That's a completely independent discussion. No matter what happens to the military spending, I'll still argue that the ISS is a waste of money, and that its budget could be better spent on unmanned space exploration, or even other science goals.
How much would it cost to build a self-sustaining Moon base ? What exactly are the benefits ? How does this cost/benefit ratio compared with other projects we could do on Earth ? For instance, reducing our dependency on fossil fuels ?
What's the point of everything else we do in space if not to extend our horizon?
To satisfy our curiosity. For instance, I'm curious if there's any other lifeform in our solar system. To answer that question, sending unmanned probes is the quickest and most cost effective method.
with lots of practical applications in medicine etc that will have real benefits even for us earthbound people.
I'm pretty sure that with $100 billion in funding here on Earth, we could achieve bigger medical breakthroughs, that are more relevant to general public health.
Humans may be useful to build a base, but a base is only needed if you want to have humans in space. Apart from the 'cool' factor, there's no actual benefit from having people in a space base, or to send humans to the rest of the solar system. And if you don't send humans in space, there's no real use for the ISS. The ISS is a huge drain of money that could have been better spend on a large number of unmanned probes to do actual science.
Unfortunately, in hot humid air, the loss of sweat goes up dramatically, requiring more water.
I think I'll just take an empty 2L bottle, filled with water on my bike rides in hot and humid air. Much cheaper and simpler.
They are a big player, because they need a lot of chocolate, and futures help to manage their acquisition prices. Of course, they could try to play with the market, but they'll risk alienating their chocolate eating customers, so it's not clear that this would be in their advantage.
Slashdot Mirror
You were the one who started the discussion about where ISS money is best spent
Fixed that for you.
We need to expand beyond Earth
No we don't. There's nothing but a cold hard vacuum out there, with a couple of extremely inhospitable cold rocks.
That's a completely independent discussion. No matter what happens to the military spending, I'll still argue that the ISS is a waste of money, and that its budget could be better spent on unmanned space exploration, or even other science goals.
How much would it cost to build a self-sustaining Moon base ? What exactly are the benefits ? How does this cost/benefit ratio compared with other projects we could do on Earth ? For instance, reducing our dependency on fossil fuels ?
What's the point of everything else we do in space if not to extend our horizon?
To satisfy our curiosity. For instance, I'm curious if there's any other lifeform in our solar system. To answer that question, sending unmanned probes is the quickest and most cost effective method.
with lots of practical applications in medicine etc that will have real benefits even for us earthbound people.
I'm pretty sure that with $100 billion in funding here on Earth, we could achieve bigger medical breakthroughs, that are more relevant to general public health.
Humans may be useful to build a base, but a base is only needed if you want to have humans in space. Apart from the 'cool' factor, there's no actual benefit from having people in a space base, or to send humans to the rest of the solar system. And if you don't send humans in space, there's no real use for the ISS. The ISS is a huge drain of money that could have been better spend on a large number of unmanned probes to do actual science.
Or running the dishwasher, clothes washer and dryer.
Fusion isn't renewable... we'd run out of Deuterium in a couple of billion years
That's renewable enough.
You are wrong. The gigantic economic boom of the 20th century was fuelled by cheap oil.
Curiosity also uses a lot more power, which would have required unwieldy solar panels.
Even without math you could have figured out that the sun would be a much bigger source of heat.
There are many different types of rocket fuel. Hydrazine is only one of them, and it's not very popular.
Part of that joke is true. As your muscles burn fats and sugars, the hydrogen from these fuels is turned into water.
It's easy to extend a Turing machine with a random generator, but it's not really going to improve its function in any useful way.
Unfortunately, in hot humid air, the loss of sweat goes up dramatically, requiring more water. I think I'll just take an empty 2L bottle, filled with water on my bike rides in hot and humid air. Much cheaper and simpler.
Or, widen the laser beam with optics, so you only need one laser.
If only there was a way to guide the light through a thin flexible piece of glass that you could bury underground...
Where I live, they just dig up the city streets and sidewalks, rather than the home owners' properties.
Overseas communication also prefers optic cables because of the bandwidth.
Point to point links are trivial to secure with good encryption. Professionals tap at the router anyway, so it doesn't matter what technology is used.
They are a big player, because they need a lot of chocolate, and futures help to manage their acquisition prices. Of course, they could try to play with the market, but they'll risk alienating their chocolate eating customers, so it's not clear that this would be in their advantage.
Are you suggesting that in the next century, people have enough disposable income that they'll fly interplanetary probes for a hobby ?
Sounds great, except for the fact that we don't have any need for transferring 500 tons to and from the asteroid belt.
Since the chips are not in contact with any tissue, how exactly are they causing cancer ?