Unstablity is a good thing - Mars mission more probable w/ unstabilty

prometheusunbound · 2003-07-21 10:59:23

I speak of the devil-a mars mission will be done in times of great struggle and suffering, not great prosperity. Why? Because a failed mars mission will be a losing hand for anyone that funds it. When I say great struggle, I am refering to a struggle within the establishment itself. The only way for the establishment to survive such a struggle is to expand the boundaries of establishment members and domain. . . .the failure to do so is a revolution like the french revolution and the russian revolution.

The industrialization of space is not going to be a orderly and pleasant affair. This becomes apparent looking at the historical record of the colonization of america. During the colonization of america, france, briton and spain were all fighting each other for supremancy in europe, and the fighting polarized the poltical standings of everyone concerned. anyone not standing with another was a enemy.

Of course, there were many powerful members of the establishment that did not stand with any of these nations, and simply chose to go in exile in the colonies of america, which were founded by exiles, for exiles and ruled, eventually by exiles.

Further, many establishment members came because of the potentail to generate power for themselves.

After some time, there followed the indentured servants of the old world looking for new hope. Many were peasants in the household of the establishment, but soon it extended to the scots-irish peasants who fled to applachia, those without any power save their own body.

And many of them became the establishment themselves.

John Jacob astor was a pennieless butcher who deserted the british army. . . .

John Rockfeller was a child of a quack doctor in ohio. . .

And the middle class in europe cowed the noblity. (to the most part)

The exiles had to work as hard (most of them) as the peasants to win in new ground, and the peasants had all the advantages of being able to work hard. The money of the exiles were worthless in america without any real backing.

But they would have never came if the exiles had not.

Therefore, instability among the establishment will bring about a mars mission, and the industrialization of space.

Today the establishment is not interested in advancing the economy; why risk losing their power over making somebody they don't know powerful?

Instablity is a threat to them.
Just look at the french revolution were the king refused to grant voting power to the bourgoius in the estates general. The bourgouis were the power in the land, but unless they organized themselves in government, the king rules.

Stablity cements their power, and I am going to point that it is inmoral to emlinate the establishment simply because of the suffering and lack of socail order.

Stablilty is the trump card of the establishment, but instability (TO A POINT!!) and expansion of frontier breeds oppoturnity for the fittist.

I am not advocating anarchy, I am observing the historical viewpoint of how the establishment wants things run and how to extend that to those fitter.

How, then, do we determine how much instablilty is dangerous? Impossible.

The only thing to do is to refer to history. History is more a history of the establishment warfare (among themselves)

Let us not overthrow the establishment, but let it opened to more of man.

The problem of space industrialization is that it relys on a rather unstable world climate for poltics, and a mars mission is such that it would be the start of industrilization.

I probably sound like a extremist now, but the best time to advocate a mars mission is if the country is about to be split at the highest level.

What scenarios can you fellas envision were that happens?

clark · 2003-07-21 12:44:23

I disagree with your entire point of view.

I speak of the devil-a mars mission will be done in times of great struggle and suffering, not great prosperity.

Interesting take, but I don't think history is in your corner on this. Why would anyone consider sending Men to Mars in a time of peril or struggle? It offers no benefit other than some spirtual or esoteric goals unrelated to anything remotely practical.

It's a nice dream, but it won't pay the morgage.

The colonization of the America's was one of economic development and expansion. There were vast quantities of raw material, many new to Old Europe, that could develop into a profitable industry. It was in many respects, a virtual land of 'gold'.

Mars, let alone space itself, hardly approaches the New World experience so many centuries ago. Yes, there are vast quantities of raw materials, many new to Earth, yet the economic cost to access those resources precludes the creation of any new industries or new opportunities for would be Frontiersmen.

Don't make the mistake of equating Space to The New World, it isn't the same paradigm.

The industrialization of space is not going to be a orderly and pleasant affair. This becomes apparent looking at the historical record of the colonization of america.

Space is not the New World. The constraitns are vastly different between the two environments. The geo-politcal environment is vastly different than historical precedent. The technology we are all dealing with is vastly different from previous experience. It just isn't the same.

During the colonization of america, france, briton and spain were all fighting each other for supremancy in europe, and the fighting polarized the poltical standings of everyone concerned.

Yet now many nations on Earth have the ability to develop the means to obliterate their 'eneimes'. Wet navies from histories past are not a proper anaology for today's military environment.

Today the establishment is not interested in advancing the economy; why risk losing their power over making somebody they don't know powerful?

Let me offer a different perspective, The Establishment (whatever or whoever that is supposed to be) is interested in advancing the economy. However, they see more promise, and more profit through the advancement of terrestrial economies, versus the ambigious and uncertain hope of profits from space.

Simple math says space manufacture, space mining (of any derivation), or anything remotely related to putting people in space, is a costly and dubious venture filled with a great deal of risk versus the actual profit margin that might be realized.

prometheusunbound · 2003-07-21 15:42:23

Yet now many nations on Earth have the ability to develop the means to obliterate their 'eneimes'. Wet navies from histories past are not a proper anaology for today's military environment.

I disagree. As horrific as nuclear weapons seem, I doubt they will kill more than 25% of the population. Consider that japanese cities in the 1940s were pretty shoddy structures to begin with, and they were packed with refugees from other devastated citys. Even the black death, even the holy wars (catholicism and protestants) and even WWI and even WWII failed in its attempts to earraidcate the nations. Russia lost 20-30% of its people, and it is still around. Germany lost the same % and it is a sucess economically. If we don't use history, the only thing we can rely on is each others good word which will make this conversation largly inrevelnt with no precedents. If memory serves right, europe lost 30% of its people in the holy wars when the battle weapons were primarly crossbow and swords. This failed to stop europe from advancing in history, and even nuclear war is just another cause of death.

Interesting take, but I don't think history is in your corner on this. Why would anyone consider sending Men to Mars in a time of peril or struggle? It offers no benefit other than some spirtual or esoteric goals unrelated to anything remotely practical.

The goal is to make their own branch of the establishment and to create personal power. I answered this here:

Of course, there were many powerful members of the establishment that did not stand with any of these nations, and simply chose to go in exile in the colonies of america, which were founded by exiles, for exiles and ruled, eventually by exiles.
Further, many establishment members came because of the potentail to generate power for themselves.

Once one has power, he must keep it or sustain it. Those who are deprived do a great deal to regain it in any form.

Next question:

Space is not the New World. The constraitns are vastly different between the two environments. The geo-politcal environment is vastly different than historical precedent. The technology we are all dealing with is vastly different from previous experience. It just isn't the same.

Why?

in any case, nothing is exactly the same in historical precedent. If it were, we would never make mistakes. Show me were it departs from historical precedent. (and don't use nuclear war, I already adressed that)

Let me offer a different perspective, The Establishment (whatever or whoever that is supposed to be) is interested in advancing the economy. However, they see more promise, and more profit through the advancement of terrestrial economies, versus the ambigious and uncertain hope of profits from space.
Simple math says space manufacture, space mining (of any derivation), or anything remotely related to putting people in space, is a costly and dubious venture filled with a great deal of risk versus the actual profit margin that might be realized.

The establishment doesn't care about money, it cares about power. The establishment (the upper class in control of things, consider them the government and their prime supporters for the sake of this arguement) wants to continue on in their positions and are not interested in offering something that could give a serroius oppoturnity to non-establishment to join their ranks.

Clark, I think you are forgeting that there is no gravity in space. that means heavy industry is going to be able to operate with a efficenty unparrelled in human history. Heavy industry is not difficult, nor is it extremly technology intensive. But the primary concern with it is the transportation, which is energy and infrastructure intensive. zero gravity goes a long way to solve those two primary problems.
Also, the asteroids are filled with prime ore that needs little preparation. A small measure of preparation will render these asteroids as a usable preposition. Remember, the biggest cost of the raw materials industry is extraction, then transportation of the material. Those problems are largly nonexsitant given the nature of the asteroids.
I just see poltical problems, not actual production problems. The remaining steel industrys will fight like hell to stop this, but once it happens the sky is the limit. (pun unintended) There is easy ore in reach and with some time, a small processing center the size of the ISS could be built. The next step would be to reproduce (the thing about man is that he can make tools) the center using asteroidal material untill breakeven capacity is reached, then to actually start shooting it down. the simplier, the better the plan.

It has some risk, but what endevour did not have? There are many people willing to take large risks, just ask a soldier or a seaman. It is certain enough "damn-fool idealists" will do it simply because there is no other option.

It's a nice dream, but it won't pay the mortgage.

desperate people do desperate things. If they have something to lose, they won't do it. If they have nothing to lose, they are more likly to do a risky endevour that has the possiblity of working.

The colonization of the America's was one of economic development and expansion. There were vast quantities of raw material, many new to Old Europe, that could develop into a profitable industry. It was in many respects, a virtual land of 'gold'.

How is space any different from that? There are unique oppoturnitys for heavy industry in zero gravity, and the conversion of raw material to something of worth is always the most profitable industy. it is just another of the many parrlells that can be drawn with the colonization.

Algol · 2003-07-21 17:47:23

The lack of gravity in orbit and beyond in itself produces processing problems which have yet to be properly addressed, let alone a whole host of other issues.

The new world represented a vast new open, and fertile/rich area, where current technology and practises could easily work. Us europeans had spent hundreds of years fighting each other over the best bits of land here, and there was a whole continent of fertile land and resources, a boat ride away with only some ill equiped natives to protect it.

They dont compare well really, except maybe in the spirit of the adventure a hundred yeard later. Columbus has been to orbit and the moon and back, the government found no great riches or oportunities and moved on.

prometheusunbound · 2003-07-21 17:55:18

The lack of gravity in orbit and beyond in itself produces processing problems which have yet to be properly addressed, let alone a whole host of other issues.

If gravity was needed, they could spin it like a centerfuge. These are exceedingly simple problems that can be solved with todays technology. The arguement I made centers on the unwilliness of the establishment to risk losing its own power.

The new world represented a vast new open, and fertile/rich area, where current technology and practises could easily work. Us europeans had spent hundreds of years fighting each other over the best bits of land here, and there was a whole continent of fertile land and resources, a boat ride away with only some ill equiped natives to protect it.

What is the difference, other than the exploitation primarly industrial?

At least no wars will be frought with the indains.

speaking of nuclear war, check nukes out for reasonably accurate information. Note that with the most powerful bomb, it is considered that 1/2 in the near-blast area would probably die. If the suburbs are taken into account than the possiblity of surving increases well beyond that as most people are living in the suburbs.

Algol · 2003-07-21 18:43:57

Using a centrifuge is an obvious and good basis for developing an idea, but the problems are far more complicated than that and cannot be solved in any off hand kind of manner.

Utilising off planet resources represents a big leap in technology, in every aspect involved from life support to the manufacuring involved. In the terms of the new world all they needed were ships; ships had been travelling longer distances than the trip across the atlantic for hundreds of years, and sturdy ships capable of the trip had been around for over a thousand.

Space will be indusrialised and colonised, but the potential benefits (financial or otherwise) arent as large, as needed or as obvious as they were in the case of the new world. If mars had a breathable atmosphere and fertile lands, then this would be a very dfferent matter.

prometheusunbound · 2003-07-22 06:17:27

Space will be indusrialised and colonised, but the potential benefits (financial or otherwise) arent as large, as needed or as obvious as they were in the case of the new world. If mars had a breathable atmosphere and fertile lands, then this would be a very dfferent matter.

This is true with mars itself. However, it does not apply to asteroid mining were the lack of gravity is a boon, not a drag on operations. Last I saw, the asteroids have better ores that are easier to mine than deposits on earth when it comes to transportation and extraction. And, as I said, transportation and extraction are the most absolute difficult part of raw materials fabrication. Nothing else remotely comes close to the difficultys faced here, and a lack of gravity makes it infinately easier.

clark · 2003-07-22 09:51:35

I disagree. As horrific as nuclear weapons seem, I doubt they will kill more than 25% of the population.

Okay, let's play with your estimate (I in no way believe this number to be even remotely accurate though) of 25%. Who would this '25%' be? Last I checked, most missles are locked onto military, civilian, and industrial centers. Cities.

In the event of any type of nuclear exchange, limited or otherwise, between two or more parties, you and I can say goodbye to the Industrilized world and all the benefits and opportunites they represent. It means that the manufacturing infrastructure, and the people to operate heavy industry are gone.

It means wide spread radioative fallout that is carried by the trade winds. Widespread radioactive illness will wipe out farmland, people, and fresh water sources.

Transportation systems come to a grinding halt as shipping, trucking, and rail systems are all destroyed directly, or by the after effects of a nuclear exchange. The Global ecomony will be effectively dead.

No one will consider going to the stars in a situation like this. Even if they wanted to, no one would be able to becuase the neccessary infrastructure is all gone. It will be a new "dark age" for mankind, or at least a regression of sorts as we all go back to rebuilding what once was.

If it were, we would never make mistakes. Show me were it departs from historical precedent.

People cannot live in space, work in space, or go to space, without a huge amount of advanced technology. Those who can go into space require a vast amount of specialization and training in order to be productive in space. The New World required somebody to be strong, and have some basic tools to recreate a known lifestyle. Space is a new experience, and we don't know how to live in it. Even if we did, people need more education and training to operate safely in that environment.

Space requires a high level of pre-exsisting man made infrastructure. The New World required you to get out of a boat, cut some trees, and build a log cabin. Space requires life support systems, bio-regenerative systems, radiation protection, greenhouses, emergency escape systems, etc.

The New World, if your house is burning, you run out and grab some water from the nearby stream- in space, you can't just 'run outside'. It's easier to live on the middle of the ocean, or in the middle of the Saraha, than space.

The establishment doesn't care about money, it cares about power.

Okay, and the current 'esthablishment' paradigm is to provide opportunity to as many people as possible to increase their power through elections. Space only provides opportunity to a limited number of people in comparison to other avenues of development.

Clark, I think you are forgeting that there is no gravity in space. that means heavy industry is going to be able to operate with a efficenty unparrelled in human history.

There is limited appeal to manufacturing in space becuase 'no-gravity' requires new methods of extraction and development to be developed first. There is also little understanding in matieral sciences as to the range of benefits zero g might provide to refinement of alloys. Where is the 'effeciency'? How is it derived? In what way is zero-g superior to Earth based refining?

Heavy industry is not difficult, nor is it extremly technology intensive.

I agree with your statement until you add, "in space". Space IS extremly technology intensive. In order to mine space, new methods have to be developed to work in the environment of space. New people, specialized and highly trained people, will be required to operate the machinery that works in space. You can't just hire a guy with a pick axe, you need trained engineers, computer whizes, telemetry trackers, etc.

But the primary concern with it is the transportation, which is energy and infrastructure intensive. zero gravity goes a long way to solve those two primary problems.

The cost to access space kills this argument. It is currently cost prohibitive to mine something in space, let alone try to bring it back to Earth. Then, if you are bringing stuff back to Earth, insurance costs (you need insurance in case you bring something down in the wrong palce and a giant rock levels a suburb) will effectively prevent any hope of profit.

Also, the asteroids are filled with prime ore that needs little preparation.

Other than extraction and refining, in zero-g, in a hostile environment that degrades machinery (radiation and temp extremes are very debilitating to machines). Also, I might mention that refining requires heat, and probably oxygen- if the asteroid dosen't have the O2, how are you going to refine the material to begin with?

The next step would be to reproduce (the thing about man is that he can make tools) the center using asteroidal material untill breakeven capacity is reached, then to actually start shooting it down.

Show me how you can do this all in less than ten years (the current expectation for investment cycles in mining). If you can't, which I don't think you can, you have no case.

It has some risk, but what endevour did not have?

Investment of capital and resources is not a gamble, it is a 'calculated' risk based on the outlay requirement with the expected profts. Right now, the risk and cost for developing space is just to much compared with the expected profits.

There are many people willing to take large risks, just ask a soldier or a seaman.

I agree, however, developing space requires that BILLIONS upon BILLIONS be risked. That is a HUGE amount of capital to risk. This isn't a situation where you or I can go do it ourselves if we roll up our sleeves.

If they have nothing to lose, they are more likly to do a risky endevour that has the possiblity of working.

Someone with billions, which is what is required, does have something to lose. Someone with nothing can't even consider doing this, so it's a dead end.

There are unique oppoturnitys for heavy industry in zero gravity, and the conversion of raw material to something of worth is always the most profitable industy.

What unique opportunities exsist for heavy industry in space that cannot be done for a fraction of the cost and risk on Earth?

The lowest grade ore is still cheaper to exploit, and more profitable, than a mountain of platinum, in space, a million miles away. Sorry, but just cause you say so ain't enough.

Algol · 2003-07-22 11:11:05

The only advantages of heavy industry in space is to serve a space based economy. The only benefit is that you can avoid the launch costs of materials by mining them whilst theyre up there. However you wont have a customer to sell to until lanch costs fall, so unfortuantely as soon as asteroid mining becomes viable it will most likely become less profitable.

I firmly believe that once the space based economy starts, it will explode, simply because once there is someone to sell products and services to then there will be money to be made, and business plans are no longer based on conjecture. Whoever makes the first steps, will bare the greatest risks, but have the most to gain.

That said, you cannot begin heavy industry in space with the so purpose of serving itself, this will make no money.

On the technology side of things, zero gravity can sertainly reduce the energy needed to perform certain tasks, namely transportation, but it makes the actual task itself far more complicated and expensive. How would you hold your cutting tool against the asteroid in zero-g? Whilst operating in orbit how would you prevent material (dust is lethal in orbit) from leaving the operation and damaging satelites and stations in orbit? How will you dispose of the excess material? etc etc

For every question you answer, there will always be a dozen more that your answer creates. Off-planet heavy industry is an exceptionally tricky enteprise which has not (yet) been satisfactorally investigated.

Bill White · 2003-07-22 12:49:04

I firmly believe that once the space based economy starts, it will explode, simply because once there is someone to sell products and services to then there will be money to be made, and business plans are no longer based on conjecture. Whoever makes the first steps, will bare the greatest risks, but have the most to gain.

We need some initial settlers who have a relatively inelastic demand curve - in other words, higher costs will not substantially reduce demand at the relevant segments of the demand curve. IF settlement is feasible THEN such folks are not otherwise motivated by money.

These "ice breakers" will cause the economic explosion Algol describes. I am more *awed* by the demographic explosion I predict will parallel these events. A trillion living humans by 2999?

Once initiated, this "explosion" cannot be controlled.

The one thing "control freaks" hate most are situations they cannot control. Beware the control freak who knows he/she is losing control.

Washington DC will not be the motive force for settling space - too many control freaks per square mile. Perhaps the highest density of genuine CF on the planet.

clark · 2003-07-22 13:11:57

We need some initial settlers who have a relatively inelastic demand curve

While we're at it, we could use some pigs that fly too.

Seriously though, why would anyone in their right mind want to settle Mars or space?

Why not the bottom of the ocean? Why not the middle of the Sahara? Why not some frozen ice-berg floating in the North Sea?

I can make up reasons. You can make up reasons. But the problem is that they are made-up reasons. Nothing real (I believe some of your thoughts are plausible though Bill, but that is a far cry from 'realisitic')

I am more *awed* by the demographic explosion I predict will parallel these events. A trillion living humans by 2999?

As am I, and given a population anywhere near that size, space becomes a requirement. However, that's an 'after the fact' kind of rationale. It's the cart, not the horse.

Serious population pressure on a global scale (perhaps fresh water problems in the future?) would provide the impetus we need for going to space. That's a clear cut answer. But the population pressure dosen't exsist yet. So where does that leave us?

The one thing "control freaks" hate most are situations they cannot control. Beware the control freak who knows he/she is losing control.

Ah, now I do enjoy a dose of irony!

A situation where everything must be controlled devolving into a situation where nothing can be controlled.

prometheusunbound · 2003-07-22 14:27:43

Seriously though, why would anyone in their right mind want to settle Mars or space?
Why not the bottom of the ocean? Why not the middle of the Sahara? Why not some frozen ice-berg floating in the North Sea?

Exactly. Those are all possible sites, but they don't offer the same oppoputurnity that settling space does.

for the record, I doubt a mars investment will be practical, but I rather think asteroid mining holds a lot of potentail that could be used to fuel the settlement of mars proper.

I can make up reasons. You can make up reasons. But the problem is that they are made-up reasons. Nothing real (I believe some of your thoughts are plausible though Bill, but that is a far cry from 'realisitic')

How is it not realistic?

Space requires a high level of pre-exsisting man made infrastructure. The New World required you to get out of a boat, cut some trees, and build a log cabin. Space requires life support systems, bio-regenerative systems, radiation protection, greenhouses, emergency escape systems, etc.

So what? I never said it would be a piece of cake. It is the making of this infrastructure that the actual profit will be, with the development of industry to provide for these people, then that same effort could focus on other things. build it and they will come is true when it comes to colonization. There are always plenty of exiles, and always plenty of damn-fool rich ones at that, too.

-nate , just another damn-fool idealist with improbable dreams. . . . . .

Visited by moderation 2022/01/28

clark · 2003-07-22 14:42:36

How is it not realistic?

My comment is related to some other discussions I have had with Bill regarding similar issues here.

What 'reason' is there to colonize space, that draws on a historical precedent Nate?

Space to live? We have plenty, globaly, we have more than enough room (it's regional over population that's the problem). I might add that the industrilized world, those most suited to access space are experiencing a negative population growth.

Religious Freedom? Go to any number of exsisting countries and ask for Asylum, people do that everday now.

Economic benefit? Dubious at best. The technology just isn't there yet to realize the neccessary economic profit.

To build a Utopia? Go buy an island or a cruise ship for a fraction of the cost of a Mars settlement and go build 'Utopia'.

You might as well call for opening up Anarctica for exploitation and colonization. It would be easier and cheaper.

It is the making of this infrastructure that the actual profit will be, with the development of industry to provide for these people, then that same effort could focus on other things.

It is the cost of building the neccessary infrastructure that prevents and precludes any possibility of colonizing space. It's a little bit of the 'chicken and the egg' scenerio- you need both, and each one has to come before the other.

build it and they will come is true when it comes to colonization.

Who will come? To do what? For whom? Brave lads and gals who want to be on the bleeding edge of Humanities reach? Why? To raise a family? Raise a family in a high radiation environment surrounded by vacum, where a failure in man generated power results in death.

Sound parenting for the 23rd century perhaps. :laugh:

dicktice · 2003-07-22 16:31:26

All right, youse guys ... To start with (right now, in other words): Columbus et al were willing to risk all to get somewhere, no matter what. Whatever happened to "because it's there" for gosh sakes? The X-project teams are betting their shirts, same as the first-across-the-Atlantic pilots in the 1920s ... just as soon as they could get away with it, no matter how unsafe, because success breeds sucess. (That's a nice turn of phrase, I may use it again....) With the ISS up there already (don't let it fail, for God's sake) the first step is relatively easy. If we would only keep the stuff we launch, in LEO, for later use, in ten years there'll be enough materials up there to build and fuel any number of specialized space vehicles. Then, ten years more, and we're on the way to establishing ourselves off-Earth--and the future of humanity will be assured for the forseeable future. Face it guys--forget economics of the Earth-bound--that's the real motive of this game!

prometheusunbound · 2003-07-22 16:34:02

What 'reason' is there to colonize space, that draws on a historical precedent Nate?

I am agrueing that it takes some pretty drasic and dismal times to provide the impetus to go into space. I do not pretend to know exactly what. Right now, I don't see a event drasic enough to force industrailization. I am offering a educated guess to what the impetus may be. In any case, it must be extreme enough to force establishment members to seek a release form the event, whatever it may be.

The script I am quoting here comes from Simon Schama's "A History of Britain, VII The Wars of the British, 1603-1776.

"In the years after Glencoe, both Scotlands (but especially the south) endured the misery of what became known as the 'ill years'. For several summers in a row the sun refused to appear. Torrential rain deluged the country and continued into the autumn, turning the stunted crops of barley and wheat into sodden slurry and making any kind of harvest impossible. Occasional years of respite suffered from the seed deficts of their predecessors. Cattle and sheep developed murrain and footrot. The first (and mercifully last) great famine in living memory dug its talons into Scotland. At least 5 per cent of Scotland's one and a quarter million population died of hunger. Patrick Walker, a pedlar in the Highlands, claimed to have seen women in ditress after all the meal had been sold, 'clapping their hands and tearing the clothes off their heads crying, "How shall we go home and see our children die in hunger?"' Sir Robert Sibbald, the first Professor of Medicine at the University of Edinburgh and author of Provision for the Poor in the Time of Death and Scarcity (1699) catalouged the wild herbs and grasses that might be digestable and recommended that cats be eaten if there were no other kinds of meat. The highways were full of destitute, disbanded soldiers, vagrants of all kinds. Plainly, it was a time to steal or starve.
In all this darkness, though, there were some Scots who believed they could see the light. It shone from a plan they were convinced woould raise Scotland virtually overnight from impotence and misery into a global power, rich beyond the dreams of any Glasgow counting-house. A New Caledonia was to be planted across the Atlantic athwart the trading routes of the world at the isthmus of Darien, just south of Panama. There amid the palms, fortunes would be made that would seed a Scottish prosperity the like of which had never been seen.
The scheme was not as lunatic as it might at first sound. The 'free port' was to be crested about 150 miles (240 km) away from where the Panama Canal now cuts between the Pacific and the Atlantic, with very much the same commerical logic behind it. Its most eloquent advocate, William Peterson, a Scot who had made money in the West Indies and had been a founder of the Bank of England, agrued persuasively that what was holding back the expansion of Asian-European trade was the ruinously lenghty and dangerous choice of journeys, around either the African Cape of Good Hope, or the South American Cape Horn. If the Company of Scotland could realize its dream, all this would change. Ships from China and Japan could sail east at New Edinburgh exchange cargoes with ships sailing west from Europe. With freight costs slashed, the goods thus shipped would become more cheaply availble in their respective domestic markets. Demand would soar correspondingly, and the volume of trade increase exponentially. And sitting on top of the worlds newest and most prosperous exchange and mart would the Scots, taking portage, marketing and banking charges off the top and waiting for the next great fleets to sail in from the Pacific and the Atlantic.
The Darien projectors were not, in fact, proposing anything more outlandish than the kinds of services that had been offered for centuries in Amsterdam. This may, indeed, have been the very reason why the circle of Dutch money men around William III felt so threatened by the scheme. But the project also struck at the reigning economic othodoxy of the time, which concieved of international trade as a zero-sum game, playing for the shares of a fixed amount of goods and gold. To maximize that share meant using the power of the state -- miltarily if necessary -- to lock up exculsive sources of colonial supply, and to enforce a monopoly of shipment and marketing for the home country's vessels and ports. Pepper, tea, or silk were to be carried only in the ships of offically licensed and chartered companies.
But Paterson's 'Company of Scotland Trading to Africa and the Indies' was something else again: a shameless commercial maverick disrupting orderly procedures of mercantilsim. Its first - its only - great project would be the creation of a tropical free zone, where sellers and buyers from who knows where could come together on the little neck of ocean to haggle and clinch deals at mutually agreed prices. No wonder everyone in London - other than Paterson's circles of Scots and well wishers like Daniel Defoe - wanted it to fail. Lobbying hard against it in the English Parliment, the Royal African Company predicted that if this unregulated monstrosity were allowed to establish itself, there would be a mass migration of England's merchants and seamen across the Tweed and 'our commerance will be utterly lost.' In one week the stock of the other pillar of English colonial trade, the East India Company, fell from 72 to 50 pence.
If the reaction in London to a Scottish American hypermart verged on the hysterical, the Scots themselves made no secret of the fact that they thought of the Darien venture as a break-out from the economic stranglehold of English power. "
script from pgs 330-333, Simon Schama's "A History of Britain" VII The Wars of the British.

Here is the edvidence that times will be dire during the industrialization of space. Times of prosperity tend to have the investors focus on easy, safe investments, where as in drastic times, drastic and dangerous investments occur.

As for the scots colony, it never got anywhere.

It was feasiable, people were absolutly willing to take the risk, but in the end, the problem was that the establishment of britain made it fail.

That is why I believe only members of the establishment that are in dire straits will commit the act of industrialization, to continue their own power.

I admit there is no dire straits right now, but you believe that china will be impetus enough to build a moon base.

We will just have to wait and see, the people in charge do not want threats, and only if the establishment splinters do I see a window to space industrization.

Who will come? To do what? For whom? Brave lads and gals who want to be on the bleeding edge of Humanities reach? Why? To raise a family? Raise a family in a high radiation environment surrounded by vacum, where a failure in man generated power results in death.

Only those interested, like exiles. Plenty of people died of malaria in the new world, but it did not stop many from coming. . . . . .don't forget many also had to fight wars with their neighboring colonies, too. The motive has to be very dire in order to convince people to get moving.

To build a Utopia? Go buy an island or a cruise ship for a fraction of the cost of a Mars settlement and go build 'Utopia'.

There is not a utopia that can be built, I am not advocating a utopia, and utopias are for fools. Space will bring most of the problems of man with him, and I will speculate not on which ones will follow.

Economic benefit? Dubious at best. The technology just isn't there yet to realize the neccessary economic profit.

Economic benefit is a side effect of the exiles work if they chose it to be so. Heavy industry can grow exponantly if it focuses on itself, and once it reaches breakeven point it can focus on trade with sources outside of itself. These people will leave because they are desperate, not to make money. They want a way out, then they can worry about profit.

You might as well call for opening up Anarctica for exploitation and colonization. It would be easier and cheaper.

They already have. Note that a lot of unregulated fishing goes on. Also note that there are bases of all sorts and a tourism industry.economy of the south pole

As for specifics on asteroid mining, go to Asteroid Mining

Let us cross the rubricron. . . . . . . . .and damn the poltics.

Hopelessly optimistic, Nate W.

clark · 2003-07-23 10:07:00

I am agrueing that it takes some pretty drasic and dismal times to provide the impetus to go into space.

Is that the only way you see us going into space? Isn't there another way that avoids the cycles?

Right now, I don't see a event drasic enough to force industrailization.

Becuase you are considering what is neccessary to force industrilization of space. It dosen't have to be forced.

. In any case, it must be extreme enough to force establishment members to seek a release form the event, whatever it may be.

What if we merely incorporate the desire for space exploration and exploitation into the establishment? You will probably be taking Civics next year, if you haven't already, I suggest you ask your teachers about Politcal Action Committe's (PAC's).

Thank you for the history lesson by the way, but it dosen't apply. The example you cite is one where people are looking outside their environment to another environment that offers more opportunity. Space does not offer more opportunity than Earth right now. It will be a long time before it ever will- of course advances in science andtechnology will help that day along, but launch costs and power costs in space effectively kill any economic opportunity one might try for in space.

Here is the edvidence that times will be dire during the industrialization of space.

It's not evidence, it's an anology, and it dosen't apply well.

I admit there is no dire straits right now, but you believe that china will be impetus enough to build a moon base.

No, *I* don't. The impetus for building a moon base comes from current US policy as conceived, and implemented by various adminstration officals since 2000. China is an exscuse, not a reason. This administration, and various other leaders (who have been saying this for years) have their eyes on further militarizing space, and then weaponizing it. A moon base, in my opinion, will be the next logical step to secure current US policy related to space.

The motive has to be very dire in order to convince people to get moving.

What would be so dire that people decide that leaving Earth is a better option than staying? An asteroid? We're better off developing the means to destroy such threats, not colonizing vacum. The sun burning out? Wake me in 2 billion years- that should leave me another billion or so to figure things out.

I'm sorry, but looking for a 'dire reason' to go to space is a dead end.

There is not a utopia that can be built, I am not advocating a utopia, and utopias are for fools. Space will bring most of the problems of man with him, and I will speculate not on which ones will follow.

Hehe. Careful, or I will convert you to my side. I fully agree that man will take his problems with him to space. It is exactly this reason that I think colonizing space is a bad idea.

Put on the imagination hat: imagine a space colony of 10,000 people and children. Now, how do you deal with unemployment? What happens if someone can't pay their electric bill? Space them? Send them to the asteroid mines? What if they refuse to work? Ship them back to Earth? What if they can't go back becuase they can't handle the gravity on Earth? Euthanize them? How do you handle a workers strike where you rely on them for production of water or power? How do you deal with the reality that one individual can destroy everyone else by simply disabling the power, computers, or air systems?

No need to answer them, just think about it. Space is nothing more than a prison.

Economic benefit is a side effect of the exiles work if they chose it to be so.

So people should invest billions so some others can go be exiles in a vacum? Silly.

These people will leave because they are desperate, not to make money. They want a way out, then they can worry about profit.

The prior historical precedent was to leave to the new country and become a 'farmer'. By and large, humanity has been, and in most parts of the world, still is, based on working the land to provide food for sustenance.

When people came to the new world, at the very least they could plant some crops, hunt some game, and build a shelter from trees. That's all they needed to survive.

Space, ain't the New World. We have to build a suitable environment where there is NONE. This isn't clearing a field with an ox. this is creation of everything we need to just freaking live. To be, as it were.

As such, anyone going to space needs to worry about 'profit' becuase that's the only way you can survive there (not to mention the only way you can get the neccessary capital and resources prior to going there in the first place).

You can't just 'buy a ride' and start a new life in a new world. There is no 'New World". There is NOTHING there. It is VACUM. It is DEATH.

If people don't make a profit, they cannot afford to trade for the things they need in order to live in an environment that cannot independantly support human life. In the New World, it didn't matter if you made a profit, just as long as you grew enough food to feed your family.

Now, in space, you have to worry about Air, water, power (electricity), food, bio-regenration, radiation, medicine, fuel, space suits, advanced alloys, advanced tools, special rare earth metals, computers, general living space.

Why do you have to worry about this? Becuase none of it is free! None of it exsisits on it's own. the Air in the new world was free. the Water, free. You didn't need to worry about 'power', you just needed wood for kindiling. You needed a set of basic tools, that could be repaired easily.

Space, you're computer breaks, and you're SOL.

prometheusunbound · 2003-07-23 11:33:35

Is that the only way you see us going into space? Isn't there another way that avoids the cycles?

Well, there is the profit motive, but you claim there isn't any. I did offer an alternate with the possiblity of poltical exiles (rich ones) going to the stars to esacape persectuation. Don't pretend that there isn't any persectuation.

The origianal question of the thread was what scienaros would initate space exploitation/exploration.

What would be so dire that people decide that leaving Earth is a better option than staying? An asteroid? We're better off developing the means to destroy such threats, not colonizing vacum. The sun burning out? Wake me in 2 billion years- that should leave me another billion or so to figure things out.

A change in the power structure equilivent to the french revolution, the russian revolution and the protestant/catholic holy wars in europe. It can happen, and if it happens a lot of people are going to want out. It is not unconcievable that a group of rich exiles will band together to get off the planet and damn anyone left behind. Poltics are stopping any real colonization, but poltics can spear head it too.

Don't kid yourself, nasty stuff can happen in Pax Americania.

advances in science andtechnology will help that day along, but launch costs and power costs in space effectively kill any economic opportunity one might try for in space.

Then the materials remain. Earth is devoid in materials and it takes considerable effort to extract them. If exiles do leave, they do have to make a living. So they will go to what industry needs, raw material. As for launch costs, there are ways to bring them down, as mass production brought the cost of cars down. First, you claim advancing technology makes it silly to go to space. Then you assume technology won't advance, and ensure launch costs will remain the same. That is not realistic.

Put on the imagination hat: imagine a space colony of 10,000 people and children. Now, how do you deal with unemployment? What happens if someone can't pay their electric bill? Space them? Send them to the asteroid mines? What if they refuse to work? Ship them back to Earth? What if they can't go back becuase they can't handle the gravity on Earth? Euthanize them? How do you handle a workers strike where you rely on them for production of water or power? How do you deal with the reality that one individual can destroy everyone else by simply disabling the power, computers, or air systems?

One person can open the seacocks on a ocean going ship, but that doesn't stop anyone from merchant shipping. One person (in the right place) can destroy the internet, but no one is going to advocate stopping the spread of the internet on that. It is akin to claiming one person could completly destroy the world in nuclear war. Nuclear war initiation is not reliant on a single person, despite what you have seen on TV. Besides, that is an overgeneralization. There will be a management of some sort, and the workers will be invaluble. They work together or they die, and they will know it. That should be enough to make them work together. Management can't do it without work, and work can't do it without managment.

No need to answer them, just think about it. Space is nothing more than a prison.

Then what is earth? A perfect eden? I doubt it. Each has its own advantages and disadvantages. The advantages of space will outweigh the advantage of earth when the community will make life unbearable.

It's not evidence, it's an anology, and it dosen't apply well.

Very well, it is a analogy, but it is also precedent, and it backs up my statement that times will be pretty nasty to force exiles to industrilize space. Yes, it is not edvidence, and I used a improper word.

Why do you have to worry about this? Becuase none of it is free! None of it exsisits on it's own. the Air in the new world was free. the Water, free. You didn't need to worry about 'power', you just needed wood for kindiling. You needed a set of basic tools, that could be repaired easily.
Space, you're computer breaks, and you're SOL.

Not really. The settlers had no control over the weather in the new world, crops were uncertain as the oil market is today. Too much grain and the price would go down, too little and everyone starves. The same agruement that I see here could be used to stop settlers from colonizing america on the grounds that nothing is certain when it comes to agriculture. But they did come to escape the poltical reality of europe. At least hydroponics are more reliable. . . . .and raw materials markets are more stable.

If your computer breaks in space, it can be fixed if there is time. It is not like it is impossible to fix, it is just a lot of people don't have mechanical appitude for that stuff. If you are a farmer in a drought, you are truely SOL as they can't fix a drought. More variables are controled in space than on the planet, and there is more control over the specifics of the enterprise.

You make colonization of the americas sound like a boy scout camp, it was not like that at all. Many failures occured before success, I suggest you read about the Jamestown colony's early years. Cannabilism occured there due to failed crops. It wasn't fun. People suffered and died to escape europe, with its "enlightened" rulers.

I fully agree that man will take his problems with him to space. It is exactly this reason that I think colonizing space is a bad idea.

What authority save God declares man "bad" and prohibits spreading the "diasese" of man elsewhere? Man is bad to himself and God only. God doesn't dicate that we can't do this, so why not? There is no one but ourselves to hurt up there. We can't hurt rocks, they don't think. It is time to rape the asteroid belt!

I do believe man does have total depravity (I am calvinist) but it shouldn't stop him from leaving.

When people came to the new world, at the very least they could plant some crops, hunt some game, and build a shelter from trees. That's all they needed to survive.

They needed good weather, the most they could do was plant and pray, and if it didn't rain, or rained too much they died. Of course, they also had the problem of constant warfare and malria.

What if we merely incorporate the desire for space exploration and exploitation into the establishment? You will probably be taking Civics next year, if you haven't already, I suggest you ask your teachers about Politcal Action Committe's (PAC's).

If a PAC is needed, then there is some forcing, if it rises out of the private realm. If a private business can't do it (space treatys, remember?) then PACs are necessary. But those with the law in their own hands will have a better time of it when it comes time to write law. The estabishment is not one solid block, it is made up of regional powerhouses. (remember the south, do you?) So there is always someone to oppose, and if PACs are necessary, it only demostrates the resitance present. PACs are made to overcome resistance or to compermise. Space industrilization is not a compermise, I do not see how a compermise could be made.

You can't just 'buy a ride' and start a new life in a new world. There is no 'New World". There is NOTHING there. It is VACUM. It is DEATH.

Then all the better, no one to offend when the asteroid belts are exploited. The asteroids are there. asteroids are made up of matter, which would highly suggest that it is something. If there really was nothing up there, then there would be nothing to die, so if something does die, then there is something up there to die.

Besides, death is a rather bit extreme when it comes to comparisions. It sounds like fearmongering.

And a personal word. . . .

Why not? If one was willing to take the risk, why stop him? If it does work, then it benefits everyone as a whole. There is no law that requires anyone to go into space. If the optimists fail, let em try and die. But the pessimists will never suceed if they don't try. :;):

clark · 2003-07-23 13:40:20

Well, there is the profit motive, but you claim there isn't any.

Do the math. There isn't any. You also need to take into account realisitic constraints of 'Return of Investment'. Any capital available for space development is also available to other opportunities- Space has to compete with more economicaly viable, and speedier investments. It can't compete, which is why people only talk about tourism at most for space.

I did offer an alternate with the possiblity of poltical exiles (rich ones) going to the stars to esacape persectuation. Don't pretend that there isn't any persectuation.

Rich politcal exiles going to the stars? One, if their rich, wouldn't they more than liekly be part of the 'establishment'? Two, if they are rich, couldn't they go somewhere else on the globe, some place friendly, rather than space?

Why would rich politcal exiles want to go to space?

The origianal question of the thread was what scienaros would initate space exploitation/exploration.

I understand. If you want a direct answer then, you're scenerios are wrong.

A change in the power structure equilivent to the french revolution, the russian revolution and the protestant/catholic holy wars in europe. It can happen, and if it happens a lot of people are going to want out. It is not unconcievable that a group of rich exiles will band together to get off the planet and damn anyone left behind.

Sure, it's conceivable, anything is. But it's damn bloody likely that it's not going to happen.

Poltics are stopping any real colonization, but poltics can spear head it too.

No, no, no! Politcs is not stopping real colonization, common sense is! You can't make money, there isn't a politcal situation (as you suggest is necessary) that requires such an endeavour, and the technology simply isn't there to make this doable on a scale neccessary for 'colonization' to happen.

Right now, today, this very minute, we, as a WORLD, struggle to keep TWO people in space.

Then the materials remain. Earth is devoid in materials and it takes considerable effort to extract them.

Wrong. Earth is filled with material. Key word is "ore-grade". Mining outfits mine high grade ore first becuase it is more profitable given the costs of extraction and refininement. as high grade ore is used up, lesser grade ore is then extracted- for less proft...until there is simply no more ore.

Thing is, there is plenty of ore, and technology only increases the efecceincy of extraction, and creates new opportunities to make low grade ore more profitable.

Take a Geology course at a community college and you'll see.

If exiles do leave, they do have to make a living. So they will go to what industry needs, raw material.

They need to do so at a competitive price with terrestrial sources, which can't be done with the current cost to access space.

As for launch costs, there are ways to bring them down, as mass production brought the cost of cars down.

Yes, economy of scale will lower costs, but it is a matter of approaching the proper economy of scale- which usually requires larger upfront capital expenditures- so now we need people with trillions. Wrong direction Nate.

. It is akin to claiming one person could completly destroy the world in nuclear war. Nuclear war initiation is not reliant on a single person, despite what you have seen on TV. Besides, that is an overgeneralization.

Why aren't individuals allowed to own nuclear weapons? Becuase that one individal could wipe out a lot of other individuals. One person in a space colony can wipe out everyone else in the same space colony. It is akin to everyone being armed with nuclear weapons. The tolerance for societal disenfranchisement is to low- which requires a greater need for sociatal constraints on individual liberty.

Then what is earth? A perfect eden? I doubt it. Each has its own advantages and disadvantages. The advantages of space will outweigh the advantage of earth when the community will make life unbearable.

What advantage does Sapce currently have over Earth?

Very well, it is a analogy, but it is also precedent, and it backs up my statement that times will be pretty nasty to force exiles to industrilize space.

The exiles of the new world were primarily poor, uneducated, unwanted, or condemned criminals. It dosen't apply to space, unless you imagine it filled with uneducated and unwanted people.

The same agruement that I see here could be used to stop settlers from colonizing america on the grounds that nothing is certain when it comes to agriculture.

No, it can't. The New world had a place for you to live, sans anything else but yourself.

Space needs a preexsisting infrastructure becuase there is NO PLACE THERE.

Could you live on the Ocean, in the middle of the Atlantic? Sure, with a boat, maybe. How long could you live on the Atlantic, on a boat? Well, probably 6 months, after that scurvey kills you.

Space is just like that, only worse, becuase you can't even fish, and you can't get by on free air.

You make colonization of the americas sound like a boy scout camp, it was not like that at all. Many failures occured before success, I suggest you read about the Jamestown colony's early years.

Nate, you're where I once was. You think any of this is new? These ideas have risen, and been slayed countless times.

We can't just dump people into space like we did with the New World. WHY? Becuase it costs so freaking much just to get something there that can be used by people. The people who go there better NOT die becuase of the amount of resources and time it takes to train them, and get them there.

Life was cheap then, becuase there was plenty of other people who could be a 'colonists'. Life is not cheap for an engineer, a doctor, or a scientist- they are valuable becuase of their skill set. They provide the economic engine, without them, there can be no hope of a future.

If a PAC is needed, then there is some forcing, if it rises out of the private realm.

It's how business gets done in Washington. It gives a voice to specific special interests to see that legislation, and elected officials here what we have to say.

A billion dollars in a PAC will get Men to Mars faster than if the money was invested in an actual rocket.

But of course, PAC's ain't sexy like a rocket.

The asteroids are there. asteroids are made up of matter, which would highly suggest that it is something. If there really was nothing up there, then there would be nothing to die, so if something does die, then there is something up there to die.

You're playing word games. There is nothing for humans, as in to live on, in, or above. It is a wasteland that cannot support life on it's own.

Why not? If one was willing to take the risk, why stop him?

Who is standing in your way?

If the optimists fail, let em try and die. But the pessimists will never suceed if they don't try.

And the realist's children will have the last laugh.

Bill White · 2003-07-25 08:04:48

Our doubts are traitors, and make us lose the
good we oft might win by fearing to attempt.
-- W. Shakespeare

No real point here, just a random quote from Shakespeare.

prometheusunbound · 2003-07-25 16:59:46

The exiles of the new world were primarily poor, uneducated, unwanted, or condemned criminals. It dosen't apply to space, unless you imagine it filled with uneducated and unwanted people.

They were unwanted rich exiles, not poor people. Sir Walter Raleigh founded the Roanake Island conoly in the middle of a brewing civil war in england. After the war, he left to check on it, but it had disappeared. When he returned from his check, he was thrown into the tower of london by order of the reigning monarch at the time. Doesn't sound like Raleigh was uneducated, his poetry is still published in books. Poltics was the primary factor for the Roanake Island conoly, and the failure to make it resulted in Raleighs death by beheading. Also, paterson, who I mentioned in the other precedent, knew Daneil Defoe, and Defoe had blessed the scottish enterprise. It would be an incredible strech to claim these people to be uneducated. I can make a list of smart and wealthy exiles that started cononlys, but I have no time for that.

Do the math. There isn't any. You also need to take into account realisitic constraints of 'Return of Investment'. Any capital available for space development is also available to other opportunities- Space has to compete with more economicaly viable, and speedier investments. It can't compete, which is why people only talk about tourism at most for space.

If someone is willing to make the infrastructure, the idea of using it for profit is not far behind. Businesses don't pay for the roads and the sewer, the government does. Initail cost of infrastructure is allways high, but it can last for a very long time. If a business is to make money, the people that want to make money have to plan on staying, for a long time. It is not a short term investment, but a long term investment. Tourism is impratical, despite all the interest in it. Only heavy industry remains, which makes sense since infrastructure needs heavy industry to make it. Once the infrastructure is done, it is logical to focus then only on heavy industry as it is easier to continue that than to go in an untried way. If business is to go there, the infrastructure must be pernement. If the infrastructure is pernement, then the business can think of it in those terms, hence heavy industry to fill the dual role of builder and business. There are people willing to go and create an infrastructure not for money, but for power, aka exiles. There are plenty of exiles that are rich or can raise tremendous amounts of money.

ex. quebec separtist groups, nationalist chinese, basque separtists, domestic anti-government groups, religous cults and desperate rich men.

Right now, today, this very minute, we, as a WORLD, struggle to keep TWO people in space.

nope. less than 1% of the world GDP is being used to support anyone in space. In the middle of a famine, scotland lost 25% of their liquid capital to fund the so called scottish hypermarket. People are willing to spend much more on exploration and exploitation than 1%.

Rich politcal exiles going to the stars? One, if their rich, wouldn't they more than liekly be part of the 'establishment'? Two, if they are rich, couldn't they go somewhere else on the globe, some place friendly, rather than space?

The world is a small place. There are still hiding places, but pressure can be put on governments. The world has government on every square inch of the globe. There is no place for the very, very rich if they are unwanted. Money has an impact on visablity, something that can be hidden from the common people, but not the government. Hypothecially, if china were to rachet up the tension with taiwan considerably, then taiwan really has nothing to do but wait. . . .or go to space and expand.

Wrong. Earth is filled with material. Key word is "ore-grade". Mining outfits mine high grade ore first becuase it is more profitable given the costs of extraction and refininement. as high grade ore is used up, lesser grade ore is then extracted- for less proft...until there is simply no more ore.
Thing is, there is plenty of ore, and technology only increases the efecceincy of extraction, and creates new opportunities to make low grade ore more profitable.

The heavy stuff sinks into the core, only minor deposits of the heavy materail remains. And it is not easy to get to. Asteroids don't need any extraction, they are giant piles of ore/gravel.

Yes, economy of scale will lower costs, but it is a matter of approaching the proper economy of scale- which usually requires larger upfront capital expenditures- so now we need people with trillions. Wrong direction Nate.

No real definative reasearch has been done in 30 years in the field of rocketery. A private venture could easily cut costs with application of modern techology to these rockets. It is not like oxygen and hydrogen is expensive, there is plenty of room to cut on production costs. Remember, the government buys and doesn't build them. there is an markup for the buyer not for those building it. A builder would have it in his interest to keep it cheap.

A change in the power structure equilivent to the french revolution, the russian revolution and the protestant/catholic holy wars in europe. It can happen, and if it happens a lot of people are going to want out. It is not unconcievable that a group of rich exiles will band together to get off the planet and damn anyone left behind.

Sure, it's conceivable, anything is. But it's damn bloody likely that it's not going to happen.

Have you been reading the newspaper? Russia is always tottering, china is in turmoil, europe is about to lynch the american president and North Korea has nukes while south korea wants the USA out.

The world is not a kind or forgiving place, even for those lucky to have power or money. Just look at Saddams sons.

What advantage does Sapce currently have over Earth?

It has no government, no infrastructure. And it is very hard to find anyone up there, if they chose to go.

And the realist's children will have the last laugh.

Sure.

clark · 2003-07-28 10:23:52

Good choice Bill, here are mine.

"Words without thoughts never to heaven go"
Hamlet, Act iii, Sc.3

"Wisely and slow; they stumble who run fast"
Rom & Jul, Act ii, Sc.3

"We, ignorant of ourselves, beg often our own harms, which the wise powers deny us for our good"
Ant & Cleo, Act ii, Sc.1

It is not in the stars to hold our destiny, but in ourselves.
--William Shakespeare

clark · 2003-07-28 11:48:14

If someone is willing to make the infrastructure, the idea of using it for profit is not far behind.

Okay, but why would abyone spend the time and resources to make the infrastructure when they could use that same time and resources for something else with less risk, and more profit?

. Businesses don't pay for the roads and the sewer, the government does.

And the government pays for that stuff with Joe Everyone's tax money. As of now, Joe Everyone would have to understand and agree that spending umpteen billions in space is worthwhile to them. How does building a space highway or whatever else in space help the average tax payer?

It is precisely this reason, the lack of an articulated argument, that makes sense to everyone, that we wither in LEO.

Once the infrastructure is done, it is logical to focus then only on heavy industry as it is easier to continue that than to go in an untried way.

Nate, I will gladly agree with your final assessment, however, you are getting ahead of yourself- you are asumming that the catalyst will occur. I am pointing out that what you need to start this whole party is unrealistic. How can it be made realisitic?

There are people willing to go and create an infrastructure not for money, but for power, aka exiles.

Name some then. Most people call them 'cranks', not exiles.

ex. quebec separtist groups, nationalist chinese, basque separtists, domestic anti-government groups, religous cults and desperate rich men.

Qubec seperatists, wanting to speak their own language, decide to go to space to achieve their goals? LOL!

Basque seperatists, tired of bombing, decide to use their explosize talents, and build rockets to go to space? Ridiculous!

Anti-government groups, sitting in space, high above the oppressive government, surrounded by their ordinance? Cute.

Religious cults? Maybe, afterall, some religious cults commit suicide depending on which comet is streaking by Earth. A bright future indeed for a trailbalzing space faring species!

Desperate rich men? Yeah, we see a lot of those, don't we.

Bah.

People are willing to spend much more on exploration and exploitation than 1%.

That would explain all the grass root efforts to pour more funds into space exploration and exploitation... oh wait, that isn't happening. Most people don't even know basic geography of THIS world, yet somehow they're really keen on exploring outside of our atmosphere...

Hypothecially, if china were to rachet up the tension with taiwan considerably, then taiwan really has nothing to do but wait. . . .or go to space and expand.

Let's see, Taiwan, threatened by China, decides to ignore the threat by developing space... that's a bit like building a new barn while the old one is still burning.

The heavy stuff sinks into the core, only minor deposits of the heavy materail remains.

Minor as in 'geologicaly' minor. In human terms, the ore on earth is VAST. We're also getting better at digging deeper.

No real definative reasearch has been done in 30 years in the field of rocketery. A private venture could easily cut costs with application of modern techology to these rockets.

You assume. If no 'real definitive research' has been done in the last 30 years in the field of rocketry, then 'modern te4chnology' can't be all that modern, now can it? What modern technology will solve all the problems? WHat is the magic cure? It dosen't exsist, and you assume soemhow it does.

Have you been reading the newspaper? Russia is always tottering, china is in turmoil, europe is about to lynch the american president and North Korea has nukes while south korea wants the USA out.

Newspaper? Yes, among other sources. I'm not going to really get into this with you, but your take on current events is not exactly accurate.

It has no government, no infrastructure. And it is very hard to find anyone up there, if they chose to go.

Hmmm, last I checked, NORAD and the NRO track everything in space. Something that can support people will inevitably be very very large, and very very shiny. You defintely cannot hide in space.

No government and no infrastructure are decidely points against people going into space- especially the wealthy (the wealthy are the ones who are most served by government and the rule of law, as well as infrastructure.)

prometheusunbound · 2003-08-08 14:12:55

Name some then. Most people call them 'cranks', not exiles.

Most are considered cranks when they do go into exile.

Let's see, Taiwan, threatened by China, decides to ignore the threat by developing space... that's a bit like building a new barn while the old one is still burning.

Taiwan is a little island with few raw materials that is being threatened by the largest (population wise) nation in the world. If they want to expand, they cannot do so without risking getting nuked. The two options they have is to go into diplomatic negotaitions and pray for peace or they could expand by developing space. Better two barns than one.

Nate, I will gladly agree with your final assessment, however, you are getting ahead of yourself- you are asumming that the catalyst will occur. I am pointing out that what you need to start this whole party is unrealistic. How can it be made realisitic?

People said rome would never fall, communist russua would last forever, germany for 1000 years. I am not saying when but I am offering possible scenarios how and why. Present reality is never constant, but history has quite an tendancy to repeat itself.

Qubec seperatists, wanting to speak their own language, decide to go to space to achieve their goals? LOL!
Basque seperatists, tired of bombing, decide to use their explosize talents, and build rockets to go to space? Ridiculous!
Anti-government groups, sitting in space, high above the oppressive government, surrounded by their ordinance? Cute.
Religious cults? Maybe, afterall, some religious cults commit suicide depending on which comet is streaking by Earth. A bright future indeed for a trailbalzing space faring species!
Desperate rich men? Yeah, we see a lot of those, don't we.

All the descriptions can be used to label historical groups that migrate. look a little closer at history and many will find the purtians were religious to the degree of culthood. On of the primary reasons china cut contact with the outlying colonys of her empire was the fear that they would not support their new government in power. All of them were made possible only by rich and desparate men.

You assume. If no 'real definitive research' has been done in the last 30 years in the field of rocketry, then 'modern te4chnology' can't be all that modern, now can it? What modern technology will solve all the problems? WHat is the magic cure? It dosen't exsist, and you assume soemhow it does.

It hardly needs to be said great advances in the fields of material sciences have been made since then. It is not as if there has been an impetus to make serroius advances as the space race was concluded. Without impetus there are no advances at all. A last ditch stand by a group facing anhillation is one hell of an impetus to make seroius advances.

Minor as in 'geologicaly' minor. In human terms, the ore on earth is VAST. We're also getting better at digging deeper.

Yes, that is true, but only to an degree. Many deposits are not mined at all simply because it is too diffucult to even bother with the extraction and transport.

And the government pays for that stuff with Joe Everyone's tax money. As of now, Joe Everyone would have to understand and agree that spending umpteen billions in space is worthwhile to them. How does building a space highway or whatever else in space help the average tax payer?

It might ensure their survival.

The nations of europe had to colonize the new world and beat their neighbors lest they be destroyed off the map. Destruction of an establishment is hell for anyone concerned. Just look at what happened to russia after her revolution, the kulaks, the peasant landowning class was anhillated in collectivation. Or the catholics of germany during the unification. My great great great grandfather was one of them who fled to the USA.

Most exiles then carve their own unique niche and gather power to unseat whoever upsurped them.

Hmmm, last I checked, NORAD and the NRO track everything in space. Something that can support people will inevitably be very very large, and very very shiny. You defintely cannot hide in space.

Sure. But last I checked, nuke missles can't catch anyone up there. Besides, stealth technolgy is cheap if you understand the principles. the F-117 was developed with a cost of 25 million dollars. compare that to most development costs, and it will be clear that stealth is easier than it looks and cheaper than what the government is admitting. The B-2 is really the largest pork barrel I have ever seen, just look at the gigantic list of sub-contractors.

Okay, but why would abyone spend the time and resources to make the infrastructure when they could use that same time and resources for something else with less risk, and more profit?

Only desperate exiles. Who else?

Fledi · 2003-09-14 12:15:10

Just read through all of the posts and liked to express my support for prometheus. It certainly is a good thing to finally see someone think the same way I do.
After looking at the history of spaceflight of the past 30 years I don't think governments can be trusted of truly supporting space colonization. It would be a much better idea to come together somewhere on THIS planet and build a self sustaining colony of space enthusiasts from which we could go on.
Even if it takes decades to come to a point where we could launch even the simplest of spacecraft it is certainly better than sitting around and doing nothing.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2023-08-16 19:18:38

There are scifi dystopia predictions some say 2040 NASA will have won or China will own most villages or city on Mars?

a crazy topic worth a bump?

NASA’s Building a Nuclear Rocket That Would Get Us to Mars in Just 6 Weeks
https://singularityhub.com/2023/08/07/n … t-6-weeks/

Space Billionaires Are Excited About Nuclear Rockets But Haven’t Built One Yet
https://observer.com/2023/08/nuclear-ro … llionaire/

Prometheus Project Reactor Module Final Report, For Naval Reactors Information
https://inis.iaea.org/search/search.asp … N:37107481

Others might point out an Italian Renaissance came after Unstablity or the US Guilder Ages big industry family, the use of Oil, Andrew Carnegie the enormous expansion of steel, Vanderbilt rail and shipping, post Reconstruction era, advances in Rail transportation in the United States and Economics. There is even a new tv show on the periods, before the Progressive Era and social activists.

The Astor family becoming “the landlords of New York.”

Byrd explores, to finance expeditions, Byrd had relationships with many wealthy individuals, including John D. Rockefeller Jr., and Vincent Astor, Mount Astor in Antarctica was named after Vincent Astor by the explorer Richard Evelyn Byrd.

Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2023-08-17 03:32:27)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2003-07-21 10:59:23

Re: Unstablity is a good thing - Mars mission more probable w/ unstabilty

#2 2003-07-21 12:44:23

Re: Unstablity is a good thing - Mars mission more probable w/ unstabilty

#3 2003-07-21 15:42:23

Re: Unstablity is a good thing - Mars mission more probable w/ unstabilty

#4 2003-07-21 17:47:23

Re: Unstablity is a good thing - Mars mission more probable w/ unstabilty

#5 2003-07-21 17:55:18

Re: Unstablity is a good thing - Mars mission more probable w/ unstabilty

#6 2003-07-21 18:43:57

Re: Unstablity is a good thing - Mars mission more probable w/ unstabilty

#7 2003-07-22 06:17:27

Re: Unstablity is a good thing - Mars mission more probable w/ unstabilty

#8 2003-07-22 09:51:35

Re: Unstablity is a good thing - Mars mission more probable w/ unstabilty

#9 2003-07-22 11:11:05

Re: Unstablity is a good thing - Mars mission more probable w/ unstabilty

#10 2003-07-22 12:49:04

Re: Unstablity is a good thing - Mars mission more probable w/ unstabilty

#11 2003-07-22 13:11:57

Re: Unstablity is a good thing - Mars mission more probable w/ unstabilty

#12 2003-07-22 14:27:43

Re: Unstablity is a good thing - Mars mission more probable w/ unstabilty

#13 2003-07-22 14:42:36

Re: Unstablity is a good thing - Mars mission more probable w/ unstabilty

#14 2003-07-22 16:31:26

Re: Unstablity is a good thing - Mars mission more probable w/ unstabilty

#15 2003-07-22 16:34:02

Re: Unstablity is a good thing - Mars mission more probable w/ unstabilty

#16 2003-07-23 10:07:00

Re: Unstablity is a good thing - Mars mission more probable w/ unstabilty

#17 2003-07-23 11:33:35

Re: Unstablity is a good thing - Mars mission more probable w/ unstabilty

#18 2003-07-23 13:40:20

Re: Unstablity is a good thing - Mars mission more probable w/ unstabilty

#19 2003-07-25 08:04:48

Re: Unstablity is a good thing - Mars mission more probable w/ unstabilty

#20 2003-07-25 16:59:46

Re: Unstablity is a good thing - Mars mission more probable w/ unstabilty

#21 2003-07-28 10:23:52

Re: Unstablity is a good thing - Mars mission more probable w/ unstabilty

#22 2003-07-28 11:48:14

Re: Unstablity is a good thing - Mars mission more probable w/ unstabilty

#23 2003-08-08 14:12:55

Re: Unstablity is a good thing - Mars mission more probable w/ unstabilty

#24 2003-09-14 12:15:10

Re: Unstablity is a good thing - Mars mission more probable w/ unstabilty

#25 2023-08-16 19:18:38

Re: Unstablity is a good thing - Mars mission more probable w/ unstabilty

Board footer