Slashdot Mirror

Obligatory XKCD on Kerbal Space Program: https://xkcd.com/1356/

Again, I agree with what you are saying overall -- but I feel you are missing my main point about social momentum and proof-of-concept.

There is a *huge* difference socially between having essentially nothing but an idea (what we have now, e.g. James P. Hogan's Two Faces of Tomorrow novel, Gerry O'Neill's non-fiction writings, or some paper idea studies like NASA's 1980 Advanced Automation for Space Missions http://www.islandone.org/MMSG/... ) versus having a detailed collaboratively-developed simulation model based on the best science you have which brings together thousands of knowledgeable engineers and scientists (like Linux brought together thousands of knowledgeable programmers). We're going to need a lot of design thinking for something extremely complex like self-replicating space habitat that can duplicate itself from sunlight and asteroidal/lunar/martian ore which includes all the chemical pathways and mechanical designs.

Think of it this way -- if you were a multi-billionaire, who would you give some funding to for people to go further for a space habitat (like by building prototype hardware)? Some group with a hand-wavy idea? Or some group with detailed (but maybe inaccurate for the reasons you outlined) simulation models that have been worked on for knowledgeable engineers for a decade in their spare time as a labor of love to get as close as they can without having the money for hardware tests which they know are important?

Or if you hired your own people to build space habitats, who would you be more likely to hire (at least for part of the design team)? Engineers who had no knowledge of such simulations or the core engineers who had developed such systems or used aspects of them to design and build other smaller projects?

Also, don't get too hung up on the mechanical/physical limits of current simulations. There is also a lot of design work to do related to operations research, logistics, and chemical pathways related to knowing what materials and tools you need to make other materials and tools.

Consider the issue of how to make an airlock seal. There can be a lot of work done today on logistics like all the prerequisites of how for materials to make a flexible deal for an airlock door -- even if some of the mechanical design is still questionable (like whether that specific seal actually works as well as you hoped for a specific work pod's door). NASA already has made airlocks that work OK -- so presumably there is a way to find out what materials they used and then work backwards from there -- perhaps documenting a range of possible seals and then figuring out what each needs as prerequisites (and so on, recursively).

Sure, "Space Engineers" may not be realistic -- especially as it tries to be a game and not a CAD/CAM program. But something like it could be a lot more realistic. And that is a step forward -- even if it is not the final product.

We also can look forward twenty years to what might be possible for testing any detailed designs we make by then. 3D printing is bringing down the cost of testing mechanical prototypes -- and in twenty years is likely to be even better. Also, simulations continue to get better as hardware becomes cheaper and more available. How good might general simulations be in twenty year for testing designs? For example, maybe someday we will actually be able to simulate water molecules and solutions much better than we can now and so atomic-level chemistry simulations for completely new chemical processes may be much more useful. But until then, there are handbooks for chemical engineering with many cookbook recipes if you are willing to work withing the limits of what we know well (even if space may pose extra challenges for earth-derived recipes)

Another aspect is that commercial designs (like you mention developing) tend to be optimized and push the envelope of what

True to some extent, but imagination and innovation can create resources where there were none before. Trees grow wood mostly just from CO2 in the air and water. Germany has plenty of those. Many new materials are essentially plastic or carbon fiber. Germany could have invented all that with chemistry instead of going to war. That it did not is a failure of the German imagination back then.

Right now, the state-of-the-art in Germany for a new home is not to even need a furnace:
"No Furnaces but Heat Aplenty in 'Passive Houses'"
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12...
"DARMSTADT, Germany â" From the outside, there is nothing unusual about the stylish new gray and orange row houses in the Kranichstein District, with wreaths on the doors and Christmas lights twinkling through a freezing drizzle. But these houses are part of a revolution in building design: There are no drafts, no cold tile floors, no snuggling under blankets until the furnace kicks in. There is, in fact, no furnace. "

Other things I've written about that, including another "Downfall" parody where Hitler rails against abundance and open source and productive imaginative engineers: :-)
http://p2pfoundation.net/backu...

Granite can be melted into building material and also separated into a variety of elements. Seawater has just about every element in it and Germany has access to the sea. It may be more profitable to get something like aluminum from a specific ore abundant in it, but with the right technology and enough energy (like from fusion power), you can get pretty much any element anywhere on the planet. Ignoring what is possibly now or soon with nanotechnology, here are the basic chemical paths proposed around 1980 for use in turning lunar ore (basically granite) into a variety of materials:
"Flowsheet and process equations for the HF acid-leach process"
http://www.islandone.org/MMSG/...

So, Germany could (in theory) have done that all instead of launching two world wars for "lebensraum" and access to foreign materials -- if it had invested more in the chemistry of production than the chemistry of destruction.

Germany does have some limited iron production, BTW; but not much. However, Germany probably also has a lot more as-yet-undiscovered ores and such in mountains and underground (like perhaps a mile or two down). They are just harder to find or get to than ones that are obvious from the surface. But if Germany had made more of an effort, including creation of better technologies for prospecting for ores, maybe it would have found various ores at home? Also, while I'm not a big fan of seabed mining for environmental reasons, that is another possibility, and in any case, they show the possibility of finding new resources by looking deep within the earth:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07...
"Mr. Dettweiler has now turned from recovering lost treasures to prospecting for natural ones that litter the seabed: craggy deposits rich in gold and silver, copper and cobalt, lead and zinc. A new understanding of marine geology has led to the discovery of hundreds of these unexpected ore bodies, known as massive sulfides because of their sulfurous nature."

Also, I've read that one reason Germany did so much for so long militarily in WWII (as imports were cut off) was that it put in place an intensive recycling program. Ignoring the holocaust and forced labor parts of it, it showed what was possible (discussed I think in the book "Other Homes and Garbage". As you imply, right now the automotive industry has become a net producer of metal from car recycling. But, even granted the industry needed some meta

See: http://overpopulationisamyth.c...

In general, as Julian Simon wrote, the (educated, nourished, healthy) human imagination is the ultimate resource that invents all other resources, so in general the more people you have, the more imagination you have. For example, woudl we have the internet if someone in the 1600s had decided there were too many people because London was overcrowded and killed off all but a million humans on the planet? The solar system can probably support quadrillions of people living in space habitats that can duplicate themselves from sunlight and asteroidal ore like JD Bernal imagined in the 1920s.
http://www.juliansimon.com/wri...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
http://www.islandone.org/MMSG/...
http://www.kurtz-fernhout.com/...

That list is very similar to what I had listed here in back in 1999 (minus a few fanciful ones):
http://www.kurtz-fernhout.com/...
"The race is on to make the human world a better (and more resilient) place before one of these overwhelms us:
        Autonomous military robots out of control
        Nanotechnology virus / gray slime
        Ethnically targeted virus
        Sterility virus
        Computer virus
        Asteroid impact
        Y2K
        Other unforseen computer failure mode
        Global warming / climate change / flooding
        Nuclear / biological war
        Unexpected economic collapse from Chaos effects
        Terrorism w/ unforseen wide effects
        Out of control bureaucracy (1984)
        Religious / philosophical warfare
        Economic imbalance leading to world war
        Arms race leading to world war
        Zero-point energy tap out of control
        Time-space information system spreading failure effect (Chalker's Zinder Nullifier)
        Unforseen consequences of research (energy, weapons, informational, biological)"

But in the end, I think the issue raised in my sig is the biggest challenge: the perilous irony of people using the tools of material abundance in a war-like way as if material scarcity was still a major concern, as well as derivative issues like the moral problem of creating artificial scarcity under capitalism and so on. There are possible solutions to such issues (basic income, expanded gift economy, improved subsistence via 3D printing and personal agricultural robots and indoor agriculture and solar panels and so on, participatory democratic planning supported by the internet), but ideology and existing artificial-scarcity-based power structures stands in the way. Still, the dominant ideology is slowly shifting top a more open and abundance-oriented one. As Buckminster Fuller said decades ago, whether it will be Utopia or Oblivion will be a touch-and-go relay race to the very end...

Pretty amazing to see such technological ability spreading around the world -- India going to Mars, and China going to the Moon. I can hope the dream of space settlement will grow in those and other countries and we will see space habitats eventually.

Maybe China will be the first to realize the ideas described in this Carter-era study?
"Advanced Automation for Space Missions"
http://www.islandone.org/MMSG/aasm/

Back when NASA was more ambitious and had better political support: http://www.islandone.org/MMSG/aasm/
"What follows is a portion of the final report of
a NASA summer study, conducted in 1980 by request of newly-elected President Jimmy Carter at a cost of 11.7 million dollars. The result of the study was a realistic proposal for a self-replicating automated lunar factory system, capable of exponentially increasing productive capacity and, in the long run, exploration of the entire galaxy within a reasonable timeframe. Unfortunately, the proposal was quietly declined with barely a ripple in the press.
    What was once concievable with 1980's technology is now even more practical today. Even if you're just skimming through this document, the potential of this proposed system is undeniable. Please enjoy."

As I said elsewhere:
http://slashdot.org/topic/cloud/the-science-behind-elysium/
"The cheapest way forward may be to create an open source plan for an automated seed that could be sent to an asteroid where it would begin to grow into a space habitat. Then the habitat could duplicate itself by making more seeds. The habitats could create transport spacecraft to land on Earth and solar space satellites to power them on the ground for launching back into space with people on board. So, all it takes is crowd-sourcing and the cost of the first seed and the first launch. Well, of course the first might fail, but by the tenth try it might work. So, it might be doable for only a few billion dollars in real money for materials and the first launches. Testing could be mostly done via simulation."

Related projects I've participated in:
http://www.pdfernhout.net/princeton-graduate-school-plans.html
http://www.kurtz-fernhout.com/oscomak/
http://openvirgle.net/

It may be easier to figure out how humans can live in zero-G by bio-engineering though, compared to spinning big heavy things.
http://tmp2.wikia.com/wiki/Asgard

I also suggest living in liquid with probably "liquid breathing" as an option to prevent muscle wasting and bone loss (since whales do OK by resistance from water):
http://www.oscomak.net/wiki/Liquid_breathing_to_resist_bone_loss

My: "Self-Replicating Space Habitat graduate school purpose and plans from 1988" http://www.pdfernhout.net/princeton-graduate-school-plans.html

http://www.kurtz-fernhout.com/oscomak/SSI_Fernhout2001_web.html

http://www.kurtz-fernhout.com/oscomak/

Some of my inspirations:
http://www.islandone.org/MMSG/aasm/
http://www.jamesphogan.com/books/book.php?titleID=28
http://www.jamesphogan.com/books/book.php?titleID=29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_Running

The cheapest way forward may be to create an open source plan for an automated seed that could be sent to an asteroid where it would begin to grow into a space habitat. Then the habitat could duplicate itself by making more seeds. The habitats could create space craft to land on earth and solar space satellites to launch them back into space with people on-board. So, all it takes is crow-sourcing and the cost of the first seed and the first launch. Well, of course the first might fail, but by the tenth try it might work. So, it might be doable for only a few billion dollars in real money for materials and the first launches. Testing could be mostly done via simulation.

"we simply don't have the tech to make going to the moon worth doing right now"

From the Carter years: http://www.islandone.org/MMSG/aasm/

Also at: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Advanced_Automation_for_Space_Missions

Also look up Gerard K. O'Neill and SSI.

Besides, the challenge of making a habitat work on the Moon would be a way to learn a lot about how to live more environmentally sustainably on Earth. Exploration can mean new things are learned and imagined and that learning can be more valuable to bring back than any physical resource. One of the biggest successes of Europe putting colonies in North America is that centuries later they could stop a devastaing war in Europe and Asia and reconstruct the most problematical social institutions there:
http://www.salon.com/2010/08/25/german_usa_working_life_ext2010/
"How did Germany become such a great place to work in the first place? The Allies did it. This whole European model came, to some extent, from the New Deal. Our real history and tradition is what we created in Europe. Occupying Germany after WWII, the 1945 European constitutions, the UN Charter of Human Rights all came from Eleanor Roosevelt and the New Dealers. All of it got worked into the constitutions of Europe and helped shape their social democracies. It came from us. The papal encyclicals on labor, it came from the Americans."

And:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Japan
"The constitution was drawn up under the Allied occupation that followed World War II and was intended to replace Japan's previous militaristic and absolute monarchy system with a form of liberal democracy. Currently, it is a rigid document and no subsequent amendment has been made to it since its adoption."

Aren't ideas and examples for a better way of living worth more than physical stuff or energy? See also James P. Hogan's sci-fi novel "Voyage from Yesteryear".

"Radiation shielding is hard, its not impossible."

Good points. Freeman Dyson says much the same, and does some calculations showing that in one of his essays, where he says, adjusted for inflation, the costs to go from Europe to the Americas was on the order of what it would cost now to go into space. Remember, many people coming over to the "colonies" came as indentured servants who had to work off their travel for seven years. So, as a ballpark figure, let's guesstimate that person was giving up US$100K per year for inflation-adjusted wages (people typically worked six days a week and fourteen hours a day back then), and that's US$700,000 as an indenture. So, the move to North America was not that cheap for many.

On radiation shielding, see Marshall Savage's "The Millennial Project" where he suggests simply having two layers of transparent plastic with six feet of water between them. We could get the water in space from asteroids or comets (or launch the water from the earth or the moon via mass driver). Radiation problem solved.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Millennial_Project:_Colonizing_the_Galaxy_in_Eight_Easy_Steps
http://tmp2.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page

Other ideas from the Carter Administration:
http://www.islandone.org/MMSG/aasm/

Read James P. Hogan's "Voyage from Yesteryear" and "The Two Faces of Tomorrow" for some realistic hard sci-fi set in habitats.
http://www.jamesphogan.com/books/info.php?titleID=29&cmd=summary
http://www.baenebooks.com/chapters/0671878484/0671878484.htm

More ideas:
http://www.openvirgle.net/

All that said though, I would point out that the same sorts of technologies we need to live in space (such as near 100% recycling, healthier materials to be around, improved agriculture, portable doctoring and a better understanding of human nutrition and health, flexible manufacturing, improved governing processes for small communities, accessible digital libraries, improved conflict resolution skills, and so on), are mostly the *same* things we need to make Spaceship Earth work for everybody. So, overall, there is no deep conflict between an interest in space habitats and trying to make the Earth a better place.

Yep

6 kw requirement
http://www.islandone.org/Settlements/MagShield.html

200 mw from a nuclear powered submarine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_marine_propulsion

So maybe around .03 nuclear submarine reactors per 5 cubic meters of protection.

I think the reason why this isn't the best option is because the technology hasn't been tested in space, and its durability is questionable to some extent. People don't like leaving things to chance. I figure you always have a chance to get smacked up on the side by a 16k m/s golf ball sized rock. Sometimes you just have bad luck, but you gotta gamble at some point.

"However, more analysis needs to be put into their plan; more requirements gathering and architecture is needed."

Something I tried to get NASA to support a dozen years ago: http://www.kurtz-fernhout.com/oscomak/

That said, the Factor e Farm people are really trying hard and making some progress in the general area. What is ridiculous is that this is not a top priority issue funded by NASA, NIST, and European counterparts with hundreds of thousands of reasonable paid engineers involved.

Another related idea I posted:
"Getting Greece and Iceland to be 99% self-sufficient by mass; international consortium"
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!msg/openmanufacturing/YzbzBFjeBkg/HXC7-XHSGLkJ
"Now, does this [Greece running out of tear gas during riots about economics] make any sense if you understand the possibilities of open manufacturing or an open society? In Greece you have a warm climate, access to oceans, lots of sun and wind, an educated populace with a 2000+ year history of democracy (on and off :-), no obvious external enemies declaring war, and so on. And they are so worried about their future ability to make and use things (which is how I translate "fears for Greece's economic future") that they are running out of tear gas? This all makes no *physical* sense. The place should be a paradise. Instead it is in "self-destruct mode" according to one editor. It must be *ideology*. Or, more correctly, ideology *embodied* in a certain type of productive infrastructure. ..."

The closes I know of from the US government is from the Carter presidency: http://www.islandone.org/MMSG/aasm/

Here is something more recent from NIST which is great but not quite as self-replication focused and only had about 20 staff involved (last I heard):
http://www.nist.gov/el/msid/lifecycle/sm_smo.cfm
http://www.nist.gov/el/msid/lifecycle/

Frankly, it feels to me like the failure of engineering academia in the USA to comprehensively work to analyze our productive processes is perhaps a reflection of how much a certain form of capitalist ideology infests US academia. It seems like it is heresy to even consider that anything other than some mystical "market" would decide what would be manufactured or how it would be made or moved between users, even though a lot of companies are being weighed down by supply chains they don't really understand or control. So, in academia you can study one tiny part of how something is made, but you can't try to create an approach to comprehend the whole because that goes against mainstream economic dogma of willful blindness about lifecycle consequences and comprehensive design. Only in a thought experiment like NASA might do about a moon base or something like that is it permitted to discuss the idea of comprehensive planning about how to make *everything* and take it all through a full lifecycle. Meanwhile, we drown in our own e-waste because externalities like disposal are not priced in up-front. Modern computer-based manufacturing has the potential to be so flexible that we could have, if not Star Trek replicators, at least the next best thing of small production runs and mass customization coming out of very flexible manufacturing lines (seem James P. Hogan's "The Two Faces of Tomorrow" for some descriptions of what that would look like, set in a space habitat).

Still, there is the RepRap project and such as an exception in academia. So, I think change is happening, slowly. Maybe the rate of change on this meme is growing exponentially though?

Neither the surface nor the subsurface of the moon, nor any part thereof or natural resources in place, shall become property of any State, international intergovernmental or non-governmental organization, national organization or non-governmental entity or of any natural person.

Moon Treaty

An I wrote about on Slashdot was it approaching a decade ago?
    "Both CATS and DOGS are needed... (Score:2)"
    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?cid=5821178&sid=62113

See also, from J.D. Bernal in the 1920s(!):
    http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/Bernal/world/
"Imagine a spherical shell ten miles or so in diameter, made of the lightest materials and mostly hollow; for this purpose the new molecular materials would be admirably suited. Owing to the absence of gravitation its construction would not be an engineering feat of any magnitude. The source of the material out of which this would be made would only be in small part drawn from the earth; for the great bulk of the structure would be made out of the substance of one or more smaller asteroids, rings of Saturn or other planetary detritus. The initial stages of construction are the most difficult to imagine. They will probably consist of attaching an asteroid of some hundred years or so diameter to a space vessel, hollowing it out and using the removed material to build the first protective shell. Afterwards the shell could be re-worked, bit by bit, using elaborated and more suitable substances and at the same time increasing its size by diminishing its thickness. The globe would fulfil all the functions by which our earth manages to support life. In default of a gravitational field it has, perforce, to keep its atmosphere and the greater portion of its life inside; but as all its nourishment comes in the form of energy through its outer surface it would be forced to resemble on the whole an enormously complicated single-celled plant."

We can do this, and we can support quadrillions of people (and other beings) living in the solar system in space habitats. The only question is if we want to.

So, while there may be limits to growth, we are nowhere near them when considering the solar system.

That article is just ignorant in part because it ignores things like laser launched craft or possibly the new cold fusion ideas (by Rossi, if they work out):
    http://pesn.com/2011/04/07/9501805_Rossi_Cold_Fusion_Validated_by_Swedish_Skeptics_Society/

Also, it says resources are not concentrated, but that is what energy and robots are for.

So, it is a pretty ignorant and defeatist article.

A better thing:
    http://www.islandone.org/MMSG/aasm/

My hopes:
    http://www.kurtz-fernhout.com/oscomak/
   

See also my own comments here on putting together knowledge about self-replicating infrastructre:
http://www.kurtz-fernhout.com/oscomak/
http://www.pdfernhout.net/princeton-graduate-school-plans.html

Others:
http://www.islandone.org/MMSG/aasm/
http://lifeboat.com/ex/main

You might like this guy's writing starting from a charcoal furnance to make a machine shop from scrap:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_J._Gingery

NASA could coordinate a global effort towards designing and deploying self-Replicating Space Habitats that can duplicate themselves from sunlight and asteroidal ore; ideas towards that here by me:
    http://www.kurtz-fernhout.com/oscomak/SSI_Fernhout2001_web.html
    http://www.kurtz-fernhout.com/oscomak/
    http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=62113&cid=5821178
and others who inspired me:
    http://www.islandone.org/MMSG/aasm/
    http://www.webscription.net/chapters/0671878484/0671878484.htm
    http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/Bernal/world/

From the last, written in the 1920s by J.D. Bernal: "Imagine a spherical shell ten miles or so in diameter, made of the lightest materials and mostly hollow; for this purpose the new molecular materials would be admirably suited. Owing to the absence of gravitation its construction would not be an engineering feat of any magnitude. The source of the material out of which this would be made would only be in small part drawn from the earth; for the great bulk of the structure would be made out of the substance of one or more smaller asteroids, rings of Saturn or other planetary detritus. The initial stages of construction are the most difficult to imagine. They will probably consist of attaching an asteroid of some hundred years or so diameter to a space vessel, hollowing it out and using the removed material to build the first protective shell. Afterwards the shell could be re-worked, bit by bit, using elaborated and more suitable substances and at the same time increasing its size by diminishing its thickness. The globe would fulfil all the functions by which our earth manages to support life. In default of a gravitational field it has, perforce, to keep its atmosphere and the greater portion of its life inside; but as all its nourishment comes in the form of energy through its outer surface it would be forced to resemble on the whole an enormously complicated single-celled plant."

Anyway, I work towards that dream on-and-off as I can...

Living off the land in space is the big issue. It's sad NASA still seems obsessed with bigger rockets and Cheap Access to Space (CATS). In 1980, NASA had a great plan, outlined here, which would lead to the Design of Great Settlements (DOGS):
http://www.islandone.org/MMSG/aasm/
"""
What follows is a portion of the final report of a NASA summer study, conducted in 1980 by request of newly- elected President Jimmy Carter at a cost of 11.7 million dollars. The result of the study was a realistic proposal for a self-replicating automated lunar factory system, capable of exponentially increasing productive capacity and, in the long run, exploration of the entire galaxy within a reasonable timeframe. Unfortunately, the proposal was quietly declined with barely a ripple in the press. What was once concievable with 1980's technology is now even more practical today.
"""

See also my comments here:
"Jeff Bezos' Shot At Space: Both CATS and DOGS are needed... "
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=62113&cid=5821178
http://groups.google.com/group/virgle/msg/f65a889ca9a6b2c1
"""
So where is a key area of research that should be a priority among NASA and Billionaires, but is not heavily pursued? The issue is what to do in space once you have gotten there. Because if there is a reason to be in space, then people and collectives will work to get there. And the reality is, that right now, if we could get there, there is nothing to do there short of look around and come back. And if that were the case, Space would not deserve much more investment than say tourism to Mt. Everest. The reality is that we don't know how to support human life in space -- in large part because we have only spent a pittance on thinking about that issue systematically compared to the issues of CATS and Planetary Exploration. Frankly, while we support human life on earth, we have very little meta-knowledge formally about how to do even that. And, most of figuring out how to support human life in space at a nuts and bolts level requires non-sexy activities like sitting around and staring out the window, talking, sending emails, building databases, building software tools, building some small physical protypes on tabletops and outdoors, and just plain thinking (the hard stuff). This is all the preparation needed for the spiritual voyage into the (physical) heavens. Biosphere II was an excellent start in some ways, although the science mission was a bit dodgy at first and it seems Columbia (the recipient) seems about to abandon that effort for cost reasons --- and in any case, Biosphere II focuses on the wrong question -- we know biospheres can work and replicate (although scale is an issue) -- what we don't know is how to replicate the mechanical infrastructure (e.g. glass pane making machinery) behind them. A lot more money has gone into studying ecosystem food webs than industrial ecologies of pipe webs and assembly line webs (and frankly, a lot of people don't want their "proprietary" manufacturing processes studied or gossipped about by academics.)
Almost everything proposed as a reason to launch into space doesn't make sense, as much as people have touted various suggestions. The closest might be He3 mining for aneutronic fusion if we otherwise had that technology, but even that issues (energy) is probably more easily solved through conservation, energy efficiency (e.g. R60+ home insulation), and photovoltaic and wind etc. alternate energy modes (which are rapidly proving cost effective for many applications, and will be only more so with new processes and materials over the next twenty years). Asteroid mining turns out to not be that useful, since recycling is a much better idea. Zero gravity turns out to not be so valuable after all for

A basic income would eliminate poverty (and was endorsed by Nobel Prize winners):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income
http://www.basicincome.org/bien/aboutbasicincome.html
http://www.usbig.net/
http://www.pdfernhout.net/basic-income-from-a-millionaires-perspective.html
The right amount of vitamin D would reduce sick care costs by maybe a third in industrialized countries:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/sardi/sardi111.html
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/treatment.shtml
A good diet, occasional fasting, and moderate exercise would reduce another third or so of sick care expenses by helping people break out of a pleasure trap from supernormal stimuli:
http://www.amazon.com/Pleasure-Trap-Mastering-Undermines-Happiness/dp/1570671508
http://www.amazon.com/Supernormal-Stimuli-Overran-Evolutionary-Purpose/dp/039306848X
Single payer health care in the USA would reduce expenses (for paperwork) by a third as well (these are not all additive, of course):
http://www.pnhp.org/facts/what-is-single-payer
Reinstating regulation on children's TV might help prevent damage to kids:
http://www.amazon.com/War-Play-Dilemma-Childhood-Education/dp/080774638X
http://www.amazon.com/So-Sexy-Soon-Sexualized-Childhood/dp/0345505077
A more vegetarian diet would also free up three-quarters of agricultural lands in the USA:
http://www.westernwatersheds.org/watmess/watmess_2002/2002html_summer/article6.htm
Renewable energy has been cheaper than fossil fuels and nuclear, when you factor in the externalities, like pollution, defense spending, and risk:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brittle_Power
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality
http://www.energyandcapital.com/articles/oil-gas-crude/461
Switching to electric cars would probably reduce our electricity use, and eliminate the need for much oil (since it takes more electricity to refine the oil into gas than it would to run electric cars the same distance as a gallon of gas in an ICE car):
http://www.evnut.com/gasoline_oil.htm
We can develop the technology of being able to produce almost anything from commonly found raw materials:
http://www.islandone.org/MMSG/aasm/
We know how to make healthier communities:
http://www.bluezones.com/makeover-about
http://www.amazon.com/Surviving-Americas-Depression-Epidemic-Community/dp/1933392711
Nuclear weapons and military robots are ironic because the same technology could produce abundanc

Article 11, paragraph 2 of the Moon Treaty states:
"The moon is not subject to national appropriation by any claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means."
Of course, England hasn't signed or ratified the Moon Treaty, so it all kinda depends on the international reaction whether or not his claim is valid.

Links:
Wikipedia -- Moon Treaty
Full text of the Moon Treaty

Thanks for the reply.

How is there a natural scarcity of materials when the Earth is so big, and the solar system is even bigger?
"Advanced Automation for Space Missions"
http://www.islandone.org/MMSG/aasm/

How is there a scarcity of energy when the Earth receives 10,000 times what the human race uses from sunlight (and there are also vast geothermal energy reserves)? Nuclear missiles to fight over oil fields and land are so ironic, because the same technologies would let us build habitats in space or build solar panels (or nuclear power systems). For half of one year's US defense budget, the USA could move to entirely renewable energy sources with energy efficiency, and be way more intrinsically secure than depending on long supply lines that need to be guarded by soldiers.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-plan
http://www.earth-policy.org/index.php?/books/pb3/pb3_table_of_contents
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brittle_Power

So, I'd suggest that when people fight over land and raw materials, it is mainly either through ignorance, lack of imagination,
http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Ultimate_Resource/
or through some sort of racket.
http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm
"WAR is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes."

I'll agree with you that power over other people is a motivator for some people, but maybe we have to stop worshiping such people and start labelling that as mental illness? Another vision of an abundant society where that does not happen is James P. Hogan's "Voyage From Yesteryear":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyage_from_Yesteryear

Whether "people" are on top of the food chain is a matter of opinion. Bacteria and fungi eat humans in the end. And humans are roughly 90% bacterial cells by numbers and 10% by weight (mostly in the colon).

Maybe rather than create mind reprogramming technology, what we need to do is stop using the kind we invented already, which is present in compulsory schools, which were designed to create obedient soldiers and robot-like workers who would do whatever they were told, no matter how vile or boring:
http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/7a.htm
"""
The particular utopia American believers chose to bring to the schoolhouse was Prussian. The seed that became American schooling, twentieth-century style, was planted in 1806 when Napoleon's amateur soldiers bested the professional soldiers of Prussia at the battle of Jena. When your business is renting soldiers and employing diplomatic extortion under threat of your soldiery, losing a battle like that is pretty serious. Something had to be done.
The most important immediate reaction to Jena was an immortal speech, the "Address to the German Nation" by the philosopher Fichte--one of the influential documents of modern history leading dire

I predict within twenty years or so, you can do this kind of separation in your backyard. Rare Earths are actually pretty common. Some people who realize that may not want to put in all the money for a conventional plant?

Meanwhile, the US spends a trillion dollars a year of "defense". But can't be bothered to have a plant in the country to produce strategic materials... What an odd notion of "security".

If you're going to bother to set up such a complex extraction facility, why not go all the way, for exactly the reasons you outline? This sort of process talked about around 1980 can extract and separate anything in there from regular old rock or seawater:
    "Advanced Automation for Space Missions"
        http://www.islandone.org/MMSG/aasm/
    "Flowsheet and process equations for the HF acid-leach process"
        http://www.islandone.org/MMSG/aasm/AASM5E.html#f541

The chemistry was thought doable even then. Look at the things they worried about being infeasible back then: "If each of the 13 sector components is as complex as the HF acid leach system (certainly a gross overestimate), then the total computer control capability required is about 6 megabytes or 9.4X10e7 bits using 16-bit words."

I have far more than that capacity on my cell phone...

The problem is that in the USA, all these industrial processes are separated due to the logic of the "free market", so no one can plan comprehensive materials extraction, production, and recycling facilities of the sort NASA was envisioning thirty years ago...

But no, the USA has to make plans to attack China (to the cost of trillions if the USA was so foolish) to keep them in line because there are not enough "rare earths" around...
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_earth_element
"The term "rare earth" arises from the rare earth minerals from which they were first isolated, which were uncommon oxide-type minerals (earths) found in Gadolinite extracted from one mine in the village of Ytterby, Sweden. However, with the exception of the highly-unstable promethium, rare earth elements are found in relatively high concentrations in the earth's crust, with cerium being the 25th most abundant element in the earth's crust at 68 parts per million."

Do you ever get the feeling somebody is just laughing at us?

I predict within twenty years or so, you can do this kind of separation in your backyard. Rare Earths are actually pretty common. Some people who realize that may not want to put in all the money for a conventional plant?

Meanwhile, the US spends a trillion dollars a year of "defense". But can't be bothered to have a plant in the country to produce strategic materials... What an odd notion of "security".

If you're going to bother to set up such a complex extraction facility, why not go all the way, for exactly the reasons you outline? This sort of process talked about around 1980 can extract and separate anything in there from regular old rock or seawater:
    "Advanced Automation for Space Missions"
        http://www.islandone.org/MMSG/aasm/
    "Flowsheet and process equations for the HF acid-leach process"
        http://www.islandone.org/MMSG/aasm/AASM5E.html#f541

The chemistry was thought doable even then. Look at the things they worried about being infeasible back then: "If each of the 13 sector components is as complex as the HF acid leach system (certainly a gross overestimate), then the total computer control capability required is about 6 megabytes or 9.4X10e7 bits using 16-bit words."

I have far more than that capacity on my cell phone...

The problem is that in the USA, all these industrial processes are separated due to the logic of the "free market", so no one can plan comprehensive materials extraction, production, and recycling facilities of the sort NASA was envisioning thirty years ago...

But no, the USA has to make plans to attack China (to the cost of trillions if the USA was so foolish) to keep them in line because there are not enough "rare earths" around...
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_earth_element
"The term "rare earth" arises from the rare earth minerals from which they were first isolated, which were uncommon oxide-type minerals (earths) found in Gadolinite extracted from one mine in the village of Ytterby, Sweden. However, with the exception of the highly-unstable promethium, rare earth elements are found in relatively high concentrations in the earth's crust, with cerium being the 25th most abundant element in the earth's crust at 68 parts per million."

Do you ever get the feeling somebody is just laughing at us?

I don't agree, for some specific reasons. Cheaper energy sources on Earth would lower the energy costs of space launches. Better materials would make many space ventures easier, like if we had nanotech diamanoid for rocket jet coatings (and we would develop better materials in support of resiliency and sustainability on Earth). Better recycling and 3D printing would make space habitats more feasible. Improved robotic mining technology on Earth would pave the way for mining the Moon and the asteroids. All those things help solve the life-support problem in space, which has a lot to do with mining and recycling and local production of supplies. We already know how to launch rockets. What we need to know are how to make things in a systematic way in a very small local economy using 100% recycling and renewable energy. Those are things that also benefit Earth. It's a win/win for at least 90% overlap (guessing). Why focus on the expensive and harder 10% first that is essentially useless anyway without the 90% of lifesupport where there is overlap? Anyway, we have billions of people living in relative material poverty. Developing small scale industrial systems (nanotech, biotech, robotics, 3D printing, etc.) that let materially poor people bootstrap themselves up to a current US material standard of living from just some small seed fabrication labs would be a great challenge for NASA-types (hopefully while still having socially healthier communities than in the USA). After that was made to work, then we could think about adapting those ideas to work on the Moon or Mars or the Asteroids or the moons of Jupiter and Saturn. As outlined here:
    http://www.islandone.org/MMSG/aasm/
And frankly, if technologists can't figure out how to bootstrap poor communities into abundance using self-replicating technology in places with air and water and moderate temperatures, what does that say about the likelihood of any such technology being made to work well in space? It's really a win/win, at least for the next decade or two. Then when we have an entire planet that is well fed and with plenty of material resources, space exploration can be a great hobby for everyone. :-) It is always an issue to decide how much resources to spend now on something you want to do directly vs. how much to invest to have more capability in the future. I'm saying that we would get more done sooner in space if we invested more in a high-tech industrial base on Earth right now -- one that was both sustainable and resilient.

Again, if we redirected some of the massive government spending that goes towards defense and instead used it to make the entire world prosperous using space age technology, then we would not even need to cut back NASA's current science plans.

"Advanced Automation for Space Missions"
http://www.islandone.org/MMSG/aasm/
"""
What follows is a portion of the final report of a NASA summer study, conducted in 1980 by request of newly-elected President Jimmy Carter at a cost of 11.7 million dollars. The result of the study was a realistic proposal for a self-replicating automated lunar factory system, capable of exponentially increasing productive capacity and, in the long run, exploration of the entire galaxy within a reasonable timeframe. Unfortunately, the proposal was quietly declined with barely a ripple in the press. What was once concievable with 1980's technology is now even more practical today. Even if you're just skimming through this document, the potential of this proposed system is undeniable. Please enjoy.
"""

Some individuals are still working towards that vision; one example:
    http://www.openvirgle.net/

Ultimately, we will ideally end up with self-replicating space habitats that can duplicate themselves from sunlight and materials from the moons or asteroids of the solar system. There is enough relatively easily accessible materials to make habitats for trillions of people, probably quadrillions of people, and their associate biospheres. After we do that, then we can get back to talking about "Peak Oil" and limits to growth. :-)

The ultimate resource is the human imagination:
    http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Ultimate_Resource/

Why not shift 90% of the US defense budget to NASA? We're just making more enemies with most of it, anyway. :-(

Is this it, Dr. Landis?

http://www.islandone.org/Settlements/MagShield.html

Magnetic Radiation Shielding: An Idea Whose Time Has Returned?
Geoffrey A. Landis

Presented at the Tenth Biennial SSI/Princeton Conference on Space Manufacturing
May 15-19, 1991, Princeton, N.J.
posted with permission of author

I am a tiny bit off on the timeline. The motto was 'Mars by 1965, Saturn by 1970'. See http://www.islandone.org/Propulsion/ProjectOrion.html

What about recycling? Or imagination? As long as we have endless power from the sun, we can support lots of activity on Earth. I'm all for space habitats -- but why not just build them directly, rather than mess around with more "exploration" instead of actually building habitats that we knew how to build in the 1970s (Gerry O'Neill)?

With 3D printing and robots, work can be free and cheap -- in fact, that is a major crisis right now with the jobless recovery as trends in automation and better design are leading to widespread structural unemployment, that given limited demand by healthy humans for more stuff, means an end to mainstream economic cycles.

Here is an alternative:
http://www.marshallbrain.com/manna5.htm
"""
"It works like this. Let's say that you own a large piece of land. Say something the size of your state of California. This land contains natural resources. There is the sand on the beaches, from which you can make glass and silicon chips. There are iron, gold and aluminum ores in the soil, which you can mine, refine and form into any shape. There are oil and coal deposits under the ground. There is carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen and oxygen in the air and in the water. If you were to own California, all of these resources are 'free.' That is, since you own them, you don't have to pay anyone for them and they are there for the taking."
"If you have a source of energy and if you also own smart robots, the robots can turn these resources into anything you want for free. Robots can grow free food for you in the soil. Robots can manufacture things like steel, glass, fiberglass insulation and so on to create free buildings. Robots can weave fabric from cotton or synthetics and make free clothing. In the case of this catalog you are holding, nanoscale robots chain together glucose molecules to form laminar carbohydrates. As long as you have smart robots, along with energy and free resources, everything is free."
"""

I see the top post (my first) got modded down to zero, likely by pro-space people. Why are technologists often so blind to thinking through the implications of all the technology they are making? School is no doubt part of it. We need to use what we have to build a better world right here and right now, and then there will be lots of resources for space exploration and many other things. NASA and the space community have had a lot of good ideas already. Let's try using some of them to make the Earth a better place that works for everyone:
http://www.islandone.org/MMSG/aasm/

Wikipedia only took about US$2 million to get to critical mass. A technology library (would probably be much more than a website) might only cost US$100 million or so to get to such a critical mass.
http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing/msg/72fde8fa2a33ded8
"""
So, to recap, there are a few paths to go down, ideally in parallel:
* fund a specific hardware project like Factor-e-farm, CubeSpawn, RepRap or whatever, hoping to push it along specifically (or maybe several);
* fund a specific simulation project like Second Life or some massive multi-player game that connects to open manufacturing, where people are creating 3D models that work in that world (or maybe several);
* fund new software tools that make open design easier for everyone;
* fund some sort of integration service, seen socially as the Wikipedia of open manufacturing, whatever that would look like whether it had a wiki aspect or not, like, Appropedia, SKDB, NIST's SLIM, my attempts at OSCOMAK/PointrelSemanticDesktop, or whatever, which defined a standard way to encode manufacturing recipes and licenses so everything interlinked and could be analyzed and visualized somehow (like to tease out the minimal self-replicating system that met some criterion);

3D printing, robots, AI, better design, renewable energy, and so on. These things can produce more than most people need for a good life. How about NASA spending money on this old idea first?
    "Advanced Automation for Space Missions"
    http://www.islandone.org/MMSG/aasm/
"What follows is a portion of the final report of a NASA summer study, conducted in 1980 by request of newly-
elected President Jimmy Carter at a cost of 11.7 million dollars. The result of the study was a realistic proposal for a self-replicating automated lunar factory system, capable of exponentially increasing productive capacity and, in the long run, exploration of the entire galaxy within a reasonable timeframe. Unfortunately, the proposal was quietly declined with barely a ripple in the press. What was once concievable with 1980's technology is now even more practical today. Even if you're just skimming through this document, the potential of this proposed system
is undeniable. Please enjoy. "

But now, we get "taken for a ride" by a few scientists instead.

Let's resurrect Project Orion, and use this stuff to put a few 100 people on Mars and prospect the main belt asteroids.

After all, this was one of the original rationales for Orion. In all of this time, I don't think that anyone has come up with any better ideas, and we sure aren't getting into the solar system very fast with chemical rockets.

Most of the research concerning space-based radiation shielding was done under the umbrella of the now defunct Nasa Institute for Advanced Concepts. ...

Actually, when I wrote a review article back in 1991-- quite a while before NIAC even was conceived-- it was already by no means anything like a new concept.

HA! I should known better to put "contemporary government funded" before "research"! %P I'm a major Space aficionado myself -- part of my brain must have segfaulted. :P ( strictly speaking NASA is not a government agency, but the money needed for the research they do in large part does come from the government, and therefore by proxy it's "government funded" ;) )

jdb2

By the way I'm honored ( and shocked/surprised! ) that someone of your caliber actually read and replied to one of my messages. I'm one of your fans by the way! ( Now I feel like an idiot )

Most of the research concerning space-based radiation shielding was done under the umbrella of the now defunct Nasa Institute for Advanced Concepts. ...

Actually, when I wrote a review article back in 1991-- quite a while before NIAC even was conceived-- it was already by no means anything like a new concept.

Itself taken (with acknowledgement) from Arthur Kantrowitz - "You'll have the result ten years after you've stopped laughing" http://www.islandone.org/LEOBiblio/CLARK1.HTM - great talk on this very topic by the great man himself from 1979

How about we SHOOT the supplies at them http://www.islandone.org/Propulsion/GeraldBullInfo.html. Also, as someone will have to CATCH the payloads, I recommend that Wile E. Coyote be drafted into service and given a large (Acme brand) catchers mitt for velocity equalization.

You should read this paper then about self-replicating moon robots with lasers to make more robots. http://www.islandone.org/MMSG/aasm/ They could make pretty much anything up there, and shoot it to Earth, via giant coilguns.

Nice. I'd forgotten about those.

I wonder if you could use a miniature version of that to transport goods. We could sort of work up to space capability: use small ones to throw & catch cargo across increasingly long distances. You could reduce drag using Hydrogen Injection.

Come to think of it, could you use a mini space fountain to enable VTOL in your back yard? Entry would be near vertical, and the abort scenario would be for the computer to execute an immediate pull-up in case of latch-on failure to the fountain. It wouldn't need to be active all the time, it could automatically grow from 20 feet to 300 feet given an automatic feeder for the fountain sections.

You mean like a Self Replicating Lunar Factory?

Indeed they have. Now, see each one of the arrows in this graph? That's an entire industrial process, few of which are particularly simple. See each of those inputs? Each is an entire mining operation and/or recovery circuit from another mining operation. See all of those "C"s, "F"s, "N"s, "P"s, and "H"s? Those are in incredibly miniscule quantities on the moon.

Getting the picture of the scale that's being talked about?

NASA has been looking into self-replicating lunar factories since at least 1980. http://www.islandone.org/MMSG/aasm/AASM53.html presents a proposal for a 100-ton "seed" factory that could replicate itself in one year, using 5-10 tons (per replica) of "vitamin" components supplied from Earth. (For comparison, the Apollo lunar lander delivered ~25 tons to the lunar surface.) We now know much more about the lunar surface, so some parts of the proposal need to be tweaked, but MIT has been running workshops on self-replicating equipment for the past several years; it should be possible to get such a factory built and delivered with minimal effort.

Yeah, like I alluded to, a light gas gun is a more better choice than water. At that depth water pressure may be used instead of gunpowder in the SHARP design.

Responding to the other posts:
>AC: Quite apart from the friction problem (at 5 degrees, we're talking about 11 times as much force pushing you against the >tube as pushing you forward -- I suspect the optimal angle is much closer to vertical)
No, water pressure on the outside of a a vertical tube becomes way too much too quickly to get any appreciable length out of the tube. Like you pointed out, at 30 miles long, 20 degrees is too steep with a depth of 10.3 miles. One of the nice parts about getting the tube lower would be the lessened effects of ocean currents at the surface. I don't know how much lower ocean currents would affect it though: If that tube is not realllly straight then the friction problem and possibly lateral g-forces would be significant issues.

Several people mentioned friction: I don't know what to say to that, other than that SHARP guns seem to work ok. They reach 1/2 the speed without any problems albeit being much shorter. No-one mentioned the 50G deceleration the spacecraft would experience exiting the muzzle into 14.7psi air, but this site does, and proposes hydrogen injection as the solution.

Toddestan: The reference to a proposed Antarctica gas gun is here.

Joeytmann: I'm not a materials person either, however if the Trieste can hit the deepest spot in the ocean, surely a simple straight seamless tube can do the same. I'd actually be more worried about stress from ocean currents weakening the sides of the tube enough to cause it to buckle. Try this: Take an aluminum can, and very carefully stand on it. It was easier to do on the thicker, older cans, but can still be done if you're careful and/or light weight. Then tap gently on the wall of the can.

Yeah, like I alluded to, a light gas gun is a more better choice than water. At that depth water pressure may be used instead of gunpowder in the SHARP design.

Responding to the other posts:
>AC: Quite apart from the friction problem (at 5 degrees, we're talking about 11 times as much force pushing you against the >tube as pushing you forward -- I suspect the optimal angle is much closer to vertical)
No, water pressure on the outside of a a vertical tube becomes way too much too quickly to get any appreciable length out of the tube. Like you pointed out, at 30 miles long, 20 degrees is too steep with a depth of 10.3 miles. One of the nice parts about getting the tube lower would be the lessened effects of ocean currents at the surface. I don't know how much lower ocean currents would affect it though: If that tube is not realllly straight then the friction problem and possibly lateral g-forces would be significant issues.

Several people mentioned friction: I don't know what to say to that, other than that SHARP guns seem to work ok. They reach 1/2 the speed without any problems albeit being much shorter. No-one mentioned the 50G deceleration the spacecraft would experience exiting the muzzle into 14.7psi air, but this site does, and proposes hydrogen injection as the solution.

Toddestan: The reference to a proposed Antarctica gas gun is here.

Joeytmann: I'm not a materials person either, however if the Trieste can hit the deepest spot in the ocean, surely a simple straight seamless tube can do the same. I'd actually be more worried about stress from ocean currents weakening the sides of the tube enough to cause it to buckle. Try this: Take an aluminum can, and very carefully stand on it. It was easier to do on the thicker, older cans, but can still be done if you're careful and/or light weight. Then tap gently on the wall of the can.

Been there, done that... 60 million dollars and several hundred people. Meanwhile, Armadillo has done it for a couple of million (at most), and seven volunteers working two days a week.

• The Artemis Project - The project is a private venture to establish a permanent, self-supporting community on the Moon. Brief overview of the Artemis project.
• The Mars Society - To further the goal of the exploration and settlement of the Red Planet.
• The Moon Society - An international nonprofit educational and scientific foundation formed to further the creation of communities on the Moon involving large-scale industrialization and private enterprise.
• National Space Society - grassroots organization dedicated to the creation of a spacefaring civilization. Magazine.
• Stanford on the Moon (by 2015?) And yes, Stanford as in the university.
• Space Frontier Foundation - seems to have projects for space colonization, missions to the Earth's moon, and so on. Looks like a large scale organization.
• The Space Settlement Initiative
• Space Access Society - activism for getting out of the NASA-only paradigm/reality.
• Students for the Exploration and Development of Space - `... is dedicated to expanding the role of human exploration and development of space. We also seek to educate the public in such a way as to attain this goal. `
• Space Studies Institute - `SSI's stated mission is: Opening the energy and material resources of space for human benefit by completing the missing technological links to make possible the productive use of the abundant resources in space.`
• International Space University - `The International Space University provides graduate-level training to the future leaders of the emerging global space community at its Central Campus in Strasbourg, France, and at locations around the world. ` (mentions 'systems engineering' on the About page)
• Space Settlement Institute - `The Space Settlement Institute is a non-profit association founded to help promote the human colonization and settlement of outer space. `
• Cygo's Space Initiative - plan and conduct exploration missions to minor planets, build and mass produce (while in space) a multi-purpose interconnectable module, and to offer products and services using space and the materials therefrom.
• Freeluna - `Freeluna.com is dedicated to the proposition that the colonization of outer space is critical for the long term survival of the human species, and that colonization of the moon and the exploitation of the moon's natural resources is one of the very best first steps in that incredible journey off planet.` ... and when I first visited this page, I was visitor #3371. Yikes. Contact: Bill Clawson, wclawson@freeluna.com
• Island One Society - associated with the Artemis society, seems to be mostly a resource-help site.
• The Living Universe Foundation - `The Living Universe Foundation seeks to bring the galaxy alive with life from Earth, while healing the damage that humanity has already inflicted upon the Earth. We believe that expansion into space in the immediate future is a step towards accomplishing this aim.` turmith@yahoo.com --- This organization was inspired by the publication of a certain book. This is heavily related to Project Atlantis or Oceania (artifical floatin

Modern technology suffers from very serious "long tail" problems when dealing with colonization.

http://www.islandone.org/Propulsion/SCRAM-Spencer1 .html

What you're talking about is exactly the kind of stuff discussed in the space.com article linked to from the 2004 slashdot article. They discuss a certain electric quadrupole configuration. This article talks about magnetic shielding. Here is a web page that gives references to a whole bunch of papers on this topic (mostly powerpoints, but look at the pdf links).

The open use of space is set at part of an international space treaty (1967 treaty). It allows for shared use short of space based weapons and requires international cooperation on orbits, debris control, etc.

Article II

Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means.

I would suggest that before people point about China's right to protect the space above them, that those people would look at TREATY ON PRINCIPLES GOVERNING THE ACTIVITIES OF STATES IN THE EXPLORATION AND USE OF OUTER SPACE, INCLUDING THE MOON AND OTHER CELESTIAL BODIES (1967) and AGREEMENT RELATING TO THE INTERNATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE ORGANIZATION "INTELSAT" (with annexes and Operating Agreement)(1971). We blew up a derelict russian satellite with a F15 firing a special missle in the '80s and it caused all sorts of issues, so there is international precident on this being a bad thing. In addition, all we have to do is take pictures from the 'side' view or develop 'stealthy' satillites.

I would suggest that before people point about China's right to protect the space above them, that those people would look at TREATY ON PRINCIPLES GOVERNING THE ACTIVITIES OF STATES IN THE EXPLORATION AND USE OF OUTER SPACE, INCLUDING THE MOON AND OTHER CELESTIAL BODIES (1967) and AGREEMENT RELATING TO THE INTERNATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE ORGANIZATION "INTELSAT" (with annexes and Operating Agreement)(1971). We blew up a derelict russian satellite with a F15 firing a special missle in the '80s and it caused all sorts of issues, so there is international precident on this being a bad thing. In addition, all we have to do is take pictures from the 'side' view or develop 'stealthy' satillites.

The spacecraft and it's occupants can be protected by cosmic rays via a magnetic or electrostatic field.

http://www.islandone.org/Settlements/MagShield.htm l

OK ... let's see ...

first I thank you for pointing out my scientific illiteracy ... I need this excuse. If I were scientifically literate I would not be allowed to make gross mistakes.

1. There is an AGREEMENT GOVERNING THE ACTIVITIES OF STATES ON THE MOON AND OTHER CELESTIAL BODIES (1979) which, while not forbidding them explicitly, makes commercial investments in the exploitation of resources on the Moon and other celestial bodies except Earth practically impossible. Check Article 5, par. 1 (then think if you would invest into prospecting), and Article 11 (and tell me if you would invest into developing resources there). So, you are right again ... nothing legal forbids commercial exploitation ... but nothing guarantees that you will be able to keep what you built there ... Incentives to go find something exploitable: yeah ... from everybody according to their ability, to everybody according to their needs ...
2. The rovers are used to discover new geologic information about Mars, and bump into anything of interest that we weren't currently aware of that we may want to check out in a future Mars mission. Building of the rovers,and putting them on Mars were amazing feats ... but the return is infinitely small ... The same is valid for the Huygens mission. Exploring a few hundred meters with very limited tools is what I call a waste of money. Getting a few foggy pictures of clouds and some white and black matter ... that's quite dissapointing, considering the costs. Would be better to use such money as are available to develop cheaper means to get to space ... let the grand projects of discovering E.T. for later, since with the gear that is out there right now you can't do it.
3. It is currently way too costly for any company to attempt in one fiscal quarter. ... so , how much has Sony spent to develop PS3 ? ... over how many years ? ... so the fiscal quarter argument really does not stand up. If only there were the certainty of having control over the resources discovered out there, I guess you could find companies willing to take the risk ... oh, gosh ... there are such companies, aiming at suborbital tourism, satelite launch etc. ... and doing long term investments ...
4. there would be certain missions with requirements beyond what the market could offer. NASA (if it still exists) would end up building customized vehicles for that purpose. ... so you want to tell me that NASA (or ESA, or other state agencies) should continue to do what they do now ? Wasting money on trying to find out if the universe is 13 or 14 billion years old instead of motivating the private rocket builders to use their own brains and risk their own money in order to develop technologies that would bring the good news about the age of the universe sooner that the current practices allow us to hope ?
5. Hubble will be programmed to fall to Earth if its not salvageable. So what if it will be programmed to plunge in the atmosphere and burn ? Most of the costs came not from building the telescope, but from putting it into orbit and keeping it there. Why not let it fall, and spending those money on developing better rockets ? The astronomers will find interesting things to do even without Hubble until the next telescope is in place. As to pointing Hubble towards objects in the solar system ... can it focus so close ? I heard it cannot ...
6. Nuclear decay does not magically provide the energy or propulsion to open warp holes to zip probes all over the universe. it can not ? ... I am so d

Energy on the moon will be *expensive* as heck

Er? What makes the idea of a ridiculously large solar array on the moon so far fetched?

Yah, okay, producing the silicon solar panels we have on Earth might be a bit farfetched, but there's a proposal in at NASA to develop in-situ thin-film solar cells. Even without that, though, it's fairly simple to make mirror surfaces out of lunar soil.

I especially don't agree with the blanket statement that energy won't be available. Electricity might require some work, but heat shouldn't be too hard with the Sun out for half a month at a time.

Lets eliminate aluminum from the picture right now...But just to make it more obvious that this won't happen, aluminum refining involves cryolite.

In... the Hall process. There are other processes (subchloride, Toth process, and high temperature electrolysis) which are possible. In the reference below, they recommended the electrolysis, as you did, but it's not the only one.

(for example, I can't even imagine titanium refining on the surface)

NASA can.

Is there a reason you're deriding ideas like these? The idea of a self-replicating lunar base has been around since 1980, when it was proposed (and turned down).

I agree the most important factor is developing a large power infrastructure - but I fail to see how direct solar (for heating) and photovoltaics (for electricity) wouldn't suffice.

It seems not - from here

These were fired at elevations of from 60 to 90 degrees from a 16 inch naval gun (on loan from the U.S.) which was located in Barbados. The gun was bored out to 16.5 inches and made into a smooth-bore cannon. Altitudes of approximately 500,000 to 600,000 feet (100 miles, 160 km) were projected for this arrangement, and early trial reported in the reference cited went as high as 112 km. Martlet vehicles carried instruments made from discrete solid-state electronics - they were potted in a mix of epoxy and sand (!) and the designers did not seem to have any real trouble getting the electronic to survive the launch acceleration which peaked at approximately 20,000 g.