Space Travel will save the world

On 30 Jun, 04:25, Quadibloc wrote:
On Jun 29, 11:40 am, (Rand Simberg)
wrote:

On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 15:16:45 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Martha
Adams" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:
I wonder if the people in this newsgroup have enough
capacity for clear original thinking; the maturity to
work things through and express them usefully, to
contribute to an objective of off-Terra settlements
with functional business ecologies, and make someone
very rich as well as improve the odds for us humans
to continue our line into the remote future? *?
It seems quite unlikely. *Most of the people in the group who are like
that have left. *They're off doing useful things where they don't have
to deal with all the loons and trolls.

Well, people with multi-million dollar fortunes that let them own
companies that build three-stage rockets don't have much time to post
on newsgroups anyways. This is partly why I support such socialist
institutions as NASA. That and I just find it hard to imagine what
people call a "business model" for private enterprise space
development... just yet. People pioneering now in *that* fashion are
not going to get much more than the proverbial "arrows in their backs"
for their pains, I fear.

Look Arianespace has just such a model. If you take one very simple
metric - cost/Kg at LEO it is clear that NASA has been a spectacular
failure. If you had free enterprise no one would have bought shuttle
space.

There are some failures of Capitalism which William Mook touched on.
If you have a constant supply of X barrels coming out of the ground,
supply and demand will fix a price. If you have a price of a commodity
that varies according to technlogy pure Capitalism alone will not
necessarily give you the right strategy. Capitalism alone does not
tell you what you should do if the price of oil is $140 and we don't
know what the price will be in the furure. Let me explain, supose we
develop a new energy source which costs $80 per barrel equivalent.
This source will take at least 5 years to come on stream at which
point the price of oil has dropped.

There is a case for "socialist" subsidies to ensure stability. This is
not, of course, to say that a large socialist organization like NASA
should continue to exist. There is a socialogical constraint too. A
socialist organization tends always to "play safe". In the absense of
an objective efficiency metric promotions are made on the basis of not
"rocking the boat".

Double cost/Kg of Ariane? Even more for Proton. In a capitalist world
NASA would have sued for chapter 11 and been savagely pruned.

Another argument for capitalism is that there are many possible
technical solutions. For solar power we have.

1) Photovoltaics.
2) SSP
3) Mirrors to raise steam and drive a turbine.
4) Biological methods, genetically engineered algae.

Not being cetain which technology will win in the end it makes sense
to have them competing against one and other on a level playing field.

Space needs heavy capital investment. Is socialism the only way to
achieve this? No, in point of fact the best way to achieve this is to
go all out for capitalism and globalization. Energy is a concern of
THE WHOLE WORLD, not just the US. This being the case, why do we
insist in national space programs? It would make a lot more sense to
have a joint stock company which the whole world could buy into. This
company would put Kgs into LEO at the LOWEST rate.

The present space set up is in fact what might be described as socio
fascist.


- Ian Parker

On Jun 30, 4:38 am, Ian Parker wrote:

Energy is a concern of
THE WHOLE WORLD, not just the US.

If the world rejects nuclear power firmly enough that we must accept
the large capital investment of solar power satellites instead, and if
that has to be done through private investment, not government
programs with massive tax funding, then what probabilities favor is
not the colonization of space.

It is a new dark age when we run out of oil or when global warming
runs rampant.

I would like us to make policy decisions that *minimize* the
probability of that. To me, space is a means, not an end; the survival
and progress and well-being of humanity are the end. A prosperous,
energy-rich Earth is the one more likely to have something to spare
for space.

John Savard

On Jun 29, 10:51*pm, kT wrote:
wrote:
We need to go beyond politics of right wing or left wing -as they're
both flawed - go beyond the politics as usual and seek to construct
real solutions to real problems facing us.

Like for instance, sustainable life support systems using the resources
we already have at our disposal?

How does that work exactly? You got that worked out? Fact is, we
need to reach beyond the center to the resources of our frontier.
Fact is, we are already farming every square inch of land the best we
can, and still 3 billion go to bed hungry and 300,000 die every day of
malnutrition.

You think we should use scientific farming methods instead of
susbsistence farming everywhere we can? Good idea Bongo. Howd does
that work exactly? You got that all worked out do you? I'd love to
see the plan. Fact is, we can't scientifically farm every square inch
of arable land, we don't have the resources to do it.

The USA and its Cold War Allies are in a sweet spot - that technology
and terrestrial resources cannot sustain, let alone EXPAND to include
everyone on Earth in a growing vital economy.

There are two solutions possibles;

1) tap the resources off-world
2) collapse

That's it. We can't magically wave the technology wand and make do
with everything here. You gonna quote me about the great advances
we've had with computers? Why don't you look at capacitors - and
specifically - the tantalum required for high performance capacitors.
Or what about the great advances in head phones eh? You know, back
in the day, we had Old School headphones - and microphones too. And
to get any good quality they were as big a freaking blackberry on each
ear! and they used a lot of power too! Well, today - we've got
super magnets - made the lollypop microphones and softball sized
headphones into point mikes - and ear buds - vastly reducing power -
why we do that with our cars and homes - my God - they'll be plenty
for everyone right?

How does that work exactly? Look at the mining of Neodymium. You
want to know what's propping up the murder states of Africa right
now? Yep, those earbuds and i-pods, and all the rest have blood on
them - you couldn't make enough batteries, capacitors, and other
advanced technology gizmos for 3 billion people let alone 8 billion
people every 4 years or so - the life time of most equipment.

Even today, though, getting your ipod at a price you can afford
requires that the raw material be extracted by slave labor in a murder
state, and assembled by indentured technicians living in a Communist
slave state. And that will last only as long as there are enough
strategic materials to keep the process working. Who are bearing the
real cost of declining reserves? The slaves who are murdered by the
millions searching every square inch of their land for the rare
materials demanded by the owners of this planet.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7472650.stm


But you know humans, they go ape ****.

Seeing our raw materials shortages as a personality defect in humans
generally is an interesting response. I guess it must be an artifiact
of the propaganda they feed the consumers to keep them blind to the
damage they do and the human costs they incur to maintain their
'lifestyle'.

I have limited myself to
the technology of survival by moving beyond the center into the
frontier to develop new resources.

Really? How much lithium have you mined today? How much lithium do
you use?
How much oil have you pumped today? How much oil do you use?
How much platinum did you refine today? How much platinum did you
use?
How much tantalum did you smelt today? How much tantalum do you use?
How much copper did you mine today? How much copper did you use?

I could go on with about 100 strategic materials - and continue on to
over 1,000 less strategic materials - and I would bet that you don't
even know your footprint let alone know how to maintain your standard
of living with a reduced foot print.

And before you answer none -you use ALL those materials I listed, just
by being able to communicate with me on the internet. Do you know
what your footprint is for tantalum? Count the capacitors in your
computer, and in the communications link and power supply that feeds
it - and all the other systems you touch...


It won't make any difference at all, the apes will still go ape ****.

You are blind and stupid and ignorant of the facts - and have nothing
of real importance to say as a result.

****, ****, ****, eat - more ape babies.

Interesting. If you don't like babies, why the **** are you alive?
What is the point of your existence?

Let me give you the only answer that works.

Taking care of one another is the only worthwhile activity on this
planet for humans. We are doing a ****ty job of it - that's because
the wise guys that work for the owners of this planet - have
determined we cannot take care of one another with the resources at
our disposal. Technology has got us into a trap - according to these
wise guys. That trap is - technology has increased population above
sustainable levels - and given us nuclear weapons and all sorts of
horrible killing machines. The owner's problem is to maintain their
position while managing a 'die down' of human numbers to a more
reasonable level. That's the most favorable version of the collapse
scenario I mentioned above. Problem is, its incredibly rosy
scenario. Problem is, certain of the hired hands for the owners are
making their own plans to take advantage of the 'die down' of human
numbers. They're secretly supporting terror cells that naturally
arise when people's lives are frustrated. By frustrated I mean
getting your family blown up in front of your face because you didn't
want to mine copper for nothing while your babies were sick. That
sort of frustration. Survivors of this mayhem are motivated and
willing to undergo any hardship to get back at the people they think
are responsible. These are perfect tools for the hired hands who are
secretly plotting against the owners. The owners can even be
engineered into training and supplying these terror cells. Al Queda
for instance, were our boys in Afghanistan when we wanted a proxy
force to kick the Russian's ass. They were efficiently turned
against the owners, and their leaders are hiding in the hinterlands of
the hired hands. Gang members - outcasts among the owners - and bad
boys generally - are urged to join the Armies of the owners to get
training - then, when those bad boys learn to kill efficiently, they
leave the Army and start a revolutionary cell of their own in the very
heartland of the owners - supplied with guns and drugs and money by
the hired hands. Meanwhile, loose nukes and nuclear technology are
flowing throughout the lands of the hired hands - into the control of
the terror groups. So, a less rosy scenario for the owners of this
planet, is the detonation of a few loose nukes in their major cities -
with the rising up of highly militarized 'gangs' at every surviving
city center - and the owners will be put down - while the hired hands
take over - assuring that the owners will bear the brunt of the die
down - rather than ride the crest on the back of impoverished
billions.

Of course these are just variations in the collapse of human
numbers. Anyone looking back at our current age - in a post collapse
world - will properly see it as a golden era of opportunity and
adventure - if you're smart enough to see it. After collapse we
won't have the resources, we won't have the people, we won't have the
talent, we won't have the skills - of a planet of 6.6 billion people -
we'll be struggling with perhaps 1 billion people and space travel
will be a remote fantasy.

Space won't help them at all.

Yes it will. It is the ONLY thing that will help us. The owners of
this planet don't want widespread missile or nuclear technology for
obvious reason, so they have gone out of their way to create the
fiction that space travel is necessarily expensive, dangerous and
impractical. I was told this flat out in Washington back in the
1990s. Teledesic and Iridium were taking the next logical step in
satellite development - many to many - this required a lot of
satellites - and it created a lot of value when done well. So, I
started a company, Orbatek - to build a two-stage reusable launcher
around off-the-shelf hardware. Of course, you can't even advertise
such a program without getting approvals, so I went to Washington to
the DOT to get the approvals needed. As I developed my program, I
ran into a number of interesting people. Most interesting were the
folks at the Pentagon. I had a frank discussion with a Colnel
there. You cannot do this cheaply! he said. Mistaking his comment
for a statement of fact, I went on to show how I could do all this
within my budget. No, he said, you CANNOT do this cheaply. Why? I
asked. Because $500 million is a hefty sum for you to raise - but its
easy for nations like Korea or India, or you name it, to raise. You
succeed in building an orbital vehicle for less than $1 billion - you
succeed in making it reliable and all the rest - and you are sending
the wrong signal. Missile proliferation will be a thing of the past.
Every tin pot dictator in the world will create a space program and
have missiles within 3 years of your first successful launch - so you
CANNOT do this cheaply. Got it?

I thought the guy was mad.

But, Connestoga went up in flames. Iridium and Teledesic went bye
bye. Rotary rocket was a fiasco. Why? Because it scared the owners
of this planet with the potential that they would lose their grip on
the control of technologies they have come to regard as their own.

We have avoided progress because progress scared the powers that be.
This insures our ultimate failure. The powers that be think they're
insuring their survival.


You might try ... education.

Right, and the first one I'm educating is you you arrogant blow hard!
lol. Terrestrial solar is an off-world resource that arrives here
with very little effort. So, its the first off-world resource we
will use. Humanity spends about $8 trillion per year on food and $4
trillion per year on energy, and $2 trillion per year on 'defense'
basically maintaining the power structure that keeps the food and
energy flowing in the right direction at the right prices.

This is where we start.

This is where the opportunity lies.

Develop a solar powered replacement for fossil fuels.

Using the profits from this operation, capture rich asteroids, bring
them into orbit around Earth, and using tele-robotics -which allow
everyone everywhere to work in a civilized way in space - and solar
power in space, process those asteroids in space, into products that
are then distributed world-wide to everyone everywhere using GPS
guided entry vehicles.

Use captured asteroids and orbiting factories that process them, to
make large numbers of pressure vessels that then use tele-robotic
systems to grow food and distribute it globally at low cost.

Expand the number and size of pressure vessels to grow forests in
space, and distribute fiber along with food to everyone on Earth.

Use captured asteroidal resources and orbiting factories, along with
tele-robotic labor and solar power to build aerostat cities powered by
laser beams from space - similar to 'cloud nine' cities envisioned by
Buckminster Fuller back in the 1960s.

These aerostat cities circulate around Earth supplying materials and
know-how to disaster areas - and rescuing populations - by removing
them from harms way. Providing a decent place to live, medical care,
food, training a decent job - and a fair and balanced financial
services program to accumulate wealth - to anyone who asks -

Use captured asteroidal resources and orbiting factories, along with
tele-robotic labor and solar power to build large numbers of
autonomous fliers that use beamed laser energy from space to power
propulsive skins that implement personal ballistic transport systems
at extremely low cost. People first rent, then fractionally own, and
then own outright - personal veihcles that span the globe in less than
an hour.

Use captured asteroidal resources and orbiting factories powered by
sunlight, with tele-robotic labor - to build pressure vessels that
operate as independent space homes on orbit - supplied by the very
system that build them. People use their personal ballistic transport
systems to attain orbit - and shuttle back and forth between Earth and
their space home. Most stay at home and use telerobotics to go to
work, and telepresence to socialize.

The energy and material resources of the inner solar system are
adequate to all our foreseeable needs for growth of the human culture
through this difficult time of transition. This is important to
know. The more that know it, the more we will make rational
decisions going forward - rather than the continuing stream of
irrational decisions based firmly in insane belief systems or the
fantasy of self serving propaganda.

On 30 Jun, 12:39, Quadibloc wrote:
On Jun 30, 4:38 am, Ian Parker wrote:

Energy is a concern of
THE WHOLE WORLD, not just the US.

If the world rejects nuclear power firmly enough that we must accept
the large capital investment of solar power satellites instead, and if
that has to be done through private investment, not government
programs with massive tax funding, then what probabilities favor is
not the colonization of space.

In the case of Nuclear Power it is safety concerns that are worrying
people, not the ability of Capitalism to invest. This perhaps tells us
what the role of government should be. Governments are there to set
the rules. It takes about 4 years to build a nuclear power station
GIVEN THE PLANNING GO AHEAD. Planning is an area that only a
government can tackle.

Governments can tax oil and other fossil fuels. $140 effectively means
that the tax is imposed for them. Green taxes are irrelevant at that
price level.

I do not believe there is any project that private enterpriose cannot
tackle. SSP may be a solution if the economics are right, space
colonies are simply not cost effective. The fallacy of doing it though
tax is that you are thereby railroading one solution through. One of
the best arguments against socialism is technological advance. One
technology will be the winner, we don't know which.

One thing that governments can do is to provide incentives for a
solution any solution. They can also ensure that if the price of oil
should drop they pick up the revenue in tax and the consumer STILL
pays $140

It is a new dark age when we run out of oil or when global warming
runs rampant.

I would like us to make policy decisions that *minimize* the
probability of that. To me, space is a means, not an end; the survival
and progress and well-being of humanity are the end. A prosperous,
energy-rich Earth is the one more likely to have something to spare
for space.

It is indeed a means to an end. It may be the best solution or it may
not be. We need viable SSP schemes that don't cost the Earth. If SSP
can directly lower the cost to LEO (laser heating of exhausts) so much
the better.

Another areas where governments can help is in the provision of funds
for long term research.


- Ian Parker

Two RL10 engines adapted to operate through a wide range of ambient
pressures from sea-level to orbit, cost about $5 million in quantity
and the pair produces 30,000 lbsf thrust. The engines are
throttable, restartable, and reusable.

7 of these engine pairs housed in 7 airframes - clustered in a hcp
array -with cross-feeding - make an interesting launcher. Viewed
looking down on the system from above the cluster is numbered

(1)(2)
(3)(4)(5)
(6)(7)

All elements fire at launch, and produce 210,000 lbsf thrust - and
lift 168,000 lb mass vehicle into the sky at 1.25 gees. Each elements
masses 24,000 lbs full, and carries 21,000 lbs of propellant.

Element 1 feeds propellant into element 3
Element 6 feeds propellant into element 3
Element 3 feeds propellant into element 4

Element 2 feeds propellant into element 5
Element 7 feeds propellant into element 5
Element 5 feeds propellant into element 4

So, 1,2,6,7 are drained during launch.

This is the first stage. 84,000 lbs of propellant are burned, in a
168,000 lb vehicle at launch - into a rocket with an exhaust velocity
of 4.1 km/sec. So, without gravity or air drag losses, the delta vee
of this first stage is 2.84 km/sec.

The four empty elements separate - reenter - deploy wings at subonic
speeds and glide to be recovered mid air downrange - and towed back
to the launch center by air.

Meanwhile 3 elements continue to orbit.

(3)(4)(5)

Now element 3 feeds into element 4
and element 5 feeds into element 4

So, 42,000 pounds of propellant are burned to accelerate 72,000 lbs of
propellant with rockets having a 4.2 km/sec exhaust speed. That
imparts another 3.67 km/sec to the vehicle speed - a total of 6.51 km/
sec - without gravity drag or air drag losses.

Now element 4 continues on its own, while the other two elements
separate re-enter and are recovered downrange.

To attain orbit, element 4 must add another 2.69 km/sec to its
speed. With an exhaust speed of 4.2 km/sec this implies 11,351 lbs
of propellant. Subtracting this figure plus 3,000 lbs of element
structure, obtains 9,649 pounds of useful payload on orbit.

This vehicle would cost $70 million to build and require another $30
million for test articles and a test program. Recurring costs are
less than $500,000 per launch. $100 million divided among 200 uses -
is another $500,000 per launch.

So, the cost of this system is $100 per pound.

With flights once a week - the vehicle has a 4 year life span.
Charging $500 per pound - or $5 million per launch - produces $1
billion over 5 years from a $100 million investment - which is a HUGE
return on investment over 77% per year!!

A wide range of payloads, including a piloted payload is possible with
this vehicle. The Russians are selling launches for about $25 million
each. Two people sharing a ride aboard this vehicle could pay $2.5
million each and maintain revenue.

A larger vehicle with RS-68 engines - with 660,000 lbs of thrust - one
per element - is 22x larger - capable of putting 220,000 lbs into
LEO. This is sufficient to do some serious work in space. Including
putting up satellite networks.

A still larger vehicle built along the same lines - with 7 RS-68
engines per element - is 154x larger - capable of putting 1,540,000
lbs into LEO - This is large enough for a reasonably sized power
satellite

wrote:

On Jun 29, 10:51 pm, kT wrote:
wrote:
We need to go beyond politics of right wing or left wing -as they're
both flawed - go beyond the politics as usual and seek to construct
real solutions to real problems facing us.
Like for instance, sustainable life support systems using the resources
we already have at our disposal?

How does that work exactly?

Well, nothing is exact in nature, but it roughly uses photons and
nutrients to grow plants and trees.

You got that worked out?

Pretty much. The trick is to do it in space.

Fact is, we
need to reach beyond the center to the resources of our frontier.

Fact is, the only reason we have to reach out is that we have ****ed our
way into a serious overpopulation problem, and we have dumbed ourselves
down into a serious educational problem. Barack Obama has got it right.

Fact is, we are already farming every square inch of land the best we
can, and still 3 billion go to bed hungry and 300,000 die every day of
malnutrition.

****! That seems to be the mammalian solution.

You think we should use scientific farming methods instead of
susbsistence farming everywhere we can?

I think we should stop ****ing our children, and start educating them.

Good idea Bongo. Howd does
that work exactly? You got that all worked out do you? I'd love to
see the plan.

It's rather what you don't see - ****ing children.

If only the Catholic clergy would see the light.

Fact is, we can't scientifically farm every square inch
of arable land, we don't have the resources to do it.

But we do have the resources to stop ****ing and start educating.

[snip - I don't have time for it right now, maybe later]

wrote:
Two RL10 engines adapted to operate through a wide range of ambient
pressures from sea-level to orbit, cost about $5 million in quantity
and the pair produces 30,000 lbsf thrust. The engines are
throttable, restartable, and reusable.

7 of these engine pairs housed in 7 airframes - clustered in a hcp
array -with cross-feeding - make an interesting launcher. Viewed
looking down on the system from above the cluster is numbered

(1)(2)
(3)(4)(5)
(6)(7)

All elements fire at launch, and produce 210,000 lbsf thrust - and
lift 168,000 lb mass vehicle into the sky at 1.25 gees. Each elements
masses 24,000 lbs full, and carries 21,000 lbs of propellant.

Element 1 feeds propellant into element 3
Element 6 feeds propellant into element 3
Element 3 feeds propellant into element 4

Element 2 feeds propellant into element 5
Element 7 feeds propellant into element 5
Element 5 feeds propellant into element 4

So, 1,2,6,7 are drained during launch.

This is the first stage. 84,000 lbs of propellant are burned, in a
168,000 lb vehicle at launch - into a rocket with an exhaust velocity
of 4.1 km/sec. So, without gravity or air drag losses, the delta vee
of this first stage is 2.84 km/sec.

The four empty elements separate - reenter - deploy wings at subonic
speeds and glide to be recovered mid air downrange - and towed back
to the launch center by air.

Meanwhile 3 elements continue to orbit.

(3)(4)(5)

Now element 3 feeds into element 4
and element 5 feeds into element 4

So, 42,000 pounds of propellant are burned to accelerate 72,000 lbs of
propellant with rockets having a 4.2 km/sec exhaust speed. That
imparts another 3.67 km/sec to the vehicle speed - a total of 6.51 km/
sec - without gravity drag or air drag losses.

Now element 4 continues on its own, while the other two elements
separate re-enter and are recovered downrange.

To attain orbit, element 4 must add another 2.69 km/sec to its
speed. With an exhaust speed of 4.2 km/sec this implies 11,351 lbs
of propellant. Subtracting this figure plus 3,000 lbs of element
structure, obtains 9,649 pounds of useful payload on orbit.

This vehicle would cost $70 million to build and require another $30
million for test articles and a test program. Recurring costs are
less than $500,000 per launch. $100 million divided among 200 uses -
is another $500,000 per launch.

So, the cost of this system is $100 per pound.

With flights once a week - the vehicle has a 4 year life span.
Charging $500 per pound - or $5 million per launch - produces $1
billion over 5 years from a $100 million investment - which is a HUGE
return on investment over 77% per year!!

A wide range of payloads, including a piloted payload is possible with
this vehicle. The Russians are selling launches for about $25 million
each. Two people sharing a ride aboard this vehicle could pay $2.5
million each and maintain revenue.

A larger vehicle with RS-68 engines - with 660,000 lbs of thrust - one
per element - is 22x larger - capable of putting 220,000 lbs into
LEO. This is sufficient to do some serious work in space. Including
putting up satellite networks.

A still larger vehicle built along the same lines - with 7 RS-68
engines per element - is 154x larger - capable of putting 1,540,000
lbs into LEO - This is large enough for a reasonably sized power
satellite

So what you're saying is, that after another 10 years or so of posting
on the usenet, we are right back to where we started.

kT

Most of humanity has never seen the inside of a classroom. Most of
humanity hasn't even elementary education. Most of humanity could
possess Phds, that won't increase the reserves of needed raw
materials.

So your comments about dumbing down, and about ****ing children are
merely red-herrings designed to radicalize the discussion and bury the
relevant issues in a sea of highly emotional irrelevancies. Besides,
education is something wealthy societies do for themselves.
Education, like environmentalism, is a luxury item. If we are less
educated today than we were 50 years ago, its because we're poorer
than we were 50 years ago. Why? Because the commodities on which our
industrial world are based are limited and their costs are rising -
subtracting from our wealth - thus, those things we buy with our
wealth, go wanting.

So,

The relevant facts are;

1) there are a handful of strategic materials (including oil) that
are in short supply
2) modern industry requires these materials in increasing quantity
3) rising living standards among larger populations increase demand
for these materials
4) We have two choices;
a) expand the availability of these materials by tapping off
world resources
b) collapse our demand by radical reduction in use

4a) involves developing off world resources using existing space
faring techniques
4b) involves a die off of human populations

Since the 1950s our society has elected to covertly manage 4b and
manage the global information environment to avoid all blame, pointing
out that we didn't cause 4b, but we certainly have a right to manage
events to they don't affect us.

Others don't see it that way, and any idea that we can usefully manage
collapse and remain unaffected is a greater fantasy than any space
travel scenario you can imagine.

4a) proceeds as follows;

1) Terrestrial solar replaces fossil fuel use
2) Develop RLV technology, deploy global wireless broadband
3) Expand RLV technology, deploy powersats
4) Develop NPP technology, capture asteroids to LEO
5) Deploy tele-operated factories to LEO
6) Distribute needed materials throughout the world
7) Expand space manufacturing to include farming, forestry
8) Distribute needed foods and fibers throughout the world
9) Distribute aerostat cities to act as warehouses, and relief
centers
10) Distribute personal ballistic transport vehicles
11) Develop space homes

The profits in step #1 will be used to;

1a) develop inflatable homes and green houses
1b) develop tele-robotics and tele-presence technologies

Step #2 will expand upon 1b) to provide jobs and financial services
for everyone on demand. So, we will quickly have reasonable housing
and jobs everywhere - relatively quickly. Each home will have a
teleoperated robot in it, to provide a means to RECEIVE services as
well as tele-operation suites to provide services - and of course a
wide range of video and audio services. So, medical care and hands on
training is quickly available to many.

Asteroid capture and development will take 12 years from the day the
program starts. It may be 3 to 8 years from today before the program
starts - so we're 15 to 20 years out on that. It may be possible to
work the issue other ways prior to this.

Once we have adequate supplies of raw materials, and capacity on
orbit, we are perfectly suited to resolve all the remaining supply
problems - and permit resolution of many issues going forward.

So what you're saying is, that after another 10 years or so of posting
on the usenet, we are right back to where we started.- Hide quoted text -


Look, you can ask the question What is 1 plus 1 ? and the answer
will be 2 - no matter if you ask the question 10years ago or today.
Its still 2. Same here.

We build a series of increasingly capable RLVs - and use them to
deploy a variety of missions including the current inventory of
satellite missions, as well as some new ones - including satellite
constellations and powersats.

We take the inventory of weapons grade materials world wide and
convert that to non-threatening impulse units, and build a small fleet
of highly capable nuclear pulse ships. With these we establish cites
on the moon and mars, and manned outposts throughout the solar
system. We also survey the asteroid belt in detail, and return rich
asteroids to Earth orbit. Once there, we deploy solar powered tele-
operated factories to process the asteroids into products that are
demanded on Earth - raising living standards - ending our resource
shortages.

wrote:
kT

Most of humanity has never seen the inside of a classroom. Most of
humanity hasn't even elementary education. Most of humanity could
possess Phds, that won't increase the reserves of needed raw
materials.

Thus, the problems. Admittedly, we have made great strides since the
pioneer and renaissance days, but since the post Sputnik educational
era, America has demonstrably degenerated into television nonsense,
propaganda, religious indoctrination, and babysitting Generation Xers.

So your comments about dumbing down, and about ****ing children are
merely red-herrings designed to radicalize the discussion and bury the
relevant issues in a sea of highly emotional irrelevancies.

No, the root of the problem is ignorance. I'm all for giving the rubes
the space program they will need to survive in the future, but that
won't solve the fundamental problems of society - dogmatic nonsense.

Have you even bothered to look at American television and the media
lately, I just turn it on to see the degeneration occur before my eyes.

Besides, education is something wealthy societies do for themselves.

America is not wealthy, America is broke and heavily in debt :

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

Hence, the endless barrage of daily propaganda, on television, in the
media, in our schools and in our churches. It's all complete ****,
unless you don't have the education to recognize it for what it is.

Education, like environmentalism, is a luxury item.

Sure, like air, water, food and shelter.

If we are less
educated today than we were 50 years ago, its because we're poorer
than we were 50 years ago.

What came first, the chicken or the egg?

Why?

Because of commercial, political and religious propaganda in lieu of a
good practical post Sputnik education.

Because the commodities on which our
industrial world are based are limited and their costs are rising -
subtracting from our wealth - thus, those things we buy with our
wealth, go wanting.

No, it's the wanting, instead of the needing.

So,

What. You completely are wrapped up in your own materialism.

[snip]