Strange metal Asteroid targeted in far out mission

reply to post by JadeStar


Shielding is weight , food is weight ,water is weight ,liquid oxygen is weight tools for mining is weight and a space ship to carry all of that weigh is heavy. Then you have to have living quarters with environmental control and oxygen and such to get started and that is weight .You would have to build this rocket ship in orbit from modular construction from multiple launches and supply it the same way. Then you could launch from orbit . It would have to be a tanker and be shielded with a refuelable descent vehicle and carry enough materials and tools and supplies to enable a team to remain in space for about 4 years . It would be the size of a skyscraper .

rickymouse

JadeStar

rickymouse I don't think we need to colonize mars or step on the moon again though. the chances of anyone surviving long is slim.

You could not be more wrong.

Give me one really good reason why we NEED to spend so much money to colonize mars or step on the moon again.

give me one good reason why you sleep, eat, breath, work,.......... survival, it is the same reason.

we cannot survive on this planet forever, the day will come that this planet is no longer hospitable to us, there's an endless amount of reasons and possibilities that this will happen, in many cases it is not a matter of 'if' but only 'when', for our species to survive we need to look to start surviving on other planets to, the sooner the better, for this planets expiration date is unpredictable, it could be in a million years, or it could be 5 minutes after you finish reading this post.....

if it happens before we get to another planet our species is dead, if that doesnt matter to you, if survival doesnt matter to you, why the hell do you yourself go on surviving?

reply to post by JadeStar

SimonPeter
reply to post by JadeStar

 

Shielding is weight , food is weight ,water is weight ,liquid oxygen is weight tools for mining is weight and a space ship to carry all of that weigh is heavy. Then you have to have living quarters with environmental control and oxygen and such to get started and that is weight .You would have to build this rocket ship in orbit from modular construction from multiple launches and supply it the same way. Then you could launch from orbit . It would have to be a tanker and be shielded with a refuelable descent vehicle and carry enough materials and tools and supplies to enable a team to remain in space for about 4 years . It would be the size of a skyscraper .

Tell that to these guys: Mars One
or
These Guys: The Golden Spike Company

People don't get things done by saying "I can't do it because ..."
Feel free to make excuses for yourself, but, please, by all means, don't go visiting your presumptions on those of us that consider "difficult" and "impossible" challenges to be broken.

JadeStar


They're right around the corner from where I live.

Want me to walk out front with a picket sign in a one woman protest?

Please do!

They will get alot more investers and more chance to raise the money if they offerd reward and not just risk

www.abovetopsecret.com...
posted on Dec, 26 2013

Sorry bud

reply to post by eriktheawful


Hey, if a private company wants to take on a mission like this let them have at it. They will just tack the extra costs onto their product and the people who want to support their venture can buy their product. Adding a nickle to a product widely sold for a couple of bucks a shot is nothing. The consumer of the product will pay for it. That is better than the government upping our taxes.

reply to post by pryingopen3rdeye


The more we destroy our environment, the sooner we go extinct. Moderation and keeping waste of our natural resources in check is necessary to control the destiny of the planet. I cannot see how sending metals and prescious metals into space can lessen the destruction of our environment. Building big war machines is also causing destruction of our environment as is the practice of planned obsolescence. Space exploration that is not necessary is not helping us.

Putting satellites in orbit to monitor the earth is not a waste, it is needed to correct problems we have been making for over a hundred years.. I see no problem with this application as it can help to distinguish the truth.

reply to post by lostbook


They have known about just how much precious material is located out there for quite a while now. But, bringing any decent amount of it back to Earth could destroy the price of gold and other presently valuable materials, so I don't see much enthusiasm from the banks and big corporations to want to do that.

Gold Rush in Space.
news.bbc.co.uk...

rickymouse
I cannot see how sending metals and prescious metals into space can lessen the destruction of our environment. Building big war machines is also causing destruction of our environment as is the practice of planned obsolescence. Space exploration that is not necessary is not helping us.

Its all ready been explained a dozen times on this thread alone by different people why.

You obviously have a very closed mind and refuse too listen.

I suggest you go home and reminisce about the 19th century and the good ole times

rickymouse

JadeStar

rickymouse I don't think we need to colonize mars or step on the moon again though. the chances of anyone surviving long is slim.

You could not be more wrong.

Give me one really good reason why we NEED to spend so much money to colonize mars or step on the moon again.

Because the human race has an ego - and it makes us look super ace.

reply to post by AliceBleachWhite


I am very sure that in the near future we will not be worrying about some idiotic way of blowing more money that we can't afford . There is no need of going to Mars that would justify spending all that money. Maybe ex Nasa employees should switch to deep sea minerals recovery and development . That is the next frontier .

rickymouse
reply to post by pryingopen3rdeye

 

The more we destroy our environment, the sooner we go extinct. Moderation and keeping waste of our natural resources in check is necessary to control the destiny of the planet. I cannot see how sending metals and prescious metals into space can lessen the destruction of our environment. Building big war machines is also causing destruction of our environment as is the practice of planned obsolescence. Space exploration that is not necessary is not helping us.

Putting satellites in orbit to monitor the earth is not a waste, it is needed to correct problems we have been making for over a hundred years.. I see no problem with this application as it can help to distinguish the truth.

SimonPeter
reply to post by AliceBleachWhite

 

I am very sure that in the near future we will not be worrying about some idiotic way of blowing more money that we can't afford . There is no need of going to Mars that would justify spending all that money. Maybe ex Nasa employees should switch to deep sea minerals recovery and development . That is the next frontier .

I recommend someone invest in just a little bit of self directed education regarding the 5 Major Extinction Events in Earth's history; all of which happened well before mankind ever existed.

The K/T, or K-Pg Event that killed off most the dinosaurs? That big whopping chunk of rock that smacked into the planet?
That was nothing.

The Dinosaur Extinction was nothing compared to the Permian Triassic extinction event
That?
Oh, that killed off about 96% of all species on the planet; fairly close to a clean slate.

Yet, the Earth recovered enough for TWO MORE Major extinction events to occur before we ever came along.

Regardless of what we do, or don't do to the planet, the planet, or the solar system is going to kick us into dust and ash sooner or later.
As long as this planet is the ONLY planet, or chunk of real estate we have a permanent presence on, we're looking down the barrel of a cocked and loaded Missile Silo, Super Volcano, Ice Age, Asteroid/Comet, Gamma Ray Burster, Sufficiently Violent Solar Hiccup, Super Plague, and a whole long list of many sundry other things that have absolutely NOTHING to do with Humans that would happen even if we never ever existed.

Going into space for any, or even no particular reason of any real importance to anyone at all BUILDS Technologies, and understanding for when we DO jump off this rock, this Gravitational Prison.

It wouldn't matter if someone spent $5 Billion to test the physics of Yo-Yo competition tricks at a Lagrange or Trojan point. Whatever data comes out of it advances our understanding for when it really matters.
$1 Billion Spent in Space, is more valuable to the species than $10 Trillion spent on eliminating poverty, or Curing Cancer, or any other "nobel cause".

Why?

Let us starve. Let us choke on our gasoline exhaust fumes. Let us glow in the dark, and grow tentacles from Nuclear accidents. Lets us die off by the hundreds of millions due all our self-created drama.
Throwing money at any problem on Earth is like trying to save the Titanic by bailing with a bucket.

Why?
Because no matter what we do, or don't do on Earth, the Earth itself, or the Solar System is going to try to kill us, and it WILL SUCCEED if the only place we live is on Earth.

If we're going to survive as a species, regardless of whether we "deserve" to, or not, we need to have a self reliant sustainable independent autonomous viable breeding population of people somewhere OFF this planet, and preferably in several other places, if only the Moon, Mars, and maybe even Ceres.

Thus, every $Billion we spend in developing Space technologies, is far more valuable than any $Trillion spent here, on Earth, which will eventually burn no matter what we do.

We either expand or start watching our belly button. Expansion by going out into the solar system is expensive no doubt. How do you judge the expense to save the human race against anything? Survival of the self is an easy given. Supporting the survival of the humanity requires a different type of world view. You either stick your head in the sand and ignore the world or wake up and move forward.
If we don't start soon our grand kids will be cursing the opportunity lost by our inaction. Then we could get to the point where when we absolutely need to get off planet there are no resources or expertise to put into the effort.
Wars waste money and lives but without a strong defense there would be no free world. Some times with the latest revelations it makes me wonder about "free".

rickymouse

JadeStar

rickymouse I don't think we need to colonize mars or step on the moon again though. the chances of anyone surviving long is slim.

You could not be more wrong.

Give me one really good reason why we NEED to spend so much money to colonize mars or step on the moon again.

Necessity is the mother of invention. We will develop a lot of technologies from doing so. It will also provide us with two new places to colonize. Imagine if people are living on Earth, Mars, and the Moon. Doing that develops the technologies for us to start doing things like making real space stations in lagrange points or orbit, and it puts the framework in place for us to begin harvesting space for materials.

Why fight each other here on Earth over resources that are becoming more limited by the day? There are entire asteroids out there, some in the asteroid belt that are made out of solid gold (among other materials we don't even have here on earth). Those types of things are far away right now, but manned missions to other planets is the first step in making future expansion a reality.

rickymouse
reply to post by Nyiah

 

Sure we could do that. It would cost a lot of money to transport everything up there and assemble the structures for a colony to live there. Look how much the space station cost, about one hundred and fifty billion dollars. That only holds a six man crew and it does not produce hardly any of it's own food.

It is not whether it can be done, it is whether it can be afforded by a country with such a big national runaway debt. If this country had a bigger industrial base of industry, it would be more possible, a consumer based economy is not adequate.

Maybe the UK can do this, they have more liquid assets they can sell, like the crown jewels and their gold.

edit on 15-1-2014 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)

You clearly understand nothing of national economics. I don't want to derail this with a post on economics that no one will read but I'll give you a starting hint: On a national level debt doesn't mean money owed, rather it's a representation of faith in a currency and having a certain amount of it leads to higher stability in your currency.

There is enough land in Australia alone to afford each and every person on this planet a quarter of an acre of land do themselves.
The problem right now is not over population (although eventually it will be if we don't figure all this out), but the way we manage the land and resources we do have. We can also build above ground and below the sea if we wish. The REAL problem are the bankers. They are the same people who speak openly about eugenics.

They fund everything. Including these ambitious space projects that they really aren't interested in. What they ARE interested in is a devious way to kill us all off by thousands at a time to keep the population levels at a level that will sustain their internal chess game type battle for global hegemony.

They are idiots. But they are like a cornered animal. They have power and they will fight to keep it.

We could argue about this all day long, but everyone with decent cognitive skills can easily see that our future lies in colonization. Whether we will ever get there is another matter all together. We should have gotten started 20 years ago.

Rickymouse is griping about money. But why? That crap is fake anyways.

And to add to the above post, I've seen talk on here lately about civilization types. Apparently Sagan created an equation that shows us as a type .8 civilization currently.

That seems ridiculous to me when I still have to train for months to physically climb my ass to the top of Mount Everest instead of just chartering a helicopter. Or how I cannot take a submersible vehicle to the deepest depths of the pacific ocean and have my path lit along the way. I mean, we can't even dive to the bottom of the ocean, let alone lighting it up to get a sense of the scenery.

Close to type one my arse. Not without some very major breakthroughs very soon.

reply to post by AliceBleachWhite


Those extinction events aren't relative to the extinction event that mankind can cause. We are causing the mutation of microbes faster than animals can evolve. We are changing the environment so it will be harder for us to live in. We are overabusing the lands and overmining the earth, changing the chemistry of the seas and the atmosphere. This is completely different than those extinction events but can be just as bad. Why should we allow this practice that causes our children and grandchildren to have a harder time surviving. We are living for the moment, not the future.

Nothing personal, just a difference of opinion. A highly advanced race would consider their planet's ecology above anything else. It could be ten thousand years before an extinction event occurs, I worry about things we can do something about not things we can do nothing about. NASA can work on designing something to repel an asteroid, that seems to be a reasonable expenditure. Maybe they can boost a tuning fork frequency or pulsing resonance into a laser beam or something to shake the asteroids so they blow apart or turn. They are scientists, they can figure something out.

I suppose it isn't all that bad if most people die, but I would prefer for my grandchildren to live and enjoy a life that isn't so stressful just to survive.

reply to post by rickymouse


I really think you over estimate man's impact on this planet. Interesting that you call yourself a conservative.

You bring up some good points I guess, but I just don't agree. Deforestization? Far and away the abundant plant life on Earth is under the sea. We make a nearly zero impact on this planet's ecosystem. Do we contribute? Absolutely! But on a minute scale.

Anyways, it is beside the point. No matter what way you wanna say it, you cannot deny that in the long-term humans MUST leave this planet. There is no arguing this.
A stitch and time saves nine. Or put another way, there is no time Luke the present.

Your posts tell a clear story, man.
You are a so-called conservative type with a little coin in his pocket who feels that because he made money being frugal, the entire world should follow his model. A little boring, to be honest.

rickymouse
reply to post by AliceBleachWhite

 

We are changing the environment so it will be harder for us to live in. We are overabusing the lands and overmining the earth, changing the chemistry of the seas and the atmosphere. This is completely different than those extinction events but can be just as bad.

A highly advanced race would consider their planet's ecology above anything else. It could be ten thousand years before an extinction event occurs, I worry about things we can do something about not things we can do nothing about. NASA can work on designing something to repel an asteroid, that seems to be a reasonable expenditure. Maybe they can boost a tuning fork frequency or pulsing resonance into a laser beam or something to shake the asteroids so they blow apart or turn. They are scientists, they can figure something out.

A highly advanced race would also be smart enough to know that if the reason for extinctions is a result of its mere existence on the planet coupled with its growing numbers taxing the planet's ability to recover then the LOGICAL thing would be to REDUCE such a strain on their world by REDISTRIBUTING its population among other worlds in its star system.

Is that not what you are vehemently opposed to us learning how to do?

It's been mathematically proven...No austerity and conservation measures will ever be able to deal effectively with our growth. Eventually you run up against starvation or draconian measures of population control no one would stand for.

So..... If we are the problem as you seem to believe then the logical solution would be to have less of us living on the planet and more of us living in space and elsewhere in the solar system first and galaxy later.

Hard to do that if you're opposing one small step in that direction...