Science Topic

[Taka Nuvia]

Indeed, I'd heard that. Personally I hope that it wasn't the fiber optic connection and that the readings were genuine, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was.

I read about it, too...... but what would happen if the results were true? Wouldn't we have to change our entire view of the world? Or would nothing change? Oo

[HeavyMetalSunshineSister]

Well, the bit about faster-than-light travel being 100% impossible would have to be given a closer look, and there might be some ramifications to that, but it's not like up will become down and dogs will become cats or anything like that.Unless we find a way to make a machine that utilizes really fast neutrinos to turn dogs into cats. That would be cool. Unless that happens, we're looking at more of a minor adjustment than a vast re-evaluation of our worldview.

[Eeko]

Classical Physics would remain unchanged, mostly.Quantum Physics would be in for a world of hurt though.

[Alex Humva]

Wouldn't relativity be seriously harmed by the speed of light not being the speed limit of the universe? Or would it mean it just gets really, really, weird?As from the little I understand of the topic, going past the speed of light means your frame of reference gets so messed you travel backwards in time. Which causes causality problems, which in turn make a bunch of situations that cause headaches.

[HeavyMetalSunshineSister]

It probably just gets seriously weird. We have enough stuff to support most of our understanding of physics, there just might be a small hole or two that needs to be patched.

[ShellHead]

I decided that placing a bar code scanner into my hand was a stupid idea not worth half the pain. So instead I've placed an RFID in my hand that will act as a key that prevents my computer from logging on unless I'm present. This is a much needed extra level of protection that will be of much use if needed, which I pray it wont.Trans-humanism is the steam engine of the future. You can get on the train and enjoy the ride, get off the tracks and let it pass you by, but if you try to stop it it will crush you flat.

Edited March 6, 2012 by ShellHead

[Alex Humva]

Trans-humanism is the steam engine of the future. However we've just started using it. This is akin to someone in 1800 building a steam engine out of spare parts they had hanging around.We're not trying to stop human augmentation, we're telling you that it needs to be done by a bloody professional.

[HeavyMetalSunshineSister]

Yes.Professionals are to surgery what they also are to preparation of fugu: completely essential to the process, and a bad thing to remove.That being said, I'm not entirely certain about the idea of non-necessary modification of the human body becoming a standard thing. It seems far more likely to me that most of these things will simply be fully external accessories, rather than internalized/implanted things. Part of this is based in practicality, though there is an element of psychology here, as well - the majority of people are probably going to want to be able to put their cell-phone down when they aren't using it/don't want to use it.

[Lara White]

Wouldn't relativity be seriously harmed by the speed of light not being the speed limit of the universe? Or would it mean it just gets really, really, weird?As from the little I understand of the topic, going past the speed of light means your frame of reference gets so messed you travel backwards in time. Which causes causality problems, which in turn make a bunch of situations that cause headaches.

Yes, this would happen, and would result in time travel being possible.

I decided that placing a bar code scanner into my hand was a stupid idea not worth half the pain. So instead I've placed an RFID in my hand that will act as a key that prevents my computer from logging on unless I'm present. This is a much needed extra level of protection that will be of much use if needed, which I pray it wont.Trans-humanism is the steam engine of the future. You can get on the train and enjoy the ride, get off the tracks and let it pass you by, but if you try to stop it it will crush you flat.

You, for one, don't need to be a cool dude about it and push your ideas on others. Second, have you not heard of hacking? Bypassing security measures like that is sort of the point. Third, why not just carry it around on a lanyard or in your wallet? There's no more risk there than you already take on a regular basis. Seriously, there's no reason to put it in your hand other than "ohh it's cool!"Fourth, if you are trolling like I'm starting to suspect you are, that could end badly. Edited March 6, 2012 by Lloyd: the White Wolf

[Sumiki]

I decided that placing a bar code scanner into my hand was a stupid idea not worth half the pain. So instead I've placed an RFID in my hand that will act as a key that prevents my computer from logging on unless I'm present. This is a much needed extra level of protection that will be of much use if needed, which I pray it wont.Trans-humanism is the steam engine of the future. You can get on the train and enjoy the ride, get off the tracks and let it pass you by, but if you try to stop it it will crush you flat.

Might I remind people that this topic is for discussing Science. Not for the discussion of whether or not ShellHead should perform self-surgery.

Like Eeko said here earlier, discussion of ShellHead's self-surgery needs to stop. Discussion of transhumanism is fine, but let's not get into a kerfuffle over ShellHead's posts.As far as FTL travel, I don't think it'll have any practical purpose whatsoever if we can't tap it. Neutrinos might just be so weakly interacting that they aren't as "interfered with" as much as photons are, by just a small detectable amount.Who's to say that Neutrino speed isn't the maximum speed limit after all? Edited March 6, 2012 by Phobophobia

[ShellHead]

For those complaining about the practicality, my computer literally will not turn on unless it senses this transmitter within 10 feet. I spent all day on it and it pretty much a virtual deadmans switch I guess and if its removed from the computer it will damage the harddrive. For those saying "oh you could keep it on a lanyard" those can be stolen. This would literally have to be ripped out of my hand for someone to get on it. It doesn't make me invincible but it makes things much harder.And Lloyd: the White Wolf, theres no need to insult me. I'm not forcing my views on anyone.

Edited March 6, 2012 by Philophobia

[Lara White]

If we can tap neutrinos at FTL speeds, at absolute minimum it means that we could make FTL ansibles, which are an enormously important part of developing any cohesive interstellar nation.

[Eeko]

Wait, how is sending messages at a few nano m/s faster than light any better than sending light messages?

[Lara White]

When you're shooting them over an interstellar distance, that slight speed advantage adds up.

[Makaru]

So just a heads up, the discussion on Transhumanism is cool since that is science.The talk of DIY surgery, whether you approve of it or not is philosophy. Let's play nice, people.

[Lara White]

I think that's already been explained.Cheap interplanetary spaceflight: when?My guess, if we boot up NASA's manned programs again, fifty-sixty years. If not, a hundred at least.

[HeavyMetalSunshineSister]

Well, that depends entirely on how serious private businesses are about the idea of space-flight. If they think they can make a tidy profit from space-flight, then we might see results rather faster than anticipated.The question, then, is this - what short-term benefits are there to space-flight/exploration? Long-term benefits are irrelevant here - private industrial interests want results rather sooner than would be possible for ideas like "interstellar empire".

[Alex Humva]

Honestly I don't see cheap manned space travel happening any time soon; despite the Japanese swearing up and down they're figure out the space elevator, they've been saying that since the turn of the millennium and it's doubtful that even when they do it'll be built in a decent amount of time, as such a project would cost in the trillions, even assuming the price of carbon nanotubes comes down. Outside of a space elevator there just isn't much other cheap options for getting into space; mass drivers would be too inefficient, rocket fuel is too expensive... unless someone figures out another viable option besides an elevator it's pretty much our only hope, and looking at the current world situation, I can't see us getting one built before 2025.Even once we get cheap methods of getting into orbit, then we have to question what exactly is the point of doing so. Space tourism would be cool and all, and you could no doubt make a killing off of it, but even with an elevator ticket prices would be obscenely high, considering the governments of the world will be leasing a lot of time on it to transport cargo. If people think airplane prices are high, just think about how high a space elevator ticket would be; after all, this would be a trillion dollar investment that'd take several hours to get into orbit then back down. With airplanes we at least have a lot of them and have dedicated planes for shipping cargo; imagine the whole world needing to use all of it's air traffic on five planes, passengers and cargo alike.Point of that paragraph being, the prices would be so high that only the rich could use the space elevator for tourism, and while having the rich come and do shenanigans in space is an ok business model, it won't be enough. One idea thrown around last time all the big space businesses got together was a space city, where rich people would rent out houses up in orbit. Again, a good idea, but not particularly stable.Something that could work is space mining, but even with a space elevator the moon is the only viable mining source, and it's minerals just aren't valuable enough to justify the costs.So yeah, space empires are cool and all, but the first steps are going be very, very, tough.

[HeavyMetalSunshineSister]

The problem with a space elevator is that no material currently exists capable of doing what we need materials to do in one. Carbon nanotubes aren't strong in the right direction to work, and, in a situation like a space elevator, Van der Waal's forces would shred them, leading to catastrophic failure.With regard to the moon, its composition is a lot like Earth's, but with a different percentage of titanium, so you're absolutely right that it's really not worth mining it.

[Alex Humva]

Huh; Nova must of lied to me then, as they insisted that carbon nanotubes would be able to survive the extreme forces involved. My understanding was that the reason we aren't building a space elevator as we speak was because carbon nanotubes disintegrate in solar radiation, making them rather hard to put into space.So yeah. We have space elevators, currently impossible, then we have mass drivers, which are impossible because of power requirements, and even when we get said power they'll be horribly impractical, and then we have rocketfuel, which is really expensive.Impossible, impractical, and expensive. Funny that it also sums up an interstellar empire at our current level of technology.

Edited March 6, 2012 by Gaius Alex Humvus Augustus

[BenLuke]

Of course, the real problem with creating a interstellar empire is being forced to move slower then the speed of light, what with moving faster then light travel being impossible and all.

Edited March 6, 2012 by BenLuke-116

[HeavyMetalSunshineSister]

They've got a very high tensile strength, but are lacking in some other respects. The greater the surface area of the mass of carbon nanotubes, the more it will be deformed and end up just looking stupid instead of holding up that (admittedly nifty) space elevator.

[Lara White]

I suspect that a launch loop might be a more popular idea, but I'm not sure exactly what it entails. That being said, the point, generally, of going into space would be mining at first, especially in the asteroid belt. I'm going to guess maybe a year or two of turnaround time, and companies have been willing to wait longer for less. However, eventually I do suspect we'll be seeing otherworldly colonies and probably a customs base on the Moon, since it's not really great for actual colonization.

[HeavyMetalSunshineSister]

Yeah, a launch loop would be much easier than a space elevator, simply because we've already got the whole idea of launching things down to a science (rocket science). Also, yeah, asteroids would be pretty good for mining, considering that they, unlike the moon, are not critical to the maintenance of our tides.

[Alex Humva]

Now, something I could see happening is, should we ever achieve the ability to get to Jupiter in a decent amount of time (six months would be the max, IMO), we could do stuff on Europa. While nothing's been confirmed it's a very, very, high chance that there's liquid water underneath the icy surface, with an atmosphere (though admittedly a thin one) full of oxygen. Combine these two, and with some otherworldly electrolysis you could have an underwater colony on another planet, as thanks to the weird EM stuff probes have picked up it's suspected Europa's oceans have salt or something similar in them. One thing you'll have to worry about though is the tidal forces from Jupiter, as those can be pretty nasty, and the reason why there's liquid water in the first place. All the same, it might be our best chance for a viable colony on another world; yeah, having a moon colony is cool and all and so is a Mars colony, but they just aren't practical. Assuming we can get to Jupiter within six months, and relatively cheaply, then we could set up a base on Europa, with a constant supply of oxygen and hydrogen, and the possibility to bring the little hardy creatures on our own world to Europa to seed it with life. We just have to watch out for any black monoliths and we'll be fine._{yeah yeah I know there'd be a lot more science that has to go into it, but they're bloody rocket scientists, they'll figure it out.}

[HeavyMetalSunshineSister]

Operations on Europa are quite far in the future. The main value I see in a moon-base is practice - once you know how to operate on a fairly well-known, close-to-home object, you're ready to begin trying to get things done in stranger climes.

[Alex Humva]

Yeah, until we get some sort of engine to get us there faster it's pretty far out there.A moon base would be great for launching rockets though; what being so much less gravity and all. A good staging point for a hop to Mars or the Jovian system.

[HeavyMetalSunshineSister]

Yes, that's another benefit of a moon-base.The issue is that these are all long-term benefits - I have yet to hear a compelling statement of short-term benefits.

[Lara White]

As I pointed out, companies are willing to wait longer for less profit than would be gained by asteroid mining. To my understanding, that is a short-term profit. Certain companies could almost corner the market on whatever metals are in the belt.@ Humva: Is everything electrolysis with you? :w:

[Alex Humva]

I guess it could get to the point of where we go all Gundam and shove people onto giant stations in orbit.Otherwise, I see commercial space travel as being a little niche business devoted to giving rich peeps yet another place to be eccentric in. With the world economy being as terrible as it is and space agencies everywhere getting their funding cut it's not the greatest of scenes, and with no benefits it probably won't get better for a long while.Of course then the Chinese, who are rolling in money, will probably go and set up a moon colony just because they can. If they ever get their rockets to work.Lloyd: Electrolysis is the future man Especially now that we could use solar power to split the water. Also, asteroid mining wouldn't be effective; even assuming cheap space travel, first you have to find an asteroid with the proper minerals, then you have to bring it back, during which time anything could happen to your ten billion dollar tin can.

Edited March 7, 2012 by Gaius Alex Humvus Augustus

[Lara White]

The Chinese will likely make as many colonies as they can to relieve population pressure. Government sponsoring of colonization will likely spur Western space colonization.Uh, the idea of towing the asteroid back is rather daft. Why bring back the whole rock when you can cherry-pick the parts of it you want? And we can find asteroids with the proper minerals now, with a few telescopes at most. The reason we don't look within our solar system all that much is because we've pretty much found everything, IIRC.The Space Shuttle cost $1.7b, and considering that the first mining probes likely will not be manned, I doubt $10b is a realistic price tag, even accounting for the differences between orbit transit and trans-planetary courses. The probes never need to touch atmosphere once they leave (theoretically) a Moon construction base. They only need to be able to maneuver, mine, and store resources. You could go two ways with that: a fleet of small ones, or one large one.

[HeavyMetalSunshineSister]

Okay, okay, yes. One relatively short-term profitable thing that is actually quite likely. Finding an asteroid with the right minerals is easy, and given the low-gravity environment, adapting a method for getting those minerals probably won't be too difficult.What will happen after that may be somewhat like what happens in Creative Mode of Minecraft. With an external source of resources, somebody may go power-mad and build a stupid-scraper just because they can.

[Lara White]

I direct you to the Burj Khalifa. People are doing that now. :w:

[Alex Humva]

*coughcoughIdidn'tmeanthewholebloodyasteroidcoughcough*I guess I didn't phrase it right; if you want to make any profits you're going need a massive amount of ore to haul back. After mining the ore you're going presumably strap it to your mining vessel to get it back home, and in space, every pound counts.As for cost, you're going need manned missions; probes to find the asteroids would be fine, but robotic miners... I love machines, but machines are also pretty stupid. For something as complex and risky as space mining you're going need human supervisors onboard for when your programming doesn't quite meet stands

[HeavyMetalSunshineSister]

You don't need probes to find asteroids. We've got telescopes that can do that, tell you what's in them, and check the stock market just for giggles.With regards to transport of the ore, that's where a moon base comes in handy. Mining bots take the ore to the low-gravity moon base, where it can then be stored.Human supervision is entirely optional, but it wouldn't be too much of a stretch for it to be included.

[Alex Humva]

Something else that'll have to be taken into account is the number of micro-asteroids floating in space. Your mining bot does you no good if something punctures it's fuel tank, or messes with it's computer systems. Considering you'll be flying into the asteroid belt, it'll be even more of a problem; while it may not be the stereotypical sci-fi asteroid belts there's plenty of debris ready to rip holes in your hulls. Whipple shields will only get you so far in this instance, so start adding in the need for extra armor/Whipple shields and the costs begin to add up.

[HeavyMetalSunshineSister]

Considering how simple a whipple shield really is, it still wouldn't be prohibitively expensive.

[Lara White]

First thing that jumps into my head is that it's not fuel. It's Delta V. As for the worry about micrometeors, from what I've heard, the Voyager probes are working just fine ATM and they passed the asteroid belt a while ago. So yes, they would suffer some damage, but they could easily be repaired after missions.

[Alex Humva]

It'd be less complexity and more the fact that you'd need a handful of layers so that you aren't constantly getting little holes in your hull.But I digress; space mining is viable, I guess, though it'd still require some sort of cheap form of getting off our own planet Earth, and so far we have impossible, impractical, and expensive.Also, I had a feeling the probes we've sent out would be mentioned; there is a big difference from passing through the asteroid belt and actively working in it.

Edited March 7, 2012 by Gaius Alex Humvus Augustus

[Lara White]

--We mentioned a launch loop as the most likely option until nanotubes are made reliable. Once we can get shuttles into orbit, the only reason we'd need to bring anything down is to sell it.--There is, but not regarding the actual transportation. Voyager has lots of sensitive equipment on board, and like I said, it's working fine. Robust mining equipment would likely fare better on the significantly shorter trip.