Environment & Energy

immoderate

(20,885 posts)

37. Well, asteroids, if nothing else, have "mass to burn."

Reply to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #33)

Wed May 4, 2016, 02:54 PM

May 2016

And if we use that to propel part of the asteroid away from the earth than an opposite force will impart a nudge to the rest of the mass, which is relatively high in the gravitational gradient of the sun. IOW, with a little push, it will fall toward earth.

If at sometime in the future, we wish to restore the atmospheric constituents of pre-industrial earth, that will require considerable energy. Similar efforts to will be required desalinize sea water and purify fracking water.

Wish I could dismiss entropy as easily as you do. It's always there. The asteroids may allow access to materials that are too diffuse to be economically recovered on earth, if at all. And without the habitat destruction of terrestrial mining.

--imm

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

56 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Sustainability is destroying the Earth [View all] GliderGuider May 2016 OP

Practice birth control. haikugal May 2016 #1

Birth control will keep children from dying unnecessarily GliderGuider May 2016 #2

No, my heart goes out to them but at the same time I have no special knowledge or access and haikugal May 2016 #4

Eventually, we will have to go off-planet for our resources. immoderate May 2016 #3

Good luck with that! nt GliderGuider May 2016 #5

Well, I'm not going myself... immoderate May 2016 #7

So where ya gonna go? GliderGuider May 2016 #8

We may very well get extinguished. I (for instance) have no descendants. immoderate May 2016 #9

Why, then, suggest a project requiring orders of magnitude more energy than our current lifestyle? muriel_volestrangler May 2016 #13

The OP suggests that our current lifestyle, and ordinary remedies are unsustainable. immoderate May 2016 #15

Are you saying that you don't understand what's so hard about space travel? muriel_volestrangler May 2016 #16

I'm suggesting we have not yet reached the epitome of technology. immoderate May 2016 #17

A moment ago you wanted to expend energy in bringing water and raw materials from off earth muriel_volestrangler May 2016 #18

If you think natural resources can't be exhausted, you're covered. immoderate May 2016 #21

No, you're making even less sense as you go along, not more muriel_volestrangler May 2016 #22

So let's start simple. immoderate May 2016 #25

You can't just take energy from something in a different orbit muriel_volestrangler May 2016 #28

The sun has gravity. The asteroids are "above" the earth. immoderate May 2016 #29

No, mechanics doesn't work like that muriel_volestrangler May 2016 #30

This is not about climate change. immoderate May 2016 #32

I've already assumed the rocket is solar or nuclear powered muriel_volestrangler May 2016 #33

Well, asteroids, if nothing else, have "mass to burn." immoderate May 2016 #37

And the point is you have to expend energy to bring asteroids to earth muriel_volestrangler May 2016 #38

You have to aim it 'just right.' immoderate May 2016 #40

It's a reversible process. If you think of what you'd have to do to leave an earth orbit muriel_volestrangler May 2016 #41

Yes, relatively little effort... immoderate May 2016 #42

OK, I think you've finally conceded that mining asteroids is an energy sink muriel_volestrangler May 2016 #43

Thanks for including me in your pigeon hole. immoderate May 2016 #44

'equal and opposite' refers to forces, not energy muriel_volestrangler May 2016 #45

Microwave projectors in space? A bit "third way," doncha think? immoderate May 2016 #46

I think I heard them suggested on a TV documentary about 35 years ago muriel_volestrangler May 2016 #47

IMO, it was a scheme for corporations to retain control over solar energy. immoderate May 2016 #48

Whereas your scheme for towing and mining asteroids would be done by a cooperative muriel_volestrangler May 2016 #49

Don't confuse corporatism with entrepreneurism. immoderate May 2016 #50

There are consumer benefits in energy. muriel_volestrangler May 2016 #51

What is the benefit to consumers of paying for transmission from space? immoderate May 2016 #52

The benefit is that it's a way to get the energy we need muriel_volestrangler May 2016 #53

Why should I pay a utility company to beam down microwaves to maintain EMF on a grid, immoderate May 2016 #55

If someone gives you a solar panel for free, then go for it muriel_volestrangler May 2016 #56

Ordinary remedies are unsustainable, and extraordinary remedies are unachievable. GliderGuider May 2016 #31

OK. So the world will collapse in 30 years, then the population will double in 80? immoderate May 2016 #34

Who has claimed here the population will double in 80 years? NickB79 May 2016 #35

Population increase depends on a functional civilization. GliderGuider May 2016 #36

I had surmised that the earth would not tolerate that number of humans. immoderate May 2016 #39

That can't possibly work Binkie The Clown May 2016 #10

Dyson Sphere? Ring World? Lots of ways. immoderate May 2016 #11

Lots of ways in fantasy land! Binkie The Clown May 2016 #12

So will the population double in 80 years? immoderate May 2016 #14

That's certainly what I see happening. GliderGuider May 2016 #19

Oh, a Dyson sphere doesn't preclude extinction. immoderate May 2016 #20

This message was self-deleted by its author immoderate May 2016 #26

In a word: "Yes" that is exactly what I expect will happen. n/t Binkie The Clown May 2016 #24

I think it will level off. immoderate May 2016 #27

Malthus where is thy sting? pscot May 2016 #23

I'm not sure how the word harm is defined The2ndWheel May 2016 #6

Excellent post.... AuntPatsy May 2016 #54