JoeSchmuckatelli

OK - well, if BLM can't do it, should we worry about BLM doing it? Tune in to Fox News to find out

Proud Moments in American History

If we ever reach the point we don't need resource deposits - then there won't be a need for us to do anything. Grin For the sake of argument - I'll agree that it is unlikely to make economic sense to bring raw materials back here from space for production... but there is a sufficient excess of untapped, likely easily extracted ores (engineering challenge) that can be used for space-based manufacturing - most of which will likely be used in expanding space-based economies. But some of the stuff thus created will make its way planetside. Perhaps my unborn grand children's grandchildren will get to see a future with humanity in space in numbers. As it is, I'd be thrilled to see 1,000 people regularly off world for various reasons within the next 50 years.

Saucers do not use any form of propulsion that would cause dramatic ejecta. Sheesh - it's like you are completely unaware of the entire field of Science Fiction or something.

Lots of uranium down there, too. I'm going to hazard the guess that Mars surface deposits are more accessible than sub-mantle deposits on Earth

But there is - just take a peek at the table of elements. For comparison - we mine more iron in one year than all of humanity has ever mined gold So the solution is to go more places to find the readily available gold and ignore the stuff that is easy to find here.

Even this old saw is losing its appeal. Talk to people who intensely work with the geriatric community - and you will find folks admitting that past a certain age - it's probably better to encourage them to drink and smoke with friends, because isolation is a higher predictor of early death than either. (Often times, people who smoke are more socially active than not) I know we are supposed to be talking about perchlorates - but the 'smoking kills you' crew over played their hand and over legislated to the point of moving past scientific reason into religious fervor. Much like the anti-nuke activists stoking fears of radiation. So when you start talking about substances that 'it will kill you' along with 'don't do [something]' or 'don't go there' ... I start thinking 'how much, how fast, is there a genetic component where 2/3 are fine, what is the risk balanced against?' So - while we know that the atmosphere will require PPE to be worn outside - is there something about perchlorates that would prevent a mere shower from resolving the problem of dust tracked into the habitat?

Smoking kills one third of its users - at least according to this

I want some - then I can be 'spider man, spider man, every body's fav-o-rit spiider man, spinning webs? Any size!'

Truth. So you could start your own aircraft company and call yourself Grand High Chief Engineer, but because you don't have a PE after your name, what? What's the limitation, if any?

Sardonic chuckle.

Let me put a different spin on this: It's harder to have people BS you, if you are a subject matter expert. Does not mean you have to be the absolute most talented guy in the room - but you have to be able to speak his language, so that when he say's 'it can't be done', you know the difference between 'it's too difficult / expensive / I don't know how to do it' and 'it violates the basic principles of physics'. Put it a different way. Two billionaires walk into a room. They both tell everyone they plan on building space ships. One tells everyone he's going to hire really talented people, and do things the way they've always been done, because it just works. The other guy says he's going to hire really talented people and completely flip the script. Do stuff that 20 years ago would have seemed impossible and not only do the impossible - but keep doing impossible things over and over again. All the first guy has to do is hire really intelligent people to do what they've always done, and he'll make some money with his new hobby. The other guy has to either convince people that they can think outside of the box... or fire those people who refuse to. Innovation is really, really hard. It takes guts. It takes a willingness to fail, spectacularly and keep trying until you get it right. Managers do the safe thing. Entrepreneurs do the risky thing. Bezos was an entrepreneur, once. Musk hasn't stopped.

Yep - and sometimes that matters

@YNM - I remember reading an 'after action' or seeing an expose about what happened after Western-style aid assisted with DR in some island nation in the Indian Ocean. Basically, the story goes, prior to the disaster the locals lived a very traditional life with society largely adapted to being self sufficient even if not enjoying the 'things' of the wider developed world. Once outsiders came in to help the locals survive the disaster, all the kids quit doing the tedious work necessary to keep their traditional economy and society functioning - instead preferring to listen to radios, have phones and work for cash. Instead of helping the locals to rebuild with the stuff they were used to and could maintain on their own, trailers and containers were used to house the displaced and ramshackle 'temporary' buildings built with imported, flown in stuff (that cannot be readily acquired). Years later, people are still living in the 'temporary' buildings which are rotting and unable to be maintained. Kids refuse to do the work necessary to keep the families fed - and those who can find work are either leaving or keeping stuff for themselves. IIRC - there is some road that is paved with good intentions. Change is not only hard, it is disruptive. There's a whole host of articles about whether it is better to let indigenous people in places like the Amazon continue to live traditionally (effectively stone-age tech), even if that means they only have an average life expectancy of about 40 years, or if its better to move them into the slums (because they don't have the skills to do any of the 'technical' jobs of modern-day Brazil and live anywhere else) - where they can enjoy a 60 year average lifespan thanks to modern medicine and the welfare of others. On a similar note: if interested, look for critiques of the American experiment in Afghanistan post-9/11... not focused on the military adventure, but rather look for articles on how ineffective 'stability' work was. Example: the Taliban arose from a widespread dislike of the incessant warfare between tribes (warlords), and was an attempt to foster 'peace' throughout the land (Pax Romana style: if you liquid us off, you die... follow the rules and behave... you live). Despite the problems with their extremist religious law and how they allowed Al-Qaeda to operate there, once the US came in and started throwing money around (very clumsily, I might add) - the warlord problem came screaming back into existence. The US would throw $30k at a problem that might have been solved by $1300 and a road. The guy and his family who got the $30k got rich and powerful, and found ways to keep the Americans happy and the money flowing. His family and friends thrived, and were positioned well to point at their old enemies and say 'bad guys live there.' There was never any effective development of an economic base that could survive the absence of US interest - and interest, I might add, that was not altruistic and development focused - but rather... well you know. Those of us in the Military study this stuff - but it's largely out of our hands. Civilians want fast. Effective and transformative is rarely fast. And once you create a monster problem you often spend the next few years trying to mitigate the problem you created - presuming you recognize the problem and have the political will to resolve it. Which - very very few people have the political will to solve their own problems, much less those of another who lives far, far away.

That was a great exposition: thanks for sharing!

That was a masterful play by Putin. He even sent a plane to the US.

I've actually participated in DR missions. They are quite complicated - and very easy to 'mess up' because they are inherently political. Down to the neighborhood level - you help out people in one gang's territory and the neighboring gang is liquided. Most of the world is tribal. PR on the other hand is global - and quite often nations and international conglomerates will do quite useless things to impress their friends and neighbors. Or if not useless - perhaps just not the most efficient. Throughout this topic I've pointed out that landing a single rocket or even several a week is of limited military utility - but there are scenarios where it can be further developed and add strategic depth. The tactical benefits are at best minimal and inherently risky. We shouldnt minimize the humanitarian possibility and PR power, however. 100 tons of supplies in the right place at the right time is pretty damn good. Take a look at the USMC '7 Ton' https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medium_Tactical_Vehicle_Replacement 14 truckloads of aid can help isolated communities quite well. As has been pointed out - the US maintains a lot of stuff around the world, but it is impossible to anticipate every need. There are lots of places where you might be able to clear out a parkinglot but not have a good 'zone' to use as an LZ or drop-zone for fly-by supplies, much less an airfield. Yes - a helicopter (or fleet of them) can drop supplies into that parkinglot - but what if you discover that what you really need to help out 'Island Nation X' is a critical 30-ton part for their power station that will get their water and sewage back on line. Traditional shipping might take a week to a month to get the part where it is needed - the dropship could do it in days. (Caveat: you could also do the C-5, helicopter, ship, helicopter shuffle - which is in our current capabilities... but you lose the 'wow'.) So in both the military and humanitarian applications a fast P2P capability merely enhances, not replaces, our current structure

With politics there is no line. * Deny Everything * Admit Nothing * Make Counter-Accusations

A true humanitarian would negotiate a compromise, don't you think?

Planes are boring. They work much better (as has been said) - but they lack the 'wow' factor.

Massive public relations. Let's say the US Gov't decides against helping out someplace that needs it, like say, Puerto Rico after a storm. Elon can toss them a rocket full of food, water and meds, and he's a hero. Let's say the US Gov't decides to do something, but someone else won't let us: say, a massive volcano erupts in the middle of N'Djamena but the good people of Nigeria and Cameroon express displeasure at US planes flying overhead... USAF drops a rocket into Chad airspace, from space, lands humanitarian aid and 'donates' the steel & rocket engines.

The risk of doing something unusual from space for a tactical advantage over a low tier enemy is making nervous those high tier adversaries watching for unusual activity from space. All we need is someone to misinterpret something to have a major Charlie Foxtrot. So until and unless it becomes necessary - we have plenty of conventional stuff that does not make folks with big red buttons anxious

What is GSEx? Also - BN2? Let's Go!

I was thinking about this recently when I got into simultaneous conversations with my son and daughter about data privacy and the algorithms that determine what choices you are presented with in music and television shows. My major criticism is that they actually suck. Rather than being able to predict things that you might like or be interested in - the algorithm actually serves to only limit the choices you are shown. The machine has no ability to think outside of the box or make intuitive leaps. I'm not all that worried about the future If you think about it - we've seen what can happen when people are either intensely stupid or intentionally stupid and decide to abandon themselves to a single source of information (curated "infotainment" and outrage on FB, for example ). Similarly we are seeing blithely unhardened systems falling prey to ransomware. The forces that want to profit off, use or destroy the unwary are busy. But just as 'that what does not kill you makes you stronger' was true when we were cave men... We are learning and adapting to our current environment. As we will in the decades and centuries to come

Presumably once in international waters they can do whatever they want - even register the whole thing as a Bahamas enterprise and pay nothing in taxes