Re: Solar powered lasers in space

On Sep 20, 9:42 am, Ian Parker <ianpark...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 20 Sep, 08:47, Willie.Moo...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

> If you do this there is one thing for sure. Ion drive will be able
to

reach anywhere in the solar system fast and cheaply.

Laser powered ion I presume you are saying.. I agree.

Also here a
reminder of the Forward interstellar proposal may not be out of place
here.

Not at all. Pwerful light sails may also be appropriate for probes in
interplanetary space.

I doubt that. If you are going to travel at 0.03c you want an ion
drive that accelerates to 0.05c (say)


Why do you doubt it? What's the basis? You state a conclusion and
provide absolutely no technical data to back it up. I find that
maddening! lol. The way to look at this is propellant fraction,
power level and thrust.

A 1 gee acceleration is convenient for interplanetary travel for a
variety of reasons. First off, you have gravity aboard ship during
the transit. Secondly, you get to where you're going pretty fast.
You fly halfway to your destination, carry out a powered pitchover,
and arrive at zero altitude and zero speed at your destination. With
clever programming the gee forces slide linearly from your start to
your finish so that you are acclimated to the destinations gravity by
the time you get there.

So, lets look at a 1 gee spaceships performance. You may remember
these from elementary physics

d = 1/2 a t^2
v = a t

So,

t = v / a

and so

d = v^2 /(2a)

Where d= distance travelled
a = acceleration
t = time
v = velocity

So, the velocity needed to attain the halfway point is

v = sqrt(d * a)

And the total delta vee to achieve the trip is

V = 2 * v

and the time in hours needed to make the trip is

t = V / 9.82 / 3600

So, we can construct the following chart

m kps hours LSD
Earth to d sqrt(d*a) t u
Moon 3.86E+08 61.60 1.74 2.03%
Mars-close 7.50E+10 858.20 24.28 24.88%
Mars-far 3.75E+11 1,918.98 54.28 47.25%
Venus-close 4.50E+10 664.76 18.80 19.88%
Venus-far 2.55E+11 1,582.43 44.76 40.99%
Ceres-close 2.70E+11 1,628.31 46.06 41.89%
Ceres-far 5.70E+11 2,365.88 66.92 54.55%
Mercury-close 9.00E+10 940.11 26.59 26.90%
Mercury-far 2.10E+11 1,436.04 40.62 38.04%
Jovia 8.55E+11 2,897.60 81.96 61.93%

So sailing the inner solar system in a 1 gee spaceship would be like
sailing the Pacific in a cruise ship. You'd have islands like the
moon, that are only hours a way. You'd have nearby territories like
Mars and Venus that are only a day or two away. Then you'd have the
outer planets that are weeks away.

The factor u is the propellant fraction for a Laser Sustained
Detonation (LSD) rocket operating with an exhaust velocity of 3000 km/
sec (kps)

Now, lets look at the power levels needed to achieve that, and the
propellant fractions. The first thing we realize is that to have
reasonable propellant fractions we need exhaust speeds to match the
flight speeds.

Vf = Ve * LN(1/(1-u))

so

u = 1 - 1/EXP(Vf/Ve)

So, Vf/Ve must be less than or equal to 1 to have reasonable u.
3,000 kps - is a specific impulse of 30,000 - which is damned
difficult to achieve. And power to weight of the engine must be
tremendous. So, an ion rocket with 5,000 sec Isp - won't cut it for
this application. (it would do fine for 1/10th gee or 1/100th gee
operation) some sort of laser sustained detonation of inert working
fluids would be needed. This is nearly an exact analogue of nuclear
pulse propulsion, but the energizing force comes from pulses of laser
energy accurately directed at a thrust structure.

The power level to produce 1 kgf is

F = mdot * Ve
P = 1/2 mdot * Ve ^2

So,

mdot = 2 * P / Ve^2

and so

F = 2 * P / Ve

This is in newtons and 1 kgf = Newton / 9.82

so..

F(kgf) = P / (4.91 * Ve)

And with Ve = 3,000 kps = 3e6 m/sec we need 14.73 MW per kgf of
thrust. That's 7.37 quadrilion watts of power. And this is the low
power solution!!! haha.. The world has a few thousand super
tankers. To operate a few thousand interplanetary freighters with
this capacity requires tapping into 1e20 watts of power. Such
capacity would tie humanity together across the interplanetary
frontier.

At 1MW per sq meter - the sun centered laser array would have to cover
1e8 sq km of area. A disk 11,283 km in diameter - about the size of
the Earth - a very small fraction of the sun's total surface. Four
disks 6,000 km in diameter equally spaced around the plane of the
ecliptic would provide adequate power for a fleet of such spacecraft.

Humanity today consumes 10 TW of power - 1/10,000,000th the power
level postulated here. Needless to day, any industrial activity we
wanted to carry out on the planets or in free flying space colonies,
could easily be provided as well. This might also form the basis of
maintaining government control over this far flung array of humans, to
keep them from using high tech to attack one another - and stopping
the possibility of interplanetary war.

A laser light sail requires no propellant, but power levels go way up
for both high thrusts, small sail size, and for ton of payload
moved.

There are two ways to do this. One is to heat a body to very high
temperatures and use the black body radiation for propulsion - this
requires some sort of plasma containment system that can't be built.
The other (if we are to have high gee forces) is to use a mirror to
reflect nearly all the energy incident on it. In order to limit the
size of the mirror.

To make logistics simple, it would be nice to have the mirrors operate
like wings do on aircraft - exerting 100 kg/m2 or more. A disk like
spacecraft that had multi-mode capabilities would be interesting.
That is, a spherical payload encircled by a mirror disk, that might
also operate as a radiator propulsor short term - for landing and
operating out of sight of the sun...

Black body thrustor

Pr = 1/3 ar T^4

Where ar = radiation constant = 7.57e-16 J/m3/K4
T = temp K
Pr = radiation pressure (watts/m2)

To exert 100 kg/m2 requires a temperature of 45,000 K - and the power
output of that square meter is

j = sigma * T^4

Where j = watts/m2
T = temp K
sigma = stephan boltzman constant = c * ar / 4
= 5.67e-8

j = 5.67e-8 * 45,000^4 = 232.5e9 W/m2

So, 1/100th of a meter squared, would be a square 10cm on a side,
would produce 1 kg of thrust, and consume 2.32 GW of power!!! Compare
this to 14.7 MW of power needed for 1 kgf in the LSD rocket!! But
the great advantage here is that no propellant is needed.

This is a black body radiator, some sort of cavity containing a
magnetically stabilized plasma - that efficiently absorbs powerful
laser energy. By encasing the cavity in a reflective parabolid that
transmits the laser energy but reflects the bulk of the plasma
radiation in a desired direction, the surface can absorb laser energy
from one direction and emit radiation in another direction. By having
a certain amount of plasma that stores a goodly amount of energy -
thrust can be maintained for a period of time - without direct
illumination. Excellent for landing and takeoffs, where laser energy
may be a hazard (the plasma itself would be a hazard if the cavity
developed any leaks! - and the exhaust itself would also be a hazard -
it may be possible to use the plasma energy directly by venting it for
landing and take off.

A mirror based system has the following relation;

Pressure = 2 U / c

Where U = power per unit area, c = speed of light, Pressure = N/m2

So, 100 kg /m2 = 982 N/m2 implies U = 3e8 m/sec * 982 N/m2 / 2 = 147.3
GW/m2 - which is less than that required for the radiation pressure
mode - and actually, the radiation pressure mode above, doesn't
include the momentum that is obtained from absorbing the light energy
in the first place.. which can help or hinder the thrust effects
depending on how the cavity is arrayed relative to the energy being
beamed in.

Of course to keep temperatures under control requires VERY VERY highly
reflective mirrors. Before the invention of GBO films I would say
such things would be impossible. But the advent of GBO films that
have reflectivities in excess of aluminized coatings - suggest that
continued development along this path would allow mirrors that absorb
less than 1 part per million of the incident energy. This means that
the wings need only disappate 150 kW/m2 - which implies an operating
temp of 1,269 K - which can be sustained by known materials. So, the
ability to construct GBO type films that are 99.9999% or more
reflective - would allow the attachment of winglets that when
illuminated by very powerful laser pulses, could exert sizeable lift
on the vehicle.

1.47 GW per kg is 100x more energy per unit thrust than the 3,000 kps
LSD propulsion system. So, the energy level is 100x as great -
requiring 400 disks 6,000 km in diameter circulating above the solar
surface beaming energy continuously to spacecraft criss crossing the
solar system - at an average power of 1e22 watts !! Even at this
higher level, the sun produces 38,622x this figure!! So, we have
hardly impacted its ability even with this level of power usage.

Of course the interesting fact is that a Forward probe (interstellar)
is going to be the end result. However there are a lot of intermediate
goodies in what you propose, so the chance of it getting off the
ground is increased.

Correct. Forward's ideas also scale - you start with small probes and
graduate to larger payloads - eventually piloted missions involving
Bernal stations and whatnot.

Doing as Dyson suggests, and converting the entire output of the sun
to industrial use - but in this case, using stationary laser cells
held in place by solar wind - that coordinate their action by creating
a phased array of the elements - using an external reference beam - at
20% efficiency - would be far far less massive than a typical Dyson
sphere, and be able to establish substantial interstellar commerce.

For example, a 1 mm thick laser film made of some sort of ceramic -
engulfing the sun at a radius of 5 million km - would mass only 754
trillion tons - a sold sphere only 120 km in diameter - So, a handful
of well chosen asteroids converted to cells that form the type of film
we're talking about would be able to produce as laser energy 85e24
watts!!! Converted to kinetic energy at 30% efficiency using laser
light sails permits 5.1 million metric tons per second to be
dispatched to the stars at 1/3 light speed. That's 10 or so space
colony sized payloads each second.

You will need something with which to construct them.

Well, lets look at it this way; compute the sphere of solid material
needed to built the film areas of the various proposed system
operating above the solar surface;

1e13 Watts is humanity's current power usage 3.5 m diam sphere
1e20 Watts lets LSD based interplanetary cruisers predominate -
755 m diam sphere
1e22 Watts lets light sail wing based interplanetary cruisers
predominate - 3.5 km diam sphere
4e26 Watts is the sun's total output - this requires processing a
120 km diam sphere of material

We can certainly build a system that provides for humanity's energy
needs today - building it with human labor.

We can even contemplate with mass production doing the second and
third step - having a number of factories operating with a number of
rail guns.

Moving into space in a big way, with everyone having megayacht sized
space homes - and bigger - personal space colonies - will require AI,
robotics and probably self-replicating machine systems. So, as these
capacities naturally arise, we will naturally use them to increase our
energy supplies to the level needed to sustain our space faring life
style.

The point is we shouldn't wait until AI, robotics and VN machines are
commonplace before starting. We obtain huge benefits today by doing
what we can today with today's industrial infrastructure.

Terrestrial solar, Earth orbiting power sats, sun orbiting powersats,
high intensity sun surfing powersats





Reducing payload speeds to 3% light speed - increases mass-flow rate
100x. 3% light speed is the delta vee of a spacecraft at constant 1
gee boost travelling from Earth to Pluto.

Engulfing the sun in this way - taking care to not adversely impact
the natural sunlight illuminating the solar system - permits humanity
to treat the solar system as an integrated nation-state, and the
nearby stars as frontiers which anyone who owns a (space) home could
decide to emmigrate to.

Here is where the von-neuman self replication can have benefits.
Sending a Forward 2-stage star-sail to nearby stars, carrying a
replicator probe that made laser cells from any appropriate asteroidal
materials found locally - then a 1 stage laser light sail could
navigate between the stars at high speed. When the star was fully
engulfted - and the planetary system fully surveyed - and the results
radioed back to the parent star. Then 2 unexplored nearby stars would
be chosen to send daughter probes to - and the system will have joined
human space...

600 million space colonies per year arriving from Earth - would flow
thorugh this network - but, if they contained a family each - say 5
people - with a retinue of robots, and replicators - along with their
portable biosphere - and radio telescope - a world of 12 billion
humans would only be able to supply a 5 year pulse before denuding the
solar system of people.

This may be the answer to Fermi's whree are they question. High rates
of reproduction only occur at certain places and time for any
species. Once they become space faring - their reproductive rates
fall, and technology spreads them throughout the galaxy - and the
average density of ANY species - is small - far from their point of
origin..

I think you will find that people want to live in settlements.

I think you are not familiar with the psychology, history, and
sociology of human beings.

They
try to strike a compromise between a city with its congestion and a
homestead.

Only by necessity. If you could obtain the services and benefits of a
big city like New York, without having to put up with New York - most
people would do it.

Consider an age where everyone has an O'Neill style spacecraft with
maybe 5 people on board, 2 adults and 3 kids. They travel in packs of
10 to 100 in a cluster. Each spacecraft has maybe 500 to 5000
humaniform robots. Each spacecraft also has in a box, the entire
complement of personalities of the human race - past and present. The
cluster is in direct instant communication with each other. The
cluster is also in contact through an interstellar network with every
other human settlement. So, the latest skills and personalities and
so forth - are available online - and can be made available via
humaniform robots - and avatars. So, if for example you needed a
medical treatment you would have your robo-doc software - with the
latest upgrades available. If you needed anything really, you could
make it on your own world. You could travel from cluster to cluster -
and your space colony has a number of interplanetary and interstellar
cruisers on board - piloted by robots and software... and there's
virtual reality.

Also, note that there is a difference between people who have not
reproduced yet, and those who have. That is, children have a tendency
to grow restless, break away from the group, find mates, and return to
a group once they have their own kids.

So, kids when they reach a certain age will break away from their
parents and group, and stick around communities where they can meet
others their own age. This will likely be in the guise of making it
on their own - despite the bulk of the work being done by automation,
or education, despite the availability of excellent education software
- it would likely be known though as socialization - and cross
fertilization.

This might change even as well, if humaniform robots can take on super
accurate human sexual characteristics. That way sexually active teens
and young adults could interact sexually with a small group of
sexually compatible humaniform robots - selected from the entire
population of humans who ever were recorded - and have trysts with
them. This would work best if one could construct a virtual reality
world - simlilar to Star Trek's holodeck - where one could interact
with 'the world' - a virtual community consisting of the sum total of
human beings operating real time in a super computer virtual reality.
This would have the great advantage in that sexually maturing adults
could safely and completely sample a wide range of human cultures and
extract from the virtual world, personalities that suited them. In
the end, mating could be carried out by exchanging genetic materials -
or in more advanced form - exchanging genetic information with 'the
world'

If done properly this would lead to a vitilization of the remote
community - and the full participation of every human in the larger
community of man.

Somewhere there is a compromise that suits the majority of
people.

This is only by necessity of our limited technology involving
primitive forms of communication, transportation and production.

If the lifespan of people radically increased, if people
started having "second families" you might have more of a case.

I have a case based on the fact that humans throughout most of their
history lived in small bands of nomadic people who subsisted in the
environment without outside assistance. Sociologically we are set up
to operate that way. We adapt to the 'pressures' of civilization
because of the huge benefits it confers each of us. The reason modern
society accentuates sexuality and sexual adventure is because its one
of the few hooks that society has for promoting super sociable
behavior. Folks who have a satisfactory sexual coupling and are
happily building a life together are viewed in modern culture as a
nearly unattainable goal, rather than as a normal maturation process
once we are somewhat past our teen years. That's because folks in
this idyllic situation become much less controllable and tend to go
their own way.

I presume that such demands for social control will be removed in the
not too distant future and we will operate once again in a saner age
where such large scale socialization is not needed.

The
case, as I see it at the moment, is for a solar powered Earth with a
population of 9 billion. Space based solar power may quite possibly be
the answer.

I agree. I am working on low-cost terrestrial solar and I'm exploring
the potential of augmenting that with space based power in the next 5
to 7 years. Beyond that, developing what I call reforming satellites
that redirect laser energy - and then sun centered powersats within
the next 15 to 20 years.

One of the facts about human habitation is that 90% of the worlds
population lives on 10% of the surface. If you do have abundant solar
power, one of the things that could be done is to desalinate and make
the desert fertiile. People who are not space enthusiasts will ask the
following questions.

1) Lots of people live in the so called Sahel region of scrubland
which is on the southern fringe of the Sahara. Can this area be made
reliably fertile?

Yes. Thin film low cost inflatable structures that have well defined
optical properties can be made into low cost habitats, and low cost
green houses. Combined with desalinated seawater available at low
cost -large areas can be irrigated without the problem of evaporation
and degradation of the soil. Aeroponics is also promising in this
context.

2) Could cities be constructed in air conditioned domes, again in the
Sahara?

Yes, with adequate power from space. These might be considered
elementary tests that must be solved before building habitats off-
world.

A ball of stars 100 light ywars across centered on Earth there is
something like 15,000 star systems. 2.4 billion space colonies spread
across this volume of space mean only 160,000 colonies per star system
- 1000 light years and there are 15 million stars - at 3/8% growth
rate per year - exponential growth - human numbers - increase 42 times
- to 100 billion space colonies - but the stars available to humanity
increase 1,000x to 15 million - and the number of five person space
colonies per star drop to less than 7,000 !!! 35,000 people.

There are the political and military risks. To me going into space
because of "political" risks is not a sound policy - if nothing ellse
for the simple reason that space will not solve the problems and could
easily make them worse.

This has been an issue because missiles were first developed as part
of strategic bombing doctrine and containment of that ability has been
the number one job of the post world war 2 era. That doctrine has
protected us and maintained an uneasy world peace. But that is
crumbling in the face of modern terror threats. Those terror threats
arise because control of ability is no longer effective. We must
graduate (as experts have long warned us to do) to the next phase of
maintaining peace - control of willingness.. Success on this front
will permit the means for space travel to finally be made more broadly
available to approved commercial and scientific users.

In fact dangerous events occur far more often than once every 65
million years.

I agree. But selling the government on a space sheild is far harder
than selling a group of investors on a supply for titanium or
osmium... or even for energy and food.

NASA has already been sold on the idea. It has produced the report. It
is putting quite a bit of effort in.

They will get money to look for possible collisions and do lab work to
develop possible solutions. They will write reports, and it will go
away. But unless a collision is immenent they will not build anything
of substance.

However, the same data in the hands of a commercial developer could
garner significant money today.

Consider that the US government - the world's richest government -
will spend $2.9 trillion in 2008 - which is a large segment of the $12
trillion US economy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us_federal_budget

But consider now that the global economy produces $65 trillion and
that 9.5 million high-net-worth people have a nest egg totalling $32
trillion. Most of this is liquid - and looking for reasonable
investments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_wealth_report

If a group of scientists along with a number of high-tech vendors got
together and made a reasonable plea for a high-tech investment along
the lines we're describing -with some sort of immediate payoff
(marketable security worth a goodly fraction of the present value of
the future income) - you might be able to garner $3 trillion to $4
trillion very quickly!! And do significant things again very quickly
- without a lot of the politics.

Once you successfully delivered on the promises made on the first go
round - you'd find another $8 trillion to $10 trillion available...

At that point -supposing you'd provide a 30% or more ROI - the whole
project becomes self funding. You'd get a bubble - but it would be
supported by increased outputs and so forth. In all, you'd kick up
the global economy from 4% per annum to something like 14% per annum -
which would support your growth.

That is, success would be self- propelled after the first and second
go round. In short, you'd be bankable.. and you'd have access to the
world's banking assets at that point - and after that, access to your
own self generated revenue stream. This is the benefit of profits.
You can use them to sustain growth, while throwing off payments to
those who took the early risk.


And some of the existential risks. The question of military
expenditures, and the fact that the peoples on Earth are unable to
live together, is something profoundly worrying. Space alone will not
solve it.

The people are not the problem. The governments and societies they
have structured for themselves are the problem. Ken Arrow a Nobel
Prize winning economist has outlined precisely why governments and
markets cannot achieve what we expect of them. Alice Miller explains
why we are fascinated as a species with power and death. Sigmund
Frued explains why we have adopted a father in the sky figure as our
expression of absolute power. Joseph Campbell has explained how
religions have tapped into our impulse for life and subverted it.
Brownowski has explained how technology and science has been subverte
by culture.

We know the answers - scientists and rational folk have just been shy
about asserting what they know to be true - sensing that reality
doesn't matter to the bulk of humanity. Everyone else is being lied
to and their emotions managed for selfish ends.

I profoundly disagree.

You are profoundly wrong.

We have indeed been lied to about Iraq,

That's one type of lie. There are others. For example, that smoking
cigarettes will make you sexy. Or that drinking to excess will make
you happy. Or that spending in excess will make you successful.

These lies benefit those who tell them, at the expense of those who
believe them.

but let
us remember this. It is the Iraqis and not the Americans that have
produced 4 million odd refugees. 2 million within Iraq and 2 million
is surrounding countries. I shall be going on a tour of Syria late on
the October. There are 1m Iraqis there.

America created the concept of the rouge state shortly after opec
flexed its muscle over oil supplies. This after the US oil production
reached its peak and entered secondary production. The US knew that
it only had 40 to 50 years before the world's oil production reached
its peak as well. (this is quite different than the the world running
out of oil - which won't happen for 200 years or more) - which is now
only 10 years away. The market is already adjusting to the changing
value of oil - increasing the price from $10 per barrel in the 1980s
to over $60 per barrel today.

All rogue states were oil rich countries - and together they comprised
50% of the world's oil reserves. The US had plans to put these
reserves in storage - and let the others use their oil profits to
expand output above that which oil companies would have deemed prudent
in a world where ALL producers were competing in the market - this had
the impact of moderating the price of oil - at the expense of those
who were nominally benefitting - by accelerating their usage of oil.
This benefitted the US by stabilizing prices at around $12 per barrel
- 6x the price enjoyed by the consumer when the US had excess capacity
(oil was $2 per barrel before 1970s shortages). Now, when Saudi
Arabia, Indonesia, and other major OPEC members are entering secondary
production - the US finds reason to institute regime change in these
former rogue regimes - and bring them online.

Clearly this long term policy was planned - there are even papers
available from US state department and others. Plainly it was a way
to moderate the supply of oil in a way the benefitted the US relative
to all other players in the market. Obviously this is our primary
motivation. Just compare our attitudes of WMD in Iraq and need to
invade Iran because of a nuclear power program versus our continuing
lack of interest in Pakistani nuclear weapons - which already exist,
and the nuclear program of North Korea (which was of no real interest
until the North shot off a rocket capable of reaching US homeland)

I hold no brief for Bush, it is all his handiwork,

Bush, like any President is doing his best for America and all
Americans. America elected him. He truly believed we would be
greeted as liberators. We were not. He had no game plan for if he
was wrong. Now he's stuck and he's reviled. This really is
incidental to our long-term strategy. If in the summer of 2004 a
great peace settled over Iraq, and a free Iraq inspired Iran to throw
off the yoke of their ultra-religious zealots and embrace freedom -
and both nations were pumping tons of oil into the world market - and
oil was $22 per barrel - and this made it so that Putin would have to
kiss the West's ass for money - Bush would be hailed as a great genius
and liberator and would be given the Nobel prize by the Europeans as a
means to apologize for not helping him.

That is, the reasons for going in don't matter as much as what is
achieved after we got in.

The question we should be asking is why we weren't greeted as
liberators? And what would it have taken for that to happen?

9/11 can be called an intelligence failure. I think the week after
the Iraqi people pulled down statues of Saddam, there was a similar
intelligence failure - they hadn't prepared the ground for victory, or
given sufficient thought to how to handle the various factions and
bring in their neighbors in a positive way.

Of course in retrospect, Bush lost New Orleans to Katrina largely due
to his inattention to details - so, getting the details wrong isn't
surprising.

I believe that a better President who paid attention to the details
that mattered - COULD have affected a regime change and gotten out
with the oil flowing. Those details may involve some culpability.
Halliburton, and others close to the VP may be involved. Their greed
may have alienated stakeholders in the Iraqi population who needed
consideration to make a peaceful outcome possible. If so, this needs
to be revealed and corrective action taken.

Ditto for Afghanistan, although its not so important to American
interest as an oil rich state, but Afghanistan is important to long
term relations with the muslim world. The fact that a gas pipeline
from Russia to the Indian ocean got built while heroin still flows
unaffected - is only one indicator that we are not doing all we can
for American interests in the muslim world - but we are here caving in
to powerful special interests in America under the guise of serving
America.

getting rid of
Saddam Hussein opened up Pandora's box.

Nearly all muslims in Iraq hated Saddam. More than they hated each
other. This was the fundamental reason Bush felt we would be greeted
as liberators. And he was in the main right. But details count, and
he got the details wrong - if he even knew of them in the first
place. The intelligence community needed to get their act in gear and
really get the details right. Like I said, getting rid of Saddam
could have inured to our benefit. WE let things get out of control
because details were not attended to. That was too bad for us.

However it does rather rubbish
the Rousseau theory.

Not at all. If New York City were under the dictatorial control of a
single person who raped them financially, someone who knocked that guy
out would be greeted as a hero - depending on what happens after!!!
We did a lot of things wrong after - bowing to field commanders and
others with short term tactical goals - at the expense of long term
strategic goals. There are lots of different factions who live in New
York and they don't all like one another. If they were set at each
others throats for 20 years to empower a dictator - and then that
dictator fell. There would be a day or two of celebration - but
without strong police, fire, and public services, without immediate
economic benefits - no matter how slight - flowing from the liberation
- without identifying and eliminating individuals who form the centers
of resistance before the liberation fight is started - New York would
quickly fall into turmoil.

It has nothing to do with Rousseau or the propensity of New Yorkers
toward violence. It has everything to do with going into something
without getting all the details right. I mean, a surgeon can say you
need to have an open heart surgery to clear a blocked artery and tell
you all the benefits that will have for you. But if the surgeon gets
one little thing wrong - you're dead. So, there's a lot of planning
and a lot of training and a lot of thought going into your surgery
before he starts cutting. If the surgeon tells you you have a blocked
artery and you don't, and then doesn't pay attention to some detail -
ordering nurses from the OR who bother him with those details - and
you die as a result - are you going to believe the surgeon that says,
well I tried, some people don't make it, he had a weak heart! no -
you'd sue his ass for negligence. But before you did that you'd
collect the evidence. You'd get the video of the OR, you'd get
testimony from dismissed nurses, and so forth. Of course if the
surgeon also works for the courts, he might supress certain evidence
and deny access to certain people and information - and all the while
question your family who was trying to cash in on the death of their
father/husband - would you side with the surgeon?

Being a surgeon is tough. Being a president is tough. But we need to
think clearly about what's going on and do what's appropriate given
our situation and opportunities at this time. I think a new president
can work with the UN to increase their level of involvement - while
reducing US involvement - and attempt to try again being greeted as
liberators. That is, we don't want to encourage those who think that
by bombing Americans they can get them to leave. This will encourage
extremists to bomb Americans at home. As many military folks warned -
America doesn't have the resources to have a war in Iraq, a war in
Afghanistan and meet our global military commitments - so, we need the
UN before we go in. So, lets go get UN support like we did in Bosnia
and the first Gulf War. And then leave it to them - but getting the
details of the hand off right - so that THEY are greeted as
liberators. See?

But fortunately, I don't have to solve this problem - and so, it
doesn't matter if I'm right or not. But this is my thought on the
subject.

Get past personalities and so forth and look at the facts.


In fact I would put things the other way round.
Governments in fact reflect the prejudices of their populations.

There is an interaction. Despite what we tell ourselves markets and
governments are incapable of doing what we expect of them. This is a
scientific fact. Arrow proved it. There is not good solution - and
this knowledge is used by specialists to expand the control of
specialists at great cost to everyone else.

That is, people make irrational choices collectively that they
wouldn't make individually and so often they make collective choices
that are not in their own interest. Condorcet first noted that cycles
of voting can occur over long periods. Arrow explained in detail why
in the 1950s. Rather than correct this shortcoming, specialists have
exploited this shortcoming to manage political processes. Where
applicable, and to a lesser extent, the narrow shortcomings of the
market due to this are exploited by marketers to increase profits.
But the major unraveling of government began in earnest in the 1950s
and have accelerated ever since. The military's failure in Vietnam to
win the hearts and minds of the American public, has highlighted the
importance of infowar to modern warfare. So, this hasn't helped
candid public discourse either - and a possible return to
representative government.


There
was anti semitism in Germany after WW1. Hitler did not create it. He
expoited it in an extremely cynical way, but it was there all the
time.

Anti-semitism still exists. But there is an interaction. Governments
can serve as a bulwark against irrationality, or they can catalyze
irrationality. In the modern age of the rise of special interests at
the expense of society at large, irrationality has increased. It is
easy to see in our erstwhile enemies. Harder to see in ourselves.


I was absolutely aghast when Einar, I think i was, suggested that
religious groups should set up colonies in space. She should go with
me to Syria and continue to the Iraqi border.

Religious practice has devolved as well as political practice into the
irrational. Many modern scientific minds believe religion to be akin
to noise or the definition of irrationality.

They ignore that there is a mysterium tremendum - as Freud called it -
that is an integral part to the human experience and part of being
human. It is often the most cherished aspect of being alive.

Younger folks may feel it when they fall in love - or when they give
birth, or raise children.

One in three astronauts who went to the moon had profoundly moving
experiences due to their journey. Some sought psychiatric care,
others started new age type movements, still others entered religious
orders.

Such feelings are also common - though less frequently - among
survivors of great tragedies or great battles.

Others seek such 'oceanic' feelings by imbibing mind altering drugs,
or engaging in a variety of self-hypnotic practices, or religious
practices or retreats.

It is very likely that anyone who lives aboard a spacecraft that
leaves Earth and is transported across the solar system would have a
large percentage of their population transformed in a religious sense
by the experience.

One Jesus, one Buddah, on Lao Tzu, one Ghandi, one Martin Luther King
- in a 100 generations is highly disruptive to society and the powers
that be. They are crucified, shot, deported, or transform their
society - or both - having 5% to 10% of the entire population EACH
generation having such oceanic beatific and transcendant insights into
the human condition - is an unknown factor in human affairs. Against
such a reality - religions brought along from Earth will be radically
altered and may be of no account whatever.

How can this be cured.

What? Irrationality?

Well, Freud showed that belief in a male God figure is directly
connected to the drama of a child's relationship with his or her
father. Change that relationship - and belief in God is diminished.

Alice Miller showed that adult fascination with power money violence
and death - stems from the drama of a child's powerlessness. Change
the way children are reared so that they are empowered and self
actualized, and fascination with power money violence and death
disappear.

Joseph Campbell showed that fascination with religions stem from the
meaning it gives to our banal existence. It is the hero task of the
modern age to create deeply satisfying meaning from rational thought
and scientific understanding and capacity. This has not been done.
If it is not done science will serve to fuel our self destruction and
the promise of science and rational thought will have failed us.

One aspect Campbell discussed quite extensively, is his concept of the
monomyth - this cycle of adventure, discovery and rebirth - common to
all religions according to Campbell - stems from our history as a
species that expands its range by means of innovation - creating in
the process frontiers - regions that are newly habitable by dint of
new technology, but contain only resources and no competitors. The
frontier occupies the same emotional space as heaven, and the drama
surrounding the development of the frontier - mimics the drama and
meaning surrounding entry into heaven. Campbell suggested that this
mythic connection may provide an answer for science to provide the
bulk of humanity deeply meaningful and accurate connections to science
and technology. Space travel, with its endless frontier, offer a very
reap potential field for this development.

Ken Arrow showed that individual human value was non-transitive.
Therefore any method that adds up measures of human value to make
collective choice are subject to certain types of failure. This
failure explains cycles in voting and cycles in markets. This
discovery was immediately siezed by advertizers marketers and
politicans to exploit for individual gain at the expense of the
general markets and political processes. There has been a slow
unravelling of both over the past 50 years. This trend will
continue. At present there is no solution to Arrow's Impossibility
Theorem.

I have suggested the adaptation of Wassily Leontieff's input output
method of econometric analysis be adapted to create a system I call
VECTOR MONEY. Since ordered lists of numbers also are non-transitive
like human values, its easy to show they are not subject to the same
limitations outlined by Arrow. I have even gone so far as to suggest
a method involving distributed decision making using vector money and
PDAs connected by internet - as a means to supplant all existing
political and economic systems. In the face of decreasing
effectiveness of existing systems, any workable system will displace
older systems naturally without revolution or any sort of concerted
action. All that's needed is that people be presented with the
opportunity to use something that works and they will ultimately
abandon systems that don't work.

Cetrtainly not by taking a wishy wasy Rousseau
position as you seem to.

I never mentioned Rousseau - so I don't know where you got that.

Governments have a responsibility to
eliminate prejudice as far as they can.

Why? Government is a product of human behavior. It doesn't exist
apart from humans. So, its proper scientific study is as a subset of
psychology.

They have a duty also to
protect their countries (obviously)

Why? Countries are merely ideas that exist in the heads of people.
They are nothing more than ideas. How do you protect an idea? Why is
protecting an idea worth a human life?

This fascination with survival and dominance has been traced by Dr.
Miller to the powerlessness children feel when they are ignored by
adults. These disempowered children vow, and make good on on those
vows, to never be powerless as an adult. This fuels a fascination
with power, money, prestige, size, violence and death. Children who
do not feel disempowered do not have such a fascination and are far
more rational.

The rise of nationalism corresponded to changes in child rearing
practices in the 1880s - and have created a self-propagating series of
events that have made the identification with national identity
stronger with each succeeding generation. This is another disruptive
trend. Governments have not been shy in exploiting this connection
and creating institutions that institutionalize the abuse of children
for the purpose of building more compliant citizens - while at the
same time, eliminating troubling sections of their early training -
against the wishes of academia.

Clearly when we connect emotionally with governments because we feel
they can protect us from other nations - we do so because we
personally feel threatened and by those nations and this sense of
threat is diminished by the association. Unexplored is the
culpability of our nation in creating the situation in the first place
- or the possibility that everyone would be better off if we got rid
of nationalistic notions in the first place. Rarely is this idea even
broached - such as John Lennon's song - IMAGINE.

but not to push the arms race
forward and always be prepared to sit down to discuss disarmament.

Why? Identifying ourselves with a nation is a means to possess power
when we would otherwise feel powerless. It evokes deep seated fears
and irrationalities that go right back to our earliest years when we
were powerless before all adults. No one sits down and talks
disarmament, unless they are talking from a position of strength, and
then they are forcing a lesser nation to disarm or face the dire
consequences of a superior force. This is what you mean when you say
that. You don't mean the US or whatever nation you're from - would
sit down hat in hand and agree to be bullied around by a superior
force do you?

You are believing many of the lies that have become part of the global
culture over the past 50 years. This warps and perverts your
thinking.

There is no reason to have nations in the modern age. There is a
reason to have a global police force - aimed at enforcing a peace, and
a global military to disarm everyone uniformly - and then like George
Washington - lay down his arms and return home when it was done.

Man is not Rousseau, Man is the Lord of the Flies.

Men and women are neither. People make ideas live, they don't live
for ideas.



The greatest threat humanity faces isn't from space. Its from
outselves. People sense that, and so talk of space shields and space
travel even, makes no sense to them.

This is true.

Yes and one of the greatest threats we face is when we objectify
other human beings on the basis of race, religion, national origin,
and so forth.

People want answers to the above questions.

No, they want security that was denied them as children, they want
support of their fellows, and they want to be accepted by their
fellows, and they want to be satisfied that they are doing all they
can for their families and themselves while they pursue happiness for
them and those they love no matter what changes occur in the world.
Any society that reliable and effectively offers this to everyone
alive will succeed. At present various nations promise this to their
citizens and where they fail attempt to cast the blame on others
outside the nation. This leads naturally to conflict, and irrational
acts of violence against the scapegoats. The only real solution is to
actually fix the problems we know about - and not use failure modes
for gain by the special interests - and create a social system that
works, and back it with industry and science - and make it freely
available to all - to bring peace and progress to humanity - and
fulfill the promise of science and technology.

recently
there was a Poker contest between Man and Machine. I posed in
sci.maths that Von Neumann was right (about Poker at least). The
minimax strategy works.

This is a game. The real world is more complex. Any game involves a
tacit agreement to play the game. Minimax won't help you if one of
the players pulls out his six shooter shoots you through the head and
takes your wallet.

With this in mind, assuming that cooperation is impossible and
conflict is inevitable, then we are led inevitably the violence the
converting the civilized world to a version of Beruit. If you are
saying conflict is inevitable but everyone can agree on the game -
then I would say - why this game and not a different one? If you are
saying that the game has certain benefits in searching for better
survival strategies - then I would say wouldn't cooperation be better
suited in some instances.

The point is, we've nevr had a political system that works because
Arrow's paradox shows us that none of the political systems or market
systems are capable of fulfilling their promises to us. So it should
not be surprising that we are being failed by our political system.
What is especially grievous in the modern age is that our
understanding of our failures politically have been used by
specialists to exercise control over society at large for their
benefit - at the expense of society at large.

Howver the world is not a Poker game.

That is true.

The world is a stag hunt.

That is not true.

Every
side will gain from cooperation.

That is true if we continue to develop frontiers where there are
untapped resources with no competitors around to bother us. This is
what led to human cooperativeness in the first place.

The problem is convincing people of
this.

No, the problem is finding and pointing out the stag. People who do
so are uniformly attacked by governments and other special interests
who see in the success of this strategy their own demise. We lack an
effective frontier on which we all can agree. JFK wanted us to turn
our high technology from head to head competition of the cold war, to
the far more fruitful competition of the space race. Nations of Earth
would compete with one another in developing resources and capacities
off world in the frontier of interplanetary space - much as Europe
developed sea faring capcities and avoided conflict for hundreds of
years - while engaging in powerful competition across the world. This
was his vision - that the US would be the first among all nations to
develop the opportunities and resources of interplanetary space for
the betterment of mankind.

He was shot in November 1963 and in December 1963 Lyndon Johnson and
Robert McNamara cut back on the nuclear propulsion programs of the
US, the scope and range of post- apollo landing, and spent more money
on Vietnam. In the end the US spent $20 billion on moonships with 5
dead, $200 billion on Vietnam, with 50,000 dead, and $2,000 billion on
ICBMs, with potential 5,000,000,000 dead.

The irony is that I am not asking for people to be unselfish.

Cooperation does not require one to be unselfish.

In
fact in some ways I am asking them to be more selfish.

Selfishness depending on context can be good or bad for society.

The 9/11
hijackers were unselfish when all is said and done. They were in fact
the Lords of Flies and were NOT promted by ...

Women in muslim societies are highly disrespected compared to men -
moreso than in non-muslim countries. They also are primary care
givers to children. Alice Miller and others note that this leads to a
generational sort of transaction. Women are abused as adults by men,
and so, they subconciously abuse their sons as children. Their sons
grow up to abuse the women in their live as a means to get even. This
creates an increasing cycle of violence and unhappiness. This
unhappiness is exploited by religious and political leaders to gain
power. When the promises of those leaders remain unfulfilled, they
point to those outside their culture as the source. This causes those
people to project their unhappiness on those outside sources. This
leads to extremists who take action to redress the supposed abuses of
those outsiders.



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Solar powered lasers in space
    ... Now, lets look at the power levels needed to achieve that, and the ... energy accurately directed at a thrust structure. ... The power level to produce 1 kgf is ... production - the US finds reason to institute regime change in these ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Cybernetic gear in Gurps?
    ... By which I assume you mean psionics since the other modifications ... Power Level 1-10: x1 cost ... Power Level 11-20: x2 cost ...
    (rec.games.frp.gurps)
  • Re: Amplitude Decibel conversion problem
    ... equivalent to resulting electrical power, but we are not comparing anything ...  Most of our measuring equipment measures things in voltage. ... So we are stuck in a position where we want to compare one power level ...
    (comp.dsp)
  • Re: "The Chernobyl disaster very probably a sabotage" ["no, just same procedure as last year"]
    ... to generate power after the reactor was shutdown. ... See any good reactor physics text to understand why Xe ... power level, the flow of coolant through the core was adjusted downward ... insertion of the control rods would actually *increase* power initially ...
    (sci.energy)
  • Re: "The Chernobyl disaster very probably a sabotage" ["no, just same procedure as last year"]
    ... generate power after the reactor was shutdown. ... In order to complete the test, the reactor power level had to be at a low ... more control rods had to be withdrawn further than normally ... flow of coolant through the core was adjusted downward several times. ...
    (sci.energy)