Battle_Scarred_Galactico wrote:will you please lay out your amazing space colonization plans in practical terms
Battle_Scarred_Galactico wrote:You don't seem to realize how "spaced out" things are out there
Battle_Scarred_Galactico wrote:how are you going to power your big USS starfleet ships
Battle_Scarred_Galactico wrote:How are you going to sustain your population with oxygen, food, water, heat ?
Doly wrote: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.
Omnitir wrote: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.
Doly wrote: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 wrote:I still think you wouldn't get very far though, the Sun is so vital you wouldn't be able to leave it behind.
Battle_Scarred_Galactico wrote:I think this is all mental masterbation any way, as we both agree humanity has squandered it's chances.
Omnitir wrote: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?
Omnitir wrote: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.
Omnitir wrote:Keith_McClary wrote: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 wrote: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?
Dezakin wrote: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.
Triffin wrote: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 ..
Keith_McClary wrote:I meant that if the Chinese said this, the Americans would have to have a bigger, better Lunar colony first.
Space Race II.
PeakKYJelly wrote: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?
PeakKYJelly wrote: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?
Xenophobe wrote: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.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests