HAGANE NO RENKINJUTSUSHI
HAGANE NO RENKINJUTSUSHI
full metal alchemist
full metal alchemist
 



Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Funding For Our Space Program, Do you think it is worth the money?
Elric13
post Feb 13 2007, 06:51 PM
Post #16


Citizen
*

Group: Members
Posts: 87
Joined: 3-February 07
From: "Under Your Carpet; Crazy Town"
Member No.: 44,404
Gender: Female



Thanks for your replies. I do hear the "global warming" thing a lot. It makes me think more. There wouldn't be a need to find another livable planet just yet, if we actually stopped global warming before it was too late. The U.S. should be putting more money into finding a replacement to fossil fuels than trying to find other planets or teraforming Mars. So, I don't really see the fact that you added Global warming into the thread off-topic. I actually think it somewhat fits in this thread.


QUOTE
Well...if it's something your interested in doing sure give it a shot!


I don't understand :/


--------------------



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Carnal Malefacto...
post Feb 13 2007, 06:52 PM
Post #17


Gallery Mod Emeritus
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 11,000
Joined: 24-August 04
From: In your daughter's bedroom, chanting lines from the Necrololicon
Member No.: 526
Gender: Male



Only way to stem the tide of climate change is to plant more trees to soak up the CO2 in the atmsophere.

Too bad we're deforesting at an alarming rate.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Elric13
post Feb 13 2007, 07:35 PM
Post #18


Citizen
*

Group: Members
Posts: 87
Joined: 3-February 07
From: "Under Your Carpet; Crazy Town"
Member No.: 44,404
Gender: Female



QUOTE(Abstruse Eulogy @ Feb 13 2007, 07:52 PM) [snapback]504840[/snapback]
Too bad we're deforesting at an alarming rate.


Yeah, that brings me to share a quick personal story. My family used to live in the in the mountains. Just a year ago we visited back there, and it was bare... sad really.

And about reversing global warming - It's not just the fact that we need trees, it's also the fact that the color white reflects the sun's heat radiation. The ice and snow are white. If they melt, there would be no more rays reflecting off of the planet, and earth will warm up. The warming of the planet will cause the Oceanic Belt to slow down, and there will be no more warm water/cold water circulation in the oceans. Once that happens, the planet will go into an Ice age, and we will all freeze to death since Humans can't survive in temperatures under -45(I am not exact on that. I think that is correct though) without special Equipment. Even if we didn't freeze to death, there would be no more crops to feed the world and we will starve.

Edit: Eeek! I somewhat just hijacked my own thread! ohmy.gif I should probably hold off on posting for a while.





--------------------



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kenji
post Feb 13 2007, 07:35 PM
Post #19


Brigadier General
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 2,132
Joined: 1-February 07
Member No.: 44,341
Gender: Male



There is alternatives to fossil fuels now...

Take automotive sectors for instance, which consume a lot of fossil fuel,
We have hydrogen powered cars that produce water clean enough to drink as emmision,
We have hybrid cars, electric+petrol
We have ethanol, some cars runs 100% ethanol, while some runs on E85 ethanol [85%petrol, 25%etanol]
We have cars that runs on solar power, which still on test
We even have electric cars...

While some of the above mentioned still depends on fossile fuel [hybrid, E85], the amount of miles per gallon [mpg] those cars achieved is far greater than their 100% fossile fuel engined counterparts...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Popogeejo
post Feb 14 2007, 02:57 AM
Post #20


Master Alchemist
******

Group: Members
Posts: 6,914
Joined: 18-February 06
From: Wrapped in my own Ego
Member No.: 31,420
Gender: Male



QUOTE(Abstruse Eulogy @ Feb 14 2007, 01:52 AM) [snapback]504840[/snapback]
Only way to stem the tide of climate change is to plant more trees to soak up the CO2 in the atmsophere.

Too bad we're deforesting at an alarming rate.

Actually trees aren't responsible for most of the oxygen produced and would have little effect on lowering the amount of CO2. It's algae (or possibly plankton) on the oceans surface that creates most of the oxygen from CO2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algae
QUOTE
All algae have photosynthetic machinery ultimately derived from the cyanobacteria, and so produce oxygen as a byproduct of photosynthesis, unlike non-cyanobacterial photosynthetic bacteria. It is estimated that algae produce about 73 to 87 percent of the net global production of oxygen[1]--which is available to humans and other terrestrial animals for respiration.


--------------------

>Click the picture for me gushing over over Summer Wars shenanigans!<
The various works of FKMT are something you should read
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kenji
post Feb 14 2007, 04:26 AM
Post #21


Brigadier General
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 2,132
Joined: 1-February 07
Member No.: 44,341
Gender: Male



QUOTE(Wikipedia)
It is estimated that algae produce about 73 to 87 percent of the net global production of oxygen[1]--which is available to humans and other terrestrial animals for respiration.


The ocean is bigger than the land...

Since algae/planktons needs water to survive, we resort to planting trees because trees can live on land...and trees is the only living thing on land that convert CO2 to O2
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Popogeejo
post Feb 14 2007, 04:38 AM
Post #22


Master Alchemist
******

Group: Members
Posts: 6,914
Joined: 18-February 06
From: Wrapped in my own Ego
Member No.: 31,420
Gender: Male



I don't see what location has to do with anything...Oxygen, being a rascally little gas, can disperse quite freely.


--------------------

>Click the picture for me gushing over over Summer Wars shenanigans!<
The various works of FKMT are something you should read
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kenji
post Feb 14 2007, 04:44 AM
Post #23


Brigadier General
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 2,132
Joined: 1-February 07
Member No.: 44,341
Gender: Male



QUOTE(Popogeejo @ Feb 14 2007, 07:38 PM) [snapback]505002[/snapback]
I don't see what location has to do with anything...Oxygen, being a rascally little gas, can disperse quite freely.


What I mean is the ocean is bigger than the sea...thus the number of planktons obviously outnumbered the trees on land. This factor makes plankton produce the most O2 on earth...

Its this simple.. laugh.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Popogeejo
post Feb 14 2007, 05:05 AM
Post #24


Master Alchemist
******

Group: Members
Posts: 6,914
Joined: 18-February 06
From: Wrapped in my own Ego
Member No.: 31,420
Gender: Male



QUOTE(Kenji @ Feb 14 2007, 11:44 AM) [snapback]505003[/snapback]
What I mean is the ocean is bigger than the sea...thus the number of planktons obviously outnumbered the trees on land. This factor makes plankton produce the most O2 on earth...

Its this simple.. laugh.gif

Yes but it's not just trees that photosynthesis. Nearly all plants do and they don't do nearly as much as the Algae. Planting more trees won't help climate change that much. Also, it's not only that there is more Algae (I can't even make a rough estimate of the amount of plants on land v the amount of Algae) but tree and other plants don't photosynthesis nearly as efficiently.


--------------------

>Click the picture for me gushing over over Summer Wars shenanigans!<
The various works of FKMT are something you should read
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kenji
post Feb 14 2007, 05:21 AM
Post #25


Brigadier General
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 2,132
Joined: 1-February 07
Member No.: 44,341
Gender: Male



QUOTE(Popogeejo @ Feb 14 2007, 08:05 PM) [snapback]505008[/snapback]
QUOTE(Kenji @ Feb 14 2007, 11:44 AM) [snapback]505003[/snapback]
What I mean is the ocean is bigger than the sea...thus the number of planktons obviously outnumbered the trees on land. This factor makes plankton produce the most O2 on earth...

Its this simple.. laugh.gif

Yes but it's not just trees that photosynthesis. Nearly all plants do and they don't do nearly as much as the Algae. Planting more trees won't help climate change that much. Also, it's not only that there is more Algae (I can't even make a rough estimate of the amount of plants on land v the amount of Algae) but tree and other plants don't photosynthesis nearly as efficiently.


Yeah...trees does photosynthesis...but not 24/7
Photosynthesis only occur when there is sunlight. So at night they actually breath in a little O2...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
travisbmoore
post Feb 16 2007, 09:14 AM
Post #26


Citizen
*

Group: Members
Posts: 66
Joined: 8-February 07
From: US Olive hill ky
Member No.: 44,534
Gender: Male



The whole point of going into space is to make a profit. If the U.S. Program can't stand on it's own two feet and make a profit, there may be no point in having a space program. It takes lots and lots of money to use old solid propellant boosters and the large chemical storage tank of liquefied hydrogen and oxygen just to launch a vertical launch vehicle. And the Reusable launch vehicle called the space shuttle is out dated. You need something that uses less fuel and that can land and take off in the atmosphere like a airplane. Some kind of new space glider may work. That would be a glider that can carry a few tons to space and glide up and down into space on only an equivalent amount of fuel as a Boeing 747.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Carnal Malefacto...
post Feb 16 2007, 09:55 AM
Post #27


Gallery Mod Emeritus
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 11,000
Joined: 24-August 04
From: In your daughter's bedroom, chanting lines from the Necrololicon
Member No.: 526
Gender: Male



QUOTE(travisbmoore @ Feb 16 2007, 11:14 AM) [snapback]505895[/snapback]
The whole point of going into space is to make a profit. If the U.S. Program can't stand on it's own two feet and make a profit, there may be no point in having a space program. It takes lots and lots of money to use old solid propellant boosters and the large chemical storage tank of liquefied hydrogen and oxygen just to launch a vertical launch vehicle. And the Reusable launch vehicle called the space shuttle is out dated. You need something that uses less fuel and that can land and take off in the atmosphere like a airplane. Some kind of new space glider may work. That would be a glider that can carry a few tons to space and glide up and down into space on only an equivalent amount of fuel as a Boeing 747.

...are you high?


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
travisbmoore
post Feb 16 2007, 10:54 AM
Post #28


Citizen
*

Group: Members
Posts: 66
Joined: 8-February 07
From: US Olive hill ky
Member No.: 44,534
Gender: Male



QUOTE(Abstruse Eulogy @ Feb 16 2007, 11:55 AM) [snapback]505905[/snapback]
QUOTE(travisbmoore @ Feb 16 2007, 11:14 AM) [snapback]505895[/snapback]
The whole point of going into space is to make a profit. If the U.S. Program can't stand on it's own two feet and make a profit, there may be no point in having a space program. It takes lots and lots of money to use old solid propellant boosters and the large chemical storage tank of liquefied hydrogen and oxygen just to launch a vertical launch vehicle. And the Reusable launch vehicle called the space shuttle is out dated. You need something that uses less fuel and that can land and take off in the atmosphere like a airplane. Some kind of new space glider may work. That would be a glider that can carry a few tons to space and glide up and down into space on only an equivalent amount of fuel as a Boeing 747.

...are you high?

No I am not high. My point is there are technologies that can get us into space cheaper than the space shuttle. I have read about a new rocket technology that allows the uses of microwaves to make thrust and the engine makes about 600lbs. It would be possible to use in space and the new liquid methane rocket prototype makes 7,500 pounds of thrust. A glider may be the cheapest way. The less fuel used the cheaper the flight. Example the x-prise plane. Anything that a model can do engineering can scale up. Why do I even bother to explain something that no one can comprehend.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Popogeejo
post Feb 16 2007, 11:24 AM
Post #29


Master Alchemist
******

Group: Members
Posts: 6,914
Joined: 18-February 06
From: Wrapped in my own Ego
Member No.: 31,420
Gender: Male



QUOTE
Why do I even bother to explain something that no one can comprehend.
Wow...
Can you try and be more arrogant please?


--------------------

>Click the picture for me gushing over over Summer Wars shenanigans!<
The various works of FKMT are something you should read
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
travisbmoore
post Feb 16 2007, 12:40 PM
Post #30


Citizen
*

Group: Members
Posts: 66
Joined: 8-February 07
From: US Olive hill ky
Member No.: 44,534
Gender: Male



QUOTE(Popogeejo @ Feb 16 2007, 01:24 PM) [snapback]505926[/snapback]
QUOTE
Why do I even bother to explain something that no one can comprehend.
Wow...
Can you try and be more arrogant please?


Algae is the fastest growing plant on the earth. One day huge algae farms will make all the earths oxygen and fuel and maybe hydrogen for space flights using cold fusion or Focus fusion that uses decaborene fuel.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >
Fast ReplyReply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 30th June 2016 - 02:24 PM



Copyright 2003-2004 PhoenixNetworks, LLC. All rights reserved.
Copyright Notice. Privacy policy. Acceptable Use Policy. Terms of Service.
Page Generation Time: 0.0655 seconds.
Currently Selected Stylesheet: css/default.css