Hello Eyer, Would the radiation shielding protect the electrical systems on a space station from electromangetic interference? No, it would not, so the build up of said radiation in the Earth's ionsphere could cause trouble. History is not full of examples of every eventuality having been planned for. For example you have heard and probably seen the movie 300 right? The Spartans who would have won ended up losing because they were sold out by one of their own countrymen. Which they could not have planned for because they never could have known it would happen ahead of time. Believe as you like but I do not aim to fail, I am just realistic and understand that even the best designed and maintained systems and machines fail. That is true but, things rarely ever start out so simple that they do not need improvement. Nothing mechanical that man has ever invented has started out so simple that improving it was not necessary and even when something does reach a simpler state. New improvements in tech, construction materials, and design are continually being made. So nothing ever reaches the point where it is so simple that it can stop being improved upon!

Wouldn't it? Oh, that's right you know how to do math and have already done the EMI calculations and are obviously aware of concepts such as "Faraday cage" and that a high temperature superconductor can repel magnetic fields, and could additionally exist as a layer in the outer pressure hull. The ionosphere is likely to be a moot concept - considering the weight and mass it'd want to be outside of aerodynamic drag - ie: above the F layer - if one was to be doing things sensibly and not like yourself aiming to fail by not putting any planning into anything.

I didn't say the requirement for improvement would cease. Just the system overall should be able to be made resilient. Modular design intent is partially to make sensible use of "improvements".

Wouldn't the outer hull have to be comprised of a material that has all the properties needed it for it to efficiently act as a faraday cage, high temp super conductor, and radiation shielding all at once while not relying on multiple materials and jacking up the costs to get them into orbit? I mean, we have no space elevators or other cheaper methods of launching materials into space. So, the material used in the creation of the outer hull would have to exhibit the qualities necessary to act as the things you have described and still be cost effective to use. Currently we have no one such material, whichs leads me to a question just how many materials would be required to be used for the hull to exhibit the qualities you have just described? Actually, I am familiar with the concept of a faraday cage. I just prefer to leave folks like you who are prone to making and then believing their unfounded assumptions about myself and what I am familiar with. To continue foolishly believing as fact that which they haven't proven to be fact!

Well, the radiation shield I'd specified is comprised of a material that acts as a faraday cage. But you already knew that hence the stupidity of your previous posts. There are no costs with getting this to orbit, we've covered this intensely. Your intetntion will have problems moving 10KGs, and cost more money than every country combined will be making in the next few hundred years(and is thusly unfeasible for entertaining) and then in a few hundred years when you've got the funds to pay to lift a few hundred megatonne will be waiting a few thousand to get all the bits up there(also, stupidly unfeasibly). I'll be playing with 10 tonne containers, easily, that will be arriving roughly every 30 min within 20yrs, and at a relative 0 cost. NiFe is incredibly common, and we'll be mining a lot of it to get near other materials. Getting enough for a five meter thick radiation shield isn't going to be a problem. You would ofc sensibly have additional layers in the outer and inner pressure hull, they should never be required but not putting them there is your sort of thinking, mostly to save money which should never be a consideration that is in the same topic as "safety" and thusly dangerous where a fictional resource is valued higher than people's lives.

Would there be something in particular I'm relying on as fact that is as of yet unproven?

No costs? Really!!?, what is the material already up there in orbit? Or are you capable of magically teleporting it there? Those would be the only two ways the material coupd end up in orbit without costing a dime to put there. Every assumption you have made and will make concerning myself for starters and the idea that you can design and maintain something well enough to eliminate failures as a possibility. When in fact all you will succeed in doing is lessening the occurences of systems and design failures. You know I find it extremely odd that you would not put your abilities to us and help this project move forward. It makes more sense that you would use them than for you to not do so. So, either you were telling a falsehood about what you are capable of or you are a con and view this project as a way to get rich quick which is it?

No, it's not magic, it's science. It has "relative 0 cost" because the costs involved are previously met via other initatives and this is existing hardware reused.

As we can safely deduce from the overall tone and specific words of multiple posts in multiple threads that "getting rich" - let alone quickly - isn't a particular concern of mine, and as I'm continually able to counter your irrational fears with logical, viable solutions and further every suggestion can be logically linked to forward progression I submit unto you a third option: I am simply someone capable of sane thought attempting to correct the stupidity I see produced on the interwebs by someone far too inexperienced to do any research making them capable of approaching the topic, making any attempts at are made far too one dimensional to address five dimensional problems.

And again... I've assumed very little about yourself, basing almost entirely on presented evidence, and individual subsystem failures are not a possibility. They are a certainty. This is why you plan for them.

You know, the use of the word relatively implies that their is a cost and even if that cost is paid by other initiatives, it is still quite high! After all the majority goes to obtaining the fuel needed to launch a rocket into space. So, stop with the bs already, the launches will have a price tag and it will not be anywhere near $0. Unless you have a rocket with an anti gravity propulsion system. More assumptions!, when will you learn grasshopper? You assume because I have not cited sources or presented numerical values that I am unable to do so. Rather than thinking that maybe just maybe I do not feel a need to. After all, it is common sense that you can not plan a project such as this one around an ability you currently do not possess, it is also common sense that, you can not depend on something you can not access, another common sense issue is, it would cost more than buying an island in launch costs alone to build any facility in space currently, and finally, it is common sense or in your case should be common sense to not assume what someone is capable of simply because they have not done what you expected them to do. For all you know about me which is so very little, I could intentionally be giving you disinformation in order to get you to believe what I want. Only a fool lets others know what he is capable of right from the start.

Irrational fears? So, worrying about things happening that have happened in the past and can happen again is irrational!!? Here I always thought that was logical thinking since it causes you to exercise care and not allow yourself to fall into a false sense of security. Wait...that is exactly what it is, not worrying about them is irrational! You should know that I am capable of using numerical values and other data to argue. It is not rocket science after all it just is not my style, I prefer to use common sense and logic. Sure, it is harder but I enjoy the challenge, I also enjoy screwing with folks who love making assumptions especially about myself and present them as fact without having any evidence in support of them.

But, since you claim you do have evidence for those assumptions then answer this when did I ever state anything that implies that I strive to fail?

The inital cost isn't entirely trivial, but that can be met by other initatives, too, again reducing to relative 0 - relative is the key word, but the entire premise is it's not actually going to cost anything because it's already there. Just like you don't commonly factor in buying your knives and forks when pricing up cooking your dinner a decade later. The cost of using these is relative 0.

I don't have an "antigravity system". Yet. Although I am aware of several potential technologies that may fit the bill, I'll put my wager on the EM-Drive for them, the Eagleworks division at NASA's JPL has already concluded 1.2Nm/s(+/-0.2)/kW viable thrust. This is highly contested technology ofc and then only ultimate way to prove it is to build a model that will pick itself up off the floor. Maybe when I can safely generate 50kW, I'm not running that from the grid. But I was working around "conventional techniques" - again, the lift can potentially be paid for by the development of the same facilities on the ground, elsways initial lift would likely be less than $70USD/head. Far more feasible numerals than anything I've seen you talking about so far. Which you seem to specifically avoid talking about, I wonder why this is. And once that's done those facilities will be used over, and over, and over - reducing the cost of each further use. Further consumables will be a cost factor, most likely paid for by clearing up orbital slots of debris or old hardware. Should that not be possible then the consumable lift still reduces tonnes of lifting required to get operable to consider mining. And from that point on it should literally pay for itself, with returns beyond your ability to comprehend.

There's nothing common about sense. Or you'd have some. I know that you've not done any research - not becuase you've not cited sources or precise numerals, but because if you had the reliable, relevant sources you'd cite would support my viewpoints and so would the numbers. The very irrational fears you seem to fold into the sentances you form suggest highly you have little clue about what you are talking, or just like being scared of everything. What I know about you is what you have leaked - which is a lot more than you realise. As to the fool comments, if you think this is me near peak capacity then you are in for a surprise. If that statement was to allude you're capable of more, then this should be amusing.

Worrying about problems that can - and will be - solved is irrational. The ones that will remain are literally unable to be solved viably at that point in time, and will exist regardless of the environment in question and the general premise of worrying about things outside of your control is a little futile within itself and therefore somewhat irrational. The act of worry changes nothing, only inspires fear. Which is irrational. It's not about false sense of security, it's about simple recognition of futility. You certainly do not use common sense or logic - neither has been particularly applied to your input of this thread. And it would of warrented it in several places. If you seriously do "enjoy the challenge" then I would highly reccomend you attempt to become educated.

First you say everything is already there and then you say the lift can be paid for by other initiatives which is it? What initiatives? Wouldn't they need to first exist before they can be depended upon? The only conventional technique we have available to use is the use of rockets dependent on chemical propulsion to allow them to generate the thrust needed. To obtain the seventeen thousand five hundred miles an hour that allows them to escape the Earth's gravity. In order to launch anything into orbit and it takes tons of said propellant to get the job done. Making it a very very costly endeavor, far more costly than $70 usd a head! No, no you do not wonder why, you have already come to a conclusion regarding that long ago. So, do not try and bs me, thanks to you needlessly dishing out insults I know how you think. You see, I never said you idea was never going to be feasible, just that it is not currently feasible as we do not possess the ability it is designed around. Eventually we will have said ability and only then would your idea become not only feasible but the optimum way to go about things. If you were not so busy assuming to know anything about and tossing insults my way you would have seen that. Actually, I can not use numerical values to determine whos idea would be cheaper because you have not presented the overall estitmation of what your idea would required to be spent before it can be implemented. I can easily enough find out what it would cost to buy an island and build infrastructure to support two hundred people. But without data on the overall costs of implementing your idea, I would have nothing to compare my data to. So, using the conventional methods we have available and not abilities we currently do not give me a figure of the overall amount you would expect your idea to cost. Like I said do not base any of your estimations on what we could do had we access to resources we do not. Instead base them on what we currently have available.

I do not know what they will be but I can say with confidence that they would surpass the costs of just buying and developing an island more than 20 times over and that is a low estimate! Sure, there's plenty of common sense in my arguments. For example, the fact that I have informed you multiple times that, you can not base a plan on resources you currently can not obtain and how their being in vast number is irrelevant when you can not obtain them and you being unable to refute both facts! If you want to keep making yourself look like you have no class by needlessly insulting me go ahead. But stop acting as if your doing so will bother me in the least, it does not and you are just wasting your time and effort

By "everything is already there" I mean by the time that particular feature will be required. The "other initiatives" being putting the things in place that are depended upon for pretty much everything else from that point forwards. Regardless of method to which the accomodation is provided the infrastructure to support and quite likely build it will need to be in place first - and the manufacturing capacity can recycle after for more facilities and traditional goods.

I'm well aware with what is involved with entering orbit, most of those tonnes of propellant you cite are getting the other tonnes of propellant, as well as itself moving. The lower third of the lift is traditionally the least efficient, and burns the most fuel. It's not the fuel that makes this a costly endeavour, that's actually remarkably cheap. What makes it a costly endeavour is the amount of man-hours put into the rocket and it's components development and manufacturing to throw at least two thirds of it away. I'm willing to entertain concepts like the EM-Drive as feasible, especially after some refinement - but, yet again (I do seem to do a lot of repeating myself countering your inaccurate claims), I'm only actually counting on things currently used and well proven. And yes, what I have in mind for construction can be met at less than $70USD a head to get to where it needs to be. Just under ½ tonne of lift, I should be able to pull it off in a lot less, leaving room for additional equipment and more 'consumables'. Assuming it cannot generate this funding itself, which is naturally the intent. One of us knows how maths works, and what is involved with a feasibility study. Also, as requirements are unlikely to adjust vastly in relation to the vast adjustments of regular population increase then by the time this is needed then should it come to putting hands out for a donation the per-head figure will be vastly lower, and the payback for such should be instantly obvious to anyone able to think three seconds past their next meal.

You've not provided any numerical values because you have none. Further anything you can provide only serves to highlight the futility of your proposal to sink a few hundred billion into an island for only 200 people that won't actually provide any specific furtherance to existence outside of Earth. I have already cited a fixed value to which should be the general cost of initial deployment, and covered the "operating costs" attribution multiple times. It doesn't matter what data I really present, the core concept is that your proposal involves a massive money sink and no particular forward progression, whilst at best accounting for a minority - whilst mine is at every stage doing what needs to be done to make the entire concept of mass residential facilites actually possible, and within a timeframe that doesn't exceed a few thousand years, and accounts for everyone.

There's incredibly litlte sense, let alone comon, in your arguments. You can obtain these resources, as previously mentioned, it requires the facilities and equipment to do so, and this is obviously the first step and where the $70 comes into it - which again, has been highlighted many times. As has how to go about getting it, and getting it to where it needs to be. I can plan on these resources because they are definitely there, and we can definitely get to them. We can definitely build the equipment required to obtain, process and return these resources - it's just combining it all together, and rolling it out. Again, you seem overly willing to entertain failure, you must be quite used to it. Just because you are impacted doesn't mean it's a disability that is assured in all you encounter.

I'm aware I'm wasting my time and effort talking to you - this is entirely for the benefit of anyone else still reading. It's the independant third party verification that is the common measure, after all.

Ok, first of all you did all that talking and did not manage to explain what you meant by is already there and second, no you can not implement a plan that depends on resources you do not have. It is physically impossible to use something you do not have for anything! What you are implying is like saying you can build a car without all the parts to build that car and without the ability to obtain the parts to build that car! The parts may exist but if you can not obtain them it does not matter. If you are capable of doing things that would aid in the goal of creating Asgardia what are you waiting for? If you have these abilities and know they will help the project reach it's ultimate goal don't you as a citizen consider it your responsibility to help? I honestly believe you do not have the abilities you claim. It makes no sense that you would not use them to help create the nation you registered as a citizen of. My guess is you are a con and Dr. Ashurbeyli is your target, it is the only thing that makes sense. Once you have examined your seeming unwillingness to help create the nation you registered as a citizen of and your proposing and supporting of a plan that. Would require the building of multiple mining facilities and mining drones to be placed in space. So the resources of the asteroid belt or Oort cloud can be mined. When your plan would delay the project by decades maybe even a century or more!

If we can reach the asteroids we would seek to mine with current tech then why have we no space based mining industries? I mean, not in just name but practice lord knows the Earth would benefit greatly so, who are the leaders of this supposed industry? How much profit does it generate yearly? What asteroids are currently being mined? Where are the companies in this phantom industry located? Who are their CEO's? A few hundred billion (⊙＿⊙)? Where do you get the figure of a few hundred billion? Any island that cost that much to buy and develop would support far more than two hundred people! It would be on the scale of Australia if not larger and Australia could easily support our entire population with room to spare!

Actually, it does matter, in fact it matters more than you think, the reason why you will no present an actual monetary figure is because you know full well that. Your plan would require far more funding than mine and your plan is the one that offers no forward progress. Having to wait on the mining operations to produce enough resources to allow us to build the facilities we would need, without having to wait on the resource stockpile to be able to support continued building alone. Would add decades or even a century or two on the time it would take to finish the project and drain the funds of the founder at the same time. After all nothing can be built until we have the materials needed and any mined resources would first have to be processed and turned into usable materials and that would take time.

Anyone still reading would also see the gigantic flaw in your plan and just how much more time said plan would add to the completion of this project

"It's already there" shouldn't need explaining. No part of "my plan" relies on anything that isn't there, or it would indeed be unfeasible. Seqeunce, as much as understanding, is something you seem to demonstrate consistent issues with.

What makes you think I'm waiting for anything? I am as it happens, I'm lazy, poor, and there's a few projects stacked in front of this one. But there again I didn't pencil this in for starting until mid to late 2017 so I'm still ahead of schedule considering I've started amassing parts for this and have preliminary designs for subsystems already, and some other projects will make this easier. Your belief isn't in the list of required materials, so luckily shall not be inhibative in the slightest. As this doesn't ask anything of you, or Dr. Ashurbeyli, wherin does the "con" lie?

Such a deployment of mining machines would not delay by decades, but accelerate by millenia. It shouldn't even take two decades to expand mining facilites to the point where the megatonnes of mass required are deliverable in timeframes considerably shorter than months, as opposed to the three to five thousand years of lifting from the surface. Or thirteen thousand years to only consider technologies available for use now, as the SLS system isn't active. And you'll be waiting these decades anyway, in the five to ten thousand years you could feasibly be able to come up with the finances to buy the raw materials, let alone transform into usable parts or even components. But, I'm the unrealistical one.

It does not drain funds, as it's fabrication and operation is taken care of via other means, and should this be unable to be achievable the total operational cost of the initaive until it can see a viable return is vastly below what it would cost to buy an island, install infrastructure, make suitable for habitation, and keep operating for 24 months. Should you of done a feasibility study, you could start putting numbers up here to support my claims. Two years of a island for 200 people vs payback in factors that make numbers you can't undersand, and requires no further input from that point.

The reason we don't have current space based mining industries(a few firms are looking to be getting into this as it happens) is because no-one has commited to the initative. Such a thing ultimately would only feasibly remove concepts like profit so are not commonly persued by those heavily invested in this thinking. Currently, I'm not aware of any asteroids being mined, only sampled. This does not mean it cannot be done, it just means it's not being done yet. The largest headache I foresee here would be avoiding the fabrication of additional debris. It's likley resonance can be used to fracture into smaller lumps and minimising kinetic and thermal output in the process.

I get a few hundred billion from the costs involved with buying an island, and making it suitable for habitation. If you'd done a feasibility study on this you'd have things like prices of the raw materials, shipping to destination, construction and labour etc added in too. And this will easily surpass the cost of the island. The rest respresenting the operational costs over time, which will be a few billion per decade minimally more likely annually.

I've still yet to be highlighted of a valid flaw. Let alone a gigantic one. Again, this doesn't add time, it reduces it by millenia.

Hello Eyer,

Exactly, we can not mine asteroids yet, I never said we would never be able to, just that we can not now and since your plan depends heavily on those resources we can not mine, it for that reason alone is not currently feasible. You are behaving as if we have spaced based mining operations already and as a result have a head start on implementing your idea. We do not, therefore, before your idea can be implemented we first have to build the facilities necessary. But before we can do that we first have to find an affordable way of getting the construction materials for the first mining facility into space. Which is another thing your plan depends heavily on that we currently lack. He is the one funding the project, sure he is also looking for other investors, but until they are found the financial burden falls on his shoulders.

Expand what mining facilities!!? You can't be referring to Earth based ones and we have no space based ones to speak of. So, expand what facilities? It would not take hundreds of billions of dollars. To buy and develop an island to support a measely two hundred people. It would not even take hundreds of millions of dollars for that! It would take maybe tens of millions tops! People do not take up much space so housing two hundred people should only take two hirise apartment buildings, One school for all grade levels would suffice for an educational system as all the inhabitants would live in the same area, Utilities like electricity could be produced for free by harnessing the kinetic energy of the ocean eliminating that expense, Water usage would be managed through the sterilization and recycling of water, and all recyclable garbage could be recycled and that which can not be like organic waste could be turned into fertilizer.

Streets and building would not need maintenance for some time as they would be new and support much less traffic than elsewhere. As for recouping the initial investment, making use of your nation's island nature opens up the ability to exploit the tourism and fishing industries. Which would allow you to recoup your initial investment and make a profit! Even if you keep the island long term and the costs still would not reach hundreds of billions of dollars. Regardless of whether or not you had to have building materials shipped in! Besides, once the economy is up and stable, you could use profits from whatever industries you have created and use them to fund addition research and development projects. Which would accelerate the project!

Unless you plan on buying a totally barren island the size of Australia, which my plan has no need for. Many have been presented you just refuse to see them and no one can show you what you refuse to see.

No my plan does not rely heavily on being able to mine asteroids. It is entirely about putting everything in place to be able to mine asteroids. For that reason alone, it is feasible.

I am not behaving as if there's any form of head start anywhere. I've already outlined a feasible and incredibly affordable way to get facilities in space to make this happen. Maybe if you smoked less crack you'd be able to pay attention long enough to of spotted it's frequent use.

The facilities I'm talking of expanding are the ones put up for basic construction which clone themselves and then additionally add capacities for resource extraction, sorting and purification. And no, these are not in place. That's why you put them there and enable further progression, as opposed to wasting time and money on Earth-based initatives that are unlikely to pay for themselves ever.

It would take tens of millions to buy an island. Hundreds of millions for one suitable for habitation of 200 people and doesn't represent a serious flood risk for 2/3 of the year! And easily double that in moving materials to the island to be constructing with! Then there's the cost of the materials themselves! Then there's the cost of doing something with the materials - getting people to the island to do it, all the planning involved before they do it - there's a lot more to it than "just buy an island" - And then there's the regular outlay in keeping it all operable! The two hirise may account for habitation(and location dependant get "interesting") but such living space isn't suitable for all, and options are a wonderful thing. Stuck staring at the building next door doesn't sound like a particular great way to spend the rest of your forseeable life so I assume somewhere there's going to be requirement for a lot more than these two buildings, the waste treatment plant, the recycling facilities(which without manufacturing capacity is useless, and generally a moneysink if not directly using the harvest) and some offshore energy production (which could easily generate the few hundred kilowatt the population would likely eat, but might struggle with more industrial equipment like three phase water pumps). Just the waste treatment plant would likely sink double the island puchase costs, too. If it's viable to exploit tourism and fishing in this location, then why would this not already be happening and the current owners willing for sale? And definitely, costs will hit hundreds of billions. Ten billion here, ten billion there - it adds up. "The economy" is realistically never likely to become stable, there's unlikely to be sufficient argriculturally suitable land to support the population, let alone the tourists so regular supplies will need to be sorted just for day-to-day survival let alone improving quality of life! Equally manufacturing and industry is likely to be unfeasible due to space restrictions - and the likes of heavy industrial processes commonly cohabiting well with tourism and residence! The island isn't likely to gain any form of export in any realism - certainly not enough to offset initial investment within the first few hundred years. I still question what would actually attract the tourists, let alone with sufficient number and regularity to even pay for the setup of that facet. Streets might not require much maintainence initally, and it's reasonable to expect for this in three to five years but the equipment for it isn't likely to be left after it's construction so yeild a new set of costs with shipping it there when it is required. Lacking a feasibility study you also fail to account for "staff" that will be ensuring the continual operation of "civic architecture" - which is likely to total more than the 200 people it serves to par services in any common residential setting in a "western hemisphere" - and further ignores how these would be sourced. To assume these 200 people all have jobs and earn at least 7.50 - which is likely to be far too low for feasibility - work 8 hour days five days a week there's an almost four million a year outlay just there. Things like tourism and export of fish can't truely be counted on as much as the requirement for expenditure. People might(most likely) decide to go somewhere else, if there's any fish left the becqurel count might be too high to morally and ethically sell it. By contrast I can depend on things like resources mined from asteroids becuase they definitely are there, there is no "ifs".

And you've definitely not highlighted any serious flaw with my proposal. You might think you have, but what you've actually highlighted is the lack of ability to pay attention to important details.