On April 20 2012 03:57 farvacola wrote: I really hope that one of the foci of this organization is to continue heavy research into fusion/alternative energy, as it would seem that space only really begins to open once we fix our energy problems.
This is just so true. Everything (prosperity, economy, research, education, medicine etc) depends first of all on energy. We can make everybody wealthy and healthy, we can stabilize population and save our environment, soils, oceans and climate if we only get enough clean sustainable energy. Until then scaling up space travel or even increasing space exploration is too energy intensive.
I don't think that doomers are right that there will be a massive human die off and civilization collapse in a couple of decades. That is quite unlikely unless we start a nuclear war. But it is certainly possible that our quality of life will start gradually degrading quite soon, as getting fossil fuels becomes less energy efficient and more expensive (it's already happening with oil as oil from tar sands, oil shales and sea bed is much harder to extract then conventional oil; coal and gas will follow some time later, meanwhile ruining our environment).
Just think about it: US as well as Southern Europe would have zero debt if oil was as cheap as 10 years ago. Get enough sustainable clean energy - and all problems from debt to enemployment, from pollution to poverty are automatically fixed. Then we can go and mine those asteroids.
What? Source?
Sustainable energy will fix unemployment, poverty and debt? How?
Well, summ up how much extra US has paid for oil imports during the last 10 years above 2002 prices plus military expenses (Afganistan, Iraq, air carriers) to secure oil flow from Middle East. You may say that US would have huge military and wars regardless of oil, but to me it seems that oil is on of the major reasons. Anyway, for Italy and for a few other European countries you can just directly sum up oil imports costs minus oil imports at 2002 prices to arrive at their national debts: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v483/n7391/full/483541a.html
That is not related to the countries debt. What you're saying is that the people in that country love to eat pineapple. In fact, they love to eat it so much that you keep carrying them into the country but you don't make your people pay for it even if the price rises. You even take loans to keep shoving them into your peoples mouths!
And then you claim it's the pineapples fault that you had to make that debt, hell, you even had to pump up the military budget so you can secure vast fields of pineapples for your people - ALL WITHOUT CHARGING THEM FOR IT.
........
So all the oil that the US or southern european countries bought evaporated and was not sold, that's why they're in debt. Why exactly are there countries who have less national debt despite not exactly eating less pineapples?
As for the paper it says "A country which has more energy for everyone has a higher standard of life" - that is a LOT different from saying "Using renewable energy sources will fix unemployment, poverty and debt". It doesn't matter where that energy comes from in that equation. What however DOES matter when it comes to securing the future of the non-renewable energies, here I'm bashing some western countries with e.g. Germany at the front, are countries who shut down e.g. very secure nuclear reactors just to then buy energy from countries with less safe ones or, even worse, who run mostly gas/oil/coal plants.
I am sorry, probably I didn't express myself correctly. I agree with you, energy itself doesn't always solve problems, but you can't solve problems without enough energy. It also seems that with declining availability of very cheap fossil fuels (we still have plenty, they are just gradually getting harder to get and more expensive beginning with oil) many countries will have less energy or at least will have to pay more for it. I also think that nuclear is one of the best sustainable and clean forms of energy (once you consider breeder reactors), much less intermittent than wind or solar, no idea why Germany pulled out of nuclear.
But this will make many many times easier to colonise space. And that is a good thing, because if some asteroid were to hit the earth, then there'd still be people somewhere. I believe strongly that humanity's best chance of survival lies in space. And sure we may not need the resources but the technology that will come from what could be a very profitable company, could change lives.
One could argue that the existance of humans is not 'good' in the first place, but I'm not going to touch that subject. Spending billions on a project that will most likely not yield any new beneficial technology* while spending fractions of that same sum that those billionaire backers put up, would solve hunger right away*, is a waste.
Sources: 1) Billionaires one time investing money while NASA has a budget over 17 billion annually. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA) 2) To solve world hunger, ~750 Million USD per year would be needed. (http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/josette_sheeran_ending_hunger_now.html)
But this will make many many times easier to colonise space. And that is a good thing, because if some asteroid were to hit the earth, then there'd still be people somewhere. I believe strongly that humanity's best chance of survival lies in space. And sure we may not need the resources but the technology that will come from what could be a very profitable company, could change lives.
One could argue that the existance of humans is not 'good' in the first place, but I'm not going to touch that subject. Spending billions on a project that will most likely not yield any new beneficial technology* while spending fractions of that same sum that those billionaire backers put up, would solve hunger right away*, is a waste.
Sources: 1) Billionaires one time investing money while NASA has a budget over 17 billion annually. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA) 2) To solve world hunger, ~750 Million USD per year would be needed. (http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/josette_sheeran_ending_hunger_now.html)
Are you seriously going to bring NASA's budget into this? NASA gets less than 1% of the American budget. And to stop world hunger (which the governments of the world should be doing) you can't just pay money and have the problem go away. Think how many of the starving countries have ruthless dictators as their leaders. Governments should solve the people's problems, private companies should whatever the hell they like, even more so if it's beneficial to humanity.
But this will make many many times easier to colonise space. And that is a good thing, because if some asteroid were to hit the earth, then there'd still be people somewhere. I believe strongly that humanity's best chance of survival lies in space. And sure we may not need the resources but the technology that will come from what could be a very profitable company, could change lives.
One could argue that the existance of humans is not 'good' in the first place, but I'm not going to touch that subject. Spending billions on a project that will most likely not yield any new beneficial technology* while spending fractions of that same sum that those billionaire backers put up, would solve hunger right away*, is a waste.
Sources: 1) Billionaires one time investing money while NASA has a budget over 17 billion annually. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA) 2) To solve world hunger, ~750 Million USD per year would be needed. (http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/josette_sheeran_ending_hunger_now.html)
First of all, why is it that they should spend their money on world hunger ? Just because you apparently don't mind to spend their money on it don't mean they should.
Second of all. It ain't that easy. You can't just throw ~750 million USD at Africa and expect results. There are people working in Africa and other places to solve hunger, but as long as the place is corrupt it won't be that easy.
Why is it that we have to focus 100% on world hunger and shouldn't be allowed to go into space or do other things that interest us ?
But this will make many many times easier to colonise space. And that is a good thing, because if some asteroid were to hit the earth, then there'd still be people somewhere. I believe strongly that humanity's best chance of survival lies in space. And sure we may not need the resources but the technology that will come from what could be a very profitable company, could change lives.
One could argue that the existance of humans is not 'good' in the first place, but I'm not going to touch that subject. Spending billions on a project that will most likely not yield any new beneficial technology* while spending fractions of that same sum that those billionaire backers put up, would solve hunger right away*, is a waste.
Sources: 1) Billionaires one time investing money while NASA has a budget over 17 billion annually. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA) 2) To solve world hunger, ~750 Million USD per year would be needed. (http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/josette_sheeran_ending_hunger_now.html)
Are you seriously going to bring NASA's budget into this? NASA gets less than 1% of the American budget. And to stop world hunger (which the governments of the world should be doing) you can't just pay money and have the problem go away. Think how many of the starving countries have ruthless dictators as their leaders. Governments should solve the people's problems, private companies should whatever the hell they like, even more so if it's beneficial to humanity.
Lol, Im using the NASA budget to show you that your praised company is not likely to yield any results because of its low fraction. Not discussing its fraction of Federal budget. Next, world hunger is an example of an issue which has more effective and direct results of the same use of money. The oppertunity cost of this project is pityful. Finally, look at the ted presentation. The presentator actually points out that you can.
But this will make many many times easier to colonise space. And that is a good thing, because if some asteroid were to hit the earth, then there'd still be people somewhere. I believe strongly that humanity's best chance of survival lies in space. And sure we may not need the resources but the technology that will come from what could be a very profitable company, could change lives.
One could argue that the existance of humans is not 'good' in the first place, but I'm not going to touch that subject. Spending billions on a project that will most likely not yield any new beneficial technology* while spending fractions of that same sum that those billionaire backers put up, would solve hunger right away*, is a waste.
Sources: 1) Billionaires one time investing money while NASA has a budget over 17 billion annually. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA) 2) To solve world hunger, ~750 Million USD per year would be needed. (http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/josette_sheeran_ending_hunger_now.html)
First of all, why is it that they should spend their money on world hunger ? Just because you apparently don't mind to spend their money on it don't mean they should.
Second of all. It ain't that easy. You can't just throw ~750 million USD at Africa and expect results. There are people working in Africa and other places to solve hunger, but as long as the place is corrupt it won't be that easy.
Why is it that we have to focus 100% on world hunger and shouldn't be allowed to go into space or do other things that interest us ?
Like mentioned, its an example to show the oppertunity cost of the billions of this interesting enterprise. Never stating world hunger is the ultimate plague of humanity and that its our nr.1 priority.
Secondly, check the video. This not your average stoner hippy praising world peace and other idealism,.
But this will make many many times easier to colonise space. And that is a good thing, because if some asteroid were to hit the earth, then there'd still be people somewhere. I believe strongly that humanity's best chance of survival lies in space. And sure we may not need the resources but the technology that will come from what could be a very profitable company, could change lives.
One could argue that the existance of humans is not 'good' in the first place, but I'm not going to touch that subject. Spending billions on a project that will most likely not yield any new beneficial technology* while spending fractions of that same sum that those billionaire backers put up, would solve hunger right away*, is a waste.
Sources: 1) Billionaires one time investing money while NASA has a budget over 17 billion annually. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA) 2) To solve world hunger, ~750 Million USD per year would be needed. (http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/josette_sheeran_ending_hunger_now.html)
Are you seriously going to bring NASA's budget into this? NASA gets less than 1% of the American budget. And to stop world hunger (which the governments of the world should be doing) you can't just pay money and have the problem go away. Think how many of the starving countries have ruthless dictators as their leaders. Governments should solve the people's problems, private companies should whatever the hell they like, even more so if it's beneficial to humanity.
Lol, Im using the NASA budget to show you that your praised company is not likely to yield any results because of its low fraction. Not discussing its fraction of Federal budget. Next, world hunger is an example of an issue which has more effective and direct results of the same use of money. The oppertunity cost of this project is pityful. Finally, look at the ted presentation. The presentator actually points out that you can.
But this will make many many times easier to colonise space. And that is a good thing, because if some asteroid were to hit the earth, then there'd still be people somewhere. I believe strongly that humanity's best chance of survival lies in space. And sure we may not need the resources but the technology that will come from what could be a very profitable company, could change lives.
One could argue that the existance of humans is not 'good' in the first place, but I'm not going to touch that subject. Spending billions on a project that will most likely not yield any new beneficial technology* while spending fractions of that same sum that those billionaire backers put up, would solve hunger right away*, is a waste.
Sources: 1) Billionaires one time investing money while NASA has a budget over 17 billion annually. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA) 2) To solve world hunger, ~750 Million USD per year would be needed. (http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/josette_sheeran_ending_hunger_now.html)
First of all, why is it that they should spend their money on world hunger ? Just because you apparently don't mind to spend their money on it don't mean they should.
Second of all. It ain't that easy. You can't just throw ~750 million USD at Africa and expect results. There are people working in Africa and other places to solve hunger, but as long as the place is corrupt it won't be that easy.
Why is it that we have to focus 100% on world hunger and shouldn't be allowed to go into space or do other things that interest us ?
Like mentioned, its an example to show the oppertunity cost of the billions of this interesting enterprise. Never stating world hunger is the ultimate plague of humanity and that its our nr.1 priority.
Secondly, check the video. This not your average stoner hippy praising world peace and other idealism,.
But NASA isn't concentrating on one project and it's priorities don't change every 4 years. This is why Planetary Resources has the potential to become successful.
But this will make many many times easier to colonise space. And that is a good thing, because if some asteroid were to hit the earth, then there'd still be people somewhere. I believe strongly that humanity's best chance of survival lies in space. And sure we may not need the resources but the technology that will come from what could be a very profitable company, could change lives.
One could argue that the existance of humans is not 'good' in the first place, but I'm not going to touch that subject. Spending billions on a project that will most likely not yield any new beneficial technology* while spending fractions of that same sum that those billionaire backers put up, would solve hunger right away*, is a waste.
Sources: 1) Billionaires one time investing money while NASA has a budget over 17 billion annually. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA) 2) To solve world hunger, ~750 Million USD per year would be needed. (http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/josette_sheeran_ending_hunger_now.html)
Are you seriously going to bring NASA's budget into this? NASA gets less than 1% of the American budget. And to stop world hunger (which the governments of the world should be doing) you can't just pay money and have the problem go away. Think how many of the starving countries have ruthless dictators as their leaders. Governments should solve the people's problems, private companies should whatever the hell they like, even more so if it's beneficial to humanity.
Lol, Im using the NASA budget to show you that your praised company is not likely to yield any results because of its low fraction. Not discussing its fraction of Federal budget. Next, world hunger is an example of an issue which has more effective and direct results of the same use of money. The oppertunity cost of this project is pityful. Finally, look at the ted presentation. The presentator actually points out that you can.
On April 21 2012 00:48 Ramong wrote:
On April 21 2012 00:41 Trollk wrote:
On April 21 2012 00:28 kollin wrote:
But this will make many many times easier to colonise space. And that is a good thing, because if some asteroid were to hit the earth, then there'd still be people somewhere. I believe strongly that humanity's best chance of survival lies in space. And sure we may not need the resources but the technology that will come from what could be a very profitable company, could change lives.
One could argue that the existance of humans is not 'good' in the first place, but I'm not going to touch that subject. Spending billions on a project that will most likely not yield any new beneficial technology* while spending fractions of that same sum that those billionaire backers put up, would solve hunger right away*, is a waste.
Sources: 1) Billionaires one time investing money while NASA has a budget over 17 billion annually. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA) 2) To solve world hunger, ~750 Million USD per year would be needed. (http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/josette_sheeran_ending_hunger_now.html)
First of all, why is it that they should spend their money on world hunger ? Just because you apparently don't mind to spend their money on it don't mean they should.
Second of all. It ain't that easy. You can't just throw ~750 million USD at Africa and expect results. There are people working in Africa and other places to solve hunger, but as long as the place is corrupt it won't be that easy.
Why is it that we have to focus 100% on world hunger and shouldn't be allowed to go into space or do other things that interest us ?
Like mentioned, its an example to show the oppertunity cost of the billions of this interesting enterprise. Never stating world hunger is the ultimate plague of humanity and that its our nr.1 priority.
Secondly, check the video. This not your average stoner hippy praising world peace and other idealism,.
But NASA isn't concentrating on one project and it's priorities don't change every 4 years. This is why Planetary Resources has the potential to become successful.
Every enterprise has the potential to be succesful, I will not deny that And of course, anybody is allowed to do with his money as he/she pleases (as long as it are legal matters). Just saying that to me its seems unlikely that a private project is going to outcompete a government backed research institute as NASA when it comes to space exploration and its high initial costs. But that is my personal view.
This is a good direction to be working in if true, but i'm slightly afraid of the consequences of having the privately owned businesses outside the reach of any government control whatsoever. Tragedy of the commons type thing, but with a really really really big commons.
But this will make many many times easier to colonise space. And that is a good thing, because if some asteroid were to hit the earth, then there'd still be people somewhere. I believe strongly that humanity's best chance of survival lies in space. And sure we may not need the resources but the technology that will come from what could be a very profitable company, could change lives.
One could argue that the existance of humans is not 'good' in the first place, but I'm not going to touch that subject. Spending billions on a project that will most likely not yield any new beneficial technology* while spending fractions of that same sum that those billionaire backers put up, would solve hunger right away*, is a waste.
Sources: 1) Billionaires one time investing money while NASA has a budget over 17 billion annually. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA) 2) To solve world hunger, ~750 Million USD per year would be needed. (http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/josette_sheeran_ending_hunger_now.html)
Money is not the issue with world hunger. The global economy is $60+ Trillion and the US alone spends over $50 billion in foreign aid. The world food program spends billions directly on fighting hunger. If you could solve the problem by just chucking money at it the problem would have been solved a long time ago.
On April 20 2012 03:57 farvacola wrote: I really hope that one of the foci of this organization is to continue heavy research into fusion/alternative energy, as it would seem that space only really begins to open once we fix our energy problems.
This is just so true. Everything (prosperity, economy, research, education, medicine etc) depends first of all on energy. We can make everybody wealthy and healthy, we can stabilize population and save our environment, soils, oceans and climate if we only get enough clean sustainable energy. Until then scaling up space travel or even increasing space exploration is too energy intensive.
I don't think that doomers are right that there will be a massive human die off and civilization collapse in a couple of decades. That is quite unlikely unless we start a nuclear war. But it is certainly possible that our quality of life will start gradually degrading quite soon, as getting fossil fuels becomes less energy efficient and more expensive (it's already happening with oil as oil from tar sands, oil shales and sea bed is much harder to extract then conventional oil; coal and gas will follow some time later, meanwhile ruining our environment).
Just think about it: US as well as Southern Europe would have zero debt if oil was as cheap as 10 years ago. Get enough sustainable clean energy - and all problems from debt to enemployment, from pollution to poverty are automatically fixed. Then we can go and mine those asteroids.
What? Source?
Sustainable energy will fix unemployment, poverty and debt? How?
Well, summ up how much extra US has paid for oil imports during the last 10 years above 2002 prices plus a part of military expenses (Afganistan, Iraq, air carriers) to secure oil flow from Middle East. You may say that US would have had huge military and wars regardless of oil, but to me it seems that oil is one of the major reasons. Anyway, for Italy and for a few other European countries you can just directly sum up oil import costs minus oil imports at 2002 prices to arrive at the numbers close to their national debts: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v481/n7382/full/481433a.html
As for energy extremely strongly correlating with economy and quality of life, look up this paper: http://www.aibs.org/bioscience-press-releases/resources/Davidson.pdf Here it is important to mention that you should have not only sustainable energy, but also enough of it. It may not fix all problems in itself (if you decide to start wars with your excess energy), but withough enough energy those problems can't be fixed.
I think you are mistaken. The Nature article is stating that Italy's trade deficit can be explained by the rise in oil prices not that their budgetary deficit can be explained by it. The two are not the same.
Also, alternatives such as solar are much more expensive than fossil fuels. Switching to them will only exacerbate the problems related to high energy prices (since energy prices will only be higher).
Somehow I have a feeling that the energy needed to get to these asteroids will be greater than the energy generated by whatever resources they manage to bring back, at least in the short term.
Very interesting and exciting endeavor though, it might pay off in the long run.
On April 20 2012 03:33 kollin wrote: EDIT: I see a lot of posters objecting to this, saying that our resources are better spent on fixing this worlds problems, before going into space. My argument against this is:
On April 20 2012 03:33 kollin wrote: EDIT: I see a lot of posters objecting to this, saying that our resources are better spent on fixing this worlds problems, before going into space. My argument against this is:
It has been estimated that the mineral wealth resident in the belt of asteroids between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter would be equivalent to about 100 billion dollars for every person on Earth today.
What i'm always wondering... what do you use to produce energy in space?
Uranium? Hard to find (i think). Oil? No dinosaurs or trees in space (afaik). Coal? Not really energy efficient. Gas (Hydrogen or such)? Get a pump to jupiter?
EPT
And of course, anybody is allowed to do with his money as he/she pleases (as long as it are legal matters). Just saying that to me its seems unlikely that a private project is going to outcompete a government backed research institute as NASA when it comes to space exploration and its high initial costs. But that is my personal view.
