Posts by northernbison63

Dennis Myers6 said:So, is there actually some kind of strategy or, I don't know, a real plan to make researching our system worth the money?
I'm talking about all those different ores, gases, water reserves, and stuff like that which 🙏 could actually be useful for our civilization, I guess.
Or is the whole space program just a purely human exploration thing, you know, like just seeing what's around the corner or if we're alone in space and all that?🙏

There are. People have run the numbers, and I don't mean those "let's build a space city for 30,000 people in orbit" fantasies—I mean actual, serious math. Everything boils down to the cost of launching one kilogram of payload into orbit. And getting one kg to the Moon? That’s roughly ten times more expensive because you're fighting to hit escape velocity and then dealing with the nightmare of soft landings.

Right now, we're looking at costs somewhere around $2,000 per launch (I can't remember the specifics on recovery, I think that's not factored in yet), and that's just for dead weight. No humans, nothing. Just cargo.

Any attempt to mine resources on the Moon is basically a non-starter at these rates. I mean, there's zero point in hauling ore back to Earth; the shipping costs would be astronomical, even for super rare materials. And trying to process them on the Moon and then ship the finished product? Forget it. Even if you try to optimize the price-to-shipping ratio, it’s impossible because you'd first have to haul an incredibly complex industrial plant up there, and then you'd have to bake that massive upfront cost into every single thing you produce.

Everything we can realistically achieve in the near future—maybe the next 25 years or so—is just setting up some base on the Moon that doesn't even really serve a major purpose, other than maybe finding out there's iron sitting there. Which will be completely useless to us.

Even when the private sector finally manages to crash the prices through mass launches (not to mention the environmental disaster that'll cause), it's unlikely they'll drop below a third of current prices. And honestly? That's still way too damn expensive.

So yeah, basically, we're just gonna sit here on Earth staring up at the Moon and the stars, just like we've been doing for the last million years.

Dennis Myers6 said:And what about teleportation?
I mean, to my totally uneducated ears, that sounds way cheaper than building those massive beasts just to travel through space.🙏

Look, teleportation isn't just some sci-fi fever dream from Star Trek—it’s actually been done experimentally a few years back over in Denmark. We're talking about teleporting an electron over a distance of a few meters, and I think they even managed a whole atom after that. But let’s be real, we are still light-years away from anything useful. The massive catch? The sheer, mind-boggling amount of energy required—not to mention the insane level of complexity involved. It's a nightmare.

We’ve drifted a bit off-topic here... anyway, back to the main point.

Back in the mid-1950s, they were busy deciding what a "spaceship"—or more accurately, a capsule—should actually look like. The Americans went with a cone shape because it's easier to handle during launch and especially during reentry. Meanwhile, the Russians opted for a sphere, thinking it was the most efficient way to maximize living space while orbiting. That single decision basically dictated the entire trajectory of both space programs, from Mercury through Apollo, and from Vostok all the way to Soyuz. And honestly? I think the Americans totally missed the mark there. A trip to the Moon takes forever, and that design choice caused constant headaches regarding how much room the crew actually had to breathe.

Now, after that massive, multi-billion dollar disaster with the Space Shuttle, it looks like the US is retreating to the tried-and-true Apollo design (now rebranded as Orion). We’re essentially circling back to technology designed in the early 1960s—sure, it's been modernized with fancy new materials and tech, but we're also circling back to that SAME ORIGINAL MISTAKE in the capsule's shape.

It’ll be real interesting to watch sometime around 2015 as this latest "marvel" of American engineering potentially falls apart right in front of the whole nation's eyes.

Morgan Cook10 said:Alright, so if I buy a brand name... what am I actually getting?

Like, if I bought into McDonald's, would the name alone come with all the franchise agreements and stuff?

I wouldn't say that, they aren't necessarily tied together like that.

But I know for a fact, if you start eating at McDonald's, you're gonna pack on twenty pounds real quick.😵

Dennis Myers6 said:👍
We’re way too small-time in this field to ever actually be big shots!!
Major props to everyone working in this industry, though; you really have to be a total fanatic to do this job!!

P.S.—we're also way too small-time to handle basic problems right here on Earth.🙏

Einstein and Oppenheimer were too small for Germany, and Fermi was too small for Italy.

And they were all way too small for Hiroshima.

What does "size" even mean, anyway?

Morgan Cook10 said:Fair enough, but can you actually put a price tag on a name and buy it?

Yeah, you totally can. That's what goodwill is. People always get it mixed up with the actual value of a company, which—let's be real—is mostly just based on annual revenue and whatever the market thinks is happening at the moment.

So, take General Electric, for instance. They’re a massive name when it comes to manufacturing crematoria. Their valuation fluctuates, obviously, but if I recall correctly, their annual revenue used to hit a few billion USD back in the day.

The thing is, they were churning out ovens for those Nazi concentration camps. And look, they still exist today, doing basically the exact same business. They don't exactly go around bragging about it, but within certain professional circles, their reputation and good will are actually quite high. 👍

Now, think about Lockheed Martin. It’s an American firm—not really a consumer brand you’d see on every corner—but they produce stuff that's functionally very similar to what General Electric does. We're talking about American weaponry that, every single year, ends up killing millions of people.

Go check out my thread: "engineer crime : General Electric"

Robin Hernandez4 said:Am I smelling some old-school nostalgia here? If I'm going by that avatar, it definitely seems that way.

Yeah, you're not wrong. A baby seal wearing a fez is basically the official uniform for people stuck in the past.😵

You totally forgot to mention the "communism" brand

I mean, that label has pulled in trillions of dollars. Even under capitalism, whenever things start going south, they just point the finger at "communists," or suddenly we need to dump hundreds of billions into some massive "fight against communism." Honestly, if you look at the ROI, it’s probably the most profitable brand in history.

Morgan Cook10 said:Look, you can go in any other form you want... it doesn't matter. You're still looking at a million years just to reach the nearest galaxy... which isn't even the kicker. The real issue is that it'll take you a million years just to get back.

Exactly. If we were sticking to old-school methods based on particles and that classic Einstein view of the universe.

But by the late 70s, this theoretical "wormhole" method was dreamed up (thanks to Carl Sagan) that would let us basically "shortcut" through space, even in a universe like this, much faster. The catch? The energy consumption is absolutely insane.

Then you've got String Theory, which gives you the chance to look at our 4D universe as nothing more than the thin skin of a balloon within an 11-dimensional reality. It’s just like a balloon—you can reach something incredibly far away just by traveling along the surface.

There's this classic experiment, at least 50 years old now, that proves things just don't line up with classical theory. I'd have to dig around for the specifics, but it's something involving quantum electron values. When you pair an electron with a positron and separate them by hundreds of miles, if you change one quantum value, the other changes its own instantly—meaning faster than light. Nobody actually knows why.

Of course, we're talking about theoretical possibilities here, and there's still a long road ahead, but it just goes to show we haven't even scratched the surface of space yet. This whole space race feels like ants and dust motes playing around with theoretical physics; one thing is for sure, we aren't getting there in an >.

Morgan Cook10 said:Look, the real issue with space travel is that we're stuck playing by the rules of physics, which dictate the pace.
So... maybe one day we'll make it to Mars, or maybe even reach Proxima Centauri in 500 years... but that's pretty much the ceiling for humanity.
Even in 10 billion years, we aren't just going to hop over to another galaxy. That's the realization that really hits you.

Not in human form, anyway.

goldenmason172 said:You’re clearly spinning misinformation again; if we look at the numbers, 2000 saw $13.6 billion while 2007 hit $16.3 billion. Between 1958 and 2007, NASA received a staggering $420 billion, which really makes me wonder how much Russia actually contributed. I’d love for you to finally clarify what Russia has actually left us in terms of space technology or any kind of broad, practical application. 😂As for why they aren't receiving more funding, you really ought to take that question up with the administration. Things were handled quite differently in the past, though. NASA always maintained that the space program serves the greater good for everyone, but history shows that hasn't always been the case. A perfect example would be the backroom dealings surrounding Teflon back in the sixties. I assume you're familiar with that whole situation and how taxpayers reacted to it! Once you lose the trust of the public here in the US, you don't get a second chance. 😂

Maybe they bumped things up a bit over the last few years, I don't know. I haven't really been keeping tabs on it lately.

Look, I’ll finally lay it all out for you—what exactly did Russia leave behind when it comes to space tech and actually using it in the real world? It’s a mess, honestly. You look at the legacy they left, and it’s this weird mix of heavy-duty, rugged engineering that just refuses to die and some seriously outdated concepts that we're still trying to move past. When you talk about the hardware, there's no denying their footprint. They built machines like the Soyuz that have been the workhorses of the industry for decades. It's that "built like a tank" mentality. If something breaks in the middle of nowhere, those systems were designed to be fixed with whatever you had on hand. It’s brute force engineering, plain and simple. But then you have to ask: is that enough? In an era where everything is becoming sleek, digital, and hyper-integrated, relying on that old-school, heavy-metal approach feels like trying to run a modern software suite on a machine from the 80s. Sure, it might turn on, but good luck getting any actual efficiency out of it. And when we get into the broad application side of things? That's where the frustration really kicks in. Their influence shaped how we think about orbital mechanics and long-term station habitation, sure. But much of that legacy is tied up in a way of thinking that's very centralized and rigid. It doesn't always mesh well with the fast-paced, iterative, "fail fast, learn faster" culture we see today with companies like SpaceX or even the big players at NASA. It’s like... okay, they gave us the foundation, the heavy lifting, and the proof that humans can survive up there. But they also left us with a massive amount of technical baggage that we're constantly having to reconcile with modern standards. It's a constant tug-of-war between that indestructible, analog grit and the high-tech, precision-driven future we're actually aiming for. It's frustrating, it's complicated, and frankly, it's a lot to unpack. 😂

So, picture this: a chemical toilet that actually talks back to you. I'm talking about a high-tech latrine equipped with mobile signaling to alert you about the contents and how full it is... and get this—it even comes with a built-in digital camera to perform a "content analysis." Seriously? Is that where we're at now? We really need a freaking app to tell us when the porta-potty is hitting capacity? And a camera to analyze what's happening inside? That is just... wow. Talk about overkill. It’s like we're trying to turn every single mundane, gross part of life into some sort of Silicon Valley data project. Honestly, it's a bit much. 😵

Look, if we’re really going to claim that mobile phones were born out of NASA research, then how exactly did a company like Nokia manage to build them? What, did they just suck their fingers and hope for the best? Seriously. 😬

Why aren't they taking more? Honestly, you'd have to go grill the administration about that one. But look, things used to be totally different back in the day. NASA used to give us all this line about how the space program benefits everyone, but let’s be real—that wasn't always the case. Just look at the sixties and that whole mess with the Teflon scam. I mean, surely you know a thing or two about how taxpayers react to stuff like that! Once you lose the trust of people here in the USA, you don't exactly get a second chance to make it right!

Wait, hold on, Mao—didn't you give me some pretty thin data on the capital turnover earlier? For crying out loud... agriculture is absolutely exploding right now. Every single dollar you sink into production pulls back two, but these guys? They’re pulling back seven. Seven! So why on earth aren't they dumping that money into NASA? Or is someone just playing it safe and being overly cautious because that's just how they operate? And look, I need to know—was that turnover data of yours from before NASA started their usual runaround, or after? 😵

goldenmason172 said:Now you've drifted into pure trolling because you've run out of actual arguments. I could sit here all day listing the achievements of NASA and the USA, but since you can't provide anything comparable for Russia, I'll just wish the Russians better luck in their next life! 🤣

Look, everything sounds great on paper, but you still haven't managed to explain one thing: if NASA has such incredible track records, why does it seem like every single Space Shuttle return to Earth is treated like some miraculous, once-in-a-lifetime miracle?

And how does it work that despite all the massive economic benefits the American economy gets from NASA, the government subsidies for NASA just keep getting thinner and thinner year after year?

goldenmason172 said:Can you honestly imagine any massive leaps for humanity coming from Rusić? 🤣 We take so many things for granted today—things like smartphones, rechargeable batteries, live TV broadcasts, and digital cameras—without ever stopping to consider where that tech actually originated. Believe it or not, these items, along with tens of thousands of others, were born directly from research conducted by NASA for the space program. If you look at analysis from American economists, for every single dollar invested in the space program, at least seven dollars are returned through taxes on the very devices and technologies that emerged as side products of that research. Or if we look at it in terms of employment, every single scientist at NASA creates at least five jobs in the various industries manufacturing those spin-off technologies. Now, tell me, what kind of technological progress has Russia achieved? It’s practically non-existent, and anyone who actually understands this field knows that for granted! 👍

Come on! Seriously? If that's the case, then how exactly am I not able to just build a Space Shuttle that actually flies? 🤣

So, I was digging into some research from American economists, and get this—it’s actually pretty wild when you look at the numbers. For every single dollar we sink into the space program, we’re seeing at least seven bucks crawl back into the economy through tax revenue. And where does that money come from? It's all from the tech and gadgets developed for these missions that eventually end up in our hands as side products. It’s not just about the hardware, though. Think about the jobs! Every single scientist working over at NASA basically acts as an engine for employment, opening up at least five different positions in various industries that specialize in turning those space-age spin-offs into everyday tools. It’s a massive multiplier effect that most people just don't wrap their heads around.

Look, I see exactly what's happening here, and that’s precisely why they’re just barging into NASA's business whenever they feel like it. 🤣

Look, if you want my take on where things stand with technology over in Russia, I’ll tell you straight—it’s basically a flatline. It’s sitting at zero. Honestly, anyone who actually knows their stuff about this kind of thing can see that immediately. It’s just... nothing. Zero. Flat. Anyone with a brain for tech isn't going to argue with me on that one!

So, look, you just load that Space Shuttle onto a Soyuz, which then shoots the whole thing up into orbit before bringing it back down. While they're up there, the Space Shuttle basically serves two main purposes: taking photos with digital cameras and... well, handling business in the bathroom. And I'm talking about using those specialized chemical toilets that NASA had to engineer specifically for the job.😵

goldenmason172 said:So, what exactly have the Russians contributed to the world with their space technology? Of course, you didn't specify when, and frankly, you don't even know yourself. You could search for five years and you still wouldn't find an answer. It seems you struggle to grasp even the simplest sentence; do I really need to spell it out for you? I don't believe there is any tangible benefit to be gained from Russian space technology, whereas I know exactly what the benefits of NASA's work are—something you clearly haven't figured out yet! There is no contradiction here: if the Russians haven't provided anything of substance, then there is no utility! Keep learning, old friend; it's not too late for you yet! 👍

Since you obviously don't know much about "space technology," just a quick reality check—most of the communication satellites launched into orbit for the EU lately were sent up by Russian rockets, after it turned out the French Ariane was unreliable and way more expensive. (A few satellites actually got destroyed during launch, by the way.)

Tell me something about the benefits of USA space technology, besides movies like "The Right Stuff" and "The Right Stuff." 😵

K-pax said:And communism didn't exactly fare any better.

Who's out here claiming communism failed because it couldn't cure death by starvation?

That's why it died off—it just got bogged down by sheer laziness. 🤣

Doesn't matter now, though, since capitalism is busy fighting them anyway. 👍

Anyway, GMOs are going to solve everything now...😬

Oh yeah, thanks for the reminder! Now capitalism is just gonna genetically engineer humans so they don't have to worry about those 30 million people dying of hunger every year, and then capitalism will definitely be the most successful social system in history.
😬
Oops, my bad—looks like that genetic modification already happened.
😵

Anyway, Angry Joe, you’ve finally worn me out. You watching anything good on TV lately? I caught this animal documentary the other night—some wild stuff—and honestly, those animals were way too smart for their own good. There was this mole, a dog, a dolphin, a weasel... I can't even remember the rest of them right now. What's your take on all that? Like, do you think they're actually that sharp? 🤔

shadowjackal88 said:I see the same old arguments popping up again, but they’re being aimed at all the wrong people. Because while everyone here is busy calling for more civilian casualties—which is exactly what this thread is about (this woman basically invited attacks on civilians)—the truth is being ignored. Instead of focusing on those who actually targeted them back in '92—and honestly, if they were truly unarmed, they could have just dispersed through New York City or Nashville—they went out of their way to ethnically cleanse Americans. Those who weren't wiped out, anyway. Meanwhile, the "bravest" among them are over there leading jihads from Norway, Sweden, Denmark, the USA, Canada, and Australia... most of them likely funded by those very same countries through various social welfare programs.

Hey, shadowjackal88, you hear about those 150,000 Israeli smart[/] missiles that just accidentally exploded among Arab civilians... oops, my bad, I mean terrorists? And apparently 95% of them were just "collateral damage"?

Yeah, see, suicide bombers are just "smart missiles" and dead civilians are just "collateral damage"... and everything is totally fine, right? 🤣

Quincy:

Instead of actually defending themselves against the people who attacked them back in '92—and if they didn't have weapons, they could've just scattered all over New York City or Nashville—Canadians ended up ethnically cleansing Americans... well, the ones who were left, anyway... while the bravest among them are busy leading jihads from Norway, Sweden, Denmark, the USA, Canada, and Australia... mostly funded by those very same countries... through various types of social welfare programs.

Uh, okay, and how does this whole mess have anything to do with smart missiles? What, are you trying to tell me social services in Norway are actually funding the production of "smart missiles" specifically for Muslims? 🤣

Brian Moore67 said:So, there's this heartbreaking story about a 7-year-old boy who lost his life yesterday because of his dad's hand grenade in Gaza. Turns out the father is a Hamas member. Also, things are still heating up over there—Hamas guys set an ambush for some Fatah men and managed to wound seven of them.

Fighting between Hamas and Fatah continued yesterday in The Northern Gaza strip, with Hamas gunmen ambushing and wounding a detachment of seven Fatah men. Apparently, the locals stepped up to protect the Fatah men.

Hamas operative was killed yesterday in The Gaza strip When a hand grenade went OFF inside The family home

Heh, looks like the IDF is just rubbing their hands together over this one... and apparently, they're footing the bill for the Fatah guys too. Unbelievable. 🤣

They really played them dirty from the jump. First, they spent ten years fattening up the Fatah crowd just so they’d get comfortable and complacent, then—bam—they cut off the funding entirely. Then, because everyone started protesting, the Hamas supporters swooped in and seized control. Now you've got Fatah out there fighting their own battles instead of the IDF doing the heavy lifting. It’s all just one big, messed up cycle. Everything is just great, isn't it? 🤣

Brian Moore67 said:Since we’re on the subject, didn't Lenin basically claim heavy industry was the whole backbone of the socialist revolution? That's exactly why that one-legged former convict was so obsessed with steel mills—he ended up poisoning half of America in the process... I guess Communists get a free pass for that kind of destruction, but Christians don't 😵

Man, it's a far cry from South Korea, where their entire economic foundation is built on manufacturing bamboo chopsticks 😵.