News Stories

[LynnieS]

Originally Posted by Yoko Takeo

A good point. However, a powerplant in Connecticut will be far cheaper than a power plant on the moon. Unless Drax Corporation becomes a reality, I doubt any private firm has enough money to build anything on the moon. There are the transportation costs for materials and the cost of professional personell to worry about in addition to the actual infrastructure and maintenance of a powerplant, and the creation of a whole new sector in the labor market. I would also guess that employees wouldn't easily come back home on earth after working on the moon, so they would also need shelter, and the firm would have to provide housing for them. The list goes on but those are just a few things that will add on to the cost of such a massive project.

Wow. Building a facility, esp. one for the long term, using materials shipped from Earth will be very very expensive. The equipment shipping, by itself, will be hard.

To do this reasonably from here, you essentially would need a beanstalk, which would be ideal, or possibly a ground-based laser or nuclear propulsion system first. The first is a project that isn't even feasible or possible at the moment, and the second will probably have people up in arms. Using the asteroids belt for raw materials that can't be dug up/made using lunar ones would be ideal, but the cost in lives alone would be bad; hazard pay to get enough trained people to go will have to be high.

You don't even have enough people trained/experienced in long-term, low-G construction techniques to begin with. Getting that experience will mean a large number of injuries, esp. in the beginning, which in space and if serious enough, will mean death. You can't exactly send someone who is badly hurt to the facility best able to treat him when that place is as far away from the moon or the belt...

Pragmatically, unless you get (1) a strong dreamer and speaker to drum up public support to fund the project and (2) successfully met milestones at every turn, it isn't going to happen. The backstabbing, a lack of interest in time and costs (lives and money) will mean an end, IMHO.

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by LynnieS

Wow. Building a facility, esp. one for the long term, using materials shipped from Earth will be very very expensive. The equipment shipping, by itself, will be hard.

To do this reasonably from here, you essentially would need a beanstalk, which would be ideal, or possibly a ground-based laser or nuclear propulsion system first. The first is a project that isn't even feasible or possible at the moment, and the second will probably have people up in arms. Using the asteroids belt for raw materials that can't be dug up/made using lunar ones would be ideal, but the cost in lives alone would be bad; hazard pay to get enough trained people to go will have to be high.

You don't even have enough people trained/experienced in long-term, low-G construction techniques to begin with. Getting that experience will mean a large number of injuries, esp. in the beginning, which in space and if serious enough, will mean death. You can't exactly send someone who is badly hurt to the facility best able to treat him when that place is as far away from the moon or the belt...

Pragmatically, unless you get (1) a strong dreamer and speaker to drum up public support to fund the project and (2) successfully met milestones at every turn, it isn't going to happen. The backstabbing, a lack of interest in time and costs (lives and money) will mean an end, IMHO.

And private firms are out for profit. If they start trying to build anything on the moon, they're gonna be operating at a severe loss and will end up going bankrupt before anything gets done. You'd end up with an incomplete skyhook somewhere in Texas, which isn't good for the scenery. Not many people are going to try getting involved in a project that has more than the average risk of death when they're trying to make money. If someone really wanted to build something on the moon, the govt would have to deal with it first. They're the only ones who can back such a project financially and from the labor point of view (training and provisions). But even govt's wouldn't be able to do such a thing for another few centuries, not with the way the economy is right now.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by SeijiSensei

boards.4chan.org still available on Verizon FiOS, so I'd suggest we wait to see there is a technical explanation for the problems with VZ wireless before getting too agitated about ISP filtering.



Five people died yesterday while building a power plant in Connecticut. Some projects are hazardous, but there are brave people who choose to take them on anyway. I don't think privatization would change that.

Life
Medical
Long Term Care
Disability
Workers Comp
Lawsuits

No insurance company in the world is going to underwrite a moon project knowing that is a almost 100% certainty in payout. And no private company in the world is going to sent workers to the moon without insurance. And no private company is going to be able to self-insured themselves adequately for a project like this.

Either the government built a base on the moon or no one is going to do it.

Originally Posted by Yoko Takeo

A good point. However, a powerplant in Connecticut will be far cheaper than a power plant on the moon. Unless Drax Corporation becomes a reality, I doubt any private firm has enough money to build anything on the moon. There are the transportation costs for materials and the cost of professional personell to worry about in addition to the actual infrastructure and maintenance of a powerplant, and the creation of a whole new sector in the labor market. I would also guess that employees wouldn't easily come back home on earth after working on the moon, so they would also need shelter, and the firm would have to provide housing for them. The list goes on but those are just a few things that will add on to the cost of such a massive project.

you forgot playboy magazines, Playboy channel subscription and plenty of tissue paper. Unless of course the company recruits a lot of female "workers" as well

[TooPurePureBoy]

I think history has shown that people are willing to do some crazy things for a chance at a different life. Give the people who are willing to do the life threatening work a chance for some large share in the profits and I think we would all be surprised at how many people would sign up for a chance to work in space, danger be damned.

If people were as afraid to risk their lives as some of you are saying I doubt we'd be where we are as a species.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Tiberium Wolf

But does funding "ineffecient" Nasa solve the current economy crisis in medium or short run? I think space exploration can take a few cuts. What ppl need right now is the economy fixed.

the NASA budget while maybe a lot in the convenation sense that it runs to the billion is relatively minor in the overall budget. If Obama really wants to Ax wasteful programs to use job creation there are much bigger turkeys then NASA. The main reason why Obama target NASA is because most of the public don't understand what NASA actually does and NASA itself has few political defenders. It makes for great soundbite when he stands on the presidential podium saying how he going to ax a few billion in wasteful spending form Nasa but not mention the few hundred billion in wasteful spending that he let go by.

Originally Posted by TooPurePureBoy

I think history has shown that people are willing to do some crazy things for a chance at a different life. Give the people who are willing to do the life threatening work a chance for some large share in the profits and I think we would all be surprised at how many people would sign up for a chance to work in space, danger be damned.

If people were as afraid to risk their lives as some of you are saying I doubt we'd be where we are as a species.

oh sure there are people who are willing to risk there lives but are there enough of them with right skillset that is going to be needed on the Moon. This isn't the 1800s when you can hitch up a wagon to a pair oxen and head west. You need a large amount of highly skill and highly educate people for this job. Those people are not going to be cheap and if they die their family is going to demand compensation which goes back to my pervious post "Life Insurance"

Most life Insurance company have exclusions for people whose job has to do with flying or flying as a hobby/sport. No one will insured you to go to space much less the moon, no private company anyway.

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

you forgot play magazines, Playboy channel subscription and plenty of tissue paper. Unless of course the company recruits a lot of female "workers" as well

Well, in space, the rules of the Earth may not actually apply. I think they'll even hire concubines I jest. You're absolutely right, those things have to be considered too

Originally Posted by TooPurePureBoy

I think history has shown that people are willing to do some crazy things for a chance at a different life. Give the people who are willing to do the life threatening work a chance for some large share in the profits and I think we would all be surprised at how many people would sign up for a chance to work in space, danger be damned.

If people were as afraid to risk their lives as some of you are saying I doubt we'd be where we are as a species.

Regardless, it's too expensive for both the public and private sectors right now with the way the economy is.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Yoko Takeo

And private firms are out for profit. If they start trying to build anything on the moon, they're gonna be operating at a severe loss and will end up going bankrupt before anything gets done. You'd end up with an incomplete skyhook somewhere in Texas, which isn't good for the scenery. Not many people are going to try getting involved in a project that has more than the average risk of death when they're trying to make money. If someone really wanted to build something on the moon, the govt would have to deal with it first. They're the only ones who can back such a project financially and from the labor point of view (training and provisions). But even govt's wouldn't be able to do such a thing for another few centuries, not with the way the economy is right now.

personally i don't think we have a few centuries, the race for resource is only going heat up as we use it up. Eventually either humanity gets into space in the next 2 century or ww3 will blow humanity back to the stone age.

[SaintessHeart]

We can always build a gigantic space station then crash it into earth to accelerate the migration to space.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

We can always build a gigantic space station then crash it into earth to accelerate the migration to space.

the problem we need to get one built first.

[Tiberium Wolf]

Originally Posted by Jinto

Thats typical corporate management thinking these days. I wonder where these guys learned economy related things.
If you cut down NASA you will not be able to hold the people and their knowledge there. This will transfer knowhow elsewhere. The problem is, once they settled down somewhere else it is hard to get them back. Therefore this is equivalent to an expertise sellout.
So once that process is completed, it will be hard to regain the expertise and knowhow that was there before (assuming the economy will be fixed by then).
If you try to get those people back it will cost a lot more money later. On the long run such a business strategy is just stupid... provided that the economy crisis is only a short/medium term occurrence (maybe Obama/aides know whats really coming - well just a funny/ridiculous thought).

Just have then use scrap metals as materials and have them figure some miracle invention. That way you can save a lot.

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

personally i don't think we have a few centuries, the race for resource is only going heat up as we use it up. Eventually either humanity gets into space in the next 2 century or ww3 will blow humanity back to the stone age.

I could easily link all of that back to globalization. Seriously, if people still lived as they did long before airplanes were even invented.....gah, whatever. I'm not gonna live to see it anyways

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Yoko Takeo

I could easily link all of that back to globalization. Seriously, if people still lived as they did long before airplanes were even invented.....gah, whatever. I'm not gonna live to see it anyways

it would still run out eventually, the questions has always been when not if.

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

it would still run out eventually, the questions has always been when not if.

It would take a hell of a lot longer at least tho, and we weren't using the kind of resources we use today. But yeah, I do think we'll end up blowing each other up before the resources finish anyway, what with this race. And Globalization is the common denominator of all our problems. I also like this little video:

[JMvS]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

the problem we need to get one built first.

Or we could harness Apophis with solar sails/ion or VASIMR engines, to divert it on the "right" trajectory

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by Yoko Takeo

I could easily link all of that back to globalization. Seriously, if people still lived as they did long before airplanes were even invented.....gah, whatever. I'm not gonna live to see it anyways

Look at the poorest nations in Africa where they don't have access to clean water, to food, to medicine. That's the kind of situation you're advocating for everyone when you suggest people should still live as they did before industrialization. Life back in the 19th century wasn't easy. All you're doing is advocating an increase in human suffering. The answer isn't to cut back and drop the first world to the third world standard of living. It's to bring everyone up to the first world standard of living while expanding into space for more resources. All of our energy and material needs are there. All we have to do is take those first steps, to develop a cheap, reliable way of getting into space. Sure, there's going to be problems along the way, and it's not going to be easy, but if humanity is to survive we need to get off this rock.

[Vexx]

The technological optimist point of view is that we can think our way through any problem. Technological optimists usually hate politicians and robber barons out for 'short term gains'.... :P

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Vexx

The technological optimist point of view is that we can think our way through any problem. Technological optimists usually hate politicians and robber barons out for 'short term gains'.... :P

sounds like our current president and the one before that.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

sounds like our current president and the one before that.

I can't say I'm real thrilled about our Shelby's, Dodd's, Reid's, Boehner's, et al much less our last few presidents. I suppose "the people get the government they deserve" comes into play somewhat since "the people" are suckling "bread and circuses" as they bloat up.

In other news, a somewhat disturbing news item:

http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/natio...=Google+Reader
More Than 1/3 of All Japanese Couples are Now Sexless

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by Vexx

In other news, a somewhat disturbing news item:

http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/natio...=Google+Reader
More Than 1/3 of All Japanese Couples are Now Sexless

I like how the article makes it look like sex is a direct indicator to how much a couple loves each other. Couples don't need to have sex to be happy together. That's the thought process for people who aren't simply satisfied with being together with their significant other. Sex isn't the only thing a couple can do to make each other feel special. In fact, sex has become so popular that its initial significance has been long since lost, so I don't see how it can be a vital element in a relationship tbh. In other words, I don't agree with this article when it asks where has the love gone

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Yoko Takeo

I like how the article makes it look like sex is a direct indicator to how much a couple loves each other. Couples don't need to have sex to be happy together. That's the thought process for people who aren't simply satisfied with being together with their significant other. Sex isn't the only thing a couple can do to make each other feel special. In fact, sex has become so popular that its initial significance has been long since lost, so I don't see how it can be a vital element in a relationship tbh. In other words, I don't agree with this article when it asks where has the love gone

Well... the underlying panic is "where have all the future Japanese gone?"
Part of their panic over "no sex == no babies" crisis.