PB666

You have just enough power to send a message into deep space like 'here is why we blew ourselves to kingdom come'. In seriousness, however it could be used to send an reactivation signal or charge a capacitor that then activates recovery from dormancy. For example you could have two long lived radioisotopes that then when combined can generate power for dormant systems, thaw frozen cells, bring an artificial prenatal incubator online, . . . . . . . .add water and get humans. This then makes interstellar travel for periods of 10,000s years possible (the halflife of C-14 is about 5000 years and its essentially useless after 40,000 years for dating).

Probably was not using a pure platinum electrode. The biggest health risk around an electrophoresis apparatus is the risk of electric shock, secondarily the unknown risk of using ethidium bromide for agarose gel polynucleotide separation. Anyway if you have been using an old agarose gel apparatus it can also be oxidants of EtBr which have a yellowish/brown color.

Its an even worse idea for interstellar because of the power requirements, unless you mean it has a magical always 20 years in the future fusion drive. Even then fusion drive would probably not work without a significant robotics. Let me just say how bad the circumstance is, the thrust they are reporting is < 0.00001 newtons. A fusion reactor at its minimum would be 50 kilotons. It might generation 1 TW (1012 of power) but and lets say that could power 1 million drives. weighing a 10kg each. So the mass is 10E6 + 50E6 = 0.00001 x 1E6 would be 10N. And then divided that bout 50E6 puts us in the 0.5 micrometers/sec^2 To get to the .1 speed of light at 1 m/s2 would take about 10 months. This thing would take 2 million years. So yo use this device you would need to pick a target that would be close to earth in about 3 million years (About the time of the evolution from advanced australopithicus to homo sapiens (one hominid speciation cycle). And why would you do this, if you had a fusion reactor on your ship, you can use the fusion waste as accelerant for your ion drive, and they with a lower mass ion drive unit. THis type of drive would be suitable for shuttling between low dV stations or station keeping (such as a space telescope). So for instance if you had a few hundred dV to shuttle supplies between mars L1 and Earth L2, and the supplies were not perishable (say underwear, space toilets, freeze dried food or food frozen to -80'C) then you could say have a 5t vessel and some solar panels and a few million seconds (86400 seconds in a day, about 11 days for a million). So it takes a several months to accelearate to transfer max and several months to slow down factoring the reduction in power at Mars orbit. You could also ship kerosene (and O2 if you could find a way to store effectively), when its done you could send it back. The problem however is that during testing this thing blew lots of electronics in a vacuum. So its electronics may not be capable without significant overengineering to last in space for several years of near continuous operation.

9.08 μN per Meter at earths radius, lets be generous, lets say that majically we imparted no energy to get to an earth mercurian transfer. And we have to reflect most of the light so 79.08 but we get half of that and if we get any massive power the outbound velocity crossing earth will get to use about all of the 9.08 because the ellipse will be almost vertical. Now lets say our acceleration 50 uN /1 kg per meter of sail. thus we have 50 um/sec2 of acceleration So the transit time is about 100 days we can generate a declining amount of power. That gives us an increase speed of 432 meters per second., ah but as we travel down the transect that acceleration needs to fall because sunlight goes to back to 9 so that if we take the average its about 200 m/s added acceleration. Now the transfer orbit since most of the energy does not come at mercury you would have a gravity boost yes, but you would have to wait another 100 days to get back to mercury to repeat the process. Also remember that our vectors later in the orbit are pushing us further from mercury so we are loosing optimal acceleration so basically we have a complex spiral out of the solar system. You can get substantially more acceleration if you cut the payload and this benefits greatly at mercury's orbit because of the gravity well affect on adding dv. So lets say we are traveling 65km/s and this gets us back to orbit, the KE is 2.115E9 per kg so if we could put all that 200dv in an periapsis we gain 1E7 joules per kilogram, at earths orbit, the problem is that 1. the velocity of at apoapsis is high 10,000s of meters per second. Which means in terms of energy that is a small amount 2. we cannot impart that much power in the depths of the gravity well. Consequently as we reach about the orbit of Venus, we need to stop capturing power and wait till we get close to Mercury's orbit again. Rinse, repeat, rinse. Each time you do this you loss nine months, each time you fly by mercury you gain less E*t because your orbital velocity increase and each time you are spending time in space longer waiting to fall back to mercury. Over many years you eventually get enough speed to leave the inner solar system and reach the outer planets, were the massive planets will distort the hell out of the gravity assist, and course correction will be required, therefore some of that solar sail energy will have to be spent avoiding the gas giants. The sun produces a tremendous amount of energy, there is no doubt about that, the big problem is we have no effective means of storing (except in hydrocarbons). Even if you have 15 kw per meter, that means diddly in space were your orbital momentum is 10 magnitudes greater. Lets imagine the perfect solar driven system 1. We start at a submercurian orbit. 2. Our sail or panel weight is infinitly low, all energy goes to payloads 3. The impulse is prograde to orbital motion 4. We can indefinitely hold orbit until reaching desired interstellar velocity and 5. can we obtain and indefinity amount of energy from the sun. So now lets take at look at the reality A. Submercurian orbit is very difficult to achieve, for human inhabitants it takes time. B. Panels and sails need structural rigity either via bracing or panel rigidity. C. The impulse of sails is only partly prograde some is radial, however with ION drive much more is prograde there is inefficiency in the conversion. D. We cannot indefinitely hold an orbit until we gain speed, the ship takes on an elleptical orbit that takes it away from the energy, the power time in each orbit decreases and the idle time increases, eventually until we are talking 100s of years, such a scheme is basically only good until you reach escape velocity, much less than is needed to reach the next star E. the energy gain per surface are under the most ideal circumstance is nothing compared to the energy required to gain velocities to reach a star, less say we had 100mt ship that had a kilometer of sail and the sail weight nothing. 1000000 of sail would impart at best 50uN * meter2/ 0.1 kg = a of 0.0005. So at periapsis we are accelerate 1.8 m/hour*sec or 44 meters/day*sec. When you think about the speed of light you would need to hold that orbital radius for 1866 years to reach 0.1C. So reality check 1. Its a generational ship check 2 It spends most of its time at large distances from the sun with little power input check 3 passengers get stranded in interstellar space where they expire. So lets just say that we take with us 50,000 dV of fuel and do a burn at mercurial orbit. 50,000 m/s has a kinetic energy. So at any particular orbit you like the amount of energy in velocity is equal to half the amount of energy to escape. 1/2 50,000^2 = 1250000000 J/kg if we add 50,000 it becomes 1/2 100,000^2 = 5000000000 J/kg We need only 2500000000 j/kg to escape at mercuries orbit, thus we have 2500000000 which is 70710 m/s interstellar velocity. So the bottom line is that we need a propulsion system (either ION driven or Sail) which can achieve say in a period of a month these kinds of stats for a 100,000 kg vessel (BTW the size is too low probabily by a factor of 100, but lets just assume that we bioengineer a race of space tolerant microhumans). Here is what we would want. At least 100N of thrust. Given the rated thrust per meter of Sail of 50 uN per meter we need 4,000,000 or about 4 square kilometers but preferably something like 400 square kilometers or a sail 20km x 20km. About the size of a medium size city. Again it has to be virtually weightless. That gets us up to par with the voyager speeds. However voyager would need 40,000 years to reach the closest star. We want to achieve that distance in 40 years. OK so how much area would you need to accelerate much higher speed. So the acceleration time is drastically cut, in a month of 0.05 average C the ship is way outside the system. In addition humans aren't too happy if they are place at more than 1 g for a great length of time. So we might set the practical limit at 1.5g or 15 m/s squared. We need an arc of say 20 degrees from Mercury to accelerate. for the sake of argument lets say it strait. This solves one problem however we can use the sail to easily reach a close orbit, but the question is what are the parameters of the sail. 1. 57.9 x 2 x pi = 20.24 million kilometers 20.24 billion meters = 50k*T + 1/2 15 T*2 (hope you see the problem with this right off but I will walk through it). roughly 49000 seconds Okay so how much V will we generate in that amount of time? 50k + 49000*15 = 729000 m/s (less than 1/400th the speed of light) and that would roughly get you 4 light years 4E16 in 1740 years, beyond that 20' arc you can still get energy from the sun but it, because of the radial speed (increasing) and the inclination (increasing) of the escape vector declines rapidly. So a lousy escape velocity like this how much sail do you need at mercury. We need a =15 15 x 100,000 kg = 1.5E6 N/5E-5NperMeter = a sheet of about 180km x 180km. We could design a super thin kind of plastic, but that plastic would not support the acceleration of the ship and would require structural beams, eventually eating up the payload to nothing. So talking about ships that could take humans to alpha century taking even 1000 years, much more than 100,000 kg in mass its structually impossible to make a sail that can accomplish the task. So think in terms of a power supply that can deliver 0.001 to 0.1c and can deliver that speed at 9.8 a over a time frame of a few days to years. This eliminates all kinds of methods of transport for substantive mass objects. THe only valid choice I have found is fusion powered nuclear waste driven ion propulsion.

They don't work beyond the asteroid belt, too far away, and the surface area to mass area for solar sails has to be screaming high, the problem with that is that probes can be light and structural issues can be dealt with. For larger craft the structural issues for a stable solar sail are problematic, they would have to cover kilometers to be effective.

First off the modern day technologies work fine for Mars mission as long as we consider the two halves, getting there and getting back. So for initial flight phase I think standard chemical repertiore is fine. You need a small equitorial orbiting station to basically assemble a mars ready rocket. So that is fine. YOu can use rocket thrusters in LEO to HEO and you can use ION drives or chemical drives to manage the transmartian transfer. To get to LEO requires 8000dv, to get to HEO another 4000 or so dV and 2000 to transfer. A smaller amount to insert into martian HMO (smaller mass further from sun). If you can capture mars L1 and have fuel stage that will probabily get humans down to LMO. This way they don't have to worry about timing the intercept. We could in theory have refuelling stations as Earth L2, Mars L1, So these fuel supplies could be shipped by transfer ships that are ION driven/Solar panel for mars and conventional fuel on earth. Since L2 is behind the earth its easier to cool the liquid oxygen, Landing on Mars is problematic no matter what, but a Space X like landing system seems to be credible (remember however SpaceX is not carrying a payload while landing, so either you land humans piecemeal and station separately or you have a major hastle getting the lander to Mars. Once you get humans to LMO then you can transfer to L1 station and refuel and headback to earth (Its like 500 dV or something). One possiblity is to have a Manned observatory at Earth L2 that can act also as a space station. This would allow ships to carry passengers (shuttle) between LEO and L2, which is 2 million miles from earth with a lower DV than earth HEO. Once at the station, for example a nice rotating platform, that always points in the direction of the sun, no need to shift the solar panel. An analogous station could be a mars L1 that is unmanned. basically vessels would come in dock, so you could have multiple vessels docked with fuel until passengers arrive. The fuel tanks on the station load up, release the ships which return to Earth, and the station waits till passengers come, then starts spinning. After a few weeks of that they return to the MEO ships. Of course this might alleviate the gravitation-less sickness, but the stations would have to be armored also to protect from cosmic radiation, at 2 million miles from earth the magnetic field wanes. How the journey might be done is at LEO the ship is boosted to reach GSO requiring 3000 dV, Launch and this consume the overwhelming amount of DV. From there the ship is traveling a few km/sec but it will have to slow down considerabily to intercept L2. Thus it would add another 500 to 1000 dV and remove that dV at L2. so a budget of 4500dV from LEO should suffice to get to L2. Considering an average speed of say a km/sec and 3 m km to travel 34 days. Consider station times its not that much. They would then get on their station and grav up. Next Get on the transfer ship also at L2. SInce the ship is 2 million miles closer to mars and the mars station is 2 million closer to earth it reduces speed but not transfer time (basically the average orbital periods of the two planets divided by 2); however because they are close high energy transfers are possible. Given the transfer is only 200 days or so, the the astronauts would reach MARS L1 station. Here they would again Grav up. The station would be set to spin, only occasionally stopping to take on fuel and supplies and the Mars LEO transfer ship. The ship they used from Earth L2 could be that ship, and take them down to LEO. Thats the easy part, expensive but Easy the next part is not easy at all. From mars LEO a pre-manned station needs to be targeted to a predefined landing site. From mars LEO the survival package and supplies need to landed on the planet, complete with solar panels, food, water, fuel. From mars LEO a return ship or a fuel supply for the return ship needs to be landed, given O2 is likely part of the package an O2 recyclig system needs to be landed Finally the crew would be landed. They would be largely enginneers technicians etc with minimal research science training. THis first crew would craft the station into working condition. After a few months and rock gathering they would return to fuel waiting LMO ship which would wisk them back to the mars L1 station were they grav up once more while they wait for a transfer window back to earth. Given that mars has some gravity, I would presume the gravity-less problems will be alleviated to some degree than spending a year in zero gravity. The mars station could be equiped with a Merry-go-round were astronauts spend a few days in or a few hours a day. SInce the return trip back to earth is pretty much payload they could go for a direct earth atmosphere intercept provided a reentry vehicle is attached at Mars L2. Basically this might mean that the ship detaches the station, then attaches to the reentry vehicle and goes back the same way it came, except intercept earths atmosphere where it burns and lands on the oceans with Martian rocks.

The biggest problem is ISP or for pure space traveling exhaust velocity. So the problem is that we can come up with options that over long periods of time can develope great velocity. For example you could use a proton accelerator to throw out a proton with a relativistic mass of several psuedo-daltions So imagine that we could say 'fix a position very close to the sun' then you could use panels to drive your speed up over a couple of generations, release and off into space you go and 4 decades later your at alpha centauri where you reverse the process. But . . . .we cannot wind your ship up around a star because inertia pitches you out in space. So its really about a power supply more than a propulsion system . . . . We don't have one. Most of the engines current in design or out there that can allow carry a load into deep space do not have a power supply for the engine VASIMR is an example. So the next best thing is to look at nuclear energy as a source of propulsion. Two reasons, the mass fraction of nuclear material released is smaller, ISP is higher and more power per unit mass. TNR in the best conceived scenarios is 1000s ISP, That will get you in theory about double the speed outbound of V1 and V2 (though really what you want is to crunch out velocity at the planetary transfer gravity turns and TNRs have poor thrust). So this technology is really interplanetary such as Earth / Mars cargo. The next are the Nuclear pulse rockets, which in deep space offer the opportunity to really crunch up the speed, need not worry about transfers, just point along an escape trajectory and go. However the machinery for doing that is heavy and you need to launch from earth or build in space (say 100 SpaceX missions, a space factory, and a crew that operates in EVA or more advanced space robotics). The nuclear test ban treaty kind of forbids using it for a surface launch propulsion system. (Requires Uranium, Neutron generators, H, Li, Plutonium, etc.). Its very messy launching from the surface, might need to take over a desert country or part of Antarctica to accomplish this without causing a revolution. Finally you have hybrid fusion reactors were they use a combination of plasma technology and isotope inject for direct expansion and ejection of low atomic weight isotopes. This is more of popular science thing that acctually anything close to space use at the present. Next you have always 20 years in the future Fusion Reactors -> electric power generation -> ION drive (possibly isolation and ejection of the nuclear waste). This provides electricity for the entire craft and carries some risk, the problem with fusion reactors is the high velocity neutrons are hard to contain, so the power systems need to be isolated from everything else. The smallest function EP fusion reactor in design is about 50,000 lbs, so that represents a pretty heafty cost in engine, if it produced 50 MW, than at about optimal efficiency if can produce about 0.3N of thrust (at an ISP 1500000000s) or higher if you want to blow some fuel. Problem is fuel weighs. 0.3N divided over a vehicle that weights 150 tons (1/3 power, 1/3 fuel, 1/3 else), not a hell of alot of acceleration. 0.000002 a For a year is 63.112 M/S. So to get 0.1C would take 480000 years. This number can be brought down with more effecient reactors, none the less we are still looking at an awfully long trip to the closest star, which really and truely is not a good candidate for which to travel. Then there are other schemes. For example why carry a reactor when you can create a system of photonic rely points, simply carry long lived photo cells. And somehow mysteriously light is delivered. The problem is that you need about 10 football fields worth of solar panels to do anything, and there is a problem in that solar panels have the bizarre thing called mass and they also have momentum and structural constraints. So if you alot 1kg per meter than your mass is 50,000 kg about the same as the fusion reactor. Of course you can increase the beam but then the panels are shorter lived. The other problem is that unless your beam ships are properly staged, there is no way to slow down when you get to the target. There has been a proposal of using a space parachute, but for a human colony in space, the chute would need to be kilometers across to have any affect in deep space. Also there was electromagnetic means, but again the system would need to project a great distance into space. Finally there is space fantasy. 1. Star Trek warp style feild. Needless to say its based on physics that DOES NOT EXIST (i.e. forces that are not observed, potential reversal of time, and particles that have not been observed) 2. Star Gate style wormholes. Violates the time restraints. So in modern space flight design there is always risk, craft break down into things like calculable risk, we can build a station, a space factory and stage conventional fuels in space. Then there are politically risky things that have little testing in space such as Nuclear Thermal Rockets. Then there is politically suicidal technology like nuclear pulse rockets, potentially doable, but crew may not be protected. Then there basically very high risk of failure because not currently doable (such as Fusion of any kind). Then there are fantasies in which have not the foggiest clue as to how to start a design and testing process. Given this there is a risk aversion strategy to make current systems more efficient, more bang per payload buck, and combine systems utilizing the greatest advantage for each system in the type of space where it is most advantageous (like Ceres exploration mission). Musk is trying new ways of more efficiently lowering cost to put more payload up, potentially enabling space assembly and staging and supply mission to marginally accomplishable goals. As of yet no-one is planning trips to human colonies on Pluto (and of course we know from new horizons is that once you get momentum to reach pluto, you have no power to stop so . . . . ) Basically it shows that you probably can get maybe 5000dV of stopping power and upto 25000dV launch to intercept and thats about it for our current landing targets. When you talk about manned you can cut that in half, reasonable targets.

And the whole earth also hears your message. Its very difficult to encrypt also.

I did say you need to double the radius and add it to the radius so yeah around 20,000,000 meters. Pi x 20E6 = 1.2E15 the value that I used. The problem with solar wind would require some sort of ion diversion, which might include channels that the force the plasma through the lense. Blowing the atmosphere would be counter productive, but CO2 levels definitely need to come down, otherwise the venture is hopeless. . As for tidally locking venus. Remember that I gave a caveot a slowly rolling device that ejects the carbon dioxide from the center, you could fill the space with an equal pressure of nitrogen. The problem with tidal locking is it really only works well for perfectly circular orbits. without That there is precession, but with wheels that problem is diverted. . But a movable device could be used to essentially wall CO2 from a small area, the permit nitrogen into that area, immediately the ground would not cool simply because you are moving faster than the rate of radiation, but if you go an area long enough in size eventually it would start to cool and you could then work on the tailing edge of the moving area. Of course we have been forced to devise a plan with todays technology, and blinding ourselves to a number of technological hurdles that would need to be made even if you operated on the moon (as I pointed out, there will not be a venusian landing prior to lunar and martian landing and ISRU use so the technology, there, is a starter. But in addition to that you have materials required for each of my proposals that simply do not exist, they could exist. 1. You could have a frenal lens that diverts light away from Venus, at 10A though thats only going to work for very high energy radiation. The wavelength of light is 100 times larger than each motif in the lense, which would interfere with the light and might cause more reflection than difraction; a significant amount of solar pressure on the lens. It may not be doable, certainly the amounts are not insane on a planetary scale so you could make the lense say 1mm thick, but that would definitely slow down the production and prevent large scale transportation. But there are new 'quantum' materials coming online that have the ability to screw with light in weird ways, so it might be possible. 2. Breakthroughs have been recently made in creating long distance magnetic effects (for example magnetic cloaking) so it is possible to create magnetic channels that allow the solar wind to pass, they could be even used to create force and allow the rotating disc to turn in space keeping tangent between the sun and planets surface. Think about it like this for the first ICE you didn't really care about flow dynamics, now for the modern jet engine its all about flow dynamics, the flow theory begins before prototypes are being made, when we look at planetary magnetic fields we used to think about inclinations and intensities over large scales, now we see from studies in space that Earths magnetic field is far from being a continuous grade, but interacts with gases in space to have hot and cold spots. This knowledge could be applied to stuff coming from the sun and could be used to reshape the solar winds so that the flow seamlessly through the lens like flood waters going around a well designed bridge footing. So even if the lense was reflective or a big solar panel, you could use the lens to accelerate solar plasma on a outbound vector using it to push against the solar pressure. A solar sail is designed to capture solar wind and pressure not divert, so of course if you design your lens like a sail you will have problems, so the lens would have to take a different design. Is this likely to happen, nope. nope, nope. As for taking advantage of Venus's slow rotation, again technology is foundationally a problem even if the theory allows it. Moving an array across the surface like an inchworm requires a wheel technology we don't have. That has to be couple with the issue we would need to have a very good way of separating CO2 from N2 which is very difficult at 500'c So you would need a cold spot on Venus to solidify the CO2, There is a way though, presumably the CO2 came from metal salts. Then use the metal salts to capture CO2, Presumbly the lasers would separate CO2 from N2, but the problem is that the velocity of CO2 would be so great at ground level because of upper atmospheric power requiirments that the CO2 would easily superheat the adjacent nitrogen preventing its entry. Its possible that if the N2 exists clear of CO2 at the top it will flow over the barrier into the sheild, not likely. If you are clever, you could do this: Sublimate CO2, use the nitrogen to pressurize the inside, while still cooling use CO2 to cool the surface by sublimation geting it very cold, using the heat from the leading edge to react CO2 with metal on the lagging edge to (you also need to create diamond or graphite) and form MCO3 which you then bury and cover with a layer of insulation such as and then with pure metal and then a heatsheild like material. When you are don the CO2 should be locked for an entire solar relative rotation of Venus. In this way you could reduce the amount of CO2 by burying and locking it into carbonates. Yes they are thermally unstable thats how C02 got up to begin with, but coupling that with some sort of reflective lens could reduce the insolance sufficiently to prevent another greenhouse effect. Here in lies the problem, its not that Venus has more CO2 than nitrogen, it has more nitrogen than earth and it has 4 magnitudes more CO2, so even if you removed all the CO2, the nitrogen alone might be sufficient to trap sunlight, therefore it must be done on the dark side of the planet and it would require 3 or four weeks minimally to cool off sufficiently to dissipate the large amount of heat in the atmosphere (On earth we drop 40 degrees overnight at STP on a clear still night with low humidity). So dropping 500 degrees would require 1 hour per degree for about 3 weeks or so. This the places a mininum size, but since the initial does not have to move, place it just after dusk and you have months to sunrise to get it rolling you definitely have enough time to cool down say a few acres of turf if you can keep the CO2 out. And initially you don;t need to store the CO2 so simply dump it out of the system. Using lasers however is a problem since the amount of laser power required to wall 96 bar of CO2 to 100km is tremendous. The seed technology is critical, it would require a direct nuclear to electric power generation (solar will not work and there is no established E differential - thats only after the atmosphere has cleared overhead of CO2) Mining Venus is insane. Venus was build from roids and space dust, all of which can be found on roids and comets at much lower levels but with much lower dV requirements once ISRU is established, so diving into a hell-hole of a gravity well to bring it back to earth makes no sense.

First off the premise to the argument is oxymoronic. in 83 years from now, (dT) in which we colonized the moon (requiring dTechnology/dT) and other places we have had to adapt new technologies. Given that I have a type of plastic made of a carbon-lithium-boron material that is space stable and can refract light up to 30 degrees. Next I build a station at Venutian L1, the station is composed of pie-shaped section each with a factory. The station begin synthesizing the plastic as is rotates The pie sections grow at about 10 feet per section, initially, as in grows the rotation of the station slows. Eventually the station is diverts 9/10ths of the sunlight reaching venus and the planet cools. A violent reaction of atmosheric acids with the mostly alkaline surface is expected. But there will be high spots. The thickness of the atmosphere decreases. You could eventually land on venus much like landing on earth. During that period you collect your stuff. the position of the filter at L1 could be shifted to increase or decrease light. So how feasible. Lets say a diamond is 1.5 gram per cm. So lets say our filter is 1 atom across. One mole of carbon is 12 grams, a diamond of 12 grams would occupy 8 cubic centimeters or 0.000008 cubic meters. That is 6.0223 x 10 23 atoms of carbon. Each carbon occupies 1.32 x 10-29 cubic meters. The cube root of this is 2.36E-10 meters. Lets just say is 1 nanometer thick about 10 hydrogen atoms. So imagine the L1 for venus is 2 million miles from venus of a toral of 100 m miles to the sun. The sun is about 100 Venus in diamter and Venus is about the diameter of the earth. So lets just say radius 6,500,000 meters that means 100 x 2/100 = 2 addition radii so that makes a total of about 20,000,000 meters. That means we need an area of 3.14 x 20E6 x 20E6 ~ 1.5E15 area in meters. That would require 1E6 meters of raw materials. That 10E6 would have a density of 1500 kg per cubic meter or require 1.5E9 (1 thousand kilotonnes) of plastic. Next how long would it take. 1.5E15 meter, assuming at peak we had 24 machines capable of laying out 0.01M/plastic per second in a length of 100 meters at a time. This would roughly cover a football field in 83 minutes. So covering that large of an area would take how long? 24 x 0.01 = .24 M/second x 100M length = 24 M per second. At that rate we would need 200,000 years. Lets say each machine is 1000 kilos (very optimistic for a 3 printer 100 meters in length that also works in a vacuum) in mass. Lets say we can waste 1/3 of the mass of the plastic in machine with machine. That then means we can have 0.5E9 mass of machines or 500000 machines. (therefore total payload to venus is 2 thousand kilotonnes). Thus 500,000 x 0.01 = 5000 M/second. Therefore we need 9506 years to build. Still not doable. Lets say we increase the layout of plastic (this time brought from earth premade) is 1 meter per second. That means 95 years. Lets say we need only to block half the sunlight that 47.5 years. So our disc has to be tangent to the surface of venus and sun at their closest points, its orbiting both and thus it is turning with respect to both tangents, so the system would only be at a blocking for about 1/4 of the venusian year (venus has effectively no days). This means it needs to be wider to so we are talking minimally 1000 years to cool venus down and lower the surface pressure (assuming that some of the gases will react with surface molecules and some will liquify in the surface). Eventually enough gases liquify to neutralize the greenhouse effect and venus cools as if it were in a much higher orbit, with periods of substantial heating. (you could have two of these devices that are perpendicular to each other so that either are constantly deflecting radiation away from venus. So now change your scenario abit. we start devising a plan, in say 30 years we begin executing that plan, then in say the year 3000 we reach the venusian surface were we begin mining that mineral. In a period of extreme effort we manage to create a mountain on Venus and lower the surface pressure to 0.001 ATM and achieve the ability to relaunch from venus into venusian orbit (160 km above the surface where the payload is picked up by a ion-driven transfer ship and 10 year later reaches earth L1 were is brought to earth. Total cost I would say 1 quadrillon dollars (given the cost per year is about 1 trillion in current dollars). Several cost savers. Provide ION drives can be manufactured from asteroids in space, solar panels from asteroids in space, the material for the deflectors could be made on asteroids and then diverted with ion drives to venusian orbit and insertion maybe lowering cost. The basic idea here is in 1000 years you can easily get anywhere in the inner solar system with ion power and solar panels (though panels are only 10% efficient after 50 years, that should improve). Thus close to the end of the project as the screen is growing its fastest, it can derive product from space based operations that do not require much fuel, thus payload from earth would decline. We all know the problem on venus is greenhouse effects. The problem is how to thin the atmosphere. Instead of protecting the venusian atmosphere from the sun, lets just wipe it out. THis can be done quite easily and probably more cheaply. The major greenhouse components of the atmosphere have both an absorption frequency for outer and inner shell electrons. Using batteries in space it might be possible to store large amounts of energy, say several trillion small lasers. Fluid dynamics could be used to push molecules into orbit. The molecules and atoms can be excited by huge number of lasers that emmit stripping gases like Sulfer of the outer shell electons. These atoms would repell each other with great vigorousness and electrons would be lost to space causing the molecules to essentially blowout of the atmoshere into interplanetary space. We could use pulse laser arrays every few days to essentiall clear the upper atomsphere equitorial regions of all sulfer and carbon atoms, first ejecting them into high orbit, and then shooting them into space were solar winds pick them up. Once the greenhouse gases are removed a much smaller sheild, say about the diameter of venus should suffice to cool the planet. A third means, we all know that venus barely spins, but it might be possible to tidally lock it with the sun. If that were the case you have a constantly cold region on the dark side of the planet, however there is alot of heat within venus, therefore it might be possible to use geothermal energy on the dark side to basically create a laser wall to basically sheild one area of venus from the rest of Venus. That dark area would eventually cool allowing people to work on the surface. You could use both filter systems and lasers to effective create positive pressure of low greenhouse gases inside the shield, lasers creating a wall with hotter parts and a pressure to force the unwanted gases out and radiative cooling into space to do the rest. Another means is simply have those lasers roll on the surface of venus, protecting the coolest area as it rolls along, first it could start small, protecting say 1 km of surface and then expand to protect 100s of km of surface. In the beginning one could use geosynchronous lasers to open up an area, and then very carefully landed craft in those areas (requires a direct down means of decelerating). A forth means, get a neutron star and place it close to the sun, therefore turning it into a red dwarf wherein there is not enough energy h

ISP in secs is equal to exhausted velocity in meter per seconds. X m/s / g {9.81 m * sec-2} = X/9.81 sec. This has some relevance in the way you calculate when launching from earths surface. Once you are in space better to convert the calculation into v.

The Trouble with Quantum Mechanics Basically goes through (superficially) the problems with QM and its long and conflicted history. Basically atomic theory and QM are absolutely parsimonious. Wave particle duality has smallish problems. Uncertainty principle and reasoning why deterministic physics has a probabilistic outcome is unresolved. I see the logic here can be simplified. Quantum entanglement cannot result in instantaneous communication (although recent experiments are sure suggest that something that looks identical as such) because this would be sending signals backwards in time, violating relativity, and yet we have no reason to understand why time flows, the flow of time is something that resolves as space and time, a process we do not understand, coevolves from quantum space-time an essence we have yet to observe. The basic reason we say time cannot flow backwards is because its never been observed and consistencies on the macro scale with relativity, but relativity does not hold up on the quantum scale. IOW there are several aspects of QM that appear to be such but when we try to convert to classical physics they appear to be something ever so slightly different and we don't know why.

F22 high cost of maintenace is due to the amount of man hours that need to be spent resurfacing the slealth materials that coat the high flectivity parts of the craft. F35 has similar problems.

Well the older jet engines are low tech, but also have less hackable electronics. The new flight systems on US aircraft require high tech electronics that can be hacked by countries. Now if you are a country that goes out of your way to hack other countries and steal their state secrets (particularly their high tech planes), do you think that the US probably has a program to detect said use and allow combat disabling. The other thing is that if you hack into someone company and steal their advance AC design and they (or their purchasers) suspect that you are going to do this they might just lay decoy designs around that you will waste years investigating before you realized you were duped. Aside from that the two fantastic high tech planes from US, F22 and F35. . .. .how exactly are they doing? (too expensive to operate). The F22 requires something like a day of hanger time for each hour of flight time. The F35 has run into problem after problem.

Digitizing supernova and black hole convergence? For example detonating atomic bombs on asteroids. Releasing a gas cloud in dead space and then hitting with a huge electric charge. Infrared lasers.

Bulgarian vacation? Oh my.

LIGO basically, you sit in a spot that you hope doesn't move as a result of local forces and wait for space-time to flux. Lets just put it like this, or at least this is how I view the research. Previously we had space based gravity sensors and cryo-accelerometers here on earth. Then we have ligo, next we have the gravity sensor pair in space. Basically this translates into see two black holes collide into pre LIGO - a signal that is statistically indistinguishable from noise LIGO - a signal that is a few sigma above noise observed on two machine post LIGO - the ability to see fine structure in the signal and much stronger than the noise signal. Futurama (i.e. some unknown technology of the future) - the ability to see individuals 'gravitons'

Ideally NASA would test it in space, but its a rather big beaurocracy that takes time. From the translation of the chinese news. "the maximum measured thrust of about 124 cattle". This of course is the favored relative measure in space because all those space ranchers are just waiting for a new device that can herd their space cattle. Can chinese news actually be dumber than US based news reports. And to think I used to complain about science reports on the Beeb.

Static shifts. Bigger question how do you separate the effects of shifts cause by a huge pulse of EM radiation versus the space-time shift cause by the loss of mass during a supernova? Presumably each form of energy shapes the substructure of the quantum foam in different ways, the problem is we don't have a clue as to how. The further you are from the sun, the faster you are moving the less deviation, translates to relative deviation. If we place an object at point of equal gravitational attaction between the 4 closest stars (a rough approximation) and remove all velocity relative to the average motion of the mass of course its not going to stay in its position forever. But compared to the changes created by objects on earth, such as the passing of the moon, Venus, the wobble of the sun, Jupiter, the forces should be alot less. I still don't think a interstellar gravity experiment will ever detect quantum space-time.

I don't think such a precise universal G value exists. G is essentially a measure of a colloid foam structure of unresolved space-time that we want to believe is more uniform than it is. IMO the structure of space time has slight difference that appear to us as warping, but at finer scale represent the nature of fields in specific parts of the universe. For example if you were in a black hole, in the center of the sun or on a dirt ball floating between the stars, or setting on a moon the very moment the parent star supernova'd light wave passed over the G constant you would measure might differ.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/the-philosophy-of-guessing-has-harmed-physics-expert-says/

Can do unexplained dimming = god lol.

Its not possible except at great distances from gravitational bodies. dx,dy,dz/dt differs for any two objects in a circular object around a gravitational orbit. CUbesats do not have the range.

Better than a cell phone camera.

http://retractionwatch.com/2016/12/22/journal-cleans-house-retracting-6-cancer-papers-plagiarism/ Yep. Editor fail to create an adequate pre-review process. Only about a decade and a half behind the times. Skeptical, at one point we had an 85% rejection rate with about a 60% summary rejection rate. I've made more scientist groan than just about anyone you will ever meat, but again if you can become a full professor in some University and BRICA country with just two mediocre to trivial publications . . . . .. .