Will it be ever possible to have long term space travel?

[Timo]

That's "compliment" and "a lot".

Why is space exploitation being judged as a commercial venture on the merits of getting profit from the resultant space industries? Surely more than half the profit initially (that is, for the first half a century or so) would come from making that venture in the first place - from developing and purchasing the required hardware. The most profitable growth industries on Earth, those related to IT, work on the principle of garnering funding for future creation of hardware to be used in even-farther-future sales... Spending is always profitable in the short term!

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Crazy Eddie]

The thing about space resources is that it has potential to eventually become INDEPENDENTLY profitable apart from government subsidies."

If only that last clause wasn't there it would be so beautiful. Why any business would leap at the chance of reaping vast profits from something paid for by taxpayers.

You mean like Grumman, Raytheon, Lockheed, Boeing, General Electric, ILC Dover, Sun Microsystems and Orbital Sciences have been doing for the past thirty years?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Interesting. I think the only way this happens is if private companies get the technology to start. But I don't see it happening soon. Again the theme of this thread we have to develop the technology in the private sector.

We don't NECESSARILY have to. After all, it's never happened that way before; commercial aviation owed alot of its development to the government handing out air mail contracts and cargo service contracts to small companies and pilots who would otherwise have an incredible shortage of customers. Military technology is ALWAYS developed that way, and the entire nuclear power industry is essentially a spinoff of the Manhattan Project.

Private industry could do it entirely on their own initiative if conditions were perfect. But they've never done it before, and they're not doing it now, so why should we expect them to do so in the future?

Having governments do this stuff is good but they won't be in it for a profit

The GOVERNMENTS never do, at least not in the short term. The expectation is the subsidies can shield private companies from some of the risk involved so they can continue to profit and develop better technology that will make them independent.

If nations themselves can assume the cost(even though the ones that are space going all have deficits), why can't a bundle of companies do the same?
Each company gets a specific piece of the pie for the work they put into it.
I can see your point, people will want to be separate if they are long-term stay. However, a nation has the power, the power being food, water, and re-supply. So I think that(like always) employees will eventually ask for higher wages and maybe better ways to relax.

Simply put the cost is too much. It's also the reason why we are basically putting our space program in the back burner as a nation right now.

The reason Project Constellation was put on the back burner is because it was an overpriced, underplanned, ill-conceived piece of shit. The U.S. manned space program is already in the process of being privatized by Boeing and SpaceX, the latter is set to have their own space craft design operational by the end of next year. They've just finished testing the engines and the test flight is scheduled for Monday.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

That's "compliment" and "a lot".

Why is space exploitation being judged as a commercial venture on the merits of getting profit from the resultant space industries? Surely more than half the profit initially (that is, for the first half a century or so) would come from making that venture in the first place - from developing and purchasing the required hardware. The most profitable growth industries on Earth, those related to IT, work on the principle of garnering funding for future creation of hardware to be used in even-farther-future sales... Spending is always profitable in the short term!

Timo Saloniemi

Because I.T. firms can always sell the immediate products of their tech development to a very enthusiastic consumer base, which may or may not include a number of government agencies. CURRENT private development in space flight is developing along those lines already; SpaceX and the U.L.A. have developed their own launch vehicles for such customers as M.I.T., NASA, the U.S. Air Force and a variety of telecommunications companies who have no other option (except for Russia) for putting things into orbit. Other companies--Bigelow Aerospace, for example--have their own space station designs that could be cheaply deployed and serviced by private launch companies; the business case for Low Earth Orbit development is already taking shape.

But we're talking about LONG TERM space habitation, which Low Earth Orbit is not. Colonization of the moon is the first step to that, and unfortunately there isn't alot on the moon that would justify the added expense of getting there. In the comparison to I.T., it's like the supercomputer to your PC: the technology will not develop unless someone can think of a task that requires a supercomputer in the first place, and home-users and small businesses don't need them. Likewise, none of the current customer base for private launch services and/or cargo service need anything done on the moon.

 

[KJbushway]

Thanks for the compliment.

 

[KJbushway]

These next come from here; http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/idb/worldpop.php

I clearly stated that MY website wasn't fantasy. I also clearly stated that I checked to make sure that MY website wasn't a blog.

I said which website I was drawing my information from, and provided a link to the same. I can't help but wonder about the name of your non-fantasy website, the one you're extracting your opinion from. If you don't wish to provide it's identity, that's okay and perhaps understandable.


If the land itself was destroyed, then nothing would grow there. There a fallacy in your logic.

Do you also bemoan the lost bio-diversity of the vanished European forest primeval? Shall we seize to grow grains on the American great plains, and permit them to return to wild grass? The fact is the Amazon rain forest isn't a world bio-diversity reserve or resource, nor does it belong to all mankind, it belongs to Brazil and Peru and in lesser measure to seven other countries. Just as the American rain forests (like the one near where I live in Seattle) entirely belong to America.

If you want there to be more rain forests, buy some property and plant one.

the wars in Iraq [snip] are being fought against very bad people

I don't know where you get the idea that the Iraq war was justified.

Actual I said the war in Iraq was against some very bad people.

.

All good points. Fine its South America who owns it, your right its their decision what to do with it.
My site was About.com/geography(not a link)
Who was there that was bad?
Bin Laden wasn't there
Saddam Hussein didn't have anything to do with 9/11 and he was the only thing keeping Iran in line.(not saying he was a good guy though)
How many Terrorist leaders did we capture there?
More in Afghan than Iraq.
Iraq was a war that should have never been.

 

[T'Girl]

Who was there that was bad? Saddam Hussein ...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3320293.stm
Here a list of the seven principal charges that resulted in the execution of Hussian, not that collectively these make him a "bad guy."

Saddam Hussein didn't have anything to do with 9/11 and he was the only thing keeping Iran in line.(not saying he was a good guy though)

In May of 2003, federal court judge Harold Baer (a Clinton appointee by the way) ruled that the Iraqi government was "complicit" in the September 11, 2001 attack..

Abdul Rahman Yasin, one of the al-Qaeda bombers who hit the World Trade Center in 1993, fled to Iraq after that attack and lived there freely, receiving a Iraqi government salary. A prior link to al-Qaeda.

Saddam Hussain also financially supported terrorist organizations such as the Abu Nidal organization, Ansar al-islam and Hamas.

Fifteen days before the US invasion of Iraq, Abigail Litle, an American, was killed by a suicide bomber on a bus in Haifa, Israel, her father was a baptist minister in that city. She was killed along with 16 other people, plus 53 injured. The suicide bomber's family received from Saddam Hussein a "President Saddam Hussein Grant" check for $25,000 in recognition of his martyrdom.

This is a picture of Abigail.
The certificate shown isn't from that particular bomber's family, but is typical. You can see the grant check in the lower corner.

How many Terrorist leaders did we capture there?

http://www.alsumaria.tv/en/Iraq-News/1-57134-Exclusive-photos-of-Al-Qaeda-leader-in-Iraq.html
KJbushway this is from yesterday, we can start here with Abu Baker Al Baghdadi and Nasserddin Sulaiman, then there's this next fine gentleman ...

http://www.alsumaria.tv/en/Iraq-News/1-57049-Identity-of-Iraq-Qaeda-group-leader-uncovered.html
Hazem Abdul Razzaq Al Zawi was arrested two weeks ago, he is (was) the security minister of the so called Islamic State of Iraq, Islamic State of Iraq is the umbrella organization for al-Qaeda in Iraq.

http://www.al-shorfa.com/cocoon/meii/xhtml/en_GB/features/meii/features/main/2010/04/20/feature-02
Another al-Qaeda leader, Bassim Abu Khalil al-Mujahid, was captured alive back in April by joint US and Iraqi forces, you likely heard about this guy's good works for the iraqi people on the news, al-Mujahid was the guy who was sending 15 years old children into civilian market places warped in explosives.

 

[KJbushway]

OK point made. However, Iraq still wasn't necessary.
I never said he was a good guy. I even stated that.
I didn't know about her and if I offended you I am sorry.
Did Saddam Hussein deserve to die, Yes. I won't dispute that claim to anybody.

 

[Captrek]

Saddam Hussein didn't have anything to do with 9/11 and he was the only thing keeping Iran in line.(not saying he was a good guy though)

In May of 2003, federal court judge Harold Baer (a Clinton appointee by the way) ruled that the Iraqi government was "complicit" in the September 11, 2001 attack..

Not exactly.

The plaintiffs presented “expert witnesses” from the Bush administration. According to Baer, the prosecution’s evidence “barely” established a link between 9/11 and Iraq, but that the evidence presented might be enough to persuade a reasonable Jury, given no evidence to the contrary.

There was no evidence to the contrary, and the expert witnesses were never challenged, because the defendants didn’t bother to show up and present a case, so Baer entered a default judgment for the plaintiffs. This is not a finding of fact that Iraq was involved in 9/11. It’s a presumption made in favor of the plaintiffs because of the defendant’s failure to respond to the suit.

That’s all. Officials of the Bush Administration claimed a connection and the defendant didn’t show up to refute it. Under those conditions, the default judgment was inevitable. Ever since, right wing idiots on the internet have trumpeted it as proof of Iraq’s involvement in 9/11, which it quite obviously is not, especially given what we have since learned about the credibility of the Bush Administration intelligence on such issues.

^^ I suggest a ratio of ten women to each man. Of course, that would necessitate the abandonment of the so-called monogamous sexual relationship. But it would be a sacrifice required for the future of the human race. And since each man would be required to do prodigious service along these lines, the women would have to be selected for their sexual characteristics, which would have to be of a highly stimulating nature!

approves.

 

[stj]

Foolishness about a harem on the ship may make for a stimulating fantasy, or not, according to taste, but breeding on a generation ship must be tightly controlled. Basically, it's one birth per death. Therefore routine compulsory abstinence/use of perfectly effective birth control (either one is iffy at this point) must be coupled with compulsory pregnancy. This will be a difficult social arrangement to maintain, I think.

In any event, males are supernumerary. Jars of frozen sperm and a fork lift will replace them nicely, with the additional benefit of increasing genetic diversity.
Therefore, an all female crew would be the rational choice. It would be interesting to see if the concept of sex were entirely forgotten.

Frozen embryos, just like frozen sperm, are indeed maintained and sometimes used. Nutjobs claim that frozen embryos are people!

 

[sojourner]

^Yes, we've never seen examples of all female sex.

 

[Deckerd]

I can just see the recruitment office. You're going into space exploration for the rest of your life and only lesbians need apply.

 

[KJbushway]

I'm in!
but only as a scientific observer.

 

[Deckerd]

Yes I'm sure a lot of lesbians 'trapped in a man's body' will be applying.

 

[T'Girl]

Jars of frozen sperm and a fork lift will replace them nicely

I understand the jars of sperm, but if you don't mind my asking ...

what exactly are you planning on doing with the forklift?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

^ Move her furniture. Or hook the motor up to a winch to open a tightly-stuck jar of pickles.

 

[KJbushway]

 

[stj]

Jars of frozen sperm and a fork lift will replace them nicely

I understand the jars of sperm, but if you don't mind my asking ...

what exactly are you planning on doing with the forklift?

The only well supported superiority of men to women is in upper body strength, making them better at heavy lifting and hand to hand combat. Men are not necessary for a generation ship, especially not for hand to hand combat. (One wonders, if men run things because they are superior, why isn't society dominated by stevedores and prize fighters?) Women's well supported physical superiority is endurance, a much better fit to space travel.

Ten to fifteen percent of women have never had an orgasm in their lives. Google "incidence of anorgasmia in women." Also, google "lesbian bed death" and "Boston marriage."

Really, considering how unfit organic life is for outer space, an artificial intelligence is the only practical interstellar traveler.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

^ That's reconnaissance, not travel. A.I.s make perfect probes to tell you what's out there, and if "I want to know what's out there" is your only reason for going, probes do that perfectly. If you're going up there for any practical reason--colonization or resource exploration--then you'll need to send humans.

 

[Captrek]

^ That's reconnaissance, not travel. A.I.s make perfect probes to tell you what's out there, and if "I want to know what's out there" is your only reason for going, probes do that perfectly. If you're going up there for any practical reason--colonization or resource exploration--then you'll need to send humans.

The distinction between AIs and humans is likely to become blurred in the future.

100 years from now, our descendants will be mechanical/biological hybrids — kind of like the Borg, but hopefully without the more negative aspects of Borgdom.