So you are that supid, huh?
What's the carbon footprint of nuclear energy?
Besides looking for water and food, keeping air, water, and the Universe clean/unpolluted, and protecting and taking care of each "other", then is there ANY good reason for just about everything else human beings do?Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Nov 18, 2021 10:52 amThere is no good reason to send people into space outside earth orbit.Lariliss wrote: ↑Wed Nov 03, 2021 4:57 pm We are getting more and more exciting news on human achievements going to deep space exploration, challenging science missions to the Moon, Mars, Venus, Mercury. They are looking into the future and getting more popularity and discussions.
Celebrating all the achievements of 2019 - 2021.
At the same time the climate change subject is an urgent one. It needs fast action on already happened disasters, proactive plans and deeds for the nearest future.
Being so keen to conquer other worlds, shouldn’t we think more about planet Earth?
There are lots of things to do here in key scientific/technological areas: sea bed exploration, efficient land reclaim and use, power sources development.
Intertwine of the Earth and space fields development is one of the key actions done. Space exploration is security from cosmos factors (solar activity, asteroid danger, debris impact).
Satellites surveillance for local ecosystems and data collection for scientific research and fast action, global awareness on local issues, data connection - the more the better - should be in focus to bring valuable results. The page on space exploration science in favor of the Earth tells the story.
And, 400 years ago, prior to when this was being written, NO one would have predicted what human beings would be doing and where they would be traveling to and living.Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Nov 18, 2021 10:52 am I predict that in the next 400 years the human race shall not have achieved an independant self sustaining colony anywhere outside earth's orbit.
The elephant in the room, that NASA do not tend to mention is just how hostile it is in space. Beyond earth it is simply too cold. Nearer the sun it is too hot. Venus has a massively dense corosive atmosphere and surface temperatures could easily melt lead. Mercury is a wasteland with no atmosphere.
Mars in the only candidate, but the surface temperature in the middle of summer at the equator at noon only just manages to reach room temperature, for a short while. The trip there is always going to be a 2 year journey, since there is the little problem of the sun being in the way for most of the time. You would have to take EVERYTHING with you.
WHY do you consider money to be an issue with exploration and discovery?Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Nov 18, 2021 10:52 am You only have to consider the technology to have something as simply as a toothbrush to know that a colony is never going to be self sufficient. And the energy required to get there is enourmous, costly more than anything you could earn by going there.
Consider this.
If there was a mountain of gold bars on the Moon, it would not be economically viable to collect them.
And earth is not?
And, I do NOT think ANY one is talking about living in 'space', itself. Human beings just have to travel 'through space' to reach places where they want to explore, and make new discoveries. Just like human beings had to travel 'on water', where there is no land, nor fruit and vegetables, and where it relatively empty and can be very dark, to reach places where they wanted to explore and discover/make discoveries.
And how, exactly, were they able to 'adapt'?
LOL OBVIOUSLY.
You are NOT REALLY only just realizing this, correct?
LOL
Again, this one here appears to think that it/we are LUCKY to be living here, on earth, without actually REALIZING that it/we ONLY EXIST, and came to exist, because of these "other" things.
Thee Fact that there is NO where KNOWN, in the entire Universe, where there is ANY better place there would be to live than earth, SHOWS me, and is a VERY BIG LESSON, to me, to TAKE CARE of this One and ONLY REALLY 'home' we have and to STOP polluting it in ALL ways.
VERY, VERY True.
Well this can be addressed NOW.
But NONE of you will ADMIT that you are not looking after it. As can be CLEARLY SEEN and EVIDENCED throughout this forum, and human behavior, in the days when this was written.Lariliss wrote: ↑Thu Nov 18, 2021 11:12 amExactly, we need to address and address again.Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Nov 18, 2021 10:52 amThere is no good reason to send people into space outside earth orbit.Lariliss wrote: ↑Wed Nov 03, 2021 4:57 pm We are getting more and more exciting news on human achievements going to deep space exploration, challenging science missions to the Moon, Mars, Venus, Mercury. They are looking into the future and getting more popularity and discussions.
Celebrating all the achievements of 2019 - 2021.
At the same time the climate change subject is an urgent one. It needs fast action on already happened disasters, proactive plans and deeds for the nearest future.
Being so keen to conquer other worlds, shouldn’t we think more about planet Earth?
There are lots of things to do here in key scientific/technological areas: sea bed exploration, efficient land reclaim and use, power sources development.
Intertwine of the Earth and space fields development is one of the key actions done. Space exploration is security from cosmos factors (solar activity, asteroid danger, debris impact).
Satellites surveillance for local ecosystems and data collection for scientific research and fast action, global awareness on local issues, data connection - the more the better - should be in focus to bring valuable results. The page on space exploration science in favor of the Earth tells the story.
I predict that in the next 400 years the human race shall not have achieved an independant self sustaining colony anywhere outside earth's orbit.
The elephant in the room, that NASA do not tend to mention is just how hostile it is in space. Beyond earth it is simply too cold. Nearer the sun it is too hot. Venus has a massively dense corosive atmosphere and surface temperatures could easily melt lead. Mercury is a wasteland with no atmosphere.
Mars in the only candidate, but the surface temperature in the middle of summer at the equator at noon only just manages to reach room temperature, for a short while. The trip there is always going to be a 2 year journey, since there is the little problem of the sun being in the way for most of the time. You would have to take EVERYTHING with you.
You only have to consider the technology to have something as simply as a toothbrush to know that a colony is never going to be self sufficient. And the energy required to get there is enourmous, costly more than anything you could earn by going there.
Consider this.
If there was a mountain of gold bars on the Moon, it would not be economically viable to collect them.
Space is full of cosmic radiation. It has not air, no pressure. it is empty, it is dark.
By contrast humans have adapted to live in earth. Earth has everything we need to live. It recycles our very breath, our shit. Food just grows on trees, and walks about on the surface where is can be collected and cooked, with fire supplied by the rich oxygen atmosphere.
Earth has a range of temperatures, where humans have managed to live and thrive. It has rich aquatic resources, most immediately fit for human exploitation and drinking water literally FALLS FROM THE SKY.
There is no where known in the entire universe where any of this is available. And even if it were, it would take more than a life time to get there.
We have one earth and we are not looking after it.
We need to address that problem now.
So, what does this mean, EXACTLY?
If you only want to look at and see things this way, then just about every thing you touch/buy "sculptor" leaves a carbon footprint.Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Nov 18, 2021 8:58 pmYou are shockingly naive. The carbon footprint is huge. Its not just a matter of fuel.
Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Nov 18, 2021 8:58 pmObviously you never heard of the Space Shuttle - which actually Did Something and Went Somehere.
Both SpaceX and Blue Origin have reusable (self-landing!) primary thrusters! When the fuck did NASA do that?
Far more importantly. WHY would NASA even bother to do that? They weren't spending their own money - cost-optimisation gimmicks like self-landing rockets weren't important to them back then.
Nuclear plants are made of thousands of tonnes of concrete, metals, plastics. Power workers all drive cars to get to work. Power cables that deliver electricity all have a carbon footprint.
Yes, moron. Every breath you exhale has a carbon footprint. Every time you fart you contribute to global warming.Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Nov 20, 2021 12:01 am Nuclear plants are made of thousands of tonnes of concrete, metals, plastics. Power workers all drive cars to get to work. Power cables that deliver electricity all have a carbon footprint.
Decomissioning spend fuel cells have to be transported to safe facilities. All put carbon into the atmosphere.
In 2019 the standardised mix value was 72.5 kg CO2/tonne for concrete. For concrete + reinforcement the CO2 emissions are 80.2 kg CO2/tonne
You can add the thousands of other materials that BLue Origin is made of, plus all the assocaited industries of this wasteful persuit.
Are you also concerned about ALL of the other projects 'you' adult human beings do for 'vanity' purposes, including "yourself", "sculptor"? Or, do you just REALLY HATE this one because you see the doing this project as being a so-called "tax evading dickhead"? Or, is there some other reason?
"massive" relative to what, EXACTLY?
Helicopters and air planes that take passengers for joy flights achieve nothing, except a joy ride. The one you are disgruntled about here just goes higher or further. Do you moan and complain about helicopter or air plane joy rides as well?Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri Nov 19, 2021 12:08 pmThere is nothing new in Blue Origin. It uses ordinary Rolls Royce jet engines and the landing tech is copied from the VTOL tech of the Harrier jump jet invented in the UK in 1967.Lariliss wrote: ↑Fri Nov 19, 2021 9:37 amI had another thought while watching the flight.Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Nov 18, 2021 1:50 pm
What irony.
I'm definitley a Trekky more than a Jedi. I watched Star Trek from the original series to the present. Shatner has a place in my heart.
BUT.
Blue Origin, SpaceX, and Virgin space are nothing more than vanity projects. They offer nothing more that a carbon burning joy ride. They have researched no new technology and rely on research done decades ago by NASA.
They conribute massively to global warming. They are a rich man's toy. Useless
Shatner is of age of space exploration. The 'Star Trek' started with the first space flights. It is science fiction and real good story of the genre has a god scientific background and goes beyond. And the flight with Blue origin was one of the cutting edge technology prove flights - the precise landing.
The idea that you need to achieve vertical landing has more to do with Bezos emulating sci-fi Rocket ships. A redundant and useless tech. It takes so much fuel that his rocket was unable to achieve orbit. It would have been more efficient to add wings and fly back to base. There is a good reason why the Space Shuttle had large disposable boosters, and wings. Getting true orbit needs masses of fuel and returning to earth is better flying rather than having to take on double the fuel to land.Can I assume that you mean sci-fi only thinks about pollution after star trek? This is not correct. Sci fi is a huge genre.
Sci-fi takes pollution in later, more young, stories.The point I was making about Blue Origin is that is achieves nothing, except a joy ride.Space exploration in the impact, it is not 100% clear 'who is the worst' - the averaged values reported. In any case all unnecessary emissions should be removed and reported one by one.
Have so-called "common everyday rockets" ALWAYS done so-called "something useful", such as putting satellites in orbit?
All travel that is 'new' or 'previously unexplored' the difficulties of are usually understood, fully would be contentious. But, just like 'space travel' all the other ones were dealt with and accomplished by inventing things as well.Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri Nov 19, 2021 7:32 pmI think that most Sci-fi writters understood fully the difficulties of space travel and for their futures to work had to invent things such as the warp drive, wormholes and hyperspace.Lariliss wrote: ↑Fri Nov 19, 2021 6:58 pmRight, right!Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri Nov 19, 2021 6:15 pm
I think you might find this article interesting.
https://publicdomainreview.org/essay/ba ... -city-1880
The advent of Startrek is not directly connected to the emergence of Pollution in sci-fi. But there is a whole bunch of dytopian Sci-Fi out there which is far older than Gene Roddenbury.
You might start here.
https://www.vulture.com/article/best-dy ... books.html
Thanks a lot for the links.
I thought twice while posting, because at least about 10 stories of the list were in my head. This is my personal perception of those stories, which were written as dytopias and were visioned as far-far future.
But really, I've watched an interview with Isaac Asimov, read Ray Bradbury's ones recently and understood that many of the works are of the cosmos exploration age. And as you mention many are far older.
And now it is in our lives (even buying oxygen is often in my thoughts).
My speculative research was about reaching Mars, going out of the Earth for new lives, seeking answers in those masterpieces and men of great thought. I found an answer 'we will not'. At least till now it is at the same level.
And, none of them are needed for 'space travel'.
Like what for example?
Oxygen and hydrogen is, and was, already made before 'you', human beings, ever came along, was it not? Or, when you ask, "How do 'you' make oxygen and hydrogen" were you not meaning 'you', human beings, individually nor collectively?
And where, exactly, do airplanes go?
WHY do those 'you' who can NOT or do NOT provide the ACTUAL evidence/proof that, supposedly, backs up and supports their CLAIMS resort to saying things like above here?
Is there really ANY thing, which is created by 'you', human beings, that does NOT have a 'carbon footprint'?
What were you doing this for?Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri Nov 19, 2021 11:08 pmDUh. WHich uses energy, which ahas a corcob footprint.
Thank you for your exhaustive list. I was splitting water before you were born.
WHY did you NOT answer these two CLARIFYING questions, posed to you?
If you are doing ANY thing other than breathing air, looking for and consuming food and water, and caring for and protecting one another, then they ALL could be classed as 'wasteful pursuits', correct?Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Nov 20, 2021 12:01 amNuclear plants are made of thousands of tonnes of concrete, metals, plastics. Power workers all drive cars to get to work. Power cables that deliver electricity all have a carbon footprint.
Decomissioning spend fuel cells have to be transported to safe facilities. All put carbon into the atmosphere.
In 2019 the standardised mix value was 72.5 kg CO2/tonne for concrete. For concrete + reinforcement the CO2 emissions are 80.2 kg CO2/tonne
You can add the thousands of other materials that BLue Origin is made of, plus all the assocaited industries of this wasteful persuit.