You may have heard recently that SpaceX has unveiled their latest rocket, the Falcon Heavy, to much praise by the press. It's brand-spanking-new thruster technology and payload ability makes it by far the cheapest orbital transport craft yet to be made. At a staggering $1,000 per pound to lift into orbit, it is changing the young game of commercialized space exploration. If the average human weighs 150 pounds, then it would only cost $150,000 to send a man to space, compared to the millions for NASA and other space missions. This may seem like a lot of money to the layman, but in space terms, its dirt cheap. This means that the new Falcon Heavy rocket can carry huge payloads; twice as much as the closest competitor the Delta IV heavy, for a third of its price. Good news for the mega-rich who hope to one day sail to the International Space Station for the price of a well-optioned Porsche 911. Heres the rocket up close:
All this excitement brings me to some good news: Companies like SpaceX and Virgin galactic represent the first examples of sustainable business dealing with space travel, and now that such corporations are taking it upon themselves to push the limits of space travel, this has changed the economy of space. Along with Obama's plan to take money away from traveling to the moon, and allowing private business to develop orbital space stations and transport vehicles, NASA now has more room in their budget to refresh aging technology, improve the space infrastructure, develop new technologies for Solar Power to provide energy to space stations, and invent newer, more efficient means of moving our society into space and opening up a new frontier. When the news came down that we weren't going back to the moon, it was taken as a bad omen, but more and more we are realizing that it is not just closing a door to the moon, but opening another door to the rest of the Universe.
Source
Showing posts with label wealth. Show all posts
Showing posts with label wealth. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
The New Generation of Space Exploration
Labels:
corporations,
inventions,
moon,
NASA,
news,
politics,
space,
wealth
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Landslides in California Should Serve as a Warning
We may be pushing the limits of how we develop the land. It seems to be that land developers may be getting too greedy and neglecting the dangers of shaping the land to meet their desires for building houses and collecting money from homeowners. Recently in Hercules, CA on the east side of the SF Bay, 8 homes have been condemned due to a waterlogged hill sliding down and destroying retaining walls abutting the properties. We see this all too often: Homes in California, built against steep hillsides, taken down and demolished after the rainy season slickens the soil and causes land and mudslides. Who can't recall seeing pictures on the news of multi-million dollar hoems in Malibu falling into the sea, and landslides covering hillside developments?
I think its time we take a look at how little we care about the land we are building on and using, and be mindful of where we develop. Building homes should be about the environment you are entering, not how much money a young professional couple is willing to plunk down in turn for a cookie cutter box on a steep hillside. Maybe we should look at more responsible, denser development. Clean, green apartment buildings that use less energy per square foot than massive homes that suck up Air Conditioning expenses every single day. Look at the city of Vancouver: often ranked in the top 5 best cities to live in, most of its residents live in high-rise apartment buildings with gleaming blue reflective glass, passive heating systems, and short, simple commutes.
Where would you rather live?
It's become so bad in the states that now China, who is fast on track to overtake the US in economic development, is building massive American-style subdevelopments made of multi-thousand square foot homes that suck up almost as much energy as American homes. We shouldnt be leading by this example. I say we should make an effort to ditch the suburban sprawl and create a more energy-efficient city-based society. That way, we can return the once sprawling farmland back to its original status, and bring people closer together, cut down on driving, increase productivity, and create a better energy society. Thats what i want.
I think its time we take a look at how little we care about the land we are building on and using, and be mindful of where we develop. Building homes should be about the environment you are entering, not how much money a young professional couple is willing to plunk down in turn for a cookie cutter box on a steep hillside. Maybe we should look at more responsible, denser development. Clean, green apartment buildings that use less energy per square foot than massive homes that suck up Air Conditioning expenses every single day. Look at the city of Vancouver: often ranked in the top 5 best cities to live in, most of its residents live in high-rise apartment buildings with gleaming blue reflective glass, passive heating systems, and short, simple commutes.
Where would you rather live?
It's become so bad in the states that now China, who is fast on track to overtake the US in economic development, is building massive American-style subdevelopments made of multi-thousand square foot homes that suck up almost as much energy as American homes. We shouldnt be leading by this example. I say we should make an effort to ditch the suburban sprawl and create a more energy-efficient city-based society. That way, we can return the once sprawling farmland back to its original status, and bring people closer together, cut down on driving, increase productivity, and create a better energy society. Thats what i want.
Labels:
consumers,
development,
ecology,
energy efficiency,
green,
news,
wealth