Rondon

Yeah sure, at first. I have to say you seem biased to this situation so that human colonisation is the best option. Sure at first a sapient machine would probably fill up a giant five storey building, however if electronics keep advancing that will keep shrinking, a sapient machine could wind up being trivially small, provided electronics do keep advancing. And the idea that the machine will be less creative, is again at the mercy of the future of the technology, it may not be creative at the start, but again this could change, for all we know sapient machines could wind being vastly more imaginative than humans, it remains to be seen.

Heck of a crazy calculation it's almost exactly how I was taught to solve this exact same scenario in secondary school, go figure:confused:. Never taught that one though, pretty neat.

...Well it had to be something. Well atleast it's on the right path T=19.08 S =1/2aT² from rest S = 1/2 (0.5124)(19.08²) = 93.2687 meters

Probably not exactly what you meant, but you do know people can go out and make a difference in the world, without wanting to expand space exploration right? And I have to say I don't agree with you're second sentence either, were inherently social, it's seems pretty important for acting as part of a group, and caring about others.

Eh I did it out, so i may as well answer. About 19.08 seconds though I have to say I can't get any good result out of Blue Cosmologys method. I'm terrible for making simple mistakes so I'll go step by step. So find T where T = 10m/s / A Where A is the acceleration horizontal to the plane, The acceleration of the car under Gravity: a = Gsin(6â°) The Force horizontal to the plane is Fh = Ma - Fr Fh = (1600 kg)(9.8 m/s²)(0.1045) - 800N = 836.56N A = Fh / m = 0.5241 m/s² T =10m/s / 0.5241 m/s² = 19.08 s An easy enough calculation, though I suppose off topic at this rate.

I would say in most places on earth you need food and water, not technology to survive, but even taking the statement at face value, the less suitable the environment is the more technology you need to survive. This would be especially true for Mars and the more technology you require the greater the cost of said technology and the greater the risk that this technology will fail. It's not that we need to move people who live in inhospitable climates, it's that majority live where it is the most comfortable, there are plenty of places on earth where you genuinely do need technology to keep you alive, e.g. the ocean and Antarctica, but though people work there, there is no great rush to live there.

Right, I see you didn't notice that I was moving onto to other concepts for shelters, rather then just a singular underground base, after all there are so many ways you could set up a backup up for civilisation, you could indeed have a singular base, or you could have hundreds of mini blast shelters build into a city or even better in the countryside or hey just build a library of known science or the USB equivalent in somewhere you know isn't going to bear the brunt of a nuclear war, rural Iceland, a pacific island. there's just so many ways to go about the problem, you couldn't say any method is individually the best. But in-terms of the whole equation of difficulty to destroy vs strategic importance, a Mars base does not "solve" the problem, the reason a Mars base wouldn't be targeted isn't because of how expensive it is, or how technically difficult the destruction would be to perform, but as you say a Mars base is of no strategic threat, it can't do anything (significant). First off this entire idea is probably going against the whole exciting dream of Martian colonisation, the moment this civilisation gains nuclear , orbital and significant industrial capability it is a threat,( to the nations survivors anyway), so if this Mars base is to perform it's supposed purpose of continuing human civilisation expanding and growing defies it's function. Although considering the inhospitable environment it probably won't be able to grow quickly anyway. Secondly, and related to that last sentence, it's a poor return on investment if you have so and so many billions of dollars to spend on the continuation of civilisation a Mars base represents an exorbitantly expensive village built into a desert more barren than any on earth, but take any of the methods above or any other method for continuation and with the resources taken to build just one Martian village you could store thousands upon thousands of tons of supplies critical for rapidly restarting civilisation

Right so I could talk about how this statement is wrong (for bases with a minimum viable population, not millions of people), but I thought of a much simpler way to get my point across. Imagine you have you're Mars base with a minimum viable population of around 150, centralised to minimise the expense of life support. Now, how much would it cost to bomb it? No matter how much it costs to send the stuff there, the mass of one bomb will always be less than the mass of the colony, the mass of the people alone is 10 tons, and for example Fat Man was 5 tons. Now, how much does the bomb itself cost to make? Well to be fair it's hard to say, but the USA has spent 5 trillion on nuclear warfare and has made about 10000 nukes in the process, so we can say that the average nuke costs half a billion dollars. So if you're base minus those five tons of stuff costs more than half a billion, destroying the base will cost less than it took to build it. Now let's face facts were talking about building a fully autonomous base, capable of operating indefinitely, it's going to be in the figure of billions, to put it lightly. So what can you do? You would want to make the potential target(s) as low-key as possible, split it into individual sub cells each as cheap as possible while capable of supporting at least 1 person so it becomes more and more expensive and impractical to destroy everything, so then comes the next question, why are you building this base in space? By virtue of sending it there, everything is well astronomically expensive, by building on earth such an initiative would cost a fraction of the expense. But what do you mean "They assume you are not shooting at them."? It's a nuclear war, if the opponents can get close enough to attack small shelters, then it's clearly been a pretty rubbish nuclear war. Edit: ah I see, it's a difference in levels of protection from a fallout and blast shelter.

Okay, the first thing I can think of is how much additional trouble it would be to constantly say major planet.

Whatever about the other scenarios you're thinking of, if this fully autonomous base is far enough underground it really doesn't matter what happens, it will survive. Looking it up there's was a major fuss about America developing a nuclear bunker buster that would be the "mother of all bombs", and do you know how much ground there talking about penetrating? Couple of hundred feet, whereas the deepest facilities in the world can go down as far as several thousand feet. And you don't need necessarily to go deep, must fallout shelters make do with a couple meters of soil, spread out far enough or isolated in separate cells , the base again could survive.

Ah but we already have that. And it's even simpler than that, there's either planet or dwarf planet.

SOME acid has hydrogen in it, the acid in the Venusian atmosphere is sulfur di-oxide, there's no hydrogen in it. And barring some magnificent advance the reaction you're talking about to create hydrogen is a nuclear reaction, at best it would be extraordinarily energy intensive and probably several if not hundreds of orders of magnitude harder than just extracting the trace water.

So darko, you're issue with the "concrete" example, was that mars is colder than its atmosphereless moons, this may indeed of been a crippling flaw in the logic if not for the fact that Phobos and Demos are two of the darkest objects in the solar system, so what I was going to do was put the moon out to mars's distance from the sun, and then divide the surface temperature by the fraction of energy it would receive. Which seems a bit dodgy at the best of times, But I don't have too! the moon and mars share approximately the same mean temperature (220k - 210K), despite the fact moon receives more energy and is in fact darker than mars. Before you ask the moon appears so white due to its stark contrast to pitch black space. "Again, antarctic ice will collapse into sea regularly this is nothing new except more satellites taking pictures, an increased temperature will probably give more humid air over Antarctica and increase the ice thickness" - magnemoe. Just to clarify it nearly never rains in Antarctica, there isn't that much accumulation to increase, even then "global warming will decrease sea levels" , is a pretty bold claim to make, . it is also contrary to what has been experienced, ie sea levels have and are rising right now, just not that much.

Okay Darnok, when light hits off the surface of the planet, the surface emits infrared radiation, which can be reflected back to the surface by a greenhouse gas, and there just so happens to have been billions of kilograms of CO2, a greenhouse gas, produced annually for the last century, how can this not cause global warming?. To put it more concretely how, do you think Venus has twice the surface temperature of Mercury despite receiving under a fourth as much energy?

When you get down to it the question is whether or not doubling the Nasa budget by 17.9 billion dollars, inspires more people than putting that money into education. Seeing as that investment would inspire the entire world you would think its probably a good bet, But, checking up on any comparisons I could find. It seems the moon landing had a negligible effect on graduation rates.

I have lots of issues with that perspective, nearly every single aspect of the average persons life is far better than what it was a century or two ago. The fact I love is that today the country on earth with the lowest life expectancy: Chad at 49 years, has a life expectancy 10 years longer than the life expectancy of the average person at the start of the industrial revolution, who in turn had a life expectancy 10 years higher than a person from the medieval/ancient era.

Yeah, burnoutforzai says hes leaving so, orange team only has two people now.

One of my team members is having a problem downloading the modpack, he's disabled anti phishing/malware but the download failed when he tried to open it up in winrar, any suggestions?

Right okay, does anyone else on Red want to set up a thread/Skype or something so we can get our strategy together? Also one thing before we start, is there going to be a limit on the number of bases? It just looks very profitable to spam them.

Hey sign me up sounds interesting.

The goal is 60% by 2050, checked the comparison for wind and advanced nuclear and the prices approximately match but there's local variation, but seeing as wind is set to go down 25% by 2050 it doesn't seem a bad bet, but at the very least we shouldn't be shutting down nuclear power plants before there time is up. Germany has done this trying to remove there nuclear share down from 20% to zero, but because of this even despite the energiewende emissions have actually risen, because the primary fuel replacing nuclears role in the grid is coal, so electricity prices have risen dramatically essentially for nothing, for now. switching to renewable is a good idea but by also choosing to remove nuclear they've set themselves back, potentially for decades on what they could have achieved.

People have a skewed interpretation of risk, the example that sticks out in my mind was a hypothetical suggestion: what if we lived in a world where there where no negative health consequences to smoking? except that for every 100 thousand cigarettes produced one would cause the smokers face to violently explode? every now again you'd hear a story of terror as a person blew up in front of a crowd on the street, and there be a terrible, just terrible mess to be cleaned, Not many people would smoke at all, and yet that's the statistic for in around every 100 thousand cigarettes smoked the correlation is that someone dies. Not violently but slowly and "silently". This is worth bringing up, for as many people who have sadly died in nuclear accidents its a moot point, Nuclear power is one of the safest power sources in the world for deaths per kilowatt, its kills less than all the fossil fuels, it kills less than hydroelectricity (exacerbated by this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam) , it even kills less than wind and solar, which is more interesting than anything else. Look up "Death per terrawatt" for yourself.

To put a figure on it. If the world was powered by one square of solar power that square would have an area in or around 400,000 square kilometers which is very big. but that's less than 5% of the surface are of the Sahara.

Musk's statement is that the payload is reduced by 30%, I don't see any real problem with the first stage being recovered aside from actually doing it, but that second stage would be a challenge.

No, correct me if me if you have a better quote but I'm pretty sure they are: "SpaceX has publicly indicated that if they are successful with developing the reusable technology, launch prices in the US$5 to 7 million range for the reusable Falcon 9 are possible" http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/01/14/shotwell/