While it is instructive to consider the social structures of space
colonies, the large number of colonies will allow a freedom of choice
without offending or threatening any neighbors. Most likely there will
be capitalist colonies, communist colonies, Christian colonies, Islamic
republics, gay colonies, all male and all female colonies, and later
colonies for bioengineered geniuses, colonies for human/machines
cyborgs, colonies for biological immortal posthumans, and many other
unforseable variations. As well, there will be billions of post-humans
living in free space, coming home periodically to space colonies for
refueling and repairs. All of them can co-exist without interfering with
others and with their resources.
The freedom of social and biological evolution that space colonization
will allow seems to be one of the most appealing arguments for this
program.

Michael Mautner

--- In ssi_list@... Michael Mautner
>
> While it is instructive to consider the social structures of space
> colonies, the large number of colonies will allow a freedom of
choice
> without offending or threatening any neighbors. Most likely there
will
> be capitalist colonies, communist colonies, Christian colonies,
Islamic
> republics, gay colonies, all male and all female colonies, and
later
> colonies for bioengineered geniuses, colonies for human/machines
> cyborgs, colonies for biological immortal posthumans, and many
other
> unforseable variations. As well, there will be billions of post-
humans
> living in free space, coming home periodically to space colonies
for
> refueling and repairs. All of them can co-exist without
interfering with
> others and with their resources.
> The freedom of social and biological evolution that space
colonization
> will allow seems to be one of the most appealing arguments for
this
> program.
>
> Michael Mautner

Yes, you make good points and there are many people who embrace this
point of view, or perhaps their favored portions within the argument
you've made.

I'm not sure if your answer comes from your position as an advocate
for the colonization of space, or in the scenario I've constructed,
from the position of the decisionmaker in the new Habitat. Will you
advocate this position as being in the best interests of your new
Habitat?

As Vladimir Lenin, noted, "When the time comes to hang the
Capitalists, they will compete with each other to sell us the rope!"
Will we fall into the same trap? Will we cheaply sell the means of
production to a future competitor in order to garner an immediate
fiscal benefit?

As a future colonist, where does one's allegiance lie? To better the
circumstances of a new nation/entity, or to foster a brighter future
for mankind by increasing orbital diversity and wealth?

If the latter, then why is there competition between countries
today? Why aren't we lifting all of mankind to betterment rather
than just looking after our own national interests? Why doesn't the
U.S. take a lot of its wealth through much higher taxes and give it
to Africa to increase their longevity, health, education, economies,
etc?

TangoMan

I often hear this point that "space is big enough for everyone, so there will
never be conflicts due to lack of resources". But I don't buy it. Although
space is infinite and has infinite resources, there are three conditions that
could lead to conflict:

1) Populations (and their consumption of resources) tend to grow
exponentially. So, a population P that doubles each period of time T will be
2P at time 2T, 4P at 3T, 8P at 4T, and so on.

2) The maximum efficiency of dispersion of a population in a 3D space follows
a power (cubic, to be precise) law. So, a population that occupies a volume V
of space of radius R, and moves outward a distance R each time period T, will
occupy a volume 8R at 2T, 27R at 3T, 64 R at 4T, and so on. A power law grows
slower than an exponential law, and that means that eventually there will be
too much population for too little space, and thus there will competition for
resources.

3) Finally, even if some magic means of allowing non-cubic population
spreading through space was invented (interstellar teleportation, wormholes,
portals to alternate universes or something like that), space resources are
not evenly distributed. Matter and energy are concentrated in "hot spots",
and sometimes it is a long way from one hot spot to the other; also, some
spots are much better than the others. Since I consider the possibility of
the invention of "magic means" extremely low, I would say that (3) is another
factor that would reinforce the competition effect caused by (1) and (2).

Therefore, I would agree that probably there will be little or no competition
for resources in the first centuries of space colonization, but I can't agree
that this pacific coexistence of spacers will last forever.

Lucio

In the short term (next hundred years) anybody in
space will be very rich (either themselves or
supported by a government). Why is this so?

Compare a space habitat to building an island in the
middle of the Pacific. It would cost a couple of
hundred billion and the transportation is not as
dangerous. In the end you have a couple dozen square
miles of area of the most exclusive real estate the
world has ever known. Just look at any other wealthy
enclave and you will see the same dynamics.

A second problem is the transportation costs/risk to a
from space make shipping things to Antarctica look
insignificant. To really have a viable earth market
for things produced in space (to pay for the imports)
it either has to be significantly easier to produce in
space or have near zero shipment costs. A couple of
material things fit this definion (requiring a vaccuum
for shape or purity) and they might allow for a
billion or two a year of trade. Beamed power on the
other hand has a multi trillion dollar market, near
zero transmission costs, and is best produced in
space.

Therefore the economy of space colonists is being self
sufficient and generating power for the earth.

Thirdly when has any group of rich professional people
lead to a population boom? If anything they will
follow the demographics of all rich countries and have
a sub replacement birthrate. The first generation may
find space appealing. Will the second or third see it
the same way and not want the vastly richer expereince
of living in a more populous place like a city on
earth?

Cheers, Thor

> Beamed power on the
> other hand has a multi trillion dollar market, near
> zero transmission costs, and is best produced in
> space.
>
> Therefore the economy of space colonists is being
> self
> sufficient and generating power for the earth.

I often hear the argument of infinite amount of beamed
power making lots of money. However, assuming massive
SPS (10-100s of kms) are put in orbit around the earth
and the energy is beamed back to earth and the
colonies, will there be a point where supply is so
abundant that its price comes down to near nothing, if
not eventually free?

Also, to expand a little further on money in space,
assuming colonies eventually become more and more self
sufficient, will they turn away from a monetary system
in general and move to a more trade based economy?

A reason I bring this up is that currently money is
backed by some kind of resource (often times gold).
Now in space it is possible to find large amounts of
any given resource. The one I've heard most often
sited on this listserv is platinum in the asteroid
belt. Or better yet diamonds that can be mined from
Uranus.

Would this not eventually devaluate the value of a
resource backed currency thus making it obsolete? Or
will another, more practical resource like water
become the resource which backs monetary exchanges?

Ryan Z

power making lots of money. However, assuming massive
SPS (10-100s of kms) are put in orbit around the earth
and the energy is beamed back to earth and the
colonies, will there be a point where supply is so
abundant that its price comes down to near nothing, if
not eventually free? It allturns most critically on how successful the 3rd World is in its efforts to develop through this century. If SPS led to a reduction in the cost of energy to 1/10th present values, the total potential revenue would remain the same if 10 times as many countries were using energy at the industrialized West's rates. There's certainly enough room for improvement in the world where that issue's concerned.

Regards,
Mike Combs

Asimov wrote a scientific publication (as opposedto a SF novel, he wrote
quite a few) where he did some calculations about this, I don't remember the
details exactly but it was something along the lines of, assuming a
continuous esponential growth, human population would have a larger mass
than the entire known universe in a matter of few thousands years...
So far for the "space is big enough" idea...

Cheers,

Claudio

The US dollar is not backed up by gold or any other
material. It is backed up by the willingness for
people to work to be paid in dollars. Long after the
price of commodities approaches zero (robotic
manufacturing and all of that) people will still be
looking to get credit for their work.

It was because of the inflexibility of the supply of
gold in relation to the economy that it is no longer
used as a currency anchor. Look at the crisis of 1897
for a good example of where the economy grew and the
gold supply did not causing people to be unable to
repay their debt.

- Thor

"A reason I bring this up is that currently money is
backed by some kind of resource (often times gold).
Now in space it is possible to find large amounts of
any given resource. The one I've heard most often
sited on this listserv is platinum in the asteroid
belt. Or better yet diamonds that can be mined from
Uranus."

> I often hear the argument of infinite amount of beamed
> power making lots of money. However, assuming massive
> SPS (10-100s of kms) are put in orbit around the earth
> and the energy is beamed back to earth and the
> colonies, will there be a point where supply is so
> abundant that its price comes down to near nothing, if
> not eventually free?

Here are a few factors to consider. The population of the Earth is
forecasted to grow for the next fifty years or so before
stabilizing, therefore electricity demand will grow to accommodate.

Many parts of the world will continue to develop and increase their
per capita demand, therefore aggregate demand will increase.

The developed world will likely continue its trend of more energy
consumption having a strong correlation to increased productivity.

Electricity is an elastic good, meaning that as the price goes down,
consumption will increase at a faster rate. A comparison of European
and Japanese rates and per capita consumption to American and
Canadian rates and consumption will show that difference.

Now, while the Habitat is supplying the SPSs it will be generating
exports for the Habitat, and as the number of SPS increases there
will most likely be fewer new fossil fuel plants built. Over a
generation or two, the older plants will be phased out and only SPS
or fusion plants will be built.

Additional SPS will be added and the marginal costs will be of
paramount importance. The cost of electricity may drop as more SPS
are added, but only if electricity supply is outpacing demand. It's
quite feasible that worldwide demand will increase with a price that
centers on American and Canadian rates. If the amount of benefit
received from a SPS doesn't equal the cost of adding that next SPS
then there will be a period of abeyance until the situation warrants
a new SPS.

SPS will never be free because the costs associated with the
construction will still amount to something, even though the cost of
the electricity will be getting cheaper.

Let's not forget that the SPS will still need maintenance. They
won't operate forever.

> Also, to expand a little further on money in space,
> assuming colonies eventually become more and more self
> sufficient, will they turn away from a monetary system
> in general and move to a more trade based economy?

I'm not really sure what you mean by the above. Monetary systems and
trade usually go hand in hand. Perhaps you mean a barter system?
Even then, I don't see escaping the monetary system for a long
while, and in a sense, a barter system is a step backwards and less
efficient that a monetary system.

All economic systems address the issue of how to ration goods and
services. Capitalist system seek to optimize efficiency whereas
socialist systems seek to optimize equality. The factors that need
rationing are materials, energy, capital, knowledge, and personnel.

Capital is one of the most intangible factors in the economic
equation because it is a proxy for all of the other factors.

One question I've been analyzing over the last few years is what
happens to the science of economics and the meaning of capital as
the values for material and energy approach zero. This is completely
new economic theory and there isn't much existing research to build
on. I'm having to crack open textbooks I haven't used since my
doctoral days, find arcane research articles all in order to build
an esoteric econometric model of a hypothetical economic system.
Some may consider it a waste of time; to me it's an intellectual
puzzle.

I expect that over time as the Orbital economy flourishes, that the
marginal cost of adding more energy capacity to a Habitat will
diminsh considerably, and further, that the mass of towed asteroids
and their automated processing will cost less and less. At some
point the expansion of energy supply and raw materials will not be
constrained or need to be rationed in order to allocate capital
efficiently, so in a sense they will seem to be infinite, and if the
supply can be added to by using automation with no inputs from
personnel, then their costs would approach zero, and in fact may be
zero!

What then happens to the rationing model of economics, when
materials and energy have no need for rationing? I posit the values
of knowledge and personnel will increase and the value of capital as
means for rationing will decrease.

Think about the implications of this for a moment. If the cost of
energy and materials in the products that you buy costs nothing, or
next to nothing, then what are you paying for? Further, for what are
you working? Money? Why do you need money? To buy goods that cost
next to nothing? To ration your desires because you cannot attain
all that you desire? No, because the near infinite supply of energy
and materials has removed that condition from the economic
equation.

If energy and materials are to be had at will, then knowledge and
personnel will increase dramtically in value, but what will be the
medium of trade? As a farmer, ecologist, transportation engineer,
spaceship pilot, SPS designer, etc, why should you go to work? The
automated systems will provide many of the things you need at no
cost. In the background though, many of these automated systems will
require human expertise in order to function and expand and the
economy will require your unique services and skills.

I still haven't figured out what the new store of value, exchange
and motivation will be, although I suspect it will have to be
inherrant to the two remaining components of the economic equation.
I just wanted to share some wild extrapolations of economic theory
with you. This hasn't really been studied yet because, on Earth, it
is too unrealistic to assume conditions of infinte energy and
materials. Further, the economic system is so entwined with our
lives that a radical change as I'm hypothesizing will have dramtic
societal implications. There's lots of room for specualtion when the
value of money lessens but the need for knowledge and workers still
continues.

I suspect that hundreds of years after the establishment of an
orbital society, the economy will start to diverge from that of the
Earth's economies.

> A reason I bring this up is that currently money is
> backed by some kind of resource (often times gold).
> Now in space it is possible to find large amounts of
> any given resource. The one I've heard most often
> sited on this listserv is platinum in the asteroid
> belt. Or better yet diamonds that can be mined from
> Uranus.

Take a look at a US dollar bill. It says that "This Note Is Legal
Tender For All Debts, Public And Private." While the dollar used to
be backed by gold, that is no longer the case for any currency in
the world. The only thing that keeps the dollar valuable is your
willingness to accept it in exchange for your services or goods. It
is this mutual faith, and nothing else, that is the store of value
for the dollar. Further, in the case of the US dollar, many people
and countries are willing to accept the good faith of the US
government as a debtor, thus they finance the US trade and fiscal
deficits. If this good faith erodes, the US will be in a big pile of
trouble, like I don't even want to think about. In a sense, the US
is playing a big Ponzi scheme.

Keeping the above in mind, and assuming a sufficiently large scale
of operations and maintaining the confidence of the rest of the
world, there is a compelling case to be made for the floating of a
new currency. I mentioned this fact to Chris Gidman about a year ago
in a private e-mail, when he questioned the economic basis of my
Bootstrapping post. In that post I specifically didn't want to
address the economic issues to avoid this very lengthy post.

If the establishiment of a new nation and economy in orbit is take
place, then it needn't be done as a private enterprise subsumed
under an existing economic system. Such a new currency will still
need to be well funded to insure the convertibility of the currency
to other currencies.

What I foresee, is that much of the Earth supplied materials and
services will have to be paid for in dollars, euros, and yen, but
what sense is there in paying dollars for lunar regolith, for
orbitally produced oxygen, for the steel that comes from the
refinery, for the NEO derived plastics, for the mortgage on your
Habitat home, for the taxes you pay in the Habitat, etc.

For that matter, what inherent value is there in paying an
astronaut's, and future settler's, wages in US dollars? Why not pay
them in Orbital Solars :) and they can be banked, invested and spent
in orbit. Now we're getting into banking theory, and as I'm sure
many of you know, banks aren't limited to lending out only their
depositer's money; that money is multiplied many times over and is
only a fraction of what banks lend out. Yes, banks create new money
out of thin air!

Depending on the proportion of expenses that are incurred in orbit;
(i.e. paying for the lunar base built of lunar materials, paying for
the mass drivers, paying for the lunar dump trucks, paying the
electricity bills, paying for propellant, etc versus paying for the
vehicles which are built on Earth, for the initial station that is
built on Earth, etc) a Habitat could in part be financed by fully
convertible Habitat treasury bills, profits from an orbital economy
servicing the construction fo the Habitat, employee retirement funds
invested in the orbital corporations, future land sales within the
Habitat, and the powerful multiplier effect of internal banking and
the domestic economy.

Thus, the US dollar cost comes down considerably, so we're not
acting as consumers of US dollars, but acting as another country
with a tax base and economy. We'll still need a considerable amount
of captial to insure convertability of currency, but the size and
scope of our enterprise will have spin-off economic effects that we
should capture rather than having them benefit the dollar, euro or
yen.

> Would this not eventually devaluate the value of a
> resource backed currency thus making it obsolete? Or
> will another, more practical resource like water
> become the resource which backs monetary exchanges?
>
> Ryan Z

As I mentioned above, currencies aren't backed by anything anymore.
Just your faith.

Sorry about the length of this response, but you raised some
questions that I've been doing a lot of work on for the last year or
so, and I just couldn't resist :) I know economics puts most people
to sleep, and that's why I haven't burdened the group with this
topic; I reserve that for my associates :) (and except for a few
that are working the numbers with me, most of the rest don't see the
real world applications so they leave it to me to work on in
isolation.)

For those brave few who got to this point, I'm still amazed that
you're awake :)

TangoMan

> To really have a viable earth market
> for things produced in space (to pay for the imports)
> it either has to be significantly easier to produce in
> space or have near zero shipment costs. A couple of
> material things fit this definion (requiring a vaccuum
> for shape or purity) and they might allow for a
> billion or two a year of trade. Beamed power on the
> other hand has a multi trillion dollar market, near
> zero transmission costs, and is best produced in
> space.

You make some interesting points. I completely agree with the beamed
power example but I'm not as confident on the scope of that market
as you are. Nevertheless, it will be an important export. So too
will other goods and services that are uniquely produced in orbital
conditions which can find no substitute on Earth. When we compare
the R&D sectors of national economies to the sparse resources
attributed to space science R&D, we can conclude that we are barely
scratching the surface of the possible for space science. What can
we expect if the Habitat R&D budget (comprised of taxpayer funded
and corporate R&D) is devoted entirely to disciplines unique to the
Habitat? I'd expect a burgeoing field of new products, techniques
and services, all of which will bolster the export trade.

You completely neglect the domestic economy in your analysis. I
advance the position that any item that is imported from Earth, will
have a different breakeven calculus than one that is manufactured
within the Habitat. Anything you bring up from Earth, no matter how
cheap, will still have to pay a onerous shipping tariff. Thus, at
some point (most likely an uneconomic point on Earth) the good will
be cheaper to produce in the Habitat than to import.

A consequence of this economic fact, is that the quicker we can grow
our population, the quicker the domestic economy will grow, and this
will gnereate more wealth, more jobs and more consumers. Don't
underestimate the domestic economy by focusing solely on the export
economy.

> Thirdly when has any group of rich professional people
> lead to a population boom? If anything they will
> follow the demographics of all rich countries and have
> a sub replacement birthrate.

This assumes societal and governmentnal factors within the Habitat
will be identical to those on Earth. I think they won't be.

On Earth, with world-wide economic integration, your company in
Dallas or New York, has competitors in London, Buenos Aires, and
Tokyo. You must compete against the world and your government and
society faces those same pressures.

In a Habitat (or Habitats if they all belong to the same governing
group) your constraints are different than they would be on Earth.
Firstly, your company probably doesn't have a direct competitor.
Secondly, the shipping tariff makes your Earthly competitors goods
more expensive. Thirdly, your cost of inputs are different.

It's quite conceivable to me, that the citizens of a Habitat will
have been selected for present health, and possibly even with
consideration given to genetic health. Thus, societally the cost of
health care will be a smaller proportion of GDP than an Earth
nation. Further, depending on the assumption underlying your model,
you may not find it worthwhile to allow dishwashers, waitresses,
maids, gardeners, paperboys, secretaries, etc to immigrate. They may
all be replaced by automation. Thus, the wealth each citizen creates
will be greater.

You may have a tax system, like they do in Singapore, which
progressively increases the reward for well-educated and
economically successfull couples to have children and decreases the
reward for people on welfare and those are have less education from
having children. Such a policy would counter your contention that a
population boom couldn;t result from a population of professional
people. Singapore recognizes the West's dysgenic policies of
awarding more state resources to support society's less capable
citizens who are procreating faster than the more capable.

A Habitat society may encourage the integration of childcare right
into the workplace. No longer do two working parents have to drop
their child off at a seperate day-care, and then face long commutes
to their disparate workplaces. Now they may have a daycare on each
floor of the office bulding so you can see your child every
halfhour. You could have lunch with them, see them right after a
meeting, etc. The commute to and from work will be more reasonable
as well.

Perhaps if there is an imbalance between men and women the nature of
marriage and family will shift to accommodate the new reality.

Also consider what 250,000 miles of isolation from the rest of the
human race might do to the group pyschology of the citizens of the
Habitat. It may spur them to embark on a baby-making frenzy.

These are just a few examples off the top of my head of how a
Habitat may face different conditions from those experienced by
Earth societies and their responses may produce different outcomes.
In fact I think it is more likely that things will be different in a
Habitat than they are in Earth societies.

The first generation may
> find space appealing. Will the second or third see it
> the same way and not want the vastly richer expereince
> of living in a more populous place like a city on
> earth?
>
> Cheers, Thor

You may have a point, but consider how many people on Earth move
away from their country of origin if they are economically,
spiritually and politically happy. Very few! I would suspect that
the rationale the parents had for moving to the Habitat would be
passed down to the kids, and having been spoonfed this their whole
lifes, they'll probably come to think that they're living in the
best place in the Universe. Why go live on a crowded rock, with
crime, a poisoned environment, erratic weather, and all sorts of
other unpleasantries to contend with.

TangoMan

Platinum, even if not explicitly mined, is a byproduct of asteroid utilization. Once
you pull the water and metals out of a typical asteroid, platinum is one of the things
that left in the heap of slag.

Massive importation of asteroidal platinum to earth would in fact lower the price.
With careful management, this might be mitigated, so the price would not drop too
low. However, I don't see any reason for the bulk of the platinum to leave orbit.
Shares of the platinum that is still sitting in orbit can be traded on earth.

De Beers' skillful restriction on the number of diamonds in the world supply keeps
the value of the stones artificially high. Although monopolies are usually bad for
world trade, diamonds have kept their value, and this has been a stablizing
influence on the world economy. As long as the actual amount of platinum brought
to earth is moderated, deflation of the price can be minimised.

The dollar may no longer officially be backed by gold, but it still is in a very real
sense. Everyone in the world knows what Ft. Knox contains (and no coincidence
that it is guarded by heavy armored division), and it is only one of many repositories
of precious metals. This is part of the perception both domestic and worldwide that
retains the value of the dollar. Any currency issued in space colonies will have a
similar perception of being disporpotionally backed by a vast supply of platinum.

Platinum is also a very useful. It is a good catalys for some reactions, which will
likely be needed in the high recycling environment of the space habs. I think it is
also used in fuel cells, and if so, that might be another major product. In any case,
the presence of platinum in the space colonies will have an impact on the types of
goods manufactured, and how the economy operates.

I also don't think that even automated production will continue until the price drops
to nothing. Until the client puts down a deposit, no construction on an SPS will
occur. I don't see that radical a departure from the current economic system for the
near future.

Date sent: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 08:36:55 -0700 (PDT)
Diversity
Send reply to: ssi_list@...

[ Double-click this line for list subscription options ]

> Beamed power on the
> other hand has a multi trillion dollar market, near
> zero transmission costs, and is best produced in
> space.
>
> Therefore the economy of space colonists is being
> self
> sufficient and generating power for the earth.

I often hear the argument of infinite amount of beamed
power making lots of money. However, assuming massive
SPS (10-100s of kms) are put in orbit around the earth
and the energy is beamed back to earth and the
colonies, will there be a point where supply is so
abundant that its price comes down to near nothing, if
not eventually free?

Also, to expand a little further on money in space,
assuming colonies eventually become more and more self
sufficient, will they turn away from a monetary system
in general and move to a more trade based economy?

A reason I bring this up is that currently money is
backed by some kind of resource (often times gold).
Now in space it is possible to find large amounts of
any given resource. The one I've heard most often
sited on this listserv is platinum in the asteroid
belt. Or better yet diamonds that can be mined from
Uranus.

Would this not eventually devaluate the value of a
resource backed currency thus making it obsolete? Or
will another, more practical resource like water
become the resource which backs monetary exchanges?

Ryan Z

danst@...
The horse, the original in 4x4 off road recreation.

When speaking of who and how to build something as demanding as a
space Habitat, how about studying how the Panama Canal was built.
I had the opportunity to go through the canal by cruise ship.
They did an excellent job of having a subject matter expert available who
had done their homework. Being a brown boot engineer myself, I read all
they handed out and pestered the poor guy with all kinds of questions.
It was very interesting who management was, who supplied the
labor, how they were paid, and what the working conditions were. More on
the management in the next paragraph. The majority of laborers were
recruited from the different local economies. Recruiters were sent to
several different Caribbean islands. The laborers were paid the
equivalent of very good wage based on their own local (island) economy.
But by U S standards of the time, it was only one or two steps above
subsistence level (dare one say slave labor). The working conditions
were grim. The hours were very long with the schedules based on meeting
a construction time line. Any setbacks were met with longer hours. (The
subject matter expert was not sure if the extra hours were at straight
pay or at some kind of overtime rate.)
The Army Corp of Engineers were the backbone of the management of
the project. These engineers knew how to build and how to manage a
civilian contract force. No new engineering technology were used for a
task of this incredible size. Simply the attitude that it could be done
and that keeping the morale of the workers up by meeting their minimum
requirements the job will get done.
Not wishing to slight the Medical community, those Army Engineers
early on identified and requested help to treat tropical diseases. The
medical folks were the heros as they were not content until they had
identified the various disease vectors and solved how to reduce the
chances of contracting a disabling disease.
So who will be the "Engineers" of a space Habitat. Is there any
community of learning that is grooming for airless engineering? The
Panama Canal was built by engineers who have had a extensive training and
years of practical experience. They had set up and used a solid chain of
command. Experience had taught them how to keep the initiative by
anticipating trouble spots and maintaining constant corrective action.
Are these airless engineers in contact and working with the Habitat's
design engineers? Have these airless engineers identified the critical
tasks that need to be taught to their labor force? Are we ready to build
a space Habitat?
SLI

On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 03:29:54 -0000 "victoriatangoman"
victoriatangoman@... writes:

>So who will be the "Engineers" of a space Habitat.

To my mind, I guess the first thing is to decide if the Habitat
design is spawned from the knowledge of airecraft/spacecraft or from
civil engineering like dams, pyramids, buildings, highways etc.

Next, bring in engineers very familiar with building pressure
vessels, because this one will be huge.

Perhaps, develop some new technology like vacuum vapor deposition.
To my understanding, the mean free state of the vacuum must be low
enough that the metallic vapor can "flow" onto the habitat form. If
this is possible, can be scaled up to immense proportions, and be
cost effective it might just beat the "welding steel plates
together" mode.

Alternatively, there is serious consideration of using lunacrete for
the construction of the Habitat shell.

After completion of the shell, a whole army of different engineering
disciplines will be involved in making all of the systems work.

I believe that a number of new skill sets will be added to existing
engineering disciplines in order to master processes in a zero-g and
vacuum environment. I think the possibilities are exciting!

Is there any
> community of learning that is grooming for airless engineering?

I don't know.

TangoMan

> I nominate TangoMan's Orbital Solars as the next recognized
> monetary unit when talking about Habitats. For those who still
believe
> that a monetary system should be based on some tangible commodity,
the
> Orbital Solars will be tied to what ever amount the market value of
> electrical power per KWH is being sold at be it dollar, eruo or
yen.
> By keeping the two monetary systems separate until time of
> consumption, would it not start to build that faith and belief
that there
> is indeed a viable economy with a product for sale.

My roundabout answer to your question and background on why I'm
pondering sovereignty and new currency is this:

To my reckoning, the industrialization of space is going to be
extremely difficult on a piecemeal basis because of the inter-
relationships between the many necessary components of
industrialization.

That said, it may involve an armada of initiatives from a multitude
of diverse actors, all planned and centrally coordinated here on
Earth, and then instituted in rapid succession to bring about an
orbital industry. This of course presumes some major reason or
product that requires us to proceed with orbital development. That's
a big unstated condition.

Once some basic industries are established, then the development
costs for successors will be lowered. Thus, the highest value
industries will go first. Their profits must be fully convertable
and backed by hard currency reserves. As more actors are drawn into
the orbital economy, the convertability of the currency will
decrease in importance because there will be transactions that
occur, and which are financed, solely in orbit.

That said, much of the value or orbital commerce may actually stay
in orbit. If not, there will be a severe imbalance of trade
receipts. If your entire profit must be converted and paid out as
dividends and nothing stays in orbit for further investment, then
we'll have a very anemic orbital economy with stagnant growth.

The best way to insure the viability of a new currency is to have
full convertability, thus the currency must be backed by billions in
dollars, euros, yen, etc. This convertability need not be on a 1:1
basis; no currency, no bank, no central bank fully funds the value
of their currency - the US dollar included. As long as you can
convert and maintain value, you'll have a viable currency.

Hopefully, orbital profits will be reinvested in orbit where they
can earn a greater return for the stockholders than could be gained
by converting the profits into dollars and paying them out as
dividends. Rapid economic growth is a balm that can sustain and even
justify many industries. They falter when growth slows because they
can't amortize their investment with the unit prices they charge.
Growth allows continually more units to be pumped year after year,
thus easing the amortization issues. With rapid orbital growth, more
profits should entice capital to stay in orbit seeking greater
returns, thus easing the convertability issues.

The velocity of the money, the speed with which it travels through
the orbital economy, from factory, to worker, to bank accounts, out
again to pay for lunar materials, back into accounts, out again to
pay for refining of metals, etc, will bolster the strength of the
economy as well, more than just using US dollars as the means of
exchange.

> Perhaps Tango Man a new economic model for the future would work
> out better based on two economic systems.

Keep in mind that I happened to jumble together two concepts in my
post. One had to do with getting an orbital economy off the ground
(pun intended) and the other had to do with events that are possibly
hundreds of years in the future after a very robust orbital society
has taken shape and where industrial processes are yielding some
unimagined efficiencies. By no means did I mean to imply that the
two go hand in hand.

TangoMan