Reply
Thread Tools
tso's Avatar
Posts: 4,783 | Thanked: 1,253 times | Joined on Aug 2007 @ norway
#41
Originally Posted by Karel Jansens View Post
Actually, helium-3 fusion is pretty much consumer-ready right now. The problem is that Earth's entire helium-3 supply fits in a Tesla fuel tank.
and our power needs are just not there yet to make it worth it, as long as one is willing to accept dirtier ways?
 
Karel Jansens's Avatar
Posts: 3,220 | Thanked: 326 times | Joined on Oct 2005 @ "Almost there!" (Monte Christo, Count of)
#42
Originally Posted by tso View Post
and our power needs are just not there yet to make it worth it, as long as one is willing to accept dirtier ways?
I'm not arguing that, I'm kewl with fission (of which I think the dangers are criminally overrated by eco-fascists). It's just that the only reliable and profitable way of using fusion over the last fifty years has been the helium-3 process. All the rest is perpetually "twenty years away".

There is hardly any helium-3 on Earth, but there should be plenty on the Moon. Enough in fact -- provided the estimates are not wildly off -- to make stripmining the lunar surface for Helium-3 more than economical.

So, and this was basically my point, the Moon is not worthless, but potentially the opposite. And not because of some wild "We must colonize the universe" ideology, but because it could become the source for our energy needs.
__________________
Watch out Nokia, Pandora's box has opened (sorta)...
I do love explaining cryptic sigs, but for the impatient: http://www.openpandora.org/
 
Texrat's Avatar
Posts: 11,700 | Thanked: 10,045 times | Joined on Jun 2006 @ North Texas, USA
#43
Originally Posted by Karel Jansens View Post
I'm kewl with fission (of which I think the dangers are criminally overrated by eco-fascists).
It's impossible to overrate the hazards of nuclear waste disposal.

If we're going to spin off into the energy debate, thermodynamic power is a no-brainer in many, many parts of the world-- but is virtually off the table during discussions. It's asinine IMO to place nuclear, coal, oil and other troublesome solutions (that includes wind and solar) above much more sensible solutions like thermal and tidal-- but then, the latter don't involve consumption of a resource or massive land deployment...
__________________
Nokia Developer Champion
Different <> Wrong | Listen - Judgment = Progress | People + Trust = Success
My personal site: http://texrat.net
 
Posts: 2,102 | Thanked: 1,309 times | Joined on Sep 2006
#44
Before you all jump to bite my neck, I'm not saying that Americans never went to the moon, I'm just saying that lots of videos look fake. Please look at this video (after minute 1:10) and tell me what you think. Look at how that guy got up (minute 2:10):

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...98310485866108
It's quite funny that people can seriously think that the landings were faked. Regarding the bit at 2:10 (supposed to be a glint of overhead wires), that looks much like the halo one sees from escaped gas (iirc the life support packs control their temperature by evaporating water into space) - there are also other photos showing the astronauts on the moon with their own little atmospheres of escaped oxygen.

http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm is interesting and seems to be fairly comprehensive dismissal of the various hoax theories.
 
stangri's Avatar
Posts: 145 | Thanked: 18 times | Joined on Aug 2008 @ Vancouver, BC
#45
I think all you pro-hoax and pro-landing activists alike should watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEkl_Mnhp1A it's a real eye-opener regarding what has really happened.
 
Reply


 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:38.