Endy0816

It's just a rinse, to get rid of pathogens, you don't end up ingesting any. It's like the flip of the Kinder Egg ban. If we want toys in our food we'll... hmm... doesn't quite work. It's just a dumb situation all around. Most in the US doesn't care about selling some chicken to the UK. Honestly as long as you guys keep up the tourism I'll be happy. All the countries are going to be asking for some concessions though.

It's just a different process. Rather than hope your supply chain is perfect, you clean before sale to consumers. Logically sound enough. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=173.300 We have our own standards. FDA doesn't mess around either. We would both like mutually beneficial trade, but part of that would need to be an easing of trade restrictions(in some fashion). That's going to be the US position in a nutshell. I'm sure you're really just pissed off at the idiots who voted to leave. Personally I do think getting out of the EU to be a phenomenally stupid idea. Your laws and general preferences are much better aligned with the rest of Europe. I can't help you there, but can at least let you know how things may go moving forwards.

Yeah, I'm a big fan of Isaac Arthur's works. He's done a number of well thought out videos. The upper atmosphere could definitely work out as is.

Please don't think he speaks for all of us. Honestly food poisoning numbers look pretty comparable, if not slightly better here. Different processes. Visitors come here and none seem all that concerned. Especially if Brexit does happen, the UK would need consider some changes. Only fair.

Yeah, that will work fine. Worse case you can do a return.

https://store.steampowered.com/app/230290/Universe_Sandbox/

Possibly a reference to Entropy.

I think 'model' would probably have been a better choice of words. I would say you probably could model gravity this way on a computer though would need to confirm your model still matches with reality.

Mixture of gases might change though. Lighter gases could be stripped away. Swansont wasn't saying there would be less CO2 molecules, but rather enough of them turning into a solid would cause the pressure to decrease. There may actually be a cold layer on Venus already https://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Venus_Express/A_curious_cold_layer_in_the_atmosphere_of_Venus ran across it while searching. Know a number of bodies have definitely managed to surprise us in the past. I'm thinking the distance to Mars probably wouldn't be enough due to the winds/rotation/green house effect. If you are moving planets you could just as well move it further out too though. At some point temperatures would drop to reasonable levels. It is honestly not bad in the upper atmosphere today, but a balmy uniform temperature on the surface would be nice too.

Just checked, people have already done this in Universe Sandbox. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDHAcmgQpRE In the simulations it remained good and warm. There is definitely too many variables to easily say anything for sure. Slow retrograde rotation. Possibility of the atmospheric composition changing. If it did freeze, there would be less atmosphere and less atmospheric pressure as a result. Weak magnetic field could lead to further reduction in atmosphere. Probably would be stupidly hot for the longest time though.

The father would have passed on a Y chromosome to a son(assuming normal chromosome inheritance). ie. Mother XX, Father XY, Son XY Hopefully not needed but there are promising gene therapies in the works now.

We all have random new ideas. Science doesn't embrace something just because. You have to provide some evidence or a mathematical model in support. Others can analyze this and only then determine if your hypothesis is correct as far as the evidence goes. Generally, yes, if you want to contribute in modern times, you will need some background in the field. You won't know what you don't know otherwise.

The closest to what you are describing is thermoelectric cooling. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoelectric_cooling It is possible to use heat flow(hot and cold side) across one to generate power. Then turn around and use the resulting electricity to cool down somewhere else. Due to losses the cooling would be less than if you used the cold side directly however. I would say the first and second laws of thermodynamics would be the most applicable ones here. Cooling is often described as pumping heat uphill. Effectively reversing the normal flow of hot to cold. This takes some work as a result.

I think we're envisioning different things here. We'd be going after the Oxygen, Silicon, Aluminum and Iron; common in the regolith and soil. For all the technology involved, it still won't be an overly complicated operation. Multiple simple, midsize, yet hardy robots with some repair/rescue capability. Would be building upon the expertise gained with the Martian rovers and to an extent experience from past Lunar missions. Refining step poses the biggest issues. Everything will really depend on shipping costs. Earth may well prove the better option depending on how technology develops though. More interested in getting out to Mars and Jupiter, whether we develop the Moon or not is really a side issue. Gotta get out where the bulk of the resources are in the solar system, not stick around where the Sun will likely engulf. Do have to say there's quite a bit of interest in space tourism and colonization. I think many would appreciate lower gravity if given the chance. Even something as silly as shipping limited amounts of unprocessed moon rocks back could be a lucrative source of income. In general though I think further construction/maintenance of space infrastructure will be the most profitable and stable revenue stream.

I was thinking to start with something really basic. Surface material collection robots with an automated refining station. Could run fairly steadily and have materials waiting for pickup or used to expand local operations. Bulk of human transport between the planets will have to be done in plastic vessels. Space dock would be best for their construction. Ideally they never travel in an atmosphere, land or liftoff. Otherwise we are facing a whole host of additional concerns and costs. Tourism and repairs/refueling for satellites would probably be main business starting out though. People are definitely interested and continually replacing satellites is expensive in its own right.

Yes they can. To act as a filter they trap what comes in. Ultimate safety depends on how or if regeneration occurs. Only a couple of times are recommended for home use.

For something like 5x = 30, you would divide 25 by 5 with a result of 6. 5x = 30 -> x = 30/5

I'm thinking would be service based. Manufacturing and construction facilities to support and expand space industry. Tourism hub/destinations. Eventually senior living down the line. Providing economic value for the Earth that way instead. Then the Moon might start making more sense as a source of raw materials. Metals and Oxygen mainly. Could be automated eliminating the issues a colony of people would have. As time goes on older stations could be re-purposed for outward colonization efforts. Mars and the Jupiter system have the diverse resources to be self-sufficient once set-up. Trade could then be largely information and tourism based. I do think the use of space resources on Earth itself is at least a long ways off. Would take something both valuable and scarce, that we could cheaply nudge in our direction.

In some way shape or form they did it for the return on their investment. Trade routes, land, resources. The Virginia Company of London and Plymouth Company are probably easier to consider as models. Ongoing cost would also be high. There's an absolute lack of many things, whether due to the Moon's formation, never having surface water or absence of past lifeforms. At the same time there will be increased demands from dealing with the Moon itself. Mars has fewer environmental issues along with more abundant and diverse resources. Ideally we move a station into orbit above Mars, then proceed with ground colonization. Worst of the risks are minimized that way. You have the resources of the station overhead to draw upon and sizable pool of local talent to deal with problems as they arise. If we go with orbiting habitats around Earth first, it opens up many more doors than a Lunar colony would. In general we need more basic research. Spending at least one full day/night cycle on the Moon's surface. Exploratory drilling. Investigation of the health effects of Lunar dust. International legal framework for the land rights/purchasing would be good too. That alone might help get speculatory investments going, insulating governments from the costs.

We're not good at living in enclosed spaces for long periods of time and moon dust poses health and maintenance issues to making regular treks on the surface. Added to that you're still in a gravity well and the resources are limited. I have the feeling stations will be the better option in the short term. Ferrying lunar resources to them might be economical enough. What you don't want to do is land resources only to lift them off again. I foresee mainly an automated mining affair with very light tourist areas. Maybe even just the equivalent of a location for day-trips from a more substantial orbiting colony. Looking further out we need to reach Jupiter to secure our future as a species though Mars wouldn't be bad as an intermediate goal. Stations could become generational ships and make the voyage as economics allows.

There is normally some rational basis for the options. Could be another case where genes behind us seeking equal treatment for ourselves(and the group) are at fault too though. Seen other case studies where people act against their own best interests in favor of maintaining parity.

You're taking off a quarter of the price. 5/20 or 1/4 or 25% could also do 15/20 to get 75% and sub from 100%.

Frequently read about Social media platforms doing this. Even if a member of the control group, leaves a bad taste in the mouth when you end up a test subject without any knowledge, consent or compensation. Concerned about this practice for software testing in general too. Suppose it is something more serious like your car?

Well can be good if replacing consumes less resources than repairing, but still have negative consequences. Eventually I figure there will only be bioplastics, recycling and trash dump mining(high tech mudlarking). We can definitely help by at least reducing what is all getting into the environment at large though.

A ban might work for single use plastics. Provided it doesn't need to last long we could probably swap those out easily enough. Costs and physics are the main issue with a general ban. Reason why plastic became widely used in the first place.