Mgellis

This is very helpful. Thank you.

This is very helpful. Thank you.

Thanks for the reply. What about settlements built into the ice? I'm thinking that people might want to build deep into the ice, maybe hundreds of meters down, taking advantage of all that space. Or would it simply be so much easier to build on the surface, put a foundation on the ice and then build the settlement on the foundation, and then cover the settlement with a layer of ice for radiation shielding, maybe even dome the whole thing over, that it just would not be worth bothering with deep ice tunnels and warrens? One factor here is that people would want to build elevators down to the subsurface oceans, especially if they find life there. But I imagine it is a lot easier to insulate a couple of elevator shafts than an entire town. It sounds like the critical factor is insulation...as long as you keep the heat away from the ice, it is much less likely to melt, shift, etc.? And this can be done with a platform or some other kind of insulating layer(s). Am I getting this right? Thanks!

Non-engineer doing research for a story... Recently, there has been discussion of colonizing Jupiter's large moons in the long term. One solution offered to the problem that the Jovian environment has lethal levels of radiation is to simply build colonies under the icy surfaces of these moons. This would also be done to provide access to the subsurface oceans of these moons. But this got me thinking about another potential problem...how stable is the ice? Especially if you are producing a town's worth of heat. Wouldn't you eventually cause so much melting that whatever foundation was holding your town in place would fall apart or collapse? Or have the ice shift in a way that would cause trillions of tons of it to squish your nice colony buildings? Or...are there ways (with current physics/no magic) to keep this from being a problem? Assuming you have the technological base to get people to the Jovian moons, would there be practical ways to brace/insulate/support the colony and/or divert heat away from the ice (radiator systems piping the heat to the surface, possibly capturing some of it for energy, etc.) so the colony would not constantly be at risk? I mean, eventually, they might have to replace some components, etc. but that's just normal wear-and-tear on any mechanical system. Sorry in advance if I am missing something obvious...as I said, I'm not an engineer, so I just don't know. Any thoughts on this? Thanks in advance.

Non-scientist here doing some research for a story... I know that a species needs a certain minimum population to avoid dangerous inbreeding. I've heard different estimates, but the 500/5000 rule seems to be one experts consider reliable. Do all of these creatures have to be currently present? Could you, for example, have 50 individuals at any one time, but have 5,000 genetically diverse embryos in cold storage, and use artificial insemination to add new genetic material to the herd/pack/etc. every other generation or so? You would probably have to collect new embryos every once in a while, but it would take a while to cycle through your entire supply of embryos. Does this sound plausible? Or is there a better way to do this? Assume one reason for doing this is a lack of space--there is room for 50 of these animals (e.g., lions) but not 5,000 of them (i.e., a large rotating space habitat designed as a nature preserve). Any thoughts on this? Thanks in advance.

Various people have said it would be possible for people to fly with strapped-on wings if they were in a low gravity environment like the Moon (and assuming the air pressure was about the same as on Earth). Okay, I'm certainly willing to believe that, but I want to know how this would work. Is it simply a matter that people could produce enough thrust with the wings to lift themselves into the air once they reached a certain low weight? (For the sake of argument, let us assume a 4-meter wingspan and about 4 square meters of wing surface.) I'm not sure I could flap my arms fast enough to lift myself off the ground even if I did only weigh 30 lbs. I know some birds can do that, but their bodies (musculature, etc.) are optimized for flight. Would a person be able to just slip on a pair of wings in 1/6th gravity, flap away, and rise into the air? Would they be able to do it on a moon with lower gravity, like Triton, where I believe the gravity is only 1/12th Earth normal? Anyone have any ideas what the math says about this--how much thrust can a person actually produce by flapping their arms and how much lift would you get if you had some wings strapped on? I suspect mechanical wings, with their own motors, and some kind of battery would be more feasible. The wings could then flap independent of how much strength a person had in their arms (this way, they also would not get tired), although I'm not sure how long the battery would last. I suppose if it's anything like my electric leaf blower, 30 minutes or an hour. And probably longer since we're assuming this would be in the future when we have colonies on the moon and battery technology should get at least a little better than what it is now. Any thoughts on all this?

I'm inclined to buy into the idea that artificial consciousness is not going to happen. I am interested in a related issue... Assuming it was possible to create a synthetic model of the brain, using the same kind of architecture, modeling what cells do with electronics in terms of forming connections and exchanging signals, and letting it learn simply by experiencing data, could that be conscious? Or, does consciousness depend on something first being alive? (This might actually be part of the "solution"--perhaps the same kind of physical complexity that is required for something to be alive is a prerequisite for something to be complex enough to be conscious...the first is one of the parts you have to have to have the other and even if you could isolate the "consciousness" part, it won't work without the "alive" part. I hope that makes sense.) What are your thoughts on this? Thanks.

I know that the term "subspecies" does not really have a precise definition, but I was wondering if there was a kind of consensus used by biologists. I imagine there is a kind of "critical mass" of difference where most people look at two animals and say, "yeah, that's not just two different animals anymore; those are actually different subspecies." But where is the line? Yes, obviously, it must vary from case to case, but are there any guidelines that biologists use? Also, I know that "breed" implies human intervention. But why are breeds not subspecies? Why, for example, are Shiba Inus and Beagles not separate subspecies? Is it simply that they don't occur without human intervention? Thanks.

I'm coming to this discussion late, but I would add that you don't need to worry too much about "spoiling" the book (or having your stuff stolen). Beta readers represent only a small part of your potential audience. And, while people do get plagiarized every once in a while, it really doesn't happen that often. Good luck with the story.

As I understand it, Jack Horner has been doing experiments reactivating dormant genes in chickens with the hope of creating a kind of neodinosaur. I guess this has been going on for several years. I had heard he had some early successes (e.g., getting the chicken to grow teeth, etc.) but there were also some hurdles. I haven't been able to find anything about this work recently. Has anyone heard or read anything about this research? Will chickensaurus stalk the land anytime soon? Thanks in advance.

Hi, I'm Mark. I'm a retired English professor who has always loved both science and science fiction. I'm doing a bit of writing these days (it keeps me from hovering around my wife and annoying her) and because I try to get the science right in my science fiction I sometimes have questions. It occurred to me that asking real scientists is probably a good way to get some of them answered. Anyway, hello. It's great to meet you all and I look forward to some interesting conversations.