The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Goatboy wrote:
> He nicked that.
He he - ban Snuggly for copying !!!
> He nicked that.
He he - ban Snuggly for copying !!!
Colonisation of the moon? - Do we really want to disrupt the utopian way of life of the Moon Mins? - No, I thought not.
He nicked that.
Mr.Snuggly wrote:
>
> A virus with shoes, in other words.
Excellent phrase..
>
> A virus with shoes, in other words.
Excellent phrase..
WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
Basically, we are self-interested parasites.
A virus with shoes, in other words.
Basically, we are self-interested parasites.
A virus with shoes, in other words.
Insane Bartender wrote:
> why do we kill the planet? For fun, fortunately no. Unfortunately, we
> kill it for things that we NEED. Fossil fuels, like coal, and oil, are
> still absolute essentials in our society.
Are they, though? I mean REALLY necessary?
We've had the biggest source of clean energy available since mankind first existed. It produces no waste, and is available for free. It is, of course, the sun.
Solar power is the answer to everything, from heating and lighting homes, to powering machineery and transportation.
So why haven't we made use of it?
Probably due to profits. Solar power would mean no need for petrol, oil (except as lubricant of course), coal, or any fossil fuels.
We're in the 21st century now, and we should be looking into solar power in a very serious manner. Not just to build odd-shaped cars that can cross deserts and win races that no-one really cares about in record time, but seriouosly. Looking at better, worthwhile methods of capturing and storing the energy the sun gives us every day, and then making use of it.
But I wouldn't be at all surprised if the oil companies were paying people to keep quiet about such things. After all, significant advances in cheap, effective solar power would effectively put them out of business.
I refuse to believe that no-one has invented a way of powering cars effectively, using solar-charged electic engines which can give equivalent performance to the average petrol engine.
The thing is, people don't care because it's not likely that the impending disaster will happen in our lifetime. They're more interested in a meaty engine that does 0-60 in a few seconds and does five miles per gallon than they are in saving the planet for future generations.
Basically, we are self-interested parasites.
> why do we kill the planet? For fun, fortunately no. Unfortunately, we
> kill it for things that we NEED. Fossil fuels, like coal, and oil, are
> still absolute essentials in our society.
Are they, though? I mean REALLY necessary?
We've had the biggest source of clean energy available since mankind first existed. It produces no waste, and is available for free. It is, of course, the sun.
Solar power is the answer to everything, from heating and lighting homes, to powering machineery and transportation.
So why haven't we made use of it?
Probably due to profits. Solar power would mean no need for petrol, oil (except as lubricant of course), coal, or any fossil fuels.
We're in the 21st century now, and we should be looking into solar power in a very serious manner. Not just to build odd-shaped cars that can cross deserts and win races that no-one really cares about in record time, but seriouosly. Looking at better, worthwhile methods of capturing and storing the energy the sun gives us every day, and then making use of it.
But I wouldn't be at all surprised if the oil companies were paying people to keep quiet about such things. After all, significant advances in cheap, effective solar power would effectively put them out of business.
I refuse to believe that no-one has invented a way of powering cars effectively, using solar-charged electic engines which can give equivalent performance to the average petrol engine.
The thing is, people don't care because it's not likely that the impending disaster will happen in our lifetime. They're more interested in a meaty engine that does 0-60 in a few seconds and does five miles per gallon than they are in saving the planet for future generations.
Basically, we are self-interested parasites.
PinkPig wrote:
> Hmmmmm....... you are a pessimist. Rather than ship all of our air
> over to the moon, wouldn't it be better to stop killing this planet?
>
> Just an idea,
>
> See Ya ;-)
>
> PinkPig
why do we kill the planet? For fun, fortunately no. Unfortunately, we kill it for things that we NEED. Fossil fuels, like coal, and oil, are still absolute essentials in our society. Despite the world claiming the capacity for the paperless office, and the paperless home, this does not exist, and so, we need wood, we need chemicals, we NEED.
and then there is energy, which we need in ever increasing quantity. Producing energy creates waste, and the energy used to supply more than 6 billion people creates one hell of a lot of waste.
The only way for 6 billion people to live on a planet this size is for us to take resources faster than the planet can produce them. We currently have no choice but to live on this planet, and this planet is dying by our own hands.
It's a vicious circle. We stay, and we consume. We overpopulate, but we can't relocate, so we have to continue consuming resources in ever increasing quantity, for an ever-increasing population. the faster we consume, the less the planet has to offer.
Unless a method can be found of pulling energy from thin air - without tainting the air from which it is pulled - and in sufficient quantity, this planet is doomed, and with it, so are we.
IB
> Hmmmmm....... you are a pessimist. Rather than ship all of our air
> over to the moon, wouldn't it be better to stop killing this planet?
>
> Just an idea,
>
> See Ya ;-)
>
> PinkPig
why do we kill the planet? For fun, fortunately no. Unfortunately, we kill it for things that we NEED. Fossil fuels, like coal, and oil, are still absolute essentials in our society. Despite the world claiming the capacity for the paperless office, and the paperless home, this does not exist, and so, we need wood, we need chemicals, we NEED.
and then there is energy, which we need in ever increasing quantity. Producing energy creates waste, and the energy used to supply more than 6 billion people creates one hell of a lot of waste.
The only way for 6 billion people to live on a planet this size is for us to take resources faster than the planet can produce them. We currently have no choice but to live on this planet, and this planet is dying by our own hands.
It's a vicious circle. We stay, and we consume. We overpopulate, but we can't relocate, so we have to continue consuming resources in ever increasing quantity, for an ever-increasing population. the faster we consume, the less the planet has to offer.
Unless a method can be found of pulling energy from thin air - without tainting the air from which it is pulled - and in sufficient quantity, this planet is doomed, and with it, so are we.
IB
Insane Bartender wrote:
> 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.
Really?
> 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.
Really?
Hmmmmm....... you are a pessimist. Rather than ship all of our air over to the moon, wouldn't it be better to stop killing this planet?
Just an idea,
See Ya ;-)
PinkPig
Just an idea,
See Ya ;-)
PinkPig
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: