Subject:
|
Re: NASA IS GOING BACK BABY
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Tue, 6 Feb 2007 01:31:26 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5247 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.space, Brian Davis wrote:
> In lugnet.space, Nathan Todd wrote:
>
> > > Same reason we see Antarctica being populated and developed largely by
> > > commerical interests... except wait a minute... it's not :-).
> >
> > Just wait till we need the water...
>
> Actually, exactly the point I was trying to make (you just made it shorter). If
> there's an economic or resource-driven reason for doing something, commercial
> interests do a great job. But if you want to go somewhere, trying to invent
> commercial reason to get stockholders to do it is tricky*. Cart before the horse
> thingy.
Actually space manufacturing will likly be a big business sooner (as in the next
few decades) than people might think. Due to the "instant" cooling space permits
it is possible to make super strong alloys that are physically impossible to do
on earth because they seperate before cooling. As tourism leads to better
"rocket-ships" and thus reduces costs, manufacturing will not be far behind. If
nothing else a tank that cannot be breached by any current weapon we have would
be at the top of the defence department's wishlist.
>
> OK, yeah, I should let it die... sorry, I'll go back to building a moonbase
> module or something. :-)
>
> *even when there may be good financial reasons, but they may be investments in
> the futures of the stockholders childrens children.
That sounds about right. If were lucky we will get a glimpse of "the future" in
the same way your average 90+ year-old saw/sees the internet revolution.
-Mike Petrucelli
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: NASA IS GOING BACK BABY
|
| [somewhere far away in the internet, a poor soul struggles valiently to stay on-topic... "it's not LEGO!!" he screams, but the siren song of inccorect physics draws him screaming back into the fray once more...] (...) I still have my doubts. It's (...) (17 years ago, 6-Feb-07, to lugnet.space)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: NASA IS GOING BACK BABY
|
| (...) Actually, exactly the point I was trying to make (you just made it shorter). If there's an economic or resource-driven reason for doing something, commercial interests do a great job. But if you want to go somewhere, trying to invent (...) (17 years ago, 5-Feb-07, to lugnet.space)
|
22 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
