You've gotta be kidding right? "Anti-science" liberal culture? Being a scientist (just performed the first nanopore DNA sequencing in Vietnam!) who graduated from the top liberal arts school in the world (it always ranks number one or two, sorry Stanford!), let me tell you that our culture is far far from anti-science. For example our university has the most Nobel prize winners in the world. (Speaking of which, so how many Nobel laureates supported Trump again?).
(I also studied Architecture while a graduate and took a fair amount of general design courses so I certainly think I qualify as being in touch with my touchy-feely liberal side). Anyway, even the quickest most cursory (that means brief by the way) search would show that there is an extremely high correlation between scientists and in general well educated people being liberal. Unfortunately, you don't sound like either
Just in case other people haven't done this:
Here's the Washington Post article which talks about the interview:
And here's the actual, AUDIO of the interview so you can hear him in literally his own words saying this:
Next time you're "genuinely curious" about something, do bother to read the article carefully. See the underlined words? They indicate "links" which is a way of connecting web pages together. If you clicked on the VERY FIRST link marked "an interview", you'd have come to the actual interview.
Of course, before I call someone a racist against Asians (I had heard he was a racist against other minorities from other comments) I wanted proof. So, before I settled that opinion to my own satisfaction, I CHECKED by reading the article and following the links to the ACTUAL FACTS. So now I know, Brannon's an equal opportunity racist (or I guess white nationalist). Now that I think of it, you're probably one too and just trolling by pretending to be "generally curious"
Unfortunately, when you look at the people who've graduated from Harvard Business School, it really appears as if their admissions standards needs re-evaluating. Their only criteria seems to be is if they think the candidate has a good chance of being "successful" later in life. Since the number one predictor (in the U.S. at least) of success isn't intelligence or diligence or "talent" but rather how successful (or rich) your dad was, they've let in some sorry characters. I believe George "Gentleman's 'C'" Bush is one of them. And, of course, once you're in and paying $50,000 a year, you're likely not to be kicked out. (It's not the Law or Medical School, cash is king).
At least character estimation is an important consideration when admitting students as undergraduates into Harvard College (I'm an interviewer, that's my job). We're supposed to look for people who "you'd like to have as your roommate" (it's the Turing test for personality
Oh and another thing (though there are many more) that particularly rankles me is Putin's state sponsored cheating on the Olympics. This of course is very well documented (by the head physician of the Russian team I believe) and of course by lots of documentation not to mention the preserved backup samples of urine (they collect TWO vials of urine, one is processed immediately at the country's anti-doping center the other is stored. Guess what the stored vials showed?)
Great example of sportsmanship, NOT!
The insanity of Trump's admiration/support/connections for a leader who murders his opponents/journalists, commits war crimes deliberately attacking humanitarian convoys and hospitals (yes, I know the U.S. hit one but at the very least they admitted their wartime error and presumably is making reparations), breaks arms control agreements and violates fundamental agreements on not seizing land by force (Crimea was taken despite the Russian pledge to respect Ukraine's border in exchange for them giving up their nukes), drives his nation into an economic dead-end by focusing on one commodity (oil) instead of diversifying (which, of course would have required him to respect rule of law and cut down on the kleptocracy), etc. well this is amongst many many reasons why Trump is completely unqualified (should be disqualified) for being the president of the U.S.
So of course supporting a guy who basically says "I have a gun that can clean blow your head off", I guess that's nothing new for Trump. (and don't tell me that the announcement of this weapon wasn't authorized by Putin). Let me be clear, I do mean Trump supports Putin; by refusing the unanimous consensus of (all?) 17 intelligence agencies that Russia was behind the hacks of the Democratic Party (gee I wonder why no Republicans were hacked?) saying, he can't say who hacked the Democrats, he is supporting Putin.
Likewise Assange, by selling himself out to Putin because of his problems with Sweden (and presumably the U.S.) indicates that he is willing to sell us all (and especially for his fellow journalists* who have been dying in Russia) out for his own skin. It has really debased the once sterling reputation of Wikileaks, hasn't it? So sad.
*but I don't think very many journalists would still be willing to say he is one of them now
I read somewhere (sorry I forget where) that the problem may be that the Samsung phones have a 3500mWH (or something like that) battery which is significantly larger than the iPhones which (I think) are less than 2000. Are the batteries the same physical size? That, and I heard that they charge in roughly the same amount of time.
So does that mean that they are pumping in almost twice as much current? Is it possible to damage the battery that way? Can a battery store more energy by just overloading it?
Maybe Samsung can fix this problem by changing the software(?) in the phones so that they charge slower. Am I missing something? (Or a lot of things, I'm not a battery expert).
So what if our universe (and all the other universes in the multiverse) are just analog simulations? Our 3D universe + time is just a hyper sphere. If the Meta verse is 5 dimensions or more, then just as an infinitely large 2D space can be folded into a finite 3D space, then they could take even our (infinitely?) large universe and put it into a "small" 5D object. So storage wouldn't be a problem.
Imagine the beings in this 5D universe. Say they wanted to create some intelligent entities to converse to. They could create universes like ours and, because they have an extra dimension, could "reach in" and alter anything they wanted just like we can change anything on a piece of paper. Also, if time to them is just another dimension, perhaps they could "scroll" through it and alter events (or at least view) events at any time. All they would have to do is set up the laws of physics (ok ok) in the simulation and (maybe) it would be easy for them to generate an infinite 3D space there because to them an infinitely large 3D verse would be just a point.
(Actually it seems like we are NOT living in a digital simulation because it seems like there is a huge amount of wasted space. Look at the heavens and the billions of light years of apparently uncrowded perhaps uninhabited space. Unless they truly have infinite resources, it seems like a huge waste regardless of what they are trying to create (intelligence? Pretty starscapes?).
and we never get anything better than fusion drives (and Bussard ramjets don't work), then maybe a high density of these "rogue" worlds will allow the (very slow) colonization of the galaxy.
If there are roughly 1000x as many these large planetary bodies floating in interstellar space as there are stars, then perhaps it'll be feasible to travel to them in tens of years traveling at speeds achievable by nuclear fusion (hundredths of "C"). Then, using the resources there, colonies could be set up. Eventually, these will sprout new colonies, further pushing the boundaries of inhabited space until finally they reach a star.
This scheme of colonization would be unlike anything the western world, even in the days of years long voyages via sailing ships, has known. Perhaps the closest would be the voyages of the far flung polynesians who managed to spread across the vastness of the pacific ocean over a period measured in centuries(?). If any of them made it to South America (some say they did), it would be like these future voyagers making it to the next star.
Of course, we all hope for a Star Trek/Star Wars future with warp/hyperdrive bringing the stars within an afternoon's jaunt. Failing that I guess the runner up desirable future would be the hyper broadband interstellar communications network in which our downloaded selves could be digitally transferred at the speed of light to the next instancing hub (such as in Greg Egan stories of the post-singularity future).
However if neither of those pan out and if we don't learn how to make/harness anti-matter, micro-blackholes, zero-point energy, giant laser driven solar sails or ??? then perhaps this is our most optimistic future.
Maybe with immortality and suspended animation it won't be too bad. Slow trips around the galaxy indeed
Too bad it's too late for them to be able to use the Space Shuttle external tanks.
There were around 135 launches (so I guess the number of tanks that made it almost to orbit would be 134). Of course many (most?) of these missions were not in the correct orbital plane for use as space habitats (I guess they would not be easily reachable by subsequent manned flights). Still when one considers the sheer volume (about 2 million liters!) you'd think they'd be very useful. Also because they didn't have much heavy external hardware (like engines) they'd be easier to move around and keep in orbit.
What could they have been used for? I'm not sure but a whole bunch of interesting applications come to mind. If they could hold a full atmosphere's worth of pressure they'd make huge living spaces. If only a low pressure environment could be maintained, perhaps plants could survive in a mostly CO2 atmosphere; with a slow rotation about the long axis and a central light column running down the length of it, it could be a huge hydroponic garden for waste recycling and food. If they turned out to be pretty durable then perhaps propellent storage or even reuse as fuel tanks for interplanetary expeditions could be envisioned. Since they are light, perhaps they could be sent, empty, to a passing comet to refill with water and then sent back to earth orbit using some of the collected mass as fuel. If nothing else, they could have been cut up and used as raw materials for use in providing shielding against micrometeorites.
Anyway, there were well over a hundred of these giant things that, with just a little more delta-V (and admittedly, long term boosting to counteract atmospheric drag) could have been a valuable orbital resource. I guess it wasn't done because some infrastructure wasn't available (cheap orbital "tugs" perhaps using ion drives for low fuel consumption) and the vision and political will wasn't there. Too bad because this could've been like Skylab but hundredfold.
If "extinction" is the level of catastrophe we're looking at, then most of these events won't meet that high a bar.
I mean, even after a major asteroid impact or even all out nuclear war there are going to be some survivors; maybe in unlikely places (nuclear submarines*, the ISS, Iceland, Antarctica). Likewise, almost every "natural" pathogen will leave resistant survivors even if there is no vaccine or cure. As long as enough are left to breed they could restart humankind (but perhaps at a very reduced level of technology/civilization). Whether or not they would ever be able to recover to our current state due to exhaustion of most easily exploited resources is another question but forever is a long time. If there are a sufficient number of survivors and IF there is a repository of knowledge that has survived (archived wikipedia perhaps?) it is probable that decades or centuries of technological development can be skipped (like going directly from wood burning furnaces to photovoltaics or wind power).
However, if there is an Intelligent enemy that is pursuing us, then our chances are much lower. A sentient A.I. that wanted to wipe out humanity could track down and eliminate those in shelter or get them when they come back out of hiding. I guess the long-living product of an intelligent enemy (like mindless "grey-goo" nanobots) could do the same thing by continuously and systematically breaking down the biosphere (and anything that re-enters it from space, the deep ocean or the polar regions). Then, unless we've recreated another biosphere somewhere else (is that why you're going to Mars, Elon Musk?) we're all dead. Of course, WE are our own intelligent enemy and a deliberate attempt to wipe ourselves out (super weapons, resilient viruses) or even big "oops!" ("gene-drive", mini-black holes, large asteroid mining near earth gone wrong), might readily succeed.
We have met the enemy and it is us.
*Okay I know that the crews of nuclear submarine are (nearly?) all men. But if there are any women left at least they'll have a good gene pool to dip from!
By the way, sorry for the numerous typos, improper use of contractions (it's vs. it's) etc. I'm typing this on a smartphone on a bumpy bus!
Since there are so many parts to this project that are on the thin line between science fiction and science fantasy I think their estimate of 20(?) years (or about one generation) of development is more than a little optimistic. That said, in TWO generations this kind of thing might be a bit more practical, especially if, by that time, we have some relatively robust nano-bots that could construct and MAINTAIN the "starwisp". (Their stated approach to getting over the very probable impact of interstellar dust at relativistic speed is just numbers; that is launch a lot and hope a few survive. Not a very solid strategy to hang a likely multi billion dollar project on).
Given that time frame (around 50 years?) another possibility arises. Their proposal currently has the 100 GW laser Beamer array being in a high altitude part of the super-dry atacama desert in Chile. Despite it's deliberate isolation from major population centers, it could still be used as an insanely powerful anti-sat weapon which would essentially give the controlling nation the power (ha ha) to rule near earth space. (Current technology shows 100KW lasers blowing drones out of the sky, this would be a million times more powerful). Even though it only can "see" half the sky, almost all orbits would eventually process overhead, only get-sync satellites on the opposite side of the earth would be permanently safe. This potential destructive capability would probably be a major block for international approval of this project.
So, since the insanely ambitious other aspects of this project are unlikely to be ready soon, why not plan for a time when (hopefully) launch costs have given us ready access to the moon? In fifty years, it probably won't be insanely expensive to build this array on the Far side of the moon and it brings several advantages. No atmospheric distortion, geologic stability, slow (two week pointing time) rotation and abundant solar power just adds to the principal advantage of being unable to be used against the earth (and near earth objects possibly out to the moon's orbit). Another major advantage is that with the improved stability and beam purity it may be possible to keep it "locked on" for farther than 1 million kilometers. If it could do ten times this distance then the acceleration could be reduced and, more importantly, the sail would only have to be not absorb 99.9 % of the radiation instead of 99.99%. (Or the payload could be increased by a factor of ten or, you get the picture).
For these reasons, a far side lunar array should be considered. As an aside, in addition to using this laser launch system to power space vehicles/habitats throughout the solar system; it might prove to be a very effective asteroid deflection system. A 100 GW laser beam hitting the side of an asteroid would provide a very powerful "kick" from the presumed boiling off of any material there. Over long periods of time, perhaps even the light pressure alone would be significant.
If the cargo version of the Dream Chaser (which I note is also winged and reusable), can be launched on the Falcon 9X (I think this is the version that has the reusable first stage) then almost the entire vehicle is reusable!
I think it will, unfortunately, still require a (small?) second stage to get it into orbit but perhaps the Dream Chaser (cargo version) can boost itself into orbit. In any case it would provide another reusable re-entry option for the Falcon (the Dragon space capsule of course has been proven to be recoverable).
Interesting to note that the wings on the Dream Chaser are folding so it can fit inside a launch fairing. Is this the normal launch profile? Does it never launch "naked" with wings unfolded? Perhaps the aerodynamics are just too problematic for a winged vehicle on the tip of a booster stack. Maybe that's why the crewed version didn't get approved (it would not be good to have the crew inside a launch fairing in case of an accident).
The aliens have their drive unit pointed at us as they want to decelerate into our solar system and not fly right through it. Their drive emissions are tremendously blue shifted (into the gamma rays) since they are approaching at a fair percentage of the speed of light (and maybe the drive is outputting gamma rays to begin with).
The best way to verify this would be to look at the spectra of the gamma ray emissions and see if they are gradually being redshifted (slowing down). This would give us an idea of how fast they are decelerating and maybe when they will be arriving. Let's hope that their ship isn't really huge or that it's not pointed directly at us so that their drive won't scour away our atmosphere!
(They could also be using a huge solar sail and what we're seeing is the reflection of our own sun but they'd really have to be moving very very close to c in order for it to be reflected as gamma rays. In that case, since they would be traveling just behind the wavefront they would also have to be right on top of us!).
All life evolves by the differential survival of replicating entities. -- Dawkins