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."

23 of 555 comments (clear)

  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 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.

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

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

    3. 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!
    4. 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.

    5. 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
    6. 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 ...
    7. Re:Invade! by kickdown · · Score: 5, Funny

      Titians They are called Titties.
      --
      Continuous positive slashdot karma since... uh, maybe next year.
  2. 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....
  3. We just misheard by Chairboy · · Score: 5, Funny

    "That's no moon. It's a gas station!"

  4. 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!

  5. 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.

  6. 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.
  7. 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
  8. 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?

  9. 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.

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

    Works for corn.

    --
    What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
  11. 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
  12. 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?
  13. 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?

  14. 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
  15. 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.

  16. 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.