Diche Bach

Uhhh, black holes are not something for which we have 100% empirical confirmation, right? My understanding is that they are an inferred phenomenon that fits with existing theory and could account for a lot of observations. But there are evidently alternative explanations, which are more speculative?

I am a huge fan of Blade Runner and similar type films. Only two major problems with such Sci Fi. The human female reproductive tract where we all grow from zygote into fetus is by far more sophisticated and complex than any machine ever conceived. Replicating DNA is one thing; replicating a womb and mammary glands, not to mention mothering are something else entirely. Second, assuming these physiological and behavioral systems could somehow be replicated by cyborg mothers, I'm quite confident of what you would rear from it: insecure, neurotic, short-lived, dysfunctional wrecks. If that is the only choice we got I say lets go extinct.

I can't speak to the asteroid issue. As to the moon colony, I doubt that if every nation on Earth contributed what it honestly could contribute that we could afford such a thing. Do we have (theoretically) the science and technology to do it? I wouldn't doubt we do. Based on what we know about Antarctic life and life onboard nuclear submarines and the like, such a community, if it was the result of an intensive selection process, would probably even function effectively. We know that living in these sorts of harsh, confined, stressful environments are hard on even the mentally and physically healthiest of individuals. But with short tours of duty, yes it should be doable. So in terms of the science, the engineering, the human management, even probably the collective will. I have little doubt that if President Obama had a "Kennedy Moment" and proclaimed "We will colonize the moon by the end of this decade!" that you'd have a literally tens-of-thousands of over-qualified candidates clamoring to jump on board. You'd probably even get enough startup donations to make it happen too if you opened it to public investment. So I won't disagree that we "have the technology." There probably are some very serious technological issues that would need to be addressed, but that was also true when Kennedy had his moment and they got to the moon nonetheless, so . . . where there is a will there is a way. There are two questions I'd have to wonder about though: (a) could enough money be raised to pay for the planning, design and initiation of building phase alone? ( obviously such a place would have enormous operating costs; is it gonna pay for itself somehow?

Don't get me wrong. I'm not "anti-space exploration," nor anti-science, nor anti-dreaming or "trying to get over there." By all means, lets be unitary in these dreams. But lets also be realistic about what these prospects are: dreams. We shouldn't slip into talking about exoplanets, starships, and the like as if we were talking about the next impending Operating System or development in mobile technology. The journey from our currently primitive abilities in space travel to successful interstellar exploration and interstellar colonization is likely to be hundreds if not thousands or tens of thousands of years in the making. Doesn't mean we shouldn't keep on that journey as we (sort of) are. After all, the journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step and all that. But for the time being, we are stuck. We do not have the capacity to even learn about everything in our own solar system, much less the real prospects of colonizable worlds in other star systems. To say nothing of our limited maximum attainable velocities and all the other impediments to our long-term achievement of our dream of interstellar colonization. As far as the issue of human extinction. Eventually Sol will destroy Earth, tis true. Unless we have spread into other systems by then we are sure to go extinct. But a billion years (even 500 million) is an insanely long way in the future; honestly it might as well be infinity compared to how rapidly we have evolved, biologically, much less culturally. The couple thousands or tens of thousands of years it is likely to take us to become an interstellar species is nothing compared to our total projected lifespan of our sun-Earth system. To put a billion years into perspective: modern humans are only about (at most) 500,000 years old (with at least 200,000 being the widely accepted age of anatomically modern humans). Our ancestors likely didn't walk bipedally before 10 million years ago (5 to 8 being the preferred range at present I think). Mammals didn't exist at all until something like 200 million years ago, and multicellular life for about a billion years. So a lot of cultural evolution, and even biological evolution, can happen in humanity before time runs out to escape Earth's inevitable destruction. With respect to other threats to human survival (nuclear war, plagues, famines, asteroids), it is of course possible that many sorts of cataclysmic events could kill our species. But we have been close to the brink of extinction at least once before (probably more than once if you think about the long haul of mammalian and primate evolution). Given our ingenuity, tenacity and resourcefulness, I think cataclysms are more likely to result in scenarios like post-apocalyptic disorder and dramatic reductions in population size rather than true extinction.

If Russia and the U.S. agreed to work together to develop one of these, committed to only constructing it far from Earth (say for example a construction yard orbiting the moon) and promised to allow people of all nations to share in the technology, I don't see how some treaty is gonna stop it from happening. Treaties define current operating agreements between nations but they do not close off possible avenues in the future. ADDIT: not to mention the fact that the treaty is rather silly in that it reverses the boundary! If there is one place that nuclear weapons should NOT be allowed (and where all nations should agree they shouldn't be allowed) it is EARTH! The only known place in the Universe with humans and where humans can sustainably live! On the other hand, if there is one place where the use of nuclear weapons is not such a big deal it is SPACE! A vast, virtually infinite vacuum where a nuclear explosion would (as far as I understand) be essentially irrelevant because all it would do is irradiate the tiny dilution of particles in the interplanetary medium, leaving behind a faint trail of radioactive particles that would likely become so dispersed as to be undetectable (I'm speculating). Not to mention the fact that: who cares if there is a little bit more radioactivity added to outer space!?! Obviously launching one from Earth or even initiating its main engines anywhere near Earth is unlikely to ever happen for the reasons outlined. This means that, it is unlikely to happen in our lifetimes as obviously right now we do not even have the capacity to put more than a half dozen or so humans into orbit at the same time, much less operate an in-space shipyard. But in 50 or 150 years? Maybe. Given it is one of the most obvious and least speculative options for high speed it seems to me it will be seriously considered if not actually explored when the time comes. As to KSP: agree it could be game balance breaking but there could be ways around that. Main thing though is Kerbol system just seems too small for the thing to be really much 'use' or fun. As Manley's video shows, it makes getting to the most distant bodies all too easy, which is not good for challenge or fun game play. However, once KSP includes some neighboring systems, I could see a long-term 'campaign' to develop this (as one out of a small number of alternative starship propulsion systems) as a very interesting prospect.

To me this is the single most important 'lesson' of space travel and physical sciences: we are "stuck" here. No matter how creatively and ingeniously we may dream about other stars and other habitable worlds, we are effectively Earthbound, or "Sol - bound" at least. Yes, we have an amazing (inhospitable, dangerous and harsh) solar system + Kuiper belt + Oort cloud that are (more-or-less) at our disposal in the immediate future. But beyond that is pretty much fantasy, else a long, long, long time in the future. What this means to me is: we had better appreciate the _potentially_ unique planet that we are fortunate to dwell on.

This thread needs a theme song One of the best geeky space rock songs ever . . .

Oh puleeez. Its a computer game, loosely based on Newtonian physics, set in a completely make-believe world where the player creates a "Space Program" on behalf of little green men! The prospect of distinguishing a "dumb" or "incompetent" style of play in such a game from a "smart" one seems to me to be fallacious.

I agree. The tongue-in-cheek levity of the game is clearly promoted by Squads look and feel, and characterization of the kerbals. It is clear in everything from how they behave, to the names and descriptions of components. I think they have struck a PERFECT balance really between being serious enough to offer some valuable insights into how space flight works, while remaining light hearted enough to foster a community where things like the following are not only 'tolerated' but promoted by the social dynamics: Stocky geeky guy wearing batman T-shirt, builds absurdly excessive rocket that he and his online buddies are clearly enjoying a great deal. While taking periodic sips of his drink and puffs on his pipe, said dude doesn't notice that, starting at about 8:50 his two remaining liquid engines are in the process of overheating. Finally they explode at about 10:00 and dude says: "Whoa! . . . did my engines just explode cause they overheated and I wasn't paying attention" long pause as he watches his contraption ascend slowly. "Ah well, I didn't need those engines anyway." This is what makes this game and the fan community delightful. It is both serious with some science behind it but also lighthearted. Thus I don't think that the adjective "Kerbal" is pejorative at all.

That's a non-standard perspective in this crowd! Would agree that there is a lot of dreamy eyed sci-fi inspired BS. But "quit sending people to space, and why there's no hope of ever doing so on a large enough scale to matter a bit," that just doesn't seem accurate at all. In the first place there have been humans in space pretty much continuously for the past 15 or 20 years (Mir and ISS). Also the idea of what matters would seem to be pretty subjective.

Second time I've seen that DeGrasse Tyson video linked here on KSP forums and this time it actually made me tear up watching it. His message is so sincere, so true, so important. "Broke!" indeed . . . It breaks the heart to realize where we are now and the path we seem locked into thanks in large part to lack of real leadership at any level in our society. DeGrasse Tyson is to be applauded for expecting better and expressing it with such passion and precision. If each of us goes about our daily lives with even a small fraction of his passion, perhaps cumulatively we can help to catalyze change.

Wow, 1930s!? Amazing. After my last post, I spent a few more hours browsing wiki pages and did notice a mention of one lab that produced anti-helium as early as the 1970s . . . but I would never have guessed that the models much less the empirical findings were actually 40 or 50 years older than that! To me as a social scientist, it is really nice that you guys indulge these questions and misunderstandings so graciously and good-naturedly. I have to say, compared to the pettiness, ideologically dogma and the way many social scientists treat themselves far too seriously, I find the obvious undercurrent of humor among physical scientists and engineers to be refreshing. Re: the BED . . . so it just might be the massive banana caches could be the key to efficient production of interstellar spacecraft fuel!?

It is true that the geographic location of KSC is fairly distinct and easy to spot at close zoom. But that doesn't make it so easy to see when you are zoomed out and or looking at Kerbin from some distant focus object. As a very quick and dirty way to help me spot the location of KSC I keep a little vehicle in my folder called "KSC Marker." It comprises the cheapest and lightest Probodobodyne probe body, dipole antennae (Remote Tech) to allow me to remote control it, an Oscar tank and one of the very small engines (I believe it is the tiny Rockmax "20" power engine, but the ant one could work too), and a parachute. Launch it a couple hundred meters into the air, move it off to one side toward the coast, land it and leave it. Permanent "KSC Marker." Basically the same thing as the flags I guess.

Fascinating topic. The parameters re unfamiliar to me, but the concepts are quite intriguing. Couple ideas/questions that occur to me as a result of (a) watching Scott Manley's video on the Orion nuclear explosive pulse propulsion spacecraft; ( reading about the apparent solution in recent years to the "Pioneer Anomaly;" © just a general sense of how aerodynamics works. 1. Air resistance or drag are largely a function of the shape of the vehicle right? For example, the Concorde with its extra long and pointy nose. Why aren't rockets that employ these kinds of features used? Would it not make enough difference? Would it produce other problems? Would it not be possible to make a nose cone that was sufficiently rigid? 2. Air density is going to be a function of heat right? What about (in addition to more aerodynamic nose) putting some lasers on the nose of the vehicle that project directly up into the prograde direction of the vehicle, thus (maybe!?) creating a heated 'column' of air immediately above/in front of the craft thus reducing drag and improving efficiency? Seems insane, but that's the luxury of being a naïve social scientist forumite on a gaming forum with all you physical scientists around to tell me how hilarious such ideas are 3. Air gets compressed when something pushes on it, so I would think that, to some extent (depending on the bluntness of the craft) the vehicle itself causes the resistance in front of it to increase as it ascends. However, if that pressure upwards were not applied continuously but rather in some oscillating pattern, I would think that instead of simply 'stacking up' the air into a compressed space it might actually push some of it out of the way, at least momentarily. In large part I reckon this is what a highly streamlined pointed nose cone does. But in addition to this, what about some method for actually pushing the air directly above/ in front of the vehicle out of the way? Ideas here could be: a nose-cone that rapidly pumps up and down (aka the pumping pressure plate on the Orion is what is giving me this crazy idea), or a series of small explosive devices that launch out in front of the vehicle and blast air out of the way. Thank you for reading my absurd, naïve and insane anthropological theories on aeronautics. I appreciate all of your humor in pointing out just how crazy these ideas are!

Pretty cool! What function is it supposed to serve? I have done something similar with a very simple little rocket I build that I call "KSC Marker." Tiny little Oscar fuel can, small engine (the 20 power one I think) parachute, RemoteTech dipole to be controllable. Lift it up and shift it off to the side of the launch pad a few hundred meters, and set it down (use parachute if necessary). Then leave it more or less permanently to mark KSC location on the globe.

Which mod(s) is most popular for muting the current aerodynamic effects?

Yeah good point I suppose. Even if the gravity assist itself did accelerate you substantially more than a perigee burn around a less massive object, it wouldn't accelerate you to c unless you crossed the event horizon, in which case, you ain't coming back. Whatever remainder of speed you were shy of c would I'm sure, as you point out, still be subject to the relativistic effects, i.e., require infinite energy to accelerate any more. This actually raises a question for me though. Would it work in 'retrograde' fashion too? Meaning, if the mass of the black hole were used with a gravity assist to accelerate the craft far closer to c than it would ever be able to accelerate under only its own propulsion, would it then be stuck at that high speed because it would not be able to muster sufficient retrograde Delta-V to slow down? You'd have to find another black hole around which to perform a braking maneuver! LOL Fun stuff to play with.

To the OP: great stuff! I was tempted to make a joke about Apollo being a big hoax, but ah. Out of character, and probably not the most strategic moment to tickle that particular funny bone.

What if you extend that blue ellipse just a bit 'south' and also widen it so it is more of a circle: basically orbit the black hole, just a couple meters or perhaps even millimeters on the outside of the event horizon. I suppose you'd get very close to the speed of light, and if you combined that with a perigee burn . . . well the ultimate gravity assist? My simple understanding of the principle was that, when an object achieves very high velocities, say 25 or 50% of c, the energy required to accelerate increases in some exponential function. So according to one interpretation it is impossible for an object under its own propulsion to get even very close to the speed of light, because at some point, it requires virtually infinite energy to accelerate a tiny bit, even if the mass of the object is quite small. However, maybe using a black hole for a gravity assist could somehow sidestep that constraint?

It certainly is likely to produce a good deal of economic, social and political disturbance. Moreover, given what has always happened in association with expanding long-distance trade in exotic valuable commodities, violence and war are I think quite likely to come into play. For centuries the European nations fought on and off low-intensity 'wars' through letters of marque (in addition to full states of war) over the precious commodities of the New World, Africa and the East. Once the first government, corporation or multinational gets its hands on a juicy asteroid family full of 'booty,' you can bet that will change things _very_ quickly and everyone will want a slice of the pie. The day that happens might be a long way off. But when that day comes, things will begin to change very quickly, probably at a dizzying pace. Once it becomes clear that there are fortunes to be made, it will be a veritable cavalcade of space travelers and that is when things will get very interesting. And, as has always been the case, a poignant mixture of noble, pathetic, inspiring, horrific and amazing human tales will unfold.

I'm an anthropologist and Civilization was by far my favorite game for many years. Nothing quite like leading the technocratic progressive democratic society of the Aztecs to glory, building Notre Dame, the Hagia Sophia, the Sistine Chapel, United Nations and Space Race and then launching a surprise thermonuclear attack to destroy your nemesis the evil and warlike Ghandi, fascist dictator of the Indians.

Well heck! Nanograms per year is a lot (infinitely?) better than zero per year! Seems like it wasn't even that long ago that they weren't even sure if it really existed or could exist? When I just consulted the wiki page on antimatter, I was pretty surprised at how blasé it sounded about "Mmm, yeah. We produce some antimatter. Not much. It has some uses in medicine and industry. If we could store a lot of it, we could maybe make a cool starship . . . " My memory is certainly not infallible. But I recall not long ago reading something more along the lines of "Antimatter is theoretical state of matter that is the opposite . . ." and that they had not yet managed to measure it being ephemerally produced in nature nor produce it articially, eh?

LOL. Pretty funny, erm 'bloke?' He hit System Shock 2 pretty much perfect. I'd probably not enjoy if I tried to play it again either.

Can't they produce a fair bit of antimatter now, but they just can't really store it?

I was browsing the pages on asteroids a bit and I was surprised to see just how much nomenclature, cataloguing and classification exists about these things. They seem to think they already know a lot about them despite most evidence about them being fairly indirect and observational from considerable distances and not based on up close and exhaustive observation or actual physical samples. Just based on what I know about geology (an undergraduate minor) that seems rather speculative at best. Imagine if geologist tried to infer the composition of even a small portion of the Earth based on observations made with telescopes from great distances. Yes, I know that basic models could be built that would offer reasonable guidelines, but those models would also miss a great deal of the exceptions and 'diamonds in the rough' so to speak. The wiki page is pretty sketchy but it sounds like there are broadly three main types: carbonaceous (the most common); silicate and; "other" with the metallic ones I think belonging in that last and least numerous (they think) category. That is the other thing of course, if they have a very low albedo, they might go undetected so the current observations about distributions are probably fairly tenuous. Now just based on my little bit of physical science background, I could certainly see a lucky find in either a carbonaceous or metallic asteroid cluster as being well worth several hundred millions of dollars to any given industry if not even more. A few asteroids full of rhodium, palladium, platinum, etc., . . . you would think that those could be worth a lot of money given how rare some of those metals are on Earth. That is to say nothing of even more exotic stuff like metallic hydrogen. Seems very unlikely there would be an asteroid full of metallic hydrogen drifting around out there, but who knows! Yes there are a lot of question marks and unknowns. Probably a large segment of all that stuff out there is just junk. But the same was true of the "New World" and every other frontier that humans have expanded into. Nothing ventured nothing gained.