AngelLestat

Ok, lets start with this point.. Some people live in huge cruise ships in conditions that are way more dangerous than Venus due winds, waves and the difference of density between water and air. A habitat with an envelope of 150 m of radius filled with air, can lift 5000 tons, if is filled with hydrogen 17000 tons at 52,5 km of height. Now lets imagine we have a leak with an orifice of 3 meters of diameter, at equal pressure the air flow would not be higher than 1m3 of co2 by second, this mean that it would take 40 days to mix 1/4 of the air habitat, this is not enough to sink it, because more altitude you lose, the external venus air density increase so your buoyancy also increase. You can fix the problem with all the time in the world, at that height, is not possible to hit nothing and there is not turbulence, even if there is, such a big habitat would not feel nothing.. the same as a big ship with waves. Question.. what happen if you have even a small orifice in a Mars hábitat? You dont have time to repair it, and being close to the orifice will be extremely dangerous. If our atmosphere has 40% humidity, venus has 1% of acid humidity. This is so low that you can go out with no cloth and a mask, be few minutes there and enter without noticing pain. You also have a lot of materials to choose that are resistant to h2so4. The acid is your friend, you can get water and sulphuric acid that is the chemical most used in earth. You are traveling with the winds.. so you apparent wind is zero. At that altitude winds are very constant and laminar. Winds rotates venus since millions of years, why they should have fast changes? The terrain below is very far, temperatures are very constant (between day and night no celcius degrees change), there is no humidity in the air that might cause currents or other effects.. All the effects that are responsable for winds or gust in earth are not present in venus at that height. Venus has hydrogen.. there is 15000 km3 of water in its atmosphere, but the atmosphere is so thick that is not easy to harvester, but not to the point that it needs to be imported... Using the envelope with a little temperature difference (Cold) + electric charge, you may attract some acid particles to be condensed, then by gravity you harvest them in the bottom. But yeah, this may increase the cost of hydrogen as fuel, no for consumption because water can be recycle. By the way, is not so easy to get water from mars either due the lack of pressure. Ok, there is a lot of misinformation there and bad propaganda. The hindenburg fall because its envelope was flammable, if would not be flammable, you might have a leak and get fire, but that orifice it does not spread, so it might take days to consume a part of the hydrogen inside.. In venus you dont have Oxygen in the atmosphere, so your fire opportunities are reduce. It is a lot easier to destroy a mars habitat than a floating habitat.. try to think about it. A lot of experience.. those are the first flying machines we mastered.. 1910 tech. They don't have bad records, in their time they traveler a lot of km carrying thousands of people without problem, they had very bad fame for few cases, even with the highest accident hindenburg, only 1/3 of the passengers die. They crashed just because they had something against which to collide (land), you don't have that problem in venus, neither winds. (old zeppelins did not have weather predictions).

I don't really believe in any long term plan due lack of predictivity on how will be our progress acceleration, but ignoring that factor and just projecting our current progress speed, then colonization is just something that will come naturally. The first steps in certain path, are not taken because there is a current need with economic sense right away.. No.. all the first steps are taken before reach those points, because if you don't do it, when you reach those moments you will be many years behind with no solution to deal with a certain problem. Renewable energy is in development since 30 years ago, when nobody really needed due the low fuel prices.. thanks to that, today we have a tech that is ready to remplace fossil fuels at equal or lower prices. Population rise, the earth resources cannot sustain the current population if everyone has the same needs as in developed countries. Each time cost more money and time to obtain some resources with an environmental cost that is also ignored. It all comes to a time when it will be cheaper to obtain those resources or "needs" from outside earth. First it will be for some metals as platinum or wherever, then it will come other niches. But eventually, access to space will be as normal or cheap as refuel a vehicle. But if we dont have the experience on how to survive for longer periods of time and what kind of problems might be arise from that, we would not be able to make that step when we more needed. So the question is.. we should start to make the first steps in that direction with probes and then permanent outpost for scientist? yes.. What planet has the right conditions to fulfil the future needs.. in my opinion Venus.

I am not in position to answer many of those, not sure if even neuroscientist can answer all. But I know few things. They discover that an ANN show the same signal outcomes hearing different sounds than a Cat brain NN to the same sounds. It means both learned in similar ways. They also did connections between real NN and ANN and it work as a normal NN or ANN (with their analog to digital conversions) They put real NN brain cells from cockroaches into a little robot, and they found that the robot behave with respect light in a similar way than a cockroach. Mostly all the increase of breakthroughs in neuroscience are after the increase knowledge in ANN. There are some differences but is not related to neural connections or training.. is more related to general mechanism on the biologic brain.. The brain has different waves (alpha, beta, gamma, zeta) that work simultaneously and they control the growth of synapses or the strength of impulses or different modes that are related to biological mechanism.. They control in some way the synchrony in the signals (the same as the cpu clock) and they may be also responsable for other things we dont know. About some of the things you mention on the elephant answer.. that can be solve just with normal ANN. But it needs to be a complete ANN, not just one using data of pictures, or words, it needs to be a general ANN with many inputs. It will learn to figure out that an elephant always come with 4 legs. What I am kinda sure, is that an ANN emulates the inconscient behavior, all our answers come from inconscience, but there is something still missing, how conscience arise?, how it plans?.... etc. Another evidence how fast is this growing, from this list of biggest breakthrough in technology from 2015, 5 of them are related to ANN OR NN. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/top-10-emerging-technologies-of-20151/ This is another good neuroscience site: https://theconnectome.wordpress.com/2015/07/02/the-top-5-neuroscience-breakthroughs-of-2014/

As I said.. 3x in many ways, If you want a real answer I have it.. but I am not sure if you really want that.. The gang is already gather? My answers was always in relation to the OP or your personal misdirections. The OP ask in few words "why russian did so many missions to Venus when other agencies find no interest." I answer with many points, one of those was: "they knew before others, than Venus had a real potential at their cloud level", I prove it with a picture from a magazine that contains a whole article on floating cities published in 1970 (Venera6 year, after that they launched 14 extra missions). You (and then others) put some objections to that point, you started to carry the topic in that direction with: "A Mars colony also has more access to resources (able to mine the soil) and the advantage of humanity's 'landism'- people like to be able to step on a surface, and put a flag on it. A Venus colony might be cheaper- but it's less economically and scientifically viable. Technically Phobos/Demios is a better destination for the difficulty of Venus." Then I did not answer, many others answer you simply following your comments in that topic direction. in fact, I just answer 3 times after that trying to go back to the the other points that I (and others) made with no relation to the cloud layer. But you and others continue making wrong assertions about why you thought it was not possible, which in fact in some way is related to the topic question, because in resume you could not see why venus might be important for somebody else. So my question is... In this science section, the logic and true is what matters or not? Or we are here just to keep our ideas even if they are wrong? If I made an assertion saying this is no possible by X reasons and someone prove me wrong. I should be angry or accuse others to derail the topic? I had no problem to admit that I mistake in my first statistics (second post) which sink one of my points. I had no problem to said that I am wrong when I am wrong, In fact I love to be corrected, this mean I would not keep a wrong idea in future talks, this is the kind of behavior that allow us to improve. But it seems just a tabu here.

Fredinno: I will help you with the quotes.. you can quote a whole text, then inside the quote, you select all the text that would not be included in your first quote, press control+x, then you paste it below "control+c", after anwer that, you select all the remaining sentences you want to answer by close them with the quote mark tool. Venus Cloud had little public support due ignorism XD Mars surface is just a picture that everybody see, in that picture they don't see the gravity, pressure, temperature and energy. If they include those senses, they will choose clouds all day long. Sulphuric acid is the most common chemical used in earth in almost all industries at different mix and temperatures. I guess we do that because we know how to handle it. In addition, you have micro droplets measures in ppm. A tiny amount of acid just can dissolve a tiny amount of flesh. This mean that if you go out with a mask but without cloth, you will be fine for some minutes. You should check today technology that can be used or will be used for the next surface probes, high temperature chips, cooling methods, sail, small balloons, etc. They will be designed to last at least one month. Also is not difficult to build a machine that will last much longer. These are not technical difficulties related to the planets, so shouldn't be taken into account to answer "why russian might choose Venus instead Mars" What is the problem with air launch? A lot of rockets was launched in horizontal way from an airplane.. you can also launch in vertical way. Once it returns, you don't need heavy cranes or any similar device, because is floating "stand" at certain altitude, it can be pick up for the same platform and then rise altitude to launch again. Heh, Venus inhabitants will be stronger and tough. They have 3 times more energy potential to harvest, they don't need microwave.. they can cook just with a long rope as real men do. no, we are not. just 98% sure. Heh, but you was the first who started to question the importance of venus carrying the discussion to a venus vs mars. But is not cool keep the last word and abandon ship before it sinks XD We are just correcting wrong data that you might have.. Your main question is already answered.. Venus was easier and in that time look as a bigger price to chase, post discoveries over its atmosphere it may help to keep the interest. You base would be floating at 52km height, what eruption can cause damage at that altitude? You don't have winds because you are traveling with them.. that gives you 4 days cycle day/night. About a submarine vessel yeah it would work. It would be a lot easier if is not manned, to pick stuff from ground to rise it to base. It needs 2 vehicles, one that realize roundtrips from 52km to 30km, the other from 30 km to surface. -------------------------------------------- About how to harvester Acid sulphuric to get water.. is not easy but it can be done using the base envelope a bit colder, maybe static charge, to attract and condense droplets and harvest them with gravity in the bottom. Once you get the water, you don't waste it in any cycle.. Only to launch rockets.

You are talking of AI using normal coding (that belongs to the past).. The new learning machines are not computers and they work the same way as our neurons works. You can also emulate learning machines (Neural networks) with computers.. Which you have the same outcome but is not as efficient as it could be. All those things that you might think it will take a long time to figure out, mostly all them arise alone from a neural network structure.

Year 1970: https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/QSBItX9n3YIxITmGp_mT7IGLxq-UWy-dIwcvv-fhxbgQhcFrYlYoZCULm8OiFwREL_sTEGyFHg1HsSyFfi8TjZzmEttSdpjI1TXx1ggyVAA-ZXfFLFQZugtcOMDkkjSg7g Unless the orbit insertion is through aerobraking or aerocapture (as the Magellan mission on venus), then not sure what difference it is between a normal orbital insertion maneuver on Mars vs Venus, in any case Venus is bigger so gravity assists will help more. So orbits and fly-by are not a pattern we need to follow to understand differences between planets. Read... also.. try to take few minutes before answer. ------------------------------------------------------- By the way.. many mention the gravity well "problem", but make a reusable rocket in venus is a lot easier than earth. Lower deltaV needed, there is no need to leave "fuel" in the tanks for a propulsive landing or go back to a pad.. the stages just go back and float waiting for being pick up. Other types of nuclear rockets can be used (no problem with pollute that atmosphere). At that point the cost to send something to orbit is just the cost of fuel... and the fact you can make aerocapture maneuvers with ease, it means that any low gravity rock without atmosphere would require a lot of deltav.

Ok, wrong data, I mix some old memories that I have with other related discussion on how hard is to reach (Venus vs Mars). USA does not have fails on venus because they just try it only once. But If you really want to count missions related to planets, you can not count fly-by or problems with launch. You need to count atmosphere insertions or landings that are related to the planet difficulties. In that matter we have that Russia on Venus has 15 missions 2 failures and 1 partial failure Vs USA with 1 mission and 0 failures. On Mars we have that Russia has 6 missions with 5 failures and 1 partial failure Vs USA with 7 missions and 1 failure. But the main difference is the year in which these things happens, Russia started Venus attempts in 1965 to 1984, on mars since 1971 to 1974. On the other hand USA only try once on Venus in 1978, and Mars in 1975 with the 2 vikings, then 1966 to 2011 with the other five. Venus' surface is not important, its atmosphere and climate is. There is hide the key to solve all our climate models errors and gaps. This will be a terrible goal to improve our climate predictions and know with certainty the issues with the global warming. Also the fact that conditions at 52km height are very similar to earth and how easy is to float there. I can mention at least 40 points why Venus is better than Mars for manned missions. By the way.. you can put a floating flag in the atmosphere too Phobos-Deimos? Those rocks?? Not sure what people find interesting on those small stones orbiting mars, what difference it makes vs the space station? Any other moon on the solar system seems more interesting. In venus you can go out just using a plastic or latex cloth and oxygen mask, there would not be more closest earth sensation than that in the whole solar system.

It was the space race, both (USA and Russia) launched probes to Mars and Venus, but USA had many fails in Venus USA did not try, and Rusia had many fails in Mars. So they started to focus in what they did best, because if USA try it in venus and failed, it was seeing as a superiority of Russia, the same for the opposite. Venus is equally important as Mars.. (I personally think that Venus is more important than mars), but USA always was more mediatic, and taking into account their fails in Venus, they started a campaign labeling Mars like "the man destiny", and Venus like "the hell planet". But the true was, that even in that time, Russia already knew that you will be able to live in the clouds with floating cities with many advantages vs a Mars colony. But nobody hear those ideas until an US scientist "Geoffrey A. Landis" review the possibility. Now NASA, already knows, that is more feasible and cheap, a manned mission to Venus than Mars, but after so many years of propaganda and missions on Mars.. it will be very difficult to change direction now.

Let me add some to the list: NovaWurks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6BNRX2t2m4 Private rental of satellites services. SpacePharma: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRX6MT_EWXs Deorbit reusable costellations: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDgkRsmcSqM Axelspace: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_T9GKGA7B4 Making and launching your own personal satellite at the cost of an helicopter.

no, just 4 months ago to be exact , we already discussed almost all the interesting topics, and some science users also left.

yeah is foolish to make any prediction at that stage, but not sure if a Río de Janeiro logic works.. Because there are other motives and variables that you are not taking into account on "why that looks to us like a good idea now." Because there is a real difference between see something for TV than experience your self, but at that stage would not be any difference. A better example I imagine will be play a game.. like GTA5, if you already accomplish everything and you saw all videos of people doing everything.. there is not much fun left.. Is like you are in those strategic games fighting against a computer, and when you accomplish to have a good defence and be out of danger.. is not fun anymore to continue the match because there is not challenge.. The same will happen (I guess) at that stage of progress. That is also why rich people with lack of new goals, challenges or with low accomplishment in the year, is less happy than a poor who had some minor accomplish in that year. What is funny is not reach some place.. is how you get there. Game logic.

This nuke detonates before it reaches its target? Because if dont.. then you may have only the kinetic energy. If explodes in the air, then it only increase the explosive energy in the kinetic direction, in the opposite direction I guess decrease. It also depends on the speed magnitud we are talking about. Close to the speed of light it will be similar or greater than that amount of mass in antimatter. I will need to make better calculations to confirm that.

But even in that case, progress will continue.. and at that point we are just years or days away to know everything that can be know, we (and the AI) would not need experimentation to advance in science, is possible to discover things just with deduction and logic. We dont need to explore all the universe to know what contains. We can run a simulation that it would tell us all possible things that we can find with their current chance. So not sure what we can find when we discover everything.. but I know that even if many other doors open, at that accelerate progress, we would not take much more time to know everything. And that day... our purpose will finish. What is the funny to keep "living" once you know everything? We "as humans", we live because we have a purpose coded in our ADN, we also have so much to discover "if we keep our mind as the ultimate limit for knowledge and intelligence". This final seems even discouraging for the super AI. The lack of purpose or challenges.. At that point you can do wherever you want, so there is no point to do nothing. Maybe this is the answer for the fermi paradox.. all species that reach this point, they will reach the ultimate god status in a very short time, and then its purpose ends. I hope to be wrong.. If I am correct, then our best chance.. is to make a powerful ANN without conscience with the goal of control us to not keep advancing in tech (mostly ANN), to keep using our tools that we have today to explore and solve our problems. That seems an experiment that it might fail eventually... but is the only thing that I can think off.

It depends on the case of "extinction event"... if the only way to survive is going to the space.. then we are death.. it was a great sucess if we compared to previous congress. This was the most important and all countries were agree to keep below the 1.5 to 2 degress. It needs more evidence in the future to see how countries start to deal with the changes needed.. because nobody is forced.. But this agreement happen because now green technologies can compete for real with fossil fuels.., and many countries as China is already paying the consecuences on their fossil explotation. They can not breath in their cities, and a lot people is dying due pollution.

You can imprint some instincts, yeah.. "no coded".. because those instincts will be in a ANN structure, and the only way to set those instincts is training the ANN with all the sensor inputs and looking for the desirable outcomes, before install the artificial conscience. That might help to guide the AI evolution with a higher grade of human feelings. But there is a problem with all kind of ANN progress, every time that it needs the human guide or intervention to learn, this makes all the learning process much slower and limited. So others AI researches may accomplish better results skipping that step. Furthermore, an ANN does not need a conscience to be powerful, this was explained by the google team, if they remplace the search algorithm for a big ANN, then weird things may happen, the system will learn to find any kind of variable that help it to give you the best results according to your search desires. It may find that the time you take to write each letter may be a good indication to improve the search, or the way you look in your facebook picture, or it may control all the info that reach you in a subliminal way which force you unconsciously to search something that it can predict with higher accuracy. This mechanics might become so powerful that it might control the whole world to certain degree that we would be working for ir without knowing; neither the system because it does not have a conscience, is a blind mechanism. Three1415: I did not saw your post, I will answer you tomorrow.

These might be some possible reasons: 1-the footage has bad quality, so they want to improve it first. 2-they are busy with other stuffs now. 3-they don't want to spent all their advertising material in one day. 4-they want to study the footage first in case somebody else may find something before them.

this forum section is going down in quality topics.

That terrible extra cost in paint is their error for no going green with a lh2-lox rocket About the lox ice vs soat, seems weird that the line begins so down in the rocket and then in the top fade away. That soat happen when the rocket is doing the supersonic retropropulsion, but at that time, the lox tank is almost empty, but it seems that stills is enough to cold a big part of the tank.

I made this same question some time ago, I remember that the answers that someone gave me was pretty logic, but I can't remember now

Let me clarify some things.. I am not saying that NASA should do this now.. of course they can't, they already have all those agencies, What I am saying, that the ideal case (from the beginning) would be just one huge facility. But that is not just what I think.. Many of the things that I said I extract them from interviews made to nasa administrators or employees, some of the question they ask them was "why spacex is so successful". In the NASA context, is still "news" due how slow are they with each decision

It would not fix anything, they may gain some extra control on the budget if it is a separate office but this also increase the spent in the office creation + communication with other agencies + trips + logistics, taxes, etc. All NASA should be in just one place, in the way that scientist and engineers can live and rent close to that not matter what kind of project they will be working on. This also relief a lot logistic (sending parts to different agencies), communication bills or travels in case you need to talk to somebody in person, plus they save a lot in hardware, because you dont need 3d printers or other tools for each project, this save the amount of tools you need to buy and you decrease the waste time on those tools when nobody used them. Then, they also should focus in few goals and try to search the most cheap and fast way to achieve them always looking to the top of the technology or developing new ones. Another big problem of Nasa is the time they take for developing a project, when they finish all the hardware, software and solutions are outdated by 10 years which increase all the cost related. This also keeps the scientist frozen in time, so when they finish the project they need to update all their knowledge to the current time. This usually happens with all the government agencies when they don't need to be efficient to obtain more funds. If it were well managed like a google center, then they would accomplish 5 times more goals at 1/5 of the current budget.

heh, yeah, the same about people who has not snow in christmas. Is common for some people to believe that their references are universal. In astronomy as in many other cases, you should offer always your location.

Ok, wrong choice of word there, complex was not the one I was looking for. What I mean, is in those design where the theory physics is hard so you will waste a lot more money trying to control all variables from the beginning than make your best assumption, then try, and continue from there. Not sure, but I never knew why restart engines was so complicate before.. In fact, they already found ways to use LOX-LCH4 for RSC using laser ignition. This will be great because you would not need extra tanks with poison fuels with low ISP for RSC. This also helps to use the amount of fuel as you most need in main thrust or RSC.

Yeah, the most certain. They also have cameras in the booster, but it does not look like a camera.