There's absolutely no way a space hotel will be operational in 2027.
But it's more likely than public healthcare in the USA in 2027.
I mean maybe some billionaire will convince (pay) NASA to dock some capsule with a sleeping bag to the ISS and other billionaires can go sleep in that sleeping bag. It is technically a hotel, but it will definitively not be like in the picture...
you can already make the argument that both things could be cool and good
charge 1 billion and put it into healthcare
but that aint going happen everyone in America knows that
If some idiot breaks every rule like with the submarine, maybe they'll get one up there. And then kill everyone in it.
They can get their nephew who's good at the "space games" to pilot the ship too!
Cheap bastards won't even chip in for a decent HOTAS or a hall effect modded elite controller I bet.
I would not trust a vanilla ksp player to pilot a rocket, an RSS/RO/Principia player on the other hand
Since it’s going to be rich clowns that make the trip up there, I’m fine with both happening.
We could get one of those big wine presses, dress it up like a rocket and put the ultra rich on there 'ok everyone hold on tight, you'll be blasting off to that super exclusive space hotel as soon as soon as you press that big red button...'
We can spend the remaining money on public services and social infrastructure.
I think he just wants to send other people to Mars.
And it's possible that he really just wants to send military and commercial satellites into orbit but to dangle the promise of Mars as marketing.
How many seats do democrats need to make a singlepayer option without Republican help?
Supermajority in both Senate and House?
Genuine question, I'm not overly familiar with the nitpicks.
Majority in House, supermajority of 60 in the Senate, practically speaking.
PROBLEM:
Not all Democrats are onboard with universal healthcare. Hence the fiasco in 2009.
It takes a lot of effort and nuance to pass a good idea. It only takes one shithead (republican) flinging poop to muddy the waters, so it's incredibly hard to pass good legislation.
You need like 65 Democrats to even have a chance, but that will be very hard since R voters are dumb as bricks and if Trump didn't wake them up to their stupidity, nothing will.
Personally I disagree, I think the Liebercrats have mostly died off, the tenor of the debate within the modern democratic party has almost completely become "just a public option or complete wipeout of private medicine?"
Personally I think the best first step is just removing the age floor on Medicare. You're eligible soon as ya come out the womb. The only other change you'd need to make immediately is mandating that doctors accept it if they want to remain licensed to practice.
Yes it only takes one, thing is though, it's only a couple now, and the taboo against even questioning the filibuster has been broken by enough senators that a solid enough majority with a big enough agenda could be pressured into breaking the seal and launching a policy blitz.
Which is Romneycare.
They had a supermajority and they still wouldn't do anything but pass a Republican bill.
I don't think the Democratic party actually had a supermajority. January of 2009 there were 57 dem senators plus Bernie and Lieberman (who refused to vote for single payer); however, Al Franken wasn't sworn in until July because he barely won the election and Republicans forced a recount, leaving that Senate seat empty. Ted Kennedy was dying and stopped showing up in March and later died, Scott Brown (a Republican) won that seat in a special election. Kennedy did have a replacement who voted in favor of ACA right before Brown won his election.
I don't believe there was ever a time where dems actually had 60 votes in the Senate during 2009 except the pretty short period where they did manage to pass the ACA with exactly 60 votes that included Bernie, Lieberman, Franken, and Kennedy's temporary replacement. But remember that Franken wasn't there until July and Scott Brown got elected right after ACA passed the Senate in December 2009. So by the time the ACA made it to the House vote it was March 2010 and if the House Dems didn't pass it as it was, the Republicans would be able to block it in the Senate.
I'm not so sure that Dems would have done more if they had a proper supermajority, probably not
Kennedy's temp replacement was installed in November 2009, so between then and January (when Brown took office) they had the supermajority and the Senate passed the ACA.
It was a broken bill that was going to be cleaned up in reconciliation with a different House bill. But when Brown took office the House was forced to pass the Senate version verbatim so the final bill wouldn't have to go back to the Senate prior to the President's signature.
I don't know, but first they need a leader who's actually interested in singlepayer in the first place.
Biden has consistently shown himself willing to change his position on almost any matter as long as his colleagues and constituents show it too.
2008 had a lot regular Democrats spooked about big bad single payer. With younger representatives he'd definitely be on board when the will starts showing.
Bare minimum 60 in the Senate and 218 in the house, a long with a president that supports it. But given that many Democrats take money from health insurance companies and have a vested interest in stopping universal healthcare, you'd probably need a supermajority (2/3) in both houses to pass it, as some Dems will inevitably vote against it.
Obama could have gotten it done if Dems had the willpower in that short window. They'll get another chance at some point. Will they jump on it next time? I'm not sure. Some of them are taking that same billionaire money.
Nope, even conservativer Dems than the one we wrangle over today refused to get on board with the filibuster proof majority so long as the public option was still included
USA healthcare is dying at your machine right after telling a co-worker you're "gonna give it another day or two."
It's pretty much impossible for something to implode in space. You're already in a vacuum so there is no ambient pressure to press on an object.
It's pretty disgusting to hope that people die just because they are rich. In the real world, that makes you just a trashy edgelord. On Lemmy or Reddit I'm sure you'll have a positive balance of updoots though.
You could for example, wish the rich people would donate large sums of their fortune to help the needy, instead of wishing that they die.
Not because they're rich, because they waste their money on this sort of thing rather than using it to do anything helpful.
It's hardwired in humans or even just all primates. We're sensitive for relative differences in earnings and wealth and will react rather violently when certain limits are exceeded.
It's why there were debt jubilees, noblesse oblige or even just high taxes on big income, but modern rich feel this does not apply to them anymore.
They used that one already, all promising to give away most their fortune but mysteriously are all richer than they ever have been...
I don't really wish them death though, there was a chap with a much better idea actually - he helped the former emperor of his country to learn the importance of hard work and community spirit which allowed him to live happily as a garder.
The solution is so simple. Vote overwhelming for progressive, and get rid of the centrists and Republicans.
We'd have free, universal healthcare within a couple of years.
First you need overwhelming numbers to join the Democrat party to make sure a progressive candidate gets leadership of the party. Otherwise it will just be Hillary Clintons beating out Bernie Sanders every time.
For real for real, the sheer level of conspiracism and explaining away the fact that Boomers will actually go out and fucking vote.
It can't be that the people who disagree with them go out and do the one "praxis" they have to be dragged out kicking and screaming to do even for the guy they claim to support, no, clearly the DNC is responsible for Bernie losing a race he got less votes in!
Well, the DNC absolutely kneecapped Bernie when he was running against Hillary. I mean, we literally have the emails to prove it.
Against Biden, the issue wasn't the DNC as much as it was Elizabeth Warren refusing to consolidate the liberals behind Bernie as the moderates consolidated behind Biden. The final nail in the coffin was the prominent black leader who thew his support to Biden and handed him a critical victory in one of the southern states. This always annoyed me deeply, because Bernie was literally out there getting arrested to fight for their civil rights while Biden was on the wrong side of the busing civil rights issue.
Oh well. At least Bernie dragged Biden much farther left than he would have been.
Well... At this point boomers will soon be losing their death grip in the party because of attrition. They're getting old. Millennials will soon outnumber them in terms of likely voters.
I don't think it's a generational thing. Whatever corruption kept Biden from doing single payer healthcare will also stop younger presidents from doing it.
Assuming USA, it unfortunately means doing this in the primaries. Good luck getting people to show up to those and vote progressive.
Bernie was a beneficiary of the DNC fuckery. They wanted an "unhinged commie" to scare the base into line behind Hillary.
The reality is America won't go actually progressive until the world is dead.
The country founded on genocide because the UK didn't want them doing slavery is never going to allow that to happen.
No it won't.
Not in 2027
Not in 2037
These projects are little more than scams, just like Mars 1; pure nonsense
This sounds like a line from The Simpson’s.
I can see Gil saying this at the used space hotel dealership.
The only consolation is that a billionaire that stays up there has a high probability of exploding in a fiery death. It helps me sleep at night knowing that.
Like that duche that imploded in the sea. News was freaking out, meanwhile I was like "nothing of value was lost"
I think it's wrong to want a fiery death, even for a billionaire. It'd be a tragedy no matter how you spin it. A completely boring unworthy death though? Even on a space hotel, is much more fitting.
If there's a point where apathy is worthy of death, is there a point where extreme apathy is worthy of an extreme death?
Our opinions differ and that is ok. You may shed a tear when Elon dies in his own man made space coffin. I won't even lift a finger to say goodbye.
Quite frankly, I don't get wishing death on billionaires. Most people I see saying this are against the death penalty. So why are they seemingly for it when it's billionaires? I want billionaires to not exist anymore, but the medium through which I want that to be achieved is by taking the vast, vast majority of their money and throwing them in jail for any wrongdoing they did to gain said money.
yeah and scientists have been "just a few years away" from preventing the aging process for about 25 years now. I have a feeling it's not going to happen in 2027
It could, but it wont look like that. It will be a single room capsule with lunchables and adult diapers.
Not in 2037 either. Setting up the ISS took well over a decade to build, a station like that will cost billions, if not trillions and will require decades of cooperated work.
Ain't gonna happen in 2047 either. Try STARTING this around 2057, perhaps.
There's no technological barrier to starting it now we have all the capabilities, there's only a financial constraint.
SpaceX has significantly reduced lift cost into space but it would indeed cost trillions. Current lift capacity isn't saturated but they would definitely need the additional capacity of their next gen rocket to service it and then multiples of those. Unless Boeing and Blue Origin get their shit together.
Lift capacity becomes less critical if metals mining and refining in the asteroids gets up and running, then you can much less expensively move material from asteroids to the space hotel. That's def decades away though, there's tech issues with that still unresolved
TL;DR start project in 2027 ? Sure if they can find the money, definitely take decades to finish with currently planned lift capacity though. Needs asteroid mining to be viable
SpaceX has significantly reduced lift cost
No they haven't. Musk keeps lying about that as he lies literally about everything else, but they haven't reduced cost as they change pretty much the same as others.
There are also still MANY tech hurdles to overcome as well.
Yea I don't know who the fuck wrote this article or who told them anything about space travel but there is no damn way this is operating in 3 Years time lol. It takes months to plan launches. On top of that, you don't just hire a bunch of construction workers to put it together.
It takes years. And I'm fairly sure this is in reference to what Axiom Space is undertaking (https://www.axiomspace.com/). This project is past critical design review. Taking from NASA's industry standard project scheduling perspective, that places it about halfway to completion, project wise.
https://blogs.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/212/2013/06/1018616main_Image1.jpg
Edit: For the record, I have no clue if that puts it on target for 2027, just adding some context.
Nothing like having everyone depend completely on you just to stay alive. Y'know. Because of the implication.
That happened a while ago, we just have inferior VR to most Cyberpunk fiction and the fashion was 40 years ahead of the tech in the 80s/90s.
•
It's the dystopia I've been waiting for since age 15 but now that it approaches and I'm a grown up, I'm starting to get cold feet.
- Movie makes a billion dollars: Wow, I guess I should see that movie.
- Something gets done in space: What about my needs?
Space tourism is very very bad for the environment. Let's work on the space elevator first.
I mean, I think it could actually be a good thing to drive innovation in space travel.
Sure, we'll need to escape earth eventually anyway to avoid the looming extinction event.
Even given all likely extinction events, earth is still less hostile to human life than anywhere else we know of.
Even after some full scale nuclear war, I think you’re still better off here.
Has someone been watching SFIA?
Yeah, in most situations you'd be correct. Short of the entire biosphere getting vaporized(basically only possible from a rouge asteroid or from a superweapon like a nichro-dyson beam), Earth will always be more hospitable than almost any other body in space.
The exception to that is that you can make habitats that are custom-tailored for life. If defense is your goal, in theory you can shield an o-neill cylinder from anything except black holes and neutrino beams(possibly dark energy beams as well, I don't know). Unlike Earth, which would be very difficult to shield from a relativistic kill missile, unless they are less than a couple light-hours away, you can simply slightly alter your course randomly and that will prevent any targeted weapon from being able to hit you.
Guided weapons can be taken out by the fact that they have to be slower and have much more complex machinery. A simple perimeter defense machine gun(which you will have anyways for macro-meteorite removal) should be enough to take out the guidance systems.
That pretty much only leaves area attack weapons. You'd have to custom tailor your defense to each type of weapon, but I can't think of any you couldn't defend against. For example:
Biological weapons are no threat, your atmosphere and water systems are scrubbed anyways.
Massive nuclear bombs are most harmful due to their radiation and magnetic fields in space. But you're likely to have your habitat surrounded by your water supply to shield from cosmic rays. The magnetic field can be removed as an issue by having the hull made of superconducting material, as space is cold enough to keep several current superconductors operational.
Psychological weapons can be avoided because your entire station is a faraday cage, your enemy has no way to propagate information you don't want inside it.
But if we wrecked Earths environment, doesn't that mean we'd have the same issues there? No, not really. Your station can much more easily be climate controlled. Excess CO2 can be scrubbed for fertilizer and air, or just jettisoned from the station. Heat management is as simple as controlling the stations albedo and available surface area for radiation.
Keeping a space station running is way easier than keeping all of earth running. Even when scaled up to the size of Earth, it's wildly unlikely you will be dealing with fossil fuels on the scale Earth is. The biggest issue on the station will be biodiversity and food chain mangement. We don't know how a ton of vital critters react to space or differential gravity, so it's pretty likely we will have to alter species to adapt them to the station. My personal favorite examples are spidercrabs that magnetically walk around the outside hull in the vacuum of space in order to repair the hull. My second favorite is wifi-bees that use the same algorithm as your Roomba to methodically pollinate all the flowers. My least favorite is the flesh eating bacteria that we will have to make to deal with all the dead biomass.
Edit:also you can't defend against vacuum decay unless you are willing/able to wrap your station in dark energy. But if you can do that, you can protect against any weapon, flat out. Because that allows you to causally disconnect yourself from the rest of the universe, basically like a pocket dimension.
Exactly. The better we get at launching into space and making habitats, the sooner we can escape.
If we were any good at making habitats we wouldn't have these problems in the first place.