Re: Exploiting space; the Man IN the moon

Ordover@xxxxxxx wrote:

:> Those were only necessary as a plot device to liken the asteroid
:> miners to the California '49ers in search of gold.
:
:No, they were necessary to create a profit motive for space travel.

Go reread the books. All folks engaging in space travel weren't
monopole miners.

:> :That said, a self-sustainting fusion reactor is still science fiction
:> :at this point (a working fusion reactor has been "five years away" for
:> :decades).
:>
:> Yep. Hence my phrasing "...once we can actually get...".
:
:I guess I don't see that getting an He-3 reactor working is going to
:happen anytime soon, so if you're assuming we have one, why not assume
:that aliens drop by and hand us a hyperdrive that runs for free? :)

If you're assuming the present is as good as it ever gets and nothing
can ever change, why not just climb into your coffin now and save all
that wasted time and effort?

:> Why does "going to the Moon to get it" have to be incredibly
:> expensive?
:
:Because to make it worth doing, you have to be abe to make a profit at
:it; if the arugment is that He-3 will be so valuable that you will be
:able to make a profit going to the Moon to get it and selling it to
:He-3 power plants, then it will have to be extremely expensive since
:the cost of going to the Moon is very high.

You're not answering the question I asked. Let me try again.

Why does "going to the Moon to get it" have to be incredibly
expensive?

:> Using the same reasoning, Europeans coming to the New
:> World would have been a total waste of time and effort. Nothing there
:> to justify the expense of all those sea voyages, after all.
:
:Nonsense. First off, the New World had air, food, water, trees and
:natives already living there who were initially at least a vital part
:of survival. Drop a 17th century woodsman naked in the middle of a
:New World Forest, he'll survive quite readily - he'd even recognize
:many of the animals.

But he won't turn a profit commensurate with the cost of dropping him
in that New World Forest, so why spend all that money outfitting
expeditions to go?

:The New World also had gold in great quantities

Nobody knew that at the time. So why expend all those resources to
go?

:and wood had already started to become scarce in Europe

And shipping wood back from the New World to Europe would have been
ridiculously expensive, given the technology of the 15th century. So
why go, again?

:and land to
:grow food on was getting scarce too.

So you think establishing farms and shipping food back from the New
World to Europe was obviously a profitable thing to do back in the
15th century? Hardly. You couldn't ship enough food to feed Europe
that way, so why go, again?

:The whole point is that exploring
:space is NOT analogous to European colonialism/merchantilism, despite
:how that concept forms the backbone of so much science fiction.

Well, actually, it largely is.

:> :Unless you think people will pay more for electricty just 'cause it
:> :comes from a really cool fusion reactor?
:>
:> What makes you think it will cost more? What makes you think oil and
:> coal will last forever? We're using pretty much all the geothermal
:> and hydrodynamic power there is available right now. Solar is still
:> too expensive. Despite all those fans, wind just doesn't seem to work
:> out very well and is also expensive. Solar and wind don't scale well.
:
:We're not using 1% of the geothermal or hydrodynamic energy or wind
:energy available - the low price of oil has stallen developmet.

Poppy***! I suggest you do some research in this area. What river
are you going to dam to create hydro power that isn't already dammed?
What active geothermal area isn't being utilized and how much power do
you think it could produce?

:Despite that, ocean-based wind farms are popping up all over as new
:technology makes them ever more viable.

Cite?

:At the moment we don't -have-
:an He-3 reactor and really there is no reason to expect we will.

And the same 'logic' applied when Ugh and Mug were around would have
us still living in caves today.

:> You don't think a gigawatts worth of non-polluting fusion reactor is
:> going to have a place in the power infrastructure?
:
:And if wishes were horses, beggars would ride. I'll believe it when I
:see it.

And the same 'logic' applied when Ugh and Mug were around would have
us still living in caves today.

:> :And that isn't even counting the cost of building the fusion reactor in
:> :the first place, how many woud be built, how much of a demand for He-3
:> :there would actualy be, and all the other market forces.
:>
:> Lots would probably be built. Replace all the fission reactors, for a
:> start.
:
:Why - because the technology is niftier? Because of ecological
:concerns? Those things don't motivate anyone. They would have to be
:cheaper to build and maintain than their competition. I have a working
:fission reactor that is a proven technology and is steadily pumping out
:energy - why would I replace it with a newer, untried technology,
:unless there was a huge price advantage for me?

Because it would be safer and cheaper. Go research the technologies
involved. Why do you think everyone is building gas-fired electrical
plants?

:You are falling into the trap of confusing what we -can- do with what
:we -will do-.

You are falling into the trap of confusing YOUR myopia with the real
world.

:We have the capacity to feed the world and provide good
:health care for all 6B people on the Earth - the reasons we don't are
:economic.

Precisely.

:> :For the moment, there is no reason to expect that He-3 will -ever- be
:> :eough of a profit motive to be worth the cost of mining it on the Moon.
:>
:> Not if one's head is firmly up and locked against the idea there
:> isn't, no.
:
:It is quite reasonable, having been told for decades that fusion is
:"just five years away now" to adopt the point of view that I'll believe
:it when I see it.

Not especially, no. A 'head up and locked' myopia such as you have
adopted is virtually never "quite reasonable", by definition.

:But look at all you've loaded onto the He-3 reactor
:- it has to be cheaper, cleaner, safer, and far more profitable than
:all current and future forms of power generation -even though its power
:source comes from the Moon-. That's a heck of lot to load onto one
:technology that's realy not anywhere near functional.

Not really, once you understand the basics. Again, go research the
technologies involved.

But look at all you've loaded onto your arguments. Nothing can ever
be cheaper, cleaner, safer, or more profitable than what we have right
now.

So why do you bother, again?

--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
.