Ya, that'll fix men!

[–]Dis_mah_mobile_one 102 points103 points104 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]HotDealsInTexas 19 points20 points21 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dis_mah_mobile_one 19 points20 points21 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]RobDog101 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dis_mah_mobile_one 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]RobDog101 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]-_-I-_-I-_-17 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tmomp 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]op__blue 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dis_mah_mobile_one 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RobDog101 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]PerniciousOne 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 24 points25 points26 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]locks_are_paranoid 20 points21 points22 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Exponentiallyrandom7 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]deathdragon5858 16 points17 points18 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Collective82 -5 points-4 points-3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]FFXIV_Machinist 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]bufedad 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]FFXIV_Machinist 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

That being said, I would fight tooth and nail against forced service.

Hmm- Would you be ok with it if the following stipulations happened?

College bound students are exempt - As part of this, to prevent buying exemption- any student without means will be granted the ability to receive an education
in times of war, these conscripts cannot be sent to battle- but can be used in an auxiliary function such as logistics and such.

Interestingly enough, we currently have this (sort of). If a non-citizen enlists and serves in a time of war, they can earn their citizenship.

I was unaware of that actually. i did know that we have federal service programs that allow high skilled immigrants to bypass the standardized immigration process - They've actually been in place since WWII and had been used as a defection tool.

[–]bufedad 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]FFXIV_Machinist 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

So, we only do this to the lower class? That's still horrible.

No- it would only be for people not willing to pursue a higher education out of highschool- and to stop it from being unfair to the lower class, they would have the ability to go to school regardless of financial standing.

part of the reason im suggesting this, is because the closer we get to fully automating the lower skill jobs in america, the less opportunity uneducated people are going to have, to the point where in fifty years the job opportunity for uneducated people will be a fraction of what it is today if not nonexistent. we have to start pushing Americans towards a point of higher education being a normal thing, versus a choice, or a luxury of those with successful progenitors.

in the next 50 years, barring any cataclysms, or outright governmental bans, the only jobs that will exist will be extremely high skill jobs.

[–]bufedad -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

No- it would only be for people not willing to pursue a higher education out of highschool- and to stop it from being unfair to the lower class, they would have the ability to go to school regardless of financial standing.

And those with limited intelligence must become slaves to our country and their lives are forfeit.

part of the reason im suggesting this, is because the closer we get to fully automating the lower skill jobs in america, the less opportunity uneducated people are going to have

This does not solve that problem. This gives all of the disenfranchised weapons and combat tactics training.

we have to start pushing Americans towards a point of higher education being a normal thing, versus a choice, or a luxury of those with successful progenitors.

Half the country is of below average intelligence. There is a good portion of this nation that will never see college. Those who are not capable should not be made slaves.

in the next 50 years, barring any cataclysms, or outright governmental bans, the only jobs that will exist will be extremely high skill jobs.

I won't go that far. I agree with you that most manual labor jobs will be automated, but middle skilled labor like plumbers and mechanics will still be necessary.

Furthermore, we are ramping up our space exploration programs. As we start looking at mining asteroids and traveling to other stellar bodies, this is going to open up a whole new slew of jobs. This will not be enough jobs to compensate for those lost to automation by any means, but it will stem the tide for awhile.

[–]FFXIV_Machinist 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link

And those with limited intelligence must become slaves to our country and their lives are forfeit.

The alternative is a UBI and letting them go full idiocracy mode (watch the movie if you havent). unfortunately its either provide these low intellect people with a job in the military or let them sponge off of society.

This does not solve that problem. This gives all of the disenfranchised weapons and combat tactics training.

it creates a field of employment for people who otherwise wont be able to get employment.

Half the country is of below average intelligence. There is a good portion of this nation that will never see college. Those who are not capable should not be made slaves.

you say slave, i say provided opportunity, as otherwise they would have legitimately zero opportunity.

I won't go that far. I agree with you that most manual labor jobs will be automated, but middle skilled labor like plumbers and mechanics will still be necessary.

i disagree completely. Were already working on projects to negate the need for all aspects of blue collar labor. we can fully construct houses from the ground up without ever have a single person set foot on a construction site. were creating machines that will eventually be able to do everything from trucking to running entire distribution centers with virtually no human input.

Furthermore, we are ramping up our space exploration programs. As we start looking at mining asteroids and traveling to other stellar bodies, this is going to open up a whole new slew of jobs. This will not be enough jobs to compensate for those lost to automation by any means, but it will stem the tide for awhile.

unless something changes, your going to need to have intelligence and education to go out into space and survive for months to years at a time - granted however once we get a good space mining program going, and get lets say- an orbital ring in the works, or a planetary level Dyson sphere going, we will see an explosion of space travel and jobs happen - but both of those are about 100 years off- or at least a good compact fusion reactor off (see skunkworks; theyre working on a micro fusion reactor that could power small mining spacecraft without any effort at all - specially since the materials to maintain that fusion reaction can be found in abundance in our two belts).

Edit- Also probably worth noting im not arguing for lifetime conscription either- im talking like for two years- maybe four.

[–]bufedad 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

The alternative is a UBI and letting them go full idiocracy mode (watch the movie if you havent). unfortunately its either provide these low intellect people with a job in the military or let them sponge off of society.

You aren't solving that problem though. You are giving them 2 to 4 years in the military, and then they are right back at the same problem.

creates a field of employment for people who otherwise wont be able to get employment.

Either a limited field (they can only stay 2 years) or we're employing half the country in our military.

you say slave, i say provided opportunity, as otherwise they would have legitimately zero opportunity.

That's like saying that importing Africans for work in the US was providing them with an opportunity. It's not an opportunity if you have no choice, it's slavery.

we can fully construct houses from the ground up without ever have a single person set foot on a construction site.

No we can't. And we have no path to this ability in the near future

unless something changes, your going to need to have intelligence and education to go out into space and survive for months to years at a time

You're going to need all sorts. You are going to need manual labor to move components around the station/ships.

but both of those are about 100 years off

We are 30 years out of interplanetary mining at best

or at least a good compact fusion reactor off

Or an EM drive, especially considering that leaks out of NASA show that it does in fact work. I'm looking forward to the orbital tests coming up.

Edit- Also probably worth noting im not arguing for lifetime conscription either- im talking like for two years- maybe four.

That's the problem, you aren't solving the problem you are concerned with. The same people who can't get a job will be the same people who can't get a job... they will just have spent two to four years in the military.

[–]FFXIV_Machinist 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link

No we can't. And we have no path to this ability in the near future

Were already doing it.

i personally know someone working on the code for prefabs that can be constructed purely by ground based drones by reading a pre-printed barcode on the part, and then placed based off of a pre-constructed 3d blueprint. this is still largely in development; basically they place triangulation points around the work site and the drones know exactly where to place things in what orientation. its still largely developmental but very real.
Were also working on 3d printing methods that allow for printing of concrete domiciles. this method however lacks the ability (currently) to install electrical systems, windows, doors, paint, and plumbing- however it does print the needed wells for all of these things. given time even these parts can be automated.

there is talk of using the tech from both of these projects to create a hybrid where a person could walk through a 3d printed domicile and install RF transmitters where things needed to be installed- like a window, or a door, and then a drone would pick up on the signals, and install the needed piece there. the 3d printing tech itself has pretty much reached perfection levels, but the drone based component still needs work. this is the same tech they wana use for making moon/mars ground bases.

You're going to need all sorts. You are going to need manual labor to move components around the station/ships.

people power is largely becoming irrelevant- especially in space where just a few micrograms of thrust is needed to move and position things. why put a person up there when you could put a 5 pound drone up there that can do the same job, but better?

Or an EM drive, especially considering that leaks out of NASA show that it does in fact work. I'm looking forward to the orbital tests coming up.

They found that the em drive worked but not for the reasons that we think it works. it turns out it is generating an exhaust that wasnt previously measurable because we didnt think to look for it. effectively the EM Drive doesn't work - but it does look like its going to pave the way for a high efficiency vairant.

We are 30 years out of interplanetary mining at best

no we arent even close. before you can mine you need infrastructure, before you can get infrastructure you need to ship, before you can ship you need resource procurement and funding. we haven't even gotten to the basic point of getting the shit we need up in space to build a mining station, or at the least the equipment to gather the materials to build the station in space.

We have few realistic options

Lift the materials to space, and build there. Practical, but costly
Lift drones to space and have people control them remotely procure resources from the asteroid belt. impractical, but cost effective. this is impractical because of having over an hours lag time between communicating from earth to the asteroid belt- and those are the limitations of physics. unless we get a much better understanding of physics, and find a way to circumvent this communications delay, this option is not available to us.
Lift drones to space with a pre-programmed mission to gather and relocate resources to near orbit to our moon or earth, and then use on-site drones to build in space. practical, and more cost efficient than option 1.

once we have an established station in space that can house a few hundred people, and a plethora of machienes, you will see a highly accelerated pace of progress- but until then, progress will be at a snails pace. well be lucky if we even get the beginnings of a station in the next 30 years. it took twenty years to build the ISS, which is tiny, cramped, and hardly fit for any kind of manufacturing or production needs.

Edit. oh lets not mention we only really can adequately shield the ISS because of the magnetosphere. a permanent mining station would need to be situated outside of that lovely shield, and would need full rad shielding- the equivalent of what a foot of concrete poured over every inch of the station?

[–]bufedad 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

people power is largely becoming irrelevant- especially in space where just a few micrograms of thrust is needed to move and position things

You make many assumptions that we will never use any method of artificial gravity (as in centrifugal force, or even better an actual artificial gravity).

They found that the em drive worked but not for the reasons that we think it works. it turns out it is generating an exhaust that wasnt previously measurable because we didnt think to look for it. effectively the EM Drive doesn't work - but it does look like its going to pave the way for a high efficiency vairant.

They found it works, but they hypothesized it might be creating some exhaust, but that's hypothesis in an attempt to figure out how it provides thrust without violating the first law of thermodynamics.

before you can mine you need infrastructure,

No, you really don't. We have all the infrastructure we need here on earth. All you have to do is ferry it back down to earth.

before you can get infrastructure you need to ship, before you can ship you need resource procurement and funding

Resource procurement and funding is already on target. Ships are already under development.

Lift drones to space with a pre-programmed mission to gather and relocate resources to near orbit to our moon or earth, and then use on-site drones to build in space. practical, and more cost efficient than option 1.

Already in development.

once we have an established station in space that can house a few hundred people, and a plethora of machienes, you will see a highly accelerated pace of progress- but until then, progress will be at a snails pace.

Actually, once we have reusable rockets, the price of getting into orbit drops precipitously. Furthermore, with the EM drive in use, that should drop the price of getting into orbit even further. We do not need a space station capable of supporting hundreds, we only need capsules capable of connecting into larger structures.

it took twenty years to build the ISS, which is tiny, cramped, and hardly fit for any kind of manufacturing or production needs.

It took 20 years for governments with varying interests to coordinate the construction of the ISS. Private corporations are already moving much faster than NASA ever has (e.g. space X)

[–]FFXIV_Machinist1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You make many assumptions that we will never use any method of artificial gravity (as in centrifugal force, or even better an actual artificial gravity).

you miss my point. Gravity is every engineers worst enemy for the most part. why put people up in space, create gravity, and have to use extra force and energy, when you could operate in zero g using no effort at all with a dinky little machine to move hundreds of pounds?

They found it works, but they hypothesized it might be creating some exhaust, but that's hypothesis in an attempt to figure out how it provides thrust without violating the first law of thermodynamics.

last i checked they had measured photons being ejected from the chamber- producing that net thrust.

No, you really don't. We have all the infrastructure we need here on earth. All you have to do is ferry it back down to earth.

How would you ship these things through earths atmosphere when almost all of the things we would mine would burn up on re-entry? melting point of gold and platinum is pretty dang low. you'd need to package it for earth delivery in space.

Resource procurement and funding is already on target. Ships are already under development.

No they arent. you have space x working on it, but they arent anywhere near what would be needed. were talking about having to lift a few million tons into space to build a mining colony.

Already in development.

Again.. not in development - we are in the very basic phases of getting the technology to get to this technology.

Actually, once we have reusable rockets, the price of getting into orbit drops precipitously. Furthermore, with the EM drive in use, that should drop the price of getting into orbit even further. We do not need a space station capable of supporting hundreds, we only need capsules capable of connecting into larger structures.

no it drops, but not nearly enough. plus you have to consider these are fuel based rockets, and fuel is finite.

i get this is something you're interested in, and i highly encourage you pursuing it, but you should look into this a bit more, because you are noticeably under informed on these topics.

[–]bufedad1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Gravity is every engineers worst enemy for the most part. why put people up in space, create gravity, and have to use extra force and energy, when you could operate in zero g using no effort at all with a dinky little machine to move hundreds of pounds?

Because things happen to people in Zero g that can affect their long term health.

last i checked they had measured photons being ejected from the chamber- producing that net thrust.

The leaks hypothesized that there might be photons leaking from the chamber. They hadn't measured for it.

How would you ship these things through earths atmosphere when almost all of the things we would mine would burn up on re-entry?

You do realize we've been sending things into Earth's atmosphere for over half a century? Right? This isn't new.

No they arent. you have space x working on it, but they arent anywhere near what would be needed. were talking about having to lift a few million tons into space to build a mining colony.

No, we aren't. We're talking about sending enough into space for one ship (drone likely) to travel to the asteroid belt, acquire an asteroid, and tow it into earth orbit. And space x isn't in the running on this technology. They are focused on earth orbit and interplanetary travel.

Again.. not in development - we are in the very basic phases of getting the technology to get to this technology.

Again, already in development. OSIRIS-Rex launched this year for a limited application asteroid mining test (NASA). We've already got a test in route to it's first asteroid. This has been in development for a long time.

no it drops, but not nearly enough.

How do you figure? At what point is the drop enough?

plus you have to consider these are fuel based rockets, and fuel is finite.

Fuel is finite. Solar power would be fairly plentiful in orbit. A nice EM drive (even if it leaks photons) would provide enough thrust to keep a pod in orbit, one on each pod would be enough to sustain the system.

i get this is something you're interested in, and i highly encourage you pursuing it, but you should look into this a bit more, because you are noticeably under informed on these topics.

That's funny when you say that things we are currently doing aren't even in development.

[–]FFXIV_Machinist1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Because things happen to people in Zero g that can affect their long term health.

again you dont even get what im saying....... im saying Why put people up there at all when we can operate machinery remotely? if were constructing it just out side of the magnetosphere, we can easily do that remotely from the surface of earth. so now instead of lifting 100-200 200 pound people, plus their air, plus their food, plus their water, plus their belongings, plus their other needed supplies like medicine and what not, you can just lift a thousand five pound machines that are solar powered and can be operated remotely. now you dont have to build a structure that creates gravity, and now you can make massive ass space mega structures with virtually no effort. you could have workers operating these machines day and night, and just swapping out the operator every eight hours.

Thats what im talking about. until we have a fully established structure outside of the magnetosphere- one that can be moved through space at will, there is ZERO point in putting people up there to build it. this is exactly what we did with ISS- we built it here, and then launched it piece by piece into space, and built it before sending anyone to space to work on it.

You do realize we've been sending things into Earth's atmosphere for over half a century? Right? This isn't new.

Things that are protected by massive heavy ass ablation shielding. you'd have to re-deliver ablation shielding into space every time you wanted a return payload from space. Hence why i said

melting point of gold and platinum is pretty dang low. you'd need to package it for earth delivery in space.

No, we aren't. We're talking about sending enough into space for one ship (drone likely) to travel to the asteroid belt, acquire an asteroid, and tow it into earth orbit. And space x isn't in the running on this technology. They are focused on earth orbit and interplanetary travel.

you might want to read up on the physics of "moving" an asteroid before assuming we can. moving a 20 foot asteroid is no problem- requires little force. those however would be better mined there in mass, only moving back the resources needed. Quick math puts moving Ryugu (one of the most attractive targets for this) to earth, at the fuel equivalent of three hundred rocket launches. thats not counting the fuel cost of getting the fuel equivalent of three hundred rocket launches into space.

Again, already in development. OSIRIS-Rex launched this year for a limited application asteroid mining test (NASA). We've already got a test in route to it's first asteroid. This has been in development for a long time.

All they did was launch a device to test the efficiency of mining techniques in space. we dont know what will and what wont work.

How do you figure? At what point is the drop enough?

2,500 per pound is the space X going rate. we would need a few thousand tons of materials lifted into space if we wanted to build using earth materials. it would cost an upwards of 5,000,000,000.00 to get 1000 tons into space. to build a full facility and have the ability to create gravity in space, have the proper living quarters, to have the needed rad shielding ect ect, we would need about 3-5k tons of raw materials at least; so your looking at a minimum of fifteen trillion to twenty five trillion to get JUST the materials into space. thats thirty to fifty times the gross national defifict right now. Factoring in people, food, water, air, fuel, their wages, other supplies- your looking at closer to 100-200 trillion dollars now.

Fuel is finite. Solar power would be fairly plentiful in orbit. A nice EM drive (even if it leaks photons) would provide enough thrust to keep a pod in orbit, one on each pod would be enough to sustain the system.

Im talking about fuel for escape velocity on earths surface. hypothetical em technology cant do shit about that - for now we need raw fuels.

[–]bufedad1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

im saying Why put people up there at all when we can operate machinery remotely?

Because these stations will be more than an automated hub, which would limit their usefulness.

so now instead of lifting 100-200 200 pound people, plus their air, plus their food, plus their water, plus their belongings, plus their other needed supplies like medicine and what not, you can just lift a thousand five pound machines that are solar powered and can be operated remotely.

First off, you know (or should know) that the water needs of a system like this aren't that massive. It all depends on the water recycling turn around time. The longer the time to turn urine (and other liquid waste) back into water, the more water you need. The shorter the time to recycle the water, the less water you need.

Hydroponics systems can have surprisingly fast production times. For instance, lettuce can be grown in less than 30 days. A hydroponics garden vastly reduces the resources required for off-planet subsistence.

Things that are protected by massive heavy ass ablation shielding. you'd have to re-deliver ablation shielding into space every time you wanted a return payload from space. Hence why i said

There's no life to protect, so what if the asteroid burns up some entering the atmosphere?

thats not counting the fuel cost of getting the fuel equivalent of three hundred rocket launches into space.

Mine asteroids for water -> liquid hydrogen -> rocket fuel.

All they did was launch a device to test the efficiency of mining techniques in space. we dont know what will and what wont work.

Yes, hence this has been in development and is less than a decade away from production tests.

2,500 per pound is the space X going rate

Without reusing rockets, which you are aware of already.

You are using calculations which you know (or really should know) are invalid.

You are doing so to avoid answering my question of at what point do you think the drop is enough.

Im talking about fuel for escape velocity on earths surface. hypothetical em technology cant do shit about that - for now we need raw fuels.

Really? We can use water for this. Heck, we can bring water back from asteroids to use for this as well. You should already know this.

[–]FFXIV_Machinist1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Because these stations will be more than an automated hub, which would limit their usefulness.

your comprehension sucks dude. im talking about building a station FOR people, using robots. using PEOPLE to build a station for PEOPLE before we are fully established and able to manufacture in space is insane.

First off, you know (or should know) that the water needs of a system like this aren't that massive.

currently the ISS gets about 900 pounds of water every 6 months. that water is recycled and reused over 6 months. this is to support 50 people. 200 people obviously will increase fourfould to 3.6k pounds of water needed. this doesnt count what would be needed for hydroponics and such.

the point is, its a pointless expenditure until we have a fully functional station that can exist outside of the magnetosphere.

There's no life to protect, so what if the asteroid burns up some entering the atmosphere?

considering gold melts at a third of the average re-entry temps, and platinum at the re-entry temp, and practically all other rare-earth metals melt at entry temps.... plus we dont want to just go dropping asteroids onto earth willy nilly - we would package up the REMs and place them into a delivery capsule, and drop that, while leaving the abundant earth materials (iron, nickel, and such) up in space for future expansion and building.

Mine asteroids for water -> liquid hydrogen -> rocket fuel.

to mine that, and refine that, and in space none the less; we would need to be EXTREMELY established. you are putting the cart before the horse. its all fine and good to say that we can do it, but consider what is needed to even get to that point.

Without reusing rockets, which you are aware of already. You are using calculations which you know (or really should know) are invalid. You are doing so to avoid answering my question of at what point do you think the drop is enough.

No thats the price of re-usable rockets. thats the FUEL costs. the answer to your question is reliant on the time relevant to the endeavor. if you are trying to do it in a year, its economically impossible for a single country to do it. if you are doing it over 10 years, your price increases, but the rate you have to spend decreases, but is still way more than the USA or any country could afford. that trend continues out to about a 50 year construction plan before the USA could conceivably afford to create something on this scale. nasa barely lasted thirty years before every politician tried eviscerating the program.

so to provide you an answer- unless something drastically changes and our costs to lift cargo drops to about 200 dollars a pound, and we can push the project in under 20 years, the program will likely never come to fruition.

Really? We can use water for this. Heck, we can bring water back from asteroids to use for this as well. You should already know this.

again, you are foregoing the notion that this has to be PRODUCED before it can be used. we cant PRODUCE it in space without EXTREME advancements in space manufacturing and chemistry; we cant do any of that until we are established.

its easy to get excited and think all of this is instantly possible, but you need to stop and consider what has to happen first before all of this "oh its so easy" stuff can be achieved.

[–]bufedad1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

your comprehension sucks dude. im talking about building a station FOR people, using robots. using PEOPLE to build a station for PEOPLE before we are fully established and able to manufacture in space is insane.

Why?

considering gold melts at a third of the average re-entry temps, and platinum at the re-entry temp, and practically all other rare-earth metals melt at entry temps....

Yes, elements on the outside of an asteroid would melt on reentry. Why do you think that's a problem?

plus we dont want to just go dropping asteroids onto earth willy nilly

This statement makes no sense. There's no requirement that they be dropped willy nilly.

No thats the price of re-usable rockets.

Seriously, you claim to know better. We haven't re-used rockets yet. They are close to re-using one, but they haven't successfully done so yet.

again, you are foregoing the notion that this has to be PRODUCED before it can be used

No, I'm not.

we cant PRODUCE it in space without EXTREME advancements in space manufacturing and chemistry

No, we can produce it now with current manufacturing and chemistry.

[–]FFXIV_Machinist1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Why?

Where would you house them? you couldn't construct this while within the magnetosphere. trying to move a mega structure out of LEO into outer space would destroy the structure we were trying to build- hence why it has to be built further out- also because its going to have to be re-located closer to the asteroid belt at some point. the ultimate goal is not to bring asteroids to earth, but to bring only the raw materials we need back to earth orbit.

Yes, elements on the outside of an asteroid would melt on reentry. Why do you think that's a problem?

if you think were just going to drop whole asteroids onto the planet, then you are sorely mistaken.

This statement makes no sense. There's no requirement that they be dropped willy nilly.

How are you going to control the asteroid once its started entering the atmosphere? you cant attach a thruster that will survive the entry process- it would simply tumble out of control - plus you would just be wasting VALUABLE building materials that should be left in space for building. its why you would process the REMS in space and send them back in return pods. i say willy nilly, because once you start that initial drop into the atmosphere, you can only control its landing point within a few hundred miles. were not dealing with a precision machiene here- were talking about dropping a massive ass rock onto the planet and hoping it lands in the vicinity of where we want it.

Seriously, you claim to know better. We haven't re-used rockets yet. They are close to re-using one, but they haven't successfully done so yet.

The 2500 pricepoint is the price of the re-usable rockets trip. the price will likely go down as we perfect it, but 2500 a pound is what it would cost today if the rockets were in cycle.

No, I'm not.

but you are. where are you going to make it? how is where your making it going to get out there? how are you going to store it? how is what you are storing it in going to make it out there? how are you even going to mine it? how is what your going to mine it with going to get out there.

there are litterally hundreds of things that would have to happen before this even became a glimmer of a reality.

No, we can produce it now with current manufacturing and chemistry.

In space? in Zero gravity? we might beable to produce grams at a time. thats all well and good considering we need literal tons of it.

After this i'm done here. you need to stop, re-read the things i've said and actually comprehend them. you have loftly day dreams about this backed by roughly a wikipedia grade education when it comes to this, and i cant fix that. go and research more - after this i'm not responding anymore.

[–]bufedad1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Where would you house them?

The same way I've already explained. Interconnected pods. This isn't new.

if you think were just going to drop whole asteroids onto the planet, then you are sorely mistaken.

You do realize that asteroids range in size from a pebble to some 600 miles across.

Anyone informed on this topic would already know that, and would never have made that statement.

How are you going to control the asteroid once its started entering the atmosphere?

Why would you?

plus you would just be wasting VALUABLE building materials that should be left in space for building.

And eventually will be. Eventually they won't even be brought back to earth at all. That's not the way it's going to start though.

The 2500 pricepoint is the price of the re-usable rockets

No, it's not. Space x hasn't re-used a rocket yet. Each of these launches have been with brand new made to order rockets.

Seriously, you should read up on what actually IS going on.

where are you going to make it?

Water can be separated into hydrogen and oxygen with electricity. This is a simple reaction. Of course, we'll have to liquidate the frozen water before we can separate it (heat, and pressure).

We need to do two things to liquidate hydrogen, compress it, and cool it. Well, in space cooling it isn't an issue. Just compressing it. Seriously, this is not rocket science. This is grade school science.

In space?

What do you think there is about space that changes the laws of physics?

in Zero gravity?

Why do you think that gravity is a requirement for this process?

we might beable to produce grams at a time. thats all well and good considering we need literal tons of it.

You've provided zero information about why this is even the slightest bit difficult (especially when experts don't believe it be so).

After this i'm done here

Well, yes. You obviously aren't well read up on what's going on in the space industry lately. You read a little here and a little there and then speak with authority. It's no surprise that you've backed yourself into a corner that you can't find a way out of... other than ending the conversation.

[–]functionalsociopathy 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]FFXIV_Machinist 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]functionalsociopathy 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]FFXIV_Machinist 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]functionalsociopathy 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]FFXIV_Machinist 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Saintmyname 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]majortom22 12 points13 points14 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]bufedad 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]majortom22 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]bufedad 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]majortom22 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]trp_angry_dwarf 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Blutarg 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Kyle_Fischer 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]feedmecarrots 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]jslnk 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SOwED 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

I think people (including OP) are misinterpreting this post. Mandatory military service doesn't mean you're guaranteed to see combat (which is what the draft tends to imply). I've got a few Norwegian friends who speak very positively of their mandatory service. They learned good survival skills for one thing, which I was a bit jealous of when I saw them while we were camping.

Obviously, the US is in more armed conflicts lately than Norway, but we still have many troops in reserve, and those serving a mandatory year would likely not see combat unless a large scale war broke out (in which case they'd probably have gotten drafted anyway).

Yes the draft sucks and is unequal. Yes the government often views people as disposable, and those people are disproportionately men. However, that doesn't mean military service (especially with no combat) is inherently negative.

[–]bufedad -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]SOwED 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]bufedad -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]SOwED 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]bufedad 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]SOwED 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]bufedad -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]SOwED -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]bufedad 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]SOwED1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

So rape is analogous to slavery because compulsory military service that you get paid for is literal slavery (somehow), which you've already claimed is somehow analogous to rape, in which the victim gets paid afterwards.

There's a difference between insulting you and pointing out the types of arguments you make, and the types of people known for using those arguments.

You went straight for the emotional shock value of rape and slavery, because you think that if that comparison can even sort of hold, then you'll have your opponent in a position trying to justify or slavery, either by analogy or directly, which people generally don't want to do. Maybe you've had success with these tactics in the past because you argued against people who couldn't tell what you're doing well enough to call you out on it, and hey, maybe you're not even doing this deliberately and you actually think you have a good argument, but you don't. You have an argument based entirely upon two false equivalences.

[–]bufedad1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

forced labor = slavery

forced sex = rape

rape doesn't stop being rape just because you give the unwilling person money.

slavery doesn't stop being slavery just because you give the forced person money.

You went straight for the emotional shock value of rape and slavery, because you think that if that comparison can even sort of hold, then you'll have your opponent in a position trying to justify or slavery, either by analogy or directly, which people generally don't want to do. Maybe you've had success with these tactics in the past because you argued against people who couldn't tell what you're doing well enough to call you out on it, and hey, maybe you're not even doing this deliberately and you actually think you have a good argument, but you don't. You have an argument based entirely upon two false equivalences.

More insults and an attempt at an analysis of my argument.

Still no counter-argument.

[–]SOwED1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]bufedad0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SOwED0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]bufedad0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SOwED1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Ugh you are insufferable.

A slave is a person who is owned by another person. Slavery is simply the state of being a slave. Slaves often are forced to work but that is not a requirement, so no, slavery doesn't necessarily equal forced labor, though the term is sometimes used to mean forced labor. I guess you could pay your slave for labor, but that makes as much sense as paying your horse to let you ride it, and it basically never happens.

Rape is by definition forced sex. Whether or not I would agree doesn't change that definition.

Compulsory military service is not slavery because people are not owned by other people in that situation. Just compulsory voting doesn't constitute being owned by the state.

Your rape comparison is a false equivalence and is invalid. You keep making it because you think you've got a home run argument when in reality you're comparing rape versus rape+money to being owned by another person versus compulsory military service which is paid and temporary.

False equivalence.

[–]bufedad0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SOwED1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]bufedad0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SOwED1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]philosarapter 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ragnrok 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]functionalsociopathy 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]stevenjo28 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kyle_Fischer 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	Ya, that'll fix men!
Author	Ophiopogon
Upvotes	161
Comments	80
Date	November 14, 2016 12:54 AM UTC (9 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/5ct7iq/ya_thatll_fix_men/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/ya-thatll-fix-men.937600 https://theredarchive.com/post/937600

Comments