Or 25% stronger, which would go a way towards making them safe enough for passengers.
1 Like
yeahyeahyeah, sure. and according to microsoft, fusion will be available 2028, of course;
1 Like
And Avatar had already used Unobtainium.
2 Likes
7 Likes
Came for the Iron Sky reference. Left happy
2 Likes
Charlie Stross summed it up a long time ago (eeeek - 14 years - where the hell does time go?!) Not sure anyone has really advanced on this since:
https://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2010/08/moonshine.html
In a 2022 estimate, the ITER test bed was meant to achieve first plasma by the end of 2025. But they acknowledged delays in 2023 which would push this back further. To 2035. Fuck.
Oh, and of course Brexit meant the UK ended up deciding in March this year to drop out of that partnership, instead going it alone on a fusion research path… yeah, I can see that’s going to go well for us.
Fusion: 50 (or 20… or 30…) years away, for at least 70 years now! /snark
4 Likes
3 Likes
More analysis backing that view up:
1 Like
Or you could fill them with hydrogen! Even lighter!
J/k, but I did recently come across a proposed hydrogen airplane design that found the needed extra storage space (it’s ~4x less energy dense by volume than kerosene) by surrounding the fuselage with hydrogen.
Worth noting, as usual, that this is a choice based on where we, as a civilization, have decided to invest our resources. I’m not saying it’s a bad or wrong choice, but it is a choice.
Right now the world has around 1TWp solar panel manufacturing capacity, which would get annual production to about 2x total current global electricity consumption from just new solar within ~20 yrs, with more manufacturing expansions planned. We’re also seeing growing wind power, a glimmer of hope for more fission power, reasonable likelihood of some more geothermal, and a chance of some wave/tidal. Fusion would help, but it’s not essential to replacing coal and gas. Not even with AI. A lot still depends on continued improvements in the cost of energy storage, though.
3 Likes
2 Likes
What a weird rationale. It takes an incredible toll on Earth’s environment and resources to send a substantial amount of mass to the moon.
It’s like saying you’re going to fly a private jet to China for dinner to avoid the wasteful single-use containers that come with take-out.
8 Likes
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
