Based SpaceX

>>8708794
>how does it feel, anon?

Feels like I missed the boat.

>>8708808
Kek, but there's still time anon.
>A 38 year old astronaut fixes a signal strut on the surface of the moon.
Sounds comfy tbqh famalam

+50% increase over an original infinitesimal chance? great

>>8708813
Do they have a lottery? I make less money than you spend on soda.

>>8708794
50% of zero lol

that motivates me to become rich so i can afford it.

>>8708794
mfw I'm 21 and now I miss out on going to space. Fuck you Elon you hack.

>>8708794
reminder that spaceX always runs late, people that are still unborn actually have a +50% chance, present day 18yo too old for an actually realistic spacex schedule

The real trick is to freeze your brain or employ whatever more sophisticated preservation method we develop in the interim, when you're about 60, before dementia or other serious problems develop.

Establish a fund linked to a business you own, or an investment account, or both, to pay for upkeep and your eventual revival. You could set conditions to be revived after a set amount of time or when certain technological milestones have been reached.

>>8708826
yes, its called the money lottery. win that a couple of times and you can go to the moon

>>8708794
Went from .0000000000000000000001 chance to to .00000000000000000000015 chance.

>containing excitement only with extreme difficulty.

File: flymetothemoon.png (79KB, 783x316px)

79KB, 783x316px

what did Elon mean by this?

>>8708813
Aldrin was 39 at the time of the moon mission.

>>8708794
> tfw Europoors wont be able to go to the moon

>>8709425
How much money does it cost? I need to know this. If it's in the low millions I'm going to the fucking moon. I might have to empty my kid's college funds but fuck that MOON TIME BITCHES

>mfw VR technology has gotten to the point that it can render the moon
Wow, and I thought plane rides looked advanced.

>>8709651
a falcon heavy launch starts at 90+ million

>>8709651
Yeah you're right. An hour or two on the moon is worth well over a lifetime of education for your children. Don't reproduce.

Its millions of dollars anyways. Even if they make it commercially available, it'll only be available to the 1% that cut funding to NASA in the first place.

How did he arrive at that figure? Does he have proof? Did he show his work? Should we simply have faith, like members of a religion, that his word is The Truth?

>>8708794
>+50% increase in the chances of stepping foot on the moon.

But I had a 0% chance of ever stepping on the moon before this. Dumb muskposter.

>>8708794
I'm extremely more than 18. No moon for me. O well.

>>8709136
or you could just accept death like a normal person and not worry about all that.

>>8709719
>Its millions of dollars anyways. Even if they make it commercially available, it'll only be available to the 1% that cut funding to NASA in the first place.

To start out with, sure. But if they actually figure out this reusability thing and can manufacture boosters that need little to no refurbishment (we'll know next month) and enough rich folks decide that going for a moon loop is the new big thing to blow money on, a snowballing economies of scale effect kicks in and things get cheap. With enough time, perhaps even overseas trip cheap.

>>8709913
The closest industry we have to compare this with is air travel. There margins are incredibly tight, I don't see this ever taking off.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/02/economist-explains-5

>>8709907

>accept death

I'm sorry, but I'm not a complete chump

Feels like a lie told by Musk so he can get some more government handouts.

>>8708933
Consider that by the time you're retired tickets will be affordable to the average person.

>>8709964
Why would they revive you? They'd probably just keep you frozen.

>>8708794
50% increase in your chances of being told to wait five more years every five years that you'll get to go to space. And then exploding on the pad when you finally get the chance to go 30 years later when the people who had faith in the slow and steady approach of blue origin already have self sustaining colonies on the moon.

>>8709907
>trying to be a normal person on purpose

Right. That's always a good plan. Normal people are definitely the most interesting.

>>8709967
Essentially this
t. 18 y o

>>8709964
We all die alone someday man even super advanced AI's, why postpone it and delay the inevitable.

>>8708794
So? I have much higher chance of going to Outer Mongolia but I won't because there's nothing there. And guess what the Moon has even less!

>>8709967
More subtle that -- he's cutting the legs ut from under the NASA trial balloon released a few days before about a lunar mission in 2019, to fight off the chance that gets funded and his slice of the pie gets smaller.

>Musk's announcement just made the actual chance of a mission happening go down.

>>8710017
Why would they keep you frozen when they can harvest your organs?

Instead of solving the immediate threats to our existence, tries to make the moon into fucking Disneyland.
A retarded and insulting use of power. Humans don't belong in space, We can't even survive on earth and know very little about our own planet. Space exploration lmao, kms

>>8711057
>Humming "Whalers on the Moon."
>Address all complaints to the Monsanto Corporation.

File: image.jpg (23KB, 319x395px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 319x395px

>>8711098

>>8711057

>immediate threats to our existence

immediate threats to 3rd world squatter existence != immediate threats to humanity's existence

>>8711139
>3rd world
>I don't understand systems
>all my food and material goods come from a Walmart space factory

>>8711145

My food doesn't come from the equatorial belt you idiot

>>8711158
I'm sure some of it comes from the tropics, unless you are a farmer or some kind of ethical consumer
Why do you think the equator is the only region under existential threat?
Even if that were the case do you not get connectivity? That what happens in one place happens to the whole, with measurable effect?

>>8711187

I don't consider common disasters or climate reorganization a threat to our survival since we can get by in 130 degree middle eastern heat and -30 degree Russian winter

Stop buying into the shit that developed countries need to be big parents for the 3rd world and figure out a way to accommodate their 4 billion people once this planet decides to make their climate uncomfortable

If my bananas go from $2 a lb to $5 a lb I do not consider that a threat to my existence in any case

>>8711196
Do you not consider widespread famine a threat to your existence?
3rd world countries got to be 3rd world countries by colonialism>world bank> neoliberalism fucking them out of their shit so first world shitheads like you can throw it in the trash.
And climate change is just compounding our more immediate existential threats, our ecological problems like biodiversty loss, fishery collapse, soil degradation, ect.
You live in a created world and have no idea where your life really comes from.

>>8709907
Most people never accept death.

>>8708794
>how does it feel, anon?

Feels good that I might get one day better chances to step on the moon than my grandfather.

>>8711323
Go drink some more Mountain Dew you edgy fuck. Take your brainlet rage out on our penis

>>8711331
>>>/pol/

>>8710017

The executors and lawyers of my estate will stop being paid if they don't follow the instructions they've been left. Money is a powerful incentive.

>>8710057

There's too much stuff to do- won't fit into a standard human lifetime. I also can't choose to die.

>>8711330

>hates humanity
>calls others edgy

>>8711338
>hates humanity
No, gb2/b/ait

>>8711057

Trying to solve all of our problems on Earth before we start colonizing space in earnest will just result in all of us dying.

I'll gladly take Earth being a shithole, with humans distributed throughout the solar system, over Earth getting slightly nicer before our species is wiped out by a plague or natural disaster or nuclear war.

>>8711331
We won't even be equals. They are doomed to be economic slaves to us.

>>8711344
>humans spreading throughout the solar system without a functional earth
A fucking pipe dream

>>8711340

Misanthropy and the left go hand in hand. Either class or racial based it's always about the conflict with people.

The 3rd world is shit and will remain shit. Because the people are shit. You cannot save those that don't want to be saved. And this applies not only to those in the 3rd world. Any attempts to "solve earth's problems" are futile and only act as cover for some other goals. In your case, being no one, it's likely just ego and sense of superiority.

>>8711369
Niave reductionism and conservativism are positively correlated.
There is no functional separation between the 1st and 3rd world and that's some dumb reduction somebody made to describe economic inequality, that has become dogma for parrots like yourself.
My non-anthropocentric, holistic worldview is of increased utility to humanity because it is more realistic in its evaluation and analysis of the problems at hand.

>>8711383
>Utopianism
>More realistic

OK.

>>8711369
Claiming superiority to the 3rd world is how you inflate your malnourished ego actually. You can't be superior in your own right, but a category you belong to can. So you cling to notions of group idenity like a tick

>>8711351

How long do you think it's going to take for Earth to be "non-functional?"

>>8711388
>Utopianism
That's not a thing

>>8711392
It starts around 1979

>>8711393
Fine, I'm not wedded to the word, what word would you use for somebody who believes their panacea nostrums will result in a perfect world?

>>8711389

>the third world needs our help
>we aren't superior to the third world

>>8711405
When did I ever say the 3rd world needs our help?
I actually said the "3rd world" came into being by the actions of "1st world" agents to supply the demand of 1st world consumers.
The "help" "we" give the 3rd world is trading them money for their social an ecological a capital. The world bank goes in and makes a deal with the DRC government to loan them money to cut down rainforest for lumber and Palm oil production, ignores the resulting genocide and loss of biodiversty and claims to be fighting poverty. That's the kind of help being given and it's not being giving by "the left.
If anything I belive that international relations should not be a thing. And people should interact with eachother as individuals.
You're dumb and I will no longer reply to you.
>>8711399
Not me, Or relavant to this conversation.

>>8711434

>backtracking
>utopias and evil colonialism
>ur dumb

You will grow up eventually if things turn out well.
Saging to let it die.

>>8711464
You're a dumbo and that's not up for debate
Using Sage in that manner is a rule violation

File: 1484801839084.jpg (76KB, 776x531px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 776x531px

>19yo
GOD FUCKING DAMN

Honestly would not want to go to the moon.

I'd imagine when I'm 40 or 50 I'd be already too cranky to want to fly a plane. That stuff is physically intensive. I also value my life too much to care about seeing earth from a rock and I have a fear of heights. I dread landings on an aircraft because it makes me feel weird.

>>8711502
well fuck you then

>>8709719
They aren't even landing, just going around it. I could get a nice telescope to look at the moon for much cheaper.

>>8711502
>valuing your life for life's sake and not the experiences contained within it

shiggy

>>8711530
>experiencing plummeting back to earth is a good experience
>experiencing the strains of leaving earth's orbit is a good experience

maybe if i was 20 i'd do it. but ill be like 30, 40 or 50 when this happens.

I'll have kids and I'll be cranky.

>>8711542
>I'll have kids

think again anon


also to be technical you'd never feel any strain when you 'left Earth orbit' because you'd be inside Earth's sphere of influence the entire time, except when you approached the moon. You'd pull some G's for a few minutes during the launch then you'd be in zero G for about a week until you hit the Earth's upper atmosphere again after the whole moon flyby business, which would entail another few minutes worth of G's pulled until landing.

>>8711218

>Famine

Famine is an interesting term. It implies a shortage of food for a given population supply. Since the United States (my country) has the potential to create enough food for my country's people 20x over, that term doesn't apply to me.

It may apply to 3rd world shitholes where irresponsible parents made the decision to have 8 kids apiece with meager resources.

I guess what I'm saying is no matter how you cut it your doomsday scenario doesn't apply to me. The worst I can expect is less convenience and higher prices, not an existential threat.

>>8711389

Funnily enough this is probably the kind of cuck that supports "black lives matter" or "feminism"

>>8711563
>thinks America has good potential to produce crops
>doesn't know a thing about American agricultural production, water usage, soil degradation, the extreme lack of crop diversity, or this compounded by climate change and scarce resources in other places.
Forget your bigotry, you're a delusional fuck. It's Armageddon, it's a potato blight but we're the potatoes

>>8711218
non pol answers.

You legitimately have a terrible terrible understanding of post colonial history. Surprising for someone who claims to care so much about the so called third world, you haven't even bothered to carefully research the historical context of these countries.

You know what commonality the poorest countries in the world share? Terrible governments. Not colonialism. Proof? Singapore. India.

I was born in Burma, a country colonized by Britain and Japan for about 100 years and I can say without a doubt that Britain gave Burma the technology that our former royalty never saw the importance of.

And after the Japanese and British left, socialism ruined the country. Burma was the largest producer of Rice in Southeast Asia prior to World War II and the second largest producer in all of Asia.

Burma was well on its way to enter the world as developing economy but is now stunted for more than 60 years of technological, economic and social progress. And it has nothing to do with colonialism, world bank or neoliberalism and everything to do with socialism and corrupt governments.

And to add to that, technology will save poor countries. Money won't save them. No amount of help will save these countries as they will only become dependent on the technologically advanced first world. If you seek true independence, you must let technology find its way into these populations and let its own populations find a way out of poverty.

The idea that we must be "help" is a fucking patronizing. Those people aren't babies and its not your burden to help them. This is just to feed your own ego and so called "virtue" just like the colonists from an era ago. You aren't helping anyone so fuck off.

>>8711574

>bigotry

I don't remember ever making a bigoted statement. Is it possible for you to go a post or two without pulling a typical libtard pejorative out of your gaping gay asshole?

>>8711566
I don't support black lives matter besides seeing that it is addressing very real problems, I detest idenitarian politics. I am a feminist but not in any political sense, besides for advocating for libertarian freedoms.
Youre a reactionary stuck in a trap with other reactionaries

>>8711580
>You know what commonality the poorest countries in the world share?
Low average IQ
>20 Myanmar (Burma) 87

Obviously other shit matters too, like democracy being forced on low IQ countries to destroy them.

>>8711593
>it is addressing very real problems
Yea the very real problem of black people going to prison for their crimes
How outrageous

>>8711593

>my group identity politics are better than yours

I'm glad you admitted it at least, even if it was half assed

>>8711580
Colonialism is was just the beginning. And no, territories got off relatively easily compared to the countries exploited by economic forces.
Saying the state of Burma had nothing to do with the powers shaping international relations is pretty unrealistic.
Again, I never said it was anyone's duty to help "them", I actually said the help is what has fucked them up. If somebody wants to help them they would do so as an individual making an effort. I just detested the idea that money can help, and I am skeptical that technological progress can save even the "1st world". The only hope is to rebuild functional socio-ecological systems, and technology certainly plays a part in that. The global economy as we know it, has to go.
Is English not your first language?

>>8711615
But I'm an individualist. What I was saying is all the people into group-idenity are the problem. You know the sjw WomYn and the men's rights activist, all retarded. Feminism was literally just about a more inclusive worldview before the dumbos got involved
>>8711614
>iq
Spotted the /pol/tard
prison is barbaric and should only be reserved for heinous, violent crimes. Being sent to prison is being sentenced to a life of "crime" and poverty. The return rate is like 60% for released inmates, prison doesn't work.

>>8711314
Does not matter to death, it all comes out the same either way.

>>8711333
Don't engage them,friend. Report, hide and move n.

>>8711502
>40
>too cranky to fly
Ya bro
40 is ancient you'll be lucky if you can get around without a walker

>>8711389
If something can be objectively quantified it can be objectively judged.

>>8713758

This is true. And there are many metrics that would suggest 1st world superiority.

>>8713758
Superiority cannot be objectively quantified. It's not an objective concept.
And judging is subjective by nature, judging relies on abstracted values. The word you are looking for is analyze, and analysis is limited to the data set being anaylized, which in this case is ridiculously small for the conclusions being reached and is biased in what is being anaylized and in how the analysis is carried out.
It's okay, you are biologically predisposed to be naive and reductive, systems thinking and its implications need to be learned. Poor little brainlet thinks he is being objective

>>8713780

>the eternal subjectivist will not stop trying to obfuscate every argument

>>8713794
>argument
Lmao

>>8713780
>Superiority cannot be objectively quantified

Would you say a computer built in 1990 is somehow superior to a computer built within the last few years? A computer built within the last few years is faster and more efficient.

Here is another question - if you had the choice between medical treatment in a first world country and treatment by tribal witch doctors in the third world which would you choose?

The only place where superiority is a subjective question is in the arts.

>on the launchpad to go to the moon
>fuck yes this is it!
>rocket explodes like all of SpaceX's rockets do
>Elon Musk gives PR statement
>"they knew the risks kek thanks for the dosh retards"

>>8710057
why wait? why not just kys now?

>>8713804

Let's dictate "life" "living" and "existence" to be some of the only objective qualifiers and "superiority" to be the notion of being able to give or take that away at will

Many 1st world nations could fully subsidize the existence of 3rd world countries, as well as extinguish their populations in a week through military force, indicating superiority

>>8713873
Superiority is a judgement of intrinsic value. I don't see how you can seriously claim abstracted values like power and potential to be objective, this is the realm of metaphysics.
Nations are not alive, and they do not represent their constituents. This comparison must be done on an individual level. A group of people is not a being it is a category of reduction.
I don't see how a human could be superior to, or even metaphysically seperate from a tree, let alone life as closely related and interconnected as humans and humans

>>8713834
These decisions are based off of abstracted utilitarian values, very subjective.
Objectivity is descriptive, 2+2=4, there are x leaves on a tree, some butterflies pollinate some flowering plants, ect
And that is the realm of the natural sciences.
You mindlets claiming your 2-bit metaphysics to be objective is the cringiest thing I have seen today

half of zero is still zero

>>8713911
>A group of people is not a being it is a category of reduction.
A group of cells is not a being it is a category of reduction

>>8713942
An multicellular organism is more than the totality of its cells.
Whole=/=sum of its parts, this is basic knowlege come on. a group of cells may constitute a living system , but a group of cells is not a living system or a being, it's a category of reduction, you are ironically correct.
There are living systems that include groups of people, but you are talking about nations so they are not applicable

>>8713936
More like half of one is no longer 1.
And 1x100 is no longer 1
0 is absence and you are talking about substance

SpaceX is showing what we can achieve if we don't spend money on wars but on space exploration. Big company like SpaceX have shitload of money and can easly do more than NASA and by doing that they will only get more attention and more money. NASA have ~10x smaller budget compared to ~1970. Can you imagine where we could be if space race never ended?

>>8714030
SpaceX has zero money, they spend every penny they got

>>8709923
>The closest industry we have to compare this with is air travel. There margins are incredibly tight, I don't see this ever taking off.
Uh... so what that the margins are tight for airlines? That hasn't affected availability to the customer. Airliners don't produce their own fuel or airliners and don't own the airports, nor are they free to deviate from industry standards of safety, and there's almost nothing they can change without their competitors being free to copy it. This leaves a situation of "perfect competition", where customers can just choose the lowest price, so there's little direct profit to be had from investing in an airline.

Meanwhile, millions of people make a good living from airline-related work, and many times more owe a large part of their revenue to the availability of rapid global transport. It's in the interests of governments, hotel chains, fuel producers, etc. to keep the airlines healthy, so they'll invest if no one else will. It doesn't really matter if the airlines make a little money or lose a little money, except to the careers of airline executives.

Nothing could be more ideal than for space transportation to follow the example of the airline industry, reducing the cost of transport to a small multiple of the cost of propellant.

>>8708794
>how does it feel, anon?

literally couldn't care less, it's just a rock on orbit around earth

>>8714030
>SpaceX is showing what we can achieve if we don't spend money on wars but on space exploration

ye lets not develop medicine, let's not solve problems on earth, lets throw money on flying to a rock

>>8714286

It's not a one-or-the-other thing retard. We can afford to spend 0.5% of the national budget on space exploration.

>>8714264
>so what that the margins are tight for airlines?

It means that it'll never be taken up by the general public.

>>8714042

They spend it on R&D and other reinvesting, as well as paying their workers and taxes and so forth. That makes sense, because they're a pretty new company especially in terms of the space industry and spending what they can make on making their operation better will help them in the long run.

>>8714030
maybe if NASA was doing their fuckin' jobs instead of participating in the white mans welfare that is ((((climate research))))

>>8714030
>and can easly do more than NASA

i hope you solely mean with what they're doing in rocketry, because otherwise you couldn't be more wrong. NASA has way more to do than SpaceX does, things that have nothing to do with manned space exploration. What you're saying is totally ignorant.

>>8714293
it is until problems like disease and hunger are eliminated

>>8714325
So never, then. Gotcha.

You go ahead and keep working on that until an asteroid comes and fucks us all up the ass.

>>8714298
>>so what that the margins are tight for airlines?
>It means that it'll never be taken up by the general public.
Yeah man, the general public has no access whatsoever to air travel, for themselves or for packages.

>>8714351
you watch too many movies

>>8714363
No you moron. The airline industry makes about $4 per passenger. Either this kind of space travel will operate at a loss or it'll be prohibitively expensive. It's pretty simple logic senpai.

>>8708794
this is clearly bait, trying to catch underage users

>>8714367
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKKg4lZ_o-Y

It's only a matter of time. Even if something like the Tunguska event happened it could be devastating, the airburst equivalent of the Castle Bravo nuclear bomb test coming out of nowhere, potentially above a densely populated area.

>>8714385
so instead of funding the material reality of world hunger and cancer deaths, we should direct funding towards something that might happen at some point in the not so near future

>>8714367
Problems like disease and hunger will never be eliminated by anything short of human extinction because any measure that alleviates them creates the conditions for their natural increase.

Feed the hungry, and the population explodes. Cure the ill, and the next generation comes in full of defects that would have been weeded out.

Caring for the weak is a bottomless pit. You have to set some limit on how much effort you'll pour into it.

>>8713857
I enjoy the randomness of life.

>>8714404

Yes, because by not developing the ability to deflect dangerous asteroids we are risking the lives of every single person on Earth and the extinction of our species, whereas by battling hunger and disease we would only be working to help a fraction of humanity.

Again, I'm not saying we should let the starving starve and the diseased die, but to work on improving humanity's chances of survival in all aspects.

Also, if you really want to cancel spending in some areas in order to divert it to combating hunger and disease, don't aim at space exploration which only uses a measly half a percent of the United States' national budget, aim at military pork spending or demand the government reverse the big bank bailouts of 2008 which totaled more than the entire NASA running budget from its inception up until today, combined.

>>8713857
Because I can't find a QT gf to smooch

>>8714405
what a retarded ideological trashpost

>feed the hungry, the population explodes

or you can educate them too, and the population won't explode.

>cure the ill, the next generation comes full of defects that would have been weeded out

i dont even know where to begin with this retarded statement. if you find a cure for diabetes, it will be a lot more cost efficient than providing diabetics with insulin for life. Cancer has also no cure, but wow there are still people with cancer everywhere. And you know what happens when we have a cure for it? we will fucking cure them, not let them die

fucking retarded edgelord

>>8714412
i didnt support any capitalist policy of allocating funds to the military, i'm saying that research on curing cancer > research on deflecting asteroids that might hit us in a million years

>>8714423
>or you can educate them too, and the population won't explode.

Actually I don't think this is even true. In an environment where infant mortality is low, women tend to naturally reduce their birthrate sans education. We instinctively understand that we are better off putting a mother to work to provide more for the children we do have rather than producing more children to replace those thate are unlikely to die in infancy.

>>8714423
>that might hit us in a million years

Or may hit us tomorrow.

Do you understand what it means when you hear that NASA just discovered an asteroid 50 meters across that just passed between the Earth and the Moon? It means that asteroid just barely missed us, and an asteroid 50m across traveling at interplanetary velocities could EASILY deliver enough energy to kill millions if it landed i the right spot.

And a 50m asteroid isn't even a big guy, something 200m across striking the ocean would cause a big enough tsunami that it would effect every coastal city within several thousand kilometers, and could completely erase a city rather than merely damage it and cause a humanitarian crisis.

Muskrats BTFO

>>8714486
https://www.yahoo.com/news/moon-tourists-risk-rough-ride-experts-173436265.html

>>8714375
>The airline industry makes about $4 per passenger. Either this kind of space travel will operate at a loss or it'll be prohibitively expensive. It's pretty simple logic senpai.
It's garbage logic, which I've already dismantled. There's no connection between your data and your conclusion, even setting aside the obvious fact that airlines neither operate at a loss, nor are their services prohibitively expensive.

The airlines as such are not companies that build aircraft, own airports, or decide how to maintain and pilot their vehicles. They are middle-men who buy aircraft built by aerospace companies, buy fuel from the petroleum industry, pay runway fees to airports, and pay maintenance crews and pilots whose methods are tightly regulated by government agencies.

The corporate airlines themselves are not "the airline industry", they're just a necessary part of it which has very little freedom to compete by means other than price. Furthermore, their situation now, after a century of routine commercial passenger air travel, has little to do with the economics of an emerging industry.

Whether commercial passenger spaceflight can be made affordable to the average person will depend almost entirely on whether rocket technology can be improved, reducing marginal launch costs near the price of propellant. This would bring orbital launches within an order of magnitude of the cost of intercontinental flights. Once orbit is affordably reachable, lunar propellant production would surely follow, making more distant destinations reachable.

File: 1473038392528.gif (3MB, 377x372px)

3MB, 377x372px

>>8714506
>a century of routine commercial passenger air travel

>>8714506
>There's no connection between your data and your conclusion

I don't know how to explain this to you.
>It's going to be much more costly to launch stuff into space than it is to fly across the Atlantic
>Flying across the Atlantic has small margins
>Flying to the moon would either be at a loss or be prohibitively expensive

It's pretty simple senpai, the fact you can't see it implies you're a brainlet.

>>8714423
>or you can educate them too, and the population won't explode.
Yeah, that won't work. First of all, many of those who are currently hungry are that way because they're not genetically equipped to be effectively educated. They have genetic factors for low intelligence, aggression, and disorderliness. Secondly: if hunger's not a threat, what's to stop them from having children? And in the long run, those who have genetic factors which cause them to breed regardless of whatever pressure you put on them not to, will carry on growing in numbers, passing their traits on.

In the end, people will have to actually die, or be forcibly prevented from reproducing.

>if you find a cure for diabetes, it will be a lot more cost efficient than providing diabetics with insulin for life.
Reaching past the reality in your face for the utopian dream? Providing diabetics with insulin for life enables them to have children who also need insulin for life. Diabetes is a genetic disease.

>Cancer has also no cure, but wow there are still people with cancer everywhere.
...and the more effective your treatments, the more common it will become for young people to get cancer, because you'll save people with a genetic predisposition for cancer.

Trying to eradicate disease entirely is a fool's errand, that will ultimately produce a treatment-dependent population more miserable than one with no disease treatment at all. Unless you want to go the genetic engineering route, but that's just replacing humanity with something artificial (which may well turn out not to be viable in the long run).

>edgelord
I'm not being edgy. Some problems are just inherent to life. Ending them would require ending life. Refusing to acknowledge this is what makes utopian thinking produce such bad results.

>>8714522
Read up on it. People have been buying seats on flights for a good long while.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airline#The_first_airlines

>>8714538
>I don't know how to explain this to you.
Because it's incoherent thinking.

>>It's going to be much more costly to launch stuff into space than it is to fly across the Atlantic
>>Flying across the Atlantic has small margins
Okay, sure. (although advancing energy technology and automation are likely to lower the floor on propellant, maintenance, manufacturing, and operational costs both of flying across the Atlantic and launching stuff into space)

>>Flying to the moon would either be at a loss or be prohibitively expensive
The previous points aren't sufficient to establish this. The profit margins of airlines aren't even relevant.

Are you actually assuming that their ticket prices are so low because raising them would make them "prohibitively expensive"? Their prices are what they are because flyers shop around for the cheapest ticket, and the airlines are in competition for their business. Commercial air travel was viable in the past at much higher prices than today's. It's so cheap that ordinary people now fly for absolutely frivolous reasons, like to spend a few days in a warmer climate.

File: image.jpg (76KB, 655x509px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 655x509px

>>8708794
>50% increase in a probability that is below 0.1% in the general population
>so 0.15%
>this is something to get excited about
Oh boy

>>8708794
>If you are 18 years old, or younger, you now have a +50% increase in the chances of stepping foot on the moon.
Pure bullshit, that implies that in next 20 years there are many astronauts or many rich that can cost the travel. nahh its still the same posibilities in 20 years for both options only a few people can pay the travel today and in 20 years and be an astronaut still will be a dificult way, you forget the economic and social context. a industry of space travel in less time of 20 years is not realistic

This is absolute horseshit. The money will run out very fast, and unfortunately things only get done in your society if you can make money from it. You can't make money from going into space.

how viable would it be to colonize the moon if we can remove the need for a biosphere? basically we take away the need for oxygen and and habitable ecosystem, and just focus on industrialization of its resources. basically we genetically modify ourselves to live in its conditions. if this isn't possible, what about digitizing our whole world? basically, simulate our society on holographic storage media and just put it in cubes on the moon. nobody would be any wiser and we can have machines expanding its storage scale, increasing our internet to yotta-byte sizes. they'd be in our base reality while we just work in the holographic media. would this be too fake?

>>8714652
>genetic modifications to remove the requirement of oxygen in cellular respiration

I thought this board was supposed to be smart?

Either I'm going to step on the moon one day or I won't. Therefore my chances are either 1 or 0. You can't change these chances.

File: SpaceX ITS.jpg (144KB, 894x894px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 894x894px

>>8714638
>planned to start flying in 2022, maybe 2025 after schedule slippage
>100-1000 passengers to LEO per trip
>fully reusable, launch costs near propellant costs
>propellants are cheap natural gas and liquid air, no helium consumed
>tanker variant can refuel dedicated ferry vehicle for transfer to and from...
>Earth-Moon cycler station provides comfortable, radiation-shielded, gravity-simulated accommodations for travellers
>propellant production on the moon makes landing and return cheap
>solar and nuclear power technology continue to advance, making energy and propellants cheaper

In 20 years there will be a city on the moon, and one in orbit between Earth and the moon.

>>8714688
nobody sane thinks this will fly any people before 2030

File: 1488252119597.jpg (63KB, 480x578px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 480x578px

>>8708794
>20 years old

Do I have a chance?

>>8714688
No one will want to live on a celestial body with only 0.16 g. We'll probably most likely see small bases/outposts and automated factories for mining rather than actual cities. Also Elons ITS won't be sending humans by the 100's anywhere by at least 2030.

>>8714645

>no companies exist that buy launch vehicles in order to put their communication satellites into orbit
>no companies exist buying launch vehicles to orbit their GPS satellites

do you seriously believe this

>>8714658
But you can, anon. Believe in yourself!

>>8714657
HA

>>8714715
SpaceX was founded in 2002. From there, they had to build from nothing. Their team had no experience working together, and limited experience elsewhere. They didn't have a factory, they didn't have any software, no labs, no prototyping shop.

In 2006, they made their first test launch of a small-lift launch vehicle.
In 2008, they put their first payload into orbit, after dramatically redesigning the engine from ablative cooling to regenerative.
In 2010, they launched a space capsule into orbit (with their second rocket, a medium-lift vehicle) and recovered it from the surface. Had everyone involved been willing to accept the risk, it could have carried crew to the ISS.
In 2011, they announced their intention to make the Falcon 9 booster flyback reusabie.
In 2012, they began work on their third-generation rocket, intended to be fully reusable, and demonstrated VTVL flight of a prototype Falcon 9 booster.
In 2013, they launched their first geostationary comsat.
In 2014-2015 they ramped up factory output and flight rate to become one of the most active launch providers in the world.
In early 2015, they made their first beyond-earth-orbit launch.
In late 2015, they accomplished the first flyback booster landing (and uprated their medium-lift vehicle to heavy-lift performance), a feat they soon made routine and reliable.

And in 2016, with a large, efficient factory, an experienced team, fancy testing labs, state-of-the-art prototyping, they declared their plan for ITS and unveiled the 1:3 scale prototype Raptor engine and full-scale ITS composite oxygen tank they had already built.

13 years ago, they hadn't even test-flown a single rocket. Now they're on the verge of dominating the launch industry. You really think it'll take them more than 13 more years to build something they've put 5 years of work into already?

>>8714803
>almost 100% are government contracts

do you seriously believe this

>>8714813
>first FH will fly in 2012!

>>8714658

Those are your options, not your chances. You have the option of either never dying or dying someday. Do you therefore have a 50% chance of being immortal? No, because it's impossible to live forever.

>>8714652

We can't do that, but considering we're currently managing our own food production here on Earth I don't see why doing so on the Moon would be out of the question. In any case it'd be possible, unlike 'modifying humans to no longer require oxygen or a habitable spaces'. The Singularity is a meme btw.

>>8714688

ITS is going to be flying to Mars, not the Moon. Also the maximum number of people per flight, after the system has been fully evolved, was given at around 200.

>>8714749

no it's over

>>8714815

Based on figures before SpaceX realized that by focusing on improving the Falcon 9 first they would save a lot of headaches down the line trying to keep up with developing Heavy. Also, Falcon 9 has become so much more capable that it actually has taken quite a big chunk of the marketplace that Falcon Heavy was supposed to service, making Heavy even less of a priority. Getting booster recovery and now reuse has taken precedence over simply building a bigger rocket, but now that Falcon 9 is nearing its frozen Block 5 configuration, Heavy has had the go ahead to actually finish developing it to completion.

>>8714814

>being paid money doesn't count if it's from a government

Also have you seriously never heard of Iridium, SES, Echostar, Intelsat, Inmarsat, Telesat, DirecTV, Globalstar, Orbcomm, or Serious Sattelite Radio, among other companies?

Satellites are always getting older, using up station-keeping propellant, becoming progressively more outdated, and eventually need replacing. There were 85 payloads launched on rockets in 2016, and the vast majority of them were built by private telecommunications companies.

>>8714825
>ITS is going to be flying to Mars, not the Moon.
How simpleminded can you be? It's designed around the Mars mission, but they'll use it for everything customers are willing to pay for.

>Also the maximum number of people per flight, after the system has been fully evolved, was given at around 200.
That's accommodations and supplies for a half-year-long voyage, not a few-days' coast, or a few-hours-long trip to a LEO station or ferry vehicle.

They're talking about a 300 tonne capacity. That allows over 300 kg per passenger if they're seating 1,000. Even 2,000 passengers in one flight to LEO might be feasible.

>>8714852

I don't think the ITS will have the physical room on board to launch more than a few hundred people at once, reclining seats take up room and there's only so much floor space available.

>>8714843
If the government needs to pay for it that means it's not profitable for private companies to do it, but it still needs to be done aka roads.

>>8714749
unless you're part of the elite you will miss out.

>>8714813
Hi Elon

>>8714860
Well you are going up to zero G so
You don't need people all on one or two levels like in a plane
Can fit more per cubic meter

It's also a shorter trip of maybe an hour to get to a space station/different point on the planet, so again, you can squish more people in.

>>8714860
I don't think "floor space" is a relevant limiting principle. They want floors on the transit vehicle to organize the space for months-long habitation, but for transport to LEO, it might make more sense to just pack it full of seats and the minimum platforms to let people get to and climb into them.

With no supplies or equipment for a long trip, I think they could pack over 1,000 people in, and once some destinations were established, there would be much stronger incentives to pack passengers in than there are on airliners.

>>8714825

>ITS is going to be flying to Mars, not the Moon.

Except the system is perfectly capable of doing that, and will indeed do so if people pay Spacex to do it.

Part of the reason for the name MCT being discarded was that the spaceship itself, once in LEO and fully fueled, is capable of landing on every accommodating solid surface in the solar system.

>>8714892

That doesn't mean road companies don't make money you fucking retard.

The only thing the government pays SpaceX for is a launch service to provide supplies to the ISS. While I agree that NASA isn't making any money by resupplying the ISS, SpaceX sure as fuck is. Therefore, SpaceX is profitable.

If your objection is that no space projects could be profitable and therefore if NASA didn't exist SpaceX would dry up, that's also wrong. SpaceX makes money on every launch they perform, delivering payloads to orbit for independent companies that are not subsidized by governments.

>>8714977

I'm not talking about while they're in space, I'm talking about when they launch from Earth and pull serious G's on ascent. At the very least the people on board will need to be strapped into reclining chairs, at worst they'd need to be laying on their backs with feet slightly elevated as is the case in almost every manned launch.

>>8715071
>Part of the reason for the name MCT being discarded was that the spaceship itself, once in LEO and fully fueled, is capable of landing on every accommodating solid surface in the solar system.
Bullshit.

Mercury, Venus, and everything beyond Saturn want a word with you.

>>8715071

The name ITS was chosen because the spaceship could potentially refuel at deep space destinations and 'planet hop' its way almost anywhere in the solar system. That capability is not the same as being able to land on any body in the solar system once refueled in Earth orbit, by a long shot.

I don't really doubt that the ITS would be able to go to the Moon and land, but I'm not sure it would be able to get back to Earth without a propellant depot functioning on the Moon's surface. That complicates things because the only reserves of water and CO2 on the moon are in deep craters at the poles, which are both regions of very rough terrain, requiring either the ITS to land essentially among mountains, or land somewhere flatter but further away, requiring transport of the fuel to the ITS landing site.

Anyway, if people want to pay for it maybe SpaceX would do it as you say, but their main focus is going to be Mars, far and away.

>>8715105
>once in LEO and fully fueled, is capable of landing on every accommodating solid surface in the solar system

This is bullshit too, the only two places the ITS can land once fully fueled in LEO are the Moon using a regular hohmann transfer or Mars using a fast transfer and aerobraking. There isn't enough deltaV margin to get anywhere else and be able to land. Elon was talking about planet hopping, going form Earth to Mars the fueling up in orbit then going from Mars orbit onwards.

>>8715105
I don't think there's an "accommodating solid surface" on Venus, by any reasonable definition of "accommodating".

But anyway, I'm not sure I believe that a stock ITS would be capable of landing on the moon. That's either way deeper throttling or more precise timing.

>>8715101
Well yea, they would all need to be in a reclined seat, SpaceX already has seats like that in their Dragon capsule.
Though you could also pull less G's, accepting some inefficiency to keep it under say, 2.5 g's

>>8709391
This.

>>8715125
It can also make it to Titan or Venus
All these places without atmospheres though, they would need refueling in orbit around them

>>8715126
Or the ITS has a lower TWR, when the outer six vacuum Raptors are shut down and the cargo bay is full, than you considered. We won't really know until SpaceX is doing hover-slam tests with an ITS spaceship prototype somewhere.

>>8715125
>going form Earth to Mars the fueling up in orbit then going from Mars orbit onwards.
Another interesting idea is starting full from an earth-moon lagrange point. That would save a solid 3 km/s from the departure burn compared to just going from LEO.

>>8715118
It's about 6 km/s Delta-V to land on the moon from LEO
Then something around 2km/s to return.

Obviously ISRU would be a first order component of any moon missions, but the ITS would be able to do there & back with lower payloads

>>8715153
>What is the Oberth effect
hurr

>>8708794
Why can't humanity just say fuck it and do a one-time collaboration to hyper-advance technology? If everybody dropped what they were doing and shook hands and agreed to pool all resources into it, we could do it. Food isn't hard to make now, there's no reason why everybody in the world couldn't theoretically work together to accomplish massive jumps in technology. Just think, if the entire world was turned into an organization to develop space flight. Food, the only necessary resource people currently work for, could be produced by automated machines. Everyone could spend all their time working towards space travel tech in exchange for food. We may not have the technology, but we have the technology to make and imagine the technology, and the knowledge required to do it. And, yes, it would not pay off at first, but once it was done and the project disbanded because making the tech and getting to space was super easy, it would really open up the universe for humanity. Yeah, we could just kill all the "surplus people" instead of trying to leave earth, but that's gay. Might as well have killed all the extra people in Europe so that no one needed to make boats to travel the oceans if that's the way you see it. Making a big sacrifice now so we have even bigger rewards would be extremely advantageous. Yeah, it would require an ebil state of temporary communism to achieve, but it's not as if the alternatives of wage slavery unto infinity and mass genocide are ethically superior. And if technology surpasses a limit that the human body cannot, than simply make the human body better. Isn't that simply evolution as manifested as humans ingenuity, and how it has always worked? But yeah, that's not going to happen because people can't agree. It's a nice pipe-dream though.

>>8715141

Venus yes, but good luck returning form the surface. Doing that requires more deltaV than launching into Earth orbit. Titan, I'm not sure. The ship certainly wouldn't have the deltaV to do a fast transfer, in fact it may not have the deltaV to even do a hohmann transfer with much cargo. Again, there's a reason Elon said it could do hopping and not that it could do direct transfers. Really, for a Saturn round-trip, going to Mars on a fast transit then refueling in orbit and boosting again onto an accelerated Saturn transit would probably end up saving time as well as increasing payload to Titan, if we assume there's even the option of direct transfer from Earth.

File: 6634546565465.png (72KB, 918x1192px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 918x1192px

Why do you still visit this shithole when much better places for this type of discussion exist?

Serious question, anons.

>>8715161
You can use the Oberth effect to depart from a lagrange point. You start with a small burn to transfer to a highly elliptical orbit, then you do your departure burn at the perigee, already moving at over 3 km/s.

>>8715165
>If everybody dropped what they were doing and shook hands and agreed to pool all resources into it, we could do it.

citation needed

>>8715176

because i can call people retarded faggots and get away with it desu

>>8715181
How do you refuel at the lagrange point

>>8715197

More ITS fuel tankers, which would make things more expensive

>>8715197
It is HARD.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWTsh1KswDg

>>8715186
Theoretically. Theory source: my ass.

>>8715206
And how much fuel will the tanker have left after the 4 km/s burn to get to the Lagrange point
Then to get back?
Obviously its like, they COULD do these things, but would it make sense? I don't think so.

Also these extra flights need to be balanced against them just building one more ITS spaceship.

Maybe at some future point where they are producing fuel on the moon, then something like this makes sense for going to the outer solar system or a off-time transit to Mars.

>>8715208
This guy is very skilled, holy shit. When I am trying to refuel I spend more than half of the fuel just overshooting my target. Repeatedly.

>>8708819
That would mean a 50% chance bud.

>>8715197
In the obvious way. It costs more flights, of course.

You launch a ship. Launch tankers to refuel it. Depart to EM-2.

You launch a tanker. Launch more tankers to refuel it until it's full. Depart to EM2. Transfer prop. Return to LEO for refuelling. Repeat.

I think it would only take two or three tanker departures, but they'd each require 6 tanker launches to LEO.

All in all, I'd guess 13 more LEO launches than a conventional departure from LEO, so maybe 19 launches in total, and another $24 million according to SpaceX's cost estimate (of about $1.8 million per tanker launch), for a total launch price of $86 million, compared to $62 million for a LEO departure.

If they can really do repeated launches as cheaply as they say, it seems to make more sense than launching from LEO, when you consider how much either the payload or delta-v can be increased.

They could use this, for instance, to launch a lightly-loaded space ship (for instance, for the dozen-man crew of the first Mars landing) to the Mars surface with enough propellant to get back into low Mars orbit, possibly even enough to fly back to Earth. Certainly, a tanker could aerobrake to low Mars orbit and have enough propellant to refuel a space ship to return to Earth, making a two-vehicle-return possible as a backup plan for if Mars propellant production doesn't work.

>>8715232
I agree with your point about the Lagrange point refueling not making sense, i was just offering an explanation for someone else's idea.

>>8715232
>And how much fuel will the tanker have left after the 4 km/s burn to get to the Lagrange point
Close to 40%.

>Then to get back?
Very little. Lagrange points are easy to return from.

>>8715250
>I think it would only take two or three tanker departures
>All in all, I'd guess 13 more LEO launches
The upper range for my estimate is 21 more launches, or about an additional $40 million, for a full tank at EM-2. This would also allow you to fill up tankers at LEO and EM-2 before launching the space ship, so the crew can be launched on it and won't have to wait around for refuelling before departure.

For early missions, $24-$40 million is quite a modest expense compared to the $200 million up-front cost per space ship which you won't be seeing for a few years, and the initial capital investment of the overall system with pad, booster, and tanker (although this does require at least two tankers, preferably three, and they're supposed to cost $130 million each) which should exceed half a billion dollars.

>>8715315
>>And how much fuel will the tanker have left after the 4 km/s burn to get to the Lagrange point
>Close to 40%.
>>Then to get back?
To clarify, I think starting with a full 2500-tonne load in LEO, it could deliver at least 900 tonnes to a space ship or tanker in EM-2 and return safely to Earth.

(the space ship's propellant capacity is 1950 tonnes, and it wouldn't need to burn its tanks near dry to get to EM-2 from a full load at LEO)

>>8715249
>I can't do maths
Kek

>>8709425
He meant that he wants to go too, but wants someone else to pay for it.

>>8708794
I'm 18 but what the fuck is stepping on the moon going to do. Only primitive, vain monkeys would care about something symbolic (only personally now, considering it's been done and no one cares anymore) that doesn't actually accomplish anything - actually not even symbolic, it's just a fucking quaint holiday. Fucking waste of resources piece of shits, while our entire world needs serious reform and development. Finding it hard to be humanistic lately, lads. I starting to hope we end soon and our tech achieves what were too short-sighted and animalistic to do. Even if they don't do much at all except reform society on Earth into something actually efficient and directed. I'd be content to die with that.

>>8714825
No, you don't have the option of never dying someday, fucking idiot.

But you do have the options of dying or not dying today. So you have a 50% of dying today.

>>8714635
you realize that this precentage would mean that 1 in 1000 people will go to the moon

Every time I see something like "Elon will..." "Elon is going to..." I want to break my computer. It is the workers and engineers who actually design, build, and maintain everything.

File: image.jpg (277KB, 1134x1001px) Image search: [Google]

277KB, 1134x1001px

>>8716210
>/sci/ genuinely can't do probability

>>8716943
I just picked 0.1 because I wanted to avoid researching how many astronauts have been up compared to total population, you are correct however, my laziness if a out by a long, long way.

Just wanted to point out that an this does not mean everyone now has a 50% chance of going to space, as some posters have taken it.

>>8717070
OP said:
>+50% increase in the chances
That's ambigious, and in context I think it's more reasonable to interpret it as adding 50% to your probability (going from near-zero to a 50:50 chance) than as multiplying your prior probability by 1.5.

File: dpPAh6U.jpg (45KB, 768x1024px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 768x1024px

>>8713847
>all of SpaceX's rockets explode

ha

>>8715770

well you should definitely kill yourself

>>8717094

Or maybe ti was a +50% chance, meaning a factor of 1.5 multiple on his already extremely low chances, giving a slightly higher but still extremely low chance.

0.0005% plus (50% of 0.0005%) is 0.00075%, not 50.0005%.

>>8717094
>50% increase in chances of cancer from smoking
>" hurr durr 50/50"

A percentile increase literally never means that, it is always in the context of the previous value.
If it was as you are claiming, it would be written as "Now everyone on Earth has a 50% chance" instead of "Everyone on Earth has a 50% increased chance"

>>8717148
>>8717094

correct

>>8717148
>A percentile increase literally never means that
Don't try to use words you don't know, like "percentile" or "literally".

And OP didn't express himself in any sort of standard, unambiguous way.

>>8717277
>he still uses literally correctly
>2017

Nigro? a 50% increase is not "ambiguous" in any way if you are not fucking retarded.
Are you really trying to imply that ~4 billion people will be going to space in the next 60-70 years?

>>8711158
>he unironically thinks his food doesnt come from the equatorial belt you idiot

>>8711389
>So you cling to notions of group identity like a tick
Newsflash, buddy: civilization is made by GROUPS, not PEOPLE. It is by forming these groups and surrendering some aspect of your individuality and independence that you can become something other than a lowly primitive.
Ask yourself this, if you are a part of a sports team, and your team wins a game, regardless of how instrumental you were in that victory, are you not entitled to say, "We won"? That would imply your part in the victory, and implies that you show pride in belonging to that victorious group. The same can be said of your society, only that it is of a much larger scale. Why can't a farmer be proud of his country for winning a war, let's say, when, while he did not fight in the battles that won the war, he certainly provided the food that the army marches on.
Whether you like it or not, you belong to a group and must acknowledge that.
>You can't be superior in your own right
I seem to recall such accomplished figures as Wagner, Hitler, Churchill, Watson, among others can find time to be superior to their own people and feel superior to other groups simultaneously

>>8711574
Blow your armageddon talk right out of your asshole, you delusional prick
>The sky is falling!

>>8711648
>Prison is barbaric and should only be reserved for heinous, violent crimes.
So what do you propose, O' enlightened one? Give them a slap on the wrist and a stern talking to and then send them away? That might work on your white, suburban kids, but on a culture (ignoring the impact race might have on this) that despises authority and the rule of law, and that glorifies frivolous criminals, you are only asking for trouble.

>>8713933
>This culture managed to completely subjugate or even eradicate that culture. That means they are completely equal!

>>8719362

Programs to help people integrate into society and combat whatever made them feel alienated.
Prison is primitive method for punishment that is entirely counter productive.

>>8714423
>or you can educate them too, and the population won't explode.
Wow, ever since I learned how to do geometry, my libido has disappeared! Isn't that something?

>>8714030
>don't spend money on wars
And of course like the brainlet you are, you ignore the massive R&D that the military and contractors like Lockheed do
Are you forgetting that the entire reason you have internet or satellite communication or touchscreens etc. is because the military decided to develop those technologies?

>>8717062
>But m-muh workers!
And it's Elon who owns and manages the company, AND who helps fund its operation you filthy fucking commie. Do you really think those engineers would be able to get shit done if it wasn't coordinated by someone?

>>8719377
>So Tyreese, what made you feel the way you did to kill that man?
Eyo fuck you, punk-ass bitch. I don't finna need to talk to yo' ass
>B-but don't you want want to sort out your f-feelings?
Fuck you honkey! *Beats Anon half to death because no guards were around because apparently using physical force to control a convict would be barbaric too*
Honestly, you are too civilized for your own good

>>8719398
To your point, however, if you were saying that the CURRENT system of prison where the convict is blacklisted from any job after he or she is released, and therefore is forced out of society for good is wrong, then yes, I agree with you.
Your desire to completely abolish prison altogether, however, can only be described as naive