lajoswinkler

That's not cryonics. That's suspended animation at few degrees below zero, at most. Metabolism still works, but at very slow rate. Those frogs also have a very different brain than humans. Things that make us persons is a lot more delicate than synapses that make the and jump around. Cryonics is complete halt of molecular movement (except weak vibration) in a cryogenic medium. Compounds that are injected into the body do not allow the preservation of those delicate things our brains produce.

6/10 Jeb with herpes?

Water can be kept in those florist sponges or just about anything similar. Even dirt held by cloth bags is ok, though I think the plants grown in such conditions would in fact be grown hydroponically. Only water and nutrients. So sponges.

Exposure time, atmospheric pressure, and fraction of inspired O2 (FIO2) determine the cumulative O2 dose leading to toxicity. Oxygen is toxic to the lungs when high FIO2 (>0.60) is administered over extended exposure time (≥24 hours) at normal barometric pressure (1 atmospheres absolute (ATA)). This says that when partial pressure of oxygen is above 60%, human lungs would experience measurable trauma after 24 hours. I assure you the concentration doesn't have to be that high if the exposure time is chronic in nature. After one year of being exposed to 40% oxygen, your body would not be healthy as before. Oxygen therapy is given when the benefit of such procedure is considerably larger than the harm. All those reactions are coupled. Plants don't take water and say: "Oh, now I've got me some water and I'm gonna hydrolize it!". It doesn't work that way. Every reaction in a living organism is coupled with another one. That's why it's called a metabolism. I think you're suggesting that a plant will keep destroying water (releasing oxygen gas and accumulating hydrogen ions who knows where) if there's light available. That simply isn't true. If I'm misinterpreting your statements, I apologize. I don't know what that even means. It either survives or it dies. In this case it dies, therefore it's accurate. Already commented. So plants release hydrogen gas? In my entire college education I've never heard of this. I admit I could be wrong, but I'd sure like to learn more about this. While it's true that some bacteria and rare algae (probably single cell phytoplankton) sometimes can produce hydrogen, I've yet have to read about salad or a pine tree releasing it. Ok, you've made your point, kudos. But please explain where the hydrogen goes. NADP+ and others are just carriers and not meant to be used as longterm storage units. What happens in such artificial conditions? Does the root system start pumping out excessive H+, acidifying the water it stands in? If it pumps H+ out, what ions does it take up? Net charge has to be zero. I still think it will stop. Coupled systems are a mess alone, and a greater mess when one end is plucked out. We're not talking about Martian atmosphere. This is Earth atmosphere in a sealed container on the surface of any celestial body. Closed thermodynamical system. If you're talking about a system that collects Martian atmosphere, compresses it to 1 bar and introduces it into the habitat, then this all discussion is meaningless. Oh, and we haven't discussed nitrogen...

You can buy a lot of things, Pawel. You can even build an x-ray tube if you know how, but it's easier to just buy it. X-ray photography is quite popular tiny niche of photography. I don't know what the law says about possession of high powered lasers, but shooting them at people is a physical attack and therefore a crime. Such lasers are a form or a nonlethal weapon capable of inducing 100% disability. I worry about stupid kids getting their hands on those things.

Conscience is an emergent phenomenon of a total brain work. There isn't an isolated part where it resides that could be plugged out and replaced. It's like if you had a large museum that benefits the entire city by raising its culture. The museum itself is a pile of bricks. Things inside are piles of paper, gypsum, bronze, etc. Not even the sum of those parts are enough to describe what a museum means to the people of that city if it serves lots of purposes, such as protecting a minority's material and nonmaterial heritage for example. Another example is a book. Pile of paper, ink and perhaps leather. If you mashed all that in a bowl, you'd get a dirty pile of paper and leather. But the book carries information and that information has a meaning. Where is the "meaning" in the book? You can't pluck it out. Memories in a brain are a lot more local, but still written in a way we don't understand. We do know those things aren't in the form of extremely localized "files", but in the form of incredibly complex connections through which current pulses all the time. There is everything suggesting it's impossible. The very nature of who we are is the pinnacle of complexity in this universe. It's a machine that can't be switched off and then back on because that action will alter it so profoundly that it will destroy its state. If would be easy if the human mind was based on a hardware that is more simple, but its complexity is uncomparable to the most advanced machines we've ever made. We do know how its base works and why, but to describe it in totality we'll probably have to wait a long, long time. Organisms which can be frozen and then thawed all have very primitive central nervous systems. They have no self-awareness, no advanced emotions, no abstract thoughts and concepts. Some of them don't even have a brain, but ganglia.

Aethon knows why. 9/10

Human mind is few steps above basic metabolism. It is still biochemical in nature (souls do not exist), but its nature is emergent, just like a microship isn't just a bunch of silicon atoms. Preserving such system by using crude, invasive techniques such as antifreeze embalment and freezing in liquid nitrogen is perfectly useless waste of money. It doesn't work because it can't work. It can't even save basic metabolism. No amount of genetic engineering can help with that. That's the same problems as with teleportation in SF. You'd create a copy of a person which then goes along its own way, slowly diverging from the original, and becoming a new person. What's with the original? It will die. Nobody will save it, therefore the problem isn't solved. True, there isn't such thing as soul. Brain is responsible for who we are. It is an illusion, but a satisfactory one. Your idea about slowly replacing one's brain organic matter with artificial one, thus gradually making an inorganic brain until it's free from typical organic degradation, would be fine. Brain does it all the time, preserving the structure along the way, but uses organic molecules. The structure is what matters. Informations aren't just stored inside neurons. There's also the number of synapses, the way they branch and connect. Also, an active array of ionic current impulses. That's very delicate. It's who we are at this moment. There's an actual "software" in our heads which gets deleted if something goes very wrong. That's why oxygen deprivation, an impact or consumation of toxic compounds can profoundly alter the character and actually kill the "person A" by diverting it into "person B".

I'm speaking as an owner of a highpower laser here. There are several factors accounting for the level of danger. Wavelength, distance, ray power and ray divergence come to mind. We also have to consider "distraction", "glare", "flash blindness" and "ocular injury" as stages. Basic laserpointers we've all seen are 5 mW and red. Even from immediate vicinity like 1 metre, they can not deliver enough energy to one's eye before the reflex closes the eyelids. They will cause glare and high distraction, though. That's why those lasers are perfectly fine for majority of people. Green has a smaller wavelength and thus is a bit more dangerous. Eyelid reflex is not sufficient, but the delivered energy is not sufficient for permanent eye damage unless fired right in front of the iris into the retina. If you want a laser pointer for presentations in office or elsewhere, I recommend 1 miliwatt power for green and 5 for red. For pinpointing stars outside cities, a 10 mW green laser is fine, but be careful with it. Higher powers means more energy per unit of time. Anything above 5 mW is dangerous for people who don't know what they're doing. Most people don't. They think laser rays are flashlights. In the last decade high powered handheld lasers have become widely available. Some people who are into lasers and know what they're doing can now buy them and safely do experiments or whatever nice they're planning to do. That's cool. Unfortunatelly, that also means lots of stupid folks can get them. A moron with 800 USD can get handheld 2 watt lasers. That's 2000 mW and enough to make the unfocused ray set a pile of newspapers on fire from a distance of few metres in just a second or two. Imagine can such ray do to one's retina, which is extremely delicate and precious. It's sufficiently powerful that a diffused reflection off a floor or a nearby wall can cause instant permanent damage. Consider this chart. It's pretty much correct. To summarize, never ever point a laserbeam into an airplane. There are cases when that's harmless (low power ray, high flying plane), but there are legal issues you have to consider, too. Just don't do it, ever. In cases where a plane is about to land and you fire a high power ray into the cockpit, you will probably cause a disaster with lots of deaths and that will put you to lifetime prison in civilized states and countries and, sadly, you might get murdered in the noncivilized ones.

We could learn all sorts of things. If there's more than measly traces of oxygen, we can be 100% sure there's some kind of life.

Laws don't work that way, even in law systems outside USA (in which legal precedents are common). You don't need to have a law for every specific action one might do. For example, if I stab someone dressed as a clown, there's no law that deals with "stabbing someone dressed as a clown". There is a law dealing with murder. Mars One is using gullible people and planning to send them into certain prolonged, agonizing, media-covered deaths. Now, if you don't understand what's wrong with that, something is wrong with you. Plain and simple. Unless we're talking about terminally ill and suffering patients which can choose medically assisted help in achieving termination of life (euthanasia), you can not make a contract with anyone which allows you to kill him or expose him to conditions where survival is barely possible. It is simply illegal. And yes, it is illegal to stuff 100 g of chewing gum into childrens' ears. Given the low compressibility of the gum and its large volume, such amount of gum would burst their eardrums and finish inside skull, pushing against brain and killing them. Back in the time when oxygen was plentiful, the life on Earth was adapted to it. Nowdays not really. If pO2 would magically rise and stay at 35%, the biosphere would experience a lot of problems and, during its adaptation, many species would perish. Where did you find the 60% value? Such high concentrations are medically prescribed to people with serious illnesses, when longterm exposure to such high partial pressures has more benefit. Cause they're like suffering and being unable to breathe which usually makes them die. Periodic table is so condescending, true. Oxygen gas can react with our biochemical compounds. If it can slowly oxidize simple fats on its own, then it can react with protein machines whether we're talking about plants or animals. It really is dangerous in higher concentrations. Plants do not hydrolize water to produce oxygen. Oxygen gas is a product of a series of complex biochemical reactions which reduce carbon from its dioxide into carbon inside glucose ring. If you don't supply the plant with CO2, it will not be able to live. If you don't give it enough CO2, it won't magically start hydrolising water. Where will the hydrogen go? With not enough CO2, the plant will wither and decrease its biomass until it adapts. In certain cases it will even die. So if there aren't people inside the habitat and nothing (except a nonimportant amount of bacteria in the habitat) is releasing CO2, the plants can't release oxygen. Still, if nothing is releasing CO2 which plants fix (net reaction! Plants also release CO2, but net reaction is soaking it up.), the plants will die. If you're referring to the dark cycle, it doesn't happen at night only. It happens all the time, but it's called like that because it doesn't require light to go on. Plants consume oxygen and release CO2 all the time, but the net effect of their total metabolism is negative amount of CO2 and positive amount of O2 in the atmosphere around them. As pCO2 drops, the plant struggles and ultimately dies. Accounting for the plants alone, it could never be balanced because of that net effect. If there are heterotrophic organisms in the system, then it's a small ecosystem and it can work, provided input energy from outside. It's a closed thermodynamical system. Matter can't go anywhere, energy can. (In isolated systems, where even energy can't flow through the border, life can't survive.) This is an example of a small ecosystem, a closed thermodynamical system which is in a matter ballance. Your comment is, as always, highly useful to the discussion. Nevertheless, this falls under planning, which is the first step of acting on something. Planning does belong to crime, too. If you think it doesn't, try planning an attack on a mall. Even if you don't buy weapons and you only have blueprints on your computer, you'll can still be arrested and brought in front of a judge. I'm not exaggerating too much here. If someone is actively persuading people to march to their certain deaths, and additionally to that, plans to make money on it, he's doing a crime.

6/10 Could use smaller fonts and color...

Add KOSMOS to the list. It's compatible, except the docking ports won't dock. Everything else works perfectly.

Ignoring the fact they've used a false color image of Enceladus, we can't really tell by looking at this photo how the comet would appear to our eyes. Even they said it's not a linear connection between actual luminosity and our vision. It heavily depends on the distance and it's complicated. Looking at this photo I can say that Enceladus, placed away from Earth so that it looks the same size as the Moon, would be a bit painful to watch. You couldn't distinguish any surface features, it would be like a spotlight. 67P/C-G, in the same conditions, would be a bit dimmer than the Moon.

Would you like me to cite a law which says that stuffing exactly 100 g of chewing gum into kids' ears is illegal, too? Come on. Oxygen gas is a corrosive and toxic substance if applied in higher than normal concentrations during enough time. It works like that for all living beings. Look at it on the periodic table. It's next to the halogen group. Next to fluorine which is the most electronegative element in existence. Living beings deal with excess oxygen in various ways, usually by employing enzymes to catalyze and divert the reactions into less harmful ones. Source: my college and knowledge. The total plant made waste O2 is consumed by heterotrophic organisms like animals, fungi, some bacteria. Our biosphere is in a state of dynamic equilibrium between producers and consumers of oxygen gas. Even if you don't have people in the habitat, the plants won't make the atmosphere with a high pO2. It's plant physiology, all understood. If you want them to produce more O2, you need to give them more CO2. Otherwise they work with what they've got.

Today's plants don't work that way. If they're put into an atmosphere with significantly higher partial pressure of oxygen, it will harm them. So they don't to that to themselves. Plants consume CO2 and O2, but their net production gives excess O2. You'll never get an increasingly higher partial pressure of oxygen no matter how many salad you plant in the habitat. Yes, Mars One is a media scam and a very stupid, illegal idea, but the plants wouldn't cause a fire hazard.

It's not cryogenics, it's cryonics. And no, it's not possible. It's ripping gullible people of their money. The brain doesn't have to be a slush after warming. If you infuse the body with preserving antifreeze liquid, you can keep it ice crystal free in liquid nitrogen. But you'll never ever wake the guy up. He's a goner.

Around 9900 metres from the surface, and 0.63 m/px for the surface closest to the camera. http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/Images/2014/10/Comet_on_15_October_NavCam I wonder if the grains we see are boulders the size of a large TV or perhaps more spiky features. Something tells me Philae will be having difficulties landing. I'm expecting something similar to karst. Except it wasn't developed by rain, but by heterogeneous sublimation.

The point was talking about superheavy nuclei. Once the Z goes above 99 or so, current technology and pretty much physics don't allow for the collection of macroscopic samples of compounds of those elements. At best you can study their dilute solutions and in most cases just try to detect a significant ray shooting out of the target sample and then employ statistics. Basically useless stuff except for narrow niche theoretical physics. No chemistry can be done with those things.

1. Armstrong limit, for short term exposures. Long term adaptation, not even on the top of Mt. Everest. 2. Insane gravitational waves and a larger hole. 3. Yes. Small spheres made out of tough metals won't vaporize in such conditions. 4. You can't bring back a brain dead patient. Never ever. Its delicate network collapses forever. You might bring up some poorly executed reflex systems, that's all. 5. Enough to spill lava everywhere. On the scale of a planet, Earth is a fluid ball, not hard at all. The whole surface would slosh, melting everything. Total destruction of lithosphere and everything above except stuff that doesn't melt at those temperatures. 6. Playing with electrons doesn't make new elements. Number of protons does. We can and we do it, but it's not useful outside theoretical physics. We've never even made proper atoms. Ions at best, but mostly just nuclei. Few of them for very heavy elements.

Designing and testing is the most expensive part. The actual material, fuel, and even the building isn't very expensive. It's about the idea. Lots of people had to thing very hard and lots of stuff had to be used to ensure everything will be ok. That's what consumes money the most.

Yeah, but the contest lasts a week, and the comet will be there longer than the humanity. At least the thread could've remained in the most visited place until the name is chosen, and then it doesn't matter anymore. It can be transfered into the least popular place. The thread is very specific. We can try, but it would require one name if we want bombarding ESA with suggestions to work. It would be cool if we got one name and then... rampage.

I've specifically placed the thread to General KSP because a relatively tiny proportion of the forumers come to Space Lounge or Science Labs and thus tried to save the whole "let's get forumers to vote" idea from sinking into the abyss. But ok. Weren't some of the public spacey projecty stuff getting names connected to Star Trek? Like a certain space shuttle? Why would a spot on a celestial body be any different?

"site J" is just a letter. There's a backup site of another name. Jool is obscure. If we want to use any KSP name, it should be the most recognizable one. What's the most recognizable name of a site KSP has to offer? I think the only chance is Kerbin... or Jebediah.

Rosetta's Philae lander will land on comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko, so ESA has given us an opportunity to name the landing site on the comet. http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Rosetta/Name_Rosetta_mission_s_landing_site Why am I posting this in General forum? Because I think it would be a cool idea to give the place a name from KSP to promote the game. Also, because not many people come to Science Labs and this has to do with KSP. Any ideas? Kerbin? Sound rather reasonable. We've got a week for this. (for discussions about the mission and the comet, go here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/79190-Rosetta-Philae-and-Comet-67P-Churyumov-Gerasimenko)