vger

Leave it to the Klingon to start talking about asteroid-mining from a perspective of conflict From that standpoint, I wonder which one would actually be worse? A world government, or the world of nations as we have it today? Granted, it would take a LONG time before we had to worry about fighting each other over asteroid claims, but there was also a time when humans thought there would always be enough land. And IF, it could be kept peaceful, I wonder what kind of a system the world might decide on for who owns an asteroid? Would it be a simple matter of registration? First there wins? And then of course the "Lunar Embassy" will probably try to get involved. Wouldn't it be fun to see how nations would sort this one out? One thing about warring over space resources though is, if space becomes that important, we won't want to fight over it. If anything major happened in Earth orbit, all our visions of Kessler Syndrome would be laughable by comparison.

Heh, SaSquatch, I didn't want to be the first one to suggest it, given how quickly this thread could go downhill as a result. Obama likes NASA, which is reason enough for half of the nation to not like it. It's a sad age when people judge an idea based on where it comes from, or who supports it, rather than judging the idea on its own merit.

Sounds to me like someone who has a vested interest in one of those "corporate partnerships" is probably behind this. Now way is this just an "it's too expensive" decision. It's also the most unique achievement for NASA or JPL now in the forseeable future, aside from Rosetta. Besides actually capturing the asteroid, repeat research missions to said asteroid would be so darned cheap. ...and the bratty 5-year old version of myself says: I want Earth to have two moons.

One of the discussions I'd love to be able to have around here amongst folks who actually get it. The "brick wall" that humanity's car is speeding towards, that almost nobody even acknowledges. And I don't mean something specific like global warming. That's just one slice of the disaster cake. Space is our only shot at a future (without forming a nasty world government that restricts every aspect of our lives in order to ensure balance). Anyway, of course asteroid mining is possible, and it will end up being necessary eventually, if we live that long. Either 1. Space travel becomes really cheap and drives down the cost of it 2. We reach a point where the remaining pockets of resources on Earth are so inaccessible that it becomes TOO costly Likely it will be some varying combination of the two. The trouble with getting such things started is, most corporations hate taking risks. High-risk is almost always viewed as bad, and shareholders don't think highly of the idea of spending tons of money just for a CHANCE at getting more of it back. This is probably why SpaceX has decided to stay private until they've had success with Mars. And unlike other "financial" investments, space comes with more risks than more Earthly endeavors. You can plan out the cost and weigh it against the profit gained from the asteroids. But after all of that research has been done, there's still the danger that something will go horribly wrong with the mission. Plus no matter how much research we do with probes and telescopes, there's still bound to be some surprises when we actually go to mine one.

This pop-culture caricature of science was even taught to me in gradeschool. But you know what? Not worth it. Carve a notch into your keyboard and cry victory. I've got better things to do than play the intellectual equivalent of two buck ramming their heads together to impress females.

So what are you picking apart then? That science once believed light was necessary? Or that you don't like the example? And go tell it to NASA while you're at it. http://science1.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast13apr_1/

Fair enough. Maybe my big mistake was saying "definition of life" without putting a time stamp on it. The definition has been stretched a few times as newly discovered lifeforms push the envelope. The best example of this that I can think of is light, which was once considered to be necessary for all life on Earth. Discoveries of creatures that live in pitch-black caves or around undersea vents gave concept a swift kick in the pants.

Had I meant "scientifically-accepted," I would have said that. And the topic is a mod that is speculative (since we haven't actually found life on another world yet). To involve the discovery of otherworldly life means we're delving into the unknown. I can't state this any more plainly than, "Consider allowing the unknown to be different from the known."

I don't know where I was when this happened, but as a child, I vaguely remember the 'skipping' being described to me in a discussion about space shuttle re-entries.

Granted. The only point I was making is that we shouldn't assume such limits. And instead the discussion turned to "what is a commonly accepted limit?" That, unfortunately, is overly complex, because it doesn't just encompass what the scientific community says, but also the media's interpretation of that, and in-turn, society's interpretation.

Kay, you win. Feel good about yourself. I'm not here to get into petty 'Yahoo Comment' arguments about semantics.

Wasn't this very problem a major plot-point in "The Astronaut Farmer?" Though, in that case, the payload was a lot bigger than just trying to get a rocket into space. But yeah, if you jump through all the hoops properly, you don't need to be married to the government to go into space. You're going to have a lot of people around making sure you're not just trying to light up a house though (either the white house, or your ex's)

I don't even want to think about the kind of computing power that would require.

I'm not just talking about chemicals, but general environmental factors as well. Temperature, light, pressure, moisture, etc. Even though some think that, for example, Europa, may be capable of sustaining life, the classic "sweet spot" of a planet's distance from its mother star (factoring in how hot the star is) is still generally considered a necessity in the search for possible E.T. worlds in other star systems. I'm not arguing the chemical composition of life on Earth because anything on Earth would have evolved from the same source. If 'arsenic life' or something similar would ever turn up on Earth, it would probably be something that arrived here from someplace else. Even bringing up RNA when discussing the possibility of life on other worlds though, drastically limits the search parameters. For life "as we know it" it makes sense, but we have no rule book to say that ours is the only possible starting point in all the universe.

Well, our understanding of how life originally got started is pretty limited, given just how long ago we think it started. It seems silly to me to assume that we came from the ONLY possible recipe for 'primordial soup.' But no, I wasn't thinking of that. Just extremophiles in general. I wanted to go back and find some of the better examples I've read about over the years, but there's SO much out there that finding the examples I wanted would take a long time. Here, just read Cracked's list and maybe have a laugh at the same time. http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-7-most-mind-blowing-places-science-has-discovered-life/

I've thought something similar about Pluto. Not even big enough to be considered a planet anymore, BUT... more moons than any planet in the system except for gas giants.

At some point in time, I had pondered about such a concept for oldschool naval vessels. Armor that would be extended out some distance from the hull for the purpose of deflecting torpedoes. In space though, I would think interceptors are your best bet.

Watch "The Day the Earth Stood Still" (the ORIGINAL, not the crappy Keanu Reeves one) That's more or less what I would do, if I had access to a huge nuclear stockpile.

I just wish Venus actually looked like Eve.

Really, how hard could adding floatation be? Even a really simple equation for calculating "will it float?" could be handled similar to drag's relativity to mass. All you need to do is add a flag to the parts that tells the game whether that part can float. To determine if the vessel will float, compare the combined mass of all the parts that can float to the parts that can't. That will determine whether or not you'll have "a sinking ship." Not very realistic, but then neither is drag. To make it more interesting I'd want oceans on different worlds to have unique compositions, which would drastically affect buoyancy. But it doesn't seem worth the trouble making it that involved, unless sometime down the road, water exploration is given a useful purpose. On the topic of shadows... yes, do it. And while we're at it, a cool 'eclipse' sprite for Kerbol when the conditions are correct. Sinking capsules though? I don't like the idea. If we got to design our own capsules, that would make sense. But since we can't, it would be up to a roll of the dice each time you landed in water.

That's kinda where I'm thinking. While the idea seems feasible to me, pollution would be a big problem. The coral wouldn't be filter out pollution in the way a normal land mass could. Anything coming out of the structures on the 'island' would be going straight into the ocean.

I don't care why they did it. I like having pretty lights on my vessels. I've been using the Nav Lights mod for this very purpose, and added a couple extra parts of my own to allow for the full spectrum. Kinda also makes up for the fact that we can't paint our hulls whatever color we want (though that'd be a nice thing to have... someday...)

Or do we just want to stand on the asteroid while waving a laser around that's linked to a gatling gun on the rover (for no logical reason whatsoever) and shoot the living heck out of crystals? Naa... really though, improved EVA controls would fix all of this. Controlling the EMU is over-complicated, so I don't blame people who prefer walking to floating.

I find it amusing that it removed the lid and then didn't crawl out. I guess it just dislikes inadequate 'ventilation.'

This is a great idea, and one of the things I've wanted added to the stock game. Not "alien civilizations" or insane creatures scurrying around, but simply the chance of finding something basic, even if it was only fossilized. A suggestion (though I feel a lot of people may disagree with me) Don't put a huge limiter on the definition of "life." Many scientists can't even agree on whether or not virii classify as living organisms. And we've discovered other organisms in recent years that can survive without one or more of the commonly-accepted 'prerequisites' for sustaining life.