--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "victoriatangoman"
wrote:
> --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Ed Minchau"
> wrote:
>
> [snipped excellent summary of Archimedes Institute claim
> process/hierarchy]
>
> > This is why I say that legitimization of something like
Archimedes
> > is crucial: you want to spread the meme that real people can own
> > their own asteroid, and actually do something with it - and that
> for
> > a relatively small investment. And you want to spread enough
> > interest that you can have a high launch volume to drive up
> > competition among your launch suppliers and thus drive down
launch
> > costs.
>
> I don't have many issues with the hierarchy or process. My issue
is
> that Archimedes is jumping the gun. Once a property rights regime
is
> established and enforced, then open the flood gates say I.

Right. But what will force the establishment of a property rights
regime in space? Only one step: a private company or individual
must land a functional teleoperated or autonomous robot on an
asteroid or moon and lay a claim on it. Right there is nine-tenths
of the law.

If the first private entity does such a mission, its teleoperated
presence on that body gives it de facto posession of it. If it
registers its claim with a registry like Archimedes (by which I mean
any such registry with clear, simple, and fair rules), that registry
then becomes much like the WWWconsortium, the de facto standard.

>
> As it is, TangoMan's Claim Company will give anyone a duplicate
> certificate that is just as valid as an Archimedes claim. That's
why
> Archimedes is like the Lunar Embassey. It has no legal validity.

Right, not until the first private entity registers with one of
Archimedes, or TMCC, or the Lunar Embassy. Whichever registry is
chosen automatically gains legal validity, particularly if others
follow suit. Having that teleoperated robot working for you on your
asteroid or chunk of lunar real estate carries a lot of weight for
whatever registry is chosen.

Suppose for instance that a company lands a rover somewhere on the
moon, say the Artemis Project lands at Angus Bay. Suppose further
that they own the deed sold by the Lunar embassy. If the Artemis
project respects the boundaries, then that carries weight in
legitimizing the Lunar embassy.

But what if Artemis doesn't own the deed sold by the Lunar embassy?
What if they register with TMCC instead? And what if other private
companies do the same thing? Then the Lunar embassy deeds become
nothing more than curiosities, and it is TMCC that is legitimized.

Being first is a big plus, but even that is no guarantor of market
success; Beta predated VHS. Even so, it is essential that some
private property regime be set up for there to be a large market.
It doesn't matter which registry becomes the standard, as long as
one of them does. Let Archimedes and the Lunar Embassy and TMCC
duke it out for market share.

>
> What you described in your post seems awfully familiar to Wasser's
> Space Settlement Initiative where he carves up the moon. He
> recognizes that property rights are necessary condition for
economic
> development, but he errs in thinking that they are a sufficient
> condition.
>
> If I gave you the property rights to 50 tons of well rotted fish
and
> was willing to drop it on your front lawn, how would you profit
from
> that?

I used to be a cowboy. I'd grind it up and sell it as protein
supplement for cattle feed.

>
> Once a property rights regime is established you may legitimately
> own an asteroid by the means you previously described, but why
would
> you want to own it if there was no economic utility in the
> ownership? Perhaps vanity or novelty.

Vanity and novelty are two legitimate reasons for which people will
part with their money - look at license plates. However, to drive a
large launch market (by which I mean more than 100 customers per
year, at two or three per launch), they will not suffice.

Of course, there won't be a hundred per year for the first few
years. Even after the first few are launched, it is still on the
order of several months before data comes back from any asteroid.
Therefore the first few missions would likely to be to near-earth
asteroids. Most likely these first few missions would not be for
vanity or novelty (those markets come later), but for equipment
tests and asteroid analysis.

The data returned from the first few missions is itself valuable for
calibrating remote-sensing equipment (like the gamma-ray
spectroscopy that started this thread), and as scientific data - the
few $million cost of a mission means that average universities could
afford a mission.

Any discovery of a precious metal (almost certain given less than a
few dozen missions) would start that steep phase of growth, where
people seek to make money. The major investment will be in mining
projects.

Earlier in the thread I mentioned the "De Luxe" package for a
customer: two or more mission packages delivered to the same
asteroid. Some of these packages could be purely cargo: large
foldable reflective surfaces, rock-crushing equipment, heat engines,
flywheels, replacement parts, that sort of thing. Make it possible
to bring the costs of getting to an asteroid and utilizing it down
to a reasonable level, so that people can invest a relatively small
amount, and they will buy mining packages.

It doesn't take somebody bringing a huge chunk of gold back to earth
to start a gold rush; it only takes the verifiable knowledge that
there is gold (or something else precioussss) out there and that it
is possible to get in the game.

>
> I think property rights will develop when there is orbital
commerce
> which requires the establishment of the regime. The market will
> press for property rights. If those rights were established right
> now they'd provide a necessary condition for orbital development,
> but not a sufficient condition.
>
> TangoMan

Yes, gotta get physical possession of asteroids in the hands of
people first before any of these property regimes gets legitimized.
That is why earlier in the thread I suggested the approach of a
common chassis and modular components, as well as cheap launch.
Take the R&D costs out of the customer's hands and outsource it to
the companies that become your eventual suppliers/ partners/
competitors. Drive total mission costs low enough that individual
universities can get payloads launched, or private businesses.

Space industry has been in a catch 22 for decades - no cheap
launches until there is a market, no market until there are cheap
launches. Well, it is time to change that.

This common chassis/modular components idea changes space access
from a one-off, "handcrafted" approach to an "assembly line"
approach. Costs for design, testing, and manufacturing of all
components drops due to amortization over a large number of units.
Modular design allows for tailoring specific missions to specific
requirements, broadening the range of potential missions and thus
potential customer base. Multiple packages on a single launch
lowers overall launch costs as well.

Ed

>
> Right. But what will force the establishment of a property rights
> regime in space? Only one step: a private company or individual
> must land a functional teleoperated or autonomous robot on an
> asteroid or moon and lay a claim on it. Right there is nine-tenths
> of the law.

Unfortunately there is problems with the concept. To give a real world
example. There are companies that own property and mining rights in
Northern Ontario where the company has been bankrupt for decades, but
still owns the rights.

Other examples: IP (Internet protocol) numbers were given out freely
in the 1980s. There is now situations where people have died who own
IP blocks (in one case a Class B network) but because there is no
provision for inherentance or sell of IPs there effectively large
chunks of IPs that are allocated but not used.

>
> Right, not until the first private entity registers with one of
> Archimedes, or TMCC, or the Lunar Embassy. Whichever registry is
> chosen automatically gains legal validity, particularly if others
> follow suit. Having that teleoperated robot working for you on your
> asteroid or chunk of lunar real estate carries a lot of weight for
> whatever registry is chosen.
>
> Suppose for instance that a company lands a rover somewhere on the
> moon, say the Artemis Project lands at Angus Bay. Suppose further
> that they own the deed sold by the Lunar embassy. If the Artemis
> project respects the boundaries, then that carries weight in
> legitimizing the Lunar embassy.

What happens if two different registries grant rights to the same
portion of luner area to two different people. This is exactly what
caused the American-Mexican war in 1948. The U.S was deeding
properties to settlers that the Mexican government had deeded to
different settlers years earlier, and they both showed up at the same
time with guns blazing.

Furthermore, how are property rights going to be enforced. On earth we
have police and judciary systems that most people accept as fair, but
whose judges are going to preside over the Moon. More importantly will
the people living on the moon feel obligated to follow the edicts of a
system that they have little control over and are far enough away that
they could never enforce the decisions they make.

As a boot strap system where people are mostly on earth this could be
done, but even so, assuming that a person has dropped a teleoperated
system on an asteroid and is mining, and my system drops in half a
year later and the first thing it does is turn your system off. I know
have possession of the asteroid, but does the 9/10 ths rule apply now?

Bill

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Bill" wrote:

>
> What happens if two different registries grant rights to the same
> portion of luner area to two different people. This is exactly what
> caused the American-Mexican war in 1948. The U.S was deeding
> properties to settlers that the Mexican government had deeded to
> different settlers years earlier, and they both showed up at the
same
> time with guns blazing.
>
> Furthermore, how are property rights going to be enforced.

> assuming that a person has dropped a teleoperated
> system on an asteroid and is mining, and my system drops in half a
> year later and the first thing it does is turn your system off. I
know
> have possession of the asteroid, but does the 9/10 ths rule apply
now?

That's the other 1/10 of the law.

Obviously, if company X, which started mining some asteroid, cannot
enforce its class B claim due to the actions of your robots, your
class B claim would supersede theirs. Of course, they could send
people and establish a class A claim, which trumps any class B
(robotic) claim.

Ed

And when does the Class A+ (Armed incursion with disappeared people)
come in? Of course, that will never happen, it would be like insinuating
that a super-power nuclear-capable country would literally invade a
smaller, resource-rich (oil?) less developped country under false public
reasons.

Say, people where there first, before their people and the flag... flew
away because of solar wind?

But again, I'm wrong, this won't happen, it's against human nature
itself...

You are in space; (lots of room) try to enforce laws there. Whatever law
is in place is going to be much more a principle than a strict rule.
Unless someone/something is willing to spend the resources to police it.
Hell, they can't even police my own street 24/7 against crime, you think
they will police space?

Please, let's be realistic here - there are two types of people, those
with morals and those without. Those without, usually happen to be our
leaders. Presidents, Prime Ministers, Bosses (work harder, more hours,
less pay, more money for me...) and even sometimes family members.

You think anyone follows the quiet phisolopher? Yes, it has happened,
but then they put him on a cross to die to show people what happens when
you are too good.

Your only option is to have a police-person accompany each and every
ship that goes out; otherwise, they aren't going to rush into a
situation with flashing red / blue lights with a warp-8 capable vessel
with torpedoes locked...

This is human nature we are talking about, not mother theresa nor ghandi

Karell Ste-Marie
C.I.O. - BrainBank Inc.
From: Ed Minchau [mailto:spider_boris@...]
Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2004 12:08 PM
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [spacesettlers] Re: making money on asteroids

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Bill" wrote:

>
> What happens if two different registries grant rights to the same
> portion of luner area to two different people. This is exactly what
> caused the American-Mexican war in 1948. The U.S was deeding
> properties to settlers that the Mexican government had deeded to
> different settlers years earlier, and they both showed up at the
same
> time with guns blazing.
>
> Furthermore, how are property rights going to be enforced.

> assuming that a person has dropped a teleoperated
> system on an asteroid and is mining, and my system drops in half a
> year later and the first thing it does is turn your system off. I
know
> have possession of the asteroid, but does the 9/10 ths rule apply
now?

That's the other 1/10 of the law.

Obviously, if company X, which started mining some asteroid, cannot
enforce its class B claim due to the actions of your robots, your
class B claim would supersede theirs. Of course, they could send
people and establish a class A claim, which trumps any class B
(robotic) claim.

Ed

Ed,

Take out the movie "Moon 44"; you will see how human nature can work in
space. You can also see what measures companies that mine in space have
to take in order to even protect a moon-sized human (on site) controlled
operation (involving very few people and mostly robots).

You will see that some companies are forced to hire very bad people to
just protect an installation.

Karell Ste-Marie
C.I.O. - BrainBank Inc.

From: Ed Minchau [mailto:spider_boris@...]
Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2004 12:08 PM
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [spacesettlers] Re: making money on asteroids

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Bill" wrote:

>
> What happens if two different registries grant rights to the same
> portion of luner area to two different people. This is exactly what
> caused the American-Mexican war in 1948. The U.S was deeding
> properties to settlers that the Mexican government had deeded to
> different settlers years earlier, and they both showed up at the
same
> time with guns blazing.
>
> Furthermore, how are property rights going to be enforced.

> assuming that a person has dropped a teleoperated
> system on an asteroid and is mining, and my system drops in half a
> year later and the first thing it does is turn your system off. I
know
> have possession of the asteroid, but does the 9/10 ths rule apply
now?

That's the other 1/10 of the law.

Obviously, if company X, which started mining some asteroid, cannot
enforce its class B claim due to the actions of your robots, your
class B claim would supersede theirs. Of course, they could send
people and establish a class A claim, which trumps any class B
(robotic) claim.

Ed

Why do people reference sci-fi books or movies as proof of concepts, ideas,
or pre-conceptions?

Val

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Valens Agnitio"
wrote:
> Why do people reference sci-fi books or movies as proof of
concepts, ideas,
> or pre-conceptions?
>
> Val

LOL :) I don't really know. I suppose that the books or movies have
either resonated with them or put into some form a concept that
they've agreed with or had their opinions changed about. I gather
that Paul's referencing James P. Hogan's "Voyage From Yesteryear" in
a number of our past debates signifies that the author has
influenced the reader enough to play a part in how the reader puts
forward his own ideas. It's more a complement to the author than a
solid argumentative rebuttal.

I do take your point though, that fiction isn't necessarily proof of
concept. A damn insightful question though.

TangoMan

In a message dated 3/22/04 12:32:51 AM, volatilis_leo@... writes:

<< Why do people reference sci-fi books or movies as proof of concepts,
ideas,
or pre-conceptions?

Val >>

Why do people steals ideas for waterbeds and rockets for trips to the moon
from or Robert Heinlein or Julie Verne?

Carl E. Mullin
visionary artist and entrepreneur
homo asteralis
ravenart@...
www.ravenartstudio.com

The more you love, the more you can love-and the more intensely you love.
Nor is there any limit on how many you can love.
If a person had time enough, he could love all of the majority who are decent
and just.
-Robert A. Heinlein (Time Enough For Love)

"Fear is the mind killer. Fear is the little death that brings total
obliteration." -- Dune

Freedom, Immortality, and the Stars!

--- In spacesettlers, "Valens Agnitio" wrote:

> Why do people reference sci-fi books or movies as proof of
> concepts, ideas, or pre-conceptions?
>
> Val

'Cause its all we've got. Until this stuff is actually done, what
else is there to reference?

Xenophile (on the subject of eugenics, please see early chapters of
_Princess of Mars_ and middle/late chapters of _Lost on Venus_, both
by Edgar Rice Burroughs)

Xenophile,

Very well said,

2000 years ago someone was using stories to allow people to figure out
the moral instead of just giving them the answer. That's how people
work; you need to "live" something in order to get something out of it.

Personally, on my example, I'm not too fond of "Moon 44", I find it a
nice visual movie (good crust) but without anything solid to let it
stand (no meat, nor script). The fact that they use helicopters on a
moon should be example enough of what I mean by no meat.

However, the act of piracy is well seen in the movie. One rogue company
that wants to take the other companies out of business. What's the
trick? Acquire them? Hostile take over? Nope, steal their automated
transport ships (hey, Class A, there was nobody onboard, so out with the
Class B) and then attack the living people at the mine and just restart
the operation when the new people are in place.

There was nobody there officer... [wake up] yeah, I though that was a
dream, no police in space...

Karell Ste-Marie
C.I.O. - BrainBank Inc.
From: Xenophile [mailto:xenophile2002@...]
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 7:44 AM
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [spacesettlers] Re: making money on asteroids

--- In spacesettlers, "Valens Agnitio" wrote:

> Why do people reference sci-fi books or movies as proof of
> concepts, ideas, or pre-conceptions?
>
> Val

'Cause its all we've got. Until this stuff is actually done, what
else is there to reference?

Xenophile (on the subject of eugenics, please see early chapters of
_Princess of Mars_ and middle/late chapters of _Lost on Venus_, both
by Edgar Rice Burroughs)

Em Seg 22 Mar 2004 07:51, victoriatangoman escreveu:
(...)
> LOL :) I don't really know. I suppose that the books or movies have
> either resonated with them or put into some form a concept that
> they've agreed with or had their opinions changed about. I gather
> that Paul's referencing James P. Hogan's "Voyage From Yesteryear" in
> a number of our past debates signifies that the author has
> influenced the reader enough to play a part in how the reader puts
> forward his own ideas. It's more a complement to the author than a
> solid argumentative rebuttal.
(...)

On the other hand, ideas taken from hard science fiction - the one stuck to
known laws of physics - are in theory possible, and I seriously take
arguments based on them at least as, well, theoretical support...

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Valens Agnitio"
wrote:
> Why do people reference sci-fi books or movies as proof of
concepts, ideas,
> or pre-conceptions?
>
> Val

They provide a common frame of reference, and a shorthand way of
expressing a complex idea. In a heavily science-oriented topic,
about which there has been much fiction produced, such citations are
to be expected.

Ed

ps I had never heard of Moon 44, now I think I'll go find it... and
Outland...

I think yall are misunderstanding my question... I am an avid reader, and
have consumed numerous works of sci-fi in my time, some good, some quite
bad. Though I recognize the predicitve ability displayed by some authors
(notably Arthur C. Clarke), I have found this to be, by far, the exception
rather than the rule. Most works draw heavily on literary liscense to build
the story, and this invalidates their virtual world realtive to the real one
in direct proportion. And. of course, as readers, we are also subject to our
own emotional investment in the stories, which bias us in ways that may not
be clear. When it comes to predicting singular technologies, some seem
obvious, such as, say, SPS. However, predicting the use of these, their
affects on the world, and spin off technologies, becomes exponentially more
difficult, and thus, uncertain. I for one, love Heinlin's Starship Troopers
due to his presentation of what he feels is an ideal gov't - but I realize
that the whole story exists in and so depends on a world threatened by
sentient, hostile insects and other aliens. This doesn't mean that he makes
some interesting postulations, but they must be fleshed out by empirical
evidence to hold water.

Of course, the ideas presented can be very interesting, and provide much
fuel for debate. However, we must look at things with a skeptical eye before
putting energy into them, and we can never, ever use them as a proof or as a
supporting point.

Val

I would say inciteful, instead! :-)

I would say that fiction, by its very nature, cannot be used as proof for
anything. It is, afterall, made up. All the social interactions,
technologies and their extrapolations are what the author wants them to be,
and are reflections of the real world mostly by accident (though there are
some who are better at predictions than others). So, though I draw
stimulation from sci-fi as much or more than the next person, I also try
very hard to keep it in perspective.

Val

Subject:
[spacesettlers] Re: making money on asteroids
Date:
Mon, 22 Mar 2004 12:43:36 -0000
From:
"Xenophile"
Reply-To:
spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
To:
spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com

--- In spacesettlers, "Valens Agnitio" wrote:

> Why do people reference sci-fi books or movies as proof of
> concepts, ideas, or pre-conceptions?
>
> Val

'Cause its all we've got. Until this stuff is actually done, what
else is there to reference?

Xenophile (on the subject of eugenics, please see early chapters of
_Princess of Mars_ and middle/late chapters of _Lost on Venus_, both
by Edgar Rice Burroughs)

Because science fiction is where most of our ideas were originated and refined.

When did you first read of space settlements?

With me, it was in 1953. And I was reading Jack Williamson's "The Prince
of Space" which was published in the January 1931 issue of Amazing
Stories. Which means, given publishing delays, that Jack Williamson was
grappling with how space settlements would work about 75 years ago.

I know of no scientist that was doing the same that long ago.

Hugo Gernsback started Amazing Stories back in 1926 and he intended it to
be scientifically accurate. Unfortunately, he could not publish a monthly
magazine and do so. But he tried.

Astounding Stories in the late thirties had a letter column, Brass Tacks,
which shared space with Scientific Discussions, another letter
column. Readers liked to try to catch authors in a mistake.

In 1953, Mission of Gravity by Hal Clement, a master of "hard" science
fiction was serialized in Astounding. A few issues latter, in Brass
Tacks, one reader calmly noted that the hero in the story had opened a
vehicle door. The door had one atmosphere of pressure inside and three
atmospheres of pressure outside.

Which means a pressure of nearly thirty pounds per square inch was holding
that door shut.

"Hard" in this case meaning that science was stressed.)

Editor John Campbell had attended MIT. Clement got his Master's in 1947 in
astronomy and had grad courses in chemistry.

--- In spacesettlers, "Valens Agnitio" wrote:

> Why do people reference sci-fi books or movies as proof of
> concepts, ideas, or pre-conceptions?
>
> Val

'Cause its all we've got. Until this stuff is actually done, what
else is there to reference?

Xenophile (on the subject of eugenics, please see early chapters of
_Princess of Mars_ and middle/late chapters of _Lost on Venus_, both
by Edgar Rice Burroughs)

To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Re: making
money on asteroids
Subject:
[spacesettlers] Re: making money on asteroids
Date:
Mon, 22 Mar 2004 12:43:36 -0000
From:
"Xenophile"
Reply-To:
spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
To:
spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com

--- In spacesettlers, "Valens Agnitio" wrote:
> Why do people reference sci-fi books or movies as proof of
> concepts, ideas, or pre-conceptions?
>
> Val
'Cause its all we've got. Until this stuff is actually done, what
else is there to reference?

Xenophile (on the subject of eugenics, please see early chapters of
_Princess of Mars_ and middle/late chapters of _Lost on Venus_, both
by Edgar Rice Burroughs)

Because science fiction is where most of our ideas were originated and refined.
When did you first read of space settlements?
With me, it was in 1953. And I was reading Jack Williamson's "The Prince of
Space" which was published in the January 1931 issue of Amazing Stories.
Which means, given publishing delays, that Jack Williamson was grappling
with how space settlements would work about 75 years ago.
I know of no scientist that was doing the same that long ago.
Hugo Gernsback started Amazing Stories back in 1926 and he intended it to
be scientifically accurate. Unfortunately, he could not publish a monthly
magazine and do so. But he tried.

To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Re: making
money on asteroids
Subject:
[spacesettlers] Re: making money on asteroids
Date:
Mon, 22 Mar 2004 12:43:36 -0000
From:
"Xenophile"
Reply-To:
spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
To:
spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com

--- In spacesettlers, "Valens Agnitio" wrote:
> Why do people reference sci-fi books or movies as proof of
> concepts, ideas, or pre-conceptions?
>
> Val
'Cause its all we've got. Until this stuff is actually done, what
else is there to reference?

Xenophile (on the subject of eugenics, please see early chapters of
_Princess of Mars_ and middle/late chapters of _Lost on Venus_, both
by Edgar Rice Burroughs)

Because science fiction is where most of our ideas were originated and refined.

When did you first read of space settlements?

With me, it was in 1953. And I was reading Jack Williamson's "The Prince of
Space" which was published in the January 1931 issue of Amazing Stories.
Which means, given publishing delays, that Jack Williamson was grappling
with how space settlements would work about 75 years ago.

I know of no scientist that was doing the same that long ago.

Hugo Gernsback started Amazing Stories back in 1926 and he intended it to
be scientifically accurate. Unfortunately, he could not publish a monthly
magazine and do so. But he tried.

Astounding Stories in the late thirties had a letter column, Brass Tacks,
which shared space with Scientific Discussions, another letter column.
Readers liked to try to catch authors in a mistake.

In 1953, Mission of Gravity by Hal Clement, a master of "hard" science
fiction was serialized in Astounding. "Hard" in this case meaning that
science was stressed.

A few issues latter, in Brass Tacks, one reader calmly noted that the hero
in the story had opened a vehicle door. The door had one atmosphere of
pressure inside and three atmospheres of pressure outside.

Which means a pressure of nearly thirty pounds per square inch was holding
that door shut.

Editor John Campbell had attended MIT. Clement got his Master's in 1947 in
astronomy and had grad courses in chemistry. Neither had caught the error.

This group might be here without science fiction. I seriously doubt it
would have advanced to nearly where it is.

Rick Brooks

Ah, but most things humans use are 'made up'. Doesn't make them any less real.

Besides, if many people have read an idea , cannot find flaw with it, and overall agree that it is an accurate depiction of reality - then it can be taken to be real until proven otherwise (Even if it is presented as part of a larger fiction, which is not.) This is the basis for science and criminal proceedings.

ANTIcarrot.

Yes it does. A tool or machine, a building or a road, a market place or a
culture. All are quite real in a way that is visible to all, not just in one
person's mind. These things all respond to stimulus in ways that are
dictated by their own substance. These responses can range from predictable
to entirely unpredictable, but they are independent of the individuals
imagination, and independent from collective imagination as well. In the
case of markets and culture, these things are subject to imaginations to a
limited extent, but their existence is ultimately and necessarily rooted in
objective reality.

Because fiction is not rooted in reality, it is very subjective.
Inaccuracies are present, and will also appear if the virtual realities
posited in the fiction are extrapolated to any degree, and especially if
applied to real situations. The degree of resultant incongruity may vary,
but is inevitable. Due to the fact that these inconsistancies can be very
subtle and unoticable at first, or very gross, we cannot use them for
anything except source of ideas. I almost ventured to say that they can be
useful thought experiments, but because they are largely the product of a
single mind, more input is needed from diverse sources before they achieve
value in this regard.

Please note that I am not attempting to deflate the utility of these
fictions, but only to advise caution in their use in debate. To use these
things as suppossed proof or as supporting arguments seriously detracts from
an otherwise robust argument, and even runs the risk of having such an
agrument completely dismissed. Surely we don't want this to happen when
debating topics as important as space ventures.

Val

Karell Ste-Marie wrote:

>Personally, on my example, I'm not too fond of "Moon 44", I find it a
>nice visual movie (good crust) but without anything solid to let it
>stand (no meat, nor script). The fact that they use helicopters on a
>moon should be example enough of what I mean by no meat.
>
In fact some moons do have an atmosphere.

Cheers
Axel