U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Jena Griswold
60%
60%
40%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Alexis King
(D) Brian Mason
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez
(D) George Stern
(R) Sheri Davis
50%↑
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%
30%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Joe Salazar
50%
40%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
October 03, 2008 11:47 PM UTC
20 Comments
…Dick Cheney. I’m open to suggestions that he be allowed a spacesuit.
This is exciting.
One other challenge that wasn’t mentioned in the article was the ever increasing amount of space junk that could jeopardize a cable/elevator.
Yes, I know, I’m a geek.
It was always here.
There is no “there” in space. Space industry and space habitation are less attractive than colonization of Antarctica. Building a space elevator would be like constructing an undersea tunnel to that barren continent from South America with the expectation that coal shipments or some equally low value material will pay for the venture.
I rank confident prediction of space elevators being possible by 2030 with predictions of fusion power too inexpensive to be metered made in the 1950s. It has been 15 to 30 years away for the last 50 years.
…back in 1492
NASA would have larger budget than it does now, but not one penny for men in a can. Space exploration and research are important goals. Men in space are a stunt only useful for increasing national pride.
And don’t go saying, “Oh but what about velcro and microchips?” The microchip did not come about because of a few orders for a new product from NASA. The integrated circut was first demonstrated in 1956 and was well on its way to being a comercial product before the Apollo orders came in. And the thing that really spured it on was not man in space, but missiles in silos. The direction of causality runs the other way for nearly everything claimed as a spinoff, the technology made the space race possible, not the other way around.
Manned space exploration as producer of great science is a myth just as it was a load of bull when NASA sold the International Space Station as a place to do biochemical research. You know how much real science has been done in that hundred billion dollar boondoggle? Bupkis.
But once again I’ll repeat my assertion. NASA does good science and is a valuable agency. Their work on everything from flight physics to the rovers on Mars is first rate. But men in space? As useful as building an undersea city.
But long term, there is incredible value in sending men up, first to other planets, and then to other solar systems. And just like the first 100 years or so of exploring the new world, there’s no profit in the initial efforts.
By 1592 Spain was the richest and most powerful nation in Europe. Tenochtitlan had been looted by 1519, not to mention all the other modestly successful conquests and settlements before then. By 1546 the shipments of silver were becoming so large that inflation was becoming a problem. No profit for the first 100 years? Nonsense. Not profitable in the first 20 years you might have something, but not 100.
I’m not only right about the short term, but I very much doubt maned exploration and settlement of space will ever be as useful as using the equivalent amount of money for robotic exploration and development of space. If at some point humans become cybernetic hybrids… well then I might be wrong. But as long as we’re dependent on biology there isn’t a spot on earth that wouldn’t be far more friendly and profitable to colonize than space.
Doing profitable joy rides like the tourist trade in Antarctica? Maybe. And maybe even soon, but just as with the far south it isn’t going to lead to economic activity even without a treaty in the way.
You’re right about the resource extraction paying off quickly.
But long term, the big advantage is placing colonies elsewhere that then become productive economies that contribute back to the total.
Maybe putting my money into an all-electric home instead of insulation and storm windows wasn’t such a good idea after all. But it did get me elected to Congress;-)
…personal jet packs and flying cars? I seem to recall Popular Mechanics telling me that we’d have them by now. I’d rather have those than a space elevator.
/not a big fan of elevators
For nuclear waste.
nothing could be safer than a gigantic garbage chute full of radiated material careening through our atmosphere.
…Helen Thomas using her frequent flyer miles!
Heyyyyyooooooooooooo!
It tickles me. Sometimes more than the joke.
Thanks, though.
There probably won’t be a 13th floor on the proposed Space Elevator.
Denver neighborhoods don’t appreciate keeping one in the yard. How about Florida?