Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
T___A

Post Election Thread: Democracy Dies In Darkness And You Can Help

Recommended Posts

Yup. 

 

There was a great ROI study done in various degree programs, gathering information from state and private academic institutions. 

 

On average, the only fields that had a positive ROI were in STEM fields. And my first degree (Biology) was actually just below the neutral ROI. Chemistry was the first on the list to have a positive ROI. The list was dominated with engineering and programming fields. 

 

Also, PhD programs were woooorthlessssss. But you shouldn't get into a PhD for money. That's a fool's errand. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So since we are on the subject of education, how does education work in the US, and any other country for that matter?

 

 

Here in Norway we first have primary school, from age 6-13,  but you can begin at age 5 if you request it.
Then middle school, from age 13-16. Here you begin getting grades, these are needed to get the school or line you want.
From here on out, you have several options:

First, you could join the army, but you need to apply and get approved for that.
Second, you can go straight to becoming a apprentice if you want get a contract with a company.
Third, in a extreme case, you can take all your subjects as a external candidate during middle school and go straight to University or college.
Fourth, you can go to high school and do general studies, these come in a million variants. With this you can go to university or college, if you have good enough grades that is.
And fifth and lastly, you can go to trade school, where you will spend on average 5 years learning a trade and getting a certificate, and in theory a job. Usually it is 2 years of school, and 2,5 years as a aprentice. Though some fields are exceptions, but the overall time is still 5 years.  When entering trade school, you can chose between about 8 lines for the first year. These are electricity and electronics, Technic and industrial production, Construction, Restaurant and service, design and health. In the second year you specialize into a specific trade, like plumber, healthcare worker or electrician. Since you have 5 years of potential free high school, you can also in the fourth year do add-on, which gives you general studies and allows you to go to university or college. If you want to be a engineer we got the Y-course, which allows people that got a trade certificate to take a pre-course over the summer, instead of add-on, to become a engineer or civil engineer. 

If you have no idea what you want to be, you can go to a people's college for 1-2 years, which is basically just paying to have fun and get a few points. Or you can apply for a free year were you can work. Alternatively, you will be called in for military service as a conscript for 18 months. Here you technically got no choice, but since we got way to many applicants, the army simple can't pay for them all, and has to be very picky, and will rule out uninterested people.

 

If you do decide to do higher education, you have 3 choices. You can go to a trade college, and become a trade worker or whatever it is called, basically a more educated tradesman.   This requires you do have 5 years in the field or a trade certificate of the same trade.
Alternatively, you can get another trade certificate, and as long as it is inside you area of work, you only need about 2,5 years as a apprentice and to pass 2 exams. 
Or, you can go to university and take a bachelor degree, which is 3 years, or a master degree which is 5.  To give a example: engineers take bachelor, civil engineers take master. Even longer educations can happen as you build on your trade, like a surgeon.  Or become a scientist. 

 

All of this is free, except around 300 USD a year for campus fee, and living costs. And books, the books can easily cost 2000 USD. 

 

This education system has worked out well for Norway, considering we rank at the 11. highest amount of billionaires per capita in the world. For comparison, the US is the 10.  And this is a pretty good feat considering the extremely high labor costs and the very poor environment for companies here in Norway. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Xoon said:

So since we are on the subject of education, how does education work in the US, and any other country for that matter?

 

Well, in the US, our educational institutions center around fleecing the next generation for all they're worth, while keeping them largely copacetic by turning campus life into a sort of 4-to-10-year debt-funded vacation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

Well, in the US, our educational institutions center around fleecing the next generation for all they're worth, while keeping them largely copacetic by turning campus life into a sort of 4-to-10-year debt-funded vacation.

Sounds like a huge waste of money. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Xoon said:

 

I'm in the circuit for another month, so I guess I'm pretty qualified to answer this one.

 

The Typical American Education Track 

Preschool: Up to Age 4-5
Kindergarten: Age 5-6
Elementary School(Grades 1-5): Age 6-12(Roughly)
Middle School(Grades 6-8): 12-14
High School(Grades 9-12): At least until 16 or 17, then dropping out is permitted though looked down upon. Typically graduates are 17-18

 

High School Content

High School content is generalized largely. Students that graduate are expected to take away at least basic knowledge about

  • Sciences: Earth Science, Basic Biology, Organic Chemistry, Mechanical Physics
  • Mathematics: Algebra(2 years) & Geometry(1 year), Pre-Calculus if they’re sharp, Algebra III if they’re not(or lazy)
  • English: Four years of English, most of it spent on mechanics such as grammar and syntax, with the last year spent on synthesizing thoughts in Essays and reading some older books each year
  • Foreign Language: At least a year of experience. In America this typically means taking Spanish, either by cliché or because it’s the only option. I decided to be different and speak the language of Krauts instead.
  • Some elective experiences in the arts or computer fields is also required.


Students are expected to search for future education options and financial assistance under their own prerogative, though some schools may offer some guidance and minor assistance. For example, my high school budgeted three days to each student per school year for visits to college.

 

Your Future After Highschool

Where I live, typically if you drop out or are “low GPA” or "Low ACT/SAT" then you hop onto the military track(National Guard or Federal Military branches), and after a time in service the GI Bill can cover your college costs when you complete your service contract.

If you’re sharp enough to graduate with decent grades, the general sense is that you go ahead to community college and get a 2 year Associates Degree, though many kids don’t have the direction to pick something they can really build on and many of the 4-year colleges look down on the community college’s degrees due to their teaching discipline(In a sense, several of the classes are basically just High School Plus, a rubber stamp factory so to speak)

If you’re really on top of things, you’ve either been scouted and invited to a 4 year college based on your SAT/ACT scores, or you’ve applied to one and been accepted. Tuition costs in my experience are triple the community college rate, applied to a student’s bill based on credit hours(i.e. community college tuition in my state was $123 in 2015, it was $324 at the state college 50 minutes down the road. Bear in mind this is prior to textbook, travel, or boarding costs. A standard class at a state college can run you over $1000, a full time student is expected to take 12-18 credit hours or 4-6 classes per semester, and the costs are continually inflating each year). A Bachelor’s program typically requires 120-128 credit hours applicable to the degree before it can be awarded.

Once you graduate your bachelors program, typically the college has some office to help you find a job and sharpen yourself for interviews and networking, but the hiring is up to you and it depends on how “saucy” your resume is on if you can be hired sooner rather than later. In the background to all of this, your probable student loans are ticking away(though you can file to delay payments for a few months and consolidate them).

If you’re REALLY, REALLY on top of things, you hop into a trade school, take a 2 year program where you'll probably net an internship while you learn and come out already hired and earning a good 5 figure salary with job security in the long term.

 

Your Future After College

After a Bachelor’s degree, you can join a Masters degree program, for another 2-4 years(depending on the field), and further that still for a Doctorate(another 4 or so years). The costs of these courses is progressively higher for each level.

If you’re chasing a higher degree, it’s either because:
- You got fucked by your bachelor’s program, which only offered the theory side and all the real skills are in the masters program(Or you get double fucked, where the bachelors program didn't qualify you for entering a masters level program)
- Someone else is paying for your trip
- You have more time and money than sense
- You already have a strong paying job and you’re taking the program to raise your pay grade(Teachers for example take a Masters program on the side because upon completion it automatically raises their annual income by a sizeable chunk)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for France education is mandatory and free from age 6 to 16 but practically everybody (at least for my generation born in the 90s) start at 3 and goes at least to the Baccalauréat (referred as Bac from now on)  which you get at 18:

 

1200px-EducationFr.svg.png

 

Secondary education is divided in two:

 

"Collège" in green and "Lycée" in red.

There is an exam between the two but nowadays it's a joke since most people get enough point simply by attending the class and not being really bad at school (and I mean really extreme case). It has the advantage to give a first experience of what an exam is at the age of 14.

 

When you start the "Lycée" at age 15 you have several choices:

 

-Géneral study (top middle), divided in three sections: Literature (L), Economics ans Sociology (ES) and Science (S)

 

Choosing science you can potentially access any kind of higher education, ES will restrict your choice a bit and L is a trash section unless you really really want to get a PhD in the field: basically zero job opportunity at the end of the line (which most 14 yo kids don't have a clue about).

All sections will get the same subject, but the hourly ratio and the level of the lesson will change greatly:

 

Subjects being:

  • English + a secondary language
  • French
  • History-Geography
  • Physics-Chemistry
  • Biology-Geology-Mineralogy
  • Maths
  • Philosophy (1 year only)
  • Economics and Sociology
  • Various electives for your personal interest

 

-Then you have the Technologic Bac (top right). It drop all of the Biology-Geology-Mineralogy as well as economics and sociology, chemistry and philosophy. It is a bac which focus solely on engineering, teaching you stuff that the more general scientist will learn only during higher education.

 

-Finally there is the Professional Bac (top left) which is here to teach you a job. It is in general highly frowned upon and regarded as the trash of the trash by the society which is a bad thing since not everybody is good at studying and some are better off learning a job( and it will be more enjoyable for them too).

 

In the end even getting your Bac won't get you a job which require even the smallest qualifications ever (not even talking about people dropping school at 16), even for the professional Bac.

So most people go on with higher education:

 

tableaucompFrance-en.jpg

This chart start right after you get your Bac (18 yo).

From then you have to choose between short study or long study.

Unless specified all those formations are free since they are managed by the state (you only pay the campus fee which is between 300 and  1000 € a year)

Nowadays most of those formations can be done in part-time training, and if not they at least include mandatory internship of various duration.

 

For the short study:

 

-BTS (2 yr) which is what you do after a professional bac and want to work ASAP (Baker, Qualified industrial worker, salesman/woman, etc)

-DUT (2 yr) which is what you do when you come from the general bac (either ES or S) and want to work as technician in a lab, an informatician, etc : Basically a salaryman

-Licence pro (3yr) can be done after a DUT (sometimes a BTS but most of them will fail) for those who want's to be salaryman+ (small bump in your wages)

 

You can on with long study after a DUT or a licence pro if you want and have the level.

 

For the long study:

 

University, nothing particular Licence then Master degree.

A particularity that makes for strong controversy is that in France access to higher education is considered to be a basic right if you managed to get your Bac (no matter which section).

Which mean that a literary person can go into a science major and vice-versa, someone coming from a professional formation can go to science major etc, and the university cannot refuse it.

Obviously most people doing that fail which lead to a failure rate of 46% for the first year in university, and that's a problem (plus the cost of the formation assumed by the state is just wasted on those person).

 

CPGE which are 2 yr of prep school in order to pass a competitive exam for "Les grand écoles" (Great school literally). The higher your ranking the better your chance to access a renowned school.

Some of those school have their own prep shcool and recruit people directly after their bac if they are promising.

 

Now those "Grande écoles" are made up of famous engineering school, business or management school, architecture, high level administration, veterinary, etc.

Business and management school are the only one that aren't free (most of the time).

They educate up to the level of master and those engineering school are the only one allowed to deliver an engineer degree (if you come from a master in university you only have the same level but a vastly inferior wage in comparison).

Basically when coming out of those school you are supposed to be part of the "Elite of the Nation": Most of our politician comes from 2 administration school, and most top manager in the industry comes from a few, top ranking, engineering school (don't even try to get to a high position in the industry coming from a mere management school). Most of those people know each other since they went to the same school and so the population see them as the "Establishment".

 

On one hand the assumption that the education in those school is better is true since they can select their students while the university cannot. On the other hand you can be as smart as those guys and go through university successfully, but still be discriminated because you didn't go through prestigious school.

 

Finally we have the PhD or "Doctorat" which can be done after a master degree or a "Grande école"

 

And then we have all the medical profession (on the right of the chart).

 

You start with one year of general education (in the medical field of course) which end with a competitive exam to choose your specialty (general and specialized medicine, odontology, or pharmacy).

Only 10% of the student manage to pass the exam on the first year and about 20 to 40% (depending of where you are taking the exam) will get it on the second try (there is no third try).

Those who fail on their second try can always go to a nurse (or other paramedical professions) school

 

After that you get into your selected specialty (assuming that you rank high enough on the exam to get a spot before it's full) and study another 5 year followed by an internship of various length and reach at least the level of a PhD if you want to be called a "Doctor"

 

Unconventional path like mine (see below) are still quite rare. Most people go through university for their whole study or through CPGE then renowned schools.

 

-Scientific bac (the one which keep biology and chemistry on top of physics) (year 0)

-DUT in applied physics and measurement process (year 2)

-Engineering school in nuclear engineering done in part time training (year 5)

-Master degree at the university in materials for nuclear applications (year 6)

-PhD on the tribo-corrosion of stainless-steel AISI 316L under irradiation (starting this year and for the next 3 year)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good luck with your PhD!

 

18 hours ago, Xoon said:

So since we are on the subject of education, how does education work in the US, and any other country for that matter?

 

In the UK, it mostly doesn't :P

 

All this is for england, the other nations have their own systems.

 

Formal schooling starts at 5 years old, and continues till you're 16. In most regions this is in two schools, one for 5-11 and one for 11-16, but some areas of england have 3 schools (5-9, 9-13, 13-16) just because they can. There are tests spread out throughout all of the education, starting at age 7, although these are just for comparing schools rather than students. The last two years are devoted to studying for your GCSE's, and as long as you passed at least 5 subjects (including english and maths) they're generally ignored in later life. At this stage you're allowed to leave school, but must remain in some kind of education until you're 18 - either at college, in an apprenticeship, or part time education.

 

College covers the ages 16-18, and is spent working towards your A-levels. This is where you start specialising, which I've heard is very different to the US system. Typically students will do just 3-4 subjects, chosen to meet the requirements for the university courses they're interested in, and most students choose a very narrow range (I did just physics, maths and further maths). This is where you'll start encountering calculus in maths, and I have no idea what it's like in non-STEM subjects. The international baccalaureate is offered by some colleges, but I avoided it because I wanted to specialise/hide from essays.

 

Apprenticeships are very varied depending on what local industry is available, and they're looked down on as a rule - I gather this is a universal western thing.

 

After A-levels, about 30% of all young people go on to university. Courses cost £9000 per year, not including accommodation, and typically take 3 years for a bachelors degree (some unis offer foundation years, for students who didn't meet the grade requirements - basically an easy way to get extra money from students). It is possible on some courses to go straight to a masters degree (commonly engineering, as you need a masters to apply to be a chartered engineer in many fields - eg iMechE) and those take 4 years; converting a bachelors to a masters (unusual, as student finance only covers your first degree - this is generally only people who are getting paid to do it) takes a year. This helps us attract international students, as they can upgrade their degree relatively quickly.

 

PhD's are what you'd expect - nominally they take 3-4 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Xlucine said:

Good luck with your PhD!

 

 

In the UK, it mostly doesn't :P

 

All this is for england, the other nations have their own systems.

 

Formal schooling starts at 5 years old, and continues till you're 16. In most regions this is in two schools, one for 5-11 and one for 11-16, but some areas of england have 3 schools (5-9, 9-13, 13-16) just because they can. There are tests spread out throughout all of the education, starting at age 7, although these are just for comparing schools rather than students. The last two years are devoted to studying for your GCSE's, and as long as you passed at least 5 subjects (including english and maths) they're generally ignored in later life. At this stage you're allowed to leave school, but must remain in some kind of education until you're 18 - either at college, in an apprenticeship, or part time education.

 

College covers the ages 16-18, and is spent working towards your A-levels. This is where you start specialising, which I've heard is very different to the US system. Typically students will do just 3-4 subjects, chosen to meet the requirements for the university courses they're interested in, and most students choose a very narrow range (I did just physics, maths and further maths). This is where you'll start encountering calculus in maths, and I have no idea what it's like in non-STEM subjects. The international baccalaureate is offered by some colleges, but I avoided it because I wanted to specialise/hide from essays.

 

Apprenticeships are very varied depending on what local industry is available, and they're looked down on as a rule - I gather this is a universal western thing.

 

After A-levels, about 30% of all young people go on to university. Courses cost £9000 per year, not including accommodation, and typically take 3 years for a bachelors degree (some unis offer foundation years, for students who didn't meet the grade requirements - basically an easy way to get extra money from students). It is possible on some courses to go straight to a masters degree (commonly engineering, as you need a masters to apply to be a chartered engineer in many fields - eg iMechE) and those take 4 years; converting a bachelors to a masters (unusual, as student finance only covers your first degree - this is generally only people who are getting paid to do it) takes a year. This helps us attract international students, as they can upgrade their degree relatively quickly.

 

PhD's are what you'd expect - nominally they take 3-4 years.

Are blue-collar workers looked down upon in the west? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Xoon said:

Are blue-collar workers looked down upon in the west? 

Not the workers themselves since anybody who has worked as a white collar in the industry (and isn't a total ass) will recon that the skills of qualified workers are an absolute necessity and that it itsn't the kind of skills that can be acquired quickly but require extensive practice.

 

But most parents push their kids to do long study because it make them feel better about their kid future.

A degree is, factually, still a huge help to get a job (2016 data):

 

Unemployment rate after 1 to 4 year after the end of the degree or stopping school:

 

No degree (dropping school at 16) : 52 %

Baccalauréat (Finishing secondary education but no higher education): 25,5 %

Any higher education degree (age 20 and above): 11%

Those are overall stats, number will vary depending on the field and and various socio-cultural factors

So it's easy to understand why parent want their kids to go on higher education

 

And indeed a lot of people get a degree of higher education (data 2012, people between 25 and 29 yo)

 

Long study : 26% total (Licence/Bachelor 10% ; Master 14% ; PhD 1% number rounded up)

Short study (DUT, BTS 2 year study): 15% total (DUT 2% ; Paramedical formation 3% ; BTS 11%)

Secondary degree (Bac of any kind) : total 41%

No degree: 18%

Like I said most people go on higher education, doesn't mean everybody manage to get a degree.

 

Back to the topic, since parent don't want their kids to be unemployed, they push them to study as much as possible, and since taking the professional path doesn't allow you to continue your study for long they tend to push their kids on the section that give you the widest array of opportunity : general scientific section.

 

But some kids don't like science or simply don't have the right mindset for it so they often come to dislike school, lose self confidence and sometimes behave like shit at school. By default they are sent to a random professional formation (since they can't study in the mind of educators) and the professional section get filled with kid with trash behaviour and who think that everybody look down upon them (and they aren't totally wrong about it) and that the society is their enemy.

All of that create a feedback loop that degrade the society's image of professional formation more and more.

 

But they are sector where the industry can't find any new qualified workers while the old ones are retiring (The average wages of a welder became huge to attract the few available on the job market, companies are fighting over a good welder).

 

On the other hand we train more psychologist each year than the needs of the country.

 

So some people with a master degree won't get a job in their sector because they are too many graduates, while some specialization in the industry are in dire need of qualified workers.

That's why the government want to increase the number of people going through part time training, it give a break from school to those who don't like it, show them the purpose of what they learn and allow them to make some money for starting in life while the industry can have qualified workers that already have some experience.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Alzoc said:

Not the workers themselves since anybody who has worked as a white collar in the industry (and isn't a total ass) will recon that the skills of qualified workers are an absolute necessity and that it itsn't the kind of skills that can be acquired quickly but require extensive practice.

 

But most parents push their kids to do long study because it make them feel better about their kid future.

A degree is, factually, still a huge help to get a job (2016 data):

 

Unemployment rate after 1 to 4 year after the end of the degree or stopping school:

 

No degree (dropping school at 16) : 52 %

Baccalauréat (Finishing secondary education but no higher education): 25,5 %

Any higher education degree (age 20 and above): 11%

Those are overall stats, number will vary depending on the field and and various socio-cultural factors

So it's easy to understand why parent want their kids to go on higher education

 

And indeed a lot of people get a degree of higher education (data 2012, people between 25 and 29 yo)

 

Long study : 26% total (Licence/Bachelor 10% ; Master 14% ; PhD 1% number rounded up)

Short study (DUT, BTS 2 year study): 15% total (DUT 2% ; Paramedical formation 3% ; BTS 11%)

Secondary degree (Bac of any kind) : total 41%

No degree: 18%

Like I said most people go on higher education, doesn't mean everybody manage to get a degree.

 

Back to the topic, since parent don't want their kids to be unemployed, they push them to study as much as possible, and since taking the professional path doesn't allow you to continue your study for long they tend to push their kids on the section that give you the widest array of opportunity : general scientific section.

 

But some kids don't like science or simply don't have the right mindset for it so they often come to dislike school, lose self confidence and sometimes behave like shit at school. By default they are sent to a random professional formation (since they can't study in the mind of educators) and the professional section get filled with kid with trash behaviour and who think that everybody look down upon them (and they aren't totally wrong about it) and that the society is their enemy.

All of that create a feedback loop that degrade the society's image of professional formation more and more.

 

But they are sector where the industry can't find any new qualified workers while the old ones are retiring (The average wages of a welder became huge to attract the few available on the job market, companies are fighting over a good welder).

 

On the other hand we train more psychologist each year than the needs of the country.

 

So some people with a master degree won't get a job in their sector because they are too many graduates, while some specialization in the industry are in dire need of qualified workers.

That's why the government want to increase the number of people going through part time training, it give a break from school to those who don't like it, show them the purpose of what they learn and allow them to make some money for starting in life while the industry can have qualified workers that already have some experience.

 

I really find the statement that "getting a Phd, higher education or alike gets you a job" is pretty much bullshit. Job opportunity gets you a job.

I does not matter if one spends 3-8 years extra on education if there is no work.  

 

Here in Norway, if you go get a certificate as a welder, industrial mechanic, carpenter, construction worker, electrician ect, you are guaranteed a job. Why is that? Because the industry is in need of these workers, a job opportunity. And because you do 2,5 years of apprenticeship at one of the companies, they will most likely hire you when you are done.

 

Compare this with a person following their parents wishes and goes for higher education, but have no idea what they want to do in life, just that higher education gets them a job. They will do general studies, take the most fun and effortless subjects, giving them the least amount of possibilities. Then when they finish high school they are forced to take a choice, they extend the time with people's college. Then finally they are forced to take a choice and they do some field they find fun, like community economics or psychology. Both which we have in such a huge demand that they will have a really hard time getting a job.  Or in the worst case scenario, they take something like music and philosophy, which makes them seem really cool during their campus years, but won't accomplish anything.

 

This is the reason the Norwegian government introduced the Y-way. Because the industry really disliked having engineers designing things  they had no idea how worked. This often caused cases of what we called "quality engineering", when a bolt is only able to be turned 1 degree at the time with a weird angle with a wrench, or a time when the engineers have a great idea of putting a air compressor under a train, causing it to continuously break down because of dirt and wear.

 

For clarification, I do see the statistics. But that is more because of signal theory and the tendency for more intelligent people to take higher education than average.  Some of the main reasons the industry cares about phds and such is because if is a sign of intelligence, the best pointer after IQ, which is illegal to put as a job requirement. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Similar Content

    • By Tied
      Yes
       
      i personally support it, by finding the KGB Felix Dzerzhinsky greatly improved state scurrility both inside the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and abroad (their jurisdiction was only domestic, but they kept the internationally influential people safe at night)   a dedicated defender of both the Revolution and all the Soviet peoples     what do you think of this news?
    • By Xoon
      Colonization Of The Solar System

       
      This thread is for discussing the colonization of the solar system, mainly focusing on Mars and the Moon since they are the most relevant. 
      Main topics include transportation, industry, agriculture, economics, civil engineering,  energy production and distribution, habitation, ethics and politics. 
       
       
       
       
      First order of business, our glories tech messiah Elon Musk has set his eyes on Mars:
      Reason stated? Because being a interplanetary species beats being a single planetary species. 
       
      How does he plan to do this?
      By sending two cargo ships by 2022 to Mars for surveying and building  basic infrastructure, then two years later in 2024 sending 4 ships, two cargo ships and two crewed ships to start the colonization. First thing would be to build fuel refineries and expanding infrastructure to support more ships, then starting to mine and build industry. 
       
      This could mark a new era in human history, a second colonization era, this time without the genocides. The economic potentials are incredible, a single asteroid could easily support the entire earths gold, silver and platinum production for a decade. The moon holds a lot of valuable Helium 3, which right now is worth 12 000 dollars per kilogram! Helium is a excellent material for nuclear reactors. 
       
       
       

       
       
      Speaking about the moon, several companies have set their eyes on the moon, and for good reason.
      In my opinion,  the moon has the possibility of becoming a mayor trade hub for the solar system.  Why is this? Simply put, the earth has a few pesky things called gravity, atmosphere and environmentalists. This makes launching rockets off the moon much cheaper. The moon could even have a space elevator with current technology!  If we consider Elon Musk's plan to travel to Mars, then the Moon should be able to supply cheaper fuel and spaceship parts to space, to then be sent to Mars. The Moon is also rich in minerals that have not sunk to the core yet, and also has a huge amount of rare earth metals, which demands are rapidly increasing. Simply put, the Moon would end up as a large exporter to both the earth and potentially Mars. Importing from earth would almost always be more expensive compared to a industrialized Moon. 
       
      Now how would we go about colonizing the moon? Honestly, in concept it is quite simple.When considering locations, the South pole seems like the best candidate. This is because of it's constant sun spots, which could give 24 hour solar power to the colony and give constant sunlight to plants without huge power usage. The south pole also contain dark spots which contains large amount of frozen water, which would be used to sustain the agriculture and to make rocket fuel. It is true that the equator has the largest amounts of Helium 3 and the best location for rocket launches. However, with the lack of constant sunlight and frequent solar winds and meteor impacts, makes to unsuited for initial colonization. If the SpaceX's BFR successes, then it would be the main means of transporting materials to the moon until infrastructure is properly developed. Later a heavy lifter would replace it when transporting goods to and from the lunar surface, and specialized cargo ship for trans portion between the Moon, Earth and Mars. A space elevator would reduce prices further in the future.  Most likely, a trade station would be set up in CIS lunar space and Earth orbit which would house large fuel tanks and be able to hold the cargo from  cargo ships and heavy lifters. Sun ports would be designated depending on their amount of sunlight. Year around sunlight spots would be dedicated to solar panels and agriculture. Varying sun spots would be used for storage, landing pads and in general everything. Dark spots would be designated to mining to extract its valuable water. Power production would be inistially almost purely solar, with some back up and smoothing out generators. Later nuclear reactors would take over, but serve as a secondary backup energy source. 
       
       
      The plan:
      If we can assume the BFR is a success, then we have roughly 150 ton of payload to work with per spaceship. The first spaceship would contain a satellite to survey colonization spot. Everything would be robotic at first. Several robots capable of building a LZ for future ships,  mining of the lunar surface for making solar panels for energy production, then mining and refinement for fuel for future expeditions. The lunar colony would be based underground, room and pillar mining would be used to cheaply create room that is also shielded from radiation and surface hazards. Copying the mighty tech priest, a second ship would come with people and more equipment. With this more large scale mining and ore refinement would be started. Eventually beginning to manufacturing their own goods. Routinely BFRs would supply the colony with special equipment like electronics, special minerals and advanced equipment and food until the agricultural sector can support the colony.  The colony would start to export Helium 3 and rocket fuel, as well as spacecraft parts and scientific materials. Eventually becoming self sustaining, it would stop importing food and equipment, manufacturing it all themselves to save costs. 
       
      I am not the best in agriculture, so if some knowledge people could teach us here about closed loop farming, or some way of cultivating the lunar soil. Feel free to do so.
       
       
      Mining:
      I found a article here about the composition of the lunar soil and the use for it's main components:

      In short, the moon has large amounts of oxygen, silicon, aluminum, calcium, iron, magnesium and titanium in it's soil.
      How do we refine them? By doing this.
       
      Aluminum could be used for most kinds of wiring to requiring high conductivity to density ratio. Meaning power lines, building cables and such. Aluminum is not very suited for building structures on the surface because of the varying temperatures causing it to expand and contract. Iron or steel is better suited here. Aluminum could however be used in underground structures where temperatures are more stable.  Aluminum would also most likely end up as the main lunar rocket fuel. Yes, aluminum as rocket fuel. Just look at things like ALICE, or Aluminum-oxygen. Aluminum-oxygen would probably win out since ALICE uses water, which would be prioritized for the BFRs, since I am pretty sure they are not multi-fuel. 
       More on aluminum rocket fuel here:
      https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/88130-aluminum-as-rocket-fuel/&
      http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/realdesigns2.php#umlunar
      https://blogs.nasa.gov/Rocketology/2016/04/15/weve-got-rocket-chemistry-part-1/
      https://blogs.nasa.gov/Rocketology/2016/04/21/weve-got-rocket-chemistry-part-2/
       
      Believe it or not, but calcium is actually a excellent conductor, about 12% better than copper. So why do we not use it on earth? Because it has a tendency to spontaneously combust in the atmosphere. In a vacuum however, this does not pose a problem. I does however need to be coated in a material so it does not deteriorate. This makes it suited for "outdoor" products and compact electrical systems like electric motors. Yes, a calcium electric motor.  
       
       
      Lastly, a few articles about colonizing the moon:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_the_Moon
      https://www.sciencealert.com/nasa-scientists-say-we-could-colonise-the-moon-by-2022-for-just-10-billion
      https://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/topnav/materials/listbytype/HEP_Lunar.html
       
      NASA article about production of solar panels on the moon:
      https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20050110155.pdf
       
      Map over the south pole:
      http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/images/gigapan
       
       
      Feel free to spam the thread with news regarding colonization. 
       
       
    • By Khand-e
      http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-35333647
       
      Like I said a couple days ago actually, I said I thought it was very likely that Ma Ying-Jeou would lose the next election as he and his administration are very unpopular, and I guess it turned out to be true, also, aside from being the first female president, She's also the second candidate to win under the Democratic Progressive Party as opposed to the more traditonal Kuomintang which has held it for 5 (arguably 6) terms. and her party has also won a majority in the legislative Yuan, which is actually a pretty significant swing.
    • By Jeeps_Guns_Tanks
      I thought it was disgraceful we had a thread on Russian race cars, and other cars, but not one on American muscle cars and race cars, IE the best cars. 
       
      Over the weekend I'll put a little write up on the GTO and why it kicked off the musclecar, and why the Mustang was an overrated econo box for girls until the 67 model, more akin to a nova then a truly great car like a Pontiac GTO. 
       
      UPDATE:
      My thoughts on why the muscle car era was teh awesome.
       
      The reason 64 to 73 was one of the most interesting era for American cars, is they went a little nuts on how much power they started putting into cars, and all the GM brands for the most part still had their own engine types.
       
      The birth of the muscle car era started in 1964 when John Delorean, Jim Wangers and Pete Estes snuck the GTO option on the 64 mid-size Pontiac Tempest/Lemans platform that was based on GM A-Body platform. There were a few reasons it had to be snuck in, all mainly the fault of GM head executives being stodge old fogies. They had come up with two policies that caused boring cars. The first was their decision to pull out of any GM sponsored racing and the ban on developing performance parts. They also had a ban on putting motors bigger than 330 cubic inches in mid-size cars.
      The sad thing is GM had a thriving race scene and a set of dealers and race teams using their products. Pontiac and Chevrolet in particular had really bumped up their market share through their winning race teams. They were doing crazy stuff like Swiss cheesing frames, producing aluminum front ends (hoods, fenders, bumpers), and producing multi carb manifolds and there’s more I’m sure I’m forgetting. Then BAM, in the span of weeks GM killed it all off in 63.
        
      The heart of GTO option on the Lemans was the 389 cubic inch V8 used in Pontiac full size cars. The V8 was rated a 325 horsepower. The biggest V8 the car came with normally was the 326. The GTO option also included the choice of a close ratio four speed Muncie transmission, and heavy duty suspension and brakes. It could also include Pontiacs Safe-T-track limited slip differential with gear ratio choices of 3.23, 3.55, 3.90, 4.10, and if I recall right, 4.56.  The name was strait up ripped off from Ferrari, by Delorean. You could also order the package with triple carburetors, also known as tri-power, and it upped the engines horsepower to 335.
       
       
      GM and Pontiac found out about it, but Wangers had gone out and showed the car to some big dealers in the Detroit area and they already had big orders so GM corporate, and Pontiac let it be produced, the general manager told Delorean he would have the last laugh because there was no way they could even sell the 5000 that had been authorized, and Pontiac would have to eat the loss on inventory they couldn't sell, and it would be his ass. It sold more than 32,000 units, as a really un advertised option, so Delorean and Estes won the day, and the ban on big engines in mid size cars was lifted, and the GTO became its own model, still based on the Lemans/tempest platform,  but with no small engine choices.
       
      The other GM brands caught up with their own special models in 1965, Chevrolet with the SS 396 Chevelle, Oldsmobile with the 442, and Buick with the GS. GM still put a size restriction on motors and their A-Body mid-size models, but it was now 400 cubic inches, and all the brands had motors that could be grown well past this and already had been and were used in the full-size car lines.  Even this restriction would be pulled in 1970 because other major brands were stuffing huge motors in mid and even the newer smaller cars and GM was losing out.
       
      Ford and Chrysler and even AMC didn't just sit back and watch GM reap the reward, Ford had come out with their ‘Pony’ car the Mustang, in 1964, and it was also a huge success, but it was no performance car, even with the top of the line V8 option, a GTO would eat it alive, handing and acceleration wise.  Ford also had mid-size cars with large V8 options, but none that had been packaged like the GTO and they were light on good large V8s in the early 60s, plus their mid-size cars were ugly as hell.  The Mustang would grow into its own later in the 60s, in particular, when Carol Shelby started playing with them. They never had a great mid-size muscle car that wasn't ugly though.
       
      Chrysler had cars that could be considered muscle cars, but before 68 they were all so ugly, no one but weirdos drove them. They did have some very powerful engine combos, and they really hit the scene hard with the introduction of the cheap as hell but big engine powered Plymouth Road-Runner in 1968, you could buy a very fast Road-Runner for a lot less than you could even a base model GTO.  For a classier Chrysler they had their Plymouth GTX line, and Dodge had their beautiful Charger. The Cuda got an update in 1970, so it wasn’t really really ugly anymore, and the same platform was used to give Dodge the Challenger.  These cars fit more into the pony car scheme though. The main point is Chrysler produced ugly cars until 1968.
       
      GM would jump into the pony car scene in 1967 with the introduction of the first gen F-body. Chevrolet got the Camaro, and Pontiac got the Firebird. These cars were introduced with engine options up to 400 cubic inches, though, when they got a 396, or 400, they were slightly detuned so the mid-size cars still had an ‘advantage’, there was just a little tab that restricted the secondaries on the quadrajet carb.
       
      The whole thing came crashing down and by 1973, the muscle car was all but dead, and the US car industry was in a slump it would not recover from until the late 80s, also when the muscle car returned in a weird way with the Buick Gran National. While it lasted the muscle-car era produced some iconic cars, and some very rare but interesting ones. Most of them looked pretty damn cool though, and by now, they are very rare to see as daily driven cars. They exist; I pass a 68 SS Camaro all the time. Now even a base model muscle car or pony car that's rusted all to hell can be more then 8 to 10 grand, and you will spend triple that making it into a nice car.
       
      1970 was probably the peak year, and some very powerful cars came out that year and that year only. Chevrolet offered the SS Chevelle with the LS6 454, pumping out 450 HP. Buick, Oldsmobile and Pontiac all had very high horsepower 455 cubic inch V8s in the GSX, 442, and GTO models. Government safety restrictions, smog restrictions that required a lot of crap to be added to the engines, and high insurance prices all worked to kill these cars, and the final straw was the gas crisis.  The US Auto industry was a barren waste land unless you liked trucks, until about 1986.
       
      The cars never lost popularity though, but their worth has fluctuated a lot. You could buy just about anything in the late 70s and early 80s, and you could gate rare stuff a low prices, but by the late 80s the collectors had started getting into muscle cars and the prices went crazy. No, unless you want to spend a lot of money, you’re not going to be driving around a classic car from that era. On the upside, the aftermarket parts scene has gotten so extensive, you can build a 1968 Camaro, or 1970 Chevelle almost from scratch, since the body shell and just about all the body panels are being produced. You’re looking at about 14 grand just for the body shell of a 1970 Chevelle, from there you looking at a huge chunk of change to build it all the way, but it could be done. I suspect they are used to put a very rare, but totaled cars back into shape.
       
      It’s nice to be helping with the restoration of one of these cars, without being tied to the cost. I can have fun taking it apart, and putting it back together without worrying about how I was going to fund it. I also have more tools for working on cars than my father in law, and know more about GM cars, so I’m appreciated, and that’s nice. I just with the owner was willing to upgrade the thing a little, you can really go a long way to making an old muscle car handle and stop well, and be more reliable and safe with upgrades not much more than rebuilding everything dead stock, and putting upgraded suspension on a otherwise numbers matching car really doesn't hurt the value, especially if you put all the stock shit in boxes and save it. I’m not paying for it though so it is of course his call, and putting it back together stock is easier in most cases. I really wish it was a 68 GTO because, man I still know those cars, and every time we run into some stupid Chevy thing, I’m like, man, Pontiacs are so  much better, and I get dirty looks.  BUT THEY ARE!!!
       
      Anyway, I said I would write something up, and there it is. 
       
       
       
      Hopefully we have a few guys in here who dig on American Iron and will post about the cars they loved, and yes, I mean in that way,

×