WestAir

If the augmentations are advanced enough to increase the cyborgs intelligence, either through better myelin shealths or synthetic neurons or better organization of the connections in the network, it's also possible that those "20 somethings" that will inevitably live to be tricentennials will understand the importance of insurance and a safer lifestyle. I am assuming here that there will be an effort on the part of humans to compete with AI in intelligence, and no matter what the end result of that competition is, the side effect will be 20 somethings that are smarter than the 20 somethings of today.

"If the Proton in a Hydrogen Atom were the size of the Sun in this map, we would need 11 of these maps to show the average distance of the electron in an atom." Holy #$$% batman. How do Protons ever collide? How do we not just fall through each other?

If it's possible to make a single self-sustaining hydroponic skyscraper, then doing that a hundred thousand times, inches from the last, probably isn't much of an issue. As for water, if we took Earth and turned it into a giant city we'd have about 70% of the surface being water to build over - that's a lot of water to desalinate, but if tech isn't an issue it's certainly a start. If you design this in building blocks, one piece self sustaining at a time, I'm sure there's ways you can make it work. Organic life is nothing but a constant transfer of energy anyways. Turn oxygen into CO2 and back, turn water into waste then back into water, etc etc. With the proper planning I imagine it could be done.

I imagine the gravity of these super-giants and hyper-giants would pull all of the hydrogen plasma in as packed and tightly as possible. There would most certainly be a definitive "surface". That said, I also remember reading somewhere that the light pressure from these hyper-giants is so strong that its force can actually overcome gravity and force the stars outer layers into space. Apparently this means there is a maximum size a star can be before it sheds off mass. I like to believe even hyper-giants at this limit have a definitive surface where ionized gas becomes tightly packed plasma. As always, I'm only assuming and have no evidence to back what I've said here.

1. Researchers believe that they now know the path of development to a much more reliable and non destructive brain computer interface chip. With these advances, coupled with the exponential growth in computing power and the advances in prosthetics, do you, KSP forum goers, believe that we will achieve full body prosthesis superior to that of our natural bodies? Of course. Because it is possible for the human body to be made better, it will. Making things better is one of humanities specialties. 2. If so, would you willingly choose to do so or refuse given the risk of computer security, or even on your moral grounds? I want augmentations that allow me the opportunity to enhance my quality of life. If they can build me a new skeleton that won't break or introduce artificial cells that can fight any infection, of course I'll do it. Replacing my brain with a computer or destroying my consciousness doesn't do anything to help me, and those who believe in Ghost In The Shell-esque technologies like brain uploading and consciousness transfers are in for a rude awakening when they die and are replaced by a computer brain. The proshetics I'll allow myself are limited to those that would help me, not those that would replace me. 3. What about financial considerations? Do you believe that your insurance will cover these future operations? Is wealth of any importance to a cyborg who can live indefinitely? If you can afford the technology to extend your life until the sea's evaporate, what value will you place on wealth? It would literally be worth it to rob a bank to afford the operation because you'll outlive any conceivable sentence handed to you. One dollar in your bank account will accrue enough interest to make you wealthy - within your own lifetime. 4. Would you only accept augmentations in emergencies? See the above. I'll accept anything that enhances my quality of life. 5. Do you believe that companies will discriminate against employees without augmentations due to lower capability? The other way around due to medical costs? They already do. Companies are glad to replace employees with computers where possible. Machines that can fix a door to a car are cheaper and more reliable than having a human affix a door to a car. The same will go to people. If an augmented man has the mental capacity of two hundred other men, of course you'll hire him before a regular natural-born man. It's common sense, really. 6. Would you willingly fall in love with a cyborg? I have a hard time believing in the concept of love. I believe in attraction, familiarity, comfort, and appreciation. All of those I can affix to a cyborg woman. So yes? Besides, genetic engineering will probably let parents make their children "perfect" - perfect weight, height, size, intelligence, and most importantly health. In my opinion there's more to gain from loving a cyborg than not. 7. Finally, a more personal question. If, as a parent, your child was dying and could only be saved by receiving full-body prosthesis, would you allow them to die, or would you allow them to receive it? I ask this because, after speaking to my mother, she said that when a human is put into that type of a situation, they must be allowed to naturally die. I, on the other hand, believe that a full prosthesis is preferable to possible oblivion. From my answers you can probably already tell I'm pro-transhuman. The short answer is yes. PS: 8. How do you think we'll solve the problems with reproduction? I wonder how scientists will solve that issue, but I'll leave that up to your imaginations. Well, if we're genetically engineering babies to be perfect like I'm sure a lot of parents will (Note: Designer Babies), I imagine reproduction will remain fairly the same - the only difference will be the doctor visits.

That is awesome. I stand corrected.

Are you including Kerbins water with the surface area? We can't settle on water.

We wouldn't have colonized any. Kerbin is like the size of Madagascar, or the Horn of Africa. It's smaller than Saudi Arabia. Between the 1940's and the 80's we detonated well over 1,500 atomic and thermonuclear bombs before we realized how bad of an idea it was to do so. Repeat that on a planet the size of Saudi Arabia and you might find an abandoned planet by 2014. I know this is a thought experiment, and it should ignore the points I brought up, but you have to admit: Shoving 7 billion humans onto a planet that small probably won't end well.

I wonder how NATO and the UN would react if Yale began a Manhattan Project as a senior class project, with the final exam being an above ground test at sea.

What happened to the time acceleration button?

Sounds like a supersonic blimp would be easier to operate.

I have an old book on aviation psychology. This is what it says on night vision:

I've been told that green lights are just as effective as the red ones in preserving night-vision. While I'm not sure about space travel, in the aviation field a lot of newer aircraft have green or orange instrument panel lights to keep night vision sharp. In my opinion, the pictures suggest they blend in with or mimic street lighting from above.

Personally my gravity turns take place above 10km because my rockets spin out of control if I attempt them earlier. Every stage I drop before then will land right back on the launchpad or worse, hit one of the KSC buildings.

Which will become useful when Squad allows rockets to damage the spaceport buildings and structures. If they're still planning to do that.

I laughed out loud at that. The drone you never hear coming! Not that you hear any of them coming, but... anyways we're off topic. This must be how SpaceX launches rockets. (Too soon?)

As someone who regularly flies civilian aircraft, I can say with certainty that absolutely nothing [literally nothing] will go into an aircraft without years of way over the top testing. Something as simple as adding tv screens to the back of seats probably went through a committee and had to undergo sixteen months of rigorous testing before being approved. Don't even get me started on a new type of fuel or propulsion system. My point is in the aviation field, there's no such thing as an acceptable risk. They don't play around. Either it's safe, or it doesn't go. No ifs, no buts, no "Only 0.2% chance of failure," either it works or it doesn't. Even the type of kerosine jets use is scrutinized per route per flight. As an example, some jet fuels freeze at lower temperatures than others, and it would behoove you not to be the guy who fills his Alaska-based fleet with Jet A-1 instead of the naphtha based Jet B. (EDIT: Unless Jet B is prohibited, of course. It was just an example.)

I was joking.

Squad should be paying you for this. You're like the professor I never had to pay for.

Venus is the closest celestial body, Luna notwithstanding, that can capture an orbiting vessel, correct? Then it should be the point where Venus and Earth have the same pull on an object at their closest distance. That's my uneducated guess. I imagine you could go against the Galactic plane and orbit high, instead of around the equator, but I'm not sure if such an orbit will "rotate" with the Earth as it orbits the sun, or if it'll keep put and eventually put such an orbit in the path of Venus' SOI.

To be fair, I imagine a boom is the single most effective method for separating capsules from rockets.

So if the passage of time is just as local a phenomenon as space, is it possible for some observer somewhere to be able to express the time elapsed since the big bang as "two seconds ago" from that observers local perspective? And if so, doesn't that sort of make the whole "age of the Universe" and "distance between galaxies" (as expressed in time) topics highly subjective and almost irrelevant? It seems like any topic discussing the global attributes of the cosmos is subject to fuzzy answers if space and time both have local and global discrepancies. As usual on these boards, I also may not have any idea what I'm talking about.

Every University can build a nuke? It's a good thing Iran doesn't have any Universities, then. (That was a joke. They've got about 90)

The moon is half the size of the sun? Everything I know is a lie. This man has finally shown me the truth. lol. All jokes aside, I do imagine there is a way to mathematically describe a 2D Earth, but I also imagine doing so will require introducing new phenomenon to make the math work.