MBobrik

Theoretically, one could of course build a sub-critical thorium reactor where the neutrons needed to break even are supplied externally, not sure whether such a design could be scaled down to car size. it might be far safer, but it would be far more complicated ( and bulky ) than a normal reactor. What I am sure about, however, that the amount of shielding required to prevent the driver ( and generally anyone around the car ) from being roasted by the radiation from an operating multi kilowatt fission source would not fit into in a car. at least not a car of normal size and weight.

sry but it stinks like a crank.

the will of the people can't be completely ignored even in a representative democracy (otherwise it wouldn't be democracy at all). and when the will of the people is to replace an expensive alternative with a cheap and dirty one, virtually no politician will say no.

. In a democracy, everyone has decision making authority.

. then we are a failed species and for all practical purposes we are screwed. . . we all know that fossil fuel plants are the cheapest and the dirtiest. but there are other reasons why we should not always go for the cheapest and dirtiest, aren't they ?

... and, it seems, you are highly proficient in building straw men too. Do you think that nuclear energy proponents want us to stop being cautious or something ?

Surely they will be. but if reactors designed in 1950's had 1 accident per 25 years globally, 21 century's reactors will most probably have accident rates 1 per several centuries. Which is orders of magnitude safer than any other energy source. So talking about it as an argument against nuclear energy without wanting to abandon all other means of producing electric energy is hypocritical and irrational. Let me repeat myself then. your side failed to produce a single valid rational argument against nuclear energy. and then proceeded to complain that it is not fair that we demand one. EDIT: BTW good that you mentioned aircraft disasters. With aircraft it is almost the same. people are freaking out about a few high-profile disasters globally, while ignoring the plain fact that it is an order of magnitude more probable that they will die in a car accident. Yet a lot of people have flight phobia and virtually none is more scared of cars. something that kills 100 on one spot once per year is perceived as more dangerous than something that kills 10000 evenly distributed trough time and space. This thinking may be a common human flaw, but is nonetheless irrational. And so is radiation phobia.

'nuff said. Psycix wins the thread.

yeah, teach both sides. where I've heard that one again. Frankly, one side made its case where the other failed to do anything but baseless fear mongering.

. Nobody wants a landfill nearby, yet somehow, we manage to agree to create landfills somewhere. If the nuclear opponents weren't throwing hissy fits, we would quietly find a remote uninhabited location, dig a deep hole and start dumping. @Klingon Admiral . Nobody needs that. after a few thousands of years, the radioactivity or the waste will be comparable to the original uranium ore. And we aren't evacuating the planet because of all the unsecured uranium ore underground

. Nuclear power opponents complaining about a problem they themselves created. How typical...

FIY uranium is not created in nuclear reactors. it is found in and mined from rocks. Even rocks that are not uranium ores contain trace amounts of uranium. So if the uranium is to be avoided at any cost, you will have to abandon the entire planet. . (citation needed) . . Wrong. Just a few kilometers away, Fukushima II, a newer, more modern plant, projected to withstand stronger tsunami, survived just fine. And guess who is to blame that new plants can't be built and we are thus forced to keep the old, decrepit ones running ? . . One meltdown per 25 years worldwide a reason to abandon nuclear power and replace it with orders of magnitude more destructive power sources ? Degeneracy here we come.

Why ? because this entire civilization is already in terminal decline. People just stopped trusting it. Dislike, willful ignorance, and fear of (relatively) newer technology is just an symptom of it.

well. like I didn't search for it myself before asking. Just try to find the map in the links your google query spate out. It is indeed there - one forum links to another and then on the page 5. Something very easily to overlook. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/53567-List-of-places-and-biomes-in-v0-22-%28Kerbal-planetary-geology-and-geography%29/page5 EDIT: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/53567-List-of-places-and-biomes-in-v0-22-%28Kerbal-planetary-geology-and-geography%29/page8

Is there a map or the mun biomes ? I want to collect as much science as possible in one go so I want to land somewhere where is a lot of biomes near by.

poor man's generation ship - 4 crew, all female ( if males, then altered to have a womb ) and a stockpile preserved eggs and sperm from millions of donors in an extremely well shielded container. the replacement crew members, and several first generations of colonists will be bred from the stored eggs.

Following this line of reasoning, and considering the communication speed and general capability to govern large number of people back in 50 000 BC, one would reach the conclusion that we would never get far from the east African savannah where we first evolved. yet, we conquered the entire globe w/o having to maintain an unified global empire.

interstellar radio ( or lasers or whatever that works only at c ) is pretty much pointless if you've got FTL so nobody will use it and the first sign of other civilizations that newcomers will see is an alien caravel in orbit over their homeworld.

each and every human empirical knowledge is like that. absolute proofs happen only in the realm of mathematics . @lajoswinkler don't worry. this thread will last only as long as moderator's nap

yeah like the germ theory of disease, gravity or spherical earth FIY science is not in the business of proving stuff. that is either mathematics or the prosecutor Science only proposes hypotheses, tests them against empirical data and estimates the probability of the hypotheses according to the results. You can not provide absolute proof from empirical data because there is always a non-zero probability of error or another hypothesis giving indistinguishable results for all previous tests.

Is there any in-game way how to tell which experiments and where I've already done, without sending another craft and getting 0 points each time I forget that I was already there ? . I can still look it up in the persistent file, but this is a rather cumbersome way...

I am pretty sure that the very "X is only a theory, not a fact" line is against the rules. If not the rules of this forum, then certainly against the rules of sound reasoning.

XXXXXXXXX is a theory. not a fact. ... hmm... where I've last heard that line ?

. 1. All knowledge is like that. Even when you are looking at this text, your brain forms a model that is supposedly consistent with the data stream coming through your optical nerve. . 2. such a model is knowledge.

Let's say NASA's budget is halved tomorrow. What would you give up first.