[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 103 KB, 800x512, os.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4599959 No.4599959 [Reply] [Original]

What is keeping us from orbital shipyards to build huge-ass ships that could carry resources from the moon?

By "huge ass," I don't mean fictionally huge, I mean the size of modern, ocean-going container ships.

Is it only cost / lack of purpose (the idea is that breaking out of LOE is nearly impossible for a large ship)?

>> No.4599961

It's fucking pointless and a waste of resources. The moon has nothing that would make it worth putting all this effort into travelling there.

>> No.4599966

You can do it.

But are you familiar with opportunity cost? All those resources, energy, labor, etc. could be used for other things.

>> No.4599969

>>4599961

Wrong:

1. The moon has a shitload of useful resources, notably Helium-3, which is awesome for energy generation.

2. It serves to make space travel common place. Once something is a part of the economy it's common place. That alone is a huge benefit.

>> No.4599975

>>4599966

>opportunity cost

Yea, unfortunately I have degrees in economics, finance, and accounting. Oh, how I regret my undergraduate education.

Though I don't feel like "opportunity cost" really applies once you are a billionaire - it's not like you are going to starve, ever.

>> No.4599977

>>4599969
>The moon has a shitload of useful resources
Mining them costs more than the expected profit.

>It serves to make space travel common place
X is useful for the purpose of X. Cool circular logic, bro.

>> No.4599978

>>4599959
Read "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress". We don't need expensive ships to move material from the Moon to the Earth, just linear accelerators to lob containers into Earth orbit, or put parachute systems on the containers and land them on Earth. Cheap and effective.

>> No.4599979

>>4599975
Not to YOU, no. But it sure as fuck matters to everyone else if you spend all your wealth on gold bathtubs.

>> No.4599982

>>4599975
>implying once you become a billionaire you want to risk everything in childish ventures

>> No.4599999

>>4599977

>X is useful for the purpose of X. Cool circular logic, bro.

You don't want to see humanity venture farther and farther into space? Not for the sake of resources, just for the sake of space exploration itself.

Btw, Larry Page just started an asteroid mining company.

>>4599978

Read about that, going to check the book though, ty.

>>4599982

Implying billions aren't there to be wasted. Don't get me wrong, I would buy a few luxury apartment complexes, maybe start a brokerage firm, maybe start a car company or at least a repair chain, etc. You know, spread shit out so I never go broke. Put a few mil in the bank, a few hundred in some hedge fund, etc.

The point is that after you have 50 mil, you can blow the rest on whatever the fuck you want.

>> No.4600007

>>4599999
>You don't want to see humanity venture farther and farther into space?

No, I don't. Not for the only purpose of "hurr durr space".

>> No.4600010

>>4600007

Oh well, we differ in opinion in that case.

1. Over population.
2. Resources WILL eventually run out.
3. Hurr durr aliens. Not saying they exist, just hurr durr aliens.

Other than that, billions going to immortality research.

>> No.4600024

>>4599982
James Cameron does

>> No.4600031

The effort it would take to build stuff in orbit is not that much less than the effort it would take to go straight to the moon. Anyway orbital shipyards don't really work without a space elevator anyway. And we could easily build a space elevator if we invested enough into it, $30 billion would probably pay for it and itd be less than the cost of spending a month in afghanistan, honestly if Newt Gingrich had actually been serious about building a moon base it could totally happen.

>> No.4600034

>>4600010
>1. Over population.
Is an issue that we have to solve here on earth. Realistically speaking population control is way cheaper than childish fantasies of bringing "humanity" into space.

>2. Resources WILL eventually run out.
A reason against wasting them inanely for space travel that promises no profit.

>3. Hurr durr aliens. Not saying they exist, just hurr durr aliens.
An expression of immaturity. We won't find aliens on the moon and since FTL travel is impossible, we won't get much farther than leaving our solar system. There will be no contact with aliens.

>Other than that, billions going to immortality research.
Which is far more realistic than space fantasies.

>> No.4600035

>>4600010
Human population is already leveling off. It's actually in decline in some modern countries (like Japan and Russia) and the rest of the world is heading that way.

>> No.4600037

>>4600024
For huge projects like space travel to have any real success, they need to be financially viable enough to attract actual investors looking to make a profit, not just a handful of eccentric billionaires.

>> No.4600048

>>4600037
This. Space travel will never amount to anything unless trillions of dollars and decades of time are thrown at it. Nobody is stupid enough to do that.

>> No.4600058

Since when has it been all about money?

Fucking hell, all of this 'economic' bullshit is ruining us, we used to do it because we wanted to show the rest of the world what we could accomplish working together. Now everyone just wants to make a buck.

>> No.4600063

>>4600035
>>Russia
>>modern country

>> No.4600064

>>4600058
Because communism has lost. In case you didn't notice: The cold war is over.

>> No.4600070

>>4600058

I like you.

I will come back to answer the arguments in a bit.

>> No.4600121

>>4599959
> What is keeping us from orbital shipyards to build huge-ass ships that could carry resources from the moon?

Because there's no economic case for it.

The moon offers aluminum, iron, oxygen, silicon, calcium and magnesium. Tell me: How much does it cost to get any of those on Earth? And then tell me how much it costs to setup everything you're imagining as infrastructure to obtain those things from the Moon?

>> No.4600135

>>4600058
> Since when has it been all about money?

So what's motivating you, again? Stop pretending that you don't have investments.

>> No.4600139

>>4600121
You forgot helium 3, which is worth going there for.

>> No.4600147

OP, what is your guess on the total mass of a shipyard?

Multiply that by the dollar cost per kilogram to get anything up there. Also include the mass of the raw materials needed for what is essentially a submarine the size of a container ship.

Then include the living quarters for the workers who are going to have to assemble this stuff (in one of the most inhospitable environments known to man). And the infrastructure needed to keep them breathing and fed.

Of course some futurist trash will assert that all we have to do is put an entire mining colony up there, thus avoiding the costs of shipping materials from Earth, which is too retarded to even address.

>> No.4600169

>>4600034

>Is an issue that we have to solve here on earth. Realistically speaking population control is way cheaper than childish fantasies of bringing "humanity" into space.

I am just debating for the sake of debate here. Alright - take the population of China and draw a normal distribution of intelligence. Take the top 20% -you now have the entire population of the US. Population growth is actually desirable for technological improvements and such - more intelligent people, just statistically speaking. Ib4 "all commies work in factories and are retarded." Look at the GDP per capita of Hong Kong, and China is catching up.

>A reason against wasting them inanely for space travel that promises no profit.

You are telling me there is no profit to mining the moon? You are telling me that we can't reduce the cost of shipping with economies of scale, if the project is big enough?

>An expression of immaturity. We won't find aliens on the moon and since FTL travel is impossible, we won't get much farther than leaving our solar system. There will be no contact with aliens.

Not like I have anything to say to this...but hurr durr aliens!

>>4600035

Japs and Russkies had some tough economic times.

>>4600121

Millions of tons of Helim-3 nigga! hURR DURR energy crisis.

>>4600135

Money motivates everyone, UNTIL they are a billionaire. Then it just doesn't fucking matter (as long as you have it, which you should if you were smart enough to obtain it.)

>> No.4600186

>You are telling me that we can't reduce the cost of shipping with economies of scale, if the project is big enough?

Shareholders would like returns on their investments to occur within their own lifetimes. Not some "grand save the species" scheme.

If there was money to be made in space, people would be making it already. Why aren't any real companies considering this, why is it just billionaire playboys who think they can spend their way to the history books?

>> No.4600190

>>4600121
>no economic case for it

Capitalist pigs gonna remain pigs. Whatever happened to doing things for the heck of knowing we can achieve something great instead of caring just about money.

>> No.4600192

>>4600147

I know that the cost to get something into LOE is really high, but it's getting lower all the time:

Small launch vehicles (less than 2300kg): [1]
USA, Athena 2 (2065kg to LEO): $11622 per kg
Russia, Cosmos (1500kg to LEO): $8667 per kg
USA, Pegasus XL (443kg to LEO): $30474 per kg
Russia, Rockot (1850kg to LEO): $7297 per kg
Russia, Shtil (430kg to LEO): $465 per kg
Russia, START (632kg to LEO): $11687 per kg
USA, Taurus (1380kg to LEO) $13768 per kg
USA, Falcon 1e (430 to LEO) $1010 per kg

>> No.4600195
File: 25 KB, 500x322, Tysononspace.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4600195

>>4600190

That's never happened once in the history of the human race?

>> No.4600196

>>4600169
>Take the top 20% -you now have the entire population of the US
0/10 troll. Implying the US population (full retards) are more intelligent than the Chinese (known for their good math skills).

>You are telling me there is no profit to mining the moon?
Indeed, there is none. Mining the sparse resources on the moon would mean losing lots of money. The expected profit is worthless compared to the costs.

>Not like I have anything to say to this...but hurr durr aliens!
This speaks for itself and accurately displays the level on which you are arguing.

>> No.4600200

>>4600186

>who think they can spend their way to the history books?

Because that's exactly how people get into history books. Alexander the Great anyone?

Want some ROE? Buy some fucking ACI.

>> No.4600206

>>4600192

>USA, Falcon 1e (430 to LEO) $1010 per kg*

>subject to revision at next budgetary meeting, possible threefold increase.

Ah, falcon. You inspire so many idiots into thinking you're the next cold fusion.

Musk is just another bruce wayne who doesn't want to just be famous for being rich.

>> No.4600212

>>4600169

>start space mining company

>it costs like 5 trillion to start up

>"Well, as long as the market stays the same, we might recoup by next decade-

>influx of space metals crashes the global economy, causing prices to plummet

>"Whelp, let the station fall. We can't afford this anymore.

The End.

>> No.4600214

>0/10 troll. Implying the US population (full retards) are more intelligent than the Chinese (known for their good math skills).

Work on your reading comprehension. I will green text for you:

>take 10 people, normal distribution them. Smartest 10% - 1 person.
>take 1000 people, smartest 10% - 100 people
>more people = more smart people, statistically
>China's top 20% has more intelligent people than the entire US population, that's ignoring the rest of the Chinese population.

>Indeed, there is none. Mining the sparse resources on the moon would mean losing lots of money. The expected profit is worthless compared to the costs.

I disagree. As I said, LOE delivery costs are getting lower and lower.

>This speaks for itself and accurately displays the level on which you are arguing.

Hurr, durr, aliens. Please ignore this for the sake of our argument - I clearly realize that's this is not a valid point, though it is to me.

>> No.4600223

>>4600206

Even a threefold increase still makes it much cheaper than predecessors.

>> No.4600227

>>4600212
This bothers me greatly. The wealth based economy is going to drive us into the fucking hole some day. Not to mention the notion of "profitable", do you think it was profitable to start industrializing? Not until that plauge came by. Just think how much further we would be if we industrialized earlier as a race.

>> No.4600231

>>4600214
>Work on your reading comprehension. I will green text for you:
Haha you're hilarious.

>LOE delivery costs are getting lower and lower.
But never low enough to make space nonsense feasible. There's a minimum and once it's reached you'll see that moon minig is still a pipe dream.

>Hurr, durr, aliens. Please ignore this for the sake of our argument - I clearly realize that's this is not a valid point, though it is to me.
In other words: You shitpost although knowing that you shouldn't. Cool story, troll.

>> No.4600232

>>4600223

Because they pull numbers out of their ass to please investors. Nobody is going to invest in a sinkhole of money that no one tries to hide.

They're not going to make a profit. What was musk's last company? Tesla? If something like that couldn't get off the ground, then a severely limited market like space launches doesn't have a prayer.

>> No.4600233

>>4600227

Don't even bother arguing with them - fact of the matter is that being a poorfag sucks, but if you get out of poorfag status, you can actually live life and have "real" dreams instead of being a chimp and debating about ROI.

>> No.4600241

Is LOE really a thing, or is the OP just consistently misspelling LEO? (either way he's a retard; I just want to be sure about this one point)

>> No.4600244

>>4600227

>do you think it was profitable to start industrializing?

y-yes? you didn't need to pay people and repairing the automated machines wasn't nearly as expensive as whole rooms of people doing knitting and shit.

>> No.4600246

>>4600231

>Haha you're hilarious.

I am not trying to be funny - you missed the point initially, whether intentionally or not.

>But never low enough to make space nonsense feasible. There's a minimum and once it's reached you'll see that moon minig is still a pipe dream.

Prove this. That's what the fuck I thought.

>In other words: You shitpost although knowing that you shouldn't. Cool story, troll.

No, I simply admit that one of my points is personal, and count on you to be a better person and let it go since I admitted that it's not a valid argument, as far as rational ones go. Of course, you are a shithead, and I shouldn't count on that much.

>> No.4600248

>>4600241

This is the problem with a wiki-based education.

>> No.4600250

>>4600241

I am misspelling LEO.

>> No.4600252

>>4600241
Low earth orbit.

>> No.4600253
File: 49 KB, 680x511, BRTky.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4600253

>>4600246

>Prove this. That's what the fuck I thought.

>> No.4600254

>>4600248

The wiki has it right: http://www.marspedia.org/index.php?title=Financial_effort_estimation

No need to hate on the wiki because I made a mistake. Also, no need to imply that you know what you are talking about any more than I do.

>> No.4600255

>>4600244
For most of history human labor was cheaper.

>> No.4600256

>>4600246
>I am not trying to be funny - you missed the point initially, whether intentionally or not.
No, I didn't. You posted something obviously retarded and I called you out. Now stop being butthurt.

>Prove this. That's what the fuck I thought.
It's common sense, if you have at least the slightest grasp of economics.

>
No, I simply admit that one of my points is personal, and count on you to be a better person and let it go since I admitted that it's not a valid argument, as far as rational ones go
Then why bother posting that crap? It only makes you look more like the retard you probably are.

>> No.4600257

>>4600253

As I said, that's what (the fuck) I thought.

>> No.4600261

>>4600246

>you can't disprove my god, so i win.

Sci-fi is not prophecy. Whatever chance we had at having a future in space was thrown away when we decided to gut education.

>> No.4600266

>>4600257

How is the statement falsifiable? What, do you expect us to look into a palantir and tell the future of what will happen?

Space delusionists are some serious cunts.

>> No.4600269

>>4600241
Low Orbit Escape or something like that. Basicly, the cost to getting things up there is mainly dependant on getting out of the Earth's gravity pull. Once you're out of it, things get much cheaper.

>> No.4600270

>>4600261
>>4600266
You guys are taking someone serious who thinks "hurr durr aliens" is an argument?

>> No.4600273

>No, I didn't. You posted something obviously retarded and I called you out. Now stop being butthurt.

State your point clearly. You completely misread and are now hiding behind the "butthurt" argument.

>It's common sense, if you have at least the slightest grasp of economics.

I am a CFA bro. Economics is a joke. None of it applies to the real world except supply / demand curves and some micro econ shit.

>Then why bother posting that crap? It only makes you look more like the retard you probably are.

You call me a retard. I can call you a close-minded douche that ignores statistics. It's an argument neither of us can win.

I bothered posting it, because the main point of this thread isn't to argue with you, even though that's most of what I am doing here.

>> No.4600282

>>4600261
>>4600266

1. Space elevator.
2. Huge electromagnetic catapults in the ocean.
3. Etc.

>> No.4600291

>>4600273
>State your point clearly.
It's not my point, it was just you posting retarded crap. You compared the entire US population to the top 20% of China's intelligence distribution. That's bullshit and you know it.

>I am a CFA bro
You're a cross-field amplifier? I couldn't give less of a fuck. If you post garbage, I'll correct you. And it seems that you don't know shit of how our economy works.

>I can call you a close-minded douche that ignores statistics.
No, you can't. I don't ignore statistics. Your butthurt is pathetic.

>the main point of this thread isn't to argue with you
OP was asking a question, so the main point is arguing. If you want to dwell in retarded fantasies, do it on /b/.

>> No.4600295

>>4600282

>space elevator

>36,000 mile long cable

>that doesn't conduct electricity

>that can withstand the car going up and down the elevator for years

>realistic

Ahahahahahahaha, oh gosh. This isn't halo. None of that is physically possible or practical.

>> No.4600299

Yes, all we have to do is spend trillions of dollars on things that may or may not work anyway because of the limits of material science, and then it won't cost trillions of dollars to put a bunch of junk we don't need into orbit!

Please use the "we have to do it or else humanity will go extinct" argument, so we can laugh at you even more.

>> No.4600306

>>4600299

>"we have to do it or else humanity will go extinct" argument,

i know, right? it's the secular version of "you'll go to hell if you don't.

>> No.4600308

>It's not my point, it was just you posting retarded crap. You compared the entire US population to the top 20% of China's intelligence distribution. That's bullshit and you know it.

I am saying that China has far more smart people than the US does, simply based on the fact that they have more people. You disagree?

>If you post garbage, I'll correct you. And it seems that you don't know shit of how our economy works.

That is an incorrect generalization. If there is anything I know, it's how the economy works. Again, helium-3. Look up the energy per unit.

>No, you can't. I don't ignore statistics. Your butthurt is pathetic.

You are debating a subjective topic, on which several of your role models, such as Hawking, disagree with you.

>OP was asking a question, so the main point is arguing. If you want to dwell in retarded fantasies, do it on /b/.

>calling me pathetic
>dwelling on a side note which I clearly designated as such due to lack of legitimate arguments
>mad

>> No.4600312

>>4600306
>>4600299

Meh, enjoy your mundane, meaningless lives.

>> No.4600316

>>4600308

>such as Hawking, disagree with you.

Oh, i didn't realize that a theoretical physicist knew so much about economics and engineering. i forgot that being a scientist is like being a wizard and you know everything once you become one.

Btw, argument from authority, champ.

>> No.4600320

>>4600312
Actually I've been putting my talents and efforts into things that are probably actually feasible, and the most mundane, meaningless part of my life is arguing with a space fanatic on 4chan.

>> No.4600323

>>4600316

Aliens, not econ.

Argument from authority > your constant ad hominem, schmuck.

>> No.4600324

The only place to go is space

Eventually, we are going to get our hands on some whacky element that is only found in space. We are going to find that this element has great engineering capabilities, and so we will start commercially flying ships out to asteroids and other planets in the solar system to collect it

The problems with space travel in reality will have nothing to do with the points the nay sayers in this thread bring up (population, economy, etc).

The real problems that we are going to have to deal with in regard to intra-solar system travel will be things like that fact that a trip from Jupiter to Earth could take hundreds of years depending on where each planet is within its orbit. (trips would have to be planned around equinoxes and eclipses)

We will see tourism in space for the ultra rich before the decade is out

>> No.4600329

>>4600308
>I am saying that China has far more smart people than the US does, simply based on the fact that they have more people. You disagree?
Way to correct the garbage you posted earlier. Hopefully you learned something from it.

>Again, helium-3. Look up the energy per unit.
Fuck the energy per unit. That's only a minor factor in how we determine the cost. As I said you lack fundamental knowledge of economics.

>You are debating a subjective topic,
No, I'm not. Economical reasons against space travel are objective.

>on which several of your role models, such as Hawking, disagree with you.
Oh no, you need authorities because you lack arguments.

>>mad
Not at all. You're not even trolling properly.

>> No.4600330

>>4600320

Such as?

>> No.4600333

>>4600312

Yes yes, our lives will be meaningless without christ, because obviously not believing "The Future" (which, for my generation, has already lapsed) means that it won't happen, just like jesus.

Do you have any emotional appeals that aren't from the 3rd century?

>> No.4600348

>>4600324

jesus christ, science channel. Look at what you're making people think.

get it together.

This reads like a bad sci-fi plot. What, is the crazy element going to be called Unobtanium?

>> No.4600349

>Way to correct the garbage you posted earlier. Hopefully you learned something from it.

Again, you can't read. Read it again: >>4600169

>more intelligent people, just statistically speaking

And you called me pitiful, the irony.

>Fuck the energy per unit. That's only a minor factor in how we determine the cost. As I said you lack fundamental knowledge of economics.

Average cost + cost per unit - proceeds = profit

Cost per unit - proceeds is HUGE with Helium. If we can get the average cost (economies of scale, as mentioned earlier, which is the cost to LOE) down, this will be VERY profitable.

>ib4 bullshit about how $/kg is variable cost. It's not, it's a component of building a large enough transport to reduce average cost

Keep generalizing faggot.

>No, I'm not. Economical reasons against space travel are objective.

I am talking about aliens being subjective. You are obviously making bullshit up and have no clue about econ, which is why you so ardently try to attack my knowledge of it.

>> No.4600356

The truth is, no one knows if space travel would be profitable or not. We would only know once we found something in space thats profitable......but if you believe that space is as vast as we say it is, then that would mean there has to be SOMETHING out there worth collecting

But, there was a reason, I suppose, that everyone rushed to California in the 1800s. Thats part of investing--the biggest risks have the biggest returns

>> No.4600357

>>4600349

If it is so obviously profitable, why isn't anyone capitalizing on it?

>> No.4600360

>Everyone flipping their shit over how useful helium-3 is.

Do we even have a reactor that can make energy from this stuff? Or is it all still theoretical like every other kind of fusion power?

Besides, people say there's a lot of the stuff on the Moon, but that's only in comparison to the earth. You'll still have to sift through thousands of tons of lunar soil to get any reasonable amount of helium. And we don't even know how we'll extract this pitiful amount of gas from the soil without losing most of it to the vacuum of space.

>> No.4600367

>>4600348

Im sure thats what someone said about coal and every other mineral before we started poking around the ground for it...

>> No.4600370

>>4600360

a fusion reactor that breaks even is still theoretical. So helium 3 is pretty worthless.

The guy just saw Moon and now he thinks he's an expert on space economics.

>> No.4600373

>>4600357

Are you asserting that the only valuable things are those which professional investors put their stocks into?

>> No.4600374

>>4600356
Yes, California was full of air and fresh water and established farms and commercial centers.

There was considerably more of any of those (by far) than gold.

>> No.4600376

>>4600349
>Read it again: >>4600169
I fucking did. You posted "take the population of China and draw a normal distribution of intelligence. Take the top 20% -you now have the entire population of the US". THIS IS BULLSHIT AND YOU KNOW IT. Now stop being butthurt and accept that you were wrong.

>And you called me pitiful, the irony.
What's that? Random insults? Is your whole crap tier trolling breaking down?

>Average cost + cost per unit - proceeds = profit
>Cost per unit - proceeds is HUGE with Helium. If we can get the average cost (economies of scale, as mentioned earlier, which is the cost to LOE) down, this will be VERY profitable.
Just facepalm. Go educate yourself. I won't even bother further talking to a full retard.

>> No.4600377

>>4600367

Nobody ever said that, actually. Way to look like an idiot.

>> No.4600382

>>4600373

It's certainly a good indicator. Can you not dodge the point entirely? Why is no one investing if there's SO MUCH MONEY to be made?

>> No.4600384

>>4600377

Okay

See you in space in about 500 years you fucking moron

>> No.4600388

>>4600382

Because nothing is profitable until after a significant investment has been made in it

>> No.4600389

>>4600384

>when you're in hell i'm going to be LAUGHING at you from heaven!

Keep up the intellectual superiority. I hear chicks really dig it.

>> No.4600392

>>4600388

When the resource is beyond the average person's individual ability to procure it, yes.

Or did you think that Columbus swam to america?

>> No.4600396

If you want to get a big presence up in space, try and work towards getting some experimental manufacturing modules put in a research satellite or attached to the ISS.

If it turns out that micro-gravity and a near-perfect vacuum make it really easy to manufacture 10THz processors or batteries that last 10 years, you can bet the people with money to invest will want us to set up a bigger presence in space.

>> No.4600398

>>4600389

>heaven
make believe
no ones ever seen it

>space
humans have been in it and have interacted with it
its already been determined that there are minerals and elements in space that are not on earth

Have fun with your inaccurate analogy

Im sure the few people that you find dumber than you, however, lay down with little effort when you use your awful metaphors and comparisons

>> No.4600403

>>4600392

But pretty much every day we are advancing our abilities to maneuver through space, and we are finding more reasons to be in space

How long do you think it will be before our means are efficient enough, and our need great enough that space travel will become feasible? (not talking about leaving the solar system or even getting past mars for like 200+years

>> No.4600406

>>4600398

Sigh. The location wasn't relevant, your tone and how you were phrasing it is what mattered.

Basically, you're arguing like a christian.

>> No.4600412

I'm not sure that economy, costs, profits etc. are necessary words to go there
we just have to talk about science, engineering, and... religion? something that motivate and organize people
there are so many unemployment today, including scientists, it's a waste (people that search the same things in their own countries and companies is also a waste ; and people who search how to built-in obsolescence ; ...)

>> No.4600413

>>4600406

Arguments dont matter, only content. The content is that theres a lot of stuff in space, and its naive to think that some of it wouldnt be extremely useful to us.

Now, Im not arguing that humanity is even within 200-300 years of seriously considering using space as an industrial advantage, but your "no gunz" attitude towards space is disturbing...

>> No.4600414

>>4600403

I'd be surprised if humanity left the solar system within the next ten thousand years.

It's not a matter of technology, it's a matter of people.

How about this: Would you work and live at the north pole for the same wages that you would work in your home state?

Why or why not?

Now, if you asked the average person, or the average person with a degree useful in space, if they would want to go to space, i'd bet you'd hear a lot of the same reasons.

>> No.4600424

>>4600195
What speech is this from?

>> No.4600426

>>4600414

>surprised if we leave solar system within 10000 years

I would agree with that

As for the second half of your argument, I dont agree with that. I can only speak for myself, but if I was given ANY opportunity to live in space for an extended period of time, I would take it as long as I had:

internet (or some way to contact earth, even if only periodically)
hospitable living environment
somewhat reliable transport of food/utilities/etc

There are people that would do it for less

>> No.4600427

>Just facepalm. Go educate yourself. I won't even bother further talking to a full retard.

>I don't have an argument.

You are wrong on both counts here, and mad.

>> No.4600429

>>4600414
There is no air in space. There is no water in space. It requires a lot of tech to keep people cool in space. There is no food in space. Once you get a short distance away from the sun, there's almost no energy in space.

It's not about wanting to go there, or getting paid to go there, or overwhelming the carrying capacity of the earth and just naturally expanding out there.

There's no THERE.

>> No.4600433

>>4600424

Something every space nut needs to read:

Why Neil DeGrasse Tyson thinks you're all delusional:

http://www.chicagospace.org/tyson_space.html

>"The most ambitious United States space endeavor in the years ahead will be the campaign to land men on neighboring Mars. Most experts estimate the task can be accomplished by 1985." from a 1966 issue of the Wall Street Journal.

>A 1967 issue of The Futurist claimed that "A manned lunar base will be in existence by 1986." Ah, if only it were so.

>And to really rub it in, a quote made in 1980 by Robert Traux: "By the year 2000, fifty thousand people will be living and working in space."

>As he approached the end of this series of quotes, Dr. Tyson asked "What's at the bottom of this delusional state?" A wit in the audience chirped up: "NASA View Graphs" thus receiving one of the better laughs of the evening.

>> No.4600434

>>4600429

Have you been there to know?

Because the more we explore space, the more we find your statement is w-r-o-n-g

>> No.4600443

>>4600426

But if you go live in space for a year or more, you'll be permanently crippled by the bone density loss and the weakening of your heart.

Would you still go, knowing that you would be wheelchair bound with heart problems for the rest of your life if you ever returned to earth?

Not to mention sterility and possible offspring mutations from cosmic rays would make having children impossible.

Some people, with nothing to lose, will go.

But i can't see everyone wanting to make that big of a sacrifice just to fulfill sci-fi prophecy.

>> No.4600439

>>4600434
Which part of it? Food, water, air, energy, or cooling systems?

>> No.4600444

>>4600434

>have you been there, how do you know?

0/12 years old.

>> No.4600448

>>4600443

>Would you still go, knowing that you would be wheelchair bound with heart problems for the rest of your life if you ever returned to earth?

They can make some resistance machines...

Weight lifting = bone density maintenance.

>Not to mention sterility and possible offspring mutations from cosmic rays would make having children impossible.

True enough.

>Some people, with nothing to lose, will go.

Even more true.

>> No.4600461

>>4600448

I've heard that you would have to work out almost constantly to prevent damage to your heart and bones.

Shit, astronauts never have the ability to walk off the shuttle even with the exercise equipment on the space station and they're only there for a few months.

Space is a one-way trip.

>> No.4600469

>>4600448
Weight lifting specifically doesn't work for maintenance of bone density. There's been pretty specific testing of that very thing. The constant pull of gravity provides stresses exercise is hard pressed to simulate.

>> No.4600479

Not to mention that rotating space stations will be out of the question to keep on budget. NASA hasn't even been able to make a centrifugal gravity habitation module.

>> No.4600484

>>4600469

Artificial gravity yo!

On a serious note, it's proven that there has to be some impact. For example, elliptical machines (hurr durr better for knees) do not simulate bone growth and cartilage strengthening (compression to clear out the shitty synovial fluid and get new in) nearly as much as running.

>> No.4600500
File: 87 KB, 492x477, sheeple.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4600500

What the hell are any of you even talking about? We havent been to space at all. All those "moon landings" and everything else were just propaganda to the Russians in the cold war. The Shuttles would just take off fly real high land in some remote location and come back to keep up appearances. Obama shut them down because he didn't know who we were looking good for anymore.

Anyone who thinks we've gone into space is just a sheep.