Unless there is a significant leap in tech, I don't think either will get there any time soon with humans.The tech is there, or at least only a development budget away. It's been there for ages, and has been steadily improving. Just nobody has bothered to try to pay for it until now. Elon Musk has the will to do it and has figured out how to make launch vehicles massively cheaper so he can afford to do it with the profits from a satellite launch service. Yeah, there is a lot that still needs to be designed, but a lot of that is already being worked on. Musk isn't just building reusable rockets, electric cars, and tunnel building machines just because they are neat. They all fit into the picture and are needed for a Mars colony. Decades ago a fleet of Saturn Vs could have been built, the transport ships could have been designed, the mars landers could have been made, and habitats built, but the will of the people wasn't behind it. Musk doesn't have to listen to the will of the people, not even shareholders. Just his own will. Notice that SpaceX is controlled by him, not shareholders. The profits can remain dedicated to the task.
Unless there is a significant leap in tech, I don't think either will get there any time soon with humans.
American exploration and innovation has generally been led by entrepreneurs. NASA is the exception. I am glad to see the private sector leading again.
Company which is preventing ULA from uncontrollably sucking taxpayer money by being very competitive. FYI NASA never built it's own rockets. Not to say most Spacex launches are commercial/foreign government.American exploration and innovation has generally been led by entrepreneurs. NASA is the exception. I am glad to see the private sector leading again.
It's a kind of funny, almost machiavellian twist of words to call "private sector enterpreneur" a company that's designed solely to suck public money by the millions^W billions, to do for a profit the job the NASA ought to be doing instead, isn't it?
During the joint Senate-NASA presentation in September 2011, it was stated that the SLS program had a projected development cost of $18 billion through 2017, with $10 billion for the SLS rocket, $6 billion for the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle and $2 billion for upgrades to the launch pad and other facilities at Kennedy Space Center.[19] These costs and schedule were considered optimistic in an independent 2011 cost assessment report by Booz Allen Hamilton for NASA.[90] An unofficial 2011 NASA document estimated the cost of the program through 2025 to total at least $41bn for four 95 t launches (1 uncrewed, 3 crewed),[2][3] with the 130 t version ready no earlier than 2030.[91]
The Human Exploration Framework Team (HEFT) estimated unit costs for Block 0 at $1.6bn and Block 1 at $1.86bn in 2010.[92] However, since these estimates were made the Block 0 SLS vehicle was dropped in late 2011, and the design was not completed.[93] The Space Review estimated the cost per launch at $5 billion, depending on the rate of launches.[94][95] NASA announced in 2013 that the European Space Agency will build the Orion Service Module.[96]
Of course NASA can subcontract subassemblies, bolts and nuts, but subcontract the whole damn thing that's their task to do? How come? Why?NASA's hands were tied by a bunch of special interest groups setting the parameters they could work by. Additionally part of the goal was to develop the technologies in a way that they could also be of greater use to the nation. Yes, it was a huge new technology development effort and technology transfer to industry. In some cases industry just needed deep pockets to pursue a project that they otherwise couldn't see the profit in doing. Take a look at the history of the IC. As a nation we gained a huge advantage from it. Also NASA needed to keep their best engineers working on the big design issues, not solving production headaches.
SpaceX are however different. Not only are they willing to make mistakes they treat those mistakes as part of the engineering process and then they try again, and again, and again until things start to work.
[...]
Now get your ass to Mars!!
I seam to recall SpaceX already has a payload on the way to Mars. I expect many more before any human goes. They seam to be doing their testing before humans are part of the equation.SpaceX are however different. Not only are they willing to make mistakes they treat those mistakes as part of the engineering process and then they try again, and again, and again until things start to work.
[...]
Now get your ass to Mars!!
Any chance that the "make mistakes, then try again and again" paradigm would change once human pilots and passengers get involved? :-\
Soviets taken humans and dogs outside, with less budget, techology and time than spaceX. Some of their designs still are in use (Soyuz, Energia rockets).Energia is not in use for decades. It was used to launch Buran spacecraft. As making it with lower budget, it's certainly not true when compared with Spacex. Also currently Soyuz and Proton are more expensive than Falcon.
FWIW there was not a single human death and only 2 failures of Falcon 9 (the cause was found and fixed). You can't count landing attempt failures as launch failures. They were additional landing test missions after launch already happened. Since they got it right, every landing was successful except center booster of Falcon heavy (test mission and quiet different from F9 booster). Nobody else got the landing right, Blue Origin don't really count as it's not something that can place any payload into orbit. Spacex tests everything as much as possible, including firing engines on fully assembled rocket unlike anyone else. They try to not use anything non testable before use. For this reason they don't use pyro separation like others but hydraulic instead. Also unlike anyone else they take used rocket apart and inspect it, thus are able to find issues which others can't. Space shuttle was the most dangerous manned space vehicle. Both catastrophes were caused by already known problems which were not fixed and continued to use as is. Particularly solid booster seal issues and thermal tile issues.SpaceX are however different. Not only are they willing to make mistakes they treat those mistakes as part of the engineering process and then they try again, and again, and again until things start to work.
[...]
Now get your ass to Mars!!
Any chance that the "make mistakes, then try again and again" paradigm would change once human pilots and passengers get involved? :-\
SpaceX are however different. Not only are they willing to make mistakes they treat those mistakes as part of the engineering process and then they try again, and again, and again until things start to work.
[...]
Now get your ass to Mars!!
Any chance that the "make mistakes, then try again and again" paradigm would change once human pilots and passengers get involved? :-\
US Presidents can propose budgets, make requests, and threaten vetos, but in the end it's still Congress that actually allocates funds to NASA.
Which of course is hundreds of people with political agendas that have trouble getting on the same page even within the groups that are theoretically on the same side of issues.
Also unlike anyone else they take used rocket apart and inspect it, thus are able to find issues which others can't. Space shuttle was the most dangerous manned space vehicle. Both catastrophes were caused by already known problems which were not fixed and continued to use as is.
SRB O-ring failure was known for 9 years and still not fixed.Also unlike anyone else they take used rocket apart and inspect it, thus are able to find issues which others can't. Space shuttle was the most dangerous manned space vehicle. Both catastrophes were caused by already known problems which were not fixed and continued to use as is.
And if you think Space-X aren't eventually going to get over-confident and get complacent and/or get pressured to meet schedules, then I've got a moon rock to sell you. It'll happen, just wait...
In some cases industry just needed deep pockets to pursue a project that they otherwise couldn't see the profit in doing. Take a look at the history of the IC.Would you go as far as saying that we wouldn't have ICs if it were not for NASA?
No, but it is the feeling of many that they would have not come as early as they did.In some cases industry just needed deep pockets to pursue a project that they otherwise couldn't see the profit in doing. Take a look at the history of the IC.Would you go as far as saying that we wouldn't have ICs if it were not for NASA?
Yep, and this will be the huge test, when someone dies in a Space-X mission (it's probably inevitable).No, in a few years it will be " beat the Chinese to Mars" space race.
And let's hope that Space-X is profitable, because if it's run like Tesla, then the wheels might eventually fall off the billy cart just because of that. Although I suspect NASA and hence the government won't let that happen.
Musk isn't that rich that he can fund Mars mission on his own, the company has to fund all this mars stuff through the profitable missions.
No bucks, no buck rogers.
So if/when a human accident happens, that will put a huge halt to things for a long time at the very least. There won't be any "beat the ruskies" 60's era go-fever to help it.
I don't understand this geek fascination with space.It's not just a geek thing, regular people are interested too. The fact that you don't understand is something that I feel lessens your experience in life. I'm not saying you need to share their fascination, but making a bit of an effort to understand it is, IMHO, invaluable. I don't understand people who collect string - but I accept they find interest in it.
It's a dead endHardly - but I suppose it depends on what you see the objectives are.
no one's going anywhere.I find that rather mediaeval thinking.
Deal with it.I could say the same.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39cjZTCay24 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39cjZTCay24)
And let's hope that Space-X is profitable, because if it's run like Tesla, then the wheels might eventually fall off the billy cart just because of that. Although I suspect NASA and hence the government won't let that happen.Companies designed to suck public money need not be profitable to survive.
Except this has nothing to do with SpaceX and Tesla did not receive any of that as money. Having reduced tax is not the same as sucking taxpayer money. Also a very large part of that figure is over next 10-20 years, thus not that significant if you look at it annually.And let's hope that Space-X is profitable, because if it's run like Tesla, then the wheels might eventually fall off the billy cart just because of that. Although I suspect NASA and hence the government won't let that happen.Companies designed to suck public money don't have to be profitable to survive.
https://ideapod.com/elon-musks-business-empire-fueled-4-9-billion-government-subsidies-businesses-self-sustainable/
That Canadian space guy who played and sang David Bowie major Tom
Except [..] Tesla did not receive any of that as money.https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/if-tesla-is-worth-more-than-gm-why-are-taxpayers-still-subsidizing-it/ (https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/if-tesla-is-worth-more-than-gm-why-are-taxpayers-still-subsidizing-it/)
For every Tesla car sold (up to No. 200,000), federal taxpayers kick in $7,500 to lower the costs. State taxpayers in a multitude of states pony up still more. In Colorado, they contribute another $5,000 to the electric car kitty, in California, it's $2,500.
When the Los Angeles Times crunched the numbers two years ago, it found that Tesla buyers had received more than $284 million in federal tax incentives and more than $38 million in California rebates. And that was before Tesla's banner 2016 year.
The taxpayer help only starts there. Tesla also collects hundreds of millions from competing automakers by selling environmental credits in California and more than half a dozen other states to car companies that can't meet the states' "zero emissions" sales mandates.
Plus, Nevada ponied up $1.3 billion in incentives to convince Tesla to build its huge battery factory near Reno.
And this doesn't include the fact that electric car owners don't pay into the Highway Trust Fund — which is funded by the per-gallon tax on gasoline and pays for road construction and upkeep.
[..]
That is a lot of welfare-for-the-rich for very little environmental benefit.
And what is the point posting that?A bit of history of rocketry, just for your info.
Except [..] Tesla did not receive any of that as money.https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/if-tesla-is-worth-more-than-gm-why-are-taxpayers-still-subsidizing-it/ (https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/if-tesla-is-worth-more-than-gm-why-are-taxpayers-still-subsidizing-it/)
...
None of that rebuffs what I said. Except [..] Tesla did not receive any of that as money.
systemic deficiencies with SpaceX rockets and systemsThat's some BS reporting. Systemic deficiencies, do they dare to show them?
Yep, let's not differentiate between SpaceX and Tesla :palm:. Supposedly it does not matter they are 2 separate companies. What I said about Tesla is about Tesla. What I said about SpaceX is about SpaceX. Very nice to take a quote about Tesla and rebuff it with low quality reporting about SpaceX. I read more of it, they mentioned and linked NASA report about non-conformities. A little issue with that, they forgot to mention that ULA was not any better.None of that rebuffs what I said. Except [..] Tesla did not receive any of that as money.
To an extent it does!
https://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2018/02/02/is_spacex_wasting_taxpayer_dollars_110494.html (https://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2018/02/02/is_spacex_wasting_taxpayer_dollars_110494.html)
None is rebuffing anything,,, well maybe you do, point are no matter Tesla,Musk, Spacex, ULA, Kaddafi, King Kong, NASA, they all para siting on taxpayers money one way or the other, you just dont what to see or hear that......as an Musk fan boi! ;)
None is rebuffing anything,,, well maybe you do, point are no matter Tesla,Musk, Spacex, ULA, Kaddafi, King Kong, NASA, they all para siting on taxpayers money one way or the other, you just dont what to see or hear that......as an Musk fan boi! ;)
In one sense you are right, but in that sense you left some off like ESA, Arianespace, BAE and others. Along with everyone using one of the satellite location services like GPS.
In another sense you are wrong. People are making (and or saving) money with comsats, earth observation, satellite TV, and others. And those people are paying for launch services and space vehicles. Are those subsidized through launch facilities and other things. Sure. Just like the roads you drive your car on.
If using roads, postal services, libraries and other similar public facilities makes you a parasite, call me a happy parasite.
NASA's entire 2018 budget is under $20 billion which is less than 0.5% of the total federal budget. The Department of Defense burns through that much money in less than two weeks.
The money spent by NASA on space exploration is a drop in the bucket when compared to the entire US federal budget and it's probably worth it for the entertainment value alone.
The attitude of the company and the people who work there. I'm a space geek, I've always been a space geek and the thought of a man or woman walking on Mars is enough to make the hairs on the back of my neck stand on end. NASA are however too cautious, the two shuttle failures have beaten the spirit out of the organization and now they only want to take the tiniest of baby steps. They might, maybe, make it to Mars by 2030 but it's more likely that they will piss away their time in low Earth orbit.Sorry, but this has to be one of the most idiotic (or at minimum, profoundly uninformed) things I’ve read in a while.
SpaceX are however different. Not only are they willing to make mistakes they treat those mistakes as part of the engineering process and then they try again, and again, and again until things start to work. This is what NASA did in the 1950's and 1960's until they ended up with Armstrong's 'one small step'. What's prompted this little piece? Someone sent me a link to the SpaceX Youtube channel where there are lots of cool rocket launches, and there's THIS! [...]
And I’m not sure how you can see innovation and inspiration in a video showing failures as silly as “ran out of fuel”. That, to me, just plain shows poor design or planning.So poor that nobody else besides them got landing working. All other space companies and most people overall were laughing about their "silly attempts" those days. Now nobody in those companies is laughing because SpaceX ate a lot of their market share. How to see inspiration? This video was created by SpaceX themselves and posted on their own channel. Those all were landing attempts before they got technology working. Once they got landing working, now it seems more like a routine operation.
silly as “ran out of fuel”.About this I certainly can repeat your "most idiotic (or at minimum, profoundly uninformed) things I’ve read in a while."
Quoteno one's going anywhere.I find that rather mediaeval thinking.
Quoteno one's going anywhere.I find that rather mediaeval thinking.
I prefer that to child-like magical thinking.
www.distancetomars.com (http://www.distancetomars.com)
Antarctica during six months of dark winter is more hospitable to human life than Mars, where's your rush to colonize that?
NASA sent a small hatchback (https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_599.html) to Mars almost 40 years ago. Who is SpaceX "beating" to Mars here?
Are you software dreamers thinking of sending people???
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/10/why-not-space/ (https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/10/why-not-space/)
Reality is not like software; you can't just download a new reality when the old one doesn't satisfy you. Reality doesn't care about your thinking, your dreams, or where you believe you'll retire.
Grow up. We don't even have the Concorde anymore and you guys are picking out the counter finish on your Mars condos? :-DD
Antarctica during six months of dark winter is more hospitable to human life than Mars
Grow up. We don't even have the Concorde anymore and you guys are picking out the counter finish on your Mars condos? :-DD
Antarctica during six months of dark winter is more hospitable to human life than Mars
It has that small thing called oxygen ;DQuoteGrow up. We don't even have the Concorde anymore and you guys are picking out the counter finish on your Mars condos? :-DD
Living on Mars for say the first 50 years after first settlement will still be nothing like the movies. It'll be a pathetic, cramped, bleak existence. There won't even be Johnny Cab or three boob mutants.
I didn't like Andy Weirs new book about the moon as much as The Martian, but his description of a practical colony on the moon sounds at least realistic compared to setting up a Mars colony.
We can get a lot more tonnage to the moon much cheaper and quicker, and tourists could take realistic two week long vacations there.
Mars is more hospitable to larger scale colonisation for sure, but several orders of magnitude more tricky.
The idea is to spread humanity beyond the Earth in case of a cosmic catastrophe.
The idea is to spread humanity beyond the Earth in case of a cosmic catastrophe.
:palm: You're an engineer who slams ridiculous concepts for a living, but lose your marbles over sci-fi daydreams. This space crap is a modern religion.
Why would tourists go to the Moon for two weeks? Just drop them in the desert and kick them for two weeks. I'll do it cheap!!
Quoteno one's going anywhere.I find that rather mediaeval thinking.
I prefer that to child-like magical thinking.
www.distancetomars.com (http://www.distancetomars.com)
Antarctica during six months of dark winter is more hospitable to human life than Mars, where's your rush to colonize that?
NASA sent a small hatchback (https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_599.html) to Mars almost 40 years ago. Who is SpaceX "beating" to Mars here?
Are you software dreamers thinking of sending people???
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/10/why-not-space/ (https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/10/why-not-space/)
Reality is not like software; you can't just download a new reality when the old one doesn't satisfy you. Reality doesn't care about your thinking, your dreams, or where you believe you'll retire.
Grow up. We don't even have the Concorde anymore and you guys are picking out the counter finish on your Mars condos? :-DD
The idea is to spread humanity beyond the Earth in case of a cosmic catastrophe. No one is rushing to colonize Antarctica (located on the Earth) because it's irrelevant. It's a difficult problem to solve, but certainly not unattainable.
The same 'software' dreamers, as you call them, managed to land a rocket vertically in the middle of an ocean. Not so long ago it was considered science fiction. Give it some time and it will happen. I don't understand your point of view. What exactly do you propose? To do nothing at all?
:palm: You're an engineer who slams ridiculous concepts for a living, but lose your marbles over sci-fi daydreams. This space crap is a modern religion.
Why would tourists go to the Moon for two weeks? Just drop them in the desert and kick them for two weeks. I'll do it cheap!!
Are you serious?
If going to the moon was safe enough and relatively cheap enough, you would have a line a mile long for people wanting to pay top dollar for the experience of a lifetime, the ultimate bucket list item.
We already have rich people paying $20M a pop for the "trip of a lifetime" just a few hundred km above our heads.
That's about to get ever cheaper and more consumer friendly with Space-X or others no doubt.
It's practically guaranteed that individuals will continue to pay money for "space tourism".
Heck, you wouldn't even need to land on the moon, people would be lining up to take a trip around the back side and seeing it up close and doing the thumb thing with the earth in the window. Or landing and having a day walk around could be a package option, no need for a colony.
This is the complete opposite of a daydream, a space tourism lap around the moon is practically doable right now.
As someone who was born before Sputnik, and who both lived thru some of the coldest Cold War periods and the height of the Space Race, I can tell you that the Space Race was a very essential component of the Cold War.
The Space Race objectives were not only showing the rest of the World whose system was better, but the science and technology development involved with it, had immediate and very real military applications.
I don't see an existential threat like the Cold War today, and therefore neither the government nor the public is interested as much as it used to be.
Bullshit. It's been possible for decades. It always dies on the vine.
"If going to the moon was safe enough and relatively cheap enough,"
Yeah and if my grandma had wings she'd be an F-15. So what? It's all just bullshit dreams, Dave.
Going up in MiG-29 is not just "practically" doable, it is LITERALLY doable. How many do it? Did you?
Why not? Because you are more attracted to the dream than the reality. If everyone COULD go to the Moon, you'd want something even more exotic because this isn't about space, it's about a dream. You'd want to visit the core of Jupiter instead because THAT's unattainable.
That's fine, just don't confuse daydreams with the toxic space religiosity or sci-fi nonsense of children who grew up on TV and no critical thinking skills.
The idea is to spread humanity beyond the Earth in case of a cosmic catastrophe.
Paraphrasing Neil Tyson:
Whatever it takes to ship a million (insert your own number) people to Mars and make them permanently sustainable in a terraformed environment suitable for continuation of the species in the absence of Earth blowing up. It would be way easier to deflect the asteroid, control the virus, or reverse climate change, or fix whatever threatened earth.
People love to argue about the little stuff, but if you look at where American taxpayer money ends up (I say American because that's where I live and what I'm familiar with, not because I'm not aware other countries exist) our military expenditures absolutely dwarf everything else. NASA, the cost of healthcare, the cost of college education, and even smaller, even more hot button issues like welfare, that's all peanuts compared to what we spend on military. That's not to say I don't support our soldiers but come on, if there's fat to trim that's the place to look! I'd like to stop blowing up other places for a bit and focus on home.
The United States Army’s finances are so jumbled it had to make trillions of dollars of improper accounting adjustments to create an illusion that its books are balanced.
on a planet quite literally perfectly designed to promote our survival, we would be able to survive on another planet.Obviously you don't understand evolution. The planet wasn't designed for us. We evolved to survive on it.
People love to argue about the little stuff, but if you look at where American taxpayer money ends up (I say American because that's where I live and what I'm familiar with, not because I'm not aware other countries exist) our military expenditures absolutely dwarf everything else. NASA, the cost of healthcare, the cost of college education, and even smaller, even more hot button issues like welfare, that's all peanuts compared to what we spend on military. That's not to say I don't support our soldiers but come on, if there's fat to trim that's the place to look! I'd like to stop blowing up other places for a bit and focus on home.Oh please stop you stupidity! I have in several threads mentioned the mysteriously disappearance of 21 trillion USD getting ridiculed by your fellow citizens for it now you trying to make point of very same Pentagon spending and you didnt know it was 21 trillions, as if i dont know how the corrupt USA works. The soldiers is not yours but the oligarchs mercenaries im not baffled you support such pathetic criminal crap! There is a reason USA is the planet laughing stock so MAGA and Covfefe!
We will probably blow ourselves up here eventually anyway. If humans manage to spread to another planet it won't take long for fighting to break out there too, only if it's a completely lifeless planet that we colonize there won't be the huge diversity of other species around. I suspect at least the first several attempts at colonizing another planet will fairly quickly end in catastrophe of one sort or another. Eventually something might work out but I think we're a long way off.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-audit-army/u-s-army-fudged-its-accounts-by-trillions-of-dollars-auditor-finds-idUSKCN10U1IG (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-audit-army/u-s-army-fudged-its-accounts-by-trillions-of-dollars-auditor-finds-idUSKCN10U1IG)QuoteThe United States Army’s finances are so jumbled it had to make trillions of dollars of improper accounting adjustments to create an illusion that its books are balanced.
People love to argue about the little stuff, but if you look at where American taxpayer money ends up (I say American because that's where I live and what I'm familiar with, not because I'm not aware other countries exist) our military expenditures absolutely dwarf everything else. NASA, the cost of healthcare, the cost of college education, and even smaller, even more hot button issues like welfare, that's all peanuts compared to what we spend on military. That's not to say I don't support our soldiers but come on, if there's fat to trim that's the place to look! I'd like to stop blowing up other places for a bit and focus on home.Oh please stop you stupidity! I have in several threads mentioned the mysteriously disappearance of 21 trillion USD getting ridiculed by your fellow citizens for it now you trying to make point of very same Pentagon spending and you didnt know it was 21 trillions, as if i dont know how the corrupt USA works. The soldiers is not yours but the oligarchs mercenaries im not baffled you support such pathetic criminal crap! There is a reason USA is the planet laughing stock so MAGA and Covfefe!
Have you figured out why your so called fellow soldiers still invading and stationary in Afghanistan do you?
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-audit-army/u-s-army-fudged-its-accounts-by-trillions-of-dollars-auditor-finds-idUSKCN10U1IG (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-audit-army/u-s-army-fudged-its-accounts-by-trillions-of-dollars-auditor-finds-idUSKCN10U1IG)QuoteThe United States Army’s finances are so jumbled it had to make trillions of dollars of improper accounting adjustments to create an illusion that its books are balanced.
How is this not the single most important thing being investigated by Congress?
It’s all about who owns Congess Dave.But it's Elon Musk gets called out by media as a top donor after donating $40k to GOP (DNC too but only few mentioned) :palm:.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-audit-army/u-s-army-fudged-its-accounts-by-trillions-of-dollars-auditor-finds-idUSKCN10U1IG (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-audit-army/u-s-army-fudged-its-accounts-by-trillions-of-dollars-auditor-finds-idUSKCN10U1IG)QuoteThe United States Army’s finances are so jumbled it had to make trillions of dollars of improper accounting adjustments to create an illusion that its books are balanced.
How is this not the single most important thing being investigated by Congress?
It’s all about who owns Congess (https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?Ind=D) Dave.
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/why-spacex-are-going-to-beat-nasa-to-mars/?action=dlattach;attach=479531;image)
The only answer IMO is full public financing of elections and once you leave congress, a lifetime ban on lobbying or working in any industry you were involved in regulating. I know, it will never happen, but I can dream...In theory I agree, yet in practice, that’d be impossible in some industries. For example, if you’re a nuclear physicist, you’ve really only got 3 major types of employers: the government, nuclear power, or nuclear physics research. So if we instituted a “no revolving doors” law, anyone who worked for the government could never work for the others, and so if they left the government, they’d de facto have to choose a new, unrelated career. And to be sure, we need for regulators to be deeply knowledgeable about the fields they regulate. When they aren’t, we get shit like the horrible net neutrality laws, the attempted laws on encryption (Clipper Chip, remember that??), and the US government’s panel on vaccines. Did you hear about that last one? Because they don’t want it to be “biased” by vaccine researchers, they expressly avoid any members with any background in vaccine research... |O :palm: |O :o :palm: :wtf: >:( |O
How is this not the single most important thing being investigated by Congress?
It’s all about who owns Congess (https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?Ind=D) Dave.
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/why-spacex-are-going-to-beat-nasa-to-mars/?action=dlattach;attach=479531;image)
The really sad thing is that our Congress critters have been so successfully bought (or so successfully sold themselves) that these numbers are hardly influential. While the numbers in the chart look huge, they are a tiny fraction of the net worth of all but the newest and least influential, even if focused on only a couple of people.
. But under US law, corporations cannot donate to political campaigns. (They can donate to allegedly-independent PACs, but that is not what this chart describes.)That is a distinction without meaning. Corporations cannot only donate to a PAC that is specifically dedicated to electing an individual, but they can also donate to local or national party "committees" whose sole focus may be electing one particular individual ("The committee to elect John Smith"). In the end the result is that individual corporations or industries can indeed donate very large amounts of money to particular candidates. Which is, for example, how Koch Industries alone has been able to donate $6.5 million just so far in the 2018 election cycle. (https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=d000000186)
If you've ever donated to a political campaign, you are required to disclose the name of your employer.Not really true - it's only true for donations > $200. I've donated to several candidates campaigns without disclosing my profession or employer.
Remember, for a federal campaign, a US citizen is allowed to contribute something like only $4600 to each candidate.
So the real money influence on campaigns comes not from individual donations, but from the super PACs legalized by the Citizens United decision, which basically allowed unlimited money contributed by anonymous people to run "issue ads" supporting preferred candidates and blasting opposition. The real money influence comes from lobbyists who can promise "jobs" in a district , and they can sweep that PAC money to a candidate.
NASA's budget is absolutely tiny in the grand scheme of things, it's no wonder they haven't undertaken anything really monumental in a long time.Yes, exactly. There isn't even any scientific reason to send humans to Mars; it's extremely expensive, impractical and dangerous, and you have to go through the trouble of sending all the people back again. A robot can do any necessary job "cheaply", safely and it can be left at the destination when the mission is finished.
I think space is fascinating, but unlike many I'm not so enamored by the idea of sending people to Mars. Even under the best conditions, it's a less hospitable and far more isolated environment than the most climate-extreme, desolate "corners" of the Earth. What exactly is someone who goes there going to do? I suspect the novelty of being on another planet will wear off pretty quickly once they get there. If an emergency occurs, they are on their own, even if we were to send them needed supplies it would take months for them to get there.
I would be more interested in sending unmanned robotic probes to more places. It's much cheaper and less risky, and we can send them to far more places, learning much more than we can by putting a human on Mars. Exploration can be mechanized and automated, the only reason to send a human there is because we can.
I didn't like Andy Weirs new book about the moon as much as The Martian, but his description of a practical colony on the moon sounds at least realistic compared to setting up a Mars colony.Haven't read that book (yet :)) but I agree, a permanent settlement on the moon makes much more sense than a base on Mars, as well as a bigger space station in earth orbit. And there are actually both scientific and economic applications for a moon base.
We can get a lot more tonnage to the moon much cheaper and quicker, and tourists could take realistic two week long vacations there.
Mars is more hospitable to larger scale colonisation for sure, but several orders of magnitude more tricky.
Colonising Mars? No atmosphere, no magnetic field, no water. Terra-forming isn't realistic. I guess you could have people living in pressurised underground structures. But how would the colonists construct them and set up the necessary manufacturing facilities and mining operations (for the raw materials) without massive support from Earth. It's not going to happen any time soon.
... There isn't even any scientific reason to send humans to Mars; ....
But the same data can be collected by robots for a fraction of the cost and risk, so there is no reason to send humans.... There isn't even any scientific reason to send humans to Mars; ....
There are all sorts of scientific reasons to send humans to Mars. Nearly everything that happens to those humans in that environment, and much of what they see and do, would be scientific data that's unobtainable anywhere else. It doesn't stop being science just because it's expensive as hell and may not happen in our lifetimes.
But the same data can be collected by robots for a fraction of the cost and risk, so there is no reason to send humans.Nope, it cannot. Unless artificial general intelligence is developed. And not such which runs remotely on earth but which can be shipped to Mars.
Did you even read what I wrote? Let me know when a robot can collect data on how humans function in a Martian environment without having humans in a Martian environment.But the same data can be collected by robots for a fraction of the cost and risk, so there is no reason to send humans.... There isn't even any scientific reason to send humans to Mars; ....
There are all sorts of scientific reasons to send humans to Mars. Nearly everything that happens to those humans in that environment, and much of what they see and do, would be scientific data that's unobtainable anywhere else. It doesn't stop being science just because it's expensive as hell and may not happen in our lifetimes.
Alright, sure, you need to send a human to see how a human function in a martian environment ;D. I really doubt anyone is going to want to spend the money required just to get the answer to that question though.Did you even read what I wrote? Let me know when a robot can collect data on how humans function in a Martian environment without having humans in a Martian environment.But the same data can be collected by robots for a fraction of the cost and risk, so there is no reason to send humans.... There isn't even any scientific reason to send humans to Mars; ....
There are all sorts of scientific reasons to send humans to Mars. Nearly everything that happens to those humans in that environment, and much of what they see and do, would be scientific data that's unobtainable anywhere else. It doesn't stop being science just because it's expensive as hell and may not happen in our lifetimes.
Why not? What a human would be doing is collecting rock/soil samples and operating the measurement equipment that was prepared back on earth. A robot (remote controlled from earth) can do that as well (that's what the mars rovers have been doing). A human might be better at it but not enough that it motivates the extra cost/risk.But the same data can be collected by robots for a fraction of the cost and risk, so there is no reason to send humans.Nope, it cannot. Unless artificial general intelligence is developed. And not such which runs remotely on earth but which can be shipped to Mars.
Why not? What a human would be doing is collecting rock/soil samples and operating the measurement equipment that was prepared back on earth. A robot (remote controlled from earth) can do that as well (that's what the mars rovers have been doing). A human might be better at it but not enough that it motivates the extra cost/risk.Results of what could be done with robots is pretty evident as they were already sent. The answer is - not that much. Something very simple for a human often is extremely difficult for a robot. Robots are good for doing tasks which are easily automated and need high volume of repeated operations. But general tasks are extremely difficult for them.
What specifically is it you need a human for that you couldn't have a remote controlled robot do? (And something that couldn't just as well be done here on earth, the ISS or on the moon)Why not? What a human would be doing is collecting rock/soil samples and operating the measurement equipment that was prepared back on earth. A robot (remote controlled from earth) can do that as well (that's what the mars rovers have been doing). A human might be better at it but not enough that it motivates the extra cost/risk.Results of what could be done with robots is pretty evident as they were already sent. The answer is - not that much. Something very simple for a human often is extremely difficult for a robot. Robots are good for doing tasks which are easily automated and need high volume of repeated operations. But general tasks are extremely difficult for them.
Say dig a few meter deep hole in fully automated way. It would be quiet a task to make one which can do this reliably by itself. Remote control from earth pretty much won't work because of communications delay.What specifically is it you need a human for that you couldn't have a remote controlled robot do?Why not? What a human would be doing is collecting rock/soil samples and operating the measurement equipment that was prepared back on earth. A robot (remote controlled from earth) can do that as well (that's what the mars rovers have been doing). A human might be better at it but not enough that it motivates the extra cost/risk.Results of what could be done with robots is pretty evident as they were already sent. The answer is - not that much. Something very simple for a human often is extremely difficult for a robot. Robots are good for doing tasks which are easily automated and need high volume of repeated operations. But general tasks are extremely difficult for them.
Say dig a few meter deep hole in fully automated way. It would be quiet a task to make one which can do this reliably by itself. Remote control from earth pretty much won't work because of communications delay.It would also be quite a task to send humans to mars and back again. We have machines that are good at digging here on earth. I don't see why adding an excavator to a mars mission wouldn't be possible. I disagree that remote control won't work, it just takes a lot longer time, but digging very slowly is still a lot easier and safer than sending humans all the way to mars.
Even drilling a few inch deep hole is quiet a task https://bgr.com/2017/10/24/nasa-curiosity-drill-bit-testing-mars/ (https://bgr.com/2017/10/24/nasa-curiosity-drill-bit-testing-mars/)Because the drill was broken. Hard for humans to drill with broken equipment as well...
Because the drill was broken. Hard for humans to drill with broken equipment as well...Exactly, you'll have a tiny issue somewhere, and mission is doomed. Robots cannot fix themselves or face unexpected situations gracefully. Autonomous robot could simply drive into a pit and get stuck there or roll over.
99.9% of the time a robot will be able to do itThat 0.1% likely will happen in just a few hours of operation if you try doing something beyond simplest tasks and doom the mission.
A human can fix a lot of things a robot couldn't, but there are a lot of things that can go wrong that a human wouldn't be able to fix either and then all the astronauts would be dead. Worst case when sending a robot is that you have to send another robot after you fix the problem.Because the drill was broken. Hard for humans to drill with broken equipment as well...Exactly, you'll have a tiny issue somewhere, and mission is doomed. Robots cannot fix themselves or face unexpected situations gracefully. Autonomous robot could simply drive into a pit and get stuck there or roll over.Quote99.9% of the time a robot will be able to do itThat 0.1% likely will happen in just a few hours of operation if you try doing something beyond simplest tasks and doom the mission.
There have been four very successful rover missions to Mars so far, despite the difficulties. If you look at this list there are lots of failed missions as well:As I already said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_missions_to_Mars
Not because the rovers get stuck in a pit or roll over but because there was a problem getting to mars or landing.
Results of what could be done with robots is pretty evident as they were already sent. The answer is - not that much.Things those missions have accomplished are a joke compared to what humans on the site could explore.
You said that, but you haven't been able to provide any good examples of what humans on the site would explore that a modern custom robot couldn't. If those missions are a joke compared to a human mission surely you could provide a long list of things that only a human would be able to accomplish.There have been four very successful rover missions to Mars so far, despite the difficulties. If you look at this list there are lots of failed missions as well:As I already said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_missions_to_Mars
Not because the rovers get stuck in a pit or roll over but because there was a problem getting to mars or landing.QuoteResults of what could be done with robots is pretty evident as they were already sent. The answer is - not that much.Things those missions have accomplished are a joke compared to what humans on the site could explore.
You said that, but you haven't been able to provide any good examples of what humans on the site would explore that a modern custom robot couldn't.Do you realize how complicated should be mechanism to just take a ground sample prepare it and make a simple analysis? Rovers not only cannot drill any deep, they are not even able to pick up a rock lying somewhere nearby. My work involves analytic laboratories, so I have some clue that certain things involved in sample analysis are very hard to fully automate, especially in a compact way. Heck, human could pick up a pneumatic hammer and blow shit out of the rock. Curiosity could not drill a decent hole even when mechanism was not broken.
certainly be more cost effective to use the robot, and definitely safer.It's always safer to sit in mama's basement than go out and do something. Cost effective for what? If you don't achieve anything significant, it does not matter how low was the cost.
Since 2012 the Curiosity Rover on Mars has traveled a little over 18 km. The Apollo 17 astronauts drove over 30 km in three days. As cool and impressive as our Martian robots have been, they don't really compare to what humans could do in the same situation. I think Mars is a great place for humans to explore. Colonizing can and should wait until it would be easy.
How much did the Apollo 17 mission cost vs Curiosity? Not that the two mission are in any way equivalent.
Huge numbers of explorers died because there was no alternative, today we have alternatives. A launch failure that killed people could happen and it would be a disaster, but it's far less likely than a mission failure that kills the crew. The main thing is that unmanned missions are far cheaper and far simpler. You don't need human rated rockets, you don't need life support, you don't need to carry food, you don't need to dispose of bodily waste, you don't need to solve the huge problems of crew comfort and preventing muscle atrophy in zero G. There is a large array of problems and challenges you can simply bypass and not worry about. The end result is much like any other form of automation, automate the factory and you get people out of dangerous jobs, you greatly increase productivity and consistency while greatly reducing cost. At least in automating space missions you aren't putting millions of working class people out of a job. I don't have the numbers offhand but we can probably send out *at least* a dozen or more robotic explorer missions for the cost of one single manned mission and we can send them to places far too distant to send humans in a reasonable time scale. That's another big problem, Mars is the nearest planet, it takes months to get there and we've already sent rovers there. Where is the next closest planet that has conditions within the realm of human survival and how many centuries will it take to get there?There are many deaths of brothers and sisters of my own ancestors who also tried to colonize North America pre 1700. All told around 30% of those that tried died on the voyage, or within a year of reaching North America. Yet members of my ancestral families kept sending their own over knowing full well others in their own families who had gone before had died. Many of my relatives are also the survivors of those that initially settled the midwest. Quakers would initially set up a town, and move their families there. Then others would move in. Eventually the area would get filled in by farms, non Quakers, etc. A bunch of young men with new families would go and setup a new town further west, and send for their wives and children once the houses were up, and crops were soon to be harvested. Many would die from raids on the new frontier towns, yet they kept at it, generation after generation.
I do. Do you realise how complicated, expensive and risky it is to send people back and forth to Mars!? Making such a mechanism is trivial compared to the challenges involved in a manned mission to Mars. I'm sure it's doable though, but the money is better spent elsewhere, since rovers can do (almost) all of the things a human astronaut would for a fraction of the cost without any risk to human life.You said that, but you haven't been able to provide any good examples of what humans on the site would explore that a modern custom robot couldn't.Do you realize how complicated should be mechanism to just take a ground sample prepare it and make a simple analysis?
To say the mars rovers haven't achieved anything significant is just preposterous. NASA wouldn't keep sending these robots to Mars if they didn't achieve anything. It's fine to take a calculated risk if it is necessary to achieve something meaningful. It's not fine to gamble with people's lives just for a publicity stunt. I'm convinced that if it made scientific sense to send people to Mars NASA would have done so a long time ago.Quotecertainly be more cost effective to use the robot, and definitely safer.It's always safer to sit in mama's basement than go out and do something. Cost effective for what? If you don't achieve anything significant, it does not matter how low was the cost.
People have gotten too fixated on Mars. It makes much more sense to build a base on the moon (why not colonize the moon ;)), and a bigger space station with spin gravity and facilities for long time stay in orbit.Nope people are too fixated on spending their money on time wasting things like iphone. If Apple revenue was spent on space exploration, we'd already have a base on Mars. Moon has fine dust that destroy everything it touches.
There are no natural resources available that don't need mining/extraction. There is nothing of sufficient value on Mars that could be traded with Earth, apart from Mars rocks.Well, for starters, Helium 3 would be worth shipping back to earth. It should be very abundant in Mar's regolith.
Smartphones are pretty darn useful I'd say. But people spend a lot of money on junk, no argument there. The way the economy works all of the wealth accumulates in the pockets of a tiny minority. It's not that there isn't enough money in the world, it's just that it's in the pockets of a few people who doesn't care about scientific advances, space exploration or the common good. People like Elon Musk and Bill Gates are notable exceptions. Not that politicians are any better. If anything they are spending less and less on science like space exploration in favour of tax cuts and military.People have gotten too fixated on Mars. It makes much more sense to build a base on the moon (why not colonize the moon ;)), and a bigger space station with spin gravity and facilities for long time stay in orbit.Nope people are too fixated on spending their money on time wasting things like iphone. If Apple revenue was spent on space exploration, we'd already have a base on Mars.
Moon has very small dust particles that destroy everything they touch.And Martian soil is full of toxic perchloate. If we can't build a base on the moon I don't think we would be able to build one on Mars either.
https://www.spaceanswers.com/solar-system/five-things-you-didnt-know-about-moon-dust/ (https://www.spaceanswers.com/solar-system/five-things-you-didnt-know-about-moon-dust/)
There's plenty of Helium 3 on the moon, makes no economic sens to go all the way to Mars for that.There are no natural resources available that don't need mining/extraction. There is nothing of sufficient value on Mars that could be traded with Earth, apart from Mars rocks.Well, for starters, Helium 3 would be worth shipping back to earth. It should be very abundant in Mar's regolith.
Smartphones are pretty darn useful I'd say.They increase productivity for maybe 5% of users at best. Others just waste their time and decrease productivity by using them for useless things. Selfies, instagram, facebook, youtube, you name it.
Nope people are too fixated on spending their money on time wasting things like iphone. If Apple revenue was spent on space exploration, we'd already have a base on Mars.
Smartphones are pretty darn useful I'd say.They increase productivity for maybe 5% of users at best. Others just waste their time and decrease productivity by using them for useless things. Selfies, instagram, facebook, youtube, you name it.
OK. Given your clear value system, and assuming that you put your money where your mouth is -- may I assume that you do not own a smartphone, and are donating the savings to the good cause of Mars colonization instead?I have a smartphone, not the most expensive. I rarely waste the time with it, it more like for occasional use. And I don't replace it annually as some. I waste my time mostly on PC and eevblog is one of the worst time wasters of mine. At least I admit that I waste my time and money on nonproductive things. No way I pretend to be holier than thou.
Most businesses' applications have web front ends nowadays, that means you can use them at any time, while on the move, wherever you are, with your smartphones.You can does not mean that you will. Chatting, using social networks during work hours is certainly nonproductive. Heck, I cave a customer which is a small company consisting of a few people. Business owner once told me they had no internet for 2 days and they previously never were as productive as during those two days.
There's plenty of Helium 3 on the moon, makes no economic sens to go all the way to Mars for that.There are no natural resources available that don't need mining/extraction. There is nothing of sufficient value on Mars that could be traded with Earth, apart from Mars rocks.Well, for starters, Helium 3 would be worth shipping back to earth. It should be very abundant in Mar's regolith.
Tetris was the problem back in the early days of computing.Tetris didn't show up until the mid 1980's. The early days of computing are generally regarded as those up to around 1960.
Tetris was the problem back in the early days of computing.Tetris didn't show up until the mid 1980's. The early days of computing are generally regarded as those up to around 1960.
It's potential fuel for the "soon" to be finished fusion reactors. It could potentially be valuable in the far future (potentially being the operative word here). But even if it does become valuable, there is enough on the moon to power fusion reactors on earth for quite a while, so shipping it all the way from Mars would probably not be competitive is my guess.There's plenty of Helium 3 on the moon, makes no economic sens to go all the way to Mars for that.There are no natural resources available that don't need mining/extraction. There is nothing of sufficient value on Mars that could be traded with Earth, apart from Mars rocks.Well, for starters, Helium 3 would be worth shipping back to earth. It should be very abundant in Mar's regolith.
You Space Nutters have odd definitions of "plenty". And just what do you think you need He3 for? Slightly lighter party balloons?
It's potential fuel for the "soon" to be finished fusion reactors. It could potentially be valuable in the far future (potentially being the operative word here). But even if it does become valuable, there is enough on the moon to power fusion reactors on earth for quite a while, so shipping it all the way from Mars would probably not be competitive is my guess.
You could also mine valuable metals on Mars of course, but you then have to launch them into orbit and send them to earth. It would probably be easier and cheaper to mine asteroids in that case since they are already "floating" in space, but who knows.
Clearly you haven't bothered to read previous posts or it would be clear that I don't believe colonising Mars is practical. Also you seem to have missed the quotation marks around "soon" indicating a bit of irony in this case. Indeed, fusion seems to have been looming just beyond the horizon for several decades now.It's potential fuel for the "soon" to be finished fusion reactors. It could potentially be valuable in the far future (potentially being the operative word here). But even if it does become valuable, there is enough on the moon to power fusion reactors on earth for quite a while, so shipping it all the way from Mars would probably not be competitive is my guess.
You could also mine valuable metals on Mars of course, but you then have to launch them into orbit and send them to earth. It would probably be easier and cheaper to mine asteroids in that case since they are already "floating" in space, but who knows.
"of course"!
:-DD :-DD :-DD
Oh, it's Comedy Monday on EEVblog, I didn't get the memo. How do otherwise rational engineers end up with so many bullshit ideas? It's like you mention "space" and 5 years of university education go in the trash, and the entire Star Trek box set gets uploaded into your brains. Space is bullshit. Get over it. It's pseudo-religious garbage that tickles your monkey brain and excites the same parts of the brain that religions have always tickled.
("Of course", you could also extract platinum from seawater, why hasn't anyone done that? Oh wait, let's do it on Mars, now suddenly it makes sense!)
We don't even have D-T fusion power reactors. And quite likely never will. You know, we just need to exceed the conditions at the center of the Sun by a few orders of magnitude to get it to work, but I suppose computers got better so we can assume that's a solved problem... |O Invoking even higher levels of He3 unreality won't make it happen. If you put a bunch of wind turbines around a H-bomb explosion you'll generate more power than any fusion projects have ever made, or ever will.
The only fusion project I give a greater than zero chance of maybe lighting a LED in the next 20 years is General Fusion. And even that seems to be taking forever.
If you put a bunch of wind turbines around a H-bomb explosion you'll generate more power than any fusion projects have ever made, or ever will.
A hypothetical Mars colony could also have all-you-can-eat hot fudge sundaes every day, what does this have to do with engineering?
Maybe this is a sci-fi writer's workshop on how to write the most impractical bullshit?
A hypothetical Mars colony could also have all-you-can-eat hot fudge sundaes every day, what does this have to do with engineering?
Maybe this is a sci-fi writer's workshop on how to write the most impractical bullshit?
Of course, that would require a hypothetical dairy animal herd on mars, plus some hypothetical cocoa trees planted in your hypothetical simulated tropical environment. Also some hypothetical plants suitable for sugar production.
The primary export of an early colony would be knowledge. Observations, survival successes and failures, experimental data, and of course human interest stuff (blogs, videos, whatever).
A hypothetical Mars colony could also have all-you-can-eat hot fudge sundaes every day, what does this have to do with engineering?Few things are more engineering related than space exploration? If you don't wan't to talk about sending people to mars then go read/post in some other thread.
A hypothetical Mars colony could also have all-you-can-eat hot fudge sundaes every day, what does this have to do with engineering?Few things are more engineering related than space exploration? If you don't wan't to talk about sending people to mars then go read/post in some other thread.
There have been a lot of "serious" discussion about sending people to Mars and starting a colony there, notably by president Bush II (iirc). Personally I think it makes more sense to send robotic rovers like NASA have been doing. Colonising mars seems very impractical indeed.
The early days of computing are generally regarded as those up to around 1960.
Please describe what a monkey in a space suit is accomplishing by getting 400 kilometers closer to stars light years away? Or are you claiming being personally close to a perfect vacuum is "exploring space". I didn't know I was exploring space when my Mum packed my lunch in a Thermos flask!Now this is just uninformed and plain stupid. In the space station a huge number of scientific experiments are done which are possible only in microgravity conditions. Results of many of those experiments are then used on earth to make something useful in everyday life.
You've heard of Galileo? He explored Jupiter and the Solar System, with hand ground glass.I'm certain you want to return to the state of science of those years. Just avoid inquisition frying your ass on a bonfire.
Those monkeys at the ISS do a ton of experiments that can only be done in micro gravity. Kind of hard to do down on Earth.Most of space (that's a BIG place) was explored... FROM THE GROUND. You've heard of observatories? You've heard of Galileo? He explored Jupiter and the Solar System, with hand ground glass.A hypothetical Mars colony could also have all-you-can-eat hot fudge sundaes every day, what does this have to do with engineering?Few things are more engineering related than space exploration? If you don't wan't to talk about sending people to mars then go read/post in some other thread.
There have been a lot of "serious" discussion about sending people to Mars and starting a colony there, notably by president Bush II (iirc). Personally I think it makes more sense to send robotic rovers like NASA have been doing. Colonising mars seems very impractical indeed.
Please describe what a monkey in a space suit is accomplishing by getting 400 kilometers closer to stars light years away?
You don't realize how you've been manipulated by horseshit space religion and goofy-ass propaganda about weapons disguised as "exploration".Indeed, I might not have realised as a kid but today it's feels like an open secret. If not for the military aspect of it, there would probably not be any satellites or satellite navigation, etc.
You don't realize how you've been manipulated by horseshit space religion and goofy-ass propaganda about weapons disguised as "exploration".So what, GPS was purely military system in the past. Pleas comment if navigation is not useful in everyday life?
Please describe what a monkey in a space suit is accomplishing by getting 400 kilometers closer to stars light years away? Or are you claiming being personally close to a perfect vacuum is "exploring space". I didn't know I was exploring space when my Mum packed my lunch in a Thermos flask!Now this is just uninformed and plain stupid. In the space station a huge number of scientific experiments are done which are possible only in microgravity conditions. Results of many of those experiments are then used on earth to make something useful in everyday life.
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/experiments/explorer/search.html? (https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/experiments/explorer/search.html?#q=&i=&p=&c=Technology&g=&s=)QuoteYou've heard of Galileo? He explored Jupiter and the Solar System, with hand ground glass.I'm certain you want to return to the state of science of those years. Just avoid inquisition frying your ass on a bonfire.
You don't realize how you've been manipulated by horseshit space religion and goofy-ass propaganda about weapons disguised as "exploration".So what, GPS was purely military system in the past. Pleas comment if navigation is not useful in everyday life?
I think weather satellites, satellites monitoring global climate, communications satellites, etc, are pretty useful as well. And why not systems for deflecting asteroids that would otherwise hit earth?You don't realize how you've been manipulated by horseshit space religion and goofy-ass propaganda about weapons disguised as "exploration".So what, GPS was purely military system in the past. Pleas comment if navigation is not useful in everyday life?
Those monkeys at the ISS do a ton of experiments that can only be done in micro gravity. Kind of hard to do down on Earth.
Please describe what a monkey in a space suit is accomplishing by getting 400 kilometers closer to stars light years away?
I think weather satellites, satellites monitoring global climate, communications satellites, etc, are pretty useful as well. And why not systems for deflecting asteroids that would otherwise hit earth?You don't realize how you've been manipulated by horseshit space religion and goofy-ass propaganda about weapons disguised as "exploration".So what, GPS was purely military system in the past. Pleas comment if navigation is not useful in everyday life?
It would be like farting at a hurricane and expecting it to shift trajectory.If you fart on asteroid far away enough from the Earth, tiny change of it's trajectory would be enough for it to miss the Earth.
Here you go (not an exhaustive list):Yes! Vitally important .. stuff! Come on, at this point it's like historical re-enactment theater.QuotePlease describe what a monkey in a space suit is accomplishing by getting 400 kilometers closer to stars light years away?Those monkeys at the ISS do a ton of experiments that can only be done in micro gravity. Kind of hard to do down on Earth.
Deflecting asteroids? What??? How the hell do you even propose to begin to be able to think that we are able to do that?So you are one of those "how dare we insignificant ants think we can change the course of mighty nature or avoid that asteroid that God sent here to punish us". Give me a break. Of course it would be possible to nudge a rock a bit if it looks like it will hit earth. And it would be worth all the money in the world if we can do it. Depends on the precise circumstances of course, we might not be able to prevent all possible asteroid impact scenarios, but we might just be able to divert the majority of dangerous asteroids... if we prepare for it.
The issue with mining any kind of resources from another planet is the immense cost of returning them to Earth. There could be a literal mountain on mars made entirely of stacks of gold bars and I'm not sure it would ever be worth going to get any of them. The cost of retrieval would likely exceed the value of the gold, and that's ignoring the fact that adding a large amount of gold would likely cause the price to drop. Helium is far lighter than gold, but even so I don't see how a significant enough quantity could be shipped back to Earth. Even if you can reuse the rocket, it still requires a massive amount of fuel to escape gravity, that's just physics.Yes, exactly. A hypothetical Mars colony would have very little to trade with earth in terms of resources.
It would be like farting at a hurricane and expecting it to shift trajectory.If you fart on asteroid far away enough from the Earth, tiny change of it's trajectory would be enough for it to miss the Earth.
The issue with mining any kind of resources from another planet is the immense cost of returning them to Earth.
So you are one of those "how dare we insignificant ants think we can change the course of mighty nature or avoid that asteroid that God sent here to punish us". Give me a break. Of course it would be possible to nudge a rock a bit if it looks like it will hit earth. And it would be worth all the money in the world if we can do it. Depends on the precise circumstances of course, we might not be able to prevent all possible asteroid impact scenarios, but we might just be able to divert the majority of dangerous asteroids... if we prepare for it.
The issue with mining any kind of resources from another planet is the immense cost of returning them to Earth. There could be a literal mountain on mars made entirely of stacks of gold bars and I'm not sure it would ever be worth going to get any of them. The cost of retrieval would likely exceed the value of the gold, and that's ignoring the fact that adding a large amount of gold would likely cause the price to drop. Helium is far lighter than gold, but even so I don't see how a significant enough quantity could be shipped back to Earth. Even if you can reuse the rocket, it still requires a massive amount of fuel to escape gravity, that's just physics.Yes, exactly. A hypothetical Mars colony would have very little to trade with earth in terms of resources.
You could build some really amazing looking houses on Mars out of solid gold bricks though :)
The best thing to mine, as has been pointed out many times before, is probably going to be an asteroid. As far as deflecting asteroids, there are several viable and practical methods to do so using existing technology. Doing so successfully depends a lot on the asteroid, not Bruce Willis.
It would certainly be an interesting experiment to mine an asteroids, however I remain highly skeptical that it will ever be cost effective. It's probably worth giving it a try for the novelty and to learn anything we don't already know about asteroids but just don't expect it to be a profitable endeavor.
It would certainly be an interesting experiment to mine an asteroids, however I remain highly skeptical that it will ever be cost effective. It's probably worth giving it a try for the novelty and to learn anything we don't already know about asteroids but just don't expect it to be a profitable endeavor.
It costs a huge amount of money to put a ton of anything into orbit. Asteroids are already there.
It costs a huge amount of money to put a ton of anything into orbit. Asteroids are already there.It would certainly be an interesting experiment to mine an asteroids, however I remain highly skeptical that it will ever be cost effective. It's probably worth giving it a try for the novelty and to learn anything we don't already know about asteroids but just don't expect it to be a profitable endeavor.
It costs a huge amount of money to put a ton of anything into orbit. Asteroids are already there.
Sure, but it's not trivial to return something safely to earth either. All of the mining equipment as well as any cargo vessels for carrying the mined material will have to be launched into orbit. Maybe it would be worth it if we happen to find an asteroid made of solid gold, platinum or other extremely valuable and useful substance but I wouldn't bank on it.
Yeah, you couldn't exactly just trow it down to earth. I'm also sceptical but I haven't tried to make any calculations, too many unknowns.It costs a huge amount of money to put a ton of anything into orbit. Asteroids are already there.Sure, but it's not trivial to return something safely to earth either. All of the mining equipment as well as any cargo vessels for carrying the mined material will have to be launched into orbit. Maybe it would be worth it if we happen to find an asteroid made of solid gold, platinum or other extremely valuable and useful substance but I wouldn't bank on it.
And the space is empty.
You see, it's not physical limits or engineering problems holding us back from meeting voluptuous green-skinned temptresses on Mars, it's that part of humanity struggling to hold you back!It seems like everything is very black or white to you, seems to be an emotionally loaded topic?
Mars to be habitable though, it's the closest other than Earth in our own solar system but that's not saying much.It is possible to make it habitable... by nuking the poles.
Mars to be habitable though, it's the closest other than Earth in our own solar system but that's not saying much.It is possible to make it habitable... by nuking the poles.
So Giordano Bruno wasn't burned at the stake after all?I'm certain you want to return to the state of science of those years. Just avoid inquisition frying your ass on a bonfire.
Ah yes, that old chestnut.
It would release frozen CO2 trapped in the ice caps. That would start greenhouse effect. Due to temperature increasing the rest of frozen CO2 would vaporize as well increasing the greenhouse effect. Then you could use plants to release oxygen from CO2. It's not like it can be terraformed in one human generation but in theory it's possible.Mars to be habitable though, it's the closest other than Earth in our own solar system but that's not saying much.It is possible to make it habitable... by nuking the poles.
How would nuking the poles help make Mars habitable?
The atmosphere of Mars is 96% CO2 already.But density is only 0.6% of the earth atmosphere.
Because its mass is 1/10 that of the earth?Nope, because it lost it's atmosphere at some point of time.
It would release frozen CO2 trapped in the ice caps. That would start greenhouse effect. Due to temperature increasing the rest of frozen CO2 would vaporize as well increasing the greenhouse effect. Then you could use plants to release oxygen from CO2. It's not like it can be terraformed in one human generation but in theory it's possible.Mars to be habitable though, it's the closest other than Earth in our own solar system but that's not saying much.It is possible to make it habitable... by nuking the poles.
How would nuking the poles help make Mars habitable?
So Giordano Bruno wasn't burned at the stake after all?I'm certain you want to return to the state of science of those years. Just avoid inquisition frying your ass on a bonfire.
Ah yes, that old chestnut.
Says walking logical fallacy itself.So Giordano Bruno wasn't burned at the stake after all?I'm certain you want to return to the state of science of those years. Just avoid inquisition frying your ass on a bonfire.
Ah yes, that old chestnut.
So you don't understand your logical fallacy after all?
Says walking logical fallacy itself.So Giordano Bruno wasn't burned at the stake after all?I'm certain you want to return to the state of science of those years. Just avoid inquisition frying your ass on a bonfire.
Ah yes, that old chestnut.
So you don't understand your logical fallacy after all?
There is no logical fallacy on my part, the burden of proof is entirely on the people making the extraordinary claims. You are nothing but cloud-shoveling daydreamers with an odd techno-religion.Wait a minute. Logical fallacy and burden of proof are two completely different things. You are just changing the topic. And burden of proof for what particularly? Most of extraordinary claims are coming from you.
Logical fallacy changing subject
A related concept is that of the red herring, which is a deliberate attempt to divert a process of enquiry by changing the subject. Ignoratio elenchi is sometimes confused with straw man argument.
There is no logical fallacy on my part, the burden of proof is entirely on the people making the extraordinary claims. You are nothing but cloud-shoveling daydreamers with an odd techno-religion.Wait a minute. Logical fallacy and burden of proof are two completely different things. You are just changing the topic. And burden of proof for what particularly? Most of extraordinary claims are coming from you.QuoteLogical fallacy changing subject
A related concept is that of the red herring, which is a deliberate attempt to divert a process of enquiry by changing the subject. Ignoratio elenchi is sometimes confused with straw man argument.
How would nuking the poles help make Mars habitable?It would release frozen CO2 trapped in the ice caps. That would start greenhouse effect. Due to temperature increasing the rest of frozen CO2 would vaporize as well increasing the greenhouse effect. Then you could use plants to release oxygen from CO2. It's not like it can be terraformed in one human generation but in theory it's possible.
The typical logical fallacy from your camp is usually in the form of: "they laughed at (insert famous historical figure here) too!". Unfortunately, they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. Being laughed at is no guarantee that you're actually right.Please insert a quote to prove your claim (burden of proof).
Which certainly is not what you suggested. That was rebuffing what was said about particular company, by stating their achievements. Not a joke about some historical figure.And I’m not sure how you can see innovation and inspiration in a video showing failures as silly as “ran out of fuel”. That, to me, just plain shows poor design or planning.So poor that nobody else besides them got landing working. All other space companies and most people overall were laughing about their "silly attempts" those days. Now nobody in those companies is laughing because SpaceX ate a lot of their market share. How to see inspiration? This video was created by SpaceX themselves and posted on their own channel. Those all were landing attempts before they got technology working. Once they got landing working, now it seems more like a routine operation.
Burden of proof is on your side. You're the ones with the borderline maniacal claims of blowing up Mars's poles to get an atmosphere, or your "Preserve The Species" sermons, or "Asteroid of DOOM!!".Maybe you have a problem understanding a context and satire like preschool kids do. That was first said more like a joke. Then I explained it is possible in theory. Nobody said it is viable or should be actually done.
You apparently fave the same problem as In Vacuo Veritas. Read my previous post.How would nuking the poles help make Mars habitable?It would release frozen CO2 trapped in the ice caps. That would start greenhouse effect. Due to temperature increasing the rest of frozen CO2 would vaporize as well increasing the greenhouse effect. Then you could use plants to release oxygen from CO2. It's not like it can be terraformed in one human generation but in theory it's possible.
Oh yeah -- let's mess up a planet before we even live there!
Progress!!
:-\
What fallacy? I haven't offered any opinion about the feasibility of space travel here.So Giordano Bruno wasn't burned at the stake after all?I'm certain you want to return to the state of science of those years. Just avoid inquisition frying your ass on a bonfire.
Ah yes, that old chestnut.
So you don't understand your logical fallacy after all?
or "Asteroid of DOOM!!".
stupid sci-fi pictureFrom someone just a while ago wrote V :palm:
The typical logical fallacy from your camp is usually in the form of: "they laughed at (insert famous historical figure here) too!". Unfortunately, they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. Being laughed at is no guarantee that you're actually right.
EDIT: BTW while Venus has slightly lower mass and gravity compared to Earth, atmospheric pressure is 90 times higher than on Earth.
It is possible to make it habitable... by nuking the poles.I hadn't heard about that before, interesting.
because it lost it's atmosphere at some point of time.Mars has no magnetic field like the earth, so Mars has no shield against charged particles from the sun which is what is believed to have stripped away its atmosphere in the past. If humans managed to create a new atmosphere on mars, why wouldn't the sun blow it away again?
EDIT: BTW while Venus has slightly lower mass and gravity compared to Earth, atmospheric pressure is 90 times higher than on Earth.
If humans managed to create a new atmosphere on mars, why wouldn't the sun blow it away again?https://phys.org/news/2017-03-nasa-magnetic-shield-mars-atmosphere.html (https://phys.org/news/2017-03-nasa-magnetic-shield-mars-atmosphere.html)
This sure is very sound and strong argument.stupid sci-fi pictureFrom someone just a while ago wrote V :palm:The typical logical fallacy from your camp is usually in the form of: "they laughed at (insert famous historical figure here) too!". Unfortunately, they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. Being laughed at is no guarantee that you're actually right.
If humans managed to create a new atmosphere on mars, why wouldn't the sun blow it away again?https://phys.org/news/2017-03-nasa-magnetic-shield-mars-atmosphere.html (https://phys.org/news/2017-03-nasa-magnetic-shield-mars-atmosphere.html)
BTW while Venus has slightly lower mass and gravity compared to Earth, atmospheric pressure is 90 times higher than on Earth.Actually, colonising Venus would probably be easier, by living in floating cities in venus atmospere:
In effect, a balloon full of human-breathable air would sustain itself and extra weight (such as a colony) in midair. At an altitude of 50 kilometres above the Venerian surface, the environment is the most Earth-like in the Solar System – a pressure of approximately 1000 hPa and temperatures in the 0 to 50 °C range. Protection against cosmic radiation would be provided by the atmosphere above, with shielding mass equivalent to Earth's.Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_Venus
FYI this is a name-calling and in given context ad hominem fallacy.This sure is very sound and strong argument.stupid sci-fi pictureFrom someone just a while ago wrote V :palm:The typical logical fallacy from your camp is usually in the form of: "they laughed at (insert famous historical figure here) too!". Unfortunately, they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. Being laughed at is no guarantee that you're actually right.
Psst: in this example, you are Bozo the Clown.
Seems you have no real argument just as always. That is not sci-fi but theory.If humans managed to create a new atmosphere on mars, why wouldn't the sun blow it away again?https://phys.org/news/2017-03-nasa-magnetic-shield-mars-atmosphere.html (https://phys.org/news/2017-03-nasa-magnetic-shield-mars-atmosphere.html)
Yes, linking to sci-fi is very much the same as proof. Thank you, my mind is changed now. Maybe we can be neighbors on Mars and chat over the fence when we are mowing our space lawns with our space lawnmowers...
PS: No one is going anywhere. Not you, not me, not Elon Freaking Musk. Get over it.
FYI this is a name-calling and in given context ad hominem fallacy.
Seems you have no real argument just as always. That is not sci-fi but theory.If humans managed to create a new atmosphere on mars, why wouldn't the sun blow it away again?https://phys.org/news/2017-03-nasa-magnetic-shield-mars-atmosphere.html (https://phys.org/news/2017-03-nasa-magnetic-shield-mars-atmosphere.html)
Yes, linking to sci-fi is very much the same as proof. Thank you, my mind is changed now. Maybe we can be neighbors on Mars and chat over the fence when we are mowing our space lawns with our space lawnmowers...
PS: No one is going anywhere. Not you, not me, not Elon Freaking Musk. Get over it.
... while "reponding to tone" is two levels better in Graham's Hierarchy! ;)Sorry but you need to read the definition of it again. Not to say, I'm not pointing out his logical fallacies just because. He claimed that others are full of logical fallacies but himself being holier than thou.
Says walking logical fallacy itself.So Giordano Bruno wasn't burned at the stake after all?I'm certain you want to return to the state of science of those years. Just avoid inquisition frying your ass on a bonfire.
Ah yes, that old chestnut.
So you don't understand your logical fallacy after all?
There is no logical fallacy on my part, the burden of proof is entirely on the people making the extraordinary claims. You are nothing but cloud-shoveling daydreamers with an odd techno-religion.
... while "reponding to tone" is two levels better in Graham's Hierarchy! ;)Sorry but you need to read the definition of it again. Not to say, I'm not pointing out his logical fallacies just because. He claimed that others are full of logical fallacies but himself being holier than thou.
I was referring to the very post which I quoted, where you complained about the ad-hominem attack and name-calling. That is "responding to tone", right?I did not complain about the used language. Just pointed out logical fallacies which by then were already part of the discussion.
FYI this is a name-calling and in given context ad hominem fallacy.
... while "reponding to tone" is two levels better in Graham's Hierarchy! ;)
Come on, guys, can't we cool it a bit? Wraper loves space stuff (although he does not state that everything which can be contemplated should also be done), others are more skeptical. So what? :-//
Wraper loves space stuffMost people loves space stuff, I certainly do too.
In a 2011 Pew Research survey, 58% of Americans said it is essential that the U.S. be a world leader in space exploration.source: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/07/14/5-facts-about-americans-views-on-space-exploration/ (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/07/14/5-facts-about-americans-views-on-space-exploration/)
BTW while Venus has slightly lower mass and gravity compared to Earth, atmospheric pressure is 90 times higher than on Earth.Actually, colonising Venus would probably be easier, by living in floating cities in venus atmospere:QuoteIn effect, a balloon full of human-breathable air would sustain itself and extra weight (such as a colony) in midair. At an altitude of 50 kilometres above the Venerian surface, the environment is the most Earth-like in the Solar System – a pressure of approximately 1000 hPa and temperatures in the 0 to 50 °C range. Protection against cosmic radiation would be provided by the atmosphere above, with shielding mass equivalent to Earth's.Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_Venus
And even if you find people who would like to live under such extreme condition (I'm sure there are some who would like the challenge), there is still the question of why go through the trouble (i.e. who would be willing to pay for it and why, same as with a colony on Mars). Naah, at most there will be small research bases, but to me it still makes much more sense to just send "disposable" robotic rovers.
A moon base and larger space station with spin gravity seems a lot more realistic and potentially useful.
It would release frozen CO2 trapped in the ice caps. That would start greenhouse effect. Due to temperature increasing the rest of frozen CO2 would vaporize as well increasing the greenhouse effect. Then you could use plants to release oxygen from CO2. It's not like it can be terraformed in one human generation but in theory it's possible.Mars to be habitable though, it's the closest other than Earth in our own solar system but that's not saying much.It is possible to make it habitable... by nuking the poles.
How would nuking the poles help make Mars habitable?
If any one of the largest 5 chunks had hit earth, we would not be having this conversation. If it didn't kill you outright, you likely will have eventually starved. I say this as a farmer with a garden and the ability to can food. I'd be lucky to have food on the table a few years later. Those of you in cities would have most likely starved. Our infrastructure for producing and delivering food is to fragile, and stretched to the limit. The medium and smaller fragments likely would have caused famines, but would not have been civilization ending.or "Asteroid of DOOM!!".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgOTcIfU75Y (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgOTcIfU75Y)
So what is worse...Always go for batting the ball out of the heliosphere. ;)
Aiming low and hitting your target
or
Aiming high and possibly missing - but hitting a mark higher than where you currently are?
All talk about modifying the climate of Mars is speculative, but it isn't as far fetched or futile as some are saying.Yep, also let the sun do the work. Black carbon soot distributed all over the polar ice caps. It would take a lot, but it would be doable if you didn't expect it to all show up in a year. It's something that could easily be robotized. Nukes would be much quicker.
All of the science says that any atmosphere created will be "quickly" blown away by the solar wind. But that is "quickly" on geologic scales. The time would be measured in tens or even hundreds of thousand years. Which might be long enough in its own right, and certainly long enough to allow additional technology to be applied. Like shifting Oort belt objects to replace existing atmosphere. That would be energetically difficult if attempted in years or decades, but given the rate of solar wind erosion transit times of millenia could be adequate. Requires thinking differently than we have as a race, but who knows, maybe we will grow up someday.
So what is worse...Always go for batting the ball out of the heliosphere. ;)
Aiming low and hitting your target
or
Aiming high and possibly missing - but hitting a mark higher than where you currently are?
So far NASA is the only one to have done it. Voyager 1 left the heliosphere back in 2012.
Yet there are some who feel that looking to the skies is an exercise in futility and our efforts should be focussed on the ground in front of them.
Some might say that your statement has a rather subjective bias.
In fairness, George did preface his post with "I for one believe...".
Humans get bored easily.
The word 'visionary' would seem to not exist in their lexicon.
The problem with all you hubristic techno-extrapolators is that hindsight is 20/20, you think: someone had a vision, it became real! Ignoring entirely the millions of visions that were never viable and simply died.
The problem with all you hubristic techno-extrapolators is that hindsight is 20/20, you think: someone had a vision, it became real! Ignoring entirely the millions of visions that were never viable and simply died.
That is a rather ignorant perspective. Simply self-serving and laughably lacking logic.
Mars has the raw materials needed for building a colony all in one place. The asteroids may not. Once Mars is self sufficient, it doesn't need space capabilities.
Yeah, any self sufficient colony is a multi generational project
, but it must be started some time. We don't have a choice. That clip of Comet Shoemaker–Levy 9 hitting Jupiter in 1994 is a warning.
It's pretty much game over for all those grandiose 1960s space dreams.
Hell we know less about the structure of our own planet than we do about Jupiter's magnetic field. Why is that? There are bacteria deep underground! You wanted alien life, THERE IT IS! It's RIGHT HERE!!!!
Nope. A moon base for research and tourism is completely doable without reasonable engineering limitations.
So is your vision of it being impractical/impossible to colonize Mars and space.
Visions are a dime a dozen.
If we can build a colony on Mars, finding and deflecting a killer asteroid is easy. We'd have to map the asteroid belt for reliable transport back and forth. No reason we can't have both programs and many others at the same time. We as a society just need to divert 1/4 the money spent on the military to space exploration, asteroid finding projects, etc. Where there is a will, there is a way. General society doesn't have the will. They are to focused on sports and entertainment. I applaud Musk and crew for having the will and putting their money and effort towards the cause. I wish I was healthy enough to join in. Instead I'm spending my time trying to get researchers to fill in the voids in the knowledge of cellular chemical processes so it is possible to figure out why my body isn't producing enough ATP, and whatever else is needed to keep me active and healthy.Mars has the raw materials needed for building a colony all in one place. The asteroids may not. Once Mars is self sufficient, it doesn't need space capabilities.
Here is another aspect I'm not buying.
Define self-sufficient.
To be a truly independent civilisation you need the ability to manufacture *everything* we take for granted now.
Advanced electronics, advanced materials, even relatively simple materials like plastics, and that's just for starters.
Were does all this magically come from?
If you sit down and make a list of stuff you's have on a mars base, and the vast mining, transportation, and manufacturing infrastructure required here on earth to produce them, you'd be shocked.
It's taken us hundreds of years here on earth to get the point we are at now.QuoteYeah, any self sufficient colony is a multi generational project
My bet is 10 generations minimum.Quote, but it must be started some time. We don't have a choice. That clip of Comet Shoemaker–Levy 9 hitting Jupiter in 1994 is a warning.
And it would cost many orders of magnitude less than a Mars colony to get serious about mapping near-earth objects and devising ways to deflect them.
If you goal is to protect us again getting hit, the solution is obvious.
BTW, we have to protect earth first. What are we going to do, just ignore 5km asteroids and let them hit us and wipe us out? And don't worry, because we have some people on Mars as a backup.
The argument of using Mars as a backup for humanity is an utterly flawed and silly concept.
The argument "because we can" is all we humans need.
Tour groups do travel to the south pole.
Nope. A moon base for research and tourism is completely doable without reasonable engineering limitations.
Except for a reason to do it, I guess. And you have a funny notion of "completely doable". Making a SEALAB for research and tourism is "completely doable" as well, where is it?
Here's a research station:
http://www.southpolestation.com/ (http://www.southpolestation.com/)
Are you keeping up to date with the research done there? Why not? Planned any trips there? Why not?
So is your vision of it being impractical/impossible to colonize Mars and space.
Those that do, try, try, and try again until they succeed. That video of all the landing failures is those tries before success. Now they routinely land them. The fact that you don't have the motivation anymore is an issue with you, not Elon Musk and crew.
So is your vision of it being impractical/impossible to colonize Mars and space.
Visions are a dime a dozen.
Despite all the barriers, there are some tourists to the South Pole go every year.
Despite all the barriers, there are some tourists to the South Pole go every year.
What barriers? It's the same planet, air is always there, gravity is correct, radiation is shielded, water and food are available, technology used to get there is commonly available, it's not far.
Funny how despite all the doom and gloom, all the derision and ridicule, the business of doing stuff in space seems to be moving along pretty well.
Funny how despite all the doom and gloom, all the derision and ridicule, the business of doing stuff in space seems to be moving along pretty well.
Despite all the barriers, there are some tourists to the South Pole go every year.
What barriers? It's the same planet, air is always there, gravity is correct, radiation is shielded, water and food are available, technology used to get there is commonly available, it's not far.
Actually the air is thin, the radiation is higher than elsewhere on the planet, most food is only available if imported, and its a lot farther than typical vacationers go.
But since you say there are no barriers, when are you going? Oh wait, you found some barriers after all? Perhaps some of those I already mentioned but you clipped in your zeal to discredit? Never mind that you completely and deliberately ignored the overall point of what I said.
Funny how despite all the doom and gloom, all the derision and ridicule, the business of doing stuff in space seems to be moving along pretty well.Well, yeah, Space Sex, Virgin Galactic and Blue Origin. Are there any more?
As has been mentioned already, the amount each of us pays for the entire space program is miniscule, it's an insignificant drop in the bucket and not worth getting irritated over. Less than $40 a year for the average American anyway, not sure about other countries. People blow more than that on a single night at the bar.And - importantly - the money spent does not magically disappear. It moves, jobs are created, people are fed and ultimately some of it ends up in the public coffers again..
Arianespace?Funny how despite all the doom and gloom, all the derision and ridicule, the business of doing stuff in space seems to be moving along pretty well.Well, yeah, Space Sex, Virgin Galactic and Blue Origin. Are there any more?
And - importantly - the money spent does not magically disappear. It moves, jobs are created, people are fed and ultimately some of it ends up in the public coffers again..
As has been mentioned already, the amount each of us pays for the entire space program is miniscule, it's an insignificant drop in the bucket and not worth getting irritated over. Less than $40 a year for the average American anyway, not sure about other countries. People blow more than that on a single night at the bar.And - importantly - the money spent does not magically disappear. It moves, jobs are created, people are fed and ultimately some of it ends up in the public coffers again..
That doesn't make it less true. When you make a purchase the money doesn't vanish into thin air.And - importantly - the money spent does not magically disappear. It moves, jobs are created, people are fed and ultimately some of it ends up in the public coffers again..
That argument would also serve nicely in a campaign to recommit the complete "space" budget to folk dance festivals.
Of couse, it goes into somebody's pocket.Exactly! Is that a problem? It won't stay there forever.
Yes, it's a problem. An 18 trillion $ problem in the USA.And NASA does not affect even 1% of that problem.
To be a truly independent civilisation you need the ability to manufacture *everything* we take for granted now.Yes, as an absolute minimum you have to be able to recreate every essential piece of the base. If you need a replacement circuit board you can't just order new parts from digikey. You have to literally recreate every single part out of martian rock. Just imagine all the equipment needed just to get ore out of the ground. What would be needed in terms of factories and equipment and expertise to get a new colony started is absolutely mind boggling, and all of that would have to be shipped from earth.
Advanced electronics, advanced materials, even relatively simple materials like plastics, and that's just for starters.
Were does all this magically come from?
If you sit down and make a list of stuff you's have on a mars base, and the vast mining, transportation, and manufacturing infrastructure required here on earth to produce them, you'd be shocked.
It's taken us hundreds of years here on earth to get the point we are at now.
If anything could work financially, and in the hearts and minds of the people, it's a moon base. People can look up and see the moons surface and think about the people up there, and maybe dream of going in their retirement, or as a scientist etc. You don't get that same dream with mars, it's not visible enough.Who wouldn't want to go to the moon for a few days at least once in their life! (Well, the same could be said about Mars but a mars trip would take years). A moon base would also be useful for astronomy and as a stepping stone for probes headed further into the solar system. It could also be useful as a base of operations for detecting and deflecting asteroids that might hit earth, as well as potential attempts at mining asteroids for valuable resources. (And for those who insist on going to Mars, a moon base would be a logical first step.)
A Mars colony would be super cool, but I always doubt it's viability.
Artemis is being made into a movie, can't wait! :-+yay, listening to Artemis now. :)
It'll be really interesting to see a large colonised style moon tourist base on the big screen.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/culture/movies/a22238110/artemis-andy-weir-movie-treatment/ (https://www.popularmechanics.com/culture/movies/a22238110/artemis-andy-weir-movie-treatment/)
Interesting how much vitriol against space. It seems to be a pocketbook issue. Even if those who are against are correct and it is a complete waste of money, the money wasted is going more to engineers and technicians than most of the other complete wastes of money that can be identified. Eliminating space funding is likely to result in less money in technical folks pockets.
So go ahead, rail against one of the few Dilbert benefiting boondoggles around. It won't make you richer.
Who wouldn't want to go to the moon for a few days at least once in their life! (Well, the same could be said about Mars but a mars trip would take years).
yay, listening to Artemis now. :)
What are you even talking about?
So I admire people who are willing to serve their country, so what? Nowhere did I mention that I approve of what our military gets used for or the people sending the orders.Deliberately contradiction you make , mercenaries defending country=dont approve what mercenaries used for= scratches oligarch back! Your not a american patriot! Real patriots embrace the constitution and lives by it! Shame upon United Snakes of Americho who commit perjury to some of it's own 27 amendments!
Calm down and take a deep breath, you're reading far more into what I said than I put there.Im not calming down, im breathing up by inhaling hydrogen, like when US politicians do when the Iran issue is on the desk!
Some of that great excess of spending (public debt) goes or has gone to your pocket as salary? Good for you. But now we have to pay it, not you (unless you believe in overunity). So that's not good for me/us. I hope you can understand that.
Some of that great excess of spending (public debt) goes or has gone to your pocket as salary? Good for you. But now we have to pay it, not you (unless you believe in overunity). So that's not good for me/us. I hope you can understand that.Overunity is one of the main features of money. Why do you think inflation exists? Because new money is created out of thin air and dilutes existing money. Not to say, there is more money existing than all goods you could buy with it.
For every dollar spent on various Space programs, how many dollars of economic activity are generated?I think for the Apollo programs it was calculated at $3-5 in economic turnover in the economy for every dollar spent on the program, which is similar to scientific research expenditures. Military back then was just $2-3 at best after Vietnam ended. In war time it is lower. SS retirement payment, and general gov expenditures were running $4-7. $6-7 for SS disability and food assistance payments. The poorer you are the higher percentage you spend locally, and the faster you spend it. With greater foreign trade in the picture, lower effective retail wages, and more non locally owned stores like WalMart, Target, Lowes, and Gap stores, the numbers are lower now because more ends up much faster in the pockets of rich people, or traveling abroad. These are at the latest '83 numbers from back when I studied economics last. I'm not sure if they are still calculated and published by the government. PS, a dollar earned by a multimillionaire has a return ratio of much less than $2. At a certain point the more you earn, the less spendable it becomes, and chasing stocks with those extra $ has near no incremental add to the economy. Neither does the purchase of luxury goods like yachts and very expensive cars.
PS, it would be much much more expensive if the government did the work it's self.So is your vision of it being impractical/impossible to colonize Mars and space.
Those that do, try, try, and try again until they succeed. That video of all the landing failures is those tries before success. Now they routinely land them. The fact that you don't have the motivation anymore is an issue with you, not Elon Musk and crew.
At least I hope you understand you're paying for all those gigantic altruist (not) efforts, even though nobody asked if you wanted to pay them or not. That's what irritates me most.
Your country's public debt is ~= $18036300000000 (not counting interests). You are the public.
And - importantly - the money spent does not magically disappear. It moves, jobs are created, people are fed and ultimately some of it ends up in the public coffers again..
That argument would also serve nicely in a campaign to recommit the complete "space" budget to folk dance festivals.
PS, it would be much much more expensive if the government did the work it's self.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20170008895.pdf
SpaceX is saving the government big dollars.
Interesting how much vitriol against space. It seems to be a pocketbook issue. Even if those who are against are correct and it is a complete waste of money, the money wasted is going more to engineers and technicians than most of the other complete wastes of money that can be identified. Eliminating space funding is likely to result in less money in technical folks pockets.
So go ahead, rail against one of the few Dilbert benefiting boondoggles around. It won't make you richer.
2) SpaceX is standing on the shoulders of the DECADES OF WORK ALREADY DONE BY THE GOVERNMENT. :palm:Dare to elaborate on the source of this claim?
2) SpaceX is standing on the shoulders of the DECADES OF WORK ALREADY DONE BY THE GOVERNMENT. :palm:Dare to elaborate on the source of this claim?
... I can never tell if you're joking, or what. Are you saying SpaceX started from absolute zero knowledge of the field of rocketry? They didn't look at what worked and what didn't before??? They didn't benefit from the mountains of knowledge of theory and materials and practical engineering amassed over the decades by NASA??How dare you go to school and learn from the books, exploiting knowledge of poor scientists of the past! You should sit in a cave and achieve all on your own.
You speak as if there is only one government in the world, which since you wear a Canadian tag, is presumably the Canadian government.
And yes, SpaceX is saving their customers (some of which are agencies of specific governments) money by putting payloads in orbit cheaper than anyone else seems to be able to. Including said governments themselves.
... I can never tell if you're joking, or what. Are you saying SpaceX started from absolute zero knowledge of the field of rocketry? They didn't look at what worked and what didn't before??? They didn't benefit from the mountains of knowledge of theory and materials and practical engineering amassed over the decades by NASA??How dare you go to school and learn from the books, exploiting knowledge of poor scientists of the past! You should sit in a cave and achieve all on your own.
It's game over for all the space dreams.Forever? As in all eternity? Even the dreams?
It's over. The future is here ...
Sure sure, some military test pilots bounced on the Moon for a few days
Most science is built on that which came before. Huge advances in rocketry came from war technology developed by Nazi Germany and the German scientists that continued their work in various countries after the war.
@ George: How do you pay for the space program in the US as a Pole?Do I? Am I paying Musk? I hope not! The public debt is just a(nother) tax in disguise, and a rather big one.
or "Asteroid of DOOM!!".BTW, I remembered that not so long time ago there was one that exploded in midair in Russia. Not that big to cause huge damage but there was some real damage indeed.
By 5 March 2013 the number of damaged buildings was tallied at over 7,200, which included some 6,040 apartment blocks, 293 medical facilities, 718 schools and universities, 100 cultural organizations, and 43 sport facilities, of which only about one and a half percent had not yet been repaired.[4] The oblast's governor estimated the damage to buildings at more than 1 billion rubles[82] (approximately US$33 million).
https://youtu.be/mUQtqnmwDt4?t=1503
Cued for the segment of interest, the focus of the point I wish to highlight begins at 27:18.
Youre whining about the US space program, as a pole, who doesnt pay a penny to it.Nope, in general, about 1) excessive spending= deficit and 2) tremendous public debts and 3) debt's interest payments forever, which happens ~ everywhere nowadays.
Nope, in general, about 1) excessive spending= deficit and 2) tremendous public debts and 3) debt's interest payments forever, which happens ~ everywhere nowadays.
Harrison Schmitt was neither a test pilot nor an engineer.Sure sure, some military test pilots bounced on the Moon for a few days
I'd like to point out those test pilots were also engineers ;D
BTW, I remembered that not so long time ago there was one that exploded in midair in Russia. Not that big to cause huge damage but there was some real damage indeed.
I think you are fixated on an incidental point and missing out on the bigger picture.
Which absolutely needs to be discussed in a thread about SpaceX, NASA, and going to Mars.Taxpayers weren't very happy back in the day when the space race was taking place, with the exhorbitant amounts spent. I'd guess many US citizens would rather prefer not to add to the 18 trillions (+ interest) debt, just to please Musk's wet space dreams, so to speak.
Taxpayers weren't very happy back in the day when the space race was taking place, with the exhorbitant amounts spent. I'd guess many US citizens would rather prefer not to add to the 18 trillions (+ interest) debt, just to please Musk's wet space dreams, so to speak.
There is no vitriol against space. Space is a vacuum, it is inert. I am upset at the cloud-shovelling nerds with their space pseudo-religion earnestly charting out the future of humanity in the galaxy. Guys, Star Trek was fiction. It's just you, me, the Periodic Table of the Elements and the four forces. There are no dilithium crystals, no duranium, no tungsten verteride carbon matrix, no structural integrity fields, no warp drive, no transporters, no replicators, no aliens that look like us, no artificial gravity, no Vulcans, no habitable planets just days away in a magical spaceship that doesn't exist.You know, the only reason I watched any Star Trek at all is because my brother watched it. Instead I often curled up with a book. Meaty tomes like the "Aero-Hydrodynamics of Sailing" where the type of book I read. If anything infected me with the desire to go to space, it was the Apollo missions I saw on TV as a child. For extra credit for a community college astronomy course I took when I was 12, I learned to solve orbits to pilot a space ship. Why, because I wanted to do it some day. I taught myself Chaos Theory, String Theory, and many other things because I was interested in them. I also learned more down to earth things like photography, painting, and clothing design. Learning programming, and electronics were a means to an end. What did you fill your brain with? What inspires you?
By all means, send all the A-type test pilots in diapers to play guitar badly in the ISS and grow tomato seeds in free fall and call it vitally important science. I chuckle."Food, Glorious Food" you obviously don't care about it. I'd guess you've never had to go hungry, nor worked with those who did.
But when you start thinking that Mars is just a hop and a skip away and how simple it all could be if we just listened to you because you read sci-fi, that's where I draw the line.You make a lot of assumptions about others. That isn't wise to do.
Space is huge. Space is dead. Space is hostile. We are here. We are not going anywhere with kerosene and carbon fiber no matter how good our computers get. Sure sure, some military test pilots bounced on the Moon for a few days after the most powerful nation in history worked at it for an entire decade. So what? They came back after a week.As the saying goes "Can't never did anything." Are you afraid of failure? I've had my share. Some even nearly killed me. I hedge my bets, and then go for it. I much prefer being a can do person. Space is a challenge, a very big challenge. Especially to do it right and survive to tell the tale. Can you say you survived a tire blowout at over 350 kph? I can. I for one would be very willing to go put my footprint on Mars even if I was the 10,000th person to do so. Yeah, I'd make sure my space ship is as safe as reasonable, but I wouldn't let a small possibility of failure stop me. I think you seriously underestimate the capabilities of the designers and engineers. SpaceX is designing their systems to continue to work despite failures. Their own lives may be depending on their workmanship.
It's over. The future is here and it ain't in space. If it was as simple as the Space Nutters keep telling us then why didn't it happen when everyone and everything was working towards space 50 years ago? Human curiosity didn't change, did it? They had rich people back then too, right? So why didn't it happen? The same generation that built the Concorde, mind you.
True. He was the first person with true scientific training prior to becoming an astronaut with a PhD in Geology. NASA then trained him to be a jet pilot and a lunar module pilot, along with all the other things every astronaut has to learn. He designed and trained people in collection techniques used on the moon. Obviously there was a lot of practical engineering acquired along the way. He became a professor of engineering physics after he was done with his astronaut and political careers, which should support that assertation.Harrison Schmitt was neither a test pilot nor an engineer.Sure sure, some military test pilots bounced on the Moon for a few days
I'd like to point out those test pilots were also engineers ;D
"Food, Glorious Food" you obviously don't care about it. I'd guess you've never had to go hungry, nor worked with those who did.But when you start thinking that Mars is just a hop and a skip away and how simple it all could be if we just listened to you because you read sci-fi, that's where I draw the line.You make a lot of assumptions about others. That isn't wise to do.
USA, other Nations and corporations need to deploy satellites for profit reasons, Musk enables cheaper transportation for said satellites, makes money (a part of the amount the ULA would get as a monopoly) and establish firms and employs many people who pay taxes.
Just an angry guy who isnt clever enough to set up his own firm and enjoy the capitalism that he praises.
Somebody has to pay for the roads, water systems, sewage systems, police, Department of Agriculture, Food and Drug Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, courts, etc. I laugh at you if you think society could work if they were for profit businesses. There are very good reasons people banded together and formed governments to provide services like I listed, and other services too. If you think you can do without the EPA and it's regulations, feel free to move to any of China's industrial cities. We used to have some that bad here in the US, and people got pissed and demanded things be cleaned up. Sadly we didn't require it of our trading partners too.Just an angry guy who isnt clever enough to set up his own firm and enjoy the capitalism that he praises.
In the capitalism I would praise, private bussinesses can't pick peoples' money out of their pockets, forcefully and by decree, via taxes.
You want a bigger picture? OK, paint me this: a million years ago, there were no humans. Evolution is still happening. There won't be humans in another million years.So you are implying is that humans should not bother about becoming extinct as dinosaurs (= no passing our genes to future generations) to allow other species evolve. Dunno about you but I'm somewhat uncomfortable with this idea. The fact we don't have technology right now, does not mean we can't develop it in the future. Few hounded years ago the best available technology for transport was our own feet and horses.
So much for your precious "species". If dinosaurs had farted their asteroid of doom away, we wouldn't have evolved at all.
So who are you to decide what may or may not evolve here?
We simply do not have the technology or resources to enable any of the "Space Prepper" nonsense. It's all just so much gothic space opera.
Finished it today and I see what you mean. I think a good script writer should be able to fix the problems though. Will be really cool to see a somewhat realistic imagining of a moon base on the big screen.Quoteyay, listening to Artemis now. :)
The story and dialog is kinda cringe-worthy, but it creates an awesome mental image and sense of what a moon colony would be like.
I think it's ideal to be made into a movie.
Somebody has to pay for the roads, water systems, sewage systems, police, Department of Agriculture, Food and Drug Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, courts, etc. I laugh at you if you think society could work if they were for profit businesses. There are very good reasons people banded together and formed governments to provide services like I listed, and other services too. If you think you can do without the EPA and it's regulations, feel free to move to any of China's industrial cities. We used to have some that bad here in the US, and people got pissed and demanded things be cleaned up. Sadly we didn't require it of our trading partners too.
You want a bigger picture? OK, paint me this: a million years ago, there were no humans. Evolution is still happening. There won't be humans in another million years.So you are implying is that humans should not bother about becoming extinct as dinosaurs (= no passing our genes to future generations) to allow other species evolve. Dunno about you but I'm somewhat uncomfortable with this idea. The fact we don't have technology right now, does not mean we can't develop it in the future.
So much for your precious "species". If dinosaurs had farted their asteroid of doom away, we wouldn't have evolved at all.
So who are you to decide what may or may not evolve here?
We simply do not have the technology or resources to enable any of the "Space Prepper" nonsense. It's all just so much gothic space opera.
Few hounded years ago the best available technology for transport was our own feet and horses.
Finished it today and I see what you mean. I think a good script writer should be able to fix the problems though. Will be really cool to see a somewhat realistic imagining of a moon base on the big screen.Quoteyay, listening to Artemis now. :)
The story and dialog is kinda cringe-worthy, but it creates an awesome mental image and sense of what a moon colony would be like.
I think it's ideal to be made into a movie.
And a few hundred years later we are still mostly transporting ourselves along the ground in devices that are polluting our planet, and eating food grown in mostly the old fashioned way to sustain ourselves.The way we grow and especially process food is vastly different when it's done on industrial scale. Also don't forget about genetically modified crops.
Things actually haven't changed as much as you think.
You are seriously trying to correlate this small incremental improvement in efficiency with terra-forming another planet (because that's what it will take) and moving millions of people there and starting civilisation, agriculture, mining and manufacturing from scratch?When you compare people never having chance leaving their small village in the past and casual flight by airplane just for vacation, the scale of leap from what was then and is now is actually much greater compared to the required leap between to what we have right now and making a base on Mars. We more or less have the technology. It's just a question of funding and viability. Back then it did not matter how much money you had, you still could not drive by car or take a flight. And if you became ill by something not considered that serious today, you'll very likely just die. Simple surgery was a sure death because no antibiotics existed.
And a few hundred years later we are still mostly transporting ourselves along the ground in devices that are polluting our planet, and eating food grown in mostly the old fashioned way to sustain ourselves.The way we grow and especially process food is vastly different when it's done on industrial scale. Also don't forget about genetically modified crops.
Things actually haven't changed as much as you think.
When you compare people never having chance leaving their small village in the past and casual flight by airplane just for vacation, the scale of leap from what was then and is now is actually much greater compared to the required leap between to what we have right now and making a base on Mars. We more or less have the technology.
Finished it today and I see what you mean. I think a good script writer should be able to fix the problems though. Will be really cool to see a somewhat realistic imagining of a moon base on the big screen.Quoteyay, listening to Artemis now. :)
The story and dialog is kinda cringe-worthy, but it creates an awesome mental image and sense of what a moon colony would be like.
I think it's ideal to be made into a movie.
Yeah, I have no doubt any decent script writer could take the basic premise and turn it into a decent movie.
Well, the hundreds of future generations part is in question, given the damage we keep doing to the planets environment. We already have a lot of people in the world who have damaged lungs from dirty air, diseases from dirty water, and/or are starving from inadequate food. And it's clearly going to get worse with time, not even counting whatever is going to happen from global warming.
Already done. See Duncan Jones' "Moon."
You are missing the point. They still grow in the ground, and they still need to be processed and transported, and the scale is still massive. Something that isn't going to happen on another planet. It's chalk and cheese.You'd be surprised at how much food is grown using hydroponics.
Absolute rubbish.Ya have to start sometime. Might as well be 2024. BTW, you should look up printing of resistors and diodes. Also look up resistor diode logic. GHz diodes can be printed. Something very famous used it. ;) In the early years chips may have to be imported, but some day an entrepreneur will establish Mars' first semiconductor fab, or maybe Apple or Intel will. In the long run it is massively cheaper to ship the machinery to make chips, and the designs than the chips themselves. Sure, mining and raw materials infrastructure will need to have happened by then. I expect that will get set up quickly.
We do not have the technology, not even an order of magnitude close, to enable a Mars colony to self-sustain itself and grow in case the earth got wiped out. They would simply die out.
If you think we do then you have no clue about the absolutely massive scale of manufacturing and process infrastructure required in the modern world to make everything you take for granted, and everything the Mars colonists would take for granted.
Such a concept of saving the species by moving to Mars is absolutely laughable in any time frame we can reasonably imagine.
Take the absolute simplest example (and there are literally hundreds like this) of a controller and for the solar panels.
What happens when it breaks?
Use some spare parts? Ok.
What happens when you run out of spare parts?
Manufacture your own? Using what? A magic 3D printer machine that makes chips and parts? :-DD
Do you know how many process steps go into making just one modern component?
How on earth (pun realised) are you going to recreate that one Mars?
Also don't forget about genetically modified crops.The off topic bit that lead to my previous post.
I'm gonna buy the western flank of Olympus MonsWho are you going to buy it from?
Dave's right about the manufacturing chain, any given widget you can think of is likely made of parts that came from dozens of factories, each of those parts made of materials that came from numerous other factories. Each of these factories is made of materials from dozens of other suppliers, as are all the tools used to build the factories and machinery.Yeah, you don't just need the machinery and tools to make the new spare parts, you need the machinery and tools to make the machinery and tools that makes the spare parts, (and so on). And I'm no expert in chemistry but I reckon you have less raw materials to work with on mars than you have here on earth as well. It's not like you can go outside and chop down a tree and make a fire. Maybe you can extract the elements and synthesise stuff you need but it would require whopping amounts of energy and effort.
I'm gonna buy the western flank of Olympus Mons from the crater wall, to 50 km west of the crater wall, and a good 25 km wide at the crater wall, and 50 km wide at the western end. Should be a good place to install a catapult or two, and the solar arrays to power it.
It's game over for all the space dreams.Forever? As in all eternity? Even the dreams?
I've been thinking how 3D printing is changing the supply chain, and advances in 3D printing. Many parts of the past now get printed as one part. You need the designs, assembly instructions, and the printer-mills and you can make many parts from a few different relatively simple raw materials. A combination of 3D printer, and 5 axis mill could make a huge variety of parts. Then the assembly bots can take the parts right from the printer-mill and assemble whatever as they come off the printer-mills.Dave's right about the manufacturing chain, any given widget you can think of is likely made of parts that came from dozens of factories, each of those parts made of materials that came from numerous other factories. Each of these factories is made of materials from dozens of other suppliers, as are all the tools used to build the factories and machinery.Yeah, you don't just need the machinery and tools to make the new spare parts, you need the machinery and tools to make the machinery and tools that makes the spare parts, (and so on). And I'm no expert in chemistry but I reckon you have less raw materials to work with on mars than you have here on earth as well. It's not like you can go outside and chop down a tree and make a fire. Maybe you can extract the elements and synthesise stuff you need but it would require whopping amounts of energy and effort.
I think he's just here to annoy people. The only arguments in support of his position seem to be "far" and "hard", neither of which are really valid. If there was an actual need for a colony on Mars, far and hard wouldn't stand a chance. Since a colony is not really needed right now, I wouldn't expect one for a hundred years or so. As far as technology and engineering capability goes, it could have been done years ago. Politics and economics are the main limiting factors.
Do you really think these asinine, sarcasm-soaked shitposts are worth your time?
Politics will only play a minor role. It's the money and initiative of private individuals and corporations that will get the ball rolling.
why aren't there private Vomit Comet rides
, and if there are, why haven't you been on one?
There are: https://www.gozerog.com/ (https://www.gozerog.com/)
You know, minor stuff like that. The really big stuff will come from private people in their garages, preparing bigger posters of Mars colonies... :-DDJust a view inside one of Elon Musk's "garages".
You know, minor stuff like that. The really big stuff will come from private people in their garages, preparing bigger posters of Mars colonies... :-DDJust a view inside one of Elon Musk's "garages".
https://twitter.com/AscentAerospace/status/983382489035980800/photo/1 (https://twitter.com/AscentAerospace/status/983382489035980800/photo/1)
VIews of the outside here:
https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-bfr-factory-rocket-tooling-site-activity/ (https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-bfr-factory-rocket-tooling-site-activity/)
Even NASA considers vertical assembly to have been a mistake. The VAB limits how tall of a rocket they can make, assembly work platforms are costly and unique to the rocket, and the vehicle to move it to the launch pad is extremely expensive. For horizontal assembly guys can work from generic cherry pickers and lift platforms. Also moving the assembled rocket can be done with standard heavy load carriages.You know, minor stuff like that. The really big stuff will come from private people in their garages, preparing bigger posters of Mars colonies... :-DDJust a view inside one of Elon Musk's "garages".
https://twitter.com/AscentAerospace/status/983382489035980800/photo/1 (https://twitter.com/AscentAerospace/status/983382489035980800/photo/1)
VIews of the outside here:
https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-bfr-factory-rocket-tooling-site-activity/ (https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-bfr-factory-rocket-tooling-site-activity/)
NASA's VAB is so large it has its own weather system. It is over 50 years old. I note the absence of Mars colonies.
Try again.
Also sending spare parts to Mars is expensive, so as soon as the raw materials are available, spare parts will be made on Mars.
Interesting idea, by integrating a mill you could get much better surface finishes and dimensional accuracy. Some metal 3D printers use electron beams instead of lasers (in vacuum).I've been thinking how 3D printing is changing the supply chain, and advances in 3D printing. Many parts of the past now get printed as one part. You need the designs, assembly instructions, and the printer-mills and you can make many parts from a few different relatively simple raw materials. A combination of 3D printer, and 5 axis mill could make a huge variety of parts. Then the assembly bots can take the parts right from the printer-mill and assemble whatever as they come off the printer-mills.Dave's right about the manufacturing chain, any given widget you can think of is likely made of parts that came from dozens of factories, each of those parts made of materials that came from numerous other factories. Each of these factories is made of materials from dozens of other suppliers, as are all the tools used to build the factories and machinery.Yeah, you don't just need the machinery and tools to make the new spare parts, you need the machinery and tools to make the machinery and tools that makes the spare parts, (and so on). And I'm no expert in chemistry but I reckon you have less raw materials to work with on mars than you have here on earth as well. It's not like you can go outside and chop down a tree and make a fire. Maybe you can extract the elements and synthesise stuff you need but it would require whopping amounts of energy and effort.
I'm now toying with making a 3D printer-mill that can use powders of various types and fuse them together, and also mill the surfaces to shape as it makes the part. The goal is a couple micron resolution in glass, ceramics and metals being done on the same part. I wish I had the
$ for the laser fusing heads. I figure I need 40 to 80 Watts minimum due to the fusing temperatures and the speed of fusing needed for some materials. Plus I may need a couple different wavelengths. There is a lot that needs to go into it, but that should all be able to be handled. Yes, I'm cognizant of the differing rates of expansion and contraction of various materials I'm considering using. Hence the need for handling many different materials. The atmosphere around the material being fused can also be very critical for success. At first I'll be trying hard vacuum to see if it works. If it does work for most materials, then great. Yes, I know I'll vaporize part of the materials I'm fusing. That's life when you make compromises. BTW, I want this for making art. Imagine embedding diodes, resistores, and transistors in the middle of a chunk of glass. How about in the middle of the frame of a robot?
Politics will only play a minor role. It's the money and initiative of private individuals and corporations that will get the ball rolling.It was tax money that put people on the moon. A corporation is essentially a machine programmed to make profit, and if you can't make profit out of the Mars colony a corporation can't do it. I doubt there are any private individuals rich enough or interested enough to set up a colony on Mars (including Elon Musk), and as a potential Mars coloniser would you be willing to trust that a private individual would continue to support your colony for the centuries it would take just to get things started?
.... A 3D printer can't print a battery, ...
I expect SpaceX will be the only transportation supplier for at most two decades. Others will come in when there is money to be made.Politics will only play a minor role. It's the money and initiative of private individuals and corporations that will get the ball rolling.It was tax money that put people on the moon. A corporation is essentially a machine programmed to make profit, and if you can't make profit out of the Mars colony a corporation can't do it. I doubt there are any private individuals rich enough or interested enough to set up a colony on Mars (including Elon Musk), and as a potential Mars coloniser would you be willing to trust that a private individual would continue to support your colony for the centuries it would take just to get things started?
Someone mentioned the Biosphere 2 experiment previously. That was trivial experiment in comparison but turned out to not work as intended at all. It's a shame that no one made a biosphere 3 and so on until they could get something that works though. But that also shows there isn't anyone willing to pay for even the most basic research needed to get started. How would you convince people they should care about about a colony on Mars if they are never going to see it or benefit from it. Heck, seven percent of the US population believes the earth is flat! If the majority of people here on earth can think of something else than eating, sleeping and reproducing for a while they spend the time figuring out how to steal each others resources and fighting over who's imaginary friend is better. We know how to make safe and super efficient nuclear reactors but for some reason everyone decided to develop and build the models that provide a-bomb material as a byproduct instead, and for the most part we still mainly (90%) use coal/oil/gas to power everything here on earth anyway. Good luck convincing people they should spend the necessary money and resources on colonising Mars just because nerds think it would be cool (and maybe even beneficial for humanity long term).Biosphere 3 still had some fundamental flaws the designers weren't addressing. Hence no more funding. Neither Biosphere 1, nor Biosphere 2 were properly controlled experiments.
From NASA research reports, one of the printing methods I've been exploring should be able to use raw ground up Martian regolith to make strong 3D body structures out of. The minimum strength would be similar to low grade glass, with the likely strength being closer to volcanic glass.That's great, maybe they can print a nice vase. Still doesn't make the batteries or the CO2 scrubbers or the mining machinery, or the water harvesting, oxygen generators, hydroponics pumps, MRI and other medical equipment, electronics, clothing, etc, needed to live on mars. At best it can be used to print some parts. You just can't make heavy mining equipment out of low grade glass no matter how good your 3D printer is. How do you plan on printing the solar cells and/or nuclear reactors that will power your 3D printer? How will you construct the equipment needed to make IC's?
If it is possible to find the components to make a binder, then fiberglass structures can be made.if, if, if...
If components for a high temperature frothing agent can be found, then aerogels can be made from ground up and melted regolith. Aerogels are very good insulators, and likely are structurally strong when used as the core of a composite. A glass, aerogel, glass layered wall would be a good protection against Mar's cold temperatures and sand storms.
SpaceX is sending satellites into orbit because that is something people are willing to pay for, i.e. it is profitable. NASA will no doubt use SpaceX to send things into space, but it is still NASA who is paying for it (while SpaceX is making a profit).I expect SpaceX will be the only transportation supplier for at most two decades. Others will come in when there is money to be made.Politics will only play a minor role. It's the money and initiative of private individuals and corporations that will get the ball rolling.It was tax money that put people on the moon. A corporation is essentially a machine programmed to make profit, and if you can't make profit out of the Mars colony a corporation can't do it. I doubt there are any private individuals rich enough or interested enough to set up a colony on Mars (including Elon Musk), and as a potential Mars coloniser would you be willing to trust that a private individual would continue to support your colony for the centuries it would take just to get things started?
Biosphere 1 is earth, biosphere 2 failed (but still provided some interesting data on human psychology and failure modes I suppose), there were never a biosphere 3.Someone mentioned the Biosphere 2 experiment previously. That was trivial experiment in comparison but turned out to not work as intended at all. It's a shame that no one made a biosphere 3 and so on until they could get something that works though. But that also shows there isn't anyone willing to pay for even the most basic research needed to get started. How would you convince people they should care about about a colony on Mars if they are never going to see it or benefit from it. Heck, seven percent of the US population believes the earth is flat! If the majority of people here on earth can think of something else than eating, sleeping and reproducing for a while they spend the time figuring out how to steal each others resources and fighting over who's imaginary friend is better. We know how to make safe and super efficient nuclear reactors but for some reason everyone decided to develop and build the models that provide a-bomb material as a byproduct instead, and for the most part we still mainly (90%) use coal/oil/gas to power everything here on earth anyway. Good luck convincing people they should spend the necessary money and resources on colonising Mars just because nerds think it would be cool (and maybe even beneficial for humanity long term).Biosphere 3 still had some fundamental flaws the designers weren't addressing. Hence no more funding. Neither Biosphere 1, nor Biosphere 2 were properly controlled experiments.
Not everybody thought going to America was a good idea. It was all paid for out of investors and people's pockets. As for readiness, some will be, and some won't. That is life. Same thing happened with ships setting sail for the Americas, settlers settling North America, settlers setting the American west, and prospectors following the gold rushes. I expect once Musk has his Mars base set up, there will be a few research institutions that set up Mars research stations. I wish I had the money to setup the first general store on Mars. ;)The Americas was already populated when it was discovered by the Europeans. It was colonised by Spain, England and France, and other countries who literally went bankrupt when racing to grab as much land as possible for their colonies. It was finances by states, and it was believed by most in power that it would be very profitable long term. Completely different situation from colonising Mars though.
Really? I'm thinking of a general purpose 3D printer, not a machine that only makes batteries out of expensive pre-processed materials. Otherwise what is the big benefit to use it at a mars colony? Do you have any reference?.... A 3D printer can't print a battery, ...
I wouldn't be so positive about that. Researchers are having a lot of success in that area.
Completely different situation from colonising Mars though.
Not everybody thought going to America was a good idea.The jury is still out on this one >:D
Mars has nothing a human needs to survive. North America in 1600 had everything a human needs.
For the individual colonists there will be hardships and isolation just as the first american colonies experienced, for sure. But colonising mars would still be very different. In the "new world" you had freedom of religion (which is what motivated many European emigrants), economical possibilities like owning your own plot of fertile land (with breathable atmosphere and non-toxic soil), and things like the gold rush (there isn't anything on Mars valuable enough that it would cover the shipping cost to earth). The Americas was a new world of possibilities. Mars wouldn't be anything like that, it would be a constant struggle. You can't even hope to set up your own little shop and do your thing. Everything would have to be managed in detail top down from the start if they are to have any chance what so ever. I'm sure there are plenty who would like to try given the opportunity, but who is going to provide that opportunity?QuoteCompletely different situation from colonising Mars though.
Reading the history of the first American colonies it's not difficult to see similarities with the possible colonization of Mars. The fact that you can't live on Mars without life support and that there are (probably) no natives to help out will make it much more difficult. The travel time between home and the colonies will be a lot longer also. All in all, Mars just seems like more trouble than it's worth to me, but I'm sure there were those that thought the same about America 400 years ago.
The key thing to take from this is that the more Earth like Mars, or anyplace else was found to be, the more this group of thinkers would be against going there. Because contamination. In fact, many of this ilk would not allow robot probes, no matter how well sterilized, and no matter how hard the space environment between here and there is.
What is needed is a remote robotic program that will collect rocks and send them back all unmanned. There is no reason to risk any human life or the extra monies to keep them alive and return, with today's remote control capabilities.
For the individual colonists there will be hardships and isolation just as the first american colonies experienced, for sure.
For the individual colonists there will be hardships and isolation just as the first american colonies experienced, for sure.The difference is going to be huge here. Early colonists moved to a perfectly habitable area that was in fact inhabited by native populations, it was not a foreign planet.
Incredible strawman you've constructed there, Truth In Vacuum.
Some of you have strange ideas about how wonderful the early American colonies were.
Jamestown is considered the first permanent English colony in America. Of three previous attempts, two were abandoned and one just disappeared. There were about 500 Jamestown colonists at the beginning of winter 1609–1610. There were only 60 people still alive when the spring arrived.
While Jamestown is possibly the worst example, many of the first colonies were simply abandoned. Disease, starvation, and massacre by Indians were common problems. Just getting there was a difficult journey taking many weeks and was generally a one way trip. If you changed your mind, the next resupply ship might not arrive for months.
Calling people names means they are not smart enough to stick with and improve on their logical arguments. It's a lazy emotional action, focused on taking a cheap shot while simultaneously demonstrating bad manners. The end result is that most readers will dismiss whatever else they have to say as a mere continuation of the name-calling (also known as shit-talking). The ones that don't dismiss you agreed with you in the first place.
A great example of someone who communicates this way all the time has a name that rhymes with Ronald Dump.
Maybe you should cut down a little on the above. You tend to end up throwing it even at people who, to some extent at least, actually agree with you. Slow down, man.
- Are you software dreamers thinking of sending people???
- The problem with all you hubristic techno-extrapolators is that hindsight is 20/20
- You guys have smelled your own farts so long you have methane poisoning
- You've been daydreaming you're Q from Star Trek again, haven't you?
- the quasi religious nonsense you Space Nutters repeat about space
- you are Bozo the Clown
Was it quoted from some deleted post? This vacuum guy forgot to mention:Quote from: In Vacuo VeritasMaybe you should cut down a little on the above. You tend to end up throwing it even at people who, to some extent at least, actually agree with you. Slow down, man.
- Are you software dreamers thinking of sending people???
- The problem with all you hubristic techno-extrapolators is that hindsight is 20/20
- You guys have smelled your own farts so long you have methane poisoning
- You've been daydreaming you're Q from Star Trek again, haven't you?
- the quasi religious nonsense you Space Nutters repeat about space
- you are Bozo the Clown
Quote from: In Vacuo VeritasMaybe you should cut down a little on the above. You tend to end up throwing it even at people who, to some extent at least, actually agree with you. Slow down, man.
- Are you software dreamers thinking of sending people???
- The problem with all you hubristic techno-extrapolators is that hindsight is 20/20
- You guys have smelled your own farts so long you have methane poisoning
- You've been daydreaming you're Q from Star Trek again, haven't you?
- the quasi religious nonsense you Space Nutters repeat about space
- you are Bozo the Clown
I'd suggest that bitterness is going out of your way in an attempt to spoil other peoples dreams. Why else would you spend so much energy on this topic?Can't, can't, can't, is all he knows now. He's closed his mind to changes, and is unwilling to accept he isn't right.
I'd suggest that bitterness is going out of your way in an attempt to spoil other peoples dreams. Why else would you spend so much energy on this topic?
I'd suggest that bitterness is going out of your way in an attempt to spoil other peoples dreams. Why else would you spend so much energy on this topic?Can't, can't, can't, is all he knows now. He's closed his mind to changes, and is unwilling to accept he isn't right.
I bet he doesn't even know that Musk isn't the only one with lots of money invested in SpaceX. Musk just accepted those investments on the condition Musk is in charge, and the goal is, and always will be, Mars.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/08/spacex-organizes-inaugural-conference-to-plan-landings-on-mars/
First of all, Elon has to fix all the issues troubling Tesla today.Well, yeah the Shark Tank investors have to get out of their short positions. Did you get caught with shares shorted when Musk made a $420 a share buyback offer? That says mightily where he thinks the company will be going. Unfortunately I think it may be a mistake. Don't underestimate the loyalty ownership can create. On the other hand with complete ownership it may make getting loans for expansion plans easier.
Although building a brand-new vehicle platform is very tough, its difficulty is insignificant compared to sending humans to Mars.
For that reason, as the Shark Tank investors like to say, I am out.
One thing NASA proved is you can't create a sustainable manned program if it costs $1 billion per launch, which is the cost of SLS.He's also driven by money. He knows he needs to make it affordable so the investors come and make the hotels, research institutes, mines, refineries, and factories.
What SpaceX hasn't proved yet is that if you drive down the launch costs then new applications will arise to increase demand. But Musk is uniquely different in that he is obviously driven by ideas, not money.
Personally, I think Elon Musk is just trying to sell his BFR to somebody, anybody. I'm pretty sure NASA realizes that Mars colonies are far in the future. It seems that, at least for now, they do intend to explore the place. For that, it looks like the SLS is still the current favored transport. Everything could easily change though. SpaceX has done some very impressive stuff. I hope they keep it up.NASA is already seriously considering it for larger loads. That's because it will more likely be ready on time than the SLS will be, and will be cheaper. I’ve run across literature from NASA showing an telescope in the cargobay of a BFR. NASA wants both available and working.
And as for who has money in SpaceX or not, how does that change a single thing? You're shifting the goalposts faster than light, and that's not allowed.It shows you that Musk isn't the only one with money that wants to get to Mars so it is very pertinent. You've tried to say there is no market. Mars bookings aren't open yet, but moon ones are. Looks like Musk has a private flight for two around the moon booked. I'd expect they are paying somewhere around the price of a large satellite launch on the Falcon Heavy considering that is the rocket SpaceX has that can launch a crewed lunar orbiter in a Dragon capsule. I wish I had that kind of money. I could do a lot with $90 million. I could hire minions to build the things my mind thinks up.
First there was Steve and the Cult of Mac, now there's in Musk we trust. Poor fanboys, what would they do without a leader?Sorry bud, but it's Kernighan & Ritchie, the Computer Systems Research Group of the University of California Berkeley (creators of BSD UNIX), Richard Stallman, and Linus Torvalds. Together they released us from proprietary operating systems. I never was a fan of any Apple product, unless you are talking Apple Records. Then I am a fan. When I rented a PDP in the later '70s it had BSD on it. I thought the PC was also a deliberately limited functionality hack job. Did you know that IBM had a PC prototype that used the 68000 with a 16 bit wide memory bus? They went with Intel because IBM owned some of it's stock, and it's maximum capabilities were less of a threat to IBM's traditional business computer division.
Colonizing any planet in the solar system counts as colonizing the sun, my dear chap!
One thing NASA proved is you can't create a sustainable manned program if it costs $1 billion per launch, which is the cost of SLS.
What SpaceX hasn't proved yet is that if you drive down the launch costs then new applications will arise to increase demand. But Musk is uniquely different in that he is obviously driven by ideas, not money.
someone doesn't know what atmosphere is.
Perhaps they meant heliosphere.
One thing NASA proved is you can't create a sustainable manned program if it costs $1 billion per launch, which is the cost of SLS.
What SpaceX hasn't proved yet is that if you drive down the launch costs then new applications will arise to increase demand. But Musk is uniquely different in that he is obviously driven by ideas, not money.
That isn't an enormous sum when you consider that the Western Australian Government paid $A1.6 billion (approx US $ 1.18 billion) for a sports stadium.
It's a very big, very modern, well appointed sports stadium, but ultimately, it's a place to play football, cricket, etc.
One thing NASA proved is you can't create a sustainable manned program if it costs $1 billion per launch, which is the cost of SLS.
What SpaceX hasn't proved yet is that if you drive down the launch costs then new applications will arise to increase demand. But Musk is uniquely different in that he is obviously driven by ideas, not money.
That isn't an enormous sum when you consider that the Western Australian Government paid $A1.6 billion (approx US $ 1.18 billion) for a sports stadium.
It's a very big, very modern, well appointed sports stadium, but ultimately, it's a place to play football, cricket, etc.
And once Humanity has colonized the Galaxy, what do you think they will do on these thousands, nay MILLIONS, of new planets?
Thumb their noses at nay-sayers, of course!
Thumb their noses at nay-sayers, of course!
LOL you're adorable! It's like listening to kids fantasize about themselves as adults. Cute, until you realize you guys are in your forties.
One thing NASA proved is you can't create a sustainable manned program if it costs $1 billion per launch, which is the cost of SLS.
What SpaceX hasn't proved yet is that if you drive down the launch costs then new applications will arise to increase demand. But Musk is uniquely different in that he is obviously driven by ideas, not money.
That isn't an enormous sum when you consider that the Western Australian Government paid $A1.6 billion (approx US $ 1.18 billion) for a sports stadium.
It's a very big, very modern, well appointed sports stadium, but ultimately, it's a place to play football, cricket, etc.
And once Humanity has colonized the Galaxy, what do you think they will do on these thousands, nay MILLIONS, of new planets?
but ultimately, it's a place to play football, cricket, etc.It's a place to watch others play... Meh, I'd rather do than watch, which makes having CFS really suck. Heck, I don't even have the energy to watch TV anymore.
:P I'm older...Thumb their noses at nay-sayers, of course!
LOL you're adorable! It's like listening to kids fantasize about themselves as adults. Cute, until you realize you guys are in your forties.
I don't think you can understand the level of frustration I have with current society. At a job I'd get a string of outstanding performance reviews from my directly above managers, then I'd get fired because the big boss didn't want a queer on staff. Again, and again, and again this happened. I'm well past the point where I can deal with that BS anymore. All of that and the other ill treatment that I've received over my life has left me disabled. For me the future will hopefully be much better if I survive that long. There has been a slow but steady increase in the acceptance of queers in society. It's finally starting for transgenders like myself, but it's likely to late for me. I'm physically and mentally broken and can't stand going out of the house anymore. My endocrine system is worn out and failing because I spent to much time in fight or flight mode* when I was young. Even if I psychologically could work, my failing endocrine system won't let me. I have so little available energy production capacity left that I can't even spend an afternoon thinking to my full potential. Just an hour of deep thought leaves me exhausted with a severe headache and nausea. Then I have to take a many hour break to rest my mind, and let it recharge. Watching TV or listening to the radio is out. They use energy. I often just close my eyes, meditate on calm images, and try not to slip into deep thought, or go and post on the net. It takes very little of my mental capacity to read and post on forums.I'd suggest that bitterness is going out of your way in an attempt to spoil other peoples dreams. Why else would you spend so much energy on this topic?
Because there are thousands of dreams that are actually worth dreaming. Your time on the mortal plane is limited. How about working out how to make this planet work out for the species that's already here?
Instead of pretending to care about some nebulous future? Is it because you know it will never happen therefore you don't have to work at it? You know, like praying?.
Strange, I still don't see any Moon bases or Mars vacation colonies. Seems to me it's you who needs to accept you aren't right.At the end of the Apollo era space travel was only in the nation state affordability zone, despite that some mega millionaires and billionaires were still thinking about it and exploring ideas. They just didn't have the money to commit to as an expensive of project as going to the moon or Mars looked like it would have been. Musk is managing to greatly reduce the transportation cost bottleneck. Once Musk has fully reusable rockets, actual launch costs per ton will be less than 100th of what they were in the Apollo era. He's getting it down into the cost range expected for space elevators.* His per ton Mars transport costs will be well less than 5% of what NASA projected, but the cost of the habitats will be more because they are designed to be permanent. The last design I've seen looked to be a stackable dome type structures that can be covered with regolith for solar storm radiation protection. NASA wasn't giving the visiting astronauts much more than a lunar lander module and some tents to live in. Musk's stated goal is $200,000 per person for what I assume is a 1 way trip to Mars. Even at 10 times that rate, I could sell the farm, visit Mars, and still have a very nice nest egg to retire with. Corporations and governments will see that as a bargain.
Could just be a lazy binary way of dealing with the world that many have. For me, I deal with all the hues, saturations, tones and shades out there. Binary thinking with old opinions not being reevaluated when new data comes to light does not compute for me. When new data is learned, my opinions will be reevaluated and may change.Thumb their noses at nay-sayers, of course!
LOL you're adorable! It's like listening to kids fantasize about themselves as adults. Cute, until you realize you guys are in your forties.
I don't think you got a single thing right in that statement. Trying to fit us all into the same pigeonhole is just your way of insulting the world.
As someone who actually works in space plasma physics, I can confirm that we live inside the sun's "atmosphere." It's not a very profound statement.
* Space elevators are acable running from ground to way out past geo stationary orbit.completely fictional daydream. They literally arein geo stationary orbit,non-existent but are so long one end touches earth, and the other is way out in space. (as is your head) You can balance the ground end with a weight of course, so simple! at or out past geo stationary orbit. We can make the extremely strong carbon nanotube fibers needed to make them, sure we can! But first, let's build a bridge that can hold for 50 years but as of a decade ago there wasn't a glue strong enough to bind them together. Yes, that was the missing part.
I deal with all the hues, saturations, tones and shades out there.
My point is that some people think building a SPACE ELEVATOR is just a question of buying the right epoxy at Home Depot. :palm:
These are people who look at pictures of nebulae light years away and start ordering trucks from the Caterpillar catalog for the mining operations. :-DD
Beware of applying science to predicting failure. That path is littered with goofs. Profiles of the Future, Arthur Clarke's excellent book on the problems and pitfalls of predicting the future has two telling examples. Professors at the University of Cornell (a leading aeronautical research institute at the time) in the 1930s used detail calculations of power available, drag and weight to poo poo the idea of trans-atlantic passenger transport. They proved that at best a handful of passengers at a time could be carried and it could never reach economic break even. Their calculations were completely correct. I will leave as an exercise for the student how their calculations could be correct while today anyone can book a cross ocean airline flight carrying dozens or even hundreds of passengers. While many will argue that airlines still haven't reached economic break even, the profs clearly missed a couple of inventions. In the second example, in the late 1940s the British Interplanetary Society used information from material science, rocketry and the energy content and Isp potential of various fuels to prove that it was impossible to place a man made object on the moon. Again it is informative to understand why they were wrong, even though there were no errors in their calculations.
This typifies a fundamental issue I have with those who want to predict the future - especially those at the pessimistic and of the scale: Predicting future capabilities from current technology is a guarantee that you will be wrong - the only variable will be the degree of wrong.
In the second example, in the late 1940s the British Interplanetary Society used information from material science, rocketry and the energy content and Isp potential of various fuels to prove that it was impossible to place a man made object on the moon.They must have missed the 1903 report by Russian school teacher Konstantin Ysiolkovskii, and Hermann Oberth's 1923 book. :palm:
"Where's my flying car?"Caught in a legal quagmire. Many decently working ones have been invented already. No insurance company is willing to insure the makers. Plus in most countries you would need a pilots license to fly one. They usually have some strict requirements to get one. Thus the market for them is rather small. BTW, the flying car you see in one of the Bond movies is real, and actually worked. That gives you and idea how long they have been around.
We have seen some peaks already, e.g. supersonic passenger travel. It'll be interesting to see what happens when oil becomes too expensive to use as a fuel source as well.You'd be surprised at what you can make oil out of. When oil gets expensive, the greedy who don't care about the environment, will wreck the earth to make it to keep the gas guzzlers going. Yet another reason to let the meek inherit the earth. The rest of us will need to go to the stars to have clean air to breath, safe water to drink, and food for the table. Yes, food for the table. I've been wondering on the progress of Musk's super sonic electric jet. For those of you who scoff at it, run the fucking numbers. The latest batteries they are using in the Model 3 just make it that much easier to do. My main complaint about the Concorde was noise, but a good pair of noise canceling headphones solved that. Even at ticket prices that made profits, people still booked them. 4 hours from gate to gate for Washington DC to Paris was real nice, but a bit cramped compared to having a whole Gulfstream III to one's self.
It's weird how he keeps on inventing people to argue with ? "It's like people who say this", "it's like people who do that". As if he had ever met any outside his self-congratulatory made-up arguments.Kinda like that idiot going senile in public housing next to The Mall in Washington DC.
In the second example, in the late 1940s the British Interplanetary Society used information from material science, rocketry and the energy content and Isp potential of various fuels to prove that it was impossible to place a man made object on the moon.They must have missed the 1903 report by Russian school teacher Konstantin Ysiolkovskii, and Hermann Oberth's 1923 book. :palm:
Flying cars face a moving bar of regulatory requirements.
You'd be surprised at what you can make oil out of.
I read all 17 pages of this topic "Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars" , and the only thing i could not get out of it was Why SpaceX are going to beat NASA to Mars.
You'd be surprised at what you can make oil out of.
You'd be surprised at how much energy you need in the first place to do that. Do you seriously not understand EROEI? Do you really think when the oil runs out ... we'll just MAKE MORE?
Why not? EROEI is more of an economic issue than a technological one.
If you have the energy in the first place, you don't have an energy problem.
If you have the energy in the first place, you don't have an energy problem.You can have all the energy under the sun and still have an energy problem.
I read all 17 pages of this topic "Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars" , and the only thing i could not get out of it was Why SpaceX are going to beat NASA to Mars.
If you have the energy in the first place, you don't have an energy problem.You can have all the energy under the sun and still have an energy problem.
You just said "EROEI is more of an economic issue than a technological one. " Then you said "You can have all the energy under the sun and still have an energy problem."
Uhhh.... :-//
That's the point... Um... Think it through.