Sir David Attenborough says we in serious trouble if we dont change our ways. - Page 5

TLAM Strike · 07-20-12, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird

...

2 things. First the Voyager probes passed by a "beach" and nearly landed in the Pacific Ocean.

The moon on the left is Europa, the planet is of course Earth. The blue spheres represent all the water on both worlds. Europa has a huge amount of water under its icy crust.

Second its not the distance its the time over 30 years in deep space. That's the accomplsihment not the distance. If we had built a probe powered by an Orion drive (some in the 1960-70 were arguing for just that) it could very well have flown past Alpha Centauri almost a decade ago.

That's not to mention the payload one of those drives could launch in to orbit. It could put in to LEO a station like the one seen in 2001, or it could deploy a prefab Lunar or Mars outpost all the way to its destination.

There is a capability we have as a civilization right now, but its not exploited, it is not funded. BTW The budget of the US DoD could pay for 17 Orion Heavy Lunch Vehicles in a year. If you can't build a Martian outpost out of 850,000 t (that is over 8 Nimiz class carriers) of payload then your are doing something wrong.

Ducimus · 07-20-12, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

This does become a lot more meaningful if you add "with people of our group/faith/culture/etc"

is that in scripture? I'm not one to quote scripture, but apparently number 28 listed here. ( http://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/gen/1.28?lang=eng ) is where they get it from, or so is my guess.

Google image search, "mormon family" as your keywords. They're all huge in size. On a side note, my father in law, one of the most devote mormon's you'd ever meet, has 98 grandchildren.

Seth8530 · 07-20-12, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ducimus

Gotta love the internet. For every thing you could say, regardless of topic there's an armchair expert somewhere who has prove you wrong somehow, someway. ( I can't claim excemption here on the subject of ww2 submarines) So please excuse me while i wait for the peer reviewed articles from the scientific community that I'm sure will follow.

I presume the overall point of the hokey math was to prove me wrong in my that fossil fuels are not the cause of the rise, and sustainment of our modern day civilization. To that idea, i laugh. Regardless of how much energy is in a spoonful of gasoline, it doesn't change my overall point, and it doesn't change the reality of our dependencies upon fossil fuels.

First off, im not an armchair expert nor is that math "hokey". Energy analysis is one of the things that they like us to understanding in the NE department here at UT. Second, I never meant to confirm nor deny your argument I was merely testing out someone's claim about the amount of energy in a tablespoon of gas. In fact I agree that fossil fuels are the cause of our rise to modern society however, I do believe that we need to move towards a broader energy portfolio.