U.S. opinion, the sequel (Golden Rainbow)

This will make it easier than scrolling halfway around the world to read and answer the original thread.

Zetetic, some brilliant analysis. I'm a bit of a science nerd myself, although I pursued a political science/history double major while at college (university to all you Euro folks).

Have to admit to a touch of ignorance with regard to the fusion thing, so I'm glad that Farmer and you were able to set me straight. The sun and other stars' operation is usually described to laymen as a continuous series of nuclear explosions. Which, though technically true I suppose, leads the layman to think of nuclear bombs and their devastating effects. So when the layman hears that fusion power is a miniature version of the sun, the first thought is "oh crap, what if something goes wrong?".

I try to follow all the advances being made in the various scientific fields, but must admit to being enamored with the potential of outer space. Used to love listening to Carl Sagan, et al, expound on the possibilities. One of the great disappointments to me has been the basic abandonment of space exploitation by the world's major nations.

The potential for resource collection on the moon, for example, is enormous. It could be performed robotically for the most part, and even the environmentalists couldn't possibly find a reason to oppose it. As with some of the earthbound solutions Zetetic offered (which I found fascinating), the initial startup cost would be large, but the return would eventually make it worthwhile.

Even with the adoption of every measure that has been suggested in the thread, sooner or later the Earth will reach it's apex in resources. By moving much of the mining industries into space via robotic means we reduce the problems associated with those industries. The asteroids are full of metals such as nickel, copper, and so on, and are only slightly more difficult to access than the moon. And the discovery of hydrocarbon oceans on Titan raises many questions about the origin of fossil fuels. It's doubtful that Titan once held vegetation, so where did the oil come from? Are there other, more easily accessible, sources of oil out there?

I know I'm preaching, but it's one of my pet subjects. Bear with me for one final shot, and I'll let someone else take over.

Although the population explosion here on Earth has slowed considerably as more nations enter a developed status, it is still a concern for the long term outlook. Back as early as the 1970s there was a viable plan to "terraform" Venus.

Venus' atmosphere is primarily very dense carbon dioxide, under enormous pressure. There is a species of blue-green algae which has been shown under laboratory conditions to be capable of surviving the conditions on Venus. I no longer recall the number of algae promulgated as being neccessary for initial "seeding", but it was large. What happens is the algae would initially get "stuck" in the upper atmosphere due to the density. As it feeds on the CO2 and releases oxygen, it will eventually form an ozone layer around the planet. In the beginning of course much of the oxygen would be lost to space, but an ozone layer would form in time.

To cut this shorter, briefly what will occur is that as the algae reproduce and kick out more oxygen, some oxygen will combine with the existing hydrogen and form water, which will initially immediately turn to steam and rise, cooling the upper atmosphere and recondensing to repeat the process. The algae will "fall" through the atmosphere as the density decreases.

Roughly 30 years after the initial seeding the first actual rain will fall on the surface. Within 10 more years the surface temperatures will average approximately 80 degrees farenheit.

The gravity of Venus is very compatible with Earth, as is it's "day", although it rotates backwards. It is therefore ideal for human habitation. The temps would be basically tropical, and there was no discussion of polar caps being established in the theory, so don't know how that would play out. We don't really understand the "icebox" effect that the Antarctic provides here on Earth yet, so whether polar caps are needed for a planet to sustain human life is unclear.

The major downside to doing this is, other than the time frame involved, the cost. It would be prohibitive, no one nation could afford it by themselves. It would need to be a true "United Nations" effort.

All right, that's my soap box oration for this Sunday. Almost reminds me of the corner of the Park over in London! ;)

First about Zet with the yangze river thing. I WAS thinking of the three gorges dam.

JMR: http://www.spaceward.org/elevator2010

The space elevator idea would decrease the cost of sending anything out to space exponentialy.That is the most expensive part of space exploration/exploitation: getting things INTO outer space. We still need to be able to come up with different types of drills/drill bits, more robust robots, the means to store/transport mass quantities of resources....ok, so maybe getting into space isn't the most expensive....but it IS a sizeable chunk.

And believe me, the environmentalists will come up with some crazy ideas to block exploiting the moon, and Venus. They'll say "but Venus is dead, you'll ruin Venus if you start life on that planet." LOL

I was always under the impression that it would take hundreds, if not thousands of years instead of decades for algae to start producing the amount of oxygen levels needed on a planet in order to produce water, or even sustain life.

Now, Venus, it has a temperature of over 400 degrees, with n atmosphere of 90 atmospheres, and is mostly comprised of carbon dioxide and sulfuric acid. Now, I would love to the the wierd mutant algae that could possibly survive such conditions. Most anything would be vaporized at that temp, with that volitile of an atmosphere.

Mars is a much more likely candidate to colonize. We have already sent a number of probes to Mars in exploration of the planet. Plus the Phoenix Lander has already recently found water in a soil sample taken from the north pole.

Problems of Mars: No active plate tectonics (who knows how that could affect possible future life). There is almost no greenhouse effect to speak of...It is incredibly cold. Algae, or any other kind of plant life that may possibly be able to survive on the surface as is would take thousand of years in order to form an earth-like atmosphere. Although we COULD build domes on the planet, with very efficient recycling systems. It would require huge greenhouses, with animals stored there in order for humans to be self-sustaining.

That would be an incredible project to undertake, in which there needs to be massive amounts of cooperation between all the major nations of the world.

Resource collection onthe moon:
I don't believe there really ARE any actual usable resources on the moon. The moon is mostly just rock and dust. The rock that IS there isn't even a carbonate-type of rock that could be burned, and even if it was, we might as well be burning with coal rather than trying to create more efficient green techs anyway. I doubt there are any sizeable metal deposits on the moon as well.

The asteroids should have tremendous amounts of resources. I would all for mining asteroids.

Re: Mining asteroids.

I believe a mining company did look into this. They worked out that we have the technology to do this easily, although not quickly. It would involve towing the asteroid into a near-Earth orbit and ferrying materials down.

It would also have been a relatively profitable means of extracting certain materials. At least, it would have been profitable until they looked at the effect of all that extra material hitting the international commodity market. They worked out that it would depress the price so much, they would have gone bankrupt.

Good point Zetetic. As you're a bonafide scientist type, what is your opinion on whether doing something of that nature would have a discernible effect on the gravitational forces vis a vis the moon and Earth?

Seems to me that the effect would be miniscule, but I frequently hear that everything is so finely tuned in that regard that even the smallest deviation could have negative effects. What say you?

MM, I'll have to dig the book out of my library. All I can remember right now is that it was written by Carl Sagan back in the 1960s. It's possible that new info received since then would change the scenario. I seem to recall a British inventor (Pike?) was trying for a patent back 5-10 years ago which was a container filled with a gelatinous substance, algae, and plant seeds, for the purposes of seeding Venus. Don't know what happened with that.

The algae Sagan talks about is one of the blue-green species, and it thrives in geysers and other inhospitable areas. The key, and the expense, to terraforming Venus is with the initial seeding. It would require a WHOLE lot of ships, filled with a whole lot of algae. The surface temp is irrelevant. The density of the atmosphere would hold the algae in the upper portion. As they did their thing, the atmospheric pressure would gradually decrease, as would the temps due to the continuous "rain/steam/rain" process. Or so Sagan's theory goes. I'll have to google it.

You're not giving life enough credit for resilience. Go to the bottom of the ocean, where the pressure would destroy any surface life instantly. You'll see a myriad of wild science fiction looking critters happily swimming around, making their own electicity or whatever so they can see what's what. I also recall hearing something about some form of life which survives with almost no oxygen, but it's getting late and I can't concentrate.

In reality it is much simpler, in general, to change an existing atmosphere than it is to create one from nothing. Mars' gravity just doesn't have enough oomph to hold a human environment atmosphere in place. The terrain could be transformed; witness the plant life which grows on the peaks of the world's highest mountains, where a human needs an oxygen tank to survive, and some decent clothes for the temps. But humans could not live outside of the domes you mentioned without some pretty drastic measures being taken.

On to the moon. It has millions of tons of Helium-3 locked into its' soil. Since Zetetic and FarmerBob got me going in the right direction on fusion, they will probably know already what helium-3 is. An article on wired.com (wish I knew how to do the links like you guys)discusses the benefits of using h-3 in fusion reactors. It is cleaner and more efficient than other methods. Scientists estimate that one space shuttle full of h-3 would provide enough power to run the US for a year if used in fusion reactors. This isotope is extremely rare here on Earth. NASA plans to have a manned base on the moon by 2024. China, India, Russia, and the European Space Agency have all declared their intent to establish manned moon bases by 2020. They are all interested in h-3.

Additionally, there is abundant quantities of iron and titanium in the lunar soil, and processes are being worked on that would make it feasible to extract these from the soil.

Yet another idea being worked on is to turn the moon into a giant solar power station. The scattering of millions of fuel cells on the surface could be used to collect solar power, send it to a microwave transmitting satellite, and then beamed to Earth.

Got to close. I'll be on assignment in Arizona for a week starting Saturday and will probably be too busy to hit the forum, so if you don't hear from me, it's not because I lost interest.

Tried to post this last night and something was wrong with either the system or my server. And in the meantime I did google the Venus thing, and it seems that the general consensus on it is now leaning towards your opinion MM. That's what I get for relying on a book from the '60s!

I have to say, I am surprised that we think we can terraform Venus. My hunch would have been to go for Mars, but it seems I'm wrong (not too unusual!). I've probably had my opinions tainted by the Mars Trilogy (Kim Stanley Robinson). Definitely a must-read for anyone interested in terraforming other planets, as well as anyone interested in politics and political theory.

We do not have the capability to drag anything into a near-Earth orbit large enough to destabilise the Earth-Moon system. Even something as large as the Moon would not affect Earth's orbit (though it would disrupt the Moon enough to cause havoc on Earth, not to mention the complications caused to the tides).

Interestingly, there are a number of stable Lagrange Points that could support a fairly sizeable artificial satellite (be it an asteroid, or space-station) with minimal fuel requirements. All Earth-orbiting satellites require orbital adjustments on a relatively frequent basis and this puts a time limit on their life-expectancy as they can only carry a limited amount of fuel. Lagrangian points are locations where the gravitational pull is fairly well balanced, and any object at that point is relatively stable.

To enter a link on the forum, type the following:

\link{hyperlink,text}

Take a look at the formatting documentation (also accessible from list of links on the left).

Muchas gracias, Zetetic. That was my opinion, but good to hear it from someone more knowledgeable on the theoretical aspects.

MM was right about the difficulties involved with terraforming Venus. I was basing my thoughts on theories espoused by Carl Sagan and others back in the 1960s and 70s, before a more in-depth analysis of the conditions there showed a much higher temperature in the atmosphere, and greater toxicity. The temp he references is actually in centigrade I believe, which makes it even higher to those of us on this side of the pond.

I've read the trilogy by Robinson, it is outstanding.

I am also familiar with Lagrange Points. I just have to wonder whether the human psyche and tendency to claustrophobia would preclude any major interest in artificial colonies. The gravitational aspect is easily solved by "spinning" the satellite, but people have some primal need to see a "sky". Although the creation of "clouds" may be relatively easy through water vapor, and maybe technology can provide the illusion of a day/night cycle. Interesting.

Thanks also for the info on posting links. Good for future reference. Learned quite a bit while researching fusion after you and FarmerBob motivated me. The technology is actually much further advanced than I was aware. We're still at least 50 years out from it being viable by most estimates, but the last time I looked into it, it was still in the theoretical stage. And with the rapidly accelerating pace of tech change going on 50 years may be conservative. We'll see.

I was aware of NASA and China's intention to establish manned stations on the moon, although I hadn't followed the purpose for doing so. The fact that India, Russia, and the European Space Agency were also planning on being on the moon by 2020 (that's only 12 years away!) had escaped my notice altogether. And the primary reason for all of the interest is apparently for the Helium-3.

Are we poised for another Age of Discovery and Exploration? I for one hope so. I think the human species has an inbred drive to seek out the unknown. Showing my age yet again: "To go where no man has gone before..."! LOL

Never saw the Star Trek show when it was actually running as the place we were living at the time had no American TV. But became addicted to the reruns when we got back stateside.

heh, I took three years of astronomy in HS, and both times in my first two years of college. I like science, I dabble a little bit in it. But that is not where my life career is going towards now. This is my last year of college before I become a high school teacher. For health and PE. studied a bit of American History as well, and pc programming, and astronomy, as I have mentioned. But my main subject area is health and PE! LOL, would like ot also be the baseball coach someday....


I'm hoping that I could land a job SOMEWHERE when I'm out of college.

I have already read those three books that Zet mentioned...Red Planet, Blue Planet, and Green Planet. Kinda lost interest halfway through the second book, but kind of pushed my way through. Man, that series had just about every subject area one could think of, while making it pretty entertaining to read. The author was a genius. I, too, recommend that series.

JMR: I had no idea the moon actually had helium up there in the "dust". (I hardly think the term "soil" is adequate lol)

Europa and....Titan? are two more possiblities of harboring life. But if they do, it wouldn't help us at all. They're both so far away first of all, and Europa...if there IS water on that planet....it would be such a vast ocean...a moon-wide ocean actually, that there would be no possible way to create colonies there, not to mention the surface is just ice.

I am also familiar with Lagrangian Points. The problem would be to first get the asteroid towards the Earth, then station the asteroid within the Lagrange without it falling towards the Earth, or the Moon. I have no idea how they would tow the asteroid into position that way. Maybe put a few thrusters 360 degrees, every few degrees, around the rock, that way it could be maneuvered into place. But then again, how would the thrusters be controlled? And how well would be have to know the mass/dimensions of said asteroid? There is also the other possibility of maybe knocking a different asteroid out of it's orbit through the solar system. I know the asteroid belt is not SO completely full of rocks, that their constantly ramming, and smashing into each other as most people seem to think. There would be plenty of room for between the prospective rock, and the next closest one, which could literally be millions of miles away. But you all know how greedy large corporations can get. If they see one that is just soooo chock full of....I dunno...maybe platinum or something, that these corporate exec types start drooling over it, but that particular rock happens to be right smack dab next to a big ass piece the size of Texas...I'm sorry, I do not like putting my fate into the hands of corporate asshats.

The exploration of space, however, could be used as a tool of cooperation between all majors nations of the world. No nation is ever going to be able to go it alone with these massive undertakings in space. That is my hope. with our inherent need to constantly explore more and more, I am hoping for cooperation rather than competition.

Besides, isn't it mandate somewhere, maybe in the UN, or in NASA, or the ESA or something that space is supposed to be used as a tool, meant for peaceful exploration and scientific advancement? I know that is realisticly far form the case. Space has been used as a tool for governments to showcase their capabilities. But there are tons of examples of peaceful progress through cooperation in space. The International Space Station could be used as a future symbol of the UN, for instance.

bah...who am I kidding? I dream way too much sometimes. I guess I just do not understand "human nature" at all. I know quite a bit about history, science, computers, and a ton of stuff about the physical human body.....but know nothing of humans at all...The greed, the hate, the jealousy, the paranoia....I have no idea where all of that comes from, and wish I did....or maybe I don't wish that I did at all. I guess I agree with Anne Frank, even after she went through the holocaust, I like to believe that people are actually, truly, good.

Heh, I dunno where that came from. I guess that was mostly to sum up these 2 threads for the most part.

But, yeah, I agree with you, JMR. It really feels like we are on a New Age of Discovery. This is how it must have felt back in the 1490s and 1500s to people who kept up on current events. I only hope we don't end up fighting wars over a bunch of dead planets and rocks...lol!

Just a sidetrack comment since MM brought up the fact that he wants to be a high school teacher. To quote another thread on the forum: "ARE YOU CRAZY?" lol.

After my early retirement from the Postal Service I spent 3 years as a custodian at a local high school for the extra income, while I built up a "portfolio" for my writing career. Won't even begin to describe some of what I saw, other than one incident.

Part of my duties were to clean the auditorium. One night as I was running my broom down the aisles I caught a really nasty odor. Under one of the seats was a widemouth Gatorade bottle, and someone had actually crapped in it and put it under the seat! With the lid off, of course, so it would give off it's aroma. It wasn't much longer after that when I decided the time was right for moving on.

Continuing the slightly twisted tone of my contribution, my Health/PE teacher in high school's name was Harry Johnson. A health teacher with a name like that. How could we NOT make fun of it?

Not sure if our Euro friends will catch that reference. It's like the movie "Free Willy". Some Euro folks thought that was a porn movie. lol.

All right, I'll try to get back on track. I have a general theory on human nature. I believe 10% of people are "on the side of the angels", 10% of people are manipulators for their own benefit, and the other 80% are basically sheep who are influenced to a greater or lesser degree by the two "leader" groups. Charisma is a strange thing. The vast majority of the German people during the period leading up to WWII would never have followed Hitler if they had known exactly what he was all about, but his charisma was so great that they were overwhelmed by it and blinded to the truth. I remember reading an interview with a German lady who was a teenager during the period.

She had attended one of Hitler's speeches, and here's what she said in the interview: "It was incredible. The words were SO powerful, and they reached into my very soul. I became lightheaded; I screamed and yelled right along with the thousands of others who were there. But when I got home and actually thought about the speech I realized he had not said anything at all. Just a mishmash of meaningless platitudes, delivered in a forceful way. I became scared then at how easily I had been led by the nose."

BTW, just to clarify for those folks who may not know it, Anne Frank did not survive the war. Her story is well worth reading though, as it shows that there will always be people who will risk their lives in different ways for what is right. And that alone is reason to have hope for the species.

MM, correct on the "Peaceful uses of space". It's a UN agreement.

Until next time.

Ah, I was thinking the so-called "peaceful uses of space" was more or less an unwritten code of ethics much like "freedom of the high seas" has been for centuries.

About being a high school teacher, I wont have to deal with nasty stuff like you did...that's the janitors job LOL.

The whole "leader" group thing...is that an actual theory of human nature? That's kinda scary if you think about.

Yeah, Anne Frank died at the age of 16 I think. The very last line she wrote, and I remember to this day, is that she still believes in the goodness of man kind. Her and I are of like mind I guess.

The last truly meaningful politician, IMHO, died in 1945, in the passing away of Franklyn D. Roosevelt. He was probably the only US president to have been mourned by almost everyone around the world

After 6 decades of life, Mr Morrison, those I have learned to trust the the least are those that want to "lead" others the most.

People are people. Demagogues are dangerous animals.

Your 60? Nice.

I actually don't care much for politics. I would rather just go on living my own life. I DO love a good debate though, was thinking of being a lawyer, but being a teacher is ever so much more noble.

Plus I get to feel like I have a lot of power! MUAHAHAHA.

Plus I get to feel like I have a lot of power! MUAHAHAHA.

Oh boy. America's edumakashun system won't know what's hit it!

Peaceful uses of space

I fear this will become as worthless as the paper it's written on in time.

Rather like the UN declaration that Antarctica cannot be claimed by any nation. It has been divided up by 7 nations (with two more reserving the right to claim territory in the future). Why? Minerals and oil. Exploration and extraction is currently forbidden, however the UN made the sad mistake of putting an expiry date on the treaty. When it lapses, it will become a free-for-all.

Peaceful uses of space are governed by the Outer Space Treaty signed and ratified by 98 states. It forbids weapons of mass destruction being based in orbit, or the establishment of military bases on celestial bodies.

hhmm, so what happens if a nation places a nuke launcher in space? Are all the other countries just going to have some sort of embargo? That would be pretty weak.

Just have to share this with you. If you recall my post about Britain's use of hydro-electric power to cope with a spike in demand at the end of certain TV soaps.

Just watched Britain From Above on BBC and they interviewed an engineer working for the National Grid (that supplies electricity here in the UK). He has a TV tuned to BBC1 waiting for the end of Eastenders next to his workstation so that he knows exactly when to turn up the supply.

Apparently this sudden spike in demand is unique to Britain - the combination of the end of a popular TV programme and the British addiction to tea (something like 600,000 kettles all go on within 5 minutes of each other). It's known as the TV Pickup and we also experience it at the end of important football matches. Such is the scale of demand that we often have to draw electricity across the Channel from France!

LMAO, that is hilarious!

Just a finishing touch on this thread. Had to laugh at Zetetic's revelation about "Eastenders" and electricity spikes.

We here in the U.S. have a similar phenomenon. It's known as the "Halftime flush", and it occurs at halftime of the Super Bowl, when all those American beer-guzzling "hooligans" rush to relieve themselves before running back to the tube to hope for a "wardrobe malfunction" during the halftime festivities.

I've heard about that one! Course that does not surprise me in the least.