Hydrocarbons on Titan

[Maverick]

Dave,

Buy her a fake diamond ring and ask her what she would be doing differently with a "real" diamond in the ring. I'm not real big on jewelry. You can't drive it, eat it, cook on it and after a while I get pretty bored just looking at it. Fortunately the wife feels pretty much the same way.

[dkff49]

Dave,

Buy her a fake diamond ring and ask her what she would be doing differently with a "real" diamond in the ring. I'm not real big on jewelry. You can't drive it, eat it, cook on it and after a while I get pretty bored just looking at it. Fortunately the wife feels pretty much the same way.

I have attempted this before. Unfortunately my wife is one of those that says it is important because I want it, but at lest she is understanding of the fact that I feel it important to not support anything that I feel is wrong.

She at least knows that since I am that way about the diamonds then I will be that way when I support or agree with her.

[trax1]

Heres the reason you buy diamonds.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ur2er-STls&feature=related

[Gh0stFT]

There's all the fuel we need, how do we get it?

Science fiction
sorry, but not in our lifetime,
cu in 400-500 years...



edit: typo

[crockett]

I'm sure it wouldn't be profitable to mine another planet to use the minerals here on Earth. Unless it was something ultra rare or valuable.

I do think we will eventually have mining operations on other planets/moons for the sole purpose of supplying that planet or other remote locations.

[moot]

Not necessarily.. Supposing the moon gets mass drivers to shoot lumps of resource down at earth, then the cost is in shooting those lumps (e.g. solar), and in gathering those resources and getting them to the moon (e.g. off a gas giant).  The real expense is really in the initial cost of going out there and setting up the production line.

Sailors of the 1400s+ faced all sorts of perils, early flight too (still does).. Somehow people expect space (the worst known environment) to be something that can be developed without a single risk...  Cue Shackleton's "men wanted" newspaper ad.

[trax1]

Well there is a rare material on the moon we can use on Earth, it's called Helium 3, we would need it if we wanted to create power using fusion.

[Gunslinger]

I read the other day that the "space elevator" concept is out of the theoretical stage and just waiting on somone to build it.  it would cut the cost of breaking the gravity well by 80% some estitmate.

[dkff49]

Heres the reason you buy diamonds.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ur2er-STls&feature=related

She pretty much does any time I ask without the diamonds. All I have to do is make sure she gets as much satisfaction as I do.
 

[moot]

Gunslinger can you remember where you read that? 

Trax1 I thought so too, and that this would really help spur space dev., but apparently there's a number of other alternatives to fuel fusion reactors.. proton & Boron-11 for one, which gives negligible radiation compared to at least some He3 fusion reactions.

[crockett]

I read the other day that the "space elevator" concept is out of the theoretical stage and just waiting on somone to build it.  it would cut the cost of breaking the gravity well by 80% some estitmate.

Yea my Aunt is pretty high up with one of the big NASA contractors. I was joking around about that and she said the concept is legit, on the other hand she says the new rocket that is supposed to replace the shuttle will never fly.

[Chalenge]

...
There is also the much bigger cost and it is not in dollars. The cost to our planet in the amount carbon that would be released into the atmosphere. The carbon being released now was at one time in the atmosphere or on the surface and it is causing problems now, imagine adding millions of tons more carbon that was not even here in the first place.
...

Not sure what you mean by this. Did you mean that launching space vehicles produces carbon? I understand that hydrogen and oxygen combine to produce water after the big explosion.

[dkff49]

Not sure what you mean by this. Did you mean that launching space vehicles produces carbon? I understand that hydrogen and oxygen combine to produce water after the big explosion.

yes hydrogen and oxygen combine to make water.

Fossil fuels are hydrocarbons. The problem is from the carbon present which is typically in large amounts. This is where the large amounts of carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide that are released from our cars and other fossil fuel uses.

here is definition of hydrocarbon
http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geu6D9_JJIy.UASSFXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTByMTNuNTZzBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMgRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkAw--/SIG=11smb526a/EXP=1217678973/**http%3a//www.answers.com/topic/hydrocarbon

[Cthulhu]

Not necessarily.. Supposing the moon gets mass drivers to shoot lumps of resource down at earth, then the cost is in shooting those lumps (e.g. solar), and in gathering those resources and getting them to the moon (e.g. off a gas giant).  The real expense is really in the initial cost of going out there and setting up the production line.

Sailors of the 1400s+ faced all sorts of perils, early flight too (still does).. Somehow people expect space (the worst known environment) to be something that can be developed without a single risk...  Cue Shackleton's "men wanted" newspaper ad.

Moot, how do you plan on slowing those masses down?

[Rich46yo]

Science fiction
sorry, but not in our lifetime,
cu in 400-500 years...



edit: typo

I dont see the problem. Build a spaceship for mineing, fly it out there, bada-bing bada-boom you have your minerals. Heck we should have been on Mars by now had we made the effort. In 500 years we'll be exploring other star systems.

Building the space tether is do'able now, providing we can prevent crazy's from flying into the thing. Once the tether is built then everything else will fall into place.