Planetary Resources
- Thread starter Atomkilla
- Start date
either way, if pagano is being adament about the moon not possibly containing materials from any of the _millions_ of impacts it has recieved, on the basis of how the moon was once created (which nobody has witnessed, and as alec points out, is still under debate (not that i disagree with that theory, in case that debate kicks off, i just dont see it as relevant whatsoever)), he still could show a hint of humility, and ease out with the "CAPS... LOCK... EFFECTS... " which, you know, tends to come off as douchey and quite passive aggressive.
if theres anything a true scientific mind is well aware of, it is to never _throw_ fact in someones face, cus fact is never a static thing, it changes from perspective to perspective.
im still not entirely sure what the disagreement is about.
1. meteors contain certain compounds, that may be of value, yes or no?
2. meteors have impacted the moon and earth, countless times, yes or no?
3. meteor material has been absorbed by the moon or earth, yes or no?
4. these compounds can be mined, yes or no?
5. mining these compounds can be viable, either for the moon or earth, yes or no?
for all of these, i have absolutely no problem finding a sure answer. (and still i try to be humble about it)
if theres anything a true scientific mind is well aware of, it is to never _throw_ fact in someones face, cus fact is never a static thing, it changes from perspective to perspective.
im still not entirely sure what the disagreement is about.
1. meteors contain certain compounds, that may be of value, yes or no?
2. meteors have impacted the moon and earth, countless times, yes or no?
3. meteor material has been absorbed by the moon or earth, yes or no?
4. these compounds can be mined, yes or no?
5. mining these compounds can be viable, either for the moon or earth, yes or no?
for all of these, i have absolutely no problem finding a sure answer. (and still i try to be humble about it)
El Pagano Loco
It Wandered In From the Wastes
zegh8578 said:
The argument is about this.
Of course there are such materials in traces on the moon's surface but "mining" that trace material would be as downright retarded as farming humans in order to collect smegma or spilling a million gallons of oil in the ocean in the order to enjoy a trippy rainbow film.
You could mine the same trace material from the soil in your backyard. But hey, fuck science, maybe it's made of cheese.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFzR_FOTq2I[/youtube]
donperkan
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
I'm pointing out that all elements are present in planets some in greater numbers some in fewer and im challenging crnis claim that asteroids could/did bring more meterial then already present on a particular planet.
El Pagano Loco said:
im pretty sure this was allready established then,
with the possibility that in a far and sci-fi future, it could _become_ worth while to desperately scrape for other compounds, once these become too rare on earth.
personally i dont see that happening, realistically (by that time, our desperate priorities would surely have changed anyway)
then again, we humans have existed for a while, but thats not to say we will exist for an equal or longer ammount of time to come.
people rarely dare imagine a future further than a few centuries, at best a few milennia, but lets say 100 000 years into the future
you know how determined people can be, look at the canadian oil-sand harvest.
when strong-willed people set their mind to it, it gets done. its not entirely impossible that at some point someone's gonna want to secure vast landscapes on the moon, to just comb its entire structure for anything of value - lets say - after all the helium 3 has been depleted
The plan is to launch the first spacecraft - a small telescope to find small nearby asteroids - within the next two years. Next, the company would send out a batch of small explorers to visit some of them. Actual mining would begin after that, first targeting water and then platinum.
...
"To do large, large-scale mining of asteroids, you're talking about decades," Anderson said.
Read more.
...
"To do large, large-scale mining of asteroids, you're talking about decades," Anderson said.
Read more.
maybe we should let future generations decide on this once we run out of our natural resources here on earth. Then we will see if it is viable or not.El Pagano Loco said:
who knows how things will be in 100 or 200 years. Maybe mining on the moon will be in 200 years as easy like flying from Berlin to New York today. Do you know it? I certainly don't.
And all I said was that the moon probably contains the material which he got from the bombardments.
present either articles or show me your degree in astro physics. I present theories which eventually explain the high amount of gold on earth. I never said they have to be absolutely correct. But they sound logic to me. And as long there are no better theories about it I will accept this.donperkan said:
donperkan said:
Did you buy your star yet?
El Pagano Loco
It Wandered In From the Wastes
Crni Vuk said:
Maybe, instead of fantasizing and creating retarded "theories that sound logical" in your head you could bother to actually read up something about things such as accreation. Just so things like Why th3Re r golDz on da 3arth?!?!11 become a bit clearer to you.
On the other hand, be my guest, fuck the scientists, the fuck they know, you should publish your ingenious theory. I can already see the cover of Sky at Night : Crni's new genesis of planet Earth-fuck science, dis shitz logical in ma head. In the next number: Fuckin' magnetz, how do they work?!?1
retarded theories in a national geographic article? What are you obtuse?
*Meteor Shower Rained Gold On Ancient Earth
*Huge Asteroids Brought Gold to Infant Earth, Study Says
Lets get back from this kind of "arguing" for a min shall we? Either stay rational and cut out the insults and come down from your high horse or I doubt that this debate will go for very long without moderation.
We can talk about the topic. Like adults. Presenting our opinion and trying to go with articles and discussing the theories we believe are correct. That is the scientific and mature way of how to argue.
But not by simply calling the argument plain "retarded" without ever contributing anything to the discussion.
*Meteor Shower Rained Gold On Ancient Earth
*Huge Asteroids Brought Gold to Infant Earth, Study Says
Lets get back from this kind of "arguing" for a min shall we? Either stay rational and cut out the insults and come down from your high horse or I doubt that this debate will go for very long without moderation.
We can talk about the topic. Like adults. Presenting our opinion and trying to go with articles and discussing the theories we believe are correct. That is the scientific and mature way of how to argue.
But not by simply calling the argument plain "retarded" without ever contributing anything to the discussion.
nitpickery:
a theory is actually much more proven than people think.
scientists arent very eager about saying "we have stated a fact today!" so they use the word "theory"
evolution is a theory, because it has been thoroughly proven as a fact.
the sun's radiation and heating capabilities is a theory.
if someone thinks their neighbor is a peeping tom - thats a hypothesis - untill they have gathered adequate proof. once they have proof, it becomes a theory.
a theory is actually much more proven than people think.
scientists arent very eager about saying "we have stated a fact today!" so they use the word "theory"
evolution is a theory, because it has been thoroughly proven as a fact.
the sun's radiation and heating capabilities is a theory.
if someone thinks their neighbor is a peeping tom - thats a hypothesis - untill they have gathered adequate proof. once they have proof, it becomes a theory.
El Pagano Loco
It Wandered In From the Wastes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accretion_(astrophysics) here, have a blast.
Accretion (astrophysics)
In astrophysics, the term accretion is used for at least two distinct processes.
The first and most common is the growth of a massive object by gravitationally attracting more matter, typically gaseous matter in an accretion disc.[1] Accretion discs are common around smaller stars or stellar remnants in a close binary or black holes in the centers of spiral galaxies. Some dynamics in the disc are necessary to allow orbiting gas to lose angular momentum and fall onto the central massive object. Occasionally, this can result in stellar surface fusion. (See: Bondi accretion)
The second process is somewhat analogous to the one in atmospheric science. In the nebular theory, accretion refers to the collision and sticking of cooled microscopic dust and ice particles electrostatically, in protoplanetary discs and gas giant protoplanet systems, eventually leading to planetesimals which gravitationally accrete more small particles and other planetesimals.[citation needed]
Use of the term accretion disc for the protoplanetary disc thus leads to confusion over the planetary accretion process, although in many cases it may well be that both accretion processes are happening simultaneously. T Tauri is an example of this phenomenon.
what has this to do with the article I presented above?
*Edit
Did you even cared to read the links I provided?
In astrophysics, the term accretion is used for at least two distinct processes.
The first and most common is the growth of a massive object by gravitationally attracting more matter, typically gaseous matter in an accretion disc.[1] Accretion discs are common around smaller stars or stellar remnants in a close binary or black holes in the centers of spiral galaxies. Some dynamics in the disc are necessary to allow orbiting gas to lose angular momentum and fall onto the central massive object. Occasionally, this can result in stellar surface fusion. (See: Bondi accretion)
The second process is somewhat analogous to the one in atmospheric science. In the nebular theory, accretion refers to the collision and sticking of cooled microscopic dust and ice particles electrostatically, in protoplanetary discs and gas giant protoplanet systems, eventually leading to planetesimals which gravitationally accrete more small particles and other planetesimals.[citation needed]
Use of the term accretion disc for the protoplanetary disc thus leads to confusion over the planetary accretion process, although in many cases it may well be that both accretion processes are happening simultaneously. T Tauri is an example of this phenomenon.
what has this to do with the article I presented above?
*Edit
Did you even cared to read the links I provided?
El Pagano Loco
It Wandered In From the Wastes
It has nothing to do with your article, it's about the forming of a planet.
T
TorontoReign
Guest
I think El Pagano Loco is secretly someone else. Why do I get the impression that you used to go by another name around here? You remind me of someone... Especially constantly jabbing at Crni Vuk.
El Pagano Loco said:
you seem to insist that once a planet is formed, nothing more can happen with it?
you have pointed back to planet formation before, to "disprove" the effect of foreign elements such as asteroids.
why does planet formation have some sort of nullifying effect on later events, such as numerous meteor impacts?
Then I officially have no clue what your point is actually ... if thats some kind of troll attempt. You have won. You successfully trolled me now. Go buy your self a cookie now.El Pagano Loco said:
T
TorontoReign
Guest
Crni Vuk said:
He is trying to troll you bro. Don't feed him any longer.