...when we can't even close a spilling underwater oilwell? That's why I say we shouldn't even dream of Moon bases or Mars trips until we get things in order here on Earth. I mean seriously, with all this technology and brain/manpower our best hope is a big heavy ironbox???
This sounds like "Let's cancel all operations because we couldn't find a cure for cancer yet"... Imagine: If we would consume the entire oil reserves by 2030 -no more spills- and go to Mars around the same time; you see, sorted...
Care to do a proper debate on that? If you think we could have done it so easily 20 years ago, then how come we can't do it very easily NOW? After all technology has improved a bit in 2 decades...
Good argument. Still don't see the advantage of going to Mars. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
it's not a great argument, I mean I wouldn't have any fun. It is going to rest on an assumption that if we shift our entire attention as a world to one goal, that we could reach it very quickly. I think most people are going to agree to this. If you don't, I have little interest in convincing you that priority lists and teamwork are more efficient than not.
And I could refute that assumption very quickly with an example. Your assumption is based on the assumption that the goal is achievable. What if it is not? Let's say if the nation's (world's) goal would be to make an antigravity machine (or space elevator, time machine or what have you) and it is impossible to reach, then your assumption and argument falls apart... The world is so addicted to oil (not to mention oil product which means plastic) that there is NO clear substitute for it....
syz, dont worry about it. The idea we could get a permanent colony on the moon going in a hundred years is insane let alone mars.
In my opinion, business -- meaning oil -- should have been ready for this sort of situation to start with. The oil companies have the money to spend on researching a way to hire scientists to come up with answers to use to solve this situation if it should come about -- which it did. And it's apparent that they were not ready. However this goes to show the same frame of mind that the whole energy industry has: use research only to keep on getting to energy that is already there. Why? Because it's concrete; you know it's there. How can I get to it faster, easier. If it's easy keep on doing it. If someone would like to propose a way to stop an oil leak, in a given situation, it would be totally absurd. What would the stockholders say? If someone would propose researching a new form of energy...again, there would be nothing concrete to go on. A waste of money. Stockholders would have a coronary. Whether you're planning to go to Mars or cleaning an oil spill, one must research it with the right amount of enthusiasm to complete the task and be wary of the circumstances surrounding it.
Fast Breeder Reactors could be supplying most (maybe all) of our energy. Furthermore, the final waste from Breeder Reactors is much less radioactive than that produced by ordinary reactors. Nuclear power plants & Fast Breeders in particular became politically unacceptable due to ignorance & hysteria.
They did have the solution for this problem, the blowout preventers. The problem's solution to the blowout preventers is the improved metals used in drill pipe these days. The rams from the preventers could not penetrate the metal pipe to seal it off like they are supposed to because the metal was too darn tough.
Well also because we have no where to put the used up uranium. Plus, uranium reactors are horribly inefficient in their fuel use. The amount of energy we can extract from the uranium fuel rods is a tiny amount of the overrall energy they have. So we end up throwing away a ton of the energy in those rods because we simply cannot extract it effectively. Now nuclear fusion reactors are the future. The French are planning on testing one that can output around 5000 Megawatts, two of those can power the state of Texas (before factoring in the energy you lose over distance). Those are pretty efficient, now I havent looked at the specs in a while but Im pretty sure that one gram of tritium can output a few thousand megawatts for a short while.
Out of curiosity, do we know if there is any Uranium or Plutonium on Mars? Or for that matter, say Gold or Silver? I would assume we can tell from spectrometry or some such, but I really don't know the answer. Presumably, if we knew that sufficient quantities of any of these elements existed there would be a big push to --- go get 'em! So, either we don't know, or there aren't any such substances hanging out in them parts... Anybody know which it is?
Still stuck on "profitability" huh. Haven't you guys learned anything from the past two years? That doesn't mean shit in the long run. Survivability matters, what is survivable and attainable , is all that matters to us as a species. Money is worthless and only a tool for distribution of resources. A Tool that is rapidly going to prove ineffective in the near future as a small greedy fuckin minority are abusing it as a tool and have forgotten, and do not care about the true use of "money", and by proxy "profitability" shall become as useless as it's accumulation will be... Living matters not only on earth (which will not last forever - forgetting humanity contributions to destroy it for "profitability). To look for advantages in space exploration and colonization one needs longer range critical thinking. To me it seems there is two schools of thought for the future of humanity: A) make it as comfortable as possible, for the majority, for its eventual demise and failure as a interplanetary or inter-stellar species. B) Reach as far as possible to become the very best it can be. Which is more in line with the general modis operendi of "life" itself?
You're probably right, especially at today's prices. Presumably, costs would go down with an increase in demand - economy of scale, and all that. Anyway, the only numbers I could easily find put the transport cost for a pound of anything to the Moon at $50,000.00 US. Assuming it costs the same to return (which it shouldn't, given the difference in the gravity wells between escaping the moon and escaping the Earth, but whatever) that would make it ~$100,000.00 round trip, not counting cost of mining any given material. Plus, I have no way of knowing the difference between transporting a pound between Earth and Moon vs Earth and Mars. Since the cost for Gold is about $16,000.00 US, it would seem that "space-faring" prices would have to drop by an order of magnitude - at least for Au. On the other hand, some sites put Plutonium at $4,000.00 per gram, or ~ $112,000.00 US (28*4) per pound, so this might be feasible. I'm guessing that this is probably for highly refined Plutonium, but perhaps this could be accomplished in situ, or "on planet". Either way, I still wager that if your average entrepreneur could point a telescope at the Moon, Mars or wherever and see GOLD - I SAY GOLD! (or Plutonium, Dilithium crystals, whatever), they would find a way to get hold of it. No evidence to support this, just a general knowledge of history and how people have managed to get precious metals from point A to point B in the past. Although you appear to be correct currently, never underestimate the power of greed... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The logical first step is a voyage to Phobos. The thing is that we need not fight the gravity well twice. Sure, leaving Earth is a bitch. However, landing on Phobos is more a docking manoever than a landing. So little gravity. It has been calculated that it would be, technically, much easier to land astronauts on Phobos than to land them on the moon. Of course, that 6 to 8 month voyage is a bit of a bitch also. One thing that does NOT matter, is when we do it. In the next decade, or in another 100 years. Matters not.
Impossible according to the laws of physics and the fabric of the universe A tough engineering challenge but by no means undoable. Imagine the alien colony ship from Rama suddenly appeared and went into orbit around the moon; our current chemical rocket systems would be woefully insufficient to get to work on salvaging the riches of a cosmic civilisation. The world powers would work together on a space elevator/similar system, realising that for one to reach further first would risk panic and destruction by the other powers. Similarly, if it crashed on mars, we'd be there in 10 years. A human mars landing is quite feasible, it's just a logical extension of the apollo program. We could have landed on mars in 1986, but funding cuts to NASA denied this. It's simply a matter of impetus, and there was no impetus to land on mars. It's totally technically doable. See antigravity machine Artificial oil, landfill mining, etc. These have been demonstrated to work, it's just a question of scale.
The world being addicted to oil doesn't mean there isn't an alternative, it means there's no will to look for an alternative to begin with. I mean, suppose you can replace the entire world's oil-based infrastructure with solar panels and nuclear reactors for, oh, two years' worth of the Pentagon's budget. Now it's physically possible, but you will never, ever, ever, ever get people to agree to do it.
