“A permanent development requires that people are getting satisfactory value for their continuing time and trouble. This isn’t about counting little pieces of green paper and printing more of them whenever you feel like it. It’s about a reciprocal exchange of value. Something of proportionate, continuing value has to come out of your continuing project. Otherwise, you’re just jacking off. Novelty isn’t enough.”

Quite so. See my above response to Kevin.

What can you do on the Moon that you can’t do cheaper in Antarctica?

I fully expect that many of the technologies and processes I’m talking about will be used to harvest materials from Antarctica and other extreme terrestrial environments. I’d also point out that, odd as it sounds, space is on the whole a more robot-friendly place than Antarctica is. The extremes are wider but they’re largely predictable, there’s no atmosphere or moisture (and therefore no weather in the traditional sense). The physical environments to be exploited are far more static as well. Additionally, Antarctica doesn’t offer the prospect for expansion or continuation that space does, nor does it possess a source of unlimited and nearly universally accessible energy (the Sun).

“David Criswell is still pushing his lunar surface solar power scheme, but I don’t believe it can compete with terrestrial nuclear power.”

You’re absolutely correct. Building the solar arrays in high Earth orbit using materials from a harvested asteroid might be competitive in the long run, but only after the industrial infrastructure already exists. There was quite a bit of analysis of the associated practicalities and economics in the 70s to 80s. For a good popular (but decently rigorous) treatment that aggregates much of that diverse research I suggest T.A. Heppenheimer’s “Towards Distant Suns.”

On a nickel-iron asteroid: various precious and industrial metals in quantities that dwarf what is available via terrestrial mining, and with minimal environmental impact (comparatively). The practically-nil gravity makes developing the industrial processes somewhat more complicated vis-a-vis earthbound testing but the small size of these bodies makes getting the material home easier.

On the lunar surface: regolith to start with. More specifically the industrial metals in regolith (google “chemical composition of regolith” if you want to go deeper). These are used to diversify and expand the industrial cycle until it becomes possible to build either mass drivers (preferred) or solid-rocket (aluminum oxide) launch vehicles allow material return to earth. Titanium would be the likely return from lunar mining, but the moon is better suited to building the infrastructure for human habitation than anything. It’s therefore a likely second destination.

“That seems too small/optimistic”

On the basis of? Apollo cost around $100 billion in adjusted dollars to put a similar amount (in aggregate) on a celestial body, and that was no more of a technological challenge for the US of the 1960’s than this would be for the US today. You may have a point in the sense that large-scale programs are run far less efficiently today. Double it then, and say 20 billion a year for 10 years. That’s about NASA’s current budget.

“Really? If so, then why aren’t such things seen in use already here on Earth?”

They are. We have heavy-lift vehicles and cheaper commercial ones are in the late stages of development. You can get the material to its destination via ion or plasma propulsion, the former very well developed. Automated manufacturing and tele-operated mining are both widespread (and there is therefore plenty of incentive for them to continue developing). In 10 years we’ve gone from no automated vehicles to automated vehicles that can navigate anything from rough desert to urban terrain. Also, I’m not suggesting that this will all be done by 2025, but more like 2055.

“How about where and when human beings actually come in? Air, water, food, etc.? How long will they depend on massive supplies from Earth? How do you pay for those supplies? Keep them from being cut off.”

Humans come in very, very late. As late as possible, in fact, when supporting them is a marginal expenditure for the existing self-supporting/expanding industrial infrastructure. At the current rate of advance, fully reusable and SSTO launch vehicles should be available to get them into space in the first place. Once there, water is available from the lunar surface, oxygen is the chief component of regolith and there will be plenty of energy infrastructure in place to liberate it. Food can be grown in place via several methods. Nitrogen is actually the biggest issue, at least till a self-sustaining nitrogen cycle can be established, and concentrated nitrates may need to be supplied by Earth.

“And what about the Outer Space Treaty? The property rights and legal jurisdiction issues?”

I imagine the Outer Space Treaty will prove about as respected and enforceable as similar bits of international law have when they get in the way of their most powerful signatories. Property rights and legal jurisdiction will have to be hashed out between the relevant parties just like they are for maritime territorial rights.

“How will this project ever become financially viable, rather than requiring endless influxes of more money?”

When the profit due to inflow of materials matches the outlay of costs due to tele-operation, electronics shipments, and other costs.

“Putinophilia”

I have read it and thought it quite good. I am not a Putinophile, and I don’t hope for some miraculous turnaround in the short term. However, I also think that a lot can change in several decades.

“So, even though it seems improbable, we should just have faith that some surprise bit of luck will somehow go massively our way and reverse all the momentum and trends? I’m sorry, but as a godless heathen, I don’t believe in Divine Providence, and that’s what this is (that, or the Gambler’s Fallacy).”

Historically speaking, trends change and are not as easy to predict as we would like. An average global civilizational decline doesn’t imply that there will be no local increases in order and competency. The history of civilizational failure seems to indicate that there will be. Besides, as I’m not a collapsist I don’t see the decline catching up with the currently observed rate of advance in the relevant technologies for a while.

“And so the costs have gone down; they still far exceed the benefits, which remain practically nil; what resource is there in space that you cannot get cheaper here on Earth, let alone in accessible quantities sufficient to pay for the air, water, food, etc.?”

Human presence is a late-stage luxury in this model, as is everything that supports it. What resources? In the short term: stupendous quantities of industrial and precious metals; so much that the possessor will have de facto control of the global metals markets and thus most industries. Also a very high place from which to drop things on people you don’t like and the industry to make a lot of things to drop on them. In the long term: an (effectively) unlimitedly scalable industrial base and energy generation capability, securing the future survival of technological civilization and the human species (especially the possessor’s favored segment of it).

“’Disruptive technological innovations’ do far more to fuel the Cathedral than weaken it … irrational faith in technological salvation…”

I think you’re reading much more into my statement than I intended. I never said that technological innovations would necessarily help out the plucky underdog, nor (per my earlier comment) did I place a positive moral valence on technological change. I fully expect that this century will see at least as many megadeaths (proportional to total population) as the 20th did. I also think that such upheavals will spur some nations, peoples, and organizations to consider vital questions of long-term survival and dominance that our current peace and comfort insulate us from.

Also, while the Cathedral is in a place of power to leverage technological change in its favor, there are no guarantees of any specific technological change being inherently helpful to it. To argue so is to work from a partly tautological definition of the Cathedral as some kind of omniscient demiurge. If that were the case we would never observe them trying to suppress technologies (3D printing, genetic testing/engineering, etc.) rather than daemonically weaving them together for ever increased dominance. If it squeals it can bleed. If it bleeds it can die.

“When the US federal government is quantitative easing to the tune of 85 billion dollars a month, is this even a meaningful question anymore?”

A permanent development requires that people are getting satisfactory value for their continuing time and trouble. This isn’t about counting little pieces of green paper and printing more of them whenever you feel like it. It’s about a reciprocal exchange of value. Something of proportionate, continuing value has to come out of your continuing project. Otherwise, you’re just jacking off. Novelty isn’t enough.

What can you do on the Moon that you can’t do cheaper in Antarctica? I expect that we will eventually come up with a good answer to that question, but so far, I’m seeing a lot of attempts to delegitimize the question, and not very many attempts to answer it. David Criswell is still pushing his lunar surface solar power scheme, but I don’t believe it can compete with terrestrial nuclear power.

Mining what?

“70-100 billion dollars over a 7-10 year development program.”

That seems too small/optimistic (see: Planning fallacy).

“…within our capabilities.”

Really? If so, then why aren’t such things seen in use already here on Earth?

“…industrial infrastructure in place…”

How about where and when human beings actually come in? Air, water, food, etc.? How long will they depend on massive supplies from Earth? How do you pay for those supplies? Keep them from being cut off.

And what about the Outer Space Treaty? The property rights and legal jurisdiction issues?

“…is this even a meaningful question anymore?”

By “economics”, I should have perhaps said “accounting”, or “cost-benefit analysis”? How will this project ever become financially viable, rather than requiring endless influxes of more money? (And from where will it come? You can at best only convince a foolish billionaires to throw money down a hole for no returns for so long.)

“Russia”

See also Candide III’s post on “Putinophilia”.

So, even though it seems improbable, we should just have faith that some surprise bit of luck will somehow go massively our way and reverse all the momentum and trends? I’m sorry, but as a godless heathen, I don’t believe in Divine Providence, and that’s what this is (that, or the Gambler’s Fallacy).

And so the costs have gone down; they still far exceed the benefits, which remain practically nil; what resource is there in space that you cannot get cheaper here on Earth, let alone in accessable quantities sufficient to pay for the air, water, food, etc.?

“… the disruptive technological innovations we’re going to see…”

And here is the big one. “Disruptive technological innovations” do far more to fuel the Cathedral than weaken it (see, for example, oral contraceptives; or these comments on MOOCs and Bitcoin). Again, this irrational faith in technological salvation is fundamentally Progressive, a Cathedral meme, and I would say that anyone who holds it is not a reactionary, but an enemy of true Reaction, as they are snake-oil charlatans peddling false hope to the desperate.

Best guess for the initial mining/energy generation loop on which everything else builds is 70-100 billion dollars over a 7-10 year development program. That covers R&D through deployment, most likely on the lunar surface. It’s about 100 tons worth of equipment (all automated or tele-operation assisted) that needs to be planted, though that includes quite a bit of redundancy. This stage is designed to do only brute, heavy-metal work; electronics packages have to be sent from Earth. Even then it’s quite a challenge from an engineering perspective, but within our capabilities.

“Can it scale?”

The entire point of this method is unlimited scalability. Drop a few hundred tons on the lunar surface, have megatons of industrial infrastructure in place within a decade.

“Have you run the economics?”

When the US federal government is quantitative easing to the tune of 85 billion dollars a month, is this even a meaningful question anymore?

“What increasing weakness? Do you mean the shift from labor-intensive “mass armies” to capital-intensive high-tech warfare?”

Not at all, I mean the growing inability to properly maintain and develop our high-tech low-manpower military. In pretty much every measure of actual combat power, the US is set to decline precipitously in the coming decades. Our warships are aging, and their replacements (LCS, DDG-1000) are technological jokes (or horrors, depending on where you’re sitting). Same for the air force and to a lesser extent the army. Our acquisitions programs have reached the intersection of cultish techno-fetishism by the military, who want to cram every new/speculative piece of hardware onto a platform and just hope it all works out, and complete corruption by the corporate and political organs using each program to respectively line pockets and win votes. Even if they did work as intended, the utterly insane unit costs combined with Cathedral hatred of the military and obsession with social spending means that we won’t be buying very many.

“Russia? Really? Putin may be doing what he can, but outside the major cities, what is there but despair, drugs, drunkenness, and demographic decline? The land of Krokodil.”

I don’t find much to disagree with, but I’m inclined to remember how many times in history people have counted Russia out of the game only for them to come roaring back when least expected. We’ll see. In terms of concrete factors: technological advances are making it easier for them to exploit their arctic oil reserves, their military spending is up significantly, and their hardware is improving.

“With China, you’ve got the economic issues, the dependence on maintaining the status quo for trade.”

I also tend to be pessimistic on China, but I’ll point out that maintaining the status quo hasn’t stopped them from engaging in a massive arms buildup already, and a relatively peaceful but increasingly tense standoff is much more ideal for my purposes than an actual war.

“In short, there are no “potent peer competitors”, nor are any likely to emerge.”

If you told someone in 1922 that within 20 years Germany would have conquered Europe from the Pyrenees to the Volga, they’d probably laugh at you. If you told someone in 1885 that within 20 years Japan would shatter a major European power on land and at sea, they likewise would probably laugh at you. You may indeed be correct, but I don’t think things are nearly so certain as you suggest, especially in light of some of the disruptive technological innovations we’re going to see in the next 50 years. Besides, parity can come from either a weak power gaining strength, a great power losing it, or both. Both is most likely in this case, and a much-impoverished US or a moderately improved Russian/China/Someone would still be capable of the undertaking I suggest.

“Even if the cost is decreasing (cite, please), they still outmass the benefits by far.”

10 years ago, there were no reusable launch vehicles in active development. Now there are two major and several minor ones, with one of the major ones into the “metal in the air” stages of development and the other having just passed one of its most critical technical milestones. The technologies of of robotics, solid-state lasers, metallic additive manufacturing, high-strength/low-weight materials, and industrial automation have all seen tremendous increases in capability, reductions in cost, or both. In light of this, how could space industrialization have become more expensive over that period?

Credentials earned from MOOCs will be valid when held by some, and worthless paper when held by others.

For example a literal third world peasant who studied finance with one of bill gates’ free laptops in between wiping his shit off his ass with his bare left hand, can get an H1B visa and an entry level analyst job (at a significantly discounted salary, lol) for say

Or a transgender woman of color (TM) who studied human resources via MOOC at the DC public library in between her shifts at the Columbia Heights Target might get a management-track position at the HRC.

Or Southern California governments giving cushy white collar city jobs to mexicans with MOOCs.

But for regular white people (men especially) – forget about it. A MOOC credential will be a joke. No way they are going to let us just skip around the student loan debt slavery racket.

“Did you perchance read my comment of several weeks ago on the “correct” model for human space colonization/industrialization?”

I don’t really recall, but I think I read it, recognized it as just another unworkable and unaffordable idea I’ve seen before. Have you run the economics? What’s the price tag? Can it scale?

“…the increasing weakness of the arms the Cathedral relies on…”

What increasing weakness? Do you mean the shift from labor-intensive “mass armies” to capital-intensive high-tech warfare?

“…relatively potent peer competitors (Russia? China? Someone unexpected?)…”

Russia? Really? Putin may be doing what he can, but outside the major cities, what is there but despair, drugs, drunkenness, and demographic decline? The land of Krokodil.

With China, you’ve got the economic issues, the dependence on maintaining the status quo for trade. Not to mention the signs of an increasing propaganda/pressure/proselytization campaign by the Cathedral targeting the Chinese movers and shakers for conversion. Expect any Sino-Japanese blowup to be leveraged by USG to induce some Leftward “reforms” in Zhōnghuá.

In short, there are no “potent peer competitors”, nor are any likely to emerge.

“…decreasing cost of space industrialization…”

Even if the cost is decreasing (cite, please), they still outmass the benefits by far.