What sacrifices are we willing to make???

[K6-III]

What are we willing to sacrifice in order to live in space???

Are we willing to sacrifice the concept of ownership???

...to live with scarce resources???

...to depend on others and to have others depend on you???

...to determine childbirth based on what resources are available???

...to centrally plan very carefully how such scarce resources are to be distributed???

I, for one, am willing to give up this and much more....

Let me know if you are...

[Kirsten]

Are we willing to sacrifice the concept of ownership???

Not just no. HELL NO. That will not help us either get to or expand throughout space. It is the very concept of ownership which allows us to reap the rewards of our efforts and motivates people to work hard and take risks.



...to live with scarce resources???

That's not a sacrifice- we already live with scarce resources. But if you mean live with fewer resources than we do now, I'd say again, no. Sure, you'd need to suck it up a bit at the beginning, but planning on living with scarce resources for the long-term is just antithetical to progress.



...to depend on others and to have others depend on you???

Almost all of us already do. That's how the free market works.



...to determine childbirth based on what resources are available???

WTFO? If you mean will parents determine childbirth based on the resources available to them, I'm all for that. If you mean some people will take control of other people's bodies and choices via a China-style forced-abortion quota program or mass sterilizations against people's will, then again HELL NO. Let's try to avoid propogating the worst ideas of human history throughout the cosmos.



...to centrally plan very carefully how such scarce resources are to be distributed???

Again, this is ridiculous. Hello, Soviet Union? China? Have we not seen the failure of central planning over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again? How exactly will yours be different? I think the jury's back on this one- it doesn't work.



I, for one, am willing to give up this and much more....

It's not necessary, not feasible, and will not help to accomplish the goal of getting to and maintaining a presence in space.

Are you also willing to force people to conform to your will and sacrifice what you want them to? Because that is how these sorts of plans always seem to end up. Let me know if you are.

[K6-III]

I am not asking to force anyone into any such situation.

I am asking whether you would be willing to VOLUNTEER for a colony on the moon, or perhaps elsewhere in space with such principles in mind....

Ownership, as it exists on the Earth, is denying use of something when it is not in use by you...

In a situation for the colony, I envision that the colony could perhaps own all, and people would be expected to SHARE...seeing as by doing this one could have overall more resources/person than by taking that same amount and not having any overlap.

By dependency on others, I am referring to something different...where each person's role in society makes them do something crucial to the survival of the colony, ensuring that you care about the survival of others just as much as your own....for your survival is their survival and vice versa....

As you could understand, in a situation of extremely scarce resources under a situation of near-equalty, if the maximum resource requirement exceeds supply, the colony fails and colonists die....therefore, the extent of the population must be very carefully controlled....as to the methods....they can be of your choosing....

I am not referring to a governmental system of distributed resources...rather on a colony level. A colony would have a population of a few hunded members....and such colonies with the ideals outlined have indeed worked in the past. A kibbutz would be but one example.

I am saying that this type of sacrifice would be necessary to make this a reality in the near future....with very limited financial reserves...

Also note that by eliminating ownership, you also eliminate money, or the vehicle for transfer of ownership.....

...and with it go a ways towards removing greed from the colony's culture....

And I must again reiterate that noone shall be forced. I am merely asking you if you'd be willing to volunteer to give your life to hardship and toil to leave something for future generations....

[Kirsten]

Ownership, as it exists on the Earth, is denying use of something when it is not in use by you...

Are you telling me that owner of an apartment building- who does not live in all of its units- is denying the use of those units to others? That the taxi driver who spends his time in the driver's seat denies the use of the other seats to others? That non-profit conservation agencies which own large tracts of land for the purpose of conservation do not let anyone else on their property ever? That the store owner- who cannot occupy the entire store at once - allows nobody into the store. That whenever I am not looking at my website, I bar others from viewing it?

Your concept of ownership is egregiously in error. Also in error is your assumption that the best use of all resources is for them to be in use as often as possible.


In a situation for the colony, I envision that the colony could perhaps own all, and people would be expected to SHARE...seeing as by doing this one could have overall more resources/person than by taking that same amount and not having any overlap.

This was the Marxist dream. From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs and all that sort of thing. Yet somehow this sort of utopian dreaming is demonstrated not to work time and again. What happens when people do not agree on how something is to be utilised? Who decides how many babies are optimal for the colony, who may/must produce them, and when they should be produced? Ultimately, you will have a situation where someone must make a decision that someone else disagrees with, will you not?


By dependency on others, I am referring to something different...where each person's role in society makes them do something crucial to the survival of the colony, ensuring that you care about the survival of others just as much as your own....for your survival is their survival and vice versa....

In order for this to work, each person must have some skill which is (a) necessary for the survival of the colony, and (b) not available from any other person in the colony. (Otherwise, you are back to what we already have in our society today.)

For the sake of argument, let's make the bold (and likely incorrect) assumption that this would even be possible. Let's ignore also how this would be extremely elitist- anyone who does not have a necessary skill which noone else possesses would be excluded. Let's also ignore that people would inevitably rectify such an unnatural situation simply by interacting with one another and learning from each other.

I think you can see where this would be undesirable in spite of all that we are overlooking. Suppose your one doctor bites it in a freak rover accident? Do you really want the rest of the colony to be at risk until you can find a doctor who has no other skills possessed by the other colonists?


I am not referring to a governmental system of distributed resources...rather on a colony level. A colony would have a population of a few hunded members....and such colonies with the ideals outlined have indeed worked in the past. A kibbutz would be but one example.

Okay, let's explore this. How would this work and how *has* it worked? Please give me a bit more detailed example or a link to more detailed information on an example of how this has worked in the past.


I am saying that this type of sacrifice would be necessary to make this a reality in the near future....with very limited financial reserves...

And I am saying that your assertion here is baseless.


Also note that by eliminating ownership, you also eliminate money, or the vehicle for transfer of ownership.....

...and with it go a ways towards removing greed from the colony's culture....


Again, this is a baseless assertion. Money doesn't make people greedy, and there's no reason to believe that taking away money will make people less greedy.

Further, I would like to know how you propose to eliminate ownership and how far you plan to go. If women don't own their own bodies, for example, then they have no right to complain or legitimate recourse if someone decides they should be pregnant and makes them so. Without the concept of ownership, then you would have no legitimate complaint if citizens of a colony of thieves come into your colony and take all your rovers and space suits and freeze dried ice cream.


And I must again reiterate that noone shall be forced. I am merely asking you if you'd be willingto volunteer to give your life to hardship and toil to leave something for future generations....

If going to space was really all about hardship and toil just to produce rewards for future generations and not for ourselves, few people would want to go. Fortunately, there is no reason why it must be as awful as the picture you are painting.

And I reiterate- there is absolutely no reason that we must be patient in our pursuit of the exploration and development of space. None.

[K6-III]

The owner of an apartment building/store maximised benefits of said monopoly on control by renting/selling....

A website is an example difficult to correlate to daily existance....

Allow me to clarify....ownership is not dissallowing others to not use something while you're not using it...it is a monopoly on control, which in a situation of scarce resources can be very inefficient.

In particular, I am focusing on the moon, where resoures like Hydrogen, Phosphorus, and Nitrogen, all extremely necessary for life, would be incredibly scarce. Until we are able to harness the technology to mine C-type asteroids and comets, this situation will remain.

You asked for evidence of successful communes dealing with meager resources. Here is among the best: http://www.communa.org.il/e-israel.htm

Change israel to moon and religion to survival of the species and you have pretty much the same thing....

At the same time, the colony must be very democratic, such as to ensure no concentration of power. Direct democracy would be the name of the game....

We are talking about how enough funding can never be found for rocket development....

...in an upcoming series of posts I shall attempt to demonstrate that such a colony can indeed arise from a similar precedent on the Earth created for the purpose of developing the necessary technology/infrastructure to get off planet....

...and never did I argue that many have to go....

Many didn't initially go to join the new frontier at all times in history, for the first to go always had it hardest....but such is the nature of the game....

I will agree with you that some forms of ownership will have to be retained. But as a basic outline, I will take for now the form of ownership to be used in lunar colony to be similar to the one used in a Kibbutz....

[Kirsten]

Allow me to clarify....ownership is not dissallowing others to not use something while you're not using it...it is a monopoly on control, which in a situation of scarce resources can be very inefficient.

I am now much more in agreement with your revised definition. And yes, private ownership can be inefficient at times. However, look what you propose instead- a much more burdened system in which you have to get approval of the majority of the community to make decisions. And then you give people who are unqualified to make decisions the right to overrule people who are qualified to make those decisions simply by virtue of being in the majority. How efficient is that?

John Carmack of Armadillo Aerospace (http://www.armadilloaerospace.com) made a point at the Space Access Conference back in May of describing how much MORE efficient his operation is BECAUSE he does not have to get anyone's approval to make most decisions. If they need to spend money on parts, tools, or supplies, he just goes and buys them. Everyone doesn't have to vote on it first. He doesn't need any managers to agree to it. He just orders it up and is done with it.

How would purchasing be handled in a kibbutz?

And why do you think so many of these communities are moving in the direction of privatizing more and more of their functions if it is so efficient to do everything communally?


You asked for evidence of successful communes dealing with meager resources. Here is among the best: http://www.communa.org.il/e-israel.htm

Change israel to moon and religion to survival of the species and you have pretty much the same thing....

Thank you for the link. It has made for some very interesting reading. However, the link you provide directs the reader to other links which show that these communities are moving away from what you describe to increasing privatization. Here are some details I found (both linked to your own source and from other searches):

"From the earliest days of Deganya in 1910, the kibbutz has been a dynamic ever-changing society. Already in 1912, one of the members said on returning after a long absence: "Deganya isn't what it used to be". Nevertheless, every alteration in the way of life - from a radio in each member's room to the abolition of the communal showers - was seen by some as the beginning of the end. In recent years the rate of change has risen dramatically, in the direction of more privatization, in the great majority of the kibbutzim."
http://www.communa.org.il/e-israel.htm

"Instead of socializing within the general community, members are enclosed within enlarged apartments that are better furnished and more comfortable than the community halls. The dining hall, also due to privatization, no longer functions as an integrative factor, while family meals, to a large extent take the place of the communal meal. In many kibbutzim, communal gatherings on holidays have become rare and family celebrations frequently do not include the entire kibbutz. Opening educational institutions to children from the surrounding region, who only come during class hours, influences the character and scheduling of holiday celebrations in the children's homes: parents cannot always participate because these events no longer take place during evening, hours but during the day when parents are at work. The clubhouse has been replaced by the pub, also open to outsiders, where Kibbutz members pay almost the same as outside guests; thus they no longer feel entirely "at home"."
http://www.communa.org.il/e-israel.htm

"When enthusiasm for the idea of a serving pioneering elite weakened, and its status eroded both in its own eyes and those of the surrounding society, the Kibbutz became less involved in projects for the common good. Thus, to a great extent, the Kibbutz is no longer regarded as an unselfish intentional community."
http://www.communa.org.il/e-israel.htm

"While most consumption is in principle collective, the growing influence of consumerism has led to a redistribution of resources, with more money allocated to personal budgets in order to allow for greater individual choice. Most needed services are provided within the kibbutz, but increasingly are charged to personal budgets."
http://www.ic.org/icsa/kibbutz.html

"The main changes in the past few years are in the areas of consumption: along with enlarging the individual member's freedom of choice and control over his budget, some places have reduced the responsibility of the Kibbutz for each individual within it, and have adopted measures of reward that diminish equality and create differentiation. Development of industry and rise in the level of education were accompanied by changes in the structure of employment, change in organization of the economy, in management structure that turns from common and horizontal to hierarchic and centralist. As a result of demographic changes and stratified differentiation, the type of democracy in social systems has changed and direct participation democracy has been replaced by representative bodies and ballot voting. More and more kibbutzim are separating economic-business management from the social system, directorates with external directors are taking the place of the Kibbutz committees, and ways of differential reward by seniority, function and effort have here and there entered kibbutzim along with personal pensions."
http://www.ic.org/icsa/kibbutz.html

"Yes, we have a central dining room, but we only eat there on Friday nights. All other meals are at home, except occasionally on holidays and during kibbutz seminars. The dining room also is used for our general meetings and study days."
http://www.tamuz.org.il/english/faq.html

"Why did you find the traditional Kibbutzim to be so unsatisfactory, and how have you decided to run Kibbutz Tamuz so that it doesn't become like the Kibbutzim you left? People left the traditional kibbutz and came to Tamuz for different reasons. Many became disillusioned with it, mainly with the way the members viewed kibbutz. A lot of people on traditional kibbutzim today were just looking for the easy life, and kibbutz was easier than dealing with city life. Others were born there and just stayed for fear of looking for something else. They don't know how to give back to the member what the member has given to the community. They've lost their sense of community, they don't understand what the kibbutz means socially, economically, ideologically. Many don't want to understand. Those that do care, and do understand the value of kibbutz life are constantly battling within the kibbutz for what they believe. Kibbutz Tamuz is very different in that we check ourselves constantly. We study. We learn from the traditional kibbutz and try not to repeat their mistakes. We are smaller, and can't afford to lose the sense of community. There is no reason to be on Tamuz if you don't believe in what we are doing or why we exist. We give a lot more freedom to the individual than the traditional kibbutz, and that helps as well."
http://www.tamuz.org.il/english/faq.html



At the same time, the colony must be very democratic, such as to ensure no concentration of power. Direct democracy would be the name of the game....

How far does this go? Does the majority have the right to tell the minority how it must spend its leisure time? What food it must eat? What information it is allowed to know? Can the majority compel those who decide they wish to leave to remain in the community and contribute to it against their will? What if an individual is in need of very expensive or experimental health care to live- can the majority decide that the community will not pay for it and, hence, ensure that the individual will die because he had no opportunity to provide for himself? Do you propose any sorts of controls to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority?



I will agree with you that some forms of ownership will have to be retained. But as a basic outline, I will take for now the form of ownership to be used in lunar colony to be similar to the one used in a Kibbutz....

Given that these communities are vastly different from one another, perhaps you could provide details on which features you propose for your particular lunar kibbutz to have.

[K6-III]

At the same time, all the people working for Carmack are volunteers, much as residents of a commune would be, reducing his costs by a factor of 2-3....

The efficency comes from lower operating costs...

The Kibbutz was the building block that allowed the nation to be built. Once the infrastructure was in place, the Kibbutz was no longer required....hence a move away from a Kibbutz.

The main reason I advocate for internal production and internal anything possible is for several reasons. First and foremost, transportation costs are and will remain horrendous from the Earth to the moon. Secondarily, the colony must be fully capable of surviving independently of the Earth in case of infrastructure breaking down, either due to war on earth, simple mechanical failure, or otherwise....

A majoritarian democracy is not enough.....

Representative democracy doesn't work either due to people being chosen not on their merits, but on how well they campaign...

Perhaps a council of elders then...(thought experiment, feel free to elaborate)...

[Kirsten]

At the same time, all the people working for Carmack are volunteers, much as residents of a commune would be, reducing his costs by a factor of 2-3....

I don't know that this is analagous. If I understood you correctly, your proposal for your commune is that everyone will share equally in the profits. I have seen nothing indicating that this is to be the case for Armadillo Aerospace (or that it is not to be the case). I will see what I can turn up on that.



The efficency comes from lower operating costs...

Are you referring to a kibbutz here or to Armadillo Aerospace?



The Kibbutz was the building block that allowed the nation to be built. Once the infrastructure was in place, the Kibbutz was no longer required....hence a move away from a Kibbutz.

Your own link which you posted earlier states that "at no time did more than 6% of the population live on kibbutzim." Are you claiming that the 6% living on kibbutzim built the infrastructure for the other 94% of the population. Can you support your assertion? It seems pretty suspect to me.


The main reason I advocate for internal production and internal anything possible is for several reasons. First and foremost, transportation costs are and will remain horrendous from the Earth to the moon.

On what do you base this assertion?



Secondarily, the colony must be fully capable of surviving independently of the Earth in case of infrastructure breaking down, either due to war on earth, simple mechanical failure, or otherwise....

And why can this not be accomplished through private ownership and voluntary cooperation? (That is the method by which I advocate a presence be established on the moon if people desire to do so.) I don't see merit in people ruling over one another, so I can't help much with your thought experiment at the moment except perhaps to ask questions. I do look forward to reading your responses to those which I have already posed.

[K6-III]

Internal to the commune, one need not share profits at all in the traditional sense, seeing as money would be useless on the moon, with nothing made on the earth you could really buy...

My viewpoint is that a similar commune could be established on the Earth for the purpose of developing launch vehicles/other relavent technologies with reward being lunar colonization rather than money and luxuries....

For the second point I was referring to Armadillo...

I am proposing such a plan for the development of the moon, where no infrastructure predates. In the region of the Kibbutzim, existing towns/villages did exist, to which the Kibbutzim did contribute. On the moon the situation is similar, yet different....

The main reason is that one must first consider cost/kg to LEO, and then to escape velocity, as well as fuel expended to slow down, such as to enter lunar orbit.....etc...

I believe that in order to expedite colonization, it should be done with chemical rockets, a technology we're already very familiar with, which, in turn, would for a considerable time lead to very expensive costs Earth-moon and a major desirability of resource independence...

As far as the governmental body....that still requires considerable thought...

...I will answer that when/if I am ready....

Feel free to weigh in on what type of governance you would consider best given my hypothetical colony....

[Daniel]

Originally posted by Kirsten

The Kibbutz was the building block that allowed the nation to be built. Once the infrastructure was in place, the Kibbutz was no longer required....hence a move away from a Kibbutz.

Your own link which you posted earlier states that "at no time did more than 6% of the population live on kibbutzim." Are you claiming that the 6% living on kibbutzim built the infrastructure for the other 94% of the population. Can you support your assertion? It seems pretty suspect to me.



It is similiar to saying that in the period of the 13 colonies, in the west a few ppl in precentage built the infrastructure for the later conquest.

And the kibbutz is a much better way at obtain that goal. You can call it a self sustaining unit.

[K6-III]

Assuming that we can agree that a kibbutz-style infrastructure would work, why could we not do much the same on the earth for the development of relavent technologies.....

Dedicated people willing to make sacrifices with educations in relavent fields come together to make a colony on the Earth for developing what it takes to make a colony on the moon. The reward in such a colony would be a chance to live on the moon....

[Kirsten]

We cannot properly call a kibbutz a self-sustaining unit if we cannot demonstrate that a kibbutz can actually be self-sustaining at least for some brief period of time. (If we can do that, we then need to look at whether or not that can be duplicated on the moon long enough to get things started as has been suggested).

So far, every kibbutz I've found information on (which makes for very interesting reading, BTW, and I'm glad this model was brought up for that reason) does one of the following which demonstrates that it is not self-sustaining:

1. Sells products/services outside the kibbutz.

2. Accepts volunteer help from outside the kibbutz.

3. Encourages members to find outside work to supplement the income actually produced by the kibbutz.

4. Gets information from sources outside the kibbutz that helps it sustain itself.

Please give me an example of a kibbutz which is actually self-sustaining. If one cannot be found, then the claim that a kibbutz is a self-sustaining unit is without merit and we cannot proceed with the discussion on that basis.

On the other hand, I think the case for Kibbutz Luna could actually be improved by abandoning the claim that a lunar colony would necessarily have to be self-sustaining, so I don't think this is an important point if you are willing to do that.



Colonizing the moon via kibbutz is not comparable to the pioneering of the American west. Whereas the kibbutz is a socialist organization, the American west was largely settled via the free market. That is what is in dispute here- whether the moon can best be settled via socialist, free-market, or mixed models. You cannot draw on a largely free-market settlement process as evidence that a largely socialist one will be successful. The only similar thing I can think of which might help your case is that perhaps there are some useful parallels you could draw with the Latter-Day Saints who settled Utah, but you'd have to make the case.



The idea that the kibbutz movement was either significant or integral in building the infrastructure of Israel is, as of yet in this thread, still wholly unsupported. From what I have been able to find on the web, the vast majority of Israel's infrastructure was built otherwise via things like assistance from other countries, post-WWII reparations from Germany, contributions from Diaspora Jews, etc. I have found no mention anywhere that the kibbutz movement had significant contributions to building Israel's infrastructure.

If you have information that demonstrates that it did contribute significantly to the development of
-roads, railways, ports, airlines and other transportation systems,
-housing or commercial buildings,
-power plants, water distribution, waste management, communications, and other utilities,
-mining, agriculture, or other industries,
-military infrastructure,
-etc.
then please post a link or provide the details along with a reference. Frankly, I've found nothing that supports this claim, and I reiterate that without any support it is highly suspect given that few people were ever involved in the kibbutz movement.


Also, regarding the kibbutz/Carmack analogy, I will see what I can turn up on that, but I don't think it is appropriate. Whereas a kibbutz must provide for all of its members living needs, I doubt that John Carmack supports all of his volunteers. If that is the case, then this stands as an example of how the free-market is more agile than a socialist arrangement.

[timeshifter]

let me sum up all that i have read in the past four years...
THE EARTH NEEDS MORE RECOURCES.
if i could say it any more clearly, i would. when we run out of what we have, added in to the sun dying, the earth being pulled into the sun, the earth's rotation slowing down, and the moon's pulling away from us, we need to get out there.

[neubjr]

This is a very interesting thread, and I want to focus on the talk about making the lunar colony self sufficient. It seems that K6-III and Kirsten have been arguing partly about the sustainablility of a lunar colony and whether it can be self-sufficient or not.

From all my past Lunar research and work everyone that does serious thinking about how to make a lunar colony does so in stages. It is complete folly to think that you can create a completely self sustaining lunar colony right from the beginning. Any colony will have to go through several stages, a general approach to this seems to be something like the following:

Stage I: pre-human site preparation.
During this stage non-human missions would be sent to ready the selected site for human habitation by processing and stockpiling resources and possibly landing or preparing a habitat.

Stage II: Initial Human Habitation.
The first humans would most definitely not be colonists in their own right. They would be specialists sent to the site to futher set up the infrastructure of any future colony.

Stage III: Initial colonization stages.
This would be where the first humans sent to live on the moon would begin inhabiting the site. You still would not be anywhere near self sufficient as there are far too many needs that go into a human colony to begin thinking about cutting yourself off from the Earth.


Self Sufficiency comes in steps. You begin by being nearly dependant on the Earth (except for a few resources that are already on the moon or easily created from the moon like O2, Water, and structural materials). Then as time goes on the infrastructure of the colony becomes more and more rigid and less supplies and materials will be needed from the Earth.

This is how exploration has always worked -- in stages. It is not wrong to think that eventually a lunar colony will be self-sufficient, but it is wrong to ignore the initial stages that will be necessary to make it so.

Joshua.

[K6-III]

In that regard I'll have to agree.

My viewpoint is that many smaller colonies would be better than one large one....

...and perhaps that a Earth-based Kibbutzian approach could be taken to radically lower development costs for launch technologies and to instill the culture necessary in lunar colonies......

And yes, it would be the kibbutzian colonies on the earth that would do the preparatory work as described in the above post....

[neubjr]

It is good to work off of the Kibbutz structure for something like this but you must also realize that every structure has its flaws. You should take the kibbutz structure and learn from it to improve on a design for something that WILL lead to a lunar colony. For example, why would it be necessary to have everyone live in a communal area to work on this lunar colony here on Earth?

You need to focus on what is needed for a lunar colony right now, what kind of resources, materials, and infrastructures are needed on the moon for an initial base/colony. Then take this need and figure out how to fulfill it. We can take from the idea of a Kibbutz that everyone interested puts in a small part of what is needed to create something good for the whole. If you could manage to convince enough people in different specialities to supply a small piece of the infrastructure for such a Lunar colony then maybe you can have something like this work. For example, maybe one company could agree to produce an oxygen mining system, and another company could agree to produce structural materials for a habitat, and other could produce air filters, etc... etc.....

The problem of course is convincing the proper people to "donate" some of their resources to the cause, or in your Kibbutizan arcticture to become part of the Lunar Kibbutz. You do not have to have people living together on the Earth in their own little compound creating all the materials. All you need is a consortium of a lot of people who are willing to sacrifice a little of their time and resources to contribute to the cause of getting an initial lunar base on the moon. Again the problem is only going to be convincing the proper people to do this. One way to aid in this is to make the amount that each person contributes extremely small so that no one feels like it is a real burden on their company or person.

I am not sure what Kirsten will say to this as it does in a way stray towards the Marxian views. But one could also look at it as a "voluntary tax" to the "Pre-Lunar Colony" of a sort. This is the best way that I can see a lunar base really getting underway anytime soon. Gather together (not necessarily physically) a very large group of interested people, each with different specialties (hopefully several within each specialty). And have each person or company provide one very small piece of the Lunar-Base Pie. Of course people and companies would have to be convinced to do this with little to no personal gain. And therein lies the problem.

Joshua.

[K6-III]

It need not be one such organization/colony on the earth to develop said technologies.

Let us propose the following:

At the Lunar Development Conference sponsored by the Space Frontier Foudation we can indeed come up with such a list.

Then, colonies on the earth could be created to fill those needs. Not one colony, but many, each specializing in certain categories. It is also better to have many because communes tend to function most effectively when they are small.

And, in such a scenario, there WOULD actually be personal gain.....the chance to leave this world!!!!

And I completely agree with you that the Kibbutz is not the final concept. It is merely a concept we can start with and develop further.....

[Kirsten]

I am not sure what Kirsten will say to this as it does in a way stray towards the Marxian views. But one could also look at it as a "voluntary tax" to the "Pre-Lunar Colony" of a sort. This is the best way that I can see a lunar base really getting underway anytime soon. Gather together (not necessarily physically) a very large group of interested people, each with different specialties (hopefully several within each specialty). And have each person or company provide one very small piece of the Lunar-Base Pie. Of course people and companies would have to be convinced to do this with little to no personal gain. And therein lies the problem.

I am not opposed to voluntary structures which tend toward collectivsim in and of themselves so long as those structures do not violate my rights. I do note that such structures make it much easier for very terrible things to happen and tend to be less productive which I think is antithetical to the goal of the exploration and development of space. And I will definitely call the proponents out on the details because I think while such plans tend to sound nice on the surface, they do not tend to be well thought out.

Where I seem to disagree with everyone else in this thread is the basic assumption that going to the moon necessitates little or no personal gain/profit. I think that assumption needs to be revisited. For those of you who espouse such, what is the basis of this assumption?

And for those who are proponents of the kibbutz model, I would like to ask what you find wrong with the moshav model which I stumbled across while reading up on kibbutzim. This seems a lot more like what Joshua is talking about, and it is to me a lot less objectionable.

[K6-III]

The main reason that personal gain is not in going to the moon, other than the opportunity alone (which is worth far more than just about anything else to me, for example) is because return is very long term....

You might not see it, but several generations down, it definitely will be.....

We would then be the pioneers that set it in motion for their sake....

Plus, isn't living a life of hardship and innovation on the frontier more interesting than a life of comfort and stagnation on the earth??? (for many this is not the case, but for those that agree.....the optimal colonist they will be..) (sorry, couldn't resist the urge to rhyme)...

[Kirsten]

The main reason that personal gain is not in going to the moon, other than the opportunity alone (which is worth far more than just about anything else to me, for example) is because return is very long term....

Yes, this is the assertion. But upon what is this based? Why CAN'T people profit from going to the moon in their lifetimes?

[K6-III]

Going to the moon to live is not profitable....

Mining it while remaining on the earth can be...

There is a very large difference between what you and I are proposing...

[Kirsten]

Simply stating that going to the moon can't be profitable is merely repeating the assumption. Simply repeating it does not get us anywhere. What I am looking for is a *reason* why that might be true. So far, nothing has been presented.

[K6-III]

Rather, the question is the following: what profitable industries on the moon require colonization???

[Kirsten]

I'd change the question- what *potentially* profitable ventures would require lunar colonization?

I'll toss one out.

A retirement community.

Imagine the benefits to the ederly of a low gravity environment. It is not unimaginable that they would be able to live more productive and longer lives if they just moved to the moon and that many would be willing to pay significantly for the opportunity. But for that to happen, you'd also need people there to provide health care, transportation, communications, construction/home maintenance, accomodations for their visiting relatives, etc.

Of course, we really don't know what will/will not be profitable until people do the market research, cost analyis, etc. and in some cases even provide the product/service (which can stimulate the creation of a market where perhaps there was not one before). But that is, of course, my point in questioning why everyone assumes that there is no profit potential in lunar colonization.

[K6-III]

Calculate the cost of retirement homes alone.....which don't require the moon BTW...and could be done more easily in LEO....again what would make the moon the best place to make a profit???

[Kirsten]

I am not, as your reply would suggest, making the claim that the moon is the BEST place to make a profit. I don't need to make that claim. That wasn't the question. Plenty of things go on around us everyday which are not the BEST way for people to make a profit. Yet they happen anyway because not everyone can do the one thing that is the best thing to do to make a profit or it would no longer be the best way to make a profit. You'd have an overabundance of suppliers and prices would plummet.

Perhaps they could be done more easily in LEO, or perhaps not. Again, this is an assumption which remains undemonstrated. We just don't know at the moment. Each way has its own pluses and minuses. LEO would have a much more limited capacity than the moon. LEO might not appeal to people who enjoy the feeling of being grounded. LEO would almost certainly fall under the jurisdiction of Earth government and could prove prohibitively costly to develop in that way due to bureaucratic red tape and regulations. Etc.

I don't have to calculate the costs because I am not the one making a claim. Your claim is that lunar colonization is *not* profitable. I have acknowledged that we do not know the answer and allowed for either possibility. I have merely pointed out upon your request one potential avenue that could be pursued for profit. And I would also like to point out that the ideas that we may come up with here are hardly exhaustive of the possibilities.

[K6-III]

My claim is that profitability would require too much time....

Similarly, that which is profitable is not that which is right in all cases....

Perhaps we can transcend our psychological tool known as money...(has not been anything but paper since 1971...)

[Kirsten]

My claim is that profitability would require too much time....

Another claim for which no reason is given. What is "too much time"? Too much time for what? Why would profitability require too much of it? Why would non-profitability require less of it?


Similarly, that which is profitable is not that which is right in all cases....

And that which is not profitable is not that which is right in all cases. What's your point?

[K6-III]

In order for investment to take place, profitability must not take that long....for there would otherwise be too much risk of no return....

As for your second argument, it is not valid.....

I am proposing that the colony do things taking into account what future generations might need. With this in mind, it means that we cannot use up all resources today, for our descendents 2 generations later, or 6 generations later may need it.....

Why do I propose living efficiently.....just for this reason....

We cannot afford to leave them with nothing.....

I am proposing what we should do specifically, but providing a general outline of an approach: minimal resource investment to reach a predetermined goal, which itself shall propogate to doing the same to colonize Mars, free space, etc along similar lines from the lunar colony......

[neubjr]

And for those who are proponents of the kibbutz model, I would like to ask what you find wrong with the moshav model which I stumbled across while reading up on kibbutzim. This seems a lot more like what Joshua is talking about, and it is to me a lot less objectionable

I would be interested in hearing more about the "moshav" model you mentioned Kirsten. Any links?

Also, K6-III I am still not completely sure if you are proposing to set up actual "colonies" on Earth for the sole purpose of creating the needed materials to get to the moon. I see no need at all of bringing people together in any form of communal group. All you need to begin a lunar colony are the materials. Why waste the time and money necessary to bring people together from around the world when each component needed can be created separately and then brought together in one location without having everyone there.

And I also do not believe that initially a true "lunar colony" can be created. So the initial people working on creating a lunar base in this system WOULD have to do it without the promise of personal gain (at least personal gain in the form of going to the moon). There is no way that an infrastructure capable of supporting EVERYONE who works on it can be created in this way. It takes hundreds of people to work on the Space shuttle and to work on space missions, yet only 7 max get to go on any one shuttle flight. The same such ratios would be needed to develop and run any initial Lunar Base. Not everyone who contributes to the system will be able to go to the moon.

Maybe years down the line after the initial infrastructure is created, there will be more capability of bringing large numbers of people to the moon, but you cannot start off with the promise of that. K6-III you talk much about the Long term benefit and how the Moon cannot be profitable in the short term, and you use that argument as saying that commercialization cannot be the reason for going to the moon. But then you say basically (this is my interpretation of your words so correct me if I'm wrong) that everyone involved will have the opportunity to go to the moon. And I must funamentally argue with you on that point alone. Then if everyone cannot go to the moon who wants to you run into the problem of long returns again. Why would people put money or time into a program where they do not get the immediate return of going to the moon???

I guess this is the main point I want to focus on:
First, commericalization of Space and the moon in particular is a driving force and will become more and more of one as time goes on. We can see that simply from the Market for space flights now. If a small infrastructure could be setup on the moon by a large group on the Earth then you can build from that and it can be a profitable venture. Once this is a profitable venture then more and more infrastructure will be build allowing more people to go to the moon to live. You cannot simply jump straight to the conclusion that you can send a massive colonizing party to the moon. You can make the analog to the settling of the Americas, but I feel that going to the moon is many orders of magnitudes larger than that. Even if it's not, the Settlers were not the first to go, explorers went first in small groups to see what was where. Then once the settlers knew that there were resources and new land and it was safe they began to go. The whole analogy is a large stretch as there are many things that are vastly different. So just be careful when you attempt to jump straight into the Colonization mindset. There are many steps that must happen first -- which parts of the Kibbutz or Moshav models can be applied to, and should be applied to.

I hope this post makes some sense....

Joshua.

[K6-III]

Although I won't accept the Shuttle analogy due to pork-barrelling designed to make Shuttle operate that way and would rather compare what we need to do to DC-X....

Perhaps we need to do something else as you say....

In any case there must be some organization dedicated to this cause....what do you propose for its organization????

[timeshifter]

then here is another perspective:
why not build small colonies on earth and launch them into space? i can see some problems with this, namely costs. but that is where maglev technology comes in. in the long run, much cheaper than feul, a little bigger, but gets things into space just as easily. on a large scale, this could be used to launch the station into space.

[K6-III]

Issues with mass of heatshields will keep magnetic launchers out of the picture for a while....

...while chemical rockets are available today....

On the moon, however, magnetic launchers would be the name of the game...

[Kirsten]

Thanks for the thought-provoking post, Joshua. I'll have some comments about it later.

But for now, to answer your question about the moshav model- I've been unsuccessful in finding nearly as much information on the web regarding moshavim as seems to be available on kibbutzim. From the little bits and pieces I have read, though, a moshav is basically a farming co-op in which families own their own property, live in their own homes, and generally make their own decisions with the exception that purchasing and selling are done cooperatively. (It seems that moshavim and kibbutzim enjoy special government privileges and/or subsidies in Israel which I would be opposed to.)

By purchasing cooperatively, you would be able to get better prices for things that you need to establish and maintain a lunar presence. And cooperative marketing and/or selling could help improve profit margins for whatever goods/services that lunar residents would be providing.

But at the same time you would avoid many of the problems inherent to the kibbutz model such as people telling each other how many children they are allowed to have, whether or not they are entitled to certain medical care, etc.

I'm not convinced that this is a good model for expanding human presence onto the moon, but I think it is a big improvement over the kibbutz idea that has been presented.

[timeshifter]

really, though, what KC-III said was the problem i looked over.
thanks for making that clear to me.

still, though, we do it with chemical rockets at ease, and i think we could save feul if we did it past the lowest layer of our atmosphere and then switched to nuclear power.
would that be a good idea?

hydrogen would be another option. being very combustible, it would be tough to work with, but the results could be long-term benificial.

would either of these ideas be worth NASA's time?

[K6-III]

The current priorities that I see in the near future for lunar exploration would be an orbiter to look for water in the lunar craters, which could possibly be done either with the Japanese orbiter or the rover being developed by LunaCorp.

Other than that....we always need cheaper costs/kg to LEO.....

[K6-III]

Originally posted by timeshifter
really, though, what KC-III said was the problem i looked over.
thanks for making that clear to me.

still, though, we do it with chemical rockets at ease, and i think we could save feul if we did it past the lowest layer of our atmosphere and then switched to nuclear power.
would that be a good idea?

hydrogen would be another option. being very combustible, it would be tough to work with, but the results could be long-term benificial.

would either of these ideas be worth NASA's time?

Oh yeah...and for nuclear rockets you still need hydrogen.....lots of it..to cool the reactor....

That's what makes it a near-perfect technology for moving comets....

[Daniel]

Originally posted by Kirsten
Thanks for the thought-provoking post, Joshua. I'll have some comments about it later.

But for now, to answer your question about the moshav model- I've been unsuccessful in finding nearly as much information on the web regarding moshavim as seems to be available on kibbutzim. From the little bits and pieces I have read, though, a moshav is basically a farming co-op in which families own their own property, live in their own homes, and generally make their own decisions with the exception that purchasing and selling are done cooperatively. (It seems that moshavim and kibbutzim enjoy special government privileges and/or subsidies in Israel which I would be opposed to.)

It is okay, we in Israel also oppose some aspects of the US laws :p
I'm not aware of any special subsidies - they go to all ppl who work the land.


But at the same time you would avoid many of the problems inherent to the kibbutz model such as people telling each other how many children they are allowed to have, whether or not they are entitled to certain medical care, etc.
.

Just wanted to know where you got the above information, as it is not correct.
The children are educated at one place, it was used to be that from a young age they don't live with the parents. today it is a bit different.
I'm not aware on any restriction on number of kids. medical care is handled by a universal insurance - one can buy extanded if they want to.
anyway there is a lot of confusion and one must remember that the kibbutz is moving toward a more "open" model due to the changing reality.

[Kirsten]

I got the information from K6-III's first post in which he calls for childbearing based on available resources and central planning to determine how resources will be utilized, and then his later posts in which he refers to this as a kibbutz model.

It is probably a mistake to refer to "the" kibbutz model, since there is of course much variation among kibbutzim. And, of course, we still don't have details from K6-III on what he is proposing. My purpose in using the terminology was to try to maintain a common vocabulary throughout the thread. I'll try to be more clear and accurate in the future.

Interestingly, I have stumbled upon this link which discusses the idea of using a modified kibbutz model for a lunar colony:

http://www.asi.org/adb/06/09/03/02/101/human-migration-p1of2.html

This is more like the moshav idea I brought up. It allows for more personal and family autonomy than either the original kibbutz or the K6-III version of the kibbutz.

[K6-III]

No, rather, I was posting that a "kibbutzian" model is a good starting place to determine the initial society of a lunar colony.

In any situation where resources are scarce, expanding the population can only happen when sufficient resources are present....

[Kirsten]

Okay. What is a "kibbutzian" model, and how is what you initially proposed different from that?

[irizarry]

There is too much thinking in 20th Century terms where space exploration was a hardship on the individuals doing it. Now consider 21st Century options:

(1) Astronauts (especially on the International Space Station): now enjoy a luxury unmatched by their antecedents. Mars missions are also planned with this luxury designed in, often for necessity. If the mission is too tough send a robot!
(2) The X-Prize: really means the eventually easy access to space, and hopefully for everyone not a select few.
(3) The beginnings of space tourism: Many want to believe science drives technological advances which it does sometimes but now the consumer is empowered with this driving force. Faster computers with more memory are driven by video game players. Automobiles get more luxurious each year because consumers want this.
(4) The Mall people: There are enough people who think a great weekend outing is to go shopping at the Mall. These people are completely satisfied with smaller spaces that appear large and living in a congested environment. There are many candidates here that wont feel to out of place living in the confines of a space station or long duration module bound for some distant world (with in the inner solar system distances mind you). The Japanese urbanite probably could handle this hardship hanging upside down-piece of sushi!
(5) National Geographic Explorer-esque: When was the last time you heard an expedition get lost? There is some kind of back up! An expedition member stubs his toe a helicopter with strange foreign markings hauls him out. Tents have air-conditioning, some with satellite TV, and hot food in a plastic envelope (chef in a pouch). Some of these envelopes are edible!

What hardships have we endured by replacing the horse with a car? I travel in harsh climate completely enclosed in an adjustable environment, connected to the world’s information by radio and GPS. There is a huge built in infrastructure that I use to repair my car if I don’t want to do it myself. I don’t even think of those I have to rely on to keep the thing running because this infrastructure is so large. Ultimately this is the only way to go. Have “risk” approach zero asymptotically! For Space exploration to be safe for humans in the 21st century they will have to travel in style with all sorts of support groups lying in wait.

In the future if your Millennium Falcon cost to much to tune up every 50 Parsecs trade it in for a used Enterprise (there’s got to be a bunch of these guys lying around).

Irizarry \|/
-O-
/|\
|

[K6-III]

Better to send more to live more efficiently than to send few to live in luxury...

...whatever resources shall allow....

[Kirsten]

Originally posted by K6-III
Better to send more to live more efficiently than to send few to live in luxury...

...whatever resources shall allow....

This is a bit enigmatic. What do you mean by this?

Are you asserting that the resources available do not allow for anything but a sparse existence in space?

Are you claiming that the highest priority is to send as many people as possible? That it is best to send a large, impoverished group of people first rather than first sending a small, well-equipped group to open the frontier for the masses?

I don't understand what you are saying.

[K6-III]

What I'm attempting to say is that it is best to send a larger capable group as soon as possible, something that may only be possible if all are willing to make some sacrifice...

[Kirsten]

Originally posted by K6-III
What I'm attempting to say is that it is best to send a larger capable group as soon as possible, something that may only be possible if all are willing to make some sacrifice...

Okay, just to ensure that we are comparing apples to apples, do I understand your suggestion correctly to be that if we had a small capable group to send and a large capable group to send, then you want to send the large capable group first?

What would be the reasoning behind that?

[K6-III]

Colonization actually requires sending people up. One benchmark for the success of a colony could be the number of people that it successfully supports.....

[Kirsten]

Originally posted by K6-III
Colonization actually requires sending people up. One benchmark for the success of a colony could be the number of people that it successfully supports.....

I'm not getting a clear understanding from this of what your answers to my questions are.

Unless you explicitly state otherwise, I'll assume that you mean yes to my first question in my previous post, and I'll further assume that the above is your answer to my second question in my previous post.

Given those assumptions, I'm not seeing a good argument yet for sending a large number of people as soon as possible. Let's accept for the sake of discussion that one benchmark for the success of a colony is the number of people that it successfully supports. It does not necessarily follow that the way to support a large number of people is to send a large number of people as soon as possible.

Another way might be to send a small number of people as soon as possible (which so far as I can tell is almost certainly going to be sooner than it is possible to send a large number of people) and have them work out some of the bugs that must be worked out before a large number of people can be successfully supported.

So the question still remains to be addressed- what is the case for sending a large number of people as soon as possible rather than sending a small number of people as soon as possible?

[K6-III]

What you have said is correct. What I had in mind is having the colony be capable of supporting a maximum number of people as soon as possible...

[Steve Langford]

People who are willing to risk their lives to open space to human kind are often flexible with regards to the form of government. It is possible that early groups will need a military-like structure, almost a dictatorship. Space is unforgiving. We can debate and compromise with each other, but step across the line and the debate is over permanently. As you suggest, we can hope for better in the long term.

[Kirsten]

Originally posted by Steve Langford
It is possible that early groups will need a military-like structure, almost a dictatorship.

Why?

[Steracide]

humans think......and nature laughs.

with every answer...there appear two more questions.

planning is good...but destiny likes to destroy plans.
(on this way...RIP Columbia)

life is to serious...to talk serious about it.


a lot of thoroughly thinking people in here.....

it´s amazing what the energie of the sun can cause in our heads...

think further....but stay realistic.

[Steracide]

D-U-U......D-U-D.....or everything D-D-D?
humans think......and nature laughs.

with every answer...there appear two more questions.

planning is good...but destiny likes to destroy plans.
(on this way...RIP Columbia)

life is to serious...to talk serious about it.


a lot of thoroughly thinking people in here.....

it´s amazing what the energie of the sun can cause in our heads...

think further....but stay realistic.

[timeshifter]

To go back to what Kirsten said, the question is, why? We might get a military dictatorship, and that is not good. But how could it happen and why would it happen? These are questions that need answering and need it bad.

We can only begin to find ways to counter the problem IF we know what the problem is and how it can attack. But a military dictatorship is pretty darned drastic if you ask me.

[K6-III]

Nonetheless, a life a hardship is expected for the first generation of colonists, in comparison with what it may have been like in an industrialized country on Earth...

[irizarry]

Historically, in the past (North American history), small groups had less success than larger groups. Maybe for these reasons; larger groups can suffer more fatalities and still press on, larger groups tend to get significantly more assistance from there place of origin, and larger groups bring larger infrastructure. There are of course exceptions; smaller groups that had tenacity and otherwise no other choice forced success. To them it was better to die on an unknown frontier rather than suffer under the yoke of an oppressive government. In some cases even very small groups or even just individuals had great success on their own-say the earlier frontiersmen. But they did not colonize and there value for reconnaissance and survival knowledge was priceless. Also many of these groups were under a military type rule, say a religious oligarchy, a panel of elders, or a governor appointed by the place of origin. These arguments are all mute for space exploration since there is no known crafty survival skill (as of yet) that you could learn on Mars that would allow a very small group to go out and harvest oxygen and water let alone food. The machines that provide this are presently large apparatus that demand monitoring by many dedicated individuals. The frontier of space is orders of magnitude hasher than what our ancestors had to deal with. In the past (to offer a rather weak analogy) if you fell off the wagon train there was always a possibility (and maybe not a good one) you could be found by the next westward moving group before you expired. On the other hand if you fall off the wagon train to Mars - your done! Thus for this reason alone I am still in favor of a large group. But then again, I’m personally not taking this trip!

Irizarry
\|/
O
/|\

[K6-III]

I, however, would love to be a colonist...

On the other hand, I might contribute more to the cause by bringing launch costs down than by trying to become a colonist myself...

[timeshifter]

Me, personally, I would love to be a colonist, but on one condition: we had sufficient technology to stay out there. I mean, I don't want to go up on Mars and find out three months later that they can't get me off! That would be scary.

On the other hand, it would be nice to explore a region in our solar system that no one has been to before.

[Kirsten]

Originally posted by K6-III
Nonetheless, a life a hardship is expected for the first generation of colonists, in comparison with what it may have been like in an industrialized country on Earth...

This might be true or it might not. So far I haven't seen a case made that it is or probably is necessarily going to be like this. And of course, it depends on what you mean by hardship. For all we know, it may turn out that this "life of hardship" ends up being much cushier than, say, life in the 1930s. But just repeating that this is how it is going to be is not remarkably convincing.

[irizarry]

What ever the true and final case may turn out to be I look forward to see (and I hope in my life time). I would like to see products sold in Earth stores that say, “Made with pride on Mars”. On a less hardship more positive note about colonization-- Imagine, we go to Mars and it has some therapeutic property. The elderly can function better because of less gravity, Martian water is good for some diseases, that sort of thing. There would be a mass exodus from Earth. Or, if hiking Mars turns out to be a fad thing to do, the next extreme sport for some future generation. Or if, Mars turns out to be the “Mother of all Resorts”. Or if, gold if found by Martian prospectors. You can have plan but it’s going to get interesting when it takes on a life of its own! So we, those concerned about this sort of thing only have to concentrate on bridging the gap from down right no physical contact to a Martian "Canastota Wagon". Oh, and by the way, although I’m a chicken and wont go on the first flight I’ll be there when you build your first bistro. That will be a light beer please!

Irizarry
\|/
O
/|\