Options

They found water on the moon!

1235

Posts

  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    Which would be an achievement yeah. But then what?
    Tomorrow; Venus.

    Next week; The Sun.

    Where we will meet the sun people like in the Futurama videogame.

    Couscous on
  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    Which would be an achievement yeah. But then what?
    Tomorrow; Venus.

    Next week; The Sun.

    You know how much an apartment that big would cost on the Sun?

    moniker on
  • Options
    TonyTheLeperTonyTheLeper Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Couscous wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    Which would be an achievement yeah. But then what?
    Tomorrow; Venus.

    Next week; The Sun.

    Where we will meet the sun people like in the Futurama videogame.

    Those guys were dicks

    I suppose its better than the ghosts on mars tho

    I saw that movie. F that.

    TonyTheLeper on
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Henroid wrote: »
    Al_wat wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    It doesn't make any sense to expand inward into the solar system anyhow.

    why?

    Because conditions are only going to worsen for the inner part of the solar system. I know that's on a scope of billions of years, but expanding outward gives us baby steps toward getting people out of our system. The only possible thing I can see about trying to get man on Venus is developing the technology to get man-made machinery and structures made that can withstand its environment. Which would be an achievement yeah. But then what?

    Dyson sphere, duh.

    Couscous on
  • Options
    OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Dyson sphere is a pretty obvious reason to head inward.

    If we're going to be doing it elsewhere, this is as good a place to start as any.

    OptimusZed on
    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • Options
    TonyTheLeperTonyTheLeper Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Couscous wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    Al_wat wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    It doesn't make any sense to expand inward into the solar system anyhow.

    why?

    Because conditions are only going to worsen for the inner part of the solar system. I know that's on a scope of billions of years, but expanding outward gives us baby steps toward getting people out of our system. The only possible thing I can see about trying to get man on Venus is developing the technology to get man-made machinery and structures made that can withstand its environment. Which would be an achievement yeah. But then what?

    Dyson sphere, duh.

    Pfftt. Dyson BUBBLE is the way to go.

    TonyTheLeper on
  • Options
    Al_watAl_wat Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Pfftt. Dyson BUBBLE is the way to go.

    .......what?

    how is a bubble different than a sphere?

    Al_wat on
  • Options
    theSquidtheSquid Sydney, AustraliaRegistered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Oh come on people.

    Venus is fucking metal.

    We must migrate to it for the fuckawesome factor.

    Can't we just send a fucktonne of hydrogen into Venus? Either that or some kind of "plant bomb" that would gradually degrade the CO2 in the atmosphere.

    theSquid on
  • Options
    DynagripDynagrip Break me a million hearts HoustonRegistered User, ClubPA regular
    edited November 2009
    theSquid wrote: »
    How is building the first self-sustaining colony on a foreign planet NOT beneficial to mankind? I mean that's the big thing about finding water there, right? That we can build an enclosed ecosystem and shit?

    'cause it'll be crazy expensive and more than likely very far from self-sustaining in reality, no matter what shows up in the PR pamphlets?

    Dynagrip on
  • Options
    TonyTheLeperTonyTheLeper Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Al_wat wrote: »
    Pfftt. Dyson BUBBLE is the way to go.

    .......what?

    how is a bubble different than a sphere?

    A sphere is a solid object, well in dysons view, and there isnt enough material in the solar system to create one

    A Dyson Bubble is a bunch of densly packed non orbiting platforms that would take up less building material but still cover the same area. Granted you dont absorb 100% of the outgoing radiation due to the space between each platform, but you still consume massive quantities of it. And unless you are already on your way outwards harvesting resources from extra solar system areas, its the only option till you leave it.

    TonyTheLeper on
  • Options
    Al_watAl_wat Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    What if your engineers aren't a bunch of pussies and you just manufacture a dyson sphere that has a smaller diameter than the entire solar system.

    Sure, you cut off planets from sunlight. Necessary losses.

    Al_wat on
  • Options
    Emissary42Emissary42 Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Excellent research goal of a Moon Base: an observatory (be it radio or optical or IR or whatever part of the spectrum you want). If it's put on the far side, it won't get any interference from Earth-based transmissions (for radio observatories). Also, you can make MASSIVE mirrors that never require cleaning (so you could make a very low-cost Super-Hubble).

    As for long-term goals, really I've said before that it's way easier (and more logical) to build massive stations at the L-points. You do need a moon base for the initial mining operation to build such stations though.

    Emissary42 on
  • Options
    OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Dynagrip wrote: »
    theSquid wrote: »
    How is building the first self-sustaining colony on a foreign planet NOT beneficial to mankind? I mean that's the big thing about finding water there, right? That we can build an enclosed ecosystem and shit?

    'cause it'll be crazy expensive and more than likely very far from self-sustaining in reality, no matter what shows up in the PR pamphlets?
    It's not like the Lunar Lander was a freaking Eco-Dome.

    The technological advances we'll need to make to sustain our existence on a non-Earth rock will be invaluable in helping our species make the inevitable move out into space, and it's going to return dividends here like the space missions have been since the 60's.

    OptimusZed on
    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Emissary42 wrote: »
    Excellent research goal of a Moon Base: an observatory (be it radio or optical or IR or whatever part of the spectrum you want). If it's put on the far side, it won't get any interference from Earth-based transmissions (for radio observatories). Also, you can make MASSIVE mirrors that never require cleaning (so you could make a very low-cost Super-Hubble).

    As for long-term goals, really I've said before that it's way easier (and more logical) to build massive stations at the L-points. You do need a moon base for the initial mining operation to build such stations though.

    We already have observatories at that Lagrangian point. Granted they'll need to be replaced eventually, but still.

    moniker on
  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Dynagrip wrote: »
    theSquid wrote: »
    How is building the first self-sustaining colony on a foreign planet NOT beneficial to mankind? I mean that's the big thing about finding water there, right? That we can build an enclosed ecosystem and shit?

    'cause it'll be crazy expensive and more than likely very far from self-sustaining in reality, no matter what shows up in the PR pamphlets?
    It's not like the Lunar Lander was a freaking Eco-Dome.

    The technological advances we'll need to make to sustain our existence on a non-Earth rock will be invaluable in helping our species make the inevitable move out into space, and it's going to return dividends here like the space missions have been since the 60's.

    Not to mention having terrestrial uses as we try and become more sustainable in our living practices here.

    moniker on
  • Options
    Al_watAl_wat Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Better yet. Collapse Jupiter into a star, and build a small dyson sphere around that.




    I dont even know what I'm debating anymore.

    Al_wat on
  • Options
    TonyTheLeperTonyTheLeper Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Al_wat wrote: »
    What if your engineers aren't a bunch of pussies and you just manufacture a dyson sphere that has a smaller diameter than the entire solar system.

    Sure, you cut off planets from sunlight. Necessary losses.

    The equations I saw were based on a 3 meter thick dyson sphere if I recall right. It was a while ago I was reading up on this, and it was also deep into 2 bottles of wine. And they still fell well short of materials. This also encompassed to the point of earth if I recall or else obviously earth itself would become an unsustainable hulk of rock. I suppose you could build it with minimal materials, but hell even 3 meters doesnt deal with the issue of the constant barage of extra solar bodies smashing into it and its inability to deflect or defend against them

    Maybe motion sensored plasma cannons to blast that shit to tiny pieces covering the entire exterior. Badass. Its time I get down to the design table. Anti gravity cannon mounted tanks and dyson sphere equipped with plasma cannons. Yea this second bottle of AP is doing only terrible things.

    The Rusty Cage here we come

    TonyTheLeper on
  • Options
    Emissary42Emissary42 Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    Emissary42 wrote: »
    Excellent research goal of a Moon Base: an observatory (be it radio or optical or IR or whatever part of the spectrum you want). If it's put on the far side, it won't get any interference from Earth-based transmissions (for radio observatories). Also, you can make MASSIVE mirrors that never require cleaning (so you could make a very low-cost Super-Hubble).

    As for long-term goals, really I've said before that it's way easier (and more logical) to build massive stations at the L-points. You do need a moon base for the initial mining operation to build such stations though.

    We already have observatories at that Lagrangian point. Granted they'll need to be replaced eventually, but still.

    The point of having the observatories on the moon is you can service them with impunity (and do some construction on-site, which cuts the price).

    The L-point stations would be primarily for habitation - even with the best terraforming effort, you won't be able to control the environment to such an absolute degree as onboard bernal spheres or o'neill cylinders. That, and there's enough material floating around the solar system to make enough of them to support around 5 to 20 trillion people.

    EDIT: This also solves the dyson sphere problem of killing all the planets by blocking all the sunlight. The stations could run on nothing but solar ANYWHERE in a four light-day radius around the sun, so you'd pretty much just be building a very diffuse dyson sphere-like-system that only uses enough power to support the inhabitants of the stations.

    Emissary42 on
  • Options
    EmperorSethEmperorSeth Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Obviously we'd make it the newest form of hard labor for criminals.

    If they riot they get smaller oxygen rations.

    Counterargument: Everything Heinlein's ever written.

    Which is a bad thing....how? I liked his writing. Sure it was simplistic and fun, and got horribly horribly massacred by hollywood, but for when it was written...not bad at all

    I was mostly referring to the one specific story where said convicts took over the moon and starting throwing rocks at the Earth. Now, they had good reason to do so, but still.

    EmperorSeth on
    You know what? Nanowrimo's cancelled on account of the world is stupid.
  • Options
    Emissary42Emissary42 Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Obviously we'd make it the newest form of hard labor for criminals.

    If they riot they get smaller oxygen rations.

    Counterargument: Everything Heinlein's ever written.

    Which is a bad thing....how? I liked his writing. Sure it was simplistic and fun, and got horribly horribly massacred by hollywood, but for when it was written...not bad at all

    I was mostly referring to the one specific story where said convicts took over the moon and starting throwing rocks at the Earth. Now, they had good reason to do so, but still.

    The Moon is a Harsh Mistress is the title.
    The moon is used as a penal colony by every nation on Earth, and all the forced settlers effectively grow grain to feed the immense population back on Earth. The trouble is, the moon is being depleted of elements critical to fertilizer and water, which would result in horrific famine on the moon within about a decade. The only weapon they've got is the magnetic catapult used to send grain to Earth, which is re-purposed to throw canisters filled with 100 tons of rock to great effect.

    Emissary42 on
  • Options
    electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    The point about Venus is that it's approximately Earth gravity and can hold an atmosphere. We just crash comets and asteroids into it to blow the atmosphere off into space and let it cool (it's only hot coz of super-global warming), and to add water to crash out the sulfuric acid in the air.

    electricitylikesme on
  • Options
    ElJeffeElJeffe Not actually a mod. Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPA Mod Emeritus
    edited November 2009
    101 wrote: »
    If you were going for a long term base, perhaps the solar panels could be used as a stopgap till a (very small) nuclear station was set up

    You can't build nuclear power plants! Think of the effects on the spotted moon owl!

    /space-hippie

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • Options
    Donkey KongDonkey Kong Putting Nintendo out of business with AI nips Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Space hippies are going to be the worst when we start hurling various types of bombs at Mars and Venus to test terraforming feasibility and tech.

    Wouldn't a giant nuke aimed at Venus cause nuclear winter? Wouldn't that be a good thing?

    Donkey Kong on
    Thousands of hot, local singles are waiting to play at bubbulon.com.
  • Options
    CycloneRangerCycloneRanger Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Space hippies are going to be the worst when we start hurling various types of bombs at Mars and Venus to test terraforming feasibility and tech.

    Wouldn't a giant nuke aimed at Venus cause nuclear winter? Wouldn't that be a good thing?
    A nuclear winter is mainly caused by ashes from flammable things such as cities. Nuking an empty toxic hellscape wouldn't do much, I imagine. Besides, Venus' atmosphere is already about as reflective as it is possible to make one (that's why it's so bright in the sky), so adding to that likely wouldn't do much, either.

    Anyway, the best part about the water on the moon is that it's in permanently-shadowed craters at the poles. If you climb up to the rim of those craters, you get permanent full-strength sunlight—so the power issue is easily solved.

    CycloneRanger on
  • Options
    ElJeffeElJeffe Not actually a mod. Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPA Mod Emeritus
    edited November 2009
    You know what's cool is the idea that there could theoretically be stars in existence that have been encased in Dyson spheres by advanced civilizations, and we would never be able to find them.

    I mean, yeah, extremely unlikely, but theoretically possible.

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • Options
    ElitistbElitistb Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    The equations I saw were based on a 3 meter thick dyson sphere if I recall right. It was a while ago I was reading up on this, and it was also deep into 2 bottles of wine. And they still fell well short of materials. This also encompassed to the point of earth if I recall or else obviously earth itself would become an unsustainable hulk of rock. I suppose you could build it with minimal materials, but hell even 3 meters doesnt deal with the issue of the constant barage of extra solar bodies smashing into it and its inability to deflect or defend against them
    The construct Dyson originally proposed was a massive fleet of heliocentric orbital satellites. They were not a single cohesive structure, which is mechanically impossible with any materials that humans currently know or even reasonable conceive of.

    Elitistb on
    steam_sig.png
  • Options
    ElJeffeElJeffe Not actually a mod. Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPA Mod Emeritus
    edited November 2009
    Elitistb wrote: »
    The equations I saw were based on a 3 meter thick dyson sphere if I recall right. It was a while ago I was reading up on this, and it was also deep into 2 bottles of wine. And they still fell well short of materials. This also encompassed to the point of earth if I recall or else obviously earth itself would become an unsustainable hulk of rock. I suppose you could build it with minimal materials, but hell even 3 meters doesnt deal with the issue of the constant barage of extra solar bodies smashing into it and its inability to deflect or defend against them
    The construct Dyson originally proposed was a massive fleet of heliocentric orbital satellites. They were not a single cohesive structure, which is mechanically impossible with any materials that humans currently know or even reasonable conceive of.

    Hey, just because the required compressive strength is orders of magnitude beyond any material we've ever constructed is no reason to get all pessimistic.

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • Options
    His CorkinessHis Corkiness Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Henroid wrote: »
    Al_wat wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    It doesn't make any sense to expand inward into the solar system anyhow.

    why?

    Because conditions are only going to worsen for the inner part of the solar system. I know that's on a scope of billions of years, but expanding outward gives us baby steps toward getting people out of our system. The only possible thing I can see about trying to get man on Venus is developing the technology to get man-made machinery and structures made that can withstand its environment. Which would be an achievement yeah. But then what?
    You have to take the scale of things into account. Any steps you take within the solar system are absolutely minute in comparison to the step you'd need to take to reach even the nearest star. Alpha Centuari, the nearest star, is approximately 10,000 times further away than Neptune is from the Sun.

    His Corkiness on
  • Options
    Donkey KongDonkey Kong Putting Nintendo out of business with AI nips Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Henroid wrote: »
    Al_wat wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    It doesn't make any sense to expand inward into the solar system anyhow.

    why?

    Because conditions are only going to worsen for the inner part of the solar system. I know that's on a scope of billions of years, but expanding outward gives us baby steps toward getting people out of our system. The only possible thing I can see about trying to get man on Venus is developing the technology to get man-made machinery and structures made that can withstand its environment. Which would be an achievement yeah. But then what?
    You have to take the scale of things into account. Any steps you take within the solar system are absolutely minute in comparison to the step you'd need to take to reach even the nearest star. Alpha Centuari, the nearest star, is approximately 10,000 times further away than Neptune is from the Sun.

    Propulsion-wise, maybe. In terms of toughening up hulls and developing incredibly robust life support systems, we've got a nice array of conditions to work with close to home.

    Donkey Kong on
    Thousands of hot, local singles are waiting to play at bubbulon.com.
  • Options
    theSquidtheSquid Sydney, AustraliaRegistered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Still, the idea that "this isn't enough of a leap, therefore it isn't worth the bother" is kinda dumb. Yes propulsion systems. They're likely to derive at least tangentially off of the science that is used to develop propulsion for the inner solar system.

    theSquid on
  • Options
    juice for jesusjuice for jesus Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    This thread is making me want to watch Planetes again.

    juice for jesus on
  • Options
    L|amaL|ama Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    L|ama wrote: »
    L|ama wrote: »
    Also: it's a fucking colony on the goddamn MOON. What part of that does not scream fuckawesome?

    The part that's not going towards starving african paraplegic kittens. 8-)

    I've decided that the US military budget should immediately be halved and the half that is saved should be spent on whatever the biggest problem of the year is decided to be.

    .......rea.....really....

    With all the problems and equipment short comings of the military as it is, you want to cut it in HALF

    You talk like that money goes towards funding crazy impossible projects like anti gravity cannons .... which would be awesome.... actually we should start funding some of that unicef money i shell out every halloween towards projects like this. Anti GRAVITY CANNONS. I dont know what it would do or how it works, but I want one....mounted on...A TANK...or...something

    Seriously tho...you wernt serious about cutting military spending in half were you. Im not to sure why so many people think cutting military spending means the US being less involved in world issues and its projection ability. It just means its going to be done a lot more half assed with a lot more risk to the troops. That kind of issue needs to be dealt at the ground up with politicians and world issues, and not ball chopping off the middle system that is forced to maintain those decisions at the risk to its men and women serving.

    I'm sure they would figure something out.
    L|ama's seeming desire for everyone to wear hairshirts

    what?

    L|ama on
  • Options
    theSquidtheSquid Sydney, AustraliaRegistered User regular
    edited November 2009
    L|ama wrote: »
    L|ama wrote: »
    L|ama wrote: »
    Also: it's a fucking colony on the goddamn MOON. What part of that does not scream fuckawesome?

    The part that's not going towards starving african paraplegic kittens. 8-)

    I've decided that the US military budget should immediately be halved and the half that is saved should be spent on whatever the biggest problem of the year is decided to be.

    .......rea.....really....

    With all the problems and equipment short comings of the military as it is, you want to cut it in HALF

    You talk like that money goes towards funding crazy impossible projects like anti gravity cannons .... which would be awesome.... actually we should start funding some of that unicef money i shell out every halloween towards projects like this. Anti GRAVITY CANNONS. I dont know what it would do or how it works, but I want one....mounted on...A TANK...or...something

    Seriously tho...you wernt serious about cutting military spending in half were you. Im not to sure why so many people think cutting military spending means the US being less involved in world issues and its projection ability. It just means its going to be done a lot more half assed with a lot more risk to the troops. That kind of issue needs to be dealt at the ground up with politicians and world issues, and not ball chopping off the middle system that is forced to maintain those decisions at the risk to its men and women serving.

    I'm sure they would figure something out.
    L|ama's seeming desire for everyone to wear hairshirts

    what?

    bahaha oh that's funny

    He's talking about the half of the money that goes to retarded experimental projects that never go anywhere and eat up billions of dollars of money, or for weapons that don't actually exist yet and may never exist.

    theSquid on
  • Options
    ElitistbElitistb Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    I would think that the money spent on R&D is the best money that could be spent. It just needs to be spent more judiciously (aka buy materials for normal costs, not inflated ones).

    Seriously, for the OICW, it cost millions. How the hell can that be? Even custom made parts cannot cost that much. The OICW was, objective wise, a worthwhile project and produced a lot of promising avenues and technologies. But the cost is silly.

    The same is true for a lot of corporations. I've seen college workshops churn out incredible pieces of tech on string budgets, meanwhile corporations spend millions to do the same.

    edit: Take a look at one of the recent great robot races. The winner? Stanford, who had a small team and pretty much off the shelf parts.

    Elitistb on
    steam_sig.png
  • Options
    FyreWulffFyreWulff YouRegistered User, ClubPA regular
    edited November 2009
    The problem with Venus is 1) it got it's shit wrecked at some point and is actually spinning in the opposite direction and 2) No magnetosphere, which means holy fucking radiation batman.

    FyreWulff on
  • Options
    L|amaL|ama Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Mars doesn't have a magnetic field either, although I suppose being further out means less radiation coming in anyway.

    L|ama on
  • Options
    CervetusCervetus Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Elitistb wrote: »
    I would think that the money spent on R&D is the best money that could be spent. It just needs to be spent more judiciously (aka buy materials for normal costs, not inflated ones).

    Seriously, for the OICW, it cost millions. How the hell can that be? Even custom made parts cannot cost that much. The OICW was, objective wise, a worthwhile project and produced a lot of promising avenues and technologies. But the cost is silly.

    The same is true for a lot of corporations. I've seen college workshops churn out incredible pieces of tech on string budgets, meanwhile corporations spend millions to do the same.

    edit: Take a look at one of the recent great robot races. The winner? Stanford, who had a small team and pretty much off the shelf parts.

    Well it does help to have unpaid or underpaid grad students doing a lot of the work instead of doctors.

    Cervetus on
  • Options
    ElitistbElitistb Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Cervetus wrote: »
    Elitistb wrote: »
    I would think that the money spent on R&D is the best money that could be spent. It just needs to be spent more judiciously (aka buy materials for normal costs, not inflated ones).

    Seriously, for the OICW, it cost millions. How the hell can that be? Even custom made parts cannot cost that much. The OICW was, objective wise, a worthwhile project and produced a lot of promising avenues and technologies. But the cost is silly.

    The same is true for a lot of corporations. I've seen college workshops churn out incredible pieces of tech on string budgets, meanwhile corporations spend millions to do the same.

    edit: Take a look at one of the recent great robot races. The winner? Stanford, who had a small team and pretty much off the shelf parts.

    Well it does help to have unpaid or underpaid grad students doing a lot of the work instead of doctors.
    So, wait, these military people get paid hundreds of thousands a year? That doesn't even BEGIN to address the issue. Also evidently the undergrads kick the shit out of whoever the military pays.

    Elitistb on
    steam_sig.png
  • Options
    CantidoCantido Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Elitistb wrote: »
    Cervetus wrote: »
    Elitistb wrote: »
    I would think that the money spent on R&D is the best money that could be spent. It just needs to be spent more judiciously (aka buy materials for normal costs, not inflated ones).

    Seriously, for the OICW, it cost millions. How the hell can that be? Even custom made parts cannot cost that much. The OICW was, objective wise, a worthwhile project and produced a lot of promising avenues and technologies. But the cost is silly.

    The same is true for a lot of corporations. I've seen college workshops churn out incredible pieces of tech on string budgets, meanwhile corporations spend millions to do the same.

    edit: Take a look at one of the recent great robot races. The winner? Stanford, who had a small team and pretty much off the shelf parts.

    Well it does help to have unpaid or underpaid grad students doing a lot of the work instead of doctors.
    So, wait, these military people get paid hundreds of thousands a year? That doesn't even BEGIN to address the issue. Also evidently the undergrads kick the shit out of whoever the military pays.

    You found water on the moon. That's great. That's wonderful. End the recession, smarty pants.

    Cantido on
    3DS Friendcode 5413-1311-3767
  • Options
    Metal Gear Solid 2 DemoMetal Gear Solid 2 Demo Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Elitistb wrote: »
    I would think that the money spent on R&D is the best money that could be spent. It just needs to be spent more judiciously (aka buy materials for normal costs, not inflated ones).

    Seriously, for the OICW, it cost millions. How the hell can that be? Even custom made parts cannot cost that much. The OICW was, objective wise, a worthwhile project and produced a lot of promising avenues and technologies. But the cost is silly.

    The same is true for a lot of corporations. I've seen college workshops churn out incredible pieces of tech on string budgets, meanwhile corporations spend millions to do the same.

    edit: Take a look at one of the recent great robot races. The winner? Stanford, who had a small team and pretty much off the shelf parts.

    Boy do I love finding promising avenues and technologies for killing brown people!

    Metal Gear Solid 2 Demo on
    SteamID- Enders || SC2 ID - BurningCrome.721 || Blogging - Laputan Machine
    1385396-1.png
    Orikae! |RS| : why is everyone yelling 'enders is dead go'
    When I say pop it that means pop it
    heavy.gif
Sign In or Register to comment.