Wild Bill

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Lunar+ice+ri...ence-a019256031 There's one! There are a number of highly probable examples if you do a google. There are some explorations underway to 100% confirm what is already expected. Still, even if the moon is totally barren of ice, so what? Simple chemistry says we can burn hydrogen with oxygen to get water. Or better yet, use the gases in a fuel cell for electrical power and still get water as the byproduct! http://www.asi.org/adb/04/03/10/04/oxygen-extraction.html "Moon dust is a mixture of many different minerals, and nearly all of them contain oxgyen in considerable abundance. One of the most common lunar minerals is ilmenite, a mixture of iron, titanium, and oxygen. (Ilmenite also often contains other metals such as magnesium which we'll blithely ignore here.) For this discussion, we'll concentrate on extracting oxygen from ilmenite because there's lots of the stuff available, and because the chemical processes involved are fairly straightforward." "The process starts with regolith-handling robots bringing raw moon dust to the pilot plant. There, with a system we could design to be the size of a briefcase for the first flight, the pilot plant takes over. Once the process is going, the hydrogen we get from electrolysis of water can be recycled and used for the next load of ilmenite. But to get it started with an initial supply of hydrogen, we need only heat the raw regolith to about 600 degrees C. That will drive off hydrogen (along with a host of other interesting gasses, such as helium) that we use to reduce the first load of lunar soil." So we don't need to mine frozen water after all! Of course, mining it saves a bit of work. Again, old news. As for arable land, forgetting for the moment that we have HUGE amounts of farmland here in Canada lying fallow, since a farmer can't make a living from it, what about the tops of buildings? There are serious proposals in Toronto to set up rooftop garden industries to feed the city with local produce. Of course, being Toronto they would likely screw up a good idea and end up starving to death. They'd have no guilt about it. They'd just blame cars! Mayor Miller doesn't seem to be a Popular Science subscriber either. Personally, I wouldn't trust him to replace a plug on a lamp cord. Still, if techies were allowed to do the job I've no doubt the idea is viable. What do you imagine is the total rooftop surface area of highrise office and industrial buildings?

Yeah, that worked well for Sven Robinson...

I read some of their annotation. Geez, could you have picked any less biased source? "If Stephen Harper cannot cast aside ideologue constraints and find the depth of character to co-operate with Opposition MPs in a Minority environment, the time is sincerely appropriate for the Governor General to seek an alternative MP to lead Canada's Government. Upon the next failed Confidence vote, GG Jean should deny the PM his request for an Election ... a deed she in which she was amiss in September 2008, considering the newly legislated fixed Election Date. Jean should take up her responsibilities under our Westminster Electoral System and offer governance to the Leader of the Opposition." Why don't you just quote "rubble.ca"?

The water is already there! You just have to mine it. Something else we've also known for years. I guess you just missed it. So far, all you've given us is "crazy Buck Rogers stuff!" We haven't seen diddleysquat that says you have an INFORMED opinion! That being said, you're entitled to your opinion. However, you're not giving anything to debate other than your "feelings". It would appear that you yourself have never even read any Popular Science magazines, let alone anything deeper on the subject. If I'm wrong I apologize. I would genuinely be interested if you could SHOW me! Unless you can give some informed rebuttal I really don't see much point to this. Besides, it is "thread drift".

Actually, this seems good strategy on the part of the Liberals. They aren't likely to pull many voters away from the Tories. The easiest target is those who voted NDP! If they can make Jack look bad and grab maybe 5 points it would REALLY strengthen their hand!

Really? What's your point? That only a Conservative can be a hypocrite and NDippers are on the side of the angels? Back in the late 70's a buddy had me over to his parents' house for supper. The mealtime conversation turned to politics and at one point I mentioned the name of our local NDP MP. The room temperature dropped about 20 degrees C! When we later left I asked my buddy what happened. Did I inadvertently strike a nerve? He sighed and explained that this NDP MP had taken his sister as his mistress when she was 14. He had installed her in an apartment in Ottawa and by the time she was 16 (She looked older!) he was squiring her around to political functions. In those days the press kept quiet about such things. Today of course the reporters would have had a field day. He kept stringing her along promising he was going to leave his wife. You know, the usual hypocrisy! Eventually, he decided to stay with his wife and dumped her. I've named no names but this is NOT hearsay as far as I'm concerned! It was common knowledge amongst a wide circle. Politicians are not all either saints or devils, depending on their party. We had a Liberal MP earlier to the NDP one. I first met him personally banging his way off alternate walls as he tried to get down the hall to his hotel room, with urine running down his leg. So they're all human. Big deal. Just give us a break with the "Conservatives are hypocrites" crap! It's one PERSON, not every Conservative! How can you make such a comment about all Tories? Do you know them all individually? You show simple partisan prejudice with such a statement.

The ability has been there for years. No one has simply paid for the hardware! NASA's budget is mice nuts compared to the military's. The techology is all there. What's more, retrieving an asteroid can be done robotically far cheaper than a manned mission. Still, we have the technology to do a manned mission. We just have to pony up the money! Food can be grown cheaply in space, once we're established there. Wheat under a dome will grow nicely on the moon and can be shipped back very inexpensively with a mass driver. Fuel is much less of a problem here on earth if you have oodles of solar energy beamed down from orbit. The idea actually was seriously debated by the American Congress back in the early 80's as a solution to the energy crisis. It was voted down for several reasons, none of them technical but rather just "cheaping out". As I said, this is all rather old news. Have you actually looked what's going on with space industrialization or did you just blow it all off as "unrealistic"? I'm not arguing that we don't have an immense 'luddite' inertia. We most certainly do! As I like to say, most people stopped learning any hard sciences after their beans sprouted in that jar of tissue in grade school. I AM arguing that very smart and capable people have already worked things out! It is NOT unrealistic! We aren't doing it not because we don't know how, but because as a society we're not smart enough to KNOW we know how! We never do anything as a big change unless our backs are to the wall. Hell, the Big 3 auto companies didn't ditch carburetors until 1986, about 10 years later after the rest of the world went to far more reliable and efficient fuel injection. Westinghouse Canada was petitioning our government for protection from cheaper, off-shore vacuum tubes against their own brand, in 1978! The entire world had switched to solid state technologies more than a decade earlier! The market was long dead and they were still looking for tariff protections! Did you happen to catch that documentary on CBC about "Who killed the electric car?" GM crushed the prototypes when people were pleading to be allowed to buy them! Now GM has barely survived bankruptcy and is pinning its hopes on (you guessed it!) electric cars! We just don't seem to be a pro-active species. We only progress technically if we are in fear of starving, freezing or losing a big war. How computers slipped through that argument I just don't know. Law of Averages says the odd one must, I guess!

Exactly! Many things are possible but not likely, for a variety of reasons. I believe we will industrialize space, but only when we have no other choice because our backs will be to the wall. Afterwards, we will say "Geez, it wasn't as hard as I thought it would be!" but still, it would have been the very last thing we did. As a society we are not very proactive. The Japanese are much better at it than us. Look what they do with robotics. China and India, countries that we think are more 'third world' than us have larger space programs than Canada. There is a constitutional amending formula, so theoretically it is possible to change the Constitution. Is it likely? Nope! The conditions of that formula are such that you would have better odds at winning the Lottery 3 times in a row before it could happen! The obstacles are psychological. Just because we know how to do something doesn't mean we actually will. Politics is all about psychology and perception. The rule applies even stronger to politics. So if Smallc thinks that the mere possibility of a thing is enough I would imagine that he would have every confidence continually trying to fill an inside straight at poker. I would cheerfully invite him to play at my table any time! I would hope that he would bring lots of money with him!

Are their Sea Kings as old as ours? I never claimed that it wasn't originally a good design, just that when the helicopter is older than its pilots you have to expect excessive maintenance issues.

Well, that's only logical. We don't have much offensive capability! Which leads to the other question, why do we have a Dept of Defence?

Here's the link; http://news.sympatico.ctv.ca/abc/home/cont...refugees_090915 " 15/09/2009 1:46:36 PM CTV.ca News Staff Afghan nationals who are at increased risk of injury or death for working with the Canadian mission in Afghanistan will be able to utilize a new, streamlined process to apply for permanent residency status in Canada. Citizenship and Immigration Minister Jason Kenney said Afghan citizens who have worked for the Canadian mission for a minimum of 12 months, and can prove they face injury or death as a result, may apply for the new program." This is perhaps the most sensible thing I've heard a government do with immigration in a long time, if ever! Obviously, it's a risk for many Afghanis to support the Mission when after dark some Taliban barbarian will blow up their home and kids. Such Afganis are far more likely to share our ideals about freedom than many others we let in every day.

Well, that was indeed dumb but it was like, half a century ago! However, playing a PeeWee Herman game of "I know you are but what am I?" won't change anything. I'd be the first to write off all parties as brain dead when it counts. Still, I refer to those two heaps of Liberal and Tory cuts to supporting our soldiers. I'll give you the Arrow and the helicopters to the Dutch. That's a pretty small pile for the Tories, against a Liberal pile as high as a Sea King! C'mon, don't you agree it's pretty lame when we send our soldiers to Afghanistan and all we have is Arctic camo to put them in? And when's the last time anyone ever saw a Liberal government INCREASE the military budget? MacKenzie King?

He was considered too close to the Americans, as I recall. Especially after he worked hard to cooperate during the 9/1/1 crisis. To be fair, most of the criticism I heard came during the Liberal leadership race of 2003. He was a favourite at the start but then was decisively knocked out by Paul Martin. He was attacked for being on the 'right wing' side of the Liberal Party.

Hey, I never claimed to be a Mulroney supporter! Or an enthusiastic Harper one, for that matter. However, if you made one pile of Liberal actions and another pile of Tory actions the size of the heaps would be flippin' obvious! The typical Liberal defense minister is a Hedy Fry. If I remember correctly, John Manley was one of the few sensible Liberal defense ministers and he had a lot of problems from his OWN party for much of what he did!

No, a slight to the military would be Chretien cutting their budget to a pittance. Or Martin sending them to Afhanistan with ARCTIC camouflage! Or building 12 new frigates but only spending enough money to fuel just a couple of them to actually put to sea. Or letting pilots die in Sea King crashes! And on and on and on... If our service men and women were ever actually polled I would be very surprised if ANY of them supported the Liberal Party! Except for maybe the odd General who owed his promotion to political connections.

I keep getting telephone solicitors wanting me to take a Star subcription. Since I don't live in Toronto I have little interest. Still, I have great fun with the callers. I explain to them that I don't need to read the Star since I already know what's in it. They ask me what do I mean and I tell them: Every page says "Liberals good! Everyone else is bad!". The only variety is whatever topic they write around the same theme. Once or twice I actually get them laughing with me!

Don't forget jdobbin that this was a long time Tory seat, which makes the upset even more significant. It would not be logical to treat this riding as an isolated incident. I firmly believe that when you paint yourself 'beige' to appeal to the middle you can easily disappoint those on either side. This is not a strategic failure only if there are no alternative choices. Those that are bored with a middle of the road approach only become more frustrated and apathetic as the years drag on. I also believe this is a factor in the decreasing percentage of those who actually vote. When everyone wears a brown suit who stands out?

Whew! A lot of points there! However, I support the Tories on virtually every one! In fact, it's the fact that I consider them pluses and not minuses that keeps me from being on the same side as you come election time. That in itself is not unusual. People have different opinions and that's why they support different parties. What is unusual is thinking that everyone always agrees with you! Or worse yet, thinking that anyone who disagrees with you must be an evil reptilian kitten eater...

Wow, Morris! That's sure a lot of Star stuff! I didn't think jdobbin would leave himself open for such an easy one!

This would seem to confirm one of my own pet premises, that a very significant number of voters find themselves without a good 'fit' with their traditional parties and if ever they DO get offered an alternative they can bail on their 'least smelly' choice in droves! It doesn't matter if pundits feel they are persuing a wrong choice or some "evil, reptilian kitten-eating right wing choice", the plain fact is that they ARE! If the traditional parties want to compete they have to deal with it. Obviously, the provincial Tories in Alberta did not enjoy ENTHUSIASTIC support in this byelection. If they had of been a truly popular choice the WAP would not have won the seat. The next Alberta provincial election should be even more interesting. Incumbent institutions, which of course includes political parties, tend to be very slow at addressing change. I think Stelmach and the Alberta Tories are in deep trouble!

I didn't see an answer to my main point from you so I will phrase it yet again: How do YOU feel the majority of our soldiers feel about the ad? Please note I did NOT ask how you feel they SHOULD feel but rather how they DO feel!

You may be doing with without realizing it, jdobbin. Who owns your local paper? When TorStar bought my local paper I immediately noticed a change in the slant of the reporting. They also featured Toronto Star 'national' columnists. The Spectator became a LOT more Liberal friendly! Perhaps that's what's going on in your town.

You don't have to convince us. You have to convince all the soldiers! So far, the Liberal excuses and convoluted explanations seem to be failing with the actual offended parties. However, it's still a 'sort of' free country. You have every right to keep trying! We have some 'Army Guys' on this board. I would be interested to hear their POV. That has more credibility with me than the words of "crosses burning on every lawn" Hedy Fry...

What do you mean by "cost of production"? If you mean the investment of infrastructure to accomplish the task that is, by definition, an investment. That is what you do when you build a new steel plant anyways. What is important is how much it actually costs to produce the steel and the price you can get for it. The difference is your profit! This has been all worked out since the 1980's, by engineers far smarter than you or I. You might do a quick google. Check out a guy named G. Harry Stine. Although most folks may not have heard about it, it's actually kinda old news. The obstacles are mostly political, not economic or technical. The investment costs are admittedly very high, at least to start. The actual cost of production is lower than we way we're doing it now. In the vacuum and zero G of space you can easily blow up a BIG glass bubble while the glass is still molten, to make a giant ball. Then you release some mercury vapour inside of it to coat the glass like a mirror. You cut the ball in half and you have two giant focusing mirrors! Not the most efficient parabola to make a solar thermal heater but it WILL work and it is CHEAP! So your energy costs to make the steel are "mice nuts". The asteroid of ore had a cost to retrieve it but not as much as you would think. Moving an asteroid quickly costs a great deal of money. You have to use rockets far more powerful than we have today. However, you can nudge it slowly with a mass driver or an ion rocket far more cheaply and easily. It might take a year for the asteroid to be retrieved to a near-Earth orbit but who cares? There's lots of other stuff to do while we're waiting! Dropping it down to earth is the easiest part of all. Gravity does it for free! A medieval 'gunner' with a catapult knew enough to aim a dead cow at a castle wall. The ballistics of dropping a big slug of steel weighing a few tons to a "plop down' in the ocean near your coast is not much more complicated. As for profit, the first company to do this will be able to undercut ANY price and be rich as Midas! We're talking ZILLIONS of dollars profit at normal world prices! When we have to, we will do it. We'll also go out and get any other resource we need. As I said, the universe is infinite. The only question is whether it will be us or some other country that does it.

"The planet has finite resources"? So? The Universe has INFINITE resources! We are so close to being able to mine asteroids and the moon. Science tells us that some of the moons of Jupiter have literally oceans of liguid gases like methane and other fuels. One typical average sized asteroid is also typically made of high grade nickel iron ore. It can be smelted with free solar energy in space and dropped to earth by the free force of gravity and the aim of ballistics. It would be able to supply the ENTIRE WORLD'S NEEDS for steel for at least one year! This can be done with the technology we have NOW! Any new development would only be a bonus. Most countries already know this. From the looks of things today it's more likely to be China or India who develops space industry than America. It's just a question of where we want to invest our money. The average joe has a completely wrong idea about the cost of "all them space shots". The entire Apollo program that put Man on the Moon cost about as much as the helicopter losses FOR ONE MONTH at the height of the Viet Nam war! "Yep, stay up here in the trees with us old folks, Junior Kong! There's probably snakes down in that grass! Who'd want to bother exploring anyway? Don't listen to that Darwin fellow! There's nothing for us apes down there!"