NASA budget will axe Mars deal with Europe: scientists

Feb 10, 2012
An "autonomous robotic scientist" is driven following a press conference by the European Space Agency, regarding it's ExoMars mission in 2006. US President Barack Obama's budget proposal to be submitted next week for 2013 will cut NASA's budget by 20 percent and eliminate a major partnership with Europe on Mars exploration, scientists said Thursday.

US President Barack Obama's budget proposal to be submitted next week for 2013 will cut NASA's budget by 20 percent and eliminate a major partnership with Europe on Mars exploration, scientists said Thursday.

The White House is proposing a $1.2 billion budget for the , down from $1.5 billion this year, according to Louis Friedman, a former NASA official and co-founder of the Planetary Society who was briefed on the matter.

"It's certainly dead," Friedman told AFP, referring to the ExoMars project which aimed to send an orbiter to the red planet in 2016 followed by a pair of rovers in 2018, ahead of a possible mission to return samples from Mars to Earth in the 2020s.

According to the deal NASA and the made in 2009, NASA would contribute $1.4 billion to the project and ESA would chip in $1.2 billion.

Friedman added that the political will in Europe and the United States was likely strong enough to push efforts toward a new deal of some kind, but the details remain to be seen.

"I don't think it is hopeless. But there is no indication that Congress is willing to help," he said.

G. Scott Hubbard, a professor of at Stanford University who was NASA's first Mars program director and revitalized the program after a string of failures, also said the ESA project was likely to die.

"If the appear next Monday as the rumors suggest, then the existing NASA/ESA ExoMars collaboration may well disappear. What will replace that is unknown to me," Hubbard told AFP in an email.

NASA officials declined to confirm the details of the but scheduled a series of press conferences to discuss it on Monday.

"Consistent with the tough choices being made across the federal government to reduce spending and live within our means, NASA is reassessing its current initiatives to maximize what can be achieved scientifically, technologically and in support of our future human missions," said NASA spokesman David Weaver.

The project had been named as a top priority flagship mission by the US National Academy of Sciences' Decadal Survey, which sets out a plan for NASA space exploration.

Explore further: Image: Rosetta's comet looms

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

'Frustration' in Europe over joint Mars probe: NASA

Nov 15, 2011

The United States has failed to commit to plans for an unmanned joint Mars mission with the European space agency, causing frustration abroad, top NASA officials told lawmakers on Tuesday.

NASA boosts Webb telescope cost to $8.7 billion

Aug 25, 2011

NASA has boosted its cost estimate of a major telescope project to 8.7 billion dollars, even as lawmakers have threatened to slash the space agency's budget, a spokesman said Wednesday.

Obama: Five-year freeze on NASA budget

Feb 14, 2011

President Barack Obama on Monday proposed reining in expenses at NASA, sending a 2012 budget blueprint to Congress that calls for a five-year freeze on spending levels at the US space agency.

Where next for NASA? Scientists draw up wish list

Mar 08, 2011

(AP) -- Land a rover on Mars to collect rocks and soil samples that could later be returned to Earth. If that's a budget-buster, then orbit Jupiter's moon Europa, which may have a liquid ocean beneath its frozen surface, ...

UC-Santa Barbara to direct Mars soil test

Dec 14, 2005

The European Space Agency announced Tuesday its support of a program that will include development of an instrument for testing deep soil samples on Mars.

Recommended for you

Image: Rosetta's comet looms

34 minutes ago

Wow! Rosetta is getting ever-closer to its target comet by the day. This navigation camera shot from Aug. 23 shows that the spacecraft is so close to Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko that it's difficult to ...

A salty, martian meteorite offers clues to habitability

1 hour ago

Life as we know it requires energy of some sort to survive and thrive. For plants, that source of energy is the Sun. But there are some microbes that can survive using energy from chemical reactions. Some ...

User comments : 60

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Vendicar_Decarian
0.6 / 5 (40) Feb 10, 2012
Oh, I'm sure the private sector will start to fund this space science.

I see WallMart taking over NASA funding. Or maybe Exxon or Westinghouse.

ScottyB
4 / 5 (4) Feb 10, 2012
What a shame!!! so unfortunate that ESA have to rely o the yanks to get this to mars, they should talk with russia
baudrunner
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 10, 2012
Plenty of rocket launches from the middle of the Pacific all the time from movable platforms have the president thinking, "Wait.. what's going on? Those aren't our launches. They're moving forward on their own." And yes, it's been that way for some time, so now you know.

The president has a bigger problem with the military budget. How do you occupy all those people otherwise? I'm thinking, "think space", but..
Shelgeyr
3 / 5 (6) Feb 10, 2012
There simply is no money for NASA. Even what they do have remaining in their budget is borrowed and would be eliminated in a balanced Federal budget.

As of a couple of days ago:
US National Debt ($15.3 Trillion)
US Unfunded Liabilities ($117.5 Trillion)
Derivative Obligations ($423 Trillion)

Just from an unfunded liabilities viewpoint alone, independent of the other figures, the US Congresses and Administrations have over the last few decades overspent to such a degree that every last US citizen is effectively in hock to the tune of over 400% of their entire personal net worth.

Were we to sell everything, and somehow miraculously still get top dollar for it, we wouldn't be able to satisfy a quarter of what has been obligated in our names.

So by comparison, Mars is pretty unimportant.

Hey, I love space travel. I'd love us to have active colonies on Mars and elsewhere. But even if those should be public projects, which is arguable, we can't afford it.
baudrunner
1 / 5 (6) Feb 10, 2012
In the meantime you are enjoying a standard of living probably unequaled anywhere else in the world, as are most of the rest of us here, so those figures don't really mean a whole lot. Get off the topic of sums and look at yourself.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.2 / 5 (37) Feb 10, 2012
Ya, what's the difference between a $10 debt and a $10,000,000,000 debt?

It's all the same, they are just numbers, and as we all know... Numbers have no meaning.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Feb 10, 2012
what's the difference between a $10 debt and a $10,000,000,000 debt?

If you can't afford to pay the 10$ debt: Nothing.

That's what some people don't get. If you're so deep in debt that you can't/won't pay it off, anyhow, then going deeper into debt makes no difference to you - it just makes the guy lending to you a sucker.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.2 / 5 (37) Feb 10, 2012
That sucker is ultimately your neighbor, your co-worker, your children and your grand children.
k_m
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 10, 2012
The only way out of the debt is to reverse our economy: turn to production instead of consumption. It must be made cheaper to produce goods here than to import.
kochevnik
1.8 / 5 (8) Feb 10, 2012
The only way out of the debt is to reverse our economy: turn to production instead of consumption. It must be made cheaper to produce goods here than to import.
Look at your US dollar bill. It says DEBT NOTE, Now how are you going to ever build a net worth of even one gold bar with debt? Did you realize it's impossible? Or are you hoping some force will intervene on your behalf, saving you from your swindle? Still high on hopium? I hear the crash is really bad.

Look at your US trade deficit. It's almost exactly to US MILITARY SPENDING: More the rest of the world COMBINED. That's where your $ goes. To the eternal war on terror, aka. CIA's paid actors.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.8 / 5 (44) Feb 10, 2012
Corporations already engineer products to fail in order to boost consumption.

How much further do you intend to embrace the fantastic inefficiencies of the Capitalist system where at least 80 percent of all labour is wasted, worthless effort?

In terms of sustainable consumption, we are already well beyond the ability of the planet to cope.

Nature has for decades been pointing to the only possible economic plan and that is ecologically sustainable economic output that translates to LOWER resource competition with the natural environment, and the abandonment of the idea that nature is a sewer.

This will necessarily translate to a reduction in material consumption, a zeroing of economic growth, a reduction in production of worthless trinkets, and greatly expanded personal time where people will be free to pursue their own interests.

The alternative to this societal re-organization is extinction.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.4 / 5 (39) Feb 10, 2012
"Now how are you going to ever build a net worth of even one gold bar with debt?" - Kochevnik

He could always purchase gold bars with those DEBT NOTES.

Of course Gold has no value unless people value it. Just like those DEBT NOTES.
finitesolutions
3 / 5 (5) Feb 10, 2012
"also said the ESA project was likely to die."
There is a saying that USA fits perfectly: that that you do not let die will not let you live.
EU be smart and consider USA dead meat. There is no hope in dealing with USA. USA might as well not exist and there will be no difference for the rest of the world: "au contraire" the world might be better off without USA. In fact USA is just a self guarded open air prison.
Vendicar_Decarian
Feb 10, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
kochevnik
2.8 / 5 (9) Feb 10, 2012
He could always purchase gold bars with those DEBT NOTES. Of course Gold has no value unless people value it. Just like those DEBT NOTES.
Yes acting alone he could. But the trick the Rothschilds invented at their gold bank was lending out gold notes amounting to ten times the actual gold held in their vault. So if everyone ran the Rothchild's ponzi scheme, their fraud would be exposed. All their subterfuge amounts to concealing this fraud while expanding it worldwide and extorting governments. Governments are now as helpless as people against the wrath of the market, and will seek any assurances of a rosy outlook.

In short gold is something, while debt notes are paper redeemable for more NONEXISTENT paper which IS NOT redeemable for gold. That's why the FED build a back door at Fort Knox and emptied it out. They got the gold. You got the paper.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.3 / 5 (38) Feb 10, 2012
"In short gold is something" - Kochevnik

So is dirt.

dinosaur
1.1 / 5 (8) Feb 10, 2012
i'm not sorry to see nasa's funds being cut-they have not been honest with the world on their discoveries that we have paid dearly for in the past years, people viewing their photo releases constantly find the marks of editing, (airbrushing) on the released photos and no photos at all on other items of interest--YU55 for one. why keep dumping money into a black hole-maybe supporting a private outfit for their research is the way to go..
Shelgeyr
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 10, 2012
@baudrunner said:
Get off the topic of sums and look at yourself.


Baudrunner, what does that even mean? We are the wealthiest nation in history, but even that doesn't make living beyond our means - individually or collectively - OK.

However, we're also the economic engine of the world, or if you want to quibble about it we are at least a very significant part of that engine, a part it really can't function without. One of the several bad things about us having to scale back on government spending - if not our standard of living, but heck for a lot of people that's the same thing - is that as our consumption declines, which it must, it will harm the entire world.

Welcome to the razor's edge.
ShotmanMaslo
1 / 5 (1) Feb 11, 2012
a zeroing of economic growth


Not necessary, and a very stupid idea. There is a way to achieve sustainable economic growth. If it is based on scientific advancement, which grows sustainably with no limit in sight.
ShotmanMaslo
1 / 5 (1) Feb 11, 2012
Sustainable economic growth by constantly improving the utilisation of resources, instead of increasing the consumption of resources.
cdt
5 / 5 (6) Feb 11, 2012
In the meantime you are enjoying a standard of living probably unequaled anywhere else in the world, as are most of the rest of us here, so those figures don't really mean a whole lot. Get off the topic of sums and look at yourself.


Actually, you're more likely enjoying a standard of living surpassed in many parts of the world -- Japan, Norway and Australia come immediately to mind -- but blinded to the fact by the economic prosperity of the country as a whole. There is a wealthy 1% in the US with a very high standard of living, to be sure, though even they are dependent on the rest of society to service them, and service and quality in general in the US have a lot to be desired. You would notice it immediately if you started living somewhere where things work.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.3 / 5 (38) Feb 11, 2012
"There is a way to achieve sustainable economic growth. If it is based on scientific advancement" - ShotMan

A "natural" 3 percent growth rate has a doubling period of about 21 years. So in 105 years you have 5 doubling periods.

This means that in 105 years you will have to produce 32 times the wealth per person as is produced now.

If your plan is to produce 32 times as many goods then you will have to make them last 1/32 as long in order to prevent them from flooding every household.

You will also require the consumption of 32 times as much energy to build and ship those products. There are limits to the efficiency of production, and production is nearly maximally efficient now.

You could make things simply cost 32 times as much but then inflation would have eaten away all of your "growth".

Perhaps you think you could just use 1/32 of the material that is now used to produce products. Your cups could be 1/32 thinner. Your toaster oven could be made from tinfoil cont.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.2 / 5 (37) Feb 11, 2012
tinfoil rather than steel. Your car will use 1/32 of the gasoline it does now and weigh not 3,200 lbs but only 100 lbs.

Of course, none of these things are realistic and hence an economic growth rate of 3 percent is unsustainable even over the next 100 years.

Educate yourself...

Start here....

http://www.youtub...A2rkpBSY
ShotmanMaslo
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 11, 2012
I have seen the most important video, and it is indeed important.

"A "natural" 3 percent growth rate has a doubling period of about 21 years. So in 105 years you have 5 doubling periods."

Thats a little too high rate to be longterm sustainable.

"If your plan is to produce 32 times as many goods then you will have to make them last 1/32 as long in order to prevent them from flooding every household."

Not if flooding every household is the intent.

"You will also require the consumption of 32 times as much energy to build and ship those products."

Energy (as opposed to material resources) is one of the few resources that are practically unlimited in possible growth (with renewables and breeder reactors, not even fusion is needed. And with fusion, it would be totally unlimited).
ShotmanMaslo
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 11, 2012
There are limits to the efficiency of production, and production is nearly maximally efficient now.


Yeah? I doubt it. Great advances in efficiency and resource extraction are awaiting us in the future.

Educate yourself...


Nothing I already did not knew.
ShotmanMaslo
2.5 / 5 (6) Feb 11, 2012
"Perhaps you think you could just use 1/32 of the material that is now used to produce products. Your cups could be 1/32 thinner. Your toaster oven could be made from tinfoil cont."

We are not really limited by sand availability for glass or other basic materials.

And yes, we can make products orders of magnitude more efficient at their tasks without increasing their material requirements much:
Intel 286 achieved 2,66 MIPS, compared to Intel Core i7 177,730 MIPS - with the same amount of raw silicon needed.
ShotmanMaslo
2 / 5 (5) Feb 11, 2012
You will also require the consumption of 32 times as much energy to build and ship those products.


Advances in effciency will make that much less than 32 times and advances in energy production will make the requirement much easier to fullfill.

Perhaps you think you could just use 1/32 of the material that is now used to produce products.


Advances in efficiency will indeed lower the need for materials needed and advances in resource extraction will make the increased total requirement easier to fullfill.

Your car will use 1/32 of the gasoline it does now and weigh not 3,200 lbs but only 100 lbs.


How about not using gasoline at all, but something more efficient and/or sustainable?

This is like saying in 19th century that we will never give every family dozens of horses or make a horse cost dozens time cheaper. We didnt, but we gave them something that fullfilled the same purpose better and more efficiently - a car.

ShotmanMaslo
1 / 5 (2) Feb 11, 2012
Here is a neat graph of historical real gdp per capita growth:

http://upload.wik...pita.png

Extrapolating, we can say that while 3 % growth over entire 21st century is indeed extremely optimistic, a doubling of 3-4 times is not at all unrealistic if technological progress continues.

Peak oil may complicate things, tough.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.2 / 5 (37) Feb 11, 2012
"Thats a little too high rate to be longterm sustainable." - ShotMan

Then you haven't comprehended what exponential growth means.

ANY growth that is proportional to the current magnitude - ANY GROWTH OF THAT TYPE - has a doubling period. So in 5 doubling periods you will always be hit by the same wall.

Lets assume the growth rate is 1 percent rather than 3. Then the doubling period is 70 years. So your system is going to have to consume 32 times the resources as today not in 105 years, but in 350 years.

Sorry. That still isn't happening. People won't be able to own 32 times as many goods, or have their product lifetime reduced to 1/32 of the current value.

Or do you believe that in 350 years frying pans will last only 2 weeks and refrigerators only 4 months?

Ok, then maybe growth by 0.5 percent. Well that gets you out to 700 years from now. But you have exactly the same problem.

Ok, then maybe growth by 0.25 percent. At what point is there practically no growth?
Vendicar_Decarian
0.2 / 5 (37) Feb 11, 2012
"How about not using gasoline at all, but something more efficient and/or sustainable?" - ShotMan

The amount of energy needed to move a car on a freeway is primarily a function of aerodynamic drag. How do you intend to lower the aerodynamic drag of the air? Magic Pixie Dust?

On the propulsion side we have electric, but overall efficiencies are not even a factor of 2 better than gasoline when the full energy cycle is considered.

How do you intend to solve that problem? More Magic Pixie dust?

kochevnik
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 11, 2012
People won't be able to own 32 times as many goods
People will just PRINT their goods. Templates for roll-your-own goodies from 3D printers are already being shared at the new and improved pirate bay.
With nanotechnology within a millennium you could print yourself a new girlfriend.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.2 / 5 (36) Feb 11, 2012
"Here is a neat graph of historical real gdp per capita growth:" - ShotMan

For what? The globe? The U.S.? Tuvalu?

You do realize that you are now confusing GDP growth with GDP growth per person.

pop = p**a
GDP = m**b = p**c

GDP/pop = p**(a-c)

If a and c are similar in magnitude then you end up creating a straight line. Which is what your plot essentially shows.

But lets presume that the relationship between population size and GDP growth is a fixed fraction. It follows that as population growth goes to zero, then GDP growth must also go to zero.

No matter how you look at it. GDP growth go to zero.

You can argue if it will be 100 years or 300 years, but it is most likely 50 years at best.

Vendicar_Decarian
0 / 5 (35) Feb 11, 2012
"With nanotechnology within a millennium you could print yourself a new girlfriend." - Kochevnik

Why? Flesh will be irrelevant at that time. Only of interest to the machines that keep a few humans around in cages as pets.

Vendicar_Decarian
0 / 5 (35) Feb 11, 2012
"a doubling of 3-4 times is not at all unrealistic if technological progress continues." - ShotMan

I see so the walls of your toaster oven are going to be made from double thickness tinfoil. and your car is going to get 450 mpg rather than 900 mpg.

You have been snorting too much of your Magic Pixie Dust and it has damaged your brain.
kochevnik
1 / 5 (1) Feb 11, 2012
You can argue if it will be 100 years or 300 years, but it is most likely 50 years at best.
Products will be virtualized. The barrier between reality and imagination, fiction and fantasy lifted. Something along the lines of a holodeck featured in the Star Trek series will become commonplace. Only energy<=>matter conversion needs to be worked out, and Einstein cracked the ice.
Flesh will be irrelevant at that time.
Not for long when machines figure out the pleasures of the flesh. They will want more pets.
ShotmanMaslo
1 / 5 (1) Feb 11, 2012
How do you intend to solve that problem? More Magic Pixie dust?


I have already said, more efficient energy use and more energy production capability. whats so hard to understand about it?
ShotmanMaslo
1 / 5 (1) Feb 11, 2012
You do realize that you are now confusing GDP growth with GDP growth per person.


I am not confusing anything, I linked to a graph for per person GDP to get rid of population size effects, obviously.

No matter how you look at it. GDP growth go to zero.


Not as long as science and technology progresses. The you get GDP increase even with flat population. Come on, its not a hard concept to grasp.

You can argue if it will be 100 years or 300 years, but it is most likely 50 years at best.


Most likely hundreds of years.
ShotmanMaslo
1 / 5 (1) Feb 11, 2012
I see so the walls of your toaster oven are going to be made from double thickness tinfoil. and your car is going to get 450 mpg rather than 900 mpg.


No, but your toaster will be printed by a cheap 3d printer for a fraction of what todays toaster costs, and your car will cost a fraction of the cost of todays cars, and a mile will cost a fraction of todays cars dollar per mile.
ShotmanMaslo
1 / 5 (1) Feb 11, 2012
You have been snorting too much of your Magic Pixie Dust and it has damaged your brain.


You have yet to present a credible argument why sustainable economic growth based on technological and scientific progress is an inplausible idea.

Because technological and scientific progress is one thing that continues to grow with no limit in sight. As long as this is true, economic growth will be able to continue, too.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.1 / 5 (36) Feb 11, 2012
"Products will be virtualized. " - Kochevnik

First, if that is the case, they will not part of the GDP. In fact the production of general goods through 3d printing (which is not a practical impossibility) would only reduce the GDP not increase it.

Finally if you think that public ownership of trinkets is going to expand by a factor of 32, you are going to have to find a place the size of 32 garages for the public to hold their junk.

Vendicar_Decarian
0.1 / 5 (36) Feb 11, 2012
"Something along the lines of a holodeck featured in the Star Trek series will become commonplace." - Kochevnik

And again, a virtual environment distinct from the real world will not add to the real world GDP.

In addition the creation of virtual products will not add to the real world GDP since there are no real world goods or services provided.

Finally, Holodecks will never exist. The best you will do is some 3d goggles and a few tactile sensors for he hands.

There is no technological pixie dust that is going to get you to an increase in GDP even of a factor of 3 let alone a factor of 32.

Vendicar_Decarian
0.3 / 5 (38) Feb 11, 2012
"You have yet to present a credible argument why sustainable economic growth based on technological and scientific progress is an inplausible idea." - ShotMan

Already done. It is impossible since GDP is tied to material consumption and the efficiency of material consumption is already close to 100 percent.

Your task is to show how how you can either accelerate material consumption by a factor of 32, or increase consumptive efficiency by the same factor, or some combination.

So far you have only managed to assert that you can, but provided no evidence that it is possible or argument of how it can be done, other than asserting that you have faith that the earth is an infinite cornucopia of resources.

Vendicar_Decarian
0.3 / 5 (38) Feb 11, 2012
"Because technological and scientific progress is one thing that continues to grow with no limit in sight." - ShotMan

Technological progress is increasingly marginal since nothing can be made more than 100 percent efficient.

CF and LED lighting for example are already 80 percent efficient. There is no technological breakthrough that can possibly increase this value more than 20 percent.

High efficiency condensing furnaces are already 95 percent efficient. There is no technological way to increase this value by more than 5 percent.

Microwave ovens are 90 percent efficient. There is no technological way to increase this value by more than 10 percent.

Automotive drag coefficients can not practically be lowered.

Aircraft aluminum and composites can only be made so thin and the thinner it becomes the less strength it has.

The viscosity of potable water can not be altered and hence the
cost of pumping water can not be significantly reduced.

cont
Vendicar_Decarian
0.1 / 5 (36) Feb 11, 2012
In almost every way, material consumptive efficiency is near it's maximum. The exceptions are those areas where materials are wasted out of pure ignorance, and even here, inefficiencies may be in the 80 to 90 percent rage, but resolving those inefficiencies will only get you to 3 doubling periods, not the infinite number that you childishly believe in.

You clearly have a juvenile comprehension of how he world works.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.1 / 5 (35) Feb 11, 2012
"No, but your toaster will be printed by a cheap 3d printer for a fraction of what todays toaster costs." - ShotMan

How do you intend to print the nichrome wire for the element? Are you going to have a reservoir of nichrome metal and a specific print head for that material?

How about printing the copper for the wire that runs to the wall. A copper reservoir and another print head?

How about the rubber coating for the cord? A Rubber reservoir and another print head?

How about the mica sheets around which the heating element is wound? Another reservoir and print head for mica?

How about the bi-metal contacts needed to turn off the element to prevent fire? More materials and more print heads?

Suppose I want wooden handles? You gonna 3d print wood with your 3d printer?

And how do you intend to print a heat resistant plastic housing? Using a heat extruding print head?

If not then what kind of plastic and print head will you use?

CONT...
Vendicar_Decarian
0.3 / 5 (37) Feb 11, 2012
And of course if you print your own toaster you will be depriving the economic system of a taster sale, and hence reduce GDP, not increase it.

So rather than write childish ignorance, why don't you actually think about the problem rather than ignorantly dismissing it?

It is quite clear to anyone who does think of the problem, that there isn't a first world nation on earth that will see a doubling of it's real GDP.

Material progress will continue, but at ever decreasing rates.

Vendicar_Decarian
0.2 / 5 (36) Feb 11, 2012
"On the propulsion side we have electric, but overall efficiencies are not even a factor of 2 better than gasoline when the full energy cycle is considered.

How do you intend to solve that problem? More Magic Pixie dust?" - Vendicar

"I have already said, more efficient energy use and more energy production capability." - ShotMan

Oil production has peaked. So you aren't going to see any more energy from there. Nuclear is largely unworkable, and renewables are of course limited by the rate at which nature renews them.

How do you intend to increase the efficiency of an electric motor by a factor of 32 when it is already 80 percent efficient?

Are you completely innumerate?
jsdarkdestruction
1 / 5 (1) Feb 12, 2012
yeah, the $20 million we pay every hour for the iraq and afghanistan obligations is a much better use of the money.
ShotmanMaslo
1 / 5 (1) Feb 12, 2012
First, if that is the case, they will not part of the GDP. In fact the production of general goods through 3d printing (which is not a practical impossibility) would only reduce the GDP not increase it.


False, you dont know what GDP means.

Gross domestic product (GDP) refers to the market value of all final goods and services produced within a country in a given period.


I dont see anything about an exception for 3d printing.
ShotmanMaslo
1 / 5 (1) Feb 12, 2012
Finally, Holodecks will never exist. The best you will do is some 3d goggles and a few tactile sensors for he hands.


Never heard about phased array optics?

http://www.phased-array.com/
ShotmanMaslo
1 / 5 (1) Feb 12, 2012
Technological progress is increasingly marginal since nothing can be made more than 100 percent efficient.


Technological progress does not equal increased efficiency. More production capacity is another, and much more important aspect you ignore.
ShotmanMaslo
1 / 5 (1) Feb 12, 2012

8 hours ago

Rank: not rated yet
And of course if you print your own toaster you will be depriving the economic system of a taster sale, and hence reduce GDP, not increase it.


False. GDP refers to market value of produced good and services. If your toaster magically appeared from thin air, it would still increase the GDP. Also, note that my graph was of real GDP, to filter out inflation/deflation effects.
ShotmanMaslo
1 / 5 (1) Feb 12, 2012
Oil production has peaked. So you aren't going to see any more energy from there. Nuclear is largely unworkable, and renewables are of course limited by the rate at which nature renews them.


Oil is a problem, I can admit that.

But nuclear and renewables are both promising alternatives (not at all unworkable), and their energy capacity is enough for a lot of doublings. We are not even approaching any limits there for a long time to come, assuming technological and scientific progress continues.
ShotmanMaslo
1 / 5 (1) Feb 12, 2012
How do you intend to increase the efficiency of an electric motor by a factor of 32 when it is already 80 percent efficient?

Are you completely innumerate?


I have repeatedly said that increase in efficiency AND more effective generating capacity are both needed to achieve that goal. Stop with the 100 % efficient strawman already, it is not that hard to understand.
ShotmanMaslo
1 / 5 (1) Feb 12, 2012
You should also stop with the 32x strawman, as I have already stated that I consider 3-4 doublings to be a realistic good-case scenario (the same as in 20th century). So 8-16x at best, and probably less. Of course, nobody can say for sure what the future holds..
Lurker2358
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 12, 2012
There are limits to the efficiency of production, and production is nearly maximally efficient now.


Yeah? I doubt it. Great advances in efficiency and resource extraction are awaiting us in the future.


Actually, he's right.

Power plants are working at the double carnot limit already, and some are already exceeding it. The carnot limit is the theoretical limit of heat engines, which is 66%. Your automobile engine is about 30% under optimal conditions, and 0% when stopped at a traffic light. Even if you got to the carnot limit, so what? You'd only half consumption, and the world would still run out of oil within the next several decades.

Electric motors are 80 to 85% efficient. Making marginal improvements will hardly even be noticed.

Grid inverters? A guy just made an improvement on those which made them almost ideal. Virtually no room for improvement remaining.

Unless practical FUSION is real, you can't keep doubling energy consumption every few years.
Lurker2358
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 12, 2012
You should also stop with the 32x strawman, as I have already stated that I consider 3-4 doublings to be a realistic good-case scenario (the same as in 20th century). So 8-16x at best, and probably less. Of course, nobody can say for sure what the future holds..


energy limits are pretty high theoretically, but you must realize as population and standards of living increase, more and more energy must be used for no purpose other than recycling resources and pollutants. In the past up to present day, almost no energy is used in recycling, because we just throw stuff away and forget about it.

If world population is going to be 9 billion, that attitutde will be IMPOSSIBLE to maintain, and literally every scrap of metal, plastic, and organic material must be recycled and reused to maximum.

This business of buying a plastic water bottle or soda bottle or coffee can and throwing it away, or replacing furniture every year or two, etc, must stop.
Thrasymachus
not rated yet Feb 12, 2012
You're just wrong on this one Shotman. I suggest you Do The Math
http://physics.uc...he-math/

Our only out is if something like zero-point energy or something that essentially gives us unlimited amounts of free energy were to be realized, and since those have about as much chance of happening as a hamburger-pooping flying unicorn showing up in Congress, we would do better off planning using what we know and can usefully predict right now. Prediction of technological advance isn't useful, even if true, because you can't tell us when it will occur or how much it'll help, so we can't plan for it.
baudrunner
1 / 5 (1) Feb 12, 2012
Shelgeyr

How sad for you. You have a truly distorted perspective of your place in the world. There's a HUGE world out there which really doesn't need America as much as you think it does. Wow.
ShotmanMaslo
1 / 5 (1) Feb 13, 2012
You're just wrong on this one Shotman. I suggest you Do The Math


Wrong with what? I dont see anything in your link that would be in conflict with my opinion.
Shelgeyr
1 / 5 (2) Feb 13, 2012
@vd said:
...Oil production has peaked. So you aren't going to see any more energy from there.


Nonsense.

@baudrunner said:
How sad for you. You have a truly distorted perspective of your place in the world. There's a HUGE world out there which really doesn't need America as much as you think it does.


What is sad is that you're phenomenally, astoundingly incorrect. It would be better for all involved if you WERE right and I was wrong, but that's simply not the case.