|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Technology is the easy part
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/28/sc...a-moon-colony-
technology-is-the-easy-part.html?ref=science Putting a manned base on the Moon would be the easy part from a technology perspective. With millions of Americans living in abject poverty with no access to healthcare (akin to third world countries), little retirement savings and no jobs, it will become difficult for politicians to pursuade the public to support another Moon race, this time around against the Chinese. With hundreds of thousands of bridges, tunnels, roads and overpasses in disrepair, it seems the U.S. needs a lot more taxation to get its house in order, something which the Republicans will fight tooth and nail over. Where then, is the money going to come from? More cuts in welfare and social security? I personally believe that it would be much cheaper to spend all-out on another Moon program (if it were to be approved) rather than smearing out the costs over decades. The Apollo program gobbled up 4% of the federal budget between 1962 and 1970 yet it was done for a comparably low price, about $150 billion in current dollar value. The ISS program has cost hundreds of billions with little to show for it, except for a permanent manned presence in space and dubious experiments on all sorts of creatures in low-G. The promised returns in new medicines and semiconductors haven't been realized. In addition, the Apollo program may actually have netted a profit from all the technologies developed for it. I'm not aware of any studies which put a hardball figure on this, but the total costs would have been offset for a large part by these economic effects. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Technology is the easy part
On Jan 29, 7:18*am, Kulin Remailer wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/28/sc...a-moon-colony- technology-is-the-easy-part.html?ref=science Putting a manned base on the Moon would be the easy part from a technology perspective. With millions of Americans living in abject poverty with no access to healthcare (akin to third world countries), little retirement savings and no jobs, it will become difficult for politicians to pursuade the public to support another Moon race, this time around against the Chinese. With hundreds of thousands of bridges, tunnels, roads and overpasses in disrepair, it seems the U.S. needs a lot more taxation to get its house in order, something which the Republicans will fight tooth and nail over. Where then, is the money going to come from? More cuts in welfare and social security? I personally believe that it would be much cheaper to spend all-out on another Moon program (if it were to be approved) rather than smearing out the costs over decades. The Apollo program gobbled up 4% of the federal budget between 1962 and 1970 yet it was done for a comparably low price, about $150 billion in current dollar value. The ISS program has cost hundreds of billions with little to show for it, except for a permanent manned presence in space and dubious experiments on all sorts of creatures in low-G. The promised returns in new medicines and semiconductors haven't been realized. In addition, the Apollo program may actually have netted a profit from all the technologies developed for it. I'm not aware of any studies which put a hardball figure on this, but the total costs would have been offset for a large part by these economic effects. Netted a profit? But for who? Other than products I may have bought which in the final analysis may not have benefited my bottom line. Indeed, I think I'd be better off without the internet/information age. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Technology is the easy part
On Jan 31, 7:19*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
jacob navia wrote: Interesting. The cost of the moon base (100 billion) would be what the U.S. spends in Afghanistan+Iraq in only ONE YEAR. Yes, 100 billion is a lot of money but it would be well INVESTED and not just thrown to the military/industrial complex for NOTHING: The U.S. gets no benefits from that money. Just endless war and endless destruction. It doesn't even get more security... Yeah, I mean, like, we're sending trillions of pigeons over loaded with nickels and dropping them on people in Afghanistan. *Or people are just eating the money and it isn't used to buy anything, manufacture anything, employ anyone... Gods, but you're a stupid *******! I suppose it does buys dead "tallies" but it doesn't buy directly productive plant and production. OK, I guess the plants by way of their corporate selves sell arms to other nations for fun and profit. Some local allies in Afghanistan will transfer/steal the some of monies, and then in time spend it on consumables and services in the South of France. In time, it will amount to pigeons stuffed with coins. History will have its way given some time. A moon base would bring enormous benefits in the long term. Imagine: The surface of the moon is 37 932 000 square km. The surface of the U.S. is 9 629 091 square km. There is a lot of real estate there. Lava holes (already detected from earth) could provide a good environment for people, that could explore that enormous continent just waiting for us. Said land being horribly expensive to get to and build on, so it's pretty much worthless. Isn't the moon claimed by the UN? I am skeptical about the lava caves. Is the any evidence? I'd have to see one to believe it. Send a robotic explorer, if it is worth it. Living on the Moon means living in a shielded hole of some sort. It means concerns about bone and muscle loss. It mean concerns about oxygen, food, light, heat, and access that make the worse place on Earth seem a paradise. -- "Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is *only stupid." * * * * * * * * * * * * * * -- Heinrich Heine |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Technology is the easy part
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Technology is the easy part
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Technology is the easy part
On Jan 29, 7:18*am, Kulin Remailer wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/28/sc...a-moon-colony- technology-is-the-easy-part.html?ref=science Putting a manned base on the Moon would be the easy part from a technology perspective. With millions of Americans living in abject poverty with no access to healthcare (akin to third world countries), little retirement savings and no jobs, it will become difficult for politicians to pursuade the public to support another Moon race, this time around against the Chinese. With hundreds of thousands of bridges, tunnels, roads and overpasses in disrepair, it seems the U.S. needs a lot more taxation to get its house in order, something which the Republicans will fight tooth and nail over. Where then, is the money going to come from? More cuts in welfare and social security? I personally believe that it would be much cheaper to spend all-out on another Moon program (if it were to be approved) rather than smearing out the costs over decades. The Apollo program gobbled up 4% of the federal budget between 1962 and 1970 yet it was done for a comparably low price, about $150 billion in current dollar value. The ISS program has cost hundreds of billions with little to show for it, except for a permanent manned presence in space and dubious experiments on all sorts of creatures in low-G. The promised returns in new medicines and semiconductors haven't been realized. In addition, the Apollo program may actually have netted a profit from all the technologies developed for it. I'm not aware of any studies which put a hardball figure on this, but the total costs would have been offset for a large part by these economic effects. Exactly, and the metallicity potential of our moon is absolutely terrific. Lunar TBMs (mostly robotic) can excavate underground habitats for us. http://translate.google.com/# Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet” |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Easy Cash.. Start NOW.. WORK FROM HOME PART-TIME | justinwork | Astronomy Misc | 0 | August 11th 09 06:09 AM |
The Uncensored Part of New Energy Technology | American | Policy | 0 | October 30th 08 05:14 PM |
IEEE SPECTRUM On-Line: Breathing Easy in Space Is Never Easy | Jim Oberg | Space Station | 3 | November 2nd 06 06:09 PM |
NRL's Forward Technology Solar Cell Experiment flies as part ofMISSE5 aboard Space Shuttle Discovery mission (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | News | 0 | September 22nd 05 03:48 PM |
Technology of Tomorrow: Space Exploration Technology Spin-Offs | [email protected] | News | 0 | August 18th 05 04:36 AM |