-
Re: Questions of a weird mind
Quote:
Originally Posted by
factotum
Shielding doesn't have to be inches of lead to be effective--the shielding on the Moon lander, for example, was a few sheets of foil, effectively! (OK, they deliberately launched those at times of low solar activity so they wouldn't have to survive a solar storm, but I imagine with 40+ years of development we've probably got even better shielding materials by now).
Indeed we do. I can't remember the exact details, but it's either some form of plastic or ceramic...
And besides, Mars is further from the Sun, as such, solar storms would be slightly less powerful by the time they reach there.
Also, once terraformed, its new atmosphere may provide more than adequate shielding. People can go inside if there's a huge storm coming.
-
Re: Questions of a weird mind
Quote:
Originally Posted by
factotum
Shielding doesn't have to be inches of lead to be effective--the shielding on the Moon lander, for example, was a few sheets of foil, effectively! (OK, they deliberately launched those at times of low solar activity so they wouldn't have to survive a solar storm, but I imagine with 40+ years of development we've probably got even better shielding materials by now).
Some of the things we got now are ideas like a magnetic field around the spacecraft to shield it from charged particles like electrons and protons.
It unfortunately has no effect on neutral particles like neutrons and photons, but neither does the Earth's magnetic field and and the longest any human has spent in space, total, is 803 days.
-
Re: Questions of a weird mind
Quote:
Originally Posted by
razark
Our robots seem to be able to handle it.
Spirit:
Planned: 90 Martian solar days
Mobile: 1944 Earth days landing to final embedding
Operational: 2269 days from landing to last contact
Opportunity:
Current: 3011 days since landing
Viking 1:
2245 sols, until a faulty command sent by ground control resulted in loss of contact
Viking 2:
1281 sols
http://xkcd.com/695/
-
Re: Questions of a weird mind
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Yora
That comic always makes me very sad.:smallfrown:
Thank God computers are not intelligent, or some of the things we do to them would be very cruel.
-
Re: Questions of a weird mind
How does one define the primary effects and the side efects of medication? Nobody wants to feel nausea, but if you are suffering from terrible pain in an injured and healing foot, is the loss of pain perception in your feet from medicine that fights an infection still a side effect?
I've started taking medication againt my ADHD and it makes me significantly less aware of things in my perepheral vision. And I just can't find out if that's one of the intended effects of helping me focusing my attention, or a side effect causing impaired vision. And if it is the later, but helps me, is it still a side effect? :smallbiggrin:
-
Re: Questions of a weird mind
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Yora
How does one define the primary effects and the side efects of medication? Nobody wants to feel nausea, but if you are suffering from terrible pain in an injured and healing foot, is the loss of pain perception in your feet from medicine that fights an infection still a side effect?
I've started taking medication againt my ADHD and it makes me significantly less aware of things in my perepheral vision. And I just can't find out if that's one of the intended effects of helping me focusing my attention, or a side effect causing impaired vision. And if it is the later, but helps me, is it still a side effect? :smallbiggrin:
Alternately, it might be bringing your peripheral vision down to a non-ADHD level. Note: I don't have ADHD, so I don't know whether there is any difference in that area, but that could be an explaination.
-
Re: Questions of a weird mind
Might be quite likely, but it still raises in interesting question: Is there really any difference between main effects and side effects, except for the question if they are desirable or not?
It's like Viagra for toddlers with heart diseases. Or even like Viagra for old men, since it was developed as a treatment for heart diseases, but someone noticed one of the side effects is worth a lot more.
-
Re: Questions of a weird mind
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Yora
Might be quite likely, but it still raises in interesting question: Is there really any difference between main effects and side effects, except for the question if they are desirable or not?
It's like Viagra for toddlers with heart diseases. Or even like Viagra for old men, since it was developed as a treatment for heart diseases, but someone noticed one of the side effects is worth a lot more.
I guess it's like asking the definition of weeds.
Grass in your lawn, good, grass in your garden, not so good.
Unlike weeds, medication is meant to have certain primary effects and are tested mostly for the safety and efficacy of those effects. Using them for other purposes is known as 'off label' use.
The trouble with using them for off labvle uses is that they have not being tested as much, if at all, for their safety in such uses, how long they can be used safely and at what doses. It's one thing to pop a Viagra whenever an some guy wants an erection, it's another to use it chronically.
If such off label uses become common, another example is the use of aspirin's side effect of thinning the blood as a way of preventing heart attacks, studies will hopefully be done.
-
Re: Questions of a weird mind
Under the hypothesis of the mythochondrial Eve, the oldest female shared ancestor of all humans, do scientists of the field in question actually assume a single individual?
My understanding is that the calculation is done almost entirely by extrapolation, so if you assume that all humans alive today share one female ancestor, then this woman would have lived such and such many years ago. After all, DNA is constantly changing and given a known constant rate of mutation (or assumed average) and the known diversity of mitochondrial DNA in humans today, you would get a result if you extrapolate backward. But I don't think that automatically indicates that we all share the same great great great ... grandmother.
So, do the experts really assume a single individual, or is it a mathmatical thought experiment?
-
Re: Questions of A Wierd Mind
Why is it that physicists tell the media ( or that the media tells others ) that they discovered a new particle when they only discovered a new quark state?
-
Re: Questions of A Wierd Mind
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Story Time
Why is it that physicists tell the media ( or that the media tells others ) that they discovered a new particle when they only discovered a new quark state?
Because journalists tend not to be very particular with their accuracy.
-
Re: Questions of a weird mind
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Yora
Under the hypothesis of the mythochondrial Eve, the oldest female shared ancestor of all humans, do scientists of the field in question actually assume a single individual?
My understanding is that the calculation is done almost entirely by extrapolation, so if you assume that all humans alive today share one female ancestor, then this woman would have lived such and such many years ago. After all, DNA is constantly changing and given a known constant rate of mutation (or assumed average) and the known diversity of mitochondrial DNA in humans today, you would get a result if you extrapolate backward. But I don't think that automatically indicates that we all share the same great great great ... grandmother.
So, do the experts really assume a single individual, or is it a mathmatical thought experiment?
The common theory is that it was no single female human, but still a relatively small amount, something like 800 (though this is off the top of my head, and the number could be completely different), barely enough to keep enough genetic diversity among the species. This would have been very early in humanity's life. So "Eve" most likely wasn't a single person, but there is evidence that points to a small number of females at one point in time.
-
Re: Questions of a weird mind
Sorry, lost track of this thread for a while there.
Re: Mitochondrial Eve.
I think the prevailing theory was that the vast majority of humanity was wiped out, down to a scattering of individuals(as mentioned above, but closer to maybe a dozen or so), and these are the mitochondrial "Eves", but the true "Eve" would be their immediate or 2 steps above ancestor(assuming most of the "Proto-Eves" were say, cousins or half-sisters or some other almost but not quite relatives.)
Re: Venus, or as I want to call it, Neo Earth.:smallwink:
I was actually thinking of constructing a greenhouse the size of a small moon, like a "Death Star"(sorry, just saw Austin Powers 2 on Sunday. :smallbiggrin:), which would orbit Venus, with plants(algae) arranged around the "equator", which would be a large bank of windows constructed in a manner which would allow enough sunlight through for photosynthesis. My understanding of plant basics is rudimentary compared to my knowledge of animal biology, so bear with me here. What I think I remember was that plants basically create carbohydrates(carbon+water, so essentially, an arrangement of Carbon/Hydrogen/Oxygen in varying quantities) from CO2 and water, with additional carbon from the soil, the reaction being powered by sunlight. Oxygen is the "waste material" in this. So assuming the above holds true, we extract the Oxygen released by the above, thus our "Oxygen refueling station"(which could theoretically double as a food refueling station), in exchange for some basic raw materials(faecal matter and/or additional supplements). Essentially, you're eating plants fueled by the crap of those who passed before you, and you're fueling the plants for the next generation of travellers who pass.
*pause for breath*
I think one other thing I considered above was that Venus' "day" and "year" are almost equal, which means one could theoretically have the plants working practically all year(200 days, so 2/3 of an Earth Year), with the only fear being that their cells would burn out(essentially, the plants would have maybe only half the lifespan of their terrestrial counterparts, assuming minimal genetic modification). The other problem I foresee is Hydrogen, or the lack thereof. It may be the most common element in the universe, but it's still a very large load of empty space out there. :smallfrown:
-
Re: Questions of a weird mind
@Death Star Greenhouse
Here's a pair of excellent resources you should look into. Just to give you an idea of what is possible on earth before you look to space. Especially if you plan on feeding plants with *ahem* compost.
www.growingpower.org
www.omegagarden.com
-
Re: Questions of a weird mind
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ravens_cry
The trouble with using them for off labvle uses is that they have not being tested as much, if at all, for their safety in such uses, how long they can be used safely and at what doses. It's one thing to pop a Viagra whenever an some guy wants an erection, it's another to use it chronically.
It depends. Generally medicines are tested for safety no matter what their usage, but they're not tested for efficacy in off label use.
Of course if the off label dosage or frequency exceeds that determined for the original use, then that obviously isn't tested for.
Technically speaking, Viagara's ED function is an off use label as it was originally developed for heart indications. Once its now (in)famous effects were discovered, they changed the clinical trials and development plan rapidly.
-
Re: Questions of a weird mind
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Brother Oni
It depends. Generally medicines are tested for safety no matter what their usage, but they're not tested for efficacy in off label use.
Of course if the off label dosage or frequency exceeds that determined for the original use, then that obviously isn't tested for.
Technically speaking, Viagara's ED function is an off use label as it was originally developed for heart indications. Once its now (in)famous effects were discovered, they changed the clinical trials and development plan rapidly.
True enough. Another example is using small doses of Aspirin for its blood thinning qualities, which can be useful in preventing heart attacks.
This does tend to result in blood in the stool however.
-
Re: Questions of a weird mind
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Yora
Counterpoint: http://abstrusegoose.com/204
-
Re: Questions of a weird mind
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Brother Oni
Technically speaking, Viagara's ED function is an off use label as it was originally developed for heart indications. Once its now (in)famous effects were discovered, they changed the clinical trials and development plan rapidly.
Since then, they did more trials on the heart issues and there is a variant used and prescribed in such cases. It's just not that famous.
-
Re: Questions of a weird mind
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Yora
Since then, they did more trials on the heart issues and there is a variant used and prescribed in such cases. It's just not that famous.
If you're talking about revatio, its dosage is lower and there are other medications on the market for the same indications. As far as I can tell, it's still exactly the same drug in the same form, so you could theoretically get the same effect as viagara by dosing up on revatio.
To be honest, it's hard to match the fame of viagara, both for its recreational misuse and it being the first product of its type (oral tablet for ED).
-
Re: Questions of A Wierd Mind
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Story Time
Why is it that physicists tell the media ( or that the media tells others ) that they discovered a new particle when they only discovered a new quark state?
-
Re: Questions of A Wierd Mind
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Story Time
Why is it that physicists tell the media ( or that the media tells others ) that they discovered a new particle when they only discovered a new quark state?
Because some people hear the word Quark and think of a Star Trek character rather than a term from physics.
Where the words Atom, Molecule, Polymer (many molecules), and Particle, all still have some meaning to the average public.
Also, the press doesn't give a hoot. Science doesn't sell, controversy sells. Occasionally scientific controversy sells.
-
Re: Questions of a weird mind
I don't like team sports, and especially not silly american team sports. So a simple answer will be enough for me:
But I've read that the american sport "leagues" have a fixed number of teams and new players are recruited by the league organization and then there's a lottery which team goes first in picking one of the new players for their team, then who goes second, and so on.
But I also heard that american sport fans get hugely upset about players deciding to switch to another team. But if players can't chose the team that will pick them, how can they decide to switch? Aren't they employed by the league which tells them what team to play for?
-
Re: Questions of a weird mind
Some players are free agents, or mercenary players.
It also depends on the level of sports. I think what you're talking about is the college level sports, where a player applies to one or more teams. If he's accepted to multiple teams, more likely to happen if he's been "scouted", then he chooses one team to go with. He's allowed to switch teams at the last minute, but I suppose it's frowned upon by some.
Once you get to professional sports, the decorum associated with teams changes. Then, players become more like Pokemon cards.
-
Re: Questions of a weird mind
Best. Mental. Image. Ever.:smallbiggrin:
-
Re: Questions of a weird mind
Physics question: is it possible for a planet to have a natural geostationary satellite, as in, a moon? Could that moon also be tidal locked?
Because I had an idea for a weird SciFi story, basically.
-
Re: Questions of a weird mind
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eldan
Physics question: is it possible for a planet to have a natural geostationary satellite, as in, a moon? Could that moon also be tidal locked?
Because I had an idea for a weird SciFi story, basically.
I believe Pluto's moon Charon is in fact a real life example of this, though depending on the mass of the moon you may want to look up the effects on tides.
-
Re: Questions of a weird mind
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eldan
Physics question: is it possible for a planet to have a natural geostationary satellite, as in, a moon? Could that moon also be tidal locked?
I'd say any moon close enough to its primary to be in geostationary orbit would *have* to be tidally locked--in the case of the Earth that would be more than ten times closer than our Moon is now! (Let's hope this moon of yours is a bit smaller than ours :smallwink:). It would be a fairly unlikely astronomical coincidence, of course, but then, so is our Moon being so close in size to the Sun (as seen from the Earth's surface) that during an eclipse it can exactly block out the main part of it and leave the solar corona visible.
[EDIT] Oh, the reason the Pluto-Charon system is like this, incidentally, is because the two bodies are not far off being the same size, so they're both tidally locked to each other. That would be a reasonable way to do what you want, thinking about it.
-
Re: Questions of a weird mind
How big would a basically Earth sized double planet be in the sky at these distances apart?
-
Re: Questions of a weird mind
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ravens_cry
How big would a basically Earth sized double planet be in the sky at these distances apart?
Not sure if this answers your question... But when viewed from the Moon, the Earth has a diameter four times greater than that of the Full Moon observed from Earth.
Also, interesting note... A solar eclipse observed from the Moon in which the Earth passes over the Sun would last for hours with the Earth's atmosphere visible as a reddish ring around the planet.
-
Re: Questions of a weird mind
So more than 40 times the size of a full moon.
OK, interesting.
The reason I asked is because I had an idea for a graphic novel involving two races in a double planet system launching the equivalent of the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project, told from the point of view of one of the astronauts, maybe even twice, once from a crewmember on each spacecraft.