|
Moridin920 posted:Just to be pedantic, wouldn't it be more accurate to say that everything works the same way with the same physics but it's just insanely harder to model each particle flowing over the wing of an airplane (for example) and kind of pointless to do when less accurate but still good enough equations work just as well? Yes, my point is more that because we are macro creatures, we see results of millions upon millions of particles interacting with those basic physics. From those, more complex interactions emerge, and they bear no resemblance to what's going on in the micro world. So you can't apply the 'macro' thinking we evolved to have to the 'micro' world.
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2019 20:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 16:45 |
|
|
Moridin920 posted:Just to be pedantic, wouldn't it be more accurate to say that everything works the same way with the same physics but it's just insanely harder to model each particle flowing over the wing of an airplane (for example) and kind of pointless to do when less accurate but still good enough equations work just as well? Not from my understanding. The quantum scale is just inherently different. Forces work differently, measurements affect outcomes, particles literally popping into existence and then self-annihilating back to nothing, particles tunneling out of confinement, etc... the quantum world is so unintuitive that math is the only way we can understand or even begin to view it coherently. EDIT: I guess you can say the physics is "the same" but the emergence of basic "rules" at the macro level has no bearing on the micro level. It's like a rule system where if you are this big then the rules say X, and if you are X small then the same ruleset means something completely different in practice.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2019 20:26
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Not from my understanding. The quantum scale is just inherently different. Well, if I'm calculating the trajectory of an artillery shell it's not that relativity/quantum equations will give me the wrong answer it's just that it is insanely harder and more time consuming to do versus just using the Newtonian equations. As is said above, all the macro stuff is made up of the micro particles. Yeah more complex interactions arise etc. but if we knew the math behind how it all interacted (which I think is the point behind trying to find a "universal equation") then we'd clearly see that there aren't separate "planes" of physics at which different rules apply. All the macro stuff still obeys the same fundamental theory. You could model the artillery shell chromodynamically but I think you'd need supercomputers that don't exist yet. Moridin920 fucked around with this message at 20:30 on Aug 5, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2019 20:27
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:Well, if I'm calculating the trajectory of an artillery shell it's not that relativity/quantum equations will give me the wrong answer it's just that it is insanely harder and more time consuming to do versus just using the Newtonian equations. Yah, the smaller scale you go the more tiny variables there are to account for, and thus the complexity goes way up. The same is true for high velocity, density, energy relationships as well. Newtonian stuff works great for the majority of the bell curve, but really starts to get wrong on the edge cases.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2019 20:29
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:particles literally popping into existence and then self-annihilating back to nothing This doesn't happen. At least, not in the way you are likely picturing it in your head. dex_sda posted:You basically need the math, and thinking it's not necessary is the biggest misconception about it, I think. I can't think of a better answer than this. I thought I had a good idea of what was happening when I had absorbed all of the pop sci knowledge I could have. I was very wrong. But, not to put too fine a point on it, here's another misconception: You can't learn the math. That's just not true. Anyone here can learn the math. It takes time, effort, and patience. You have to want to learn it. But if you really do, then it's like learning an instrument. Practice, practice, practice. ashpanash fucked around with this message at 20:39 on Aug 5, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2019 20:36
|
|
|
ashpanash posted:This doesn't happen. At least, not in the way you are likely picturing it in your head. Virtual particles, particles, same difference right? ashpanash posted:I can't think of a better answer than this. I thought I had a good idea of what was happening when I had absorbed all of the pop sci knowledge I could have. I was very wrong. I would equate it to playing an instrument as well. The Math is the instrument. you can know everything about math, and still fail to understand it because you don't have experience applying the math. Once you now the rules of the math, you can begin to explore the world of quantum physics, but you are a lifetime away from understanding it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2019 20:43
|
|
|
Orbital elevators? Lol are you loving serious? What's next Gundams and Minovsky physics? The beginning middle and end of suborbital warfare will be, satellites, drones, and then satellite drones possibly with the potential of a cool fortnite style 'storm' that blinds, deafens, and slowly asphyxiates you with probably basic EM radiation projected into a field by dozens of satellite drones People are just gonna die wholesale to drones maybe after they force us to destroy the environment further and build "orbital elevators" Any of this poo poo is literally the highest form of privilege that the 1% could possibly attain. Wholesale spacefaring humans will never exist. Look at the loving Tesla that got launched into space. Seats five and they still put one heavy carbon load-bearing American in it because of the principal of the thing I suppose. The aliens would probably understand
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2019 20:47
|
|
|
Sir this is the space thread, the CSPAM doom thread is that way.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2019 21:00
|
|
|
My understanding is that orbital tethers are feasible on the Moon with conventional materials because of the lower gravity, not that that would be one of the first steps in habitation there At this point I think we can expect manned spaceflight will continue until or if we lose the industrial capacity to support it May as well enjoy the progress because if it stops now we'll all be too busy with more immediate problems to have time for a good cry about it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2019 21:29
|
|
|
Sjs00 posted:Orbital elevators? Lol are you loving serious? What's next Gundams and Minovsky physics? Orbital Elevators don't violate the laws of physics in ways, or in anyway; they require materials that actually currently physically exist, just in larger numbers. This has nothing to do with minovsky physics; or particles or requires them in any way. Orbital elevators have nothing to do with warfare either, or at least there was no recent warfare related discussion that directly touched on orbital elevators, everything you say about drones seems extremely irrelevant. What does any of this have to do with privilege, do you have an argument about this or are you just a really stupid troll. Tighclops posted:My understanding is that orbital tethers are feasible on the Moon with conventional materials because of the lower gravity, not that that would be one of the first steps in habitation there They're feasible on Earth. Based on the math I've read we're making materials now in small quantities that are about 10x stronger than the minimum needed; just not yet in quantities or with the required quality control or consistency; and industrial processes and mass production are always the hardest part. Like, Thomas Edison experimented like 10,000 times before he found the one light bulb that worked and his lab took a long time as well; this isn't new. It is *really* important to find a work around for the rocket equation for lifting heavy loads into orbit because it helps vastly reduce the upfront cost to constructing orbitals and other space infrastructure.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2019 23:11
|
|
|
That's just my general prediction for the "future" of """space""" The military is weaponizing every single innovation ever, guaranteed. The hyper rich are the only ones who will ever vacation on the moon to have their scales massaged or whatever it is our reptilian overlords wanna do. And if we do need to make an orbital elevator for some reason it's gonna be a hell of a lot of work
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2019 01:45
|
|
|
Sjs00 posted:And if we do need to make an orbital elevator for some reason it's gonna be a hell of a lot of work Unless we just make flying robots with AI do all the work. It’s looking more and more like Elysium was a documentary.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2019 02:34
|
|
|
soy posted:Unless we just make flying robots with AI do all the work. It’s looking more and more like Elysium was a documentary. I guess I need to check that movie out. It has been referenced enough as a picture of our shared dystopian future. I thought district 9 pretty much laid out our sci fi future, but with the humans replaced by bugs. Just a system of oppression executed by thugs and government yes men. Only we won't get any aliens with cool mechs and antigravity.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2019 03:42
|
|
|
dex_sda posted:Now, for more complicated physics. I'll leave quantum physics aside for a moment. For GR specifically, the case is much easier, though: while the math is intensely complicated and getting any sort of result is a daunting task requiring deep knowledge of many distinct areas of mathematics - it's basically multivariable calculus AND multidimensional algebra rolled into one, on steroids - and I don't personally have what I'd call a sufficient grasp of it, the basic philosophical concepts are very simple. I am so goddamn stupid. I understand like 1% of this.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2019 08:40
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:I guess I need to check that movie out. It has been referenced enough as a picture of our shared dystopian future. For all its really intense goofiness (and I feel the need to forewarn, there is some REALLY INTENSE goofy poo poo going on, don't expect a completely realistic documentary or anything), Elysium presents a depressingly plausible future in the broad strokes. 1glitch0 posted:I am so goddamn stupid. I understand like 1% of this. Okay, but like, don't feel too bad. Imagine going to college for computer science and studying conservation of information and the nature of computability and formal logic and set theory and then bombing out several years in because it turns out you somehow can't understand basic calculus and you were barely following anything else to begin with. There are many facets of intelligence, and you are demonstrating one of them by recognizing your lack of proficiency in another, which puts you ahead of the curve in that regard.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2019 11:39
|
|
|
Sjs00 posted:That's just my general prediction for the "future" of """space""" There have been various and largely successful arms control treaties that have either banned outright or significantly limited the weaponization of space. A tautological self-evident truism isn't necessarily going to be accurate. There was a discussion two pages ago and yes, there is probably going to be some weaponization eventually as a factor of geopolitical necessity and rivalry, but probably not to what you suggest, LEO is *incredibly* important for space travel that kessler syndrome should prevent most of that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2019 14:02
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:There have been various and largely successful arms control treaties that have either banned outright or significantly limited the weaponization of space. A tautological self-evident truism isn't necessarily going to be accurate. You are probably my senior in regards to most everything history related so I would defer to your judgement. Any thoughts on the science of the 'death zone' created by satellites? PUBG really is the best example of how the near future looks to me. There's both an arbitrary death field and a steady stream of regular ordinance, red zones, for added realism. If only the battle royale started with everyone in cars on the freeway with a random weapon it would be even more predictive. (Sure they're treaties and such in place. But observe the behavior of literally everyone the moment they're granted even fictional control of a weapon, from a handgun to a fleet of battleships, what's the instinct? Lol it's not cooperation or exploration or discovery. We've got wargames in high resolution for everyone in every conceivable context. Thankfully though, there's treaties.) What I am saying is that just by observing modern media, sure their are the niche games (Survive on Mars, FTL, etc.) But almost completely are all the messages being fed to the masses is, PVP, battle royale, and with a resurgence in interest in drafting pools, so gambling. Versus just how many satellites, drones, etc, are we gonna see flying around? Is it going to become like air traffic in truth? (As always, I see a competitive tilt versus the almost hivemind like dogged Theism determination I suppose would be required for the creation of a gd orbital elevator, drones or not) Ted Chiang (Arrival) wrote in his book 'Stories of your Life and others' about an 'orbital elevator' or a structure so tall you could watch night become day because you saw the sunlight before it rose over the mountains, that children who were born on the 500th level screamed when they first saw the ground, and such attitudes just aren't America lol I just don't see the science and tech proceeding at a fast enough rate, nor the interest, nor the $ tag, none of those things are favorable for goon interest, or even the 99% interest, for us to get ahead of the game. My opportunities do not organically lie in that direction. I would need to get a loan, to kickstart any sort of inventiveness in that regard. (In regards to 'drones'. The things are expensive as gently caress but hell I bet they will eventually be delivering for grubhub and taking people's jobs elsewhere too) I am reminded of the movie Surrogates, with Bruce Willis or even Gamer, Gerald Butler. Both extremely violent portrayals of drones in place of everything, and VR fps violence at it's utmost. Sjs00 fucked around with this message at 15:54 on Aug 6, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2019 15:41
|
|
|
PUBG is probably not all that realistic my guy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2019 16:15
|
|
|
Gonna advise you lay off the weed
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2019 16:23
|
|
|
Video games and speculative fiction aren't evidence of what realistically, the future will bring. For example, what is this "death zone" you speak of. In PUBG it is some kind of force field that lowers your HP overtime. How do you propose this is implemented in real life, what technology are you presuming this would be based on? Is it microwave radiation? How do you deal with the fact that it would likely not be able to permeate past the atmosphere? Why would this be allowed by virtually any country? Why would a country willingly give up on the state monopoly on violence and give corporations killsats even if they were feasible? Next, what is the practical use case of such a weapon? Clearly such weapons on the scale used seem like WMD's; and would prompt a proportionate response, or ASAT weapons to take them out; which could result in Kessler Syndrome. If used on a smaller scale, without knowledge as to how this technology works its hard to evaluate to what degree it is ridiculous, but I doubt such weapons could actually be feasible through the laws of physics; Because of the Inverse-square law, atmospheric interference, and so on. Also in PUBG, plant life doesn't catch on fire; this would almost certainly be impossible, akin to a defoliation agent. It just doesn't make any sense on a practical or scientific level; then we move onto again; the history of arms control treaties that have generally more often then not have been effective at restricting sovereign nations from accumulating various weapon systems. Between treaties banning the weaponization of space (I see no reason to suppose "rods from god" ever being allowable without a severe breakdown of the post-WWII international order), and other kinds of arms control treaties regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction; and then on a more granular level, treaties banning cluster bombs, land mines, and rules setup at the Hague and Geneva Conventions (ban on explosive bullets, etc); a weapon as described either as area denial or anti-personnel seems needlessly cruel and likely wouldn't get past the prototype stage before international convention restricted it. You talk about guns, battleships, and so on, but all of these even drones have been subject at various times to international treaty or some kind of domestic regulation; i.e Federal Aviation Agency banning drones near airports; many cities have "zones" where drone use is banned, etc. Usage and depiction in games or other media aren't relevant; there are real historical records and their evidence is the only evidence deserving of real weight; vs speculation by mostly laypersons and nonexperts in the field. Most of your post is just Markov Bot word-chain nonsense and is utterly incomprehensible; like for several paragraphs there is just no intelligible point, what is "not america" about a space elevator; why are there people being born on it, it's an elevator, not a sky scrapper. Space Towers are a completely separate and distinct concept that works on different principles. No one with english as their first language can actually parse your post. If your point is, "I saw this happen in a video game/movie/book, and then stuff happens because of it!" That's speculative fiction. FICTION. It isn't real. It isn't reality, it isn't even likely and probably may not even be plausible. The purpose of speculative fiction is to ask interesting questions about the future regarding current trends; usually sociological and anthropic questions about human society, "What FTL" and "what if aliens"; they, in the better fiction, usually tries to take existing conditions and then scale them up and along a hypothetical timeline and make suggestions; there is usually some grounding in some observable facet of human society or some existing technology; or concern, or fear. I for the most part, do not see what connections are trying to draw, because you don't seem to know the root issues in question, you look at the final product and just kinda naively assumed its real 100% and not merely a hypothetical to use as a visible platform to ask interesting questions? Like the point of PUBG, being generous, is not to ask about the effects of killsats; but to ask about a society that's perfectly willing to put 100 people on an island to fight to the death; the killsat fields are just a handwave to force the necessary conflict and pacing to serve that drama. Much like the explosive collars did in the original Battle Royale anime/book/manga etc. Raenir Salazar fucked around with this message at 16:55 on Aug 6, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2019 16:50
|
|
|
This thread seems a good venue to discuss more speculative topics generally related to Space, the Great Filter, etc. Here's something I want to ask, in general: do you think that human technology has increased, or decreased the risk of human extinction? One could argue that technology has greatly increased the risk of human extinction thanks to CO2 emissions, and the threat of nuclear war. However, one could also argue that the scale and interconnectedness of modern human civilization has also decreased the risk of single catastrophic events, such as local volcanism, posing an existential risk to the entire human population. Simply put, there are just so many of us, that even a potentially civilization-ending catastrophe like the current rate of abrupt climate change, might not reduce the human population below levels at which survivors could sustain a viable population. But you could also make a counterargument that potential existential risks have been magnified so much by the power of human technology that they might very well be strong enough to do so. Opinions? EDIT: The reason this came to mind was because I read this paper that was estimating an upper bound on background human extinction rates. DrSunshine fucked around with this message at 02:48 on Aug 7, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2019 02:44
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:This thread seems a good venue to discuss more speculative topics generally related to Space, the Great Filter, etc. Our medical technologies alone have made extinction extremely less likely from natural causes. Throw in all the rest and it's not even close. Now that same technology is creating new risks that have a greater scope, and require a level of group self awareness to mitigate that we seem to currently lack. But they aren't a threat to the species. None of the technologies we have today are capable of eradicating the entire species, but can certainly cull it significantly. Global warming is much more of a threat to standards of living and civilization than it is the human species. So, yeah I'll take the technology path over the alternative any day as far as odds of extinction go.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2019 03:29
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:This thread seems a good venue to discuss more speculative topics generally related to Space, the Great Filter, etc. I don't think for example, that climate change is worse because of technology for instance. I think climate change is as bad as it is due to the need for resources and those resources only being found in diminishing reserves in remote ecologically fragile yet important locations; you could reset us back to the 1950's and I think it might even be worse because so many industries are less efficient. The only technology I'd rate as having a non-insignificant shot at ending us early is the internet literally poisoning the brains of millions of people to believe QAnon poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2019 04:38
|
|
|
Most projections for climate change don’t imply the extinction of the human race, just REALLY hard times for centuries and a huge reduction in both population and quality of life. We aren’t going to wipe ourselves out with it, we’re just making it way harder to live here than we need to because of stupidity and greed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2019 04:45
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:"I" an individual, do not. But surely you recognize that if someone entered into the Mil/Hist thread constantly making GBS threads on it asking questions like, "How can we really know what happened?" not to ask interesting questions about historiography, but because they are just so astoundingly ignorant and uninterested in the subject matter, demands the whole thread comes to a stop to answer their basic questions to their satisfaction while simultaneously rejecting all reasonable answers; is exhausting as it is obnoxious. Moon settlements are far more reasonable. The first 100 years of any moon/mars settlement will be a comedy of errors. Repeatedly requiring rescued for survival. We can rescue moon settlements. Mars is repeated death of everyone we send and that will be bad for future space exploration efforts
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2019 06:38
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Our medical technologies alone have made extinction extremely less likely from natural causes. Throw in all the rest and it's not even close. What about potentially foreseeable technologies that we may develop in the not-too-distant future? There's a contingent of thinkers -- Nick Bostrom, Max Tegmark, Martin Rees, et. al. -- who've written rather extensively on the issue of anthropogenic existential risks. Many of them are concerned with the idea that manmade Artificial Intelligence or runaway bio- or nanotechnology might pose an existential risk to humanity, if it escapes our control. While personally I think we are a very long way from AGI or self-replicating nanorobots, I certainly cannot rule out that, in the physical sense, beings more intelligent and powerful than human beings could exist. That fact alone, I think, makes it worth at least speculating about.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2019 14:16
|
|
|
I mean, sooner or later baseline humans will get replaced by machine forms. The big question is whether they're us, but upgraded, or a wholly separate successor species.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2019 14:37
|
|
|
thewalk posted:Moon settlements are far more reasonable. The first 100 years of any moon/mars settlement will be a comedy of errors. Repeatedly requiring rescued for survival. This isn't true. There isn't really any evidence to back up the assertion that a new venture as important as this would be prone to any additional degree of errors or that those errors can't be accounted for. For instance An issue with the trip to Mars? You can abort 175/180 days and return. An issue on Mars? Remember that an automated rocket is sent first to do some initial preparations. Mars Direct generally is about describing a theoretical plan to demonstrate how cheap it could be, but nothing prevents additional effort being spent on additional redundancy. Even if for example you had to wait 2 years before you could send a rescue mission (iirc this is only in a conjunctional approach, an oppositional approach can be done at anytime just longer, but I don't have the book on me right now) you could easily have enough medical supplies and food to wait it out; one of your crew members is certainly going to be trained medical physician and all of them are going to have some degree of training in case something happens to them. There are overlapping degrees of redundancy and preparation. So it isn't really a good argument because the "safety" and "search and rescue" factors need to be balanced against what the goals are. Again though, I am in favor of both missions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2019 14:45
|
|
|
I'm big in favour too, but we'd be operating continuously in a ridiculously hostile environment that we have very little experience with, very far from home. We're going to discover points of failure we haven't even considered yet, and people are definitely going to die unless we're absurdly lucky. The spaceshuttle has a worse than 1 in 70 failure rate for instance, and even if we avoid all the stupid compromises and mismanagement involved with that, we should probably expect a similar fatality rate due to the nature of what we're attempting. I still say go for it, but we need to do it with open eyes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2019 15:32
|
|
|
Sure, there are risks, but I don't think risk assessment ends just at "Can we send immediate rescue?" when determining missions. When looking at the rewards and risks as much as we want there to be minimal loss of life or injury, and especially wish to avoid needless loss of life or injury, galactic human civilization is going to leave behind a trail of blood.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2019 17:09
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:What about potentially foreseeable technologies that we may develop in the not-too-distant future? There's a contingent of thinkers -- Nick Bostrom, Max Tegmark, Martin Rees, et. al. -- who've written rather extensively on the issue of anthropogenic existential risks. Many of them are concerned with the idea that manmade Artificial Intelligence or runaway bio- or nanotechnology might pose an existential risk to humanity, if it escapes our control. While personally I think we are a very long way from AGI or self-replicating nanorobots, I certainly cannot rule out that, in the physical sense, beings more intelligent and powerful than human beings could exist. That fact alone, I think, makes it worth at least speculating about. I think the potential of technological risks increases with the capabilities of the technology, but we are't at the species ending scales yet, with the possible exception of bio-engineering. As we progress to that level of power at our disposal we will have to mature in our handling and use of said technologies, or suffer the consequences of mistakes. Say we start mining asteroids by moving them into earth orbit, but some fuckup of a private company towing the drat rock makes a miscalculation and hurls their space rock into the planet. That's an easily forseeable fuckup in our current system , and we should be cautious of allowing such risks until we develop the required systems to mitigate the hazards of those risks. in regards to bioengineering we potentially have the power to engineer a virus or bacteria that if released into the wild would survive and pose a threat to the species as a whole, but we have developed extremely rigorous and (hopefully) robust systems to protects against that hazard. most labs that work with these types of pathogens are essentially setup to burn themselves down in case of a exposure accident in order to prevent accidental release of pathogens. So sure, there is a fear that can be legitimate in regards to these worries, but we also have an okay record of mitigating those risks. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2019 17:57
|
|
|
Would it be any safer/easier to set up asteroid mining in Lunar orbit rather than Earth orbit? Like it's still pretty close, but if they gently caress up and hit the moon it's way less of a big deal.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 17:16
|
|
|
The practical thing would probably be to slightly move the asteroid to a more circular orbit near wherever it already is, mine it there, and launch chunks of it at the Moon/Lunar orbit to use it. It's not really practical to move a million ton asteroid (which would be like 100 meters in diameter) very far with any technology we have or even theoretically know of yet. But moving 50-100 ton chunks of it at a time would work with the kinds of rockets we have right now, and the Moon theoretically has the right stuff to build a fuel refinery there and refill the taxi rockets.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 17:43
|
|
|
I haven't really done a lot of research about asteroid mining. What are the details about the currently popular plans? Is the idea generally to tug an asteroid back to Earth, or is it more like sending robots to take it apart and send the materials back to Earth piece by piece? Because it seems to me like the latter would be a more practical one. Firefox recommended this extremely thread-appropriate but really badly titled article on terraforming Mars DrSunshine fucked around with this message at 19:08 on Aug 8, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 18:45
|
|
|
Captain Monkey posted:Would it be any safer/easier to set up asteroid mining in Lunar orbit rather than Earth orbit? Like it's still pretty close, but if they gently caress up and hit the moon it's way less of a big deal. It's actually surprisingly hard to gently caress up asteroid tugging so hard you hit the planet, assuming my one thousand hours in Kerbal Space Program are accurate. You can put it in a stupid orbit that takes a colossal amount of energy to reach, which for profits sake is a big deal. Someone having the capability of doing it deliberately is a big concern for me though. Especially in context of our current rash of fuckwit right-wing terror attacks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 23:08
|
|
|
You definitely want it in an Earth-related orbit, otherwise navigating to and from gets way too complicated. I say stick it in the Sun-Earth L4 or L5. Stable, suitably far away and in a potential well so it’s unlikely to be perturbed by interactions with other objects into Earth-impacting orbits over a reasonably long timeline.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2019 00:09
|
|
|
Near future asteroid plans are mostly just white paper stuff. Currently one idea is to build a probe that has a big bag and put an icy roid thats a few tons in mass and drag it back like that. Then they can do followup missions where they try and figgure out how to mine/exploit it. For more long term stuff theres a lot of ULA headed stuff on stations and the economics of it all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2019 08:31
|
|
|
My understandong of space elevators is they basically have to be on the equator. The question then becomes "where do you tether it?" South America? Africa? Indonesia? Or just float it in the ocean somewhere, leaving it even more subject to the weather? The base needs to be accessible and the country has to remain cooperative or the entire project is worthless. What's the current state of thought on this?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2019 05:03
|
|
cowboy
|
One again, the global south has a resource/real estate that the global north wants. That only really goes one way.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2019 05:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 16:45 |
|
|
Captain Monkey posted:One again, the global south has a resource/real estate that the global north wants. This "space science is imperialist/colonialist" stuff is a little old hat. And it really doesn't though. Lets suppose it is true that it has to be on the equator, or near abouts. Lets look at the nations this falls over: -Possibly the Maldives? -Indonesia/Borneo. -Brazil. -Columbia -Equador -Gabon -The DRC. -Congo. -Kenya -Uganda -Somalia. Depending on whether it can go a little further north or south; this opens up dozens of other nations. Such as Peru, Panama, Angola, Ethiopia, Tanzania, Papua New Guinea, Malaysia, maybe the north tip of Australia, and Ceylon. These are a lot of nations, with varying levels of political stability and economic clout, but some, like Indonesia and Brazil, have over a hundred million people, and are economically strong powerhouses and have strong regional presences. There is no doubt to my mind that if the technology for feasible practical space elevators comes to exist, that the international effort will no doubt greatly benefit economically the local nation. To such a crazy extent that no doubt they a mutually beneficial agreement could be reached. There are thousands of signed and ratified bilateral and multilateral treaties, many overseen by the UN and other international organizations. The logistics, costs, and benefits, and high stakes involved would make it ridiculously incompetently stupid to not take pains to insure a deal everyone is happy with. Analogously for example, the World Cup and the Olympics are kinda bad to host, but nations still go to considerable effort to make bids for it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2019 06:15
|
|