The money spent annually on cosmetics in the USA dwarfs the amount spent on the NASA space program.
(Can't find reference on the net.)
In 2015, the global cosmetics market was $61B USD , that's a roughly the cost of one thousand trips to Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit (GTO) with a 5,500 Kg payload, or a grand total of 5.5 mega tons to GTO.
We have the resources to become a spacefaring race (at least to the neighbouring planets in the solar system), we simply need to prioritise what's really important.
In 1970, a Zambia-based nun named Sister Mary Jucunda wrote to Dr. Ernst Stuhlinger, then-associate director of science at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, in response to his ongoing research into a piloted mission to Mars. Specifically, she asked how he could suggest spending billions of dollars on such a project at a time when so many children were starving on Earth.
Stuhlinger soon sent the following letter of explanation to Sister Jucunda, along with a copy of "Earthrise," the iconic photograph of Earth taken in 1968 by astronaut William Anders, from the Moon (also embedded in the transcript). His thoughtful reply was later published by NASA, and titled, "Why Explore Space?"
Great letter by the way.
Any way, it boils down to the fact that Americans thinks NASA gets far more money than it actually does. In 2007 polling found that the on average Americans thought NASA received one fourth of the federal budget; the actual proportion was 0.58% http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/11/21/na.... This works out to a few bucks per year per person. It's amazing what NASA does with so little.
kosmetikos "skilled in adornment or arrangement"
As far as non-profits for public education, NPR comes pretty close to that.
And now tell me what more important thing that reproduction could be encoded in our genes?
Second to reproduction is feeling well. For whatever strange reasons our history shaped society, people today have to live in it and they, of course tend to try to maximizes their happiness.
Some People feel better when they get attention (again DNA and anthropology). Of course YOU want to go to space. And by you I mean all in this thread who despise cosmetics in favour of space travel, simply. Because humans are not simple we have deep contradictions embedded in our DNA and society forged traditions.
Yes I agree with you all very much we should go to space BUT to be able to do so we first need to find consensus on each individual happiness weighted against the demands for happiness from other people, of the whole world. Its as simple as that. And I don't have to tell you that concepts like nations do not necessarily help in achieving that.
We are moving up the ladder(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale), towards a global society. In that we can not ignore a single persons mischief as we do today.
I hope you see see that its not about "superficial" cosmetics, but about us as humans. And how to be happy, all around the world. We can and should do it but it will look very different to what the world looks today. And of course our anthropology is fighting us here hard again. We want the result of change but not change what is necessary to do that, that is to change ourselves (To acknowledge other people, be more peaceful and thoughtful about resources, etc..)
So again what do you think about cosmetics?
Space travel, and with it, scientific understanding, space mining, and perhaps colonization, is an abstract thought that goes beyond thinking of local maxima, and that's what makes it deep, as opposed to the cosmetics arms race that is myopic in what it maximizes. That's what makes it shallow.
People naturally have many values, and these values often come in conflict. How we resolve these conflicts can demonstrate a direction toward broad vision and aforethought -- or shallow local maxima.
Anyways, I don't believe that the underlying point of cosmetics argument is about cosmetics. I think it's about the activity of moral posturing, as opposed to a sincere moral commitment toward moral results.
If you like we need ome kind of migration or negoating strategy.
The problem is people do not live in a vacuum , we live in a attention economy. And people go straight for what they where thaught with ( tradions and values from social environment)
Love (cosmetics) is at a lower level ( which means it has a higher priority for most people) then Self-actualization
or Self-transcendence (space). Do not forget where we came from, thousands of years there were concepts like cosmetics. But space is alien to most people they can not touch it, they can not percieve or concieve it.
Thats the problem we should tackle IMO.
Serious question: what overpopulation problem is the human race currently facing? We have a distribution/underdevelopment problem, but not an overpopulation one as we have enough resources for not just 7 billion people, but multiples of that.
There would certainly be no less reproduction, if cosmetics are given up.
Also no general health loss, probably even improvements, with no more side effects. (and no more apes tortured to death by trying to remove the side effects)
From my point of view, cosmetics is about lying to each other, how we really look ... so you could argue, that it would be even better for the best genes to be choosen, if the real informations are not hidden and falsified with makeup etc
About lying to each other, another contradiction. Of course everyone wants honesty, as long as it doesn't hurt oneself.
(The whole discussion is a theoretical "wouldn't it be nice if" ...)
For example we value clean skin ... maybe because people with clean skin are probably less likely to get skin cancer ... but with cosmetics people are just hiding their not perfect skin ... and maybe even improve their chances of skin cancer with side effects.
So from a idealistic point of view, I think it would be better to accept that most of us don't have perfect clean skin, so what? Where is the point in spending so much effort in hiding it?
Here's one of my favorite Elon Musk interviews (2012 CBS 60 minutes) that has a reference to the topic (at 11:40): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmyT9y568Bc
Probably more under the logic of "there should be public funding for space exploration" than "there should not be private funding for space exploration."
Buzz Aldrin was invited to the CRS-8 launch I believe.
SpaceX acts as if it was publicly funded, practically.
Direct link to 11:40 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmyT9y568Bc#t=11m40s
In case I'm misunderstanding, do these term have these meanings?
mT = metric tonne? The standard symbol is "t". It's odd that they also use kg on the same table for the same quantity so maybe it really means something else? Not millitesla I'm sure :P
"fully expendable vehicle" means dumping the 1st stage into the sea instead of landing and recovering it?
It takes a good amount of fuel to kill all the horizontal velocity the first stage built up before detaching and then a bit more for landing. Due to just the physics you're losing some of the most effective (in terms of dV per unit mass of fuel) burn in the first stage.
So instead of having to fully stop and reverse, they position them so they can arc back down and only has to stop its momentum.
Yes, American space companies use mT for metric tons. They normally use imperial units so please forgive them.
Yes, that's what fully expendable means.
I think it's just some poor, ad-hoc made-up notation. I have a little bit of sympathy with Te (occasionally pronounced 'tunny') to distinguish ton from tonne, but really if you want other people to understand your units you have to go with what the BIPM recommend.
Doing a bit of napkin math would get you a similar number.
I assume they're about halfway between GEO and Mars (or does aerobraking on Mars save you enough mass that they are practically the same?)
Also, this doesn't account for any aerobraking, which should save you some fuel.
So would taking a longer earth-mars route that allowed the use of some more efficient drive (e.g. ion engine) improve the amount of payload that could be delivered?
Those are probably the real numbers.
You might be thinking about a problem and go "oh actually, if we could send it to mars it might work". and instead of dismissing it out of hand you can say, "well that costs XYZ"
SpaceX does not yet have a vehicle to take you to Mars. The idea is that your GTO payload would be such a vehicle supplied by the customer. The numbers below just shows the limits of what is possible, i.e. such a Mars Transfer vehicle could weigh up to 22 tonnes and possibly contain up to 13 tonnes of payload.
By comparison, the Apollo 11 lunar (landing) module was 11,900 kg and the command/service module was 28,800 kg at launch. There were also other components that added at least 6000 kg. (according to some quick Wikipediaing)
So > 46,700 kg total.
Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means.
I wonder if you could send over some type of networking equipment, and then anticipate charging one heck of a bandwidth premium?
some billionaire has to be thinking that their ultimate "mark on the universe" would be to start seeding life on mars.
Call it the 21st century version of the Carnegie donation program. The Gates Path to Life. Sounds romantic.
For all we know, it may already have been done.
If we want to explore an uncontaminated Mars for native life, we have a very narrow window in which to do so. The ability to deliberately seed Mars with life is already amazingly cheap, and is swiftly become cheaper and more accessible.
But will this allow you to land on Mars, or just a flyby?
Given enough money and motivation, you can get microbes to mars.
Why do space rockets and rockets in general always so closely resemble penises?