Jump to content

Moontanman

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    11398
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Everything posted by Moontanman

  1. Pioneer, how do you know that only water can do the amazing things you say? You are still only working from one data point. For all we know hydrocarbons might be the fluid of choice in 99.999999999999% of all life in the universe and we are just an anomaly. Our life has managed to use water in amazing ways for sure but we have no data to support water as being either an absolute necessity for life or even the preferred fluid for life.
  2. Sorry HB but that was really funny, I laughed my posterior off Pioneer (HB) are you thinking of a three legged animal using each leg in turn? Did you see the latest War of the Worlds with Tom Cat? The aliens had three legs, they walked like a tripod, two then one, two then one, not one two three, this gait looked entirely natural. To walk One two three your legs would have to be in a row wouldn't they?
  3. Sisyphus and bombus, yes I have heard of insects, I've never seen an insect as large as a man or capable of making tools or technology. Haven't you ever heard of centaurs? While I doubt a being would likely have hooves and hands a six legged being with four legs and two arms makes much sense especially in a high gravity situation. A vertebrate with six limbs would be better at crawling around in higher gravity than a four or two legged being. If evolution selected for tool use going to four legs and two arms might be as natural as animals going from four legs to two in our case.
  4. Inow we both know humans are apes but not in the context that knupfer was using, yes we are apes, hominids to be exact but in knupfers mind there is only room for us and them and them is chimps and gorillas although I'm betting he doesn't know the difference between monkeys and apes either.
  5. Since this thread was originally about the number of legs, three to be exact, how about six legs? Might result in a centaur like being. What could bring this about? Higher gravity?
  6. At very cold temps, around the temps we find on Titan Si could form chains and rings like carbon without the help of oxygen. Such molecules could also sport methane radicals attached to the Si chains. This would allow even more complex molecules to form that would still be unstable enough at these low temps to react in the way hydrocarbons do on Earth. It also just so happens that liquid hydrocarbons are pretty good at dissolving these Si chains. Since water would be rock at these temps it would be able to react with these Si chains and they would be stable. Just another possibility. Lots of hydrogen, Si and C sloping around there, anything could happen!
  7. Knupfer, so you think Neanderthals were apes? They were stronger than us, had bigger brains, talked, made the same tools, and buried their dead. Not to mention they were enough like us that if a Neanderthal was dressed in modern clothes he could walk down the street and no one would give him a second glance. You are the worst kind of troll Knupfer, a ignorant close minded troll.
  8. No Knupfer, there is no evidence of aliens on the Earth all life on the Earth is far to similar to have originated on another planet. Fossils of long dead animals is evidence of their existence, religion is a fairy tale with no evidence what so ever of the BS claimed by any religion. No one alive has ever seen any of the stuff in the biggest book of fairy tales called the bible. Just because someone wrote about things that happened in the past doesn't make them true. There is evidence of past life, none for the fairy tales in the bible.
  9. Never wrestle with a troll, you both get dirty and the troll likes it.
  10. Knupfer, you are a troll and an ignorant troll at that. If I thought for one moment you were actually looking for knowledge instead of trolling for the creationist cause I would give you information to show just how wrong you are but I am sure that no matter what argument I used you would continue to believe your religious fundamentalist BS and take no heed what so ever of any facts presented that disagree with your narrow stupidity worshiping world view.
  11. Knupfer, are trying to troll or just being obtuse. Science is all about reality, some times imagination is what changes our perception of reality and the limits of that reality. Don't denigrate what you are incapable of understanding.
  12. No one is talking about riding a nuclear bomb into space e or even orbit, no nuclear explosion is possible with this rocket design. The payload is not nuclear, in fact the payload of the suggested space craft is as much as 2,000,000 pounds from a space craft massing the same as a Saturn five moon rocket. For the record the Saturn Five didn't have a payload of even close to 2,000,000 pounds. Chemical rockets are simply not powerful enough to support any real space effort, safety protocols on these rockets along with remote landing take off sites would mitigate any real risk. We are not talking about tons of radioactive fuel, just a few pounds, Each and every atmospheric nuclear test released many times as much as the absolute worst case scenario of a nuclear light bulb rocket failure. there were many of these nuclear tests, the world didn't come to an end. We are not talking about crashed space craft falling everywhere several times a year. Even one crash would be a highly unusual event and wouldn't release enough radio-nucleotides to be the "end of civilization or even noticed in the grand scheme of things Can you suggest a technology that can lift the payloads nesesarry to build a real space station? a tecnology to make space travel both safe and economical? If you can i await the info with baited breath. first of all we are not talking about carrying 1000 people, we are talking about launching payloads into space. payloads to build space stations, build interplanetary space craft, satellites, Moon bases, habitats. these things cannot be done in any realistic way by chemical rockets. A 2,000,000 lb payload would be capable of doing things we only dream of at this time. No other technology promises so much for so little risk. The nuclear reactors we have now are old technology, comparing what we have now to 21st century technology is like assessing the safety of air travel by looking at WW1 bi planes. having said that it wouldn't be fair not to point out that most of the current reactors have been completely safe, doom sayers of the death of the earth from nuclear reactors have proved false. Radiation is a part of life, there have even been natural nuclear reactors in places on the earth. For our civilization to go forward we have to use nuclear power, no other technology can take us to the future.
  13. Not true, Chernobyl released just a few pounds of radionuclide's, it was just released all at once in a completely uncontrolled manner mixed with tons of other debris. You are appealing to emotion, there is no comparison to the immense amount of radio-nucleotides released by a coal fired power plant and the tiny amount released by Chernobyl Storage for the radioactive fuel can be easily built to with stand impact. Cracking open an empty reactor is no big deal. Again you are being emotional, it would be easy to protect the fuel from impact by storing it in a small armored space. this fuel can be swept out of the reaction chamber immediately. There is no comparison to a nuclear power plants with many tons of core material and shielding. You really need to do some research about gaseous fission nuclear reactors. On top of that risk mitigation means lessening the risk, nothing will ever be absolutely safe, I think in the article they used Bhopal India as an example of risk mitigation. Just because of that accident chemical plants weren't shut down everywhere. No that plant didn't do a good job of risk mitigation just like Chernobyl, Chernobyl shouldn't have been built much less run by incapable people. Chernobyl melted down due to bad design and human error. If a space craft was seen as going to impact the earth the radioactive fuel would be removed from the reactor immediately, if a high speed impact as inevitable it would be steered toward an uninhabited site or a site of less inhabitation. You have to plan ahead for problems, plan for the worst possible scenario after you have mitigated the risk from the worst possible scenario then you do everything you can to avoid that scenario to begin with. You seem to think this would be done by simply launching a nuclear light bulb rocket and see what happens. That's not the way safety works. I used to be employed by the DuPont corporation in the safety department. Somethings are inherantly unsafe, but nothing cannot be made safer and even the worst possible disaster can be planned for.
  14. Coal fired power plants do indeed release many times the radiation of any and all nuclear power plants it is not an appeal to emotion it is the truth. If the truth is an appeal to emotion then I am guilty. Comparing the possible worst case scenario of a nuclear light build rocket release to a common radioactive release is not emotion it is a completely fair comparison. No space craft launched from the earth is going to impact the earth at any speed even remotely approaching the impact speed of an asteroid. Solid balls of rock are not particularly strong or survivable. Nickle/iron asteroids survive impact at many times the speed a space craft launched from the earth could reach if it failed trying to reach orbit. It would be relatively easy to protect the contents of the engine from impact at any reasonable speeds.
  15. If you had read the article you would have seen that one of the really good things about having a nuclear motor is being able to over build the space craft but building a compartment to hold ten pounds of radio-nucleotides should be that difficult. Appeals to emotion? What are you talking about? I appeal to reality, emotion has nothing to do with this.
  16. Exactly how would this rocket, with out any warning what so ever, go from 6000 MS to zero in less than one second? Crashing? If was going to crash the safety protocols would remove the radio-nucleotides from the reactor in one of the three ways proposed before the crash. No space craft dies with out any warning what so ever, even the space shuttle had enough time for some of the protocols for the nuclear rocket to have kicked in and removed the radio-nucleotides from the reactor into storage that would have held them and prevented any spread. No one seems to mind a near by coal fired power plant releasing tons of radio-nucleotides on nearby cities, why would a small amount protected from any possible dispersal be a problem?
  17. First of all you are ignoring the built in safety protocols, the release of 10 pounds of radionuclide's would only happen if you had both a catastrophic failure of the space craft and total failure of three different safety protocols on the space craft. On top of that the space craft would be lunched from an area where no people lived. Nuclear power has been the but of fear mongering extreme exaggeration and out right lies for many years. Decades of b horror movies where radiation spawns a monster that kills the world not to mention all the fear mongering and out right lies from every nuclear crazy looking for his 15 minutes of fame. Coal fired power houses release 800 tons of radioactive materials into the atmosphere every year. this is far more than nuclear power plants produce and the radio-nucleotides produced by nuclear power plants are not released into the atmosphere. The publics wildly distorted view of nuclear power has little or not basis in reality. Compare the release of 800 tons of radioactive debris into the atmosphere to 10 pounds in the absolute worst case scenario. Yes the entire anti nuclear stance is based on bullshit. Just because the public has been scared into a anti nuclear stance doesn't mean it's true nor does it negate the real worth of nuclear power or nuclear engines on space craft.
  18. Either you didn't read the article or you didn't pay attention to to what the article said. I'm betting you just skimmed it and made your own conclusions.
  19. What we really need is a real space ship to not only explore the solar system but to lift huge payload to earth orbit and to bring those same payloads back. This space ship should be reusable and durable enough to be used many times. I envision this space craft not only being used for Earth to orbit and back but as a interplanetary space craft. What I am talking about is described in this article. http://www.nuclearspace.com/Liberty_ship_menupg.aspx
  20. If you had read this thread from the beginning you would have seen that the whole idea is that "this space station" is going to die, one way or another our time on the Earth is limited. We cannot move or other wise change it significantly. We have to move on, preferably before the Earth dies and we can pick and choose where and when we go.
  21. Yes we will need gravity and a habitat with food and oxygen. Living on the inside surface of a torus spun for gravity and enclosed for atmosphere and lighted by either piped in sunlight or artificial light would be the way to go. the Trojan asteroids of Jupiter would seem to be the ideal place to build these space colonies.
  22. I'm not sure why hydrogen bonding is important in this discussion. No matter what fluid or bases life forms in or adapts to I am quite sure hydrogen will be a big part of life. I think it is safe to say that life will always depend on hydrogen in some form. Saying that life might use some fluid other than water or a structure based on something other than carbon doesn't mean hydrogen wouldn't be an important part of life. I think it would be safe to say that hydrogen is a basic part of all life. I am not questioning the importance of hydrogen I am questioning the assumption that all life will be like ours based on carbon, water, and DNA.
  23. I see lots of reasons why we cannot colonize space, a few that seem to think it might be done. Of the people who say we cannot do it then what should we do? Not try and go down with the ship? (Earth) Or should we prepare for the worst and try for the things that might be difficult but still with in the realms of possibility as we know it? Do we have any other choices to avoid the extinction of the human race?
  24. Are these water balls stable structures? Bucky balls are as stable as other carbon or boron molecules and can be used to store smaller atoms inside the Bucky ball like a small cage.
  25. Alternative life chemistries other than boron life can be discussed here as well. Is anyone interested in possible alternatives to life as we know it?
×
×
  • 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.