A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Sedna, space probes?, colonies? what's next?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #262  
Old May 15th 04, 05:18 AM
Rand Simberg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Sedna, space probes?, colonies? what's next?

On Sat, 15 May 2004 02:51:55 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Robert"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

Someone's obviously never seen the US from the air.
There's lots of room out there.


Or even driven. California by itself is for the most part empty.


For a very whacked definition of "empty" The majority of Califorinia is
under production as agriculture. So it's not all City, but it's not
"empty".


Empty of humans and animals.

The San Joaquin(sp?) and Imperial valleys are the vegetable bread basket of
the US (for a whacked metaphor). The Sacramento river delta is the rice
production center of the west coast.


That's not the part I'm talking about.

The only really empty parts are the ones there isn't water to irrigate (or
urbanize) and the mountains.


Yes, and there's a lot of that. Most of the state, in fact.
  #263  
Old June 3rd 04, 01:01 AM
Dick Morris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Sedna, space probes?, colonies? what's next?



Rand Simberg wrote:

On Sat, 15 May 2004 02:51:55 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Robert"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

Someone's obviously never seen the US from the air.
There's lots of room out there.

Or even driven. California by itself is for the most part empty.


This is one of the more curious strawmen that the right has conjured
up. Room for urban expansion is not the issue and nobody has ever said
it was. And anybody who can read a map, or watches television, knows
that a large percentage of the continental US - approx. 95% - is rural
land, so the charge that somebody doesn't know what's "out there" cannot
be literally true of anybody who has not been institutionalized their
entire life.

(Just for the record, I have driven the length and breadth of California
dozens of times, and flown over almost every region of the country. I
always get a window seat and spend virtually the entire flight looking
out the window. Wilderness preservation is one of my main interests, so
I have detailed topographic maps of almost every state in the West and
have studied them thoroughly. I've also hiked into some of the wildest
places in the continental US. Last summer I hiked into the Thorofare
River in Yellowstone, which is the farthest point from a road in the
continental US - 21 miles or more in all directions. I know what is out
there.)

For a very whacked definition of "empty" The majority of Califorinia is
under production as agriculture. So it's not all City, but it's not
"empty".


Empty of humans and animals.

The San Joaquin(sp?) and Imperial valleys are the vegetable bread basket of
the US (for a whacked metaphor). The Sacramento river delta is the rice
production center of the west coast.


That's not the part I'm talking about.

The only really empty parts are the ones there isn't water to irrigate (or
urbanize) and the mountains.


Yes, and there's a lot of that. Most of the state, in fact.


Places like the High Sierra and the Mojave Desert have very little to
contribute to human sustenance. The Coast Range, OTOH, is mostly tree
farming from the Bay area north, so it's no more "empty" of humans than
the agricultural areas of the San Joaquin and Sacramento Valleys. A
large fraction of the land in the West is in fact being fully utilized
to the limit of it's carrying capacity. Even desert areas, though they
may look empty, may be supporting a limited amount of grazing (the BLM -
"Bureau of Livestock and Mining" - does tend to put as many cattle on
the land as it will support).

Places like LA, or San Fransisco can be densely populated only because
there is a lot of land that isn't, and increasing the carrying capacity
of places like the Mojave Desert by, for example, irrigating crops with
desalinated seawater, would be very capital and energy intensive. There
is no way that that would be economically competetive with more
traditional agriculture.
  #264  
Old July 3rd 04, 07:35 PM
Rand Simberg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Sedna, space probes?, colonies? what's next?

On Thu, 3 Jun 2004 00:01:35 GMT, in a place far, far away, Dick Morris
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:



Rand Simberg wrote:

On Sat, 15 May 2004 02:51:55 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Robert"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

Someone's obviously never seen the US from the air.
There's lots of room out there.

Or even driven. California by itself is for the most part empty.

This is one of the more curious strawmen that the right has conjured
up.


"The right"?

Places like the High Sierra and the Mojave Desert have very little to
contribute to human sustenance. The Coast Range, OTOH, is mostly tree
farming from the Bay area north, so it's no more "empty" of humans than
the agricultural areas of the San Joaquin and Sacramento Valleys. A
large fraction of the land in the West is in fact being fully utilized
to the limit of it's carrying capacity. Even desert areas, though they
may look empty, may be supporting a limited amount of grazing (the BLM -
"Bureau of Livestock and Mining" - does tend to put as many cattle on
the land as it will support).

Places like LA, or San Fransisco can be densely populated only because
there is a lot of land that isn't, and increasing the carrying capacity
of places like the Mojave Desert by, for example, irrigating crops with
desalinated seawater, would be very capital and energy intensive. There
is no way that that would be economically competetive with more
traditional agriculture.


At current technology levels.

Technology levels are not static.
  #265  
Old July 9th 04, 06:56 PM
dave schneider
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Sedna, space probes?, colonies? what's next?

h (Rand Simberg) wrote:
On Thu, 3 Jun 2004 00:01:35 GMT, in a place far, far away, Dick Morris
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

[...]
Places like LA, or San Fransisco can be densely populated only because
there is a lot of land that isn't, and increasing the carrying capacity
of places like the Mojave Desert by, for example, irrigating crops with
desalinated seawater, would be very capital and energy intensive. There
is no way that that would be economically competetive with more
traditional agriculture.


At current technology levels.

Technology levels are not static.


This is one of the places where old habits are eating our shorts. In
the past, because of the limits of transportation, it was pretty much
necessary to live where the food grew (or swam, in some cases).

Nowadays we have high speed transport, refigeration, more ways of
preserving food for long shelf life then adding a ton of salt and/or
beating it to death (salt pork, pemmican, kippered eels?, many of the
original sausage recipes) and more advanced pickling recipes than just
"add dill and vinegar to drown".

But we are still building our suburbs on the best possible
agricultural land, and trying to turn wastelands green. Maybe we
should all move in as Mary's neighbors and reverse the process.

Okay, that isn't perfect yet -- it's easier to pull that iceberg up
next to the Queen Mary (QM I, now that Cunard has cunningly launched
the QM II) and use it in Long Beach then it is to deliver it
Victorville; OTOH, the old site of the Roy Rogers Museum may be
available for a public mel****er "well".

/dps

P.S. Yes, California has a "Long Beach". Not quite 11 miles long
like the one in Washington, but still a cute place, as Baywatch
viewers of old may be aware.
  #266  
Old July 13th 04, 12:00 AM
Dick Morris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Sedna, space probes?, colonies? what's next?



Rand Simberg wrote:

On Thu, 3 Jun 2004 00:01:35 GMT, in a place far, far away, Dick Morris
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:



Rand Simberg wrote:

On Sat, 15 May 2004 02:51:55 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Robert"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

Someone's obviously never seen the US from the air.
There's lots of room out there.

Or even driven. California by itself is for the most part empty.

This is one of the more curious strawmen that the right has conjured
up.


"The right"?

Places like the High Sierra and the Mojave Desert have very little to
contribute to human sustenance. The Coast Range, OTOH, is mostly tree
farming from the Bay area north, so it's no more "empty" of humans than
the agricultural areas of the San Joaquin and Sacramento Valleys. A
large fraction of the land in the West is in fact being fully utilized
to the limit of it's carrying capacity. Even desert areas, though they
may look empty, may be supporting a limited amount of grazing (the BLM -
"Bureau of Livestock and Mining" - does tend to put as many cattle on
the land as it will support).

Places like LA, or San Fransisco can be densely populated only because
there is a lot of land that isn't, and increasing the carrying capacity
of places like the Mojave Desert by, for example, irrigating crops with
desalinated seawater, would be very capital and energy intensive. There
is no way that that would be economically competetive with more
traditional agriculture.


At current technology levels.


Advanced technologies may also enhance the competetiveness of
conventional agriculture.

Technology levels are not static.


Energy prices are also not static, and they seem to be going in the
wrong direction right now. As we pass the peak in oil production,
prices are likely to rise even further.

Desalinization plants are also rather pricey, in addition to being
energy intensive, and advanced technology (more energy efficient) plants
may be even more so. It would take an enormous investment just to make
up for the loss of ground water for irrigation as aquifers depleted in
many areas around the world.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 04:28 AM
Moon key to space future? James White Policy 90 January 6th 04 05:29 PM
International Space Station Science - One of NASA's rising stars Jacques van Oene Space Station 0 December 27th 03 02:32 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:13 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.