Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

clark · 2004-10-16 07:11:40

Sounds like you are saying the goal should be to make tools.

Nuts and bolts science ain't sexy. That's why we need story tellers.

Okay, tell me = WHY = we are making tools and I can better suggest what tools we should be building.

We are making tools to extend our reach and increase the available opportunites by which we may expand our horizon. If we push further out, then we will neccessarily move a step closer towards space faring civilization.

We went to the Moon, now we're in LEO and GEO. We go to Mars, we will end up on the Moon (as in permanence). We go to the asteroids and Europa, we will go to Mars (permanence). By pushing the boundaries we pull ourselves along.

But I know, it's all about the babies. :laugh:

Grypd · 2004-10-16 07:17:01

Well as you seem to have barely glossed over my posting and just harped on with what is clearly a poor grasp of basic realities.

1. Your first error
Do you know the difference between the gold standard and the Gold reserve Standard?

I will give you that I had posted the comment without its full length, but as you seemed to want to find any form to arque with it explains your willingness to nitpick.

The Gold Reserve Standard is an FDR creation. This money is elastic in that you depend on the one generating the credit and in this case it would be the U.S Goverment. Now is you have a trade imballances. That where negociation with other countrys come in and the adjusting of the currency is done so that each country wont distroy each other.

WRONG, have a look at the dollar bill in your pocket it says to pay the bearer on demand, does it not. The idea behind the Gold reserve standard meant that a country was supposed to have enough gold to be able to pay for all the currency that was in circulation. This standard had nothing to do with FDR all currencies used it, before paper though it was the actual gold in the coins themselves that gave them value but it was always at risk of fraud. Have a look at your coins they have still ways created in the ancient times to stop slicers taking a small amount off and forging there own coins. This money was elastic only in that you could print more money sure but as it was not backed up by real gold currency then it meant your actual dollars where worth less. This occured in the Weimar republic the state that Germany was in after the first world war and before the Second world war. It was forced to give away all its gold as reparations and as such the currency became worthless. 9 million marks would get you a loaf of bread.

2. Your second error!
The United States does not currently generate credit, the Federal Reserve generates credit. The United States has not generated credit since the assination of John F. Kennedy when he re-authorised the Treasury Department to generate credit with Presidential order Number 11110. The Federal Reserve System is not part of the U.S Goverment. The Federal Reserve is a private bank owned by other major private banks with it own stock holders. The Federal Reserve Stock is not sold on Wall Street, but it does issue stock for the private company bank called the Federal Reserve. When you pay your taxes to the Federal Goverment, it goes to the Federal Reserve system a private bank. You do not pay taxes to the U.S. Goverment, but you are actually giving your money to a private bank. That private bank called the Federal Reserve System get your money and take there cut out of it and take the cut of your money that the other big membered get and when there through with it, give the Federal Goverment what what left over. This money or credit that the Federal Reserve generates is called Fiat Money. Also the Federal Reserve has genersted billion of dollars a year and as time go on they have to generate larger about of this Fiat Money to keep the system from sinking, because of the larger and larger debt load on the economic system.

I see you did not read my post at all did you. I will reiterate the relevant point for you again.

Money or credit has to be based upon something.

What this means is that all cash has to be based upon something and since Nixon (and well before, unofficially) it has been on the apparent strength of a country and its current economic conditions. It is this apparent relationship compared to other countries that gives the what a dollar is worth on the world stage. This relationship changes as people purchase other currencies as they get stronger or weaker. It was this apparent weakness that resulted in the Euro being easy to buy in loads 5 years ago. But as the European Union has strengthened so has its currency. Oh and for your information most countries use something similar to the US Reserve and central bank and the current situation is that the United States is spending more than is coming in causing the US to be in Debt this is called defecit and the United States is generating a greater defecit each day. In other words it is morgaged to the Banks that are giving it the credit to operate.

3. Your third error!
It was Nixon that decoupled the financial economy from the physical economy and caused the run away inflation. It was Nixon took us off the Gold Reserve Standard and Brenton Wood system. Money was decoupled and debt being generated took off. The three big banks and wall street owe over 45 trillion dollars between them in worthless paper called Derivities. There it over 300 trillion dollars of worthlrss derivities worldwide. There is only about 6 trillion dollars physical asset worldwide, so all the debt is unsupported. That worthless paper is growing faster than the physical economy and is consuming the physical economy. That 300 trillion of worthless paper or debt that floting around the world and that 45 trillion dollars or debt in those three banks and Wall street with the help of that private bank called the Federal Reserve System with both Paul Valker and Alan Greenspan at the helm. That debt was generated in the last thirty five years

What Nixon did was simple he just finished off a system that had been in terminal decline since the Goverment had changed the Gold Reserve Standard and started printing paper money. Actually when the Federal Reserve System system was formed in 1914 that started the terminal decline and it Was FDR who actually devalued the Gold reserve standard twice to pay for 1) his economic policies pre war and 2) to allow the United States to "benefit" from the lend lease payments and to allow enough finance to pay for a future Marshall type plan. Actually the biggest drop of the purchasing power of the Dollar was in the years before Nixon took power.

4. Your fourth error is.
Is that deregulate the banking industry and wall street is a good thing. The reason that FDR regulated the Banks and caused the the 1929 depression in the first place. The removal of those goverment regulation is what is causing the inflation with those financial pyramid scheems of credit with no assets or net value in sight. Money has no net value and the trillions of dollars on Wall Street is just so much monopoly money with no real if the one lending it has no credibility. All that debt piled on top of other debt in pyramid and money chasing money with no purpose, but to encrease it dollars amount every time it goes around to give the illusion that wealthis be created will eventually crash and it has to crash too. You can't have this paper economy growing faster than the physical economy, which is exactly what it doing right now. Nixon decoupling the financial market or paper economy from the physical economy was the primary trigger for inflation over the last 35 years. It also dried up the money supply that could be invested in NASA too and they started canceling NASA project for building a base on the moon, developing fission powered rocket, fusion etc. Those project were either being cancelled just before or not too long after Nixon 1971 signature on that taking us off the Gold Reserve Standard. All of the sudden, space became too expensive for us to afford it anymore. We also use to have healthcare for all Americans that needed it too, we can't afford that anymore either, because it too expensive. Now over half the American don't have healthcare anymore. Also we probably have over 8 million unemployed people with about 1/5 of the U.S population below the poverty line. Forty years ago one guy working in a factory or one of those steel foundariescould make enough for himself, a wife and maybe two or three children. Now he has to have two or three jobs and may she has two jobs too and they even one of there children are working too part time just to make end meet. This is 2/3 of the U.S. population that are being affected. The United States is going into another depression and the policies that you support are what is is causing the United States to go into that depression too.

Well your fourth error is this, Please read my post I did not mention deregulating the banks, etc etc. For you to have a rant on what has gone wrong since the 1970s is fine just trying to link it to me as my policies are 1) Insulting and 2) just plain stupid and wrong.

What you don't understand is: money only has two purposes.
1. To be used as a medium of exchange so we don't have to get into pigs for cows or shoes, etc. Having monet that has a set value is a good thing.

Yes, commen sense that. Did you see anything in my post to dispute this. Of course not, Nor would you.

2. Money or credit is use to generate future physical goods and services that will be need by our population. So we will allicate either money or generate the credit we need to produce it or build that infrastructure or develop the technology we to accomplish our goals or satify our physical needs
Money or credit has no purpose than these two primary goals. Now some of that generated wealth can be diverted into a bank account and differed for a few years and there can be other types of investments, but those are all secondary in nature as compared to those two mensioned as the primary purpose for money. That why the U.S. Constitution give only the U.S. Goverment the right to generate credit and there suppose to use it that way and for that purpose and it called the "General Welfare" cause in the U.S. Constitution.

Why dont you call it what is called, ITS INVESTMENT. Most companies do it by putting some of there profits into research or starting up smaller companies to do a particular job in the hope of a return of profit making more than they put in.

Countries do it as well but they are not necassarily looking for profit that can be used further but in research that would benefit the country in general. NASA is an example of such a goverment investment.

But a country can only put in what moneys it has it cannot just decide it has 4 billion it has to come from somewhere and this is where the taxpayer comes in. His taxes are what runs a goverment and only that. A goverment can grant a licence this would mean private buisness will invest in a project but they will only do it if they believe they will get a future profit of more than they put in. So in the final analysis your plan to just make up money is unworkable it is just printing more money making the rest in circulation worth a little bit less each new dollar printed.

BWhite · 2004-10-16 08:00:54

Sounds like you are saying the goal should be to make tools.
Nuts and bolts science ain't sexy. That's why we need story tellers.
Okay, tell me = WHY = we are making tools and I can better suggest what tools we should be building.
We are making tools to extend our reach and increase the available opportunites by which we may expand our horizon. If we push further out, then we will neccessarily move a step closer towards space faring civilization.
We went to the Moon, now we're in LEO and GEO. We go to Mars, we will end up on the Moon (as in permanence). We go to the asteroids and Europa, we will go to Mars (permanence). By pushing the boundaries we pull ourselves along.
But I know, it's all about the babies. :laugh:

Yup.

And for Lock-mart and Boeing the objective is to sell as much rope as possible, even if you coil it up and never use it.

Martian Republic · 2004-10-16 11:28:57

Grypd, I read your stuff and you insist on using the same old arguement that causes the same old economic desaster and depression that caused the 1929 depression and you expect a different out come. The policies that you suggest that we use don't work and have never worked and never could work as an economic moddle. As a matter of fact, the policies that you are pushing have a history of not working and they didn't work every time that they been use in the past. You could say they have a 100% batting average of not working.

Now why do you insist on using policies that don't work 100% of the time and expect a different resault this time around?

I don't know why you choose to do that and you genuinly expect different resault from every time those policies have been use in the past.

Do your own research and see if what I say so or not. Don't accept anybody opinion until you can verify it yourself that it true.

And here a good place to start.

http://www.john-f-kennedy.net/executive … r11110.htm

What you don’t understand it, there a differece between Private generated credit through the Federal Reserve and
Government generated credit in either the Treasury Department or a Government owned banking system. You keep talking about Federal Reserve Notes and I'm talking about Treasury Notes. There two entirely different system for generating credit or putting money into the economy. One is done privatly and the other is done through the government. There two entirely different animals and they go in different direction depending on who created that animal.

Larry,

Martian Republic · 2004-10-16 12:45:04

Sounds like you are saying the goal should be to make tools.
Nuts and bolts science ain't sexy. That's why we need story tellers.
Okay, tell me = WHY = we are making tools and I can better suggest what tools we should be building.
We are making tools to extend our reach and increase the available opportunites by which we may expand our horizon. If we push further out, then we will neccessarily move a step closer towards space faring civilization.
We went to the Moon, now we're in LEO and GEO. We go to Mars, we will end up on the Moon (as in permanence). We go to the asteroids and Europa, we will go to Mars (permanence). By pushing the boundaries we pull ourselves along.
But I know, it's all about the babies. :laugh:

That more or less what I'm saying. We get a President of the United States that says this unemployment is unacceptable and this economic colapse is not going to happen on my watch. So here what I'm going to do, I'm going to create eight million new high paying with retirement benifites also which healthcare full time jobs. So here what we are going to do and we need some major projects to accomplish our mission of generating that many jobs on things that we need to have anyway. You would pick several major project that need to be built like super trains, subway, nuclear power plants, NAWAPA, Healthcare, a new NASA mission project for space. You would pull Sean O'Keeth over to one side and say I need you to plan for two generation of NASA projects to achieve the new national mission I have for you. I'm dedicated to creating eight million new jobs and I would like one million of those jobs created in the new NASA Mission project I have for you to accomplish. Sean O'Keeth I want you to build a city on moon in twenty to twenty five year time frame and build a second city on Mars in forty to fifty year time frame. In the fact that niether the infrastructure nor the technology currently exist, you are work a plan out on how to do that by NASA. Your aloud to work with private individuals, private company's, university and even state, city government to iron the problem so we can do that.

Currently, somewhere between 50% to 75% of the U.S. population has either fallen over the edge or is about to fall over the edge or is affraid there going fall over the edge. That is there homeless or unemployed or underemployed or are either about to become unemployed or are afraid of becoming unemployed. The underemployed like the engineer that can't get a good paying job because the factory that he was working closed down and now he has to work at McDonalds or as a store clerk at Wal-Mart or posibly a gas station for $6.00 or $7.00 an hour instead of making $20.00 to $30.00 an hour. Over 50% of the U.S. Population fall within this category of being marginalized and being groundup into pieces by the present economic system. Our engineer in this example could be absolutely anti-space and think it a waist of both time and money, but he does understand the difference between being payed $6.00 or $7.00 on a part time bases with absolutely no benifits at all and a full time job at $20.00 or $30.00 an hour with health insurance, retirement benifits, two week vacation. Oh, he understand that! Maybe it was the college education got that helped him to understand. Oh, your going to open that factory that I use to work at. Guess where he going to be going to apply for a job and it won't make any difference if there assigned to designing and building the next generation shuttle either. As a matter of fact, you will get eight million newly interested people in the issue of the nuts and bolts of thing concerning that company. Of course I'm not sure that wage difference of $6.00 to $7.00 as compared to the new job wage $20.00 to $30.00 had any difference on that newly found interest on that nuts and bolts issue. But, I do know that there would be one heck of a scramble in the United States to get one of those new jobs so that they can provide for there families instead of slowly being ground up.

Larry,

Grypd · 2004-10-16 17:07:26

Martian Republic the economic system we use has been the one evident, since in America the end of the civil war. This has slowly resulted in the gold reserve standard being dropped as paper then electronic money took over. Frankly to decide to change to another economic system is very difficult as all economies are linked to each other in the central global economy. If Japan has a cold its wall street that sneezes.

In KSRs books it is Mars thats gives Earth a different economy based on the amount of energy that is used. We can hope that something of this nature does happen certainly we will find any change to be extremely hard. And by hard I'm talking of many deaths and goverments falling, here it is that sort of gloomy scenario.

There will be no hope for any change in economic situation to create the funds that will be necessary to make a decent space development program happen, unless. We can make space access cheaper or something is found that is so essential to Humanity that it can pay for space development on its own. Similar to paying for oil from the sea beds lot of expense to set up but the profit is enough to pay for the whole deal. Cheaper space access may well be coming soon but it is the second option that may be here first. Our society is relying on the consumption of minerals and hydro carbons to function. Frankly we have reached the pinnacle of the oil produced that our society requires and actually we need more than is being pumped or is possible to pump. We need another means to provide power to our society. Fusion is possible but it is not possible for personal vehicles etc. For that the ideal is fuel cell technology. To create fuel cells we need Platinum group metals. To clean our enviroment we need Platinum, frankly we need more Platinum than is available or will be mined possibly. So where do we get this Platinum well we use the same source that provides the Platinum we use here on Earth too, Outer space. Our main reserves of Platinum comes from south Africa and Canada, both these sources are the remnants of Meteorites that slammed into Earth Billions of years ago.

If we move from an oil based society to a fuel cell powered one then it would be good for a) security, who would need those unstable middle east societies when the fuel source would be gas Hydrates found off Japan and the eastern and western shores of the USA. b) Good for the enviroment, frankly Fuel cells reduce CO2 and sulfur emissions to little and zero respectively. c) Likelyhood it will be cheaper as fuel prices go up as our supply reduces and demands increases.

Of course we have to talk people around to this idea without fighting with enviromental groups who wish for all society to dumb down and think of all space flight as a useless waste of time and finite resources.

Euler · 2004-10-16 18:16:40

If we move from an oil based society to a fuel cell powered one then it would be good for a) security, who would need those unstable middle east societies when the fuel source would be gas Hydrates found off Japan and the eastern and western shores of the USA. b) Good for the enviroment, frankly Fuel cells reduce CO2 and sulfur emissions to little and zero respectively. c) Likelyhood it will be cheaper as fuel prices go up as our supply reduces and demands increases.

It depends on where you get your fuel from. Using the most economical methods of production available today, you would end up with a net increase in CO2 emissions, and an increase in fossil fuel consumption.

Martian Republic · 2004-10-16 18:38:02

>>Martian Republic the economic system we use has been the one evident, since in America the end of the civil war. This has slowly resulted in the gold reserve standard being dropped as paper then electronic money took over.<<

These statement are not true. According to the Federal Reserve Board web page, it was created in December of 23, 1913. Go check it out for yourself.

Here the web page so you can check it out for yourself.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalin … nfo/fract/

The Greenback Dollar was based on T-Bills or Treasury Notes from the Treasury Department from the time of the American Civil War. FDR didn't use Federal Reserve Notes to generate credit, but went back to Abraham Lincolns Treasury Notes by the Treasury Department to generate credit. Kennedy tried to go back to Treasury Notes too before he was assinated and that was probably one of the reason he was assinated too.

In case you don't believe that, check out this website to prove to yourself that this statement true, that I just made.

http://www.john-f-kennedy.net/executive … r11110.htm

But, you are correct that the United States can not just pull out of the current banking system which it needs to do. So the United States need to call a worldwide economic conference with the entire world or major government to renegotiate what we need to do with this economic system. Besides this present banking and economic system is on the verge of colapse anyway and is hopelessly bankrupt and can not be saved. Most of the rest of the world would welcome such leadership by the United States, because they know the present economic system is beyond the point of being saved and is on it last days before a complete colapse that can't be stoped. In a situation like this you call an economic conference with other nation and you start making deal to put this bankrupt system through a chapter 11 bankrupsy re-organization of the entire economy of the United States and the rest of the world too. You basically replace the broken banking and economic system with new banking and economic system. Most of that tens of trillions to hundreds of trillion of dollars in bad paper is going to get wiped off the books, because it can't be paid back.

Larry,

comstar03 · 2004-10-17 03:33:44

Martian Republic,

Why do you want the US Government controlling the moon and mars bodies or at least building the first bases on these planetary bodies. I believe that NO Government has the right to setup bases, outposts or settlements on other planetary bodies unless they represent the whole world , in other words - humanity.

I believe that the only way to progress the human race into space would be through private enterprise development of new technology. Many people have before layout the ideal blueprint for space colonization and development, but many times we haven't followed the examples.

Funding space is similar to funding large mining or other projects throughout the world. Similar issues are found and dealt with, including knowledge, technology, communication, transport and other resource infrastructure needs.

You start with small projects that could be used in everyday life, such education - building a Interstellar institute of space colonization ( IISC ) requiring space degrees from life sciences to construction and developments.

Grypd · 2004-10-17 03:49:11

If we move from an oil based society to a fuel cell powered one then it would be good for a) security, who would need those unstable middle east societies when the fuel source would be gas Hydrates found off Japan and the eastern and western shores of the USA. b) Good for the enviroment, frankly Fuel cells reduce CO2 and sulfur emissions to little and zero respectively. c) Likelyhood it will be cheaper as fuel prices go up as our supply reduces and demands increases.
It depends on where you get your fuel from. Using the most economical methods of production available today, you would end up with a net increase in CO2 emissions, and an increase in fossil fuel consumption.

A fuel cell using pure hydrogen produces zero CO2. Methane gas Hydrates are pockets of gas found in various places in the world, mostly on the sea bed. Using Gas hydrates will produce practically no CO2 in production but will create cells that produce some CO2 in use but nothing like a regular engine petrol or diesel.

If we use pure hydrogen then we have to get it from some source. Currently the "economical" way is to steam natural gas put it through a catalytic converter and garner the hydrogen that way. The problem is that it produces incredible amounts of CO2, Sequestering it back underground is done to stop it entering the Earths atmosphere. There is another way this is by use of electricity, currently our capacity to produce electricity is more than we need most of the time it is designed to operate at peak times during the day. If we use surplus electricity especially from all the new Nuclear power stations that will have to come on line then we can create the Hydrogen we need from using sea water. It will be slightly more expensive to get hydrogen but for the power stations cheaper and easier if they know they are on all the time, saves wear and tear. This also applies to the renewable power sources Hydro and wind which can pretty much operate in creating hydrogen all the time.

Frankly though it will not be in the USA that the hydrogen economy and powered cars will start. It will likely be in Europe which has just put 2 Billion euros into developing the idea with the support of the European Car and Power industries. Why will the US not take the lead, It has laws that stop power and fuel companies from passing on development plans costs. It is this problem that caused last years blackouts of New York.

RobS · 2004-10-17 09:11:25

I agree, the US is hurting itself in the longrun by refusing to consider alternate energy sources. When those sources become the economical source, the US will be buying its technology from the Europeans and Japanese, and US companies will lose out.

I am not sure nuclear will prove to be a major energy source in another few decades. I suspect reactors that are much safer can be developed. But there are two factors that are harder to assess: (1) the emotional reaction of the public, and (2) the safety of reactors against terrorism. If a plane can be crashed into a reactor and force the permanent evacuation of several thousand square miles, then nuclear power will not spread. And it appears the 21st century will be the century of terrorism, just as the 20th was a century of world wars.

Wind and solar cannot do enough for us now, but in 20 or 30 years maybe they can. The trick is storage of the energy for times the sun isn't shining and the wind blowing. Fuel cells are important for that process, but if they get too expensive (because of platinum) then alternative storage systems will be used instead. Hydrogen can always be converted into methane and burned in internal combustion engines or house furnaces.

-- RobS

Martian Republic · 2004-10-17 10:41:17

comstar03,

>>>Why do you want the US Government controlling the moon and mars bodies or at least building the first bases on these planetary bodies. I believe that NO Government has the right to setup bases, outposts or settlements on other planetary bodies unless they represent the whole world , in other words - humanity. <<<

I have no problem going to the moon with other countries, but you can't base your policies on what other countries may or may not do or whether they will follow through with there promises. The ISS is a good example of that. Admitedly the United States is one of the countries that has fallen down on the job too on what was promised. Besides that the only way you can get off dead center and get any serious space effort going.

>>I believe that the only way to progress the human race into space would be through private enterprise development of new technology. Many people have before layout the ideal blueprint for space colonization and development, but many times we haven't followed the examples.

Funding space is similar to funding large mining or other projects throughout the world. Similar issues are found and dealt with, including knowledge, technology, communication, transport and other resource infrastructure needs.

You start with small projects that could be used in everyday life, such education - building a Interstellar institute of space colonization ( IISC ) requiring space degrees from life sciences to construction and developments.<<

Your not building a business to satify some need for some product that you happen to produce or intend to produce. Your building ecomonic system with a lot of negative cash flows in the system and a lot of place where your not going to have a profit margin generating free air, water, city parks, etc. You can't do a price check on what it cost to build your factory or buy the minning equipment and line up both your supplier and your customers like you can down here and the rest of that mess to the government to take care of. You don't have any suppliers or customer, infrastructure or natural resource at your disposel or a functioning ecological system to work within. Business do a great job at building factories, minning colonies, but they don't generally build road, city air ports, water system, build rail roads without government help. Even transcontental Rail Road Act was signed by Abraham Lincoln to build the thing in 1862 during the middle of the Civil War. So you talking about getting private business doing some thing in space that they don't do down here and can't down here, but you expect them to do it in space. comstar03, it not going happen and you can argue about it all want to, but it not going to happen. Look they have two strikes against them, before they even get started. Beside building the infrastructure that both the Federal Government and State Governments build they also have to create the ecological system for the Moon or Mars that the Earth creats for us here on Earth. Both of these things will cause a negative cash flow and will keep right on creating a negative cash flow to the point that even the United States could not afford to finanace it in the present economic system because it would cost too much. The United State even in a Federal Reserve System can still throw more money at the problem then private enterprise could even think of throwing at the problem or would even consider throwing at that problem. You talking about a plan that only a United States that has put the Federal Reserve through a chapter 11 bankrupsy re-organization can afford to do or will have the money to down on project like that. The only reason that will have the money to do it is because they will have hundreds of bilions to maybe a trillion dollars of either new money or credit to find home for or working capital to use per year and every year after that year. Otherwise the United States Government won't have the money to finance the grand plan that you come up with or have the money either. That the only way we can come up with that kind of money and I know of no other way or place that we can go to get those financial resources to accomplish what you have in mind.

You talk of going big and going small.

Well, which way is it?

You talk about building a big minning company on the moon, but build a small human colony on the moon. This is stupid, you don't build more minning capacity than you don't intend use and it cost a whole lot more to build it. Like negative cash flow. Beside if you did mine those metals, you still have to process it in a foundary that has a furnice in it. Then it still not in a useable state that we can use it. It has to be made into bar stock, sheet metal, I-Beams, etc. and other refinements also made to it to useable to us. So much for your small human colony on the moon. Each time you hit one of these problems your going to suffer negative cash flow and there nothing you can do about it. You will never find a place where the lead corporation that are taking on this responsibly or groups of corporation will ever make a profit and will sooner or later go bankrupt.

Now let go back to a United States that has retaken control over it own money supply and has hundred billion to deal with problems like that. Money they don't have to make a profit on and can even write off as bad debt and keep right on going and not even have to worry about problem. I know where I will get the money for the major projects that I suggest we do, you have no such source to finance your major projects.

It doesn't matter if you agree with me or don't agree with me, there is "ABSOLUTLY NO OTHER WAY TO COLONIZE EITHER THE MOON OR MARS", because "IT TOO EXPENSIVE"!

Larry,

Dook · 2004-10-17 12:16:14

Martian you are so far out there it's not even funny. Your economic ideas are from late night radio rather than college courses.

If the goal was to populate mars we could do it with NASA's current budget but that is not the goal and for good reason. Some day, I think, mars will have a human population probably equal to the earth's but it will take a very long time and almost all of them will come from a very small amount of initial settlers.

Martian Republic · 2004-10-17 12:46:01

Martian you are so far out there it's not even funny. Your economic ideas are from late night radio rather than college courses.
If the goal was to populate mars we could do it with NASA's current budget but that is not the goal and for good reason. Some day, I think, mars will have a human population probably equal to the earth's but it will take a very long time and almost all of them will come from a very small amount of initial settlers.

All I have to say to you is, go to this website and maybe you will learn something.

http://www.worldnewsstand.net/today/art … yowned.htm

Larry,

Grypd · 2004-10-17 13:03:55

I agree, the US is hurting itself in the longrun by refusing to consider alternate energy sources. When those sources become the economical source, the US will be buying its technology from the Europeans and Japanese, and US companies will lose out.
I am not sure nuclear will prove to be a major energy source in another few decades. I suspect reactors that are much safer can be developed. But there are two factors that are harder to assess: (1) the emotional reaction of the public, and (2) the safety of reactors against terrorism. If a plane can be crashed into a reactor and force the permanent evacuation of several thousand square miles, then nuclear power will not spread. And it appears the 21st century will be the century of terrorism, just as the 20th was a century of world wars.
Wind and solar cannot do enough for us now, but in 20 or 30 years maybe they can. The trick is storage of the energy for times the sun isn't shining and the wind blowing. Fuel cells are important for that process, but if they get too expensive (because of platinum) then alternative storage systems will be used instead. Hydrogen can always be converted into methane and burned in internal combustion engines or house furnaces.
-- RobS

Ah but the current supply of methane and natural gas will not last for more than 20 years past the last of the oil. Why will the USA go to hydrogen powered cars in the end they will do it because the common person likes reasonably cheap fuel.

Since the stopping of nuclear power plants in the 1970s all power plants that have been made use a carbon based fuel, but with the majority being of Gas or Oil powered. Coal is a power source with many years left to its life but is one of the dirtiest of fuels in CO2 and Sulfur emissions. These can be reduced but only by use of Platinum group metals and CO2 sequestration. That is why Nuclear will come back it has too. Oil prices will only increase as other countries need to get there supplies too, We frankly have reached the point of peak production of oil and still prices will increase. Why demand is outstripping supply.

Only Nuclear at the moment is able to supply the power needs of the future even with the security threats it produces. Frankly it is this threat of this future power demand that has pushed the USA to rejoin the coalition of countries that are developing Fusion power sources.

Oh and with the prices of platinum group metals constantly going up it is almost economical too go after them in space.

GCNRevenger · 2004-10-17 14:20:00

I'm in agreement with Dook on this one MR, I'm not even going to try and comment anymore your wildly out-there economic ideas that are just plain nonsense. Pure and simple nonsense cooked up by a clever crazy person to try and dupe you into supporting his mad lust for admiration and power... he seems to have done quite a good job.

I'd like to chime in on power sources for a moment...

Nuclear power CAN be made terror-proof: if you fly an airplane into a pebble bed nuclear reactor, you are only going to contaminate the immediate surroundings because the fuel is encapsulated in tiny pellets of Silicon Carbide. If you blow up a fuel element full of those, all you have accomplished is to scatter those around the site, they will NOT become a dust readily and contaminate hundreds of miles, you can just go out with a geiger counter and a vacuum cleaner or a shovel and pick them up.

This particular kind of reactor, which has been researched half-heartedly since the late 60's, is to a point self-regulating: as the fuel elements get hotter, they become less reactive, so even if you drained all the coolant out of the reactor it would remain stable and NOT melt down.

The fuel is encapsulated in the tiny SiC beads, which are wrapped in a tennis-ball sized sphere of Graphite and more SiC, which makes extracting the fuel from the fuel element very hard, essentially preventing proliferation outside of an industrial scale undertaking to crack them open. This also makes them very durable in the event of a reactor explosion.

Fission power can be made safe. Really... Plus, if you build a reactor for the sole purpose of making Hydrogen, you can arrange it to use the Sulfur/Iodine cycle and break down water directly from the reactors' heat, which is aproximatly double the efficency of making Hydrogen via electrolysis.

...Also a word about Coal, that you can convert coal to carbon monoxide and HYDROGEN GAS by reacting it with Calcium Oxide in the presence of water. You can trap essentially all the Sulfur and Nitrogen contaminants in the process, and the Carbon Dioxide too maybe in the form of Chalk. Oh, did I mention we have about a 200 year supply of coal?

comstar03 · 2004-10-17 18:47:09

Martian republic,

I am talking about a continuous funding source on earth funding the expansion into space to bring an interstellar economic system up to substainability using the moon and other planetary bodies within our solar system. I know what can provide that continuous funding of approx. 100$B per year.

I see that the volume of funds over a period of time will look enormous, but the development of infrastructure, vehicles , outposts, mining facilities, transport and settlements will expand the frontier.

Today's corporations are based on earth rules and limited physical resources, when space based corporation/s are developed then they will have larger scale commodity reserves through multiple planetary bodies.

On earth corporations have looked after the public infrastructure as efficient or more efficent that government enterprises. If a Private enterprises develops an outpost in space the management structure would be a hybrid between a private for profit corporation and a government entity serving the people, making sure to create a self-substaining economy including developing a fee based structure similar to a taxation structure for payment of the outpost administration.

Also other standard facilities for employees such as banking / investment or retail outlets and other parts of society must be created as well for the outpost to change into settlement. This still can be done via a private corporation and not just a government body. I think you need to broaden your conceptions of government and private enterprise from the earth based concepts to a new interstellar hybrid version.

Martian Republic · 2004-10-17 21:07:49

comstar03,

The thing is, I can give one example after another example after another example and can show you how the system that I'm pushing works. My point is, Comstar03 you can't even show me one example of how your system working.

>>>I am talking about a continuous funding source on earth funding the expansion into space to bring an interstellar economic system up to substainability using the moon and other planetary bodies within our solar system. I know what can provide that continuous funding of approx. 100$B per year.

I see that the volume of funds over a period of time will look enormous, but the development of infrastructure, vehicles , outposts, mining facilities, transport and settlements will expand the frontier. <<<

This kind of funding is not what corporation do, nor should they even try to do something like this. This kind of funding can only be performed by some government and that ends and attempt on your part to make this a Corporation Operation. Now if some one major country or several smallar countries are going to finance this thing, I assure you they will be making the rules and not your private corporation as to how things are going to operate. No government funding and your plan just got toated.

>>>Today's corporations are based on earth rules and limited physical resources, when space based corporation/s are developed then they will have larger scale commodity reserves through multiple planetary bodies.

On earth corporations have looked after the public infrastructure as efficient or more efficent that government enterprises. If a Private enterprises develops an outpost in space the management structure would be a hybrid between a private for profit corporation and a government entity serving the people, making sure to create a self-substaining economy including developing a fee based structure similar to a taxation structure for payment of the outpost administration. <<<

I have no problem with some corporation manufacturing things and maybe even owning some of the infrastructure if it directed by government regulation. But, I don't want some private corporation running my government nor do I intend to set up some corporation to running the Lunar government or Mars Government or any other government for that matter any place else. I entend to setup a soveriegn Constitutional Republic and hand the authority over to the Lunar government or the Martain government to see to the "General Welfare" of there population. Even if it more expensive, this is the way that I would do it. It not always the cheapest way that is the best way. I don't like the Wal-Martization of space either. Like Wal-Mart buy the cheapest thing they can buy which means you buy all your produced by slave labor overseas. Which means the American factories can't sell there product so they go out of business and the United States
economically colapses. Oh, but you say, "IT CHEAPER"! My response if you destroy your country in the process "WHO CARE THAT IT CHEAPER, I DON'T"! And altimatly the Wal-Martization of America will mean slavery. I want a healthy country were we have Americans working making a living even if the prices are a little bit higher. As far as I'm concerned, if you don't like these rules, you don't do business in the United States. If the United States either set those kind policies for the Lunar Colony or the Mars Colony with other countries or goes by it self, then those will have the same kind of policies, laws and regulations to deal with.

The reason that I'm being so hard nosed about it is, some of the people on this board are writting stories about how the Martian colony was making a decision as to whether they should rebel, play patriot or try to go nuetral. Now they may write real neet stories, but I intend for those things never
to come true. If the prenciple and rule that I laid down are honored kept, some like that would be imposible to happen, because it volates the constitution which garantee those rights.

>>>Also other standard facilities for employees such as banking / investment or retail outlets and other parts of society must be created as well for the outpost to change into settlement. This still can be done via a private corporation and not just a government body. I think you need to broaden your conceptions of government and private enterprise from the earth based concepts to a new
interstellar hybrid version.<<<

To begin with, I don't believe that we will ever develop the Moon or Mars if such a system stay in place. There are two types of banking system. The Private Central Banking System and The Government Central Banking System.

If you go with The Private Central Banking System, then it doubtfull that we will ever be able to do what you say we should do. Reason, those bankers will rob money that your investing in your moon city or Mars city through interest rates, money generated out of thin air buy debt up and
holding it over your head while your trying to build your city. But, even if you could build your city, these greedy bastards are going to be holding all debt and there going to be saying that lunar city or Marsian city belongs to me, because I own the debt they generated while there were building those city. Pay up fellows. Oh, you can't pay up, then hand it over to me. That is what basically happen in America and what finally caused the American Revelution. Those books that those people are writting may actually be profitic as to what will happen in the future if this policy is allowed to stand.

Now we have the Government Central Bank System and we start off with the idea that most of the debt not going to be retreived or will be handed over to the either the Lunar Government and Martian Government to deal with as they see fit. Now we will still have private banks that can make loans and things. But, we won't have a Private Central Bank that has the right to create credit and operates for benifits of it owners.

Larry,

comstar03 · 2004-10-17 22:40:31

Larry ( Martian Republic)

I like you, discussion points, they make me laugh sometimes. The issue with government controls over the space exploration is that they won't do it effectively because of public wants, needs and desires that don't relate to space, until they are required to think that way. Private Enterprise can make that decision by a single or small group of individuals and don't need a vote from millions of people.

I see your problems with private enterprise controlling space assets that you think governments should have. I see all the mechanisms that could develop an economy for space be controlled by private corporations depending the rules that are send down.

The Core Administration could be setup as a body corporate similar to an unit body corporate based on the permanent living inhabitants ( similar to government voting all democractic ) I didn't say that the governments could do it , but you MUST agree that private enterprise can do it as well.

When building this structure you need to assembly this ahead of time and create the infrastructure to support this in the earth environment as well. The final step after creating the enterprise system would being recognised by the United Nations to represent these people and outposts as a sovernign authority. Because this structure would be outside the Space Treaty and Also the Moon Treaty, both international treatries would be needed to be altered for other governments to act in space.

Again , funding is what we are talking about, and individual governments don't have the major fiscal funding required for large scale spending on expansion into space to compete against a well funded global private enterprise building into space.

SpaceNut · 2004-10-18 06:35:05

I think that looking at self funding is also out in that the only model today is the ISS which though the purchase of time or on an experiment cost bassis would be lucky if it could pay for even one flight after going up multiple times.

So who ever provides the service needs to be paid a lot to compensate for the cost even before they can break even.

Martian Republic · 2004-10-18 10:07:46

I think that looking at self funding is also out in that the only model today is the ISS which though the purchase of time or on an experiment cost bassis would be lucky if it could pay for even one flight after going up multiple times.
So who ever provides the service needs to be paid a lot to compensate for the cost even before they can break even.

You don't understand the problem. In the present economic system you can not get head of the problem by the method that you suggest. Let take the ISS as an example. It a non paying venture as some corporation is concerned. The more money you put into the ISS, the bigger the disparity that you have in money invested in the ISS and a smaller percentage of your money that you can recover in renting out to protentual customers. What ever you do to make the ISS more useable like putting a permenient habatat on it, which needs to be done, also requires more money, which requires a bigger return and a higher bill to anyone that going to use the ISS. The problem is, your going to keep jacking prices up until no one can afford to use the ISS and then there no reason to
have the ISS. There is no way that you can have a privately funded ISS and have it sucees. So you say, let go the moon and try it there, because there are resources there. But, the same problem of the ISS being profitable will follow you to the moon too and make the Lunar Colony unprofitable too. So you say, let go to Mars and try it and you will get the same result.

Any such idea of growing something up from your basement or setting one or more small colonies on Mars and magically transforming them into a self-sustaning colony is not going work. Every time you make an investment in either next generation space shuttle, space state, deep space space
ship or crew ship, Lunar shuttle, Mars shuttle, power plants in orbit on the moon on Mars, setup farms, air purification system, water purification system, building habitates for the population and you have do all this before you even consider doing minning and manufacturing. The debt that you will generate will exceed you ability to pay it back and what ever you do will colapse too. Lone before you could even get close to reaching what you would consider to being self-suffient all your financial backer would have backed out of this deal, including the United States because of the financial burden place on them.

Unless you can figure out why this is so and change the rules that make it imposible to colonize space, your waisting your time trying to make it happen.

I have mentioned before on this forum of two guys that have challenged my claim to able to build a city on Mars because of this problem. My very first response to them was, your absolutly correct, it can't be done within the present economic system. But, I was not intending on working within the present economic system to build that city. I was planning on changing rule so it can done, but your right it can't be done in the current economic system.

Most of the people on this forum denie that this problem exist and think they can skeak around it and colonize Mars anyway. I both know that there a problem here that will prevent us from colonizing space and I know how to get around that problem that stop us from colonizing space.

Larry,

SpaceNut · 2004-10-18 10:26:19

Well I would say that the first step is to start buying rockets that cost less than probably $100 million for either expendable or reusuable for crew or cargo, no the 1 billion that the shuttle currently consumes.

Next what ever is built for space use must also follow suit with regards to cost.

I also would say that the Russian's at least have a leg up on the concept of getting paying customers, though it is probably break even at best.

Martian Republic · 2004-10-18 10:53:00

Well I would say that the first step is to start buying rockets that cost less than probably $100 million for either expendable or reusuable for crew or cargo, no the 1 billion that the shuttle currently consumes.
Next what ever is built for space use must also follow suit with regards to cost.
I also would say that the Russian's at least have a leg up on the concept of getting paying customers, though it is probably break even at best.

You still didn't understand. The financial system is rigged for the express purpose so you can't win. All you can do is dig bigger financial hole so you can get barried in it. It doesn't matter what descission you make about space, it a lost cause under the present system. Until you can change the rules that garantee that you have to lose, your wasting your time.

If you think that over stating issue or over playing my hand, go to this website and you will see that I'm really understating this problem that really exist.

http://www.worldnewsstand.net/today/art … yowned.htm

Larry,

clark · 2004-10-18 11:44:02

Larry,

I feel for you. :laugh:

Pray tell, how in the hell does anything ever get built if what you claim is true?

New jet planes routinely make their appearance, and they cost billions to research and millions more to build. Somewhere, a profit is made to pay for the loans and maintance costs of all of this.

I looked at your website, and I'm sorry, I find it all a bit odd. It seems that people are claiming that how money is printed, via a congressionaly authrozied arm of the federal government, is secretly siphoning off all our hard gotten gains and preventing any actual building.

But that defies reality- things get built. Economies expand. A large percentage of wealth is distributed among a larger portion of the population.

I don't think there are a bunch of wild eyed men sitting on top of a heap of money controlling what we read.

To go and build a hotel, it costs "X" dollars. In order to get a loan to pay for the hotel, one must show the banker how one will pay pack "X" dollars, and how long it will take. Right now, it costs a lot of money, more than anyone can rightly figure out how to pay in a reasonable amount of time.

Enter creativity and human ingenuity, which looks for ways to reduce the amount it costs to build something, and looks for ways to pay back the "X" amount of dollars in a shorter amount of time. This is the system. I really don't understand what you're yammering about that somehow it can't be done under the current system since it IS done everyday.

Everday people use the current system to build things. How do you argue against reality?

BWhite · 2004-10-18 11:56:23

Larry,
I feel for you. :laugh:

http://www.80smusiclyrics.com/artists/c … .htm]Chaka Khan?

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2004-10-16 07:11:40

Re: Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

#52 2004-10-16 07:17:01

Re: Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

#53 2004-10-16 08:00:54

Re: Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

#54 2004-10-16 11:28:57

Re: Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

#55 2004-10-16 12:45:04

Re: Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

#56 2004-10-16 17:07:26

Re: Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

#57 2004-10-16 18:16:40

Re: Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

#58 2004-10-16 18:38:02

Re: Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

#59 2004-10-17 03:33:44

Re: Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

#60 2004-10-17 03:49:11

Re: Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

#61 2004-10-17 09:11:25

Re: Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

#62 2004-10-17 10:41:17

Re: Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

#63 2004-10-17 12:16:14

Re: Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

#64 2004-10-17 12:46:01

Re: Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

#65 2004-10-17 13:03:55

Re: Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

#66 2004-10-17 14:20:00

Re: Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

#67 2004-10-17 18:47:09

Re: Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

#68 2004-10-17 21:07:49

Re: Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

#69 2004-10-17 22:40:31

Re: Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

#70 2004-10-18 06:35:05

Re: Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

#71 2004-10-18 10:07:46

Re: Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

#72 2004-10-18 10:26:19

Re: Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

#73 2004-10-18 10:53:00

Re: Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

#74 2004-10-18 11:44:02

Re: Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

#75 2004-10-18 11:56:23

Re: Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

Board footer