News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Distant 'waterworld' is confirmed by jwallaceparker on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @05:47PM (#3618370)
I'm kinda surprised that it's 2012 and humanity still hasn't created a space station on the moon, Mars or some other planet.
Re:Distant 'waterworld' is confirmed by ghotli on Wednesday February 22, 2012 @12:09AM (#3619549)
I tend to think of it from an economic standpoint. It takes a great deal of economic capital to put things into space. Until space is returning a reciprocal amount of value to earth then the equations don't match up. Humans love warring, clicking links the internet, eating, fucking, and arguing instead. Intellectuals and idealists still have to abide by economics. Convince a large swath of the populace that a moon base is a good idea via some means of propaganda or figure out how to extract real tangible value from space. What's on the moon that is immediately valuable? That's the ticket right there.

Upon coming to this conclusion, I have found that I've just straight up given up on space. Someday some species may colonize another planet. I just don't think it'll be the homo sapiens, at least not while I'm around. Leave it up to the foundation of the long now. They're the ones I have any semblance of hope in. At least they've got the right mindset.

Re:Distant 'waterworld' is confirmed by jonnathanson on Wednesday February 22, 2012 @07:40AM (#3620597)
"What's on the moon that is immediately valuable? That's the ticket right there."

There's an old joke that, if we'd found oil on the moon, we'd have colonized it in a heartbeat.

Putting aside the absurdity of finding large stores of organic material on the moon, the point is still valid. People usually need an economically viable return on investment before funding such big outlays. It's actually pretty remarkable that our government funded manned space exploration to the extent that it did. And, absent the space race with Russia -- and its military motives -- I wonder if it ever would have.

At the end of the day, I'm perhaps a tiny bit more optimistic than you are about the future of space exploration. But let me reemphasize "tiny." I don't think anything dramatic is going to happen in our lifetimes. And, cynically, I don't think anything short of a tangible ecological disaster of epic proportions, or a second militarized space race with, say, China, is going to get us off our butts.

It's telling that even Star Trek, that most optimistic of sci-fi series, didn't set the dawn of serious space exploration until after a World War 3.

Re:Distant 'waterworld' is confirmed by gaius on Wednesday February 22, 2012 @09:13AM (#3620891)
Once someone builds a fusion reactor then there is "oil" on the moon - He3.
Re:Distant 'waterworld' is confirmed by spenceyboi on Wednesday February 22, 2012 @12:56AM (#3619657)
A space station on the moon would require an international effort between many nations willing to fund such an idea. Issues within our own nation and around the world are still too prominent before we begin to significantly make an impact on space travels and exploration.
Re:Distant 'waterworld' is confirmed by waterlesscloud on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @11:04PM (#3619391)
Suggesting it as a presidential candidate will get you ridiculed, so it's not that surprising.
Re:Distant 'waterworld' is confirmed by kingkawn on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @11:25PM (#3619437)
More so if the presidential candidate is a raving loon.
Re:Distant 'waterworld' is confirmed by jakeonthemove on Wednesday February 22, 2012 @02:00AM (#3619796)
Yeah, if only there was a way to launch stuff into space without having to pay $20,000 per KG...
Re:Distant 'waterworld' is confirmed by dstorrs on Thursday February 23, 2012 @05:47PM (#3627171)
SpaceX is launching things to LEO for about $5,500 / KG (which is $2,500 / lb) on the Falcon9, so it's getting better.

Source: http://www.spacex.com/falcon9.php

Re:Distant 'waterworld' is confirmed by jakeonthemove on Friday February 24, 2012 @07:05AM (#3628906)
Have they started doing commercial launches? Last time I checked they were still testing the rockets... But yeah, it's much cheaper and hopefully it'll get cheaper in the future. Still not seeing the price go down to sub-$1000/kg anytime soon, though...
Re:Distant 'waterworld' is confirmed by blario on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @06:01PM (#3618413)
To what end?
Re:Distant 'waterworld' is confirmed by agravier on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @10:31PM (#3619318)
Moon station: Undisturbed astronomical observation (minimize earth's interference, take advantage of moon's almost non existent atmosphere)? A robotic station on the other side of the moon with a transmission station on our side?
Re:Distant 'waterworld' is confirmed by dstorrs on Thursday February 23, 2012 @05:42PM (#3627158)
1) Building out sufficient solar power collectors to solve the Earth's energy problems forever.

2) Manufacturing medicines, alloys, and materials that can only be produced in micro-gravity.

3) Protecting humanity against social breakdown and/or extinction in case of massive asteroid strike / global pandemic / etc.

4) Because every dollar that has been spent on space development in the US has put $7 back into the economy by way of spinoffs, technical advances, etc.

Re:Distant 'waterworld' is confirmed by blario on Friday March 02, 2012 @02:34AM (#3655770)
If bullet number 4 is correct, it sounds like a good idea. I would have to see proof that bullets 2 and 4 are correct in order for me to agree though.

3) is far fetched and would be catastrophic regardless, and 1) may not be viable because the 15 days of the month where the far side of the moon is facing the sun, it isn't facing the earth. If placed on the other side, 50% of the month, earth would be blocking out the sun on the moon's surface, and the other 50% of the month, the near side of the moon wouldn't be facing the sun.

Re:Distant 'waterworld' is confirmed by Cieplak on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @06:12PM (#3618443)
It would be pretty freaking awesome, although I wonder if the cost of building and maintaining such a station could be recouped from fees and sponsorship.
Re:Distant 'waterworld' is confirmed by itsmequinn on Wednesday February 22, 2012 @10:54AM (#3621300)
Or a theme park. There's whalers on the moon.