Obama Ends NASA Moon Mission

[Amongst_many]

Ammo Amy

Amongst_many

Once the infrastructure is up it'll be worth fractions of the cost.

Quote:

Converting from grams to tons, pounds, or ounces and multiplying by the current market price, gives the estimated market price of the metals in asteroid 1986 DA.
Iron 2.2 trillion dollars
Nickel 17.6 trillion dollars
Platinum 5.5 trillion dollars
Gold 0.4 trillion dollars

Total 25.7 trillion dollars
The total estimated market price for metals found in the 2 kilometer diameter metallic asteroid 1986 DA in early 2010 is over 25 trillion dollars.


There are thousands of similar asteroids in the asteroid belt. There are also other potential sources of resources in the solar system besides asteroids. It is however necessary to invest money in the space program, if mankind is to eventually mine asteroids and other resources.

The market value for a single moderate sized asteroid is considerably more than the entire accumulated US national debt.

the question is how to get at those metals. Setting up the infrastructure would take a lot of time and money. Look how long it took to get the International Space Station set up, and it's not even done yet. You're talking about setting up a staging platform, fueling, rockets, and a round trip to asteroids that would take months each way, even if your job was to go to the most promising and attach rockets to move that asteroid into a closer locality to Earth for mining, which would take years to do.

Will people be willing to pay the price when they b***h about the relatively tiny amounts spent in past NASA missions? As I related before, this has mostly been a political thing. When only science is involved, people complain and say it can be better spent in other ways. The only reason Republicans are bitching is because it's Obama and a Democratic president.

Yeah I know, shame really, we need another space race. China vs USA, or something.

[Ammo Amy]

Amongst_many

Ammo Amy

Amongst_many

Once the infrastructure is up it'll be worth fractions of the cost.

Quote:

Converting from grams to tons, pounds, or ounces and multiplying by the current market price, gives the estimated market price of the metals in asteroid 1986 DA.
Iron 2.2 trillion dollars
Nickel 17.6 trillion dollars
Platinum 5.5 trillion dollars
Gold 0.4 trillion dollars

Total 25.7 trillion dollars
The total estimated market price for metals found in the 2 kilometer diameter metallic asteroid 1986 DA in early 2010 is over 25 trillion dollars.


There are thousands of similar asteroids in the asteroid belt. There are also other potential sources of resources in the solar system besides asteroids. It is however necessary to invest money in the space program, if mankind is to eventually mine asteroids and other resources.

The market value for a single moderate sized asteroid is considerably more than the entire accumulated US national debt.

the question is how to get at those metals. Setting up the infrastructure would take a lot of time and money. Look how long it took to get the International Space Station set up, and it's not even done yet. You're talking about setting up a staging platform, fueling, rockets, and a round trip to asteroids that would take months each way, even if your job was to go to the most promising and attach rockets to move that asteroid into a closer locality to Earth for mining, which would take years to do.

Will people be willing to pay the price when they b***h about the relatively tiny amounts spent in past NASA missions? As I related before, this has mostly been a political thing. When only science is involved, people complain and say it can be better spent in other ways. The only reason Republicans are bitching is because it's Obama and a Democratic president.

Yeah I know, shame really, we need another space race. China vs USA, or something.

Can you froth up the public into something like this? Can we instill a new Red Scare? Not with most of the things we buy and much of the debt we owe to them.

[agrab0ekim]

Scraps 2-point-0

agrab0ekim

Scraps 2-point-0

agrab0ekim

Scraps 2-point-0

I think it's a good thing. Why waste billions of dollars to go somewhere we've already been with old technology? If you're going to spend that much on a single mission, go to Mars. Besides, does the government really have that kind of money available to spend right now?

the cut back on other things
the choice between killing other humans or the salvation of the human race, I chose the later

The billions of dollars spent on space exploration have yielded, for the most part, just bragging rights. The entire reason for going to the moon in the first place was to beat the Russians there-- that's it. And once we got there, we found jack s**t. Some space rocks, no life to speak of, no atmosphere, zip. Instead, we can spend that money on things that matter in the meantime: like education, or maybe just fixing our environment before if screws us over permanently, to avoid the need to colonize space in the first place.

And if we don't learn how to be more environmentally friendly now while we're on one planet, what makes you think colonizing another planet will make the situation any better? We'll just vomit our waste all over the solar system now and mess up other environments-- something we simply have no right to do, in my opinion. Hell, we hardly even have the right to destroy our own planet, let alone another one.

That, and we aren't biologically evolved to live on another planet. That's why we evolved the way we did: our stature, biochemistry, cultures, etc. are perfectly adapted to survive in Earth's climates. But we honestly have no idea what going to another planet might yield. We might be able to make food and water on the moon for ourselves, but we might not. We might be alone if we get to Mars, or the planet could-- excuse my nerdiness-- go Doctor Who on us and produce parasitic aliens in the water that kill us off one by one, for example.

Sure, we can guess what other planets have in store for us, but in reality, we've only visited one-- and it's a moon to our own world, not even a real planet. In reality, we have no way of understanding what could be in store for us on another planet. Our arrogance could be our downfall either way.

Also, I must ask: if space travel is so important to you, and you believe it's more important than "other things" we could "cut," what do you think should be cut?

Really, they have brought nothing?
Digital hearing aids, miniature heart pumps, cancer detection devices, common smoke detectors, fire-resistant aircraft seats, safety grooving on roads, LASIK eye surgery, humanitarian demining devices, and numerous other medical and safety devices and improvements trace their origins to space technology.

Okay.

Say that to the thousands of other cultures untouched by our technology that get by just fine without any technology; hell, in some ways, they get along better. For example, people in hunter-gatherer societies consistently have more spare time than people in agricultural societies. (See: any textbook on Anthropology.) Of course, those are good things, but they were not invented as a direct result of space travel. They were developed as things we thought we would need for it. None of these were developed on the moon, or as a direct result of landing on the moon.

I'd still like to see you address my other points, as well. Why do we need space travel? What right do we have to screw up another environment when we can't even seem to handle our own?

These probably would have not been made save for the moon race, which clearly shows why it was important

Well, we don't need it. Just like you don't need oxygen

Also, most hunter-gather's die quite young. I will give up free time per year for more years overall

[agrab0ekim]

Ammo Amy

Amongst_many

Once the infrastructure is up it'll be worth fractions of the cost.

Quote:

Converting from grams to tons, pounds, or ounces and multiplying by the current market price, gives the estimated market price of the metals in asteroid 1986 DA.
Iron 2.2 trillion dollars
Nickel 17.6 trillion dollars
Platinum 5.5 trillion dollars
Gold 0.4 trillion dollars

Total 25.7 trillion dollars
The total estimated market price for metals found in the 2 kilometer diameter metallic asteroid 1986 DA in early 2010 is over 25 trillion dollars.


There are thousands of similar asteroids in the asteroid belt. There are also other potential sources of resources in the solar system besides asteroids. It is however necessary to invest money in the space program, if mankind is to eventually mine asteroids and other resources.

The market value for a single moderate sized asteroid is considerably more than the entire accumulated US national debt.

the question is how to get at those metals. Setting up the infrastructure would take a lot of time and money. Look how long it took to get the International Space Station set up, and it's not even done yet. You're talking about setting up a staging platform, fueling, rockets, and a round trip to asteroids that would take months each way, even if your job was to go to the most promising and attach rockets to move that asteroid into a closer locality to Earth for mining, which would take years to do.

Will people be willing to pay the price when they b***h about the relatively tiny amounts spent in past NASA missions? As I related before, this has mostly been a political thing. When only science is involved, people complain and say it can be better spent in other ways. The only reason Republicans are bitching is because it's Obama and a Democratic president.

1) build a base on the moon
2) build a station in the belt
3) attatch small rockets to asteroids, send them to moon
4) save a lot
5) As he explained it above, no ???? needed
6) PROFIT

[Steven Hawkings]

Scraps 2-point-0

agrab0ekim

Scraps 2-point-0

I think it's a good thing. Why waste billions of dollars to go somewhere we've already been with old technology? If you're going to spend that much on a single mission, go to Mars. Besides, does the government really have that kind of money available to spend right now?

the cut back on other things
the choice between killing other humans or the salvation of the human race, I chose the later

The billions of dollars spent on space exploration have yielded, for the most part, just bragging rights. The entire reason for going to the moon in the first place was to beat the Russians there-- that's it. And once we got there, we found jack s**t. Some space rocks, no life to speak of, no atmosphere, zip. Instead, we can spend that money on things that matter in the meantime: like education, or maybe just fixing our environment before if screws us over permanently, to avoid the need to colonize space in the first place.

And if we don't learn how to be more environmentally friendly now while we're on one planet, what makes you think colonizing another planet will make the situation any better? We'll just vomit our waste all over the solar system now and mess up other environments-- something we simply have no right to do, in my opinion. Hell, we hardly even have the right to destroy our own planet, let alone another one.

That, and we aren't biologically evolved to live on another planet. That's why we evolved the way we did: our stature, biochemistry, cultures, etc. are perfectly adapted to survive in Earth's climates. But we honestly have no idea what going to another planet might yield. We might be able to make food and water on the moon for ourselves, but we might not. We might be alone if we get to Mars, or the planet could-- excuse my nerdiness-- go Doctor Who on us and produce parasitic aliens in the water that kill us off one by one, for example.

Sure, we can guess what other planets have in store for us, but in reality, we've only visited one-- and it's a moon to our own world, not even a real planet. In reality, we have no way of understanding what could be in store for us on another planet. Our arrogance could be our downfall either way.

Also, I must ask: if space travel is so important to you, and you believe it's more important than "other things" we could "cut," what do you think should be cut?

Which kind of space-missions?

[wildblackfire]

Does America need it right now? or does it need to focus on repairing it's economy first? You wanna go to the moon but live in shanty towns? I don't see outer space going anywhere so it can wait. money making racket? only if you have money to invest in it first. Which America does not.

[Ammo Amy]

agrab0ekim

1) build a base on the moon
2) build a station in the belt
3) attatch small rockets to asteroids, send them to moon
4) save a lot
5) As he explained it above, no ???? needed
6) PROFIT

And you do this for how much? And your "profit". Who gets that? What do you save?

[agrab0ekim]

Ammo Amy

agrab0ekim

1) build a base on the moon
2) build a station in the belt
3) attatch small rockets to asteroids, send them to moon
4) save a lot
5) As he explained it above, no ???? needed
6) PROFIT

And you do this for how much? And your "profit". Who gets that? What do you save?

well, the profit would be the US government, assuming that they fund it
the cost idk, but i am quite sure that we would profit from it, as the cost becomes almost nothing once it is set up (the rockets to and from the belt would be easy)

[Amongst_many]

agrab0ekim

Ammo Amy

agrab0ekim

1) build a base on the moon
2) build a station in the belt
3) attatch small rockets to asteroids, send them to moon
4) save a lot
5) As he explained it above, no ???? needed
6) PROFIT

And you do this for how much? And your "profit". Who gets that? What do you save?

well, the profit would be the US government, assuming that they fund it
the cost idk, but i am quite sure that we would profit from it, as the cost becomes almost nothing once it is set up (the rockets to and from the belt would be easy)

It'll be like the good old days when ships used to take months to cross the continents, minus the whole killing of the natives part (I hope).

[agrab0ekim]

Amongst_many

agrab0ekim

Ammo Amy

agrab0ekim

1) build a base on the moon
2) build a station in the belt
3) attatch small rockets to asteroids, send them to moon
4) save a lot
5) As he explained it above, no ???? needed
6) PROFIT

And you do this for how much? And your "profit". Who gets that? What do you save?

well, the profit would be the US government, assuming that they fund it
the cost idk, but i am quite sure that we would profit from it, as the cost becomes almost nothing once it is set up (the rockets to and from the belt would be easy)

It'll be like the good old days when ships used to take months to cross the continents, minus the whole killing of the natives part (I hope).

Except that the ships will be robots, and they are not colonizing, simply pillaging
oh, and no smallpoxs

but, otherwsie, yes

[Ammo Amy]

agrab0ekim

Ammo Amy

agrab0ekim

1) build a base on the moon
2) build a station in the belt
3) attatch small rockets to asteroids, send them to moon
4) save a lot
5) As he explained it above, no ???? needed
6) PROFIT

And you do this for how much? And your "profit". Who gets that? What do you save?

well, the profit would be the US government, assuming that they fund it
the cost idk, but i am quite sure that we would profit from it, as the cost becomes almost nothing once it is set up (the rockets to and from the belt would be easy)

How would the government profit? Actually, it would likely be the corporation that exploited the resources after the government spent all that money obtaining it and bringing it back to them for easy mining, unless the government itself wanted to get involved with that aspect.

Also, how much do you consider "almost nothing"? How are you coming up with that statement?

[Baron von Darrin]

Apocryphal Libertarian

Wendigo

Of course, to those of us who are not adherents of this bizarre cult, "unintended consequences" lacks the positive connotations with which it is invested when it means pursuing only your own benefit and thereby, automagically, causing good things to happen for the people around you.

Yes, both Smith and I made statements to that regard. Implied is the possibility of the creation of an economic structure which exploits these actions so that the "unintended ends" we meet are for the good of society. Smith was by no means an advocate of anything resembling anarcho-capitalism. In fact he was a noted cynic of human behavior. If you want to argue against agorism and it's philosophical groundings you'll have to take it up with Baron von douche (or whatever his name was) and Rothbard. Not here.

Aww. is the "libertarian" butt hurt?

[Apocryphal Libertarian]

Baron von Darrin

Aww. is the "libertarian" butt hurt?

Not particularly, no. I'm just separating myself from the crazies.