On Wed, 13 Jul 2022 09:56:43 -0700, Robert Woodward
<robertaw@drizzle.com> wrote:

>In article <b46d688b-a17c-46bc-96ba-ef96f6b5c962n@googlegroups.com>,
> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>> Two attempts at ironic sarcasm in one post! The second, of course, is the
>> "I cannot be bothered to see when that obvious solution was implemented".
>>
>> So we're still doomed if we do implement it, and go to nuclear power.
>>
>> I think to produce that much heat, we would need to be doomed because of
>> population anyways. Living in balloon habitats above the clouds has been
>> suggested as a way to colonize Venus - much superior to colonizing Mars,
>> since now the gravity wouldn't be too weak!
>>
>> Only one problem. A city floating above the clouds would have to be built
>> from light materials. Radiation shielding consisting of, say, 20 feet of solid
>> rock, therefore, would be right out... and that's about what one would need
>> to survive in the orbit of Venus without its atmosphere as shielding. (It
>> rotates too slowly to have much of a magnetic field to help matters.)
>>
>
>Ahem, the balloons are floating in an atmosphere, which means that there
>is substantial amount of atmosphere above them. The lack of magnetic
>field will be a problem against solar flares (but being deeper inside
>the solar system will add protection against cosmic rays, though I don't
>know how much).

While Venus does not have a magnetic field, it does have a
magnetosphere--the mechanism by which it is generated is different
from that of a planet which has a molten part of its core. And that
magnetosphere does provide a degree of shielding from charged
particles.

On Sat, 16 Jul 2022 09:13:37 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

>On 7/16/2022 8:58 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 Jul 2022 14:57:00 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
>> <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday, July 15, 2022 at 1:53:40 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, July 13, 2022 at 10:42:10 PM UTC-6, David Johnston wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-07-13 10:35 a.m., Quadibloc wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Only one problem. A city floating above the clouds would have to be built
>>>>>> from light materials. Radiation shielding consisting of, say, 20 feet of solid
>>>>>> rock, therefore, would be right out... and that's about what one would need
>>>>>> to survive in the orbit of Venus without its atmosphere as shielding.
>>>>
>>>>> That's not the issue. The issue is...what exactly is the point? Cities
>>>>> come into existence for economic reasons, and shrivel and die when those
>>>>> economic reasons no longer hold true. These floating Venus cities have
>>>>> no exports, no tourist attractions, no position on routes leading from
>>>>> where people come from to where they want to be. "Seems like a cool
>>>>> idea in theory" isn't going to make something a going concern.
>>>> You raise a valid point.
>>>>
>>>> However, colonizing another planetary body, if it were _physically
>>>> possible_ to do so might be worth an immense expenditure, without
>>>> any economic benefit, if it ensured the survival of the human race
>>>> by making it a multi-planet species.
>>>
>>> This is basically what Musk envisions. He wants to bring the cost down
>>> to the point that an individual can afford it, just as they can buy a house.
>>
>> In /this/ area, an individual who can afford to buy a house has to be
>> /quite/ well off. Not 1%-er, but definitely not hoi polloi.
>>
>> So that's not as likely to promote mass colonization as he may
>> imagine.
>
>But it might help bring down the price of houses as the 1%ers fly
>themselves off to die on Mars. :D

The notion that "the rich" are going to go to some utopia in space may
play well in movies such as "Elysium" but in the real world there are
going to have to be a lot of engineers and technicians and
construction workers up there building and maintaining. Unless "the
rich" all want to get their hands dirty fixing the toilet.

On 2022-07-15 3:57 p.m., pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, July 15, 2022 at 1:53:40 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Wednesday, July 13, 2022 at 10:42:10 PM UTC-6, David Johnston wrote:
>>> On 2022-07-13 10:35 a.m., Quadibloc wrote:
>>
>>>> Only one problem. A city floating above the clouds would have to be built
>>>> from light materials. Radiation shielding consisting of, say, 20 feet of solid
>>>> rock, therefore, would be right out... and that's about what one would need
>>>> to survive in the orbit of Venus without its atmosphere as shielding.
>>
>>> That's not the issue. The issue is...what exactly is the point? Cities
>>> come into existence for economic reasons, and shrivel and die when those
>>> economic reasons no longer hold true. These floating Venus cities have
>>> no exports, no tourist attractions, no position on routes leading from
>>> where people come from to where they want to be. "Seems like a cool
>>> idea in theory" isn't going to make something a going concern.
>> You raise a valid point.
>>
>> However, colonizing another planetary body, if it were _physically
>> possible_ to do so might be worth an immense expenditure, without
>> any economic benefit, if it ensured the survival of the human race
>> by making it a multi-planet species.
>
> This is basically what Musk envisions. He wants to bring the cost down
> to the point that an individual can afford it, just as they can buy a house.
>
> Pt

Musk wants to crown himself king of Mars.

On Saturday, July 16, 2022 at 12:13:41 PM UTC-4, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> On 7/16/2022 8:58 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
> > On Fri, 15 Jul 2022 14:57:00 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
> > <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Friday, July 15, 2022 at 1:53:40 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, July 13, 2022 at 10:42:10 PM UTC-6, David Johnston wrote:
> >>>> On 2022-07-13 10:35 a.m., Quadibloc wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> Only one problem. A city floating above the clouds would have to be built
> >>>>> from light materials. Radiation shielding consisting of, say, 20 feet of solid
> >>>>> rock, therefore, would be right out... and that's about what one would need
> >>>>> to survive in the orbit of Venus without its atmosphere as shielding.
> >>>
> >>>> That's not the issue. The issue is...what exactly is the point? Cities
> >>>> come into existence for economic reasons, and shrivel and die when those
> >>>> economic reasons no longer hold true. These floating Venus cities have
> >>>> no exports, no tourist attractions, no position on routes leading from
> >>>> where people come from to where they want to be. "Seems like a cool
> >>>> idea in theory" isn't going to make something a going concern.
> >>> You raise a valid point.
> >>>
> >>> However, colonizing another planetary body, if it were _physically
> >>> possible_ to do so might be worth an immense expenditure, without
> >>> any economic benefit, if it ensured the survival of the human race
> >>> by making it a multi-planet species.
> >>
> >> This is basically what Musk envisions. He wants to bring the cost down
> >> to the point that an individual can afford it, just as they can buy a house.
> >
> > In /this/ area, an individual who can afford to buy a house has to be
> > /quite/ well off. Not 1%-er, but definitely not hoi polloi.
> >
> > So that's not as likely to promote mass colonization as he may
> > imagine.
> But it might help bring down the price of houses as the 1%ers fly
> themselves off to die on Mars. :D

Comment in that line:

https://www.angryflower.com/348.html

William Hyde

On Saturday, July 16, 2022 at 3:10:52 PM UTC-6, Lynn McGuire wrote:

> BTW, my favorite length units are barleycorn. Dried.

One-third of an inch, of course.

John Savard

On Sunday, July 17, 2022 at 11:34:46 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:

> The notion that "the rich" are going to go to some utopia in space may
> play well in movies such as "Elysium"

I figured the purpose behind _that_ movie was:

The audience comes in, expecting to see an SF action movie with special
effects and fun stuff...

and it gets a sermon on how we should stop being so nasty to all those
Mexicans wanting to come in to find a better life.

John Savard

On Sunday, July 17, 2022 at 4:53:00 PM UTC-6, David Johnston wrote:

> Musk wants to crown himself king of Mars.

Are you sure that isn't the Elon of Mars?

John Savard

On 7/17/2022 4:15 PM, William Hyde wrote:
> On Saturday, July 16, 2022 at 12:13:41 PM UTC-4, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>> On 7/16/2022 8:58 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>>> On Fri, 15 Jul 2022 14:57:00 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
>>> <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Friday, July 15, 2022 at 1:53:40 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, July 13, 2022 at 10:42:10 PM UTC-6, David Johnston wrote:
>>>>>> On 2022-07-13 10:35 a.m., Quadibloc wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Only one problem. A city floating above the clouds would have to be built
>>>>>>> from light materials. Radiation shielding consisting of, say, 20 feet of solid
>>>>>>> rock, therefore, would be right out... and that's about what one would need
>>>>>>> to survive in the orbit of Venus without its atmosphere as shielding.
>>>>>
>>>>>> That's not the issue. The issue is...what exactly is the point? Cities
>>>>>> come into existence for economic reasons, and shrivel and die when those
>>>>>> economic reasons no longer hold true. These floating Venus cities have
>>>>>> no exports, no tourist attractions, no position on routes leading from
>>>>>> where people come from to where they want to be. "Seems like a cool
>>>>>> idea in theory" isn't going to make something a going concern.
>>>>> You raise a valid point.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, colonizing another planetary body, if it were _physically
>>>>> possible_ to do so might be worth an immense expenditure, without
>>>>> any economic benefit, if it ensured the survival of the human race
>>>>> by making it a multi-planet species.
>>>>
>>>> This is basically what Musk envisions. He wants to bring the cost down
>>>> to the point that an individual can afford it, just as they can buy a house.
>>>
>>> In /this/ area, an individual who can afford to buy a house has to be
>>> /quite/ well off. Not 1%-er, but definitely not hoi polloi.
>>>
>>> So that's not as likely to promote mass colonization as he may
>>> imagine.
>> But it might help bring down the price of houses as the 1%ers fly
>> themselves off to die on Mars. :D
>
> Comment in that line:
>
> https://www.angryflower.com/348.html
>
> William Hyde

*upward thrust thumb*

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

Dorothy J Heydt <djheydt@kithrup.com> wrote:
> In article <0c9aa9dc-3cf4-4752-bedd-f4e713a63cb0n@googlegroups.com>,
> Jack Bohn <jack.bohn64@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>> On 7/16/2022 3:28 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>>> >
>>> > My 12th grade chemistry teacher was insistent we all knew how to do
>>> > conversions in pretty much any units requested.
>>> >
>>> > She even had a question about speed that had to be answered in
>>> > furlongs (which I have never seen actually used except in horse
>>> > racing) per fortnight.
>>>
>>> BTW, my favorite length units are barleycorn. Dried.
>>
>>Hey!
>>Y'know, if you went back in time about 300 years, and asked a horseman,
>>"How many hands in a furlong?" he'd probably look at you like you'd been
>>out in the sun too long. What does how tall the horse is have to do
>>with how far it has to travel?
>
> (Hal Heydt)
> More to the point...what does how tall the horse is have to do
> with how long the field is that he'll be used to plow? (Furlong

Here in Queensland Australia, suburban blocks of land were always quoted
in "perches". It was the units command that made me realize these
were actually square perches (so the good old quarter-acre block
is 40).

On Sun, 17 Jul 2022 17:34:54 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Sunday, July 17, 2022 at 11:34:46 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> The notion that "the rich" are going to go to some utopia in space may
>> play well in movies such as "Elysium"
>
>I figured the purpose behind _that_ movie was:
>
>The audience comes in, expecting to see an SF action movie with special
>effects and fun stuff...
>
>and it gets a sermon on how we should stop being so nasty to all those
>Mexicans wanting to come in to find a better life.

I did expect "SF action movie with special effects and fun stuff..."

But what I got was "a lot of running around on Earth with a level of
technology not very advanced from that of today, by a director who
apparently has only /one/ idea: chase scenes in the grodiest urban
environment possible".
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On 7/17/2022 7:35 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Sunday, July 17, 2022 at 4:53:00 PM UTC-6, David Johnston wrote:
>
>> Musk wants to crown himself king of Mars.
>
> Are you sure that isn't the Elon of Mars?
>
> John Savard

OK, that is pretty good.

Lynn

Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
>On 7/17/2022 7:35 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Sunday, July 17, 2022 at 4:53:00 PM UTC-6, David Johnston wrote:
>>
>>> Musk wants to crown himself king of Mars.
>>
>> Are you sure that isn't the Elon of Mars?
>>

>OK, that is pretty good.

He already refers to himself as the TechnoKing of Tesla. Every
time his name is mentioned in the latest annual report.

On 7/18/2022 2:30 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
>> On 7/17/2022 7:35 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
>>> On Sunday, July 17, 2022 at 4:53:00 PM UTC-6, David Johnston wrote:
>>>
>>>> Musk wants to crown himself king of Mars.
>>>
>>> Are you sure that isn't the Elon of Mars?
>>>
>
>> OK, that is pretty good.
>
> He already refers to himself as the TechnoKing of Tesla. Every
> time his name is mentioned in the latest annual report.

Are you saying that he is not the TechnoKing of Tesla ?

Lynn