PB666

Do you know what you are asking? Calculate the scale. Secondarily you may have a small source of C and O, you have nowhere near what is needed for H. L2 orbits where the next outer planet is Jupiter are unsustainable, to make sure they are sufficiently reflective they need to be in a rather large orbit, the larger the orbital radius, the more unsustainable that the orbit is.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34326506 Due to popular opinion, the moderators request I add some opinion to turn something arbitrarily known by a few pedantics as click bait into something else. So here are the opines. We need this, but many times larger in diameter, in space. Stop wasting the groups time with post about balloons on Venus or colonies on Mars, both technologically unfeasible, and in both cases not sustainable. Stop wasting the groups time with long winded post about whether you use a space-taxi to go to the moon or mars. More installments with next click-bait. Oh and I should add, a new 130 ft telescope is alot more scientifically relevant than terraforming mars, cloudriding cities on venus, or space weapon design.

That would make sense, except for the fact that reaching or having a base at the venutian gravity well is impossible to begin with. This is like arguing that my bad logic is worse than someone ekses bad logic. In fact i never advocated venus either. By forcing a planetary colonization here are the odor neutralizers of the brain kraken explosions. By definition the earth is at the center of the suns contemporary goldilocks zone. The earths gravity well has cleared its orbit of celestials, some think the moon is a remnant of one unlucky planet. The earths satellite has insufficient mass to support an atmosphere, the satellite itself is responsible for creating earths dynamo, which in turn creates its magnetic feild which in turn protects earths atmosphere. Conclusion 1 there are no more than 1 habitable celestial in earths goldlocks zone, that the goldilocks zone is a idealization of reality. The assumption of colonization has to entertain the concept of stability. Venus requires light sheilding at L1 mars requires mirrors at L2. neither of these are stable. Venus us somewhat more desirous because its easier to deal with extra resources than lack of as on Mars, Mars is somewhat more desirous because at least humans could land [cough] and survive for a few moments with current technology. Mars lacks adequate hv in the light/uv portion to readily sustain a colony. it also has inadequate gravity. It would require solar technology which we do not have, and human life would be confined kargely to insulated underground bubbles. There is no prospect for a martian space program, it is a trap. Venus OTOH is a crucible which would take thousands of years of lower hv intensity just to see if it was possible to colonize. So now we see that they are both unstable and difficult to colonize. we can look at phobos and philo, both are better choices because they are less of traps. It really makes no difference if atm is 0 or 0.01 of earths. neither have dust storms to cover the solar panels, both are relatively easy to get off of, bith still lack adequate hv intensity. better choices, but lower gravity. Near earths orbit L1-L5 gravity-centripedal habitats atmosphere-self contained radiation-similar to earths sheilding-plating, special metals resources-asteroids and hijacked comets Acces ti rst of system...good, better if cometary intercept plans are developed.

mars colony, nope. You want a colony, build in space, you want a gravity trap, go to mars.

Sulfer hexaflouride, high co2 atmospheres, mirrors at L2? lol. nope.

Really? Aliens go PEW PEW.

Xenon is better because is can be package at higher mass densities than argon. Argon is used in VASIMR. But in principle your response does not deal with the supposition, mining fuel in space, by definition earths argon containing atmosphere layers are not space, its earth bound as to separated from everything else we call space.

A disk would absorb and reflect differently than a planet. A disk absorbs in the daytime and reflects at night. A disk absorbs and emits all the time, it would give the same signature as a dyson disk and second you would not see the disk an miss the planet, you would see a planet shadowing a disk, because some of the starlight still reaches the disk. I must say neither are a good idea, but the disk is a better idea than a dyson sphere or even dyson ring, particularly in the case of venus where you have alot more hv (it would be about 1.5 million km closer to the sun than venus), so at least you have alot of solar power and potential hv for orbit keeping (direct emission). Dyson shere is advantageous because what is inside becomes invisible, and because hv can be used as a tool for spacecraft acceleration on the ring. It is impractical for just about every other reason one can imagine. Circumstellar ring can be used to produce hv for spacecraft acceleration. If we can imagine this, suppose we had a ring 10000m thick and we can reduce the output down to a band of about 100m, then we could concentrate solar power 100 fold, instead of accelerating at 0.01g we can accelerate at 1g for say the distance between venus-earth and the asteroid belt. Lets say the path length is 500,000,000,000. In this scenario we are given a infinite ability to dissipate heat, we can generate 1g (10 m/s) for 314000 seconds (3.64 days) giving us a final velocity except that lost to the suns gravity, a miniscule amount, of ~3,170,000 meters per second. Light travels at 3,000,000,000 meters per second, so we obtain 0.01C, Alpha centauri takes only 100 years, and we go wizzing through the system with no way of stopping, and everyone on board is a mummified corpse because we have no provisions for food or water (best to use a probe). The electronics on the probe is fried by the cosmic radiation the high velocity produces as well as numerous electro-static storms created by the ship as it passes through differential plasma of interstellar space (those little processors are made with 5v in mind, not millions of volts). OK so we are not ready to use a ring even if we have one. To make such a ring useful we need a really big ship, with lots and lots of panels (Km^2) and lots of protection on the front end, some sort of unrealistically gigantic space parachute that begins slowing us down years before we reach the target, and a specially designed, probably nuclear driven insertion ship. Planetary-Stellar L1 disk can be used to control planetary climate, but also offers a potential highpower launch point for VASIMR like spacecraft launches to other parts of the system (imagine that we use reflected starlight to concentrate solar power on panels of the VASIMR ship, most panels can handle 5-20 times the sunlight so no need for nuclear and can use normal solar to insert. Still no way to dissipate the heat, but we could use such a ship to get a LfOx ship into planetary orbit with a really large payload, all we have to do is get the ship to a rather low dV position near L1. The problem with this plan is although we leave with lots of dV once we get to Mars or Ceres, we are heading at high velocity to cut the trip short, the radial velocity is high and lots of dV are needed not where the disk is, but at the destination. So this plan needs another disk at Mars or Ceres to provide the power to stop the ship. Since venus would already have a disk earth venus travel would be complimentary, but again, venus as a destination is prolly going to be difficult. The alternative is redirecting asteroids and comets, much better plan. Place them together and shield them from degassing and mine and build station in the mine and create a space based colony at whatever orbit you like.

Given: no evidence of dyson spheres in other galaxies Given: great technical difficulty if supporting mass outside of orbital inertial points along the sphere Given: the general unavailability to build such objects. What kind of space engineering might be done. Lagrangian points exist inside, L1, outside, L2, leading, lagging and opposing planetary orbits Objects at L1 can assume partially stable orbits, and disks at L1 can be used as stationary platforms. Solar blocking or harvesting arrays block sunlight, so for instance you could block some of the sunlight reaching earth and thus cooling it. The problem is that climate change is not a single process, its two competing processes. The one process, insulation, is created by gases that reflect radiant energy back toward the surface. The second process is the absorbtion of atmospheric light by absorbant particles like soot and jettrails that lower pan evaporation rates and diminish rainfall rates. Many areas of the world, such as africa and arabia are more affected by the second process than the first. In fact the highest rate of rainfall seen in N. Africa was at the holocene climate maximum starting around 9000 years ago and lasting for only about 3000 years and form a geological perspective we would be heading for an ice age. Such a disk makes the problem worse, except for global warming. So for such a scheme to work we would need to stop the burning of coal, wood, clearing land by fire, and jet engines as we know them, otherwise we could be making the drought problem worse. Next target. Venus, this has already been discussed before, but provided we could mine carbon you could block 3/5 ths of the light hitting venus and it would become a paradise. Not exactly, what has happened to venus is that its oceans are in its atmosphere because of the heat, in fact its proably lost a considerable amount of water which the earth has prolly picked up some, the rest heading out to jupiter. The planet is what i would call salt split. Most salts are composed of non-volatile metal portion that are basically grounded, a volatile anion portion that a moderate to high temperatures can split from the cation and become a gas. It takes a considerable amount of energy. On earth this occurs at the degrading edge of subductuion zones resulting in the ring of fire. The anions of salts basically evolving and percolating to the surface. On venus this mostly has occurred on or close to the surface. The most reactive of the anions is sulfate, sulferic acid has a low pka, so low in fact it cannot be measured, pure sulferic acid and water is an explosive combination. Sulferic acid has a relatively high boiling point. So that the first antropogenic rain storm on venus would be one kraken of a storm. The surface of venus would literally begin to explode. Over 1000s of years venus surface would tame down but it would be quite some time before the effects of the acid had washed away. Maybe after a few thosand years you would have highland lakes with acid wtaer capable of sustaining life and land capable of growing grases, but no tropical paradise. There is no harm in doing this to venus, but the risk, in materials, is high. It would take trillion of kg of carbon to produce the material to build such a platform and yearly cost to maintain orbit would be immense. Another choice is to sheild comets, sheilding comets protects the from proxi-sloar encounter, during the periods they can be steared for useful orbits and harvested. much more practical. So now if we were looking for sentients should we be looking for the impractical or the practical evidence of beings?

I think many of you are missing the point. There are two problems with gaseous propellants. 1. pressurization, it is difficult without liquification to reach maximum density. 2. those containeres are often shaped in ways that are difficult to pack. You can literally pack aluminum or magnesium in solid blocks, magnesium needs a thin skin of reductant to protect it for oxygen. The other thing, what are you going to be getting lots of in space. The best sources of argon are in the celestials of jupiter and saturn. There is no good source of xenon. None of the stony asteroids contain alot of water, but the stoney asteroids are rich in magnesium silicates. You are not going to find alot of water rich asteroids inside the asteroid belts orbital radius, and the c-rich asteroids have neither a goo source of hydrogen for making hydrocarbons or oxygen for making oxidant. If oxygen is desired it will have to be split off of silicon oxides.

The irony here is the debate is going on in china, but of course if this was a violation of some research ethic regarding some elses work in another country they don't lift a finger. One case i am familiar with the researchers copied anothers published work and claimed it as their own. The plsgerizers university was contacted and they did nothing. http://www.nature.com/news/chinese-scientists-row-over-long-sought-protein-that-senses-magnetism-1.18397 This would scientifically interesting otherwise, but of course chickens do come home to roost.

i wonder if these werecthe four monkeys?

i have three points that i jettison, one is when perigee is at or slightly below 69k, the second is when mun perigee is suborbital, all you have to do is give a couple dv to the payload snd its back in safe orbit again. if you are going to the mun or minums you have to plan your launch sobthat you are close to a transfer window, this way when you jettison mid transfer burn its on a suborbital with kerbin. If you are going to eve or moho you need to launch at just before dawn and again you can separate on a suborbital and payload on. If you are going to duna or beyond launch just before dusk and same thing. Dont separate on a through atmosphere long suborbital because these things travel pretty fast and ksp warps them through the atm with no delta- v losses. The hko satellite missions i keep often enough fuel to eject them into ip space, lko burn then to decay.

it pays to mod on fuel tank so that it is all lf, most likely you will want the big orange 6400.

I did get the DL but then got a page error on the licensing stuff Well finally, 2 days later logged in in and managed to get to a valid Email sign in page.

This message fulfills the rather arbitrary click bait offense catagory. For all those here less pedantic about such things, you may find the following link informative about the objectives of the thread and the potential uses and cost. http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34315725

Latex isn't good for anything organic chemistry. Using latex with chloroform is one step removed from self-injecting latex polypetides. EtBr is a generational hazard. If you are older than me your lab would have EtBR everywher, your gels go into the trash and the cleaning people handle them, you handle anywhere, never seen anyone hurt by it. If you are my generation, you have the gels in a well vented room, use and change the diapers frequently you keep the gel area clean and you dispose of them in large plastic bags and send to Env Safety. If you are younger than my generation you freak out at the site of EtBr bottle, you move all the gel equipment into the hood and you call env safety if you have the slightest spill of EtBr (unlike using clorox as we did). one of our postdocs made us move all our equipment to a hood room because she was too afraid to work. Even post-run gels scared her, its funny, my thesis lab would light up with a transilluminator. Imagine the days when we did southern blots and RFLP analysis. EtBr everywhere, you boiled the agarose with EtBr, p32 everywhere. And that wasn't the real dangerous stuff. Don't feel too bad i used to use flour powdered latex gloves with dicyclohexylcarbodiimede, which may explain why I am sensitive to wheat now as well as allergic to latex. Nitrile is the way to go. Never used C14, had to deal with Cr51, which is considered a bad guy. Had my work space shut down because labmates S35 contamination, not his fault, he took the word of a collaborator that the sample had been desalted, ithadn't. P32, meh, us oldtimers used to sling that stuff around, it degrades quite rapidly. C14 is everywhere, you breath it all the time. The atmospheric nuke testing all but doubled the level. 125I, like crazy, doesn't scare me a bit. CO2 can be absorbed by an alkaline scrubber industrial lime picks it up quite readily. we used to scrub hydrogen floride with limestone chips, course that releases CO2. If you have a good fiberglass filter you can water embed diatomaceous earth in a thin layer, degass distilled water or boil it and before it cools emulsify CaOH or CaO and trap it on the filter. Then remove the filter fiberglass down and lime layer up. As long as the humidity is over 80% you should be able to trap carbonic acid. You can even add a layer of powdered activated carbon on top to suck out the other isotopic organics. You just have to have a good high pressure fan unit to deal with the back pressure. You can buy bags of CaOH at any nursery.

Not as much as you think, i a working on the translational calculations, but something made of diamond lattice has stretch flexibility, if made very thinly, it would actually stetch and compess to fit those forces. This is not the problem. even a single molecule thick and a meter wide is alot of carbon, and the solar forces would turn it inot graphite or worse. Every carbon needs to be sheilded by lead and some other metal, the layer cannot be thin, it needs to be at least a nanometer in thickness which offers some resistence to stretch firces, but increases shear forces on the outside edges. What are we going to place on the ring, solar panels, or solar film on the ring itself you need the 2nm x 1 meter x 125,000,000,000 x 6.28 = 3200000 kg of diamond to support itself, 32000000 kg to support a solar film, 100,000,000 kg to support the wiring and infrastructure. 1,000,000,000 kg of carbon to support hv AC conversion past 10 million volts for transmission. Then you can add structure for facilities conversion for lihgt emmision and transmission, for used of deep space illumination or transmission to planets or other celestials. All these things would be nodes every 100,000 km and require special bracing so we are talking about massive amounts of carbon somewger on the order of a trillion kilograms for the thinnest functional ring possible. The only product you could produce usefully is light or gas uv that would be useful elsewhere.

A dyson ring is possible around a star, but you would have to sweep the system of roids and comets. The problem as i described in the other post is that horizontal strength does not afford verticle strength at the tiny dThete/distance. AS a rsult your ring must be in orbit and cannot exceed a certain distance in the normal. Otherwise the forces on the ring tear it apart.

So i've moved my system to a new machine, the problem is that i can't DL a version of unity compatible with KSP part tools, how are folks getting around this? Sry, it was a briwser issue, tried to acess the site on another computer and the tabs at the top of table appearred and i was able to access 4.2.2

e = hv if you absorb at a v of 1 and emit at 0.1 or 0.01 unless you find a way to convert e into mass proper you will end up emitting 10 to 100 times the photons. This level of production would be equivilent to a supermassive red dwarf with no visible or uv production. It would stick out in the star feild like a sore thumb in IR/visible subtractions.

EtBr no problem Chloroform/ DCM worked with, causes liver disfunction and anxiety. Long term effects are like being doses up on caffiene, takes a week or two to wear off in some individuals, not worse than the long term affects of tylonol. Formaldehyde is bad stuff. Radionucleotides i don't worry about, its the regulatory thats the major hassle. And S35 is a big cleanup issue because you are almost always using it in a biological uptake assay, its best to cover the floor os the work area in absorbant paper when you decide to pull the SDS-PAGE out of the EPA, buy a disposable dish pan close and lock the door. If you increase the toxicity of formaledhyde a million fold, then you are in the range of the bad guys i deal with, fortunately im old enough now i can delegate, i write the protocols and enforce, when they listen to me, lol. Viruses of course are BSAs, so you are either immunized, or pay the price. We used to have a BSL3 next door to us, and i was the floor fire warden the old protocol was that i had to flush folks out of the rooms, now all the rooms are strobed and alarmed. The regulatory stuff is the major reason I want out, its disproportionate toward science now, particularly if the Inst. takes NIH or NSF funding. Much of the time is spend dealing with unneccesary checks. The work is stable the pay is low.

I don't think the martian air carry but the smallest grains of dust. what units are the using, typically its indicated air speed when considering a pressure at low speed. if you unit is kph then it is IAS= (175^2 /100)^1/2 =17.5 kph relative to the way the wind would feel on earth. However the dust praticles traveling at that speed would easily burn an exposed ankle for anyone warking around bare foot. Note: calculation base on 1/100 martian/earth basal atm pressures.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/the-fact-and-fiction-of-martian-dust-storms

Barring warp drives you need the type of energy for interstellar travel. 1000000 kg * 10E16 = 10E24 joules yearly world energy consumption = 10E21 joules, we'de need 1000 earths to launch a sigle ship close to the speed of light. Before the ........ come running in no, there is no known way of storing or transmiiting this for flight.