linkxsc

Heres my question. We have 2 datapoints on this. 1g and 0g. For earth and space stations repsectively. Is this still a problem at .3g or .1g? Everyone loves their centrifuges big, but do we really need 1g to counteract this problem? Or could we manage with just .1g, to mitigate the problem completly... wouldnt help with the bone and muscle problems, but we have workout regemins for that. All i see is more reason for a long term moon base for testing.

Hardly a real problem. The majority of current cases are people with poor diets, be they college students who eat nothing but ramen for weeks, or others who avoid fruit and vegetables. Assuming a good starting supply of biomass, and good recycling of excrement, you shouldnt run into problems. Also worse comes to worst, ship a couple dozen bottles of a multivatimin can keep scurvy at bay for a long time (something that will probably be sent along anyway).

It aint gloriius but it works. Course I get dirty looks from people when I tell them that I went to school for 2 years to learn about hot water flowing through a pipe.

What about giant battery operated humanoid robots to do the terrestrial work on low gravity bodies?

I still stand by... why try for Mars when we could go for the moon first? Its a vastly shorter distance away. It would be a great place to test a lot of lowG equipment. If anything does go wrong, aid and recovery can be sent in a timely manner. We can easily throw a few satellites around the moon for a GPS system. A lot more easily than we could for Mars. Communications for control of machinery could be done from earth during the early setup phases, or from an orbital station, testing out the station design and longevity for future stations to operate at Mars. A base on the far side of the moon offers suprisingly good opportunities for a large radio telescope without interferance from earth in general. Moon can be mined just as well as Mars, with aluminum being much easier to work with than pure iron. Any Martian base would need supplies of carbon shipped in for steel production. Also corrosion. Aluminum and iron can both be used in hybrid rockets, so both colonies can produce a fuel to get into space. But the moon's lower gravity makes it much easier. Other misc reasons.

Short answer no. Long answer, exoskeletons and powered armor could be a thing. (I plan to design on here in the coming months. Not powerful, no picking up cars, but able to support the wearers weight and add some strength) As far as the couple people whove referred to mechs/giant robots... i have a lot to say on that topic, and will be making a thread in the near future.

I like this thread. This is a good thread.

Sounds a little extreme.^

You're not breaking them up though. And antisatellite missiles seem more practical.

Who said anything about destructive? Most laser concepts rely on heating the surface of the targe enough so tiny bits vaporize and thrust the object retrograde. This actually wouldnt require that powerful of a laser. And definitely not anything that could penetrate the atmosphere and damage things.

Personally im for the laser idea. The satellite or station would be a tad on the expensive side. But it can sit in 1 orbit. And at various points engage in the slowing of debris traveling in significantly different orbits whenevr they get close or in LOS. Course if you tell people this they get visions of the death star and freak out. Much like microwave power for satellites and probes.

Wow I am honestly impressed that they have done that already.

Well the shape of the craft is futureistic. And though it might be lacking in lift. Isnt wholly an impossible design. Descriptions tied to it however. Much more believeable than any nuclear aircraft. Would a a nuchlear powered container ship or something.

I'ma just latch onto your pointing out of Japanese here for a minute. Alpha would end up like you say as Arufa or alufa. I highly doubt that would be "difficult" for any Japanese person to say, nor for anyone else to have trouble understanding, especially if they're training for their pilots exam or some such. The biggest problem with saying alpha would be the l/r mix as I've heard many Japanese speakers pronounce the syllable as both an R or an L, and even jump between the 2 depending on proceeding or following sounds. Also Japanese is probably 1 of the easiest to pronounce languages in the world, and assuming its spelled phonetically in hirigana/katakana and you know/understand them, it should be 0 problem for anyone in the west to read and pronounce at least "alright". If anything, more mispronunciations of Japanese for westerners come from when you try to interject your own language's rules into the sounding of the word while reading roumaji. This is why most good JP textbooks avoid roumaji at all costs and instead try and teach you using hirigana wherever possible, as you'll have correct pronunciation from there. Also a better choice of "problem word" would be Bravo. As V is a strange sound in several languages, being pronounced as a "b" in Spainish that I know of, Eastern European languages like to give it a "w" sound. For Japanese, you'd probably end up with Burawo, burabo, or some such as I don't know off the top of my head if there is a "V" sound in that language. Though "volvo" is borubo ボルボ . And typing "vo" of bravo in katakana gets me ヴォ u"a(" indicates different pronunciation for u's character) But it doesnt stop the fact that if I were on a radio and suddenly heard "arufa, burabo" I'd still understand it as alpha bravo because of how distinct the sounds are. And thats the point, even if you took the "words" and had them pronounced by someone who doesn't even speak "english" they should be distinct enough that they can be understood. Delta, foxtrot, golf, oscar, quebec, and victor also seem "iffy" by comparison, but would all be distinctly understandable if you were expecting nato phonetic.

[quote name=michaelhester07;2251640 Nuclear power would work out best in locations where solar becomes impractical or prohibitively expensive' date=' like a Lunar equator base. In such a base there would be no sun for 15 days out of a month. We'd try to put a base on the poles so we can use solar power but a resource we need might not be on the poles. Dont forget though. Assuming that you had a solar microwave system around earth, it would be quite a bit cheaper (materials wise, and lifting stuff wise) to microwave beam the power to your moonbase.

Well it depends. Are you planning on freshly desogning each and every component of what youre making. Or are you going to desigb a machine around already produced parts. Like a standard engine, transmission, drivetrain and such. Remember. Engineering takes many forms. And you dont always have to reinvent the wheel.

I recall a nice long paper I had read in HS about the mission idea. Gimme a bit, ill see if I can hunt it down on my old laptop. Edit, must apologize. The laptop in question seems to be... well dead. Apparently after I swapped to a new 1. My sister took it (without permission) and we'll just sum it up as blatant property damage.

Well my parents "tried" parental controls for a while, until they figured out that my accout was the primary admin on the machine, and they were just parental controling themselves.

My thoughts. Some areas your power would probably be dated for a few days (oil coal) or if you run off a dam primarily or wind orsuch, could last for years. Nuclear could be all over the place, though I doubt thered be any major rosk of meltdoqn (since most systems probably shut themselves off without some form of constant input) Utility water would probably be fine up until the backup generators at the water pumping stations run out of fuel, or if you're like me with a well, however long I can get the power to run my pump. And the internet... it might flame up for a while, but assuming everyone died off in the course of a week, the internet would probably keep running in chunks as long as the various servers you are connecting to can keep getting power to run. Beyond that though, its probably useless after the first week. Just start some mass torrents of some books and videos about survival, building things, and skills, during the time that you can.

They are pretty fun to look at.

Well look at a picture of the rear end of a F-22 Raptor. They bring thats engines out to an essentially rectangular nozzel. It again, isnt the most efficient way. But if Im not mistaken, the shape of those is partly for its thrust vectoring.

Structurally and mechanically, yes you can have nozzel shapes other than a circle. Problems with efficiency come up though... so we use circles.

Still not seeing you solve that problem. Mind you, I have to pull out a paper just to track all the units involved with 2 "simple" unit conversions there. (Guess it wasnt units tracking though, more of prefixes) Also this thread is about should the US switch. Not about the differences between the systems. The thread is derailed though from the initial point though into a contest of "our system is better" because officially, we are metric already. The changeover is already happening and has been gradually going for years. Wonder how long itll be till the world stops using 40ftx8ft shipping containers though, filled with 4ftx4ft palates (which on the note of that barrel thing. You can fit 4 of on a palate for shipping)

Never ran into a recipe where the tolerances on ingredient measure were so tight, the the compressability of my flour mattered. Thoguh, I guess I coukd squeeze down my flour real hard and see just how far off I get from normal. Hmm are there any tables out there listing the compressability of common powdered baking ingredients? I know you can get them for sand and gravel.

Aha but see heres what im trying to get across. You arent going to be calculating the volume of that cylinder in your head now are you. You're gonna break out a calculator, hash it out on paper. Or innately know that 610/880 is actually 24in/35in, and is a regular 55gallon(208l) drum. You didnt even pick up on that I answered the weight over area question wrong either. And then you make it better with your 2000/144. 288 tons per sq inch into lbs/sq ft is 288x144x2000= some big number in the ballpark of 80million lbs per ft. And even someone else figured it wrong at a glance. Though ill give points for a classic "write the question backwards and see if they work it backwards" ploy. My thermo teacher love the things. Here lemme try 1 Whats the Hectograms per square Decimeter, of 980 kilopascals. (2 si prefexes that are about as arbitrary as furlongs per fortnight if you ask me, also the 980 is specific for tripping you up) But at no point in this will you be doing stuff in your head. And rarely (if ever) are you going to need this easy mental unit conversion. Any time any of this actually matters, is when doing any kind of serious math. And in the real world this isnt done in peoples heads. Because wether Im going from miles to feet, or kilometers to centemeters, its going to be done on paper, or a calculator. Because its just as easy to misplace a factor of 10 in mental math as it is a factor of 12, 5280, or a 2.54