Mining on the moon could solve energy crisis.

residenttroll wrote: It is for a redesign...the government wants to build it's own launch facilities for a new vehicle...the new launch facilities will costs 20 times what we would pay with commercial launch facilities. Go figure!

I can think of oh, a dozen reasons why it might be important to national security not to "privatize" something like that.

AspenValley wrote: Am I the only who groans every time I hear of another scheme to "solve" the world's energy crisis?

I groan because putting faith in magical science-fiction solutions just delays the day when we get real, get adult, and man up to the fact that there just ISN'T one?

Technology can do a lot of things, but I know of none that exists today that is a satisfactory substitute for fossil fuel. Yet almost everyone goes merrily on, confident that somehow technology will save us.

What if it doesn't?

It will.

The only question is how much it will cost.

Nobody that matters wrote:

AspenValley wrote: Am I the only who groans every time I hear of another scheme to "solve" the world's energy crisis?

I groan because putting faith in magical science-fiction solutions just delays the day when we get real, get adult, and man up to the fact that there just ISN'T one?

Technology can do a lot of things, but I know of none that exists today that is a satisfactory substitute for fossil fuel. Yet almost everyone goes merrily on, confident that somehow technology will save us.

What if it doesn't?

It will.

The only question is how much it will cost.

If it costs so much that it destroys what's left of our economy that's the same thing as having no solution.

Cheap oil drives our economy. Without cheap oil or a cheap substitute, we are SOL.

AspenValley wrote:

residenttroll wrote: It is for a redesign...the government wants to build it's own launch facilities for a new vehicle...the new launch facilities will costs 20 times what we would pay with commercial launch facilities. Go figure!

I can think of oh, a dozen reasons why it might be important to national security not to "privatize" something like that.

Start listing the dozen.

residenttroll wrote:

AspenValley wrote:

residenttroll wrote: It is for a redesign...the government wants to build it's own launch facilities for a new vehicle...the new launch facilities will costs 20 times what we would pay with commercial launch facilities. Go figure!

I can think of oh, a dozen reasons why it might be important to national security not to "privatize" something like that.

Start listing the dozen.

Not gonna list 'em all for you, but I'll give you a hint. Most of the dozen have their root in two words:

International Corporations.

AspenValley wrote:

residenttroll wrote:

AspenValley wrote:

residenttroll wrote: It is for a redesign...the government wants to build it's own launch facilities for a new vehicle...the new launch facilities will costs 20 times what we would pay with commercial launch facilities. Go figure!

I can think of oh, a dozen reasons why it might be important to national security not to "privatize" something like that.

Start listing the dozen.

Not gonna list 'em all for you, but I'll give you a hint. Most of the dozen have their root in two words:

International Corporations.

Oh, at least you could have taken the high road and said, "I can't because in the interest of national security." By the way, who do you think will build the government facilities?

AspenValley wrote:
If it costs so much that it destroys what's left of our economy that's the same thing as having no solution.

Cheap oil drives our economy. Without cheap oil or a cheap substitute, we are SOL.

Well, you didn't say "without destroying the economy"...

Yeah, that's pretty much a given if nothing is invented or discovered before the fossil fuels run out.

residenttroll wrote:
Oh, at least you could have taken the high road and said, "I can't because in the interest of national security." By the way, who do you think will build the government facilities?

Halliburton.