Solar powered lasers in space
Willie...@gmail.com
about using thin film reflectors inflated on orbit to concentrate
sunlight onto a solar pumped laser. That laser beam would be beamed
to receivers on the ground which would convert the power to
electricity and thermal energy for industrial use. Overall efficiency
would be 40%
I was roundly attacked by all - and so, it was with great interest
that I read the following on yahoo news service in 2007;
http://green.yahoo.com/index.php?q=node/1521
I am fully justified in my earlier statements - and all those who
mercilessly attacked me have been proved dead wrong in their negative
assessments of my ideas.
Sylvia Else
The cited article was not a description of a working system.
Sylvia.
Alan Anderson
killfile, or are you merely an impostor trying to set off a flamefest?
Willie...@gmail.com wrote:
The earlier "attacks" were not casting aspersions on the technical
feasibility of space-based laser power beams. They were bringing up
legitimate concerns about the ability to send beams of high power
density through the air without risking damage to anything passing
through the beam.
(By the way, Hank Green's blog isn't a "news service".)
BradGuth
But that's exactly what this mostly Yiddish anti-think-tank of a
Usenet from naysay hell is good at doing, is their topic/author
stalking and bashing with everything they can muster. (I believe it's
one of their born again faith-based things that's pretty much naysay
to anything off-world, especially naysay if you're not a fellow Yid)
I happen to agree that an interactive and thus fully controlled set of
laser cannon beams from space to multiple terrestrial receiving
stations is perfectly doable, especially if tether deployed away from
the LSE-CM/ISS that's parked in the moon's L1 would get those fully
solar illuminated SBLs situated as close to Earth as you'd like, or
dare, along with the tether dipole itself offering teraWatts of energy
to spare.
Your 40% overall energy transfer efficiency wasn't even all that far
off. Even a solar farm of reflectors merely giving a focused narrow
beam of the full solar spectrum isn't all that insurmountable,
although a solar pumped tight laser beam of mostly IR is perhaps best
suited for the task, whereas system robotics would avoid most any
unfortunate encounters with items not suited for surviving such beams
of raw energy.
Space Laser to Transmit Solar Power to Earth, By Hank Green (why the
hell not?)
I bet Willie Moo could do this rather nicely, starting off small and
growing along with the required expertise for making it happen in a
very big and clean enery way.
- Brad Guth -
Willie...@gmail.com
> Are you really William Mook with a new address that isn't yet in my
> killfile, or are you merely an impostor trying to set off a flamefest?
>
>
>
>
>
> Willie.Moo...@gmail.com wrote:
> > In 1996 I wrote in these newsgroups about an idea I had worked out
> > about using thin film reflectors inflated on orbit to concentrate
> > sunlight onto a solar pumped laser. That laser beam would be beamed
> > to receivers on the ground which would convert the power to
> > electricity and thermal energy for industrial use. Overall efficiency
> > would be 40%
>
> > I was roundly attacked by all - and so, it was with great interest
> > that I read the following on yahoo news service in 2007;
>
> >http://green.yahoo.com/index.php?q=node/1521
>
> > I am fully justified in my earlier statements - and all those who
> > mercilessly attacked me have been proved dead wrong in their negative
> > assessments of my ideas.
>
> The earlier "attacks" were not casting aspersions on the technical
> feasibility of space-based laser power beams.
Yes they were.
> They were bringing up
> legitimate concerns about the ability to send beams of high power
> density through the air without risking damage to anything passing
> through the beam.
>
> (By the way, Hank Green's blog isn't a "news service".)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
You've mischaracterized the active control system to make what I've
proposed seem outlandish and to force a negative conclusion.
4-wave mixing systems that use active holographic techniques to
control a powerful laser have allowed lasers to penetrate sputtering
vapor and maintain focus on a target by avoiding the sputtered
particles. The same techniques have been used to track targets.
These systems are easily adapted to controlling beams from space and
having the beams avoid unwanted targets while at the same time
illuminating desireable targets.
Furthermore, you are not clear about what constitutes a powerful beam
and what constitutes a dangerous beam. These can be distinctly
different.
Proponents of microwave systems have promoted microwave beams that
1/10th to 1/100th as powerful as sunlight. The great advantage is
that these sytems can operate 24/7 and deliver electricity as
efficiently as solar panels without the need for storing energy.
So, a powerful beam is something that's more powerful than 1/10th
solar intensity. Also, the color of the beam is an important factor.
Invisible beams can pose far less risk at a given intentisity than
visible beams for example
So, details count. The right details make a safe reliable system.
The wrong ones are easily shown to be infeasible, dangerous or
expensive. Willfully choosing the wrong details and from that arguing
that the whole idea is ludicrous - is a maddening and dispiriting
exercise - and leaves any advance open to others who are not so narrow
minded and mean.
For the record, I have proposed large central solar collector arrays
in sunny regions of low cost silicon solar panels.
A laser operating at 1 micron would be nearly perfectly converted to
electricity - since the bandgap wavelength is 1.1 micron for silicon.
1 micron is also in one of the low dispersion atmospheric 'windows'
that permit the energy to travel largely unaffected. 1 micron is
invisible.
Sunlight falls on the Earth at about 1,000 watts per sq m. Silicon is
about 18% efficient at converting sunlight to electricity. So, 180
watts per sq m ELECTRICAL is produced.
Laser light at 1 micron can fall on the Earth at any power density we
design. Looking at the solar spectra,we can see that the sun emits
about 380 watts per sq meter in the infrared portion of the spectrum.
Shining an infrared laser at this intensity causes no harm in to the
environment, since its what the environment has adapted to.
But 1 micron laser energizes silicon with about 85% efficiency after
passing through the air. so,that 380 watts IR becomes 323 watts per
sq m ELECTRICAL. Since the satellite operates 24/7 - the ground
system does too, with the exception of the occasional weather
interruption and that's minimized if the proper site is chosen.
The advantage of the satellite is easily seen.
Lets say we build a 8 million acre (32.4 billion sq m) solar collector
array 5 miles wide and 2,500 miles long along our Southern border, in
the high Sonoran desert there. This is exposed to about 1,600 hours
of sunlight per year. At 180 Watts per m2 this array produces 9.332
trillion kWh per year. Used to desalinate seawater drawn from the
oceans near the border and decompose it into hydrogen and oxygen, this
solar panel array from sunlight alone would produce 186.6 million tons
of hydrogen gas each year. This has a heat value of 1.2 billion tons
of coal. So, by piping hydrogen gas made in this way to coal fired
power plants, those plants can immediately be converted to hydrogen
gas eliminating pollution from this source. In fact,using 123 million
tons of hydrogen to displace 800 million tons of coal and then using
62.6 million tons of hydrogen to hydrogenate the stranded coal,
produces 5.6 billion barrels of liquid fuels each year (gasoline,
diesel fuel, jet fuel) - largely severing our reliance on foreign
sources of oil. In fact this amount of oil plus the oil produced in
the US, provides for ALL US needs for liquid fuels - while reducing
our carbon emissions by half.
But lets add solar powersats to the picture - as described.
We add light-weight inflatable powersats to the picture that beam
energy reliably and safely to the 8 million acre ground site. Another
323 Watts per sq meter electrical is produced by the same solar panel
array - IN ADDITION to the solar influx - and this is available 24/7
with only slight interruptions due to weather in some spots on rare
occasion. So, this 323 watts is available 8766 hours a year - so each
square meter has added to the 288 kWh/year, 2.83 MWh/year - a 10 fold
increase!!! Which is well worth the cost of the satellites, if
they're made and launched cheaply enough.
With no increase in the 32.4 billion sq m array footprint (merely
designing the entire system to operate at 3x nominal solar output)
total energy output is 101 trillion kWh per year. This is enough to
create 2.02 billion metric tons of hydrogen gas.
Now, a ton of hydrogen has the same energy value when burned as;
4.5 tons anthracite
6.0 tons bituminous
10.2 tons lignite
23.4 barrels crude
1,190.0 gallons gasoline
Humanity currently uses 30 billion barrels of crude oil each year. So
converting the heat value of this hydrogen to barrels of oil
equivalent - obtains 47.2 billion barrels equivalent.
This means that the US following this sort of program would not only
become energy independent with completion of the ground station
portion of this program, but would rise to dominate the world's energy
markets with completion of the space portion of this program - at
first by hydrogenating low rank carbon sources, and later, by selling
liquid hydrogen throughout the world.
Later still, advances in laser control could lead to direct beaming of
energy from space to users on the ground, stationary users at first,
and later mobile users. Finally, lasers could power large spacecraft
and space propulsion systems, as well as space based factories.
I proposed this more than a decade ago - and have been ignored or
ridiculed while at the same time others have developed elements of
what I proposed without seeing the larger potential. Too bad we
haven't jumped onto this more agressively. A (Japanese) sociologist
told me once at a conference that a culture in decline, will avoid any
possibility for growth - he felt the US, and Europe generally were in
decline, whilst Asia was rising. It need not be that way I replied.
But I'm not a sociologist.
Willie...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
That is true. It is a visionary statement by respected engineers and
scientists who have proposed a long term program for Japanese energy
security - while a similar statement by US engineer and scientist 12
years earlier caused him to be disrespected ridiculed and reviled.
Good job usenet! lol.
Willie...@gmail.com
They may have told Edison he was nuts when he tried to send high-
speed morse code across the Atlantic, or when he wanted to perfect the
lightbulb and mass produce it
They may have laughed at Ford's horseless carriage.
People may even have arrested Bell when he demonstrated his telephone
in Philadelphia.
But, that doesn't mean EVERY person they say was nuts is NOT nuts.
Sometimes, Brad, sometimes, the ridicule some receive is well
deserved.
Rarely, sometimes not.
In your case, Brad, in case there is any doubt in your mind (because
there is no doubt in anyone else's mind reading this) the ridicule
heaped upon you and your ideas, that ridicule is richly deserved.
I must also say that on occasion - I am sad that on that rare
occsasion - when you have been especially maddening, - I am sad that I
cannot reach through the monitor and do you serious bodily harm or
inflict lasting deep pain to you - preferably in a way that leaves you
physically disabled to match in some poetic way your obvious mental
disability.
I will finally say, that this resopnse by you to my commentary, though
not unexpected, is one of those rare times you are rather lucky I
cannot reach through the internet and slap you in the face.
.
BradGuth
> Brad,
>
> They may have told Edison he was nuts when he tried to send high-
> speed morse code across the Atlantic, or when he wanted to perfect the
> lightbulb and mass produce it
>
> They may have laughed at Ford's horseless carriage.
>
> People may even have arrested Bell when he demonstrated his telephone
> in Philadelphia.
>
> But, that doesn't mean EVERY person they say was nuts is NOT nuts.
>
> Sometimes, Brad, sometimes, the ridicule some receive is well
> deserved.
>
> Rarely, sometimes not.
>
> In your case, Brad, in case there is any doubt in your mind (because
> there is no doubt in anyone else's mind reading this) the ridicule
> heaped upon you and your ideas, that ridicule is richly deserved.
In other words, deep down in your little black heart you really don't
give a hockypuck about salvaging our environment, nor do you believe
in the regular laws of physics, or in utilizing the best available
science. Now I understand, fully.
>
> I must also say that on occasion - I am sad that on that rare
> occsasion - when you have been especially maddening, - I am sad that I
> cannot reach through the monitor and do you serious bodily harm or
> inflict lasting deep pain to you - preferably in a way that leaves you
> physically disabled to match in some poetic way your obvious mental
> disability.
Gee whiz, and here I'd been promoting most of everything you've got to
offer (though no one is perfect, including Einstein or yourself), and
just as I'd said that if I were ever put in charge, whereas apparently
I'd be the only one forking out a nifty 50/50 worth of R&D matching
funds on your warm and fuzzy behalf. Sorry, my mistake, as I'd rather
stick with those ENRON/Exxon types that get loads of stuff
accomplished, though spendy, polluting and even somewhat lethal as all
get out.
>
> I will finally say, that this resopnse by you to my commentary, though
> not unexpected, is one of those rare times you are rather lucky I
> cannot reach through the internet and slap you in the face.
Face slapping?
Silly old me for being 100% in support of what your supposed talent
and expertise has to offer, on behalf of your intentions of improving
our global environment on such a grand scale, and for the greater good
of humanity to boot. I'll see what I can manage in order to return
the warm and fuzzy favor with all the "face slapping" love and
affection that I can muster.
- Brad Guth -
BradGuth
>
> - Show quoted text -
Oddly, at that time I wouldn't have been so totally negative, but
since your proving that you can't tell the good guys from the bad, not
take the heat of this Usenet anti-think-tank of such a swarm like
cesspool of naysayism, is all the reason we need to further disqualify
the likes of yourself. BTW, you can thank mostly them pesky Yids and
perhaps secondly Catholics for all of that previous topic/author
stalking, bashing and banishment via their all-knowing naysayism, as
it sure as hell isn't coming from Muslims or via most any other faith-
based cult (of which there are many good ones that you obviously do
not appreciate).
- Brad Guth
BradGuth
>
> - Show quoted text -
Even though your research has good enough physics and perfely doable
logic, you're obviously not sufficiently Yid enough or otherwise smart
enough to realize that you're being snookered to death by the very
best of what those pesky Yids in charge of this Usenet can muster.
You've heard of the supposed free press, or at least the freedom of
speach thing; well lo and behold, this Usenet of such profound
naysayism is not any part of that silly ruse, unless you and others of
your kind keep up with their lethal gauntlet of flak (aka returning
the favor). If you give up, they win each and every time.
BTW, you apparently do not understand or otherwise appreciate that
folks here in Usenet land don't have to be Jewish in order to act
entirely Yiddish bad, and then some. How otherwise than via his own
kind do you figure Jesus Christ got put on that stick?
"I proposed this more than a decade ago - and have been ignored or
ridiculed while at the same time others have developed elements of
what I proposed without seeing the larger potential"
That's actually a darn good one that I'll have to use myself,
especially that closing part of their not "seeing the larger
potential". It seems most Yids are looking for the absolute least
possible potential, as well as the most spendy and polluting as all
get out, even if they have to lie to us 9/11 and about those Muslim
WMD, to boot.
- Brad Guth -
Willie...@gmail.com
There's a song that was popular in the 70s.
There are no good guys
There are no bad guys
There's only you and me
And we just disagree
You would do well to listen to it until the words sink in.
How and for what one qualifies or does not qualify is not something
that you have any poiwer over. Albeit asserting such things makes it
seem like you have power IN YOUR OWN MIND - which is likely why you do
it.
> BTW, you can thank mostly them pesky Yids and
> perhaps secondly Catholics for all of that previous topic/author
> stalking, bashing and banishment
There is a concept called LOCUS OF CONTROL. Children for example,
have their locus of control external to themselves. So, they whine
and moan and complain about their situation and what others are doing
to them. Adults generally speaking have their locus of control
inside. So, they actually do things and take effective action in
response to challenges. Statements such as the one you make above
clearly delineate you as the sort of person who hasn't really matured
as an adult, and has their locus of control firmly fixed up someone
else's ass.
The point is Bruth, is ITS ALL IN YOUR MIND. Change your mind and
your problems will go away - and with it - all the effects of your
mental difficulties.
> via their all-knowing naysayism, as
Well, sometimes things just won't work - there's always that to
consider. And if anyone has a bright idea, its up to that person to
answer the negatives. In a selling or management situation I've
always found that those who are the most critical of a new idea, are
the one's that are the most open minded. They're actually considering
what it being told them and they're OBJECTING. Any manager and
salesperson worth their salt knows that objections are but the first
step to closing a sale, or making a change in the way things are
done. Any change agent knows that objections are positive results on
the path to creating the change they seek. They also know that if
they're stuck, its due to their inability to usefully address specific
objections.
> it sure as hell isn't coming from Muslims
No, they just produce the most suicide bombers.
> or via most any other faith-
> based cult (of which there are many good ones that you obviously do
> not appreciate).
hmm.. Bruth, there is so much wrong in what you've said here that its
difficult to addressit usefully, so I'll just do what most people
usually do when you have something to say - IGNOREyou.
Which is what I shoulda done yesterday. Sheez.
> - Brad Guth- Hide quoted text -
Willie...@gmail.com
This is abolute rot. All such statements clearly indicate you have
ceded all control to those outside yourself who symbolize everything
you desire but don't have. Culture, class, money, prestige, power,
respect, admiration, history, love - and you blame them for your
failures. The first step toward a better life Bruth is accepting
resonsibility for everything that happens to you. Then finding a
better way.
> You've heard of the supposed free press, or at least the freedom of
> speach thing;
The press in the US is largely free. It is however subject to
indirect manipulation by the Feds. Among those who have mapped and
seek to manage the global information environment to control the
epistimology of everyone - where it impacts on US strategic interest.
The science of this aspect of infowar is largely unappreciated
today..
While such systems are successful in the short term, in the long term,
such disinformation campaigns undermine the very powers that seek
advantage through these tactics. WMDs in Iraq are a good case in
point. The truth is what the truth is, no matter how its spun,
obscured, or denied. And the truth needs no defense. It is what it
is. Anyone who has ever been caught in a lie knows how difficult it
is to maintain lies - for their short half-lives, and the damage lies
cause when they explode. The ability to stage manage the global
information environment using advance computing technology has
inspired an increase in the bullshit that is coming out of
Washington. This will hurt Washington in the long run, and will be
very hard for Washington to recovery from. Look at the former Soviet
Union's control over information in the old SU. At some point people
came to believe that if it were being asserted as true in Pravda, then
it MUST be false. Or if it were being denied in Pravda - it must be
true!! lol. It will some day come to this. Serious people who have
an interest in national and international affairs, rarely rely on the
daily news or CNN to form their opinions anyway. This will grow as
the popular media becomes less and less reliable - in the interim.
.
> well lo and behold, this Usenet of such profound
> naysayism is not any part of that silly ruse, unless you and others of
> your kind keep up with their lethal gauntlet of flak (aka returning
> the favor).
You decide what you want to say, you determine how you want to support
what you say, and you ultimately decide how you want to be percieved
by others. In this way you are totally responsible for what you say
do and think ... blaming others for what you think is a form of
madness.
> If you give up, they win each and every time.
This too is a form of madness that makes it impossible for anyone
holding to this concept to change their mind on anything. Think about
that one for minute. Who wins if YOU decided on your own to change
YOUR mind about something? Its something you decide to do based on
your own judgement. No one wins or loses - its a personal matter
within your own head. So, the whole idea is just mad.
> BTW, you apparently do not understand or otherwise appreciate that
> folks here in Usenet land don't have to be Jewish in order to act
> entirely Yiddish bad, and then some.
Have you ever studied the Jewish religion or Jewish culture? Do you
have any appreciation of the folks you are abusing so ruthlessly? I
bet not.
> How otherwise than via his own
> kind do you figure Jesus Christ got put on that stick?
The Romans did it and then washed their hands of when they let
Barrabus go. And then Jesus himself decided to go through with it.
No one made him do it. He did it because that's what he came to do.
He took responsibility for what happened to him. Why can't you?
> "I proposed this more than a decade ago - and have been ignored or
> ridiculed while at the same time others have developed elements of
> what I proposed without seeing the larger potential"
>
> That's actually a darn good one that I'll have to use myself,
Of course if there is a consistent level of interest by the powers
that be in what is said in these space groups - due to concerns about
missile proliferation and whatnot - arranging things so that no one
reads a targeted source is one technique that is likely used. This is
far easier to do than discrediting someone point by point. This was
done by King George against dissidents in Hyde park. The King's men
would join the audience of a dissdent and shout profanities or
otherwise engage in pointless argumentation - or rant ceaselessly
angry meaningless and discomfited drivel.
There is no way to usefully deal with such techniques. On the one
hand you can ignore the person, but their endless depth of bile and
hatred drives folks away if you do that. On the other hand you can
challenge them, but that just distracts from what was originally said
(solar powered lasers in space can indeed work just as I said 12 years
ago). Finally, you can give them a swift kick in the groin, or punch
in the gut (or have a friend do it and drag them away) - but then you
might attract the negative attention of authorities - or more likely
the King's man comes back with a court order enjoining the speaker to
leave (which was the point all along) Oftentimes these rabblerousers
were misfits that met secretly with powerful folks in fine locations
and given a little ego boost. That was all was needed to keep armies
of the insane busy in the service of the King.
In the usenet universe, you are a prefect examplar of this technique
Bruth - and are likely more in the service of those you purport to
hate than anyone else here on usenet. The only answer for you - if
you truly believe in what you spout - is to keep your damned mouth
shut. That's the only way to defeat those who use you for their
ends. But you can't - or won't - because you might not be who you
appear to be to a naive observer. .
> especially that closing part of their not "seeing the larger
> potential".
Who cares what others see or don't see. That doesn't change the value
of what you do. Assuming what you do HAS value.
> It seems most Yids are looking for the absolute least
> possible potential,
No, you need to believe this in order to avoid taking responsibility
for your life - and for derailing this otherwise modest attempt to
communicate that I was right 12 years ago and those who attacked what
I said were wrong.
> as well as the most spendy and polluting as all
> get out, even if they have to lie to us 9/11 and about those Muslim
> WMD, to boot.
Madness Bruth - sheer madness.
The first step to clearing your mind is to accept -for the purposes of
this exercise- that everything you know is wrong. Then challenge all
your beliefs one by one to prove themselves TO YOU - that way you can
have some peace about your beliefs - and won't need to make up stories
about others who quite frankly don't give a rat's ass about you
Bruth. You'll find in the end, no matter where you come out, you'll
be a far more effective and likeable human being.
Just a word of advice.
> - Brad Guth -- Hide quoted text -
Willie...@gmail.com
I never claimed perfection - and I never asked for or sought your
support. haha.. C'mon - this is the oldest trick in the book. The
opposition pays all the whores pimps drug dealers to come to a meeting
and disrupt it with their foolishness, and then they complain loudly,
fight and generally tear up the place when they're asked to leave -
and THAT becomes the story at 11...
The only way to deal with that is to have strong capable bouncers scan
everyone as the approach the meeting hall, and 'persuade'
'undesireables' to move along... without a publc outcry - again a
swift kick to the groin to the baddest of these is generally
sufficient - but alas, you cannot do this on internet! haha..
So, don't cry alligator tears to me Bruth - I know your game - and
you feel yourself immune. You gotta know exactly what you're doing.
> and
> just as I'd said that if I were ever put in charge, whereas apparently
> I'd be the only one forking out a nifty 50/50 worth of R&D matching
> funds on your warm and fuzzy behalf.
You have never given me funds for anything, you have never offered
funds to me, you have never been asked for funds from me, you most
likely have no funds to give to anyone anyway - it all being in your
head. So, I gotta ask - WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT. You
either say things because it gives you a hard on for the moment to
imagine they're true - so, its all mental masturbation - or you are
fond of saying things that are damable lies.
> Sorry, my mistake,
Yes. I don't want need or value your support. If you'd like to earn
by gratitude and lasting admiration there is one thing and ONE THING
only you can do. Commit yourself to not posting writing or even
reading anything online for a year. Do, that and then we can talk
AFTER.
> as I'd rather
> stick with those ENRON/Exxon types that get loads of stuff
> accomplished, though spendy, polluting and even somewhat lethal as all
> get out.
Enron got nothing done and they ended up in jail and the poorhouse -
so this makes no sense. Exxon is a respected and quite capable
company that produces a goodly precentage of all the energy used on
Earth. They have no idea of what sort of strategy will secure their
survival and dominance for the next 30 years. Their behavior shouts
this from the tree-tops. This is actually a quite hopeful sign to
those who DO have a workable strategy.
> > I will finally say, that this resopnse by you to my commentary, though
> > not unexpected, is one of those rare times you are rather lucky I
> > cannot reach through the internet and slap you in the face.
>
> Face slapping?
Or groin kicking yes. Preferably when you read my stuff, rather than
after you post. That way, the message is clear. Don't read Mook's
shit Bruth - you'll get a pain in the nuts if you do. and you move
on. See? If there is anything in the usenet universe that would
bring me everlasting joy and happiness - it isthat. Whenever you
THINK about reading my shit, you get a pain in your nuts, and decide
differently.
So, to that extent, I would like to kick you in th enuts. I get an
alert that you've pulled up a post of mine, I reach through the
monitor with my boot, and kick you in the nuts. I do that until you
stop reading my shit. See?
After that, I don't care what the hell you do! haha..
> Silly old me for being 100% in support of what your supposed talent
> and expertise has to offer,
Yeah, well, like Huey Long's kicking the whores and whatnot out of his
meetings - I didn't ask you to attend in the first place. Move
along! lol.
> on behalf of your intentions of improving
> our global environment
Since I would actually like to do something of value - I would like
not to have to deal with you AT ALL!
> on such a grand scale, and for the greater good
> of humanity to boot. I'll see what I can manage in order to return
> the warm and fuzzy favor with all the "face slapping" love and
> affection that I can muster.
Like I said, I don't even read your shit, unless its in response to
something I've said, and then I generally ignore it. But since you
took the trouble to say something nice about me - I wanted to make it
clear to anyone who reads this that I have nothing but the deepest
sympathy for your parents - and want nothing to do with you. And if I
could, I would kick you in the nuts whenever you thought of reading my
shit - that way I wouldn't have to deal with you at all.
BradGuth
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Why not just publish in Usenet whatever's needed to go on your
pathetic and extremely lonely grave site, and call it good. Perhaps
"Here lies Bigots-R-Us, Willie Moo" or simply "Up Yours, because I too
gave up".
- Brad Guth -
BradGuth
> On Sep 12, 2:07 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Even though your research has good enough physics and perfely doable
> > logic, you're obviously not sufficiently Yid enough or otherwise smart
> > enough to realize that you're being snookered to death by the very
> > best of what those pesky Yids in charge of this Usenet can muster.
>
> This is abolute rot. All such statements clearly indicate you have
> ceded all control to those outside yourself who symbolize everything
> you desire but don't have. Culture, class, money, prestige, power,
> respect, admiration, history, love - and you blame them for your
> failures. The first step toward a better life Bruth is accepting
> resonsibility for everything that happens to you. Then finding a
> better way.
Like yourself, I've been there and done that, and even being quite
nice about it. So, what's next? Should others and myself give up
like Willie Moo?
Too bad you've got such a pain within your highly bigoted heart. Good
luck with that method.
>
> > You've heard of the supposed free press, or at least the freedom of
> > speach thing;
>
> The press in the US is largely free. It is however subject to
> indirect manipulation by the Feds. Among those who have mapped and
> seek to manage the global information environment to control the
> epistimology of everyone - where it impacts on US strategic interest.
> The science of this aspect of infowar is largely unappreciated
> today..
I agree, but why are you so afraid to name names, and especially of
those mostly Yiddish names that are in charge of our mainstream media
and public education none the less?
>
> While such systems are successful in the short term, in the long term,
> such disinformation campaigns undermine the very powers that seek
> advantage through these tactics. WMDs in Iraq are a good case in
> point. The truth is what the truth is, no matter how its
> ...
> read more »
The published truth is most often limited to whatever them Yids in
charge say it is. Or, do you have some other faith-based group of
downright nasty folks in mind? (such as those pretend atheists)
- Brad Guth -
BradGuth
> On Sep 12, 1:46 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Oddly, at that time I wouldn't have been so totally negative, but
> > since your proving that you can't tell the good guys from the bad, not
> > take the heat of this Usenet anti-think-tank of such a swarm like
> > cesspool of naysayism, is all the reason we need to further disqualify
> > the likes of yourself.
>
> There's a song that was popular in the 70s.
>
> There are no good guys
> There are no bad guys
> There's only you and me
> And we just disagree
>
> You would do well to listen to it until the words sink in.
That's a good one. What planet of total naysayism and denial did you
say you were from?
>
> How and for what one qualifies or does not qualify is not something
> that you have any poiwer over. Albeit asserting such things makes it
> seem like you have power IN YOUR OWN MIND - which is likely why you do
> it.
Yes Hitler and thank God, as now I understand.
>
> > BTW, you can thank mostly them pesky Yids and
> > perhaps secondly Catholics for all of that previous topic/author
> > stalking, bashing and banishment
>
> There is a concept called LOCUS OF CONTROL. Children for example,
> have their locus of control external to themselves. So, they whine
> and moan and complain about their situation and what others are doing
> to them. Adults generally speaking have their locus of control
> inside. So, they actually do things and take effective action in
> response to challenges. Statements such as the one you make above
> clearly delineate you as the sort of person who hasn't really matured
> as an adult, and has their locus of control firmly fixed up someone
> else's ass.
>
> The point is Bruth, is ITS ALL IN YOUR MIND. Change your mind and
> your problems will go away - and with it - all the effects of your
> mental difficulties.
You should have told that one to Jesus Christ, as he'd still be alive
and kicking.
Apparently ignoring the truth is what makes yourself and others of
your silly kind into happy campers.
>
> > via their all-knowing naysayism, as
>
> Well, sometimes things just won't work - there's always that to
> consider. And if anyone has a bright idea, its up to that person to
> answer the negatives. In a selling or management situation I've
> always found that those who are the most critical of a new idea, are
> the one's that are the most open minded. They're actually considering
> what it being told them and they're OBJECTING. Any manager and
> salesperson worth their salt knows that objections are but the first
> step to closing a sale, or making a change in the way things are
> done. Any change agent knows that objections are positive results on
> the path to creating the change they seek. They also know that if
> they're stuck, its due to their inability to usefully address specific
> objections.
That's terrific, and it's good to see that you're coming back down to
Earth.
>
> > it sure as hell isn't coming from Muslims
>
> No, they just produce the most suicide bombers.
You silly boy, they really don't have viable alternatives, unless
you'd care to supply them.
>
> > or via most any other faith-
> > based cult (of which there are many good ones that you obviously do
> > not appreciate).
>
> hmm.. Bruth, there is so much wrong in what you've said here that its
> difficult to addressit usefully, so I'll just do what most people
> usually do when you have something to say - IGNOREyou.
>
> Which is what I shoulda done yesterday. Sheez.
Well, the good old head sticking in sand is certainly a viable option
for the totally dumbfounded and especially of those without a speck of
remorse. Apparently you don't believe that religions exist, or that
they have insider powers and/or control over most every aspect of your
life. Perhaps you should visit Earth more often, in order to get a
fresh grasp on whatever's going down.
- Brad Guth -
Willie...@gmail.com
> On Sep 12, 3:31 pm, Willie.Moo...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Sep 12, 1:46 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Oddly, at that time I wouldn't have been so totally negative, but
> > > since your proving that you can't tell the good guys from the bad, not
> > > take the heat of this Usenet anti-think-tank of such a swarm like
> > > cesspool of naysayism, is all the reason we need to further disqualify
> > > the likes of yourself.
>
> > There's a song that was popular in the 70s.
>
> > There are no good guys
> > There are no bad guys
> > There's only you and me
> > And we just disagree
>
> > You would do well to listen to it until the words sink in.
>
> That's a good one. What planet of total naysayism and denial did you
> say you were from?
I don't know what's worse you demented loser, you saying your insane
bullshit, or me trying to argue with you about it. We're both fucking
losers you pathetic asshole!
>
>
> > How and for what one qualifies or does not qualify is not something
> > that you have any poiwer over. Albeit asserting such things makes it
> > seem like you have power IN YOUR OWN MIND - which is likely why you do
> > it.
>
> Yes Hitler and thank God, as now I understand.
Fuck you
>
>
>
>
>
> > > BTW, you can thank mostly them pesky Yids and
> > > perhaps secondly Catholics for all of that previous topic/author
> > > stalking, bashing and banishment
>
> > There is a concept called LOCUS OF CONTROL. Children for example,
> > have their locus of control external to themselves. So, they whine
> > and moan and complain about their situation and what others are doing
> > to them. Adults generally speaking have their locus of control
> > inside. So, they actually do things and take effective action in
> > response to challenges. Statements such as the one you make above
> > clearly delineate you as the sort of person who hasn't really matured
> > as an adult, and has their locus of control firmly fixed up someone
> > else's ass.
>
> > The point is Bruth, is ITS ALL IN YOUR MIND. Change your mind and
> > your problems will go away - and with it - all the effects of your
> > mental difficulties.
>
> You should have told that one to Jesus Christ, as he'd still be alive
> and kicking.
He had other ideas you pathetic piece of shit.
>
> Apparently ignoring the truth is what makes yourself and others of
> your silly kind into happy campers.
>
You're ignoring the truth you're a fucking douchebag.
>
> > > via their all-knowing naysayism, as
>
> > Well, sometimes things just won't work - there's always that to
> > consider. And if anyone has a bright idea, its up to that person to
> > answer the negatives. In a selling or management situation I've
> > always found that those who are the most critical of a new idea, are
> > the one's that are the most open minded. They're actually considering
> > what it being told them and they're OBJECTING. Any manager and
> > salesperson worth their salt knows that objections are but the first
> > step to closing a sale, or making a change in the way things are
> > done. Any change agent knows that objections are positive results on
> > the path to creating the change they seek. They also know that if
> > they're stuck, its due to their inability to usefully address specific
> > objections.
>
> That's terrific, and it's good to see that you're coming back down to
> Earth.
>
Whatever
>
> > > it sure as hell isn't coming from Muslims
>
> > No, they just produce the most suicide bombers.
>
> You silly boy, they really don't have viable alternatives, unless
> you'd care to supply them.
You have made total word hash of whatever I wanted to say - which was
your point you worthless piece of shit.
>
>
> > > or via most any other faith-
> > > based cult (of which there are many good ones that you obviously do
> > > not appreciate).
>
> > hmm.. Bruth, there is so much wrong in what you've said here that its
> > difficult to addressit usefully, so I'll just do what most people
> > usually do when you have something to say - IGNOREyou.
>
> > Which is what I shoulda done yesterday. Sheez.
>
> Well, the good old head sticking in sand i
No its vainly wishing life were different than it is you fucking
cunt. I bet your mom thinks that every time she looks at a picture of
you or hear's your whiny voice drone on about insane shit.
> s certainly a viable option
> for the totally dumbfounded and especially of those without a speck of
> remorse.
The only one without a speck of remose asshole is you. Get the fuck
away from me!
> Apparently you don't believe that religions exist,
What hell kind of shit is that? It makes no fucking sense whatever -
oh wait I'm talking to guthbag.
> or that
> they have insider powers and/or control over most every aspect of your
> life.
The only power you have is to suck my dick and squeeze the balls just
a little before I cum - no no not too hard.
jackass.
> Perhaps you should visit Earth more often, in order to get a
> fresh grasp on whatever's going down.
They're all a bunch of freaking clueless losers - just like you - but
not as bad - you fucking pathetic excuse for a human being.
> - Brad Guth -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
haha.. Sorry, I just got back from seeing Doug Stanhope - and he
inspired me - the alcohol helps too... lol.
Willie...@gmail.com
> On Sep 12, 4:02 pm, Willie.Moo...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Sep 12, 2:07 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Even though your research has good enough physics and perfely doable
> > > logic, you're obviously not sufficiently Yid enough or otherwise smart
> > > enough to realize that you're being snookered to death by the very
> > > best of what those pesky Yids in charge of this Usenet can muster.
>
> > This is abolute rot. All such statements clearly indicate you have
> > ceded all control to those outside yourself who symbolize everything
> > you desire but don't have. Culture, class, money, prestige, power,
> > respect, admiration, history, love - and you blame them for your
> > failures. The first step toward a better life Bruth is accepting
> > resonsibility for everything that happens to you. Then finding a
> > better way.
>
> Like yourself, I've been there and done that, and even being quite
> nice about it.
No you haven't you fucking liar.
> So, what's next? Should others and myself give up
> like Willie Moo?
I'm just talking to you Guthbag. Leave me the fuck alone. If you had
any sense of decency you'd do that. Fucking moron.
> Too bad you've got such a pain within your highly bigoted heart.
The only pain is the pain in my ass cause you won't remove your
fucking dick from it you goddamned cock sucking sonofabitch!
> Good
> luck with that method.
I marvel how lucky you are to be able to post anonomously across
usenet like this, because in an earlier age people would know who the
fuck you are after listening to you whine on one of your meaningless
screeds - and a group of big hairy bastards would sneak up on you one
night and beat the shit out of you until you bled, puked shit and died
you miserable fuck. Whenever I read your shit, I miss those days.
Those bastards that would stomp you to death with their fucking boots
have more mercy and light in their heart than you do you worthless
piece of shit.
>
>
> > > You've heard of the supposed free press, or at least the freedom of
> > > speach thing;
>
> > The press in the US is largely free. It is however subject to
> > indirect manipulation by the Feds. Among those who have mapped and
> > seek to manage the global information environment to control the
> > epistimology of everyone - where it impacts on US strategic interest.
> > The science of this aspect of infowar is largely unappreciated
> > today..
>
> I agree, but why are you so afraid to name names,
I'm not afraid of anything you worthelss cunt. The only person I'm
talking to is you asshole, I'm naming your name. LEAVE ME THE FUCK
ALONE - Jesus fucking Christ - how many times and how many ways do I
have to say it.
> and especially of
> those mostly Yiddish names
They're scapgoats for you because you're not brave enough or maybe
smart enough to take responsibility for your own miserable life you
worthless fuck.
> that are in charge of our mainstream media
> and public education none the less?
If I can't change YOUR behavior talking DIRECTLY TO YOU in the most
forceful way I can, WHY THE FUCK DO YOU THINK TALKING AT YOU ABOUT
SHIT NEITHER OF US HAS THE SLIGHTEST POWER TO AFFECT MAKES ANY SENSE
AT ALL? Its all mental masturbation douchebag - GIVE IT UP AND LEAVE
ME THE FUCK ALONE
Don't even think of reading my shit, let alone commenting on it or
arguing with me you worthless puke.
>
>
> > While such systems are successful in the short term, in the long term,
> > such disinformation campaigns undermine the very powers that seek
> > advantage through these tactics. WMDs in Iraq are a good case in
> > point. The truth is what the truth is, no matter how its
> > ...
> > read more »
>
> The published truth is most often limited to whatever them Yids
These folks have done nothing to you you idiot. They don't give a
shit about you. Worry about me, cause if I could I'd meet you in a
dark alley and stomp the fucking life out of you just to hear you cry
for your momma you worthless puke.
> in
> charge say it is.
Nobody's in charge of YOUR LIFE but YOU you fucking loser. And I've
asked you nicely, now I'm asking not so nicely - LEAVE ME THE FUCK
ALONE!
> Or, do you have some other faith-based group of
> downright nasty folks in mind? (such as those pretend atheists)
> - Brad Guth -
For what? You pathetic pus bag. You make no fucking sense. LEAVE ME
ALONE!
Again, blame Doug Stanhope, a few Heiniken, and a Jaeger or two..
Willie...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well, that's all part of if I change my mind they win madness you
drone on about you stupid bitch. Do me a favor - leave me the fuck
alone. Do yourself a favor. Unplug your computer and crawl out of
your dark basement and walk through the light of day and actually talk
to a person or two - and find out what its like to actually have a
life you pathetic loser. Put aside all your projects, plans and so
forth for a year and repent - go in a different direction - and see
what its like.
Rand Simberg
Willie...@gmail.com made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:
>On Sep 12, 9:34 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sep 12, 3:31 pm, Willie.Moo...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > On Sep 12, 1:46 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > Oddly, at that time I wouldn't have been so totally negative, but
>> > > since your proving that you can't tell the good guys from the bad, not
>> > > take the heat of this Usenet anti-think-tank of such a swarm like
>> > > cesspool of naysayism, is all the reason we need to further disqualify
>> > > the likes of yourself.
>>
>> > There's a song that was popular in the 70s.
>>
>> > There are no good guys
>> > There are no bad guys
>> > There's only you and me
>> > And we just disagree
>>
>> > You would do well to listen to it until the words sink in.
>>
>> That's a good one. What planet of total naysayism and denial did you
>> say you were from?
>
>I don't know what's worse you demented loser, you saying your insane
>bullshit, or me trying to argue with you about it. We're both fucking
>losers you pathetic asshole!
I think that's one of those rare issues on which we can achieve a
consensus of the newsgroup.
BradGuth
>
> - Show quoted text -
>1. Willie.Moo...@gmail.com / Sep 11, 7:06 pm
>
>Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
>From: Willie.Moo...@gmail.com
>Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 02:06:18 -0000
>Local: Tues, Sep 11 2007 7:06 pm
>Subject: Solar powered lasers in space
>
>In 1996 I wrote in these newsgroups about an idea I had worked out
>about using thin film reflectors inflated on orbit to concentrate
>sunlight onto a solar pumped laser. That laser beam would be beamed
>to receivers on the ground which would convert the power to
>electricity and thermal energy for industrial use. Overall
>efficiency would be 40%
>
>I was roundly attacked by all - and so, it was with great interest
>that I read the following on yahoo news service in 2007;
>http://green.yahoo.com/index.php?q=node/1521
>
>I am fully justified in my earlier statements - and all those who
>mercilessly attacked me have been proved dead wrong in their negative
>assessments of my ideas.
-
There's no question that your entro topic was 100% correct.
However, notice that I haven't attacked but always fully supported the
use of SBLs and of those being solar energy pumped or tether dipole
energy pumped. The very basis of my LSE-CM/ISS within the moon's L1
and of its tether dipole element that'll reach and sustain such SBLs
to within 2r of Earth was entirely promoted as an array of 100 GW
class of such laser cannons.
Notice that you're the one as having been continually attacked by
those I and others would claim to be Third Reich supporters and
Yiddish to boot, and they are still the ones continually attacking in
ways of Usenet topic/author stocking, bashings and/or banishment,
because it's what they do best to outsiders like yourself. You could
even be Jesus Christ as one of their own kind, and for another PR
stunt they'd allow your butt to being put on a stick, so there's
really nothing they wouldn't do for their next buck or whatever PR
support they can drum up, and it's also why they are in charge of most
everything that counts. Like most of us village idiots, you're just
to far snookered and dumbfounded past the point of no return to take
notice of the faith-based species that has got their private parts
stuffed into your butt, and then some. The more your squirm, the more
they like it.
Just stick to the facts and keep posting as much of the truth as you
can muster, because that's exactly what they hate the most, and don't
forget to return their topic/author stocking, bashings and banishment
with all the love and affection that you can muster, because that's
also the ongoing matter of fact truth.
- Brad Guth -
BradGuth
>
> - Show quoted text -
"I marvel how lucky you are to be able to post anonomously across
usenet like this"
What's to marvel or even pus about? I'm not the least bit "anonomous"
because, like yourself I use my real name. And do take notice how
there are damn few if any others coming to your support on any level.
Have you got that clue yet?
Usenet is simply their e-Hebrew place of worship, and in this case
it's mostly populated by the worse of them bad Jews that are
extensively in charge of whatever happens, and of their controlling of
published history where revision simply isn't allowed.
You are simply another village idiot that's failing to realize as to
where and by whom you are being snookered and dumbfounded to death.
-
"whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell
-
Brad Guth
BradGuth
wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 07:41:21 -0000, in a place far, far away,
>
> - Show quoted text -
Willie Moo is just venting, as in going usenet postal, and you're
clearly one of the bad guys that's taking advantage of each and every
situation that comes along. It's what Yids like yourself do best, and
it's also why your puppet Hitler and now GW Bush got as far as they
did.
- Brad Guth -
Alan Anderson
Willie...@gmail.com wrote:
> 4-wave mixing systems that use active holographic techniques to
> control a powerful laser have allowed lasers to penetrate sputtering
> vapor and maintain focus on a target by avoiding the sputtered
> particles. The same techniques have been used to track targets.
At a distance of a few meters, the technique can deal with things in a
matter of microseconds.
> These systems are easily adapted to controlling beams from space and
> having the beams avoid unwanted targets while at the same time
> illuminating desireable targets.
From LEO, the time delay is significant.
How high are the space-based beam emitters? Let's call it 300 km, so
the round-trip light travel time is a nice round 2 milliseconds. How
fast would you need to move your hand through the beam in order to
outpace its ability to avoid illuminating your thumb? Let's call the
width of your thumb a nice round 2 centimeters.
Two centimeters in two milliseconds. That's a nice round ten meters per
second. And it's an easily achievable speed. Wave your hand quickly
through the beam and the system won't be able to avoid your thumb. A
bird flying into the beam at a sedate ten miles per hour would have the
leading half inch of its head and wings exposed to the full strength of
the beam. A small aircraft flying at 200 knots would travel more than
20 cm in the time it takes for the active holographic technique to
respond.
And that's the last I'm going to say about it.
The length and style of the rest of your post have successfully
convinced me that you are indeed the William Mook you claim to be.
Congratulations.
Willie...@gmail.com
> In article <1189603948.133528.201...@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Willie.Moo...@gmail.com wrote:
> > 4-wave mixing systems that use active holographic techniques to
> > control a powerful laser have allowed lasers to penetrate sputtering
> > vapor and maintain focus on a target by avoiding the sputtered
> > particles. The same techniques have been used to track targets.
>
> At a distance of a few meters, the technique can deal with things in a
> matter of microseconds.
>
> > These systems are easily adapted to controlling beams from space and
> > having the beams avoid unwanted targets while at the same time
> > illuminating desireable targets.
>
> From LEO, the time delay is significant.
Thank you. You understand. I gave this example to illustrate the
power of adaptive optics properly set up. There are two factors, you
got one of them - time - the other is resolution. This is easily
computed by using the Rayleigh Criterion for Optics.
Yes the ability to penetrate dust and fog may be somewhat limited
because say from LEO - an altitude of say 300 km, response times are
milli-seconds, So, if a 10 micrometer particle moves 100 microns in 2
milliseconds, the adaptive optics will cast a shadow where it was a
millisecond ago. If particle separatoin is 500 micron - this may not
be a problem - all we're trying to do is project energy through the
dust and fog - we don't have to be perfect. So, in this instance -
defocusing the shadow by adjusting the optics a little, to create a
larger shadow centered on where the particle was - can work - up to a
certain particle speed and density.
So, if you go through all the calculations, it might be possible to
penetrate light haze and fog - but not heavier stuff. from LEO. From
GEO you just have to accept that you're going to be scattered by haze
and fog of any amount.
But that's okay - because you can operate in regions where haze and
fog are generally not an issue - high deserts for example.
The important thing is that even in GEO - where the altitude gives you
quarter second response times - you can accurately trace a receiver
and deliver power to it, and interrupt it if there's a large object
between the receiver and transmitter faster than most fuses work
The systemwill automatically cut off if fog or haze grows too thick.
The defocusing trick I just described, to penetrate light fog from low
altitude, will actually cut off power altogether at higher altitudes!
That is, if the shadows through a trick of optics cover the whole
beam, the beam is shut off.
Which combined with finding the target, cutting off the beam if
conditions weren't perfect is all you really need to do to have a safe
realiable service.
So, while I gave the ability to penetrate sputtering particles as an
example of the speed and accuracy possible with adaptive optics, I am
not saying we'll be able to deliver power from GEO through fog or
clouds - but the system properly adapted to the task is certainly fast
enough for tracking a target even if its moving, and interrupting
service to a panel that happens to have an object in the beam.
> How high are the space-based beam emitters? Let's call it 300 km, so
> the round-trip light travel time is a nice round 2 milliseconds.
Yep. At GEO 36,708 km - round trip travel times 244.72 milliseconds
- 122x longer still. I envision a system of satellites in GEO beaming
1 micron energy to the high desert to large centralized arrays
originally put up to collect solar energy. The energy density is 323
watts/m2 - which is no more than what the sun puts out during the day
in the IR. A 1/4 second response time means that a square meter of
surface will recieve a total of 81 joules before it cuts out. That's
8 millijoules per square cm. In a quarter second,8 milli-joules per
sq cm.
323 watts of IR energy fully absorbed by an object would be heated at
1/3 the rate at which the sun heats an object in broad daylight.
Is this dangerous? I don't think so. A 2,000 watt portable hair
dryer has a nozzle about 20 cm2 in area - that's 100 watts per sq cm -
and in 1/4 second it will deliver 25 joules per sq cm. -
So, I did this experiment - hold your hand in front of a hair dryiery
for 1/4 second at full blast. You'll feel it, but it won't be
dangerous.
Now, radiant energy is different than convection - which is how the
hair dryer works. But, that effects the rate and efficiency of the
heating - not the total amounts we're talking about. We're saying the
transfer is 100% in both cases. In actuality, if your hand, or
whatever is in the beam, reflects IR - then, heating will be far less
than in the case of convection. (air moving against your hand)
> How
> fast would you need to move your hand through the beam in order to
> outpace its ability to avoid illuminating your thumb? Let's call the
> width of your thumb a nice round 2 centimeters.
Yes, but even if there was no shadowing at all (which there is) and
your hand received the full brunt of the beam - it would recieve about
2 millijoules per square cm - compare this to 25 joules per sq cm you
get from a hair drying at full blast. You'll feel it - but it won't
damage you - much like tripping a fuse.
Remembrer fuses operate by limiting the amount of total energy that
gets discharged in a body. This works the same way.
> Two centimeters in two milliseconds. That's a nice round ten meters per
> second. And it's an easily achievable speed. Wave your hand quickly
> through the beam and the system won't be able to avoid your thumb.
You are defining edge heating of a moving object in an extended beam.
Wave your hand quickly through a small beam and the leading and
trailing edges of your hand (in a perfectly focused system) would be
warmed but wouldn't get too hot before it left the beam. It takes
time for a given power level to deliver energy to your hand. That's
why you can flick a coal out of a hot fire back into the fire. That's
why you can get a jolt of electricity until the fuse kicks in - and
survive.
Hold you hand steady in the beam for a quarter second, and the beam
even if it originates at GEO will shadow your hand. Change the
optical setup slightly on the satellite, and you'll find the shadow in
the beam of your hand is magnified say 3x - and you will find that
even while moving you won't get edge heating.
All we need is a fuse, and the 4-wave mixing delivers that.
> How b A
> bird flying into the beam at a sedate ten miles per hour would have the
> leading half inch of its head and wings exposed to the full strength of
> the beam.
Yes edge effects. And the beam delivers a whopping 1/30th watts per
square cm around the edges of the bird. 1/3 full solar intensity,
1/3000th hair dryer intensity.
And he would get that heating effect for the entire time he flew
through the beam. Say the beam is 8 feet wide - so,at 10 mph the bird
is travelling 14.5 ft per second. He gets this heating effect for
about 55 milliseconds -
Now here's an interesting point..
A small beam, delivered at high intensity, is as safe as a big beam
delivered at low intensity.
A beam of 323 watt per sq m (1/3 watt/cm2) delivering 10 kW would have
an area of about 30 sq m. and be 6.2 m wide - about 20 feet. Our bird
would be in the beam 1-1/4 seconds. He would recieve 1/3 watts per sq
cm. So, he'd get less than 1/2 joule per sq cm.
A beam of 1,000,000 watts per sq m (100 watts/cm2 = hair dryer)
delivering 10 kW would have an area of 1/100h sq m and be 11.3 cm wide
- about 4-1/2 inches in diameter. Our bird would be in the beam 40
milliseconds. He would get zapped with 100 watts/cm2 - a total of 4
joules per sq cm.
If he landed on the reciiever and perched there - it would take 1/4
second for the beam to cut off. In the first case he'd recieve 1/12th
joule per sq cm. In the hypothetical hair dryer case - ultra high
intensity (not being considered for actual construction) he'd get no
more than 25 joules per sq cm. Again, hold your hand in front of a
2,000 watt hair dryer for 1/4 second and feel the effects.
And by putting a slight magnification in the beam optics - he'd be
safe there until he decided to leave. And the power would come on
about 1/8th second later.
> A small aircraft flying at 200 knots would travel more than
> 20 cm in the time it takes for the active holographic technique to
> respond.
Yes. There are edge effects that get progressively worse as speed and
distance increases. By careful design of the optical path, shadows at
the ground are magnified by a given factor, which eliminates those
effects within 1/8th second -
Which is my point.
Time and intensity determine how much energy is deposited on an
object. The system I describe can reduce that energy to safe levels -
allowing a safe relaible energy transfer method.
A large centralized array covering millions of acres would have well
defined corridors air traffic would fly over. There are actually
regions of the US where overflight is prohibited,and that happens to
be in some of the sunniest regions of the country. Those would be
ideal collector sites.
But even to an aircraft off course - it would be shadowed by the
satelite - even if located in GEO - in 1/8th second by casting a
magnified shadow back around the aircraft. At 323 Watts/m2 - it would
recieve 1/3 the energy of sunlight - for 1/4 second. At 1,000,000
watts/m2 - the same intensity as a hair dryer - the aircraft would
receive an IR heat load of 250 kJ per m2 - the same amount of energy
it would recieve sitting 4 minutes in the sun. A slight temperature
rise, but nothing destructive.
I'm not proposing 1,000,000 w/m2 - I'm proposing 323 W/m2 - but even
at the higher figure, heating effects are acceptable with a properly
engineered adaptive optics..
A smaller receiver for home or industrial use - would only be a few
meters wide - or at the higher level, a few cm wide - and an aircraft
flying thorugh even the higher intensity beams only a few cm wide -
would have no appreciable effect. Even in a city filled with millions
of beams.
Sure, you'd interrupt a beam for about as long as it takes for a
shadow of an aircraft to flash overhead during landing - but would it
hurt the aircraft? no. You would need some sort of capacitor or
something in your home system though to smoth out the power
fluctuations though.
>But how big of a beam are we talking about
> And that's the last I'm going to say about it.
Time and intensity are the determinants of how much energy is
delivered to an object. or could be delivered to an object. Beam
size is an important factor.to duration.
> The length and style of the rest of your post have successfully
> convinced me that you are indeed the William Mook you claim to be.
> Congratulations.
yep.
I envision a progressively more sophisticated system being developed
over time. First, you have large centralized arrays of solar
collectors - these receive up to 1000 w/m2 when the sun shines - and
deliver 180 w/m2 electrical - for 1,600 hours per year - in sunny
regions. This is 288 kWh/m2. - making hydrogen from di water by
solar electrolysis - and delivering hydrogen to underground sites - by
pipeline - and delivering a constant supply of hydrogen to coal fired
plants, and hydrogenating the stranded coal into gasoline - is the
first step.
Adding a 1 micron beamed energy system delivering power at 323 watts
IR to the same installation - from GEo - 8,766 hours per year - with
85% efficiency - delivers 2,406 kWh/m2 - in addition to the solar -
increases the hydrogen production - and permits the sale of hydrogen
to augment dwindling oil supplies.
Adding other beamed energy sites around the world - provides direct
electrical power where needed.
Adding an array of reforming satellites at LEO - allows the extension
of the beamed energy system to homes.
Increasing the intensity from 323 watts/m2 to 30,000 watts/m2 allows
the beamed energy system to be used by ground sea and air systems
Increasing the intensity from 30,000 watts/m2 to 1 MW or higher per m2
allows the beamed energy system to be used by space systems
.
BradGuth
> In article <1189603948.133528.201...@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>,
>
Your warm and fuzzy naysayism is noted. Is it also Yiddish?
No-fly zones could also be surrounded by low energy visible laser
beams at a safe enough distance from each primary IR beam of high
energy, say given as much as a good km in all directions should be
sufficient in case anything important was getting too close to the
primary beam of highly concentrated energy.
Even within a 100 meter radius of a no-fly zone would be sufficient,
whereas the detections of small aircraft is certainly not a problem,
whereas birds and us mere humans are always getting into such places
we're not supposed to be, such as drifting our crap into those high
voltage transmission lines and/or falling off of tall places or
drowning ourselves along with any number of other dumbfounded methods
of causing our own demise, seems to be a human genetic mutation
disorder that far too many of us have to live with, or at least die
while trying to live.
There's no such thing as 100% safe energy, as not even mother nature's
energy is safe or sane enough to take for granted. You could even be
in trouble if you fart and light a match.
- Brad Guth -
Ian Parker
> > These systems are easily adapted to controlling beams from space and
> > having the beams avoid unwanted targets while at the same time
> > illuminating desireable targets.
>
> From LEO, the time delay is significant.
>
> How high are the space-based beam emitters? Let's call it 300 km, so
> the round-trip light travel time is a nice round 2 milliseconds. How
> fast would you need to move your hand through the beam in order to
> outpace its ability to avoid illuminating your thumb? Let's call the
> width of your thumb a nice round 2 centimeters.
>
> Two centimeters in two milliseconds. That's a nice round ten meters per
> second. And it's an easily achievable speed. Wave your hand quickly
> through the beam and the system won't be able to avoid your thumb. A
> bird flying into the beam at a sedate ten miles per hour would have the
> leading half inch of its head and wings exposed to the full strength of
> the beam. A small aircraft flying at 200 knots would travel more than
> 20 cm in the time it takes for the active holographic technique to
> respond.
>
> And that's the last I'm going to say about it.
>
40% seems a very high efficiency for a laser, but even if this figure
is accepted there is one overiding problem. At noon in a desert you
have about 1kw/m^2 coming in through solar power anyway. The obvious
question to me is why not have solar power in the desrt and be done
with it. Lets generate power and split water into hydrogen and oxygen
in the desert using the energy that comes from the Sun anyway. Why
have a space laser as an intermediate stage?
Is it to get power 24/7? Well you have to be above LEO to effectively
extend the desert day.
The usual version of a space energy system is a microwave system. This
has the advantage that it could be beamed fairly close (close enough
for high voltage transmission lines to be practical) to where it is
consumed. Would be at MEO and operating 24/7. Phased arrays would
ensure the correct location and the correct amount at each location.
There again the system would have to be economical with regard to
alternative concepts. My pet concept is in fact a biological system
for generating hydrogen.
In fact the niche a laser system would occupy is in fact that of
providing intense energy for space launches and possibly for other
types of transportation.
Let us think for a moment about optical systems, phase arrays etc.
Some time ago I contributed to a thread on a space telescope
and came to the conclusion that in space diffraction limited optics
could be made extremely large. Suppose our laser system (it is
important to have a system not just a sinle laser) is 1km across, we
wish to focus on an area 1.22m in diameter, we are 10,000km away, and
our wavelength is 1 micron. How large? 1.22 lambda/d = 1,000,000 and
we are 10^7 m away. We need a mirror approx 10m across. 100m would be
quite easy to build.
The talk in another posting was about velocities and reaction times.
In fact the criteria is unanticipated acceleration. The velocity can
be anticipated. Lasers are capable of giving hundreds of MW/m^2 if
focussed. That is their forte. Not in power generation systems.
Lasers could help with deep space probes and also with supersonic and
hypersonic aviation. I understand that NASA has in fact performed
tests using a ground based system.
http://members.fcac.org/~sol/station/planetar.htm
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM2YD6DIAE_2.html Powering spacecraft
on surface of Mars. Even more useful in deep space.
http://personal.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/DARPA-fractionated-spacecraft/darpa-fractionated-spacecraft-agenda.pdf
DARPA conference. Shows work is going on.
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/laser-97b.html This is quite an old
reference
- Ian Parker
Fred J. McCall
:
:40% seems a very high efficiency for a laser, but even if this figure
:is accepted there is one overiding problem. At noon in a desert you
:have about 1kw/m^2 coming in through solar power anyway. The obvious
:question to me is why not have solar power in the desrt and be done
:with it. Lets generate power and split water into hydrogen and oxygen
:in the desert using the energy that comes from the Sun anyway.
Because the desert is a DESERT. There's nothing to 'split'.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Willie...@gmail.com
> 40% seems a very high efficiency for a laser, but even if this figure
> is accepted there is one overiding problem. At noon in a desert you
> have about 1kw/m^2 coming in through solar power anyway. The obvious
> question to me is why not have solar power in the desrt and be done
> with it. Lets generate power and split water into hydrogen and oxygen
> in the desert using the energy that comes from the Sun anyway. Why
> have a space laser as an intermediate stage?
>
> Is it to get power 24/7? Well you have to be above LEO to effectively
> extend the desert day.
You add the satellite to lower costs... that's the point. You lower
costs by increasing the capital utilization of the equipment.
BACKGROUND - SOLAR PANELS
PHYSICS
The sun is a thermal source emitting all colors. Silicon has a
specific bandgap energy at 1,108 nm which absorbs all wavelengths
shorter than that bandgap color, and converts each color with an
efficiency of the ratio of the wavelength absorbed relative to the
bandgap wavelength. So, 1,100 nm is almost perfectly absorbed. 550
nm is converted to electrical action at 50% efficiency 275 nm is
converted to electrical action at 25% efficiency - because the bandgap
energy is fixed. ALL the energy of wavelengths longer than 1108 nm
is lost - its converted with 0% efficiency. Summing across all the
wavelengths in a real system - you get about 180 watts electrical for
each 1000 watts solar put in.
UTILIZATION
Now in a desert region we have in North America the equivalanet of
1,600 hours of sunlight per year. That's because of seasonal
variation and cosine effects. The sun at dawn and dusk illuminates
the terrain at an angle. Its only at noon at certain times of the
year that you get peak power. All other times light comes in at an
angle and is lower intensity. So, you have an effective peak power
output of 1,600 hours.
OUTPUT AND COSTS
Energy is measured in kWh. So, each kW of panel from sunlight
produces in this scenario 1,600 kWh.
The cost of this system is lets say $1,000 per peak kilo-watt - and it
has a lifetime of 20 years. That means you're paying $50.00 a year
for the equipment. If you borrowed the money and paid it back over 20
years, you'd pay more like $100.00 a year for the equipment. Lets say
there are no other costs to keep it simple - since these are the main
costs. Then you're paying $100 for 1,600 kWh - that's 6.25 cents per
kWh.
BACKGROUND LASER POWER SAT
LASER POWER PHYSICS
Lets ADD a powersat that beam laser energy at 1,000 nm (1 um) onto
this same panel array. The laser energy is converted by the silicon
with nearly perfect efficiency. 1,0000 nm / 1,108 nm = 90.25% -
scattering in the air subtracts another 5% - So, for each 1,000
watts of laser you get 850 watts electrical.
INTENSITY
If we decide to emit the same 1,000 watts per square meter the sun
produces, using a solar pumped laser in space, then we obtain 850
watts electrical per square meter on the ground. This adds to the 180
watts electrical each square meter produces from sunlight.
COST OF PEAK WATT ON THE GROUND
This is the first advantage of a power sat. We said it cost $1 per
peak watt for the solar panel installation in our example above. This
is $180 per square meter of panels. Reusing the same installation for
a solar power receiver at the intensity described above means that
$180 per square meter is spread across 850 watts electrical output
from the satellite. So, the ground station costs are reduced from $1
per peak watt to ,
$180/850 = $0.212
21.2 cents per peak watt - for the ground statoin side - or $212 per
peak kW.
UTILIZATION
The solar pumped laser is at GEO - hovering stationary above the panel
array. The laser satellite illuminates the panels nearly all the time
and totals.nearly 8,766 hours per year - except for a few minutes when
Earth's shadow eclipses the satellite.
.
OUTPUT AND COSTS
Like the solar panels, the energy is kWh, so each kW of panels and
satellite produces a total of 8,766 hours of satellite power per
year.
Lets say that each kilowatt of solar laser power on orbit costs
$6,000. A satellite is mostly thin film highly reflective plastic
focusing sunlight onto a special device called a fabrey-perot cell -
filled with materials that lase at 1,000 nm. This laser beam passes
through a window of special adaptive optical window that adjusts the
beam in response to a controlling pilot beam from the panel array on
the ground so that the power safely and reliably falls on the panels
and nowhere else.
Launch costs are approximately $10,000 per kg and construction costs
in the aerospace business are around $2,500 per kg. The costs of raw
materials are nil compared to these costs. The bulk of the weight of
the satellite is the thin film material - and so knowing the thickness
of this the efficiency of converting sunlight to laser light - we can
compute the area of the film and its weight - and add a correction to
estimate what the laser and controls would weigh - and multiply by the
figures above to get a preliminary estimate of satellite costs - and
see that $5 per watt is accurate.
Conversion efficiencies of sunlight to laser light at 1,000 nm can
exceed 22% The solar constant on orbit is 1,366 watts per sq m. So,
each kilowatt of laser energy requires;
1,000 / (1,366 x 0.22) = 3.33 sq m per kW laser
Now GBO (Giant birefringent Optical) material very efficiently
reflects light in thicknesses of 50 microns. The same material
without birefringent layering - is highly transparent. It is a thermo
plastic. So, it can be welded and formed quite easily. A reflective
disk bonded to a transparent front encircled by a transparent 'tire'
and inflated at low pressure - creates a large concave surface.
By controlling the thickness of the reflective surface, from 100
microns to 25 microns - with an average of 50 - the normally spherical
cavity - can be made parabolic.
The thermoplastic has a density of 1,200 kg per cubic meter. Two
sheets 50 microns thick, covering 3.33 sq m amounts to 199.8
milligrams!
The cost as we said above is $12,500 per kg to build something and put
it into space. So, each kilowatt is $2.50 -
Now, this is the cost to LEO - low earth orbit. To get the system up
to GEO doubles the mass on LEO - because we need a kick stage - and
that's where we get $5.00 per watt of laser energy.
Investing in reusable launchers to cut the cost of launch to $500 per
kg - and in production systems to reduc the cost of hardware to $500
per kg - would cut these costs to $1,000 per kg - and cost of laser
energy from space accordingly.
Now, the large film that concentrates the laser light is by far the
most massive part of the system. The laser and control window account
for no more than 10% of the mass on orbit... lets add another 10% for
hardware to help the system deploy - principally gases to inflate the
20,000 to 1 concentrator..
We're up to $6.00 per peak kilowatt now.
Wait a minute, we just showed how we could produce a powersat on orbit
for $6 per peak kilowatt - NOT $6,000 per peak kilowatt!!!! how
could that be? It could be because we are not constrained by the
safety concerns we are on Earth. We don't have environmental impact
around the satellite, and we can operate at very high power densities
- so, we can design an optimal system.
But to make my original point about the cost efficiency of powersats -
lets just arbitrarily multiply everything by 1,000 for the space
system... That makes our cost for the laser system equal to $6,212
per peak watt.
Lets say this system has the same 20 year lifespan as the receiver on
the ground. And lets say we have the same cost of capital - so we
take the $100 per year per kW and multiply it by the same factors as
in the solar panel case - and voila - we have $621.20 per year per kW.
But, we're getting 8,766 kWh out of each kW installed - so that means
our cost per kWh has become;
$621.20 / 8,766 = $0.07 per kWh
But since we're counting the ground system cost twice, we can subtract
this out to obtain;
$600 per year / 8,766 kWh per year = $0.0684 per kWh.
For the space based system.
If we use our original figures - we have
$27.20 / 8,766 = 0.31 cents per kWh
Reducing costs on the ground to $18 per square meter
$8.12 / 8,766 = 0.21 cents per kWh
Reducing launch and production costs of powersat and ground costs to
$18 per square meter
$2.65 / 8,766 = 0.03 cents per kWh
So, we can see that we can build low cost solar panels and then update
them with solar pumped laser sats in space - and even if the costs of
the space system are exorbitantly high, we'll produce power at a
competitive rate. Meeting the costs of existing systems will
dramatically reduce costs - and that will promote expansion - and
investment to cust costs of powersat construction launch and
deployment - and that will reduce costs further - and expand the use
of beamed energy from space.
Willie...@gmail.com
> Ian Parker <ianpark...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> :
> :40% seems a very high efficiency for a laser, but even if this figure
> :is accepted there is one overiding problem. At noon in a desert you
> :have about 1kw/m^2 coming in through solar power anyway. The obvious
> :question to me is why not have solar power in the desrt and be done
> :with it. Lets generate power and split water into hydrogen and oxygen
> :in the desert using the energy that comes from the Sun anyway.
> :
>
> Because the desert is a DESERT. There's nothing to 'split'.
There are things called pipelines - that can carry water long
distances from places where there IS water, to places where there is
no water. The same rights of way that allow you to build a rail line
to carry all the shit to the desert to build the stuff, can be used to
carry a pipeline to carry hydrogen away. That same right of way can
be used to carry water to the site.
>
> --
> "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
> territory."
> --G. Behn
Obviously this truism applies to you - since no one said the water
being used to make hydrogen originated in the desert. And you falsely
assumed that was a requirement.
Actually, the systems I am designing are built on old strip mines near
lignite deposits in semi-arid regions. Here we reclaim land, and have
a ready supply of lignite. Lignite we use is 45% water by weight and
50% carbon by weight. (which is why its still there!)
The water is 11% hydrogen by weight, so that means 5% by weight
hydrogen. So, for each metric ton of carbon we have locked in the
lignite 100 kg of hydrogen. Using 10 kg of hydrogen to power a
dewatering and coking operation and combining 90 kg of hydrogen with
1,000 kg of coked lignite produces 7 barrels of gasoline.
So, the only pipe needed is the one to take the gasoline away from the
site. (along the rail line needed to bring the stuff and people to the
site)
Willie...@gmail.com
you'd kill yourself. Deep down you know that. That's why you don't
have the guts to just stop everything you're doing for a year and try
something else. Just to see what its like. You CAN'T DO IT - and
that's what makes you a pathetic loser!
You talk about 'them' winning if you change your mind., Not if you
can change it back again - you asshole. Your mind is the only thing
you can fucking change - jerk.
YOU CAN'T DO IT - turn your fucking computer off, and not post or read
anything on line for a year - and see what the hell life is like.
BradGuth
I'm impressed with your 4 out of 5 stars. What does that mean, Willie
Moo? (are you one of 'them'?)
- Brad Guth -
BradGuth
Exxon 10X factor, making that 0.03 cents per kWh into at least 0.30
cents per kWh, but lo and behold at least it's clean and renewable, as
well as usable for many other life and Earth saving things.
Have you figured out which significant group of topic/author stocking
naysayers is in charge of your private parts, and why your research
and best of intentions are not getting Usenet or any other group net
supported?
Too bad that I'm not in charge, as your space based laser cannon
energy would have been 50/50 public funded as of a dacade ago, as will
as any terrestrial applications of converting solar energy into wussy
hydrogen or good old robust h2o2.
BTW, even if ISS were 100% converted into a viable platform of hosting
those IR laser cannons, and outfitted along with those multiple km2
solar collectors, it wouldn't become nearly as affordable as you've
suggested, as for the cost and extremely negative environmental impact
of keeping such technology up and running isn't cheap, nor without
human risk.
I have a fix or two for that, which includes utilizing our moon's L1
and a tether dipole element that'll give your laser cannons access to
97.6% solar and loads of other than solar renewable energy to boot
(I'm talking teraWatts of continuous clean energy).
You do realize that our corrupt government that's faith-based
puppeteered and in total denial of their being in denial, will soon
enough require us to pay $1/kwhr, don't you?
If a certain little faith-based group were trying to dominate Earth
for all it's worth, why would they allow public access to clean and
affordable energy, and especially if it were renewable?
Clue No.1) those that are currently rich and powerful don't actually
give a tinkers damn as to how spendy, polluting or lethal our energy
can be made, because where do you think they obtain their loot that's
stuffed into those nifty offshore bank accounts, as is.
Until you realize whom is in charge of your private parts, and
subsequently of how badly snookered you've been, there's no way in any
hell on Earth that anything 'Willie Moo' is ever going to fly.
BTW, do you even realize what number of our homes are 50% or more
heated with wood, corn and even coal, because they simply can't afford
their local energy grid or other alternatives as is?
Of course, thanks to our corrupt government, many have lost their
homes and are living on the streets, or if lucky they live in some god
forsaken dump of a place with minimal or w/o energy. The American
system has badly failed to take care of its own kind from the bottom
up, and there's simply not the resources available as long as those
Cheney/ENRON/Exxon types and of their fiath-based puppeteers are in
charge. But then you and others of your pathetic kind don't think
there's any such problems to begin with.
- Brad Guth -
Willie...@gmail.com
Well, I had 3 out of 5 starts before I got back from seeing Doug
Stanhope - haha - and then let loose on your sorry ass! And I shot
up a star. So, I don't know if that had anything to do with it or
not.
Fact is, we're all one of 'them' in your mind. Think about it Brad.
Let your imagination soar! How many of of US could be THEM? Now, to
most people this wouldn't make sense. But to YOU? It makes perfect
sense. And I would bet a dollar to a donut (noting that donuts these
days cost more than a dollar! haha) so lets make it a fin to a donut -
that in your darker moments you might well believe EVERYONE is one of
'them' - ooooo...
Which is a measure of your insanity Brad.
Its really very simple. YOU control your mind. No one else. No one
else is reponsible for what you decide to do think believe feel..
Now, you can decide to feel a certain way. You can decide - to not do
something you usually do. OR to do something you usually don't do.
Now, when you break out of old habits. Say if you drink a cup of
coffee every morning, or smoke a cigarette after sex.. you can decide
NOT to do it. When you make this sort of decision - you can begin to
see how tricky your mind can be to get you to do what IT wants.
haha.. Especially if there are powerful positive associations with
the act, or if it involves an addictive substance, like nicotine or
caffeine. Its actually a growth experience.
So, that's all I'm suggesting you consider. You spend a helluva lot
of time online. You likely do so because of a large number of
positive associations you have with being on line. Maybe you get
attention from people who would normally not give you attention.
Maybe you can imagine that what you say is vastly more important than
saying the same thing off-line lets you imagine. Maybe you feel self
concious about your age, the way you dress, or your bad teeth, or bad
breath, or how you look, or how you come across, or how your body
smells - and being online allows you to hide away in some dark little
hole while you spout your blather releasing you from that negative
tension. And so you don't have that self-concious feeling - which in
your universe might be like the second coming of Christ in terms of
the weight it takes off your slender shoulders. All these things can
get wrapped up in a big ball of feeling to make being online a sort of
addictive experience. Like that cup of coffee in the morning, or that
third beer with your buddies at the bar, or breaking that second pack
of cigs open when you're working construction... well, I'm just
giving you my experiences with addictive stuff... you have your own
I'm sure.
Well, all I'm suggesting - to raise your level of conciousness just a
little - is to shut your computer down, and not read, or post, or get
online at all - for a period of time. A year is a good period of
time. Its not so short as to be like holding your breath - and its
not so long that you can't pick it up again before you die.
If you stay offline for a year - your life WILL change - for the
better.
I gaurantee.
Even if you fail.
Because you will learn something about YOURSELF - which is the only
thing you can change.
And its a way to bring your locus of control INSIDE - to give you a
little pride, a little sense of accomplishment, and a little sense of
achievement.
Once you start down this path its hard to stop.
Make a commitment to yourself, to stay offline for 6 months. How
about that?
Now to be successful, you've got to do something else to substitute
for it. When trying to quit smoking - people often put a lollipop in
their mouth, or a toothpick - to substitute - at first- then its
easier to quit doing that.
So, you've got to give this a little thought... if you want to be
successful and not be immediately a failure...
One thing is to figure out something else to do. Rather than sit on
line and blather... and don't blather in hard-copy notebooks, or on
the telephone, or talking to anyone. Make a commitment to put away
all that shit for six months to a year - you decide to do it - and
then see what it looks like after.
Its amazing. I got a new Mercedes convertible one year. It was a car
I always wanted. And I worked hard to afford it. And so, when I got
it, it was the first thing people knew about me. haha.. Bright red
camel interior - anyway - some people started not liking me very
well. They thought I was being uppity about my car - it turns out. I
was just enthusiastic! But after a few arguments with people that I
considered friends, I talked to other friends and they said, yeah, I
was being pretty much of an asshole about that damned car! haha..
So, I made a commitment to myself NEVER to mention that car again
(well, here I am talking about it years after! see how hard these
things can be?) - and it WAS difficult - and it was even more
difficult apologizing for something I never did - but which people
perceived me doing. See? But I stopped being an asshole about my car
Brad. And if you make a commitment to not talk about Venus and the
other shit your go on about for a year - you'll stop being an asshole
too!
Here are some things you might want to consider doing for a year or
six months;
1) Go to the library and read a book while at the library - until the
feeling of getting online passes (leave the free terminals alone!)
2) Volunteer at a homeless shelter, or food bank, or a hospice
3) Learn to play a musical instrument - nothing can really help build
your self confidence like playing a musical instrument and learning
something about music. I was in choir in College and can carry a
tune. It being the age it was, i also started a garage band with my
buds - and even though we never really booked the kind of gig we
wanted - we were only a cover band - we did go to some hallacious frat
parties - and have some fun - even though we weren't in fraternities -
haha.. I still carry a harmonica sometimes, and when the mood
strikes have been known to break it out and play some muddy waters for
my grandkids! haha.. Its something that will bring lasting joy to
your life, and to others in your life - and if there are not others in
your life - it will draw them to you.
4) Learn a craft or trade or sport - I skydive. I love it. Its
exciting. Its something I decided to do against my fear of heights.
I conquered that fear - and now I enjoy it. I also fly VFR light
aircraft an old Cessna 152 - haha - is the only type rating I have.
But both these skills - acquired in six months - give me a new
appreciation of my life and my career. You can learn to swim if you
don't know how. You can hire a trainer an learn to lift weights like
Arnold. You can SCUBA - I went to a resort with a lovely lady who
knew how to SCUBA and she was apalled that I didn't. So, I took the
'resort' course - in an afternoon they had me certified - and I was
diving with the turtles down Mexico way - and enjoying the Dox Equis
on the beach after ... it was great! Ever learn to weave? I never
thought I would, but I did. Haha.. I volunteered at a hospice after
my father died there - and ran into a wonderful old lady. She taught
me! haha. We both had a great time, and while I've never made more
than one tea-cozy under her tutelidge- it was a great time learning
from one of the pros of the 20th century!
5) Learn a language. There are a lot of good CDs out there. Pimsleur
is best in my book. Then immerse yourself by going to where its
spoken! Haha.. My youngest daughter is 4 yo. She lives in
Switzerland. Her mom is a 30 yo interpreter who works for the Swiss
Parlaiment. She speaks 5 languages. Two of the most beautiful women
in my life. Luckily one of them speaks English. I visit my daughter
every 6 weeks or so. when I'm in Europe. But at my age I never
thought I'd be trying to pick up a new language! haha.. Now, despite
our best efforts, it seems that the my youngest daughter doesn't take
well to English! haha.. She like every other Swiss citizen - will
speak French, Italian and German.. So, with her mom's help, I'm
learning German and French - we tried Italian but when I couldn't even
hear the difference between que' and que - haha - we focused on
German and French - despite my love of Italian. My daughter is
impatient with me - and I cannot say anylonger to her Ich furstein neu
ein bischen deutche, or je ne parle pas francais! haha.. Its hard to
learn a language when you're older, but in a culture that speaks the
language you can pick it up quick enough. I spent 6 months on a
project in Taiwan in the 1980s - and I learned a passable amount of
Mandarin - just to get by - even though I had trouble with rising and
falling tones at the end of words .. haha.. which leads me to;
6) Travel - take the money you're not spending online and buy an
airline ticket to somewhere you've always wante to go. An island in
the Carribean, a cruise of Alaska's glaciers, London, Paris, Madrid,
Tokyo, Sydney, Denver, LA, New York, Chicago! God, I love Chicago - I
guess its my mid-western upbringing. Find a place you love more than
where you are right now..
7) Take a second job - that you love - one that doesn't make as much
money or is as prestigious as your current job maybe - but one that
you might enjoy doing. A lady friend of mine - who was a graduate of
the Cornell School of Hotel Administration and a great cook - I met
her when she sold a restaurant she had managed with her father years
earlier. Anyway, she took a job at McDonald's! haha.. Why? She
always wondered about Hamburger University! lol. And while it was
several steps down from her former position as part owner of a very
high-class restaurant in a small college town - she loved it and the
people she got to meet and the customers she got to serve - she loved
making the McDonald's experience more than they ever imagined
possible! haha.. and it was a challenge to work within the
constraints of the organization - but she loved it more than she ever
thought possible!
And this is just the short list of the life-changing mind-altering
things you can do if you shut off your computer for a year or six
months and decide on your own to actually do something different with
your life.
You really and truly piss me off. I can imagine that if you lived
near me and whined at me about the bullshit you did without let up -
that on one drunken night I would organize a group of people and come
and kick the shit out of you until you stopped! lol. But I know, if
you have gotten on my nerves to that extent - you GOTTA be a miserable
fucker all on your own. So, I'm thinking what can we do for poor old
Guthball so he's not so freaking miserable? See, cause after we
kicked the shit out you - and sobered up the next day - we'd come over
and apologize and talk to you man to man and try to figure out how the
hell we could get along - that's what passes for male bonding in the
mid-West.
Willie...@gmail.com
> As per usual it looks great, except you've excluded the usual ENRON/
> Exxon 10X factor, making that 0.03 cents per kWh into at least 0.30
> cents per kWh, but lo and behold at least it's clean and renewable, as
> well as usable for many other life and Earth saving things.
>
Enron still exists as an assetless shell corporation emerging from
bankruptcy in 2004. It sold its last asset to Prisma Energy in 2006.
Prior to its 2001 bankruptcy, Enron had 21,000 employees and Fortune
magazine voted it the most innovative company for six consecutive
years, and claimed revenues of $111 billion. It turned out that these
revenues were arrived at through massive accounting fraud, which
ultimately caused the dissolution of Arthur Anderson, and the arrest
of key individuals and suicide of others.
Exxon replaced Esso in 1973 as a brandname, which was derived from S-O
after the 1911 breakup of Standard Oil. Anti-trust settlement. In
areas where the Esso brand was blackballed by consumers, the name was
changed to Humble Oil - haha.. These were all absorbed and integrated
by the New Jersy company Exxon.
Exxon no longer exists, it became part of ExxonMobil in 1999 - and is
one of the largest integrate oil companies in the world. A direct
descendant of John D. Rockerfeller's Standard Oil. It has $377.6
billion in revenue, and $517.9 billion in market capitalization.
ExxonMobil actually produces 6.5 million barrels of oil per day and
distributes it at thousands of retail locations throughout the world -
employing 82,000 people directly and hundreds of thousands indirectly
to create the fuels it sells.
> Have you figured out which significant group of topic/author stocking
> naysayers is in charge of your private parts, and why your research
> and best of intentions are not getting Usenet or any other group net
> supported?
Well, can you name anyone anywhere that garners support through
usenet? I can't think of a soul. So, I don't understand your
question. I think like most people, I post things for my own reasons,
with little or no expectation of response. I do value some responses,
and rarely, I get pissed off at especially dumbass responses.
>
> Too bad that I'm not in charge, as your space based laser cannon
> energy would have been 50/50 public funded as of a dacade ago,
I can imagine you get a little thrill of excitement thinking that you
have such power - but you don't. So, what's the point? I don't want
public funding anyway. So, I wouldn't have accepted it. Our tax
dollars should go to educating our kids and paying police and fire and
stuff like that, so that companies have halfway intelligent workers
and everyone has a decent job and lives in a safe community.
.
> as will
> as any terrestrial applications of converting solar energy into wussy
> hydrogen or good old robust h2o2.
Your comments about H2O2 make no sense. H2O2 is an explosive. Its use
in Russian torpedoes caused the famous sinking of the Kursk. Gasoline
doesn't do this. Neither does hydrogen.
For stationary applications - pipeline delivery of gaseous hydrogen
under high pressure is adequate and cost-effective. For mobil
applications using hydrogen to convert coal into gasoline by direct
hydrogenation is the easiest way to go at present, with a strong R&D
into using liquid hydrogen directly as a gasoline replacement.
Check it out - The US burns 1.1 billion tons of coal each year - 880
million tons to make electricity in coal fired power plants. This 880
million tons of coal can be replaced by 142 million tons of hydrogen
made from 1.28 billion tons of deionized water - via solar/laser
electrolysis. It takes 50 MWh of solar/laser electricity to make a
ton of hydrogen this way. So, this is 810 GW of laser energy - beamed
24/7 to Earth.
Now, .0.03 cents per kWh, is $0.30 per MWh, so, 50 MWh is $15.00 -
that's the cost of each ton of hydrogen. So, 142 million tons is
$2.13 billion per year.
This eliminates 2.7 billion tons of CO2 each year - and strands 880
million tons of coal.
If the 880 million tons of coal each year is taken in trade for the
hydrogen, and an additional 80 million tons of hydrogen (costing $1.2
billion and requiring 456 GW more satellite capacity) is combined with
that coal, a total of 6.16 billion barrels of gasoline worth $544
billion may be produced each year.
When this total is combined with domestic production, the US now
becomes an exporter of liquid fuels - re-establishing the geopolitical
and economic conditions of the 1950s and the gogo 60s...
If the US would do this along with attempting to power share and share
costs with its allies in a true war against terrorism - the reduction
in costs combined with improved income - would re-establish US
economic leadership in the world.
Since I'm going down this path, haha, I would also humbly suggest that
the US reverse the anti-union campaigns began by Eisenhower. The US
got rid of its manufacturing business in part due to Eisenhower's
observation that liberal and Democratic support stemmed mostly from
the manufacturing sector. So, it was no surprise that during the
Eisenhower administration that overseas manufacturing skyrocketed,
which was combined with union busting in the 1950s. Nixon in his
detente with China completed what Eisenhower started, and by the
1980s, unions and domestic manufacturing was history in the US.
Our inability to manufacture the bulk of what we consume, has made us
very weak in certain areas, while it has solidified certain
conservative norms. We have routinely ignored this weakness - as for
example - China accumulates US mortgage debt and US dollars. We are
fools to believe they will not exercise their growing economic
influence in years to come.
I urged a reversal of this policy. This is rather simple. A thorough
house cleaning of unions - which JFK/RFK tried to do before he was
shot. Then, adopting legislation making it easier to unionize.
Finally, placing fair wage requirements for imports. Forget about
taxing or otherwise limiting trade. Free trade is king. But make
sure that people who work to make things, can - as Henry Ford
envisioned - the people who make the stuff are paid a wage that allows
them to buy the stuff. There is something fundamentally immoral about
a barefoot ignorant 12 yo child spending 12 hours a day making $100
Nike's in a sweatshop for $2 per day so that Phil Knight can increase
his stock value by a few cents! Now, I'm not saying Phil Knight is a
bad guy, or that he doesn't deserve to be a billionaire. What I am
saying is that there are third party effects to every decision and it
is the proper role of government to look at these and do what is best
for society.
Now, this gets a little complex, but in the US, we're all the same
community. So, its clear that if we pay someone starving wages,sure,
if we can get away with it, we'll do it because it makes us a little
richer - that's the way most people think. But if too many people are
starving, then they'll do something about it! They'll engage in
crime, or they'll organize a revolution and kill the bastards who are
enslaving them. So, it pays to be a little clever about this. It
pays to have a little decency. Henry Ford created mass-production
techniques as an answer to this problem. And increased wages enough
so that the people who made the cars, could buy the cars. This
created the middle class. And that's what we did in America. And
there was a big turn to the left, as formerly downtrodden folks, began
to participate more fully in the politics of the 1920s through the
1950s.- and the greatest increase in economic well-being of any nation
in history..
Now J Edgar Hoover and others would have us believe that the Commies
took over the labor movement throughout this time period and THEY were
responsible for liberal ideas that were accepted at that time. I
question that. But this was part of the reason in the 1950s the US
government began undermining the unions - first by subverting them
with organized crime (by indirect means)- and then, by promoting
foreign manufacturing.(direct subisdy) - this tied in nicely with the
idea that the US should maintain a huge disparity of income to avoid
being attacked again. This approach to safety failed on 9/11 -
something we have yet to realize. It was the poorest nation that
attacked the richest - in part because of the disparity - no matter
how much we demonize radical muslims.
The thing is, the poor little barefoot 12 yo girl in Indonesia
laboring away 12 hours a day to make thousands of pairs of Nike shoes
that are sold at over $100 retail - deserves more than $2 - and if the
US demanded of Nike that they follow wage, hours, and age laws applied
in the US - throughout the world - before the US allowed imports to
enter the US - it would do many things. First, it would raise
everyone's boat. Second, since labor costs are second or third or
sometimes even fourth in the list of costs of running a business -
increasing wages will make only a small difference in the total profit
picture - so it won't hurt the companies involved (the service
companies that organize this labor are something else). Third, the
tendency toward radicalism would be greatly diminished - as the
tendency toward crime and revolution was diminished in the US during
fulfillment of Henry Ford's vision. Fourth, the folks who made the
shoes, and whatever else, would become buyers of the shoes and
whatever else - and global demand - and the global marketplace - would
increase by a factor of 11x.
Now this leads to the deepest darkest rationale for US policies abroad
- there isn't 11x the stuff to go around. And by stuff I mean - oil,
black gold, texas tea - and that's an issue. Except we have a
solution. Low cost powersats in space beaming energy to Earth.
Things take time. It takes time to implement a fundamental shift in
policy. It takes time to build up a large infrastructure. And we're
running out of time. But if we effected these changes now - building
up the infrastructure for solar/laser energize synfuels - and adopted
a policy of wages and labor rules for all people who manufactured,
grew or mined stuff that ended up in the US - we could be a positive
force for change in the world - and give everyone hope.
> BTW, even if ISS were 100% converted into a viable platform of hosting
> those IR laser cannons, and outfitted along with those multiple km2
> solar collectors, it wouldn't become nearly as affordable as you've
> suggested, as for the cost and extremely negative environmental impact
> of keeping such technology up and running isn't cheap, nor without
> human risk.
Solar powersats have nothing to do with ISS - so this doesn't make any
sense whatever.
> I have a fix or two for that, which includes utilizing our moon's L1
> and a tether dipole element that'll give your laser cannons access to
> 97.6% solar and loads of other than solar renewable energy to boot
> (I'm talking teraWatts of continuous clean energy).
This makes even less sense than the earlier statement.
> You do realize that our corrupt government that's faith-based
> puppeteered and in total denial of their being in denial, will soon
> enough require us to pay $1/kwhr, don't you?
Any time you measure any factor in a human population you get a
gaussian distribution curve. A bell shaped curve. So, when
corruption in measured, there are those who will be corrupt. The
question is, does the corruption correlate with power or anti-
correlate with power. A buyer may take a $5,000 kick back to sign a
deal with his company. That's different than the CEO scheming with
the CFO to produce with the help of their accountants, fraudulent
income statements.
In the background of this human drama is mother Earth. The world
started out with only so much coal, oil, and so forth. Production
rates have a bell shaped type curve that peak at the half-way point.
Demand for stuff increases exponentially. And we've reach, or have
nearly reached, the halfway point for oil on this planet. So, we're
seeing a massive price rise in the cost of oil. The oil companies are
supressing change - in an effort to get the most for themselves at the
end game. The government seems to have gone along with this strategy
- believing that what's good for 'ExxoMobil' is good for the country -
echoing Truman's statement about GM. And like Tucker at the end of
World War 2 - many a good and honest and contributing and hard working
innovator has been buried by the military-industrial powerhouse.
Where technology has slipped outside the control of this powerhouse -
innovation and growth have occurre. But where the technology is
deemed important to national security - especially where that
technology could challenge the control of major corporations important
to national security - innovation has not occurred. We still burn the
same kerosine in our jet engines that we used to burn in our lamps
when Reagan was a boy. And innovation in energy is either non-
existent, stilted, or directed into areas that do not compete with the
majors.
Is this corruption? I don't know. I don't think people are that
smart or that lucky. I do think though, that a host of abuses can
accumulate in a culture and kill it. And that's what's happened in
America. We're a declining culture and people can see we're a
declining culture,and the more people that see that, and lose any hope
that they can make it by being clever, or hard working or honest,
those people will do what it takes to get ahead - and they'll add to
the problem... and in the end, we'll, to quote Reagan, join the
Soviet Union on the trashheap of history.
It doesn't have to be this way. We have plenty of opportunities to
revers this downward spiral. But it won't occur because of
conversations on usenets, or rants,or anything like that. It will
occur if those in power grab their balls and screw up the courage to
make difficult decisions that reverse the trend.
The only thing I can do, as an engineer, is to look at the physics of
what's going on and say - hey, here's a solution. Beam energy from
space and use it to make hydrogen, then burn the hydrogen in coal
fired plants and hydrogenate the coal to make gasoline. Then adopt a
policy that increases wages around the world and increases consumption
- and supply the energy by expanding this new US source. This ishow
the US can remain dominant through the next century.
But we won't do it. We're too deeply involve in the strategies of the
1950s and haven't seen they have failed let alone WHY they have
failed. Meanwhile, leaders, true leaders,that have the vision, the
means and the courage to lead - are non existent or disheartened or
distracted.
> If a certain little faith-based group were trying to dominate Earth
> for all it's worth, why would they allow public access to clean and
> affordable energy, and especially if it were renewable?
The US is trying to survive as an industrial nation in a nuclear world
that is running out of the means to support their industry. Its
policies were instituted at the end of world war 2 using the ideas and
means thought best in the 1940s and 50s. These policies are largely
secret - and tended to by a tiny group of experts. Those experts are
blind and isolated from the community at large. They do not see 9/11
as a failure of their control paradigms, let alone seeing what must be
done to truly address this failure. At best they see 9/11 as a lapse
- of them being too lax and lenient, and so they're cracking down -
closing the gap - securing the frontier. They do not yet see that
they are the cause of much of what is killing America. It will be the
next generation of Americans to address that - I doubt it will be as
bad as the Civil War - but it will be worse than the Civil Rights
movement - to get this particular tick out of our scalp.
> Clue No.1) those that are currently rich and powerful don't actually
> give a tinkers damn as to how spendy, polluting or lethal our energy
> can be made, because where do you think they obtain their loot that's
> stuffed into those nifty offshore bank accounts, as is.
The USA is the richest and most powerful nation on Earth. Our poverty
line is well above the median of most nations. The US is rich because
the US is productive.
Even so, there are more people getting richer all the time - The
Capgemini World Wealth Report for 2007 says that there are 9.5 million
millionaires in the world a double digit increase. Most new
millionaires have arisin in China and India. The total wealth
controlled by these 9.5 million folks is $32 TRILLION !!! Most of
this is liquid. Compare this to the $65 trillion PER YEAR created by
human activity. This is an important point.
The so-called rich are that way mostly due to their own efforts - and
by creating wealth. After all they only have managed to accumulate
1/2 of 1 years production into their own pockets. On a global scale
wealth is broadly dispersed across a huge population, more evenly than
at any other time in human history. And its getting more evently
dispersed as time goes on.
The UN in the past - ended small pox. Since then its various
organizations have outlined a vast array of issues that face the world
community. But since the election of Nixon the US has ignored these
issues and gone its own way. Money has dried up. And issues remain
outstanding, and they multiply. The massive deaths in Africa for
example, and the continuing production of heroin in Afghanistan, as
another example...
But many of the issues that face the poorest of us, and face all of us
really, might be addressed if the UN for example create a tax-free
'world bond' for investors -
This would be very similar to a tax free municipal bond that we use to
build a library or school or roadway. The county, or city, or state
outlines what they need, and they issue tax free bonds - and folks
invest in them.
We could do the same on a global scale. We could offer these 9.5
million folks tax free world bonds - that would be used to build up
infrastructure that would address issues of drought in Africa, or
flooding in Bangladesh, and so forth.. and we would have access to
trillions of dollars - and expand the global economy rapidly.
> Until you realize whom is in charge of your private parts,
I am.
> and
> subsequently of how badly snookered you've been,
The truth is what it is. Lies cannot change the truth. The truth
needs no defense.
> there's no way in any
> hell on Earth that anything 'Willie Moo' is ever going to fly.
??? I have already done a lot of things - and will continue to do
things going forward. So, like many of your statements, they make no
sense at all in the light of reality.
> BTW, do you even realize what number of our homes are 50% or more
> heated with wood, corn and even coal, because they simply can't afford
> their local energy grid or other alternatives as is?
Not a whole lot. Hubbert in a Scientific American article in
September 1971 - on the issue entitled Power and Energy - showed that
the entire Earth had the following sources of renewable power
50,000 TW - direct solar
320 TW - tides, rivers, wind, currents
40 TW - photosynthesis
Humanity uses 10 TW of energy currently and that demand is growing at
4% - which could rise to 7% with the right policies related to labor
practice and public investment worldwide.
> Of course, thanks to our corrupt government, many have lost their
> homes and are living on the streets,
Of 300 million people fewer than 60,000 are living in the streets
according to the WSJ. - one in ten thousand. Most of these are folks
who in an earlier time would have been put away in a mental
institution. But Jimmy Carter helped pass legislation that closed
down a lot of the mental institutions - which lead to the current
situation. Many of the more violent folks were arreste and are now in
prison - swelling our growing prison population - which is another
indicator of our decline as a culture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_children
A worse problem world wide are the 150 million street children in the
world. UNICEF expects this to grow to 800 million by 2020. Horrific
actions by 'concerned businessmen' who organize clean up squads to
hunt down and murder children in the street - without police
intervention. Untold are those from the US, Japan and Europe, who pay
to go on these escapades.
This alone shows us that we are culture in decline - more than
anything else I can think of.
> or if lucky they live in some god
> forsaken dump of a place with minimal or w/o energy. The American
> system has badly failed to take care of its own kind from the bottom
> up,
That's not true. Despite growing problems in some areas, aggregate
wealth and its dispersal is growing better and better - and America is
a large contributor to this trend. Even so, I do agree that our
government is failing us, and that governments generally throughout
the world fail to address the issues facing us. So, they all will
ultimately fail and something new and better will take its place.
> and there's simply not the resources available as long as those
> Cheney/ENRON/Exxon types and of their fiath-based puppeteers are in
> charge.
They certainly do not believe there are enough resources. That is
true. At the same time, Exxon for example, fears any change in the
means of producing energy - that may have an adverse impact on their
valuation. So, they are creating the very situation they blame for
decisions. I do not believe they are doing this on purpose. You need
to realize how much courage and strength of character you need to have
to stand against the tide and try to affect change. If you would
take 6 months or a year vacation from the internet - you'd see how
hard such change is.
> But then you and others of your pathetic kind don't think
> there's any such problems to begin with.
> - Brad Guth -
There are plenty of problems. But that doesn't define me. You seem
to relish in defining your world in terms of problems. Maybe because
it makes you feel superior to everyone. You certainly like ending
your screeds with words like 'others of your pathetic kind' and stuff
like that. Clearly you're a person of low self esteem who's only joy
is feeling himself superior to others - even if its totally
imagined.
That's why it makes sense for you to get off-line and do something
fun. Forget all the problems and do something that someone else truly
values. Mother Teresa said all each of us need do, is go out and find
the most miserable person you can find and let them know they are
loved. If each of us did that the world would be transformed.
So, do it Brad. Get off line and do it!!
BradGuth
Our butts are being summarily kicked about by that extremely nasty
'sleeper cell' called mother nature, so what's not perfectly rational
about our fully utilizing or moon and of its L1 for all it's worth?
or for that matter of relocating that entire GW responsible moon out
to Earth's L1 where it'll at least start paying its own way.
Here's a irrefutable fact: our moon is simply not nearly as robust nor
as solid to its salty core, or otherwise nearly as passive to cosmic
and solar energy as you and your NASA/Apollo suck-ups would like to
think. Somewhat unrelated (meaning off-topic), this is my latest
edited version of what I've recently contributed to another lost soul
of Usenet, that I'm sure you'd just as soon topic/author stock, bash
and/or simply apply as much banishment as you and those of your naysay
swarm can muster.
Even though existing terrestrial surface alternatives of renewable
clean energy exist that are far better off than nuclear energy
(including those of Willie Moo's), here's one somewhat spendy GW
counter terrorism tactic that could actually work on our behalf.
Willie Moo's space based IR laser cannons and terrestrial IR/PV
receiving stations by the dozens: of "Solar powered lasers in space"
and hundreds of those spendy terrestrial receiving stations that are
each +/- 100 meters off-limits to all forms of life as we know it, but
at least we'd have yet another clean resource of energy for producing
h2o2 and processing raw earth into aluminum or whatever else makes you
a happy camper.
Here's my fifth gold star for his topic (*****)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.policy/browse_frm/thread/06432e5952c1fc17/8ca2613fd22d46f1?hl=en#8ca2613fd22d46f1
As per usual it all looks and sounds perfectly nifty, except for his
having excluded the usual ENRON/Exxon 10X markup factor, making that
potential of "03 cents per kWh" into at least a wholesale worth of
$0.30 per kWh (end user at perhaps $0.50/kwhr), but lo and behold at
least it's clean and renewable, as well as directly usable for many
other life and Earth saving things, like burning a nice hole through
our resident warlord's butt and those more than deserving butts of his
possy.
My question to the likes of Willie Moo is; Have you figured out which
significant group of topic/author stocking and infomercial spewing
naysayers is in charge of your private parts, and subsequently as to
why your research and best of intentions are not getting Usenet or any
other group net supported?
Too bad that I'm not in charge, as your space based laser cannon
energy as well as those nifty terrestrial applications of solar
extracted energy would have been 50/50 public funded as of a dacade
ago, including those subsequent terrestrial applications of converting
solar energy directly into wussy hydrogen or good old robust h2o2.
BTW, even if ISS were donated and 100% converted into a viable
platform of hosting those IR laser cannons, and outfitted along with
those multiple km2 solar collectors, it wouldn't become nearly as
affordable as you've suggested, as for the cost and extremely negative
environmental impact of keeping such substantial technology up and
running isn't cheap, nor without human risk, not to mention each of
those off-limit terrestrial receiving stations and of each laser knife
of no-fly air and/or satellite space in between.
As my having offered before, I have a perfectly viable fix or two for
that, which includes utilizing our moon's L1 and a tether dipole
element that'll give such laser cannons access to 97.6% of direct
solar and loads of other than solar renewable energy to boot (I'm
talking multiple teraWatts of continuous clean energy), and the
combined solar and secondary IR photon cache is in fact rather
impressive.
However, if a certain little faith-based group were trying to dominate
Earth for all it's worth, why would they or their minion friends allow
or much less fund public access on behalf of your clean and affordable
energy, and especially if it were renewable?
You do realize that our corrupt government that's extensively faith-
based puppeteered and in total denial of their being in denial, will
soon enough require us to pay $1/kwhr, don't you?
Clue No.1) those that are currently rich and powerful don't actually
give a tinkers damn as to how spendy, polluting or lethal our energy
can be made, because where do you think they obtain their loot that's
often stuffed into those nifty offshore/(tax avoidance) bank accounts
or international investments, as is.
Until you folks realize whom is in charge of your private parts, and
subsequently of how badly snookered you've been, there's no way in any
hell on Earth that anything of 'Willie Moo' is ever going to fly.
BTW, do you even realize what number of our American homes are 50% or
more heated with the likes of wood, corn and even scavenged coal,
because they simply can't afford their local energy grid or other
alternatives as is?
Of course, thanks to our corrupt and/or incompetent government, many
have lost or are in the process of losing their cozy homes and are
soon enough if not already living on the streets, or if lucky they
live in some god forsaken dump of a place with minimal or w/o energy.
The American system has badly failed to take care of its own kind from
the bottom up (meaning honest education), and there's simply no longer
the resources available for the likes of Willie Moo as long as those
Cheney/ENRON/Exxon types and of their faith-based puppeteers are in
charge of our private parts. But then you and others of your pathetic
kind don't think there's any such past or current problems to begin
with, and therefore history needn't be revised.
-
"whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell
- Brad Guth -
BradGuth
> > Gee whiz, and here I'd been promoting most of everything you've got to
> > offer (though no one is perfect, including Einstein or yourself),
>
> I never claimed perfection - and I never asked for or sought your
> support. haha.. C'mon - this is the oldest trick in the book. The
> opposition pays all the whores pimps drug dealers to come to a meeting
> and disrupt it with their foolishness, and then they complain loudly,
> fight and generally tear up the place when they're asked to leave -
> and THAT becomes the story at 11...
Usenet is absolutely chuck full of brown-nosed clowns, though mostly
Yids pretending at being atheists, and thsee clowns as mainstream
status quo spooks and moles in charge of damage-control are also those
in charge of your private parts that exist right here in this anti-
think-tank of their usenet naysay land.
>
> The only way to deal with that is to have strong capable bouncers scan
> everyone as the approach the meeting hall, and 'persuade'
> 'undesireables' to move along... without a publc outcry - again a
> swift kick to the groin to the baddest of these is generally
> sufficient - but alas, you cannot do this on internet! haha..
But you can bounce right back with returning the very same warm and
fuzzy topic/author stocking and bashing favor, and for doing such with
all the love and affection that you can muster.
>
> So, don't cry alligator tears to me Bruth - I know your game - and
> you feel yourself immune. You gotta know exactly what you're doing.
So, you think this is all a silly game. No wonder, and/or go figure.
>
> > and
> > just as I'd said that if I were ever put in charge, whereas apparently
> > I'd be the only one forking out a nifty 50/50 worth of R&D matching
> > funds on your warm and fuzzy behalf.
>
> You have never given me funds for anything, you have never offered
> funds to me, you have never been asked for funds from me, you most
> likely have no funds to give to anyone anyway - it all being in your
> head. So, I gotta ask - WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT. You
> either say things because it gives you a hard on for the moment to
> imagine they're true - so, its all mental masturbation - or you are
> fond of saying things that are damable lies.
But, I'm not the one in charge, am I? Who is in charge, and why are
they not defending and/or supporting your research?
>
> > Sorry, my mistake,
>
> Yes. I don't want need or value your support. If you'd like to earn
> by gratitude and lasting admiration there is one thing and ONE THING
> only you can do. Commit yourself to not posting writing or even
> reading anything online for a year. Do, that and then we can talk
> AFTER.
But you'd likely go right to work for the likes of Exxon/Mobil or
Hitler if either saw fit to fund your ideas, as did most of those
smart Yids of his global domination day.
>
> > as I'd rather
> > stick with those ENRON/Exxon types that get loads of stuff
> > accomplished, though spendy, polluting and even somewhat lethal as all
> > get out.
>
> Enron got nothing done and they ended up in jail and the poorhouse -
> so this makes no sense. Exxon is a respected and quite capable
> company that produces a goodly precentage of all the energy used on
> Earth. They have no idea of what sort of strategy will secure their
> survival and dominance for the next 30 years. Their behavior shouts
> this from the tree-tops. This is actually a quite hopeful sign to
> those who DO have a workable strategy.
All I can say is that you must really like their corrupt past, present
and future that's very much still under their control or the controls
of those using similar tactics.
>
> > Face slapping?
>
> Or groin kicking yes. Preferably when you read my stuff, rather than
> after you post. That way, the message is clear. Don't read Mook's
> shit Bruth - you'll get a pain in the nuts if you do. and you move
> on. See? If there is anything in the usenet universe that would
> bring me everlasting joy and happiness - it isthat. Whenever you
> THINK about reading my shit, you get a pain in your nuts, and decide
> differently.
>
> So, to that extent, I would like to kick you in th enuts. I get an
> alert that you've pulled up a post of mine, I reach through the
> monitor with my boot, and kick you in the nuts. I do that until you
> stop reading my shit. See?
>
> After that, I don't care what the hell you do! haha..
Spoken like a good little status quo or bust minion, that hasn't quite
enough brown on that nose of yours.
>
> > Silly old me for being 100% in support of what your supposed talent
> > and expertise has to offer,
>
> Yeah, well, like Huey Long's kicking the whores and whatnot out of his
> meetings - I didn't ask you to attend in the first place. Move
> along! lol.
>
> > on behalf of your intentions of improving
> > our global environment
>
> Since I would actually like to do something of value - I would like
> not to have to deal with you AT ALL!
In that warm and fuzzy case, I'll simply remove your name from my good
guy list, instead placing Willie Moo on my NO-FLY list, and otherwise
share the loot and whatever credits with others that are not as
snookered and/or subsequently as dumbfounded past the point of no
return.
>
> > on such a grand scale, and for the greater good
> > of humanity to boot. I'll see what I can manage in order to return
> > the warm and fuzzy favor with all the "face slapping" love and
> > affection that I can muster.
>
> Like I said, I don't even read your shit, unless its in response to
> something I've said, and then I generally ignore it. But since you
> took the trouble to say something nice about me - I wanted to make it
> clear to anyone who reads this that I have nothing but the deepest
> sympathy for your parents - and want nothing to do with you. And if I
> could, I would kick you in the nuts whenever you thought of reading my
> shit - that way I wouldn't have to deal with you at all.
Like I'd said, you're on my NO-FLY list, and much like the real thing,
in that no matters what and even long after you're dead and gone, your
name shal remain forever on that list. Terribly sorry about that.
- Brad Guth -
BradGuth
BradGuth
corrupt past, present and future agendas that's very much still under
their insider control or the indirect controls of those using similar
Third Reich faith-based puppeteering tactics.
In other words, and as per Willie Moo usual, you're perfectly good
with "whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell
- Brad Guth -
Willie...@gmail.com
> "whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell
> - Brad Guth -
Where there is life there is change. Birth conquers death and feeds
on the remains of the dead. The first step toward death is separation
from what is and embracing what is not. The second step, loss of
vitality of the affected parts. The third step cessation of growth.
Next a falling away of deceased portions. Finally regrowth.
We a culture in decline. Hstory will show that this decline begam
when as a culture, we embraced what was not true - in the 1940s. Our
decline will be traced to our loss of vitality in the 1960s and our
lack of growth in the 1980s. The 2000s opened with the beginnings of
our actual destruction. Finally, in 2020s - there will be rebirth and
rejection of the dead old ways and embracing of life.
,
Willie...@gmail.com
You are under the mistaken belief that the truth needs a defender.
The truth is all there is. We isolate ourselves from it at our own
peril.
BradGuth
Now that I can 100% relate and agree with your analogy of where we've
been and of where we're headed. So, I'll guess that getting on with
our WWIII could become a darn good sign of better times ahead, of the
"rejection of the dead old ways and embracing of life", or at least on
behalf of whatever mutated remainders of human life as we know it.
I do believe Earth would become a whole lot better off if there were
but 10% of the human species to deal with, especially if those
surviving came from within the bottom half rather than from the phony
baloney top of the stack that worships greed, arrogance and their own
cultivated bigotry above any real or imagined God.
So, what we need is perhaps 10% of the global population and at most
1% of all those complex religious groups.
- Brad Guth -
Craig Fink
> peri...
Hi Willie,
You've been posting on sci.space.* a long time? Are you Mook? Or, is it
William? Or, Bill???? I just assumed you all are related.
Hi Brad,
Hope you are doing well... I disagree, Mars is ...
BradGuth
Will, I must say that we've been at peril of insuring our own demise
for quite some time, and it's not exactly looking any better down the
road. The more we base our present day and thereby our future upon
our lies of our faith-based skewed past, the more than likely we'll be
making those same mistakes as well as allowing the same old lethal and/
or collateral damaging actions that'll keep putting us further and
further behind where humanity could have been.
At some near future point, our terrestrial energy resources of fossil
and yellowcake fuel simply is not going to affordably cut it, and the
likes of your terrestrial and space based conversions of solar energy
may simply become of what's too little too late to salvage the
remainders of our environment, that's also going to have to deal with
a failing magnetosphere by way of evolution or via intelligent design
mutating us on behalf of all the above surface life into having rad-
hard DNA, or die trying.
My LSE-CM/ISS based alternative is not all that insurmountable, any
more so than the daunting task of our eventually having to relocate
our moon out to Earth's L1, or else once again die while trying
because, if that big old salty moon sticks so nearby and our sun keeps
getting nastier, and humanity keeps badly burning up everything in
sight, thus unavoidably contributing more CO2 and loads of NOx along
with a few extra hundred teratonnes of h2o sustained within our sooty
atmosphere, as such isn't going to make most of us into happy campers,
especially those of us that can't afford to pay the $10/kwhr or
otherwise afford that of any services, foods or products that required
such spendy energy in the first place.
Earth needs those multiple terawatts worth of clean spare/surplus
energy as of yesterday, not put off for decades or much less another
century from now, as well as otherwise we'll be caught with our pants
down by not having sufficient resources for orchestrating our WWIII,
WWIV and WWV that'll become necessary tools for keeping Earth's
populations of us pathetic humans down to a dull roar.
- Brad Guth -
BradGuth
Perhaps he's the son or possibly a clone of William Mook. I very much
liked what good old Mook had to say, even though I seldom agreed with
each of his interpretations or applications of technology, but at
least like Moo, Mook knew a few interesting things and wasn't shy
about sharing.
>
> Hi Brad,
>
> Hope you are doing well... I disagree, Mars is ...
Mars is likely a somewhat older and much less salty planet than Earth.
Mars as lost most all of its magnetosphere as of millions of years
ago.
Mars is offering the remains of a once upon a time fresh water planet.
Mars is a super terrific place to store our vacuum packed and frozen
foods.
Mars is rather easily pulverised and otherwise a continually radiated
to death environment.
Mars is humanly spendy and most likely offering brave folks little
better than a one-way ticket to ride.
Mars is offering few usable raw elements of any value, and of almost
no local energy other than provided by a rather poor amount of
sunlight.
I agree, Mars is ...
- Brad Guth -
Willie...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
All species that are constrained to a new range tend to grow in
numbers until that range's carrying capacity is reached. When that
happens there is a die off since the carrying capacity of the new
range erodes under excessive numbers of the species, and the numbers
collapse to the new lower level. This new lower level is the degraded
carrying capacity at which the animals set in fierce competition with
one another for resources, survive.
In the human context, humanity is the only species who extended its
range by technical means. That is, when humans reached the carrying
capacity of whatever range they found themselves in, this created
pressure to innovate to extend and expand this range. So, the rare
naked low-land ape at Olduvai Gorge by this means over a two million
year period became the super-successful highly technical species
spanning the globe you see today.
We have reached the ends of the Earth, and are poised to reach beyond
the Earth to encompass the solar system using nuclear power and high
technology, much as in earlier times, we reached beyond the African
low-lands with clothing shelter and fire.
But right at the moment of our greatest success we tarried. We failed
to innovate and lied to ourselves about our capacity to do what should
havve come naturally to us humans. Just long enough to bring about
our collapse and the emergence of a post-human species.
The characteristic feature of humanity is its cooperative nature.
There is an irriitable competitive nature to be sure in humans. But
there is a cooperative aspect as well. And that cooperative aspect
overlays the competitive aspect. This is reflected in the structure
of the human brain. The triumvirate brain its called. The reptilian
brain,so called which is competitive, the mammalian brain, so called,
which is inquisitive and cooperative - but this is actually unique to
humans - due to their ability (formerly) to expand their range on
demand - and finally the so called human layer - which is actually our
ability with numbers and symbols which gave rise to technology and
modern civilization.
What has happened in the modern age, is that our ability with symbols
and to organize ourselves in response to the logic of symbols - has
given rise to powerful social forms that have judged the normal human
development path toward life - to be too risky or impossible. The
natural human response - that has served humanity for millions of
years - has been circumvented. Lack of action has been rationalized.
And the die-off that humans forestalled for millions of years by
adhering to their natural instincts of wonder, courage, hope, and a
healthy natural regard for one another - has become a nearly
guaranteed outcome - due to a handful of self-appointed experts in the
guise of national security.
The problem with the US approach to maintaining US hegemony throughout
the die-off, is that the carrying capacity of Earth undergoes a
massive shift downward if we are to allow this die-off to occur. And
the survivors remaining after the die off - will compete with one
another to survive in the wasteland left behind - for all eternity.
The conditions will have changed. The range will be forever
constrained. And the conditions under which industry was created on
Earth, will never be repeated. We will become a post-human and post-
technical species that will be quite different than the people we take
for granted today.
The light of human-kindness will have been extinguished from the
world.
And we will no longer BE human.
So, this fantasy that the controlling elite tell themselves in secret
about a post-apocolyptic America surviving in idyllic peace is nothing
more than mental masturbation. America will be the first industrial
center to be decimated in the coming conflicts (as 9/11 proves) as it
becomes clear this is no hope, there is no savior, and there is no fix
forthcoming - and human hope, and human courage, and human faith - is
decimated under the weight of survival - as we enter the new age. -
with the old age, once dead, never to arise again.
The only time we had to live, was when we were alive. And we chose
death. We chose death for the must ludicrous of reasons - we were
afraid of death. And so, we drew it to us by our fear.
Of course, being one of the last humans around, I hope and work for,
life - for the possibility that we can even at this late stage, set
things right, and undo,through great foolishness and hubris, what we
have unleashed on the world, and ourselves.
Using our intelligence community to reduce conflict rather than manage
conflict to our advantage.
Using our intelligence and military might in the service of liberty
and freedom throughout the world..
Using our intelligence community to end organized international crime,
including the drug trade - rather than exploiting relations with
organized crime to pay for intelligence operatoins, gain control, and
provide muscle.
Establish wage, hours of work, and worker age laws among manufacturers
that are allowed to import to the US.
Modify international banking practices (especially transfer pricing)
to enrich nations rather than impoverish them.
Use monetary policy to promote growth worldwide rather than disparity
of income worldwide.
Establish ...
well I could go on - but what does it matter? Its mookie talking to
guthball.
We have the technical means to do whatever we want in the solar
system.
We have the technical means to end these energy shortages - sure it
will disrupt the oil providers, just as the development of oil
disrupted the coal providers, and the development of coal disrupted
the wood providers - so what? It will be the best course for humanity
- no matter what self-serving lies we tell ourselves today.
With the ability to make productive use of off-world resources, and
access to adequate power and raw materials at reasonable prices,
humanity will continue to grow wealthier - but will not continue to
grow in numbers.
At the extreme edges of wealth, the wealthiest societies have
undergone a reversal of population growth. That's why all the
wealthiest nations import foreign labor. Europe, the US, Japan, Saudi
Arabia - all import labor from less developed regions.
So, if we were to allow the expansion of industry to occur - making
use of off-world resources and energy - standards of living would
rise, and population growth rates would reverse.
The big problem facing THIS 21st century population is where to get
laborers when the whole world has reached the late-sensate phase of
development?
The answer is - robots. This phase would have occurred, and quite
possibly still could occur - around 2030 to 2040 time frame.
Human numbers grow at about 3/4% per year - 1.0075 - and human
industry grows when under no constraints, about 10% per year 1.1000 -
so industrial growth dominates - if there are no constraints - like
energy shortages.
Humani numbers are at present around 6.8 billion. Human income is
$65 trillion. That's a little over $9,500 per year. Population
growth rate is positive.
In the US, numbers are 300 million and income $13 trillion. That's a
little over $43,000. Without immigration, population growth rate is
negative.
So, the ratio of 43,000 / 9,500 = .4.52
The world economy growing by this factor in a short period of time
would reverse the growth in human numbers;
Therefore, LN(4.52) / LN(1.1) = 15.84
In about 16 years - if our economy grew at 10% per year. - 2023
China knows this. India knows this. That's why they have it as their
goal to grow very fast. And by and large despite huge difficulties -
they have achieved these growth targets. And this is when these
nations will reach ZPG and begin importing labor from surrounding
regions to maintain their standard of living.
Outside these areas, growth is less. The global average is around 4%
- 1.040 so lets plug that in...
LN(4.52) / LN(1.040) = 38.46
around 39 years - or 2046
With Asia, North America and Europe in population decline - we can
estimate total population will never exceed 9 billion people
US, Japan, Europe 1.4 billion
India and China: 2.6 billion
1.0075 ^ 16 = 1.127
2.6 x 1.127 = 3.0 billion
Rest of World 2.8 billion
1.0075 ^ 39 = 1.338
2.9 billion x 1.338 = 3.8 billion
1.4 + 3.0 + 3.8 = 8.2 billion
This is the positive scenario where everyone is better off tomorrow
through technical innovation that gives us access to a larger range,
and promotes cooperation in exploiting that range.
Unlike earlier expansions highly technical development naturally leads
to conditions where natural tendency for human numbers to grow - or
even to accelerate with improved medical care - is reversed.
So somewhere between 2030 and 2040 human numbers in general will
decline, and the propensity to do less glamorous work will decline
even faster. This will promote the development of robotics which will
keep pace with changing human attitudes and conditions - and provide a
basis for the expansion of lovingkindness and human happiness
generally. The nature of the world will have been changed by our
faith and hope in the future and what it has wrought.
BradGuth
information. Not that it isn't usable information that should be
taken along with a few grains of salt, because the truly nitty gritty
information is seldom contained within that cache of published data.
>But right at the moment of our greatest success we tarried. We failed
>to innovate and lied to ourselves about our capacity to do what should
>havve come naturally to us humans. Just long enough to bring about
>our collapse and the emergence of a post-human species.
I've been saying the very same things as of 7+ years ago. So, what
can the two of us do that'll kick those badly deserving butts? (off
the edge of Earth if need be)
We badly need your solar energy conversions like never before, as well
as for Warren Buffet's and my wind plus PV and even stirling
contributed energy footprints, that combined we can totally resolve
the energy needs of the foreseeable future, without further raping and/
or polluting mother Earth in the process.
How about we establish our mutual 'to-do' list, of the top 10 most
worthy of whatever's the most viable and clean energy alternatives at
our current levels of terrestrial and space based technology? In
other words, the 10 most affordably doable methods of accomplishing
the most of renewable energy either onto our grids or into producing
usable fuels and environment friendly products (including those better
fuel consuming engines) that we could all use.
>
>The light of human-kindness will have been extinguished from the
>world.
>
>And we will no longer BE human.
I think that time is right about now, or past due.
>
>The nature of the world will have been changed by our
>faith and hope in the future and what it has wrought.
-
Ian Parker
an open mind on all possible systems. In talkinf avout 1108nm you are
assuming two things - Photovoltaics & Silicon for photovoltaics. If
that is true then you are correct. There are however alternatives.
1) Biological - Here yellow is the wavelength for photosynthesis, just
over 500nm.
2) Raise steam & drive a turbine- Here wavelength is unimportant.
> UTILIZATION
> Now in a desert region we have in North America the equivalanet of
> 1,600 hours of sunlight per year. That's because of seasonal
> variation and cosine effects. The sun at dawn and dusk illuminates
> the terrain at an angle. Its only at noon at certain times of the
> year that you get peak power. All other times light comes in at an
> angle and is lower intensity. So, you have an effective peak power
> output of 1,600 hours.
>
This is true. You are now thalking about GEO. Some earlier postings
mentioned LEO. At GEO utilisation is indeed 24/7 (almost) there is an
eclipse season. At the equinoxes this is about 1hr 10min per night
around midnight. Away from equinoxes you have 24/7.
This is quite interesting. I feel that this concept should be extended
further. A set of lasers such as you describe can be made much more
capable with a few changes. These changes are quite compliocated and
perhaps a little bit difficule to understand but they would not add
greatly to the cost. What you weant on your window is a piezoelectric
system capable of putting a delay of half a wavelength in or out.
If you take a pattern at infinity (in fact the Earth will still be in
the Fresnel region - not quite infinity) and take a Fourier Transform
you get the pattern that has to transmitted. One thing - The radiation
intensity is real (we are not worried about the phase (angle in Argand
diagram). Our laser outlets are only capable of varying phase angle
not intensity. However by giving freedom to phase we can achieve a
general pattern by varying phases alone. This means.
1) The system is capable of being focussed either into a very small
region or into a more diffuse region.
2) The system will focus on a number of spots simultanously some
diffuse some points.
Thought - Could an asteroid be moved by concentrating laser light onto
it?
Lasers were not mentioned in the NASA report, perhaps they should have
been. I think too it was a great pity that Rand Simberg saw fit to
hijack the discussion.
Personally I am not sure I like the idea of nuclear bombs, where there
is an alternative.
Actually the concepts of LISA, the concept of a large space
(fragmented) telescope and the concept of laser arrays are very much
bound up. With active phase control you can always reach the
diffraction limit and you can work out with 1.22lambda/d just what
that is.
> Launch costs are approximately $10,000 per kg and construction costs
> in the aerospace business are around $2,500 per kg. The costs of raw
> materials are nil compared to these costs. The bulk of the weight of
> the satellite is the thin film material - and so knowing the thickness
> of this the efficiency of converting sunlight to laser light - we can
> compute the area of the film and its weight - and add a correction to
> estimate what the laser and controls would weigh - and multiply by the
> figures above to get a preliminary estimate of satellite costs - and
> see that $5 per watt is accurate.
Launch costs is again an interesting one. If you have an energy system
it will (I presume) go from LEO to GEO using ion drive.
- Ian Parker
BradGuth
>
> Lasers were not mentioned in the NASA report, perhaps they should have
> been. I think too it was a great pity that Rand Simberg saw fit to
> hijack the discussion.
>
> Personally I am not sure I like the idea of nuclear bombs, where there
> is an alternative.
>
> Actually the concepts of LISA, the concept of a large space
> (fragmented) telescope and the concept of laser arrays are very much
> bound up. With active phase control you can always reach the
> diffraction limit and you can work out with 1.22lambda/d just what
> that is.
>
> > Launch costs are approximately $10,000 per kg and construction costs
> > in the aerospace business are around $2,500 per kg. The costs of raw
> > materials are nil compared to these costs. The bulk of the weight of
> > the satellite is the thin film material - and so knowing the thickness
> > of this the efficiency of converting sunlight to laser light - we can
> > compute the area of the film and its weight - and add a correction to
> > estimate what the laser and controls would weigh - and multiply by the
> > figures above to get a preliminary estimate of satellite costs - and
> > see that $5 per watt is accurate.
>
> Launch costs is again an interesting one. If you have an energy system
> it will (I presume) go from LEO to GEO using ion drive.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
If all goes well, within the first decade of the full operation of
those Willie Moo laser cannons will start to pay their own way in
clean energy for their R&D and deployment, and if still working after
that first spendy decade is when Earth will start to obtain whatever's
the energy that's no longer going into sustaining his space based
platform of lasers and otherwise of those multiple receiving stations.
The all-inclusive energy that such R&D, deployment and servicing is
going to demand is rather significant, and that's only if nothing goes
all that terribly wrong or wares out. Whereas the LSE-CM/ISS tether
dipole element deployed platform of multiple laser cannons, that'll if
need be reach to within 2r of mother Earth is also doable, and being
far more capable of delivering clean energy to his battery of laser
cannons that'll offer much greater combined energy density. If I were
in charge, I would gladly provide this tether extended platform and
the spare teraWatts of energy.
His terrestrial based solar energy conversions (mostly applied
directly into creating LH2) are actually a whole lot more doable as
is, at not 1% the R&D or much less of any spendy fly-by-rocket and
subsequent pollution factors. However, for some silly reason the
notions of using solar or any renewable energy in order to produce
those nifty energy products of h2o2 and aluminum is Willie Moo taboo.
Go figure (I guess in Willie's world we'll have to keep forever using
nukes, as well as burning off coal, oil and natural gas for the
makings of h2o2 and aluminum, and thus forever creating those extra
mega tonnes of CO2 and NOx).
- Brad Guth -
Willie...@gmail.com
I'm building silicon based low-cost solar panels. The cost per watt
is an important factor.
>
> 1) Biological - Here yellow is the wavelength for photosynthesis, just
> over 500nm.
True. But the energy budget of the Earth is;
50,000 TW - direct solar
320 TW - currents, winds, tides, rivers
40 TW - photosynthesis (total)
10 TW - human industry (today)
110 TW - human industry 2060AD
Space solar of course is potentially far larger than that intercepted
by the Earth's land area under clouds.
> 2) Raise steam & drive a turbine- Here wavelength is unimportant.
Don't forget atmospheric transmittance
http://www.profc.udec.cl/~gabriel/tutoriales/rsnote/cp1/1-11-1.gif
when the phase is controlled by a pilot beam arriving from the target
- as in 4 wave mixing - the beam automatically adjusts for atmospheric
distortion and movement of the window...
> Thought - Could an asteroid be moved by concentrating laser light onto
> it?
Yes.
> http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.space.policy/browse_frm/thread/4...
>
> Lasers were not mentioned in the NASA report, perhaps they should have
> been. I think too it was a great pity that Rand Simberg saw fit to
> hijack the discussion.
>
> Personally I am not sure I like the idea of nuclear bombs, where there
> is an alternative.
Personallly I'd much rather that a series of small engineered nuclear
blasts go off in deep space far from Earth's biosphere,than in my
hometown as a few large blasts that kill everyone I know and love.
> Actually the concepts of LISA, the concept of a large space
> (fragmented) telescope and the concept of laser arrays are very much
> bound up. With active phase control you can always reach the
> diffraction limit and you can work out with 1.22lambda/d just what
> that is.
Correct. But the point is with 4-wave mixing, is that a pilot beam
arriving from the target panels (we have cooperative targets unlike
SDI) provides a safe reliable means of control.
> > Launch costs are approximately $10,000 per kg and construction costs
> > in the aerospace business are around $2,500 per kg. The costs of raw
> > materials are nil compared to these costs. The bulk of the weight of
> > the satellite is the thin film material - and so knowing the thickness
> > of this the efficiency of converting sunlight to laser light - we can
> > compute the area of the film and its weight - and add a correction to
> > estimate what the laser and controls would weigh - and multiply by the
> > figures above to get a preliminary estimate of satellite costs - and
> > see that $5 per watt is accurate.
>
> Launch costs is again an interesting one. If you have an energy system
> it will (I presume) go from LEO to GEO using ion drive.
That's a possibility. Solar sailing is another possibility. However,
I merely postulate a chemically powered kick stage to apply two
impulsive burns.
The first is 2.43 km/sec to ascend to GEO and the second is 1.47 km/
sec to circularize at GEO.
Assuming the kick stage is hydrogen/oxygen propellant operating at 4.5
km/sec exhaust spee, we can estimate the propellant fraction;
Vf = Ve * LN(1/(1-u)) ---> u = 1 - 1/exp(Vf/Ve)
u = 1 - 1/exp(4.0/4.5) = 0.589 = 58.9% propellant fraction
If structure is 3.1% total mass, then that leaves 38% of the payload
in LEO at GEO.
In other words,2.53 tons of payload in LEO means 1.00 tons of payload
arrive at GEO -
If you wish to recover the rocket for reuse, then lyou've got to drop
the stage from GEO to LEO or Earth Surface.
Lets say that 6.1% of the structure is left behind after the second
impulsive burn. This reduces the mass at GEO to 35% - now lets do the
same calculation for the deorbit burn from GEO - that burn is 1.47 km/
sec so,
u = 1 - 1/exp(1.47/4.5) = 0.279 = 27.9% propellant fraction
So, of the 6.1% budgeted to remain after the second burn and the
release of the payload, - 1.7% of that total is propellant - leaving
4.4% of the original payload at LEO - structure (with re-entry TPS and
landing hardware)
So, if we have a 500 metric ton lift capacity to LEO - this would be a
reusable stage that would have the following mass budgetes
175 metric tons GEO based powersat
22 metric tons structure
303 metric tons propellant
500 metric tons LEO
Partially deploying the powersat at LEO and concentrating sunlight
onto a solar thermal rocket that heated liquid hydrogen to high temps,
would produce a jet with 10 km/sec exhaust velocity. Lets say that
nominally 1 GW of thermal energy can be used this way.
Since F = P/2Ve = 1e9 /(2*10,000 m/sec) = 50 kN = 5,091 kgf
Which is adequate for space boost. In this case, the solar thermal
rocket would require a propellant fraction of;
u = 1 - 1/exp(1.47/10.00) = 0.137 = 13.7%
With the same structural fraction (and hydrogen oxygen propellant for
deorbit without the solar collector) this increases the payload to
80.2%
80.2% - payload
13.7% - propellant (solar thermal (hydrogen))
1.7% - propellant (hydrogen/oxygen)
4.4% - structure
So the same 500 metric tons to LEO would result in
401 metric tons - powersat
69 metric tons - hydrogen propellant
8 metric tons - hydrogen oxygen
22 metric tons structure
So, this is how it would work. You'd develop an off-the-shelf kick
stage with conventional engines - and start orbiting 175 ton
powersats. Then, you'd develop solar thermal capability - and double
the size of your powersat (or loft two at a time)
>From my earlier calculations you can see that each kilowatt of
capacity (3.3 sq m of surface area0 requires 200 milligrams of payload
- add 25% - that's 25 milligrams per kilowatt. Very light weight
which makes the whole thiing pay!
Anyway, 1 gram = 5 kW, 1 kg = 5 MW, 1 ton = 5 GW,
1 gram = 4.6 m diam, 1 kg = 145 m diam, 1 ton = 4.58 km
This is with two sheets of polymer 50 microns thick. 85 mm thick and
the 5 GW payload would be 175 metric tons.
Willie...@gmail.com
industrial purposes. This is 2,000 stations each 5GW capacity - 3
miles in diameter separated by 72 miles at GEO. With one launch every
other day, the entire system can be erected in 11 years. To achieve
US per capita energy consumption for a population of 9 billion people
requires 22,000 stations each 5 GW capacity, 3 miles in diameter
separated every 6 miles. At a launch rate of 4 per day (across the
whole planet) this requires an additional 14 years.
At the end of the period there are a large fleet of large reusable
space launch vehicles and a well established infrastructure to support
them.
If each vehicle requires 60 days to refurb after launch, then to
sustain a launch every other day requires 30 vehicles. If each
vehicle has 200 launch over its useful life, that's a total of 6,000
launches - only 1/3 of the fleet capacity is use by the time the first
milestone is reache.
If the second generation vehicle requires 20 days to refurb after
launch, and then sustain 4 launches per day, then, a total of 80
vehicles are needed. If each vehicle has a useful life of 1,000
launches, then 80,000 launches may be sustained by the fleet - only
1/4 of the fleet capacity is used by the time the second milestone is
reached.
The recurring income earned by the powersats would be divided among
the owners. If the space vehicle provider arranged to own say 25% of
this revenue stream, then they would have a recurring income with
which to opeate these fleets of vehicles and expand space based
infrastructure.
Today the world spends approximately $2 trillion per year on energy.
The global economy produces $65 trillion per year in wealth with that
energy. 25% of tihs is $500 billion per year. A profit sufficient to
do a large number of space missions.
In the future, with unlimited energy supplies, the world economy is
likely to grow to $715 trillion in 25 years.- a 10% compounded rate of
growth. If the energy intensity is the same then as it is today,
energy expenditures will grow to $22 trillion. 25% of this larger
figure is $5.5 trillion - or nearly half the current GDP of the entire
United States.
Clearly these amounts are sufficient to make humanity a space faring
species and to develop industrially the resources of the solar system.
GEO has the great advantage that the satellite remains stationary
above the receiver stations. The Lagrange points in the Earth-Moon
system, or even across the solar system - are perfect locations for
positioning and communications beacons. L1 is not positively stable,
so it is unlikely to be a good site for space positioning - although
perfect for a repeater satellite. The leading and trailing lagrange
points around the moon are better suited for space positioning and
navigation - and okay for cislunar comsats - and even cislunar
powersats.
BradGuth
You are getting warmer, but still have not a clue as to what the
moon's L1 is all about, much less of the LSE-CM/ISS.
For now, stick with your fully terrestrial applications of converting
solar energy into LH2 or whatever, because we can accomplish that much
as of more than a decade ago.
- Brad Guth -
BradGuth
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Your math is too much WorldFactBook, and not enough real world truth
as to the amount of energy we silly humans are consuming and/or
allowing to go unchecked, and we will likely consume a great deal more
of in the future even if the population doesn't expand.
We need those clean terrestrial teraWatts in surplus as of yesterday.
- Brad Guth -
Willie...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
And I can make money today - which when accumulated - is another
source of power.
Willie...@gmail.com
I agree. That's the only way prices will stabilize, and economic
growth can occur generally across the planet. If I am as successful
and lucky and blessed as J P Getty with his oil refining process, I
can expect to control 15% of the world's energy market in 15 years
using terrestrial systems. Once large tracts of terrestrial systems
are installed in sunny regions of the planet they will be augmented
with space solar laser systems and I will control 60% of the world's
energy market (most of it newly developed, none really taken from
today's suppliers) in 25 years.
At that point I will have to take a look around and see what needs
doing then.
BradGuth
Count me in, because it's the few and far between good guys that'll
save our energy sucking and environment polluting butts. The likes of
yourself, Warren Buffet and even I can accomplish a great many
wholesome things that are constructive and otherwise positive on
behalf of salvaging our environment and sustaining the growth of
humanity that'll need all the clean and renewable energy they can get.
Here's my none-WorldFactBook revised terrestrial energy budget;
64,000 TW / direct global solar photon influx upon surface
16,000 TW / currents, winds, tides, rivers and moon (could easily
become 32,000 TW)
8,000 TW / photosynthesis potential (total PV @12.5%, not including
Stirling options)
4,000 TW / potential of sustained geothermal energy draw w/o
foreseeable planet harm
-
24+ TW / humans + our industry (extracted from fossil, renewable
and nuclear)
100 TW / human industry 2100AD (extracted from fossil, renewable
and nuclear)
The ongoing force of gravity from our Earth/moon orbital related
process, if such force were converted into available surface joules
and then into watt hour energy = 7.2e23 w.h (7.2e11 TW)
If merely 0.0001% of that gravity/tidal energy were converted into
matters of internal and fluid friction induced heating = 7,200 TW
In other words, if not for the energy contributed by our physically
dark and somewhat salty old moon, Earth would become extensively iced
over because our sun is simply not as bright and toasty enough for
sharing sufficient energy by itself, especially if mother Earth were
any more reflective.
According to others in their planetology field of expertise, Earth is
continually losing roughly 40 TW.h from our core, and otherwise humans
have been converting fossil, bio/renewable and nuclear energy into
contributing roughly 24 TW.h, that's obviously contributing to our AGW
before eventually leaving Earth, for a grand energy exit budget tally
of 64 TW.h and growing.
Life in a sealed biosphere, whereas only the bad stuff remains within
our environment for us frail humans and all other life to deal with,
whereas the squeaky clean energy that wouldn't hurt a fly just keeps
radiating away. Therefore, we humans are in fact heating up our
surface environment, but having more so been contributing our energy
byproducts of soot along with those pesky toxic elements of CO2 and
NOx like there's no tomorrow. What we badly need is lots more energy
that's squeaky clean and the most end-user efficient without the all-
inclusive end result generating soot or those invisible byproducts of
CO2 and NOx, of which this has been doable if extracting the bulk of
that new and improved energy from the sun and our moon, avoiding those
various other fossil or biofuel alternatives that depend upon
consuming such horrific volumes of our mostly N2 and sooty water
saturated atmosphere.
To argue against this logic is to show your true colors, as for being
in favor of greed, arrogance and insurmountable bigotry that's of more
faith-based ideology than not. To contribute on behalf of
constructively resolving such issues in the most affordable manner is
being humanly intelligent, along with awareness and remorse for
mistakes made and for an honest focus towards taking the best of our
talents and resources in the proper direction, instead of continually
sequestered back into the dark ages where only the rich get richer and
the poor that can't possibly get any poorer simply get dead (and
apparently especially dead if you're a Muslim sitting on an oily
rock).
Excluding all of those interesting but unavoidably spendy off-world
energy alternatives that are never as good for the bottom line as
projected by their promoters, we have upon or within Earth more than
what's necessary in order to safely manage our clean energy future
well past the 2100AD mark, that is if we can manage to avoid WWIII,
WWIV and WWV to end all such silly wars because we've used up every
last drop, m3 and/or tonne of fossil and yellowcake reserves in the
faith-based process of exterminating one another.
If we're to go off-world for our future energy, it'll have to be
accomplished in a very big way, and eventually it'll likely have to
include the relocation of our moon's orbit being moderated all the way
out to the halo station-keeping realm of Earth's L1, and in addition
to those nifty Willie Moo SBLs, there will have to be the tethered LSE-
CM/ISS along with it's tether dipole element that'll reach to within
2r of Earth.
- Brad Guth -
Ian Parker
In the case of an asteroid one wouold have to have a pilot spacecraft
where the Asteroid will be a double journey into the future.
- Ian Parker
Willie...@gmail.com
On my google groups tree this is response 41 when sorted by reply, and
for the life of me I cannot bring up response 40 - so I don't know
what to say there.
Beaming a tiny spot to an asteroid is a matter of figuring out the
wavelength and the Rayleigh criterion. The assertion you make here -
and the conclusion - doesn't make any sense - so you've missed
something friend.
If we are to seriously consider asteroid capture, or its twin,
asteroid deflection, using sunlight, then we need lots and lots of
power. That means we'll have to dip in close to the sun - this is
several powersat generations away - and it won't be the first thing we
build. But we WILL use micro-nuclear triggered fusion pulse - to get
rid of nuclear materials relatively cleanly - in a variety of ways in
space - one of which is to develop techniques of moving asteroidal
materials swiftly around the solar system.
Consider though in the far future, a thin film automated system of
cells, that use a combination of solar wind and light pressure to
navigate to a region inside the orbit of Mercury. These cells -
manufactured and sent into space - operate at a relatively high temp,
and so can withstand being a few million km from the surface of the
sun. They are stationary held above the sun by a combination light
pressure and solar wind. The cells join together to form a mat - by
self-assembly - and they coordinate with each other by all seeing the
same reference laser from the target - beamed from anywhere in the
solar system. In this way laser emitters several hundred kilometers
across - operating at 1 MW per sq meter or more - can be contemplated.
Forward contemplated using fresnel lenses to collimate large solar
pumped lasers - in the TW range - to project light efficiently to
laser light sail spacecraft.
Here, we are using advanced laser beaming technology at the emitter
itself, combined with very large structures, located close to the sun,
to produce similar beams.
sin theta-r = 1.22 * lambda / diam
where lambda = 1 micron (1e-9 m)
diam = 20 km (2e4 m)
so, sin theta-r = 6.1e-14
Now, a spot 20 cm in diameter can be formed 1.2 billion km away.from a
20 km diameter emitter using 1 micron wavelength radiation. Emitting
1 MW per sq m - a 20 km diam disk emits a total of 314 TW. This
heat source operating a thermal rocket having an ejection speed of 10
km/sec - can produce a steady thrust of;
F = P/(2V) = 3.14e14 / (2*10,000) = 15.7 GN = 1.6 million metric
tons force
So, a spherical mass of 1 km with a density of 2 g/cc - has a mass of
8 billion metric tons. - and can be accelerated continuously at 7 m/s
per hour. (1/5000th gee)
To impart a delta vee of 7 km/sec (which is typical of moving an
object from the asteroid belt) requires 1000 hours of illumination by
this source. 8 objects per year can be handled by this single source
- harvesting 64 billion metric tons of material into MEO each year -
10 tons for every man woman and child on the planet.
Since the asteroid itself is ejected as the rocket exhaust - we can
estimate how much of the asteroid will be used up;
u = 1 - 1/exp(7/10) = 0.5034 = 50.34%
About half.. part at the outset, part when braking into Earth orbit.
So, 5 tons for every man woman and child on the planet.
First, there would be a survey of all the small bodies inthe solar
system, and then they would be rated for their value. The highest
value objects would then be harvested.
While the survey is going on the sun-centerd solar powered laser
system is built.
The solar powered laser then beams energy to a manned spacecraft that
travels to the asteroid, and erects a solar powered thermal rocket
describes - it also uses laser energy to process the asteroid into
portions to keep and portions to eject in the rocket.
A small safety team stays on the asteroid, riding it back to Earth on
a minimum energy orbit - and making sure all system operate as planned
- and the main spacecraft, goes to the next target.
Five years - R&D - Five years construction - Five years - mission.
A five year mission - haha- would collect 40 asteroids totalling some
160 billion metric tons of highly useful materials into MEO.
Those asteroids would then be processed by orbiting factories - solar
powered of course - via telerobotics (light delay negligible) - which
then deorbit products directly to users on Earth - or deliver them
anywhere in the cislunar system they're needed.
This will form the basis of the first space farm, and space home
developments. And support the large scale movement of people off
Earth into space - aboard their own space colonies.
.
IsaacKuo
> If we are to seriously consider asteroid capture, or its twin,
> asteroid deflection, using sunlight, then we need lots and lots of
> power. That means we'll have to dip in close to the sun - this is
> several powersat generations away - and it won't be the first thing we
> build.
> Consider though in the far future, a thin film automated system of
> cells, that use a combination of solar wind and light pressure to
> navigate to a region inside the orbit of Mercury. These cells -
> manufactured and sent into space - operate at a relatively high temp,
> and so can withstand being a few million km from the surface of the
> sun. They are stationary held above the sun by a combination light
> pressure and solar wind. The cells join together to form a mat - by
> self-assembly - and they coordinate with each other by all seeing the
> same reference laser from the target - beamed from anywhere in the
> solar system. In this way laser emitters several hundred kilometers
> across - operating at 1 MW per sq meter or more - can be contemplated.
Instead of something involving lots of control electronics and
kept down to statite mass levels, I think a simple solar pumped
laser amplifier sheet would be best.
> Forward contemplated using fresnel lenses to collimate large solar
> pumped lasers - in the TW range - to project light efficiently to
> laser light sail spacecraft.
The laser amplifier sheet can be integrated with a fresnel lens.
The stationkeeping and rigidity requirements for both the
amplifier and fresnel lens are quite modest.
The key to aiming and firing this laser system is a relatively
low power "seed" laser. The seed laser is a relatively small
and compact solar pumped laser, which shoots a conical
beam at the main laser amplifier/fresnel lens. The beam is
focused and aimed by moving the seed laser.
Isaac Kuo
Willie...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
That's another way yes. If solar intensity is high to pump it.
I prefer pilot beams - think of seed beams from the targets themselves
- that way there are no rigidity requirements and multiple targets can
'ask' for power at the same time - with zero control at the seed or
satellite.
Controls and navigation and whatnot - if standardized across machine
elements - or 'cells' - need not be a huge mass fraction - or
especially burdensome to the system - but having replacable parts that
can automatically arrive and depart under solar wind/sunlight pressure
- is a true benefit.
Cells can be built on the moon, or Mars, and shot into interplanetary
space via electromagnetic cannon - and broken cells can fly back under
light pressure to be fixed.
A thin film system can navigate around quite handily.
MEMs based components can be standardized and make a quite capable and
flexible system.
BradGuth
establishing Willie Moo's SBLs for the good of all life on Earth,
simply isn't quite good enough use of this Usenet unless others can
keep proving how they can remote shut it down or merely disable and/or
modify most any given feature.
Not that hardly anyone in this greater Usenet naysay land gives an
honest hoot, but it looks as though they've gone and done it again.
Rabbi Deco and his brown-nosed Yid minion and fellow rusemaster
Griffin are each going around like crazy sniffing butts. It's simply
what such old dogs do best, and no matters what they can't seem to
ever get enough of what other Yid butts smell and taste like.
Believe it or not, with that much Yiddish buttology snarfing going on,
now they've somehow managed to break GOOGLE's "Sort by date"
function. Is that good insider MIB damage control, or what?
- Brad Guth -
Ian Parker
> On Sep 18, 11:56 am, Ian Parker <ianpark...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > One further point on phase mirrors. They will not work in deep space.
> > In the case of an asteroid one wouold have to have a pilot spacecraft
> > where the Asteroid will be a double journey into the future.
>
> > - Ian Parker
>
> On my google groups tree this is response 41 when sorted by reply, and
> for the life of me I cannot bring up response 40 - so I don't know
> what to say there.
I'm sorry. I had that rather as an afterthought. The pure phase mirror
will work only for stationary targets. For targets aroung the Earth
you have about 1/3 sec. For the asteroid it might be up to 1hr.
>
> Beaming a tiny spot to an asteroid is a matter of figuring out the
> wavelength and the Rayleigh criterion. The assertion you make here -
> and the conclusion - doesn't make any sense - so you've missed
> something friend.
>
> If we are to seriously consider asteroid capture, or its twin,
> asteroid deflection, using sunlight, then we need lots and lots of
> power. That means we'll have to dip in close to the sun - this is
> several powersat generations away - and it won't be the first thing we
> build. But we WILL use micro-nuclear triggered fusion pulse - to get
> rid of nuclear materials relatively cleanly - in a variety of ways in
> space - one of which is to develop techniques of moving asteroidal
> materials swiftly around the solar system.
I don't think I have missed anything. At 200m km you have 2*10^11
wavelenths. This means that 1.22d1.d2= 2*10^11 wavelengths or
2.44*10^5m^2. If we focus a 10m beam on asteroid this gives us a
diameter of 2.44*10^4m. 24km. Is that possible. One point which is
often missed when discussing this is the fact of phase coherence
across an array. This is really the point I am trying to get across.
If you have a single laster with a 10cm mirror that will extend to
500m at 42,000km. If you have a phased array however you can focus
onto points < 1m in size.
Of course we do everything in parallel. We are looking at orbits as of
now. As I said in my first contribution to the thread on the NASA
report, a laser system would determine the orbit more precisely, give
greater warning and add up to a far lower delta v.
> The solar powered laser then beams energy to a manned spacecraft that
> travels to the asteroid, and erects a solar powered thermal rocket
> describes - it also uses laser energy to process the asteroid into
> portions to keep and portions to eject in the rocket.
>
The idea of a nuclear bomb is that it vaporizes the surface thereby
proving a small delta v. A laser would essentially do the same thing
but act over a longer time period.
> A small safety team stays on the asteroid, riding it back to Earth on
> a minimum energy orbit - and making sure all system operate as planned
> - and the main spacecraft, goes to the next target.
You don't send it back to Earth, you simply deflect it so that it goes
close to the Earth but does not collide. That is the basic idea.
>
> Five years - R&D - Five years construction - Five years - mission.
>
> A five year mission - haha- would collect 40 asteroids totalling some
> 160 billion metric tons of highly useful materials into MEO.
>
> Those asteroids would then be processed by orbiting factories - solar
> powered of course - via telerobotics (light delay negligible) - which
> then deorbit products directly to users on Earth - or deliver them
> anywhere in the cislunar system they're needed.
>
> This will form the basis of the first space farm, and space home
> developments. And support the large scale movement of people off
> Earth into space - aboard their own space colonies.
>
This sort of scenario provides a way of gradually building up. In any
project you need to have intermediate stages or it wil never be built.
As all of you are probably aware my "hobbyhorse" is AI and robatics
and there seems little doubt that a solar complex would rapidly
develop into a Von Neumann complex in the way that you suggest. I
thought at one point that a VN machine would be needed to build
lasers. If you have a carbon slurry in liquid hydrogen and low launch
costs this may not be the case. Any engineering on asteroids has to be
thought of in a Von Neumann context.
- Ian Parker
Willie...@gmail.com
Please point to what you're talking about. I see the 1.22 factor in
there, so it looks like Rayleigh limit,
But I divide, not multiply to get the Rayleigh limit
sin(theta-r) = 1.22 lambda / diam
= 1.22 * 1e-6 / 24e6
= 5.083e-14
And the radius around the center line of the Airy disk at a range of
200 million km from a 24 km diameter emitter you have;
R = 5.083e-14 * 2e11 = 1 cm
at 20 billion km
R = 5.083e-14 * 2e14 = 1 m
I think we're talking past each other. I should have said, I missed
what you were saying...
A laser film with active optical film layered together - responding to
a 'seed' to use your terminology AT the target - emitting 1 MW or more
of laser energy per square meter is what I'm talking about. Several
of these films operating together to form an array of phase controlled
elements 20 km wide or more is what I'm talking about.
Now, what's the commercial value of this infrastructure? The answer
obviously is to gather the riches of the solar system to bring back to
Earth and its people to use commercially. And payback with some
return the folks who put the money into building it in the first
place. As a side benefit, all the objects in the solar system will
have been surveyed, and all the objects that will collide with the
Earth will be deflected - a new epoch will have arrived for the people
of Earth.
> One point which is
> often missed when discussing this is the fact of phase coherence
> across an array.
Right. That's the point of the pilot beam from the target. You can
set it up so that a 'seed' beam as you called it, could be used as a
reference. Basic holography really - and that reference could direct
the energy to another point. But to my way of thinking a pilot beam
FROM the target is a simple solution. The ability to direct the beam
elsewhere -other than where the pilot or seed beam comes from- and
change its phase across the surface- can be used for a wide range of
applications though - and I do have a notion how this can be used to
provide some interesting safety and reliability features going
forward. Even to charge customers for their power use! lol.
> This is really the point I am trying to get across.
This is an important point. It lets you use flexible films and yet
coordinate their actions as a single device. It also lets multiple
emitters act as a single device as well. I think I wasn't clear that
the pilot beam concept I spoke of decades ago is precisely this.
> If you have a single laster with a 10cm mirror that will extend to
> 500m at 42,000km. If you have a phased array however you can focus
> onto points < 1m in size.
What are you saying here?
1.22 lambda / diam = 1.22 1.0e-6 / 1.0e-1 = 1.22e-5 = sin theta-r
R = sin theta-r * 42e6 m = 1.22e-5 * 42e6 = 512.4 m
This is the Rayleigh limit for a 10 cm diameter system. 1 m is far
smaller than this. So, you are saying that an array of points with
phase control can exceed the Rayleigh criterion!
So I must ask. Do you have any references for that? Pointers to peer
reviewed papers and such?
I'm really not tracking what you're saying because in this instance
you're saying you can do better than Rayleigh tells us, and above
you're saying we do considerably worse.
So, a pointer to your source material would be great. I'll study it
and get back with you.
Correct. You are doing something much more limited than I am
suggesting. You are looking for small bodies from Earth and then
beaming energy to asteroids that will one day strike the Earth - from
Earth based lasers - as they approach.
> > The solar powered laser then beams energy to a manned spacecraft that
> > travels to the asteroid, and erects a solar powered thermal rocket
> > describes - it also uses laser energy to process the asteroid into
> > portions to keep and portions to eject in the rocket.
>
> The idea of a nuclear bomb is that it vaporizes the surface thereby
> proving a small delta v. A laser would essentially do the same thing
> but act over a longer time period.
Correct. A shaped nuclear charge that vaporizes a well defined
region. The energy in both cases are comparable however.
> > A small safety team stays on the asteroid, riding it back to Earth on
> > a minimum energy orbit - and making sure all system operate as planned
> > - and the main spacecraft, goes to the next target.
>
> You don't send it back to Earth, you simply deflect it so that it goes
> close to the Earth but does not collide. That is the basic idea.
That's YOUR idea. And it has ZERO immediate economic utility. It
avoids disaster sure, so it does have some utility and is worth doing
- like paying your insurance premium. Actually better than paying
your insurance premium, it avoids disaster. But MY idea is to take it
up a notch. Build an infrastructure than can RETURN RICH ASTEROIDS TO
EARTH ORBIT - they don't hit the Earth either. They enter a
controlled well defined polar orbit. Once there, they are visited by
private developers who have paid for the right to build solar powered
factories that extract the material process it in space using sunlight
as an energy source and return the processed material to customers
anywhere they are found in the solar system. But principally to
Earth. The same technology that brought us JDAMs can also bring us
low cost entry carriers that deliver products made in space precisely
to customers anywhere in cislunar space.
This could be done in an unpiloted mode - but that would be after
extensive testing and a few successful piloted missions.
> > Five years - R&D - Five years construction - Five years - mission.
>
> > A five year mission - haha- would collect 40 asteroids totalling some
> > 160 billion metric tons of highly useful materials into MEO.
>
> > Those asteroids would then be processed by orbiting factories - solar
> > powered of course - via telerobotics (light delay negligible) - which
> > then deorbit products directly to users on Earth - or deliver them
> > anywhere in the cislunar system they're needed.
>
> > This will form the basis of the first space farm, and space home
> > developments. And support the large scale movement of people off
> > Earth into space - aboard their own space colonies.
>
> This sort of scenario provides a way of gradually building up. In any
> project you need to have intermediate stages or it wil never be built.
You have to have the prospect of immediate returns or you will be left
hat in hand begging the government to give you the money. Large
resources are routinely developed by humanity. Look at large undersea
oil and gas reserves. Tens of billions of dollars are spent by major
companies over decades to develop the technology and bring the
resource to market. Provided they have a clear ownership right, and a
clear idea of what sort of value they're creating.
Telling folks that you will avoid a catastrophe that might happen in
the next 65 million years - doesn't get anyone off the dime either.
Saying something bad could happen in the next 100 years - doesn't do
much either.
But if you can prove to folks that - lookee here - here is a list of
strategic materials that is important to the industrial development of
Earth. Here is the rate at which we use these materials today. If a
world of 10 billion people had a per capita use rate equal to that of
every American - here is what would be needed. There is a huge
difference. Lets remove the military infrastructure to revise some of
them downward. There's still a huge shortage. Where to get it? Now
show them some spectra of asteroids that indicate its out there. Show
them some photos of asteroids. Show them pictures showing the orbits
of 30,000 known small bodies. Show them estimates of the actual
numbers. Then show them you can retrieve all the strategic material
industry will need for the next 100 years - within 15 years - by
funding a program today - and with 50% ownership - they'll make 30%
per year return compounded... and they'll be able to diversify their
risk and earn profits on their investments in as little as 5 years
when the whole thing is at a stage it is bankable and listable.
> As all of you are probably aware my "hobbyhorse" is AI and robatics
> and there seems little doubt that a solar complex would rapidly
> develop into a Von Neumann complex in the way that you suggest. I
> thought at one point that a VN machine would be needed to build
> lasers.
Yes. That's a whole 'nother kettle of fish and tying the two
technologies together merely delays the day it arrives. Sort of like
AND gating all our technologies haha.. When EVERYTHING is done, we'll
be in heaven! lol. Well, lets see what we can do now?.
I've spoken to some folks who have built high-velocity guns and rail
guns and they believe we can do a lot with off-the-shelf technology.
Gerald Bull and others have felt since the 1960s that we could shoot
stuff into orbit. We could build laser elements TODAY and shoot them
into space very cheaply with cannons at 5,000 gees. We could do it
with Earth based lasers as well - 5 gees to 50 gees - depending on the
size of the system and what you're sending into space. But whether
you settle on rail guns, super-cannons, or laser propulsion - you can
send lots of 100 kg payloads off world very cheaply - and feed the
launchers with a factory that churns out your basic laser element.
This can be done today.
Then, once you have your laser element navigating above the solar
surface - beaming TW of energy under your radio command.. then you
can launch a survey ship that uses that energy to zip around the solar
system to check out candidates that you have already identified. Then
you process the asteroid using the laser into stuff you want to keep,
and stuff you want to eject. And ferry the stuff back to Earth
orbit.
> If you have a carbon slurry in liquid hydrogen and low launch
> costs this may not be the case.
Well this is an interesting technology - but super-cannons have
already been built, though none have yet attained orbit, they are
certainly capable of it. Rail guns too are capable of it. Laser
propulsion - more speculative - should be capable of it, and since
we're postulating super lasers, it makes sense to put that in the game
plan.
> Any engineering on asteroids has to be
> thought of in a Von Neumann context.
Why? You just said that if we had low launch costs that would
change.
In fact, you could create small 10 kg to 100 kg robots launched by the
same cannon as the solar pumped laser. These solar powered robots use
solar sails to fly to the asteroids - and call in laser blasts from
the solar laser when they're done sorting through the asteroidal
material. We build them by the millions in factories right here on
Earth and launch them by the millions with rail guns or laser
launchers.. and they spread throughout the solar system - processing
the richest asteroidal materials - readying them to be brought back to
Earth orbit.
These are automated - sure - but they're not self-reproducing. So,
they can be built today.
A $50 million study - resulting in a couple of factories costing a
few billion dollars each, and a launcher infrastructure costing the
same, and an operating budget of a few billion a year to build the
solar laser elements and the asteroidal crawlers - and in 10 years the
first material will be arriving in polar orbit above Earth. Then,
development rights are sold, along with transfer to the orbiting
bodies.. remotely controlled factories provide employment for
everyone on Earth, and everyone on Earth receives products delivered
directly from space factories that fly overhead twice a day.
During the solar system wide survey that supports this effort there
are noted orbits of objects that will one day collide with Earth.
These are deflected to safer orbits - as a public service.
Ian Parker
> > I don't think I have missed anything. At 200m km you have 2*10^11
> > wavelenths. This means that 1.22d1.d2= 2*10^11 wavelengths or
> > 2.44*10^5m^2. If we focus a 10m beam on asteroid this gives us a
> > diameter of 2.44*10^4m. 24km. Is that possible.
>
> Please point to what you're talking about. I see the 1.22 factor in
> there, so it looks like Rayleigh limit,
The 10m spot on the asteroid is at the first minimum of a circular
aperture. It is Rayleigh,
>
> But I divide, not multiply to get the Rayleigh limit
>
> sin(theta-r) = 1.22 lambda / diam
> = 1.22 * 1e-6 / 24e6
> = 5.083e-14
>
You multiply to get the apeture.
> And the radius around the center line of the Airy disk at a range of
> 200 million km from a 24 km diameter emitter you have;
>
> R = 5.083e-14 * 2e11 = 1 cm
>
24km 1.22lambda/d radians or 1.22/24*10^9 or 5*10^-11 radians = at
200million km or 200*10^9m or 2*10^11m 2*10^11 * 5*10^-11 = 10m
> at 20 billion km
>
> R = 5.083e-14 * 2e14 = 1 m
>
> I think we're talking past each other. I should have said, I missed
> what you were saying...
I think you are right. I think too we were talking about different
things. NASA was talking about planetary defense. You are talking
about using asteroids.
>
> A laser film with active optical film layered together - responding to
> a 'seed' to use your terminology AT the target - emitting 1 MW or more
> of laser energy per square meter is what I'm talking about. Several
> of these films operating together to form an array of phase controlled
> elements 20 km wide or more is what I'm talking about.
>
> Now, what's the commercial value of this infrastructure? The answer
> obviously is to gather the riches of the solar system to bring back to
> Earth and its people to use commercially. And payback with some
> return the folks who put the money into building it in the first
> place. As a side benefit, all the objects in the solar system will
> have been surveyed, and all the objects that will collide with the
> Earth will be deflected - a new epoch will have arrived for the people
> of Earth.
This is true.
> > Of course we do everything in parallel. We are looking at orbits as of
> > now. As I said in my first contribution to the thread on the NASA
> > report, a laser system would determine the orbit more precisely, give
> > greater warning and add up to a far lower delta v.
>
> Correct. You are doing something much more limited than I am
> suggesting. You are looking for small bodies from Earth and then
> beaming energy to asteroids that will one day strike the Earth - from
> Earth based lasers - as they approach.
>
>
> > The idea of a nuclear bomb is that it vaporizes the surface thereby
> > proving a small delta v. A laser would essentially do the same thing
> > but act over a longer time period.
>
> Correct. A shaped nuclear charge that vaporizes a well defined
> region. The energy in both cases are comparable however.
>
> > You don't send it back to Earth, you simply deflect it so that it goes
> > close to the Earth but does not collide. That is the basic idea.
>
> That's YOUR idea. And it has ZERO immediate economic utility. It
> avoids disaster sure, so it does have some utility and is worth doing
> - like paying your insurance premium. Actually better than paying
> your insurance premium, it avoids disaster. But MY idea is to take it
> up a notch. Build an infrastructure than can RETURN RICH ASTEROIDS TO
> EARTH ORBIT - they don't hit the Earth either. They enter a
> controlled well defined polar orbit. Once there, they are visited by
> private developers who have paid for the right to build solar powered
> factories that extract the material process it in space using sunlight
> as an energy source and return the processed material to customers
> anywhere they are found in the solar system. But principally to
> Earth. The same technology that brought us JDAMs can also bring us
> low cost entry carriers that deliver products made in space precisely
> to customers anywhere in cislunar space.
>
> This could be done in an unpiloted mode - but that would be after
> extensive testing and a few successful piloted missions.
>
This is the basic gravitational well concept. Asteroids do not have a
well.
If you do this there is one thing for sure. Ion drive will be able to
reach anywhere in the solar system fast and cheaply. Also here a
reminder of the Forward interstellar proposal may not be out of place
here.
Of course the interesting fact is that a Forward probe (interstellar)
is going to be the end result. However there are a lot of intermediate
goodies in what you propose, so the chance of it getting off the
ground is increased.
> > This sort of scenario provides a way of gradually building up. In any
> > project you need to have intermediate stages or it wil never be built.
>
> You have to have the prospect of immediate returns or you will be left
> hat in hand begging the government to give you the money. Large
> resources are routinely developed by humanity. Look at large undersea
> oil and gas reserves. Tens of billions of dollars are spent by major
> companies over decades to develop the technology and bring the
> resource to market. Provided they have a clear ownership right, and a
> clear idea of what sort of value they're creating.
>
> Telling folks that you will avoid a catastrophe that might happen in
> the next 65 million years - doesn't get anyone off the dime either.
> Saying something bad could happen in the next 100 years - doesn't do
> much either.
>
65 million years ago it was really big. There have been a lot of
impacts since, not quite so big. Spephen Hawking says we should go
into space to safeguard the Earth. Risks fall into two categories.
There are the natural risks 65 million BP and all that. Also
Yellowstone and other surpervolcanoes have erupted fairly regularly.
In fact if you had mirrors which could direct sunlight directly onto
the Earth you will recover far more quickly from a Yellowstone event.
There are the political and military risks. To me going into space
because of "political" risks is not a sound policy - if nothing ellse
for the simple reason that space will not solve the problems and could
easily make them worse.
In fact dangerous events occur far more often than once every 65
million years.
> But if you can prove to folks that - lookee here - here is a list of
> strategic materials that is important to the industrial development of
> Earth. Here is the rate at which we use these materials today. If a
> world of 10 billion people had a per capita use rate equal to that of
> every American - here is what would be needed. There is a huge
> difference. Lets remove the military infrastructure to revise some of
> them downward.
And some of the existential risks. The question of military
expenditures, and the fact that the peoples on Earth are unable to
live together, is something profoundly worrying. Space alone will not
solve it.
> There's still a huge shortage. Where to get it? Now
> show them some spectra of asteroids that indicate its out there. Show
> them some photos of asteroids. Show them pictures showing the orbits
> of 30,000 known small bodies. Show them estimates of the actual
> numbers. Then show them you can retrieve all the strategic material
> industry will need for the next 100 years - within 15 years - by
> funding a program today - and with 50% ownership - they'll make 30%
> per year return compounded... and they'll be able to diversify their
> risk and earn profits on their investments in as little as 5 years
> when the whole thing is at a stage it is bankable and listable.
>
> > As all of you are probably aware my "hobbyhorse" is AI and robatics
> > and there seems little doubt that a solar complex would rapidly
> > develop into a Von Neumann complex in the way that you suggest. I
> > thought at one point that a VN machine would be needed to build
> > lasers.
>
> Yes. That's a whole 'nother kettle of fish and tying the two
> technologies together merely delays the day it arrives. Sort of like
> AND gating all our technologies haha.. When EVERYTHING is done, we'll
> be in heaven! lol. Well, lets see what we can do now?.
>
I do not think so. In fact I think that such a program will
"sleepwalk" into VN. Non Neumann himself postulated a robot with a
fuse which would put fuses into all the other robots. This is
replication at its simplest! I feel that a flatpack assembler will
make a VN machine inevitable.
> I've spoken to some folks who have built high-velocity guns and rail
> guns and they believe we can do a lot with off-the-shelf technology.
> Gerald Bull and others have felt since the 1960s that we could shoot
> stuff into orbit. We could build laser elements TODAY and shoot them
> into space very cheaply with cannons at 5,000 gees. We could do it
> with Earth based lasers as well - 5 gees to 50 gees - depending on the
> size of the system and what you're sending into space. But whether
> you settle on rail guns, super-cannons, or laser propulsion - you can
> send lots of 100 kg payloads off world very cheaply - and feed the
> launchers with a factory that churns out your basic laser element.
> This can be done today.
>
I think the best way to get lasers into space fairly short term is to
use them as your "cheap" launch system. What in fact would be needed
is experiments on liquid hydrogen and carbon.
> Then, once you have your laser element navigating above the solar
> surface - beaming TW of energy under your radio command.. then you
> can launch a survey ship that uses that energy to zip around the solar
> system to check out candidates that you have already identified. Then
> you process the asteroid using the laser into stuff you want to keep,
> and stuff you want to eject. And ferry the stuff back to Earth
> orbit.
>
> > If you have a carbon slurry in liquid hydrogen and low launch
> > costs this may not be the case.
>
> Well this is an interesting technology - but super-cannons have
> already been built, though none have yet attained orbit, they are
> certainly capable of it. Rail guns too are capable of it. Laser
> propulsion - more speculative - should be capable of it, and since
> we're postulating super lasers, it makes sense to put that in the game
> plan.
>
> > Any engineering on asteroids has to be
> > thought of in a Von Neumann context.
>
> Why? You just said that if we had low launch costs that would
> change.
I think you will sleepwalk into it. If you build more lasers out of
asteroid material you are probably pretty close. If you want a large
array you still need space manufacturing. You will find yourself
creating everything except perhaps for the really sophisticated chips.
>
> In fact, you could create small 10 kg to 100 kg robots launched by the
> same cannon as the solar pumped laser. These solar powered robots use
> solar sails to fly to the asteroids - and call in laser blasts from
> the solar laser when they're done sorting through the asteroidal
> material. We build them by the millions in factories right here on
> Earth and launch them by the millions with rail guns or laser
> launchers.. and they spread throughout the solar system - processing
> the richest asteroidal materials - readying them to be brought back to
> Earth orbit.
>
> These are automated - sure - but they're not self-reproducing. So,
> they can be built today.
>
> A $50 million study - resulting in a couple of factories costing a
> few billion dollars each, and a launcher infrastructure costing the
> same, and an operating budget of a few billion a year to build the
> solar laser elements and the asteroidal crawlers - and in 10 years the
> first material will be arriving in polar orbit above Earth. Then,
> development rights are sold, along with transfer to the orbiting
> bodies.. remotely controlled factories provide employment for
> everyone on Earth, and everyone on Earth receives products delivered
> directly from space factories that fly overhead twice a day.
>
Providing employment in an increasingly autmated age is going to be a
major problem. Perhaps at some point coal will have to be painted
white.
IsaacKuo
> Right. That's the point of the pilot beam from the target. You can
> set it up so that a 'seed' beam as you called it, could be used as a
> reference. Basic holography really - and that reference could direct
> the energy to another point. But to my way of thinking a pilot beam
> FROM the target is a simple solution.
A beam from the target won't provide useful phase information,
unless combined with other reference beams. Holography
works only if the hologram in question is perfectly rigid to
within the wavelength divided by 4*sin(theta/2) (where theta is
the diffraction angle). With a pilot beam from the target,
this means the array must be rigid within 1/4 the wavelength.
But if the array is that rigid, then you really don't need the
pilot beam at all.
Contrast this with a gabor zone plate lens, combined with
a far away "seed laser" drone behind the lens. In this case,
the diffraction angle is very nearly zero. Thus, the lens
does not need to be very rigid in order to efficiently
function. (A gabor zone plate is a hologram.)
If you use multiple reference beams, each in rigid formation
to within 1/4 wavelength, then it's possible to integrate the
beam information in a way to get perfect phase alignment
in any direction. This requires active processing, rather
than a passive hologram.
Isaac Kuo
BradGuth
> In 1996 I wrote in these newsgroups about an idea I had worked out
> about using thin film reflectors inflated on orbit to concentrate
> sunlight onto a solar pumped laser. That laser beam would be beamed
> to receivers on the ground which would convert the power to
> electricity and thermal energy for industrial use. Overall efficiency
> would be 40%
>
> I was roundly attacked by all - and so, it was with great interest
> that I read the following on yahoo news service in 2007;
>
> http://green.yahoo.com/index.php?q=node/1521
>
> I am fully justified in my earlier statements - and all those who
> mercilessly attacked me have been proved dead wrong in their negative
> assessments of my ideas.
Willie Moo's SBLs are clearly a spendy alternative of obtaining clean
energy, but at least technically doable as is. His terrestrial
alternatives are actually a whole lot more doable, as is.
The total worth of raw solar energy influx potential that's
continually impacting Earth and that of our sooty/polluted atmosphere
is worth 7.2e17 w.h or 720,000 TW.h, and by most any standard it's
rather clean energy, other than populated with loads of nasty UV b/c,
X-rays and even for having a few of its own halo CME gamma rays that
are not exactly human DNA friendly.
Down to Earth; here's my none-WorldFactBook revised terrestrial energy
budget;
64,000 TW / direct global solar photon influx that gets through to the
surface
16,000 TW / currents, winds, tides, rivers and moon (this conservative
amount could just as easily become worth 32,000 TW)
8,000 TW / photosynthesis potential (total PV @12.5% eff, not
including Stirling options, which without much effort could become
worthy of 16,000 TW)
4,000 TW / potential of sustained geothermal energy draw w/o
foreseeable planet harm could easily be pushed to 8,000 TW.
- the all-inclusive human demand -
24+ TW / humans + our industry (extracted from fossil, renewable
and nuclear)
100 TW / human+industry 2100AD (extracted from fossil, renewable
and nuclear)
On behalf of off-world resources clean and renewable energy, there's a
great deal of nearby space-based energy that's clearly in addition to
those Willie Moo SBLs that are solar pumped for all they're worth:
In addition there's a dosage of IR moonshine, as well as an ongoing
force of orbit gravity that's always existing as our Earth/moon
orbital related process, whereas if such a force were converted
into available surface joules of energy, and then into watt hour
energy = 7.2e23 w.h (7.2e11 TW)
If merely 0.0001% of that orbital gravity/tidal energy were getting
converted into those matters of having been contributing into our
surface and internal fluid friction induced heating = 7,200 TW or
roughly speaking 1% of the solar energy influx.
In other words, if it were not for the energy contributed by our
physically dark and somewhat salty old moon, Earth would become
extensively iced over because, our sun alone is simply not as bright
and toasty enough for sharing sufficient energy all by itself,
especially if mother Earth were any more reflective, as it had to have
been in those multiple ice-age past times that were simply of much
worse off cycles before Earth obtained that moon.
According to others in their planetology field of expertise, Earth is
continually losing roughly 40 TW.h away from our geothermal core, and
otherwise humans have been converting fossil, bio/renewable and
yellowcake derived nuclear energy into contributing roughly 24 TW.h,
that's obviously directly contributing to our AGW before such energy
eventually leaves Earth, for a grand energy exit budget tally of 64
TW.h and growing. Of course along with more atmospheric suspended h2o
and subsequently nighttime cloud coverage is exactly why less of that
energy is leaving Earth.
Life in a sealed biosphere such as Earth, whereas only the bad stuff
remains within our environment for us frail humans and all other more
important life to deal with, whereas the squeaky clean energy that
wouldn't hurt a fly just keeps radiating away. Therefore, we humans
are in fact heating up our surface environment, but having more so
been contributing our energy byproducts of soot along with those pesky
toxic elements of CO2 and NOx like there's no tomorrow. Of what we
badly need is lots more energy that's squeaky clean and the most end-
user efficient usage without the all-inclusive end result that's
currently generating soot plus those invisible but toxic byproducts of
CO2 and NOx, of which this has been doable if extracting the bulk of
that new and improved energy from the sun and our moon, as much as
possible avoiding those various other fossil or biofuel alternatives
that depend upon their having to consume such horrific volumes of our
mostly N2 and sooty water saturated atmosphere.
To argue against this logic is to show your true colors, as for being
in favor of greed, arrogance and insurmountable bigotry that's of more
faith-based ideology than not. Whereas to contribute on behalf of
constructively resolving such issues in the most affordable manner is
being humanly intelligent, along with having good awareness and
remorse for those unfortunate mistakes made in the past, and otherwise
for keeping an honest focus towards taking that new and improved grip
upon the best of our talents and resources as driven in the proper
direction, instead of our being continually faith-based sequestered
back into them dark ages where only the rich get richer and the poor
that can't possibly get any poorer simply get dead (and apparently
especially dead if you're a Muslim sitting on an oily rock).
Excluding all of those extremely interesting but unavoidably spendy
off-world energy alternatives that are never as good for the all-
inclusive bottom line as hyped by their promoters, we have upon or
within Earth more than what's necessary in order to safely manage our
clean energy future well past the 2100AD mark, that is if we can
manage to avoid WWIII, WWIV and WWV in order to end all such silly
wars because we've used up every last drop, m3 and/or tonne of fossil
and yellowcake reserves in the faith-based process of exterminating
one another.
If we are to go off-world for supplementing our future energy, as such
it'll have to be accomplished in a very big way, and eventually it'll
most likely have to include the highly benefical aspects of solar
shade and moderating the gravity tidal energy influx via relocation of
our moon's orbit, as being sent all the way out to the halo station-
keeping realm of Earth's L1, and that's in addition to those nifty
Willie Moo GSO SBLs, as there will also have to be the fully tethered
LSE-CM/ISS along with it's tethered dipole element that'll reach such
monster SBLs if need be to within 2r of Earth, and also offering the
one and only proper access to/from our moon that'll become the only
humanly safe and affordably doable alternative, and that's not even to
mention the absolutely terrific space based CM/ISS habitat of that
depot/gateway potential, that's afforded by having such a nearby zero
gravity outpost at our disposal.
- Brad Guth -
BradGuth
>
> - Show quoted text -
You'll not have any argument from the likes of Warren Buffet or
myself. LOOT = POWER, and you will not have to waste any of that loot
on toilet paper, because of all those brown-nose minions sucking up to
such vast sums of loot.
- Brad Guth -
Willie...@gmail.com
> On 19 Sep, 15:30, Willie.Moo...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > I don't think I have missed anything. At 200m km you have 2*10^11
> > > wavelenths. This means that 1.22d1.d2= 2*10^11 wavelengths or
> > > 2.44*10^5m^2. If we focus a 10m beam on asteroid this gives us a
> > > diameter of 2.44*10^4m. 24km. Is that possible.
>
> > Please point to what you're talking about. I see the 1.22 factor in
> > there, so it looks like Rayleigh limit,
>
> The 10m spot on the asteroid is at the first minimum of a circular
> aperture. It is Rayleigh,
That wasn't clear from your jumbled numbers above.. It looked sort of
right, but it was hard to tell what you were doing.
> > But I divide, not multiply to get the Rayleigh limit
>
> > sin(theta-r) = 1.22 lambda / diam
> > = 1.22 * 1e-6 / 24e6
> > = 5.083e-14
>
> You multiply to get the apeture.
Really If i rewrite the formula above to solve for diameter I still
divide by the angle - rewriting the formula above to solve for diam
you get;
diam = 1.22 * lambda / sin(theta-r)
so, you still haven't explained yourself adequately sorry. What are
you mulitplying to get apeture? (don't say secant either! haha)
> > And the radius around the center line of the Airy disk at a range of
> > 200 million km from a 24 km diameter emitter you have;
>
> > R = 5.083e-14 * 2e11 = 1 cm
>
> 24km 1.22lambda/d radians or 1.22/24*10^9 or 5*10^-11 radians = at
> 200million km or 200*10^9m or 2*10^11m 2*10^11 * 5*10^-11 = 10m
>
> > at 20 billion km
>
> > R = 5.083e-14 * 2e14 = 1 m
>
> > I think we're talking past each other. I should have said, I missed
> > what you were saying...
>
> I think you are right. I think too we were talking about different
> things. NASA was talking about planetary defense. You are talking
> about using asteroids.
AND planetary defense - yes.
Laser powered ion I presume you are saying.. I agree.
> Also here a
> reminder of the Forward interstellar proposal may not be out of place
> here.
Not at all. Pwerful light sails may also be appropriate for probes in
interplanetary space.
> Of course the interesting fact is that a Forward probe (interstellar)
> is going to be the end result. However there are a lot of intermediate
> goodies in what you propose, so the chance of it getting off the
> ground is increased.
Correct. Forward's ideas also scale - you start with small probes and
graduate to larger payloads - eventually piloted missions involving
Bernal stations and whatnot.
Doing as Dyson suggests, and converting the entire output of the sun
to industrial use - but in this case, using stationary laser cells
held in place by solar wind - that coordinate their action by creating
a phased array of the elements - using an external reference beam - at
20% efficiency - would be far far less massive than a typical Dyson
sphere, and be able to establish substantial interstellar commerce.
For example, a 1 mm thick laser film made of some sort of ceramic -
engulfing the sun at a radius of 5 million km - would mass only 754
trillion tons - a sold sphere only 120 km in diameter - So, a handful
of well chosen asteroids converted to cells that form the type of film
we're talking about would be able to produce as laser energy 85e24
watts!!! Converted to kinetic energy at 30% efficiency using laser
light sails permits 5.1 million metric tons per second to be
dispatched to the stars at 1/3 light speed. That's 10 or so space
colony sized payloads each second.
Reducing payload speeds to 3% light speed - increases mass-flow rate
100x. 3% light speed is the delta vee of a spacecraft at constant 1
gee boost travelling from Earth to Pluto.
Engulfing the sun in this way - taking care to not adversely impact
the natural sunlight illuminating the solar system - permits humanity
to treat the solar system as an integrated nation-state, and the
nearby stars as frontiers which anyone who owns a (space) home could
decide to emmigrate to.
Here is where the von-neuman self replication can have benefits.
Sending a Forward 2-stage star-sail to nearby stars, carrying a
replicator probe that made laser cells from any appropriate asteroidal
materials found locally - then a 1 stage laser light sail could
navigate between the stars at high speed. When the star was fully
engulfted - and the planetary system fully surveyed - and the results
radioed back to the parent star. Then 2 unexplored nearby stars would
be chosen to send daughter probes to - and the system will have joined
human space...
600 million space colonies per year arriving from Earth - would flow
thorugh this network - but, if they contained a family each - say 5
people - with a retinue of robots, and replicators - along with their
portable biosphere - and radio telescope - a world of 12 billion
humans would only be able to supply a 5 year pulse before denuding the
solar system of people.
This may be the answer to Fermi's whree are they question. High rates
of reproduction only occur at certain places and time for any
species. Once they become space faring - their reproductive rates
fall, and technology spreads them throughout the galaxy - and the
average density of ANY species - is small - far from their point of
origin..
A ball of stars 100 light ywars across centered on Earth there is
something like 15,000 star systems. 2.4 billion space colonies spread
across this volume of space mean only 160,000 colonies per star system
- 1000 light years and there are 15 million stars - at 3/8% growth
rate per year - exponential growth - human numbers - increase 42 times
- to 100 billion space colonies - but the stars available to humanity
increase 1,000x to 15 million - and the number of five person space
colonies per star drop to less than 7,000 !!! 35,000 people.
>
> > > This sort of scenario provides a way of gradually building up. In any
> > > project you need to have intermediate stages or it wil never be built.
>
> > You have to have the prospect of immediate returns or you will be left
> > hat in hand begging the government to give you the money. Large
> > resources are routinely developed by humanity. Look at large undersea
> > oil and gas reserves. Tens of billions of dollars are spent by major
> > companies over decades to develop the technology and bring the
> > resource to market. Provided they have a clear ownership right, and a
> > clear idea of what sort of value they're creating.
>
> > Telling folks that you will avoid a catastrophe that might happen in
> > the next 65 million years - doesn't get anyone off the dime either.
> > Saying something bad could happen in the next 100 years - doesn't do
> > much either.
>
> 65 million years ago it was really big. There have been a lot of
> impacts since, not quite so big.
Correct. That's what I was getting at.
> Spephen Hawking says we should go
> into space to safeguard the Earth.
That's nice.
> Risks fall into two categories.
> There are the natural risks 65 million BP and all that. Also
> Yellowstone and other surpervolcanoes have erupted fairly regularly.
> In fact if you had mirrors which could direct sunlight directly onto
> the Earth you will recover far more quickly from a Yellowstone event.
Correct. Humanity needs to be space faring. I think Tsiolkovski said
it best. Earth is mankind's cradle, bt a man cannot live in the
cradle forever. The first step is to make use of offworld resources
for our economic well being. We are doing that with comsats, navsats,
infosats. We will extend it with terrestrial solar, and powersats.
Extend it again by capturing asteroids and putting up factory sats.
And from there there will be a diaspora. We will engulf the sun, and
the age of easy interstellar travel will be born. We will over the
next 10,000 years expand at a large fraction of light speec across the
cosmos - undoing the limitations of modern hive culture of
civilization as we become ever more nomadic and self sufficient -
ending in nomadic tribes sparsely spread throughout the cosmos.
> There are the political and military risks. To me going into space
> because of "political" risks is not a sound policy - if nothing ellse
> for the simple reason that space will not solve the problems and could
> easily make them worse.
This has been an issue because missiles were first developed as part
of strategic bombing doctrine and containment of that ability has been
the number one job of the post world war 2 era. That doctrine has
protected us and maintained an uneasy world peace. But that is
crumbling in the face of modern terror threats. Those terror threats
arise because control of ability is no longer effective. We must
graduate (as experts have long warned us to do) to the next phase of
maintaining peace - control of willingness.. Success on this front
will permit the means for space travel to finally be made more broadly
available to approved commercial and scientific users.
>
> In fact dangerous events occur far more often than once every 65
> million years.
I agree. But selling the government on a space sheild is far harder
than selling a group of investors on a supply for titanium or
osmium... or even for energy and food.
> > But if you can prove to folks that - lookee here - here is a list of
> > strategic materials that is important to the industrial development of
> > Earth. Here is the rate at which we use these materials today. If a
> > world of 10 billion people had a per capita use rate equal to that of
> > every American - here is what would be needed. There is a huge
> > difference. Lets remove the military infrastructure to revise some of
> > them downward.
>
> And some of the existential risks. The question of military
> expenditures, and the fact that the peoples on Earth are unable to
> live together, is something profoundly worrying. Space alone will not
> solve it.
The people are not the problem. The governments and societies they
have structured for themselves are the problem. Ken Arrow a Nobel
Prize winning economist has outlined precisely why governments and
markets cannot achieve what we expect of them. Alice Miller explains
why we are fascinated as a species with power and death. Sigmund
Frued explains why we have adopted a father in the sky figure as our
expression of absolute power. Joseph Campbell has explained how
religions have tapped into our impulse for life and subverted it.
Brownowski has explained how technology and science has been subverte
by culture.
We know the answers - scientists and rational folk have just been shy
about asserting what they know to be true - sensing that reality
doesn't matter to the bulk of humanity. Everyone else is being lied
to and their emotions managed for selfish ends.
The greatest threat humanity faces isn't from space. Its from
outselves. People sense that, and so talk of space shields and space
travel even, makes no sense to them.
Providing a clear practical vision of the next step for our culture
clears a lot of the bullshit away. This is so wanted by people that
folks who falsely claim such knowledge become hugely powerful. As
Campbell said, this is the hero task of the modern age. In the end we
will either become space faring nomads ranging across the stars, or
post-technological nomads ranging across a burned out dying world. We
are choosing now the future of all our generations. We have not
chosen wisely for the past 50 years - we have chosen out of fear
rather than hope.
> > There's still a huge shortage. Where to get it? Now
> > show them some spectra of asteroids that indicate its out there. Show
> > them some photos of asteroids. Show them pictures showing the orbits
> > of 30,000 known small bodies. Show them estimates of the actual
> > numbers. Then show them you can retrieve all the strategic material
> > industry will need for the next 100 years - within 15 years - by
> > funding a program today - and with 50% ownership - they'll make 30%
> > per year return compounded... and they'll be able to diversify their
> > risk and earn profits on their investments in as little as 5 years
> > when the whole thing is at a stage it is bankable and listable.
>
> > > As all of you are probably aware my "hobbyhorse" is AI and robatics
> > > and there seems little doubt that a solar complex would rapidly
> > > develop into a
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Willie...@gmail.com
> On Sep 19, 9:30 am, Willie.Moo...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Right. That's the point of the pilot beam from the target. You can
> > set it up so that a 'seed' beam as you called it, could be used as a
> > reference. Basic holography really - and that reference could direct
> > the energy to another point. But to my way of thinking a pilot beam
> > FROM the target is a simple solution.
>
> A beam from the target won't provide useful phase information,
> unless combined with other reference beams.
Correct - hence the name 4 wave mixing -
> Holography
> works only if the hologram in question is perfectly rigid to
> within the wavelength divided by 4*sin(theta/2) (where theta is
> the diffraction angle).
That is true -
> With a pilot beam from the target,
> this means the array must be rigid within 1/4 the wavelength.
No it does not.
> But if the array is that rigid, then you really don't need the
> pilot beam at all.
Wait a minute - you're getting lost in the details.
First, a hologram can be made by shining a reference beam through the
film, and then reflecting an object beam - split off from the
reference beam - that bounces back from the objects being imaged. You
can use very stable frames and optical tables and whatnot - especially
back in the day. That's what I did in my lab.. You can also use very
short exposure times in different venues - taking a hologram of a
person for example.
You can also take multiple 2D pictures of a scene and use them to
digitally compute a hologram that reproduces the image in 3D. .
But we're not making a picture of the target. We're merely
constructing a conjugate power wave in response to an incoming pilot
wave.
Think about it this way... You have a fabrey perot cell into which
you're pumping a gawdawful amount of solar energy from the sides to
energize some sort of lasing media. The media is sandwiched between a
semi-reflective mirror and a fully reflective mirror - producing a
continuous wave laser output. Fine. The laser beam is firing and
thats it.
Now replace the fully refletive mirror in the fabry-perot cell with a
phase conjugate mirror, and shine another laser into the apeture from
somewhere - and you will find that the solar pumped laser will return
energy to you. I've done this. It works. It has also been reported in
the literature.
> Contrast this with a gabor zone plate lens, combined with
> a far away "seed laser" drone behind the lens. In this case,
> the diffraction angle is very nearly zero. Thus, the lens
> does not need to be very rigid in order to efficiently
> function. (A gabor zone plate is a hologram.)
I agree with everything you say. But I'm talking about using
holographic techniquest and nonlinear optical media to construct a
laser that returns a conjugate beam to a target multiplied many
thousands of times in energy - in response to a weak pilot beam..
You are avoiding that subject altogether. Since you seem
knowledgeable, let me give you some references you might find useful
Then maybe you'll understand what i'm getting at.
I'm talking about creating a optical phase conjugation system - not a
holographic imaging system. So, lets be clear about this. We want to
project energy from a large solar pumped laser - safely and reliably
to a large number of moving targets simultaneously though intervening
media with some measure of control. Nothing you have said suggests
this is not possible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-wave_mixing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonlinear_optics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-focusing
> If you use multiple reference beams, each in rigid formation
> to within 1/4 wavelength, then it's possible to integrate the
> beam information in a way to get perfect phase alignment
> in any direction.
Yes, and that is done in the back plane of the fabrey perot cell by
the pilot beam.when it interacts with the phase conjugate mirror
> This requires active processing, rather
> than a passive hologram.
Correct. By active processing I presume you mean nonlinear optical
media that responds to both the pilot beam and the laser beam..
> Isaac Kuo
Ian Parker
> > If you do this there is one thing for sure. Ion drive will be able
> to
>
> > reach anywhere in the solar system fast and cheaply.
>
> Laser powered ion I presume you are saying.. I agree.
>
> > Also here a
> > reminder of the Forward interstellar proposal may not be out of place
> > here.
>
> Not at all. Pwerful light sails may also be appropriate for probes in
> interplanetary space.
I doubt that. If you are going to travel at 0.03c you want an ion
drive that accelerates to 0.05c (say)
>
> > Of course the interesting fact is that a Forward probe (interstellar)
> > is going to be the end result. However there are a lot of intermediate
> > goodies in what you propose, so the chance of it getting off the
> > ground is increased.
>
> Correct. Forward's ideas also scale - you start with small probes and
> graduate to larger payloads - eventually piloted missions involving
> Bernal stations and whatnot.
>
> Doing as Dyson suggests, and converting the entire output of the sun
> to industrial use - but in this case, using stationary laser cells
> held in place by solar wind - that coordinate their action by creating
> a phased array of the elements - using an external reference beam - at
> 20% efficiency - would be far far less massive than a typical Dyson
> sphere, and be able to establish substantial interstellar commerce.
>
> For example, a 1 mm thick laser film made of some sort of ceramic -
> engulfing the sun at a radius of 5 million km - would mass only 754
> trillion tons - a sold sphere only 120 km in diameter - So, a handful
> of well chosen asteroids converted to cells that form the type of film
> we're talking about would be able to produce as laser energy 85e24
> watts!!! Converted to kinetic energy at 30% efficiency using laser
> light sails permits 5.1 million metric tons per second to be
> dispatched to the stars at 1/3 light speed. That's 10 or so space
> colony sized payloads each second.
>
You will need something with which to construct them.
I think you will find that people want to live in settlements. They
try to strike a compromise between a city with its congestion and a
homestead. Somewhere there is a compromise that suits the majority of
people. If the lifespan of people radically increased, if people
started having "second families" you might have more of a case. The
case, as I see it at the moment, is for a solar powered Earth with a
population of 9 billion. Space based solar power may quite possibly be
the answer.
One of the facts about human habitation is that 90% of the worlds
population lives on 10% of the surface. If you do have abundant solar
power, one of the things that could be done is to desalinate and make
the desert fertiile. People who are not space enthusiasts will ask the
following questions.
1) Lots of people live in the so called Sahel region of scrubland
which is on the southern fringe of the Sahara. Can this area be made
reliably fertile?
2) Could cities be constructed in air conditioned domes, again in the
Sahara?
>
> A ball of stars 100 light ywars across centered on Earth there is
> something like 15,000 star systems. 2.4 billion space colonies spread
> across this volume of space mean only 160,000 colonies per star system
> - 1000 light years and there are 15 million stars - at 3/8% growth
> rate per year - exponential growth - human numbers - increase 42 times
> - to 100 billion space colonies - but the stars available to humanity
> increase 1,000x to 15 million - and the number of five person space
> colonies per star drop to less than 7,000 !!! 35,000 people.
>
>
> > There are the political and military risks. To me going into space
> > because of "political" risks is not a sound policy - if nothing ellse
> > for the simple reason that space will not solve the problems and could
> > easily make them worse.
>
> This has been an issue because missiles were first developed as part
> of strategic bombing doctrine and containment of that ability has been
> the number one job of the post world war 2 era. That doctrine has
> protected us and maintained an uneasy world peace. But that is
> crumbling in the face of modern terror threats. Those terror threats
> arise because control of ability is no longer effective. We must
> graduate (as experts have long warned us to do) to the next phase of
> maintaining peace - control of willingness.. Success on this front
> will permit the means for space travel to finally be made more broadly
> available to approved commercial and scientific users.
>
>
>
> > In fact dangerous events occur far more often than once every 65
> > million years.
>
> I agree. But selling the government on a space sheild is far harder
> than selling a group of investors on a supply for titanium or
> osmium... or even for energy and food.
>
NASA has already been sold on the idea. It has produced the report. It
is putting quite a bit of effort in.
>
> > And some of the existential risks. The question of military
> > expenditures, and the fact that the peoples on Earth are unable to
> > live together, is something profoundly worrying. Space alone will not
> > solve it.
>
> The people are not the problem. The governments and societies they
> have structured for themselves are the problem. Ken Arrow a Nobel
> Prize winning economist has outlined precisely why governments and
> markets cannot achieve what we expect of them. Alice Miller explains
> why we are fascinated as a species with power and death. Sigmund
> Frued explains why we have adopted a father in the sky figure as our
> expression of absolute power. Joseph Campbell has explained how
> religions have tapped into our impulse for life and subverted it.
> Brownowski has explained how technology and science has been subverte
> by culture.
>
> We know the answers - scientists and rational folk have just been shy
> about asserting what they know to be true - sensing that reality
> doesn't matter to the bulk of humanity. Everyone else is being lied
> to and their emotions managed for selfish ends.
>
I profoundly disagree. We have indeed been lied to about Iraq, but let
us remember this. It is the Iraqis and not the Americans that have
produced 4 million odd refugees. 2 million within Iraq and 2 million
is surrounding countries. I shall be going on a tour of Syria late on
the October. There are 1m Iraqis there.
I hold no brief for Bush, it is all his handiwork, getting rid of
Saddam Hussein opened up Pandora's box. However it does rather rubbish
the Rousseau theory. In fact I would put things the other way round.
Governments in fact reflect the prejudices of their populations. There
was anti semitism in Germany after WW1. Hitler did not create it. He
expoited it in an extremely cynical way, but it was there all the
time.
I was absolutely aghast when Einar, I think i was, suggested that
religious groups should set up colonies in space. She should go with
me to Syria and continue to the Iraqi border.
How can this be cured. Cetrtainly not by taking a wishy wasy Rousseau
position as you seem to. Governments have a responsibility to
eliminate prejudice as far as they can. They have a duty also to
protect their countries (obviously) but not to push the arms race
forward and always be prepared to sit down to discuss disarmament.
Man is not Rousseau, Man is the Lord of the Flies.
> The greatest threat humanity faces isn't from space. Its from
> outselves. People sense that, and so talk of space shields and space
> travel even, makes no sense to them.
>
This is true. People want answers to the above questions. recently
there was a Poker contest between Man and Machine. I posed in
sci.maths that Von Neumann was right (about Poker at least). The
minimax strategy works.
Howver the world is not a Poker game. The world is a stag hunt. Every
side will gain from cooperation. The problem is convincing people of
this. The irony is that I am not asking for people to be unselfish. In
fact in some ways I am asking them to be more selfish. The 9/11
hijackers were unselfish when all is said and done. They were in fact
the Lords of Flies and were NOT promted by any government.
> Providing a clear practical vision of the next step for our culture
> clears a lot of the bullshit away. This is so wanted by people that
> folks who falsely claim such knowledge become hugely powerful. As
> Campbell said, this is the hero task of the modern age. In the end we
> will either become space faring nomads ranging across the stars, or
> post-technological nomads ranging across a burned out dying world. We
> are choosing now the future of all our generations. We have not
> chosen wisely for the past 50 years - we have chosen out of fear
> rather than hope.
The next step for culture is the promation of rationality. OK we do
need resources as well. We basically need the resources of space on
Earth. I don't think we need to live in space, not at least in the
short or medium term.
> > There's still a huge shortage. Where to get it? Now
>
- Ian Parker
BradGuth
> On Sep 19, 11:38 am, IsaacKuo <mech...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Contrast this with a gabor zone plate lens, combined with
> > a far away "seed laser" drone behind the lens. In this case,
> > the diffraction angle is very nearly zero. Thus, the lens
> > does not need to be very rigid in order to efficiently
> > function. (A gabor zone plate is a hologram.)
>
> I agree with everything you say. But I'm talking about using
> holographic techniquest and nonlinear optical media to construct a
> laser that returns a conjugate beam to a target multiplied many
> thousands of times in energy - in response to a weak pilot beam..
>
> You are avoiding that subject altogether. Since you seem
> knowledgeable, let me give you some references you might find useful
> Then maybe you'll understand what i'm getting at.
>
> I'm talking about creating a optical phase conjugation system - not a
> holographic imaging system. So, lets be clear about this. We want to
> project energy from a large solar pumped laser - safely and reliably
> to a large number of moving targets simultaneously though intervening
> media with some measure of control. Nothing you have said suggests
> this is not possible.
Prime subject avoiding and/or banishment on behalf of their suggesting
that your SBLs are either too spendy or simply impossible is what this
anti-think-tank of mostly faith-based naysayism is all about. Folks
here as rabbi moderators/rusemasters in charge of their Usenet
naysayville are simply opposed to anything that's off-world, and much
worse if it's good for the environment or for those of us sequestered
upon their polluted planet that's getting spendier and more lethal by
the day.
BTW, how's your PC or MAC doing tese days against that gauntlet via
all of their spermware/fuckware?
- Brad Guth -
Willie...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
I've had to switch computers twice in the last 3 days - my technical
people haven't gotten back to me yet as to the cause. We've scheduled
a short teleconference for Monday morning, LA time. haha.. I won't
know until then. It may be posting to usenet. I'll be leaving
Switzerland tomorrow and travelling to DC and then to LA. I like my
new Toshiba though! lol.
Your other stuff is I think over-wrought. Some people value being
right more than being happy. So, they don't want to play the gee-whiz
game. Or they are taking off-world development seriously, and want to
do things they are damned sure will work. These are honest reasons
for objecting.
As I mentioned before. Honest objections are the first step in the
selling cycle. Overcoming them is the responsibility of the person
selling the thing they're objecting about. Gratuitous objections may
be part of a more sinister game.
Finally, any powerful government has secrets to keep. The US
government, especially following 9/11, has legitimate reasons for
containing and directing public information related to missile, space
and nuclear technologies and capabilities. There are sound reasons
for doing this. Nevertheless, there are costs which are not
immediately apparent to any sort of restriction on an unmolested free
exchange of ideas - which may cost us the Republic every bit as much
as say nuclear attack.
The sooner we switch from failed containment policies which focus on
ineffective approachs (control of means) to more forward looking
containment policies which are more effective (control of intent) the
better off we'll all be.
Ian Parker
system to a straight computational system? You mentioned earlier
safety considerations, but is that really true? If someone were to
shine a laser upwards they would get roasted. This would in fact
constitute a powerful weapon.
A computational system would be required to ensure that this did not
happen. Why not have a straight computer system and build safeguards
into the software. In fact what you will have is a computer network
with (possibly) one 8 bit computer controling a laser.
Sites on the ground will ask for power. Air/space craft will give
their positions, velocities and accelerations using GPS/Galileo and
also request power.
The main advantage of a straight computer is that the whole thing is
easilt simulatable on the ground.
- Ian Parker
BradGuth
>
> The sooner we switch from failed containment policies which focus on
> ineffective approachs (control of means) to more forward looking
> containment policies which are more effective (control of intent) the
> better off we'll all be.
I agree. However, in that case we'll need to rid this world of those
freaking Hitlers or whatever faith-based puppet clones, such as our
born-again resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush), before having to deal with
surviving WWIII that may actually be of too little to late to matter
anyway.
- Brad Guth -
Willie...@gmail.com
> On 20 Sep, 08:47, Willie.Moo...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > If you do this there is one thing for sure. Ion drive will be able
> > to
>
> > > reach anywhere in the solar system fast and cheaply.
>
> > Laser powered ion I presume you are saying.. I agree.
>
> > > Also here a
> > > reminder of the Forward interstellar proposal may not be out of place
> > > here.
>
> > Not at all. Pwerful light sails may also be appropriate for probes in
> > interplanetary space.
>
> I doubt that. If you are going to travel at 0.03c you want an ion
> drive that accelerates to 0.05c (say)
>
Why do you doubt it? What's the basis? You state a conclusion and
provide absolutely no technical data to back it up. I find that
maddening! lol. The way to look at this is propellant fraction,
power level and thrust.
A 1 gee acceleration is convenient for interplanetary travel for a
variety of reasons. First off, you have gravity aboard ship during
the transit. Secondly, you get to where you're going pretty fast.
You fly halfway to your destination, carry out a powered pitchover,
and arrive at zero altitude and zero speed at your destination. With
clever programming the gee forces slide linearly from your start to
your finish so that you are acclimated to the destinations gravity by
the time you get there.
So, lets look at a 1 gee spaceships performance. You may remember
these from elementary physics
d = 1/2 a t^2
v = a t
So,
t = v / a
and so
d = v^2 /(2a)
Where d= distance travelled
a = acceleration
t = time
v = velocity
So, the velocity needed to attain the halfway point is
v = sqrt(d * a)
And the total delta vee to achieve the trip is
V = 2 * v
and the time in hours needed to make the trip is
t = V / 9.82 / 3600
So, we can construct the following chart
m kps hours LSD
Earth to d sqrt(d*a) t u
Moon 3.86E+08 61.60 1.74 2.03%
Mars-close 7.50E+10 858.20 24.28 24.88%
Mars-far 3.75E+11 1,918.98 54.28 47.25%
Venus-close 4.50E+10 664.76 18.80 19.88%
Venus-far 2.55E+11 1,582.43 44.76 40.99%
Ceres-close 2.70E+11 1,628.31 46.06 41.89%
Ceres-far 5.70E+11 2,365.88 66.92 54.55%
Mercury-close 9.00E+10 940.11 26.59 26.90%
Mercury-far 2.10E+11 1,436.04 40.62 38.04%
Jovia 8.55E+11 2,897.60 81.96 61.93%
So sailing the inner solar system in a 1 gee spaceship would be like
sailing the Pacific in a cruise ship. You'd have islands like the
moon, that are only hours a way. You'd have nearby territories like
Mars and Venus that are only a day or two away. Then you'd have the
outer planets that are weeks away.
The factor u is the propellant fraction for a Laser Sustained
Detonation (LSD) rocket operating with an exhaust velocity of 3000 km/
sec (kps)
Now, lets look at the power levels needed to achieve that, and the
propellant fractions. The first thing we realize is that to have
reasonable propellant fractions we need exhaust speeds to match the
flight speeds.
Vf = Ve * LN(1/(1-u))
so
u = 1 - 1/EXP(Vf/Ve)
So, Vf/Ve must be less than or equal to 1 to have reasonable u.
3,000 kps - is a specific impulse of 30,000 - which is damned
difficult to achieve. And power to weight of the engine must be
tremendous. So, an ion rocket with 5,000 sec Isp - won't cut it for
this application. (it would do fine for 1/10th gee or 1/100th gee
operation) some sort of laser sustained detonation of inert working
fluids would be needed. This is nearly an exact analogue of nuclear
pulse propulsion, but the energizing force comes from pulses of laser
energy accurately directed at a thrust structure.
The power level to produce 1 kgf is
F = mdot * Ve
P = 1/2 mdot * Ve ^2
So,
mdot = 2 * P / Ve^2
and so
F = 2 * P / Ve
This is in newtons and 1 kgf = Newton / 9.82
so..
F(kgf) = P / (4.91 * Ve)
And with Ve = 3,000 kps = 3e6 m/sec we need 14.73 MW per kgf of
thrust. That's 7.37 quadrilion watts of power. And this is the low
power solution!!! haha.. The world has a few thousand super
tankers. To operate a few thousand interplanetary freighters with
this capacity requires tapping into 1e20 watts of power. Such
capacity would tie humanity together across the interplanetary
frontier.
At 1MW per sq meter - the sun centered laser array would have to cover
1e8 sq km of area. A disk 11,283 km in diameter - about the size of
the Earth - a very small fraction of the sun's total surface. Four
disks 6,000 km in diameter equally spaced around the plane of the
ecliptic would provide adequate power for a fleet of such spacecraft.
Humanity today consumes 10 TW of power - 1/10,000,000th the power
level postulated here. Needless to day, any industrial activity we
wanted to carry out on the planets or in free flying space colonies,
could easily be provided as well. This might also form the basis of
maintaining government control over this far flung array of humans, to
keep them from using high tech to attack one another - and stopping
the possibility of interplanetary war.
A laser light sail requires no propellant, but power levels go way up
for both high thrusts, small sail size, and for ton of payload
moved.
There are two ways to do this. One is to heat a body to very high
temperatures and use the black body radiation for propulsion - this
requires some sort of plasma containment system that can't be built.
The other (if we are to have high gee forces) is to use a mirror to
reflect nearly all the energy incident on it. In order to limit the
size of the mirror.
To make logistics simple, it would be nice to have the mirrors operate
like wings do on aircraft - exerting 100 kg/m2 or more. A disk like
spacecraft that had multi-mode capabilities would be interesting.
That is, a spherical payload encircled by a mirror disk, that might
also operate as a radiator propulsor short term - for landing and
operating out of sight of the sun...
Black body thrustor
Pr = 1/3 ar T^4
Where ar = radiation constant = 7.57e-16 J/m3/K4
T = temp K
Pr = radiation pressure (watts/m2)
To exert 100 kg/m2 requires a temperature of 45,000 K - and the power
output of that square meter is
j = sigma * T^4
Where j = watts/m2
T = temp K
sigma = stephan boltzman constant = c * ar / 4
= 5.67e-8
j = 5.67e-8 * 45,000^4 = 232.5e9 W/m2
So, 1/100th of a meter squared, would be a square 10cm on a side,
would produce 1 kg of thrust, and consume 2.32 GW of power!!! Compare
this to 14.7 MW of power needed for 1 kgf in the LSD rocket!! But
the great advantage here is that no propellant is needed.
This is a black body radiator, some sort of cavity containing a
magnetically stabilized plasma - that efficiently absorbs powerful
laser energy. By encasing the cavity in a reflective parabolid that
transmits the laser energy but reflects the bulk of the plasma
radiation in a desired direction, the surface can absorb laser energy
from one direction and emit radiation in another direction. By having
a certain amount of plasma that stores a goodly amount of energy -
thrust can be maintained for a period of time - without direct
illumination. Excellent for landing and takeoffs, where laser energy
may be a hazard (the plasma itself would be a hazard if the cavity
developed any leaks! - and the exhaust itself would also be a hazard -
it may be possible to use the plasma energy directly by venting it for
landing and take off.
A mirror based system has the following relation;
Pressure = 2 U / c
Where U = power per unit area, c = speed of light, Pressure = N/m2
So, 100 kg /m2 = 982 N/m2 implies U = 3e8 m/sec * 982 N/m2 / 2 = 147.3
GW/m2 - which is less than that required for the radiation pressure
mode - and actually, the radiation pressure mode above, doesn't
include the momentum that is obtained from absorbing the light energy
in the first place.. which can help or hinder the thrust effects
depending on how the cavity is arrayed relative to the energy being
beamed in.
Of course to keep temperatures under control requires VERY VERY highly
reflective mirrors. Before the invention of GBO films I would say
such things would be impossible. But the advent of GBO films that
have reflectivities in excess of aluminized coatings - suggest that
continued development along this path would allow mirrors that absorb
less than 1 part per million of the incident energy. This means that
the wings need only disappate 150 kW/m2 - which implies an operating
temp of 1,269 K - which can be sustained by known materials. So, the
ability to construct GBO type films that are 99.9999% or more
reflective - would allow the attachment of winglets that when
illuminated by very powerful laser pulses, could exert sizeable lift
on the vehicle.
1.47 GW per kg is 100x more energy per unit thrust than the 3,000 kps
LSD propulsion system. So, the energy level is 100x as great -
requiring 400 disks 6,000 km in diameter circulating above the solar
surface beaming energy continuously to spacecraft criss crossing the
solar system - at an average power of 1e22 watts !! Even at this
higher level, the sun produces 38,622x this figure!! So, we have
hardly impacted its ability even with this level of power usage.
> > > Of course the interesting fact is that a Forward probe (interstellar)
> > > is going to be the end result. However there are a lot of intermediate
> > > goodies in what you propose, so the chance of it getting off the
> > > ground is increased.
>
> > Correct. Forward's ideas also scale - you start with small probes and
> > graduate to larger payloads - eventually piloted missions involving
> > Bernal stations and whatnot.
>
> > Doing as Dyson suggests, and converting the entire output of the sun
> > to industrial use - but in this case, using stationary laser cells
> > held in place by solar wind - that coordinate their action by creating
> > a phased array of the elements - using an external reference beam - at
> > 20% efficiency - would be far far less massive than a typical Dyson
> > sphere, and be able to establish substantial interstellar commerce.
>
> > For example, a 1 mm thick laser film made of some sort of ceramic -
> > engulfing the sun at a radius of 5 million km - would mass only 754
> > trillion tons - a sold sphere only 120 km in diameter - So, a handful
> > of well chosen asteroids converted to cells that form the type of film
> > we're talking about would be able to produce as laser energy 85e24
> > watts!!! Converted to kinetic energy at 30% efficiency using laser
> > light sails permits 5.1 million metric tons per second to be
> > dispatched to the stars at 1/3 light speed. That's 10 or so space
> > colony sized payloads each second.
>
> You will need something with which to construct them.
Well, lets look at it this way; compute the sphere of solid material
needed to built the film areas of the various proposed system
operating above the solar surface;
1e13 Watts is humanity's current power usage 3.5 m diam sphere
1e20 Watts lets LSD based interplanetary cruisers predominate -
755 m diam sphere
1e22 Watts lets light sail wing based interplanetary cruisers
predominate - 3.5 km diam sphere
4e26 Watts is the sun's total output - this requires processing a
120 km diam sphere of material
We can certainly build a system that provides for humanity's energy
needs today - building it with human labor.
We can even contemplate with mass production doing the second and
third step - having a number of factories operating with a number of
rail guns.
Moving into space in a big way, with everyone having megayacht sized
space homes - and bigger - personal space colonies - will require AI,
robotics and probably self-replicating machine systems. So, as these
capacities naturally arise, we will naturally use them to increase our
energy supplies to the level needed to sustain our space faring life
style.
The point is we shouldn't wait until AI, robotics and VN machines are
commonplace before starting. We obtain huge benefits today by doing
what we can today with today's industrial infrastructure.
Terrestrial solar, Earth orbiting power sats, sun orbiting powersats,
high intensity sun surfing powersats
I think you are not familiar with the psychology, history, and
sociology of human beings.
> They
> try to strike a compromise between a city with its congestion and a
> homestead.
Only by necessity. If you could obtain the services and benefits of a
big city like New York, without having to put up with New York - most
people would do it.
Consider an age where everyone has an O'Neill style spacecraft with
maybe 5 people on board, 2 adults and 3 kids. They travel in packs of
10 to 100 in a cluster. Each spacecraft has maybe 500 to 5000
humaniform robots. Each spacecraft also has in a box, the entire
complement of personalities of the human race - past and present. The
cluster is in direct instant communication with each other. The
cluster is also in contact through an interstellar network with every
other human settlement. So, the latest skills and personalities and
so forth - are available online - and can be made available via
humaniform robots - and avatars. So, if for example you needed a
medical treatment you would have your robo-doc software - with the
latest upgrades available. If you needed anything really, you could
make it on your own world. You could travel from cluster to cluster -
and your space colony has a number of interplanetary and interstellar
cruisers on board - piloted by robots and software... and there's
virtual reality.
Also, note that there is a difference between people who have not
reproduced yet, and those who have. That is, children have a tendency
to grow restless, break away from the group, find mates, and return to
a group once they have their own kids.
So, kids when they reach a certain age will break away from their
parents and group, and stick around communities where they can meet
others their own age. This will likely be in the guise of making it
on their own - despite the bulk of the work being done by automation,
or education, despite the availability of excellent education software
- it would likely be known though as socialization - and cross
fertilization.
This might change even as well, if humaniform robots can take on super
accurate human sexual characteristics. That way sexually active teens
and young adults could interact sexually with a small group of
sexually compatible humaniform robots - selected from the entire
population of humans who ever were recorded - and have trysts with
them. This would work best if one could construct a virtual reality
world - simlilar to Star Trek's holodeck - where one could interact
with 'the world' - a virtual community consisting of the sum total of
human beings operating real time in a super computer virtual reality.
This would have the great advantage in that sexually maturing adults
could safely and completely sample a wide range of human cultures and
extract from the virtual world, personalities that suited them. In
the end, mating could be carried out by exchanging genetic materials -
or in more advanced form - exchanging genetic information with 'the
world'
If done properly this would lead to a vitilization of the remote
community - and the full participation of every human in the larger
community of man.
> Somewhere there is a compromise that suits the majority of
> people.
This is only by necessity of our limited technology involving
primitive forms of communication, transportation and production.
> If the lifespan of people radically increased, if people
> started having "second families" you might have more of a case.
I have a case based on the fact that humans throughout most of their
history lived in small bands of nomadic people who subsisted in the
environment without outside assistance. Sociologically we are set up
to operate that way. We adapt to the 'pressures' of civilization
because of the huge benefits it confers each of us. The reason modern
society accentuates sexuality and sexual adventure is because its one
of the few hooks that society has for promoting super sociable
behavior. Folks who have a satisfactory sexual coupling and are
happily building a life together are viewed in modern culture as a
nearly unattainable goal, rather than as a normal maturation process
once we are somewhat past our teen years. That's because folks in
this idyllic situation become much less controllable and tend to go
their own way.
I presume that such demands for social control will be removed in the
not too distant future and we will operate once again in a saner age
where such large scale socialization is not needed.
> The
> case, as I see it at the moment, is for a solar powered Earth with a
> population of 9 billion. Space based solar power may quite possibly be
> the answer.
I agree. I am working on low-cost terrestrial solar and I'm exploring
the potential of augmenting that with space based power in the next 5
to 7 years. Beyond that, developing what I call reforming satellites
that redirect laser energy - and then sun centered powersats within
the next 15 to 20 years.
> One of the facts about human habitation is that 90% of the worlds
> population lives on 10% of the surface. If you do have abundant solar
> power, one of the things that could be done is to desalinate and make
> the desert fertiile. People who are not space enthusiasts will ask the
> following questions.
>
> 1) Lots of people live in the so called Sahel region of scrubland
> which is on the southern fringe of the Sahara. Can this area be made
> reliably fertile?
Yes. Thin film low cost inflatable structures that have well defined
optical properties can be made into low cost habitats, and low cost
green houses. Combined with desalinated seawater available at low
cost -large areas can be irrigated without the problem of evaporation
and degradation of the soil. Aeroponics is also promising in this
context.
> 2) Could cities be constructed in air conditioned domes, again in the
> Sahara?
Yes, with adequate power from space. These might be considered
elementary tests that must be solved before building habitats off-
world.
They will get money to look for possible collisions and do lab work to
develop possible solutions. They will write reports, and it will go
away. But unless a collision is immenent they will not build anything
of substance.
However, the same data in the hands of a commercial developer could
garner significant money today.
Consider that the US government - the world's richest government -
will spend $2.9 trillion in 2008 - which is a large segment of the $12
trillion US economy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us_federal_budget
But consider now that the global economy produces $65 trillion and
that 9.5 million high-net-worth people have a nest egg totalling $32
trillion. Most of this is liquid - and looking for reasonable
investments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_wealth_report
If a group of scientists along with a number of high-tech vendors got
together and made a reasonable plea for a high-tech investment along
the lines we're describing -with some sort of immediate payoff
(marketable security worth a goodly fraction of the present value of
the future income) - you might be able to garner $3 trillion to $4
trillion very quickly!! And do significant things again very quickly
- without a lot of the politics.
Once you successfully delivered on the promises made on the first go
round - you'd find another $8 trillion to $10 trillion available...
At that point -supposing you'd provide a 30% or more ROI - the whole
project becomes self funding. You'd get a bubble - but it would be
supported by increased outputs and so forth. In all, you'd kick up
the global economy from 4% per annum to something like 14% per annum -
which would support your growth.
That is, success would be self- propelled after the first and second
go round. In short, you'd be bankable.. and you'd have access to the
world's banking assets at that point - and after that, access to your
own self generated revenue stream. This is the benefit of profits.
You can use them to sustain growth, while throwing off payments to
those who took the early risk.
> > > And some of the existential risks. The question of military
> > > expenditures, and the fact that the peoples on Earth are unable to
> > > live together, is something profoundly worrying. Space alone will not
> > > solve it.
>
> > The people are not the problem. The governments and societies they
> > have structured for themselves are the problem. Ken Arrow a Nobel
> > Prize winning economist has outlined precisely why governments and
> > markets cannot achieve what we expect of them. Alice Miller explains
> > why we are fascinated as a species with power and death. Sigmund
> > Frued explains why we have adopted a father in the sky figure as our
> > expression of absolute power. Joseph Campbell has explained how
> > religions have tapped into our impulse for life and subverted it.
> > Brownowski has explained how technology and science has been subverte
> > by culture.
>
> > We know the answers - scientists and rational folk have just been shy
> > about asserting what they know to be true - sensing that reality
> > doesn't matter to the bulk of humanity. Everyone else is being lied
> > to and their emotions managed for selfish ends.
>
> I profoundly disagree.
You are profoundly wrong.
> We have indeed been lied to about Iraq,
That's one type of lie. There are others. For example, that smoking
cigarettes will make you sexy. Or that drinking to excess will make
you happy. Or that spending in excess will make you successful.
These lies benefit those who tell them, at the expense of those who
believe them.
> but let
> us remember this. It is the Iraqis and not the Americans that have
> produced 4 million odd refugees. 2 million within Iraq and 2 million
> is surrounding countries. I shall be going on a tour of Syria late on
> the October. There are 1m Iraqis there.
America created the concept of the rouge state shortly after opec
flexed its muscle over oil supplies. This after the US oil production
reached its peak and entered secondary production. The US knew that
it only had 40 to 50 years before the world's oil production reached
its peak as well. (this is quite different than the the world running
out of oil - which won't happen for 200 years or more) - which is now
only 10 years away. The market is already adjusting to the changing
value of oil - increasing the price from $10 per barrel in the 1980s
to over $60 per barrel today.
All rogue states were oil rich countries - and together they comprised
50% of the world's oil reserves. The US had plans to put these
reserves in storage - and let the others use their oil profits to
expand output above that which oil companies would have deemed prudent
in a world where ALL producers were competing in the market - this had
the impact of moderating the price of oil - at the expense of those
who were nominally benefitting - by accelerating their usage of oil.
This benefitted the US by stabilizing prices at around $12 per barrel
- 6x the price enjoyed by the consumer when the US had excess capacity
(oil was $2 per barrel before 1970s shortages). Now, when Saudi
Arabia, Indonesia, and other major OPEC members are entering secondary
production - the US finds reason to institute regime change in these
former rogue regimes - and bring them online.
Clearly this long term policy was planned - there are even papers
available from US state department and others. Plainly it was a way
to moderate the supply of oil in a way the benefitted the US relative
to all other players in the market. Obviously this is our primary
motivation. Just compare our attitudes of WMD in Iraq and need to
invade Iran because of a nuclear power program versus our continuing
lack of interest in Pakistani nuclear weapons - which already exist,
and the nuclear program of North Korea (which was of no real interest
until the North shot off a rocket capable of reaching US homeland)
> I hold no brief for Bush, it is all his handiwork,
Bush, like any President is doing his best for America and all
Americans. America elected him. He truly believed we would be
greeted as liberators. We were not. He had no game plan for if he
was wrong. Now he's stuck and he's reviled. This really is
incidental to our long-term strategy. If in the summer of 2004 a
great peace settled over Iraq, and a free Iraq inspired Iran to throw
off the yoke of their ultra-religious zealots and embrace freedom -
and both nations were pumping tons of oil into the world market - and
oil was $22 per barrel - and this made it so that Putin would have to
kiss the West's ass for money - Bush would be hailed as a great genius
and liberator and would be given the Nobel prize by the Europeans as a
means to apologize for not helping him.
That is, the reasons for going in don't matter as much as what is
achieved after we got in.
The question we should be asking is why we weren't greeted as
liberators? And what would it have taken for that to happen?
9/11 can be called an intelligence failure. I think the week after
the Iraqi people pulled down statues of Saddam, there was a similar
intelligence failure - they hadn't prepared the ground for victory, or
given sufficient thought to how to handle the various factions and
bring in their neighbors in a positive way.
Of course in retrospect, Bush lost New Orleans to Katrina largely due
to his inattention to details - so, getting the details wrong isn't
surprising.
I believe that a better President who paid attention to the details
that mattered - COULD have affected a regime change and gotten out
with the oil flowing. Those details may involve some culpability.
Halliburton, and others close to the VP may be involved. Their greed
may have alienated stakeholders in the Iraqi population who needed
consideration to make a peaceful outcome possible. If so, this needs
to be revealed and corrective action taken.
Ditto for Afghanistan, although its not so important to American
interest as an oil rich state, but Afghanistan is important to long
term relations with the muslim world. The fact that a gas pipeline
from Russia to the Indian ocean got built while heroin still flows
unaffected - is only one indicator that we are not doing all we can
for American interests in the muslim world - but we are here caving in
to powerful special interests in America under the guise of serving
America.
> getting rid of
> Saddam Hussein opened up Pandora's box.
Nearly all muslims in Iraq hated Saddam. More than they hated each
other. This was the fundamental reason Bush felt we would be greeted
as liberators. And he was in the main right. But details count, and
he got the details wrong - if he even knew of them in the first
place. The intelligence community needed to get their act in gear and
really get the details right. Like I said, getting rid of Saddam
could have inured to our benefit. WE let things get out of control
because details were not attended to. That was too bad for us.
> However it does rather rubbish
> the Rousseau theory.
Not at all. If New York City were under the dictatorial control of a
single person who raped them financially, someone who knocked that guy
out would be greeted as a hero - depending on what happens after!!!
We did a lot of things wrong after - bowing to field commanders and
others with short term tactical goals - at the expense of long term
strategic goals. There are lots of different factions who live in New
York and they don't all like one another. If they were set at each
others throats for 20 years to empower a dictator - and then that
dictator fell. There would be a day or two of celebration - but
without strong police, fire, and public services, without immediate
economic benefits - no matter how slight - flowing from the liberation
- without identifying and eliminating individuals who form the centers
of resistance before the liberation fight is started - New York would
quickly fall into turmoil.
It has nothing to do with Rousseau or the propensity of New Yorkers
toward violence. It has everything to do with going into something
without getting all the details right. I mean, a surgeon can say you
need to have an open heart surgery to clear a blocked artery and tell
you all the benefits that will have for you. But if the surgeon gets
one little thing wrong - you're dead. So, there's a lot of planning
and a lot of training and a lot of thought going into your surgery
before he starts cutting. If the surgeon tells you you have a blocked
artery and you don't, and then doesn't pay attention to some detail -
ordering nurses from the OR who bother him with those details - and
you die as a result - are you going to believe the surgeon that says,
well I tried, some people don't make it, he had a weak heart! no -
you'd sue his ass for negligence. But before you did that you'd
collect the evidence. You'd get the video of the OR, you'd get
testimony from dismissed nurses, and so forth. Of course if the
surgeon also works for the courts, he might supress certain evidence
and deny access to certain people and information - and all the while
question your family who was trying to cash in on the death of their
father/husband - would you side with the surgeon?
Being a surgeon is tough. Being a president is tough. But we need to
think clearly about what's going on and do what's appropriate given
our situation and opportunities at this time. I think a new president
can work with the UN to increase their level of involvement - while
reducing US involvement - and attempt to try again being greeted as
liberators. That is, we don't want to encourage those who think that
by bombing Americans they can get them to leave. This will encourage
extremists to bomb Americans at home. As many military folks warned -
America doesn't have the resources to have a war in Iraq, a war in
Afghanistan and meet our global military commitments - so, we need the
UN before we go in. So, lets go get UN support like we did in Bosnia
and the first Gulf War. And then leave it to them - but getting the
details of the hand off right - so that THEY are greeted as
liberators. See?
But fortunately, I don't have to solve this problem - and so, it
doesn't matter if I'm right or not. But this is my thought on the
subject.
Get past personalities and so forth and look at the facts.
> In fact I would put things the other way round.
> Governments in fact reflect the prejudices of their populations.
There is an interaction. Despite what we tell ourselves markets and
governments are incapable of doing what we expect of them. This is a
scientific fact. Arrow proved it. There is not good solution - and
this knowledge is used by specialists to expand the control of
specialists at great cost to everyone else.
That is, people make irrational choices collectively that they
wouldn't make individually and so often they make collective choices
that are not in their own interest. Condorcet first noted that cycles
of voting can occur over long periods. Arrow explained in detail why
in the 1950s. Rather than correct this shortcoming, specialists have
exploited this shortcoming to manage political processes. Where
applicable, and to a lesser extent, the narrow shortcomings of the
market due to this are exploited by marketers to increase profits.
But the major unraveling of government began in earnest in the 1950s
and have accelerated ever since. The military's failure in Vietnam to
win the hearts and minds of the American public, has highlighted the
importance of infowar to modern warfare. So, this hasn't helped
candid public discourse either - and a possible return to
representative government.
> There
> was anti semitism in Germany after WW1. Hitler did not create it. He
> expoited it in an extremely cynical way, but it was there all the
> time.
Anti-semitism still exists. But there is an interaction. Governments
can serve as a bulwark against irrationality, or they can catalyze
irrationality. In the modern age of the rise of special interests at
the expense of society at large, irrationality has increased. It is
easy to see in our erstwhile enemies. Harder to see in ourselves.
>
> I was absolutely aghast when Einar, I think i was, suggested that
> religious groups should set up colonies in space. She should go with
> me to Syria and continue to the Iraqi border.
Religious practice has devolved as well as political practice into the
irrational. Many modern scientific minds believe religion to be akin
to noise or the definition of irrationality.
They ignore that there is a mysterium tremendum - as Freud called it -
that is an integral part to the human experience and part of being
human. It is often the most cherished aspect of being alive.
Younger folks may feel it when they fall in love - or when they give
birth, or raise children.
One in three astronauts who went to the moon had profoundly moving
experiences due to their journey. Some sought psychiatric care,
others started new age type movements, still others entered religious
orders.
Such feelings are also common - though less frequently - among
survivors of great tragedies or great battles.
Others seek such 'oceanic' feelings by imbibing mind altering drugs,
or engaging in a variety of self-hypnotic practices, or religious
practices or retreats.
It is very likely that anyone who lives aboard a spacecraft that
leaves Earth and is transported across the solar system would have a
large percentage of their population transformed in a religious sense
by the experience.
One Jesus, one Buddah, on Lao Tzu, one Ghandi, one Martin Luther King
- in a 100 generations is highly disruptive to society and the powers
that be. They are crucified, shot, deported, or transform their
society - or both - having 5% to 10% of the entire population EACH
generation having such oceanic beatific and transcendant insights into
the human condition - is an unknown factor in human affairs. Against
such a reality - religions brought along from Earth will be radically
altered and may be of no account whatever.
> How can this be cured.
What? Irrationality?
Well, Freud showed that belief in a male God figure is directly
connected to the drama of a child's relationship with his or her
father. Change that relationship - and belief in God is diminished.
Alice Miller showed that adult fascination with power money violence
and death - stems from the drama of a child's powerlessness. Change
the way children are reared so that they are empowered and self
actualized, and fascination with power money violence and death
disappear.
Joseph Campbell showed that fascination with religions stem from the
meaning it gives to our banal existence. It is the hero task of the
modern age to create deeply satisfying meaning from rational thought
and scientific understanding and capacity. This has not been done.
If it is not done science will serve to fuel our self destruction and
the promise of science and rational thought will have failed us.
One aspect Campbell discussed quite extensively, is his concept of the
monomyth - this cycle of adventure, discovery and rebirth - common to
all religions according to Campbell - stems from our history as a
species that expands its range by means of innovation - creating in
the process frontiers - regions that are newly habitable by dint of
new technology, but contain only resources and no competitors. The
frontier occupies the same emotional space as heaven, and the drama
surrounding the development of the frontier - mimics the drama and
meaning surrounding entry into heaven. Campbell suggested that this
mythic connection may provide an answer for science to provide the
bulk of humanity deeply meaningful and accurate connections to science
and technology. Space travel, with its endless frontier, offer a very
reap potential field for this development.
Ken Arrow showed that individual human value was non-transitive.
Therefore any method that adds up measures of human value to make
collective choice are subject to certain types of failure. This
failure explains cycles in voting and cycles in markets. This
discovery was immediately siezed by advertizers marketers and
politicans to exploit for individual gain at the expense of the
general markets and political processes. There has been a slow
unravelling of both over the past 50 years. This trend will
continue. At present there is no solution to Arrow's Impossibility
Theorem.
I have suggested the adaptation of Wassily Leontieff's input output
method of econometric analysis be adapted to create a system I call
VECTOR MONEY. Since ordered lists of numbers also are non-transitive
like human values, its easy to show they are not subject to the same
limitations outlined by Arrow. I have even gone so far as to suggest
a method involving distributed decision making using vector money and
PDAs connected by internet - as a means to supplant all existing
political and economic systems. In the face of decreasing
effectiveness of existing systems, any workable system will displace
older systems naturally without revolution or any sort of concerted
action. All that's needed is that people be presented with the
opportunity to use something that works and they will ultimately
abandon systems that don't work.
> Cetrtainly not by taking a wishy wasy Rousseau
> position as you seem to.
I never mentioned Rousseau - so I don't know where you got that.
> Governments have a responsibility to
> eliminate prejudice as far as they can.
Why? Government is a product of human behavior. It doesn't exist
apart from humans. So, its proper scientific study is as a subset of
psychology.
> They have a duty also to
> protect their countries (obviously)
Why? Countries are merely ideas that exist in the heads of people.
They are nothing more than ideas. How do you protect an idea? Why is
protecting an idea worth a human life?
This fascination with survival and dominance has been traced by Dr.
Miller to the powerlessness children feel when they are ignored by
adults. These disempowered children vow, and make good on on those
vows, to never be powerless as an adult. This fuels a fascination
with power, money, prestige, size, violence and death. Children who
do not feel disempowered do not have such a fascination and are far
more rational.
The rise of nationalism corresponded to changes in child rearing
practices in the 1880s - and have created a self-propagating series of
events that have made the identification with national identity
stronger with each succeeding generation. This is another disruptive
trend. Governments have not been shy in exploiting this connection
and creating institutions that institutionalize the abuse of children
for the purpose of building more compliant citizens - while at the
same time, eliminating troubling sections of their early training -
against the wishes of academia.
Clearly when we connect emotionally with governments because we feel
they can protect us from other nations - we do so because we
personally feel threatened and by those nations and this sense of
threat is diminished by the association. Unexplored is the
culpability of our nation in creating the situation in the first place
- or the possibility that everyone would be better off if we got rid
of nationalistic notions in the first place. Rarely is this idea even
broached - such as John Lennon's song - IMAGINE.
> but not to push the arms race
> forward and always be prepared to sit down to discuss disarmament.
Why? Identifying ourselves with a nation is a means to possess power
when we would otherwise feel powerless. It evokes deep seated fears
and irrationalities that go right back to our earliest years when we
were powerless before all adults. No one sits down and talks
disarmament, unless they are talking from a position of strength, and
then they are forcing a lesser nation to disarm or face the dire
consequences of a superior force. This is what you mean when you say
that. You don't mean the US or whatever nation you're from - would
sit down hat in hand and agree to be bullied around by a superior
force do you?
You are believing many of the lies that have become part of the global
culture over the past 50 years. This warps and perverts your
thinking.
There is no reason to have nations in the modern age. There is a
reason to have a global police force - aimed at enforcing a peace, and
a global military to disarm everyone uniformly - and then like George
Washington - lay down his arms and return home when it was done.
> Man is not Rousseau, Man is the Lord of the Flies.
Men and women are neither. People make ideas live, they don't live
for ideas.
> > The greatest threat humanity faces isn't from space. Its from
> > outselves. People sense that, and so talk of space shields and space
> > travel even, makes no sense to them.
>
> This is true.
Yes and one of the greatest threats we face is when we objectify
other human beings on the basis of race, religion, national origin,
and so forth.
> People want answers to the above questions.
No, they want security that was denied them as children, they want
support of their fellows, and they want to be accepted by their
fellows, and they want to be satisfied that they are doing all they
can for their families and themselves while they pursue happiness for
them and those they love no matter what changes occur in the world.
Any society that reliable and effectively offers this to everyone
alive will succeed. At present various nations promise this to their
citizens and where they fail attempt to cast the blame on others
outside the nation. This leads naturally to conflict, and irrational
acts of violence against the scapegoats. The only real solution is to
actually fix the problems we know about - and not use failure modes
for gain by the special interests - and create a social system that
works, and back it with industry and science - and make it freely
available to all - to bring peace and progress to humanity - and
fulfill the promise of science and technology.
> recently
> there was a Poker contest between Man and Machine. I posed in
> sci.maths that Von Neumann was right (about Poker at least). The
> minimax strategy works.
This is a game. The real world is more complex. Any game involves a
tacit agreement to play the game. Minimax won't help you if one of
the players pulls out his six shooter shoots you through the head and
takes your wallet.
With this in mind, assuming that cooperation is impossible and
conflict is inevitable, then we are led inevitably the violence the
converting the civilized world to a version of Beruit. If you are
saying conflict is inevitable but everyone can agree on the game -
then I would say - why this game and not a different one? If you are
saying that the game has certain benefits in searching for better
survival strategies - then I would say wouldn't cooperation be better
suited in some instances.
The point is, we've nevr had a political system that works because
Arrow's paradox shows us that none of the political systems or market
systems are capable of fulfilling their promises to us. So it should
not be surprising that we are being failed by our political system.
What is especially grievous in the modern age is that our
understanding of our failures politically have been used by
specialists to exercise control over society at large for their
benefit - at the expense of society at large.
> Howver the world is not a Poker game.
That is true.
> The world is a stag hunt.
That is not true.
> Every
> side will gain from cooperation.
That is true if we continue to develop frontiers where there are
untapped resources with no competitors around to bother us. This is
what led to human cooperativeness in the first place.
>The problem is convincing people of
> this.
No, the problem is finding and pointing out the stag. People who do
so are uniformly attacked by governments and other special interests
who see in the success of this strategy their own demise. We lack an
effective frontier on which we all can agree. JFK wanted us to turn
our high technology from head to head competition of the cold war, to
the far more fruitful competition of the space race. Nations of Earth
would compete with one another in developing resources and capacities
off world in the frontier of interplanetary space - much as Europe
developed sea faring capcities and avoided conflict for hundreds of
years - while engaging in powerful competition across the world. This
was his vision - that the US would be the first among all nations to
develop the opportunities and resources of interplanetary space for
the betterment of mankind.
He was shot in November 1963 and in December 1963 Lyndon Johnson and
Robert McNamara cut back on the nuclear propulsion programs of the
US, the scope and range of post- apollo landing, and spent more money
on Vietnam. In the end the US spent $20 billion on moonships with 5
dead, $200 billion on Vietnam, with 50,000 dead, and $2,000 billion on
ICBMs, with potential 5,000,000,000 dead.
> The irony is that I am not asking for people to be unselfish.
Cooperation does not require one to be unselfish.
> In
> fact in some ways I am asking them to be more selfish.
Selfishness depending on context can be good or bad for society.
> The 9/11
> hijackers were unselfish when all is said and done. They were in fact
> the Lords of Flies and were NOT promted by ...
Women in muslim societies are highly disrespected compared to men -
moreso than in non-muslim countries. They also are primary care
givers to children. Alice Miller and others note that this leads to a
generational sort of transaction. Women are abused as adults by men,
and so, they subconciously abuse their sons as children. Their sons
grow up to abuse the women in their live as a means to get even. This
creates an increasing cycle of violence and unhappiness. This
unhappiness is exploited by religious and political leaders to gain
power. When the promises of those leaders remain unfulfilled, they
point to those outside their culture as the source. This causes those
people to project their unhappiness on those outside sources. This
leads to extremists who take action to redress the supposed abuses of
those outsiders.
Willie...@gmail.com
> Just one point. Could you explain why you would prefer a 4 wave mixing
> system to a straight computational system?
and beyond my capacity to do experimental work with at present. So,
until I can actually do something with them, I don't feel competent to
talk extensively about them. But certainly, a sensitive imaging
device with adaptive optics that was affixed to a phased laser array
could figure out how to produce a beam from the main array that would
track the target.
> You mentioned earlier
> safety considerations, but is that really true?
Yes if the details are right.
> If someone were to
> shine a laser upwards they would get roasted.
Not if the originating laser were properly constructed.
> This would in fact
> constitute a powerful weapon.
Only if built to operate as a weapon. If built to operate as a power
transmitter, it would be perfectly safe.
Now, the 15 MW or 2 GW per square meter systems WOULD be weapons in
modern parlance - just as a 747 would be a dandy seige weapon in the
15th century - by crashing it into a castle. But that would be an
inconcievable waste of resource - oh, those in the 15th century would
certainly have no qualms about doing it - but a 20th century pilot
wouldn't do it easily.
So, lets be clear. I forsee;
(1) The construction of large terrestrial solar power arrays at less
than $1 per peak watt
(2) The conversion of those power arrays to IR lasersats operating as
400 W/m2 (less than sunlight)
(3) Increasing energy density to 1,000 W/m2 -and use in mobile
applications
(4) Increasing energy density to 1,000,000 W/m2 and use in flight
applications
Now, all these - over the next 25 years or so - involve power levels
that are not weapons. 1 MW per square meter by the way is equivalent
to the heating capacity of a hair dryer!! Once there is a long and
fruitful history of laser power from space - then we can contemplate
higher energy densities without fear of misuse
(5) Increasing energy density to 20 MW/m2 - and use in space flight
applications
(6) Increasing energy density to 2 GW/m2 - and use in laser light
flight applications
#5 permits a broad access to the solar system and the personal
spaceship
#6 permits interstellar flight and the personal interstellar ark
There is a correlation between income and per capita energy
consumption in an industrial society that suggests as our energy
intensity increases, the size and scope of our personal possessions
will also increase.
> A computational system would be required to ensure that this did not
> happen. Why not have a straight computer system and build safeguards
> into the software.
There are mixed systems that are possible as well. That is, the same
nonlinear optics that implement 4 wave mixing also can implement
logical circuits with the same optics. That is an optical transistor
is possible since many nonlinear optical materials exhibit optical
hysteresis. So, a powerful beam can be switched in phase by a weak
beam digital fashion... when you do the math and some experiments -
there are some simple mixed mode solutions that are possible which are
satisfying and simple. These are subject of current research and
continuing IP work. Once that is completed I can talk more about it.
However, consider the two systems;
One consists of an imaging system looking at the surface of the Earth
for signaling beams from receivers. The beams location is noted and
the phased array of laser elements is controlled by software to
produce a counter propagating beam. The imaging system is equipped
with phase measuring equipment that allows it to determine the precise
conjugate character of the pilot beam - allowing it to undo
atmospheric distortion. The imaging system is also equipped with an
ablity to decode modulation of the beam so that the desired amount of
power is delivered and the customer is appropriately billed.
The second system consists of a phase conjugate mirror built into the
backside of the lasing cavity - in such a way that it carries out ALL
the functions just described. That is, there are logical layers in
the phase conjugate mirror that modifies the systems response or
eliminates it totally if certain things - such as digital access codes
- are not met.
> In fact what you will have is a computer network
> with (possibly) one 8 bit computer controling a laser.
You have that in both cases, except that in the case where its all
built into the phase conjugate mirror its far more reliable and safe
than putting the system together piecemeal. Also, the speed and
accuracy of the all optical system is far superior than light/
electrical/light system.
Consider an integrated circuit with 1 billion transistor elements
randomly connected into logical patterns and its abilit to respond to
digital signals. It consists of three varieties of crystalline
structure that responds differently to electrons (p-type, n-type,
neutral) - and dozens of conductive layers that interconnect them in
logical patterns.
Now consider an integrated optical system that has 10 billion optical
switches per square millimeter per in 10,000 layers. The optical
media consists of a continuously variable phase medium and a fixed
holographic layer. The optical media is the equivalent of the silicon
in an IC, and the holographic layer is the equivalent of the
conductive layer. This complex array of computing elements is backed
by a phase conjugate mirror. A 100 square meter mirror contains 1
million trillion logical elements all interconnected and capable of
doing whatever logical function the IC based system is capable of
doing - by operating directly on the incoming imaged light source.
> Sites on the ground will ask for power. Air/space craft will give
> their positions, velocities and accelerations using GPS/Galileo and
> also request power.
Yes.
> The main advantage of a straight computer is that the whole thing is
> easilt simulatable on the ground.
This is still possible with an all optical system. I have written
software to simulate 1 micron square in 10,000 layers... which leads
naturally toward building working systems.
> - Ian Parker
BradGuth
It's also one of the easist methods to corrupt for whatever
intentions. Since we can't be any too safe, I'd suggest having both.
- Brad Guth -
Willie...@gmail.com
There was a time in America when people could leave their doors
unlocked and not fear things being stolen. In fact it there was
trouble, they could rely on strangers to help. This is not just idle
fantasy. There were places where this was everyday reality. As we
became more reliant on government to protect us, we found that we were
less safe. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that those who
receive our trust and hence great power, create to the extent it is
possible to do so without attracting negative attention to themselves,
create those situations that give them greater power.
For example, there was a Harvard psychologist who after years of
careful study, developed a reinforcement schedule for physicians to
use in the ER to identify and reinforce behavior among drug users who
presented themelves for medical emergencies so that within about 180
days 90% of those so treated were no longer using drugs. He got
funding to try his program at other Boston hospitals. Success there
caused the system to be adopted by certain inner city hospitals in
NYC. At that point he attracted negative public attention from a
collection of Congressmen - notably Representative Wrangle - from
Harlem. The man was crucified and our 'war on drugs' continued for
another 25 years with impossibly foolish approaches (just say no)
On the other hand, we are routinely treated to one horror after the
other - and every form of violent excess which only feeds more
violence. The only call for rationality in the media is from
comedians like Michael Moore or Al Franken, who serve only to
marginalize all the rational arguments they offer. This of course is
a tactic used in intelligence circles for years to leave no rational
grounds to oppose the desired outcome. Very similar to having a
journalist who is convicted of drug abuse break the story of hard to
conceal facts about Presidential cocaine use. The story isn't about
the facts, but who reported them and their accuracy and the reporters
veracity. Again these are very well studied techniques in mind
control and result naturally from absolute control of the global
information environment.
Those who exercise such control need not be opposed in my opinion.
There was no way for folks within the former Soviet Union to
effectively oppose the lies of Pravda. But the Soviet Union fell
anyway. While Big Brother and the drama of 1984 makes for satisfying
fiction, the ability of any government to infintely manage the
epistemology of a target population is limited. In the end, things
cannot help being recognized for what they are, and people cannot help
but realize the truth about things - despite the flurry of lies. So,
in the end, all such efforts - if they are not directed toward the
true betterment of humanity, will fall by the wayside - into the
trasheap of history.
What we need do is be self-aware and make decisions that seem right to
us - in our own personal lives - and to make decisions that are not
driven by thought - but by our deepest and truest emotions. Not borne
of fear of those we do not know, but of love for those we do.
This is how we will survive most efficiently the effects of all the
madmen of the world.
BradGuth
>
> What we need do is be self-aware and make decisions that seem right to
> us - in our own personal lives - and to make decisions that are not
> driven by thought - but by our deepest and truest emotions. Not borne
> of fear of those we do not know, but of love for those we do.
>
> This is how we will survive most efficiently the effects of all the
> madmen of the world.
Sounds great. However, perhaps in that case we should have all become
Jews or at least good little Jewish puppets, so that we need not
bother with any personal thought as based upon that phony past or much
less that of having any remorse, and just focus upon getting our fair
share at the ongoing demise of others, because that's exactly what
most every one else that's getting ahead has been doing.
BTW, would you care to help overthrow the US government, so that you
and I can kick those badly deserving butts that have set humanity back
by centuries worth?
- Brad Guth -
Willie...@gmail.com
Your anti-semitism I find troubling and offensive, your attitude
toward the US I find apalling, and, notwithstanding significant issues
I have with respect to how the US and other nations should conduct
themselves best going forward, the world is clearly a better place
because the United States exists in it.
BradGuth
>
> Your anti-semitism I find troubling and offensive, your attitude
> toward the US I find apalling, and, notwithstanding significant issues
> I have with respect to how the US and other nations should conduct
> themselves best going forward, the world is clearly a better place
> because the United States exists in it.
Why are you being such a wuss? I'm not offering the least bit of anti-
semitism, whereas you're nothing but pro-semitism regardless of how
bad off it gets.
I happen to like those good Jews, but then you seem to like each and
every one of those really BAD Jews. You must also like the kind of
folks that tell lies and have no remorse.
Do you have some other faith-based group or Skull and Bones like cult
that's responsible for having produced those kinds of such horrific
global collateral damage and carnage of the innocent?
Is it all because of those pesky pretend atheists?
A few too many Catholics are actually nearly as bad in their ways of
past and somewhat recent fiascos, although for group size nothing much
beats what a nasty Yid can accomplish, and then some. Do you have
examples otherwise?
Should we let all the bad folks on Earth run lose, and/or put them
into public office or otherwise in charge of our education and
mainstream media?
Your "better place because the United States exists in it" is about to
create WWIII, and that's in addition to our having mutually
perpetrated those decades of a spendy and lethal cold-war, as well as
having created 9/11 and butt loads of nasty stuff in between and ever
since.
>From the very get-go the USA has been a royal pain in mother natures
butt, as well as in the butts of others we could care less about. It
sounds as though you very much like war, perhaps because there's loot
to be made or just taken from others.
- Brad Guth -
Ian Parker
minimal energy you need ion drive. If you have plenty of energy you
indeed don't need to worry about that.
There is one other point. If you have polulated the ecliptic with
lasers, you will (presumably) be able to phase lock them. You will
have a telescope 300million kilometers in diameter. In earlier
postings I have said how a number of problems are all tied together.
Now let us see what sizes you can see 10 parsecs distance. Now a
parsec is by definition 1sec of arc with observations separated by 6
months. Therefore 10 parsecs means that viewed from the target the
telescope is subtending 1/10 sec of arc. 50 deg per radian 3600sec per
degree. That is 1/180000 radian. This means we see objects some 7cm
across. Clearly the gas in interstellar space + gravitational lensing
will prevent us getting anywhere near that figure. We should have
little difficulty though in seeing any planets.
We will know fairly quickly whether or not we are in a race, another
possible explanation of the Fermi paradox.
> Humanity today consumes 10 TW of power - 1/10,000,000th the power
> level postulated here. Needless to day, any industrial activity we
> wanted to carry out on the planets or in free flying space colonies,
> could easily be provided as well. This might also form the basis of
> maintaining government control over this far flung array of humans, to
> keep them from using high tech to attack one another - and stopping
> the possibility of interplanetary war.
>
You are assuming that war is the result of competition for resources.
I say it is saying your prayers the wrong way.
> A laser light sail requires no propellant, but power levels go way up
> for both high thrusts, small sail size, and for ton of payload
> moved.
>
> There are two ways to do this. One is to heat a body to very high
> temperatures and use the black body radiation for propulsion - this
> requires some sort of plasma containment system that can't be built.
> The other (if we are to have high gee forces) is to use a mirror to
> reflect nearly all the energy incident on it. In order to limit the
> size of the mirror.
>
> To make logistics simple, it would be nice to have the mirrors operate
> like wings do on aircraft - exerting 100 kg/m2 or more. A disk like
> spacecraft that had multi-mode capabilities would be interesting.
> That is, a spherical payload encircled by a mirror disk, that might
> also operate as a radiator propulsor short term - for landing and
> operating out of sight of the sun...
>
A laser is monochromatic. This means you can use simple dielectric
sails which do not heat up. A metal sail is hopeless at anything like
a high energy.
You will have to get to that point gradually.
> > I think you will find that people want to live in settlements.
>
> I think you are not familiar with the psychology, history, and
> sociology of human beings.
>
> > They
> > try to strike a compromise between a city with its congestion and a
> > homestead.
>
> Only by necessity. If you could obtain the services and benefits of a
> big city like New York, without having to put up with New York - most
> people would do it.
New York is where all the action is taking place. That is basically
why people are there. In point of fact you could get rid of New York
wiithout a fantastic amount of space engineering.
This can also be done by developing terrestrial technology. One small
point. You are now inplicitly postulating VN machines. If all the work
is done by robots the colony is VN. I personally beieve O'Neill is
only credible in a Von Neumann context.
How long should we wait. Go now for energy - quite right. VN is at the
end of the road, it has to be.
> This might change even as well, if humaniform robots can take on super
> accurate human sexual characteristics. That way sexually active teens
> and young adults could interact sexually with a small group of
> sexually compatible humaniform robots - selected from the entire
> population of humans who ever were recorded - and have trysts with
> them. This would work best if one could construct a virtual reality
> world - simlilar to Star Trek's holodeck - where one could interact
> with 'the world' - a virtual community consisting of the sum total of
> human beings operating real time in a super computer virtual reality.
> This would have the great advantage in that sexually maturing adults
> could safely and completely sample a wide range of human cultures and
> extract from the virtual world, personalities that suited them. In
> the end, mating could be carried out by exchanging genetic materials -
> or in more advanced form - exchanging genetic information with 'the
> world'
>
> If done properly this would lead to a vitilization of the remote
> community - and the full participation of every human in the larger
> community of man.
Ditto on terrestrial possibilities.
>
> > Somewhere there is a compromise that suits the majority of
> > people.
>
> This is only by necessity of our limited technology involving
> primitive forms of communication, transportation and production.
>
I am not so sure. The question I am asking is why do business
executives keep travelling to meetings which are completely
unecessary, even with present day technology.
> > If the lifespan of people radically increased, if people
> > started having "second families" you might have more of a case.
>
> I have a case based on the fact that humans throughout most of their
> history lived in small bands of nomadic people who subsisted in the
> environment without outside assistance. Sociologically we are set up
> to operate that way. We adapt to the 'pressures' of civilization
> because of the huge benefits it confers each of us. The reason modern
> society accentuates sexuality and sexual adventure is because its one
> of the few hooks that society has for promoting super sociable
> behavior. Folks who have a satisfactory sexual coupling and are
> happily building a life together are viewed in modern culture as a
> nearly unattainable goal, rather than as a normal maturation process
> once we are somewhat past our teen years. That's because folks in
> this idyllic situation become much less controllable and tend to go
> their own way.
>
> I presume that such demands for social control will be removed in the
> not too distant future and we will operate once again in a saner age
> where such large scale socialization is not needed.
>
We are basically designed for a hunter gatherer existence. Tis is
perfectly true. Hunter/gatherer bands were (probably) round about
50-100. With that number of people objectives are fairly well agreed.
These are all arguments which will be raised by the skeptics. I don't
think there will be any skepticism about energy. I don't think
colonization will be a stated goal for a long time.
>
> > NASA has already been sold on the idea. It has produced the report. It
> > is putting quite a bit of effort in.
>
> They will get money to look for possible collisions and do lab work to
> develop possible solutions. They will write reports, and it will go
> away. But unless a collision is immenent they will not build anything
> of substance.
>
> However, the same data in the hands of a commercial developer could
> garner significant money today.
>
> Consider that the US government - the world's richest government -
> will spend $2.9 trillion in 2008 - which is a large segment of the $12
> trillion US economy
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us_federal_budget
>
> But consider now that the global economy produces $65 trillion and
> that 9.5 million high-net-worth people have a nest egg totalling $32
> trillion. Most of this is liquid - and looking for reasonable
> investments.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_wealth_report
>
> If a group of scientists along with a number of high-tech vendors got
> together and made a reasonable plea for a high-tech investment along
> the lines we're describing -with some sort of immediate payoff
> (marketable security worth a goodly fraction of the present value of
> the future income) - you might be able to garner $3 trillion to $4
> trillion very quickly!! And do significant things again very quickly
> - without a lot of the politics.
>
If you can get onto a downward spiral of costs then things will indeed
happen quickly. In terms of politics I think that one significant
factor may well be "What is the smallest quantum of money which will
start the ball rolling.. You can get significant amounts of solar
energy with a fairly large collection area fairly simply. To have a
cheap space launch based on lasers requires another stage.
> Once you successfully delivered on the promises made on the first go
> round - you'd find another $8 trillion to $10 trillion available...
>
> At that point -supposing you'd provide a 30% or more ROI - the whole
> project becomes self funding. You'd get a bubble - but it would be
> supported by increased outputs and so forth. In all, you'd kick up
> the global economy from 4% per annum to something like 14% per annum -
> which would support your growth.
>
> That is, success would be self- propelled after the first and second
> go round. In short, you'd be bankable.. and you'd have access to the
> world's banking assets at that point - and after that, access to your
> own self generated revenue stream. This is the benefit of profits.
> You can use them to sustain growth, while throwing off payments to
> those who took the early risk.
>
>
> > I profoundly disagree.
>
> You are profoundly wrong.
>
> > We have indeed been lied to about Iraq,
>
> That's one type of lie. There are others. For example, that smoking
> cigarettes will make you sexy. Or that drinking to excess will make
> you happy. Or that spending in excess will make you successful.
>
> These lies benefit those who tell them, at the expense of those who
> believe them.
>
Cigarette advertising has now been banned.
> > but let
> > us remember this. It is the Iraqis and not the Americans that have
> > produced 4 million odd refugees. 2 million within Iraq and 2 million
> > is surrounding countries. I shall be going on a tour of Syria late on
> > the October. There are 1m Iraqis there.
>
> America created the concept of the rouge state shortly after opec
> flexed its muscle over oil supplies. This after the US oil production
> reached its peak and entered secondary production. The US knew that
> it only had 40 to 50 years before the world's oil production reached
> its peak as well. (this is quite different than the the world running
> out of oil - which won't happen for 200 years or more) - which is now
> only 10 years away. The market is already adjusting to the changing
> value of oil - increasing the price from $10 per barrel in the 1980s
> to over $60 per barrel today.
>
> All rogue states were oil rich countries - and together they comprised
> 50% of the world's oil reserves.
N Korea is a rogue, but is not rich. I will agree some of the Middle
Eastern rogues are rich.
> The US had plans to put these
> reserves in storage - and let the others use their oil profits to
> expand output above that which oil companies would have deemed prudent
> in a world where ALL producers were competing in the market - this had
> the impact of moderating the price of oil - at the expense of those
> who were nominally benefitting - by accelerating their usage of oil.
> This benefitted the US by stabilizing prices at around $12 per barrel
> - 6x the price enjoyed by the consumer when the US had excess capacity
> (oil was $2 per barrel before 1970s shortages). Now, when Saudi
> Arabia, Indonesia, and other major OPEC members are entering secondary
> production - the US finds reason to institute regime change in these
> former rogue regimes - and bring them online.
I would like references to this. The problem I have always had with
linking US foeign policy to oil is that spending money on defense is
simply not a cost effective way of obtaining oil. Far better to spend
your money on nuclear power (peaceful), terrestrial solar power, more
exploration if not space lasers.
>
> Clearly this long term policy was planned - there are even papers
> available from US state department and others. Plainly it was a way
> to moderate the supply of oil in a way the benefitted the US relative
> to all other players in the market. Obviously this is our primary
> motivation. Just compare our attitudes of WMD in Iraq and need to
> invade Iran because of a nuclear power program versus our continuing
> lack of interest in Pakistani nuclear weapons - which already exist,
> and the nuclear program of North Korea (which was of no real interest
> until the North shot off a rocket capable of reaching US homeland)
>
The one reason for attacking Iran is failure in Iraq. The fact is that
when the US withdraws Iran will take over the country, either in terms
of a more of less client state (which I think they would prefer) or as
an organic part of a united Persia.
> > I hold no brief for Bush, it is all his handiwork,
>
> Bush, like any President is doing his best for America and all
> Americans. America elected him. He truly believed we would be
> greeted as liberators. We were not. He had no game plan for if he
> was wrong. Now he's stuck and he's reviled. This really is
> incidental to our long-term strategy. If in the summer of 2004 a
> great peace settled over Iraq, and a free Iraq inspired Iran to throw
> off the yoke of their ultra-religious zealots and embrace freedom -
> and both nations were pumping tons of oil into the world market - and
> oil was $22 per barrel - and this made it so that Putin would have to
> kiss the West's ass for money - Bush would be hailed as a great genius
> and liberator and would be given the Nobel prize by the Europeans as a
> means to apologize for not helping him.
>
BTW - The current plans for Iran include "letting the anthill sort
itself out at the end of the strikes". Quite clearly nothing to the US
liking will emerge. There is even the possibility of an intervention
by a third country. Possibly Putin under the unberella of the Central
Asian Federation.
History is what actually happenned, not what might have happenned. One
thing that someone looking into America from the outside, I am in fact
British, finds hard to appreciate is the fact that America wins large
numbers of Nobel prizes, but has repeated intelligence failures in the
area of public policy. The official CIA report on 9/11 shows almost
criminal negligence - not to mention of course the initial error of
supporting OBL in the first place (that is when he was fighting Soviet
forces).
My thoughts are different. Dictatorship arises when democracy fails to
answer the problems of a society. Islamic society contains one major
contradiction. Islam sees the spiritual and secular rulers to be one
and the same. This is one factor that generates tension perhaps more
than any other.
> Get past personalities and so forth and look at the facts.
>
> > In fact I would put things the other way round.
> > Governments in fact reflect the prejudices of their populations.
>
> There is an interaction. Despite what we tell ourselves markets and
> governments are incapable of doing what we expect of them. This is a
> scientific fact. Arrow proved it. There is not good solution - and
> this knowledge is used by specialists to expand the control of
> specialists at great cost to everyone else.
>
> That is, people make irrational choices collectively that they
> wouldn't make individually and so often they make collective choices
> that are not in their own interest. Condorcet first noted that cycles
> of voting can occur over long periods. Arrow explained in detail why
> in the 1950s. Rather than correct this shortcoming, specialists have
> exploited this shortcoming to manage political processes. Where
> applicable, and to a lesser extent, the narrow shortcomings of the
> market due to this are exploited by marketers to increase profits.
> But the major unraveling of government began in earnest in the 1950s
> and have accelerated ever since. The military's failure in Vietnam to
> win the hearts and minds of the American public, has highlighted the
> importance of infowar to modern warfare. So, this hasn't helped
> candid public discourse either - and a possible return to
> representative government.
Hearts and minds have not been won in the Iraq war either. This last
paragraph is a little bit contradictory. The military has tries to win
hearts and miinds, but has failed. It's knowledge is clearly
incomplete, its control of the sources of information incomplete.
You know my perennial hobbyhorse AI. Now in the future television
programs are going to be sent to us via the Internet. Google is going
to control our hearts and minds. Now Google is in fact international.
I have talked about Radio Reloj (which in fact is the name of a radio
station in Cuba) in the context of SETI. Sync pulses can be obseved
tens of parsecs away.
Quite clearly the demise of Radio Reloj will have a lot to say about
how we perceive the word. We have to be certain that AI provides a
neutral picture. So far Google seems to be doing.
>
> > There
> > was anti semitism in Germany after WW1. Hitler did not create it. He
> > expoited it in an extremely cynical way, but it was there all the
> > time.
>
> Anti-semitism still exists. But there is an interaction. Governments
> can serve as a bulwark against irrationality, or they can catalyze
> irrationality. In the modern age of the rise of special interests at
> the expense of society at large, irrationality has increased. It is
> easy to see in our erstwhile enemies. Harder to see in ourselves.
>
Absolutely right.
>
>
> > I was absolutely aghast when Einar, I think i was, suggested that
> > religious groups should set up colonies in space. She should go with
> > me to Syria and continue to the Iraqi border.
>
> Religious practice has devolved as well as political practice into the
> irrational. Many modern scientific minds believe religion to be akin
> to noise or the definition of irrationality.
>
> They ignore that there is a mysterium tremendum - as Freud called it -
> that is an integral part to the human experience and part of being
> human. It is often the most cherished aspect of being alive.
>
I think we should distinguish between religion and belief in God.
Science is neutral about belief in God as such. As far as orgainized
religion is concerned the difficulty I have with it is the intolerance
it shows. There are a lot of religions saying contradictory things.
They can't all be right. Either one of them is right or they are all
wrong. Organized religion claims to have a red phone - dial "A" for
Allah. He does not seem to have taught them how to live in peace.
> Younger folks may feel it when they fall in love - or when they give
> birth, or raise children.
>
> One in three astronauts who went to the moon had profoundly moving
> experiences due to their journey. Some sought psychiatric care,
> others started new age type movements, still others entered religious
> orders.
>
> Such feelings are also common - though less frequently - among
> survivors of great tragedies or great battles.
>
> Others seek such 'oceanic' feelings by imbibing mind altering drugs,
> or engaging in a variety of self-hypnotic practices, or religious
> practices or retreats.
>
> It is very likely that anyone who lives aboard a spacecraft that
> leaves Earth and is transported across the solar system would have a
> large percentage of their population transformed in a religious sense
> by the experience.
>
A genuine religious experience? Possibly, but organized religion is
not about religious experience. It is about in groups and out groups.
I will kill you if you don't say your prayers as I say them. Religious
experience on the other hand tends to be "Buddhist" in a very broad
sense, and spans the different traditions.
I will touch on religious morality later.
> One Jesus, one Buddah, on Lao Tzu, one Ghandi, one Martin Luther King
> - in a 100 generations is highly disruptive to society and the powers
> that be. They are crucified, shot, deported, or transform their
> society - or both - having 5% to 10% of the entire population EACH
> generation having such oceanic beatific and transcendant insights into
> the human condition - is an unknown factor in human affairs. Against
> such a reality - religions brought along from Earth will be radically
> altered and may be of no account whatever.
>
> > How can this be cured.
>
> What? Irrationality?
>
> Well, Freud showed that belief in a male God figure is directly
> connected to the drama of a child's relationship with his or her
> father. Change that relationship - and belief in God is diminished.
>
> Alice Miller showed that adult fascination with power money violence
> and death - stems from the drama of a child's powerlessness. Change
> the way children are reared so that they are empowered and self
> actualized, and fascination with power money violence and death
> disappear.
I am not so sure.
>
> Joseph Campbell showed that fascination with religions stem from the
> meaning it gives to our banal existence. It is the hero task of the
> modern age to create deeply satisfying meaning from rational thought
> and scientific understanding and capacity. This has not been done.
> If it is not done science will serve to fuel our self destruction and
> the promise of science and rational thought will have failed us.
>
> One aspect Campbell discussed quite extensively, is his concept of the
> monomyth - this cycle of adventure, discovery and rebirth - common to
> all religions according to Campbell - stems from our history as a
> species that expands its range by means of innovation - creating in
> the process frontiers - regions that are newly habitable by dint of
> new technology, but contain only resources and no competitors. The
> frontier occupies the same emotional space as heaven, and the drama
> surrounding the development of the frontier - mimics the drama and
> meaning surrounding entry into heaven. Campbell suggested that this
> mythic connection may provide an answer for science to provide the
> bulk of humanity deeply meaningful and accurate connections to science
> and technology. Space travel, with its endless frontier, offer a very
> reap potential field for this development.
>
This may be true. I think though in a very real sense the type of
framework provided by Organized Religion may in fact stop one thinking
in this sort of way. The Pilgrim Fathers did not go because they were
awaestruck with America. They went because James I wanted rid of them.
Yes indeed, but I want governments to be elected that attempt to
better the lot of Mankind. This is one factor that will influence me
in my decision of who to vote for.
It is also possible that AI will influence the course of government.
Asimov talked about the laws of robotics. With the rise of digital
feeds Isaac Asimov immediately springs to mind. Content should be
provided and indexed impartially. Asimov I believe would have wanted
his robots to combat antsemitism. The holocaut did happen though
negect as Asimov would put it. No robot should stand by.
Today we do not feel as much threatened by other nastions as by
individuals who want to kill us and are often not too worried if they
kill themselves too.
> > but not to push the arms race
> > forward and always be prepared to sit down to discuss disarmament.
>
> Why? Identifying ourselves with a nation is a means to possess power
> when we would otherwise feel powerless. It evokes deep seated fears
> and irrationalities that go right back to our earliest years when we
> were powerless before all adults. No one sits down and talks
> disarmament, unless they are talking from a position of strength, and
> then they are forcing a lesser nation to disarm or face the dire
> consequences of a superior force. This is what you mean when you say
> that. You don't mean the US or whatever nation you're from - would
> sit down hat in hand and agree to be bullied around by a superior
> force do you?
>
> You are believing many of the lies that have become part of the global
> culture over the past 50 years. This warps and perverts your
> thinking.
>
> There is no reason to have nations in the modern age. There is a
> reason to have a global police force - aimed at enforcing a peace, and
> a global military to disarm everyone uniformly - and then like George
> Washington - lay down his arms and return home when it was done.
>
Nation states have a monoply of force. I believe that a world without
nations would be an ideal to strive for. Quite clearly it is also an
idea that no one wants. Looking at the situation from Britain we have
the EU. Now governments, including Gordon Brown want to bring about a
common European sovereignity. Quite laudable you might say.
Governments have negotiated an EU treaty which the voters are throwing
out. Gordon Brown is not going to face a referendum here, he will get
the treaty ratified by Parliament. Governments are persuing what might
be termed rational policies as far as they can. They are definitely in
advance of their populations.
Iraq is one nation. It is at war with itself.
> > recently
> > there was a Poker contest between Man and Machine. I posed in
> > sci.maths that Von Neumann was right (about Poker at least). The
> > minimax strategy works.
>
> This is a game. The real world is more complex. Any game involves a
> tacit agreement to play the game. Minimax won't help you if one of
> the players pulls out his six shooter shoots you through the head and
> takes your wallet.
>
> With this in mind, assuming that cooperation is impossible and
> conflict is inevitable, then we are led inevitably the violence the
> converting the civilized world to a version of Beruit. If you are
> saying conflict is inevitable but everyone can agree on the game -
> then I would say - why this game and not a different one? If you are
> saying that the game has certain benefits in searching for better
> survival strategies - then I would say wouldn't cooperation be better
> suited in some instances.
I think you misundrstand, conflict is part of the game. The Sunnis and
Shiites each cose an outcome which led to 4 million refugees.
>
> The point is, we've nevr had a political system that works because
> Arrow's paradox shows us that none of the political systems or market
> systems are capable of fulfilling their promises to us. So it should
> not be surprising that we are being failed by our political system.
> What is especially grievous in the modern age is that our
> understanding of our failures politically have been used by
> specialists to exercise control over society at large for their
> benefit - at the expense of society at large.
>
> > Howver the world is not a Poker game.
>
> That is true.
>
> > The world is a stag hunt.
>
> That is not true.
It is true that mutual cooperation will provide the highest score but
they contive not to.
Let us look at the outcome of a staghunt. The Tigres and Euphates are
powerful rivers. In the time of the old Babylonian kings 3 crops a
year were produced. That is before oil comes into consideration.
Nobody would have had to have left their homes there would be electric
power 24/7 and the country would be on the road to prosperity.
However ...... How basically do you get people to look after their own
interests.
>
> > Every
> > side will gain from cooperation.
>
> That is true if we continue to develop frontiers where there are
> untapped resources with no competitors around to bother us. This is
> what led to human cooperativeness in the first place.
>
It is how you say your prayers - not resources. There is enough in
Iraq for everyone there and for everyone to come home.
> >The problem is convincing people of
> > this.
>
> No, the problem is finding and pointing out the stag. People who do
> so are uniformly attacked by governments and other special interests
> who see in the success of this strategy their own demise. We lack an
> effective frontier on which we all can agree. JFK wanted us to turn
> our high technology from head to head competition of the cold war, to
> the far more fruitful competition of the space race.
Did he now. He, more even than Lyndon Johnston, was the architect of
Vietnam.
>Nations of Earth
> would compete with one another in developing resources and capacities
> off world in the frontier of interplanetary space - much as Europe
> developed sea faring capcities and avoided conflict for hundreds of
> years - while engaging in powerful competition across the world. This
> was his vision - that the US would be the first among all nations to
> develop the opportunities and resources of interplanetary space for
> the betterment of mankind.
>
> He was shot in November 1963 and in December 1963 Lyndon Johnson and
> Robert McNamara cut back on the nuclear propulsion programs of the
> US, the scope and range of post- apollo landing, and spent more money
> on Vietnam. In the end the US spent $20 billion on moonships with 5
> dead, $200 billion on Vietnam, with 50,000 dead, and $2,000 billion on
> ICBMs, with potential 5,000,000,000 dead.
>
> > The irony is that I am not asking for people to be unselfish.
>
> Cooperation does not require one to be unselfish.
>
> > In
> > fact in some ways I am asking them to be more selfish.
>
> Selfishness depending on context can be good or bad for society.
Spoken by a true bweiever the games theory. You can be selfish and
hunt the stag.
>
> > The 9/11
> > hijackers were unselfish when all is said and done. They were in fact
> > the Lords of Flies and were NOT promted by ...
>
> Women in muslim societies are highly disrespected compared to men -
> moreso than in non-muslim countries. They also are primary care
> givers to children. Alice Miller and others note that this leads to a
> generational sort of transaction. Women are abused as adults by men,
> and so, they subconciously abuse their sons as children. Their sons
> grow up to abuse the women in their live as a means to get even.
Yes and religion (org) also gives a double standard sexual morality. I
suggested sending those Iraqii girls from Damascus nightclubs into
space. This very much stems from the words on the Statue of Liberty.
They have said thier prayers the wrong way, they have been booted out
- and to cap it all they are now moral outcasts. This is organized
religion for you.
>This
> creates an increasing cycle of violence and unhappiness. This
> unhappiness is exploited by religious and political leaders to gain
> power. When the promises of those leaders remain unfulfilled, they
> point to those outside their culture as the source. This causes those
> people to project their unhappiness on those outside sources. This
> leads to extremists who take action to redress the supposed abuses of
> those outsiders.
- Ian Parker
BradGuth
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I would have to agree that any 0.03 c ion thrusted craft has great
cruising potential, even if limited to 0.01 c. However, why bother to
store ion worthy gas when it can be made next to forever on the fly?
(sort of speak)
Hot radon gas is actually a fairly active resource or cache of
impressive ions that are on the move as is. A sufficient payload of
radium as contained within a breeder reactor is what offers such an
ongoing decay of producing those highly interjetic atoms of radon, on
the fly sort of speak.
A high pressure vessel of Pu239 pumped Radium(Ra226) as the breeder
reactor on behalf of obtaining the most Radon (Rn222) or rather LRn222
per given kg of radium isn't hardly rocket science, although as Uncle
Al having restipulated that essentially a nifty byproduct of such a
hot reactor could rather easily become a nice volume or potential kgf/
kg worth of super heated steam ions, of which h2o at 1000 bar at the
nuclear reactive boosted thermal temperature of perhaps 1000 K isn't
exactly of no reaction usage, is it.
BTW, wars are mostly about global resources, and/or of what those
resources can deliver to those most interested in exploiting such
valued resources of either mineral or energy. In other words,
wherever there's little if anything of value to fight over, there's no
point in our joining into whatever's the fight that's often faith-
based as being the secondary or stealth/perpetrated reason(s) for that
war. Mainstream religion has almost nothing to do with God, whereas
instead it has to do with obtaining and/or orchestrating the most
control over others, and of these days that takes loot, and/or the
control over the loot of others.
- Brad Guth -
BradGuth
>
> - Show quoted text -
If it were not for all the orchestrated naysayism of this mostly
Yiddish moderated anti-think-tank of their usenet from hell, as such
the likes of your R&D plus multiple applications of such would have
been a done deal as of more than a decade ago, and we wouldn't be
surviving from the likes of 9/11 or much less at war, because global
oil would only have become worth at most $10/barrel by now, and having
our homeland grid utility energy at $.01/kwhr without ever involving
10% of that nasty coal, oil or natural gas that which just so happens
to be laced with the likes radium, radon and a good many other toxic
elements (not to mention having been wasting He3), not to further
mention those horrific amounts of unavoidable combustion soot that's
laced with those pesky CO2 and NOx contributions.
The same could be said about those opposing the utilizing of our
moon's L1, Venus L2 or even the toasty planet of Venus itself,
especially because of all the raw and renewable energy that's already
there to behold is more than a thousand fold greater potential per m2
than Earth has to offer.
The underlying problem is that you and others of your silly kind just
don't get it, as in not getting any of it.
-
"whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell
-
It seems that hocus-pocus controlled past that's fully in charge of
your private parts is apparently a done deal in whatever's your good
book, of no matters what can't ever be revised for no good reasons.
What a pathetic shame that good folks like yourself are continually so
snookered and thereby so easily dumbfounded past that point of no
return. Good grief, butts need to be kicks before it's too late, and
obviously you haven't been kicking your fair share of those badly
deserving butts, have you.
Where would we be if the likes of Warren Buffett were as wussy as
yourself?
In other words, stop taking all of that mainstream status quo crapolla
of naysayism from those that clearly have no intentions of their ever
constructively contributing to each and every one of your topics,
because you're not the bad guy, as they are.
- Brad Guth -
Willie...@gmail.com
You are right that when you reduce Isp you are reducing power levels
and energy use. But you won't be travelling at 1 gee though.
Something far less.
Check it out
first,
The sun puts out lots of energy and capturing it and transmitting it
efficiently provides all the energy we need. So, this is part and
parcel of a space program. Not only is sunlight the first extra-
terrestrial resource humanity has used, making efficient use of it
along the lines I have describe is part of a rational commercial space
program.
second,
Lets review a little rocket basics shall we? haha..
Ion rockets have specific impulses of around 5,000 sec - that's
approximately 50 km/sec exhaust speed. .Awesome performance. Thrust
to weight is low, and so, accelerations of 1 gee won't be achieved.
1/100th gees are doable. Which is fine, because it reduces top speeds
from 0.03c - or 9,000 km/sec to 1/100th this value or 90 km/sec.
So, you won't be reaching 3% light speed with ion rockets we can build
today. Because this is 180x the exhaust speed. A rocket man has to
keep this in mine. Look at the rocket equation. If your delta vee,
or final velocity is 0.03c or 9,000 km/sec and your exhaust speed if
50 km/sec then your propellant fraction will be;
u = 1 - 1/EXP(9000/50) = 1 - 6.7e-79 ~ 1 = 100%
Which doesn't leave much for ion rockets, tanks, and payload!
But what you need to do is reduce accelerations to about 1/2% of 1 gee
- 5 milligees - which can be done by an ion rocket. So, the equations
I gave above are linear, so that means your acceleration times and top
speeds will be 1/2% of those given. That means you'll have a constant
gee ion spaceship, but it will accelerate at 5 milligees, instead of
1,000 milligees - and its top speed will be around 45 km/sec not 9,000
km/sec - and it will take hundreds of days to navigate the inner solar
system, instead of days, and hundreds of weeks to navigate the outer
solar system, instead of weeks. Power levels are 1% too - and so
total energy per kg is 1% - if energy is costly, and payloads are
easily stored and not time critical, then this approach is perfectly
doable. Either as an early stage,or at later stages for low value
freight - like building materials..
Lets check out the propellant fraction of an ion rocket whose delta
vee is 45 km/sec and exhaust speed is 50 km/sec
u = 1 - 1/EXP(45/50) = 0.5934 = 59.34%
So, now you have a doable vehicle. You've got 60% propellant, say 25%
structure (mostly ion engine and power supply) and 15% payload. Not
as nifty as an ultra high powerful laser light wing - but doable and
very similar to the interplanetary probes being launched by NASA today
- toward asteroids and jupiter.
>
> There is one other point. If you have polulated the ecliptic with
> lasers, you will (presumably) be able to phase lock them. You will
> have a telescope 300million kilometers in diameter. In earlier
> postings I have said how a number of problems are all tied together.
> Now let us see what sizes you can see 10 parsecs distance.
Well we were talking about power beaming...
You're now talking about two large aperture telescopes exchanging
laser information and doing aperture synthesis like we now do with
radio telescopes - but in the optical realm. Of course with a very
accurate time reference you can record information at two telescopes
and combine the recordings to do your synthesis off line. What would
it take for two optical telescopes to achieve that? lol. I've often
wondered about that. All they need is a common reference. A quasar
or something might do - or a seed laser as you mentioned earlier. So
these are uses of space laser technology certainly.
Of course Bob Forward's idea of using laser light sails for
interstellar distances requires filled in apertures to get sufficient
energy to the light sails efficently.
> Now a
> parsec is by definition 1sec of arc with observations separated by 6
> months. Therefore 10 parsecs means that viewed from the target the
> telescope is subtending 1/10 sec of arc. 50 deg per radian 3600sec per
> degree. That is 1/180000 radian. This means we see objects some 7cm
> across. Clearly the gas in interstellar space + gravitational lensing
> will prevent us getting anywhere near that figure. We should have
> little difficulty though in seeing any planets.
Once the gas and dust and gravity lenses are mapped, we can use
computers to adjust the distortions - and once we have clear maps and
images and so forth, compare new images with old to look at changes in
the dust gas and gravity lenses!
> We will know fairly quickly whether or not we are in a race, another
> possible explanation of the Fermi paradox.
Yes, I read a science fiction book that had that as a premise. When
you look out into the cosmos you are looking back and time. So, if
the universe looks like its devoid of technical life, all that means
is that is was devoid before NOW. Think of the universe as a desolate
desert plain - in the Kalahari say. But it could be like the Kalahari
desert, these is a season - and in that season all the seeds of living
things that are not apparent other times of the year - spring to life
filling the entire plain with a riot of flowers, grasses, insects,
small animals of all types.. and then they all die out when the
season passes.
How like life to be this way. We wouldn't see evidence of technical
life in such a cosmos by looking at the Andromeda Galaxy which is 2
million light years away. Because 2 million years ago - using our
Earth as a reference - no one had technology.
It is only by looking at nearby stars that we will get an idea of how
common life is, and how common technology is in the cosmos.
We may get a very surprising result!
So, its worth doing certainly.
Of course what would synchronize evolution so closely across the
cosmos? We don't know. We don't know if it is. But it might be.
And its worth figuring out.
Haha.. if we found that there were dozens of technical civilizations
within 50 light years of earth among the 10,000s stars in that
distance, military planners would go apeshit. If some were slightly
more advanced, some would argue we'd have to figure out how to deal
with them. If others were less advanced - but growing rapidly - some
would argue we'd have to try to figure out how to infiltrate them and
slow them down. The interesting thing is that this is what the crazy
UFO folks are saying is happening right now! lol. So, the universe is
stranger than we can imagine if this is true.
> > Humanity today consumes 10 TW of power - 1/10,000,000th the power
> > level postulated here. Needless to day, any industrial activity we
> > wanted to carry out on the planets or in free flying space colonies,
> > could easily be provided as well. This might also form the basis of
> > maintaining government control over this far flung array of humans, to
> > keep them from using high tech to attack one another - and stopping
> > the possibility of interplanetary war.
>
> You are assuming that war is the result of competition for resources.
> I say it is saying your prayers the wrong way.
No, I'm saying something else entirely. Just as police routinely cut
off power to a home where there is a hostage situation, power may be
cut off to a region or for an activity that threatens folks. This is
possible. Not inevitable.
A common device used widely to provide limitless amounts of energy
across the entire span of human activity - more cheaply than any other
form of energy - provides a means, a hook, by which that activity can
be controlled. Whether it is used that way, and the degree of control
exercised is a matter for people to decide. And if abused, can be
counted as a cost of use. Which means those being abused will find
other approaches.
>
>
>
>
> > A laser light sail requires no propellant, but power levels go way up
> > for both high thrusts, small sail size, and for ton of payload
> > moved.
>
> > There are two ways to do this. One is to heat a body to very high
> > temperatures and use the black body radiation for propulsion - this
> > requires some sort of plasma containment system that can't be built.
> > The other (if we are to have high gee forces) is to use a mirror to
> > reflect nearly all the energy incident on it. In order to limit the
> > size of the mirror.
>
> > To make logistics simple, it would be nice to have the mirrors operate
> > like wings do on aircraft - exerting 100 kg/m2 or more. A disk like
> > spacecraft that had multi-mode capabilities would be interesting.
> > That is, a spherical payload encircled by a mirror disk, that might
> > also operate as a radiator propulsor short term - for landing and
> > operating out of sight of the sun...
>
> A laser is monochromatic.
One laser is monochromatic. A collection of lasers is not.
One laser pumped by a thermal light source is profoundly inefficient.
20 lasers pumped by a thermal light source, segmente into 20 bands of
color, is not.
> This means you can use simple dielectric
> sails which do not heat up.
Or a collection of dielectrics... Yes, this is the basis of GBO film.
But dielectrics, are not 100% efficient. But they can be nearly so.
One part per billion absorbed - for example, means that 1 billion
watts per square meter on the film will have only 1 watt of heating.
(but don't get in the way of the beam!) haha..
> A metal sail is hopeless at anything like
> a high energy.
Agreed. This is what I'm saying.
> ...
I think I missed the rest of your commentary. What is happening to
Google? They really suck these days. Ah well.
Willie...@gmail.com
> On 20 Sep, 22:35, Willie.Moo...@gmail.com wrote:> > I doubt that. If you are going to travel at 0.03c you want an ion
[snip] - replied to snipped material earlier...
Depends on the details. Like I said, a factory on Earth that had a
rail gun launcher to launch thousands of 100 kg payloads each hour
that would fly to its operating altitude above the sun, joining with
others to create a huge power beaming infrastructure,we could do 1 gee
laser light wing spacecraft today - or within 3 to 5 years! and
supply all the worlds energy besides.
> > > I think you will find that people want to live in settlements.
>
> > I think you are not familiar with the psychology, history, and
> > sociology of human beings.
>
> > > They
> > > try to strike a compromise between a city with its congestion and a
> > > homestead.
>
> > Only by necessity. If you could obtain the services and benefits of a
> > big city like New York, without having to put up with New York - most
> > people would do it.
>
> New York is where all the action is taking place.
Precisely my point.
> That is basically
> why people are there. In point of fact you could get rid of New York
> wiithout a fantastic amount of space engineering.
You will always have places like New York. Given human sympathies we
may always have a New York! even if its an historic recreation
between Wall Street and Park Avenue! lol.
When you can fly ballistically at 1 gee to any point on Earth in 20
minutes or less (thrusting outward during the middle of the flight to
maintain altitude against centripetal force) - the Earth has in fact
become a global village. There is a strong psychological connection
between the time it takes to get somewhere and what you consider your
hometown. Wherever you can go in 40 minutes or less, you consider
your neighborhood. If it takes longer than 40 minutes, then it
becomes a bother. Longer than 2 hours and its a different place
entirely. So in the days of horse drawn carriages it took 4 hours to
go 10 miles. I live in Columbus Ohio. Within 5 miles of 'downtown'
which used to be Columbus proper, there is Clintonville, and 5 miles
beyond that Worthington. This was the day when average speed of
transit in a horse drawn carriage was 2.5 miles per hour. Today
average speed of transit by velocipede, automotive preambulator,
motorized carriage (which locals call simply 'car') - is 50 mph. So,
the same 5 miles that took 2 hours before - can be traversed in 6
minutes. The separate towns and villages surrounding Columbus, have
merged into a great metropolis, and these villages have become post
office boxes known as sub-urban areas - or 'suburbs' to the larger
city. In fact in two hour you can span over 100 miles - allowing the
City of Columbus to spread across Franklin county forming a single
integrated community. At automotive speeds the Cities of Cleveland
and Cincinatti, Wheeling and Indianapolis, are the nearby towns
today. In an age with high speed subsonic personal VTOL bizjets
capable of 500 mph - the Cities of New York, Chicago, St Louis, and so
forth, will absorb these towns.. and in an era of 50,000 mph VTOL
cruisers - just discussed - the entire Earth will psychologically
become one city - and the orbiting colonies and factories will be the
suburbs, and the moon will be a small nearby town...
> One small
> point. You are now inplicitly postulating VN machines. If all the work
> is done by robots the colony is VN. I personally beieve O'Neill is
> only credible in a Von Neumann context.
At some point we will have VN machines. Probably sooner rather than
later. The early work of Johnny vonNeumann was so successful and
suggestive of immediate progress, I wonder if this isn't being
supressed along with some of his other stuff related to secret codes.
>
> How long should we wait. Go now for energy - quite right. VN is at the
> end of the road, it has to be.
But we can do a lot in space in the interim. Beam energy from the sun
to provide Earth's energy and provide advanced transportation
technology (light-wing VTOL super-ballistic transport in every
garage) Survey all the small bodies in the solar system. Use the
laser capacity near the sun to capture the richest of these to bring
into MEO. Use the same factories and launchers to put remotely
controlled robots that are shot into space to operate by remote
control within MEO - hire the 1.6 billion unemployed in the world, and
pay them with output from the factory,sell the excess, and keep the
profit.
> > This might change even as well, if humaniform robots can take on super
> > accurate human sexual characteristics. That way sexually active teens
> > and young adults could interact sexually with a small group of
> > sexually compatible humaniform robots - selected from the entire
> > population of humans who ever were recorded - and have trysts with
> > them. This would work best if one could construct a virtual reality
> > world - simlilar to Star Trek's holodeck - where one could interact
> > with 'the world' - a virtual community consisting of the sum total of
> > human beings operating real time in a super computer virtual reality.
> > This would have the great advantage in that sexually maturing adults
> > could safely and completely sample a wide range of human cultures and
> > extract from the virtual world, personalities that suited them. In
> > the end, mating could be carried out by exchanging genetic materials -
> > or in more advanced form - exchanging genetic information with 'the
> > world'
>
> > If done properly this would lead to a vitilization of the remote
> > community - and the full participation of every human in the larger
> > community of man.
>
> Ditto on terrestrial possibilities.
But that's not needed! There are 3.4 billion men and 3.4 billion
women within 1/7 light second of one another. Its a total waste of
energy to build sexual analogues of them when you can go meet them in
person! Better to spend money to make food production and
distribution more efficient.
>
> > > Somewhere there is a compromise that suits the majority of
> > > people.
>
> > This is only by necessity of our limited technology involving
> > primitive forms of communication, transportation and production.
>
> I am not so sure. The question I am asking is why do business
> executives keep travelling to meetings which are completely
> unecessary, even with present day technology.
Because of our primitive forms of communication. I mean, Bill Deming
demonstrated the importance of gathering quality data during the 1940s
and integrated into production systems that made weapons and so forth
- to solve quality problems with weapons. The Japanese adopted these
techniques across their industry - and the resulting improvements in
quality, volume, and cost allowed them to make very sophisticated
products (automobiles, consumer electronics) very competitively with
established manufacturers, by the 1960s they were making inroads in
the US and Europe, and around the world, by the 1980s, US and other
manufacturers began adopting some of the techniques, it wasn't until
2000 that most manufacturers were ISO 9000 compliant - and this is but
ONE detail where science has impacted manufacturing. There a whole
host of findings that are gathering dust, vonNeumann didn't just
postulate and do work on SR machines, he built prototypes! and its
been a dead letter. Norbert Weiner, Ken Arrow, Wassily Leonteiff,
have huge bodies of work - just to name a few - with Buckminster
Fuller acting as cheerleader. But all these folks worked in the
1950s. With the exception of Eric Drexler, I haven't seen any follow
up on any of this. And these fols suggest small steps to improve the
efficiency and quality and cost of our productive systems across the
board using cybernetics and advanced math.. haha.. but folks haven't
adopted it. Or have been slow to adopt it. I will say retailers have
adopted retail automation - this is something I had a small part in.
But this is just the smallest drop in a rather large bucket that if we
tapped into it, we could transform life on Earth today without VN
machines - by understanding adopting and adding to the bodies of work
that lie dormant in our collective abilities.
> > > If the lifespan of people radically increased, if people
> > > started having "second families" you might have more of a case.
>
> > I have a case based on the fact that humans throughout most of their
> > history lived in small bands of nomadic people who subsisted in the
> > environment without outside assistance. Sociologically we are set up
> > to operate that way. We adapt to the 'pressures' of civilization
> > because of the huge benefits it confers each of us. The reason modern
> > society accentuates sexuality and sexual adventure is because its one
> > of the few hooks that society has for promoting super sociable
> > behavior. Folks who have a satisfactory sexual coupling and are
> > happily building a life together are viewed in modern culture as a
> > nearly unattainable goal, rather than as a normal maturation process
> > once we are somewhat past our teen years. That's because folks in
> > this idyllic situation become much less controllable and tend to go
> > their own way.
>
> > I presume that such demands for social control will be removed in the
> > not too distant future and we will operate once again in a saner age
> > where such large scale socialization is not needed.
>
> We are basically designed for a hunter gatherer existence. Tis is
> perfectly true. Hunter/gatherer bands were (probably) round about
> 50-100. With that number of people objectives are fairly well agreed.
Correct. One interesting possibility in the near future, if everyone
has access to ballistic transport and the internet, folks can organize
along lines that are most productive and complementary - rather than
geographically.
Well you disagree with what Werner vonBraun said in The New Horizons
study done for the US in secret following World War 2. VonBraun said
we could have begun colonization of the moon in 1948 and urged the US
to take the leadership position. The work was classified for a number
of years, and his advice ignored until Sputnik.
Fact is, we could start to colonize the inner planets and the moon and
cislunar space today if we had the will to do it.
Yes. This is achieved by choosing a valid metric of measurement -
continually reviewing it - and then investing in improving it. We
cannot expect progress in any endeavour until all of these steps are
carried out. Once they are we can expect exponential improvements in
cost in very short times.
Consider that between 1948 and 1968 we went from the V2 to Saturn V
moonrocket. If our goals were directed a little more rationally, and
LBJ hadn't cut back on nuclear propulsion systems, we could easily
have had some of Philip Bono's NOVA rocket, a Saturn with a nuclear
upper stage, or even Kraft Erikhe's nuclear cruiser to colonize
mars.
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/heliosa.htm
Basically if you take an outsized Atlas type rocket, that burns
hydrogen and oxygen, put a nuclear thermal sustainer on it, and two
lox/hydrogen engines on the outside, you have a dandy 1 stage rocket
that can take off from Earth, the LOX tanks and sustainers form liquid
boosters that fall off and glide back to the launch center.
The hydrogen fueled sustainer operating at 1,200 sec Isp - blasts the
payload into a Mars trajectory - with sufficient propellant to execute
a soft landing on Mars after an aerobrake entry.
Refueling on Mars from local water found there - and decomposed using
a space power version of the nuclear thermal core (built around the
nuclear core of aircraft carriers and nuclear sub power plants being
built at that time) - the vehicle is refueled and takes off from mars
without the boosters (because mars is 1/3 gravity) - and flies back
to Earth, aerobraking here to re-enter and then land - to be fully
reused.
This mars cruiser was designed and could have been built at the same
time the SR-71 was designed and built - 1957. WE CHOSE NOT TO. Using
the same nuclear technology that gave us the nuclear jet cruise
missile (secret) the nuclear sub, the nuclear powered aircraft carrier
and the nuclear airplane.
> In terms of politics I think that one significant
> factor may well be "What is the smallest quantum of money which will
> start the ball rolling.. You can get significant amounts of solar
> energy with a fairly large collection area fairly simply. To have a
> cheap space launch based on lasers requires another stage.
Well, I've designed very low cost solar panels. And I've incorporated
them into solar synfuel process to create tremendous value. Once
that value is realized, additional facilities will be built.
Additional profits will be earned. And there will exist many large
central solar collector sites that can be improved by simple space
laser. So, I can see things moving rather easily from where I am
today, to where things can be tomorrow.
> > Once you successfully delivered on the promises made on the first go
> > round - you'd find another $8 trillion to $10 trillion available...
>
> > At that point -supposing you'd provide a 30% or more ROI - the whole
> > project becomes self funding. You'd get a bubble - but it would be
> > supported by increased outputs and so forth. In all, you'd kick up
> > the global economy from 4% per annum to something like 14% per annum -
> > which would support your growth.
>
> > That is, success would be self- propelled after the first and second
> > go round. In short, you'd be bankable.. and you'd have access to the
> > world's banking assets at that point - and after that, access to your
> > own self generated revenue stream. This is the benefit of profits.
> > You can use them to sustain growth, while throwing off payments to
> > those who took the early risk.
>
> > > I profoundly disagree.
>
> > You are profoundly wrong.
>
> > > We have indeed been lied to about Iraq,
>
> > That's one type of lie. There are others. For example, that smoking
> > cigarettes will make you sexy. Or that drinking to excess will make
> > you happy. Or that spending in excess will make you successful.
>
> > These lies benefit those who tell them, at the expense of those who
> > believe them.
>
> Cigarette advertising has now been banned.
On television here in the US. It still exists in other forms. And
the thoughts exist and are repeated even without the ads. Look at the
advertising budgets of the cigarette companies. The product
placements in movies as well as people on the street handing out
cigarettes to every adult passerby. Go to a nation that doesn't have
such bans and you can see the impact.
> > > but let
> > > us remember this. It is the Iraqis and not the Americans that have
> > > produced 4 million odd refugees. 2 million within Iraq and 2 million
> > > is surrounding countries. I shall be going on a tour of Syria late on
> > > the October. There are 1m Iraqis there.
>
> > America created the concept of the rouge state shortly after opec
> > flexed its muscle over oil supplies. This after the US oil production
> > reached its peak and entered secondary production. The US knew that
> > it only had 40 to 50 years before the world's oil production reached
> > its peak as well. (this is quite different than the the world running
> > out of oil - which won't happen for 200 years or more) - which is now
> > only 10 years away. The market is already adjusting to the changing
> > value of oil - increasing the price from $10 per barrel in the 1980s
> > to over $60 per barrel today.
>
> > All rogue states were oil rich countries - and together they comprised
> > 50% of the world's oil reserves.
>
> N Korea is a rogue, but is not rich. I will agree some of the Middle
> Eastern rogues are rich.
Is the average Libyan rich? the average Iraqi? the average Iranian?
I don't think so. They have oil and that's it. By not trading with
them that oil is placed in storage - and the remaining oil is
overdeveloped to take up the slack. When the produced oil runs out,
the oil in storage can be brought on line - and overdeveloped as
well. This is a way of producing an extended period of stable prices
for the US. The US can afford to pay high prices moreso than any
other nation. This policy creates an extended period of stable
moderately high price oil that is very beneficial to the US.
>
> > The US had plans to put these
> > reserves in storage - and let the others use their oil profits to
> > expand output above that which oil companies would have deemed prudent
> > in a world where ALL producers were competing in the market - this had
> > the impact of moderating the price of oil - at the expense of those
> > who were nominally benefitting - by accelerating their usage of oil.
> > This benefitted the US by stabilizing prices at around $12 per barrel
> > - 6x the price enjoyed by the consumer when the US had excess capacity
> > (oil was $2 per barrel before 1970s shortages). Now, when Saudi
> > Arabia, Indonesia, and other major OPEC members are entering secondary
> > production - the US finds reason to institute regime change in these
> > former rogue regimes - and bring them online.
>
> I would like references to this. The problem I have always had with
> linking US foeign policy to oil is that spending money on defense is
> simply not a cost effective way of obtaining oil.
We obtain the oil by buying it always. Taking it off the market and
putting it on the market adjusts supplies, which given the demand,
adjusts the price. It takes very little or no money at all to say -
hey, we're not going to trade with these guys - and don't you trade
with them either. How much did it cost to find out that Libya was a
rogue state? Nothing.
look at figure 2 in this report
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/feature_articles/2004/worldoilsupply/oilsupply04.html
Look at the exponential increase through 1970... that's greater than
5% growth btw. It was this strong global economic growth since the
1950s that led to so many rosy scenarios about a wonderful future!
haha.. anyway (sigh) continue that 7% annual growth rate forward -
on top of 1973 - and you'll see you'll reach the peak that is coming
now in 2026 - by 1986 -
Without the oil crisis we would already be in secondary production.
And what moderate that output? Why did we meander along the
horizontal and not have strong growth for 30 years? Because SUPPLY
was removed from the market.
> Far better to spend
> your money on nuclear power (peaceful), terrestrial solar power, more
> exploration if not space lasers.
Agreed. If you don't step on the toes of special interests who have
invested heavily in acquiring control of reserves. They want to make
sure that the reserves are fully used, and of course get as much
profit as possible from those reserves. This was the view of the
business community in 1950s. Soon science would make nuclear power
too cheap to meter and the age of oil would be gone. This was
derailed at that time. Very similar to the tension between the
electric light and gas lamp in the 1880s. But instead of the new
technology winning out. The old technology won out. Then, in 1964
LBJ aske Brookhaven National Labs to conduct a study to resolve the
looming energy shortages. We KNEW that by 1970 the US would be
entering secondary oil production. BNL came back with a plan. Direct
thermochemical decomposition of water into hydrogen and use the
hydrogen directly or in synfuels by upgrading low grade carbons. LBJ
got bogged down in Vietnam, did not run for re-election and his Great
Society program along with this little piece, was scrapped by Nixon.
The shortages came, the economy went in the dumper, the US went off
the gold standard, OPEC flexed its muscle. There was increased unrest
in the Middle East. The US stop trading with half the reserves and
got everyone else to stop trading too. This created a period of no
growth - but a period where US was in charge of everything. No major
money was spent. People wanted the growth back, an wanted things like
they were in 1960s. Carter came to office - a nuclear engineer -
promising to do something about energy. Before he could turn around
TMI happened and he was urged to drop all references to nuclear power
in his plan. The US spent more money on energy research than in going
to the moon and never produced one damn thing that challenged big
oil. This despite all the expert opinion and all the studies done up
to that time. NONE of the programs that were suggested by the nuclear
industry were adopted. Nothing nuclear came out of the research.
Which brings us to our present situation. Now the hard stop - or real
end of oil on a global scale - will happen in 2026 - and the DOE has
rediscovered the 1964 BNL study and proposed a GEN 4 nuclear program
which is basically that program - to start in 2030. Why 2030? That's
when oil prices will start to falter due to economic depression. The
oil companies have successfully executed their end game - at great
cost to everyone else. .
Did we use up all the stones before we ended the stone age? no. Did
we burn all the trees before we switched to coal? no. Did we burn
all the coal before we switched to oil? no. Did we burn all the oil
before we switched to space power or nuclear power? yes.
Its not a matter of technology. Its a matter of politics and lack of
true concerned leadership.
> > Clearly this long term policy was planned - there are even papers
> > available from US state department and others. Plainly it was a way
> > to moderate the supply of oil in a way the benefitted the US relative
> > to all other players in the market. Obviously this is our primary
> > motivation. Just compare our attitudes of WMD in Iraq and need to
> > invade Iran because of a nuclear power program versus our continuing
> > lack of interest in Pakistani nuclear weapons - which already exist,
> > and the nuclear program of North Korea (which was of no real interest
> > until the North shot off a rocket capable of reaching US homeland)
>
> The one reason for attacking Iran is failure in Iraq.
You are looking at the tactical situation we face today and ignoring
the strategic discussion I am trying to have with you.
> The fact is that
> when the US withdraws Iran will take over the country, either in terms
> of a more of less client state (which I think they would prefer) or as
> an organic part of a united Persia.
So what? Iran was trying to take over the country when Saddam ran
it? Syria won't sit still and neither will Saudi Arabia. Turkey and
the Kurds will have a say too. So what? That oil means nothing if
we switch to another source. And that only matters to the oil
companies. That's all I'm saying.
Pick up a book on the Ottoman Empire and read it. You might also want
to read the first chapter of THE COMING WAR WITH JAPAN by Merideth and
Lebar I think. Great stuff. Talks about what the US has done to
maintain its strategic position in the world, and suggests what it
might do in the future. Which is not to put the US down. If the US
weren't number one - someone else would be, and things would likely be
far worse than they are.
But at some point, the US has to have an end game. At some point the
entire Earth will be politically integrated and peaceful. JFK wanted
to start down that path in 1960. Switch to nuclear power from oil.
Switch from a nuclear competition of the cold war to a space race.
Use our intelligence community to inspire peace and cooperation rather
than seek advantage in pointless competition. JFK lost. Nixon/
Eisenhower won. The economic collapse of the United States in 1975 -
including our failure in Vietnam is the result.
> > > I hold no brief for Bush, it is all his handiwork,
>
> > Bush, like any President is doing his best for America and all
> > Americans. America elected him. He truly believed we would be
> > greeted as liberators. We were not. He had no game plan for if he
> > was wrong. Now he's stuck and he's reviled. This really is
> > incidental to our long-term strategy. If in the summer of 2004 a
> > great peace settled over Iraq, and a free Iraq inspired Iran to throw
> > off the yoke of their ultra-religious zealots and embrace freedom -
> > and both nations were pumping tons of oil into the world market - and
> > oil was $22 per barrel - and this made it so that Putin would have to
> > kiss the West's ass for money - Bush would be hailed as a great genius
> > and liberator and would be given the Nobel prize by the Europeans as a
> > means to apologize for not helping him.
>
> BTW - The current plans for Iran include "letting the anthill sort
> itself out at the end of the strikes". Quite clearly nothing to the US
> liking will emerge. There is even the possibility of an intervention
> by a third country. Possibly Putin under the unberella of the Central
> Asian Federation.
Yes. The chinese are already building an oil pipeline into the
region. This is bad for the US, but not bad for the oil companies
that supply the US. China will have access to low cost energy. The
US will have access to low cost chinese labor. The US will pay more
to the oil companies for the reserves they DO control (they just
signed some deals with Libya) - and they'll get top dollar for those
by the time the US does what it should have done 45 years ago.
That's a ludicrously stupid statement. History isn't just what's
written in the press releases of the White House. Its what's written
in the secret documents, private agreements, and actions of otehrs as
well.
Knowing WHY history happened the way it did is important - and to
understand that, you need to look at the strategic thinking that
informed those decisions and what opportunities they had at that
time. Why don't we do all we can to stop heroin production in
Afghanistan? No one has an answer for that. Why doesn't anyone in
the news media Fox or CNN ask this question? No one has an answer for
that either.
> One
> thing that someone looking into America from the outside, I am in fact
> British, finds hard to appreciate is the fact that America wins large
> numbers of Nobel prizes, but has repeated intelligence failures in the
> area of public policy. The official CIA report on 9/11 shows almost
> criminal negligence - not to mention of course the initial error of
> supporting OBL in the first place (that is when he was fighting Soviet
> forces).
Agreed. And what's more, Americans for a New Century met in DC in
2000 and concluded that they needed a Pearl Harbor type event to
galvanize public opinion behind their goals of US dominance through
direct military intervention. Also, the folks that were responsible
for the FIRST attack on the WTC were largely apprehended, but some got
away. And those that did were being tracked and monitored by the
FBI. But, when they came back into the US, the US lost track of
them. No explanation. And those guys were on the flights that
crashed into the WTC.
Meanwhile, rather than address these serious questions, you have crazy
folks marginalizing this whole avenue of discussion by saying bombs
were put in the WTC by US intelligence community and so forth.
Dictatorships arises for the same reason religions arise and for the
same reason any form of government arises - people have an irrational
relationship to their own power and irrationally give power to father
figures. This has been discussed at length by Freud and Miller.
> Islamic society contains one major
> contradiction.
Just one? haha.. All religions have multiple contradictions stemming
from poor child rearing. Emotional needs that are not addressed in
childhood, continue buried in the concious of the adult. Sort of like
a mental club foot arising from poorly fitted shoes. So they have a
mental limp! Its easy for bullies to push them over. Same here. The
forms of government that humans adopt have far more similarities than
differences. Those similarities stem not from any rational cybernetic
need - but from irrational emotional needs. Those needs are not
present in properly raise children, or adults who have successfully
completed a valid course of therapy. Those sane individuals are by
far a very minute minority in the population.
> Islam sees the spiritual and secular rulers to be one
> and the same.
If God exists then every individual is created by God and has a
capacity for direct personal revelation and direct contact with their
creator. According to those who have had such revelantions such
contact is natural and a source of great joy and great wisdom and
peace that surpasses understanding.
Religions exist to extract temporal power from people by removing the
individual from his or her natural connection with the divine and
substituting a connection with the religious institution. This is the
worst form of blasphemy. Religions are successful at this with people
who as children suffered certain types of mental and physical abuse as
outlined by Miller and others. Religions also promote rules related
to free sexual expression and child rearing that promote the very
abuse that makes it easy for them to retain their power through the
generations. Religions also align themselves with other temporal
powers to maintain their power and control as well.
The Islamic religion is not unique. It shares many features with all
other powerful religions in the world.
Modern psychotherapy and many aspects of the self-help movements -
stand in stark contrast to these traditional forms of religion.
As Echart Tolle has said, its all madness, and you can say nothing
about it other than that it is mad. To say any more is to be drawn
into the madness. It will collapse in time, and in time, the peace
and the joy and the wisdom that life offers each individual from
within - will be expressed.
> This is one factor that generates tension perhaps more
> than any other.
As children we have a great joy in life and look toward the future
with great hope. That hope is destroyed by our parents. We can't be
the cowboy or the astronaut we always wanted to be. We must be
realistic. But joy in another guise persists. Well, I can have love
- if I can find a good mate and raise a family - this becomes a source
of hope until about the ages of 40 to 60 - and by then, you give up
and become bitter. Until you turn inward to the small still voice
that has beenthere all along. Then you realize its all bullshit. But
then, you're an old fart and no one listens. haha.. But it doesn't
matter.
But I can see that in the better schools around the world and better
homes - better meaning the parents are knowledgeable not necessarily
rich or powerful - a growing trend toward encouraging children to tend
to their inner vision and inner voice - and to retain the joy and
convert that hope to courage and certainty - and grow to be awesome
awesome adults that will transform the world... and all our little
shit we did before.
> > Get past personalities and so forth and look at the facts.
>
> > > In fact I would put things the other way round.
> > > Governments in fact reflect the prejudices of their populations.
>
> > There is an interaction. Despite what we tell ourselves markets and
> > governments are incapable of doing what we expect of them. This is a
> > scientific fact. Arrow proved it. There is not good solution - and
> > this knowledge is used by specialists to expand the control of
> > specialists at great cost to everyone else.
>
> > That is, people make irrational choices collectively that they
> > wouldn't make individually and so often they make collective choices
> > that are not in their own interest. Condorcet first noted that cycles
> > of voting can occur over long periods. Arrow explained in detail why
> > in the 1950s. Rather than correct this shortcoming, specialists have
> > exploited this shortcoming to manage political processes. Where
> > applicable, and to a lesser extent, the narrow shortcomings of the
> > market due to this are exploited by marketers to increase profits.
> > But the major unraveling of government began in earnest in the 1950s
> > and have accelerated ever since. The military's failure in Vietnam to
> > win the hearts and minds of the American public, has highlighted the
> > importance of infowar to modern warfare. So, this hasn't helped
> > candid public discourse either - and a possible return to
> > representative government.
>
> Hearts and minds have not been won in the Iraq war either.
They could have up to about 2 days after the statues were pulled
down. But asking the man who lost New Orleans to plan for the post
invasion strategy is asking a bit much. But like I said, this oil is
going to China, and Libyan oil is going to the US, and by 2026 - the
oil companies will have played their end game.
> This last
> paragraph is a little bit contradictory. The military has tries to win
> hearts and miinds, but has failed.
The military must rely on their commander and chief to create a
strategy with the expertise he can draw on, central intelligence,
state, others who advise the White House - to come up with a workable
strategy. To throw it on the field commanders or generals even, and
then say they failed is to do them a disservice.
> It's knowledge is clearly
> incomplete, its control of the sources of information incomplete.
Yes. What is reported on CNN is self-consistent. But is incomplete.
Fact is, there is a lot more opportunity for action than you recount
here. Fact is,these were ignored. Fact is, Bush had no idea how to
handle post invasion.. Fact is he had no idea because he gave it no
thought - had he given it some thought and authorized action on it -
he would have had a workable plan. But that didn't happen. Fact is,
the President is responsible for this failure and he has not stood up
and taken full responsibility for it.
> You know my perennial hobbyhorse AI. Now in the future television
> programs are going to be sent to us via the Internet. Google is going
> to control our hearts and minds.
This proceeds from the false assumption that people are merely robots
that respond to inputs. Fact is, we have the capacity to create our
own ideas and follow through on them - stemming from deep seated
desires.
> Now Google is in fact international.
> I have talked about Radio Reloj (which in fact is the name of a radio
> station in Cuba) in the context of SETI. Sync pulses can be obseved
> tens of parsecs away.
You are making non-sequitor statements.. this makes no sense in the
context of what we were discussing.
> Quite clearly the demise of Radio Reloj will have a lot to say about
> how we perceive the word. We have to be certain that AI provides a
> neutral picture. So far Google seems to be doing.
You are not making any sense at all. I thought you meant AI =
Artificial Intelligence. I know what Google is. I don't no what
Radio Reloj is. But if you think that by listening to a media source
you can change life experience in any tangible way you are mistaken.
> > > There
> > > was anti semitism in Germany after WW1. Hitler did not create it. He
> > > expoited it in an extremely cynical way, but it was there all the
> > > time.
>
> > Anti-semitism still exists. But there is an interaction. Governments
> > can serve as a bulwark against irrationality, or they can catalyze
> > irrationality. In the modern age of the rise of special interests at
> > the expense of society at large, irrationality has increased. It is
> > easy to see in our erstwhile enemies. Harder to see in ourselves.
>
> Absolutely right.
>
> > > I was absolutely aghast when Einar, I think i was, suggested that
> > > religious groups should set up colonies in space. She should go with
> > > me to Syria and continue to the Iraqi border.
>
> > Religious practice has devolved as well as political practice into the
> > irrational. Many modern scientific minds believe religion to be akin
> > to noise or the definition of irrationality.
>
> > They ignore that there is a mysterium tremendum - as Freud called it -
> > that is an integral part to the human experience and part of being
> > human. It is often the most cherished aspect of being alive.
>
> I think we should distinguish between religion and belief in God.
I think you need to distinguish between belief in something and the
direct experience of that thing.
> Science is neutral about belief in God as such.
Science is a greek word for knowledge. The scientific method arose
around the 13th century when a group of priests had an argument over
the meaning of the Word of God as passed down to them through Text.
They hit on the idea that God create nature and if there was a
reliable way to read Nature, then we could understand God that way,
without worrying about the truth or untruth of this or that word. To
distinguish this form of knowledge, derived directly from the natural
world, these folks called the results of their method after the Greek
word for knowledge, Science - and the method the Scientific Method.
>From that time to this Science has accumulated in its power and its
capacity in human affairs. Religions based on interpretations of
ancient texts have not. No system of government has accumulated power
except by abrogating to itself the results of Science. An approach to
examining the human mind has only been developed in the last century
by Freud. In the past decade a few brain chemistry researchers and
therapists have suggested using DMT in a controlled setting to bring
about religious insights to people who seek them and have prepared
themselves for them.
> As far as orgainized
> religion is concerned the difficulty I have with it is the intolerance
> it shows.
Any temporal power must explain its shortcomings to the faithful.
Since religious organizations exist only to perpetuate their temporal
power, they create stories that explain their shortcomings in a way
that expands their power. This leads naturally to stories where they
and the faithful are blameless, while others who are not part of the
faithful are to blame for any and all shortcomings.
> There are a lot of religions saying contradictory things.
Because things are said to take advantage of the irrational feelings
people have and need not be logical or consistent - the only
requirement is that the faithful are filled with shame remorse and
self-loathing, and at the same time hope for the future, by
surrendering themselves to the authorities and through promises to
come to understand and adhere more closely to authorities in the
future.
Now, this is distinctly different than surrender to God, or to the joy
and hope within that sees shame remorse and self hatred as a form of
madness.
> They can't all be right.
None of them are,
> Either one of them is right or they are all
> wrong.
They are all mad. Various individuals certainly had a direct
revelation of the divine at some time in the past. And some of them
were able to organize followers and some sort of institution to pass
on the wisdom of the individual. Those institutions responding to the
pressures that temporal power exerts, chose temporal power over the
divine message. In fact, the message was edited and reformed many
times to meet the needs of this or that dictator. Look at what
Constantine did to the Gnostics! It happens in all religions. So, I
feel quite confident in saying they are all mad. When you have
churches urging young men to go to war in the US, or when you have
mosques recruiting young women to blow themselves up in crowded places
- is one very different from another? no. they're all mad and have
sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
> Organized religion claims to have a red phone - dial "A" for
> Allah. He does not seem to have taught them how to live in peace.
Peace can only come about by loving yourself and honoring the voice
within and knowing that nothing at all can threaten what is and that
what is is perfect. Religions seek to undermine this 'oceanic
feeling' and create generation after generation of people that die
bitter and frustrated.
> > Younger folks may feel it when they fall in love - or when they give
> > birth, or raise children.
>
> > One in three astronauts who went to the moon had profoundly moving
> > experiences due to their journey. Some sought psychiatric care,
> > others started new age type movements, still others entered religious
> > orders.
>
> > Such feelings are also common - though less frequently - among
> > survivors of great tragedies or great battles.
>
> > Others seek such 'oceanic' feelings by imbibing mind altering drugs,
> > or engaging in a variety of self-hypnotic practices, or religious
> > practices or retreats.
>
> > It is very likely that anyone who lives aboard a spacecraft that
> > leaves Earth and is transported across the solar system would have a
> > large percentage of their population transformed in a religious sense
> > by the experience.
>
> A genuine religious experience?
It doesn't take much. Given that God created you and is still in
contact with you. But religions would have you think its the most
difficult thing. Or make you feel guilty if you think you had one.
Or demonize you if you stuck to your guns. Otherwise, they'd lose all
authority relatively quickly.
> Possibly, but organized religion is
> not about religious experience.
Interesting that you say that. That's the problem.
On the personal level. People are drawn to religions because they are
seeking something that is missing in their lives. Maybe they suffered
a loss of a loved one. Maybe a financial reversal. Maybe they're
battling alcohol or drug addiction. Maybe they're doing well in every
part of their life, but feel empty anyway. They are seeking a
connection with the divine. they are seeking a religious experience.
And the religion is telling them they have the answer. they know the
way. they know the truth. And people surrender to the religion and
adopt its precepts and they're stuck since the religion doesn't offer
the experience they seek - merely exploits their need for it.
On the theoretical level. Religions have a book, writings of holy men
and women. These people are holy because they have been transformed
by their religious experience. These people started out quite
modestly. They had an insight an experience. They shared it. It got
recorded. And a religion began.
> It is about in groups and out groups.
> I will kill you if you don't say your prayers as I say them.
It depends what sort of stresses exist within the religious
community. Certainly, if the religion feels threatened by the
faithful blaming them for their discontents, they crack down on the
faithful and cast blame on to the non-faithful. If the religion feels
powerful and discontent doesn't exist among the faithful, then the
religion can take responsibility for the good feeling and generally
they laugh at others misfortunes blaming their lack of faith for that.
> Religious
> experience on the other hand tends to be "Buddhist" in a very broad
> sense, and spans the different traditions.
Buddha said talking about religious experiences is like a finger
pointing at the moon. If you have a dog, and you point at something,
the dog looks at your finger. Because dogs aren't that abstract in
their thinking. haha.. But a religious experience is not based on
words, or logic even. So, this is where the religions get into
trouble right at the outset. Words can only point at what is
important - what is important cannot be expressed in a word. So
they're only approximations to the truth. They're never the whole
truth. But there are Christian retreats designed to invoke a direct
connection through Christ. There are Muslim activities directed toward
having a direct revelation. These are highly controlled and anyone
not following the party line can quickly get into trouble. For
example, there was a Muslim leader who organized the destruction of a
Buddhist icon in Afghanistan about 10 years ago. They got together
and prayed and then went about destroying one of the largest buddah's
in existence. As he clambered to the top of the statue and started
breaking it apart with a sledge hammer - he had a revelation. He
realized that a thousand years ago he was a Buddhist who invaded this
region and erected this statue. That was what he thought. He stood
up and looked around and started telling people to stop. They thought
him mad but out of respect stopped. He went to the Mullah and
explained what had happened. He sent him to a mental hospital and
extracted a recanting from him using modern medical techniques of
torture. As it stands, the guy went bonkers and his story is of no
account. But that's only the history the way it was written by those
there. The reality is that the guy had a direct revelation - which he
believed to be very personally powerful to him and answered questions
for him that he personally had asked.
> I will touch on religious morality later.
Can we not and say we did? haha..
> > One Jesus, one Buddah, on Lao Tzu, one Ghandi, one Martin Luther King
> > - in a 100 generations is highly disruptive to society and the powers
> > that be. They are crucified, shot, deported, or transform their
> > society - or both - having 5% to 10% of the entire population EACH
> > generation having such oceanic beatific and transcendant insights into
> > the human condition - is an unknown factor in human affairs. Against
> > such a reality - religions brought along from Earth will be radically
> > altered and may be of no account whatever.
>
> > > How can this be cured.
>
> > What? Irrationality?
>
> > Well, Freud showed that belief in a male God figure is directly
> > connected to the drama of a child's relationship with his or her
> > father. Change that relationship - and belief in God is diminished.
>
> > Alice Miller showed that adult fascination with power money violence
> > and death - stems from the drama of a child's powerlessness. Change
> > the way children are reared so that they are empowered and self
> > actualized, and fascination with power money violence and death
> > disappear.
>
> I am not so sure.
Well if you'd actually read the references I give you could form a
reasoned opinion.
> > Joseph Campbell showed that fascination with religions stem from the
> > meaning it gives to our banal existence. It is the hero task of the
> > modern age to create deeply satisfying meaning from rational thought
> > and scientific understanding and capacity. This has not been done.
> > If it is not done science will serve to fuel our self destruction and
> > the promise of science and rational thought will have failed us.
>
> > One aspect Campbell discussed quite extensively, is his concept of the
> > monomyth - this cycle of adventure, discovery and rebirth - common to
> > all religions according to Campbell - stems from our history as a
> > species that expands its range by means of innovation - creating in
> > the process frontiers - regions that are newly habitable by dint of
> > new technology, but contain only resources and no competitors. The
> > frontier occupies the same emotional space as heaven, and the drama
> > surrounding the development of the frontier - mimics the drama and
> > meaning surrounding entry into heaven. Campbell suggested that this
> > mythic connection may provide an answer for science to provide the
> > bulk of humanity deeply meaningful and accurate connections to science
> > and technology. Space travel, with its endless frontier, offer a very
> > reap potential field for this development.
>
> This may be true. I think though in a very real sense the type of
> framework provided by Organized Religion may in fact stop one thinking
> in this sort of way.
Religions exist to perpetuate the power of the religions. If thinking
a certain way undermines a religion then the religion is against it.
If thinking a certain way empowers the religion then the religion is
for it.
> The Pilgrim Fathers did not go because they were
> awaestruck with America. They went because James I wanted rid of them.
That's right. But don't underestimate that. In today's world James I
would have no place to send them, and so would be forced to a final
solution of some sort.
But Ken Arrow showed in 1950 that voting doesn't work the way we think
it does, so its all a sham. His data has been used to increase the
power of the specialists at great cost to the public. So your vote is
meaningless.
> It is also possible that AI will influence the course of government.
> Asimov talked about the laws of robotics.
This was just a part of a sci-fi story. It was only later that folks
wondered about it. As a practical matter it has yet to have any
impact on human affairs - except as an idea.
> With the rise of digital
> feeds Isaac Asimov immediately springs to mind.
But there are no Asimov laws in any software or hardware around
today. So, its weird to hear you speak as if Asimov's 3 laws actually
exist in some real sense. haha.. People talk about Santa Claus, but
they seldom talk as if Santa actually exists. Same here. The idea
exists certainly. The thing itself does not.
> Content should be
> provided and indexed impartially.
Should be? How?
> Asimov I believe would have wanted
> his robots to combat antsemitism.
Are you the person who said history is what really happened? Just
checking. haha.. Asimov was a science fiction writer and a popular
writer of science - a science journalist. He had a background in
biology. Wasn't very good at math. He never built any robots.
Robots of the type he imagined in his stories never existed and may
never exist. So his robots were incapable of doing anything being
ideas in Asimov's head. Asimov knew this, so I doubt Asimov wanted
them to do anything except be interesting characters in a story that
would sell.
As far as anti-semitism is concerne, Asimov was a Jewish emigre to the
United States -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Asimov
and the worlds he imagined for his robots did not involve anti-
semitism at all. Although his robots did have a sort of predilection
toward isolating humans from one another when they outnumbered humans
creating some interesting outcomes - IN FICTION!!!
> The holocaut did happen though
> negect as Asimov would put it. No robot should stand by.
You are totally off the wall - you have run off the rails - you are
making no sense. Asimov built no robots and no robots like Asimov
imagined in his stories actually exist and they may never actually
exist.
I thought you said you were British? hmm.. Look, people surrender
power to those they think can help them accomplish what they feel
needs accomplished but cannot do it themselves. The modern nation-
state has exploited this process to maintain control over its people
using all the knowledge at its command.
All nations do this. In a world where the Soviet Union collapsed and
was no longer a credible threat, the US neede another enemy. So, we
turned a blind eye and let the second attack on the WTC happen.
But terrorism isn't new. We've had suicidal terrorists since Thomas
Rainsborough! (1647) haha.. and the powers that be have used them,
or any enemy they could impress the public with to raise taxes and
exercise ever more power over their subjects.
The thing is, we need to change the paradigm under which we operate if
we want to change our condition - and this takes a change in the way
we raise our kids and the way we deal with our emotions in adulthood.
> > > but not to push the arms race
> > > forward and always be prepared to sit down to discuss disarmament.
>
> > Why? Identifying ourselves with a nation is a means to possess power
> > when we would otherwise feel powerless. It evokes deep seated fears
> > and irrationalities that go right back to our earliest years when we
> > were powerless before all adults. No one sits down and talks
> > disarmament, unless they are talking from a position of strength, and
> > then they are forcing a lesser nation to disarm or face the dire
> > consequences of a superior force. This is what you mean when you say
> > that. You don't mean the US or whatever nation you're from - would
> > sit down hat in hand and agree to be bullied around by a superior
> > force do you?
>
> > You are believing many of the lies that have become part of the global
> > culture over the past 50 years. This warps and perverts your
> > thinking.
>
> > There is no reason to have nations in the modern age. There is a
> > reason to have a global police force - aimed at enforcing a peace, and
> > a global military to disarm everyone uniformly - and then like George
> > Washington - lay down his arms and return home when it was done.
>
> Nation states have a monoply of force. I believe that a world without
> nations would be an ideal to strive for.
No one has power over you unless you give it to them. The more people
that take their power back for themselves the weaker nations and
religions become. In the end, they will collapse as people find a
better way for themselves.
> Quite clearly it is also an
> idea that no one wants.
People who do not own their own power feel naked and threatened by the
idea of there being no nations and religions. People who own their
own power - are not beholden to anyone, and the nations will fall of
their own accord once a tipping point is reached.
> Looking at the situation from Britain we have
> the EU. Now governments, including Gordon Brown want to bring about a
> common European sovereignity. Quite laudable you might say.
Depends on the details. None of this gets us past Arrows
impossibility theorem. So, its really quite mad to try to do anything
within a system that doesn't work.
> Governments have negotiated an EU treaty which the voters are throwing
> out. Gordon Brown is not going to face a referendum here, he will get
> the treaty ratified by Parliament. Governments are persuing what might
> be termed rational policies as far as they can. They are definitely in
> advance of their populations.
Nonsense.
The same can be said of Britain in Northern Ireland.
> > > recently
> > > there was a Poker contest between Man and Machine. I posed in
> > > sci.maths that Von Neumann was right (about Poker at least). The
> > > minimax strategy works.
>
> > This is a game. The real world is more complex. Any game involves a
> > tacit agreement to play the game. Minimax won't help you if one of
> > the players pulls out his six shooter shoots you through the head and
> > takes your wallet.
>
> > With this in mind, assuming that cooperation is impossible and
> > conflict is inevitable, then we are led inevitably the violence the
> > converting the civilized world to a version of Beruit. If you are
> > saying conflict is inevitable but everyone can agree on the game -
> > then I would say - why this game and not a different one? If you are
> > saying that the game has certain benefits in searching for better
> > survival strategies - then I would say wouldn't cooperation be better
> > suited in some instances.
>
> I think you misundrstand, conflict is part of the game.
There is no game. Conflict beetween Shiites and Sunnis stem from the
need for each to project blame outside their own circle to solidify
control over their faithful. This is madness - and leads to madness -
and has nothing at all to do with the insights that the religion was
orignally set up to spread and honor.
>The Sunnis and
> Shiites each cose an outcome which led to 4 million refugees.
Its all madness - and its not a rational choice - and it cannot be
sustained.
>
>
> > The point is, we've nevr had a political system that works because
> > Arrow's paradox shows us that none of the political systems or market
> > systems are capable of fulfilling their promises to us. So it should
> > not be surprising that we are being failed by our political system.
> > What is especially grievous in the modern age is that our
> > understanding of our failures politically have been used by
> > specialists to exercise control over society at large for their
> > benefit - at the expense of society at large.
>
> > > Howver the world is not a Poker game.
>
> > That is true.
>
> > > The world is a stag hunt.
>
> > That is not true.
>
> It is true that mutual cooperation will provide the highest score but
> they contive not to.
>
> Let us look at the outcome of a staghunt. The Tigres and Euphates are
> powerful rivers. In the time of the old Babylonian kings 3 crops a
> year were produced. That is before oil comes into consideration.
> Nobody would have had to have left their homes there would be electric
> power 24/7 and the country would be on the road to prosperity.
> However ...... How basically do you get people to look after their own
> interests.
By empowering them as children and teaching them to trust their own
inner voice.
> > > Every
> > > side will gain from cooperation.
>
> > That is true if we continue to develop frontiers where there are
> > untapped resources with no competitors around to bother us. This is
> > what led to human cooperativeness in the first place.
>
> It is how you say your prayers - not resources.
No, in times when there is plenty, in times when things are going
well, the religions take responsibility for that, and point to anyone
not doing well as an examplar of what happens to unbelievers. They
could care less about how non believers pray.
In times of scarcity, in times when things are going badly, the
religions project blame to the non-believers, particularly if they are
doing better than them, and seek to destroy them - in their
destruction will the faithful win their release. This is true in the
modern age, as it was true in the time of the Inquisition. It was the
failure of Spain as a world power that led directly to the Spanish
Inquisition.
So, it is resources squandered in the hands of the irrational that
lead to religious conflicts.
> There is enough in
> Iraq for everyone there and for everyone to come home.
No there isn't. Not when the nation is isolated from world trade by
US edict. These tendencies toward conflict are then exploited to keep
everyone focused on local events and not project power outside the
region. Read the first chapter of TE COMING WAR WITH JAPAN and then
we can talk.
> > >The problem is convincing people of
> > > this.
>
> > No, the problem is finding and pointing out the stag. People who do
> > so are uniformly attacked by governments and other special interests
> > who see in the success of this strategy their own demise. We lack an
> > effective frontier on which we all can agree. JFK wanted us to turn
> > our high technology from head to head competition of the cold war, to
> > the far more fruitful competition of the space race.
>
> Did he now. He, more even than Lyndon Johnston, was the architect of
> Vietnam.
Nonsense.
Robert McNamara said that Kennedy was strongly considering pulling out
of Vietnam after the 1964 election. In the film "The Fog of War", not
only does McNamara say this, but a tape recording of Lyndon Johnson
confirms that Kennedy was planning to withdraw from Vietnam, a
position Johnson states he disapproved of. Additional evidence is
Kennedy's National Security Action Memorandum (NSAM) #263 on October
11, 1963 that gave the order for withdrawal of 1,000 military
personnel by the end of 1963. He did get involved and overthrew the
Diem government. But Kennedy was generally moving in a less hawkish
direction in the Cold War since his acclaimed speech about World Peace
at American University the previous June 10, 1963.
After Kennedy's assassination, new President Lyndon B. Johnson
immediately reversed Kennedy's order to withdraw 1,000 military
personnel by the end of 1963 with his own NSAM #273 on November 26,
1963.
> >Nations of Earth
> > would compete with one another in developing resources and capacities
> > off world in the frontier of interplanetary space - much as Europe
> > developed sea faring capcities and avoided conflict for hundreds of
> > years - while engaging in powerful competition across the world. This
> > was his vision - that the US would be the first among all nations to
> > develop the opportunities and resources of interplanetary space for
> > the betterment of mankind.
>
> > He was shot in November 1963 and in December 1963 Lyndon Johnson and
> > Robert McNamara cut back on the nuclear propulsion programs of the
> > US, the scope and range of post- apollo landing, and spent more money
> > on Vietnam. In the end the US spent $20 billion on moonships with 5
> > dead, $200 billion on Vietnam, with 50,000 dead, and $2,000 billion on
> > ICBMs, with potential 5,000,000,000 dead.
>
> > > The irony is that I am not asking for people to be unselfish.
>
> > Cooperation does not require one to be unselfish.
>
> > > In
> > > fact in some ways I am asking them to be more selfish.
>
> > Selfishness depending on context can be good or bad for society.
>
> Spoken by a true bweiever the games theory. You can be selfish and
> hunt the stag.
Transaction analysis - yes.
>
>
> > > The 9/11
> > > hijackers were unselfish when all is said and done. They were in fact
> > > the Lords of Flies and were NOT promted by ...
>
> > Women in muslim societies are highly disrespected compared to men -
> > moreso than in non-muslim countries. They also are primary care
> > givers to children. Alice Miller and others note that this leads to a
> > generational sort of transaction. Women are abused as adults by men,
> > and so, they subconciously abuse their sons as children. Their sons
> > grow up to abuse the women in their live as a means to get even.
>
> Yes and religion (org) also gives a double standard sexual morality. I
> suggested sending those Iraqii girls from Damascus nightclubs into
> space. This very much stems from the words on the Statue of Liberty.
> They have said thier prayers the wrong way, they have been booted out
> - and to cap it all they are now moral outcasts. This is organized
> religion for you.
This would echo James I solution for the Pilgrims.
BradGuth
You might as well give up, as these infomercial spewing Yids in charge
of sustaining their pretend-atheists status quo are not about to give
an inch or even a mm to an outsider like yourself. Sorry about that.
The laws of physics certainly haven't changed, nor has there been
hardly any better science as of the last decade or so, therefore
they've all had multiple opportunities to share and share alike on
behalf of polishing up your research and subsequent topics, but lo and
behold that hasn't happened, has it. And it never will happen as long
as they're in charge of your private parts, especially as long as
folks like yourself remain as as snookered and thus so easily
dumbfounded past the point of no return.
- Brad Guth -
Ian Parker
> > New York is where all the action is taking place.
>
> Precisely my point.
>
> > That is basically
> > why people are there. In point of fact you could get rid of New York
> > wiithout a fantastic amount of space engineering.
>
> You will always have places like New York. Given human sympathies we
> may always have a New York! even if its an historic recreation
> between Wall Street and Park Avenue! lol.
>
>
Actually ballistic flight may not be the best solution. The solution
may well be to have evacuated tunnels and electromagnetic
acceleration.
> > One small
> > point. You are now inplicitly postulating VN machines. If all the work
> > is done by robots the colony is VN. I personally beieve O'Neill is
> > only credible in a Von Neumann context.
>
> At some point we will have VN machines. Probably sooner rather than
> later. The early work of Johnny von Neumann was so successful and
> suggestive of immediate progress, I wonder if this isn't being
> supressed along with some of his other stuff related to secret codes.
>
I don't think so. There are a great many conspiracies but this is not
one of them. I do not think there is any conspiracy in fundamental
science/mathematics. I think that the VN machine has not been built
because in the time of Von Neumann computers just weren't powerful
enough. A similar situation held with regard to language.
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.physics.research/browse_frm/thread/4ec2ce2ba587ed58?hl=en
When we are considering assembling flat packs we are in the situation
of "We can build it if we want to and if we have the imagination". As
far as codes are concerned we already know a lot. We know about the
RSA code the beauty of which is that you can establish it without ever
having to transmit anything in plain text. We know too that with any
generating function we have a code, but we need RSA to set our
generating function up.
>
>
> > How long should we wait. Go now for energy - quite right. VN is at the
> > end of the road, it has to be.
>
> But we can do a lot in space in the interim. Beam energy from the sun
> to provide Earth's energy and provide advanced transportation
> technology (light-wing VTOL super-ballistic transport in every
> garage) Survey all the small bodies in the solar system. Use the
> laser capacity near the sun to capture the richest of these to bring
> into MEO. Use the same factories and launchers to put remotely
> controlled robots that are shot into space to operate by remote
> control within MEO - hire the 1.6 billion unemployed in the world, and
> pay them with output from the factory,sell the excess, and keep the
> profit.
I don't think it has to be ballistic.
>
>
> > Ditto on terrestrial possibilities.
>
> But that's not needed! There are 3.4 billion men and 3.4 billion
> women within 1/7 light second of one another. Its a total waste of
> energy to build sexual analogues of them when you can go meet them in
> person! Better to spend money to make food production and
> distribution more efficient.
>
>
>
>
> > > > Somewhere there is a compromise that suits the majority of
> > > > people.
>
> > > This is only by necessity of our limited technology involving
> > > primitive forms of communication, transportation and production.
>
> > I am not so sure. The question I am asking is why do business
> > executives keep travelling to meetings which are completely
> > unecessary, even with present day technology.
>
You can meet people in New York easier than you can meet them
elsewhere. OK perhaps not New York, but you do need a settlement.
> Because of our primitive forms of communication. I mean, Bill Deming
> demonstrated the importance of gathering quality data during the 1940s
> and integrated into production systems that made weapons and so forth
> - to solve quality problems with weapons. The Japanese adopted these
> techniques across their industry - and the resulting improvements in
> quality, volume, and cost allowed them to make very sophisticated
> products (automobiles, consumer electronics) very competitively with
> established manufacturers, by the 1960s they were making inroads in
> the US and Europe, and around the world, by the 1980s, US and other
> manufacturers began adopting some of the techniques, it wasn't until
> 2000 that most manufacturers were ISO 9000 compliant - and this is but
> ONE detail where science has impacted manufacturing. There a whole
> host of findings that are gathering dust, vonNeumann didn't just
> postulate and do work on SR machines, he built prototypes! and its
> been a dead letter.
Not completely (see above) Von Neumann lived in the era of valves and
it was hard to execute his devices. The thing I feel now is that we
have computers of fantastic power, in comparison. Somehow though we
have lost a certain amount of vision.
>Norbert Weiner, Ken Arrow, Wassily Leonteiff,
> have huge bodies of work - just to name a few - with Buckminster
> Fuller acting as cheerleader. But all these folks worked in the
> 1950s. With the exception of Eric Drexler, I haven't seen any follow
> up on any of this. And these fols suggest small steps to improve the
> efficiency and quality and cost of our productive systems across the
> board using cybernetics and advanced math.. haha.. but folks haven't
> adopted it. Or have been slow to adopt it. I will say retailers have
> adopted retail automation - this is something I had a small part in.
> But this is just the smallest drop in a rather large bucket that if we
> tapped into it, we could transform life on Earth today without VN
> machines - by understanding adopting and adding to the bodies of work
> that lie dormant in our collective abilities.
>
>
> > We are basically designed for a hunter gatherer existence. Tis is
> > perfectly true. Hunter/gatherer bands were (probably) round about
> > 50-100. With that number of people objectives are fairly well agreed.
>
> Correct. One interesting possibility in the near future, if everyone
> has access to ballistic transport and the internet, folks can organize
> along lines that are most productive and complementary - rather than
> geographically.
>
You don't need ballistic transport - all you need is a decent system
of telepresence. This is achievable in the very near term.
> > These are all arguments which will be raised by the skeptics. I don't
> > think there will be any skepticism about energy. I don't think
> > colonization will be a stated goal for a long time.
>
> Well you disagree with what Werner vonBraun said in The New Horizons
> study done for the US in secret following World War 2. VonBraun said
> we could have begun colonization of the moon in 1948 and urged the US
> to take the leadership position. The work was classified for a number
> of years, and his advice ignored until Sputnik.
>
> Fact is, we could start to colonize the inner planets and the moon and
> cislunar space today if we had the will to do it.
>
Yes I do. Werner v Braun - like v Neumann in some respects had a
vision that could not be realized at the time. You cannot consider
space colonies without a drastic reduction in cost. This reduction of
cost is so many orders of magnitude below current costs that a lot a
technology has to be developed first. We can have a power station as
an objective, we can have a VN maschine. Colonies, they will be
objectives when the costs are right.
>
>
>
> > If you can get onto a downward spiral of costs then things will indeed
> > happen quickly.
>
> Yes. This is achieved by choosing a valid metric of measurement -
> continually reviewing it - and then investing in improving it. We
> cannot expect progress in any endeavour until all of these steps are
> carried out. Once they are we can expect exponential improvements in
> cost in very short times.
>
But colonies will still not be an objective.
> Consider that between 1948 and 1968 we went from the V2 to Saturn V
> moonrocket. If our goals were directed a little more rationally, and
> LBJ hadn't cut back on nuclear propulsion systems, we could easily
> have had some of Philip Bono's NOVA rocket, a Saturn with a nuclear
> upper stage, or even Kraft Erikhe's nuclear cruiser to colonize
> mars.
>
> http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/heliosa.htm
>
Apart from the nuclear dimension, they were basically larger versions
of the chemical rocket. The nuclear cruise cancellation stems from a
distrust of neclear power. The beauty of a laser is that you can have
what amounts to a Nerva engine in the lower atmosphere without the
risk of nuclear accident.
> Basically if you take an outsized Atlas type rocket, that burns
> hydrogen and oxygen, put a nuclear thermal sustainer on it, and two
> lox/hydrogen engines on the outside, you have a dandy 1 stage rocket
> that can take off from Earth, the LOX tanks and sustainers form liquid
> boosters that fall off and glide back to the launch center.
>
> The hydrogen fueled sustainer operating at 1,200 sec Isp - blasts the
> payload into a Mars trajectory - with sufficient propellant to execute
> a soft landing on Mars after an aerobrake entry.
>
I though the Nerva was round about 950 I may be wrong. I am assuming
just over 1,000 for LH + carbon particles.
> Refueling on Mars from local water found there - and decomposed using
> a space power version of the nuclear thermal core (built around the
> nuclear core of aircraft carriers and nuclear sub power plants being
> built at that time) - the vehicle is refueled and takes off from mars
> without the boosters (because mars is 1/3 gravity) - and flies back
> to Earth, aerobraking here to re-enter and then land - to be fully
> reused.
>
> This mars cruiser was designed and could have been built at the same
> time the SR-71 was designed and built - 1957. WE CHOSE NOT TO. Using
> the same nuclear technology that gave us the nuclear jet cruise
> missile (secret) the nuclear sub, the nuclear powered aircraft carrier
> and the nuclear airplane.
>
It would have been very expensive. I doubt seriously whether it could
have been done ast that time.
> > In terms of politics I think that one significant
> > factor may well be "What is the smallest quantum of money which will
> > start the ball rolling.. You can get significant amounts of solar
> > energy with a fairly large collection area fairly simply. To have a
> > cheap space launch based on lasers requires another stage.
>
> Well, I've designed very low cost solar panels. And I've incorporated
> them into solar synfuel process to create tremendous value. Once
> that value is realized, additional facilities will be built.
> Additional profits will be earned. And there will exist many large
> central solar collector sites that can be improved by simple space
> laser. So, I can see things moving rather easily from where I am
> today, to where things can be tomorrow.
>
This is indeed one of the attractions. The smallest quantum of money
will buy you a 1km collection circle. If you can concentrate to 1m
from GEO you need an aperture of 40*1.22m or about 60m diameter. You
need at least 60m to think in terms of a specific impulse of 1,000.
Probably won't cost that much. You will need quite a lot of
experimentation. Would be a far better goal than "back to the Moon".
>
> > N Korea is a rogue, but is not rich. I will agree some of the Middle
> > Eastern rogues are rich.
>
> Is the average Libyan rich? the average Iraqi? the average Iranian?
> I don't think so. They have oil and that's it. By not trading with
> them that oil is placed in storage - and the remaining oil is
> overdeveloped to take up the slack. When the produced oil runs out,
> the oil in storage can be brought on line - and overdeveloped as
> well. This is a way of producing an extended period of stable prices
> for the US. The US can afford to pay high prices moreso than any
> other nation. This policy creates an extended period of stable
> moderately high price oil that is very beneficial to the US.
>
I am not at all sure.
>
>
> > I would like references to this. The problem I have always had with
> > linking US foeign policy to oil is that spending money on defense is
> > simply not a cost effective way of obtaining oil.
>
> We obtain the oil by buying it always. Taking it off the market and
> putting it on the market adjusts supplies, which given the demand,
> adjusts the price. It takes very little or no money at all to say -
> hey, we're not going to trade with these guys - and don't you trade
> with them either. How much did it cost to find out that Libya was a
> rogue state? Nothing.
>
It takes a lot of money to attack someone. Iraq is a major contributor
to the budget deficit.
> look at figure 2 in this report
>
> http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/feature_articles/2004/wo...
Capitalism is a flexible system that will produce at a price. The
basic reason why the US is in Iraq is sheer goddam stupidity. Nothing
else. No oil, capitalist oilmen would go nuclear, even solar, even put
lasers into space. They would NEVER have gone into Iraq.
I got very cross when Fred McCall said I should listen to the people
who knew what they were talking about. Clearly they don't.
> Did we use up all the stones before we ended the stone age? no. Did
> we burn all the trees before we switched to coal? no. Did we burn
> all the coal before we switched to oil? no. Did we burn all the oil
> before we switched to space power or nuclear power? yes.
>
I don't think we will. I think once off the ground space will have a
momentum of its own. There is lack of technology and lack of
imagination.
One quite interesting point. Obsidian knives are used in operations at
the present time. They are in actual fact sharper than metal knives!
This is very much in the nature of a BTW.
> Its not a matter of technology. Its a matter of politics and lack of
> true concerned leadership.
>
> > > Clearly this long term policy was planned - there are even papers
> > > available from US state department and others. Plainly it was a way
> > > to moderate the supply of oil in a way the benefitted the US relative
> > > to all other players in the market. Obviously this is our primary
> > > motivation. Just compare our attitudes of WMD in Iraq and need to
> > > invade Iran because of a nuclear power program versus our continuing
> > > lack of interest in Pakistani nuclear weapons - which already exist,
> > > and the nuclear program of North Korea (which was of no real interest
> > > until the North shot off a rocket capable of reaching US homeland)
>
> > The one reason for attacking Iran is failure in Iraq.
>
> You are looking at the tactical situation we face today and ignoring
> the strategic discussion I am trying to have with you.
>
You cannot advance strategically without tactical victories. There is
one basic point about oil companies that you should never forget. They
HAVE made a considerable investment in alternative technologies. The
strategic aims of a company are to diversify into areas of future
growth. In fact if you want money you should look at people like
Shell.
Shell is dedicated to making money, it is not dedicated to oil. It
looks at the technological and political scene in deciding where to
invest and what to research. There is also quite a lot a kudos in an
oil company diversifying.
Oil, like other companies have to present themselves as being
attractive to young people. Image is vital to them. Any oil company
executive, believe me, would far sooner be in space, or in a
terrestrial desert rather than Iraq.
> > The fact is that
> > when the US withdraws Iran will take over the country, either in terms
> > of a more of less client state (which I think they would prefer) or as
> > an organic part of a united Persia.
>
> So what? Iran was trying to take over the country when Saddam ran
> it? Syria won't sit still and neither will Saudi Arabia. Turkey and
> the Kurds will have a say too. So what? That oil means nothing if
> we switch to another source. And that only matters to the oil
> companies. That's all I'm saying.
Saddam was there stopping them.
>
> Pick up a book on the Ottoman Empire and read it. You might also want
> to read the first chapter of THE COMING WAR WITH JAPAN by Merideth and
> Lebar I think. Great stuff. Talks about what the US has done to
> maintain its strategic position in the world, and suggests what it
> might do in the future. Which is not to put the US down. If the US
> weren't number one - someone else would be, and things would likely be
> far worse than they are.
I think it is possible to envisage a collection of states having a
common policy. I see what you mean. The immediate alternative to a US
world is a Sino Russian world. Al Qaeda has tried to make certain that
the US is defeated. The irony is that they got entangled with a far
more ruthless enemy than the US. The Shiites/Iranians responded to
terror, not with security measures as the US would have done, but with
ethnic cleansing and extermination.
>
> But at some point, the US has to have an end game. At some point the
> entire Earth will be politically integrated and peaceful. JFK wanted
> to start down that path in 1960. Switch to nuclear power from oil.
> Switch from a nuclear competition of the cold war to a space race.
> Use our intelligence community to inspire peace and cooperation rather
> than seek advantage in pointless competition. JFK lost. Nixon/
> Eisenhower won. The economic collapse of the United States in 1975 -
> including our failure in Vietnam is the result.
>
It will have to be.
> > BTW - The current plans for Iran include "letting the anthill sort
> > itself out at the end of the strikes". Quite clearly nothing to the US
> > liking will emerge. There is even the possibility of an intervention
> > by a third country. Possibly Putin under the unberella of the Central
> > Asian Federation.
>
> Yes. The chinese are already building an oil pipeline into the
> region. This is bad for the US, but not bad for the oil companies
> that supply the US. China will have access to low cost energy. The
> US will have access to low cost chinese labor. The US will pay more
> to the oil companies for the reserves they DO control (they just
> signed some deals with Libya) - and they'll get top dollar for those
> by the time the US does what it should have done 45 years ago.
>
The Sino Russian world. Of course a pipeline will enable the Straights
of Hormuz to be closed, while still preserving Iranian exports.
>
> > History is what actually happenned, not what might have happenned.
>
> That's a ludicrously stupid statement. History isn't just what's
> written in the press releases of the White House. Its what's written
> in the secret documents, private agreements, and actions of otehrs as
> well.
True. What I wa saying is that you can't say if this or that had
happenned history would be different.
Bombs in the WTC is very easy to disprove. No debris (except for
engines) was left because aircraft are made out of aluminium which
melts at a low temperature. I sometimes wonder whether the bombs in
the WTC was a story put out by the CIA to cover up the questions that
really should have been asked.
Conspiracy theories do however show a lack of trust in the government.
On whether the Apollo Moon landings really took place, Buzz Aldrin has
said that he believes there should be freedom of speech but people
should be aware of the impression they are giving young people.
If that were true you would not need religious leaders. Ayatollahs
tell you what God's will is. You don't discover it for yourself.
> Religions exist to extract temporal power from people by removing the
> individual from his or her natural connection with the divine and
> substituting a connection with the religious institution. This is the
> worst form of blasphemy. Religions are successful at this with people
> who as children suffered certain types of mental and physical abuse as
> outlined by Miller and others. Religions also promote rules related
> to free sexual expression and child rearing that promote the very
> abuse that makes it easy for them to retain their power through the
> generations. Religions also align themselves with other temporal
> powers to maintain their power and control as well.
>
> The Islamic religion is not unique. It shares many features with all
> other powerful religions in the world.
>
Islam is more prone that most. Christ, the Buddha, Lao Tse etc. were
religious leaders/philosophers. Mohammad was a tribal leader who led
his tribe into war.
Islam also shares one feature with Protestantism and that is that
secular prosperity and religion go hand in hand. Nasser was a secular
ruler who did not say his prayers properly and was defeated. We say
our prayers properly have got the faith to suicide bomb - and we are
being defeated too.
>
> > Hearts and minds have not been won in the Iraq war either.
>
> They could have up to about 2 days after the statues were pulled
> down. But asking the man who lost New Orleans to plan for the post
> invasion strategy is asking a bit much. But like I said, this oil is
> going to China, and Libyan oil is going to the US, and by 2026 - the
> oil companies will have played their end game.
>
All oil eventually ends up in Rotterdam. Sellers have to sell it,
buyers have to buy it. This is so whatever the political color.
> > This last
> > paragraph is a little bit contradictory. The military has tries to win
> > hearts and minds, but has failed.
>
> The military must rely on their commander and chief to create a
> strategy with the expertise he can draw on, central intelligence,
> state, others who advise the White House - to come up with a workable
> strategy. To throw it on the field commanders or generals even, and
> then say they failed is to do them a disservice.
>
He can call on lots of people. America does wil Nobel Prizes.
> > It's knowledge is clearly
> > incomplete, its control of the sources of information incomplete.
>
> Yes. What is reported on CNN is self-consistent. But is incomplete.
> Fact is, there is a lot more opportunity for action than you recount
> here. Fact is,these were ignored. Fact is, Bush had no idea how to
> handle post invasion.. Fact is he had no idea because he gave it no
> thought - had he given it some thought and authorized action on it -
> he would have had a workable plan. But that didn't happen. Fact is,
> the President is responsible for this failure and he has not stood up
> and taken full responsibility for it.
>
I ask the question again. How come America can win Nobel Prizes but
can't get a strategy for Iraq right.
> > You know my perennial hobbyhorse AI. Now in the future television
> > programs are going to be sent to us via the Internet. Google is going
> > to control our hearts and minds.
>
> This proceeds from the false assumption that people are merely robots
> that respond to inputs. Fact is, we have the capacity to create our
> own ideas and follow through on them - stemming from deep seated
> desires.
>
> > Now Google is in fact international.
> > I have talked about Radio Reloj (which in fact is the name of a radio
> > station in Cuba) in the context of SETI. Sync pulses can be obseved
> > tens of parsecs away.
>
> You are making non-sequitor statements.. this makes no sense in the
> context of what we were discussing.
>
We are made by our experience and sources of knowledge. Television is
one of the major sources of knowledge we have. If an AI system is
creating our experience it seems clear that it would have enormous
power.
> > Quite clearly the demise of Radio Reloj will have a lot to say about
> > how we perceive the word. We have to be certain that AI provides a
> > neutral picture. So far Google seems to be doing.
>
> You are not making any sense at all. I thought you meant AI =
> Artificial Intelligence. I know what Google is. I don't no what
> Radio Reloj is. But if you think that by listening to a media source
> you can change life experience in any tangible way you are mistaken.
>
No, television has been a major part of our culture since it was
invented. Our views are formed by the sources of information we have -
And it won't just be television, it will also influence the way we are
educated.
>
> > I think we should distinguish between religion and belief in God.
>
> I think you need to distinguish between belief in something and the
> direct experience of that thing.
Religious leaders cannot therefore have had any direct experience.
Islam is unashamedly temporal. The others are in differing degrees.
> > There are a lot of religions saying contradictory things.
>
> Because things are said to take advantage of the irrational feelings
> people have and need not be logical or consistent - the only
> requirement is that the faithful are filled with shame remorse and
> self-loathing, and at the same time hope for the future, by
> surrendering themselves to the authorities and through promises to
> come to understand and adhere more closely to authorities in the
> future.
>
> Now, this is distinctly different than surrender to God, or to the joy
> and hope within that sees shame remorse and self hatred as a form of
> madness.
>
Surrender to God (Islam) or surrender to his self appointed
spokespersons.
> > They can't all be right.
>
> None of them are,
>
> > Either one of them is right or they are all
> > wrong.
>
> They are all mad. Various individuals certainly had a direct
> revelation of the divine at some time in the past. And some of them
> were able to organize followers and some sort of institution to pass
> on the wisdom of the individual. Those institutions responding to the
> pressures that temporal power exerts, chose temporal power over the
> divine message. In fact, the message was edited and reformed many
> times to meet the needs of this or that dictator. Look at what
> Constantine did to the Gnostics! It happens in all religions. So, I
> feel quite confident in saying they are all mad. When you have
> churches urging young men to go to war in the US, or when you have
> mosques recruiting young women to blow themselves up in crowded places
> - is one very different from another? no. they're all mad and have
> sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
>
> > Organized religion claims to have a red phone - dial "A" for
> > Allah. He does not seem to have taught them how to live in peace.
>
> Peace can only come about by loving yourself and honoring the voice
> within and knowing that nothing at all can threaten what is and that
> what is is perfect. Religions seek to undermine this 'oceanic
> feeling' and create generation after generation of people that die
> bitter and frustrated.
>
Agreed
>
> > A genuine religious experience?
>
> It doesn't take much. Given that God created you and is still in
> contact with you. But religions would have you think its the most
> difficult thing. Or make you feel guilty if you think you had one.
> Or demonize you if you stuck to your guns. Otherwise, they'd lose all
> authority relatively quickly.
>
> > Possibly, but organized religion is
> > not about religious experience.
>
> Interesting that you say that. That's the problem.
>
> On the personal level. People are drawn to religions because they are
> seeking something that is missing in their lives. Maybe they suffered
> a loss of a loved one. Maybe a financial reversal. Maybe they're
> battling alcohol or drug addiction. Maybe they're doing well in every
> part of their life, but feel empty anyway. They are seeking a
> connection with the divine. they are seeking a religious experience.
> And the religion is telling them they have the answer. they know the
> way. they know the truth. And people surrender to the religion and
> adopt its precepts and they're stuck since the religion doesn't offer
> the experience they seek - merely exploits their need for it.
>
> On the theoretical level. Religions have a book, writings of holy men
> and women. These people are holy because they have been transformed
> by their religious experience. These people started out quite
> modestly. They had an insight an experience. They shared it. It got
> recorded. And a religion began.
>
They have genuine insights mixed up with other things. I think in fact
Mohammad did have insights (he believed in more rights for women) not
all of which were shared with his followers. Being a war leader he had
to compromise.
And it was an experience that did not exclude other experience.
>
> > This may be true. I think though in a very real sense the type of
> > framework provided by Organized Religion may in fact stop one thinking
> > in this sort of way.
>
> Religions exist to perpetuate the power of the religions. If thinking
> a certain way undermines a religion then the religion is against it.
> If thinking a certain way empowers the religion then the religion is
> for it.
>
> > The Pilgrim Fathers did not go because they were
> > awaestruck with America. They went because James I wanted rid of them.
>
> That's right. But don't underestimate that. In today's world James I
> would have no place to send them, and so would be forced to a final
> solution of some sort.
And he would be scared of giving them a VN machine.
>
> > Yes indeed, but I want governments to be elected that attempt to
> > better the lot of Mankind. This is one factor that will influence me
> > in my decision of who to vote for.
>
> But Ken Arrow showed in 1950 that voting doesn't work the way we think
> it does, so its all a sham. His data has been used to increase the
> power of the specialists at great cost to the public. So your vote is
> meaningless.
>
It is when we do not fully understand the issues.
No I was commenting on the logic of his 3 laws, not rewriting history.
I am saying that we must work to insure nothing like that ever
happens again. Producing a just world is very much a part of what AI
should be about. This is what I am saying.
> > Today we do not feel as much threatened by other nations as by
> > individuals who want to kill us and are often not too worried if they
> > kill themselves too.
>
> I thought you said you were British? hmm.. Look, people surrender
> power to those they think can help them accomplish what they feel
> needs accomplished but cannot do it themselves. The modern nation-
> state has exploited this process to maintain control over its people
> using all the knowledge at its command.
We should be attempting to go to a supranational world. We should and
I think must ensure that technology in general and AI in particular is
used to this end. I want to see technology srerving humanity not the
current status quo.
>
> All nations do this. In a world where the Soviet Union collapsed and
> was no longer a credible threat, the US neede another enemy. So, we
> turned a blind eye and let the second attack on the WTC happen.
>
> But terrorism isn't new. We've had suicidal terrorists since Thomas
> Rainsborough! (1647) haha.. and the powers that be have used them,
> or any enemy they could impress the public with to raise taxes and
> exercise ever more power over their subjects.
>
> The thing is, we need to change the paradigm under which we operate if
> we want to change our condition - and this takes a change in the way
> we raise our kids and the way we deal with our emotions in adulthood.
>
Agreed. AI is I believe capable of changing the paradym.
>
> > Nation states have a monoply of force. I believe that a world without
> > nations would be an ideal to strive for.
>
> No one has power over you unless you give it to them. The more people
> that take their power back for themselves the weaker nations and
> religions become. In the end, they will collapse as people find a
> better way for themselves.
>
How will they find a better way? Information is needed.
> > Quite clearly it is also an
> > idea that no one wants.
>
> People who do not own their own power feel naked and threatened by the
> idea of there being no nations and religions. People who own their
> own power - are not beholden to anyone, and the nations will fall of
> their own accord once a tipping point is reached.
>
> > Looking at the situation from Britain we have
> > the EU. Now governments, including Gordon Brown want to bring about a
> > common European sovereignity. Quite laudable you might say.
>
> Depends on the details. None of this gets us past Arrows
> impossibility theorem. So, its really quite mad to try to do anything
> within a system that doesn't work.
>
> > Governments have negotiated an EU treaty which the voters are throwing
> > out. Gordon Brown is not going to face a referendum here, he will get
> > the treaty ratified by Parliament. Governments are persuing what might
> > be termed rational policies as far as they can. They are definitely in
> > advance of their populations.
>
> Nonsense.
The British people are Eurosceptic and would vote the treaty out. It
is not a big deal but a treaty is better than no treaty.
>
> > I think you misundrstand, conflict is part of the game.
>
> There is no game. Conflict beetween Shiites and Sunnis stem from the
> need for each to project blame outside their own circle to solidify
> control over their faithful. This is madness - and leads to madness -
> and has nothing at all to do with the insights that the religion was
> orignally set up to spread and honor.
>
> >The Sunnis and
> > Shiites each cose an outcome which led to 4 million refugees.
>
> Its all madness - and its not a rational choice - and it cannot be
> sustained.
>
The Sunnis and Shiites have a matrix of reults, this is the essense of
a game. If they cooperate there is one outcome. If they don't there is
another. The Sunnis/AlQaeda blew upthe mosque at Karbala. I don't
think they knew what the outcome would be for them.
>
>
>
> > It is true that mutual cooperation will provide the highest score but
> > they contive not to.
>
> > Let us look at the outcome of a staghunt. The Tigres and Euphates are
> > powerful rivers. In the time of the old Babylonian kings 3 crops a
> > year were produced. That is before oil comes into consideration.
> > Nobody would have had to have left their homes there would be electric
> > power 24/7 and the country would be on the road to prosperity.
> > However ...... How basically do you get people to look after their own
> > interests.
>
> By empowering them as children and teaching them to trust their own
> inner voice.
>
I thnilk there are other things too,
>
> > It is how you say your prayers - not resources.
>
> No, in times when there is plenty, in times when things are going
> well, the religions take responsibility for that, and point to anyone
> not doing well as an examplar of what happens to unbelievers. They
> could care less about how non believers pray.
>
> In times of scarcity, in times when things are going badly, the
> religions project blame to the non-believers, particularly if they are
> doing better than them, and seek to destroy them - in their
> destruction will the faithful win their release. This is true in the
> modern age, as it was true in the time of the Inquisition. It was the
> failure of Spain as a world power that led directly to the Spanish
> Inquisition.
False - The Inquisition stated when the Christian Spanish were
fighting the Moors. 1492 in American history is the data of Columbus
sailing. In fact it was also the date of the capture of Granada the
last Moor stronghold in Spain. The Inquisition existed thoughout that
period.
>
> So, it is resources squandered in the hands of the irrational that
> lead to religious conflicts.
>
> > There is enough in
> > Iraq for everyone there and for everyone to come home.
>
> No there isn't. Not when the nation is isolated from world trade by
> US edict. These tendencies toward conflict are then exploited to keep
> everyone focused on local events and not project power outside the
> region. Read the first chapter of TE COMING WAR WITH JAPAN and then
> we can talk.
>
>
> > Yes and religion (org) also gives a double standard sexual morality. I
> > suggested sending those Iraqii girls from Damascus nightclubs into
> > space. This very much stems from the words on the Statue of Liberty.
> > They have said thier prayers the wrong way, they have been booted out
> > - and to cap it all they are now moral outcasts. This is organized
> > religion for you.
>
> This would echo James I solution for the Pilgrims.
I don't somehow think James I would have let his pilgrims loose with
VN machines. I think King James would have wrestled with how to
control them.
- Ian Parker
BradGuth
>
>Not completely (see above) Von Neumann lived in the era of valves and
>it was hard to execute his devices. The thing I feel now is that we
>have computers of fantastic power, in comparison. Somehow though we
>have lost a certain amount of vision.
It's hard to have any "certain amount of vision" when so much of
history and of the physics and science within is skewed by lies, or by
way of having evidence excluded by those in charge that have motive
and the means and/or authority by which to enforce their motives.
- Brad Guth -
Willie...@gmail.com
Why not? Postulating that industrial humanity gets on a path that
cuts the cost of energy by half every 5 to 7 years - as was that case
from 1850 through 1970 - then ballistic transport is a very efficient
solution. Orbital velocity is 7 km/sec. Escape velocity is 11 km/sec
- twice orbital velocity - 14 km/sec - would produce 1 gee outward
force to maintain altitude - these represent energies of
E = 1/2 m V^2 = 24.5 MJ per kg - orbital - $0.74/kg
49.0 MJ per kg - escape - $1.48/kg
98.0 MJ per kg - 2x orbital - $2.96/kg
The costs are calculated on the basis that a gallon of gasoline costs
$3.60 and contains 120 MJ. So to transport 500 kg ballistically would
cost $370, $740, and $1,480 per trip - respectively.
Assuming energy costs were on a downward cost trajectory, being cut in
half every 5 years - (13% reduction every year compounded), far less
agressive than say the advances in the consumer electronics industry,
then in 10, 20 and 30 years we'd have per trip costs of;
10 years $92.50 $185.00 $370.00
20 years $23.12 $46.25 $92.50
30 years $5.78 $11.56 $23.12
40 years $1.44 $2.89 $5.78
We can see that in 50 years, the cost of travelling from one side of
the world to the other, would not only be accomplished in 45 to 22
minutes, but would also cost the same as it now costs to drive across
town in 20 to 45 minutes.
>The solution
> may well be to have evacuated tunnels and electromagnetic
> acceleration.
The solution to what? I'm having trouble tracking your thought
process.
Robert Goddard suggested that in 1910. The tunnels, if the Chunnel is
representative, would be very capital intensive and of lmited
utility. Getting on and off the tunnel, and then driving to and from
the tunnel entrances become huge bottlenecks. This cannot compare to
an automated aerial taxi service that transports you anywhere on Earth
in minutes in response to a cell phone call.
Distance travelled at 1 gee - acceleration to halfway point - 1 gee
deceleration to destination from halfway point;
1 mile 26 seconds 285 mph top speed
2 mile 36 seconds 395 mph top speed
5 mile 58 seconds 635 mph top speed
10 mile 81 seconds 900 mph top speed
20 mile 2 minutes 1,275 mph top speed
50 mile 3 minutes 2,015 mph top speed
100 mile 4 minutes 2,850 mph top speed
200 mile 6 minutes 4,030 mph top speed
500 mile 10 minutes 6,590 mph top speed
> > > One small
> > > point. You are now inplicitly postulating VN machines. If all the work
> > > is done by robots the colony is VN. I personally beieve O'Neill is
> > > only credible in a Von Neumann context.
>
> > At some point we will have VN machines. Probably sooner rather than
> > later. The early work of Johnny von Neumann was so successful and
> > suggestive of immediate progress, I wonder if this isn't being
> > supressed along with some of his other stuff related to secret codes.
>
> I don't think so. There are a great many conspiracies but this is not
> one of them.
How do you know?
> I do not think there is any conspiracy in fundamental
> science/mathematics.
Not conspiracy - policy.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/rdd-7.html
Check out section B-1 - Mathematics is included dude. And this is
just for nuclear physics. I'm sure there are similar classifications
in place for methods involving the production and decryption of codes
and other stuff as well.
Here is what was declassified! haha.. Which means it WAS classified
at one point.
B. MATHEMATICS
Methods of applied mathematics and computation if illustrated on
declassified subjects. (46-1) Examples:
Shock hydrodynamics. (46-1)
Integration of partial differential equations. (46-1)
General diffusion theory. (46-1)
Theoretical methods for determining equations of state. (46-1)
Chemical kinetics including application to ordinary explosives.
(46-1)
Theoretical methods for calculating opacities. (46-1)
General theory of blast. (46-1)
Methods of applied mathematics if illustrated on declassified
subjects. (47-1)
Pure and applied mathematics including computational methods, provided
it does not reveal information classified for other reasons. (48-1)
> I think that the VN machine has not been built
> because in the time of Von Neumann computers just weren't powerful
> enough. A similar situation held with regard to language.
You don't need sophistcated computers. VonNeuman had a shoebox filled
with hand carved wood pieces that when shaken self-assembled. He also
had a tiny dried clay pieces that when you put the concave and convex
(female/male coupling) together the void was identical to the
parents. So, you could take a sheet of clay and make other identical
pieces out of them.
As I've said, this was reported in the press back in the 40s - and
NOTHING has been done to build on these rather simple approaches. And
the pieces and shoebox have disappeared, and computer records don't go
that far back, and its only the memories of old farts like me that
recall it at all.
> http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.physics.research/browse_frm/thre...
>
> When we are considering assembling flat packs we are in the situation
> of "We can build it if we want to and if we have the imagination".
Correct. VonNeuman built examples of what he was talking about - and
then nothing.
> As
> far as codes are concerned we already know a lot.
Look at a vonNeuman machine. It reads and writes a string of 1s and
0s. - advances, reverses.. that's it. It doesn't take much from
there.
> We know about the
> RSA code the beauty of which is that you can establish it without ever
> having to transmit anything in plain text. We know too that with any
> generating function we have a code, but we need RSA to set our
> generating function up.
RSA codes are based on the ASSUMPTION that there is no way to factor
numbers quickly. This assumption has never been proved. So, that's
its achilles heel. Sorting numbers is a computationally difficult
task. But when numbers are each concieved as the length of an
uncooked spaghetti noodle, all you've got to do to sort them is hold
them in your hand, drop them onto a table top, and they're
automatically sorted in an instant.
You have a certain conception based on the popularizations of these
ideas, and that puts your mind into a certain mode. You don't really
understand these things deeply. You appreciate the potential,
certainly, but you don't appreciate the details and just how easily
these things could be built with the right people working on it.
>
>
> > > How long should we wait. Go now for energy - quite right. VN is at the
> > > end of the road, it has to be.
>
> > But we can do a lot in space in the interim. Beam energy from the sun
> > to provide Earth's energy and provide advanced transportation
> > technology (light-wing VTOL super-ballistic transport in every
> > garage) Survey all the small bodies in the solar system. Use the
> > laser capacity near the sun to capture the richest of these to bring
> > into MEO. Use the same factories and launchers to put remotely
> > controlled robots that are shot into space to operate by remote
> > control within MEO - hire the 1.6 billion unemployed in the world, and
> > pay them with output from the factory,sell the excess, and keep the
> > profit.
>
> I don't think it has to be ballistic.
>
What is this problem you have with the world 'ballistic'?
You understnad what I mean by ballistic don't you?
It means it follows a ballistic trjectory.
Jesus. you were talking elsewhere about travel between the planets.
Well, that's lots faster and lots more energetic than mere ballistic
transport from point to point on Earth.
It takes about 84 minutes for a minimum energy object to orbit the
Earth. It takes no more than half that time for a sub-orbital payload
to follow a ballistic trajectory to the anti-podes (halfway around the
Earth)
http://www.cs.utah.edu/~zachary/isp/applets/Cannon/Cannon.html
So, since we were talking freely about people flying constant gee
spaceships from planet to planet - there is no trouble whatever
imagining people flying suborbital spaceships ballistically from point
to point ON a planet. And the first planet we'll do that with - is
planet Earth.
Like I said, 42 minutes gets you on the other side of the Earth. With
a constant gee spaceship like I was discussing, you can accelerate to
twice orbital velocity, and boost outward to maintain altitude -
trajectory - and arrive to the antipodes in 21 minutes - and anywhere
else in less time!!
>
> > > Ditto on terrestrial possibilities.
>
> > But that's not needed! There are 3.4 billion men and 3.4 billion
> > women within 1/7 light second of one another. Its a total waste of
> > energy to build sexual analogues of them when you can go meet them in
> > person! Better to spend money to make food production and
> > distribution more efficient.
>
> > > > > Somewhere there is a compromise that suits the majority of
> > > > > people.
>
> > > > This is only by necessity of our limited technology involving
> > > > primitive forms of communication, transportation and production.
>
> > > I am not so sure. The question I am asking is why do business
> > > executives keep travelling to meetings which are completely
> > > unecessary, even with present day technology.
>
> You can meet people in New York easier than you can meet them
> elsewhere. OK perhaps not New York, but you do need a settlement.
Wait a minute... please appreciate what we're talking about here. On
the one hand we're talking about interstellar homesteading. The
technology and energy needed to achieve that. Everyone owns their own
space ranch with laser light wings attached - tapping the energy of
the stars themselves to boost through interstellar space at large
fractions of the speed of light.
Now we're talking about communities. Collections of folks. Having
access to this type of technology and this level of energy per
person.
Imagine a time when all the stars have hovering above them man made
fog of laser powersats that beam energy in response to signal lasers
that each starship carries. The ship is booste at 1 gee across the
cosmos until its halfway to its destination. Then, it signals its
destinatoin - and is slowed at 1 gee until it arrives. And the
spaceship is the size of an ONeil colony. I computed that stars the
size of the sun could support 20 million or so of these colonies
arriving and departing every second!!! In a year the entire human
race could circulate out of the solar system.
In the context of this massive amount of energy entire planets will
seem as small psychologically, as a cozy neighborhood. We wouldn't
want to mess up a planet with big tunnels and huge collections of
buildings. Why do we need them? Imagine millions or perhaps billions
of colonies in leisurely orbit around Earth and Mars and so forth.
Like the rings of Saturn. And small high gee spacecraft dart out of
each habitat and fly in minutes or even seconds to another. In 20
minutes a person could dart from wherever they were in Earth orbit to
wherever else they wanted to be in the ring, or on the surface. This
would BE a city larger than New York ever could be. Phone calls and
telepresence allow people to communicate instantly. Constant gee
spaceships allow them to hop from one side of the planet to the other
in minutes. The entire planet has become one vast city.
> > Because of our primitive forms of communication. I mean, Bill Deming
> > demonstrated the importance of gathering quality data during the 1940s
> > and integrated into production systems that made weapons and so forth
> > - to solve quality problems with weapons. The Japanese adopted these
> > techniques across their industry - and the resulting improvements in
> > quality, volume, and cost allowed them to make very sophisticated
> > products (automobiles, consumer electronics) very competitively with
> > established manufacturers, by the 1960s they were making inroads in
> > the US and Europe, and around the world, by the 1980s, US and other
> > manufacturers began adopting some of the techniques, it wasn't until
> > 2000 that most manufacturers were ISO 9000 compliant - and this is but
> > ONE detail where science has impacted manufacturing. There a whole
> > host of findings that are gathering dust, vonNeumann didn't just
> > postulate and do work on SR machines, he built prototypes! and its
> > been a dead letter.
>
> Not completely (see above) Von Neumann lived in the era of valves and
> it was hard to execute his devices.
Yet he built a machine with a shoebox and a penknife that self-
assembled, and he built a small set of dried clay devices that could
automatically mold daughter devices that also could mold daughter
devices... to illustrate the ease with which is concepts could be
implemented. Have you even read the source material? The orirginal
writings on this subject?? Or have you just read the popularizations
of it?
> The thing I feel now
But what is the real solid basis of your feeling? You can see that
machines that can make copies of themselves can end the Malthusian
delimma - but is that because you've been told that or because you've
figured it out on your own? And now what? What do you really thing
based on what you really and truly know? How much of what you're
saying here is just repeatition of what you've already read from
someone who was a journalist or popularizer?
> is that we
> have computers of fantastic power, in comparison. Somehow though we
> have lost a certain amount of vision.
Because no one does the hard work to figure stuff out on their own.
To really think about a topic and thoroughly understand it. You
switch from starships and talk like someone who lived in a ONeill
sized starship couldn't possibly afford a ballistic transport!
haha.. You have no idea what's going on, and so you have no idea how
the pieces might go together.
>
>
>
>
> >Norbert Weiner, Ken Arrow, Wassily Leonteiff,
> > have huge bodies of work - just to name a few - with Buckminster
> > Fuller acting as cheerleader. But all these folks worked in the
> > 1950s. With the exception of Eric Drexler, I haven't seen any follow
> > up on any of this. And these fols suggest small steps to improve the
> > efficiency and quality and cost of our productive systems across the
> > board using cybernetics and advanced math.. haha.. but folks haven't
> > adopted it. Or have been slow to adopt it. I will say retailers have
> > adopted retail automation - this is something I had a small part in.
> > But this is just the smallest drop in a rather large bucket that if we
> > tapped into it, we could transform life on Earth today without VN
> > machines - by understanding adopting and adding to the bodies of work
> > that lie dormant in our collective abilities.
>
> > > We are basically designed for a hunter gatherer existence. Tis is
> > > perfectly true. Hunter/gatherer bands were (probably) round about
> > > 50-100. With that number of people objectives are fairly well agreed.
>
> > Correct. One interesting possibility in the near future, if everyone
> > has access to ballistic transport and the internet, folks can organize
> > along lines that are most productive and complementary - rather than
> > geographically.
>
> You don't need ballistic transport - all you need is a decent system
> of telepresence.
What the hell do you have against ballistic transport? ITS THE WORD
ISN;T IT? You don't know what the word really means so you're afraid
of it- you have it associated in your head with 'hes gone ballistic'
and 'destruction by ballistic bombardment' haha.. you lunatic. Jesus
learn what the hell you're saying before you say it.
> This is achievable in the very near term.
We already have ballistic missiles. And we already have telephones,
we had vidphones 40 years ago - and have teleconference,today and
we're working on telerobotics - so yeah. But in the context of what
we're talking - ballistic transport could be 3 to 5 years away. It
would change everything.
.
> > > These are all arguments which will be raised by the skeptics. I don't
> > > think there will be any skepticism about energy. I don't think
> > > colonization will be a stated goal for a long time.
>
> > Well you disagree with what Werner vonBraun said in The New Horizons
> > study done for the US in secret following World War 2. VonBraun said
> > we could have begun colonization of the moon in 1948 and urged the US
> > to take the leadership position. The work was classified for a number
> > of years, and his advice ignored until Sputnik.
>
> > Fact is, we could start to colonize the inner planets and the moon and
> > cislunar space today if we had the will to do it.
>
> Yes I do. Werner v Braun - like v Neumann in some respects had a
> vision that could not be realized at the time.
Yes it could. What do you think Apollo was all about? Project
Horizon 1959 (not to be confused with New Horizons study 1948),
Project Lunex 1961 - he actually built rockets as far back as the
1930s. Tsiolkovski had a vision that couldn't be built in his time in
the 1890s. vonNeuman built a lot of shit - as I pointed out.
VonNeuman and vonBraun BOTH were hands on engineers that built
stuff.
> You cannot consider
> space colonies without a drastic reduction in cost.
Duh. that's what we're talking about. Reducing the cost of energy and
the cost of materials on orbit. This is related. Beam energy from
near the sun to Earth for industrial use. Beam energy across the
solar system to change the orbits of rich asteroids to bring them to
Earth orbit. Then launch telerobotic systems into Earth orbit or
begin working those rich asteroids into useful stuff. And deorbit
that stuff directly to consumers using GPS and satellite
communications.
>This reduction of
> cost is so many orders of magnitude below current costs
Nonsense. You talk as if these costs couldn't be reduced. I've
outlined a specific program to produce 300 TW of laser energy at a
cost of $20 billion - that would bring 8 asteroids each 1 km in
diameter into polar orbit around Earth per year - and power space
factories and flights from orbit to surface of finished goods.
> that a lot a
> technology has to be developed first.
Like what? You don't know what's going on and you don't know enough
to understand what i've said, so you are say uh uh its complicated and
will take a long time. phhtt. Anything takes a long time if you don't
know what the hell you're doing.
> We can have a power station as
> an objective, we can have a VN maschine. Colonies, they will be
> objectives when the costs are right.
So you ARE familiar with Gerard O'Neill and the L5 society right? You
are familiar with the NASA studies done back in the 70s about space
colonies. These give the basics. Now, reduce the cost of stuff on
orbit by a factor of a million by bringing rich asteroids into Earth
orbit and process them with telerobotic systems. This avoids a moon
base up front and a large manned presence in space up front - but
gives you immediate economic benefits and huge cost reductions.
> > > If you can get onto a downward spiral of costs then things will indeed
> > > happen quickly.
>
> > Yes. This is achieved by choosing a valid metric of measurement -
> > continually reviewing it - and then investing in improving it. We
> > cannot expect progress in any endeavour until all of these steps are
> > carried out. Once they are we can expect exponential improvements in
> > cost in very short times.
>
> But colonies will still not be an objective.
>
When you can buy 10 sq km of any environment you want free of any
restrictions - that is mobile - for less cost than a 1/4 ha plot in a
suburb - and when travel to orbit is less costly than travel across
town - people will naturally buy homesteads in space.
The highest price homes are $100 million. Millions of homes are
priced between $10 million and $100 million. There are 9.5 million
millionaires in the world. An ONeill space colony masses about
500,000 tons. So, let's say a starting price of $50 million per
colony is needed to attract a critical mass of buyers. By the way, a
Boeing Business Jet costs over $65 million - and there are dozens of
those. but this is $100 per ton. $0.10 per kg. This is the price
point we have to reach. Today it costs $10,000 per kg - or
1/100,000th the cost.
Now, I have proposed a system that builds 100 kg systems that get
launched into space by rail gun, and fly to hover over the solar
surface. There they operate in conjunction with one another to create
a 20 km diameter 300 TW beam of laser energy. This beam can bring
trillions of tons of material into Earth orbit. The same rail gun
array that launched the laser sats can also launch advanced versions
of ASIMO - powered by laser energy from the sun - along with toolkits
to allow the remotely controlled robots to process the materials into
useful products.
Coal miners routinely process tens of thousands of tons per day. With
an average cost per worker of $100,000 per year, and a million tons
per year - we're ALREADY at $0.10 per kg.
A reusable system that makes 10,000 flights - and has 1/2% replacement
cost as arecurring cost per flight - a system that is achievable
nearterm - then we have a system that has reduced to cost of GETTING
into orbit to $100 per kg. This is cheap enough for the high net
worth individuals to routinely travel back and forth to their space
homes.
What I'm saying we could do space colonies today with the right
approach.
>
> > Consider that between 1948 and 1968 we went from the
>
> ...
Willie...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Its all in your head Brad.
The past doesn't exist except as a memory.
The future doesn't exist except as a concern.
The only thing that really and truly exists - is now.
Here is the source of a great peace.
You are absolutely free - if you disconnect from the past and future -
and live here now. This is where you are - and you are totally free
here and now.
Feel that freedom - and open to the voices of freedom within. (as
opposed to the voices in your head that worry about all the shit you
write about) -
Now recognize that ALL people everywhere have this same freedom and
this same knowing - and that they share this feature in common - and
you can see that all the noise and bullshit that we worry about can
blow away in an instant. And one day it will - once we realize our
reality.
We have the capacity to fulfill any lifestyle for any of us and all of
us without conflict or strife. This much is certain. We merely lack
the will to do it. This stems from the madness we allow in our own
hearts and minds. Be still, be here, be now, feel the peace within,
and proceed from that - rather than from your past, or toward some
imagined future.
IsaacKuo
> You don't need sophistcated computers. VonNeuman had a shoebox filled
> with hand carved wood pieces that when shaken self-assembled. He also
> had a tiny dried clay pieces that when you put the concave and convex
> (female/male coupling) together the void was identical to the
> parents. So, you could take a sheet of clay and make other identical
> pieces out of them.
> As I've said, this was reported in the press back in the 40s - and
> NOTHING has been done to build on these rather simple approaches. And
> the pieces and shoebox have disappeared, and computer records don't go
> that far back, and its only the memories of old farts like me that
> recall it at all.
Actually, self-orienting objects under controlled shaking is a well
known
technique which has been used in mass production lines forever.
It has also been an active research subject in robotics ever since the
beginings of "robotics" research.
There's plenty of research toward self-replicating robots, and it's
not
being suppressed by anything other than the inherent difficulty of
the problem and the limited usefulness of them. Pieces of clay
which are shaped to be a mold for themselves may be a neat
geometrical demonstration, but they don't have the economic value
potential of a simple cookie sheet cutter. Put bluntly, traditional
mass production techniques make more effective use of time and
resources, thus providing more return for an investment. That's
why all the money goes into it.
Economic realities also explains why we spend so much time
and effort farming land instead of merely letting plants grow in
the wild with zero effort, and gather food from the wild.
Isaac Kuo
BradGuth
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
You do realize that we're at war (again) and now looking at the $100/
barrel mark exactly because of folks like yourself, don't you.
BTW, notice how there's not an honest soul other than myself having
taken up any support of promoting your clean and/or renewable energy
alternatives. Isn't that indicating either you have a problem or that
I'm right about the folks here in usenet land being very Yiddish and
essentially out to get folks like yourself nailed to the nearest
cross?
- Brad Guth -
Ian Parker
>
> > Actually ballistic flight may not be the best solution.
>
> Why not? Postulating that industrial humanity gets on a path that
> cuts the cost of energy by half every 5 to 7 years - as was that case
> from 1850 through 1970 - then ballistic transport is a very efficient
> solution. Orbital velocity is 7 km/sec. Escape velocity is 11 km/sec
> - twice orbital velocity - 14 km/sec - would produce 1 gee outward
> force to maintain altitude - these represent energies of
>
> E = 1/2 m V^2 = 24.5 MJ per kg - orbital - $0.74/kg
> 49.0 MJ per kg - escape - $1.48/kg
> 98.0 MJ per kg - 2x orbital - $2.96/kg
>
> The costs are calculated on the basis that a gallon of gasoline costs
> $3.60 and contains 120 MJ. So to transport 500 kg ballistically would
> cost $370, $740, and $1,480 per trip - respectively.
>
At the moment energy costs are on an upward spiral.
> Assuming energy costs were on a downward cost trajectory, being cut in
> half every 5 years - (13% reduction every year compounded), far less
> agressive than say the advances in the consumer electronics industry,
> then in 10, 20 and 30 years we'd have per trip costs of;
>
> 10 years $92.50 $185.00 $370.00
> 20 years $23.12 $46.25 $92.50
> 30 years $5.78 $11.56 $23.12
> 40 years $1.44 $2.89 $5.78
>
Yes but the consumer electronics industry is taking advantage of the
fact that o0ne can put progressively smaller and smaller components
onto a chip. In terms of energy to get a downward spiral you need new
technology. OK there are ways in which that can be provided.
> We can see that in 50 years, the cost of travelling from one side of
> the world to the other, would not only be accomplished in 45 to 22
> minutes, but would also cost the same as it now costs to drive across
> town in 20 to 45 minutes.
>
There are also environmental factors. At present helicopters make a
lot of noise, but because they are only available to the very rich and
public services, they are allowed to fly fairly freely. Give everyone
a helicopter or VTOL aircraft and the main driving force will be
environmental. With the emergency services being exempted there would
be draconian restrictions on where you could and could not fly. All
flying below 1000m in towns would be banned. This being so it seems
foolish to talk about VTOL. If you have to go outside city limits
anyway you might as well have a runway and be done with it.
> >The solution
> > may well be to have evacuated tunnels and electromagnetic
> > acceleration.
>
> The solution to what? I'm having trouble tracking your thought
> process.
Suppose you have a straight evacuated tunnel. The tunnel is evacuated
so that there is no air resistance. A linear induction motor gives a
constant comfortable acceleration up to half way. At the half way
point the acceleration is reversed. Most of the energy involved in the
acceleration is then reversed.
Excavating the tunnels will be a major piece of engineering.
>
> Robert Goddard suggested that in 1910. The tunnels, if the Chunnel is
> representative, would be very capital intensive and of lmited
> utility. Getting on and off the tunnel, and then driving to and from
> the tunnel entrances become huge bottlenecks. This cannot compare to
> an automated aerial taxi service that transports you anywhere on Earth
> in minutes in response to a cell phone call.
>
Yes but so would an energy system. What is needed for BOTH in fact is
cheap methods of construction. Cheap ways of moving material whether
on an asteroid or on Earth is what is needed. If you have our VN
machine you can use it to excavate tunnels.
> Distance travelled at 1 gee - acceleration to halfway point - 1 gee
> deceleration to destination from halfway point;
>
> 1 mile 26 seconds 285 mph top speed
> 2 mile 36 seconds 395 mph top speed
> 5 mile 58 seconds 635 mph top speed
> 10 mile 81 seconds 900 mph top speed
> 20 mile 2 minutes 1,275 mph top speed
> 50 mile 3 minutes 2,015 mph top speed
> 100 mile 4 minutes 2,850 mph top speed
> 200 mile 6 minutes 4,030 mph top speed
> 500 mile 10 minutes 6,590 mph top speed
>
The Channel Tunnel is simply a tunnel to take you through a geographic
barrier. What I have in mind would be as complete network. The
technology required for massive excavations will not be so different
>
> > I don't think so. There are a great many conspiracies but this is not
> > one of them.
>
> How do you know?
>
> > I do not think there is any conspiracy in fundamental
> > science/mathematics.
>
> Not conspiracy - policy.
You Americans make one basic error and that is to assume that nobody
outside the US knows anything. The fact of the matter is that keeping
things secret merely means that someone else will discover them,
publish them openly and gain all the credit. It may well be the policy
of the CIA to fall on their swords in this way.
I don't know I don't know their psychology. I am going to tackle the
issue of encryption from a theoretical stand point.
http://www.it-director.com/technology/content.php?cid=7475
http://www.claymath.org/millennium/Riemann_Hypothesis/Official_Problem_Description.pdf
Mathematicians generally believe that a proof of the Riemann
hypothesis could enable factorizations of large composite numbers and
enable diferent types of unbreakable code.
We can see this quite simply. We multiply together two large primes.
If the RH is proved cryptology would then (I presume) take prime
modular functions and use those. The Riemann hypothesis can only be
proved using some type of modular field, I am not really an expert in
this. We could, with a proof, understand how theoretically
unbreakable trap door ciphers could be constructed.
>
> http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/rdd-7.html
>
> Check out section B-1 - Mathematics is included dude. And this is
> just for nuclear physics. I'm sure there are similar classifications
> in place for methods involving the production and decryption of codes
> and other stuff as well.
>
> Here is what was declassified! haha.. Which means it WAS classified
> at one point.
>
> B. MATHEMATICS
> Methods of applied mathematics and computation if illustrated on
> declassified subjects. (46-1) Examples:
>
> Shock hydrodynamics. (46-1)
> Integration of partial differential equations. (46-1)
You can buy packages for this.
> General diffusion theory. (46-1)
Ditto
> Theoretical methods for determining equations of state. (46-1)
People outside the US are working openly on this. The US will fall
behind with classification.
> Chemical kinetics including application to ordinary explosives.
> (46-1)
> Theoretical methods for calculating opacities. (46-1)
Ditto
> General theory of blast. (46-1)
> Methods of applied mathematics if illustrated on declassified
> subjects. (47-1)
> Pure and applied mathematics including computational methods, provided
> it does not reveal information classified for other reasons. (48-1)
Suppose I go to India or China and get the full works?
>
> > I think that the VN machine has not been built
> > because in the time of Von Neumann computers just weren't powerful
> > enough. A similar situation held with regard to language.
>
> You don't need sophistcated computers. VonNeuman had a shoebox filled
> with hand carved wood pieces that when shaken self-assembled. He also
> had a tiny dried clay pieces that when you put the concave and convex
> (female/male coupling) together the void was identical to the
> parents. So, you could take a sheet of clay and make other identical
> pieces out of them.
>
You do and you don't. That might seem an odd thing to say. The basic
concept of self reproduction is indeed simple. To do something useful
is a little different. People talk about VN machines in the context of
nanotechnology. I feel this is a mistake. You require not only the
ability to reproduce, you also require the ability to perform general
construction. You need an O'Neill space habitation, you need lasers,
you need a power station in space. Build them! To me only a CAD/CAM
based VN machine (strictly speaking one should talk about a VN swarm,
not a single machine). Chlorella is a VN machine, it can reproduce
itself, but is not useful in the way a CAD/CAM system is.
> As I've said, this was reported in the press back in the 40s - and
> NOTHING has been done to build on these rather simple approaches. And
> the pieces and shoebox have disappeared, and computer records don't go
> that far back, and its only the memories of old farts like me that
> recall it at all.
>
You cannot compare ProEngineer with JLINK with anything that has gone
before. I agree with you, we are lacking in imagination. With JLINK
you can simulate anything. You can build a robot and give it a
complete workout, before you start to bend metal. YOU have to write a
program in - well JLINK assumes Java and you feed your Java program
into you robot when you have bent the metal. The code is tested
without.
A VN machine in the context of space assumes a cetain degree of sensor
ability. You go to an asteroid, build a copy of yoursel[f][ves]. This
involves a sophisticated sensor system. Not around in the time of v
Neumann. Around now. I think that we NOW have a failure in
imagination.
> >http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.physics.research/browse_frm/thre...
>
> > When we are considering assembling flat packs we are in the situation
> > of "We can build it if we want to and if we have the imagination".
>
> Correct. VonNeuman built examples of what he was talking about - and
> then nothing.
>
> > As
> > far as codes are concerned we already know a lot.
>
> Look at a vonNeuman machine. It reads and writes a string of 1s and
> 0s. - advances, reverses.. that's it. It doesn't take much from
> there.
>
> > We know about the
> > RSA code the beauty of which is that you can establish it without ever
> > having to transmit anything in plain text. We know too that with any
> > generating function we have a code, but we need RSA to set our
> > generating function up.
>
> RSA codes are based on the ASSUMPTION that there is no way to factor
> numbers quickly. This assumption has never been proved. So, that's
> its achilles heel. Sorting numbers is a computationally difficult
> task. But when numbers are each concieved as the length of an
> uncooked spaghetti noodle, all you've got to do to sort them is hold
> them in your hand, drop them onto a table top, and they're
> automatically sorted in an instant.
>
No one has yet proved the Riemann hypothesis.
> You have a certain conception based on the popularizations of these
> ideas, and that puts your mind into a certain mode. You don't really
> understand these things deeply. You appreciate the potential,
> certainly, but you don't appreciate the details and just how easily
> these things could be built with the right people working on it.
>
I agree that we suffer from a failure in imagination. Perhaps this is
because of Moore's law and the fact that we have reached present day
computer powers too quickly
>
>
> > I don't think it has to be ballistic.
>
> What is this problem you have with the world 'ballistic'?
>
> You understnad what I mean by ballistic don't you?
>
> It means it follows a ballistic trjectory.
>
> Jesus. you were talking elsewhere about travel between the planets.
> Well, that's lots faster and lots more energetic than mere ballistic
> transport from point to point on Earth.
>
Not entirely. If you gather energy from the Sun and blast something
off to Alpha Centauri you are using up energy that was otherwise going
to waste. On Earth you have to be carefukl about general heating.
> It takes about 84 minutes for a minimum energy object to orbit the
> Earth. It takes no more than half that time for a sub-orbital payload
> to follow a ballistic trajectory to the anti-podes (halfway around the
> Earth)
>
> http://www.cs.utah.edu/~zachary/isp/applets/Cannon/Cannon.html
>
Yes but you are making far more trips.
> So, since we were talking freely about people flying constant gee
> spaceships from planet to planet - there is no trouble whatever
> imagining people flying suborbital spaceships ballistically from point
> to point ON a planet. And the first planet we'll do that with - is
> planet Earth.
>
> Like I said, 42 minutes gets you on the other side of the Earth. With
> a constant gee spaceship like I was discussing, you can accelerate to
> twice orbital velocity, and boost outward to maintain altitude -
> trajectory - and arrive to the antipodes in 21 minutes - and anywhere
> else in less time!!
>
>
>
> > You can meet people in New York easier than you can meet them
> > Not completely (see above) Von Neumann lived in the era of valves and
> > it was hard to execute his devices.
>
> Yet he built a machine with a shoebox and a penknife that self-
> assembled, and he built a small set of dried clay devices that could
> automatically mold daughter devices that also could mold daughter
> devices... to illustrate the ease with which is concepts could be
> implemented. Have you even read the source material? The orirginal
> writings on this subject?? Or have you just read the popularizations
> of it?
>
> > The thing I feel now
>
> But what is the real solid basis of your feeling? You can see that
> machines that can make copies of themselves can end the Malthusian
> delimma - but is that because you've been told that or because you've
> figured it out on your own? And now what? What do you really thing
> based on what you really and truly know? How much of what you're
> saying here is just repeatition of what you've already read from
> someone who was a journalist or popularizer?
We are all dependent on other people to take us our views. How much of
my thoughts are dependent on journalists/popularizers? IOn technical
issues very little. On mathematics I have read quite a bit about
modular functions, elliptic functions and prime moduli. My views are
based to a degree on my experience with ProEngineer.
A VN swarm - it really should be called that can be described in the
form of a graph. This graph is a graph of processes and objects. If we
can get a graph of processes such that the only net inputs are
sunlight and asteroid rock we have done it. A VN swarm will in fact
map onto a graph.
On the more political issues my views are really worth very little. I
do not speak Arabic which is absolutely vital to carry any weight - at
least academically. I simply know that other people are talking even
more bunkum than I am.
>
> > is that we
> > have computers of fantastic power, in comparison. Somehow though we
> > have lost a certain amount of vision.
>
> Because no one does the hard work to figure stuff out on their own.
> To really think about a topic and thoroughly understand it. You
> switch from starships and talk like someone who lived in a ONeill
> sized starship couldn't possibly afford a ballistic transport!
> haha.. You have no idea what's going on, and so you have no idea how
> the pieces might go together.
>
Newton claimed to be standing on the shoulders of giants. We can only
do a very little bit ourselves.
>
>
> > You don't need ballistic transport - all you need is a decent system
> > of telepresence.
>
> What the hell do you have against ballistic transport? ITS THE WORD
> ISN;T IT? You don't know what the word really means so you're afraid
> of it- you have it associated in your head with 'hes gone ballistic'
> and 'destruction by ballistic bombardment' haha.. you lunatic. Jesus
> learn what the hell you're saying before you say it.
>
> > This is achievable in the very near term.
>
> We already have ballistic missiles. And we already have telephones,
> we had vidphones 40 years ago - and have teleconference,today and
> we're working on telerobotics - so yeah. But in the context of what
> we're talking - ballistic transport could be 3 to 5 years away. It
> would change everything.
>
Have you looked at the environmental impact. .
True. As far as I see it you can reduce costs in 2 ways. You can use
the resources of space. You can get what amounts to freebies from
asteroids, or you can have a more efficient space transportation
system. The only transportation system that would be orders of
magnitude cheaper would be the laser based "Nerva".
> > that a lot a
> > technology has to be developed first.
>
> Like what? You don't know what's going on and you don't know enough
> to understand what i've said, so you are say uh uh its complicated and
> will take a long time. phhtt. Anything takes a long time if you don't
> know what the hell you're doing.
>
> > We can have a power station as
> > an objective, we can have a VN maschine. Colonies, they will be
> > objectives when the costs are right.
>
> So you ARE familiar with Gerard O'Neill and the L5 society right? You
> are familiar with the NASA studies done back in the 70s about space
> colonies. These give the basics. Now, reduce the cost of stuff on
> orbit by a factor of a million by bringing rich asteroids into Earth
> orbit and process them with telerobotic systems. This avoids a moon
> base up front and a large manned presence in space up front - but
> gives you immediate economic benefits and huge cost reductions.
>
You say L5. I thought you were also thinking in terms of actually
sending O'Neill colonies to stars and having 1 micron radiation all
the way.
>
> > But colonies will still not be an objective.
>
> When you can buy 10 sq km of any environment you want free of any
> restrictions - that is mobile - for less cost than a 1/4 ha plot in a
> suburb - and when travel to orbit is less costly than travel across
> town - people will naturally buy homesteads in space.
>
> The highest price homes are $100 million. Millions of homes are
> priced between $10 million and $100 million. There are 9.5 million
> millionaires in the world. An ONeill space colony masses about
> 500,000 tons. So, let's say a starting price of $50 million per
> colony is needed to attract a critical mass of buyers. By the way, a
> Boeing Business Jet costs over $65 million - and there are dozens of
> those. but this is $100 per ton. $0.10 per kg. This is the price
> point we have to reach. Today it costs $10,000 per kg - or
> 1/100,000th the cost.
>
To reach that your colony will have to be pure asteroid - pretty well,
with perhaps just the odd chip coming from Earth.
> Now, I have proposed a system that builds 100 kg systems that get
> launched into space by rail gun, and fly to hover over the solar
> surface. There they operate in conjunction with one another to create
> a 20 km diameter 300 TW beam of laser energy. This beam can bring
> trillions of tons of material into Earth orbit. The same rail gun
> array that launched the laser sats can also launch advanced versions
> of ASIMO - powered by laser energy from the sun - along with toolkits
> to allow the remotely controlled robots to process the materials into
> useful products.
>
> Coal miners routinely process tens of thousands of tons per day. With
> an average cost per worker of $100,000 per year, and a million tons
> per year - we're ALREADY at $0.10 per kg.
>
We need AUTOMATIC mining - Asteroids & Earth. On Earth we need to
excavate under such places as New York.
> A reusable system that makes 10,000 flights - and has 1/2% replacement
> cost as arecurring cost per flight - a system that is achievable
> nearterm - then we have a system that has reduced to cost of GETTING
> into orbit to $100 per kg. This is cheap enough for the high net
> worth individuals to routinely travel back and forth to their space
> homes.
>
> What I'm saying we could do space colonies today with the right
> approach.
>
I would concentrate more on asteroid mining.
- Ian Parker
Ian Parker
useful. A VN machine has to be able to reproduce. Yes, that is its
definition. To be useful though it has to make a range of products -
not just itself. Only CAD/CAM can do this.
- Ian Parker
Willie...@gmail.com
> On Sep 24, 4:43 pm, Willie.Moo...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > You don't need sophistcated computers. VonNeuman had a shoebox filled
> > with hand carved wood pieces that when shaken self-assembled. He also
> > had a tiny dried clay pieces that when you put the concave and convex
> > (female/male coupling) together the void was identical to the
> > parents. So, you could take a sheet of clay and make other identical
> > pieces out of them.
> > As I've said, this was reported in the press back in the 40s - and
> > NOTHING has been done to build on these rather simple approaches. And
> > the pieces and shoebox have disappeared, and computer records don't go
> > that far back, and its only the memories of old farts like me that
> > recall it at all.
>
> Actually, self-orienting objects under controlled shaking is a well
> known
> technique which has been used in mass production lines forever.
You are confused.
We're talking taking it the next step - self-assembly. While every
washer and screw dispensed in a factory uses vibratory devices to
transport and orient them, I haven't seen any vibratory system that
self-assembles parts.
> It has also been an active research subject in robotics ever since the
> beginings of "robotics" research.
True. But you are purposely confusing the two things because both use
vibration to work. One transports and or orients small objects. The
other self-assembles objects into a finished part. If you are not
confused, I would appreciate a pointer to a peer reviewed paper that
discusses SELF-ASSEMBLY of vibrating parts.
> There's plenty of research toward self-replicating robots, and it's
> not
> being suppressed by anything other than the inherent difficulty of
> the problem
I agree that a lot is being done. None of it follows vonNeuman's
outline however. It is not outlandish to suggest that the same sorts
of mathematics that allow automatic decoding of encrypted data has the
same general pattern as automatic assembly of pieces into a desired
whole.
> and the limited usefulness of them.
Practical examples demonstrating an idea don't need to be useful. Its
only in the total absence of theory that such playthings appear
useless. In the hands of sopmeone who understands the deeper meaning
of them, they can be very instructive, and used as models for the
creation of practical devices.
> Pieces of clay
> which are shaped to be a mold for themselves may be a neat
> geometrical demonstration, but they don't have the economic value
In the absence of the underlying theory - yes. As demonstrations of
the underlying theory - they are very useful.
> potential of a simple cookie sheet cutter. Put bluntly, traditional
> mass production techniques make more effective use of time and
> resources,
Prove that statement.
> thus providing more return for an investment.
Without critical theoretical details any improvement can be removed
from the marketplace.
> That's
> why all the money goes into it.
Money goes into things that can demonstrate a fundamentally better
return on investment. Research is dominated by government and
military. Corporate research is narrowly focused to leverage existing
skill sets or to make use of existing research results from government
and military - when its available.
.
> Economic realities also explains why we spend so much time
> and effort farming land instead of merely letting plants grow in
> the wild with zero effort, and gather food from the wild.
I agree with your statement but its a non sequitor having nothing to
do with what you're saying. The market is efficient. Granted. Yet
knowledge can be supressed - even useful knowledge.
Even without outright supression capital formation and fundamental
research are areas that are not as efficient as they might be.
Companies generally focus money on 'low hanging fruit' for good
reason. Add to this propensity a concerted effort to manipulate the
global information environment with disinformation - and it is not
unreasonable to suspect that where industrial research may adversely
impact national goals, that research is managed in a variety of ways -
some open, some not.
I guess all I'm saying is I am willing to question closely many of the
assumptions you are throwing out here relate to self-reproducting
machines.
For example, even easy technical goals that have huge economic rewards
are not invested in. No private sector entity has gone out and
reproduced the 1940s technology of nuclear fission reactors and
applied it on a large scale to the production of HEU reactors to
produce energy too cheap to meter despite the economic benefits of
doing so.
That's because nuclear power is highly regulated and there are laws
against doing certain things, and it is a matter of well know policy
that nuclear knowledge is being supressed. Knowledge is also being
supressed in the computer industry related to cryptography and
communications where they impact national security.. These are stated
policies of the government. Industry respects them. It is not
unreasonable to suspect that vonNeuman's original work in this area,
which stemmed from self annealing sets - which have very important
impact on cryptography - may have been supressed for good and valid
reasons.
Furthermore, the US has a policy of maintaining large disparities of
income between ourselves and the rest of the world. This is a matter
of public policy. It stems from the observation that poor nations
have never defeated wealthy nations. So, in a nuclear age where the
US could not sustain a nuclear Pearl Harbor, we would do all we could
to maintain large disparities of income. The US has only 4.8% of the
world's population yet consumes 31% of the world's food and 22% of the
world's energy, and spends 22% of the world's money. This large
disparity is a matter of public policy born out of the Cold War. The
broad availability of self-reproducing machines would end this
disparity relatively quickly. That is why I find the opposition to
Eric Drexler's ideas so fascinating. Because in that brief span of
history, one can see the infowarriors reponsible for controlling the
epistemology of the world about their limited range of subjects -
assessing and then acting to maintain the desired results they are
responsible for maintaining.
The problem is, the cold war strategies are harming the US and not
helping it. They may have served in their day, but isolated from
public analysis and review, secret policies have a tendency to live on
and become the raison de etre of public policy - which was not the
intent at all.
> Isaac Kuo