swansont

They’re trying to impede the ignition, not cause it. A sound wave can extinguish a flame by depriving it of oxygen, but for a material with its own oxidant this won’t do anything. How does making something not explode qualify as a danger?

That wall is 20 cm thick, not 10, and its volume is 62.8 m^2 A solid sphere with 5m radius has a volume of 523.3 m^3

That’s not a technical resource

! Moderator Note A discussion about a hypothetical way of neutralizing an explosion is not a violation of rule 2.3, unless it strays into “dangerous behavior” territory

The ISS doesn’t have to produce their own food, fabricate equipment, or have a hospital, to name three off the top of my head. At best it’sZ inefficient to add the extra heat to your heat removal system. You could shape things to emit a little more in a particular direction, but this would beva small effect. Nothing like a laser.

I took your statement at face value. The secondary point is that broad claims aren’t good enough - details matter. Space travel is not trivial. If you assume Clark tech you run the risk of it being science fiction. You still have to follow the laws of physics.

But they are necessary, meaning the modules don’t shed enough heat on their own. The ISS is for astronauts who live a pretty spartan existence, and have things delivered to them, something that wouldn’t happen with a remote habitat The heat from that surface would also go inward.

Reflective skin makes the ice less efficient at radiating, and this is basically an acknowledgement that the original claim won’t work. I agree, but that was the limit of my objection. Really? Mechanical equipment is not all that efficient, so it generates a lot of waste heat, and for electrical equipment, most of it shows up as resistive losses. A computer, for example, that draws 300 W needs to shed all of that. Where else does it go? Other than a fan, which generates even more heat (fans heat, not cool, the air), there are no moving parts. No kinetic energy, no mechanical work. It all eventually ends up as waste heat. And the parts that face each other just trade radiated energy, as I mentioned, and that doesn’t contribute to the cooling. Only the surface area that faces deep space lets you radiate heat. Yes. But that gets away from the original premise. Basically you’re arguing that the premise isn’t flawed if you change the premise. Sure.

In which case the craft is not encased in ice, and the radiators would tend to melt the ice. But yes, shedding heat is generally a problem - since all you have is radiation - and it gets worse as the craft gets larger (volume grows faster than surface area). This is especially an issue when they are warmed by the sun. Radiating fins that are near each other don’t work well, since they “see” each other and absorb almost as much as they emit. i.e. two such fins are only marginally better than one, not twice as good. Ice by itself could only radiate a few hundred watts per square meter. (a perfect radiator would emit ~300 W at most at 273K) To extract electrical energy you have to…wait for it…reject heat. Yes. But you wouldn’t be limited to the radiators being below the freezing point of water, and radiated power varies as T^4. Something at the boiling point of water radiates ~3.5 as much power as at the freezing point, all else being the same

We’re talking about the feasibility of encasing something in ice as a radiation shield, and I’m telling you that you’d bake everything inside if you did that. They wouldn’t die from radiation but they’d be just as dead. It’s not a viable solution.

! Moderator Note Also not that link shorteners are not permitted. The link has to show the destination site.

Only if you completely ignore the laws of thermodynamics.

You might notice I was referring to the ice layer you suggested, which won’t work, since the interior heat has to escape the container. That wasn’t clear, and I don’t agree that we can easily generate strong magnetic fields on the scale necessary. We can generate strong fields on a scale of several meters.

The heat has to escape somehow. Making the outer later be ice just makes the interior hotter, at the cost of a lot of energy. Which has no effect on the emission EM radiation

One of the dni documents in the OP talked about reporting bias; an AFB has more instruments and more people in a position to see things (your random person isn’t looking toward the sky most of the time, and these airports are typically away from population centers, so you have relatively dark skies) and, of course, they potentially attract the attention of foreign adversaries.

That doesn’t change the fact that we are actively looking at the skies. At the very least we look for objects that might collide with the earth, and if the objects are too small/faint to see, you can’t write it off as being passive - it’s a technical limitation. Which should show up in IR viewing, and it doesn’t depend on reflection of sunlight. What does it say that we don’t see anything? Multiple IR telescopes have been in operation since the late 70s. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_telescope#Infrared_telescopes (and this is the sort of technical discussion that has a basis in science, so kudos to you for engaging in that direction)

We're going to start seeing royal descendants die off, like we're in an Agatha Christie novel.

As if we aren’t already scanning everywhere in all available frequency bands where we might expect a signal.

You posted the video. You posted “it is what an alien colony space station would look like” and “The object was rotating too fast to be made out of rock and ice” You can’t abdicate this responsibility. If you aren’t prepared to defend the claims you post, don’t post them. Otherwise it’s like “ring and run” This is moot, since there’s nothing of sufficient strength trying to break it apart.

Michio Kaku has a tendency to oversell things while diluting the science for lay audiences.

But when a scenario that is offered up is later debunked, especially so easily as these Arawn claims, it means it wasn’t vetted in the first place. Just credulous acceptance. There’s no reason to expect that the next example will be any better, and some reason the expect it will be worse, if we’ve been given the most promising examples first.

Hardly. Ports are located on these flooded coasts, and a lot of people. These areas that would be “opened up” have little infrastructure, which would have to be built up, and so are hardly a replacement.

In the article Moontanman linked to, which is basically a summary of the video https://inf.news/en/science/61f2e43c267cae2d5a6057e1979788c7.html “Soon after, the scientists realized that this small celestial body was rotating at about 80 kilometers per hour, and it took 5 hours and 30 minutes to make a full circle.” This is looking like the Gish gallop. One claim doesn’t pan out, so you queue up another. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop Yes, it does. As exchemist has shown, the rotation is not sufficient to do what the video asserts. It’s sensationalism, not science.

But what is the gravitational attraction (no calculation given), and what is the adhesive force of possible materials? Even if it’s just ice? The link says 80 km/hr, which is a little over 20 m/s, which gives about the same acceleration. (8 x 10^-3) So not only is this small, it’s also probably not artificial gravity - it’s around a milli-g. They can make BS claims because they don’t do any of the physics that would show that they’re full of it.

What would it look like? We have a different definition of “detail” since they state it without any analysis. That’s the detail I want. Your link is more of the same. Did any scientists write a paper about this object, and publish in a peer-reviewed journal? Is it rotating faster than expected? What is the expected amount? The video suggested it, quite strongly, and you posted the video. You can’t say it has these properties when the properties aren’t given. How much gravity? Where is the analysis? All the video did was say that rotation would create artificial gravity, but you can’t conclude that the rotation has such a purpose. Most objects in space rotate. Most are acknowledged to be naturally occurring. Rotation does not imply it’s a spacecraft. It’s massively flawed logic to suggest, as in the video, that it does. That’s weak tea. Don’t post videos and links that talk about alien spacecraft if you aren’t endorsing the idea. edit: there are literally hundreds of observed objects with rotation periods less than one hour https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fast_rotators_(minor_planets) So “it’s rotating too fast” needs more of an analysis.