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."
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.
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.
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?
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.
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!
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
Finding hydrocarbons on another planet is not the same as finding long chain hydrocarbons on another planet.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
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"
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