...
Are we still living as though it were the beginning of the industrial revolution or something?
WE have the technology to do "The Jetsons", where the only work anyone does is tell a robot what to do. We have this technology in many, many fields right now, and yet we do not actually do it and make it happen. Why?
Example:
100% digitized currency with an automated accounting system would exponentially reduce the number of accountants and tax preparers needed. These would only be needed to ensure the system is working properly, much as any "quality control" worker today. This allows all taxes, credits, deductions, insurance claims and losses to be processed by one centralized system, eliminating all fraud and tax evasion.
IN a single step this makes the entire economy geometrically more efficient AND puts an iron clamp on most forms of fraud and black market activity, since all transactions would be traceable. Criminals might still find ways of doing business through barter, but they would have extreme difficulty trading legal, digital currency for illegal goods due to the traceability. That is, if millions of dollars are dropping into someone's digital wallet for no apparant legal reason, it is immediately obvious they have made an illegal transaction. Thus making it far more difficult for crime lords to actually maintain and use their illegally gained wealth. If they want to buy a cheeseburger from Wendys, they need digital currency, and they can't make digital currency through illegal activity without being caught.
Example 2:
Why are we STILL shipping wealth overseas for oil and other fossil fuels when North America has enough deposits of fissionable material to last the entire earth population for billions of years, longer than the expected life span of the sun? If we made nuclear power plants the energy is virtually limitless and we would have absolutely no need for any fossil fuels, except perhaps in applications which need very high energy density whereby portable electric motors wouldn't be good enough (rocketry and space flight are among the few things I can think of.)
Why are we still screwing around with economic models based on archaic technologies and fuel sources?
These are just two examples of existing technologies, even 60 year old technology, which would improve the quality of living of every person alive geometricaly, yet governments continue to sit on their hands and do absolutely nothing with them. There are many other similar examples.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Aug 23 2009, 06:28 PM)
100% digitized currency with an automated accounting system would exponentially reduce the number of accountants and tax preparers needed. These would only be needed to ensure the system is working properly, much as any "quality control" worker today. This allows all taxes, credits, deductions, insurance claims and losses to be processed by one centralized system, eliminating all fraud and tax evasion.
IN a single step this makes the entire economy geometrically more efficient AND puts an iron clamp on most forms of fraud and black market activity, since all transactions would be traceable. Criminals might still find ways of doing business through barter, but they would have extreme difficulty trading legal, digital currency for illegal goods due to the traceability. That is, if millions of dollars are dropping into someone's digital wallet for no apparant legal reason, it is immediately obvious they have made an illegal transaction. Thus making it far more difficult for crime lords to actually maintain and use their illegally gained wealth. If they want to buy a cheeseburger from Wendys, they need digital currency, and they can't make digital currency through illegal activity without being caught.
In America, we have this nice little law:
It's actually called the 4th Amendment. Keeping all your info in one central database that the government can peek in on it would be considered a violation of that amendment.
It's actually called the 4th Amendment. Keeping all your info in one central database that the government can peek in on it would be considered a violation of that amendment.
Why are we STILL shipping wealth overseas for oil and other fossil fuels when North America has enough deposits of fissionable material to last the entire earth population for billions of years, longer than the expected life span of the sun? If we made nuclear power plants the energy is virtually limitless and we would have absolutely no need for any fossil fuels, except perhaps in applications which need very high energy density whereby portable electric motors wouldn't be good enough (rocketry and space flight are among the few things I can think of.)
Why are we still screwing around with economic models based on archaic technologies and fuel sources?
These are just two examples of existing technologies, even 60 year old technology, which would improve the quality of living of every person alive geometricaly, yet governments continue to sit on their hands and do absolutely nothing with them. There are many other similar examples.
So, I'll go ahead and dump radioactive waste in your backyard. Is this ok with you?
FYI, Geometrically: I don't think it means what you think it means.
No. The word you want is exponential growth.
No. The word you want is exponential growth.
(Quantum_Conundrum @ Aug 23 2009, 10:24 PM)
I know what the bill of rights and constitution are guy. I did graduate as an honor student, after all.
He's english, and so could not be expected to know anything about the american system.
IN a single step this makes the entire economy geometrically more efficient AND puts an iron clamp on most forms of fraud and black market activity, since all transactions would be traceable. Criminals might still find ways of doing business through barter, but they would have extreme difficulty trading legal, digital currency for illegal goods due to the traceability. That is, if millions of dollars are dropping into someone's digital wallet for no apparant legal reason, it is immediately obvious they have made an illegal transaction. Thus making it far more difficult for crime lords to actually maintain and use their illegally gained wealth. If they want to buy a cheeseburger from Wendys, they need digital currency, and they can't make digital currency through illegal activity without being caught.
In America, we have this nice little law:
QUOTE
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
It's actually called the 4th Amendment. Keeping all your info in one central database that the government can peek in on it would be considered a violation of that amendment.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. |
It's actually called the 4th Amendment. Keeping all your info in one central database that the government can peek in on it would be considered a violation of that amendment.
Why are we STILL shipping wealth overseas for oil and other fossil fuels when North America has enough deposits of fissionable material to last the entire earth population for billions of years, longer than the expected life span of the sun? If we made nuclear power plants the energy is virtually limitless and we would have absolutely no need for any fossil fuels, except perhaps in applications which need very high energy density whereby portable electric motors wouldn't be good enough (rocketry and space flight are among the few things I can think of.)
Why are we still screwing around with economic models based on archaic technologies and fuel sources?
These are just two examples of existing technologies, even 60 year old technology, which would improve the quality of living of every person alive geometricaly, yet governments continue to sit on their hands and do absolutely nothing with them. There are many other similar examples.
So, I'll go ahead and dump radioactive waste in your backyard. Is this ok with you?
FYI, Geometrically: I don't think it means what you think it means.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 23 2009, 05:39 PM)
In America, we have this nice little law:
It's actually called the 4th Amendment. Keeping all your info in one central database that the government can peek in on it would be considered a violation of that amendment.
So, I'll go ahead and dump radioactive waste in your backyard. Is this ok with you?
FYI, Geometrically: I don't think it means what you think it means.
radioactive waste can be disposed easily and safely by dropping it to the bottom of the challenger deep, the fastest subducting zone on earth, or by shipping it into the sun or a gas giant.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Its actually sad that this ammendment got passed with such nebulous, relative terminology.
"unreasonable" and "probable cause" say nothing at all.
Define "unreasonable".
The U.S. currently has a "tax gap" that is statistically large vs the tax revenues, because so many people are crooks. Calculate this out over several years, and there's your entire U.S. federal debt. THAT is unreasonable.
"unreasonable" is what we have now. It is "unreasonable," and un-sustainable, for us to continue in a civilization with such a profound degree of corruption as our existing civilization. The failure of the financial firms and accounting firms and the subsequent "bailout" thereof represents a complete reversal of everything the democrats claim to stand for. That is, they, the demoncrat congress, STOLE from the middle class and lower class(in the form of taxes), and gave the money to the corrupt, wealthy bankers, brokers, and CEOs. This is "unreasonable searches and seizures" disquised as taxes.
On the other hand, what I propose in fact prevents this sort of abuse by making it functionally impossible to launder money or purchase illegal goods or services in any way.
Again, "unreasonable" and "probable" are relative terms. Without some reference point, they mean nothing.
"unreasonable" relative to what? As stated, it is unreasonable for us to continue to attempt to exist as a civilization whereby such a degree of corruption exists.
News flash: The "honor system" hasn't worked ever since the Garden of Eden.
It's actually called the 4th Amendment. Keeping all your info in one central database that the government can peek in on it would be considered a violation of that amendment.
So, I'll go ahead and dump radioactive waste in your backyard. Is this ok with you?
FYI, Geometrically: I don't think it means what you think it means.
radioactive waste can be disposed easily and safely by dropping it to the bottom of the challenger deep, the fastest subducting zone on earth, or by shipping it into the sun or a gas giant.
QUOTE
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Its actually sad that this ammendment got passed with such nebulous, relative terminology.
"unreasonable" and "probable cause" say nothing at all.
Define "unreasonable".
The U.S. currently has a "tax gap" that is statistically large vs the tax revenues, because so many people are crooks. Calculate this out over several years, and there's your entire U.S. federal debt. THAT is unreasonable.
"unreasonable" is what we have now. It is "unreasonable," and un-sustainable, for us to continue in a civilization with such a profound degree of corruption as our existing civilization. The failure of the financial firms and accounting firms and the subsequent "bailout" thereof represents a complete reversal of everything the democrats claim to stand for. That is, they, the demoncrat congress, STOLE from the middle class and lower class(in the form of taxes), and gave the money to the corrupt, wealthy bankers, brokers, and CEOs. This is "unreasonable searches and seizures" disquised as taxes.
On the other hand, what I propose in fact prevents this sort of abuse by making it functionally impossible to launder money or purchase illegal goods or services in any way.
Again, "unreasonable" and "probable" are relative terms. Without some reference point, they mean nothing.
"unreasonable" relative to what? As stated, it is unreasonable for us to continue to attempt to exist as a civilization whereby such a degree of corruption exists.
News flash: The "honor system" hasn't worked ever since the Garden of Eden.
By the way, the technical usage, "geometric" has two common usages.
The geometric series
S = 1/2 + 1/4 + ....+ 1/n
the other usage is "geometric growth". That is, in time T a system doubles in size, etc.
While my usage of "geometric" was not technically correct, functionally it doesn't make a difference. Erase the tax gap and you erase the deficit. Erase the deficit and you erase the debt. Erase the debt, you have no interest owed. Erase the interest and you have more spending money and can lower the taxes at the same time.
The geometric series
S = 1/2 + 1/4 + ....+ 1/n
the other usage is "geometric growth". That is, in time T a system doubles in size, etc.
While my usage of "geometric" was not technically correct, functionally it doesn't make a difference. Erase the tax gap and you erase the deficit. Erase the deficit and you erase the debt. Erase the debt, you have no interest owed. Erase the interest and you have more spending money and can lower the taxes at the same time.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Aug 23 2009, 10:08 PM)
radioactive waste can be disposed easily and safely by dropping it to the bottom of the challenger deep, the fastest subducting zone on earth, or by shipping it into the sun or a gas giant.
Wow, that's a stupid idea. Let's irradiate the ocean! Great idea! It's not like we've already been polluting it for hundreds of years or anything!
Again, you're an idiot. It's in the bill of rights. It's the supreme court's job to interpret what those words mean. Have you not heard that there are 3 branches of government?
I'm not even going to address the logic of that extremely flawed political statement. Let's just say that it was based completely and utterly on ignorance. Have you been watching Fox News? Glenn Beck?
(edit)
By the way, the bailout policy was a Republican idea, in case your incredibly short memory has failed you.
Wow, that's a stupid idea. Let's irradiate the ocean! Great idea! It's not like we've already been polluting it for hundreds of years or anything!
QUOTE
Its actually sad that this ammendment got passed with such nebulous, relative terminology.
"unreasonable" and "probable cause" say nothing at all.
Define "unreasonable".
"unreasonable" and "probable cause" say nothing at all.
Define "unreasonable".
Again, you're an idiot. It's in the bill of rights. It's the supreme court's job to interpret what those words mean. Have you not heard that there are 3 branches of government?
I'm not even going to address the logic of that extremely flawed political statement. Let's just say that it was based completely and utterly on ignorance. Have you been watching Fox News? Glenn Beck?
(edit)
By the way, the bailout policy was a Republican idea, in case your incredibly short memory has failed you.
Alternatively regarding radioactive waste, it can simply be stored "in orbit" in the outter solar system until mankind later discovers a use for it.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 23 2009, 09:21 PM)
Wow, that's a stupid idea. Let's irradiate the ocean! Great idea! It's not like we've already been polluting it for hundreds of years or anything!
Again, you're an idiot. It's in the bill of rights. It's the supreme court's job to interpret what those words mean. Have you not heard that there are 3 branches of government?
I'm not even going to address the logic of that extremely flawed political statement. Let's just say that it was based completely and utterly on ignorance. Have you been watching Fox News? Glenn Beck?
(edit)
By the way, the bailout policy was a Republican idea, in case your incredibly short memory has failed you.
I know what the bill of rights and constitution are guy. I did graduate as an honor student, after all.
But you have to admit the terminology is pathetically nebulous, and largely meaningless.
Again, you're an idiot. It's in the bill of rights. It's the supreme court's job to interpret what those words mean. Have you not heard that there are 3 branches of government?
I'm not even going to address the logic of that extremely flawed political statement. Let's just say that it was based completely and utterly on ignorance. Have you been watching Fox News? Glenn Beck?
(edit)
By the way, the bailout policy was a Republican idea, in case your incredibly short memory has failed you.
I know what the bill of rights and constitution are guy. I did graduate as an honor student, after all.
But you have to admit the terminology is pathetically nebulous, and largely meaningless.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Aug 23 2009, 10:22 PM)
Alternatively regarding radioactive waste, it can simply be stored "in orbit" in the outter solar system until mankind later discovers a use for it.
Wow, even dumber!
1) The price to send something into orbit is extremely expensive.
2) I'm not looking forward to being irradiated from orbit.
3) I'm not looking forward to radioactive meteorites.
4) Superman IV was a dumb movie.
Wow, even dumber!
1) The price to send something into orbit is extremely expensive.
2) I'm not looking forward to being irradiated from orbit.
3) I'm not looking forward to radioactive meteorites.
4) Superman IV was a dumb movie.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Aug 23 2009, 10:24 PM)
I know what the bill of rights and constitution are guy. I did graduate as an honor student, after all.
But you have to admit the terminology is pathetically nebulous, and largely meaningless.
Since there's no way in hell that you graduated from any respectable college with "honors" I have to assume that you are talking about high school. Is your highest level of education seriously high school?
But you have to admit the terminology is pathetically nebulous, and largely meaningless.
Since there's no way in hell that you graduated from any respectable college with "honors" I have to assume that you are talking about high school. Is your highest level of education seriously high school?
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 24 2009, 02:30 AM)
Since there's no way in hell that you graduated from any respectable college with "honors" I have to assume that you are talking about high school. Is your highest level of education seriously high school?
Hey man, this imbecilic wrist-shake even flunked kindergarten ..... his zenith, diploma-wise, must surely be an A* in fucked-up reasoning.
Hey man, this imbecilic wrist-shake even flunked kindergarten ..... his zenith, diploma-wise, must surely be an A* in fucked-up reasoning.
QUOTE
the other usage is "geometric growth". That is, in time T a system doubles in size, etc.
No. The word you want is exponential growth.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| the other usage is "geometric growth". That is, in time T a system doubles in size, etc. |
No. The word you want is exponential growth.
(Quantum_Conundrum @ Aug 23 2009, 10:24 PM)
I know what the bill of rights and constitution are guy. I did graduate as an honor student, after all.
He's english, and so could not be expected to know anything about the american system.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 23 2009, 09:26 PM)
Wow, even dumber!
1) The price to send something into orbit is extremely expensive.
2) I'm not looking forward to being irradiated from orbit.
3) I'm not looking forward to radioactive meteorites.
4) Superman IV was a dumb movie.
1) Only because we are still using fuels that make no sense. Price is relative and is based on economic model and technology available. If we had nuclear power and electric automotive infrastructure, most of the materials and resources related to rocketry would become cheaper than dirt, much as the value of Salt dropped from as much as seven times its weight in Gold to its present price, because of the various salt domes that have been discovered in the U.S. and elsewhere, and because of refrigeration.
If you have nuclear power and electrical vehicles oil becomes worthless.
2) "Outter Solar System" is lost on you isn't it? Wow, last time I checked, Pluto and virtually all comets are still way the hell away from us and in no danger of hitting us.
3) Many meteorites are already radiactive in some degree. They are, after all, composed of heavy metals and stony materials.
4) I agree.
1) The price to send something into orbit is extremely expensive.
2) I'm not looking forward to being irradiated from orbit.
3) I'm not looking forward to radioactive meteorites.
4) Superman IV was a dumb movie.
1) Only because we are still using fuels that make no sense. Price is relative and is based on economic model and technology available. If we had nuclear power and electric automotive infrastructure, most of the materials and resources related to rocketry would become cheaper than dirt, much as the value of Salt dropped from as much as seven times its weight in Gold to its present price, because of the various salt domes that have been discovered in the U.S. and elsewhere, and because of refrigeration.
If you have nuclear power and electrical vehicles oil becomes worthless.
2) "Outter Solar System" is lost on you isn't it? Wow, last time I checked, Pluto and virtually all comets are still way the hell away from us and in no danger of hitting us.
3) Many meteorites are already radiactive in some degree. They are, after all, composed of heavy metals and stony materials.
4) I agree.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Aug 24 2009, 09:19 AM)
1) Only because we are still using fuels that make no sense. Price is relative and is based on economic model and technology available. If we had nuclear power and electric automotive infrastructure, most of the materials and resources related to rocketry would become cheaper than dirt, much as the value of Salt dropped from as much as seven times its weight in Gold to its present price, because of the various salt domes that have been discovered in the U.S. and elsewhere, and because of refrigeration.
If you have nuclear power and electrical vehicles oil becomes worthless.
2) "Outter Solar System" is lost on you isn't it? Wow, last time I checked, Pluto and virtually all comets are still way the hell away from us and in no danger of hitting us.
So you think that if we use less fossil fuels, the price for rocket fuel will decrease? ***? Rockets don't burn gasoline, the space shuttle uses aluminum powder and hydrogen. Some propellants are fossil-fuel-based, but the majority are not.
The reason why going to space is so costly is because rockets are extremely expensive to build. You would be spending almost $1 billion to send one rocket to the outer solar system. It is simply a stupid idea to launch tons and tons of highly radioactive waste into space.
If you have nuclear power and electrical vehicles oil becomes worthless.
2) "Outter Solar System" is lost on you isn't it? Wow, last time I checked, Pluto and virtually all comets are still way the hell away from us and in no danger of hitting us.
So you think that if we use less fossil fuels, the price for rocket fuel will decrease? ***? Rockets don't burn gasoline, the space shuttle uses aluminum powder and hydrogen. Some propellants are fossil-fuel-based, but the majority are not.
The reason why going to space is so costly is because rockets are extremely expensive to build. You would be spending almost $1 billion to send one rocket to the outer solar system. It is simply a stupid idea to launch tons and tons of highly radioactive waste into space.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Aug 23 2009, 05:28 PM)
[In This Age Of Technology And Automation, Why the hell]
Are we still living as though it were the beginning of the industrial revolution or something?
Simple answer: We aren't.
No, we don't.
No, we don't.
We have this technology in many, many fields right now, and yet we do not actually do it and make it happen. Why?
Because we don't have that technology.
But the cost would be prohibitive and it would introduce numerous security issues. Contrary to your claim, it would not eliminate all fraud. It would just make fraud easier, because you wouldn't need paper receipts. It would also violate numerous privacy laws, and as fbm pointed out, the fourth amendment.
But the cost would be prohibitive and it would introduce numerous security issues. Contrary to your claim, it would not eliminate all fraud. It would just make fraud easier, because you wouldn't need paper receipts. It would also violate numerous privacy laws, and as fbm pointed out, the fourth amendment.
Why are we STILL shipping wealth overseas for oil and other fossil fuels when North America has enough deposits of fissionable material to last the entire earth population for billions of years, longer than the expected life span of the sun?
1. The cost of mining all that material is prohibitive.
2. The cost of building all those nuclear power plants is prohibitive.
3. The cost of disposing of all that nuclear waste is prohibitive.
4. Neo-luddites think nuclear power is more dangerous than it actually is, and neo-luddites are much better propagandists than the scientifically literate among us.
No, it isn't.
No, it isn't.
and we would have absolutely no need for any fossil fuels,
Yes, we would.
Space flight and rocketry tend not to use fossil fuels.
Space flight and rocketry tend not to use fossil fuels.
Why are we still screwing around with economic models based on archaic technologies and fuel sources?
Modern economic models tend to be less than 50 years old, a far cry from "archaic".
Are we still living as though it were the beginning of the industrial revolution or something?
Simple answer: We aren't.
QUOTE
WE have the technology to do "The Jetsons", where the only work anyone does is tell a robot what to do.
No, we don't.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| WE have the technology to do "The Jetsons", where the only work anyone does is tell a robot what to do. |
No, we don't.
We have this technology in many, many fields right now, and yet we do not actually do it and make it happen. Why?
Because we don't have that technology.
QUOTE
100% digitized currency with an automated accounting system would exponentially reduce the number of accountants and tax preparers needed.
These would only be needed to ensure the system is working properly, much as any "quality control" worker today. This allows all taxes, credits, deductions, insurance claims and losses to be processed by one centralized system, eliminating all fraud and tax evasion.
These would only be needed to ensure the system is working properly, much as any "quality control" worker today. This allows all taxes, credits, deductions, insurance claims and losses to be processed by one centralized system, eliminating all fraud and tax evasion.
But the cost would be prohibitive and it would introduce numerous security issues. Contrary to your claim, it would not eliminate all fraud. It would just make fraud easier, because you wouldn't need paper receipts. It would also violate numerous privacy laws, and as fbm pointed out, the fourth amendment.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 100% digitized currency with an automated accounting system would exponentially reduce the number of accountants and tax preparers needed. These would only be needed to ensure the system is working properly, much as any "quality control" worker today. This allows all taxes, credits, deductions, insurance claims and losses to be processed by one centralized system, eliminating all fraud and tax evasion. |
But the cost would be prohibitive and it would introduce numerous security issues. Contrary to your claim, it would not eliminate all fraud. It would just make fraud easier, because you wouldn't need paper receipts. It would also violate numerous privacy laws, and as fbm pointed out, the fourth amendment.
Why are we STILL shipping wealth overseas for oil and other fossil fuels when North America has enough deposits of fissionable material to last the entire earth population for billions of years, longer than the expected life span of the sun?
1. The cost of mining all that material is prohibitive.
2. The cost of building all those nuclear power plants is prohibitive.
3. The cost of disposing of all that nuclear waste is prohibitive.
4. Neo-luddites think nuclear power is more dangerous than it actually is, and neo-luddites are much better propagandists than the scientifically literate among us.
QUOTE
If we made nuclear power plants the energy is virtually limitless
No, it isn't.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If we made nuclear power plants the energy is virtually limitless |
No, it isn't.
and we would have absolutely no need for any fossil fuels,
Yes, we would.
QUOTE
except perhaps in applications which need very high energy density whereby portable electric motors wouldn't be good enough (rocketry and space flight are among the few things I can think of.)
Space flight and rocketry tend not to use fossil fuels.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| except perhaps in applications which need very high energy density whereby portable electric motors wouldn't be good enough (rocketry and space flight are among the few things I can think of.) |
Space flight and rocketry tend not to use fossil fuels.
Why are we still screwing around with economic models based on archaic technologies and fuel sources?
Modern economic models tend to be less than 50 years old, a far cry from "archaic".
It's really hard for me to believe that the only drive/propulsion system some of the smartest people in the world still use is a really 'souped' up campfire in a can. I have a hard time buying it. Why haven't we been back to the moon yet?
Launch "waste" to the moon ... store it there or relaunch it into the sun. Still need raw material for w/e? Stop mountain topping, and if you really care to know ... look it up it's the most destructive/pollutant mining technique used.
"Moon-base, this is payload 789 coming in with 5000 metric tons of ore from the asteroid belt." Refine material on the moon, process it there as much as could be done, and toss it on the space elevator? To me, that's where we should be moving, not figuring better ways to sweep problems under the rug so "we" don't have to deal with them now, and someone else will have to deal with them later.
Of course, this would all depend on us making it to that point, and at times ... it's hard to look to the future when it seems impossible for us to have come this far in the first place.
Launch "waste" to the moon ... store it there or relaunch it into the sun. Still need raw material for w/e? Stop mountain topping, and if you really care to know ... look it up it's the most destructive/pollutant mining technique used.
"Moon-base, this is payload 789 coming in with 5000 metric tons of ore from the asteroid belt." Refine material on the moon, process it there as much as could be done, and toss it on the space elevator? To me, that's where we should be moving, not figuring better ways to sweep problems under the rug so "we" don't have to deal with them now, and someone else will have to deal with them later.
Of course, this would all depend on us making it to that point, and at times ... it's hard to look to the future when it seems impossible for us to have come this far in the first place.
QUOTE (Meem+Aug 24 2009, 02:01 PM)
It's really hard for me to believe that the only drive/propulsion system some of the smartest people in the world still use is a really 'souped' up campfire in a can. I have a hard time buying it. Why haven't we been back to the moon yet?
Launch "waste" to the moon ... store it there or relaunch it into the sun. Still need raw material for w/e? Stop mountain topping, and if you really care to know ... look it up it's the most destructive/pollutant mining technique used.
"Moon-base, this is payload 789 coming in with 5000 metric tons of ore from the asteroid belt." Refine material on the moon, process it there as much as could be done, and toss it on the space elevator? To me, that's where we should be moving, not figuring better ways to sweep problems under the rug so "we" don't have to deal with them now, and someone else will have to deal with them later.
Of course, this would all depend on us making it to that point, and at times ... it's hard to look to the future when it seems impossible for us to have come this far in the first place.
Do you even understand why there are limitations? For a space elevator, the key component is the cable. It has to be extremely lightweight so it can be carried upward in a spacecraft, it has to be ~144,000 km in length, and it has to be "climbable." Even carbon nanotubes don't meet those requirements.
Launch "waste" to the moon ... store it there or relaunch it into the sun. Still need raw material for w/e? Stop mountain topping, and if you really care to know ... look it up it's the most destructive/pollutant mining technique used.
"Moon-base, this is payload 789 coming in with 5000 metric tons of ore from the asteroid belt." Refine material on the moon, process it there as much as could be done, and toss it on the space elevator? To me, that's where we should be moving, not figuring better ways to sweep problems under the rug so "we" don't have to deal with them now, and someone else will have to deal with them later.
Of course, this would all depend on us making it to that point, and at times ... it's hard to look to the future when it seems impossible for us to have come this far in the first place.
Do you even understand why there are limitations? For a space elevator, the key component is the cable. It has to be extremely lightweight so it can be carried upward in a spacecraft, it has to be ~144,000 km in length, and it has to be "climbable." Even carbon nanotubes don't meet those requirements.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 24 2009, 01:21 PM)
Do you even understand why there are limitations? For a space elevator, the key component is the cable. It has to be extremely lightweight so it can be carried upward in a spacecraft, it has to be ~144,000 km in length, and it has to be "climbable." Even carbon nanotubes don't meet those requirements.
This is why you don't make moon bases or planetary colonies at all. You make fully self contained environments in space stations which harvest and process asteroids directly.
IN a space station build from scratch, and I mean an ARCHOLOGY SIZED space station, (not some tin can in low orbit) every imaginable thing can be created in a perfectly uniform, modular manner which is automated whenever possible. You have no terrain to worry about; No weather, none of that. Crops and recycling systems exist onboard to provide whatever food and services your workers need, and whenever possible, work is done by automated systems and ROVs. Crops are planted and harvested by robots on an inverted rail system above the crop itself. This entire space station is assisted by automated spacecraft and ROVs which travel into the middle and outter solar system collecting asteroids and comets according to their composition, and bring them back to be processed for resources(organic compounds for the biosphere, metals and etc, for tools and exports to the earth.)
OF COURSE THIS COSTS A HELL OF A LOT AT FIRST.
The deal is, you only have to pay that cost one time. Once you have one of such stations in space, the earth NEVER need pay any liftoff cost again, as all fuels and resources are harvested from space. The net return on the investment is...well...astronomical...
....or we can all just sit on this rock until everyone dies and everyone's decendants die...
This is why you don't make moon bases or planetary colonies at all. You make fully self contained environments in space stations which harvest and process asteroids directly.
IN a space station build from scratch, and I mean an ARCHOLOGY SIZED space station, (not some tin can in low orbit) every imaginable thing can be created in a perfectly uniform, modular manner which is automated whenever possible. You have no terrain to worry about; No weather, none of that. Crops and recycling systems exist onboard to provide whatever food and services your workers need, and whenever possible, work is done by automated systems and ROVs. Crops are planted and harvested by robots on an inverted rail system above the crop itself. This entire space station is assisted by automated spacecraft and ROVs which travel into the middle and outter solar system collecting asteroids and comets according to their composition, and bring them back to be processed for resources(organic compounds for the biosphere, metals and etc, for tools and exports to the earth.)
OF COURSE THIS COSTS A HELL OF A LOT AT FIRST.
The deal is, you only have to pay that cost one time. Once you have one of such stations in space, the earth NEVER need pay any liftoff cost again, as all fuels and resources are harvested from space. The net return on the investment is...well...astronomical...
....or we can all just sit on this rock until everyone dies and everyone's decendants die...
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Aug 24 2009, 02:04 PM)
This is why you don't make moon bases or planetary colonies at all. You make fully self contained environments in space stations which harvest and process asteroids directly.
Do you have any idea how stupid a suggestion this actually is?
Do you have any idea how stupid a suggestion this actually is?
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Aug 24 2009, 03:52 PM)
Do you have any idea how stupid a suggestion this actually is?
How thick do you think the armor would have to be to avoid being pulverized?
How thick do you think the armor would have to be to avoid being pulverized?
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 24 2009, 02:56 PM)
How thick do you think the armor would have to be to avoid being pulverized?
A couple of feet, easily.
That's not the only problem, either.
A couple of feet, easily.
That's not the only problem, either.
Do you have any idea how stupid you two are?
What part of robots and ROVs didn't you read?
Oh wait, you thought I meant fly a building sized base into an asteroid field....wow, my bad, didn't realize you "geniuses" were so dense...
What part of robots and ROVs didn't you read?
Oh wait, you thought I meant fly a building sized base into an asteroid field....wow, my bad, didn't realize you "geniuses" were so dense...
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Aug 24 2009, 05:09 PM)
Do you have any idea how stupid you two are?
What part of robots and ROVs didn't you read?
Oh wait, you thought I meant fly a building sized base into an asteroid field....wow, my bad, didn't realize you "geniuses" were so dense...
You yourself suggesting mining asteroids. The asteroids worth mining would be very large and have a substantial amount of gravity. Large rocks bumping into each other is not a safe environment, even for a robot. Why would you even want to go that far away? What's wrong with the moon?
What part of robots and ROVs didn't you read?
Oh wait, you thought I meant fly a building sized base into an asteroid field....wow, my bad, didn't realize you "geniuses" were so dense...
You yourself suggesting mining asteroids. The asteroids worth mining would be very large and have a substantial amount of gravity. Large rocks bumping into each other is not a safe environment, even for a robot. Why would you even want to go that far away? What's wrong with the moon?
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 24 2009, 04:18 PM)
The asteroids worth mining would be very large and have a substantial amount of gravity. Large rocks bumping into each other is not a safe environment, even for a robot.
QUOTE
http://www.planetary.org/explore/topics/asteroids_and_comets/ceres.html
Ceres, the first asteroid to be discovered, is by far the largest and most massive body in the main asteroid belt. In fact, it comprises about a third of the total mass of the entire main belt. Its size and mass are sufficient to give it a spherical shape, like the planets. However, it is still much smaller than any of the planets, similar in size to Saturn’s medium-sized moons Tethys and Dione. Because of its small size, it does not have sufficient gravitational influence to have cleared its neighborhood of other, smaller bodies in similar orbits, so under the International Astronomical Union's new definition scheme Ceres is considered to be a "dwarf planet," and may very likely be the only dwarf planet in the asteroid belt.
Ceres, the first asteroid to be discovered, is by far the largest and most massive body in the main asteroid belt. In fact, it comprises about a third of the total mass of the entire main belt. Its size and mass are sufficient to give it a spherical shape, like the planets. However, it is still much smaller than any of the planets, similar in size to Saturn’s medium-sized moons Tethys and Dione. Because of its small size, it does not have sufficient gravitational influence to have cleared its neighborhood of other, smaller bodies in similar orbits, so under the International Astronomical Union's new definition scheme Ceres is considered to be a "dwarf planet," and may very likely be the only dwarf planet in the asteroid belt.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 24 2009, 01:21 PM)
Do you even understand why there are limitations? For a space elevator, the key component is the cable. It has to be extremely lightweight so it can be carried upward in a spacecraft, it has to be ~144,000 km in length, and it has to be "climbable." Even carbon nanotubes don't meet those requirements.
I guess it's too hard a of a problem to re-think. Good thing you're not a scientist. I would have to wonder why ... we are so far away from a beam powered and guided device, and not a cable or hydraulic system. Focused beam microwave power ... from the earth/moon and back again. It's possible ... possibly. Saw a demo/experiment on power transfer with focused microwave beams. In a small field test I think they where reading good numbers over 5 (maybe even 10) miles away. and when I say small, I mean "garage-built" equipment.
Are you certain that it can't be done? I am uncertain that it cannot, in principle.
I guess it's too hard a of a problem to re-think. Good thing you're not a scientist. I would have to wonder why ... we are so far away from a beam powered and guided device, and not a cable or hydraulic system. Focused beam microwave power ... from the earth/moon and back again. It's possible ... possibly. Saw a demo/experiment on power transfer with focused microwave beams. In a small field test I think they where reading good numbers over 5 (maybe even 10) miles away. and when I say small, I mean "garage-built" equipment.
Are you certain that it can't be done? I am uncertain that it cannot, in principle.
QUOTE (Meem+Aug 25 2009, 01:55 PM)
I guess it's too hard a of a problem to re-think. Good thing you're not a scientist.
It's not too hard, but we probably won't have the technology for another 20 years, and then another 20 years to plan and build a space elevator.
Are you suggesting an electric rocket? Would you care to explain how that would work?
Are you suggesting an electric rocket? Would you care to explain how that would work?
Focused beam microwave power ... from the earth/moon and back again. It's possible ... possibly. Saw a demo/experiment on power transfer with focused microwave beams. In a small field test I think they where reading good numbers over 5 (maybe even 10) miles away. and when I say small, I mean "garage-built" equipment.
Solar energy is actually a very good power source in space thanks to the lack of atmosphere. Part of the problem with microwave power transfer is the method of collection.
God you are stupid. If the robot is moving in roughly the same orbit as the stuff it is miniing, then nothing is going to be moving that fast relative to it. Well, some dust and things might.
Robots and ROVs repair robots and ROVs.
You guys are such skeptics you hardly believe anything at all is possible. Its a shame.
God you are stupid. If the robot is moving in roughly the same orbit as the stuff it is miniing, then nothing is going to be moving that fast relative to it. Well, some dust and things might.
Robots and ROVs repair robots and ROVs.
You guys are such skeptics you hardly believe anything at all is possible. Its a shame.
You said "You make fully self contained environments in space stations which harvest and process asteroids directly."
You are a lying sack of monkey crap, Quantum_Cumdumpster, and you're too stupid to lie in a way we can't easily prove. I didn't even have to go back a page to find the proof.
Read that post in its entirety, idiot, particularly this section:
You guys seriously have a an integrity problem.
"The guy" is one of the leading theoretical physicists and positive futurists alive...idiot...
The Kardasheve scale was not invented for science fiction, though it is true that science fiction often uses it.
The part about the mass needed to make a Dyson Sphere is not true either, nor is your definition of a type 2 civilization complete.
Estimates have been done which show that a Dyson Sphere approximately 3 meters thick can be constructed around the sun using the materials from the planets, asteroids, and comets. This is not sufficient for human life. However, nobody ever said one MUST make a single solid dyson sphere. You can make a Dyson Ring around a star, do this for enough stars and you equal a "true" dyson sphere.
In addition, nobody ever said the "entire" structure needed to be habitable. as much as 90-99% of it might be purely for energy and material harvesting purposes.
A type 2 civilization doesn't required a Dyson Sphere technically. They require enough energy to equal one true Dyson Sphere.
"The guy" is one of the leading theoretical physicists and positive futurists alive...idiot...
The Kardasheve scale was not invented for science fiction, though it is true that science fiction often uses it.
The part about the mass needed to make a Dyson Sphere is not true either, nor is your definition of a type 2 civilization complete.
Estimates have been done which show that a Dyson Sphere approximately 3 meters thick can be constructed around the sun using the materials from the planets, asteroids, and comets. This is not sufficient for human life. However, nobody ever said one MUST make a single solid dyson sphere. You can make a Dyson Ring around a star, do this for enough stars and you equal a "true" dyson sphere.
In addition, nobody ever said the "entire" structure needed to be habitable. as much as 90-99% of it might be purely for energy and material harvesting purposes.
A type 2 civilization doesn't required a Dyson Sphere technically. They require enough energy to equal one true Dyson Sphere.
I have an excellent job for you! There's this old nuclear power plant that needs a little concrete work. I will pay you $1 million if you can successfully enter the power plant and carry out an inspection of the concrete superstructure. Sound like a good idea? The plant hasn't been active in 23 years, so you should be perfectly safe. The plant resides next to a beautiful town that is really in tune with nature. During your stay, you can sleep at the beautiful Chernobyl Hotel! Interested?
Nice scare tactic. The Chernobyl accident was because of a design flaw, which is known and fixable.
No, science fact. They have already been proven doable. There simply isn't a government willing to do it because idiots like you would rather we all go back to the stone age.
No, science fact. They have already been proven doable. There simply isn't a government willing to do it because idiots like you would rather we all go back to the stone age.
Did you perhaps ask how much these machines cost? Did you perhaps think that the average human could not afford one of those machines? I doubt that most millionaires could afford one.
They paid for themselves in man-hours, in some cases in as little as one or two days.
On average, an entire production line was about one million dollars. The automated systems pertaining to an entire such production line pay for themselves in man-hours in at most a few weeks, as compared to paying workers to do similar tasks. Each line produces over one million dollars worth of product(purchase price to the customer,) in a single week.
One computer programmer and one or two maintenance techs can program and maintain robots, doing the job of dozens, even hundreds of workers.
Systems very similar to what I worked with there could be adapted to all sorts of purposes that people like you simply do not even consider: accident-free transportation, farming, asteroid mining and processing, many other things.
Early on of course there would be outside intervention. Additionally, some of the "outside intervention" comes from the material being mined from the asteriods and comets themselves.
Taht is, comets have lots of water ice. Pluto has lots of water-ice. Several of saturn and jupiter's moons have lots of water-ice. Water is H2O which means we can get Oxygen to replenish the oxygen supplies in the air....from the same place we are getting water to drink and to feed to plants....very nice.
Early on of course there would be outside intervention. Additionally, some of the "outside intervention" comes from the material being mined from the asteriods and comets themselves.
Taht is, comets have lots of water ice. Pluto has lots of water-ice. Several of saturn and jupiter's moons have lots of water-ice. Water is H2O which means we can get Oxygen to replenish the oxygen supplies in the air....from the same place we are getting water to drink and to feed to plants....very nice.
Also, I don't understand why exactly we would want to put an Arcology in space. If its weather or terrain we are worried about, there are plenty of places on earth with both stable weather and good terrain.
How would crops grown in space be transported back to Earth?
Crops grown in space are used by people in space. Raw materials harvested in space are processed and shipped to earth(this can be as simple as a parachute in some cases, as in the Apollo missions), or goods produced from those materials are shipped to earth.
Living quarters are needed because humans are never operationally obsolete. You still need people to program and maintain robots when robots can't program and maintain one another. And of course humans are populating other planets in the solar system as well(moon, mars.)
Growing crops in space to be consumed in space is cheaper than growing crops on earth to be consumed in space. Additionally, eventually people will colonize mars and the moon, and this space station will be able to much more efficiently trade with those civilizations compared to the earth trading with them directly. Etiher way, earth still eventually benefits in material resources and information technology(if humans populated other planets thats more brains and more computers. More brains and computers = more problem solving = more technology).
Growing crops in space to be consumed in space is cheaper than growing crops on earth to be consumed in space. Additionally, eventually people will colonize mars and the moon, and this space station will be able to much more efficiently trade with those civilizations compared to the earth trading with them directly. Etiher way, earth still eventually benefits in material resources and information technology(if humans populated other planets thats more brains and more computers. More brains and computers = more problem solving = more technology).
Processing asteroids and comets is not even experimental, it is only conceptual at present.
Even if all of this technology were available, the amount of surface area needed to grow enough crops to feed a million people (the current world population is around 7 billion) would probably need a space station the size of several thousand square miles.
---Which is an insignificant size compared to the number of resources available in the asteroids, comets, and dwarf planets... There are thousands of times more material available than would be needed for this megastructure, and large quantities of this eventually benefits earth directly, easily paying for earth's investment in the project with, as stated, eventually astronomical returns, both numerically and literally.
Well, you are guessing wrongly then, as I worked only in production at first, and then later quality assurance.
Well, you are guessing wrongly then, as I worked only in production at first, and then later quality assurance.
Then I must agree with FBM.
QA is non value added. So why did they have it?
Is it because things don't work as well as you think they do?
I am curious how someone can have your views after working QA.
It's not too hard, but we probably won't have the technology for another 20 years, and then another 20 years to plan and build a space elevator.
QUOTE
I would have to wonder why ... we are so far away from a beam powered and guided device, and not a cable or hydraulic system.
Are you suggesting an electric rocket? Would you care to explain how that would work?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I would have to wonder why ... we are so far away from a beam powered and guided device, and not a cable or hydraulic system. |
Are you suggesting an electric rocket? Would you care to explain how that would work?
Focused beam microwave power ... from the earth/moon and back again. It's possible ... possibly. Saw a demo/experiment on power transfer with focused microwave beams. In a small field test I think they where reading good numbers over 5 (maybe even 10) miles away. and when I say small, I mean "garage-built" equipment.
Solar energy is actually a very good power source in space thanks to the lack of atmosphere. Part of the problem with microwave power transfer is the method of collection.
1) I don't believe in that 20 years lingo, 40 years ago (now it is today) we were supposed to have flying cars, where TF is mine ... you know? Honestly, I couldn't imagine what that would be like .... "Air Rage?" My humble opinion of technology in general is, there is more than likely a lot of "good-cheap-clean" stuff out there but ... it slices into people's money/power and ... in the wrongs hands of some-could more than likely be very dangerous. But that's just me being realistic or paranoid.
2) Yes, I think it's possible according to some of the science which is currently out there that I am barely aware of. But as so reminded, I am not a scientist, but I do like to try and get the "real" ones to think. So maybe I will write a "science-fiction questionnaire" for a few.
3) By method of collection you mean in "space/structure?" The moon? I still think .... (I know that's dangerous just try to resist the comments for two seconds)
N.A.S.A. trying to use a one material tether seems like a mistake. I would use carbon-nano for "shielding," silicon-nano for "insulation," and the new aluminum stuff for the "core strength." One material is so ... analog ... they need to go digital high-speed internet .... ya ... I know. I'll shut up now.
2) Yes, I think it's possible according to some of the science which is currently out there that I am barely aware of. But as so reminded, I am not a scientist, but I do like to try and get the "real" ones to think. So maybe I will write a "science-fiction questionnaire" for a few.
3) By method of collection you mean in "space/structure?" The moon? I still think .... (I know that's dangerous just try to resist the comments for two seconds)
N.A.S.A. trying to use a one material tether seems like a mistake. I would use carbon-nano for "shielding," silicon-nano for "insulation," and the new aluminum stuff for the "core strength." One material is so ... analog ... they need to go digital high-speed internet .... ya ... I know. I'll shut up now.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Aug 24 2009, 04:09 PM)
Do you have any idea how stupid you two are?
What part of robots and ROVs didn't you read?
Who would fix the robots when they break, dumbass? And they will break, if they're mining asteroids. You see, big asteroids tend to be surrounded by millions and millions of small asteroids. They all tend to be moving very very fast, even relative to each other. So when a 1 cubic foot asteroid smashes into a robot at 600 miles per hour, that robot will break, no matter what it's made out of, or how advanced it's AI is.
You said "You make fully self contained environments in space stations which harvest and process asteroids directly."
You are a lying sack of monkey crap, Quantum_Cumdumpster, and you're too stupid to lie in a way we can't easily prove. I didn't even have to go back a page to find the proof.
What part of robots and ROVs didn't you read?
Who would fix the robots when they break, dumbass? And they will break, if they're mining asteroids. You see, big asteroids tend to be surrounded by millions and millions of small asteroids. They all tend to be moving very very fast, even relative to each other. So when a 1 cubic foot asteroid smashes into a robot at 600 miles per hour, that robot will break, no matter what it's made out of, or how advanced it's AI is.
QUOTE
Oh wait, you thought I meant fly a building sized base into an asteroid field....wow, my bad, didn't realize you "geniuses" were so dense...
You said "You make fully self contained environments in space stations which harvest and process asteroids directly."
You are a lying sack of monkey crap, Quantum_Cumdumpster, and you're too stupid to lie in a way we can't easily prove. I didn't even have to go back a page to find the proof.
QUOTE (Meem+Aug 25 2009, 02:17 PM)
2) Yes, I think it's possible according to some of the science which is currently out there that I am barely aware of. But as so reminded, I am not a scientist, but I do like to try and get the "real" ones to think. So maybe I will write a "science-fiction questionnaire" for a few.
Rockets work because the force of the expanding gasses in the combustion chamber are equalized in all but one direction. The sides of the rocket engine all get the same amount of force, balancing it out. The top and bottom are unequal, resulting in upward force. The rocket wouldn't work without mass the throw out the back. It can't push off of anything, so unless we start using solar sails or using nuclear blasts for propulsion, we are stuck with the current design.
Check out the ion thruster: Ion Thruster
It's the closest thing we have to an electric rocket.
Oh jesus. The difficulty with the tether is that it needs to fit in a spaceship, stretch for a hundred thousand miles, and be strong enough to hold up a building. If we ever get that to work, I think it will be by sending it up by some other method like mass driver.
Rockets work because the force of the expanding gasses in the combustion chamber are equalized in all but one direction. The sides of the rocket engine all get the same amount of force, balancing it out. The top and bottom are unequal, resulting in upward force. The rocket wouldn't work without mass the throw out the back. It can't push off of anything, so unless we start using solar sails or using nuclear blasts for propulsion, we are stuck with the current design.
Check out the ion thruster: Ion Thruster
It's the closest thing we have to an electric rocket.
QUOTE
3) By method of collection you mean in "space/structure?" The moon? I still think .... (I know that's dangerous just try to resist the comments for two seconds)
N.A.S.A. trying to use a one material tether seems like a mistake. I would use carbon-nano for "shielding," silicon-nano for "insulation," and the new aluminum stuff for the "core strength." One material is so ... analog ... they need to go digital high-speed internet .... ya ... I know. I'll shut up now.
N.A.S.A. trying to use a one material tether seems like a mistake. I would use carbon-nano for "shielding," silicon-nano for "insulation," and the new aluminum stuff for the "core strength." One material is so ... analog ... they need to go digital high-speed internet .... ya ... I know. I'll shut up now.
Oh jesus. The difficulty with the tether is that it needs to fit in a spaceship, stretch for a hundred thousand miles, and be strong enough to hold up a building. If we ever get that to work, I think it will be by sending it up by some other method like mass driver.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Aug 25 2009, 01:27 PM)
QUOTE
Who would fix the robots when they break, dumbass? And they will break, if they're mining asteroids. You see, big asteroids tend to be surrounded by millions and millions of small asteroids. They all tend to be moving very very fast, even relative to each other. So when a 1 cubic foot asteroid smashes into a robot at 600 miles per hour, that robot will break, no matter what it's made out of, or how advanced it's AI is.
God you are stupid. If the robot is moving in roughly the same orbit as the stuff it is miniing, then nothing is going to be moving that fast relative to it. Well, some dust and things might.
Robots and ROVs repair robots and ROVs.
You guys are such skeptics you hardly believe anything at all is possible. Its a shame.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Who would fix the robots when they break, dumbass? And they will break, if they're mining asteroids. You see, big asteroids tend to be surrounded by millions and millions of small asteroids. They all tend to be moving very very fast, even relative to each other. So when a 1 cubic foot asteroid smashes into a robot at 600 miles per hour, that robot will break, no matter what it's made out of, or how advanced it's AI is. |
God you are stupid. If the robot is moving in roughly the same orbit as the stuff it is miniing, then nothing is going to be moving that fast relative to it. Well, some dust and things might.
Robots and ROVs repair robots and ROVs.
You guys are such skeptics you hardly believe anything at all is possible. Its a shame.
You said "You make fully self contained environments in space stations which harvest and process asteroids directly."
You are a lying sack of monkey crap, Quantum_Cumdumpster, and you're too stupid to lie in a way we can't easily prove. I didn't even have to go back a page to find the proof.
Read that post in its entirety, idiot, particularly this section:
QUOTE
This entire space station is assisted by automated spacecraft and ROVs which travel into the middle and outter solar system collecting asteroids and comets according to their composition, and bring them back to be processed for resources
You guys seriously have a an integrity problem.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Aug 25 2009, 12:34 AM)
This is why you don't make moon bases or planetary colonies at all. You make fully self contained environments in space stations which harvest and process asteroids directly.
IN a space station build from scratch, and I mean an ARCHOLOGY SIZED space station, (not some tin can in low orbit) every imaginable thing can be created in a perfectly uniform, modular manner which is automated whenever possible. You have no terrain to worry about; No weather, none of that. Crops and recycling systems exist onboard to provide whatever food and services your workers need, and whenever possible, work is done by automated systems and ROVs. Crops are planted and harvested by robots on an inverted rail system above the crop itself. This entire space station is assisted by automated spacecraft and ROVs which travel into the middle and outter solar system collecting asteroids and comets according to their composition, and bring them back to be processed for resources(organic compounds for the biosphere, metals and etc, for tools and exports to the earth.)
OF COURSE THIS COSTS A HELL OF A LOT AT FIRST.
The deal is, you only have to pay that cost one time. Once you have one of such stations in space, the earth NEVER need pay any liftoff cost again, as all fuels and resources are harvested from space. The net return on the investment is...well...astronomical...
....or we can all just sit on this rock until everyone dies and everyone's decendants die...
We are not yet advanced to the point of building a completely self sustaining and stable eco system. Previous attempts such as Biosphere 2 have eventually needed outside intervention. Also, I don't understand why exactly we would want to put an Arcology in space. If its weather or terrain we are worried about, there are plenty of places on earth with both stable weather and good terrain.
How would crops grown in space be transported back to Earth? Just the amount of rocket fuel needed to achieve this would make it uneconomical as compared to growing crops on earth. Processing asteroids and comets is not even experimental, it is only conceptual at present.
Even if all of this technology were available, the amount of surface area needed to grow enough crops to feed a million people (the current world population is around 7 billion) would probably need a space station the size of several thousand square miles.
IN a space station build from scratch, and I mean an ARCHOLOGY SIZED space station, (not some tin can in low orbit) every imaginable thing can be created in a perfectly uniform, modular manner which is automated whenever possible. You have no terrain to worry about; No weather, none of that. Crops and recycling systems exist onboard to provide whatever food and services your workers need, and whenever possible, work is done by automated systems and ROVs. Crops are planted and harvested by robots on an inverted rail system above the crop itself. This entire space station is assisted by automated spacecraft and ROVs which travel into the middle and outter solar system collecting asteroids and comets according to their composition, and bring them back to be processed for resources(organic compounds for the biosphere, metals and etc, for tools and exports to the earth.)
OF COURSE THIS COSTS A HELL OF A LOT AT FIRST.
The deal is, you only have to pay that cost one time. Once you have one of such stations in space, the earth NEVER need pay any liftoff cost again, as all fuels and resources are harvested from space. The net return on the investment is...well...astronomical...
....or we can all just sit on this rock until everyone dies and everyone's decendants die...
We are not yet advanced to the point of building a completely self sustaining and stable eco system. Previous attempts such as Biosphere 2 have eventually needed outside intervention. Also, I don't understand why exactly we would want to put an Arcology in space. If its weather or terrain we are worried about, there are plenty of places on earth with both stable weather and good terrain.
How would crops grown in space be transported back to Earth? Just the amount of rocket fuel needed to achieve this would make it uneconomical as compared to growing crops on earth. Processing asteroids and comets is not even experimental, it is only conceptual at present.
Even if all of this technology were available, the amount of surface area needed to grow enough crops to feed a million people (the current world population is around 7 billion) would probably need a space station the size of several thousand square miles.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Aug 25 2009, 04:24 PM)
God you are stupid. If the robot is moving in roughly the same orbit as the stuff it is miniing, then nothing is going to be moving that fast relative to it. Well, some dust and things might.
Have you never studied the asteroid belt? Gravitational fields are continuously accelerating smaller asteroids. Ever heard of a gravitational slingshot? Ever watch freaking Star Wars? What's wrong with you?
That's correct; if an idiot suggests it, I find that it's usually incorrect/not possible.
Have you never studied the asteroid belt? Gravitational fields are continuously accelerating smaller asteroids. Ever heard of a gravitational slingshot? Ever watch freaking Star Wars? What's wrong with you?
QUOTE
You guys are such skeptics you hardly believe anything at all is possible. Its a shame.
That's correct; if an idiot suggests it, I find that it's usually incorrect/not possible.
QUOTE (Meem+Aug 25 2009, 01:17 PM)
1) I don't believe in that 20 years lingo, 40 years ago (now it is today) we were supposed to have flying cars, where TF is mine ... you know? Honestly, I couldn't imagine what that would be like .... "Air Rage?" My humble opinion of technology in general is, there is more than likely a lot of "good-cheap-clean" stuff out there but ... it slices into people's money/power and ... in the wrongs hands of some-could more than likely be very dangerous. But that's just me being realistic or paranoid.
2) Yes, I think it's possible according to some of the science which is currently out there that I am barely aware of. But as so reminded, I am not a scientist, but I do like to try and get the "real" ones to think. So maybe I will write a "science-fiction questionnaire" for a few.
3) By method of collection you mean in "space/structure?" The moon? I still think .... (I know that's dangerous just try to resist the comments for two seconds)
N.A.S.A. trying to use a one material tether seems like a mistake. I would use carbon-nano for "shielding," silicon-nano for "insulation," and the new aluminum stuff for the "core strength." One material is so ... analog ... they need to go digital high-speed internet .... ya ... I know. I'll shut up now.
Meem:
These two are super skeptics about everything.
There are many, many big name physicists who have proposed ideas very much like mine, some of my ideas come from them, some of my ideas are my own.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdILmgJGuvw...rom=PL&index=10
There are several types of nuclear drives which have already been shown to work, but certain treaties forbid further the research and development in those fields, additionally, the liberals have everyone convinced that nuclear waste is some sort of sentient ooze that hunts out humans and kills them or something.
2) Yes, I think it's possible according to some of the science which is currently out there that I am barely aware of. But as so reminded, I am not a scientist, but I do like to try and get the "real" ones to think. So maybe I will write a "science-fiction questionnaire" for a few.
3) By method of collection you mean in "space/structure?" The moon? I still think .... (I know that's dangerous just try to resist the comments for two seconds)
N.A.S.A. trying to use a one material tether seems like a mistake. I would use carbon-nano for "shielding," silicon-nano for "insulation," and the new aluminum stuff for the "core strength." One material is so ... analog ... they need to go digital high-speed internet .... ya ... I know. I'll shut up now.
Meem:
These two are super skeptics about everything.
There are many, many big name physicists who have proposed ideas very much like mine, some of my ideas come from them, some of my ideas are my own.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdILmgJGuvw...rom=PL&index=10
There are several types of nuclear drives which have already been shown to work, but certain treaties forbid further the research and development in those fields, additionally, the liberals have everyone convinced that nuclear waste is some sort of sentient ooze that hunts out humans and kills them or something.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Aug 25 2009, 08:46 PM)
Meem:
There are several types of nuclear drives which have already been shown to work, but certain treaties forbid further the research and development in those fields, additionally, the liberals have everyone convinced that nuclear waste is some sort of sentient ooze that hunts out humans and kills them or something.
Which treaties?
And I read somewhere that there is presently only about 200 years of nuclear fuel available. But I would love to find a source for that.
There are several types of nuclear drives which have already been shown to work, but certain treaties forbid further the research and development in those fields, additionally, the liberals have everyone convinced that nuclear waste is some sort of sentient ooze that hunts out humans and kills them or something.
Which treaties?
And I read somewhere that there is presently only about 200 years of nuclear fuel available. But I would love to find a source for that.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Aug 25 2009, 04:46 PM)
There are many, many big name physicists who have proposed ideas very much like mine, some of my ideas come from them, some of my ideas are my own.
In your video, the guy starts out by describing the Kardashev Scale, which is based more on science fiction than any sort of logical possibility. To build a Kardashev Type 2 civilization, you would have to build a Dyson Sphere. This would require raw material with mass in excess of the sun itself. Good luck with that. Scientists routinely do interviews about science fiction topics in order to get people interested in science. The unfortunate side effect is people like yourself who take it seriously.
I have an excellent job for you! There's this old nuclear power plant that needs a little concrete work. I will pay you $1 million if you can successfully enter the power plant and carry out an inspection of the concrete superstructure. Sound like a good idea? The plant hasn't been active in 23 years, so you should be perfectly safe. The plant resides next to a beautiful town that is really in tune with nature. During your stay, you can sleep at the beautiful Chernobyl Hotel! Interested?
In your video, the guy starts out by describing the Kardashev Scale, which is based more on science fiction than any sort of logical possibility. To build a Kardashev Type 2 civilization, you would have to build a Dyson Sphere. This would require raw material with mass in excess of the sun itself. Good luck with that. Scientists routinely do interviews about science fiction topics in order to get people interested in science. The unfortunate side effect is people like yourself who take it seriously.
QUOTE
There are several types of nuclear drives which have already been shown to work, but certain treaties forbid further the research and development in those fields, additionally, the liberals have everyone convinced that nuclear waste is some sort of sentient ooze that hunts out humans and kills them or something.
I have an excellent job for you! There's this old nuclear power plant that needs a little concrete work. I will pay you $1 million if you can successfully enter the power plant and carry out an inspection of the concrete superstructure. Sound like a good idea? The plant hasn't been active in 23 years, so you should be perfectly safe. The plant resides next to a beautiful town that is really in tune with nature. During your stay, you can sleep at the beautiful Chernobyl Hotel! Interested?
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 25 2009, 03:37 PM)
Have you never studied the asteroid belt? Gravitational fields are continuously accelerating smaller asteroids. Ever heard of a gravitational slingshot? Ever watch freaking Star Wars? What's wrong with you?
That's correct; if an idiot suggests it, I find that it's usually incorrect/not possible.
Yeah whatever. That's why many of the same types of things I have proposed are constantly being proposed by physicists all the time.
I'm definitely not the first person to talk about world ships, space platforms, and Dyson Swarms, after all.
====
By the way, regarding the "Jetson pushes the button" thing, don't presume to tell me what is and isn't possible as far as automated production goes. I worked in a certain production facility a while back where the only humans who were actually needed were a computer programmer and a mechanic. The machines did everything else, with few exceptions, and the only things humans actually did do could have been automated as well. I thought of several ways to cut the work force there in half again using techniques and technologies already existing on site.
That's correct; if an idiot suggests it, I find that it's usually incorrect/not possible.
Yeah whatever. That's why many of the same types of things I have proposed are constantly being proposed by physicists all the time.
I'm definitely not the first person to talk about world ships, space platforms, and Dyson Swarms, after all.
====
By the way, regarding the "Jetson pushes the button" thing, don't presume to tell me what is and isn't possible as far as automated production goes. I worked in a certain production facility a while back where the only humans who were actually needed were a computer programmer and a mechanic. The machines did everything else, with few exceptions, and the only things humans actually did do could have been automated as well. I thought of several ways to cut the work force there in half again using techniques and technologies already existing on site.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Aug 25 2009, 04:55 PM)
Yeah whatever. That's why many of the same types of things I have proposed are constantly being proposed by physicists all the time.
I'm definitely not the first person to talk about world ships, space platforms, and Dyson Swarms, after all.
Two words: Science Fiction.
I'm definitely not the first person to talk about world ships, space platforms, and Dyson Swarms, after all.
Two words: Science Fiction.
QUOTE
By the way, regarding the "Jetson pushes the button" thing, don't presume to tell me what is and isn't possible as far as automated production goes. I worked in a certain production facility a while back where the only humans who were actually needed were a computer programmer and a mechanic. The machines did everything else, with few exceptions, and the only things humans actually did do could have been automated as well. I thought of several ways to cut the work force there in half again using techniques and technologies already existing on site.
Did you perhaps ask how much these machines cost? Did you perhaps think that the average human could not afford one of those machines? I doubt that most millionaires could afford one.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 25 2009, 03:55 PM)
QUOTE
In your video, the guy starts out by describing the Kardashev Scale, which is based more on science fiction than any sort of logical possibility. To build a Kardashev Type 2 civilization, you would have to build a Dyson Sphere. This would require raw material with mass in excess of the sun itself. Good luck with that. Scientists routinely do interviews about science fiction topics in order to get people interested in science. The unfortunate side effect is people like yourself who take it seriously.
"The guy" is one of the leading theoretical physicists and positive futurists alive...idiot...
The Kardasheve scale was not invented for science fiction, though it is true that science fiction often uses it.
The part about the mass needed to make a Dyson Sphere is not true either, nor is your definition of a type 2 civilization complete.
Estimates have been done which show that a Dyson Sphere approximately 3 meters thick can be constructed around the sun using the materials from the planets, asteroids, and comets. This is not sufficient for human life. However, nobody ever said one MUST make a single solid dyson sphere. You can make a Dyson Ring around a star, do this for enough stars and you equal a "true" dyson sphere.
In addition, nobody ever said the "entire" structure needed to be habitable. as much as 90-99% of it might be purely for energy and material harvesting purposes.
A type 2 civilization doesn't required a Dyson Sphere technically. They require enough energy to equal one true Dyson Sphere.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| In your video, the guy starts out by describing the Kardashev Scale, which is based more on science fiction than any sort of logical possibility. To build a Kardashev Type 2 civilization, you would have to build a Dyson Sphere. This would require raw material with mass in excess of the sun itself. Good luck with that. Scientists routinely do interviews about science fiction topics in order to get people interested in science. The unfortunate side effect is people like yourself who take it seriously. |
"The guy" is one of the leading theoretical physicists and positive futurists alive...idiot...
The Kardasheve scale was not invented for science fiction, though it is true that science fiction often uses it.
The part about the mass needed to make a Dyson Sphere is not true either, nor is your definition of a type 2 civilization complete.
Estimates have been done which show that a Dyson Sphere approximately 3 meters thick can be constructed around the sun using the materials from the planets, asteroids, and comets. This is not sufficient for human life. However, nobody ever said one MUST make a single solid dyson sphere. You can make a Dyson Ring around a star, do this for enough stars and you equal a "true" dyson sphere.
In addition, nobody ever said the "entire" structure needed to be habitable. as much as 90-99% of it might be purely for energy and material harvesting purposes.
A type 2 civilization doesn't required a Dyson Sphere technically. They require enough energy to equal one true Dyson Sphere.
I have an excellent job for you! There's this old nuclear power plant that needs a little concrete work. I will pay you $1 million if you can successfully enter the power plant and carry out an inspection of the concrete superstructure. Sound like a good idea? The plant hasn't been active in 23 years, so you should be perfectly safe. The plant resides next to a beautiful town that is really in tune with nature. During your stay, you can sleep at the beautiful Chernobyl Hotel! Interested?
Nice scare tactic. The Chernobyl accident was because of a design flaw, which is known and fixable.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Aug 25 2009, 05:05 PM)
...idiot...
You throw that word around like you think you know what it means.
You throw that word around like you think you know what it means.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 25 2009, 04:00 PM)
QUOTE
Two words: Science Fiction.
No, science fact. They have already been proven doable. There simply isn't a government willing to do it because idiots like you would rather we all go back to the stone age.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Two words: Science Fiction. |
No, science fact. They have already been proven doable. There simply isn't a government willing to do it because idiots like you would rather we all go back to the stone age.
Did you perhaps ask how much these machines cost? Did you perhaps think that the average human could not afford one of those machines? I doubt that most millionaires could afford one.
They paid for themselves in man-hours, in some cases in as little as one or two days.
On average, an entire production line was about one million dollars. The automated systems pertaining to an entire such production line pay for themselves in man-hours in at most a few weeks, as compared to paying workers to do similar tasks. Each line produces over one million dollars worth of product(purchase price to the customer,) in a single week.
One computer programmer and one or two maintenance techs can program and maintain robots, doing the job of dozens, even hundreds of workers.
Systems very similar to what I worked with there could be adapted to all sorts of purposes that people like you simply do not even consider: accident-free transportation, farming, asteroid mining and processing, many other things.
QUOTE
We are not yet advanced to the point of building a completely self sustaining and stable eco system. Previous attempts such as Biosphere 2 have eventually needed outside intervention.
Early on of course there would be outside intervention. Additionally, some of the "outside intervention" comes from the material being mined from the asteriods and comets themselves.
Taht is, comets have lots of water ice. Pluto has lots of water-ice. Several of saturn and jupiter's moons have lots of water-ice. Water is H2O which means we can get Oxygen to replenish the oxygen supplies in the air....from the same place we are getting water to drink and to feed to plants....very nice.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| We are not yet advanced to the point of building a completely self sustaining and stable eco system. Previous attempts such as Biosphere 2 have eventually needed outside intervention. |
Early on of course there would be outside intervention. Additionally, some of the "outside intervention" comes from the material being mined from the asteriods and comets themselves.
Taht is, comets have lots of water ice. Pluto has lots of water-ice. Several of saturn and jupiter's moons have lots of water-ice. Water is H2O which means we can get Oxygen to replenish the oxygen supplies in the air....from the same place we are getting water to drink and to feed to plants....very nice.
Also, I don't understand why exactly we would want to put an Arcology in space. If its weather or terrain we are worried about, there are plenty of places on earth with both stable weather and good terrain.
How would crops grown in space be transported back to Earth?
Crops grown in space are used by people in space. Raw materials harvested in space are processed and shipped to earth(this can be as simple as a parachute in some cases, as in the Apollo missions), or goods produced from those materials are shipped to earth.
Living quarters are needed because humans are never operationally obsolete. You still need people to program and maintain robots when robots can't program and maintain one another. And of course humans are populating other planets in the solar system as well(moon, mars.)
QUOTE
Just the amount of rocket fuel needed to achieve this would make it uneconomical as compared to growing crops on earth.
Growing crops in space to be consumed in space is cheaper than growing crops on earth to be consumed in space. Additionally, eventually people will colonize mars and the moon, and this space station will be able to much more efficiently trade with those civilizations compared to the earth trading with them directly. Etiher way, earth still eventually benefits in material resources and information technology(if humans populated other planets thats more brains and more computers. More brains and computers = more problem solving = more technology).
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Just the amount of rocket fuel needed to achieve this would make it uneconomical as compared to growing crops on earth. |
Growing crops in space to be consumed in space is cheaper than growing crops on earth to be consumed in space. Additionally, eventually people will colonize mars and the moon, and this space station will be able to much more efficiently trade with those civilizations compared to the earth trading with them directly. Etiher way, earth still eventually benefits in material resources and information technology(if humans populated other planets thats more brains and more computers. More brains and computers = more problem solving = more technology).
Processing asteroids and comets is not even experimental, it is only conceptual at present.
Even if all of this technology were available, the amount of surface area needed to grow enough crops to feed a million people (the current world population is around 7 billion) would probably need a space station the size of several thousand square miles.
---Which is an insignificant size compared to the number of resources available in the asteroids, comets, and dwarf planets... There are thousands of times more material available than would be needed for this megastructure, and large quantities of this eventually benefits earth directly, easily paying for earth's investment in the project with, as stated, eventually astronomical returns, both numerically and literally.
Quantum_Cumdumpster,
Why should we put funding towards this? If you want people to live in space, you'd better have a better reason than "for the hell of it." Overpopulation is nowhere near the level that we need to send people to space.
Why should we put funding towards this? If you want people to live in space, you'd better have a better reason than "for the hell of it." Overpopulation is nowhere near the level that we need to send people to space.
Let me be plain regarding the space station thing.
I'm talking about constructing a modularly designed processing plant w/ living quarters which is initially somewhat larger than the ISS, then grows to the size of a Star Destroyer and eventually, by continuing to add on as the civilization grows and the need arises, eventually being several times that size, perhaps 30 miles by 30 miles or so, eventually. (a large percentage of the largest square surface is solar panels and other solar collection devices).
You ask, "How can we possibly make something like that?"
Plan the architechture and technology modularly, start small with the most essential components, and add-on.
For example, designing a Dyson Sphere is not complicated at all. Once you design just one sector which is self-sustainable, you simply copy it over and over.
Observe:
http://www.blogenlinea.net/blog2/images/ra...other-board.jpg
This computer motherboard is just so complicated. How EVER did they make it? Oh yes, modularity. By having things designed in a compatible way ahead of time, and by updating and re-designing individual compents in such a way that they continue to be compatible. By specializing some groups in making individual components, still having the over-all picture in mind. The people working on any given compent don't even need to know much about the other components. They simply need to know what type of port their component fits.
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=us...=title&resnum=1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruise_ship
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=ma...=title&resnum=4
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excavator
I'm talking about constructing a modularly designed processing plant w/ living quarters which is initially somewhat larger than the ISS, then grows to the size of a Star Destroyer and eventually, by continuing to add on as the civilization grows and the need arises, eventually being several times that size, perhaps 30 miles by 30 miles or so, eventually. (a large percentage of the largest square surface is solar panels and other solar collection devices).
You ask, "How can we possibly make something like that?"
Plan the architechture and technology modularly, start small with the most essential components, and add-on.
For example, designing a Dyson Sphere is not complicated at all. Once you design just one sector which is self-sustainable, you simply copy it over and over.
Observe:
http://www.blogenlinea.net/blog2/images/ra...other-board.jpg
This computer motherboard is just so complicated. How EVER did they make it? Oh yes, modularity. By having things designed in a compatible way ahead of time, and by updating and re-designing individual compents in such a way that they continue to be compatible. By specializing some groups in making individual components, still having the over-all picture in mind. The people working on any given compent don't even need to know much about the other components. They simply need to know what type of port their component fits.
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=us...=title&resnum=1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruise_ship
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=ma...=title&resnum=4
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excavator
Shocking ignorance, just shocking.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 25 2009, 06:18 PM)
Shocking ignorance, just shocking.
What, you haven't ever heard of modular design, or object oriented design?
Perhaps you are the one who is ignorant.
They can make a boat that is the size of some towns, and you somehow can't see that a space station isn't all that much different?
What the hell is wrong with you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion...ear_propulsion)
"Super Orion"(1959)
400m diameter
8,000,000t mass
What, you haven't ever heard of modular design, or object oriented design?
Perhaps you are the one who is ignorant.
They can make a boat that is the size of some towns, and you somehow can't see that a space station isn't all that much different?
What the hell is wrong with you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion...ear_propulsion)
"Super Orion"(1959)
400m diameter
8,000,000t mass
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 25 2009, 05:52 PM)
Quantum_Cumdumpster,
Why should we put funding towards this? If you want people to live in space, you'd better have a better reason than "for the hell of it." Overpopulation is nowhere near the level that we need to send people to space.
Why is it so hard for you to comprehend the concept of colonization?
Why is someone who is so convinced nothing at all is possible even bothering to be on a science and technology forum anyway?
I've already explained many definite benefits any number of times on this forum off and on over the past several years. I'm frankly tired of having to repeat myself about it to people who know nothing but skepticism and insults. You even insulted a guy who is a P.H.D in the relevant fields and has many of the same ideas I have. So no wonder its hard talking to you about anything.
Would you rather have everyone just sit around for generations until humans kill one another in some idiotic war, or until the resources we currently have are exhausted and colonization is no longer an option? Clearly you must, since you are so opposed to colonization and living in space.
Colonization is never "just for the hell of it" even if the parent civilization has no direct benefit for generations, it still has benefits in the long term(technology, trade, etc).
Why should we put funding towards this? If you want people to live in space, you'd better have a better reason than "for the hell of it." Overpopulation is nowhere near the level that we need to send people to space.
Why is it so hard for you to comprehend the concept of colonization?
Why is someone who is so convinced nothing at all is possible even bothering to be on a science and technology forum anyway?
I've already explained many definite benefits any number of times on this forum off and on over the past several years. I'm frankly tired of having to repeat myself about it to people who know nothing but skepticism and insults. You even insulted a guy who is a P.H.D in the relevant fields and has many of the same ideas I have. So no wonder its hard talking to you about anything.
Would you rather have everyone just sit around for generations until humans kill one another in some idiotic war, or until the resources we currently have are exhausted and colonization is no longer an option? Clearly you must, since you are so opposed to colonization and living in space.
Colonization is never "just for the hell of it" even if the parent civilization has no direct benefit for generations, it still has benefits in the long term(technology, trade, etc).
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Aug 25 2009, 07:47 PM)
What, you haven't ever heard of modular design, or object oriented design?
I'm a programmer, I know what OO is.
Have you perhaps heard of simulated gravity? Any long-term space habitat would require simulated gravity. I have yet to see a design that mixes this with modular design.
You have also forgotten how much money it takes to launch stuff into space.
The Saturn V rocket is the largest rocket that we have ever built, and it was last used in 1972. It was able to live 130 tons into Low Earth Orbit. The Apollo program cost $32-45 BILLION dollars in today's money. What you are suggesting would cost hundreds of billions of dollars, and for what exactly?
I'm a programmer, I know what OO is.
Have you perhaps heard of simulated gravity? Any long-term space habitat would require simulated gravity. I have yet to see a design that mixes this with modular design.
You have also forgotten how much money it takes to launch stuff into space.
The Saturn V rocket is the largest rocket that we have ever built, and it was last used in 1972. It was able to live 130 tons into Low Earth Orbit. The Apollo program cost $32-45 BILLION dollars in today's money. What you are suggesting would cost hundreds of billions of dollars, and for what exactly?
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Aug 25 2009, 08:05 PM)
Why is it so hard for you to comprehend the concept of colonization?
Colonization is pointless until we discover how to travel at near or faster than the speed of light.
Mars is too small to have a useful atmosphere. Even if we converted the CO2 to Oxygen, the air would be too thin to breath. It's not a true colony if you have to rely on resupply to survive. A colony has to be self-sufficient. Mars doesn't become viable until transit time shortens to a month at the most.
Venus = too hot.
Gas giant moons = too cold.
Trying to have a colony in a space station is idiotic. Any food production would be totally inefficient. Plus, there is no financial payoff for a space colony.
Because of this, we have to wait for new methods of space travel before colonization becomes realistic. Trying to do it before that is a tragic waste of resources.
Colonization is pointless until we discover how to travel at near or faster than the speed of light.
Mars is too small to have a useful atmosphere. Even if we converted the CO2 to Oxygen, the air would be too thin to breath. It's not a true colony if you have to rely on resupply to survive. A colony has to be self-sufficient. Mars doesn't become viable until transit time shortens to a month at the most.
Venus = too hot.
Gas giant moons = too cold.
Trying to have a colony in a space station is idiotic. Any food production would be totally inefficient. Plus, there is no financial payoff for a space colony.
Because of this, we have to wait for new methods of space travel before colonization becomes realistic. Trying to do it before that is a tragic waste of resources.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 25 2009, 07:12 PM)
I'm a programmer, I know what OO is.
Have you perhaps heard of simulated gravity? Any long-term space habitat would require simulated gravity. I have yet to see a design that mixes this with modular design.
You have also forgotten how much money it takes to launch stuff into space.
The Saturn V rocket is the largest rocket that we have ever built, and it was last used in 1972. It was able to live 130 tons into Low Earth Orbit. The Apollo program cost $32-45 BILLION dollars in today's money. What you are suggesting would cost hundreds of billions of dollars, and for what exactly?
The eventual expansion of the human race.
Have you perhaps heard of simulated gravity? Any long-term space habitat would require simulated gravity. I have yet to see a design that mixes this with modular design.
You have also forgotten how much money it takes to launch stuff into space.
The Saturn V rocket is the largest rocket that we have ever built, and it was last used in 1972. It was able to live 130 tons into Low Earth Orbit. The Apollo program cost $32-45 BILLION dollars in today's money. What you are suggesting would cost hundreds of billions of dollars, and for what exactly?
The eventual expansion of the human race.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Aug 25 2009, 09:57 PM)
The eventual expansion of the human race.
It can wait.
It can wait.
I'm at a lost what name calling has to do with anything? Is that like referring to Nazis and death panels or anything like that? Call me crazy, but this thread is about crazy ideas, not so much crazy insults. I know, shut up Meem. Just saying.
Dyson sphere, I have a ball-vac ... well ... yeah, I do. Titan A.E.? Science fiction is awesome, it inspires people to think, imagine, and sometimes even realize. It can even give direction or inspiration to those which might not have become scientists (and who knows .. maybe the next Einstein?) to become great scientists.
I believe it's possible.
Dyson sphere, I have a ball-vac ... well ... yeah, I do. Titan A.E.? Science fiction is awesome, it inspires people to think, imagine, and sometimes even realize. It can even give direction or inspiration to those which might not have become scientists (and who knows .. maybe the next Einstein?) to become great scientists.
I believe it's possible.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Aug 26 2009, 07:27 AM)
The eventual expansion of the human race.
This is contradictory to how you started this thread.
Are we discussing existing technology or future technology? Are addressing existing needs or future needs?
This is contradictory to how you started this thread.
QUOTE
In This Age Of Technology And Automation, why in the hell....Are we still living as though it were the beginning of the industrial revolution or something?
Are we discussing existing technology or future technology? Are addressing existing needs or future needs?
QUOTE (vkamath+Aug 26 2009, 07:46 AM)
This is contradictory to how you started this thread.
Are we discussing existing technology or future technology? Are addressing existing needs or future needs?
He's talkling about existing speicialized technology being used in ways it doesn't work yet.
I've heard about his factory. I've read alot about manufacturing. I've never actually read anything saying what factory or what product.
I'm guessing he worked in the front office or in shipping but not on the actual production floor. And didn't work there for very long.
Most products can't be built in such a factory. They need a lot of humans to be built.
Are we discussing existing technology or future technology? Are addressing existing needs or future needs?
He's talkling about existing speicialized technology being used in ways it doesn't work yet.
I've heard about his factory. I've read alot about manufacturing. I've never actually read anything saying what factory or what product.
I'm guessing he worked in the front office or in shipping but not on the actual production floor. And didn't work there for very long.
Most products can't be built in such a factory. They need a lot of humans to be built.
QUOTE (vkamath+Aug 26 2009, 02:46 AM)
This is contradictory to how you started this thread.
Are we discussing existing technology or future technology? Are addressing existing needs or future needs?
Uh, no it isn't contrary to how I started the post.
I was originally refering to the fact that our entire economy continues to be based on technologies that are out dated, even though better technologies exist and in some cases have existed for many decades.
Are we discussing existing technology or future technology? Are addressing existing needs or future needs?
Uh, no it isn't contrary to how I started the post.
I was originally refering to the fact that our entire economy continues to be based on technologies that are out dated, even though better technologies exist and in some cases have existed for many decades.
QUOTE
I'm guessing he worked in the front office or in shipping but not on the actual production floor. And didn't work there for very long.
Well, you are guessing wrongly then, as I worked only in production at first, and then later quality assurance.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Aug 26 2009, 07:17 PM)
I was originally refering to the fact that our entire economy continues to be based on technologies that are out dated, even though better technologies exist and in some cases have existed for many decades.
This statement is of course based on your extreme ignorance and naivety.
This statement is of course based on your extreme ignorance and naivety.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Aug 26 2009, 11:20 PM)
Well, you are guessing wrongly then, as I worked only in production at first, and then later quality assurance.
Then I must agree with FBM.
QA is non value added. So why did they have it?
Is it because things don't work as well as you think they do?
I am curious how someone can have your views after working QA.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Aug 25 2009, 03:24 PM)
God you are stupid. If the robot is moving in roughly the same orbit as the stuff it is miniing, then nothing is going to be moving that fast relative to it. Well, some dust and things might.
Whenever anyone proves you wrong, you label them stupid, not realize that you're not only the stupid one, but you're also ignorant...
The asteroids aren't all lined up and traveling at the same speed and trajectory, you complete retard! They're bumping into each other, moving in odd directions, combining, breaking apart... How the hell do you think some of them manage to end up burning up in earth's atmosphere?
Who repairs the repair vehicles? Have you designed a robot that can so much as change the oil in a car? No, and you know what? No-one else has, either. That's because most repair work takes a much more powerful intelligence than anything a computer can exhibit. Plus, there's no such thing as a truly self-repairing machine. There is such thing as a self repairing repairman, however.
Who repairs the repair vehicles? Have you designed a robot that can so much as change the oil in a car? No, and you know what? No-one else has, either. That's because most repair work takes a much more powerful intelligence than anything a computer can exhibit. Plus, there's no such thing as a truly self-repairing machine. There is such thing as a self repairing repairman, however.
Read that post in its entirety, idiot, particularly this section:
The section that does what, exactly? Demonstrate that the robots have to fly into an asteroid field and approach asteroids, which is exactly where the problem is?
Could you possibly be any dumber? Seriously.
Whenever anyone proves you wrong, you label them stupid, not realize that you're not only the stupid one, but you're also ignorant...
The asteroids aren't all lined up and traveling at the same speed and trajectory, you complete retard! They're bumping into each other, moving in odd directions, combining, breaking apart... How the hell do you think some of them manage to end up burning up in earth's atmosphere?
QUOTE
Robots and ROVs repair robots and ROVs.
Who repairs the repair vehicles? Have you designed a robot that can so much as change the oil in a car? No, and you know what? No-one else has, either. That's because most repair work takes a much more powerful intelligence than anything a computer can exhibit. Plus, there's no such thing as a truly self-repairing machine. There is such thing as a self repairing repairman, however.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Robots and ROVs repair robots and ROVs. |
Who repairs the repair vehicles? Have you designed a robot that can so much as change the oil in a car? No, and you know what? No-one else has, either. That's because most repair work takes a much more powerful intelligence than anything a computer can exhibit. Plus, there's no such thing as a truly self-repairing machine. There is such thing as a self repairing repairman, however.
Read that post in its entirety, idiot, particularly this section:
The section that does what, exactly? Demonstrate that the robots have to fly into an asteroid field and approach asteroids, which is exactly where the problem is?
Could you possibly be any dumber? Seriously.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.