Slashdot Mirror

My understanding was that the crew limitation was due to water availability. NASA never installed the recycling component of the ECLSS ... thus requiring regular Shuttle resupply flights. They've been dumping waste water overboard (filling the Progress with "trash" for deorbit.) I've always thought it was criminal that NASA wasn't making self-sufficiency a primary goal of the ISS assembly process. It was pretty clear to me that they were delaying that capability as long as possible to justify additional Shuttle flights.

There are some good articles on these topics at www.firstscience.com

Getting to Mars
http://www.firstscience.com/home/articles/space/hu man-life-on-mars_34740.html/

How to get to earth orbit cheap
http://www.firstscience.com/home/perspectives/edit orials/how-to-get-to-space-cheap_32986.htm/

There are some good articles on these topics at www.firstscience.com

Getting to Mars
http://www.firstscience.com/home/articles/space/hu man-life-on-mars_34740.html/

How to get to earth orbit cheap
http://www.firstscience.com/home/perspectives/edit orials/how-to-get-to-space-cheap_32986.htm/

As an example, Einstein was able to predict not just that Newtonian physics would be an excellent approximation for almost all measurements made in his time, but also the behavior of a star behind the sun during a solar eclipse. This was a harsh test -- had he been wrong the star would not have been visible. Harsh tests is what makes a theory go from nothing to worth something.

So now we come around to the central criticism of string theory--no harsh tests to date. Even the recently proposed test of string theory would only show that some assumptions would have to be changed in the words of the proposer. This implies that string theory is a "calibration model" which means that when new data is brought to light a correction is applied. So, it isn't a test of the theory, it's a calibration. When you have a theory like this, it can't ever be wrong and it's impossible to disprove (there is always a new know to "calibrate") and it isn't science.

In theory, that could be a time machine... anyone know the details of the math?

1) http://www.firstscience.com/site/articles/gribbin. asp/ There's plenty more with a quick google. Ignorance does not mean actual absence of data.

2) Localized data set for a global climate model. Not relevant.

3) Your point that the water problem can be solved by engineering is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Though the original point itself has the problem of using a local datapoint to support a global climate event.

4) I'd say as well that no one said we'd have crop failures now. Give it another 50 years or so. Though deadly heat waves were rampant across the world last year.

5) No one said that local climates are directly to global trends. Not only that, but no paper argued that there'd be a linear increase in hurricane strength in the Golf of Mexico.

6) http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/03/03 25_030325_belizereefs.html/ Google for Coral Bleaching if you want to find out more what causes coral reefs to die. And no, contrary to your whishful thinking, it isn't divers that cause it.

7) In the same article you listed, there's this little quote. "Finally, Joughin says that two nearby West Antarctic glaciers are thinning rapidly, so the trend cannot be extended across the continent." It's at the end of the article, so I can understand why you didn't see it. Just for kicks, from the same site, here's another link: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6962/ Just google for Antarctic Ice sheet for more of the same.

8) Now you're either plain lying, or deliberately ignoring facts. In the 60s, the Ozone layer was fine. For the data, see here: http://www.atm.ch.cam.ac.uk/tour/part2.html/. Or just google for Ozone layer Antarctic.

I'm glad that people who deny Global Climate Change have such lousy arguments. It means there's plenty of money to be made from them once real issues hit.

It doesn't make sense to simply shade the earth. If you're going to the trouble of sending stuff into space you might as well set up a huge solar array that generates electricity and beams it down to the earth.

and/or flow velocity changes be measureable?

Errr... don't you remember all of the furor over the "Ocean Conveyor Belt" changing?

The fact of the matter is, that in order to acheive the stupdendous feats that Santa pulls off every year, he has to have technology so advanced that it makes the US military look *really* bad.

The fact of the matter is, that in order to acheive the stupdendous feats that Santa pulls off every year, he has to have technology so advanced that it .

can someone please give a brief explanation of what the big deal is with lunar dust?

It's very very fine dust; think of how plaster dust manages to get everywhere, even clogging vacuums.

It's also apparently quite sharp (what with the general lack of erosion up there), and thus it manages to not only get everywhere, but also be irritating when it does. For the google-impaired.

But what will you use? Solar? There is 1/16th the solar energy at that distance (http://www.firstscience.com/site/articles/sunshin e.asp) so probably not.

Wrong, the article says there's 1/16 as much solar energy when you go out as far as Jupiter.

There is 43% as much sunlight per unit area at the outer limit of Mars's atmosphere as at the outer limit of Earth's atmosphere (inverse square of distance, 1.52 times as far); and I suspect that Earth's atmosphere absorbs a greater proportion that Mars's does.

Whether or not we will ever colonize Mars is probably the least of the problems with this plan.

How do you generate the energy required to convert raw ores into something that is valuable enough to justify the cost of sending it off planet? You'd better have a cheap energy source.

But what will you use? Solar? There is 1/16th the solar energy at that distance (http://www.firstscience.com/site/articles/sunshin e.asp) so probably not. Besides you'd have to bring the panels with you so it would be pretty hard to build a large solar array.

  Oil or coal? Considering how little luck we've had finding signs of life on Mars, is it likely that enough bio-mass existed in the past to form these fossil fules? Even if it did how long/deep would someone have to dig to get it... and exactly what kind of mining equipment can you take with you on a trip to Mars? (It can't run on gas/diesel... at least not until you can extract and refine enough for your own mining equipment.)

Nuclear Fission? Hope there is a good supply of plutonium or uranium on Mars that is easy to access. Lets not forget the need to process it to a purity needed for a sustained reaction.

Nuclear fusion? Measurements of Mars's hydrogen levels (http://fuse.pha.jhu.edu/wpb/sci_mars.html) only show levels in the 16ppm range. Besides we'll need a fairly portable reactor or at least something that can be hauled to Mars and assembled there.

But, if you create such an energy source (portable fusion backpacks?) then why go to Mars? Surely with abundant cheap energy we could continue to mine our own planet for a very long time before costs would make going to a distant planet feasable.

The only way it pays to haul stuff into space from a planet is when the substance is extremely rare and extremely valuable. Now, if they were going to set up a spice mining colony... well then that would be different!

http://www.firstscience.com/site/articles/gravity1 .asp

Looks like your probably right- Even after 15 days of ball catching in micro gravity, astronauts still naturally reacted to the ball as if they expected it to accelerate downwards. It seems that the brain either remembers from catching as a child, or it's genetic.

Apollo was different. As you said, Apollo used a much lower working pressure, with a higher proportion of O2 to yield a normal O2 partial pressure. However, both ISS and Shuttle use sea-level normal atmospheric pressure.

References:

Indian newspaper, gives pressure in mmHg.
Random science site, gives pressure in psi.
Space.com article about the pressure leak that was experienced last year, gives the pressure in psi.

You're wrong, sorry. ISS and Shuttle use an oxy/nitro mix at full atmospheric pressure; not being a biomed person, I can't give you a good answer as to why, but I can confirm (both from publicly available information and personal experience working on Shuttle) that this is true.

It looks very similar to the artists conceptual pictures of the Aurora I have seen over the years.

I love to Google, so I'll be happy to lend a hand.

"nutmeg poisoning, severe toxic symptoms produced by ingestion of powdered nutmeg, characterized by narcosis with periods of delirium and excitability."

Dorland's Medical Dictionary

"Nutmeg is poisonous and should be used in moderation, a pinch or two is safe."

Encyclopedia of Spices

"Nutmeg is safe in very small amounts, but eating 1 to 6 tablespoons at on sitting can make you ill.

"Symptoms: Eating nutmeg causes headache, dizziness, nausea and aching muscles."

Everyday Poisons

"An hallucinogen and toxic."

Toxic Plants and Household Poisons

"888/ Nutmeg is extremely poisonous if injected intravenously."

Weird Science Fact File

"C. Nutmeg (Myristica spp.): Old World tropical hallucinogenic flowering plant, the source of nutmeg and mace. Probably pre-historical use. Taken orally or as a narcotic snuff. Extremely variable in effect, usually causes distortion of time and space perception."

Psychoactive Plants

Eh, close enough...

But I guess it has to stop now because some company is doing it. I know you retch at the fact Monsanto collects patent royalties and it makes me sick also, but it doesn't invalidate their work. Have a look at this page or read Sagan's books for more hints.

Not surprising...

They fail to mention what makes it a man-made structure. It looks like rocks to me? Did they shine a beam on it from outer space to determine it's wood or something?

If I believed in little gray men from Mars, I would certainly jump on this image of the Face on Mars as proof too.

I found a link in First Science, The Audacious Space Elevator

Later, Jerome Pearson thought about building a tower on the Moon. He determined that the center of gravity needed to be at the L1 or L2 Lagrangian points, which are special stable points that exist about any two orbiting bodies where the gravitational forces are balanced. The cable would have to be 291,901 kilometers long for the L1 point and 525,724 kilometers long for the L2 point. Compared to the 351,000 kilometers from the Earth to the Moon, that's a long cable, and the material would have to be gathered and manufactured on the Moon.

Well, here's hoping that something like CERN's black holes will eventually help us build a time machine.

*fingers crossed*

One has to wonder whether the US will admit to it's already built hypersonic aircraft nicknamed Aurora.

I also have a fanless computer.

And the book was Fountains of Paradise, I've still got a copy somewhere.

Chances are this is how we would first detect an asteroid withh our name on it.

I actually used some of these, these and these to build
some of these. They
tried to stop me by using these
and these
but I did not give in!
I know a guy and he helped me to bring these in so we could design and design some more and build some of these and these and fight everyone off and scary the rest.

So finally, I could use more of
these and these and these to get my freakingly cool nuclear powered microprocessor.

From the article:

It would be like having an electric cord stretched across the solar system," he said.

Then, I'm not so sure if we really want to do this... Maybe after the (soon and assured) completion of the moon elevator?

It seems a little like supersonductors... you just have to keep trying new materials.

There is a good article about BuckyBalls from First Science here as well

It seems a little like supersonductors... you just have to keep trying new materials.

There is a good article about BuckyBalls from First Science here as well.