Space Post - Why is the rate of progress so slow!

[Neil]

So there we were on the moon 41yrs ago...

And as it stands they're not even going to have Martian soil back here on Earth to examine until over half a century after those lunar landings (ie: in the 2020s...)... Yet alone actually have a man on Mars!!!

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1007/20sample/

A great fear of mine is I die before I see a base on Mars/Moon and robot explorers send back footage from Jupiter's Europa or Saturn's Enceladus. What a moment, if the camera's showed something swimming by!!

[Legion2213]

Bottom line is cash, it costs around $10.000 to put 1lb into orbit for very little financial return.

The Space Shuttle also set us back in a way, it cost more than the Saturn V's and only carried around one tenth of the payload (going from memory), there is also the fact the space race was more about prestige than financial returns.

Until we can make it cheaper, space flight is doomed...it really hurts me to say that because I think we should be on our way to mars now and have a few dozen folks on some kind of moon base.

You also have the enviroment nutters and stupid nuclear treaties that prevent us trying out more powerfull nuclear based drives.

Honestly, the only thing that will kick us into action is a potential asteroid on colision corse or the detection of a derilict alien "space hulk" being found around the outer solar system or something. :(

[Neil]

Honestly, the only thing that will kick us into action is a potential asteroid on colision corse or the detection of a derilict alien "space hulk" being found around the outer solar system or something. :(

Now we're talking! :hyper: (RE: The space hulk!)


ps: What ever happened to the "Rendevous with Rama" film! Dead? :( http://www.firstshowing.net/2010/05/03/must-watch-fan-made-rendezvous-with-rama-movie-trailer/

[Neil]

Now we're really talking... Manned commercial human space transportation and space stations by 2015?

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1007/21boeing/

[Mike70]

because people are short sighted and ignorant. end of the story.

folks who whine about how much money space costs and the "oh we could be doing x, y, z with that instead" fucking irritate me in ways i cannot really express.

try this on for size:

the US spent more on defense last year (about half a TRILLION dollars) than it has on space exploration in the last 50 YEARS. NASA usually only gets about $13-15 billion dollars out of a budget that is over a trillion. that is literally spare change when you are talking about that kind of money.

[Wyldwraith]

Agreed,
Something else people who bemoan the costs of manned space missions don't realize is the HUGE number of spin-off technologies that improve the lives of all of us that will never step foot in a shuttle.

No manned space missions = no more advanced spin-off technologies created to meet the demands of a NASA mission, but also have proven to be lucrative right here on earth.

Hell, we even call most of the modern fabrication materials "Space Age alloys/materials"

Pretty much says it all, eh?

[Legion2213]

The sort of folks who say stuff like "we should use Space/Military money to feed the poor etc really are stupid. The world doesn't work like that.

[childofgilead]

Honestly, it seems as if NASA is just trying to justify themselves by shooting up the shuttle so it can putt around every once in a while. It's one thing to repair satellites, I can even concede the ISS being a step in the right direction, but like the old saying goes, if you're not going forward, etc..

It's really frustrating, as the space race led to so much technology we now take for granted, but it's really unfair that our tax money is being used on what seems to be nothing more than job justification.

I mean, reality is, nobody alive right now, I'm assuming, will ever see space. I'm not talking profile flights around old Earth, I mean the real deep black. If we don't go back to the Moon, or onwards towards Mars by 2035, odds are we never will.

Sad thing is, something like this, a concerted effort by many nations could be such a unifying force for good.

[Wyldwraith]

I agree,
What's more, space exploration...I mean TRUE space exploration is the ONLY avenue of advancement that offers even the hope of regaining the cultural momentum that's been waning since the end of the Kennedy Era.

Sooner or later, something will happen to trigger an Extinction Level Event here on Earth. Abandoning the avid enthusiasm for progress in space exploration we once possessed is equivalent to committing suicide as a species. Just by passivity/inaction.

Lunar and Martian colonies are a necessary first step. Without them, the economics will never bring the major corporations and more affluent entrepreneurs needed to create the economic environment to allow us to begin mining the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter. Those resources, their abundance and location would allow for many of the resources needed to establish ourselves on Mars, and beyond for that matter.

None of it will happen if we cease ambitious manned space missions, and therefore destroy the economic interests which produce those wonderful technological advances needed to overcome the challenges posed by such missions. Until space becomes very profitable for the private sector we're going nowhere, because in all probability greed will fund the eventual development of a means of propulsion which can circumvent the light-barrier.

No faster-than-light (or non-conventional means of traveling vast distances quickly) travel, no escape from our own Solar System. I fully believe humanity has (or will have) the capacity to accomplish such a feat, but ONLY if "there's something in it" for the best and brightest. Just a gut feeling, but one I feel very strongly about.

Anyways, that's my position...make of it what you will.

[Danny]

I can honestly imagine some rich guy like richard branson seeing the next big business being in getting up to the moon and mars and starting to take advantage of the recourses to be found there. Governments are all in debt up to there eyeballs and i can very well see this being the next gold rush or new frontier. not any time soon, but eventually technologies going to advance to where someone with money can put a fleet of small ships up there, stake some land and start mining, either claiming land on the moon or mars or just taking a meteor and stripping it for platinum or something.
I'll will bet good money the flags claiming new lands for humankind in the next 200 years will not be bearing any nations flag, but a companies flag instead.

Assuming we don't blow ourselves to kingdom come before we break orbit for good i can see human kinds future being more like firefly than star trek.

[EvilNed]

Space exploration won't get us anywhere, really. We're hopelessly contained here on our shell of a planet. Space is simply too big an ocean to cross. Imagine Columbus traversing the ocean and all the difficulties he had to face. Now take that, times a billion at least, and there you have the difficulties facing us if we want to go beyond themoon.

Forget about leaving the solar system. We're never gonna get there. At light speed, it would take us one year just to exit the system - and light speed is impossible to achieve. Sorry.

[Wyldwraith]

We've gone round and round about this before EvilNed,
This time I will simply say that you are forming absolutist conclusions based on the comparatively tiny 200-300-year cross-section that encompasses the entirety of human systematic scientific investigations.

Stacked against our 25,000-28,000 year existence in a form very close to that of present day humanity, we've only been pursuing scientific advancement for something like 1.25% (at best) of the time our species has been around.

Based on the incredibly small sampling size, it's foolish IMHO to declare what is or is not possible. Before each major hurdle that humanity has overcome was surpassed, there have ALWAYS been seemingly immutable (to some or even most people) laws/principles/theories etc. to support the notion(s) that the achievement in question is impossible/unattainable.

You mention Columbus, and what if the ocean had been billions of times larger than it actually is to make your point as to why you believe interstellar travel is impossible.

To that I say: From the perspective of humans before the first sail-using or more balanced outriggers were developed, the ocean WAS EFFECTIVELY billions of times larger, because their frame of reference was limited to considering rowing across such a vast emptiness.

In the same way that our frame of reference is limited by considering the crossing of the vastness of interstellar space using chemical propellants, or at best the slightly more advanced energy-harvesting engines we have a solid theoretical understanding of their workings.

Had you tried to dispute the claim that the Atlantic Ocean couldn't be crossed with people who hadn't even conceived of sail-powered ships, let alone outboard engines and the propellers they powered, those people would most likely have made similar arguments of negation.

From their perspective, it's only reasonable to declare the ocean impossible to cross. Absent even the vaguest conception of how it might be successfully crossed, and by what power/force could be used for such a crossing, it SEEMS reasonable to conclude the ocean can't be crossed.

We don't even know if the speed of light actually is as immutable as our current scientific understanding seems to indicate. If we can't answer a question like "Do Tachyons exist, or not? If they do exist, are they truly circumventing light-speed in some way, or is there another explanation for why they might seem to exceed light-speed?" then where the Hell do we get off declaring ANYTHING to be possible or impossible?

We simply don't have an informed enough frame of reference. Particle physics are still an emerging science, and one we've only begun to scratch the surface of the possibilities of. Look what we've accomplished with the single (and rather crude) practice of triggering nuclear fission?

You're really going to sit there and pretend to know what humanity will or will not be able to do in even fifty, let alone 100 or 200 years?

Hell, in another 200 years we could have advanced the same relative distance as we have from the Enlightenment to the Information Age all over again!

Imagine that. Advancements that make 21st century accomplishments look like Davinci's sketchbooks to our descendants.

Won't they get a laugh out of our pretensions concerning the prediction of what they will or won't be capable of?

I know I would if some 16th century monk confidently declared to me that circumnavigating the planet is impossible, because "everyone knows you'd fall off the edge of the Earth". LOL!

Retort?

[Eyebiter]

Before any wide scale commercial exploitation of space occurs, there must be a less expensive method of getting cargo and people into orbit.

Barring a ground breaking technological advance like anti gravity, our best bet is the construction of a space elevator. It will be expensive, several advances in carbon fibers and nanotechnology need to occur before a self repairing cable of the required tensile strength is developed.

The major benefit is long term - the space elevator is estimated to reduce the cost of one pound of cargo to orbit from $10,000 US down to $100.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator_economics

Once you have the ability to access low orbit, research will need to be done how to protect human crew from extended exposure to radiation. Could be electromagnetic shielding, perhaps some new material for constructing space suits and ships. Who knows.

This would allow solar satellites, tests of orbital construction, and act as a terminal for trips to higher orbits, strategic locations in the earth's gravity well, or on to the moon or other planets.

At some point NASA and ESA will attempt an asteroid capture to act as both the space elevator counterweight and as a shielded orbital habitat.

Until the Helium3 market develops, not much reason to go back to the moon with a human crew. For now we seem content to send robotic probes.

[EvilNed]

Problem is resources. I'm not saying that humans would be stuck here if we had infinite resources. But we're stuck with what we've got, and we haven't got much. Hey, don't get me wrong. I want nothing more than for Zefram Cochrane to invent that warpdrive. But it's not gonna happen, because we, as humans, do not live in a place where resources are infinite, or even in abundance.

You want to traverse space? Sure, go ahead. But you're gonna need the right stuff to do it, and we haven't got it. And it's not available here on Earth.

[Legion2213]

Problem is resources. I'm not saying that humans would be stuck here if we had infinite resources. But we're stuck with what we've got, and we haven't got much. Hey, don't get me wrong. I want nothing more than for Zefram Cochrane to invent that warpdrive. But it's not gonna happen, because we, as humans, do not live in a place where resources are infinite, or even in abundance.

You want to traverse space? Sure, go ahead. But you're gonna need the right stuff to do it, and we haven't got it. And it's not available here on Earth.

That's why you get into space...asteroids and the scores of moons in our solar system have all the resources we could ever use (and then some).

Gotta say, your overall attitude is a bit worrying, sort of "we can't do it so why bother"?

And you don't need warp drive to travel in space if you are patient and willing to explore the other options that will become available in the future.

[SymphonicX]

Agreed,
Something else people who bemoan the costs of manned space missions don't realize is the HUGE number of spin-off technologies that improve the lives of all of us that will never step foot in a shuttle.

No manned space missions = no more advanced spin-off technologies created to meet the demands of a NASA mission, but also have proven to be lucrative right here on earth.

Hell, we even call most of the modern fabrication materials "Space Age alloys/materials"

Pretty much says it all, eh?

It's a similar story with the miltary too - their technological advances are now in our every day lives - can you say "internet"? :)

The issue I think is the sheer amount of power you need to leave this Earth's gravity - I mean just look at what they have to strap onto a shuttle craft to get it into Orbit - but with new ideas just around the corner HOPEFULLY we can really start to reep the potential benefits of space travel - I don't want to see the travel "issue" solved however - we don't NEED to leave this planet en mass for holidays...

we need to mine minerals from other planets - use them on Earth and minimise the impact to our environment - typical human endeavour, use someone else's assets - probably the easiest way to discover hidden alien life, start stealing shit then wait for it to pop out

[Rancid Carcass]

we need to mine minerals from other planets - use them on Earth and minimise the impact to our environment - typical human endeavour, use someone else's assets - probably the easiest way to discover hidden alien life, start stealing shit then wait for it to pop out.

It's just a vicious circle, we do enough of this on Earth - how long would it be before we get caught up in a war with some sort of Space Taliban. Bloody humans!

[Danny]

It's just a vicious circle, we do enough of this on Earth - how long would it be before we get caught up in a war with some sort of Space Taliban. Bloody humans!

spoiler warning!: independence day is gonna happen, but we will be the alien invaders.

[EvilNed]

That's why you get into space...asteroids and the scores of moons in our solar system have all the resources we could ever use (and then some).

Gotta say, your overall attitude is a bit worrying, sort of "we can't do it so why bother"?

And you don't need warp drive to travel in space if you are patient and willing to explore the other options that will become available in the future.

Worrying? Our resources are depleting, our population is growing larger and so is the demand for food and housing- something which we cannot provide them with unless we lower our own living standards - and stop wasting money on space travel which gives us little to nothing in return.

Seriously, millions of people are starving worldwide and we don't have the resources to feed them all or house them all. If we can't do that, how do you propose we traverse infinite space?

[Wyldwraith]

Worrying? Our resources are depleting, our population is growing larger and so is the demand for food and housing- something which we cannot provide them with unless we lower our own living standards - and stop wasting money on space travel which gives us little to nothing in return.

Seriously, millions of people are starving worldwide and we don't have the resources to feed them all or house them all. If we can't do that, how do you propose we traverse infinite space?

Though I acknowledge the facts you mention, IE: Millions of people worldwide lack food/shelter/medical treatment, I disagree with your conclusion that the First World/developed nations somehow OWE the Third World still more humanitarian aid. I adamantly deny the statement that all the prosperous nations need to substantially decrease the individual citizens' quality of life to provide that aid.

For decades, the developed nations of this planet have continued to pour assistance in the form of food, clothing, medical aid and even shelter constructions into the voracious Black Hole which is much of Africa, and parts of both South America and Southern Asia. The result of said "humanitarian aid" have been uniformly catastrophic.

Beginning with Africa, regular massive food and medicine supply distribution from the developed nations. The result: Combined with the EVIL Papal propaganda against condoms/birth control, and the natural tendency towards large families in communities that rely on subsistence-level farming and ranching, you get an ever-expanding population explosion. Traditionalist elements in many African societies doggedly resist attempts to educate the populace beyond the rudimentary basics.

Bottom line: An ever-growing populace refuses to abandon traditional/archaic practices. Unable to support more than a small fraction of their population with domestic agricultural output, and no domestic production of the medicines required to combat the pathogens and parasites endemic to most of the continent, African dependence on the West increases with every passing year even as huge numbers of Africans continue to die of HIV/AIDS, numerous other STD-based complications, and a wide variety of additional mortality-increasing factors.

Conclusion: Rather than a rapid yet significantly smaller famine-induced die-off of the weak, sick and the very young/very old. Followed by a natural resetting of regional populations to levels which can be supported by available domestic resources. Instead we've caused milder but far more protracted famines and periodic regional pandemics that will continue so long as we continue to introduce fresh infusions of supplies.

You can't cheat Malthusian Economics. All you do when you pump regular stockpiles of food and medicine into a population with next to no supporting infrastructure is artificially inflate the population to the point the entire culture becomes totally dependent on outside assistance.

Charity begins at home. With nearly all of the developed nations suffering from nationwide long-term economic troubles including huge numbers of unemployed persons, continuing to let other countries cling like ticks bloated on our blood when we can't take care of OUR OWN populations is crazy.

Worse, it's morally unjustifiable. Everyone bitches about American interference in the affairs of other nations.....UNLESS that interference is in the form of a huge loan the debtor nation knows they can default on consequence-free, or a huge pile of "humanitarian aid."

It isn't realistic to say "You aren't entitled to any input in how this nation is run, but you're morally obligated to continue giving said nation free money, food and medicine, even when everything's gone to shit in your own country."

A big NO to Global Communism.

[EvilNed]

Without getting into a way too off-topic discussion, all I'm gonna say is that if you don't see something fundamentally wrong with the world as both you and I describe it, then I'm kinda surprised really.

Let's fix that first. If there's something left over then maybe we can start looking outwards. But space is just vast, huge and humungus. All I can say at this point is that I bet all I've got, and then some, that we'll never, ever leave the solar system. Sorry. Ain't gonna happen. Not enough resources on this planet for that to happen.

[Legion2213]

Without getting into a way too off-topic discussion, all I'm gonna say is that if you don't see something fundamentally wrong with the world as both you and I describe it, then I'm kinda surprised really.

Let's fix that first. If there's something left over then maybe we can start looking outwards. But space is just vast, huge and humungus. All I can say at this point is that I bet all I've got, and then some, that we'll never, ever leave the solar system. Sorry. Ain't gonna happen. Not enough resources on this planet for that to happen.

Find me one top of the line scientist who backs you up regarding your "not enough resources to get off world" claim. There are more resources than you can imagine within arms reach of this world.

Thankfully, most people don't follow your line of thinking...which is why we have a technological, industrialised civilisation with hundreds of satelites in orbit and have already taken our first steps off world.

Hell, as for leaving the soloar system, Voyager is on it's way...primitive 1960's tech pushed on past the "termination shock" back in 2005 and is pushing it's way out of the heliosphere (all in a measly 3 decades years). Other probes and unmanned ships will overtake said probe one day...faster, more efficient, better power sources.

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/voyager_agu.html

[Wyldwraith]

I agree with you Legion, but Ned's finite-resource argument is only secondary to his primary position. Namely, that the developed nations have no right in his opinion to act solely in their own interests so long as millions of individuals in the undeveloped nations lack the necessities of life.

In other words Legion, even if you present conclusively irrefutable evidence that we do in fact have the resources to continue advancing the space exploration program, from what I gather from EvilNed's posts he's saying that's irrelevant because those resources should be distributed to the undeveloped nations instead of being used by and for the developed nations which shouldered the financial burden of harvesting, refining and ultimately producing the goods derived from those resources.

I grasp Ned's position conceptually, but vehemently disagree with it if for no other reason than cold-blooded pragmatism. Put in the most cold-blooded of intellectual terms: By EvilNed's own admission our planetary resources are finite. We can either expend those limited resources in building an orbital infrastructure that will serve as a stepping stone to accessing the vast resources of the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter, or we can temporarily continue to keep nations with populations vastly larger than their domestic resources can support afloat until our resources run dry.

One path leads potentially to a future of progress and continuing growth and development for our species. The other ultimately results in the stagnation and eventual extinction of the species as we continue to fall below the resources required to sustain us.

Resource redistribution looks good in some ways on paper (much like the rest of Communism), but in practice it simply drags EVERYONE down to the lowest possible condition.

No one wants to hear it, but there are WAY TOO DAMNED MANY PEOPLE on this planet, and it's only getting more crowded as people continue to live longer and longer lifespans, while birthrates remain constant or continue increasing. If we try to provide for everyone, in the end we won't be able to help ANYONE.

Isn't our first duty to the survival of the species? IMHO, gaining access to the massive resources of the rest of our Solar System is our only hope of moving beyond the zero-sum game that life confined to our planet of origin has been.

It's a truism that "What ceases to grow, begins to die", but that doesn't mean it isn't still true all the same.

Whether we make it beyond the Solar System will depend on how well we do with what our Solar System has to offer. Just my opinion, but this morbid obsession with killing each other by the thousands and tens of thousands over nationalist and quasi-religious bullshit is going to get us extinct if we don't knock it off.

Just my .02

[SymphonicX]

WW - as much as I love your posts - you are a harsh individual!!!! :)

added 29/07: also, where are these left wing credentials dude? I've never met many left wingers who'd purport to value an economy over human life...

[Terran]

Well....
Whoever can conquer space outside a planet. can conquer a planet.
Whoever can conquer space outside a planetary system controls a system.

And there are entities which would be exceedingly suited for space travel.

http://www.mactonnies.com/shinebot.jpg

In the end there can be only one!
:)

[Publius]

And now, a message from EvilNed's ancestor, Thok-Ug:

Tribe never reach Moon. Would take many many many times more energy than flaking a chip off piece of obsidian to make axe. Also, not enough resources in whole forest to make pile of rocks and logs tall enough to reach moon. Also, would probably take cooperation with ones not of Tribe, and they are not True Men. Besides, would make Man in Moon angry! No, reaching Moon even more impossible than crossing Great River. Will never, ever, ever, ever, ever happen. Ever. Thok-Ug has spoken!

[EvilNed]

Hey, all I'm saying is that within 20 or 30 years our living standards will be lowered drastically. The oil is running out, food won't get delivered to your stores anymore and we'll basicly jump back 100 years technology-wise but still keep our fantastic science.

Our resources are very finite, as you're all aware. And if you think there's enough stuff here to get us to Mars and then mine then fine, try doing that. Meanwhile we'll starve back here and then crumble from underneath.

Prove me wrong. I wish, I wish, I wish somebody, in time, will. I want us to go to Mars and beyond. But if you think this high standard of living we're enjoying now is going to last, you're just fooling yourself.

I'm not saying the world is gonna end. But I am saying that the oil is going to peak. When that happens, you can kiss cheap energy goodbye.

[Publius]

Hey, all I'm saying is that within 20 or 30 years our living standards will be lowered drastically.

Do you have any idea how many times that prediction has been made over the centuries?


Our resources are very finite, as you're all aware. And if you think there's enough stuff here to get us to Mars and then mine then fine, try doing that.

Two important resources for reaching space are 1) hydrogen and 2) oxygen.



I'm not saying the world is gonna end. But I am saying that the oil is going to peak. When that happens, you can kiss cheap energy goodbye.

Assuming no future changes in technology. What you predict is a possibility, certainly. But generally, these kinds of assessments are dramatically affected by technological advancements. Algae biodiesel could replace the kind from underground with many fewer drawbacks than the corn-based kind. Usable fusion power may be developed any time between a decade from now and never. Other solutions may present themselves that we can't imagine yet.

[EvilNed]

Do you have any idea how many times that prediction has been made over the centuries?

No, how many? And when? I've never heard it before. I can imagine the people of Rome predicted it back in the day - and when it turned out to be correct.




Two important resources for reaching space are 1) hydrogen and 2) oxygen.

Well, yeah for getting the rocket from point A (the ground) to point B (actual space) there's alot of hydrogen and oxygen required. But for getting the rocket built, assembled, transported and prepared for point A there's a shit, shit, shit, shitload of oil and numerous other resources involved.

While you are techinically correct, you're simply ignoring all the logistical aspects behind an actual launch. If it were that easy (using only hydrogen and oxygen) don't you think we'd do it a lot more often than what we already are?




Assuming no future changes in technology. What you predict is a possibility, certainly. But generally, these kinds of assessments are dramatically affected by technological advancements. Algae biodiesel could replace the kind from underground with many fewer drawbacks than the corn-based kind. Usable fusion power may be developed any time between a decade from now and never. Other solutions may present themselves that we can't imagine yet.

Agreed, there may very well be advanced in technology. But the chances of these resources becoming publically available before oil simply dries out are very, very small. The oil is thinning out. And what are we doing to replace with? Nada. Zip. Nothing. That's not really the kind of thinking that goes hand in hand with "space exploration".

[Wyldwraith]

A few points I'd like to make,
1) While our energy-base-resources are indeed finite, Oil is no longer our ONLY option. We are within perhaps a decade of phasing oil-as-gasoline out of the automobile/personal transportation industry, and something like 15-18yrs from ECONOMICALLY (they're already physically/scientifically viable) VIABLE Diesel-substitutes for our 18-wheelers and other road-based industrial transportation.

2) Never, EVER underestimate the power of Moore's Law and Butler's Network Corollary. Computers continue to double in performance every (24) months, in conjunction with the doubling of information being transmitted via a fiber optic cable occurring every (9) months. More powerful computers affect a VAST number of technology-related factors. Ie: Better/more powerful computers = steady increases in new internal combustion engine design efficiency on the small scale, up to increased performance and decreased cost in the design of new power-plants (for example) on the large scale. This trend extends into an ever-widening technological base.

3) Yes, IF we haven't made very serious strides to eliminate or significantly reduce our energy dependence on oil in the next 2-3 decades, we're going to experience severe problems in maintaining much of our infrastructure in the developed nations. The same can be said of eliminating our self-destructive practices of maintaining the inflated populations of the undeveloped nations.

4) The outcome of the foreseen diminishing of Oil supplies and other various important resources and the resulting impact on the societies of the developed nations is by no means a foregone conclusion.

4a) Ending "humanitarian aid" to undeveloped nations, and stopping the IDIOTIC practice of building up the national infrastructure of nations we've engaged in military conflict with are critical. Just these two practices, if eliminated or significantly reduced may have an incredibly positive impact on our efforts to overcome oil dependency and move onwards, into a future where renewable and/or plentiful energy-sources take Oil's place as a driving industrial force.

Finally, most of the basis for near-future doom and gloom prophecies is based on the assumption that it is inevitable and unavoidable that no significant game-changing scientific/technological breakthroughs will occur between now and the beginning of major troubles as Oil bottoms out.

I believe it to be the height of foolishness to disregard the human ingenuity that has kept us going for centuries.

Just my .02

[EvilNed]

I believe it to be the height of foolishness to disregard the human ingenuity that has kept us going for centuries.

Just my .02

Very good point. And let me remind you (as you well know) that human ingenuity has served us well in the past. Human ingenuity has built up empires that have lasted centuries. Humanity has "peaked" many times before, throughout time. And each time, it's up to human ingenuity to pick up the pieces once that peak declines into a crumbling civilization.

The Egyptian, Persian, Hellenistic, Roman, Arab, Turkish, British Empires have all seen their hey-day, and now the World is dominated by what we might call a "Western" Empire.

You give human ingenuity too much credit. Yes, it will keep us from dying out as a race, but I've never, ever disputed that. But if you look at history, this is not the first time that a specific part of humanity have considered themselves "better" and "invulnerable". If you think this bliss is going to last (for that is what we live in, a bliss compared to everything else both in the past and the present), then you're mistaken. The miraculous switch from oil to renewable resources is going nowhere fast. Sure, we've invented ways to keep us going. But oil is still too valuable to give up. If you remember, just a few years ago a war was instigated, with oil being a not too subtle casus belli.

[Wyldwraith]

Very good point. And let me remind you (as you well know) that human ingenuity has served us well in the past. Human ingenuity has built up empires that have lasted centuries. Humanity has "peaked" many times before, throughout time. And each time, it's up to human ingenuity to pick up the pieces once that peak declines into a crumbling civilization.

The Egyptian, Persian, Hellenistic, Roman, Arab, Turkish, British Empires have all seen their hey-day, and now the World is dominated by what we might call a "Western" Empire.

You give human ingenuity too much credit. Yes, it will keep us from dying out as a race, but I've never, ever disputed that. But if you look at history, this is not the first time that a specific part of humanity have considered themselves "better" and "invulnerable". If you think this bliss is going to last (for that is what we live in, a bliss compared to everything else both in the past and the present), then you're mistaken. The miraculous switch from oil to renewable resources is going nowhere fast. Sure, we've invented ways to keep us going. But oil is still too valuable to give up. If you remember, just a few years ago a war was instigated, with oil being a not too subtle casus belli.

Replying to your main point first,
Even if I accept the rise and fall of the current dominant civilization to be part of an inevitable cycle, I would still point out that for once the favorite insult of Europe towards North America works in our favor. Namely, that we've only been around for about 230+ years. ALL of the Empires you named lasted something like 700-1000 years, and many of them had a major rival empire to deal with, whereas our "Rival Empire" has decided to see things our way and embrace our cultural values instead of continuing hostilities.

I won't deny that the transition/weaning off of Oil is going to be a problem-creating pain in the ass. Long entrenched special interests (Hello, Big Oil!) have proven they can seriously delay alternative energy projects (like the proposed and planned Government Leased-Land Solar Panel Farms in the SW of the U.S.

However, based on recent terribly bad press on a global level for Big Oil and its destructive consequences when the "Drill, baby, drill" philosophy is allowed free reign, and especially because there are TWO major oil-disasters going on SIMULTANEOUSLY, I think Big Oil is about at the end (at least temporarily) of its proverbial rope and political capital.

BP has been forced to make some really hard choices and sell off a LOT of their hard assets to Apache. Their stock offering has taken a huge hit, and they're buried in a shitstorm of liability and desperate damage control. It says a lot when all they could hold onto of their American oil sources is their Prudhoe Bay operation. Plus, Big Oil is facing some massive increases in overhead as the aging Alaskan Pipeline becomes more and more of a patch-job money pit with every passing day. They won't get away with foisting the majority of that expense off on the consumers this time, wait and see.

All of this, important as it is, has sidetracked the main dialog. I believe that while weaning ourselves off of Oil-as-predominant-mobile energy will be painful and troublesome, it CAN AND WILL be done.

After that, this economic/industrial Sword of Damocles will no longer hang over the head of Western Civilization.

Just a thought.

[Publius]

No, how many? And when? I've never heard it before. I can imagine the people of Rome predicted it back in the day - and when it turned out to be correct.

Well, Robert Malthus predicted widespread famine and a collapse to a subsistence-level standard of living in 1798. He was disproved by advancements in agriculture (like the invention of the McCormick reaper in 1831). In 1865, W. Stanley Jevons predicted that Britain would run out of coal, destroying the British economy. He was disproved by advancements in coal extraction. In the late 1800s there were predictions about how major cities were about to be overwhelmed by the task of clearing horse dung from the streets. They were disproved by the invention of the automobile. The end of U.S. oil production has been declared imminent in various reports dating to about 1914. Similar claims were made over the past several decaddes about world oil production. William Vogt published Road to Survival in 1948 and Paul Erlich published Population Bomb in 1968, each predicting an imminent food supply crash due to overpopulation that didn't happen.

[Legion2213]

The stone age didn't end because we ran out of stone
The iron age didn't end because we ran out of iron
The oil age won't end because we run out of oil

I don't think that "peak oil" will be the civilisation ending event some crack it up to be to be honest.

[EvilNed]

I think you guys fail to realize just how dependant we, as a society, are of oil. Our entire society is built upon logistics, from the very start to the very end. How does food get around? Oil. How do people travel? Oil. How does information travel? Oil. Everything you look at around you, oil had a hand in how it got there.

What will you do when oil runs out? It won't come suddenly, to be sure, but it has already begun. And what are people doing to transfer over from oil? Nothing, nada, zip.

People are too stupid, too slow and too unwilling to give up their comfortable lifestyles to change.

Also, Wyldwraith? The Persian empire lasted some 200 years. The same for the Hellenistic. The British Empire are not far behind. So no 700-1000 year reign in sight here.

[Neil]

I think you guys fail to realize just how dependant we, as a society, are of oil. Our entire society is built upon logistics, from the very start to the very end. How does food get around? Oil. How do people travel? Oil. How does information travel? Oil. Everything you look at around you, oil had a hand in how it got there.

What will you do when oil runs out? It won't come suddenly, to be sure, but it has already begun. And what are people doing to transfer over from oil? Nothing, nada, zip.

People are too stupid, too slow and too unwilling to give up their comfortable lifestyles to change.

Also, Wyldwraith? The Persian empire lasted some 200 years. The same for the Hellenistic. The British Empire are not far behind. So no 700-1000 year reign in sight here.

I sort of agree. I don't understand where there is a 'man on the moon' or 'manhattan project' type approach to finding alternative power sources. At the moment it seems bizarre that the most valuable commodity to our civilization is left in the hands of private industries whose prime goal is simply to may $$$$. It seems incredibly naive to fritter such a valuable resource away, but that's what we're doing...

That said though, I suspect market forces will come to the rescue. Oil will get more and more expensive, and other technologies/sources will therefore become more attractive.

However, the concern is, if oil production drops drastically during transition! It could be a hell of a domino effect!

[Tricky]

And its not just the transport aspect, everything around you made of plastic has also come from oil, from your biro to your lunchbox to your car interior to the housing of the monitor your looking at now, and the keyboard your typing on! Its not just about energy, its about everything our lives revolve around. Once the oil goes will we go back to firing clay to make our food storage boxes, or will everything have to be made from expensive metals?

[Neil]

And its not just the transport aspect, everything around you made of plastic has also come from oil, from your biro to your lunchbox to your car interior to the housing of the monitor your looking at now, and the keyboard your typing on! Its not just about energy, its about everything our lives revolve around. Once the oil goes will we go back to firing clay to make our food storage boxes, or will everything have to be made from expensive metals?

http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2009/10/what-if-oil-is-life-form-oil-wells-that.html

[Publius]

I think you guys fail to realize just how dependant we, as a society, are of oil. Our entire society is built upon logistics, from the very start to the very end. How does food get around? Oil. How do people travel? Oil. How does information travel? Oil. Everything you look at around you, oil had a hand in how it got there.

What will you do when oil runs out? It won't come suddenly, to be sure, but it has already begun. And what are people doing to transfer over from oil? Nothing, nada, zip.


I realize how dependent we are on oil, now. But there are two points missing from your analysis:

1. Today's degree of dependence on oil is not a reliable predictor of tomorrow's degree of dependence on oil, any more than 1890's degree of dependence on horses was a reliable predictor of 1930's degree of dependence on horses.

2. Oil will very likely last longer than is predicted, as it always has (see predictions referenced above). This is partly because such predictions are usually based on known reserves and economically viable extraction methods. But additional reserves are discovered, and as the price of oil rises extraction methods become economically viable that were not previously considered so.

Another unstated assumption in your analysis is that oil equals that fossil fuel pumped from underground. That is mostly true now, but will rapidly become less and less true as alternative sources of oil such as algae (especially salt-tolerant strains) are further developed. I don't believe biofuel is a permanent solution to the oil problem, but it will definitely ease the transition to another technology base, and will probably start doing so on an economically-viable basis a lot sooner than you think.

[Neil]

I realize how dependent we are on oil, now. But there are two points missing from your analysis:

1. Today's degree of dependence on oil is not a reliable predictor of tomorrow's degree of dependence on oil, any more than 1890's degree of dependence on horses was a reliable predictor of 1930's degree of dependence on horses.

2. Oil will very likely last longer than is predicted, as it always has (see predictions referenced above). This is partly because such predictions are usually based on known reserves and economically viable extraction methods. But additional reserves are discovered, and as the price of oil rises extraction methods become economically viable that were not previously considered so.

Another unstated assumption in your analysis is that oil equals that fossil fuel pumped from underground. That is mostly true now, but will rapidly become less and less true as alternative sources of oil such as algae (especially salt-tolerant strains) are further developed. I don't believe biofuel is a permanent solution to the oil problem, but it will definitely ease the transition to another technology base, and will probably start doing so on an economically-viable basis a lot sooner than you think.

If only we'd got our act togethor and started seriously looking into fusion 20-30 years earlier!

[Legion2213]

My friend "Horse Cents" says peak oil is a myth. :)

4bHZRSlhJxY

"oil on Jesus! Pourin' on down"

[EvilNed]

I realize how dependent we are on oil, now. But there are two points missing from your analysis:

1. Today's degree of dependence on oil is not a reliable predictor of tomorrow's degree of dependence on oil, any more than 1890's degree of dependence on horses was a reliable predictor of 1930's degree of dependence on horses.

You're talking of a timeframe of 50 years, and even in 1930, society would still have been dependant on horses - especially in agriculture. I'm talking about a timeframe of less than 50 years. Maybe as little as 10.

As for all this easing transition period - where is it? It's nowhere. It's not as if we can start that transition period a few months before the oil runs out, we have to start it now (or preferably yesterday). Society doesn't change overnight.

It's not the end of the world, and it's not eternal doom. But it's a fucking annoying thorn that's going to hit each and everyone of us once it hits and it's going to affect all logistics. All.

[SymphonicX]

That said though, I suspect market forces will come to the rescue. Oil will get more and more expensive, and other technologies/sources will therefore become more attractive.

However, the concern is, if oil production drops drastically during transition! It could be a hell of a domino effect!

This is the truth.

i'm not worried about oil running out, but I am slightly worried that there is going to be a bigger transitional period than we have all hoped for.

When there is a gap in a market, that gap is always filled eventually - oil is such a massive, massive commodity that the gap will indeed by filled by an alternative source - there are already viable alternatives out there but unfortunately the infrastructure will never grow properly until oil has depleted to a greater degree - there's still way too much money in it.

[Wyldwraith]

Problem I have with EvilNed's position,
@EvilNed: You act like there are no viable alternatives to oil-as-fuel, but by your own argument as Oil runs out, the price of oil will dramatically rise. At X.XX$/gallon, it will become cheaper to use something else. Even if that "something else" is CURRENTLY less economically viable than oil is.

It's deceitful to frame the debate as if Western Civilization doesn't have the foggiest clue about what they'd do without oil. Hell, your argument about Oil's role in providing power-grid fuel has even more holes in it. Coal is VASTLY more popular for power plant usage than Oil. Just to name ONE alternative.

So we're pretty much talking about vehicular transportation here, because life without Plastic IS conceivable. Heck, if nothing else, we may end up putting the money we used to spend on oil into rebuilding our power grid, and just move over to electric vehicles. Not as versatile, but some sacrifices may have to be made.

My overarching point remains the same, however. There ARE options beyond Oil...we just have to be willing to end Big Oil's grip on the energy debate via lobbyists and tremendous campaign contributions to ensure nothing changes.

[Tricky]

Then there is the inevitable wars that will break out over the last of the oil, a lot of people seem to think rightly or wrongly that the Iraq war was about oil, but that will pale in comparison to the future wars when the stuff really does get scarce. Unless of course these alternatives come into play before that time comes of course...

[Legion2213]

People will fight for water before they fight for oil...I believe several border conflicts are due to control of water sources.

I strongly believe that these oil companies have several alternatives to oil anyway, they will break them out once the oil is gone and continue to make lots of wonga.

[shootemindehead]

For the people who think that having no cheap oil to use is going to have a minimal effect of human lives...

Just stop what you're doing right now and take a look 10 ft in either direction and count the number of plastic items on or around you.

All made with oil.

[C5NOTLD]

Space exploration won't get us anywhere.


That and it's too costly are usually the criticisms for space travel. But the Apollo missions were one the best investments that the US Govt has ever made. A lot of this bailout money would have been better spent on NASA. They returned $8 for every $1 invested (in 1960's money - today that would equal $48 for every $1) along with spreading it's technology on down to business/consumers in the form of robotics, computers, health care, civil/electrical/engineering science, electronics, athletic shoes/Fire fighters breathing systems, cordless tools for the medical/manufacturing, building and home consumer industries.

There is more computing power in your desktop PC than there was in the Apollo Space capsule. Yet it will take us years to get back to the moon with today's technology. Advancements/best return on the dollar/inspiring kids in schools with education = the government not being that interested in NASA/space travel. Something is strange in Denmark.

But if you believe the conspiracy theories, NASA isn't the only space program :)
.

[Publius]

You're talking of a timeframe of 50 years, and even in 1930, society would still have been dependant on horses - especially in agriculture. I'm talking about a timeframe of less than 50 years. Maybe as little as 10.

Well sure, the transition didn't happen all at once. It didn't need to, and neither will the transition away from oil. In 1894, the London Times predicted that London streets would be buried 9 feet deep in manure by 1950. Also in the 1890s one prediction in New York said that manure would reach third-story windows in Manhattan by 1930.

What happened? At that time, production cars were already being made by the handful. By 1900, they were being sold in thousands. By 1912, there was more car traffic than horse traffic in New York City. Motor vehicles had replaced horses for freight hauling by the 1920s. In 1930, there still were a lot of horses in use, yes, particularly in agriculture, but horses were clearly on the way out and any talk of a manure crisis would have been viewed as completely insane.

As little as 10 years? Yeah, maybe (i.e. it's rationally conceivable, more so than pigs sprouting wings and performing aerial pirouettes). And maybe we'll have commercialized fusion power in 10 years. The history of predictions is similar (i.e. not good).


As for all this easing transition period - where is it? It's nowhere. It's not as if we can start that transition period a few months before the oil runs out, we have to start it now (or preferably yesterday). Society doesn't change overnight.


The beginnings of it are all around. Advances in biofuel, cheaper solar, safer nuclear reactors. More nuclear reactors would reduce the demand for fossil fuels significantly (pushing out the horizon for "peak oil") but aren't being build for political rather than technological reasons.

[EvilNed]

The beginnings of it are all around. Advances in biofuel, cheaper solar, safer nuclear reactors. More nuclear reactors would reduce the demand for fossil fuels significantly (pushing out the horizon for "peak oil") but aren't being build for political rather than technological reasons.

If what we're seeing is the beginning, then we're fucked. THe "beginnings" have lasted a good ten years now. Maybe more. Where have we gotten in that time? Nearly nowhere.

Predictions or not, if you want to dismiss this just because some douchebag was wrong about horse manure (and those claims were rather silly to begin with, so I fail to see their relevance) then just accept this:

- Our society is wildly dependant on oil. Everytime you, as a person, do something you do something that at one point used up oil. Oil transported your electric alarm clock that woke you up. Oil runs your fridge. Oil brings food to the supermarket. Get it?

And!

- The oil is running out. (And we're not doing anything about it)

If people want to stick their head in the sand and go "La La La, I'm not listening!" then fine.

[Publius]

Predictions or not, if you want to dismiss this just because some douchebag was wrong about horse manure (and those claims were rather silly to begin with, so I fail to see their relevance) then just accept this:

- Our society is wildly dependant on oil. Everytime you, as a person, do something you do something that at one point used up oil. Oil transported your electric alarm clock that woke you up. Oil runs your fridge. Oil brings food to the supermarket. Get it?

And!

- The oil is running out. (And we're not doing anything about it)

If people want to stick their head in the sand and go "La La La, I'm not listening!" then fine.

I'll certainly accept the first point, while not seeing much difference between the dependence on oil now and the dependence on horses in the past. And I'll accept the second point at least to the extent that we're not doing enough about it (building more nuclear reactors would help in my opinion). And with that I'll leave the last word to you if you care to throw it in. I think we're starting to recycle the same points. :)

[EvilNed]

There are some differences between a world dependant on horses and one dependant on oil. Horses cannot simply dry out and cease to exist within the timespan of a month (or less). Oil can. Horses did not tie the world together the way oil does. Horses did not play much of a part in the shipping of wares across oceans. They did not really play as big a part in our everyday life as oil does. The world was smaller then. When you go out and buy something in a store, you can thank oil for the large amount of goods and variety. Back when we used horses, no such humungus stocks existed and people simply survived on less food and much (if not all) of it was local.

That is essentially what we'd go back to if the oil dries up. Except it'll take a few years of adjustment, hoarding, panicking, looting and rioting as food became scarcer and scarcer. Horses did not feed a world population of 7 billion people.

[Wyldwraith]

I ask this honestly and seriously,
Is ANYONE here under the impression that if vital-to-the-continuation-of-their-nation resources ever become extremely scarce, that one or more of the Developed Nations won't trim the world population down to decrease competition for said resources?

The way I see it shaking out is the ICBM/Other WMD-possessing nations will ally or at least go N.A.P with each other, and one of the harder core developed nations (probably China) will commit genocide on a level that will make the Holocaust look like a movie trailer for these events, and no other nations (with any power) will do anything but breathe a sigh of relief that 4-5 billion competing mouths have been eliminated.

M.A.D still applies, so the WMD-possessing nations likely won't go after each other, but in a world of scarce resources, do you HONESTLY believe America or any other First-World nation would quibble over killing half the planet's people to maintain their quality-of-life?

It's human nature to concern yourself with the welfare of "you and yours" first and foremost, and the world second. Create a hyper-competitive world theater and it will get ugly fast, and it won't be America/China/Russia/Japan (they'll survive due to tech-whoring) left holding the bag.

It isn't RIGHT, and it CERTAINLY isn't FAIR, but when have those with power ever concerned themselves with Right or Fair?