قالب وردپرس درنا توس
Home / Science / Who knew clean energy could be so controversial?

Who knew clean energy could be so controversial?



I've to admit, I've been fascinated with the idea of ​​terraforming at IMAX film discussing the topic during my week at Space Camp, um, a few years back … or so. While I'm more interested in permanent space colonies (eg, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine ), I'm also very interested in multiplanetary habitation for humans, and transforming the Martian environment rather than constantly fighting to survive

That, and the fact that Elon Musk has a successful rocket company, was founded with long-term occupation of Mars as its core purpose are mobile motivators. The t-shirts are a great plus, too.

Musk has doubled down on his terraforming strategy, tweeting "Nuke Mars ! "And then," T-shirt soon. "He explained a little more a few days later in response to radiation concerns," Nuke Mars refers to a continuous stream of very low fallout nuclear fusion explosions above the atmosphere to create artificial suns , Much like our sun, this would not be the cause of radioactivity. " I will not pretend to be a numbers-based opinion on the matter because, frankly, I always wondered if it were possible.

Working through the politics of clean energy is hard enough when you Tesla makes to reduce the use of fossil fuels. Then, when you get nuclear energy into the mix as a zero emissions option, the fights really break out thanks to the awful consequences that came from nuclear plant failures of the past and the long-term impacts that nuclear weapons have caused in wartime. It does not really matter if the science says it's pretty safe with current technology – fear of the consequences overtakes any data-driven discussion. So, when someone like Elon Musk says he wants to use a technology on Mars that struggles so much on Earth, it really feels like it will not do anything because it never gets a green light in the first place execute.

reflective satellites. Musk floated this option in a tweet, saying "Might make sense to have thousands of solar reflector satellites" to "warm Mars vs artificial suns (tbd)." Since SpaceX is already in the business of manufacturing satellites at the scale that would be needed for search for undertaking with Starlink, the feasibility factor has more points than the thousands of nuclear bombs needed for an artificial sun near Mars. And, hey! Solar power (amplification) for the win, right?

However, I'm not sure whether NASA would acknowledge this strategy, either, since they were already scrubbed terraforming as an option in their opinion.

"Mars does not retain enough carbon dioxide that could actually put it back into the warm atmosphere of Mars", according to a NASA-sponsored study. NASA Goddard Space Flight Center

NASA Goddard Space Flight Center.

NASA Goddard Space Flight Center [19659008] – Bill Steigerwald / Nancy Jones ] Basically, neither nuclear energy nor solar power could terra form Mars According to it seems, or at least it's not feasible for a time frame that stretches the patience of most dreamers. Let's pretend, though, that the science is not so fatalistic for a minute. After all, we do not know the nitty gritty details about Musk's thought process and why he does not think NASA is correct on this issue. Assume that NASA and everyone else says this is something totally possible and would do exactly what Musk et al. want it to do. Our next problems are humane haters and planetary protection advocates.

There are a good number of people, or at least good numbers of very vocal people, that do not think humans deserve to colonize Mars. We've got enough problems to solve Earth, they say to some effect. Red Green and Blue Mars has said that Mars is not ' t a backup planet 'and we need to fix our problems here before hitting them to our red neighbors. I'm not saying Stanley hates humans, but rather pointing out that he is doing some great business for our species.

If you followed the story about Israel's spacecraft crash landing on the Moon with some tardigrades aboard, you probably saw the raging debate that followed about polluting another planetary body. Honestly, I'd hear about concerns of spacecraft that could interfere with the accuracy of, say, regolith analysis (etc), but nothing on the scale that followed the tardigrades. Star Trek: The Next Generation (sorry for all the Trekkie references) where a terraforming team was upset that they were interfering with the environment of a crystalline, inorganic life form possessing intelligence.

The whole outcry on the tardigrades came to an anti-private space exploration mantra, really. Followers of Musk know how much flak comes from challenging the narrative in this arena, but SpaceX has finally made enough headway in terms of accomplishments to overcome some of the biggest detractions. Not all of them, of course, but the victories thus far give hope for the future plan. Seeing this what this rabid 'Planetary Protection Police' out there (way beyond basic science concerns) what kind of depressing. How many others will come out of the woodwork once SpaceX is actually ready to land on Mars?

The combination of all these things I've talked about in the world today. I still have faith, though. Like fellow writer Eric Ralph It seems to be the case that there are actual boots on the ground. The movie may already be in the works despite all:

How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Martian Bombs.


Source link