Taijitu
Forum Meta => The Role Play Council => Archived Role Play Boards => Archive => Proposals and Discussion => Topic started by: Myroria on February 05, 2007, 11:49:38 PM
-
Would the RP Council have a problem with me getting resources from space colonies?
-
Yes, or at least me. Future technology, icky, messy, arguments abound...
-
Not really. I mean, NASA plans to mine space by like, 2040 so it's not drastically future tech that's completely beyond modern understanding.
-
First, actual evidence to back your claims of such future mining operations would go a long way.
Second, what resources in particular are being gained? (Cost effectiveness vs current availibility)
-
Check page 8 of the resource thread.
Why not? Moons provide resources, mostly iron, iridium, and other space based products. If moon colonies won't be included in this, then it's biased.
Space mining refers to the future practice of mining asteroids, meteorites, the Moon and planets - any astronomical object beyond the orbit of the Earth.
The first objects likely to be mined are Near-Earth asteroids. Likely initial products include precious metals, which may be sold on Earth, and water and iron, which could be sold in Earth orbit if/when a sufficient demand develops. Another possible product is Helium 3, which is present in the Moon's regolith and could prove economical to ship to Earth as a fuel if fusion power plants become viable.
Economic concerns are likely to lead to settlements being created near mines and processing centers, or near the poles where a continuous source of solar energy can be harnessed. While it would be relatively easy to resupply a lunar base from Earth, in comparison to a Martian base, the Moon is likely to play a large role in the development of long-duration closed-loop life support systems. Duplicating the ecology of Earth so that wastes can be recycled is essential to any long term effort of space exploration. The wealth and knowledge gained by extracting and refining resources on the Moon would positively affect efforts to build colonies elsewhere in the Solar System.
In 2004, the world production of iron ore exceeded 1,000 million metric tons[1]. In comparison, a comparatively small M-type asteroid with a mean diameter of 1 km could contain more than 2,000 million metric tons of iron-nickel ore[2], or two to three times the annual production for 2004. The asteroid 16 Psyche is believed to contain 1.7×1019 kg of iron-nickel, which could supply the 2004 world production requirement for several million years. A small portion of the extracted material would also contain precious metals, although these would likely be more difficult to extract.
[1]World Produces 1.05 Billion Tonnes of Steel in 2004 (http://www.newmaterials.com/news/833.asp)
[2]John S. Lewis, "Mining the Sky: Untold Riches from the Asteroids, Comets, and Planets", 1997, ISBN 0-201-32819-4
More stuff:
The Future of Space Mining (http://www.american.edu/TED/spacemin.htm)
Mining Economics and Risk Control in the Development of Near Earth Asteroid Resources - I'm including this because moons and asteroids share many of the same elements. (http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/mining_economics_and_risk_control_in_the_development_of_near_earth_asteriod_resources.shtml)
I will be mining silicon and iron, both of which are in far huger quantities on the moon than on the planet.
-
Second, what resources in particular are being gained? (Cost effectiveness vs current availibility)
-
I will be mining silicon and iron, both of which are in far huger quantities on the moon than on the planet.
-
2040? This is 2007. If Taijitu is still around in 33 years, go for it. But that's future tech, and I think that there is more or less a concensus to limit the stuff this time around, if not all out ban it. A space colony is certainly just too large a scale to justify.
-
2040 is the future, but not future tech. Are people in 2040 going to be living radically different than we are now?
-
I wouldn't even care if it was like the whole power armor thing ("you can have this many space colonies"), since apparently power armor is more feasible than a space colony (?)
-
I do not support the use of PA this time around for this RP, just for the record.
The first objects likely to be mined are Near-Earth asteroids. Likely initial products include precious metals, which may be sold on Earth, and water and iron, which could be sold in Earth orbit if/when a sufficient demand develops.
10 out of 19 nations (that have listed their resources) have access to iron in Taitiju. Iron would be cheaper for you to import than ship from the moon, thus there isnt "a sufficient demand" for iron.
-
There's so much iron that I would sell it at a cheaper price than the iron producing nations, therefore making a profit because everyone will buy it from me.
-
Right now, the only pieces of Power Armor around in RP are less than twenty in number, trudging through the Mor'osi boondocks and soon to run out of power for all time. That's a far cry from what you're proposing, a massive space colony shipping tons of ores and such over vast distances.
If not on the matter of technology, then I will agree with Bustos on the matter of economics. The costs involved would bankrupt any such attempt, short of you buying out/destroying all of your terrestial competitors.
-
If it is run by the official space program, then a trip up like, twice a year to pick up the ore would not bankrupt me. And it's not like it's a huge amount of ore at once anyway. I'm not gonna be picking up the entire world's iron production at once, but I'll be able to sell it for cheaper because you can always get more.
And even Yale Colony isn't a vastly huge place; it's only 10 kilometers across.
-
Sell for cheaper? I doubt that. Where as your terrestial competitors just have to blow up and dig into a few rocks, load it up onto some boats and trains, you have to do all of that plus launch shuttles, land shuttles, and launch even more shuttles to maintain the entire operation.
As Bustos said, iron is so readily available here on Taijitu that the costs of digging it out of the ground would be far less than blasting up in rockets.
-
But those iron companies are producing just iron. Other things like precious metals and other rocks would be sold along with iron. But oops, I forgot, the fatally flawed resource system we have forbids me from multitasking.
It'd begin more expensive, yes, but once I send back the vast amounts of iron and other materials I am the project would soon pay for itself. The idea of space mining in real life wouldn't have gotten as far as it did if all these reasons against it weren't able to be overcome, would it?
-
All those other precious metals and rocks could be obtained terrestrially for a lower price. And the vast amounts wouldn't pay for themselves, because there is already vast amounts on the planet's surface. If anything, it'll just devalue the material, earning you even less money.
And as far as space mining has come, there's a reason why it's planned for 2040 at the soonest possible date. And there are lots of ideas that really don't make much sense which continue to persist against all reason.
-
Fine then. Can I at least have a space colony?
-
I think the only fair solution is to put this to a council vote.....as the implications of this effect us all....particularily those for whom the potential devaluation of iron etc. will impact the most.....
-
Hmm...that´ll be an idea. However, I´ll be for it in any cases. It´ll be a very good improvement to RP, and it´ll add a new dimension.
-
Aye, that's what they always say. But in the end it just devolves into endless arguments because, as it has never been done in real life, no one really has any idea what ought to happen or just how things will work out.
-
Limiting a country to eight resources has not been done in real life.
Power armor has not been done in real life.
And I heard King Rat was allowed to keep his power armor because they're an essential part of his RP. Well, space colonies are just as essential to me as power armor is to him.
-
Well, as I noted before, it's a matter of scale. Said power armor are less than 20 in number, and will soon cease to function, removing them from RP except in legends of old...
This is the creation of a permanent space colony, transporting large quantities of goods as regular business.
And hey, I don't like the resource system either. But one bad policy shouldn't be used to justify more.
-
I just said I wouldn't transport goods if I was allowed to at least have a space colony.
-
What exactly do you mean by "space colony" anyway?
-
I mean something like this:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/Lunar_Base-1.jpg)
Except with as many buildings like that as say, a small town.
Nothing too huge, just something to brag about to people with large armies that fail to get into space.
Well, they obviously aren't all gonna be exactly like that; there's going to be a geodome where people can skygaze and talk about things and there's going to be some larger buildings, but the basic premise is the same.
-
Are you going to create a NS for this or no?
-
Probably not, but if you would like me to I would. Warfare in space would be horribly deadly, by the way. If any bullet hits you, you're dead. No questions, no exceptions. Dead.
-
I would be against it if you did create one.
Personally, I am ignoring it on basis of you not having the resources to do it. But then again you do not need me to recognize it to continue your RP.
-
Go ahead. As you said, I don't need your approval to continue my RP.
-
And will vote against it, if this goes to a vote at all.
-
also one conventional outer atmospheric missle would take the entire station out by hitting it once cause rapid violent destabilisation
one 10 million bomb
kills one multi trillion doller sci fi fantasy
-
It's Myroria's choice if he wants to waste money on this sort of project. It just makes it easier for others to point out his pie-in-the-sky policies instead of focusing on the day-to-day lives of his people.
Just joking.
Not really.
Well...you decide whether I am or not.
-
An outer atmospheric missile reaching the moon? I don't think so. Not to mention it'd take three days even if it could, allowing me to blast it out of the sky. Nor does it cost trillions of dollars. Nor is it a fantasy.
-
Imma throw in my two cents lmao.
Listen, Space travel is nice, space colonization is too broad of a spectrum. The fact of the matter is that a standard ICBM can and does breach atmosphere, and with some more rocket fuel would hit your station and blow it off the moon. You're acting highly irrational about this whole colonization bit. For one, the technology to create a terraformed geo-dome would be so expensive that your country would have to be proficient in Nanotechnology, which is somewhere in the 100billions of dollars p/year. Ill probably have to check that and compare numbers to get a true to life estimate. Having a space station is not far fetched. I would vote yes on space stations and Orbital crafts, but not colonization. Its extremely unrealistic.
Now i know youre going to attack my airship designs as unrealistic, but look up the designs an compare them to the C-130. the only difference is the use of helium to create vertical lift, and rotary turboprops to create vertical and lateral propulsion. Its all completely feasible, and has already been developed in the US (Wiki search Hybrid Airships). If you give me pages of statistical information and characteristics of the colony that would prove that it could be done TODAY in an ACTUAL country, I would vote yes without a doubt.
And thats my :2c:
-
1. My geo-dome is not terraformed; it is just a large glass dome. Something like this:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/02/Salitre_20061111_19.JPG/800px-Salitre_20061111_19.JPG)
Except with fiberglass, and on the moon.
2. I know ICBM's break the atmosphere when they attack, but that's exactly the reason they're intercontinental ballistic missiles, not interplanetary ballistic missiles. Making an arsenal fit for space is just as expensive, if not more, then a space colony. I'm not asking for a Clavius Base here. This is the basic colony. And, a space colony could very well be developed today, if NASA's budgets weren't cut all the time. I'm RPing the Imperial Aristocratic Aerospace Administration (IAAA) as the forefront of Taijitu's space programs; like the ESA or a well funded NASA. The idea is simple in effect; it starts with one small module maybe the size of a classroom, and more development ensues from there. That's completely realistic if you look at it. No nation today could make a space colony, but that's only because their funding is cut smaller and smaller. There is no doubt in my mind that if NASA had good funding, it could put a colony on the moon. No doubt in my mind.
3. Blowing a peaceful colony off of the moon is not good PR. What would the world think if China blew up a space shuttle with it's new weapons system? People would be pissed, and no country would think of doing it without good reason. But of course, people don't take into effect public relations. They automatically assume their country blindly supports the war no matter how many people die or how many innocent civilians are killed.
-
so.....currently you have sent a rocket to the moon...that puts you about the same level as NASA in the mid sixties....yes????
They were claiming back then that there would be colonies on the moon as soon as the nineteen eighties....it's now many years later and they're claiming it will be done by 2040.....
So forty years after your first rocket you can make a claim that you will have a colony in another 30 odd years....how about that???
-
I'm more advanced than NASA in the mid-sixties. We have already made a primitive nuclear propulsion rocket.
And NASA could easily have put a colony on the moon in the 1990's, but the government drastically cut their funding after the Apollo program. And then the Challenger caused NASA to go on a three year hiatus from doing anything.
EDIT: Three years, not twenty.
-
3. Blowing a peaceful colony off of the moon is not good PR. What would the world think if China blew up a space shuttle with it's new weapons system? People would be pissed, and no country would think of doing it without good reason. But of course, people don't take into effect public relations. They automatically assume their country blindly supports the war no matter how many people die or how many innocent civilians are killed.
China DID lauch a missile into space. It hit a satellite up there and the Chinese never told anyone about it, and the world was obviously pissed. Second, im not saying were going to blow up Omicron Persei Eight and all of your colonies, but im simply stating that. You may piss off alot of other countries. Im just mentioning an issue.
EDIT: I meant satellite instead of space station. Freudian slip XD
-
I do not recall a space station ever being hit by a missile. China shot down one of it's own satellites with it's anti-satellite weapon, and Salyuz 2 was destroyed by the explosion of it's own rocket nearby, but no space station was ever shot down by China.
-
actually once you get out of the atmosphere its rather easy to make it aim at the moon, the challange is getting it to land, if you just want to bomb the moon its rather easy. you know why they arnt called InterPlanatary, cause its a stupid name we dont have any wars against other planets.
-
1. An ICBM still couldn't reach Selene without plenty of warning. Attach a .50 calibur to a shuttle and send it into orbit. As you would put it:
One .50 calibur machine gun
destroys one 10 million dollar bomb.
But I know what you're going to say:
"BUT MYORIA, AN ICBM IS MADE OF METAL LOLOLO"
A .50 calibur is a very powerful gun. An ICBM is complicated and dependent on all systems working. Though the .50 calibur likely wouldn't blow a hole through it, just a bit of damage to any of it's system would blow it out of the sky. But don't make me do space warfare. That wouldn't be fun.
-
alot of modern guns dont work in space situations since hey use gravity feeds, trust me its not as easy as you think to shoot something moving at those speeds, why do you think interseption is a retarded missle defense system, but sadly one of the few
also a technical one, if you are posting an argument never use a 1 or an A with out having at least a 2 or a B to follow
-
1. I was planning to add a 2 before I left to go eat.
2. Thanks for pointing that out, but all I would have to do is replace it with anything else that doesn't use a gravity feed and it's fine.
3. Yes, it is easy to shoot something at those speeds if you're going at roughly the same speed. When a space shuttle (Endeavour) is in orbit it goes 17,321 miles per hour. An ICBM (Minuteman III) goes roughly 15,000 miles per hour. That would have to be sped up for a trip to Selene.
4. Again, it'd take your ICBM three days to get to Selene, and my nuclear propulsion system (Which was developed DURING THE 1950's on Earth and would have gone into space if it wasn't for nuclear treaties) could get there in roughly 3 hours during cruising speed (again, developed during the 1950's, not future tech). And on that nuclear propulsion ship could be, say, a missile defense battery.
-
why wouldnt the person killling you just equip his own ships with N.Propulsion, and please link me credible sites says we had working ones in the 50's
-
Sorry, I misread the article. It was meant to be initiated in the '60s, not the '50s. In any case, that's still not future tech.
Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_%28nuclear_propulsion%29)
IslandOne.org (http://www.islandone.org/Propulsion/ProjectOrion.html)
The Case for Orion - Space Daily (http://www.spacedaily.com/news/nuclearspace-03h.html)
-
did you read the artical, they never actually built it making it still fall under theoretical tech, thus still needing approval.
alot of things were supposed to be built at many times and never were
-
Duh, I said the project was cancelled but they already finished most small scale testing. What, you wanted them to explode thousands of nukes at once?
-
small scale testing means it was a perfect working model, in engeneering that means they are still in R&D, that means you got another tech that needs to be put up to vote
-
In the 1954 Operation Castle nuclear test series at Bikini Atoll, a crucial experiment by Lew Allen proved that nuclear explosives could be used for propulsion. Two graphite-covered steel spheres were suspended near the test article for the Castle Bravo shot. After the explosion, they were found intact some distance away, proving that engineered structures could survive a nuclear fireball.
Proved. As in, they could, without a doubt, be used to power space craft. All you need to do is design one, but the propulsion, the large part different from other ships, is PROVEN to work. Once you design the craft, much as you would design a space shuttle, for example, you'd be home free.
Orion's technology is also one of very few interstellar space drives that could be constructed with known technology. Orion is the ideal method of propelling a multi-generational starship such as an interstellar ark to the stars at velocities of up to 10% of the velocity of light.
The Orion was made completely with 1950-60 tech. Nothing new. Completely 60's tech.
Oh, by the way, don't ask me if I read the article when you replied four minutes after I posted.
-
Ive listen to lectures about this shat, unless its been built, put it up for vote, why are you afraid to put all of your space sci fi stuff up for the vote
-
1. You're running out of arguments.
2. It's not sci-fi, Mr. Ilovefantasyrp.
3. Because everyone will vote against it because their biased.
-
1. Were running out of arguments because you refuse to listen to reason.
2. It is science fiction because we dont have colonies on the moon. If we had them, it would be nonfictional, but we don't. If its not representative on an earthly plane by a human sense, it does not exist in a realistic sense, thereby making it fictional/theoretical. Don't make me cite my psych textbook 37 times.
3. We are biased because a) you are so gung-ho that you wont give others a chance, and you jump down our throats, b) Theres lots of political/technological loopholes, c) Its scientifically/economically hard to maneuver a plan this big.
4. ...nuclear propulsion system (Which was developed DURING THE 1950's on Earth and would have gone into space if it wasn't for nuclear treaties)
You want to pull that... High Evermorian Leadership opposes the use of nuclear testing and the use of radioactive fuel until alternatives can be researched. You would be going against one countries foreign policy, and you would be endangering the safety of not only your, but my nation because failure to listen to our policy could cause war (Not that it will, but it can).
5. It's not sci-fi, Mr. Ilovefantasyrp.
Can we be adults here? Theres no need to jump on people.
-
1. You refuse to listen to reason. You're the side saying ICBM's can reach the moon, not me.
2. Bullshit. That's like saying anything being researched is science fiction. And I made a mistake, NASA plans to put a colony on the moon by 2020, not 2040. If I was saying I had anti-matter drives and I could go faster than the speed of light, then I could understand. But I'm giving you page after page of support and science for putting a colony on the moon, yet you dismiss them all and ask me if I even read them.
3a. I give you plenty of chances, but you come up with equally unscientific answers.
3b. No there's not, considering this has all been researched in real life and I don't see how putting a colony on the moon is politically incorrect.
3c. No it's not. A nuclear propulsion ship such as Orion would actually take cargo up for cheaper than a space shuttle or regular rocket.
4. As I said in the "Selene or Bust" thread, I took it up in a tug before allowing it to use it's bombs, thus minimizing radioactive fallout. If your government has a problem with me using nuclear propulsion, tough.
-
You can right all you want on paper, make all the pretty equations in the world but, if science class has taught be anything, if you cannot or have not observed it experimentally it really isn't worth much. It's the same deal as string theory. Sure, they can write out all these neat mathematically tricks on paper. But can one observe any of the things they predict? No, making it all rather worthless as a result.
So, while they may have moon colonies on paper, until we've actually had the chance to observe on in action and experimentally put those blueprints to the test it just won't do.
-
That's like saying "Going faster than the speed of light has never been tested beyond paper, so that must mean we can".
-
No... More like "that means we can't" :P
-
Engineering and scienci is based on untill youve done it full scale on a design it isnt proven, and they havnt.
Just put it to vote and your best none insaulting arguments of why it should be allowed, see insaulting people is a great way to make them take to side that is in opposition to you
-
As far as I'm concerned, my space colony exists. My reasons:
King Rat has an interstellar space ship.
Power armor.
Wipe both of those from all existance, and I'll give up my ambitions for a space colony. Don't, and as far as I'm concerned, you're all hypocrites and I have a right to space colonies.
-
I dont like KR having them and wont recognize any posts he makes involving the space ship. and PA arent even on the same level, but if you look back, I have been completly against them. and if you make it so you have it with out vote dont be shocked if people ignore everything you do with it and dont honor anything you get from it
-
I'm not getting anything out of my space colonies anyway. And PA are definately on the same level, by the time PA make sense for combat we'll have a bunch of space colonies, considering PA still has way more flaws than a space colony idea.
-
I just want you to understand that in a real political arena, it is policies such as this that start wars. Honestly, the pushiness flying in here is equivalent to the way Stalin pushed the Kremlin on US Intelligence and all that, i don't think i need to be teaching a politics lesson. I don't know what power armor is, and if its as unrealistic as you just throwing random colonies onto the moon, then i disapprove of it. Put it to vote... put up all the good non-insulting (IE: not "It's not sci-fi, Mr. Ilovefantasyrp.") arguments, get some fully detailed schemata including costs and materials needed, get people on your side, and stop whining. Evermore is rich in titanium and has a very decent automotive industry... maybe if you went to my country (and everyone elses) with some form of IC schemata asking "Can ya help us?", my country would say yeah. But insult me OOC and sit here and sling mud in my face, and I'm gonna OOC vote no. Play your cards right, thats all im gonna say, don't respond to me, don't message me, don't bitch and moan, just make a choice. kthx
-
And why the **** do you have to bring me into this lower than dirt mud-fest of yours? I bet you havn't even read my Arrival topic since the first week since it's creation...
The main reason I blatantly refuse to let go of my Power-armour is that I know how to RP it well and that my RP is NEVER about "winning" or being "better" than anyone else. I know who I am and what limitations I have, and thus I take the right to play as I see fit to create a good, interesting and free-flowing story that doesn't get bogged down too much in petty numbers or OOC arguments.
I think the best RP's is the ones where all the involved parties set out together OOC to create some sort of common goal that is good for all involved without toes getting stepped on.