Alternate Ship Design Systems

[aramis]

Where did they launch from?
Where is the press release?

You're so full of hyperbole, Tom, I never believe what you post without confirmation. Sorry.

Also, i said can, not will. The threat alone (or more correctly the non-granting of the needed permits) ws noted in a discovery channel program of about 2 years ago.

as of 2002, NASA had not granted any space permits, and the FAA refused to type certify any manned rockets.

 

[Drakon]

Lots of good stuff Tom, but I think there is another issue here as well when talking about space travel.

Yes, without the pork, politicians cannot get re-elected in a democracy. (Tyrannies have fewer problems with this.) And the pork is for the jobs, primarily, and has little to nothing to do with actually getting into space. The Apollo was a Cold War issue, and getting there first was most important.

As the old saying goes, "Time, Money, Quality. Pick any two."

But also, I think there is a desire in governments to NOT go into space. Despite all they say, establishing colonies on other planets/worlds, is expensive, and will put folks beyond effective government control. In essense, any successful space colony will grow to become a competitor to the original government. And the further away a colony is, in terms of travel time, the harder it becomes to govern effectively from the home world.

And the problem is more severe for democracies. If the colony grows beyond a certain point, it will want its own government or a voice in the home world government. Which means diluting the power of the original polticians. If the colony opts for independence, that can get bloody and messy on the one hand, or the government simply gives up its monetary investment in the colony completely. Which may not be politically viable.

Besides there will always be problems here on Earth that are more important on which the money spent on space travel could be better spent. And they have their own lobbyists and organizations in competition with the space lobby. They have bigger numbers.

The government pie is only so big. Why go into space or rather why pay to send someone into space, when it runs the risk of 1) diluting your own power, 2) creating a political competitor and 3) lead to a bloody revolution down the line and 4) piss off the voters who want the money spent here on earth to take care of them, rather than astronauts and colonies billions of miles away.

 

[Drakon]

Originally posted by Aramis:
The administration doesn't want civilian competition... it makes the "Showing the flag" mode of NASA look bad.

This is not what I am seeing at all. The FAA and NASA certified the launch site as a civilian space port. And they handed astronaut wings to Mike Melville upon his return to earth.

I think the attitude in the administration has changed to one that is more friendly toward civilian competition, or even outright surrendering the market for commercial flights to the civilian or private sector.

I've discussed in a previous post about why governments and politicians may not want a space program. But there is a problem. There is a large segment of the population that does, that wants off this rock. How, we don't really care, as long as we can talk about it afterwards. And that is also a constiuency that votes.

By turning it over to private enterprise, it removes political forces from the issue, or rather dumps those issues onto the private sector, the individual investor and customer. And this means that lobbyists for all those other projects will be happier, without having to compete with NASA for federal money.

Besides, as I have said elsewhere, it is Paul Allen's money. Paul Allen is responsible to nobody but himself with regards to how his money is spent by him. He does not have to deal with lobbyists and voters concerned about wasting their tax dollars.

Now, the government does have a valid concern as far as safety goes, something all too tragically brought home when Columbia died. Debris raining from the skies is gonna worry voters, and the government via the FAA is responsible for vehicle safety, making sure the designs are not apt to drop parts on someone's head. But other than that, other than the usual legal hurdles faced daily by airlines, by allowing private space flight, the government 1) releases a lot of funds for other uses, funds that would go for NASA pork 2) makes a lot of the 'space block' of voters happy.

Plus there is an American issue at play here as well. As long as no tragidy occurs, there is no reason for government interference. And so if NASA did try to shut down any of these X-prize operations, it would cheese off a lot of voters. A lot of folks, both inside and outside the space block would see that as unnecessary and frankly anti-American. And I think politicians know this.

 

[Drakon]

Or to put it differently, we Americans are an ornery bunch and we don't like being told what to do, or in this case, what not to do. If you have a good reason for wanting us to stop, we'll listen. If its just bureaucratic BS, pointless rules and regulations whose only purpose is to simply shut it down, without any thought to the desires of the folks, you will get a rebellion.

Its that whole "pursuit of happiness" thing. Our Government is not supposed to stop us from pursuing our happiness, unless there is a risk to the population at large. A clear and definable risk. Unless the government can do that, any kind of delay or attempted shut down will look like BS.

Which means politicians voted out of office. (That is how we do revolutions these days over here. Simply go to the ballot box and change politicians.)

 

[TKalbfus]

Drakon said,

Yes, without the pork, politicians cannot get re-elected in a democracy. (Tyrannies have fewer problems with this.) And the pork is for the jobs, primarily, and has little to nothing to do with actually getting into space. The Apollo was a Cold War issue, and getting there first was most important.

The corollary is that Tyrannies will conquer the Solar System and use the resources of the Solar System to conquer the United States from Space. Just think of this:
North Korea builds a number of colonies in space,

and then the government of North Korea then moves into space,

and finally the North Korean government sends a fleet to attack the United States.

The United States can launch its missiles, but they can only hit spaceships of the attacking fleet. Most of North Korea's established power is in space and beyond the range of the US missiles. North Korea on Earth isn't, but the leadership of North Korea have already written that territory off so they feel free to threaten the United States without restraint. It would be a good idea for the United States to expand into space to counter this.

And the problem is more severe for democracies. If the colony grows beyond a certain point, it will want its own government or a voice in the home world government.

And what's so terrible about that? The United States granted statehood to the western territories of America that it colonized, such as California. Now if the United States refused to give Statehood to California and representation in Congress, the Californians would be well within their rights to eventually demand independence. It all depends on how the space colonists are treated by the United States Government. If United States citizens were to lose all their rights as Americans upon entering space, then your darn right that they'll want independence, that is why the American colonists rebelled from the British Empire. In any case the American Revolution occured 150 after the British 13 colonies were established, this was entirely the fault that the British had that American colonists were of a different status than those Englishmen born in the British Ilse. The Americans said, "Ok, if were not British citizens then we should have our independence." The mistake the British made was to treat the American colonies the same as other colonies such as India and China which were subjugated Nations, the consequence of this being that the American colonists developed a nationality of their own. Its not the fault that the colonies were on the otherside of the Atlantic, but that in British minds the colonies were considered something separate from Great Britian an therefore something to be exploited just as the Indians were. The American Colonies were prohibited from manufacturing their own goods for example, thsi law was to benefit industries back in England which would buy raw materials from the colonies and then sell the finished goods, this was discrimination pure and simple and this policy caused the Americans to rebel.

I think if the United States were to go into space it should make those areas of space it settles part of the United States, otherwise they will rebel. The UN space treaty, which declares all space resources the common heritage of Mankind, has to go as this gives space settlers secondary status to Americans that remain in the Terrestrial United States. Unlawful contries would also ignore the space treaty and spread their territories into space, and although unrecognized by the UN, will take advantage of lawful nations adherence to the UN Space Treaty. I think the United States is in good position to conquer parts of the Moon and Mars if it so desires.

Besides there will always be problems here on Earth that are more important on which the money spent on space travel could be better spent. And they have their own lobbyists and organizations in competition with the space lobby. They have bigger numbers.

Many of the problems here on Earth have to do with the fact that there is limited living space on Earth. The conflict in the Middle East is one example. Instead of fighting it, people can instead go into space and ignore it. Perhaps the Israelis can build a space colony and move into space and leave the Arabs to fight in the ruins they created due to their religious rivalries. The Middle East can then be walled off and no one allowed to escape while bringing their violence and bombs. By harnessing solar energy from space we can leave the Arabs nations poor and deprive them of the petro-dollars with which they use to finance their war against us. The Arabs will be too poor to afford to leave their region and therefore forced to modify their own violent behavior on their own lands or else suffer the consequences. Without oil revenue, no one in Europe or the rest of the world will support their violent causes. In short no one will care what happens in the Middle East as nothing of econimic import will be located there anymore. Middle Easterners will either have to "civilize" themselves or be ostracised by the World Community.

Expansion into space will also releve ourselves of the burden of people who want to start their own societies. If someone wants to create a communist workers paradise, send them into space and well see if it works, it is much better than having those same Marxists trying to overthrow our government. Guerillas and revolutionaries will be sent into space and towards colonies designating for them. If other people believe in the communist cause give them tickets to those colonies and tell them where to go, if there are people they say are oppressed by capitalism, give those people tickets and tell them if they feel oppressed they are free to go to the Communist colonies and live the way the communists say they should live. Same with Islamic fundamentalists, if people want to practice their "One true religion" send them to some far off colony where there are not other competing religions, if they cause trouble here, force them to go so that others can live in peace. People who believe in a cradle to grave welfare state can go to a cradle-to-grave welfare colony. People who do not can go to another colony where they can practise untrammeled Capitalism and people their who can't take it can leave. Space gives us freedom to live the way we want and if others disagree they can live the way they want. The era of revolution and violence will be ended since it will be easier to establish a new colony than to overthrow an existing order.

 

[TKalbfus]

Drakon said,

The government pie is only so big. Why go into space or rather why pay to send someone into space, when it runs the risk of 1) diluting your own power, 2) creating a political competitor and 3) lead to a bloody revolution down the line and 4) piss off the voters who want the money spent here on earth to take care of them, rather than astronauts and colonies billions of miles away.

Going into space will make the government pie bigger and make society richer.

1) going into space will not dilute power, it will expand territory and make the country bigger. People will want to live under a set of rules as they abhor lawlessness, the easiest thing to do is bring an established power such as the United States with them and live under that countries laws.

2) The colonies the US pays for will be American Colonies. If someone wants to establish a political compeditor in space, they have to dig deeply into their own pockets. US colonies enjoy US support, non-US colonies don't.

3) Why should they want a bloody revolution, if people in their colony don't like the way its run, they can leave and establish their own colonies. The colony they started on is US territory, trying to start a revolution is equivalent to theft. This reminds me of the Mars Trilogy by Kim Stanley Robinson, it seems to me that the Transnational Corporations spend alot of their own resources to Terraform Mars and the Martians bidded their time and then staged a revolution when the terraforming was nearly complete. No doubt the stockholders of those corporations suffered tremdous losses in the wake of that revolution since they'll get no return for their investments. To me this sounds unjust in that many of these people's retirement nest eggs will be gone. I guess from the Authors point of view it is always someone else who puts up the money for these vast projects and it is always someone who is filthy rich and propery diversified, but I imagine that some of those investors may have been reduced to poverty as the New Martian government seizes their lives savings tied up in Martian Terraforming Capital. Perhaps the corporate authorities abused the colonists and the Author was trying to use them as a villian, but all corporations have stockholders and alot of stockholders are ordinary people.

Anything that's built and supports a human population will belong to somebody; any revolution that occurs their will result in the theft of property unless the Rebels can claim it as compensation for their grievances. Still a space colony will cost billions and someone has to pay for it. If a revolutionary can put up the money, they can start their own society and run it the way they like; if they resort to murder and stealing, they are little more than pirates and will not gain the sympathy of the majority of the people.

 

[TKalbfus]

Oh I forgot

4) Space colonies will make those people on Earth richer, since they'll be part of the United States, the US government gets revenue from the space colonies as well as the states. Those people who want the money spend on Earth can lobby congress like they usually do. As a benefit, they won't have to worry about the price of gasoline as Solar Energy beamed down from space can be used to split water and create hydrogen for use in fuel cell cars, or if they prefer a hydrocarbon fuel can be synthesized from the hydrogen and atmospheric carbon dioxide. Methane is the simplist, but from that Octane or gasoline as its commonly called can also be synthesized with beamed down solar energy and crude oil from the Middle East will not be needed.

 

[MR TEK]

Sorry, I know better than to attempt to argue economic REALITY with a capitalist, but....

When a venture capitalist, (your group of shareholders, and the holding company they invested in) Fronts the money to create a colony in space, the venture capital firm has created NOTHING!!!

They have provided the money for some extremely courageous or stupid (depending on your perspective and philosophy) group of individuals to go out and build something of value. Now in a world that worked realistically the OWNERS would be the people who BUILT the colony through their work and sweat and cunning, and the financiers would be allowed a (modest) profit for priming the pump. After all they have provided NO other useful service, and have in no way shape or form EARNED either ownership rights nor any other rights of control.

However, we unfortunately live in a tradition where the financiers have screwed the system to the point that they actually claim the rights that don't BELONG to them, and the people who do the actual work are the ones that the law says has no rights. (In any moral, ethical, or even practical system, a completely upside down perspective, but welcome to 400 years of English mercantile law)

In short, the reality is that in the entire span of human history, no capitalist has EVER produced one item of value. At best, they may have had the driving vision, such as a Henry Ford or a Dale Carnegie, but others actually shaped the steel, designed the cars, assembled them, tested them and did all of the other functions that took raw rock, and turned it into iron, then steel, then shapes, then cars or what not.

I know all of the pet arguments, about how the capitalists took all the risks, (money is not a physical thing, nor does it have a physical existence. Risking capital is NOT a “risk” in the same sense that crawling down a mineshaft or even wasting 8 hours a day drafting something that you HOPE will be economically viable.

Back to our colony. If we were not living in a world destroyed by the fiction that a created entity, (a corporation is a legal fiction designed specifically to insulate investors from the risk you capitalists are so willing to sing the praises of.) the people who BUILT the colony would be the owners. The backers would be nothing more than a glorified mortgage company with a fixed rate of return, and maybe the rights to a SMALL share of profits, IF the colony reached the point that they were WILDLY profitable. Also at the moment the capital investment was paid of, with what ever interest was included the firm that provided the capital would no longer have any stake whatsoever in the colony, and the colony would be free to fit into the world however it could manage.

I know I will get flamed for this. The majority of people, even “economics” people believe the nonsense about the “risks” of providing venture capital, and the “rewards” that they deserve, and confuse economic theories that have been followed without though for centuries with the real needs and drives of humanity.

Anyway, my rant. I know from experience the people who believe in that the existing system will make some token argument and then write me off as some sort of crazy, but it is just this sort of mentality that is PREVENTING us from reaching for the stars or achieving any other lasting goals that will mean anything in a hundred years.

I now come off my soap box.

Thank you

Mr TeK.

Anyway the vaule to creating those colonies would be tremendious, (going to the moon even as over budget as NASA was, is still several times over the ighest rate of return of any money ever spent) In terms of new technology alone, the colony will expand the economic future of the parent nation, and indeed the whole planet.

Now add the intangables, the sence of exploration, the expantion of horizions, a place for people that don't fit to go and do the jobs they are suited for, populationpressure relief and all of the other benifts, it becomes hard to understand why colonies are not ALREADY happning.

OK, end of rant.

 

[TKalbfus]

Without capitalists to front the money, there would be no people in space to risk their lives because they couldn't get there. Capitalists allocate resources and as they say, "No bucks no Buck Rogers"

 

[Straybow]

I know all of the pet arguments, about how the capitalists took all the risks, (money is not a physical thing, nor does it have a physical existence. Risking capital is NOT a "risk" in the same sense that crawling down a mineshaft or even wasting 8 hours a day drafting something that you HOPE will be economically viable.

Money isn't real? Then give me some, since you won't miss it if it isn't real.

 

[Drakon]

LOL, Good comeback Straybow.

Tek has a point that money is not a real object, like a rock, or even gold for that matter. What money is, is information. It is a means by which we can determine the relative value of goods and services, and compare that to others. It is the way we compare apples and oranges.

Some folks like apples, some folks like oranges. Some like both and some like neither. How do you get what each individual wants to that individual? You could go around and poll each and every person. But you will soon find this a very daunting task. You will also find that by the time you are finished, a sizable, and to you, unknown, percentage of the population have simply changed their mind. Maybe they are sick of apples (or oranges), maybe they have developed scurvy, maybe they just decided that red was a better color. There are a whole hosts of reason why someone might change their mind on this topic, despite having answered your questionare honestly.

The point is that such centrally controlled or command economies don't work. Which is why we have money. You buy apples and/or oranges as you see fit. You know what you need better than anyone else can ever hope to. So why not set up a system that allows you to choose what you want, and take care of it yourself, rather than hand if off to some distant bureaucrat?

Tek talks about 'realistic' way of doing things, thinks that because workers do the physical work, they should get most of the "imaginary" money. But this is a common fallacy, in that it completely ignores the other "imaginary" things involved such as financial risks, and co-ordination. You try getting a bunch of folks to work on some great project. (Heck try to get them to work on something as trival as pencils) You try getting shipments to factories on time, so your work force is not sitting around idly typing long winded pedegogal tracts on the Internet.

Even simple items like pencils involve thousands of people all over the world. Someone has to cut the wood, Someone has to make graphite. Someone has to tap the rubber tree, mine the ore, smelt metal for that band that holds the eraser on. Someone has to mix the paint.

And if you automate a lot of these processes, that still means someone has to design and build the machines, someone has to mine the ore for the machines, and so on. All of these various operations have to occur in some sort of sequence. And that means that someone has to co-ordinate the various aspects of supply in order to even make a damn pencil.

And then there is sales, packaging, and a whole host of other issues that SOMEONE has to take care of. Granted this is not physical labor or "real work" as we commonly think of it. But it is vital none the less. Without that co-ordination, pencils don't get made.

And whether the pencils sell or not, those workers, all those folks who built the machines, tap the rubber trees, mine the ore, or grow the food eaten by the guys in your pencil factory, all them have to live too. Before a single pencil is sold, they need food, water, clothing, etc. as well as desire a lot more things, like Playstations, telephones, and lap top computers.

They want to get paid, regardless of how pencil sales are doing. They need to get paid regardless of how pencils sales are doing, or else they starve. This is where the financal risk comes into play. You still need to pay your workers, whether you are making money from pencil sales or not. That money is eaten, and not by you.

Tek is right that Paul did not risk his life to fly SpaceShip One. Neither did Burt. But without Paul, neither Burt nor Mike could have been able to do what they did. They needed that infusion of cash, so they could continue living. Without it, there would be no spaceship. Burt and Mike would have had to find other means of keeping their own body and soul together.

Without Burt, there would have been no one to design the ship. Without Mike, there would have been nobody to fly it. But without Paul, there would have been no ship to design, nor to be flown. And whether it was a success or not, whether it leads to futher business oportunities or not, Paul is the only one at risk there. He's out 20 million dollars. He cannot spend that money again. (He might be able to earn it back if he sells the ship. But that is a side issue.)

But the point is, just because Paul's contribution are less physical, less real, does not mean it is less important. His efforts were more mental than physical, more "imaginary" than real. But without it, there would be no space ship. Burt might have designs and drawings, but so what? They would never fly without that imaginary money feeding and clothing the folks who built it. It is Paul's imaginary efforts that transformed Burt's imaginary designs to concrete reality.

So, is it realistic to ignore the imaginary or mental effort without which nothing would get done? Is it realistic to refuse reward for that very effort, and thereby insure nobody does that job?

 

[Drakon]

Originally posted by Mr TeK:
Now in a world that worked realistically the OWNERS would be the people who BUILT the colony through their work and sweat and cunning, and the financiers would be allowed a (modest) profit for priming the pump.

It occured to me that there is an even simpler way to demolish this argument.

Where do these builders get the materials needed to build the colony? It has to come from somewhere, somebody had to extract and refine the materials, whether its rubber tree tappers or miners.

Now if they extracted it, does not that make it their property? How do you transfer property from one individual to another, voluntarily? Of course you can simply put a gun to their head and rob them, but that has a downside as well.

Okay, lets leave that aside for a moment. You are a worker on a space colony. We'll also set aside how you were able to feed, and cloth yourself while you were in orbit constructing this monstrosity. We'll set aside the tools you used, and travel up and down orbit and the expenses involved in that.

You have done your job, and now you own a piece of a space station. Along with about a thousand other humans. What do you do?

You can't eat it. And it is kind of far from your favorite fishing hole. If you wanted to live in space, you may be a head up. But if that was not your goal in the first place, you are stuck with what, (to you) is a worthless piece of merchandise.

To you it may be worthless. To someone else, it may be worth a fortune. But only the whole station rather than your tiny share of it. I think by this time you can see the problem.

And then there are folks like myself. In the real world I am an electronics tech at an atom smasher. I have no need for an atom smasher, (yet). I don't produce anything concrete or real as you would see it.

But when the machine is broken, I am the guy they call. I take their property and change it, make it working again, so they can do whatever the heck they do with it.

I do it for money. And the money is more valuable to me than say, the klystron modulators I work on. What am I going to do with a klystron modulator? Like I said, I can't eat it, wear it, or use it to accomplish whatever goals I have to date. I don't even own it, but without my work, this machine is useless to anybody.

Things break and need to be maintain. That is just the way life is. Someone has to come in and fix it. Or else it is so much scrap metal. Just like your piece of a space station would be far less valuable to me, than the entire space colony.

Besides, since you own a piece of this space station, and so does your neighbor, what are you going to do if he wanted to modify his chunk? Suppose he wanted a bigger window? It is his property right? So what can you to stop him, without using force?

There are two ways of getting people to do what you want them to do. You can persuade them, offer them an incentive to work on your goals. Or you can stick a gun in their back and compel them, backed up with the threat of deadly force.

The problem with the latter approach is that it does not make a very good product. Most folks don't like it and are more likely looking for a way to remove your threat rather than consentrate on their job. This could end up being very bad for you.

So that leaves persuasion. How are you going to persuade them absent money? Yes it may not be real, it may be imaginary, but it does have real world effects, it does convince people to do what you want them to do. And also makes your employees less likely to turn on you and shoot you.

 

[TKalbfus]

The above is why I like Space Colonies, they allow you freedom to create a society the way you like it without having to be revolutionaries and impose your ideas on unwilling subjects. If someone thinks that money is the root of all evil, they can try to build a colony based on some other principle and see if it works and meanwhile leave us out of their plans. That is the way Gerard O'Neill saw it in his vision, I think his ideas would make an excellent basis for a role playing game. You need some challenges so you can't have everything go perfectly. Some of those "Utopias" go wrong and cause trouble for the PCs. People who try to remake how human society works often make alot of errors, these things usually involve the loss of individual freedom. Various "Frankenstein's Monsters" are created. The world of politics is full of "Mad Scientists" who think they know everything if only someone would listen to them. Karl Marx was a "Mad Scientist", he unleashed his ideas on the world without testing them, and there will be plenty of others in the future. Crackpots of are laughed at by the mainstream, with space colonies these people can find the select few who will listen to them and try out their ideas. You make have colonies that are composed entirely of clones of one person for instance, with AI robots to raise them, you don't need parents so many clones can be created, even millions of them. Some robots may be deliberately misprogrammed and run robotic societies of their own. Each space colony would be the equivalent of a world in standard Traveller.

 

[Drakon]

Grin, good point. But I don't think it makes one bit of difference. Most attempts at social engineering have been tried. Many of them right here in the US, where, during our frontier days many small towns tried to set up under different rules and systems. A lot of them failed. But people keep trying to do it again and again and again.

 

[flykiller]

You try getting a bunch of folks to work on some great project.

investors don't do any of this work, they get others to do it for them. investors don't invest. they purchase. they purchase knowledge, expertise, and skill. they purchase work. by design, after all the work is done the people who paid the money own it all and step into it, while the people who did all the work own none of it and are dismissed. if you're not an investor then you're just a temp, part of the purchase machinery.

 

[TKalbfus]

Drakon said,

Grin, good point. But I don't think it makes one bit of difference. Most attempts at social engineering have been tried. Many of them right here in the US, where, during our frontier days many small towns tried to set up under different rules and systems. A lot of them failed. But people keep trying to do it again and again and again.

Space colonies allow for the possibility of isolation. Communism doesn't work very well when compared to Capitalism, but the Communists could make a generation starship that leaves the Solar System and be completely isolated from compeditive pressures of competing systems of economics. Communism could work for a long time in a stable society, everyone would have a defined role in society and things would not change, there would be no Jones to keep up with. There is something called matrix economics, where the government keeps track of every product and service that is produced and determines how much of each item needs to be produced and consequently determines what jobs need to exist to produce those goods and services. Each job is analysed and defined precisely and it is determined exactly how much a worker can be expected to produce. This system doesn't adapt to change very well and it couldn't compete with Capitalist countries, but if a worldship were out in space all buy itself and completely self-sufficient, then it wouldn't have to worry about compeditive pressures from other societies. Citizens wouldn't be tempted to leave as there would be no place they could go, the ship would be on its way toward a distant star and there would be no turning back. Of course they may find someone waiting for them when they get there, but that's another story.

 

[Drakon]

I have to strongly disagree, and most of my disagreements come directly from Hayek's works on authoritarian governments. I think what you are saying is that Communism is only a failure relative to capitalism. In isolation, it would succeed. Sorry, I ain't buying it.

You have an information problem. You have to deal with real world humans, their wants, their needs, their desires. A government may be able to track the production of each and every material item produced. Maybe, but there is going to be some inaccuracy.

But what no small group can do is track the every changing demand for those self same goods. (Actually there is a way to monitor it, but it is anti-communistic) People are individual and as unique, if not more so, than snowflakes. What is worse, they are constantly changing in their desires and wants.

You can't know what I want, unless I tell you. And even then, you have to go on the asumption that I can articulate my desires sufficiently for you to understand, and that you understand them perfectly. (no transmission loss) You have to work on the assumption that I am telling the truth, that I have absolutely no reason to lie for any reason whatsoever. And that you have asked the right questions.

The information problem is a major defect in any such authoritarian structure. The volumn of information, and your limited ability to process it, prevents you from being an effective dictator. And when flaws and cracks in that system start becoming noticable, what are you going to do to save your job, if not your life?

A common tactic is to create a scapegoat of some kind. Traditionally this has been Jews, Enthic Chinese, kulak in Russia, "counter-revolutionaries" of different stripes. But on your ship, with no one for light years to blame the failures of such a system on, you would have to create it yourself, from amongst your own population.

[One could abandon the concept of Communism altogether, recognize that it is based on an inaccurate model of human nature. But that would reduce everyone to the status of equal. Being one with the prols means a substantial reduction in pay for most elites, aristocrats or commisars. And therefore this tactic is never chosen, except in only one instance that I know of.]

Take a look at the foundation of communist ideology. "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." What you are paying for is need. By disconnection a person's ability from his reward for that ability, you don't get that ability. All you get is his needs. And what you need, is ability.

And by showing ability, what do you get? More work, for the same reward. It is far better to hide one's ability, work less, and still get the same as the dummies who are busting their butts.

Communism is not a failure because democracies and freedom exist. Democracy and freedom, concepts such as individual rights, exist because people are what they are. Communism attempts to model man as a machine, devoid of feeling, and desire, devoid of humanity. And you cannot have humans without humanity.

 

[TKalbfus]

I'm not saying communism would work well on a starship, but in isolation it could command physical processes of production that can keep the crew alive, and who's to say that a human being would be in charge. It could be that the production schedules were mapped out for the entire course of the voyage. People could be trained to obey the ship's computer in everything. The computer need not be so smart, it only has to issue directives from its memory which were programmed into it before the voyage started. An authoritarian police state would obey the dictates of the computer and regulate human reproduction so that the number of children born equal the number of people who have died so as to maintain a stable population. For the course of the voyage very little would change.

Is this a great idea? I'm not advocating it, but it would make a great story hook don't you think? I don't have much faith in communism, but I'd much rather that they go out and try it on a space colony than to force themselves and their ideas on my country through violence and revolution. I'd like to pack a space colony full of communict true believers and send them on a thousand year journey out of the Solar System and then we'll see ho well their system will work. I think they'll find humans awaiting their arrival at the target system. Faster starships will pass them on their journey. It has alot to do with what the immigrants can afford. If you take the Gurps Fast Reaction Drive for example, it is basically an ion drive whose exhaust is pushed out at 290 km/sec. A thrust of one ton requires a power output of 1,300 MW. A fission plant which can produce the power would weigh 650.5 tons. The rocket ratio of initial mass to final mass would be R = e^(V/Ve) = e^((200km/sec)/(290km/sec)) = 1.993 so for every ton of final mass accelerated by 200 km/sec, 0.993 tons of reaction mass is required. Part of the final mass would be the 650.5 ton reactor to power the drive, the drive itself would mass 65 tons (0.05 tons for every megawatt of power consumed: A 65 ton fission reactor in Traveller T20 would generate 65 EP for anyone interested in conversion) for a total of 715.5 minimum final mass, include an extra 1284.5 tons to bring the final mass up to 2000 tons and you would need an additional 1986 tons of reaction mass, lets say liquid hydrogen for a total launch mass of 3986 tons. Now remember this reaction drive only generates 1 ton of force to the total acceleration would be at 0.00025-g or 0.0025 meters per second squared. The ship would accelerate to 100 km/sec and take 463 days to do it and it would be moving at 0.00033c. The ship would take 13,200 years to reach Alpha Centauri or about 3000 years per light year traveled. Then the ship would slow down for about 463 days as it neared the target system. The number of fuel rods would be 165 for every 2.5 years (of accelleration and deceleration) and would weigh 495 tons tons leaving you with 789 tons of payload. 789 tons out of a total intial 3986 tons of launch mass. Scale this up so that you have 789,000 tons out of 3,986,000 tons and you have a respectible size generation ship with plenty of space for an additional reactor that could run for 13,200 years 198,000 tons would have to be reserved for a fuel rods for a 10 megawatt reactor that can last 13,200 years. The residents of the generation ship will have to live off of 10 megawatts for 13,200 years. So a communist or whatever system would have to be stable for that long.

 

[TKalbfus]

A solar sail could do the same thing by the way, and I think it would be cheaper too seeing how Uranium costs as much as gold.

 

[Drakon]

Originally posted by Tom Kalbfus:
I'm not saying communism would work well on a starship, but in isolation it could command physical processes of production that can keep the crew alive, and who's to say that a human being would be in charge. It could be that the production schedules were mapped out for the entire course of the voyage. People could be trained to obey the ship's computer in everything. The computer need not be so smart, it only has to issue directives from its memory which were programmed into it before the voyage started. An authoritarian police state would obey the dictates of the computer and regulate human reproduction so that the number of children born equal the number of people who have died so as to maintain a stable population. For the course of the voyage very little would change.

Back in my navy days, I got a chance to sit in on our navigation department training one time. During their training, they were discussing 7 accidents at sea, aboard subs. Some were fatal and all resulted in major damage to the boats in question. One overriding commonality amongst all 7 incidents was the command style of the captain. Which directly contributed to the accidents.

In all cases the Captains had an authoritarian approach to how they conducted their operations. They wanted robots to work for them, for their bridge crews to do exactly as they were told, when they were told. Speak only when spoken too, and in a very formal manner. I believe the technical term for such captains are "jerks"

And in each incident, the crew did exactly that. In some, they would see a target with zero bearing rate (change in bearing from the ship, usually and indicator of being on a collision course) would attempt to inform the captain, and for a variety of reasons, the captains did not alter course and avoid a collision. In several instances, the captain was distracted by another report. The crew members failed to repeat their warning, knowing that to do so risked upsetting the captain. So even though the bridge crews could see the vessels were going to hit, they let the captain run his boat into the other object. It was a choice of possibly hitting the other boat, or pissing off the captain.

Besides, if they did hit, the boat would likely survive, and the captain would be removed. Perhaps the new captain would learn from the experiences of his predecessor and be more relaxed. Treat the crew more respectfully. And the crew would not get punished, as they were only following the captain's orders.

In extreme circumstances, with uber authoritarian commands, the crew can develope a death wish, and see the potential for dying as a release from the misery of the captain. Such ships don't stay afloat too long. Blind obedience is a problem, and a waste of resource. Even seaman deuces have brains, and may see something the captain had not noticed, or think of something the captain had not. If the captain is one of those "Respect my authority" types, it creates serious problems.

Is this a great idea? I'm not advocating it, but it would make a great story hook don't you think? .

I would recommend reading "Orphans of the Sky" by Admiral Bob (Heinlein). The theme is somewhat similar, although it is more religious than communism allows for. But authoritarianism is authoritarianism, so the differences are not that important.

I don't have much faith in communism, but I'd much rather that they go out and try it on a space colony than to force themselves and their ideas on my country through violence and revolution.

This is understandable. You see communism as essentially and fundamentally flawed. And I agree. While our reasons may differ, our conclusions are the same.

But I don't think they will find humans when they arrive at their destination. I think what will happen is that the humans at the destination will find a dead ship, empty and lifeless. Or else, one that is no longer operating under communist methodology. That computer will get an axe in its mother board long before the voyage is completed.