Space Travel, 10/04/1957 - 10/04/2017

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, JamesHackerMP said:

It would have to be enough humans to justify the effort. In other words, more than 600/7.5 billion. Especially considering you're selling it to the taxpayers.

 

I disagree....most people understand that the whole city of Tokyo cannot go to Mars.

Also, thousands of people volunteered to go to Mars on  a one way, suicide mission.   NASA declined them.

[JamesHackerMP]

Well, that's the problem: it can't.

But of course, Mars is closer. As far as the outer planets, what would you do with human astronauts that you weren't able to do with Voyager or Cassini-Huygens, etc.?

[Bonam]

2 minutes ago, JamesHackerMP said:

Well, that's the problem: it can't.

But of course, Mars is closer. As far as the outer planets, what would you do with human astronauts that you weren't able to do with Voyager or Cassini-Huygens, etc.?

Establish human colonies on Jupiter's and Saturn's moons? Can't establish human colonies without the humans. 

[bush_cheney2004]

Just now, JamesHackerMP said:

Well, that's the problem: it can't.

But of course, Mars is closer. As far as the outer planets, what would you do with human astronauts that you weren't able to do with Voyager or Cassini-Huygens, etc.?

 

You could do a lot of things with human intelligence/decisions in situ without the long communications transmission delay.

Robotic fly-bys, orbiters, landers, and rovers are more limited and complimentary to human exploration.

[JamesHackerMP]

Again, that would be expensive. You're right, a colony requires people. But you're still talking about a tiny tiny number of humans.

Edited December 9, 2017 by JamesHackerMP

[bush_cheney2004]

2 minutes ago, JamesHackerMP said:

Again, that would be expensive.

 

So was the Iraq War...but it still happened.

[JamesHackerMP]

Just now, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

So was the Iraq War...but it still happened.

And it was widely criticized, for both its human and monetary effects, wasn't it?

And that's a bit of a red herring, by the way.

[bush_cheney2004]

11 minutes ago, JamesHackerMP said:

And it was widely criticized, for both its human and monetary effects, wasn't it?

And that's a bit of a red herring, by the way.

 

The point being made is that cost was a secondary consideration.

Humans will go to space farther and more frequently, regardless of the cost.

[bush_cheney2004]

I think it would be helpful to make a clear distinction between space exploration and space travel/tourism.

But ironically, travel/tourism may provide funding for more exploration.

[bush_cheney2004]

President Trump uses today's Apollo 17 anniversary to announce his own directive for going back to the moon...then Mars.  

Other presidents have done this, only to be cut off by budget wrangling.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/11/politics/trump-astronauts-moon/index.html

Edited December 11, 2017 by bush_cheney2004

[Omni]

22 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

President Trump uses today's Apollo 17 anniversary to announce his own directive for going back to the moon...then Mars.  

Other presidents have done this, only to be cut off by budget wrangling.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/11/politics/trump-astronauts-moon/index.html

The costs of all that added to the tax reform which puts all the money into the pockets of the top 1% and the debt will be heading for the moon too.

[bush_cheney2004]

1 hour ago, Omni said:

The costs of all that added to the tax reform which puts all the money into the pockets of the top 1% and the debt will be heading for the moon too.

 

Actually, all U.S. income quintiles have and will experience increases, not just the "top 1%" dog whistle group, as seen during the massive Obama/Congress deficit spending.    Space launch vehicle investments also increased for NASA, SpaceX and Orbital ATK.

 

Edited December 12, 2017 by bush_cheney2004

[Bonam]

1 hour ago, Omni said:

The costs of all that added to the tax reform which puts all the money into the pockets of the top 1% and the debt will be heading for the moon too.

You know, for all the bad press the US tax bill is getting, the main thing it does is lower the corporate tax rate to be more in line with other advanced countries. At 35%, the US has the highest corporate tax rate of any advanced nation (besides the UAE). The often referred to "model societies" of the Nordic countries all have corporate tax rates of 20-24%, which is what the new tax rate will be. While it is true that large corporations with swarms of lawyers and accountants use a variety of deductions and loopholes to lower their effective rate much lower than the 35% nominal rate, this trickery is not available to small and medium sized businesses, which face the full burden of the stiflingly high tax rate. The main argument that people have against the corporate tax cut is the emotional reflex that "corporations are evil", but the reality is that having corporate tax rates be roughly equivalent across all major advanced economies will be a good thing and will keep many businesses from relocating outside of the US. 

In regards to individual taxes, the changes are mostly a wash with minor tweaks of the brackets. They'll save most people money, some people will pay a bit more tax, but the difference for most will be less than 2% of their gross income. Probably the main egregious oversight in the tax bill when it comes to individual taxpayers is the way it completely screws over grad students... hopefully something that will be fixed given that the revenue generated by taxing grad student tuition waivers is negligible while the harm done would be huge. 

Edited December 12, 2017 by Bonam

[Omni]

1 hour ago, Bonam said:

You know, for all the bad press the US tax bill is getting, the main thing it does is lower the corporate tax rate to be more in line with other advanced countries. At 35%, the US has the highest corporate tax rate of any advanced nation (besides the UAE). The often referred to "model societies" of the Nordic countries all have corporate tax rates of 20-24%, which is what the new tax rate will be. While it is true that large corporations with swarms of lawyers and accountants use a variety of deductions and loopholes to lower their effective rate much lower than the 35% nominal rate, this trickery is not available to small and medium sized businesses, which face the full burden of the stiflingly high tax rate. The main argument that people have against the corporate tax cut is the emotional reflex that "corporations are evil", but the reality is that having corporate tax rates be roughly equivalent across all major advanced economies will be a good thing and will keep many businesses from relocating outside of the US. 

In regards to individual taxes, the changes are mostly a wash with minor tweaks of the brackets. They'll save most people money, some people will pay a bit more tax, but the difference for most will be less than 2% of their gross income. Probably the main egregious oversight in the tax bill when it comes to individual taxpayers is the way it completely screws over grad students... hopefully something that will be fixed given that the revenue generated by taxing grad student tuition waivers is negligible while the harm done would be huge. 

Yes some people will be a bit better off, but the most better off by a long shot will be corps. Now if they use that money to expand and hire then it could offset the increase in the debt the reductions will cost, and of course that would be good for job seekers. However history shows that what will likely happen is the corps. will simply add to their already bursting bank accounts and continue with relatively cheap foreign labor. I think a more sensible approach would be to reign in corp. tax a little less dramatically and see if the outcomes head toward what are intended. We'll see.  

[taxme]

On 6/21/2017 at 11:27 PM, JamesHackerMP said:

October 4, 2017 is the 60th anniversary of the Space Age.  (I use the launch of Sputnik as the official beginning.)  Despite all the excitement over the last 60 years about space travel and the glittering, futuristic space age that we're now supposed to be living in, there have only been a handful of the human race who have ever slipped the surly bonds of Earth  (I was told about 600).  We don't have a permanent colony on or under the surface of the Moon.  We haven't had any non-robotic missions to anywhere other than the Moon (manned, that is), including Mars which was supposed to be the next logical step after the Moon in space exploration.  True, we have a space station but there's how many people on there at any given time? Half a dozen at most?

I realize what we ran into is the colossal cost of space travel, and--despite its novelty at the time of its invention--the limits and inefficiency of chemical rockets.  You can only send a handful of people up at once, and the cost is in the millions.  Add to that the fact you need special training to go into space.

So, keeping that in mind, what is in store for space travel and space exploration by the 100th anniversary of the Space Age? (Oct 4, 2057)  Will there be a lunar colony? Will there be a colony on Mars? Furthermore, SHOULD there be a Lunar and/or Martian colony? The benefits of space travel and space exploration--both manned and unmanned--have been substantial, to be sure, but so have the costs.  For now, it's too dangerous, expensive in both money and resources, cumbersome and inconvenient for any more than a handful of humans to get into orbit or beyond.

I would think that having a human colony on Mars would be great. Let's go out there in outer space and let's see what is waiting for us to find. If all countries of the world would stop having a military and all instead concentrate together on doing some space exploration, I think that would be great for all of mankind. Wars have not been all that great for mankind. Space travel would. Just saying. 

[Omni]

17 hours ago, taxme said:

Wars have not been all that great for mankind.

Yet you support an idiot who wants to "rain fire and fury". Try to get your stories straight and get back to us.

[JamesHackerMP]

Omni, please, can we stick to space exploration?

[taxme]

17 hours ago, Omni said:

Yet you support an idiot who wants to "rain fire and fury". Try to get your stories straight and get back to us.

Ya Omni, keep your opinions about Trump off this forum. We don't want to have to put up with your constant Trump bashing on every forum. 

[bush_cheney2004]

Blue Origin (Jeff Bezos) just completed a successful launch and vertical landing from West Texas.    The new capsule design has panoramic windows for space tourism.

 

 

https://spaceflightnow.com/2017/12/13/blue-origin-launches-new-shepard-test-flight/

[taxme]

On 12/13/2017 at 3:04 PM, bush_cheney2004 said:

Blue Origin (Jeff Bezos) just completed a successful launch and vertical landing from West Texas.    The new capsule design has panoramic windows for space tourism.

 

 

https://spaceflightnow.com/2017/12/13/blue-origin-launches-new-shepard-test-flight/

I like it. When can I make a reservation, that is if it doesn't cost me everything I own and more?