4 ms·

why would you assume fossil fuels are a requirement for space travel? liquid hydrogen doesn't require fossil fuels to make, it is just a lot cheaper to do it th

why would you assume fossil fuels are a requirement for space travel? liquid hydrogen doesn't require fossil fuels to make, it is just a lot cheaper to do it that way. we could also use nuclear propulsion, which the russians have been able to successfully do with cruise missles

Budabellly 5y ago
I think OP may be implying the fossil fuels are necessary for the "industrial revolution" part of a civilization's development -- and that industrial revolution is a gating factor for achieving spacefaring technology.
- wins32767 5y ago
  Yes, it's this. After the collapse of the western Roman empire, the standard of living dropped to bronze age levels in many areas, well below where it was before the Romans took over. Assuming a similar decline after modern civilization collapses (to say pre-industrial revolution levels), I don't see how it's possible to get back without the easy surplus energy. It's much more complicated to build batteries or nuclear or solar than it is to make a steam engine.
lordnacho 5y ago
I wouldn't say it's a hard assumption, it's just mighty convenient that there was a carboniferous period on this planet that left us with some really easy energy to use for industrialisation. There's a question then of whether we'd have been stuck on a pre industrial ladder rung if it hadn't happened. It just seems necessary, but of course the opposite might be true, that if we didn't have this easy energy we'd have jumped ahead with solar and wind or others instead.
joshmarlow 5y ago
My interpretation of OP was that if civilization collapses, a revival would require cheap energy (probably fossil fuel) to rebuild industry and science - and that fossil fuel is gone. There are lots of alternative energy sources, but we haven't managed to switch to them with our pretty advanced science and energy, so there may not be a developmental path for less advanced societies that ends in plentiful energy sources without fossil fuels as a stepping stone. Put another way: If a society at the level of pre-industrial revolution Europe didn't have access to oil and coal, do you think they could have figured out nuclear energy? How would they obtain the energy to process and refine fissionable material? Or even for that matter... how could they obtain the energy to smelt iron and steal, let alone build computer chips and solar panels. So our failure now also limits what any successor intelligent species could accomplish (until enough fossil fuels can form again).

Budabellly 5y ago

I think OP may be implying the fossil fuels are necessary for the "industrial revolution" part of a civilization's development -- and that industrial revolution is a gating factor for achieving spacefaring technology.

wins32767 5y ago
Yes, it's this. After the collapse of the western Roman empire, the standard of living dropped to bronze age levels in many areas, well below where it was before the Romans took over. Assuming a similar decline after modern civilization collapses (to say pre-industrial revolution levels), I don't see how it's possible to get back without the easy surplus energy. It's much more complicated to build batteries or nuclear or solar than it is to make a steam engine.

lordnacho 5y ago

I wouldn't say it's a hard assumption, it's just mighty convenient that there was a carboniferous period on this planet that left us with some really easy energy to use for industrialisation. There's a question then of whether we'd have been stuck on a pre industrial ladder rung if it hadn't happened. It just seems necessary, but of course the opposite might be true, that if we didn't have this easy energy we'd have jumped ahead with solar and wind or others instead.

joshmarlow 5y ago

My interpretation of OP was that if civilization collapses, a revival would require cheap energy (probably fossil fuel) to rebuild industry and science - and that fossil fuel is gone. There are lots of alternative energy sources, but we haven't managed to switch to them with our pretty advanced science and energy, so there may not be a developmental path for less advanced societies that ends in plentiful energy sources without fossil fuels as a stepping stone. Put another way: If a society at the level of pre-industrial revolution Europe didn't have access to oil and coal, do you think they could have figured out nuclear energy? How would they obtain the energy to process and refine fissionable material? Or even for that matter... how could they obtain the energy to smelt iron and steal, let alone build computer chips and solar panels. So our failure now also limits what any successor intelligent species could accomplish (until enough fossil fuels can form again).