Vice President Heads for Moon

Eggs-actly . . . the European colonies were all a drain on their respective "mother countries" until such time as they could produce what they needed, and turn a profit.

This becomes even more crucial in a situation in which everything you use has to come from the bottom of the mother well. Setting up a situation in which we can manufacture the wherewithal for exploration in microgravity will be a watershed moment. But i don't look for it to happen any time soon. It's kind of a shame, but not only will it not happen in my lifetime, i doubt that it will happen in the lifetime of anyone now living. Maybe in the lifetimes of the grandchildren of the children of today, and i'll bet that even that is an outside shot.

Really? The cost of hauling a SINGLE POUND of sand, into orbit is a thousand dollars or more.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Really? The cost of hauling a SINGLE POUND of sand, into orbit is a thousand dollars or more.

But it's a cost we'll never pay if we stay put on this planet.

Brandon wrote:

You're ask a lot of incredibly obvious questions today.

Then your difficulties in answering them are all the more mysterious.

Brandon9000 wrote:

First of all, advocating a small government doesn't mean that the government must take the shortest possible view of everything and that all programs which involve multiple steps to fulfillment are banned.

No, but it does require that government programs must yield public benefits that are large enough to justify the tax money going into them. So far, you have not identified any such benefit.

Brandon wrote:

Secondly, people are routinely asked to pay for the whole government budget, rather than only the parts they personally agree with.

That doesn't make it right. Additionally, what you envision would be programs that the majority of voters disagree with. In a democracy, that's a legitimate reason not to pursue them, so you'll need to come up with a good-enough reason to trump it.

Brandon9000 wrote:

And finally, the average person is often not in favor of things that in retrospect are universally regarded as having been critically important.

The reverse is not true though: just because the average person disapproves of something, that doesn't mean future generations will regard it as having been critically important. And besides, what makes you any less average than Setanta, engineer, and me? You're a "guy on the street" just as we are -- no more, no less.

Unfortunately probably correct, though I plan on living a long time personally.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Unfortunately probably correct, though I plan on living a long time personally.

Wasn't your plan to save your personality to an FPGA and to live eternally as a software emulation of yourself?

I think he's saying that we'll use these materials to further colonize the universe, not to increase the supply on earth.

Obviously the earth is not going to run out of carbon, or silica, but he's saying that these things are needed in space to further space exploration. So we can get them from space instead of sending them up.

Or I may be reading this entirely wrong.

But to you, the only real benefit is a money profit in the next few years.

Are you actually saying that it's wrong to forbid people to just pay taxes on the portion of the budget they personally agree with?

Brandon wrote:

But to you, the only real benefit is a money profit in the next few years.

Not true.

I regard space exploration as an investment like any other. That means the sum of all the program's future benefits, discounted by the long term interest rate, have to exceed the taxpayer money we invest today. For example, to be worth investing today at the current long-term interest rate (~2.5% per year), a dollar would have to yield more than $1.28 in 10 years, or $1.63 in 20 years, or 3.43 in 50 years, or $11.80 in 100 years. (This is in constant dollars, so inflation goes extra.)

Even by this long-term standard, I don't see future profits that would justify current government spending on space exploration programs....

Brandon; if NASA's budget was 1 trillion/year, how long do you think it would take to send a manned mission outside of our solar system?

How much do you think we need to spend to make it to the next star? How long will that take (given the technology to make such a trip in a lifetime doesn't exist).

I with you that we need to invest in space; and it was one of the things about Bush that I liked (and I posted that here). But I think your 'benefits' are lifetimes away (unless those other civilizations make first contact).

I'm incredulous that you still don't get it.

Here's another hint. Please tell me the profit in developing the ability to travel to more and more stars, settling dozens of worlds, meeting other intelligences, and learning wondrous things we can't imagine now.

Agreed that it's not true that everything the man in the street disapproves of is right, but then, I never claimed that. Sorry, but I don't view the disapproval of the majority as the best guide to what's right, especially given the majority's historical track record.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Agreed that it's not true that everything the man in the street disapproves of is right, but then, I never claimed that. Sorry, but I don't view the disapproval of the majority as the best guide to what's right, especially given the majority's historical track record.

I agree with this sentiment. I think that is why we have a representative form of government where we can elect elite officials to make informed decisions for the best of the country, but my understanding from talk radio is that the "elite" who dare to advise us on what is best for the country are clearly idiots who are out of touch with the common sense average Joe. No common sense, average Joe is going to spend the kind of money necessary to go to Mars. I'm up for a program to mine the moon, but I doubt we would ever have permanent colonies off of Earth. I don't believe your goals of reaching other planets is feasible regardless of the money we spend on it. If I were funding NASA, I think I would be focusing on the manned space station and robotic exploration of the moon.

A hundred and ten years ago, you'd be telling me that the airplane is a pipe dream. How is my goal of reaching other planets not "feasible regardless of the money we spend on it?"

I think the main question is 'why'. The answers you gave aren't realistic.

Brandon, I think going to Mars and other planets in our solar system is feasible, if cost were not an issue. There's no doubt about that.

I think the main question is 'why'. The answers you gave aren't realistic.

In what way? Nothing but monetary profit in the near term has real value?