PB666

Wow, RL10b-2 is an expansion cycle engine, no complex turbo pumps original design was in 1950's and most of the critical patents have expired, apparently you can print all the components except the nozzle on a 3D printer. The engine was made by pratt & witney but has moved on to Aerojet Rocketdyne. Someone is definitely on the good side of a procurement contract. The RL10b-2 weighs 266 kg that is 63909$/kg. More expensive than gold. Hey, how about 700 kn of thrust with the YF-77 (we can have the Made-in-china in big bold letters on the SLS). lol.

Things blacken in space, the effect of solar winds during sunspot activity and reactive hydrogen ions. It takes a long time.

Sure Dal, this one is especially designed for CEOs (rope not provided) This one weighs almost twice as much (29t) and can haul one living astronaut to LMO (dV = 5010), it has a docking port that can barely fit a gracile human. How we get something weighing 29ts on the surface of Mars, full of monopropellant, that is an issue all into itself. 16 tons (mostly monopropellant engines at ISP = 250) on Mars can lift a 0.05t object to LMO orbit (dV = 5100 m/s) to be carried back to earth. For the existing technology, that is to say no liquid H2, no liquid O2 your are looking at basically coffin carriers to LMO. ISRU right now, as per use on Mars, is still a fantasy. ISPs that are higher than 320 require liquid oxygen. ISPs above 375 require liquid hydrogen (excluding ION drives and NERVA given they cannot launch). [BTW if something looks strange about that craft, some of the parts are models I created]. You mean sea-sickness machines.

Of course you are joking.

It could be thrown from our system. Could you imagine the shock of some exosolar space race exploring low orbit have a red sports car go flying by them in space at 30 km/sec.

And the people who are conducting the studies are not choice, between the lines, the DSG is not a priority.

The argument here is this, what has Mars and what has space? So here is a given, we can intercept (done) a comet, wrap the comet with a stabilizer, and redirect that comet. Given we can intercept an asteroid, redirect that asteroid to an orbit that has a comet. If we can do this then everything we need to build a space colony is already present in space, its just not in the places we need it to be. If we move a comet to Mars, it immediately gets diluted a trillion times. From a human perspective a comet has an unlimited supply of gases we need. It has H, O, B, Ar, C, N, etc. Asteroids have many of the metals and including higher concentrations of some useful metals than found on the surface of the Earth. So then what has a space colony that Mars does not have . . . .easy access to gases . . . . .power 24/7. . . . lower dV (potentially) to Earth . . . .lower cost for return voyages . . . . Will we colonize space or Mars first. First - we already have an outpost in space, its been in operation in extension with Mir something like 31 years. We have not even sent a human to mars Second - Have we successfully grown anything on Mars, nope, have done so on ISS. Third - do we have a way of getting folks to Mars and back. We might be able with current technology to get them to mars, we don't currently have a technology to get them back. (As Elon Musk said he wants to live long enough on Mars. . . .) but again we have to assume he has no means of getting back to Earth, which may be good because right now it does not appear humans could survive a round trip. What do we need to do in space or on Mars to achieve a better occupancy 1. Build a factory - DSG may be a means, Heavy launch systems could lift a factory into space. Alternatively it could be assembled. Landing a factory on Mars at current seems impossible. Its not impossible, but it would require a space tug to haul a huge amount of fuel from earth to LMO and then transfer it. 2. Sustain life in a shielded environment (all you need really need is compressed hydrogen around your space-craft) on Mars you need to dig down. Digging and placing landed structures on Mars is a mid-future far-future technology. 3. How much G is acceptable (Space can be spun past 1g) on mars G is limited to 0.38g. If we had to, and had the money we could have a gravimetric crew quarter in a space station within a few years, for Mars it would take at least 20 years more likely 50 just to get living quarters on Mars with proper exercise equipment. In addition in space we can move people from low-g to high G environments providing the proper gravity for multiple occupations. For example in properly spun space craft you could have a high G environment for exercise, for working with small parts and equipment, but a low G environment for assembling large pieces of equipment. On mars there is only one G available (excepting Merry-go-round like work out facilities) again getting these facilities on Mars would be a costly problem. 4. In space and on Mar you have radiation. In space we can have major habitations close to Earth, we can also shield habitats with Hydrogen enriched materials (such as carbon fiber) with a coating of carbon-fiber that is particularly rich in hydrogen. On mars you have to dig in. 5. In space insolance can be continuous, on Mars it might have 2/3rds of the day without power up to almost all of the day depending on latitude. This means more batteries or fission power. 6. You don't need a viable Mars to get into space and live in space, you do need viable space habitats to get to Mars. Much of the infrastructure for getting to Mars safely and back would already be suitable for colonization of space. Mars just adds another trickier step. Problems in both. Acute solar storms can destroy certain electronics including solar panels, thus these need to be improved and made more resilient to solar wind. (Hayabusa as an example). There may need to be a repair facility.

30 kW is nothing. To mine the surface of Mars and the like you need 2 magnitudes more than this. What you are talking about is a trickle, to colonize you need a flood.

Lets see . . . . . don't eat anything from packages with lots of flashy writing on it (go kill salmon for food, fighting off grizzley bears in the wild but that might interfere with other lifestyle changes), definitely avoid processed sugars, lower the amount of urea (affects memory) forming substances in the diet, increase the amount of oil, keep the blood sugar below 90 mg/dl. The caveot of this is the food-ingredients you eat should have one ingredient, or occasionally two. Eat lots of omega-3 and C10-C14 strait-chain fatty acid foods from as low in the food chain as possible, preferably whole grains. Avoid fats from lot fed animals (as these fats are metabolism slowers and cause inflammation which can shut down the brain). Avoid drugs, if you eat right and exercise you don't need most of them (again medicines that treat inherited diseases are a necessary evil). Try to get at least 10 minutes of sunlight twice a day, once close to dawn and once close to dusk. Don't tweet or face. Exercise at least 20 minutes a day with aerobic exercise. Solve all math problems using calculus, matrix theory, etc. Build at least one 3-D model a day, then paint them. Learn at least 3 different programming languages and at least 1 non-native language, have a carpentry or metal working shop. Have a garden. Try to learn somthing about a completely unknown topic every year as a resolution. Throw your cell phone in the garbage. Find a woman that feeds you good but that kicks you in the b____ twice a day (just to remind you how damaging testosterone is to great thinking). Be skeptical of everything, the more authoritative the more skeptical. Don't listen to people who use absolutes or superlatives, either in what they say or in their thinking. You can have kids but someone else has to raise them (anyway you would be unfit if you do all of the above). If you are a woman, have a husband that is a slight health freak, can cook, . . .then . . . . . . and tell him to let you use his shop.

That shot was from the movie Dr. Strangelove which was, if anything, a mockery of armeggedon thinking (bunker mentality). Ultimately the decision to launch, bungled by the powers that be and then bungled again in its retraction is left up to a totally ignorant worker bee in the hull of a malfunctioning bomber. Uhhhh, no reading that, its pretty certain DSG is not going to happen. There are alot of lines in that article that one can read between.

So lets see how long it takes for them to get the F9H out and braced.

Let's be clear, placing an outpost on Mars capable of lasting 4 years and completely dependent on supply ships is doable. A self-sustaining colony based on current technology is not going to happen anytime soon. It will unlikely be a thing in any of our life-times. Before we talk about Mars we first need to talk about Earth. @DAL59 It is up to the proponents of a Mars colony to prove that this is viable in the current context, not up to the opponent to weaken the constraints of colony viability for the proponents sake. 1. Crucial to life is water, basically water that moves 'freely' between the gaseous and liquid phase. This process brings us fresh water. [Mars does not have a source of fresh water It means Water = [Energy] + precursors Noting that surface hydrogen [H- , not molecular] is scarce on Mars and very abundant on Earth 2. While O2 is not critical to all life it is critical to complex eucaryotes. [CO2 + reductants + [energy] ------------> O2 + Carbon Noting that surface hydrogen is scarce on Mars and very abundant on Earth, surface hydrogen is key on earth to reducing carbon, and you need lots of it because you need to lock carbon up for a very long time to make oxygen available. 3. Critical to life is vapor pressure . . N2, O2 in its break down on Earth. Martian Air relative to Earth has none of the components to sustain life. This means that all living things must be contained and pressurized. this makes building and repairing structures on Mars difficult. Spacesuits are not magic, they fail, and when they fail on Mars the wearer is spaced. Without substantial vapor pressure endothermic life is nearly impossible, particular vapor pressure of water, which on Mars is practically zero, because there is virtually no water on the surface of Mars. The only viable way to get the vapor pressure up on mars is to raid the Kuiper-belt for ice and transport them back to Mars . . . . .very expensive and requires Fusion. 4. Critical to life on Earth is photosynthesis, it is not obligate, there are archea that can live off of earthen energy sources, but for advanced Eucaryotes photosynthesis is key. To get get this to fly you need sunlight (1492/2292 = 0.42. Mars gets 42% of the sunlight from Earth. A fair number of plants, like C4 plants would make poor crops on Mars (discounting the above 3 problems) because these plants do not get adequate light to produce. On mars roughly you would need 3 times as much land and soil to grow crops, which is expensive on mars because it would all have to be enclosed. Mars has CO2. CO2 + sunlight + H20 ----->02 + sugar. 5. Critical to life on Earth is Nitrogen, nitrogen on earth comes from the Air and is created by lightning which is then absorbed by plants, nitorgen also comes from minerals in the earth that are acted upon by water. Martian atmosphere has virtually no nitrogen (it have virtually no anything), it has no water. Again we can bring nitrogen to Mars, but before we did that we would first need to figure out a way of keeping Mars from loosing all it atmosphere. While nitrogen does not appear to be critical, Nitrogen and Argon have buffering effects on the rate of oxygen, given that humans do need vapor pressure to survive, we then also need molecular nitrogen to survive, and Mars simply does not have what we need. If you managed to solve these problems on a planetary scale, then the martian problem is solvable with tools we have already on Earth, you could build a mini-Earth, much less productive than Earth and with 1/100th the population, but you could.Otherwise the colony will not likely be self-sustaining. I make the logical argument that talking about what is possible on Mars in a 'terraformed' context is not a kosher argument, since it is not clear at the moment whether we possess enough usable energy technologies to do this. If we are talking about 1 Mt fusion reactors that are 1% efficient in power production then the atmospheric problems on Mars will never be a solved thing. If the above 5 can be solved, then martian regolith composition is not going to be a problem, trust me. However without the correction of these problems we can assume that humans, improving on their current skills, could bring all the things necessary for life and could extract C and O from martian atmosphere, assuming these to be the case what are the problems. Based on conservative principles, terraforming Mars is best described as a B.S. argument. That means it makes hand-waving assumptions that cannot be proven to be true and should thus be eliminated from the argument, period. IOW, without a solid base of facts we can just say 'sprinkle fairy dust' and make any impossible scenario possible. -----Does not need fusion power to achieve -------unsustainable colony that is functional--------------- Issue 1. Insufficient automation. Basically all processes outside need to be automated, humans would basically be the repairmen. (Which has its own sets of major issues, see problem with lunar moon dust). Logic. IN the near future (next 1000 to 10000 years), if we cannot solve the fusion problem, then Mars will unlikely to be 'atmosphered' to Earth-like composition. Before Mars is properly gased and magnetically protected, it would not be safe for humans to repeatedly expose themselves to 'spacing' by attempting to work outside, except in emergent situations. Building a colony does not qualify as emergent. Automation requires masses of specialized equipment. Issue 2. Erosion of equipment. Martian substrate is damaging to equipment. A desired working area would need to be cleaned of all loose substrate and a barrier around the area would need to be built sufficiently high enough to prevent larger particles from entering the work area. Eventually you would want the area covered so that loose dust did not enter. To prevent this you would need gas-phase cleaning stations that blow the dust off and collect it. This would create a compound. Issue 3. Batteries, a martian colony would need a huge reserve of batteries capable of storing power. There are no coal-fire power plants on Mars, there is no coal, no fire and no plants. More importantly it would need to be able to make batteries on Mars. Current batteries of high efficiency are made with Lithium, . . . no readily apparent at concentrations needed on Mars. Energy could be stored in pressurized underground caverns but there is no air to pressurize. Assuming we could assemble batteries on Mars (unlikely in the near term so thinking out 200 years from now) this problem is solvable. Issue 4. Importing and protecting the solar power. Given the above desired enclosure of work area, you can have durable plastics that cover the solar panels during dust storms that also cover the entire 'compound' preventing the entering of dust. We can have fission reactors and heavy fusion reactors on Mars (within the next 100 years however I don't see how). Because Mars has a surface it is possible to build out equipement that cools the heat -exchangers. But real power on Mars would have to come from solar, Mars colony then need much better solar panels. In the near term (next 200 years) Mars colonies live off of solar and low power decay-energy units. As a consequence in the near term mars needs alot of solar-panels to survive. Issue 5. Digging into mars (automation of tunneling). This solves several of the problems. A. Pressure, the lower you go into mars the easier it is to pressurize things. Also the easier it is to trap humidity. B. Radiation, the lower you go the less energetic the cosmic and EM radiation is C. Climate control, the lower you go the easier it is to deal with day night shifts. D. Humanance, the lower you go the easier it would be to find soil on mars representative of a past mars that was more organic and hydrogenated. Digging however presents its own problems, the erosive regolith can no longer be isolated from the equipment. Another problem is that excavation equipment is very heavy and there are no manufacturing of equipment on Mars. One solution is to use microbots that pick sediment out of the rocks creating cells that could be pulled out in one piece and used as building blocks (for shelters or substrate barriers) [this technique was used by the Egyptians to form the blocks of the pyramids but on a softer substrate]. The martian digging problem is a problem, but if we brought substrate back from Mars we could design over the next 25 years technologies that could deal with it. Tunneling is just good logic, because it give you a potentially automatic secondary/tertiary containment but also because potential pressurization of this system is also a warning system of a leaks in primary containment. In addition, via tunneling it may be possible to find trapped reserves of water that have been protected from the effects of surface evaporation. We need however first to build autonomous tunneling equipment that will retrieve power, dispose of substrate, and analyze their process. Issue 6. Trapping volatiles. At martian pressures many things on earth that are liquids become gas, at least at standard temperatures. As stated above hydrogen is a premium element on Mars compared to Earth. This means we need to trap elemental hydrogen, this is a problem because water seeks its own level. For example if you water plants in a green-house, the water will just go down into the substrate and you will have to get more. So farming would be need to be contained, either in glass or in durable plastics (which contain hydrogen). The farming then needs to be such as to trap volatiles. This is a big problem if you have ever seen the way a green house is run, water runs everywhere. So greenhouse areas would need secondary and tertiary containment systems. They probably need to be insulated on all sides, and thus LED lighting and solar electric power is going to be a thing on Mars. For at least a time the colony would dependent on Earth for Carbon. Tunnels will need to be dug, enclosures made, fluid based cooling systems installed with radiators on the surface. I can see this evolving over time to a more self sustaining process (maybe 100 years). Issue 7. Balancing artificial ecosystems and scaling up self-sustenance. See Biosphere experiments. NASA is probably better at it, but they do so in a high professional environment with resupply every few months. Martian colonies will need to be independent for 4 years. We know that adding lots of compost to the system is just not going to work in closed space, so that we are talking about artificial plant growth systems, not gardens or rain forest. Its all going to be LED lights and conical rooms with wall-to-wall plants and lights. Short term no energy foods, fats can come from earth, nutrition comes from greenhouses. Or put it otherwise, untill you can grow a grove coconut palm on Mars forget about mars as a bulk source of human calories. The martian regolith as I stated above is not a death nail, human fecal waste can be mixed with garden waste and this mixed with martian dust and some source of acidity which will in special enclosures bio-remediate the soil. This should be used by automated farming units (for example tuber farming or peanut farming - as these return nitrogen to the earth you can use these to remove nitrogen from CO2-N2 mixtures drawn in from the surface and converted to nutrients for farming). Issue 8. Self-sustainance. Given that above we did not manage to get fusion to Mars a self sustaining colony is not possible, but it might be possible to get colonies that need low attendance, say once every 10 years supplies traded between the colony and earth bound ships. One of the benefits of growing stuff on Mars is its isolation from diseases on earth, such as plant diseases. Plants could be grown on mars as a seed repository for species on Earth that are endangered by diseases. For example you could be working on providing seedlings that are resistant from Dutch elm disease, . . . . . .This is probably the most difficult problem, however, for Mars in the sense that there are so many ecosystems on Earth it is difficult to find a place that is better suited on Mars than it is on Earth. The other idea is that Mars would be a refuge from an Earthen Armageddon. I would say no, if Mars requires Earth for essentials like LED, etc. . .there is no way for Mars to be a refuge from an Earthen disaster, it would only be the last grave dug. The basic problem with DAL's argument is that he has a tendency to hand-wave problems away. Provided we have X,Y,and Z we can. This falls in the logical fallacy of the serial if problem. If A and If B and If C and if D then E, where each subquent argument is false if the previous argument is false. If we have fusion and if we can get fusion to work in space and if we can find a way to import frozen gas from space-time isoquant X to space-time isoquant Mars, and if we can stop the erosions of the Martian atmosphere but solar storms then we can terraform Mars. Probability of workable fusion - good - scale is 100,000s of tons on Earth. Probability of workable fusion in space poor, probability of a fusion work around - fair. Likelihood that we could get a working fusion reactor on Mars, this would require a fully fledged colony capable of building such a reactor from parts and a massive (10x times that on earth), heat exchanger. Not near-future or mid-future but more like far-future. Mars could become destination for Nuclear waste, in which case you could use latent heat to generate power. Of course one bad landing and . . . . . Probability of a scale of operation that brings adequate mass from outer solar system to inner solar system - poor. This requires efficient space fusion and a type of generator and heat radiator with efficiencies that are in the mid-future range of possibilities. Probability that we can stop erosion of Martian atmosphere - poor. Conclusion, in its current state mars is unlikely to ever have a self sustaining colony. For this to occur certain constraints on space travel need to change. In the current world circumstance (looking out 200 years) we would need a colossal investment in terraforming Mars to get there. Given our recent progress just to get back to the moon let alone the decadal projections on Mars sample return and human landing attempts (by four space capable bodies on Earth) it is clear that a timeline for Terraforming mars is not in Earths short or mid term future. Alas the technologies for doing this are not present and neither is the investment capital. Conclusion, the political will to advance the colonization of Mars is not there. Colonization of Mars is not likely' and it will not be a thing in the near future. So we can cool the argument to a level where we use facts not sci-fi based 'dream' sites.

You have to make sure that the launch pad and/or the rocket does not blow up first, if that all goes well they can do a launch.

In any discussion of colonization of space one of the most important aspects is the carbon cycle. Within atmosphered planets and small moons, excluding the gas giants carbon dioxide is one of the most common gas. It is relatively common on Venus, Mars, comets. The conjugate salt of carbon dioxide is also common on Earth. In space in general we talk about how to get rid of it, as on Earth. But carbon dioxide is a resource for self-sufficient colonization. Aspects of the cycle CH4 + 2O2 = CO2 + 2H2O. By mass CO2 (D=44; H20, D=18) represents the major mass product of the reaction. This is why rocket engines run fuel rich, its more efficient to heat some methane up and accelerate it than to afford a higher mass fraction of O2 to accelerate CO2. The inorganic conversion of CO2 into other substances is generally not energetically favored. n CO2 + n H2O → (CH2O)n + n O2 is the process used by plants however the energy efficiency of the process is low when compared to the area which plants use. CO + H2O + A ⇌{\displaystyle \rightleftharpoons } CO2 + AH2 can be used with a hydride donor and carbon monoxide dehydrogenase enzyme something that simple microbes can do and could be made more efficient than plants but is still a rather rate limited reaction. Its difficult to increase the rate because even though hydride donor proteins are rather unstable, carbon dioxide is one of the most stable forms of carbon when oxygen is present. CO can also be made from Zn and CaCO3 (limestone) and There are several reasons to have carbon dioxide in space, one is that hydrogen (liq) has a relative density of 0.07, much less than other fuels and as a consequence is difficult to store in a pressurized form in the vacuum of space. Converting carbon dioxide to methane (liquid) improves its storability (0.42262 grams per liter). While the mass fraction of a rocket that runs on methane is higher, the energy can be compacted to about 66% of the space as liquid hydrogen, it has a lower boiling point (−161.49 °C versus −252.879 °C) and lower rates of leakage loss. One of the problems with a liquid hydrogen system is that there are few gases the boiling points below hydrogen that can be used as refrigerants to cool hydrogen under pressure and liquefy it. There are several gases that can be used as refrigerants for methane and thus keeping it liquefied is also easier. Despite the presence of methane on smaller bodies and on mars (30 parts per billion) it is not sufficiently present to justify extracting it from the atmosphere. And the problem with Mars is water, but there is water in space it is just difficult to get to. Water can be locked into Carbon dioxide CaO+ H20 + 2CO2 -slight acidity-> Ca(HCO3)2 Under basic conditions it generates free carbonate and become Calcium Carbonate. The Carbonate can be removed easily and water extracted and CO2 released. On comets there is a relative abundance of CO2 ammonia and water. THese can be used to form Ammonium Bicarbonate, which is relatively stable excepting in water (in space frozen hydrates ammonium bicarbonate would simply lyophilize at a very slow rate). NH3 + CO2 + H20 ---> NH4HCO3 This compound when dissolved in water and subject ed to a vacuum will sublimate water on the first condensate plate, ammonia on the second plate and pull CO2 out of the system (or captured). The captured CO2 and NH3 can be used to make water and Oxidants for space craft. The problem with CO2 largely revolves around recycling it. If the desire is to elongate compounds the CH3-Li + CO2 ----> CH3CO2 Li which can be further reduced with reducing agents. Alkylmagnesium bromides and Alkyl lithides are not the easiest compounds to work with (sensitivity to oxygen donors) or store, thus and as a fuel, methane is probably a better option than ethane, propane or butane, since these don't greatly increase density. If one does manage to get to carbon mono-oxide cheaply the tyranny of carbon dioxide can be broken. Carbon monoxide with chlorine gas can be used to make phosgene which can then be used to make acid chlorides which is useful for making ethers (which might be useful as fuels). Also used to make polycarbonate plastics. CO can extend the length of a carbon chain by hydroformylation reaction creating an aldehyde of an alkene one carbon shorter in length. The aldehyde can be reduced with hydrogen and dehydrated to form an alkene with an additional methyl group. CO can also be used to create methanol. CO + 2 H2 → CH3OH, while methanol corrodes aluminum and is not suitable for storage, the CH30H can be converted about to create Methyl Ether which could be used as a fuel. CO2 can also be used with methanol to create acetic acid, which is a very stable 2 carbon compound that can be stored and later hydrogenated to form ethane, ethanol and ethyl ether. Methanol or Ethanol can be reduced to produce methane or ethane. So, despite its bad reputation, carbon-monoxide production in space would eventually be a thing> Getting carbon-monoxide cheaply from CO2 has its challenge. In space the industrial process is very heat intensive, the biological process is very slow and requires the addition of biologically useful organo-hydrides https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/12/171205155418.htm This paper describes the use of graphene to use electricity to efficiently catalyze the conversion of CO2 into CO. The reaction is two part, Part I a two water molecule gives up their hydrogen and creates O2, these then attack the oxygen of CO2 creating water and CO. The rate of reaction is about 12.7% efficient which using solar panels at 30% efficiency is 3.81% ensolance efficient. But this is about many times more efficient than plants.

https://www.ucdavis.edu/news/doing-without-dark-energy Well at least someone agrees with my speculation. Friedman space-time instability (IOW instability in gravity when space lacks energy). You cannot detect gravitational instability in occupied space because gravity is stable, you would have to test the theory between objects in relatively empty space.

i have to say the Mega Earths it probably the worst. One of the problem of using black holes and in particular galactic black holes is that it like building a dartboard planet, the stars close by in eccentric orbits being the darts. We have actually watch our GBH eat stars and watch other GBH belch X-rays generated by stars being eaten.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-42329244 http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-42169466

Its a reciprocal thing, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. One rocket was supposed to go up but fell down, the other was supposed to fall down but did not go up.

I have no idea what he is talking about.

West Texas is not exactly known for its calm winds, notice all the dust when the capsule landed.

El paso area.

Just to let you know, you could say the same thing about Neobiogenesis, we have disproven Adam-Eve and like stories, we have shown that you can create morphological-based phylogenies that vaguely resemble the cladograms from mitochondrial DNA. Some have claimed they can cipher relationships up to 3.3 billion years in structure of proteins and/or genes. If quantum gravity is a major or primary source of information in the universe, its similar to the first cell that gives rise to all other cells. . . .once you get to that cell you can't really do much more phylogenetics, even protein and DNA phylogenetics would begin to loose power and eventually you cannot reconstitute life any farther back in time despite the fact you know it exists. This is called the coalescence wall. This was faced in human male lineages for a time because coalesces times in males were much more recent than in females; however it turned out, luckily, to be a sampling problem. The problem with things that coalesce to a single entity is that for example a single cell or a small set of proteins in that cell, is that you cannot see concurrent parallels. For example a line of dinosaurs that goes extinct is black to the molecular record, but the simplist microbes aren't megafauna and don't leave DNA lying around either (that we know of). I would argue that with regard to string theory, there is not one string theory but many, so if one string theory is correct, the others are incorrect and vis-a-vis the grecan god argument why are not all of them incorrect. So from that point of view, apply Occam's razor and wait for some evidence to guide the selection. Quantum gravity could be a unsolvable problem of universal proportions.

Tell you what we can do, we can parse "keeping up with the Kardashians" and "Jersey Shores" into the simplist picture format, beam them in the direction of every known exoplanet (adjusting for space-time, projected motion, blah, blah, blah) over a large number of frequencies so that they will not be accidentally missed. Keep this going in a continuous loop do this for about 100 years, and then listen for 100 years. If no intra galactic police force does not appear in that time, or messages at the same frequency being sent back "please stop" or "the pain of it all" imagery and the occasional "you got any more like this", then its probable that there is no higher level sentient life around us and we can go out an mess up planets if we like. Of course they could just be planning to wipe us out, so you might have to turn on the high power interstellar ship detector and wait a few hundred years longer. Is this the kind of test for intelligence you were thinking about?

Nothing that a reciprocating saw could not fix

A heavily chewed head of a barbie-doll along with assorted dried saliva, bits of a milk-bone, a small amount of dried cat blood and some cat hair and attached follicular cells.