Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

To the naysayers

  1. Jun 21, 2009 #1
    I'm sorry but it looks like spaceport america is the real deal
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 21, 2009 #2

    negitron

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Yeah, and Phillip-Morris purportedly has brand names trademarked and acreage set aside for cultivation of marijuana when it becomes legalized. Your point?
     
  4. Jun 21, 2009 #3

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Naysayers about what? I have little doubt that Richard Branson is going to build his sub-orbital rocket and commercialize it. Is something implied beyond that?
     
  5. Jun 22, 2009 #4
    Because when it comes to people going into space there is a lot of naysaying going on about. I gathered from a previous conversation about the future of manned space travel that many people either don't think it will ever happen, or simply dont want it to.
     
  6. Jun 22, 2009 #5

    FredGarvin

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    You do realize that there is absolutely nothing concrete in that news snippet? It can be summed up in just a few words:

    Personally I think the idea will never make it past the insurance lawyers.
     
  7. Jun 22, 2009 #6
    manned space travel is happening now, or do you mean to other planets?
     
  8. Jun 22, 2009 #7

    Chi Meson

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Orbiting the earth just above 90% of the atmosphere is one thing. Traveling to the moon is another thing altogether. Traveling to the next nearest planet is yet another thing, and going beyond the asteroid belt is still yet another thing.

    Each "next step" is increasing fuel requirements, difficulties, and dangers by an order of magnitude ("10 times each time"; no that is neither scientifically determined nor truly accurate, just a figure of speech). Traveling to the next star is not even on this list yet.

    Having paying customers taking day trips into orbit is only a hair beyond taking an airplane flight, and no guarantee that the "next step" will ever be taken. It is, however, the first "next step," I'll grant you that, and we'd never be walking around on Mars unless we take it (the "next step," that is; did you think I was talking about taking Mars?)

    It sounds to me that each flight will be a monstrous waste of energy. As an environmentally concerned citizen, I will be appalled at such a disgusting waste. As a frustrated astronaut wanna-be, I will be on the second flight. I will deal with the conflict by planting a tree. :sarcastic understatement smiley:
     
    Last edited: Jun 22, 2009
  9. Jun 22, 2009 #8
    So the naysayers will say nay.

    One step at a time.

    Actually I think it would because it proves not only that there is a real market for it but also why wouldn't people start demanding more? They would have to offer more to stay in business.
     
  10. Jun 22, 2009 #9

    Integral

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I am a nay sayer when it comes to NASA and manned missions to the moon or Mars. BUT I am a supporter of commerical endeverors to do the same.
     
  11. Jun 22, 2009 #10

    D H

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    This site is chock-full of such. This site is not representative of the taxpayers as a whole. (If it were, Kerry would have beaten Bush by an 85-15 landslide.)

    I am a nay sayer when it comes to NASA and missions that have little if any benefit to humanity (e.g., Kepler). Fortunately for you scientists, Congress does not listen to me. Fortunately for the likes of aquitaine, Congress does not listen to those of you, either.
     
  12. Jun 22, 2009 #11

    Integral

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    ie Manned missions to the moon or Mars.
     
  13. Jun 22, 2009 #12

    mgb_phys

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Why build it in New Mexico?
    It's along way north, not as bad as Baikonur, but if they intend launching anything other than sub-orbital passenger flights it's going to be costly.
    Being in the US means you don't need to deal with ITAR for every component but you need a visa for all your customers - better hope that none of your billionaire passengers made their money from online poker sites!
    You can probably get some DoD contracts for test flights but you also risk being shut down by some future administration's national security concerns.
    You have to meet a lot of EPA/environmental impact assessment requirements and risk being delayed for ever if someone finds a protected flea in the area.
     
  14. Jun 22, 2009 #13

    D H

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    That human spaceflight has zero value is your religion. It is not a logical point of view.
     
  15. Jun 22, 2009 #14
    I agree, space exploration is simply the next step for humans, we explored this planet (albeit not completely yet) and now we are moving on to the next big thing. If we do manage to get manned missions to mars and an efficient way of gettings things back and forth, the possibilities are endless. Resources for a start.

    I do however think they should work on developing the technology a lot further than they have done first and then attempt further space flight.
     
  16. Jun 22, 2009 #15
    Wishful Thinking about manned spaceflight. Mmmm Hmmm.

    Please explain the techno-logic behind these statements, I see none so far.

    (Note the Daft Punk Reference)
     
  17. Jun 22, 2009 #16
    whats techno logic (don't say a song)?

    If we could mine resources from other planets, it would be of benefit, not much more to say really.
     
  18. Jun 22, 2009 #17
    Did you really think before saying this? (I mean, seriously??) Exactly how are we going to do this, Jared....

    We spend billions of dollars to bring back a few moon rock(s). Now you want to excavate? You do realize those minerals will cost more than platinum once they get back to earth.
     
  19. Jun 22, 2009 #18
    Hence the IF. and as per the previous post, IF we had an efficient (and economical) way to do it, it would be of benefit, but until the technology exists we shouldn't.
     
  20. Jun 22, 2009 #19

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    If I could squeeze my cheeks together and make a diamond, that would be a benefit too, but that doesn't make it anything more than a fantasy or any more useful a statement either.

    Your post omits the big caveat and should read something like this:

    'If we could mine resources from other planets at a cost competitive with mining them on earth, it would be of benefit.'

    And when you put that caveat in, it reaveals the uselessness of the point: it couldn't possibly be cost competitive to mine minearals from other planets. Not even if the surface of the moon were covered with pre-cut diamonds.
     
  21. Jun 22, 2009 #20
    Yeah, but we don't. So don't waste time doing it.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook