Space programs in a communist world

[Psy]

I just got to wondering what kinda of space programs would we have in a communist world. The science fiction idea of having colonies like the O'Neill cylinder under capitalism seems impossible.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/16/Spacecolony1.jpg/220px-Spacecolony1.jpg

Yet would communism be able to fulfill these dreams of humanity taking to the stars even though they require gargantuan amounts labor prower and spreads humanity across massive distances even if we just settle the rest of our solar system? How does one plan for the such massive mega projects one can build in space?

[Q]

Yet would communism be able to fulfill these dreams of humanity taking to the stars even though they require gargantuan amounts labor prower and spreads humanity across massive distances even if we just settle the rest of our solar system? How does one plan for the such massive mega projects one can build in space?

You assume that the current level of technique stays the same. We're no longer living in the 1960's and landing on the Moon, for example, would take a fraction of the effort needed in those days (while that is still a lot).

Besides, especially in the case of the Moon, the mining of He3 would pay off the effort by a thousand times as it would enable to power humanity for literally millennia.

Once we find trips and enduring stays on the Moon normal, going beyond that rock, to other planets would be a relative cakewalk and most energy required for spacetravel is in escaping Earth's gravity pull.

[Zav]

The space programs we'll have under Communism will be generally scientific, as we'll have far more labor power to dedicate to research and there will be no profit motive. The amount of space junk we'll have will be considerable. Colonization seems quite unlikely without terraforming, and no socio-economic system will be able to change the nigh impossibility of that, but we will certainly have research stations on Luna, Mars, and some asteroids like we currently have in Antarctica.
Other than that it's hard to predict the future. We may stay here for the rest of our existence or we may touch the stars a la Doctor Who. Regardless of that, we need to defeat Capitalism and the State first. Space Capitalists are far scarier than terrestrial ones.

[Yu Ming Zai]

Yet would communism be able to fulfill these dreams of humanity taking to the stars even though they require gargantuan amounts labor prower and spreads humanity across massive distances even if we just settle the rest of our solar system? How does one plan for the such massive mega projects one can build in space?

In the future, I suspect that all labor power will be generated by automation as advances in technology and science will enable us to create machines for all physical labor purposes as machines are more precise, efficient, and do not suffer from the strains that we do if put in the same situation. All we need are the scientists and engineers to make this all possible.

[Anarcho-Brocialist]

You assume that the current level of technique stays the same. We're no longer living in the 1960's and landing on the Moon, for example, would take a fraction of the effort needed in those days (while that is still a lot).

Besides, especially in the case of the Moon, the mining of He3 would pay off the effort by a thousand times as it would enable to power humanity for literally millennia.

Once we find trips and enduring stays on the Moon normal, going beyond that rock, to other planets would be a relative cakewalk and most energy required for spacetravel is in escaping Earth's gravity pull.
The problems with mining Helium-3 is we might remove too much mass, interrupting the earths orbit, non-existing extraction techniques, and returning to mined materials back to the earth. I must also cite that we're talking about a 3 billion dollar a ton energy source, which is also very limited, I might add. The earth only produces about 3kg a year, and its suspected the moons lunar soil has 110 million tons of h3. Reports that I've read have indicated a few tons can power the US for a year. I think we shouldn't use this valuable resource, if we can properly extract and utilize it on space exploration, rather domestic use. We have nothing capable of transporting vasts amount of people.. we only use conventional radioisotope thermoelectric generators to propel equipment. If we're talking about Island three, we're going to have to replicate gravity, oxygen, and a form of defense to repel radiation, also I should add, vehicles to bring people to and from, especially if their is some sort of emergency. I don't see us inhabiting a space colony anytime soon.

[campesino]

yes, all the people who want to create space colonies, will gather into one big commune, somewhere on Earth and be called pioneers. when the program needs resources not in it's geographic area, it will either trade, or send workers to extract the resources or create new mines.

[Q]

The problems with mining Helium-3 is we might remove too much mass, interrupting the earths orbit, non-existing extraction techniques, and returning to mined materials back to the earth. I must also cite that we're talking about a 3 billion dollar a ton energy source, which is also very limited, I might add. The earth only produces about 3kg a year, and its suspected the moons lunar soil has 110 million tons of h3. Reports that I've read have indicated a few tons can power the US for a year. I think we shouldn't use this valuable resource, if we can properly extract and utilize it on space exploration, rather domestic use. We have nothing capable of transporting vasts amount of people.. we only use conventional radioisotope thermoelectric generators to propel equipment. If we're talking about Island three, we're going to have to replicate gravity, oxygen, and a form of defense to repel radiation, also I should add, vehicles to bring people to and from, especially if their is some sort of emergency. I don't see us inhabiting a space colony anytime soon.

1. 110 million tons is not that much that the moon's orbit will be destabilized. Besides, there isn't that much He3 on the moon. Most estimates are between 1 and 5 million tons.
2. Where did you get that $3 billion a ton pricetag? While googling around, I also see prices at about a third of that. So, this is speculation. Either way, this would put the actual price at between $7 and $21 dollars per oil barrel (if you convert it to that). A massively cheap source of energy.
3. Many sites claim that 25 tons of He3 would be enough to power the US for a year (many of these sites are from the 1990's, so say it's 35 tons today) and this 2006 article (http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2006-07/26/content_649325.htm) claim around 100 tons is needed for global energy demand. Sadly, I haven't found any calculations yet and my physics knowledge is a little rusty to convert from MeV on an atomic level to actual use in gigaWatt.
4. We can both use use He3 for domestic use and for space exploration. There is no either/or.

[Anarcho-Brocialist]

1. 110 million tons is not that much that the moon's orbit will be destabilized. Besides, there isn't that much He3 on the moon. Most estimates are between 1 and 5 million tons. I said it could be possible. Although, let's say we do extract 110 million tons, we're too removing more mass to mine the h3. link to where it cites the moon possess 110 million tons (http://www.explainingthefuture.com/helium3.html)

2. Where did you get that $3 billion a ton pricetag? While googling around, I also see prices at about a third of that. So, this is speculation. Either way, this would put the actual price at between $7 and $21 dollars per oil barrel (if you convert it to that). A massively cheap source of energy. Actually, 4 billion LINK TO RESOURCE (http://english.pravda.ru/science/tech/17-03-2006/77404-moon-0/)

3. Many sites claim that 25 tons of He3 would be enough to power the US for a year (many of these sites are from the 1990's, so say it's 35 tons today) and this 2006 article (http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2006-07/26/content_649325.htm) claim around 100 tons is needed for global energy demand. Sadly, I haven't found any calculations yet and my physics knowledge is a little rusty to convert from MeV on an atomic level to actual use in gigaWatt. 1 MeV = 4.450492583e-26 GW*h. If you give me the exact amount of energy in h3 per metric ton via MeV I can convert if your you. I also don't disagree with your third point, hence it's debatable, and I personally haven't tried to assay the material myself, so I'm taking it for face value.

4. We can both use use He3 for domestic use and for space exploration. There is no either/or. I agree on your fourth point too.

[Psy]

You assume that the current level of technique stays the same. We're no longer living in the 1960's and landing on the Moon, for example, would take a fraction of the effort needed in those days (while that is still a lot).

Rocket technology hasn't drastically improved, getting a space ship from sea level on Earth to the moon and back is still a gargantuan task requiring massive rockets that has just as many catastrophic failures as the old rockets of the space race. Also the current rockets pale in comparison to the massive lifting capacity of old Saturn V and N1 rockets.

[campesino]

mass drivers, people. that will be the backbone, of future space launches.

[Psy]

mass drivers, people. that will be the backbone, of future space launches.
Yes mass drivers get you out of the Earth's atmosphere but then you will still need rockets to propel you through space, also you'd need a rocket to lift off from planets with no infrastructure.

[ckaihatsu]

> Wagner mentions the large tanks of Helium-3 she has seen on the Moon.


Iron Sky (2012)

93 min - Action | Comedy | Sci-Fi - 4 April 2012 (Finland)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1034314/

[hatzel]

I'm just gonna come right out and say it: the necessarily hierarchical and centralising nature of contemporary space programs and their accompanying organisations and institutions would make them totally unsuitable in a communist society. Any discussion of this issue which fails to take this into account is flawed from the outset. Some might say that it will be possible to develop new forms of program that aren't reliant on, nor result in, centralised and rigidly hierarchical power structures, but I'm not at all convinced by that as things stand...

[Q]

I'm just gonna come right out and say it: the necessarily hierarchical and centralising nature of contemporary space programs and their accompanying organisations and institutions would make them totally unsuitable in a communist society. Any discussion of this issue which fails to take this into account is flawed from the outset. Some might say that it will be possible to develop new forms of program that aren't reliant on, nor result in, centralised and rigidly hierarchical power structures, but I'm not at all convinced by that as things stand...

So, space programs would be impossible in communism?

And why is a space program incompatible with communism in the first place? I don't see the logic of that assumption.

[Manic Impressive]

yes, all the people who want to create space colonies, will gather into one big commune, somewhere on Earth and be called pioneers. when the program needs resources not in it's geographic area, it will either trade, or send workers to extract the resources or create new mines.
Trade? that's literally what happens now. Somewhere produces a product that is needed elsewhere and they trade for that product using a commodity called money. The money is then distributed among those who produced the original product with which they go on to purchase commodities. We call this capitalism. Communism abolishes the market entirely.

[ckaihatsu]

I'm just gonna come right out and say it: the necessarily hierarchical and centralising nature of contemporary space programs and their accompanying organisations and institutions would make them totally unsuitable in a communist society. Any discussion of this issue which fails to take this into account is flawed from the outset. Some might say that it will be possible to develop new forms of program that aren't reliant on, nor result in, centralised and rigidly hierarchical power structures, but I'm not at all convinced by that as things stand...


Hey, what the hell -- I'll take this on.... I've got a spare moment here....

Allow me to differentiate between the organizational structure required for the completion of *component parts*, or aspects, of a particular project, and for that of the space program as a whole.

The latter is essentially the *political* realm since this is a *large-scale*, materials-intensive portion of what society does. (And this example is entirely generic -- it could be anything large-scale.) Politically society could be organized in *whatever* which-way -- as long as its social relations and material productivity allow it to definitively reach a conclusion about where its efforts and resources are to be focused, it could very well have a space program.

Once the policy matter has been decided the rest is *logistics*, and that could be done in a very flexible way, labor-wise, as long as the organizational structure of the *project* remains appropriate for its completion.

[campesino]

Trade? that's literally what happens now. Somewhere produces a product that is needed elsewhere and they trade for that product using a commodity called money. The money is then distributed among those who produced the original product with which they go on to purchase commodities. We call this capitalism. Communism abolishes the market entirely.

I meant if the pioneer commune makes a commodity such as lumber,maybe the iron mining communes will trade, iron for lumber. if the iron mine communes don't want to trade, the pioneers will go to the iron mines themselves and mine the iron or make their own iron mines.

[Manic Impressive]

I meant if the pioneer commune makes a commodity such as lumber,maybe the iron mining communes will trade, iron for lumber. if the iron mine communes don't want to trade, the pioneers will go to the iron mines themselves and mine the iron or make their own iron mines.
So if one commune refuses to trade then the commune that needs the product cannot have it? That is not "to each according to his need" and if one commune refuses then why shouldn't another commune refuse that commune food or another vital commodity? This system would create a cycle of competition between communes and lead to surplus value being extracted from one commune by another.

[Ocean Seal]

I'm just gonna come right out and say it: the necessarily hierarchical and centralising nature of contemporary space programs and their accompanying organisations and institutions would make them totally unsuitable in a communist society. Any discussion of this issue which fails to take this into account is flawed from the outset. Some might say that it will be possible to develop new forms of program that aren't reliant on, nor result in, centralised and rigidly hierarchical power structures, but I'm not at all convinced by that as things stand...
All contemporary structures are centralized and hierarchical. Plus centralization is good and for most scientific structures you need a certain level of hierarchy just to determine what is legitimate and what isn't, and I think that the stage of communism that you are referring to is quite far ahead in the future.

[campesino]

So if one commune refuses to trade then the commune that needs the product cannot have it? .yes
I believe all communes can satisfy its needs

communes will consist of municipalities, with some basic industries and agriculture. so it is true, if you live in minnesota, and produce nothing that avocado growers will trade for, then you will not get avocados, the minnesota commune will only grow food, that grows in minnesota.

That is not "to each according to his need
I don't think that applies to communes satisfying the needs of other communes


This system would create a cycle of competition between communes and lead to surplus value being extracted from one commune by another. how? communes will mutually decide on what to trade and how much based on what they think is fair, communes don't need anything they can't produce, and if they do they can go produce it and bring it back to the commune.

how would your system work?

[ckaihatsu]

I meant if the pioneer commune makes a commodity such as lumber,maybe the iron mining communes will trade, iron for lumber. if the iron mine communes don't want to trade, the pioneers will go to the iron mines themselves and mine the iron or make their own iron mines.


I think the underlying problematic with this whole line is that it's entirely too *item*-oriented, instead of being *labor*- and *political*-oriented.

It's understandable, of course, since we're *currently* living under a world regime of commodity-production that equates valuations of labor productivity, a temporal human trait, with the inorganic products of its manufacture.








I'm going to take a hard-line against any labor-material exchanges, even this non-ownership 'usership right of social product' formulation of yours.

I think it's inherently problematic to attempt conversions of value between the two because material items tend to stick around while people's labor is more-limited in timeframe and is transformative in function.

By ignoring this apples-and-oranges differential we wind up valuing inanimate material items in the same terms as portions of a person's life spent for the sake of providing work / effort.

I'll posit that, regardless of how such a system may *start out* in implementation, it will inexorably regress to a situation where a particularly privileged group will be in charge of issuing the standards of valuation for both, in an unaccountable, de facto way.

[Psy]

Hey, what the hell -- I'll take this on.... I've got a spare moment here....

Allow me to differentiate between the organizational structure required for the completion of *component parts*, or aspects, of a particular project, and for that of the space program as a whole.

The latter is essentially the *political* realm since this is a *large-scale*, materials-intensive portion of what society does. (And this example is entirely generic -- it could be anything large-scale.) Politically society could be organized in *whatever* which-way -- as long as its social relations and material productivity allow it to definitively reach a conclusion about where its efforts and resources are to be focused, it could very well have a space program.

Once the policy matter has been decided the rest is *logistics*, and that could be done in a very flexible way, labor-wise, as long as the organizational structure of the *project* remains appropriate for its completion.
What about engineering issues? For example the USSR's decision to use very high pressure rocket engines that created a much larger engineering problem then simply building rockets to get to the moon yet end result was more fuel efficient rockets.

[ckaihatsu]

What about engineering issues? For example the USSR's decision to use very high pressure rocket engines that created a much larger engineering problem then simply building rockets to get to the moon yet end result was more fuel efficient rockets.


As far as I know engineering issues would be considered to be a part of the *logistical* area, within the project itself. I doubt the general public usually keeps tabs on that kind of thing at such a detailed level.

Or are you indicating more of the "in-between" "interface" area, of politics and operations -- ? This would be a valid consideration, though somewhat more-removed and academic for our purposes here at RevLeft.

Or, finally, perhaps society, once freed from commodity production, *should* take more of a broad-based hands-on interest in component tasks of major societal projects, like those of a space program in a communist world. It would be part of *reducing* specialization so that areas of potential power-brokering are smoothed-out, *away* from elitism.








[I]t's entirely possible that an advanced post-capitalist society would actually *combine* all political and professional responsibilities so that they became one and the same.

This is to say that *nothing* would be specialized at all, and that *every* impactful decision would be made in a collective way.




This could very well even be the 'litmus test' for an effective political economy since it would have to have procedures that work cleanly and fluidly under the most time-sensitive and trying of circumstances.

[Psy]

As far as I know engineering issues would be considered to be a part of the *logistical* area, within the project itself. I doubt the general public usually keeps tabs on that kind of thing at such a detailed level.

Or are you indicating more of the "in-between" "interface" area, of politics and operations -- ? This would be a valid consideration, though somewhat more-removed and academic for our purposes here at RevLeft.

Or, finally, perhaps society, once freed from commodity production, *should* take more of a broad-based hands-on interest in component tasks of major societal projects, like those of a space program in a communist world. It would be part of *reducing* specialization so that areas of potential power-brokering are smoothed-out, *away* from elitism.
It is a bit more then logistical, for example the Saturn V and N-1 rockets were very different engineering solution to getting to the moon, the Saturn V being simpler and the N-1 being far more complex yet the N-1 development resulted in modern rocket designs that are much more fuel efficient.

So who makes these decisions?

[ckaihatsu]

It is a bit more then logistical, for example the Saturn V and N-1 rockets were very different engineering solution to getting to the moon, the Saturn V being simpler and the N-1 being far more complex yet the N-1 development resulted in modern rocket designs that are much more fuel efficient.

So who makes these decisions?


I tend to think of this kind of thing as being 'sub-policy' issues, which can actually be treated exactly the same way as the overarching range of categorical policy options in front of everyone (also known as 'politics').

So, likewise, the core concerns of public interest / mass demand, liberated labor, and collective administration, would have to be balanced with the others, since -- even in a post-commodity context -- each of these core concerns would continue to have somewhat different fundamental interests, in my estimation.








What's called-for is a system that can match liberated-labor organizing ability, over mass-collectivized assets and resources, to the mass demand from below for collective production. If *liberated-labor* is too empowered it would probably lead to materialistic factionalism -- like a bad syndicalism -- and back into separatist claims of private property.

If *mass demand* is too empowered it would probably lead back to a clever system of exploitation, wherein labor would cease to retain control over the implements of mass production.

And, if the *administration* of it all is too specialized and detached we would have the phenomenon of Stalinism, or bureaucratic elitism and party favoritism.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=11269


The model that I advocate takes 'sub-policy' dynamics into consideration and treats them the same as any 'mass demands' (at more generalized scales):





communist supply & demand -- Model of Material Factors

This is an 8-1/2" x 40" wide table that describes a communist-type political / economic model using three rows and six descriptive columns. The three rows are surplus-value-to-overhead, no surplus, and surplus-value-to-pleasure. The six columns are ownership / control, associated material values, determination of material values, material function, infrastructure / overhead, and propagation.

http://postimage.org/image/35sw8csv8/





Infrastructure / overhead

communist administration -- Distinct from the general political culture each project or production run will include a provision for an associated administrative component as an integral part of its total policy package -- a selected policy's proponents will be politically responsible for overseeing its implementation according to the policy's provisions


There's also a detailed sample scenario at this thread:


'A world without money'

tinyurl.com/ylm3gev


communist supply & demand -- Model of Material Factors

http://postimage.org/image/35sw8csv8/


Multi-Tiered System of Productive and Consumptive Zones for a Post-Capitalist Political Economy

http://tinyurl.com/mtspczpcpe

[TrotskistMarx]

Hi, how are you? well, I have read the political program of Stewart Alexander, candidate for President of the Socialist Party of USA. And in the science and technology section, it says that a government of The Socialist Party of USA in The White House, would increase investment in the search for extraterrestrial technology. Would use NASA for the search for E.T. along with SETI and other organizations related to that. And would also use NASA only for non-military space exploration objectives. As opposed to the current NASA which is used for Imperialist Capitalist objectives. Either for privatists corporate elites to make money with private space flights like the owner of Virgin Airlines, And other current NASA projects that are used mainly to favor the oligarchic ruling classes of USA, Europe and other imperialist oligarchic governments of this world.

On the colonization of the universe which is your main question. Related to the evolutionary and will to power nature of humans and the world. I think that it would be good in an anarchist-communist global system. After the dictatorship of the working class stage (Socialism, transitional, preparatorial, educational period, pre-anarchist-communist stage), I think that in a global anarcho-communism world, when capitalists will not longer exist. And when the whole world will not be in a revolutionary mode, anti-capitalism mode because capitalists will cease to exist from the phase of the earth. And since there won't be any wars, humans will be less egocentrical, healthier, smarter. The diabetes, cancer, obesity, mental-depression, hepathitis, AIDS and other life-threatening level of diseases will be a lot lower. So humans will be a lot more advanced not only politicallly, but physically, and mentally. I think that after many problems have been solved I think that It would be good for anarchist-communist scientists of our planet earth to think about space exploration, contact with extraterrestrials and to expand mankind to be able to live in other planet. With the help of faster than light-speed traveling and all that ultra-advanced technology


.


.



I just got to wondering what kinda of space programs would we have in a communist world. The science fiction idea of having colonies like the O'Neill cylinder under capitalism seems impossible.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/16/Spacecolony1.jpg/220px-Spacecolony1.jpg

Yet would communism be able to fulfill these dreams of humanity taking to the stars even though they require gargantuan amounts labor prower and spreads humanity across massive distances even if we just settle the rest of our solar system? How does one plan for the such massive mega projects one can build in space?

[ckaihatsu]

Programs! In... Spaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaacccceeee!!!!!!!!


= )

[Psy]

Hi, how are you? well, I have read the political program of Stewart Alexander, candidate for President of the Socialist Party of USA. And in the science and technology section, it says that a government of The Socialist Party of USA in The White House, would increase investment in the search for extraterrestrial technology. Would use NASA for the search for E.T. along with SETI and other organizations related to that. And would also use NASA only for non-military space exploration objectives. As opposed to the current NASA which is used for Imperialist Capitalist objectives. Either for privatists corporate elites to make money with private space flights like the owner of Virgin Airlines, And other current NASA projects that are used mainly to favor the oligarchic ruling classes of USA, Europe and other imperialist oligarchic governments of this world.

I don't see NASA alone able to carry out space exploitation nor that being a good idea. We'd need a international space program for those regions in the communist world with the ability to go into space.

[Psy]

Programs! In... Spaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaacccceeee!!!!!!!!


= )
Well putting men on the moon was the principle of human engineering (and the soviet lunar rover also was a massive engineering feat), simply because capitalists didn't see anything in space to exploit which is the reason the USA also scrapped the Space Shuttle.

[ckaihatsu]

Well putting men on the moon was the principle of human engineering (and the soviet lunar rover also was a massive engineering feat), simply because capitalists didn't see anything in space to exploit which is the reason the USA also scrapped the Space Shuttle.


Back in the postwar era economics was still mostly a matter of *national* business -- add to that the after-war conditions providing a political climate encouraging some kind of triumphalist national identity, kick in the superpower rivalry, and you have yourself a robust space program, unlike now.

I wonder if we'll *ever* see the same concentrations of political power required for the same, *ever again* -- fortunately technological advances means that such activity could be -- and is already -- being democratized, give-or-take, by some commercial ventures. Perhaps not too long-off a weeklong getaway to the moon will be as common as a first-class airplane ticket is today....

[Psy]

I wonder if we'll *ever* see the same concentrations of political power required for the same, *ever again* -- fortunately technological advances means that such activity could be -- and is already -- being democratized, give-or-take, by some commercial ventures. Perhaps not too long-off a weeklong getaway to the moon will be as common as a first-class airplane ticket is today....
We had similar promises with the space shuttle but the labor cost of preventive maintenance ate up a large chunk of NASA's budget as the space shuttle had little tolerance for failures so a army of technicians had to inspect every single component of the shuttle prior to every launch, especially with the solid rocket boosters as once they fire you can't shut them down like liquid fuel rockets.

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

Every Communists goal is to solve humanity problems,not to travel to space.

[Psy]

Every Communists goal is to solve humanity problems,not to travel to space.

One of our problems is being stuck on Earth for two reasons, one our solar system is rich in resources that we can only exploit if we have means of production in space (along with permanent human habituation), next it decentralizes humanity so humanity will survive if Earth stops being able to support life (i.e if Earth is hit by a massive asteroid).

[Dunk]

One thing I think might be interesting to play around with is how the mode of production might "follow" hypothetical space travelers or colonists - or how might a communist world interact with or potentially destabilize a capitalist world, or vice versa.

I'm reading Consider Phlebas, and I'm a pretty big sci-fi geek, so I like to play around with these ideas.