Submitted by Proof-Economist-4731 t3_zhmw0u in space
Comments
ferrel_hadley t1_izn8nrr wrote
> And assuming that money wasnt an issue
To reiterate one of the most well understood elements of why its expensive "too space", the cost of fuel for a rocket is often 1% or below. Most of the cost comes from the design, capital costs of machinery, land rent etc and other fixed costs such as the labour input for fabrication.
The more you build and launch rockets the cheaper it gets.
So in terms of getting large amounts to other planets, it would be expensive with current launch costs, but could easily be much cheaper by buying large bulk number of launches on launch vehicles optimized for reuse or cheap fabrication rather than to squeeze the maximum mass to orbit out of a vehicle that will launch 100ish times over 20 years.
mrsunrider t1_izn006z wrote
If we aren't worried about maintaining a presence or basic survival... we can do it right now.
The trick is setting up the infrastructure for the long term. Not to get all "political" but the biggest hurdle is money and political will. We don't value space travel like it needs to be valued.
f1del1us t1_izn1fha wrote
> like it needs to be valued.
But why?
Grumpy-Greybeard t1_iznalnb wrote
If I were more cynical I'd say because it's expensive and won't pay off before the next election cycle.
DigitalFootPr1nt t1_iznk03o wrote
It will when we see a big ass comet coming directly at us..... Never mind the dinosaurs. We are Gona end up as the next cycle
beef-o-lipso t1_iznq2gf wrote
Lots of reasons.
Space travel is expensive and takes a loooong time to develop for very little visible gain.
People have more pressing things on their plate making funding space travel from taxes less interesting.
Most product development (think, jobs) are concentrated in specific pockets of the US, so the billions that are spent on space technology and development only flows to those few areas. In the US, this means there is little incentive for the large swath of the country to send money away from home.
The military and intelligence departments in the US command a lot of resources and keep demanding more through the application of FUD, reducing the money that could be allocated to other programs like space exploration.
And there's like more reasons.
f1del1us t1_izomenu wrote
You gave reasons why it is underfunded, not why it should be funded…
beef-o-lipso t1_izor3sl wrote
Your comment was ambiguous. I assumed "but why" asked why space exploration is underfunded.
Ape_Togetha_Strong t1_izozbg7 wrote
No it wasn't. They quoted the part they were questioning. Couldn't be much clearer.
Chimalez t1_izn6560 wrote
No matter what, the answer is yes. Whether it takes millions of years and requires stasis travel, or takes advantage of some kind of universal quirk to skip the speed of light, eventually with the right technology it will be possible.
Initialised t1_izn6hwo wrote
Mars, Venus, Mercury and perhaps the larger moons of Jupiter and Saturn might be colonised in the not too distant future if we can figure out a zero waste method of living. The energy requirement of shipping live humans much further is very problematic so interstellar travel will have to wait until we’ve evolved beyond our meatsacks.
daikatana t1_izn3f3j wrote
In our solar system, yes. We can practically do it with current technology.
Extrasolar planets, no. Not with current technology, not with any foreseeable technology. The distances are so vast that it would take tens of thousand of years to reach the nearest star. It would be possible, I guess, to build a generational ship and reach them, but then "we" are not reaching other planets, our descendants are and I think that's fundamentally a different question.
[deleted] t1_izmz8uo wrote
[removed]
goatharper t1_izmzgc2 wrote
I reckon you mean manned missions, as we have visited all the planets with unmanned probes.
A friend worked on the MESSENGER mission to Mercury; fascinating how it took some six years to get there, using slingshots off Venus to slow down.
Sure, we could send people to other planets. The question is: what could humans do that machines couldn't?
Answer: nothing.
PoppersOfCorn t1_izmztau wrote
>Sure, we could send people to other planets. The question is: what could humans do that machines couldn't?
>Answer: nothing.
With current technology, a lot. Computers are inhibited by the programs they run on and can only learn on what they encounter.
Whereas humans can look at different areas that Computers never will, also if we were to find other life, we would react differently than any computer.
Is this a reason to send humans atm, No. But dont think machines can do everything humans can with the given tech
DigitalFootPr1nt t1_iznkm82 wrote
Very true.... The next big problem with machine is power ... I believe I read somewhere just to get to mars and to live off solar power requires 2 times more the amount of solar panels than earth with it being a bit further away from our sun. As you go further out it's not even vaiable as you need I think 10 times more solar panels just to make the same as one solar panel as on earth does. Which become pointless and need alternative energy to run the machine. I really hope there is one day infrastructure to send out a fleet of refinery and manufacturing and miner and 3d printer to a planet.. leave it to it's devices for 10-20years. Crazy.
Virtual_Decision_898 t1_izozexu wrote
With nuclear reactors you kinda have as much power as you want anywhere you want it.
DigitalFootPr1nt t1_izq0x2x wrote
How many can we make of these?
FlametopFred t1_izmzpmr wrote
nothing but be there and poetically relay the human experience
unrealistic of course everywhere except Mars
neovb t1_izmzbjv wrote
Yes. With current technology we can reach Mars. And assuming that money wasnt an issue, we could do so pretty easily.