Zubrin on about Mars again

Now thinks he is a economic whizz kid as well as a space cadet:
http://www.rollcall.com/news/32103-1.html

Pat

On Feb 8, 11:14*am, Pat Flannery wrote:
Now thinks he is a economic whizz kid as well as a space cadet:http://www..rollcall.com/news/32103-1.html

Pat

Beyond the ad-homenim attack, do you have any specific objections to
what he says? If you look at the history of land development
companies that operated in the new world by European interests
starting in 1614 you will see what he's talking about. Why wouldn't
such things work in the present day?

The US must find a means to make and do things that others outside the
US find worth investing in and buying - to attract back the capital
that flew the coop under Bush.

Truman and Eisenhower worried about surprise nuclear attacks. So,
they created a permanent war footing. To pay for it they segmented
the US economy into various income groups, high, medium and low. They
kept the high income for the USA, gave the medium income groups to our
allies, and the low income groups to our friends. In this way we used
the market to enforce a large disparity of income - without having to
tax the world to be the world's nuclear police.

The only trouble is, each nation has its own currency, and the low and
medium income groups are very important to the whole - so, our
currency value was adversely affected.

This led the USA to abandon the gold standard, and then trade with
China - since their living standard was so low. This slowed
inflationary pressure but did not eliminate it. That took Ronald
Reagan's changes to the S&Ls - which killed George Bailey's bank and
made Mr. Potter king. It was a small price to pay to strengthen the
dollar and keep the disparity going. The only thing was, it gave more
and more power to foreign powers over our banking system.

After Reagan's changes to the banking system, foreigners could buy US
debt with the dollars they earn, which stops inflation, but gives
foreigners control over our economic engine.

In 1980 Americans owned 90% of their debt and corporations, owed 60%
of their annual income in debt, an saved at a rate of 9% of their
annual income.

By 2003 Americans owned 40% of their debt and corporatoins, owed 160%
of their annual income in debt, and saved at a rate of (-2%) of their
annual income.

In 2003 America invaded Iraq under the pretext of WMDs. This didn't
bother Americans particularly, it DID bother certain foreigners.
Those foreigners disinvested from the USA - and sought investments
elsewhere. As a result, the Shanghai and Mumbai markets skyrocketed
in value.

By August 2007 the Shanghai market exceeded the NASDAQ which the
Chinese celebrated. In September 2007 the subprime market imploded.
Then through the operation of Sarbanes Oxley rules, spread poison
throughout the US banking system. Like an untended floodwall in New
Orleans, the Bush administration did nothing about this. The
conservative press blamed the poor for causng the problem, ignoring
the fact that $7 trilion flowed out of the US between 2007 and the end
of 2008. The subprime collapse was a symptom of lack of liquidity.

The value of the dollar started to erode, and the commodity prices
began to rise, oil exceeded $140 by summer 2008.

In August 2008 OPEC met in Zurich and concluded that they did not want
oil to be a political issue during a Presidential election. So, they
decided to increase oil output to lower oil price. They also decided
to pull more money out of the US banking system to put pressure on the
US economy making it the issue.

This caused a meltdown of the US economic system - which was
unexpected - but is now the basis of all future action by foreign
interests.

You see, the US with only 4% of the world's population, consumes over
40% of the world's resources, and pays less than most others for those
resources. Others pay more and consume less. For folks with limited
supplies, it benefits them therefore to see a shift to those who pay
more and consume less. For folks with large populations, it benefits
tem to have America taken out of the equation - since it gives them
more resources to consume.

So, in our current situation China and Saudi Arabia are operating
together to treat the US currency with the same care as George Soros
treated the Indonesian rupiah, or the Mexican peso.

Basically ther are $857 bilion in circulation supporting $14,000
billion in economic activity for America. A dollar is spent once very
3 weeks. Now, if someone like George Soros, or Prince Awaleed, or the
Chinese Central Bank, has sufficient assets to buy up ALL your
circulating dollars and put them in a safe, they create a situaiton
where there is a liquidity shortage. The government that prints the
currency has no choice but to engage in activities that pump more
money into circulation - ultimately printing more dollars. This can
go on for quite a while. It is not an accident that economists say
we're $800 billion short.

Once the addtional money is in circulation, the deep pockets can
continue to buy currency sustaining its value. At a time of THEIR
choosing, they can dump the currency they have on deposit, and sink
the economy attached to the currency.

Some will say, why would you do that? It would destroy trillions of
dollars in value. On the fact that's right. But, if like Soros, you
bought futures contracts shorting the currency you're manipulating,
you basically get all the currency back anyway, at far reduced value -
and the entire nation ends up indebted to you - and working for your
for generations. The value of the currency is whipsawed around - and
its basically worthless. Before Soros the Indonesian Rupiah was worth
about 20 cents. After Soros, 100 Rupiahs are worth 1 cent. Ditto
with the peso after NAFTA. He tried to do it with the British pound
as well.

It would not be surprising if China and Saudi Arabia were attempting
something similar with the US dollar. If so, oil might be worth over
$1,000 in a year, and the dollar worth about 1/10th to 1/100th what it
is today.

This reduces aggregate demand for oil, while increasing its price -
which is good for Saudi Arabia. This also reduces the ability of
Americans to demand resources - releasing resources for use by others
- which benefits China.

What can America do?

Well, they're doing EXACTLY the wrong thing! In the short term they
need to attract foreign investment back to the USA. So, putting in
place regulations that reduce the efficiency of the US market is the
wrong thing. Also, political grandstanding at the expense of the US
banking and financial communities - implying ALL US bankers are
corrupt or inept or both - drives foreign investment away to less
corrupt less inept markets. Finally, politicians did not take
responsibility for their part in the collapse. Sarbanes Oxley rules
were known to be overly repressive from the beginning, but no one had
the guts to stand up against oppresive government response to
criticism, nor did the government want to take responsibility during
an election year. All thing done by government have harmed US
financial community an accelerated the outflow of foreign capital,
while not providing for any stability of US financial system. This is
unlikely to change.

What can the US do?

1) attract foreign capital back to the US financial system
2) make something that everyone wants
3) adopt a strategy appropriate to the 21st century not the 19th

Atract foreign capital back to the US financial system - this is easy,
if you set politics aside;

1a) highlight where things have gone right and expand on that
1b) eliminate taxes on capital gains and bank interest
1c) simplify and make more transparent US banking and finance rules
1d) Reverse the worst of Sarbox
1e) provide limited cash where appropriate
1f) match private investments with federal dollars
1g) make specific rules to halt dollar manipulation
1h) create visionary investment programs (eg Mars)

2) Make something everyone wants - USE US COAL TO MAKE SYNFUEL

300 million tons of hydrogen made from sunlight and water, or nuclear
power and water - with 180 million tons burned in place of 1.14
billion tons of coal - eliminates the use of coal in this nations
1,036 coal fired power plants. An additional 120 million tons of
hydrogen combined directly with 1.14 billion tons of coal make over7
billion barrels of syncrude. The US imports 5 billion barrels of
syncrude and so, will export 2 bilion barrels with this program in
place. This earns $1 trillion per year foreign currency - which helps
build our economy, and avoids $2.5 trilion per year in outflow - which
also buils our economy while reducing our carbon footprint.

3) adopt strategies appropriate tothe 21st century not the 19th.

The segmentation of income by economic group was appropriatefor the
19th century, but in 2008 we celebrated the 100th year of the assembly
line. We should have smart tractors as well as smart bombs, robot
workers as well as robot soldiers - technologies that erase disparity
of income while increase productivity of all. Meanwhile the internet
software and ebay radically transform the nature and income of
retailers and bankers. We need to embrace and pioneer these changes
to lead the world in productivity rather than oppose changes in our
outmoded approach merely because we are incapable of changing our
reliance on it.

High income - retail function - changed with internet and software
Medium income - manufacturing function - changed with automation
Low income - extraction function - changed with supply/demand
inversion and automation.

3a) We dominate the banking and retail function by creating a global
wireless internet using an advanced satellite constellation - control
of paradigm software and hardware, while others use the system and
remarket it - create a natural global disparity favorable to the
USA.

3b) We dominate manufacturing by using advanced wireles communications
and VR software to create unmanned teleoperated factories. In this
way, we manufacture inside the USA, US citizens are engineers and
managers, and non-US citizens, working telerobotically overseas -
create a natural disparity in the 21st century.

3c) We develop ocean and off-world assets to produce raw materials in
superabundance at super low costs - creating tremendous value
multipliers favorable to the USA as the rest of the world grows richer
- again maintaining a disparity of income suited for the operation of
21st century realities.

The development of off world resources solar and asteroidal as well as
development of EArth like planets like mars, provide a means for the
USA to use assets it has in abundance to create tremendous wealth, and
attract investments back to the USA.

Pat Flannery wrote:

Now thinks he is a economic whizz kid as well as a space cadet:
http://www.rollcall.com/news/32103-1.html

Wow, just *wow*. I didn't think it possible for him to be any more
loony.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

wrote:
On Feb 8, 11:14 am, Pat Flannery wrote:

Now thinks he is a economic whizz kid as well as a space cadet:http://www.rollcall.com/news/32103-1.html

Pat


Beyond the ad-homenim attack, do you have any specific objections to
what he says? If you look at the history of land development
companies that operated in the new world by European interests
starting in 1614 you will see what he's talking about. Why wouldn't
such things work in the present day?


Well, for starters, those companies were exploiting places that had a
breathable atmosphere in fairly cheap-to-make ships.
Zubrin always puts the cart before the horse; he wants people to go to
Mars, so he is constantly trying to find some economic or philosophical
reason for that to happen, rather like Gerard O'Neill and his space
colonies.
I think giant passenger dirigibles are a pretty neat concept, but I'm
not holding my breath waiting for them to show up in general service.
To make colonizing Mars a profitable enterprise, it's got to get into
net profit-making situation that pays off the money spent to go there,
and then set up some sort of industry...and have that industry then
produce products at a lower cost than they can be produced at in any
other way.
The British wouldn't have been too keen on colonizing America if they
found out that a net profit would only be realized after a hundred or so
years, and a vast expendature of capital.
If you want to do some sort of immense space project that will actually
create a salable product, forget Mars - go with the SPS concept. But
don't do it with lunar-derived materials, as by the time you get that
all rolling and stick in the resupply costs for the lunar factory, you
will have spent far more than the cost of launching the parts up from
Earth as finished pre-fab components.

Pat

Derek Lyons wrote:

Wow, just *wow*. I didn't think it possible for him to be any more
loony.


It doesn't exactly help that his voice, looks, and demeanor are
reminiscent of Bruce Dern in "Silent Running".
Let's make damn sure we keep him far away from those nuclear detonators.
:-D

Pat

Pat Flannery wrote:
:
:If you want to do some sort of immense space project that will actually
:create a salable product, forget Mars - go with the SPS concept. But
:don't do it with lunar-derived materials, as by the time you get that
:all rolling and stick in the resupply costs for the lunar factory, you
:will have spent far more than the cost of launching the parts up from
:Earth as finished pre-fab components.
:

Which says you should just forget about it, since doing it the way you
suggest is far, far too expensive. Cheaper to build the same capacity
down here on the ground (even including the overbuilding required in
order to make sure you always have sufficient generation facilities in
bright sunlight.


--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw

On Feb 8, 8:40*pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
wrote:
On Feb 8, 11:14 am, Pat Flannery wrote:

Now thinks he is a economic whizz kid as well as a space cadet:http://www.rollcall.com/news/32103-1.html

Pat

Beyond the ad-homenim attack, do you have any specific objections to
what he says? *If you look at the history of land development
companies that operated in the new world by European interests
starting in 1614 you will see what he's talking about. *Why wouldn't
such things work in the present day?

Well, for starters, those companies were exploiting places that had a
breathable atmosphere in fairly cheap-to-make ships.

Relative to the technical skills and costs of the 15th century it was
far harder to settle the American wilderness than it is for us to
settle the Martian wilderness in the 20th and 21st centuries. This
was analyzed back in the 40s by vonBranu and Eriche when they were
debriefed in operation paperclip. Truman and Eisenhower classified
this report because they felt it would inspire the American public to
such an extent, that it would create an uncontrollable monster - and
America cannot afford doing that and fighting the Cold War.


Zubrin always puts the cart before the horse;

No he doesn't he understands the technical requirements and how easily
they may be undertaken. Read vonBraun's Project Mars.

he wants people to go to
Mars,

He says quite rightly we can send people to mars cheaply and safely
and in large numbers using existing technology..


so he is constantly trying to find some economic or philosophical
reason for that to happen,

Not at all.

rather like Gerard O'Neill and his space
colonies.

Attacking knowledgable people by misquoting them is unfair.
Especially if they cannot defend themselves. Obviously O'Neill built
vacuum chambers for Fermi Lab and CERN that were miles in extent. It
was when he was teaching students at the Institute for Advanced Study
at Princeton how to build realy big vacuum chambers, that he realized
- in 1969 when we landed on the moon - that the same technology could
be used to build really big pressure vessels.

Clearly if we're already building 10 km wide vacuum chambers in a 1
gee field surrounded by air - its child's play to build a similarly
sized pressure vessel in a vacuum in a zero gee field. NASA and
others have confirmed this.

The big issue for him and Zubrin is the cost of lift capacity.

I think giant passenger dirigibles are a pretty neat concept, but I'm
not holding my breath waiting for them to show up in general service.

Yes, those who worry about America going off the deep end in space,
and forgetting the cold war, have been trying to equate the idea of
big rockets with the idea of big dirigibles to be forgotten forever.

This is a faulty comparison because dirigibles failed in competition
with heavier than air craft. Had there been no heavier than air
craft, we would be using dirigible today.

There are no competitors for rockets in moving through space, so
comparing them to dirigibles is really unfair unless you also say what
you are thinking is the alternative to rockets equivalent to heavier
than air craft? Obviously there are none.


To make colonizing Mars a profitable enterprise, it's got to get into
net profit-making situation that pays off the money spent to go there,

First you have to understand the costs of getting there, and what to
charge, and who might pay it, and so forth. As I mentioned above, it
all boils down to lift capacity and its cost. A representative
example is a fully reusable heavy lift launcher operated from an
advanced launch facility that doesn't need the standing army of the
space shuttle. A stretched External tank, with advanced TPS, and fold
away wings, propelled by an annular aerospike engine, with 7 RS68
pumpsets feeding it - each ET type element is equipped with cross
feed.

The simplest version consists of 3 elements (1)(2)(3) when viewed from
above. 1 and 3 feed 2. They drain first, and then fall away. The
empty tanks re-enter and slow to subsonic speed. The wings deploy,
and each tank glides to join up with a tow plane which then snags each
glider mid air and tows each back to the launch center for release and
reuse. 2 continues on to orbit, with a 100 ton payload. 2 then re-
enters slows and is recovered for reuse the same way.

The 100 ton payload consists of 50 tons of hydrogen oxygen propellant
and 50 tons of payload. It carries 14 setlers and 7 crew, along with
20 tons of supplies.

Each flight costs $100 million, and each settler is charged $20
million to go to mars, along with supplies to survive on mars. $10
million for the trip, $10 million for the supplies.

A settler gets a pressure vessel balloon, a compressor with molecular
sieve, and a solar panel.

A solar panel array, combined with a pressure vessel, and a compressor
that extracts oxgen, nitrogen and water vapor from the Mars air - and
pressurizes it to Earth normal in the pressure vessel is perfectly
doable.

In fact each installation of 14 settlers provides air and water for
settlers and crew, along with resupply for the return journey, and
hydrogen and oxygen for the rocket to blast off back to Earth for
reuse by another set of settlers.

Now a fleet of 3 mars ships - lofts 42 settlers every 2.15 years to
mars, along with 21 crew. Each pays $20 million - that's $840 million
every 2.15 years.

There are 100,000 people on the planet worth over $30 million each and
control $10 trillion - average of $100 million each. 21 settlers per
year - represents fewer than 0.021% of the total population.
Something that's easily supported with a modest advertising effort.

Many would go as an adventure. In addition to the folks paying to
settle Mars, there are those in the crew that might stay to sell goods
and services to those settling. So, of the 7 from each ship, expect 2
or 3 per veh per flight - to find a way to stay permanently as well -
once there are a few folks already there.

and then set up some sort of industry...

Nonsense. A self supporting industry does require a critical mass so
to speak of industrial capability. However, one can be supported in
fine style with about 1 ton of stuff per year - and that includes air
and water. Grab your air and water from the atmosphere of mars, and
our power too - and that 1 ton per year per person - drops to 100 kg
per year - to be supported in fine style. Grow your own food in a
garden, or the bulk of it, and that 100 kg per year drops again to 50
kg per year for specialty items. Again with very modest inputs.

So, you have about 1 metric ton of hardware per person when they
arrive, and then you have say 100 kg per year to keep folks supplied,
and they pay the $1 million per year for that. That in fact is a
growth industry for your launchers, and a reason to build bigger and
more launchers.

Adding 4 more elements to the 3 described above, increases lift
capacity to 500 tons - which increases everything by a factor of 5 -
210 people per synodic period - rather than 42 - and 1% of the 100,000
folks worth $30 million or more - along with 30 to 45 crew per flight
cycle - as expert settlers.

The larger vehicle costs half that per unit payload as the smaller
craft - so, the $20 million price tag and $1 million per person year -
drops to $10 million price tag and $500,000 per person year.

So, with today's population, with property rights firmly established
off world, and with quite modest launch capacity.


125 people per year - transfer to Mars once this is in place -
generating $1.25 billion per year in sales - half in rocket services,
half in payload - with a $125 per year per year in resupply flights
and materials.

In 20 years of such growth with only 21 elements formed into 3 seven
element vehicles - you'd have a village of 2,500 people permanently on
Mars, after 10 flights - and they'd be consuming $1.25 billion per
year in consumables from Earth and $1.25 billion in new setlers each
year. This is 2.5% of the 100,000 people who could afford such a
flight. They'd likely own large sections of Mars, and be working on
ways to develop those.

and have that industry then
produce products at a lower cost than they can be produced at *in any
other way.

Nonsense. Get a book on economics and read the chapter on relative
economic value. There will be some among the world's very richest
who will see this as a challenge worth taking - and relish the idea of
settling and developing a new planet.

The British wouldn't have been too keen on colonizing America if they
found out that a net profit would only be realized after a hundred or so
years, and a vast expendature of capital.

The settlers didn't look at it like that. The point is there are $40
trillion of liquid capital among 10 million people. At $20 million
per settler - we have a target population of 100,000 people. 125
people per year - can be found to pay that price. Increase launcher
efficency and reduce costs to $2 millon per settler and you'd find
thousands of people per year taking the challenge.

Nobody makes money on $100 million yachts, and $65 million private
aircraft. compared to these, and the adventure one has - $20 million
to settle mars - would find a lot of takers. There will likely even
be a handful of operators offering a high end settlement package
costing substantially more than $20 million - to bring a touch of
class to the red planet.

If you want to do some sort of immense space project that will actually
create a salable product, forget Mars

Nonsense. Mars is the product. 21 advanced ET type flight elements
desribed, at $50 million each - is $1.05 billion - add another $0.95
billion for infrastructure and kick stage, lander, etc. and settler
support engineering - and you have $2 billion - invested - and you're
making sales of $1.25 billion - you're making money day one. And
shipping 125 people to mars a year - once every 2.15 years - 280 or so
per flight cycle aboard a fleet of three mars landers every synodic
period.

In 20 years you'd have a village of 2,500 - of course technology
advances - larger spacecraft with continuing investment - and then of
course - children will be born on Mars as well.


- go with the SPS concept.

You are making a false choice Obviously, with a 500 ton to orbit lift
capacity, you will orbit SPS with your launchers between synodic mars
fleet launches.

But
don't do it with lunar-derived materials, as by the time you get that
all rolling and stick in the resupply costs for the lunar factory, you
will have spent far more than the cost of launching the parts up from
Earth as finished pre-fab components.


Membrane concentrators focusing light on high efficiency PV cells,
driving high efficiency FEL - beaming bandgap matched IR laser energy
to silcon PV cells on the ground at 900 W/m2 - provides 10 GW per 500
ton launch capacity - the same launcher as for a 250 ton payload for
Mars.


Pat

The same technology developed for SPS and Mars settling will also be
used to settle the moon at less transport cost and time - and greater
recurring cost - until a water supply is found on the moon.

The concerns of Eisenhower and Truman no longer apply. The USA needs
to attract foreign capital in large quantities NOW - we don't have
much to offer the world - we DO have our aerospace expertise - and
THAT can be done IMMEDIATELY! The US anouncing a visionary program -
and selling off Mars, could raise trillions of dollars of the $40
trillion - much it from overseas, an a small fraction of that would
build ships larger and more efficient than the ones imagined here - in
the mean time America gets the benefit of trillions of dollars
invested on mars.

Basically we use our capacity in aerospace and our remaining
geopolitical position - to claim mars - and then sell it off to
foreigners - to get the $7.2 trillion that flowed out of the country
since 2003 - and then use a portion of that money to build th
einfrastructure to develop mars as a human outpost. Investors make
money from day one selling stuff to setlers.

On Feb 8, 8:45*pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
Derek Lyons wrote:

Wow, just *wow*. *I didn't think it possible for him to be any more
loony.

It doesn't exactly help that his voice, looks, and demeanor are
reminiscent of Bruce Dern in "Silent Running".
Let's make damn sure we keep him far away from those nuclear detonators.
:-D

Pat

Again the adhomenim attacks. haha - you haven't said anything that
shows he's wrong. In fact, if you knew anything about rocket
engineering, you'd know he's not wrong at all.

wrote:

On Feb 8, 8:45*pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
Derek Lyons wrote:

Wow, just *wow*. *I didn't think it possible for him to be any more
loony.

It doesn't exactly help that his voice, looks, and demeanor are
reminiscent of Bruce Dern in "Silent Running".
Let's make damn sure we keep him far away from those nuclear detonators.
:-D

Pat

Again the adhomenim attacks. haha - you haven't said anything that
shows he's wrong. In fact, if you knew anything about rocket
engineering, you'd know he's not wrong at all.

If the article in question had discussed rocketry or engineering,
you'd have a point.

It didn't.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

Pat Flannery wrote:

Zubrin always puts the cart before the horse; he wants people to go to
Mars, so he is constantly trying to find some economic or philosophical
reason for that to happen,

And that fetish for Grand Themes is a great deal of what keeps him and
his ilk grounded.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL