PDA

View Full Version : A Space-Based Economy vs Socialism



El Queso
07-25-09, 22:12
Or instead of socialism, even the status quo.

This is a subject I have brought up at dinners and get togethers a few times, and the most common reaction is to think of it as science fiction, the stuff of dreamers for hundreds of years in the future, or just plain silly and unworkable.

I'll present a couple of links to set up the subject matter and if you don't want to read all the way through due to lack of interest or what-have-you, cool. But it's germaine to back up some of the arguments I am presenting.

First, a link about a news article on the recent awereness of an impact on Jupiter from a large object in space, as well as how Jupiter is as dangerous to us as it is a protector:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/26/weekinreview/26overbye.html

Second, a link to some general comments about asteroids and space colonization.

http://www.nss.org/settlement/asteroids/key.html

One key quote from the second link:

"Professor John Lewis has pointed out (in Mining the Sky [there's a link in the article I linked to]) that the resources of the solar system (the most accessible of which being those in the NEAs) can permanently support in first-world comfort some quadrillion people."

I say that instead of our government throwing trillions of dollars that we don't have into bail-out money for financial institutions, become stockholders in private-sector companies, ensure that government employees have jobs, get into the healthcare business, et al, it should rethink the target of that money to developing a Low Earth Orbit (LEO) access system.

There are two major things that creating such a system will do: Allow us access to an incredible amount of easily-accessed wealth in minerals, gases and zero gravity (excellent for manufacturing many, many things) and allow us (the human race) to defend ourselves from the millions of very large objects orbiting the Sun with us and coming from outside the solar system, any one of which that if it were to hit the Earth would cause an extinction event equal to or worse than what wiped out the dinosuars 65 million years ago.

To me, either one of those ideas is worth spending the money on much more than what it is currently being spent on. If Obama were to propose something like this, he may be laughed at; but if he could pull it off, he would be remembered for probably thousands of years as the visionary that saved the human race from its confinement on an isolated ball of mud, fighting amongst all of the different inmates.

Immediate benefits would be a quick rise in the general edutaion level of our country as people began to train more for high tech jobs which are suddenly in demand. This is something many times the size of the everything done so far to orbit the Earth or go to the Moon, or build a space station put together. Jobs would be created from menial workers through clerks, secretaries, doctors, lawyers, engineers, computer scientists, technical tradesmen, astronomers, rocket scientists, you name it. That's just direct relationships. It would spread through the economy to lower sector industries as well.

But don't let the government do the work. The government will fund it, but let private industry do the planning and the work. Get the government to provide a framework within which space access should operate. New laws to make it easier to get into space to begin with, get NASA out of active roles in space exploration and let them act as a liason to private industry and as an advisor and overseer, but with limited powers to interfere. Work out how property rights in space should work. Start working with the world leaders to get real about things like owning property on the Moon, which right now is regarded as international property like Antarctica. How is the access going to be shared to make it fair for all, and at the same time the powers that put in the investment get a return.

Get other countries to pitch in some of their bailout monies and share in the wealth and planning. Once other countries saw we were serious about it, they would jump to be included somehow if they were smart, because whoever goes to space gets rich.

Damn people - what else is there to lead in? We need a new frontier. The human race is stagnating because there's not much more to do here, really, except the same old game that's been played for the last five hundred years or so, since the colonization of the New World.

The United States of America rose out of that colonization. It ended up leading large parts of the world into the 21st century, through a lot of crap that overall, I think, made the world a better place.

Why not lead the world into space? Why sit here fighting over the same scraps, figuring out how to share the limited wealth that exists on our planet, with so many poor people barely living while normal people live in luxury that a king of five hundred years ago never even approached in many regards.

As far as extinction events go: the dinosaurs, or whatever other creature that may have been running around some 65 million years ago, did not evolve high enough to prevent their own extinction, thereby cancelling their evolution. In fact, there is a long cycle of such extinction events in the history of our planet.

One of the extinction cycles is actually 65 million years and has happened many times over the life of Earth. Which means that we are due for one sometime soon on the cosmic scale, but that could come any time. The object that hit Jupiter is unknown. No one has ever seen it, but there are literally millions of objects that we HAVE catalogued; and yet we didn't see something that was large enough to make a Pacific Ocean-sized hole in Jupiter's atmosphere.

What hit Jupiter would have made the current popular concern about global warming a moot point. The most likely result of such an impact would be the death of all life on Earth above the microbe level, turning the planet into an iceball for thousands of years until it thawed out again.

Nothing has evolved the ability to protect its home planet in our solar system, until now. We can spend money on stupid things, or we can grow up and figure out how to make every person who desire it to be rich and also get some of our eggs out of the same basket.

Do I think it likely that anyone would ever do something so smart, as far as breaking with tradition and leverage our ability to borrow money into real wealth instead of continuing to do the same ineffectual stuff? Hell no. But space colonization will happen at some point, even though it could be decades before we get started. If we COULD get started now, we would bring ourselves and the world out of a depression where everyone is suffereing, into a new world.

Wally Foot
07-25-09, 23:53
Interesting stuff, EQ, but do we really want to be surrounded by a quadrillion people?

Maybe the last line of Eric Idle's song is the most pertinent thing to say:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWVshkVF0SY&feature=fvst

El Queso
07-26-09, 00:02
Interesting stuff, EQ, but do we really want to be surrounded by a quadrillion people?

Maybe the last line of Eric Idle's song is the most pertinent thing to say:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWVshkVF0SY&feature=fvstTrue, surrounded by a quadrillion people may not be a great thing. However, that's just an example of how much wealth there is available, not that we would reach that any time soon within our solar system (not on the Earth. But is it that much better than being surrounded by 20 billion people in 15-20 years stuck on Earth the way things are?

I think a lot of the poor people on the planet are feeling pretty insignficant right now:)

Hubbster
08-20-09, 19:57
I agree but DC and NASA have given up.

China is now the future of manned space travel and exploration:(

They have announced plans to do a manned journey to the Moon and start a lunar base.

The Chinese are starving for resources and energy and are going to the Moon for the Helium 3 which they plan on selling on Earth at $1M per kilo and use the rest in fusion reactors.

Trebek
09-21-09, 12:40
I don't know what they really produce but it's like. Not bad. Under Obama the federal agencies need all the funding they can get.

El Queso
09-22-09, 23:47
We've shot the wad on a bunch of expensive government-funded projects and bail-outs and what's left will end up being promised to a healthcare system that will not get any better in my opinion.

Helium 3, for those who don't know, could be used in a fusion reactor if they could ever get one developed.

There are a number of ways that scientists are thinking about doing fusion, but they have wasted decades on Tokamak reactor research, which for a long time (since the 50s) has been the "accepted way" to do fusion, "if we could only figure out how", and the government unfortunately spent its money on what some key physicists have considered for awhile now to be a waste of time. Problem is, in the world of grants, it is a bureaucratic nightmare to change the opinion of the money.

There are now some proposed engines, including one funded for awhile by the US Navy, that have actually produced more than they consumed for a record period of time.

Fusion would produce almost clean (very lightly radioactive at worst, easily contained) waste. It could be done relatively compactly. It generates a high ratio of power to fuel consumed.

The biggest problem is refining the fuel and building the containment systems themselves. I won't go into that here - fusion is complex to us right now.

But if you can bring the cost of the fuel down, that would help make fusion very competitive to begin with.

Best way to get it this minute would be to refine it from ocean water, where it exists in great quantities, but is highly diluted and requires a lot of processing. The ratio of power to fuel would make it economical to do so, but still expensive.

It is thought that the top of the lunar soil, the regolith that covers the moon, has much easier access to much higher concentrations of He3. Of course, easy to access assumes at least a rudimentary space access system that doesn't cost hundreds of dollars a pound to send stuff into orbit and requires a lot of shipments to keep workers supplied.

He3 could be packed into containers on the moon, shot off the surface from a long rail gun, into orbit around the Earth, where the cannisters could be prepared for re-entry, then picked up in the ocean by freighters who would bring them to port.

So relatively little environmental impact all around.

By the way, other things exist in relative abundance on the moon, including ice in crater shadows, aluminum, gold, iron, etc. Those same things could be separated out while mining for the regolith and shipped to Earth orbit to be used by the workers (the water will provide water, and broken apart oxygen and hydrogen for breathing and fuel) and used to create habitats and also commercial products for shipment to Earth.

If we had foresighted leaders (more than a president or one or two congressmen) we would be looking at ways to make our mark on the future of the human race instead of hunkering down in our own little part of the world. We could have all of the above if we concentrated on it, probably within 20 years.

Which would give us more than enough time to figure out fusion reaction, to be fueled with the new space-based economy. In a few decades, we'd all (ALL of us!) be looking back on this current crisis and wondering what the fuck we were so worried about!

But we'll very likely never see something like this in many of our lifetimes, because politicians can't see the forest for the trees and really think ahead.

The Chinese, if they do what they are saying, and others who end up joining them, WILL leading the world in the next few centuries at least.

Shouldn't we be there?

Gato Hunter
09-23-09, 00:27
The US will be surpassed by others within 10 years if our space spending keeps up at its present pace. Mars is out of reach without much more funding. Google the Augustine commission for a report.

I work in the spaceflight industry as an engineer. Launch technology is not cheap. The risk is very high for the investment. One part to one rocket engine can cost several million and have a year or more lead time just because there is not an industry to support making these kind of things that are highly complex. Its all dead or we sold the machines to china. There are not too many large vacuum forges left to make high quality forgings from, get in line and be ready to pay.

The best hope the US has at this point is private industry like SpaceX, or Bigelow. Both of witch have huge technical and funding hurdles to get over. Bigleow has an inflatable structure in orbit put there by the Russians, and spacex has had some success also recently and a nasa contract.

I won't even talk about Rutan and his airplane. Its a suicide machine. I have friends that work there and they have big problems. Those first two flights especially the second almost killed the pilot. Besides thats only 60-70 miles up.

Mining H3 is so far off its silly to even talk about it. First we have to get back to the moon, and learn how to live for a long time without the protection of the Van Allen belts. Not getting your DNA mutated or blown away from cosmic radiation is a good thing.

Why are we talking about this on a monger board anyways? Sex in space could be interesting. In zero gravity your spooge would become an airborne mist, some drops bigger than others. You would be breathing your jizz unless is a bbbjcim!

Cheers

El Queso
09-24-09, 02:47
Launch technology is not cheap. The risk is very high for the investment. One part to one rocket engine can cost several million and have a year or more lead time just because there is not an industry to support making these kind of things that are highly complex. Its all dead or we sold the machines to china. There are not too many large vacuum forges left to make high quality forgings from, get in line and be ready to pay.It doesn't have to be that way. It's a prime example why NASA and the government will not lead us into space.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_DC-X

Read about the Delta Clipper program (Gato Hunter, I'm sure you know about this) and see how NASA took it over from McDonnel Douglas after the SDIO program was cancelled and fucked it up.

As far as the savings that the Delta Clipper, once developed, could provide to space flight:

http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.space.policy/2009-03/msg00064.html

Also, as far as Delta Clipper based technology:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Origin_New_Shepard

Supposedly Blue Origin, a company owned by Amazon.com founder and billionaire Jeff Bezos is working fairly secretly on developing a VTOL ship. He has pretty much repeated much of what was done on the DC-X stuff (except for time and altitude maybe). There is not much news at all lately about what's supposed to happen, but his plan was to have commercial subortibal flights going by sometime in 2010.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Origin_New_Shepard

http://www.blueorigin.com/

I don't know how current the plans are, but if something happened to slow things down, at least there are people working outside of NASA on cheap access to space.

As far as radiation goes, a trip to Mars of 6 months, 18 month stay, and a return of 6 months, would give astronauts about 1 sievert in combined solar and cosmic ray particle exposure, according to data obtained by NASA's Mars Odyssey orbiter. NASA's exposure limits are set to between 1 and 3 sieverts depending on age and other factors. Even a trip to Mars is not out of the question at our current elvel of understanding.

Over twelve months in space, the estimated exposure in deep space is.6 sieverts. Of course, this does not take into account big solar flares, which admittedly is a bigger problem.

But when we start out, most of the actual work and staging can still be done in LEO as far as free fall work goes. Limited trips between the Earth and the Moon of days would not be much of a problem. A Moon base to start out with can be buried under regolith to provide shielding. A lot of work will be done via remote control or even automated robots.

Mars shouldn't even be thought about until we build some kind of support and commercial infrastructure first, with the ability to supply and manufacture in space.

Ships and habitats that will eventually spend more time outside of Earth's magnetic field can be shielded with water and magnetic fields. But that can come later.

It can be done, but not through NASA as the main player.

As far as why talk about this on a monger's board? Well, not everything revolves around pussy and a little mind-expanding talk doesn't hurt :) And you're right GH, imgaine mongering in free fall!