A belief is the acceptance of something as being true and says nothing about whether it is from objective (rational, scientific, logical) or subjective (faith, religion, non-logical) reasons. So there are objective beliefs and subjective beliefs. For example, in highly abstract subjects such as mathematics, truth need not be from objective reality, but needs be only logically consistent to, say, an axiom system. The science of quantum mechanics, due to some interpretations of objective data, has many scientists considering that objective reality with its causality as non-existent. The rules of quantum mechanics formed by finding what works in describing reality but are not known as to why they describe, as probabilities, what appears to be objective data .
It is near impossible for one to know whether what one considers to be true today from data, will not later need to be corrected to fit new data. Objectively, all data are from the past due to the speed of propagation of electromagnetic signals. Even one's actions, if not consciously inhibited, can be shown to begin subconsciously before one is aware of the action beginning at which point one may say no, and inhibit the action.
Although the senses through which one receives objective data are natural in origin and give one information about reality, the the data needs to be interpreted depending alcohol and other drug usage as well as for illness and disease. The sense data will be valid but scrambled to a degree, but still objective.

Belief and objectivity are completely incompatible. Belief is the acceptance of something as true on the basis of authority or desire. Objectivity is is the acknowledgement that a proposition is valid based on evidence and your understanding of that evidence. They are two completely different approaches to dealing with reality.

So many things a thin atmosphere does to reduce wall thickness:
1. Radiation shield
2. Meteor shield
3. Cooling
4. Pushes down on a large thin dome for a domed city
Thanks for explaining.

Are sure that the closed form of Objectivism is not the same as a religion? If it is not to be questioned that Rand made no errors, then its belief and application to a society is religion. Your comment seems to indicate that your society would not be a free society but one where everyone would have to worry about being removed. Strong screening would not help in the long run for someone who is rational, since social pressure wound cause great fear of being expelled from the community. You make my case with your last sentence which indicates some inquisitor watching everyone for some infraction of the beliefs held sacred to himself. It would just end in a cult-y place of fear of being rejected. I would not even try to join such a society. I prefer the USA which still has a large amount of freedom of movement and thought and do not wish to join a society where freedom of thought and its expression is watched by someone who takes on the job of a priest.

The idea is not that everyone would be rational. Your example of religious societies is not relevant here because objectivism is not about religion. The idea is that people with similar values and convictions group together through the applying of strong screening measures. It looks like you would probably not pass the test.

In this case, the pressure differential is only part of the equation; but I'll address this part first. When you are talking about the margins, which we are, small differences can result in substantial changes. For example, let us consider the insulating effect of CO2. The vast majority of the benefit is at the bottom end - as CO2 concentration increases, the effect diminishes.

For our purposes, the atmospheric pressure of Mars vs. a free-space habitat or e Lunar (or asteroid) one is amplified by the presence of the planetary body with gravity. The hardest part of pressurization on Mars is keeping the "dome" on the surface! The other effects are, however, more pronounced. I could have been more clear on that, for which I apologize.

Because of the thermal and radiation shielding of the atmosphere, the windows (or dome panes) can be far, far thinner than a free-space counterpart can be. The primary factor in, say, a greenhouse, is shielding the plants from the sun's radiation (UV and heat). In Earth orbit or on Mars, that is a very tall order indeed. The shielding of Mars' atmosphere, however, does most of the work.

The remaining primary concern here is meteorite impact. As you might suspect by now, the atmo shielding handles the heavy lifting here, so you don't have to lift heavy things. Now a secondary concern here I've hinted at is thermal load - i.e., heat buildup. Space is damned cold but has no real wind, so you don't get excess heat carried away in space. That is why the ISS has such huge radiators.

However, Mars' atmosphere helps us with both. We have the wind to carry away excess heat, and shielding to reduce the thermal loading in the first place. Granted, we also have a planet to sink heat into, but still, the other aspects are likewise significant.

This idea was covered a while ago here in the Gulch forum. I still believe that if the Gulch was a purchased island in a remote and good climatic region of the world could work. If a cloaking apparatus is created, would be needed first before occupation. The ocean could provide all the natural resources required. Initial supplies could be brought in by converted stealth high speed cargo vessels similar to SL7 ships.
https://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...
The SL7 ships had the speed but not stealth.
Once the Gulch is operational mini-subs could either be purchased from the outside or built on the island to mine the sea floor for resources. Food could be obtained from the ocean directly and /or establishment of aquaponic stations around the island.
Submarine nets with sensors and high explosives could surround the island. Rail guns could defend the air and surface area,(solar cells and wave energy generators could produce electricity stored in capacitor/battery banks).
I could go on, but you get the idea.

I agree with this. I am sure I am not the only one here with military experience, Some what dated but fundimentals remain the same. Operational security (OPSEC) would be necessary from the very beginning. Over at the Survival Blog this week is a guide to just this whole concept. As far as paying for this, way above my pay grade.

Unfortunately for my utopian ideas, all this makes sense. I think, though, the idea of a nation state will decrease. Nation states started because it was hard to send value, people, and communication over geographical barriers. I see that going away rapidly; I'm not sure how rapidly. In my little corner of the economy, I live in the dairlyland, yet I see high tech springing up everywhere around me, and all of them work with people around the world. A long-distance call to Milwaukee used to be a big deal, but now we do video chats all over the world without a second thought. Jobs typically require trips to China and Europe. I don't see how political structures based on lines on a map can survive past a few more generations.

The nation state is still here, so the realpolitik of arms race is still here too. I am not sure for how long.

@TheRealBill I read this twice because it's so interested and information-dense.
If we ever get past the difficulties you describe caused by the rocket equation, gravity wells, and micro-gee mining itself, it occurs to me that mining isn't very profitable compared to creating "zero-to-one" inventions. In the distant future if there's a mining "town" in space that can collaborate with earth, can send data and money back and forth easily, can send bulk goods back and forth expensively but reliably, the value you could be in the social/economic conditions where people from all backgrounds who have their act together and are seeking happiness go to a place remote enough to be left alone, close enough to trade, and with the dynamism that comes from diverse people living freely. It will be ironic if the economics of mining finally work out, but the profits from mining are insignificant next to the value of the inventions that come from the mining "towns".
2. ". The path to large LEO assembly (such as a Space Elevator) is even cheaper to do from Mars' surface than even from Earth->Belt->LEO."
This is counter-intuitive, but I suspect you're right because you've done so much thought/research.

What makes you think that objectivists are all fully rational? Like any society, an objectivist one would have a variety of beliefs that would cause strife among citizens just as religious societies have had to the point of removing those who do not agree with the majority. Just another way of some deciding that others are too dangerous for their own good and would end with a tiny standard of living as did most religious societies ended with. The USA is good because it has all kinds of conflicting beliefs but way too many incarcerated per capita, second in the world only to a small place in the Caribbean.

After you aid this, I started to recall it from one of Zurbin's books I read ten years ago.

This one point, though, does not ring true:
"The shielding of the atmosphere aids in pressure differential and allows for thin-panes (under an inch) to allow sunlight in for growth."
If the pressure on Mars is 1% of that on Earth, isn't the pressure on Mars zero for construction purposes. I can believe your point about using the atmosphere for breaking because it doesn't take that much to create drag at those velocities. But I don't see how it would matter to building construction whether the pressure is 1% or near vacuum.

If the Leviathan is in the form of one state like the Roman Empire, won't the empire eventually become over-extended, decadent, indebted, corrupt, until it no longer is all-powerful?

Yes, certainly. Any state tends to accumulate more and more power until it needs to be overthrown. And because the public doesn't track history very well, democratic states especially will sooner or later forget their missions and dissipate their strengths.

Both Rome and Britain lost their dominance, though, by failing to keep up with new war technologies that would keep them in first place. In Britain's case, their major military advantages in the 18th century were having the best sailors and the best drilled riflemen. Once other countries got the steamship and the machine gun, those advantages were nullified.

If the nation states of the world engage in an aggressive arms race, doesn't that lead us farther down away from the benevolent hegemony you describe?

Somebody is going to race in arms whether we do or not, at least as long as there is more than one country in the world. Right now it's mostly ourselves and Red China, while other players such as the jihadists try to come up with 4GW strategies that can beat the weapons they don't have. Meanwhile, countries that aren't arms-racing are being destabilized, often by groups that are. This doesn't always make the news.

In a world like that, any libertarian startup (such as proposed independent seasteading operations, or semi-independent cities in Costa Rica) can expect to become a target for pirate/terrorist groups before it's even done forming -- because any such habitat, especially if it can be defended, is something those groups would pay a lot to own. That in turn means the major countries are going to want to prevent its creation. They expect it to become another Afghanistan or Somalia, and unless we make a good defense deal with somebody (which likely means limits on its sovereignty) they are likely right.

Thanks, good to hear. :)

This is precisely the kind of discussion that is necessary! Challenging exotic concepts is part of the process of determining their viability.
This is good stuff.

Sure, other options become available for transit propellant, but any propulsion system short of warp/impulse benefits going to/from Mars just as it does to/From the belt from Earth. If you reduce propellant needed, for example, by 50% due to, say, NEP boost, then it applies to Mars as well. That is where the tech and the economics meet: getting from A to B. Anything that requires a mass-per-distance (including cargo and crewing) expenditure - as well as the buildup of initial velocity (such as getting out of a gravity well), will always favor the route that requires the least of it. Indeed, as the cost comes down, Mars becomes even more attractive.

Think of it like traveling from up a mountain vs. going across the plains. It doesn't matter if you drive an electric car or a gas engine, it will always take less energy to cross the plains. A higher ISP is merely "better fuel economy", it doesn't change the astromechanics of interplanetary flight.

Antimatter rockets are also pure theory at this point (especially proton annihilation ones) but are still rocketry. Thinking about this is an effective way to analyze the seriousness of such companies. Are they touting theoretical propulsion methods that have never been built or even proven, or are they using things we already know how to do? If the former, they aren't going anywhere and are a black hole for cash.

Despite what many want to believe, we don't know how to mine asteroids. Sure, it seems simple, but like many things in zero-g that sound simple, it isn't. Much of our mining know-how is firmly based on large masses in a gravity well "fighting" each other. Even drilling on a large scale (such as a "mere" 50t mining cargo) require a significant amount of rigging and attachment absent a large mass with gravity to anchor it to the object being mined. There is ample opportunity for tremendous research to be done in learning that. It doesn't sound as "sexy" as antimatter rockets, but it is only one step removed from functional rather than several.

This is another major aspect these companies are avoiding: cargo hauler assembly. We're talking at least a thousand tons of mass from Earth to orbit for assembly - even with the theoretical antimatter rockets. Humanity has zero on-orbit transit craft assembly experience. Sure, we put together the ISS, but the ISS doesn't undergo the rigors and pains of interplanetary transit. They swap relatively small tanks of mostly non-cryogenic gasses; nowhere near the scale of mass cryogenic transfer we would need to do for a craft of such size. That aspect is tricky at best and wholly dangerous. A single mishap in such a transfer can ruin the craft (and crew around it).

Not that it can not be done, but that we have to figure it out. Like actual mining of asteroids, that is another field of research that needs to happen before it can become a reality. The so-called asteroid mining ventures we see today just hand-wave that away, just as they do with the actual mining issues absent gravity.

Even further, on-orbit assembly from planetary materials requires the materials be stronger due to the launch rigors. This is where Mars enjoys yet another advantage due to its more shallow gravity well and the distance to the belt. You need less mass for a craft originating from Mars than you do for one for Earth.

The main physical bits you need for such craft that you'd initially need from Earth are the high tech yet lightweight ones such as computing and control systems. Initial construction of interplanetary ships will be more akin to Earth shipbuilding then, say, the Space Shuttle was. Mars' benefits in the cheap "rough and ready" mass construction and launch aspects can be combined with imported high-precision componentry from Earth far cheaper than all-up from Earth can be. The fuel alone for Earth-to-Belt requires more mass than a Mars-built ship requires.

Mars isn't necessarily the "final destination", but the development of the hub that makes humanity (short of Star Trek-like tech discovery) economically able to plumb the depth of the belt, Luna, and anywhere in the solar system. Indeed, that is one thing they did get right in Star Trek: Mars Planetia was the first space-based shipyard they built. They also got it right in "Enterprise" when our first starships were crude and cramped.

We're looking at billions of R&D over decades for theoretical advanced propulsion systems such as antimatter rockets. For less than that costs, we can use existing capability to have a Martian settlement that is building a Tether transit system that eliminates most of the reason d'etre for such rockets until we are ready to go beyond our solar system.

I get the appeal of the fancy dream technologies, I really do. But after spending nearly three decades investigating the full picture from history, tech, R&D, and economics, they need a "miracle jump" just to be feasible. The economics for anything short of miraculous always favor the path going first through Mars. The path to large LEO assembly (such as a Space Elevator) is even cheaper to do from Mars' surface than even from Earth->Belt->LEO. Mars is to conquering the solar system what the sea was to early mankind. Neat ideas such as AMR/Solar Sails and warp fields are more akin to the sky and LEO, respectively, in that analogy.

In the book, as I recall, Hugh Akston mentioned a lot of "the male population of the valley" being ready, near the end, to rescue Galt with weapons.
(As it turned out,of course, Rearden, Dagny, Francisco and Danneskjold were enough--I think those four were all).--But if the place were invaded, there were those others.

You make some very important points and these are among the trade-offs being considered by the (hopefully) new extraterrestrial mining industry. The Delta V required to make to and back from the asteroid belt is greater than that required for Mars missions but propulsion options once you are away from deep gravity wells are expanded considerably. High specific impulse low thrust systems become attractive as does solar sailing. As a result asteroid mining becomes a bit more realistic. One of the companies looking at this is taking the first step of funding a series of probes that will analyze asteroid composition to see what, if any, useful materials are present. Another is taking a serious look at positron annihilation propulsion systems and that could be a real game changer. In the final analysis it comes down to two fundamental realities; technology and economics. That is where objectivism comes in.

"Asteroid mining has the lowest cost in terms of propulsion. "

Not really. From Earth surface to Ceres, for example (any other in the belt will be similar), the required delta-v is almost 19 km/s with a mass ratio of almost 153. From Earth surface to Mars surface requires only 9 km/s and a mass ratio of 12.5. It doesn't matter what fuel you use, you need less of it to go to Mars than to the belt. The numbers are 15x higher to go to Ceres than to Mars. And that is just getting there.

The belt has the same problem the moon does: you have to also carry the fuel and requisite mass to slow down - especially to "capture" to an asteroid with no appreciable gravity and zero atmosphere. So not only does it take more fuel to get there, you have to dedicate a huge chunk of your mass budget to that fuel. This amplifies the difference. For Mars you don't have to take return fuel, and don't have to take water and air for the mining period - those can easily be made in situ before your mining barge sets out. This leverages the advantages of Mars regarding propulsion.

Now, from the surface of Mars to Ceres, or anywhere in the belt, you'd have got a fair point. From Mars to Ceres is cheap by comparison. Mining of the belt will take place, if economically driven, from Mars, not Earth. For a roughly 50 ton cargo freighter you are looking at dry ship mass of around 95 tons.

From Earth that will require about 1200 tons of fuel (Meth/Ox since LoX and H do not store well in space) for the transit propellant alone. In order to put that mass into orbit for assembly, you're looking at a total launch-from-Earth-surface mass of nearly 110,000 tons including the propellant.

To do the exact same thing from Mars' surface requires only a total of about 2000 tons. With a difference factor of over 50x, Mars enjoys a tremendous advantage.

Now to note, these do not include food, air, and water for the crew for their mining stay since we don't know how long they will have to stay. But clearly, even just getting there, hitching some cargo into the hold for terrestrial processing, and coming back is seriously more expensive from Earth than Mars. You can build out the Mars settlement and facilities for less than the cost of the first Earth-based freighter mission. That said, since the trip from Mars to the belt is much shorter, crew requirements will be lower for Martian mining freighters than Earth based ones.

Space elevators ... that benefits Mars even more. Mars based "skyhook elevators" are workable with existing technology and know-how. You bootstrap the entire solar system transit routes from Mars.

1. Build Mars base
2. Build Mars skyhook (2.62 hour cycle, (6 touchdown spots")
3. Build Mars Orbit Tether Launch System (TLS) to Belt using Martian material
4. Build Belt to Mars TLS using material from Belt/Mars
5. Build Mars Orbit to Earth TLS using material from Belt/Mars
6. Build Earth orbit to Mars TLS using material from Belt/Mars

Now you've got an interplanetary transit system which can transport cargo between Belt and Mars for nearly free (figure on roughly 10% "mass surcharge for each tether you transit") from a propellant context. You can also do the same between Mars and Earth orbit though with a bit more cost for orbital maneuvering. You could also build a hook system for Luna using Martian/Belt source material cheaper than from Earth.

From a technological development level and from an economic level, this is the path of least resistance. We could skip the Belt tether and mining in the beginning and start with the Mars hook, follow that with the Mars -> Earth TLS, then build the Earth-Mars TLS using Martian source material. That would establish a lane between Mars and Earth for high-tech development shipping. But I'd prefer to go to mars then the Belt from Mars because it opens up everything else so much more cost-effectively, and gives Mars a solid revenue and precious metals supply.

Also note that the construction of the Martian skyhook opens up the planet even more so. With its orbital period of 2.62 hours it would have "6 stops" around the planet from which to build further bases/colonies/facilities Sure the commute between them can be long (since it only goes one way) but man what a ride.

Until we come up with Star Trek style propulsion, mass is king in space travel. With mass being king, then propellant is the driver of cost. By every objective measure, Mars is the most economical of the considered destinations and has the most to leverage for future growth.

Free-space colonies will need incredible amounts of mass to get started and large amounts of power. From Earth, it is prohibitively expensive. Mars is doable with known technology for less than any other destination - including LEO or Luna. To build those colonies you'll need significant manufacturing, and that won't happen without a solid an inexpensive production capability. You won't get that from Earth, and the Belt lacks the startup resources.

I've posted about it before, I think. The long and short of it is that for the moon you have to take "slow down fuel" to bleed off all the "Delta-v" enough to do orbital capture. For Mars, you can aerobrake using the Martian atmosphere. That covers the function of distance anyway. As the saying goes, "once you've it orbit you are halfway to everywhere". The orbital mechanics and velocity changes required makes it cheaper from a mass transit perspective to send cargo from Mars to Luna's surface than from Earth's. Fuel costs are tremendous, so launching a ship to Luna just to orbit takes so much more fuel than that same mass going to mars to land that the costs on that aspect alone are a major win for Mars.

For the rest of it, the Martian atmosphere results in a dramatically lower shielding mass requirement. We can do it with what essentially a form of plexiglass for domes with Roman brick building inside. The shielding of the atmosphere aids in pressure differential and allows for thin-panes (under an inch) to allow sunlight in for growth. By comparison, the glass needed for Luna greenhouses is measured in feet.

Finally, the last major piece (I can go on for a while if I don't limit it :) ) is that with some gas-lamp era technology and some hydrogen feedstock we can simply manufacture all the air, fuel, and water we need. We also have dirt ready for being turned into soil with just a bit of compost. Plus the lunar dust is insidious and highly destructive through ultra-fine abrasion. Martian dust, however, is composed of dirt/sand that has been ground down via winds.

This is intriguing.

If the Leviathan is in the form of one state like the Roman Empire, won't the empire eventually become over-extended, decadent, indebted, corrupt, until it no longer is all-powerful?

You said the current state of affairs is one in which there is no Rome-like empire in the world, filling the role of that benevolent Leviathan. Isn't the US in that role? US spends the most on war, so whenever something happens in the world, people ask what US is going to do about it more than they ask any other nation.

If the nation states of the world engage in an aggressive arms race, doesn't that lead us farther down away from the benevolent hegemony you describe?

BTW, I first heard about that book on Larry King at age 12, and I recall finding the phrase Blood in the Streets ghastly because I imagined it literally. I did not follow any of the discussion of the book at that age, but I remember the title.

My take is that the answer depends mostly on who has a lead, and how much of one, in weapons technology.

Historically, the world has gone through two kinds of phases in this regard. When one country has a commanding lead, they are able to cheaply form and preserve a colonial empire (Rome, or the Pax Britannica). If the empire is run by people who aren't fools, they impose free trade on everybody, and the world is relatively prosperous.

But when anyone on earth with enough money can buy or make the best weapons, then you have a period like the present, in which large empires break up rather than form, because the near-equality in weapons makes it expensive to conquer or hold onto hostile territory. Theft, terrorism and piracy, and destruction for the nihilist hell of it become common even if almost nobody wants them, because they are much easier and cheaper to do than to prevent.

This is why I'm in favor of colonialism, and of aggressively arms-racing in order to become and remain the top power. For all its unfairness, this strategy is the only way to stay prosperous or even safe long-term.

(This is a much-condensed version of the philosophy expressed in Davidson and Rees-Mogg's Blood In The Streets and its sequels.)

Granted, this does not directly apply to a "Gulch" like community. To answer the original question, I can only say yes, some form of military forces will eventually be required, even if the group can at first avoid the need by hiding well.

All comments are irrelevant. It is a bit of a science fiction book. We can just make up a anything we want.

I am sure most objectivists would take the same steps as people convinced of any other ideology. Stand and defend a physical attack, reason with intellectual attack, defund any financial attackers if possible.

A living breathing Gulch is a challenge for this reason. Even if a group successfully declared independence, lived apart from the systems of society at large, there would be those who would seek to destroy it. The most dangerous attacks are from those who assimilate only to attack from within. At present, there is little way to predetermine the thoughts and intents of human nature of others. It appears the strongest defense of the Gulch culture is in the individual's ability to protect and defend their own self, family and home. Rational self interest serves the group. Homes that are safely defended lend to towns being safely defended. Incidentally, the Gulch culture does not exist or survive apart from the individual protecting their own castle and livelihood with some prejudice.

By an old dry bulk carrier and convert it into a floating hamlet have a few smaller vessels for fishing and supply runs. Northern waters in the summer , southern waters in the winter.