Posted on 03/02/2025 12:35:37 PM PST by ransomnote
As with anything new, development costs can be brutal. It would take many hundreds of billions of dollars up front before there would be any revenue from asteroid mining and the like.
I dispute your costs. Nobody thought an individual could fund a way to Mars. Musk IS our space program now. As to funding we gave away that much money already and are only now figuring it out. It could be funded by several individuals and/or governments over time. It can be done. It should be done.
How much of your money would you give to save your life or that of your child? The Earth is at a point where we could end most if not all of the life here if we tried. Or a celestial event could wipe us out.
It is in our best interest to spread out into the solar system and universe. We have the knowledge to begin. We have the money. But do we have the courage any longer?
We once took up the challenge and explored and conquered our world. It is now time to conquer others....if we can find the courage and curiosity our forefathers did.
Well, OK, correcting; thank you for posting the summary by @thefernandocZ.!
For the first time in Earth's 4.5 billion year history, we can extend consciousness beyond our home planet.
This window may not stay open long - civilization could collapse from war, natural disaster, or simply population decline.
Our window may be now.
The UK is a great example of a civilization that's in clear decline.
It'll happen to us at some point in the future.
You overlook a key point. What makes spending vast sums on spinning cylinder cities in space a better investment than any of hundreds of other large projects?
I have already answered that question (and many others) earlier.
You may have missed my point. The case for O’Neill cities in space has to more than a neat thing to do — it also has to be priced out so as to be a better investment than competing big ideas.
I think saving humanity should make it a top priority, but what do I know?
It would also be militarily a strategic asset. Manufacturing hub. Way station. Out of the gravity well for satellite launch and repair. Low gravity medical facility. New materials font. A refuge if needed. And so much more.
There is a big difference between visionary and practical.
Indeed. And between life and death. Extinction and survival.
If you don’t believe, I can’t make you. The dinosaurs didn’t know what hit them. The Titanic was the safest boat ever built.
History says it is coming. We just don’t know when. But the dinosaurs didn’t know what we know and couldn’t build what we can build. The Titanic was thought so safe it didn’t have enough lifeboats.
Currently, we have none.
What you call visionary, I call essential (which beats practical all to heck).
And now I’m off to bed. Enjoyed the talk. 👍🙏
uberkevlar LOL
Lol—you are probably on the right track.
Thanks for the find/post ‘note. Thanks to all.
p
The greatest FR excerpt of all time! Love it!
There's resson some of the wealthiest ZIP codes in the country are clustered around Washington DC. and why democrats identify with criminals...
I don’t recall any “refuelings” in our first lunar landings.
Once you escape Earths atmosphere there is no friction to speak of. Only course adjustments and fuel used for a soft landing at 1/6 Earths gravity.
Of course, it takes fuel to take off from the moon, but at a lower gravity.
A. The Apollo moon orbiter & lander were not made of stainless steel, Starship is. Starship weight 100 tons dry weight. Super heavy booster dry weight 303 tons. Gross weight fueled for both is 5,000 tons. Starship is bigger and more powerful be far that Saturn V was.
B. No matter were you go there is always mass; the more mass, the more power it takes to move the mass.
C. Because StarShip has more mass than either Saturn or Artemis, it requires multiple refuelings to go to the moon and to return. Saturn V and Artemis use composite materials which are far lighter than Stainless Steel.
B. The more power it takes to *accelerate* the mass.
I think you missed my point.
Your point about Saturn V not needing a fueling does not apply to rockets made of Stainless Steel. More mass needs more power to get to orbit which requires more fuel which is more mass etc.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.