When will our military have ships like this or even space born battleships? I figure until there is a need for them to maybe escort supply/resource ships? What do you think /sci/? When and how?

File: 2.96 MB, 1900x809, Venator.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Tue Jul 16 03:20:04 2013 No.5904042 [Reply] [Original]

When will our military have ships like this or even space born battleships? I figure until there is a need for them to maybe escort supply/resource ships? What do you think /sci/? When and how?

Anonymous Tue Jul 16 03:27:05 2013 No.5904047

I would bet on the human race going extinct before we get that far. Before we have anything like that we would need a major breakthough in how gravity works, simple rockets wouldn't be enough to even move that thing. Imagine how much fuel it would take.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 16 03:29:04 2013 No.5904049 I know you are retarded, but why would we ever need that?

Anonymous Tue Jul 16 03:32:03 2013 No.5904056
File: 861 KB, 2400x1350, spaceship wallpaper.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

when the private sector starts selling it to governments.

which is well into the colonization of the solar system.

which is about ~100 years if we continue moving on this speed.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 16 03:36:35 2013 No.5904060 >>5904056 the thing about colonization is there has to be some valuable resources in the place you are colonizing most of the solar system is desert, rocks and hurricanes of poisonous gas

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 16 03:42:33 2013 No.5904067 >>5904060 lol

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 16 03:44:33 2013 No.5904068 >>5904060 notsherrifsrs

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 16 03:51:05 2013 No.5904071 You might want to build that shit into obit. Getting it off the surface of earth would required a lot more than couple ion engines

Anonymous Tue Jul 16 03:54:34 2013 No.5904074

>>5904071

This is what I imagine. Ships like this in space with space elevator ports. They deliver their cargo via those or drop ships.

God imagine the kinds of guns these things would have. One could argue you don't need anything other than a Daisy Red Ryder to puncture something in space though.

Anonymous Tue Jul 16 03:56:03 2013 No.5904075

>>5904067
>>5904068
what? there's gold and shit but the entire point of gold is that its rare
if we ever were in dire need of iron then maybe we would start "colonising" asteroids but thats about it
if we need more living space or something its way easier to colonize tho outback than mars

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 16 03:57:04 2013 No.5904078 >>5904074 Indeed. Blowing shit up in space is ridiculously easy

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 16 03:58:04 2013 No.5904079 >>5904075 That's a whole other problem. Resource inflation. I imagine other resources that are nearly expired on Earth and somewhat abundant in the solar system would take over.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 16 03:59:34 2013 No.5904080 >>5904075 I would take the time and point out all your erroneous notions, but I feel like being lazy

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 16 03:59:34 2013 No.5904081 >>5904078 You're not going to be building a battleship in space though made of iron and 2" thick armor. More like Titanium or composites and double digit inches thick.

Anonymous Tue Jul 16 04:03:04 2013 No.5904082

>>5904075
http://science.howstuffworks.com/asteroid-mining1.htm
"One NASA report estimates that the mineral wealth of the asteroids in the asteroid belt might exceed $100 billion for each of the six billion people on Earth."

100 Billion... times 6 billion... Potato.

Anonymous Tue Jul 16 04:09:33 2013 No.5904097

>>5904082

The problem is the stupid colossal dick fuck amount of money that would have to be invested into a program and risks. You would also need a
ship similar to the size of the OP's 1000' Venator to make a profit ( Citation needed ). The tech isn't here yet to make a profit and won't be for a while. Can you imagine how power also to safely land all that amount of resources? You would need a space elevator which also costs a buttfuck amount of moeny/.

Anonymous Tue Jul 16 04:18:03 2013 No.5904108

>>5904082
you see most of that wealth is in metals like iron and nickel
what the fuck is anyone going to do with 600 million tons of iron and nickel?
like i said, unless there is a massive shortage of the stuff (theres not) theres just not a market for it on that scale

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 16 04:21:35 2013 No.5904111 i highly doubt there will be any dreadnought size stuff its just too vulnerable to nukes and other future technology i think we will stay with "fighters" for a long very time

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 16 04:21:35 2013 No.5904112 >>5904108 > iron and nickel >What are platinum group metals?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 16 04:24:04 2013 No.5904116 >>5904097 Space elevator http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator_economics Projected cost of space elevator: 6.2 to 20 billion dollars. <1/3 of a Bill Gates.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 16 04:26:33 2013 No.5904118 >>5904116 This will never be that cheap and you know it. Hell we don't even have any fucking idea what materials to use for it

Anonymous Tue Jul 16 04:27:05 2013 No.5904119

>>5904112
what the fuck is anyone going to do with 600 million tons of gold and silver?
sure you can build spaceship parts with them but
>hur build spaceships so we can get more stuff to build more spaceships so we can
on a normal person scale gold will be worth less than rust nails if we bring it all to earth
do you even economics

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 16 04:29:33 2013 No.5904122 >>5904118 No. Shit it cost 20 billion to build a bridge or dam. It would cost in the hundred billions for all the R&D and building the building to actually hold it down. Than building the building in space that will be it's port....

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 16 04:31:04 2013 No.5904124 >>5904119 It's not just that lol. I'm not the guy you quoted but think of other things. Such as some gases or maybe even a liquid that we could use on a scale similar to oil today.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 16 04:36:34 2013 No.5904129 >>5904124 hmmm... maybe. But then what >>5904097 said would come into play

Anonymous Tue Jul 16 04:46:33 2013 No.5904136

Militarizing of space WILL happen in someway before 2050. I imagine space weapons like the God of Rod happening before 2030. Shit, we probably have some kind of contingency stealth space weapons right now for all we know. I imagine having 300'+ battleships before 2080.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 16 05:11:05 2013 No.5904149 File: 23 KB, 335x265, fffmoneybin[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5904119 >what the fuck is anyone going to do with 600 million tons of gold and silver? except all of israel

Anonymous Tue Jul 16 05:49:33 2013 No.5904191

>>5904149

The world is about to change.

There is going to be a global economic collapse very soon. Rothschild/Zionist Media is already activly preparing us for this. They are "planting" the idea that gold have great value through the many tv shows that focuses on gold.

Alot of recent movies, series and many other things got a "apocalyptic" theme or feel to it. They are revealing their plans to us & putting us into the correct mindset.

Once the economy fails. There will be great chaos and global war. Out of the ashes they will make fiat currecny seem unstable, which it acutally is. But they will present us with a new global gold based currency.

They will be the masters of the new world order.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 16 05:58:33 2013 No.5904196 >>5904191 nigga nigga pls

Anonymous Tue Jul 16 06:47:03 2013 No.5904235

No, there will never be ships like that. Star Wars tech is basically just taking World War II technology and tactics and transplanting it to "space." Ships like that are ALREADY obsolete.

For a realistic weaponization of space, you're certainly not going to see manned vessels. Humans are nothing but a liability in a fight - we'll be cargo, not crew. And you don't need "escorts" because there is nowhere to hide and weapons have unlimited range.

Anonymous Tue Jul 16 06:50:33 2013 No.5904237

>>5904235

A war like in Star Wars isn't fought like todays way. Plus there is little value for life since it's clones but that's star wars - This is real life.

I do not ever see unmanned vessels ever replacing military weapons especially things such as that. You would need escort because your transporting billions and billions worth of fuck knows what and I wouldn't be surprised if some kind of organized crime starts pirating shit like this in the future.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 16 06:53:04 2013 No.5904238 >>5904237 >I do not ever see unmanned vessels ever replacing military weapons especially things such as that. It's already happening in 2013, bro.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 16 06:54:33 2013 No.5904241 >>5904237 >A war like in Star Wars isn't fought like todays way. Yes that's the point. Wars like that are already obsolete.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 16 06:55:33 2013 No.5904243 >>5904238 It's replacing small robots and drones really. A human in command at the front lines is ALWAYS better. No one in the right mind would let a ship be a drone. At the least maybe 'fighters' but not ships/.

>>	] Tue Jul 16 06:56:04 2013 No.5904244 >>5904049 Mass colonization/transportation I'd rather have the fucking Pillar of Autumn than the Challenger.

Anonymous Tue Jul 16 06:57:33 2013 No.5904245

>>5904241

Considering Star Wars takes place on a galactic scale with many different species and several tens of thousands of years ahead of today, you really don't know that. In todays world charging like in star wars might be seen obsolete but you really don't know.

If we were to go to war with a rivaling country, if say the Soviet Union in 80s, tactics would be a worlds apart than killing goat farmers and risking an entire unit instead of carpet bombing.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 16 06:58:34 2013 No.5904246 >>5904243 >A human in command at the front lines is ALWAYS better. A realistic "battle" would be over before a human could even react.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 16 07:00:03 2013 No.5904247 >>5904245 >Considering Star Wars takes place on a galactic scale with many different species and several tens of thousands of years ahead of today It isn't any of those things. It's a fantasy world modeled on WW2 era warfare.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 16 07:01:03 2013 No.5904248 >>5904243 >motors will never replace horses in warfare

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 16 07:02:34 2013 No.5904250 >>5904248 Apples to apples not apples to corn cobs you schmuck

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 16 07:03:03 2013 No.5904251 >>5904119 >hur build spaceships so we can get more stuff to build more spaceships so we can To be fair, this is how the current system works. Debt finances growth which pays for the debt which finances growth which etc.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 16 07:07:03 2013 No.5904254 >>5904250 You're right, this is totally different. Technology won't change things anymore.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 16 07:09:33 2013 No.5904255 >>5904056 Except private enterprise is terrified of risk and expects government to take the first step to absorb all of the big scary risk before they step in and make money.

Anonymous Tue Jul 16 07:20:35 2013 No.5904264
File: 281 KB, 1958x1376, Namib_desert_dunes.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Why would you wanna colonize the solar system when you haven't even colonized the Earth's deserts. Compared to what you find in our solar system, the deserts of Earth are much more friendly to life, provide easier access to resources (including water) and are far easier to reach.

Anonymous Tue Jul 16 07:48:03 2013 No.5904287

Eventually it will be necessary to move out into the solar system. The population of earth has doubled in the last 50 years. It is predicted to pass 10 billion in the next 50. Imagine if there was a way to terraform venus or something, not for resources but to get rid of a few billion people.

So there is my estimate, 50-100 years we will have ships like that just to ferry large amounts of people to another planet.

Anonymous Tue Jul 16 07:50:33 2013 No.5904288

>>5904287

Anon, how do you move millions of people a few million miles. Also the cost of terraforming a planet is in the 14-15 digits and would take a hundred years or more before anyone would be able to leave whatever they are in for a minutes unprotected.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 16 07:53:04 2013 No.5904292 >>5904288 I just assumed that in the next 50-100 years we would have that technology. Look at all the shit from the last 50 years.

Anonymous Tue Jul 16 07:55:05 2013 No.5904294

>>5904292

We will have the tech to terraform - Whether we use it for that idk. But moving populations to other planets is extremely unrealistic. The only real solution to over population is better education and protected sex. Than again the Earth can house like tens and tens of billions of people anyways.

Anonymous Tue Jul 16 08:04:04 2013 No.5904302

>>5904287
Population control is far more likely, especially considering teraforming will take centuries, minimum, no matter how advanced we get.

Geo-engineering and more efficient use of land and resources will keep us going for a while.

I have always liked the idea of geneticly engineered organisms being designed to re-process any and all biological matter fed to it into basic food components (sugars, carbs, protein etc).

Right now the food industry is still dependant on plants grown in fields no matter how efficient their processing chain gets. An organism designed to convert bio-matter and sunlight into basic food elements as efficiently as possible would free up a great deal of farmland whilst allowing us to use land that isn't suitable for farming to produce food.

Anonymous Tue Jul 16 08:06:04 2013 No.5904303

>>5904264
>>5904287

Although you reach the opposite conclusion, you are both making the mistake of thinking that colonizing other planets has something to do with overpopulation. It does not. 5 people are born every second. Think about that. You are not going to make even a tiny dent in the Earth's population by sending colonists to other planets. Colonization is for science, for exploiting new resources, and eventually for redundancy of the human race. It's not because we're running out of places to live.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 16 08:12:34 2013 No.5904312 >>5904303 Pretty much. The whole flat meaning of colony means uprising. That means starting with the minimum; in this case humans. We can't move populations to other planets ( not for a WHILE at lease ), but we can sure start them.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 16 09:01:04 2013 No.5904343 bump

Anonymous Tue Jul 16 09:20:04 2013 No.5904355

>>5904042

Why would any nation put battleships in space when no nation is bothering to put Humans into space permanently? Who's the enemy?

The enemy's on Earth. Other Violent Simians. Humans. So the battleships will be HERE.

The solar system will never be colonized. There just isn't an economic model that allows that to happen. The costs of getting OUT of Earth's gravity well are just too high for what the capitalists are willing to invest. And even if they did invest... how the fuck would they get a return on their investment? The idea of getting a return is about as retarded as building a battleship in space to attack or defend anything.

I mean, let's say you invested in my asteroid mining venture. I take your $1 trillion (since that's how much it would really cost, assgoblins) and then head out to the asteroids. Time passes. Why would you ever hear from me again? I'm way out in the asteroids, busy making myself the solar system's first quadrillionaire. Why would I even return your emails? Thanks for the one trillion bucks in tools, equipment and personnel, sucker. See ya later.

Send a battleship out to get me? I'd see your battleship long before it arrived, and my linear accelerators would vaporize it long before it got to me.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 16 09:25:05 2013 No.5904357 >>5904303 Overpopulation on Earth is far more cheaply (and I'd say preferentially) handled by just invoking massive war and starvation to kill off the requisite billions of useless simians.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 16 09:29:05 2013 No.5904359 >>5904246 How in the world would that happen. And don't say HURR BATTLES AT RELATIVISTIC SPEEDS because that's horseshit.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 16 10:05:04 2013 No.5904388 >>5904359 >don't give me a real answer

Anonymous Tue Jul 16 10:06:04 2013 No.5904389

>>5904359
>spotting missiles in space
>reacting to lasers in time
I mean the detection, countermeasures, observation, everything would be done by a computer already.
Why do you need the human onboard exactly? A bit of lag due to transmissions won't be worse that humans slow reaction time.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 16 10:11:03 2013 No.5904392 >>5904389 Not to mention that humans are fucking hard to keep alive. All that living space and life support would cripple a warship even if the humans weren't involved. a=f/m. Dead weight = dead ship

Anonymous Tue Jul 16 11:32:04 2013 No.5904486
File: 615 KB, 1907x1594, dat-carrot.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5904392

Uh, moron, why do we keep Humans onboard every major vessel plying the oceans and lakes?

Here's what's happened to /sci/ and the virgin-nerds: They see that Humans are retreating from spaceflight. They see that what's "happening" in spaceflight only involves robotic or remote controls. So they've conjured a stupid scheme in their masturbating brains that the only way it can keep "happening" is if robots and AI end up colonizing the solar system.

The sad truth is, if you're not going to send PEOPLE to live, work and play in space, then there's no reason to send anything else. These space agencies can keep up the pretense with sending robotic probes, but that's as far as it will ever get.

Always remember: Exploration needs to have a POINT. The point in exploring is to GO THERE, as people, to live, work and play. But energy and economic demands just PROHIBIT us from going anywhere beyond LEO. So it's not actually "happening". It will never happen.

Pic related, sort of. We prefer to have Carrot Top entertain us to death, using a rabbit, than expand into space for a glorious scifi future.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 16 11:39:04 2013 No.5904502 >>5904486 Everyone is tired of your bullshit.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 16 11:49:03 2013 No.5904515 >>5904502 You can be tired of the truth, but the truth never tires of you.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 16 12:02:34 2013 No.5904534 >>5904245 >Star Wars >tens of thousands of years from now >long ago in a galaxy far, far away It's like you don't even lore

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 16 12:08:04 2013 No.5904550 I think a long time from now because we seem to move at a glacial pace when it comes to space travel.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 16 12:32:34 2013 No.5904596 >>5904116 where we're going we won't need space elevators http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/53949/does-the-metal-foam-whiffleball-orbital-reentry-idea-make-any-sense

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 16 12:44:04 2013 No.5904616 >>5904550 I think hes talking about the tech

Anonymous Tue Jul 16 12:57:35 2013 No.5904636
File: 508 KB, 1893x1054, sinsofsurvivors13.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Problem is, there is no reason to weaponize space, build huge combat-capable ships or build planetary defences.
That's exactly the problem.

It's almost guaranteed we are not alone in the universe and while it MAY be possible we are alone in the galaxy, we will EVENTUALLY meet others out there.
The problem is, if we meet a species that has weaponized and we haven't. We are 100% fucked. End of our civilization. It would take too long to research/develop the technology to repel an attack if we start only when we discover another civilization.

In my opinion, this is likely one of the leading causes of space faring civilizations to become extinct.

Hell, you never know. There may be a civilization in our galaxy SO ADVANCED they they specifically isolate sectors of planets, shielding them from recieving communications/signals from outside their protective little bubble. This way, any civilizations that do pop up over the millenia on planets they don't know about, have no idea they are surrounded by enemies and don't build defences. Then as soon as the dominant civilization finds out about them. End of story.

It's what I'd dop if I ran a vast interstellar empire. I'd try and make the galaxy seem as empty as possible so civilizations are busy fighting themselves than having entire solar systems being fortified in preperation.

also, what better way to find planets that can support life, than waiting for life to make itself heard... then going and killing it?

Anonymous Tue Jul 16 13:02:04 2013 No.5904646

>>5904636
Another point.
Ironically, the best thing that can happen to us is war. If we eventually colonize the solar system and beyond, the best thing that can happen is for governments/companies to engage in war. This would develop our ''training wheels'' for space-based combat. While a good chance we would end up killing ourselves, it would guarantee us a fighting chance if something bigger and badder than us eventually did find us.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 16 13:07:34 2013 No.5904656 >>5904292 >I just assumed Nigger

Anonymous Tue Jul 16 13:25:04 2013 No.5904696

>>5904616
I think we already have the capability or potential capability to build space-based warships. The costs could be enormous, however. Plus their use & effectiveness may be limited. But anyone fielding a space battleship now would effectively dominate all other military forces on Earth. They would dominate the high ground and have easy access to anyones satellites (maybe) and Earth-based assets.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 16 13:27:34 2013 No.5904699 >>5904235 killjoy

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 16 13:29:03 2013 No.5904702 >>5904696 >space battleship There is literally no point to such a thing. You don't need a ship full of humans to put weapons in orbit.

Anonymous Tue Jul 16 13:32:34 2013 No.5904707

>>5904294
Full-immersion VR will be here within 20 years. Once that's done, most of humanity will go full NEET mode. There's really no point in having nasty icky organic sex when you can be a god of your own reality and fuck anything your mind can imagine (including women so perfect they'll never exist in the real world).

Overpopulation won't be much of an issue in the future. Both India and China are curbing their growth. The only problem could be impoverished African countries, but fuck those guys, it's not like anyone cares about them or their standards of living anyway.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 16 13:32:34 2013 No.5904709 >>5904191 /pol/ pls go

Anonymous Tue Jul 16 13:34:34 2013 No.5904710
File: 614 KB, 2560x1600, huahabeeb.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5904646
Not to rain on your parade, but if two interstellar civilisations met, the ensuing conflict would be ridiculously one-sided.

One of the two will be far far more advanced than the other, this wouldn't be the Federation vs. the Klingon, this would be the fucking Borg vs. cavemen.

Even if you 'trained', you'd just get your shit slapped. If you wanted to stay alive in a situation like that, your best bet would be to (assuming the other guys don't vapourise you) join them.

However I do think that if (when) we spread out across the solar system, some form of interplanetary war will erupt. Either because of corporations or terrorists, whereas national conflicts will remain on the surface of the Earth.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 16 13:34:34 2013 No.5904711 >>5904355 >The solar system will never be colonized. The continent will never be colonized. The ocean will never be crossed. The Moon will never be reached.

Anonymous Tue Jul 16 13:39:04 2013 No.5904724

>>5904636
>Problem is, there is no reason to weaponize space, build huge combat-capable ships or build planetary defences.
Then we'll INVENT a reason! I want armadas and epic space battles, and by the glory of God himself, I'll have them, even if I have to start the whole thing myself!

...
...
...

note to self: become rich, take a rag-tag team of pioneers to mars, build settlement, fuck all the nubile young women, expand, start colossal infrastructure projects, build more settlements, bring in more people, fuck more womenz, rinse, repeat... 100 years later, DECLARE SOVEREIGNTY AND PROVOKE EARTH INTO ATTACKING!

>we Red Faction nao

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 16 13:40:33 2013 No.5904726 >>5904702 I dont know that for sure but I'm just saying anyway. Any weaponization of space will likely be expensive, manned or not.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 16 13:41:35 2013 No.5904728 >>5904696 That is what they said about the increasing firepower of attack helicopters and jets able to counter tanks. Yet the tank remains the backbone of every military in the world. You just can't replace 50+ tons of metal parked on the street.

Anonymous Tue Jul 16 13:57:04 2013 No.5904755

>>5904711

Continents can be colonized because the energy costs are negligible compared to the gains of resource explotation. There's a reason why we don't expand into Arctic territories; we can't make any resource gains to offset the move.

Crossing oceans was a bit of a barrier for quite come time, but once it became clear what was to be gained, and once technology and education became widespread enough, oceangoing vessels became common.

None of these points apply to spaceflight. The energy and economic costs are staggering, even to our energy-dense civilization. Trying to mount an industrial effort at $10000 per pound of material, is really just impossible. Even $100/lb is far too much for an industrial effort.

None of that makes and sense to you since you've got scifi on the brain. Somebody in your family needs to pull an intervention, burn all your scifi, and get your ass into college to get a degree in economics.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 16 14:00:34 2013 No.5904759 Does anyone know of any good resources on the subject?

Anonymous Tue Jul 16 14:27:05 2013 No.5904793

>>5904755
We'll be stuck with oil-powered tech forever, right? No one will ever move beyond it, right? Physics will stop advancing, we'll accept what we have, and that'll be the end of it, right? Right?

Let me educate you. Son, there's about 80 years of suppressed tech locked in government black ops projects. Those fuckers have shit so advanced it'd make your head spin. Everything from anti-grav to quantum computing. For god's sake, the B-2 stealth bomber was made with tech from the 50s! That shit is decades old! You really think we never moved past that? The Skunkworks projects eat up billions of dollars each year! Where do you think all that money goes? On interior decorating?!

Fun fact: LCD displays were worked out in the early 60s, and there were working models in the 70s. Yeah, that's right, 2-inch LCDs, in the 70s. One of my EE professors used to talk at length about the shit he saw while he was working for the government (inb4 anecdotal, look it up, it's actually very well documented).

Will we ever move to space if we continue to rely on oil, and our ossified, outdated economics system? Hell no. Never. Not in a thousand years. But things *DO* change, regardless of what doom porn preppers like you enjoy fapping to. We're bound for another round of tech disclosure in the near future. The government needs to unload their old shit and make a profit along the way.

So shut up, and enjoy the ride.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 16 14:35:04 2013 No.5904801 >>5904793 >LCD displays were worked out in the early 60s, and there were working models in the 70s. And they probably cost many tens of thousands of dollars. That shit wasn't in hiding, it was just nowhere near profitable to make for consumers.

Anonymous Tue Jul 16 14:37:34 2013 No.5904808

>>5904042
That thing in your picture will likely take years to achive. But things such as ground-based interceptor crafts capable of reaching orbit and the local space is right around the corner, look up skylon and their sabre engine, the only thing you need to add to that is bomb bays and you'll have the equivalent of a space-born jet fighter.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 16 14:41:33 2013 No.5904817 >>5904136 >Here is an argument where I pull dates out of my ass and make claims based on nothing Wow, how do you expect this to contribute to anything?

Anonymous Tue Jul 16 14:43:34 2013 No.5904820

>>5904801
Nothing is profitable unless there's a push to make it widely available to the masses. I just can't accept that our understanding of physics is advancing so slowly that we're still stuck with chemical propellants. I'm not one to embrace the tinfoil, but Occam's Razor dictates that the large energy companies are actively suppressing groundbreaking tech because it would bring their trillions-dollar empire to a screeching halt.

And most of the people in the thread are right, we'll never go to space with rocket tech from the 50s. It's just not feasible. It costs too much, and there's little, if any return. If we want to make a serious effort, we need better materials and better sources of energy. We have both, but therey're so bound by red tape that we probably won't see them for the better part of the century.

But once said tech is released, there will be some large paradigm shifts, not the least among which will be the colonization of our solar system. So, in a nutshell, we ain't budging from the Earth until the megacorps and the governments have squeezed every last penny from their current infrastructure and investments.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 16 14:44:34 2013 No.5904823 >>5904243 >What is a satellite >What is a recon drone I didn't realize the pentagon was in the middle east.

Anonymous Tue Jul 16 14:46:34 2013 No.5904829

>>5904075

Astronomical bodies are more valuable for the services rather than the resources. For example, you build bigger structures and launch bigger things from Luna for cheaper. The base that owns it can charge companies to launch from there. There's many other things too.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 16 14:47:33 2013 No.5904830 >>5904287 >Come help colonize a new world! >Hope! >Special screening process! >Do you make under 20k a year? >You're hired! Then we send them into the sun.

Anonymous Tue Jul 16 14:48:03 2013 No.5904836

>>5904755
It's too expensive(maybe) with the current tech basis, but with resusable rockets from spaceX and SSTO from skylon we can lower the price a lot.

It's also not as straight as calculating launch cost per pound and calling it a day, there's resources out in space to develop and use, if someone offers water in space then you can suddenly launch without water supplies and cut costs for that, and given that water can be processed to rocket fuel you can suddenly launch with much less fuel than otherwise needed and then buy the remaining fuel. Same goes for oxygen and habitats.

A space based economy is unlike anyting ever attempted by mankind before, whatever a classic education in economics cover will not be very useful for a space environment.

Anonymous Tue Jul 16 14:50:05 2013 No.5904842

>>5904820
>I just can't accept that our understanding of physics is advancing so slowly that we're still stuck with chemical propellants.
You can't accept that the things you've arbitrarily decided aren't true, are true?

I hope you realize the circle you're walking.

>I'm not one to embrace the tinfoil, but Occam's Razor dictates that the large energy companies are actively suppressing groundbreaking tech because it would bring their trillions-dollar empire to a screeching halt
That is textbook tinfoil embracement, and Occam's Razor doesn't dictate that at all.

Occam's Razor dictates nothing - it's a decision heuristic. And you're misapplying the Razor anyway. Given the choices between:
>A) The technology does not exist.
or
>B) The technology exists, but is being hidden at great cost and effort by third parties with financial interest in seeing it suppressed
the Razor would tell us to go with A

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 16 14:51:05 2013 No.5904844 File: 596 KB, 1440x1385, zimbabwe.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5904264 >why not just colonize Africa?

Anonymous Tue Jul 16 15:04:35 2013 No.5904878
File: 9 KB, 220x156, 220px-Titan_North_Pole_Lakes_PIA08630.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5904075

You see those black patches? Those are the "mare" if Titan. Many of them are estimated to hold more hydrocarbon liquid than Earth's entire coal and oil reserves. The dunes are estimated to contain a volume of more than a 100 times Earth's coal reserves.... Think about how much that's worth. At least $3 Trillion.

Anonymous Tue Jul 16 15:04:35 2013 No.5904880

>>5904820
Rocket fuel is 3% of the launch cost. What it means is that a resusable rocket would cut ~30 times off the launch costs.

And then there's economics of scale, with a 30 times lower launch cost you may have 10 times more demand, lowering costs again with a large multiplier

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 16 15:08:34 2013 No.5904894 >>5904820 >I just can't accept that our understanding of physics is advancing so slowly that we're still stuck with chemical propellants. Who says it is? http://nextbigfuture.com/2013/06/2012-38-khz-mach-effect-thrusters.html

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 16 15:09:33 2013 No.5904900 >>5904292 We have the technology, shit, we're terraforming Earth right now, and very well. Just in the wrong direction. Its not a question of technology, its a question of how much resources we need and the length of time.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 16 15:18:05 2013 No.5904936 >>5904082 >Potato. What?

>>	None !!BJiYgff8zf2 Tue Jul 16 15:19:34 2013 No.5904943 >>5904081 Titanium is weaker than steel on a per volume basis.

Anonymous Tue Jul 16 15:21:04 2013 No.5904960

>>5904842
>I hope you realize the circle you're walking.
Don't you think it's strange how there hasn't been any progress on the energy front for decades, as far as research is concerned? Sure, solar cells get a little bit more efficient each year, but we're still hooked on oil. Why isn't there a concentrate, supra-national, multi-government effort to explore alternate fuel sources? Why aren't physicists drowning in funding? Why is everyone ignoring a problem that will, in the very near future, have global and possibly deadly ramifications?

Also, why is it that there've been multiple documented instances of government agencies raiding and sacking the labs of prominent researchers? I'm not talking out of my ass here, these things are documented. I'm not about to paste 1,000 links, do the research yourself if you're interested, but you can't dismiss it by citing it as anecdotal. The megacorps are doing everything they can to retard our progress. It's blatantly obvious at this point.

>Occam's Razor dictates nothing - it's a decision heuristic.
How autistic are you? It's an expression used to denote the simpler and more probable explanation. Quit being so fucking pedantic, it makes you look like an unintelligent twat.

>Given the choices between...
I stand corrected.

Anonymous Tue Jul 16 15:21:35 2013 No.5904957

>>5904047
>extinct.

This.
We will go extinct before we ever begin fighting other species in space.
Ironically, I bet that a nice old fashioned intergalactic war would be just the thing to unite all of humanity under a single banner of 'fuck the zongblongers" or whatever.

Anonymous Tue Jul 16 15:24:34 2013 No.5904976

>>5904960
>Don't you think it's strange how there hasn't been any progress on the energy front for decades, as far as research is concerned?
No, I really don't. Technological improvement tends to come in spurts with lulls in between. There is no slow incremental pace.

>do the research yourself if you're interested, but you can't dismiss it by citing it as anecdotal.
Telling me "trust me, I'm not talking out my ass" is pretty much completely anecdotal.

You need to do your own legwork.

Anonymous Tue Jul 16 15:26:05 2013 No.5904988

>>5904960
>Why isn't there a concentrate, supra-national, multi-government effort to explore alternate fuel sources? Why aren't physicists drowning in funding? Why is everyone ignoring a problem that will, in the very near future, have global and possibly deadly ramifications?
Oil prices have gone high in the past, but they've never STAYED high long enough for people to start seriously looking at alternatives. The answer was always 'wait a year and see if prices go back down'.

Anonymous Tue Jul 16 15:31:35 2013 No.5905002

>>5904960
Forgot to add that the Razor's a bitch, it all depends on how you word the argument. Mine wasn't the best, but it can easily be reformatted into the following:

>A) an alternate energy source has been known for years (but is being kept under wraps)

>B) despite decades of research, billions of dollars in funding, and innumerable man-hours spent on the effort, an alternate source of energy that could replace oil is still unknown

But yeah, the way I originally put it easily makes option A the more likely one.

Anonymous Tue Jul 16 15:37:34 2013 No.5905018

>>5904976
>Telling me "trust me, I'm not talking out my ass" is pretty much completely anecdotal.
What do you want me to do, give you links to all the books published on the subject? It's like asking someone to explain why the Military-Industrial Complex wages wars for profit, when there are thousands of books on the subject. It's not my fault you're ignorant.

>>5904988
>Oil prices have gone high in the past, but they've never STAYED high long enough for people to start seriously looking at alternatives.
This is a part of it, but not the whole truth. Oil reserves aren't infinite - not unless you're a subscriber to the abiotic theory of origin (which has never really been proven). We'll run out sooner than later, what with India and China guzzling up huge amounts of the stuff. Yet no one's making a real effort to plan for the future. And no, a couple dozen million for solar and wind farms doesn't count when companies like Exxon and Shell rake in billions every month. I wouldn't call it a conspiracy, but a conflict of interest. We expect for there enormous energy consortiums to sponsor the very technologies that would put them out of business? Fat chance.

Anonymous Tue Jul 16 15:38:35 2013 No.5905021

>>5905002
I would still pick your option b.

In both cases, the money is still being spent, you're just describing it different. But the "decades of research" and what not applies to both cases.

The only parts which the Razor applies to are the "kept under wraps" or "we didn't figure it out" bit, and I'd still say the "we didn't figure it out" one is more likely, because there's nothing about expending effort that guarantees results and you're introducing actors and effort to keep the results under wraps, which is contrary to the intent of the Razor.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 16 15:39:33 2013 No.5905026 >>5905018 >What do you want me to do, give you links to all the books published on the subject? I'd appreciate, at minimum, one or two references to published accounts of those events you're references to establish that they happened at least once.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 16 15:43:35 2013 No.5905041 >>5904957 humans actually entertain the notion of glassing their own planet, while they are still on it. now imagine if you put a nut job in charge of some human colony in our solar system, earth would be fair game.

Anonymous Tue Jul 16 15:49:35 2013 No.5905061

>>5905002

B is obviously more likely.

Also, if you were at all aware of energy tech, you would know that practically all related fields have been rapidly advancing in the last 20 years and are, in fact, "drowning in funding." The battery in your cellphone is magical compared to what was available in 1990. And things are only getting better. But you can't expect to completely replace 120 years of primary energy technology overnight.

Anonymous Tue Jul 16 15:54:33 2013 No.5905074

>>5905061
Still, chemical propellant? That stuff was postulated at the turn of the last century, and we still haven't moved an inch from it. We can Razor it to death and back, but that's just beating a dead horse. Either NASA is sitting on its ass, or someone out there is actively sabotaging space flight and alternate fuel sources. You can't have it both ways.

But I agree on the 'magic' of next-gen consumer electronics. Smartphones hooked to the net and able to pull from the entire knowledge of Mankind really is something special. We're lucky to be alive at at such an exciting time.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 16 16:00:35 2013 No.5905086 >>5905074 You need to stop assuming that finding and implementing viable alternatives to chemical propulsion is an inevitability.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 16 16:24:05 2013 No.5905160 >>5905074 http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110023492_2011024705.pdf

Anonymous Tue Jul 16 16:26:05 2013 No.5905167

Mmmmmmoneyyyy

Wen I see asteroids all I can see is money and money accessories. I can make more spaceships and stations, open more habitats, and mine even more asteroids. Do you know how much people would pay to visit a subsurface ocean hotel on Europa?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 16 16:32:35 2013 No.5905188 >>5905167 H's are worth $10 a piece.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 17 02:29:33 2013 No.5906310 File: 214 KB, 840x840, extent of human radio broadcasts.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5904636 >implying FTL-technology is possible

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math