The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
> The other thing that makes me laugh almost hysterically is that many
> people seem to be in favour of wind farms etc., but no-one seems
> willing to have one built in sight of their house.
Wind farms are noisy though, and devalue property.
> The other thing that makes me laugh almost hysterically is that many
> people seem to be in favour of wind farms etc., but no-one seems
> willing to have one built in sight of their house.
Wind farms are noisy though, and devalue property.
One more thing...
We, as an island nation, could make good use of offshore wind farms and/or the potential energy of wave power, with hydro-electric generators around the coast. But those would cost money, and we don't want to pay for it.
We, as an island nation, could make good use of offshore wind farms and/or the potential energy of wave power, with hydro-electric generators around the coast. But those would cost money, and we don't want to pay for it.
Insane Bartender wrote:
> Solar energy is inefficient, and until it is refined to get more out
> of it, it's next to useless.
I agree. My point was that, rather than spending millions/billions (in total) designing ever more efficient/powerful combustion engines, spend it on improving solar efficiency.
Can you imagine, if they were to announce tomorrow that fossil fuels would run out in ten years, how quickly solar technology would improve?
The other thing that makes me laugh almost hysterically is that many people seem to be in favour of wind farms etc., but no-one seems willing to have one built in sight of their house.
> Solar energy is inefficient, and until it is refined to get more out
> of it, it's next to useless.
I agree. My point was that, rather than spending millions/billions (in total) designing ever more efficient/powerful combustion engines, spend it on improving solar efficiency.
Can you imagine, if they were to announce tomorrow that fossil fuels would run out in ten years, how quickly solar technology would improve?
The other thing that makes me laugh almost hysterically is that many people seem to be in favour of wind farms etc., but no-one seems willing to have one built in sight of their house.
VenomByte wrote:
> Put them high up, or have a few big walls to stop the effect of the
> sand and wind. That'll cut down maintenence costs, even if it does
> increase the initial outlay a little.
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?
> Put them high up, or have a few big walls to stop the effect of the
> sand and wind. That'll cut down maintenence costs, even if it does
> increase the initial outlay a little.
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?
Maybe because half the world are living in the Dark Ages and spending millions on fuel etc would seem quite ridicolous.
Put them high up, or have a few big walls to stop the effect of the sand and wind. That'll cut down maintenence costs, even if it does increase the initial outlay a little.
The Sahara's a big place. I'm sure we're not going to be able to put enough solar receptors to have a signficant effect on what little ecosystem there actually is over there. If we do though, I don't imagine it'll be anywhere near as bad as the relentless rainforest razing.
The Sahara's a big place. I'm sure we're not going to be able to put enough solar receptors to have a signficant effect on what little ecosystem there actually is over there. If we do though, I don't imagine it'll be anywhere near as bad as the relentless rainforest razing.
Colonising the moon would be a waste of time, it is a barren wasteland, ideally you would be looking to colonise a planet which we could eventually populate when the Earth becomes non-viable.
It would also create a lot of maintenance, not to mention kill off the ecosystems in the sahara. not clever basically.
Instead of putting solar cells on your house, wouldn't it be more efficient to fill the Sahara with them?
That would generate an awful lot of energy...
That would generate an awful lot of energy...
Solar energy is inefficient, and until it is refined to get more out of it, it's next to useless.
Someone can coat their entire house exterior with solar cells, and still have to rely on outside power sources. I agree that solar energy is key (i think i said so earlier in the thread...) but it's just not good enough.
Someone can coat their entire house exterior with solar cells, and still have to rely on outside power sources. I agree that solar energy is key (i think i said so earlier in the thread...) but it's just not good enough.
Page: