Losers from Obama's proposed 2011 budget

On Feb 4, 11:11 am, "Graystar" wrote:
South Africa is not stable and is the 1st likely to be a problem in a global
conflict.

Please cite a source for this. My understanding was that violence in
South Africa has decreased, not increased, since the abolition of
apartheid.

China is likely to be the cause of the next global conflict. They are
gearing up now.

Or they could be looking for global-but-economic supremacy, or
political-but-regional supremacy, or a second Cold War through proxy
nations. Or -- unlikely as it may seem to you -- they might just be
trying to join the First World after languishing in a Maoist economy
for decades. At any rate, they are currently both willing and able to
supply the world with titanium at market prices, which is more than
can be said for the Moon.

The cap on the ambition of their rulers is not going to hold unless their
stranglehold on the markets is circumvented.
That can only be done by removing them as the primary resource pool.

The Chinese economy is not going to be seriously affected by Lunar
mining operations: they have so many other customers, and so many
other markets to sell in, that they would be unfazed by the loss of
American titanium sales. As for averting World War III, diplomacy,
widened economic sanctions, or really anything at all would be a
better solution than rushing off to colonize the Moon.

Australia is stable and is likely to be stable for a while unless... the
China cap pops off.

Or unless the Earth is struck by a comet, or unless the Rapture
occurs, or unless aliens invade, or unless the LHC destroys the
world... There are an infinite number of unlikely apocalypses, and in
every one of them, the availability of titanium becomes rather a moot
point.

You have to think longer term than your view IMO. It would ease tensions if
we had a source no one else can touch,
but would allow us to sell some on the world market.

I'm not sure that it would. Sadly, most of the world's problems are
totally unrelated to metal reserves. Would more aluminum have
abolished apartheid any faster? Would China commit fewer human rights
violations, or concern itself less with Taiwan, if it had greater
stockpiles of manganese?

You can bet there are
activist in all those countries, Earth Firsters etc...
and that is arising as a problem and will only grow causing needless
conflict and may lead to worse problems.

If I may be frank with you, I think you seriously misunderstand the
both the objectives, and the capabilities, of conservationist groups.

Antarctica mining: that is Earth based. It affects the Earth and is
accessible by Activists and other geopolitical entities.
The moon is not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_Treaty

These two treaties offer more than enough ammunition for anybody who
wants to protest commercial or industrial use of the Moon.

You don't have to strip mine the moon to get what we want.

Yes, we do. That's what "processing the Lunar regolith" means:
scooping up tons of surface material (thousands or millions of tons,
in most discussions of the subject), melting it down to retrieve the
desired elements, and discarding the slag in huge heaps.

It's not a single element program, nor is it a single purpose program.
That's what the first lab habitat is for and there are multiple phases to
any project.

Add as many phases as you like. You still have to sell 1 unit of
titanium as if it were half-a-million units. Billy Mays himself
couldn't pull that off.

No one is talking about using old transport technology to make the cargo
runs.

But it provides a baseline for speculation. We know we have to make
Lunar shipping half-a-million times more profitable, somehow, if we
want to break even...never mind turn a profit. Are there any
technologies, new or old, that could realistically do this? (Note
that if your plan relies on "handwavium" -- antigravity, cold fusion,
unicorn blood -- it cannot be considered "realistic".)

Then give us the lecture. Really, I want to see an old-fashioned Moon
base as much as the next guy. But I haven't yet seen the case made,
that doing so would be *economically* expedient.

***
Love to. Not possible at this time thanks to our imperious leader.

Who is this, and how is he or she stopping you from typing words on a
keyboard?

Financial seaworthiness is more of a concern to me right now than educating
those who
1) want all the answers for free 2) think that

In case you haven't noticed, "financial seaworthiness" is a concern
for me too. I'm the one quoting titanium prices, etc. You're the one
claiming this scheme will pay for itself without crunching the
numbers. BTW, if you can't be bothered to explain why people should
do something, don't expect it to get done.

Actually Ti is the nineth most abundant.

I stand corrected. My apologies. Of course, it's still an extremely
common element.

You should know that the form of the ore matters. Our Earth Ti is found in
rutile, ilmenite, magnetite and iron in combination, not by itself.

Nor is it found by itself on the Moon: we would still have to refine
the ores somehow. In addition, magnetite contains no titanium; it's
Fe3O4. And iron, of course, contains no titanium at all. Perhaps
there was a typo in that last sentence?

As to the "Chunk of change" I have already pointed out that Ti alone is not
the only metal we would gain.

No, but it is the most profitable, as I have already pointed out.

CO2 produced from the process could be used for the bio lab, and for feeding
the atmospheric portion of the habitat.

In other words, it will not be shipped off the Moon to pay for the
colony. (Though there's no significant demand for CO2 in the first
place, so that's just as well.)

Since there will be an effort to harvest volatiles, like He3, then there
will also be harvesting of other gasses.

You assume there will be an effort to harvest helium-3. Again,
without helium-3 reactors back home to use it, there's not much hope
for that. And the other gases on the Moon aren't worth much: trace
amounts of helium-4 and hydrogen, some sodium and potassium, lots of
oxygen. Not exactly rare, precious materials.

That claim was not made by me.

You said: "It is processed in a place that allows for complete
processing of the ore, unlike Earth". How am I supposed to read that
sentence, except as "the Earth does not allow for complete processing
of titanium ore"? Which is obvious nonsense, because we do in fact
have titanium, and we're not getting it somewhere other than Earth,
so...

That is a very narrow view. No one is going to the moon for 1 thing.

Except you started this conversation by claiming that "Mineral ore
Resources laying on the surface = money". If it turns out we can't
actually make any money from those resources, we have to cross that
off our list of reasons to go to the Moon.

What we both understand is that if current prices will always be the same,
most Earth mining will eventually lead to increased scarcity of these
resources to the average citizen.

Once again, all the metals available on the Moon are are abundant
right here on Earth, and will continue to be far into the future.
We're not talking about gallium and tantalum; we're not even talking
about copper and zinc, for pity's sake. Nobody, but *nobody*,
predicts a "titanium peak"...not in the next century, not in the next
thousand years. (After all, it's the ninth most abundant element on
Earth, right?)

....You will have noticed that I did not address your concerns about
whether CO2 is a pollutant, the failure of American education, etc.
I'm sure these would be rewarding topics for another conversation, but
I've had to skip over them in favor of discussing the main topic of
this one: would a Moon colony be profitable? If not, your faith in
the private sector is sadly misplaced. McDonnell Douglas, Lockheed
Martin, Virgin Galactic, Space Adventures...these are corporations
with stockholders, not charities run for the good of humanity.

"Damien Valentine" wrote in message
On Feb 4, 11:11 am, "Graystar" wrote:
South Africa is not stable and is the 1st likely to be a problem in a
global
conflict.

Please cite a source for this. My understanding was that violence in
South Africa has decreased, not increased, since the abolition of
apartheid.

No.

China is likely to be the cause of the next global conflict. They are
gearing up now.

Or they could be looking for global-but-economic supremacy, or
political-but-regional supremacy, or a second Cold War through proxy
nations. Or -- unlikely as it may seem to you -- they might just be
trying to join the First World after languishing in a Maoist economy
for decades. At any rate, they are currently both willing and able to
supply the world with titanium at market prices, which is more than
can be said for the Moon.

I am not the issue here and you are simply being argumentative.

The cap on the ambition of their rulers is not going to hold unless their
stranglehold on the markets is circumvented.
That can only be done by removing them as the primary resource pool.

The Chinese economy is not going to be seriously affected by Lunar
mining operations: they have so many other customers, and so many
other markets to sell in, that they would be unfazed by the loss of
American titanium sales. As for averting World War III, diplomacy,
widened economic sanctions, or really anything at all would be a
better solution than rushing off to colonize the Moon.

The Chinese economy is not the real issue.
I could say "in contrast to what you believe" and be a jerk about it,
but that is not the point. My counterpoint in response to YOUR take about
WWIII is:
Going to the moon will not cause WWIII. If YOU believe that then YOU cite
your sources.
Sounds like a geopolitical WAG about consequences you or I know next to
nothing about.
I'm not going to bother with something so speculative and unlikely.
No one said we had to Hog all the ore we get to ourselves. That is not
among the reasons to do the deed.

Australia is stable and is likely to be stable for a while unless... the
China cap pops off.

Or unless the Earth is struck by a comet, or unless the Rapture
occurs, or unless aliens invade, or unless the LHC destroys the
world... There are an infinite number of unlikely apocalypses, and in
every one of them, the availability of titanium becomes rather a moot
point.

You don't have to worry about resources if the apocalypses occur, you are
going beyond reason with your argument.
It is very similar to the argument about people owning Nukes. No useful
information can be derived from going down that road.
Tough times with geopolitics, yeah... but End of the World doom scenarios?
No.

You have to think longer term than your view IMO. It would ease tensions
if
we had a source no one else can touch,
but would allow us to sell some on the world market.

I'm not sure that it would. Sadly, most of the world's problems are
totally unrelated to metal reserves. Would more aluminum have
abolished apartheid any faster? Would China commit fewer human rights
violations, or concern itself less with Taiwan, if it had greater
stockpiles of manganese?

Non-sequitor. Your analogies are not coordinated.

You can bet there are
activist in all those countries, Earth Firsters etc...
and that is arising as a problem and will only grow causing needless
conflict and may lead to worse problems.

If I may be frank with you, I think you seriously misunderstand the
both the objectives, and the capabilities, of conservationist groups.

No... I don't.
The followers are one thing.
The leaders & the "faithful" are quite another.
Many are already listed as Terrorist groups.
As you did not know this, I can only conclude that you are not paying
attention.

Antarctica mining: that is Earth based. It affects the Earth and is
accessible by Activists and other geopolitical entities.
The moon is not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_Treaty

These two treaties offer more than enough ammunition for anybody who
wants to protest commercial or industrial use of the Moon.

No. It's not. Few if any are going to bother. What they cannot see they
can't get too excited about and it is not in their back yard.

You don't have to strip mine the moon to get what we want.

Yes, we do. That's what "processing the Lunar regolith" means:
scooping up tons of surface material (thousands or millions of tons,
in most discussions of the subject), melting it down to retrieve the
desired elements, and discarding the slag in huge heaps.

Horsehockey. That is the Old world stereotype mindset. You haven't studied
your geology and mining methods.
I would not be surprised if you suggested Child-miners next.

Thanks for clearing up where your POV is coming from.

It's not a single element program, nor is it a single purpose program.
That's what the first lab habitat is for and there are multiple phases to
any project.

Add as many phases as you like. You still have to sell 1 unit of
titanium as if it were half-a-million units. Billy Mays himself
couldn't pull that off.

Again with the one-shot POV. Are you so tunnel visioned in all your
projects or
is it that you can only argue tunnel vision points of view?
Likely Billy Mays would have flipped you off for being so narrow scoped in
your views.

No one is talking about using old transport technology to make the cargo
runs.

But it provides a baseline for speculation.

Just a baseline... but Not much of one. Concurrent development must be
considered.
Based on what you have said, I would say your vision of mining the moon
would be like they
stereotyped in the movie AVATAR.
Stupid. Ignorant. Stereotypical Lefty caracatures of "da Wight Wing". Mr.
Duck.
Oh yeah, and primitive cultures are ALWAYS better than developed
civilizations. Uh, No.
But people sure can make pretty pictures that tell lies politically can't
they?

Anyone who saw AVATAR that did NOT have a political activist prejudice would
see it mostly for what it was:
a poorly written story.

We know we have to make
Lunar shipping half-a-million times more profitable, somehow, if we
want to break even...never mind turn a profit. Are there any
technologies, new or old, that could realistically do this? (Note
that if your plan relies on "handwavium" -- antigravity, cold fusion,
unicorn blood -- it cannot be considered "realistic".)

Aha! See... You ARE using the Avatar Stereotype Mr. Unobtainium.

You are selling the lie that everything has to be all ready to be profitable
before you will even set your foot out the door.
The real world just doesn't work that way and your prejudice against those
who want to "go and see" is blindingly obvious.
Sad too.

Then give us the lecture. Really, I want to see an old-fashioned Moon
base as much as the next guy. But I haven't yet seen the case made,
that doing so would be *economically* expedient.

***
Love to. Not possible at this time thanks to our imperious leader.

Who is this, and how is he or she stopping you from typing words on a
keyboard?

Time & Finances, just like those who also don't have time to answer damn
fool question at least for very long.

Financial seaworthiness is more of a concern to me right now than
educating
those who
1) want all the answers for free 2) think that

In case you haven't noticed, "financial seaworthiness" is a concern
for me too. I'm the one quoting titanium prices, etc. You're the one
claiming this scheme will pay for itself without crunching the
numbers. BTW, if you can't be bothered to explain why people should
do something, don't expect it to get done.

Ah yes, you are no longer arguing the point, you are merely arguing.

Actually Ti is the nineth most abundant.

I stand corrected. My apologies. Of course, it's still an extremely
common element.

Oh, but here you are selling yourself as Mr.-Know-It-All, eh...

You should know that the form of the ore matters. Our Earth Ti is found
in
rutile, ilmenite, magnetite and iron in combination, not by itself.

Nor is it found by itself on the Moon: we would still have to refine
the ores somehow. In addition, magnetite contains no titanium; it's
Fe3O4. And iron, of course, contains no titanium at all. Perhaps
there was a typo in that last sentence?

http://www.kitco.com/pr/2255/article_11082007153001.pdf

As to the "Chunk of change" I have already pointed out that Ti alone is
not
the only metal we would gain.

No, but it is the most profitable, as I have already pointed out.

Then you are wrong.

CO2 produced from the process could be used for the bio lab, and for
feeding
the atmospheric portion of the habitat.

In other words, it will not be shipped off the Moon to pay for the
colony. (Though there's no significant demand for CO2 in the first
place, so that's just as well.)

Why... would they ship off CO2 when all the Enviro-wackos are claiming that
CO2 is a Greenhouse gas it isn't
and that it is a pollutant it isn't and it is plentiful enough.

Since there will be an effort to harvest volatiles, like He3, then there
will also be harvesting of other gasses.

You assume there will be an effort to harvest helium-3. Again,
without helium-3 reactors back home to use it, there's not much hope
for that. And the other gases on the Moon aren't worth much: trace
amounts of helium-4 and hydrogen, some sodium and potassium, lots of
oxygen. Not exactly rare, precious materials.

You have not studied lunar geology enough to say what you are leaving out.

That claim was not made by me.

You said: "It is processed in a place that allows for complete
processing of the ore, unlike Earth".

On Earth you have to deal with an Atmosphere. Not much of one on the moon.
A complete refining process after lab and process experiments & assessments
are done
would be designed to be mostly self contained and eliminate the need for
slag piles.
There has been some work in that direction already. No I'm not going to do
your work for you.

How am I supposed to read that sentence, except as "the Earth does not
allow for complete processing
of titanium ore"?

Not practical. Not really needed on Earth. Greater processing would be
needed in a lunar and other enviroment as those materials considered waste
here could be refined for use there where they were not so readily
available.

Which is obvious nonsense, because we do in fact have titanium, and we're
not getting it somewhere other than Earth,
so...

Again with the narrow nonsense non-sequitor. Local processing for just
about everything needed in raw materials is necessary for an Established
colony. That does not come into being until lab assessments are done. You
know that.
Earth mines are not mined until areas are assayed as profitable to mine. So
stop with the silly narrow focus arguments. Ti is only one major metal
group. There are other things to be done there. Mining might well be just 1
among many pursuits and likely will be.

That is a very narrow view. No one is going to the moon for 1 thing.

Except you started this conversation by claiming that "Mineral ore
Resources laying on the surface = money".

They are. Several science writers have claimed it to be so. Look it up.
Look up the abundance charts for different lunar rocks and other sources.
You were already wrong on the relative abundances issue.
You were wrong about the Titanium Magnetite ore Magnetite often contains
TiO in varying amounts
How many points would be acceptable enough to prove that you have not the
background to support your arguments?
I suggest that if I had it all laid out for you that would be absurd that
you would still argue.

After this post you will be killfiled.

If it turns out we can't
actually make any money from those resources, we have to cross that
off our list of reasons to go to the Moon.

Non-sequitor.

What we both understand is that if current prices will always be the
same,
most Earth mining will eventually lead to increased scarcity of these
resources to the average citizen.

Once again, all the metals available on the Moon are are abundant
right here on Earth, and will continue to be far into the future.
We're not talking about gallium and tantalum; we're not even talking
about copper and zinc, for pity's sake. Nobody, but *nobody*,
predicts a "titanium peak"...not in the next century, not in the next
thousand years. (After all, it's the ninth most abundant element on
Earth, right?)

No.
They are not because they are geopoltically constrained and that shows no
signs of becoming anything other than more constrained and prohibited.
Your argument is becoming shrill.

...You will have noticed that I did not address your concerns about
whether CO2 is a pollutant, the failure of American education, etc.

Incorrect. You most certainly did in an asymetric argument in the above
text.
I submit that there is more than just "American education, etc" implying the
fault is with "America".
That is also a worldwide issue made manifest by the several so-called once
revered for the wrong reasons scientists.
Other scientists, not so gullible or as greedy to compromize their
scientific credibility, have not jumped on the ALGORE AGW bandwagon.

I'm sure these would be rewarding topics for another conversation, but
I've had to skip over them in favor of discussing the main topic of
this one: would a Moon colony be profitable? If not, your faith in
the private sector is sadly misplaced. McDonnell Douglas, Lockheed
Martin, Virgin Galactic, Space Adventures...these are corporations
with stockholders, not charities run for the good of humanity.

Oh Please. Your faith in the US Government Corporation and it's followers:
the UN and the myriad other schlub countries corporations... looking to
bandwagon One World "New World Order" Schlub solution is an oxymoron as it
is unsustainable.
Did you not know that Governments are the biggest corporations there are?
That they have killed more people than ANY private corporation or
individual?
That they are unaccountable in large measure?
That they do not care about the good of humanity, or even their citizens?
They are AFRAID of their own people because they are stupid!
Private corporations that survive respond to their customers because they
are made up of their customers.
Governments are supposed to be made up of the average citizen, instead they
are now made up of transparently ugly felons, opportunists, thieves, thugs,
and outright traitors who consort with our enemies. O Yeah... That's caring
for the bloody "good of humanity" now isn't it!
All the while the PRESS & Hollywood are promoting DC Politicians into
Hollywood for Ugly People.
Actors. Posers. Murderers.
Don't hand me your excuses about "who cares more" because your accusations
point like a laser beam to who you DO trust...
and that is DC.

Thanks ever so much for the "exercise" that finally reveals your point of
view.
It would seem that from your point of view nothing useful can ever be done
because you insist on evaluating what can be done from only your perspective
and knowledge of science & technology. I have shown several instances where
that knowledge is lacking.
Do study some if you intend to repeat your doxology to others. It would
make it much more interesting.

TT

"plonk" and yet another killfile entry!



http://www.USENETHOST.com 100% Uncensored , 100% Anonymous, 5$/month Only!

On Feb 6, 7:40*pm, "Graystar" wrote:
Please cite a source for this.

No.

Very well. Then I reserve the right to reject your unsubstantiated
claim.

I am not the issue here and you are simply being argumentative.

No, you are not the issue here. The issue is whether China is a
stable source of metals into the foreseeable future. Apparently it
is, regardless of unprovable claims that the Yellow Horde is preparing
to march in arms against the world.

But you said it was, when you started talking about "circumventing
their stranglehold on the markets" and "removing them as the primary
resource pool".

Going to the moon will not cause WWIII. If YOU believe that then YOU cite
your sources.

As it happens, I don't believe that. I was questioning what seemed to
be your belief that going to the Moon would *avert* WWIII, because it
would "cap the ambition of their rulers".

You don't have to worry about resources if the apocalypses occur, you are
going beyond reason with your argument.

My point was that you want us to prepare for an extremely improbable
event, which neither you nor anyone else knows will actually happen,
much less when.

Non-sequitor. *Your analogies are not coordinated.

Possibly because they are not analogies. They are examples of the
"tensions" you speak of. You say that a new source of metals would
ease these kinds of tensions; I disagree.

I will take up the rest of your points later, as you have (once again)
posted a multi-page missive while failing to trim your quotes.