space questions

[BlueBearBoots]

Damocles or anyone,

Is it true if you fell through Neptune you'd eventually turn into a diamond?

Waiting with interest an answer to this, bemused

 

[Gelsons Dad]

only vaguely related:
[bigimg]https://scontent-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xaf1/t1.0-9/10365999_545518228886613_4034168653569726064_n.jpg[/bigimg]

Made me laugh.

 

[dobobobo]

Why did they never build a permanent base on the moon? Surely it makes more sense to explore space from there rather than earth because of gravity?

fly to the moon and build a space station??? ffs


no, it`s cheaper from Earth!!!

The International Space Station was built in space.

It's extremely expensive to launch from Earth. The likes of NASA and private companies have spent years researching ways to launch from space or the moon (to travel to Mars for example. Even space elevators have been seriously considered.

 

[dobobobo]

Why did they never build a permanent base on the moon? Surely it makes more sense to explore space from there rather than earth because of gravity?

fly to the moon and build a space station??? ffs


no, it`s cheaper from Earth!!!

There was a BBC4 programme about the moon recently, and an 'expert' in solar power reckoned that you could transport and build sufficient solar units on the moon to be able to power all the earth's needs for ever. His estimate of cost was the equivalent of what is spent generating power on earth over a three year period.

The general impression given was that once there's an operable space station on the moon, subsequent cost of any onward activity, such as space exploration, would be a small fraction of the cost from earth.

Correct. 52 minutes and onwards covers the bit Lavinda Past is referring to.

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHxkDiNil60[/video]

Also, I can't remember if it is covered in the programme, but Helium-3 which is rare on Earth is thought to be in abundance on the Moon. If we can find a way to harvest that then we have a new natural resource.

 

[nelsons willie]

So what did actually happen to the dinosaurs ? Surely someone on BM has the true answer to this question?




And no it isn't 42

They dead.

 

[Le Havre Oswald]

Damocles or anyone,

Is it true if you fell through Neptune you'd eventually turn into a diamond?

I take it Noone knows lol




Waiting with interest an answer to this, bemused

 

[Damocles]

Damocles or anyone,

Is it true if you fell through Neptune you'd eventually turn into a diamond?

Waiting with interest an answer to this, bemused

If you fell into any place that has extreme pressure and gravity keeping you inside then you'd eventually turn into diamonds in a very roundabout way, that's just how diamonds are created.

So the answer is "yes but Neptune isn't significant to that idea". People used to think it rained diamonds on Neptune. It doesn't but it was an interesting though. They might have diamond oceans.

Diamonds behave a bit like water does at Earth pressures. Our solid diamonds could be looked at from a Neptune point of view as we look at ice - a normal and solid form of something usually seen as a liquid

 

[Skashion]

fly to the moon and build a space station??? ffs


no, it`s cheaper from Earth!!!

There was a BBC4 programme about the moon recently, and an 'expert' in solar power reckoned that you could transport and build sufficient solar units on the moon to be able to power all the earth's needs for ever. His estimate of cost was the equivalent of what is spent generating power on earth over a three year period.

The general impression given was that once there's an operable space station on the moon, subsequent cost of any onward activity, such as space exploration, would be a small fraction of the cost from earth.

Correct. 52 minutes and onwards covers the bit Lavinda Past is referring to.

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHxkDiNil60[/video]

Also, I can't remember if it is covered in the programme, but Helium-3 which is rare on Earth is thought to be in abundance on the Moon. If we can find a way to harvest that then we have a new natural resource.

Pie in the sky bollocks. By the time it'd be anywhere near to fruition, we'll have fusion, and we don't need anything better than fusion. It doesn't get better than fusion. As for the arguments about cost, the stupid breathy narrator talks about the money that goes into oil and gas, as if it's solely used for electrical energy, but that's obviously not true, because a lot of that oil and is gas is not used for electrical energy. Some of it's used, as, oh, let's say, petrol, or y'know, plastics... Y'know, little things like that. This kind of blatant bullshitting is why I dislike hippies. They lie to your face because of a prejudice. I am scientific. My views are formed around evidence, not 'evidence' around my inclinations or prejudices.

Another thing I found to be bullshit was the idea of water being used for rocket fuel. I object to this because it is mixing current expectations with future technologies. This is a nonsense. It's like anticipating future demand for hay for horses at least fifty years in advance in the early 20th century just when cars are about to change the world, whilst completely neglecting demand for oil. Excellent way to lose money and make yourself look stupid. It's nonsense. In the future, when we are actually making space transport a reality, I can absolutely guarantee that rocket fuel as we know it today won't be used. It's horrendously inefficient which is the reason why we don't have space transport already. It's the reason for all their Cold War technological prowess why the Russians couldn't get men on the Moon, because carrying enough rocket fuel to get out of Earth's gravitational well with many tonnes of equipment is very difficult and very very fucking expensive. What is far far far more likely is space elevators, and spacecraft with highly efficient ion thrusters (or something superior still not yet invented) powered by fusion reactors. The idea of normal people engaging in space travel with solid rocket fuel is laughable. NASA won't even fork out to send astronauts back to the Moon with solid fuel. So the idea of you and me going to the Moon with solid rocket fuel is just fucking barmy. Even if space elevators prove technologically infeasible, the problem we need to solve is getting people into Earth's orbit cheaply and efficiently. Getting people into the Moon's orbit cheaply and efficiently is almost an irrelevance. Earth is the problem, not the Moon. Making rocket fuel on the Moon is not just just incredibly short-sighted but it solves a problem which is barely a problem. In fact, getting the equipment to the Moon to make rocket fuel would almost certainly be a bigger problem.

Can't see the Helium-3 argument either. It can be used as a fusion fuel, but it doesn't need to be. It's highly questionable whether it would be cost efficient, I suspect it wouldn't.

 

[The Flash]

There was a BBC4 programme about the moon recently, and an 'expert' in solar power reckoned that you could transport and build sufficient solar units on the moon to be able to power all the earth's needs for ever. His estimate of cost was the equivalent of what is spent generating power on earth over a three year period.

The general impression given was that once there's an operable space station on the moon, subsequent cost of any onward activity, such as space exploration, would be a small fraction of the cost from earth.

Correct. 52 minutes and onwards covers the bit Lavinda Past is referring to.

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHxkDiNil60[/video]

Also, I can't remember if it is covered in the programme, but Helium-3 which is rare on Earth is thought to be in abundance on the Moon. If we can find a way to harvest that then we have a new natural resource.

Pie in the sky bollocks. By the time it'd be anywhere near to fruition, we'll have fusion, and we don't need anything better than fusion. It doesn't get better than fusion. As for the arguments about cost, the stupid breathy narrator talks about the money that goes into oil and gas, as if it's solely used for electrical energy, but that's obviously not true, because a lot of that oil and is gas is not used for electrical energy. Some of it's used, as, oh, let's say, petrol, or y'know, plastics... Y'know, little things like that. This kind of blatant bullshitting is why I dislike hippies. They lie to your face because of a prejudice. I am scientific. My views are formed around evidence, not 'evidence' around my inclinations or prejudices.

Another thing I found to be bullshit was the idea of water being used for rocket fuel. I object to this because it is mixing current expectations with future technologies. This is a nonsense. It's like anticipating future demand for hay for horses at least fifty years in advance in the early 20th century just when cars are about to change the world, whilst completely neglecting demand for oil. Excellent way to lose money and make yourself look stupid. It's nonsense. In the future, when we are actually making space transport a reality, I can absolutely guarantee that rocket fuel as we know it today won't be used. It's horrendously inefficient which is the reason why we don't have space transport already. It's the reason for all their Cold War technological prowess why the Russians couldn't get men on the Moon, because carrying enough rocket fuel to get out of Earth's gravitational well with many tonnes of equipment is very difficult and very very fucking expensive. What is far far far more likely is space elevators, and spacecraft with highly efficient ion thrusters (or something superior still not yet invented) powered by fusion reactors. The idea of normal people engaging in space travel with solid rocket fuel is laughable. NASA won't even fork out to send astronauts back to the Moon with solid fuel. So the idea of you and me going to the Moon with solid rocket fuel is just fucking barmy. Even if space elevators prove technologically infeasible, the problem we need to solve is getting people into Earth's orbit cheaply and efficiently. Getting people into the Moon's orbit cheaply and efficiently is almost an irrelevance. Earth is the problem, not the Moon. Making rocket fuel on the Moon is not just just incredibly short-sighted but it solves a problem which is barely a problem. In fact, getting the equipment to the Moon to make rocket fuel would almost certainly be a bigger problem.

Can't see the Helium-3 argument either. It can be used as a fusion fuel, but it doesn't need to be. It's highly questionable whether it would be cost efficient, I suspect it wouldn't.

Fucking Skash. Sitting on the fence as usual.

Tell us what you really think, fella.

 

[Skashion]

Fucking Skash. Sitting on the fence as usual.

Tell us what you really think, fella.

Sorry mate. I don't like being lied to and the BBC shouldn't be pulling this kind of hippy shit and it's not the first time. I've complained to the BBC about lying three times and one of them was a virtually identical case of them being completely myopic and looking a thousand years into the future of global warming with 21st century lenses. I remember them showing images of poor Africans and poor Indians being helpless to stop flood waters from global warming sea level rises. I wrote to them and asked if they realised that a 1,000 years into the future Africa and India will be far more economically developed than now. China has transformed in less than forty years and yet these BBC images have India (already on the cusp of a transformation like China's) and Africa being the same as now a thousand years later. Utterly bonkers. Completely illogical. I found it insulting to the intelligence of the audience and to the ability of lesser developed countries to develop.

However, I am also epically pissed off today because something my brother's done so perhaps that came out a bit as well.