Hydrocarbons on Titan

[moot]

Deep ocean water and a throw away shaped container?  Probably safer than aiming precisely for aerobraking into a softer water landing...  

Where are you guys seeing reports of tethers being feasible already?  Everything I've seen says produced CNT is still too far from the required strength/purity.

[Cthulhu]

Heck we should have been on Mars by now had we made the effort.

Absolutely, In the words of Red Forman:

"Ah at this rate I'm gonna have a heart-attack before I even get my jetpack."

Guess that govenment cheese is way higher on the priority list.

Deep ocean water and a throw away shaped container?  Probably safer than aiming precisely for aerobraking into a softer water landing...  

Where are you guys seeing reports of tethers being feasible already?  Everything I've seen says produced CNT is still too far from the required strength/purity.

I'm thinking you just want several tsunami's and new inland seas named after you.

[moot]

It wouldn't be possible to give it an aero(or hydro-)dynamic head to avoid too many waves?  How about if we go the slowpoke (relatively) way and put em in containers with really big flat heatshileds at the bottom, and give em some parachutes?

[Rich46yo]

Deep ocean water and a throw away shaped container?  Probably safer than aiming precisely for aerobraking into a softer water landing...  

Where are you guys seeing reports of tethers being feasible already?  Everything I've seen says produced CNT is still too far from the required strength/purity.

Nano technology baby. Nano,nano,nano,nano,nano.....

Every expert says building the thing would be fairly easy. The only real problem is who would pay. We already build the types of materials that would be needed.

I remember there was some middle east consortium considering the project.

[Cthulhu]

It wouldn't be possible to give it an aero(or hydro-)dynamic head to avoid too many waves?  How about if we go the slowpoke (relatively) way and put em in containers with really big flat heatshileds at the bottom, and give em some parachutes?

Aero/Hydro shape just means you hit the water faster, and it's the bow shock wave that's gonna "energize" all that water. Heat shields (carbon-carbon, or maybe carbon phenolic) and chutes cost big money, and they'd probably require you to send smaller "masses". There's also the issue of environmental impact (can't believe I just said that), and the effect of high altitude ionization on global communications. Don't wanna mess with people's "Wheel of Fortune".

[moot]

I understand the impact shockwave problem, thanks.
The heatshields - Even completely ablative, throw away, isn't feasible?  I guess that adds to the com disruptions...  Damn, I can't think of any other approach.. Except small enough loads to fit in the largest and most reusable lifting body cargo.  I guess there's no reason to send it in any hurry, as long as the thruput is large enough..  Do you have a link where I can read about how reentry disrupts communications up there?

The only other dead-simple solution I can think of is that pit-stop arrangement, but adapted to something as big as these lumps it's all starting to look like 1970s sf/fantasy.  Except if the lumps are small and frequent enough..
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1167/1

[Chalenge]

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.
...

I was trying to get you to clear up what you were saying not ask a question literally. Also we already have cars that put off only water vapor (ULEVs). The problem is that (except in California) we dont deny any vehicle to remain on the roads and the older vehicles are the worst polluters (not sure even California succeeds). But that doesnt really matter. All the gases these vehicles have ever put off or ever will put off cant effect our atmosphere. Hydrocarbons are too heavy as gases to ever get high enough in the atmosphere to do any damage. The reports that say othewise are bad science and hand-picked because of political agendas. Los Angeles problem with smog has never influenced the air in the Sierras and never will.

[dkff49]

I was trying to get you to clear up what you were saying not ask a question literally. Also we already have cars that put off only water vapor (ULEVs). The problem is that (except in California) we dont deny any vehicle to remain on the roads and the older vehicles are the worst polluters (not sure even California succeeds). But that doesnt really matter. All the gases these vehicles have ever put off or ever will put off cant effect our atmosphere. Hydrocarbons are too heavy as gases to ever get high enough in the atmosphere to do any damage. The reports that say othewise are bad science and hand-picked because of political agendas. Los Angeles problem with smog has never influenced the air in the Sierras and never will.

I think I did clear that up for you.

I would also like to note that ULEVs do not have water only as exhaust. ULEV stands for ultra low emission vehicle which emits 50% less emssions. found info here

http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geu_H0OZNIfowAqfxXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTBybnZlZnRlBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkAw--/SIG=11la1t4pt/EXP=1217694580/**http%3a//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ULEV

To add to that carbon dioxide is heavy than air and will tend to lay close to ground and may not travel to upper atmosphere, however carbon monoxide is also a green house gas emitted when burning hydrocarbons. This gas has a relative density to air of 1 which means equal to air and will mix easily and yes in time will begin to effect not only air quality but possibly the greenhouse gas problem.

Now I will lean a little in your direction here. Even some of the most known scientist are not 100% sure if we are causing the ever increasing average temperature of the Earth or if it is part of a cycle. What I am pretty sure is happening though is that we are even in the smallest part making it worse by adding more carbon to the atmosphere. These gases are known as greenhouse gases and that is fact that is agreed upon by most all scientist and all most of them also agree that the carbon content in our atmosphere has been high enough in Earth's past that temps. did indeed get higher than they are now.

Now back to what I was saying before I think it a bad idea even if it does become economically feasible to bring hydrocarbons from other planets to this one until we figure out how to manage the carbon we have already been putting into the atmosphere.

[moot]

The way things are going, I doubt carbon producing energy sources will still be as common by the time we can retreive significant amounts of fuels for them from space.

[dkff49]

All the gases these vehicles have ever put off or ever will put off cant effect our atmosphere. Hydrocarbons are too heavy as gases to ever get high enough in the atmosphere to do any damage. The reports that say othewise are bad science and hand-picked because of political agendas. Los Angeles problem with smog has never influenced the air in the Sierras and never will.

Here are 2 websites that I have found that claim that the carbon emissions are effecting our atmosphere in more ways than just global warming.

http://www.rsbs.anu.edu.au/O2/O2_2_Atmosphere.htm#pg_globchange

http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geu42JR5NIHngAQC1XNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTBybnZlZnRlBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkAw--/SIG=11tq2go31/EXP=1217698057/**http%3a//www.trufax.org/general/oxygen.html

the second one has several links in it as well that go into more detail.

[Cthulhu]

I understand the impact shockwave problem, thanks.
The heatshields - Even completely ablative, throw away, isn't feasible?  I guess that adds to the com disruptions...  Damn, I can't think of any other approach.. Except small enough loads to fit in the largest and most reusable lifting body cargo.  I guess there's no reason to send it in any hurry, as long as the thruput is large enough..  Do you have a link where I can read about how reentry disrupts communications up there?

The only other dead-simple solution I can think of is that pit-stop arrangement, but adapted to something as big as these lumps it's all starting to look like 1970s sf/fantasy.  Except if the lumps are small and frequent enough..
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1167/1

Moot, I think the cost of heat shielding, even phenolic-based carbon/carbon would be prohibitive. Probably more than the value of your "payload". Looks like it may be getting cheaper though. (on the other side of the world <Sigh>).
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb5260/is_200009/ai_n20363018

It looks like the comm problems may not be so bad after all, since the plasma sheath around re-entering objects seems to dissipate pretty quickly. It still could be a problem if it blocked line of sight between satellite and ground station, but still it would only be transient.
Still, all bets are off if you intend to showers us constantly with your damn iron and uranium rocks.

Here's a cool link with some great info:  http://www.columbiassacrifice.com/$C_hypersonic.htm

[moot]

Great link, lots of reading, thanks!
There's gotta be some way to funnel such a volume of resources back to earth..  I'm gonna have to read a lot more.

[Chalenge]

Here are 2 websites that I have found that claim that the carbon emissions are effecting our atmosphere in more ways than just global warming.

...

Yeah thats all based on bad science too. The planet depends on carbon dioxide or it freezes and the amount of carbon dioxide humans create in all processes combined is less than .64% of that naturally created by our own planet. Next we will be slaughtering cattle because of the CO2 and methane they belch... One good volcanic eruption will give off more pollution than all vehicles ever created over the time span of five-thousand years and after that the planet will still be here.

I tell you if we had the power to heat the planet that way Al Gore will destroy Earth by giving speeches about it (its all hot air).

[Cthulhu]

I tell you if we had the power to heat the planet that way Al Gore will destroy Earth by giving speeches about it (its all hot air).

Problem is, while we were busy defending Science from Religion, Politics stepped in and blind-sided us.

You guys remember when Penn & Teller collected hundreds of signatures at something called WorldFest to ban dihydrogen monoxide? (H20 ). Sad fact is the clueless are many, they're easily coerced, and they vote.

[MajIssue]

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.

to stray off subject momentarily... what possible evidence is there that CO2 is "bad" for the planet? The greenhouse effect (and so called global warming) is a THEORY and not a FACT. A major ice age (the alternative to the warming we've had for the last 100,000 years or so) would do far more harm than the worst predicted effects of "global warming". Additionally if Human activities HAVE caused a slight rise in the average mean temperature on Earth, then please explain the almost identical rise (on a year by year basis) in the mean temperature on Mars and other bodies in our solar system! The real "inconvenient truth" is that our sun is an irregular variable star. Unlike the thin evidence presented by the lunatic fringe of the radical environmental movement this is an undisputed FACT and has far more to do with variations in the Earths climate than anthing humankind could do to "change" it. Do yourself a favor and research real science and not the politically motovated alternative to actual facts and observations. Maybe then you could also be a heretic, excommunicated from the church of manmade climate change, like me!