Hello Alan and all >> but, supposing it were the best approach available, that still only > matters to those who share your clarke-ian view of the "importance" of > "stepping beyond the cradle."
>Granted, but I suspect you'll find there are a lot of us. Notably, Peter Diamandis, who's stated goal is to get there before NASA, and do it with private funds. How many of us is a lot? Maybe it's our noble destiny to go to Mars. But maybe we should get our house in order first before we go travelling. This, in a world of plenty: Among the 4.4 billion people who live in developing countries: THREE-FIFTHS have no access to basic sanitation Almost ONE-THIRD are without safe drinking water ONE-QUARTER lack adequate housing ONE-FIFTH live beyond reach of modern health services ONE-FIFTH of the children do not get as far as grade five in school ONE-FIFTH are undernourished The reason the poor are so poor is that the rich are so rich, and they're so good at looking the other way. Basic education for all would cost $6 BILLION a year: $8 BILLION is spent annually for cosmetics in the United States alone. Installation of water and sanitation for all would cost $9 BILLION plus some annual costs: $11 BILLION is spent annually on ice cream in Europe. Reproductive health services for all women would cost $12 BILLION a year: $12 BILLION a year is spent on perfumes in Europe and the United States. Basic health care and nutrition would cost $13 BILLION: $17 BILLION a year is spent on pet food in Europe and the United States; $35 BILLION is spent on business entertainment in Japan; $50 BILLION on cigarettes in Europe; $105 BILLION on alcoholic drinks in Europe; $400 BILLION on narcotic drugs around the world; and $780 BILLION on the world's militaries. And it's mostly sheer waste. We all know deep in our hearts, or even not so deep, that increased consumption doesn't make us happy and fulfilled as promised, it leaves us unhappy and dissatisfied, as intended. And sod the victims. As long as this situation prevails we have no noble destiny ahead of us. Until it's resolved we have no nobility, we're a disgrace, and our only destiny is sore travail. How much did you say it'll cost to go to Mars? Best Keith >Chris Burck wrote: > that a technical challenge might be interesting does not justify > pursuing it. Why not? Much of the technology we have today came about simply because someone decided to pursue a technical challenge, and it wound up turning into a product. > this project is being funded for no reason other than to > get yet more taxpayer dollars to a gigantic corporation whose primary > product is death, so that it can explore a method which, if marketed > correctly, might prop up an infrastructure based on a failed paradigm. <shrug> You can look at it that way if you want to. Yes, Lockheed is a major player in the MIC. So what? If they can produce a product that doesn't involve death, and hopefully reduces death, then more power to them. If it generates profit for them then so much the better. It means they're more likely to keep doing it. > and it's a woefully inefficient approach. direct use of the solar > would be vastly more efficient and effective--even for transport, How do you figure? > with > the energy-density gap between batteries and liquid fuels shrinking > rapidly. It may be shrinking, but I don't think you could call it anything like "rapidly". Even so, now you're not talking about direct use of Solar, you're talking about using solar PV to charge batteries for a battery electric vehicle, which involves inefficiencies of its own. As it stands now, and for the forseeable future, when it comes to kilowatts per kilogram nothing comes close to liquid fuels. > mars only addresses the initial stage of breaking down the > co2. Well, if you read all of the article, you'd see that Sandia is also talking about using the process to form "a hydrocarbon fuel" such as methane, which in liquid form, makes good rocket fuel. One of the other products of the process is oxygen, which is both atmosphere, and the best oxidizer for rocket fuel. > you can't use that argument to justify the rest of the > experiment. I believe I just did. > in fact, even that small part can't be justified by > invoking space, since a variety of co2 scrubbing technologies already > exist that wouldn't require lifting a nuclear reactor into orbit. But those processes don't turn it into fuel. The energy to do that has to come from somewhere. The current plan is either an RTG, or a Rickover. The energy for the process could come from a sufficiently well developed solar system as well. > but, supposing it were the best approach available, that still only > matters to those who share your clarke-ian view of the "importance" of > "stepping beyond the cradle." Granted, but I suspect you'll find there are a lot of us. Notably, Peter Diamandis, who's stated goal is to get there before NASA, and do it with private funds. AP _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
