Curious layman

Senior Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

9 Neutral

About Curious layman

  • Rank
  • Birthday May 21

Profile Information

  • Location
    Wales U.K.
  • Interests
    Science, engineering, technology, pizza
  • College Major/Degree
    I wish
  • Favorite Area of Science
  • Biography
    liberal at heart. Never voted.
  • Occupation
    Factory (nights), ReflexAllen - engine parts for HGVs, (Volvo, Scania, DAF )

Recent Profile Visitors

1195 profile views
  1. Ok not nudity, just blatant porn. Was looking for article about Japanese nurses a while ago....Jesus Christ..
  2. Agreed (unless you have I.D), and let's get rid of all the murder videos as well, there Disgusting.
  3. Loved The Expanse, Altered Carbon was good too. The effects were much better than the storyline. Hopefully the next series will be better. Cant get enough of Narcos etc.. always with subs though, dubbing ruins it I think.
  4. I It would be boring on Mars too. I think of it like being in the middle of the Sahara desert, the excitement would wear off pretty quick for me. Unless it was near Hydrothermal vents. That would be exciting. I don't think watching 185 mph (300km/h) winds go around a whole planet would be monotonous, think of the view, I could watch it all day. Above is an idea by NASA, - HAVOC airship. Some lander ideas for Venus. There are also some advantages to colonising Venus.
  5. warp calculator from Asteron X. Also got black hole engines and energy shield videos, and more.
  6. That's very confusing. How can you teleport the state and not the particle, is that even teleportation? Are they using hyperbole to make it sound more exciting?
  7. I was thinking of just a flyby of Venus, not actually landing. Didn't think about the difficulty of heat loss in space and the extra gravity compared to Mars. Always thought the extra solar radiation would be a plus. Solar flares would be a bigger problem as well I imagine. Id still rather visit an airship above Venus than a base on Mars though. What a shame the Russians stopped going to Venus. Just think of the robotics and advanced materials they would have if they'd kept sending landers.
  8. The Road by Cormack McCarthy. Post-Apocalyptic, Not too long, simply written, absolutely brilliant.
  9. Ok these replies are great but I didn't explain myself properly, what I was trying to do was get an image in my head of how much energy it would be. It's like when people compare something to Olympic sized swimming pools, or Hiroshima bombs, it makes it's easier for everyday people to understand. I can get a good scale of the space shuttle in my head, that's why I chose that. The antimatter and location of ship was irrelevant, The explosion bit was because you can tell me all the numbers you want, but the truth is they don't really help me, I need an image. This helps a lot. Thank you.
  10. I'm thinking about the psychology/experience of the astronauts and mission control. being so far from earth, I've heard it could be a big problem psychologically. Keep going further and further out each time would be best I think. As Venus is closer, it would be best (and I assume safer) for a first extra long mission. Then a longer one to Mars. Then one around Mars but land on Phobos, you get the experience of going out that far and landing, but it will be safer because a lot of the equipment would have been tried and tested on Moon, this would be invaluable experience for mission control. Then, when we land on Mars it's much more likely to be successful because of the experience we gained. All this crap about landing on Mars in the 2030s seems like a recipe for disaster to me. Too rushed. 2050s would be better, and more realistic. And also, I prefer Venus to Mars. Never been excited by Mars personally.
  11. Venus is a lot closer to mars, so as a first step to long distance space travel it would be better. We'll allready have the tech to go the moon so why not land on Phobos first, maybe get fuel also. I'm thinking if we take longer, and do it in smaller steps it will be easier to achieve, and more likely also. Maybe cheaper too, as the private sector will be a lot bigger. my feelings are that NASA should be focused on living long term in space and the moon(s) and sending probes/robots to planets, not people. Pointless waste of money (at the moment anyway). Mars should be just another stepping stone, not a one off mega project that's so expensive it's unlikely to be repeated for decades.
  12. This is why I think going to mars straight away is not only a bad idea but doomed to failure. Talk about a giant leap... instead we should go to moon, orbit Venus, orbit Mars, land on Mars moon Phobos, then land on Mars. At some point in the future the sun will die so we'll have no choice to leave (please correct me if I'm wrong). but all the evidence to me seems to suggest that if we do get to another star, we'll be so advanced at living in space we won't need to colonise any planets. this is why I think we need to put ourselves there instead. Sort of really advanced biological 3D printing, make us so that we are able to live in the local environment, but then could that still be considered human? Would the advanced AI you would need be like God? Or would we be like God? Maybe best to use our knowledge to try and kick start life on other planets instead.
  13. Incidentally the STS is one of my favourite feats of engineering. Incredible.
  14. Got it from this. Still not 34 though.
  15. Israel didn't learn anything from the war? I'd say Israelis attitude to security and terrorism counters that, Google Mossad. if it's a reference to Israel acting in a similar way to the Nazis then do you have any evidence of concentration camps, forced labour, Human experiments, Ethnic cleansing?