Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Pnx]

Even if the sea level rise goes the full ten metres like some people say it will, I doubt it's gonna spell the absolute end for them, I'm pretty sure the Dutch in particular considered it more of a challenge than a threat.

I mean I'm sure one of these days when it starts to become a threat to people the rest of the European countries are going to freak out then the Netherlands will all just be like, "Don't worry guys, I got this."
Then when the day has been saved they'll go, "That's great, but did you have to put all those tulip farms and apple orchards on the reclaimed land?" And the good old NL will be all like, "No need to thank me."

[PanH]

I was talking more about the polders, even if I doubt too that the NL could handle that.

[Zrk2]

Even if the sea level rise goes the full ten metres like some people say it will, I doubt it's gonna spell the absolute end for them, I'm pretty sure the Dutch in particular considered it more of a challenge than a threat.

I mean I'm sure one of these days when it starts to become a threat to people the rest of the European countries are going to freak out then the Netherlands will all just be like, "Don't worry guys, I got this."
Then when the day has been saved they'll go, "That's great, but did you have to put all those tulip farms and apple orchards on the reclaimed land?" And the good old NL will be all like, "No need to thank me."

As someone who is a quarter Dutch I support this message.

[Thecard]

Yep.  World is gonna flood, but there will be a little Dutch pinky blocking the flood waters, and saving the world.

[Sheb]

Nah, the dutch are fine. They're already planning for it, and unlike say Bangladesh, they got the money and expertise to pull it off. Raising dikes by 10 m ain't that hard. What I'm more worried about (as a Belgian) is that they might give up some part as not worth the pain (I'm thinking about that small bit between the Escaut and Belgium) and force us to do the job.

Also, Belgium is pretty safe too. Since our whole coast look like this we just need to plug the hole in between the buildings and BAM!: Instant 20m-high dike!

[GreatWyrmGold]

I dispute the we need to get the fuck out point. Our population is set to stabilize at around 10 billion i think, though that doesn't disprove that by any means, but asteroid mining is a better proposition then mars is at the moment, given the costs. The argument for Mars i think is primarily a jumppad.

There's evidence that we might not be able to support our 7 billion or so people sustainably, certainly not at 1st World living standards and not without good world management. The problem is, we'll probably end up expanding our population to whatever limits we have--colonies on Mars and Luna and whatever growing acres of wheat and producing electricity and stuff isn't going to be more than a temporary solution, if that.

Tell that to the Dutch.

Moreover, raw surface is not a problem anytime soon. Itmight be eventually, but not this century, and space colonisation won't be a solution for centuries to come.

I agree with your conclusion but not your logic. We need more arable land, and to stop destroying the arable land we have. It all adds up to, "Space colonies wouldn't help too much," though. Sure, we could take a page from Heinlein and put wheat farms on Luna, but that's not too helpful...

Nah, the dutch are fine. They're already planning for it, and unlike say Bangladesh, they got the money and expertise to pull it off. Raising dikes by 10 m ain't that hard. What I'm more worried about (as a Belgian) is that they might give up some part as not worth the pain (I'm thinking about that small bit between the Escaut and Belgium) and force us to do the job.

Also, Belgium is pretty safe too. Since our whole coast look like this we just need to plug the hole in between the buildings and BAM!: Instant 20m-high dike!

I'm not sure why that's hilarious, but it is. I think water pressure might be a bit much for the windows on the first floor, though...

Anyways, as much as I'd like to see a Martian colony, there are some problems.
1. Technology--We can send manned craft around, we can send stuff to Mars, we can probably send manned craft to Mars, but we've never tried. And if something messes up out there, there's nothing they can do but try and fix it with what they brought or make peace with their god(s).
2. Money--We have it. We won't spend it. Luna is much closer, much safer, and actually superior for other reasons I'll discuss below.
3. Reason--There isn't much reason to make a full-fledged colony on Mars. Pretty much all you can do there that you can't do better and cheaper on Earth or Luna is boast that you colonized Mars.

Reasons for Lunar Superiority:
1. Power. Specifically, solar. Luna is closer to the sun, which increases the amount of energy available for power. Mars has a dusty atmosphere, which reduces energy and can damage the panels. The atmosphere isn't particularly dense, though, so there's still the risk of meteorite impacts.
2. Gravity. Luna has a gravity of about 1/6 of Earth's. Bad? Not for a geriatric colony! It also makes transport to Terra more feasible.
3. Crops. Sure, you need domes, but you'd need those on Mars, too. Same with soil. Plus sides of Luna: You can more easily ship the ingredients of soil or whatever up, two-week-long periods of sunshine, and easy electricity for lighting the two-week night.
4. H₃. I'm not sure how much Mars has, but it's harder to ship stuff to Earth from Mars. H₃ is pretty valuable, and what's more it could stimulate fusion research, which would be a good thing.

A lunar colony would be a great benefit. I once calculated that a $100 billion colony, plus solar panels in a band something like 5 meters wide around the equator, plus satellites to transfer power from Luna to Terra, would pay for itself in...I think a few months? if we could sell all the power at something like half or two-thirds the going rate. I didn't account for maintenance of the solar panels, but I accounted for about everything else. Granted, it was an absurd amount of electricity, so demand might beat supply, but still...it's impressive. And that's not counting H₃, geriatrics, or agriculture. Sadly, I can't imagine anyone investing in that project for a long while...

[MetalSlimeHunt]

1. Technology--We can send manned craft around, we can send stuff to Mars, we can probably send manned craft to Mars, but we've never tried. And if something messes up out there, there's nothing they can do but try and fix it with what they brought or make peace with their god(s).

This is the same for Luna as Mars. Even in optimal conditions, it would take weeks to get an emergency craft up.

2. Money--We have it. We won't spend it. Luna is much closer, much safer, and actually superior for other reasons I'll discuss below.

Distance doesn't mean as much in space as it does on Earth. The energy spent going from Earth to Mars is not significantly greater than the energy spent going from Earth to Luna for this reason.

1. Power. Specifically, solar. Luna is closer to the sun, which increases the amount of energy available for power. Mars has a dusty atmosphere, which reduces energy and can damage the panels.

Luna has a dusty surface, which is electrostatically changed and thus sticks to everything it comes into contact with and tries its damnedest to never come off. It is also deadly toxic.

The atmosphere isn't particularly dense, though, so there's still the risk of meteorite impacts.

This is more of an issue on Luna! The whole moon isn't covered in craters for show, it has been taking the brunt of near-Earth objects for billions of years now.

2. Gravity. Luna has a gravity of about 1/6 of Earth's. Bad? Not for a geriatric colony!

You are never going to convince old people to give up the remainder of their lives toiling on Luna until they die of the conditions there. We probably won't have much need for that anyway. Centrifugal beds would be a good way to go about maintaining bone density.

4. H₃. I'm not sure how much Mars has, but it's harder to ship stuff to Earth from Mars. H₃ is pretty valuable, and what's more it could stimulate fusion research, which would be a good thing.

He3's potential for fusion is an unknown, and there's another issue: You would have to process 150 tons of Lunar regolith in order to extract one ton of He3. It isn't a very cooperative resource.

[GreatWyrmGold]

1. Technology--We can send manned craft around, we can send stuff to Mars, we can probably send manned craft to Mars, but we've never tried. And if something messes up out there, there's nothing they can do but try and fix it with what they brought or make peace with their god(s).

This is the same for Luna as Mars. Even in optimal conditions, it would take weeks to get an emergency craft up.

Differences:
1. We've been to the Lunar surface.
2. An escape craft from Luna would be possible.

2. Money--We have it. We won't spend it. Luna is much closer, much safer, and actually superior for other reasons I'll discuss below.

Distance doesn't mean as much in space as it does on Earth. The energy spent going from Earth to Mars is not significantly greater than the energy spent going from Earth to Luna for this reason.

There are other considerations, too. Time is money, after all, and communication would be painful over those distances...to say nothing if when the Sun was in the way...
Supplies on the craft would have to last a lot longer, too. You could probably get a colonizing craft to the Lunar surface within a week, and therefore would only need supplies for that week, plus however long it takes you to set up the colony's farms. Trips to Mars would take months.

1. Power. Specifically, solar. Luna is closer to the sun, which increases the amount of energy available for power. Mars has a dusty atmosphere, which reduces energy and can damage the panels.

Luna has a dusty surface, which is electrostatically changed and thus sticks to everything it comes into contact with and tries its damnedest to never come off. It is also deadly toxic.

There's no wind, though. You should be able to build the actual panels a foot or so off the ground or something. Also, why would you eat moon dust? Those space suits are there for a reason.

The atmosphere isn't particularly dense, though, so there's still the risk of meteorite impacts.

This is more of an issue on Luna! The whole moon isn't covered in craters for show, it has been taking the brunt of near-Earth objects for billions of years now.

My point is that it wasn't a noticeably smaller risk on Mars.

2. Gravity. Luna has a gravity of about 1/6 of Earth's. Bad? Not for a geriatric colony!

You are never going to convince old people to give up the remainder of their lives toiling on Luna until they die of the conditions there. We probably won't have much need for that anyway. Centrifugal beds would be a good way to go about maintaining bone density.

Why would they be "toiling?" Okay, I'll admit I was a bit unclear on that point, but I was envisioning some sort of Lunar nursing colony, founded once the main one was up and running.

4. H₃. I'm not sure how much Mars has, but it's harder to ship stuff to Earth from Mars. H₃ is pretty valuable, and what's more it could stimulate fusion research, which would be a good thing.

He3's potential for fusion is an unknown, and there's another issue: You would have to process 150 tons of Lunar regolith in order to extract one ton of He3. It isn't a very cooperative resource.

Wikipedia suggests that the price for H₃ is around $100 per liter, but a Discovery News article suggests that this number is out of date. It says that the price is closer to $5,000 per liter (or was, when it was published), but either way that's not exactly minor. I'd have to know the density of H₃ and the cost of extracting it, but it seems to be a fairly profitable industry. If it's not, we could skip it.
Anyways, the "research" includes figuring out if it's good for fusion. That's why I didn't say "it will fuel our fusion reactors!" Even a failure on the fusion count could help us discover something.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Differences:
1. We've been to the Lunar surface.
2. An escape craft from Luna would be possible.

We've been to the Martian surface. There isn't that much the rovers can't analyze that a live person could.

An escape craft from Mars is possible. We've never built one, but it's possible. Mars' escape velocity is 5 km/s to Luna's 2.4 km/s. Earth's, by comparison, is 11.2 km/s.

Supplies on the craft would have to last a lot longer, too. You could probably get a colonizing craft to the Lunar surface within a week, and therefore would only need supplies for that week, plus however long it takes you to set up the colony's farms. Trips to Mars would take months.

Not with better engines, which we will probably have by that time.

There's no wind, though. You should be able to build the actual panels a foot or so off the ground or something. Also, why would you eat moon dust? Those space suits are there for a reason.

I don't think you quite get how charged this dust is. It will actually crawl up things, if the reports are to be believed. Plus, not all of it is on the surface thanks to constant meteor impacts.

As for toxicity, as I recall you only have to touch it, which is in the realm of possibility when it's all over your suit when you try to get out of it.

Anyway, this is kind of pointless, because I don't think we should go to Luna or Mars. I think we should go to Luna, Mars, Venus, and Mercury as quickly as possible.

[Thecard]

Isn't Venus ridiculously corrosive?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Very. On the surface, anyway. About 50km above the surface, however, the air pressure is 1 bar and the temperature is between 0 and 50 Celsius. There's still some acidic threat, but nothing like on the surface.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Differences:
1. We've been to the Lunar surface.
2. An escape craft from Luna would be possible.

We've been to the Martian surface. There isn't that much the rovers can't analyze that a live person could.
An escape craft from Mars is possible. We've never built one, but it's possible. Mars' escape velocity is 5 km/s to Luna's 2.4 km/s. Earth's, by comparison, is 11.2 km/s.

HUMANS have been to the Lunar surface. Yes, the same types of things used to move rovers to the Martian surface could be used for people, too. No, we haven't tried.
I meant that you could get to Earth in a reasonable amount of time.

Supplies on the craft would have to last a lot longer, too. You could probably get a colonizing craft to the Lunar surface within a week, and therefore would only need supplies for that week, plus however long it takes you to set up the colony's farms. Trips to Mars would take months.

Not with better engines, which we will probably have by that time.

There's no wind, though. You should be able to build the actual panels a foot or so off the ground or something. Also, why would you eat moon dust? Those space suits are there for a reason.

I don't think you quite get how charged this dust is. It will actually crawl up things, if the reports are to be believed. Plus, not all of it is on the surface thanks to constant meteor impacts.

1. Evidently not. The obvious answer is to charge whatever's holding the panels up. Negative repels negative, you know.
2. Are meteor impacts really so common as to create clouds of dust that linger for any appreciable amount of time? Doesn't a lack of air mean it will fall back to the surface pretty fast?

As for toxicity, as I recall you only have to touch it, which is in the realm of possibility when it's all over your suit when you try to get out of it.

What would Neil Armstrong do?

Anyway, this is kind of pointless, because I don't think we should go to Luna or Mars. I think we should go to Luna, Mars, Venus, and Mercury as quickly as possible.

Why Venus? Its high temperature, acidic atmosphere, and atmospheric pressure render it uninhabitable without a dome, and make the creation and maintenance of such a dome difficult. I can see Mercury, given its closeness to Sol and the resultant increase in the efficiency of solar plants, but aside from trying to "spread out" the human population, why?

Finally, keep in mind that we probably can't and certainly won't do all that at the same time. Luna is a good place to start, which is why the Apollo program landed on the Moon first, not Venus, Mars, Mercury, or all at once.

And, not to be condescending (a sure sign that I'm about to fail), but...50 kilometers is some really tall stilts.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

2. Are meteor impacts really so common as to create clouds of dust that linger for any appreciable amount of time? Doesn't a lack of air mean it will fall back to the surface pretty fast?

I'm not totally sure. There's no air, true, but there's also very little gravity. It wouldn't take a very extreme impact to eject the dust into a stable or unstable orbit, the latter of which would cause it to rain back down at a later date.

What would Neil Armstrong do?

Hotwire the Lunar Lander with a pencil and eject right before it crashes and explodes, then write the mission report. All of those things really happened, by the way, though not at the same time.

I can see Mercury, given its closeness to Sol and the resultant increase in the efficiency of solar plants, but aside from trying to "spread out" the human population, why?

No, that's pretty much exactly why. Spread the human population like self-replicating peanut butter. The more places we are, the more likely it is that a major cataclysm will fail to kill us all, leaving survivors to rebuild and/or seek bloody genocidal revenge.

And I guess there might be interesting and/or valuable things on Venus. Maybe.

And, not to be condescending (a sure sign that I'm about to fail), but...50 kilometers is some really tall stilts.

Who said anything about stilts? The idea is that they'd be balloons, of a sort. It eliminates all the problems except corrosion.

[andrea]

well, 50 km would be quite huge stilts. that is why usually venus colonization plans involve floating habitats.
fill a baloon with breathable air, and you will float at a comfortable height.
also, Venus atmopshere being denser than our ( it is mostly CO2), such a baloon could be made to float in an area with an outer pressure of 1 bar. which would make holes in the habitat fairly trivial, compared to the rapid decompression on Moon or Mars.
while far from ideal, Venus isn't that bad... as long as you stay far from surface.

[thobal]

You would have to process 150 tons of Lunar regolith in order to extract one ton of He3. It isn't a very cooperative resource.

Erm... I'm not exactly sure what you mean by cooperative, but that's like 6667 grams per ton. Like, 500 times better than the resource-ore ratio you get with a nice gold mine 1 to 150 is like... salt in the ocean. I know 150 tons processed per ton extracted sounds like a lot, but it really isn't.