21–30 of 81 posts
> Musk and Bezos, they're talking about putting colonies on Mars, that's nonsense. Probably kind of people which were telling "They're talking about landing rockets, that's nonsense".
FTA: "I think the space shuttle was a serious error. It hardly did anything except have an exciting launch, but it never lived up to its promise," Few people are willing to call the shuttle a failure, but it was. It cost much more per mission than estimated and was supposed to lunch every two weeks. It averaged approximately one every 3 months. The payload was supposed to cost $635 per pound, but ended costing $27,00…
FTA: "I think the space shuttle was a serious error. It hardly did anything except have an exciting launch, but it never lived up to its promise," Few people are willing to call the shuttle a failure, but it was. It cost much more per mission than estimated and was supposed to lunch every two weeks. It averaged approximately one every 3 months. The payload was supposed to cost $635 per pound, but ended costing $27,00…
I mean it did go to space, numerous times. Just because the budgeting projections were way off doesn't make it a failure.
> Musk and Bezos, they're talking about putting colonies on Mars, that's nonsense. Probably kind of people which were telling "They're talking about landing rockets, that's nonsense".
What is the cost:benefit ratio to long term colonization of an inhospitable planet?
FTA: "I think the space shuttle was a serious error. It hardly did anything except have an exciting launch, but it never lived up to its promise," Few people are willing to call the shuttle a failure, but it was. It cost much more per mission than estimated and was supposed to lunch every two weeks. It averaged approximately one every 3 months. The payload was supposed to cost $635 per pound, but ended costing $27,00…
I mean it did go to space, numerous times. Just because the budgeting projections were way off doesn't make it a failure.
Robotics have improved exponentially since the moon landing - where before humans may have been necessary, autonomous landers etc. are now cheaper and more capable. Why risk the lives?
If I lived a long time ago I would rather have died alone with arrows in my back as an explorer of the American West, than in a warm bed in my old age having never explored or tested fate.
"The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man who lives fully is prepared to die at any time." — Mark Twain
"When I looked at the Earth itself... I started to wonder why I was here, what's my purpose here… it sort of dawned me," he said.
"And my perspective is that God has given mankind a stage on which to perform. How the play turns out, is up to us."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is the cost:benefit ratio to long term colonization of an inhospitable planet?
I imagine many had a similar view of sailing across the Atlantic before word spread of riches in the New World.
> "And my perspective is that God has given mankind a stage on which to perform. How the play turns out, is up to us."
I think they are saying; that there's nothing out there that humans are capable of taking advantage of. If going to the Moon has any benefit, then it is to point out clearly that we shouldn't explore more and stay right here on earth, and taking care of whatever we mere human can take care of. If going to the moon is that hard and costly, then how does this compare going to the mars? Even if we did managed to, which few selected population can reap the benefit? Is it worth it for us to pay so much civilian money only for it to be a special planet for very few selected capitalist from earth?
At some point, we just had to lose our interest in space exploration. Just because there's too much of this world to keep us busy with.