Upload
Login or register
x

Comments(11):

Leave a comment Refresh Comments Show GIFs
Anonymous comments allowed.
11 comments displayed.
#1 - ubercookieboy (09/07/2015) [-]
I despise things like this.

I don't like it when manufacturers make things smaller and thinner.

Things like that are expensive. They break easily and when they are broken they become unserviceable.

I wear bulky clothes, I buy thick leather boots, I use keyboards designed in the 1990s and every single one of those lasts me for years.

MFW I prefer durability over things being tiny.
User avatar #2 to #1 - pallepis (09/07/2015) [-]
It costs 100.000 USD to ship 1 kg of equipment into space. If we want to get **** done we need to innovate.
User avatar #3 to #2 - ubercookieboy (09/07/2015) [-]
I'll let you know how that goes when I decide to live on the moon
User avatar #5 to #4 - ubercookieboy (09/07/2015) [-]
Not including me, nor do I intend on leaving earth to join a mining colony on the moon.

Besides, once space travel becomes commercialized you can guarantee shipping costs will drop significantly. Everything will be optimized to minimize cost and we'll be shipping objects around our solar system for next to nothing.

Keep in mind that mining equipment is extremely heavy. Unless someone comes up with some revolutionary new alloy that is as cheap as steel but lighter then we are going to have to make shipping more efficient.
User avatar #6 to #5 - pallepis (09/07/2015) [-]
Space travel is as efficient as it is ever going to get regarding fuel, there is a reason they have thousands of gallons on board (It's never going to be efficient). In our lifetimes all we can do is to lower the weight of our crafts, because there sure as hell won't be any new methods of getting us out of the atmosphere with one hundred thousand + kilos of equipment. Trust me I'm an engineers...of boats...still counts
User avatar #7 to #6 - ubercookieboy (09/07/2015) [-]
Not necessarily.

As you said before "If we want to get **** done we need to innovate"

Take Ion thrusters for example; NASA has already pissed on Newton's third law. If they can do that then how long will it take until someone builds an aircraft that can break earth's gravity without needing a lot of fuel?

What I'm saying is it's not going to be too long until someone comes up with a propulsion system that doesn't require an obscene amount of fuel. It might be a few decades but some douchebag somewhere is going to come up with a prototype sooner or later. Or more realistically someone is going to come up with a means to generate fusion power. Once that happens then power/fuel is no longer a problem.
User avatar #8 to #7 - pallepis (09/07/2015) [-]
They are not going to be able to create any other propulsion system for when they are INSIDE our atmosphere. Read again, trust the engineer.
User avatar #10 to #8 - ubercookieboy (09/07/2015) [-]
That's like saying "This is as good as our technology is going to get".

Our technology has been getting better over the past 100 years; not only that but it's improving at an exponential rate.

And I believe you. I am an engineer too. I have fundamental knowledge in mechanics, medicine, logical systems and electronics. I am not a dumb guy.

Mark my words, one of the following is going to happen in our lifetimes:

1. Someone comes up with a propulsion system that doesn't require expensive fuel
2. We develop cheap nuclear fusion technology
3. We colonize the moon or set up on Mars

But going back to my original post, if I ever ended up in space I don't want to have to wait 2 months to get a new wafer-thin handheld device because I got drunk and dropped it by accident
User avatar #11 to #10 - pallepis (09/07/2015) [-]
We are talking our life time. There will be no new propulsion system that can fire you through the earths atmosphere in any foreseeable future. Besides just straight explosions (what we are using now)
User avatar #9 to #1 - sinery (09/07/2015) [-]
Or you could just buy a keyboard with Cherry MX keys, like any sensible person would.
 Friends (0)