but what are the chances of finding a good vintage of scotch to go with all of this breaded goodness they are going to be having up there?
Alcohol is definitely going to space. Ballantine's zero-gravity glass is made in cooperation with something called the Open Space Agency, which also has a design for an automated Dobsonian telescope. Ardbeg is going to space. And a vacuum still is an old science-fiction trope.
I was curious if they were bringing a significant enough quantity of eggs to support this breading program. Breading isn't any good without a binder.
This Official NASA Research is studying the egg problem.
There is also a proposal to import green cheese from the Moon.
Out of several tens of billions of humans, only a fraction have not yet died, and of those who died, only a small percent of disputed cases indicate recovery.
On the contrary, I have never died before and rumors that I would do so are spread by fact-checkers of the liberal press and corrupt global warming scientists.
I like the part in the SpaceX video where the rocket lands, and the door opens on magnificent desolation. This is artistic license. Obviously the material for a habitat would precede the arrival of people.
But yes, a first-try planetary colony won't necessarily work. Getting there is dangerous, and once you're there being able to continue to provide the population with air, water, food, shelter, and energy is going to have significant risks of lethal failures.
They probably have a breading program, might be worth risking death for...
Yes. Being able to make large quantities of nutritious, flavorful bread is essential to Mars colonization.
We seem to have electrified railways going between cities in Europe, and they seem to be cost effective. We even have an electric train that crosses the English channel.
Rubbish. The A319neo has a fuel efficiency of roughly 2L/100km per passenger seat (about the equivalent to 115 US mpg). The airlines that operate them get about a 90% load factor, so the passenger seat figure you quote is off by orders of magnitude.
I would take the train just to avoid the mini-hell that is Stansted airport.
Not so fast.
Passenger air travel is becoming ever more fuel efficient. Airlines are keenly interested in the lowest fuel used per passenger seats, especially the low cost airlines. EasyJet's fleet (a low cost European airline) is almost brand new, same with RyanAir (who are notorious for making everything as cheap as possible). Not only do the airlines want efficient planes, but they want them as full as possible. EasyJet's load factor is 90% for example (meaning on average at least 90% of the seats are filled).
EasyJet's A319-neo aircraft have an average fuel burn (no wind) of about 2L/100km per passenger seat (about 115 mpg (US)). Adjusting with a 90% load factor about 103mpg per passenger flown. This is roughly equivalent to a reasonably efficient mid-size car carrying 3 people (note: most cars most of the time only carry 1 person), but remember the plane is doing 500+ mph while getting this efficiency, whereas the car will only be doing about 60mph to get that efficiency per seat.
A well-loaded electric train can better this of course, but airline travel isn't as absurdly fuel thirsty as you presume - there have been very impressive efficiency gains over time.
We have perfectly good helicopters today, but you don't want one on your street. Just a few basic physical problems that won't be solved without antigravity.
Just as soon as the Moller Skycar is ready. It'll be real soon now, right? He's only been working on it for about 50 years.