Bill Phil
-
Posts
5,483 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Posts posted by Bill Phil
-
-
GMO = Genetically Modified Organism.
We already have done that to plants, so why not algae?
-
But you are effectively requiring an ultimate engineering problem (self-replicating machines) to be solved as prerequisite for completing an infinitely easier problem.
We can build a moon base right now. Nobody seems to want to fund it, but we have the resources if people suddenly decided that it's worth funding. We can't build self-replicating machines of any relevant complexity or durability, regardless of how much money we throw at it.
Depends. You don't need 3d printing for self-replication. If it's a decent size it can use standard production methods, but it would be much larger and more complicated.
We can build the machines I speak of, but nobody's tried to. Think of that for a while.
-
Do you know of anyone eating a diet of algae now? There is a little use of some seaweed in food, but its far from a staple like rice or wheat.
You were sarcastic about building logistics (infrastructure you mean?), which can be done with a concerted effort - but its not easy.
The same goes for Algal foods - We need to develop that first, its not a trivial task
Umm, there is a giant leap in between there. People tend to vastly over estimate 3d printing. It doesn't really do anything you can't do with older CNC machines, except it uses plastics and not metals. But to make the machine, you need a lot of metal containing parts. Then of course you need massive advances in AI....
We are a long long way from von neumann machines.
When you consider the infrastructure that could have been built in the 80's, you're sarcastic, but then you're willing to handwave away the technical challenges to GMO algae suitable as a food source, and even more so, the technical hurdles to making von neumann machines....
It doesn't make sense to me.
As to the OP's question - it sounds patently ridiculous
I wasn't over estimating 3d printing, and I was using the general term. Should I have said additive manufacturing devices? I said fairly near future, as in within 100 years but not 50. And if you consider how much technology is advancing already, it's likely. I don't understand why you need AI for Von Neumann machines, they're given input dependent commands. Then they're told to gather resources and build what they need to.
Btw, I didn't hand wave anything...
I just said fairly near future, which it is.
What does GMO mean?
-
Why would you need self-replicating machines in order to build a base on the moon?
If you want to do manufacture there, focus on the paneling, which I think NASA suspects is already possible with current technology. The lunar surface can provide the raw materials to construct a system of modular panels from which to assemble a habitat. Bring the rest of the tools with you and put it together upon arrival.
It then requires one launch of a small machine that would proceed to build the base. No construction equipment needed, just the machine.
-
Yeah, we all know it will take 13 colonies.
Nope. 12. Come on, people, we all know this!
But what about algae as a good source? I'm not an expert, but it should be easy, right?
And then, what about underground caverns being pressurized? Is that practical* in any way? Or are surface domes more practical?
*practical as in feasible
-
Can a mod please lock this thread? Nobody's on topic anymore... Either that or move all unrelated posts to a thread about Nuclear Winter.
Please. I'm not the guy who posted the thread, but it needs to end if it goes on with people not talking about the moon that much.
-
How would a single base be the 'united states of' anything?
I didn't say a single base, but I was trying to imply large city-states in a federation in Tycho or Copernicus.
-
The interesting stuff would likely be kilometers under the crust.
I suppose it depends on how thick the crust was when tidal heating made the interior liquid.
I doubt a simple landing could do it.
I do like the other suggestion for an impactor... if it went deep enough, and an orbiter could scoop up particles and do mass spec on them, we might find surprisingly complex organics... but would the organics last that long? would they survive the heating from the impactor... hmmmm
You're probably right about that, but it depends where you land. If you landed near a geyser and then sent a small rover to it, a sample could be done that way.
Wait, if it has geysers, then wouldn't it still have tidal heating? Maybe not an ocean but you never know... We were only there for a few days at most.
-
Unfortunately, the US signed the Outer Space Treaty (a huge mistake, IMO), which would prevent the US from claiming the Moon, so even if they did build a Moonbase they wouldn't call it anything like that.
Besides, America isn't on the moon. Maybe UST, or United States of Tycho. Or USC, with Copernicus.
-
And that is...
-
You've got a point there. NASA, Y U no send a mission to Neptune and Triton? But what about the geysers if something was to land on there? Maybe there can be a shield or something? Also, they could have a scoop and a drilling bit, like the InSight lander.Dude, Cassini had a lander. It's called Huygens. But you're right. Starting with a Juno/Galileo/Cassini/Dawn/New Horizons/All those probes around Mars/All those asteroid missions/This is too long would make more sense.
Cassini had a lander with a parachute, and I'm not sure that'll help with Triton. But I see your point. We could mix them together into one launch.
-
I think that this is a good direction, but the assets need (a lot of) work, and the art should be made to look more like pioneer aviation-era facilities. The KSC should not look cobbled together, but merely low-tech.
The cobbled together look is what they were aiming for. That's what KSP is all about, cobbled together stuff doing amazing things.
-
You've got a point there. NASA, Y U no send a mission to Neptune and Triton? But what about the geysers if something was to land on there? Maybe there can be a shield or something? Also, they could have a scoop and a drilling bit, like the InSight lander.
Neptune has only been visited once. If we did send a mission there, we should start with a Cassini like mission, perhaps named after the guys who discovered it?
Then we could consider a Triton landing, probably with a heavy launcher such as SLS or Falcon-Heavy.
-
My sarcasm detector is giving strange readings on that 2nd to last post.
".... Oh wait. We didn't."
Sarcasm detected.
"The ISS can last for a good while without resupply, and maybe algae could be used as food primarily"
Ummm, no it can't, sarcasm?
"done easily with Von Neumann machines .... we just need to develop Von Neumann machines and maybe genetically engineer super-algae for food"
Sarcasm?
Oh no, the first part about logistics was. But algae is actually considered as a food source for deep space colonies. It's easy to care for and is extremely common on Earth, which means that it can probably use a plethora of resources to grow. So it's a perfect food source.
The Von Neumann machines are also not sarcastic comments. A 3D printer was launched to the ISS recently to print small plastic tools. An adaption in the fairly near future could mine materials and print pieces of itself, then it would assemble a copy and the process repeats until enough for construction are present.
-
Landing on it, obviously.
-
A Lunar Base is easy, especially if you built logistics back in the 80s.... Oh wait. We didn't.
The ISS can last for a good while without resupply, and maybe algae could be used as food primarily. Recycling water will likely be common, so as to make the lunar ice last a long time. I recommend a crew of four, so you can use the buddy system at all times.
The initial construction could be done easily with Von Neumann machines that construct habs with about half a meter of regolith for radiation protection.
So, the base is easy, we just need to develop Von Neumann machines and maybe genetically engineer super-algae for food, and it recycles CO2.
-
I've heard of some estimates that put the return stage at about the size of a phone booth, but I don't remember the sample size.
Edit: I take that back, the phone booth size rocket only takes it to orbit, it then transfers it to a Earth return vehicle.
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2011/08/09/a-non-toxic-fuel-from-the-mojave-desert/
http://www.parabolicarc.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Mars_Sample_Return_SSTO.jpg
Wow, that rocket is kind of cute, in a toy-ish way. Judging from size I'd say only a few kilograms for sample mass.
I kind of want to build a rocket like that IRL, if it was possible for me to do so. *sigh*
-
short answer: no
long answer: back then astronomers discovered a planet they called Ceres then they found 3 more like it in the same area, kids were taught the 13 planets of the solar system. But then astronomers kept on finding more and more objects in the same area then they reorganized it into the asteroid belt. the same thing is going on by Pluto and astronomers are finding more objects like Pluto in the same area, sound familiar? Anyway thy found an object larger than pluto nd rorgnized all those objects into the Kuiper belt
Then just call Eris a planet and don't waste time at IAU conferences. Besides, the IAU are kind of sketchy, NASA discovered an error on their Lat/Lon on Vesta, and so they made one with less errors. Then the IAU was outraged, so I would hardly call them a scientific authority if something that small makes them tic.
-
Depends on payload mass.
Here's a question: how much sample do you want?
After that, I can't necessarily help you out.
-
Suffice to say...
I prefer this space center to the current one...
-
Why, North-east Tycho of course!
2001 theme plays...
In all seriousness, the poles are a good place to start. Although, I think some of the planned Apollo sites that never got visited should also be on the list.
-
But why? Time dilation doesn't effect velocity externally, just the perception of time internally. So really you wouldn't want to at all counter act the relativistic effects, it's stasis that comes with speed.
Btw, a good time dilation balance to speed and normal time is .5c. The time dilation effect isn't huge, and you do get around quick. But for far distances you would want hibernation. Heck, just always use it. It'll take a decade nearly to get to the nearest star system, so it would be a good idea. Plus it takes a lot less energy to get to half light speed than 70%.
-
Well, Eeloo is going to be turned into a moon of GP2, so it doesn't matter.
Although the new Pluto analog could use ghost gravity wells. Same for Lagrange points, you can make ghost gravity wells to orbit round.
-
Mars can have an equatorial region that's actually fairly small that is the only place without ice. So they're too small, really.
Mars has an incredible axial tilt, and it's not stabilized by a moon like Earth's.
Ulsa (united lunar states of america)
in Science & Spaceflight
Posted
I don't think a universal algae as food is the best plan, it would probably take some serious trial and error. If we amplify already present traits, then we could use different forms of algae in the same diet. It wouldn't be as* difficult.
If I recall correctly, algae is also extremely efficient at CO2 filtering. Does anyone know more about this?
I guess some forms would be, but not all, considering that algae is a very broad term.
I keep thinking back to Prelude to Foundation, where the Trantorians used micro-agriculture. I wonder if it would be useful as a cheap and easy food on Earth. That could help with food problems here and in space.
* emphasis on "as", as most genetic manipulation is fairly difficult