The funds spent on Nasa are probably equivalent of the funds spent on Velco. Isn't Velcro an offshoot of Nasa science?
Half of the stuff you use can from Nasa, or Nasa requirements. Useful plastics in use today for example.
If Nasa goes military, these offshoots will end up being classified and the general public won't see them for 10-20 years. They call it collaboration...yeah, right.
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Nasa to be under Pentagon Control?
Nasa to be under Pentagon Control?Follow
The most important advancement in space sciences in the foreseeable future is going to be self contained ecosystems. What they need to do is get to the moon, setup a base, and start growing food just to see what happens. Once they have proper space farming techniques the possibilities are limitless. You could have permanent bases on just about any solid gravity tolerable planet you wanted because you wouldn't need to resupply them. Space travel would be cheaper by orders of magnitude because you could produce and launch most items from the moon (1/6th the gravity well of earth).
Space farming will decide who wins the ultimate space race.
Space farming will decide who wins the ultimate space race.
Yodabunny wrote:
The most important advancement in space sciences in the foreseeable future is going to be self contained ecosystems. What they need to do is get to the moon, setup a base, and start growing food just to see what happens. Once they have proper space farming techniques the possibilities are limitless. You could have permanent bases on just about any solid gravity tolerable planet you wanted because you wouldn't need to resupply them. Space travel would be cheaper by orders of magnitude because you could produce and launch most items from the moon (1/6th the gravity well of earth).
Space farming will decide who wins the ultimate space race.
Space farming will decide who wins the ultimate space race.
The only thing about this that worries me is that this will cause people to say, "Who cares if we kill the earth? We can live anywhere in the solar system now."
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
The only thing about this that worries me is that this will cause people to say, "Who cares if we kill the earth? We can live anywhere in the solar system now."
No, it'll still be expensive, and frankly logistically impossible to move enough people for this kind of attitude to become popular. It may not matter, once we have the technologies to create self contained ecosystems I'm sure there will be many many offshoots in recycling and air purification systems.
There are many other pieces of the puzzle that are infinitely more difficult and more complex than space farming that are necessary for habitable colonies. Self contained ecosystems aren't exceptionally hard to create. (Hell, you can buy a small sample one for ~$50 on ebay)
Quick Examples of issues that need solving:
-large scale radiation shielding, unless you build the colony in Reiner Gamma or Tycho crater.
-(Not completely necessary, but helps make it feasible) Fusion power as a viable energy source. Deuterium is cheap, He3 is rare and expensive. He3 isn't rare on the moon, and this source of it would be able to either pay for the cost of the colony, or could be used to launch other missions via moon. (This is assuming that a reactor can be build that makes this a viable reaction).
-low gravity architecture.
etc.
Just as Planned.
Quote:
The only thing about this that worries me is that this will cause people to say, "Who cares if we kill the earth? We can live anywhere in the solar system now."
Not for a long time.
Just as Planned.
Timelordwho wrote:
There are many other pieces of the puzzle that are infinitely more difficult and more complex than space farming that are necessary for habitable colonies. Self contained ecosystems aren't exceptionally hard to create. (Hell, you can buy a small sample one for ~$50 on ebay)
Quick Examples of issues that need solving:
-large scale radiation shielding, unless you build the colony in Reiner Gamma or Tycho crater.
-(Not completely necessary, but helps make it feasible) Fusion power as a viable energy source. Deuterium is cheap, He3 is rare and expensive. He3 isn't rare on the moon, and this source of it would be able to either pay for the cost of the colony, or could be used to launch other missions via moon. (This is assuming that a reactor can be build that makes this a viable reaction).
-low gravity architecture.
etc.
And all of these pale in comparison to the one large problem of actually getting somewhere efficiently. It's been ~30 years since we went to the moon, and still another 11 before we plan to go back. Once we gain the ability to efficiently shuttle research materials back and forth, most of these other problems will likely be fairly simple, relatively speaking.
All of them sans fusion power. But yeah, I was just talking about the package, not the delivery vehicle.
Just as Planned.
Timelordwho wrote:
All of them sans fusion power. But yeah, I was just talking about the package, not the delivery vehicle.
Fusion power - an eventuality or a red herring?
Fusion power - an eventuality or a red herring?
Both, really. It's far more likely that advances in energy storage will make the idea of building our own fusion reactors seem pretty silly when we could just the giant one in the sky that's allready up and running.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Well, we will develop workable fusion before Dyson spheres at least.
---
It all comes down to cost really.
Better solar energy conversion or our own brand of star power. I doubt energy storage would really favor one, as it is very useful for both.
---
It all comes down to cost really.
Better solar energy conversion or our own brand of star power. I doubt energy storage would really favor one, as it is very useful for both.
Just as Planned.
I doubt energy storage would really favor one, as it is very useful for both.
Oh, I think the opportunity cost of actually building something to generate power would become prohibitive if we could efficiently store energy for long periods of time, considering the near infinite power generation of the Sun when compared to anything built Earth scale. I think we probably just disagree about the short term prospects of cold fusion.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
I doubt energy storage would really favor one, as it is very useful for both.
Oh, I think the opportunity cost of actually building something to generate power would become prohibitive if we could efficiently store energy for long periods of time, considering the near infinite power generation of the Sun when compared to anything built Earth scale. I think we probably just disagree about the short term prospects of cold fusion.
I think it is the solar energy to electricity conversion rather than the energy storage that is the issue with solar power, as well as getting enough surface area to do so (Not an issue currently, but possibly will be once the technology has advanced to that point).
I put workable fusion of some flavor at ~50yrs. It doesn't even have to be purely cold, we could mount a reactor inside a satellite or deep underground/sea with locally hot reactions.
Oh, I think the opportunity cost of actually building something to generate power would become prohibitive if we could efficiently store energy for long periods of time, considering the near infinite power generation of the Sun when compared to anything built Earth scale. I think we probably just disagree about the short term prospects of cold fusion.
I think it is the solar energy to electricity conversion rather than the energy storage that is the issue with solar power, as well as getting enough surface area to do so (Not an issue currently, but possibly will be once the technology has advanced to that point).
I put workable fusion of some flavor at ~50yrs. It doesn't even have to be purely cold, we could mount a reactor inside a satellite or deep underground/sea with locally hot reactions.
Just as Planned.
I doubt energy storage would really favor one, as it is very useful for both.
Oh, I think the opportunity cost of actually building something to generate power would become prohibitive if we could efficiently store energy for long periods of time, considering the near infinite power generation of the Sun when compared to anything built Earth scale. I think we probably just disagree about the short term prospects of cold fusion.
I think it is the solar energy to electricity conversion rather than the energy storage that is the issue with solar power, as well as getting enough surface area to do so (Not an issue currently, but possibly will be once the technology has advanced to that point).
I put workable fusion of some flavor at ~50yrs. It doesn't even have to be purely cold, we could mount a reactor inside a satellite or deep underground/sea with locally hot reactions.
We could always just enclose the entire Earth in a giant shell that would absorb the sun's energy and covert it to Electricity.
The idea is flawless.
Oh, I think the opportunity cost of actually building something to generate power would become prohibitive if we could efficiently store energy for long periods of time, considering the near infinite power generation of the Sun when compared to anything built Earth scale. I think we probably just disagree about the short term prospects of cold fusion.
I think it is the solar energy to electricity conversion rather than the energy storage that is the issue with solar power, as well as getting enough surface area to do so (Not an issue currently, but possibly will be once the technology has advanced to that point).
I put workable fusion of some flavor at ~50yrs. It doesn't even have to be purely cold, we could mount a reactor inside a satellite or deep underground/sea with locally hot reactions.
We could always just enclose the entire Earth in a giant shell that would absorb the sun's energy and covert it to Electricity.
The idea is flawless.
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
We could always just enclose the entire Earth in a giant shell that would absorb the sun's energy and covert it to Electricity.
The idea is flawless.
You found a way to solve both our energy problems and created lasting peace in the middle east. Brilliant!
The idea is flawless.
You found a way to solve both our energy problems and created lasting peace in the middle east. Brilliant!
Just as Planned.
Recent Visitors: 573
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (573)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Nasa to be under Pentagon Control?
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC