• Dirt_Owl [comrade/them, they/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      4 days ago

      What else would possibly produce enough energy? Some imaginary technology we haven’t made yet? Something that defies the laws of matter and energy? We just assume we will find or create something before that fuel runs out, even though there isn’t a solid reason for us to make these assumptions other that “Sci-fi movies told me so.”

      Expecting something that we have no reason to assume exists to save us isn’t any different from believing in the second coming.

      • Lemister [none/use name]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        4 days ago

        Thinking that asteroid mining is on the level of ftl travel or penrose spheres is truly a take. This contrarian neo-luddite streak on the left is unconstructive

        • Dirt_Owl [comrade/them, they/them]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          4 days ago

          How is it neo-luddite to accept the reality that we need to carefully plan our resources and not just expect shit will go like the movies? If anything expecting space travel to be like a video game hampers our ability to find solutions that don’t live up the the “space colonial” ideal. Sure, if we figure out how to mine asteroids in my lifetime without expending more resources than we would gain, fine, I’ll eat my hat. But you’re talking a round trip of insanely heavy stuff over unfathomable distances when Space X currently can barely put people in orbit.

          • iridaniotter [she/her]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            3 days ago

            You are the one treating spaceflight like a video game here. FTL, stagnancy, and unrealistically efficient rockets are mainstays in that genre. Dialectical materialist analysis of the development of human civilization is not.

              • iridaniotter [she/her]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                3 days ago

                Of course resources are a limitation. But instead of investigating a supposed limitation and seeing what can be overcome and what is truly fundamental, you have people either giving up and calling the issue intractable or not putting in the work while expecting it to be resolved. Example: liquid fuels. Inside of America there are two wolves—one correctly notes the high carbon cost of liquid hydrocarbons and the high money cost of synthesizing them and concludes there is no future for liquid fuels, while the other hears “synthetic fuels” and assumes the problem is already solved and so electrification need not be hurried. In reality, the high money cost can be overcome with sufficient buildup of renewables, as is beginning to be seen in China and will become obvious in the 2030s.

      • iridaniotter [she/her]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        You’re speaking without any investigation in the matter. In the 21st century, advanced spaceplanes, electromagnetic rail assisted launches (there was even a post about this here, and it concerned China so everyone was a big fan), and sustainable & advanced energy infrastructure that can synthesize fuels is the future of the launch industry. Eventually, costly and complex infrastructure projects such as skyhooks and launch loops can be employed. The task of humanity is to develop the productive forces that enable such projects, not throw our hands up in the air and pretend we will be stuck with the Saturn V and fossil fuels for all eternity.