Were you born in the wrong decade?

[kkt]

When I was younger, I thought it was cool to have been born at the dawn of the "space age." Back then I thought we would have more space stations, missions to Mars, etc.

If, in human history, we ever become space-faring as a society - well, that will be the decade I would wish to have been born at.

Humans will go to mars by 2040.

No way.  The Moon was a walk in the backyard by comparison.

[The Nature Boy]

It's the lack of demand funding, not the lack of technology.

FIFY.

And also political will to increase funding.

For all of the negatives of the Cold War, it gave us boogeyman to compete against. People didn't want to lose to the Soviets so it was easier to convince Americans to fund things like space exploration.

[jakeroot]

When I was younger, I thought it was cool to have been born at the dawn of the "space age." Back then I thought we would have more space stations, missions to Mars, etc.

If, in human history, we ever become space-faring as a society - well, that will be the decade I would wish to have been born at.

Humans will go to mars by 2040.

No way.  The Moon was a walk in the backyard by comparison.

Given the large investments by various private organisations over the last decade, I suspect it probably will happen by 2040. Probably sooner.

[Beltway]

As I went from elementary school into junior high (please don't call it "middle school")

My understanding is that middle schools and junior highs encompass different grade divisions. I'm not sure what the breakdown is for each specific term, but in one of those categories, ninth graders (freshmen) go to that school and not the high school, which is for the top three grades. The other doesn't contain ninth graders, and all four years go to high school.
I went to something called an "upper elementary," which was some sort of newfangled term used in the early 70s for a school encompassing sixth through eighth grades.

Varies quite a bit from area to area. 

In Brevard County, FL I attended grades 1 thru 10, elementary was 1-6, junior high was 7-9, and high school was 10-12.  Today it is different, middle school is 7-8, and high school is 9-12.

In City of Alexandria, VA I took the last 2 years of high school.  Elementary was 1-6, middle school was 7-8, and high school was 9-12.  Today it is different, elementary is 1-5, middle school is 6-8, and high school is 9-12.

[Desert Man]

I was born in 1980 - not the best of years in US history (February, I missed one month of the 1980s). The stagflation, the malaise and the previous two decades of social turmoil left the US in a bad mood. I belong to Generation Y (or the first of Millennials from 1980-99, or 1984-2002), which are similar to X'ers (born from 1964/65-1973/74, plus the Y'ers from 1974/75-82/83). I feel I missed the peak (1941-61) of America and my home state California - someone in this forum described the US had a "Great disruption" from 1964-94, my state had its own from 1980-2010. My parents and grandparents described the US as the best nation on earth, and CA the best place to live. It's different to me and my generation, we don't know if we're still a "Land of opportunity" or the "Golden state".  And finally, being young in the 2000s wasn't really fun, nor being a teenager in the 90s. Baby boomers appear more optimistic, successful and in charge of themselves, compared to the "defeated' Generation X/Y bracket. I'm 37 years old now, I noticed the Gen X are better established now, but what about the Millennials in their 20s now? It just "sucks".

[Roadgeekteen]

When I was younger, I thought it was cool to have been born at the dawn of the "space age." Back then I thought we would have more space stations, missions to Mars, etc.

If, in human history, we ever become space-faring as a society - well, that will be the decade I would wish to have been born at.

Humans will go to mars by 2040.

No way.  The Moon was a walk in the backyard by comparison.

Given the large investments by various private organisations over the last decade, I suspect it probably will happen by 2040. Probably sooner.

NASA by 2040, private by 2030.

[bandit957]

I was born in 1980 - not the best of years in US history (February, I missed one month of the 1980s). The stagflation, the malaise and the previous two decades of social turmoil left the US in a bad mood. I belong to Generation Y (or the first of Millennials from 1980-99, or 1984-2002), which are similar to X'ers (born from 1964/65-1973/74, plus the Y'ers from 1974/75-82/83). I feel I missed the peak (1941-61) of America and my home state California - someone in this forum described the US had a "Great disruption" from 1964-94, my state had its own from 1980-2010. My parents and grandparents described the US as the best nation on earth, and CA the best place to live. It's different to me and my generation, we don't know if we're still a "Land of opportunity" or the "Golden state".  And finally, being young in the 2000s wasn't really fun, nor being a teenager in the 90s. Baby boomers appear more optimistic, successful and in charge of themselves, compared to the "defeated' Generation X/Y bracket. I'm 37 years old now, I noticed the Gen X are better established now, but what about the Millennials in their 20s now? It just "sucks".

The "great disruption" was actually the best time in America's history.

[Roadgeekteen]

As I went from elementary school into junior high (please don't call it "middle school")

My understanding is that middle schools and junior highs encompass different grade divisions. I'm not sure what the breakdown is for each specific term, but in one of those categories, ninth graders (freshmen) go to that school and not the high school, which is for the top three grades. The other doesn't contain ninth graders, and all four years go to high school.
I went to something called an "upper elementary," which was some sort of newfangled term used in the early 70s for a school encompassing sixth through eighth grades.

Varies quite a bit from area to area. 

In Brevard County, FL I attended grades 1 thru 10, elementary was 1-6, junior high was 7-9, and high school was 10-12.  Today it is different, middle school is 7-8, and high school is 9-12.

In City of Alexandria, VA I took the last 2 years of high school.  Elementary was 1-6, middle school was 7-8, and high school was 9-12.  Today it is different, elementary is 1-5, middle school is 6-8, and high school is 9-12.

In my town, k-5 is elementry school, 6th is at it's own school, 7-8 is middle school, 9-12 is high school.

[hotdogPi]

Where I went to school, the term "middle school" was being phased out, not phased in. K-4 was lower school, 5-8 was "upper school" (everyone called it middle school though), and 9-12 was high school.

[kkt]

When I was younger, I thought it was cool to have been born at the dawn of the "space age." Back then I thought we would have more space stations, missions to Mars, etc.

If, in human history, we ever become space-faring as a society - well, that will be the decade I would wish to have been born at.

Humans will go to mars by 2040.

No way.  The Moon was a walk in the backyard by comparison.

Given the large investments by various private organisations over the last decade, I suspect it probably will happen by 2040. Probably sooner.

NASA by 2040, private by 2030.

No way.  It would take 8 years of high budgets just to get back to where the Apollo Project was in 1968.  Remember, right now we can't even put an astronaut in low earth orbit without hitching a ride from the Russians.

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1579/1

Project Mercury cost 1.6 billion, Gemini cost $7.3 billion, and Apollo $109 billion, all adjusted to 2010 $.

A Mars mission would need to sustain the same level of spending for many years, across changing congresses and administrations.  SpaceX's work is impressive, but they are basically making cheaper low earth orbits, not risking their own venture capital on the unsolved problems of sending astronauts to Mars.

First, they'd need a much bigger vehicle, which implies much bigger lift capacity.  Possibly assembly in orbit.  (Too bad we didn't build that 2nd generation space shuttle.)

The vehicle would have to have some way for astronauts to get exercise.  Sedentary during the mission worked okay for a week for Apollo but not for a year or so for Mars.

Then they'd need some cosmic ray shielding.  More cosmic rays away from Earth, and a longer mission would make it an unacceptable radiation dose.

They'd need a gentler touchdown technology.  Parachute works well for lunar rovers, but they take more of a shock than people do.  And, they're just machines, losing one would be bad but not a catastrophe.

They'd need liftoff capability from Mars.  Mars is much bigger than the moon, would require a lot more lift than the Apollo lunar module.

A bigger crew, given the longer mission.  Probably two staying in Mars orbit while the lander is down, so they could work shifts.

All these things push this into a much much larger mission, and as I say we couldn't even go to the moon again in less than 8-10 years even if we had an Apollo sized budget.

I'd really like to see NASA work on capturing or redirecting an asteroid's orbit.  We have all-sky surveys that would give us some advance warning if a large asteroid is on a collision course with Earth, but without something to do about it all that would let us do is say our prayers before the end came.

[Beltway]

Given the large investments by various private organisations over the last decade, I suspect it probably will happen by 2040. Probably sooner.
NASA by 2040, private by 2030.

No way.  It would take 8 years of high budgets just to get back to where the Apollo Project was in 1968.  Remember, right now we can't even put an astronaut in low earth orbit without hitching a ride from the Russians.
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1579/1
Project Mercury cost 1.6 billion, Gemini cost $7.3 billion, and Apollo $109 billion, all adjusted to 2010 $.
A Mars mission would need to sustain the same level of spending for many years, across changing congresses and administrations.  SpaceX's work is impressive, but they are basically making cheaper low earth orbits, not risking their own venture capital on the unsolved problems of sending astronauts to Mars.
First, they'd need a much bigger vehicle, which implies much bigger lift capacity.  Possibly assembly in orbit.  (Too bad we didn't build that 2nd generation space shuttle.)
The vehicle would have to have some way for astronauts to get exercise.  Sedentary during the mission worked okay for a week for Apollo but not for a year or so for Mars.
Then they'd need some cosmic ray shielding.  More cosmic rays away from Earth, and a longer mission would make it an unacceptable radiation dose.
They'd need a gentler touchdown technology.  Parachute works well for lunar rovers, but they take more of a shock than people do.  And, they're just machines, losing one would be bad but not a catastrophe.
They'd need liftoff capability from Mars.  Mars is much bigger than the moon, would require a lot more lift than the Apollo lunar module.
A bigger crew, given the longer mission.  Probably two staying in Mars orbit while the lander is down, so they could work shifts.
All these things push this into a much much larger mission, and as I say we couldn't even go to the moon again in less than 8-10 years even if we had an Apollo sized budget.
I'd really like to see NASA work on capturing or redirecting an asteroid's orbit.  We have all-sky surveys that would give us some advance warning if a large asteroid is on a collision course with Earth, but without something to do about it all that would let us do is say our prayers before the end came.

Mars is on average 50 times farther from the Earth compared to the Moon.  A trip of up to 3 weeks is one thing, a trip of 2 years is entirely another thing.  You need to carry enough oxygen and food to last for the whole trip.

The Mars atmosphere is substantial and greatly complicates the landing of a spacecraft, and would greatly complicate the launch to orbit of a spacecraft.  Compared to the Moon which has no atmosphere.

There is no human breathable air on Mars, and no food.  Atmospheric pressure is 1% that of Earth, so a spacesuit with cosmic ray shielding would be needed to walk on Mars.

With so many successful missions to Mars, it's easy to forget that getting there has never been easy.  In fact, more missions have failed than not: 28 failures compared to 19 successes.  And none involved any return trip to Earth, let alone carrying humans.

[D-Dey65]

The system is really unfair to young people currently. A lot of them have to live with their parents well into their 20's because wages are so low and housing is so expensive. And most parents these days are asses to their adult children, and try to continue to treat them as if they were still little kids, and all the young adults are trapped and forced to put up with their assholery.

As a result, social scientists have falsely decided that people don't mature when they turn 18.

As far as the question in the original post, more often than not I'd have to say the answer is yes. I'll add more details to this some other time.

[epzik8]

I don't think so.

[D-Dey65]

Adding to Brian's post about 20-somethings being forced to live with their parents, the insurance companies keep charging them an arm and a leg to insure their cars, to the point where they can't afford basic maintenance, thereby causing them to wind up in accidents they would've otherwise avoided. That's another expense that keeps the kids from getting ahead in life. And they say this crap all ends when you turn 25? Not if you live with younger siblings who drive, it doesn't. You still pay the same high rates you paid before you turn 26 because you have younger brothers and/or sisters who are driving and are just as trapped at home as you.

[Brian556]

Truth is that most of them aren't very good drivers. Driving is the one aspect of life that I am great at, so it always pissed me off that I had to be punished for the ineptitude of others in my age group.

This brings up another point. Age discrimination is the only kind of discrimination that is still legal. When I was younger, I always felt that the system is very unfair to young people. Now that I am 37, I still feel the exact same way.

[Max Rockatansky]

Truth is that most of them aren't very good drivers. Driving is the one aspect of life that I am great at, so it always pissed me off that I had to be punished for the ineptitude of others in my age group.

This brings up another point. Age discrimination is the only kind of discrimination that is still legal. When I was younger, I always felt that the system is very unfair to young people. Now that I am 37, I still feel the exact same way.

The crappy thing is if that system of risk assessment by age didn't exist then it would just mean higher premiums for all age groups to to offset the potential losses.  On the flip side your risk assessment for health insurance only increases as you get older, it more or less offsets given a long enough time.  But to your point, I pay the same premium roughly today for a Dodge Challenger and a Chevy Sonic at 35 as I did for just a 1992 Pontiac Sun Bird when I was in high school almost 20 years ago.

[MikeTheActuary]

Adding to Brian's post about 20-somethings being forced to live with their parents, the insurance companies keep charging them an arm and a leg to insure their cars, to the point where they can't afford basic maintenance, thereby causing them to wind up in accidents they would've otherwise avoided. That's another expense that keeps the kids from getting ahead in life. And they say this crap all ends when you turn 25? Not if you live with younger siblings who drive, it doesn't. You still pay the same high rates you paid before you turn 26 because you have younger brothers and/or sisters who are driving and are just as trapped at home as you.

One of the universal truths in property/casualty insurance:  young drivers, especially young males, have more/worse accidents than any other group.

Next worst are the elderly, who can be worse drivers, but offset that somewhat by driving in less-risky circumstances. And, at least among the elderly, there is some tolerance for giving up one's drivers license, whereas that doesn't work so well for young drivers.

The good news is that with today's graduated licensing requirements, and young people waiting longer to get their licenses, the spike for young drivers isn't as bad as it once was.

Trivia: if it didn't cost so much to collect the data, and if there weren't privacy concerns, telematics data continuously collected from cars would negate most of the need for operator-age based rating.

[jwolfer]

Adding to Brian's post about 20-somethings being forced to live with their parents, the insurance companies keep charging them an arm and a leg to insure their cars, to the point where they can't afford basic maintenance, thereby causing them to wind up in accidents they would've otherwise avoided. That's another expense that keeps the kids from getting ahead in life. And they say this crap all ends when you turn 25? Not if you live with younger siblings who drive, it doesn't. You still pay the same high rates you paid before you turn 26 because you have younger brothers and/or sisters who are driving and are just as trapped at home as you.

One of the universal truths in property/casualty insurance:  young drivers, especially young males, have more/worse accidents than any other group.

Next worst are the elderly, who can be worse drivers, but offset that somewhat by driving in less-risky circumstances. And, at least among the elderly, there is some tolerance for giving up one's drivers license, whereas that doesn't work so well for young drivers.

The good news is that with today's graduated licensing requirements, and young people waiting longer to get their licenses, the spike for young drivers isn't as bad as it once was.

Trivia: if it didn't cost so much to collect the data, and if there weren't privacy concerns, telematics data continuously collected from cars would negate most of the need for operator-age based rating.

I would not be surprised if insurance companies have a way to get that data and use it , along with things such as credit  score, as part of their algorithms to determine rates

Z981

[MikeTheActuary]

I would not be surprised if insurance companies have a way to get that data and use it , along with things such as credit  score, as part of their algorithms to determine rates

Credit score, yes, for the past 25 years or so.  I built a couple of the models.

Telematics...insurers can only get the data if the customer collaborates, of if it's subpoenaed as part of legal action after a loss.  The data is great and negates the predictive power of more problematic variables....but it's still too danged expensive or unreliable to get data in any really meaningful volume.

[1995hoo]

Race plays a factor in car insurance too. If you're black, you'll pay more, especially if you're a black male under age 25.

[jwolfer]

I would not be surprised if insurance companies have a way to get that data and use it , along with things such as credit  score, as part of their algorithms to determine rates

Credit score, yes, for the past 25 years or so.  I built a couple of the models.

Telematics...insurers can only get the data if the customer collaborates, of if it's subpoenaed as part of legal action after a loss.  The data is great and negates the predictive power of more problematic variables....but it's still too danged expensive or unreliable to get data in any really meaningful volume.

I saw an article about one of the big insurance​ companies was trying to use data without customers concent

Z981

[jakeroot]

Race plays a factor in car insurance too.

Is that a fact or...?

[jp the roadgeek]

Race plays a factor in car insurance too.

Is that a fact or...?

Not directly.  Goes by ZIP code and which ZIP codes have more claims paid, so draw your own conclusions.

Marital status definitely does, though.

[jakeroot]

Race plays a factor in car insurance too.

Is that a fact or...?

Not directly.  Goes by ZIP code and which ZIP codes have more claims paid, so draw your own conclusions.

I'd rather not.