If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(My Fox DC)   NASA not going to make another moon set   (myfoxdc.com) divider line 53
    More: Sad, NASA, Charles Bolden, space researches, lunar mission, space technology  
•       •       •

6669 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Apr 2013 at 1:09 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



53 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-08 12:57:49 PM
To give you an example of spending, this means we cannot even spare a retired ICBM.  Which is pretty much what we retrofit to send probes to other planets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titan_(rocket_family)
 
2013-04-08 01:09:26 PM
He said the focus is on going to the asteroid belt and Mars instead.  Basically, they're going to leave the private sector to do what NASA has already accomplished; they did the proof of concept, now it's up to industry to find a way to make it profitable.  He added that NASA would certainly lend a hand to any other agency that was aiming for the moon.

/Only FOX could find a way to twist that into something bad.
 
2013-04-08 01:13:08 PM
Ouch, the comments on there are a blizzard of derp.

Didn't homobama change the mission of NASA to that of helping muslims feel good about themselves? How's that working out for ya?

My Poe's Law detector is broken.  I can't tell if this is real.
 
2013-04-08 01:13:10 PM
Is this a surprise to anyone? Even if we found $100 trillion in gold on the moon; it probably wouldn't be cost effective to go mine it and bring it back.

/ while it would be pretty cool to go to mars; it probably won't happen in our lifetime
 
2013-04-08 01:16:54 PM

iheartscotch: Is this a surprise to anyone? Even if we found $100 trillion in gold on the moon; it probably wouldn't be cost effective to go mine it and bring it back.

/ while it would be pretty cool to go to mars; it probably won't happen in our lifetime


How dare you question Mankind's destiny?
 
2013-04-08 01:17:49 PM
Meh,
Works at NASA.
What FloydA said...
We're using what money we have now to plan things we can afford. Particularly since we just took a 30% budget cut....

AND because this is Fartbongo's fault ..............cause when we balance the budget and elect a NEW president in 2016 and they reallocate money, then CB can say, "Well President X has given us new direction and wants us to land a man on the moon and Mars in like 2 years." and POOOF done....
/yes yes, politics, budget and engineering oversimplification
//but you get it...I had to dumb it down for FARL.COM TM
 
2013-04-08 01:20:28 PM

iheartscotch: Is this a surprise to anyone? Even if we found $100 trillion in gold on the moon; it probably wouldn't be cost effective to go mine it and bring it back.

/ while it would be pretty cool to go to mars; it probably won't happen in our lifetime


Sure it is, just gotta pick a spot on earth nobody will miss and start delivery. Just remember the lunar clones can get uppity
 
2013-04-08 01:21:55 PM
Obongo would rather waste time on useless anti gun legislation, then something constructive.
 
2013-04-08 01:22:10 PM
The only thing that's going to kick-start manned space exploration again is competition.  I'm rooting for China.
 
2013-04-08 01:23:42 PM
and there are women on Mars
 
2013-04-08 01:33:31 PM

Salmon: and there are women on Mars


And cheese on the moon.
 
2013-04-08 01:37:01 PM

fozziewazzi: The only thing that's going to kick-start manned space exploration again is competition.  I'm rooting for China.




Agreed.
Unfortunately Obama didn't come in with any intention to rebuild the program, and the fates would have it that he's delivered a pretty serious blow to it instead.
In the mean time, private industry has done alot of catch up and (maybe) made returning to the moon a more affordable affair.

I think we're in the odd position of mainline NASA being screwed but, through outside assistance, being able to rebuild with amazing speed.
Given the right excuse (the afore mentioned China) a future political candidate can create the mandate to explore and appear deliver within his term.
 
2013-04-08 01:39:42 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: iheartscotch: Is this a surprise to anyone? Even if we found $100 trillion in gold on the moon; it probably wouldn't be cost effective to go mine it and bring it back.

/ while it would be pretty cool to go to mars; it probably won't happen in our lifetime

How dare you question Mankind's destiny?


According to NASA; they brought back approx. 841lbs of moon rocks. If they brought back gold it would have been approx 975 tlbs of gold. Currently, the price of a Troy pound of gold is approx. $22,927 per Troy pound. That works out to approx. $22 million. The Apollo program cost us an estimated $170 billion 2005 dollars. 6 landers made it to the moon. To break even; they would have to ( between them) bring back the equivalent of 3/4 of the gold in Fort Knocks

/ just to break even
 
2013-04-08 01:40:18 PM

fozziewazzi: The only thing that's going to kick-start manned space exploration again is competition.  I'm rooting for China.


exploration ... competition? Competition for what? Pictures of rocks? Deadly vacuum?
 
2013-04-08 01:42:16 PM

ChipNASA: Meh,
Works at NASA.
What FloydA said...
We're using what money we have now to plan things we can afford. Particularly since we just took a 30% budget cut....

AND because this is Fartbongo's fault ..............cause when we balance the budget and elect a NEW president in 2016 and they reallocate money, then CB can say, "Well President X has given us new direction and wants us to land a man on the moon and Mars in like 2 years." and POOOF done....
/yes yes, politics, budget and engineering oversimplification
//but you get it...I had to dumb it down for FARL.COM TM


FARL.COM?
 
2013-04-08 01:42:56 PM

ChipNASA: Meh,
Works at NASA.
What FloydA said...
We're using what money we have now to plan things we can afford. Particularly since we just took a 30% budget cut....

AND because this is Fartbongo's fault ..............cause when we balance the budget and elect a NEW president in 2016 and they reallocate money, then CB can say, "Well President X has given us new direction and wants us to land a man on the moon and Mars in like 2 years." and POOOF done....
/yes yes, politics, budget and engineering oversimplification
//but you get it...I had to dumb it down for FARL.COM TM


and probably farking at work, as i am!!!
 
2013-04-08 01:53:07 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: ChipNASA: Meh,
Works at NASA.
What FloydA said...
We're using what money we have now to plan things we can afford. Particularly since we just took a 30% budget cut....

AND because this is Fartbongo's fault ..............cause when we balance the budget and elect a NEW president in 2016 and they reallocate money, then CB can say, "Well President X has given us new direction and wants us to land a man on the moon and Mars in like 2 years." and POOOF done....
/yes yes, politics, budget and engineering oversimplification
//but you get it...I had to dumb it down for FARL.COM TM

FARL.COM?


It's a new but hipster meme....you've probably never heard of it. It's from Canada.
 
2013-04-08 01:53:19 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: fozziewazzi: The only thing that's going to kick-start manned space exploration again is competition.  I'm rooting for China.

exploration ... competition? Competition for what? Pictures of rocks? Deadly vacuum?


Resources.

What laws will govern humans in 1000 years.
 
2013-04-08 01:53:31 PM
We can't even get our own astronauts to the space station. Could we try that first.
 
2013-04-08 02:18:25 PM
While not happy with the cuts to the U.S. manned space exploration program; I find fascinating the irony of the "anti-socialism/anti-big government/strict constitutionalist" crowd hating on President Obama for shifting more of space exploration to the private sector from government.
 
2013-04-08 02:19:24 PM

Rapmaster2000: Ouch, the comments on there are a blizzard of derp.

Didn't homobama change the mission of NASA to that of helping muslims feel good about themselves? How's that working out for ya?

My Poe's Law detector is broken.  I can't tell if this is real.


"When I became the NASA administrator -- or before I became the NASA administrator -- he charged me with three things. One was he wanted me to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math, he wanted me to expand our international relationships, and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science and math and engineering,"  - Charles Bolden
 
2013-04-08 02:21:34 PM
Charlie Bolden: Proof that you don't make the truck driver president of the freight company.
 
2013-04-08 02:21:35 PM

theMagni: Resources.


Um.... you realize that these "resources" are mostly low-value rocks, scattered in a deadly vacuum, with maybe a few ppm here and there of the same elements we have right here on Earth? And if you say He-3 I'm going to cockpunch you so hard the impact will fuse the iron in your hemoglobin into unstable trans-uranic nuclei.

I'ma supernovacockpunch you.

theMagni: What laws will govern humans in 1000 years.


I suppose much the same laws as today? F=ma, for example. Or better technology right here means we don't need the obsolete ideas of the past... How many ball bearings you see being made in orbit these days? Imagine that, we can already make atomically perfect spheres right here on Earth. Single crystal turbine blades, right here.

uncleacid: We can't even get our own astronauts to the space station. Could we try that first.


It's an amusement ride, a sort of cosplay for A-type personalities and countries to show off with. It has no intrinsic value.
 
2013-04-08 02:36:37 PM

ChipNASA: MaudlinMutantMollusk: ChipNASA: Meh,
Works at NASA.
What FloydA said...
We're using what money we have now to plan things we can afford. Particularly since we just took a 30% budget cut....

AND because this is Fartbongo's fault ..............cause when we balance the budget and elect a NEW president in 2016 and they reallocate money, then CB can say, "Well President X has given us new direction and wants us to land a man on the moon and Mars in like 2 years." and POOOF done....
/yes yes, politics, budget and engineering oversimplification
//but you get it...I had to dumb it down for FARL.COM TM

FARL.COM?

It's a new but hipster meme....you've probably never heard of it. It's from Canada.


Nice recovery!
 
2013-04-08 02:42:56 PM
We've known about Farl for years
 
2013-04-08 02:43:27 PM
"They" warned us away again after making mention of going back...
 
2013-04-08 02:44:21 PM
i47.tinypic.com
 
2013-04-08 02:51:52 PM
I still can't believe they actually went to the moon and back. We can't even go ouit farther than the space station without getting gamma rayed to death.
 
2013-04-08 03:00:53 PM

Deep Contact: I still can't believe they actually went to the moon and back. We can't even go ouit farther than the space station without getting gamma rayed to death.


Huh?
 
2013-04-08 03:11:13 PM

iheartscotch: Quantum Apostrophe: iheartscotch: Is this a surprise to anyone? Even if we found $100 trillion in gold on the moon; it probably wouldn't be cost effective to go mine it and bring it back.

/ while it would be pretty cool to go to mars; it probably won't happen in our lifetime

How dare you question Mankind's destiny?

According to NASA; they brought back approx. 841lbs of moon rocks. If they brought back gold it would have been approx 975 tlbs of gold. Currently, the price of a Troy pound of gold is approx. $22,927 per Troy pound. That works out to approx. $22 million. The Apollo program cost us an estimated $170 billion 2005 dollars. 6 landers made it to the moon. To break even; they would have to ( between them) bring back the equivalent of 3/4 of the gold in Fort Knocks

/ just to break even


you're assuming we'd send them back in landers and all that with their very limited cargo capacity.  why not instead send those landers over with the parts for a railgun, and just shoot packages of gold  down into earth's gravity well with that.

strap heat-shields and chutes on them, and angle the shots so they do what the brains at nasa refer to as a 'free return', where they use earth's atmosphere to slow down enough to be captured/deorbit. time the shots so they drop into an empty land-area or into the ocean. collect and enjoy the payoff.

the real obstacle then is that you can easily send so much back so fast that you tank the value of what you're sending back, making it cost-ineffective then.

so TL;DR - mine gold - shoot gold at earth. orbital mechanics allow packets to be sent down, captured, and safely deorbited without need for retro-rockets or even guidance systems.

//direct ascent with free return was how i ran simulated lunar missions in both orbiter and KSP. blew my son's mind when i managed an earth return with a solid rocket driven return capsule.
 
2013-04-08 03:12:51 PM
"and just shoot packages of gold "</p>
Where, precisely, do these packages of gold come from? Never mind the dozens of non-existent fantasy technologies in your touchingly sweet, naively childlike post.
 
2013-04-08 03:24:07 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: Deep Contact: I still can't believe they actually went to the moon and back. We can't even go ouit farther than the space station without getting gamma rayed to death.

Huh?


Check it out. We have to stay below the Van Allen belt for protection from radiation.
 
2013-04-08 03:24:55 PM
Meh.  Bolton is an Obama lacky...he's just laying out the warning that if we keep changing out mind every time a new administration comes in we;'ll never get anything done.  Not that he's wrong...but he IS trying to keep Obama's vision in place (hence the lack quote)... when he could have said we should have kept Bush's in place since he's the one who kicked the manned space program into high gear.

Little truth, little politics...lot's of FOX derp...
 
2013-04-08 03:33:34 PM

buttery_shame_cave: iheartscotch: Quantum Apostrophe: iheartscotch: Is this a surprise to anyone? Even if we found $100 trillion in gold on the moon; it probably wouldn't be cost effective to go mine it and bring it back.

/ while it would be pretty cool to go to mars; it probably won't happen in our lifetime

How dare you question Mankind's destiny?

According to NASA; they brought back approx. 841lbs of moon rocks. If they brought back gold it would have been approx 975 tlbs of gold. Currently, the price of a Troy pound of gold is approx. $22,927 per Troy pound. That works out to approx. $22 million. The Apollo program cost us an estimated $170 billion 2005 dollars. 6 landers made it to the moon. To break even; they would have to ( between them) bring back the equivalent of 3/4 of the gold in Fort Knocks

/ just to break even

you're assuming we'd send them back in landers and all that with their very limited cargo capacity.  why not instead send those landers over with the parts for a railgun, and just shoot packages of gold  down into earth's gravity well with that.

strap heat-shields and chutes on them, and angle the shots so they do what the brains at nasa refer to as a 'free return', where they use earth's atmosphere to slow down enough to be captured/deorbit. time the shots so they drop into an empty land-area or into the ocean. collect and enjoy the payoff.

the real obstacle then is that you can easily send so much back so fast that you tank the value of what you're sending back, making it cost-ineffective then.

so TL;DR - mine gold - shoot gold at earth. orbital mechanics allow packets to be sent down, captured, and safely deorbited without need for retro-rockets or even guidance systems.

//direct ascent with free return was how i ran simulated lunar missions in both orbiter and KSP. blew my son's mind when i managed an earth return with a solid rocket driven return capsule.


Um; we don't have rail guns. What you are proposing is like having a bullet shoot a smaller bullet at a third, larger bullet. That's assuming that exiting the moon's gravity doesn't flip the heat shield to the wrong side. You'd have to make a container that was all heat shield.

Plus, you'd have to put some sort of control mechanism on it. As I understand it; the angle of incident is extremely important to the survival of the craft. Too much and the craft burns up; too little and the craft skips off of the atmosphere.

As I understand it; they can get pretty close to predicting where touchdown will be; but, it isn't perfect.
 
2013-04-08 03:34:32 PM

Deep Contact: Check it out. We have to stay below the Van Allen belt for protection from radiation.


And?
 
2013-04-08 04:00:04 PM

FloydA: He said the focus is on going to the asteroid belt and Mars instead.  Basically, they're going to leave the private sector to do what NASA has already accomplished; they did the proof of concept, now it's up to industry to find a way to make it profitable.  He added that NASA would certainly lend a hand to any other agency that was aiming for the moon.

/Only FOX could find a way to twist that into something bad.


I didn't see any bad twist in the article.
 
2013-04-08 04:28:03 PM

ChipNASA: Meh,
Works at NASA.
What FloydA said...
We're using what money we have now to plan things we can afford. Particularly since we just took a 30% budget cut....

AND because this is Fartbongo's fault ..............cause when we balance the budget and elect a NEW president in 2016 and they reallocate money, then CB can say, "Well President X has given us new direction and wants us to land a man on the moon and Mars in like 2 years." and POOOF done....
/yes yes, politics, budget and engineering oversimplification
//but you get it...I had to dumb it down for FARL.COM TM


"fartbongo" what does that even mean? man, I can even see you chuckling to yourself when you typed it. you are the same knuckle dragger that thinks we need to cut every social program "to balance the budget" you are the one who is against the right to choose, yet wants to cut school lunches. I got it, send the babies to the moon I've been told it's made of cheese! fartbongo really? gotta hate the black man. he should have a fine Christian name like jones, or Williams, or White, that he got from his slave daddy. you are an ass
 
2013-04-08 04:33:08 PM

iheartscotch: buttery_shame_cave: iheartscotch: Quantum Apostrophe: iheartscotch: Is this a surprise to anyone? Even if we found $100 trillion in gold on the moon; it probably wouldn't be cost effective to go mine it and bring it back.

/ while it would be pretty cool to go to mars; it probably won't happen in our lifetime

How dare you question Mankind's destiny?

According to NASA; they brought back approx. 841lbs of moon rocks. If they brought back gold it would have been approx 975 tlbs of gold. Currently, the price of a Troy pound of gold is approx. $22,927 per Troy pound. That works out to approx. $22 million. The Apollo program cost us an estimated $170 billion 2005 dollars. 6 landers made it to the moon. To break even; they would have to ( between them) bring back the equivalent of 3/4 of the gold in Fort Knocks

/ just to break even

you're assuming we'd send them back in landers and all that with their very limited cargo capacity.  why not instead send those landers over with the parts for a railgun, and just shoot packages of gold  down into earth's gravity well with that.

strap heat-shields and chutes on them, and angle the shots so they do what the brains at nasa refer to as a 'free return', where they use earth's atmosphere to slow down enough to be captured/deorbit. time the shots so they drop into an empty land-area or into the ocean. collect and enjoy the payoff.

the real obstacle then is that you can easily send so much back so fast that you tank the value of what you're sending back, making it cost-ineffective then.

so TL;DR - mine gold - shoot gold at earth. orbital mechanics allow packets to be sent down, captured, and safely deorbited without need for retro-rockets or even guidance systems.

//direct ascent with free return was how i ran simulated lunar missions in both orbiter and KSP. blew my son's mind when i managed an earth return with a solid rocket driven return capsule.

Um; we don't have rail guns. What you are proposing is like having a bullet s ...


Yeah we actually do have railguns, they are in prototype design for naval ships w/ an ETA of 2019-2025 for deployment.

As for targeting, nobody is going to care if middle of no-where Arizona gets a few more craters.  Or if you wanna go all Operation Meteor, nobody alive is going to care about the crater lake of Best Korea
 
2013-04-08 05:20:01 PM

ShadowKamui: Yeah we actually do have railguns, they are in prototype design for naval ships w/ an ETA of 2019-2025 for deployment.


And? Unlimited military budgets don't make for convincing Moon mining technologies for private corporations. How many people are required to support this magical rail gun? How many parts wear out how quickly? How often do they need repair? How are you going to keep that many people on the Moon while going after your ppm levels of gold? How are you going to automate them away?

How many levels of quixotic, impossible technologies and expensive delusions do you need, just to get something that's already available here on Earth?

How many times more gold can you get on Earth for the same energy expenditure? Same money outlay?

It's fun to daydream, but when the pencil hits the blueprint, so to speak, you quickly realize that none of this makes a shred of sense.

If it did, people would have done it already during the heyday of the space age. Or are you claiming you know more than they did?
 
2013-04-08 05:51:10 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: ShadowKamui: Yeah we actually do have railguns, they are in prototype design for naval ships w/ an ETA of 2019-2025 for deployment.

And? Unlimited military budgets don't make for convincing Moon mining technologies for private corporations. How many people are required to support this magical rail gun? How many parts wear out how quickly? How often do they need repair? How are you going to keep that many people on the Moon while going after your ppm levels of gold? How are you going to automate them away?

How many levels of quixotic, impossible technologies and expensive delusions do you need, just to get something that's already available here on Earth?

How many times more gold can you get on Earth for the same energy expenditure? Same money outlay?

It's fun to daydream, but when the pencil hits the blueprint, so to speak, you quickly realize that none of this makes a shred of sense.

If it did, people would have done it already during the heyday of the space age. Or are you claiming you know more than they did?


Sorry to ruin your Luddite parade but the tech isn't magical it exists and is going to be mass deployed in 5-10years.  It's all just a matter of cost after that (asteroids have an insane return on investment if you don't crash the nickel & platinum markets).  Also, nobody gives a crap about lunar environmental damage so strip mine away!

And no it wouldn't of happened in the 60s cause we didn't have working railguns outside of a lab which we soon will.  And the infinite military budget can be used for this anyways; rent it to companies when not using it & switch to "rods from god" mode when you need to make a country disappear.  No different than a nuclear reactor.
 
2013-04-08 07:07:41 PM

ShadowKamui: Sorry to ruin your Luddite parade but the tech isn't magical it exists and is going to be mass deployed in 5-10years.


But of course.

ShadowKamui: It's all just a matter of cost after that (asteroids have an insane return on investment if you don't crash the nickel & platinum markets).


But of course!

ShadowKamui: No different than a nuclear reactor.


But of course. All of which work unattended, are designed to be crammed into a rocket, and are cheap cheap cheap.

How much you wanna bet that none of your delirious predictions even remotely come true? You'll be investing your money in these companies, yes?

And I don't think you know what "Luddite" means; first, there has to be an actual technology for me to destroy...
 
2013-04-08 07:15:09 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: ShadowKamui: Sorry to ruin your Luddite parade but the tech isn't magical it exists and is going to be mass deployed in 5-10years.

But of course.

ShadowKamui: It's all just a matter of cost after that (asteroids have an insane return on investment if you don't crash the nickel & platinum markets).

But of course!

ShadowKamui: No different than a nuclear reactor.

But of course. All of which work unattended, are designed to be crammed into a rocket, and are cheap cheap cheap.

How much you wanna bet that none of your delirious predictions even remotely come true? You'll be investing your money in these companies, yes?

And I don't think you know what "Luddite" means; first, there has to be an actual technology for me to destroy...


There's more than enough door stops around here that used to be tank armor to prove rail guns exists.  So, you're not even a Luddite; just a moron screaming LALALA I don't see anything and space bad.
 
2013-04-08 07:15:12 PM

ShadowKamui: iheartscotch: buttery_shame_cave: iheartscotch: Quantum Apostrophe: iheartscotch: Is this a surprise to anyone? Even if we found $100 trillion in gold on the moon; it probably wouldn't be cost effective to go mine it and bring it back.

/ while it would be pretty cool to go to mars; it probably won't happen in our lifetime

How dare you question Mankind's destiny?

According to NASA; they brought back approx. 841lbs of moon rocks. If they brought back gold it would have been approx 975 tlbs of gold. Currently, the price of a Troy pound of gold is approx. $22,927 per Troy pound. That works out to approx. $22 million. The Apollo program cost us an estimated $170 billion 2005 dollars. 6 landers made it to the moon. To break even; they would have to ( between them) bring back the equivalent of 3/4 of the gold in Fort Knocks

/ just to break even

you're assuming we'd send them back in landers and all that with their very limited cargo capacity.  why not instead send those landers over with the parts for a railgun, and just shoot packages of gold  down into earth's gravity well with that.

strap heat-shields and chutes on them, and angle the shots so they do what the brains at nasa refer to as a 'free return', where they use earth's atmosphere to slow down enough to be captured/deorbit. time the shots so they drop into an empty land-area or into the ocean. collect and enjoy the payoff.

the real obstacle then is that you can easily send so much back so fast that you tank the value of what you're sending back, making it cost-ineffective then.

so TL;DR - mine gold - shoot gold at earth. orbital mechanics allow packets to be sent down, captured, and safely deorbited without need for retro-rockets or even guidance systems.

//direct ascent with free return was how i ran simulated lunar missions in both orbiter and KSP. blew my son's mind when i managed an earth return with a solid rocket driven return capsule.

Um; we don't have rail guns. What you are proposing is like having a bullet s ...

Yeah we actually do have railguns, they are in prototype design for naval ships w/ an ETA of 2019-2025 for deployment.

As for targeting, nobody is going to care if middle of no-where Arizona gets a few more craters.  Or if you wanna go all Operation Meteor, nobody alive is going to care about the crater lake of Best Korea


Um; do you have a citation for rail guns coming soon to a naval ship near you? Preferably something from Stars and Strips, the DOD; heck, Popular Mechanics would work too.
 
2013-04-08 07:18:25 PM

ShadowKamui: There's more than enough door stops around here that used to be tank armor to prove rail guns exists. So, you're not even a Luddite; just a moron screaming LALALA I don't see anything and space bad.


Of course they exist, they'll never be used in your delirious child-like delusion.

Oh well, time goes by fast enough, you'll never see it happen. See ya in ten years! I'll be waiting for your asteroid-mined souvenir in the mail.
 
2013-04-08 07:35:23 PM

iheartscotch: ShadowKamui: iheartscotch: buttery_shame_cave: iheartscotch: Quantum Apostrophe: iheartscotch: Is this a surprise to anyone? Even if we found $100 trillion in gold on the moon; it probably wouldn't be cost effective to go mine it and bring it back.

/ while it would be pretty cool to go to mars; it probably won't happen in our lifetime

How dare you question Mankind's destiny?

According to NASA; they brought back approx. 841lbs of moon rocks. If they brought back gold it would have been approx 975 tlbs of gold. Currently, the price of a Troy pound of gold is approx. $22,927 per Troy pound. That works out to approx. $22 million. The Apollo program cost us an estimated $170 billion 2005 dollars. 6 landers made it to the moon. To break even; they would have to ( between them) bring back the equivalent of 3/4 of the gold in Fort Knocks

/ just to break even

you're assuming we'd send them back in landers and all that with their very limited cargo capacity.  why not instead send those landers over with the parts for a railgun, and just shoot packages of gold  down into earth's gravity well with that.

strap heat-shields and chutes on them, and angle the shots so they do what the brains at nasa refer to as a 'free return', where they use earth's atmosphere to slow down enough to be captured/deorbit. time the shots so they drop into an empty land-area or into the ocean. collect and enjoy the payoff.

the real obstacle then is that you can easily send so much back so fast that you tank the value of what you're sending back, making it cost-ineffective then.

so TL;DR - mine gold - shoot gold at earth. orbital mechanics allow packets to be sent down, captured, and safely deorbited without need for retro-rockets or even guidance systems.

//direct ascent with free return was how i ran simulated lunar missions in both orbiter and KSP. blew my son's mind when i managed an earth return with a solid rocket driven return capsule.

Um; we don't have rail guns. What you are proposin ...


http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2012/0301/Navy-railgun-fires-40-lb. -b ullets-at-Mach-7-video

It's BAE marketing fluff piece but they claim testing till 2017, deployment in 2020.

And don't think the military won't get a hard-on for a non-NBC that can obliterate a city if you got a big enough rock, or at least bunker-bust a mountain.  They sent people into space to test ICBM, space mining is going to be the rods from god cover story.
 
2013-04-08 07:58:20 PM
I don't think anyone living today will ever see another person go to the moon. And no one will ever see people go to Mars.
 
2013-04-08 09:09:04 PM
The sun is a major source of dangerous radiation astronauts might encounter especially during solar storms that can erupt with little notice.
So we better launch at night.
 
2013-04-08 09:55:05 PM

heavymetal: While not happy with the cuts to the U.S. manned space exploration program; I find fascinating the irony of the "anti-socialism/anti-big government/strict constitutionalist" crowd hating on President Obama for shifting more of space exploration to the private sector from government.


Remember, they don't really want small goverment, they want the world to work like it was when they were kids.

That means fighting communists, lots of God and Jesus everywhere, and NASA sending men into space on rockets.

The "strict constitutionalist" thing is just a way to try to make it sound smart.
 
2013-04-09 12:11:42 AM

ShadowKamui: They sent people into space to test ICBM


Wow.
 
2013-04-09 12:14:53 AM

ShadowKamui: And no it wouldn't of happened in the 60s cause we didn't have working railguns outside of a lab which we soon will. And the infinite military budget can be used for this anyways; rent it to companies when not using it & switch to "rods from god" mode when you need to make a country disappear. No different than a nuclear reactor.


If we could harness just 1% of your insanity, we could power a city instead. Isn't that better? Your brand of insanity is so powerful it managed to make me miss "wouldn't of" the first time around. "Wouldn't of". Illiterate buffoon.
 
Displayed 50 of 53 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report