Eventually living on other planets

[enorbet2]

I want humans to go to the planets, the stars, and eventually the entire galaxy. But I need a damn good reason. And I haven't heard a single one. Not a peep. So, convince me.

 

Perhaps I was too vague. I am less interested in what can be found and brought back from Space Exploration than what we must learn and develop to muster the capability. From my point of view, and as I mentioned supported by the history of exploration, the exploration is the primary (the cake?) and the spoils (frosting?), secondary.

 

The analogy is crude since the secondary folds back and through, self-feeding an upward spiral. The only argument I can see for NOT going and as soon as possible is that of some predatory militaristic extra-terrestrial race such as Stephan Hawking seems to fear. I am more of the mind of Carl Sagan concluding that the very struggle to survive such technologies required for inter-stellar travel implies a peaceful society. That alone is a worthwhile and noble goal sufficient to justify the expenditure. Add the rapidly growing problem of over population and it's a given for me, considering the alternative "solutions".

[Moontanman]

Jeez - I wished I shared your optimism, Moontan.

 

You propose to accelerate ore from a Lagrange Point around Jupiter, to Earth.

 

1) How do you propose getting the ore to the L point in the first place?

2) How do you expect to stop the ore, Earthside? You proposed atmospheric braking, which means you're happy with it raining rock all over the world? This, of course, is ignoring the utter and total cock-up you'll make of the atmosphere, as 80%+ of your ore burns up into the atmosphere, before hitting somebody's house to smithereens.

 

The ore is already at the Lagrange points of Jupiter, there are many large asteroids at Jupiter's Lagrange points, not to mention ices. I was using them as an example. Moving things around the solar system is easy as long as you take long slow orbits and it is not energy intensive. Refined metals from any asteroid can be easily moved to Mars or the Earth by simply imparting a small deceleration to it and small motors that add or subtract tiny accelerations as you move it around. You are still thinking fast orbits from one planet to another. If your cargo can take years then you can use very easy orbits. As for hitting people houses again you are assuming that these cargoes will just be dropped like rocks from the sky. I haven't noticed any of our decelerating space craft hitting people houses with any regularity.

 

 

Spaceflight is cool. Space colonization is cool. Hell, it's awesome. But so are ten gazillion other pie-in-the-sky concepts. And the amount of available ore of any kind in the Earth's crust will be cheaper by orders of magnitude for many, many years.

 

So we just continue to rape the planet's surface when we could be getting refined metals from space with out the the pollution and destruction that mining and refining the ever more rarefied deposits of metal on the Earth leave behind?

 

If we run out of tin, what to do? Did all the tin ever mined, magically disappear? No, they're lying in landfills. Landfill mining will, also, be much more profitable than any space-based mining you can imagine.

 

 

At some point mining, even mining landfills, will destroy the environment. Such mining and re-refining of the metals contained there in will be just as bad as the original processes were.

 

Also, as to the cliché about the Wright Brothers inventing flying: Imagine if the purpose of every flying machine ever built was merely to get the pilot to Antarctica. Would it be such a good idea? Airplanes are cool, because they get you from one perfectly hospitable place to another.

 

This argument doesn't hold water, the first airplane flights were just for fun, they had no reason nor did they need to have a reason. People came up with things for airplanes to do. the airplane wasn't built with wow we need to fly to Europe next year. They were built to see if it could be done. Purpose for the airplane came later.

 

I want humans to go to the planets, the stars, and eventually the entire galaxy. But I need a damn good reason. And I haven't heard a single one. Not a peep.

 

So, convince me.

 

I think I've given you several, resources, colonies, knowledge, and simple exploration. What else could there be?

 

Work to do, food to eat, a place to sleep, what else is there? :)

[Boerseun]

Using the concept of a Mass-Driver (material from the rock itself) is move the orbit of said rock to in proximity of Earth (not on it). No need to worry about dodging falling rocks.

Mass Drivers work beautifully in principle, and would work very fine if you wanted to move an asteroid. But it will only work well if you're presented with a homogeneous aggregate of uniform-sized particles. Because what you're doing, in essence, is to use the asteroid for rocket fuel. Bits of it will be launched in the opposite direction of where you're planning on traveling. So imagine your asteroid is composed of one solid piece of iron/nickel. First, you have to cuts bits off which would be launched to supply you with the necessary thrust. I don't know about mining in space, but mining on Earth (essentially cutting pieces of rock out of the Earth) requires immense supporting industries to supply such mundane items as cutting tools, which have a notoriously short lifespan, given what you intend to do with them.

This is what NASA does pie-in-the-sky concepts day-in and day-out to justify their existence. Are you saying we should STOP all development ??? :confused:

That is clearly not what I've said, if you've read my posts.

 

NASA does some wonderful work, and the best they've done so far included robotic exploration. Consider the Voyagers, the Pioneers, the sequence of Mars Rovers. Apollo could be included in this list as well, if the prime mover for that particular venture wasn't political, which, sorrily, it was. They wanted to prove to the Russians that they've got superior rocketry, and they did. It was very hard for them to justify sending humans to the moon for any other reason, and once they achieved it, it fizzled out.

 

With "pie-in-the-sky" I mean grandiose ideas that has no justification apart from the fact that it's cool, and has very little practical application.

Recycling is a required solution for the near term if not afterwards. However, its efficiency is not 100% (at best we are 19-22% in capturing across the board, less in some items). So there is No way that Recycling alone will be the answer.

I find it ironic that you're willing to flatly dismiss any future advances in recycling technology, stating that there's "no way" for recycling to be the answer, yet you're putting your faith in grand futuristic schemes dependent on fickle public support?

 

Let's say recycling technology achieves a 50-60% recycling rate in the next ten to twenty years. How much of your asteroid are you going to cut off to serve as reaction mass? 50%? 60%? While there's a 50-100km thick layer of perfectly mineable resources right under your feet?

The rate of production of Chromium in about 1972

would have the expected of all know world reserves depleted by about the year 2000

because of one item -- the Automobile Chrome plated bumper. In the 80's what did we

do -- almost overnight (w/i 1 yr); stop making Chrome plated bumpers and moved to using plastic resin bumpers on all models.

I'm not too sure how big an impact chrome bumpers might have had on the chromium industry, but I will take your word for it. However, I suspect the poisonous nature of chromium hexaflouride had a bigger impact on Stateside production than the mere availability of the ore. As a case in point, in my town, Hernic Ferrochrome (Pty)Ltd is one of the biggest employers, and one of the biggest suppliers of chromium in the world. They have enough chrome to last for many, many years - with vast untapped seams lying in wait for higher commodity prices. Yet, they use hexaflouride in extracting chromium from the ore - which is the very same they would have to use for any chrome-bearing ore coming from space. Unless you want to ship tons of the stuff to Jupiter so that pure chrome can be shipped back to Earth - which seems highly unlikely in the face of high shipping costs. Either way, hexaflouride will be used, on Earth, to process the ore - regardless of where the ore came from.

This would not have made as much sense in 1903, yet would make perfect sense in 1957 (IGY). This is the major problem I see with you logic.

Bingo. In my example about all airplanes flying to Antarctica, that would indeed make perfect sense in 1957. Because that would be purely for science. And we've achieved the perfect model for that - with the Mars Rovers. Robotized exploration is the ticket. It's cheap, expendable, scalable, and has vast application on the domestic economy of Earth. But imagine if the purpose of all flight was just to land in Antarctica? There's no market, any resources to be found there can be found much cheaper anywhere else on the planet (there's vast storehouses of coal in Antarctica, yet there's not a single coal mine to be found - international treaties notwithstanding). I think the logic should be pretty clear.

The needs may be different by the time we are to start moving commerce out to our solar system (w/i 100 years).

You can't reason based on the assumption that this will happen within 100 years. Please read my previous posts where I explain the difficulty of getting viable trade up and running between planets. It will take centuries of committed effort just to get population levels up to the levels required for a self-sustaining economy worthwhile trading with. Remember, trade is a two-way street. A bar of gold costing $1,000 might have made one-way trade worthwhile in the 1600's, when a ship costing $50,000 could carry $1,000,000 worth of the stuff. But what the ship cost $100,000,000,000 and that same bar of gold still cost $1,000? Won't it be more economical to simply get it from Earth? There are plenty, and I mean plenty, of gold-bearing seams that have been shut down because of low prices. Once the prices make it worthwhile, goldmines will spring up around known deposits like fleas on a dog, for many, many years still to come.

I am very skeptical whether a proper convincing argument is even possible when you are so closed off to the possibility. Your mind has already been made up.

My mind is not closed to the idea, far from it. Yet, all I hear is dreamy speculation of "what if" and the inevitability of it. I am yet to hear a single "proper convincing argument" in support of colonising other planets. I would really love to, however. So bring it on.

Perhaps I was too vague. I am less interested in what can be found and brought back from Space Exploration than what we must learn and develop to muster the capability. From my point of view, and as I mentioned supported by the history of exploration, the exploration is the primary (the cake?) and the spoils (frosting?), secondary.

With that, I agree fully. I see the technological progress towards something like interplanetary or even interstellar human spaceflight as being the offshoots of research done for quite different purposes. For instance, a concept like "hibernation" to make centuries (or even millenia) long spaceflight possible, might very well be the result of medical research in how to make hibernation possible for humans who have to wait for organs to become available, for instance. Research can then be very well justified due to the immediate application it will have on Earth, and it will pay for itself.

Where exploration is the cake and the spoils the frosting, I see it very much in the light of robotic exploration being the cake (we get to explore the solar system for a pittance, relatively speaking), and human interplanetary flight might be the frosting when rocketry and propulsion have developed to the point (in support of expediting robotic exploration) that it might become appliccable to establishing a human presence beyond low Earth orbit.

I am more of the mind of Carl Sagan concluding that the very struggle to survive such technologies required for inter-stellar travel implies a peaceful society.

With that, I agree fully, too. And that should serve as an indication of where our priorities should lie for the next few centuries. (my bold)

That alone is a worthwhile and noble goal sufficient to justify the expenditure. Add the rapidly growing problem of over population and it's a given for me, considering the alternative "solutions".

There might be many reasons and justifications for colonizing the solar system, but overpopulation on Earth is not one of them. Some 300,000 more babies are born than people die, each and every day. Yes, Earth's population grows by a million by the morning of every fourth day. So we'll have to launch 300,000 people every day, and that will only maintain the population at the same level. Overpopulation on Earth is a local problem (planetary speaking), which will have to be solved locally.

Moving things around the solar system is easy as long as you take long slow orbits and it is not energy intensive. Refined metals from any asteroid can be easily moved to Mars or the Earth by simply imparting a small deceleration to it and small motors that add or subtract tiny accelerations as you move it around. You are still thinking fast orbits from one planet to another. If your cargo can take years then you can use very easy orbits.

Granted. Fast straight-to-Earth orbits will take enormous amounts of fuel, slow orbits will take much less. But with easy, slow orbits, you're talking years of your resource payload slowly spiraling towards the sun, to be intercepted by Earth. Not to sound too much like a grouch, but commodity supply and demand doesn't quite support that scenario. People want stuff now. A company would rather invest in a mining operation somewhere in Africa that could show a return in a year or two than invest billions in the project you're proposing, which will only deliver a few decades from now.

As for hitting people houses again you are assuming that these cargoes will just be dropped like rocks from the sky. I haven't noticed any of our decelerating space craft hitting people houses with any regularity.

As far as I can recall, you said that atmospheric braking is to be employed. And the reason that decelerating space craft don't hit people's houses with any regularity, is that their reentry is usually controlled by thousands of humans working in concert around the globe to plan, track, command, steer and manage the whole operation. And that is just for a single item coming down from orbit like, say, the Space Shuttle. But what you're proposing is more like Columbia's fatal re-entry, continuously, all around the globe, for chunks of rock big enough so as to not completely ablate during entry. And then there is to be a complete mining industry devoted to picking up the pieces as they scatter and fall all over the world. Two-thirds of your ore will be practically inacessable, seeing as they would fall into the ocean. They would merely serve to pollute the atmosphere, and be gone. I simply cannot see any sense behind it.

So we just continue to rape the planet's surface when we could be getting refined metals from space with out the the pollution and destruction that mining and refining the ever more rarefied deposits of metal on the Earth leave behind?

The first caveman to pick up a piece of flint and chipped it into a knife, was the first miner, or the first to "rape the planet's surface". Mining is nothing new, nor strange. The pollution and destruction that you allude to regarding mining, is an artefact of technology. As technology improves, so too does the pollution and destruction go down. Compare, for instance, an 18th century coal mine in England to a modern day colliery.

Besides, what, pray tell, might be the difference between "raping" the surface of the Earth, and "raping" an asteroid? If I understand your proposal correctly, there might be somebody living on that asteroid, after all?

At some point mining, even mining landfills, will destroy the environment. Such mining and re-refining of the metals contained there in will be just as bad as the original processes were.

Can you please elaborate on this assumption?

This argument doesn't hold water, the first airplane flights were just for fun, they had no reason nor did they need to have a reason.

They were cheap, and paid for by the Wrights themselves. The analogy is not applicable, because what you're proposing in colonising the solar system is dependent on public money. Vast streams of public money, continuously, for centuries. And all of that when we suddenly have to bail out gigantic corporations because something fundamental is broken in our understanding of economics. And that economy will be the underpinning of any succesfull interplanetary venture. If the technology reaches the level where crazy billionaires like Richard Branson can build a colony on Europa using off-the-shelf items, when it becomes private and out of the public domain, when private individuals can fund it (like the Dutch East India Company in the 1600's) then I'd be all for it. And then invoking the Wrights as an argument in favour, might hold water. But using public money, the Wrights simply don't feature.

People came up with things for airplanes to do. the airplane wasn't built with wow we need to fly to Europe next year. They were built to see if it could be done. Purpose for the airplane came later.

Rocketry was brougth to perfection by Werner von Braun, who built the V2 for Hitler to bomb London with. Von Braun later helped NASA land on the moon, using in a big way his V2 experience. I think Armstrong & co. should have at least planted a Britsh flag alongside the US flag, for the poor Brits who died serving as a testing range for moon rocket technology. But that's besides the point.

I think I've given you several, resources, colonies, knowledge, and simple exploration. What else could there be?

And I think I've debunked them all. But for brevity, I will sum up:

 

1) Resources:

Nada. Every conceivable resource you can find on any asteroid, can be found on Earth, much cheaper, much safer, without the danger of destroying domestic markets as a 1,000 ton lump of pure gold falling out of the sky might do.

 

2) Colonies:

Colonies would imply that there is something for people to do out there. They can either gather resources, which even if economically viable, can be better, safer, and cheaper, be done by machines. Or, they can gather knowledge, which:

 

3) Knowledge:

Space-based telescopes, Mars Rovers, the Huygens probe, Voyagers 1&2, the Pioneers, the Venera landers, all of these have returned reams and reams of perfectly usable data without a single human on board. If we land a buggy on Mars and we later whish that the thing had a certain capability we haven't though of, that capability can be included in the next rover. The technology improves. If there's a big budget cut, we can safely shut down the system without any loss of life. Science is pure. Science is the interpretation of data; the gathering can be done by anybody or anything.

 

Once again, I'm sorry for appearing overly negative. But I haven't heard a single compelling argument in favour of human space flight and/or colonisation beyond low earth orbit. Don't get me wrong, however. I think it will be awesomely and amazingly cool. I think to be a citizen of some far-off planet will be rockingly awesome. But there must be a very valid and solid reason for blowing tons of public money, when we're battling with such issues as falling educational standards etc., for which there might be much better application of said tax monies than to chase resources that is uneconomical, unrealistic, and found right under your feet on Earth, in any case.

[Moontanman]

Mass Drivers work beautifully in principle, and would work very fine if you wanted to move an asteroid. But it will only work well if you're presented with a homogeneous aggregate of uniform-sized particles. Because what you're doing, in essence, is to use the asteroid for rocket fuel. Bits of it will be launched in the opposite direction of where you're planning on traveling.

 

You do not have a good idea of how a mass driver would work, no need for a uniform homogeneous aggregate. you put stuff in buckets, you accelerate the bucket and fling the stuff in it out into space, the bucket stays.

 

So imagine your asteroid is composed of one solid piece of iron/nickel. First, you have to cuts bits off which would be launched to supply you with the necessary thrust. I don't know about mining in space, but mining on Earth (essentially cutting pieces of rock out of the Earth) requires immense supporting industries to supply such mundane items as cutting tools, which have a notoriously short lifespan, given what you intend to do with them.

 

Again why would you move the asteroid into earth orbit? You refine the metals on site and move the refined metals to the earth. You use the left overs from the refining process as mass for the mass drivers. I can see a huge complex, moving slowly among the asteroids, it moves to an asteroid, refines the metals and starts them to earth with a robot type drive section attached. Then you move the complex to the next asteroid. BTW you make your own cutting tools, lasers and other things make great cutting tools.

 

Bingo. In my example about all airplanes flying to Antarctica, that would indeed make perfect sense in 1957. Because that would be purely for science. And we've achieved the perfect model for that - with the Mars Rovers. Robotized exploration is the ticket. It's cheap, expendable, scalable, and has vast application on the domestic economy of Earth.

 

Not to mention highly limited, can you imagine how limited our knowledge of Antarctica would be if we used robotic rovers that cannot be controlled directly for the exploration of Antarctica? It's doubtful we would know 1% of what we do now.

 

Granted. Fast straight-to-Earth orbits will take enormous amounts of fuel, slow orbits will take much less. But with easy, slow orbits, you're talking years of your resource payload slowly spiraling towards the sun, to be intercepted by Earth. Not to sound too much like a grouch, but commodity supply and demand doesn't quite support that scenario. People want stuff now. A company would rather invest in a mining operation somewhere in Africa that could show a return in a year or two than invest billions in the project you're proposing, which will only deliver a few decades from now.

 

Not if the potential profits were an order of magnitude higher. Once the "pipeline" was full shipments of refined metals could arrive every few days or weeks. No need to wait years on shipments.

 

As far as I can recall, you said that atmospheric braking is to be employed. And the reason that decelerating space craft don't hit people's houses with any regularity, is that their reentry is usually controlled by thousands of humans working in concert around the globe to plan, track, command, steer and manage the whole operation. And that is just for a single item coming down from orbit like, say, the Space Shuttle. But what you're proposing is more like Columbia's fatal re-entry, continuously, all around the globe, for chunks of rock big enough so as to not completely ablate during entry. And then there is to be a complete mining industry devoted to picking up the pieces as they scatter and fall all over the world. Two-thirds of your ore will be practically inacessable, seeing as they would fall into the ocean. They would merely serve to pollute the atmosphere, and be gone. I simply cannot see any sense behind it.

 

Again we are not talking about dropping rocks from orbit, the infrastructure for guiding space craft to the ground is already in place, shipments of refined metals would be brought in just like space craft, to controlled landings, not craters! :confused:

 

Besides, what, pray tell, might be the difference between "raping" the surface of the Earth, and "raping" an asteroid? If I understand your proposal correctly, there might be somebody living on that asteroid, after all?

 

No one has suggested asteroids have living ecologies, how can you equate chopping up a lifeless rock in space to destroying the ecology of huge areas of the earth?

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moontanman

At some point mining, even mining landfills, will destroy the environment. Such mining and re-refining of the metals contained there in will be just as bad as the original processes were. ]

 

Can you please elaborate on this assumption?

 

The metals in land fill have to be refined, things like mercury and pcbs are are released during this process, why do this on the earth when you don't have to?

 

They were cheap, and paid for by the Wrights themselves. The analogy is not applicable, because what you're proposing in colonising the solar system is dependent on public money. Vast streams of public money, continuously, for centuries. And all of that when we suddenly have to bail out gigantic corporations because something fundamental is broken in our understanding of economics. And that economy will be the underpinning of any succesfull interplanetary venture. If the technology reaches the level where crazy billionaires like Richard Branson can build a colony on Europa using off-the-shelf items, when it becomes private and out of the public domain, when private individuals can fund it (like the Dutch East India Company in the 1600's) then I'd be all for it. And then invoking the Wrights as an argument in favour, might hold water. But using public money, the Wrights simply don't feature.

 

Please explain what you mean by expense? If you used 25% of what is spent on the military humanity could own the inner solar system in 50 years, easily. at some point the lions share of expense would be shouldered by the colonies themselves. Once you stopped depending on earth for your supplies and resources the expense to the earth becomes moot. And yes i expect a economic system to develop in space independent of the earth. If we used 100% of what we spend on the military could be owning the entire solar system and be starting on the alpha centauri system in 50 years. expense is a relative thing.

[Boerseun]

You do not have a good idea of how a mass driver would work, no need for a uniform homogeneous aggregate. you put stuff in buckets, you accelerate the bucket and fling the stuff in it out into space, the bucket stays.

How do you:

 

1) Propose getting the stuff in the buckets.

2) Expect point number 1 to be cheap and easy in anybody's books, given what we know about mining today?

 

I don't think you quite understand the magnitude of the operation you propose.

Again why would you move the asteroid into earth orbit? You refine the metals on site and move the refined metals to the earth. You use the left overs from the refining process as mass for the mass drivers.

Do you know anything about mining, Moontan? Do you know anything about refining? You are proposing an entire supporting industry to mining, one that will inflate costs to even more unreasonable levels. I still have not heard a peep about how you're planning to make your space mining venture competable in any way, with existing Earthbound enterprises.

I can see a huge complex, moving slowly among the asteroids, it moves to an asteroid, refines the metals and starts them to earth with a robot type drive section attached. Then you move the complex to the next asteroid. BTW you make your own cutting tools, lasers and other things make great cutting tools.

To the former, I can't see it. To the latter, science fiction is ablaze with vague terms like "laser cutters" and such, where the energy source is conveniently ignored for the sake of the narrative. In short, no dice.

Not to mention highly limited, can you imagine how limited our knowledge of Antarctica would be if we used robotic rovers that cannot be controlled directly for the exploration of Antarctica? It's doubtful we would know 1% of what we do now.

I will even go one further and say that if we only had robot explorers on Antarctica, of the kind available in the next decade or two, we would've known much more, much faster of that particular continent than what we have so far with human explorers. "Cool" and "Awesome" means nothing in Science. Sorry. All that counts is the data, and like I said in my prior most, it doesn't matter who or what gathers it.

Not if the potential profits were an order of magnitude higher. Once the "pipeline" was full shipments of refined metals could arrive every few days or weeks. No need to wait years on shipments.

I'm not sure if you're just willful, or if you really don't understand my point. There is no such thing as a "commodity pipeline". If it takes you thirty years for your "pipeline" to fill up, so that your supply feeds at the same time as your consumption on Earth, what are you going to do in the face of market slumps or demand increases? Mines on Earth throttle or increase production to cater for it. Your particular "pipeline" will be completely unresponsive to market forces, and, as such, would be discounted by the market as the unresponsive, completely overpriced (compared to Earth-based suppliers) behemoth that it is. People won't buy from you. Don't you get it?

Again we are not talking about dropping rocks from orbit, the infrastructure for guiding space craft to the ground is already in place, shipments of refined metals would be brought in just like space craft, to controlled landings, not craters! :confused:

"Shipments of refined metals would be brough in just like space craft to controlled landings".

Have you any idea of what you propose? How do you expect a controlled landing of an ore shipment? You used half its mass to get it to Earth. This excludes having it in the cargo hold of some sort of lander. Its too big. So now you end up with a lump of rock in Earth orbit. Do you expect a shuttle to go in orbit to collect it? You have to, because there's no way to control a pile of rock on atmospheric entry - they are notorious for having, amongst others, NO airfoils, NO ailerons, NO flight guidance systems, etc. You get the picture. You do know, of course, that launch costs per pound makes any shuttle payload more expensive than gold, kilogram for kilogram?

 

I really thought we had a serious discussion here, but it seems as if you don't really understand what you're talking about, Moontan.

No one has suggested asteroids have living ecologies, how can you equate chopping up a lifeless rock in space to destroying the ecology of huge areas of the earth?

I didn't say it moontan, you did. You propose establishing space colonies on, amongst others, asteroids. Now, if a kid was born on this asteroid, and you propose mining, or, in the appropriate vernacular, raping it, have you considered that that particular kid might call the lump of rock under discussion home? Mining that asteroid will piss that kid off just as much as mining in your backyard will piss you off. We have to be consistent, you see.

The metals in land fill have to be refined, things like mercury and pcbs are are released during this process, why do this on the earth when you don't have to?

Once again, the mere cost makes it worthwhile. And if mercury release is your biggest gripe, then process research might make this less of an issue. Research which, I might add, is much cheaper and better applicable at home.

If you used 25% of what is spent on the military humanity could own the inner solar system in 50 years, easily.

This is assuming that there is any advantage to it. Arming your country to the teeth has the advantage of enabling you to withstand any attacks by your neighbouring countries. That, at least, and as ghastly as the entire enterprise might seem, is the advantages of military expense. It's tangible, at least to a certain extent. Humans would never "own" the inner solar system in the absence of any tangible benefit - however you want to cut it.

at some point the lions share of expense would be shouldered by the colonies themselves.

It would take centuries of committed effort for any "colony" to be big enough to shoulder any financial burden of any sort, whatsoever. I beg you, I implore you, to explain how you expect a colony of any size to commit to any sort of financial agreement to the scale you propose, in any time less than a thousand years.

If we used 100% of what we spend on the military could be owning the entire solar system and be starting on the alpha centauri system in 50 years.

I don't think you quite appreciate the obstacles to your proposal, squire.

expense is a relative thing.

Say that to the taxpayer, who'll be footing the bill.

[maddog]

I'm beginning to feel that if your post's get long enough I will give up... Nada!

Mass Drivers work beautifully in principle, and would work very fine if you wanted to move an asteroid. But it will only work well if you're presented with a homogeneous aggregate of uniform-sized particles. Because what you're doing, in essence, is to use the asteroid for rocket fuel. Bits of it will be launched in the opposite direction of where you're planning on traveling. So imagine your asteroid is composed of one solid piece of iron/nickel. First, you have to cuts bits off which would be launched to supply you with the necessary thrust. I don't know about mining in space, but mining on Earth (essentially cutting pieces of rock out of the Earth) requires immense supporting industries to supply such mundane items as cutting tools, which have a notoriously short lifespan, given what you intend to do with them.

Mining in space will be only a few order of magnitude more complicated. Machines will not need air. Some ability to stay attached to the asteroid in Low-g. People will need

air. Their presence will be to direct/control and/or repair machines. For rocks high in

metal content have the smelting processing right on the asteroid is viable.

That is clearly not what I've said, if you've read my posts.

What is "clearly not what I've said" ? I've read all your post(s) quite thoroughly. So I'm

not sure what you are referring to.

NASA does some wonderful work, and the best they've done so far included robotic exploration. Consider the Voyagers, the Pioneers, the sequence of Mars Rovers. Apollo could be included in this list as well, if the prime mover for that particular venture wasn't political, which, sorrily, it was. They wanted to prove to the Russians that they've got superior rocketry, and they did. It was very hard for them to justify sending humans to the moon for any other reason, and once they achieved it, it fizzled out.

All the robotic mission are great, produce great results and does lessen the need for

people in space en mass eventually.

With "pie-in-the-sky" I mean grandiose ideas that has no justification apart from the fact that it's cool, and has very little practical application.

I interpret you mean by PITS to mean any people in space into the future ? So that

means that the Constellation Program is PITS ??? :eek_big:

I find it ironic that you're willing to flatly dismiss any future advances in recycling technology, stating that there's "no way" for recycling to be the answer, yet you're putting your faith in grand futuristic schemes dependent on fickle public support?

I am not willing to dismiss any innovation into the future. Especially any propulsion

system that could even circumvent gravity itself. Like Solar Power Generation, you will

likely never get 100 % efficiency. To get even close to 40%+ you will need some

draconian 100% enforcement (Mandatory) of Recycling (may happen) as well as some

atomic manipulation of 100% efficiency. Not forseeable today. Maybe in 15-20 years

may be a different thing all together. It is hard for me to see recycling ever rising above

50% efficiency though in the next 100 years. I may be wrong

Let's say recycling technology achieves a 50-60% recycling rate in the next ten to twenty years. How much of your asteroid are you going to cut off to serve as reaction mass? 50%? 60%? While there's a 50-100km thick layer of perfectly mineable resources right under your feet?

Studies on mass drivers typically put in 8-15% from Asteroid belt to Earth orbit.

I'm not too sure how big an impact chrome bumpers might have had on the chromium industry, but I will take your word for it. However, I suspect the poisonous nature of chromium hexaflouride had a bigger impact on Stateside production than the mere availability of the ore. As a case in point, in my town, Hernic Ferrochrome (Pty)Ltd is one of the biggest employers, and one of the biggest suppliers of chromium in the world. They have enough chrome to last for many, many years - with vast untapped seams lying in wait for higher commodity prices. Yet, they use hexaflouride in extracting chromium from the ore - which is the very same they would have to use for any chrome-bearing ore coming from space. Unless you want to ship tons of the stuff to Jupiter so that pure chrome can be shipped back to Earth - which seems highly unlikely in the face of high shipping costs. Either way, hexaflouride will be used, on Earth, to process the ore - regardless of where the ore came from.

I would probably agree environmental impact may have been greater than 0 in making

the decision, not all of it. Look for example at the CFC issues of the 80's and 90's. CFCs

were know to be health hazard, yet it was not until that the Ozone layer of the Earth was

in danger that steps were taken to remove the danger.

Bingo. In my example about all airplanes flying to Antarctica, that would indeed make perfect sense in 1957. Because that would be purely for science. And we've achieved the perfect model for that - with the Mars Rovers. Robotized exploration is the ticket. It's cheap, expendable, scalable, and has vast application on the domestic economy of Earth.

So you agree. If a purpose is found for some advance, it will be used. So all we need

is cheap propulsion to the outer planets and we'll have it. :hyper:

But imagine if the purpose of all flight was just to land in Antarctica? There's no market, any resources to be found there can be found much cheaper anywhere else on the planet (there's vast storehouses of coal in Antarctica, yet there's not a single coal mine to be found - international treaties notwithstanding). I think the logic should be pretty clear.

Still would have worked in 1957... :naughty:

There is expected of 350 years (maybe more counting what hasn't been discovered and

not counting Antarctica) of coal reserves around the world. So we would have to wait

till then to see if someone wants to and mine Antarctica (assuming that mining coal is

even desired in 350 years).

You can't reason based on the assumption that this will happen within 100 years.

I don't believe I am reasoning that way. Forgive me, that is only IMHO that this will likely

be done w/i 100 years.

Please read my previous posts where I explain the difficulty of getting viable trade up and running between planets. It will take centuries of committed effort just to get population levels up to the levels required for a self-sustaining economy worthwhile trading with. Remember, trade is a two-way street. A bar of gold costing $1,000 might have made one-way trade worthwhile in the 1600's, when a ship costing $50,000 could carry $1,000,000 worth of the stuff. But what the ship cost $100,000,000,000 and that same bar of gold still cost $1,000? Won't it be more economical to simply get it from Earth? There are plenty, and I mean plenty, of gold-bearing seams that have been shut down because of low prices. Once the prices make it worthwhile, goldmines will spring up around known deposits like fleas on a dog, for many, many years still to come.

This is think that the last 500 years will be like the next 500. Not likely. Anyone who has

ever watched trends. They appear to happen in a nonlinear fashion. What will populate

the solar system with 1 million+ people in the next 100 years will be some innovation in

propulsion that we can not now fathom.

My mind is not closed to the idea, far from it. Yet, all I hear is dreamy speculation of "what if" and the inevitability of it. I am yet to hear a single "proper convincing argument" in support of colonising other planets. I would really love to, however. So bring it on.

You would have to concede that you don't know what the next innovation in propulsion in

space is gonna' be. I am not willing to say I have the crystal ball.

With that, I agree fully. I see the technological progress towards something like interplanetary or even interstellar human spaceflight as being the offshoots of research done for quite different purposes. For instance, a concept like "hibernation" to make centuries (or even millenia) long spaceflight possible, might very well be the result of medical research in how to make hibernation possible for humans who have to wait for organs to become available, for instance. Research can then be very well justified due to the immediate application it will have on Earth, and it will pay for itself.

Though I would like to see Interstellar flight in my lifetime, I don't envision it. Again,

maybe I will. Who knows.

Where exploration is the cake and the spoils the frosting, I see it very much in the light of robotic exploration being the cake (we get to explore the solar system for a pittance, relatively speaking), and human interplanetary flight might be the frosting when rocketry and propulsion have developed to the point (in support of expediting robotic exploration) that it might become appliccable to establishing a human presence beyond low Earth orbit.

Cake or Frosting aside, I agree with you we will eventually get both.

With that, I agree fully, too. And that should serve as an indication of where our priorities should lie for the next few centuries. (my bold)

I would accept some form of World Peace/World Government -- Solidarity before contemplating

any form of Interstellar travel. We are definitely not there yet. Not even close.

There might be many reasons and justifications for colonizing the solar system, but overpopulation on Earth is not one of them. Some 300,000 more babies are born than people die, each and every day. Yes, Earth's population grows by a million by the morning of every fourth day. So we'll have to launch 300,000 people every day, and that will only maintain the population at the same level. Overpopulation on Earth is a local problem (planetary speaking), which will have to be solved locally.

Population is just a time bomb waiting to go off. I have seen a lot of studies (don't even

know if legitimate value even exists) of a maximum viable population for the Earth.

We are quickly approaching 7 billion. At the current rate of growth, we will acheive

14 billion within 25 years. Now either we figure out how slow down pop-growth, have

a massive war and kill half the population or more, horrible infectious disease to kill off

98% maybe. Current rate of increasing growth is not sustainable. Period.

Granted. Fast straight-to-Earth orbits will take enormous amounts of fuel, slow orbits will take much less. But with easy, slow orbits, you're talking years of your resource payload slowly spiraling towards the sun, to be intercepted by Earth. Not to sound too much like a grouch, but commodity supply and demand doesn't quite support that scenario. People want stuff now. A company would rather invest in a mining operation somewhere in Africa that could show a return in a year or two than invest billions in the project you're proposing, which will only deliver a few decades from now.

This is the status quo given no new innovation in propulsion.

As far as I can recall, you said that atmospheric braking is to be employed. And the reason that decelerating space craft don't hit people's houses with any regularity, is that their reentry is usually controlled by thousands of humans working in concert around the globe to plan, track, command, steer and manage the whole operation. And that is just for a single item coming down from orbit like, say, the Space Shuttle. But what you're proposing is more like Columbia's fatal re-entry, continuously, all around the globe, for chunks of rock big enough so as to not completely ablate during entry. And then there is to be a complete mining industry devoted to picking up the pieces as they scatter and fall all over the world. Two-thirds of your ore will be practically inacessable, seeing as they would fall into the ocean. They would merely serve to pollute the atmosphere, and be gone. I simply cannot see any sense behind it.

I was thinking of nothing of the kind. Near Earth Orbit only.

 

The first caveman to pick up a piece of flint and chipped it into a knife, was the first miner, or the first to "rape the planet's surface". Mining is nothing new, nor strange. The pollution and destruction that you allude to regarding mining, is an artefact of technology. As technology improves, so too does the pollution and destruction go down. Compare, for instance, an 18th century coal mine in England to a modern day colliery.

Besides, what, pray tell, might be the difference between "raping" the surface of the Earth, and "raping" an asteroid? If I understand your proposal correctly, there might be somebody living on that asteroid, after all?

Maybe little. Though Asteroids are already hazardous environment. So no beautification

project will necessary for reclamation.

They were cheap, and paid for by the Wrights themselves. The analogy is not applicable, because what you're proposing in colonising the solar system is dependent on public money. Vast streams of public money, continuously, for centuries. And all of that when we suddenly have to bail out gigantic corporations because something fundamental is broken in our understanding of economics. And that economy will be the underpinning of any succesfull interplanetary venture. If the technology reaches the level where crazy billionaires like Richard Branson can build a colony on Europa using off-the-shelf items, when it becomes private and out of the public domain, when private individuals can fund it (like the Dutch East India Company in the 1600's) then I'd be all for it. And then invoking the Wrights as an argument in favour, might hold water. But using public money, the Wrights simply don't feature.

I can see that within 50-60 years. Of course they will then be Multi-Trillionaires.

Rocketry was brougth to perfection by Werner von Braun, who built the V2 for Hitler to bomb London with. Von Braun later helped NASA land on the moon, using in a big way his V2 experience. I think Armstrong & co. should have at least planted a Britsh flag alongside the US flag, for the poor Brits who died serving as a testing range for moon rocket technology. But that's besides the point.

:hihi: Feeling slighted are we ???

And I think I've debunked them all. But for brevity, I will sum up:

No, you debunked nothing to nobody (except for maybe what lies in your head)... :naughty:

 

1) Resources:

Nada. Every conceivable resource you can find on any asteroid, can be found on Earth, much cheaper, much safer, without the danger of destroying domestic markets as a 1,000 ton lump of pure gold falling out of the sky might do.

Once up front Nonrecurring Cost (NRC) are paid, Asteriod mining will be cheaper.

 

2) Colonies:

Colonies would imply that there is something for people to do out there. They can either gather resources, which even if economically viable, can be better, safer, and cheaper, be done by machines.

Need someone to manage/fix the machines. Some people will be needed. Thus colonies.

 

Or, they can gather knowledge, which:

3) Knowledge:

Space-based telescopes, Mars Rovers, the Huygens probe, Voyagers 1&2, the Pioneers, the Venera landers, all of these have returned reams and reams of perfectly usable data without a single human on board. If we land a buggy on Mars and we later whish that the thing had a certain capability we haven't though of, that capability can be included in the next rover. The technology improves. If there's a big budget cut, we can safely shut down the system without any loss of life. Science is pure. Science is the interpretation of data; the gathering can be done by anybody or anything.

This does not lessen any science data gathered by robotic means. All well and good.

Once again, I'm sorry for appearing overly negative. But I haven't heard a single compelling argument in favour of human space flight and/or colonisation beyond low earth orbit. Don't get me wrong, however. I think it will be awesomely and amazingly cool. I think to be a citizen of some far-off planet will be rockingly awesome. But there must be a very valid and solid reason for blowing tons of public money, when we're battling with such issues as falling educational standards etc., for which there might be much better application of said tax monies than to chase resources that is uneconomical, unrealistic, and found right under your feet on Earth, in any case.

Very much so. It is because of this negativity you exude is why you can not even hear

any statement to the contrary as being viable. :shrug:

 

maddog

[Moontanman]

How do you:

 

1) Propose getting the stuff in the buckets.

2) Expect point number 1 to be cheap and easy in anybody's books, given what we know about mining today?

 

I don't think you quite understand the magnitude of the operation you propose.

 

I think you are intentionally trying to inflate the magnitude of the problems. Humans will be on site, they can and will operate robotic machines that can do anything a human can do. We already see the technologies that will make this possible.

 

Do you know anything about mining, Moontan? Do you know anything about refining? You are proposing an entire supporting industry to mining, one that will inflate costs to even more unreasonable levels. I still have not heard a peep about how you're planning to make your space mining venture competable in any way, with existing Earthbound enterprises.

 

 

Do you know anything about mining and refining that is not 100 years out of date? In space you don't have to worry about environmental laws, or worry about what you do with your mine tailings. Entire colonies can specialize in this type of operation. Moving from one asteroid to the next. Even a small asteroid of 1k in diameter would contain huge amounts of metals.

 

To the former, I can't see it. To the latter, science fiction is ablaze with vague terms like "laser cutters" and such, where the energy source is conveniently ignored for the sake of the narrative. In short, no dice.

 

"Laser" cutters are used in industry every day in the USA, I'm not sure about where you live but laser cutters are real and not science fiction. As for you inability to see a vast complex moving slowly around the solar system, I can see it and so can many others.

 

 

I will even go one further and say that if we only had robot explorers on Antarctica, of the kind available in the next decade or two, we would've known much more, much faster of that particular continent than what we have so far with human explorers. "Cool" and "Awesome" means nothing in Science. Sorry. All that counts is the data, and like I said in my prior most, it doesn't matter who or what gathers it.

 

I think you are totally wrong about that, our robotic explorers are very much limited compared to a human. they cannot go to any but the places least likely to get them stuck, they are severely limited to what they can do or not and what experiments they can carry out. Hell a bear could walk by most of them and we would never notice it.

 

I'm not sure if you're just willful, or if you really don't understand my point. There is no such thing as a "commodity pipeline". If it takes you thirty years for your "pipeline" to fill up, so that your supply feeds at the same time as your consumption on Earth, what are you going to do in the face of market slumps or demand increases? Mines on Earth throttle or increase production to cater for it. Your particular "pipeline" will be completely unresponsive to market forces, and, as such, would be discounted by the market as the unresponsive, completely overpriced (compared to Earth-based suppliers) behemoth that it is. People won't buy from you. Don't you get it?

 

Don't you get it, 30 years is far to long, five to ten is more like it under the worst scenarios. If the market slumps you leave the stuff in orbit around the sun. don't bring it to earth orbit till it's needed. You have to think out side the box oh great cosmic cow.

 

"Shipments of refined metals would be brough in just like space craft to controlled landings".

Have you any idea of what you propose? How do you expect a controlled landing of an ore shipment? You used half its mass to get it to Earth. This excludes having it in the cargo hold of some sort of lander. Its too big. So now you end up with a lump of rock in Earth orbit. Do you expect a shuttle to go in orbit to collect it? You have to, because there's no way to control a pile of rock on atmospheric entry - they are notorious for having, amongst others, NO airfoils, NO ailerons, NO flight guidance systems, etc. You get the picture. You do know, of course, that launch costs per pound makes any shuttle payload more expensive than gold, kilogram for kilogram?

 

You can't get away from the idea of ore rocks dropping from the sky can you? one time lifting bodies can be made from the refined metals and landed on the earth. No launch vehicles will be launched from the earth to pick up shipments of refined metals. You are stuck thinking in out dated planetary terms. In space everything is different. the electronics could be brought back to orbit each time but I'm betting even those will be disposable enough to use only once. a one time lading body doesn't have to be made to the same standards or need the same things as a one time landing body.

 

 

I really thought we had a serious discussion here, but it seems as if you don't really understand what you're talking about, Moontan.

 

i understand very well what I am talking about , it is you that cannot think outside the box.

 

I didn't say it moontan, you did. You propose establishing space colonies on, amongst others, asteroids. Now, if a kid was born on this asteroid, and you propose mining, or, in the appropriate vernacular, raping it, have you considered that that particular kid might call the lump of rock under discussion home? Mining that asteroid will piss that kid off just as much as mining in your backyard will piss you off. We have to be consistent, you see.

 

Nope i never said that, asteroids do not have enough gravity for humans to colonize them, i am talking about totally artificial habitats. toroidal in shape, much like an endless suspension bridge. Like rolling up and small valley on the earth. it would spin for gravity and people would live inside it. they could be miles across and house tens of thousands of people. The inside would be like a park, with trees and lakes and streams, it would be movable and could travel from asteroid to asteroid, refining metals, shipping them out. it would work and the colonies could also construct new colonies and spread out. we could eventaully take over the entire galaxy with these colonies.

 

Once again, the mere cost makes it worthwhile. And if mercury release is your biggest gripe, then process research might make this less of an issue. Research which, I might add, is much cheaper and better applicable at home.

 

No mercury is not my major gripe just one of many.

 

This is assuming that there is any advantage to it. Arming your country to the teeth has the advantage of enabling you to withstand any attacks by your neighbouring countries. That, at least, and as ghastly as the entire enterprise might seem, is the advantages of military expense. It's tangible, at least to a certain extent. Humans would never "own" the inner solar system in the absence of any tangible benefit - however you want to cut it.

 

Not true, once you are established in the high ground all you have to do is drop a large rock on your enemies and they loose. Now nukes needed. just being able to operate in space is a huge military advantage, having colonies and large numbers of people is better than being a super nuclear power. Even a target as small as a tank can be targeted from space and destroyed by a metal spear.

 

 

It would take centuries of committed effort for any "colony" to be big enough to shoulder any financial burden of any sort, whatsoever. I beg you, I implore you, to explain how you expect a colony of any size to commit to any sort of financial agreement to the scale you propose, in any time less than a thousand years.

 

I doubt it will take that long but the longer we wait to start the longer it will take for sure.

 

I don't think you quite appreciate the obstacles to your proposal, squire.

 

Say that to the taxpayer, who'll be footing the bill.

 

I don't think you see how far humans have come and how good we are at over coming obstacles oh great cow. As for the cost, if you cut the military 25% to fund it it's free isn't it? :hihi:

[Boerseun]

Much like the running battle between believers and atheists, we've reached an impasse.

 

You're convinced of your argument, and I'm convinced of mine.

 

So, before we end up torching each other at the stake of righteousness (in our eyes, at least), I propose a truce:

 

I'm simply not convinced that the arguments put forward by you guys in favour of space colonization is sufficient, and there seem to be no way to convince you otherwise.

 

And there's no telling whether I'm right, or you're right.

 

But in the light of my convictions, I will agree to disagree with you folks - lest we end up regurgitating the same points ad infinitum.

[enorbet2]

First of all thank you, Boersun, for being your measured, reasonable, civilized self. It is just as obvious that agreeing to disagree is an important, if temporary, diplomatic solution as that it also can be employed as a stubborn impasse and refusal to be convinced by one party overwhelmed with evidence but still wishing to hold on to cherished beliefs. I not only find that curious given your socio-political religious position within your community, apparently and rightly being concerned about being bullied by the dogmatic, but extremely disheartening since how are we to progress if those opposed to progress will not weigh the facts? and odd that one so afflicted by dogmatism might also possibly practice it.

 

The facts to which I am referring is that I have seen not one serious negative effect mentioned or forecasted from investing in colonizing other worlds aside from the financial balance sheet yet nobody is proposing we go broke doing this. There is considerable waste in every economy, I think it is safe to say, and not one country has a space exploration commitment exceeding a few measly percent points of national budget. This certainly means, given the massive percentage points devoted to militaristic and other subsidized industries, that even the most minimal improvements on efficiency and gouging can easily double and triple such relatively minuscule expenditures as on Space Exploration. So where is the loss even if we proponents are wrong about the efficacy of exploiting other worlds or building the cooperative infrastructure necessary to begin/continue?

 

If we consider that such expenditures would be better spent elsewhere I still don't see the conflict, but then maybe I am being the typical American, provincial, and seeing only through American eyes. My country is recently caught up in recovering from what can only be called a feeding frenzy of greed and I thought it was similar pretty much everywhere since so few humanitarians (those who believe their own lives are also enriched by enriching others) manage to fight or be elected into positions of power to effect such change. Personally I think that is extremely short-sighted and such myopia has become very close to self-destructive at least here since the banks and Wall Street are still awarding themselves bonuses and lobbying like tomorrow never comes for less regulation to engage in ever more financial masturbation and rape fantasy. Perhaps that is not the way in your country.

 

At some point people of science and conscience must stand up and lobby for "enough is enough!" and require those in power to cease with the double standards which allow themselves to accept risk they would never dream of accepting in their clients, customers and citizens. I am tired of seeing so much of human resources squandered on paranoia and negativity and while, as CraigD points out in another thread, we may not yet be capable of destroying the planet, we are fairly certainly capable of destroying mankind and much of life as we know it. We also might be capable of saving it.

 

So maybe the greatest reward of all to the exploration of Space *AND* other positive commitments and ventures is that we finally get to raise a generation that dares to have real Hope again, real confidence in the Future, that they even have one. Please tell me, sir, at what such a step toward human cooperation and positive progress might be valued? Given that value, how can anyone simply stand with arms folded stubbornly hanging complacently on to past mistakes?

 

I can understand cautious approval where no downside readily shows itself, but abject denial, refusal to even consider, frankly boggles my mind and makes me quite sad. If I am wrong, if there is some deal-breaking downside that I have been too blind to see, or if investing in the tribe does not also improve the life of the chiefs, please show me the error of my ways or calculations, so I can stop wasting my time with silly optimism, face the dirty lowdown and soberly just grow bitter and ruthless while growing old, and our children can as well.

 

If I seem impassioned it is because that way seems suicidal madness and it also seems a logical conclusion to acceding to the current status quo of negativity, power and greed. When on the spiral down and out, it seems to me one must make some positive step no matter how small if there is to be any hope of avoiding the inevitable crash. So I cannot see your argument as one of caution, but rather resignation.

[maddog]

Much like the running battle between believers and atheists, we've reached an impasse.

You're convinced of your argument, and I'm convinced of mine.

So, before we end up torching each other at the stake of righteousness (in our eyes, at least), I propose a truce:

Like I said before, I don't see how to convince, to something that is not able to create a

vision for.

I'm simply not convinced that the arguments put forward by you guys in favour of space colonization is sufficient, and there seem to be no way to convince you otherwise.

Agreed.

And there's no telling whether I'm right, or you're right.

That would require evidence which neither party has at the moment. B)

But in the light of my convictions, I will agree to disagree with you folks - lest we end up regurgitating the same points ad infinitum.

Acceptable. Actually, best we could hope for.

 

This argument is actually very similar to a situation of two groups arguing as to how long

it would take to build the transcontinental railroad where one party said it would take with

the resources available about 500 years and the other group said with a commitment to

get the job done and the political will could be done within 50 years or so, assuming that

argument were to have occured about 1834 before even one track was layed.

 

The infrastructure has not even been laid. We have barely complete the first "embarking

point" -- the ISS in Earth's orbit. We have yet to build the first railroad going from

Baltimore - ? that ended up being the B&O -- Earth - Moon short haul. This would require

an end point (Moon Base). The current Political climate is not so clear when that will be.

 

Great discussion. I enjoyed it. :hyper: B)

 

maddog