The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
People have talked about this for years. In fatc, it was expected that, only 15 years after first going there, we would have hotels, and amusement parks in production on Earth's sleeping sattelite.
This has not come to pass. However, even today, people still theorise, still hypothesise, and still dream about colonising the Moon. But if people want it so badly, why haven't we gone and done it? Aren't we the race that can do anything?
Well, unfortunately, it's not as simple as we would like. You can't send a bunch of builders up on the next shuttle to put together a few houses, and expect everything to go fine. The Moon, lacking atmosphere, cannot support life in any form we would recognise. So, since humans cannot survive in vacuum, any building would have to be completely self-contained. Not only completely air-tight, but capable of keeping out the exptreme cold of vacuumous space. Buildings like that don't come cheap. Then there is the physical desing of the building. With such low gravity, should it be redesigned to accomodate people bouncing around, or have lightly magnetic flooring, with an enforced "mag-boot" wearing policy? These things have to be considered.
Then there is supply. Energy is simple enough I guess, putting a few generators around can produce energy, even solar panels can be placed everywhere to soak up the energy that the sun provides. But what about food, water and air? Despite what we would like to think, oxygen doesn't just come from thin air. Such things would have to be shipped to the moon from the earth regularly, at an enormous cost. It IS possible however, that a supplimentary building could be made, a giant greenhouse. soaking up the suns rays, and recycling the carbon dioxide back into oxygen, as well as providing some measure of food, and contributing to water recycling, this could make the Moon colony a little more self-sufficient. But not totally self-sufficient. Unless the greenhouse was huge, and the colony had a massive reservoir of water, the system would be insufficient.
How then, can we ever expect hotels and amusement park on the moon, when it is so costly and difficult to just get people to live there?
We need more technology. But what do we need?
We need energy. Solar power is great, but at the moment, it cannot be refined in great enough quatity to supply a colony with its energy needs. It has been theorised that there is water on the moon, and if this is so, then hydrogen could be extracted from this as an energy source, but we can't colonise the Moon on a maybe. We need more effective ways of getting the energy we need.
We need food. Having a greenhouse on the moon is all well and good, but it can't be made on a scale large enough to feed a strong population on the moon. The colonists require another means of acquiring food. But what? The moon is hardly the environment to raise cows and chickens, and even if it were, do we want to colonise the moon just to make it a cattle farm? However... plants use a method we call photosynthesis to turn the suns energy into a food source. If it were possible for humans to mimic this with technology, is it concievable that we could produce something that resembles a "replicator" in Star Trek? A machine that turns energy into food? Surely not, but if plants can do it, why can't we?
We need water, and again, there may be some on the moon, but if not, how do we get it there? Again the answer lies in the transformation of energy into matter.
We need air. And certainly this can't be shipped from earth in any great quantity, as the people down here need it too. Does the answer again lie in replication of matter from energy?
This piece of technology is vital if we are ever to stand a chance of colonising the moon, or even other worlds. We need an near infinite energy source, and a method of turning that energy into whatever we need.
At the moment, and for the forseeable future, this technology does not, and will not exist. For now at least, we are doomed to live on a planet we are slowly killing.
The future looks bleak.
IB
This has not come to pass. However, even today, people still theorise, still hypothesise, and still dream about colonising the Moon. But if people want it so badly, why haven't we gone and done it? Aren't we the race that can do anything?
Well, unfortunately, it's not as simple as we would like. You can't send a bunch of builders up on the next shuttle to put together a few houses, and expect everything to go fine. The Moon, lacking atmosphere, cannot support life in any form we would recognise. So, since humans cannot survive in vacuum, any building would have to be completely self-contained. Not only completely air-tight, but capable of keeping out the exptreme cold of vacuumous space. Buildings like that don't come cheap. Then there is the physical desing of the building. With such low gravity, should it be redesigned to accomodate people bouncing around, or have lightly magnetic flooring, with an enforced "mag-boot" wearing policy? These things have to be considered.
Then there is supply. Energy is simple enough I guess, putting a few generators around can produce energy, even solar panels can be placed everywhere to soak up the energy that the sun provides. But what about food, water and air? Despite what we would like to think, oxygen doesn't just come from thin air. Such things would have to be shipped to the moon from the earth regularly, at an enormous cost. It IS possible however, that a supplimentary building could be made, a giant greenhouse. soaking up the suns rays, and recycling the carbon dioxide back into oxygen, as well as providing some measure of food, and contributing to water recycling, this could make the Moon colony a little more self-sufficient. But not totally self-sufficient. Unless the greenhouse was huge, and the colony had a massive reservoir of water, the system would be insufficient.
How then, can we ever expect hotels and amusement park on the moon, when it is so costly and difficult to just get people to live there?
We need more technology. But what do we need?
We need energy. Solar power is great, but at the moment, it cannot be refined in great enough quatity to supply a colony with its energy needs. It has been theorised that there is water on the moon, and if this is so, then hydrogen could be extracted from this as an energy source, but we can't colonise the Moon on a maybe. We need more effective ways of getting the energy we need.
We need food. Having a greenhouse on the moon is all well and good, but it can't be made on a scale large enough to feed a strong population on the moon. The colonists require another means of acquiring food. But what? The moon is hardly the environment to raise cows and chickens, and even if it were, do we want to colonise the moon just to make it a cattle farm? However... plants use a method we call photosynthesis to turn the suns energy into a food source. If it were possible for humans to mimic this with technology, is it concievable that we could produce something that resembles a "replicator" in Star Trek? A machine that turns energy into food? Surely not, but if plants can do it, why can't we?
We need water, and again, there may be some on the moon, but if not, how do we get it there? Again the answer lies in the transformation of energy into matter.
We need air. And certainly this can't be shipped from earth in any great quantity, as the people down here need it too. Does the answer again lie in replication of matter from energy?
This piece of technology is vital if we are ever to stand a chance of colonising the moon, or even other worlds. We need an near infinite energy source, and a method of turning that energy into whatever we need.
At the moment, and for the forseeable future, this technology does not, and will not exist. For now at least, we are doomed to live on a planet we are slowly killing.
The future looks bleak.
IB
Page:
wind* keeps blowing your fire out.
Damn keyboard. It moved.
Damn keyboard. It moved.
Insane Bartender wrote:
> So not only do you want to fill a desert with solar panels, you want
> to build a wall AROUND the desert... am i the only one who thinks that
> sounds a little wierd?
If you're at a campsite and the windo keeps blowing your fire out, do you put up a windbreaker around the entire campsite?
Thought not.
> So not only do you want to fill a desert with solar panels, you want
> to build a wall AROUND the desert... am i the only one who thinks that
> sounds a little wierd?
If you're at a campsite and the windo keeps blowing your fire out, do you put up a windbreaker around the entire campsite?
Thought not.
WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
> True, but they're cheap and plastic and spin fast. I've seen footage
> of wind farms, and they always seemed to me to be quite serene and
> relaxing. Oh well.
And now children, for today's new word: "dubbed"
> True, but they're cheap and plastic and spin fast. I've seen footage
> of wind farms, and they always seemed to me to be quite serene and
> relaxing. Oh well.
And now children, for today's new word: "dubbed"
Insane Bartender wrote:
> I hate to burst your bubble, but wind generates a lot of noise.
Bubbles and wind in the same sentence... I'm not sniggering, honest...
> Anyway, did you never have one of those twirly handheld colourful
> windmill things as a child that blew pretty and round and round? When
> they go fast, they make noise too.
True, but they're cheap and plastic and spin fast. I've seen footage of wind farms, and they always seemed to me to be quite serene and relaxing. Oh well.
> I hate to burst your bubble, but wind generates a lot of noise.
Bubbles and wind in the same sentence... I'm not sniggering, honest...
> Anyway, did you never have one of those twirly handheld colourful
> windmill things as a child that blew pretty and round and round? When
> they go fast, they make noise too.
True, but they're cheap and plastic and spin fast. I've seen footage of wind farms, and they always seemed to me to be quite serene and relaxing. Oh well.
WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
> Okay, I'm probably being stupid, but... what noise does a wind farm
> make? Surely wind blows, sails go round... all quiet on the western
> front?
I hate to burst your bubble, but wind generates a lot of noise.
Anyway, did you never have one of those twirly handheld colourful windmill things as a child that blew pretty and round and round? When they go fast, they make noise too.
> Okay, I'm probably being stupid, but... what noise does a wind farm
> make? Surely wind blows, sails go round... all quiet on the western
> front?
I hate to burst your bubble, but wind generates a lot of noise.
Anyway, did you never have one of those twirly handheld colourful windmill things as a child that blew pretty and round and round? When they go fast, they make noise too.
There is a wind farm being built near my house... well one or two miles away into the farm area... should be able to see them though... they'll look really small and cool... like on planes... who has seen a wind farm on a plane? Anybody? okay
Wookiee, when you've got a couple of hundred windmills, all with three sails some 40ft long on them, going round at a fair rate, it does make a noise.
As for putting them offshore, that incures it's own difficulties. For a start it's expensive to build them out there, and also the further electricity has to travel, the higher the resistance, so you end up with not a lot at the end.
It's going to cost a lot of money to sort, but it does need to be sorted.
As for putting them offshore, that incures it's own difficulties. For a start it's expensive to build them out there, and also the further electricity has to travel, the higher the resistance, so you end up with not a lot at the end.
It's going to cost a lot of money to sort, but it does need to be sorted.
Okay, I'm probably being stupid, but... what noise does a wind farm make? Surely wind blows, sails go round... all quiet on the western front?
No, they devalue because of the noise, which can be heard from kilometres away. Noise pollution always devalues property.
No-one wants a rail track to be built behind their house, or an airport, or a motorway, because it's noisy, and no-one wants a windfarm near them for the same reason.
No-one wants a rail track to be built behind their house, or an airport, or a motorway, because it's noisy, and no-one wants a windfarm near them for the same reason.
They only devalue property because no-one wants to live near them. If they were to stick on in to power the estate I live on, I'd have no objections.
Page: