|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 04:07 |
|
|
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
|
|
|
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. 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 posted:
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
|
|
It was a png, not a jiff!
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
I don't have much to add to the cool space plasma DNA chat which is really cool, but a thought occurs to me if an infinite field of rocks can be turing complete, maybe so can random space plasma?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2023 22:48
|
|
|
Wafflecopper posted:Calling it now, WW3 will be fought for control of non-existent alien tech each side is convinced the other has Here's the thing, do we have any evidence that UFOs are a thing in either the FSU or China or Iran? I feel like being more closed as societies means instead of assuming the government is lying about UFOs its much more plausible to assume the government is lying about new military technology or secret police actions.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2023 14:20
|
|
|
We are at least culturally enriched by the existence of the golden disc because of Beast Wars.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2023 20:41
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:Virgin Galactic had their first commercial mission with some Italian air force guys. They've been working on this for so long I kind of forgot about the whole project until now. Might be that more fuel would be a lot more expensive as they would be heavier and thus need to burn more fuel to get the added weight up so this is the sweet spot for time in microgravity for the prices they're charging?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2023 20:45
|
|
|
Boris Galerkin posted:The stream I stumbled onto and watched was very choppy and low quality but one thing I remember is the (I think) Italian guy unbuckling himself and going over to the back and turning on a PC or something. The people announcing it said this was the experimental payload and I just kept wondering what the gently caress kind of experiment can you perform in low/micro gravity for only a couple of minutes that would produce anything useful. A lot I imagine. They wouldn't be paying a lot of money to do an experiment like that in microgravity if the results weren't worth it one way or another. But I also imagine that by "experimental payload" they meant that the experiment was carrying something on the ship for the flight (crew? Something else? An ant colony?) and not that they're performing an experiment in those 2 minutes.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2023 21:48
|
|
|
Cool stuff!
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2023 12:38
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:In order to divert more funding to manned space exploration, I'm going to start an ivermectin-style conspiracy theory that cosmic radiation adds +30 years to your life span. Hahahaha. 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2023 17:03
|
|
|
There was neat world building thread at stack exchange I liked, where I think people were discussing how large you could get a "living" "organism" to be and I thought about it and wondered if that way you could get some truly Lovecraftian poo poo. Like a giant weblike lattice of cancer cells that are solar sailing their way across the universe leaving "pods" that consume the world they get laid on to form more cancer webs to sail through space like dandelions.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2024 14:42
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:Isn't this, like, the plot of Dead Space? Well no, Dead Space is cosmic horror in the soft scifi sense in that the Brethren Moons are like, literally evil and direct the evolution and development of species just to be hosts for new Brethren Moons, and are like, all smaller sized Unicrons in that they can move at FTL speeds? Plus Convergence is like a Psychic Neo-Physics thing like Mass Effect's psionics or the Warp from Warhammer 40,000. My thing was more like, at actual galactic timescales where you got this lattice drifting through space propelled by photons or cosmic rays until it finds a random world, it doesn't have to be one with life, just as long as it has the chemistry to support the growth of more cancer cells. It might be deadspace like where it can be fun to imagine the cancer derived parasitic lifeforms that evolve to form a symbiotic relationship with the cancer web/world it settles on; but the idea here is the thought experiment of "How large for a given definition of 'large' can something evolve if given the energy and nutrients?" And I think I remember seeing something about if you think about it if a forest is an organism or some kinds of mushroom colonies, then why not like some kind of huge planet wide lattice? And once it gets into space and catches like, space rocks that might have water and whatever on it, maybe it can grow even larger?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2024 14:52
|
|
|
Vorenus posted:I mostly came in to shitpost about a cool theory I recently encountered: Our universe is actually the other side of a black hole in another universe. There's no evidence that this absolutely is or must be the case, but a CERN physicist made a very good (to my non-expert understanding) case for why the math says this is absolutely possible. The best part being that there's no way to prove this by testing black holes in our own universe given the whole one-way trip thing. Isn't it kinda a thing in theoretical physics where you can construct any internally consistent thought experiment by playing around with the numbers but often are untestable? Like sure, don't get me wrong, it sounds cool. But isn't this a widespread thing with a lot of proposals?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2024 15:57
|
|
|
Libluini posted:To be fair, a lot of people have come forward about ghosts, too. Ghosts are absolutely real though. 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2024 14:13
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 04:07 |
|
|
I fully believe we'll get an Expanse like space future just from good ol' capitalism but you can generally see my arguments for this in the previous version of the thread.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2024 03:04
|
|