Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[mainiac]

Going by that argument most of our colonization never took place as it took a heck of a lot longer then 10 years to pay back.

[PTTG??]

Ugh... this is about that stupid republican promising to go back to the moon again, right? Look, I need you all to consider that this was a campaigning politician in Florida during a recession. Courting the geek vote is of marginal importance next to securing Florida, and under any and all circumstances, the promise to go to the moon has most likely already been forgotten.

As for the economics of spaceflight... we just need space elevators. We're really close to them, maybe 20 or 30 years. Maybe 50. When we get there, spaceflight is super cheap. It's all front-loaded to the liftoff.

The big problem is probably going to be that there might only be three or four elevators and the cartel would probably charge something like 90% of the current cost-per-ton anyway, even though it's only going to cost them 1% of current prices. It'll all be a kinda corporate feudalism I think. There's just so much potential profit there and such enormous entry costs... it won't be pretty. Still, it'll work better than what we do have.

But that's all a tangent. Luckilly there will be a drive for expansion, since life on earth will be so terrible, people will be willing to colonize mars and never feel dirt again in exchange for civil rights.

[palsch]

Going by that argument most of our colonization never took place as it took a heck of a lot longer then 10 years to pay back.

Except that I'm talking about the use here of modern commercialism being used to justify paying for a moon base. The idea of an earth-based company or government turning a profit in anything like a reasonable timeframe is simply false.

Most past colonisation wasn't justified along those sorts of lines anyway. Other than colonies placed to secure trade routes or similar (which did show rapid profits for their sponsors) the main economic motivation was for colonists, not the powers that controlled their countries of origin.

[mainiac]

Most past colonisation wasn't justified along those sorts of lines anyway. Other than colonies placed to secure trade routes or similar (which did show rapid profits for their sponsors) the main economic motivation was for colonists, not the powers that controlled their countries of origin.

It most certainly was.  They expected to make a lot of money from those colonies.  And many colonies were very profitable over a long enough term.  Very often the colonies were explicitly money making operations in which stock was sold.

[Nyxalinth]

I'm guessing Newt Gingrich would suggest we send criminals and poor people up there to build it.  To his way of thinking, it'd be two birds, one stone.

[palsch]

It most certainly was.  They expected to make a lot of money from those colonies.  And many colonies were very profitable over a long enough term.  Very often the colonies were explicitly money making operations in which stock was sold.

Do you have examples and numbers? What I've read suggests that most of the time it was about prestige, often ending poorly financially speaking, or securing known resources and trade routes for an existing industry.

But frankly this is getting even further from relevant. My point, again, is that there isn't a convincing commercial argument that a moon base would be profitable to earth-based companies or governments. Which is why arguments for why we should do it should avoid depending on such distortions.

[Deadmeat1471]

Question: At what point do you guys forsee continued space flight becoming profitable?
*No, satellites don't count.

Hypothesis: I believe this is when large scale colonisation and bases will be established.

[GlyphGryph]

Question: At what point do you guys forsee continued space flight becoming profitable?
*No, satellites don't count.

Approximately 12-16 years after the first moon factory is up and running

[Deadmeat1471]

Question: At what point do you guys forsee continued space flight becoming profitable?
*No, satellites don't count.

Approximately 12-16 years after the first moon factory is up and running

Which is a commercial venture(and fuckton expensive), which would require profit, which is not yet?
So when are we at a stage where the cost for this against the value of the return would be profitable?

[palsch]

Which is a commercial venture(and fuckton expensive), which would require profit, which is not yet?
So when are we at a stage where the cost for this against the value of the return would be profitable?

Never.

Which is why, if we are going to do anything along these lines, we need to do it for reasons other than commercial profit.

[Deadmeat1471]

Which is a commercial venture(and fuckton expensive), which would require profit, which is not yet?
So when are we at a stage where the cost for this against the value of the return would be profitable?

Never.

Which is why, if we are going to do anything along these lines, we need to do it for reasons other than commercial profit.

There are a great many things we should do for reasons other than commercial profit, but sadly commercial profit is not only the economic system we live under, but an intertwined ethos with our political systems.


Ergo: No commies, No bucks.
*But China will threaten US supremecy in about 30 years. That will force the red terror to reinvigorate the scared shitless wealth hoarders into taking action. Or supporting action.

[palsch]

There are a great many things we should do for reasons other than commercial profit, but sadly commercial profit is not only the economic system we live under, but an entertwined ethos with our political systems.


Ergo: No commies, No bucks.

Which is why I had that whole boring section on modern political and economic aspects of this.

[Duntada Man]

I'm all for banishing people to the moon.

Except I would then actively seek out ways to be banished.

[mainiac]

It most certainly was.  They expected to make a lot of money from those colonies.  And many colonies were very profitable over a long enough term.  Very often the colonies were explicitly money making operations in which stock was sold.

Do you have examples and numbers?

This is pretty basic world history.  Spanish treasure fleet and the viceroyalties, the East India companies, the Hudson Bay company, the Mayflower compact?  Any of this ringing a bell?

[PTTG??]

The only reason to go into space from an economic standpoint would be when it is easier to go to a different planet, set up an artificial atmosphere (that's not to say terraform it, in this case you'd only build some kind of structure and support system to keep a breathable atmosphere inside the base), extract a great deal of material, and ship it back to earth, than it is to extract that same resource from earth. Most things for that have been becoming more favorable to space mining over time- new technology and the exhaustion of earth resources, for instance. But that's all moot because earth->orbit costs are still immense.

So, it will only become commercially viable when liftoff costs are decreased. That is, when there's commercial interest and a good method of constructing a space elevator is developed. We just need some more time with the nanotubes- we're real close now.

You know, strictly speaking it would have been possible for the ancient Egyptians to set up trade routes with north/south America. Technically feasible, yes. It didn't happen for thousands of years.

I for one rather hope we don't find ourselves looking at the technical feasibility of space exploration for a similar timescale before the political, social, and economic forces collude to make it actually happen- and I think that is not a vain hope. With the massive industrialization and population growth, things happen faster now than ever. I'm just not sure if that rule applies to cultural expansion.