Unless the submission is pure fraud - and this would be found out eventually when the results are not possible to independantly replicate - then the paper itself should be enough to determine if the methodology used in the study can output an unbiased result and on independant replication of results prove it's value. The entire premise of the peer-review methodology is to expose the published material to objectified tests and measure. This should lead collections of "science" that should be, in theory, worthy of noting. It is not the model within itself that's particularly failing but those attempting to use the model for other purposes. Relying on results on a study published, but not independantly verified are not the fault of the body publishing the study, or even the study itself - but that of those relying on such without doing proper research. This is something we are all guilty of one way or another but anyone that has ever made a mistake and learned from it will realise the value of proper research.

I'm using the elimination of money in my argument, because that is my argument. The entire concept of money is best eliminated, it has no long term function, and in the short term we can make do with existing monetary systems there is no requirement to create another. It's a little hard to avoid the concept, when this is they very concept I am advocating. It has to be based around speculation as this hasn't actually happened yet - but I feel realistical variables have been applied in order to paint this fabrication with a realistical bent. Almost everything starts at the point of pure speculation up until the point it is actually manifested.

You probably would need this education, as whilst you recognise accurately the effects of deficit, you fail to understand with sufficient surplus the converse can be true. And this isn't surplus, it's beyond what demand can call for. The more people realise trying to hoard the bigger pile to be futile and walk away to find something fun to do, the more people will recognise the futility in this behaviour themselves.

Post-scarcity within itself is not an easy erradication of deeply embedded greed. But it is the easiest environment in which to quench it. It won't be an overly rapid transition - as previously mentioned, previous periods of initiatives like UBI should assist - greed is very deeply present in some, they may even die without learning such lessons - but this should not represent the majority IMHO, and over the next three generations it's incredibly likely to vanish as those growing up with infinite resources behave differently. I'm sure you can find plenty of changes that have wiped out daily habits in less than three generations.

Scaricity can cause great desperation, and much greed - Surplus can remove the cause for desperation itself. I would argue that's a pretty epic impact, on the scale of it. Easily as "impressive" as deficit and equally far reaching. When you factor in that surplus is possibly the more favoured feature, and everything this should enable, IMHO it's a clear winner. Ultimately it's of no concern, which would be the "more powerful operator" isn't really the argument, what is important is the concept that having something provides as much of an effect as not having something.

At this stage being vague is all that is required. Vauge within itself won't work, there needs to be some flesh there obviously - it needs to be operating on a valid principle, or some attainable technique. You don't need to go into the historical processes of mining, metalurgy and industry - you can just say "a metal box" quite simply without requring much details beyond it's a container wanted to be softer than stone but harder than plastic. Once more details are viable for other concepts around that box you can begin to consider things like precise dimensions and shape and possibly even materials. By failing to go into more detail than "metal box" it leaves a lot of room for what this metal box will actually be. You can think this makes me look like an idiot if you wish. This ofc does not impact reality.

And seriously I'm not trying to sell an idea - the idea should sell itself. I have no need to convince, I only have reqiurement to observe concerns and explain how they are met. They'll be interested or they won't. As long as the absolute worst case senario is avoided, then it asks nothing of them.

Again you seem to mention a lack of plans for problems that may arise, yet do no ellicit to which problems these might be - which is slightly restrictive in providing for a specific solution for a specific problem, which seems to be a recurring theme. Despite my previous suggestions that this would be the only area that should actually feature any attention or effort at this stage.

Having more than one form of propulsion would be incredibly sensible if someone's life was involved - and not even NASA do this AFAIK (RCS systems don't count, The X37-B isn't good for supporting your argument, I'm unaware of other multi-propulsion systems) - especially when it involves a peice of hardware that's effectively disposable then it's considered not worth hauling around the extra propulsion system and fuel for the 0.001% of the time it's potentially needed. And you don't even need to escape the atmosphere to notice this being exhibited. Neither KittyHawk or the Fuzo have a redundant propulsion system(common powerplant failures possible) that I'm aware of, and these are intended to carry people(not into space, but propulsion failures can have serious effects, and not just to occupants). I've not contacted the engineering teams for either system, but I would suspect they haven't included such to save both weight and cost.

We can build specifically to grow vast rainforests full of exotic creatures. By the time we get material together to start any significant projects it's arguable if Earth will have any rainforest left. Oceans? we've got the biggest, deepest coldest ocean there is - space, and the undiscovered realms it shores against. Sandy beaches, majestic volcanoes and earthquakes are also not impossible to provide for - one would question the sensibility of volcano and earthquake provision however. A lot of places that are not Earth will have these things, and "not Earth" has far more mountain ranges, valleys, caves, volcanoes, "crazy weather" etc and eventually we'll find other places with new species to catalogue - and it's not as if anyone will be trying to take these from Earth, more experiencing them for a little while. It's obvious we wouldn't have "ancient architecture" but we'd have far more impressive structures. Far bigger, and in a far harder places to be building. Done right it'd last for longer, too. Earth may have all these things - and they're generally okay with people going and looking at them now I don't see why this would change - especially if we're feeding them everything they require to maintain them.

Once removed of a requirement Earth should drop the monetary system - keeping it in place just because it has always been in place for living memory isn't an argument that will have strong sway, and over time this will lessen futher. This is ofc not an assurance this will happen, just the logical outcome from the given variables. The scale of which manufacturing should require to increase to make viable the prospect of long term mass-residential infrastructure in stars - which would then be largely redundant after the construction so sensibly repurposed for other means - would certainly remove the requirement for trade with Earth.

I was not suggesting people be controlled through hunger - tho this is effectively the control feature in place for most, and it's enabled by the concept of money - plenty of people starve every day. On every continent. For controlling what folks think you'd be good dipping into research conducted by companies like google and facebook, who have recently overtaken governments in both understanding of tools and techniques, and ability to manipulate received informations.

Greedy men will indeed attempt to retain the status quo. The keyword is attempt, there is lots outside of even their control, and as previously mentioned the flaws with the model itself that is currently deployed are reaching their critical points. The ones who can think have already started adapting, recognising it's futile and adjusting their form to obtain a greater position in the vastly adjusting landscape. This represents their greatest chances to succeed as they will at least survive the massive reshaping and exist on the other side, even if it is in a different form. A monetaryless transition isn't likely to occur in a single step, for Earth, but it's not impossible to envision as an eventuality, given the correct stimulous. We can do it in a single step. We currently don't have a monetary system and not building one saves dismantling it in less than 50 years. Monetaryless systems have previously, and currently exist on Earth. Most notably outside of "western interference" - the likes of undiscovered and remote tribes are the best examples - and they seem to function well, as a society. The only thing really preventing that from becomming a reality "infrastracture wide" is concepts like finite resources, the previously established monetary system and people trying to build themselves the biggest pile. You take away the finite resource concept, and the facination of building large piles will cease for most, and even the attempts at hoarding should be insufficient to counter the supply making the net effect negligable. When it no longer has direct outcome on any particular other variable, the concept of money itself being a futility should be a lot easier for most to assimilate.

Actually, that is incorrect, until the results of the paper have been recreated by at least three other independent parties. They should by default be assumed to be not to be trusted. They could be flukes, the results of tampering, or even incompetence! So?, I never said it was, besides the entire point I was making is, even peer reviewed papers can be and have been found to be totally incorrect. Treating peer reviewed works like they are one hundred percent trustworthy, simply because they are peer reviewed is incredibly stupid. I understand more than you give me credit for. You can not quench greed, by ensuring there are more resources available than what is needed. Greed is the desire for more of a given resource/s than one already has and even if there are more resources than a single person can ever hope to use, they will still want more! There will always be folks trying to get more for themselves than they already have and need. Because the solution you so naively believe will solve the problem, does not address the problem itself, rather you are addressing the symptoms and hoping that will solve the problem. The key to solving the problem of greed can only be found by researching why greed is such a strong motivator in humans to begin with.

Who said anything about incorporating both propulsion systems into one project? What I said was having more than one method of propulsion available opens up your options. Which is completely true, there are no downsides whatsoever, to having two different methods of propulsion to choose from when designing a craft meant to travel through space or any other environment for that matter

Giving a greedy person something fun to do is a temporary distraction, they will still be greedy after the fun has passed. It is not what I think, it simply is the truth, for example let's say I am after a loan to start a small business and you are in charge of such matters at the bank I go to to try and get the loan. If I present just a vague outline of my business plan you will not be inclined to approve my request for the loan. Because you would immediately assume that I have no idea what I am doing and that the bank would only lose money by giving me the loan. But, if I were able to give you a detailed description of my business plan that was able to address any concerns you may have, you would be more inclined to approve my request for the loan. Because, you would be comfortable that I knew what I was doing and that the bank would benefit by loaning me the money. By being vague, you are not giving anyone that might invest in your idea or buy your idea a reason to feel confident that they are not wasting their time and money and people are less inclined to take what they think is a chance that could possibly not yeild any benefits. I do not care what we could do as it has no relevance to the matter. Earth has everything I mentioned, while Asgardia would not initially and will not for quite some time. Therefore, I am only interested in what Asgardia will have initially because as time passes and tech becomes more advanced. It is a given that our abilities to grow such environments in a space habitat would also become more advanced.

So much of your argument is based on future abilities that Asgardia might have. Well, sadly they are irrelevent, the timeframe your argument should be based upon is the immediate time after Asgardia's construction and it should go from there. Because realistically speaking, Asgardia will not have many of the abilities you have based your argument around. Not for at least three hundred years after the establishment of Asgardia. The tech just does not exist yet to support those abilities. You are incorrect, this plan of yours is by design meant to support a soon to be nation and it's citizens. Which means you are whether you want to admit it or not asking those people to trust their lives to you and your plan. So, yes, yes you do need to convince folks to do just that if you expect for the plan to be implemented

I did not sugest peer reviewed papers are 100% trusteworthy - Just that this represents a good place to seek information. Any sensible trust model defaults to it's lack. Which is why the peer review process exists in the first place.

You can quench greed - and yes it will take more than just attributing more than they can consume for some deeply infected with - but for those who will be most resistent to change, this change is most likely to occur in an environment free of scarcity. And those most resistent to change only have a limited lifespan. There is nothing naive in this thinking.

It would of been yourself that had specifically suggested that having more than one propulsion system is not just a desirable feature, but beneficial. It was myself favouring being intentionally vague on such specifcs as detailed as to which precise propulsion system to employ in the final design to increase available options interim, which is so obviously moronic as you'd previously claimed you appear to of adopted it for yourself now.

You don't give someone greedy something fun to do - you wait for them to decide something else is more fun, whilst offering as many "better" options as is viable. Proactive attempts to promote change are more likely to generate resistence, as is well documented. This change must come from within or as you'd accurately identified when the casual distraction expires the problem remains.

With regards to what Asgardia will have initially, then unless the intent is to absorb responsibility for the populous then account for the problems this generates - and on Earth the probability of this happening I can assure you is infinitesimaly low, it's pretty safe to assume the problems will of been accounted for, before attempting to absorb responsibilty for the populous. Only one of those senario would be sensible to entertain unless there is specific intent to create something signifcantly worse off than the average third world country.

As we currently "have nothing" almost everything needs to be based on future abilities and initatives, so would be remarkably relevant. Some might of even considered how to put those abilities and initatives into place, using the available means, increasing relevance further.

Realistically speaking, the abilities much of "this plan of mine"(honestly, I've just adopted it because I can see it will work) revolves around are already present, in some cases with much redundancy. The technology does exist(which is why I am so confident), and has existed for some time for the greater part. You would know this if you could of been bothered to placing effort into researching the subject. I already posses or have access to much of the precursor technology, or the technology itself and will posses more as time goes by. Tock follows tick. Initatives complete and abilities expand. Some of us can think and operate five dimensionally.

Of equal realism is the fact that we have no need to fabricate our own fiscal system, and fabricate with it all the problems this generates, as existing systems can cope admirably with our needs for the foreseeable future with little to no drawbacks. By the time we are able to realistically account for our population living amongst the stars the requirement for trade, ergo money, will be vastly obsolete. Desperation and space habitation cannot co-exist, and attempts to within such a possibility is criminally irresponsible with the lives you are charged with care - there will be unavoidable and widespread problems. The only possible way long term space habitation can work is if all needs are met.

Hello EyeR,

No, you can not quench greed, we are not talking about a physical sensation like thirst. We are talking about a psychological issue that would require more than being given access to sufficient resources to address. Correct, it was me because that is true, however, I never mentioned anything about incorporating two different methods of propulsion into one project. No, I have not, I simply tried to inform you that, your intent of being vague because it gives you other options is entirely redundant and actually makes you look bad. You would have those same options, even if you committed to a method of propulsion on PAPER but not in physical design of whatever you are creating. Commiting to a solution on paper does nothing to affect your options, but it does show that serious though was put into the project and all relevant questions have been answered.

Right the greedy must change themselves first before you could ever hope to change them yourselves. Which is exactly why nothing you can do will ever eliminate greed short of. Convincing the greedy that being greedy is pointless and leaving it up to them to see that will fail.

The problem is, we are not yet in a position to take advantage of those abilities and initiatives. We do not have even the beginnings of a space based mining operation and we do not have the ability to grow and sustain an environment that is specific to a region of the world that is tropical yet. Which makes your plan unrealistic until we have the ability to take advantage of the future abilities and initiatives that could be in place.

If we have the ability to mine asteroids using current tech and trillions probably more of dollars of resources are just waiting to be claimed for use why hasn't anyone started projects to take advantage of the cash cow found in space? When the benefits outweigh the initial investment required folks make that investment. Because they know they will get a ROI many, many, many times over in the case of a space based mining operation. I certainly would had I the ability as would anyone else with it. Yet, no one has, which is odd because if they did they would without doubt make huge profits.

Sure we will, Asgardia could not go without a monetary system, not while the current generation of people exist. Assuming you are able to get Asgardia into space and begin initiating this adopted plan of yours. It will take sometime before Asgardia's stockpile of resources reach the level you claim would make giving up money possible and until then Asgardia will be dependent upon Earth for many things so, how do you propose Asgardia obtains those things without having money to spend on them? Is the founder supposed to shoulder that financial burden too? You said yourself his financial resources are not unlimited and this project will require significant investment on his behalf. Which is why he is not looking to do this on his own. No, the tech does not exist, the level of automation you intend to utilize alone requires a highly advanced AI that can not only monitor and repair it's own systems but, that of whatever facility/craft has been automated and the only thing I have ever heard of that can duplicate itself is a 3d printer. To make that ability useful in space would require trillions of nano machines capable of making the material which they are repairing and as far as I know they do not exist.

Furthermore, before you can even begin to assert that your plan would prove beneficial, you first need to estimate the total costs of implementing it and how long it will take before the cost-benefit ratio turns in favor of the system. With current tech that cost to benefit ratio is going to be highly skewed on the cost end. Too many things from Earth will have to be relied upon for the implementation of this plan to be cost effective

Yes, you can quench greed. This is not true for every case, some are intimate with futility, but most will recognise the futility with ease. For the cases this is not true, they have short life spans. The people growing up around infinite resources are unlikely to develop such pointless trends in the first place.

There's really no requirement for paper. We have access to much better tools than that if there was any requirement. I notice a consistant lack of these supposed questions that require answering.

We are in a position to leverage any ability we choose. You can literally do anything you want - as long as it's in the realms of physcial possibility and you're prepared to make it happen. If you attack it in the "correct" sequence, you'll have a lot easier time making it happen. What makes the plan realistic is we don't make use of these "future abililites" until the future, when they actually exist.

Concerning why no-one else has done this yet, I've provided my suppositions previously - another recurant theme - but for a more accurate answer you would quite possibly be best asking them, as I lack sufficient authorisation to speak with any accuracy on the behalf of random third parties I've never even met. What is odd, is that you would expect for me to provide others reasoning.

The current generation(s) may prove to be problematic to, but not prohibitory to abolishment of a monetary system. Via "my plan" it should take less than two decades to stockpile enough resources to think about begining construction of massive facilities, and less than two to actually construct - All the time this is happening the rate at which resources are being harvested is accelerating exponentially. To assume one machine can mine enough to clone itself in about twelve months - and it should be a lot more rapid - by the second year there are two mining and throwing back. Year three gives us four, year four gives us eight, by year ten there's 512 rigs throwing back. By year twenty or so when we're actually manufacturing the modular components for stations there could be 524,288 mining units throwing back if we do not stem the cloning process. By the time contruction of facilities to house and support the population have been constructed this should more than supply our own manufacturing initatives to render trade with Earth obsolete, else just as previous to the stage of not requiring to operate in the restrictive economies of Earth, the supermassive supply of raw materials and finsihed goods can more than suitably exchange.

I don't recall suggesting this project would require significant investment on anyone's behalf. I don't recall particularly suggesting Dr. Asurbeyli's funding isn't infinite, either - but it's a viewpoint I don't disagree with. I certainly don't think anyone should be made to shoulder anothers burden.

Yes, this technology does exist. I'm sitting here looking at it. I can reach out an physically touch it. The level of automation I speak of doesn't use a complex AI as you might imagine. An ant is more complex, and we've been able to accurately simulate those for some time, with such simulations giving rise to various ACO algorythms, which inspired the systems of which I speak into existence.

A 3D printer - or at least none I've seen - isn't able to replicate itself - it's able to replicate most of it's parts. There's a slight difference. I'm talking about self replication in orbit, but most likely the earlier incarnations are likely to be like the 3D printer - only able to replicate most parts. They will be more advanced than a 3D printer, in as much as other tooling will be able to make some of the parts that the 3D printer is unsuitable for, and actually be able to finish/assemble components into parts, and parts into products. Everything I'm currently planning on adding in actually exists, it's just a case of arranging it sensible in suitable package. In theory, with minimal input, this should be able to exapnd it's own capacity to add what's "missing" - with semiconductor fabrication possibly being the more later additions.

With regards to maintainence/repair, as this system will likely of built the systems it's repairing it's going to be quite qualified for maintainence. It should still have the, or access to the, plans. You don't need nanomachines - although they would be useful for some applications - the macromachines that originally built them should be able to cope.

I seem to recall previously specifying a loose estimate for implimentaiton, several times in multiple places, with a loose outline for meeting those costs. Including potential way of making Earth actually pay for it. As previously mentioned, as relative cost for everything but the few initial piece of production hardware is zero(and even the cost of this can potentially be brought down to relative zero), the cost to benefit ratio is rediculously benefit heavy.

You can not quench greed and it is not a trend, there have been numerous examples throughout history. That shows how greed is unaffected by a surplus and that greedy people always want more. As I have said before greed is a psychological issue, one you can not address by throwing material things at it. That is the same as a doctor putting a bandaid on a broken arm and calling it healed. It does not address the issue of why the greedy are greedy and you as well as I, know that the problem will not go away if you only treat the symptoms of it! If you hope to ever be able to eliminate greed get a psychology degree and begin practicing as a shrink. By throwing a huge amount of resources at folks who are greedy, you are giving them exactly what they want which is always more!

Are you done tap dancing around the fact that I am correct? You know full well that the issue is not whether or not there is a requirement for paper. You suggested that being vague is a good thing outside of security and were incorrect, it is no big deal so, accept it and move. The only problem is, you intend for all this to be put into place prior to the space station the Dr. intends to build and have Asgardians occupy. That being the case and those abilities not currently existing means as of right now that plan is unrealistic.

I do not expect you to answer for anyone not yourself because you can not. But, I was hoping that you would see and begin to understand the nonsensible nature of what you keep suggesting. The benefits a space based mining operation would yield any private business, that invested in such an industry greatly outweigh the risks and cause those risks to be considered as acceptable. So, there literally is no reason excluding any legal ones why private entities are not taking advantage of the ability to mine asteroids if we indeed have it.

Do yourself a favor and edit the part in your comment about 512 rigs becoming over half a million in twenty years. Because the math does not support said outcome I got 10,240 rigs not over five hundred thousand. You would need half a century for five hundred twelve rigs to become over half a million! To even come close to the number you suggest, those rigs would have to replicate at a rate of 1,536 per year for seventeen years. If every rig has to spend a year mining enough material just to clone itself. Which brings me to a few questions since these rigs would be using mined ores for self replication how can you be certain that in under twenty years we would have been able to mine enough ore to satisfy the requirements for building the needed facilities?, Have you taken into account the ores that will be used for duplication, maintanence, and any emergencies that may occur? Or did you just assume that there will not be any accidents of any kind and that the demand those rigs will place on the mined resources along with the demand the building of the other facilities will place on the mined resources will not exceed the supply of them? The whole self replication idea alone will place a heavy demand on those resources unless each rig has a point where it ceases to replicate itself.

You are over complicating this adopted plan of yours, we will not need self replicate mining drones, craft, or whatever you want to call them. We will also not need a network of launchers that themselves have to be put into place somehow. Because of the environment it would be silly to waste resources on things we do not need. Designing the rigs/tugs to have their own propulsion systems makes more sense than having a network of launchers that would see so much use that. They would need repaired entirely too often and needlessly eat up resources

The surplus of which I speak is unknown throughout history. Greedy people may always want more, but these are the minority - most people don't care for more than they can use. These few stragglers should be unable to consume to the rate of exponential acquisition. If they manage to tear themselves away from the full time job of trying to have a bigger pile than other people trying to stack their pile higher long enough to gain descendants - and they won't be able to stop or someone else will get a bigger pile - then they will grow up observing this futility - like a small child that grows up watching their parents smack habit overflow their lives never goes near the stuff, the next generations watching this are unlikley to follow suit, finding for themselves better persuits. And the finite lifespan takes care of those unwilling or unable to change. This all sounds remarkably familiar, as if I'd explained this already several times before.

I'm not tap dancing around anything, and you definitely are not correct. We do not require a monetary system now, and the future won't make sense to have one at all. Being vague within plans at this stage is sensible in order to leave as many open options as possible. I don't see what Dr. Ashurebeyli's independant intention has to do with anything I've been talking about, I've not mentioned requiring anything of the sort. However, if he can get something orbiting before me, it'd possibly make sense to try and clip up to that. I was initally thinking of the ISS when NASA move out 2020»2025. But it could just float independantly. There is nothing which I depend upon that is outside of current abilities, and as of a few years ago, "the plan" is realistic.

You did expressly request for me to provide reasoning for other people, multiple times. You can hope, but engineering is more reliable. Facts might be a good start. The fact that no-one has bothered to do this yet is not a particulary good argument within itself. Everything that is commonplace now was not done yet at some time. And almost all of it had someone like you sat there with rediculous reasons for why it is likely to fail. There's far too many examples to list. And yet, here it all is.

I'll not bother editing accurate mathmatics and instead suggest that you learn how to count. To come at that number, each rig should require to replicate itself once within 12 months. Every twelve month. Realistically, once it's entirely self sufficient, that can be a lot faster - the early phase is likely to be slower, delay would be the "consumables" reaching the belt, which would of required wating for resources to come back, sale, lift to orbit, launch window past Mars.

The eventual raw scale of application leads to the certainty of the timeframe, which is wide enough to be viable. Yes, account has been made for use of ore, sale of ore etc. As previously mentioned, multiple times in multiple places now, by throwing back in 10tonne containers that are filled with 70% of mined product, we get resources sooner. The 30% that remains distant should cover for replacing tooling and other parts as required, more cargo pods, as well as expanding/cloning. A precise timeframe for how long to get together 13 tonnes of material would require a more final design, but it's not unreasonable to expect that to happen at least once a day, even operating a bunch of equipment just a little bit larger than a garden shed. To be incredibly unkind and to suppose it would take 3 days to tow in some rocks and grind them into a powder and use vibrations and centrafugal force to sort by material - and then again if required to sort by isotope - then in 12 days it will of accumulated 1.2tonnes of material which should be enough to clone all the major structural work and most of the parts, or replace all the tooling several times. To assume it requires to put 1.2 tonnes into restocking the tooling three times a year, it can still clone itself at least 10x a year from that 30%.

There's unlikely to be any emergencies. There are no lives involved. There may be issues, but by the time any telemetric data can reach Earth to alert of any issues, it happened thirty mins ago. Reaction times available don't conform to "emergency" IMHO. Reaction isn't how this is played - at least manually. It'll never happen in time. Almost everything requires to occur remotely.

With regards to exceeding supply, there's at least 150 years of digging in that belt, even with exponential harvesting methods. It could be cleared quicker if we tried, but I'm of the opinion that once there is great excess the general cloning process would be stemmed. Once there's a path cleared through it, we can start throwing these machines out towards the Oort, by the time the belt actually expires the Oort phase should be in full delivery - and by the time we've exhausted that, we'll likely span several solar systems.

There is nothing more complex than it would really require to be. If it doesn't have purpose it wouldn't be there. The network of launchers can be put in place by the tugs. Or one could throw another. The use of launchers doesn't remove the option of having propulsion on the tugs, as expressly implied by the suggestion these launchers could cut down on propellant use if forced to consider propellant-based propulsion. Repairs should be minimal. Shielded correctly, and cared for, the electronics control package should survive indefinitely. Unless burnt out the motor should be easy to make last at least a generation with minimal maintainence. Especially in space, where there's no atmosphere. Between that and being able to power it reasonably cheaply by the likes of solar, or many other equally viable methods - means it will save far more resources in the first year of operation than it will consume in decades of operation.

Sorry to cut in on your two's conversation but I just saw this video on YouTube and realized it had a lot to do with the effects of greed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQkvayPz3iw

It would be worth a watch before you two continue your battle.

Toodles!

That certainly was interesting Phicksur, it portrays how greed can affect one's thinking perfectly.

Hello EyeR,

They maybe a minority but that minority is usually the group with the money and power! How can you possibly speak for most people? Better yet how can you possibly know what most people do not care for? Did you ask them? No, you did not, I can think of one thing most folks would like to have more of and that is money. Sure, you are, you have been avoiding the fact that being vague about anything other than for security measures is pointless. You can keep your options open just by not committing to any one idea. In the finished version of whatever it is you are creating and that committing to a solution on paper means it can be changed if a more effective one has been found. There literally is no need to be vague unless you simply have no idea how you plan to address whatever issue you are being vague about. That is the only scenario that makes any sense.

Actually, it is, as I have said the ability to mine asteroids would yield fantastic profits for any private entity that does so and if we have the ability to do so now, it makes no sense that private entities are not doing so! In business if you have the ability to do something that will result in your company making unbelievable profits. Such as the profits space mining would yield you do it, waiting only increases the likelihood that more and more competitors will appear to take a slice of the pie for themselves. Furthermore we need those resources and will begin mining them at some point in the near future. So having the framework in place that will allow us to do that sooner would only benefit us. Yet, we are not even beginning to put that in place. Too many things are not adding up if what you claim is true.

So? The use of the word yet does not imply that they will never exist, just that they do not now and as you are well aware you can not use or depend on things that currently do not exist. It is fundamentally and literally impossible, for example I can not go online and make a two-three hundred dollar purchase without having the money and rely on the fact that I will have it in the future. The fact that I will have it in the future does not have any impact on the present. Which it would need to in order to allow me to make said purchase, just like the resources in space can not be depended upon until they have actually been gathered and returned to Earth or an orbital processing facility.

Accurate mathematics!!? In the space of a year each rig would only produce one copy of itself. Which means you would have a steady doubling of their numbers ever year and at the end of twenty years 512 rigs would only become 204,800 rigs.I used the numbers you provided and that is the result I got. After catching on to a mistake I made I re-did the math and using the numbers you provided I found it would take more than twenty years to reach your over half a million estimate. You would only have 204,800 rigs in twenty years and in forty you would have 409,600 rigs which is far short of the estimate you arrived at. You would need more than half a century using the numbers you have provided to come close to your estimate!

Who said emergencies are only emergencies when lives are involved? Better yet who says no lives will be involved? For example ssy one of your rigs has been tossed back towards Earth to deliver it's lpad of resources, it's thrusters fail to engage, it has no way of slowing it's approach, and goes crashing into the Earth or the orbiting ore processing facility? If either scenario happens then people's live might be put at risk making the situation into an emergency!

Any propulsion system we use in space would utilize methods that require little propellant and we can get the resources we need to make more propellant from the moon, so, worrying about saving propellant would be pointless. Eliminating money currently is not possible and it will not be possible for quite some time

They can have money - it's not going to get them anything anyone without it can't. Power is something the government should be able to deal with, possibly by enacting a state of direct democracy so no one man can weigh more than another(unless he's excessive with the fork). I do not claim to speak for other people but instead offer a seasoned observation. Most folks only want more money because it is already centric to almost everything else. By removing it from being a provider of other things by way of providing those things regardless I really don't predict there to be much demand for money. Greed may manifest is the collection of things, but that will too fade.

Being vague, as repeatedly previously covered is to keep viable options open without removing them by finilasing on a conflicting design, as you seem to understand this concept enough to use it for yourself I see little reason why you continually revolve back to this well settled matter. I shall again highlight the lack of issues presented, that have resulted in overly vague solutions provided that this vagueness itself makes it unfeasible.

Again, the argument that nobody has yet done this is not a good argument within itself. Especially as none have actually tried. You speculate it is not possible, but don't seem to be able to deliver any actual evidence. This would possibly involve learning how to research, learning how to do maths, learning how to do a feasibiltiy study - and clearly represent too much of an effort on your part so result in the previously supplied arguments that did not contain any thought or research. To say things don't add up would imply you have the ablity to perform basic mathmatics.

You can't go online and make a $300 purchase on the on the assumption it will be there in the future(well, actually, you can it's called credit - but that's not the point here. You don't even need it in the future, but that's not the point either) but you can make plans to get $300, so you can plan to make the purchase at a later date. You can then also plan to make use of that purchase at points after the purchase date. It's not entirely rocket surgery here. The fact that this needs repeatedly explaining is what leads to you being completely being unable to make or execute any complex operations. Sequence is an important thing.

Yes, accurate mathmatics. You should try this some time. Not by the end of twenty years does 512 become 524288. Before the end of 20 years 1 becomes 524288. It takes ten years for that one to get to 512. This was clearly explained, a pattern established - very clearly. Your inability to follow that clearly defined pattern directly results in inaccurate mathmatics. I've no idea how you've reached the figures you have. I suggest using a calculator next time. To help you, you can even copy and paste the sum in there: (((((((((((((((((((1+1)×2)×2)×2)×2)×2)×2)×2)×2)×2)×2)×2)×2)×2)×2)×2)×2)×2)×2) With each set of brackets being a years doubling. I know you have problems counting that high, and have problems trusting me for some reason, but trust me, that's less than 20 iterations.

You avoid emergencies by not throwing these at Earth. Unless that's an intentional thing with descent arrest technology in place. You just throw them near enough, it'd make sense to have heavy manufacturing on the other side of the moon, anyway. Things like thrusters failing are also covered by the network of tugs. The possibility of a unit fialing is mitigated by the scale of the failover.

I don't see why you've suddenly started declaring mining the moon as supporting justification for retaining the monetary system as such an argument can't even make sense in whatever deluded fantasy land you appear to occupy. The entire premise of mining this for fuel is rediculous and poorly founded on unsuitable research. The composition of the upper few ft and the areas below are vastly different. Also the samples retained do not represent an accurate picture of the overal distrobution. It would require an initative like I'm proposing to make acquiring megatonnes in a few hours feasible in order to mine a few hundred thousand tonnes of fuel, from the billions of tonnes of processing, about 38% of which would likely be waste getting it from the lunar surface - and adjusting it's orbital mechanics in the process assuming you'd be talking of helium, if talking water ice then there's barely a few hundred tonnes. Not to mention that the international outer space treaty might expressly forbid the claiming of celestial bodies, such as the moon so once it's extracted ownership becomes a question.

Your assumptions about greed are speculation, they have not been found to be supported by any evidence. In fact, there is more evidence against your assumptions than in favor of them. I thought I told you before your attempts at angering me will always fail. I have noticed how you purposely misspell words in an attempt to mock me. But seeing as to how I only know you as a screen name I have zero reason to get upset. I only find your attempts amusing and childish, besides, it is as phicksur has said. These personal attacks detract from your argument. Revolve around what? What I suggest and what you suggest are not the same. What you suggest is a plan that suggests you lack knowledge on how to address whatever issue you are currently facing. For the sake of keeping your options open which as a result makes you look stupid for lack of a better word. While what I suggest allows you to present a plan of action on paper, while still allowing you to keep your options open by, not commiting to a final design of whatever it is you are creating. Until you have explored all your options and compared them to determine which one will be of the most benefit. Your idea is not bad, the way you would go about it is though. Would you as a citizen trust someone to build a system they intend to be able to support a nation you are a citizen of if they could not articulate a plan of action to address any scenarios that could pop up? Their lives would literally depend on the success of your plan and they would need to be as confident as you are in it. Otherwise extremists elements could pop up and begin causing trouble or spread mass hysteria and in space that could prove deadly.

No, that is not it at all I just do not believe that we currently have the ability to mine asteroids on a large scale. Eventually we will of that I am certain, but currently we do not have thst ability and your plan relies on us having the ability to mine asteroids on a very large scale. I can do basic math, I may not be a mathematical genius but, basic math is not beyond me. I know why you think otherwise but, what you do not know is, I purposely overlooked the fact that the initial rigs would still be replicating themselves because I simply do not like doing complicated math in my head. I would never use credit it is a trap, you end up owing some greedy bastard thousands of dollars, not my arse no way. So, no, I could not use credit! Actually, no it is not, it is possible to buy and island and they are not all owned by some country, it is possible to develop said island for habitation, and it is possible to overcome the challenges you would face starting a new nation. So, as you can see, there is no need to do a feasbility study everything has already been proven to be possible!

Why would I trust someone I only know as a screen name who has been taking cheap shots at me this entire time? Do I know you personally somehow? Or is there some other reason I should trust you? Tell that to the NASA and other scientists who surmised it was possible. Also, the lunar mining part has nothing to do with the retention of a monetary system and it was not part of my argument aimed at the retention of a monetary system. That was specifically targeted at highlighting the lack of need for a centrifugal launcher network and nothing else.

Actually, thanks to the way that treaty is worded there is a loophole around that, just do not claim the moon or whatever body you are mining. Asgardia will regardless of the treaty have to engage in space based mining in order to expand and provide the materials needed for that and daily life. So establishing a mining base of operations on an asteroid or the moon would be done and perfectly legal. Since the base itself would be the claimed property not the celestial body it is on

Assumptions have been made on speculation. The entire concept being a theoretical construct nessecitates. I'm not aware of any particular evidence that would contradict my claims. If it existed, I'm sure you would of provided it a long time before now, in the process of researching the topic in question in order to invalidate my claims. I've made no purposeful misspelling of words in an attempt to mock you that I am aware of, but give me a second and I can rectify this, a casual review of my previous post doesn't seem to ellicit anything of such descript. Spelling isn't entirely my strongest attribute, and neither is typing. Review how many of my posts have been later edited for typo - I'd not be surprised to find I've a high ratio into the nineties of percent, correcting for errors my typing speed drops from about 240-260 to about 160. It might just be possible I've made a genuine mistake, when I intend for things it is common to be difficult to not notice.

The issue I would be facing would appear to be yourself, who from my perspective at least appears to refuse to see sense. The general tone of many of your posts in other locations appears to suggest you can recognise many flaws and faults with the monetary system, and key concepts involved with - yet for some reason here staunchly advocate not only failing to remove such a problem, but adding to it.

Indeed, precisely what you have suggested, and what I propose are different. The core concept of being vague, in order to allow for more fluidic selection of suitable system later that you seem to repeatedly cite as "dangerous" you have yourself used, in this thread. You suggest I lack knowlege and allude to some sort of issue - but don't seem to suggest what either of these might be. I shall again highlight that you fail to provide any justification for this standpoint, and totally fail to cite any "issues" that I currently lack the knowlege to solve, with any issue you vaguely allude to being provided with at least one viable solution. This doesn't make me look stupid, it makes me look as if I've done sufficient research before commiting words that other people can see. Unlike some, who seem to repeatedly fail to research even the most basic things, like the topic in question. And the revolution would be the constant recurant theme.

It is not until the options have been explored that the concept is a poor one. This concept is specifically exploring options. That's the whole point of not being definitive on every precise detail. It leaves options. This doesn't seem to be a concept that most people appear to have difficulty with understanding. If you can see a "better" way to deploy a deep space mining initiative, faster, with less cost - I should be interested to hear how this should occur. There has been a lot of thought and research placed into "my" model, however, and not just from myself.

Would I, as a citizen, trust my life on something that'd been found randomly on some webpage? - almost certainly not. I'd minimally require to understand the operating principles/mechanics etc. before I'd consider it. However, I'm not suggesting anyone trust their lives on something found on some random interwebs site. You can download and print RAMBO but your use of, and the materials/quality of build are variable, all systems before even being built as prototype should be heavily tested via simulation and preferably minimally designed by someone with experience in the specific realm this system operates in - likely requiring multidiscipline teams, where it invovles life. If this team was to exhibit as much skill, thought, care or effort as those involved with deploying this website, then I'd certainly want to be as far away as physically possible when that system came online, and certainly wouldn't want any association. Especially if there's life invovled. Thankfully, open source hardware is a sane way forwards - and one already endorsed by firms like NASA, ESA, Roscosmos - so there's already the right sort of people putting effort into the right sort of projects to make sure such lacking will not be incredibly debilitating to the whole affair, approached correctly. Modular design is a blessing. Any idiot can play lego. Again, all that's required right now is identifications of obstacles, and potential solutions to. It's this process that begins to both sculpt the limitations to the available options that reults in a fleshier skeleton, and eliminates potential "future issues" because you can think about and solve these, before you even start - resulting in a lot less wasted anything, least of all lives and effort. Any senario that you seem to throw out I seem to already have at least one viable solution to, and as previously mentioned many times before, this is unlikley to hinge upon myself at any point. My confidence is born from the fact every single problem involved has been previously solved, thus proving it is possible. From here it's just how would make the most sense to go about doing it.

Extremists, eh? Oh noes! phear! terror! Incredibly relevant to the argument I must admit. Deeps space mining is unfeasible and we need a monetary system because some people may hold strong views. Such muppetry is how "mass hysteria" actually occurs, not actually understanding any of the variables involved and then citing rediculous reasoning intended for FUD. And that proves deadly, in space or not.

I didn't expect you to trust me, this may of been mentioned - despite strict adherence to logic and independantly confirmable mathmatical concepts and calculations that you appear to be specifically avoiding referencing, or providing for the "correct" math. Between the two of us, it's pretty obvious which will have the more realistical chance of being able to count to 20. The "shots" would be cheap as it's unworthy or unrequiring of the time, effort or inclination for anything more. Honestly, you seem to do more than I could if I tried. The repetative accuracy within itself should serve to develop a measure of trust over time - one way or another most learn this, my largest issue is preventing people from trusting me - but you shouldn't trust me. You should look to see if what I'm saying is accurate - it's a sane default policy - and one that can save you a lot making yourself look stupid. I don't need to tell anything to anyone - they're aware od the limited size of their data samples and what this actually means when taken with other data like . It's possible, it's just not very sensible IMHO. Effort over return isn't on the right side of things. The complete re-surfacing of the moon required(for the helium option) for the potential return isn't particularly sensible. You'd get more, faster, easier by kitting up birds with atmospheric scoops and compressors. This could get fed into a VASMIR system for "cheap" refueling. If you're up for something as stupid as mining the moon you should be up for something as stupid as mining the Earth's atmosphere.

Having a slightly more efficient refuling system doens't eliminate the advantages the centrafugal launchers can bring to bear with the initial adjustment of Delta-V at the earliest opportinity - and the earlier side of an acceleration curve is commonly the least efficient part, this system will allow that least efficient part to take place with easily replenishable electricity, and turn what's normally a gentle postive slope to a vertical line to launch speed, with a gentle curve after saving easily 45% fuel for any given operation. Assuming a requirement for fuel. Without, it'll simply save time and energy, a switched reluctance motor uses less juice than any potential propellentless system I'm aware of. With launchers at sensible positions, both short and long distance operations can be made both faster and more efficient. If you'd spent any time looking at acceleration curves, BMEP graphs, plotting Delta-V required for intercept, or even a small childs physics textbook you'd not have any difficulty with understanding the value this will provide.

The wording of the treaty doesn't change the fact once you pick it up and attempt to walk off with it you've laid claim. Ofc, once this has been extracted/processed it's arguable if it's still qualified as the moon - but to look at this in a traditional property rights angle, the moon is already claimed - by everyone. To take that of another without their consent is somewhat theft. You walk on someone's land and mine some bauxite and react that off to gibbite the land owner can still be agitated you're stealing his property when you take the gibbite home. Clearly the solution is it can proceed by universal consent, but this is another headache in itself and one I see difficult to ratify at least initially - if only for anyone with any sense wouldn't entertain changing the mass of the moon without first having a method of sufficiently adjusting it's velocity in order to maintain it's orbit over a long period of time as it's orbital characteristics are specifically defined by it's mass and velocity. It could be attempted without this consent - but they'd definitely not want to be comming back. There will be consequenes. There's lots of time, and you should really start accounting for it.

Hello EyeR,

You want an example, here's one a multi millionaire who continues to remain in business even though he/she has all the money they could ever need. There are many multi millionaires who continue to operate companies in an effort to continue making money though they do not have a need to. Which directly shows how a surplus of a resource in this case money, does nothing to curb greed. Since you claim otherwise I will give you the benefit of the doubt regarding my claim of you attempting to mock me. I do see sense, I just think that things will not go as smoothly as you seem to assume they will. Because history is full of examples of problems causing well laid plans to fail at times. The flaws you talk about having nothing to do with money, money is simply a tool used by humans and as such is neutral. It can not cause any problems on it's own, it needs people to over value it to become problematic. If people are made aware of it's true value, then the problems people mistakenly associate with money will go away.

For example, a person like myself who only values money as far as the necessities of life goes and some times luxuries go. Knows that money has no importance beyond what has been mentioned. So that person does not over value money and because of that, that person is able to clearly see what is truely important and having lots of money is not what is important. The reason I advocate a monetary system is, simply giving folks what they need only promotes laziness and that in turn can lead to obesity, a sense of entitlement, and other not so desirable things. People should work to acquire the necessities of life and any luxuries. Doing so teaches folks the value of a dollar, work ethic, responsibility, and other character building traits. I would even go so far as to say that people need to work. A healthy lifestyle is a balanced lifestyle and work is part of that balance.

We are talking about accidents which are unscheduled events and could be anything. I avoid being specific because I can't be specific without knowing what issue will arise ahead of time, all I can do is be vague because doing so encompasses everything that could happen and it makes sense in this regard. You do not seem to understand, if I gave a specific example, you formulated a plan of action to deal with it, and something else occured your previous plan would be useless! Therefore, I avoided doing such which in this case allows you to keep your options open by considering other accidents that may occur and not plan for any specific one.

Actually, you are incorrect, the concept is not the exploring of options. In this regard the concept is setting up a system to support the creation and growth of a nation. Exploring your options on how best to achieve the goal is just part of the process. Which is why being able to show that you are able to address any problems that may arise, by being able to present a detailed plan of attack is always a good idea. While not being able to do so for the sake of keeping your options open is not. People will be less likely to trust in and support your plan when you can not show them a detailed plan of how you would deal with any problems that may arise. Was that my question? No, it was not, so, answer the question that was posed to you. Would you as a citizen of Asgardia trust your life to a person's plan if they were unable to show you a plan detaling how they intend to address problems that may arise? I do not want to hear or in this case read squat about, you not being willing to trust your life to something randomly found on the web. It is irrelevant and does not answer the question asked, if you refuse to answer the question then, you lose all right to complaign about me not being specific regarding all the possible problems that could possibly plague your plan.

That is bs and you know it, your entire argument has been I can address all of your worries so trust me! You immediately dismiss the valid concerns I bring up by saying they have all been solved and pay no nevermind to the fact that, these so called solutions are not a guarantee against these things not happening. In fact, the fact that these problems can still occur means they were never solved to begin with! No, it should not, thinking that it somehow should is quite frankly silly, repetitivity of information alone should never help develop trust in a person. How that person behaves towards themselves and others should however, and, you have not behaved in such a way that should have earned my trust. Honestly, you have only behaved in a manner that deserves my indifference towards you.

The system of launchers is a resource eating redundant waste of time. The more often a machine is used the more often it breaks down and needs repaired. Why build a network of launchers when you can simply give the rigs a propulsion system? The resources that would be used to build and maintain those launchers would be of more use building the infrastructure to support Asgardia. The fact that there is no drag in space means a rig could fire it's engines for a short peroid of time and then let it's momentum do the rest. Which saves fuel and still allows the rig get to where it is going. You really should stop making assumptions about what I do and do not understand. Because it is not like you have been talking about quantum mathematics or anything complicated like that. The benefits your launcher system would present are just outweighed by the costs of developing, placing, and maintaining such a system. Unless you can present a cost effective way to launch those things from the planet's surface. That does not rely on space sharing or the recycling of debri in Earth's orbit. If the moon already belongs to everyone and you mine some resources from it. It would not be theft in anyway shape or form. Because you are someone and as a result a partial owner of the moon! All you would be doing is taking what belongs to you if we are going by the wording of the treaty.

I used the moon as an example that is all, I never suggested what you claim I did. You went and assumed that all on your own, so, maybe what you should be asking for is the wisdom to stop making assumptions and the common sense to not assert them as fact unless they have been proven to be such. Wishing for that seems like it would be a better more productive use of your time but, that of course is just my opinion

Your initially proposed example doesn't counter my claims. If anything, it re-enforces them. People that are intent on not changing have a limited lifespan and post scaricity such is unlikely to be exhibited in more than four generations. You base it entirely around as things are now, which isn't going to be how things are in even five years time left alone, let alone fourty years time into exponential mining methods. People with more money than they can utilise but still concerned with aqcuisition move to other things, money itself becomes meaningless when you've more than you can cope with. Most employ other people to make sure the businesses keep making money whilst they focus on something better. Infinfite suppy will curb greed. Water is far more required for survival than money. Therefore far more valuable. Especially when you consider stocks of freshwater. How often you go to the tap and get yourself three more glasses of water than you need? You almost certainly don't bother because it's in constant supply - from your perspective infinite - so thusly you take what you need, when you want it. This is how most will operate in a post scarcity economy. Those that will behave otherwise will have only have a limited lifespan and remove themselves from the equasion in the fullness of time. Any decendants watching this are unlikely to follow. You grow up watching your father draw three more glasses of water than they want to drink, constantly piling up two glasses of water. Say, five glasses of water/day - meaning 15 pulled, ten not used, 70 surplus/wk. In a months time(quite likely less) you'd look at the pile of glasses of water n think: why bother. The pile of glasses isn't a problem, your father has a limited lifespan - this will solve itself. If you manage to pick up this habit, good luck impressing on your kids it's something worth doing.

History is full of examples of "best laid plans" failing - most of them involve a party on the "inside" doing something devious. The rest is commonly born of stupidity and arrogance. None of those particularly apply to my senario. Subversion should be unfeasible whilst having sensible people performing the likes of feasibilty studies and reviewing final designs eliminates the stupidity and arrogance factors.

Things are almost certianly not going to go "as smoothly" as my text would possibly suggest - It's a lot easier to write "build a box" than it is to actually build a box. Things do tend to occur. But building a box is not impossible, and done the right way it's not that traumatic - I'm talking incredibly loosely and operating with wide windows. There should be sufficient leeway. Each "new phase" introduces "new challenges" and maybe we'll meet one or two that have not been anticipated, but it's definitely possible to circumnavigate any issues presentable. "Unscheduled" events are possible to minimise, but not eliminate. Short of a previously unspotted asteroid skipping in with a 4000m/s relative velocity and taking out the first facilty or the first tug etc, it should be possible to work around anything presentable with minimal "disruption". Even that would just be a temporary setback, and not crippling. Most of this can be accounted for before the system is even constructed. The solution isn't to attempt to prevent it from happening in all cases, just prevent what you can, and account for what you can't prevent. It's the being vague that doesn't enforce a previously selected solution on which the design now hinges and create later problems when it begins to impeed another situation. It's called keeping options open - something you don't seem to have a problem understanding, yet seem to have a problem understanding. Which is an interesting quandry within itself, and taken as presented speaks volumes.

Especially when combined with these "problems" you seem to think I have not accounted for and seem to consistently refuse to divulge what you think them to be in order to be presented with viable solutions. This suggests you don't even know what these problems could be. It therefore by extension suggests that you've done insufficient research on this subject to be able to provide for an accurate assessment. I on the other hand have refused to answer zero questions, and repeatedly done so with the backing of long term research and logic. Should you feel this is not the case, I suggest you re-read it. Then again. Then do some research. Then read it again. Then come back at me with something worth answering, preferably something new this time. The only things particularly vauge within "my plans" would be the precise form factor of various devices. Again, if there is something specific you feel I've missed, highlighting it would be productive.

Again, the rigs would still have a propulsion. The "redundancy" from the launchers isn't a waste as you would understand if you'd bothered to research the subject, think, or managed to achieve as far as a high-school education. Or paid attention to anything accelerating, anywhere. Yes, the more you use something the more it breaks - but it's possible to virtually eliminate friction, especially working in a vacuum. The greatest amount of friction likely being exhibited at the release point, and changing the head every 800 or so launches will still be significantly cheaper than the thousands of tonnes if talking between here and the mining belt or back. It'll last a long time. Unless it operates on another principle, the largest danger is burning out the coils. This should be easy enough to avoid by regulating input and watching it's temperatures. The construction of few tonnes of launcher isn't going to significantly adjust the timeframes involved. Again speeds them up as resources move faster, for cheaper as the exact same system without the launchers will take up to 45% longer for any given operation, and will "pay for itself" on the first interplanetary distance. The development of such a system is quite minimal in comparison to your likely expectations with the most complicated parts being a single algorythm that is the targetting system and the release mechanism. Concerning the giving it a little thrust, then drifting - yes, but no. If that was viable I'd not need more than the launchers. You'd need to understand concepts like SOI and basic orbital mechanics and this is already getting lengthy enough with just a simple concept that doesn't particularly involve teaching you how to math and the basic operating principles of physics first. Again, this trust thing you have problems with - but trust me when I say it's not quite that simple. If you doubt me, fire up KSP and try it. If you stick to the deafult toolbox, then everything in there has a real world equivilent. Your target is from Kerbin to a belt few hundred thousand meters the other side of Duna, outside of it's SOI. I'm willing to bet the first five things you build won't get there, and the next five attempts minimal you go through too much fuel adjusting Delta-V and won't have enough when you get the other end to stabilise into that belt, and fall back in towards the star in a highly eccentric orbit - Then try it again, with an orbital launch system.

I don't make assumptions on what you understand - you present evidence specifically suggesting this failing. If you did understand, you'd not present this evidence for the purpose of making yourself look simple - it certanly doesn't make me look simple. I've not needed to get to the scale of quantum mathmatics to confuse you, all it's taken so far is counting to 20 and logical sequencing.

It may of been an example, but there was specific mention of mining the moon. To provide for fuel. Somehow to you, the thousands of tonnes of mining equipment being moved to the lunar surface and complete re-distribution of the lunar surface being a more cost effective solution than a few reusable launchers weighing a few tonnes each. I've made no assumptions on this matter, beyond if you're stupid enough to consider mining the moon without first being able to correct/stablise it's orbit then you'd be equally considerable to mining the Earth's atmosphere, as you'll get more for faster and easier. It'd be easier to replace the mined atmosphere than reduce velocity of the moon, too. Then consider all the launches with fuel - for lifting it it'll have to press against the moon. Tonne here, tonne there - it adds up. Once or twice you can get away with maybe, but repeatedly you're going to need to adjust the launch site to balance the forces you're adding. Again, time and lots of, it needs accounting for.

The problem with collective ownership is when one person tries to take the collective asset for their personal use. That's fine if it's pre-arranged that this is what is to occur, but especially with something that isn't replenishable this becomes unsuitable - You live on a little island, 200 people over 5 square miles of fully urbanised habitat and the .gov supplies 100 bicycles for collective use as a clean and energy efficient transport. When I step off to the mainland for a week, you'd be pissed if I want to take one of "my" bikes with me, because that's also your bike. Then if everyone starts doing similar real problems begin to occur. The "sensible" solution is no-one takes anything - it comes from there, it stays there. In the case of moon mining it's potential to result in something similar to the gold rush back in the wild west days. Much damage in a short amount of time as each idiot tries to grab more than the next idiot along, steadily accepting larger risks in order to get more faster, before the incredibly limited resource expires. Likely to be far more concerned about getting it collected than sensible re-distribution, and large piles of matter will coalese and add in artificial "wobble" to destablise the orbit futher.

Actually, my example refutes your claims, it in no way reinforces them, we both are fully aware that those multi millionaires are aware of the futility of what they are doing. They know they do not have any need to remain in business and they could live comfortably for the rest of their years off of the money they have. That being the case makes this a perfect example of how greed is unaffected by a surplus and that greedy people do not cease being greedy just because they have come to realize the futility of an action! All people have a limited lifespan, not just a certain group who refuses to adapt to your idealistic ways! No, infinite supply will not curb greed. Where you got that very naive idea from I have no clue but you have been duped! You will never solve a problem like greed without addressing the cause of it. You know that is the undeniable truth which makes everything you say that much harder to even take seriously! Actually, it also makes you and your plan a dangerous one because you unintentionally assume that you can make things 100% safe and that every possible problem from systems failures to people with sinister intentions can be addressed by good planning and design!

Your way of thinking directly mirrors that of those who designed those ships I mentioned that were by their designers snd passengers claimed to be unsinkable. You kept assuming that I expect to fail, when the truth is I simply expect for problems to occur regardless of what countermeasures have been put in place to stop them. Because and I can not stress this enough the countermeasures are not guaranteed to keep those things from happening! You can go ahead and place your life in the hands of something that is not guaranteed to stop problems if you wish but, you can not expect others to based on how confident you are. Remember the old saying better safe than sorry? Well I live by it as I would rather look irrational and worry about a problem that countermeasures are in place for happening. Because it still can happen considering nothing is guaranteed to be fail proof. Than look like a naive, idealistic, ignoramus when those countermeasures fail and open the way for catastrophe. Of course I do, I do not know how things will be in five years so I can not base my argument around how things will be five or more years into the future. Actually, drinking too much water is harmful so people only drink as much or less than they need to daily. It has nothing to do with the supply my body knows too much water is bad for it so I do not drink more than necessary.

Correction, that is how you expect folks to act in a post scarcity environment it is not how they will act. I mean, some will sure but not most, there will still be greedy people in existence and greed being a psychological affliction can only be addressed through psychological treatment! I can 100% guarantee you that living in a post scarcity environment will do nothing to curb greed.

You do not seem to have any clue just how incorrect you are or how easily people can be manipulated to bring about a desired result. Your adopted plan has a fatal flaw that no amount of planning and design can address and that is the human factor! Who will be designing the facilties that will be needed? Humans, who will be designing the machines that will be used in the construction of those facilities? Humans, who will design and program the computers systems those facilities, rigs, and launchers will use? Humans. Due to their emotions humans are incredibly easy to manipulate and if someone with ill intent wanted to cause problems that could lead to even bigger problems. All they would need to do is abduct a member of the family of some guy/girl who is working on either the computer systems software, the planning and design of the facilities, or the rigs and launchers. Use the leverage they would possess to get that person to sabotage the project on which they are working. Remember, society is not full of folks who urinate rainbows and never have devious intentions. This is not Mr. Roger's neighborhood, this is reality where just having a different skin color than another guy can get and has gotten folks killed. Stop wearing your rose colored blinders and step out into reality. Your naive way of thought could very well lead to people being killed!

This is not even so much about doubt as it is, me trying to explain to you why this plan is too idealistic, you refusing to accept that, and me being a bit miffed that you are refusing to take things seriously, even though people's lives could be put at risk if this plan is ever implemented! You can roll the dice on your own life but, not with those of others.

The types of folks who get to live in Asgardia will not be the peaceful, tolerant, well intentioned bunch you assume they will be. It will take generations and lots of folks working hard to change themselves in order to become those types of folks. For Asgardia to be full of the kind of people that will allow those ideals of yours to take root. Because the first step in keeping the drama of Earth out of space. Is to not take folks to space that are still following the train of thought that gave rise to the drama in the first place!!! Pretty ideals mean nothing if no one follows them.

Right, so I guess that's why I knew those initial rigs would still be replicating. You know, any honest person would have looked at the mistaken numbers I used and instantly caught on to the mistake made and arrived at one conclusion I forgot to take into account the initial five hundred twelve rigs. Which happens and is no sign of confusion on my part. But only you would assume otherwise and then assert it as fact. Again Sir Assume-a-lot it was an example, I do not need to consider anything so complicated to use the moon as an example. If you put as much time and effort into your arguments as you do in your hostile actions towards me. You would clearly see the many flaws in this adopted plan, yet you keep wasting your time and effort with these pointless insults. I have told you before I only know you as a screen name, therefore I do not have the emotional investment in you that. Would have to be present in order for anything you say to anger me. So, why do you keep wasting your energy on insulting me? Did I somehow hurt your ego? Or do you just enjoy pointless endeavors that make you look like an internet tough guy?

You assume I would be mad why? If I had no plans to use the bike myself, I would not give a flying fck and even if I did I prefer walking anyway so, I wouldn't stay mad for longer than five minutes max! Stop assuming you know me well enough to presume to know how I would react