Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:But where are the potentional profits? (Score 1) 69

Which part isn't possible? Spaceflight, mining, photovoltaic power generation, or electrolysis? Furthermore, is it physically impossible or merely an engineering challenge? If it is only an engineering challenge, is there a reason why you believe that your suggested course of action (to get over it) is more likely to achieve their objectives than is their plan?

It must suck to be you. I've actually done cool work with NASA specifically because I refuse to "get over it". How about you? Are you enjoying cashiering?

Comment: Re:But where are the potentional profits? (Score 1) 69

I agree with him in that sense. Leave the "potentially profitable" ventures to private industry, as that's the only stuff you can expect them to go for anyway. Leave the "probably not profitable" stuff, like searching for asteroids that might kill unimaginable numbers of people, to government, because otherwise nobody's going to do it.

Comment: Re:But where are the potentional profits? (Score 1) 69

What else would you do with it?

Why would you need to do anything else with it? Is being able to undercut the current prices for fuel by several orders of magnitude not enough? You haven't really set forth a convincing argument (or any argument, for that matter) regarding why cheap fuel is insufficient as a motivator. I'll answer your question anyway: you could use it as drinking water for astronauts, or you could use it as shielding against radiation.

What the fuck good is it space?

Fuel is good for moving things around. Water and shielding are good for keeping astronauts alive.

Right, so you can use some of what you mined to make fuel saving on a cost but who are you going to sell all the rest of this stuff to?

I'm not sure I understand your question. Are you suggesting that 15e6 kg of water is more than we will ever need for rocket fuel? Why do you believe that? Nonetheless, the remainder could be sold for other purposes (drinking water, radiation shielding, etc).

What about all the minerals mined? You just going to use them to build houses in space?

Perhaps. This is orthogonal to the discussion, though. If the water-mining operation alone is worthwhile, it doesn't matter what is done with the minerals. They can be discarded and the mission is still economically viable. If they can be put to productive use, or used to build houses in space, then this would only make the mission more attractive.

What good reason is there for mining stuff in space and leaving it space where it's useless to pretty much anyone on earth.

Well, the obvious answer is that one good reason is because it's useful to pretty much anyone not on Earth. Other reasons include basically the same set of good reasons to engage in spaceflight in general. Of course, you seem opposed to spaceflight in general, so you may not agree with those reasons.

It's not like all the stuff mined on earth just gets left where it is. It all needs processing. Okay you might build a processing plant in orbit (ain't going to cheap even if we could) but you're still going to have to bring it back to orbit and keep it there. And then what do you do with it?

Perhaps you missed the part where the whole fucking plan is to do just that. They're talking about mining asteroids in space to provide useful resources in space. Capture an asteroid, move it to Earth orbit, and proceed to mine and refine the resources. And then what do you do with it? Gee, I don't know. Oh, wait, how about this novel never-before-heard idea! How about they electrolyze the water to make rocket fuel? But wait, that sounds familiar... It sounds a lot like the very post you replied to. Excellent reading comprehension skills, friend.

All I'm saying is if they want water, there's plenty right here and it's easier to treat it than go 17,000 miles into space (by Friday) capture it and bring it back times however many trips it will take. If you want water in space it's probably still easier to get it off the earth than to go somewhere else to get it.

It's probably still easier to get it off the Earth than to get it from space? Because... because you have a gut feeling that confirms this? What the fuck happened to slashdot? Explain why you think it's "probably" easier to cut launch costs to anywhere between 1/3 and 1/1000 of current rates than it is to do what these guys are talking about.

Comment: Re:But where are the potentional profits? (Score 1) 69

Let's say it's essentially solid ice. That would be about 15000 cubic meters of ice, so they're pricing it at at least 4.3 million dollars per cubic meter, or 4.3 dollars per liter. So yeah, pricey water under the best assumption.

Going by 2013 prices, it costs at least $4000/kg for delivery of anything to LEO. If we assume water has a value of 0 dollars per liter on Earth, that's 4000 dollars per liter in LEO. Using your math, the folks from Deep Space Industries are hoping to sell their asteroid water for 1/1000th its current value. I question the intelligence of anyone that describes such a dramatic decrease in cost as "pricey".

Yeah, that's petty expensive water and any value it may be said to have relies on there being a market in space. There is not.

That's false. We've spent literally millions of dollars on procuring water in LEO. Furthermore, shaving three orders of magnitude off the price will greatly increase the size of this already-existing market if there's any elasticity at all.

Comment: Re:But where are the potentional profits? (Score 1) 69

Bring it back? Why the fuck would you be bringing it back?

Water can be separated into hydrogen and oxygen (read: rocket fuel and oxidizer) with nothing more than electricity. Coincidentally, electricity is the only resource currently available in Earth orbit. Consequently, asteroid water can easily be turned into fuel in orbit. This is fantastic because having fuel in orbit means we don't need to launch as much from Earth. This is doubly fantastic because the overwhelming majority of a rocket's mass is... fuel.

But you're over here talking about water levels on Earth. Slashdot got real dumb.

Comment: lest we forget (Score 1) 138

by epine (#48264231) Attached to: Verizon Launches Tech News Site That Bans Stories On US Spying

@namespace url(;

@-moz-document domain("") {

body:before {
  content: "Forbidden from covering American spying or net neutrality by Verizon's corporate sponsorship";
  color: #FF0000;
  display: block;
  text-align: center;
  font-size: 3vmax;
  padding-top: 10vh !important;
  padding-bottom: 10vh !important;


Comment: Re:Don't really care (Score 1) 972

Addressed elsewhere in this thread. I should have gone further than to disclaim that I'm not speaking for OP, perhaps even highlighted that I'm commenting on the inconsistency (or more precisely, the arbitrary nature) of their premises, not any logical inconsistency (internal contradiction) per se. To clarify, I agree, creationism is not logically inconsistent, as there are no internal contradictions in the arguments made. However, since the premises are arbitrary and not inherently known to be any more true than the conclusions drawn from them, the argument lacks soundness and resembles circular reasoning.

Comment: Re:Don't really care (Score 1) 972

Context, good sir! Context!

The post I last replied to was one where you asked "What is logically inconsistent there?" after explicitly quoting me, not WarJolt. Based on context, I interpreted this as you asking me what logical inconsistency there was in believing the Christian Bible to be true and everything that contradicts it to be false. If this is not what you intended to ask (as you now seem to claim), this was not clear to me from your words nor from the context.

So if you're asking what logically inconsistent premises WarJolt believes creationists will state, posting in the thread I broke off into is unlikely to get you a response. I explicitly caveated my response to your initial query with the claim that I am "not sure what GP had in mind". Indeed, my goal was not to highlight logical inconsistencies (internal contradictions) among the premises set forth by creationists, but merely to point out that their premises are arbitrary and facilitate circular reasoning about their claims, which while technically valid, are not persuasive due to the indeterminate truth of the premises themselves.

In other words, the logic is valid, but the argument is not sound. If you feel that my words are not relevant to your question, then I apologize for hijacking this thread.

Comment: Re:Creationist / Evolutionists telling same story (Score 1) 972

by Cederic (#48251015) Attached to: Creationism Conference at Michigan State University Stirs Unease

The people of the time had complex social structures, the ability to read and write, architecture, agriculture and manufacturing skills and an understanding of timescales beyond their own lifespan.

I'm struggling to see how that makes them morons, or why you think they were materially less intelligent than the people of today.

Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurence of the improbable. - H. L. Mencken