fusion is the opposite of fission...without fusion, we're doomed to craptacular solar energy... :/

fusion is the opposite of fission...without fusion, we're doomed to craptacular solar energy... :/

[quote]Would there be a way to safely harness the power of hydrogenic fusion?[/quote] lol, it's called solar panels. But seriously, not at the moment, but I guarantee it will be in the future. (Because in the future anything can be guaranteed.)

Quote

Would there be a way to safely harness the power of hydrogenic fusion?

lol, it's called solar panels.

But seriously, not at the moment, but I guarantee it will be in the future. (Because in the future anything can be guaranteed.)

The difference is how much can we really harness? Scientists say that fully operating and constant TOKAMAKs will be available around in 40~50 years.

The difference is how much can we really harness? Scientists say that fully operating and constant TOKAMAKs will be available around in 40~50 years.

[quote=name:BeDazed]The difference is how much can we really harness? Scientists say that fully operating and constant TOKAMAKs will be available around in 40~50 years.[/quote] That would be awesome. I believe at the moment, they can't sustain the reaction with the Tokamak's lasers since it uses up more power than it creates...? But even so, estimates like those are often too optimistic. People in the 60's and 70's predicted we'd put a man on Mars by 2000. I guess it's a good thing that technology hasn't advanced to a point where computers enslave mankind. lol

Quote from BeDazed

The difference is how much can we really harness? Scientists say that fully operating and constant TOKAMAKs will be available around in 40~50 years.

That would be awesome. I believe at the moment, they can't sustain the reaction with the Tokamak's lasers since it uses up more power than it creates...?

But even so, estimates like those are often too optimistic. People in the 60's and 70's predicted we'd put a man on Mars by 2000.
I guess it's a good thing that technology hasn't advanced to a point where computers enslave mankind. lol

[quote=name:Intranetusa][quote=name:BeDazed]The difference is how much can we really harness? Scientists say that fully operating and constant TOKAMAKs will be available around in 40~50 years.[/quote] That would be awesome. I believe at the moment, they can't sustain the reaction with the Tokamak's lasers since it uses up more power than it creates...? But even so, estimates like those are often too optimistic. People in the 60's and 70's predicted we'd put a man on Mars by 2000. I guess it's a good thing that technology hasn't advanced to a point where computers enslave mankind. lol[/quote] We probably do have the technology to put a man on Mars. Science and technology is not the issue, and I believe they were just predicting based on if we would technologically be able to do it. You can't really predict whether or not government/society would maintain interest in going to Mars though.

Quote from Intranetusa

Quote from BeDazed

The difference is how much can we really harness? Scientists say that fully operating and constant TOKAMAKs will be available around in 40~50 years.

That would be awesome. I believe at the moment, they can't sustain the reaction with the Tokamak's lasers since it uses up more power than it creates...?

But even so, estimates like those are often too optimistic. People in the 60's and 70's predicted we'd put a man on Mars by 2000.
I guess it's a good thing that technology hasn't advanced to a point where computers enslave mankind. lol

We probably do have the technology to put a man on Mars. Science and technology is not the issue, and I believe they were just predicting based on if we would technologically be able to do it. You can't really predict whether or not government/society would maintain interest in going to Mars though.

[quote=name:devilesk]We probably do have the technology to put a man on Mars. Science and technology is not the issue, and I believe they were just predicting based on if we would technologically be able to do it. You can't really predict whether or not government/society would maintain interest in going to Mars though.[/quote] Yeh, it's too bad they haven't found oil or gold on Mars yet - we'd be drilling & strip mining on Mars in no time. lol I suppose we can always rely on private organizations or hopefully rich billionaires in the future to fund expensive space programs in the future...

Quote from (U)devilesk

We probably do have the technology to put a man on Mars. Science and technology is not the issue, and I believe they were just predicting based on if we would technologically be able to do it. You can't really predict whether or not government/society would maintain interest in going to Mars though.

Yeh, it's too bad they haven't found oil or gold on Mars yet - we'd be drilling & strip mining on Mars in no time. lol

I suppose we can always rely on private organizations or hopefully rich billionaires in the future to fund expensive space programs in the future...

That would take a shitload of time and cost a shitload of money to transport materials millions of miles back and forth. Would it even be worth it?

That would take a shitload of time and cost a shitload of money to transport materials millions of miles back and forth. Would it even be worth it?

[quote=name:Merrell]That would take a shitload of time and cost a shitload of money to transport materials millions of miles back and forth. Would it even be worth it?[/quote] For science!

Quote from Merrell

That would take a shitload of time and cost a shitload of money to transport materials millions of miles back and forth. Would it even be worth it?

For science!

[quote=name:devilesk][quote=name:Intranetusa][quote=name:BeDazed]The difference is how much can we really harness? Scientists say that fully operating and constant TOKAMAKs will be available around in 40~50 years.[/quote] That would be awesome. I believe at the moment, they can't sustain the reaction with the Tokamak's lasers since it uses up more power than it creates...? But even so, estimates like those are often too optimistic. People in the 60's and 70's predicted we'd put a man on Mars by 2000. I guess it's a good thing that technology hasn't advanced to a point where computers enslave mankind. lol[/quote] We probably do have the technology to put a man on Mars. Science and technology is not the issue, and I believe they were just predicting based on if we would technologically be able to do it. You can't really predict whether or not government/society would maintain interest in going to Mars though.[/quote] We've had the tech to get a person to Mars for over 20 years; we could have done it by the Mid-1980s if we continued the Apollo program.

Quote from (U)devilesk

Quote from Intranetusa

Quote from BeDazed

The difference is how much can we really harness? Scientists say that fully operating and constant TOKAMAKs will be available around in 40~50 years.

That would be awesome. I believe at the moment, they can't sustain the reaction with the Tokamak's lasers since it uses up more power than it creates...?

But even so, estimates like those are often too optimistic. People in the 60's and 70's predicted we'd put a man on Mars by 2000.
I guess it's a good thing that technology hasn't advanced to a point where computers enslave mankind. lol

We probably do have the technology to put a man on Mars. Science and technology is not the issue, and I believe they were just predicting based on if we would technologically be able to do it. You can't really predict whether or not government/society would maintain interest in going to Mars though.

We've had the tech to get a person to Mars for over 20 years; we could have done it by the Mid-1980s if we continued the Apollo program.

[quote=name:Merrell]That would take a shitload of time and cost a shitload of money to transport materials millions of miles back and forth. Would it even be worth it?[/quote] Thats called logistics...

Quote from Merrell

That would take a shitload of time and cost a shitload of money to transport materials millions of miles back and forth. Would it even be worth it?

Thats called logistics...

There is nothing logistical about traveling millions of miles to get resources that will use more resources to get there than that you can get in a single trip. Nothing in our current or near future technology will make that trip efficient at all.

There is nothing logistical about traveling millions of miles to get resources that will use more resources to get there than that you can get in a single trip. Nothing in our current or near future technology will make that trip efficient at all.

[quote=name:Merrell]There is nothing logistical about traveling millions of miles to get resources that will use more resources to get there than that you can get in a single trip. Nothing in our current or near future technology will make that trip efficient at all.[/quote] Then find one and quit complaining. I think something using [url=http://www.andybrain.com/extras/solar-sail.htm]Solar Sails[/url] could help in your search. "The effective range of a solar sail is roughly 2-3 AU." An AU is 149 598 000 kilometers. It is a logistical, mathematical, and technological problem that only requires determination to answer. As for gas, I think there will be a technology that will replace it; however, biofuels are not the answer.

Quote from Merrell

There is nothing logistical about traveling millions of miles to get resources that will use more resources to get there than that you can get in a single trip. Nothing in our current or near future technology will make that trip efficient at all.

Then find one and quit complaining. I think something using Solar Sails could help in your search. "The effective range of a solar sail is roughly 2-3 AU." An AU is 149 598 000 kilometers. It is a logistical, mathematical, and technological problem that only requires determination to answer.

As for gas, I think there will be a technology that will replace it; however, biofuels are not the answer.

[quote]There is nothing logistical about traveling millions of miles to get resources that will use more resources to get there than that you can get in a single trip. Nothing in our current or near future technology will make that trip efficient at all.[/quote] Just two things. You're out of expertise. And you dont know what our near future technology will be.

Quote

There is nothing logistical about traveling millions of miles to get resources that will use more resources to get there than that you can get in a single trip. Nothing in our current or near future technology will make that trip efficient at all.

Just two things. You're out of expertise. And you dont know what our near future technology will be.

[quote=name:Merrell]There is nothing logistical about traveling millions of miles to get resources that will use more resources to get there than that you can get in a single trip. Nothing in our current or near future technology will make that trip efficient at all.[/quote] It could, but it would be like sending SCVs across a large map to get resources. You'd have to wait decades (or even centuries) before the payoff would balance the costs. It would be a helluva long term investment.

Quote from Merrell

There is nothing logistical about traveling millions of miles to get resources that will use more resources to get there than that you can get in a single trip. Nothing in our current or near future technology will make that trip efficient at all.

It could, but it would be like sending SCVs across a large map to get resources. You'd have to wait decades (or even centuries) before the payoff would balance the costs. It would be a helluva long term investment.

Think of colonizing another planet in the same terms as colonizing another continent. When the Europeans first discovered the Americas, they invested vast resources in colonizing the area. It took a few generations for the colonists to build up a society that could then be a trading partner of worth. If we sent colonists to Mars in our lifetime, then it would probably be a couple of hundred years before both planets were able to engage in any profitable and efficient form of trade. However, for the sake of human progression, we should consider that possibility. EDIT: Ha, I just now noticed that Tux basically said what I just said.

Think of colonizing another planet in the same terms as colonizing another continent. When the Europeans first discovered the Americas, they invested vast resources in colonizing the area. It took a few generations for the colonists to build up a society that could then be a trading partner of worth. If we sent colonists to Mars in our lifetime, then it would probably be a couple of hundred years before both planets were able to engage in any profitable and efficient form of trade. However, for the sake of human progression, we should consider that possibility.

EDIT: Ha, I just now noticed that Tux basically said what I just said.

[quote=name:Tuxedo-Templar]It could, but it would be like sending SCVs across a large map to get resources. You'd have to wait decades (or even centuries) before the payoff would balance the costs. It would be a helluva long term investment.[/quote] Well, we don't have to ship the resources back to Earth. I was thinking more on the lines of building a Terran colony on Mars so the scvs can deposit their resources into a nearby fully functional Command Center. That's if we haven't developed black-hole warp gate technology (seen in movies such as Event Horizon) that allows near instantaneous space travel across the star system. But all in all, Mars isn't "that" far away...it varies from ~40 to ~250 million miles from earth. Our current space shuttle technology has a top speed of ~18,000 miles per hour. If that speed can be increased w/o acceleration killing the crew, maybe it'll go even faster. But even at 18,000 mph, that'll take between 1/3 of a year to 1 and a half years to get to Mars. I'm sure we'll find some way to be fuel efficient. Maybe if giant magnetic gauss or rail guns could propel spacecraft or cargo... :rolleyes:

Quote from Tuxedo-Templar

It could, but it would be like sending SCVs across a large map to get resources. You'd have to wait decades (or even centuries) before the payoff would balance the costs. It would be a helluva long term investment.

Well, we don't have to ship the resources back to Earth. I was thinking more on the lines of building a Terran colony on Mars so
the scvs can deposit their resources into a nearby fully functional Command Center.

That's if we haven't developed black-hole warp gate technology (seen in movies such as Event Horizon) that allows near instantaneous
space travel across the star system.

But all in all, Mars isn't "that" far away...it varies from ~40 to ~250 million miles from earth. Our current space shuttle technology
has a top speed of ~18,000 miles per hour. If that speed can be increased w/o acceleration killing the crew, maybe it'll go even
faster. But even at 18,000 mph, that'll take between 1/3 of a year to 1 and a half years to get to Mars. I'm sure we'll find some
way to be fuel efficient.

Maybe if giant magnetic gauss or rail guns could propel spacecraft or cargo...

The only thing we need right now is a crazy dictator who has his mind set on conquering mars to reap it's Martian gold. The rest of the world will follow suite, if only to stop him from being an idiot.

The only thing we need right now is a crazy dictator who has his mind set on conquering mars to reap it's Martian gold.
The rest of the world will follow suite, if only to stop him from being an idiot.

That's actually a darn good idea! China's got their space program up and running now, haven't they? [i]/me ponders deeply...[/i] :P Yeap. We ain't going back out into space for a loooong time yet. Might as well put all those pipe dreams on the back burner.

That's actually a darn good idea!

China's got their space program up and running now, haven't they?
/me ponders deeply...






Yeap. We ain't going back out into space for a loooong time yet. Might as well put all those pipe dreams on the back burner.

[quote=name:lil-Inferno]Ahh, gasoline. I really hate the fact that the price of it is ever-increasing along with everything else. Because gas prices are rising, food and other necessities will rise in price because the companies need gasoline to transport the goods. I can't wait until there's actually electrically powered cars.[/quote] Unfortunately, in Australia, there aren't electric cars (yet) :crybaby: [quote=name:Syphon]We're going to wind up like all those videogames set in an unspecific future, yet mysteriously under feudal rule, where the strongest survive, all the while living under the shadow of a mysterious race of ancients will old forgotten much greater technologies.[/quote] Indeed. But let's cross that bridge when it comes :-_-: .

Quote from lil-Inferno

Ahh, gasoline. I really hate the fact that the price of it is ever-increasing along with everything else. Because gas prices are rising, food and other necessities will rise in price because the companies need gasoline to transport the goods. I can't wait until there's actually electrically powered cars.

Unfortunately, in Australia, there aren't electric cars (yet)

Quote from Syphon[MM]

We're going to wind up like all those videogames set in an unspecific future, yet mysteriously under feudal rule, where the strongest survive, all the while living under the shadow of a mysterious race of ancients will old forgotten much greater technologies.

Indeed. But let's cross that bridge when it comes .