Author Topic: Weekly Science Headlines  (Read 277518 times)

Prelate Diogenes Shandor

  • Promotor Fidei
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 20979
  • Behold! The Yellow Sign of Dobbshead
    • View Profile
    • Yiffstar User Profile
Re: Weekly Science Headlines
« Reply #1200 on: August 08, 2018, 04:11:10 am »




Yeah, honestly, what 1950's science fiction movie did they get that 2030 figure from? Unless of course they didn't specify living humans; I think they could probably get an urn up there.

Sorry I missed this one: whose ruins are on mars?

No, "urn" was correct. The implication being that they'd never get a living human to mars by 2030, but they could cheat and land a cremated body there in a container and say "we got a human to Mars!"
Praise NHGH! For the tribulation of all sentient beings.

a plague on both your houses -Mercutio

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrTGgpWmdZQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVWd7nPjJH8

It is an unfortunate fact that every man who seeks to disseminate knowledge must contend not only against ignorance itself, but against false instruction as well. No sooner do we deem ourselves free from a particularly gross superstition, than we are confronted by some enemy to learning who would plunge us back into the darkness -H.P.Lovecraft

He who fights with monsters must take care lest he thereby become a monster -Nietzsche

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHhrZgojY1Q

You are a fluke of the universe, and whether you can hear it of not the universe is laughing behind your back -Deteriorata

Don't use the email address in my profile, I lost the password years ago

Prelate Diogenes Shandor

  • Promotor Fidei
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 20979
  • Behold! The Yellow Sign of Dobbshead
    • View Profile
    • Yiffstar User Profile
Re: Weekly Science Headlines
« Reply #1201 on: August 08, 2018, 04:21:00 am »
And, in addition to resources and the environment, we also need backup civilizations out of ICBM range so everything isn't wiped out when one of the shitheads in charge of the world hits the big red button

I find it hard to conceive of a nuclear war that would make Earth less habitable than Mars (or the Moon).  Even if you take into account nuclear winter, massive fallout, large sections of geography glassed over, 99% extinction rate, it's not as if nuclear war would actually rip the atmosphere off the planet.  There's a pretty big difference between "if you leave the bunker without protection, you might die of cancer in six months" to "if you leave the base without a space suit, you'll asphyxiate in 60 seconds".

No, I don't think we should go to Mars with any practical objectives in mind.  Someone is going to need to make up some sort of plausible justification to generate the necessary political will, but I doubt the reasons will be legitimate.

I think we should go to Mars just for the lulz.  Humanity needs to get out of the house once in a while, try new things.  We can figure out if there were any tangible benefits afterward.

1000 mT inside of a month kills off EVERYTHING except maybe vent worms.

And we have an ecological crash happening right now.  Wasted resources are wasted.  There's actual work to be done.

What is that figure based on? That's not nearly enough to glass the entire planet, the ice age didn;t kill everything, plenty of animals are resistant to radiation, and most importantly the Chicxulub impact is extimated to have released the equivalent explosive force of 20 million megatons of TNT, with all that entails.

EDIT:
@CN Observer: However, what I said was "civilization" not "life" or even "humans". The survivors of a full scale nuclear war would quickly be reduced to savagery, especially given that the most savage areas of the planet (the flyover states, the third world, etc.) would probably be hit the least hard whereas cities and other bastions of civilization would probably get most of the brunt of it
« Last Edit: August 08, 2018, 04:24:33 am by Prelate Diogenes Shandor »
Praise NHGH! For the tribulation of all sentient beings.

a plague on both your houses -Mercutio

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrTGgpWmdZQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVWd7nPjJH8

It is an unfortunate fact that every man who seeks to disseminate knowledge must contend not only against ignorance itself, but against false instruction as well. No sooner do we deem ourselves free from a particularly gross superstition, than we are confronted by some enemy to learning who would plunge us back into the darkness -H.P.Lovecraft

He who fights with monsters must take care lest he thereby become a monster -Nietzsche

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHhrZgojY1Q

You are a fluke of the universe, and whether you can hear it of not the universe is laughing behind your back -Deteriorata

Don't use the email address in my profile, I lost the password years ago

LuciferX

  • Metanoia
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 32168
  • fripping moncrey!
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Science Headlines
« Reply #1202 on: August 08, 2018, 05:39:01 am »




Yeah, honestly, what 1950's science fiction movie did they get that 2030 figure from? Unless of course they didn't specify living humans; I think they could probably get an urn up there.

Sorry I missed this one: whose ruins are on mars?

No, "urn" was correct. The implication being that they'd never get a living human to mars by 2030, but they could cheat and land a cremated body there in a container and say "we got a human to Mars!"
Yes, yes, they would certainly clear cremation by destination. I take it she was alluding to possible 'investitures' of relatedly good intention.
Hic Salta?
________
Constant Eso-Opthamologist of Elicited Stopped-Clock Illusions, brings it back, or sinners just repent______

Doktor Howl

  • Вся ваша база принадлежит нам
  • One-Armed Jizz Moppers
  • Deserved It
  • **
  • Posts: 407577
  • Horrible Bastard
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Science Headlines
« Reply #1203 on: August 08, 2018, 06:26:49 am »
And, in addition to resources and the environment, we also need backup civilizations out of ICBM range so everything isn't wiped out when one of the shitheads in charge of the world hits the big red button

I find it hard to conceive of a nuclear war that would make Earth less habitable than Mars (or the Moon).  Even if you take into account nuclear winter, massive fallout, large sections of geography glassed over, 99% extinction rate, it's not as if nuclear war would actually rip the atmosphere off the planet.  There's a pretty big difference between "if you leave the bunker without protection, you might die of cancer in six months" to "if you leave the base without a space suit, you'll asphyxiate in 60 seconds".

No, I don't think we should go to Mars with any practical objectives in mind.  Someone is going to need to make up some sort of plausible justification to generate the necessary political will, but I doubt the reasons will be legitimate.

I think we should go to Mars just for the lulz.  Humanity needs to get out of the house once in a while, try new things.  We can figure out if there were any tangible benefits afterward.

1000 mT inside of a month kills off EVERYTHING except maybe vent worms.

And we have an ecological crash happening right now.  Wasted resources are wasted.  There's actual work to be done.

What is that figure based on? That's not nearly enough to glass the entire planet, the ice age didn;t kill everything, plenty of animals are resistant to radiation, and most importantly the Chicxulub impact is extimated to have released the equivalent explosive force of 20 million megatons of TNT, with all that entails.

EDIT:
@CN Observer: However, what I said was "civilization" not "life" or even "humans". The survivors of a full scale nuclear war would quickly be reduced to savagery, especially given that the most savage areas of the planet (the flyover states, the third world, etc.) would probably be hit the least hard whereas cities and other bastions of civilization would probably get most of the brunt of it

It is based on SDI studies in the 1980s.  1000 mT kicks up a radioactive cloud that kills what the freezing doesn't.
"Don't get me wrong, I greatly appreciate the fact that you're at least putting effort into sincerely arguing your points. It's an argument I've enjoyed having. It's just that your points are wrong and your reasons for thinking they're right are stupid."
- Cainad

"NOTHING IS AS BAD AS IT SEEMS.  BUT YOU'RE STILL FUCKED."
- Dirty Old Uncle Roger

LuciferX

  • Metanoia
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 32168
  • fripping moncrey!
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Science Headlines
« Reply #1204 on: August 08, 2018, 08:20:28 am »
And, in addition to resources and the environment, we also need backup civilizations out of ICBM range so everything isn't wiped out when one of the shitheads in charge of the world hits the big red button

I find it hard to conceive of a nuclear war that would make Earth less habitable than Mars (or the Moon).  Even if you take into account nuclear winter, massive fallout, large sections of geography glassed over, 99% extinction rate, it's not as if nuclear war would actually rip the atmosphere off the planet.  There's a pretty big difference between "if you leave the bunker without protection, you might die of cancer in six months" to "if you leave the base without a space suit, you'll asphyxiate in 60 seconds".

No, I don't think we should go to Mars with any practical objectives in mind.  Someone is going to need to make up some sort of plausible justification to generate the necessary political will, but I doubt the reasons will be legitimate.

I think we should go to Mars just for the lulz.  Humanity needs to get out of the house once in a while, try new things.  We can figure out if there were any tangible benefits afterward.

1000 mT inside of a month kills off EVERYTHING except maybe vent worms.

And we have an ecological crash happening right now.  Wasted resources are wasted.  There's actual work to be done.
See, tiene to capitalize deh 'm' in T :argh!:
What is that figure based on? That's not nearly enough to glass the entire planet, the ice age didn;t kill everything, plenty of animals are resistant to radiation, and most importantly the Chicxulub impact is extimated to have released the equivalent explosive force of 20 million megatons of TNT, with all that entails.

EDIT:
@CN Observer: However, what I said was "civilization" not "life" or even "humans". The survivors of a full scale nuclear war would quickly be reduced to savagery, especially given that the most savage areas of the planet (the flyover states, the third world, etc.) would probably be hit the least hard whereas cities and other bastions of civilization would probably get most of the brunt of it

It is based on SDI studies in the 1980s.  1000 mT kicks up a radioactive cloud that kills what the freezing doesn't.
Must capitalize 'm' in T.
Hic Salta?
________
Constant Eso-Opthamologist of Elicited Stopped-Clock Illusions, brings it back, or sinners just repent______

Brother Mythos

  • Outlandish
  • ***
  • Posts: 13109
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Science Headlines
« Reply #1205 on: September 29, 2018, 09:38:08 pm »
Get your genuine, artificial Martian dirt here!

UCF Selling Experimental Martian Dirt — $20 a Kilogram, Plus Shipping

As per the article:

'This is not fake news. A team of UCF astrophysicists has developed a scientifically based, standardized method for creating Martian and asteroid soil known as simulants.

The team published its findings this month in the journal Icarus.

“The simulant is useful for research as we look to go to Mars,” says Physics Professor Dan Britt,  member of UCF's Planetary Sciences Group. “If we are going to go, we’ll need food, water and other essentials. As we are developing solutions, we need a way to test how these ideas will fare.”
For example, scientists looking for ways to grow food on Mars — cue the 2015 film The Martian — need to test their techniques on soil that most closely resembles the stuff on Mars.'

Hardcore dirt enthusiasts can download the UCF scientific paper, “Mars global simulant MGS-1: A Rocknest-based open standard for basaltic martian regolith simulants,” from the following site:


https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019103518303038?via%3Dihub

Doktor Howl

  • Вся ваша база принадлежит нам
  • One-Armed Jizz Moppers
  • Deserved It
  • **
  • Posts: 407577
  • Horrible Bastard
    • View Profile
Re: Weekly Science Headlines
« Reply #1206 on: September 30, 2018, 04:21:20 pm »
And, in addition to resources and the environment, we also need backup civilizations out of ICBM range so everything isn't wiped out when one of the shitheads in charge of the world hits the big red button

I find it hard to conceive of a nuclear war that would make Earth less habitable than Mars (or the Moon).  Even if you take into account nuclear winter, massive fallout, large sections of geography glassed over, 99% extinction rate, it's not as if nuclear war would actually rip the atmosphere off the planet.  There's a pretty big difference between "if you leave the bunker without protection, you might die of cancer in six months" to "if you leave the base without a space suit, you'll asphyxiate in 60 seconds".

No, I don't think we should go to Mars with any practical objectives in mind.  Someone is going to need to make up some sort of plausible justification to generate the necessary political will, but I doubt the reasons will be legitimate.

I think we should go to Mars just for the lulz.  Humanity needs to get out of the house once in a while, try new things.  We can figure out if there were any tangible benefits afterward.

1000 mT inside of a month kills off EVERYTHING except maybe vent worms.

And we have an ecological crash happening right now.  Wasted resources are wasted.  There's actual work to be done.
See, tiene to capitalize deh 'm' in T :argh!:
What is that figure based on? That's not nearly enough to glass the entire planet, the ice age didn;t kill everything, plenty of animals are resistant to radiation, and most importantly the Chicxulub impact is extimated to have released the equivalent explosive force of 20 million megatons of TNT, with all that entails.

EDIT:
@CN Observer: However, what I said was "civilization" not "life" or even "humans". The survivors of a full scale nuclear war would quickly be reduced to savagery, especially given that the most savage areas of the planet (the flyover states, the third world, etc.) would probably be hit the least hard whereas cities and other bastions of civilization would probably get most of the brunt of it

It is based on SDI studies in the 1980s.  1000 mT kicks up a radioactive cloud that kills what the freezing doesn't.
Must capitalize 'm' in T.

Did you just assume my dialect?
"Don't get me wrong, I greatly appreciate the fact that you're at least putting effort into sincerely arguing your points. It's an argument I've enjoyed having. It's just that your points are wrong and your reasons for thinking they're right are stupid."
- Cainad

"NOTHING IS AS BAD AS IT SEEMS.  BUT YOU'RE STILL FUCKED."
- Dirty Old Uncle Roger