/sci/ - Science & Math

I think it would be fairer to spend a little of the cash on ways to dispose of nuclear waste efficiently. You may want to consider 'home' before you start thinking about visiting other planets.

ITT: Retards who don't understand what's more important for survival.

>Dead Space
>Necromorphs on Earth wipe out 3/5ths of human life
>enough resources left for surviving human use to last comfortably for thousands of years

>>2940011
Mofuckas' gonna put that toxic shit on the far side of the moon.

>>2940025

>the far side of the moon
>laughingme.jpg

Justify to me the cost of modern warfare.

I am currently undecided in the IRAQ spending debate

>>2940031

I am currently undecided in the AFGHANISTAN spending "debate"

>>2939996
NASA’s human space flight operations have been a stagnant tumor costing 10x what they should, largely due to really just being a jobs program, we should be getting much more from the money currently spent. Pic related, dude’s going to cut the cost of doing shit in space significantly, and wants to get a man on mars in the next 10 years using his technology (and a fair amount of his own money).
http://online.wsj.com/video/elon-musk-ill-put-a-man-on-mars-in-10-years/CCF1FC62-BB0D-4561-938C-DF0D
EFAD15BA.html

>>2940034
>>2940031

Come on guys, ALREADY my thread is derailed?

>>2939996
there are minerals on the moon that kind be mined to create nuclear power that is more efficient and side effect free.

>>2940034
Ｊｕｓｔｉｆｙ　ｔｏ　ｍｅ　ｔｈｅ　ｃｏｓｔ　ｏｆ　ｍｏｄｅｒｎ　ｍ
ｅｄｉｃｉｎｅ．　

Ｉ　ａｍ　ｃｕｒｒｅｎｔｌｙ　ｕｎｄｅｃｉｄｅｄ　ｉｎ　ｔｈｅ　ｈｅ
ｌｔｈｃａｒｅ　ｓｐｅｎｄｉｎｇ　ｄｅｂａｔｅ

Justify 'spending' in general.

>>2940031
>>2940034
yes, we could have used that money to slightly increase our bloated counterproductive social spending!

>>2940063

Looks like bad code, better have that Fix'd by Version 3.12

>>2940060
There is platinum on the moon that can be kinetically shot back to earth at a low operational cost once infrastructure is in place.

>>2940045
thx for the link had not seen that interview yet

Bump

>>2940073


bro.... you have no fucking clue what you are talking about.


platinum forms naturally (everywhere in the universe thats not inside of a star or something) as a specific set of minerals (mixed with other shit)


the same minerals are present on the moon.
the mines that produce metals like platinum/palladium, iridium, hafnium rhodium, rhenium, etc. all of the rare earths or noble metals useful to industry and electronics...

they are everywhere. Australia, china, north america, etc.


we have materials shortage now because in the 1990s and 1980s china flooded the market with communist subsidized dirt cheap materials.


other mines could not compete and shut their doors.


now china is clamping down on exports to the point of ridiculousness, thereby driving up prices (they have slashed exports over the past 5 years by about 90%)...


within 5 years, those mines that USED to operate in North/south america, europe and central/north asia (russia) will reopen and start producing the materials.


its not like we have "run out" of those materials or that they are in short supply naturally.


its just difficult and time consuming to extract them cheaply, and only a few places exist to do so...
there is no benefit to mining this stuff from space.


the same is not true of He(3)... this is because the moon has no magnetic field nor atmosphere... it is blanketed by solar particle radiation (which essentially never lands on earth's surface due to our magnetosphere/van allen belt and the atmosphere).

there is literally just a constant stream of particles blasting out of the sun. that is where ALL of the He(3) on the moon comes from.


THAT is a reason to go to the moon to mine. because the mineral cannot be found naturally anywhere else.

>>2940100
Last OP bump, still haven't really been prevented with any factual arguments.

>>2940063
Go back to bed Robin Hanson

One metallic asteroid has a market value on the order of tens of trillions of dollars.

>>2940045

>mfw American private industry beats nation states to the Moon and Mars

>nuclear waste disposal

Is there some reason we don't just sink it down to the subduction zones?

>>2940192
And that rapid introduction of resources will quickly make them next to worthless, crashing your economy in the process.

Every mission gets us closer to space colonization, which would increase the probability of the survival of our species by far. I see this as something of a huge worth, and therefore people should be taxed up to 60-70% (unless one is low-income, in which case the taxation will stop at the point when they can't afford enough food for a living), and virtually all of that money should be spent on NASA.

this thread is cancer
NASA has never been just about space exploration. the primary use of NASA is for government funded aerospace, environment, communications, and space science research, not carlsagan-esque space colonization, big rockets, and big budgets.

>>2940011
there is a lot of earth science done by NASA that is used to make weather forecasts, studies on global warming, atmospheric conditions, and whatever else about our planet that could need study. and they also do sustainability research for green energy, materials, and buildings. THIS is one of the main triumphs of NASA; the knowledge gained about space to be used to understand and help our own planet.

>>2940045
for the total cost of having a space program for the past 60+ years, it has cost the average taxpayer a nominal $20 ANNUAL subscription. now compare that to the thousands paid annually towards medicare/medicaid and the defense budget. although i'll give you a 5/10, that's the best i can do.

>>2940073
you're fucking stupid and you're the reason people perpetuate the idea that NASA is a waste of funding because they think what you say is what they're getting money to do, which is wrong and for good reason.

>>2940224
>up to 60-70%

Enjoy living in your meager cardboard-box of a home, furnishings not included.

An increase in taxation will not make it any more of a reality. The defense budget is widely disproportionate as compared to the rest of government spending. While it's true that agencies like DARPA may be responsible for certain technologies that civilians can utilize, those funds -could- be used elsewhere, though the question is more along the lines of "should we divert those funds."

>>2940236
>the defense budget
Read my post, you stupid dick.

show me a man who isn't interested in space exploration, and I'll show you a man who has no natural curiosity about the universe in which he resides. And curiosity, after all, is what drives all pursuits of knowledge at some fundamental level.

>>2940244
I did, but making your citizens into paupers and throwing that reamed money at NASA will not necessarily make the situation any better for either party.

>>2940244
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQ_9pGcGAwI#t=00m28s

Well, obviously because OOOOOOOOOOOO, DA SPACE!!

>>2940273
it pains me whenever i hear this kind of comment about NASA because it caricaturizes something important for stupid reasons in the face of many others who sanctify the same thing for different but equally stupid reasons.

knock it off

>>2940105

Even after your ramp up happens it will still be extremely expensive and environmentally damaging process to mine platinum group metals on earth, they are truly rare.

The asteroid belt is composed of failed planets, some of the asteroids originate from the cores of such planets are have high concentrations of platinum group metals. Over billions of years the moon has been struck by countless asteroids some of which are high in platinum.

You simply have to survey the moon from orbit, send a few probes to verify readings and build a telerobotic mine.

As for value, platinum group metals are consumed by industry. Demand is not static, there are many applications for which poor substitutes are used due to cost and availability, demand will increase if cost and supply become less volatile. These problems with platinum killed the hydrogen car. There are simply more uses for Pt than ever before it is hard to see a world where it is valued less than $20,000/ kg as you can see the value is trending upward even with new mines in operation not down.

As for 3He well yes it would be an interesting but if we figure out fusion I highly doubt it will be completely dependent on one particular fuel.

Harvesting 3He from the moon will require sifting through the top few inches of thousands of square kilometers it is not found in high abundance anywhere on the moon.

I'm not opposed to a 3He future but I think if its touted as the first big step for a lunar economy the whole thing will fall under its own weight. Platinum group metals could be a good second or third step for the lunar economy after selling moon rocks at $150,000 per kg to chumps on earth.

>>2940220

Not if you create an artificial scarcity of product.

>>2940259
It most likely would.

>>2940312
You mean like with the De Beers corporation and diamonds?

Yes, I suppose it may be possible to only introduce the gathered materials into the economy over a prolonged period of time.

>>2940192
Transportation costs and durations are going to be horrendous. You will have very little cargo capacity with even the largest chemical methods and it will take a decade to transport a load with solar or nuclear ion engines.

The more money you give NASA, the more likely it is thar you will become a space shuttle door gunner in your lifetime.

I am unaware of a more compelling argument.

>>2940485

Indeed.