The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[sendler]

Debt growth is ok if GDP growth slightly outpaces it to pay for the interest. But US and Euro debt has been increasing 3X faster then GDP for several decades and now China is in the same boat.

[rmay635703]

What’s even more rediculous is that we had reliable fully functional MSR reactors in operation from the 1950’s-70’s

Yet today we don’t seem to know how.

The loss of old reactors has made it more difficult for the medical industry to obtain specialized isotopes

Having reactors of this type should be a top priority for our country just for national security concerns let alone all the other benefits

[sendler]

There were unresolved challenges with the molten fuel reactors of the 70's. Mainly the online reprocessing that the original never attempted. And is still a major technological hurdle. That Thorcon has decided to perform with removable sealed cartridges that transport to a central reprocessing plant every 4 years via barge. And Moltex is using traditional fuel rod sized assemblies to speed acceptance by the regulators. But both of these run at atmospheric and near atmospheric pressure using molten salt coolant which has a 2:1 safety headroom before it even begins to boil. And uses more efficient and cheaper, off the shelf turbines as known from the combined cycle natural gas generation industry that are being cranked out by the hundreds world wide, And can store energy in molten salt so they have a dispatchable output to allow solar and wind to do their thing when they can.

[NeilBlanchard]

Here's Dr Brian Cox speaking about science, climate change and the universe:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sc7K1DGPCEc

[sendler]

They did at least mention resource depletion. Again, anyone that runs the numbers will easily see that the energy required for harvesting an asteroid and bringing it back to earth orbit falls squarely past won't happen into the category of can't happen.

What is the total sum of mass we ever brought back from the moon? Which is several orders of magnitude energetically closer than the asteroids.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by sendler

anyone that runs the numbers will easily see that the energy required for harvesting an asteroid and bringing it back to earth orbit falls squarely past won't happen into the category of can't happen.

What is the total sum of mass we ever brought back from the moon? Which is several orders of magnitude energetically closer than the asteroids.

Having not run any calculations, it might take less energy to visit an asteroid and return than to visit the moon and return. A moon landing requires accelerating to it, stopping on it, and then accelerating back to earth. An asteroid rendezvous can conserve the majority of the momentum used to get there, and there is practically no gravity to overcome to leave it. If it were rich in expensive elements such as gold or platinum, it could be economically worthwhile.

That said, I agree with your sentiments that the resources we regularly consume in bulk aren't going to be replenished by asteroids.

We'll get better at reusing materials, and possibly creating new materials out of other other ones.

[sendler]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

An asteroid rendezvous can conserve the majority of the momentum used to get there, and there is practically no gravity to overcome to leave it.

it takes more energy to slow down and come back than to slingshot Mars to get to the belt. For what? A couple hundred kg's of metal?
These guys are talking about decelerating an entire asteroid all the way back to Earth orbit and then mining nickle and iron. Can't happen. Even at our current peak energy availability. In a matter of decades all of the energy we can get our hands on will be tied up in just trying to grow enough food and get clean water and sanitation for a ballooning population. And feverishly applied to replacing the fossil fuel that will be slipping away. If we are smart. Nothing left over to play with sending humans out into space after that. Ever again.

[oil pan 4]

Don't have to go to the asteroid belt.
There are at least 100 of them that cross earth's orbit and large enough to sterilize the planet if they were to impact.

[freebeard]

In a matter of decades all of the energy we can get our hands on will be tied up in just trying to grow enough food and get clean water and sanitation for a ballooning population. And feverishly applied to replacing the fossil fuel that will be slipping away. If we are smart. Nothing left over to play with sending humans out into space after that. Ever again.

There's energy blowing through your body right now, like porn on Wifi.



Brian Cox is exactly right, the biggest threat to humanity is between our [collective] ears. I wasn't surprised that interviewer led with 'post-truth era' and slagged on Brexit and the Presidency. Did anyone see Cathy Newman try that with Jordan Peterson?

And the 20171205 interview is already dated. New Zealand is now a commercial space-faring nation.

You drop a seed on an asteroid in Earth-crossing orbit and proceed to use mining slag in a mass driver. To Moon orbit. Right next to the Bigelow space hotel.

edit: no linky because language, but there is an interview with Brian Cox that was posted on 20171217 (Brian Cox Interview | Russell Brand on Radio X Live Show | Episode 33). Better questions.

[sendler]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Don't have to go to the asteroid belt.
There are at least 100 of them that cross earth's orbit and large enough to sterilize the planet if they were to impact.

So what do you do? Put a mining colony on it to self sustain while it goes round until it comes back again several years later and shoot the spoils back to earth at the next near crossing?
.
Gaining the energy to alter the trajectory so as to "park" an asteroid in any different orbit is another one of those ideas that don't even come close to adding up if you run the numbers. Not happening.