Recent Mars and upcoming Moon Projects

[Cutter]

I deliberately quoted all those figures for fraud from the UK government's own official figures - and I'll tell you this - actually finding them on the Treasury and ONS websites is actually quite tricky. Gotta hide the dirty facts from the voters I guess. Figures from bodies I would trust more than our government put the fraud on benefits at almost double what the government admits to...

As to the nuclear thing Hector well, Wint has a point. Most of the Nuclear power stations in use in the UK today were designed at least 20 years ago, and Magnox stations are some 50 years old. They were also mainly designed to produce weapons grade Uranium/Plutonium for our then nascent nuclear weapons program. So, they might not be the safest/most efficient stations for civillian power generation.

If you gave me the choice of living beside a nuclear power station, or a coal fired one, lets see which I'd choose:

1. Nuclear - Minimal waste by-products. No air pollution. Might meltdown. Possibly. Maybe.
2. Fossil Fuels - air quality shot to shit for miles around, windows always coated in soot, lungs blacked, cancer and respiratory illnesses way above national average in the immediate surrounding area. Fact. Definitely. Proven.

I'm not saying fission is the best way to produce power, but lets be honest - even the eco-warriors are generally too attached to their cars and electrical devices to actually put their money where their mouths are.

"Eco-friendly" power generation is a chimera. Interesting to see that all those in favour of wind farms don't live anywhere near fields of bloody great propellors going "thwap thwap thwap" at all hours of the day and night. And why are those things often built in areas of great natural beauty. Noise pollution? Environmental damage? Hmmm?

Solar: Well, how many square miles of land would need to be covered with panels to generate the amount of electricity we currently consume in this country?

Wave/Hydro: Well, this at least has some merit, but again, you would need to cover a huge proportion of the coastline with the nodding donkeys to generate the amount of electricity we currently consume. Hazards to shipping?

Eco-friendly power generation will only work if people are prepared to do without central heating, and all the electrical toys and gadgets we've all grown used to. Which I don't see happening quite frankly.

Fusion is the ovbious answer - all the benefits of fission, with none of the down sides. Plus the reaction mass is pretty common - about 70% of the earth's surface is covered in the stuff...

Maybe if we gave £133 Billion to fusion development for a year, the remaining problems with it could be ironed out and we'd have a clean, viable energy source?

My view is, there is a crunch coming in the UK, and people will have to face one of two stark choices:

1. Continue the current chronic underinvestment in Science, Technology and Infrastructure, but keep benefits high, and see the country start to suffer brownouts and developmental regression within the next 10 or so years; or

2. Accept that if we spent the sums currently spent on benefits on more worthwhile things which would actually show a return on the money spent on them, things would be painful short-term, but our long-term future would be secured.

Agreeing with Wintermute? FS, must dash. Seppuku to commit...

 

[Hector]

I deliberately quoted all those figures for fraud from the UK government's own official figures - and I'll tell you this - actually finding them on the Treasury and ONS websites is actually quite tricky. Gotta hide the dirty facts from the voters I guess. Figures from bodies I would trust more than our government put the fraud on benefits at almost double what the government admits to.

I've mentioned before that I used to work for the civil service. I worked for Brixton UBO (for those that that means anything to). I was privvy to some of the gossip and felt pretty up-to-date on what people concluded the government was up to in terms on detailing the number of unemployed and other stats. However, I'm prepared to concede that I was as much a victim of internal propoganda as the public reading the papers were victim to government spin.

Fact is, unless we're prepared to somehow get the numbers for ourselves the point is moot. To sit on the safe side we can agree that they're questionable; and that fraud numbers are manipulated as and when it suits the government for a given purpose.

I have to concede also that on a factual level I have no stats to hand to counteract the x, y, z% or whatever contributing to whatever. I'll hold my hand up and be happy to be counted as an idealist. Ie, someone who would champion the best possible future for our race. Maybe nuclear power is the most efficient source of power for us. But whether I would be happier living next to an old style power station or a landfill of nuclear waste I can't answer. Maybe better to ask an Italian at the moment. As far as us Brits are concerned, I read today that the head of the Met office said that the potential for damage of WMD are a drop in the ocean compared to what we're currently doing to our environment. I don't see chucking waste in landfills next to quiet villages particularly inspiring. Maybe we'll find out that nature CAN provide adequate resources with development. But, then, maybe all that investment would go to waste and someone, somewhere would lose a lot of money. Apparently we can consider going to live on Mars but we can't figure out how to make nature work for us?

Hmm.

 

[Rob1000100]

Most green eco warriors are a total joke a quick example, a redundant oil rig which was planned to be sunk. Instead greanpeace forced for it to be towed to shore then dismantled and recycled. The amount of power, energy and money plus cost to the enviroment ment it was about 5x worse than actualy sinking it. Alot of social security is a joke too, about 1/3 of people at college get what is called EMA (education mantinence alowence). It basicaly pays them to go to college rather than just letting them get a job and pay there own way. 9/10 the EMA is just spent on a CD or something.

Drifting back onto subject, ion propulsion is not a replacment for solid rocket burners as they are still needed to achive escape velocity. Ion propulsion would only be used for things such as probes and unmanned missions due to there extreamly slow rate of acceleration.

.....zzzz... of to bed will finish rest tommorow lol

 

[HUEY]

1. Nuclear - Minimal waste by-products. No air pollution. Might meltdown. Possibly. Maybe.
2. Fossil Fuels - air quality shot to shit for miles around, windows always coated in soot, lungs blacked, cancer and respiratory illnesses way above national average in the immediate surrounding area. Fact. Definitely. Proven.


err crap


at least in this country and I'd bet my life on the rest of the EU they got rules for emmisions..


windows coated in soot?? where u live M8?

 

[Mughi]

1. Nuclear - Minimal waste by-products. No air pollution. Might meltdown. Possibly. Maybe.
2. Fossil Fuels - air quality shot to shit for miles around, windows always coated in soot, lungs blacked, cancer and respiratory illnesses way above national average in the immediate surrounding area. Fact. Definitely. Proven.


err crap


at least in this country and I'd bet my life on the rest of the EU they got rules for emmisions..


windows coated in soot?? where u live M8?

Why do they *have* rules for emmision Huey ... because when they didnt the windows were covered in soot.

I have certainly heard about smog covering parts of the UK in years gone by. A type of fog pretty much made up of soot and emissions from fossil fuel power burning. This has been improved in recent years by improving the methods of burning it, but there is no disputing that burning fossil fuels causes air quality problems and all the other associated problems. Hurrah for emmisions rulings, but we need more and faster. Oil etc will run out and the effects on the environment and people nearby are crap - other more natural sources really need to be tapped ... but then the problem arises with the environmentalists ... Wind Power - great idea - used in Holland - in the UK its apparently a terrible thing because it ruins the landscape. Wave Power - great idea - will ruin the environment for the sea animals. Solar seems to be good as long as its on indiviual houses, but that will only help the amount of oil burned as it doesnt produce enough to power a house 24/7 so would maybe do as a stop gap, but is incredibly expensive - the government will repay half of it, but you have to buy it first, then get a rebate and it really is EXPENSIVE, so not gonna happen for most people.

To bring this back to the original topic ... the science behind space travel will bring improvements here - yes, Rob, we will probably need the expolsive burning to get out of the earths gravity for a while - but if we can improve the efficiency there (burning gives a horrendous effieciency rate of less than 10% or something, cant quite remember off the top of my head) then that can be applied to cars etc. The science developed for the space program is not restricted to the space program, it can be applied in other areas.

 

[HUEY]

Don't get me wrong here..I'm all for "green" energy, and of course I know that burning fossil fuels is bad 4enviroment..but lets not go down the friggin nuclear road..or at least the nuclear power stations that we already have. In Holland they have 2 and have closed one of ém already. The other will follow soon. But lets not say that burning fossil fuels causes air quality shot to shit for miles around, windows always coated in soot, lungs blacked, cancer and respiratory illnesses way above national average in the immediate surrounding area. Fact. Definitely. Proven.
I work in the industry and I KNOW thats not true, ok maybe in the years gone by but not anymore. CO2 is the major problem with fossil fuiels these days and ppl in places like New Zealand have more problems with that than ppl living next door to a coal fired electricity station.

 

[Cutter]

Don't get me wrong here..I'm all for "green" energy, and of course I know that burning fossil fuels is bad 4enviroment..but lets not go down the friggin nuclear road..or at least the nuclear power stations that we already have. In Holland they have 2 and have closed one of ém already. The other will follow soon. But lets not say that burning fossil fuels causes air quality shot to shit for miles around, windows always coated in soot, lungs blacked, cancer and respiratory illnesses way above national average in the immediate surrounding area. Fact. Definitely. Proven.
I work in the industry and I KNOW thats not true, ok maybe in the years gone by but not anymore. CO2 is the major problem with fossil fuiels these days and ppl in places like New Zealand have more problems with that than ppl living next door to a coal fired electricity station.

Remember seeing a documentary about this on the TV a while back. Horizon I think it was.

So, you "worked in the industry" huh? You know about burning? You know what combustion is? You know that combustion is never 100% efficient in power stations?

Sorry Huey, but you've just destroyed your own argument. I mean, sure, there are emissions regulations now, but do you honestly think that all the stuff pouring out of that coal-fired power station's chimney is just pure water vapour? Get real. Ever been to a coal mine? Seen the state of the miners? Seen what it does to their skin, lungs and eyes? Even today? Alas, "down t3h pit" is still basically a death sentence for many miners.

I never said the existing nuclear power stations were ideal. Far from it. But, if you close down the nukes, "eco-friendly" power sources can not at present, and never will be able to supply the electricity demands of the modern world. So what are the alternatives? I'll tell you. Coal, Oil and Gas. All fossil fuels, all running out, all need to be burned, all fill the air with shit. Which you can't easily hoover out of the atmosphere. At least nuclear waste is solid, you know where it is, and you can do something about it - even if that is only sealing it in glass and concrete in an underground bunker for a few centuries.

 

[Hector]

But, if you close down the nukes, "eco-friendly" power sources can not at present, and never will be able to supply the electricity demands of the modern world.

I understand the "can not at present" bit, but I'm having trouble with the "never will be able to".

God? Is that you?

 

[HUEY]

Anyway whats this got to do with Mars??