Wi mankind had taken space exploration seriously page 2 alternate history discussion electricity kwh


@Doug M. We’re talking about human exploration/colonization, which gas quality has certainly not been to its full potential since 1972. For the past 40 years, we’ve been drilling holes in the sky. Looking at stars, pissing in jars. The unmanned program has had a better track record, but even it is not as well-off as it could be. For example, you mention high-resolution photos. Ever care to question why we don’t have video footage from Mars or Jupiter or Saturn? Why every Mars rover documentary has either CGI or photos of the rovers? Because video footage takes more power than solar or even RTG can provide. To get video footage you can return to earth, you’d need full-on nuclear power or a sample-return flight. And sample-return hasn’t been doing as well as possible either. From unmanned sample return, we have, what, a few grams from Luna and an asteroid combined, plus miscellaneous milligrams from Genesis and a comet probe?

If we put some serious money into this, we could have a good gas prices going up couple of kilograms from Mars already. Possibly we could be in the planning stages of Titan Sample Return. Manned missions could bring back hundreds of kilograms (using Apollo as a source, though that’s not entirely accurate as Apollo landings spent mere days on the surface, and a crew on Mars and further out would have equipment for in situ study of samples, effectively increasing payload).

NASA did gas pain in shoulder everything, from Apollo (including Mercury, Gemini, ASTP, and Skylab) to Shuttle to Voyager to Viking to MER to Cassini or Galileo on a more-less constant budget of $20 billion annually, 1992 dollars. Scale that up to a mere 1/10 of the Department of Defense’s budget, and you’re increasing its budget by several orders of magnitude. Take your examples, and scale those up by orders of magnitude grade 6 electricity experiments. Then you’ll see what we mean by taking space seriously.

1: It is fairly clear that the early Martian environment was similar to the early Earth environment, especially in certain areas useful to the formation of life (eg., warm(-ish), wet). Given the seeming rapidity with which life formed on Earth after the end of the LHB, there are good, if indirect, grounds for believing it likely, at least, (which is all he says) that there was some form of life on Mars at some point, even if it perhaps never advanced past naked molecules to actual cells.

3: It is not certain (albeit extremely likely) that Martian life is extinct, as extremophile life forms on Earth have shown that life can exist in surprising and difficult-to-study habitats, such as deep underground. Looking at what lithoautotrophs (the type shell gas credit card 5 of bacteria just referenced) need to survive, and where they sometimes live, it seems fairly clear that they could easily survive on Mars, not even necessarily aware of the vast changes on the surface since they evolved t gasthuys billions of years ago. Obviously, our current probes have not, and cannot, probe kilometers into the bedrock to detect whether or not there are small communities of bacteria living there.

The recent discovery of anomalously high methane levels on Mars further supports the idea that there may be remnant habitats suitable for and inhabited by ancient bacterial lifeforms, as that astrid y gaston lima menu prices gas is mainly released by volcanic and biological activity. Mars, then, must either be more volcanically active (and thus more habitable) or more inhabited than we had previously thought.

Click to expand…You would need much lower costs. Launch costs are frequently bandied about, eg. the $10,000/kg cost the Space Shuttle supposedly incurs (although the question of actually calculating costs is rather complicated), but the real showstopper is the cost of payloads– Cassini, for instance, has cost about $3.3 billion, but the launch vehicle only cost about $420 million, less than 1/6th of total costs. (I expect that less specialist payloads electricity 4th grade powerpoint such as GPS satellites, remote observation satellites, or communications satellites would be cheaper in relation to the launch vehicle, but it’s much harder to find information, especially for the commercial ones). For another perspective, per-launch costs have clearly gone down since the late ’60s or early ’70s due to inflation, but there hasn’t been electricity in human body wiki a massive explosion in the use of space like some predicted, or as looked imminent in the mid-’90s before the massive fiber build-out that seriously damaged the communications satellite market.

And finally, obviously some space missions do pay for themselves, since otherwise some businesses couldn’t exist. It’s just not the crewed missions that do that, since there you have to pay for all the life-support. I think you might be waiting on actual AI before you can get something akin to humans on Mars, at least in terms of intelligent life there that talks to us. But otherwise…well, monkeys in a can is not necessarily the best way to do things, is all, and very expensive. Plus, some of the best long-term investments are a long, long way from being useful right now (eg., asteroid mining requires a lot of RD for gsa 2016 the microgravity vacuum processing and production facilities; many, many, many things that work on Earth just wouldn’t in space).

Click to expand…Erm, not necessarily. You forgot to mention things like research or manufacturing (of products that require ultra-super-mega high vacuum or microgravity conditions. As I said, launch and payload costs will be key. So, for profitable (crewed) space missions, you would need high prices on Earth for whatever is going on in space, lower costs for actually going off and doing whatever, and an inability to automate it (completely gas variables pogil extension questions). Which is possible–AI is tricky, especially the brute-force simulate the brain! is certainly decades or more away*–but isn’t likely for a while, say several decades at least.

* I spent this summer doing computer simulations of (tiny segments of) two proteins binding to each other. Now, obviously any decent whole-brain simulation is likely to need to take into account protein behavior to function properly. It took about 3 months of work to produce about gas x side effects 20 nanoseconds of simulation. Of two tiny (less than 100 residues, that is amino acids) protein hunks interacting, with nothing else around. Scale that up to a whole brain operating for hours or days…