Fukushima after five years

What does make the world turn?
User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10849
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Fukushima after five years

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Dec 14, 2017 10:54 pm

Bobbo

Not so much a distinction, but a clarification. I think the word 'rape' might be an overstatement. Mining does harm, certainly, but is also necessary for human welfare. I am just trying to make a more balanced statement.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 12759
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Fukushima after five years

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Dec 14, 2017 11:13 pm

Yes........I pushed it just for fun. ....................... yet ....................... what would your gut thinking tell you about looking out from your Kentucky Holler and what you see is mountains entirely flattened and your moonshine quality creek running black?

Rape would be too kind. Thats the trouble with large complicated issues. Anyone can pick out the zig or the zag that fits their druthers. It should be done, only for fun.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8622
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Fukushima after five years

Postby TJrandom » Fri Dec 15, 2017 7:05 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:It is not terribly easy to plan for all risks.

Just as an aside, on the QI quiz show (an old repeat) I saw the question. "Which is most likely to kill you. A lightning strike or asteroid impact?"

The answer given was non obvious. Asteroid impact. Apparently the 1 in one million year event could kill a billion people. Averaged out on a yearly basis, this means more deaths per year, so the asteroid impact was given as the greater risk.

How culpable are you for failing to allow greater weight to an improbable event?


I think I see a major flaw in that calculation.... What is the probability that humans will still be around in a million years? Quite small, I would think.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10849
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Fukushima after five years

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri Dec 15, 2017 7:38 am

Perhaps. We simply do not know.. But my own view is that the descendants of humans might well still be around. They may not be Homo sapiens any more, of course. Maybe Homo somethingelse?

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8622
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Fukushima after five years

Postby TJrandom » Fri Dec 15, 2017 7:40 am

Homo roaches, maybe?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 12759
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Fukushima after five years

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Dec 15, 2017 7:45 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Perhaps. We simply do not know.. But my own view is that the descendants of humans might well still be around. They may not be Homo sapiens any more, of course. Maybe Homo somethingelse?

How could THAT happen? near extinction...and then normal evolution? Ha, ha.....yes.....or even no near extinction and then normal evolution? Something seems so obvious, it cannot be seen clearly.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10827
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Fukushima after five years

Postby xouper » Fri Dec 15, 2017 3:13 pm

TJrandom wrote:Homo roaches, maybe?


It certainly won't be Homo Snowflakus, because that is a sure path to extinction.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10849
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Fukushima after five years

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri Dec 15, 2017 6:17 pm

It has been said, and probably correctly, that 99% of all the species that ever lived are now extinct. But that does not mean they all died out. Many of them simply evolved into one or more different species.

My own feeling is that humanity will evolve quite rapidly. This for two reasons.
1. We will apply genetic modification to ourselves, thus speeding the process.
2. We will, within a few thousand years, occupy many different star systems. Since the speed of light is absolute, and those star systems average 4 light years separation, travel between one human society and the next will be very limited. This imposes reproductive isolation, which aids evolution.

Consequently, my feeling is that in a million years, humanity will be many species. Whether the parent species still exists is almost irrelevant.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 12759
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Fukushima after five years

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Dec 15, 2017 11:21 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote: We will, within a few thousand years, occupy many different star systems.

BWHAHAHAHAHAHHA. Talk long enough, and we all reveal ourselves. Quite a groupper you got there.

.....................Just what Star System did you come from?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10849
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Fukushima after five years

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat Dec 16, 2017 12:19 am

Bobbo

Such a lack of vision. Sad.

There is nothing impossible or even unlikely about my suggestion. Admittedly it includes the assumption that Homo sapiens will survive that long, and I know you firmly believe we are all gonna die. But you know how I feel about that pessimistic idea.

Assuming humanity survives, we can pretty safely assume that science and technology will continue to progress. This will include a whole lot of developments that will make the future very different to the present, including robotics, new manufacturing methods, space travel, people living their whole lives away from planet Earth, asteroid mining etc. There is nothing even strange about any of these projections. People are planning for them today.

Science and technology tends to develop exponentially, like Moores Law. Imagine such a development of the ion drive, which was used to carry the Dawn probe to the asteroids. If the speed the ion drive can develop doubles every 20 years, then humanity will have a system to reach one tenth of light speed in just over 300 years, which would be the basis for a star ship. This is entirely within the realm of what is considered possible, by NASA scientists (who wrote it up in an article for Scientific American some years back).

There is nothing impossible or even extremely unlikely about my suggestion.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 12759
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Fukushima after five years

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Dec 16, 2017 12:31 am

Not true Lance. Your imagination, or lack of control, may be unlimited, but REALITY is not.

Space = strange.

I am reminded of a pilot saying: "Flying is not inherently dangerous, it is just very unforgiving of mistakes." Everyone inspace is a pilot. The energy required to move, the distance, the uncharted bumps in the night, the lack of back up, the EXPENSE.

Captured by Hollywood you are. Must be visually oriented rather than the cerebral facts you claim so often. Here's my visual imagination: Man in Eden is wearing nothing but a rabbit skin jock strap, if that.===>Not a miniature Iron Lung.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 12759
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Fukushima after five years

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Dec 16, 2017 12:36 am

I'm watching that old cartoon movie "Heavy Metal" right now....sound off. So Lance: your visual re travelling to the next star: is it in a space craft with lots of room? Maybe a tetrahedron 2-3 acres in size with a 50 foot dome to grow plants it? Huge cargo bay? Walking distance between seats in the control deck? You know: Hollywood Stuff?

Reality: sardines in a can.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10849
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Fukushima after five years

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat Dec 16, 2017 1:09 am

Bobbo

The first manned star ship will be, as I implied, at least 300 years in the future. There will be a lot of development before then. My imagined star ship is a modified habitat used for something like asteroid mining. Since the inhabitants will be travelling for decades, it will not be small. It will need a substitute for gravity and excellent radiation shielding. The picture I have (which may not be correct, of course) is a rotating cylinder of about 1000 meters diameter and maybe ten kilometers long. A rotation speed of one revolution per minute would generate one gravity of centrifugal influence. Essentially a city in space. Something that size could even have city parks.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 12759
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Fukushima after five years

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Dec 16, 2017 1:34 am

At a cost of?................................ while how many people declare bankruptcy for health care bills and college debt?

AND: btw....isn't the "growth curve" for USA space activity on the down slope? Lots of activities for orbital support for commercial satelites, but only lip service to everything else?

Why don't you project that instead of your imagination?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10849
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Fukushima after five years

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat Dec 16, 2017 2:34 am

The USA is not the whole world, and nor is it a long term trend. There are lots of other developments. We even have a small space effort here in NZ, with a rocket launching satellites any day now. In fact, one of the long term trends in space technology is the growth in the number of nations with launch capabilities.

There is an interesting development that I think will come to fruition. That is related to metal resources.

Heavy atoms have a habit of sinking. Not just in water. Heavy elements like gold, platinum, rhenium and many others have, over the 4.5 billion years of Earth's existence, sunk through the mantle to the depths of the planet. The result is a shortage of these materials in the crust. But the asteroids represent a small planet that never actually formed, meaning that all those heavy elements are available in quantity at the surface. Many asteroids actually pass close to Earth and mining those valuable elements will become practical. This, I suspect, will be a much more potent driver of space technology than colonies on Mars, since asteroid mining will deliver megabucks to the investors.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 12759
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Fukushima after five years

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Dec 16, 2017 2:41 am

So........your 300 year prediction of inter galactic colony emmigration is how realistic given the attention and development going solely to commercial enterprises?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10849
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Fukushima after five years

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat Dec 16, 2017 2:48 am

The 300 year period is only a possible minimum. It might take a lot longer, which is why in my original post on this, I said over thousands of years.

My own guess is that asteroid mining, once up and running, will expand, and a number of habitats in space for those miners will be established. They will, naturally, be equipped with ion drives for mobility. Since the miners will likely be in space for long periods, the radiation shields and the rotation for gravity will be needed to maintain good health. They would also, for purely practical reasons, establish on board agriculture to provide food and oxygen. The next step, to converting one to star ship, is not such a big step, once the technology is developed.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 12759
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Fukushima after five years

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Dec 16, 2017 2:50 am

Will there be breaks for ads by Coca Cola or Facedbook?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10827
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Fukushima after five years

Postby xouper » Sat Dec 16, 2017 5:47 am

On the future of space travel, I have to side with Lance.

I read O'Neill's book when it came out in 1976, and I thought, yeah, that's way cool.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_High_Frontier:_Human_Colonies_in_Space

Naysayers, like booboo, are not the kind of people who make big things happen.

Example: Back around the early 1900s, if certain pioneers with big imaginations had listened to the naysayers, we would not have airplanes or the International Space Station today. Not possible. Too expensive. Not practical. Too dangerous. Blah blah blah.

People like bobbo never invent anything. He may know how to fly an airplane, but if airplanes didn't already exist, he would be one of the naysayers who say don't bother trying.

Personally, I have no use for naysayers. There was a colleague, an experienced programmer, once told me it was not possible to rewrite a particular program to run on a different platform in a different language. (For the nerds, it involved porting from C to max/msp.) Apparently he tried and failed. Apparently he didn't have the imagination to figure it out. But I made it work. I general, I am not at all impressed with pessimists like that.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 12759
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Fukushima after five years

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Dec 16, 2017 5:55 am

X===>here, try this cancer cure......................... trust me.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3774
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Fukushima after five years

Postby ElectricMonk » Sat Dec 16, 2017 6:12 am

I doubt the future of spacetravel is going to be like people imagine it today: despite Newt Gingrich's plans, we aren't going to live of Mars anytime soon.
Progress always happens fastest where it is easiest and cheapest: and it will be a long time before spacetravel becomes easy: without some game-changing technology, I simply cannot see it become economical.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10827
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Fukushima after five years

Postby xouper » Sat Dec 16, 2017 6:54 am

ElectricMonk wrote:I doubt the future of spacetravel is going to be like people imagine it today: despite Newt Gingrich's plans, we aren't going to live of Mars anytime soon.
Progress always happens fastest where it is easiest and cheapest: and it will be a long time before spacetravel becomes easy: without some game-changing technology, I simply cannot see it become economical.


Have you heard of this saying: "Argue for your limitations, and sure enough, they're yours."

Fortunately, visionaries and pioneers do not care what you think and are not bound by your lack of imagination.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3774
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Fukushima after five years

Postby ElectricMonk » Sat Dec 16, 2017 7:00 am

X, you misunderstand:
I argue that we have no solid basis for or against human space expansion at this point.
So for now, both optimism and pessimism is unwarranted.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10827
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Fukushima after five years

Postby xouper » Sat Dec 16, 2017 7:04 am

ElectricMonk wrote:. . . I argue that we have no solid basis for or against human space expansion at this point.
So for now, both optimism and pessimism is unwarranted.


Thank you for clarifying. I still do not agree.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3774
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Fukushima after five years

Postby ElectricMonk » Sat Dec 16, 2017 7:08 am

xouper wrote:
ElectricMonk wrote:. . . I argue that we have no solid basis for or against human space expansion at this point.
So for now, both optimism and pessimism is unwarranted.


Thank you for clarifying. I still do not agree.


Do you think that when da Vinci made models of flying machines it was reasonable to believe that large-scale airtravel would become a reality?
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10827
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Fukushima after five years

Postby xouper » Sat Dec 16, 2017 7:20 am

ElectricMonk wrote:Do you think that when da Vinci made models of flying machines it was reasonable to believe that large-scale airtravel would become a reality?


Sure. Why not? Especially since it happened. It was certainly reasonable at the time to imagine the possibility.

My point was that there were people arguing against the idea and they proved to be wrong.

That's why I have no use for naysayers. They are almost always wrong.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10849
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Fukushima after five years

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat Dec 16, 2017 7:39 am

Yes, indeed.

One of the problems with people like Bobbo is the lack of a time sense.
Certainly Leonardo was before his time. Eventually what he envisaged came true, though not soon after his ideas.

The same applies to interstellar travel. I do not think we will see it for a long time to come. At least 300 years, and possibly not for 3000 years. But eventually.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3774
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Fukushima after five years

Postby ElectricMonk » Sat Dec 16, 2017 7:55 am

Da Vinci was imagining muscle-powered flight, something that cannot possibly work.
Similarly, we have to find a better way than rockets to escape from a gravity well before space exploration becomes feasible.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10827
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Fukushima after five years

Postby xouper » Sat Dec 16, 2017 8:16 am

ElectricMonk wrote:Da Vinci was imagining muscle-powered flight, something that cannot possibly work.
Similarly, we have to find a better way than rockets to escape from a gravity well before space exploration becomes feasible.


Manned space exploration is already "feasible". Perhaps you had another word in mind?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10849
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Fukushima after five years

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat Dec 16, 2017 8:40 am

Rocket power is OK for a small number of people. If we remain dependant on it, only a tiny fraction of humanity will ever leave Earth. Perhaps an alternate will be developed, such as a space elevator. Perhaps not. Either way in a sense, it does not matter. The people who colonise the wider galaxy will never be more than the descendants of a tiny minority.

My own view is that colonising planets is a bit self defeating. Most planets, like Mars, will be hostile to humans. So we would have to build airtight shelters. So why not build them in space, and rotate them for gravity? Then there is no gravity well to do battle with, and there is enough detritus in space (asteroids, comets, moons, rings, and meteorites) to supply all the raw materials needed.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3774
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Fukushima after five years

Postby ElectricMonk » Sat Dec 16, 2017 8:48 am

xouper wrote:Manned space exploration is already "feasible". Perhaps you had another word in mind?


traveling to your planet's moon isn't space exploration.


We need some fundamentally different technologies to make exploring the solar system economical.
A functioning Space Elevator would do the trick.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8622
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Fukushima after five years

Postby TJrandom » Sat Dec 16, 2017 9:44 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Rocket power is OK for a small number of people. If we remain dependant on it, only a tiny fraction of humanity will ever leave Earth. Perhaps an alternate will be developed, such as a space elevator. Perhaps not. Either way in a sense, it does not matter. The people who colonise the wider galaxy will never be more than the descendants of a tiny minority.

My own view is that colonising planets is a bit self defeating. Most planets, like Mars, will be hostile to humans. So we would have to build airtight shelters. So why not build them in space, and rotate them for gravity? Then there is no gravity well to do battle with, and there is enough detritus in space (asteroids, comets, moons, rings, and meteorites) to supply all the raw materials needed.


I once had a conversation with a woman who claimed that she had worked for the CIA - and that an analysis they had conducted said that it would only take 9 people to repopulate the planet with sufficient DNA diversity to continue the human race. If true, it wouldn`t take such a large spaceship to populate other planets (though this few may not be sufficient for a planet less ideal for human life).

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 12759
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Fukushima after five years

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Dec 16, 2017 9:53 am

Try this for imagination: your reasonable limits......aka: spend your money on something with a greater return.

But nothing like 300 or 3000 or unlimited time allowed? Thats not imagination...........just open ended vacuous idle chat.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Major Malfunction
Has No Life
Posts: 11850
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 6:20 am
Custom Title: Dérailleur Énigmatique

Re: Fukushima after five years

Postby Major Malfunction » Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:00 pm

We're talking 10s of 1,000s of years to colonise a likely planet even only 10 ly away. Do you really think humanity could unite in a focused, concerted effort over such a long span?

I don't.

Let's look at a few logistics. We see a likely planet today. Takes 10 years to build a probe. 100 years to get there. 10 years to beam some promising info back. Takes 10 years to build a whole bunch more advanced probes for more detailed analysis. Takes them 100 years to get there. 10 years to beam their info back. It falls within the broad spectrum of "habitable", but "needs work".

That's already 240 years, and we haven't even begun to think about getting people there and terraforming.

If you spend a 100 years building 1,000s of terraforming probes, shooting engineered bacteria and fungus at it, it's still going to take a billion years to terraform.

Humans aren't going to be able to co-operate on something so long.

I guess our best bet is artificial space habitats.
This being was produced using the same process as other beings, and therefore, may contain traces of nuts.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10827
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Fukushima after five years

Postby xouper » Sat Dec 16, 2017 5:16 pm

There are two kinds of people:

  • those who find excuses that something can't be done,

  • and those who dream big and do them anyway.

Image



I've posted the following list before, but it seems relevant to this conversation too.

Consider this famous observation by Clarke:

Arthur C. Clarke wrote:If an elderly but distinguished scientist says that something is possible, he is almost certainly right; but if he says that it is impossible, he is very probably wrong.


  • Sidebar: Please note that the above observation is presented only as an observation, not an argument. (Which means if you try to dismiss this as an "argument by slogan", you are missing the point, because it is not meant to be an argument of any kind.)


Sometimes Clarke's observation applies, sometimes not.

But when it does apply, I suspect Clarke was referring "experts" who said things like:

  • "Rail travel at high speed is not possible because passengers, unable to breathe, would die of asphyxia." — Dr. Dionysius Lardner, 1830.

  • "X-rays will prove to be a hoax." — Lord Kelvin, President of the Royal Society, 1883.

  • "Flight by machines heavier than air is unpractical and insignificant, if not utterly impossible." — Simon Newcomb, 18th century.

  • "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible." — Lord Kelvin, British mathematician and physicist, president of the British Royal Society, 1895.

  • "There will never be a bigger plane built." — A Boeing engineer, after the first flight of the 247, a twin engine plane that holds ten people.

  • "There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will." — Albert Einstein, 1932.

  • "A rocket will never be able to leave the Earth’s atmosphere." — New York Times, 1936.

  • "To place a man in a multi-stage rocket and project him into the controlling gravitational field of the moon where the passengers can make scientific observations, perhaps land alive, and then return to earth – all that constitutes a wild dream worthy of Jules Verne. I am bold enough to say that such a man-made voyage will never occur regardless of all future advances." — inventor Lee De Forest, 1926.

  • "Nothing can go faster than the speed of light." — anonymous ;)

OK, maybe the speed of light is an absolute limit, but I am not willing to bet my life there is no way around that limit, especially since there are scientists actually working on that very thing. More on that later.

Whenever I find myself saying "that's not possible" or "that will never work", I have learned to stop and question myself, how certain am I that it's really impossible, or is it more the case that I am experiencing a lack of imagination how it might be possible. It is a common logical fallacy to think that just because I cannot imagine how something might be possible, therefore it must be impossible (or exceedingly difficult, or highly impractical, etc).

Many times in my life people have told me something was not possible, and I believed them. And then later found out they were wrong.

This is why I am suspicious of claims that something is impossible (or exceedingly difficult, or highly impractical, etc), and why I am so hesitant to make such a claim myself.

You might enjoy this short story by Isaac Asimov (if you haven't already read it):

http://www.teoti.com/books-poetry/148751-not-final-a-short-story-by-isaac-asimov.html

Now, granted, that is just fiction, but it cleverly illustrates the point I am making here, that one must be careful when declaring something is not possible. In other words, I am cautioning against making the same mistake that Prosser made near the end of that story when he said, "That's final!"

Or, as one of my favorite aviation authors wrote: "Argue for your limitations, and sure enough, their yours."

I guess what I'm saying here is that I find it amusing when people argue for their limitations. That's not to say that as human beings we have no limitations at all. Instead, I am referring to limitations that are only in our imaginations.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10827
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Fukushima after five years

Postby xouper » Sat Dec 16, 2017 5:16 pm

ElectricMonk wrote: . . . we have to find a better way than rockets to escape from a gravity well before space exploration becomes feasible.
xouper wrote:Manned space exploration is already "feasible". Perhaps you had another word in mind?
ElectricMonk wrote:traveling to your planet's moon isn't space exploration.


Thanks for clarifying the definitions of the words you used.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10849
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Fukushima after five years

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat Dec 16, 2017 6:19 pm

On limits.

I believe they exist. They are called the Laws of Physics. Any suggestion that we can break those Laws is almost certainly in error.

However, if something is possible according to those Laws, then it is achievable. Interstellar travel is possible, and at a high fraction of light speed. Faster than light travel, though, is breaking one of the Laws of Physics and is probably not possible.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10827
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Fukushima after five years

Postby xouper » Sat Dec 16, 2017 8:10 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:On limits.

I believe they exist. They are called the Laws of Physics. Any suggestion that we can break those Laws is almost certainly in error.


I have not seen anyone suggesting that. Certainly not me.


Lance Kennedy wrote:However, if something is possible according to those Laws, then it is achievable. Interstellar travel is possible, and at a high fraction of light speed. Faster than light travel, though, is breaking one of the Laws of Physics and is probably not possible.


Lance, I'm trying to be supportive of your optimistic premise about the future of space exploration and colonization. Let's not ruin that by rehashing an old conversation about the speed light.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10849
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Fukushima after five years

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat Dec 16, 2017 8:33 pm

OK.

Let's discuss slower than light travel. I am aware of three separate drives that, in theory, will permit travel at a substantial fraction of light speed.

1. Ion drive. Already in use so obviously practical. In theory, it could be developed to the point where it could accelerate a ship or probe to between 0.1 and 0.2 of light speed.
2. Fusion torch drive. More problematic. This involves firing thousands of tiny pellets into the reaction chamber and zapping them with powerful lasers. The pellets will be of a fusion capable material such as lithium deuteride. The immense temperatures generated will cause the pellet to undergo nuclear fusion, (a mini hydrogen bomb) and create a thrust. This could, in theory, allow speeds up to half light speed. The problem is that we cannot do it. Maybe in the future we will learn how.
3. Orion drive. Detonating nuclear bombs at the rear of the ship. Thousands of them. Possible maximum speed has been calculated as half light speed. Many practical and technical problems, though, related to handing such a massive set of blasts.

All of these require reaction mass, which will be consumed during acceleration, making the ship lighter. But even so, a substantial amount will be needed to decelerate the ship to relative rest at the destination. This puts a limit on maximum speed.

My current view is that the ion drive is most probable, but I could be wrong.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3774
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Fukushima after five years

Postby ElectricMonk » Sat Dec 16, 2017 9:45 pm

My argument against space exploration is economical, not technological.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams


Return to “Science, Technology, and Mathematics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests