• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

35 Excellent

About MichaelPoole

  • Rank
    Bottle Rocketeer

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Now this is a legitimate complaint (through IMHO, this is justified in space opera as most planets visited are civilized in some way and their properties mostly known).
  2. [snip] What's with the ridiculous hate for Interstellar? I'd put it in one of the best movies ever made. "You can make enviroment controlled enclosed spaces on Earth, why go to space?" well making enviroment controlled habitats for a small crew is 1 thing, for whole humanity is other. Yes, it is not quite scientifically accurate, but people here seem to be obsessed with hating it. Not about Interstellar now, but in general, many people here seem to think that only present day science qualifies as "possible". By that standard, Jules Verne should have written about steam engines, smog and abject poverty, with no airplanes or water purification. And there were many people at that time who would prove to you with elaborate theories and justification why a good living standard for most people is impossible, how the internal combustion engine is impossible, how heavier than air flight is impossible etc. Yes, things like wormholes are speculative, but you are wrong to make claims like "nothing can go through them". First, as of now, they are theoretical, second, metrics that would allow for wormhole travel are allowed by theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wormhole#Traversable_wormholes . Can we make them now? Of course not, but we cannot make ANY wormholes right now. Now, I'm not saying that stuff like interstellar spaceships flying like WW2 airplanes are realistic, far from that. I am just puzzled by the amount of hate that people here seem to have for "80 percent accurate" fiction. You're the type of people who'd drone on endlessly how the internal combustion engine is a stupid idea and how people could never travel in vehicles whose engines are effectively in a constant state of explosion in the 19th century. It is science FICTION, not a crystal ball, it includes speculative science else it's not science fiction. It may or may not turn out to work, or it may work in a different way (for example Baxter's Manifold series had foldable portable computers by 2010, we didn't get foldable ones yet, but the average smartphone has more power than your average laptop from 2009). Of course, some things are just plainly done, but normal people are not going obsessive over them. I think some people just enjoy to be "that guy" and instead of using their supposed brainpower to actually improve science they go to online boards to explain why x isn't possible, even if they turn out to be wrong later. It isn't a new phenomena, after all, The Times called airplane research a waste of time and stated rockets cannot fly in a vacuum. An IBM executive stated in 1943 that the world will never need more than 5 computers. On topic, The Core crosses my suspension of disbelief, and I really like Farscape, which is completely soft scifi, but I like the characters, story, and refreshing lack of technobabble. I would put many ridiculous disaster movies into "the science is too bad" category as well. But overall, if I'm watching a soft scifi series, I honestly don't care about the "scientific accuracy". What mildly irritates me in some space opera is Star Trek style technobabble, for example the endless contradictory statements about Warp Drive - Farscape just says the ships go FTL using "hetch drive", and leaves it at that, without making 3 incompatible Warp factor schemes and complete repurposed bovine waste like the Threshold episode where the crew mutates into salamanders and slugs after going to "infinite velocity".
  3. Hlasim sa :). Skoda, ze je tu tak malo ludi. Myslel som ze v SR a CR hra KSP viac ludi. Radsej pisme bez diakritiky aby nam vsetky posty zas nepokazila zmena forum softwaru. Every post here with diacritics is scrambled, is there any way to make them readable again? And Osel is right, it is a mix through in a sense that some members post in Slovak and others in Czech - the languages are very similiar, but they are not mixed within the posts themselves - Slovaks here post in Slovak, and Czechs in Czech. Both languages are easily understandable to both nationalities, but I will try to make a list of SK posters here so you can restore the diacritics somehow, because some letters are different (Slovak has no ř, ě, ů and Czech has no ľ, ĺ, ô, ä): Slovak: Osel, kyklop, Thomassino, Jovzin, EvilotionCR2, me Czech: Everybody else here.
  4. I have never seen such low estimates. The lowest ones I have seen are in thousands of years which is long for a human. Usual ones are around 10k-100k years, top one I have seen was 100 million. Binary stars and the Earth-Moon system are not really comparable,
  5. It would only be unstable on geological timescales, no roof needed. I believe it was calculated that it would last like 100 million years. Physics do not work that way.
  6. I don't think it is very unlikely at all considering we already discovered such a planet. Way too much of this is theory, it reminds me of the oceans of oil theory of Venus or how Jovian moons were supposed to be barren cratered rocks before Voyager.
  7. You realize it accelerated at milliGees? The thrust it used was less strong than a touch of a feather. I was not talking about the type of "constant thrust" that would involved accelerating half of the way and braking the half, but the ion drive spiral type. This: I wanted to say Dawn had a similiar system like in the Martian.
  8. Is 0.6 percent of perchlorate really such an insourmountable obstacle to you? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perchlorate#On_Mars
  9. This way of inter-system travel was already used by the Dawn probe to Ceres and Vesta btw.
  10. Now, perchlorates are corrosive (through I don't even know if they were even conclusively proven to exist in the Martian soil), but "perchlorates mean chlorine", what? Are you implying that a molecule with chlorine it it = chlorine? Salt also "implies chlorine", besides, I don't think a base structure made of titanium or something will be ruined by something found in fertilizer?
  11. The problem with "theoretical models" is that they are often wrong. Don't get me wrong, they are useful tools, but nothing more. In this case, a planet is proven to have a mass, radius and density that mean it lacks a huge hydrogen envelope, yet is as massive as Uranus, so I am gonna believe the empirical evidence. There were plenty of models showing Pluto must be geologically dead too.
  12. Why would the ground being poisionous prevent anything? Nobody is going to eat the soil.
  13. What struck me when reading about the "super-Earth" type of exoplanet is that many people seem to assume these planets are either like terrestrials in our Solar system, or mini-Neptunes/Gas Dwarfs. Reading more about this struck me as I realized an "in-between" exoplanet type probably exists and many of the superterrestrials discovered to this date. These two papers https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.08088 https://arxiv.org/abs/1311.0329 are rather enlightening on this matter. For example of what struck me: Also, on Wiki This basically suggests that there is a class of planet that: - has a solid or molten lava surface - at the same time, has an atmosphere that is H/He rich, and while FAR lighter than Neptune (for this reason I would say calling them sub-Neptunes is not really accurate as the pressure and temperature, as high as they are, are orders of magnitude lower than those in the water mantle of Neptune), still much denser, hot and crushing than Venus (pressure on the surface of Venus is 9 MPa, the pressure on a hypothetical 5 ME/2 Earth radius planet is 2 GPa or 222x as much as on Venus, one of the theoretised pressures for Kepler 11b is 1 GPa). Now, these planets have some unimaginable surface conditions, but unlike Neptune, you can still say there is a surface there, and to compare, the pressure at the top of the water mantle of Neptune is 200 GPa or 100-200x as much as at the surface of these planets (the temperature at the top of Neptune's mantle is 3000 K). In case of Kepler 11 b, this atmosphere is likely to be steam/supercritical water (a sort of an inbetween phase between liquid and gas). So, basically, there are probably many planets that are not really terrestrials as we know them from our Solar system, but not ice dwarfs like Neptune let alone gas giants like Jupiter. Of course, if we ever get there, exploring them would be the ultimate challenge of building landers, but the chemistry and processes (as they might feature processes we know from Neptune along with terrestrial geological phenomena like volcanoes) might be very fascinating. 55 Cancri is also sending some rather interesting signs that it is probably something we have not seen yet: http://www.space.com/32416-super-earth-55-cancri-e-super-hot-weather.html http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/05/150506-volcano-planet-space-cancri-astronomy/ Yet, despite the temperature differences suggesting a thin atmosphere, one was indeed discovered, and it is a hydrogen/helium one with a mix of... probably hydrogen cyanide: https://www.spacetelescope.org/news/heic1603/ So here is some conflicting evidence. On one hand, the large temperature variations and possible evidence of volcanic ash blocking emissions suggests a relatively thin atmosphere. On the other hand, spectral evidence suggests a hydrogen/helium atmosphere. On one hand, the planet is 8.63x as massive as Earth, so it could have gathered a H2/He envelope. On the other hand, it is on an extreme torch orbit, worse than Kepler 10b and Corot-7b, which have practically no atmosphere, according to transit data. Yet this one has, yet no H2O was detected (while for a Neptune like planet it is the major component), drastic temperature variations, possible volcanism... yet it apparently retained some light gases. The radius is 2x of Earth, mass 8.63x of Earth, so it is much denser that the 5 ME/2 Earth radius hypothetical "borderline" planet. That would suggest it has a hydrogen atmosphere, but one with a lower surface pressure than 2 GPa. Basically, what I am saying is that some exoplanets might have hydrogen/helium atmospheres that have high pressures, but have not retained the extensive hydrogen envelopes like Neptune or Jupiter. I think planets like this might be frequent in torch orbits, as the gravity holds SOME of the light gases, but not everything. The result might be an unholy Venus/Neptune hybrid with features common to both ice giants and terrestrials. But this does not end, apparently, some planets managed to grow to Neptune like masses while being so dense that they are clearly fully terrestrial and free of any H/He envelope: https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2014-06/hcfa-afa053014.php The planet likely has a superheated ocean of water, but no helium or hydrogen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler-10c However, there are also apparently planets as light as Earth with an extensive light gas envelope: http://www.nature.com/news/earth-mass-exoplanet-is-no-earth-twin-1.14477 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_dwarf So, apparently, planets can be Neptune sized and terrestrial, Earth sized and with a huge gas envelope, or anything in-between. This is also why I don't really like when people throw terms like "super-Mars", "super-Earth", "super-Venus", or "super-Mercury". I think there is a very big factor that determines what a planet is like and that is - how exactly did it form and in what conditions. A planet is more that its orbital parametres. Sorry if this got too long. Just had an urge to air my thoughts and stimulate a discussion. I personally feel that the obsession of astronomy about finding "Earth-like" planets limits our horizons and knowledge. I am fascinated by bizzare planets, even those that probably have no life (through the soup like atmospheres of "borderline" planets might have surprises waiting for us...), and think apart from the joy of knowledge and aesthetics (when we eventually manage to photograph them) they might eventually offer a lot to humanity. EDIT - In addition, planets like the ones with a big, but not quite ice giant atmosphere (like the "sub-Neptunes" mentioned in the paper) might offer life bearing conditions if they are rogue planets: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_planet#Retention_of_heat_in_interstellar_space
  14. The surface of neutron stars is millions of degree high, so a bright dot. By the way, try Universe Sandbox 2. A pulsar at a range of several thousand kms will not just tear humans apart, but super-Jupiter sized planets will start to break apart in seconds. Earth would be literally destroyed in seconds by the heat and tidal forces, when I put it like 10 000 km from the Crab pulsar it went up to 20 000 degrees Celsius in a few seconds. If you were in a spaceship really close to it, you would probably experience the fastest death possible for a human being. Your neurons would be plasma before you registered anything. That being said, due to their small size, they are not unthinkably bright. PSR B1257+12 for example has planets around it and a luminosity of 5.2 Solar, much of which is gamma and X rays. If Kerbol was in a binary system wirh the pulsar being in the Oort cloud, it would probably not be disruptive and would be seen as just a random suspiciously bright blue star in the sky. At that distance the ionising radiation would be very weak too, courtesy of inverse square law. The reason why it is more destructive than the Death Star from close up is because it would be like approaching Sun's core at a lesser distance than between New York and Tokyo. That being said, I am not sure how complex life on Kerbin survived the supernova explosion that made this pulsar.