Sunday, March 31, 2013

5 Vapid Fermi Paradox issues

These arguments have mostly nothing to do with the Fermi Paradox...

1) The “I Love Lucy” Argument.
2) “Earth, you’ve got to hide your life away…”
3) They aren’t likely to be couch potatoes.
4) To E.T., “warp factor” would be more than just a good name for a rock band.
5) They’d likely forgo the Oscar after-parties.

Of these 5, only item 3 has anything to do with the paradox because it assumes an expansion rate. It's not about detection, by us or them. Forget 4, the calculations were done for sublight migration. It's only about how long even one other intelligent race would take before they were standing on our planet.

They should already be here, but are not. That's the paradox.

It is the GOPs fault!

When a D (as in Democrat) student gets a C you give him praise. When things fail, it's the A students fault as David A. Stockman point out.
The way out would be so radical it can’t happen. It would necessitate a sweeping divorce of the state and the market economy.
As I've been saying, government has no business in business.

Friday, March 29, 2013

My copy of Heinlein's "Bad luck."


Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.

This is known as “bad luck.”

Just because.

Tuesday, March 26, 2013

See the filter

Googling 'Noble Goals' I came across this leftard...
  1. Starve government and public services... I mean cut taxes
  2. Rape the environment... I mean allow corporations to make full use of natural resources
  3. Inject religious influence into government, into schools and health care. Force minority religions to hear and read fundamentalist Christian propaganda.... I mean allow God into all aspects of our lives and recognize that America as a nation under God..
  4. Establish a fascist, Nazi, rights-less state.. I mean crack down on crime and protect us from terrorists
  5. Wipe out media diversity and create a monopolistic or oligopolistic situation where friends of the government-- major campaign contributors run a media that rubber stamps administration policy.... I mean allow for natural economic forces to determine media ownership
  6. Allow corporations, racists, bigots and all kinds of haters to run rampant... I mean reduce or eliminate government and regulation
Wow. This lefty Rosetta stone shows that imputing hateful motives (a sure sign of hate in the imputer) distorts all that they hear.
  1. This assumes the government uses the money better than charitable organizations. Actually, it doesn't in a lefties mind because... shut up.
  2. It's always rape, even when it isn't. They don't acknowledge that the right is for a clean environment just as much as they are. We like mom and apple pie too. They don't acknowledge that property owners take better care of the environment than government busy bodies ever will. We can deal with environment harm without having fascist government (yes, lefty, fascism comes from government, not corporations. It's in the very definition. Look it up.)
  3. Yes, we have to tolerate people's views. Even lefties.
  4. The right is a champion of individual rights. Individual rights do not include crime and terrorism. This makes them fascists.
  5. Put down your drinks before reading this one. So the media isn't Obama's lapdog? They have done their work on Benghazi, Fast and Furious, et. al?
  6. Consumers regulate. What is needed is transparency. Lefties like to espouse transparency as long as they don't have to actually do it themselves.
Yes, lefty, we do want to reduce government. Even more than is enumerated in our constitution (that statement makes me genghis khan, doesn't it?) which the left considers an inconvenience to their governing telling other what to do.
lying radical right wing extremists who have zero respect for democracy
I didn't notice a civil war that stopped us from having elections. Did I miss it?

Notice the words he uses to describe us, us demons from hell! Us haters. It's hilarious. Perhaps this is just self parody and I'm missing the humor?


Monday, March 25, 2013

It's not a tax.

It's an acquisition.

Fractional banking is a Ponzi scheme.

Unrelated good news, to help us sleep after realizing the entire world banking system is a Ponzi scheme about to collapse.

Will the charter work?

History is full of colonies that failed. What makes my charter work? (On mars.)

The failures were economic (starvation) and warfare (including less intense conflict.) Following will also be a discussion of why these claim sizes.

Warfare
(and lessor means)

There are no natives on mars (perhaps on Barsoom?) so warfare may come from other non member colonists (it is presumed that members of the charter can settle disputes amicably within their ranks.) What is the risk from this concern?

First they have to get to mars. This isn't easy. I don't see any other plan that would accomplish this like my plan will. All other plans I'm aware of require the colonists to pay their way which should severely limit their numbers. But let's assume some country makes a huge claim on mars (even all of it) and starts transporting people there. With billions of hectares available, population pressure will not lead to war for at least more than century by which time the charter legal precedent will have been acknowledged in most countries. The early martians will be heroes and will have defenders and supporters on earth. The most probable form of warfare will be legal and will ultimately end in the colonists favor due to possession which is historically supported. In the unlikely event of actual war, the members numbers may provide all the advantage they need. Only time will tell.

Economics
(will they starve?)

They will have some level of food production the moment they land. This will improve as they gain experience. Seeds are just about the perfect space traveler. Each settler, by their own choices, will bring variety (more over time) beyond any foreseeable need. They will do the same with non seed plants and animals because supply and demand will provide the economic incentives. Mars has sufficient nutrients, water and energy for farming. Industry will develop over time to make it affordable in great quantities. Soil, fertilizer and UV plastic (for 10 psi enclosures) production will be among many mars industries that will thrive in a free market.

They will all be property owners. Abundance comes from free trade which is the source of all wealth. Each person is individually responsible for their own supplies. There is no welfare, no government sponsor, no corporation that owns them. But that doesn't mean they all have to be farmers anymore than all people on earth are farmers. What will happen is the colony will determine how much they can produce and that will determine how many can join their colony. A single half acre plot (40m x 50m) can hold one 40m Zubrin hobby farm. This should feed 3 to 4. Each colonist starts with about 500 plots. The only way they starve is if they don't work. Without welfare, they will work.

Claim Size
(what happens when they run out)

The transportation companies will lose this particular incentive from the charter to bring new colonists as land becomes owned by others. Divide 144 million by 1001 says that shouldn't happen until after mars has well over 100,000 colonists which should be enough to keep things going. With mars as an example, other rocks in the solar system then become viable. The settlement charter limits how fast a transportation company can make claims which will serve as a buffer as land becomes scarce. Doesn't it amaze you to even consider land becoming scarce?

In time, transportation cost may come within the ability of a family to pay for it themselves. If not, they can send their seed which colonists may choose to purchase. Most people will live and die on one world. This does not mean worlds will not be claimed and humans will expand into the universe.

A square kilometer is 100 hectares or about 500 half acre plots. Since the colonists travel to mars free, they will also have their savings some of which they will probably have spent on their first habitat. According to the charter, they will arrive with 1,000 kg of supplies (minus themselves and spacesuit mass.) The transportation company has the incentive to keep every colonist alive until they make a claim on mars. It is the colonists responsibility to keep themselves alive after that. There mass allotment should allow them to live for months to years depending on what they bring. All colonist should determine that by checking on the status of the colony itself. If they don't and they die, that is their own fault. Perhaps their heirs will do better?

There will be no job shortage. Labor will be in short supply as far as we can see into the future. The pay should be good. In hard times, people will have land to sell to get by. Their is no unemployment insurance (unless some entrepreneur offer some. Remember, government is the problem.) All martians will have the basic knowledge of how to get water (which provides oxygen) baked from the abundant supply in the soil along with recycling, so the price should be low because others will be in competition selling it. The water supply in tanks should be public information. If water should become scarce, basic economics says they will increase production while for a time higher prices will reduce waste. That's true of everything in an unregulated economy.

Land is the colonists basic resource. Selling 500 undeveloped plots at $100 per plot would give them a nest egg of $50k. However, wiser would be to sell developed plots for thousands of dollars in profit per plot. This makes every martian a potential millionaire by simply saving the first $2000 even if they spend the rest. A well developed property may provide tens of thousands in profit. Vendors will profit as well, such a the guy/gal selling marble?

It's reasonable to assume a transportation cost of $100m per colonist paid by the transportation company. For this they get about 500,000 plots they can sell. Does this mean they have to sell them for $200 each to break even? No. Done right, all the expense of transporting colonists can be paid for from other potential profits. Which makes the sale of plots pure profit.

Is one sq. km. too spread out for mutual support? Probably so, but not for everyone. They will own it, but they don't have to live on it. They can swap land with others to live closer together. The value of land will depend a lot on location, but all locations should grow in value as they are developed and new colonists arrive. With 7% of Americans wanting to go (over 20 million people) which they can do for free and arrive with resources; The land rush should grow the economy for everybody. New colonists will probably have about six months to establish themselves starting with their first home on arrival. They will have a choice of farming their abundant property or getting a job (likely a combination of both) or dying. Regardless of their choice, the colony will thrive.

-------------------------------------------
References:

THE HOMESTEAD ACT AND THE LABOR SURPLUS
Homestead Acts
Federal Land Policy and Management Act
General Mining Act of 1872
Dominion Lands Act
Selection (Australian history)
Donation Land Claim Act of 1850
Land run
Land Act of 1804
Preemption Act of 1841
About the Homestead Act
The Homestead Act of 1862, Text.

The Debate and Consequences of the Homestead Act of 1862 (pdf)
Colony of Virginia
Jamestown, Virginia
Colonial Charters, Grants and Related Documents

Mayflower Compact
Jamestown Timeline
Another general timeline

Friday, March 22, 2013

Government confiscation

Cyprus tells us they are thinking about bank theft. Thomas Sowell points out that: Land use laws are just one way that governments can confiscate much of the value of private property...

Iron men don't need no stinkin' nanny state.

Iron men

They still exist, but for mars colonization they need to overcome the cost hurdle.

Considering how much money is wasted on trivial things (like an SLS that will never fly a payload) it's amazing that we allow an entire world (one that seems put there for the purpose) to go unexploited.

We live in a time when the timid and greedy are in control. They've wussified and marginalized even the iron men. I never thought I'd live to see it.

Claim your manhood back. Claim mars. Get this book for inspiration.

Tito believes he can get the funding for Inspiration Mars, which does not land, if he pays for the first two years.

Mars One needs $6b in funds to put four on mars every two years after ten years.

My plan gives you mars for $300m assuming Bigelow is right. We don't need no stinkin' billionaires (with badges?) Are there any Iron Men willing to risk $300m, or finance it, for an uncertain return?

Update: Profits!

Suppose some Iron Man puts two BA330 class ships ($400m to orbit) which has the same profit potential as Bigelow's Alpha station. At half occupancy, that's $112.5m profit each year (assuming Musk sells seats at $20m per person.) Using a single BA700 instead (see ref. mission) you could double that profit (up to $500m/yr at full occupancy) for $100m less (an investment of about $300m).

Now add in colonization. The BA700 would require five fuel launches ($625m on FH to send 24 to mars orbit.) Four at a time could then go to the surface on a Mars One lander for about $1b. ($150m to $190m per lander) giving a total mission cost of $1.95b (let's call it $2b.) in exchange for 24,000 sq. km. of martian real estate. This could be totally paid for from profits from a single BA700 in orbit in 4 to 10 years.

So with everything already paid for, the sale of 11,856,000 half acre plots is pure profit. Which means it doesn't really matter how long it takes you to sell them. $100 per plot would be an impulse buy providing $1.2 billion in profit which is not bad for a $300m investment after perhaps ten years.

Too bad we're all bitches to wimps. If I had $300m, it would only take me a heartbeat to invest in this.

Monday, March 18, 2013

Something obvious

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. --Benjamin Franklin

Note the wolves still have a 2 to 1 voting majority. It seems old Ben was telling us the fight for liberty is not the same as democracy?

Do we believe in liberty?

Saturday, March 16, 2013

Mars industrial steam and stirling

Most of the power we use comes from steam generators. Almost all coal, nuclear, geothermal, solar thermal electric power plants, waste incineration plants as well as many natural gas power plants are steam-electric.

Industry needs power. Some use heat directly, others use electricity to run tools, that can come from a differential of heat. The bigger the difference the better, more efficient, power generation can be. This means the comfortable 22 celsius of your mars habitat, which every habitat will require for life support, can be used to generate power from the -55 celsius average outside, but much lower temperatures can occur. The highest outside temperature is going to be about 20 celsius. So take that day off!



Steam engines obviously require steam, but stirling engines do not. So as a bon voyage gift, you might give your martian colonist friends this book. Here's a book to go with it. Some desktop machinist tools. Some tools source links.

Here's a place where you can buy instructions to build or completely assembled engines of various sizes.

With more power, perhaps you can get the girl?...
Oh, and this is just another in a long list of gaslight era technologies.

Then again, perhaps they will just convert the heat directly to electricity? From dirtNi45Co5Mn40Sn10? A new alloy? A microchip? Old fashioned RTG?

How we passed the tipping point.

Bigger government means more democrats win elections meaning more democrats and bigger government. It's as simple as that and here's the proof. It's way past too late.

Calling 'em out

Text of Bozell's CPAC speech.

Friday, March 15, 2013

SpaceX (MCT) speculation


What do we know about the Mars Colony Transport? Other than that Elon declines to say what MCT stands for. Perhaps: My Cutie Talulah?

Elon is a practical guy trying to do something difficult. It's seems Elon intends to keep costs down going from three steps to mars to only two steps which avoids the many fueling launches my reference mission requires...
  • Launch vehicle: 7m+ diameter, 150mt+ payload, methane Raptor engines.
  • Transport Lander (MCT): Under ten crew directly to the surface of mars.
"All future vehicles will be reusable."
"The energy cost of methane is the lowest and it has a slight Isp advantage over Kerosene, and it does not have the pain in the ass factor that hydrogen has."
Regarding MCT:
"I think you could land with the entire thing."
He also mentions somewhere (can't find it now) that interior space should be roomy to avoid crew insanity. This would also come in handy for using the mars atmosphere to slow it down during part of it's landing (on superdracos for touchdown.)

Finally, this is why Musk is a winner:
"We really did not know what we were doing."
He learns and adapts and will be teaching us all what is possible.

80,000 on mars at $500k each seems like back of the envelope calculations. Here are mine:

Falcon Heavy: 50 mt. for $125m, so then Falcon XX: 150 mt. for about $375m. amortized over several flights as all future vehicles will be (if only even partially) reusable. Let's suppose the FXX launches MCT with ten crew on board directly to mars. Update: Or perhaps the SFalconLS?

If those ten are paying customer at $500k that's only $5m? I still don't see how Elon intends charge only $500k even with reusability. Say the MCT cost the same as the FXX. So now we have ten on mars for $750m. Add supplies prelocated on mars so we've got a mission for the bargain price of one billion or $100m per colonists.

This is the same price as I put for my reference mission, but is simpler because they don't have to meet with landers in mars orbit. Well, they don't in mine either, but it increases the cost to take the landers with them rather than taking a less expensive route to mars orbit first.

So the MCT is sort of like my idea for a stretch Dragon?  Hmmm... SD has 16 to LEO on a FH. With FXX they go all the way. That comes to $62.5m per person.

Replacing the $38m RL-10

The RL-10 is an old and expensive engine and should be replaced with a less expensive, better performing modern engine. Two of them ($76m+) are used in the Centaur upper stage used by NASA.

...it appears that lack of support and interest from NASA and the US Government is the primary reason why Pratt and Whitney stopped perusing the RL-60.  NASA and the US Air Force are the primary customers for the upper stage engines made by Pratt and Whitney, and the government seems to be uninterested in supporting the development of a new engine and perfectly happy continuing to use the old and expensive RL-10.



Why should they care? It's not their money. This is one reason an organization like NASA is not the way to go to form a space faring civilization. The incentives are all wrong.

Possible replacements mention in the article: RL-60, Raptor, Chase-10 ($3m ea.)

Thursday, March 14, 2013

SLS vs. Falcons

Development cost for the SLS are estimated between $20b and $41b over ten years. Launch costs projected to be $500m for 70 mt. with a 130 mt. version later.

Falcon Heavy will be ready this year at $120m for 53 mt.
Falcon XX will have a 126 mt. payload and will likely cost much less than $500m.
SpaceX, rather than taxpayers, will pick up the development costs.

To justify the SLS they will have to come up with a payload larger than 53mt and smaller than 70mt. and pay for that in addition to the SLS costs before SpaceX builds their 113 mt. Falcon X Heavy. Even then, it's really not justified.

SpaceX tends to keep improving their engines and leaping ahead depending on business conditions (which is why they abandoned the F5 and went straight to the F9.)

Anybody should see that NASA would have better use of $40b by just buying over 300 SpaceX flights. At 3 flights a year, that's 100 years, so only one tenth the cost per year for something that will not even be available for over ten years.

Can't congress do math? NASA does.

Another take (note: Dragon + Bigelow habitat for less than Orion.)

This is the required reading.

The saddest part is for what NASA has wasted on the SLS in the last few years would have given us dozens of people living on mars (property owners looking for ways to improve their community if I had my way.)

MAY subpoena?

Isn't it dereliction if they don't?

If they don't care...

...why do they vote?

Wednesday, March 13, 2013

Hitler’s America

I hope she wins a false arrest suit...

“If quoting the Constitution makes me a terrorist, we are in Hitler’s America.”

Maybe they can run for Pope?

Put down any beverage you may be drinking.

Obama's goal

In his own words is to grow the economy. Actually, he said, "My goal is how do we grow the economy." In other words, and proved by his whole time in office, is he doesn't have a clue.

Then there's the fact that his words and actions are often at odds.

Upping the ante

Wow. Quoting others is now hate speech.

Note the article makes a claim that an earlier ad, "referred to Muslims as savages." What it actually did was an 'if the shoe fits" message...

“In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel, defeat Jihad.”

Which doesn't refer to Muslims but Jihad. Assume it does refer to Muslims, is it talking about all of them or just those who by their own actions and speech self identify as savages?

That's what exposing their quotes does.

Fast evolution

This is why the biggest mistake is confusing adaption with evolution.

Mars One signs contract with Paragon

To develop life support and space suits systems. I want to know mass and cost of them, but will probably have to wait on that. More, funding.

Want to be an astronaut mars colonist?

37.9 million square kilometers

That's what Google tells me is the land area of the moon.

I said here that I would explain a potential profit that would allow us to start living on the moon. I only hinted at it there, so I'm going to expand upon it here.

I'm more a mars advocate than the moon because I believe the moon is too close to allow getting free of the political entanglements of earth and mars is a better place for independence in terms of resources. But let's discuss the moon.

First, no nation on earth can GRANT land on the moon. You can't grant what you do not own. When you hear people talk about land grants in space they are showing a profound misunderstanding of some basic facts (that includes some really smart people.) If nations do start granting land it's because they claimed it first. Not possible otherwise. The act of granting implies a claim.

People have claimed land long before any nations existed and that right continues to exist. Claims are going to be made. We can establish a precedent if done in an orderly manner using agreed upon terms.

So, would it be profitable? What is break even?

Would 1000 sq. km. cover the cost of transporting one lunar colonist?

Golden Spike is suggesting $700m to be the cost for one visitor. Let's just assume for now the infrastructure exists for them to stay and live there (yes, a big assumption) or we could just say a round billion per colonist (that much? I can't believe we can't get that down when Elon and Zubrin are both claiming going to mars, which is much harder, would only be $500,000 per colonist... and both are claiming that's there and back, not just one way.)

In any case, 1000 sq. km. would be about 494,000 half acre plots. Divide that into the one billion cost is about $2000. That's too much. To make the business case we'd have to bring that down at least 20 times to get within the $100 impulse buy range. So for the moon, we would either have to get the cost per colonist down to $50m each or increase the terms to 20,000 sq. km. per colonist transported or some combination of both. It seems doable. There is certainly enough land.

This money doesn't go to any government directly. It goes to the transportation company which pays it's normal taxes. The colonist travels for free so anybody could go.

I'm not going to address how the colonists pay for life on the moon in this post. But they will each have about 500 plots they could develop according to the terms of my proposed charter. The transportation company will be selling their plots mostly to speculators on earth. I would hope that would be lots of companies in competition over a long period of time.

Personally, I don't think it will play out this way because of too much interference with earth politics. I much prefer the distance of mars.

Tuesday, March 12, 2013

70% in favor

Update here.

70% of Americans (over 200 million) in favor of humans going to Mars. Update: 7% would actually go (over 20 million. My plan allows the first 100,000 to go for free and arrive a millionaire.) Keep an eye here.

We are finding that mars soil is more suitable for life than we thought.

MSL finds elements of life (sulfur, nitrogen, hydrogen, oxygen, phosphorus and carbon) in hole drilled in sedimentary rock.

Mars Society pages: Soil, Materials, Plastic, Greenhouse.

PDFs: PhotovoltaicsMaterials, Processing of Metal Alloys.

Zubrin and sovereignty

Zubrin said... [Emphasis mine]

I think there need to be reasonable laws for claims of sovereignty on Mars. In other words, I don't think you can have one power go there and say, "Well, we landed here first, so we can claim the whole thing." I think there ought to be possibility to claim certain territories based on your activity in those territories. Without that, without there being some national sovereignties, there can't be private property.

Private property can only exist in the presence of government. You own your house because there are police there to make sure that you do. If there were no police, anybody stronger than you could throw you out of your house. In order for us to establish mining claims on Mars, there has to be someone with whom they are registered. So, I do think there needs to be national sovereignty in space, but I think that agreements need to be reached on criteria for establishing national claims on Mars territories.

But it doesn't have to be any existing national governments. The people living on mars can get a fresh start by establishing their own local government in the form of a settlement charter. Agreements only need to be reached by those making claims by possession which is what the settlement charter achieves. It does not require the blessing of any existing governments. Martians need to assert the rights they've had since before any government existed.

Sunday, March 10, 2013

Statistics lie...

...and liars use statistics.

Thomas Sowell makes a very important point regarding economic mobility.
Most working Americans who were initially in the bottom 20 percent of income-earners, rise out of that bottom 20 percent. More of them end up in the top 20 percent than remain in the bottom 20 percent.
This point is lost when you use statistics to prove the opposite.

Saturday, March 9, 2013

In my youth...

...I would have gone to this, damn the cost, full speed ahead. Oh well.

No surprise

They don't even bother to hide the corruption.

Job loss and recovery

Legal insurrection has some charts.

Notice how short Reagan's yellow line is?

Even after 9-11 we recover in 48 months.

How long, if it does, will Obama recover?

There does seem to be a trend since 1990 that recovery takes longer...

THE Nanny state assumption

They own you. That's it, and sadly, you believe it. You protest, but you act in accord with that assumption. We all do, because we are forced to.

Consider the formula of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Not one of these is foundational to our inalienable rights. At the time this was written, the philosophical formula was "life, liberty and property." "Pursuit of happiness" was flowery language to replace property. If you have liberty, you already have the ability to pursue. But life and liberty are not foundational either. Property is.

That's because it was understood that property included your life and liberty. You own your body and the right to do with it what you will. The state assumes you do not own yourself. They have the right to tax you and otherwise regulate you. Control is ownership.

American exceptionalism, something Obama doesn't understand because it never existed prior to America, is the idea that you do own yourself and you lend some of your rights to the government by consent. The problem is consent is not really possible as Randy Barnett points out.

Time often demonstrates who was right in an argument: An enumeration of rights could [has] lead to an unwarranted expansion of federal power and a corresponding erosion of individual rights. The truth of that argument is now clear.

Locke was wrong. Property is acquired by possession. Chain of title simply provides legal defense. The indians didn't feel that need for legal defense and lost the land to those that did. Before nations existed, all property came to be owned by possession. All wealth comes from the trading of property in a chain of ownership that must at some point have been started by a claim.

We are at a unique crossroad in history. We can establish a precedent that will follow humanity for millennia. The universe is full of unclaimed property that can rightfully, morally and legally be claim if we do it in an orderly and reasonable manner. The settlement charter establishes terms to do just that and opens up the solar system to everybody (not just the 'well heeled.')

Amazing Grace

My 2nd Hero.

Friday, March 8, 2013

Why the stars?

I am so glad somebody referenced this article from 2007 and I had a chance to read it. You may not understand the conclusion if you don't read the article first, so do that... I'll wait.
...manned space exploration ... will make us better both individually and collectively; ... as individual human beings and as a nation. Anything else is an unconvincing lie. And it won’t work, either—it hasn’t before.
Will it make us better? It's easy to find some that will argue that it will not. The counter argument is simple. Imagine a solar system full of people living their lives. This means people being fulfilled, not gasping for air in a toxic environment. Happy people, enjoying life. Now take that vision away. Which is better?

The only counter is the one you will hear... it can't be done. They will be gasping. They will die. The only answer to that is to do it and prove those people wrong. They aren't going away otherwise. So it is up to those that believe in the vision to ignore those other folk and just do it.**

Which is one of the strongest arguments for it to be done commercially, because it is immoral to drag those naysayers along with us by forcing them to pay taxes for something they don't believe in. We don't need them. Commercial space is viable.

It is viable now.

** Inspiration Mars is a good example. It will forever put some naysayer arguments into the rear view mirror and landing will be the next logical step.

Thursday, March 7, 2013

Wednesday, March 6, 2013

Probably not gonna happen

I don't think these billionaires are going to foot the bill for getting to mars.

The good news is they don't have to. Bigelow is only a one billionaire and probably wont either; however, 16% of the potential income from his Alpha station over ten years is all that is needed.

What gets the ball rolling is when others see an income potential. You don't need $300m to put a habitat in orbit. You need $300m of financing to do it.

So to finance this at 15% over ten years you need an income of about $5m per month from a potential revenue of $75m or more per month.

900 kg coincidence

The mars curiosity rover has a mass of 899 kg. It would seem the skycrane could also land a 900kg Viking 23 on mars. Viking? Another coincidence?

This is a methane - electric hybrid.

Front wheels are electric with a range of 100 Km at 50 km/h.

Rear wheels are methane with a range of 500 Km at 100 km/h.

I'm not so sure about rock clearance? and it only seats two. We can fix those things, right?

Need vs. Want

We really don't need that much. We have the technology to provide for those needs almost anywhere in the solar system. The real focus should be on wants and how that affects society. This is where living on mars can provide an advantage over living on the earth. It's just a matter of perspective.

Business is about recognizing what people want and providing it. On earth, most of our wants can be satisfied because somebody has already figured that out. Which reduces the business opportunity of others because it's less likely they could provide something others haven't. Mars starts out with nothing. This provides a great business opportunity for everyone. It doesn't require a better mousetrap. The first mousetrap is all you need to get started (will they import mice? Yep, somebody will. But we weren't actually talking about mice, were we?)

Trent said we don't have a word for that kind of society. The word is society. On earth, this is hidden behind many layers. On mars, it will simply be exposed for a time. Mars is about opportunity and there is an opportunity cost for not going.

Not everybody has to go. Just those that want to. Everybody that wants to can with the right plan.

Tuesday, March 5, 2013

Coming together

He has a point.

Notable quote

...I wonder if people have forgotten how grownups would run the government. - Herman Cain.

Financially clueless

Corporate profits are up and household incomes are down.

While the clueless point fingers at everything but the reason. It's all about the lack of free and open competition.

If a company is racking up billions without paying it's employees or stockholders more or reducing prices, it's because they have no viable competition. The government creates environments, laws and regulations, where others can't compete. It really is that simple.

Too big to fail is part of the problem. In a healthy economy, businesses are supposed to fail regularly and often. When they don't you have these problems.

Established businesses are suppose to have lots of new competition nipping at their ankles.

Proper trike

The two wheels should be in the front. Why do so many get this wrong?

Monday, March 4, 2013

It's a simple question

How can 2/3rds of Americans vote to choose a representative when they are financially illiterate?

Wolverines!


It looks like it would make a nice RV/camper. Does a rescue vehicle need gun ports?

Let's see. Govt. buying lots of ammo. Flying drones domestically.

Will not answer when questioned on targeting citizens in America.

Yup. Nothing to worry about... and ammo remains scarce at Walmart.

Two for the really paranoid, here and here. But what is really scary is that Snopes says it is Probably? not true. Which is basically an admission that it is.

Is the trap closing?

The poop scoop

They're all on it now... here, here, here, here.

Sunday, March 3, 2013

If ObamaCare gets struck down...

Expect Barack to tell us he was never for the bill and it's the GOPs fault.

Affordable Care Act my ass... which is why he prefers we not call it that.

SNL writes the law

This is what happens when you make a SNL writer a senator.

Now they'd have to immediately revise the law because we'd all know what C- means. Then after amending the law, we'd all know what C means, then C+, then B-, B, B+, A-, A, A+

Well, obviously any grade is discriminatory (as all discernment is supposed to be) so...

Let's just do the obvious and make all teachers criminals. Let them all become writers for the left wing media or SNL (but I repeat myself.)

Yes, it was satire, but that's getting harder and harder to tell these days.

Our moral obligation

We have a moral obligation not to kill people. But we are killing people; when we look only at the seen without considering the unseen.

Poverty kills. So we have a moral obligation to increase wealth. Not spreading it, but creating it. All wealth is created out of thin air by trade. That includes trading your time for wages, but all voluntary trade creates wealth.

Chain of ownership, for the things we trade, all have a first link. That first link is always a claim of unclaimed property. The fact that others are doing the claiming, rather than you, doesn't change that. A claim by possession is historically the strongest claim where a lesser claim would fail. The universe is filled with unclaimed property.

Any legal framework, whether the OST or moon treaty or any other, that stands in the way of claims is morally indefensible because standing in the way of wealth prolongs death by poverty.

People have been claiming land long before any nation existed. They continue to have that right today and should be asserting it. Done in an organized manner by many people, it has the strength of law. The agreement of terms is a legally enforceable contract. It becomes a strong precedent once established.

It is our obligation to support the individual making of claims and to make claims of any unclaimed property ourselves if we have the opportunity. Otherwise, we are, to varying degrees, literally killers. This is a moral obligation.

Saturday, March 2, 2013

If you really want to lie...

...use statistics.

Not that bad: does not equal good. It could be worse: does not equal good.

How about we just say it, the economy is bad and young people are really screwed. The difference between the young and the old, when they are both screwed, is that the young have more time to work on it.

Financially, I am personally depressed and near panic thinking about what is to come. I'm trying to work on it, leaving very little time for what I prefer, helping others.

But don't tell me red is black with some statistic.

Friday, March 1, 2013

Case against mars

Let's see what we come up with Googling the title.

But before working our way through that list consider "Should NASA ditch manned missions to mars?" My answer is yes because I'd rather it be done for profit by free enterprise, but let's consider their arguments.
Mars may not be worth the time, money and trouble.
Absolutely right with respect to NASA. Let them continue to send rovers and not people.
[Stop] whining about not getting enough money.
Correct again, this guy is on a roll. Use the money they've got wisely instead (but not likely considering the three alternative options the article suggests.)

To open space to settlement... I like how this article starts.
To advance space development, we need cheap resources in near-Earth space.
It will happen. Two companies have already been formed for this purpose. But this is just a little off key. To advance the economic sphere of humanity, we must understand that all wealth starts with claims and many small individual claims will speed that advance faster than anything else. Claiming small rocks is a part of it, but claiming planets is a bigger part. This is a moral imperative.
Mars is not even in the running.
As an exporter of minerals? This is correct and misses a huge point completely.
Paraphrasing, "Space as a sea is a false analogy."
No analogy is perfect (that's what makes them an analogy) but the point about construction is valid. The problem is not technical, but political. They will be constructing ships in space, with captains and crew; Not homes with individual freedom. It's a statist's dream come true. Other statists have dreams of controlling planets and their colonists as well, but that doesn't have to be. Freedom for individuals is possible if they embrace individual ownership (rather than some rigid survival plan that everyone must follow.)
Mars has air enough to be troublesome, but not enough to be very useful.
Mostly false. For one, the air is a source of cheap energy. Solar power alone is not enough for industry, but methane is. Produced from the air by solar power, it will drive the engines of industry before nuclear power takes over, but thereafter remains useful.

Then a bit of irrational thinking... Paraphrasing, "The trip to mars involves radiation," but living in space doesn't?
mining of Mars may become economical
Yes, immediately to settlers. Dismissing mars gravity is just hand waving and ignores it's practical value in mining.

The last section tries to poke holes in other peoples justifications. Let me poke holes in that. People want to go and that justification is entirely valid if they don't force others to pay for it. It is the only justification required.

About this, I'll just say, robots are not settlers.

That list kind of goes nowhere. But I found two related Space Review articles.
Zubrin also pointed out a simple solution to the problem Park noted with humans encumbered by spacesuits and thus not able to, for example, directly touch a rock. “A simpler approach is just to bring the rock inside the [habitat.] Then you can hold it in your hand, and look at it, and do absolutely everything that a field geologist on Earth can do with it.”
“One of the noteworthy spinoffs of the Christopher Columbus mission,” [Zubrin] said, “was the United States of America.”
Yes, people do over think these things when they have an agenda. Then the second article...
We want to go there to see if we can find evidence of life.
Well, that is a justification, but a very poor one. First, because it's used to justify taking other people's money for it. If they didn't do that, then fine, go for it. But it would not be able to compete with another justification... profit. We can go to mars with everybody involved making a profit... at today's costs.



Yes, Mandarins

We do have a elite class of mandarins.
the reason why we fight so hard is because they don't fight hard enough. They are representing a group of people who are the majority in this country. The people who are the far left in this country are like 5-10%. They are able to control it because they fight to win. And the Republican Party should represent 55% of this country. But to me, it seems, it's fighting to protect its own hide.
I do miss Breitbart.