Tevatron is shutting down today.

[DaShi]

The SSC was a 40 billion dollar boondoggle that probably would have ballooned into an 80 billion dollar boondoggle if it hadn't been cut.

I have no idea why anybody other than physicists (and ex-physicists who benefit due to increased demand for close substitutes for their labor) are in favor of these things, when nobody other than the groups mentioned will ever have any understanding of the results or benefit in any concrete way.

I dream of a future where I can start the morning with a warm cup of Higgs Bosons.

[Ben Kenobi]

BK, connect physics with economics.

And what is the US government spending 1.5 trillion dollars on, that is going to reap more benefits long term than getting back to the moon?

There has to be some value in going there. Why do you think the Europeans went to the new world or china. To open markets. In the end, the profits have to be greater than the costs.

The profits are greater than the costs. Why did they go? They went because the Portuguese took the risks and proved it could be done. When Columbus went, it was a complete shot in the dark, when Isabella knew that Columbus was full of ****.

The trip from Spain to the new world, is nothing like going to the Moon. We've already been to the moon. We know what's on the moon. We can observe the moon. We know what to expect.

This is why it's so infuriating. Look the Apollo missions got there with computers that were wimpier than what's on our phones now, and you'd have me believe that it can't be done? Horse****.

I think that the idea of colonizing other planets, moons, space stations and etc is exciting but why go to pluto

FFS. Think of it as a ladder. You have to get to the moon first in order to launch significant missions to the outer planets and beyond. Moonbases are the first step that needs to be taken.

why go to mars if there's no jobs.

FFS. Because it's there! Are you telling me that a whole planet couldn't be useful at all? Again, no imagination.

There has to be something of value on these worlds in order for us to settle there.

Well obviously. You've never had a vision. That's the problem. You see things as they are and that's all they will ever be to you.

Your statement about how cheap it would be launch **** off the moon shows how really stupid you are to practical issues.

Dude, the only way we can actually launch a ship of significant size is to do it off the moon. No atmospheric drag. Low Gravity. It simply isn't possible to launch anything but small craft from earth, due to the way the atmosphere works. On the moon, you aren't limited by these fundamental limits.

Yes, it requires time and investement to set up the bases in the first place, but the key is this. Unlike the ISS bull****e, it's a permanent base that would not need to be de-orbited. Anybody who goes is going to have to stay there because they aren't going to be able to come back.

You're telling me you couldn't find 200 people willing to colonize the moon?

What **** would you launch off the moon dickhead.

Project Orion?

[loinburger]

FFS. Because it's there!

"Why should we spend trillions of dollars and risk people's lives to accomplish this thing?" "Just because!!!" "Is there anything better that those resources could be spent on?" "Who cares!"

[Ben Kenobi]

So your idea is to spend trillions of dollars of taxpayer money to build a manufacturing facility on the moon, and to then spend trillions of dollars of taxpayer money to ship all of the raw materials for a spaceship up to the moon, all with the intention of building a Big Spaceship, in order to accomplish... what?

And you call yourself a fiscal conservative

For the money that Obama has already pissed away, we could have had project Orion.

The super orion with a 20 km diameter is the equivalent of about a years' GDP of the US. Obama's already pissed away half that in 3 years.

So yeah, I'm a fiscal conservative. If we are going to be pissing the money anyways, we could be building an interstellar craft that requires no new physics.

[Ben Kenobi]

"Why should we spend trillions of dollars and risk people's lives to accomplish this thing?" "Just because!!!" "Is there anything better that those resources could be spent on?" "Who cares!"

So instead we should waste trillions of dollars and accomplish nothing at all. Got you. I'm ashamed that you are an educated man. Seriously. Where's the dreams, Loin? Did they die in you?

[Ben Kenobi]

If interstellar flight were somehow discovered to be more than a pipe dream, a moon colony could be useful for manufacturing the ship, I guess. However, barring some absolutely incredible discoveries from that apparent fluke of a neutrino experiment, we're limited by the speed of light. So yeah, moon bases are worthless.

It already can be done with existing technology.

[loinburger]

So instead we should waste trillions of dollars and accomplish nothing at all. Got you. I'm ashamed that you are an educated man. Seriously. Where's the dreams, Loin? Did they die in you?

Yes, because either we spend money on your retarded idea or else we spend money on nothing at all. At least CS Lewis had the decency to use false trilemmas instead of false dilemmas

[loinburger]

It already can be done with existing technology.

Brilliant. How many years will it take to reach Proxima Centauri using present day technology? How are you going to keep the astronauts alive during that time? How will you get them home when they discover that Proxima Centauri is just a weak star with no habitable planets?

[KrazyHorse]

Sure do. Two years of it.

What's your education, Gribbler? I don't believe you've ever told anyone yet.

As a warning to others: under no circumstances should any of Ben's claims about astronomy, physics or astrophysics be taken seriously due to his having taken a couple of night classes. He makes all kinds of blatantly false claims on all three subjects.

[Ben Kenobi]

Brilliant. How many years will it take to reach Proxima Centauri using present day technology?

According to Dyson, about 44 years.

How are you going to keep the astronauts alive during that time? How will you get them home when they discover that Proxima Centauri is just a weak star with no habitable planets?

Constant acceleration/deceleration of around 1 g would mean that they don't even need to worry about gravity for the most part.

Bear in mind that we are talking about massive spaceships. Far larger than anything we've built so far. There would be more than enough room for pretty much everything you could want inside the spaceship, including consumables.

Basically, everyone who would be going wouldn't be coming back, but contact would actually be easier than it was for the ships that left port. The ship could be kept in constant communication with earth, no differently then it is for the voyager and pioneer probes, except for the nuclear pile not being exhausted.

[loinburger]

Basically, everyone who would be going wouldn't be coming back

So you would be sending everybody to their deaths?

[Ben Kenobi]

As a warning to others: under no circumstances should any of Ben's claims about astronomy, physics or astrophysics be taken seriously due to his having taken a couple of night classes. He makes all kinds of blatantly false claims on all three subjects.

Dyson came up with this concept back in 1968. It's possible using conventional technology with no new physics. If the money were willing to be spent.

By far the largest expense is lifting the materials to low earth orbit. A moonbase eliminates this cost but introduces different costs. You don't have to ship up the materials, but you do have to find a way to fabricate them, plus the cost of setting up the base and running it.

[Ben Kenobi]

So you would be sending everybody to their deaths?

It's a 44 year mission, they would be choosing to undertake the mission.

[loinburger]

It's a 44 year mission, they would be choosing to undertake the mission.

Do you have any ideas for ways to use the moon base that don't involve human sacrifice?

[KrazyHorse]

Dyson came up with this concept back in 1968. It's possible using conventional technology with no new physics. If the money were willing to be spent.

By far the largest expense is lifting the materials to low earth orbit. A moonbase eliminates this cost but introduces different costs. You don't have to ship up the materials, but you do have to find a way to fabricate them, plus the cost of setting up the base and running it.

I don't particularly care about your bat**** idiotic suggestion that this is a good use of trillions of dollars. I am pointing out that you are not a credible source of information on anything scientific, and rebutting your suggestion that a partly finished associate degree from kalamazoo college in astrophysics makes you one