Marburger speech -- reasons for the Moon

[nibb31]

Do you really beleive that "Earth domination" by one single country is desirable for humanity and the rest of the world? That is something that belongs in a James Bond movie.<br /><br />As you like making parallels to past history, you should know that total domination never lasts long...<br />

 

[mlorrey]

Whether domination by one single country is desirable is immaterial to the fact that the realpolitik people think that way and will engage in this contest once the present contest over domination of eurasia is completed (if not before). You have a very naive view of the world. I suggest you get ahold of and read Zbigniew Brzhinskis book "The Great Chess Game". It will open your eyes to how the political class views the world and why events are happening today as they are.<br /><br />Firstly, I never said total domination would occur. It is likely, as happened in the colonial era, that somebody will seize LL1, and some part of the moon, likely the south pole. Someone else will seize the north pole, as a second best prize hoping to get buried ice there, and others will grab various Near Earth Asteroids.<br /><br />This will create a glut of metals on the market, and nations will once again shift into protectionism and spheres of influence to protect the domestic markets of their own companies space industries. Non-spacefaring nations will become client states of spacefaring nations in hopes of gaining access to space resources. <br /><br />Because of the glut of metals from space industries, the space industries will need cheap labor to work for them, and will start shipping up convicts, undesirables, and political prisoners for slave or near-slave labor. Harsh working and living conditions will eventually lead to revolts, revolutions, and independent nations on various space bodies. The largest, freest, and most developed space republic will become the analog of the early US, while the US on Earth will become the equivalent of the British Empire, bringing other Anglo nations under its umbrella. Russia will reconstitute the Russian Empire. There will be a Chinese Empire, and a reconstituted Muslim Calphate. <br /><br />The EU may or may not also become such an imperial nation, or may devolve (given the ratification problems, labor intransigence, welfare state issues, and the

 

[nibb31]

I think you're living in science fiction. I suggest you stop viewing the world through Fox News and the Sci-Fi Channel and try travelling the world and meeting people from other horizons.

 

[tap_sa]

<font color="yellow">"the space industries will need cheap labor to work for them, and will start shipping up convicts, undesirables, and political prisoners for slave or near-slave labor."</font><br /><br />I find this quite improbable. Can you imagine bunch of inmates in hightech spacesuits, a very big ball chained to their leg (1/6g remember <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />), swinging pick axes at lunar mine? Space is a harsch environment, supporting humans living there requires a lot of effort and resources. It will not happen to support some possibly violent underperformers whose duties are easily replaced by automation. Nay, there's an invisible barrier between Earth and rest of the space through which you get only if you are either very rich or smart enough to do really productive work like maintaining the said automation that does the work of thousand virtual convicts without the feeding/breathing/security problems.

 

[Swampcat]

Tap_Sa, mlorrey's vision of the future is not necessarily what will happen, but it is a reasonable prognostication from a historical point of view.<br /><br />Whatever particular resource finally gets humanity settling off-Earth in earnest, history suggests that nations will contend for control of them. It would be nice to think that this can be done peacefully, but that would fly in the face of history.<br /><br />When the industrialization of space is viable, it isn't necessarily the rich and smart that are going to be sent to work the mines and operate the machinery. This has historically been the job of the lower classes and will likely continue to be so.<br /><br />The idea that it will be the malcontents, prisoners, etc., that will be sent has history behind it as well. Australia and British America are two prime examples of historical precedence. And spacesuits need not stay the high tech gizmos they are today.<br /><br />Yes, it takes a lot of money to feed and house anyone on the Moon. Have you checked the cost of housing a prisoner on Earth? Besides, the Moon would make a rather good site for a penal colony. Escape would be much more difficult than from any Earthbound prison.<br /><br />As I said, mlorrey's view of our future in space is simply speculation, but it has a certain logic to it when viewed from the standpoint of human history. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>

 

[tap_sa]

<font color="yellow">"work the mines and operate the machinery. This has historically been the job of the lower classes and will likely continue to be so. "</font><br /><br />Historically machines have been simple and required people to do repetitive lever pulling. This is not the case anymore. Such tasks are still done by humans in many places here on Earth for various reasons. It's not cost effective to have automated forklift in every warehouse because plain old human operated version is cheap and so is the operator's wage. It's doubtful that you'd send that same forklift to lunar warehouse. You have weight restrictions, it may need to operate in vacuum and abrasive dust environment, can't burn LPG etc. Therefore there's need to redesign a lunar forklift anyway and putting in the necessary automation to replace human operator is no longer prohitive cost. Plus there's no existing lunar labour force with Union on your back ready to go on strike if you plan to automatize the functions in your factory.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">"And spacesuits need not stay the high tech gizmos they are today. "</font><br /><br />Oh yes they do. Actually they have to become much better hightech gizmos if the wearer is to do any sort of productive work for prolonged time. Apollo suits were very bulky, astronauts complained the gloves were horrible, dust nearly broke the joints after longer EVAs etc.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">"Yes, it takes a lot of money to feed and house anyone on the Moon. Have you checked the cost of housing a prisoner on Earth? Besides, the Moon would make a rather good site for a penal colony. Escape would be much more difficult than from any Earthbound prison."</font><br /><br />I agree that a lunar penal colony would be almost idiot proof as far as escaping goes <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />Dunno about exact cost of housing terrestial prisoner, but I'm pretty sure it's dwarfed by the cost of housing extraterres

 

[mlorrey]

I'm not living in science fiction. However, given how much past 'science fiction' has become fact, it isn't an insult, despite you thinking it so, to call it that. It is the future, which hasn't happened yet. The USAF's own Future Scenarios in its Spacecast 2020 and 2025 projects clearly expect similar futures, and you can't plan for the future accurately if you do not develop accurate predictions of what the future will be like, both in best, worst, and most likely cases. <br /><br />People who have naive views of the world are least likely to be prepared for what actually happens. To illustrate your naivete, I shall note that a few short years before WWII, the Kellog-Briand Treaty outlawed war. Didn't seem to work, did it? The UN was ostenisbly founded to prevent wars and genocides, but has never succeeded at doing either, in fact it is often used to cause wars and genocides. The reason is that those who actually founded it did not have the intention that they promoted to the public. Alger Hiss was in the pay of Stalin when he wrote the UN Charter and UDHR.<br /><br />I've traveled the world and met people of many other horizons. One universal truth is that people all over the world have one commonality: they all wish to reduce the burden of government upon themselves, though many think the burden should be heavier on others. Another truth is that most people in this world believe in zero sum economics: that they can only gain at the expense of others. While this belief is false, it is still adhered to by people in many nations who have never lived under anything but various forms of a prisoners dilemma.<br /><br /> Most people all over the world who are not in power tend to have very naive views of how the world works. Those in power have very cynical views of how the world works, and while they all believe that they have the best intentions, almost all believe that the ends justify the means, if only because they all believe that they need to get the other guy before

 

[mlorrey]

The problem with your criticism, Tap_Sa, is that your idea of the economics of space is based on the current day paradigm. You need to be able to forsee what the costs will be down the road, when there is significant space infrastructure: nuke and solar plants, farm domes on the moon, lunar oxygen factories, ore mines and refineries, mass launchers and space elevators. <br /><br />When these things occur, the economics of space change significantly. You need to be able to see what things will be like then based on the conditions of then, not based on current day economics.

 

[tap_sa]

I base my criticism on the fact that no matter how far in the future we'll look, Moon is still ~400,000km away, there 's a big gravity step, there's vacuum in between and on Moon, producing food on the Moon will require much more complicated infrastructure than on Earth, and Earthlings get their oxygen free while Moonies have to maintain complex environmental systems for that too.<br /><br />The future significant infrastructure that you listed will naturally make the price gap smaller, but IMO it's unlikely that it would shrink into negligible during current millenia. The gap will shrink along with the ticket price to Moon so low that an average but a little adventurous person with engineer or at least very agile technician level education can go there and earn his/hers keep. Roomba will mop the colony floors, not illiterate illegal alien.<br /> <br />But of course eventually there will be incarcerated people on the Moon even without transporting single one from Earth. As the lunar infrastructure grows so will the population living in it. Sooner or later there will be crimes requiring proper punishments. <br /><br />

 

[mlorrey]

You have a good point, but you are forgetting one thing: compare the cost of living in the US today to the cost of living, say, in Iraq. Relative costs of living mean NOTHING. What is important is how productive is the work that you do? How much economic activity does that generate? How burdensome is your regulatory regime?<br /><br />The US is much more expensive to live in than many other countries, yet the US can kick any one of their butts militarily. What is important is raw materials, energy, and the freedom, innovation, and productivity of the citizens. The moon has plenty of raw materials, plenty of energy, and when those who seek to live free go there, they will have the sort of people who will become great, the sort of people who created the US as it once was.

 

[tap_sa]

My point was not about general economic activity, only about shipping inmates to the Moon. You don't ship inmates from Iraq to US to boost US economy, I doubt you'll do the same from Earth to Moon <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />As for the law abiding, adventurous pioneers going to the Moon (and eventually Mars) to create new and hopefully better societies, I fully agree. Let's not hinder that possibility by shipping our 'trash' there too. <br /><br />edit: and about getting 'free' workforce to drive the lunar economy, let's face it: if you'd publish an ad saying 'help wanted on the Moon. Small pay, risky conditions, employer will provide food and place to sleep' there would probably be thousands of applicants, including MScs PhDs etc.

 

[mlorrey]

You don't know history. Several american colonies were founded as penal colonies for british prisoners. My own scottish ancestors were prisoners transported to Nova Scotia after their land was taken. Most african slaves brought here were sold by their own leaders in Africa for being troublemakers.<br />The Mariel boatlift from Cuba was Castro getting rid of troublemakers, and Mexicans illegally immigrating to the US do so at the encouragement of their own government. America was made from troublemakers.<br /><br />That thousands of people would apply for low pay jobs on the moon only speaks to how bad things have gotten here on Earth.

 

[josh_simonson]

>That thousands of people would apply for low pay jobs on the moon only speaks to how bad things have gotten here on Earth. <br /><br />No, just that folks here are bored with their safe and unexciting lives.

 

[mlorrey]

That is half the problem. We live in a tyranny of safety, we've traded our freedoms for security. Ben Franklin warned against it, but the soccer moms of the country apparently don't read history anymore, or don't care.

 

[vulture2]

However none of the shipments of prisoners required much capital. The colonies were founded because they provided financial returns in gold, furs, etc. Colonies that didn't pay for themselves were abandoned. Because of the much higher shipping costs from the moon to the earth, there are no physical materials that can be shipped to earth at a profit. <br /><br />Human colonization of space would still be supported by the public, even if only for science, tourism, and psychological rewards, if the cost of such travel can be substantially reduced. But this is not possible with the technology currently planned for the VSE. The cost is actually higher than the ISS/Shuttle program which is being abandoned. <br /><br />Furthermore, the reasons for abandoning the ISS seem limited to "we got bored with it." Because the small crew is almost entirely occupied with maintenance, the total time applied to science on the ISS in five years has been comparable to one Spacelab mission.

 

[ldyaidan]

I don't think domination by one country is the answer at all. I think we need 1 world wide space agency, that may recieve support from various countries, but they should be an independant agency, that uses all the resources available to get the job done. This provides a uniform structure, and optimal use of resources. Private industry can still work within that framework. Not that I expect this to happen. Seems like none of the countries can get along well enough to allow that. I do think that whoever finds a lowcost, reliable way into space will have the upper hand, but maybe once we're there, we be able to work together more. <br /><br />Rae

 

[mlorrey]

"However none of the shipments of prisoners required much capital."<br /><br />Says who? What are your references on this claim? Transoceanic voyages in that day and age were major capital undertakings with very high risk of total loss of investment. Typical total loss rates for transatlantic voyages in the 1600's and early 1700's were in excess of 10%, and chances of earning any profit were often less than 50%. Profits on transoceanic trade were typically either monumental or nonexistent.<br /><br />Thus, the risks back then were far in excess of risks we have for space travel today.<br /><br />Here are some links to historical studies of the economic risks taken in transatlantic trade and colonization:<br />http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item.jhtml?id=4862&t=bizhistory<br />http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/section/insuranc_TheHistoryofInsurance.asp<br />http://www.thehistoryof.net/the-history-of-insurance.html<br /><br />As for transporting of prisoners:<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_transportation<br /><br />However, prisoners, even, were only transported usually if they chose to purchase a "ticket of leave" which obligated them to permanent exile with their families, as an alternative to execution, which typically would have been the normal punishment for whatever crimes they committed. Even condemned prisoners had to pay for the cost of their executions.<br /><br />Transporting ships owners, of course, risked the loss of their capital in the ships they owned from storms, mutiny, war, or piracy.<br /><br />Today, here in the US, we have over 2.5 million people in prison. Outside of social security, welfare, education, and the de

 

[mlorrey]

" don't think domination by one country is the answer at all. I think we need 1 world wide space agency, that may recieve support from various countries, but they should be an independant agency, that uses all the resources available to get the job done. "<br /><br />ah, another socialist comes out of the woodwork. If NASA can't seem to get the job done, what makes you think that a World NASA would not be even worse? A definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome.

 

[gsuschrist]

crix: "What?? It's a lot easier to launch nukes from Nebraska."<br /><br />So true. The simplicity of those words exposes the fantasy scenarios.

 

[mlorrey]

No, it only exposes the lack of intelligence of the person stating such an absurd claim. It actually ISN'T easier to launch nukes from Nebraska. The delta-v budget to launch a nuke from LL1 at any point on Earth is about 0.1 km/s. It requires about 8 km/s to do so from Nebraska. You do the math.

 

[gsuschrist]

It's more than that. Mmorley: "If they were smart, they'd see that it was the American colonies that spring boarded Britain into the world spanning empire it became, thus American colonies on the moon and Mars would be imperative to US dominance of the rest of Earth. Whoever does it first will rule the world. "<br /><br />I hope this lad is only joking. Then again, this is 2006 and the United States of America. Creationists and whackos.<br /><br />Hopefully Togo or Malta won't get to Mars first and 'rule the world'. I don't like Togalaise beer.<br /><br />

 

[mlorrey]

Thats a cop-out. By that logic, it's easier to launch them from Los Alamost than Nebraska, so why don't they? because Nebraska launch sites allowed them to reach as much of the Soviet Union as possible while being as far away from Soviet land and sub-launched missiles as possible.<br /><br />That makes Nebraska the "high ground" for ICBMs in the US when facing off against the former USSR. This is also why the USSR built their missile silos in places like Kazakhstan rather than the Siberian coast.<br /><br />Military planners who base their assets on what is "easiest" are the ones who lose the next war. The unbeatable rule of warfare is to seize the high ground. If one wants to be capable of striking any place on Earth or in orbit within hours or days, there is no better high ground than LL1. LL1 is also a "mountain pass", the gateway to the Moon, and he who controls the gateway controls the Moon.<br /><br />You may not believe in global domination, but global domination believes in you.

 

[mlorrey]

Did I say I liked the idea? No, I didn't. I am being entirely realistic and thinking exactly like all leaders of powerful nations think.<br /><br />Naivete and wishful thinking gets you killed and enslaved by those who are not self deceived by pollyannish ideas of how the world should be and refusing to accept how the world is.

 

[josh_simonson]

If you kept weapons at LL1, they'd be exposed. Every other spacefairing nation would be able to keep tabs on them with satelites, and potentially could shoot them with a laser in a confrontation (by the time we can have a weapons platform at LL1, such lasers will exist). Then it takes a day or so for the weapon to reach the earth if you launch it. All the ground and sub based ICBMs will have already popped off before the ones from LL1 got even close. The B2s might even be home before the LL1 bombs fell.<br /><br />A useful system with reasonably rapid response time would have to be deployed in low polar orbits, with enough warheads of sufficient cross-range to hit any target within half an hour and sufficient mobility to be hard to keep track of. Otherwise submarine based weapons are better in terms of stealth and response time.<br /><br />If the 'high ground' were so important, shouldn't nepal be ruling the world from the tip of mount everest?

 

[mlorrey]

No nation has radar tracking out to LL1, nor would laser systems be able to shoot through atmosphere and then 400,000 miles accurately. They'd have to have a Hubble telescope to aim their lasers.<br /><br />If Nepal had technologies capable of taking advantage of their altitude, they would, but "high ground" with ballistic ground and sublaunched weapons is not necessarily the highest surface on Earth.