You know the Christmas season is well and truly upon you when:
1. You've gone out for a curry with the folks from work.
2. You've gone out to the pub after work (let me heartily recommend the Telegraph, behind Newcastle Central Station, next to the Casino car park).
3. You've looked out of the window of said pub and seen a veritable blizzard.
4. The door has opened and a Geordie girl has walked in wearing a sleeveless, short spangly party dress and high heels, as if we were in Rio for the carnival, or at the very least inside the MetroCentre.
How girls who've been drinking walk around, clippety-clop, on three-inch-plus heels while I slip and slide all over the bloody place in sensible outdoor shoes is one of the enduring frustrations of winter. But there it is. And needless to say 'scientists' (as approved by the Daily Mail) have a theory about how they don't simply die of cold and stuff.
Previous studies have shown that those in the North consume more fat than their southern counterparts which could provide more insulation.
If you know what's good for you, do not share this fascinating theory with anyone at all in Newcastle on a Friday night.
Saturday, 19 December 2009
Don't Buy Shares in an Asteroid Mine
In my last post I casually mentioned mining the asteroids, because that's the kind of guy I am. Now here's a bit of hard-headed thinking on the topic from a sensible chap.
Some people say that weightlessness in space will make refining stuff like platinum easier. Well I challenge everyone in the whole wide world to name one thing that is easier in weightlessness, and you’re not allowed to say, “Floating in the air.” I can’t think of anything at all that becomes easier in zero gee. There is a reason why the space shuttle toilet cost twenty-three million dollars, you know. But what if I’m wrong? What if it is easier to refine metals in weightlessness? If only there were some way to mimic weightlessness on earth. If only there were some sort of substance in which things could float. Just for the sake of the argument, I would call this imaginary substance a liquid. If only we could convert say platinum ore into some sort of magical liquid solution when we refine it. Wait a minute! That’s what they actually do in platinum refineries! Several times in fact! Freaky, hey? But even so, extracting platinum from ore is a very expensive and difficult business, despite the weightlessness offered by this incredible stuff called liquid.
Then there’s the argument that we have to go into space and mine asteroids now because the earth is running out of metals. Well this just isn’t true. A couple of hours drive from my house there is enough copper in the ground to supply the earth for maybe a couple of hundred years. But nobody is extracting it because the ore is so low grade it would take a hellacious amount of energy and effort to refine it. The more energy it costs to extract, the more the copper is going to cost. The earth might be running out of cheap and convenient high quality deposits of some metals, but it’s certainly not running out of metal. In the future we may have to pay extra for the energy to extract metals from low grade deposits, but it’s still going to be easier to extract copper from ore that only has a few kilos of copper per ton than it’s going to be to extract copper from asteroids that have only grams of copper per ton.
Fortunately, there are two caveats in the comments. One is simply that, if you want to build big spaceships and stuff, you'll have to assemble them in space and refining the metals up there might make sense. Secondly, mining water for future space colonies might be a good idea as transporting it from the earth in bulk would be hideously expensive.
I would add the third point - that space tourism might be the real growth industry of the future. That would make it necessary to build space industries to serve a new business, not to help 'old' earth economies.
Some people say that weightlessness in space will make refining stuff like platinum easier. Well I challenge everyone in the whole wide world to name one thing that is easier in weightlessness, and you’re not allowed to say, “Floating in the air.” I can’t think of anything at all that becomes easier in zero gee. There is a reason why the space shuttle toilet cost twenty-three million dollars, you know. But what if I’m wrong? What if it is easier to refine metals in weightlessness? If only there were some way to mimic weightlessness on earth. If only there were some sort of substance in which things could float. Just for the sake of the argument, I would call this imaginary substance a liquid. If only we could convert say platinum ore into some sort of magical liquid solution when we refine it. Wait a minute! That’s what they actually do in platinum refineries! Several times in fact! Freaky, hey? But even so, extracting platinum from ore is a very expensive and difficult business, despite the weightlessness offered by this incredible stuff called liquid.
Then there’s the argument that we have to go into space and mine asteroids now because the earth is running out of metals. Well this just isn’t true. A couple of hours drive from my house there is enough copper in the ground to supply the earth for maybe a couple of hundred years. But nobody is extracting it because the ore is so low grade it would take a hellacious amount of energy and effort to refine it. The more energy it costs to extract, the more the copper is going to cost. The earth might be running out of cheap and convenient high quality deposits of some metals, but it’s certainly not running out of metal. In the future we may have to pay extra for the energy to extract metals from low grade deposits, but it’s still going to be easier to extract copper from ore that only has a few kilos of copper per ton than it’s going to be to extract copper from asteroids that have only grams of copper per ton.
Fortunately, there are two caveats in the comments. One is simply that, if you want to build big spaceships and stuff, you'll have to assemble them in space and refining the metals up there might make sense. Secondly, mining water for future space colonies might be a good idea as transporting it from the earth in bulk would be hideously expensive.
I would add the third point - that space tourism might be the real growth industry of the future. That would make it necessary to build space industries to serve a new business, not to help 'old' earth economies.
Friday, 18 December 2009
Blast Off!
In the great tradition of following a 'serious' downbeat post with a puppyishly positive one.... If true, this is spiffing news.
President Barack Obama will ask Congress next year to fund a new heavy-lift launcher to take humans to the moon, asteroids, and the moons of Mars, ScienceInsider has learned. The president chose the new direction for the U.S. human space flight program Wednesday at a White House meeting with NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, according to officials familiar with the discussion. NASA would receive an additional $1 billion in 2011 both to get the new launcher on track and to bolster the agency’s fleet of robotic Earth-monitoring spacecraft.
I never quite grasp why people on the left are so often down on space exploration and the like. It's as costly and exciting as war, but much less dangerous (except to the astronauts, obviously). Yes, right-wing types like Jerry Pournelle love spacey stuff, but the universe is big enough (and indifferent enough) for all points of view.
I'd go further and argue that right and left, greens and free marketeers, should unite to support space exploration. The resources, the energy, the possibilities for technological innovation are just too good to pass up.
And the space-marzipan on this particular cosmic cake is that good old Blighty could be in with a shout:
According to knowledgeable sources, the White House is convinced that scarce NASA funds would be better spent on a simpler heavy-lift vehicle that could be ready to fly as early as 2018. Meanwhile, European countries, Japan, and Canada would be asked to work on a lunar lander and modules for a moon base, saving the U.S. several billion dollars. And commercial companies would take over the job of getting supplies to the international space station.
Great! On the moonbase, I would suggest the following criteria:
1. Don't let the Brits do the cooking.
2. Don't let the Germans handle the piped music.
3. For pity's sake, don't the let the French design the toilets.
4. Don't let the Japanese install those tiny sleeping cell hotel things.
5. Prevent the Canadians from taking moose to the moon or Sarah Palin will shoot down the project.
6. If the Italians are going, make female astronauts' space pants pinch-resistant below the waist.
Oh, and point 7. Do not carry our earthly prejudices to other worlds.
But hey, it's the moon, asteroids and the wacky (asteroidal) moons of Mars! That's great. Leaving aside the chunkiness of the science involved, there's also saving the earth from a nasty collision and a bit of experimental mining, refining or even manufacturing to be tried.
President Barack Obama will ask Congress next year to fund a new heavy-lift launcher to take humans to the moon, asteroids, and the moons of Mars, ScienceInsider has learned. The president chose the new direction for the U.S. human space flight program Wednesday at a White House meeting with NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, according to officials familiar with the discussion. NASA would receive an additional $1 billion in 2011 both to get the new launcher on track and to bolster the agency’s fleet of robotic Earth-monitoring spacecraft.
I never quite grasp why people on the left are so often down on space exploration and the like. It's as costly and exciting as war, but much less dangerous (except to the astronauts, obviously). Yes, right-wing types like Jerry Pournelle love spacey stuff, but the universe is big enough (and indifferent enough) for all points of view.
I'd go further and argue that right and left, greens and free marketeers, should unite to support space exploration. The resources, the energy, the possibilities for technological innovation are just too good to pass up.
And the space-marzipan on this particular cosmic cake is that good old Blighty could be in with a shout:
According to knowledgeable sources, the White House is convinced that scarce NASA funds would be better spent on a simpler heavy-lift vehicle that could be ready to fly as early as 2018. Meanwhile, European countries, Japan, and Canada would be asked to work on a lunar lander and modules for a moon base, saving the U.S. several billion dollars. And commercial companies would take over the job of getting supplies to the international space station.
Great! On the moonbase, I would suggest the following criteria:
1. Don't let the Brits do the cooking.
2. Don't let the Germans handle the piped music.
3. For pity's sake, don't the let the French design the toilets.
4. Don't let the Japanese install those tiny sleeping cell hotel things.
5. Prevent the Canadians from taking moose to the moon or Sarah Palin will shoot down the project.
6. If the Italians are going, make female astronauts' space pants pinch-resistant below the waist.
Oh, and point 7. Do not carry our earthly prejudices to other worlds.
But hey, it's the moon, asteroids and the wacky (asteroidal) moons of Mars! That's great. Leaving aside the chunkiness of the science involved, there's also saving the earth from a nasty collision and a bit of experimental mining, refining or even manufacturing to be tried.
Not so Vonderful
Yep, that's more or less how I see it. But I somehow doubt that Copenhagen is going to achieve much. In fact I have a deeply pessimistic take on it all. Politicians simply can't be trusted to make long term decisions about anything, but if we believe in freedom and democracy we're always going to end up with politicians in charge. H.G. Wells had his technocratic elite, but the examples of fascism and communism show clearly that any supposedly expert elite just become another class of bureaucratic and quite possibly murderous parasites.
One of the bigger ironies is the way the denialist camp (i.e. the likes of Lord Lawson) have taken to referring to the scientific concensus as a religion. Same goes for the Register, with its fearfully witty talk of a 'carbon cult'. These people don't know they're born. They've lived secure and cosy lives in nations where religious fanatics are, by and large, kept in check.
I expect that when the disastrous consequences of climate change really start to kick in (a few decades after I'm safely dead) we'll see true religious fanaticism arise everywhere, and on both sides of the 'debate'. Every time a catastrophe happens now bigots leap off their well-padded behinds to declare that it's the wrath of God/Allah.
Imagine a series of prolonged catastrophes killing millions of the world's poorest and worst-educated, with a side order of nasty for the wealthier nations. The late 21st century will a great time for hellfire preachers. And the icing on the cake is that, because we have a global civilization now, when it collapses we'll have a genuine global Dark Age. Only probably without the explosions and partial nudity favoured by Hollywood.
Well, I'm often wrong, so there's a good chance I'm wrong about this. There are better and braver people ot there. And people with more energy, too. Such as...
For a minute I thought these guys were serious. Then I saw a book entitled Darwin's Winky and all was clear.
Poor persecuted faithful
Haven't really mentioned Jesus and Mo before, but it's great. Latest pointed dialogue with the rational barmaid is here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
