Spacethread Episode 2: Attack of the UFO Guys

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Spacethread Episode 2: Attack of the UFO Guys

DrSunshine: Mar 23, 2009; Did I just say that out loud~~?!!!

Link to the original Space Thread

Hi! This is the thread to discuss general space and space exploration-related things, as well as adjacent topics. Such topics can include, but are not limited to: JWST news, rover news, future missions to the outer planets, theoretical cosmology, explanations about general or special relativity, exoplanets, speculative biology, the Fermi Paradox, SETI, space settlements, the ethics of space exploration, the Kardashev Scale, UAPs-as-possibly-aliens-but-skeptically, and so on.

While we're definitely more free to speculate about far-future concepts, we aim for at least a "Hard Sci Fi" level of skepticism. Think of it as orbiting around Isaac Arthur-level.

If you crave hard-nosed aerospace industry news and space rocket live streams, let me refer you to the Spaceflight Thread in SAL. If shooting the poo poo about alien visitations, reincarnation, and the Age of Aquarius is more your vibe, the UFO thread in CSPAM is probably your place.

We welcome everyone! I know that the Space Thread has at times been oddly contentious, given the subject, but I am sure that if we go forward with the idea that we shouldn't take things too seriously, take extraordinary claims with a grain of salt, and approach everything with a skeptical but open mind, things will be all right!

_{_{nervous laughter}}

Recommendable Video Channels:

Cool Worlds with Prof. David Kipping

Anton Petrov

Science Fiction and Futurism with Isaac Arthur

Event Horizon with John Michael Godier

JWST appreciation station

If you haven't heard, we deployed the James Webb Space Telescope recently and it's been A M A Z I N G

yeah!!

gently caress yeah!!!

Some random recent interesting space news I found:

This seems bad for near-future space travel...
Brain cavities that swell in space may need at least 3 years to recover

quote:

Spacing out spaceflights may benefit astronauts� brains.

While outside Earth�s atmosphere, fluid-filled chambers in the brains of astronauts tend to adapt to microgravity by expanding. But after a space mission, these structures might take three years to shrink back to normal, researchers report June 8 in Scientific Reports. The finding suggests that astronauts might need at least that much time between flights before their brains are ready to be in space again.

JWST captured Enceladus� plume spraying water nearly 10,000 kilometers into space

Didn't we try and fly a probe through something like this to try and find evidence of organic life recently? What happened with that, I wonder?

quote:

Enceladus� famous plume dwarfs the moon itself.

Geysers on Saturn�s icy moon spew water vapor nearly 10,000 kilometers into space, a distance about 19 times the diameter of Enceladus, researchers report in a paper accepted in Nature Astronomy. If the geysers were on Earth, the plume would touch the edge of our planet�s atmosphere.

NASA�s now-defunct Cassini spacecraft discovered almost two decades ago that Enceladus ejects salty water from a subsurface reservoir (SN: 5/2/06). But the spacecraft�s orbit around Saturn meant it was too close to the moon to see the plume�s true extent.

There has been a lot of UFOs and aliens trending in the news lately because of some whistleblower stuff...

quote:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/06/whistleblower-ufo-alien-tech-spacecraft
The US has been urged to disclose evidence of UFOs after a whistleblower former intelligence official said the government has possession of �intact and partially intact� alien vehicles.

The former intelligence official David Grusch, who led analysis of unexplained anomalous phenomena (UAP) within a US Department of Defense agency, has alleged that the US has craft of non-human origin.

Information on these vehicles is being illegally withheld from Congress, Grusch told the Debrief. Grusch said when he turned over classified information about the vehicles to Congress he suffered retaliation from government officials. He left the government in April after a 14-year career in US intelligence.

Jonathan Grey, a current US intelligence official at the National Air and Space Intelligence Center (Nasic), confirmed the existence of �exotic materials� to the Debrief, adding: �We are not alone.�

DrSunshine fucked around with this message at 01:02 on Jun 11, 2023

# ? Jun 10, 2023 23:39

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 30, 2024 08:10

DrSunshine: Mar 23, 2009; Did I just say that out loud~~?!!!

Reserved space for various stuff possibly in the future.

# ? Jun 10, 2023 23:39

mediaphage: Mar 22, 2007; Excuse me, pardon me, sheer perfection coming through

thanks for the op op

idk if i�d say isaac is hard sci-fi skeptical; while fun, 90% of his videos are sci-fantasy that are just what ifs with no real basis in reality

# ? Jun 11, 2023 00:07

DrSunshine: Mar 23, 2009; Did I just say that out loud~~?!!!

mediaphage posted:

thanks for the op op

idk if i�d say isaac is hard sci-fi skeptical; while fun, 90% of his videos are sci-fantasy that are just what ifs with no real basis in reality

Depends on which one you watch imo. When he just casually throws a comment out about Boltzmann brains or something I'm kind of a bit like, ok, c'mon, but asteroid mining and space colonies and stuff strikes me as far less farfetched.

# ? Jun 11, 2023 00:09

A GIANT PARSNIP: Apr 13, 2010; Too much fuckin' eggnog

DrSunshine posted:

Depends on which one you watch imo. When he just casually throws a comment out about Boltzmann brains or something I'm kind of a bit like, ok, c'mon, but asteroid mining and space colonies and stuff strikes me as far less farfetched.

Sounds like something a Boltzmann brain would think.

# ? Jun 11, 2023 00:47

DrSunshine: Mar 23, 2009; Did I just say that out loud~~?!!!

A GIANT PARSNIP posted:

Sounds like something a Boltzmann brain would think.

I'll Boltzmann your brain if you don't shut up!!!!

# ? Jun 11, 2023 01:06

A GIANT PARSNIP: Apr 13, 2010; Too much fuckin' eggnog

Well as a Botlzmann Brain I thi-

# ? Jun 11, 2023 01:30

Dameius: Apr 3, 2006

Good OP. To bypass the Isaac is/is not, I'd redescribe it as speculative science science-fiction or harder on the soft/hard sci-fi scale level would work.

Also just because it'd be a shame to get lost to the last thread, early in the last thread we had a discussion on what silicon based life could maybe look like based on known chemistry that was super cool and fits perfect with the speculative science idea. It can be found starting here.

# ? Jun 11, 2023 01:58

DrSunshine: Mar 23, 2009; Did I just say that out loud~~?!!!

Dameius posted:

Good OP. To bypass the Isaac is/is not, I'd redescribe it as speculative science science-fiction or harder on the soft/hard sci-fi scale level would work.

Also just because it'd be a shame to get lost to the last thread, early in the last thread we had a discussion on what silicon based life could maybe look like based on known chemistry that was super cool and fits perfect with the speculative science idea. It can be found starting here.

Good one!

I've read some articles and followed some shorts on youtube that suggest that it might not really be possible to form Silicon-based life, unfortunately.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODprZlHeGrQ

Gonna requote this post because it was cool, for :science:

LtStorm posted:

I take issue with your issue. There's no guarantees silicon-based life would be rock anemones or stuck at the bottom of oceans. Well, no more guarantee than it'd be anything because we haven't met it yet. Now I get to talk about what I think about silicon chemistry!

Carbon is super-flexible, you are correct, but silicon is the second most flexible atom next to it (and is literally next to it on the Periodic Table meaning their properties are similar). Silicon is flexible enough to make macromolecules just like carbon, which is possibly the most important thing for it plausibly being a cornerstone of life and why we talk about silicon-based life. Macromolecules are, as the name suggested, large molecules; at their low end a macromolecule contains hundreds of atoms while at the high end it contains thousands of atoms. Small molecules, like the nucleic acids in our bodies (dozens of atoms each), come together due to their chemistry to form macromolecules such as DNA (thousands of atoms). The proteins in our bodies and any polymer we use in our lives are composed of macromolecules.

Making macromolecules requires a flexible atom able to form lots of bonds (lots in this context being four) as a base. Both carbon and silicon can form four bonds with four different atoms; they're both about equally good at that. One important feature of these flexible atoms is how they form long chains. Carbon has no problem forming long chains of itself; if you have a long chain of carbon with only hydrogens in every other available bonding position, you have a hydrocarbon; modifying them can make things important to our biochemistry like fatty acids. The silicon equivalent is a silane, which is hilariously flammable like hydrocarbons, but not nearly as stable. So while silanes, which are highly reactive in general, may be important to the biochemical reactions of a silicon-based life form, it's probably not going to around as a stable molecule. What silicon can do that carbon can't is form silicones. A silicone, as in the polymer we see in our every day lives, is a chain of alternating silicon and oxygen atoms. Silicones are highly stable and flexible with the theoretical ability to modify each silicon in the chain with up to two other atoms. Carbon doesn't form an exact equivalent of silicone--alternating carbon with oxygen in a chain makes an ether functional group which has its own complex chemistry. You can put ether functional groups in a chain but they tend to form a loop instead of a straight chain, which oddly enough is important to how Febreze and other odor eliminating products work.

Another thing you would need for life is a set of functional groups that have a variety of chemical properties they can imbue macromolecules with. For our carbon-based life, most atoms used in our functional groups are near carbon in the Periodic Table: nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorous, and sulfur. Other atoms used in our biochemistry are on the left side of the Periodic Table (hydrogen, sodium, magnesium, etc.) or near the center (iron, zinc, manganese, etc). While we don't know exactly what other atoms silicon-based life would use in its functional groups, it's easy enough to speculate it would share a lot of the atoms with us based on what we know about basic chemistry, the chemistry of silicon, and our own biochemistry. We know, for instance, that in our own biochemistry the elements carbon, nitrogen, and sulfur have a complex interlocked chemistry. Silicon does not interact with nitrogen directly, but has chemistry with carbon and sulfur. So functional groups for silicon-based life would have access to nitrogen as a key micronutrient much like we need iodine--or they may not use nitrogen at all. With carbon, we know silicon can form some functional groups and that they have a complex chemistry with each other because of the study of organosilicons. With sulfur, we know silicon can polymerize with it in a way that carbon can not, which would be an important difference in how silicon-based life works. Silicon does not interact with phosphorus much at all under Earth-like conditions, so if we found silicon-based life using phosphorous we'd probably learn something new about that chemistry. Lastly, one thing silicon is hands-down worse at than carbon is the ability to form double and triple bonds. Carbon is very good at both of those things which means they're a big part of the functional groups in our own biochemistry.

So silicon is flexible enough to plausibly build large macromolecules with, and we know from basic research into the chemistry of silicon that it can form functional groups with carbon, oxygen, and sulfur at the least. Once you have functional groups you need a set of molecular building blocks using those functional groups that fit together in a flexible way to build a macromolecule. As that macromolecule gets bigger it will start demonstrating unique properties due how its functional groups interact with each other and with functional groups in other small and macromolecules. In carbon-based life this would be where you building blocks like nucleic acids that are assembled to make a self-replicating macromolecule like DNA and RNA which is able to facilitate the synthesis of other macromolecules like proteins and other structures that make up the cells organisms are composed of.

So from this perspective there's nothing clearly standing in the way of silicon-based life being just as complex as carbon-based life. Silicon has its own bag of tricks to offer but we only poorly understand them because we haven't studied silicon and its ability to form macromolecules (this is something basic research would do, FYI) nearly as much as we've studied carbon and most importantly our own biochemistry. Most of our research into organosilicons is due to polymer research--so how to make different and better plastics (this is something applied research does, FYI).

The bigger hurdles to us imagining silicon-based life, from our perspective as carbon-based life, is what their basic building blocks and fundamental chemical reactions for them would be--which we have to completely guess at. For example, their biochemistry would definitely have several reduction-oxidation reactions somewhere in it (which doesn't have to involve oxygen in spite of the name of the reaction); for us one of those is carbon (solid) and oxygen (gas) forming carbon dioxide (gas). The equivalent for a silicon-based life form would be silicon (solid) and oxygen (gas) forming silicon dioxide (solid). So how they use that reaction would have to be completely different than how our form of life uses the equivalent. And of course because silicon reacts well with carbon it may just be that they use the same carbon and oxygen redox reaction as us.

When we think about silicon-based life we need to remember it doesn't have to exist at the same conditions as we do. What if they were on a planet halfway between Earth and Venus in conditions? I say this because one idea is that silicon-based life could exist at much hotter temperatures than carbon-based life. Going to a much higher temperature and pressure would mean changes to chemistry that would both make some reactions we benefit from unfavorable and unusual and vice verse. One other big question that also relates to the reactions that make this life possible is what solvent that silicon-based life would use as at a higher temperature water isn't going to work. Sulfuric acid is one suggestion because it boils at 300 C; so if silicon life using that would exist somewhere just below that temperature. Using sulfuric acid as a solvent would also make the chemistry happening completely different than how our life works and might have the benefit of making silicone-based macromolecules much more stable. An example in the difference of conditions is silicon nitride, an inert industrial chemical under Earth-like conditions. On a hot planet covered in sulfuric acid, silicon nitride would not exist as a compound--it would be dissolved so nitrogen would not risk being locked up in an inert compound and would go elsewhere in their environment and be available for biochemical reactions.

Living at a higher temperature than us hardly would stop a silicon-based life from space-faring anymore than we do from the perspective of life support--it's trivial to make a hotter box than what we do for traveling the delightfully insulating depths of space where you have more trouble getting rid of heat than generating it.

Of course, what kind of technology is possible on the planet they might live on is another question. The important thing is that if silicon-based life could form from abiogensis, there's nothing fundamental that we know of standing in its way of being as complex as us.

Citations: A lot of chemistry textbooks I've read because I'm a chemist. I like this one which is about supramolecular chemistry, the study of molecules--especially macromolecules--interacting with one another.

# ? Jun 11, 2023 02:48

mediaphage: Mar 22, 2007; Excuse me, pardon me, sheer perfection coming through

i�ve always been deeply skeptical that silicon would ever form life for a number of reasons but colliers youtube channel has a great video on it so you should just go watch it

# ? Jun 11, 2023 03:35

Boris Galerkin: Dec 17, 2011; I don't understand why I can't harass people online. Seriously, somebody please explain why I shouldn't be allowed to stalk others on social media!

Wasn't there suppose to be a huge info dump today in a major newspaper re: aliens? Don't tell me reddit lied to me!

# ? Jun 11, 2023 18:03

mediaphage: Mar 22, 2007; Excuse me, pardon me, sheer perfection coming through

Boris Galerkin posted:

Wasn't there suppose to be a huge info dump today in a major newspaper re: aliens? Don't tell me reddit lied to me!

no, but a lot of people are misunderstanding that that nyt op-ed about the whistleblower has a different headline in the print edition

also the grusch hour-long interview (followed by an hour of 'analysis') will be on newsnation tonight

# ? Jun 11, 2023 18:10

Bug Squash: Mar 18, 2009

I'm going to put my nickel down on no photos of craft, no physical evidence, lots of second hand claims. It's going to turn out later that the guys that work on captured foreign drones call them UFOs as a joke or something.

# ? Jun 11, 2023 18:46

mediaphage: Mar 22, 2007; Excuse me, pardon me, sheer perfection coming through

Bug Squash posted:

I'm going to put my nickel down on no photos of craft, no physical evidence, lots of second hand claims. It's going to turn out later that the guys that work on captured foreign drones call them UFOs as a joke or something.

well i think we already expect that since from the grusch pov it's classified information of the type he shouldn't release.

i guess i'm more interested in seeing what congress does because he's supposedly given information on things like program names and locations to congress.

either way an awful lot of people are staking their reps on these claims lol

# ? Jun 11, 2023 18:56

Dameius: Apr 3, 2006

The source will be Naomi Wolf who overheard people in a mall food court talking about their games of No Man's Sky and mistook it for aliens.

# ? Jun 11, 2023 19:39

Bug Squash: Mar 18, 2009

OK, if we can get footage of a four star general being asked to explain project "Garrus Tops 34" it'll be worthwhile.

# ? Jun 11, 2023 19:50

I AM GRANDO: Aug 20, 2006

If the core of this is that defense contractors are making secret deals to get money for not doing anything or negotiating deals without oversight, it doesn�t really have to have anything to do with aliens.

It�s hard for me to follow the contours of the guy�s argument because he uses imprecise language for everything that isn�t about ufos, but isn�t the deal with him that he was denied access to the accounts of some offices that do defense deals and they were paying out unaccounted-for money?

# ? Jun 11, 2023 19:50

mediaphage: Mar 22, 2007; Excuse me, pardon me, sheer perfection coming through

I AM GRANDO posted:

If the core of this is that defense contractors are making secret deals to get money for not doing anything or negotiating deals without oversight, it doesn�t really have to have anything to do with aliens.

It�s hard for me to follow the contours of the guy�s argument because he uses imprecise language for everything that isn�t about ufos, but isn�t the deal with him that he was denied access to the accounts of some offices that do defense deals and they were paying out unaccounted-for money?

also that a nontrivial amount of stuff is happening without congressional oversight

# ? Jun 11, 2023 19:53

Boris Galerkin: Dec 17, 2011; I don't understand why I can't harass people online. Seriously, somebody please explain why I shouldn't be allowed to stalk others on social media!

https://www.theregister.com/2023/06/12/astronaut_brain_recovery/

quote:

Study recommends mandatory 3-year vacation so astronauts' brains can recover

Scientists studying the brains of astronauts have discovered startling changes brought on by microgravity that has led them to recommend a three-year break between missions.

The study, published last week in Scientific Reports, looked at the brains of 30 astronauts before and after space travel, determining that the brain's cerebrospinal fluid-filled ventricles expand anywhere from 11 percent to an additional quarter of their original size the closer astronauts get to the six-month mark of their missions.

While the expansion tapers off around the six-month mark, it doesn't necessarily end, said Rachael Seidler, one of the study's authors and a professor of applied physiology at the University of Florida.

"Many astronauts travel to space more than one time, and our study shows it takes about three years between flights for the ventricles to fully recover," Seidler said. It's not all bad news, though: "We were happy to see that the changes don't increase exponentially, considering we will eventually have people in space for longer periods."

Complementing Seidler's team's discovery is previous findings which determined that spaceflight causes an "upward shift of the brain within the skull," leading to "cortical crowding and narrowing of the sulci at the top of the brain" that can be seen in a shift of gray matter volume at the top of the brain and a decrease at the base.

With that in mind, Seidler and company are urging caution. "We don't yet know for sure what the long-term consequences of this is on the health and behavioral health of space travelers, so allowing the brain time to recover seems like a good idea," the professor said.

[...]

I would love to spend 6 months in space and than take a 3 year paid vacation.

# ? Jun 12, 2023 17:33

Rappaport: Oct 2, 2013

Just build an O'Neill cylinder already, geez, we don't want space zombie brains roaming all over Earth now do we?

# ? Jun 12, 2023 17:39

mediaphage: Mar 22, 2007; Excuse me, pardon me, sheer perfection coming through

it�ll turn out to make you smarter while in space but dumber while on earth

# ? Jun 12, 2023 17:49

Raenir Salazar: Nov 5, 2010; College Slice

Rappaport posted:

Just build an O'Neill cylinder already, geez, we don't want space zombie brains roaming all over Earth now do we?

It's a bit premature in any case to assume this means humans can't survive travel in deep space, assuming that is your argument. It is a bit hard to tell after all what you're positions tend to be when you make your posts like this. In any case, discovering a potential problem is the first step to creating a solution.

After all only look towards malaria and its effects and we as a civilization eventually overcome that.

In fact you don't appear to have read the article very closely, as the conclusion and tone of the article contradicts your post. The people being interviewed take it as a given that people will be in space for longer time periods which is why it's important to study these effects and suggest guidelines until better solutions are developed.

Also you don't need an O'Neil cylinder for spin gravity! You can do it with basically just a soyuz capsule and a tether!

Unless you're just joking, in which case apologies if this seems a little aggro.

Raenir Salazar fucked around with this message at 17:55 on Jun 12, 2023

# ? Jun 12, 2023 17:50

Rappaport: Oct 2, 2013

Raenir Salazar posted:

It's a bit premature in any case to assume this means humans can't survive travel in deep space, assuming that is your argument. It is a bit hard to tell after all what you're positions tend to be when you make your posts like this. In any case, discovering a potential problem is the first step to creating a solution.

After all only look towards malaria and its effects and we as a civilization eventually overcome that.

Bizarre posting about posters aside, a lot of these health-related long-term effects such as bone density loss and now brain fluid... Things could potentially be alleviated by having at least some kind of artificial gravity-like forces. I am not sure why this caused you to have an apoplexy :shrug:

# ? Jun 12, 2023 17:55

Rappaport: Oct 2, 2013

Raenir Salazar posted:

Also you don't need an O'Neil cylinder for spin gravity! You can do it with basically just a soyuz capsule and a tether!

My secret, cap'n? I'm always joking.

But all kidding aside (get it?), I wanted to quote this rather than engage in an edit-war. An O'Neill cylinder obviously has its inherent dangers, like having the hull penetrated etc., but who exactly wants to be the bullet in David's sling? Yeesh.

And doesn't this actually fit into the idea of further exploiting space for ~~capitalist~~ Marxist expansion? A permanent, large space base would be a nice thing to have for launches and bringing in stuff from asteroid mine sites.

Of course there is a simpler way of bringing in stuff from orbit, but the splashes might make some nation-states irate.

# ? Jun 12, 2023 17:59

Boris Galerkin: Dec 17, 2011; I don't understand why I can't harass people online. Seriously, somebody please explain why I shouldn't be allowed to stalk others on social media!

You would still need to haul everything up into space to begin with if you're going to use an in-orbit spaceport as a launching point.

I thought this was basically SpaceX's plan with a hypothetical Mars-bound trip via the still-theoretical Starship platform, though.

Boris Galerkin fucked around with this message at 18:09 on Jun 12, 2023

# ? Jun 12, 2023 18:03

Rappaport: Oct 2, 2013

Boris Galerkin posted:

You would still need to haul everything up into space to begin with if you're going to use an in-orbit spaceport as a launching point.

This is true, and space stuff is expensive. But if you could assemble a big rig in space out of small bits brought in over time, like the ISS!, you're better off in the long run than trying to launch the Asteroid Eater 3000 from Florida in one piece. Of course long-term thinking is questionable these days.

# ? Jun 12, 2023 18:05

Raenir Salazar: Nov 5, 2010; College Slice

It's not posting about posters to point out that through a perpetually joking tone that swaps between joking and argument it can be difficult to read what you're actually trying to say anymore than your breaking bad gif.

Also do you really want me to repeat the Marxist argument again? I don't see the relevance regarding the technical specifics of O'Neil cylinders, which currently don't exist so it's hard to pull up imaginary blueprints to discuss performance and engineering tolerances, which is why I brought up that spin gravity proposals exist that don't rely on O'Neil cylinders, see zubrins book where he discusses the concept, there's plenty of others.

In any case I'm not sure that "the hull is punctured" is any more of a serious impediment than it is for any other spacecraft, or heck cities on earth which are at an equivalent risk of being struck by a meteor.

# ? Jun 12, 2023 18:05

Raenir Salazar: Nov 5, 2010; College Slice

Boris Galerkin posted:

You would still need to haul everything up into space to begin with if you're going to use an in-orbit spaceport as a launching point.

I thought this was basically SpaceX's plan with a hypothetical Mars-bound trip via Starship, though.

So there's a lot of different arguments and contexts happening at the same time.

If we're talking about what the most efficient and doable with modern tech approach to getting to Mars is, Zubrin and Mars Direct posits simply launching straight (directly) to Mars from the surface of Earth via a Leo heavy lift rocket.

The plan as described works elegantly by pointing out we don't need to send a rocket that has to also come back, we can send unmanned probes first which set up remote autonomous facilities to produce rocket fuel for the return trip which is easier as Mars has less gravity, the approach doesn't need more delta v because its using the 180 day approach to Mars instead of the 90 day approach, and thus slower and can aerobreak in Mars atmosphere, we can send several rockets to Mars to stock up on supplies in case anything goes wrong, and of course the trip would be luxurious and have gravity through the tether concept and the fact it isn't the 19 th century.

If we're talking about an O'Neil cylinder that's more hypothetical and relies on an preexisting economic base in outer space to support it, which would be after asteroid mining and a scientific outpost on mars has taken off.

If we're just talking about making the Iss but a little bigger, that isn't out of the question but unnecessary for Mars, maybe useful for prospecting the asteroid belt. But it isn't impractical with the current cost of space travel.

It isn't 50,000$ anymore to lift a pound. It's vastly cheaper.

# ? Jun 12, 2023 18:13

Rappaport: Oct 2, 2013

Raenir Salazar posted:

It's not posting about posters to point out that through a perpetually joking tone that swaps between joking and argument it can be difficult to read what you're actually trying to say anymore than your breaking bad gif.

Also do you really want me to repeat the Marxist argument again? I don't see the relevance regarding the technical specifics of O'Neil cylinders, which currently don't exist so it's hard to pull up imaginary blueprints to discuss performance and engineering tolerances, which is why I brought up that spin gravity proposals exist that don't rely on O'Neil cylinders, see zubrins book where he discusses the concept, there's plenty of others.

In any case I'm not sure that "the hull is punctured" is any more of a serious impediment than it is for any other spacecraft, or heck cities on earth which are at an equivalent risk of being struck by a meteor.

It was a png, not a jiff!

No, you don't need to repeat your arguments, I'm all for (cautiously) exploring the solar system. I am... Not sure why you think we need to discuss "engineering tolerances" of O'Neill cylinders of all things? It's great there's other arrangements out there, I'm just saying that it'd be, potentially, nicer to have a space station rather than swinging a capsule over a tether. But it's your space program, you do you.

And what is this? You know (presumably) as well as I do that Earthly cities have an atmosphere around them, a space station would not. Not only does this cut off (limits, if you prefer) certain unfortunate wave-lengths and particles, but it also burns up small objects.

Most other space-craft are on missions whose duration are measured in less than decades, and if they're not, well they see unfortunate side-effects. Our lovely new baby boy JWT was hit by some tiny pebbles somewhat unluckily early in his tenure and it had a noticeable womp-womp-sound attached. Space is dangerous! :ohdear:

# ? Jun 12, 2023 18:14

Raenir Salazar: Nov 5, 2010; College Slice

Rappaport posted:

It was a png, not a jiff!

No, you don't need to repeat your arguments, I'm all for (cautiously) exploring the solar system. I am... Not sure why you think we need to discuss "engineering tolerances" of O'Neill cylinders of all things? It's great there's other arrangements out there, I'm just saying that it'd be, potentially, nicer to have a space station rather than swinging a capsule over a tether. But it's your space program, you do you.

And what is this? You know (presumably) as well as I do that Earthly cities have an atmosphere around them, a space station would not. Not only does this cut off (limits, if you prefer) certain unfortunate wave-lengths and particles, but it also burns up small objects.

Most other space-craft are on missions whose duration are measured in less than decades, and if they're not, well they see unfortunate side-effects. Our lovely new baby boy JWT was hit by some tiny pebbles somewhat unluckily early in his tenure and it had a noticeable womp-womp-sound attached. Space is dangerous!

You brought up that O'Neil cylinders have inherent dangers, I cannot reasonably unpack every preexisting assumption you might have but I think it's safe to say we'll probably build them so the risk is as low as any other structure for its environment within reason as we have for all of human history. It'd be weird for engineers to do it any other way with so many lives and economic activity at stake.

Like this is the mean thing I am just going to point out that it isn't reasonable to ask that it be demonstrated in this thread how we'd solve every hypothetical engineering challenge 300 years in the future. You're just going to have to accept for the sake of the argument the common ground here that they are of that kind of problem, engineering challenges that come up to a hierarchy of competing concerns and requirements where the solution will come down to the economics and technological basis of the era constructing and designing them. I know on some level this isn't much different from some povs as saying "a wizard will handle it" but there isn't going to be any productive discussion without accepting it and moving on. Or accepting our a priori assumptions are different and moving on.

And no a city isn't protected from the atmosphere from a sufficiently big rock from space? The dinosaurs of they were still around would have a word with you. The point here is there's always risk and inherent danger for everything everywhere all at once, space is no different.

In any case, anything under the sun or around it is nice to have, no argument there, I am correcting what seems to be assumptions that need to be unpacked or adjusted regarding proper context.

And to repeat and expand again, current spacecraft is designed with certain mission parameters, it isn't saying anything to point out that their lifespan and durability is limited, they're designed that way. Same as T34s smashing fascists in WW2. Because the economics and politics don't dictate they last as long as possible. Clearly space habitats would be intended to last longer, with an end date in mind regardless before they will need to be decommissioned, but it's erroneous to make this comparison in this way. I'd expect them to last 25 years at first before replacement. Similarly to the lifespan of most other spacecraft.

# ? Jun 12, 2023 18:28

Precambrian Video Games: Aug 19, 2002

Raenir, it's not even the second loving page of this thread and you've already destroyed a strawman you made out of a random joke post (something you whine about incessantly regarding your own insufferable and interminable screeds), made a completely irrelevant historical comparison to malaria for no discernible reason, and referenced some poo poo from Zubrin's book that nobody asked about. Note that Rappaport at no point indicated or implied being unfamiliar with other types of space habitats besides O'Neil cylinders. Please just read whatever you're quoting and think about it for ten seconds before composing another hamfisted reply.

# ? Jun 12, 2023 18:29

cat botherer: Jan 6, 2022; I am interested in most phases of data processing.

Boris Galerkin posted:

https://www.theregister.com/2023/06/12/astronaut_brain_recovery/

I would love to spend 6 months in space and than take a 3 year paid vacation.

But you'd have spend 6 months in cramped boring space studio apartment and use a weird toilet. No thanks!

RE: silicon life, an even weirder, but potentially plausible form of life is one based on emergent dynamics of cold dusty plasma:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12466-could-alien-life-exist-in-the-form-of-dna-shaped-dust/
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/9/8/263/pdf

Examples of dusty plasmas include Saturn's rings and interstellar clouds.

The dynamics are very interesting. MHD fluid dynamics is already incredibly rich due to the addition of coupled EM physics - giving you different kinds of waves like Alfven waves and many other things. Dusty plasma kicks this up a notch. Energy in systems like these are pretty much equipartitioned between the degrees of freedom of that system. That means that things like free electrons tend to have high temperatures (velocities, roughly), whereas an incomparably more massive dust particle will be at a low temperature, encouraging stability. In addition, dust particles usually get a net negative surface charge, because negatively-charged electrons are more mobile than positively-charged protons or other ions, again due to their lower mass (this effect is also critical in lightning, where ice graupel gets a net charge).

This multi-temperature system allows for the formation of all kinds of plasma structures, including plasma "crystals" and DNA-like double helixes, capable of replication in simulations. More prosaic plasma crystals replicate the same lattices found in ordinary crystalline materials like metals (these are all described by the space group). These systems can even result in arrangements strongly resembling galaxies and their formation - hinting at these complex structures being related to statistically universal phenomena.

These structures can be stable due to the low temperatures of the dust phase. This kind of emergent complexity at the edge of chaos is exactly the sort of thing one needs for life. I personally think dusty-plasma life is more plausible than silicon life, but I wouldn't necessarily call it "likely". Who knows though?

Unfortunately, richer dusty plasma dynamics are very hard to study on Earth. With the effects of gravity, dusty plasma systems are mostly confined to 2d, but the richer 3d dynamics can happen in microgravity. I imagine these structures would also be very hard to study in nature, in places like Saturn's rings, because a spacecraft would disrupt the structures.

Here's a cool video of some experiments done in space:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kanYuBptuZ0

screenshot:

cat botherer fucked around with this message at 19:04 on Jun 12, 2023

# ? Jun 12, 2023 18:53

mediaphage: Mar 22, 2007; Excuse me, pardon me, sheer perfection coming through

the fact that it can form a double helix i don't find particularly indicative of its relevance to whether it can be a basis for life, though. if we found discrete information storage that was conserved through replications, thats obv more interesting.

not that i'm making GBS threads on the science, it's cool regardless. i just don't buy this life claim as anything more than clickbait

# ? Jun 12, 2023 19:01

cat botherer: Jan 6, 2022; I am interested in most phases of data processing.

mediaphage posted:

the fact that it can form a double helix i don't find particularly indicative of its relevance to whether it can be a basis for life, though. if we found discrete information storage that was conserved through replications, thats obv more interesting.

not that i'm making GBS threads on the science, it's cool regardless. i just don't buy this life claim as anything more than clickbait

The helices can replicate though (definitely in simulation, I don't know about any experiments). That does actually imply information storage. From there, one could even imagine things like a cellular membrane to shield the helices and stuff from external perturbations. Stable structures capable of replicating would become more numerous. This would conceivably allow mutations in such replications to introduce more robust or complex structures, and all of a sudden you have something like evolution.

The physics behind this is just so complex and interesting. It's the only thing I'm really aware of that could conceivably rival organic chemistry in that department. In addition, different sizes or species of dust particles could act like different "elements", capable of combining into stable arrangements in ways similar to chemical molecules. To be clear, I don't think that plasma life is necessarily probable, but I'd put it ahead of silicon-based life. At any rate, there is a lot more places dusty plasma in the universe than places capable of carbon- or silicon-based life, which helps right there.

cat botherer fucked around with this message at 19:26 on Jun 12, 2023

# ? Jun 12, 2023 19:07

Raenir Salazar: Nov 5, 2010; College Slice

eXXon posted:

Raenir, it's not even the second loving page of this thread and you've already destroyed a strawman you made out of a random joke post (something you whine about incessantly regarding your own insufferable and interminable screeds), made a completely irrelevant historical comparison to malaria for no discernible reason, and referenced some poo poo from Zubrin's book that nobody asked about. Note that Rappaport at no point indicated or implied being unfamiliar with other types of space habitats besides O'Neil cylinders. Please just read whatever you're quoting and think about it for ten seconds before composing another hamfisted reply.

I'm sorry that my form of argumentation doesn't appeal to you, but I don't think it can be denied that I put effort into them, and carefully layout my positions with evidence and reasoned argument and valid grounds. I don't think it's fair to casually dismiss them as "screeds" or to call them "insufferable" this is a debate and discussion forum.

Also it's just bizarre to me to say that I brought up things out from nowhere when I am clearly responding to something people said; or outlined very clearly that I am responding to a larger context. But in general I'm not sure why its reasonable to assume what people know, if they didn't indicate in the post what they know or don't know? That seems strange to me, I think its fair to mainly post in response to the text of what's posted unless its obvious. Like its safe to assume that a hypothetical someone knows the United States exists; its absurd however to assume someone knows about some specific space technology.

Also I don't think it's equally valid me getting annoyed at someone hypothetically strawmaning my positions, and me potentially misinterpreting a joke post. Humour is subjective, and not everyone on these forums is neurotypical, and if someone has layers of irony of course its possible it may be misinterpreted; the resolution there, is for the misinterpretation to be clarified, which I think it was? The result was a conversation.

# ? Jun 12, 2023 19:10

Precambrian Video Games: Aug 19, 2002

Raenir Salazar posted:

Also it's just bizarre to me to say that I brought up things out from nowhere when I am clearly responding to something people said; or outlined very clearly that I am responding to a larger context. But in general I'm not sure why its reasonable to assume what people know, if they didn't indicate in the post what they know or don't know?

"what people said" and "a larger context" are two completely different things, the latter of which you can expand to include anything like nebulous memories of posts from the old thread, so maybe just focus on the former? And you don't have to assume knowledge or that someone is perpetuating a misconception by not enumerating every possibility. You can just ask "Are you aware that there are other proposed habitats besides O'Neill cylinders?", for example.

quote:

Also I don't think it's equally valid me getting annoyed at someone hypothetically strawmaning my positions, and me potentially misinterpreting a joke post. Humour is subjective, and not everyone on these forums is neurotypical, and if someone has layers of irony of course its possible it may be misinterpreted; the resolution there, is for the misinterpretation to be clarified, which I think it was? The result was a conversation.

Again, you can ask a clarifying question "do you literally believe that space zombie brains will roaming all over Earth if we don't build an O'Neill cylinder for astronauts?" if you really consider it a matter of interpretation. Reframing the post as "so you think humans can't survive travel in deep space" is a strawman even before getting to the technicalities of whether the undead are a subset of or distinct from the living.

Raenir Salazar posted:

Rappaport posted:
And what is this? You know (presumably) as well as I do that Earthly cities have an atmosphere around them, a space station would not. Not only does this cut off (limits, if you prefer) certain
unfortunate wave-lengths and particles, but it also burns up small objects.

Most other space-craft are on missions whose duration are measured in less than decades, and if they're not, well they see unfortunate side-effects. Our lovely new baby boy JWT was hit by some tiny pebbles somewhat unluckily early in his tenure and it had a noticeable womp-womp-sound attached. Space is dangerous!

And no a city isn't protected from the atmosphere from a sufficiently big rock from space? The dinosaurs of they were still around would have a word with you. The point here is there's always risk and inherent danger for everything everywhere all at once, space is no different.

Here you reply to a post that's clearly talking about small objects (with further context referring to JWST being hit by pebbles) by referencing an impactor that's estimated to have been 10km across. What is the point of this? It's not even an order of magnitude good faith interpretation of the argument.

Precambrian Video Games fucked around with this message at 20:20 on Jun 12, 2023

# ? Jun 12, 2023 20:10

Dameius: Apr 3, 2006

Spacethread Episode 2: Attack of the straw impacts

# ? Jun 12, 2023 20:26

Precambrian Video Games: Aug 19, 2002

Raenir Salazar posted:

I'm sorry that my form of argumentation doesn't appeal to you, but I don't think it can be denied that I put effort into them, and carefully layout my positions with evidence and reasoned argument and valid grounds. I don't think it's fair to casually dismiss them as "screeds" or to call them "insufferable" this is a debate and discussion forum.

In the interest of making this remotely productive, I'll request that the next time you feel that need to quote Zubrin about something, please give a more specific reference, a full passage or even a screenshot of the page from the book (which I have been unable to find at any library and am unwilling to give him money for). You can't reasonably expect everyone here to read it, let alone have a photographic memory of its contents. Or even better, if you are aware of other non-Zubrin expert sources discussing realistic/recent plans for space stations, mining (commercial or otherwise) or colonization, by all means do share.

# ? Jun 12, 2023 20:27

Raenir Salazar: Nov 5, 2010; College Slice

eXXon posted:

"what people said" and "a larger context" are two completely different things, the latter of which you can expand to include anything like nebulous memories of posts from the old thread, so maybe just focus on the former? And you don't have to assume knowledge or that someone is perpetuating a misconception by not enumerating every possibility. You can just ask "Are you aware that there are other proposed habitats besides O'Neill cylinders?", for example.

Why is it this necessary? Why is this better than how I said it? I'm making an assertion of fact, I don't think it makes sense and would be untenably tedious in general to always have to ask someone if they're aware of a subject before asserting it. For example asking "Are you aware Modern Monetary Policy exists?" in response to someone being concerned about government debt, and can even patronizing, or more so.

Maybe you're misinterpretation my tone with my usage of exclamation points, but that's more me excitedly recounting that the technology exists, not being critical.

quote:

Again, you can ask a clarifying question "do you literally believe that space zombie brains will roaming all over Earth if we don't build an O'Neill cylinder for astronauts?" if you really consider it a matter of interpretation. Reframing the post as "so you think humans can't survive travel in deep space" is a strawman even before getting to the technicalities of whether the undead are a subset of or distinct from the living.

So, I will concede that this would've been better, and certainly would've given me a much stronger opening position; but don't you agree that simply saying this would've been leagues more constructive to begin with?

quote:

Here you reply to a post that's clearly talking about small objects (with further context referring to JWST being hit by pebbles) by referencing an impactor that's estimated to have been 10km across. What is the point of this? It's not even an order of magnitude good faith interpretation of the argument.

Well no. Because the common understanding of an O'Neil cylinder is something like Babylon 5 or those space colonies from Mobile Suit Gundam, and it seems unreasonable to conclude that microscopic space debris would be a significant threat to such structures to the point of threatening their viability as a concept or a concern we need to spend much time focused on. Hence why I mostly changed the discussion to respond about a broader topic about engineering design because it isn't really reasonable to look at more fragile craft and the threat envelops to them and than to suggest that this affects the viability of a vastly on orders of magnitude larger craft being build hundreds of years from now.

eXXon posted:

In the interest of making this remotely productive, I'll request that the next time you feel that need to quote Zubrin about something, please give a more specific reference, a full passage or even a screenshot of the page from the book (which I have been unable to find at any library and am unwilling to give him money for). You can't reasonably expect everyone here to read it, let alone have a photographic memory of its contents. Or even better, if you are aware of other non-Zubrin expert sources discussing realistic/recent plans for space stations, mining (commercial or otherwise) or colonization, by all means do share.

Lets back up a second here, when I first brought up that spin gravity can be done with a smaller craft, I didn't mention Zubrin; I later, in another post brought up Zubrin as a source to indicate that the concept exists and has some mainstream scientific proposals regarding it; to clarify that part of my post(s).

e to add: Most importantly, the other time I mentioned Zubrin; I went on to consequently succinctly summarize Zubrin's proposal outlined in his book to basically a single paragraph, so you can't say that I was expecting people to have read it or memorized it, that's just not accurate.

Raenir Salazar fucked around with this message at 20:46 on Jun 12, 2023

# ? Jun 12, 2023 20:33

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 30, 2024 08:10

ashpanash: Apr 9, 2008; I can see when you are lying.

mediaphage posted:

the fact that it can form a double helix i don't find particularly indicative of its relevance to whether it can be a basis for life, though. if we found discrete information storage that was conserved through replications, thats obv more interesting.

not that i'm making GBS threads on the science, it's cool regardless. i just don't buy this life claim as anything more than clickbait

It ain't life on Earth, that's for sure. I also want to see more than just simulations - it's hard to tell if they are fine-grained enough. But I can appreciate the hypothetical argument that "Life on Earth is a very rare, highly specialized and refined example of a much more vast gradient of naturally developing information conservation mechanisms."

# ? Jun 12, 2023 21:51

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Spacethread Episode 2: Attack of the UFO Guys

«‹›12 »