Bill Phil

That's not quite accurate. While the LEO payloads you mention are accurate, LEO payloads have little to do with what can be sent to TLI/L-2. The Block 1 is not very capable, but the Block 1b can send about 39 tonnes to TLI, and about 45 tonnes to L-2. Block 2 can send more, and is the only SLS variant that can rival the Saturn V's TLI performance. (SLS isn't even more powerful in terms of mass to TLI) For reference, the Saturn V can throw about 45 tonnes to TLI, actually slightly more. There aren't numbers for L-2 because it was purpose built for TLI. Skylab's Saturn V lost quite a bit of capability, only orbiting something like 80 tonnes (Skylab itself). My main issue is the opportunity cost. What if, instead of developing an arguably unnecessary vehicle, those funds were spent on developing propellant depot technology as well as space tug technology. Then they could potentially justify higher launch rates for keeping the depot full for BLEO missions.

I mean, technically doable. But orbital colonies are just more flexible...

Over millions of years, making lack of a magnetic field a non-issue. Now we have an issue of bringing enough mass for a dense enough atmosphere...

I guess congratulations are in order.

True. But for things like scientific probes? I think they'll be expensive for a good while. GEO sats? I could see those becoming cheaper with less expensive launches.

And how much would it cost to develop the related spacecraft? You're looking at billions. Even now launch costs are not as significant as the cost of the payload. This is why ULA has a good chance of sticking around. For launch, cost is generally not as important as reliability.

Actually, I have seen discussion of building cities on Mars. Not necessarily soon, but... there is discussion. Realistic discussion? Now that's a bit of a stretch. Yeah. But how many spare parts are needed to keep any settlement running on Earth? Quite a few. Of course, there is greater complexity for space settlements, and Mars is impractical as it is now. It's also possible to improve the technology to reduce the required effort to keep the system running. For a space settlement, it would have to be able to build some of its own replacement parts. And it's going to require care. More so than on Earth, yes, but even the buildings on Earth need to be maintained. Mars, however, is just too far to be a practical settlement.

This is true provided that extracting the platinum is easy. There are some very complex machines that take hours to just replace one component. If the person doing the extracting is paid well, then the amount of platinum wouldn't necessarily be any cheaper. Of course, then we're at the point where it would be expensive to put it together.

I think there was a sentence in there about how the aliens wanted to colonize Earth... for some reason. I seem to recall a throwaway line that they were responsible for wiping out the dinosaurs. Again. Dumb action movie.

While there are investors who prefer short term benefits, there are some entities that invest on more long term time-scales. Moving an asteroid closer to Earth, while taking quite a bit of energy, could be economical if the mass required to mine it is quite large. Not to mention the greater ease of returning the platinum and the potential benefits of the other materials for in-space use.

Well, in the movie the first giant monster thing took a huge military effort to kill. Still doesn't explain why they couldn't just build something more practical, but... it's really just a dumb action movie. It's actually pretty good for a dumb action movie.

Even so, there's probably more revenue generated from aluminum today than in the 1800s.

No idea. It may have been .16. I know that I bought the game, played it a little, and then stopped after some time. I got back to it and it was .19.

Even Musk has given credit to NASA: " SpaceX has only come this far by building upon the incredible achievements of NASA, having NASA as an anchor tenant for launch, and receiving expert advice and mentorship throughout the development process. SpaceX would like to extend a special thanks to the NASA COTS office for their continued support and guidance throughout this process. The COTS program has demonstrated the power of a true private/public partnership and we look forward to the exciting endeavors our team will accomplish in the future."

No, SpaceX is not superior at engineering rockets either. SLS was forced on NASA by the government, whereas Falcon 9 was something that only exists thanks to investments on the part of NASA, in the form of money and engineering. Heck, NASA basically developed the ancestor of the Merlin engine family. Landing rockets isn't unique. SpaceX even did it after Blue Origin. And McDonnell Douglas even did it, just without going to space. Technically NASA did it with the Apollo LM. The only thing unique about SpaceX's achievement is the scale, and that was only doable thanks to NASA.

NASA doesn't build rockets. They engineer rockets, but they don't build them. And I would not say that SpaceX is any better, since they would have almost nothing without NASA's assistance. Sure, they can land rockets, but that's not a very unique thing. If NASA was told to do that by congress they would do it. Not necessarily for cheap, but it'd be done. But comparing the two isn't really useful. SpaceX is a launch service provider. NASA is a government organization that does many things, including buying launches. If Musk has the money to do it then we can't stop him. The biggest obstacle to landing large payloads on Mars is getting large payloads in orbit of Mars.

No. Birth rates ate expected to decline and death rates will slightly rise (at least in the US, mostly due to the age of baby boomers).

Well why wouldn't the ship entering the atmosphere deploy its own nuke for an EMP effect?

Overpopulation occurs when the population exceeds the carrying capacity. We're not at that point, but it has little to do with living space. It refers to food, air, arable land, water, livestock, and the biosphere.

To be honest... zero. I never did get into mods that much, though. I'm thinking that playing Realism Overhaul would spice it up. I'm also really tired nowadays, so that's a barrier I'll need to overcome to really get into it again.

Gosh, I have no idea. I know I played the demo, and I know that I got into solar orbit before Kerbin orbit... but before that I don't know. I do know that I was on a quest of sorts for realistic space games. Orbiter showed up. That was fun, but ultimately I wanted an easier way to make my own spacecraft. Somehow I found KSP, played the demo, bought the game, and watched a bunch of videos about it. Scott Manley's Interstellar Quest is over 100 episodes!

I use the Evil Containment Wave after summoning an electric rice cooker. You're trapped.

An O'Neill cylinder?

While definitely possible under the laws of physics, that's impractical for a few reasons. They'd need to be big, and that means that they'd be hard to build. Not only that, but they'd need to be built on another planet. It's possible, but impractical, at least for now. Things like advanced bearings and maybe magnetic levitation might be necessary. At that point you might as well avoid building the thing on a planet or moon's surface and just do it in orbit.

Well, most interest on savings accounts doesn't keep pace with inflation, so, technically, your money loses value.