Brandon7,

please do not direct personal attacks against other Asgardians. I expect you would not appreciate it if this was done to you.

I am sure there are other ways to disagree without attacking the person to whom you are speaking, yes?

Hey Phicksur, Before you hypocritically reprimand me, you may want to read through the comments in this thread, the one in the infrastructure and accomodations thread, the thread in criminal justice about goverment officials and corruption. Because Eyer has attacked me personally! Also, I see no mention of you being a MOD or anyone in a position of authority so back off. I do not appreciate someone hypocritcally reprimanding me while over looking the actions of another that I am being reprimanded and accused of!

Besides, since when is being honest with someone a bad thing?

We do not have the resources in hand, they are acessible. To actually get them via my proposed method will not cost you anything, so it's questionable as to why you would be so eager to see it fail. Or label it as a "con". We can rely on those resources, because they are there and we can get to them. "My idea" doesn't rely on this before it is actually in the hands. Just features it in the roadmap for how to realistically provide the hundreds of megatonnes minimally required to become operable. But again this has been covered multiple times in more than sufficient detail. Yes, rockets require to be loaded with materials and equipments. But only a complete moron would be thinking to transport the entire mass and do so over several thousand years - the attempt of which will literally cripple the Earth. What you would sensibly do is lift the minimal mass required to obtain the vast resources of space, and then put that to use expanding itself.

Most are not ready to give up the concept of money, and taking it away from them isn't the plan. Just to render it's existence futile - they'll choose to give it up. When it can't buy anything that's not already available it shouldn't have cause to exist much longer. Three, four generations at best post scaricty and not only money but concepts like greed are likely to be erradicated.

Building anything in space via the current methods isn't sensible, which is why infrastructure needs developing up there eliminating most of the problematic phase. There are no pieces missing for this to work, they just need assembling and putting in the right place.

Ask yourself this question since you believe we can access the resources in space. The resources in space would bring trillions of dollars worth of profit to whoever is able to mine them and bring them back to Earth and if we have the ability to go get them now then why hasn't any world government or private citizen tapped into the nearly unlimited gold mine that is floating around out there? Listen, I have no interest either way regarding if your plan succeeds or fails nor have I implied that I want it to fail. If it works fine and if not fine, my life would not be affected by either outcome.

The outline of your plan is vague, for example you do not clearly state how you expect to launch anything from the surface for the insanely cheap prices you have repeatedly mentioned. You also fail to specify if a private company would be used to launch things into space. If spacex was choosen for example their Falcon 9 rockets costs fifty seven million per launch and it would take several launches to complete just one facility in space. Let alone all the ones that would be needed. Now, right there you have far exceeded the costs of buying and developing an island to support a mere two hundred people initially.

What is the minimum mass required if there is even a such thing!? It would have to be quite large and that is the opposite of minimal. Whatever you launch would have to be able to harvest enough ores to make the duplication process reasonably fast anything smaller and it will take too long. Even if every Asgardian agreed with the idea and chose to give up money as long as people residing on Earth have not done so how could you possibly hope to render the existence of money futile? As long as even one person covets money it will always have value and will never be futile.

Maybe if you are dreaming concepts like greed would be eradicated. The concept of greed is not affected by how big a surplus of something you have. Which is why the greedy always want more even though they are the ones who possess almost everything to begin with

Vague is specific intent, it leaves quite how to solve that problem very open - there's multiple methods to sovle multiple problems. With specific reference to the actual lift then hire from a private firm like SpaceX would be the logical choice? That's what I was basing the $70/head on anyway. Worst case persuing that line of thinking N. Korea don't seem to care what other nations think of them, and I'm sure sufficiently compensated they could launch it for us. However, the industrial capacity of the ground hardware should be viable to grow itself in some locations to capacity to produce the overscale parts required to construct AE » AG sized rockets. The smaller faclilities that have upgraded themselves enough to do smaller parts can accelerate this process, and other lesser evolved sections of this system can cope with lesser critical components and rapidly reduce the man-hours involved with doing this stage ourselves, too. Shipping all these bits, as well as feeding and operating the machines can - as previously specified - be provided for by renting a % of the capacity of these machines to private firms and the general public. Then it's a case of putting fuel into it -=- Which is also pretty easy to manufacture, especially as we'll have the equipment to build the equipment to do so both safely and on idustrial scales. There would require to be a launch site - if the facility that Dr Ashurebyli bought in Malta back in 2015 isn't suitable, then it should be possible to rent one somewhere, and should that be unrealistic, Then we'll build a floating platform and do it out in international waters(shipping all the smaller parts by autonomous cargo sub).

The prices I've qouted are not insanely cheap, do the math on $70/head at current population - and then start looking at how much weight that would lift, today, with a system like Falcon9, Ariane 5, Proton, and Anteres. You've already answered your own question as to why this hasn't been done. What would an unlimited amount of gold do for the value of currently existing stocks for gold? Also of benefit, is it will allow for use of such materials casually in order to reap the benefits that are currently avoided due to such value. There's no long term profit(10 decades+) becuase the commonly supply/demand graph that economics itself bases on puts price at 0 to infiinite supply. Mid term returns(3-7 decades) are worthy, but most firms in existence now currently only really focus on 1-3 decade timespan for initatives on the outside, and there's incredibly few that think that far ahead. Them sinking money into something potentially frought with problems that won't see a realistical return let alone restoration of balance of investment for at least a decade isn't commonly entertained, and more than two is just laughed out of the door.

It might cost that much to get a launch going, but not every launch is filled. Sometimes other people have space, we can reduce the cost of their launch. If it comes down to it, we'll have loads of space, and padding around that in other peoples cubesats or such could feasibly cover that which we do not. It's called sharing. Absolute worst case, we can pack that space out with other consumables to springboard the initative and then meet the launch costs ourselves. Assuming the production network cannot meet this, this would be slightly higher than $70/head. At current population count it'd be $334.67USD - significantly higher but not impossible to meet. I'm poor and I can meet $335 in <1yr. Most people spend more on smokes, drink, unhealthy snacks, etc. Spread over five years I'd not even notice it I'd wager. And ofc, the count is increasing constantly which will reduce the number even further. When it's back up to 350k(which was when I did my initial feasibility study) it'll be a much more appreciable $165/head.

Chasing profit cannot reach out goals fast enough. Any firms operating in the "current economical landscape" will inevitably liable tax, import duties etc and mulitple costs that remove from the available return for the project - and the required return is greater than the top five countires GDP combined for the next 100 years - we can wait whilst a system like I propose unfolds. We're going to be waiting anyway, either way.

There is such a thing as a minimal mass - it is simply the smallest amount of equipment and consumables that you require for a valid operational cycle. I was personally thinking we've gotta be able to pull that off in aboiut ½tonne. When it unfolds it'll be about the size of a garden shed. Hence $70/head. This doesn't harvest ores - instead it takes LEO debris and upgrades itself if it isn't at a self-replication stage to save weight, and then clones itself - before this it would ofc get more tugs built mostly from scrap to speed up this process - and after cloning itself it builds some centrafugal launchers to accelerate the clone out of Earth's gravity - Hopefully things like the EM-Drive can make this easy, but conventional rocketry can easily take it the rest of the way past Mars to where the ore is - and the centrafugal launcher can send more tugs after, along with the other centrafugal launcher(speed up return) and any "consumables" that may be required can also be acellerated. If there's reliance on propellant required, this re-useable electrical acceleration technique will severely reduce the costs involved - it can significantly reduce the Delta-V required. This is what would harvest the ores - and it would of generated it's own supply chain in the process, making it viable.

As to those on Earth - initially we will logically sale resources(I'd suggest 60% of every return load, at 10% below current market rate - Assures sale, and they happy with bargin. The 40% left up there will add up, to assume it's getting thrown back in 10Tonne cargo containers(Maersk shipping containers take 30Tonnes) then every 3x containers leaves us with 10 tonnes of material up there - once the belt-side end clones itself(as it's throwing 70% here, retaining 30% for replacing tooling and upgrades) then exponential returns begin. Eventually these 10Tonne pods should be rolling in like clockwork, in fact, we may be good about this stage to think about centrafuging a depot to just the other side of the Moon. At this point in time - we shall have far more than we can consume - and far more than the Earth can, for that matter. We should be entirely self sufficient and the continual collection of Earth currency that can get nothing we need, and little we want isn't an advantage to us, or Earth. At this stage we should be able to generously give to Earth our net output. Literally overnight end hunger and poverty. Their own social problems, like money, will be left for them to resolve but i'm sure by then there will be those within our ranks able and willing to offer guidances. This will not assure that money becomes obsolete, but it's a high probability. You stop people coveting money by removing it's value. Once quite literaly anything can literally be delivered to your doorstep costless then money is of literally no use. There's nothing it can provide for that cannot be otherwise provsioned. Ethically questionable due to raising sea levels etc, but we should have enough spare rocks to literally build not just islands but "microcontinents". I really don't think it's a good idea to, but it's possible. By this stage the concept of space habitation should of proved itself and more will be eager for - this, and new worlds attempting being colonised should allieviate the population burden of Earth. Not all will want to leave, most I predict to wish to stay - but even 1/3 less population would help it. The concept of exploring other places will certainly appeal to some.

The concept of greed itself is most difficult to erradicate. And it is most definitely affected by surplus. Even after crossing the hottest the desert the most thristy may find this thirst quenched if given enough water. Enough so it is not possible to drink it all. And when they is no longer desperate, they will no longer try to drink it all and instead taking what they need when they need it. The initial problem post scarcity will bring is the currently ingrained thinking will lead to use of "precious" materials for purposes non-functional - or even aesphetic. People with solid gold toilets because they've always wanted one(silver might make sense). Mass hoarding of useless trinkets. The futile greed leading to much collection. I am under the impression it may take up to three generations to break this trend - eventually the raw futility will be obvious and they will waste their time with better things.

Hello EyeR,

About those tugs, how much cargo capacity would they have?, When done collecting ore where will they deposit the ores so they can go back to harvesting?, just how much construction material do you expect each tug to use in it's creation?, Who would wire the ships systems?, Would a machine be capable of correctly doing so?, What about the maintenance of these tugs?, when the debri in leo has been used up how will they be maintained? The debri will be used up well before the tugs have mined sufficient resources to make up for that loss and the debri will need to be processed back into usable material where would that take place?

About the sharing idea, as nice as it sounds it would not be sufficient alone at reasonably lowering the costs of a rocket launch. There is something that affects the cost lowering ability of it and that is the fact that it only works when two or more groups have something they need to launch into space. Which is not everday so, for the times when no other group has a satellite or other craft to launch into space. Asgardia having space to share become irrelevant because there is no one to use it. The sharing idea would be a great one if things were constantly being launched into space. What would those centrifugal launchers be built out of? I think you are overestimating the amount of debri in low Earth orbit and those tugs would harvest resources that is why you have included them in your plan right? Why over complicate your plan by including centrifugal launchers they are just another thing that will place a demand on the debri you plan to utilize to build those tugs and something else to maintain. Wouldn't it be much simpler to design said tugs so they have a propulsion system of their own? If those launchers break down for some reason then those tugs will be stuck. Not if those tugs do not have a more reliable way of returning said resources than being tossed around like a football.

A spacex launch of their falcon9 model costs a little under twenty five hundred dollars per pound at fifty seven million per launch. Meaning just launch the minimal mass which will definitely weigh more than one pound. Will equal a months mortgage for some folks or a months rent plus utilities for a decent apartment. Assuming the minimal mass you intend to launch weighs say ten pounds you would spend twenty five thousand dollars on top of the fuel costs to launch that into space! Then explain why folks with billions of dollars who should be satisfied with those billions of dollars are always looking for ways to increase the revenue their businesses generate if greed is affected by surplus?

Actually, allow me to save you the trouble you can not explain that. Because greed is not affected by surplus because having a surplus means having more than you need and having more than you need does not cause greed. A scarcity will but not a surplus. You mean asthetic purposes? That might become a problem but I doubt it. Listen, the stock piling of trinkets someone else may want is never futile. If someone else wants them those trinkets have value and that value means the person who possesses them. Could turn them into something he/she may want. Something like a first edition copy of a literary masterpiece written by Mark Twain or Shakespeare, or a classic automobile, or a priceless stamp

Oh, and, a plan such as one that would support the occupation of space being vague is not a good thing. I understand the concept of leaving a problem open to many different solutions but, it is always better to solve the problem and keep any additional solutions as backup just in case. Which means figuring out a way to make launchs from the surface more affordable that does not require a second party picking up half the expense. It avoids creating a dependency on any possible second parties

The intent wasn't so much for cargo capacity as max impulse. They just move things. That doesn't mean you need to "hold" it, at least internally. For example in the case of gravel type asteroids, something similar to a wind sock can be suspended by three or more units and intercept can be thus to guide inside the mouth and a drawstring type arrangement can prevent escape. Precise capture method is likely to vary as per use.

Deposits would be to the facilities input, so it may feed processes. When this is being collected faster than it's being processed, modular storage and eventually additional facilites can be constructed.

Precise amount of material used in "tug" would depend on final designs, and it's likely for there to be several varients for different types of "mission". Initially, many small units may be more beneficial - they will go further on less, and working together can still gain requisite output. One dead falcon9 upper stage should build several more, in terms of chassis and panelwork. Some debris will be suitable to recycle into other components, but there is still going to be unmet needs in the supply chain at this stage, but the cost of deploying further systems can be significantly reduced and the operation of this system could potentially settle that bill.

Well before the thousand of tonnes of debris in LEO is used up, there should be viable returns from more distant operations. This will feed the maintainence effort, and the fabrication of the missing pieces in the support chain. As previously mentioned, processing raw scrap into usable materials occurs at the facility the tug is towing it to.

Sharing space on launches is a common practice currently, I see no reason why this would change suddenly. It's not something everyone entertains for every launch, but it's an option. And things are frequently launced into space.

Centrafugal launchers can be as simple as a weighted pendulem arm attached to an electrical motor. Release mechanism not quite as simple. As to general construction materials, titanium sounds good for the arm and release, unsure for the counterweight, but we can find something heavy. Pretty confident of being able to build motors, may require magnets as consumables. Lifting just the magnets is a lot cheaper than the entire motor...

These tugs are intended to have propulsion of their own. However as much propulsion as possible should take place electrically in order to raise cost effectiveness in operations, and reduce times to cover distances. Ideally the propulsion system on the tug should be electrical, and propellantless. But something similar to the NEXT-C could work too.

The people with billions are not afflicted by surplus beyond their ability to consume, they just make bigger transactions commonly - in a post scarcity environment this will just result in large piles of things that are effectively of no value and you are unable to realistically use in your lifetime, it's futility shall become self evident.

Yes, vagueness is a good thing. A lot will change in five years, let alone ten, or twenty - or fourty. The only things that need to be "concrete" are identification of the "challenges" and the ways they can be currently solved, whilst better ways are investigated. By keeping the general outline vague, one solution doesn't mitigate the possibility of entertaining another and decisions can be made at a more relevant time.

Good luck on getting a "solo launch strategy" on anything larger than a S Class.

Listen,

You would waste energy moving those rock unless one happens to be in a dangerous orbit and a tug may risk taking an impact by mining one in it's place. You also needlessly complicate the project by introducing yet another variable that could go wrong. So, those tugs would need a sufficient amount of cargo space. In order to make the idea viable you streamline it as much as possible, in order to keep things simple and the number of things that could go wrong to a minimal. Just give me a ballpark estimate based on the fact that they are intended to interact with asteroids. How would there be viable returns from more distant operations when these tugs are supposed to be the backbone of this plan and would not have been built yet? Yes, sharing space during a launch is an option but, only as long as someone needs or wants to use that space. When that is not the case it is not an option. I did not ask if their design would be simple so answer the question asked!

Does a scarcity or a surplus affect how greedy someone will be? No, no being vague is not a good thing, it suggests that you have no clue what you are talking about and people's lives will eventually be at risk. None of those folks would want to leave their survival in the hands of someone. Who can not adequately answer a question posed to him nor should they. Besides, you can solve a problem but, still leave it open to other solutions, by simply seeking out other solutions as emergency ideas!

I could do it if I wanted, it would not be hard, for example your tugs, I have figured out a way to launch them fully assembled from Earth for a price that could easily be afforded since it would be a one time cost. You simply design it similarly to a shuttle and have it be the rocket used to send it into space. At the same time you could use the tug to carry a orbital recycling drone to gobble up the debri in Earth orbit, well the smaller pieces anyway. This way your both of your machines can get to work immediately

Listen,

Do you ever actually think about what you're typing? I'd suggest at least re-reading it. Preferably before you expect others to attempt to make sense of it.

The energy involved in moving a rock of a given size is the same be this stored internally or not. There are no needless complications, except that which you seem determined to bring to the table, just saying I'm providing needless complication does not make this so and if you would honestly believe this is being introduced then identifying it might be productive.

These tugs not being built yet do not form any particular problem as of this moment, because as of this moment there is nothing relying on them. Obviously these would require development and construction before the attempt is initiated. Again logical sequence is something you seem to have consistent issues with.

Sharing space in a launch is indeed an option, which is why it was expressly suggested. When that is not the case several alternates had been provided.

I'm not entirely sure which question you would feel unanswered, should you care to be more specific I could stand a chance at repeating myself.

Does scarcity or surplus affect how greedy someone will be? I suggest you educate yourself on psychology of the human species. It's a well documented subject, and this topic specifically has been subject of much study.

Yes, being vague is a good thing. As previously explained, it means you don't waste time and effort on something that's likely to be made redundant in five to fifteen years. The obvious exception being the fixed constants. That type of thinking suggests I have every clue about which I speak, along with the suggestion that it's far more practical at this stage for most things to simply identify problems and potential solutions more than formulate highly detailed designs to which there may or may not be use. It is enough to know how to solve the problem, up until the point wherin the solution requires to be applied. And by the time the solution comes to be applied, if you've found a better way to solve this problem then any physical manifestation from previous is then redundant. Either way you're prepared to tackle the problem, at the requisite time. With ease.

Again you claim risk of life with no legitimate citation. I have repeatedly and continually answered quesitons posted and multiple times stated that at no point is anyone's survival or saftey is likely to left in my hands. But should it be, then there's a lot more hope with someone that understands at least how to construct a valid sentence.

These "tugs" was not suggested at any point by myself to be unviable. What was suggested to be unviable was the concept that you would be able to solo something larger than S class - which would be needed to get something like these tugs to the right sort of places, final design dependant probably U or V class - which you had specifically avoided detailing how you would achieve and instead jumped on possibly the easiest resolveable facet with the only addition provided to the vague outline is essentially the external attachment during the lift phase, and rather than tow small matter to larger equipment you suggest taking the larger equipment to the smaller matter.

Wasn't it you who suggested using a windsock type deal to capture gravel type asteroids and a network of centrifugal launchers designed to toss the tugs around the solar system? I believe so and that implies that the asteroids would be moved to a new location before they are mined and compared to mining it in place when possible you would be wasting energy and the plan becomes more complex than it needs to be. Sending unmanned craft to mine the asteroids is a simpler plan than what you have suggested and makes more sense. Because they are unmanned they do not need to go all that fast just fast enough and there will not be any need to maintain a network of machines placed all over the solar system or rely on a fleet of maintanence drones to service those launchers when they need repairs. Who would we share space with if no one needs or wants to use it? Seriously think about it, sharing only works between two or more people, no one person can share anything if there is no one to share it with. It is common knowledge after all, well, perhaps not in your case. No, there is not any physical system that relies upon them. But, you did outline them as a part of your overall plan and that being the case it relies on them!

Allow me to translate what you really meant, I know full well that the answer is a scarcity and not a surplus. But, if I admit the truth know, I will contradict all the bs on this subject I have spewed so far. So, rather than answering I will try and deflect attention away from the fact that what I have been saying on the subject on the greed subject so far is total bull and hope my attempt is not noticed.

If you honestly believe looking like a total moron is a good thing then, you go right on ahead and keep being vague. Because it is not good and does not keep you from wasting anything. It is just a way of admitting that you have no clue about what you are talking about without using those words! It also lessens the chances of you finding financial backers for any projects you may undertake. Investors want to hear solutions to possible problems not be given the impression that you do not even have the slightest clue how to fix possible problems! Ummm, every system meant to solve a problem has at least one redundancy. Which makes them a good thing in the case of problem solving how you seem to have figured otherwise I am not sure. Anyway, I think the word you were looking for is obsolete, which makes more sense in the case of your argument

As for the question regarding those launchers forget it the answer does not matter

Wasn't it you who suggested using a windsock type deal to capture gravel type asteroids and a network of centrifugal launchers designed to toss the tugs around the solar system? I believe so and that implies that the asteroids would be moved to a new location before they are mined and compared to mining it in place when possible you would be wasting energy and the plan becomes more complex than it needs to be. Sending unmanned craft to mine the asteroids is a simpler plan than what you have suggested and makes more sense. Because they are unmanned they do not need to go all that fast just fast enough and there will not be any need to maintain a network of machines placed all over the solar system or rely on a fleet of maintanence drones to service those launchers when they need repairs. Who would we share space with if no one needs or wants to use it? Seriously think about it, sharing only works between two or more people, no one person can share anything if there is no one to share it with. It is common knowledge after all, well, perhaps not in your case. No, there is not any physical system that relies upon them. But, you did outline them as a part of your overall plan and that being the case it relies on them!

Allow me to translate what you really meant, I know full well that the answer is a scarcity and not a surplus. But, if I admit the truth now, I will contradict all the bs on this subject I have spewed so far. So, rather than answering I will try and deflect attention away from the fact that what I have been saying on the subject of greed so far is total bull and hope my attempt is not noticed.

If you honestly believe looking like a total moron is a good thing then, you go right on ahead and keep being vague. Because it is not good and does not keep you from wasting anything. It is just a way of admitting that you have no clue about what you are talking about without using those words! It also lessens the chances of you finding financial backers for any projects you may undertake. Investors want to hear solutions to possible problems not be given the impression that you do not even have the slightest clue how to fix possible problems! Ummm, every system meant to solve a problem has at least one redundancy. Which makes them a good thing in the case of problem solving how you seem to have figured otherwise I am not sure. Anyway, I think the word you were looking for is obsolete, which makes more sense in the case of your argument.

As for the question regarding those launchers forget it the answer does not matter

Anyway, nothing in your plan allows for the abolishment of money or even addresses why it is not possible to begin with. So, you may want to focus on why money is as popular as it is and if it is possible to setup an economic system that does not rely on money as a catalyst for trade. Do that first and then you can focus on abolishing money.

Yes, I had proposed a "wind sock" style solution, for the gathering of smaller matter. Gravel-type should work well with this, as should dust and independant smaller debris particles.

The idea behind the launchers wasn't to get full distance out of them(tho it'd be nice if they can) but instead to reduce the Delta-V involved with setting off in a direciton massively. The "complexity" added to this operation I feel is justified by the savings in fuel if we are required to rely on propellant and general saving of time otherwise.

Yes, the general idea was to move the debris that weighs tens of kilos to the machines that weigh hundreds of kilos. This should, by my math, be far more cost effective than steering the hundreds of kilos of machinery towards the tens of kilos of debris. Some certainly will be a lot heavier, but with the way orbits tend to work intercept it at the "right" point in space and time then lend it some energy and it can be pushed/pulled to throw itself to where it needs to be quite cost effectively.

With regards to asteroidial mining then the centrafugal launcher is to reduce cost of the return journey for the material, and as this can be used over and over again I also feel it's a sensible move. The intent was to "park" facilities nearby and tow asteroid to them - Obviously starting with the smaller, and more accessible material - Getting facilities right into the belt isn't likely to be viable and result in rapid destruction until it has been sufficiently thinned. It should be able to remain relatively static for some time before it's managed to exhaust the local area, and then movement closer makes sense - but this should take hundreds of years, and by this time there should be thousands if not hundreds of thousands of such machines eating away.

Sending unmanned craft has always been my proposition so cannot be more simple than itself, and this does not within itself mitigate the requirement for servicing, or for a support network. Luckily, my proposal lays down it's own support network as it expands.

Logically, sharing will only take place with those who would want it - and due to the frequency of launches it's reasonable to expect someone somewhere will want to get something up there and not want to pay for a full launch. As previously mentioned, we can have the launch and share our excess space loading up things like cubesats from universities etc. Should needs must then various initiatives can roll out in order to pay for the entire lift ourselves - worst case crowd funding can result in applicable funding without significant trauma.

I outlined lots of things in "my plan" - nothing in the plan relies on them before they are actually there, however. There is no particular fail here becuase it is not impossible to make it exist, it's just the actuality of designing and physically building - which will make a lot more sense a lot closer to deployment time.

Your translational skills may require some attention. I had meant precisely what I had said. You desperately require education as this is a well documented topic, with many peer reviewed papers and very little of it tends to support your suppositions.

If you think avoiding needless expenditure of time and effort would make me a moron you may be good to review this entire thread for your input. If there is something specifically you would feel I have "no clue" about then feel free to provide me with some explicit details you'd require correction with. As it is not myself that has continually demonstrated a failure to understand I predict attempts at this would only really serve to highlight your own defective thinking and lack of ability to entertain valid or sufficient research on the topic.

I'm not seeking financial backers for any of my projects. Ergo this cannot lessen the chances for finding them. I have potential solutions to almost every problem. In most cases multiple potential solutions. This is the entire reasoning behind not solidifying designs at this stage - it leaves the largest number of solutions selectable, and the non-commitence would prevent introducing "features" that would make other, yet unfulfilled solutions problematic.

Obsolete is a valid descriptive term - but so is redundant. It's use is not solely multiple systems for providing failover. Failover capacity is a good thing in terms of individual systems, commonly. However, when 95 kilo of the "vessel" is ion engine and xenon tank this is useless and simply additional weight if it has a functional EM-drive. All the effort gone into making your design around that system is instantly wasted. Or designing around an NEXT-C and when it comes closer to the event we've scaled down VASMIR technology and are using that. Until a solid direction is decided a design built around is unfeasible, and deciding in finality right now would be rediculously stupid, there are many things that can happen between now and then.

As to the question of the launchers, it does matter. Or you would of removed the menton from your post instead of later mentioning to ignore it - so I highlighted your failure in being able to think anyway.

Everything in "my plan" allows for the abolishment of money. Commonly it's accepted that the only real purpose of it's existence - apart from controlling the easily corruptable - is to meter out the finite resources available to hand. If you had bothered to educate yourself in the field of economics you would understand what a supply/demand graph is, and how to read one which would of saved you highlighting your ignorance yet again.

I have no need to focus on why money is so popular now - the lack of foresight available to the common individual combined with mistakes of a few thousand years previous that wasn't realised until it overly saturated will do little about things now, especially as those able to see the problems tend collapse into futility of being immersed and enclosed in such a system.

As you appeared to intentionally avoid noticing, this initative would put everything in place to feasibly deploy an economic system that doesn't rely on a money for a catalyst for trade, by providing raw materials and finished goods to a scale that's possible to attribute to the masses on demand, without recompense.

Something being well documented and peer reviewed does not equal it being correct.Furthermore, you can test my hypothesis and see for yourself exactly what affects greed. Two greedy people put in a situation where there is a surplus of a resource say money for example. Will not show signs of increased greed as there is enough money for the two of them. However, put them in a situation where there is not enough money for the two of them and you will see increased greed as they each compete to get a bigger slice of the pie than the other. Which clearly shows that a scarcity rather than a surplus is what affects greed.

If you say so, but honestly, the fact that you went beyond simply answering the question asked. Suggests to me that you did not want to admit the answer because you knew you were spouting nonsense. You undoubtedly realize that a scarcity of a resource affects greed far more than a surplus of it ever could or would. Because you understand that things become more valuable when there is less of it.

Developing backup systems to solve problems is never a waste of time and effort, backup systems after all are by definition redundancies! Being vague will never be a good thing in situations like this. It makes you seem incapable of the critical thinking and problem solving abilities needed, when planning something on the scale your plan occupies. Any nation or private entity that, would back such a plan wants to see and hear answers to problems. It comforts them and tells them their confidence and trust is not misplaced. You need to learn to look at the situation from more than your own perspective. Your not being vague while having the ability to make you look good is not for your benefit. It is for the benefit of whomever is backing you and since your plan is meant to assist in the creation of an independent nation. You need to convince a lot of people that you know what you are doing and the first step to that is. To convince them that you know what you are talking about. Personally, I would view you being vague as a sign that you are not right for the job.

About your launchers, waiting until just before deployment day to start constructing them is nonsense. Ideally, you would want those in place before the first tug is created. To allow for immediate implementation of the mining operations, when the facilities and tugs are good to go. By waiting so late to begin constructing/or deploying the launcher network. You pushback the date when the mining operations they are meant to support can be implemented. In space the weight would not matter much and if you have a working EM drive you would use it and not another form of propulsion or you would incorporate that into future designs! Meaning have ion propulsion tech would not be any hindrance at all.

The creation of an economic model that does not rely on money in use in a single nation does not allow for the abolishment of money on the scale needed to allow any nation to go without a monetary system. It would have to be a worldwide phenomenon. If Asgardia manages to do without money and the rest of Earth does not then what are Asgardians supposed to use when they do business with Earth bound companies and private citizens? The idea that they would not need money would only apply as long as they do not leave Asgardia, need, or want something they can only get from Earth. So, no your plan does not allow for Asgardia to do without money. It does not address all the reasons why money is currently used. Every Earth bound nation will not have the access to the amount of resources necessary to abolish money and greedy men will not let money go away. It is their way of controling the folks of Earth and they want it to stay intact

Something being well documented and peer reviewed does not defacto equate accurate -=- But it does give you all the information you could possibly require in order to make the educated assesment for yourself if it has been conducted sufficiently.

The point in hand is not just surplus. More than they can demand. Quench all thirst. Once they both realise what they are actually doing they will stop trying to make piles because the other one had one they thought was bigger and focus on something that matters. Scarcity affecting greed might be the specific studies I had suggested you educate on, because with the elimination of the monetary system the next goal would not be to propagate greed, it would be eliminate it. Which is far more likely to happen in a post scarcity environment. It's hardly rocket surgery. As is how to solve the problem of there only being finite resources on Earth(actually, some of that might be).

Surplus effects. As does deficit. They may not exhibit the same effect, but they effect. It's certainly arguable as to which one would have a greater impact - what isn't particularly arguable is only one is likely to be appreciated, or good to strive for. I'm still yet to see the "nonsense" anywhere. At least from my part.

When I say about avoiding needless effort expenditure, I'm not talking about failing to consider for backups, or redundancies(which is an entirely seperate thing). I never said anywhere that backups are unwise or that redundancies are avoidable. Simply that right now all that's actually required is to consider options. There is no need to build all of them now, and then decide which is going to be used - that's the spastic way to do things, as I keep trying to suggest to you - you decide first. Making those decisions with any finality isn't particularly wise as there's a wealth of other decisions that would likely impact. By keeping it as vague as possible for as long as possible you have more options and less waste and more freedom with the end result. There's no sense spending a few hours on chassis design to then find the motor and the generator don't fit - you need to build the frame to fit them.

You keep vaguely citing "problems" - but don't actually allude to what these problems are. Any you've managed to highlight anywhere else I've been able to provide for solutions -=- As I keep saying repeatedly, most of these problems have already been solved previously which makes it significantly less difficult. It's already been proved possible and a documented method applied.

Vague is definitely right for the job - at this point in time - you don't actually need anything solid as then that becomes restrictive and then limits the solutions upstream. But you'd understand this if you'd ever actually been involved in planning something of the scale, and timeframes, of which this occupies. As for convincing others - I don't really have to. They're interested or they isn't, I'm not a salesman working on commission. I can attempt to correct misconceptions, and provide answers to specific concerns they may hold. And it doesn't matter if I'm not the right man for the job. The role I play is remarkably small, minimal in fact. I'm lazy.

With regards to the lauchers, if we can get the end system light enough I'd like to include them on the initial lift - but I've been generally factoring around worst-case. For LEO operations, they shouldn't be required - but could save fuel if propellant required, else time - and the intent is to have at least a pair built so one can throw the other towards Mars. It's not impossible to build at least one of those two before any additional tugs. The amount of "pushback" is really quite negligable - but that's another great thing about just having a vague outline at this stage, it can change incredibly easily. For the precise operations it'd make sense to study with intense detail the actual debris, and have some sort of sequence planned up in order to get the most matter for the least expenditure to get the system deployed as rapidly(and cheaply) as feasible.

The Ion tech would be a hinderence, even a refined EM-Drive I phear will have reasonably low specific impulse(7-15nM/kW). The weight of it would reduce the efficiencies of the system - not overpoweringly so, but it's better not there, than there. And if it never needed to be there, putting it there is futile. Weight does matter much in space. A tonne is still a tonne. Either making that tonne do 3700m/s or trying to stop it doing 3700m/s takes more energy than attempting to make 1 gram do 3700m/s - or attempting to stop it from.

Abolishment of money as a worldwide phenomenon is required for a nation on Earth to exist sufficiently with such a model - However Asgardia isn't a nation on Earth, or immersed in and surrounded by Earth's systems(well, it is currently by virtue of we're all on Earth still, but I'm talking once we can account for our population). When Asgardia has no more requirement for Earth currencies our productive capacitiy should far outweigh that of the Earth - There's more resources and more places to do things with them - and trade with Earth should likely become just giving them anything they want as we have more than we can use, and they don't have anything we don't. Apart from a planet - and I can't see them trading that any time soon, Who'd have the rights to trade it for a start.

Greedy men can't stop the money going away. The economic model is flawed and it's nearing it's critical failure point. There's many stopgap measures proposed, but at best all these do is slow it down a little. And money is only one facet of control. He who controls the food, controls the people - You might like to read the UN Roadmap to food security through to 2050. Earlier revisions are more meaty.

No, no it does not the belief that it does is total nonsense, the link I gave leads to an article that highlights just why peer reviewed papers are not always reliable. How are you using the elimination of money in your argument when it has never happened? Currently the entire idea of doing away with a monetary system is pure speculation it is kind of hard to formulate a convincing argument when it is based around speculation. I do not need any further education on how greedy people behave when something they want is in short supply. Because we all act that way the more scarce something is the higher the demand grows and the more valuable it becomes, which causes greedy people to behave in a greedier manner, while a surplus would not even though those folks will still be greedy.You are fooling yourself if you honestly believe that a post scarcity situation. Would lead to the easy elimination of a psychological aspect of a person because it will not a greedy person will be greedy even if he/she has a surplus of a given resource. As the money grubbing so called elite have proven time and time again, so you should really rethink what you have said because it clearly does not make any sense. No, it is not arguable which one would have a greater impact greed motivated by a scarcity will always have a bigger impact, because people tend to take more desperate measures the scarcer the resource whatever it maybe becomes

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21588069-scientific-research-has-changed-world-now-it-needs-change-itself-how-science-goes-wrong

You are mistaken if you think that is all that's required it is not and no one mentioned anything about building anything.You can ensure that you have all those same options simply by not implementing the initial idea until you have considered them all and compared them to determine which one would work best. There literally is no need to be vague at all, unless you are doing it for security reasons. So, no being vague is not a good idea outside of security, it is pointless because there is an easier solution that does not make you look like an idiot. Actually, when you are pitching an idea such as you have done you are a salesman, the reason you pitched the idea is because you believe in it and think it would benefit Asgardia and help with the creation of the nation. Which means you are trying to sell an idea that you believe in and in order to be successful you have I repeat have to convince others to put their faith in it as well, so, yes, yes you do. As I have said before you do not need a vague anything, because until what you are planning has a physical shape you are not restricted to anything and can always change things. But you do need to be able to show that you have a clear plan to deal with any problems that may arise. I do not have to be specific about what problems may arise, you know full well what is meant so, going into specific detail would be redundant. How so? how would having more than one form of propulsion technology available to you be a hindrance when it means you will have something to fall back on if your chosen form of propulsion does not work out? Having two or more different forms of propulsion available opens up your options! Which is always a good thing unless you live in bizarro world where the opposite would be true.

The Earth will always have something we do not, for example would we have vast rainforests full of beautiful majestic animals in Asgardia?, what about oceans? will we have a sky in Asgardia? will we have sandy beaches and majestic volcanos? How about Earth quakes?, or seasons?, or caves to explore, new species of animals to discover, or crazy weather phenomenon, would hunters be able to hunt in Asgardia?, what about automobiles would they exist in Asgardia?, we would not have air travel, or wonders like the Great Pyramids, the Taj Mahal, the statue of Liberty, or the Eiffel tower to visit in Asgardia. But Earth would have all those things and Asgardians may want to hunt, visit those wonders, vacation on a sandy beach in Tahiti, or discover a new species of animal. Meaning they would need money to be able to pay to do all those things!

So, even Asgardia a nation that plans to be off world would still have a need for a monetary system even if the only reason it exists is to help facility trade with Earth bound nations. Having control over the food supply is impossible there are simply too many ways for a person to obtain the food they need that does not require shopping. For example I know how to fish so all it would take is for me to have the proper equipment and the will to fish and boom I have food available. Controlling people through hunger only works if you can keep them away from any other possible method of procuring a meal. Which is quite literally impossible with the amount of people on this planet. Money may not be the only facet to control but it is the second most effective because you need it to do almost everything! Controlling what folks think is the most effective way of controlling folks.

Greedy men will still try and as of now the way things are setup I can say with assuredness that they will be likely to succeed