Moon, asteroids, and Mars are GO!

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by cygonaut, Jan 9, 2004.

  1. Undecided Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,731
    So pussy bitch Sparks has put me on ignore eh? Seems some of us can't stand the heat. I would hate hot flashes too...
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,142
    EI_Sparks,

    I think 1C and 2C will be included if I ever manage to get a poll up (fuck the fucking server!). 3C is coverd in 5A/B, 4C I see as to complcated a view for the poll, nor does it take into account alternative energy, biosources for organics, space will not provide oil only raw technolgy will provide a alternative. 5C is out totally. as for 6: Well EI_Sparks I don't know why then everyone seem to be hammering you on that trillion dollar thing, my bad.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Undecided Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,731
    Serious: don't you think 400.000.000.000 Dollar$ is a big buget for the Departement of Defense?

    So if you think MONEY, you might as well, point you finger in the right direction.

    No pun intended.


    The defence budget is large yes, but at the very least there is some aura of reason behind it being so high, Afghanistan, Iraq, and the so called "War on Terror". Of course I think that the budget is too high, but at the very least it serves a verifiable purpose. This moon/mars, thing simply does not serve a purpose that is in anyway in the interests of the US at this moment in time. The US if you haven't noticed is $550 billion in the crapper, how do you sir purpose to slash that deficit, and make it into a surplus, while keeping this space program, along with military, and social funding? Have fun...
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Undecided Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,731
    all the extant realistic estimates are for far, far less

    Funny, yet the first male member of the vagina monolauges cannot source it...interesting. :bugeye:
     
  8. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,142
    I can: "The case for mars" by Robert Zubrin stated 30-50 billion to develop and launch a manned mission to mars.
     
  9. Undecided Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,731
    WCF, I suggest you re-read the thread, the mass idiocy of those figures have already been disputed.
     
  10. Undecided Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,731
    So then boys don't you at least concede that the final price tag could be upwards of $1 trillion?

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/2004-01-15-nasa-starting-over_x.htm

    $50 billion! LMFAO!
     
  11. EI_Sparks Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,716
    Except that nowhere in 5 is there mention of resource exploitation in space.

    What, sciforum readers are dumb?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Sorry, wind and wave power don't cut it. The energy density is just too low to fulfill the needs of the entire world now, let alone in fifty years.

    Again, it's a case of whether or not that plan is economic or realistic, and so far the evidence suggests it is not.

    Actually, that's not correct. Crude oil certainly won't be found, but medium-to-long-chain petrochemicals can be found from asteroidal sources, to say nothing of gas giant atmospheric mining.

    Despite cited sources showing that 5A is wholly unfounded and incorrect?

    Actually, noone's "hammered" me on it, in fact Undecided's been shown to be totally in error on this one.
     
  12. Undecided Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,731
    Actually, noone's "hammered" me on it, in fact Undecided's been shown to be totally in error on this one.

    As has USA Today, the CBPP? Right...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    if you are stupid enough to believe that the mission is going to cost $50 billion go ahead, give up on any shred of economic logic, and credibility.
     
  13. 15ofthe19 35 year old virgin Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,588
    Nico, if you don't want any of your money to fund the U.S. going to the moon, or to Mars, then don't become a taxpaying citizen of the U.S. You certainly wont be missed.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    You provide no data, you support numbers that you've invented, and you get mad when Sparks and I have provided sources showing that this endeavor will not necessarily be as expensive as some have suggested. Beyond that, what is your problem? You lost on the Saddam/CIA debate, you lost on the Saudi Arabia/U.S. debate, and you've lost here, yet again. Sad.
     
  14. EI_Sparks Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,716
    Already cited several times in this thread by me. Apparently, Zubrin's an authority on the subject and thus you're not allowed cite him because it's wrong to cite recognised experts...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    BTW, "the first male member of the vagina monolauges"???

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Sounds like I used the ignore list just in time, huh?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. Vortexx Skull & Bones Spokesman Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,242
    Where do people put the limit for what is acceptable for a manned marsmission against the current situation for the american people ?

    I feel that 30-50 billion sound a lot more acceptable than 1 trillion (some cuts on defence would do) but 1 trillion dollar would be ....crazy ?

    Anyways , I think that, as the marsprogram gets shape, you should give NASA time until 2010 to come with a detailed plan with detailed cost expectations and from that point re-evaluate the plans. Standard you put on top 15 procent because every industry presents it's costexpectation/budgetreports better than they likely are.

    Personally I could give my small vote to a government that can do it for 30-50 billion, but anything over 100 billion, I say, is robbery from the people and could be better spend on ITER for example to solve problems at home
     
  16. Undecided Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,731
    BTW, "the first male member of the vagina monolauges"???

    You don't even have the balls to ignore my comments, when I am in ignore. Whoa!
     
  17. Undecided Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,731
  18. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,142
    EI_Sparks,

    I’m sorry but mining space will not be economically viable by far, at least not with are present and near term future technologies. Alternative energy such as Nuclear or the Fusion pipe-dream can replace oil, all we need is for people to stop screaming when they hear the world “nuclear” and “radiation”. Bio-derived-organics is more then viable as a runner-up to oil as is used already in many industrial products. Tell me how is space exploration going to save us when oil demand exceeds production in 15-25 years? Maybe if the space race did not end and we had colonies on the moon and mars by now then we would ahve a chance to use space to solve our energy needs but its to fucking late now!!!

    But that does add poll question number 6! "Is mineing space viable?"
     
  19. EI_Sparks Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,716
    Thing to remember is that these cost estimates are not per year, they're over 20 years. So a hundred billion over 20 years is $2 billion a year. A trillion over 20 years would be $50 billion a year (and not only would you get the moon and mars for that, you'd get cheap access to space via SSTOs, NEA mining, gas giant atmospheric mining, a manned mission to Europa, comprehensive unmanned missions (with landers, orbiters and rovers) to everywhere, solar power satellites which would replace virtually all the fossil fuel usage (oil would still be used, but as a source of plastics and materials, as opposed to petrol), new technologies and huge amounts of new research, all for one sixth the budget of the US armed forces, and all the generated data would be freely available to the private sector.
    Of course, noone is asking for a trillion - but frankly, they ought to be.
     
  20. EI_Sparks Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,716
    I think you haven't looked at the figures WCF.
    Consider the estimated value of a single nickel-iron asteroid, currently harvestable with today's technology.

    We don't have an infinite supply of uranium, and Fusion still produces radioactive waste if you don't have the right fuel - and the reactor still gets radioactive, even in a He3-H2 reaction (as energy is emitted as gamma radiation).

    And frankly, a solar power satellite is just more... elegant a design.

    Asteroid mining. As you probably have heard, many asteroids and comets have been shown to have tar-like hydrocarbons on their surfaces. It's thought that their hydrocarbon content is in fact, higher than that for the shale petrochemicals are normally found in on earth. It's not crude oil - but it does yield long-chain hydrocarbons to make plastics and lubricants. Assuming the technological developments that will come from such a well-funded programme don't give us alternatives before then.

    Given the hundreds of studies on this subject, it's not a valid question. Are you really saying that a poll of high-school students on sciforums is a more valid source of information than scientific research going back three decades, based on factual experimentation and published in peer-reviewed journals of repute?
    Hello?
     
  21. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,142
    at least one $trillion per asteroid, ya that nice, oh of course it will take at least several decades to strip a 1km asteroid and it will be very costly to get there, and did a mention we don't have the technology to easily and cheaply mining cargo there and cargo back?, yes yes I did.

    Oh we have enough Uranium to last us quite some time, the radioactivity from a h1+B fusion is very short term, no waste is produced.

    I would love to see one up there

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Again explain to me how you get the cargo back to earth, how you even get up there, how do you mine it, how much infrastructure would need to be placed?

    Who says I was? I just wanted a nice poll to look at to see what people here believe, hello? I was not going to base that on what is right or wrong.
     
  22. EI_Sparks Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,716
    I'm just not sure that the poll would actually tell you what the question is asking - you wouldn't so much get a case of "what do you think" as "do you believe that verified, peer-reviewed and published experimental results are correct", which is more asking how many sciforum readers understand the rigour of the scientific publication process.

    As to asteroid mining and infrastructure, yes, we do require infrastructure, and yes, it will take time on the order of decades. However, we have not only the required technology, but a surfiet of studies (from NASA and independent groups) into ways of doing this. Frankly, it's even affordable - the one thing needed is the will to do it.

    (And there's a lot more than a trillion dollar's worth of resources in one SI or I type of asteroid)
     
  23. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,142
    EI_Sparks,

    Please show us a affordable plan for mining a asteroid using modern technology?
     

Share This Page