If there is no practical applications, it really doesn't matter what we waste money on, at least wars help with overpopulation.
What is a moonbase good for? And resources??? There is a thing called practicality...
After moon, where should NASA go?
- Thread starter kmguru
- Start date
- Status
If there is no practical applications, it really doesn't matter what we waste money on, at least wars help with overpopulation.
What is a moonbase good for? And resources??? There is a thing called practicality...
Hey, good news, other countries waste their energy on space programs too!:
"India's Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle (PSLV) C-11 blasts off carrying India's first unmanned moon mission Chandrayaan-1 from the Satish Dhawan space centre at Sriharikota, about 100 km (62 miles) north of the southern Indian city of Chennai Wednesday."
As compared to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_India
"The World Bank estimates that 456 million Indians (42% of the total Indian population) now live under the global poverty line of $1.25 per day (PPP). This means that a third of the global poor now reside in India."
"India's Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle (PSLV) C-11 blasts off carrying India's first unmanned moon mission Chandrayaan-1 from the Satish Dhawan space centre at Sriharikota, about 100 km (62 miles) north of the southern Indian city of Chennai Wednesday."
As compared to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_India
"The World Bank estimates that 456 million Indians (42% of the total Indian population) now live under the global poverty line of $1.25 per day (PPP). This means that a third of the global poor now reside in India."
NiccolòBrioschi
Registered Member
In 1942, the Senate of the Most Serene Republic of Venice said the same of the New World. We need hope.
Alrighty, let's play:
1. Tourism: we agree, but it doesn't need to be government backed enterprise.
2. Mining: bullshit. Cost / profit ratio is too high
3. Colonization: what for? Oh yes, for mining.
4. Research: Haven't we done everything already?
5. Satellites: No man needed. There are already way too many.
etc?
where should NASA go?
the unemployment line
the unemployment line
It isn't already
This is because the current technology is not efficient enough or cost effective.
Once space travel becomes an easier feat and costs less, mining can become a very serious prospect as a source of profit
See above. Also, real estate, anyone?
Real estate on mars! Get your own villa, with all the luxuries, just $20 Million! On Mars!
Nah, but I was referring to the fact that the unique gravity conditions in space allow for experimentation that couldn't be done on Earth.
I think that resource mining should be the primary goal behind space exploration driving force.
However the main driving force behind space exploration will not be governmental agencies but entrepreneurs like Burt Rutain: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwfSENkvJXY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXLKs_4A9fM
However the main driving force behind space exploration will not be governmental agencies but entrepreneurs like Burt Rutain: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwfSENkvJXY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXLKs_4A9fM
Last edited:
Only if you discover a new material that is small in volume but incredibly pricey. Even diamond doesn't qualify, because if you bring back a lot that would push its price down.
Real estate? BS.... As I said, there is more room in the oceans and easier access, oxygen and food can be harvested from the water, so it is possible to live there without outside help....
To all posting nonsense about mining the moon for “resources,” I again ask you to:
Name even one item that is not available now on Earth for less than 1% of the cost of going to moon and returning it to earth.
You CAN NOT AS THERE IS NONE.
PS to Syzygys:
There is already a huge surplus of diamonds held off the market by De Biers and a few others to keep the price from collapsing to about 5% of the current "value." They would pay you NOT to bring diamonds back from the moon, even if there were any there. If they could get laws passed to make sale of all Earth diamonds illegal, so only Moon diamonds were sold, then the price of diamond would be about 500 times higher, just to "break even" on the cost of bringing diamonds from the moon to Earth.
Name even one item that is not available now on Earth for less than 1% of the cost of going to moon and returning it to earth.
You CAN NOT AS THERE IS NONE.
PS to Syzygys:
There is already a huge surplus of diamonds held off the market by De Biers and a few others to keep the price from collapsing to about 5% of the current "value." They would pay you NOT to bring diamonds back from the moon, even if there were any there. If they could get laws passed to make sale of all Earth diamonds illegal, so only Moon diamonds were sold, then the price of diamond would be about 500 times higher, just to "break even" on the cost of bringing diamonds from the moon to Earth.
Last edited by a moderator:
I know about the artifical price of diamond, I was just too lazy to post it and anyway, it is irrelevant to the discussion.
The bottomline is this: NASA officials are affraid of losing their jobs, thus they keep coming up with BS scenarios, what to do in the future.
A good analogy is the deffense industry, lots of unneeded inventions and weapons there. Submarines? We get attacked by people using $40 Microsoft Flightsimulator and knives, what nuclear subs are good for???
The bottomline is this: NASA officials are affraid of losing their jobs, thus they keep coming up with BS scenarios, what to do in the future.
A good analogy is the deffense industry, lots of unneeded inventions and weapons there. Submarines? We get attacked by people using $40 Microsoft Flightsimulator and knives, what nuclear subs are good for???
Once pigs fly, unbrella sales will soar.
There is an equation using the specific impulse of chemical rocket fuels that relates the lift off weight to the payload weight. - You obviously are ignorant of it.
Until chemical rockets are not needed, the cost of bringing anything back from the moon will be at least 100 times higher than getting same material from Earth.
It is not a question of "improving technology" but a fundamental fact of physic (or chemistry) that huge masses of fuel must be burned for each pound that goes to the moon and then very large masses of fuel must be burned for every pound that is returned to Earth.
----------------------
Some actual facts:
The LEM assent module which lifted of the moon weighed 10,024 lb at launch but a large fraction of that was the fuel. Lets say 500 useful pounds was returned from the moon to the Earth. Two men, their air, water, etc. requirements being ~50% weight. The LEM structure, batteries etc. being more than 45%. Thus, the "mineral cargo" was less than 50 pounds.
The launch weight of the Saturn V used to go to the moon was 6,699,000 pounds, mostly the liquid Hydrogen Oxygen fuel which costs considerably more than $10 / pound. So the cost of just the rocket was SIGNIFICANTLY MORE THAN 70 million dollars (not counting the development costs or the earlier testing with Saturns, or the ground control expenses. If they were included, the cost easily exceeded 100 million dollars).
Thus the cost per pound of minerals returned was more than a million dollars a pound, probably more than two million dollars per pound of minerals returned to earth. One percent of that cost is more than $10,000 / Lb, probably more than $20,000 /Lb, but I will continue with the lower figure. Gold costs about $10,000/ pound. So gold returned from the moon would cost 100 times more than gold from the Earth.
Again there is nothing on the moon that is not available on the Earth 100 times cheaper.
And this assumes there is zero cost to extract it from them moon - I.e. if gold, I am assuming there are gold bricks just sitting on the surface to pick up.
No need to transport any mining equipment to the moon etc.
ENOUGH OF THIS NONSENSE ABOUT GOING INTO SPACE FOR THE RESOURCES THERE.
Last edited by a moderator:
It doesn't have to be a new material.
And the resources don't have to come back to Earth, they could be sold to a colony.
So? People will still want Mars villas. I sure would. And under the ocean villas.
And Mars villas. Real estate and housing along with tourism will probably be the most profitable ventures.
I know, which is why I said until the tech improves. As in, a new method of getting into space that is cheap and can be more open to the common man.
Your analogy is right, but that's like saying it's not profitable to mine for resources in North America if you're sending it back in one tiny canoe. Correct, which is why you want something better.
Although resources will probably become a better enterprise once the resources on Earth become scarce.
----------------
What about personal space vessels? Like cars, except they are space ships, that are mass produced and made affordable to the common man. There's a profit.
Sort of.
They'd have to be a one-time purchase since the vast majority of people are far (far, far, FAR) too dumb to actually helm (in lieu of pilot/ fly/ steer) the things reliably.
Although it would be one way (albeit expensive) of "culling the herd".
Sure. Please list the materials that could be profitably mined on the Moon:
Isn't it easier not to put there anybody, so we don't need to sell anything?
Or we just colonize for consumption's sake?
The stupidity of Mars villas I am not even going to address.
- Status