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.

 

Strange metal Asteroid targeted in far out mission

page: 4
14
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 01:08 AM
link   

JadeStar

rickymouse
reply to post by AliceBleachWhite
 


We are changing the environment so it will be harder for us to live in. We are overabusing the lands and overmining the earth, changing the chemistry of the seas and the atmosphere. This is completely different than those extinction events but can be just as bad.

A highly advanced race would consider their planet's ecology above anything else.
It could be ten thousand years before an extinction event occurs, I worry about things we can do something about not things we can do nothing about. NASA can work on designing something to repel an asteroid, that seems to be a reasonable expenditure. Maybe they can boost a tuning fork frequency or pulsing resonance into a laser beam or something to shake the asteroids so they blow apart or turn. They are scientists, they can figure something out.


A highly advanced race would also be smart enough to know that if the reason for extinctions is a result of its mere existence on the planet coupled with its growing numbers taxing the planet's ability to recover then the LOGICAL thing would be to REDUCE such a strain on their world by REDISTRIBUTING its population among other worlds in its star system.

Is that not what you are vehemently opposed to us learning how to do?

It's been mathematically proven...No austerity and conservation measures will ever be able to deal effectively with our growth. Eventually you run up against starvation or draconian measures of population control no one would stand for.

So..... If we are the problem as you seem to believe then the logical solution would be to have less of us living on the planet and more of us living in space and elsewhere in the solar system first and galaxy later.

Hard to do that if you're opposing one small step in that direction...
edit on 17-1-2014 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)


You know, I think there's an argument to be made that free energy would solve our population growth problems. The reproduction rate of every developed nation is in decline and in some nations like Japan even in reverse where the current population isn't even maintaining numbers. Most developed nations still have their populations increasing as a result of immigration rather than reproduction.

This says that given enough comforts people are content to have fewer children. If the entire world were developed, doesn't it then stand to reason that our population would stay within maintainable limits?

That's not to say that we shouldn't still expand, but I do think there's a chance we will avoid the same fate as the reindeer on St Matthew Island.




posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 01:28 AM
link   

Aazadan
You know, I think there's an argument to be made that free energy would solve our population growth problems.


Free energy would just as easily melt down the world.




The reproduction rate of every developed nation is in decline and in some nations like Japan even in reverse where the current population isn't even maintaining numbers. Most developed nations still have their populations increasing as a result of immigration rather than reproduction.

This says that given enough comforts people are content to have fewer children. If the entire world were developed, doesn't it then stand to reason that our population would stay within maintainable limits?


Possibly. But what wouldn't stop growing would be our use of heat producing technology. Waste heat is expected to become a serious problem in 200-300 years.

That's WITHOUT 'free energy' (which is a silly expression, there are no free lunches in physics).



That's not to say that we shouldn't still expand, but I do think there's a chance we will avoid the same fate as the reindeer on St Matthew Island.


The reindeer didn't have technology.

The problem is not simply one of population. It's one of what our 'comfort' entails. If that comfort is reliant on heat producing technologies we're in for it in a serious way and this waste heat has nothing to do with CO2 or conventional ideas of global warming. It has everything to do with forcing electricity down copper wire and other inefficient technologies.

Fast forward to 11:48 in the video below to see what I mean:




posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 01:59 AM
link   

JadeStar
Possibly. But what wouldn't stop growing would be our use of heat producing technology. Waste heat is expected to become a serious problem in 200-300 years.

That's WITHOUT 'free energy' (which is a silly expression, there are no free lunches in physics).


By free energy I'm just referring to technologies that could provide massive amounts of power relatively cheaply like fusion or zero point.


The problem is not simply one of population. It's one of what our 'comfort' entails. If that comfort is reliant on heat producing technologies we're in for it in a serious way and this waste heat has nothing to do with CO2 or conventional ideas of global warming. It has everything to do with forcing electricity down copper wire and other inefficient technologies.


It's also possible that we end up with more efficient technology, I realize this only gets us a few percentage points, but when you're going from devices that are 10% efficient to 20% efficient, you're doubling efficiency. Though I suppose the entire world being developed and consuming electricity would more than outweigh this.

So here's one, within 200 years or so what are the chances that we have carbon nanotube based space elevators? We're within a couple of years from buying carbon nanotube heatsinks for CPU's right now. What if we built some that stretched into space, absorbing heat from the planet and then releasing it? If we could do it for an elevator we could do it for simple heat transfer.



posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 02:04 AM
link   

rickymouse
reply to post by AliceBleachWhite
 


Those extinction events aren't relative to the extinction event that mankind can cause. We are causing the mutation of microbes faster than animals can evolve. We are changing the environment so it will be harder for us to live in. We are overabusing the lands and overmining the earth, changing the chemistry of the seas and the atmosphere. This is completely different than those extinction events but can be just as bad. Why should we allow this practice that causes our children and grandchildren to have a harder time surviving. We are living for the moment, not the future.

Nothing personal, just a difference of opinion. A highly advanced race would consider their planet's ecology above anything else. It could be ten thousand years before an extinction event occurs, I worry about things we can do something about not things we can do nothing about. NASA can work on designing something to repel an asteroid, that seems to be a reasonable expenditure. Maybe they can boost a tuning fork frequency or pulsing resonance into a laser beam or something to shake the asteroids so they blow apart or turn. They are scientists, they can figure something out.

I suppose it isn't all that bad if most people die, but I would prefer for my grandchildren to live and enjoy a life that isn't so stressful just to survive.
edit on 16-1-2014 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)


Um? Do you even READ Bro?
Not evolving 'fast enough'? uhhh, I'd think that wiping out 96% of all the species on the entire planet put anything like, mutation, or evolution to bed because, well, there's not much LEFT OVER to work with.
Oh, but, hmm, even then, that tiny little 4% left over managed to create the entire age of dinosaurs, go through TWO MORE extinction events, and THEN make us.

Changing the Atmosphere? Changing the Chemistry of our environment?
Uhhh, once again.
Do you even Read?
You know why we don't have dragonflies with 3ft wingspans flying around? Ummm, could it possibly be that the Atmosphere changed, like half of it getting blasted into outer space from the rock that killed the Dinosaurs?
hmmm.

Fact and point of the matter is, no matter WHAT you spend your money on, WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE, and it's either the solar system, or Earth itself that's going to kill us, NO MATTER WHAT WE DO, or or don't do.

We can hug and kiss and sing songs to the planet, and plant trees and dance around them.
If every single person on the planet except 1000 of the most gentle Earth loving Eco-Activist people on the planet were to just suddenly DIE, no matter how peace loving and ECO-friendly those 1000 left over people were, the planet, or our own solar System would still eventually KILL THEM ALL.

Do you even know what a SUPERVOLCANO is?
If Yellowstone pops, Hundreds of Millions of people and possibly a couple Billion people are going to die within less than one year.

Every single person on the planet could plant a tree and never wear shoes ever again, and worship nature, but, that won't matter if THE SUN hiccups big enough to blast furnace us all to ASHES.

WE ARE DOOMED.
WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE.

The Earth is a sinking ship.
Eventually, something is going to happen that will KILL EVERYTHING no matter what we do on the planet.

If any species or life from Earth is to survive, we need to establish permanent self sufficient colonies ELSEWHERE.

If you want to "Save The Planet", the best thing to do is to get everything about this planet that you love about it, and take it to safe places that are NOT on the planet.

Now, please.
READ.




posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 02:31 AM
link   

Aazadan

JadeStar
Possibly. But what wouldn't stop growing would be our use of heat producing technology. Waste heat is expected to become a serious problem in 200-300 years.

That's WITHOUT 'free energy' (which is a silly expression, there are no free lunches in physics).


By free energy I'm just referring to technologies that could provide massive amounts of power relatively cheaply like fusion or zero point.


Fusion would be not be that cheap in terms of cost. Building up its infrastructure would be on par with building fission or conventional nuclear reactors back in the 1950s when people thought nuclear power would solve all of our problems and make electricity unmeterable.

The advantage of fusion is not what it will cost in terms of development or end cost to consumers. The benefit is that its fuel source is plentiful and non-toxic (seawater) and its waste products are benign (unlike conventional nuclear waste).


As for Zero Point. That's a visionary concept at best and nothing we're likely to have producing electricity any time soon.

But like I said, simply having more cheap energy actually doesn't solve the problem. It solves -a- problem while exacerbating another.



It's also possible that we end up with more efficient technology, I realize this only gets us a few percentage points, but when you're going from devices that are 10% efficient to 20% efficient, you're doubling efficiency. Though I suppose the entire world being developed and consuming electricity would more than outweigh this.


Easily. Short of developing technologies which could recapture 90% of that waste heat we'd still be on a road to heat death. We might buy a century or two but that's it. While becoming super efficient is not impossible it is not very probable.




So here's one, within 200 years or so what are the chances that we have carbon nanotube based space elevators?


There's a good chance we'll have one within the next 100 years. Japan is working on developing one which they hope to begin building not long from now in this century.



We're within a couple of years from buying carbon nanotube heatsinks for CPU's right now. What if we built some that stretched into space, absorbing heat from the planet and then releasing it? If we could do it for an elevator we could do it for simple heat transfer.


Here's a test of your theory.

If you live in a place that gets hot in the summer, open up your refrigerator door and see if it cools down your house.


You'r idea mathematically would be about 5 magnitudes less effective than that. We simply can't build a global airconditioner. Our best bet would be to develop room temperature superconductors and other technologies to buy us some time to get into space if we haven't already.

It's smarter to work with the technology we have right now to start moving in that direction which can alieviate some of the stress we're putting on mother Earth than just say, 'lets wait 200 years before we get serious about space, and just hope we don't die of heat death in the meantime".
edit on 17-1-2014 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 03:20 AM
link   
reply to post by JayinAR
 


There is enough land in Australia alone to afford each and every person on this planet a quarter of an acre of land do themselves.
The problem right now is not over population (although eventually it will be if we don't figure all this out), but the way we manage the land and resources we do have. We can also build above ground and below the sea if we wish. The REAL problem are the bankers. They are the same people who speak openly about eugenics.

They fund everything. Including these ambitious space projects that they really aren't interested in. What they ARE interested in is a devious way to kill us all off by thousands at a time to keep the population levels at a level that will sustain their internal chess game type battle for global hegemony.
I wholeheartedly agree with this, well stated JayinAR.



Though, as much as I enjoy seeing people full of passion herein, I also know that my opinion will not be a popular one; the cold hard truth is that human beings haven't even advanced enough to know better than to drop litter everywhere. We don't deserve other planets for colonization and further space exploration until we can manage what we already have, responsibly.

With that giant vortex of trash floating in the ocean, issues with Fukushima, and the space debris that is already floating around up there, we have enough work to do. It pains me greatly to think of trashing yet another planet somewhere - which would bring us right back to this very spot we're in now, on Earth. Humanity needs to learn the basic art of cleaning up the messes they make in their own backyard, full stop.

While I do see colonization elsewhere as necessary eventually, I hope it's more in the long-term after we've matured as a species.



posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 03:34 AM
link   
reply to post by rickymouse
 



Those extinction events aren't relative to the extinction event that mankind can cause. We are causing the mutation of microbes faster than animals can evolve. We are changing the environment so it will be harder for us to live in. We are overabusing the lands and overmining the earth, changing the chemistry of the seas and the atmosphere. This is completely different than those extinction events but can be just as bad. Why should we allow this practice that causes our children and grandchildren to have a harder time surviving. We are living for the moment, not the future.


Well said rickymouse. I see it as our current culture of "fast-food" mentality - wanting everything now, and faster thereafter. But when you can't see the forest for the trees, history is doomed to repeat itself; I guess on another planet next time.



posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 08:19 AM
link   
reply to post by AliceBleachWhite
 


I plan on dying someday, it is a natural part of living. If a supervolcano erupts, then it erupts, we can't do much about that. In my mind, taking combustibles out of the earth near the volcano may be a plus, drill baby drill. Also the water reacts with the lava causing the explosion in a chemical reaction. This does cause a larger explosion.

I am not worried about what happens to me at all, I could die and the world will go on. Cutting trees to make roads is not bad, they are natural firebreaks. responsible logging is all right, but remember that trees can take up CO2 and fields of corn can fixate nitrogen. A lot of what most environmentalists complain about is not even sensible. The trouble is that we get carried away.

I am more concerned about the ones that follow me, the offspring of me and my friends. Making life hard for them because we desire to destroy the environment to profit from it and want everything we don't really need is not right. I live on in my children and their children, and this also applies to you. Part of us lives on, I do not desire to commit suicide.

So believe what you want. I read a lot, I read the evidence of both sides to evaluate things, not just things that fit what I desire to believe. I am very supportive of the fish and wildlife service and the forestry service. I do not like radical environmental groups at all but I understand their frustration while I write this post. They are tired of people ignoring their concerns, concerns that are now coming to light and are causing the climate change we are experiencing. If we would have considered what they were saying more instead of worrying about economic growth, the costs of all these disasters would be less because the storms would be less intense.

I read a very lot about everything, maybe you should examine things open mindedly and listen to some of the experts in the fields instead of the people who profit greatly from the ongoing destruction of our environment. This will effect you in your lifetime.



posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 08:25 AM
link   

rickymouse

JadeStar

rickymouse I don't think we need to colonize mars or step on the moon again though. the chances of anyone surviving long is slim.


You could not be more wrong.


Give me one really good reason why we NEED to spend so much money to colonize mars or step on the moon again.


Because space exploration has produced some of the best technology in its wake.

Also if theres life on mars now or in the past that would be pretty damned awesome to know



posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by lostbook
 


Great Post.

Didn't we just send up a billion pixel camera into space that can resolution your thumbnail on the moon? Would the NSA stop using it to spy on us and send some pictures of the metal asteroid. I bet it has writing on it.



posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Biigs
 


I have no problem with moderate space exploration, I think it is actually a good thing. Why does everyone have to go overboard though. Look at the moon mission, it put the US in debt for a long time, wasn't one mission good enough? If you keep raising the goal post all the time, sooner or later you will have an accident and be disabled. This is what happened, the cost of the moon mission actually stole money from other scientific research that was more necessary.

If you look at the funding of sciences as a pie. and one branch of it gobbles up three quarters of the pie, the other sciences have to be nourished by the quarter that is left. If the Mars colonization was more important than physics and medical research I would have no problem with this....but it is not. I wouldn't want to see a lot of other more necessary resource being put on hold because of this project. I can't say that it is justifiable for necessary science jobs to be lost just to colonize mars.



posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 10:02 AM
link   

rickymouse
reply to post by Biigs
 


I have no problem with moderate space exploration, I think it is actually a good thing. Why does everyone have to go overboard though. Look at the moon mission, it put the US in debt for a long time, wasn't one mission good enough? If you keep raising the goal post all the time, sooner or later you will have an accident and be disabled. This is what happened, the cost of the moon mission actually stole money from other scientific research that was more necessary.

If you look at the funding of sciences as a pie. and one branch of it gobbles up three quarters of the pie, the other sciences have to be nourished by the quarter that is left. If the Mars colonization was more important than physics and medical research I would have no problem with this....but it is not. I wouldn't want to see a lot of other more necessary resource being put on hold because of this project. I can't say that it is justifiable for necessary science jobs to be lost just to colonize mars.


Please go do some fact checking please. The Apollo Program did NOT place the US in debt. Nor has NASA's budget ever put the US in dept.

Try instead looking here at the US Military Budget.

During the 60's we were spending approx. 400 to 500 billion dollars on the US military (in today's dollars)......PER YEAR.

TOTAL cost of the Apollo Program that ran from 1961 to 1972 (11 years) was 170 billion dollars (in today's dollars). That's only 15 billion PER YEAR.

So you want to run that by us again how it was our space exploration program (a peaceful program) that put the US in debt again?



posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by rickymouse
 


I'm not worried about myself either.
Nor am I worried about anything so selfishly personal as family, descendents of family, or anything of that sort.

I'm concerned about the ENTIRE HUMAN SPECIES.

The point I'm making is, saving the planet is impossible.
Sure, we should do our part to clean up after ourselves, but, from a species perspective, none of that really matters.
The Sun could burp and burn us all to ash tomorrow.
That would be sad too, because we're just now reaching a point where we have developed the technologies and means by which we can start working toward preserving our species through colonization of other bodies off this planet.

Eggs in one basket anyone?

Right now, we lose everything if any number of dozens of catastrophes occur that there's absolutely nothing we can do to stop or avoid them except by spreading out across the Solar Ecliptic.

The good thing about not only surviving as a species, on the moon, on Mars, Ceres, Hidden away and armored inside 16 Psyche, or somewhere else other than Earth, is that we as a species would have a higher likelihood of survival beyond the death of Earth, but, where we go, we take Earth with us, in our DNA, the plants we cultivate, any animals we bring along, and in everything about us.

Once Earth has been killed, committed suicide, or gone through one of its serial killer tantrums that kills pretty much everything, it'd just be a matter of waiting for the dust to clear, and then go back home to re-seed, and rehabilitate the planet.

As far as reading goes, you probably didn't get the vernacular of my statement from your response since your responses are fairly indicative of either negligence to read the material I've linked, and/or understand what it detailed.

But, eh, why does any of it matter, just so long as your grandchildren get to see a forest?

Who cares about the survival of the species?






posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by rickymouse
 


You also might want to take a look at what the US government spends on science before making such statements.

Overall the US spends about 63.7 billion dollars per year in that area. NASA get's 11 billion of that. The 52 billion is spread out among other sciences with the NIH getting the largest piece of the pie at over 32 billion per year.

So no, your statement is very incorrect. NASA does not "gobble up" the federal government's budgets for science.

Most great discoveries, inventions, etc, do not all come from government run organizations. Most come from private organizations, companies and universities.

You seem to be really hung up on: it has to be the GOVERNMENT that does everything. It has to be the GOVERNMENT that does science.

The only thing that the GOVERNMENT is truly interested in is: maintaining it's power and self interests.

Why else do you think that the government spends so much on itself such as defense?

In any case, the money you are complaining about is a very small drop in a very, very large bucket.



posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by AliceBleachWhite
 


If the sun burped the chances that it would destroy all humans on earth are very slight, it may knock out electronics and stuff like that. It would make deliveries to mars impossible also, even a moderate burp. Chances are that the same burp that hit earth would hit mars and mars is a lot more susceptible, having less protection to start with.

It is no use arguing with people who are completely hooked on technology. People can't understand that to commit to spending money on projects like this when the country has such a fragile economy is not wise. Maybe in twenty years things will be better.

So you would jeopardize your whole genetic line for the survival of mankind, Protecting the most intelligent people to survive a disaster. In the situation we are in right now, the most intelligent people have contributed a lot to the problems we are having, giving the greedy the tools they need. I would rather that a person who lives symbiotically with nature be chosen to survive. Some scientists do qualify.



posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 11:05 AM
link   

rickymouse

It is no use arguing with people who are completely hooked on technology. People can't understand that to commit to spending money on projects like this when the country has such a fragile economy is not wise. Maybe in twenty years things will be better.

Sorry but your a hyopcrite.

If you beleive in what you say put your money were you mouth is take your PC, TV and anything electronic outside right now and destroy it.

Dont preach to us about technology while sitting on the internet.



posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 11:14 AM
link   

crazyewok

rickymouse

It is no use arguing with people who are completely hooked on technology. People can't understand that to commit to spending money on projects like this when the country has such a fragile economy is not wise. Maybe in twenty years things will be better.

Sorry but your a hyopcrite.

If you beleive in what you say put your money were you mouth is take your PC, TV and anything electronic outside right now and destroy it.

Dont preach to us about technology while sitting on the internet.


Did I ever say that all technology was bad? I am just stating that a mission to mars is not practical. Your post sounds more hypocritical than any of my posts.



posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by AliceBleachWhite
 


AliceBW and anyone else... The Greg Bear "Eon" "Infinity" and 1 more novel I can't remember, are part of his "The Way" universe. They're hard sci-fi and postulates a hollowed out Psyche (er, maybe Ceres? edit: No, it's Juno) with engines, living spaces, etc., and adds a tunnel/singularity through which all reality can be reached... well written, good fun sci-fi with hard science (if speculative) ... I liked it, anyway.

This thread is interesting ... I surely hope we reach the asteroids and the rest of the inner solar system soon. I grew up when it was a given that we'd be living in space on a permanent basis by now. Big sigh.

Our priorities are so badly askew... and the Luddite crowd saying we shouldn't waste money in space (or should feed the hungry in our gravity well first) well, in pragmatic terms the scientific advancements and thus economic boost wipes that argument out. There is some strength to that argument if you think we can't focus on two things at once, but since we aren't feeding anyone or wiping out injustice anytime soon anyway, why not shoot for the stars? They're not mutually exclusive, though... and the resources are not as limited as all that.

Besides, in pure pragmatism, we are in for a civilization ending asteroid smack down, or sun ejecta, or something that will wipe us off this rock at some point in the future, and that's a fact. We need to spread out... unless one thinks we are viruses that need extermination... to which I politely disagree.

In pure romantic, human terms... we are destined for the stars if we can make it out of this morass we've created on Earth. Exploring is what we do, what we are... and curiosity leads to answers... and for the ones who can't see past their nose, well, that exploration and science leads to things that make your stay in your cozy home even more comfy... so don't begrudge the rest of us supporting advancement.
edit on 1/17/2014 by Baddogma because: juno



posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by lostbook
 


Maybe after Dawn visits Ceres they can save some fuel and send Dawn to this Asteroid. Would be a great use of resource and save money not having to send another probe out there.



posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by rickymouse
 


Um, this thread is about 16 Psyche.
Please refer back to my post on page 2: HERE, and then kindly inform me how living inside a shell of SOLID Nickel Iron 20 Kilometers Thick while a fun side effect of counter rotating Copper coring results in a strong EM field is going to be hazardous?

Someone could throw Nuclear missiles at it all day long, and the Millions of people that could live inside such a structure, with gravity, and at least 40 kilometers of nice, thick, breathable, healthy, clean atmosphere extending to the core axis, not to mention whole forests and water systems spanning everywhere with an entire natural bio system, all of it, would be completely entirely safe.

Put engines on it, nothing can kill us.

The nickel Iron and other metallic ores like gold and platinum mined out of 16 Psyche while coring it for such a project would rank at values unfathomable.
It's a 240×185×145 kilometer chunk of solid metal.

Why even take any of the material mined off the object back to Earth anyway? Most of the cost of getting into space is the cost of getting out of the gravity well, and if you've already got material on site, there's no need to outsource for the heavy stuff.

Water and other resources containing or composed of all the gas elements needed to make breathable air could be mined from icy and frozen deposits on other rocks.

The major cost is getting out of Earth's prohibitively expensive gravity well.
Core out a rock like 16 Psyche, or even something else smaller, less metallic, and anyone can live quite happily secure and protected behind several kilometers of hull thickness while any sufficiently sizable primitive generator installed at the core could produce the additional safety of an EM field to mitigate radiation.

Sure, Mars has its appeal, but, I'd personally much rather core out 16 Psyche and live there with much easier access to a flatter gravity plane.





top topics



 
14
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join