Quote from: Nelson Bridwell on 11/24/2012 01:37 amTo rule something out requires evidence. Do you have any?NO! To rule in something requires evidence!To rule something out requires a lack of evidence.I dismiss the possibility of fairies living at the end of my garden because there is a total lack of evidence to support such an idea.
To rule something out requires evidence. Do you have any?
I dismiss the possibility of fairies living at the end of my garden because there is a total lack of evidence to support such an idea.
Quote from: Garrett on 11/24/2012 03:25 pmQuote from: Nelson Bridwell on 11/24/2012 01:37 amTo rule something out requires evidence. Do you have any?NO! To rule in something requires evidence!To rule something out requires a lack of evidence.I dismiss the possibility of fairies living at the end of my garden because there is a total lack of evidence to support such an idea. That's not how that works.If neither reason nor extant evidence specifically supports a proposition, you can disregard it, since there's no cause to believe it to be true. This is not the same as dismissing it; that is, declaring it to be false. You don't get to declare something false without evidence that it is in fact false.
Quote from: go4mars on 11/24/2012 08:02 pmQuote from: Khadgars on 11/24/2012 06:29 pmthe US has some of the worlds largest reserves of rare earth metals, but stopped mining them because China was to easily able to undercut the price. If this did become a major issue it would be far easier and cheaper to restart these mines and build new ones.A red herring, ...There are some other sources of heavies, but not as economically interesting, and generally there is a steep environmental toll with production and processing... But that's missing the point. That just means current production comes from China in heavies, but we have several massive sources of heavies in the States (Missouri, Nebraska) as well as Canada (Quebec) that are under development now. Rare earths are is fact not very rare at all and are found all over the world.
Quote from: Khadgars on 11/24/2012 06:29 pmthe US has some of the worlds largest reserves of rare earth metals, but stopped mining them because China was to easily able to undercut the price. If this did become a major issue it would be far easier and cheaper to restart these mines and build new ones.A red herring, ...There are some other sources of heavies, but not as economically interesting, and generally there is a steep environmental toll with production and processing... But that's missing the point.
the US has some of the worlds largest reserves of rare earth metals, but stopped mining them because China was to easily able to undercut the price. If this did become a major issue it would be far easier and cheaper to restart these mines and build new ones.
There is already a lot of American discomfort relating to "rare earth elements" which China has already demonstrated they are willing to leverage for geopolitical clout (big news in Japan anyways). Similarly, in this context it's important to remember that platinum-group metals are strategic high-tech metals. Not just pretty baubles.
... claiming ownership of the moon would buy the political party there a lot of points with their downtrodden masses ... If American companies stake an "exclusion zone" around their operations, then the US gov't has a lot more power in international affairs in the future. ... Can you see the gnomes in your garden? ... their presence can be inferred as possible based on the cigarette butts and bite-marks on the carrots.
Re: Bigelow/China--odds are Bigelow is not involved, given the Paragon connection because they make their own inflatables in partnership with Thin Red Line Aerospace. They say their's is better than other inflatables--presumably, that's an indirect reference to Bigelow's modules.http://www.paragonsdc.com/paragon_projects_09.php
Somewhat old news, but Alan Stern was quoted in New Scientist that he "can't comment either way" on the landing in the works: the first, direct semi-confirmation on his part that I've been able to find.http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22523-private-moon-mission-rumour-is-glimpse-of-lunar-future.html
Quote from: Nelson Bridwell on 11/23/2012 10:07 pmCould the reason for the manned landing and outpost be to provide a stronger legal footing for fending off a Chinese claim to ownership of the Moon than unmanned operations would permit?It has nothing to do with the Chinese. Repeating over and over doesn't make it true.
Could the reason for the manned landing and outpost be to provide a stronger legal footing for fending off a Chinese claim to ownership of the Moon than unmanned operations would permit?
NO! To rule in something requires evidence!To rule something out requires a lack of evidence.I dismiss the possibility of fairies living at the end of my garden because there is a total lack of evidence to support such an idea.
Quote from: Garrett on 11/24/2012 03:25 pmNO! To rule in something requires evidence!To rule something out requires a lack of evidence.I dismiss the possibility of fairies living at the end of my garden because there is a total lack of evidence to support such an idea. To rule something in requires evidence. To rule something out requires evidence. Without evidence you are left with educated guesses.It is our educated guess that fairies do no exist, but we cannot disprove them.In the case of China, it is quite reasonable to assume that it was an unspoken motivation for the VSE, just as Soviet ambition was the driving force behind the congessional decision to devote 10% of the federal budget to Apollo.In this case the question is if "private" investors would be concerned enough about the threat of Chinese domination of space to sink their own dollars into a manned space effort. That is the weak point.And I also have to wonder if Bigelow is genuinely concerned about China, or if he is using that as a threat to lure taxpayer dollars.Then again, maybe Golden Spike is nothing more than a low-budget powerpoint design amustement for some people.Keep those guesses coming!
the congessional decision to devote 10% of the federal budget to Apollo.
In this case the question is if "private" investors would be concerned enough about the threat of Chinese domination of space to sink their own dollars into a manned space effort. That is the weak point.
Quote from: Nelson Bridwell on 11/25/2012 06:40 pmthe congessional decision to devote 10% of the federal budget to Apollo.Apollo's most expensive year took less than 4.5% of the federal budget. Was there some contingency commit I'm unaware of that never got exercised?
That just means current production comes from China in heavies, but we have several massive sources of heavies in the States (Missouri, Nebraska) as well as Canada (Quebec) that are under development now. Rare earths are is fact not very rare at all and are found all over the world. You are still missing the point. Yes there are other sources (which incidentally are considered more expensive to extract and more environmentally costly than the big mine in China). I'm not suggesting otherwise. Bringing back the original quote:
The only reason I'm going off topic is because it was referenced as a possible reason to mine the moon, privately no less. Rare earths are not rare at all and mines all over the world are going into production regardless of what happens in China.
The private investors are not Chinese. The company managers are not Chinese. The Chinese have exactly 0 involvement in this project or its funding.That is a fact. ...
Deleted it back a bit as it was also fast turning into an L2 advert when I don't want people joining L2 for any other reason than to support the site, the rest is a very big bonus....