characteristic of this proposal is that the proceeds from lease (or short term use) of the facility would be distributed equally to all taxpayers of record. The amount to be distributed would be measured in the millionts of a cent per launch, but modern computer hardware is capable of handling such small sums with ease. By insuring that proceeds of the national asset are distributed to all citizens, we provide assurance that the investment to be made in the facility will be returned to the citizens, and thus the practice will be established as a guide going forward, for a way of distributing weath garnered from locations away from Earth.
(th)
Offline
In another topic, RobertDyck provided a depth of ocean near the proposed site of an offshore launch factility for Starships as (about) 135 feet / 41 meters.
I'd like to know how far bedrock is below the sand at this location.
If there is a member with the interest (and the time) please investigate to see if there might be records already available of surveys that would include this detail.
An inquiry of the US Geological Survey offices might be productive, but there may well be other resources where the information is available.
The web site appears to be USGS.gov
(th)
Offline
I just posted the Starship Launch facility idea in a contact form for an elected official. The chances a human will see the message are close to zero, and the chance the actual official will see the message are ** also ** close to zero.
However, prior to my posting the message, chances were zero, so they are greater than zero by some infinitesimal amount.
All members who are US citizens are certainly welcome to fill out a contact form on the web sites for their various elected representatives. Often such contacts are rewarded with a boiler plate message that has nothing to do with the correspondence from the citizen, but at least the reply shows that an intern is trying to respond to every constituent.
(th)
Offline
The US government already has a launch site right next to the ocean. It's called Cape Canaveral. They are very unlikely to build another one out in the ocean: why replace what you already have? The fact that it is not really isolated enough to launch something as big as a Saturn-5, much less a Superheavy, is not part of that thinking. That comes later in the process, unfortunately. (I still often see cities and developers building houses too near airports, too. Bad decision-making is very endemic!)
Yes, there have been rockets launched from floating platforms before. Nothing big, though. The two scenarios (small vs giant rocket) are quite distinct: in terms of efforts and actual design requirements. You can bet the launch infrastructure for the small rockets were already well-known from land launches, before anybody built it on a floating platform. That's PRECISELY because making changes to launch infrastructure is far easier, faster, and cheaper to do on land, than it is to repeatedly tow something in, put it in drydock, and modify it!
A point I have tried to make in the other thread is that SpaceX does not yet know what launch infrastructure they need to fly Superheavy/Starship. They don't admit to that in public, but it fits right in with their "fly it/break-it/make changes and fly-it again" approach. The final launch stand and tower may somewhat resemble what they first built, and then again it might be entirely different.
Until that infrastructure has been defined, why bother with the far higher expense of an ocean platform? But, once it has been defined, then (and only then) do you move this operation offshore, for vastly-improved public safety and legal considerations.
The expense and the risk with the Nova designs are PRECISELY WHY NASA elected to use an outsider's idea for lunar orbit rendezvous, in order to do one launch per mission to the moon with a Saturn-5. Without that outsider's idea, it would have taken two Saturn-5 launches per moon mission.
The need to do on-orbit cryo-propellant transfers that nobody yet knew how to do, was a part of that decision to accept the outsider's idea (something NASA has almost NEVER done!!!). The legacy of that decision lives on today: as of yet, nobody knows how to do on-orbit transfers of cryo-propellants. And that'll be the next really big bugaboo, even for SpaceX. They don't like outsider ideas, either.
GW
Last edited by GW Johnson (2023-05-05 11:35:25)
GW Johnson
McGregor, Texas
"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew, especially one dead from a bad management decision"
Offline
I'm having trouble wading through this. I'm on my smartphone right now, could open on my PC later when I'm home. But it doesn't provide a simple map. This is from the USGS website.
Abstract
The objectives of this study were to determine the general configuration of the salt surface beneath the Texas-Louisiana continental slope and to isopach the Mesozoic-Cenozoic sedimentary section lying upon it. The structure contour map discloses that the entire slope province between the shelf edge and Sigsbee Escarpment is underlain by salt structures which interconnect at relatively shallow subbottom depths. Salt structures on the slope south of Louisiana and eastern Texas can be grouped according to structural relief and size which define morphological belts of decreasing deformational maturity in a downslope direction. Off northern Mexico and southernmost Texas, salt structures are anticlinal and their trends suggest a structural relationship with the folds of the Mexican Ridge province to the south. Structural trends in the two slope areas meet in the corner of the northwestern gulf where salt structure may have been influenced by a seaward extension of the San Marcos Arch, or an abrupt change in subsalt structural topography. Sediment thickness above the top of salt on the slope averages about 1,400 m (4,620 ft) which is a smaller average than expected from previous estimates. In some synclinal basins between salt structures, sediments may be as thick as 4,000-5,000 m (12,000-17,000 ft). On the average, sedimentary deposits in basins on the upper slope are thicker than on the lower slope. From the isopach map of sediments above salt it is estimated that the U.S. continental slope off Texas and Louisiana contains a sedimentary volume of about 170,000 km3 (41,000 mi3). The bulk of this volume is situated in synclinal basins between domes and principally in those beneath the upper and middle slope regions.
Offline
Warning: This isn't going to be as simple as you think. Outside the territorial waters of the United States is outside jurisdiction of both the FAA and EPA. However, the United States is a signatory to the Outer Space Treaty of 1967. SpaceX is incorporated in the United States. The treaty states the government must provide oversight to any citizen or corporation that launches anything into space, regardless where it launches from. So although the FAA and EPA wouldn't have jurisdiction, the US federal government must provide some sort of oversight. If the FAA doesn't do it, they aren't set up to do it. Watch the bureaucrats run around like a bunch of chickens with their heads cut off.
Offline
Offline
Oldfart1939 wrote:
The Angry Astronaut had a pretty good program about the consequences of possible failure of a fully stacked and fueled Super Heavy plus Starship at Boca Chica. He wasn't being alarmist about this but very analytical. He's skeptical of Elon's plans to reach orbit in July of this year--regardless of the consequences. He really points out that these launches should be done from the offshore converted oil rigs to minimize the collateral damage of a possible explosion disaster. He makes some comparisons to the earlier failures of the Soviet rocket program.
Offline
http://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php … 96#p180496
Some people Love Musk others dislike him, maybe there is a certain alliance of companies and contractors maybe negative press out there is generated by Big Oil, he has a rival at Amazon and there could be bad press or spam bots posting hit-piece articles on behalf of Big Auto, but Musk himself is intelligent, talented and an interesting and unique individual.
Musk Says Becoming 'Multi-planetary' Is One of the Greatest Filters
https://www.sciencetimes.com/articles/3 … netary.htm
Elon Musk is leading the way in the race to reach the solar system, which he believes will guarantee humanity's position in the cosmos in the future.Following the flight of SN15, the vehicle was moved onto test stand B. This rose questions if SpaceX was going to refly the vehicle or do a static fire. Over the weekend, teams at the pad removed the three Raptor engines, and yesterday a transport mount was moved to the pad. This means that we will see SN15 move back to the manufacturing site sometime this week.
https://spaceexplored.com/2021/05/29/sp … test-site/
What SpaceX will do with it next is unknown. Rumors of a second flight or static fire seem unlikely now, as any flight operations would stall the work on the orbital pad. The focus is now on getting to orbit, with signs of what could be SN20, supposedly the first orbital Starship, being seen around Starbase.There was talk on social media about Musk going more militarist on Mars, probably because of the odd nature of some of his tweets and social media comments.
Starship development history will continue to be hardware for Mars and the Moon?
or Year 2022 budget proposal shows more Military and Political, Trump Biden vision for a SpaceForce?? The Space Force already operates two Boeing X-37B spaceplanes and that weird USA-299 Orbital Test Vehicle which may have been photographed by amateur astronomers, astro-photographers adn satellite trackers
https://www.space.com/41565-x-37b-space … -otv5.htmlI believe people may have confused the Boeing Space Plane with Musk's projects, there is also a Dream Chaser mini shuttle vehicle by Sierra Nevada Corporation, other groups in Europe like ESA and Russia had concepts for space plane vehicles.
The SpaceX Build Sites have been spotted in aerial photography
https://twitter.com/RGVaerialphotos/sta … 0499088384SpaceX has disclosed details for the first orbital test flight of its next-generation Starship launch system, but the company is still far short of the regulatory approvals needed for the mission.
https://spacenews.com/spacex-outlines-f … st-flight/
“SpaceX intends to collect as much data as possible during flight to quantify entry dynamics and better understand what the vehicle experiences in a flight regime that is extremely difficult to accurately predict or replicate computationally,” the company said in the application. “This data will anchor any changes in vehicle design or [concept of operations] after the first flight and build better models for us to use in our internal simulations.”As outlined in the application, the Super Heavy booster will shut down 169 seconds after liftoff, separating from the Starship upper stage two seconds later. Super Heavy will fly back not to Boca Chica, but instead to a location 32 kilometers offshore in the Gulf of Mexico, touching down 495 seconds after liftoff. The application didn’t state if the booster would land on a platform, such as an oil rig SpaceX is converting for such uses, or splash down into the ocean.
He has a lot of Futurist and futurologist ideas like linking brains directly to computers...and other things that worry some political people.However let's get back to real contracts and building plans for Space the Human Landing Systems out there, Which Lander is Best? It would seem Musk is ahead of the game.
The SpaceX Starship launch: Will SN15 or SN16 launch first?
https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/ … n-musk-evg
SPACEX fans are waiting with bated breath for the next launch of the Starship prototype. But what will launch next, the SN15 again or a maiden flight of the SN16?Astronomers however are very frustrated with the reality of Elon Musk’s satellites which are now blinding their view of space?
Offline
Offline
Elon was also a bit more restrained about his timelines--maybe no more "Elon Time?" It also was evident that he has a fallback, contingency plan in case the FAA approval process drags on. The approval for Starship launches is already in place at Cape Canaveral, and work has undoubtedly moved ahead on conversion of the two oil rigs that were purchased for conversion to launch and landing platforms. Elon is definitely determined to make Starship "work."
I really enjoy his live presentations, and his halting speech isn't that of a polished presenter--which makes him all the more believable.
The Raptor 2 is still a "work in progress" and will undoubtedly be later upgraded by a Raptor 3, but he's reaching the physical limits of performance for a chemical powered rocket motor. The next step will need to be a Nuclear Thermal system, if Starship is to also be used for exploration in the outer Solar System, such as the Asteroid belt and moons of Jupiter.
Offline
SpaceX already owns a couple of old oil platforms that are about 10 miles offshore. These are eventually to be Starship/Superheavy launch sites, far enough away from other folks to be safe.
The problem is what infrastructure to build upon them. They cannot figure that out until they start flying the vehicles experimentally. Those catch arms on that tower are a bet, not a certainty.
The only certainty is that what eventually comes into routine use will not look like what they started with experimentally. History teaches that.
GW
Offline
For GW Johnson .... Thank you for Post #1690, and for reminder of the oil platforms....
There may be a solution at hand, if someone with negotiation skills can join the discussion....
The launches ** could ** be done from the offshore platforms, and the landings performed back at Boca Chica.
The vehicles returning to land will have very little propellant left, so the risk of damage to native life in the vicinity would be reduced.
In that case, the catch arms on the platforms would be used to lift Starship onto Heavy, which has already been demonstrated.
(th)
Offline
The above posts are from the starship topic.
The booster carries lithium batteries, thruster fuels that are Storables and possibly hydraulic fluids that become the pollutants when we destroy a ship during the launch profile.
Normally the 200-mile limits are for the US waters but at one time they were just 12 miles so the gulf may be a bit of a treaty for allowing all nations no issue to entry.
Aside from the launch you have the transportation of all parts and piece that can leak all sorts of fluids from shipping to the oil rigs which is the other topic.
Offline
For SpaceNut ... please go back and add text to show readers why they should click on the links.
I would do it but I cannot update your posts. Please follow the example of Mars_B4_Moon, who always adds a bit of text to show what a link is about.
You were short of time and took short cuts when you created those posts, including #14.
Now that it is the weekend, you should have time to go back and fix all those posts.
(th)
Offline
For RobertDyck re #127
Thank you for continuing to develop and refine the offshore launch site concept!
I picked up the 20 miles figure (standard or nautical not specified) from a post by another member, and just ran with it. The concept I picked up from the other member was that the launch facility would be located far enough off shore so that safety would be assured to folks living at Boca Chica and nearby land areas, and so that sounds produced by launching vehicles would be less obnoxious. The flight pace of Starship vehicles is going to be on the order of one per hour when space industry develops, so having an off shore facility makes perfect sense.
The vehicles can be flown from shore (manufacturing and refurbishment facilities) to the launch platform. It is no longer necessary to use barges or other ancient transport mechanisms to move Starship components from shore to the offshore facility.
For RobertDyck re your discovery of salt layers under the proposed launch site location ....
I haven't had time to investigate the suitability of a salt layer of the thickness your research showed us to serve as "bedrock" for a massive facility.
For someone (don't remember who) who objected that SpaceX should pay for the facility .... I am of the opinion that this should be a US asset available to all manufactures of rockets, and most definitely NOT a proprietary facility. The potential exists to create a Sovereign Fund, similar to the one created in Alaska for distribution of oil income to residents of the State. The space industry potential should yield wealth beyond human imagination. If we allow the typical capitalist system to run unchecked, all that wealth will become concentrated in a few hands, much as we see today with most resources on Earth.
We (humans and especially the US) have the opportunity to catch the flow of space industry wealth flows at the launch site, and to distribute whatever income is earned to all US citizens via the existing tax payment structure. The amounts earned will be small at first, but digital systems in existence today can handle small sums just fine, and the idea is to put in place a mechanism through which the wealth to come is distributed to all US citizens via the launch fees charged at a facility build and owned by the US. As with all property owned by the US, actual work would be done by contractors, with a few government employees keeping an eye on things.
(th)
Above is quoted from the Hiroshima Bomb topic created by RGClark.
(th)
Offline
As a follow up to the question posted by RobertDyck about statute miles vs nautical ones ...
I did not realize the difference is as great as it is ... according to calculator-converter.com, the conversion factor is 0.868976242 nautical miles per statute mile.
According to the same source, the conversion factor can be written as 1.609344 statute miles per nautical mile.
Thus, 20 nautical miles would be equivalent to 32.18688 statute ones. The goal is to move the launch site far enough off shore so that it is not an excessive burden upon land dwellers. I think that 20 statute miles is plenty, but in actuality, a team working on site location would have a lot of variables to consider, so the actual location of the facility would be determined after a great many factors were taken into account.
It seems to me that it is feasible to keep propellant manufacturing facilities on land, and pipes can deliver fuel and oxidizer to the offshore platform.
It is necessary (in my opinion) to make synthetic methane for the huge number of Starships that will be flying from the proposed facility, so a very large US owned nuclear power facility is needed to synthesize all that fuel. Supply of all that fuel is another way for income to flow to the proposed Sovereign Fund to capture Space Industry wealth.
(th)
Offline
If the goal is to test technology for Mars, then your proposal to manufacture synthetic methane at Starbase becomes quite interesting. Yes, it would require so much electrical power that a nuclear reactor would be the only practical solution. However, realize what this means. On Mars such a facility would start by capturing CO2 from Mars atmosphere. On Mars this can be done at night when temperature is close to the freezing temperature for dry ice. A freezer can drop temperature the last few degrees required to accumulate dry ice, and do so in a container that can be open to allow Mars atmosphere in when freezing dry ice, then close the container to heat it and sublimate the dry ice to CO2 gas. Earth atmosphere doesn't have 95+% CO2, and it isn't that cold. So on Earth we would start with a CO2 sorbent. Use a regenerable sorbent such as liquid amine, and periodically "bake out" the CO2. This means source of CO2 is Earth atmosphere. CO2 is then reacted with hydrogen gas over a hot catalyst to produce methane and water. That's the Sabatier process. Water split in an electrolysis tank into oxygen and hydrogen. That's where the hydrogen comes from. Oxygen and methane will be chilled to liquid and stored as propellant for Starship. Source of water could be a desalination plant, starting with sea water from the Gulf.
The really interesting thing is this makes the rocket carbon neutral. The source of carbon is from the air, so any carbon emissions balance what was taken from the air. So environmental extremists who obsess over carbon emissions will be happy. They'll probably object to the nuclear reactor, but those who obsess over carbon emissions are starting to hold their tongue regarding nuclear power.
Offline
For RobertDyck re #18
Thank you for this helpful contribution to the topic!
Here is a conversation with ChatGPT about an ambitious extension of the basic concept...
For all who may be interested in the (proposed) launch platform for Starships East of Boca Chica ..
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Rtb … sp=sharing
With it's usual enthusiasm, ChatGPT tackled several questions about a possible launch platform in the Gulf.
I added specification for launch of a fully loaded Starship every hour on the hour, 24x7*365.
(th)
(th)
Offline
Dear Senator <****>:
<snip - personal note>
***
The purpose of this message is to invite your support to create a Sovereign Wealth fund to capture Space Industry wealth for US citizens going forward. Without a mechanism in place, the wealth of space will accumulate in the hands of a small number of individuals. A group of Mars Society forum members are thinking about a launch platform to be built, owned and operated by the United States, 20 statute miles East of Boca Chica. The facility would be sized to support a Starship launch every hour, 24x7x365. To supply fuel and oxidizer, the US would build and operate an on-shore nuclear reactor powered fuel synthesis plant. The income from fees for launches, and from sale of synthetic fuel would flow to US citizens via the existing tax payment system. We have already seen successful use of the tax system to distribute payments to US Citizens during the recent COVID crisis. Here is a link to a post that includes a ChatGPT discussion of design of an offshore launch platform to be supported by the salt layer under the Gulf of Mexico.
https://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.ph … 55#p209455
Please ask your staff to be careful to send a reply that is unique to this message. Please ask your staff to resist the temptation to send a boilerplate reply from a set of preapproved messages.
(th)
Offline
Tom, your proposal touches on a very dangerous subject. Elon has invested billions of dollars into Starship, yet you think it's wrong for him to reap the rewards? If government comes along and takes all profits by tax or some other means, then why would anyone ever want to invest time, effort and money into making a venture succeed?
You also said "We have already seen successful use of the tax system to distribute payments to US Citizens during the recent COVID crisis." Many of us would not see that as a success. Shutting down the economy caused massive harm. This isn't the first pandemic; experience from past pandemics proved that shutting down the entire nation's economy does not work. It does not stop the disease but does cause massive harm.
Redistribution of wealth is contrary to a free market economy. The United States is supposed to be the bastion of freedom. If we impose government control over the launch industry, we'll be right back in the mess we had with "Old Space". Remember, a lot of commercial companies were contractors to NASA in the 1960s. I could add the late 1950s and early 1970s. Those companies collapsed down to a small number of very large corporations that impose monopoly tactics to extort massive amounts of money from the government while ensuring zero innovation and extremely slow service. SLS costs how much? Yet SLS is only able to launch once per year. And SLS is not reusable. SpaceX will develop Starship because SpaceX is a commercial company. Let them make their profits after they invest their own money (not taxpayer money). SpaceX does have a contract with NASA to deliver a lunar lander. The price is on-par with Old Space contractors. Let them. And don't try to "nationalize" SpaceX.
Offline
For RobertDyck re #21
It is beneficial to this topic, to have deep fears published early so they can be addressed.
Often, fear is based upon lack of knowledge. In this case, the idea that a Sovereign Wealth Fund controls capitalist enterprises is incorrect.
The kind of behavior you may be thinking of is most common in a Socialist State, of which the human race has produced a great many examples.
A Sovereign Wealth fund manages a valuable resource, and in a capitalist state, exploitation of the resource is carried out by capitalist organizations, usually in the form of corporations.
does canada have a wealth fund
does canada have a wealth fund
350Animation
SEARCHCHATIMAGESVIDEOSMAPSNEWSMORE
About 30,600,000 resultsAny time
Alberta’s Heritage Fund
However, it might come as a surprise that Canada also has a sovereign wealth fund; Alberta’s Heritage Fund which was built from Alberta’s oil income has a portfolio of $17.5 billion.
Canada’s Sovereign Wealth Funds: A Question of Consolidation
www.mironline.ca/canadas-sovereign-wealth-funds-a-question-of-consolidation/
www.mironline.ca/canadas-sovereign-wealth-funds-a-question-of-consolidation/
How is the fund managed?
What are the benefits of the fund?
How is the fund invested?
What are the challenges of the fund?
I had planned to invite you to look into a joint venture between the Canadian Sovereign Wealth fund(s) and the proposed US one.
However, it appears you need to do some self-education before you are ready to take on a political leadership role.
For US citizens who may be interested in this topic, please investigate the Alaska Sovereign Wealth fund that manages oil resources on behalf of the citizens of Alaska.
We need to identify all fears that would block forward movement on this proposal. There is no guarantee of a positive outcome, but there is a guarantee of failure of we do nothing to address our fears.
(th)
Offline
This is part of the issue for how NASA is arranged in that all Americans that pay taxes do contribute to its programs, but Nasa is set up to not make a profit for doings its job to provide access to space for American's.
Since no direct moneys are set aside for Space X to do this same act and are paid per job as a launch provider, they are completely different.
Offline
Tom, Canada is going through some deep trouble right now. I always considered myself politically moderate; general leaning is libertarian, but everything in moderation. Brian Mulroney was elected Prime Minister in 1984 on a platform to eliminate the deficit, reduce debt, and reduce taxes. This would be accomplished by reducing government spending, and reducing the number of individuals in the federal civil service. This was an issue because the previous government had increased size of government, increased the deficit to highest ever in Canadian history... up to that point. Canadian voters gave him the largest majority in Canadian history. Unfortunately he proved to be a liar: he did the opposite. He increased spending and the size of the civil service, increased the deficit, tripled the debt, and drastically increased taxes. In 1993 in one day (election day) his party went from majority to only 2 members elected to the house. Under parliamentary rules any party with fewer than 12 members elected is not considered to be a party. According to election rules it was a party, but not by parliamentary rules. After 1993, the other party made Paul Martin the Finance Minister. He cut spending, eliminated the deficit, reduced the debt, and reduced taxes. Gotta love that! I said if he ever became the party leader, I would join his party. So in 2004 when he did, I did. The Liberal Party was in power from October 1993 through January 2006. Then Stephen Harper was Prime Minister until 2015. Since then Justin Trudeau. Although Justin is leader of the same party as Paul Martin, he really REALLY is not doing the same things. Technically I'm a member of the Liberal Party, but that's because Justin eliminated the requirement to purchase a party membership every year. It's the Hotel California: you can never leave. Polls show the Liberal party will not win the next election; however, will our country survive until the next election? Justin is rapidly changing our country into a socialist dictatorship. Ironic: before and just after the election of 2015, I thought Justin was the moderate force to counter balance the socialist extremists. Now Justin appears to be leading the charge. When the Pandemic first hit, Justin even proposed dissolving Parliament, allowing Justin's administration to run the country by fiat. Luckily Parliament denied him that.
Establishing a launch facility that SpaceX could use, like an airport, would be acceptable. But ensure fees are reasonable. The goal is not to "redistribute wealth". For now, expect SpaceX to continue to launch from land. If not from Boca Chica, then from KSC.
One ironic thing about KSC: SpaceX built a separate launch pad for Starship. Why? Launch pad 39A has a raised concrete pad over the sand of the Cape. The concrete pad has a flame trench. This is the ideal location to launch Starship. Launch Falcon 9 from Launch Complex 40, or Vandenberg SLC-4E. Vandenberg SLC-6 was originally built to launch Titan III rockets, but cancelled before complete. It was then converted to Shuttle, and Shuttle was fully assembled there at least once, but never launched. After that several Athena I, Athena II, and Delta IV Medium and Heavy launched from there. As of April 24 of this year, SLC-6 is now being leased by SpaceX for Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy.
Offline
For RobertDyck re #24
From my perspective you seem to be making progress in the direction I want to go. Please develop your ideas for charging a fee for use of a launch facility. For some reason that (at present) I do not understand, you seem to be unwilling to consider distribution of income received from a national asset to the citizens. I just asked ChatGPT for examples, and it found Alaska and Norway, as I expected, but surprisingly it found the US as well.
I'll post the chat in the ChatGPT folder.
Please develop your ideas for implementing a fee for services provided by a publicly owned facility. Please check your internal biases, to see where the prohibition against distributing income from a national asset is coming from.
Elon Musk is going to become a trillionaire if he isn't one already. The activity he generates will be in the multiple trillions over coming decades. Please tell me what is causing you to want to deny poverty stricken people a portion of that wealth. You may be of the mind set that such people do not deserve wealth. But the Universe pours sunlight upon everyone, whether they have earned it or not.
It is only human beings who make judgements about who should receive the freely bestowed wealth of the Universe.
(th)
Offline