Space ‘Triumphs’ (Mars in another light)

the feared and hated lewrockwell.com ^ | 1/16/04 | Tibor Machan

[Dead Dog]

Nice, do you have a principled argument to go along with that?

[Shryke]

There isn't anything on the moon mars venus etc. that is worth the cost of getting it.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. Costs come down, you know it. You've got your head in the sand if you can't see the tremendous value of He3 alone. I've got to offer a criticism here, Occupied: you Libertarians seem to have a very short-term, myopic view of success. The country that controls the moon and its resources is the country that will control the world financially, technologically, and militarily. It seems you want to throw that away for a slightly lower tax bill. I can't understand it.

[from occupied ga]

You post the preamble of the constitution and a mild insult and you expect "principled argument" in response? Try Article I section 8 the the same constitution.

[from occupied ga]

You've got your head in the sand if you can't see the tremendous value of He3 alone

He3 is only valuable IF (mighty big if) fusion power becomes workable. Fusion power has been a will-o-the-wisp for the last 40 years. Basing your returns on something that is still science fiction is just more science fiction. When the first commercial fusion plant goes on line, then I'll agree that lunar He3 is worth a detailed economic analysis.

The country that controls the moon and its resources is the country that will control the world financially,

That's like saying that the country that controls antartica and it's resources will control the world financially. Or the country that controls Greenland will control the world economically. Just ain't so. Moon, Mars All of 'em are just money pits for the taxpayers and gravy trains for the aerospace industry. Like ethanol as a motor fuel. Less comes out than goes in, but some favored industries get a big chunk of taxpayer change along the way.

[Dead Dog]

You imply anyone that believes in the Space Program is a liberal on this board, and then get upset about mild insult.

Untwist your panties, and fallow me.

No Space, American Aerospace is Dead in 10 years. No American Aerospace... No American Defense, No American Defense..No domestic tranquility, No Blessings of Liberty, No United States of America.

It really is very simple. The Chinese know it, the Russian's know it, and I guarantee the international socialists in the DNC know it.

Take a good look at your local plantation home, then consider how you would like to be working the fields while Hillary Xlinton and Kofi Anan make out on the Veranda.

[from occupied ga]

You imply anyone that believes in the Space Program is a liberal on this board, and then get upset about mild insult

I wasn't upset about it. I simply replied in kind, and yes it is liberal to want to take other people's money to do something that you think is a good idea, but they don't. Two cornerstones of modern liberalism are wealth re-distribution and gun control.

[Dead Dog]

The cornerstone of liberalism is materialism over spiritualism. Wealth redistribution is simply the outgrowth of providing a fish to those that are to lazy to learn to fish.

If you want to take part in the prosperity this nation offers, a prosperity due to the protection of private property rights, then you need to help fund the defense of those property rights. In this day and age, 300 million Americans are vastly outnumberd, so technology and innovation are our only means to survive.

Aerospace innovation's and technology is prime, without it, we become individuals with rifles. Not easily conquered, but easily forced to exist in a miserable state of hell.

[from occupied ga]

If you want to take part in the prosperity this nation offers, a prosperity due to the protection of private property rights, then you need to help fund the defense of those property rights. In this day and age, 300 million Americans are vastly outnumberd, so technology and innovation are our only means to survive.

So you're equating space exploration to defense? Where and who draws the line between wild ass spending and necessary military R&D?

[Dead Dog]

So you're equating space exploration to defense?

Absolutely.

Where and who draws the line between wild ass spending and necessary military R&D?

Somewhere between zero-g alloy research, moon based earth observation posts, antimatter-matter annihilation based propulsion and weapons...and the F111. The F111 being wild ass spending.

As far as who draws the line? That's why we've got Rumsfeld. The Pentagon brass is still squealing like Ned Beatey over the Crusader.

[from occupied ga]

So you're equating space exploration to defense? Absolutely.

Well here we differ. $820,000,000 for pictures of rocks and dust fall into the category of wild ass spending to me.

[Shryke]

Well here we differ. $820,000,000 for pictures of rocks and dust fall into the category of wild ass spending to me.

You can't see the forest, just the tree. Everything requires steps, Occupied. If we are going to lead the way, it requires mistakes as well.

As far as my equating moon-control to antartic control, that's really not accurate. The amount of resources on the moon compared to that of antartica is really staggering.

[from occupied ga]

The amount of resources on the moon compared to that of antartica is really staggering.

Bigger lump of rock, but millions of times more expensive to get to. Besides, What do you consider a resource? A lump of rock with 10^-11 mass fraction of He3? (for which there is no significant market yet) If you consider lunar rock to be valuable, ordinary rocks here should be even more valuable because they lack the transportation cost problem.

[Shryke]

If you consider lunar rock to be valuable, ordinary rocks here should be even more valuable because they lack the transportation cost problem.

This just isn't true, when it comes to certain exotic elements. They just aren't here in any usable quantity. The only He3 we have here is a by-product of our nukes. You've got to look ahead! We control it, or someone else does. There is no other way.

[from occupied ga]

I will sell you my He3 lunar futures for $1.99 and for no extra charge I'll throw in my foamy space wormhole futures and my quantum black hole futures. And any claim I might have to anything on Jupiter - Such a deal :-)

[Shryke]

Sounds like the French when pondering the Lousiana Purchase. Funny, that was unconstitional as well, no?

[Dead Dog]

Maybe, but you know better than to claim $820,000,000 only went to pictures of dirt and rocks.

It is fundamental research, it is expensive, and we can never tell where it will lead us. "Pictures of Dirt and Rocks" is a strawman arguement. The shuttle to no where was W.A.S. The ISS is W.A.S. Those two points we can probably agree on. $820M spent to determine the possibility of life outside our planet, to gather data necessry for eventual colonization, and to indirectly keeps the "steely eyed missle men" in the biz is well worth the cost.

It all comes down to defense in the very long run.

[from occupied ga]

Now you're being insulting as well as ridiculous in comparing the Louisiana purchase to Mars.

[from occupied ga]

$820M spent to determine the possibility of life outside our planet, to gather data necessry for eventual colonization, and to indirectly keeps the "steely eyed missle men" in the biz is well worth the cost.

Money not spent to determine life, only possibility of water. As far as life outside our planet, this is extremely probable, but probably not in our solar system. Highest likelihood (and this is remote) would be chemosynthetic bacteria on Jupiter's moon Europa. Planetary systems are apparently fairly common. With trillions of galaxies and billions of stars in each, then the probability of life on one or more of them becomes almost unity.

Now intelligent life? Another question altogether. I'm not sure we have intellight life here when almost half of the country voted for Algore

[Shryke]

I didn't intend insult! You made a sarcastic statement about the "wealths" of space you will sell to me, to illustrate how worthless you think space is. It reminded me exactly of another "frontier" that was considered "worthless" by its owners, and basically given away for a pittance. Coincidentally, it was bought unconstitionally, which I find very illustrative of the weaknesses of hard-line Libertarianism.

And stop saying Mars. I've spent most of my arguments discussing the Moon. Unlike the Lousiana Purchase, the only cost in getting those resources is shipping/construction. We don't have to buy any land.

[from occupied ga]

. I've spent most of my arguments discussing the Moon

OK, the moon then. Rather than paying for the land, we'll pay hundreds of billions for getting a few people there. I don't consider space to be worthless, but rather that there isn't any material substance that I can think of that is worth the cost of getting it and returning with it. If the costs dropped to where it was about the same per lb mile as on earth, then it still would be prohibitively expensive because of the distance involved.

Article IV section 3 of the constituiton would imply that the Louisana purchase was constitutional, but I'm no expert on constitutional law, so you may be right, but this would not apply to Mars, because it is already under international treaty.