83 thoughts on “The Future”

  2. “Space Settlement is indeed critical to humanity’s future, but advocates keep making the mistake of believing that NASA needs to have a role in it.”

    I have to pinch myself. I agree with Matula!

  3. Nice video, Trent. (I can’t believe I missed this thread until now.) I’m not a copyright lawyer, so I don’t know whether this counts as “fair use” or not. I hope Greason is OK with it, if he sees it. The clips of the eco-marxists ably illustrate his concerns about slipping into a new dark age.

    The problem in the Western world today is not a threat from Earth First! types, but that the eco-marxists are now firmly entrenched in government. One of the big stories in the blogosphere this weekend is the move by the U.S. EPA, in conformance with an international treaty, to ban an inexpensive and effective asthma inhaler because of an alleged threat it poses to the ozone layer.

  4. rickl, you don’t actually think Jeff owns the copyright on that video do you?

    If anyone is going to nag me, it’ll be TED.. In any case, Jim is just being silly. Jeff doesn’t care what people do with videos of him talking.. he has better things to think about.

  6. rickl, awesome. Thank you. In regards to the first comment over there, I’m of the opinion that the space race officially ended in 1967 with the signing of the outer space treaty. The Apollo landings were just inertia.. or, to be generous, insurance.

  7. Trent,

    That is indeed true, the motive for the race ended with the OST which is why NASA budgets started declining after. Project Apollo was mostly a combination of inertia, propaganda and honoring a fallen president. Shuttle was an attempt at lowering the cost, but pork politics lack of public support doomed it as a true TSTO.

  8. Ken,

    Actually Isle of Man is currently positioning itself as a flag of convenience but if you have a million or so to invest in lawyers there are a number of other more attractive options then Tonga.

  11. @Thomas Matula:

    Speeches like this are good for the spirit of advocates, but it will be the crafting of quality business models, ones based on market economics rather then government policies or subsidies that will make space settlement realities.

    Then you’ll be waiting a long time. Any obvious value to be extracted from any rocketry program hinges on a satellite market which still depends heavily on government subsidy and contract. The costs and rewards of a commercial market for manned space flight to celestial motherlodes, let alone empty orbital space, are so clouded as to defy calculation. I don’t see how you open such a murky frontier without the public assuming what initial, immense risk there is and at least taking a stab at drawing the boundaries of opportunity.

  12. Then you’ll be waiting a long time.

    Only if people continue to be blind to the facts. Do people want to live on other planets? Yes. When could they start? Within a decade. How rich will they have to be? Not at all. As a matter of fact, going makes them rich. All it takes is good credit and a smart banker. It could easily be done with nothing down financing because each person going pays for the next.

    But people are blind, so when could be a long, long way off.

  13. How much is a half hectare of land on mars worth? Today, nothing. Tomorrow, more than nothing. That’s all it takes to finance everything.

    How much more than nothing? It costs money to develop land for habitation. Normally the cost you sell something is based on how much it cost to acquire. Raw land is basically free. But people live on developed land. That isn’t going to be free. That creates all the market you need to finance any size program of expansion whatever the going rate. Today’s going rate. We could start today. Every penniless soul could become a multimillionaire the moment they sign on the dotted line if they agree to a mortgage package that includes the total cost of travel and supplies.

    That’s the beauty of double entry accounting. You acquire assets and debt at the same moment. That debt can retire over time. Those assets become yours immediately (with the bank holding the lien or mortgage.) An unencumbered title may take half a life. Insurance covers when it takes more than a life. This is done every day here on earth without free land claims. It is much easier when there are free land claims available.

  14. Prez,

    Not as long as you think. Most of the last 30 years were wasted because space advocates, especially the L5 Society and their spinoffs, the Space Frontier and National Space Society have been looking to NASA to lead the way. Ditto with the Mars Society. NASA has neither the culture or organizational structure to expand the Space Econsystem. Just look what is happening with the COTS and CCDev programs, and how their traditional micromanagement is creeping in. Even when the advocate group have successfully forced NASA to get involved all they get are hideous megalithic habitat designs both impossible to build and impractical to operate economically. Nice eye candy but as useless as starting Jamestown with a skyscraper.

    That is why I have written groups like the SFF and NSS off. Their NASA centered focus makes more of a barrier then an enabled in the creation of space settlements.

  15. That is why I have written groups like the SFF and NSS off. Their NASA centered focus makes more of a barrier then an enabled in the creation of space settlements.

    What are your thoughts on the how, where, and when of space settlement, Thomas?

  16. Jim,

    The first step will be robots and its already being taken. Check out the ILRP.

    https://sites.google.com/site/internationallunarresearchpark/home

    I was part of the founding conference in April and I am now involved with the advisory group, so if you want to contribute any ideas let me know.

    Of course where robots go, humans will follow, to do the things humans do best. Some of those humans will eventually decide to settled down to stay and those individuals will be the founders of the first space settlement.

    The biggest challenge is trying to keep the “borg” from NASA HQ, and their fans in the SFF, from hijacking this like they have other aspects of space commerce policy. Hopefully they will keep their hands off it.

    By contrast the folks at NASA Ames have the Silicon Valley spirit and are a true asset. Most importantly they don’t seem interested in running it, just supporting it with tech input, the traditional NACA role.

  18. Also if you are interested, this is the most recent presentation on the International Lunar Development Corporation…

    Thanks for the links, Thomas. Much appreciated.

    …that Ed Wright loves to attack.

    It’s not hard to see why. I think I’m inclined to sympathize with Ed’s position here.

  19. Jim,

    Why? Intelsat worked well for jump starting the comsat industry and creating the commercial launch industry.

  20. Intelsat worked well for jump starting the comsat industry and creating the commercial launch industry.

    I’m unconvinced that the comsat industry needed jump starting.

    Your International Lunar Development Corporation sounds much like ISS for the moon only this time we’ll get it right. Again, I’m unconvinced.

  22. Jim,

    I have seen those revisionist histories of comsats. Their knowledge of the global economy and telecommunications in the 1960’s, and interpretations of events, are less then impressive. Kinda like claiming the Transcontinental Railroad didn’t accelerate the development of the West. AT&T was already heavy into trans-ocean cables in the 1960’s, a technology with fewer unknowns then comsats. Its unlikely they would have invested in the technology at the level that Comsat/Intelsat did. The same goes for IT&T, the only logical rival.

    Last time I looked the ISS didn’t have stockholders or private capital involved. The ILDC doesn’t requires lockstep development like the ISS, nor does it place NASA on the critical path. In fact, ideally NASA would have no more involved with an ILDC then it had with Comsat.

    Nor is an ILDC require it to build any specific facility like a lunarbase. It merely provides a funding and management framework to merge pubic/private funding among whatever nations which to participate to build whatever lunar infrastructure appears to be needed to move things forward. Lunar communications and navigation systems simply appear to be low-hanging fruit. But then you should ask some of the private lunar ventures, including the X prize teams, what type of lunar infrastructure would make their projects less expensive and less risky. Communication especially is an issue.

    Also if the lessons learned are not to involve NASA in the critical path, not to create an inflexible organization chained from innovation by an overly complex treaty, and not to specify hardware responsibilities by treaty then those are good lessons to learn.

    But again, that is why I don’t waste time on space advocate conferences anymore, too much group think that is blindly them to paths beyond NASA. They are still fighting the battles of the 1980’s, with 1980’s ideas. Its way past time to move beyond NASA.

  23. Ken,

    [[[The biggest roadblock to settlement is ‘the common heritage of mankind’ bullshit. Nothing else matters.]]]

    That is another boogie man the space advocates have created that has exactly zero impact on space settlement. All it means is that no nation that signed the OST is able to claim exclusive or territory on the Moon, Mars, NEOs and beyond. So in practice it means there are no environment regulations or property taxes, or anyone else to worry about while you mine resources and build your settlement. And best of all, the space settlers get to shop around the 200 odd nations, include nearly a 100 that have never signed any space treaty, to find the laws that suit their settlement. Could you think imagine a better deal then that?

    Why do you think so many Lunar X teams are HQ in the Isle of Man?

    The problem is that most folks have become so conditioned to the idea of Real property and being closely under national sovereignty over the last few hundred years that they are not able to imagine the freedom that results when there is no Real property and your “sovereign” is millions of miles away and could care less about what you do.

    Gee, talk about a Libertarian Utopia 🙂

    But I guess such a level of freedom is scary to those raised in a regulated society, which is why space advocates spend so much time scheming show to extend Real property models and Earth sovereignty to the Moon, NEO, Mars and beyond…

    If you ever get a chance read Issac Asimov’s classic story, “The Martian Way” and starting thinking like a Martian 🙂

  24. Thomas, thanks for the detailed descriptions of your plans.

    Also if the lessons learned are not to involve NASA in the critical path, not to create an inflexible organization chained from innovation by an overly complex treaty, and not to specify hardware responsibilities by treaty then those are good lessons to learn.

    Nobody plans for those things; they settle for them. I think that, inevitably, you will, too.

  25. While I love Asimovs work, he was a liberal democrat.

    freedom that results when there is no Real property

    There is zero freedom when ownership doesn’t exist. You’re a smart man Thomas, but I know you don’t get this. Unclaimed land can be exploited as you say, but it will and should be claimed as people settle. Those claims need to be reasonable. A single sq. km. is sufficient to provide enough wealth to each person to move settlement forward at a rapid pace.

    zero impact on space settlement

    Mindset has an enormous impact on the future. The fastest growth will only happen when individual real property rights are absolute.

    They need property rights. They don’t need government until somebody tries to take away their property. That’s a future issue.

  26. Ken,

    [[[While I love Asimovs work, he was a liberal democrat.]]]

    You couldn’t tell it from “Thinking like a Martian”.

    Real Property rights are always linked to structured governments. But you only need both if you plan to take root at a location.

    But think a bit. Your self sustained habitats do need to be anchored. They may be mobile, and you with them. There are few societies with more practical freedom then low density nomadic ones and such low density nomadic ones will be the norm as humanity expands its way through and then beyond the Solar System.

    Real property only has value in societies that are not nomadic and require the fertility of the land to survive. Neither is true for space settlements. Creating Real property on Mars or the Moon will not be a major wealth generator, it will only be creating an unnecessary complication on humanity’s path to the stars.

  27. Jim,

    The best thing about the ILDC is it doesn’t need a treaty to create, nor an Act of Congress 🙂

  29. The best thing about the ILDC is it doesn’t need a treaty to create, nor an Act of Congress 🙂

    Thomas, I wish you the best of luck. I’ll follow your progress with interest.

  30. Ken,

    Again, you are thinking like an Earthling. IP and technical capabilities will serve the same capital function in space settlements.

    Real Estate is of value on Earth both because its limited and its very useful for producing food. Sub-surface energy, mineral and water resources are another factor that gives it value. Location is the third factor that gives it value.

    Except perhaps for the case of lunar ice, none of those factors become that important in space. Especially when you are dealing with such low population densities. Now a prize location in the Luna City main tunnel might have value for a small retail outlet, but not land miles away and not under pressure.

    When looking at the space frontier the economics will have more in common with the fur traders of the old west then the farmers.

  31. Thomas, you don’t see it’s value right here on earth so of course it matters not anywhere else. But the stubborn fact is, diversity of wealth through ownership is what drives economic success. Real estate ownership in private hands is THE biggest factor. Nothing else comes close and it turns out it’s even MORE important for expansion into the solar system.

    I’ve got my plan posted. I welcome you to come over and criticize it.

  32. I’ve got my plan posted. I welcome you to come over and criticize it.

    Ken, I can’t figure out how to post on your blog so:

    From Ken’s blog:
    Suppose it cost $50k in material from earth to develop a habitable plot and six months of labor (another $50k.)

    Where do these figures come from?

  33. Ken,

    Its value on Earth has little impact on its value on the Moon, Mars or elsewhere. And the value of land on Earth is based on location, scarcity and potential mineral resources.

    Now what you are talking about is not the value of land, but the value of improvements on it. Your greenhouses, habitat, etc. Those improvements would be considered personal property under the OST, just as the lunar landers are and their value would be as personal property. And your title to them would be via whatever nation’s laws you are operating under.

Comments are closed.