Slashdot Mirror


Titan's Organics Surpass Oil Reserves on Earth

jcgam69 writes "Saturn's orange moon Titan has hundreds of times more liquid hydrocarbons than all the known oil and natural gas reserves on Earth, according to new Cassini data. The hydrocarbons rain from the sky, collecting in vast deposits that form lakes and dunes."

555 comments

  1. Invade! by Zouden · · Score: 5, Funny

    I hear Halliburton has already won the tender.

    --
    "A week in the lab saves an hour in the library"
    1. Re:Invade! by Duhavid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You don't get it.

      This is all my plan to get the human race into space.

      --
      emt 377 emt 4
    2. Re:Invade! by lendude · · Score: 4, Funny

      Nah - Weyland-Yutani has got a lock-in on that one.

      --
      "Get off the cross - we need the wood" - Tori Amos
    3. Re:Invade! by DigitalWallaby · · Score: 5, Funny

      Lucky it's not Uranus where these 'hydrocarbons' were found.

      Otherwise there would already be a proposal to go out there and drill it.

    4. Re:Invade! by linumax · · Score: 5, Funny

      Invade?! I suppose the right word would be 'liberate'.

    5. Re:Invade! by cuantar · · Score: 1

      Yes, those poor, unfortunate, oppressed molecules! Their current natural regime hasn't ever allowed them the opportunity to blow of steam inside a terrstrial internal combustion engine! We'll just have to save them.

      --
      Legalize it.
    6. Re:Invade! by Progman3K · · Score: 1

      >Lucky it's not Uranus where these 'hydrocarbons' were found.
      >Otherwise there would already be a proposal to go out there and drill it.

      Oil hitting Uranus?

      --
      I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
    7. Re:Invade! by rootofevil · · Score: 4, Funny

      great use of the cliche +1
      wrong website -1

      total: 0

      --
      turn up the jukebox and tell me a lie
    8. Re:Invade! by colmore · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well clearly we now need to spread Freedom and Democracy to the poor oppressed Titians, who will welcome us with roses and be able to finance their own reconstruction.

      --
      In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
    9. Re:Invade! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think we should go there and save the environment. ;-)

    10. Re:Invade! by dgatwood · · Score: 5, Funny

      <speech style="speaker: George W. Bush; dialect: babbling idiot;">

      There is new evidence that Osama bin Laden has been receiving material support from the Titanians. Our will is strong, our resolve unquenchable. We must take swift action to defeat this terrorist threat... from our neighbor to the West... wait... they're to the East now? Well, how did that happen? What do you mean it's night?

      You mean to tell me that they can move their forces to the opposite side of the earth twice a day? How can we possibly win this war? We must reinstate the draft. It will take all our nation's strength to... what do you mean we're the ones who are moving? Oh. Never mind that little draft thing. You saw nothing, you heard nothing. Remember that, 'cuz if you don't, you might someday not be anything.

      But we must stop these terrorists. If we don't stop them now, then one day, we might be singing Hail Titania or something like that, and we wouldn't want that, would we? If there's one thing we must not do, it is nothing, cuz when y'ain't doin' nothin', anything can happen.

      </speech>

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    11. Re:Invade! by Tazmaster75 · · Score: 1

      Are the Titanians brown?

      --
      The glass is neither half full nor half empty. It is dirty and I don't do dishes!
    12. Re:Invade! by weighn · · Score: 5, Funny

      Their current natural regime hasn't ever allowed them the opportunity... hey, its not our fault that God put OUR oil under THEIR sand, oops, I mean in their clouds!
      --
      Mongrel News all the news that fits and froths
    13. Re:Invade! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try the preview button next time, thanks.

    14. Re:Invade! by PrimordialSoup · · Score: 1

      Lucky it's not Uranus where these 'hydrocarbons' were found. Otherwise there would already be a proposal to go out there and drill it. You mean screw.
    15. Re:Invade! by gbobeck · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You mean screw.

      Some prefer to tap it.
      --
      Navicula hydraulica plena anguilarum est. Omnes castelli tuus nostri sunt. Ed elli avea del cul fatto trombetta.
    16. Re:Invade! by kilodelta · · Score: 1

      What I found more interesting is the proven natural gas on earth. If I'm reading correctly, there is a 300 year supply.

      But I wonder how long before we start mining Titan.

    17. Re:Invade! by VernonNemitz · · Score: 1

      I predicted this more than three years ago, at the HalfBakery. I confess I didn't think it would take this long to get some decent quantity measurements.

    18. Re:Invade! by sumdumass · · Score: 4, Funny

      /south park: when Bush describes the need to bomb heaven.\
      UN member: Are you high? or incredibly stupid?
      Bush: I assure you, I am not high.

    19. Re:Invade! by cheater512 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Its depressing but only something like this would cause extensive space programs.

      Bloody America and their oil fixation.

    20. Re:Invade! by dintech · · Score: 1

      I wanted to ask about that oil before but I didn't ask because it takes two weeks to get an answer out here and the answer's always 'don't ask'.

    21. Re:Invade! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Its depressing but only something like this would cause extensive space programs.
      Well, and the next stop will be some moon containing all that oxygen we need to burn those friggin' hydrocarbons ...
    22. Re:Invade! by kickdown · · Score: 5, Funny

      Titians They are called Titties.
      --
      Continuous positive slashdot karma since... uh, maybe next year.
    23. Re:Invade! by sw155kn1f3 · · Score: 1

      Uranus is so old :) Titanus is the way to go

      --
      - Arwen, I'm your father, Agent Smith.
      - Well, you're just Smith, but my father is Aerosmith!
    24. Re:Invade! by nightcats · · Score: 1

      Nah, that'd be Exxon. They've got $40 billion in profit from 2007 jingling in their pockets. So maybe it's not quite enough to buy Yahoo, but maybe build a space tanker? Ain't no Valdez out there, no insurgency, no Congress...Oil fallin' down from the sky, just like in that John Wayne movie...betcha that's where God lives...

      --
      Development is programmable; Discovery is not programmable. (Fuller)
    25. Re:Invade! by Brieeyebarr · · Score: 0

      "Lucky it's not Uranus where these 'hydrocarbons' were found.
      Otherwise there would already be a proposal to go out there and drill it.
      "

      When someone taps Uranus they usually end up putting in a liquid of their own .

    26. Re:Invade! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      There is nothing there!!! We did not invade Antarctica! We did not invade the moon! We will explore it and exploit the natural resources there to power your 750W power supply gamers rig! The analogy is bullshit.

    27. Re:Invade! by evilninjax · · Score: 1

      You know they changed the name of "Uranus" just to stop these kinds of jokes.
      It's now "Urectum"

      ($1 to FUTURAMA)

    28. Re:Invade! by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      This is all my plan to get the human race into space. Better fire up the SUV and start polluting then. Humans are a lazy species and won't leave this planet until it becomes uninhabitable.
      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    29. Re:Invade! by igny · · Score: 1

      Otherwise there would already be a proposal to go out there and drill it.

      Did you mean "go in there"?

      --
      In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. - Yogi Berra
    30. Re:Invade! by Nimey · · Score: 1

      Too late: the Klingons are already on Uranus.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    31. Re:Invade! by freetolio · · Score: 1

      On February 13, 2008, scientists announced that, according to Cassini data, Titan hosts "hundreds of times more natural gas and other liquid hydrocarbons than all the known oil and natural gas reserves on Earth."[47]. United States President George W. Bush announced shortly thereafter that Titan has been found to possess weapons of mass destruction, and will promptly be invaded by the United States in order to save Titan's hydrocarbon lakes from tyranny and spread galactic democracy. Courtesty of Wikipedia as of 9:31 AM 2/14/08 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titan_(moon)#Liquids
    32. Re:Invade! by Shadowmist · · Score: 1

      This is all my plan to get the human race into space. Better fire up the SUV and start polluting then. Humans are a lazy species and won't leave this planet until it becomes uninhabitable. And where will they go? If the Human race can't survive on Earth, where can it survive? If we learn anything from the fiasco of Biosphere 2, it'll be that creating a sealed ecology that's sustainable over the long term requires more than we know so far.
    33. Re:Invade! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll see you're conversation stopper and raise you a momma joke:

      You're MOM likes my liquids in Uranus...

      um, wait...

    34. Re:Invade! by yakmans_dad · · Score: 1

      At Uranus, things come out a little differently!

      Brown 25!

    35. Re:Invade! by locokamil · · Score: 1

      I wonder what kind of face sucking nasties are hanging out in those hydrocarbon lakes. I volunteer my kid brother (who, annoyingly enough, has been pestering me all morning for a ride to school) to find out.

    36. Re:Invade! by kalirion · · Score: 1

      You're joking now, but when it turns out that those molecules really are sentient....

    37. Re:Invade! by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1


      Olestra has already caused that.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    38. Re:Invade! by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      I was being facetious. It's hard to imagine that the Earth would ever be less habitable than elsewhere. But you're right, artificial closed ecosystems seem to be much harder to get right than things like the Ecosphere would suggest.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    39. Re:Invade! by pragma_x · · Score: 1

      I came here for the Alien/Aliens references. So far, I'm not disappointed.

    40. Re:Invade! by dmgxmichael · · Score: 1

      Drill it? but Uranus is a gas giant.

    41. Re:Invade! by hkgroove · · Score: 4, Funny

      Druidia!

    42. Re:Invade! by BlackSnake112 · · Score: 1

      On a side note it is so cold that that the super high end gamer rig could be over clocked even further.

    43. Re:Invade! by Universe+Man · · Score: 1

      Oceania has always been at war with Titania.

    44. Re:Invade! by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      That must've been some powerful beans...

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    45. Re:Invade! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bloody America and their oil fixation.

      Yes, because the US is the only country on earth that uses oil. Every other country is powered by rainbows and happy thoughts.

      And the US invaded Iraq in order to steal its oil, but oh wait, none of Iraq's oil is being sold to the US, and no US companies are profiting from it.

      w/e

    46. Re:Invade! by rootofevil · · Score: 1

      its a fark cliche, about something (people, dog, i forget) who ate poison ivy. in the article, there was a comment about how they will be fine 'until the oil hits the anus'

      --
      turn up the jukebox and tell me a lie
    47. Re:Invade! by Facetious · · Score: 1

      I was being facetious
      And I was being Hal_Porter.
      --
      Let us not become the evil that we deplore.
    48. Re:Invade! by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And the US invaded Iraq in order to steal its oil, but oh wait, none of Iraq's oil is being sold to the US, and no US companies are profiting from it.

      Have you seen the oil companies profits lately? They are setting records for most net income in successive quarters for any company *ever*.

      While the oil companies aren't profiting from selling Iraqi oil, they most certainly are profiting from the run up in prices caused by the chaos that masquerades as Iraq. And we won't talk about how much money Haliburton has made just being in Iraq or supplying the troops.


      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    49. Re:Invade! by ATMD · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Your assertion that Iraq was not invaded for its oil because America isn't profiting from it assumes that the orchestrators of the war are/were in some way competent.

      --
      Nobody else has this sig.
    50. Re:Invade! by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

      You'd think that if we had the capability to mine a frozen moon halfway across the solar system that we would've outgrown the need for oil as a fuel source in the first place.

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    51. Re:Invade! by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      Hmm, you seem very sensible for someone called Facetious

      http://slashdot.org/~Facetious/journal/

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    52. Re:Invade! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uranus is lubricated?

    53. Re:Invade! by cellocgw · · Score: 1

      Hmm, you seem very sensible for someone called Facetious

      Well, at least he's got his vowels in order.

      --
      https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
    54. Re:Invade! by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      As someone who's acutely allergic to poison ivy, I hope that it's an anecdotal story! I can't imagine how uncomfortable that would be.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    55. Re:Invade! by mmyrfield · · Score: 1

      For those that are too lazy to search for it themselves, here is the permalink to that revision.

    56. Re:Invade! by Bloke+down+the+pub · · Score: 1

      I hear Halliburton has already won the tender.
      It was put out to tender? Well who says things aren't improving!
      --
      It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
    57. Re:Invade! by xrobertcmx · · Score: 1

      Why do I lack moderation points today!

    58. Re:Invade! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now we know why Bush is so interested in space travel.

    59. Re:Invade! by kilodelta · · Score: 1

      I don't know about that. We're doing an awful lot of development on things like ion drive. If the administration is serious about resurrecting the space program, screw the moon. We've been there, done that, even got the t-shirt.

      Instead leap off to Mars, then Saturn then Titan.

      Our dependence on oil is strictly because of political motives, not because alternatives don't exist. That's why I'd love for the debacle in Iraq to be ended and the military budget slashed in half. Take the slashed half and use it for things like energy programs, or health care, or even education!

    60. Re:Invade! by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      "Titians
      They are called Titties."

      Let me assure you I now hold them in high regard and will welcome them with open arms.

    61. Re:Invade! by sempernoctis · · Score: 1

      NASA falsifies telemetry to obtain funding from Haliburton...story at 11...

    62. Re:Invade! by Lord+Apathy · · Score: 1

      It's high time we changed the name of that planet to kill that joke once and for all.

      --

      Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

    63. Re:Invade! by crotherm · · Score: 1

      Your assertion that Iraq was not invaded for its oil because America isn't profiting from it assumes that the orchestrators of the war are/were in some way competent. I think they are very competent. What makes you think they wanted that oil out of the ground now? The oil companies are making insane profit as are other companies directly involved with Iraq, like Halliburton. And that oil is still waiting for these corporations to extract it. They just don't need to do that now.
      --
      "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable" - JFK
    64. Re:Invade! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) invade Afganastan to make Pakistan feel safe
      2) Cut huge deal with Pakistan to "develop" oil fields there
      3) Cut deal with Turkey to build pipeline
      4) When Saddam won't agree to the pipeline in his country, take it away
      5) Send Pakistani oil through Turkey and Iraq in a nice, well-defended pipeline and use well-defended SOUTHERN Iraqi ports to ship it all to the US.
      6) You know the rest

    65. Re:Invade! by silvalen · · Score: 1

      One word: Urectum.

    66. Re:Invade! by h3llfish · · Score: 1

      I think that they are competent, in the sense that they got exactly what they were hoping for. On the pretext of protecting "our" oil, they ran up a massive tab for the US taxpayer. Haliburton and the military industrial complex in general were the ones who profited.

      Also, as another poster said, all oil companies benefited from the huge spike in oil prices caused by turbulence in the Middle East.

      I truly believe that Cheney and Co never expected us to "win" in Iraq... they just wanted the war. The Bush family has been doing this for 4 generations. Yes, you probably have heard of Dubya's granddaddy, Prescott Bush, but did you know about his great-granddaddy, Samuel P Bush? He was on of the original "merchants of death" who helped to start World War I.

      So the fact that a Bush led us into war is far from a surprise. The only thing that has changed is that the bad guys are now called terrorists instead of communists.

    67. Re:Invade! by Geoff-with-a-G · · Score: 1

      Your assertion that Iraq was not invaded for its oil because America isn't profiting from it assumes that the orchestrators of the war are/were in some way competent.

      I think you might have just deployed the Chewbacca Offense
      1. Accuse opponent of doing something that does not make sense.
      2. Point out that your opponent does not make sense.
      3. ???
      4. Therefore, your opponent is guilty.

    68. Re:Invade! by ncc74656 · · Score: 1

      Have you seen the oil companies profits lately? They are setting records for most net income in successive quarters for any company *ever*.

      That, of course, couldn't possibly be the result of record-high worldwide oil consumption, could it? Countries such as China and India are scarfing down more of the stuff than ever before. Demand elsewhere is barely slacking off, if at all, so you have many more people interested in buying all the oil we can pull out of the ground. Anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of economics knows that when demand for something increases but supply stays more or less constant, prices tend to go up.

      Don't let those inconvenient facts get in the way of your Two Minutes Hate, though.

      --
      20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
    69. Re:Invade! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb... Titan.

    70. Re:Invade! by d34thm0nk3y · · Score: 1

      Your assertion that Iraq was not invaded for its oil because America isn't profiting from it assumes that the orchestrators of the war are/were in some way competent.

      The assertion is false! Google oil profit.

    71. Re:Invade! by pugugly · · Score: 1

      Hell at this point in the Administration I'm just happy if they're interested in both Uranus and Lubricant.

      Most of their interest has not been that kind. Or for that matter that well planned.

      Pug

      --
      An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
    72. Re:Invade! by ATMD · · Score: 1

      Well I was going for "Funny", but +5 Insightful... fair enough, I'm not complaining!

      --
      Nobody else has this sig.
    73. Re:Invade! by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Hey, someone's gotta liberate Titan. Might as well be us!

    74. Re:Invade! by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      So... how much oil is it taking us to fight the war and support our other troops around the world? I have a feeling that alone is a pretty significant amount. The supply also dropped off because we invaded Iraq, and previously were only letting them sell oil for food... but not anymore. In other words, we've done much to keep the supply low by our dealings in Iraq.

    75. Re:Invade! by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      Your point is a fair one. Demand is certainly up. We also knew this demand was coming.

      A good portion of the price increase is also due to speculative trading. This is driven by the uncertainty of the situation. If you don't know with reasonable confidence your supply is safe, it's a higher risk thus bringing higher prices.

      However, rattling the stability (yes it was moderately stable prior to our invasion) when demand is going up makes prices go up even faster.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    76. Re:Invade! by Facetious · · Score: 1

      Well thank you, Hal. And you seem quite sensible for someone called... Wait. That's doesn't work.

      --
      Let us not become the evil that we deplore.
    77. Re:Invade! by willllllllllll · · Score: 1

      Well done there sir! And you shall have a little medal.

  2. Mars? by __NR_kill · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think we chose the wrong planet for a mission. We need to go to Saturn..

    1. Re:Mars? by Jugalator · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I agree, it seriously pisses me off to see the long term plans being sketched up for a return to Moon, and then out to Mars. The budget that will end up comparably quite small to other US gov't agencies, but huge for NASA. When what I think what would be far more exciting, and with much more of an impact potential, would be to send out a probe to Enceladus and Europa. Both quite potential candidates for having oceans of liquid water beneath due to tidal heating from the extreme gravitational pull of their respective giant planets.

      With how things are moving and how poorly NASA, ESA, and others first prioritized the ISS mission and now this thing to Mars where people will take a stroll and perhaps not find that much more than what the current rovers are finding (although yes, it will make a huge media impact for a week or so, or maybe even a month, before it disappears into the back of peoples' minds), I have low expectations on that I'll even be alive by the time we get to those moons perhaps harboring life, despite we probably having the technology for the job today!

      We have identified water ice on the surface of Enceladus, we have strong support of there being active water volcanism there similar to Earth's geysers, we know not much sunlight is needed to pass through the surface to harbor life judging by extremophiles on Earth, and if there is water beneath, there'd be more water there than on Earth! Yet, we try to hunt water on Mars by theories so hard that we're to the brink of seeing what we want to see, and design a gargantuan long term exploration effort to go there. *sigh*

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    2. Re:Mars? by Cassius+Corodes · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As an aside, I think finding extremophiles on Earth doesn't really support the notion that life could occur in extreme environments. All it says is that after life has originated it can adapt to extreme environments - the requirements for abiogenesis are likely to be much more stringent then for post abiogenesis-adaptation.

      --
      Control is an illusion, order our comforting lie. From chaos, through chaos, into chaos we fly
    3. Re:Mars? by iamhassi · · Score: 0, Troll

      "I think we chose the wrong planet for a mission. We need to go to Saturn.."

      so how long before we find WMDs on Saturn and we invade?

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    4. Re:Mars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, even if we could get the hydrocarbons to Earth efficiently, at some point we produce so much CO2 that there's no O2 left to breath.

    5. Re:Mars? by evilviper · · Score: 1

      I think we chose the wrong planet for a mission. We need to go to Saturn..

      Well, it would be terribly expensive, but if you'll volunteering to be the first man to set foot on Saturn, we'll do it! Might be worth a laugh.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    6. Re:Mars? by Orange+Crush · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The hard part with taking that view, is that we have yet to pinpoint an exact set of conditions or timeframe when abiogenesis occurred on Earth--if it even happened here at all. It's quite possible that living examples of (terrestrial) extremophiles would be quite comfortable in certain spots on Mars, Europa, maybe even Titan . . . but we've barely gotten a comprehensive idea of the conditions on those worlds *right now*, much less how they might've been billions or even millions of years in the past.

    7. Re:Mars? by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      It's quite possible that living examples of (terrestrial) extremophiles would be quite comfortable in certain spots on Mars, Europa, maybe even Titan . . . but we've barely gotten a comprehensive idea of the conditions on those worlds *right now*, much less how they might've been billions or even millions of years in the past.

      There's only one way to find out: send out samples of these organisms to Mars, Europa, and Titan, and wait billions of years to see whether they send samples back to Earth to see if they could live in such an extreme environment.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    8. Re:Mars? by Architect_sasyr · · Score: 1

      "Annd.... we blew up some military installations!"
      "You what?!"
      "Well actually they were tree's but they could become military intsallations!"

      Paraphrased from memory: HHGTTG

      --
      Me failed English...
      FreeBSD over Linux. If my comments seem odd, this may explain...
    9. Re:Mars? by PieSquared · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'm confused. Why exactly would you want to send someone to Europa or Titan? There's nothing there at all that needs a human to see it... and NASA still has plenty of budget left over to send rovers with lots of camera to both. No reason why you can't move the human space program to mars and push the robotic portion further into the solar system, to places we haven't ruled out for life, yet.

      Mars (and to a lesser extent the moon) however, do hold the long-term promise of harboring self-sustained *human* life. While it would be an Epic project the likes of which has never been done, with complications we can't even realize yet... it would be relatively easy to terraform mars as compared to a rock further from the sun. Send everything to mars on a long route with solar sails and then use them to build huge mirrors to lengthen the days and increase heat. Start processing the regolith and non-water ice to make an atmosphere, and then start air-braking ice comets in the thickening atmosphere to add heat, hydrogen, oxygen, and water. Introduce some of the antarctic and bio-engineered bacteria.

      It might take enormous effort for centuries and it'll certainly take a decade of research into closed biological systems to figure out how to build a biosphere from the ground up, but there's a *reason* to send man to mars. Europa, though? It's an ice ball. About all it has going for it is liquid water and possibly a heated core. It'll be very interesting if we find life there, but the surface is soaked in radiation and too far from the sun to be interesting as a habitat, and if we're going to live underground there's no reason to prefer it over any other large rock.

      With a thick atmosphere and a surplus of mirrors we might eventually make one of Saturn's moons habitable, but the lower solar flux just makes it a less desirable position that would require more work then mars. Smaller surface, too.

      --
      Does a line appended to your comment give your post meaning in and of itself, or only in relation to those without?
    10. Re:Mars? by Walkingshark · · Score: 1

      If there is liquid water, it seems like thats 95% of everything we need to live there.

      --
      The world you experience is only a close approximation of reality.
    11. Re:Mars? by mclaincausey · · Score: 1

      It is my understanding (and I am no biologist) that at least some of the current thinking on the matter is that the earliest lifeforms on Earth were in fact extremophiles.

      --
      (%i1) factor(777353);
      (%o1) 777353
    12. Re:Mars? by AKAImBatman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      More like 60%. Nitrogen is another 30%. Not for us directly, but for our food supplies which we will grow in these alien soils. The other 10% is the various misc. materials. (Most of which can be found relatively easily.) Once the Nitrogen and water problems are solved, the biggest issue is how to approach the bootstrapping of a colony. Doing something simple like making glass or steel is nigh impossible without the infrastructure to support it. And can we really afford to be shipping an entire infrastructure for the kind of high-tech materials fabrication that life on an alien planet would require?

      I hope that the opportunity to visit other planets arrives in my lifetime. It's just a bit sobering when you realize the obstacles that face permanent human presence outside of Earth's biosphere.

    13. Re:Mars? by SEWilco · · Score: 1

      send out samples of these organisms to Mars, Europa, and Titan, and wait billions of years
      Asteroids have been splattering Earth samples across the Solar System for billions of years.
    14. Re:Mars? by LordVader717 · · Score: 1

      He said send a probe. No mention of humans at all.

    15. Re:Mars? by TheLink · · Score: 2, Interesting

      why should we send humans to Mars in the near future?

      Wouldn't it be better to spend a smaller amount of money to figure out how to build better space stations?

      Without faster than light travel if humans are heading anywhere beyond the moon, they are going to be spending a LOT of time in space.

      So we should work on making better space stations than the current _crap_ we have. Dig out some of those "old" designs which spin to create artificial gravity or make much better ones.

      I personally don't think Mars will be that attractive once you've worked out how to build good space stations. The asteroids belt will be useful, and I suppose other cheap places for extracting resources to supply a space colony with. Mars is not cheap - once you land, getting back out is hard.

      The Romans had gladiators and circuses to distract them from real problems.

      Perhaps people are happy to pay for _extremely_ expensive suicide missions, that'll be a candidate for reality TV I guess.

      --
    16. Re:Mars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are also hydrocarbon emissions at Uranus.

    17. Re:Mars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please reread the parent. He didn't say 'send someone'. He said "send out a probe". Eeesh

      >I'm confused. Why exactly would you want to send someone to Europa or Titan?
      >There's nothing there at all that needs a human to see it...

      ... and you got modded +5!

    18. Re:Mars? by iminplaya · · Score: 2, Funny

      When what I think what would be far more exciting, and with much more of an impact potential, would be to send out a probe to Enceladus and Europa...

      "ALL THESE WORLDS ARE YOURS--EXCEPT EUROPA. ATTEMPT NO LANDINGS THERE."

      --
      What?
    19. Re:Mars? by pcgabe · · Score: 4, Interesting

      While it would be an Epic project the likes of which has never been done, with complications we can't even realize yet... it would be relatively easy to terraform mars as compared to a rock further from the sun.
      Mars will never be terraformed. Ever. Let it go.

      Relatively easy? It doesn't have enough mass -> it doesn't have enough gravity -> it can't hold an atmosphere we can use. But we can just keep smashing meteors into, right?

      Let's say we had the technology to move planets (because that's the order of difficulty we're talking about). Even if we could move enough matter together, we still can't terraform Mars. Do you know why? MARS HAS NO EFFECTIVE MAGNETOSPHERE!

      The core of Mars is cold. It has no active swirling iron core like we enjoy here on Earth. No active core -> No effective magnetosphere. But what do we need that for, anyway?

      Quote Wikipedia:

      Mars is larger than Mercury and four times farther from the sun, and yet even here it is thought that the solar wind has stripped away up to a third of its original atmosphere, leaving a layer 100 times thinner than the Earth's.
      Even if you did get enough mass to hold an atmosphere, and enough atmosphere to be habitable (which would need to be MORE than we have here on Earth, due to the increased distance from the sun), the lack of a strong magnetosphere would allow the solar wind to strip it away again. Oh, and all that deadly radiation.

      Mars. Will. NEVER. Be. Terraformed.
      --
      Don't put advice in your sig.
    20. Re:Mars? by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      I'm confused. Why exactly would you want to send someone to Europa or Titan? I was not talking of sending people there, and not of Titan either. ;-)

      Mars (and to a lesser extent the moon) however, do hold the long-term promise of harboring self-sustained *human* life. I haven't heard much convincing things about that. Not as for a long term stay, at least. To be honest, I think a large part of the current plan is to make good PR.
      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    21. Re:Mars? by F�an�ro · · Score: 2, Insightful

      These atmosphere-stripping processes work on a timescale several orders of magnitude larger than any reasonable terraforming process.

      If we find a practical way to generate a habitable environment on mars, one that does not take longer than a few million years, then we also can replenish the atmosphere much faster than it leaves.

    22. Re:Mars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mars never lost its atmosphere due to its gravity being only 1/3 that of the earth. It may have contributed, but it doesn't add up (ie, the current atmosphere would be made up out of heavier molecules). Most people today think an impact with one or several big meteors was primarily responsible for the loss of most of the atmosphere.

      From a terraforming POV, the gravity effect is not important. Yes you will loose some atmosphere, but if the planet is warm enough (this may be a problem) it will get renewed quickly enough. Even if it doesn't, we're talking about geological time-scales here. Keep smashing meteors probably means once every 10000 years or so.

      As for the atmosphere needing to be thicker than earth: well that depends what you want to do in it. Plenty of life can easily cope with a bit higher radiation. I'm not suggesting you go sunbathing each day, but "habitable" does not mean "same as on earth".

      Also, I do not get why you should need more atmosphere due to the greater distance from the sun: if you mean because of temperature: well, go an live in the tropics (better for radiation to, no need to sit around on the poles). In addition, with some ammonia in the air as a greenhouse gas, you do not need much more atmosphere to increase temperature to earth like levels.

    23. Re:Mars? by KnowledgeKeeper · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Mars. Will. NEVER. Be. Terraformed.

      Don't be so negative and pessimistic. No gravity? Big deal, we need to invent a gravity/antigravity machine and implant it into the Mars' core.

      No magnetosphere? Also, a bit of ingenuity never hurt anyone. Just put two satellites with magnetic cores into orbit around the planet.

      This way we could "fix" Venus, too. We just need time, money, dedication and education.

      --
      It is always better to be a first grade version of yourself than a second grade version of someone else.
    24. Re:Mars? by Capt+James+McCarthy · · Score: 1

      "I agree, it seriously pisses me off to see the long term plans being sketched up for a return to Moon, and then out to Mars. The budget that will end up comparably quite small to other US gov't agencies, but huge for NASA. When what I think what would be far more exciting, and with much more of an impact potential, would be to send out a probe to Enceladus and Europa. Both quite potential candidates for having oceans of liquid water beneath due to tidal heating from the extreme gravitational pull of their respective giant planets."

      Well, I too think NASA and the Govt is way off base. The ultimate goal would be to be able to sustain human life without Earth. Earth won't be around forever. And with the known past mass extinctions do folks think that we are somehow exempt from one of those? The target of Enceladus, Europa, and Titan would be a solid short term goal IMO for longer space travel for humans. Cost, oh yeah it'll cost, but the idea is to leave this current ball of dirt and go elsewhere. Otherwise we are just spinning our wheels waiting for the next extinction. But I suppose it's difficult for people to look beyond their own lifetime.

      Unless of course you are a L. Ron follower, then you already know the ship is on it's way.

      --
      There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.
    25. Re:Mars? by dr.g · · Score: 1

      Asteroids have been splattering Earth samples across the Solar System for billions of years. Ummm...just how are these chunky samples of Earth ejected into space?? Oh, wait...when you said "asteroids" maybe you meant "meteoroids", which have been splattering cometary, asteroidal and other space flotsam across the solar system for billions of years. But even if chunks of Earth had been spewed into space over millions of years, that would be more of a test of which terrestrial life-forms could survive cold well below any earth environment, airlessness, the absence of gravity and impacts matching nuclear explosion than of which target was most amenable to earth life.
      --
      "To be fair, I was left completely unsupervised." ~Anon
    26. Re:Mars? by Bastard+of+Subhumani · · Score: 1

      Just use some of the hydrocarbons to drive generators to electrolyse water.

      --
      Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
    27. Re:Mars? by AngryNick · · Score: 1

      [Parent/GParent:Thanks for bringing some serious comments to the thread]

      I figure I'll be dead or demented before we get any meaningful value from standing on Mars, so I've focused my efforts on teaching my daughters that humans were not designed to live on other planets in our solar system and that we don't live long enough to make it safely to an exoplanet where we might be able to live. At 6 and 9 they now agree that their best hope for interplanetary research is through the eyes of machines like our beloved Rovers (which they have practically adopted as family pets...and I dread the day when when I have to tell them they have powered down for good). Too bad our country's leaders can't seem to get the point.

      We could send an army of probes and rovers to Titan for a fraction of the time and money it would take to send a couple of hot shots with a death wish to Mars.

    28. Re:Mars? by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      More like 60%. Nitrogen is another 30%. Not for us directly, but for our food supplies which we will grow in these alien soils. The other 10% is the various misc. materials.

      I think you might find that Oxygen is a nice thing to have too ;)

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    29. Re:Mars? by danbert8 · · Score: 1

      Welcome to chemistry 101. My name is danbert and our first lesson is the chemical makeup of water. It is one part oxygen and two parts hydrogen.
       
      If there is water, there is oxygen and hydrogen. If we have the technology to get there, we have technology to do electrolosys.

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    30. Re:Mars? by kabocox · · Score: 1

      Mars. Will. NEVER. Be. Terraformed.

      So we just need planetary force fields?

      Actually, I'm with you. I think we'd more like demolish Mars for building material rather than terraform it. That's what those that want to spend centuries in space forget. If you have the tech to live long term in space, why was it we'd tie ourselves back to a planet again? No, its much more likely we'd demolish all the planets except Earth so we'd have them as building materials for space based humanity.

      Earth wouldn't be able to stop them from doing it either. If you have the tech to mine a planet and live in space, then you don't need Earth except for historical/ its the homeworld type reasons. But if it came to a war, they'd just blow Earth up and use it as building materials as well. After awhile, they'd even forget that they came from a planet.

    31. Re:Mars? by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      *woosh*

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    32. Re:Mars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can we send niggers? Like, all of them?

    33. Re:Mars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Man will never fly in the air with the birds. Ever. Let it go. Space will never be explored. Ever. Let it go. I sure am glad so many people throughout history have shared your "we can't do it now and it will be unimaginably difficult so lets not even try" attitude.

    34. Re:Mars? by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 1

      Phylogenetic data does indeed point that way. The root of the "Tree of Life" seems to sit closest to where the thermophiles are than to, say, us. This implies that life either started out there or was bottle-necked through there at some point.

    35. Re:Mars? by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 1

      You don't even need water. Silicate rocks have more oxygen in them than silicon.

    36. Re:Mars? by magarity · · Score: 1

      Start processing the regolith and non-water ice to make an atmosphere
       
      You've got a great plan except for one small detail: how do you propose to increase the gravity so the atmosphere stays around?

    37. Re:Mars? by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      BORG.

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    38. Re:Mars? by raddan · · Score: 1

      How exactly do you determine that likelihood? Have you created any new life forms recently? Quality time with the wife doesn't count.

      For all we know, life adapted to the extreme conditions of what we call normal.

    39. Re:Mars? by korekrash · · Score: 1

      I always find it amusing when the space nuts want us to spend billions on space programs when we can't even fix things here on earth. I'm not saying space exploration shouldn't be pursued, but we should devote the majority of our funds to fixing our house before we go on vacation. In the grand scheme of things, how will the knowledge that little organisms are floating under ice millions of miles away help the human race? Will it end poverty, war, the need for hydrocarbons? All it will really do is make for good lectures in astronomy classes. The Moon/Mars missions are relatively cheap and will help develop the technology so the more ambitious missions in the future will be easier and cheaper....

    40. Re:Mars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "As an aside, I think finding extremophiles on Earth doesn't really support the notion that life could occur in extreme environments. All it says is that after life has originated it can adapt to extreme environments - the requirements for abiogenesis are likely to be much more stringent then for post abiogenesis-adaptation."

      I think it's more likely that life began in extreme conditions and that "extremophiles" on Earth are remnants that never moved on.

    41. Re:Mars? by An+ominous+Cow+art · · Score: 1

      Easy, just build a roof over the whole planet. Problem solved.

    42. Re:Mars? by zolaar · · Score: 1

      Mars. Will. NEVER. Be. Terraformed.

      Of course not -- the proper term is Marzomodded.
      --
      One man's constant is another man's variable.
    43. Re:Mars? by vrmlguy · · Score: 1

      Once the Nitrogen and water problems are solved, the biggest issue is how to approach the bootstrapping of a colony. Doing something simple like making glass or steel is nigh impossible without the infrastructure to support it. And can we really afford to be shipping an entire infrastructure for the kind of high-tech materials fabrication that life on an alien planet would require? 1) Build self-replicating factories on the moon. (Plans for this have existed since the Carter administration.)
      2) Build a lunar mass driver to launch bricks and I-beams (plus other infrastructure items) to Mars.
      3) Build a Mars base, modeled after Biosphere One. Operate it for at least one Martian year without humans.
      4) Send 12-25 people, aged 65+, with enough supplies to spend the rest of their lives on Mars. (Not having to return will drasticly reduce the mission cost.)
      5) ??? (Evalute feasibility of sending younger colonists.)
      6) Profit!!!

      Note that this plan will require no human space flight beyond low Earth orbit prior to step 4. It should be possible to reach step 4 within twenty years of implementation.
      --
      Nothing for 6-digit uids?
    44. Re:Mars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Saturnian and Jovian moons are a much harder target to reach than Mars. It takes a lot more delta-V just to get there and the high gravity of the planets accellerate you a lot as you approach, making entering orbit even harder. Only Titan has a substantial atmosphere, meaning for landing you need even more delta-V on the others (you can do it most by parachute on Mars). Any probe basically has to be nuclear powered. Both have really strong radiation environments that have to be shielded against. All of this bumps up the mission cost substantially.

      We also know very little about their surfaces compared to Mars, meaning it's hard to know what to look for as a landing target. Liquid water on Enceladus is still a theory. Liquid water on Europa is buried under several kilometers of ice. It's almost impossible to get to.

      Also, if water ice is your criteria for being interesting, it's also been found on Mars, the moon, several asteroids, and possibly Mercury. Liquid water isn't really expected to exist on Mars (anymore), and it's not the only reason for looking at Mars. It's geological similarity to Earth can tell us a lot about the evolution of both Earth and mars.

      Not to mention there already are missions to both. The Cassini mission is still ongoing (remember, it cost $2.5 billion just for that orbiter), and the Juno mission to further study Jupiter and it's moons is under construction now. Juno is a good example of how to do things because it takes the questions that arose due to the Galileo mission and selects a few to try to answer.

    45. Re:Mars? by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Send 12-25 people, aged 65+, with enough supplies to spend the rest of their lives on Mars. (Not having to return will drasticly reduce the mission cost.)

      Unfortunately, the requirement list includes "nurses", that is, young people who can take care of the elders in their final years. Then there's the little matter of whoever is last having to spend who knows how long alone. In short, it might be a tad difficult to get anyone to agree to go.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    46. Re:Mars? by LumenPlacidum · · Score: 1
      I've spent a little time looking, but I've been unable to find the information I'm looking for. I'm interested in the tectonic activity of other planets, and I realized that it's possible, even probable, that other planets don't have quite the same degree of activity that Earth does. Does the moon have a crust, mantle, and core? Are they similar to those here? What about magnetospheres? Do we even have the information I'm asking for in all of scientific knowledge? Because, it doesn't seem like these would be easy things to discover from here. (Well, except for those moons that have visible volcanoes)

      I remember seeing somewhere that Jupiter is an extremely strong magnetic entity, but I can't think of where. Anyway, if someone has a link to where I can find this information, I'd be grateful. Thanks.

    47. Re:Mars? by delfair · · Score: 1

      Ok, with my microbiologist hat on: there's pretty strong molecular evidence that the earliest cellular lifeform on Earth (often called the 'progenote' or 'universal common ancestor') was an extreme thermophile. Obviously we only have sequence data from extant lifeforms (their ancestors...) to work with, but it looks like life adapted to less extreme environments, rather than the other way around. Taxonomically, many 'modern' extremophiles lie on branches of the 'tree of life' which diverged closest to the base of the trunk. That's why the microbial communities found around Earth's oceanic volcanic vents (which live without oxygen, using chemical energy, and independently of sunlight) are so interesting. Going to Europa to look under the ice there should be at the top of NASA's wishlist, imho. That round of golf on Mars can wait...

    48. Re:Mars? by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1
      2) Build a lunar mass driver to launch bricks and I-beams (plus other infrastructure items) to Mars.

      Ahh, Bricks In Space! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Brick_Moon. Doesn't that just take you back?

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    49. Re:Mars? by vrmlguy · · Score: 1

      First, Japan is working on using robots to assist an aging population, so the "nurses" don't have to be that young. Also, I assume that there would be follow-up missions delivering more colonists, so the original mission's final years wouldn't be too lonely; if not, we could still return the last two or three people a lot cheaper than a few dozen.

      --
      Nothing for 6-digit uids?
  3. Don't tell the president by Yossarian45793 · · Score: 0, Troll

    Nobody tell George W Bush about this or we'll be spending a fortune on a space invasion...

    1. Re:Don't tell the president by lee1026 · · Score: 1

      Well, a massive boost to the NASA budget would be a very good thing.

    2. Re:Don't tell the president by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      I know you're joking, but why exactly would that be a bad thing?

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    3. Re:Don't tell the president by Kinky+Bass+Junk · · Score: 1

      Money has to come from somewhere.

      --
      Anonymous Coward
    4. Re:Don't tell the president by x2A · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And where do you think it's going to go? People will be paid with it to put their time into collecting the resources and developing the rocket to go into space. Just because the result of the work is going into space, doesn't mean the money is. The money will stay on earth, in the pockets of eg rocket engineers who will spend it on food 'n housing. So it's nowhere near as bad as it sounds.

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    5. Re:Don't tell the president by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A Bush comment gets a -1 troll? Looks like slashdot is getting astroturf patch. Yes, it's too, too terribly true.

      All the anti-Bush comments are systematically being modded into oblivion, while the pro-Bush paeans are marked (+5, Insightful).

      That's why, to the casual observer, Slashdot looks like the online chapter of the George W. Bush Fan Club.

      (... well, either that, or perhaps every once in a while a Troll is actually marked as such. The jury's still out on this matter ...)
    6. Re:Don't tell the president by Kinky+Bass+Junk · · Score: 1

      Don't forget the cost of the parts and the fuel to get there. Those costs will end up in corporate coffers which are largely untaxed. The amount that comes back into the government would be so watered down that so much else would suffer.

      They sure as hell aren't going to be taking the money out of the military budget, so where else would it come from?

      --
      Anonymous Coward
    7. Re:Don't tell the president by x2A · · Score: 1

      "Those costs will end up in corporate coffers which are largely untaxed."

      That sounds to me more like the problem that needs to be solved than the government spending money on space research/travel.

      "The amount that comes back into the government would be so watered down"

      I'm more concerned with money that comes back into the economy as a whole than the government. Any money that gets respent is okay, money that gets taken out of the economy and added to massive corporate reserves is definitely a big problem.

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    8. Re:Don't tell the president by x2A · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      No, a stupid comment gets a -1 troll. The fact that it mentions bush is irrelevant.

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    9. Re:Don't tell the president by Kinky+Bass+Junk · · Score: 1

      Just because it's a different problem doesn't make it any less relevant. Until those problems are resolved, any over-spending such as a space mission should be kept at a minimum.

      --
      Anonymous Coward
    10. Re:Don't tell the president by x2A · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Just because it's a different problem doesn't make it any less relevant"

      No, just means it's not as simple as first stated. You have to look at things like:
      A - Ratio of money spent that ends up in pockets of engineers/etc who will respend as opposed to trapped in massive corporate reserves.
      B - How this ratio compares to other things the money could be spent on (eg, how much of the police force's budget go on energy costs that end up in the same place? Okay police are quite important, this is just an example).
      C - Whether there's any way of [part] paying for the project out of trapped corporate reserves by [part] commercialising the project.

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    11. Re:Don't tell the president by WhiplashII · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Those costs will end up in corporate coffers which are largely untaxed.

      What utter BS! Corporations pay much higher taxes than normal people! Most large corporations pay 35% taxes. In fact, the three largest oil companies paid $44.3B in taxes in 2005. In comparison, the bottom half of all income tax payers combined was only $28.7B in 2005!

      The US you live in is payed for by corporations and rich guys. And you wonder why they end up with all the power?

      --
      while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
    12. Re:Don't tell the president by baldass_newbie · · Score: 1

      Don't forget the cost of the parts and the fuel to get there. Those costs will end up in corporate coffers which are largely untaxed. The amount that comes back into the government would be so watered down that so much else would suffer.

      You do realize the government doesn't produce anything, don't you? They merely take money and spend money.
      --
      The opposite of progress is congress
    13. Re:Don't tell the president by emjay88 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Statistics in context, please. $44.3B is what percent of overall profit/revenue?

      And you're comparing that to the BOTTOM half of all income tax payers? I don't know about the US tax laws, but in Australia they have a "Tax free" bracket (if you earn X per year). Meaning that some of the bottom half of all income tax payers are paying absolutley no tax at all.

      I'm not trying to say that the oil companies aren't paying tax, it just doesn't make sence to throw numbers around with no reasonable benchmark.

      --
      1178161 is prime...
    14. Re:Don't tell the president by Planesdragon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You do realize the government doesn't produce anything, don't you? They merely take money and spend money. Sure. If you ignore the actual issuing of currency, or the funding of new ideas, or the develop-for-us industries of aerospace, the internet, etc...

      And that's not counting the power companies that exist essentially because of government development. Or the farmers who produce grain on the government's dime.

      So by "doesn't produce anything", were you just talking about literal production of shrink-wrapped widgets? Because yes, the US Government doesn't mass-produce anything. But the federal government has had a considerable hand in the creation of wealth, in economic terms, for over a century now.
    15. Re:Don't tell the president by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was not aware that "corporations" could even be taxed. After all, when you or I are taxed harder we just have to grin and bear it. When an industry is taxed, well, guess what, prices go up for consumers like you and me. Corporations paying taxes is a myth, all taxes are borne by individuals.

    16. Re:Don't tell the president by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      But the federal government has had a considerable hand in the creation of wealth, in economic terms, for over a century now.

      Like the post office? Or is that a bad example because the government uses and has used armed force to outlaw competition for well "over a century"? When one uses force to be the sole provider of a service, you don't get real credit for actually providing that service. There is no "you" there unless "you" are a king or dictator.

    17. Re:Don't tell the president by freedom_india · · Score: 4, Informative

      Corporations pay much higher taxes than normal people! Most large corporations pay 35% taxes Really!!!
      What about the fact IRS claims that less than 10.1% of total income taxes come from corporations? http://reclaimdemocracy.org/articles_2004/corporate_taxes_lower.html

      What about http://boston.com/business/globe/articles/2004/04/11/most_us_firms_paid_no_income_taxes_in_90s/ stating GAO report that 61% of US corporations paid no taxes.

      What about which states 71 companies paid ZERO state income tax despite announcing to shareholders that they earned $86 billion in profits!

      What about the fact according to GAO http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0419/p16s03-cogn.html that corporate taxes have falled to less than 1.4 % of GDP? Over a period from 1996 to 2000 (am not including Bush years), corporations that earned $3.5 Trillion in revenues paid ZERO Federal and State income taxes.

      From periods 2001 till 2003, the IRS refunded corporations $63 billions in taxes as subsidies and other refunds. http://www.ctj.org/corpfed04an.pdf

      During 2001-2003 Pepco Holdings profit was $725 million while its tax REFUNDS were $432m, meaning a negative income tax rate of 59.6%.
      Same years AT&T (our favorite Gestapo spy darling) had a profit of $5628m, and got a refund from IRS of $1389m, meaning a negative tax of 24.7%.

      I guess you get the picture.

      So, before you go ponying up to your corporate boss or talking up corporate support as a paid shill, you, my dear friend, need to check facts.

      You can get amnesty, but you can't be saying the truth.

      --
      "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
    18. Re:Don't tell the president by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Yea, I think you read that right, the bottom half of all "income tax payers". We too have groups of people that pay no tax. We also end up with people who not only pay no tax, but get a refund of more tax then they might have paid. The term bottom half refers to income levels, not how much was paid.

      The bottom half or the bottom 50% of tax payers is generally all income under $30,000 per year. They generally pay less then 5% of of all taxes collected and in 2005, accounted for less then 3.07%.

      The top 5% of tax payers, which include incomes of $150,000 or more paid almost 60% (59.67) of all taxes in the same year.

      And this is the adjusted gross income which means after all their deductions. $30,000 could easily be 40 g a year or more depending on how they file and what they are taking in deductions. These were round numbers. More accurate ones can be found here. The bottom half is typically 15-20% of all people 15 or older who earn income. The top 5% is roughly 3-10% of all the same.

      The GP was right, America is paid for by cooperations and the wealthy. The size of the payouts are disproportionately tilted to a small portion of the population and companies.

    19. Re:Don't tell the president by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      ... and the roads and the aqueducts ... plus, it's safe to walk the streets at night. And the wine.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    20. Re:Don't tell the president by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After all, when you or I are taxed harder we just have to grin and bear it. When an industry is taxed, well, guess what, prices go up for consumers like you and me.
      Truly, your mastery of the free market enterprise system could revolutionize all of Industry - if there were only manufacturer per each product in each market that is. I gather from your comment that you are either 1) unemployed, 2) unproductive, or 3) have a Lenin branch somewhere in your genealogy tree.
    21. Re:Don't tell the president by turing_m · · Score: 1

      "And you're comparing that to the BOTTOM half of all income tax payers? I don't know about the US tax laws, but in Australia they have a "Tax free" bracket (if you earn X per year). Meaning that some of the bottom half of all income tax payers are paying absolutley no tax at all."

      You forgot GST, petrol, cigarettes, alcohol, etc. etc. Not to mention inflation, which is another form of tax.

      --
      If I have seen further it is by stealing the Intellectual Property of giants.
    22. Re:Don't tell the president by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      When an industry is taxed, well, guess what, prices go up for consumers like you and me.
      If the company could get away with the higher price, they'd have been charging it from the start.
      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    23. Re:Don't tell the president by stdarg · · Score: 1

      I looked at the ctj.org paper and then looked at the financial data for the Pepco Holdings. Let me paste the applicable lines:

        Income Before Tax 409.70 617.40 427.90 163.50 334.60 246.90
        Income After Tax 248.30 362.20 260.60 101.40 210.50 163.40

      The last 3 columns are for 2001, 2002, and 2003, the years referenced in the paper. As you can see, pre-tax income (profit) was $745 million, not $725 as referenced in the paper. However, post-tax income was $475 million. So $250 million were paid in taxes in those years. That's hardly a 0% tax rate!

      Now I'm not an accountant but on the face of it that paper is being very misleading. Perhaps Pepco paid too many taxes and then got a huge refund (corporations do have to pay taxes *in advance* based on estimates, so often end up paying too much), but there was still net tax paid.

    24. Re:Don't tell the president by WhiplashII · · Score: 1

      More Context: 3 oil companies pay $44.3B out of the $1T in income tax. (In the US, the vast majority of tax revenue is income tax - our sales taxes are for city governments.) So 3 companies paid about 1/20 of the total income tax of the US. (They are not 1/20 of the population, revenue, or anything else.)

      --
      while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
    25. Re:Don't tell the president by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The money will stay on earth, in the pockets of eg rocket engineers who will spend it on food 'n housing. So it's nowhere near as bad as it sounds.

      The cost of such a feat isn't actually in money, on a macroeconomic level; it never is, since moving money from one person to another results in no net change in the overall supply of money. As you say, money isn't actually consumed through spending. The real cost is the productive capacity -- labor, material, capital -- required to design, produce and launch the rocket. These are the scarce resources which will have to be diverted from other areas toward rocket-production. The supply of goods which compete with the rocket project for factors of production must decrease; prices of such goods will increase, and people will be unable to afford as much as they used to.

      If this were the result of voluntary action the result would still be an overall increase in wealth, with the value of the rocket making up for the reduction in other areas; if the project can only be funded involuntarily, however -- e.g. through taxes -- then the consequence must be a net loss, since there are other, higher-valued uses to which those resources would have been put were the funds not forcibly redirected.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    26. Re:Don't tell the president by WhiplashII · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Don't be a moron - just look at the data, don't just read someone's drivel about it!

      What about the fact IRS claims that less than 10.1% of total income taxes come from corporations?

      Well, the return (gross profit) of a corporation is divided into two parts for payment. On average, 80% of the take is paid to employees (you). 20% is paid to corporate shareholders (your grandma). So you would expect there to be a lot more tax paid by the 80% employees rather than the 20% shareholders (only the shareholder's portion is taxed as corporate tax). The fact that there are some obscenely overpaid CEOs [who are not corporate shareholders - in fact you can argue that they are robbing the shareholders] means that the ratio is balanced even further away from the corporation.

      stating GAO report that 61% of US corporations paid no taxes.

      Well, what about it? Why didn't they pay? Were they non-profits? Were they just not profitable? Very few small corporations are profitable - most are started and die soon after. A good percentage of corporations in 2004 made no money - why should they pay taxes?

      What about which states 71 companies paid ZERO state income tax

      That doesn't have anything to do with federal income tax, does it? It is very easy to not pay state taxes - all you have to do is convince the state that your business is more important than the tax revenue, and threaten to leave. Of course, I'm sure this report also included companies that were doing business in many states and only paid in the ones where they recorded profits. While this is bad for one state, it is good for another, and I believe that from such competition between states better states are formed.

      corporate taxes have falled to less than 1.4 % of GDP

      This is a foolish comparison - GDP is related to gross revenue, not gross profit. If I buy a building for $1M, and sell it to you for $1.01M, you want me to pay $100K in taxes on that $10K I earned? Don't be stupid - the average gross margin is about 20%, so gross takes are 20% of GDP. Like I said previously, 80% goes to employee salaries, so we are down to 4% of GDP as corporate profits. I claimed a corporate tax rate of 35% - hey look, 35% of 4% is (drumroll) 1.4% - imagine that, I was right!

      the IRS refunded corporations $63 billions

      And the IRS refunded individuals $109B - what is your point? That only shows that corporations are forced by the government to overpay more often than ordinary citizens - this does not benefit the corporations...

      Pepco Holdings profit was $725 million while its tax REFUNDS were $432m

      OK, someone else rebutted this one right through your thick head, so let me just add this: You get a refund because you were forced to pay too much tax earlier - a refund is NEVER a good thing, moron; it means the government forced you to give them a 0% loan at gunpoint.

      So maybe you better look into the facts, truther. The world does not run the way you think it does.

      --
      while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
    27. Re:Don't tell the president by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      When an industry is taxed, well, guess what, prices go up for consumers like you and me.

      If the company could get away with the higher price, they'd have been charging it from the start.

      You're both right. When taxes go up the marginal suppliers -- those that were just barely making enough accounting profit to justify staying in business -- are forced out of business. As a result, the supply of the good shrinks. The same demand competing for a smaller supply means that the price per unit must increase.

      The increase in price is not necessarily equal to the increase in taxes; the remaining loss is imposed on those who must now make do with less, or go without entirely.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
  4. All we need now by treeves · · Score: 3, Interesting

    are some vast hydrocarbon-propelled rockets to bring a big load of it back here in 10 years or so.

    --
    ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    1. Re:All we need now by Asky314159 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah, that'd be great! Maybe if we burn the same amount of hydrocarbons getting the tanker out and back as the tanker itself hauls, it can be marketed as a "carbon neutral" energy source!

    2. Re:All we need now by Perseid · · Score: 2, Funny

      No, I don't think that'll work. Where would the rocket find fuel to get back?

    3. Re:All we need now by anagama · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Works for corn.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    4. Re:All we need now by krycheq · · Score: 1

      Well, at least there's no penguins or birds in space. So when the oil-spill in happens we won't have to worry about the environmental impact... or will we...?

    5. Re:All we need now by theophilosophilus · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that'd be great! Maybe if we burn the same amount of hydrocarbons getting the tanker out and back as the tanker itself hauls, it can be marketed as a "carbon neutral" energy source! Works for corn. Somehow you confused corn with oil. The idea of carbon neutrality is that the plants collect carbon dioxide when growing, release carbon dioxide when burned, collect when growing .......
      --
      Why have 1 person driving a backhoe when you could employ 20 with shovels?
    6. Re:All we need now by anagama · · Score: 5, Interesting

      No, I'm thinking of corn ethanol, backed by tax dollars to hide the fact that AT BEST, it produces 10% more fuel than is used in the production of it. Reality is probably much lower than the our friendly lobbyists from Iowa would have us believe.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    7. Re:All we need now by Jack+Pirate · · Score: 1

      Somehow you confused corn with oil. The idea of carbon neutrality is that the plants collect carbon dioxide when growing, release carbon dioxide when burned, collect when growing .......

      I think he was referring to the fact that corn takes energy to process. We get that energy usually from coal, which takes carbon.

    8. Re:All we need now by Buzz_Litebeer · · Score: 2, Interesting



      Actually the book Empire (I think thats the name) by Arthur C Clarke actually involved humans from earth mining Titan, the earth would send empty pods at Titan, and the people on Titan (miners) would send the pods back full of fuel.

      14 year round trip, but once the "stream" of fuel pods starts coming it becomes a steady source of fuel.

      --
      If you don't vote, you don't matter, so don't waste your time telling me your opinion
    9. Re:All we need now by weighn · · Score: 3, Interesting

      ... corn ethanol, backed by tax dollars to hide the fact that AT BEST, it produces 10% more fuel than is used in the production of it... to add to that, growing stuff for fuel pushes up the price of food - in countries where many are already hungry this is not good. As if enough of the 3rd world hadn't already supplanted food crops with tobacco and coffee ...
      --
      Mongrel News all the news that fits and froths
    10. Re:All we need now by Elbowgeek · · Score: 1

      Which a full analysis reveals doesn't occur - bio fuels are actually less carbon-neutral when all factors are taken into account.

      --
      Who is this delectable creature with an insatiable love of the dead?
    11. Re:All we need now by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1

      Yes but unlike corn you can't eat moon rocks. Oh, wait

    12. Re:All we need now by bone_idol · · Score: 1

      I think the novel you mean is Imperial Earth

    13. Re:All we need now by DrWho520 · · Score: 1

      And you confuse corn with perpetual motion. It takes energy to process corn into ethanol. That energy is not coming from previously produced ethanol. It comes from hydrocarbons. Ethanol completely misses the idea of carbon neutrality. Maybe if you had said switch grass...but then again, maybe not.

      --
      The cancel button is your friend. Do not hesitate to use it.
    14. Re:All we need now by kerrbear · · Score: 1

      I'm curious, since the article says it rains hydrocarbons, what are they called when in cloud form, physocarbons?

    15. Re:All we need now by Grave · · Score: 1

      Please stop buying into and spreading the FUD.

      1) None of the corn used for ethanol production is edible.
      2) Food prices have gone up because the cost of the fuel used to transport them has gone up.
      3) The future of ethanol isn't corn anyway, it'll almost certainly be bio-engineered plants.

    16. Re:All we need now by stdarg · · Score: 1

      Still doesn't make sense. The corn based ethanol *itself* is carbon neutral because the carbon *it* burns is absorbed by future crops. There's no getting around that.

      What you're referring to is that *currently* non-ethanol fuel is being used to produce ethanol and that is not being taken into account. That is true but merely circumstantial. There is no reason at all that the tractors, trucks, factory equipment, etc that are currently burning regular gas or diesel, could not instead be burning ethanol, making the entire process truly carbon neutral.

      There is an issue, I believe, with natural gas being used in one step, but again from what I've read that is simply a matter of convenience and economics. There's no inherent need for it. Saying that biodiesel or ethanol or anything being touted as carbon-neutral is a lie simply because our current technology is not fully implemented using carbon neutral fuels is being purposely misleading.

    17. Re:All we need now by stdarg · · Score: 1

      No you're confusing claims of perpetual motion with added input from the sun.

      I agree that currently the energy is not coming from previously produced ethanol, but it *could*. Thus corn based ethanol is carbon neutral, even if the surrounding infrastructure isn't yet. They are TWO DIFFERENT ISSUES.

    18. Re:All we need now by linzeal · · Score: 1

      And the 1000's of pounds of petrol-based fertilizer they need to make the corn grow. That is a larger chunk than the oil used in the machines if I remember and there is no getting it around it currently

    19. Re:All we need now by drew · · Score: 1

      1) None of the corn used for ethanol production is edible.

      That may be true, but it's also extremely misleading. The fields where that corn was grown could be (and in many cases was until growing corn for ethanol become so popular) used to grow edible foods.

      2) Food prices have gone up because the cost of the fuel used to transport them has gone up.
      ...and because the supply has gone down, in part due to farmers who used to grow other crops switching over to corn because it is so much more profitable.

      3) The future of ethanol isn't corn anyway, it'll almost certainly be bio-engineered plants.

      That is yet to be seen, but the OP was specifically talking about corn ethanol, which is currently produced by the truckload, heavily subsidized by the government, and heavily promoted by the auto manufacturers as a "green" fuel, despite the fact that we know that we don't gain anything from it.
      --
      If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
    20. Re:All we need now by drew · · Score: 1

      There is no reason at all that the tractors, trucks, factory equipment, etc that are currently burning regular gas or diesel, could not instead be burning ethanol, making the entire process truly carbon neutral.


      No reason at all, aside from the fact that at best estimates they would only have about 10-15% of the fuel they produced left over after they used it to fuel all of their vehicles, which would seriously cut into their profit margins, and make ethanol production a much less lucrative business. Let's also not forget the tanker trucks that haul ethanol around, either. Unlike petroleum products, ethanol is very sensitive to water, and can't easily be transported long distances by pipeline.

      I'd love to see some legislation saying that any farmers who receive subsidies for growing corn for ethanol (or who sell their corn to companies that get the subsidies) can only get government money if at least x% (where x > 50) of the fuel that they use in growing the corn is a biofuel of some sort, but I don't think it would happen because then somebody would have to admit how much of a crock our current ethanol initiative is.
      --
      If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
    21. Re:All we need now by theophilosophilus · · Score: 2, Interesting
      People on Slashdot need to settle down and become more informed about energy alternatives. Theres a lot of posturing going on for peoples "favorite" energy alternative and it is destructive because it inhibits meaningful discussion on effective means to eliminate environmentally destructive technologies. The distinction between those that are thinking logically and those that have came upon an opinion emotionally can be seen by the disdain of the comments.

      And you confuse corn with perpetual motion.

      Solar energy is perpetual motion?

      1) None of the corn used for ethanol production is edible.

      False - MOST of the corn used for ethanol is edible. There has not yet been a significant shift to higher energy varieties. Further, corn production for ethanol displaces acres that could be devoted to edible corn or other edible grain.

      2) Food prices have gone up because the cost of the fuel used to transport them has gone up.

      True to an extent - Ethanol usage has raised the cost of food, and not just the cost of corn. Ethanol takes corn away from food production. Further, high corn prices stimulates planting of more corn which displaces other editable crops. However, ethanol accounts for only a percentage in the overall rise in prices. Increased demand from China accounts for a large percentage. Further increased fuel prices accounts for an even larger percentage. Finally, commodity speculation accounts for a huge percentage. I'm afraid most of the people on Slashdot are unaware of the present over valuation in futures contracts for corn.

      Slashdotter's are also unaware of ethanol's byproducts which mitigate the impact on food prices. Ethanol produces distiller's dried grain which is used in animal feed. This is animal feed that would have used corn if it weren't for the more desirable and nutritious distiller's dried grain. This animal feed is an indirect use of ethanol byproducts in the food supply. Ethanol also produces corn oil which can be used for food or diesel production. None of those other explanations can alleviate the fact that ethanol production does impact food.

      to add to that, growing stuff for fuel pushes up the price of food - in countries where many are already hungry this is not good. As if enough of the 3rd world hadn't already supplanted food crops with tobacco and coffee ...

      Low priced American corn is destroying third world agriculture. Its a chicken and the egg problem, which would we prefer - people that can buy food because they cant make money, or those that can't buy food because they don't have enough? High corn prices stimulate modernization of third world agriculture. Third world farmers are poor because they can't afford to invest in advanced technology. Higher corn prices stimulate foreign direct investment as well as third world government investment in more productive methods.

      It takes energy to process corn into ethanol. That energy is not coming from previously produced ethanol. It comes from hydrocarbons. Ethanol completely misses the idea of carbon neutrality.

      It also takes energy to process the alternatives to ethanol - THIS IS A MAJOR POINT THAT CRITICS NEGLECT. You are essentially arguing that ethanol production = fuel use. However, pure electric cars = coal use. Hydrogen cars = coal use. You are arguing that, because a majority of corn is planted by diesel fuel consuming tractors it is the equivalent of burning diesel fuel. Well, the majority of electricity comes from coal and the majority of hydrogen is produced with coal electricity.
      Granted, that majority of electricity doesn't have to be produced by coal. Then again, the majority of ethanol doesn't need to be produced by diesel. The corn produced on my land this year was produced by biodiesel produced from corn oil (a byproduct of ethanol production).

      Reality is probably much lower than the our friendly lobbyists from Iowa would have us believe.

      --
      Why have 1 person driving a backhoe when you could employ 20 with shovels?
    22. Re:All we need now by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Actually, the accepted norm is something like 30% more energy then put in (1.3 times what is required to make it). But that is sorely discounting new processes that get something along the lines of 700%(7 to 7.7 times) or better. And these newer processes can use anything besides corn too, grass clippings, most trash, any organic compounds, and so on with relatively the same efficiency or better.

      Turn in your geek card if your going to rail in something like a politician and not pay attention to recent advances.

    23. Re:All we need now by theophilosophilus · · Score: 1

      And the 1000's of pounds of petrol-based fertilizer they need to make the corn grow. That is a larger chunk than the oil used in the machines if I remember and there is no getting it around it currently Petrol based fertilizer? You are assuming that hog manure, nitrogen or ammonia is petrol based. You also assume that fertilizer is a constant. I don't know any farmer that uses fertilizer anymore than they need to, which is not every year. A large amount of fertilizer isn't even processed its generally shipped straight from the manure pit to the field in the spring. The oil input in farming is fuel, and if that could be eliminated then the system could be truly carbon neutral.
      --
      Why have 1 person driving a backhoe when you could employ 20 with shovels?
    24. Re:All we need now by Grave · · Score: 1

      That is yet to be seen, but the OP was specifically talking about corn ethanol, which is currently produced by the truckload, heavily subsidized by the government, and heavily promoted by the auto manufacturers as a "green" fuel, despite the fact that we know that we don't gain anything from it. Aside from the economic gain of money being spent here in the US instead of the Middle East, you mean?
  5. Gattaca by Adambomb · · Score: 2, Funny

    Oh great, so now theres no reason for Vincent to go there. Stop ruining fiction, reality!

    --
    Ice Cream has no bones.
  6. Next up by eclectro · · Score: 2, Funny

    The TV show "Jed Clampett, astronaut," appears.

    --
    Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
  7. DUDE!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let's totally shoot at with roman candles!

    1. Re:DUDE!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At the risk of ruining a shitty joke, I'm going to go ahead and say that nothing will happen, because there's probably very little oxygen there.

    2. Re:DUDE!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't that ruin its value as a remote military base, Scorpius?

  8. Time for Space tankers to start taking flight by xeoron · · Score: 1

    Hrm... It would be interesting if the cost of harvesting it outweighted the investment to build the infostructure to bring it back to our planet.

    1. Re:Time for Space tankers to start taking flight by ROMRIX · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Hrm... It would be interesting if the cost of harvesting it outweighted the investment to build the infostructure to bring it back to our planet.

      It does.
    2. Re:Time for Space tankers to start taking flight by Radres · · Score: 1

      Hrm... How interesting!

    3. Re:Time for Space tankers to start taking flight by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And your basing that on...?

      The Cassini-Huygens mission cost more than $3 billion to land a 350 kg probe on titan. If the probe were made out of 100% gasoline, that would cost $30,000,000 per gallon, and that's not even factoring in the cost of a (currently technically infeasible) a return trip.

      So you've got at least 7 orders of magnitude of cost reductions to work through before you're competitive with terrestrial fossil fuels.

    4. Re:Time for Space tankers to start taking flight by tempestdata · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Hrm... It would be interesting if the cost of harvesting it outweighted the investment to build the infostructure to bring it back to our planet. Even if bringing back those hydrocarbons to Earth was cost effective. I'm not sure it would be a good Thing.

      I've always drawn solace from the fact that eventually oil will run out and we'll stop pumping smog into the air. Can you imagine if we were not suddenly able to pump hundreds of times that amount into the air before we ran out?? Holy smokes!

      On the other hand, it would also be such an awesome thing for investment in science and space travel. If some portion of the extraction process needed human oversight, it would be an awesome thing for manned space travel. The building of the infrastructure, to support the mining of Titan itself would really be a milestone in human history. The point at which man kind ceased to harness the resources of his own planet, and started to harness the resources of his solar system. If infrastructure were built to mine Titan, it would make sense to resuse a large chunk of it to mine the asteroids too. The possibilities boggle the mind.

      Would it be worth it though?
      --
      - Tempestdata
    5. Re:Time for Space tankers to start taking flight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you forget that this is Slashdot?

    6. Re:Time for Space tankers to start taking flight by hardburn · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If we had the technology to haul hydrocarbons from another planet economically, we'd have the technology to do away with hydrocarbons completely. Once you have cheap access to space, a bunch of different energy source open up. Take your pick: solar satellites, He3 from the moon for advanced nuclear reactors, hydrogen from Jupiter's atmosphere, and probably a bunch of others that nobody's thought up yet. Cars will either need to become electric or run on Fischer-Tropes produced gas.

      This announcement is interesting scientifically, but has no relevance to energy problems.

      --
      Not a typewriter
    7. Re:Time for Space tankers to start taking flight by bcdm · · Score: 4, Informative
      Wow. Someone took his cranky-and-dumb pills this morning.


      The cost of the Apollo program was about $135 billion in today's dollars.

      Here's a reference.

      That's over 12 years, so about $10 billion a year. That was to the moon. I get the odd feeling that a project of this magnitude will cost more - maybe 10 times as much for something of comparable size? If you're exceedingly lucky? So that's 100 billion dollars a year.

      Over 5 years of manned flights, 11 Apollo spaceships made it into orbit and back again. That's about 2 per year. So let's assume the same rate of return with this plan. Oil is $100 a barrel right now, so how much oil would the two ships per year have to carry to break even, running off these assumptions?

      Answer = 500 million barrels each. Depending on the type of hydrocarbon, 6 to 9 barrels make a ton. At 8 barrels a ton, that would be 62.5 million TONS to break even. Per flight. Even if we assume the same cost as Apollo, which is completely impossible, that would be 6.25 million tons per flight needed to break even.

      As a comparison, Apollo 17 brought home 22 kilograms (about 50 pounds) of lunar material.

      So yeah, I think we know who to take seriously here.

      --
      I can has sig?
    8. Re:Time for Space tankers to start taking flight by SquirrelsUnite · · Score: 5, Informative

      Cassini-Huygens is much more than a 350 kg probe. The main part of the mission is the Cassini spacecraft (weighing over 2 tonnes btw) which has been orbiting Saturn for three and a half years. About half of the cost was actually development, mostly for instruments on Cassini. This doesn't invalidate your argument but I don't want people to think that all we got for $3bn is a lander that worked for 1 hour.

    9. Re:Time for Space tankers to start taking flight by Viceroy+Potatohead · · Score: 4, Funny

      So you've got at least 7 orders of magnitude of cost reductions to work through No problem... Just make a metric-imperial conversion error, and the problem solves itself. Zing!
    10. Re:Time for Space tankers to start taking flight by x2A · · Score: 1

      Unless the probe was able to collect the hydrocarbons and launch them towards earth to be collected while remaining in orbit or landed on Titan. As long as enough was able to be launched towards earth within the lifetime of the launcher, it could be profitable.

      Big ifs there maybe, but shows there are alternate ways of thinking that can increase viability.

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    11. Re:Time for Space tankers to start taking flight by iamhassi · · Score: 1

      "If the probe were made out of 100% gasoline, that would cost $30,000,000 per gallon..."

      yep that's about what gas costs right now. Someone call Bush, we're heading to Ira... er, Saturn!

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    12. Re:Time for Space tankers to start taking flight by xSauronx · · Score: 1

      So you're saying we have a chance....

      --
      By and large, language is a tool for concealing the truth. -- George Carlin
    13. Re:Time for Space tankers to start taking flight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Holy smokes!

      Indeed.

    14. Re:Time for Space tankers to start taking flight by Progman3K · · Score: 1

      Forget oil.
      We need to STOP using oil, not import more of it.
      Helium-3, THAT'S the way to go, and we can get tons of it on Luna.
      Send a few crews, build an automated refinery, etc...
      THAT'S where we need to go.

      --
      I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
    15. Re:Time for Space tankers to start taking flight by Vectronic · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This is basically Offtopic, but harvesting anything from the moon (He3) seems inherintly dangerous given the whole mass/gravity thing, you'd be playing around with the whole tidal system, messing with countless amounts of animals brains(including our own) and navigation "systems"... plus factoring in things like the impact of landing, and taking off...

      "Uhh... Sir? We seemed to have caused the moon to break free from Earth orbit"

      "No time to worry about that, we have bigger fish to fry! all the sea life is dying"

      Im fairly confident that the earth is relatively impervious to our existance (in that it will still rotate, and life will still exist, including our own species) if all we are doing is basically dissorganizing materials in our little bubble... but messing with the moon, kinda scary...

      Sure there is the arguement that *however many* tons of debris lands on the earth and moon every day, its sort of a natural distibution based partly on chaos, and partly on gravity... but we always do things in an ordered fashion...with general disregard for what it may effect... carving "CHA" into the moon... Sponsered by Ikea... then wondering why grass refuses to seed anymore...

    16. Re:Time for Space tankers to start taking flight by eli+pabst · · Score: 1

      No problem... Just make a metric-imperial conversion error, and the problem solves itself.
      Damn it Jenkins, what the hell do you mean this chart was in log base 10?!
    17. Re:Time for Space tankers to start taking flight by perthling · · Score: 1

      What are you, and MBA or something? (this is a term of derision for me)

      Why exactly is the return trip "technically infeasible"?

      The hardest part about sending something heavy to another planet is getting it out of our atmosphere. Once in space, the force required to move something is drastically reduced. And you can get fuel there. By the way, (terra)geological hydrocarbon fuels aren't going to last for ever, so that cost equation doesn't stay the same over time.

    18. Re:Time for Space tankers to start taking flight by Hucko · · Score: 1

      It was a specialised device with components susceptible to failure. Put a much simpler (still complex admittedly) mass driver/rocket/cannon that blasts significant portions into the inner solar system. That would reduce the magnitude of cost reductions maybe 2(hopefully) or 3 orders... Over time if reliable enough it reduce even more orders of magnitude. Considering there would be billions of orders on Earth's end, NASA should have it sewn up!

      --
      Semi-automatic amateur armchair Australian philosopher; conjecture ready at any moment...
    19. Re:Time for Space tankers to start taking flight by Megane · · Score: 1

      Remind me what we can do with helium-3, exactly? And I mean any time in the NEAR FUTURE, not fifty years from now.

      Helium-3 isn't even as easy as the other fusion recipes that we still haven't yet made work yet.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    20. Re:Time for Space tankers to start taking flight by DavidShor · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Ok, rather fundamentally, lifting the oil out of Titan's atmosphere and shipping it back here would almost certainly require more energy then could be obtained from burning the hydrocarbons.

      For this amount of cost, we could easily just build solar power satellites and beam it down with Masers.

    21. Re:Time for Space tankers to start taking flight by gnick · · Score: 1

      I can suggest at least one use for Helium-3. Just ask out friends over in South Carolina. From what I hear, they play with it all the time.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    22. Re:Time for Space tankers to start taking flight by anagama · · Score: 2, Informative

      Next up -- we'll need to find a planet with enough oxygen to import to earth so we can actually burn the excess imported hydrocarbons.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    23. Re:Time for Space tankers to start taking flight by DavidShor · · Score: 1

      The amount of mass is completely negligible in comparison to the Moon's mass. Helium is extremely light, and energy dense.

    24. Re:Time for Space tankers to start taking flight by gnick · · Score: 1

      And you can get fuel there. Finding hydrocarbons and refueling are two very different things.
      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    25. Re:Time for Space tankers to start taking flight by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 4, Informative

      This is basically Offtopic, but harvesting anything from the moon (He3) seems inherintly dangerous given the whole mass/gravity thing, you'd be playing around with the whole tidal system, messing with countless amounts of animals brains(including our own) and navigation "systems"... plus factoring in things like the impact of landing, and taking off.

      Basically stupid, you mean? If we were to harvest 100,000,000,000 tons of lunar material, we'd affect the lunar mass (and this the whole mass/gravity/tide thing by about 0.0000001%.

      And we don't contemplate harvesting that much material from the moon in the next thousand years or so. So come back with something real, not delusional.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    26. Re:Time for Space tankers to start taking flight by gnick · · Score: 2, Informative

      harvesting anything from the moon (He3) seems inherintly[sic] dangerous given the whole mass/gravity thing I seem to remember a book dealing with the subject... Something about the mining the moon... And about a harsh mistress... And some groovy polygamy... If I could remember, I'd recommend it.
      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    27. Re:Time for Space tankers to start taking flight by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      I've always drawn solace from the fact that eventually oil will run out and we'll stop pumping smog into the air. Can you imagine if we were not suddenly able to pump hundreds of times that amount into the air before we ran out?? Holy smokes! - you are so silly. We probably need another 400 billion tons of CO2 in atmosphere to shut down the oxygenation of the oceans, which will turn this planet into a hot house for a quarter million years or so. However on this planet we still have trillions of tons of hydro-carbons that we can burn BEYOND easily accessible crude oil.

      Think gas and beyond that think coal. We have enough coal to cook this planet a million times over. Don't you worry about oil running out.

    28. Re:Time for Space tankers to start taking flight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We would just evolve into smog breathing beings.

    29. Re:Time for Space tankers to start taking flight by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why exactly is the return trip "technically infeasible"?

      The rocket that sent the Cassini probe to Saturn was 200 feet tall and filled with hundreds of tons of oxidizer and fuel. Even so, it took almost 10 years of bouncing around the solar system to leech additional energy from Venus, Earth and Jupiter to get a couple of tons of spacecraft in orbit around Saturn.

      The return trip would require just as much effort. Going towards the sun is no easier than away from it; that's why the Mercury probe is taking almost a decade to reach its destination.

      Even if you could get a huge rocket to Saturn to launch back to earth, unlike earth there's no oxidizer readily available. So you'd have to send hundreds of tons of that from earth, thereby increasing the size of the effort by 30X or more. The rocket you'd have to send from earth to carry all that oxidizer would make the Apollo mission launcher look like a bottle rocket and would need a supertanker's worth of fuel to make the trip. All of this to obtain less than 1 truckload of gasoline from Titan.

      You probably are thinking "then we'll just use a more advanced propulsion system to send back the fuel". But if we had that mastery of energy technology, then why in the hell would we need to get piddly fuel oil from outer space in the first place?

      The hardest part about sending something heavy to another planet is getting it out of our atmosphere.

      That's not hard at all. Thousands of V2 rockets had gotten "out of our atmosphere" by 1945. Maybe you should look into getting an MBA, because you sure ain't making it as a rocket scientist.

    30. Re:Time for Space tankers to start taking flight by rs79 · · Score: 1

      1) Move the thing closer to earth.
      2) Teleport the fuel here
      3) Live on a space station orbiting Titan

      I really don't know how much crazier these ideas are than "walking on the moon" was in 1900.

      Although my first reaction upon reading the headline was "isn't burning that much fuel on earth gonna make a big mess?"

      Maybe what needs to happen is to convery it to electrons and shoot them at the earth, but once you get to this extreme you end up, I suppose, realizing the sun does this already for us; perhps the whole thing is just a damn distraction and what really needs to happen is to find a way to make that feasable.

      Of course those in the position to do the most good these have the least incentive.

      So, nothing to see here, move along etc etc

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
    31. Re:Time for Space tankers to start taking flight by Trouvist · · Score: 1

      If I had any mod points, I would totally give you all of them.

    32. Re:Time for Space tankers to start taking flight by gr8scot · · Score: 1

      Or, you could be smart. Just build a space elevator, suck the hydrocarbon lakes dry from orbit, and occasionally send Australia-sized freighters full of fuel back to an Earth-orbiting space elevator -- with its terminus high enough that an Australia-sized freighter full of hydrocarbons could explode without knocking Australia off the map, of course.

      --
      All 19 hijackers were known terrorists 09-10-2001. Lack of FBI intelligence does not justify warrantless wiretaps..
    33. Re:Time for Space tankers to start taking flight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well thats obviously because you are going about it all wrong. I can supply a solution though - I'll need two space elevators and a really long pipe...

    34. Re:Time for Space tankers to start taking flight by Col+Bat+Guano · · Score: 1

      "Would it be worth it though?"
      I wonder. Burning up all of those hydrocarbons may put a serious dent in our oxygen levels.

    35. Re:Time for Space tankers to start taking flight by hardburn · · Score: 1

      IIRC, He3 is deposited on the surface by solar wind in the first place, so you're not taking away mass that wasn't being added by something else. For metal mining, asteroids are probably just as good.

      In any case, He3 is just one possible energy source available if we could reduce launch costs (and invent a nuclear reactor that can use He3, which is just theoretical at this point). Solar sats are probably a better option.

      --
      Not a typewriter
    36. Re:Time for Space tankers to start taking flight by hardburn · · Score: 1

      But He3 has a whole extra neutron to account for!

      --
      Not a typewriter
    37. Re:Time for Space tankers to start taking flight by hardburn · · Score: 1

      Correction--one less neutron. But we shouldn't let facts get in the way of a good protest.

      --
      Not a typewriter
    38. Re:Time for Space tankers to start taking flight by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 1

      So you've got at least 7 orders of magnitude of cost reductions to work through before you're competitive with terrestrial fossil fuels. They don't look upon we engineers with reverence for nothing!
      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    39. Re:Time for Space tankers to start taking flight by TheKidWho · · Score: 1

      Hyrdocarbons are used for a lot more than just fuel...

      Like fertilizer for our foods, plastics for our consumer products, medicines for our health problems...

      It is a lot more than JUST fuel. And in the near future we will NEED those resources.

    40. Re:Time for Space tankers to start taking flight by TheLink · · Score: 1

      "an Australia-sized freighter full of hydrocarbons could explode"

      While in theory the hydrocarbons could "explode" and turn to gas, it wouldn't be as spectacular (or easy) without an oxidizer.

      --
    41. Re:Time for Space tankers to start taking flight by Techman83 · · Score: 1

      The rate petrol costs are rising here in Australia, that'll become feasible in a year or 2

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i cat
      Damn, my RAM is full of cats. MEOW!!
    42. Re:Time for Space tankers to start taking flight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      The rocket that sent the Cassini probe to Saturn was 200 feet tall and filled with hundreds of tons of oxidizer and fuel. Even so, it took almost 10 years of bouncing around the solar system to leech additional energy from Venus, Earth and Jupiter to get a couple of tons of spacecraft in orbit around Saturn.

      The return trip would require just as much effort. Going towards the sun is no easier than away from it; that's why the Mercury probe is taking almost a decade to reach its destination.
      Actually it would be a lot easier, as the Sun is at the bottom of a large gravity well. The fact that the Messneger probe is taking so long is because of this fact which means that it picks up speed as it gets closer to the sun and the fact that Mercury has no atmosphere to aerobrake in. Mariner 10 only took two years to reach Mercury.
    43. Re:Time for Space tankers to start taking flight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Will we, as people, ever learn to give back to the environment, rather than continue seeking ways to exploit it?
      I mean, there is only so much damage you can do, before you have to clean it up... You can't burn more gas than there is air on the planet, nor can you justify importing ores of any exoteric origin. Learn to recycle - it's what nature could do since the beginning of time, so why can't you?

    44. Re:Time for Space tankers to start taking flight by gr8scot · · Score: 1

      it wouldn't be as spectacular (or easy) without an oxidizer. No, but OSHA would still insist on placing the thing far enough from Earth that terr'ists couldn't use it to blow up anything but themselves, which will be a good thing when/if we have an Australia-sized freighter full of hydrocarbons hanging out at the top of a space elevator!
      --
      All 19 hijackers were known terrorists 09-10-2001. Lack of FBI intelligence does not justify warrantless wiretaps..
    45. Re:Time for Space tankers to start taking flight by pcgabe · · Score: 1

      I've always drawn solace from the fact that eventually oil will run out and we'll stop pumping smog into the air. Can you imagine if we were not suddenly able to pump hundreds of times that amount into the air before we ran out?? Holy smokes!
      I don't see what the problem is, we'll just change planets again like we did when Venus got too smoggy.

      Right?

      Am I the only one who remembers that? OK, now I feel old. What are they teaching you kids in schools these days?
      --
      Don't put advice in your sig.
    46. Re:Time for Space tankers to start taking flight by DrSkwid · · Score: 1
      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    47. Re:Time for Space tankers to start taking flight by john83 · · Score: 1

      The return trip would require just as much effort. Going towards the sun is no easier than away from it; that's why the Mercury probe is taking almost a decade to reach its destination.

      No, it's taking a decade because we want it to enter orbit around Mercury, so it's taking a very, very convoluted route. We can get a rocket to do a flyby of Mercury in a matter of months.
      --
      Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
    48. Re:Time for Space tankers to start taking flight by bestinshow · · Score: 1

      And in 50-100 years when this becomes feasible? And 150 years when it actually happens?

      Oil will be $1000 - $3000 a barrel (not adjusted for inflation). It will be cheaper to "mine" old rubbish dumps for plastics to recycle.
      Space technologies will be 100x more mature, although humans in space will still be relatively rare (maybe a few thousand a year in 50 years time, to a few tens of thousands a year in 100 years time. 150 years? I think we'll see the first year to have 100,000 people-journeys into space).
      Sending large payloads through space will be done via a "point and shoot" method once they are in space. The other end would require a collector - but might be a drainer + nudge the empty container (still travelling at a fast rate) back to Titan. You'd need a space elevator at both ends I imagine, although getting the oil off of Titan with it's lower gravity might not be a big issue, given that the energy to do that is all over the place.

      Of course, I'd hope that the need for oil in 100 years time would be far far lower than now. In addition, do we really want to pump even more CO2 into our atmosphere that was never even here to start off with?

      The biggest issue with spaceships transporting oil is that you run the risk of picking up acid-blooded aliens en-route.

    49. Re:Time for Space tankers to start taking flight by kvezach · · Score: 1

      About the only way of making this feasible is to use a gas core or fusion rocket (insert 50-100 years of engineering here). At that point, you can just stick the reactor on Earth and heat up water instead (or liquid salt or some molten metal if you want to do thermocracking of steam into hydrogen and oxygen).

      So in other words, yes, the need for oil in 100 years time would be far lower than now. Even if 100 years only gives us Project Orion, that still has the Earth analog of PACER...

    50. Re:Time for Space tankers to start taking flight by Branko · · Score: 1

      The return trip would require just as much effort.

      Actually it wouldn't (measured by required energy).

      The gravitational well of a small moon can be defeated using much smaller amount of energy compared to Earth's gravitational well. That's why Apollo landers could take off from Moon on puny thrusters compared Saturn 5s required for escaping Earth.

      Thousands of V2 rockets had gotten "out of our atmosphere" by 1945.

      Getting out of atmosphere is not the same thing as entering the orbit, much less breaking it (as required for inter-planetary travel).

    51. Re:Time for Space tankers to start taking flight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Getting back to Earth actually would be much easier then getting to Saturn, considering that you for instance have the Saturnian system to get gravity assists from, or that titan being a much lighter object, you won't need anywhere near an as powerful rocket.

      So while technically seen, even with these reduced needs it still is kind of unlikely, it isn't near anywhere as unlikely as you paint it out to be.

      PS It is kind of stupid to call someone else stupid when you don't really understand it all that well yourself either.

    52. Re:Time for Space tankers to start taking flight by Branko · · Score: 1

      Valid points, if we organize extra-Terrestrial hydrocarbon extraction operation in the same way as Apollo.

      However, setting a factory that would produce rockets on site (on the given moon) and fill them with fuel available on site would change the dynamics of the problem significantly. We don't need anything sophisticated - just "point and shoot" rocket that can lift off the moon and make minimal corrections so it hits the Earth. Basically, you would have a huge financial hit at the start, but the more is produced on site, the less needs to be (expensively) carried from Earth and more economical this scheme becomes.

      All of this is extremely far fetched, or course, but I don't see a reason why it shouldn't technically work by the time hydrocarbons on Earth become scarce. Whether we should try it at all (instead of developing alternative energy sources) is another matter entirely.

      One more reason to look at developing technology and, perhaps, biology for self-sustained survival outside of Earth...

    53. Re:Time for Space tankers to start taking flight by electrosoccertux · · Score: 1

      Everyone seems to be forgetting about space elevators. Sure, we might not be able to build a carbon nanotube elevator on earth that would not buckle under it's own weight, but seeing as the gravity on Titan is only 1/10th that of earths, we could build a space elevator 10x higher than the point of failure for carbon nanotubes on Earth. Shoot, we could build a steel structure 20 miles at that rate. Carbon nanotubes? 100? 1000? I don't know the current limit to building them here on Earth. At any rate, I'm certain it would be enough to where the anchor is in orbit.

      So we have space elevator and the transportation into orbit becomes effectively free.
      Using nuclear powered transportation (whatever that rocket is that shoots ionized Xenon particles out the back at near-light-speed for propulsion; please forgive my terminology here), the transportation back takes a lot of time; but not a lot of energy.

      Then we just need something to lower the fuel back to Earth. Maybe we don't have a space elevator, perhaps just a tether anchored to an asteroid we've directed into orbit will let us lower the fuel into the atmosphere far enough that a parachute becomes feasible.

      I never liked naysayers.

    54. Re:Time for Space tankers to start taking flight by Hucko · · Score: 1

      Venus. We just need to scrub out the carbon. While we are at it we may as well dump our carbon waste there too. Mars wouldn't be a terrible option. I think the outer solar system has an excess of carbon dioxide too.

      --
      Semi-automatic amateur armchair Australian philosopher; conjecture ready at any moment...
    55. Re:Time for Space tankers to start taking flight by DavidShor · · Score: 1

      No, even with a space elevator, it cannot be done. There is a strict lower-bound imposed by physics on how much energy it takes to get something away from a planet. This is almost certainly more then the energy content of the fuels.

    56. Re:Time for Space tankers to start taking flight by electrosoccertux · · Score: 1

      So what? You're missing the point. The energy we can use to power an elevator into orbit comes from a non-mobile source-- nuclear power.

      We use that nuclear power to obtain energy that we CAN take with us in a mobile fashion-- gas.

    57. Re:Time for Space tankers to start taking flight by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Actually, the Sun's gravity doesn't really help. You are correct that it is more difficult to insert a probe into orbit without an atmosphere to aerobrake into.

      Let's suppose you have a probe in solar orbit at the radius of Mercury and want to get to Earth. Let's suppose you have another probe in solar orbit at the radius of Earth and want to get to Mercury. Which takes more effort?

      The effort is actually the same in both cases - you need to enter a transfer orbit which is an ellipse that is tangental to both orbits. To enter this orbit you need to change your velocity relative to the Sun. If you're in orbit near the Earth you need to slow down quite a bit, and if you're in orbit near Mercury you need to speed up quite a bit. I believe the amount of delta-v is about the same (if not the same then the difference is pretty small compared to the total effort required), and speeding up and slowing down both require about the same amount of impulse - aka the same amount of fuel.

      Read up on orbital mechanics - objects in orbit don't seem to act like objects on the Earth. Sure, when you drop a marble in space it falls towards the sun, but if it is in solar orbit it also is flying tangental to the sun with tremendous velocity so falling toward the sun means going in an ellipse around it instead of flying out into space. That's how black holes like the one in the center of the Milky Way can lie dormant for millions of years - tons of matter nearby but it is all in orbit so nothing falls in...

  9. Iraq invasion money could've been better spent by GoatRavisher · · Score: 1

    Since he likes playing dress-up maybe W should go on a "fact finding" mission to Titan.

    --
    Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest. --Denis Diderot
  10. in related news by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Funny

    1. Titan found to have WMDs

    2. GW Bush orders the militarization of NASA

    3. "Mission Accomplished" announced before probes with frickin' laser beams get past the orbit of Mars

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:in related news by Huxley_Dunsany · · Score: 1
      Dammit, I just logged in to make the same joke!

      Well done.

    2. Re:in related news by pablodiazgutierrez · · Score: 1

      4. Profit!!!

    3. Re:in related news by b0nafide · · Score: 1

      5. "space elevator" turns out to be a very, very long straw.

    4. Re:in related news by drfreak · · Score: 1

      4. Profit!

    5. Re:in related news by Danny+Rathjens · · Score: 1

      "Besides, any object orbiting or transiting through space can be a weapon if that object is intentionally placed onto a collision course with another space object." -- Whitehouse spokeswoman Dana Perino
      This is regarding US objection to ban on weapons in space but still a bit apropos. :)

      http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/world/europe/13arms.html
    6. Re:in related news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Mission Accomplished" announced before probes with frickin' laser beams get past the orbit of Mars Doh! If only they had used sharks...
    7. Re:in related news by kalirion · · Score: 1

      Well we can't wait for Titan's puppet master overlords to make it over here and start taking us over, can we? Gotta fight 'em over there so we don't have to fight them over here!

      Besides, the Titanians will welcome us as liberators.

    8. Re:in related news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good old Chimpy McFlightsuit.

    9. Re:in related news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      4. Titan explodes into flame.
      5. Hundreds of thousands of Titans are roasted alive.
      6. Titan liberation time-line changed from a few months to infinity.
      7. Astronaut deaths steadily increase as the years go by.
      8. Costs spiral out of control.
      9. The front pages of all major newspapers continue to focus on Britney Spears, with Titan news typically taking up 1/8 of page 10.
      10. Taco Bell's low-yield nuclear weapons division buys Congress.

  11. so.... by JeanBaptiste · · Score: 2, Interesting

    if all our stuff supposedly came from dead dinosaurs, what does this mean?

    1. Re:so.... by x2A · · Score: 0

      Options:

      A - Titan has had hundreds of times more dinosaurs than us that are now all hydrocarbons.
      B - Titan's hydrocarbons come from something other than [just] dinosaurs.
      C - The reading is incorrect; Titan has no hydrocarbons.

      Other relevant options:
      A - Our hydrocarbons didn't [all] come from dinosaurs.

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    2. Re:so.... by schnikies79 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Short-chain hydrocarbons are fairly common in the universe, as has been stated above. Short-chain would be ethane, methane, propane. Basically any carbon chain that is lighter than air.

      As for now, the only source of long-chain hydrocarbons, aka what we commonly consider oil (C20+) is earth.

      --
      Gone!
    3. Re:so.... by FudRucker · · Score: 1

      hydrocarbons comes from pressure baked rock?

      --
      Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    4. Re:so.... by budgenator · · Score: 1

      There is also an abiogenic oil theory that states the oil and gas are not a fossil fuel, but generated by purely geological forces without an input of plant of animal material.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    5. Re:so.... by moderatorrater · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Communist.

    6. Re:so.... by mrbcs · · Score: 1

      Lots of dead dinosaurs on Titan? Did they have a shuttle?

      --
      I'm not anti-social, I'm anti-idiot.
    7. Re:so.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      isn't propane heavier than air?

    8. Re:so.... by schnikies79 · · Score: 1

      It is, I was just making a point.

      There is no real dividing line between between short-chain and long-chain.

      --
      Gone!
  12. Call me Uninformed...but by Marc_Hawke · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Aren't the hydrocarbons on earth (oil, coal, etc) the remains of LIFE? They've always been called 'fossil fuels.' We're burning dinosaurs.

    So...where did these big extra-terrestrial reserves come from?

    (Simple answer would be, "That's not the only way hydro-carbons form" but I've never heard that mentioned before.)

    --
    --Welcome to the Realm of the Hawke--
    1. Re:Call me Uninformed...but by Doppler00 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Maybe another way to think of it is that earth used to be like Titan and had a vast sea of hydrocarbons too until life evolved to metabolize it and turn it into living things.

    2. Re:Call me Uninformed...but by exultavit · · Score: 4, Informative

      Take a gander at: abiogenic petroleum origin.

      Unfortunately, or fortunately (depending on your point of view), almost all the evidence is against abiogenic terrestrial petroleum.

    3. Re:Call me Uninformed...but by Inominate · · Score: 1

      It's a little bit crackpot, but there is speculation that oil, and especially methane on earth comes from non-biological sources.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin

    4. Re:Call me Uninformed...but by Tassach · · Score: 1

      I forget his name, but there's a rather famous geologist who's been saying for years that petroleum is created by geologic, not organic, processes. For the most part he's been dismissed as a crank. Perhaps this is the evidence to get the establishment to start taking him more seriously.

      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    5. Re:Call me Uninformed...but by milsoRgen · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually hydrocarbons are more than just oil, methane for one. Which is believed to be located in several locations in our solar system.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane#Extraterrestrial_methane

      --
      I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask where they're goin' and hook up with 'em later.
    6. Re:Call me Uninformed...but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Methane is a hydro carbon. It's found in more places in the universe then I care to count.

    7. Re:Call me Uninformed...but by nguy · · Score: 1

      The evidence is against near-surface deposits being of non-biological origin. There is no evidence either for or against deep deposits being of non-biological origin. So, I think we simply don't know how much, if any, oil is of abiogenic origin. Unfortunately, this has become a political and commercial hot potato.

      From an environmental point of view, we should hope it's false because if there is substantially more oil and gas than we think there is, we will sooner or later transform Earth into Venus. In fact, this is well what may have happened to Venus...

    8. Re:Call me Uninformed...but by Rei · · Score: 2, Informative

      Scientists have known about organics in space for a long, long time.

      The reason why Titan has large amounts of methane is A) there's no oxygen to reduce it to CO2 and H2O; B) there's little sunlight, so photochemistry that can make Titan lose its hydrogen is slow; and C) Titan is "freaking cold", and so ices can outgas for a long time and chemistry occurs slowly.

      --
      "Is Donald Trump a racist? I'll let you decide 'Yes' for yourself."
    9. Re:Call me Uninformed...but by algaeman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      These hydrocarbons are most likely formed by high pressures in a strongly reducing environment. These are, in fact, the conditions that existed in our general vicinity 4 billion years ago. At that time, a runaway chemical reaction occurred, which eventually produced extremely long-chained organics, like DNA, cellulose, chlorophyll and bile. It is the decomposition products of these materials under high pressure and temperature that produce fossil fuels. These are larger organics (eg octane- with eight carbons) than you would expect to find in a place like Titan.

    10. Re:Call me Uninformed...but by Dun+Malg · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Aren't the hydrocarbons on earth (oil, coal, etc) the remains of LIFE? The biogenic oil theory is from the 18th century--- Mikhail Lomonosov, in 1757 to be exact--- when no one could imagine any other way traces of organic matter could have gotten into something that came from such a deep, hot, inhospitable place. Extremophile life has been confirmed in even more inhospitable places since then. Most of the objections to abiogenic oil theory have been specific objections the various formation theories. The presence of that much "organic" hydrocarbon material on Titan, raises an interesting question: are abiogenic hydrocarbons just plentiful in the universe, or was titan crawling with organic life? Personally, I don't think much of the latter...
      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    11. Re:Call me Uninformed...but by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Somebody in the 'establishment' did take Thomas Gold's hypothisis seriously in the 80's. They spent $60m drilling holes in a granite crater selected by Gold and recovered eight barrels of oily sludge. The sludge was thought to be lubricant used in the drilling process but later was conclusively shown to be seepage from nearby sedimentry rocks, cranks (including Gold) still belive otherwise.

      In other words - Gold's hypothisis has been falsified.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    12. Re:Call me Uninformed...but by canuck57 · · Score: 1, Informative

      So...where did these big extra-terrestrial reserves come from?

      Fantastic question. For if true, they are in fact admitting life is elsewhere. Who would have guessed to, our first possible absolute proof is hydrocarbon gue from another planet/moon in out solar system.

      Actually, we are burning the mostly the old vegetation and not just the dinosaurs. But where there is vegetation there is likely bugs. Maybe even big ones. One must remember that all the oil burned today was alive at some distant part in the past, including carbon in gas form such as CO2. It is just going full circle.

      So where did Titan get all this hydrocarbon from? But at -179C for so long, makes one wonder it if was not related to how life started here on earth. The things we do not know...

    13. Re:Call me Uninformed...but by ari_j · · Score: 1
    14. Re:Call me Uninformed...but by arodland · · Score: 1

      "That's not the only way" -- it's just the only way that happens in significant amounts on the Earth. Titan, on the other hand, is a very different place, and has a methane-rich atmosphere; every now and then, those methanes get zapped by a passing UV photon and start forming longer carbon chains, which then "rain" out of the atmosphere due to their density. Or so we think, anyway -- obviously we're still working on figuring out what the place is all about.

    15. Re:Call me Uninformed...but by alexgieg · · Score: 1

      From an environmental point of view, we should hope it's false because if there is substantially more oil and gas than we think there is, we will sooner or later transform Earth into Venus.
      Not necessarily. Even if the abiogenic hypothesis was shown to be correct, that wouldn't necessarily mean either that there are that many more reserves out there, or that Earth's "oil production rate" is higher/faster than our consumption rate. For all practical effects, reserves might "dry up" in an abiogenic oil scenario as much as it does in a fossil oil scenario, the only difference between both theories being that, in the abiogenic one, in millions of years Earth would have developed new oil reserves, while in the fossil one that's either unlikely, or would take substantially more time.
      --
      Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
    16. Re:Call me Uninformed...but by coaxial · · Score: 1

      No. hydrocarbons are just hydrogen and carbon molecules. They're very common. FYI: Organic compounds are just hydrocarbons with oxygen attached. That's it. Organic compounds aren't that special either.

    17. Re:Call me Uninformed...but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are actually theories that oil is not, in fact, the remains of dead organisms, but instead ancestral hydrocarbons that have bubbled up from the core of the earth and served as food for anaerobic bacteria (which created the complex hydrocarbons found in oil). Google "abotic oil" or "Thomas Gold" if you're interested. I dunno whether it's true, but it sounds plausible to me, especially when you see vast quantities of simple hydrocarbons on other planets...

    18. Re:Call me Uninformed...but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Fantastic question. For if true, they are in fact admitting life is elsewhere. Who would have guessed to, our first possible absolute proof is hydrocarbon gue from another planet/moon in out solar system.


      The problem with your gushing ("possible aboslute proof!") theories is that this is ethane and methane that we are talking about under the large label of "hydrocarbons". It's only liquid because of the temperature and pressure there, and bears minimal similarity to crude oil.
    19. Re:Call me Uninformed...but by nguy · · Score: 1

      Not necessarily. Even if the abiogenic hypothesis was shown to be correct, that wouldn't necessarily mean either that there are that many more reserves out there,

      "The abiogenic hypothesis" doesn't just mean that oil can be created non-organically in tiny amounts--that's been clearly demonstrated--but it also means that there's lots of the stuff around.

  13. Aztec Gold by Arakageeta · · Score: 1

    And there were cities paved with gold in the Americas.

  14. That's okay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm pretty sure the Titans are jealous of Earth's vast water reserves, which (as they say) "droppeth as the gentle dew from Heaven, Upon the place beneath".

  15. Big deal by the_humeister · · Score: 4, Insightful

    By the time the cost of technology required to go to Titan falls to a reasonable level, we should have already passed the need to use hydrocarbons as our main source of energy.

    1. Re:Big deal by timmarhy · · Score: 0, Troll

      hydrocarbons are good for lots of things besides fuel, numbnuts.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    2. Re:Big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOTS of things? My, how insightful you are! Thanks for sharing!

    3. Re:Big deal by the_humeister · · Score: 1
      Nice going with the ad hominem. But if you actually read the article, it's written in such a way as to suggest it as a source of fuel:

      Proven reserves of natural gas on Earth total 130 thousand million tons, enough to provide 300 times the amount of energy the entire United States uses annually for residential heating, cooling and lighting. Dozens of Titan's lakes individually have the equivalent of at least this much energy in the form of methane and ethane.
    4. Re:Big deal by thrillseeker · · Score: 5, Funny

      hydrocarbons are good for lots of things besides fuel, numbnuts

      Does one rub it on to get that effect?

    5. Re:Big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look, he said he uses them for his numb nuts.

    6. Re:Big deal by WeirdJohn · · Score: 1

      Although many have pointed out that we have enough hydrocarbons here on Earth for our forseeable non-fuel needs, I see a resource like Titan would be great for nanobot driven construction of truely massive structures. Imagine a nano-tube based space elevator about Titan with swarms of little bots running up and down, constructing orbital farms or solar concentrators that are tens or even hundreds of hectares in size.

      Don't think of this discovery of what we can do now, think of what we can do in one or two hundred years.

    7. Re:Big deal by Heir+Of+The+Mess · · Score: 1

      Given that space travel will be more popular by that point, then there must be some technology coming along that can convert electricity into thrust. Given Newtonian Physics that's going to be tricky. There might be a use for all the explodable material afterall.

      --
      Australian running a company that does C# / C++ / Java / SQL / Python / Mathematica
    8. Re:Big deal by Agent__Smith · · Score: 1

      "If rubbing permafrost on your crotch is wrong, I don't want to be right"

      --
      "It seems that we are at the age where life stops giving us things, and starts taking them away..." Indiana Jones
    9. Re:Big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But if you actually read the article, it's written in such a way as to suggest it as a source of fuel:

      You're reading that the way you want to read it, not the way it is written. It says only a size comparison, nothing more.

    10. Re:Big deal by kabocox · · Score: 1

      By the time the cost of technology required to go to Titan falls to a reasonable level, we should have already passed the need to use hydrocarbons as our main source of energy.

      Shh, we need to convince the government that need this. It would force the development of either solar sails, ion drives, or fusion drives and some nice energy sources to get there. Of course by the time, we actually get there, we won't "need it" anymore, but that's not the point. We'd be in space with nice intra solar drives and a some type of nice energy source.

    11. Re:Big deal by ucblockhead · · Score: 1

      I remember reading that argument before. It explained why the only way we'd get to the moon was on a rocket powered by nuclear fission. Written in 1950. Fortunately, it explained, nuclear power would make power too cheap to meter.

      --
      The cake is a pie
  16. pointless by timmarhy · · Score: 5, Funny

    tree huggers will march on the white house demanding the save titan from the evil corporations and their explotation of a defensless moon.

    --
    If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    1. Re:pointless by bh_doc · · Score: 1

      There aren't any trees on Titan to hug. As far as we know...

    2. Re:pointless by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · · Score: 1

      That won't stop idiots from protesting.

      --
      "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
    3. Re:pointless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      tree huggers
      Wow dude, the Arctic ocean will be free of summer ice by 2013 and you're still calling environmentalists "tree huggers"?
    4. Re:pointless by gandhi_2 · · Score: 1

      Not Titan! We're peaceful, we have no weapons!

    5. Re:pointless by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Titan is a huge polluted mess, unsuitable for human life. We must designate it a toxic superfund site and clean up all those nasty hydrocarbon pollutants.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    6. Re:pointless by timmarhy · · Score: 1, Insightful
      "Arctic ocean will be free of summer ice by 2013"

      consider the following:

      either i'm wrong and tree huggers ARE serious environmentalists, in which case they are totally useless and wasting their life if the arctic is indeed free of ice by 2013, having failed completely to convince the world that this impending disaster is real....

      .... OR they aren't serious and just bangwagon jumpers, clinging to the lastest catch cry of the righteous, and the sea ice is still going to be there in 2013 (as i'm most positive it would be)

      take your pick, because it's one of the two.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    7. Re:pointless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      and the sea ice is still going to be there in 2013 (as i'm most positive it would be)

      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071026095001.htm

      p.s. You need to see a therapist about your personality disorder.
    8. Re:pointless by jd_esguerra · · Score: 1

      Wow dude, the Arctic ocean will be free of summer ice by 2013 and you're still calling environmentalists "tree huggers"? (Emphasis added)

      Has the stereotype changed much?

    9. Re:pointless by timmarhy · · Score: 1
      you need to learn how to read. no where in that does it state no arctic sea ice by 2013. As expected it's more number pulling from assholes.

      Which justifies my tree hugger comment and comfirms them being incapable of making a serious argument and not being serious about their crusade at all.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    10. Re:pointless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Nazis would have steamrolled you, Gandhi. Titan is just begging to be invaded.

    11. Re:pointless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nah, apart from the one dude, the sensible people ignored you the instant you polarized the issue to two extremes.

      that trick only works on a fox news audience. The array of possible opinions and stances for any issue are multi-dimensional. not polarized, not a gradient of gray.

      Lots of perspectives out there, too bad our minds work categorically so its easier on the mind to reduce the number of categories for any issue and ignore the complexity.....oh right thats what i meant about fox news.

      Come to think of it, sounds like high end physics too. Assume enough, and you can make any theory fit our observations.

    12. Re:pointless by wall0159 · · Score: 1

      I realise you're joking, and it's a very funny, clever and original joke, but...

      Since when did the term tree-hugger become a pejorative? If, I had the choice between knowing a "tree-hugger" and knowing a person whose only governing motive was greed and avarice... I know which I'd choose.

    13. Re:pointless by timmarhy · · Score: 1

      2 opposing points aren't mutlidimensonal.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    14. Re:pointless by malsdavis · · Score: 1

      "take your pick, because it's one of the two." ...or there may be a multitude of different motivators influencing every environmentalist in a different way. The environmentalist trying to stop his local park from being cut down and tarmacked over for another new Walmart has a tad different motivation from someone protesting against global warming.

      It is always folly to categorize groups so simplistically and presume all people of one viewpoint, organization, society, nationality etc. are motivated by the exact same goals.

      Are you trying to say all us nerd's, for example, are motivated by the exact same concerns and goals?

    15. Re:pointless by pokerdad · · Score: 1

      "Arctic ocean will be free of summer ice by 2013" consider the following: either i'm wrong and tree huggers ARE serious environmentalists, in which case they are totally useless and wasting their life if the arctic is indeed free of ice by 2013, having failed completely to convince the world that this impending disaster is real.... .... OR they aren't serious and just bangwagon jumpers, clinging to the lastest catch cry of the righteous, and the sea ice is still going to be there in 2013 (as i'm most positive it would be) take your pick, because it's one of the two.

      I'm pretty sure that for my entire lifetime global catastrophy has never been more than five years away by their clocks. Sometimes the reason the world is going to end changes, and often the date is quietly moved a little further back. Just off the top of my head, here's some things I was promised should have killed us years ago:

      • smog
      • global cooling
      • nuclear disaster
      • acid rain
      • ozone hole
      • deforestation
      • global warming

      Also its worth noting, that while a number of species have gone extinct in my lifetime, its never been the ones that tree huggers have promised would (and not because of their efforts either, considering those doing the killing were never stopped). I don't recall any exact dates, but I am quite sure that elephants, several varieties of whales and apes were all due to be extinct more than a decade ago. (and as far as I know, the actvities that threaten them have never stopped)

      As for the question of are they wasting their time or are they just not serious, I used to believe that there were some in each camp. However, actions and statements of several high profile environmentalists (notably Dadid Suzuki) in the past few years have convinced me that they are all bandwagon jumpers.

    16. Re:pointless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2013 is a worst case scenario, using certain new models developed to take new ice destroying effects in to account, best case scenario is some in the 2040s probably. In all seriousness though, I wouldn't be surprised if it is almost all gone by 2020, considering the disastrous 2007 ice melt, though I'm waiting for this years ice melt to be more sure really.

    17. Re:pointless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There may, indeed, be a multitude of motivators.
      And there may be perfectly good, upstanding, and completely correct reasons to save a local park.

      However, once the "save the local park" people decide that the best way to further their (perfectly admirable) cause is to brand themselves a local offshoot of Greenpeace, and go around screaming about global warming and deforestation destroying the world by the time the kids have finished elementary school, and *therefore* we must not touch the local park, to ensure ourselves at least *some* oxygen during the impending disaster (provided, of course, by the 5 trees in said local park), then they are obvious bandwagon jumpers, and their grandstanding claims can safely be ignored by all right-thinking people.

      Yes, their original claim of "we should save the local park" may be right and good.
      And the overall claim of global warming and deforestation is a problem may be right, as well.
      But when people who actually want one are yelling at the top of their lungs about the other as a convenient, politically-popular of-the-moment way to further their cause, and giving up everything from plastic pacifiers to rancoats because "we're all going to die tomorrow," they are bandwagon jumpers, and absolutely no different from the "there are Muslims in Chechnya, and they might harbor terrorists, so let's go bomb Russia" people. There may be good reasons to bomb Russia (who am I to say otherwise?), but the fact that the Chechens are Muslim is not it. Why not present each issue on its merits, in a calm and reasonable fashion, and we can all talk about it? Otherwise, you're just running around like a chicken with its head cut off, screaming that the sky is falling, and are not to be taken seriously. At least not by the scientifically inclined (you might get somewhere with the media-whoring politicians, though).

  17. Rather pointless for energy reasons... by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 1

    A mission out to Titan to collect a load of hydrocarbons would cost far more energy than the load would be worth. We'd be much better off investing in an orbital solar power station.

    --
    ____

    ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    1. Re:Rather pointless for energy reasons... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it would be a one-time trip. Send humans up to set up a station in low orbit around Titan. Since the hydrocarbons 'rain' out of the atmosphere of Titan you could feasibly harvest the 'airborne' hydrocarbons and simply calculate a launch trajectory to a receiving station in Earth orbit. The humans that fly out, eh, for a greater cause.

    2. Re:Rather pointless for energy reasons... by mi · · Score: 1

      A mission out to Titan to collect a load of hydrocarbons would cost far more energy than the load would be worth.

      Same is true about Iraq's oil... Does not stop millions of idiots world-wide from claiming, ours is a "War for Oil".

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    3. Re:Rather pointless for energy reasons... by Conception · · Score: 1

      While that is true, it does possibly mean that you could have a base near Titan with a rich power source near by.

    4. Re:Rather pointless for energy reasons... by physicsnick · · Score: 2, Informative

      Same is true about Iraq's oil... No it's not. The people profiting from Iraqi oil are not the people paying for the war.
    5. Re:Rather pointless for energy reasons... by Voline · · Score: 1

      A mission out to Titan to collect a load of hydrocarbons would cost far more energy than the load would be worth.
      Same is true about Iraq's oil... Does not stop millions of idiots world-wide from claiming, ours is a "War for Oil".

      It may be true that Iraq's oil will turn out to be more expensive to seize than it is worth. But the people benefiting from the war are not the one's paying for it. So in their calculations it is a great deal.

      The public bears the costs and certain well-connected corporations reap the benefits.

      If you still think that the invasion of Iraq was about "WMD" or bringing democracy to that country and not cold hard cash, you are worse than an idoit. You are a sucker.

    6. Re:Rather pointless for energy reasons... by anonypus_user · · Score: 1

      Who said anything about bringing it back to earth? (I didn't read TFA) This planets already screwed, maybe the colonists will be able to use it for their own purposes.

    7. Re:Rather pointless for energy reasons... by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      No it's not. The people profiting from Iraqi oil are not the people paying for the war.
      This is true. The US taxpayers foot the bill, and the profits go to the Iraqi people, as well as various companies from the Netherlands, Australia, and Asia. Seems like a pretty shitty deal. The least that evil Bushitler could have done was secure the oil fields and let US companies rape them for the last 5 years. Instead he used the military to try and protect Iraqi civilians! What a dumb bastard. Now you'll NEVER get any returns on your investment!
    8. Re:Rather pointless for energy reasons... by freedom_india · · Score: 1

      The US taxpayers foot the bill, and the profits go to the Iraqi people, as well as various companies from the Netherlands

      Instead he used the military to try and protect Iraqi civilians Ha ha ha. If you believe that i have a bridge to sell to you.

      Tax payers foot the bill, the profits go to Exxon, Mobil, and the Iraqi people are murdered [by US forces].

      The first rule of war is simple: Tax payers foot the bill. Corporates reap the profits.
      --
      "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
    9. Re:Rather pointless for energy reasons... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup, finally, those long suffering Iraqi people are just raking in the profits...

    10. Re:Rather pointless for energy reasons... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you still think that the invasion of Iraq was about "WMD" or bringing democracy to that country and not cold hard cash, you are worse than an idiot. You are a sucker.

      Well at this point any idiot can understand the error. But before the invasion the most of the idiots couldn't see the consequences.

    11. Re:Rather pointless for energy reasons... by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Ha ha ha. If you believe that i have a bridge to sell to you.
      The facts are easily checkable. US oil imports from Iraq have been almost non existent. That you seem to be unaware of this tells me only that you're easily fooled by popular rumours.

      Tax payers foot the bill, the profits go to Exxon, Mobil,
      Prove it. If what you say is true, there should be plenty of evidence for it. So let's see some numbers. How much Oil has Exxon Mobil pumped out of Iraq?
    12. Re:Rather pointless for energy reasons... by freedom_india · · Score: 1

      Take a look at http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home on the cost of war.
      Now, take a look at http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/earnings/2005-10-27-xom_x.htm for Exxon profits.

      Then, take a look at http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=56496 which states Iraq is producing 2.4 million barrels a day.
      If you are still not satisfied, take a look at Exxon's filing at: http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idUKN0645391820080206

      I understand that as a Bush supporter, you MUST attack the Enemy i.e, whoever talks the truth about Big Oil Profits and taxpayers.

      I understand, but i still pity you.

      --
      "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
    13. Re:Rather pointless for energy reasons... by phlinn · · Score: 1

      I'm not following your logic here. Apparently it runs as follows:
      1. The war in iraq is expensive.
      2. A Rxxon is making a bunch of money. (Although it's only about 10% of gross sales, which is a bit LOW for most companies)
      3. Iraq is succesfully producing oil, and several companines including exxon want in on it.
      4. No really, exxon is looking to expand in Iraq.
      Therefore, the entire war to date has been for the benefit of exxon.

      Really, how does that follow? They haven't yet begun operating in iraq, they dont' currently buy oil from iraq, but somehow the war has been a major source of profit for them? Please show a shred of evidence that the war has caused them to become more profitable, as opposed to increased demand and other suppliers.

      --
      "Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
    14. Re:Rather pointless for energy reasons... by freedom_india · · Score: 1

      First i thought of replying angrily to you, but then i sat down and thought.
      Ya, you are right if i look deep into articles.
      Iraq has not yet started real oil production and Exxon is not pumping oil out of Iraq at present.

      You are correct. What i gave was circumstantial evidence at best and wrong evidence at worst.
      Moreover i tried to insult you.

      Am sorry. Should have checked the facts and then talked to you.

      --
      "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
    15. Re:Rather pointless for energy reasons... by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Hey, good on ya man! It's always good to see someone who can re-analyze their beliefs in a rational manner, and admit to being wrong. I really respect that.

      By the way, you probably didn't realize it, but the comment you were responding was made by phlinn, and not by me. However, his response was pretty much exactly what I would have written.

      Anyway, thanks for showing me that not all users on slashdot are stubborn ignoramus' :) You really cheered up my day!

    16. Re:Rather pointless for energy reasons... by phlinn · · Score: 1

      I second c6gunner's comments. :) I apologize for being a bit snarky. And I thank you for not taking me to task for misspelling Exoon. I swear I hit prieview...

      Incidentally, this is why I like message boards sometimes. People will post up their sources for you. I now feel compelled to back up that 10%. Keeping 9.41 out of 102.3 billion just doesn't seem wrong to me.

      --
      "Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
  18. You Silly Humans... by phorest · · Score: 1

    You still insist on calling hydro-carbons "fossil-fuels".

    --
    God: When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.
  19. Moreover by martin-boundary · · Score: 2, Funny
    By an amazing coincidence, Titan doesn't actually have democracy over there...

    Yet.

    1. Re:Moreover by Panaflex · · Score: 1

      Best comment yet!

      --
      I said no... but I missed and it came out yes.
  20. We just misheard by Chairboy · · Score: 5, Funny

    "That's no moon. It's a gas station!"

    1. Re:We just misheard by Bayoudegradeable · · Score: 1

      well done :)

      --
      Sig Registration Form 34c_766(a) submitted to Ministry of Signature Management. Approval pending.
    2. Re:We just misheard by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      "That's no moon. It's a gas station!"

      The "tagging beta" has that slogan. Which one came first?

    3. Re:We just misheard by LilBlackKittie · · Score: 1

      A thousand big-oil execs anticipating the possibilities just shuddered and moaned in climax.

    4. Re:We just misheard by MiniMike · · Score: 1

      Ideally. While it would be wildly impractical to bring this stuff back to Earth, it might work well as a place to top off the tanks of space probes. Just haul some of this stuff into orbit, meet up with the load of oxidizer (maybe from one of the local ice covered moons, or scooped from Saturn), and fill up your tanks. Probably would really speed up exploration of the outer solar system if our probes could just go wherever they want to, instead of waiting for an alignment and slingshotting around. With a little planning, we could probably also send tanks of fuel to orbit Jupiter, or wherever else we want. Not without its own problems, but nothing too much more difficult than what's already been done.

    5. Re:We just misheard by whatrevolution · · Score: 1

      "Quick, pull this thing over. I gotta piss."

      "I'm trying, I'm TRYING!",
      "No good. They've got a tractor locked up in front of us..."

  21. well, ain't that sumethin' by jollyreaper · · Score: 2, Funny

    Oil in space, never saw that coming. I suppose if we do find life on Titan, it will have to be divided into two armed camps, warring over tribal superstitions no educated sentient should believe in.

    --
    Kwisatz Haderach
    Sell the spice to CHOAM
    This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    1. Re:well, ain't that sumethin' by morethanapapercert · · Score: 1

      Oil in space? E.E. "Doc" Smith saw it coming. A major element of The Sub-Space Explorers (sorry no wiki article, but published by Ace in 1965, Berkeley Books paperback form in 1983 ISBN 0-425-06245-7) is the idea of huge corporations, each running entire planets dedicated to each specialized industry. (Lactia produces milk and meat, NewMars produces oil and so on)
        As for planets divided into two warring factions based on irrational ideologies; well, there are too many to list in science fiction. (Probably because the problem is so damn common down here!)
        But a notable one can be found in Star Trek:TOS

      --
      I need a wheelchair van for my son. Help me get the word out. https://www.gofundme.com/wheelchair-van-for-jj
    2. Re:well, ain't that sumethin' by OldManAndTheC++ · · Score: 1

      ...two armed camps, warring over tribal superstitions no educated sentient should believe in.

      Shame on you and your disrespect for other cultures! That is no way to talk about the ancient and bitter feud between Star Trek and Star Wars fans!

      --
      Soylent Green is peoplicious!
    3. Re:well, ain't that sumethin' by freedom_india · · Score: 1

      Real Men watch Star Trek.
      Star Wars is for the weenies and titanic-sentiment gals amongst us. Those who can't digest a whole rich deep universe of threads like DS9, Quark, etc.
      Star Trek universe is much more rich and diverse. Each culture has its own dilemma and issues and there are never right and wrong answers. Federation itself is never always right like when they assasinated the Romulan Ambassador. Similarly, not all bad guys are bad: Quark, Horta, Klingons and even the Borg.
      Star Trek universe revolves around two characters: The ones with the Force and ones with the Light Saber.

      --
      "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
    4. Re:well, ain't that sumethin' by jollyreaper · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Real Men watch Star Trek.
      Star Wars is for the weenies and titanic-sentiment gals amongst us. Those who can't digest a whole rich deep universe of threads like DS9, Quark, etc.
      Star Trek universe is much more rich and diverse. Each culture has its own dilemma and issues and there are never right and wrong answers. Federation itself is never always right like when they assasinated the Romulan Ambassador. Similarly, not all bad guys are bad: Quark, Horta, Klingons and even the Borg.
      Star Trek universe revolves around two characters: The ones with the Force and ones with the Light Saber. And Babylon 5 pwns them both. ;)
      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    5. Re:well, ain't that sumethin' by freedom_india · · Score: 1

      Star Trek universe revolves around two characters: The ones with the Force and ones with the Light Saber. Damn i meant star wars.
      Anyway Babylon 5 is much better i agree.
      --
      "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
    6. Re:well, ain't that sumethin' by amorri09 · · Score: 1

      Yeah except for the relationships, family history/woe, political empire/rebellion, pluralistic nature, HUGE focus on moral strife and solidarity as well as human nature (even thogh, yes i know they arent all technically human), and the huge climactic battle between fascist totalitarian dictatorship and freedom.... Oh yeah and lightsabers and the force... I find, though I really like star trek, that it is unfathomable in the same sense as star wars due to the fact that near every species of focus or that contributes to the interpersonal story lines are humanoid and identifies with most of the core essential beliefs and opinions that would be held by a pluralistic society on earth....eg. most species hold similar values like family construct/political systems/technology advances and such....if they didnt then the stories portrayed in the show wouldnt be identifiable by the audience that watches them....And there woudlnt be the connection between them and the show that is so obviously there....it really does portray a HUMAN view and vision in the end, even if it is something that is not totally evident

    7. Re:well, ain't that sumethin' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it portrays an AMERICAN view, including core essential beliefs and opinions. Even non-American characters seemed to have American beliefs and opinions.

  22. Auchhqa! by mcrbids · · Score: 2, Funny

    I was just about to write something about suddenly finding a need to invade Titan because of their despotic leader... but you beat me to the punch!

    'Cause, you know, this is an original joke that, eh, we've never seen before around these parts....

    --
    I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
  23. That's great if you want hydrocarbons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    But we don't want hydrocarbons; we want energy. Do you plan to ship oxygen to Titan? Or bring the stuff here and put even more carbon in our atmosphere?

    If you're searching the solar system for cheap energy, Mercury is your spot. We should do all our heavy industry, including our supercomputing, in factories buried under the surface or Mercury. Forget sending men to Mars; that's another "Mission Accomplished"-style photo op.

    1. Re:That's great if you want hydrocarbons by vistic · · Score: 1

      Why Mercury? Use the heat or something?

    2. Re:That's great if you want hydrocarbons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We should do all our heavy industry, including our supercomputing, in factories buried under the surface or Mercury. Why?
    3. Re:That's great if you want hydrocarbons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By the inverse square law, it receives 6.7 times more power per square meter from the sun than we do on earth. So solar cells would be that much more productive, and even more so when you consider that the sun is always shining on the day side of mercury, and that there is no atmosphere or clouds getting in the way....

    4. Re:That's great if you want hydrocarbons by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      Pretty cool. Now design me some solar panels that can withstand the heat and atmosphere. I think you'd be better off creating some sort of heavy industry moon brilliant. Avoids the atmosphere problem. Now; what's the internal temperature of the planet, 100m down?

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    5. Re:That's great if you want hydrocarbons by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      Slashdot avoids the strikeout tags. Sad.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    6. Re:That's great if you want hydrocarbons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MOD PARENT UP!!!!!

    7. Re:That's great if you want hydrocarbons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since when did Mercury have an atmosphere?

    8. Re:That's great if you want hydrocarbons by meringuoid · · Score: 2, Informative
      even more so when you consider that the sun is always shining on the day side of mercury

      Mercury is not tidally locked. There is no fixed day side; you'd have to have solar cells planetwide, and only 50% would be productive at any one time.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    9. Re:That's great if you want hydrocarbons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah we should definately start our interplanetary exploration with the most unforgiving enviroment in the solar system. That makes a lot of sense

    10. Re:That's great if you want hydrocarbons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you're thinking of Venus since you mentioned atmosphere, and Mercury is actually a little cooler due to the lack of an atmosphere for trapping heat.

      Don't forget, if surface temperature becomes a big problem we can also just put the panels in a specific polar orbit so that they are always in the sunlight, and radiate the waste heat backwards into space. Or even put them in slightly different orbits so that they have cooling/maintenance times when crossing behind the planet.

      Or put them on slow treads so that the installations/nodes can slowly keep pace with the moving twilight zone. (Whether this leads to a corresponding rise in supernatural happenings is unknown.)

  24. Just one issue... by l33tlamer · · Score: 1

    Assuming there is a way to get to the Hydrocarbons, wouldn't burning it on Earth still be idiotic given the effect of the Greenhouse gases it would produce?

    --
    If I can do it, its probably not worth doing... probably
    1. Re:Just one issue... by EonBlueApocalypse · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but theres always Mars.

  25. The sad thing? by tubapro12 · · Score: 1

    If this holds true after more analysis, I think that moon just became are next target. After all, all we really need to establish a real space age is an obvious market opportunity.

    This one, if capitalized on, would be one that could only lead to hurting the Earth.

    Going a little off-topic sci-fi here, I'd like to see if we could take the excess CO2 from Earth and put it on Mars to develop a thicker atmosphere.

    1. Re:The sad thing? by distantbody · · Score: 1

      Going a little off-topic sci-fi here, I'd like to see if we could take the excess CO2 from Earth and put it on Mars to develop a thicker atmosphere.
      This idea has been around for a decades (If you didn't already know. Check out Terraforming if for nothing else than the pretty pictures.).
    2. Re:The sad thing? by Loke+the+Dog · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, most people are just joking around, but you seem to be serious, so let me just put this clearly:

      When it comes to fuel, any oil on titan is completely worthless. First, the reason why there's so much oil there is because of the lack of oxygen. Without oxygen, you can't use oil for fuel. Secondly, lifting the oil off of this moon will never become economically feasible because oil is so incredibly cheap compared to its weight in this context. As of right now, it wouldn't even be profitable to go there if the surface was covered in gold.

      No, don't get your hopes up, no forseeable advances in space craft design will change this, nor will any likely oil price increases. We're hundreds of years away from importing stuff from space, other than for science and novelty.

  26. Related headline in Titan Daily Times: by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 4, Funny

    Chemical Energy Bonanza: Remote sensors indicate that inner planet "Earth" has hundreds of times more oxygen gas than all known reserves here on Titan.

  27. Is that supposed to be our out? by Whatanut · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure what point that has. At the rate we're going we'll have the technology to harvest that energy roughly the same time we....

    Ok... we'll have like 9 other solutions before then. I'm sure there are all sorts of energy rich resources out there in our solar backyard. We're not likely to get a reliable way to harvest them prior to finding alternates in our australian (pick your favorite earth bound location here!!) backyard.

    Not saying we shouldn't be thinking about it. But it's not exactly anything worth writing home about at this point.

    --

    yvan eht nioj
    1. Re:Is that supposed to be our out? by x2A · · Score: 1

      Yeah you're right. They should hide information about hydrocarbon reserves on titan until we can use them. Fancy sending probes out to planets then reporting back what they find! They really haven't thought this through, have they?

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    2. Re:Is that supposed to be our out? by Whatanut · · Score: 1

      Well I suppose "not news worthy in this context" and "hide the information" are almost in the same balllpark. Although that isn't what I was suggesting. The information is valuable. But it was presented rather differently. Or, rather, I took it rather differently. I could be wrong about that. Not disputing that either.

      --

      yvan eht nioj
  28. more data needed by daniel23 · · Score: 1


    but do they have a leader (and former compliece) to hunt down and hang? And are there any relics from the time that place was the cradle of civilization to rob from the museums and sell at the grey market? It will take at least one "yes" to form a coalition of the willing

    --
    605413? Yes, it's a prime.
  29. mmm by liquidf · · Score: 1

    mmm...the land of choco...er, uh, hydrocarbons... /homer

    --
    i've had just about enough of your vassar bashing.
  30. Oh! The Humanity! by Anemomaniac · · Score: 1

    So how long until Exxon start hauling this stuff back here? And how long after that until one of their drunk skippers crashes a billion or so tons of liquid hydrocarbons into Alaska? NB: I find it hilarious that the ad running alongside this article in my browser is from Chevron :-D

    --
    "Life's a reach, and then you Gybe..."
  31. Space Dictionary 2008 2nd Edition (Revised) by layer3switch · · Score: 1

    E.T = Extra-Terrorist

    --
    "Don't let fools fool you. They are the clever ones."
  32. And there you have it... by zappepcs · · Score: 1

    The *REAL* reason for space exploration. Never mind the bragging rights for planting silly flags on the moon, or trying to figure out how the planets were formed, or searching for extraterrestrial signs of life... NO, goddamnit, we need to go to space to save the big auto industry.

    On a lighter note, DeBeers has already filed mineral rights claims on all non-gaseous planets. Exxon's space programs is getting ready to launch the 'FuckChavez' space probe, and Saturn is gearing up the ad machine while Nissan's marketing department is trying to get a new space-age logo for their truck line. Russia is preparing to launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike on the USA's Titan oil fields to protect earth based business interests and CNN is quoting Rudy G as saying "If we had had that on 9/11, the terrorists would never have attacked MY New York."

    Seriously, what we need is not more hydrocarbons. We need clean fuel, and renewable clean fuel at that.

    There are 500 or more better reasons to be in space and exploring it... feeding your SUV isn't one of them.

  33. Pollute Earth beyond what we ever imagined ! by vistic · · Score: 1

    So we take TONS AND TONS of these hydrocarbons back to Earth, where we burn it all! TONS AND TONS of pollution from hydrocarbons from outer space in our atmosphere! And if we deplete Titan, we can find more planets/moons/asteroids to tap, and bring it all back to Earth to burn.

    Why, eventually Earth can just be an ocean of muck !

    1. Re:Pollute Earth beyond what we ever imagined ! by WhiplashII · · Score: 1

      Earth is already an ocean of muck - your proposal would just change from biological muck to non-biological muck...

      --
      while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
  34. Thank you by Max+Littlemore · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I was reading through all of the crap about how much energy it would take to go and get the hydrocarbons, how our technology isn't quite efficient enough yet, etc, etc, and just hoping that someone on this site would be intelligent enough to realise that, given the problem we already have releasing our own carbon stores into the atmosphere, what kind of absolute stupidity would lead anyone to deliberately import carbon from elsewhere?

    I suppose that burning it in orbit and beaming power back to Earth could work, providing we could find a good source of oxygen, but then would that cost less than setting up orbital solar plants?

    So in general my reaction to this story is "Wow, Titan's got hydrocarbons - wtf does that have to do terrestrial energy consumption?"

    --
    I don't therefore I'm not.
    1. Re:Thank you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe we should go to Titan and start burning the hydrocarbons there, now, so that by the time the Earth no longer has a pleasant climate, Titan will have warmed up enough to support some plant life, develop an oxygen atmosphere, etc etc... sounds like a perfect terra-forming method!

    2. Re:Thank you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Last time I checked, HUGE amounts of energy is beamed at us every single day. It's called the sun.

    3. Re:Thank you by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Well, we could ratify the interplanetary kyoto agreements, then we can just export our carbon to Mars by paying them or any other 3rd world planet that will take it.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    4. Re:Thank you by Max+Littlemore · · Score: 5, Funny

      we can just export our carbon to Mars by paying them or any other 3rd world planet that will take it.

      Ummm, Earth is the third world. Mars is the fourth.

      --
      I don't therefore I'm not.
    5. Re:Thank you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ummm, Earth is the third world. Mars is the fourth.


      And Mercury is the first world. Damn those rich bastards, just sitting around all day soaking up the rays!
  35. how did organic material get on titan? by DragonTHC · · Score: 1

    Don't you need life to have organic material in order to have hydrocarbons?

    Where's your god now?

    --
    They're using their grammar skills there.
    1. Re:how did organic material get on titan? by milsoRgen · · Score: 1

      Nope you can get hydrocarbons from non organic sources.

      --
      I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask where they're goin' and hook up with 'em later.
    2. Re:how did organic material get on titan? by DragonTHC · · Score: 1

      why did the headline say "organic" ?

      --
      They're using their grammar skills there.
    3. Re:how did organic material get on titan? by thrillseeker · · Score: 1

      You must be new here ...

    4. Re:how did organic material get on titan? by milsoRgen · · Score: 1

      Oh... I dunno, didn't bother that part.

      --
      I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask where they're goin' and hook up with 'em later.
    5. Re:how did organic material get on titan? by anagama · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Life doesn't create hydrocarbons, hydrocarbons are the basis of life. The interesting part is how short chains turned into long chains, and then into self replicating groupings of long chains, who eventually realize that decomposed long chains from previous iterations will chemically react with oxygen to make cars go.

      Aside from that, all hydrocarbons are organic in the chemical sense. Maybe not in the "organic gardening" sense -- but gasoline is just as organic as pesticide free carrots.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    6. Re:how did organic material get on titan? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In modern chemistry, "organic" means nothing more than "containing carbon". Once upon a time, it was thought that the molecules studied in organic chemistry were only formed by life, but that turned out not to be the case. But the name stuck anyway.

  36. You know you're watching too much pr0n if .. by s74ng3r · · Score: 2, Funny

    If you read that as -- Titanic organ on earth surpass oil reserves!

  37. Serious misnomer by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 1
    Coal is a fossil fuel. I often dig up bits of coal with plants etc embedded in them.

    Oil, well there are tow camps: the fossil fuel camp (typically popular in the west) and the abiotic oil camp that says that oil is just a mineral reaction (typically popular in the east).

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
  38. Non-smoking planet by chord.wav · · Score: 4, Funny

    The hydrocarbons rain from the sky
    Titan, the first non-smoking planet. At least on rainy days.

  39. most of you jokers by WormholeFiend · · Score: 1

    have got it all backwards... sending space tankers to Titan is so inefficient! We should focus our efforts on exporting all our gas-guzzling vehicles over there instead...

    1. Re:most of you jokers by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 1

      We should focus our efforts on exporting all our gas-guzzling vehicles over there instead

      Plans are afoot, but it's only in the early stages.

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
  40. Would it be worth it though? by mevets · · Score: 1

    Take another draw on the bong, and maybe you can tell us...

  41. Finally * all the gasoline I could ever want * by burtosis · · Score: 2, Insightful

    But where am I going to get enough oxygen to burn it all?

  42. crackpot??? by PuckSR · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It isn't exactly crackpot, especially when applied to hydrocarbons on Titan.

    We know that oil can be created without 'dead dinosaurs'. It is rejected because of evidence on Earth that points towards the idea that oil is the byproduct of biomass.

    However, if most geologists were told that oil had been discovered on another planet then they would probably assume it was non-organic. We only assume it is organic because of other factors.

    So, quit confusing people. It is crackpot to think that oil on Earth is abiogenic. It is perfectly sane and rational to think that hydrocarbons on another planet are the result of abiogenic processes.

    1. Re:crackpot??? by anagama · · Score: 5, Informative

      Finding hydrocarbons on another planet is not the same as finding long chain hydrocarbons on another planet.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
  43. Earth First, People by STrinity · · Score: 1

    There'll be time to strip mine the other planets later.

    --
    Les Miserables Volume 1 now up with my reading of
    1. Re:Earth First, People by fireheadca · · Score: 1

      Like Venus? Hmm .. that ark story sounds... convenient.

  44. Reminds me of the time I was stuck on Titan by Veramocor · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    The doors opened with a hiss and I approached the towering desk. The obese
    figure of Cornellius Wrak, Controller of Primus, didn't acknowledge my
    presence - instead, he tapped a few words on the keyboard to his side and
    gazed at the monitor. Checking my records, obviously. I was glad I'd paid that
    hacker to clear my police file, or they would've made me a permanent resident
    of Titan on the spot.

    "What can I do for you, Mr. Jetland?" asked Wrak.

    "My ship broke down," I said, "And I had to scrap her. Until I come up with
    some money, I'm stuck in this pit you call a city. I heard you Controllers are
    offering a shipload of credits to anyone who finds out why we've lost contact
    with Proscenium. As I see it, I need the money - you need a favor."

    Wrak nodded slowly, eyeing me. "We do need a few skilled agents," he said,
    "but we're opening the investigation to all interested parties."

    "Too bad," I said, "I hate sharing a reward."

    Wraks lips curled back into something like a smile. "Whether you share a
    reward or not depends upon how fast you can muster a few warm bodies and get
    to Proscenium. But let me warn you, Mr. Jetland, not to take this assignment
    too lightly. We don't know what dark fate has befallen Proscenium. You should
    worry more about coming back alive..."

    --
    Veramocor
  45. Eating your own tank by bitspotter · · Score: 1

    Ironically, moving all that fuel from Titan to Earth where it could be used would require more fuel than it has. The spent boat shell would then orbit just inside the asteroid belt.

    Unless, of course, you were ok with taking shipment in, say, 500 years. By which point, civilization will have either gone extinct, or outlawed burning hydrocarbons entirely.

  46. the futurama reference... by Mr_Reaper · · Score: 1

    At least the penguin preserve on pluto is safe...

  47. Non BIOLOGICAL sources, yes... by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 3, Informative

    But being carbon compounds, hydrocarbons are, by definition, ORGANIC molecules.

    --
    Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
  48. Finally, now we a reason to go leave the planet by coaxial · · Score: 1

    Mining the moon for sand?

    Lame, and worthless. We have it.

    Mining the astroids for iron?

    Lame. We have it.

    Pumping Titan dry?

    Oh yeah! Screw you Mideast.

  49. RTA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're mostly 'pre-biotic', methanes and ethanes.

  50. it's the ultimate suicide pill by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    1. deorbit titan until it matches earth's orbit

    2. let the atmospheres mix

    3. light a match

    4. BOOM. game over

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  51. Pump it to Earth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's so little Science in the Administration these days Big Oil would be able to get tax relief with a program to bring the oil to earth on the wings of angels. How far away could Saturn be anyway? Why, it's right there on the back lot, right next door to the moon landing set. I saw it on the television.

  52. Untrue... by x2A · · Score: 1

    ...everyone on Titan gets a vote.

    --
    The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
  53. Re:Oh! The Humanity! by arb+phd+slp · · Score: 1

    Just as long as they make sure to use a ship with 6001 hulls.

    --
    There's a perfect xkcd for my sig but I'm too lazy to look it up. sudo someone go find it.
  54. Better make sure.... by Brad1138 · · Score: 1

    we don't send penguins to Titan.

    --
    If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
  55. I'm surprised nobody's pointed out... by rah1420 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ... that Arthur C. Clarke "discovered" that Titan has vast reserves of hydrocarbon way back in 1976.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens.
    1. Re:I'm surprised nobody's pointed out... by Rod+Beauvex · · Score: 0

      You over estimate the ages of most Slashdotters.

  56. Which is only thermodynamically useful if... by k2backhoe · · Score: 1

    you have a supply of oxygen. Which Titan doesn't. If it did, the hydrocarbons would not exist.

    1. Re:Which is only thermodynamically useful if... by rah1420 · · Score: 1

      in Imperial Earth, noted in my comment above, the protagonist noted the dichotomy of the Titan ecosphere versus the Earth ecosphere; on Earth, we ignite a jet of hydrocarbon and burn in the oxygen atmosphere; on Titan, they ignite a jet of oxygen in the hydrocarbon atmosphere and accomplish essentially the same thing.

      Of course, it's still all science fiction. For now.

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens.
  57. Fuel for probes by Dan+East · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Can these compounds be used as fuel with little or no processing? I can envision a probe burrowing and rolling and sliding around the moon's surface, enjoying an unlimited supply of power by sucking in some fuel whenever it needs it. The extremely cold temperatures don't sound as daunting when unlimited energy is available.

    --
    Better known as 318230.
    1. Re:Fuel for probes by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I can envision a probe burrowing and rolling and sliding around the moon's surface, enjoying an unlimited supply of power by sucking in some fuel whenever it needs it.

            All those hydrocarbons are completely useless if you don't have an oxidizer. When we combust (here on Earth) we take the atmospheric oxygen for granted despite it being an essential part of the equation. However if there is no oxygen all those hydrocarbons are completely useless to your probe. The limiting factor now becomes how big an oxygen tank you can carry...

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    2. Re:Fuel for probes by ed1park · · Score: 1

      Use a combination of nuclear power and rocket fuel. Hybrid rockets!

    3. Re:Fuel for probes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't oxidation and reduction simply shorthand for losing and gaining electrons? Oxidation can take place without oxygen...right?

    4. Re:Fuel for probes by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Oxidation can take place without oxygen...right?
      Yes, so you could just take a tank of chlorine instead. Simple.
      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  58. And... by Goonie · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The vast majority of our hydrocarbon usage is for energy. Plastic, fertilizer, chemicals, and so forth are essentially lost in the noise. Furthermore, we can make virtually any hydrocarbon that we want out of coal, which is not running out any time soon despite what the nuttier peak oilers sometimes claim.

    --

    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
    --Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
    1. Re:And... by JonathanR · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Peak Oil is not about running out. It's about a geologically-imposed limit on production rate. Our current manner of use will be curbed/modified significantly by the resulting price increases.

      Yes, coal can be used to substitute, but the infrastructure to do this chemical trickery is not in place, and will not sufficiently supplement the dwindling oil production. Additinoally itw will suck up enormous amounts of captial.

  59. That's no moon... by symbolset · · Score: 1

    It's a gas station!

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
  60. aren't they worried about global warming? by the_B0fh · · Score: 1

    Just wait till Global Warming comes in!!!!!

    1. Re:aren't they worried about global warming? by WallyDrinkBeer · · Score: 2, Funny

      Titan has an atmosphere full of global warming gases. Eg. Methane. But, it's surface temperature is -290F. One can therefore conclude the "science" that "claims" these "gases" increase "global warming" is obviously green hippy bunk.

      I know titan is in the outer solar system but that argument is more just green science spin.

  61. MESSAGE FROM TITAN-NET by Orleron · · Score: 1

    I for one welcome our hydrocarbon guzzling Earthling overlords.

  62. Tony Blair Says... by MrSteveSD · · Score: 1

    The Idea that the leader of Titan doesn't have weapons of mass destruction, is palpably absurd.

  63. Mod Up! by mortonda · · Score: 1

    I wish I had mod points. The supposed disparity of taxes paid by the "poor" is a political FUD machine.

  64. Hydrocarbons great! No oxygen to burn them though. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did not RTFA but we already knew through spectroscopy that Titan has lots of methane. You won't get much energy from it though since you will not be able to burn it without oxygen in the atmosphere of Titan.

  65. trade wars by hyperstation · · Score: 0

    organics? hands off motherfuckers, i have a citadel there.

  66. Space Derricks Too... by nonsequitor · · Score: 1

    We'll need a way to get the oil into orbit. Better get back to work on that space elevator. Inflatable Space Stations which are resistant to micro meteors seem like a really good idea as well. Now might be a good time to buy some Bigelow Aerospace stock, they're going to need a lot of space balloons.

  67. This isn't news by Swampash · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We've know that Titan was drenched in carbon compounds for decades. What next, a headline reading Sun's hydrogen surpasses hydrogen reserves on Earth?

    1. Re:This isn't news by mdielmann · · Score: 1

      What next, a headline reading Sun's hydrogen surpasses hydrogen reserves on Earth? Nah, they'll have a press release linking the helium in the sun to the helium lost from our atmosphere. Then they'll call for the defeat of the Solarian terrorists. But that's okay - you can't trust those squeaky-voiced bastards.
      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
  68. When we get there... by eagl · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    When we get there, we'll find it inhabited by a race of creatures that try to kill anyone that draws a picture of some famous dead alien, beat their wives "for their own good", and wipe their asses with their bare hands. We'll apologize for being morally superior, buy some oil until something scares us badly, invade while feeling somewhat vaguely guilty about the whole thing, and end up wondering how the hell they managed to set up a parallel court system on earth that makes it all ok for them to wander around shouting death to (whoever/whatever) while trying to burn down Paris.

    We'll let them have Paris if they promise to take Hugo Chavez home with them. They refuse when Chavez vows to nationalize Jupiter and give it back to the people.

    1. Re:When we get there... by freedom_india · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      wipe their asses with their bare hands. They wipe it with left hands and use the right hands for eating the food.
      Atleast they know their hand is clean since it belongs to them.
      We, on the other hand re-use the same fork and knife to eat the food, and God knows whoelse has used the same knife and fork in what places of anatomy !
      --
      "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
  69. Where is the oxidizer? by anwyn · · Score: 2, Insightful
    To get it off Titan you need propulsion. OK, you've got fuel, where is the oxidizer? Without the Oxidizer, no way to move the stuff off Titan.

    I suspect the reason there is so much fuel in one place, is that there is no oxidizer to burn it.

  70. Presidential Tipping Point by xactuary · · Score: 0
    Bush says when the price of oil hits a Brazilion dollars a barrel, it will become cost effective to git-er-done.

    Note to myself: re-read The Sirens of Titan

    --
    Say hello to my little sig.
  71. Meanwhile, in other news ... by PPH · · Score: 1

    ... OPEC announces its newest member state, the United Emirates of Saturn.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  72. Drifting quietly through the oort cloud by symbolset · · Score: 1

    Rotating slowly out where the sun is just a brighter than average star there is a ball of methane snow some 200km in diameter.

    On the door of the shack there the sign reads "Last Chance for Gas. Next services 10.5 ly."

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
  73. Hose by DavidD_CA · · Score: 1

    Anyone got a really long hose?

    --
    -David
  74. Chemistry by n1000 · · Score: 1

    I think that the composition of the organic chemicals found on Titan is more interesting than the quantity.

  75. Time for a new XPrize! by BLAG-blast · · Score: 1

    Phase 1: Fly to Titan, refuel, fly back to earth.

    Phase 2: Fly to Titan, take on LOTS of fuel, return to earth with enough fuel left over to return to Titan.

    Phase 3: Space tanker?? Orbital refueling station?? Orbital drilling platforms??

    --
    M0571y H@rml355.
  76. Hydrocarbons, without Dinosaurs? by coldmist · · Score: 0, Troll

    Has anybody else heard of abiogenic hydrocarbons?

    One more example that oil probably didn't come from decomposing plants and dead dinosaurs.

    I'm really surprised more people don't know about abiogenic oil.

    Pop quiz: How much plant/animal matter would it take to make a gallon of oil, using pressure as most people think of how oil is made? Now, how many billions of gallons of oil are there? See the problem?

    --
    Don't steal. The government hates competition.
    1. Re:Hydrocarbons, without Dinosaurs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Has anybody else heard of abiogenic hydrocarbons?

      Only in the sense that crackpots keep proposing it every time someone brings up peak oil. "Oh we'll never run out because it doesn't come from dead dinosaurs and plants, it's made by the Earth itself, of course we're not sure how, and we've never seen it happen, and even though those other guys have demonstrated processes that turn plant matter into hydrocarbons and use leftover crap to run their cars, we're sure we're right."

      How much plant/animal matter would it take to make a gallon of oil, using pressure as most people think of how oil is made?

      Current processes take 1 gallon of grease and produce 1 gallon of diesel

    2. Re:Hydrocarbons, without Dinosaurs? by bestinshow · · Score: 2, Informative

      All through this thread I've been seeing people witter on about the patently ridiculous concept of abiogenic hydrocarbons. All I can think about is people trying to justify to themselves that it's okay to own that gas guzzling vehicle, and that oil will never run out. That, or they're really really stupid religious freaks who hate science. Head in the sand, or what?

      There oil - a complex long-chain hydrocarbon, and there's simple, short-chain hydrocarbons. Titan has the latter. There is nothing special, or amazing about this. It's been known for a very long time - since the 70s at least. It has no relation to oil made by biogenic means.

    3. Re:Hydrocarbons, without Dinosaurs? by bestinshow · · Score: 1

      I, of course from context, mean abiogenic production of oil (complex hydrocarbons), not just any hydrocarbon. Better clarify that before some retard pedant misses the point.

  77. Pull my finger by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Funny

    Finally, a place where I can fart all I want and nobody can tell the difference.

  78. Useful for colonization by Lazarian · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Granted, having hydrocarbons way out on Titan is pretty useless to us on Earth in regards as a fuel source. But they can be useful where they're at as fuel or feedstocks for making polymers in the same way we do here. Most plastics are made in some way from oil, and if we ever get to the point of establishing some sort of station or colony around Saturn, we now know of huge resources available there. If there is a source of oxygen that can be tapped around Saturn (say from ice on the other moons, or even Titan itself), those could be used as convenient fuel sources that can be used locally around Saturn. I'd like to think that if we ever get to having some colonization around Saturn, we'd be done with burning oil here for energy, and use whatever oil that's left for making plastics and other products. Besides, taking hydrocarbons from another moon and bringing them here to burn for energy would be totally uneconomical, as well as adding an off-planet carbon load on our atmosphere.

    1. Re:Useful for colonization by javilon · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes, you could use ice as an oxygen source, but you need energy to separate the oxygen from the hydrogen, and you know what? when you burn your fuel you get less energy than what you used to process the ice. In fact, you could just burn the resulting hydrogen as well, taking fuel out of the equation.

      --


      When his defense asked, "Which computer has Jon Johansen trespassed upon?" the answer was: "His own."
    2. Re:Useful for colonization by Lazarian · · Score: 1

      The energy to split oxygen from water ice doesn't have to come from combustion. On some moons of Saturn, say Europa, there's a lot of tectonic activity caused by Saturn's gravity that causes geysers to erupt, and such places could provide a lot of geothermal energy. Solar energy would probably be of little use since sunlight is probably too dim, unless very large collectors were used. One could even go the route of using fission reactors to split water. And while these power sources could be used where they're at, having oxygen and methane (or the hydrogen from splitting water) available would come in handy for supplying conventional rockets for moving about the Saturnian system, or going back and forth to Earth.

  79. Star Blazers...! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...went to Titan to mine "Titanite" fuel, a substance I can only assume must be from these hydrocarbon dunes. First season aired in 1974, so perhaps Clarke got the idea from them, hmmm?

    1. Re:Star Blazers...! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oblig Futurama:
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?"

  80. Awesome by okmijnuhb · · Score: 1

    If we could somehow get that stuff over here, we could deplete all the oxygen on planet Earth.

  81. Republican mods can harvest salt from my cods by weighn · · Score: 4, Funny

    What's with /. lately?
    I'm inclined to create a bunch of sock puppets and meta-mod all these sentimental, right-wing, apple-pie-humping mods to their beloved fiery furnace ...

    --
    Mongrel News all the news that fits and froths
    1. Re:Republican mods can harvest salt from my cods by pugugly · · Score: 1

      Jackass with a measuring tape?

      No - Myth busters is about a smart gorgeous redhead, and some supporting cast.

      That's just obvious.

      Pug

      --
      An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
  82. 3...2...1... by Nullav · · Score: 1

    Ignition! ...No, really. Landing seems to be a no-brainer, for the most part, but what about getting off the rock? In a world where it rains petrol, I'd certainly hate to be holding a match.

    --
    I just read Slashdot for the articles.
    1. Re:3...2...1... by RoboRay · · Score: 1

      Due to the lack of an oxygen-rich atmosphere like Earth's, it really wouldn't be a problem.

  83. A new age of Imperialism begins. by DarkLegacy · · Score: 1

    Prepare yourself, fellow geeks. We shall be the ones responsible for constructing the colonial ships that will take our fellow peers to new planets. This time, instead of extracting gold from our new 'colonies', we're going to be getting oil. Which, if history repeats itself; we're going to end up with a "new" United States located on the planet Titan. :)

    --
    127.0.0.1
  84. Re:Plastics. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If that doesn't happen, you can always blame it on "Micro$oft", like everything else.

  85. Ever heard of the Greenhouse effect? by syousef · · Score: 1

    We're done burning up all the hydrocarbons here, and we haven't turned the planet into a Venutian hell yet, so we're looking for new sources of hydrocarbon???

    If you're going to burn anything on earth, you only need a single chemical equation for energy
    4H + O2 = 2H2O

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    1. Re:Ever heard of the Greenhouse effect? by radja · · Score: 1

      I'd use a slightly different equation:

      2 H2 + O2 = 2 H2O

      --

      No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
      --Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
    2. Re:Ever heard of the Greenhouse effect? by argent · · Score: 1

      Hydrogen on Earth isn't an energy source, it's a distribution mechanism.

    3. Re:Ever heard of the Greenhouse effect? by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

      It's funny you mention that. Water vapor is responsible for the largest percentage of global warming compared to all other greenhouse gases. What you're talking about is planetary suicide. What's more, as the Earth warms naturally, the concentration of water vapor in the air increases, so it is a positive feedback loop in itself. We can captivate water vapor from the atmosphere in the form of large ice caps. But, those melt too as the temperature increases, making more water available to create water vapor.

      The mixture of tailpipe exhaust consisting of CO2 and H2O has less of a greenhouse effect than would a homogeneous expenditure of an equivalent mass of pure H2O vapor.

      Right now, we have a trifecta of problems - the perfect storm, as it were. Solar output has been increasing steadily over the past couple of decades, and the global surface temperature in lock-step with it. As a consequence, the air can hold more water vapor, which increases temperature further. We are also adding CO2 to the atmosphere in large quantities, and although the magnitude of the effect of this on surface temperature is arguable, there is little doubt it is contributory. Finally, thickening plant coverage due to increased concentrations of plant food in the atmosphere (CO2) is darkening the surface overall, causing less solar energy to be reflected back out into space.

      These three factors together are quite worrisome, and mitigating one worsens another. Clearly, we can do nothing about increasing Solar output. We can strip plant life, but that only increases CO2. So, the only think we are really empowered to do is reduce the amount of CO2 we're adding through human activity. We can then pray that the Sun calms down and doesn't cook us to death.

    4. Re:Ever heard of the Greenhouse effect? by syousef · · Score: 1

      I have no idea what you're on about but our planet has a way of cycling water out of the atmosphere. If you've never heard of it its called rain.

      The CO2 remains.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    5. Re:Ever heard of the Greenhouse effect? by syousef · · Score: 1

      You're right of course, I stand corrected. A little embarassed to be honest. Even though I haven't touched real chemistry for 15 years, I should know better than that.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
  86. Plastics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    That's fucking brilliant. I can just see the entry in the Hitchhiker's Guide :

    Titan: previously hosting an incredibly intelligent, benign and peaceful native lifeform, the species lost its native habitat and became extinct when the entire planet was siphoned off by local neighbours of planet Terra so their inhabitants could all each complete the full set of plastic Transformer dildoes.

    The last living Titan was known to express the now-famous sentiment: "You fuck me over just to fuck yourself over? You fucking pissant!"

    Makes you wonder what another species might want to suck off all our water and air for, no ?

  87. Think of it as a tire by Gorimek · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's true that Mars can't hold an atmosphere forever, but it'll do fine for several million years. Humanity would just need to refill it occasionally.

    1. Re:Think of it as a tire by Sabz5150 · · Score: 1

      At which point I would hope humanity has the technology to build an artificial magnetosphere around the planet. Given enough tech, anything can happen.

      --
      "Who modded this informative? Whoever it is must've been smokin' some of that martian pot!"
    2. Re:Think of it as a tire by d3ac0n · · Score: 1

      Well, I'm thinking that if we ever have the technology to drag planetoid sized asteroids out of their orbit in the Asteroid Belt and crash them into Mars' surface to increase it's overall mass, we will have the technology to drill down into Mars' core and set off a few old-fashioned nukes to heat up it's core again. Or use our (obviously much advanced) technology to accumulate enough nuclear materials to create a "large" fusion reaction at Mars' core and make it molten again. The point being, NEVER. SAY. NEVER.

      It sounds to me like the real problem here is your lack of imagination.

      --
      Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
    3. Re:Think of it as a tire by Cerberus7 · · Score: 1

      Exactly. If we get to the point where we can move large asteroids around, we just park one of sufficient size (or get a bunch of the size we can move and smash them together in Mars orbit) in the right orbit around Mars. Set off some seriously big nukes in the core like the poster earlier said. Molten core + big body exerting tidal forces, and Mars will build its own magnetosphere. We just have to put the right parts in the right places.

      Throw a few more asteroids and comets with the right elements we need to start building up the atmosphere, and Mars will be well on its way to being habitable again. This will all, of course, take so long that we might have the ability to find another Earth-like planet in another solar system by then, at which point the usefulness of Mars decreases somewhat.

      --
      I don't know about you, but my servers run on the power of cotton candy and happy thoughts. -Anonymous Coward
    4. Re:Think of it as a tire by pcgabe · · Score: 2, Interesting

      [...]we will have the technology to drill down into Mars' core and set off a few old-fashioned nukes to heat up it's core again.
      I....I can't tell if you're being serious or not here. I seems like you're serious, but you could just be very, very subtle. Are you playing the post-something-so-ridiculous-everyone-will-know-that-I-MUST-be-joking game? Because if so, I think you're winning.

      This isn't the first time I've heard this idea, either. Where do you guys pick up these notions of how things work? I don't even know where to begin. Should I point out the mathematics? (Taking into consideration the mass of Mars, how many "old-fashioned nukes" would it take to heat up its core again? Do we have access to that much fissionable material? And then add on all the other mass you're going to need to hold an atmosphere.) Or should I just let it slide?

      That's it, mister. No more sci-fi movies until you learn to obey the laws of physics! Set off a few old-fashioned nukes to heat up the core? I...the mind BOGGLES.

      The point being, NEVER. SAY. NEVER.
      What are you talking about? In the real world, we say NEVER all the time!
      • We will never travel faster than the speed of light.
      • We will never invent a perpetual motion/energy device.
      • We will never terraform Mars, because if we ever DID have the technology to overcome the myriad of obstacles between us and that goal, why would we need to terraform Mars? Under what circumstances would we have the technology of the gods, and yet need another planet? Giant arcologies in space seem more reasonable.

      It sounds to me like the real problem here is your lack of imagination.
      Yes, clearly *I* am the crazy person here who has no idea of how physics works. In this dimension, it runs on imagination! Obviously. I feel like a fool. Thank you for enlightening me.
      --
      Don't put advice in your sig.
    5. Re:Think of it as a tire by ultranova · · Score: 1

      We will never travel faster than the speed of light.

      Not locally, perhaps. However, there are numerous suggested ways of getting from point A to point B in less time than a photon would, the two most well known propably being wormholes and Alcubierre metric.

      We will never invent a perpetual motion/energy device.

      Maybe. However, as I've understood it, it is (theoritically) possible to create a new universe in a laboratory by creating a buble of high-energy vacuum. Such a bubble would seem like a black hole from outside, vaporazing and collapsing almost immediately; but from the inside, it would undergo inflation, ultimately becoming a new universe.

      If this is true, and it would be possible to survive the trip through the black hole, then it should be possible to build a device which uses whatever energy sources are available in this universe, and when they start running out, creates a new one, enters it and continues the process, allowing it to do work forever.

      We will never terraform Mars, because if we ever DID have the technology to overcome the myriad of obstacles between us and that goal, why would we need to terraform Mars? Under what circumstances would we have the technology of the gods, and yet need another planet? Giant arcologies in space seem more reasonable.

      Why would we need to build a theme park centered on talking mouse ? Of course we don't, and yet Disneyland exists.

      Look, having "technology of the gods" means that you have the power of a god, which in turn means that you don't need to do anything. Given that, why wouldn't you terraform Mars, just for fun ?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    6. Re:Think of it as a tire by Jardine · · Score: 1

      Look, having "technology of the gods" means that you have the power of a god, which in turn means that you don't need to do anything. Given that, why wouldn't you terraform Mars, just for fun ?

      I'd do it just to spite the grandparent poster.

  88. What you need to do is de-orbit the moon... by Joce640k · · Score: 1

    If you can disturb Titan's orbit in a sufficently controlled way you could bring the whole thing back to earth - no tankers required! Just bring it into a very low orbit and suck the oil down through carbon nanotubes.

    --
    No sig today...
  89. does this mean the cost of gas will down? by modustollens · · Score: 1

    does this mean the cost of gas will down?

  90. Drillforeverabia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now the neocons can realize their wet dream of fueling the endless war machine. Except they have to figure out how to get the oil here first...

    1. Re:Drillforeverabia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At only $3 a barrel, it's a real bargan, except shipping is $150,000,000. Guess my plans for world domination will have to wait... for now.

  91. Earth to Titan pipeline by backslashdot · · Score: 1

    You've heard of the space elevator .. now behold .. the space pipeline

    I hereby propose that a flexible pipeline be built from Titan to Earth. It can be done using carbon nanotubes, we have the technology.

    Ok, somewhat.

    1. Re:Earth to Titan pipeline by Whiteox · · Score: 1

      I hereby propose that a flexible pipeline be built from Titan to Earth. Too late!
      The Russians have already started.
      --
      Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
    2. Re:Earth to Titan pipeline by Mr+Z · · Score: 1

      So what happens again when our view of Titan is occluded by the Sun?

    3. Re:Earth to Titan pipeline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The pipeline is long and flexible, so it can arch over it.

    4. Re:Earth to Titan pipeline by Mr+Z · · Score: 1

      Gravity sucks though....

    5. Re:Earth to Titan pipeline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same way it escapes the asteroid belt.

      90% of the pipeline (actually it's more of a hose than a pipeline) is coiled above and over the solar system plane, so it avoids asteroids and planets and the sun. There are also a series of valves along the pipeline, so that if the pipeline is ever cut byn a passing asteroid that it couldn't flex out of the way from ..the valves can shut off the flow rapidly until the segment is repaired ..thus avoiding a space exxon valdex.

    6. Re:Earth to Titan pipeline by JCSoRocks · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately it leaks as badly as the rest of their oil pipelines and now all of *our* oil is floating halfway between here and Titan!

      --
      You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
    7. Re:Earth to Titan pipeline by Mr+Z · · Score: 1

      You'll need to continually expend energy so you don't fall into the sun. Gravity works in all directions, not just in the plane that contains the planets.

    8. Re:Earth to Titan pipeline by Plekto · · Score: 1

      You've got to be kidding. All of this talk of ships and cargo and so on is nonsense. We just build a mass accelerator and launch a continuous stream towards a staging area near the earth. That way, you can grab it all once or twice a year when the earth is nearby.

      Moving vast amounts of raw materials a few hundred thousand miles is a fraction as complex as going all the way to Titan. Sure, the materials would take a few years to reach us, but once they do start to arrive, it's easy profit. You obviously only need enough speed to reach the earth in a couple of years, not to get them going fast enough to cause major damage to anything on the receiving end.

      One facility in orbit and one or two mass drivers. Move the materials up with a space elevator type system. My guess is that a crew of 10-20 people could easily manage it, a lot like they do with oil platforms currently.

  92. Mother of all bombs by kanweg · · Score: 4, Funny

    I just invented the oxygen bomb. OK, it doesn't work on all planets, but that is OK. After all, earth is the peace planet, and we bring peace wherever there are hydrocarbons.

    Bert

  93. Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And just like the immature, dumb-greedy children in a sandbox that we are, this spot in the sandbox will in a not too distant future be the reason for a huge war to come.

  94. Peak oil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As the other poster says, peak isn't about running out.

    All the big easy to extract reserves are already deployed and running out. As the big deposits run out, it is more work to get the oil out and the rate at which you can extract is less. More new places to get oil from can be found but it is harder to get at this oil and there are fewer of these places worth getting at (if there's only a few billion barrels, it's not worth the startup cost to exploit).

    At some point, you will therefore be unable to extract oil as quickly as you used to be able to. Or it will take longer to refine because there are more disperse locations, so you have to gather it from more places to get the same amount, which takes longer.

    Oil extraction and purification have passed their peak.

    Peak oil.

    There's still more oil out there, but you can't get at it so easily or it's not big enough a reservoir to be commercially viable at the current price. NOTE: if the current price goes up, that's because we can't get enough oil and the price goes up. It may now be commercially viable to extract this smaller reserve, but if it increases supply a lot, then the price of oil will go down again and it will become unviable to extract again.

  95. Jos taivaalta sataisi rahaa... by Fizzl · · Score: 1

    Sorry to all you few who do not speak Finnish and have no idea who Gösta Sunqvist is... :P

  96. lunar mass by reiisi · · Score: 1

    7.3477 × 10^22 kg

    So, let's see: 10^11 tons is roughly 10^14 kg (or exactly, if that's metric tons).

    So, 1 x 10^14 / 7.35 x 10^22 would be about 1.36 * 10^-9, so your math on the percentage is correct.

    --
    Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
  97. Wait before you send the drilling crews by Eminence · · Score: 1

    It's nice there is lots of resources out there, but sending probes there to haul them here and burn as fuel would have been utter stupidity. Unless you find another planet with huge reserves of oxygen we could bring to Earth to try to keep the balance. Overall, this is great news for building a base in the future and probably processing them on-site into something useful - unless the mysterious people behind this occult monument succeed in reducing human population so far that those left won't need much resources anyway.

  98. Confusion over liquid hydrocarbons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    There appears to be some confusion regarding people's opinions of the hydrocarbons likely present on Titan. They are not conventional oil, coal, or gas, they are most likely to be methane, the simplest hydrocarbon. Normally a gas, but remember Titan is frigging freezing. Methane can be released by volcanic activity, as well as fermenting biomass. All this talk about Abiogenic petroleum is applicable in that case only. If this all adds up, then odds are that's how its been formed on Titan.

    Earth's situation is totally, totally different. And earth used to have a lot more methane in its atmosphere in its early volcanic history...

  99. 'Burn the witch!' by skjolber · · Score: 1

    This sounds strangely familiar.

    Scene 5:

    BEDEVERE: And what do you burn apart from earth?
    VILLAGER #1: More planets!

  100. The Anti-Peak-Oilers are Right! by NickFortune · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It turns out that the other point the anti-peak-oil lobby keep hammering is also correct: There is indeed plenty of oil out there. It's just that the remaining untapped reserves are rather harder to get at than the ones we've already tapped...

    --
    Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
  101. Only if you believe the political propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    From an environmental point of view, we should hope it's false because if there is substantially more oil and gas than we think there is, we will sooner or later transform Earth into Venus.

    The facts say otherwise.

    Over Earth's long history, CO2 levels have fluctuated widely, and the current political fad about mean Earth temperature rising with CO2 levels (as it would in a noddy test tube) is clearly seen as untrue. At the end of the Ordovician Period, the Earth had in excess of 4000 ppm CO2 (over 10 times our current level), and yet it was in the deepest ice age the planet ever experienced, and this lasted millions of years.

    The Earth isn't a test tube, it's an extremely complex system with clouds and other mechanisms that give it quite different behaviour. CO2 is a minor agent in Earth processes, not a major one.

    Once politicians put their voice to something, you can pretty much guarantee that it's untrue.

  102. Deffenceless?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    MUHAHAHAHA Commence hydrocarbon powered deatomizer.

  103. So ... by bigjocker · · Score: 1

    how long until they elect Hugo Chavez as president?

    --
    Life isn't like a box of chocolates. It's more like a jar of jalapenos. What you do today, might burn your ass tomorrow.
  104. Then we why don't we fix our own atmosphere? by maillemaker · · Score: 1

    Look, I'm not sure I buy into the doom and gloom and the sky is falling we always here from the global environmental change crowd.

    But if things are as bad as they say they are, and this atmosphere regenerating technique being bandied about is so easy, why don't we fix our own atmosphere? I mean if it was so easy you'd think they'd at least have an atmospheric processor capable of at least cleaning up the air in and around major cities.

    --
    A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
    1. Re:Then we why don't we fix our own atmosphere? by F�an�ro · · Score: 1

      The neccesary technology is conceivable, but this level of terraforming is at least a few decades into the future, and will probably take centuries to work.

      This is far faster than atmospheric loss due to the low gravity on mars, which takes millions of years.

      It is however far slower than the current pollution of our atmosphere.

      Also note that however bad global warming is, earth will never become as inhospitable as mars throught it. The scale is totally different. I have no doubt that we can keep earth atmosphere in a state were most humans can survive with some adaption and preparation, far easier than we can transform mars atmosphere into one where most humans can survive with some adaption and preparation. But I think we should aim a bit higher on earth.

  105. Not to mention carbon positive... by maillemaker · · Score: 1

    With all this talk of "carbon neutral" energy conversion processes, this scheme strikes me as the ultimate "carbon positive" process we could come up with. Let's go get hydrocarbons from outside Earth and burn them here!

    --
    A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
  106. Where did the forests go? by Porchroof · · Score: 1

    Obviously all of those hyrdocarbons were created by dead trees. So, are there any other signs of life on Titan?

    --
    Fata viam invenient.
  107. first one there by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    First one there will be a very rich mofo

  108. In Other News.... by g0bshiTe · · Score: 1

    Exxon has announced plans to begin it's explorations into space.
    I foresee a starship and her name is Valdez.

    --
    I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
  109. thatsnomoonitsagasstation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    thatsnomoonitsagasstation

    Greatest tag ever.

  110. What about by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    Anyone else think this is sort of like that game Orion, where you go over to other planets and start mining all the resources you can so you can get yourself out of debt. And expand, and take on any other opponents and play till 3 in the morning....

  111. Comparing by jgoemat · · Score: 1

    Budget

    • Nasa: $17.6 billion / year
    • Iraq: $200 billion / year (plus around $500 billion / year for the standard military budget)
    Hydrocarbon Reserves
    • Entire Earth (including Iraq): 1
    • Titan: 100

    Imagine getting to Titan though. The first order of business would be prospecting for pockets of Oxygen in the crust to let you create energy from all of those hydrocarbons...

  112. best tag ever by bonkeydcow · · Score: 1

    That's no moon it's a gas station. Classic!

  113. abiotic oil by oldgeezer1954 · · Score: 2, Informative

    There's long been a theory outside of the western nations (and in fact it's supposedly the prevalent theory outside the west) that hydrocarbons are not a result of decayed animal/plant matter but as a result of processes within the earths core.

    While this find isn't proof of such a claim it certainly lends it some degree of credibility.

    Under the abiotic theory we still have many hundreds of years of supply left.

    Here's looking forward to the oil price crash.... I wish...

  114. Wrong target by Chemisor · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Then perhaps it would be better to mention Jupiter's 1.6E27 kg of hydrogen. Compared to those measly hydrocarbons on Titan, Jupiter is like an ocean to a raindrop.

    1. Re:Wrong target by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      Except that you get flattened by Jupiters gravity. Titan...not so much ;-)

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    2. Re:Wrong target by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

      Jupiter? Bah, a drop in the bucket compared to the sun. It is time we mined the sun.

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    3. Re:Wrong target by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      "upiter? Bah, a drop in the bucket compared to the sun. It is time we mined the sun."

      better bring some asbestos underpants.. hmmm i think i just found #2 for the gnomes.

    4. Re:Wrong target by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Why mine it? It's already the solar system's only working, zero-maintance fusion generator.

  115. Re:Mars? - Infrastrcuture by fikx · · Score: 1

    Speaking of Infrastructure, wouldn't it be easier to develope infrastructure in the one environment that is the most common? In Space? Once we have the Infrastructure in place that can deal with the harsh lack of air and shielding and deal with long travel times, all the other places in the solar system are easy, plus we can get closer to other planets (i.e. in orbit around them) without leaving that infrastructure behind!
    Basically I wondered as I was reading about Mars: do we actually have to focus on a colony on the ground? Why not focus on a space station in orbit and go from there? If we can stretch the supply lines to that point, then we have an easier way to sit above than planet and plan how to tackle the surface at our leasure AND we can try more than once if it doesn't work.
    Just a thought...plus if we can at least far enough to support satillites around the red planet (Yeah we have those now, but if they break, they die), maybe I can finally get a working google Mars!

    --
    AB HOC POSSUM VIDERE DOMUM TUUM
  116. Oil from ancient trees? by bondjamesbond · · Score: 0

    Obviously, Titan had vast forests of trees that are now petroleum [chuckle]. I think this proves that oil is a naturally occurring substance on planets and we will never really run out.

  117. Did you get it, Exxon, BP, Total, all of your ilk? by walter_f · · Score: 1

    There's a huge moon out there, full of Hydrocarbones (oil, natural gas, whatever).

    Drill it, spoil it, kill it.

    And then, on to the next great thing, maybe wasting a whole planet, like Neptune?

  118. Space Is Too Big by Gallenod · · Score: 2, Insightful

    We can't mine Titan or any other intra-solar or interstellar body as long as we're bound by three dimensions. Until we figure out a way to either fold space or create wormholes and use them to establish direct connection between here and other places, we'll be slower than snails (or even glaciers) as far as space travel is concerned.

    Call me when you've evolved a Third Stage Navigator or found our StarGate.

    --

    TLR

    A man no more knows his destiny than a tea leaf knows the history of the East India Company
  119. Light a match! by conspirator57 · · Score: 1

    Or was that "No smoking"? How're we gonna make a sign that big?

    (I know combustion would need oxygen and higher temps, but just go with it, ok? at the least it raises questions about practical issues of extracting fuel. We're hot and we bring o2.)

    Also, think of the carbon credits needed to offset burning all of that.

    --
    "If still these truths be held to be
    Self evident."
    -Edna St. Vincent Millay
  120. Maybe we should leave it there.... by foniksonik · · Score: 1

    And use it the way god intended... to power our interstellar space-flight... not our inter-city transit.

    See lots of posts about costing too much to bring it back, so maybe just maybe we develop the resource where it is and put a station in orbit around it which can be a nice little waystation on our way to other places.

    Sounds like a great place to put a big station. Surely we can figure out a way to crack the hydrocarbons into water as well... just need a source of oxygen, which we have to bring or find anyways, no matter where we go. Next up, finding a big oxygen crystal in space that we can tow into orbit around Titan.

    --
    A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
  121. Arthur C Clark by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Clark predicted this discovery almost exactly in his book Imperial Earth.

  122. Amazing... by tmh+-+The+Mad+Hacker · · Score: 1

    ...how far people will drive to find the cheapest gas.

  123. Re:Did you get it, Exxon, BP, Total, all of your i by phoebusQ · · Score: 1

    Those eeeeeeevil corporations, satisfying a global demand for energy! How dare they!

  124. Interstellar travel by Ioldanach · · Score: 1

    I figure I'll be dead or demented before we get any meaningful value from standing on Mars, so I've focused my efforts on teaching my daughters that humans were not designed to live on other planets in our solar system and that we don't live long enough to make it safely to an exoplanet where we might be able to live.

    I disagree, I think that the problems are merely technical and can be solved within the next couple hundred years, if we make it that long.

    Presuming we could create a craft capable of continuous 1g acceleration, relativistic effects would mean that apparent time on board to any star within the nearest known 100 stars (22 light years) would be 6.2 years. To the galactic center, 30,000 light years away, would be about 20 years. If you want to push the acceleration a little, to, say, 1.25 g's, you can make it in about 17 apparent years. Add another 6 months to make it to the other side of the galaxy.

    Primary concerns would be shielding and a method of propulsion capable of that acceleration. And, of course, being able to pinpoint suitable sites for colonization before leaving. I personally think that we should be able to locate an earthlike habitable planet in the same few hundred years of space exploration development. If one exists. And I think the idea that one exists within our galaxy to be within the realm of possibility.

  125. Think about global warming! by OhHellWithIt · · Score: 1

    Hrm... It would be interesting if the cost of harvesting it outweighted the investment to build the infostructure to bring it back to our planet.

    Just imagine, if we could bring back and burn more hydrocarbons than we'll ever be able to extract from the earth, we could eliminate all skepticism about global warming. Heck, I may just go trade my minivan for a Hummer!

    --
    "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
  126. And your point is? by p3d0 · · Score: 1

    You can't pick up oil from Titan with a flyby.

    --
    Patrick Doyle
    I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
  127. Was this report censored by the White House? by Chode2235 · · Score: 1

    These findings sound more like Cheney's wet dream than anything else. I view the findings with skepticism.

  128. not really by jt418-93 · · Score: 1

    why would oil run out? finding on a planet that obviously had no dino's (or other life) would seem to indicate that oil is not dead animals, but a product of the planets internal systems. the russians have believed this for years, but the oil companies can make much more selling oil as a 'diminishing resource' instead of one the earth auto renews.

    --
    -.no
  129. And where will the oxygen come from to by crovira · · Score: 1

    oxidize (burn) all of those hydrocarbons?

    We'll run out of oxygen in the air long before Titan runs out of hydrocarbons.

    Guess what WE need the oxygen.

    Using Titan as anything other than a scientific curiosity is not practical. (And NO! You can't use it just until it starts getting hard to breathe.)

    --
    MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
  130. Maybe life doesn't produce oil, just the opposite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A few scientist suggest that hydrocarbons are produced by non-biological chemical reactions. The organic aspects of hydrocarbons in the earth are the result of microbes eating the stuff. I've even read that a steady supply of underground hydrocarbons could have provided the conditions for the origin of life.

    "combined three abiotic (non-living) materials -- water (H2O), limestone (CaCO3), and iron oxide (FeO) -- and crushed the mixture together with the same intense pressure found deep below the earth's surface. This process created methane (CH4)"

    http://harvardmagazine.com/2005/03/rocks-into-gas.html

  131. I know the combination to the air shield by blueZ3 · · Score: 1

    It's... 1... 2... 3... 4... 5!

    --
    Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
    1. Re:I know the combination to the air shield by fritsd · · Score: 1

      Amazing! That's the same as the code lock on my suitcase!

      --
      To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
  132. so this means by Jarik+C-Bol · · Score: 1

    that according to the popular theory, there once was a LOT of dinosaurs and plants and such on Titan, that became these hydrocarbons after millions or billions of years of being dead?

    --
    I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
  133. Mars Mission Scrubbed by sirgoran · · Score: 1

    Anyone else think that the "Mission to Mars" will now become "Let's go drill the crap out of Titan"?

    Any bets Exxon or some other oil company will start funding a space mission to bring back the "oil"?

    --
    Carpe Scrotum - The only way to deal with your competition.
  134. Pipeline! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pipeline!

  135. Let's uh, export democracy to Titan! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    gotta do it.

  136. There's a whole ocean of hydrocarbons up there! by Tancred · · Score: 1

    No one can get at it except for me!

  137. Fossil fuels by Overd0g · · Score: 1

    But I thought the hydrocarbons came from dead plants and dinosaurs. This is proof positive that Titan had 100 times the dinosaur population that the Earth had! Amazing! Or they were 100x bigger (low gravity). Amazing.

  138. lynch oil profiteers! by nido · · Score: 1

    While the oil companies are doing very well, most the oil money is going to oil-producing countries, such as Dubai/UAE. The oil companies have to pay market price for the oil they don't produce themselves.

    It's one thing to carry out a coup d'état, and quite another to run your conquered country into the ground after you've taken power. Bush & Company will get their due someday... It's hard to see how we'll get there from here, but of this I'm certain.

    --
    Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
    www.teslabox.com
  139. Shouldn't be that complex. by Tangent128 · · Score: 1

    Couldn't one just run photocells in series in a band around the equator? The current loop would generate a magnetic field, and one could use the extra energy for heating. Mind you, building a device on that scale is an elaborate undertaking, but the principle seems simple enough.

  140. Parent makes a good point by GPS+Pilot · · Score: 1

    If it were somehow possible to import vast quantities of these hydrocarbons from Titan to Earth, burning them would reduce the concentration of O2 in the atmosphere. To prevent that, you would need to import oxidizer as well as fuel.

    --
    That that is is that that that that is not is not.
  141. In fact, by GPS+Pilot · · Score: 1

    The U.S. makes every effort to ensure that Iraq receives full market price for its oil. And it is in the U.S.' interest to do so: the U.S. has been contributing billions toward recovering from Saddam's neglect of the infrastructure, but as Iraq's oil revenues increase it will be better able to foot the bill itself.

    --
    That that is is that that that that is not is not.
  142. Oh, gawd, no... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...tell me that no one is actually thinking of moving hydrocarbons from Titan to the Earth? That would be INSANE - we have plenty of carbon, thank you, and lots of sunlight right here for the taking.

    Let Titan be a resource for those colonies we build out there someday. Like in 50 million years, when the Earth's ocean's boil.

  143. Parent makes a ridiculous point by thoughtlover · · Score: 1

    Even if it were possible to import hydrocarbons from Titan, I'm positive one of two things will have happened long before we are able to do such.

    One, we will have killed ourselves by then (or something will reduce the population significantly)

    or

    Two, we will have already figured how to create energy from renewable sources like solar.

    Personally, I don't see some Sean Connery "Outland" scenario where we go to other planets and mine elements we can't already make synthetically.

    --
    No sig for you! Come back one year!
  144. Propel Titan back to Earth? by yudan · · Score: 1

    Why bother fetching it back in small rockets when you can propel the entire rock back?

    Can we use a lot of tiny propeller rockets installed on Titan to gradually push it off the orbit and toward earth? These rockets only needs to carry oxygen or other oxidizer to burn the hydrocarben on Titan, and this process may happen very slowly, i.e., in several hundreds or thousand years. When it becomes a satellite of earth we can burn it outside of earth atmosphere and send the energy back in the form of microwave/laser.

    Additionally, in this long time frame, as Titan is getting nearer to earth, we can continuously improve the propeller technology and more easily install more powerful rockets on Titan, so the process would be an accelerating process, though initially it would be very slow.

    No idea how long it would last as I'm not familiar with rocket science, but if this process would take more than 1000 years I guess we could probably have advanced beyond relying on hydrocarbon energy already, then the entire idea does not make any sense anymore, as someone has pointed out.