Scrap space research, put the money into fusion.

[mistermack]

I don't think he was talking about space research there.
And anyway, I'm talking about the future, not the past. You would have to be the world's greatest optomist to put money into something, in the expectation of unforseen bonuses. You would soon go broke.
Put big money into fusion developement, and you've got just as much chance of unforseen breakthroughs coming as a bonus. But at least you're working towards something tangible, and hopefully, something that could change the entire planet for the better.
.

[RuleBritannia]

I don't think he was talking about space research there.

He is because the spectrum of hydrogen comes from the Sun, observed by astronomers.

And anyway, I'm talking about the future, not the past. You would have to be the world's greatest optomist to put money into something, in the expectation of unforseen bonuses. You would soon go broke.
Put big money into fusion developement, and you've got just as much chance of unforseen breakthroughs coming as a bonus. But at least you're working towards something tangible, and hopefully, something that could change the entire planet for the better.
.

Fusion development comes from the understading of nuclear fusion, which takes place naturally within stars... in space.

[mistermack]

Yes ok, that's true. I wasn't really advocating cancelling physics or astronomy, more the space flight program. we can do loads from Earth. And anyway, not cancelling, just delaying it, and channeling the money towards something that would make it more possible in the long run.
If we had a huge fusion industry, providing most of the Earth's energy, we could then afford a really viable space program, not the tiddly one we have now.

It's the huge amount of energy needed to get components up into space that make the space program so difficult. If energy was plentiful and really cheap, we could get big payloads into space, and really do something useful up there.
.

[Svartalf]

Actually, you aren't saving on anything just by investing in to fusion unless the money is going directly towards a workable model. The better alternatives would be to invest in the already existing sustainable methods of power, such as wind and solar.

Tidal generators. The wind doesn't always blow, the sun doesn't always shine, but the tides always flow and ebb.

IIRC, the materials (corrosion and wear resistance etc), and maintenance for tidal generation make it uneconomically expensive...

[RuleBritannia]

Actually, you aren't saving on anything just by investing in to fusion unless the money is going directly towards a workable model. The better alternatives would be to invest in the already existing sustainable methods of power, such as wind and solar.

Tidal generators. The wind doesn't always blow, the sun doesn't always shine, but the tides always flow and ebb.

IIRC, the materials (corrosion and wear resistance etc), and maintenance for tidal generation make it uneconomically expensive...

That's addressed in the video I posted at the top of the page.

[Svartalf]

Let the North African nations into the EU and then plaster them with hundreds of square miles of solar panels. Europe's emery problems sorted

You take 'em into your darn commonwealth, we already have enough of those moors without actually putting them into the UE, which is already too big and unwieldy as it is.

[Clinton Huxley]

Let the North African nations into the EU and then plaster them with hundreds of square miles of solar panels. Europe's emery problems sorted

You take 'em into your darn commonwealth, we already have enough of those moors without actually putting them into the UE, which is already too big and unwieldy as it is.

Fine by me. Revive the commonwealth and tell you continentals to go to the devil, where you belong