Actually, it's only a few consumables that you'd be short of in an asteroid: hydrogen and carbon, in particular. Oxygen is abundant in most lunar and asteroid regolith. Furthermore, there's a slight difference of scale between a billion-ton asteroid and a "few TransHab modules strapped together". At current rates, launching a billion tons into LEO would cost about $10 quadrillion. While this may be a "one-time cost", it's a wee bit of steep one.
However, you're certainly right that capturing a comet would be extremely useful. And I love the plastic bag method of propulsion! Has anyone studied this for practicality?
Power is cheap - that's what solar arrays are for. And while asteroid dust isn't an ideal propellant, it still would have a higher specific impulse (Isp) than an aluminum/oxygen or iron/oxygen chemical rocket (probably higher than a hydrogen/oxygen chemical rocket, in fact). Aluminum and iron are abundant in many asteroids, but hydrogen is not, so you'd have to go with the less efficient reactions.
You'd need chemical rockets to get off of the Moon or Mars, because the gravity there is too high for ions. But to move an asteroid over a period of decades, an ion engine is a great choice.
The Moon is too far away and has too deep a gravity well to be really useful as a source of raw materials. An asteroid that we could break up and use to build really big spacecraft, satellites and space stations could kick start the commercial space business into high gear.
Can we put some small ion engines on the asteroid? Because if we do that and can feed the engines with asteroid dust, we can move it into Earth orbit within my lifetime. And that would just be too cool.
Oh, it has occurred to them. Just as a first glance, consider the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which offers $7 billion in tax credits and incentives in support of various clean energy policies. You see, most of these guys aren't "anti-oil environmentalists" - they're pro-oil environmentalists. They're the same people, get it? The oil and automotive industries are taking billions of dollars in environmental subsidies for supporting renewable and alternative energy sources. And they're lobbying for more, because it's a win-win for them: they can run popularity-enhancing ads on TV while getting the government to pay for their research.
You're thinking of environmentalism as wearing sandals, hugging trees, and living in a yurt. I'm thinking of environmentalism as all those things, plus well-heeled non-profit groups, government subsidies and industrial involvement. So yes, I think there are many ambitious young entrepreneurs going into environmentalism. Far more than are going into oil, for example.
But those alternatives will be controlled by the same energy companies. And if Peak Oil is true, this gives them more leverage to wangle subsidies to develop the alternatives. If energy is expensive, energy companies will benefit.
I'd also like to know why the oil industry would be against the Peak Oil Theory. If Peak Oil is right, then it's easy to make the argument that oil producers should raise prices now so that the oil we have left can be rationed as long as possible. If it's wrong, then there's no reason to raise prices. The industry wants prices high, so it should on balance favor Peak Oil. (Obviously, in a free market the parent is right and the market sets the price. But governments set taxes, regulations, and in some cases productions quotas on oil - it's far from a free market.)
I'm so sick of this cracked logic. Corporations influence government - therefore it's fascism! I might as well say that governments regulate corporations - therefore it's socialism! The truth is that it's neither, so STFU.
Anyone who thinks Heinlein is "110% pro-capitalism" has not read his novels very carefully. In particular, you should read "For Us, the Living". While he's a fan of private enterprise (and was a famous advocate of private enterprise leading the way into space), he also has no problem postulating a world government (many of his juveniles use this premise). He's an anti-bureaucrat, but this includes corporate bureaucrats as well as governmental ones.
Actually, I can tell you the regulation that's causing the biggest problems in the health care industry. In WWII, we had pay freezes in most industries. But companies still wanted to be able to reward employees in some way. So to solve this problem, the government allowed company-provided health insurance to be a tax deduction. However, if you buy health insurance on your own, you don't get the same benefit (you might get a tax deduction, but due to differing tax rates, the benefit is usually lower for you than for your employer).
The result is that nearly everyone relies on their employer for health insurance. Being poor correlates highly with having a shitty job and changing employers often, so this screws you pretty directly.
As for the rest of us, we get screwed because health care providers' customers end up being our employers, not us. So the pricing/allocation decisions aren't made by the consumers of the services. This is not a good way to run a free market.
I've seen several comments bemoaning the idea that if the Executive and Legislative branches of government are controlled by the same party, we somehow no longer have "checks and balances." Checks and balances have nothing to do with party affiliation, and everything to do with the different branches being able to override the others from time to time. You might argue that when the Exec and Leg branches are controlled by the same party then they don't exercise this power as often, but that's a different issue. Besides, the third branch (Judicial) is supposed to prevent even these excesses by striking down unconstitutional laws.
Simple solution: stop listening to this newfangled "rock and roll" stuff and just focus on classical. Haydn and Mozart's copyrights ran out long ago, so you can practice and perform their work for free. (Granted, some of the newer classical stuff is still under copyright, but it mostly sucks anyway.)
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, it's only a few consumables that you'd be short of in an asteroid: hydrogen and carbon, in particular. Oxygen is abundant in most lunar and asteroid regolith. Furthermore, there's a slight difference of scale between a billion-ton asteroid and a "few TransHab modules strapped together". At current rates, launching a billion tons into LEO would cost about $10 quadrillion. While this may be a "one-time cost", it's a wee bit of steep one.
However, you're certainly right that capturing a comet would be extremely useful. And I love the plastic bag method of propulsion! Has anyone studied this for practicality?
Power is cheap - that's what solar arrays are for. And while asteroid dust isn't an ideal propellant, it still would have a higher specific impulse (Isp) than an aluminum/oxygen or iron/oxygen chemical rocket (probably higher than a hydrogen/oxygen chemical rocket, in fact). Aluminum and iron are abundant in many asteroids, but hydrogen is not, so you'd have to go with the less efficient reactions.
You'd need chemical rockets to get off of the Moon or Mars, because the gravity there is too high for ions. But to move an asteroid over a period of decades, an ion engine is a great choice.
It would take more than a "little shove" - unless you don't mind smiting your enemies a couple of hundred years hence.
The Moon is too far away and has too deep a gravity well to be really useful as a source of raw materials. An asteroid that we could break up and use to build really big spacecraft, satellites and space stations could kick start the commercial space business into high gear.
Can we put some small ion engines on the asteroid? Because if we do that and can feed the engines with asteroid dust, we can move it into Earth orbit within my lifetime. And that would just be too cool.
Oh, it has occurred to them. Just as a first glance, consider the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which offers $7 billion in tax credits and incentives in support of various clean energy policies. You see, most of these guys aren't "anti-oil environmentalists" - they're pro-oil environmentalists. They're the same people, get it? The oil and automotive industries are taking billions of dollars in environmental subsidies for supporting renewable and alternative energy sources. And they're lobbying for more, because it's a win-win for them: they can run popularity-enhancing ads on TV while getting the government to pay for their research.
You're thinking of environmentalism as wearing sandals, hugging trees, and living in a yurt. I'm thinking of environmentalism as all those things, plus well-heeled non-profit groups, government subsidies and industrial involvement. So yes, I think there are many ambitious young entrepreneurs going into environmentalism. Far more than are going into oil, for example.
I give up. How many?
But those alternatives will be controlled by the same energy companies. And if Peak Oil is true, this gives them more leverage to wangle subsidies to develop the alternatives. If energy is expensive, energy companies will benefit.
I'd also like to know why the oil industry would be against the Peak Oil Theory. If Peak Oil is right, then it's easy to make the argument that oil producers should raise prices now so that the oil we have left can be rationed as long as possible. If it's wrong, then there's no reason to raise prices. The industry wants prices high, so it should on balance favor Peak Oil. (Obviously, in a free market the parent is right and the market sets the price. But governments set taxes, regulations, and in some cases productions quotas on oil - it's far from a free market.)
Mod parent +1 Funny!
Oh, wait, were you serious? You've heard of the government giving money to people and corporations for environmental causes, maybe? Hmmmmm.
I'm so sick of this cracked logic. Corporations influence government - therefore it's fascism! I might as well say that governments regulate corporations - therefore it's socialism! The truth is that it's neither, so STFU.
Actually, he tried typing QWERTY, but it caused the keys to jam, so that internet didn't make it through the tubes.
Epithany, n.
1. A terse revelation. "John's epithany was like a bolt of lightning."
2. A book of epithets. "The Notebooks of Lazarus Long is Heinlein's fictional epithany."
Great sniglet...
Anyone who thinks Heinlein is "110% pro-capitalism" has not read his novels very carefully. In particular, you should read "For Us, the Living". While he's a fan of private enterprise (and was a famous advocate of private enterprise leading the way into space), he also has no problem postulating a world government (many of his juveniles use this premise). He's an anti-bureaucrat, but this includes corporate bureaucrats as well as governmental ones.
How many monkey-years does it take to turn 8 pages of notes into a full-length novel?
And unlike Valentine Michael Smith, Heinlein is plenty salty.
That'd be an interesting marketing strategy. Use our free OS so that you can buy our not-as-good-as-WordPerfect word processor. Wait...
Actually, I can tell you the regulation that's causing the biggest problems in the health care industry. In WWII, we had pay freezes in most industries. But companies still wanted to be able to reward employees in some way. So to solve this problem, the government allowed company-provided health insurance to be a tax deduction. However, if you buy health insurance on your own, you don't get the same benefit (you might get a tax deduction, but due to differing tax rates, the benefit is usually lower for you than for your employer).
The result is that nearly everyone relies on their employer for health insurance. Being poor correlates highly with having a shitty job and changing employers often, so this screws you pretty directly.
As for the rest of us, we get screwed because health care providers' customers end up being our employers, not us. So the pricing/allocation decisions aren't made by the consumers of the services. This is not a good way to run a free market.
It's a cyberdemic.
I've seen several comments bemoaning the idea that if the Executive and Legislative branches of government are controlled by the same party, we somehow no longer have "checks and balances." Checks and balances have nothing to do with party affiliation, and everything to do with the different branches being able to override the others from time to time. You might argue that when the Exec and Leg branches are controlled by the same party then they don't exercise this power as often, but that's a different issue. Besides, the third branch (Judicial) is supposed to prevent even these excesses by striking down unconstitutional laws.
"Each of these devices is used to store unpaid-for material."
The only way he could be sure of this is if Microsoft is delivering Zunes with something pirated... Hmmmm.
Simple solution: stop listening to this newfangled "rock and roll" stuff and just focus on classical. Haydn and Mozart's copyrights ran out long ago, so you can practice and perform their work for free. (Granted, some of the newer classical stuff is still under copyright, but it mostly sucks anyway.)
You're not devious enough. Diebold obviously gave the Democrats this election to throw us all off the trail.
OK, I think we mostly agree, but we're assigning different levels of importance to different facts on the ground. Fair enough.