Jump to content

Moontanman

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    11453
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9

Posts posted by Moontanman


  1. Wait!!! You mean we could have fixed this POTUS thing that plagues us by simply stopping that Homo sapiens from having sex with that Pongo noselfestemii???


  2. 1 hour ago, swansont said:

    Have we done any manufacturing in space? 
     

    Yes, yes we have on a tiny scale on the ISS https://www.nasa.gov/oem/inspacemanufacturing

    1 hour ago, swansont said:

    Have you presented an analysis to support the claim that it will cut costs to do so?

    There you got me,it was an assumption on my part that using in situ materials instead of hauling them up of earths grvity well would be less expensive. 

    1 hour ago, swansont said:

    I didn’t say you made a claim about speed. You referred to a claim about speed. I want to know details about what you’re referring to.

    https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/120270-us-navy-ufo-video/page/5/?tab=comments#comment-1140011

    I asked string junky about the speed of drones, he answered me. 

    1 hour ago, swansont said:

     

    All known physics? Freeman Dyson was able to popularize an idea that violates all known physics? How does it violate the laws of thermodynamics? Newton’s laws?

    No, a distorted take on a dyson sphere was popularised, he was talking about a swarm of small objects in space that could harvest all the energy of the sun, O'Neil cylinders were part of what he envisioned... 

    1 hour ago, swansont said:

    I never mentioned a Dyson swarm. Stop pretending I did. (funny how the don’t mention how a Dyson sphere violates all physics, though)

    Again dyson's vision was of a swarm not a solid shell covering a star... others came along later and didn't understand his Idea. 

    1 hour ago, swansont said:

    I never claimed otherwise.

    Is the ISS a Dyson swarm?

    It is an orbiting space station but anything functioning in space around the sun can be defined that way. A dyson swarm has to start with the first object.

    1 hour ago, swansont said:

    Straw man. My comment was regarding extraterrestrials visiting, and these are not crewed vessels.

    I would not expect the objects on film to be manned nor would I expect them to have traveled from another star. Either a manned mothership sends them or an AI machine... if indeed they are anything but military drones testing our technology.

    1 hour ago, swansont said:

     

    Are you not capable of determining whether or not I called something impossible?

    evidently not

    1 hour ago, swansont said:

    You have not answered questions, and provided jokes instead. Not acknowledging that you made a reference to speed.

    In all honesty i had forgotten but thank you for reminding me.

    1 hour ago, swansont said:

    Every reference of mine to a logical fallacy is tap-dancing.

    Thank you or pointing that out.

    1 hour ago, swansont said:

    Based on our experience building things in space? You say pithy things like this, but provide NO analysis to back it up

    https://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/factsheets/Bldg-structures.html

    https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2020/astronauts-robots-and-the-history-of-fixing-and-building-things-in-space

    1 hour ago, swansont said:

    You can search this thread. The search box is in the upper right corner (choose the “this topic” radio button)

     

    Thankyou.  


  3. 1 hour ago, Bufofrog said:

    Yes the future will be just glorious. 

    In 1968 when 2001 A Space Odyssey was written most people (I sure did) believed that by 2001 we would have space liners taking tourists to the moon, like the book.  I mean it made sense; in less than 10 years we were on the cusp of people landing on the moon, imagine what would happen in the next 30 years.  Well not much happened.  It is now almost 50 years since anyone has been on the moon.  Why?  The public lost interest and funding dried up.  That's reality.  Frankly, at this point I think we should stop human space travel and instead of pouring money into human space flight use that money to concentrate on robots and ai to explore.  By the way 'pour in money' in this case is about 0.2% of the federal budget.  NASA budget is 0.47% of the federal budget and human space flight is 48% of NASA budget

    I hope I'm wrong and we colonize the galaxy.  I would really like to have drink in a bar on Tatooine.😃

    What I am saying is that once we establish a manufacturing base in space that uses in situ materials the economics of space flight will change. Right now everything has to be dragged out of the Earth's gravity well, the economics of that is truly staggering but building a brobdingnagian object in space using materials already there will cut costs considerably. 

     

    1 hour ago, MigL said:

    IIRC an O'Neill cylinder actually consists of 2 counter-rotating ( once about every 2 min ) cylinders, about 5 mi in diameter, and 20 mi in length. Each cylinder is divided lengthwise into 6 alternating transparent and habitable areas,, for a total habitable area of almost 1900 mi^2.

    Since these cylinders rely on sunlight just as the Earth does, any travel away from the Sun would need not only propulsive power, but also a replacement for sunlight. You mentioned nuclear power ( fission ), but that would involve carrying all of the fuel for the long journey with you, as well as the shielding. Your original idea of fusion ( from a Bussard ramjet type of propulsion/power source ) seems more practical, other than the fact that it doesn't exist yet ( fusion in a hi-speed flow ), and may never exist; and you would still need an alternate means of propulsion ( chemical or fission ) to get up to sufficient speed for the 'scoops' to be efficient, and establish orbit at your destination. Then you would need landing craft, and fuel to make all the landings ( and take-offs ) to transfer the ( by then ) large colony of the two cylinders.

    Once you actually start considering the scale and logistics of such a project, you realize how immense an endeavor it actually is.
    But it does seem simple enough to say " You take an O'Neill cylinder, slap a fusion reactor on one end, and you have your slow boat."
     

    Perhaps I dumbed down the concept a bit, I am trying to avoid as much typing as possible since I almost sliced off my thumb a few days ago. Yet trying to type fast to avoid the boss, my wife my wife hits me in the head with a ball bat, plastic thank god, when she catches me... Actually, if you on a slow boat fuel requirements are smaller and a solar sail could be used to slow down at the end.

    1 hour ago, swansont said:

    You asked “How about the speed claims?” I want details.

    I am honestly unaware of where I made any claims about speed, please let me where and I'll either defend to admit i was wrong.

    1 hour ago, swansont said:

    You don’t get to back out by saying they weren’t yours.  You brought it up. You need to defend it.

    See above...

    1 hour ago, swansont said:

    No, assume I meant what I said.

    An actual dyson sphere consisting of a solid sphere covering the sun violates all known and hypothetical physics...

    1 hour ago, swansont said:

    My point. Have your claims been tested to a degree that would allow one to see if there is a similar violation? Or are they flights of fancy with similar disregard

    https://www.space.com/38031-how-to-build-a-dyson-swarm.html

    1 hour ago, swansont said:

     

    And yet one of these actually exist (using technology from ~60 years ago) and the others do not

    Sending small objects in orbit to build larger structures is currently being done, the international space station is an example.

    1 hour ago, swansont said:

     

    Don’t be moving the goalposts. I did not claim anything was impossible, especially in the context of physics laws being violated. My first response was to the claim about people who “think it likely that extra terrestrials may have visited Earth”

    ????

    1 hour ago, swansont said:

    You talked about physics preventing it. (I noted that you don’t have any analysis to support that).

    I was answering the idea that physics prevent star travel when in fact it does not.We currently have two space craft on the way to doing it.  Time and energy are what it's all about, which do you have the most of?
     

    1 hour ago, swansont said:

    And now we’re at “impossible”

    "To say anything is impossible you must point out something about it that supports that idea. Neither space travel, dyson swarms, O'Neil cylinders, or star travel has any impossible or even yet to be invented aspects but controlled fusion would be a nice touch for star travel....

    If you did not say these things were impossible I apologize

    1 hour ago, swansont said:

    Nope. Not letting you get away with that, especially on top of you backing out of other claims. Every time you are asked to support claims, you start tap-dancing.

    Please show me were I am tap dancing around anything?

    1 hour ago, swansont said:

     

    Scale is often a problem

    Building things in microgravity redefine scale...

    I cannot find where I claimed much of the stuff you are asking about,sadly there appears to no way to tell what number post I said these things, I feel overwhelmed swansonT but I will say,and please take note of this I am hear to learn not to convince people of things not true but answering this post makes me feel like you have mistaken I said either out of context or attributed to me something someone else said. I need help here, please show where I claimed these things. I have labeled them with question marks for your benifit...  


  4. 5 minutes ago, swansont said:

    Were any of claims regarding speed the result of measurement?

    Wasn't my claim...

    5 minutes ago, swansont said:

     

    That’s almost equivocation. 

    One can cite hypothetical technology like Dyson spheres under the same notion, but it ignores all of the technological steps that are required to work that get glossed over, since there’s no analysis being done. Orbital insertion, OTOH, relies less on specific technology and more on physics analysis. Can you offer up either one (detailed analysis of technology, or physics)?

    First I am going to assume you mean a dyson swarm and not an actual sphere which is beyond any known materials physical strength, actual or theoretical. A dyson swarm is just physical application of known materials and physics. 

    Orbital insertion requires technology much the same way a dyson swarm does as does a O'Neil cylinder. To say anything is impossible you must point out something about it that supports that idea. Neither space travel, dyson swarms, O'Neil cylinders, or star travel has any impossible or even yet to be invented aspects but controlled fusion would be a nice touch for star travel.... 

    An O'neill cylinder is well within the boundaries of current technologies much the same as sending something into earth orbit is,  just on a larger scale...


  5. 6 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

    Yes I have heard of them.  Did you know that generation ships don't exist, except in science fiction, like Star Trek.

    Yet they can exist unlike ftl star ships?

    6 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

    I think that may be possible, but it course there would be no astronauts involved.

    Who says astronauts have to be involved?

    6 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

    Except they don't exist and the cost is so prohibitive

    The cost of setting up a place to manufacture them is costly, once you have that infrastructure the cost falls off. Can you think of how costly building a modern car would have been in the 19th century?

    6 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

     

    Yep, just invent something that doesn't exist and we are on way.   Of course it would still be too expensive and too slow

        

      Why is it too expensive and too slow? I have not suggested any impossible technology and only fusion has yet to be invented and you could do it with nuclear power, it would just be more difficult...

    6 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

    If interstellar space travel existed maybe, but there isn't any.  There has literally been billions of years for an alien species to have colonized the galaxy, it hasn't happened because unfortunately it simply appears, you can't get there from here...

    So if something hasn't been invented yet it's impossible? Tell that to Einstein...

    6 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

    There is nobody that would love to have interstellar space travel more than me, but the physics and the economics at this point and in the foreseeable future make it essentially impossible.  I will have to enjoy going to other stars in the pages of sci-fi books.☹️

    The economics will be a problem but not forever.

    6 minutes ago, swansont said:

    physics in no way prevents star travel”

    I honestly don't know how to answer this, it's like you are asking me to prove physics doesn't prevent space flight...

    6 minutes ago, swansont said:

    Were any claims made based on measurements?

    I'm not sure what you mean

    6 minutes ago, swansont said:

    As with Alex’s comment earlier, how about not relying on unproven technology or science that is not currently confirmed. 

    Conjecture is not evidence

    Other than fusion, which I admitted wasn't a thing yet, I think you need to elaborate about what you mean by "science that is not currently confirmed" and "conjecture"... Until you do something it's conjecture but as long as the conjecture isn't impossible I think you are incorrect. I can conjecture from a knowledge of physics that orbital insertion of a satellite is possible without doing it... 


  6. Just now, Bufofrog said:

    Well let's look at the speed of space craft first.  The fastest manned spacecraft flew at about 25,000 mph, back in the 1960's.  The fastest space craft ever attained a speed of about 150,000 mph.  That is an increase of about 5X, not bad.  To get to 10% the speed of light we would need an additional increase of about 4000x.

    Where would we go?  The chances of finding a planet that has an environment that we could survive in with out some sort of protective suit is nil.  Think Mars or Venus.  In all likelihood the trip would take hundreds of years so the ship would be absurdly huge.  Even if we assume that the closest extra solar system to earth had a planet to land on, that would be a trip of more than 45 years.

    The cost would be staggering and the benefit (other than feeling good) to the people footing the bill would be nothing.  We have trouble funding space flight now, think of trying to convince the public that every family should pay several thousand dollars a year to the government to send a few people out into space with a reasonable chance of utter failure.

    There are radiation issues and others the list of problems is huge.

    Personally, I think the world should start realizing that there is no new frontier outside of a few individuals being sent on missions to the moon, mars and some asteroids.  We ain't getting off of this rock and we should start treating the Earth based on that realization.

     

    You've been watching too much star trek, ever hear of generational ships? Or exploration by AI machines? Slow boats are perfectly good and of course some think that Oneal cylinders are the best way to colonise the solar system. All you need to do is add a fusion drive and you can slow boat it to alpha centauri. It would be possible to colonise the entire galaxy in the time it takes the sun to rotate once around the galactic core... 


  7. 14 minutes ago, swansont said:

    Appealing to future discovery does not comprise evidence

    And that’s all one can say. We don’t know what they are.

    Now that is word!

    14 minutes ago, swansont said:

    No conspiracy, please.

    Sorry, just poking a bit of at you...

    14 minutes ago, swansont said:

    Claimed (again) without evidence.

    Umm, which claim? I can't find anything confirming the aircraft radar but then I never claimed it...

    42 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

     A 4-rotor job can do anything, just about that might allude to ufo.

    How about the speed claims?


  8. I've got an idea dudes and dudettes, lets drop the alien idea and see if we can just discuss if a unmanned drone would be capable of such maneuvers....

    2 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

    With what we currently know about physics, it seems to me at least, that any sustained interstellar space travel with living beings is so unlikely as to be essentially impossible. 

    Please elaborate...


  9. 15 hours ago, swansont said:

    I take it that’s a “no”

    It's a joke! But the Pentagon has this week declassified these films and admitted publicly they have no idea what they were but just between you and me the Pentagon would lie if their agenda required it.

    15 hours ago, swansont said:

    The incident showed up on radar of the aircraft?

    I can say for a fact the incident showed on the radar of an advanced system destroyer, Arleigh Burke class I think. As for the aircraft radar, I'll try to dig it up if you are really interested.

    15 hours ago, swansont said:

    Yes, well...physics.

    Come on swansonT, you can do better than that, physics in no way prevents star travel...

    15 hours ago, swansont said:

    I take it that’s a “no”

     

     

     

    https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/27/politics/pentagon-ufo-videos/index.html

    https://www.militarytimes.com/off-duty/military-culture/2020/04/27/pentagon-releases-videos-of-encounters-between-ufos-and-navy-pilots/

    https://www.wired.com/story/does-it-matter-that-the-dod-released-those-ufo-videos/

    Different view points, guys I didn't post Caspers video to prove alien spacecraft are visiting but to show they were not bugs on the lens. 

    Personally I think this smells a lot like a weird military exercise that was exposed and the pentagon is more than willing to let people's imaginations run wild about the Tic tac...


  10. It's official! The UAP seen in these videos are not bugs on the glass! The air force has publicly declassified and admitted they don't know what is in the short films but what was seen are UAP!... The damning report starts at 88:20...

     


  11. 13 minutes ago, MigL said:

    Thought it was kind of funny, that she swatted away flies, while she was cooking... crickets ?
    Wouldn't want to get bugs in your bugs.

    Yeah she cooks outside in primitive conditions but cooked bugs don't carry bacteria... flies do...


  12. 3 hours ago, MigL said:

    I'm waiting for the invitation to supper at your granma's, Dim.

    Sorry, INow. I'll have to decline your invite to the locust stir-fry dinner.

     

    6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

    Wild is much better that's why; if you could taste my grans rabbit stew you'd see the light... And she's English 😁 

     

    3 hours ago, iNow said:

    Mmmm. Locust teriyaki... sipping on some sake. Maybe while watching a bit of hockey... you’ll be missed at the party 

    I wish I could invite you guys to my mawmaw's house for dinner, unfortunately she is gone, along with her cabin, her wood stove and my pawpaw who caught the swamp rabbits and sold their skins.. yeah I skinned them out too... Set Traps all up and down the Poca River in WV with a paddle and a wooden boat.


  13. 8 hours ago, Strange said:

    I assume they mean phenomena that require quantum theory to properly explain them. That covers a wide range from the structure of atoms, the behaviour of semiconductors and the radiation emitted by a hot black body. 

    I get that of course but it smacked of some sort of mysterious  parallel universe or something in his context...

     


  14. 11 hours ago, iNow said:

    Meanwhile, I continue wondering: What’s he trying to distract us from? What was he doing that required a comment so crazy to hide from view? We’ve spent 2 days talking about Lysol and a lot can happen behind the scenes during 2 days.  I continue wondering what it was. 

    https://www.businessinsider.com/doj-moves-to-drop-charges-ira-russians-indicted-mueller-2020-3


  15. 4 minutes ago, MigL said:

    Growing up in the 'Italian tradition', rabbit was almost as common as chicken for supper.
    And I love it; even more so now that my parents have long passed, and I don't have very often.

    But I had never heard of 'swamp rabbit' till today, Moon.

    Tame rabbit or wild rabbit?  I never tried tame rabbit, they seem to be a bit meatier than the skinny wild ones...

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.