Agricultural land is far from large population centers, so the value is relatively constrained. The real losers on an LVT is not those owning rural land, but the operators of a surface lot near a stadium, or people living in mansions in the innermost suburb ring.
what about privately owned parks or nature centers? i lived in an urban area with a privately held non-profit nature center nearby and it was an important component in my quality of life.
They get taxed less, because instead of taxing their produce and income, their land is taxed, and agro land is very cheap. On a quick google, I can find a 140 acre alfalfa farm in Idaho for $1.4MM ($100k/acre), and a 0.07 acre empty residential dirt lot in NY for $4MM ($54MM/acre).
Land that is far away from developed land will tend to have lower land values, so farmland would not be so highly taxed under LVT. It's mostly land that benefits from being close to development that would be taxed higher.
Australia values every single lot of land for rates (aka council tax). So it is possible with some good stats nerds to figure it out.
But these values take into consideration zoning. So if you are ona residential block it is valued as such. But it would not be hard to figure out what it would be worth as high density. So the valuation problem is easily doable.
Also in Australia each state does it independently.
nope nothing like that at all, like so far away from what i'm thinking. i'm writing what i'm calling "the walking book" about a guy and his dog walking everyday over a lifetime, where the tension of the plot is about all the things that happen throughout all of the different walks
As long as you have a dozen potatoes, some human poop, a sample of earth soil for necessary nutrients and bacteria, and rocket fuel to burn to make water, it should be pretty easy.
If you can’t think of reasons why it would be harder than that, consider that you might want to read up on the problem first before saying it’s easy. For example, you’re assuming compatible soil (no), nutrients (also no), and the absence of toxins (again no).
Another way of looking at: have humans over-wintered in Antarctica without relying on outside inputs? That’s a much easier problem on multiple scales (oxygen, soil, temperature, water, etc.) so I wouldn’t take any mars proposal seriously before they’ve sent the same equipment to Antarctica and survived longer than the proposed mission.
Antarctica isn't this great example people think it is. International treaties require people leave it in as close to its natural condition as possible.
Taking a piss outside is illegal, even peoples crap has to be collected and shipped back home. Any sort of development is essentially impossible.
And that article is an interview with the hipster cartoonist who wrote a largely junk science book on Mars..
Multiple countries have bases in Antarctica, so it seems unlikely that a spacecraft-sized addition to the 50 acre McMurdo station is the proverbial straw on the camel’s back for a continent’s environment. Reusing human waste shouldn’t be a problem, either, since the proposals are to use that as fertilizer - it’s awfully expensive not to use everything that you shipped between planets!
And, yes, I linked to a best-selling popular science book at the level of the conversation here. I should note that the book has two authors, and the first one isn’t the illustrator but the professional biologist. You’re welcome to provide dissenting views if you want, I’m sure they wouldn’t claim to be the last word on the topic.
It's far below the level of discussion here or anywhere where there is discussion with varying views. The reason is that the book is broken in near to every single argument it makes, often intentionally by relying on misleading arguments or assuming the lack of knowledge of the reader -- knowledge which, crucially, I'm fairly certain they themselves had or should have had with even cursory level research on the topic. In a forum with debate those arguments rapidly emerge.
So for instance, their very first effort is to try to 'debunk' the idea of having Mars as a sort of 'backup' to Earth by claiming that even in the case of a doomsday event Earth would still be far more hospitable than Mars. That statement is completely true but also completely irrelevant.
Take a typical doomsday event, an asteroid impact or a supervolcano. Both kill you the same way which isn't the initial event, but rather the sun ending up getting blotted out for years by mass debris/ash not only causing an extreme freeze across the planet, but also ending photosynthesis rapidly killing all plant life which starts a mass extinction on up the food chain to animals that ate those plants then animals that ate those animals and so on.
This is the sort of event that could easily completely kill off humanity, but it's not because it'd make Earth a worse place than Mars. Even at the climax of mass extinction, Earth would still be dramatically more hospitable than Mars. The reason it will be so deadly is because it's so different than the conditions to which we prepare for -- more people die in the desert of drowning than of thirst. An offworld colony in this case would help ensure humanity is perpetuated, Earth is recolonized, rescue survivors, ensure global order, and so on. In fact this is the case for most of all conceivable disasters.
I wanted to dig into more of their arguments but this is already fairly lengthy. If you mention what you found most compelling, I can offer the data (or, as in this case, logic) to the contrary.
Also, I failed to respond to the Antarctica thing. There are small scale greenhouses in Antarctica ensuring the hundreds of people wintering there each year retain access to nice fresh veggies and the like without any external inputs. [1] It's not exactly novel technology, nor difficult to scale.
Right, which is both well known and not the question at hand. The point remains that a closed loop hasn’t been demonstrated under much easier conditions on earth and therefore it’s clearly not the easy task the person I replied to described it as.
All travel in and out of Antarctica is cancelled during the ~7 months of winter. So all of that is being done without external inputs during that time frame. A permanent (or at least practically permanent) closed loop is probably not possible because of the countless treaties. It severely limits what can be built, which local resources can be utilized, and even what you can do with your own waste.
The Antarctic treaties allow for the development of greenhouses, etc., for scientific research purposes (in areas that have already been developed).
And scientists residing there have tried to make a closed-loop system for decades now. They haven't succeeded yet. It's a lot harder to do than fiction and Hollywood would have you believe. Importantly from the Martian colonization perspective: it's irrelevant that the scientists in Antarctic can't use local resources to build their closed loop, because that's part of proving the Martian concept, where there aren't any usable local resources.
You're going to need to cite that because to my knowledge there's been 0 efforts towards any sort of long term self sustainability on Antarctica. The most I know of are the efforts to reduce diesel consumption, but that's probably more gesturing towards this 'green' political stuff than any effort at self sustainability.
And saying there are no usable local resources on Mars is ignorant of basic plans - sunlight, regolith which can be processed, hydrated minerals, CO2, water, and more. In the longer term the other various minerals and metals will also be highly useful, but those I listed are valuable right off the bat and easily accessible.
That's not about long-term sustainability. It's just the doing away with diesel stuff, which is largely irrelevant.
And you're spewing nonsense on Mars - all of the resources I mentioned are obviously directly accessible with minimal energy requirements. The one thing you're right on is that solar will never be a primary source (at least not without extensive and heavily redundant battery backups) because of intermittency and unreliability.
Fortunately we have the Sabatier reaction. [1] CO2 + H2 => methane + water. Given the atmosphere on Mars is about 96% CO2 and H2 is readily extractable from the vast water ice resources (or even the dirt if necessary), we've got access to basically endless methane on Mars. And on Mars we'd love to dump as much as we possibly can into the atmosphere. Early expeditions will also probably bring along some largish radioisotope generators again for the sake of emergency power generation. In a domain where one failure means everybody dies, redundancy is nice.
I think your vision of Mars is based on Hollywood.
The Sabatier reaction is inefficient; as Wikipedia notes, it requires 17 MWh to produce a single ton of methane, not including the energy costs associated with electrolysis of local water sources for the H2. Hydrogen represents about 1/4 of the weight of methane, and so you'd need another roughly 0.4 MWH for the electrolysis, for a total of 17.4 MHh to produce 1 ton of methane.
Each MWh is roughly the energy needed to power 1000 homes. That's not some "largish radioisotopes." That's a full-scale power plant. We don't have many power plants that can produce that sort of output but which are light enough to launch into space or simple enough to be assembled on-site. Solar (the easy option) would require a minimum of 15-20 acres on Mars, and approximately 120 tons of solar panels, not including wiring and other supporting infrastructure. We don't have any spacecraft capable of taking that much weight, so that's multiple orbital launches and multiple spacecraft just to get the solar panels to Mars, and we haven't even started discussing the weight or other equipment needed to get the solar panels down to the surface, let alone transport the habitat modules or other equipment, or the astronauts and colonists making the journey.
TLDR: Mars is a pipe dream with current technology.
I assume you're basically trolling here, but as I mentioned, obviously the radioisotopes would be for emergency power generation - life support in the highly improbable case of all other power sources simultaneously failing, not as a driver for industrial level manufacturing. You're also far off on solar estimates, probably in part because that Wiki page hasn't been updated in well over a decade and solar tech has rather change in the interim. You're looking at ~590W/m2 solar irradiance at Mars' equator, so production of something like ~100W/m^2 with typical consumer panels and perhaps 150W/m^2 with high end panels. So that's in the ballpark of ~0.1 acres for a MWh of production.
Hollywood, so far as Mars is concerned, is mostly based on the Martian which is a hard sci-fi and phenomenally well researched book. The mistakes it made, inadvertently and intentionally, only make Mars colonization even easier than demonstrated. For instance the raging dust storm of the movie (and book) does not exist (and was an intentional fib). Low atmospheric pressure means the most fierce dust storm would have all the force of a very light breeze. And similarly his adventures to extract water from the rocket fuel were completely unnecessary as it turns out the seemingly barren regolith is surprisingly moist at 2-11% water by mass, an unintentional mistake as this was only discovered after the book was published.
It’s done with at least two external inputs (air, water) and far more resource availability than a Mars mission would have. A long-term closed loop isn’t banned by treaties - McMurdo alone is like 50 acres and a hundred buildings, something the size of a plausible interplanetary mission at our current technology level is not going to dramatically exceed that footprint.
Again, I’m not saying it’s inconceivable that it could be done, only that it’s harder than the sales guy would have you believe.
Mars has more than sufficient resources to provide practically endless air and water as well.
Beyond that I think you're also on a red herring here. There's no plan for a long-term closed loop on Mars to begin with. In the distant future most likely, but complete self sustainability is not practical in short to mid term timeframes. That would require essentially duplicating absolutely all forms of industry on Mars which probably will happen but only in the very distant future. In the interim a Mars colony would be receiving regularly shipments from Earth, and those return trips would also enable colonists, who decide it's not for them, to also return to Earth.
Neither Antarctica or Mars should be a problem, as long as you have sufficient energy source, and bring some soil & nutrients with you. After all, people make money growing weed indoors with only electrical lights. My country has freezing and dark winters, yet we enjoy fresh tomatoes all around the year, grown in heated greenhouses with extra artificial light.
I’m not saying it’s beyond possible, only that it’s not “easy”. If someone is saying that we can colonize Mars, it’s orders of magnitude easier to send the same payload to Antarctica and see if it works somewhere that, say, a failure in the air processing system can avoid loss of life by opening the windows.
i hope they try to use cjis data bc it's taken me 6 months to build a system that is technically compliant and it still doesn't fully pass. they definitely will fail the data security policy requirements.
This isnt a dig at you but something i have noticed over the last few weeks. People keep saying X/Y wont be able to do something because of rules, laws, requirements and i have to keep reminding people rules/laws are only as good as those willing to enforce them
reply