So we can spend money on trains that benefit the NYC Metro Area and no one else?
We already buy highways in Arizona that benefit no one else.
Besides, history has shown that good communication and transportation infrastructure drives prosperity almost inherently. Trains in New York benefit 25 million people, themselves generating tons of commerce that is then taxed and spread throughout the country. A better subway in New York benefits more people and has a wider net effect than a freeway in Arizona or a base on the moon.
Obviously the answer is to spend all our money on New York City and a moon base. Since NYC will then take all it's extra profits from the great infrastructure and fund the moon base.
Smelting in a vacuum doesn't need be done in free fall, I was thinking more like smelting on the moon rather than in LEO.
I disagree that Europeans didn't know how to exploit the new world when they first learned of it. One could see immediately that the land was rich in resources, the wood alone could be a good reason to go to the new world, given how much Europe had clearcut their forests, and how much they would in the future.
Also this line of argument isn't reflective of history. Columbus did not intend to sail to the Americas, he was looking for a quick way to India to nab all the rich spices that would have bought a fortune back in Europe. the potential payout was many times what the expedition cost to put forth, loosing three ships verses potentially having a quick way to India where each ship could bring back enough spices to buy its weight in gold, and to be able to cut out the Middle Eastern middle men to boot!
So as a point of fact when Europeans went to the Americas they did in fact know what they were going there for and why. They already had done the risk/reward calculus and found that it was worth it. The fact that America was in the way was unknown to them and once they got reports of the riches that the Americas had in abundance they came flooding over.
If getting everything nice and tidy here is your prerequisite for exploring space, then space will never be explored. Face it - with that attitude as the starting point, there will ALWAYS be something that seems more pressing here. If not infrastructure, then some shortage of something or other, if not that, then environmental problems, if not theat, then overpopulation, if not that, then the energy crisis, and on, and on, and on.
But this is a multi-generational effort, and our technology is advancing rapidly. A few scant decades of advancement without actively sending people up there would likely immensely decrease the opportunity cost of sending said people up there later.
The physical problems are going to remain the same. As Mr. zehaeva, says there is a cost for getting a Kg up, and that's not going to change by thinking about it. The only way it will change is by someone actively doing something about it.
In the last age of exploration, there was a high cost of getting a Kg from Europe to other lands and then back again. That cost didn't change because people tried to spruce Europe up and produce a generation of better educated Europeans. It changed because there was economic and population pressure for it to change.
If you're not moving forward, you're stagnating. In this realm, I'm sorry to say, we have stagnated to Fall of Rome proportions.
True as that may be, this comes back to the first problem of such projects being under funded and built by lazy fucks. American's on average, seem to be self-centered. The people in Arizona don't care that the freeway is generally useless, it makes their lives easier and that's all that matters. Same way American's aren't going to care about America's crumbling electrical infrastructure until the power literally stops flowing. No one cared about the crumbling I-35W bridge until it actually fell down. So how do we change the mentality of American's, cause god damn are we cheap motherfuckers.
The physical problems are going to remain the same. As Mr. zehaeva, says there is a cost for getting a Kg up, and that's not going to change by thinking about it. The only way it will change is by someone actively doing something about it.
In the last age of exploration, there was a high cost of getting a Kg from Europe to other lands and then back again. That cost didn't change because people tried to spruce Europe up and produce a generation of better educated Europeans. It changed because there was economic and population pressure for it to change.
If you're not moving forward, you're stagnating. In this realm, I'm sorry to say, we have stagnated to Fall of Rome proportions.
Exactly, the point of bringing up european exploration is that we didn't know what would come of it. Just as we don't know what will come of putting people on the Moon or Mars.
Just to clarify, I am all for space exploration and expanding into space, I believe asteroid mining to be one of the things that will tease enough entrepreneurs into getting into the space business and getting us out there.
There are a lot of hurdles to get there however.
I want to be involved in landing that first rock through just to prove its do able
I disagree that Europeans didn't know how to exploit the new world when they first learned of it. One could see immediately that the land was rich in resources, the wood alone could be a good reason to go to the new world, given how much Europe had clearcut their forests, and how much they would in the future.
They couldn't see that immediately until they were actually there, i.e. until some exploration had already been done. Just as we can't really say now what process and/or products might be economically feasible either in LEO or on the moon without R&D; into products and processes instead of rocks and pretty pictures. As for the immediacy of American exploitation, can you tell me how long after the "discovery of America", a real economic reason existed for exploiting the new land, and what was it for? Hint: John Rolfe and tobacco.
So as a point of fact when Europeans went to the Americas they did in fact know what they were going there for and why. They already had done the risk/reward calculus and found that it was worth it. The fact that America was in the way was unknown to them and once they got reports of the riches that the Americas had in abundance they came flooding over.
You haven't proven this at all. Show some historical facts to back up your argument that they did, in fact, know what was here and how to exploit it. I stand by my earlier contention that John Rolfe was the first person to actually successfully exploit the Americas in any sustainable way that didn't involve mere conquest and subjugation of native peoples.
As for your contection that they discovered riches - what riches did they discover? Timber? Like they didn't have timber in Europe? How much does it cost to harvest timber in America and ship it to Europe versus harvesting timber in Europe? Fish and Game? Same argument. Minerals? Same argument. Fruits and vegetables? Same argument.
No one had an economically feasible product until Rolfe's refinements of tobacco, which was native only to the New World and unknown in Europe until exploration of the New World uncovered it. That was the first thing that was really worth the cost of transport, and it didn't hit the economy until nearly one hundred years after Columbus.
True as that may be, this comes back to the first problem of such projects being under funded and built by lazy fucks. American's on average, seem to be self-centered. The people in Arizona don't care that the freeway is generally useless, it makes their lives easier and that's all that matters. Same way American's aren't going to care about America's crumbling electrical infrastructure until the power literally stops flowing. No one cared about the crumblingI-35W bridgeuntil it actually fell down. So how do we change the mentality of American's, cause god damn are we cheap motherfuckers.
We're a nation of NIMBY's that could care less about what happens to the other guy so long as I get mine.
I have a coworker who owns a house of his own, built it himself and hates it. He hates it because of all the school taxes he has to pay. He's single, went to private schools and doesn't have any children so he thinks he should be exempt from paying school taxes. He believes that everyone should pay to put their own children through school, K all the way up through college.
The only problem with this mentality is that if everyone who do not have children don't pay for the schools then the overall quality of the school system fails and the US becomes a 3rd world nation with 60% literacy rates within a decade or two.
A ravaged earth wasteland is no place to conceive, so I say it should be done in space, which has caused me to ponder coitus in space. Messy.
Perhaps we can develop pods full of eggs, sperm, artificial fetuses, nutrients, and baby einstein DVDs. In case of emergency, mix them all in a big bowl and land the pods in a few years. The day that babies will rule the earth.
In other thoughts, regarding Rym's wonder of what a 2% safe rocket would look like, I imagine it would be very similar to something built by Warhammer Orks.
Perhaps we can develop pods full of eggs, sperm, artificial fetuses, nutrients, and baby einstein DVDs. In case of emergency, mix them all in a big bowl and land the pods in a few years.The day that babies will rule the earth.
Neil deGrasse Tyson argues that manned space exploration provides an awesome indirect benefit: inspiration for children for careers in science.
It's true. The psychological and social - and dare I say perhaps even moral - benefits cannot be overlooked.
Ok, guys. Seriously. Think about the cost benefit ratio. For that many billions of dollars to put people in space, we can probably do a lot of other things that will be more effective at generating scientists.
Ok, guys. Seriously. Think about the cost benefit ratio. For that many billions of dollars to put people in space, we can probably do a lot of other things that will be more effective at generating scientists.
Quite. Plus, manned exploration is much more of a waste at the current energy burn rate than, say, working on solar collecting local to our own planet.
Hey, I signed up just for this, was gonna tell you how awesome the Vagina Bubbles were. In fact so awesome that I stole it and put it on my site (which is broken ATM....). By the way, the translation is somewhat off. Literally translating èŸ¹æ³¡åœ°ç„ (Hoping for unicode support), which appeared on screen as she uses the 'technique', it translates to "Crab bubbles from hell". Though vagina-bubbles are of course a lot more awesome.
P.PS, This forum layout is fucking sweet. Why do people insist on using PhpBB?
Comments
Besides, history has shown that good communication and transportation infrastructure drives prosperity almost inherently. Trains in New York benefit 25 million people, themselves generating tons of commerce that is then taxed and spread throughout the country. A better subway in New York benefits more people and has a wider net effect than a freeway in Arizona or a base on the moon.
I disagree that Europeans didn't know how to exploit the new world when they first learned of it. One could see immediately that the land was rich in resources, the wood alone could be a good reason to go to the new world, given how much Europe had clearcut their forests, and how much they would in the future.
Also this line of argument isn't reflective of history. Columbus did not intend to sail to the Americas, he was looking for a quick way to India to nab all the rich spices that would have bought a fortune back in Europe. the potential payout was many times what the expedition cost to put forth, loosing three ships verses potentially having a quick way to India where each ship could bring back enough spices to buy its weight in gold, and to be able to cut out the Middle Eastern middle men to boot!
So as a point of fact when Europeans went to the Americas they did in fact know what they were going there for and why. They already had done the risk/reward calculus and found that it was worth it. The fact that America was in the way was unknown to them and once they got reports of the riches that the Americas had in abundance they came flooding over.
In the last age of exploration, there was a high cost of getting a Kg from Europe to other lands and then back again. That cost didn't change because people tried to spruce Europe up and produce a generation of better educated Europeans. It changed because there was economic and population pressure for it to change.
If you're not moving forward, you're stagnating. In this realm, I'm sorry to say, we have stagnated to Fall of Rome proportions.
There are a lot of hurdles to get there however.
I want to be involved in landing that first rock through just to prove its do able
As for your contection that they discovered riches - what riches did they discover? Timber? Like they didn't have timber in Europe? How much does it cost to harvest timber in America and ship it to Europe versus harvesting timber in Europe? Fish and Game? Same argument. Minerals? Same argument. Fruits and vegetables? Same argument.
No one had an economically feasible product until Rolfe's refinements of tobacco, which was native only to the New World and unknown in Europe until exploration of the New World uncovered it. That was the first thing that was really worth the cost of transport, and it didn't hit the economy until nearly one hundred years after Columbus.
I have a coworker who owns a house of his own, built it himself and hates it. He hates it because of all the school taxes he has to pay. He's single, went to private schools and doesn't have any children so he thinks he should be exempt from paying school taxes. He believes that everyone should pay to put their own children through school, K all the way up through college.
The only problem with this mentality is that if everyone who do not have children don't pay for the schools then the overall quality of the school system fails and the US becomes a 3rd world nation with 60% literacy rates within a decade or two.
Perhaps we can develop pods full of eggs, sperm, artificial fetuses, nutrients, and baby einstein DVDs. In case of emergency, mix them all in a big bowl and land the pods in a few years. The day that babies will rule the earth.
In other thoughts, regarding Rym's wonder of what a 2% safe rocket would look like, I imagine it would be very similar to something built by Warhammer Orks.
P.PS, This forum layout is fucking sweet. Why do people insist on using PhpBB?