A Moonbase now. junk the ISS moneypit

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
There are tremendous advantages to having a strong and enthusiastic space program. I have long been a proponent of increased funding and attention to space programs, and have advocated for the creation of a more independent and functional space program for Canada. The International Space Station has given us a lot of information on what it's like to live in space for prolonged periods of time, and this experience is going to be critical when planning longer-term missions. Thre are three key points, really, for my advocacy of a strengthened space program.

  1. The End of the World. Hopefully, the end of the world as we know it is not soon upon us--but the fact is, science has shown that the world has been decimated before. The end of the dinosaurs demonstrates that no species, no matter how seemingly dominant, is immune to a massive global disaster. And whether this disaster might be by our own hand, or by Mother Nature, there is always the chance that something of that magnitude could happen again. If this is indeed the case, then pre-established colonies in diverse places on the moon, Mars and perhaps one day elsewhere, would be the only way to definitively assure the continuation of our species.
  2. Capacity for International Unity. Space programs, as they explore what nobody actually knows for sure, are one of the few areas that the diverse international community can actually unite on and work together to advance. Canada and the United States of America work closely together in this regard, and this international partnership should be expanded between as many nations as possible. We should pool technology and resources, and personnel, and this sharing of knowledge will undoubtedy, as it progresses, improve international relationships.
  3. Expansion of Greener Technology. If the international community wants to make space travel efficient and cost-effective, then we're going to have to, by necessity, come up with greener fuel sources and more efficient engine types. The drive to make this happen will force technology to advance quickly--and the discoveries that we make on the way could be hugely advantageous to humanity as a whole. We should be promoting wholeheartedly the rapid development of newer, more renewable technologies, and there is no greater application for this than long-distance space travel and the colonisation of the moon and Mars.

Interesting. I'd been arguing that before we can have an effective and efficient space program, we first need to develop international relations and solar tech etc. You're arguing that the advancement of a space program will lead to the advancement of such technology and international relations.

I tend to disagree with your here. If we don't have these things in place already, then the expansion of a space program risks potential conflicts in future. And to expand space exploration prior to more efficient technologies will merely drain resources in the construction of inefficient space craft etc. I'd say we have it all backwards. Advanced tech and international relations must precede such expansion, not the other way around.

As for human extinction, we need to consider that we still don't clearly know what happened to the dinosaurs. We must also consider that seeing that life continued, clearly it had nothing to do with the permanent changing of the Sun. The Sun will continue to last many millions of years at least before it's ever a threat to us. I don't disagree that sooner or later we will need to abandon this planet. But let's not get ahead of ourselves here. Our Sun is still good for a long time to come. For now, let's focus on digging ourselves in. Building deep underground public transit, grain stroage facilities, underground mineral research and underground tech woudl be the way to go for now. Besides, should we ever move to a new yet more hostile planetary environment, such underground tech could be useful. For now, I do sincerely think we need to focus on earthbound technologies while at the same time working on developing international relations and energy conversion technologies. In short, if these technologies allow us to live more effiicent, safer, secure, healthier and happier lives on earth, then these same technologies would then provide a firm foundation for the development of space tech in the future. Right now, seeing that our earth tech itself is still relatively primitive, how are we oing to develop space stations in space?

Sure we may have the technology to colonize the moon already without a doubt. But we certainly don't have the technology to allow us to do so in a relatively efficient manner without sucking massive economic resources. Let's make sure we have a solid foundation of earth tech and advanced international relations before we build the house of space exploration, otherwise we risk building a house bound to cave in on itself economically in the future.

The ISS already gets boatloads of public money, can't stop that.

Space tech makes new tech, like cordless power tools. Is that efficient? But no space program and they likely would not have happened. A gadget that has worldwide use.

Now your using the 'war is good' fallacy. All the technology developed in war that was then converted to civilian use could have been developed at a fraction of the cost in peace time. The same applies here. It would have been much cheaper to develop cordless powertools alone than to do so alongside an expensive space program. Heck, with the money saved, we might have been able to develop other tech too that we've lost out on owing to this waste.

Going to new places gives us new ideas, which is what we need right now.

Can't education achieve the same results at a fraction of the cost and for many more people?

The USA invents so much, why they would not want to break new ground and create new jobs is beyond me.

Who says space exploraiton is a prerequisite for tech development? As pointed out above, same with military spending, we could likely develop far more tech at a fraction of the price if we merely focussed on developing practical tech rather than have it developed so inefficiently as merely a spinoff of some other wasteful spending.

1. Scientists agree on this. An asteroid could whack us and end our pitiful lives.

Then let's imagine the following scenario:

We lern that an asteroid will whack us in a few years' time. Would our focus be to move the human population off-planet, or to dig it into the grond?

And what kind of tech would we likely be developing? My guess is they'd realise that as advanced as our tech is, it's not advanced enough for permanent extraplanetary life, including saving so many books of literature. Sure they could be downloaded and brought away with a mega computer. but there is still too much we don't know.

My guess is the tech focus then would be on developing underground thermal energy conversion tech, tech to dry food more quickly and efficiently, purify and recicle water more efficiently, perhaps grow food underground, etc. etc. etc.

First off, such tech could be developed in a far shorter time frame and at less cost. Secondly, it would have far more immediate practical use than much space tech at this time. And most importantly, such tech would lay the necessary ground work for proper alloplanetary colonization. After all, especially if such climates are more hostile, underground tech developed on earth would be absolutely essential. Let's not put the cart before the horse. To develop space tech if an asteroid is going to hit in nine years' time would be plain stupid. In that case, we'd stand a better chance to burrow. This same tech could then help us to successfully travel the stars later. You can't skip primary school to go to high school. First things' first.

2. Space is great world project and would go on forever.

Like before, this is just pretty-sounding rhetoric. What great world project going on forever? Once we land on Mars' cold surface or Venus' hot surface, burrowing tech could come in handy. Without that, all our space tech is useless. So let's get our priorities straight. Let's master the foundations of earth tech first before building the house of space tech so that it does not come to nought in the end. Otherwise, it's like inventing the solar panel before the wires that will allow us to transfer that energy to the TV set. You'll notice the wires were invented first, thus making the solar panel useful. Had the solar panel been invented first, it would have been a complete waste of money since there would have been no way to then tap the energy produced. In a sence, we're witnessing this problem with some space tech today. Space tech is advancing faster than the earth tech that would be necessary to make it of practical use to settle other planets.

3. New green tech, what enviro doesn't want this? Although the Russians are working on a nuclear rocket, but you gotta use the tech that works. There is never a perfect time to do anything, but the world is becoming boringly middle class and this is an opportunity to unite more people of the world in the most exciting project ever.

Sure. Let's develop green tech people will use en mass here on earth, not that a handful of astronauts will use in space.

As for uniting the peoples of the world, I doubt some theoretical pie in the sky ISS or moon bse will unite many starving people behind th eproject. Let's solve those problems first and then you may be right.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
Just look at: NASAsolutions: Benefits of the Space Program



This is what the Space program has given civilization so far.

TV satelites: Pass!

Yes, I can't think of any more efficient way to broadcast other than via satelites. Would placing TV towers on the moon be more efficient in any way? Maybe. Seeing that I can't think of any more efficient earth-bound means of achieving this off the top of my head, then yes, I could agree with TV-satelite research.

Cordless power tools: Fail!

NASA hired Black and Decker to develop these tools for its astronauts digging holes on the moon. Obviously we could have developed these tools for a fraction of the cost by still paying Black and Decker to develop these tools, but minus sending men to the moon to jump around for the camera. Certainly if these tools are so useful, then had NASA not paid Black and Decker to do it, it would just have been a matter of time before Black and Decker would have taken the initiative anyway. Or had we spent the money instead on developing urban underground infrastructure, or on educating future construction workers, then urban planner or schools might have had the money to pay Black and Decker to develop these tools for the same price owing to their portability and convenience in the classroom, underground, in searh and rescue missions involving getting people out of crashed planes, cars, trucks, etc. etc. etc.

Only that money NASA gave to Black and Decker actually went towards the development of the powertools. What did we get for the rest of that money?

In conclusion, Black and Decker and not NASA developed those tools, which could have been developed directly for the civilian market, thus bipassing bureaucratic waste at NASA.

Smoke detectors: Fail!

NASA hired Honeywell Inc. to develop a smoke detector for its first space station. Again, had we invested more on education instead, or on urban infrastructure, etc. then some Ministry of Education or other or some Subway transit system would have paid Honeywell to develop the smoke detectors instead. Again, other than the money NASA gave to Honeywell, what did we get for the rest of the money given to NASA? Research on a space station of course. But could you list the practical benefits of that research for us, or was that a waste of money?

So just like above, it was Honeywell and not NASA that developed the smoke detectors, which could have been developed directly for the civilian sector and thus sace more money again.

Water filters: Fail!

NASA hired Western Water International (WWI) to develop the water filters for its Apollo Mission to the moon. Yet had governments provided more funding to urban water purification, then some local water authority or some national health ministry would have hired WWI instead, thus bybassing the money wasted on the mission itself. Like before, it was WWI and not NASA that had developed this system. Sure some NASA technology was incorporated into it, but the only reason NASA had that technology in the first place was because taxes were given it, taxes which, if given directly towards water purification research could have developed the same tech at a fraction of the cost by cutting out the impracticable space-research side of it.

Home insulation:Fail!

NASA developed the shield the system for its Apollo space craft. But again, the same results could have been achieved by a ministry of natural resources to help improve home energy efficiency minus the costs of the unrelated costs such as actually sending the rocket and the men into space for nothing.

OK, there are plenty more examples, but I'm getting tired of going down the list. Anyway, so far we have a score of 1/5 on the efficiency scale. The first, TV satellites, absolutely had to be developed by some kind of space agency or company funded by it, or at least an amalgamation of TV stations. However, all the other examples above are but spinoff. Good in and of themselves, true. But like any other spinoff activity, they can be more efficiently developed if applied directly to their intended civilian use rather than only a fraction of the funds going towards it, merely being a spinoff from a larger more wasteful programme of dubious value.

I will credit NASA with cleaverness in marketing though. It's essentially the same marketing approach as the military: mention all the civiian tech you've developed while downplaying that the money invested in that tech was merely fractional spinoff money from a larger more wasteful project, money that could have been invested directly without the military or space-agency middle man.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
118,264
14,491
113
Low Earth Orbit
I happen to like mylar, tang, HEPA and RO filtration, 12V beer fridges, abolutely amazing ceramics, alloys, batteries, used tires for rocket fuel and much much more.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
Now going back to TV satelites, I wonder if it woudl be possible to establish TV towers on the moon that would be much more long-lasting. It might be more expensive to set them up, but on the other hand once set up, they'd likely last much longer before needing replacement owing to old satellited eventualy falling to earth over time. A drawback of that though is space waste. We still have space junk from the 1960s floating around in orbit. Sending rockets to the moon would mean adding even more booster rockets to the list. As it accumulates and clutters over time, obviously such trips would become ever more perilous. So perhaps until we solve that problem, it might not be a bright idea after all in the long term, and perhaps satellites are the way to go for now in that at least we know that they only go so far out and then fall back to earth. More expensive, but it does ensure space waste won't stay out there as long as lonar booster rockets would.

What could also be an ineresting project worthy of research would be extreme-elevation TV towers placed atope high mountain peaks around the world. Again, if they could be developed solidly etc. they might be able to last a long time without falling to earth over time since they'd be on earth already. Some problems I see with that though is that in cloudy days they might not have access to sunlight to power themselves. Also, the technology needed to put a satellite into orbit and that needed to estalish a phone tower in an urban area are both radically different from the tech that would be needed to transport a TV tower to and then set it up perched on a high mountain summit.

In the end, it may very well be that space is genuinely the only way to go for TV satelites, and that's why I'd given it a pass above. The rest was but spinoof, which is never as efficient as direct investment by definition. Spinoff is merely side spending from the main spending.

I happen to like mylar, tang, HEPA and RO filtration, 12V beer fridges, abolutely amazing ceramics, alloys, batteries, used tires for rocket fuel and much much more.

Like I'd pointed out above your post, nothing says they could not have been developed at a fraction of the cost via direct rather than inefficient spinoff investment.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
118,264
14,491
113
Low Earth Orbit
A brief look at pioneering technologies....

Shipping lines....built through taxation and then privatized.
Roads...built through taxation and then privatized.
Railroads...built through taxation and then privatized.
Medicines...built through taxation and then privatized.
Telegraph...built through taxation and then privatized.
Telephone...built through taxation and then privatized.
Electrical grid...built through taxation and then privatized.
Radio...built through taxation and then privatized.
Natural gas infrastructure...built through taxation and then privatized.
Nuclear ...built through taxation and then privatized.
Television...built through taxation and then privatized.
Satellites...built through taxation and then privatized.
Cell phones...built through taxation and then privatized.
Air Transporation...built through taxation and then privatized.
Sattelites...built through taxation and then privatized.
Space exploration...built through taxation and then privatized.
Internet...built through taxation and then privatized.
Bank of Canada...built through taxation and then privatized.
Universities...built through taxation and then privatized.
etc etc etc ...built through taxation and then privatized.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
A brief look at pioneering technologies....

Shipping lines....built through taxation and then privatized.
Roads...built through taxation and then privatized.
Railroads...built through taxation and then privatized.
Medicines...built through taxation and then privatized.
Telegraph...built through taxation and then privatized.
Telephone...built through taxation and then privatized.
Electrical grid...built through taxation and then privatized.
Radio...built through taxation and then privatized.
Natural gas infrastructure...built through taxation and then privatized.
Nuclear ...built through taxation and then privatized.
Television...built through taxation and then privatized.
Satellites...built through taxation and then privatized.
Cell phones...built through taxation and then privatized.
Air Transporation...built through taxation and then privatized.
Sattelites...built through taxation and then privatized.
Space exploration...built through taxation and then privatized.
Internet...built through taxation and then privatized.
Bank of Canada...built through taxation and then privatized.
Universities...built through taxation and then privatized.
etc etc etc ...built through taxation and then privatized.

Anything that has a true value to society would be developed sooner or later, taxation or no taxation. Again, I'm all for paying my taxes towards public education. Beyond that though, anything that cannot be done through the private sector could always be done via a co-op sector, perhaps organized by the government, but via priave tunding. That way we're sure the money will be invested profitably and not go to waste. Sure the government needs to regulate against greed to ensure all research is for the public good. But by haivn a private investor interest, then we know that they'll want to ensure any money spent will have some kind of return.

The same applies to space exploration. If it's geared towards socially beneficial investment, great, but not if it's ust to give astronauts a thrill ride at our expense.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
118,264
14,491
113
Low Earth Orbit
How many Canadians rely on RO water?

How many wouldn't be alive if RO wasn't a neccesity in the space program and it wasn't developed until a cry for help and public outrage demanded it?

Water in many provinces is a Crown asset. Would you want to have somebody trying to deliver water to your home as cheaply as possible using substandard technology?
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
How many Canadians rely on RO water?

How many wouldn't be alive if RO wasn't a neccesity in the space program and it wasn't developed until a cry for help and public outrage demanded it?

Water in many provinces is a Crown asset. Would you want to have somebody trying to deliver water to your home as cheaply as possible using substandard technology?

When it's a matter of public safety, then I can agree, such as water. But why do we need NASA to develop water-filtration technology? Besides, even NASA subcontracted out, thus making NASA nothing more than the middle man in that case.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
118,264
14,491
113
Low Earth Orbit


When it's a matter of public safety, then I can agree, such as water. But why do we need NASA to develop water-filtration technology? Besides, even NASA subcontracted out, thus making NASA nothing more than the middle man in that case.
How do you remove the salts from piss to make it drinkable without RO? How much does it cost to put 1L of water into space?

1L weighs roughly 1kg @ 4C.

Cost per kg from Earth to Low earth orbit (unmanned)
Small launch vehicles (less than 2300kg): [1]
  • USA, Athena 2 (2065kg to LEO): $11622 per kg
  • Russia, Cosmos (1500kg to LEO): $8667 per kg
  • USA, Pegasus XL (443kg to LEO): $30474 per kg
  • Russia, Rockot (1850kg to LEO): $7297 per kg
  • Russia, Shtil (430kg to LEO): $465 per kg
  • Russia, START (632kg to LEO): $11687 per kg
  • USA, Taurus (1380kg to LEO) $13768 per kg
  • USA, Falcon 1e (430 to LEO) $1010 per kg
Medium launch vehicles (less than 12000kg):
  • Europe, Ariane 44L (10200kg to LEO): $11029 per kg (last launch 2003)
  • USA, Atlas 2AS (8618kg to LEO): $11314 per kg
  • USA, Delta 2 (5144kg to LEO): $10692 per kg
  • Russia, Dnepr (4400kg to LEO): $3409 per kg
  • China, Long March 2C (3200kg to LEO): $7031 per kg
  • China, Long March 2E (9200kg to LEO): $5435 per kg
  • Russia, Soyuz (7000kg to LEO): $5357 per kg
  • USA, Falcon 9 (10450Kg to LEO) $4775 per kg first launch 2010
Heavy launch vehicles (more than 12000kg):
  • Europe, Ariane 5G(18000kg to LEO): $9167 per kg
  • China, Long March 3B(13600kg to LEO): $4412 per kg
  • Russia, Proton(19760kg to LEO): $4302 per kg
  • USA, Space Shuttle(28803kg to LEO): $10416 per kg ( lasts launchs 2011-2012)
  • Ukraine, Zenit 2(13740kg to LEO): $3093 per kg
  • Multinational, Zenit 3SL(15876kg to LEO: $5354 per kg
  • USA, Falcon 9 Heavy (32000Kg to LEO) $2968 per kg (still in devellopement )
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
http://www.cmaj.ca/content/vol178/issue10/images/large/5FFB1.jpeg

How do you remove the salts from piss to make it drinkable without RO?

You totally did not understand my question. Learning how to remove urine from water is not space tech but very much earthbound tech. Again, even NASA contracted out for that. Why not then cut the middle man? If the goal is to develop quality water filtration ssytems for our cities, etc. then clearly it would make more sense to give that research money to urban water authorities rather than a space agency.

How much does it cost to put 1L of water into space?

1L weighs roughly 1kg @ 4C.

Cost per kg from Earth to Low earth orbit (unmanned)

Small launch vehicles (less than 2300kg): [1]
  • USA, Athena 2 (2065kg to LEO): $11622 per kg
  • Russia, Cosmos (1500kg to LEO): $8667 per kg
  • USA, Pegasus XL (443kg to LEO): $30474 per kg
  • Russia, Rockot (1850kg to LEO): $7297 per kg
  • Russia, Shtil (430kg to LEO): $465 per kg
  • Russia, START (632kg to LEO): $11687 per kg
  • USA, Taurus (1380kg to LEO) $13768 per kg
  • USA, Falcon 1e (430 to LEO) $1010 per kg
Medium launch vehicles (less than 12000kg):
  • Europe, Ariane 44L (10200kg to LEO): $11029 per kg (last launch 2003)
  • USA, Atlas 2AS (8618kg to LEO): $11314 per kg
  • USA, Delta 2 (5144kg to LEO): $10692 per kg
  • Russia, Dnepr (4400kg to LEO): $3409 per kg
  • China, Long March 2C (3200kg to LEO): $7031 per kg
  • China, Long March 2E (9200kg to LEO): $5435 per kg
  • Russia, Soyuz (7000kg to LEO): $5357 per kg
  • USA, Falcon 9 (10450Kg to LEO) $4775 per kg first launch 2010
Heavy launch vehicles (more than 12000kg):
  • Europe, Ariane 5G(18000kg to LEO): $9167 per kg
  • China, Long March 3B(13600kg to LEO): $4412 per kg
  • Russia, Proton(19760kg to LEO): $4302 per kg
  • USA, Space Shuttle(28803kg to LEO): $10416 per kg ( lasts launchs 2011-2012)
  • Ukraine, Zenit 2(13740kg to LEO): $3093 per kg
  • Multinational, Zenit 3SL(15876kg to LEO: $5354 per kg
  • USA, Falcon 9 Heavy (32000Kg to LEO) $2968 per kg (still in devellopement )

Why would you want to send water to space? if it's strictly for the astronauts, then we need to ask a few questions. First off, do we absolutely need to send astronauts to space? For what purpose? It may be necessary on occasion for reparations of satellites, etc. If that's the case, then indeed water filtration tech would be useful.

However, if we're using water filtration tech as the very reason for space research funding, as was implied in some posts above about 'spinoff tech', then I can't agree with that. If the sole reason for space exploration is to develop spinoff tech, then that's a great big waste of money. If the spinoff tech is merely a spinoff from other actually valuable and important research, then I can accept it. For instance, satellite technology is valuable. That being the case, should water filtration be a natural spinoff from that, then so much the better. But to argue that we need space research specifically to develop water filtration tech, then o, it woudl save much more money to just give that research funding to urban water authorities.

Some space research is beneficial in its own right regardless of spinoffs, such as satelltie tech. Other space research such as Hubble and voyager spacecraft are a waste of money. They could be valid in future, what we've gotten way too far ahead of ourselves with them at this point in the game. Any spinoff from those projects is a fractional benefit of all the money wasted on them.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
118,264
14,491
113
Low Earth Orbit
Why would you want to send water to space? if it's strictly for the astronauts, then we need to ask a few questions. First off, do we absolutely need to send astronauts to space? For what purpose?
Why didn't Ferdinand and Isabella drop a note in a bottle with instructions on how to build a sailing ship and send it off to America?
 

ironsides

Executive Branch Member
Feb 13, 2009
8,583
60
48
United States
TV satelites: Pass!

Yes, I can't think of any more efficient way to broadcast other than via satelites. Would placing TV towers on the moon be more efficient in any way? Maybe. Seeing that I can't think of any more efficient earth-bound means of achieving this off the top of my head, then yes, I could agree with TV-satelite research.

Cordless power tools: Fail!

NASA hired Black and Decker to develop these tools for its astronauts digging holes on the moon. Obviously we could have developed these tools for a fraction of the cost by still paying Black and Decker to develop these tools, but minus sending men to the moon to jump around for the camera. Certainly if these tools are so useful, then had NASA not paid Black and Decker to do it, it would just have been a matter of time before Black and Decker would have taken the initiative anyway. Or had we spent the money instead on developing urban underground infrastructure, or on educating future construction workers, then urban planner or schools might have had the money to pay Black and Decker to develop these tools for the same price owing to their portability and convenience in the classroom, underground, in searh and rescue missions involving getting people out of crashed planes, cars, trucks, etc. etc. etc.

Only that money NASA gave to Black and Decker actually went towards the development of the powertools. What did we get for the rest of that money?

In conclusion, Black and Decker and not NASA developed those tools, which could have been developed directly for the civilian market, thus bipassing bureaucratic waste at NASA.

Smoke detectors: Fail!

NASA hired Honeywell Inc. to develop a smoke detector for its first space station. Again, had we invested more on education instead, or on urban infrastructure, etc. then some Ministry of Education or other or some Subway transit system would have paid Honeywell to develop the smoke detectors instead. Again, other than the money NASA gave to Honeywell, what did we get for the rest of the money given to NASA? Research on a space station of course. But could you list the practical benefits of that research for us, or was that a waste of money?

So just like above, it was Honeywell and not NASA that developed the smoke detectors, which could have been developed directly for the civilian sector and thus sace more money again.

Water filters: Fail!

NASA hired Western Water International (WWI) to develop the water filters for its Apollo Mission to the moon. Yet had governments provided more funding to urban water purification, then some local water authority or some national health ministry would have hired WWI instead, thus bybassing the money wasted on the mission itself. Like before, it was WWI and not NASA that had developed this system. Sure some NASA technology was incorporated into it, but the only reason NASA had that technology in the first place was because taxes were given it, taxes which, if given directly towards water purification research could have developed the same tech at a fraction of the cost by cutting out the impracticable space-research side of it.

Home insulation:Fail!

NASA developed the shield the system for its Apollo space craft. But again, the same results could have been achieved by a ministry of natural resources to help improve home energy efficiency minus the costs of the unrelated costs such as actually sending the rocket and the men into space for nothing.

OK, there are plenty more examples, but I'm getting tired of going down the list. Anyway, so far we have a score of 1/5 on the efficiency scale. The first, TV satellites, absolutely had to be developed by some kind of space agency or company funded by it, or at least an amalgamation of TV stations. However, all the other examples above are but spinoff. Good in and of themselves, true. But like any other spinoff activity, they can be more efficiently developed if applied directly to their intended civilian use rather than only a fraction of the funds going towards it, merely being a spinoff from a larger more wasteful programme of dubious value.

I will credit NASA with cleaverness in marketing though. It's essentially the same marketing approach as the military: mention all the civiian tech you've developed while downplaying that the money invested in that tech was merely fractional spinoff money from a larger more wasteful project, money that could have been invested directly without the military or space-agency middle man.
Boy are you doom and gloom. Maybe communication towers on the Moon would be more efficient, but now they are not cost effective till NASA or someone builds that Moon base, if it wasn't for the NASA requirements do you think we would still have had these tools developed in a timely matter. We cannot even get nuclear power up to speed because we think it is as far as we want it to be. Everything fails sooner or later, but NASA has caused the development of some pretty remarkable things. Granted we have our priorities mixed up, but that small town out West or in Africa is just not on the priority list for water. :( The water filters by the way do work, and even here on the Earth for example nuclear subs.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
118,264
14,491
113
Low Earth Orbit
Are you a lunatic? How many watts would you have to pump into the ether to transmit 1000+ channels in HD over the 400,000km gap from the moon to earth?
 

ironsides

Executive Branch Member
Feb 13, 2009
8,583
60
48
United States
You ought to study up on your knowledge of satellite's, there relaying transmissions now, it doesn't take to much power to send a signal to and from the Moon. You pass thru such signal's when you fly in a plane.
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
The fact remains that there is a very large gravity well between the Earth and the Space Station. At the moment I can't see the use of a very expensive base on the moon. In any emergency on the moon, help. and the best medical care is several hundred thousand miles away. This will only change if we discover a very rich deposit of something we badly need on the moon.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
118,264
14,491
113
Low Earth Orbit
There are minerals galore on the moon. Greed will find a way sooner or later and the taxpayer will get stuck with the bill as always.
 

dumpthemonarchy

House Member
Jan 18, 2005
4,235
14
38
Vancouver
www.cynicsunlimited.com
Interesting. I'd been arguing that before we can have an effective and efficient space program, we first need to develop international relations and solar tech etc. You're arguing that the advancement of a space program will lead to the advancement of such technology and international relations.

We'll never have perfect world cooperation, but let's develop more space tech to create more cooperation. Countries of the world will never agree with everything all the time, now or in the future.

[/QUOTE]Sure we may have the technology to colonize the moon already without a doubt. But we certainly don't have the technology to allow us to do so in a relatively efficient manner without sucking massive economic resources. Let's make sure we have a solid foundation of earth tech and advanced international relations before we build the house of space exploration, otherwise we risk building a house bound to cave in on itself economically in the future.[/QUOTE]

It's not MASSIVE economic resources, we're spending billions more already, it is a matter or redirecting current resources.

[/QUOTE]Can't education achieve the same results at a fraction of the cost and for many more people?[/QUOTE]

No. Reading about France or Japan is just like traveling there. You gotta do the deed to understand the situation.

[/QUOTE]Who says space exploraiton is a prerequisite for tech development? As pointed out above, same with military spending, we could likely develop far more tech at a fraction of the price if we merely focussed on developing practical tech rather than have it developed so inefficiently as merely a spinoff of some other wasteful spending.[/QUOTE]

It is fantastic new avenue to develope new tech because it is a new environment. It creates great new stimulus.

I happen to like mylar, tang, HEPA and RO filtration, 12V beer fridges, abolutely amazing ceramics, alloys, batteries, used tires for rocket fuel and much much more.

Double ditto here.