4 ms·
Fortunately, there will not be Moon or Mars colonists, or colonies. Electric power to run the LEDs, if obtained from renewables, is protected from cost shocks,
by moloch-hai 4y ago
Fortunately, there will not be Moon or Mars colonists, or colonies.
Electric power to run the LEDs, if obtained from renewables, is protected from cost shocks, but such power might be more profitably sold at such times than used to drive LEDs and sell the produce.
- Grimburger 4y ago> there will not be Moon or Mars colonists, or colonies Bold statement, I'd be impressed if it holds up by mid-century.
- imtringued 4y agoI hope you mean in 2072 and not in 2050 because Elon Musk promised to be on Mars by 2018.
- moloch-hai 4y agoTry colonizing Antarctica first, on the dirt underneath the ice. If that turns out fantastically popular, do the sea floor. If that succeeds beyond reasonable expectation, you can try out life in an orbiting donut. If that takes off, a Mars colony might have a chance. SpaceX cans are woefully inadequate even to maintain a Mars outpost.
- Grimburger 4y agoIgnoring the fact that multiple colonies already exist on Antarctica and living there is legally restricted to anyone without an army behind them, or that many people live under the ocean for large periods of time?
- moloch-hai 4y agoThere are exactly zero colonies on Antarctica. Literally all sites are 100% dependent on regular deliveries of all supplies, excepting air and maybe water, from overseas, with no plan for that ever to change, and no permanent residents. The usual term is "outpost", or for a larger operation, "base". There are no undersea outposts, even. Construction crews sometimes encamp for a few weeks for big hazard pay. There are two (count 'em!) low-orbital outposts that get literally all supplies except sunshine from the ground.
- Grimburger 4y agoThe ISS is completely self-sufficient for water and air. No country on Earth is fully self-sufficient in what it uses and is dependent on supplies shipped to it from elsewhere. The word colony in the sense of space exploration and other extreme habitats means permanent occupation and exploitation of the resources there.
- Ekaros 4y agoDoesn't ISS generate oxygen from water and water is essentially shipped in? Either as water or as food. In the end methane is vented to space. I wouldn't call system needing pretty major inputs a self-sufficient one.
- farmaway 4y agoYou are correct: >4. Sabatier reactor >Inside this machine, a blast of roughly 750°F heat breaks the bonds inside CO₂, forcing it into its constituent elements. The carbon and oxygen combine with hydrogen from the station’s oxygen generating system to make H₂O and methane (CH₄), the latter of which vents into space. https://www.popsci.com/how-iss-recycles-air-and-water/ https://www.popsci.com/how-iss-recycles-air-and-water/
- moloch-hai 4y agoEvery last molecule used on ISS is boosted from Earth, and recently. ISS does a bit of recycling to reduce the amount needed. There are exactly zero permanent inhabitants: any would die. They exploit no in-situ resource, except sunshine using frequently-replaced solar panels.
- farmaway 4y ago>Fortunately, there will not be Moon or Mars colonists, or colonies. Even if this pessimistic prediction comes true, the same nutrient-recycling solution could support human life in resource-poor regions on Earth, such as Antarctica or Detroit!
- linuxftw 4y agoPeople actually think we might colonize these places. Like, how are we going to send a bulldozer to the moon? How are we going to fuel it?
- moloch-hai 4y agoThey were told "we" would colonize, and believe it without thinking. The bigger question is how the liar benefits from the lie. Pumping stock value is the usual guess: (Tesla stock is only now starting to correct, and that largely because of the Twitter debacle.) The fusion-energy startup business runs this way.
- LargoLasskhyfv 4y agoWith big fucking rockets!