Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by 41b)
    We lost touch with nature for a reason. Capitalism -cooperative competition - is the law of life.
    No, that is not the law of life. That's the law of 20th Century life. That is not a sustainable law.

    (Original post by reallydontknow)
    Well, he's actually right, consider how big the earth is, we've just made scratches in it, we have hardly used any of the earths hidden resources. we've only dug a few km deep, the earth is thousands of km in radius.
    He's not right at all. Most of the Earth is totally inaccessible to humans and always will be. There is a reason why we've only dug a few kilometres deep. Do you have any idea how difficult it is to dig a hole when you've got kilometres of rock on top of you? There's a limit of how strong a construction you can physically build. Techno-fixes are not going to enable us to start mining significantly in the deep crust. No amount of technological innovation is going to change the very basic physical constraints that prevent you from getting down there. On top of that, in terms of minerals, the deep crust isn't as interesting as the top of the crust. The highest concentrations of minerals that are common in the crust are at the surface, not near the moho.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    Please tell me you don't actually mean the text in bold. We have affected the entire surface of the planet. Just think - we've literally altered the composition of the atmosphere, and that's just for starters. There is an anthropogenic geochemical symbol that exists across the entire planet. We have sufficiently changed the surface of the planet that the ICS is considering designating a new geological epoch, the Anthropocene. The anthropogenic effect on the planet will still be visible 100 million years in the future, and it is almost certain that evidence of us will remain for the rest of the Earth's existence. We have completely changed the planet - not necessarily in ways that are visible to the naked eye (although even if you do look at things at face value, humans have directly developed over half of the Earth's land area so the statement is totally wrong whatever way you look at it. And that statistic ignores the ocean which has been totally transformed by humans).

    And no, it doesn't set limits. Mining has devastating environmental implications. Any kind of large scale industrial activity is going to affect the entire surface of the moon, unless it was literally done under the surface in a hole, which would probably not be economically viable. And actually, that's not even true because you'd still need surface activity for transportation. For cost savings, things would inevitably be discarded on the lunar surface. You'd turn it into a massive rubbish heap.

    Agreeing with one aspect of someone's policy does not mean you support them.
    Yes we haven't dug in and harnessed resources for the majority of the Earth. Affected, yes I'd agree, but harnessed resources? No. The moon has no atmosphere, please tell us how ALL of the moons surface would be affected if we went there to do mining.

    When I say create limits I mean form binding legislation to stop mining companies going into particular parts of the moon.

    I knew you weren't a Thatcherist I think it's quite obvious Chloro




    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    Are you serious?! I just wrote an entire paragraph about the scientific value of the moon and you're saying that? I mean, apart from the fact that most minerals are of absolutely no economic interest whatsoever which makes it nonsense anyway, there is so much more scientific value than "just minerals".

    It's not just interesting to geographers, they're probably one of the least interested groups. It's interesting to astrophysicists, geochemists, geophysicists, paleobiologists, planetary scientists, atmospheric physicists, physicists and chemists in general and probably a whole host of other academic disciplines. You can't set a time slot for scientific investigation. The moment you start industrial activity, you've caused irreparable damage.
    Yeah... the value of the helium 3, and the unlimited free energy and transcendance of energy limits that we currently face is vastly more important than whatever pleasure treehugging nerds will get from .. "examining" lunar rocks.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    Are you serious?! I just wrote an entire paragraph about the scientific value of the moon and you're saying that? I mean, apart from the fact that most minerals are of absolutely no economic interest whatsoever which makes it nonsense anyway, there is so much more scientific value than "just minerals".

    It's not just interesting to geographers, they're probably one of the least interested groups. It's interesting to astrophysicists, geochemists, geophysicists, paleobiologists, planetary scientists, atmospheric physicists, physicists and chemists in general and probably a whole host of other academic disciplines. You can't set a time slot for scientific investigation. The moment you start industrial activity, you've caused irreparable damage.
    Look, fine you can have the moon but asteroids at least should be put to market forces.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    Reaction it's policies never work.
    Not true... But your same argument could be said over anti-austerity policies.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by MrJAKEE)
    Yes we haven't dug in and harnessed resources for the majority of the Earth. Affected, yes I'd agree, but harnessed resources? No. The moon has no atmosphere, please tell us how ALL of the moons surface would be affected if we went there to do mining.

    When I say create limits I mean form binding legislation to stop mining companies going into particular parts of the moon.

    I knew you weren't a Thatcherist I think it's quite obvious Chloro
    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Just think for a moment about the effects industry is going to have. In order to make it financially viable, it will be the quickest and dirtiest kind of operation possible. It will be massive-scale open cast mining because the concentrations of minerals in the moon are going to be very, very low. You don't get mineral veins on the moon, they're generated by geological processes that only occur on tectonically active bodies. The moon has a higher concentration of certain elements that exist in the crust but those concentrations are still very, very low. A huge amount of material would have to be displaced. In order to minimise the transportation costs, all of that material would have to be processed on the moon, so that's more structures that have to be built. An incredible amount of waste would be generated that can't be transported back to the earth because it's too expensive, so that's dumped there too. You'll need accommodation for humans and probably some kind of farm to grow food to again minimise transportation costs. And once again, all of this generates yet more waste. The travel itself is going to have an impact across the moon - it might not have an atmosphere but partially because of this, ejecta from high above the surface can reach any part of the lunar surface. And again, you don't need a visible layer of material to constitute contamination. We're talking about part-per-trillion level precision in some measurements.
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by KingStannis)
    Look, fine you can have the moon but asteroids at least should be put to market forces.
    I don't think we need to worry about asteroids since any hope of accessing them is centuries away.

    (Original post by 41b)
    Yeah... the value of the helium 3, and the unlimited free energy and transcendance of energy limits that we currently face is vastly more important than whatever pleasure treehugging nerds will get from .. "examining" lunar rocks.
    You're not going to get "unlimited free energy", I have no idea where you got that idea from. Surprisingly enough, transporting materials to the moon and back is not free. On top of that, you're banking on a technology that doesn't exist. And it's not at all more important. Not only is He-3 not the only possible fuel for fission (if we even get it working) but there are plenty of other technologies that can easily fill its place. Germany has already managed to get a huge amount of communal renewables investment with very little intervention. Fission is not something we need and it certainly will not be free or green if we have to transport Helium from the moon.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    Just think for a moment about the effects industry is going to have. In order to make it financially viable, it will be the quickest and dirtiest kind of operation possible. It will be massive-scale open cast mining because the concentrations of minerals in the moon are going to be very, very low. You don't get mineral veins on the moon, they're generated by geological processes that only occur on tectonically active bodies. The moon has a higher concentration of certain elements that exist in the crust but those concentrations are still very, very low. A huge amount of material would have to be displaced. In order to minimise the transportation costs, all of that material would have to be processed on the moon, so that's more structures that have to be built. An incredible amount of waste would be generated that can't be transported back to the earth because it's too expensive, so that's dumped there too. You'll need accommodation for humans and probably some kind of farm to grow food to again minimise transportation costs. And once again, all of this generates yet more waste. The travel itself is going to have an impact across the moon - it might not have an atmosphere but partially because of this, ejecta from high above the surface can reach any part of the lunar surface. And again, you don't need a visible layer of material to constitute contamination. We're talking about part-per-trillion level precision in some measurements.
    Well, I for one don't care what happens to the moon. As long as all the environmentalists were put on it beforehand, it could be blown open for mining tomorrow and as long it resulted in a £0.01 increase in my wealth I would be happy.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 41b)
    Yeah... the value of the helium 3, and the unlimited free energy and transcendance of energy limits that we currently face is vastly more important than whatever pleasure treehugging nerds will get from .. "examining" lunar rocks.
    To quote the great contemporary philosopher, Mika:

    Dude, your perspective on life sucks.

    You're going to be gone in ~80 years bro. Bang. Nothing left. No consciousness, no harmony, no hatred. Nothing. It's how it is. Don't you want to leave a positive legacy?

    Regardless of your personal priorities, can you not see that if we keep exploiting Earth's very finite resources as we are and abusing her natural systems then we won't be able to live here like we do today.

    Y'all need Jesus Sagan


    The same people you're condemning for wanting to study lunar rocks are the people who will unlock the secrets of nuclear fusion anyway ;P At the very least, they're good friends.

    Ain't much use having all the energy or oil or money in the world if there isn't much of a world (or civilization) left to use it in.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    No, that is not the law of life. That's the law of 20th Century life. That is not a sustainable law.



    He's not right at all. Most of the Earth is totally inaccessible to humans and always will be. There is a reason why we've only dug a few kilometres deep. Do you have any idea how difficult it is to dig a hole when you've got kilometres of rock on top of you? There's a limit of how strong a construction you can physically build. Techno-fixes are not going to enable us to start mining significantly in the deep crust. No amount of technological innovation is going to change the very basic physical constraints that prevent you from getting down there. On top of that, in terms of minerals, the deep crust isn't as interesting as the top of the crust. The highest concentrations of minerals that are common in the crust are at the surface, not near the moho.
    Most of earth is inaccessible now. A hundred years ago, how deep were we digging? Technology gets better and we use better equipment. We will be able to utilise the earth further.

    Just because we cannot physically do something now does not mean it is impossible. If everybody says that, we would have never reached the moon or got commercial aircraft.

    And on the point with the moon, yes nobody owns it, but I feel like a global organisation should, the amount of helium-3 there would solve so many of our energy problems, and allow us to further humanity many fold, the benefits should he reaped by all humanity and not just a company that is true, but it's not right that such resources should be laying there for use and they not be used because somebody wants to admire the beauty of something, they may take pictures and admire them.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by 41b)
    Well, I for one don't care what happens to the moon. As long as all the environmentalists were put on it beforehand, it could be blown open for mining tomorrow and as long it resulted in a £0.01 increase in my wealth I would be happy.
    Well you definitely wouldn't be happy if it were literally blown open because all life on earth would be gone within a day.

    Joking aside, that's such a bad opinion on many levels, pragmatic and sentimental. You've not responded to most of my points so I'm assuming you don't have answers to them.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    I don't think we need to worry about asteroids since any hope of accessing them is centuries away.



    You're not going to get "unlimited free energy", I have no idea where you got that idea from. Surprisingly enough, transporting materials to the moon and back is not free. On top of that, you're banking on a technology that doesn't exist. And it's not at all more important. Not only is He-3 not the only possible fuel for fission (if we even get it working) but there are plenty of other technologies that can easily fill its place. Germany has already managed to get a huge amount of communal renewables investment with very little intervention. Fission is not something we need and it certainly will not be free or green if we have to transport Helium from the moon.
    Jesus you're clueless.

    First of all we passed the point where we got more out of fUsion reactor than we put into it last year.

    Secondly, a fusion reactor produces, iirc, 100 times as much energy for comparable cost as a nuclear fission reactor.

    So we'd have a fusion powered transporter transporting helium 3 back and forth from the moon. Within 20 years, probably. Energy at literally 1/100th of the cost of what we currently pay for it, if not cheaper.

    Still, you are entitled to your mud huts and dysentry. I hear parts of the Congo would be happy to welcome you.
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by Thorsas)
    To quote the great contemporary philosopher, Mika:

    Dude, your perspective on life sucks.

    You're going to be gone in ~80 years bro. Bang. Nothing left. No consciousness, no harmony, no hatred. Nothing. It's how it is. Don't you want to leave a positive legacy?

    Regardless of your personal priorities, can you not see that if we keep exploiting Earth's very finite resources as we are and abusing her natural systems then we won't be able to live here like we do today.

    Y'all need Jesus Sagan


    The same people you're condemning for wanting to study lunar rocks are the people who will unlock the secrets of nuclear fusion anyway ;P At the very least, they're good friends.

    Ain't much use having all the energy or oil or money in the world if there isn't much of a world (or civilization) left to use it in.
    Very well said, always good to bring Sagan in!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    Just think for a moment about the effects industry is going to have. In order to make it financially viable, it will be the quickest and dirtiest kind of operation possible. It will be massive-scale open cast mining because the concentrations of minerals in the moon are going to be very, very low. You don't get mineral veins on the moon, they're generated by geological processes that only occur on tectonically active bodies. The moon has a higher concentration of certain elements that exist in the crust but those concentrations are still very, very low. A huge amount of material would have to be displaced. In order to minimise the transportation costs, all of that material would have to be processed on the moon, so that's more structures that have to be built. An incredible amount of waste would be generated that can't be transported back to the earth because it's too expensive, so that's dumped there too. You'll need accommodation for humans and probably some kind of farm to grow food to again minimise transportation costs. And once again, all of this generates yet more waste. The travel itself is going to have an impact across the moon - it might not have an atmosphere but partially because of this, ejecta from high above the surface can reach any part of the lunar surface. And again, you don't need a visible layer of material to constitute contamination. We're talking about part-per-trillion level precision in some measurements.
    Dirty? It sounds wonderful

    I have no doubt humans won't be doing the majority of work up there and robots will any-who, so I don't expect much waste happening there. I'm quite happy that you've actually formed a good argument instead of "but it looks good" "but it's perfect". The simple solution to your now argument is create stringent laws on mining agreed by all countries and have a long period where no mining takes place and scientific research takes priority.

    As said by a previous poster, there are asteroids, and you know what there are other moons, and other planets. It really isn't the end of the world if the moon gets contaminated, and while Id admit I'm no geologist I'm sure experiments could still be done on the moon as some are still done on the Earth today - not to mention parts of the moon will be inaccessible for the average (machine) miner just like on Earth.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by 41b)
    Jesus you're clueless.

    First of all we passed the point where we got more out of fUsion reactor than we put into it last year.

    Secondly, a fusion reactor produces, iirc, 100 times as much energy for comparable cost as a nuclear fission reactor.

    So we'd have a fusion powered transporter transporting helium 3 back and forth from the moon. Within 20 years, probably. Energy at literally 1/100th of the cost of what we currently pay for it, if not cheaper.

    Still, you are entitled to your mud huts and dysentry. I hear parts of the Congo would be happy to welcome you.
    If you actually researched that case, it was not a self-sustaining reaction. That reaction was sustained for a minute fraction of a second. It was definitely impressive (for a technology that has been in development for half a century) but it is far away from actually having a self-sustaining reaction. In order for fusion to be remotely viable, the energy output has to be significantly greater than the input to justify the massive costs.

    It will not cost 1% of the energy costs at the moment, that's just mad. The cost of the infrastructure is unimaginable. Even if we could run it at 1% of the energy cost today (which we won't), it would take a huge amount of time, decades upon decades, to make up the initial investments. And once again, it's not green if we have to ferry fuel back from the moon.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thorsas)
    To quote the great contemporary philosopher, Mika:

    Dude, your perspective on life sucks.

    You're going to be gone in ~80 years bro. Bang. Nothing left. No consciousness, no harmony, no hatred. Nothing. It's how it is. Don't you want to leave a positive legacy?

    Regardless of your personal priorities, can you not see that if we keep exploiting Earth's very finite resources as we are and abusing her natural systems then we won't be able to live here like we do today.

    Y'all need Jesus Sagan


    The same people you're condemning for wanting to study lunar rocks are the people who will unlock the secrets of nuclear fusion anyway ;P At the very least, they're good friends.

    Ain't much use having all the energy or oil or money in the world if there isn't much of a world (or civilization) left to use it in.
    That's cool. Personally, I'm looking forward to the cloning of every extinct species. So I can taste every last one of them. I hear the dodo was quite delicious.
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by MrJAKEE)
    Dirty? It sounds wonderful

    I have no doubt humans won't be doing the majority of work up there and robots will any-who, so I don't expect much waste happening there. I'm quite happy that you've actually formed a good argument instead of "but it looks good" "but it's perfect". The simple solution to your now argument is create stringent laws on mining agreed by all countries and have a long period where no mining takes place and scientific research takes priority.

    As said by a previous poster, there are asteroids, and you know what there are other moons, and other planets. It really isn't the end of the world if the moon gets contaminated, and while Id admit I'm no geologist I'm sure experiments could still be done on the moon as some are still done on the Earth today - not to mention parts of the moon will be inaccessible for the average (machine) miner just like on Earth.
    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Stringent laws aren't enough. Only a total moratorium would prevent irreparable damage. Even if it were properly regulated, you forget that regulations are a cost-benefit question for corporations. I can absolutely guarantee you that corporations will start getting fined for breaking regulations within a year of any kind of activity starting. The moon is too important to allow companies to even have the ability to break these regulations.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    If you actually researched that case, it was not a self-sustaining reaction. That reaction was sustained for a minute fraction of a second. It was definitely impressive (for a technology that has been in development for half a century) but it is far away from actually having a self-sustaining reaction. In order for fusion to be remotely viable, the energy output has to be significantly greater than the input to justify the massive costs.

    It will not cost 1% of the energy costs at the moment, that's just mad. The cost of the infrastructure is unimaginable. Even if we could run it at 1% of the energy cost today (which we won't), it would take a huge amount of time, decades upon decades, to make up the initial investments. And once again, it's not green if we have to ferry fuel back from the moon.
    I don't give a **** if it's green. You keep bleating on about that first commandment in your treehugging bible. I care about progress, I care about human survival and I value the preservation of nature so far as it benefits human survival. And the vast majority of people on this planet are like me.

    And what does it mean to be green in the middle of space? What are you smoking?
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by 41b)
    Jesus you're clueless.

    First of all we passed the point where we got more out of fUsion reactor than we put into it last year.

    Secondly, a fusion reactor produces, iirc, 100 times as much energy for comparable cost as a nuclear fission reactor.

    So we'd have a fusion powered transporter transporting helium 3 back and forth from the moon. Within 20 years, probably. Energy at literally 1/100th of the cost of what we currently pay for it, if not cheaper.

    Still, you are entitled to your mud huts and dysentry. I hear parts of the Congo would be happy to welcome you.
    Adding to what I previously said, we don't even need He-3. Fusion is perfectly possibly with Deuterium which can be extracted from the oceans.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    Stringent laws aren't enough. Only a total moratorium would prevent irreparable damage. Even if it were properly regulated, you forget that regulations are a cost-benefit question for corporations. I can absolutely guarantee you that corporations will start getting fined for breaking regulations within a year of any kind of activity starting. The moon is too important to allow companies to even have the ability to break these regulations.
    I don't see it as that important whatsoever Chloro, I don't know the science it would provide and I don't think the majority do either that other celestial bodies would not. And even if laws were made, regulators would be in place and regulators on the regulators and so on if you were that serious about it.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.