/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.6172885]

Hello /sci/ i am in dire need for that picture about why we need to go to space, does anybody have it?

gonna bump with some wallapappers till then

[Anonymous No.6172890]

>>6172885

[Anonymous No.6172893]

>>6172890

[Anonymous No.6172896]

>>6172893

[Anonymous No.6172902]

>>6172896

[Anonymous No.6172916]

>>6172902

[Anonymous No.6172933]

>>6172916

[Anonymous No.6172939]

>>6172933

[Anonymous No.6172941]

>>6172890
>That moon

Muh tidal interactions

[Anonymous No.6172943]

>>6172941

[Anonymous No.6172951]

>>6172943

[Anonymous No.6172955]

>>6172951

[Anonymous No.6172957]

>>6172885
we don't

[Anonymous No.6172965]

>>6172957
no, i know you do

[Anonymous No.6172991]

>>6172885
Here it is.

The reason we need to go to space.

[Anonymous No.6172994]

>>6172991
No, i meant that info graphic...thing, you know what im talking about

[Anonymous No.6173025]

>>6172994
im off to school

when im back ill continue bumping

[Anonymous No.6173039]

>>6173025
on second though, ill stay home and keep bumping

someone PLEASE help me find it

[Anonymous No.6173064]

>>6173039

[Anonymous No.6173065]

>>6173039
Go to school, you waster

[Anonymous No.6173069]

>>6173065
No, i need to find it, i really need it for a project of mine

Plus today's classes are useless

[Anonymous No.6173174]

>>6173069

[Anonymous No.6173177]

>>6173069
you'd be better off asking in /b/. This is a slow moving board.

[Anonymous No.6173179]

It makes me so sad that nobody gives a shit about space and it will never get any funding until the world is near to ending, or an aliens species attacked, which would be too late.

[Anonymous No.6173183]

>>6173177
Hm, yeah i guess you're right, well thanks anyways

>>6173179
This is why i need that infograph

Going so space is useless for mankind

[Anonymous No.6173193]

nice dump, OP
there is a really good website with all those huge infopics
but i forgot the name

[Anonymous No.6173194]

I know what you're talking about but never saved due to /b/ tier shittery and mostly being common knowledge. For what it counts I hope this helps your project.

[Anonymous No.6173196]

>>6173183
Go to class mate. really. This thread will be here when you come back, perhaps even with the image you're looking for. I'm also interested in seeing it.
>>6173193
I agree.>>6173039 is my new wallpaper.

[Anonymous No.6173205]

>>6173196
Class is over already ^.^

here, have some more space

[Violent Simians Guy No.6173207]

>>6173179

The anger is part of the problem. Violent simians get angry. Fight or flight reflexes. We need to find Humans more advanced. They are very, very rare. They might also be a little scared, since the rest of the race is so animalistic that their sort can be wiped out by some violent simian social practice.

Stop being angry and start planning and working... you know, peaceful and gainful pursuits that violent simians seldom resort to.

[Violent Simians Guy No.6173212]

>>6173194

Dude, pull your nerdhead out of your ignorant ass. If you suddenly make 174 times the yearly output available to the market, THE PRICE WILL COLLAPSE.

pic related / The End

[Anonymous No.6173219]

>>6173212
>THE PRICE WILL COLLAPSE.

you mean it'll be smaller?

[Anonymous No.6173222]

>>6173212
That's kind of the point you stupid cunt. Read the rest of the fucking image.
>>6172885
Also OP I found what I think you're looking for

[Anonymous No.6173223]

>>6173222
Holy shit thank you man!

[Anonymous No.6173228]

>>6173207
VSG I've seen your posts before, so I'm curious to whether you advocate pacifism or just self-control?

[Violent Simians Guy No.6173229]

>>6173222

No, it's not the point, you stoopit coont. When the price collapses from vast and obscene oversupply, the economics of the effort also collapse. In other words, your investors get fucked. But they can all see this coming, since that's what investors do (except for the morons in dotcoms, housing, gold and now buttcoins). And since people can see the price collapse that results, then they won't invest. So you don't have efforts to mine asteroids. AND THAT'S WHAT'S HAPPENING NOW.

Our reality is the economic reality, and it's the ONLY possible reality.

htttp://www.sperglord.com/index.php?YOU

[Anonymous No.6173233]

>>6173229
fucking capped

thanks fellow namefag, im sick of the fucking nerds and their pipedream too

[Violent Simians Guy No.6173232]

>>6173228

Self control, obviously. Self defense in a world of violent simians is a necessity. Existence must be enforced. Therefore pacifism is a provably wrong philosophy.

But there's an element to pacifism that applies to reality, and that's "do no harm if you can". In short, don't go around attacking people and taking their stuff.

[Anonymous No.6173237]

>>6173229
I understand that, but would like to point out that the whole point of getting that platinum (if you looked a little further up on the image) is to have cheaper and more plentiful electronics. Sure, companies that sell platinum as a resource would be devastated, but are you saying electronics manufacturers wouldn't kill to have parts 1/174 the cost? That they won't invest for little immediate benefit but the promise of a new electronic industry boom?
Maybe I'm missing something here, but I don't see what is wrong about that particular point. I'd appreciate it if you could point it o

[Anonymous No.6173242]

>>6173237
>oh hey lets import more raw material to produce more shit which we'll late throw on and bury it under the ground causing the earth to be a wasteful hazard


Fix people's overconsumerist habbit, capitalism, then we can talks about your pipe dream

[Anonymous No.6173248]

>>6173242
Yeah and why is that an economic deterrent again?

[Anonymous No.6173251]

>>6173194
>actually believing the governments would reduce the price of everything in accordance with that chart.

You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to have common sense knowledge that wouldn't happen.

Current proof for the cynic dumbasses (not the skeptics, because they already agree with me): a new diamond mine has been found in Russia and the price of rings hasn't dropped.

[Anonymous No.6173255]

>>6173222
The reasons listed aren't convincing at all. I'm a medical student but I think I can speak for the average joe when I say space exploration is the last thing on our minds when we're overwhelmed with debts and struggling to support ourselves and our families.

That picture is pretty much pointless since all it does is preach to the choir(shills in the space industry and Mars One applicants).

[Reda !!gAyq5lzi952 No.6173258]

>>6173222
But this is wrong. "We could have been at Alpha Centuri by now!"

No, we couldn't have. It's a nice thought, but not grounded in realism at all. Alpha Centuri isn't even the closest star, Proxima Centuri is. And that's 4.2 something light years from our sun.

That's approximately 24,690,227,273,243 miles.

The fastest travelling man made object, the Voyager 1, travels at a rate of 3.6 AU per year. (Source: http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/fastfacts.html))

When converted to AU, Proxima Centuri is 265,612.53 AU away.

It will take the fastest travelling space probe that mankind has ever built a total of approximately 73,781 years to reach the nearest star. This is a problem.

I'm a huge space enthusiast, I love the idea of space travel, but I hate misinformation. And if someone could check my math on this or knows otherwise, please feel free to correct my calculations here.

[Anonymous No.6173257]

>>6173251
>Implying the government has anything to do with diamond prices
Thanks for your contribution, but you're example isn't as related as you think. Diamonds have almost no inflation, regardless of how many exist. Metals like gold and silver however, are much more prone to inflation.
Here's some further reading on the subject.
http://blog.priceonomics.com/post/45768546804/diamonds-are-bullshit
I believe it even covers the diamond mines in Russia

[Anonymous No.6173268]

>>6173255
I actually mostly disagree with that particular picture, and posted because OP desired it.
However, the point wasn't space exploration for exploration's sake. It's about the various economic incentives and the possibility more abundant and cleaner power (helium III)
Yeah, it has a zealous feel to it and clearly was written by a space shill, but it objectively doesn't just preach to the space industry alone.

[Anonymous No.6173289]

>>6173255
>>6173233
Truly Bateman despises mankind's efforts to traverse spess

[Violent Simians Guy No.6173300]

>>6173237

Thanks for a well-mannered question.

The issue is that industrialists would kill for platinum that's priced as cheaply as silver is today. However, the cost of going to the Asteroid Belt to get it, makes the effort economically impossible to perform.

Think it through. You'd need to assemble a team to get all this done. This will cost $100 million or more. Then you need to contract, build and launch a miniature industrial base. Call it 100 times the size of the ISS. The ISS is projected to have a lifetime cost of $150 billion. *B*illion. So how much will it cost to fund an effort that's 100 times the size? Or just 50 times the size? Call it $500 billion, minimum... taking into account economies of scale and so on.

The question is, who the fuck is going to invest $500 billion just to get back platinum at ten bucks an ounce? Answer: Nobody.

So instead of spending $500 billion that you don't even have to invest in the first place, you keep buying platinum for your industrial process at $1500/oz.

In other words, there's a good reason why you don't see solar panels in every yard. That's becasuse people obviously and SANELY prefer to spend $50 to $100 a month for electricity, than blow $20000 to $50000 in setting up a solar electric supply. And that differential (500:1) is TINY when compared to the platinum-from-asteroids scenario. Nobody invests billions to save thousands.

[Reda !!gAyq5lzi952 No.6173319]

>>6173300
There's a few misunderstandings of space program stuff here that I'd like to clarify on.

Your cost estimation is pretty far off given the fact that you'd be making a return on that investment. It'd start paying for itself. In your model of this program, and correct me if I'm wrong, we'd launch rockets, go there, mine what we need, and come back. This is not how an asteroid mining operation would operate.

The most prohibitive costs of space travel as it stands is putting things from the ground into space. Space-to-space travel isn't as much of a problem. Achieving escape velocity with something weighing tons upon tons is.

It would be more likely to establish a base that is self-sustaining. That is, you work with what you mine. You'd start with something smaller and build off of that while you're in space using the materials mined. This sounds a little ridiculous on paper, but if our 3D printing technology keeps improving at the rate that it does, this is a very feasible option. You send back the rarer resources you come across, not enmasse, it'd be a slow but steady flow of valuable materials returning to Earth. THAT is very inexpensive, relatively speaking.

A newer operation like this wouldn't be assembled like the ISS, where every piece of it had to slowly be sent over time on very expensive rockets launched into space. It would be constructed on location.

You estimate that an operation of this magnitude would cost $500 billion. Let's double that. Let's say this is a $1 trillion dollar operation. Make it a 20 year program. This means NASA's annual budget would move from approximately 17 billion dollars to around 50 billion. That's quite a leap. Let's see how this affects our taxation.

cont.

[Anonymous No.6173325]

>>6173300
http://www.space.com/15405-asteroid-mining-feasibility-study.html
http://news.discovery.com/space/asteroids-meteors-meteorites/could-asteroid-mining-drive-21st-century-space-industry-130204.htm
http://theweek.com/article/index/246086/how-asteroid-mining-could-add-trillions-to-the-world-economy
I get that it seems like a worthless investment, but the numbers I've seen are far different than what you've given me. NASA estimates it would cost between $2-3 billion to mine a single. As for the return, it's estimated at $20 trillion in materials. Given the inflation we both seem to agree upon, the return would turn out to be about $115 billion, leaving a profit of $112-113 billion.
Even if individual companies wouldn't want to risk such an investment, the same thing happened in the 16th century. Governments (specifically that of England) stepped in to provide insurance on those who would risk in the name of a massive economic benefit to the whole nation.

[Reda !!gAyq5lzi952 No.6173328]

>>6173319
Right now, half a penny of every tax dollar goes to Nasa. Seeing as their budget increased, lets see how this effects us economically. That translates roughly into a 300% increase in cost. This means that now Nasa would be taking up 2 cents of every tax dollar.

What does that extra penny and a half get us?

-New jobs.
-New technology.
-Improvements to old technology.
-Access to rare and expensive resources at extremely reduced costs.
-Further understanding of the universe and our solar system.

Pay one extra penny to receive those benefits. Hmm. Hmmmmmm.

>In other words, there's a good reason why you don't see solar panels in every yard. That's because people obviously and SANELY prefer to spend $50 to $100 a month for electricity, than blow $20000 to $50000 in setting up a solar electric supply.

What's true now isn't necessarily going to be true in the future. You're thinking about next week. Myself, and many other science/space enthusiasts are thinking about the next CENTURY. And sure, you don't see solar panels in every yard NOW. What happens when the rising cost of oil and natural gas PASSES the ever decreasing costs of solar energy? Then you can bet your ass you'll see more solar panels. It'll be the more practical option financially. People will do it because it's cheaper. Things change.

The automobile become popular only a little over 100 years ago. 100 years gets you from the car to the Curiosity rover on Mars. That's a BIG fucking deal. Adjust to thinking in more extended time spans other than the benefits you receive in a week, a month, or even a year. Start thinking in the longer term, and it's an incredible viable and lucrative market.

[Anonymous No.6173343]

I just got back from class and I'm glad you got your image OP. Why has the thread turned into pic related?

[Violent Simians Guy No.6173344]

>>6173319

Dude, quit hiding the cost. The US government now borrows at least 1/4 of its budget. IT'S BROKE. And you plan on hiding even more costs inside it?

You're literally trying to fool people into paying billions to save thousands, by hiding the costs in taxes. I bet you vote Liberal. That little game of "just have the government pay for it" is OVER. The USA is BROKE. The entire world is now talking about the US going into DEFAULT.

While I was writing the previous posts, I had kept in the back of my mind how there was an entity out there that's willing to spend billions to save thousands, and that's GOVERNMENT. But I left that out of my posts since that era is over, FOREVER. Petroleum depletion and the destruction of the First World middle class, ensure that it's over.

We should have struck out into the solar system since the 1940s when we still had the change. Now it's over. It'll never happen now. We're too resource depleted, and in every such situation before, Humanity either expanded through conquering and killing, or they contracted through conquering and killing. Either way, genocide-level catastrophes happened. That's where we're going to go now. In this particular phase, the 4+ billion people positions who were created in the oil-soaked 20th Century simply have to die off, often before their natural spans times. Killing people off is ALWAYS more cost effective than making investments in resource exploitation, oil being nearly sole exception to that rule.

[Violent Simians Guy No.6173361]

>>6173328

And, dude, we've been able to put up mirrors to capture and concentrate sunlight for MILLENNIA. Solar power isn't a modern invention at all. And solar electric panels have been around for a long time. Decades. The industry is mature. And yet, installations are still horribly expensive when compared to the periodic costs of simply connecting to the municipal utility company. In short, harvesting solar power, even wind power, is still a RICH MAN'S GAME.

Cheap fossil fuels keep enforcing that rule. Yet when they critically deplete, the natural and large price of useful energy won't impel industries to make energy cheap again. Fossil fuels were a one-time deal. They have no replacement. They created a "cheap-energy economy" that can't be deplicated with naturally expensive energy, by definition.

So the "choice" made by Humanity will be to downsize Humanity. That means gigacide. Billions of people today are only EATING since cheap fossil fuels allow them to. They are effectively "eating oil". Take the cheap energy source away, and they can't afford to eat anymore. Humans that can't eat, DIE.

You need to understand exactly what's happening in the world: Energy-intensive, high-efficiency, highly mechanized, industrial agriculture.

And yes, it's possible to get around that... by LAND REFORM. You have to let billions of people have enough arable land for themselves to use to grow their food. And that's not going to happen, for the obvious reason: A minority of violent simians own that land and won't give it up without a fight. They control the political process and the militaries of the world. They will opt to kill Humans off rather than "share".

[Anonymous No.6173364]

>>6173343
the pipedreamists have actually been fairly civil.
VSG and his samefagging are over-represented in terms of his own name.

[Anonymous No.6173368]

>>6173364
>VSG and his samefagging

why would anyone do that?

[Anonymous No.6173375]

>>6173361
*tips fedora*

[Anonymous No.6173398]

>>6173344
>Dude, quit hiding the cost. The US government now borrows at least 1/4 of its budget. IT'S BROKE. And you plan on hiding even more costs inside it?

It's not hiding costs, it's redistributing what we currently make. There's a large difference. I'm not saying increase tax costs to US citizens by over a penny on every tax dollar, I'm saying take a penny away from our military budget and put it into our science programs. Re-evaluate our current spending.

>We should have struck out into the solar system since the 1940s when we still had the change. Now it's over.

Oh, you have no working knowledge of the history of space programs or why we did what we did. Your posts make a lot more sense now.

>Killing people off is ALWAYS more cost effective than making investments in resource exploitation.

I also liked 1984 by George Orwell.

>Solar power isn't a modern invention at all. And solar electric panels have been around for a long time. Decades. The industry is mature. And yet, installations are still horribly expensive when compared to the periodic costs of simply connecting to the municipal utility company. In short, harvesting solar power, even wind power, is still a RICH MAN'S GAME.

I was referring to when the costs of solar power inevitably dip below the costs of fossil fuel expenditure. Look at the costs of solar energy in the 1970's. Look at the costs now. There's a DROP. That drop is continuing as newer more efficient materials are discovered or developed. Costs have done nothing but come down. Cost of oil has done nothing but go up. If you graph those costs together, in the future those lines will intersect and the cost of fossil fuels will be over the falling cost of solar energy. So yes, right now, fossil fuels are more cost efficient. That's why we're using them. But predicting that the world will just collapse instead of restructure when this intersection happens is kind of silly. Market shifts happen all the time.

[Violent Simians Guy No.6173482]

>>6173398

Dude, you're HIDING COSTS. Increasing NASA funding can't happen without increasing spending. NASA gets the optimal funding now. It only gets the funding that's POSSIBLE. What's reality is what's REAL. All you loony dreamers never understand that.

Nobody's going to toss $50 billion at NASA each year. It's not even worth discussing. You're not going to take even one penny from the military. Foolish dreams.

[Anonymous No.6173575]

>>6173344
Are you really one of those faggots that looks at our yearly budget, thinks "we need to make a cut somewhere..." and then comes to the brilliant conclusion of cutting our science programs instead of things like the military expenditures

[Reda !!gAyq5lzi952 No.6173601]

>>6173482
>Dude, you're HIDING COSTS. Increasing NASA funding can't happen without increasing spending.

Imagine you have two kids. You give one of the children seven apples, and the other you give one apple. You've expended a total of eight apples.

Now, imagine a redistribution of that same number of apples. This time you give one child five apples, and the other child three. You've still expended a total of eight apples.

This is not an increase in spending. This is a reallocation of funds.

Calling troll now, or at best, some form of clinically retarded. We're done here.

[Anonymous No.6173609]

>>6173258
Some of the proposals OP mentions actually would have made it to Proxima Centauri by now, were they built.

However, OP does not realize that those projects were completely speculative, and were way out of the reach of our ability to build them when they were proposed.

[Anonymous No.6173640]

>>6173300
I'd like to point out that your estimate is vastly overstated.

First, much of the ISS was launched with the Space Shuttle, which cost $60,000/kg . This alone accounts for about $27 billion of the ISS's cost. Newer technology has launch costs of only about $2000/kg, and those are projected to drop greatly in the near future if SpaceX's reusability initiative pans out.

Secondly, many of the ISS's components were constructed by NASA and its contractors, which use a cost-plus contracting scheme which contains a perverse incentive to go massively overbudget. Private industry could probably have constructed the ISS more cheaply.

And thirdly, that's the LIFETIME cost, accounting for constant maintenance, the launches to take astronauts and supplies up and other lifetime costs, which make up the VAST majority of NASA's budget. Actually building the station cost far less, although nobody has a good estimate of how much that actually is. The asteroid-mining system would be even cheaper, because humans don't need to live in it, which simplifies matters considerably.

Thirdly, why the hell would you need a base 100 times the size of the ISS? I assume that's including refining, etc. All you'd really need would be some way to mine rock and ice and some way to throw it back to Earth to process it here, where our industrial base is. (And some way to power the process.) You could accomplish that with perhaps 1 to 2 times the mass of size of the ISS.

All of this comes down to prices in the tens of billions - at the very most.

>>6173601
VSG is always angry. Angry about space. His views can best be summarized as "Space is fantastic, but since we're dumb humans we'll never get off this rock and Peak Oil will shortly destroy our society, especially since space is forbidden by capitalism. Now, if we switched to a command economy, which would have my views in mind as the ideal use of society's resources..."