How to be a prime mover

Recommended Posts


These are question of policy, not of existence.  If I received a long string of primes  from no source in the solar system, I would conclude that something intelligent sent them.  How to react to that?  That would be for governments and science organizations to decide.  As to the existence of an intelligent sender, I believe there would be little doubt. end quote 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 102
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I am still wondering about the big question.

Ba’al wrote: If I received a long string of primes from no source in the solar system, I would conclude that something intelligent sent them.  How to react to that?  That would be for governments and science organizations to decide.  As to the existence of an intelligent sender, I believe there would be little doubt. end quote

Some questions for everyone. In your personal life, if you chanced upon a “real ET” would you communicate with it, him, or her, if they didn’t frighten the crap out of you? I remember writing a little story about coming across a small vessel in my back yard with an obvious alien, who in halting English, asks me if he can use my hose to get water? Of course I said yes.


Jeff reminds me of someone.

From: Jeff Burhans To: Starship Forum Subject: Space pioneers: the factors that will influence them most Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 10:19:04 -0700

>1.Only well educated, and scientifically, and technologically knowledgeable people will be able to be successful space pioneers.

         This is based upon the assumption that space colonization will take place under current conditions, which is not necessarily true. An advance in propulsion systems which brings earth-like locales into range, or which makes it easier to terraform areas on nearby planets would destroy that assumption. Further, any argument based upon the assumption that 'it's always been that way and always will be.' is on wobbly legs to start with. Refuted.

>2. Average ordinary people such as Bubbas, and red necks do not have  the education, and the scientific, and technical knowledge that is required to become successful, spacefarers.

          That, again, is not true. Were we to locate and colonize an earth-like planet, or use terraforming to create earth-like conditions on an area of a local planet, then the 'bubbas and red necks' are exactly who will be needed. Farmers, laborers, roustabouts, factory workers, etc. These are not the jobs that attract rocket scientists. Refuted.

>3.Only the super rich can pay their own way into space.

          Same assumption as on number 1, and not necessarily true there either. It used to be that only the rich could afford to travel to new colonies - at least first class. Workers found other ways, as always. You're referring to space tourism, not colonization. Refuted.

>4. For everyone else, their way into space will have to paid for economically by giant corporations, or by their national governments.

          Same assumption as on numbers 1 and 3. Refuted.

>5. It is difficult but not impossible to make an economic profit off of space flight, especially in the short term, and corporations usually care only about short term profits.

          Same assumption as numbers 1, 3, and 4. Refuted.

>6. Because of statement number 5:  societies, that have socialist economic systems are more likely to colonize space , than are societies that have capitalist economies.

          This is poor reasoning in any light. Capitalist societies have always been more efficient than socialist or communist systems. This is probably why there are no more communist economic systems (I won't dignify. . .

North Korea's state as a 'system' - it doesn't work), and even the socialist systems are going capitalist. Further, you will please notice that currently, only capitalist systems have space programs or any accomplishment or size. Refuted.

>7. A capitalist societies best space power source is probably, always going to be nuclear fusion. This means .10 c is probably going to be the velocity limit for most spaceships produced by a capitalist society. This is because fusion power, and fusion fuel is highly economical, and competively priced in the capitalist marketplace, but antimatter is not.

          This isn't even a logical argument. 'probably'. Are you a qualified propulsion engineer and seer? You are again assuming that current conditions will prevail forever - which has never been the case throughout history. I can well imagine someone arguing a few hundred years ago that the Dutch Caravel will be the prevailing design throughout time....

          Further, the antimatter system my company is developing looks to be extraordinarily economic. MUCH cheaper than fusion could ever hope to be, with a higher velocity limit. Go back and read through the archives and review the discussions between Duncan Lunan, Andy Nimmo, Kelly, and myself over maximum velocities and energies required. Refuted.

>8. Probably only a socialist society can ever hope to afford to use matter antimatter, annihilation as a power source for spacecraft on a large scale, due to the fact that it will always  be prohibitively expensive to produce antimatter in quantity, in a capitalist economic system, and a capitalist market place.

          Same problem as with point 7. Refuted.


>9. Any comments about this?

          Yes, your arguments lack substance, are based on easily disputed and disproved assumptions, and seem to be without much structure.

* *RION  * Griffon Consulting Group, LTD. Jeff Burhans 2580 W. Saguaro Bluffs Dr. Tucson, AZ 85742-4432 Voice: (520)907-8398 Fax:   (520)531-9189 EMail:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now