A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Technology is the easy part



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 29th 12, 04:18 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Kulin Remailer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17
Default 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  
Old January 31st 12, 07:26 PM posted to sci.space.policy
[email protected] |
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 307
Default 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  
Old February 2nd 12, 06:19 PM posted to sci.space.policy
[email protected] |
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 307
Default 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


  #6  
Old February 2nd 12, 07:21 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Brad Guth[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,175
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 06:14 PM
IEEE SPECTRUM On-Line: Breathing Easy in Space Is Never Easy Jim Oberg Space Station 3 November 2nd 06 07:09 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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:35 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.