What to do on the moon?
Allen Thomson
The subject sometimes comes up, and NASA Watch has an interesting email
from Dr. Griffin to various sous-chiefs that mentions it. The overall
email, dated 23 Nov 2005, is about the recent NRC report on ISS
science, but Griffin notes,
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2005/12/mike_griffins_p.html#more
The next step out is the Moon. We're going to get, and
probably already are getting, the same criticisms as for ISS.
This is the "why go to the Moon?" theme.
We've got the architecture in place and generally accepted. That's
the "interstate highway" analogy I've made. So now, we need to
start talking about those exit ramps I've referred to. What ARE we
going to do on the Moon? To what end? And with whom? I have
ideas, of course. (I ALWAYS have ideas; it's a given.) But my
ideas don't matter. Now is the time to start working with our
own science community and with the Internationals to define
the program of lunar activity that makes the most sense to
the most people. I keep saying -- because it's true -- that it's
not the trip that matters, it's the destination, and what we do
there. We got to get started on this.
Joe Strout
"Allen Thomson" <thom...@flash.net> wrote:
> ...Griffin notes,
>
> What ARE we going to do on the Moon? To what end? ...
> Now is the time to start working with our
> own science community and with the Internationals to define
> the program of lunar activity that makes the most sense to
> the most people. I keep saying -- because it's true -- that it's
> not the trip that matters, it's the destination, and what we do
> there. We got to get started on this.
Sheesh. He's on the same old wrong track already, trying to justify
lunar development by science. Why does NASA believe its job is to do or
enable science, and that science must be the reason for any of its space
activities?
It's a rhetorical question; I know the reasons why. They're just not
good ones. We should be building infrastructure to enable commercial,
private development of the moon; once that happens, science can buy or
rent its own facilities like everybody else.
Best,
- Joe
,------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: |
| j...@strout.net http://www.macwebdir.com |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'
Jake McGuire
> The subject sometimes comes up, and NASA Watch has an interesting email
> from Dr. Griffin to various sous-chiefs that mentions it. The overall
> email, dated 23 Nov 2005, is about the recent NRC report on ISS
> science, but Griffin notes,
>
> http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2005/12/mike_griffins_p.html#more
>
> The next step out is the Moon. We're going to get, and
> probably already are getting, the same criticisms as for ISS.
> This is the "why go to the Moon?" theme.
>
> We've got the architecture in place and generally accepted. That's
> the "interstate highway" analogy I've made. So now, we need to
> start talking about those exit ramps I've referred to.
The interstate highway analogy is not one that I've seen fully fleshed
out, but I have to say that it conjures up images of the "Bridge to
Nowhere" in Alaska, or perhaps the excellent condition of the
interstates in West Virginia. But while I find these things morally
objectionable, they do exists, so perhaps the analogy isn't so bad
after all.
-jake
Rand Simberg
McGuire" <jamc...@yahoo.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:
I've been meaning to flesh it out. It's extremely flawed, if the ESAS
is the implementation of it. I'm not sure that Mike has really
thought that one through...
life...@atlantic.net
Allen Thomson wrote:
> http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2005/12/mike_griffins_p.html#more
>
> The next step out is the Moon.
Nope, sorry, it's not.
> We're going to get, and
> probably already are getting, the same criticisms as for ISS.
> This is the "why go to the Moon?" theme.
No shit.
> We've got the architecture in place and generally accepted.
Sorry, wrong again.
> That's the "interstate highway" analogy I've made.
Wrong analogy. Not only is the goal wrong,
but the method is fundamentally flawed too.
Michael Rhino
news:1134572189.4...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Griffin should talk to tourist companies, such as major hotel chains and ask
them what they want to do on the moon. Those discussions should be
happening now, before CEV is designed. There are other businesses like
mining and manufacturing, but those businesses need customers, so tourism is
a major piece of the puzzle. Tourism won't be profitable, but NASA is going
to lose several billion dollars either way -- with our without tourism.
With tourism, you can get more people up there for the same money.
jonathan
"Allen Thomson" <thom...@flash.net> wrote in message
news:1134572189.4...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
I think the idea is to get there, and then figure out what
to do on the Moon. Kinda like with ISS, build it and
....'they'll come'. The science and discoveries to make
it all worthwhile, that is. How did that strategy work out for
the ISS?
It's called a prayer, not a plan.
What bugs me is that they seem to be building all
this new hardware around this long range 'plan'.
IF we did this instead
Space Solar Power Home
http://spacesolarpower.nasa.gov/
We could build the infrastructure needed to
use and colonize space. A 'power-plug' in
space for larger satellites, long duration space
flights and colonies. And so on.
Oh, and maybe solve the world's greatest single
dilemma, our dependence on fossil fuels, while
we're at it. Oh and global warming too, not to
mention maybe someday the US becomes the
world's largest energy ....supplier.
But that's ok, we can go on having wars over diminishing
energy supplies, we can go on pumping all the greenhouse
gasses we like. We can go on forgetting the third world
will soon be burning more fossil fuels than anyone else
soon.
Just use nuclear energy for space, larger and larger ones.
Ya, makes sense to me
Jonathan
s
>
Terrell Miller
"jonathan" <wr...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:HC5of.38528$cA2....@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> What bugs me is that they seem to be building all
> this new hardware around this long range 'plan'.
>
> IF we did this instead
>
> Space Solar Power Home
> http://spacesolarpower.nasa.gov/
>
>
> We could build the infrastructure needed to
> use and colonize space. A 'power-plug' in
> space for larger satellites, long duration space
> flights and colonies. And so on.
>
> Oh, and maybe solve the world's greatest single
> dilemma, our dependence on fossil fuels, while
> we're at it. Oh and global warming too, not to
> mention maybe someday the US becomes the
> world's largest energy ....supplier.
have you actually read the specs on SPS? They don't generate nerly enough
power to pay back the development costs.
Also, note the "modifiedby" date on this website. Over 4 years ago. SPS/SSP
was about as legitimate as Webvan.
jonathan
<life...@atlantic.net> wrote in message
news:1134586004....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I'll say, they decide on a destination first, then try to
figure out why they went there....later.
I mean, I mean.....am I insane! Isn't it supposed to be
the OTHER way 'round?
We have all this money, time and skill available. Shouldn't
the first question be "to what end"? What problem on earth
can all that solve? What 'good' can flow from the huge effort?
Then figure out where, how and what is needed
to accomplish that worthwhile goal.
NOT THE OTHER WAY 'ROUND!
Anything they come up with now for justifying going
to the Moon will be seen as a contrivance. Because the
reasons will be contrived since the where came first, and the
why second.
Are they that stupid, or is it me? Can it be true they took out
a picture of the solar system and someone pointed to it and
said ....'let's go here'.
And no one bothered to ask "WHY"???
I swear, either I'm mental, or the world is completely backwards.
Which is it? I can't tell anymore.
Jonathan
>
> http://cosmic.lifeform.org
>
jonathan
"Terrell Miller" <mill...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:MM5of.8541$kP5....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>
> "jonathan" <wr...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:HC5of.38528$cA2....@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>
>
> > What bugs me is that they seem to be building all
> > this new hardware around this long range 'plan'.
> >
> > IF we did this instead
> >
> > Space Solar Power Home
> > http://spacesolarpower.nasa.gov/
> >
> >
> > We could build the infrastructure needed to
> > use and colonize space. A 'power-plug' in
> > space for larger satellites, long duration space
> > flights and colonies. And so on.
> >
> > Oh, and maybe solve the world's greatest single
> > dilemma, our dependence on fossil fuels, while
> > we're at it. Oh and global warming too, not to
> > mention maybe someday the US becomes the
> > world's largest energy ....supplier.
>
> have you actually read the specs on SPS? They don't generate nerly enough
> power to pay back the development costs.
I read it. Yes, it would be a true challenge. Many breakthroughs
would be required. And it would be some time before it would
be cost effective. But solar power stations of gigawatt size are
feasible. And more to the point, to use and colonize space requires
energy, lots of it. More and more of it as our space activities
expand. Are we going to just rely on nuclear?
The infrastructure needed for truly colonizing space is in supplying
energy. Solar power could lay the groundwork for truly ambitious
space exploitation, while promising to solve our most dire planetary
problems down the road.
>
> Also, note the "modifiedby" date on this website. Over 4 years ago. SPS/SSP
> was about as legitimate as Webvan.
When did George Bush take office?
>
>
Jim Davis
>> have you actually read the specs on SPS? They don't generate
>> nerly enough power to pay back the development costs.
>
>
> I read it. Yes, it would be a true challenge. Many breakthroughs
> would be required. And it would be some time before it would
> be cost effective. But solar power stations of gigawatt size
> are feasible. And more to the point, to use and colonize space
> requires energy, lots of it. More and more of it as our space
> activities expand. Are we going to just rely on nuclear?
Tranlation: Sure, we lose money on each transaction but we make it up
in volume!
Jim Davis
Henry Spencer
Remember, Griffin didn't make this particular decision. His orders say
"back to the Moon"; exactly how and why is his problem, but the general
destination was already set when he took the job.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | he...@spsystems.net
Henry Spencer
Terrell Miller <mill...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>have you actually read the specs on SPS? They don't generate nerly enough
>power to pay back the development costs.
Depends on the assumptions you make. If you have to lift all the hardware
with the shuttle, of course it can never be a paying proposition. With
more sensible assumptions, it conceivably could be quite competitive...
especially if you adjust the prices of competing technologies to reflect
the costs of their CO2 emissions.
There is *no* off-the-shelf technology that can deliver circa 25_TW of
CO2-neutral generating capacity by 2050, which is what it takes to have
some hope of containing the climate effects. (*Eliminating* those effects
would take considerably more; this is just what it probably takes to keep
them not too drastic.) All the viable alternatives have major development
costs too.
(The Kyoto Agreement, and whether the Western nations manage to abide by
it, is basically irrelevant to this. Already, over 80% of the annual
growth in fossil-fuel use is in Asia, not in the First World. There is
absolutely, positively no hope in Hell of convincing those nations not to
industrialize -- they [correctly] see it as their only hope.)
Powersats are probably not the best choice for the immediate future, but
they are well worth developing as a backup, and they're at least in the
running to be the long-term preferred choice.
Rand Simberg
Miller" <mill...@bellsouth.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:
>have you actually read the specs on SPS?
The what?
>They don't generate nerly enough
>power to pay back the development costs.
Huh?
That depends entirely on the design, and implementation. As a blanket
statement, it's meaningless.
Allen Thomson
Henry Spencer wrote:
> Remember, Griffin didn't make this particular decision. His orders say
> "back to the Moon"; exactly how and why is his problem, but the general
> destination was already set when he took the job.
Correct. The question isn't "Why are we going to the moon?" but "What
are we going to do when we get there?" The answer to the first is,
basically, an irreducible "Because we are." The answer to the second
is apparently TBD.
One thing to consider is that answers to the second question will come
with price tags attached.
Brad Guth
We can sit back and watch the progress and rewards of the Chinese
LSE-CM/ISS.
-
Brad Guth
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
>Remember, Griffin didn't make this particular decision. His orders say
>"back to the Moon"; exactly how and why is his problem, but the general
>destination was already set when he took the job.
It was set a few billion years ago. It's not a question of where or
why. It's only a question of when, and who, and how, and what to do
there _first_.
As to the latter, the obvious answer is to establish a 99+%
independent, ecologically self-contained and sustainable settlement
with industrial capabilities to make LOX-alkali-metal rockets and
components for very large climate-control satellites. Assuming it's
not already too late, that is (see the "World is Doomed!" thread).
-- Roy L
life...@atlantic.net
ro...@telus.net wrote:
> It's not a question of where or why.
> It's only a question of when, and who, and how, and what to do
> there _first_.
First order of moon business :
We need to keep the moon from crashing into the Earth!
Jim Logajan
> There is *no* off-the-shelf technology that can deliver circa 25_TW of
> CO2-neutral generating capacity by 2050, which is what it takes to
> have some hope of containing the climate effects.
Since all large generating plants of greater than about 100 MW are already
custom built, the use of the term "off-the-shelf" is poorly chosen and
inadvertently misleading. In my humble opinion, of course.
Brad Guth
significant icy proto-moon gets involved.
I believe there's more than 5 TW worth of continuous energy pushing us
apart.
If you come up with a different or better amount of energy involved,
please share.
-
Brad Guth
Jim Davis
> ...the obvious answer is to establish a 99+% independent,
> ecologically self-contained and sustainable settlement...
A requirement guaranteed to strangle space settlement in its crib.
Jim Davis
jonathan
"Henry Spencer" <he...@spsystems.net> wrote in message
news:IrIw9...@spsystems.net...
> In article <HC5of.38528$cA2....@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
> jonathan <wr...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >I think the idea is to get there, and then figure out what
> >to do on the Moon...
>
> Remember, Griffin didn't make this particular decision. His orders say
> "back to the Moon"; exactly how and why is his problem, but the general
> destination was already set when he took the job.
Ya I know. Maybe we should just take them on their word.
"Today I announce a new plan to explore space and extend a
human presence across our solar system. We will begin the
effort quickly, using existing programs and personnel.
We'll make steady progress -one mission, one
voyage, one landing at a time"
President George W.Bush -
January 14, 2004
Music rising.....fade to star field....
"It's twenty year mission: To boldly go where..... ah never mind"
Truth is stranger than fiction. I don't care what anybody says.
s
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
OTC, ecological near-self-sufficiency is the only way to make a
settlement financially sustainable in the long term. You just can't
be supplying three MREs a day from Earth to hundreds of people, let
alone thousands. The other point, of course, is that designing a
settlement to self-destruct if its supply chain is interrupted is not
a viable long-term strategy.
-- Roy L
Jim Davis
> OTC, ecological near-self-sufficiency is the only way to make a
> settlement financially sustainable in the long term.
Interesting. I had no idea Britain and Japan were not financially
sustainable in the long term.
> You just
> can't be supplying three MREs a day from Earth to hundreds of
> people, let alone thousands.
Why can't you? Many societies generate enough wealth to permit
importing much of their food supply. Your settlements *will*
generate wealth, won't they?
> The other point, of course, is
> that designing a settlement to self-destruct if its supply chain
> is interrupted is not a viable long-term strategy.
But your suggestion, that a settlement consisting of only hundreds
or thousands of settlers can be completely independent, is an
impossible long term strategy. Space settlements will only be
possible at an advanced technological level, at least at the level
of the late 20th or early 21st century if not later. Due to the
enormous level of specialization required to maintain this
technological level the population of any independent space
settlement or group of space settlements will have to be very
large, probably at least within an order of magnitude of the size
of the population that maintains it here on earth. It will take
centuries or millenia to reach these levels.
Requiring space settlements to be independent is about as practical
and about as necessary as requiring oil platforms and Antarctic
research stations to be independent.
Foisting political and idealogical baggage on a concept which has
enough trouble being taken seriously is just foolish.
Jim Davis
life...@atlantic.net
Jim Davis wrote:
> Requiring space settlements to be independent is about as practical
> and about as necessary as requiring oil platforms and Antarctic
> research stations to be independent.
>
> Foisting political and idealogical baggage on a concept which has
> enough trouble being taken seriously is just foolish.
On the other hand, implementing even the simplist
and minimal of CELSS techniques would greatly
reduce the cost of manned space flight.
Derek Lyons
>I think the idea is to get there, and then figure out what
>to do on the Moon. Kinda like with ISS, build it and
>....'they'll come'.
In other words, like a lot of large science facilities. (Hubble for
example, or Palomar.)
>The science and discoveries to make it all worthwhile, that
>is. How did that strategy work out for the ISS?
About a decade after the ISS is complete, we'll be able to answer that
question. At the moment, it's nothing but rhetorical handwaving.
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
Derek Lyons
>Requiring space settlements to be independent is about as practical
>and about as necessary as requiring oil platforms and Antarctic
>research stations to be independent.
Requiring 'settlements' and 'colonies' to no have a large, and
growing, degree of independence means redefining the terms away from
their historical connotations.
Henry Spencer
>...The other point, of course, is that designing a
>settlement to self-destruct if its supply chain is interrupted is not
>a viable long-term strategy.
Why not? It's not like we don't do that here; there are lots of places
which are vitally dependent on outside supplies of one kind or another.
Much of the Los Angeles basin has no natural fresh water. Nobody now
alive remembers a time when Britain was self-sufficient in food. Hawaii
and Japan are both vitally dependent on imported oil, since they have none
of their own.
Henry Spencer
Jim Logajan <Jam...@Lugoj.com> wrote:
>> There is *no* off-the-shelf technology that can deliver circa 25_TW of
>
>Since all large generating plants of greater than about 100 MW are already
As Gene has helpfully observed, this isn't actually true of the types of
plants which are made in significant numbers.
Moreover, note that I was talking about the technology, not the detailed
design of the plants. Current gigawatt-size nuclear power plants *are*
custom designed, but the *technology* to do so is definitely off the
shelf; it's been done enough times that there is no question that we know
how to do it.
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
>In article <43a233ee...@news1.qc.sympatico.ca>, <ro...@telus.net> wrote:
>>...The other point, of course, is that designing a
>>settlement to self-destruct if its supply chain is interrupted is not
>>a viable long-term strategy.
>
>Why not? It's not like we don't do that here; there are lots of places
>which are vitally dependent on outside supplies of one kind or another.
>Much of the Los Angeles basin has no natural fresh water.
LA was (perhaps all too obviously) not designed. It just grew.
>Nobody now
>alive remembers a time when Britain was self-sufficient in food.
Yet it managed well enough in WW II, even though outside supply at
times slowed to a trickle. Anyway, one lesson of WW II is that an
advanced industrial and military power that relies on imports (both
Britain and Japan showed this) is highly vulnerable to a relatively
low-cost shipping blockade.
>Hawaii
>and Japan are both vitally dependent on imported oil, since they have none
>of their own.
They also were not designed; and Japan, at least, takes its food
security very seriously, spending many billions of dollars a year to
subsidize its rice agriculture rather than relying on imports that
would cost 1/5 as much.
-- Roy L
richard schumacher
wrote:
> times slowed to a trickle. Anyway, one lesson of WW II is that an
> advanced industrial and military power that relies on imports (both
> Britain and Japan showed this) is highly vulnerable to a relatively
> low-cost shipping blockade.
What would a low-cost blockade of shipments to the Moon look like?
> >Hawaii
> >and Japan are both vitally dependent on imported oil, since they have none
> >of their own.
>
> They also were not designed; and Japan, at least, takes its food
> security very seriously, spending many billions of dollars a year to
> subsidize its rice agriculture rather than relying on imports that
> would cost 1/5 as much.
That's nice. And as for Japan's oil supplies?
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
> wrote:
>
>> OTC, ecological near-self-sufficiency is the only way to make a
>> settlement financially sustainable in the long term.
>
>Interesting. I had no idea Britain and Japan were not financially
>sustainable in the long term.
They are both nearly self-sufficient, and more to the point, could be
if they had to. In particular, neither of them needs to import air or
drinking water.
>> You just
>> can't be supplying three MREs a day from Earth to hundreds of
>> people, let alone thousands.
>
>Why can't you?
Because the energy cost alone is far greater than the cost of just
growing the food there, and more importantly, importing low-tech,
high-mass consumables crowds out of the budget other things that are
much harder to produce there, like high-tech but low-mass equipment.
>Many societies generate enough wealth to permit
>importing much of their food supply.
Sure. When transporting it there costs pennies/kg.
>Your settlements *will*
>generate wealth, won't they?
Yes, but probably not that much. You have to be pretty productive to
justify labor costs in the ballpark of $1M/person-year.
>> The other point, of course, is
>> that designing a settlement to self-destruct if its supply chain
>> is interrupted is not a viable long-term strategy.
>
>But your suggestion, that a settlement consisting of only hundreds
>or thousands of settlers can be completely independent, is an
>impossible long term strategy.
I didn't say it had to be or even should be _completely_ independent.
Only the low-production-cost/mass stuff like air, water, food, rocket
fuel, construction materials, etc. would need to be locally produced.
But those things would likely make up 99+% of the settlement's
long-term mass budget.
>Space settlements will only be
>possible at an advanced technological level, at least at the level
>of the late 20th or early 21st century if not later.
?? And...? Which century are you writing from?
>Due to the
>enormous level of specialization required to maintain this
>technological level the population of any independent space
>settlement or group of space settlements will have to be very
>large, probably at least within an order of magnitude of the size
>of the population that maintains it here on earth.
But only if total independence is required. A _nearly_ independent
settlement would require far fewer people, though I doubt it could be
done with less than 100, as some successful settlements here on earth
have done.
>It will take
>centuries or millenia to reach these levels.
Historical examples show that settlements can reach independence quite
quickly, even immediately. Remember, the level of technology that
must be supported is also the level available to support it.
>Requiring space settlements to be independent is about as practical
>and about as necessary as requiring oil platforms and Antarctic
>research stations to be independent.
Supplying the latter is orders of magnitude cheaper than supplying the
former, and the latter are not intended to be permanent.
>Foisting political and idealogical baggage on a concept which has
>enough trouble being taken seriously is just foolish.
There's nothing political or ideological about it. We have many
historical examples of frontier settlements to learn from. Lack of
self-sufficiency in basic day-to-day needs was very often fatal to
them.
-- Roy L
Christopher
<no-...@invalid.net> wrote:
>In article <43a2c7e0...@news1.qc.sympatico.ca>, ro...@telus.net
>wrote:
>
>
>> times slowed to a trickle. Anyway, one lesson of WW II is that an
>> advanced industrial and military power that relies on imports (both
>> Britain and Japan showed this) is highly vulnerable to a relatively
>> low-cost shipping blockade.
>
>What would a low-cost blockade of shipments to the Moon look like?
I would imagine like the opening scenes of 'The Phantom Menace'. :-)
>> >Hawaii
>> >and Japan are both vitally dependent on imported oil, since they have none
>> >of their own.
>>
>> They also were not designed; and Japan, at least, takes its food
>> security very seriously, spending many billions of dollars a year to
>> subsidize its rice agriculture rather than relying on imports that
>> would cost 1/5 as much.
>
>That's nice. And as for Japan's oil supplies?
--
Christopher
Sander Vesik
> In article <43a233ee...@news1.qc.sympatico.ca>, <ro...@telus.net> wrote:
> >...The other point, of course, is that designing a
> >settlement to self-destruct if its supply chain is interrupted is not
> >a viable long-term strategy.
>
> Why not? It's not like we don't do that here; there are lots of places
> which are vitally dependent on outside supplies of one kind or another.
> Much of the Los Angeles basin has no natural fresh water. Nobody now
> alive remembers a time when Britain was self-sufficient in food. Hawaii
> and Japan are both vitally dependent on imported oil, since they have none
> of their own.
Didn't britain stop being self-sufficent food wise sometime in the late
1800s? Not so much because they couldn't but because it no longer paid to,
thus indirectly causing the corn laws and potato famine...
--
Sander
+++ Out of cheese error +++
Sander Vesik
> On 16 Dec 2005 05:20:01 +0100, Jim Davis <jimd...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> OTC, ecological near-self-sufficiency is the only way to make a
> >> settlement financially sustainable in the long term.
> >
> >Interesting. I had no idea Britain and Japan were not financially
> >sustainable in the long term.
>
> They are both nearly self-sufficient, and more to the point, could be
> if they had to. In particular, neither of them needs to import air or
> drinking water.
They are not "nearly" self sufficent. The UK produces only about 70%
of the food it needs, and increasing that fraction considerably would
need major changes to the workforce. It could be done - however, it
would be far from economical.
> -- Roy L
Sander Vesik
>
> Didn't britain stop being self-sufficent food wise sometime in the late
> 1800s? Not so much because they couldn't but because it no longer paid to,
1700s. thats what you get for changing early to late and foreggting to reset
the century.
Jim Davis
>>Interesting. I had no idea Britain and Japan were not
>>financially sustainable in the long term.
>
> They are both nearly self-sufficient,
Not even close.
> and more to the point,
> could be if they had to.
You are very badly mistaken on this point.
>>> You just
>>> can't be supplying three MREs a day from Earth to hundreds of
>>> people, let alone thousands.
>>
>>Why can't you?
>
> Because the energy cost alone is far greater than the cost of
> just growing the food there,
This is by no means certain. Even setting aside the fact that the
costs of growing food elsewhere than earth are not even vaguely
known, the opportunity costs of growing food may very well be
greater than the costs of importing food. A space settlement might
find it far more profitable to mine more platinum or build more
power satellites or whatever it is that space colonies do rather
than grow their own food.
Societies on earth make exactly these choices all the time.
> and more importantly, importing
> low-tech, high-mass consumables crowds out of the budget other
> things that are much harder to produce there, like high-tech but
> low-mass equipment.
Again, this is by no means certain.
>>Many societies generate enough wealth to permit
>>importing much of their food supply.
>
> Sure. When transporting it there costs pennies/kg.
Again, these costs are relative. Transportation costs might very
well be high but quite modest compared to the ability of a
settlement to generate wealth. Indeed, they better be or there will
be no settlements.
>>Your settlements *will*
>>generate wealth, won't they?
>
> Yes, but probably not that much. You have to be pretty
> productive to justify labor costs in the ballpark of
> $1M/person-year.
Then you will not have to worry about settlements producing their
own food. There won't be any.
>>> The other point, of course, is
>>> that designing a settlement to self-destruct if its supply
>>> chain is interrupted is not a viable long-term strategy.
>>
>>But your suggestion, that a settlement consisting of only
>>hundreds or thousands of settlers can be completely independent,
>>is an impossible long term strategy.
>
> I didn't say it had to be or even should be _completely_
> independent. Only the low-production-cost/mass stuff like air,
> water, food, rocket fuel, construction materials, etc. would
> need to be locally produced. But those things would likely make
> up 99+% of the settlement's long-term mass budget.
Space societies will follow the same economic laws as terrestrial
societies. If it is cheaper to import stuff like air, water, food,
rocket fuel, construction materials, etc. they will do that. If it
is cheaper to produce them locally they will do that. Over the long
term the relative costs and benefits of producing or importing any
given item will no doubt vary considerably. But the settlement will
make the determination on a case by case basis. Constraining them
artificially is just foolishness.
>>Space settlements will only be
>>possible at an advanced technological level, at least at the
>>level of the late 20th or early 21st century if not later.
>
> ?? And...? Which century are you writing from?
I'm writing from a century that has seen no space settlements.
> But only if total independence is required. A _nearly_
> independent settlement would require far fewer people, though I
> doubt it could be done with less than 100, as some successful
> settlements here on earth have done.
Nonsense.
> Historical examples show that settlements can reach independence
> quite quickly, even immediately.
But not settlements at the technological levels required for space
settlements.
> Remember, the level of
> technology that must be supported is also the level available to
> support it.
No. The level of a society's technology and the society's
population are very closely coupled. The total population of all
space settlements will have to number in the billions before they
can be independent of earth.
>>Requiring space settlements to be independent is about as
>>practical and about as necessary as requiring oil platforms and
>>Antarctic research stations to be independent.
> Supplying the latter is orders of magnitude cheaper than
> supplying the former,
Which is of course why we have oil platforms and Antarctic research
stations but no space settlements.
> and the latter are not intended to be
> permanent.
Intentions matter for nothing. Do you really think the future
inhabitants of space settlements, if any, will care one whit what
the intentions of its builders were? They'll abandon the space
settlement if the settlement doesn't live up to their expectations
or the moment better prospects present themselves elsewhere or if
their survival prospects are too low or for any number of reasons.
>>Foisting political and idealogical baggage on a concept which
>>has enough trouble being taken seriously is just foolish.
>
> There's nothing political or ideological about it. We have many
> historical examples of frontier settlements to learn from. Lack
> of self-sufficiency in basic day-to-day needs was very often
> fatal to them.
No, sorry, lack of basic day-to-day needs was often very fatal to
them. Successful frontier settlements were the ones which were best
able to judge what basic day-to-day needs could best be provided by
the settlement and what basic day-to-day needs could best be
provided from elsewhere.
Jim Davis
Jim Davis
> Anyway, one lesson of WW II is that an
> advanced industrial and military power that relies on imports (both
> Britain and Japan showed this) is highly vulnerable to a relatively
> low-cost shipping blockade.
<chuckle>
Sure, Britain and Japan would have been *much* better equipped to
withstand Axis and Allied assaults respectively if they had only
foregone industrialization and remained self sufficient agrarian
societies.
Jim Davis
Rand Simberg
<jimd...@earthlink.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:
>>>> You just
>>>> can't be supplying three MREs a day from Earth to hundreds of
>>>> people, let alone thousands.
>>>
>>>Why can't you?
>>
>> Because the energy cost alone is far greater than the cost of
>> just growing the food there,
>
>This is by no means certain. Even setting aside the fact that the
>costs of growing food elsewhere than earth are not even vaguely
>known, the opportunity costs of growing food may very well be
>greater than the costs of importing food. A space settlement might
>find it far more profitable to mine more platinum or build more
>power satellites or whatever it is that space colonies do rather
>than grow their own food.
>
>Societies on earth make exactly these choices all the time.
Yes. It's called the law of comparative advantage.
>>>But your suggestion, that a settlement consisting of only
>>>hundreds or thousands of settlers can be completely independent,
>>>is an impossible long term strategy.
>>
>> I didn't say it had to be or even should be _completely_
>> independent. Only the low-production-cost/mass stuff like air,
>> water, food, rocket fuel, construction materials, etc. would
>> need to be locally produced. But those things would likely make
>> up 99+% of the settlement's long-term mass budget.
>
>Space societies will follow the same economic laws as terrestrial
>societies. If it is cheaper to import stuff like air, water, food,
>rocket fuel, construction materials, etc. they will do that. If it
>is cheaper to produce them locally they will do that. Over the long
>term the relative costs and benefits of producing or importing any
>given item will no doubt vary considerably. But the settlement will
>make the determination on a case by case basis. Constraining them
>artificially is just foolishness.
One thinks he's watched "Total Recall" too many times...
Henry Spencer
>
>LA was (perhaps all too obviously) not designed. It just grew.
Interestingly enough, I'm told that you can tell where the local fresh
water was: the places which retained some degree of political autonomy,
like Santa Monica, are the ones that had their own water.
>>Nobody now
>>alive remembers a time when Britain was self-sufficient in food.
>
>Yet it managed well enough in WW II, even though outside supply at
>times slowed to a trickle.
Uh, no, not correct. At no time did Doenitz have anywhere *near* the
U-boat force needed to conduct an actual blockade. He had to rely on a
less direct strategy, sinking shipping faster than the Allies could build
more, in hopes that this would eventually reduce the flow. And even that
approach was a failure -- only once or twice, briefly, when both
circumstances and luck favored them, did the U-boats come anywhere near
reaching break-even. Most supply ships sailing for Britain got there.
(Had the U-boat force received anywhere near the money and technical
effort put into things like tanks, things would have been very different.
But Germany historically was a land power, and the navy was always the
poor stepchild.)
Food supplies in Britain *did* get tight now and then, but that reflected
limited shipping tonnage (many neutral ships, understandably, preferred to
trade somewhere else) before US production really geared up, and an urgent
need for shipping space for many other things. Britain stayed heavily
dependent on imported food, despite strenuous efforts to reduce the need.
>Anyway, one lesson of WW II is that an
>advanced industrial and military power that relies on imports (both
>Britain and Japan showed this) is highly vulnerable to a relatively
>low-cost shipping blockade.
With the possible exception of Russia, there wasn't a single power in WW2
that wasn't dependent on imports. Yes, even the US. It's the nature of
modern economies to need things that they don't make locally.
Blockading shipping is harder than it looks -- and was *much* harder in
those days -- except where it bottlenecks through narrow passages.
>...Japan, at least, takes its food
>security very seriously, spending many billions of dollars a year to
>subsidize its rice agriculture rather than relying on imports that
>would cost 1/5 as much.
And on the shortest sea route from the Persian Gulf to Japan, on a clear
day, the captain of a tanker can see the funnel smoke from the tanker
ahead and the one behind.
Alex Terrell
Henry Spencer wrote:
> In article <43a233ee...@news1.qc.sympatico.ca>, <ro...@telus.net> wrote:
> >...The other point, of course, is that designing a
> >settlement to self-destruct if its supply chain is interrupted is not
> >a viable long-term strategy.
>
> Why not? It's not like we don't do that here; there are lots of places
> which are vitally dependent on outside supplies of one kind or another.
Longer term, part of the purpose of a moon base or space colonies would
be species survival insurance. That means it should be sustainable
without supplies, though in the normal course of events it would of
course be trading to maximise its welfare.
A space colony would have a contingency plan / strategy to cover loss
of supplies: Introduce rationing, cut down on science, build extra
greenhouses etc.
> Much of the Los Angeles basin has no natural fresh water. Nobody now
> alive remembers a time when Britain was self-sufficient in food. Hawaii
> and Japan are both vitally dependent on imported oil, since they have none
> of their own.
LA was never designed to be sustainable by itself. Britain, Hawaii and
Japan could continue to exist if the rest of the world disappeared, all
be it with a siginificant reduction in wealth, and probably in
population. However, if the entire world apart from one of the above
three died, the human species would survive.
Alex Terrell
What the space program needs now is a Liberty Ship.
Alex Terrell
goods, and trade these for food, than to make food and eat it oneself..
This strategy then led to a rapid increase in population beyond what is
economically (though perhaps not technologically) supportable on a
small island.
Alex Terrell
Terrell Miller wrote:
>
> have you actually read the specs on SPS? They don't generate nerly enough
> power to pay back the development costs.
>
That depends on who and how. With NASA from Earth launch agree.
However, building SPS lends itself to large scale automation - it
should be more akin to a process industry than a manufacturing industry
(think continuous extrusion of km wide panels - impossible on Earth,
but not too difficult in space).
Hence I would expect the start up capital costs to be very high, but
the marginal costs to be very low. Classic monopoly risk situation.
jonathan
"Derek Lyons" <fair...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:43a7714e...@news.supernews.com...
> "jonathan" <wr...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >I think the idea is to get there, and then figure out what
> >to do on the Moon. Kinda like with ISS, build it and
> >....'they'll come'.
>
> In other words, like a lot of large science facilities. (Hubble for
> example, or Palomar.)
They are successful since they were built with very specific
capabilities and goals in mind. We knew if built to specs
they would provide very useful science. We don't know
that with ISS at all. Or with 'to the moon and mars', we're
hoping a benefit will be found after they're built.
It's like grinding a huge lens without knowing in advance
whether it's to be used as a telescope or a microscope.
So it's built to do both, and ends up doing neither very
well, if at all.
>
> >The science and discoveries to make it all worthwhile, that
> >is. How did that strategy work out for the ISS?
>
> About a decade after the ISS is complete, we'll be able to answer that
> question. At the moment, it's nothing but rhetorical handwaving.
But the lack of clear benefits to the public, or even to research, means
no one really cares all that much. Poorly thought out goals means
low interest, low funding and a very predictable outcome.
A big waste of time and money. Precious money and even more
precious...time. We're talking about a forty year program as
the moon is all about getting to mars. A forty year program with
very predictable results. Bad results, as in we get half way there
and call the whole thing off. Kinda like the ISS and it's microgravity
science that was supposed to provide 'cutting edge' and
life changing science benefits.
The most important aspect of success is a properly conceived
goal. Without that the means cannot be designed or sustained
for success.
Jonathan
s
Derek Lyons
>
>"Derek Lyons" <fair...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:43a7714e...@news.supernews.com...
>> "jonathan" <wr...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> >I think the idea is to get there, and then figure out what
>> >to do on the Moon. Kinda like with ISS, build it and
>> >....'they'll come'.
>>
>> In other words, like a lot of large science facilities. (Hubble for
>> example, or Palomar.)
>
>They are successful since they were built with very specific
>capabilities and goals in mind.
As is the ISS.
<remainder of nonsense snipped - as it's based on the incorrect belief
that ISS was somehow 'just built'.>
ro...@telus.net
<san...@haldjas.folklore.ee> wrote:
>ro...@telus.net wrote:
>> On 16 Dec 2005 05:20:01 +0100, Jim Davis <jimd...@earthlink.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> OTC, ecological near-self-sufficiency is the only way to make a
>> >> settlement financially sustainable in the long term.
>> >
>> >Interesting. I had no idea Britain and Japan were not financially
>> >sustainable in the long term.
>>
>> They are both nearly self-sufficient, and more to the point, could be
>> if they had to. In particular, neither of them needs to import air or
>> drinking water.
>
>They are not "nearly" self sufficent. The UK produces only about 70%
>of the food it needs,
And probably overeats by a similar amount.
>and increasing that fraction considerably would
>need major changes to the workforce.
Not really. Just to the diet.
>It could be done - however, it
>would be far from economical.
They could just feed less food to animals and more directly to people.
Remember mad cow? You can feed at least an order of magnitude more
people with a given amount of land by switching from animals to plants
as your primary food.
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
>Roy L. wrote:
?? What are you talking about?
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
<no-...@invalid.net> wrote:
>In article <43a2c7e0...@news1.qc.sympatico.ca>, ro...@telus.net
>wrote:
>
>> times slowed to a trickle. Anyway, one lesson of WW II is that an
>> advanced industrial and military power that relies on imports (both
>> Britain and Japan showed this) is highly vulnerable to a relatively
>> low-cost shipping blockade.
>
>What would a low-cost blockade of shipments to the Moon look like?
Interceptor missiles.
>> >Hawaii
>> >and Japan are both vitally dependent on imported oil, since they have none
>> >of their own.
>>
>> They also were not designed; and Japan, at least, takes its food
>> security very seriously, spending many billions of dollars a year to
>> subsidize its rice agriculture rather than relying on imports that
>> would cost 1/5 as much.
>
>That's nice. And as for Japan's oil supplies?
Cheap at the price.
-- Roy L
Rand Simberg
ro...@telus.net made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as
to indicate that:
>>It could be done - however, it
>>would be far from economical.
>
>They could just feed less food to animals and more directly to people.
>Remember mad cow? You can feed at least an order of magnitude more
>people with a given amount of land by switching from animals to plants
>as your primary food.
Yes. You can live in caves, too...
Alex Terrell
Jim Davis wrote:
> But your suggestion, that a settlement consisting of only hundreds
> or thousands of settlers can be completely independent, is an
> impossible long term strategy. Space settlements will only be
> possible at an advanced technological level, at least at the level
> of the late 20th or early 21st century if not later. Due to the
> enormous level of specialization required to maintain this
> technological level the population of any independent space
> settlement or group of space settlements will have to be very
> large, probably at least within an order of magnitude of the size
> of the population that maintains it here on earth. It will take
> centuries or millenia to reach these levels.
>
I'm not sure if specialisation will be needed. A good engineer with an
expert system for support could achieve a lot. By expert system I mean
something likely to be available by 2050.
> Requiring space settlements to be independent is about as practical
> and about as necessary as requiring oil platforms and Antarctic
> research stations to be independent.
>
At some point, you would want your space settlement to be capable of
independent operation. However, clearly their standard of living will
be higher if they trade.
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
>Roy L. wrote:
>
>>>Interesting. I had no idea Britain and Japan were not
>>>financially sustainable in the long term.
>>
>> They are both nearly self-sufficient,
>
>Not even close.
Sure they are. They just consume a lot of things they don't need.
>> and more to the point,
>> could be if they had to.
>
>You are very badly mistaken on this point.
They need small amounts of some minerals that aren't found locally,
but aside from that, what? Japan was virtually sealed off from the
rest of the world for more than 200 years, and did OK. The population
was much lower then, but so was the technology to support it. For a
year before the end of WW II, Japan had almost no imported supplies,
and it still took a nuclear bombardment to force their surrender.
>>>> You just
>>>> can't be supplying three MREs a day from Earth to hundreds of
>>>> people, let alone thousands.
>>>
>>>Why can't you?
>>
>> Because the energy cost alone is far greater than the cost of
>> just growing the food there,
>
>This is by no means certain.
It is actually pretty certain.
>Even setting aside the fact that the
>costs of growing food elsewhere than earth are not even vaguely
>known,
?? Do you know what a "grow-op" is? How is that so different from
growing food on the moon -- aside from it being in many ways easier on
the moon, of course, because secrecy would be unnecessary.
>the opportunity costs of growing food may very well be
>greater than the costs of importing food.
Highly unlikely, unless transport costs per kg fall dramatically.
>A space settlement might
>find it far more profitable to mine more platinum or build more
>power satellites or whatever it is that space colonies do rather
>than grow their own food.
Not likely if it is costing them hundreds of dollars per kilo to
import it. The stuff just isn't that hard to grow. All it takes is
some usable space, some energy, some raw materials, and a bit of
labor. Hothouse and hydroponic agriculture are well established
technologies.
>Societies on earth make exactly these choices all the time.
On earth, labor costs dominate transport costs. In space, that is not
the case.
>> and more importantly, importing
>> low-tech, high-mass consumables crowds out of the budget other
>> things that are much harder to produce there, like high-tech but
>> low-mass equipment.
>
>Again, this is by no means certain.
It is virtually certain, unless transport costs fall dramatically.
>>>Many societies generate enough wealth to permit
>>>importing much of their food supply.
>>
>> Sure. When transporting it there costs pennies/kg.
>
>Again, these costs are relative. Transportation costs might very
>well be high but quite modest compared to the ability of a
>settlement to generate wealth. Indeed, they better be or there will
>be no settlements.
History does not support that claim. Madagascar was first settled
successfully by a small number of individuals, probably with few or no
imports after the initial landing. Many Pacific islands likewise.
>>>Your settlements *will*
>>>generate wealth, won't they?
>>
>> Yes, but probably not that much. You have to be pretty
>> productive to justify labor costs in the ballpark of
>> $1M/person-year.
>
>Then you will not have to worry about settlements producing their
>own food. There won't be any.
?? Nonsense. If it costs $10K/yr to feed a worker moon-grown food
and $1M/yr to feed him food imported from earth, there will be
settlements, just not settlements that rely on imported food.
>>>> The other point, of course, is
>>>> that designing a settlement to self-destruct if its supply
>>>> chain is interrupted is not a viable long-term strategy.
>>>
>>>But your suggestion, that a settlement consisting of only
>>>hundreds or thousands of settlers can be completely independent,
>>>is an impossible long term strategy.
>>
>> I didn't say it had to be or even should be _completely_
>> independent. Only the low-production-cost/mass stuff like air,
>> water, food, rocket fuel, construction materials, etc. would
>> need to be locally produced. But those things would likely make
>> up 99+% of the settlement's long-term mass budget.
>
>Space societies will follow the same economic laws as terrestrial
>societies. If it is cheaper to import stuff like air, water, food,
>rocket fuel, construction materials, etc. they will do that. If it
>is cheaper to produce them locally they will do that. Over the long
>term the relative costs and benefits of producing or importing any
>given item will no doubt vary considerably. But the settlement will
>make the determination on a case by case basis.
The fact is, many of the most successful societies have got that way
by substituting local production for imports.
>Constraining them
>artificially is just foolishness.
It's not an "artificial" constraint to say, "We can afford to send
1000 tons of gear to start a settlement, but we can't afford to send
another 100 tons of food, air and water every year to keep it going."
>> But only if total independence is required. A _nearly_
>> independent settlement would require far fewer people, though I
>> doubt it could be done with less than 100, as some successful
>> settlements here on earth have done.
>
>Nonsense.
Fact. Many islands have been successfully settled by initial groups
of less than 100 people.
>> Historical examples show that settlements can reach independence
>> quite quickly, even immediately.
>
>But not settlements at the technological levels required for space
>settlements.
No, but they didn't have that level of supporting technology, either.
>> Remember, the level of
>> technology that must be supported is also the level available to
>> support it.
>
>No. The level of a society's technology and the society's
>population are very closely coupled.
No, they aren't. In the early 20th C, China's population was a couple
of orders of magnitude larger than Australia's, but Australia's
technology was higher.
>The total population of all
>space settlements will have to number in the billions before they
>can be independent of earth.
Unlikely, but it will depend to some extent on advances in robotics
and AI.
>>>Requiring space settlements to be independent is about as
>>>practical and about as necessary as requiring oil platforms and
>>>Antarctic research stations to be independent.
>
>> Supplying the latter is orders of magnitude cheaper than
>> supplying the former,
>
>Which is of course why we have oil platforms and Antarctic research
>stations but no space settlements.
No. The reason we have oil platforms and Antarctic research stations
but no space settlements is because it is orders of magnitude cheaper
to _establish_ them.
>> and the latter are not intended to be
>> permanent.
>
>Intentions matter for nothing.
?? Silliness.
>Do you really think the future
>inhabitants of space settlements, if any, will care one whit what
>the intentions of its builders were?
Much of the work they do as well as their living conditions will
probably center on those intentions.
>They'll abandon the space
>settlement if the settlement doesn't live up to their expectations
>or the moment better prospects present themselves elsewhere
?? Abandon it? That requires someone else to provide a ride.
>or if
>their survival prospects are too low or for any number of reasons.
Which being dependent on imports for daily needs would make likely.
>>>Foisting political and idealogical baggage on a concept which
>>>has enough trouble being taken seriously is just foolish.
>>
>> There's nothing political or ideological about it. We have many
>> historical examples of frontier settlements to learn from. Lack
>> of self-sufficiency in basic day-to-day needs was very often
>> fatal to them.
>
>No, sorry, lack of basic day-to-day needs was often very fatal to
>them. Successful frontier settlements were the ones which were best
>able to judge what basic day-to-day needs could best be provided by
>the settlement and what basic day-to-day needs could best be
>provided from elsewhere.
There are lots of examples of successful frontier settlements that
were self-sufficient for their basic day-to-day needs. Please provide
examples of successful frontier settlements that relied on imports for
their basic day-to-day needs.
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
>In article <43a2c7e0...@news1.qc.sympatico.ca>, <ro...@telus.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Nobody now
>>>alive remembers a time when Britain was self-sufficient in food.
>>
>>Yet it managed well enough in WW II, even though outside supply at
>>times slowed to a trickle.
>
>Uh, no, not correct. At no time did Doenitz have anywhere *near* the
>U-boat force needed to conduct an actual blockade.
Actually, just before the U-boat codes were broken, Britain's supply
of petroleum was down to a matter of days.
>He had to rely on a
>less direct strategy, sinking shipping faster than the Allies could build
>more, in hopes that this would eventually reduce the flow. And even that
>approach was a failure -- only once or twice, briefly, when both
>circumstances and luck favored them, did the U-boats come anywhere near
>reaching break-even. Most supply ships sailing for Britain got there.
Because most were sent after the U-boat codes had been broken.
>>Anyway, one lesson of WW II is that an
>>advanced industrial and military power that relies on imports (both
>>Britain and Japan showed this) is highly vulnerable to a relatively
>>low-cost shipping blockade.
>
>With the possible exception of Russia, there wasn't a single power in WW2
>that wasn't dependent on imports. Yes, even the US. It's the nature of
>modern economies to need things that they don't make locally.
No, it's just in their nature to use things that are cheaper to get by
importing them.
>Blockading shipping is harder than it looks -- and was *much* harder in
>those days -- except where it bottlenecks through narrow passages.
Like outside ports...?? The RN and RAF devoted enormous resources to
breaking the U-boat blockade. They knew that if they didn't manage
it, the war was lost. Beginning in 1944, the US Navy maintained a
highly effective blockade of Japan.
-- Roy L
Rand Simberg
>On 17 Dec 2005 03:45:25 +0100, Jim Davis <jimd...@earthlink.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Roy L. wrote:
>>
>>>>Interesting. I had no idea Britain and Japan were not
>>>>financially sustainable in the long term.
>>>
>>> They are both nearly self-sufficient,
>>
>>Not even close.
>
>Sure they are. They just consume a lot of things they don't need.
Who decides what they "need." You?
>>You are very badly mistaken on this point.
>
>They need small amounts of some minerals that aren't found locally,
>but aside from that, what? Japan was virtually sealed off from the
>rest of the world for more than 200 years, and did OK.
If by "OK," you mean feudal society in which almost everyone was quite
poor by current standards.
>The population
>was much lower then, but so was the technology to support it. For a
>year before the end of WW II, Japan had almost no imported supplies,
>and it still took a nuclear bombardment to force their surrender.
They wouldn't have lasted much longer. The bombing was to hurry
things along, and avoid the bloodbath of an invasion, but they would
have eventually been reduced to a pre-modern existence, with many
starving.
Anthony Frost
ro...@telus.net wrote:
Which is great if the land you are using for agriculture is suitable for
both arable and livestock so that you can change. It's easy enough for
cattle and sheep to graze on a welsh hillside, it's a real bugger trying
to get a combine harvester to work at 45 degrees on the same bit
of land though.
Anthony
Richard Morris
Then again, if Japan and Germany had remained self-sufficient agrarian
societies, they wouldn't have assaulted anybody, and wouldn't have been
assaulted in return.
> Jim Davis
Rand Simberg
Morris <ramo...@isomedia.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:
>> Sure, Britain and Japan would have been *much* better equipped to
>> withstand Axis and Allied assaults respectively if they had only
>> foregone industrialization and remained self sufficient agrarian
>> societies.
>>
>Then again, if Japan and Germany had remained self-sufficient agrarian
>societies, they wouldn't have assaulted anybody, and wouldn't have been
>assaulted in return.
Lots (in fact, most) of self-sufficient agrarian societies were
regularly assaulted. For their grains, if not their women and land.
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
Other crops than grains are possible in such areas, as is greenhouse
agriculture. As Sander said, it could be done, just not as cheaply as
importing.
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
How would such a comment be relevant? Do you think eating meat is
somehow necessary to sustain a modern high-technology society?
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
Simberg) wrote:
>On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 20:46:40 GMT, in a place far, far away,
>ro...@telus.net made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as
>to indicate that:
>
>>On 17 Dec 2005 03:45:25 +0100, Jim Davis <jimd...@earthlink.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Roy L. wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Interesting. I had no idea Britain and Japan were not
>>>>>financially sustainable in the long term.
>>>>
>>>> They are both nearly self-sufficient,
>>>
>>>Not even close.
>>
>>Sure they are. They just consume a lot of things they don't need.
>
>Who decides what they "need." You?
The requirements of maintaining a productive economy.
>>>You are very badly mistaken on this point.
>>
>>They need small amounts of some minerals that aren't found locally,
>>but aside from that, what? Japan was virtually sealed off from the
>>rest of the world for more than 200 years, and did OK.
>
>If by "OK," you mean feudal society in which almost everyone was quite
>poor by current standards.
But many contemporaneous societies that traded were even worse off.
>>The population
>>was much lower then, but so was the technology to support it. For a
>>year before the end of WW II, Japan had almost no imported supplies,
>>and it still took a nuclear bombardment to force their surrender.
>
>They wouldn't have lasted much longer. The bombing was to hurry
>things along, and avoid the bloodbath of an invasion, but they would
>have eventually been reduced to a pre-modern existence, with many
>starving.
Of course they would not have lasted much longer: their infrastructure
and industrial capacity had also been almost entirely destroyed.
-- Roy L
Rand Simberg
>On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 22:30:51 GMT, simberg.i...@org.trash (Rand
>Simberg) wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 18:43:39 GMT, in a place far, far away,
>>ro...@telus.net made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as
>>to indicate that:
>>
>>>>It could be done - however, it
>>>>would be far from economical.
>>>
>>>They could just feed less food to animals and more directly to people.
>>>Remember mad cow? You can feed at least an order of magnitude more
>>>people with a given amount of land by switching from animals to plants
>>>as your primary food.
>>
>>Yes. You can live in caves, too...
>
>How would such a comment be relevant? Do you think eating meat is
>somehow necessary to sustain a modern high-technology society?
Yes. If that modern high-technology society is one that I would want
to live in. The ability to have access to good-tasting high-protein
food sources is one of the marks of a wealthy society. To insist that
everyone live on grains and tofu is not.
Rand Simberg
>>>>>>Interesting. I had no idea Britain and Japan were not
>>>>>>financially sustainable in the long term.
>>>>>
>>>>> They are both nearly self-sufficient,
>>>>
>>>>Not even close.
>>>
>>>Sure they are. They just consume a lot of things they don't need.
>>
>>Who decides what they "need." You?
>
>The requirements of maintaining a productive economy.
Who decides what the economy should "produce." You?
>
>>>>You are very badly mistaken on this point.
>>>
>>>They need small amounts of some minerals that aren't found locally,
>>>but aside from that, what? Japan was virtually sealed off from the
>>>rest of the world for more than 200 years, and did OK.
>>
>>If by "OK," you mean feudal society in which almost everyone was quite
>>poor by current standards.
>
>But many contemporaneous societies that traded were even worse off.
So?
The fact that some other economies were "worse off" doesn't make the
pre-industrial and pre-trade Japanese economy "OK."
>>>The population
>>>was much lower then, but so was the technology to support it. For a
>>>year before the end of WW II, Japan had almost no imported supplies,
>>>and it still took a nuclear bombardment to force their surrender.
>>
>>They wouldn't have lasted much longer. The bombing was to hurry
>>things along, and avoid the bloodbath of an invasion, but they would
>>have eventually been reduced to a pre-modern existence, with many
>>starving.
>
>Of course they would not have lasted much longer: their infrastructure
>and industrial capacity had also been almost entirely destroyed.
How long do you think they would have lasted without oil imports?
Henry Spencer
>For a year before the end of WW II, Japan had almost no imported supplies,
>and it still took a nuclear bombardment to force their surrender.
That had much more to do with Japanese psychology of the time than with
their ability to survive without outside resources. Surrender was
unthinkable by their standards; men who surrendered were craven cowards,
subhuman degenerates. That Japan was suffering terribly was irrelevant,
because there was no honorable alternative but to fight on.
(At least, that was the military's position. The man in the street may
not have felt quite so determined about it, but his opinion was also quite
irrelevant. Most political power in Japan in 1945 rested with the army.)
The crucial significance of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not the death and
destruction the nuclear bombs caused -- Curtis Lemay's mass firebombing
raids had done worse to Tokyo, in particular -- but the radically new
nature of the weapon. *That* let Hirohito claim that the new weapon was
so terrible that the old rules could not be expected to apply, and order
a surrender regardless.
Derek Lyons
>They need small amounts of some minerals that aren't found locally,
>but aside from that, what? Japan was virtually sealed off from the
>rest of the world for more than 200 years, and did OK.
Not in this reality they didn't. In this reality they virtually
emselves off from the *West*, but continued to trade with other Asian
nations. Their degree of isolation is typically overreported in the
West.
Alex Terrell
A greenhouse might be possible, but you'd have to import top soil and
heat, making economically unviable on a small scale, and economically
in-feasible on a large scale.
Jim Davis
>>> They are both nearly self-sufficient,
>>
>>Not even close.
>
> Sure they are. They just consume a lot of things they don't
> need.
In the judgement of Roy L. Perhaps the British and the Japanese
should have some say about what they need?
> They need small amounts of some minerals that aren't found
> locally, but aside from that, what?
<chuckle>
*Small* amounts?
> Japan was virtually sealed
> off from the rest of the world for more than 200 years, and did
> OK.
<chuckle>
Well, if one defines 'OK' as being a preindustrial fuedal society
where almost everyone was a serf one might say Japan did 'OK'.
> The population was much lower then, but so was the
> technology to support it.
It's funny how level of technology and population levels tend to
correlate, isn't it? But for some reason you suspect this won't be
the case in space. Curious.
> For a year before the end of WW II,
> Japan had almost no imported supplies, and it still took a
> nuclear bombardment to force their surrender.
Other have dealt adequately with your misconceptions here.
>>Even setting aside the fact that the
>>costs of growing food elsewhere than earth are not even vaguely
>>known,
>
> ?? Do you know what a "grow-op" is?
I know of no grow-ops that have been conducted anywhere but earth.
> How is that so different
> from growing food on the moon -- aside from it being in many
> ways easier on the moon, of course, because secrecy would be
> unnecessary.
Roy, perhaps you have noticed that at present *nothing* grows on
the moon. Does that suggest to you the difficulties and expenses of
doing so *might* be greater than you so fervently desire?
>>the opportunity costs of growing food may very well be
>>greater than the costs of importing food.
>
> Highly unlikely, unless transport costs per kg fall
> dramatically.
But if transport costs *don't* fall dramatically space colonies
won't be built.
>>A space settlement might
>>find it far more profitable to mine more platinum or build more
>>power satellites or whatever it is that space colonies do rather
>>than grow their own food.
>
> Not likely if it is costing them hundreds of dollars per kilo to
> import it.
But at those costs space settlements won't be built at all.
> The stuff just isn't that hard to grow.
Sure, space is just *teeming* with growth.
> All it
> takes is some usable space, some energy, some raw materials, and
> a bit of labor.
All things about which the costs are not even vaguely known.
> Hothouse and hydroponic agriculture are well
> established technologies.
Thet certainly are on earth but that's not necessarily relevant, is
it, Roy?
>>Societies on earth make exactly these choices all the time.
>
> On earth, labor costs dominate transport costs. In space, that
> is not the case.
What costs dominate agriculture on earth, Roy? How about
agriculture in space?
>>Again, this is by no means certain.
>
> It is virtually certain, unless transport costs fall
> dramatically.
Which is of course a prerequisite for space settlements in the
first place.
> History does not support that claim. Madagascar was first
> settled successfully by a small number of individuals, probably
> with few or no imports after the initial landing. Many Pacific
> islands likewise.
Irrelevant, Roy. Space cannot be settled with stone age technology.
If it could have been it probably would have been?
> ?? Nonsense. If it costs $10K/yr to feed a worker moon-grown
> food and $1M/yr to feed him food imported from earth, there will
> be settlements, just not settlements that rely on imported food.
If it costs $1M/yr to import enough food to feed one person for one
year in space you will not have space settlements you will
have...ISS.
> The fact is, many of the most successful societies have got that
> way by substituting local production for imports.
<chuckle>
Curiously, these same successful societies used the proceeds from
this local production to import things they couldn't or wouldn't
produce.
> It's not an "artificial" constraint to say, "We can afford to
> send 1000 tons of gear to start a settlement, but we can't
> afford to send another 100 tons of food, air and water every
> year to keep it going."
I notice you are remarkably inconsistent with your premises. You're
convinced that local food production will be much cheaper but yet
you want to *require* space settlements to be self sufficient in
food production. If you're so convinced local production is cheaper
surely there is no need for the requirement?
But I suspect your reasons for the requirement are political and
idealogical, not economic.
> Fact. Many islands have been successfully settled by initial
> groups of less than 100 people.
Yes, indeed. Stone age peoples have managed to settle islands with
initial groups of less than 100 people and been entirely self
sufficient. But stone age technology is inadequate for space
settlement.
If you disagree perhaps you and 100 friends would like to start a
space settlement?
> No, but they didn't have that level of supporting technology,
> either.
Exactly. The level of technology required for space settlements
will require *billions* of people to support it. And for a very
long time to come the vast majority of those billions will be
living on earth. So talk of self sufficient space colonies is
foolish.
>>No. The level of a society's technology and the society's
>>population are very closely coupled.
>
> No, they aren't. In the early 20th C, China's population was a
> couple of orders of magnitude larger than Australia's, but
> Australia's technology was higher.
But Australia was not self sufficient. It was part of and traded
with a far bigger society.
> No. The reason we have oil platforms and Antarctic research
> stations but no space settlements is because it is orders of
> magnitude cheaper to _establish_ them.
No. It is because the benefits of establishing them justifies the
costs of establishing them.
>>Do you really think the future
>>inhabitants of space settlements, if any, will care one whit
>>what the intentions of its builders were?
>
> Much of the work they do as well as their living conditions will
> probably center on those intentions.
I think it far more likely that they will be pursuing their own
agendas.
>>They'll abandon the space
>>settlement if the settlement doesn't live up to their
>>expectations or the moment better prospects present themselves
>>elsewhere
>
> ?? Abandon it? That requires someone else to provide a ride.
It sure does. Do you think space settlements should be modeled on
the Soviet Gulag?
>>or if
>>their survival prospects are too low or for any number of
>>reasons.
>
> Which being dependent on imports for daily needs would make
> likely.
Roy, there is an word used to describe societies that don't depend
on imports. The word is "poor".
> There are lots of examples of successful frontier settlements
> that were self-sufficient for their basic day-to-day needs.
> Please provide examples of successful frontier settlements that
> relied on imports for their basic day-to-day needs.
Almost every settlement from the Bronze Age to the present required
imports for some very basic needs. Indeed providing markets was
often the point of the settlement in the first place.
Jim Davis
life...@atlantic.net
Jim Davis wrote:
> >>> They are both nearly self-sufficient,
> >>
> >>Not even close.
Is the globe self sufficient? Is the planet sustainable?
> > Sure they are. They just consume a lot of things they don't
> > need.
>
[snip]
> > The population was much lower then, but so was the
> > technology to support it.
>
> It's funny how level of technology and population levels tend to
> correlate, isn't it? But for some reason you suspect this won't be
> the case in space. Curious.
> >>Even setting aside the fact that the
> >>costs of growing food elsewhere than earth are not even vaguely
> >>known,
Why is that? That's the most important thing!
NASA apparently can't even get the simplist thing right?
All that ISS space, what a waste.
> > ?? Do you know what a "grow-op" is?
Or how about a hydroponic grow room?
Ever seen a modern one of those? Except
for the zero G, it's all been done over already.
As long as you have light and nutrient salts.
> I know of no grow-ops that have been conducted anywhere but earth.
>
> > How is that so different
> > from growing food on the moon -- aside from it being in many
> > ways easier on the moon, of course, because secrecy would be
> > unnecessary.
Well, the 1/6 G helps a lot, but the days are wrong,
and the lunar regolith leaves something to be desired.
However, the 1/6 G also increases costs directly.
Which is why I don't think the moon is the
immediate destination for us right now.
Read that to mean : asteroids.
http://cosmic.lifeform.org/
> Roy, perhaps you have noticed that at present *nothing* grows on
> the moon. Does that suggest to you the difficulties and expenses of
> doing so *might* be greater than you so fervently desire?
Definitely, but wither the ISS?
I think we should be building an equatorial
space station from smaller upper stages,
and then buffing that out with plants,
and miniature hotel rooms, and a
real upper stage fuel depot.
Read : upper stages.
http://cosmic.lifeform.org/
I think GEO is the immediate destination.
> >>the opportunity costs of growing food may very well be
> >>greater than the costs of importing food.
> >
> > Highly unlikely, unless transport costs per kg fall
> > dramatically.
>
> But if transport costs *don't* fall dramatically space colonies
> won't be built.
Exactly, which is why I think launch
is the immediate priority, which
is why NASA needs to press
the Delta IV Medium into
service, for immediate
launch relief. Read :
free up the shuttle
for ISS finish.
> >>A space settlement might
> >>find it far more profitable to mine more platinum or build more
> >>power satellites or whatever it is that space colonies do rather
> >>than grow their own food.
The only reason for space stations is to grow food,
and develop some sort of atmospheric CELSS,
to directly lower the costs of station resupply.
> > Not likely if it is costing them hundreds of dollars per kilo to
> > import it.
>
> But at those costs space settlements won't be built at all.
Unless they have a modest level of sustainability.
Read : CELSS techniques.
http://cosmic.lifeform.org
>
> > The stuff just isn't that hard to grow.
>
> Sure, space is just *teeming* with growth.
Sure it is. Look at Earth. Look at the ISS.
Look at all the hardware laying around
up in geosynchronous orbit.
GPS Direct TV, space is growing,
only very slowly.
> > All it
> > takes is some usable space, some energy, some raw materials, and
> > a bit of labor.
>
> All things about which the costs are not even vaguely known.
But looking at the ISS and STS, we now
know pretty much how to REDUCE costs.
> > Hothouse and hydroponic agriculture are well
> > established technologies.
>
> Thet certainly are on earth but that's not necessarily relevant, is
> it, Roy?
It sure is, we can implement them on the ISS
to directly reduce the costs of its operation.
> >>Societies on earth make exactly these choices all the time.
> >
> > On earth, labor costs dominate transport costs. In space, that
> > is not the case.
>
> What costs dominate agriculture on earth, Roy? How about
> agriculture in space?
Tell me about it, that happens to be my specialty.
> >>Again, this is by no means certain.
> >
> > It is virtually certain, unless transport costs fall
> > dramatically.
No, we could start right now with what we have going.
We certainly need to reform what we have, though.
Which also happens to be my specialty.
Mix and match.
> Which is of course a prerequisite for space settlements in the
> first place.
It's called trade. Earth is sustainable in that it has
produced almost everything from within. On the
other hand, we're approaching environmental
and population limits now, and things will
start to go downhill unless we get this
CELSS and launch thing down.
Right, the world must decide : CELSS and Launch (or lunch).
> And for a very
> long time to come the vast majority of those billions will be
> living on earth. So talk of self sufficient space colonies is
> foolish.
No, the behavior of the inhabitants is foolish.
That;s what is preventing space colonization.
Otherwise, space colonization is inevitable.
> No. It is because the benefits of establishing them justifies the
> costs of establishing them.
Which is clear considering we need CELSS and Launch.
> > Much of the work they do as well as their living conditions will
> > probably center on those intentions.
Which is not serious CELSS or launch,
or even serious CELSS in their own homes.
America in particular, is living in dreamland.
> I think it far more likely that they will be pursuing their own
> agendas.
Which appears to be war and oil.
> >>They'll abandon the space
> >>settlement if the settlement doesn't live up to their
> >>expectations or the moment better prospects present themselves
> >>elsewhere
Which is war and oil.
> > Which being dependent on imports for daily needs would make
> > likely.
Which is now war and oil since population exceeds sustainability.
> Roy, there is an word used to describe societies that don't depend
> on imports. The word is "poor".
As in, half of the world now.
Where are those imports going to come from?
> > There are lots of examples of successful frontier settlements
> > that were self-sufficient for their basic day-to-day needs.
> > Please provide examples of successful frontier settlements that
> > relied on imports for their basic day-to-day needs.
>
> Almost every settlement from the Bronze Age to the present required
> imports for some very basic needs. Indeed providing markets was
> often the point of the settlement in the first place.
Right, but now that Earth has reached the sustainable
limit supported completely by oil and war, where are
those imports going to come from? Our only hope
now sustainability by development of CELSS.
Read : Launch (and lunch).
http://cosmic.lifeform.org
>
> Jim Davis
ro...@telus.net
Simberg) wrote:
>On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 03:36:32 GMT, in a place far, far away,
>ro...@telus.net made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as
>to indicate that:
>
>>On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 22:30:51 GMT, simberg.i...@org.trash (Rand
>>Simberg) wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 18:43:39 GMT, in a place far, far away,
>>>ro...@telus.net made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as
>>>to indicate that:
>>>
>>>>>It could be done - however, it
>>>>>would be far from economical.
>>>>
>>>>They could just feed less food to animals and more directly to people.
>>>>Remember mad cow? You can feed at least an order of magnitude more
>>>>people with a given amount of land by switching from animals to plants
>>>>as your primary food.
>>>
>>>Yes. You can live in caves, too...
>>
>>How would such a comment be relevant? Do you think eating meat is
>>somehow necessary to sustain a modern high-technology society?
>
>Yes.
Then you are flat wrong, and obviously so.
>If that modern high-technology society is one that I would want
>to live in. The ability to have access to good-tasting high-protein
>food sources is one of the marks of a wealthy society. To insist that
>everyone live on grains and tofu is not.
To insist that no good-tasting high-protein food source other than
meat is possible is the claim of a fool.
-- Roy L
Rand Simberg
>>>>>They could just feed less food to animals and more directly to people.
>>>>>Remember mad cow? You can feed at least an order of magnitude more
>>>>>people with a given amount of land by switching from animals to plants
>>>>>as your primary food.
>>>>
>>>>Yes. You can live in caves, too...
>>>
>>>How would such a comment be relevant? Do you think eating meat is
>>>somehow necessary to sustain a modern high-technology society?
>>
>>Yes.
>
>Then you are flat wrong, and obviously so.
Not to me.
>>If that modern high-technology society is one that I would want
>>to live in. The ability to have access to good-tasting high-protein
>>food sources is one of the marks of a wealthy society. To insist that
>>everyone live on grains and tofu is not.
>
>To insist that no good-tasting high-protein food source other than
>meat is possible is the claim of a fool.
No, it's the claim of someone who likes meat.
The claim that your likes and dislikes are the only ones that matter
is the claim of, if not a fool, certainly an egomaniac.
ro...@telus.net
Simberg) wrote:
>On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 03:44:38 GMT, in a place far, far away,
>ro...@telus.net made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as
>to indicate that:
>
>>>>>>>Interesting. I had no idea Britain and Japan were not
>>>>>>>financially sustainable in the long term.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They are both nearly self-sufficient,
>>>>>
>>>>>Not even close.
>>>>
>>>>Sure they are. They just consume a lot of things they don't need.
>>>
>>>Who decides what they "need." You?
>>
>>The requirements of maintaining a productive economy.
>
>Who decides what the economy should "produce." You?
Whoever's buying. Duh.
Why do you feel this intense need to fabricate strawmen?
>>>>>You are very badly mistaken on this point.
>>>>
>>>>They need small amounts of some minerals that aren't found locally,
>>>>but aside from that, what? Japan was virtually sealed off from the
>>>>rest of the world for more than 200 years, and did OK.
>>>
>>>If by "OK," you mean feudal society in which almost everyone was quite
>>>poor by current standards.
>>
>>But many contemporaneous societies that traded were even worse off.
>
>So?
So your claim that high dependency on imports is necessary to societal
wealth is flat false.
>The fact that some other economies were "worse off" doesn't make the
>pre-industrial and pre-trade Japanese economy "OK."
Yes, in this context it does.
>>>>The population
>>>>was much lower then, but so was the technology to support it. For a
>>>>year before the end of WW II, Japan had almost no imported supplies,
>>>>and it still took a nuclear bombardment to force their surrender.
>>>
>>>They wouldn't have lasted much longer. The bombing was to hurry
>>>things along, and avoid the bloodbath of an invasion, but they would
>>>have eventually been reduced to a pre-modern existence, with many
>>>starving.
>>
>>Of course they would not have lasted much longer: their infrastructure
>>and industrial capacity had also been almost entirely destroyed.
>
>How long do you think they would have lasted without oil imports?
Well, they had already built their economy around imported oil, so
that is (surprise!) not exactly the issue. If oil had never been
available in the first place, they had enough local energy sources in
coal, geothermal, etc. to last until nuclear became available.
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
>ro...@telus.net wrote:
>
>>They need small amounts of some minerals that aren't found locally,
>>but aside from that, what? Japan was virtually sealed off from the
>>rest of the world for more than 200 years, and did OK.
>
>Not in this reality they didn't. In this reality they virtually
>emselves off from the *West*, but continued to trade with other Asian
>nations. Their degree of isolation is typically overreported in the
>West.
But the volume of trade was still small relative to the domestic
economy.
-- Roy L
Rand Simberg
>>>>>Sure they are. They just consume a lot of things they don't need.
>>>>
>>>>Who decides what they "need." You?
>>>
>>>The requirements of maintaining a productive economy.
>>
>>Who decides what the economy should "produce." You?
>
>Whoever's buying. Duh.
>
>Why do you feel this intense need to fabricate strawmen?
I'll answer that after you explain your intense need to beat your
kids.
>>>>>>You are very badly mistaken on this point.
>>>>>
>>>>>They need small amounts of some minerals that aren't found locally,
>>>>>but aside from that, what? Japan was virtually sealed off from the
>>>>>rest of the world for more than 200 years, and did OK.
>>>>
>>>>If by "OK," you mean feudal society in which almost everyone was quite
>>>>poor by current standards.
>>>
>>>But many contemporaneous societies that traded were even worse off.
>>
>>So?
>
>So your claim that high dependency on imports is necessary to societal
>wealth is flat false.
How does that follow? You haven't yet established that they were
societally wealthy. You've only shown that they weren't in as deep a
state of poverty as other contemporaneous societies.
>
>>The fact that some other economies were "worse off" doesn't make the
>>pre-industrial and pre-trade Japanese economy "OK."
>
>Yes, in this context it does.
Not to me. And I suspect that if they could be shown the difference
between their economy, and a modern Japanese one, not to them, either.
>>How long do you think they would have lasted without oil imports?
>
>Well, they had already built their economy around imported oil, so
>that is (surprise!) not exactly the issue. If oil had never been
>available in the first place, they had enough local energy sources in
>coal, geothermal, etc. to last until nuclear became available.
Really? A fascinating theory. How much coal and geothermal do/did
they have, and how far would they have industrialized on it?
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
>What crops can you grow on a Welsh hillside?
Almost anything that doesn't require big trees or a very long growing
season.
>A greenhouse might be possible, but you'd have to import top soil and
>heat,
Greenhouses don't need imported heat unless you want to keep them
producing all year, and the building materials would be a much bigger
issue than the soil.
> making economically unviable on a small scale, and economically
>in-feasible on a large scale.
Of course it would not be cheaper than imports, because imports are so
cheap. But what if imports cost hundreds of dollars per kg?
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
>Roy L. wrote:
>
>>>> They are both nearly self-sufficient,
>>>
>>>Not even close.
>>
>> Sure they are. They just consume a lot of things they don't
>> need.
>
>In the judgement of Roy L. Perhaps the British and the Japanese
>should have some say about what they need?
Needs are not a matter of opinion but of fact.
>> They need small amounts of some minerals that aren't found
>> locally, but aside from that, what?
>
><chuckle>
>
>*Small* amounts?
Compared to their total mass budgets. Right.
>> Japan was virtually sealed
>> off from the rest of the world for more than 200 years, and did
>> OK.
>
><chuckle>
>
>Well, if one defines 'OK' as being a preindustrial fuedal society
>where almost everyone was a serf one might say Japan did 'OK'.
Maybe you are unwilling to know the fact that it was also a
pre-industrial feudal society _before_ it cut itself off from most
trade, but I am not.
>> The population was much lower then, but so was the
>> technology to support it.
>
>It's funny how level of technology and population levels tend to
>correlate, isn't it?
They only correlate if you define "population level" as world
population.
>But for some reason you suspect this won't be
>the case in space. Curious.
It's not the case anywhere.
>>>Even setting aside the fact that the
>>>costs of growing food elsewhere than earth are not even vaguely
>>>known,
>>
>> ?? Do you know what a "grow-op" is?
>
>I know of no grow-ops that have been conducted anywhere but earth.
"Man will never fly."
>> How is that so different
>> from growing food on the moon -- aside from it being in many
>> ways easier on the moon, of course, because secrecy would be
>> unnecessary.
>
>Roy, perhaps you have noticed that at present *nothing* grows on
>the moon. Does that suggest to you the difficulties and expenses of
>doing so *might* be greater than you so fervently desire?
?? Do you think I am talking about open-field agriculture on the
surface??
Are you aware that a little over 100 years ago, no one had ever ridden
in a powered heavier-than-air flying machine?
I'm not sure why you think growing food will be so much more difficult
on the moon that whatever else people go there to do. If people can
live and work and do science and construct living space there, what is
it that will stop them from growing food there?
>>>the opportunity costs of growing food may very well be
>>>greater than the costs of importing food.
>>
>> Highly unlikely, unless transport costs per kg fall
>> dramatically.
>
>But if transport costs *don't* fall dramatically space colonies
>won't be built.
Sure they will. That is inevitable. It's simply a question of who
does it first, how, and why. People are going to keep getting richer
until the cost becomes trivial.
>>>A space settlement might
>>>find it far more profitable to mine more platinum or build more
>>>power satellites or whatever it is that space colonies do rather
>>>than grow their own food.
>>
>> Not likely if it is costing them hundreds of dollars per kilo to
>> import it.
>
>But at those costs space settlements won't be built at all.
Maybe not in your lifetime, but they will definitely be built.
>> The stuff just isn't that hard to grow.
>
>Sure, space is just *teeming* with growth.
<yawn> Not much grows in a house before a grow-op is set up there....
>> All it
>> takes is some usable space, some energy, some raw materials, and
>> a bit of labor.
>
>All things about which the costs are not even vaguely known.
Wrong.
>> Hothouse and hydroponic agriculture are well
>> established technologies.
>
>Thet certainly are on earth but that's not necessarily relevant, is
>it, Roy?
Yes, actually, it is.
>>>Societies on earth make exactly these choices all the time.
>>
>> On earth, labor costs dominate transport costs. In space, that
>> is not the case.
>
>What costs dominate agriculture on earth, Roy?
Depends on what kind, and where. Sometimes capital, sometimes labor,
sometimes government exactions.
>How about agriculture in space?
Capital, definitely.
>>>Again, this is by no means certain.
>>
>> It is virtually certain, unless transport costs fall
>> dramatically.
>
>Which is of course a prerequisite for space settlements in the
>first place.
No, it isn't.
>> History does not support that claim. Madagascar was first
>> settled successfully by a small number of individuals, probably
>> with few or no imports after the initial landing. Many Pacific
>> islands likewise.
>
>Irrelevant, Roy.
No, it is not.
>> ?? Nonsense. If it costs $10K/yr to feed a worker moon-grown
>> food and $1M/yr to feed him food imported from earth, there will
>> be settlements, just not settlements that rely on imported food.
>
>If it costs $1M/yr to import enough food to feed one person for one
>year in space you will not have space settlements you will
>have...ISS.
Says who? You? Well, a funny thing about that: I do not accept your
unsupported claims as the ultimate word of authority on the subject.
>> The fact is, many of the most successful societies have got that
>> way by substituting local production for imports.
>
><chuckle>
>
>Curiously, these same successful societies used the proceeds from
>this local production to import things they couldn't or wouldn't
>produce.
So? The same would be true of space settlements. Not having to
import low cost/mass consumables would leave more money for much more
useful high cost/mass capital equipment.
>> It's not an "artificial" constraint to say, "We can afford to
>> send 1000 tons of gear to start a settlement, but we can't
>> afford to send another 100 tons of food, air and water every
>> year to keep it going."
>
>I notice you are remarkably inconsistent with your premises.
Yet you cannot identify any such inconsistencies. Curious.
>You're
>convinced that local food production will be much cheaper but yet
>you want to *require* space settlements to be self sufficient in
>food production.
I think there is little point in designing a settlement that will be a
bigger expense to maintain when you can design it to be a smaller one.
When settlers came to the New World, they did not come with the idea
that they woud be getting their food delivered from Europe
indefinitely. And they had to make that decision _before_they_left_.
They could not go to AMerica with the idea, "Oh, we'll decide whether
or not to grow food when we get there. If it makes economic sense to
do some farming we will, otherwise we'll just order take-out."
>If you're so convinced local production is cheaper
>surely there is no need for the requirement?
There is a need for long-term planning. I don't want to see a lunar
settlement fail because of your lack of vision and long-term
perspective, and I don't think it is responsible or realistic to say,
"let the market decide" when the whole enterprise centers on goals the
market can't achieve.
>But I suspect your reasons for the requirement are political and
>idealogical, not economic.
I still have yet to see any attempt to identify what these political
and ideological reasons might be. AFAIAC, it is a matter of
practicality. You don't settle a frontier by planting colonies that
are all dependent on the home society for their day-to-day needs.
When has such a strategy ever succeeded?
>> No, but they didn't have that level of supporting technology,
>> either.
>
>Exactly. The level of technology required for space settlements
>will require *billions* of people to support it.
A claim entirely lacking supporting facts or logic.
>And for a very
>long time to come the vast majority of those billions will be
>living on earth. So talk of self sufficient space colonies is
>foolish.
I explicitly stated that such settlements would not be _entirely_
self-sufficient. Just nearly self-sufficient in the kinds of massy
supplies that can easily be produced there.
>>>No. The level of a society's technology and the society's
>>>population are very closely coupled.
>>
>> No, they aren't. In the early 20th C, China's population was a
>> couple of orders of magnitude larger than Australia's, but
>> Australia's technology was higher.
>
>But Australia was not self sufficient.
Yes, it was. A total blockade would have been inconvenient and
damaging, but there was a big enough local technology and resource
base that it would not have resulted in economic collapse, let alone
population collapse.
>It was part of and traded
>with a far bigger society.
That does not mean it was not self-sufficient or that its technology
all had to be imported. You are simply trying to redefine the
question by claiming that a choice to trade is the same as a need to
trade. That claim is false.
>> No. The reason we have oil platforms and Antarctic research
>> stations but no space settlements is because it is orders of
>> magnitude cheaper to _establish_ them.
>
>No. It is because the benefits of establishing them justifies the
>costs of establishing them.
Right. Which disproves your claim that we have them but no space
settlements because they are cheaper to supply.
>>>Do you really think the future
>>>inhabitants of space settlements, if any, will care one whit
>>>what the intentions of its builders were?
>>
>> Much of the work they do as well as their living conditions will
>> probably center on those intentions.
>
>I think it far more likely that they will be pursuing their own
>agendas.
?? ROTFL!!
"Here's a trillion-dollar investment of taxpayers' money over a
decade. Go wild!"
>>>They'll abandon the space
>>>settlement if the settlement doesn't live up to their
>>>expectations or the moment better prospects present themselves
>>>elsewhere
>>
>> ?? Abandon it? That requires someone else to provide a ride.
>
>It sure does. Do you think space settlements should be modeled on
>the Soviet Gulag?
Do you think moronic strawmen advance the discussion?
>>>or if
>>>their survival prospects are too low or for any number of
>>>reasons.
>>
>> Which being dependent on imports for daily needs would make
>> likely.
>
>Roy, there is an word used to describe societies that don't depend
>on imports. The word is "poor".
Nonsense. Do you think Bangladesh does not depend on imports? If you
do, then you are a fool. Was the USA poor before it became dependent
on oil imports? It was certainly not dependent on imports before
that.
>> There are lots of examples of successful frontier settlements
>> that were self-sufficient for their basic day-to-day needs.
>> Please provide examples of successful frontier settlements that
>> relied on imports for their basic day-to-day needs.
>
>Almost every settlement from the Bronze Age to the present required
>imports for some very basic needs.
I said their _day-to-day_ needs. Of course they all needed to import
some capital goods and some food supplies to sustain them until they
became self-sufficient. And most continued to import capital
equipment and small quantities of other things until local production
could be established. But which successful frontier settlements
remained dependent on food imports?
Name them.
-- Roy L
Derek Lyons
True. But then, that's almost always true anywhere in the world prior
to the industrial revolution.
Brad Guth
water.
Most efficient way to boil water?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/640181ba052520ff/a74cb9506404514d?lnk=st&q=brad+guth&rnum=1#a74cb9506404514d
>- other?
Try pulling a good vacuum. As that's by far the least amount of applied
energy if you're already situated in space to start with.
Being upon the solar impacted moon at supposedly 250°F and 3e-15 bar
is just better icing on the cake of boiling water for free, and perhaps
within a ms/m3.
Come to think about it; - plain old water should make for quite a good
amount of raw rocket thrust if utilized for leaving the moon. That rate
of expansion might represent 3e15:1 at 212°F, thus suggesting that a
m3 of plain old water becomes worthy of 3e15 tonnes of thrust if it all
manages to sublime away within a second.
I meant to say; - isn't rocket thrust pretty much all about the
expansion of whatever elements, and of the faster those elements expand
the better.
-
Brad Guth
san...@haldjas.folklore.ee
you can on even much steeper mountains. However, this is neither zero
setup not zero maintenance in that case and of course also requires new
machinery - and most probably still limits the amount of automation you
can achieve.
Economic feasibility and the required lead-in are major problems. Start
doing it now to get lots of expensive agriculture in a 100 years time
is not too good perspective. It might pay off if you can grow grapes
and tea there by the time, otherwise probably not.
Alex Terrell
that should be taken.
http://fp.alexterrell.plus.com/web/Constellation/Constellation.pdf
My proposed launch architecture is a little simpler than Griffin's. The
steps are basically:
1. Establish polar base and produce fuel for reusable tugs
2. Start an equator base and lunar orbit operations
3. Expand the equator base, including building a chamical plant, a
catapult launcher and a solar power plant at Earth-moon L1
4. Start building space based infrastructure including satellite solar
power
5. Create a quasi monoploy of Energy supply
6. Create a spacefaring civilisation
Alex
life...@atlantic.net
that people like you and Griffin are
living in a total dreamworld.
VSE and ESAS are a joke.
We need reusable launch systems
and CELSS techniques in orbit.
ro...@telus.net
Simberg) wrote:
>On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 15:03:06 GMT, in a place far, far away,
>ro...@telus.net made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as
>to indicate that:
>
>>>>>>Sure they are. They just consume a lot of things they don't need.
>>>>>
>>>>>Who decides what they "need." You?
>>>>
>>>>The requirements of maintaining a productive economy.
>>>
>>>Who decides what the economy should "produce." You?
>>
>>Whoever's buying. Duh.
>>
>>Why do you feel this intense need to fabricate strawmen?
>
>I'll answer that after you explain your intense need to beat your
>kids.
I'm not beating my kids, but you _are_ fabricating strawmen.
>>>>>>>You are very badly mistaken on this point.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>They need small amounts of some minerals that aren't found locally,
>>>>>>but aside from that, what? Japan was virtually sealed off from the
>>>>>>rest of the world for more than 200 years, and did OK.
>>>>>
>>>>>If by "OK," you mean feudal society in which almost everyone was quite
>>>>>poor by current standards.
>>>>
>>>>But many contemporaneous societies that traded were even worse off.
>>>
>>>So?
>>
>>So your claim that high dependency on imports is necessary to societal
>>wealth is flat false.
>
>How does that follow? You haven't yet established that they were
>societally wealthy.
They were about as wealthy as they had been when they traded a lot
more. Which is very much the point.
>>>The fact that some other economies were "worse off" doesn't make the
>>>pre-industrial and pre-trade Japanese economy "OK."
>>
>>Yes, in this context it does.
>
>Not to me. And I suspect that if they could be shown the difference
>between their economy, and a modern Japanese one, not to them, either.
Post hoc fallacy.
>>>How long do you think they would have lasted without oil imports?
>>
>>Well, they had already built their economy around imported oil, so
>>that is (surprise!) not exactly the issue. If oil had never been
>>available in the first place, they had enough local energy sources in
>>coal, geothermal, etc. to last until nuclear became available.
>
>Really? A fascinating theory. How much coal and geothermal do/did
>they have, and how far would they have industrialized on it?
That depends on a lot of factors, but energy resources would not have
been the limiting factor.
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
>ro...@telus.net wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 08:40:07 GMT, fair...@gmail.com (Derek Lyons)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>ro...@telus.net wrote:
>>>
>>>>They need small amounts of some minerals that aren't found locally,
>>>>but aside from that, what? Japan was virtually sealed off from the
>>>>rest of the world for more than 200 years, and did OK.
>>>
>>>Not in this reality they didn't. In this reality they virtually
>>>emselves off from the *West*, but continued to trade with other Asian
>>>nations. Their degree of isolation is typically overreported in the
>>>West.
>>
>>But the volume of trade was still small relative to the domestic
>>economy.
>
>True. But then, that's almost always true anywhere in the world prior
>to the industrial revolution.
Not so. It was largely trade volume that made the Roman road network
a paying proposition. Before Rome, many of the Greek cities traded a
great deal (Delos paid for its government with a tax on foreign
trade), and before them the Phoenicians.
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
Simberg) wrote:
>On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 14:33:19 GMT, in a place far, far away,
>ro...@telus.net made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as
>to indicate that:
>
>>>>>>They could just feed less food to animals and more directly to people.
>>>>>>Remember mad cow? You can feed at least an order of magnitude more
>>>>>>people with a given amount of land by switching from animals to plants
>>>>>>as your primary food.
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes. You can live in caves, too...
>>>>
>>>>How would such a comment be relevant? Do you think eating meat is
>>>>somehow necessary to sustain a modern high-technology society?
>>>
>>>Yes.
>>
>>Then you are flat wrong, and obviously so.
>
>Not to me.
You may not be wrong in your own opinion, but you are most certainly
wrong as a matter of objective fact.
>>>If that modern high-technology society is one that I would want
>>>to live in. The ability to have access to good-tasting high-protein
>>>food sources is one of the marks of a wealthy society. To insist that
>>>everyone live on grains and tofu is not.
>>
>>To insist that no good-tasting high-protein food source other than
>>meat is possible is the claim of a fool.
>
>No, it's the claim of someone who likes meat.
Oh. I see. So, space settlement policy and planning should revolve
around how much you like meat?
Somehow, I kinda figured it'd be something like that..
>The claim that your likes and dislikes are the only ones that matter
>is the claim of, if not a fool, certainly an egomaniac.
It's not a question of personal likes and dislikes, but of what is
needed to maintain a modern, high-tech society as a matter of _fact_.
In _fact_, high levels of education are needed, and access to energy
and raw materials is needed. Large accumulations of capital are
needed. But eating meat is not needed. You are just flat wrong.
-- Roy L
Rand Simberg
>>>>>How would such a comment be relevant? Do you think eating meat is
>>>>>somehow necessary to sustain a modern high-technology society?
>>>>
>>>>Yes.
>>>
>>>Then you are flat wrong, and obviously so.
>>
>>Not to me.
>
>You may not be wrong in your own opinion, but you are most certainly
>wrong as a matter of objective fact.
Nonsense. That is not an objective fact. It all depends on one's
definition of a "modern high-technology society."
>
>>>>If that modern high-technology society is one that I would want
>>>>to live in. The ability to have access to good-tasting high-protein
>>>>food sources is one of the marks of a wealthy society. To insist that
>>>>everyone live on grains and tofu is not.
>>>
>>>To insist that no good-tasting high-protein food source other than
>>>meat is possible is the claim of a fool.
>>
>>No, it's the claim of someone who likes meat.
>
>Oh. I see. So, space settlement policy and planning should revolve
>around how much you like meat?
No, it should revolve around what the space settlers want, not what
you think they should "need."
Rand Simberg
>>>>>>>They need small amounts of some minerals that aren't found locally,
>>>>>>>but aside from that, what? Japan was virtually sealed off from the
>>>>>>>rest of the world for more than 200 years, and did OK.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If by "OK," you mean feudal society in which almost everyone was quite
>>>>>>poor by current standards.
>>>>>
>>>>>But many contemporaneous societies that traded were even worse off.
>>>>
>>>>So?
>>>
>>>So your claim that high dependency on imports is necessary to societal
>>>wealth is flat false.
>>
>>How does that follow? You haven't yet established that they were
>>societally wealthy.
>
>They were about as wealthy as they had been when they traded a lot
>more. Which is very much the point.
Data?
They certainly weren't as wealthy as when the later traded a lot more
(i.e., now).
>>>>How long do you think they would have lasted without oil imports?
>>>
>>>Well, they had already built their economy around imported oil, so
>>>that is (surprise!) not exactly the issue. If oil had never been
>>>available in the first place, they had enough local energy sources in
>>>coal, geothermal, etc. to last until nuclear became available.
>>
>>Really? A fascinating theory. How much coal and geothermal do/did
>>they have, and how far would they have industrialized on it?
>
>That depends on a lot of factors, but energy resources would not have
>been the limiting factor.
Numbers?
ro...@telus.net
Simberg) wrote:
>On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 00:25:54 GMT, in a place far, far away,
>ro...@telus.net made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as
>to indicate that:
>
>>>>>>How would such a comment be relevant? Do you think eating meat is
>>>>>>somehow necessary to sustain a modern high-technology society?
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes.
>>>>
>>>>Then you are flat wrong, and obviously so.
>>>
>>>Not to me.
>>
>>You may not be wrong in your own opinion, but you are most certainly
>>wrong as a matter of objective fact.
>
>Nonsense. That is not an objective fact. It all depends on one's
>definition of a "modern high-technology society."
No, that is also flat wrong. Definitions are not arbitrary. except in
mathematics and formal logic. There is no dictionary-supported
definition of "modern high-technology society" that says or implies a
requirement that meat be eaten.
You are making a fool of yourself.
>>>>>If that modern high-technology society is one that I would want
>>>>>to live in. The ability to have access to good-tasting high-protein
>>>>>food sources is one of the marks of a wealthy society. To insist that
>>>>>everyone live on grains and tofu is not.
>>>>
>>>>To insist that no good-tasting high-protein food source other than
>>>>meat is possible is the claim of a fool.
>>>
>>>No, it's the claim of someone who likes meat.
>>
>>Oh. I see. So, space settlement policy and planning should revolve
>>around how much you like meat?
>
>No, it should revolve around what the space settlers want, not what
>you think they should "need."
Wrong again. The space settlers will be chosen on the basis of their
suitability to conditions at the settlement; the settlement will not
be designed around the individual culinary tastes of pre-selected
settlers. Such claims are just stupid.
-- Roy L
Rand Simberg
>>>You may not be wrong in your own opinion, but you are most certainly
>>>wrong as a matter of objective fact.
>>
>>Nonsense. That is not an objective fact. It all depends on one's
>>definition of a "modern high-technology society."
>
>No, that is also flat wrong. Definitions are not arbitrary. except in
>mathematics and formal logic. There is no dictionary-supported
>definition of "modern high-technology society" that says or implies a
>requirement that meat be eaten.
Nor is there one that says otherwise. It is not defined, and thus is
subject to opinion.
>You are making a fool of yourself.
I don't think so, obviously.
>>>Oh. I see. So, space settlement policy and planning should revolve
>>>around how much you like meat?
>>
>>No, it should revolve around what the space settlers want, not what
>>you think they should "need."
>
>Wrong again. The space settlers will be chosen on the basis of their
>suitability to conditions at the settlement; the settlement will not
>be designed around the individual culinary tastes of pre-selected
>settlers. Such claims are just stupid.
So you're going to select them, according to what *you* think they
should like? Who died and made you king?
The settlement will be designed around the individual culinary (and
other) tastes of the people who settle it.
ro...@telus.net
Simberg) wrote:
>On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 00:12:16 GMT, in a place far, far away,
>ro...@telus.net made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as
>to indicate that:
>
>>>>>>>>They need small amounts of some minerals that aren't found locally,
>>>>>>>>but aside from that, what? Japan was virtually sealed off from the
>>>>>>>>rest of the world for more than 200 years, and did OK.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>If by "OK," you mean feudal society in which almost everyone was quite
>>>>>>>poor by current standards.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>But many contemporaneous societies that traded were even worse off.
>>>>>
>>>>>So?
>>>>
>>>>So your claim that high dependency on imports is necessary to societal
>>>>wealth is flat false.
>>>
>>>How does that follow? You haven't yet established that they were
>>>societally wealthy.
>>
>>They were about as wealthy as they had been when they traded a lot
>>more. Which is very much the point.
>
>Data?
http://www.energybulletin.net/5140.html
See also
http://www.japan-guide.com/e/e2128.html
"Despite the isolation, domestic trade and agricultural production
continued to improve."
Many sources attest to the generally improving Japanese economy of the
early Edo period. Now, where are your data showing that the reduced
trade significantly reduced societal wealth?
Thought not.
>They certainly weren't as wealthy as when the later traded a lot more
>(i.e., now).
Such comparisons are clearly meaningless because of the difference in
technology level.
>>>>>How long do you think they would have lasted without oil imports?
>>>>
>>>>Well, they had already built their economy around imported oil, so
>>>>that is (surprise!) not exactly the issue. If oil had never been
>>>>available in the first place, they had enough local energy sources in
>>>>coal, geothermal, etc. to last until nuclear became available.
>>>
>>>Really? A fascinating theory. How much coal and geothermal do/did
>>>they have, and how far would they have industrialized on it?
>>
>>That depends on a lot of factors, but energy resources would not have
>>been the limiting factor.
>
>Numbers?
See the first source cited above. It turns out coal and geo would not
even have been needed:
"Today, the average Japanese person uses 40 million kilocalories per
year. This means that a quarter of our energy requirement could be met
with firewood today if all of the annual increment was burned. Since
Japan in the Edo Period had about a quarter of the current population,
all of its energy needs could have been met with firewood, even at
current per capita consumption levels."
-- Roy L
Rand Simberg
>>>>>So your claim that high dependency on imports is necessary to societal
>>>>>wealth is flat false.
>>>>
>>>>How does that follow? You haven't yet established that they were
>>>>societally wealthy.
>>>
>>>They were about as wealthy as they had been when they traded a lot
>>>more. Which is very much the point.
>>
>>Data?
>
>http://www.energybulletin.net/5140.html
>
>See also
>
>http://www.japan-guide.com/e/e2128.html
>
>"Despite the isolation, domestic trade and agricultural production
>continued to improve."
That's not data. It's simply a statement unsupoported by data.
>
>Many sources attest to the generally improving Japanese economy of the
>early Edo period.
You only showed one, and it only "attested" to it. It didn't describe
what that meant, in terms of numbers.
>Now, where are your data showing that the reduced
>trade significantly reduced societal wealth?
From your own page:
"Even though the Tokugawa government remained quite stable over
several centuries, its position was steadily declining for several
reasons: A steady worsening of the financial situation of the
government led to higher taxes and riots among the farm population. In
addition, Japan regularly experienced natural disasters and years of
famine that caused riots and further financial problems for the
central government and the daimyo. The social hierarchy began to break
down as the merchant class grew increasingly powerful while some
samurai became financially dependent of them. In the second half of
the era, corruption, incompetence and a decline of morals within the
government caused further problems."
Sounds like heaven on earth...
>>>>>Well, they had already built their economy around imported oil, so
>>>>>that is (surprise!) not exactly the issue. If oil had never been
>>>>>available in the first place, they had enough local energy sources in
>>>>>coal, geothermal, etc. to last until nuclear became available.
>>>>
>>>>Really? A fascinating theory. How much coal and geothermal do/did
>>>>they have, and how far would they have industrialized on it?
>>>
>>>That depends on a lot of factors, but energy resources would not have
>>>been the limiting factor.
>>
>>Numbers?
>
>See the first source cited above. It turns out coal and geo would not
>even have been needed:
>
>"Today, the average Japanese person uses 40 million kilocalories per
>year. This means that a quarter of our energy requirement could be met
>with firewood today if all of the annual increment was burned. Since
>Japan in the Edo Period had about a quarter of the current population,
>all of its energy needs could have been met with firewood, even at
>current per capita consumption levels."
You didn't answer the question. How would they have industrialized on
it. Without burning down all their forests, that is (which Britain
did, until they turned to coal)?
Brad Guth
I totally agree that "we need reusable launch systems and CELSS
techniques in orbit". I also agree that your "Single Stage To Orbit
(SSTO) via SSME is viable if the inert mass of the craft/spaceplane is
cut by more than half, just as wizard "tomcat" has been suggesting all
along, except "tomcat" intends to employ 11 SSMEs onboard his rigid
airship that eventually shouldn't have any trouble getting to/from
outer space, to/from our moon and, from time to time getting safely
to/from the likes of Venus.
A CELSS, which apparently stands for "Controlled Ecological
Life-Support System" is exactly what the LSE-CM/ISS is all about, that
plus having unlimited energy and those nifty elevators for safely and
efficiently getting folks and technology to/from the lunar surface.
LL1/ME-L1 is certainly "in orbit", as well as for the tether dipole
element termination platform that's cruising at 25 km from mother Earth
is obviously "in orbit".
Why is there any problem with this?
-
Brad Guth
Alex Terrell
life...@atlantic.net wrote:
> My proposal is to continue to point out
> that people like you and Griffin are
> living in a total dreamworld.
>
Unhelpful and extremely boring.
> VSE and ESAS are a joke.
>
> We need reusable launch systems
> and CELSS techniques in orbit.
>
We need cheaper launch systems. Reusable launch systems might be one
way to get this. Or partly reusable systems, as proposed by spaceX and
not demonstrated by the Shuttle.
Brad Guth
>way to get this. Or partly reusable systems, as proposed by spaceX and
>not demonstrated by the Shuttle.
sit back and let the Ruskies and Chinks do their thing at not 10 cents
on the dollar, and within one tenth the time. Since time is money,
that's actually accomplishing our moon for all of a cent on the
almighty dollar.
-
Brad Guth
ro...@telus.net
Simberg) wrote:
>On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 13:40:42 GMT, in a place far, far away,
>ro...@telus.net made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as
>to indicate that:
>
>>>>You may not be wrong in your own opinion, but you are most certainly
>>>>wrong as a matter of objective fact.
>>>
>>>Nonsense. That is not an objective fact. It all depends on one's
>>>definition of a "modern high-technology society."
>>
>>No, that is also flat wrong. Definitions are not arbitrary. except in
>>mathematics and formal logic. There is no dictionary-supported
>>definition of "modern high-technology society" that says or implies a
>>requirement that meat be eaten.
>
>Nor is there one that says otherwise.
Of course there is, because eating meat is totally irrelevant to the
qualities of a modern high-technology society.
>It is not defined, and thus is
>subject to opinion.
It is most certainly defined, and it has nothing to do with eating
meat.
>>>>Oh. I see. So, space settlement policy and planning should revolve
>>>>around how much you like meat?
>>>
>>>No, it should revolve around what the space settlers want, not what
>>>you think they should "need."
>>
>>Wrong again. The space settlers will be chosen on the basis of their
>>suitability to conditions at the settlement; the settlement will not
>>be designed around the individual culinary tastes of pre-selected
>>settlers. Such claims are just stupid.
>
>So you're going to select them, according to what *you* think they
>should like? Who died and made you king?
<yawn> You could start a discount strawman emporium. You're the one
who claimed space settlement policy had to revolve around making sure
your carnivorous preferences would be supported. And so now, with
predictable projection, you accuse _me_ of wanting to impose _my_
personal preferences -- the exact stupidity of which you are yourself
so extravagantly guilty.
>The settlement will be designed around the individual culinary (and
>other) tastes of the people who settle it.
No, it won't.
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
Simberg) wrote:
>On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 14:28:00 GMT, in a place far, far away,
>ro...@telus.net made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as
>to indicate that:
>
>>>>>>So your claim that high dependency on imports is necessary to societal
>>>>>>wealth is flat false.
>>>>>
>>>>>How does that follow? You haven't yet established that they were
>>>>>societally wealthy.
>>>>
>>>>They were about as wealthy as they had been when they traded a lot
>>>>more. Which is very much the point.
>>>
>>>Data?
>>
>>http://www.energybulletin.net/5140.html
>>
>>See also
>>
>>http://www.japan-guide.com/e/e2128.html
>>
>>"Despite the isolation, domestic trade and agricultural production
>>continued to improve."
>
>That's not data.
Of course it is. And more to the point, it's a lot more data than you
have provided to support any of _your_ claims.
Where are the data to support your claims? Come on. Let's see it.
You have made claims, let's see the facts you based them on. I have
provided sources. I have provided numbers and references. You have
to date provided nothing whatsoever. You need to do something about
that, and _now_, if you want to have any credibility in this
discussion. Otherwise, you are just laughable.
>>Many sources attest to the generally improving Japanese economy of the
>>early Edo period.
>
>You only showed one, and it only "attested" to it.
I showed two, and here's another one:
http://www.grips.ac.jp/teacher/oono/hp/lecture_J/lec02.htm
>It didn't describe
>what that meant, in terms of numbers.
Yes, it did. You either did not read it, did not understand it, or
are lying about it. One example:
"In contrast, according to a wage list of carpenters hired by the Edo
feudal government, it took 200 years for wages to double, implying an
economic growth rate those days of about 0.3 percent or so."
So per capita income was growing at about 0.3%. So where is your
evidence that it was growing faster than that before imports were
drastically reduced??
Where are your data? Where are you numbers? Come on. Let's see your
data. You seem very eager to demand data and numbers over and over
again (even after they have been provided for you), but awfully
reluctant to provide any yourself. Well, that won't wash with me.
You are going to have to either put up or shut up.
>>Now, where are your data showing that the reduced
>>trade significantly reduced societal wealth?
>
>From your own page:
>
>"Even though the Tokugawa government remained quite stable over
>several centuries, its position was steadily declining for several
>reasons: A steady worsening of the financial situation of the
>government led to higher taxes and riots among the farm population. In
>addition, Japan regularly experienced natural disasters and years of
>famine that caused riots and further financial problems for the
>central government and the daimyo. The social hierarchy began to break
>down as the merchant class grew increasingly powerful while some
>samurai became financially dependent of them. In the second half of
>the era, corruption, incompetence and a decline of morals within the
>government caused further problems."
>
>Sounds like heaven on earth...
<yawn> No, it sounds more like no data in support of your claim that
reduced imports made Edo period Japan poorer.
Japan was in fact wealthier in most respects in the Edo period than it
had been before, when there were more imports. See the sources above
for proof.
I repeat: where are your data -- _any_ data -- showing that the
reduction of Japan's imports in the early Edo period reduced societal
wealth?
I'm waiting. And I know I will continue to wait, because you have no
data. You have no evidence whatever for your claims. And sorry, but
I'm not going to let you pretend that shifting the burden of proof
entirely onto me (and your juvenile and dishonest tactic of demanding
ever higher standards of proof from me no matter how much evidence I
provide) is a substitute for evidence on your side.
>>>>>>Well, they had already built their economy around imported oil, so
>>>>>>that is (surprise!) not exactly the issue. If oil had never been
>>>>>>available in the first place, they had enough local energy sources in
>>>>>>coal, geothermal, etc. to last until nuclear became available.
>>>>>
>>>>>Really? A fascinating theory. How much coal and geothermal do/did
>>>>>they have, and how far would they have industrialized on it?
>>>>
>>>>That depends on a lot of factors, but energy resources would not have
>>>>been the limiting factor.
>>>
>>>Numbers?
>>
>>See the first source cited above. It turns out coal and geo would not
>>even have been needed:
>>
>>"Today, the average Japanese person uses 40 million kilocalories per
>>year. This means that a quarter of our energy requirement could be met
>>with firewood today if all of the annual increment was burned. Since
>>Japan in the Edo Period had about a quarter of the current population,
>>all of its energy needs could have been met with firewood, even at
>>current per capita consumption levels."
>
>You didn't answer the question.
Yes, of course I did. Why lie about it?
>How would they have industrialized on it.
By using it for production of industrial capital.
>Without burning down all their forests, that is (which Britain
>did, until they turned to coal)?
?? Read the sources I give you. The excerpt above told you the
annual increment of tree growth alone could provide a quarter of the
energy needs of _modern_ Japan. Japan also has many rivers suitable
for hydro-electric development, many geothermal sites, etc.
-- Roy L
Rand Simberg
>>>No, that is also flat wrong. Definitions are not arbitrary. except in
>>>mathematics and formal logic. There is no dictionary-supported
>>>definition of "modern high-technology society" that says or implies a
>>>requirement that meat be eaten.
>>
>>Nor is there one that says otherwise.
>
>Of course there is, because eating meat is totally irrelevant to the
>qualities of a modern high-technology society.
>
>>It is not defined, and thus is
>>subject to opinion.
>
>It is most certainly defined, and it has nothing to do with eating
>meat.
In your egocentric opinion.
>>>>>Oh. I see. So, space settlement policy and planning should revolve
>>>>>around how much you like meat?
>>>>
>>>>No, it should revolve around what the space settlers want, not what
>>>>you think they should "need."
>>>
>>>Wrong again. The space settlers will be chosen on the basis of their
>>>suitability to conditions at the settlement; the settlement will not
>>>be designed around the individual culinary tastes of pre-selected
>>>settlers. Such claims are just stupid.
>>
>>So you're going to select them, according to what *you* think they
>>should like? Who died and made you king?
>
><yawn> You could start a discount strawman emporium. You're the one
>who claimed space settlement policy had to revolve around making sure
>your carnivorous preferences would be supported. And so now, with
>predictable projection, you accuse _me_ of wanting to impose _my_
>personal preferences -- the exact stupidity of which you are yourself
>so extravagantly guilty.
>
>>The settlement will be designed around the individual culinary (and
>>other) tastes of the people who settle it.
>
>No, it won't.
Then it won't happen, because they won't be willing to pay for it.
ro...@telus.net
Simberg) wrote:
>On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 05:43:12 GMT, in a place far, far away,
>ro...@telus.net made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as
>to indicate that:
>
>>>>No, that is also flat wrong. Definitions are not arbitrary. except in
>>>>mathematics and formal logic. There is no dictionary-supported
>>>>definition of "modern high-technology society" that says or implies a
>>>>requirement that meat be eaten.
>>>
>>>Nor is there one that says otherwise.
>>
>>Of course there is, because eating meat is totally irrelevant to the
>>qualities of a modern high-technology society.
>>
>>>It is not defined, and thus is
>>>subject to opinion.
>>
>>It is most certainly defined, and it has nothing to do with eating
>>meat.
>
>In your egocentric opinion.
?? ROTFL!! As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!"
>>>>>>Oh. I see. So, space settlement policy and planning should revolve
>>>>>>around how much you like meat?
>>>>>
>>>>>No, it should revolve around what the space settlers want, not what
>>>>>you think they should "need."
>>>>
>>>>Wrong again. The space settlers will be chosen on the basis of their
>>>>suitability to conditions at the settlement; the settlement will not
>>>>be designed around the individual culinary tastes of pre-selected
>>>>settlers. Such claims are just stupid.
>>>
>>>So you're going to select them, according to what *you* think they
>>>should like? Who died and made you king?
>>
>><yawn> You could start a discount strawman emporium. You're the one
>>who claimed space settlement policy had to revolve around making sure
>>your carnivorous preferences would be supported. And so now, with
>>predictable projection, you accuse _me_ of wanting to impose _my_
>>personal preferences -- the exact stupidity of which you are yourself
>>so extravagantly guilty.
>>
>>>The settlement will be designed around the individual culinary (and
>>>other) tastes of the people who settle it.
>>
>>No, it won't.
>
>Then it won't happen, because they won't be willing to pay for it.
They wouldn't be paying for it anyway.
Duh.
-- Roy L
Rand Simberg
>>>>The settlement will be designed around the individual culinary (and
>>>>other) tastes of the people who settle it.
>>>
>>>No, it won't.
>>
>>Then it won't happen, because they won't be willing to pay for it.
>
>They wouldn't be paying for it anyway.
Then it won't happen. Who else would pay for it?
>Duh.
Right back atcha.
ro...@telus.net
_Go-vern-ment_. Duh.
-- Roy L
Rand Simberg
>>>>>>The settlement will be designed around the individual culinary (and
>>>>>>other) tastes of the people who settle it.
>>>>>
>>>>>No, it won't.
>>>>
>>>>Then it won't happen, because they won't be willing to pay for it.
>>>
>>>They wouldn't be paying for it anyway.
>>
>>Then it won't happen. Who else would pay for it?
>
>_Go-vern-ment_. Duh.
Dream on.