House bill seeks to gut NASA’s Artemis plan, resurrect Journey to Mars

Lawmakers also appear to like cost-plus contracts.

Read the whole story

 

[daveishereagain]

Hand out to Boeing bill. Ugh.

I keep wondering why people reporting on Boeing aren't mentioning their $43 billion they spent on stock buybacks. Considering the state that Boeing is in today, it sure seems like that money would have been better spent on the programs that are visibly failing today.

Boeing Enhances Shareholder Wealth through Share Repurchases
By Anirudha Bhagat, Jun 28, 2019
https://marketrealist.com/2019/06/boein ... purchases/

Apparently shareholder wealth is way more important than actually providing their customers with products that work properly.

That's what every large company did with its extra cash from Trump's tax breaks. That's why the market appears to be doing so well. You didn't actually think it was good company fundamentals did you?

Your tax rate is now more inline with the world average.
The conservative policy is to have a trickle down effect. These new wealthier share holders putting the money back into the economy. Perhaps buying a new Tesla.

Oh, I feel that 'trickle' all right. Don't piss on my head and call it rain. 'Trickle down economics'........how quaint.

Me me me
Trying finding a decent candidate to challenge Trump instead of self pity for 4 years.

You've now responded to the same comment twice, with two different bullshit, trolling, own-the-libs retorts. Put down the internet, you're bad at it and this is embarrassing.

Yeah, he's pretty pathetic, eh? Not an original thought to be seen. Amateur.

 

[mhalpern]

What is there on the moon that is so valuable for there to be a land rush? I've always been under the impression that the moon's most useful feature is its gravity.

As with anything in space, the answer's quite complicated.

1) Moon base creates a reasonable first-step toward reaching Mars and beyond.
2) As has already been stated in other comments: Water ice. It's cheaper (financially/resources/delta-V.) to get the water-ice from the moon to a Mars-and-beyond-bound craft than it is to haul it up from Earth's surface.
3) For efficiency's sake, you build your Mars-and-beyond-bound craft in Lunar orbit. You fuel it there. You stock it there with multiple trips from Earth. The smaller/more frequent launches actually save on fuel/resources compared to hauling one GIANT craft into space that can make the trip straight from Earth's surface to Mars.
4) By making your craft in Lunar orbit, you have a much more effective slingshot to Mars because you're starting from a higher altitude than low-earth-orbit, so less actual fuel is required for the transfer.
5) By using a manned base on the Lunar surface, you create a whole host of benefits to the Mars program, listed as follows:
a) You have a base that's days, not years, away from getting home in case of a disaster. This base can be used for testing habitats/processes that will be used on Mars.
b) You have a base that's a good, safe 'abort' location in case of a failure while constructing the craft in Lunar orbit.
c) You have mountains of secondary and tertiary scientific endeavors that can be attached to said base that can and will benefit humanity greatly with housing, materials sciences, recycling, food production, and air quality, among other areas of study.

Unfortunately, the efforts toward this are being loaded with pork and biases toward established players like the embattled Boeing.

1 costs MORE delta V to get to the lunar surface than it does to land on Mars.
2 see above as for financially add the fact that Ice processing infrastructure on Luna isnt free and hydrolox has horrible mass ratio,
3 & 4 building your mars craft in lunar orbit means everything takes the same amount of Delta V they would need to get to Mars from LEO before making the TMI burn, so you are using far more Delta V not less.
5 Very different environments different problems many places on Earth serve far better analogs to Mars than anywhere on Luna would

Well said. Many people are led by myths until the Real World is used in the equations. Using the moon as an assist to Mars is simply not realistic.

That isn't to say that we shouldn't go to the Moon and that transport and life support for one wouldn't be applicable to the other, but if we go to Luna it will be for its own merits not for Mars, and if we go to Mars it will be for the merits in doing so, the only reason for the "one or the other" and "one for the other" is with pork launch we can only do one at a time with realistic funding levels, but if we get away from pork launch, there is little reason we cant do both.

 

[GreenMeters]

Pardon the profanity, but I'm really out of diplomatisch things to say:

God fucking damn it, can we stop mixing space science and politics? This fucking institutional schizophrenia is accomplishing exactly fucking nothing except throwing money into a hole, and it's robbing us of countless opportunities because some fucking Representative or Senator hast a vested interest in whatever bullshit Boeing and the rest of Old Big Space is trying to sell without actually delivering anything.

Jesus Christ, I want to buy Brindestine a bottle of good liquor, not because I like him, but nobody deserves this kind of managerial whiplash.

It's way too early to get this angry, fucking hell.

I'm all for an end to the mixing of space science and politics, but you're aware that would mean an end to any possibility of manned missions, right?

 

[Random John Smith Guy]

Hand out to Boeing bill. Ugh.

I keep wondering why people reporting on Boeing aren't mentioning their $43 billion they spent on stock buybacks. Considering the state that Boeing is in today, it sure seems like that money would have been better spent on the programs that are visibly failing today.

Boeing Enhances Shareholder Wealth through Share Repurchases
By Anirudha Bhagat, Jun 28, 2019
https://marketrealist.com/2019/06/boein ... purchases/

Apparently shareholder wealth is way more important than actually providing their customers with products that work properly.

Stock buybacks only exist because dividends are taxed more than capital gains and done so immediately, so stock buybacks are a more effective way to pay shareholders. The real issue with the stock buybacks/dividend payouts/cash hoarding is that companies are reluctant to invest money in actually improving their business, probably due to the uncertainty of the current political environment.

 

[daveishereagain]

What is there on the moon that is so valuable for there to be a land rush? I've always been under the impression that the moon's most useful feature is its gravity.

As with anything in space, the answer's quite complicated.

1) Moon base creates a reasonable first-step toward reaching Mars and beyond.
2) As has already been stated in other comments: Water ice. It's cheaper (financially/resources/delta-V.) to get the water-ice from the moon to a Mars-and-beyond-bound craft than it is to haul it up from Earth's surface.
3) For efficiency's sake, you build your Mars-and-beyond-bound craft in Lunar orbit. You fuel it there. You stock it there with multiple trips from Earth. The smaller/more frequent launches actually save on fuel/resources compared to hauling one GIANT craft into space that can make the trip straight from Earth's surface to Mars.
4) By making your craft in Lunar orbit, you have a much more effective slingshot to Mars because you're starting from a higher altitude than low-earth-orbit, so less actual fuel is required for the transfer.
5) By using a manned base on the Lunar surface, you create a whole host of benefits to the Mars program, listed as follows:
a) You have a base that's days, not years, away from getting home in case of a disaster. This base can be used for testing habitats/processes that will be used on Mars.
b) You have a base that's a good, safe 'abort' location in case of a failure while constructing the craft in Lunar orbit.
c) You have mountains of secondary and tertiary scientific endeavors that can be attached to said base that can and will benefit humanity greatly with housing, materials sciences, recycling, food production, and air quality, among other areas of study.

Unfortunately, the efforts toward this are being loaded with pork and biases toward established players like the embattled Boeing.

1 costs MORE delta V to get to the lunar surface than it does to land on Mars.
2 see above as for financially add the fact that Ice processing infrastructure on Luna isnt free and hydrolox has horrible mass ratio,
3 & 4 building your mars craft in lunar orbit means everything takes the same amount of Delta V they would need to get to Mars from LEO before making the TMI burn, so you are using far more Delta V not less.
5 Very different environments different problems many places on Earth serve far better analogs to Mars than anywhere on Luna would

Well said. Many people are led by myths until the Real World is used in the equations. Using the moon as an assist to Mars is simply not realistic.

That isn't to say that we shouldn't go to the Moon and that transport and life support for one wouldn't be applicable to the other, but if we go to Luna it will be for its own merits not for Mars, and if we go to Mars it will be for the merits in doing so, the only reason for the "one or the other" and "one for the other" is with pork launch we can only do one at a time with realistic funding levels, but if we get away from pork launch, there is little reason we cant do both.

Sure, I agree with that. You and I have exchanged our respective positions on Mars vs. Moon. I want the moon left to commercial/private interests and government strategy to partner with commercial space and make Mars our next strategic goal. We respect our individual outlooks, but our visions differ in implementation.

 

[azazel1024]

So, what do we imagine Bridenstine's choice of whiskey is, and how much is he consuming right now?

His drink of choice is Diet Mt. Dew.

It is interesting that less than two years after he leaves the House, they stab him in the back.

Semi-relatedly, is he about the only appointee of the current administration that does NOT have some kind of scandal relating directly to their conduct in office? Sadly NASA isn't a semi-independent agency like some like the fed or FCC are, or he could probably do more. He seems a like Wheeler-esque in terms of "we thought he'd be a dumpster fire, turns out he's actually pretty decent".

Or that seems to be the opinion I've formed of him the last couple of years. Maybe not as rock on awesome as Wheeler, but at any rate.

 

[daveishereagain]

Trolls strollin',strollin'in.
Trollin' trolls strollin'. strollin' in, strollin' in. Strollin' trolls trollin'. Trolls strollin' in, strollin' in.

Pathetic.
Tell us again how replying to the same post twice ruined your day.
Could't care less about your ideoology. Your'e clearly a Narcissist.
Speak soon. I've got all day for you children.

Wow. He went for the 3rd grade name-calling strategy. What's next? Insulting my sister or going right for my mom? OR maybe calling me a booger eater. We got a high class fish on the hook here by golly!

 

[mhalpern]

What is there on the moon that is so valuable for there to be a land rush? I've always been under the impression that the moon's most useful feature is its gravity.

As with anything in space, the answer's quite complicated.

1) Moon base creates a reasonable first-step toward reaching Mars and beyond.
2) As has already been stated in other comments: Water ice. It's cheaper (financially/resources/delta-V.) to get the water-ice from the moon to a Mars-and-beyond-bound craft than it is to haul it up from Earth's surface.
3) For efficiency's sake, you build your Mars-and-beyond-bound craft in Lunar orbit. You fuel it there. You stock it there with multiple trips from Earth. The smaller/more frequent launches actually save on fuel/resources compared to hauling one GIANT craft into space that can make the trip straight from Earth's surface to Mars.
4) By making your craft in Lunar orbit, you have a much more effective slingshot to Mars because you're starting from a higher altitude than low-earth-orbit, so less actual fuel is required for the transfer.
5) By using a manned base on the Lunar surface, you create a whole host of benefits to the Mars program, listed as follows:
a) You have a base that's days, not years, away from getting home in case of a disaster. This base can be used for testing habitats/processes that will be used on Mars.
b) You have a base that's a good, safe 'abort' location in case of a failure while constructing the craft in Lunar orbit.
c) You have mountains of secondary and tertiary scientific endeavors that can be attached to said base that can and will benefit humanity greatly with housing, materials sciences, recycling, food production, and air quality, among other areas of study.

Unfortunately, the efforts toward this are being loaded with pork and biases toward established players like the embattled Boeing.

1 costs MORE delta V to get to the lunar surface than it does to land on Mars.
2 see above as for financially add the fact that Ice processing infrastructure on Luna isnt free and hydrolox has horrible mass ratio,
3 & 4 building your mars craft in lunar orbit means everything takes the same amount of Delta V they would need to get to Mars from LEO before making the TMI burn, so you are using far more Delta V not less.
5 Very different environments different problems many places on Earth serve far better analogs to Mars than anywhere on Luna would

Well said. Many people are led by myths until the Real World is used in the equations. Using the moon as an assist to Mars is simply not realistic.

That isn't to say that we shouldn't go to the Moon and that transport and life support for one wouldn't be applicable to the other, but if we go to Luna it will be for its own merits not for Mars, and if we go to Mars it will be for the merits in doing so, the only reason for the "one or the other" and "one for the other" is with pork launch we can only do one at a time with realistic funding levels, but if we get away from pork launch, there is little reason we cant do both.

Sure, I agree with that. You and I have exchanged our respective positions on Mars vs. Moon. I want the moon left to commercial/private interests and government strategy to partner with commercial space and make Mars our next strategic goal. We respect our individual outlooks, but our visions differ in implementation.

I suspect that gov partnership would be needed or at least be very beneficial in both cases, at least until an otherwise profitable enterprise is established on either body. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, its a risky business with high barriers to entry, in such situations government eating some of the risk is needed for progress to happen, or at least to accelerate it.

 

[blackhawk887]

What is there on the moon that is so valuable for there to be a land rush? I've always been under the impression that the moon's most useful feature is its gravity.

As with anything in space, the answer's quite complicated.

1) Moon base creates a reasonable first-step toward reaching Mars and beyond.
2) As has already been stated in other comments: Water ice. It's cheaper (financially/resources/delta-V.) to get the water-ice from the moon to a Mars-and-beyond-bound craft than it is to haul it up from Earth's surface.
3) For efficiency's sake, you build your Mars-and-beyond-bound craft in Lunar orbit. You fuel it there. You stock it there with multiple trips from Earth. The smaller/more frequent launches actually save on fuel/resources compared to hauling one GIANT craft into space that can make the trip straight from Earth's surface to Mars.
4) By making your craft in Lunar orbit, you have a much more effective slingshot to Mars because you're starting from a higher altitude than low-earth-orbit, so less actual fuel is required for the transfer.
5) By using a manned base on the Lunar surface, you create a whole host of benefits to the Mars program, listed as follows:
a) You have a base that's days, not years, away from getting home in case of a disaster. This base can be used for testing habitats/processes that will be used on Mars.
b) You have a base that's a good, safe 'abort' location in case of a failure while constructing the craft in Lunar orbit.
c) You have mountains of secondary and tertiary scientific endeavors that can be attached to said base that can and will benefit humanity greatly with housing, materials sciences, recycling, food production, and air quality, among other areas of study.

Unfortunately, the efforts toward this are being loaded with pork and biases toward established players like the embattled Boeing.

1 costs MORE delta V to get to the lunar surface than it does to land on Mars.
2 see above as for financially add the fact that Ice processing infrastructure on Luna isnt free and hydrolox has horrible mass ratio,
3 & 4 building your mars craft in lunar orbit means everything takes the same amount of Delta V they would need to get to Mars from LEO before making the TMI burn, so you are using far more Delta V not less.
5 Very different environments different problems many places on Earth serve far better analogs to Mars than anywhere on Luna would

Well said. Many people are led by myths until the Real World is used in the equations. Using the moon as an assist to Mars is simply not realistic.

That isn't to say that we shouldn't go to the Moon and that transport and life support for one wouldn't be applicable to the other, but if we go to Luna it will be for its own merits not for Mars, and if we go to Mars it will be for the merits in doing so, the only reason for the "one or the other" and "one for the other" is with pork launch we can only do one at a time with realistic funding levels, but if we get away from pork launch, there is little reason we cant do both.

For orbital missions, anything that's useful for Mars is also useful for the Moon. But the reverse is not true, for example Orion can get you to lunar orbit* and back, but is worthless for Mars orbital missions.

While the orbital environments are similar, surface mission requirements diverge almost completely because they are very different environments.

(*almost)

 

[Imbrium]

Your tax rate is now more inline with the world average.
The conservative policy is to have a trickle down effect. These new wealthier share holders putting the money back into the economy. Perhaps buying a new Tesla.[/quote]Oh, I feel that 'trickle' all right. Don't piss on my head and call it rain. 'Trickle down economics'........how quaint.[/quote]

Perhaps you can go and work for a Latino business who are seeing accelerating growth. Maybe you'll feel better about yourself. In addition take some pills so you feel less of a victim. Classic leftist.[/quote]

Trickle down economics has a perfect track record of abject failure for the past 40 years. It has been a poorly-disguised reverse Robin Hood scheme that has produced an unprecedented transfer of wealth from the lower and middle classes to the very richest individuals. Not coincidentally, it has also created the largest wealth inequality gap in history. As a related feature, it has grown the budget deficit to stratospheric heights, something rethugs were all up in arms about when dems were in the White House. Now...not so much, although Trump is now saying he is planning to propose cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and food stamps to pay for his record deficits.

Anyone who believes in trickle down economics is woefully ignorant of economics or facts.

 

[PottedMeat]

Boeing needs to be shut out of any aerospace contracts until the present pump and dump stock market scam "business" style of the management is replaced by the engineering driven original Boeing priorities that were in place before the Mcdonnell Douglas reverse takeover. .

it almost happened

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3094825.stm

The Pentagon has barred Boeing from future rocket work and revoked $1bn worth of contracts which will be re-assigned to Lockheed Martin.

But it stopped short of banning all Boeing business units from being awarded government contracts.

Lockheed Martin sued Boeing for acquiring about 25,000 confidential documents during a 1998 contract competition.

 

[TechW]

Pork. The other white meat.

My doctor recently surprised me by telling me pork is considered "Red" meat. So, to be clear, pork is definitely bad for you and should be greatly limited...

 

[Imbrium]

Hopefully we'll see Latino businesses getting involved.
With their excellent growth rate under the current tax reducing administration, it may happen.[/quote]

Your current tax reducing administration is also the deficit increasing administration.

Funny how that works, eh? If you cut your income and increase your spending on things like defense, it's shocking that we have a huge deficit, right?

Rethugs are notoriously bad at basic math.

 

[mhalpern]

What is there on the moon that is so valuable for there to be a land rush? I've always been under the impression that the moon's most useful feature is its gravity.

As with anything in space, the answer's quite complicated.

1) Moon base creates a reasonable first-step toward reaching Mars and beyond.
2) As has already been stated in other comments: Water ice. It's cheaper (financially/resources/delta-V.) to get the water-ice from the moon to a Mars-and-beyond-bound craft than it is to haul it up from Earth's surface.
3) For efficiency's sake, you build your Mars-and-beyond-bound craft in Lunar orbit. You fuel it there. You stock it there with multiple trips from Earth. The smaller/more frequent launches actually save on fuel/resources compared to hauling one GIANT craft into space that can make the trip straight from Earth's surface to Mars.
4) By making your craft in Lunar orbit, you have a much more effective slingshot to Mars because you're starting from a higher altitude than low-earth-orbit, so less actual fuel is required for the transfer.
5) By using a manned base on the Lunar surface, you create a whole host of benefits to the Mars program, listed as follows:
a) You have a base that's days, not years, away from getting home in case of a disaster. This base can be used for testing habitats/processes that will be used on Mars.
b) You have a base that's a good, safe 'abort' location in case of a failure while constructing the craft in Lunar orbit.
c) You have mountains of secondary and tertiary scientific endeavors that can be attached to said base that can and will benefit humanity greatly with housing, materials sciences, recycling, food production, and air quality, among other areas of study.

Unfortunately, the efforts toward this are being loaded with pork and biases toward established players like the embattled Boeing.

1 costs MORE delta V to get to the lunar surface than it does to land on Mars.
2 see above as for financially add the fact that Ice processing infrastructure on Luna isnt free and hydrolox has horrible mass ratio,
3 & 4 building your mars craft in lunar orbit means everything takes the same amount of Delta V they would need to get to Mars from LEO before making the TMI burn, so you are using far more Delta V not less.
5 Very different environments different problems many places on Earth serve far better analogs to Mars than anywhere on Luna would

Well said. Many people are led by myths until the Real World is used in the equations. Using the moon as an assist to Mars is simply not realistic.

That isn't to say that we shouldn't go to the Moon and that transport and life support for one wouldn't be applicable to the other, but if we go to Luna it will be for its own merits not for Mars, and if we go to Mars it will be for the merits in doing so, the only reason for the "one or the other" and "one for the other" is with pork launch we can only do one at a time with realistic funding levels, but if we get away from pork launch, there is little reason we cant do both.

For orbital missions, anything that's useful for Mars is also useful for the Moon. But the reverse is not true, for example Orion can get you to lunar orbit* and back, but is worthless for Mars orbital missions.

While the orbital environments are similar, surface mission requirements diverge almost completely because they are very different environments.

(*almost)

i would argue, Orion isn't useful for either, not realistically, that is why Gateway exists in the first place. For practical crewed BEO some form of multi-launch architecture is needed, be it assembling a modular spacecraft in orbit or on orbit prop X-fer, purpose built BEO LVs are not practical either, no way to get any form of economies of scale to make the price bearable

 

[Imbrium]

'Me me me'
Try finding a decent candidate to challenge Trump instead of self pity for 4 years. 2020 Should be easier to win than lose for Democrats. Bring on ultra high taxes and a new ideology/culture change, but you dont seem to have done the ground work. It's not been a good look.[/quote]

Yes, 4 more years of the most corrupt, criminal administration in US history. What could possibly go wrong?

 

[password123]

This all seems like Old Space is going desperate for money-grabbing while the getting is still good, Old Space can see the writing on the wall, i.e. New Space will "soon" get good enough such that Old Space can no longer play these silly games with taxpayers money.

 

[Imbrium]

Let's face it, no one who has even a passing interest in space truly believed that we would have boots on the Moon by 2024. 2028 seemed the more likely timeframe, but I think most of us here thought it would be made irrelevant by Starship. Today's news simply reinforces that thinking.

 

[iRSS]

That's the worst idea I ever heard and the President still Trump.

 

[daveishereagain]

Pork. The other white meat.

My doctor recently surprised me by telling me pork is considered "Red" meat. So, to be clear, pork is definitely bad for you and should be greatly limited...

By 1.5 billion Chinese people too? Or just White westerners?

Are you able to discuss the issues in the article or just barely able to troll? So far, you could have saved yourself and everyone else valuable time and just posted "Liberals suck." and moved on. Brevity does have it's good points.

 

[Imbrium]

Imbrium
"is also the deficit increasing administration.
Rethugs are notoriously bad at basic math"

You mean like your maths on the previous administration.

However good my maths is, the world is in a debt bubble.
F*cking owned pal.

Apparently. like your dimwitted dictator wannabe president, you don't like actual facts, so you resort to profanity and name calling. As you say, not a good look.

 

[nosmadar2016]

Boeing: "Hey, financially we're going to be rather fucked for the next few years."

House: "No worries, we've got your back!"

"Make Boeing Rich Again"

 

[nosmadar2016]

This is absolutely insane. I smell Senator Shelby all over this trying to pull strings.

I smell Boeing trying to create a new revenue stream to replace the one lost in the 737 MAX debacle.

 

[spacespektr]

Looking at the bill, it is sponsored by a Democrat: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kendra_Horn

Just so who you know exactly Boeing has bought and paid for.

Spinning this as a Democrat plot is misleading. Here's the House's actual filing.

Horn introduced the legislation, but it's sponsored by Horn (Oklahoma Democrat), Lucas (Oklahoma Republican), Babin (Texas Republican) and Johnson (Texas Democrat).

Boeing is a bipartisan corrupter.

 

[daveishereagain]

Looking at the bill, it is sponsored by a Democrat: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kendra_Horn

Just so who you know exactly Boeing has bought and paid for.

Spinning this as a Democrat plot is misleading. Here's the House's actual filing.

Horn introduced the legislation, but it's sponsored by Horn (Oklahoma Democrat), Lucas (Oklahoma Republican), Babin (Texas Republican) and Johnson (Texas Democrat).

Boeing is a bipartisan corrupter.

Space pork has a long history of bipartisanship. The only difference now is the corruption isn't even attempted to be hidden.

 

[BradTheGeek]

Congress: Move the goalposts
President: Move the goal posts
Senate: Move the goalposts
Keep changing targets and funding.

NASA: We are trying to keep up, but the rug keeps getting pulled out from under us.

Boeing/ULA: The tit keep changing, but we keep sucking billions out of it. Go lobby for some more -changes-.

 

[mhalpern]

This is absolutely insane. I smell Senator Shelby all over this trying to pull strings.

I smell Boeing trying to create a new revenue stream to replace the one lost in the 737 MAX debacle.

Nowhere near enough, no this is Boeing Space recognizing that the pork launch gig is almost up and trying to get all they can while they can

 

[yqznh4]

By the time NASA gets a lander on the moon the astronauts will be greeted by a dozen mining companies and 100 colonists.

 

[jbode]

Imbrium
"is also the deficit increasing administration.
Rethugs are notoriously bad at basic math"

Ha ha . You mean like your maths on the previous administration!
However good my maths is, the world is in a debt bubble.
F*cking owned pal.

You're not the laziest and most pathetic troll I've ever come across, but you're definitely in the top 5. Yay you.

Now, off to the foe list with you.

 

[aznronin]

What is there on the moon that is so valuable for there to be a land rush? I've always been under the impression that the moon's most useful feature is its gravity.

Water ice, which would be much easier to haul to LEO than it is from Earth. Too bad there's no methane.

Precious metals is one good reason for a land rush.

Nope. Whatever you can find on an asteroid or the moon, it's going to be cheaper to mine it on Earth than to bring it back here. The only exception is reaction mass, like water ice.

Wouldn't simply find another source of resources in our solar system be a good thing? Even if the costs don't make sense right now to bring it back to Earth the resources could be used where they are found. Eventually with enough players on board the costs would go down.

I feel like if we're going to push for new frontiers lets push for something that can become useful vs putting a flag on the planet and forgetting about it for the next few decades.

 

[daveishereagain]

Trolls strollin',strollin'in.
Trollin' trolls strollin'. strollin' in, strollin' in. Strollin' trolls trollin'. Trolls strollin' in, strollin' in.

Pathetic.
Tell us again how replying to the same post twice ruined your day.
Could't care less about your ideoology. Your'e clearly a Narcissist.
Speak soon. I've got all day for you children.

Wow. He went for the 3rd grade name-calling strategy. What's next? Insulting my sister or going right for my mom? OR maybe calling me a booger eater. We got a high class fish on the hook here by golly!

Yep, 'failed to load' just about sums up your contribution here today.

 

[mhalpern]

What is there on the moon that is so valuable for there to be a land rush? I've always been under the impression that the moon's most useful feature is its gravity.

Water ice, which would be much easier to haul to LEO than it is from Earth. Too bad there's no methane.

Precious metals is one good reason for a land rush.

Nope. Whatever you can find on an asteroid or the moon, it's going to be cheaper to mine it on Earth than to bring it back here. The only exception is reaction mass, like water ice.

Wouldn't simply find another source of resources in our solar system be a good thing? Even if the costs don't make sense right now to bring it back to Earth the resources could be used where they are found. Eventually with enough players on board the costs would go down.

I feel like if we're going to push for new frontiers lets push for something that can become useful vs putting a flag on the planet and forgetting about it for the next few decades.

A mineral is only a resource if it can be made useful, what you are talking about would require complex trade relations to provide something of value where the wealth is, and for the foreseeable future that will be almost entirely be Earth. Its a bootstrap problem, it can be solved but it will take time and effort to get there.

 

[Imbrium]

Imbrium
"is also the deficit increasing administration.
Rethugs are notoriously bad at basic math"

You mean like your maths on the previous administration.

However good my maths is, the world is in a debt bubble.
F*cking owned pal.

Apparently. like your dimwitted dictator wannabe president, you don't like actual facts, so you resort to profanity and name calling. As you say, not a good look.

No it isnt a good look, so why would do it? do you have any self-awareness?
What 'name' did I call you?
Owned again pal

If you think you owned me, you are delusional. I've eaten ignorant trolls like you for breakfast for years. I never said you called me a name, I said that you used profanity. I wouldn't bother calling you names, as you aren't worth the time and effort.

Try reading comprehension some time, as well as brushing up on your basic math.

 

[Imbrium]

Pathetic.
Tell us again how replying to the same post twice ruined your day.
Could't care less about your ideoology. Your'e clearly a Narcissist.
Speak soon. I've got all day for you children.[/quote]
Wow. He went for the 3rd grade name-calling strategy. What's next? Insulting my sister or going right for my mom? OR maybe calling me a booger eater. We got a high class fish on the hook here by golly![/quote]

[/quote]Yep, 'failed to load' just about sums up your contribution here today.[/quote]

More likely "failed to launch".