[Battle_Scarred_Galactico]

Use the force Luke... and don't forget your lightsabre!

[Omnitir]

Firstly I must remind you that my suggestions of future space industrialism were assuming that a hypothetical technological solution to our energy problems solved the issue of peak oil. That’s what this thread is about after all – what would happen if PO were adverted. I’m not tying to claim that “space exploration will save the day!”, that we can “simply” all leave Earth and go live in space. I can’t believe that anyone would be that stupid to suggest such a thing is possible (ATM).

So my main argument is that with some hypothetical free energy, we would continue on with our space explorations and it would just be a matter of time until the bulk of humanity was living off-world. It may take 50 to 100 years, it may take longer, but my argument stands. With free energy, humanity would eventually leave the Earth and it will be for the better.

Is that so hard to believe and to understand?

will you please lay out your amazing space colonization plans in practical terms

I’m not particularly interested in doing that in any detail ATM, mainly because I feel I would just be wasting my time. But basically we would just continue with the various space exploration projects that are currently “on the drawing board” (but won’t happen because of PO). If you couldn’t be bothered researching it yourself, then I’ll tell you the first big project: return man to the moon, with the aim of eventually setting up simple processing facilities to extract the raw materials needed for space craft, such as shielding, space-craft fuel, and water and oxygen.

You don't seem to realize how "spaced out" things are out there

Oh believe me, I’m well aware of the vast distances between most objects in the solar system. What makes you think otherwise, the fact that I say space industrialism is possible?

how are you going to power your big USS starfleet ships

The simple answer for this thread would be to say: with the hypothetical free energy that this thread assumes would exist if PO were adverted. But even without the hypothetical free energy, we could attain all the rocket fuel we need from comets. Water ice in comets can be converted to liquid hydrogen and oxygen, two of the primary ingredients in rocket fuel today (not oil). But what big starships are you talking about? Stop thinking about science fiction, and do some research into real-life space exploration. We wouldn’t be going from the space shuttle to the starship Enterprise, but one step at a time. Setting up low Earth orbit space stations as way points and research stations, moon bases to begin mining the essentials for space industrialism, automated mining facilities on asteroids, the beginning of terraforming projects on Mars…
It’s all possible, and without warp drives and photon torpedoes.

How are you going to sustain your population with oxygen, food, water, heat ?

Everything we need is in space. I assume you are aware of the copious amount of asteroids floating around out there. These aren’t just solid rock, but made up of many different materials. Iron asteroids contain large amounts of Iron, Nickel and Cobalt, Rocky asteroid types contain large deposits of Oxygen, Iron, Silicon, Magnesium, Aluminium, Nickel and Calcium. Furthermore, there are many comets, which are rich sources of water and carbon-based molecules needed for maintaining life.

To put into perspective the abundance of resources available, research the smallest known near Earth asteroid 3554 Amun. It’s a mile-wide chunk of Iron, Nickel, Cobalt, Platinum and other metals, and contains approximately 30 times the amount of metal as humans have mined from the Earth throughout history – and it’s only the smallest one we know of. If we were to capture this asteroid into Earth orbit (with an advanced automated probe) and slowly mine it’s metals, it would yield an estimated $20 Trillion USD.

Still think space is empty and useless?

Sorry, but mass leaving the planet is simply not feasible unless we suddenly discover amounts of energy several orders of magnitude greater than we have now.

That’s right. The statement of mine that you quoted was talking about possibilities if we did indeed discover some new form of cheap energy.

Perhaps the most sensible course of action would have been to take advantage of the cheap fuel in the decades past in the pursuit of some such space-industrial revolution. If we continued to push forwards after the Apollo moon landings, then maybe today we would have some sustainable level of space industrialism operating and supplying the Earth with most of it’s needs. Then PO wouldn’t really matter. But instead funding was cut to space programs essentially because it was achieving poor television ratings. So instead we invested our one time gift of cheap energy into large cars, fast food and bad television, and this is where it got us. This is the reason that arrogant attitudes towards space exploration and science tick me off: it was the only chance we had to truly prosper. Instead we’ll be living in a new dark age.

One could argue that we have the mass public’s lack of interest in science to thank for our current predicament.

[Doly]

Perhaps the most sensible course of action would have been to take advantage of the cheap fuel in the decades past in the pursuit of some such space-industrial revolution. If we continued to push forwards after the Apollo moon landings, then maybe today we would have some sustainable level of space industrialism operating and supplying the Earth with most of it’s needs. Then PO wouldn’t really matter.

In other words, you believe that it's at least theoretically possible to provide energy to the Earth from some resource in space, with an EROI as good or better than oil. What specific resource were you thinking about?

[Battle_Scarred_Galactico]

Well, I'll agree some of it is possible on that huge IF factor of finding a miracle energy source (which isn't very likley). I still think you wouldn't get very far though, the Sun is so vital you wouldn't be able to leave it behind.

I think this is all mental masterbation any way, as we both agree humanity has squandered it's chances.

[Omnitir]

you believe that it's at least theoretically possible to provide energy to the Earth from some resource in space, with an EROI as good or better than oil. What specific resource were you thinking about?

Well yes, we could eventually supply energy to Earth, probably with some form of microwave beam technology, but that’s not actually the point. The important thing I think is that initially resources from space would have to be put towards further space development, not to power Earth. The point of this concept is that space technology would develop eventually allowing more and more people to live for extended periods (and eventually their whole lives) in space. At some point in this development there would be an excess of energy and mineral resources being acquired from space that could be exported to the Earth.

Specifically we could attain an EROEI that exceeds oil primarily through space based solar power (keeping in mind that solar radiation is much more potent in space), and perhaps more importantly methane. Though the most important resources initially (for further space industrialism) would be water and oxygen for air, food, drinking, and propellent, and metals for building materials.

I still think you wouldn't get very far though, the Sun is so vital you wouldn't be able to leave it behind.

We aren’t talking about travelling to distant stars; we’re talking about developing in the solar system – right here where the sun continuously belts out massive amounts of energy deep into the solar system. As you pointed out earlier, the distances are vast, and there is plenty of room for expansion and consumption (many magnitudes greater then the Earth).

I think this is all mental masterbation any way, as we both agree humanity has squandered it's chances.

It’s no more “mental masturbation” imagining what could have been if we kept developing space at the same rate as the Apollo program, then it is imagining what could have been if we kept moving towards conservation after the Carter administration.

Actually, even with our current situation and without the miracle fix (that I don’t believe in BTW), I do believe that an asteroid capturing program would be a great project to attempt. Wouldn’t several hundred tonne of Methane turning up in orbit be rather useful in a few years? Not to mention the technology of preventing major asteroid collisions. Seems like a better use of resources to me then military actions. But I suppose everyone thinks it’s too Star Treky to work.

[Keith_McClary]

Perhaps the most sensible course of action would have been to take advantage of the cheap fuel in the decades past in the pursuit of some such space-industrial revolution. If we continued to push forwards after the Apollo moon landings, then maybe today we would have some sustainable level of space industrialism operating and supplying the Earth with most of it’s needs. Then PO wouldn’t really matter. But instead funding was cut to space programs essentially because it was achieving poor television ratings. So instead we invested our one time gift of cheap energy into large cars, fast food and bad television, and this is where it got us. This is the reason that arrogant attitudes towards space exploration and science tick me off: it was the only chance we had to truly prosper. Instead we’ll be living in a new dark age.

One could argue that we have the mass public’s lack of interest in science to thank for our current predicament.

A while ago Bush had another of his "visions", a manned expedition to Mars. Sounds like this would be like Apollo: "We came, we saw, we came back".

What do you think of this.

[Triffin]

How to avoid PO ..

1) Admit we have a problem
2) Engage all governments
3) Define the problem
4) Adopt a plan
5) Implement the plan

Triff ..

[Omnitir]

A while ago Bush had another of his "visions", a manned expedition to Mars. Sounds like this would be like Apollo: "We came, we saw, we came back".

What do you think of this?

Thanks for asking; it gives me a chance to rant a bit more about one of my favourite topics.

I think it’s too little too late. Bush’s plan, “Moon, Mars and beyond” I think they are calling it, sounds great on the surface (to those not PO aware), but stinks of a political manoeuvre, released during his re-election campaigns. I was initially excited by the announcement, but then I found out about two important issues that make it look like a pretty bad idea:

1) how they plan to fund the project, and 2) peak oil;
**********************
1) Funding for the new Moon initiative looks likely to result in the death of the Hubble space telescope (HST), arguably the single greatest scientific facility ever devised. To scrap the HST is idiotic, especially given the reasoning: safety issues (now a top concern after the Columbia accident), and that funds for the HST servicing mission to upgrade it and keep it running for many more years, could instead be put into the ISS and the new Moon initiative. Realistically, a HST servicing mission is not much more dangerous then a mission to the ISS.

As for a HST servicing mission being a waste of funds, how’s this for a waste: the next servicing mission would have replaces the telescopes batteries, installed new gyroscopes and various instruments, and replaced aging systems including a Fine Guidance Sensor, an Aft Shroud Cooling system, a Data Management Cross Strap Unit and a new outer blanked layer. Also two new instruments, a Cosmic Origins Spectrograph and the Wide Field Camera 3 would be installed. At the moment, all this hugely expensive equipment (around $US200 million worth) is sitting idly in a NASA warehouse, waiting for the mission go-ahead.

To quote eminent physicist John N. Bahcall regarding the planned scrapping of Hubble: “It’s a tragedy for the nation. It’s a tragedy for science. It’s a tragedy for anyone who’s curious about the universe.”


2) The manned mission to Mars part of the initiative is expected to occur in around 20 years. It’s kind of hard to believe that in 20 years when there isn’t enough energy to distribute food and water to everyone in the US (and all the other PO related problems) that anyone will back sending astronauts to Mars. It’s just not going to happen, without some miracle PO cure.

**********************

Returning man to the Moon however is something that is achievable in the short term, and has numerous payoffs. NASA states that the main reason for the Moon missions is essentially to practice living, working and practicing science on Mars, which is sensible, but since we know the likelihood of any manned Mars mission ever occurring, this point is mute. However, developing the skills and technology to live and work on the Moon will have payoffs if we are going to attempt to exploit space in the remaining time we have.

We need to learn what planners call "in-situ resource utilization" (ISRU)--a.k.a. "living off the land", which means mining important basic resources on the lunar surface; oxygen for breathing, water for drinking and rocket fuel (essentially hydrogen and oxygen). This is essential for extended stays on the Moon.

Data collected from Lunar Prospector and Clementine (space-craft that mapped the Moon in the mid-90’s) suggests that there is ice localised near the North and South poles. Finding this ice is essential to any sustained Moon effort, and is what the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, to be launched is 2008, primary purpose is.

Another advantage of Moon missions is the LSP project that has been discussed in thisthread (complete with the usual close minded responses from the doomers ). Collecting the powerful unfiltered solar rays on the Moon would be a great way of powering the beginning of true space industrialism.

Of course the only chance any of this will make a difference is if PO results in a slow crash, giving NASA enough time to make meaningful progress. Even if in the end it all amounts to nothing in terms of providing resources for Earth, at the very least some meaningful science and exploration can be achieved. If PO does turn out to crush industrialism, it would be a shame to waste the last years of the space age, when we could be taking advantage of our existing technology. There is still meaningful science and exploration to be done.

[PeakKYJelly]

It would be strange if the people on the moon living off the land looked out one day and saw the PO Nuke Wars begin, and watch the blue Earth turn into a black marble. Then they'd have to start a civilization by themselves on the moon. I wonder if they could do it?

[Keith_McClary]

Returning man to the Moon however is something that is achievable in the short term, and has numerous payoffs. NASA states that the main reason for the Moon missions is essentially to practice living, working and practicing science on Mars, which is sensible, but since we know the likelihood of any manned Mars mission ever occurring, this point is mute. However, developing the skills and technology to live and work on the Moon will have payoffs if we are going to attempt to exploit space in the remaining time we have.

We need the Chinese to announce a Lunar colony project.

[Omnitir]

We need the Chinese to announce a Lunar colony project.

Chinese? Well, maybe, but what would be REALLY helpful to the world is for all the American SUV owners to go live on the moon!

[Dezakin]

Ah, so when oil gets expensive, we wont just use the cheapest alternatives and continue economic growth as we have for the past several centuries?

Why exactly is economic growth impossible without oil? We've seen all the arguments that without oil energy will be more expensive, but none that indicate it will be prohibitively expensive. You can drive an industrial economy on nuclear or solar power.

[Keith_McClary]

We need the Chinese to announce a Lunar colony project.

Chinese? Well, maybe, but what would be REALLY helpful to the world is for all the American SUV owners to go live on the moon!

I meant that if the Chinese said this, the Americans would have to have a bigger, better Lunar colony first.

Space Race II.

How many Hummers can you load into a Saturn V?

[Keith_McClary]

Ah, so when oil gets expensive, we wont just use the cheapest alternatives and continue economic growth as we have for the past several centuries?

Why exactly is economic growth impossible without oil? We've seen all the arguments that without oil energy will be more expensive, but none that indicate it will be prohibitively expensive. You can drive an industrial economy on nuclear or solar power.

Suppose I am living in an air-conditioned McMansion in the suburbs and driving to work and everywhere else in a SUV and eating produce jetted in from the other hemisphere. How much will it cost to maintain this lifestyle on nuclear or solar power compared to oil?

The industrial economy may survive, but will my lifestyle?

[Dezakin]

Suppose I am living in an air-conditioned McMansion in the suburbs and driving to work and everywhere else in a SUV and eating produce jetted in from the other hemisphere. How much will it cost to maintain this lifestyle on nuclear or solar power compared to oil?

If per capita economic growth continues, it will cost less than it does today.

Now the processes surrounding maintaining your lifestyle might be quite a bit more complicated, but much of modern economic growth works because people find ways to automate the tasks that normally people would have to do. So robots might build, maitain and operate much of the energy infrastructure for example.

[Keith_McClary]

Suppose I am living in an air-conditioned McMansion in the suburbs and driving to work and everywhere else in a SUV and eating produce jetted in from the other hemisphere. How much will it cost to maintain this lifestyle on nuclear or solar power compared to oil?

If per capita economic growth continues, it will cost less than it does today.

Now the processes surrounding maintaining your lifestyle might be quite a bit more complicated, but much of modern economic growth works because people find ways to automate the tasks that normally people would have to do. So robots might build, maitain and operate much of the energy infrastructure for example.

I'm skeptical. Look at what goes into building a nuclear reactor - most of it is specialized construction trades which are not easily automated, such as concrete work, plumbing, electrical, welding, earth moving, crane operators. The manufacture of turbines, generators and reactors is already highly automated but they require highly specialized technicians and engineers.

Decades ago futurists predicted that automation and robotics would give us all lives of affluence and leisure, but it hasn't worked out that way.

[Omnitir]

How to avoid PO ..

1) Admit we have a problem
2) Engage all governments
3) Define the problem
4) Adopt a plan
5) Implement the plan

Triff ..

Actually, not even that can avoid PO. Nothing can. As sure as the sun will rise, oil production will eventually peak. Though your idea would certainly help deal with the problems – but nothing in reality or in theory can stop oil production peaking.

I meant that if the Chinese said this, the Americans would have to have a bigger, better Lunar colony first.

Space Race II.

Ah, I see what you mean – good idea too. Sorry Keith, I just thought you were being sardonic as it seems to be a common thing around here.

It’s hard to imagine that China would have a chance at beating Americans in any space race though. NASA has all the experience and technical know-how. Though it would be great if something like a space-race gave NASA a large nudge in the direction of the moon.

Even better: pull out of all foreign countries and drastically reduce the military budget, and move those new found funds into energy technology R&D, and NASA.

[Sixstrings]

These world of warcraft virtual gold bots sure dig out some interesting old threads.

So.. in 2005 this thread was started with the question "what if peak oil never happens?" Funny, it HAPPENED one year later. After which everything else began to fall into place.. world financial crisis, recession, depression, bond crises going on right now, inflation on the way.. what do the cornies think, all this just coincidentally followed global peak oil?

[Xenophobe]

What if a more efficient technology allows the extraction of oil in all the quantities we need, and while this is happening, a new technology is invented to replace oil as an energy source, so by the time oil starts to fade away, we are already covered? How would all the PeakOilers on here react?

So far they haven't been so happy about it. You would think abundant and plentiful fuels 5 years after post peak they would give up already, move on to the potential lethality of athletes foot or something.

[diemos]

What if a more efficient technology allows the extraction of oil in all the quantities we need, and while this is happening, a new technology is invented to replace oil as an energy source, so by the time oil starts to fade away, we are already covered? How would all the PeakOilers on here react?

That would be a good thing. I would react with joy. Pity that is not happening. Instead oil production has plateaued and the economy of the developed world has had to contract in order to allow increased consumption in the developing world.

So far they haven't been so happy about it. You would think abundant and plentiful fuels 5 years after post peak they would give up already, move on to the potential lethality of athletes foot or something.

Oil consumption in the US is down 5% from the peak. Yes, if you are one of the lucky ones who still has their job life is good. If not, life is sucky.

Oil consumption will continue to decline in the US. The lives of more and more people in the US will become more and more sucky.

Selah.