Baron von Darrin
Offline
agrab0ekim
Offline
- Quote
- Report Post
- Posted: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 14:18:02 +0000
Ammo Amy
agrab0ekim
Ammo Amy
agrab0ekim
1) build a base on the moon
2) build a station in the belt
3) attatch small rockets to asteroids, send them to moon
4) save a lot
5) As he explained it above, no ???? needed
6) PROFIT
And you do this for how much? And your "profit". Who gets that? What do you save?
well, the profit would be the US government, assuming that they fund it
the cost idk, but i am quite sure that we would profit from it, as the cost becomes almost nothing once it is set up (the rockets to and from the belt would be easy)
How would the government profit? Actually, it would likely be the corporation that exploited the resources after the government spent all that money obtaining it and bringing it back to them for easy mining, unless the government itself wanted to get involved with that aspect.
Also, how much do you consider "almost nothing"? How are you coming up with that statement?
Well, the would profit by mining the returned asteroids and selling the materials on the open market
I can say that it is almost nothing, as the only thing not in the initial cost will be gas for the rockets (can go out using solar wind) and the power to run the automatic mining facility (mostly from the sun) and any repairs
Apocryphal Libertarian
Offline
- Quote
- Report Post
- Posted: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 06:59:33 +0000
Baron von Darrin
Apocryphal Libertarian
Baron von Darrin
Aww. is the "libertarian" butt hurt?
Yes the "crazies". Anyone who carries libertarianism consistently, who does not step into some middle ground horseshit, who challenges your "libertarianism", and does not drink your Keynesian kool-aid is obviously insane. Charges against the mental stability of your opposition are an age old tactic to simply dismiss the positions that oppose you.
Anyway, I am not actually charging you with having a DSM-IV mental disorder or even generally questioning your sanity. I am using a colloquial term for someone who holds an extreme political position relative to the mainstream, similar to "wingnut". However, if you are such a literal individual that you actually intended to inquire about the state of my a**, then I apologize, and will refrain from using all words except those whose precise denotation reflects the message intended. (My a** is fine by the way).
As to the specific reason I wanted to separate my views from yours?
It's for two reasons. First, your extreme position, both politically and intellectually, hinders the entire movement. You mindlessly condemn anything and everything remotely "statist". Which is simply an untenable political position. People want steady, marginal increases to freedom and prosperity, not an anarchist revolution. Second is your blind adherence to the Austrian school with your (further) mindless condemnation of anything that diverges from it. Remember, it is not the Austrian school that is the issue here. Every a single economically minded poster on this forum has deep respect for the contributions of the Austrian school and noted economists like Hayek. However, none of us are so deluded to believe that the insights of a couple of economists nearly a century ago represent the greatest advance in the body of economic thought. Such intellectual purism, (which seems to be more thinly guised mindless condemnations of anything remotely "statist", which is why you condemn any economic view that you don't agree with as "Keynesian" when it is simply not the case) further drags on the movement, as many are quite able to recognize regressive intellectual patterns and properly dismiss it.
As for why I specifically named you? It's because your stubborn refusal to so much as discuss moderate positions and petulant behavior has separated and isolated you (much as you are doing to the movement). It makes you an extremely convenient object of dismissal, similar to Dermezel. Even if it is unintentional, you posting behavior is quite effectively summarized as trolling. You avoid personally inconvenient discussions, sling absolutely unsupported condemnations of 'statism' and 'Keynesianism,' which are scarcely related to the discussion at hand, while slinging further insults and even then if asked to elaborate on your condemnations you simply ignore it. As such, by associating dismissal of extreme positions with you, I can efficiently and effectively disassociate myself from nonsensical accusations of extremism.
Again, don't confuse your dismissal with a dismissal of your ideology. Anarchists are both accepted and abundant around here, and the Austrian works are well respected (hell, more than a few of the threads on the front page have directly discussed Hayek). You're just a douchebag. And no, I don't mean I expect to find you on the bottom shelf of a drug store.
agrab0ekim
Well, the would profit by mining the returned asteroids and selling the materials on the open market
agrab0ekim
I can say that it is almost nothing, as the only thing not in the initial cost will be gas for the rockets (can go out using solar wind) and the power to run the automatic mining facility (mostly from the sun) and any repairs
And this facility, you haven't even remotely justified it's construction, the construction of the necessary power source. At that distance we can barely power the transmitters and sensors on satellites. You want to power a mining facility on a scale we've never seen before. Hell, we're still struggling to make photovoltaic cells cost effective on earth. Why you think you can waive these costs away is beyond me.
As for actually getting it here, have you considered the sheer mass your talking about transporting back to earth? At the very least it's orbit would have to be altered to bring it, or pieces of it, close to earth. Then you need to decelerate it so you don't destroy the planet or the minerals. Considering the sheer mass of a 2km asteroid, I doubt there's enough fossil fuels on earth to do this, let alone how you can call it "almost nothing".
Again, to make this even remotely possible, we're going to need advances in rocket technology that aren't even on any theoretical frontier yet.
agrab0ekim
Offline
- Quote
- Report Post
- Posted: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 19:01:28 +0000
Apocryphal Libertarian
agrab0ekim
Well, the would profit by mining the returned asteroids and selling the materials on the open market
Unless you find decomposed organic materials in the form of oil, my portfolio doesn't give a damn
Quote:
agrab0ekim
I can say that it is almost nothing, as the only thing not in the initial cost will be gas for the rockets (can go out using solar wind) and the power to run the automatic mining facility (mostly from the sun) and any repairs
And this facility, you haven't even remotely justified it's construction, the construction of the necessary power source. At that distance we can barely power the transmitters and sensors on satellites. You want to power a mining facility on a scale we've never seen before. Hell, we're still struggling to make photovoltaic cells cost effective on earth. Why you think you can waive these costs away is beyond me.
As for actually getting it here, have you considered the sheer mass your talking about transporting back to earth? At the very least it's orbit would have to be altered to bring it, or pieces of it, close to earth. Then you need to decelerate it so you don't destroy the planet or the minerals. Considering the sheer mass of a 2km asteroid, I doubt there's enough fossil fuels on earth to do this, let alone how you can call it "almost nothing".
Again, to make this even remotely possible, we're going to need advances in rocket technology that aren't even on any theoretical frontier yet.
Did you not get the fact that I called the non orig. funding is not needed? It is a long-term investment, but it would pay off in the long run
