|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Sedna, space probes?, colonies? what's next?
Dick Morris wrote:
Rand Simberg wrote: On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 18:00:20 GMT, in a place far, far away, Dick Morris made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: Debatable. Stick copies of biosphere II all over the world, and you end up with well over 10 times the population. How much did Biosphere II cost, per inhabitant? A lot, but you can't conclude anything from that, since there were no economies of scale. Biosphere II wouldn't be a very good model in any event, since it's primary use is scientific research. It's far from an optimum approach for growing food. True. But, it's a minimum number. For a first attempt, that seems likely to be adequate in area at least, it gives a ballpark number. You wouldn't copy it of course. |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Sedna, space probes?, colonies? what's next?
Henry Spencer wrote:
In article , G EddieA95 wrote: If Earth is not to become a pre-techological subsistence park, it will *have* to be solar one day. Or fusion. Or some form of imported energy (antimatter manufactured down near the Sun?). Mercury might well provide an interesting platform for energy generation. Even for solar, there's no reason why solar power for Earth has to be done with solar collectors on Earth's surface -- in fact, that's easily the *worst* place in Earth's vicinity for collecting solar power. Possibly, but we aren't even trying to do that particularily hard, which has implications for investment in any non-traditional source whetever on earth or otherwise. Also tens of thousans of square kilometers where clouds never appear easily exists and are available on earth. They are just remote from consumers. And energy transport problems from there are much less than for anything orbital. -- Sander +++ Out of cheese error +++ |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Sedna, space probes?, colonies? what's next?
Mike Combs wrote:
"Sander Vesik" wrote in message ... I think there is a slight difference between 'can be done' and 'makes sense to do' - Oh, total agreement here. I was only trying to make the point that whatever other objections might be raised, an inability to use solar power needn't be one of them. Personally, I can't see a reason for anybody to want to live at 10x the distance of Pluto... unless they REALLY hate people. Well, even the distance of Pluto should be really confortably empty and uninhabited for at least several hundreds of years. Even with easily available really advanced nanotech and FTL. But relatively speaking, the people who went into Australia or the west of US did go as far as Moon/Mars/Pluto - just pick a commonly available spaceship speed. ;-) given the distance, does it even make sense as a space based source of ice/water? There are surely lots of others between here and there. Yes - but the majority of mass of OOrt cloud may well be even further away than Sedna. -- Regards, Mike Combs ---------------------------------------------------------------------- We should ask, critically and with appeal to the numbers, whether the best site for a growing advancing industrial society is Earth, the Moon, Mars, some other planet, or somewhere else entirely. Surprisingly, the answer will be inescapable - the best site is "somewhere else entirely." Gerard O'Neill - "The High Frontier" -- Sander +++ Out of cheese error +++ |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Sedna, space probes?, colonies? what's next?
In article ,
G EddieA95 wrote: *have* to be solar one day. Or fusion. Or some form of imported energy (antimatter manufactured down near the Sun?). Manmade fusion doesn't exist yet... Not in the form of power plants, you mean. (Manmade fusion was achieved on a tiny scale in high-energy physics labs in the 1930s, and on a rather larger scale at Eniwetok Atoll in 1952.) Even in power plants, here is every reason to think it *will* exist, given adequate time and effort. It may not be the most convenient form of power in several ways, but it's almost certainly feasible, and the fuel supply is very large. and antimatter is an energy *sink* (making it requires more energy than you get from it). Note what I said: "imported energy". Antimatter is a way of shipping energy around in a very concentrated form. So far as we know, there is no natural supply of it, so it would have to be made elsewhere, from some other form of energy. That's still potentially an interesting approach in the long run. Even for solar, there's no reason why solar power for Earth has to be done with solar collectors on Earth's surface -- in fact, that's easily the *worst* place in Earth's vicinity for collecting solar power. Worst, yeah, but with current space technology, by far the cheapest. The time frame specified was "one day". The costs of current space technology are irrelevant. -- MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. | |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Sedna, space probes?, colonies? what's next?
G EddieA95 wrote:
If Earth is not to become a pre-techological subsistence park, it will *have* to be solar one day. Or fusion. Or some form of imported energy (antimatter manufactured down near the Sun?). Manmade fusion doesn't exist yet, and antimatter is an energy *sink* (making it requires more energy than you get from it). It being a sink is hardly suprising - all presently used forms of transporting energy are, some very trasticly so. Antimatter is just a compact way of transporting energy - whetever it actually becomes economical at some point is a different question (you'd have to compare a antimatter based source to say a fusion reactor and its supply of fuel). -- Sander +++ Out of cheese error +++ |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Sedna, space probes?, colonies? what's next?
|
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Sedna, space probes?, colonies? what's next?
What is so nonaesthetic about the Jupiter system?
No, that was not my meaning. The aesthetic concern would be with disturbing the pristine beauty of well-known Solar System bodies instead of obscure asteroids. So to your mind, we should not go to the moon, or Mars either, for aesthetic reasons? Such reasons are IMO misplaced. Any other Sol System body will have radiation requiring human life to be underground. Except for landing craft and surface halftracks, no change to any of them will be visible from space. |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Sedna, space probes?, colonies? what's next?
If Earth is not to become a pre-techological subsistence park, it will
*have* to be solar one day. The population will have to be much smaller for both conditions to be fulfilled. The population will go down if Earth goes to subsistence. If don't agree that it will have to go down otherwise. And aren't you afraid of the necessary *means* of getting it down? Solar can make the world work, especially if efficiencies improve. Also, our deuterium is not going to run out nearly as fast as the oi Only because we presently can't use it. |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Sedna, space probes?, colonies? what's next?
*cheaper* than increasing
Earth's agricultural production artificially - and, thus, the survival of wildlife habitat in an Earth more populous than today's would require immense amounts of self-discipline and law enforcement. And lowering the human population won't? I sure hope that the happiness of wildlife species is to you worth the Chinese-type atrocities that a population-control society will impose on a global scale. It certainly isn't to me. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
National Space Policy: NSDD-42 (issued on July 4th, 1982) | Stuf4 | Space Shuttle | 150 | July 28th 04 07:30 AM |
European high technology for the International Space Station | Jacques van Oene | Space Station | 0 | May 10th 04 02:40 PM |
Clueless pundits (was High-flight rate Medium vs. New Heavy lift launchers) | Rand Simberg | Space Science Misc | 18 | February 14th 04 03:28 AM |
Moon key to space future? | James White | Policy | 90 | January 6th 04 04:29 PM |
International Space Station Science - One of NASA's rising stars | Jacques van Oene | Space Station | 0 | December 27th 03 01:32 PM |