4 ms·
> Exploiting space is "impossible" because rockets can't economically lift the whole mass of the Earth's crust? Let's go smaller scale then? How many players n
by GDC7 5y ago
> Exploiting space is "impossible" because rockets can't economically lift the whole mass of the Earth's crust?
Let's go smaller scale then? How many players need CCTV like surveillance down to 50m resolution from above?
How often do the satellites producing such images need to be replaced?
Who's gonna pay for the whole ordeal? It's the government as always.
Even smaller scale: How many people are isolated and need Internet via Satellite? Considering that the world is constantly moving towards urbanization is it really necessary?
Laying fiber cable from A to B will always be cheaper
The private jet crowd and private yacht crowd will maybe be interested in it.
What's the economic breakdown of the ISS? 100B thrown down the sink , just like everything space related which is not military related or weather monitoring.
> Since you're psychologizing the optimists so hard... can you or someone else explain to me the appeal of doom?
We have just witnessed a miracle with the mRNA vaccine, there are so many things to be optimistic about here on Earth. Pragmatic optimism beats pipedream type optimism every day of the week. Also only the latter can be abused for graft purposes, for sure not the former.
- 7373737373 5y agoJust because it cannot be measured well economically, basic research does not cause money to be "thrown down the sink". Most processes that create common goods could be viewed as a financial net negative, but there is much more to existence than that. Basic research makes future developments not only economical, but possible. Laying fiber cable will not always be cheaper. Satellites can be built and operated by fewer people - and more economically - than the hundreds of thousands of crews you'd need to connect every remote place.