On the PBS show "Nova" tonight...

John wrote, 'Though I'm sure there are a lot of interests in many
governments that don't want it revealed that space is actually very
easy. Put aside the problems of
home built satellites being a nightmare to police, and a threat to
important commercial and military ones. And, for that matter, put
aside that America has a history of stamping viciously on anything
that might threaten it's strategic power; in space or down here.'

He also wrote three subsequent paragraphs developing the theme, but
did not capture the point in any one sentence, summing up that it
added up to the "conspiracy theory" of why we aren't taking
advantage of technology now and moving to space islands in our
lifetime.

But let me sum it up violently: in his examples, it adds up to this--
every single "step" we've taken technologically has ended up being a
nightmare of some form or other. SO LETS JUST CHILL, being the
national consensus. Let's talk about it, sure, since we got these
degrees that say we should, but let's not actually do it or
entertain serious, sustained debate.

Doesn't that about sum up John's point?

Well, I'd like to examine it. Let's say he's right and that's the
mindset. We might call it lethargy. My son and I had the same
argument about a different epoch. He's a computer engineer living
the good life. But he's still a rebel, of course, and on the issue
of either aliens or Indians--native Americans--he's religiously
rebellious, as in, the conquest of Mexico was wrong, it shouldn't
have happened. Why? The Indians had a right to their own culture. I
asked him a more specific question: if you were a hunter-gatherer in
Europe, would you have chosen to begin to move to food production--
agriculture, animal domestication--as some hunter-gatherers did, or
would you choose to remain a hunter-gather, with actually more food
and more free time (Jared Diamond says), but none of the technology
that food production made possible?

But he hasn't written me back on his Blackberry, from the seat of
his high speed train going home from his high rise building. He
knows he'd have to see Apocoolypto, then, which his crowd has
boycotted because it's too "racist." That is, it shows a group of
people rejecting a 'lower' level of culture for a 'higher' one.

Oh, now's the time we have to get into this discussion: what's
lower, what's higher? How can you say one culture is higher than
another, etc. etc. etc. Until we're exhausted, of course. We'll have
this discussion on the internet.

But see, interestingly enough for the purposes of this group, he
applies his same (nonsensical) liberalism to alien cultures, too. We
shouldn't find them, is what it boils down to--just to do what Jared
Diamond wished in Germs, Guns, and Steel about present day remnants
of hunter-gatherer societies, the "missionaries" and "universities"
should just please leave them alone. The precious things. We
shouldn't find them.

That's the hidden position of our whole society right now. We Stink.
I actually had someone say it out loud to me in a beauty shop where
I was sharing the plot of a science fiction novel. A woman said, but
would you actually want to take our rotten, horrible society and
infect some other part of the universe with it? That's the voters'
choice today. They get the NASA they want. If they wanted something
else, they'd get a different NASA.

We have to quit feeding the monster. In my opinion, which is
not "equal" to yours but is either right or wrong, just as two plus
two never does equal five: we have to forsake liberalism. We have to
see our society as worth taking somewhere, meaning we'll have to
make it a society worth taking somewhere, meaning that we have to
recognize the value of food production over hunter-gathering, along
with a whole host of other judgements, the value of certain
lifestyles over others, the value of some cultures over others. The
idea that all things are equal puts us to sleep. We must value some
things over others, and we've lost the sense of it, and hence have
lost our fire, our thirst, our love.

You know, they had the same problem before the conquest of the New
World. They had to interest people in it. But they had just those
few on-fire missionaries, that handful of saints (it makes your
blood boil to hear me say it, doesn't it--thus has liberalism done
to you, the very idea that they thought their faith was worth dying
for, and don't say, 'no, they thought it was worthy killing for,'
because it was Spain and France who wanted that, and the
missionaries who consistently defended the rights of native
americans not to be slaves against the government-look it up!).

They had that handful of saints who believed in what they were
taking to the New World. Where are our saints who believe in what we
are taking to the stars? Presently liberal engineers manage to drown
out any mention of "religion" and "space colony" in the same breath,
but I tell you, my spacenutty brothers, this maliase we are calling
conspiracy will not end until we have leadership that believes in
itself again, believes in the culture it is bringing.

I don't think we have to say, here on earth, which is "best." Let
the "best" win the race. Just admit there is a best. Admit that it
is not only okay to believe in something, that it is essential to
believe in something--hear me, I'm saying I don't care whether you
believe that hunter-gathers were really on to something, really
believe in it. We will just have to make it to space to have "room"
for all the fire. "Tolerance" just doesn't get it in the motivation
department, and in fact is just another name for increased suicide
rate, for a bitter negation of humanity's incredible beauty, for
lethargy. "Sexual freedom" isn't much better. We need beliefs in
meaty stuff, discipline, ardor, self-sacrifice--wow, that old-time
religion! (Line from Dylan: 'want my army be some real sons of
bitches/gonna recruit them from the old-time religions')

Yours in Christ, damn it,
Jan Baker

-- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "ANTIcarrot"
wrote:
>
> > From: Xenophile
> > Hhmmnn...
> > Well then, I guess the question is: what can you do with $160B
in the
> > way of High Frontier goals?
>
> Expand. Build lots more SSPSs to establish market domination and
bring down
> costs. Diversify and use your CATS for other uses. If you get
launch costs
> to GEO down to $1000/kg, $100B of that is still going to involve
getting it
> up there. There will be $20B-$30B profit there, and there will be
> significantly more during the second lifetime, but there will
still be those
> who say it's a bad idea. The $160B figure is based on selling to
Europe, and
> hence many in the US will dismiss it as a 'waste of time'. For true
> stability an American company would have to get costs down far
enough to
> sell domestically.
>
> > > I really don't understand why people obsess over the cost per
power
> > > output figures. It's largely meaningless. Surely what matters
more
> > > is cost per energy output. As in $$/kWh.
> >
> > I'm going to reveal my ignorance here (like that'll come as a
surprise
> > to anybody) and ask, "What's the difference?"
>
> One is a measure of how much a power station will cost to build.
The other
> is how much it will cost to make electricity there, which is
important as
> that figure tells you how competitive it is in the long run. It's
total cost
> divided by the total energy produced over the lifetime of the
facility.
> $1,000/kW for example tells you construction costs for a 10GW
facility will
> be $10B.
> $0.15/kWh tells you if something will or will not be competitive
in a market
> where the going rate is $0.07/kWh or $0.25/kWh.
>
> Or if you prefer, the other is car price, the other is car fuel
economy. A
> car which costs 10% more but uses half as much fuel might work out
cheaper
> in the long run. My gripe is that the first figure is often used
to 'prove'
> that a $10/kW coal power station will 'naturally' produce cheaper
> electricity than a $20/kW green station.
>
> > > SSPS win over nukes because they come with massive fringe
benifits,
> > > because they don't produce waste, and because they can be
easily
> > > recycled on an on going basis (the material doesn't have to be
> > > launched a *second* time) and hence can last effectively
forever.
> >
> > Hadn't thought of that, but yeah, I can't think of any reason
that
> > isn't right.
>
> Radiation would cause some transmutation of material, but I don't
see that
> significantly affecting material strength after it goes through
solar
> furnaces and it recast.
>
> > > It's a case of $100B in, $300B+ out.
> >
> > Which brings us back to the question: why isn't anybody doing it?
>
> To beat an old drum, it's all NASA's fault. (Or so I believe at
any rate.
> Them and Hollywood.) Their unmanned probes and satellites do good
work that
> is and rightly should be admired.
>
> But for thirty years they locked themselves into an 'launchers
might look
> like aeroplanes' mindset. In stamping down on all of the more
sensible
> designs (and with today's materials, anything that's *not* a space
plane is
> a more sensible design) they have conditioned lots of people into
thinking
> that capsules can only be small things suitable for reentry and
not much
> else. Other things like a blinkered obsession with SSTO, a
preferences for
> experimental designs which were demonstratably impossibly with
known
> material science (mostly so they could *try* and advance material
science)
> and political considerations, especially regarding their
workforce, hasn't
> helped. So I believe at any rate.
>
> Films and Video Games have sexy space planes, or awe inspiring
space
> elevator designs, and hence this is the way the public believes it
must be.
> People think Mars is a good idea because they're told it is, and
because
> they are not offered alternatives.
>
> > "the oil companies would never let you do it."
>
> I'm not sure I believe that. SSPS doesn't pose a threat to oil as
far as I
> can see. Even if we launched one tomorrow, planes and cars would
still run
> on the black stuff. That's pretty much their core market, and will
take a
> long time to change.
>
> Though I'm sure there are a lot of interests in many governments
that don't
> want it revealed that space is actually very easy. Put aside the
problems of
> home built satellites being a nightmare to police, and a threat to
important
> commercial and military ones. And, for that matter, put aside that
America
> has a history of stamping viciously on anything that might
threaten it's
> strategic power; in space or down here.
>
> Would you want North Korea to suddenly find out that all they can
build a
> missile that can hit any city in North America using wielded
steel, a small
> power plant, and a five year old laptop? They might not be the
most advanced
> nation in the world, but even they have access to 18th century
technology.
>
> In the 17th centaury the Catholic Church lost control of
much 'secret
> information' (like the actual contents of the bible) because
ordinary people
> discovered the power of the printing press. In the last few years
the
> internet has caused a similar loss of control over other
information that
> authorities would like to keep secret. Information like 'how to
easily kill
> an Abrams tank' or 'ten fun things to do with a hijacked 767'
or 'high
> schools are a target rich environment and no one there has the
power to stop
> you' or access to the ten thousand books written on the subject of
how to
> conduct the one kind of war that western armies cannot win.
>
> This is one conspiracy theory why the western world might want
space to be
> seen as difficult, complex, and expensive.
>
> John
>
to use" The Wall Street Journal