| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Ken S. Tucker" |
| Date: |
11 Jan 2004 07:59:24 PM |
| Object: |
Financing Moon Colony? (for 25 cents) |
Financing the Moon Mission?
Adding 25 cents to a gallon of gasoline produces
~ $ 40 billion in revenue/ year.
(about what's needed to colonize the moon)
Who would agree/disagree with this cost assuming
it went to space exploration?
I figure it oughta be billed to our transport budget.
It would promote conservation, reduce greenhouse
gases, finance scientific jobs etc. etc. etc...
Lynne will.
.
|
|
| User: "Bootstrap Bill" |
|
| Title: Re: Financing Moon Colony? (for 25 cents) |
12 Jan 2004 03:16:26 AM |
|
|
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:2202379a.0401111759.5a748b6a@posting.google.com...
Financing the Moon Mission?
Adding 25 cents to a gallon of gasoline produces
~ $ 40 billion in revenue/ year.
(about what's needed to colonize the moon)
Who would agree/disagree with this cost assuming
it went to space exploration?
I figure it oughta be billed to our transport budget.
It would promote conservation, reduce greenhouse
gases, finance scientific jobs etc. etc. etc...
Lynne will.
It costs $10,000 per pound to put anything into orbit. Shouldn't we figure
out how to drastically reduce that amount before we think about lunar
colonies and manned missions to Mars?
Is $100 per pound achievable in the foreseeable future? How do we get there?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Huntington-Warbutnot CBE" |
|
| Title: Re: Financing Moon Colony? (for 25 cents) |
12 Jan 2004 08:13:36 AM |
|
|
"Bootstrap Bill" <wrcousert@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<KBtMb.58741$C87.32907@twister.socal.rr.com>...
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:2202379a.0401111759.5a748b6a@posting.google.com...
Financing the Moon Mission?
Adding 25 cents to a gallon of gasoline produces
~ $ 40 billion in revenue/ year.
(about what's needed to colonize the moon)
Who would agree/disagree with this cost assuming
it went to space exploration?
I figure it oughta be billed to our transport budget.
It would promote conservation, reduce greenhouse
gases, finance scientific jobs etc. etc. etc...
Lynne will.
It costs $10,000 per pound to put anything into orbit. Shouldn't we figure
out how to drastically reduce that amount before we think about lunar
colonies and manned missions to Mars?
Is $100 per pound achievable in the foreseeable future? How do we get there?
You don't with chemical rockets anyway. There are in existance
detailed (almost complete) plans for a 4000 ton craft that could
deliver over 1000 tons of payload to Mars within a year, never mind
LEO. My hunch is that this would work out very cheap per pound - I've
seen estimates of $250/lb. But this, of course, would utilise the
detonation of (shock and horror!) fission bombs.
We truly are in a cul de sac with regard to progress in space flight.
Conventional rocketry is a dead end.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Financing Moon Colony? (for 25 cents) |
12 Jan 2004 08:58:39 AM |
|
|
Peter Huntington-Warbutnot CBE wrote:
LEO. My hunch is that this would work out very cheap per pound - I've
seen estimates of $250/lb. But this, of course, would utilise the
detonation of (shock and horror!) fission bombs.
This is the Orion system. While it looks good on paper there is the
matter of environmental and public safety. Also with many thermonuclear
devices in inventory there is a security question as well. How do we
keep Abdul, Faisal, Ibrihim or Mohammed from stealing one of these
devices and detonating it in New York City (where the Jews are, naturally).
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Huntington-Warbutnot CBE" |
|
| Title: Re: Financing Moon Colony? (for 25 cents) |
12 Jan 2004 06:21:34 PM |
|
|
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobkolker@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in message news:<zCyMb.34636$xy6.86760@attbi_s02>...
Peter Huntington-Warbutnot CBE wrote:
LEO. My hunch is that this would work out very cheap per pound - I've
seen estimates of $250/lb. But this, of course, would utilise the
detonation of (shock and horror!) fission bombs.
This is the Orion system. While it looks good on paper there is the
matter of environmental and public safety.
All space flight is intrinsicly dangerous. Less then a decade ago, a
chinese village was practically wiped out by an errant rocket. Cost vs
benifit analysis is required.
Also with many thermonuclear
devices in inventory there is a security question as well.
You don't seem to be well versed on the Orion project. Fission, not
fusion.
How do we
keep Abdul, Faisal, Ibrihim or Mohammed from stealing one of these
devices and detonating it in New York City (where the Jews are, naturally).
I suspect Tel Aviv has a higher concentration.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Financing Moon Colony? (for 25 cents) |
12 Jan 2004 06:38:18 PM |
|
|
Peter Huntington-Warbutnot CBE wrote:
You don't seem to be well versed on the Orion project. Fission, not
fusion.
A fission bomb is thermonuclear. Nucleus split, make heat, bad medicine.
How do we
keep Abdul, Faisal, Ibrihim or Mohammed from stealing one of these
devices and detonating it in New York City (where the Jews are, naturally).
I suspect Tel Aviv has a higher concentration.
The Jews of Tel Aviv are not out to get our asses. Osama bin Laden and
his Moslem extremist buddies are.
The question of security weighs heavily. We cannot have fissile devices
lying around just to propel spaceships.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Financing Moon Colony? (for 25 cents) |
12 Jan 2004 07:01:51 PM |
|
|
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobkolker@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in
news:_5HMb.38171$xy6.94452@attbi_s02:
You don't seem to be well versed on the Orion project. Fission, not
fusion.
A fission bomb is thermonuclear. Nucleus split, make heat, bad
medicine.
No, the term "thermonuclear" refers specifically to fusion processes as
opposed to fission.
--
Steve Gray
sgray2@cfl.rr.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Financing Moon Colony? (for 25 cents) |
12 Jan 2004 07:11:39 PM |
|
|
In article <_5HMb.38171$xy6.94452@attbi_s02>, "Robert J. Kolker" <bobkolker@NOSPAMcomcast.net> writes:
Peter Huntington-Warbutnot CBE wrote:
You don't seem to be well versed on the Orion project. Fission, not
fusion.
A fission bomb is thermonuclear. Nucleus split, make heat, bad medicine.
In the standard bomb terminology:
nuclear <-> fission.
termonuclear <-> fusion.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Financing Moon Colony? (for 25 cents) |
12 Jan 2004 07:18:50 PM |
|
|
wrote:
nuclear <-> fission.
termonuclear <-> fusion.
In either case my main point stands. Having too many atomic explosives
around is both a public safety issue and a security issue. If an atomic
powered vessel blows up on the pad, the entire area is well irradiated.
Not good for the neighborhood.
Atomic weapons poison the air (when exploded) and produce radioactive
residue. Not good for the neighborhood. The only excuse for exploding
them is the necessity generated by warfare. An HE bomb goes boom, people
die, buildings break and that is the end of it. An atom bomb goes boom
and the effects linger quite a while.
If you recall those heady days before above ground atomic explosions
were prohibited by treaty, the worldwide level of strontium-90 in human
bones rose appreciably.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Financing Moon Colony? (for 25 cents) |
12 Jan 2004 07:32:59 PM |
|
|
In article <_HHMb.38443$xy6.96021@attbi_s02>, "Robert J. Kolker" <bobkolker@NOSPAMcomcast.net> writes:
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
nuclear <-> fission.
termonuclear <-> fusion.
In either case my main point stands. Having too many atomic explosives
around is both a public safety issue and a security issue. If an atomic
powered vessel blows up on the pad, the entire area is well irradiated.
Not good for the neighborhood.
Atomic weapons poison the air (when exploded) and produce radioactive
residue. Not good for the neighborhood. The only excuse for exploding
them is the necessity generated by warfare. An HE bomb goes boom, people
die, buildings break and that is the end of it. An atom bomb goes boom
and the effects linger quite a while.
If you recall those heady days before above ground atomic explosions
were prohibited by treaty, the worldwide level of strontium-90 in human
bones rose appreciably.
Sure. I didn't disagree with your point, just clarified the
terminology.
As an aside, I don't recall anybody planning on taking off in an Orion
ship, off the ground, on nuclear drive. The idea was to assemble in
orbit and start from there.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Huntington-Warbutnot CBE" |
|
| Title: Re: Financing Moon Colony? (for 25 cents) |
14 Jan 2004 07:07:08 AM |
|
|
wrote in message news:<fVHMb.15$_4.11480@news.uchicago.edu>...
In article <_HHMb.38443$xy6.96021@attbi_s02>, "Robert J. Kolker" <bobkolker@NOSPAMcomcast.net> writes:
wrote:
nuclear <-> fission.
termonuclear <-> fusion.
In either case my main point stands. Having too many atomic explosives
around is both a public safety issue and a security issue. If an atomic
powered vessel blows up on the pad, the entire area is well irradiated.
Not good for the neighborhood.
Atomic weapons poison the air (when exploded) and produce radioactive
residue. Not good for the neighborhood. The only excuse for exploding
them is the necessity generated by warfare. An HE bomb goes boom, people
die, buildings break and that is the end of it. An atom bomb goes boom
and the effects linger quite a while.
If you recall those heady days before above ground atomic explosions
were prohibited by treaty, the worldwide level of strontium-90 in human
bones rose appreciably.
Sure. I didn't disagree with your point, just clarified the
terminology.
As an aside, I don't recall anybody planning on taking off in an Orion
ship, off the ground, on nuclear drive. The idea was to assemble in
orbit and start from there.
The origional idea *was* to take off from the ground, using nuclear
explosions from the offset. They would be weak at first (as low as
tens of tons) and gradually increase until 1 KT or higher when leaving
the atmosphere. It would take 1 MT to get to Mars, the products of
half of which would end up in the atmosphere.
This was an era of prolific atmospheric testing (IIRC nearly 100 MT in
'58 alone).
In the sixties, when NASA got envolved, plans were drawn up for either
transporting a complete orion craft outside the atmosphere using an as
yet unbuilt, enormous chemical lifter, or tranporting the components
to LEO using several Saturn 5s and build it there. Both these versions
would have been a lot smaller then the ground launched Orion.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Financing Moon Colony? (for 25 cents) |
12 Jan 2004 07:29:51 PM |
|
|
wrote:
In article <_HHMb.38443$xy6.96021@attbi_s02>, "Robert J. Kolker" <bobkolker@NOSPAMcomcast.net> writes:
wrote:
nuclear <-> fission.
termonuclear <-> fusion.
In either case my main point stands. Having too many atomic explosives
around is both a public safety issue and a security issue. If an atomic
powered vessel blows up on the pad, the entire area is well irradiated.
Not good for the neighborhood.
Atomic weapons poison the air (when exploded) and produce radioactive
residue. Not good for the neighborhood. The only excuse for exploding
them is the necessity generated by warfare. An HE bomb goes boom, people
die, buildings break and that is the end of it. An atom bomb goes boom
and the effects linger quite a while.
If you recall those heady days before above ground atomic explosions
were prohibited by treaty, the worldwide level of strontium-90 in human
bones rose appreciably.
Sure. I didn't disagree with your point, just clarified the
terminology.
As an aside, I don't recall anybody planning on taking off in an Orion
ship, off the ground, on nuclear drive. The idea was to assemble in
orbit and start from there.
Keepers of orbital gamma ray observatories will go apeshit for
contaminating low Earth orbit. Ditto geosynchronous satallites in
view of the blasts - a few gigwatts of soft x-rays will cook their
circuit elements.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Financing Moon Colony? (for 25 cents) |
12 Jan 2004 09:42:04 PM |
|
|
wrote:
As an aside, I don't recall anybody planning on taking off in an Orion
ship, off the ground, on nuclear drive. The idea was to assemble in
orbit and start from there.
Let us assume that for some unfortunate reason the ship never makes it
to orbit. You have this vessel filled with atomic bombs crashing
somewhere. If it is in the deep ocean, that we can live with. On land
that is something else again.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Financing Moon Colony? (for 25 cents) |
13 Jan 2004 12:25:27 AM |
|
|
In article <40034A0F.5D9071F7@hate.spam.net>, Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> writes:
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <_HHMb.38443$xy6.96021@attbi_s02>, "Robert J. Kolker" <bobkolker@NOSPAMcomcast.net> writes:
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
nuclear <-> fission.
termonuclear <-> fusion.
In either case my main point stands. Having too many atomic explosives
around is both a public safety issue and a security issue. If an atomic
powered vessel blows up on the pad, the entire area is well irradiated.
Not good for the neighborhood.
Atomic weapons poison the air (when exploded) and produce radioactive
residue. Not good for the neighborhood. The only excuse for exploding
them is the necessity generated by warfare. An HE bomb goes boom, people
die, buildings break and that is the end of it. An atom bomb goes boom
and the effects linger quite a while.
If you recall those heady days before above ground atomic explosions
were prohibited by treaty, the worldwide level of strontium-90 in human
bones rose appreciably.
Sure. I didn't disagree with your point, just clarified the
terminology.
As an aside, I don't recall anybody planning on taking off in an Orion
ship, off the ground, on nuclear drive. The idea was to assemble in
orbit and start from there.
Keepers of orbital gamma ray observatories will go apeshit for
contaminating low Earth orbit. Ditto geosynchronous satallites in
view of the blasts - a few gigwatts of soft x-rays will cook their
circuit elements.
Soft x-rays will get stopped by nearly anything. Neutrons, now that's
a different story. And you'll get a shitload of these.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Financing Moon Colony? (for 25 cents) |
13 Jan 2004 12:28:36 AM |
|
|
In article <gOJMb.38697$nt4.70969@attbi_s51>, "Robert J. Kolker" <bobkolker@NOSPAMcomcast.net> writes:
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
As an aside, I don't recall anybody planning on taking off in an Orion
ship, off the ground, on nuclear drive. The idea was to assemble in
orbit and start from there.
Let us assume that for some unfortunate reason the ship never makes it
to orbit. You have this vessel filled with atomic bombs crashing
somewhere. If it is in the deep ocean, that we can live with. On land
that is something else again.
I wrote, specifically, "assemble in orbit". The ship is not supposed
to "make it to orbit", it is built there. Mind you, I'm not saying it
is as great an idea as the enthusiasts make of it. But the specific
problem you mention is not there.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: Financing Moon Colony? (for 25 cents) |
12 Jan 2004 11:00:09 AM |
|
|
In sci.physics, Bootstrap Bill
<wrcousert@yahoo.com>
wrote
on Mon, 12 Jan 2004 09:16:26 GMT
<KBtMb.58741$C87.32907@twister.socal.rr.com>:
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:2202379a.0401111759.5a748b6a@posting.google.com...
Financing the Moon Mission?
Adding 25 cents to a gallon of gasoline produces
~ $ 40 billion in revenue/ year.
(about what's needed to colonize the moon)
Who would agree/disagree with this cost assuming
it went to space exploration?
I figure it oughta be billed to our transport budget.
It would promote conservation, reduce greenhouse
gases, finance scientific jobs etc. etc. etc...
Lynne will.
It costs $10,000 per pound to put anything into orbit. Shouldn't we figure
out how to drastically reduce that amount before we think about lunar
colonies and manned missions to Mars?
Is $100 per pound achievable in the foreseeable future? How do we get there?
Lighter spacecraft and engines, higher thrust, fusion power, and
maybe an acknowledgement that humans in space aren't absolutely
essential for all experiments.
After all, humans:
[1] have an inherent limitation of about 100 N/kg acceleration.
[2] need more expensive equipment to keep them alive.
[3] weigh 50 kg each minimum.
Of course, there are advantages:
[1] We're far smarter (if slower) than any computer.
[2] We're ingenious.
[3] Humans in space inspire millions of future engineers.
My (?) proposal, which is a bit tongue in cheek, would cost
billions to construct -- probably hundreds of billions --
a 400 km track, and require a power generation plant bigger
than the entire state of California, in order to launch
a 100 metric tonne craft. However, a modification might
still help; the more energy we can impart to the craft before
we turn on the rocket engines (and expend fuel), the less
fuel we'll need.
At least in theory.
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Financing Moon Colony? (for 25 cents) |
12 Jan 2004 11:05:14 AM |
|
|
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
Financing the Moon Mission?
Adding 25 cents to a gallon of gasoline produces
~ $ 40 billion in revenue/ year.
(about what's needed to colonize the moon)
Who would agree/disagree with this cost assuming
it went to space exploration?
I figure it oughta be billed to our transport budget.
It would promote conservation, reduce greenhouse
gases, finance scientific jobs etc. etc. etc...
Lynne will.
1) You are a Liberal. You will finance your personal snit out of
*my* wallet - by law and jackbooted State compassion.
2) Who will go to the moon, NASA? Contemporary NASA is third
assistant ***** to a Mongolian cluster *****. They'll spend the
$40 billion on new buildings, executive expense accounts (gotta fly
Texas-California-Florida-Washington-Texas each month), and
"contingency."
3) IRS Form 1040 (BTW, 1040 is the year Lady Godiva rode protesting
her husband's taxation policies. Take the hint). I wish to have
$---- of my paid taxes put into the Department of Outworlder Affairs'
Moon Base Mission. Now you have an equitable Conservative program.
(Note the acronym.)
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Harry Conover" |
|
| Title: Re: Financing Moon Colony? (for 25 cents) |
12 Jan 2004 06:07:30 PM |
|
|
Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message news:<4002D3CA.98DC76AC@hate.spam.net>...
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
Financing the Moon Mission?
Adding 25 cents to a gallon of gasoline produces
~ $ 40 billion in revenue/ year.
(about what's needed to colonize the moon)
Who would agree/disagree with this cost assuming
it went to space exploration?
I figure it oughta be billed to our transport budget.
It would promote conservation, reduce greenhouse
gases, finance scientific jobs etc. etc. etc...
Lynne will.
1) You are a Liberal. You will finance your personal snit out of
*my* wallet - by law and jackbooted State compassion.
2) Who will go to the moon, NASA? Contemporary NASA is third
assistant ***** to a Mongolian cluster *****. They'll spend the
$40 billion on new buildings, executive expense accounts (gotta fly
Texas-California-Florida-Washington-Texas each month), and
"contingency."
3) IRS Form 1040 (BTW, 1040 is the year Lady Godiva rode protesting
her husband's taxation policies. Take the hint). I wish to have
$---- of my paid taxes put into the Department of Outworlder Affairs'
Moon Base Mission. Now you have an equitable Conservative program.
(Note the acronym.)
Then too, what Constitutional Authority grants our federal government
the right to even get involved in scientific or space exploration
pursuits?
Frankly, I find it a bit of a stretch today to view probably 80% of
funded federal programs as being performed under the authorization of
our national constitution.
And yes, quite frankly I believe that a majority of all the federally
funded programs could be accomplished far more sucessfully though
private funding and private ventures.
It would be great if the federal government could pay for everyone's
education, health care, homes, as well as the advancement of man's
knowledge of his universe, but our federal government was created and
chartered to serve much more basic needs, like national defense,
regulation of interstate trade, etc., and many of use don't really
like to see it going beyond those classic purposes...at least not
while using our tax dollars to do so.
Perhaps it is about time for the Supreme Court to step in and, through
a strict reading of the US Constitution, return this nation to the
foundations and pirinciples that made it great, rather than bending to
pressures from every cash rich special interest group that comes
along.
The obvious alternative would be for the US to adopt the classic
system of conquests, usefully employed by the Scandinavians, Romans,
Greeks and others during those meaty days of old! This would
definitely need a constitutional change, but then we could conquer,
rape, and pillage other nations to the extent we require to stoke our
well intended liberal goals, just as the Vikings, Romans, Greeks,
Mongolians, and others did to great success during years past.
Just my opinion.
Harry C.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alfred Einstead" |
|
| Title: Re: Financing Moon Colony? (for 25 cents) |
14 Jan 2004 11:17:31 AM |
|
|
(Harry Conover) wrote:
Then too, what Constitutional Authority grants our federal government
the right to even get involved in scientific or space exploration
pursuits?
"... to promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of
liberty to ourselves and our posterity..."
the same authority that gave the government whatever right it
has to expand to the Pasfic Ocean, as God intended it to do.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Financing Moon Colony? (for 25 cents) |
14 Jan 2004 11:36:33 AM |
|
|
Alfred Einstead wrote:
hhc314@yahoo.com (Harry Conover) wrote:
Then too, what Constitutional Authority grants our federal government
the right to even get involved in scientific or space exploration
pursuits?
"... to promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of
liberty to ourselves and our posterity..."
Wrong. That is Preamble, not low. The text of the Constitution
-specifies- how the general welfare and the blessings of liberty are to
be obtained. The Preamble does NOT guarantee the government open ended
power to pursue the general goal by any means whatsoever. See the tenth
Amendment. The Fed has only the specific powers given to it in the
constitution.
All of the New Deal and FDR nonsense and socialistic horseshit had to be
shoehorned in under the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution.
It was legally bogus, but political workable and we are bearing the
burdens of that, even unto this day.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Financing Moon Colony? (for 25 cents) |
12 Jan 2004 06:39:55 PM |
|
|
Harry Conover wrote:
And yes, quite frankly I believe that a majority of all the federally
funded programs could be accomplished far more sucessfully though
private funding and private ventures.
At last. A voice of sanity.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ken S. Tucker" |
|
| Title: Re: Financing Moon Colony? (for 25 cents) |
13 Jan 2004 12:13:29 PM |
|
|
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobkolker@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in message news:<v7HMb.37007$8H.82832@attbi_s03>...
Harry Conover wrote:
And yes, quite frankly I believe that a majority of all the federally
funded programs could be accomplished far more sucessfully though
private funding and private ventures.
At last. A voice of sanity.
Bob Kolker
Kid's how many CEO's could have done the Louisiana
Purchase or buy Alaska. CEO's are regulated (we trust),
to be responsible about delivering a profit on investment
in the short term, like 5 years maximum. (My own *****
is extended this far).
America needs too choose..between 2 very clear choices,
1) Give OPEC 25 cents/gallon extra, and drive Hummers
or
2) Give Americans that revenue ($40 Gigabucks/year)
and finance our study on grand issues.
Some have mentioned this money could be spent on
health care - free lung transplants for every smoker -
free liver transplants for every alcoholic.
Or Education - free degrees for every retard that can't
be bothered to learn to read.
Putting *excessive* money into those issues is NUTZ.
It will produce negative returns.
((Incidentally I'm a retarded smokin alcoholic))
There are two ways to spend money...
1) Softly - this way of spending money ends up
in poor peoples pockets and is likely spent on
illicit drugs, ie A Mafia subsidization, and teenage
negro women have many babies without marriage.
2) Hard - this is more accountable, and produces the
results a scientific culture should encourage.
We have so much money, we need to direct it wisely.
Tossing money at social problems does not make
little Johnny an improved brat!
MONEY DOESN'T SOLVE SOCIAL PROBLEMS!!
In math, money and socialism are orthogonal.
IE. You can't bribe a person to care for their
neighbour. Instead, a cultural *paradigm* that
respects the need of parents to instill respect
into the new-borns - in the first place - causes
people to generously care for thier neighbours
iff, compassion is an intrinsic charcteristic.
How can this *intrinsic characteristic* be measured?
Well, if your neighbour suffers a natural hardship,
are you *sad* or *glad*?...?
Will you pay 25 cents or NO ?
Ken S. Tucker
.
|
|
|
| User: "agnina" |
|
| Title: Re: Financing Moon Colony? (for 25 cents) |
14 Jan 2004 09:57:05 AM |
|
|
It's extremely naieve to think that there aren't some projects which
are worth doing and which are better served by organizing at a
national level. In some cases, this requires a federal government (and
even taxes), and in some cases, there should be a cooperation between
government and industry.
As a few examples, I don't think a private company would have made the
capital investment or taken the risk to build the internet or GPS
system. We all benefit from having weather satellites, and I think it
makes the most sense to have a national, federally-funded weather
service rather than having each individual or individual company try
to launch their own. In the case of electrification and putting
together a power grid, there was an interaction of government funding,
regulatory oversight, and private companies. Of course, the grid has
problems, but it's still a pretty impressive achievement. In the case
of electricity, it was clearly beneficial to have a central authority
(lets call it a government) help set standards for voltage, frequency,
etc.
I really don't understand the sentiment, which seems so popular these
days, that private industry is the solution to every problem. It just
seems to be contrary to a lot of evidence. Before I get a bunch of
responses listing stupid or wasteful government programs, let me
assert that I know that there are stupid and wasteful government
programs. I firmly agree that academic research is out of control and
needs an overhaul. I would like to decrease the tax burden by cutting
a range of government spending, trimming both social and defense
spending. But I take exception to the extreme statement from the
earlier post
And yes, quite frankly I believe that a majority of all the federally
funded programs could be accomplished far more sucessfully though
private funding and private ventures.
I've worked in both settings, and I don't see the infinite wisdom
ascribed to private ventures. Given the excesses of the corporate
CEOs, it's ludicrous for Uncle Al to criticize NASA managers for
flying from Texas to Washington to Florida. I suppose paying a
corporate CEO millions in salary and millions more in (often
underserved) bonuses would make for a more efficient research system.
Sounds pretty likely.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ken S. Tucker" |
|
| Title: Re: Financing Moon Colony? (for 25 cents) |
14 Jan 2004 03:10:22 PM |
|
|
(agnina) wrote in message news:<bdf7f0e8.0401140757.4d3898e7@posting.google.com>...
It's extremely naieve to think that there aren't some projects which
are worth doing and which are better served by organizing at a
national level. In some cases, this requires a federal government (and
even taxes), and in some cases, there should be a cooperation between
government and industry.
As a few examples, I don't think a private company would have made the
capital investment or taken the risk to build the internet or GPS
system. We all benefit from having weather satellites, and I think it
makes the most sense to have a national, federally-funded weather
service rather than having each individual or individual company try
to launch their own. In the case of electrification and putting
together a power grid, there was an interaction of government funding,
regulatory oversight, and private companies. Of course, the grid has
problems, but it's still a pretty impressive achievement. In the case
of electricity, it was clearly beneficial to have a central authority
(lets call it a government) help set standards for voltage, frequency,
etc.
I really don't understand the sentiment, which seems so popular these
days, that private industry is the solution to every problem. It just
seems to be contrary to a lot of evidence. Before I get a bunch of
responses listing stupid or wasteful government programs, let me
assert that I know that there are stupid and wasteful government
programs. I firmly agree that academic research is out of control and
needs an overhaul. I would like to decrease the tax burden by cutting
a range of government spending, trimming both social and defense
spending. But I take exception to the extreme statement from the
earlier post
And yes, quite frankly I believe that a majority of all the federally
funded programs could be accomplished far more sucessfully though
private funding and private ventures.
I've worked in both settings, and I don't see the infinite wisdom
ascribed to private ventures. Given the excesses of the corporate
CEOs, it's ludicrous for Uncle Al to criticize NASA managers for
flying from Texas to Washington to Florida. I suppose paying a
corporate CEO millions in salary and millions more in (often
underserved) bonuses would make for a more efficient research system.
Sounds pretty likely.
Thank you, I was rather impressed on how ENRON
was able to provide electricity to California,
and still meet the lofty expectations on the
(now bankrupt) stock-holders. NOT....
Ken S. Tucker
PS: Just watched Bushes speech on Space,
(3 pm EST), I'm OK with that.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: Financing Moon Colony? (for 25 cents) |
14 Jan 2004 08:33:52 PM |
|
|
In article <bdf7f0e8.0401140757.4d3898e7@posting.google.com>,
agnina <agnina2003@yahoo.com> wrote:
I really don't understand the sentiment, which seems so popular these
days, that private industry is the solution to every problem. It just
seems to be contrary to a lot of evidence. Before I get a bunch of
responses listing stupid or wasteful government programs, let me
I remember a push to privatize prisons, on the argument that private
enterprise would find more efficient and cheaper ways to run things, with
higher quality. The last thing I've read about it was that privately run
prisons cost every bit as much as the government run prisons do.
I've worked in both settings, and I don't see the infinite wisdom
ascribed to private ventures. Given the excesses of the corporate
CEOs, it's ludicrous for Uncle Al to criticize NASA managers for
flying from Texas to Washington to Florida. I suppose paying a
corporate CEO millions in salary and millions more in (often
underserved) bonuses would make for a more efficient research system.
Sounds pretty likely.
Just don't tax it. You might raise the ire of those irked by bringing
home $2 million per year instead of $3 million per year. You can hardly
raise a family on that much.
--
"In any case, don't stress too much--cortisol inhibits muscular
hypertrophy. " -- Eric Dodd
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Financing Moon Colony? (for 25 cents) |
14 Jan 2004 10:50:45 AM |
|
|
agnina wrote:
It's extremely naieve to think that there aren't some projects which
are worth doing and which are better served by organizing at a
national level. In some cases, this requires a federal government (and
even taxes), and in some cases, there should be a cooperation between
government and industry.
On matters of defense, or dealing with a natural disaster or contagious
disease this makes sense. A government exists to protect the lives and
property of its citizens ---- period!
For anything else, government involvement and tax revenue collection is
tyranny and theft.
As a few examples, I don't think a private company would have made the
capital investment or taken the risk to build the internet or GPS
system. We all benefit from having weather satellites, and I think it
makes the most sense to have a national, federally-funded weather
service rather than having each individual or individual company try
to launch their own.
If the idea is a good one, a consortium can be formed. What you are
presenting is the tirec old argument about public goods vs private
goods. Somehow the first railroads ever constructed were privately
funded. The first turnpike in the U.S. was a private road. The Eirie
Canal was privately funded. The first public water supply (Cleveland
Ohion) was privately funded. T.V. was invented and sold without a
government subsidy. Radio states were built and made money without any
government involvement except protecting frequency ranges as property.
The first computers were invented, build and sold without government.
The mini-computer was invented in a private garage (Jobs and Wozniac).
Etc. etc. The notion that the government must be the source of money is
bogus. It appeals to the urge to get something for nothing. So let the
government steal the capital for non-defense projects from the taxpayers.
We have become so used to the government stealing money to fund public
works, that we cannot conceive of operating without government involvement.
B
In the case of electrification and putting
together a power grid, there was an interaction of government funding,
regulatory oversight, and private companies. Of course, the grid has
problems, but it's still a pretty impressive achievement. In the case
of electricity, it was clearly beneficial to have a central authority
(lets call it a government) help set standards for voltage, frequency,
etc.
Edison lit up all of downtown Manhattan out of his own pocked. And he
made a nice bundle too. And do not confuse stadardization with
capitalization by way of tax-theft.
I really don't understand the sentiment, which seems so popular these
days, that private industry is the solution to every problem.
That is because industry IS the solution. All the government theft leads
to the letting of private contracts. Except for armories, there are no
government factories. The factories are all private. When the government
lets an RFP or RFQ it is answered by private firms.
There are a sufficient number of counter examples to prove the notion
that tax theft if necessary for the production of public goods, is bogus.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Henry" |
|
| Title: Re: Financing Moon Colony? (for 25 cents) |
14 Jan 2004 01:31:52 PM |
|
|
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobkolker@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in message
news:FreNb.65459$8H.106376@attbi_s03...
The Eirie Canal was privately funded.
"Privately funded" in the sense that investors bought state construction
bonds, after an enableing act was passed by the NY state legislature. The
Erie Canal is and always has been a function of the New York State
government.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: Financing GPS |
14 Jan 2004 11:35:27 PM |
|
|
GPS was a privet deal where the GOV stole the patents .
they conccted thier own version for 100 times the money and not near as
good.
last time I file a pat
they fucked them selves ,,I have a new gps and ple
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: Financing GPS |
15 Jan 2004 05:09:15 AM |
|
|
(tj Frazir) wrote in message news:<7402-4006269F-182@storefull-3211.bay.webtv.net>...
GPS was a privet deal where the GOV stole the patents .
they conccted thier own version for 100 times the money and not near as
good.
last time I file a pat
they fucked them selves ,,I have a new gps and ple
Well garsh! Tj, yor so big an' parful, why don' ya jus' kick thir asses?
-Mark Martin
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Titan Point" |
|
| Title: Re: Financing GPS |
15 Jan 2004 04:57:40 AM |
|
|
(tj Frazir) wrote in message news:<7402-4006269F-182@storefull-3211.bay.webtv.net>...
GPS was a privet deal where the GOV stole the patents .
they conccted thier own version for 100 times the money and not near as
good.
last time I file a pat
they fucked them selves ,,I have a new gps and ple
GPS was a privet deal? Done behind the bushes?
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: Financing GPS |
15 Jan 2004 09:21:24 AM |
|
|
In sci.physics, Titan Point
<titanpoint@yahoo.com>
wrote
on 15 Jan 2004 02:57:40 -0800
<7c642197.0401150257.10c81e3a@posting.google.com>:
GravityPhysics@webtv.net (tj Frazir) wrote in message news:<7402-4006269F-182@storefull-3211.bay.webtv.net>...
GPS was a privet deal where the GOV stole the patents .
they conccted thier own version for 100 times the money and not near as
good.
last time I file a pat
they fucked them selves ,,I have a new gps and ple
GPS was a privet deal? Done behind the bushes?
ITHM "private". A search for "GPS patent theft" dredged up
some interesting stuff (mostly related to using a GPS locator
on a stolen vehicle to find it quickly) but otherwise doesn't
seem to find anything relevant.
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
