It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Supertankers from Titan

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 07:46 PM
link   
Titan may prove to be cheap source of energy in the middle-far future.

With atmosphere significant quantity of methane / ethane, Titan is like gigantic petrol station in the sky.

Perhaps at time of Earth space elevator construction, robotic ships / spacesupertankers in continuous loop from Titan to Earth will be feeding space elevator pipeline endless supply of liquid gas.

Also possibility of abiotic creation of hydrocarbon oil could yield extreme quantity of black gold from Titan.

Hydrocarbon age could last another 200+ (??) years. Even when rich countries are using high tech alternative, massive population of poor countries could still demand high amount of hydrocarbon. Continuous feed from alien moon Titan of massive amounts of hydrocarbons or liquid gas abolishes idea of 'save Earth resouirces.'

One: 'save Earth resources' makes not sense if humans is able to expand to new planets / moons where there are more such resources.

Two: Capitalism for many centuries now is far more ingeniousity than predictors for filling demand. (Adam Smith treatise) still relevant today.

Anyway, our graet great grandchildren may see such spacesupertankers refilling Earth from foreign moon of Titan!




posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 07:50 PM
link   
Except for one little problem.

It takes thousands of times more energy to move a ship from Earth to Titian and back than the amount the ship could haul. It doesnt even matter how big the ship is, the bigger the ship the more energy it takes to move it.



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 07:53 PM
link   


Anyway, our graet great grandchildren may see such spacesupertankers refilling Earth from foreign moon of Titan!


I highly doubt it. If we have to capacity to run convoys of supertankers of methane/ethane then why use the stuff when we can start collecting H2 and such from the Saturnian atmosphere or the Jupiter atmosphere. We got more then enough methane on earth already and we don't want to be adding more to the mix. And the Adam Smith style of Capitolism is dead. He didn't foresee the advent of huge Multi-National corporations that in effect stifle innovation. Capitolism only thrives when there is competition, Capitolism without the Competition just plain sucks because the consumers loose every single time when consolidation reduces competition.

Amuk good point!
Didn't think of that. heh



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 08:02 PM
link   
Methane is generated by bovine flatulence, among other things. It can be easily generated here on Earth. No nee to go elsewhere for it.



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk
Except for one little problem.

It takes thousands of times more energy to move a ship from Earth to Titian and back than the amount the ship could haul. It doesnt even matter how big the ship is, the bigger the ship the more energy it takes to move it.


I think you are confusing ratio of propulsion / mass density as object approaches C with simple boost and glide phase. By your logic it would be innefficients to run supertanker from Dubai to Newark.



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 08:30 PM
link   
yep,

Just more junk science!



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by kaiheitain

I think you are confusing ratio of propulsion / mass density as object approaches C with simple boost and glide phase. By your logic it would be innefficients to run supertanker from Dubai to Newark.


I think your not factoring in the energy needed to leave both the orbit of earth and titan thats where you waste most of your energy. Also you need energy to slow down or you would just burn up or crash.



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 09:02 PM
link   


I think your not factoring in the energy needed to leave both the orbit of earth and titan thats where you waste most of your energy. Also you need energy to slow down or you would just burn up or crash.


Good point but let's not forget the cost of researching, designing and building these things.

And aren't we supposed to have vast resources of methane hydrate, which is supposed to be very powerful stuff?

Spiderj



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 09:04 PM
link   
The energy problems of getting the materials back to earth are surmountable. When Sir AC Clarke invented the idea of the space elevator, he postulated that if you were to extend the cable out beyond the geosynchronis orbit,...it could be used as a catapult. The rotation of the earth would provide the energy. The payload would be released at just the right time to get it to Titan. True, the Earth would slow it's spin a bit,...but only nominaly. The same setup could be aranged on Titan. The loss in momentum wold be acutally minimized....since the tanks could be re-used. The space elevator of Titan, catching an empty tank, would cause Titan to speed up it's rotation until it slung off the next load of petrol...It could be programmed to work like clockwork. I wonder though if it will happen in time. By the time we get ourselves together to do something like this, the raw deliveries may not even be nessicary for fuels anymore.....but may be valueable for other industrial purposes



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 09:09 PM
link   
well, all good points, but let me throw this around.

Ok the huge tanker's have a base on the moon. Less energy is required to leave the moon instead of the earth. These tankers are not going to be running until we can get an propulsion system fast enough, so we can travel the distance. instead of the tanker itself landing on titan, send small cargo ships to bring it up.

This is a very intersting idea, but by the time we have anything capable of traveling the distance we will either be able to utilize the sun on a large scale. IF that is not the case we probably would have blown ourselves to kingdom come.



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Believe
well, all good points, but let me throw this around.

........These tankers are not going to be running until we can get an propulsion system fast enough, so we can travel the distance. instead of the tanker itself landing on titan, send small cargo ships to bring it up.....


Have you ever done or seen "Around the World" with a yo-yo? If you think of the earth as a spinning boulder with a string around it, spinning a smaller rock on the end of this string, you'll get the Idea of using the space elevator as a catapult or PROPULSION system. You just have to let go of the "rock" at the right time when it's aimed at what you want it to hit. The same system could CATCH the "rock" on the other end and send it down it's own elevator, back up again, and toss it back to the parent planet.

[edit on 30-1-2005 by spike]



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 09:21 PM
link   
Adding huge quantities of off-planet hydrocarbons to any ecosystem will wreak environmental havoc. Take a look at Venus. No thanks.

Would make a great pit stop for interplanetary spacecraft, though.

[edit on 30-1-2005 by Chakotay]



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 09:27 PM
link   
Well that is a propulsion system that will work. Though you have to realize that by the time this elevator is operational, we would be using the sun on a large scale power source. We wouldnt be using it to fly to titan to get gases. We would probably be using to explore farther.

when would this elevator construction begin, the cost, how many years it will take, the human life people wont want to risk. All these obstacles are there. ITs much more plausable for a moon base. Also a moon base is proposed to be up in running in 2018. Its more of a reality to use a moon base rather than a space elevator.

THough i have to admit that would be pretty awesome, if an elevator was up and running.



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 09:28 PM
link   
EWWWW!!! Here's a picture from the surface of Venus just for reference!!

en.wikipedia.org...

NASTY WEATHER!



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 09:30 PM
link   
Here is the proper link as the link spike posted didn't work for me don't know about anyone else though..

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 09:30 PM
link   
LOL.




IF you can give it a chance i bet it might be rather lovely.




lmao



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 09:36 PM
link   
Well Believe, the reason people keep shooting it down is because it isn't all that feasable. It could be feasable if a space elevator is built, but why use methane? Seems kinda low-tech doncha think? I believe that in say 50-100 years time if we are still around we will be mostly dependant on He-3(Helium-3) which is very abundant on the moon.

The atmosphere of Jupiter contains 90% H2. Thats alot of Hydrogren already there no need to split up. I say Find a way to exploit Jupiter for resources.

www.solarviews.com...

Allthough we are just using today as a guide for tomarrow, we could devise some other power source we havn't even considered yet..

[edit on 30-1-2005 by sardion2000]



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 09:44 PM
link   
I agree sardion2000.


Also i heard about a plan to use the helium 3 on the moon for an energy source.



Think about it this way would you rather travel a short distance or a long one for something. Considering you can get a reliable energy source from both.



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by spike
.........I wonder though if it will happen in time. By the time we get ourselves together to do something like this, the raw deliveries may not even be nessicary for fuels anymore.....but may be valueable for other industrial purposes


That's what I was suggesting,...although We should remember that even though these resources may not be practical for FUEL sources, they may be practical for other industrial use. It might be worth the investment.

[edit on 30-1-2005 by spike]



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by kaiheitain

I think you are confusing ratio of propulsion / mass density as object approaches C with simple boost and glide phase. By your logic it would be innefficients to run supertanker from Dubai to Newark.


His logic is correct. A supertanker on the ocean does not need to escape (or for that matter counter) the earths gravitational field.

If were in that bad of need for methane it would be much simpler and cheaper to build indoor cattle complexes and capture the methane they produce. That would help reduce global warming too.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join