PB666

And you can precipitate quantitatively Sr2+ by adding it to a 0.66 molar equivalents of Na3PO4 and and heating it in an autoclave. So that you can take strontium waste, basically add hydrochloric acid to dissociate it forming dissolve SrCl2 then neutralize this with something ammonium, then precipitate the Strontium phosphate with with Na3PO4 by heating under advanced pressure, centrifuge the pellet and dry completely. Mix thoroughly with powder potassium bromide and you can make a solid. Wrap the thermocouple, around the solid cylinder and insert into a b/gamma sheild such lead embedded ceramic or heavily leaded glass, hole for electrode at one end that would be filled with a plastic lead embedded material. A leaded ceramic lid with a hole for the other electrode, insert the wire, and fuse the lead to the device with clamps.And there you have it, a completely less dangerous way of making electricity than a solar panel could otherwise make more safely. Note you will probably need a copper core alongside the electrodes to manage heat inside the unit. You really don't care about the solubility of Y and Zr once you have made your solid, since in the above designed the casing in made of inert ceramics (having been to Nagasaki A-bomb museum, those ceramics will discolor a little, but otherwise hold up well to the conditions of a nuclear blast). You might want to ceramic coat the thermocouple to protect its chemical composition and extend its life. Now who is going to volunteer to dissociate, neutralize, precipitate& autoclave, dry, KBr embed and sheild. Think before you do this we best invent suitable robots first.

Great, but congress will screw it up.

No problem, but gamma is detected in a lomg skinny tube with a PMT so that can go right on top of the secodary mirror, radio telescopes can mount between the three part wide spread mirrors, i with Radio, 1 with IR, problem solved ;^)

Magnesium as i have pointed out several times is a major component of S asteroids, songravity is no the problem transfering to and stabilizing S asteroids is the problem, pay attention and keep up with the discussion.

For once this is click bait, but it is fun to watch. he could have gotten a bigger effect if he had tied is bottle in an air fill bag and place the balls on top.

True, but we have no replacement for hubble and the wide mirror scope is really best used for planet hunting in our galactic proximity, direct resolution. JWST is really designed for looking at extreme redshifted, thats why it needs on if its detectors to operate at 7k or so. InMy opinion, for example when in try to KSP a scope, make it full spectrum. GRB are an important hunting and orienting tool. Xrays have the problem with hydrogen and extreme gamma, well, thats how we all came to be.

Good catch, yeah that is pretty cheap.

Other than foolery what advantage is ther for a scope on the moon, at least once a month it would be pointing strait towrd the sun. Webb is going to be as big as a tennis court, there were plans to build a bigger sgregated scope, but they were cancelled, its not a foolish idea, its simply that we cut every thing in our space program to bite suze morsels every time there is. major change in congress or the white house. L2 is an obviuos choice for its final location.

The europeans had their fair share of trouble with overheating supermagnets, this is not something you can bully through, its a slow careful methodical process.

http://phys.org/news/2015-09-quantum-entanglement-goldilocks-effect.html?quarkcolor=mauve So basically to mutilate the original authors intent, read the article or my take. The universe is made of alot of energy, alot of dense energy at inflation, not in any form we are familiar with. During this process time-energy composite was such that the quantum state hesitated at a state that allowed the predecessors or ordinary matter transition from the high energy form. This created the complexity that eventually leads to our material universe. Sounds interestimg, thats all i have to say in support. Remind everyone that other than some neutrinos we cannot see what happened before CMBR.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/20150922-nima-arkani-hamed-collider-physics/ as the title states the subject of the peice claims to be pushing the chinese government in that direction. If they pull this one off, it would be a major technological and political feat for china. China has the rare earth deposits that make this possible, but .......

Dangerous to handle. half life is 28 years, which offers a reasonable power material. OToh, its very corrosive in the metalic form best used as a phosphate.

Dont presume my threshold are so lofty, to be a colony it has to be capable of sustaining on generation. So thirty years, the respiratory viability of earth is a red herring argument. And nasa has taken a number of spectrgraph of soil, one of which i presented on another thread and you can wiki. The level of hydrogen is very low in martian soil and it may not be bioavailable, we would literally have to vaporize the rock to get the water out. That how NASA got the hydrogen peak. Noone knows where the deeper reservoirs come closest to the surface, but wherever those are they are few and far between, certainly not adequate to terraform. before we go spewing out misinformation, lets be clear, mars has lost its atmosphere. In that process hydrogen was the first to go. Why, because the environment is reducing. On earth wehn hydrogen is released there are a number of oxidative processes that recapture it, the loftiest of which is uv ozonization and peroxide formation. On mars there is no ozone and uv is less dense than earth. hydrogen is the lightest gas. Reductive process turnover hydrogen and water, but once as hydrogen or methane the gases escape. This dries out the surface layers, along with the direct loss of water. Latent heat from the interior of the planet is suficient to keep water moving towsrd the vapor phase and drying the soil down to its most compact layers. The water is lost. Think about the oceans that cover our planet are 2 kilometers on average deep. If you cannot see a drop of water at the deepest points on mars, common sense tells you that any water must be way below the surface, that the surface must be much drier than land here on earth. It would be like the soil in the atacama desert, as I believe one artcle actually stated. So if you can feasibly extract a livable amount of water from a well drained slope of the atacama and also have enough left over to make propellant or RCS (little nitrogen on mars either) then you can survive. That before you attempt some voyaristic scheme on Mars.

Then why propogandize the issue with falacies. I my opinion offends you should find that your propogandizing what is click bait offends me. Since we are ok with throwing inappropriate opinions out then you should not mind me sharing mine, right, doing to others ........,

The read, think and reply and it wont be.

This is the thread I started; not hostility just a fact http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/134540-15KISP-mg2-ION-drive If you have been reading the links there is a temendous amount of progess being made in materials science, so called supermats and also with various types of deep space engines. One of the key problems is the cotainment of gases, gases are best liquified, the problem is with ion drives that might operate for months in space, liquification is a problem. Vasimr is a solution but its weight and energy needs are enourmous, if you can get a fractional weight with much less ISP then its worth it, IMHO. But the authors did not oresent on the durability. Light scattering is the inverse forth power of the wavelength. UV scatters worse than visible light. You can get a suburn under a cloud, thats due to scattering of lUV around the cloud. Not uv - plants like the deep blue and red-orange. plants appear green because they absorb everything but green light, (a generalization because the spectrum tapers at its edges anyway). One group of researchers pointed out that the most productive algae grow best in frequency attenuated LED light and suggest that some light frequencies were inhibitory. ------------------- But the problem is not straying into science or off topic in a science thread, the problem concerns people right to express themselves within the boundary of bonafida science topics, if i drop a link its no less civil than someone flooding the group with bad science concerning mars or venus colonizations or discussing of space weapons, or meme dropping. So why do certain people fell compelled to keep pointing stand alone links out like its a cardinal sin.

i value that opinion about as highly as your opinions concerning click-bait. I select the links carefully, generally they have to be pertinent to subforum topics, novel in that they have not, to my knowledge, have been presented before, represent some form of science or advanced technologies, and finally stear folks away from space fantasy topics that they dwell on to topics that might actually have some meaning in space. If i don't enjoy the link I will not present it, thats all you need to know. If the link troubles me i will say so, just as if your opinion about what is click baitvtroubles me i will say so.

Bad idea, you would need a powerful ground laser, remember the laser emmitter is being pushed, so if you attemot to deorbit a probe, the source is going to be sent inot incrasingly highrborbit. The ground laser does not have high enough resolution, and would prbaly blast the craft to smaller pieces. undesired. Also lets not forget that space weapons are verbotin. all in all a bad idea. Vasimr with a cahin link cage to capture bag and release the junk with a large drag sail.

Uh, I started that thread. Yes and it has fantastic potential but it was generally poo-pooed in the group. The one thing that S-asteroids have alot of is magnesium. The problem is that you can use aluminum and other soil components to make SFRBs but ion drives won't get you off the surface of Mars. Nor can they retro a payload to parachute altitude or correct to land. There are very few sustainability options that do not include a readily availabe supply of hydrogen. But has dust, which one could get around by elevating panels 100M over the surface, this is actually more trouble some. The actual reduction of solar radiation due to atm on earth is not disproportionately high. The bigger issue is diffraction but most of the light is scattered and reaches panels anyway, the UV is scattered moreso. If you have a panel, the heat is going to come from electric power used to light your greenhouse, most likely underground with LEDs, the soil provides insulation, and the heat may have to be radiated. We provide almost all the food for the ISS, and the rovers don't eat. You will on mars have to provide enough energy to grow food, and that is a sizable amount more than here on earth, since we provide almost no electric power to grow food, the sun provides directly. Corn for instance will unitilize about 3 times more hv per day on earth than would be available on mars. So yeah you will be using solar power at least to suppliment sunlight.

Yes, it is an opinioin, and I did kick off a discussion, about how people in this group obsess about click-bait and have a no-nevermind attitude about the other much heftier junk that gets posted about unsupportable space fantasies, Such as putting buckminster fullerines floating cities in the unstable volatile atmosphere of Venus. Complain about click-bait and I can give you my opinion about a link and how it fits into the other topics of the group which I also have an opinion of. Science is about expanding the boundaries of science, it is about researching and or communicating that which is novel. I have made discoveries and published them without giving an opinion of what they mean. Should I gather convincing data on what they mean I might publish, but to publish on what something means before having the logical legs to stand on is what charlestons do. - - - Updated - - - If I think a link I present is crap, I will generally say so, if I want you guys to read the link and offer an unbiased opinion, I wont say anything. Think of it as giving you a free chance to decide unencumbered by the thought process. (From click and clack the tappet brothers). I run simulations, spent several months doing monte-carlo its not a game, its a bunch of numbers spewing down an excel spreadsheet, MSFS is a simulator that can also be used as a game, WOW is not a simulator its a game. Using the gaming environment with virtual controls is somewhat interesting feedback from the gaming world.

Apparently not science - fantasy. Much evolving science about Mars, true which is all but not being discussed in the threads on Mars colonization. BTW we are not discussing in lieu of the fact we are discussing fantasy. We keep talking about water on Mars, but its not alot in the equitorial regions of mars its very little. The atmosphere is 1/100 the thickness of earths and has no hydrogen to speak of. [TABLE=class: infobox] [TR] [TH]Carbon dioxide[/TH] [TD]95.97%[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TH]Argon[/TH] [TD]1.93%[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TH]Nitrogen[/TH] [TD]1.89%[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TH]Oxygen[/TH] [TD]0.146%[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TH]Carbon monoxide[/TH] [TD]0.0557%[/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] So basically the advocates of Mars colony are advocating the survival on Mars that requires hydrogen, for both food and fuel, but the only sources of Hydrogen are in trace amounts of water rapidly depleted from surrounding surface deposits and would require a sustain search and gather to achieve. All of this to be done with 1/10th the amount of sunlight reaching the earth. The best hope martian colony would have would be to intercept comets and redirect them at the surface of mars, slowing them down first. Better yet use a asteroid comet colonizing ship to intercept the comets, mine the hydrogen and transport it to the surface using propellant made from the comet to retrograde the material. But then of course you would have first had to colonize comets and asteroids. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composition_of_Mars#/media/File:PIA16089.jpg The little inset with magnified peak shows hydrogen, not necessarily in an extractable form, the metal and silicate peaks dominate the spectra-graph. If we were discussion martian science, we would have discussed this as part of the thread, nope. Enough said.

Our space exploration is unencumbered by click bait We need more space science and good science in space. We need to understand better the physics of our universe Then and only then should we consider settling in space. I am not at all promoting stagnation, I am promoting targets that are feasible and will not leave a sour taste in the public's mouth about space and science after they fail. Mars colony is a fantasy, Blimps on venus are a fantasy. Is not something we might achieve if we work hard at it, It is something that can be achieved only if alot of other space 'things' are done, like stations at lagrangian points, stations of the moons of mars, etc. Things in which you can change course if something goes wrong. What is being advocated in this group for Mars colonization is nothing but fantasy, you cannot have a reproducing colony of humans on Mars with anything near the current technology. The whole concept of blimp colonies floating on Venus, its just because something floats, you still have to insert that something through the upper atmosphere at 8,000 m/s, the bigger the item is the harder it is to insert. Or do you propose we build something floating around in venus and that we capture falling materials in free fall for assembly. The primary problem with Mars Electric power supply not up to task Self contained resource extraction not up to task dV for launchs and retroburns coming and going to mars not powerful enough at the efficiency one needs. No method for improving the gravity of a celestial other than centrifugal methods (which work better in space and with no drag) The way to do something and get it done is to serialize the problem into accomplishable task. 1. Building a station in space - done 2. Making a station capable of centripedal acceleration while not done could be done if relatively easily. 3. Protecting a station from radiation doable 4. Growing plants in space goes with 2. Solar panels, Blue and orange LEDs and heat radiators (doable) 5. Puting things in stable orbits at L1 or L2 - done 6. Intercepting asteriods or comets, done 7. Putting science material on asteroids and tracking them looking for a good intercept point. The idea of having a 300 foot telescope at L2 assembled in space is not insane, it can be built through a serial effort in space.

I read the article, I know what i think, I want to know what others think. Cool or not, its an opinion.

OK, but this is not about that, its about moving from the game world to the real world. For example I had exactly no clue how to make a 3D model before playing KSP, now of course Win 10 has a 3-d modeler, but its pretty crappy compared to blender. If I need to make a model of say a molecule now I could pretty easily do it, as long as the program which I send it to can handle blender. We use 3-D models, but we can't actually make them, that is for some computer specialist in some special department. Molecular dynamics (the first in the video) is actually pretty important, a game that can get the molecule to fold at low energy state and allow the user to try to fold it within the thermodynamic limits is one way to discover how proteins get through the tight spots in protein folding, or if they can get through tight spots. This could be very important time saver in genetic engineering because previously you have to make a gene and see if it will fold or not, now you can stop the folding at the hold up point and (comparing native with engineered) see what is the major holdup in folding by manually moving a side-chain around. Of course if there is a neutral site that is blocking the folding, you can essentially co-transform the second site so that it accommodates the fold.

Mandated opinions -I thought the video was cool -Really refreshing the games that move away from hallway shoot-em up to games like KSP and Spore. -Think that having multiple threads dealing with space weapons should be merged, and the whole discussion is a bore and not reflective of actual space science.