Alt.space debacle (GCNRevenger 's gonna love this)

Martian Republic · 2006-05-07 08:06:41

Not true, there a still a number of coporations in America with strong intrest in plain old research and development, some of it quite basic. Obviously both the pharmisutical industry (Pfizer, Merc, ect..) and the Chemical industry (Dupont, 3M, ect..) maintain very strong research base. They are not alone though, a number of techology companies (if not most) still maintain large research departments, especial IBM, but those of Intel, Texas Instruments, Sony, and Toshiba should not be discounted. In fact, you would be supprised at the number of companies that employ signifigant research departments, all the major oil companies do, as do a number of the eletric companies for example.
Where flashgorden is espeicaly right is that the large succesfull aerospace companies do not tend to spend as much money on R&D, especialy for the space part of aerospace. They have research departments to be sure, but not a research oriented culture like you see in parts of IBM or 3M, for example. Our space-program could certianly use a company that was so focused. There is a market for fresh, well devloped ideas and concepts, like the Trans-hab for example. Hopefull Boeing and the like will eventualy relise that. The problem, however, is that aerospace research tends to be very expensive, and not as profitable as other types.
As for what you specifical recomend, a primarily goverment funded private research coporation, or haven't you heard of the JPL (Jet Propulsion Labratories). They do good work, but their reliance upon the goverment for funding is a weakness in many senses. They certianly don't have the resources that a company like Boeing could turn to research if they wanted.
I guess in the end what I am trying to say is that yes, there is quite a lot of coporate funded science research. However not so much in the aerospace field (especialy on the space side). I think we could all agree that more aerospace research (or whatever type) is certianly needed.
Private Industries can do spot technology development for a pacific purpose or market that there tying to hit. There they can calculate a rough idea of what it might cost to develop new technologies and what those pay backs might be if they can develop those technologies. Even then, not everything that they developed was 100% there money. Some of that stuff they developed was paid for by government for something that they wanted developed, so the government did partial payment for development of some of that technology. Texas Instruments is a very high military supplier of new electronic technologies, which will sometimes fund there development of new technologies. But, even assuming that we discount things like that, Private Industries still can't fund an open end development of new technologies with no particular use or benefit to the company do it on a multiple bases with virtually unlimited cost for a virtually unlimited time frame. Which is exactly what you would have to do if you wanted colonize some place in space. Compare John F. Kennedy NASA Moon mission project and compare that to anything that the Private Sector ever has done or could possibly do in a fifty year span if they didn't have government breaking the trail for them. You still don't see private enterprise going to the moon even thirty years after NASA did it and showed that it could done and the reason that they don't do it is because it too for private enterprise to go it alone. So they don't do it.
No, I stand by my original statement, Private Enterprise or companies can't develop that technology.
Larry,
I agree with you in part. The aerospace industry does face more challanges in doing private R&D then many other industries do. Primarily of course since the goverment is the primary/solitary customer for most of the R&D products it makes sense for coporations to try and get the goverment to fund any research they do on these projects. However, as the number of private customers for aerospace technology continues to rise, these sorts of R&D projects will have more potential profit. For example if Lockheed Martin was to develope a new highly efficent ion type station keeping drive they might find a signifigant private and goverment satilite market to sell it to.
Indeed I think private R&D reasearch of this type probably allready occurs quite a bit. We just aren't as aware of it as better gyroscopes, batteries, antenas or whatever are not as sexy as new launch systems. But these are the programs it makes the most sense to spend private R&D money on. The costs (and thus the risk) are lower, and the products often have a wider market.
But I do agree with you that I do not think we will be seeing any of the major aerospace companies sinking big bucks into major reasearch projects like SSTO spacecraft, NTR engines, or whatever. At least not without a goverment contract to do it. They may have the funds, but they are unwilling to take the risk to do so.

The problem goes even deeper than that. Let take the example of colonizing of America and look at the rail roads and water ways in that colonization process and US Government impute on that whole thing.

We will start with the Rail Roads. Originally most of the Rail Roads were either State owned or Federally owned enterprise. So there were primarily Federally or State financed enterprises. After they were privatized after the American Civil War, they were still getting government financing to build rail lines and buy rolling stock or equipment. The Transcontinental Rail Road that connected the east coast with the west coast is an example of the government financing a major project they thought was beneficial to the economic prosperity and development of the United States. They also regulated the rail roads too.

Now we will go to the water ways of America. I will dispense with the ports for right now, but we will go with government built canal system and locks on the major rivers of America that make those rivers navigable for the private sector. This project is still government owned and operated. Also the levy system that protect some of those city like New Orleans, which needs to be fix and upgrade, with government money by the way.

It around those two government projects that or government sponsored projects that most of the business activities that goes on goes on and where those big city now are inside the United States. Most of the other private enterprises by either corporation or private people collect around those two government sponsored enterprise to do there business.

But, you say that was then and this is now and things have changed and thing are no longer that way. We don't have to depend on those two government sponsored enterprises any more. We can now use roads system and air lines to get around now. I don't know that I would agree with that statement, but we will let it pass for right now. But, both those other projects are also government project that business are collecting around for to do business. Government built road system and City government built air ports. For over two hundred years we have seen the governments on all levels of the United States play that roll that only they can play to help transform the United States into a modern society. It not just about developing technology, which is badly needed if we intend to accomplish our goals colonization. It also building the infrastructure once you have the technology to build it like canal, rail road system, road network and air port system, which private enterprise doesn't do or doesn't do it very well without government help. There no reason to think things are going to be any different in space while the construction cost is going to be ten times or even hundreds as much or more to construct something than it does here on Earth to build.

Which bring up the question:

Why should they spend the millions or even the billions of dollars developing the technology if there is no one to buy what there developing?

Once they have the technology and have it in there hot little hands:

Why should you expect private enterprise to act any different in space where everything cost a whole lot more to build the basic support infrastructure to just an existence in space when they never done that down here inside the United State in the over two hundred years of our existence?

Any technology they develop, will be very limited. Any infrastructural projects they may do, will also be limited if they don't have a major government backing them.

Larry,

Austin Stanley · 2006-05-14 01:02:48

The problem goes even deeper than that. Let take the example of colonizing of America and look at the rail roads and water ways in that colonization process and US Government impute on that whole thing.
We will start with the Rail Roads. Originally most of the Rail Roads were either State owned or Federally owned enterprise. So there were primarily Federally or State financed enterprises. After they were privatized after the American Civil War, they were still getting government financing to build rail lines and buy rolling stock or equipment. The Transcontinental Rail Road that connected the east coast with the west coast is an example of the government financing a major project they thought was beneficial to the economic prosperity and development of the United States. They also regulated the rail roads too.

All true, but don't forget that the whole Crédit Mobilier scandle came out of this as well. The transconental rail-roads were a mess of graft and corruption, but were succesful despite that. The goverment eventualy had to step in and regulate them heavily to prevent their worse excesses (and maybe bust a few trusts).

Now we will go to the water ways of America. I will dispense with the ports for right now, but we will go with government built canal system and locks on the major rivers of America that make those rivers navigable for the private sector. This project is still government owned and operated. Also the levy system that protect some of those city like New Orleans, which needs to be fix and upgrade, with government money by the way.

Don't forget the Panama Cannal, which was also goverment dug, after a French coporation failed miserably at it. Which is to say that I think this a better model than the gov-fund the corporations one.

But, you say that was then and this is now and things have changed and thing are no longer that way. We don't have to depend on those two government sponsored enterprises any more. .. snip ..

No your wrong, I don't say that all. I primarily agree with you, that the goverment will have to fund the vast majority of any space development. I only argue that the aerospace Coporations COULD fund a bigger chunk of it if they wanted to, and that their might be some money in it for them if they did. They could design usefull things for the space-program like new engines, habs, whatever, and the goverment would probably buy them. But they won't, because they would much rather have contracts to design these items, and the risk is to high for them.

Why should you expect private enterprise to act any different in space where everything cost a whole lot more to build the basic support infrastructure to just an existence in space when they never done that down here inside the United State in the over two hundred years of our existence?

While I primarily agree with you in-terms of infastructure, there are pleanty of examples where coporations did spend large chunks of money on such improvments. The first eletrical systems were all privatly funded for example. In terms of non-infastructure improvments there are LOTS of private coporate tech development.

Any technology they develop, will be very limited. Any infrastructural projects they may do, will also be limited if they don't have a major government backing them.

I primarily agree with this point, but I wouldn't be so dismisive of the "limited" development. Again things like beter Gyros, Solar Pannels, and what not may not be very sexy and flashy, but they are still important.

Better then nothing anyways.

publiusr · 2006-05-19 11:23:17

Say, didn't Burt at T/Space propose a rocket based loosely off an overgrown sounding rocket, an engine copied from the V-2 except burning Methane, and a manned capsule modeld on the antique Corona spy sat film return capsule? What was that about "new technology" again?

ME-163 KOMET on steroids, meet Corona on steroids.

There is nothing new under the sun.

From another post:

It all comes down to money, again. To steal a quote from James Fallows, author of FREE FLIGHT (From pages 154-156):

"All entrepreneurs have a class grudge against all financiers...I once thought Klapmeier (from Cirrus) was going to kill me...when I told him about a friend of mine who received tens of millions in venture capital for an Internet-based company with no obvious 'revenue model.' ...The niche occupied by Dell Computers--a huge-volume, commodity producer--is not immediately available to Cirrus...Venture Capitalists keep offering them deals, but in return they want a large equity share in the company...The Klapmeiers faced the classic dilemma of entrepreneurs. Their stiffness, self-reliance, and refusal to listen to conventional opinions had allowed them to survive...(but)..there is a point when original virtues become liabilities..."

And that was for a small but otherwise conventional type of light aircraft.
The only thing for it would be to pass laws and "assign" worthy products to venture capitalists. For every hundred dollars of EXXON stock, an investor must place 10 dollars (per share) into some aviation/technology start up.

The carrot won't work. I think its time for some nice union-wielded baseball-bat style negotiations with the venture vultures--and make them fork it over.

It worked for Korolev. And it is working for Kliper. Oil money from Yukos/Gazprom is helping fund their space program. Now howabout we renew the call a windfall tax--to go to ours?

Who's with me?

aldiffer · 2006-05-30 19:27:48

no thanks

SpaceNut · 2006-05-30 19:48:37

The Space Adventures to Acquire Space Launch Corporation

Space Launch Corporation

The Space Launch Corporation was formed to develop and bring to market innovative products for the space transportation industry.
Focused primarily on the design, development, and testing of launch system technologies, we combine technical innovation and a well developed understanding of the market's requirements to provide our customers with compelling products and solutions at the lowest possible cost.

Well that is one way to get a peak at what is needed to make rockets for a company that does not have any.

Martin_Tristar · 2006-05-31 02:58:41

The only one alternative space development corporation that doesn't rely on the government handouts is Bigelow Aerospace, they work on the money of the owner of the company.

We need more companies like this where they develop funds from other business activities and channel funds into space research, developments and operations. With this model for private enterprise then we only have a matter of time to build the necessary infrastructure to expand into space.

Buidling a consortium of private enterprenuers would increase the opportunities in space without the use or desire to use the government controlled assets. (example 50 corporations x US$ 25 million per year from business activities = US$ 1.25 Billion per year into a non-profit foundation on space development and the shareholder meeting are the fifity private investors. ) This would focus on space and strategic moves not grand publicity moves. But the consortium can take a view not to work with any government backed agency from any country. The other major player in the space race.

I think you don't see the ability of private alternative space entreprenuers compared to government-backed agancies.

GCNRevenger · 2006-05-31 06:10:23

Bigelow's company is an "unnatural" one since it wouldn't exsist if not for his personal investment of large sums of money with little chance of return. Bigelow has put up his money to repeat what NASA has already done in the pretty insane hope of building a space hotel that nobody can afford to get to nor stay at which would possibly yeild more money then it costs.

And why do you consider Elon Musk's SpaceX a government handout? Why is simply being government funded such a dirty, bad thing? When your only competitors charge 5-10X more for the same payload then you can, thats real competition, not government coddiling.

And a consortium of AltSpacers? No no, the money and the power would be split too many ways, if you split a $10M profit for a launch vehicle 50 ways, thats only $200,000. Plus, there is no way that they will ever be able to coordinate anything, infighting about design decisions would tear the whole thing apart before it ever really started, guaranteed. The individualistic personalities combined with the unseriousness of many AltSpacers' (Carmack, Bezos) and their inevitible insistence on each incompatible vision would simply clash too much. Then there is the fact that most of them are in the business as a rich-kid hobby, in which case there won't be any reason for them to cooperate.

Martin_Tristar · 2006-05-31 07:13:19

GCNR,

Most businesses / industries started as a rich-kids hobby. The only thing is that some rich-kids have other motives, reasons and returns that not only takes in consideration of capital return but market share, orv strategic control. The "rich-kids" could be looking at strategies that NASA and many of the other government agaencies can't do!!!!

P.S.

Don't try to think outside the box... the box will win
The glass is at 50% of capacity

Thanks for the laughter with your answers to my previous positive messages. doing some thinking about them.

Martian Republic · 2006-06-01 16:53:33

GCNR,
Most businesses / industries started as a rich-kids hobby. The only thing is that some rich-kids have other motives, reasons and returns that not only takes in consideration of capital return but market share, orv strategic control. The "rich-kids" could be looking at strategies that NASA and many of the other government agaencies can't do!!!!
P.S.
Don't try to think outside the box... the box will win
The glass is at 50% of capacity
Thanks for the laughter with your answers to my previous positive messages. doing some thinking about them.

No, your wrong and GCNRevenger is right. Without one or more governments spending hundreds of millions to billions or even tens of billions of dollars a year on space activities, there will be no serious private venture in space to speak of in the near term future. Because, there will be no customers for them to sell to. I mean it just not going to happen. The deck is stacked against any such private venture from achieving such a lofty goal even if they wanted to do it. Even this Bigelow effort will go down the tubs sooner or later without these buyer that can buy his product and the only one that can come up with the money right now is the government. Even if some other corporation would want to buy a Bigelow habitat, they still don’t have any cost effective way to get there to use it or re-coop there investments. So it a dead issue for right now.

Larry,

RedStreak · 2006-06-01 18:54:19

Well assuming there never was a space race and we had remained stuck on the ground for a few decades more, as we are now in the information age a demand for satellites would have occured, and gradually things would have become more ambitious.

The space race, NASA, ESA, ect. just accelerated it a bit, and NASA's been caught between a growth stunt and now the start of new growth after the cancerous lump of a space shuttle is getting removed for good.

Tsikophski (my appologies for spelling - I don't have an almanac with me ) once quotes "The Earth is the cradle of humanity, but one cannot stay in the cradle forever." Well evenetually we babes outgrow the crib, whether when we're one year old or five.

GCNRevenger · 2006-06-01 19:25:34

Its not quite that easy Redstreak:

Space satelites for communication are actually going out of style, they just can't compete with buried/undersea fiber-optic communcation bits-for-dollar except for specialty remote communications. Already TV, internet, and telephone are being deliverd straight to the customers' door by fiber optics, and mobile communications are virtually exclusively handled by cellular telephone networks. In the near future, with the introduction of WiMax, wireless internet access (and television eventually) with very high data rates over mile-scale distances to radio towers will be another nail in their coffin.

And why can't we stay here? The Earth's population is going to level off around 8-9 billion, and there should be plenty of food and energy with GMO crops and nuclear power, plus no killer asteroids are likely for a very long time. There is no reason we have to go anywhere any time in the forseeable future. The only reason to go anywhere is for trace minerals not found on Earth (platinum and related on the Moon), or because we want to.

RedStreak · 2006-06-01 21:20:51

And why can't we stay here? The Earth's population is going to level off around 8-9 billion, and there should be plenty of food and energy with GMO crops and nuclear power, plus no killer asteroids are likely for a very long time. There is no reason we have to go anywhere any time in the forseeable future. The only reason to go anywhere is for trace minerals not found on Earth (platinum and related on the Moon), or because we want to.

Well aside from asteroids there's always the fear of those nuts in Iran succeeding in nuking a good portion of the planet.

Communications aside, there's also the need of weather satellites. You'd need a hell of alot more weather stations to track what a handful of satellites can do. And navigation...I don't see cell phone towers with that capability yet.

I had thought of another possibility - space-growne food. Even assuming open relations with China not even America's bread basket can feed a billion people let alone 8 to 9 of 'em; and bit by bit a portion of America's farmlands are turning into suburbs. Unless you want forests cut down or enviorments both terrestrial and oceanic irrepitably damaged we'll need more space for food. It may be expensive for America but in a Communist or Socialist society where considerable portions of the populations reside still - hey, it's ALL government owned anyway.

GCNRevenger · 2006-06-01 22:03:41

You are kidding right? It would be easier to make greenhouses in greenland or plant make Sibera bloom then it would to make food in space.

And why can't we? Genetic modification of food has not yet reached its potential by a long shot, and vast tracts of the American west and midwest are still open land.

You have no idea just how little space those "evil suburbs" take up compared to the size of the US or the planet.

Speaking of which, it has been a common factor throughout history that as wealth increases, birth rate decreases, so China and India's populations will not rise as quickly as they prosper, and may even contract.

RedStreak · 2006-06-01 22:19:48

You are kidding right? It would be easier to make greenhouses in greenland or plant make Sibera bloom then it would to make food in space.
And why can't we? Genetic modification of food has not yet reached its potential by a long shot, and vast tracts of the American west and midwest are still open land.

First comment suggests screwing with the enviorment for our benefits, which I'm against whether its a rain forest or a barren desert. I'm also confident to say most efforts won't work - deserts whether in the Saharra or Mongolia aren't keen for farms because they are horrific to plant life - it will take ALOT of genetic engineering to make a cactus edible and alot less prickily too. The oceans may have the most potential due to their size and the fact promoting beneficial plankton blooming might counter global warming - problem is not too many people are keen on eating planktyon.

Genetic engineering, which may have uses, isn't being accepted readily. The fact they're popularly called "Franken-Foods" gives you the idea. I have studied biology and there have been cases where genetically altered food have side-effects - namely poisonous foods in worst cases. As the science becomes more exact I'm sure it will have more and more potential but, as with everything here on Earth, it will have its limits.

GCNRevenger · 2006-06-01 23:00:14

I mean like building climate-controlled greenhouses of course, not to actually warm/cool permafrost or desert.

GMO foods should be widely accepted, and if you are American then you have already eaten them without a doubt. The anti-GMO hysteria is born of radical anti-human environmentalists who favor starvation over progress. The nonsense that they are "poisonous" is I am sure quite exaggerated or deliberatly misconstrued. GMO food is the only way to feed the world without going backrupt, and thats all there is to it. Its stupid, anti-scientific, and anti-human to oppose them.

Farming of fish in the sea on a massive scale would be helpful, though.

Martin_Tristar · 2006-06-02 05:56:36

Martian Republic ,

I wasn't talking about buying from Bigelow Aerospace I was saying that bigelow model was excellent for Private Business interests to expand into space. ( I am not talking about Public Corporations on the sharemarket) By using there Earth Based income=producing assets to create the wealth for the develop and eventual expansion into space.

I am talking the development of space as another commerical long term business venture with the creation of business markets and the development of settlements with similar commerical markets like on earth. If the governments on earth can't decide to work together to expand humanity into space then the business sector can and should go there create the marketplaces for resources from water to energy to raw construction materials including food and the governments would need to purchase from the corporation/s or build there own at a large cost to themselves.

Businesses as designed for profit and yes, this would be a profitable venture (in the long term) in many aspects including ownership of the resources and the rights for building the settlements and not let ineffective governments make decisions.

By the way ---- the Corporation is not a signature to any of the space treaties including the moon treaty and outer space treaty. So , it doesn't matter the corporation will own its rights and resources.

We need to move forward towards permanent space outposts not tourist landings on the Moon and Mars and work through the many complex issues and build solutions because all questions have answers ---- It might be that you don't like the answer but its there.

RedStreak · 2006-06-02 10:13:57

I mean like building climate-controlled greenhouses of course, not to actually warm/cool permafrost or desert.

If you want a greenhouse to compare with, check out BiosphereII and ask how self-sustaining it turned out to be. Naturally, of course, a greenhouse farm won't be so complex. Still its the point of land here on Earth innevitably getting eaten-up by human demand. Continue this for a few centuries and I'm certain we'll whipe out just about every terrestrial species except the coachroach and rat.

If you want infinite space for a population that may never completely stabilize while preserving any NON-human life, well, look up...

If we want to prove we're self-aware and self-conscious we can't keep expanding and coating the planet like a slime-mold; otherwise if we DO encounter something intelligent out there they may regard us AS slime-mold on those grounds.

GMO foods should be widely accepted, and if you are American then you have already eaten them without a doubt. The anti-GMO hysteria is born of radical anti-human environmentalists who favor starvation over progress. The nonsense that they are "poisonous" is I am sure quite exaggerated or deliberatly misconstrued. GMO food is the only way to feed the world without going backrupt, and thats all there is to it. Its stupid, anti-scientific, and anti-human to oppose them.

...just as abortion is anti-human I'm sure. I would certainly hope any genertically engineered food on the market has been tested. But still, consider things like mutations - we're talking about messing with the DNA of an organism. A caner-causing virus, gamma-rays, and cosmic-rays all do the same thing technically.

On this matter I recommend further research, not haulting it. I'm just advising caution. The scientists at Chernobyl forgot about that and look what happened. I mean for crying out loud, on the radio a few days ago I heard reports of scientists trying to grow human penises (kinda like the rat with human ear on its back) on rabbits and you wonder why I'm finding G-E a little hard to take seriously?

Farming of fish in the sea on a massive scale would be helpful, though.

This may be the one suggestion I will endorse fully, provided by fish farming you mean promoting fish populations and not just mass-over-fishing. Enviormentalists will need to help here: if we can get a healthy ecosystem growing that'll defientely boost populations within the ocean. We can't think of just the tunafish or salmon anymore - we'll need to include their prey, their prey's prey, and the plankyton on top - make the food chain/pyramid grow and so will fish farming.[/i]

Martian Republic · 2006-06-02 20:12:14

Martin_Tristar, I have one problem with your plan. It doesn't work! It has never worked even down here! It not going to ever work in the near or far future either down here or in space!

Your plan has the repeatability of throwing a rock out the window and knowing that it going to hit the ground instead of flying into orbit. Throwing a hundred stone out the window and they will hit the ground, no matter how hard you throw those stones. Your plan has that kind of repeatability and I am not going to waste my time waiting for private enterprise to do something that I know they can't do even in there wildest moments.

Without some government that doesn't have to make a profit stepping in and footing the bills for such a space colonization program, then it flat not going to happen. You have nobody that can finance an operation like that or could be the customer that those private companies have to sell to to make a profit. Bigelow has no customers and they aren’t going to have any customers unless the government step in and helps them or subsidies them. No government. No colonization program.

I wish it were not that way, but it is that way and it not going to change, because you don't like it that way.

Larry,

GCNRevenger · 2006-06-02 23:05:22

But still, consider things like mutations - we're talking about messing with the DNA of an organism. A caner-causing virus, gamma-rays, and cosmic-rays all do the same thing technically.
On this matter I recommend further research, not haulting it. I'm just advising caution. The scientists at Chernobyl forgot about that and look what happened. I mean for crying out loud, on the radio a few days ago I heard reports of scientists trying to grow human penises (kinda like the rat with human ear on its back) on rabbits and you wonder why I'm finding G-E a little hard to take seriously?

We are NOT talking mutations, mutations are like throwing dice, while man-made genetic modification is like electrical wiring, it can make problems if its wired wrong but it is something precise and directed.

The engineers at Chernobyl are a horrible example, because they were just playing with their reactor; they turned off all the safety systems because they would shut down the core if they carried out their insane experiments that involved pulling out too many control rods. It is nothing at all like scientists making genetic modifications, a much better analogy for Chernobyl would be pilots seeing how high they could fly their plane without oxygen.

The very fact you used Chernobyl as an example is a great example of how you've automatically and irrationally equated the symbol of the cause de'jour of the radical environmentalists to smear scientists in general and as a swipe against GMO crops imparticularly. I happen to be a professional scientist, too.

Humans have been practicing genetic modification for centuries too, alot of the major food plants (apples for instance) were enhanced by splicing two plants together to try and combine their favorable properties, which very much involved genetic splicing/recombination to their DNA, but where is the outcry there? Should we ban apples?

Directed "artifical" genetic modification permits a far greater ability to mix-and-match exsisting genes or to alter exsisting ones, which presents a higher possibility of making an alergy-stimulating crop, but the probability of this that would affect any real segment of the population that would go undetected is negligible. We are far more laize fare about pills and medicines then GMO crops, but we take those anyway.

And plenty of "all natural" plants induce dangerous alergies, like peanuts or tomatos or whatnot, but we grow those anyway don't we? Its very common to try and hold GMO crops to a standard we would never expect of mother nature.

As far as crazy experiments to grow human tissues on lab animals, how is that the least bit relevent? You are lumping genetic modification of crops in with the crazy plans of fringe scientists, which is blatently unfair and irrational.

Martin_Tristar · 2006-06-03 03:38:50

Martian Republic,

Well, I know it can work, I have been developing a project venture plan for a scalable space colonization program and private funding for that program for sometime. I have worked on the Income generating aspects from earth for a 100 Billion dollar budget per year and a long term rollout over fifty years ( US$ 5 Trillion dollars earth funds + space resources and local materials derived ) fully costed and marketable. This will provide the budget for transport vessels both unmanned and manned, space settlements, space platforms and resource gathering facilities within our solar system. Bring the space presence upto a critical mass for self-sustainability.

The earth-based infrastructure to create the large scale income required will capital cost approx 3-10 Billion dollars depending on the operation requirements and building facilities. The Income generating equipment will cost additional 25 Billion dollars and can be funded through the capital markets easily. Alot of the technology is already develop we need to just adapt it for our vehicles for the various projects.

I think you don't under the capital markets or global finance whe you get up to amounts just like buying 50 Boeing 747s or 40 oil supertankers or 100 bulk carriers over a five year period. These transactions are done , developing a private funded space program is just the same for financing. Another way sell the development aspects to 100 entrepreneurs that could find $100 million each (100x100 = 10 Billion ) could fund it as well.

But to use the "Bigelow Method" then you would carefully create a global corporation with products and services that would provide a net profit in the corporation of $1.5 billion per quarter minimum and provide some of the ground-based infrastructure and technical facilities for the space program within the corporation group. Most of the top fortune 500 companies make that and more , in the financial sector they make three times that , the energy sector the top three companies made up to $30 billion in the first quarter this year.

Once you fund the Large scale Income then your budget will move to the US$ 100 Billion and you commence the large scale developments including space stations and assembly points in orbit for space vessels both manned and unmanned. Build other space factories for lease to other companies including drug, technology,and material research companies like leasing physical property on earth, and even provide the launch vehicles to the space factories. With the new increased budget all the doors are open for private enterprise going into space and not limited or controlled by any government or government agency.

Martian Republic, I have been working on this project venture plan for the past 18 months providing detailed work that will provide the key startegies to expand in space permanently with a long term business model.

GCNRevenger · 2006-06-03 09:25:36

Well, I know it can work, I have been developing a project venture plan for a scalable space colonization program and private funding for that program for sometime. I have worked on the Income generating aspects from earth for a 100 Billion dollar budget per year and a long term rollout over fifty years ( US$ 5 Trillion dollars earth funds + space resources and local materials derived ) fully costed and marketable...
...Martian Republic, I have been working on this project venture plan for the past 18 months providing detailed work that will provide the key startegies to expand in space permanently with a long term business model.

Ha, suuure.

Martin_Tristar · 2006-06-04 01:44:08

GCNR,

I have !!!!!!!!

At least I am working on a overall strategy for colonization program, NASA and other government programs are explorer "tourist" based programs that won't go anywhere in the future.

I am listing business types required to provide the necessary resources from earth to meet the overall space program strategy. (such as Petrochemicals, specialized metal refiners, and small custom electronic manufacturers just to name a few) Other products provide the income base to purchase wholesale resources and services at cost from internal businesses reducing the cost on earth based infrastructure ( vertical and horizontal business integration for our space enterprises) - In other words --- Build a corporation for the sole purpose is to fund space programs through other business activities.

I don't think you have been looking at a space colonization program that provides the ability to move towards settlements not just explorer / tourist missions to the moon and mars.

Grypd · 2006-06-05 04:06:09

Farming of fish in the sea on a massive scale would be helpful, though.
This may be the one suggestion I will endorse fully, provided by fish farming you mean promoting fish populations and not just mass-over-fishing. Enviormentalists will need to help here: if we can get a healthy ecosystem growing that'll defientely boost populations within the ocean. We can't think of just the tunafish or salmon anymore - we'll need to include their prey, their prey's prey, and the plankyton on top - make the food chain/pyramid grow and so will fish farming.[/i]

Fish farming certainly using the sea is a youthful buisness and they are learning a lot but are also finding a lot of drawbacks to what they are doing. We have found that farming salmon concentrated there natural hazards like sea lice and the diseases that salmon got. Also when the fish escaped they would cause damage to the wild stocks. We are now attempting to farm Cod having learnt these lessons and with the cages that attempt to stimulate the cods natural behaviour even to adding toys but it is still a very young science. Of course there is naturally stimulating growth by creating artificial reefs but there is a limit to what can be done.

GCN is correct that at present there is no real need for a long term large human prescence in space. But that only happens if we in the Human race stay as we are and that means about 7/8ths of us living close to poverty. (Africa, Asia). We just do not have the energy sources and materials to be able to raise that much of the population of the world up to the standards we in the west currently enjoy. We have already seen what the Industrialisation of China and India is doing to the price of Oil and Minerals but there is only so much that it is economical to mine and as it gets harder to find and produce these materials so prices rise.

We have found that we have two choices.
1) The enviromentalists want us to reduce our consumption and to live closer to what the planet can easily give. This is in effect to beggar ourselves and to reduce our quality of life so that others(Though nowhere near all) can have a better guality of life. They say we have limits to growth and that spaceflight is a waste of time since it distracts from fixing the problems we have in front of us. They say we burn to much energy and that petroleoum as a finite resource should stop being burned instead kept to make the plastics and materials we need. In short we will be abck to the horse and cart as a prime means to move people

2) The space advocates note that though the Earth has a limit on what minerals and energy is cheap to get at that space does not have this problem and there is enough resources to have a human population of 800 to 900 billion people living comfortably if not in a much better guality of life than we currently have.

So needless im of the second viewpoint I honestly think that we will go to space not to conquer but to protect ourselves and that means finding and returning what we need to keep our civilisation going and expanding.

GCNRevenger · 2006-06-05 06:23:12

No no you do not understand, I believe that we can support an equilibrium population for everyone even with a high standard of living.

First of all, it is a historical fact that as wealth increases, birth rates decrease, which means the world population would infact contract. It would become a challenge just to maintain it at an economically efficient size.

And we do indeed have enough reasources to support a high quality of life for everyone, we simply have to erradicate the anti-progress environmentalist policy and stigmas against various technologies that have been repress and truely embrace new technologies instead of leaning on ones that we know can't provide.

Widespread use of nuclear power coupled with breeder reactors, essentially exclusive use of ultrahigh yeild GMO crops, animal-less vat protein culturing, solar-augmented Hydrogen power for transportation, plant monomer substitutes for common household plastics, deep sea clathrate mining for natural gas, ultra-cheap aSi-GaAs/organic solar panels, mass-production of ultra efficient woodless prefab houses, large-capacity nuclear water desalinators, etc etc etc

There is no question that the Earth can provide, infact we will have to figure out what to do with all the reasources, the key is just to take and truely embrace the smallest of technological steps forward and to finally come to grips that some environmentalists really are the enemy of humanity.

The question is, can we survive this transition to a steady-state world, where growth-centric capitalism might have a rough time operating, and if we will kill eachother first (eg. Iran trying to vaporize Israel).

Marsman · 2006-06-05 09:20:46

You would think in a pro Mars forum that the loudest and strongest voices would also be pro Mars colonization but guess that just isn't so here. Go back to the times when people groups colonized other regions than their homelands. Look at their reasons for doing so. You know what it comes down to? Practicality. Pragmatism. Doing what they know works best at the time. Sure, if they had sat around and tried to think up all the solutions to their problems so they could remain where they were they might have stayed or they might have become extinct. In fact if you look at some of the older civilizations that had strange superstitions as their belief systems you can find quite frequently that those belief systems kept them living right where they were, even in the face of immenent disaster(droughts, disease, war, etc). The more progressive peoples kept on the move, they kept searching for better lands, better resources and were always on the look out for opportunities.

But usually the new settlers of new lands were not in the majority historically. They had various reasons for moving, some economic, others religious, others political, etc. Sure, they might have been able to solve their problems right where they were but to most of them moving away was a far simpler option. The changes that many pro Earth advocates talk about as things we "could do" to keep us all on Earth are indeed quite possible. The problem is human nature. Ideas are great in a vacuum but ideas have to pass through the complex grid of human nature to become realities and we all know this. For example. If the pilgrims were somehow a bit more warlike they might have chosen to stay and fight for their rights instead of sailing into an unknown land full of hostile natives and unknowns. But humans tend to do what is easiest and what is most practical at the time. If they didn't I doubt we would even be out of the caves right now.

Logistically and on the basis of pure science and engineering solutions it is entirely plausible for humans to stay on Earth and develop ways to meet our growing needs without venturing into space. But on the basis of human nature and from the witness of thousands of years of humans settling new lands is it so illogical to think that space really should be the next frontier? When I say human nature I am referring to the way we do things and why we do things. Humans are far more than creatures who base all their actions on logic or science or what makes the most sense. We are not Vulcans. Humans, for good or for bad do what they do based on their perceptions, their emotions, their priorities, their beliefs, etc far more than on pure logic. Maybe you can make the case for why we should stay on Earth so watertight that no one can refute your logic or your words, but in the end you are missing the human factor. Many scientists and engineering types ignore this aspect of human nature and wonder why everyone is not bowing down to their supreme logic.

The fact is, there will always be people who yearn to know more, to explore, to live in other lands and on other worlds and that number is not small. There are multitudes in the world today that if given the chance to build a new life for themselves in space would gladly jump at the chance for a variety of reasons. This is why we are continuing to push into space through private and public means. Private companies and the government recognize human nature and understand that people (a growing number) want choice. They can see that there will be a market someday for their goods and services. Why? On the basis of the history of human nature. Humans explore. Humans do go out into hostile lands and make lives for themselves. If we didn't I doubt any of us would even be here now. America, Australia, Canada, South America and many other lands bear witness to the thirst humans have for more. We are a species on the move. For pro Earth advocates to get their way they would have to gain control of government and enforce their will on people. History shows this doesn't work. People like to be free. So while humans remain humans and not cyborgs or Vulcans there will always be that push to explore and settle new lands and new worlds.

There is also the dark side to human nature too. Our tendency to kill each other is another reason why many space advocates recognize the importance for building off world colonies. Notice that as soon as there is a war people will leave their homes and flee to safety(they are called refugees). In other words, if people are dissatisfied with their lives for whatever reason, they will seek change whether it be to escape war, persecution or whatever. And those people will do ANYTHING to make a new life for themselves. Maybe in the west many people are content with their lives(though this is debatable) but I can guarantee you that is not the case for the vast majority of the rest of the world. People will go into space and they will face many severe problems but it won't stop them. Why? because it is there. Trying to change this world might seem like a more logical solution but human nature and history, good and bad tells me that this is far more unrealistic than any desire to colonize space or Mars.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2006-05-07 08:06:41

Re: Alt.space debacle (GCNRevenger 's gonna love this)

#27 2006-05-14 01:02:48

Re: Alt.space debacle (GCNRevenger 's gonna love this)

#28 2006-05-19 11:23:17

Re: Alt.space debacle (GCNRevenger 's gonna love this)

#29 2006-05-30 19:27:48

Re: Alt.space debacle (GCNRevenger 's gonna love this)

#30 2006-05-30 19:48:37

Re: Alt.space debacle (GCNRevenger 's gonna love this)

#31 2006-05-31 02:58:41

Re: Alt.space debacle (GCNRevenger 's gonna love this)

#32 2006-05-31 06:10:23

Re: Alt.space debacle (GCNRevenger 's gonna love this)

#33 2006-05-31 07:13:19

Re: Alt.space debacle (GCNRevenger 's gonna love this)

#34 2006-06-01 16:53:33

Re: Alt.space debacle (GCNRevenger 's gonna love this)

#35 2006-06-01 18:54:19

Re: Alt.space debacle (GCNRevenger 's gonna love this)

#36 2006-06-01 19:25:34

Re: Alt.space debacle (GCNRevenger 's gonna love this)

#37 2006-06-01 21:20:51

Re: Alt.space debacle (GCNRevenger 's gonna love this)

#38 2006-06-01 22:03:41

Re: Alt.space debacle (GCNRevenger 's gonna love this)

#39 2006-06-01 22:19:48

Re: Alt.space debacle (GCNRevenger 's gonna love this)

#40 2006-06-01 23:00:14

Re: Alt.space debacle (GCNRevenger 's gonna love this)

#41 2006-06-02 05:56:36

Re: Alt.space debacle (GCNRevenger 's gonna love this)

#42 2006-06-02 10:13:57

Re: Alt.space debacle (GCNRevenger 's gonna love this)

#43 2006-06-02 20:12:14

Re: Alt.space debacle (GCNRevenger 's gonna love this)

#44 2006-06-02 23:05:22

Re: Alt.space debacle (GCNRevenger 's gonna love this)

#45 2006-06-03 03:38:50

Re: Alt.space debacle (GCNRevenger 's gonna love this)

#46 2006-06-03 09:25:36

Re: Alt.space debacle (GCNRevenger 's gonna love this)

#47 2006-06-04 01:44:08

Re: Alt.space debacle (GCNRevenger 's gonna love this)

#48 2006-06-05 04:06:09

Re: Alt.space debacle (GCNRevenger 's gonna love this)

#49 2006-06-05 06:23:12

Re: Alt.space debacle (GCNRevenger 's gonna love this)

#50 2006-06-05 09:20:46

Re: Alt.space debacle (GCNRevenger 's gonna love this)

Board footer