SSI List Moderation

> > That seems like splitting hairs to me. The right to drive a car is
> > government controlled, too. That doesn't interfere much with the
> > ability of commercial enterprises to build cars, or of private
> > individuals to drive them.
>
> But not to own the car. I believe it is an important distinction.
> Consider
> this: The government also regulates marriage. But for most people,
> it can't
> withhold permission to marry, or control what happens within the
> relationship afterwards.
>

I'm not quite getting your point here. The government in most states
DOES withhold permission to marry under various circumstances (e.g.,
if the couple is the same gender, if they have close genetic ties, if
one or both is already married, etc.). Anybody who wants to get
married has to first get a license, and the license can be denied.
How is that different?

Getting back to rockets, do you think the government owns SpaceX's
rockets?

> > Good enough for all those things you mentioned previously? They've
> > been snipped by now, but I seem to recall cheap access to space,
> > affordable human travel to the Moon and Mars, etc. If the RL-10 is
> > good enough to do all that, why isn't it doing it?
>
> If I told you Boeing could build a 3 engined airplane, would you
> believe me?
> Or would you say it's impossible because they're not doing it now?
>

That's a poor analogy. You're not saying somebody could build an
engine that does all those amazing things; you said the RL-10 could do
it. That's like claiming that the engine used on a Boeing 767 can
reduce air travel costs to $50 per round-trip ticket to Paris. And
yes, I would say that's impossible because nobody's doing it now.
(Sometimes generalization from experience is correct, though you do
have to think about when it is and isn't.)

> I believe conventional rocket technology (or minor modifacations)
> can bring
> launch costs down to $500/kg or lower, and enable crygeneic fuel
> transfer
> and long term storage in orbit.
>

That's a more reasonable claim (still a bit of a stretch, but not as
far-fetched as the previous one).
> With those three you have cheap access to moon and mars at a small
> multiple of LEO price.
>

For a suitably generous definition of "cheap", I suppose.

> The difference is you can't fly a nuclear power station. You can't
> buy/license a power station, then move it completely beyond government
> control, and use it to crash an asteroid into Washington DC.
>

Er, I think there's a leap there -- even if you COULD buy/license a
power station and move it completely beyond government control, you
couldn't use it to crash an asteroid into anything.

But yes, nuclear reactors are pretty tightly controlled due to the
proliferation issues they raise. Fusion reactors (at least, of the
aneutronic variety) don't raise proliferation issues.
> Plus any fusion reaction is a neutron source, and any neutron source
> is a
>
> dirty bomb factory waiting for a military coup to happen.
>

No, aneutronic reactions (such as p-B11) are not significant neutron
sources. And small neutron sources are easy to buy commercially
(they're used in hospitals, for example).

> > In addition to that, EMC2 is a commercial company. The Navy
> > is their current customer, but it does *not* control all the IP,
>
> Yes. But the US government is more than willing and legally able to
> say,
> "Well done. Now it's classified and you can't sell it to anyone but
> us, and
> we're not buying. We're also going to loudly and publically tell the
> world
> you failed. Cross us and you'll die in jail. Here's a complimentary
> pen to
> make up for your loss of profits."
>

Perhaps. But I'm hopeful that the next administration will be
Democrat. :)

> I believe you're underestimating how persuasive NASA is, and how
> timid ESA
> has been, and how much clout America has.
>

We were discussing polywell fusion. NASA has nothing to do with
that. And I don't think America has anywhere near enough clout to
stuff any genie that grants cheap, clean, unlimited electricity back
into the bottle. Countries around the world will license it from us,
or failing that, simply copy it.

> You might wonder why no one else
> ever built a stealth fighter or bomber, since the benifits are so
> obvious.
>

Poor analogy again. Stealth bombers are complex, expensive, and
provide no benefit other than to the military. Polywell reactors
(once developed) are fairly simple and cheap, and provide enormous
benefits to every individual who uses energy (i.e. everyone) or lives
in our ecosystem (everyone again). It's not even apples and oranges.

> > Once it's known that a thing is possible,
> > it doesn't take long for highly motivated
> > nations to figure out how it's done.
>
> Which is why I believe NASA and other US agencies have historically
> opposed
> anything that might lead to cheap space flight. They'd lose control
> of the
> basic concepts overnight. And I'm not sure they've changed their
> minds.
> SpaceX doesn't pose a threat because it's a throwaway rocket. The
> first
> person or company to try for reusability will probably find themselves
> burried in red tape by a government that probably won't want them to
> succeed.
>

Maybe. We'll find out soon -- several suborbital companies are
building reusable craft, and while suborbital in itself probably isn't
threatening, there will certainly be a race for higher altitudes and
longer hang time, which will ultimately result in reusable orbital
craft.

Best,
- Joe