Well, you do not provide any details on what you mean by "newer, more sustainable technological advances", other than to imply that apparently it does not involve extracting any economically "new" inputs. So based on this non-evidence so far, what you describe is an attempted redefinition of the word "Luddism" into…

With all due respect (I appreciate your pro-sustainability sentiment), this is Luddism. All creation implies the destruction of something else, and before you start complaining that this reflects a Western mindset, recall that this is a tenet of Hinduism. It's just a fact.

Hmmm. Would be great if true, but I'm suspicious of the April Fools thing.

The ISS orbits at 344 to 359 km, so the LRS rockets, while impressive for an amateur group, were nowhere near "as far up as the International Space Station is today". In fact, it's not even halfway as high.

No brainer:

Hmmm. Where do you get that 70% number?

Beautifully put.

Wow, you're so cool.

Not sure how this would work given the extremely complicated orbital mechanics, but the enthusiasm and intelligence of the design (especially for an "unsexy" subject) makes me think that NASA should hire this guy immediately.

Actually, aren't there three (not two as stated in the article) possible Lagrange points in any shared orbit? L4 is 60 deg. ahead, L5 is 60 deg. behind, and L3 is 180 deg.

Helium-3 mining for clean fusion may or may not be feasible (we just don't know yet until the fusion technology can be demonstrated). But reading some of the facile negative reactions seem based on pretty flimsy evidence. It all reminds me of Arthur C. Clarke's dictum:

With due respect to Mr. Stross, he's not an expert in physics or chemistry (neither am I).

I'm no expert in chemistry or physics, but my understanding is that the moon is indeed rich in Helium-3, but that is an isotope of the regular helium we use here on Earth (which is Helium-2). I could be wrong, but Helium-3 is not useful for the applications we currently use "normal" helium for, however - and this is a…

Yes. Gore reportedly said "I took the initiative that created the internet", which was an obvious (minor) slip of the tongue when he likely meant to say "I supported the initiative that...". The latter would have been a true statement: he supported funding for NSFNet through the High Performance Computing Act that…

A. I'm being deliberately provocative in response to some other posters hating on Carter. Reagan was not all bad. I stand by my comments though - he instigated many divisive and unhealthy trends in our political/economic system that I point out. (I neglected to add that he killed research into new energy…

Ronald Reagan? Are you freaking serious?

My first reaction was: "great, we need new innovative designs in aerospace transportation."

This guy is also head of the International Committee Against Mars Sample Return. That seems like an unwarranted ideological position that makes his other arguments highly suspect.

Obviously someone was headed to a Tea Party rally and got lost in the woods.

@92BuickLeSabre: You have correctly identified a legitimate problem.