NASA gets the boot - FUCK WASHINGTON GENERAL

[n00b1n8R]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/oct/26/obama-readies-to-blast-nasa/

Word has leaked out that in its new budget, the Obama administration (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/barack-obama/) intends to terminate NASA (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/national-aeronautics-and-space-administration/)’s planetary exploration program. The Mars Science Lab Curiosity, being readied on the pad, will be launched, as will the nearly completed small MAVEN orbiter scheduled for 2013, but that will be it. No further missions to anywhere are planned.

http://chanarchive.org/content/2_v/109860317/1315714282114.jpg

[TeeKup]

What incredible and vomit inducing garbage is this!?

[n00b1n8R]

http://chanarchive.org/content/2_v/109860317/1315714282114.jpg

[TeeKup]

Someone impeach this bastard right now.

[neuro]

Political insanity replaces Silicon Valley as America's top growth industry.

surprised? (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-19/beltway-earnings-make-u-s-capital-richer-than-silicon-valley.html)

[thehoodedsmack]

I'd like to see some other country take up the space-faring helm. America may not realize it yet, but that's gonna be important someday. Maybe Canada. Maybe we can be good at something. We built that arm...

[TM_updates]

Wow that would be REALLY lame.

[n00b1n8R]

I don't think anybody can understate the importance of a space program on the scale of NASA (at the minimum). How can they justify the axing of this organization when they continue to dump how much into the military?

I don't want a future where china leads the world in space (or anything else for that matter) :suicide:

[DarkHalo003]

I'm hoping this is only a temporarily situation. Otherwise, Mr. President is going to have a bitter reputation in the history books.

[nuttyyayap]

I'm sure many people will agree that the space program is far better than picking on Asian nations, but we all know what the Yanks are like~

[p0lar_bear]

Personally, I think we can put glorified stargazing on hold until we get shit down here on planet Earth fixed somewhat.

If NASA's getting cut, though, that money better go somewhere useful.

[annihilation]

Someone impeach this bastard right now.

This.

Really though, what the flying fuck.

[JackalStomper]

WHAT THE FUCK.

[=sw=warlord]

Personally, I think we can put military/police actions in other countries on hold until we get shit down here on planet Earth fixed somewhat.

If NASA's getting cut, though, that money better go somewhere useful.
Ftfy.
How much do the US spend on its military compared to NASA?
I'm reasonably sure that the military force is bloated by some proportion.

[DarkHalo003]

Personally, I think we can put glorified stargazing on hold until we get shit down here on planet Earth fixed somewhat.

If NASA's getting cut, though, that money better go somewhere useful.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

[annihilation]

Ftfy.
How much do the US spend on its military compared to NASA?
I'm reasonably sure that the military force is bloated by some proportion.

Last I checked, Nasa gets about $30-$50 billion. Not even a quarter of what we spend on the Military.

[Bodzilla]

Personally, I think we can put glorified stargazing on hold until we get shit down here on planet Earth fixed somewhat.

If NASA's getting cut, though, that money better go somewhere useful.
This will never happen.

once it's gone bro, it's gone.

[sleepy1212]

I hate to say it but:

1. when you're building a prison you don't invest in escape routes.
2. You can't tax nebulae
3. It's not confirmed if aliens support the democratic party.
4. Fuck space we got hope and change

and the best of all:

SFYyQfzLxlY

[Kornman00]

DARPA should change their initials to DERPA.

DERP (http://futureoftech.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/10/26/8494776-flying-humvee-moves-ahead).

[king_nothing_]

Private sector > public sector, always. Wasn't private space exploration illegal until relatively recently, and still now there's massive amounts of red tape? If that was never the case, where would we be now? We probably would've accomplished more than what the horribly inefficient government has.

There's also the problem of us being, uh, broke.

[Kornman00]

I wonder if that red tape will drive the private sector to develop in other countries...great, there goes even more American jerbs.

[CN3089]

Oh no, we won't have more useless pictures of barren dead planets anymore OBAMA NOT MY PRESDENT :qq:



There's also the problem of us being, uh, broke.


yeah this


15% unemployment but man the government better keep spending billions sending probes to cold dead rocks millions of kms away instead of funding economic stimulus or I will be writing some very angry forum posts about it!!!

[JackalStomper]

Private sector > public sector, always. Wasn't private space exploration illegal until relatively recently, and still now there's massive amounts of red tape? If that was never the case, where would we be now? We probably would've accomplished more than what the horribly inefficient government has.


Without space agencies with national funding, the quality AND quantity of the scientific results is going to go way, way down. Commercial space industry is not interested in launching a probe to Mars that spends years in transit and then (if it succeeds) sends back data that has, in short term, absolutely no benefit economically. It is, however, extremely important for the purpose of better understanding Mars. Same applies to all other bodies in the Solar system. Currently they are of no commercial interest - therefore commercial space exploration will not have any interest in them.


It's all a simple question of priorities. Commercial space exploration is interested in making profitable business by definition. Practically, that means commercial satellite launches. Of course, national space agencies could commission them to run a research program and pay them compensation for that, but by all means they could just as well continue their own operations.


A space agency that gets a budget can use it as best as they see fit to advance the human knowledge of space, rather than worry about making profit in economical sense. In my opinion, the scientific data from programmes like Hubble Space Telescope, Mars Exploration Rovers, Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, Galileo, Cassini-Hyugens, Voyagers, and Pioneers are priceless in value for humanity as a whole, but economics does not deal in values of scientific data, they deal in money.



There's also the problem of us being, uh, broke.

There are other places to trim the fat and you know this. NASA is just an easy target

Here's a graph for last years federal budget
http://i.imgur.com/g6Ry2.jpg

You see that tiny sliver inside the mess on the upper left? The one with .53%? That's NASA's budget.

[ejburke]

All I know is I need to get my ass to Mars.

I guess I'll just book private space flight passage. Let's see, should I spring for the extra insurance because I will most likely be shredded by the low orbiting debris field that an era of commonplace space flight would bring? I'm thinking I should.

[DarkHalo003]

Cut the large Blue, Green, and Burgundy shares by half and we'll have enough money to solve a LOT of our issues (a little if anything). Oh wait, we can't with two of those because people can't learn to stop living off of the government and that same government is spoiling itself as the "Department of the Interior." Fucking bureaucrats. It does not take that much funding to keep shit in order.

[king_nothing_]

Without space agencies with national funding, the quality AND quantity of the scientific results is going to go way, way down. Commercial space industry is not interested in launching a probe to Mars that spends years in transit and then (if it succeeds) sends back data that has, in short term, absolutely no benefit economically. It is, however, extremely important for the purpose of better understanding Mars. Same applies to all other bodies in the Solar system. Currently they are of no commercial interest - therefore commercial space exploration will not have any interest in them.
It's interesting that you qualified that with "in short term". What about the long term? Would they not be interested in long term gains?


A space agency that gets a budget can use it as best as they see fit to advance the human knowledge of space, rather than worry about making profit in economical sense. In my opinion, the scientific data from programmes like Hubble Space Telescope, Mars Exploration Rovers, Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, Galileo, Cassini-Hyugens, Voyagers, and Pioneers are priceless in value for humanity as a whole, but economics does not deal in values of scientific data, they deal in money.
Do you have any evidence that all the tax money which has been poured into NASA over the years would not have been spent more productively by the private sector? Do you have any evidence that NASA's contributions are more valuable than what the private sector's would have been had it spent the money itself? My contention is that the private sector is always better able to allocate capital to its most productive uses. Not only are bureaucrats unable to do this with any comparable efficiency, but they usually have little incentive to do so.


There are other places to trim the fat and you know this. NASA is just an easy target

Here's a graph for last years federal budget

[graph]

You see that tiny sliver inside the mess on the upper left? The one with .53%? That's NASA's budget.
I'm quite aware of how much of our spending goes into NASA. If nobody's pet project ever gets cut though, the problem is never going to be fixed. For what it's worth, I think pretty much every other department is an easy target for massive cutting as well, and many of them should be eliminated entirely.

"Trim the fat" is also a massive understatement for what need to be done, by the way, unless you're speaking of an extreme case of morbid obesity.

EDIT: If this isn't clear, let me point it out now: NASA is nowhere near the top of my list for places to cut. I just disagree with the "OH NOOO NOT NASA" mentality. I don't think there is any possible cut that I wouldn't like. We're in dire straits.

[Patrickssj6]

Would have never thought that NASA is that expensive xD If (*coughcoughcough*) the money really would benefit the people, it's the right thing to do. That shit is overly expensive...

[king_nothing_]

Basically my outlook on it (six year old article):

A Free Market in Space

Robert Murphy

On October 4, 2004, the privately funded SpaceShip-One climbed to an altitude of over 70 miles, clinching the $10 million "X Prize." Many analysts were excited by the prospects for commercial space travel, and the day when orbital or even interplanetary flights would be affordable for the average person. As if to rebut the naysayers who dismissed SpaceShipOne as a mere tourist attraction for millionaires, Las Vegas hotel magnate Robert Bigelow capitalized on the event by announcing a $50 million prize for the first team to put a privately funded space station into orbit.

Beyond the obvious implications for sci-fi buffs and other space enthusiasts, the episode sheds light on the versatility of free enterprise. Most obvious, we see that the government is not necessary for space exploration; engineers and pilots do not suddenly become smarter when they are hired by NASA. Indeed, because a free market in space industries would be open to all competitors, we have every reason to expect technological innovation to be much quicker than in a monopolized space program.

In a free market, the maverick pioneer just needs to convince one or a few capitalists (out of thousands) to finance his revolutionary project, and then the results will speak for themselves. In contrast, an innovative civil servant at NASA needs to convince his direct superiors before trying anything new. If his bosses happen to dislike the idea, that’s the end of it.

Prior to the exploits of SpaceShipOne, the standard justification for government involvement in space was that such undertakings were "too expensive" for the private sector. But what does this really mean? The Apollo moon program certainly didn’t create labor and other resources out of thin air. On the contrary, the scientists, unskilled workers, steel, fuel, computers, etc. that went into NASA in the 1960s were all diverted from other industries and potential uses. The government spent billions of dollars putting Neil Armstrong on the moon, and consequently the American taxpayers had billions fewer dollars to spend on other goods and services.

This is just another example of what Frédéric Bastiat described in his famous essay, "That Which Is Seen, and That Which Is Not Seen." Whenever the government creates some public work, everyone can see the obvious benefits. For example, everyone can appreciate the fact that we put a US flag on the moon, and listened as Neil Armstrong apparently flubbed his memorized line. Or to use a more mundane example, everyone can see a beautiful new sports stadium financed (in part) by tax dollars.

What people can’t see are the thousands of other goods and services that now won’t be enjoyed, because the scarce resources necessary for their production were devoted to the government project. Politicians may break moral laws, but they can’t evade economic ones: If they send a man to the moon (or build a new stadium), consumers necessarily must curtail their enjoyments of other goods.

Thus the question becomes: Was the Apollo program (or new stadium) sufficiently valued by consumers to outweigh its opportunity cost (i.e., the value consumers place on the goods that now cannot be produced)? At first glance, this seems to be a difficult question to answer. After all, how can we possibly compare the benefits of the Apollo program with, say, the benefits of the additional shoes, diapers, automobiles, research on cancer, etc. that could have been alternatively produced?

The short answer is, we can’t. This is just a specific example of the more general principle elaborated by Ludwig von Mises: the impossibility of economic calculation under socialism. Even if a central planning board were truly benevolent, and even if it had access to all of the technical conditions (such as resource supplies and technological recipes) of the economy, the planners would be at a loss to deploy the scarce resources in an efficient way. There would be no way to determine whether the chosen output goals were good ones, or whether an alternative plan could have provided the subjects with a better outcome.

The above analysis might puzzle the reader. Yes, it is certainly difficult in practice to tell whether the Apollo program (or any other government project) is worth its cost, but isn’t that true of any undertaking? Why should this be a unique drawback for government endeavors?

The crucial difference is that private projects are subject to the profit and loss test. The owner of a private firm must pay market prices for all of his or her scarce resources. If the consumers do not then voluntarily spend enough money on the final product or service to recoup these expenditures, this is the market’s signal that the resources are more urgently needed in other lines (according to the consumers). It can never be the case that all entrepreneurs find a particular resource "too expensive" to use; if no entrepreneurs were buying it, then the price of this resource would fall until some did.

For example, it would be unprofitable—"wasteful"—to use gold in the construction of bridges; the extra money motorists would pay to drive across a golden bridge would not cover the additional expense. Yet it is profitable to use gold in the construction of necklaces or rings. Consumers are willing to pay enough for golden necklaces (versus silver or copper ones) that it makes it worthwhile for jewelers to buy gold for this purpose. Hence, the high price of gold is (among other things) a signal to engineers not to use gold in building bridges, because consumers would rather the scarce metal be used in jewelry.

The principle is the same when it comes to space travel. The reason private entrepreneurs would never have financed the moon program in the 1960s is that the financial returns from such a project wouldn’t come close to covering the expenses. Yet this is just the market’s way to tell these entrepreneurs that the computers, scientists’ labor, fuel, etc. would be better devoted to other ends. By seizing tax dollars and financing the Apollo program, President Kennedy et al. simply forced Americans to forgo the thousands of products that, according to their own spending decisions, they would have preferred to the space adventures.

Is this perspective crude materialism? Surely, there are all sorts of things that are not profitable in the narrow sense, and yet are of tremendous importance to humanity. Consequently, are we not in need of noble politicians acting in the public interest?

Well, consider the $10 million dollar X Prize. This was a gift designed to promote space exploration. The same is true of Bigelow’s $50 million prize. The private sector’s promotion of abstract knowledge (as opposed to practical, marketable discoveries) is nowhere better demonstrated than in the Clay Mathematics Institute’s million dollar awards for the solution to any of seven important problems.

Historically, there were many rich patrons of the arts and science; didn’t the Vatican pay Michelangelo not only to create beautiful art but also to increase donations?

Indeed, it is a common misconception that in the free market, "the highest bidder" determines things. No, in a free market, the owner determines the use of a piece of property. When a man lets his teenage son take the car for the night, is he renting it to the highest bidder? Of course not.

A system of property rights, and the freely floating prices that accompany the exchange of these rights, is necessary to ensure the best possible use of resources. This is true in something as mundane as car production, or something as exotic as trips to Mars. The private sector can finance safe and efficient space exploration, but it will only do so in projects where the benefits (including donations from enthusiasts) truly outweigh the costs.

The success of SpaceShipOne illustrates these facts. Now that the public has seen the potential of private space flight, perhaps it will become politically possible to axe NASA and return its budget to the private sector.

[CN3089]

Listen friend I don't think governments should be wasting their resources on space exploration right now but if you really think private enterprise is going to fund research missions to other planets then you might not be from this one


Libertarianism is moronic

[king_nothing_]

A+ post, thanks.

[TeeKup]

Humanities expansion into space is NOT (or rather should not) be seen as a marketable product in any sense. Expansion into our solar system, let alone the entire galaxy should be seen as a necessity for progress of the human race. We cannot be bound to this Earth forever, as such any endeavor for space expansion is a need for growth and prosperity of us as a whole.

We didn't go to the moon for any hope of any capital return. We did it because it was necessary for our future. I'd gladly hand over "leisurely" expenses if it meant bettering Humanity. Maybe I'm a naive idiot but that is how I feel. I will NOT pay exorbitant fees for space travel because I see it as a product I can use, I will pay those fees because I know it is an investment in our civilizations future.

[Bodzilla]

my print scren button is broken, but teekups sig says discovery.

lol
i agree completely with teekup

[n00b1n8R]

That and how many technologies have been pioneered by NASA? How much top quality research on engineering and environmental sciences have they produced? How many children have they inspired to pursue a carrier in science and engineering (this last point is a big one because I was one of those kids).

If you think NASA is something the US government needs to be cut in comparison to all the other waste, you don't know shit about crap.

:artosisface:

[=sw=warlord]

How many people here use ball point pens?

[Patrickssj6]

Teflon?

[=sw=warlord]

Just go through this and see just how big of an impact NASA has had on everyone's lives then try and simplify it to them just exploring space.
http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/Spinoff2008/tech_benefits.html

[neuro]

duct tape

[TM_updates]

Ah well, I'm sure the russians will do a good job too...

[Patrickssj6]

Ah well, I'm sure the russians will do a good job too...
.

China, India, Japan and EU.

[TM_updates]

But...in Stargate...

[TeeKup]

my print scren button is broken, but teekups sig says discovery.

lol
i agree completely with teekup

I love my signature. Lmao.

[MXC]

Already took care of it. I too completely agree.
http://i.imgur.com/RgBZM.png

[Warsaw]

duct tape

Noes, that was during World War II!

Also, yeah, what the fuck Washington? If anything, cut spending on that new new Marine Corps. AFV. They do not need their own personal AFV different than everybody else's, that's logistics hell.

[CN3089]

But the Marine Corps needs to look stylish as they kill brown people! They can't be seen drivin' around in Canadian AFVs!! What will the Navy think??

[ejburke]

Sometimes forest fires are good things. If this is truly signaling NASA's impending doom, we can look forward to a future space program that will simply work better and have access to technology far beyond what is currently possible in the realm of space exploration. Better computers, better optics, better robotics, better materials. Conceivably, we could take 30 years off and catch up on everything we might have missed in 5.

[=sw=warlord]

Sometimes forest fires are good things. If this is truly signaling NASA's impending doom, we can look forward to a future space program that will simply work better and have access to technology far beyond what is currently possible in the realm of space exploration. Better computers, better optics, better robotics, better materials. Conceivably, we could take 30 years off and catch up on everything we might have missed in 5.
Or we could miss something important and never get the chance to witness it again.

[n00b1n8R]

Sometimes forest fires are good things. If this is truly signaling NASA's impending doom, we can look forward to a future space program that will simply work better and have access to technology far beyond what is currently possible in the realm of space exploration. Better computers, better optics, better robotics, better materials. Conceivably, we could take 30 years off and catch up on everything we might have missed in 5.
But by ending NASA, it becomes far less likely the US will ever invest in a similar program again (unless they realize how fucking far behind they've fallen compared to china or the EU when they see them starting near earth mining).

That, and they're scrapping NASA's current missions (including the most advanced space telescopes they've made, one of which is nowhere near finished on searching the sky for earth-like planets).

[Kornman00]

So, uh, this thread is floating on one questionable Opinion article? Not news, but opinion. Commentary.

smh, modacity

[ejburke]

I wouldn't worry about any of that. Off-planet mining is a cost feasibility problem that nobody is going to crack until someone invents a cheap, renewable energy source. And if that happens, everyone's economy is going to be in terrific shape and we'll have plenty of money to devote to getting those sweet, sweet platinum-group elements out of those asteroids. Until then, there's little we can do other than advance the state of our technology, which we're going to do, anyway.

It's a shame that some projects that weren't as far along have to be abandoned. Although, technically, Mars and Venus are "Earth-like" planets (and more like Earth than what NASA would probably find out there). The odds of finding a planet that is actually like our Earth is staggeringly remote. Some probability estimates say that there's only 1 Earth per galaxy. We'll be lucky to spot "Earth-like" planets within a very small 10LY radius. It is very unlikely that there's another actual Earth that close to us.

[dark navi]

Why not Terra Nova?

[n00b1n8R]

I wouldn't worry about any of that. Off-planet mining is a cost feasibility problem that nobody is going to crack until someone invents a cheap, renewable energy source. mineral prices skyrocket before the end of the century.
ftfy

[ejburke]

It doesn't matter how far they skyrocket. Terrestrial minerals will always be cheaper to obtain by orders of magnitude. Until the far-off day that energy is virtually free, anyway.

When we "run out" of crude oil, it won't be because there's no more on the planet. It will be because it takes more energy to extract than the substance itself yields. Similarly, there is no economic sense in paying a billion dollars an ounce for platinum imported from space.

[n00b1n8R]

It doesn't matter how far they skyrocket. Terrestrial minerals will always be cheaper to obtain by orders of magnitude. Until the far-off day that energy is virtually free, anyway.

When we "run out" of crude oil, it won't be because there's no more on the planet. It will be because it takes more energy to extract than the substance itself yields. Similarly, there is no economic sense in paying a billion dollars an ounce for platinum imported from space.
Unless we want to develop deep earth mining (I'm talking bellow the crust), we will run out of useful mineral deposits within a lifetime or two.
There's not some magic ore fairy who flies around the planet bringing bauxite to all the good little girls and boys, this shit has to be found and we're using it at an increasing rate.

[ejburke]

Either we find a magical supply of energy to make all of this feasible or we learn to live without. It's as simple as that. I don't think you truly appreciate how out-of-reach this stuff is. With the current energy situation on this planet and our current technology, it would be like a cattle rancher trading all of his livestock for the last chicken on Earth. It's not that we can't do it, it's that we would be incurring a net loss of ridiculous proportions. The equation does not balance.

[Warsaw]

Or we find a way to split the energy cost into an economically manageable form. Read: space stations, nuclear rockets, and space elevators. They each cost a shitload up front, but after that they dramatically reduce the cost to get things from orbit and down to the ground.

[ejburke]

"Dramatically reduce" is a relative term. Something that is 1000 times more trouble than it's worth can be dramatically reduced to being 100 times more trouble than it's worth. It still doesn't do us any good. Obviously, nobody has a cost analysis on any of that stuff, but my intuition tells me that it's not enough to make it work.

I would feel a lot better about our chances if we solve our energy problem. But if we truly solved our energy problem, we could make whatever we wanted. We can convert one element to another and come up with techniques to manufacture any substance found in nature and beyond.

But do not discount the very real and sobering possibility that the human race's future lies with horses and buggies. Instead of the Spartan program, in the 26th century, people might be living like actual Spartans.

[n00b1n8R]

But do not discount the very real and sobering possibility that the human race's future lies with horses and buggies. Instead of the Spartan program, in the 26th century, people might be living like actual Spartans.

And we have to do everything possible to prevent this happening. We're burning through every easy to use natural resource the planet has. There is no second chance for civilization, we have to move forward or we'll be doomed to middle-age tech (at best) for the rest of time.

[ejburke]

Yes, but unless going to get that stuff makes economic sense, it will only speed up our journey to Amish Paradise.

We need energy. Energy solves all problems. Raw materials alone are not a lifeline, especially if we sell the farm to get it. We might get a little bit of ore (that no one can afford) before we're forced to abandon our enormously costly mining operations because we have no more ability to continue.

[n00b1n8R]

Yes, but unless going to get that stuff makes economic sense, it will only speed up our journey to Amish Paradise.

We need energy. Energy solves all problems. Raw materials alone are not a lifeline, especially if we sell the farm to get it. We might get a little bit of ore (that no one can afford) before we're forced to abandon our enormously costly mining operations because we have no more ability to continue.
And that's why we need to construct stuff like a space elevator, to make it economically viable while we still have the resources to do so. This is part of the reason why scrapping NASA now is a terrible idea.

I agree with what you're saying though.

[Warsaw]

Actually, I'd rather live in a future that more closely resembles the early 20th century state of the world rather than what we see in Halo. That shit (Halo's future) wasn't pretty.

[n00b1n8R]

Actually, I'd rather live in a future that more closely resembles the early 20th century state of the world rather than what we see in Halo. That shit (Halo's future) wasn't pretty.
But it had potential to develop a better future which is something regressing 100 years does not offer.

[Warsaw]

Nonsense. Regressing 100 years means we get to have current world order demolished and governments replaced. We also get cool steel helmets and puttees.

[CN3089]

earth-based space elevators are not and probably will never be feasible to construct



well, hope this helps

[ejburke]

Even if space elevators weren't science fiction at this point, best case scenario, it will cost a couple hundred dollars (in today's money) for 1 pound of cargo. That's a lot better than the tens of thousands of dollars that rockets cost, but it is still nowhere near good enough. You just can't marginalize that kind of cost. It will go straight into the cost of the good. Cheap aluminum is useful. Aluminum that costs more than terrestrial gold is useless.

And that's just to take a ride on the elevator. The costs to mine the material and ship it to the elevator would probably be back in the thousands of dollars per pound (again, in today's money). There isn't a material on Earth, precious or otherwise, that is anywhere near as expensive to obtain as dumb moon rocks. Last I checked, only Aperture Science had found a use for those.

But let's say we do build a space elevator. We're going to need a lot of them to keep the cost per pound as low as possible. You think cell phone towers are everywhere? Just you wait.

Here's how far they would have to extend:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/5c/2000px-Space_elevator_structural_diagram--corrected_for_scale%2BCM%2Betc.TIF/lossy-page1-300px-2000px-Space_elevator_structural_diagram--corrected_for_scale%2BCM%2Betc.TIF.jpg

Imagine thousands of those things protruding from the planet. So long, satellites. Can't have you colliding with our space tethers. Come to think of it, these elevators would be extremely vulnerable to attack. One kinetic warhead and it's back to square one. We'd better hope we have war solved by then.

[Kornman00]

Come to think of it, these elevators would be extremely vulnerable to attack. One kinetic warhead and it's back to square one. We'd better hope we have war solved by then.
Then it is settled. We must kill everyone else in the world. Afterwords, we can take their land's resources and build this holy tether. All hail The Tether!

[Cortexian]

Then it is settled. We must kill everyone else in the world. Afterwords, we can take their land's resources and build this holy tether. All hail The Tether!
CANADA WON'T GO WITHOUT A FIGHT!

STAY AWAY FROM OUR FRESH WATER!!

[ejburke]

CANADA WON'T GO WITHOUT A FIGHT!

STAY AWAY FROM OUR FRESH WATER!!It's not too late to join the winning team. Say it with me: U-S-Eh! U-S-Eh!

[EX12693]

Meh, the USA isn't the industrial giant that won WWII anymore. In fact we'd probably lose if we got into a major war with any other country.
In fact, Germany probably would have won WWII if they had a larger industrial infrastructure.

I'm good with Korn's idea.

[Kornman00]

It's a good thing we have a base\troops tucked away in pretty much every corner of the visible world. All the POTUS has to do is say "Begin Operation DOOOOM! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmLDxiI_dgs)" and the military will attack like snakes

[annihilation]

What we should do is move everyone in the U.S to Mercury, cut the cable and leave everyone else to die.

God bless Amercury.

[Patrickssj6]

No McDonald's on Mercury -> No chance of survival for u.

[ejburke]

See, the race isn't the first nation to build a space elevator. The race is the first nation to build Terminators.

[JackalStomper]

:space elevator:

Not only for all those reasons, but also a space elevator is only possible exactly on the equator. This means that all objects in orbit below GEO would have to be removed and/or left to collide with the elevator.

Add to this the fact that Earths equatorial inclination is about 30 degrees off of the ecliptic means that any interplanetary or translunar mission would have to perform a large plane change maneuver to align themselves with it. (all planets and major moons usually orbit within 10 degrees of this solar plane)

tl;dr space elevators would only be useful on a body with a lot of mass, small radius, and fast rotation in a suitable direction.

[ejburke]

Oh yeah, I didn't consider that geostationary orbits are only possible on the equatorial plane. But I think that just means the elevator's center of gravity has to intersect with the plane at geostationary distance, not that you have to connect to ground right on the equator. So, it should be possible to connect a space elevator from, say, Florida, but it wouldn't go straight up, it would head skyward and southward at something like a 45 degree angle and it would be much much longer than one built from the equator. I could be wrong.

[JackalStomper]

Senate passes budget with full funding for james webb space telescope. (http://blogs.citypaper.com/index.php/2011/11/senate-passes-budget-with-full-funding-for-james-webb-space-telescope/)

:woop: