Cause I was bored, I looked up shit on Antarctica the other day. It occurred to me that Antarctica is a lot like Mars in some respects and I wondered if current human activity in Antarctica is what the future of manned space travel would look like. It's fairly easy to travel to Antarctica and research stations dot the continent, but nobody actually lives there. There are no towns or anything like that. Part of that is by treaty, but more importantly towns form around some sort of point of economic interest. A river, a mine, some farm land etc. There really isn't much of economic interest in Antarctica. I mean, you could mine there, but nobody does it because it's too expensive. Would Mars be the same? I've heard of an isotope of Helium that could possibly be used in a fusion reactor and is more common on the moon then it is on the Earth, but it's still pretty rare. If such a reactor were possible, and an effective way to collect it were developed I suppose it's possible that you could have a city on the moon.
Ever is a long time. The expensive thing about spaceflight right now is leaving Earth's gravity, there may be different challenges with permanent habitats on the Moon or Mars. If we can find a cheap way to transport stuff to orbit and to leave orbit and accelerate a lot, then it might become economical. As it is, it would be a hyper-expensive experiment.
It will be attempted.
Oh, I expect ever to be up within 50 years. For me at least. :P But the reason I brought up Antarctica is becomes it's not that difficult to reach, it's just there isn't anything there. So nobody tries to build cities on Antarctica.
Industrialization will happen, unless our civilization collapses soon. Maybe eventually we will terraform Mars, but a more realistic colonization scenario is the one of orbital industrial colonies around major bodies.
If you think about private investors ever putting up colonies somewhere for economic interests, then I very much doubt that. Earth is a pretty big place and it will almost certainly always be more economical to mine stuff here or find an alternative if a certain mineral is not available here. I imagine it's much more economical to mine the deep seas or Antartica before you even send a single spaceship to the Moon, another planet or an asteroid. I wouldn't know, but I doubt there is any material so rare and so important that it could make spaceflight to mine it valid.
And everything else? Manufacturing in zero-G earth orbit might make sense for some stuff. No idea. But you don't need to fly to another planet for that. The only service I can think about is tourism. Maybe offshore banking. ;) Agriculture is obviously right out as that will always be more economical on Earth.
I'm assuming a capitalist venture as opposed to some kind of Soviet style show piece. I don't know if orbital factories would have an advantage over terrestrial factories. I imagine that labor would be expensive unless we can find a Space Bangladesh.
Someone will try. People don't always do things for economic reasons. A lot of people will do it simply to enter the history books. Humans didn't land on the moon for economic reasons. We will only find out for sure if it is economically feasible after people have tried it.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 03, 2013, 03:05:07 AM
I'm assuming a capitalist venture as opposed to some kind of Soviet style show piece. I don't know if orbital factories would have an advantage over terrestrial factories. I imagine that labor would be expensive unless we can find a Space Bangladesh.
It would obviously be nearly 100% robotic. No point to send humans to an orbital factory except for building and maintaining it - and even that would probably be mostly robotic.
Quote from: Monoriu on January 03, 2013, 03:18:53 AM
Someone will try. People don't always do things for economic reasons. A lot of people will do it simply to enter the history books. Humans didn't land on the moon for economic reasons. We will only find out for sure if it is economically feasible after people have tried it.
Those people are governments. Like the research station in Antarctica. They really aren't colonization.
it' 'll never solvepopulation problems on earth. the analogy to say colonisation of the Americas will be very weak indeed.
agreed that for a long while it'll be more like Antarctic science bases or off sea oil rigs. professionals go there for a short stay to do their thing then go home. eventually though you will get it comfortable enough that there will be (sane) people wanting to be lifers.
then the debate comes on whether it would be right to allow them to have kids. on the moon such would be utterly outlawed I' d imagine. on mars.....it's a tricky one and may take a while put eventually colonial romanticism should win out
Extra-terrestrial mining could become attractive if future persons were to place much higher values on environmental integrity. Extra-terrestrial sites could also be used as disposal sites for extremely toxic materials like nuclear waste that create big NIMBY problems on earth.
Just think of spices. They were extremely expensive luxury ingredients for centuries. Trading them was very problematic and dangerous.
Now you buy them for pennies at every corner.
Industrialization of the solar system will happen and will be a profound change to a lot of stuff.
While I hear what you are saying, Tamas, I still think spices are overly expensive and I generally don't find them in stories for mere pennies.
The earth has only so much of finite natural resources.
It'll happen, just not for a couple more centuries.
Quote from: garbon on January 03, 2013, 10:47:20 AM
While I hear what you are saying, Tamas, I still think spices are overly expensive and I generally don't find them in stories for mere pennies.
You should shop at places that sell pepper.
Quote from: Tamas on January 03, 2013, 10:15:50 AM
Just think of spices. They were extremely expensive luxury ingredients for centuries. Trading them was very problematic and dangerous.
Now you buy them for pennies at every corner.
Industrialization of the solar system will happen and will be a profound change to a lot of stuff.
What do they have in space that we don't have on Earth?
People have been talking about the industrialization of the solar system for over forty years now, but it's always twenty years from now.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 03, 2013, 11:10:47 AM
The earth has only so much of finite natural resources.
It'll happen, just not for a couple more centuries.
It will be much cheaper to just recycle what we have here.
Quote from: Zanza on January 03, 2013, 11:35:23 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 03, 2013, 11:10:47 AM
The earth has only so much of finite natural resources.
It'll happen, just not for a couple more centuries.
It will be much cheaper to just recycle what we have here.
Recycling can't avoid the law of diminishing returns, though. Especially with precious minerals and metals.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 03, 2013, 11:10:47 AM
The earth has only so much of finite natural resources.
It'll happen, just not for a couple more centuries.
What makes you think that there will be an advanced technological society centuries from now? If spaceflight becomes more common and practical, then it's only a matter of time before some Muslim blows a debris bomb in orbit or rides a large spacecraft into the Twin Towers.
Precious minerals and metals are typcially not consumed, but still exist as part of say electronics. If you recycle enough electronics, you have a literal gold mine.
However, that's not worth it right now because it is still cheaper to have someone in the third world scratch it from earth. I doubt that spaceflight will ever become cheap enough to be a viable competition to high-tech recycling of all the trash we have here for precious minerals and metals.
The law of dimishing returns applies of course, but I guess, the law of scale economics would apply first if we would do large-scale recycling of that stuff.
Or before we run out of something, it will likely be cheaper to just come up with a more expensive alternative instead of flying all the way to the Kuiper belt or wherever to mine it.
Quote from: frunk on January 03, 2013, 11:16:18 AM
Quote from: garbon on January 03, 2013, 10:47:20 AM
While I hear what you are saying, Tamas, I still think spices are overly expensive and I generally don't find them in stories for mere pennies.
You should shop at places that sell pepper.
Pepper is one spice.
Quote from: Neil on January 03, 2013, 11:42:06 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 03, 2013, 11:10:47 AM
The earth has only so much of finite natural resources.
It'll happen, just not for a couple more centuries.
What makes you think that there will be an advanced technological society centuries from now?
Because that's how it's turned out so far.
QuoteIf spaceflight becomes more common and practical, then it's only a matter of time before some Muslim blows a debris bomb in orbit or rides a large spacecraft into the Twin Towers.
Meh, my money is on a nasty bug pandemic.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 03, 2013, 11:52:21 AM
Because that's how it's turned out so far.
It wasn't until very recently that we learned how to destroy mankind. As that technology becomes more common, it's going to get used.
Quote from: Neil on January 03, 2013, 12:06:37 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 03, 2013, 11:52:21 AM
Because that's how it's turned out so far.
It wasn't until very recently that we learned how to destroy mankind. As that technology becomes more common, it's going to get used.
Meh, on the nation-state level, there's not as much of a threat anymore as MAD still applies, save local regional actors that are pointed at one another anyway.
The real concern is non-state actors, but the ability to acquire a device is remote, even through a third party sponsor.
And even if they did, it's a one-shot job.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 03, 2013, 12:09:39 PM
Quote from: Neil on January 03, 2013, 12:06:37 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 03, 2013, 11:52:21 AM
Because that's how it's turned out so far.
It wasn't until very recently that we learned how to destroy mankind. As that technology becomes more common, it's going to get used.
Meh, on the nation-state level, there's not as much of a threat anymore as MAD still applies, save local regional actors that are pointed at one another anyway.
The real concern is non-state actors, but the ability to acquire a device is remote, even through a third party sponsor.
And even if they did, it's a one-shot job.
All it takes is one man behind the wheel of a spacecraft or at the controls of a mass driver.
The only reason Antarctica is not mined to nothing is the international treaties. The other thing I can tell you is that it is cold as fuck, but we have built a very nice station(s) there, just not called a town with permanent residents.
http://www.usap.gov/videoclipsandmaps/mcmwebcam.cfm
I can also tell you that McMurdo has two bars (right next to the blue building), Southern Exposure used to be the Navy Chief's club, and they serve beer or whiskey in little plastic cups with a penguin on it for $3 a cup. For like $30 you get sloppy. :)
-----------------
Regarding off earth colonies, I sure hope we do so someday.
My guess is it will be.
Any plan must include shooting tim into deep space. Or the sun.
Quote from: Tamas on January 03, 2013, 10:15:50 AM
Just think of spices. They were extremely expensive luxury ingredients for centuries. Trading them was very problematic and dangerous.
Now you buy them for pennies at every corner.
Industrialization of the solar system will happen and will be a profound change to a lot of stuff.
There really isn't any space spices and nobody to trade with. If there were Moon people that we could trade moon spices with, it could easily be profitable, but there is not. C'mon Tamas, with your dedication to Free markets you should at least see the problem I'm talking about.
Quote from: Neil on January 03, 2013, 12:17:36 PM
All it takes is one man behind the wheel of a spacecraft or at the controls of a mass driver.
I highly doubt our current space vehicles are capable of one-shotting civilization. They are however capable of visiting other planets in our solar system.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 03, 2013, 04:52:12 PM
Quote from: Neil on January 03, 2013, 12:17:36 PM
All it takes is one man behind the wheel of a spacecraft or at the controls of a mass driver.
I highly doubt our current space vehicles are capable of one-shotting civilization. They are however capable of visiting other planets in our solar system.
I dunno. You could wipe out a city with our current tech. If you have the tech to mine an asteroid then you have the tech to one shot the whole planet.
Planetary Resources will be mining asteroids by the end of the decade.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 03, 2013, 05:00:27 PM
I dunno. You could wipe out a city with our current tech. If you have the tech to mine an asteroid then you have the tech to one shot the whole planet.
We have the tech to mine an asteroid now, it's just not economically viable.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 03, 2013, 05:03:03 PM
Planetary Resources will be mining asteroids by the end of the decade.
And develop Cold Fusion.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 03, 2013, 05:00:27 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 03, 2013, 04:52:12 PM
Quote from: Neil on January 03, 2013, 12:17:36 PM
All it takes is one man behind the wheel of a spacecraft or at the controls of a mass driver.
I highly doubt our current space vehicles are capable of one-shotting civilization. They are however capable of visiting other planets in our solar system.
I dunno. You could wipe out a city with our current tech. If you have the tech to mine an asteroid then you have the tech to one shot the whole planet.
We have the technology right now to one shot a small country.
Contrary to 1950s sci-fi however such potentially destructive technology remains in government hands.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 03, 2013, 05:07:42 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 03, 2013, 05:03:03 PM
Planetary Resources will be mining asteroids by the end of the decade.
And develop Cold Fusion.
No, that's not going to happen.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 03, 2013, 05:18:35 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 03, 2013, 05:07:42 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 03, 2013, 05:03:03 PM
Planetary Resources will be mining asteroids by the end of the decade.
And develop Cold Fusion.
No, that's not going to happen.
You are right, and neither is the asteroid thing going to happen in eight years.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 03, 2013, 05:03:03 PM
Planetary Resources will be mining asteroids by the end of the decade.
Which decade?
This decade
http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,7416.0.html
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 03, 2013, 06:01:57 PM
This decade
http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,7416.0.html
You mean the "mystery company" founded by a movie director and Ross Perot's son.
It can't miss!
The Google executives are the most important part of that, though what's wrong with Perot's son? Just cause his old man went batty in his old age doesn't mean anything.
Perhaps the better question is "What makes him a good leader for such an endeavor?".
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 03, 2013, 06:15:26 PM
though what's wrong with Perot's son?
He was raised by Perot, for starters.
Speaking of Perot, he just opened a massive science museum in downtown Dallas. What ever happened to that guy?
I'm sure Perot's son was raised by a nanny. :P
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 03, 2013, 05:03:03 PM
Planetary Resources will be mining asteroids by the end of the decade.
Only if you are talking about an Alpha Centauri remake.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on January 03, 2013, 08:24:50 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 03, 2013, 05:03:03 PM
Planetary Resources will be mining asteroids by the end of the decade.
Only if you are talking about an Alpha Centauri remake.
it's a misprint.
They will be
miming asteroids by the end of the decade. That's why there is a showbiz guy in charge.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 03, 2013, 07:17:05 PM
Perhaps the better question is "What makes him a good leader for such an endeavor?".
Billions of dollars to hire the engineers to design and construct space telescopes, probes, etc.
Exactly how much money has been invested into the venture?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 03, 2013, 08:38:52 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 03, 2013, 07:17:05 PM
Perhaps the better question is "What makes him a good leader for such an endeavor?".
Billions of dollars to hire the engineers to design and construct space telescopes, probes, etc.
That's a non-sequetor. I'll ask again "What makes him a good leader for such an endeavor".
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 03, 2013, 08:44:45 PM
Exactly how much money has been invested into the venture?
IIRC phase 1, the space telescopes that are planned to survey the asteroid field will only cost in the tens of millions.
So is phase 2 finding a way to avoid the enormous fines and prison sentences that would result from actually mining an asteroid?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 03, 2013, 08:59:38 PM
IIRC phase 1, the space telescopes that are planned to survey the asteroid field will only cost in the tens of millions.
So right now, all they are going is buying some fancy telescopes.
I wouldn't bet the bank on the end-of-the-decade timetable.
I'm willing to bet Tim that they won't have mined any asteroids by January 1st, 2021.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 03, 2013, 10:25:54 PM
I'm willing to bet Tim that they won't have mined any asteroids by January 1st, 2021.
Careful, you may lose the bet if the company mine the asteriods on earth before then ;)
Quote from: Monoriu on January 03, 2013, 10:27:50 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 03, 2013, 10:25:54 PM
I'm willing to bet Tim that they won't have mined any asteroids by January 1st, 2021.
Careful, you may lose the bet if the company mine the asteriods on earth before then ;)
The Chinese are indeed a crafty people. Thanks!
Quote from: Razgovory on January 03, 2013, 03:05:07 AM
I don't know if orbital factories would have an advantage over terrestrial factories.
In addition to the environmental thing Joan mentioned, vacuum and low gravity enable some techniques not available on Earth. Crystal growth, for example, has been studied in orbit for decades:
(Left, space; right, Earth)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fa%2Faf%2FInsulin_crystals_comparison.jpg&hash=3354a2c63f9ac8bb198ed985561908d62ea81a37)
Quote from: Neil on January 03, 2013, 09:37:23 PM
So is phase 2 finding a way to avoid the enormous fines and prison sentences that would result from actually mining an asteroid?
Phase 2 is sending probes for observation and sample return missions from asteroids found promising by spectral analysis with the aforementioned telescopes.
That sounds like it might take a while.
Somebody needs to bury a drill bit in Timmay's head and drive him into the pavement, see how deep he can go.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 03, 2013, 10:56:33 PM
Quote from: Neil on January 03, 2013, 09:37:23 PM
So is phase 2 finding a way to avoid the enormous fines and prison sentences that would result from actually mining an asteroid?
Phase 2 is sending probes for observation and sample return missions from asteroids found promising by spectral analysis with the aforementioned telescopes.
Maybe they should concentrate on finding a business model that would allow them to profit before they do all this preliminary work?
It'll probably take more then 10 years to get those phases done (if at all). Why do all that when you can get an operational mine up and running in northern Canada (for example) in a fraction of that time at a much greater margin. We still have plenty of deposits down here.
Quote from: HVC on January 03, 2013, 11:45:13 PM
It'll probably take more then 10 years to get those phases done (if at all). Why do all that when you can get an operational mine up and running in northern Canada (for example) in a fraction of that time at a much greater margin. We still have plenty of deposits down here.
Whoever succeeds in mining the asteroids will become richer than Rockefeller (the richest man ever) and revolutionize the world economy. There's no comparison.
Why would he become richer than Rockefeller? What's out there that is so valuable?
Quote from: Zanza on January 04, 2013, 04:33:14 AM
Why would he become richer than Rockefeller? What's out there that is so valuable?
And if there's so much of it either they'd devalue the commodity, or scale back production and thus reduce profits. At this point in time there's no reason to do it. Economically anyway.
Quote from: Zanza on January 04, 2013, 04:33:14 AM
Why would he become richer than Rockefeller? What's out there that is so valuable?
Rigelian slave girls.
Quote from: HVC on January 04, 2013, 06:12:04 AM
Quote from: Zanza on January 04, 2013, 04:33:14 AM
Why would he become richer than Rockefeller? What's out there that is so valuable?
And if there's so much of it either they'd devalue the commodity, or scale back production and thus reduce profits. At this point in time there's no reason to do it. Economically anyway.
:rolleyes:
Mass production and high availability of certain products and resources did not seem to stop highly profitable industries. Otherwise we would not have had an industrial revolution.
Quote from: Tamas on January 04, 2013, 07:13:28 AM
Quote from: HVC on January 04, 2013, 06:12:04 AM
Quote from: Zanza on January 04, 2013, 04:33:14 AM
Why would he become richer than Rockefeller? What's out there that is so valuable?
And if there's so much of it either they'd devalue the commodity, or scale back production and thus reduce profits. At this point in time there's no reason to do it. Economically anyway.
:rolleyes:
Mass production and high availability of certain products and resources did not seem to stop highly profitable industries. Otherwise we would not have had an industrial revolution.
I'm not saying it wouldn't be profitable. I'm saying, as resources stand now it's more profitable on earth. I'm also contending that to make someone the richest man in history you have to bring down a lot of the stuff which will devalue it.
Quote from: HVC on January 04, 2013, 07:24:48 AM
Quote from: Tamas on January 04, 2013, 07:13:28 AM
Quote from: HVC on January 04, 2013, 06:12:04 AM
Quote from: Zanza on January 04, 2013, 04:33:14 AM
Why would he become richer than Rockefeller? What's out there that is so valuable?
And if there's so much of it either they'd devalue the commodity, or scale back production and thus reduce profits. At this point in time there's no reason to do it. Economically anyway.
:rolleyes:
Mass production and high availability of certain products and resources did not seem to stop highly profitable industries. Otherwise we would not have had an industrial revolution.
I'm not saying it wouldn't be profitable. I'm saying, as resources stand now it's more profitable on earth. I'm also contending that to make someone the richest man in history you have to bring down a lot of the stuff which will devalue it.
their ambition, AFAIK, is to make platinum and similar stuff very commonly used, everyday, cheap resources. Whether THEY SPECIFICALLY will succeed or not is up to debate of course, but unless we manage a nucular WW3, somebody will.
Ok, two thoughts on the subject...
1) We went from riding in horse drawn wagons and carriages to riding rockets to the Moon in less than a 100 years, so it's not improbably we go from riding rockets to the Moon to riding ships to Pluto (fuck you scientists, it is a planet).
2) We should take a page from history and start sending out penal colonies to space as soon as possible. The money saved by not having to care for felons in prison would probably cover a lot of the cost of colonizing.
Quote from: Strix on January 04, 2013, 08:45:24 AM
2) We should take a page from history and start sending out penal colonies to space as soon as possible. The money saved by not having to care for felons in prison would probably cover a lot of the cost of colonizing.
Except you're not saving money, because launching people into space is far, far more expensive than keeping them in prison.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 04, 2013, 02:09:38 AM
Quote from: HVC on January 03, 2013, 11:45:13 PM
It'll probably take more then 10 years to get those phases done (if at all). Why do all that when you can get an operational mine up and running in northern Canada (for example) in a fraction of that time at a much greater margin. We still have plenty of deposits down here.
Whoever succeeds in mining the asteroids will become richer than Rockefeller (the richest man ever) and revolutionize the world economy. There's no comparison.
You keep saying that, but that's not really true. Whoever does it will be fined, and might spend some time in prison.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 04, 2013, 02:09:38 AM
Quote from: HVC on January 03, 2013, 11:45:13 PM
It'll probably take more then 10 years to get those phases done (if at all). Why do all that when you can get an operational mine up and running in northern Canada (for example) in a fraction of that time at a much greater margin. We still have plenty of deposits down here.
Whoever succeeds in mining the asteroids will become richer than Rockefeller (the richest man ever) and revolutionize the world economy. There's no comparison.
I don't know, I think the Rothschild were richer at some point.
Quote from: Tamas on January 04, 2013, 07:13:28 AM
Quote from: HVC on January 04, 2013, 06:12:04 AM
Quote from: Zanza on January 04, 2013, 04:33:14 AM
Why would he become richer than Rockefeller? What's out there that is so valuable?
And if there's so much of it either they'd devalue the commodity, or scale back production and thus reduce profits. At this point in time there's no reason to do it. Economically anyway.
:rolleyes:
Mass production and high availability of certain products and resources did not seem to stop highly profitable industries. Otherwise we would not have had an industrial revolution.
Yeah, but the smart ones didn't flood the market. US Steel became rich by producing much more steel then anyone had done before, but they did it over the course of decades. They didn't just show up one day with 100 million tons of steel.
Did you guys catch the news that an asteroid is passing by the earth closer than a geosynchronous orbit sattelite?
To be fair, geosynchronous orbit is pretty far.
What if katmai was in geosynchronous orbit?
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 04, 2013, 09:48:29 AM
To be fair, geosynchronous orbit is pretty far.
Yeah, I didn't know that until I saw the asteroid bit. It's really way the fuck out there.
Quote from: Neil on January 04, 2013, 08:52:14 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 04, 2013, 02:09:38 AM
Quote from: HVC on January 03, 2013, 11:45:13 PM
It'll probably take more then 10 years to get those phases done (if at all). Why do all that when you can get an operational mine up and running in northern Canada (for example) in a fraction of that time at a much greater margin. We still have plenty of deposits down here.
Whoever succeeds in mining the asteroids will become richer than Rockefeller (the richest man ever) and revolutionize the world economy. There's no comparison.
You keep saying that, but that's not really true. Whoever does it will be fined, and might spend some time in prison.
The Outer Space treaty, like many UN treaties is unenforceable. As soon as a company manages to mine an asteroid, their home country will simply tax them.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 04, 2013, 09:18:02 AM
Quote from: Tamas on January 04, 2013, 07:13:28 AM
Quote from: HVC on January 04, 2013, 06:12:04 AM
Quote from: Zanza on January 04, 2013, 04:33:14 AM
Why would he become richer than Rockefeller? What's out there that is so valuable?
And if there's so much of it either they'd devalue the commodity, or scale back production and thus reduce profits. At this point in time there's no reason to do it. Economically anyway.
:rolleyes:
Mass production and high availability of certain products and resources did not seem to stop highly profitable industries. Otherwise we would not have had an industrial revolution.
Yeah, but the smart ones didn't flood the market. US Steel became rich by producing much more steel then anyone had done before, but they did it over the course of decades. They didn't just show up one day with 100 million tons of steel.
The guy who figured out how to smelt aluminum and formed ALCOA crashed the market for aluminum. Seems like he did fine.
Quote from: Strix on January 04, 2013, 08:45:24 AM
Ok, two thoughts on the subject...
1) We went from riding in horse drawn wagons and carriages to riding rockets to the Moon in less than a 100 years, so it's not improbably we go from riding rockets to the Moon to riding ships to Pluto (fuck you scientists, it is a planet).
We haven't been back for more than 40 years now. And it looks likely that no one will be back in time for the 50th anniversary either.
Quote from: Neil on January 04, 2013, 08:48:21 AM
Quote from: Strix on January 04, 2013, 08:45:24 AM
2) We should take a page from history and start sending out penal colonies to space as soon as possible. The money saved by not having to care for felons in prison would probably cover a lot of the cost of colonizing.
Except you're not saving money, because launching people into space is far, far more expensive than keeping them in prison.
No, it's not, especially once the technology becomes more common. The average prisoner costs an estimated $35,000 a year to house (jumps to over $65,000 once they reach 50). So, if a prisoner enters the system at around 20 years old, for a major felony, he will live to at least 60, so that's 40 years or $1.4 million in costs to the State. Even if we halved his lifespan, that's still $700,000. Now, say we send 100 prisoners to an interstellar penal colony, that would save 70-140 million.
So, it probably won't cover the total cost of a program but it will save a significant amount of money and provide free labor/guinea pigs.
So, first we have to find the unobtanium right?
You still have to house them in space. :rolleyes: And forced labor/guinea pigs is illegal in the US.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 04, 2013, 09:51:55 AM
Quote from: Neil on January 04, 2013, 08:52:14 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 04, 2013, 02:09:38 AM
Quote from: HVC on January 03, 2013, 11:45:13 PM
It'll probably take more then 10 years to get those phases done (if at all). Why do all that when you can get an operational mine up and running in northern Canada (for example) in a fraction of that time at a much greater margin. We still have plenty of deposits down here.
Whoever succeeds in mining the asteroids will become richer than Rockefeller (the richest man ever) and revolutionize the world economy. There's no comparison.
You keep saying that, but that's not really true. Whoever does it will be fined, and might spend some time in prison.
The Outer Space treaty, like many UN treaties is unenforceable. As soon as a company manages to mine an asteroid, their home country will simply tax them.
It's not a UN treaty, it's just a treaty between countries. And it's easily enforceable. You simply arrest people who violate it.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 04, 2013, 10:07:44 AM
You still have to house them in space. :rolleyes: And forced labor/guinea pigs is illegal in the US.
Sigh...
You still have to house whomever you send to space, that's the point. You save money by NOT having to house the prisoners in PRISON. So, instead of paying twice you only have to pay once.
Sorry but forced labor/guinea pigs are routinely used in the U.S. Corrections system. It gets glossed over and called other things, and prisoners "agree" to sign a waiver but it still goes on. Or, do you imagine that those prisoners working on farms and in other industry getting paid less than a $1 a day are anything other than forced labor?
Quote from: Razgovory on January 04, 2013, 10:09:48 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 04, 2013, 09:51:55 AM
Quote from: Neil on January 04, 2013, 08:52:14 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 04, 2013, 02:09:38 AM
Quote from: HVC on January 03, 2013, 11:45:13 PM
It'll probably take more then 10 years to get those phases done (if at all). Why do all that when you can get an operational mine up and running in northern Canada (for example) in a fraction of that time at a much greater margin. We still have plenty of deposits down here.
Whoever succeeds in mining the asteroids will become richer than Rockefeller (the richest man ever) and revolutionize the world economy. There's no comparison.
You keep saying that, but that's not really true. Whoever does it will be fined, and might spend some time in prison.
The Outer Space treaty, like many UN treaties is unenforceable. As soon as a company manages to mine an asteroid, their home country will simply tax them.
It's not a UN treaty, it's just a treaty between countries. And it's easily enforceable. You simply arrest people who violate it.
That only happens if countries wish to enforce the treaty.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 04, 2013, 10:09:48 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 04, 2013, 09:51:55 AM
Quote from: Neil on January 04, 2013, 08:52:14 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 04, 2013, 02:09:38 AM
Quote from: HVC on January 03, 2013, 11:45:13 PM
It'll probably take more then 10 years to get those phases done (if at all). Why do all that when you can get an operational mine up and running in northern Canada (for example) in a fraction of that time at a much greater margin. We still have plenty of deposits down here.
Whoever succeeds in mining the asteroids will become richer than Rockefeller (the richest man ever) and revolutionize the world economy. There's no comparison.
You keep saying that, but that's not really true. Whoever does it will be fined, and might spend some time in prison.
The Outer Space treaty, like many UN treaties is unenforceable. As soon as a company manages to mine an asteroid, their home country will simply tax them.
It's not a UN treaty, it's just a treaty between countries. And it's easily enforceable. You simply arrest people who violate it.
They would just treat it like off-shore gambling. Companies would move to 3rd world locations that haven't signed any treaties. Treaties are just paper and worth about as much.
Quote from: Strix on January 04, 2013, 10:28:21 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 04, 2013, 10:07:44 AM
You still have to house them in space. :rolleyes: And forced labor/guinea pigs is illegal in the US.
Sigh...
You still have to house whomever you send to space, that's the point. You save money by NOT having to house the prisoners in PRISON. So, instead of paying twice you only have to pay once.
Sorry but forced labor/guinea pigs are routinely used in the U.S. Corrections system. It gets glossed over and called other things, and prisoners "agree" to sign a waiver but it still goes on. Or, do you imagine that those prisoners working on farms and in other industry getting paid less than a $1 a day are anything other than forced labor?
Yes they are more then forced labor, since they don't have to do it, and they get paid if they do. If they live on the moon, it's still a prison. It's just a much more expensive prison that's on the moon. I'm not seeing how you have to pay twice if the prison is on Earth but only once if it's on the moon.
Quote from: Strix on January 04, 2013, 10:30:04 AM
They would just treat it like off-shore gambling. Companies would move to 3rd world locations that haven't signed any treaties. Treaties are just paper and worth about as much.
Gambling isn't outlawed by international treaty.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 04, 2013, 10:33:01 AM
Quote from: Strix on January 04, 2013, 10:28:21 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 04, 2013, 10:07:44 AM
You still have to house them in space. :rolleyes: And forced labor/guinea pigs is illegal in the US.
Sigh...
You still have to house whomever you send to space, that's the point. You save money by NOT having to house the prisoners in PRISON. So, instead of paying twice you only have to pay once.
Sorry but forced labor/guinea pigs are routinely used in the U.S. Corrections system. It gets glossed over and called other things, and prisoners "agree" to sign a waiver but it still goes on. Or, do you imagine that those prisoners working on farms and in other industry getting paid less than a $1 a day are anything other than forced labor?
Yes they are more then forced labor, since they don't have to do it, and they get paid if they do. If they live on the moon, it's still a prison. It's just a much more expensive prison that's on the moon. I'm not seeing how you have to pay twice if the prison is on Earth but only once if it's on the moon.
But you have people on the MOON! :w00t:
Quote from: Zanza on January 04, 2013, 09:56:16 AM
Quote from: Strix on January 04, 2013, 08:45:24 AM
Ok, two thoughts on the subject...
1) We went from riding in horse drawn wagons and carriages to riding rockets to the Moon in less than a 100 years, so it's not improbably we go from riding rockets to the Moon to riding ships to Pluto (fuck you scientists, it is a planet).
We haven't been back for more than 40 years now. And it looks likely that no one will be back in time for the 50th anniversary either.
as I mentioned in my boardgame thread (:P) I read that energy consumption-wise it is a pretty bad deal to land on the moon. You could be better off with some asteroids
Quote from: Razgovory on January 04, 2013, 10:35:44 AM
Quote from: Strix on January 04, 2013, 10:30:04 AM
They would just treat it like off-shore gambling. Companies would move to 3rd world locations that haven't signed any treaties. Treaties are just paper and worth about as much.
Gambling isn't outlawed by international treaty.
I hate it when you are dense on purpose
Quote from: Tamas on January 04, 2013, 10:38:13 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 04, 2013, 10:35:44 AM
Quote from: Strix on January 04, 2013, 10:30:04 AM
They would just treat it like off-shore gambling. Companies would move to 3rd world locations that haven't signed any treaties. Treaties are just paper and worth about as much.
Gambling isn't outlawed by international treaty.
I hate it when you are dense on purpose
What do you want from me, I'm trying to explain to a person why it won't be cheaper to build prisons on the fucking moon!
Quote from: Razgovory on January 04, 2013, 10:43:45 AM
Quote from: Tamas on January 04, 2013, 10:38:13 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 04, 2013, 10:35:44 AM
Quote from: Strix on January 04, 2013, 10:30:04 AM
They would just treat it like off-shore gambling. Companies would move to 3rd world locations that haven't signed any treaties. Treaties are just paper and worth about as much.
Gambling isn't outlawed by international treaty.
I hate it when you are dense on purpose
What do you want from me, I'm trying to explain to a person why it won't be cheaper to build prisons on the fucking moon!
if you are really doing that, you are doing it very wrong.
Okay, how would you explain to a person that it isn't cost effective to build a prison on the moon.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 04, 2013, 10:43:45 AM
What do you want from me, I'm trying to explain to a person why it won't be cheaper to build prisons on the fucking moon!
No one has suggested building a prison on the Moon. I suggested using prisoners as indentured colonists ala the British model in Australia. Is that a hard concept for you to understand?
Quote from: Strix on January 04, 2013, 09:58:29 AM
No, it's not, especially once the technology becomes more common. The average prisoner costs an estimated $35,000 a year to house (jumps to over $65,000 once they reach 50). So, if a prisoner enters the system at around 20 years old, for a major felony, he will live to at least 60, so that's 40 years or $1.4 million in costs to the State. Even if we halved his lifespan, that's still $700,000. Now, say we send 100 prisoners to an interstellar penal colony, that would save 70-140 million.
So, it probably won't cover the total cost of a program but it will save a significant amount of money and provide free labor/guinea pigs.
Right now, NASA pays $62.7 million per astronaut roundtrip with the Soyuz. The idea that it saves any money to send prisoners to space is ridiculous. And frankly, you want motivated, skilled people there, not drug dealers and thiefs. It worked in Australia because they needed manual, untrained labor. However, that's not really fitting the job profile of astronauts.
Quote from: Zanza on January 04, 2013, 10:58:46 AM
Quote from: Strix on January 04, 2013, 09:58:29 AM
No, it's not, especially once the technology becomes more common. The average prisoner costs an estimated $35,000 a year to house (jumps to over $65,000 once they reach 50). So, if a prisoner enters the system at around 20 years old, for a major felony, he will live to at least 60, so that's 40 years or $1.4 million in costs to the State. Even if we halved his lifespan, that's still $700,000. Now, say we send 100 prisoners to an interstellar penal colony, that would save 70-140 million.
So, it probably won't cover the total cost of a program but it will save a significant amount of money and provide free labor/guinea pigs.
Right now, NASA pays $62.7 per astronaut roundtrip with the Soyuz. The idea that it saves any money to send prisoners to space is ridiculous. And frankly, you want motivated, skilled people there, not drug dealers and thiefs. It worked in Australia because they needed manual, untrained labor. However, that's not really fitting the job profile of astronauts.
NASA pays that because they have no way to send Astronauts to the Soyuz themselves, so that amount is not an accurate judge of what it would cost.
Colonists would not be Astronauts for the most part. The initial start up team and the pilots would most likely be but past that...it will be good old fashioned hard labor required.
It doesn't take a Navy Seal to use a deep water dive suit to work on the bottom of the Ocean and it won't take an Astronaut to use a space suit to build a colony either.
I was under the impression that guys working on the bottom of the ocean are typically highly trained specialists. But that's really besides the point: the expensive part about spaceflight is that space is extremely hostile to humans and you need very expensive technology to keep humans alive up there. So even if you send slaves up there, it will still cost roughly the same as sending well-trained volunteers there. The salary of those volunteers is certainly the least of your costs. And if you can get motivated volunteers, why send prisoners? Just to save $35,000 a year? That's really chump change when it comes to the costs of human spaceflight.
I do agree that the $62 million figure is not an accurate judge of what it would cost though. I am sure an American solution would be more expensive.
Quote from: Strix on January 04, 2013, 10:52:38 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 04, 2013, 10:43:45 AM
What do you want from me, I'm trying to explain to a person why it won't be cheaper to build prisons on the fucking moon!
No one has suggested building a prison on the Moon. I suggested using prisoners as indentured colonists ala the British model in Australia. Is that a hard concept for you to understand?
Yes, yes it is. Cause it doesn't make sense. For instance, Australia has food, water, and air. The moon is distinctly lacking in these things. Second, forced labor worked because there was a demand in unskilled workers. Anyone working on the Moon will have to be highly skilled. Third, what exactly are they going to do on the moon? It's not like it would be profitable to grow moon cotton or something. Fourth, it's illegal under US law almost certainly unconstitutional.
I brought up the example of Antarctica at the beginning of this thread. Antarctica is sorta was the great unexplored continent a hundred years ago. It's sorta of like the Moon is to us. Today, it's not difficult to go to Antarctica, yet there are still no cities (or Gulags) there. Why? Cause there is nothing there. The moon (and most of the planets) have the same problem.
Quote from: Zanza on January 04, 2013, 11:09:48 AM
I was under the impression that guys working on the bottom of the ocean are typically highly trained specialists. But that's really besides the point: the expensive part about spaceflight is that space is extremely hostile to humans and you need very expensive technology to keep humans alive up there. So even if you send slaves up there, it will still cost roughly the same as sending well-trained volunteers there. The salary of those volunteers is certainly the least of your costs. And if you can get motivated volunteers, why send prisoners? Just to save $35,000 a year? That's really chump change when it comes to the costs of human spaceflight.
I do agree that the $62 million figure is not an accurate judge of what it would cost though. I am sure an American solution would be more expensive.
The reason is eventually you will need mass labor. Once you become serious about colonizing and/or industry in space you will quantity over quality. It will be easier and more cost effective to initially send expendable segments of the society (like criminals) until the colony/industry becomes more settled. It worked for the United States and Australia, I can't see why it wouldn't work for space.
The point of a dive suit is so that the person isn't required to be high skilled or excessively trained. The same will be true of a space suit.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 04, 2013, 11:17:28 AM
Quote from: Strix on January 04, 2013, 10:52:38 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 04, 2013, 10:43:45 AM
What do you want from me, I'm trying to explain to a person why it won't be cheaper to build prisons on the fucking moon!
No one has suggested building a prison on the Moon. I suggested using prisoners as indentured colonists ala the British model in Australia. Is that a hard concept for you to understand?
Yes, yes it is. Cause it doesn't make sense. For instance, Australia has food, water, and air. The moon is distinctly lacking in these things. Second, forced labor worked because there was a demand in unskilled workers. Anyone working on the Moon will have to be highly skilled. Third, what exactly are they going to do on the moon? It's not like it would be profitable to grow moon cotton or something. Fourth, it's illegal under US law almost certainly unconstitutional.
I brought up the example of Antarctica at the beginning of this thread. Antarctica is sorta was the great unexplored continent a hundred years ago. It's sorta of like the Moon is to us. Today, it's not difficult to go to Antarctica, yet there are still no cities (or Gulags) there. Why? Cause there is nothing there. The moon (and most of the planets) have the same problem.
I refer you back to the title of the thread. I am talking about colonizing the solar system. I am not sure why you are fixated on the Moon.
You make my point for me. There is nothing to attract people to work in space, so the use of prisoners would make it that much easier to create a willing labor pool. Otherwise, you will need to overpay average people to agree to work in space.
What exactly is illegal? The prisoners will sign a waiver in exchange for potential freedom later on ala Australis/United States colonization.
Quote from: Strix on January 04, 2013, 09:58:29 AM
Quote from: Neil on January 04, 2013, 08:48:21 AM
Quote from: Strix on January 04, 2013, 08:45:24 AM
2) We should take a page from history and start sending out penal colonies to space as soon as possible. The money saved by not having to care for felons in prison would probably cover a lot of the cost of colonizing.
Except you're not saving money, because launching people into space is far, far more expensive than keeping them in prison.
No, it's not, especially once the technology becomes more common. The average prisoner costs an estimated $35,000 a year to house (jumps to over $65,000 once they reach 50). So, if a prisoner enters the system at around 20 years old, for a major felony, he will live to at least 60, so that's 40 years or $1.4 million in costs to the State. Even if we halved his lifespan, that's still $700,000. Now, say we send 100 prisoners to an interstellar penal colony, that would save 70-140 million.
So, it probably won't cover the total cost of a program but it will save a significant amount of money and provide free labor/guinea pigs.
A single Saturn V launch cost the equivalent of over 2 billion dollars, and you can't pack 2,000 prisoners onto a rocket.
Why are people discussing prisoner colonists?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 04, 2013, 09:51:55 AM
Quote from: Neil on January 04, 2013, 08:52:14 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 04, 2013, 02:09:38 AM
Quote from: HVC on January 03, 2013, 11:45:13 PM
It'll probably take more then 10 years to get those phases done (if at all). Why do all that when you can get an operational mine up and running in northern Canada (for example) in a fraction of that time at a much greater margin. We still have plenty of deposits down here.
Whoever succeeds in mining the asteroids will become richer than Rockefeller (the richest man ever) and revolutionize the world economy. There's no comparison.
You keep saying that, but that's not really true. Whoever does it will be fined, and might spend some time in prison.
The Outer Space treaty, like many UN treaties is unenforceable. As soon as a company manages to mine an asteroid, their home country will simply tax them.
The US government takes care of the enforcement. Besides, how do you make a profit when they can't sell what they're mining?
Quote from: The Brain on January 04, 2013, 12:08:09 PM
Why are people discussing prisoner colonists?
Strix doesn't understand the expense of space travel.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 04, 2013, 10:35:44 AM
Quote from: Strix on January 04, 2013, 10:30:04 AM
They would just treat it like off-shore gambling. Companies would move to 3rd world locations that haven't signed any treaties. Treaties are just paper and worth about as much.
Gambling isn't outlawed by international treaty.
Nor, as far as I can see from the text of said Outer Space Treaty, is mining by private individuals or companies (nor is it banned for governments, either, in fact, by the terms of the Treaty - what is banned is claiming the territory as sovereign, hence you would have no mechanism to stop someone setting up a mine or colony "next door" as it were.)
It is banned by the "Moon Treaty" - however, since said Treaty has not been ratified by any nation currently capable of launching objects into space, I fail to see who you think is going to enforce this provision - Kazakhstan? Lebanon? The Phillipines?
Quote from: Neil on January 04, 2013, 12:11:43 PM
Quote from: The Brain on January 04, 2013, 12:08:09 PM
Why are people discussing prisoner colonists?
Strix doesn't understand the expense of space travel.
Strix is assuming two costs are inevitable (the cost of keeping prisoners, and the cost of establishing permanent colonies in space.) If both are inevitable, then using the prisoners as the Colonists is a net saving over the total cost of the two activities regardless of the massive costs of the actual space travel.
But since the cost of establishing permanent colonies in space is not an inevitable cost I don't think his argument holds water at the moment.
[Plus, of course, the percentage of prisoners who would actually have the capacity to be educated and trained to be successful hostile environment colonists is likely to be relatively small anyway.]
Quote from: Strix on January 04, 2013, 11:26:47 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 04, 2013, 11:17:28 AM
Quote from: Strix on January 04, 2013, 10:52:38 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 04, 2013, 10:43:45 AM
What do you want from me, I'm trying to explain to a person why it won't be cheaper to build prisons on the fucking moon!
No one has suggested building a prison on the Moon. I suggested using prisoners as indentured colonists ala the British model in Australia. Is that a hard concept for you to understand?
Yes, yes it is. Cause it doesn't make sense. For instance, Australia has food, water, and air. The moon is distinctly lacking in these things. Second, forced labor worked because there was a demand in unskilled workers. Anyone working on the Moon will have to be highly skilled. Third, what exactly are they going to do on the moon? It's not like it would be profitable to grow moon cotton or something. Fourth, it's illegal under US law almost certainly unconstitutional.
I brought up the example of Antarctica at the beginning of this thread. Antarctica is sorta was the great unexplored continent a hundred years ago. It's sorta of like the Moon is to us. Today, it's not difficult to go to Antarctica, yet there are still no cities (or Gulags) there. Why? Cause there is nothing there. The moon (and most of the planets) have the same problem.
I refer you back to the title of the thread. I am talking about colonizing the solar system. I am not sure why you are fixated on the Moon.
You make my point for me. There is nothing to attract people to work in space, so the use of prisoners would make it that much easier to create a willing labor pool. Otherwise, you will need to overpay average people to agree to work in space.
What exactly is illegal? The prisoners will sign a waiver in exchange for potential freedom later on ala Australis/United States colonization.
You can't indenture your self like that in the US. You don't see the US setting up colonization camps in Antarctica or Alaska or Detroit do you? Why do you think there is a need for massive amounts of human labor in space anyway? Why not simply use robots?
You and Tamas seem to think that space colonization would be like colonization during the age of sail. It's not. Everyplace that isn't Earth is extremely deadly. A small mistake on Mars, or the Moon could kill you. You can't just land there and then use local materials to build a home. You have to bring everything you need with you. You might be able to extract some resources locally in the future, but all the infrastructure and factories to make use of it will have to brought from elsewhere.
Penal colonies in space are a non-starter. As said the costs of housing the prisoners in space are far greater than the costs of housing them in a dull little earth based prison.
Plus of course human rights and the like. Prisoners these days often get posted to prisons near their families if thats what they want.
Given the people who spend millions just to go to orbit for a few minutes it seems likely there will be enough people willing to work in space. Companies could probally get away with paying well below the going rate due to offering the trip into space as part of the job (not that they would do that).
And how many prisoners are there who will have the required skills? Not too many mining engineers, robotics experts, etc... in prison.
As to Tim's asteroid mining by the end of the decade- no way in hell. At the most by the end of the decade you could maybe see a sample return mission. But even that is being very enthusiastic. The start of asteroid mining will be solidly something for the second half of the century.
I think we can safely assume that a country that has colonies in space has backed away somewhat from our overweening obsession with human rights.
So basically, if anyone is successful at, it's going to be China.
Quote from: Neil on January 04, 2013, 12:05:43 PM
A single Saturn V launch cost the equivalent of over 2 billion dollars, and you can't pack 2,000 prisoners onto a rocket.
I somehow highly doubt that any expedition setting out to colonize other parts of the planet will start from the ground on Earth. I have a feeling they will leave from a station in orbit.
And give the Chinese a chance, I am sure they will figure a way to pack 2000 prisoners in/on a rocket. :)
The reality is that China will be the country colonizing the solar system. Hopefully we can piggyback on their ships in some way.
What will Venusian-Chinese food taste like?
Quote from: Tonitrus on January 05, 2013, 11:23:51 AM
So basically, if anyone is successful at, it's going to be China.
Yes, as long as they continue to not have a United States House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 04, 2013, 03:46:01 PM
You can't indenture your self like that in the US. You don't see the US setting up colonization camps in Antarctica or Alaska or Detroit do you? Why do you think there is a need for massive amounts of human labor in space anyway? Why not simply use robots?
You and Tamas seem to think that space colonization would be like colonization during the age of sail. It's not. Everyplace that isn't Earth is extremely deadly. A small mistake on Mars, or the Moon could kill you. You can't just land there and then use local materials to build a home. You have to bring everything you need with you. You might be able to extract some resources locally in the future, but all the infrastructure and factories to make use of it will have to brought from elsewhere.
Yes, you can indenture yourself like that in the US. It happens all the time. What do you think parole is? Internships? Apprenticeships? If both parties agree to the terms there isn't an issue (for most things).
I would also suggest watching the science channels a bit more. The current idea is to launch (unmanned) the tools and equipment needed to build things to the planet first (for example Mars) and than use local resources to build what is needed. So, they are planning to do exactly what you say they can't.
:lmfao: Oh dear. And you work in criminal justice system right?
Quote from: Strix on January 05, 2013, 02:01:00 PM
Quote from: Neil on January 04, 2013, 12:05:43 PM
A single Saturn V launch cost the equivalent of over 2 billion dollars, and you can't pack 2,000 prisoners onto a rocket.
I somehow highly doubt that any expedition setting out to colonize other parts of the planet will start from the ground on Earth. I have a feeling they will leave from a station in orbit.
And give the Chinese a chance, I am sure they will figure a way to pack 2000 prisoners in/on a rocket. :)
The reality is that China will be the country colonizing the solar system. Hopefully we can piggyback on their ships in some way.
You still have to lift the prisoners to orbit, so yeah, the expedition starts from the ground.
It's hard to say whether the Chinese will be able to do it. They don't seem to have the same burning drive to push forward that the Western countries did back before we became failed peoples.
We need to form the CoDominion with Russia. That'll keep the rest in line.
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 05, 2013, 07:31:31 PM
We need to form the CoDominion with Russia. That'll keep the rest in line.
Would it really though? After all, the US has about the same ability to project power in space as CdM's cat, and the Russians are too busy being drunk and stupid to dream of the stars.
Or were you just making an old sci-fi reference that I stomped all over?
Quote from: Neil on January 05, 2013, 08:14:23 PM
After all, the US has about the same ability to project power in space as CdM's cat,
Hey now. :mad:
My cat has a much bigger budget than NASA's right now. :mad:
Quote from: Neil on January 05, 2013, 08:14:23 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 05, 2013, 07:31:31 PM
We need to form the CoDominion with Russia. That'll keep the rest in line.
Would it really though? After all, the US has about the same ability to project power in space as CdM's cat, and the Russians are too busy being drunk and stupid to dream of the stars.
Or were you just making an old sci-fi reference that I stomped all over?
Sci-fi reference. :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CoDominium_(book_series)
Yeah, I know Pournelle. I just wanted to make a reference to CdM's cat.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 05, 2013, 08:17:01 PM
Quote from: Neil on January 05, 2013, 08:14:23 PM
After all, the US has about the same ability to project power in space as CdM's cat,
Hey now. :mad:
My cat has a much bigger budget than NASA's right now. :mad:
Well that makes sense. Neither Democrats nor Republicans really value the work that NASA does.
Quote from: Neil on January 05, 2013, 08:39:04 PM
Yeah, I know Pournelle. I just wanted to make a reference to CdM's cat.
the cat in murcheson's eye...
Quote from: Zanza on January 04, 2013, 04:33:14 AM
Why would he become richer than Rockefeller? What's out there that is so valuable?
Unlimited clean energy sounds valuable enough to me.
Quote from: Neil on January 05, 2013, 08:39:56 PM
Well that makes sense. Neither Democrats nor Republicans really value the work that NASA does.
Tim needs to go into politics.
Quote from: Iormlund on January 06, 2013, 11:10:24 PM
Quote from: Zanza on January 04, 2013, 04:33:14 AM
Why would he become richer than Rockefeller? What's out there that is so valuable?
Unlimited clean energy sounds valuable enough to me.
Is that actually out there though?
Quote from: Neil on January 06, 2013, 11:43:35 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on January 06, 2013, 11:10:24 PM
Unlimited clean energy sounds valuable enough to me.
Is that actually out there though?
Sure. It's just not economically feasible with the cost of ferrying all the stuff up there. But if it were cheap enough to launch a few robot missions and nudge asteroids into orbit ...
But where does the energy come from? The energy when someone fails to convert imperial to metric and crashes an asteroid into the planet? That's not clean.
Heh. From the Sun, of course.
Quote from: Iormlund on January 07, 2013, 12:22:06 AM
Heh. From the Sun, of course.
I don't know if that would work.
Technically? Why not? I've never read anything that puts in doubt the ability to beam the energy back here. Hell, we receive transmissions from Voyager I billions of km away, and the thing was made 40 years ago and uses like 20 Watt to power its dish.
Satellite constellations are dangerous, and such a project is too expensive to complete. Also, the areas that you're beaming the power into will suffer heavy environmental damage.
Quote from: Neil on January 04, 2013, 12:11:43 PM
Quote from: The Brain on January 04, 2013, 12:08:09 PM
Why are people discussing prisoner colonists?
Strix doesn't understand the expense of space travel.
I do understand the costs. I was just exploring other avenues that help reduce that cost and make it more acceptable.
Quote from: Strix on January 07, 2013, 10:22:37 AM
Quote from: Neil on January 04, 2013, 12:11:43 PM
Quote from: The Brain on January 04, 2013, 12:08:09 PM
Why are people discussing prisoner colonists?
Strix doesn't understand the expense of space travel.
I do understand the costs. I was just exploring other avenues that help reduce that cost and make it more acceptable.
Were you? Or were you trying to set things up so you could get a cool job in space, maybe sort of like Sean Connery in Outland?
Quote from: Neil on January 07, 2013, 08:40:11 AM
Satellite constellations are dangerous,
and such a project is too expensive to complete.
Also, the areas that you're beaming the power into will suffer heavy environmental damage.
so is crossing the street
probably cheaper then funding the US military
we're fucked on that front anyway so I suggest beaming the energy back over Russia, China and the Middle East (in no particular order)
Quote from: Neil on January 07, 2013, 08:40:11 AM
Satellite constellations are dangerous, and such a project is too expensive to complete. Also, the areas that you're beaming the power into will suffer heavy environmental damage.
It is expensive, but not so much in the scenario postulated.
As for the rest, a wide enough microwave beam* would only raise local temperatures a bit -- and you could set up the arrays only to be able to respond to a beacon from the receiver. We're not talking orbital bombardment here.
* Microwaves are probably best option because they are not blocked by the atmosphere.
Quote from: Neil on January 07, 2013, 08:40:11 AM
Satellite constellations are dangerous, and such a project is too expensive to complete. Also, the areas that you're beaming the power into will suffer heavy environmental damage.
Isn't Japan working on this now?
Quote from: Neil on January 07, 2013, 08:40:11 AM
Satellite constellations are dangerous, and such a project is too expensive to complete. Also, the areas that you're beaming the power into will suffer heavy environmental damage.
Why? What kind of damage?