America - The Official Thread

[eran0004]

If you could make rocket propellant in space, it would be worth far more than rocket propellant on the ground - because it's so hard to get it into space. Water is also far more valuable in space. And oxygen.

It would require a huge demand for water, oxygen and propellant for such an endeavour to even begin to make economical sense, given the costs.

For the foreseeable future it’s cheaper and certainly simpler to just launch these resources into space when there is a need for it.

Not to mention the business of creating larger space stations. Even foundering metal and manufacturing components on the moon would be more cost effective than the same on earth and then blasting it off to space. Once that sort of manufacturing have been put into place.

Costs:
- Flying mining equipment to the moon
- Flying manufacturing equipment to the moon
- Flying a workforce to the moon (robots or human)
- Flying materials to build infrastructure on the moon connecting all of the different mining and manufacturing sites
- Flying spare parts and other resources to the moon
- Flying rockets to the moon capable of launching the space station components into orbit

It would not be cheaper. Perhaps if you plan on mass producing giant space stations, but why and where would you get that kind of money from?

 

[eran0004]

Edit: double post

 

[TenEightyOne]

Costs:
- Flying mining equipment to the moon
- Flying manufacturing equipment to the moon
- Flying a workforce to the moon (robots or human)
- Flying materials to build infrastructure on the moon connecting all of the different mining and manufacturing sites
- Flying spare parts and other resources to the moon
- Flying rockets to the moon capable of launching the space station components into orbit

It would not be cheaper. Perhaps if you plan on mass producing giant space stations, but why and where would you get that kind of money from?

Nope, the research is aimed at 3D printing components and machines in space, not lifting everything from Earth. For construction materials/components that's a particularly cost-effective way of doing things.

 

[Danoff]

It would require a huge demand for water, oxygen and propellant for such an endeavour to even begin to make economical sense, given the costs.

For the foreseeable future it’s cheaper and certainly simpler to just launch these resources into space when there is a need for it.



Costs:
- Flying mining equipment to the moon
- Flying manufacturing equipment to the moon
- Flying a workforce to the moon (robots or human)
- Flying materials to build infrastructure on the moon connecting all of the different mining and manufacturing sites
- Flying spare parts and other resources to the moon
- Flying rockets to the moon capable of launching the space station components into orbit

It would not be cheaper. Perhaps if you plan on mass producing giant space stations, but why and where would you get that kind of money from?

The thing is, if you can deliver rocket fuel to geostationary orbit, you it's not just worth the $ in terms of pounds of payload deliverable to geostationary orbit. It saves a service vehicle from having to be launched as well (if such a thing existed), and the way things are done right now, it saves the entire cost of a new satellite. So if you could refuel one communications satellite at geostationary orbit, it would be worth approx. $60-90 million at spacex prices today (plus the cost of manufacturing and testing the satellite).

One refuel

Granted such a spacecraft needs to be actually refuelable on orbit. It would need to be designed that way from the get-go. Presumably you can maneuver around to other geostationary satellites because you're making fuel after all! But bottom line... you'd have billions in revenue very quickly.

It requires a ton of investment and technology though. Which is why it hasn't happened.

 

[Rallywagon]

May as well turn this presidency into a full time Reality show, we're already (over) halfway there and now we have recordings. Why not just go the full monty? Break out the TV crews and cameras and make it into a satire version of the West Wing. I mean we already have a reality TV president....
--

I can see I didn't miss much in my week away from the real world. I was in Sunriver, OR, beautiful place to go on long bike rides, or play in the river. I don't golf but there are 3 very nice courses to bike around that provide great scenery. I'm definitely going back.

Miles and miles of paved bike paths, that was probably my favorite part (other than the breweries, of course).

I might have to move....

Me and a buddy were out on North Manitou island this past weekend for some back country hiking/camping. I added a wall of photos over on my post in the Rumble Strip section. But here are a few choice pics.

This was from my hammock the second night.

This was a few steps away.

This micro bear hung out with us while we were camped the second day and the next morning. There were some oats left in the pan he was munching on.


Remnants of the logging trade back in the 20s
Happening across this and the ruins of Crescent Village has peaked quite the curiosity of the history of the islands, Leland and the sleeping bear dunes. Sure do love living in Michigan.

 

[eran0004]

Nope, the research is aimed at 3D printing components and machines in space, not lifting everything from Earth. For construction materials/components that's a particularly cost-effective way of doing things.

There are research projects for anything you can think of. It doesn’t mean anything until there is a working proof of concept.

The thing is, if you can deliver rocket fuel to geostationary orbit, you it's not just worth the $ in terms of pounds of payload deliverable to geostationary orbit. It saves a service vehicle from having to be launched as well (if such a thing existed), and the way things are done right now, it saves the entire cost of a new satellite. So if you could refuel one communications satellite at geostationary orbit, it would be worth approx. $60-90 million at spacex prices today (plus the cost of manufacturing and testing the satellite).

One refuel

Granted such a spacecraft needs to be actually refuelable on orbit. It would need to be designed that way from the get-go. Presumably you can maneuver around to other geostationary satellites because you're making fuel after all! But bottom line... you'd have billions in revenue very quickly.

It requires a ton of investment and technology though. Which is why it hasn't happened.

The biggest demand for refuelling is from space stations in low Earth orbit, and they’re not paying $60 million to refuel those. Perhaps half that cost.

Now, say that you need $10 billion in R&D expenses to develop a system of refuelling from asteroids, and that you can charge $20 million to refuel a big space station, then you’d need about 500 refuelling missions just to break even. That kind of demand doesn’t exist.

 

[TenEightyOne]

There are research projects for anything you can think of. It doesn’t mean anything until there is a working proof of concept.

Quite. But 3D printing a building already works, we know how to hoover up rock dust... the leap might not be as far as you think. Remember that you don't need humans there for building projects.

There are research projects for anything you can think of. It doesn’t mean anything until there is a working proof of concept.

The biggest demand for refuelling is from space stations in low Earth orbit, and they’re not paying $60 million to refuel those. Perhaps half that cost.

Source? ISS refuels 3 or 4 times a year, I bet that's more than $60 million.

Now, say that you need $10 billion in R&D expenses to develop a system of refuelling from asteroids, and that you can charge $20 million to refuel a big space station, then you’d need about 500 refuelling missions just to break even. That kind of demand doesn’t exist.

Two things: the demand doesn't exist now and you don't have proof of concept! Undiscussable idea!

 

[Rallywagon]

Rail roads and the steam engine were once research projects. Before they came along, two fools in a pub were probably having a similar debate. Same as then, humans indomitable adventure lust mixed with our finite resources and wanton waste there of, we will eventually blaze into a new frontier. Be it by entrepreneurship or dire need....

 

[Danoff]

The biggest demand for refuelling is from space stations in low Earth orbit, and they’re not paying $60 million to refuel those. Perhaps half that cost.

Now, say that you need $10 billion in R&D expenses to develop a system of refuelling from asteroids, and that you can charge $20 million to refuel a big space station, then you’d need about 500 refuelling missions just to break even. That kind of demand doesn’t exist.

Here's a list of geosynchronous satellites:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_satellites_in_geosynchronous_orbit

By the way, you don't just save them the cost of refueling (ie: launching an entirely new satellite), you also save tons of launch cost when they launch empty and refuel on orbit at the very beginning.

Edit:

Oh and also of course you'd support every single interplanetary mission ever launched by NASA ever again. Because who wants to launch an upper stage full of fuel and a spacecraft full of fuel when you can refuel at GEO. Heck, it would enable missions which are currently not even possible.

 

[Mr Tree]

You mean like during WWII? When one country developed nukes and used them to usher in an era of relative peace?

And how certain can one say that was due to having nukes and not despite?
Also this it's very relative when you look at the cold war.

3rd how much is 'peace' worth if that peace is based on fear of a certain nation's arsenal?
If the wrong guy get's the power it means peacr requires submitting to the superpower effectively making all other states into vassal states. Something very close to slavery.

 

[ryzno]

Saw y'all talking about this a few weeks ago, thought I'd give y'all an update.
Florida 'stand your ground' shooter Michael Drejka charged with manslaughter

 

[Danoff]

And how certain can one say that was due to having nukes and not despite?

It's pretty clearly because of...

Also this it's very relative when you look at the cold war.

3rd how much is 'peace' worth if that peace is based on fear of a certain nation's arsenal?
If the wrong guy get's the power it means peacr requires submitting to the superpower effectively making all other states into vassal states. Something very close to slavery.

So, I just want to get straight what you're arguing here... which is that other nations are slaves to the US?

 

[Mr Tree]

It's pretty clearly because of...



So, I just want to get straight what you're arguing here... which is that other nations are slaves to the US?

If you meant the cold war shows there was relative peace and it being due to having nukes I disagree. First of if relative peace means an arms race I don't see it as such a good thing that's what I mean with that.

On your question I understood you meant peace was available due to the US being the only one having nukes shortly after ww2. I was arguing about the hypothetical situation where a nation has sych an advantagous weapon and when they get a leader who is willing to use the use of said weapon as a 'negotiation tactic'. In that case peace would only be if we listened to the nation with said weapon. In that case we'd be vassal states. So 1 country having the super weapon while others don't is a very slippery path to peace.

If that's any more clear please do tell when it's not

 

[Danoff]

If you meant the cold war shows there was relative peace and it being due to having nukes I disagree. First of if relative peace means an arms race I don't see it as such a good thing that's what I mean with that.

Yea I don't think I can agree with that sentiment. An arms race between the US and the SU does seem less than ideal. But then it is preferable to the alternative, which is all out war destroying the entire human race. So it seems like it worked out pretty decently.

On your question I understood you meant peace was available due to the US being the only one having nukes shortly after ww2. I was arguing about the hypothetical situation where a nation has sych an advantagous weapon and when they get a leader who is willing to use the use of said weapon as a 'negotiation tactic'. In that case peace would only be if we listened to the nation with said weapon. In that case we'd be vassal states. So 1 country having the super weapon while others don't is a very slippery path to peace.

If that's any more clear please do tell when it's not

I understood that as your original message. I pointed out that the US is a counter-example, which did not try to gobble up or enslave the world after WWII even though we were the only ones with nukes. I agree that it seems dangerous for one nation to have the most powerful weapon arsenal. But, in the example that started this whole discussion, it was the US. And the US has a good track record with playing nice with that kind of power.

 

[Mr Tree]

Yea I don't think I can agree with that sentiment. An arms race between the US and the SU does seem less than ideal. But then it is preferable to the alternative, which is all out war destroying the entire human race. So it seems like it worked out pretty decently.



I understood that as your original message. I pointed out that the US is a counter-example, which did not try to gobble up or enslave the world after WWII even though we were the only ones with nukes. I agree that it seems dangerous for one nation to have the most powerful weapon arsenal. But, in the example that started this whole discussion, it was the US. And the US has a good track record with playing nice with that kind of power.

On part one: I agree in full that was better then all out war. But where we disagree is that this is mostly due to the nukes. Economic factors play a very big role since the globalisation after ww2 it became more and more disincentivised to go to all out war as the economic cost are so high towards the gains.

On point 2: I agree it went well for quite some time but in all honesty the way Trump is often behaving on the world stage makes me doubt if things would've kept going fine and dandy if he'd posses that kind of an advantagous weapon. This is all speculation off coarse and I'm not saying Trump does nothing that's good/ok.

 

[Danoff]

On part one: I agree in full that was better then all out war. But where we disagree is that this is mostly due to the nukes. Economic factors play a very big role since the globalisation after ww2 it became more and more disincentivised to go to all out war as the economic cost are so high towards the gains.

Mutually assured destruction turned out to be an excellent driver for a war with almost no blood. I agree that today globalism (capitalism) is a driving force for peace.

On point 2: I agree it went well for quite some time but in all honesty the way Trump is often behaving on the world stage makes me doubt if things would've kept going fine and dandy if he'd posses that kind of an advantagous weapon. This is all speculation off coarse and I'm not saying Trump does nothing that's good/ok.

I totally understand that sentiment. Trump has not exactly been communicating calm and stability.

 

[ryzno]

What has me pissed off the most is they are possibly going to be released on bail!!!
https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/09/us/new-mexico-compound-children/index.html
https://abcnews.go.com/US/suspects-...eleased-bond-sheriffs-pleas/story?id=57160858

 

[eran0004]

Quite. But 3D printing a building already works, we know how to hoover up rock dust... the leap might not be as far as you think. Remember that you don't need humans there for building projects.

3D printing a building on Earth works.

For a building you just need to glue sand together. The leap to start printing circuit boards from moon dust is a giant one.

Source? ISS refuels 3 or 4 times a year, I bet that's more than $60 million.

I bet it’s less than $60 million, since the refuelling is done while they bring supplies to the space station.

10 bn / (4x50 mn) = 50 years before breaking even.

Two things: the demand doesn't exist now and you don't have proof of concept! Undiscussable idea!

You can discuss anything you want for all I care. But discussing an idea doesn’t mean that the idea is realistic.

Rail roads and the steam engine were once research projects. Before they came along, two fools in a pub were probably having a similar debate. Same as then, humans indomitable adventure lust mixed with our finite resources and wanton waste there of, we will eventually blaze into a new frontier. Be it by entrepreneurship or dire need....

A steam engine can be built in a shed by a man with a hammer in a year or two. Asteroid mining is a gamble with many billions of dollars over a long period of time.

But sure, let’s meet back here in 50 years and see what happened

Here's a list of geosynchronous satellites:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_satellites_in_geosynchronous_orbit

And how many of those are in need of refuelling? How many satellite owners are interested in sticking to obsolete technology rather than investing in a new satellite?

By the way, you don't just save them the cost of refueling (ie: launching an entirely new satellite), you also save tons of launch cost when they launch empty and refuel on orbit at the very beginning

Refuelling at launch is a viable application, but the cost to set it up is just too high and it would take a long time before you break even.

 

[Danoff]

And how many of those are in need of refuelling? How many satellite owners are interested in sticking to obsolete technology rather than investing in a new satellite?

All of them? Every satellite could use a little more fuel, and every satellite owner (unless they're going out of business and have no buyers) would be at last interested in evaluating the cost of keeping the old one up vs. spending the enormous cash for putting a new one up.

Refuelling at launch is a viable application, but the cost to set it up is just too high and it would take a long time before you break even.

...based on numbers we don't have.

 

[Tornado]

Refuelling at launch is a viable application, but the cost to set it up is just too high and it would take a long time before you break even.

Based on numbers that you're basically just assuming to be true.

 

[Rallywagon]

3D printing a building on Earth works.

For a building you just need to glue sand together. The leap to start printing circuit boards from moon dust is a giant one.



I bet it’s less than $60 million, since the refuelling is done while they bring supplies to the space station.

10 bn / (4x50 mn) = 50 years before breaking even.



You can discuss anything you want for all I care. But discussing an idea doesn’t mean that the idea is realistic.



A steam engine can be built in a shed by a man with a hammer in a year or two. Asteroid mining is a gamble with many billions of dollars over a long period of time.

But sure, let’s meet back here in 50 years and see what happened



And how many of those are in need of refuelling? How many satellite owners are interested in sticking to obsolete technology rather than investing in a new satellite?



Refuelling at launch is a viable application, but the cost to set it up is just too high and it would take a long time before you break even.

That's a bit of a dismissive hyperbole, but, taking that as an example, imagine what they could have done in a well funded and equipped lab... not to mention, there are already companies tackling mining asteroids, space and low gravity foundry and smelting and the alike. As more and more private entities like SpaceX, Atlius, EADS and others start to really get their legs under them, I have no doubt there will be high demand for space based manufacturing facilities.

 

[DK]

Manafort has been found guilty on 8 counts, with 10 more still pending.

 

[TexRex]

Manafort has been found guilty on 8 counts, with 10 more still pending.

Aaaaand boom goes the dynamite.

 

[ryzno]

Manafort has been found guilty on 8 counts, with 10 more still pending.

Ironic the 8 charges have nothing to do with Trump...

Edit:
Cohan(Cohen?) is set to pled guilty.

 

[TexRex]

Ironic the 8 charges have nothing to do with Trump...

I'm not sure you grasp the definition of irony.

What's more, the Special Counsel investigation has nothing to do with Trump unless/until it has something to do with Trump.

Remember this?

 

[ryzno]

I'm not sure you grasp the definition of irony.

What's more, the Special Counsel investigation has nothing to do with Trump unless/until it has something to do with Trump.

Remember this?

Do you get off on finding anything to point out in my posts? Cause I saw a post of yours the other day that points in that direction.
Do you feel superior pointing out flaws in people's posts?

Regardless social media and our liberal radio is cheering like they finally got Trump pinned.

 

[Touring Mars]

Trump has had it.

All hail President Pence!

Oh damn.

 

[TexRex]

Do you get off on finding anything to point out in my posts? Cause I saw a post of yours the other day that points in that direction.
Do you feel superior pointing out flaws in people's posts?

I probably ought not respond to this aspect of your post as its aim doesn't seem to be anything but argumentative, but I'd be interested in seeing the post to which you're referring.

The overwhelming majority of my posts aren't aimed to pinpoint and address flaws in others', and I invite you to observe my posting habits as a whole rather than a small subset therein.

That I found flaw in your reaction to the Manafort verdict and responded to it does not indicate a propensity to do so or any satisfaction in doing so--on the contrary, I'd much rather you be properly informed and not so quick to offer a reaction that completely disregards the facts of the matter.

Regardless social media and our liberal radio is cheering like they finally got Trump pinned.

Well that's their prerogative, isn't it? They're absolutely gagging for it. That doesn't make them right. There are plenty of people on both sides of the issue who are confused as to the actual mandate of the Mueller probe and how it relates to Trump...him being chief among them.

I don't recall you answering me when I asked if you'd jump to Hillary's defense if it was determined that she, with the assistance of Russians, acted to subvert the democratic process--the real mandate of the investigation--simply on the basis of her not being Trump. That's precisely what you're doing with regards to other members or former menbers of Trump's inner circle, all while disregarding the aforementioned mandate.

Trump has had it.

All hail President Pence!

Oh damn.

"This just in, president Donald J. Trump impeached..."

"...and vice president Mike Pence takes his place."

 

[Danoff]

Family member of mine just last week "I had to vote for trump, Hillary was worse and Gary Johnson didn't know where Aleppo was".

You keep telling yourself that.

 

[Tornado]

Incidentally, Aleppo was so important to the four years of the country following the election that I legitimately can't remember where it is again.