EdEarl

Governments need to enact laws or regulations that will clean up soot emissions in the arctic.

Whether the company who claims they will mine asteroids will use invested money successfully, wisely or ethically is yet to be determined. I suspect there are space enthusiasts who will speculate with some of their money regardless of risks. A company has begun accepting volunteers who want to travel to Mars, one-way with no prospect of ever returning. And, People seem to want to go into space like people once wanted to move to the New World. Once a colony is successful, even more will want to go, IMO. One would think failure would stop such desires, but the failure of Jamestown didn't stop migration to the New World, and I doubt a few failures will quench the desire to go into space. Some people would rather die than live a simple life. Whether mining asteroids to send resources to Earth is ever successful is not likely to stop the practice, because some people will want to explore beyond the confines of a planet.

We are talking about an inhabited asteroid, with people to repair instruments. Because of water on the moon, they are considering a colony near a polar crater on the rim. The rim is not hidden from the Sun. Inside the crater is hidden, but also hides the sky. If you put an observatory on the dark side of the moon, a satellite at L4/L5 is needed for communications to the observatory, and they plan no colony on the dark side. I suppose there are better places than an asteroid in L4/L5, but if it is there, it might be used because putting an observatory on the moon would probably be more expensive. My best answer is, I don't like Venus for an asteroid colony and am trying to suggest alternatives...personal bias.

To me it seems the brain would share the part of it that forms images with input from both sight and sound; thus, being efficient in its use neurons.

If not in Earth orbit, then how about an L4 or L5 of Earth and Moon, which is slightly further than the Moon. They are extremely stable orbits and require little or no energy to maintain. That distance should be far enough for safety, and much closer than Venus in case of an emergency. It would not work well for communications, but might be a good place for an observatory on its dark side (for example a large infrared telescope and maybe a radio telescope. Although, an L4 or L5 of Earth and the Sun would be even better for a radio telescope, because the baseline from Earth for interferometry is greater. Unless or until electronics can operate in the 3-30THz range, infrared interferometry probably would not be possible.

The habitat would not need to be centered between sunny side and dark side, it could be placed where the temperature is closest to ideal for habitation. The dark side would not be exposed to solar radiation. One concern is to make the habitat large enough to provide about 1G force from the rotation, which would determine the size of asteroid and rotation speed needed. It seems best to put the first one of these into an Earth orbit, just in case an emergency occurs that requires help from Earth. If it were parked in a geosynchronous orbit, the owners might specialize in providing communications with Earth to earn some income to offset the cost of moving an asteroid, building a habitat, and furnishing it. After the equipment necessary to build and maintain an asteroid habitat are in space, and people are living on it, making a second one should be possible with little or no help from Earth.

Captain Panic, please explain: I know that power generating plants can be turned off to remove the power they generate from the grid, without damaging either the grid or the power plant. Some plants take longer to shut down than others, especially the ones that use steam to transfer heat. However, PV generators can be turned off quickly and wind turbines a bit slower because the rotating blades need to be stopped. I just read a study of whether it was economically better to store power in batteries when generated by PV or wind turbines, and the conclusion was turning off wind turbines was more cost effective.

A scientist is a group of atoms studying atoms. Do not trust atoms, they make up everything.

I hope the electrics sell. The 80-186 mile range seems like it will suit the European market, where people ride trains much more than in the US.

Throughout their life cycle, trees sequester large amounts of carbon, which is taken from the air and stored inside the tree within the cellulose (C6H10O5)n. During this process trees take carbon dioxide (CO2) from the air and water (H2O) from rain or ground and release oxygen into the air, since 6CO2+5H2O yields C6H10O5+6O2. In other words, carbon dioxide and water make cellulose (wood) and oxygen. Your video is misinformation. I do not know why you are peddling that trash video, but you will not convince anyone who understands high school chemistry that trees produce CO2.

Temperatures in LEO at the ISS range from 100C to -100C, averaging 0C. Orbiting Venus would be warmer, but simply shading the space craft would keep it cool. However, the solar wind and radiation damaging to people would be stronger and more dangerous. There are asteroids in near Earth orbits and probably in near Venus orbits, which would not require a huge push to put them in LEO around either planet. However, I agree that Venus would be a poor choice to move an asteroid, for health reasons.

Sorry, no I do not. I sympathize with your feelings about patents. In this case, the patent may help generate the capital to spread the technology quickly in the Western world, if so, it is good. Moreover, China is about the biggest user of cement in the world, and they usually do not honor patents. I suspect China will begin making and using EMC without paying royalties, which goes along with the spirit of not patenting

Except for sleep walkers, movement and sensation are suppressed during sleep. If you mean to shock a muscle to make it move, that might wake a person; though, I suppose one could learn to sleep through it.

There are still people who believe the world is flat. I suppose they would still insist it was flat if they visited the ISS and saw it was round.

Welcome to SFN, enjoy.

Well, there are things known about the brain, things unknown, and a fuzzy in-between in which people make guesses. Quite a lot is known about synapses and their chemistry. A synapse is a connection between the output of one neuron and the input to another. As we learn new synapses may be made or existing synapses can make stronger connections. The idea of is not a known fact, rather an educated guess. According to Tononi and Cirelli’s theory, we learn things during the day that are not very important and during sleep we forget them. That means our brain remembers things we think are important and forgets less important things. I think (my guess about the educated guess) the idea that we are ready for new memories after sleep refers to the possibility that too many memories might be confusing or that we cannot remember everything, and that synapses weakened or broken during sleep make possible for new synapses or strengthening old ones to remember more important things.

studiot, you said the above, which made me think you were talking about steel rebar reinforcement. But, yes we digress.

tyvm

I think the article by Armstrong and Sandberg, Eternity in six hours: Intergalactic spreading of intelligent life and sharpening the Fermi paradox, makes panspermia planned by another civilization as likely as abiogenesis on either Earth or Mars. ATM there is no basis for estimating any of the possibilities AFAIK.

You mean sand blasting? Compared to what, making steel rebar? I don't think so.

LOL, that's right. That was a senior moment.

At least one way would be to wrap monofilament in a spiral around the cylinder of rebar and apply resin. Perhaps, a spiral in each direction would be better. Sand blasting the resin surface would provide a fine rough texture.

Yes, I just replied in the parabola thread. Steel is slippery, too, which is why rebar is made with ridges. I assume carbon fiber rebar could be made rough too.

I did not find this book, but did find this from Cyclopaedia, volume 1. And, another person on another forum showed me the focal point in this forum: http://www.openscad.org/community.html in this thread: Parabolic Trough, by Don Bright on Aug 31, 2013; 8:16pm. (Ref: Dandelin spheres)

The exact algorithm used by an ALU to multiply and divide binary numbers depends on the number of transistors in the processor and the kind of binary number being processed. Moreover, not all computers have been built to process binary numbers. I once worked on an IBM1620, similar to an IBM1401, both predating IBM360 machines, which did not have an ALU and did decimal arithmetic instead of binary. They loaded addition and multiplication tables into memory and added/multiplied digit by digit with carry. Subtraction is easy enough using addition tables, but division must be done iteratively, for example using Newton-Raphson division. Modern microprocessors with ALUs do a hardware "crunch" multiply for integer arithmetic, and more complex algorithms for floating point arithmetic. Although, as number formats become larger (e.g. 64 bit integers), a combination of crunch multiplier and loop in microcode, hardware pipeline, or combination microcode and pipeline may be used, because the number of transistors is great for a crunch multiplier of large format numbers. Division will usually be done with an iterative technique (e.g., Newton-Raphson).