Poll: Should we explore space?

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Chaotic42
I think we should open it up to businesses, with some government protection for things to keep things calm. Like limiting how much one company can mine, etc.

But it is open to business. They can certainly mine the moon, at about a trillon per ton. That is why business will never take the initiative. We arent Columbus crossing the Atlantic in this regard, we are ants on a floating stick.

 

[LAUST]

I think it's funny we talk about all our debt down here but we worry so much about finding out whats out there.

Just a thought is all.

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Chaotic42
I think we should open it up to businesses, with some government protection for things to keep things calm. Like limiting how much one company can mine, etc.

But it is open to business. They can certainly mine the moon, at about a trillon per ton. That is why business will never take the initiative. We arent Columbus crossing the Atlantic in this regard, we are ants on a floating stick.

Costs won't go down until we do some scientific work on the moon. There're lots of opportunities out there, and it's going to cost us money to go there, but we will make our money back millions of times over in the future.

American's have lost their spirit.

 

[beer]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: beer

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: beer

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: ScottyB
We need to pull out of Iraq, cut the military's budget to 1/1000 of what it is now and spend the extra money on space travel.

And end up like a skinny little geek in a school yard full of bullies? No thanks. I have no wish to end up being the world's bitch.

Right

OMG WE ONLY HAVE 8 NUCLEAR AIRCRAFT CARRIERS INSTEAD OF TEN!!!! THE RUSSIANS ARE COMING!!!

Nevermind the French have the only other nuclear-power carrier in the world; India has one; and the UK has aicraft carriers, if you can call them that...they carry like 15 planes at most. Obviously the Russians and Chinese don't have a substantial navy at this point in time.

Personally I don't understand the need for ten aircraft carriers. Such wastes of money.

Each carrier can't operate 365 days of every year. They have to put in to port for refits, crew rotation, etc.
Also, the world's oceans are a big place.

OK, so at any point, 7 out of the 10 are in operation. I'll admit.

BIG FSCKING DEAL! It dosn't matter how big the oceans are, no other country has the equivalent of 2, let alone 10, why do we need them? The world's oceans are indeed a big place, but we generally know where the hotspots are. It's not like one day, of a sudden Agentina is going to invade Brazil. With our sattelites we know when any national army moves a foot. When was thee last time we had to have a carrier in the south pacific, the carribean, or the north atlantic?

Hotspots can move. It can be diffucult to know where the next one might crop up.
The U.S. operates fewer and fewer overseas bases these days. Carrier groups make sense because they can be moved where they are needed.

You also need to keep in mind that we help provide protection for other friendly nations that no longer have the resources to keep large surface fleets.

We shouldn't be paying for their protection. Our country has enough problems on it's own without having greater military spending than the next twelve countries, or more, combined.

And I can guarantee you hotspots don't move at 25 knots. That's why they're ships.

I'd like to hear your logic for us paying for their protection, when they have socialized health care and we don't.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Chaotic42

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Chaotic42
I think we should open it up to businesses, with some government protection for things to keep things calm. Like limiting how much one company can mine, etc.

But it is open to business. They can certainly mine the moon, at about a trillon per ton. That is why business will never take the initiative. We arent Columbus crossing the Atlantic in this regard, we are ants on a floating stick.

Costs won't go down until we do some scientific work on the moon. There're lots of opportunities out there, and it's going to cost us money to go there, but we will make our money back millions of times over in the future.

American's have lost their spirit.

Let me make something clear, I am favor of eventually placing a permanent settlement on the Moon. I am not in favor of doing it half assed, nor spending thousands and thousands per pound when it can be done ten years later for 1/10th of 1 percent of that cost.

Until CHEAP delivery is availible, talk of moon bases is premature, because the public won't pay for it.

Put big bucks into a Space Elevator, then lets talk of more distant adventures.

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Put big bucks into a Space Elevator, then lets talk of more distant adventures.

Hmm, space.com says it could be done for $10 billion.

That's a good investment. I wonder if Gates would go in for it?

 

[matt426malm]

Originally posted by: Chaotic42

Originally posted by: matt426malm
How about sending out that probe to Europa that got cancled. I think Europa has to have about as good a chance for life as Mars.Link

Looking for life isn't that big of a deal to me.

What we need to do is establish colonies on the Moon. We need to use the Moon as a launching platform for asteroid mining operations. Asteroids and the moon both have lots of raw materials that would be great and would make us money.

Looking for life is frosting on the cake.

Just a small cheap mission that would be quite interesting.

That's just me the type that says we should explore space find life, do geology, ect. You would love this site tons of information on different industaial processes on the moon. Despite the fact that some of their stuff is a little "out there." I think that the moon will eventually be a big part of space settlement. It only holds a benefit for the building those big sapce ships when space becomes industrialized and begins to be populated. I think that we don't need those large ships yet because we are still just scouting out the solar system. That's just me.

I also see Mars playing a bigger role than the moon. Again just me. We're both along the same lines we just differ on the particularies.

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: jjyiz28
hmm. im the only one that voted "Yes, but in hundreds or thousands of years"

outer space will still be there hundreds of years from now, so no point in wasting money like this. 100 years from now, technology will be more improved and therefore it'll be more cost effective in the future, waaayy future. i'd rather they use that money to fix probs on earth rather than thinking about other planets. lets work on THIS planet first eh?

So this technology we will need will just magically appear in the next 100 years? Technology is researched. People want to do something, so they pay scientists to figure out how to do it, then engineers to build/test it, then astronauts to use it. After that, then some company gets the plans and mass produces that tech cheaply for the average schmo.

We have to keep moving forward.

 

[y2kc]

waste of time, money and resources. put those minds to work doing something that matters. we have plenty to discover right here on planet earth.

 

[Pocatello]

We should let the Chinese do it first.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Chaotic42

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Put big bucks into a Space Elevator, then lets talk of more distant adventures.

Hmm, space.com says it could be done for $10 billion.

That's a good investment. I wonder if Gates would go in for it?

If he were smart he would. If I had that kind of money, I would be looking into it. While this is a completely arbitrary figure, imagine of one could get products or supplies into space for $10 a pound, amortized over the life of the structure.

A few things immediately happen. Vehicle construction costs plummet. If you think of why the Shuttle is so expensive you will realize it isn't because of what it does in space, rather because if flys INTO and OUT OF space. Complicated launch controls. Problematic re-entry systems with quintuple redundant computer control systems. An order of magnitude or more greater in complexity and cost than what would be needed for a craft that never lands. Also simplifying systems makes them safer. Remember KISS, the engineers mantra.

This is of course a fraction of the benefits of such a system.

Anyone with the vision and resources to invest in something like this will become the first trillionaire

 

[matt426malm]

Originally posted by: Chaotic42

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Put big bucks into a Space Elevator, then lets talk of more distant adventures.

Hmm, space.com says it could be done for $10 billion.

That's a good investment. I wonder if Gates would go in for it?

Okay how thick would this cable be? Or link to some space elevator plan you are talking about.

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: matt426malm
Okay how thick would this cable be? Or link to some space elevator plan you are talking about.

First google hit

 

[matt426malm]

Originally posted by: Chaotic42

Originally posted by: matt426malm
Okay how thick would this cable be? Or link to some space elevator plan you are talking about.

First google hit

Got something with some physics I've already read that. How much would this weigh, thickness, stresses involved.

carbon nano-tubes 1.8g/cm^3 * 100cm *1000m * 340(ISSheight)km=


6.12·10^7g or 61000kg and that's just 1cm thick that's pretty thin

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: matt426malm
Got something with some physics I've already read that. How much would this weigh, thickness, stresses involved.

Heh, I had never even heard of it before WS mentioned it.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: matt426malm

Originally posted by: Chaotic42

Originally posted by: matt426malm
Okay how thick would this cable be? Or link to some space elevator plan you are talking about.

First google hit

Got something with some physics I've already read that. How much would this weigh, thickness, stresses involved.

Something a bit more

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Oh, as to "how thick" etc, it's like a suspension bridge. It depends on how much payload you are intending to put up. That remains to be determined.

 

[Kelemvor]

Originally posted by: CFster
Still no cure for cancer.

Maybe the aliens have it.

 

[SeaSerpent]

Yes, right now, I don't care what it costs.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Technical stuff from the horses mouth

 

[DrPizza]

Yes, but there's no reason to send humans... A dozen (or probably many more) robots can be sent for the same cost as 1 human... and if a robot smacks into something solid between earth and where it's going, Ohhh welllll...

 

[OIKOS]

lol.... i love this thread...! :beer::gift:

bump^

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: beer

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: beer

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: beer

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: ScottyB
We need to pull out of Iraq, cut the military's budget to 1/1000 of what it is now and spend the extra money on space travel.

And end up like a skinny little geek in a school yard full of bullies? No thanks. I have no wish to end up being the world's bitch.

Right

OMG WE ONLY HAVE 8 NUCLEAR AIRCRAFT CARRIERS INSTEAD OF TEN!!!! THE RUSSIANS ARE COMING!!!

Nevermind the French have the only other nuclear-power carrier in the world; India has one; and the UK has aicraft carriers, if you can call them that...they carry like 15 planes at most. Obviously the Russians and Chinese don't have a substantial navy at this point in time.

Personally I don't understand the need for ten aircraft carriers. Such wastes of money.

Each carrier can't operate 365 days of every year. They have to put in to port for refits, crew rotation, etc.
Also, the world's oceans are a big place.

OK, so at any point, 7 out of the 10 are in operation. I'll admit.

BIG FSCKING DEAL! It dosn't matter how big the oceans are, no other country has the equivalent of 2, let alone 10, why do we need them? The world's oceans are indeed a big place, but we generally know where the hotspots are. It's not like one day, of a sudden Agentina is going to invade Brazil. With our sattelites we know when any national army moves a foot. When was thee last time we had to have a carrier in the south pacific, the carribean, or the north atlantic?

Hotspots can move. It can be diffucult to know where the next one might crop up.
The U.S. operates fewer and fewer overseas bases these days. Carrier groups make sense because they can be moved where they are needed.

You also need to keep in mind that we help provide protection for other friendly nations that no longer have the resources to keep large surface fleets.

We shouldn't be paying for their protection. Our country has enough problems on it's own without having greater military spending than the next twelve countries, or more, combined.

And I can guarantee you hotspots don't move at 25 knots. That's why they're ships.

I'd like to hear your logic for us paying for their protection, when they have socialized health care and we don't.

We took on a large chunk of responsibility after WWII. Even now with the Soviet Union gone our forces are called upon for other missions.
The U.N. depends in large part on the military strengh of the U.S. for any major interventions.

If the people demanded socialized health care we would have it. They have not, so we don't.

This is clearly a discussion for another thread.

 

[althes]

We should do it, expand the human race. Evelove a little.