Some of this is talked about in The Case for Mars. Short answer is that the Moon is a red herring. Slightly longer answer is that I don't think Zubrin considered Lunar fuel depots for near-earth operations.
My gut reaction, though, is that you can break near-Earth ops into two categories: things leaving Earth orbit, for which ground-launched lift and throw wins, and station keeping / orbit change manuevers, for which low thrust, high performance things like ion drives are the win.
I guess what I'm saying is I think it's premature to start trying to cost near-Earth propellant until you've figured out why you want it. And so far we don't have that much use for it.
Also, I'm guessing that LOX + kerosene from Earth is cheaper than trying to mine lunar ice. A grand a pound sounds cheap relative to anything from the moon, and it probably won't be long until that's the Earth-launch price.
And for non-manned bulk delivery missions, there are oddball proposals to cut it even further. A quick example: LOX-LH2 SSTO using conventional non-LOX-rated composites everywhere, H2 pressurization for (both!) tanks, and no redundancy in sight. Use the GH2 pressurant for thrusters, and the GH2 left at burnout is dumped out the main nozzle for deorbit (assuming you don't have a better use for the empty tank...). Total moving parts count: two main valves plus 4-6 thruster valves depending on config. A GPS, a laser gyro, a computer, and you're almost done. And there's even pretty good evidence the tanks won't go boom too often, but if it does on occasion, it was cheap anyway. Getting composite tanks that work with LOX is actually pretty easy if you don't need reuse and aren't overly worried about the inside of your tank catching fire. And the odds of that go way down when you decide you don't care about things like fuel guages or other electric bits inside the tank.
It's worth noting that if you had concrete on the moon, it would be worth mining it for the water content. Unless the ice deposits on the Moon are larger than previously thought.
(Actually, that fact is somewhat old... might be wrong these days.)
Well, for the most part, that's because I take an anthropocentric view of things. That said, I do think that life has inherent value. And I'm especially against the idea that we can ignore the environment just because we're too short sighted to see its value.
But even if we accept that processes, not just life, has inherent value, I'm still not with you. The Moon is a big pile of rocks; it's not even a river slowly carving a canyon out of the plains. I guess I fail to see the point in assigning inherent value to a hunk of lifeless rock.
Or perhaps more importantly, I assign *much* more value to humanity's drive to expand, explore, and establish a foothold for life elsewhere. Enough more that I'm willing to risk that we might be being short-sighted here, when I'm not at all willing to take that risk when we're talking about Earthly issues.
That said, I suppose I'd support setting aside large chunks of the Moon as preserves, never to be touched by human hands. But *all* of it? That seems excessive.
Meant to point out that most of what I've been saying in this thread is straight from the Mars Direct plan. Google will tell you lots more, or pick up a copy of 'The Case for Mars' by Zubrin. It's a bit dated (ie doesn't have the latest Mars mission data), but none of the physics or economics have changed much.
The biggest reason not to like that plan is that there's just no need for refueling. A two-part lift and throw to Mars will produce a very real mission.
Part 1 is the return vehicle, some life support stuff, the rover, the return fuel plant, and the LH2 for said plant. After it fuels up the return vehicle, you launch part 2, which is the people and the rest of the life support, science stuff, etc. Hang out for a year and change till the return window comes around and fly back.
The mass budgets work out for single step lift + throw profiles with Shuttle stack performance equivalent rockets (orbiter replaced with smaller lighter thing that's mostly cargo, as opposed to 80% spaceplane).
Well, yes, that's true.
But if you're building a fuel depot, it's cheaper to build it on Mars -- landing on Mars takes less delta-V, thanks to aerobraking, and the fuel is easier to make since there's abundant CO2.
Also, if people like SpaceX really get cheap launch going, then bulk goods to orbit are cheap enough that it's likely not worth building a fuel plant on the moon, given the cost of setting it up and running it.
And all this ignores the fact that there's demonstrated technology out there that can do single shot lift + throw to Mars from the ground. A vehicle that was performance-equivalent to the Shuttle stack, but with a cargo pod instead of the orbiter, is sufficient to put a useful payload on a Mars insertion trajectory without any complex refueling operations.
Is it really that useful for fusion? I thought the closest to break-even reactors were running deuterium/tritium mixes and considered He3 a waste product.
I don't keep up with this stuff; got a good primer on it somewhere?
Also, I think Titanium is only interesting as an on-site resource, not for shipping back -- titanium dioxide, aka titanium ore, is so cheap it's used as a white paint pigment. The refining is expensive, though, and only gets more so if you try it on the moon. Obviously it would be useful in building a colony, but I'm pretty sure it's not a reason to do so.
Yeah, but Mars is closer than the Moon, measured in properly accounted delta-V (aerobrake at Mars and bring some LH2, converted on site into LOX / Methane with the aid of the Martian CO2 atmosphere). Taking a detour to the Moon adds complexity and delta-V, and making rocket fuel there is harder than doing it on Mars. If we had a Lunar fuel depot already, sure it would be cheaper to get to Mars from there than from Earth. But if you're building a fuel depot, it's cheaper to build it on Mars. And then there's only one step.
Except that Mars is closer, once you correct your delta-V for aerobraking on Mars entry and the fact that a small amount LH2 brought along for the ride becomes a lot of LOX and methane without much work (and the process has been demonstrated, using a fairly accurate martian atmosphere simulant for the input).
And it's a lot easier to do (long-term) life support with a carbon source, like, say, the Martian atmosphere.
I really don't understand the use of a lunar colony. I'm all for Mars and the asteroids, but the Moon? What's there that's useful? I can see it as a test bed for life support for other missions, but it's not very close to Mars and I don't think we want to do the asteroids quite yet. It's also a heck of a lot less hospitable than Mars, and takes more delta-V to get to (assuming in situ propellant manufacturing on Mars, which is really darn hard on the moon). As far as I can tell, the only useful things on the Moon are hard vacuum, lots of sunlight, and a nice spot for a telescope (ie darkside). Oh, and many (but not all) of the raw materials for things like solar panels. And some He3, but no one really knows if that's useful or not.
Anyone care to fill me in? I know it's wicked cool and all, but lets do Mars!
Hmm. The moon has... a really good vacuum, lots of rocks, and lots of sunlight. And not a lot else. If you tell me how we're in danger of completely destroying or even significantly damaging any of those, I'll be right in line with you. But there aren't any spotted owls, cuddly koalas, or majestic eagles to protect. I'm not convinced I should care about a few of the many rocks out there, except to notice which ones are more interesting to strip mine.
Actually, Carmack's development cycle is a *lot* faster than that. They've been known to do several tests in one day, and are intending to compete in NASA's lunar lander challenge, which requires a refueling turnaround time of under an hour.
Also, a lot of the 3D math is related to the rocket control stuff. Carmack was the first person *ever* to demonstrate a fully computer-controlled stationary rocket-powered hovering vehicle -- that sort of flight control software is definitely related.
The real reason Musk is doing so much more is really very simple -- he's built a company to do it, and hired a lot of very smart people. Carmack is basically engaged in a very time-consuming and expensive hobby with a few friends. He thinks his way is the cheaper way to eventually get to orbit, but has also stated that Musk's way is faster. Which should be clear, given that Musk has only been at it since 2002, and Carmack has been working much longer.
The Earth is getting warmer; that is unarguably clear from numerous sources of evidence. It really doesn't matter whether it's our fault or not -- it's our problem. We've built our civilization around the current climate, and will be in trouble if it changes dramatically. So, it is well worth considering ways to reduce rates of climate change, no matter what the original source is. Do you really think that NYC cares what the reason is if the antarctic ice cap melts?
It should have no more effect than a tree does, and in windy areas where wind power is a viable source (my old stomping grounds in West Texas spring to mind), having windbreaks is generally a good thing in terms of reducing erosion.
Huh? I think there's a big difference between an inert blob that the air mostly just flows around (with some turbulence and loss of energy), and a windmill carefully impedance matched to the wind to extract the maximum possible energy from it.
Also, it's not at all clear to me that changing weather patterns is a good thing globally just because it helps locally.
I'm not trying to say we should stop all wind power, just that the issues are more complicated than they appear at first glance. Fossil fuels are bad, so it's not a question of whether wind is harmless or not, but one of whether it's worth the costs. Sane and balanced investigation of the tradeoffs is required, as always. But in the meantime, we should start building more sources of renewable energy -- let's avoid the trap of paralysis via overly detailed studies.
It's not even close to an easy problem, but that doesn't mean we can't try to solve it.
Hmm, sounds interesting. Red Light Cameras are one of those little things that annoy me but not normally enough to do something about it;) If I work in Boston, I have to pay Mass. income taxes on that income, right? Hmm, maybe in a few years I'll be in a position where I can do software consulting entirely online.
I'm always a bit disappointed in the libertarian organizations. For example, linked off the nhunderground site, is a bit about someone (apparently) successfully getting away with not paying federal income taxes through what seems to be basically poking holes in regulations. Now, while I'm all in favor of clear and consistent government regulations, I think that it's a bit immature at best to be going "ha-ha! I don't have to pay taxes!" when it is eminently clear that the citizenry and government believe that income taxes are the right way for the government to generate general revenue. It's not really that I disagree with anything he's saying, it's that I think he's being immature and shortsighted about it. He's not engaging in civil disobedience and claiming the government can't levy income taxes; he's just finding faults in the regulations.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, somehow moving to NH and being politically active about basically libertarian things sounds a *lot* more appealing than joining the FSP, which try as it might to call itself not a political organization, still picks up all the weird libertarians who don't seem entirely connected to reality.
Interesting, I would have thought it would take more people. What sorts of things are changing? Or, in a general sense, what would I notice in my day to day life that would be different? Or not notice, but be very thankful for in the rare case where it was relevant? Are there specific towns that the FSP people are moving to, or just pick something convenient on an individual basis?
I've always found the idea of the FSP very interesting, but I confess I'm a bit wary about the job prospects in the technical fields.
I thought that the ability to get a loan was useful. I plan to get a loan to buy a house some time in the next handful of years. I think people of modest income being able to own their own home is a good thing -- or are you saying landlords are paragons of virtue with only their tenant's best interests at heart?
Or are you saying that because there are poor people in the world, it's not OK for me to attempt to improve my lot? Not particularly at the expense of anyone -- but I'd like to move out of a small apartment with a mostly absentee landlord, get a slightly newer car, upgrade my computer a bit more often... And as best I can tell, that all gets harder without banks. And if you're saying that I shouldn't improve my position until others are better off, I have news for you -- there are a lot of reasons why those people aren't better off, and addressing them is a much better idea than dismantling the global economy that is actually (theoretically) capable of helping them in protest.
That's what system emulators are for... I honestly don't know whether any are actually up to the task of being undetectable, but it's certainly (theoretically) possible, especially if you're willing to limit the amount of hardware you support.
I'm sure they have their reasons, and I'm sure some or most believe in things slightly different than I have described in my postings. I used the term "most" because I didn't want to be taken as speaking from a position of authority (I follow the mailing lists and read the FAQs, but that's about it).
So you're sitting at (0, 0, 0) (or 6D equiv, whatever). You introduce me, I'm now at (0, 0, 1). You also introduce someone at (0, 1, 0), who introduces someone at (0, 1, 1). Now, since I and this new node are neighbors, we're supposed to be connected, right? How does that connection get made, and isn't any such process abuseable by an attacker?
I think any such network needs to have some sort of mechanized recognition of cancer nodes. If my neighbors are blocking requests (that I'm passing on, not originating), then I need to route around them, right? If that blocking is selective (eg only for anti-governmental stuff, but let the copyright infringing materials through), the it's likely I won't directly care enough to sort it out every time manually, so the decision has to be automatic.
Manhattan distance: distance using routes that are at each individual point only along one axis (like the streets of manhattan). In your 6D x 3bit network, I think the diameter is then the distance from (000000) to (333333) (assuming wrapping), which is 3 * 6 = 18, and that assumes 12 connections per node in a network of at most 2^18 nodes. I think that simulation results show that Small World networks (like i2p and freenet should be) do much better than that.
I think the whole idea is probably workable, but it also seems a bit awkward. I think it's also starting to be a bit like i2p; have you looked into that? It's an interesting quasi-fork of the freenet ideas.
OK, so if you can assign addresses, route, and be resistant to attack, the other problems are probably solveable. I've never actually used VPN, so I'm far from an expert on what it can and can't do. I'm realy not trying to be obnoxious or trolling or whatever, I just think that solving these problems in the face of a determined attacker is far harder than you give credit for.
I'm still confused about how you assign addresses. I join the network. Who decides where in your 3D coordinate space I'm sitting?
OK, so now I'm sitting at (2, 7, 23). How many hops are required to get to (96, 172, 243)? Is it smaller than the manhattan distance? If so, where do the non-adjacent routes come from, who sets them up, etc?
So now I'm sitting at (2, 7, 23). I'm publishing objectionable material. So, someone else decides they're going to take that same address. Who decides who the correct owner is? What prevents him from censoring me?
So an attacker decides to take down the whole network, and starts setting up lots and lots of nodes on the network that look mostly functional but don't route well enough. Can the VPN route around them? Even in the face of a significant fraction of the network being bogus nodes?
Don't all these questions become rather difficult in the face of a competent attacker with resources who is on the network? And if that's not a problem you're prepared to solve, then you're not solving the same problem as freenet.
Great idea! Now, just dump the freenet middleman, run openvpn tunnels to those 3-5 friends, route IPv4 the way it's been done for the last 20 years, and we can have a true layer3 network!
You can? Complete with the ability to route across all those networks, with no centralized IP assigner, no broadcast routes, no backbone routing, distributed caching of content, plausible deniability on requests and inserts, and the ability to publish content without neccessarily always being online?
Because if you can do that, you've managed quite a trick. I'd even go so far as to say you've reimplemented Freenet, without the crypto. Which is a shame, because integrating the crypto into Freenet add more anonymity guarantees than separating it into a VPN layer. Oh, and you've probably also increased the software complexity from the point of view of what the user has to deal with.
Re:Is Freenet doomed to failure by design?
on
Revamping Freenet
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
That's odd, because PGP is then "terrorist-friendly" and "pedophile-friendly," yet an awful lot of people support it (you included, I'm guessing from the bit about keeping your communications private). The problem is that if you make the network decentralized, private, and resistant to government censorship, then it seems to be the case that you have made it inherently content-agnostic and secure enough for terrorist use. Some people are willing to make that tradeoff, some aren't. But being willing to make that tradeoff for PGP but not Freenet seems... hypocritical.
Re:Great, here come the CP trolls
on
Revamping Freenet
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Yup, you're welcome to express those views. And yes, there is CP on Freenet. There's also a lot of other stuff.
The point of view of most of the developers (and myself), however, is that you can be either for or against absolute, anonymous free speech. You clearly fall into the "against" camp. Most of those working on the network, however, believe that the benefits of having uncensored speech outweigh the cost. That the gains in human rights from publishing police brutality videos outweigh the losses from making terrorist discussion easy. That the gains from making DeCSS available outweigh the costs of copyright infringement. That the gains from proof of election fraud outweigh the losses from child porn. You're more than welcome to disagree with that point; I understand your position. However, there is another side, and it's more complex than "I want my child porn."
Me, I think I'll support Freenet and all that it entails, even if the results aren't perfect.
Slashdot Mirror
My gut reaction, though, is that you can break near-Earth ops into two categories: things leaving Earth orbit, for which ground-launched lift and throw wins, and station keeping / orbit change manuevers, for which low thrust, high performance things like ion drives are the win.
I guess what I'm saying is I think it's premature to start trying to cost near-Earth propellant until you've figured out why you want it. And so far we don't have that much use for it.
Also, I'm guessing that LOX + kerosene from Earth is cheaper than trying to mine lunar ice. A grand a pound sounds cheap relative to anything from the moon, and it probably won't be long until that's the Earth-launch price.
And for non-manned bulk delivery missions, there are oddball proposals to cut it even further. A quick example: LOX-LH2 SSTO using conventional non-LOX-rated composites everywhere, H2 pressurization for (both!) tanks, and no redundancy in sight. Use the GH2 pressurant for thrusters, and the GH2 left at burnout is dumped out the main nozzle for deorbit (assuming you don't have a better use for the empty tank...). Total moving parts count: two main valves plus 4-6 thruster valves depending on config. A GPS, a laser gyro, a computer, and you're almost done. And there's even pretty good evidence the tanks won't go boom too often, but if it does on occasion, it was cheap anyway. Getting composite tanks that work with LOX is actually pretty easy if you don't need reuse and aren't overly worried about the inside of your tank catching fire. And the odds of that go way down when you decide you don't care about things like fuel guages or other electric bits inside the tank.
(Actually, that fact is somewhat old... might be wrong these days.)
But even if we accept that processes, not just life, has inherent value, I'm still not with you. The Moon is a big pile of rocks; it's not even a river slowly carving a canyon out of the plains. I guess I fail to see the point in assigning inherent value to a hunk of lifeless rock.
Or perhaps more importantly, I assign *much* more value to humanity's drive to expand, explore, and establish a foothold for life elsewhere. Enough more that I'm willing to risk that we might be being short-sighted here, when I'm not at all willing to take that risk when we're talking about Earthly issues.
That said, I suppose I'd support setting aside large chunks of the Moon as preserves, never to be touched by human hands. But *all* of it? That seems excessive.
Meant to point out that most of what I've been saying in this thread is straight from the Mars Direct plan. Google will tell you lots more, or pick up a copy of 'The Case for Mars' by Zubrin. It's a bit dated (ie doesn't have the latest Mars mission data), but none of the physics or economics have changed much.
Part 1 is the return vehicle, some life support stuff, the rover, the return fuel plant, and the LH2 for said plant. After it fuels up the return vehicle, you launch part 2, which is the people and the rest of the life support, science stuff, etc. Hang out for a year and change till the return window comes around and fly back.
The mass budgets work out for single step lift + throw profiles with Shuttle stack performance equivalent rockets (orbiter replaced with smaller lighter thing that's mostly cargo, as opposed to 80% spaceplane).
Well, yes, that's true. But if you're building a fuel depot, it's cheaper to build it on Mars -- landing on Mars takes less delta-V, thanks to aerobraking, and the fuel is easier to make since there's abundant CO2. Also, if people like SpaceX really get cheap launch going, then bulk goods to orbit are cheap enough that it's likely not worth building a fuel plant on the moon, given the cost of setting it up and running it. And all this ignores the fact that there's demonstrated technology out there that can do single shot lift + throw to Mars from the ground. A vehicle that was performance-equivalent to the Shuttle stack, but with a cargo pod instead of the orbiter, is sufficient to put a useful payload on a Mars insertion trajectory without any complex refueling operations.
Is it really that useful for fusion? I thought the closest to break-even reactors were running deuterium/tritium mixes and considered He3 a waste product. I don't keep up with this stuff; got a good primer on it somewhere? Also, I think Titanium is only interesting as an on-site resource, not for shipping back -- titanium dioxide, aka titanium ore, is so cheap it's used as a white paint pigment. The refining is expensive, though, and only gets more so if you try it on the moon. Obviously it would be useful in building a colony, but I'm pretty sure it's not a reason to do so.
Yeah, but Mars is closer than the Moon, measured in properly accounted delta-V (aerobrake at Mars and bring some LH2, converted on site into LOX / Methane with the aid of the Martian CO2 atmosphere). Taking a detour to the Moon adds complexity and delta-V, and making rocket fuel there is harder than doing it on Mars. If we had a Lunar fuel depot already, sure it would be cheaper to get to Mars from there than from Earth. But if you're building a fuel depot, it's cheaper to build it on Mars. And then there's only one step.
Except that Mars is closer, once you correct your delta-V for aerobraking on Mars entry and the fact that a small amount LH2 brought along for the ride becomes a lot of LOX and methane without much work (and the process has been demonstrated, using a fairly accurate martian atmosphere simulant for the input). And it's a lot easier to do (long-term) life support with a carbon source, like, say, the Martian atmosphere.
Anyone care to fill me in? I know it's wicked cool and all, but lets do Mars!
Hmm. The moon has... a really good vacuum, lots of rocks, and lots of sunlight. And not a lot else. If you tell me how we're in danger of completely destroying or even significantly damaging any of those, I'll be right in line with you. But there aren't any spotted owls, cuddly koalas, or majestic eagles to protect. I'm not convinced I should care about a few of the many rocks out there, except to notice which ones are more interesting to strip mine.
Also, a lot of the 3D math is related to the rocket control stuff. Carmack was the first person *ever* to demonstrate a fully computer-controlled stationary rocket-powered hovering vehicle -- that sort of flight control software is definitely related.
The real reason Musk is doing so much more is really very simple -- he's built a company to do it, and hired a lot of very smart people. Carmack is basically engaged in a very time-consuming and expensive hobby with a few friends. He thinks his way is the cheaper way to eventually get to orbit, but has also stated that Musk's way is faster. Which should be clear, given that Musk has only been at it since 2002, and Carmack has been working much longer.
The Earth is getting warmer; that is unarguably clear from numerous sources of evidence. It really doesn't matter whether it's our fault or not -- it's our problem. We've built our civilization around the current climate, and will be in trouble if it changes dramatically. So, it is well worth considering ways to reduce rates of climate change, no matter what the original source is. Do you really think that NYC cares what the reason is if the antarctic ice cap melts?
Huh? I think there's a big difference between an inert blob that the air mostly just flows around (with some turbulence and loss of energy), and a windmill carefully impedance matched to the wind to extract the maximum possible energy from it.
Also, it's not at all clear to me that changing weather patterns is a good thing globally just because it helps locally.
I'm not trying to say we should stop all wind power, just that the issues are more complicated than they appear at first glance. Fossil fuels are bad, so it's not a question of whether wind is harmless or not, but one of whether it's worth the costs. Sane and balanced investigation of the tradeoffs is required, as always. But in the meantime, we should start building more sources of renewable energy -- let's avoid the trap of paralysis via overly detailed studies.
It's not even close to an easy problem, but that doesn't mean we can't try to solve it.
I'm always a bit disappointed in the libertarian organizations. For example, linked off the nhunderground site, is a bit about someone (apparently) successfully getting away with not paying federal income taxes through what seems to be basically poking holes in regulations. Now, while I'm all in favor of clear and consistent government regulations, I think that it's a bit immature at best to be going "ha-ha! I don't have to pay taxes!" when it is eminently clear that the citizenry and government believe that income taxes are the right way for the government to generate general revenue. It's not really that I disagree with anything he's saying, it's that I think he's being immature and shortsighted about it. He's not engaging in civil disobedience and claiming the government can't levy income taxes; he's just finding faults in the regulations.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, somehow moving to NH and being politically active about basically libertarian things sounds a *lot* more appealing than joining the FSP, which try as it might to call itself not a political organization, still picks up all the weird libertarians who don't seem entirely connected to reality.
I've always found the idea of the FSP very interesting, but I confess I'm a bit wary about the job prospects in the technical fields.
Don't forget about insurance against Digital Restrictions Management "support."
Or are you saying that because there are poor people in the world, it's not OK for me to attempt to improve my lot? Not particularly at the expense of anyone -- but I'd like to move out of a small apartment with a mostly absentee landlord, get a slightly newer car, upgrade my computer a bit more often... And as best I can tell, that all gets harder without banks. And if you're saying that I shouldn't improve my position until others are better off, I have news for you -- there are a lot of reasons why those people aren't better off, and addressing them is a much better idea than dismantling the global economy that is actually (theoretically) capable of helping them in protest.
That's what system emulators are for... I honestly don't know whether any are actually up to the task of being undetectable, but it's certainly (theoretically) possible, especially if you're willing to limit the amount of hardware you support.
I'm sure they have their reasons, and I'm sure some or most believe in things slightly different than I have described in my postings. I used the term "most" because I didn't want to be taken as speaking from a position of authority (I follow the mailing lists and read the FAQs, but that's about it).
I think any such network needs to have some sort of mechanized recognition of cancer nodes. If my neighbors are blocking requests (that I'm passing on, not originating), then I need to route around them, right? If that blocking is selective (eg only for anti-governmental stuff, but let the copyright infringing materials through), the it's likely I won't directly care enough to sort it out every time manually, so the decision has to be automatic.
Manhattan distance: distance using routes that are at each individual point only along one axis (like the streets of manhattan). In your 6D x 3bit network, I think the diameter is then the distance from (000000) to (333333) (assuming wrapping), which is 3 * 6 = 18, and that assumes 12 connections per node in a network of at most 2^18 nodes. I think that simulation results show that Small World networks (like i2p and freenet should be) do much better than that.
I think the whole idea is probably workable, but it also seems a bit awkward. I think it's also starting to be a bit like i2p; have you looked into that? It's an interesting quasi-fork of the freenet ideas.
I'm still confused about how you assign addresses. I join the network. Who decides where in your 3D coordinate space I'm sitting?
OK, so now I'm sitting at (2, 7, 23). How many hops are required to get to (96, 172, 243)? Is it smaller than the manhattan distance? If so, where do the non-adjacent routes come from, who sets them up, etc?
So now I'm sitting at (2, 7, 23). I'm publishing objectionable material. So, someone else decides they're going to take that same address. Who decides who the correct owner is? What prevents him from censoring me?
So an attacker decides to take down the whole network, and starts setting up lots and lots of nodes on the network that look mostly functional but don't route well enough. Can the VPN route around them? Even in the face of a significant fraction of the network being bogus nodes?
Don't all these questions become rather difficult in the face of a competent attacker with resources who is on the network? And if that's not a problem you're prepared to solve, then you're not solving the same problem as freenet.
You can? Complete with the ability to route across all those networks, with no centralized IP assigner, no broadcast routes, no backbone routing, distributed caching of content, plausible deniability on requests and inserts, and the ability to publish content without neccessarily always being online?
Because if you can do that, you've managed quite a trick. I'd even go so far as to say you've reimplemented Freenet, without the crypto. Which is a shame, because integrating the crypto into Freenet add more anonymity guarantees than separating it into a VPN layer. Oh, and you've probably also increased the software complexity from the point of view of what the user has to deal with.
That's odd, because PGP is then "terrorist-friendly" and "pedophile-friendly," yet an awful lot of people support it (you included, I'm guessing from the bit about keeping your communications private). The problem is that if you make the network decentralized, private, and resistant to government censorship, then it seems to be the case that you have made it inherently content-agnostic and secure enough for terrorist use. Some people are willing to make that tradeoff, some aren't. But being willing to make that tradeoff for PGP but not Freenet seems... hypocritical.
The point of view of most of the developers (and myself), however, is that you can be either for or against absolute, anonymous free speech. You clearly fall into the "against" camp. Most of those working on the network, however, believe that the benefits of having uncensored speech outweigh the cost. That the gains in human rights from publishing police brutality videos outweigh the losses from making terrorist discussion easy. That the gains from making DeCSS available outweigh the costs of copyright infringement. That the gains from proof of election fraud outweigh the losses from child porn. You're more than welcome to disagree with that point; I understand your position. However, there is another side, and it's more complex than "I want my child porn."
Me, I think I'll support Freenet and all that it entails, even if the results aren't perfect.