The game missing

[DocClox]

10 hours ago, New_Dr.Pepper said:

I have always found it interesting we treat hypotheses as facts.

 

A bit of context: I first heard the idea of terraforming Venus using photosynthesis when I was a teenager. Now that was literal decades ago and it was some TV science journalism show. Quite a well regarded one, I seem to recall, but hardly a scholarly journal. Additionally, that meant my information was probably forty years out of date. So, since I didn't really much care one way or the other, I was more than happy to concede that I couldn't speak with any authority on the subject and leave it at that.

 

Since the subject keeps coming up, I did some googling, and found a Wikipedia page on the subject. Apparently the idea was first proposed by Poul Anderson in a story in 1954. Carl Sagan subsequently looked into the idea and proposed it in the journal Science in 1961. It stayed pretty much non-controversial for thirty years,

 

Turns out the major problem isn't a lack of water vapor in the upper atmosphere, but the atmospheric pressure on the surface. Even if you could convert all the atmosphere, the pressure would still render it uninhabitable. There are current schemes proposed that use Sagan's idea as a component, but it's now accepted that it's not viable as a stand alone solution.

 

10 hours ago, New_Dr.Pepper said:

At the end of the day we are arguing over pieces of propaganda construed as facts and truth.

 

For hundreds of millions of years, the Sun shone on our planet. Plants captured that energy with chlorophyll and when they died, that trapped solar energy was stored as coal and oil, substances with tremendous energy density that made them idea for use as fuel.

 

Then, over the course of little more than a century, we took those millennia of captured solar energy and we burnt off a sizeable proportion of it. It's not bad science to postulate that adding heat to a closed system makes it hotter.

 

Honestly, I despise the efforts to politicize science and turn it from a respected evidence-based process into just another opinion.

Edited September 25, 2023 by DocClox
typos

[Nindran]

4 hours ago, DocClox said:

 

A bit of context: I first heard the idea of terraforming Venus using photosynthesis when I was a teenager. Now that was literal decades ago and it was some TV science journalism show. Quite a well regarded one, I seem to recall, but hardly a scholarly journal. Additionally, that meant my information was probably forty years out of date. So, since I didn't really much care one way or the other, I was more than happy to concede that I couldn't speak with any authority on the subject and leave it at that.

 

Since the subject keeps coming up, I did some googling, and found a Wikipedia page on the subject. Apparently the idea was first proposed by Poul Anderson in a story in 1954. Carl Sagan subsequently looked into the idea and proposed it in the journal Science in 1961. It stayed pretty much non-controversial for thirty years,

 

Turns out the major problem isn't a lack of water vapor in the upper atmosphere, but the atmospheric pressure on the surface. Even if you could convert all the atmosphere, the pressure would still render it uninhabitable. There are current schemes proposed that use Sagan's idea as a component, but it's now accepted that it's not viable as a stand alone solution.

 

 

For hundreds of millions of years, the Sun shone on our planet. Plants captured that energy with chlorophyll and when they died, that trapped solar energy was stored as coal and oil, substances with tremendous energy density that made them idea for use as fuel.

 

Then, over the course of little more than a century, we took those millennia of captured solar energy and we burnt off a sizeable proportion of it. It's not bad science to postulate that adding heat to a closed system makes it hotter.

 

Honestly, I despise the efforts to politicize science and turn it from a respected evidence-based process into just another opinion.

I agree I don't like how the take one building blocks and villainfies it without realizing it important  these people worship scientism and not science. How time money have waste on there worship of it could use to advance are own race nobody guees. As terriform we're a will there way as long you make it a dream or tell it stories you push man to tried to do it

[Miauzi]

Vor 4 Stunden sagte DocClox:

 

Ein bisschen Kontext: Als Teenager hörte ich zum ersten Mal von der Idee, die Venus mithilfe der Photosynthese zu terraformieren. Das ist buchstäblich Jahrzehnte her und es war eine Wissenschaftsjournalismussendung im Fernsehen. Ich erinnere mich, dass es sich um eine recht angesehene Zeitschrift handelte, aber kaum um eine wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift. Außerdem bedeutete das, dass meine Informationen wahrscheinlich vierzig Jahre veraltet waren. Da es mir auf die eine oder andere Weise egal war, gab ich gerne zu, dass ich zu diesem Thema mit keiner Autorität sprechen konnte, und beließ es dabei.

 

Da das Thema immer wieder auftaucht, habe ich etwas gegoogelt und eine Wikipedia-Seite zu diesem Thema gefunden . Anscheinend wurde die Idee erstmals 1954 von Poul Anderson in einer Geschichte vorgeschlagen. Carl Sagan untersuchte die Idee anschließend und schlug sie 1961 in der Zeitschrift Science vor. Sie blieb dreißig Jahre lang weitgehend unumstritten.

 

Es stellte sich heraus, dass das Hauptproblem nicht der Mangel an Wasserdampf in der oberen Atmosphäre ist, sondern der atmosphärische Druck an der Oberfläche. Selbst wenn man die gesamte Atmosphäre umwandeln könnte, würde der Druck sie immer noch unbewohnbar machen. Es gibt aktuelle Vorschläge, die Sagans Idee als Komponente nutzen, aber es wird mittlerweile akzeptiert, dass sie als eigenständige Lösung nicht realisierbar ist.

 

 

Hunderte Millionen Jahre lang schien die Sonne auf unserem Planeten. Pflanzen haben diese Energie mit Chlorophyll eingefangen, und als sie starben, wurde die eingeschlossene Sonnenenergie in Form von Kohle und Öl gespeichert, Substanzen mit enormer Energiedichte, die sie ideal für die Verwendung als Brennstoff machten.

 

Dann haben wir im Laufe von etwas mehr als einem Jahrhundert diese Jahrtausende eingefangener Sonnenenergie genutzt und einen beträchtlichen Teil davon verbrannt. Es ist keine schlechte Wissenschaft, zu postulieren, dass die Zufuhr von Wärme zu einem geschlossenen System dieses heißer macht.

 

Ehrlich gesagt verachte ich die Bemühungen, die Wissenschaft zu politisieren und sie von einem angesehenen, evidenzbasierten Prozess in nur eine weitere Meinung zu verwandeln.

 

Then we both read about this approach in our youth - and since I come from the "socialist" camp of space travel - these approaches were discussed very internationally ... and published, for example, in our popular-scientific journals.

And of course such working theses also provide plenty of starting points for criticism...

...a crucial point for me was the problem - that it was doubted whether the air currents at these altitudes can carry the algae long enough - for them to reproduce sufficiently. We are talking about an extremely thin atmosphere here - the algae simply sink to deeper layers where they either no longer "work" or "die".

And a sufficient supply ... how do you want to organise this ...? for projects of planetary dimensions, hundreds if not thousands of space stations in Venus orbit are necessary - which constantly breed such algae and "inoculate" the atmosphere with them.

If you consider how complicated and cost-intensive even a TINY-SMALL space station in Earth orbit is ... the building materials for these Venus stations cannot come from Earth.

Just take a look at the launch mass of a launcher - which only brings 1000 kg of useful mass into a Venus orbit.

 

But that is only one of the many technical sides of this terraforming project ... the biological-geological side has not even been addressed yet.

What will become of the carbon released by CO2? Is it supposed to lie as "coal" on the surface of Venus?

Once the carbon is out of the CO2 ... you have an almost pure oxygen atmosphere - the nitrogen that used to be there doesn't become any more.

So the oxygen must also be geo-chemically bound.

To turn the oxygen into water ... well, there's no hydrogen for that - it disappears from the high atmosphere through the influence of UV radiation from the water vapour into free space. Without a massive supply of water from the Keuper belt, Venus will remain an extremely dry world.

[Nindran]

Dry world will that world have jawa on it .  We dwell science fiction in starfield and drag a comet compose of ice into Venus might help  another questions is there way store co2

Edited September 25, 2023 by Nindran

[Nindran]

We got one planet we're inhabitants claim we use to much CO2 another planet we use that CO2

[Miauzi]

Vor 2 Stunden sagte Nindran:

Die trockene Welt wird Jawa haben. Wir verbringen Science-Fiction im Sternenfeld und ziehen einen Kometen aus Eis in die Venus. Das könnte bei einer weiteren Frage helfen: Gibt es eine Möglichkeit, CO2 zu speichern?

 

Let me give you a hint -> Calcium Carbonate aka "CaCO3"

[Bafflegab]

9 hours ago, DocClox said:

 

A bit of context: I first heard the idea of terraforming Venus using photosynthesis when I was a teenager. Now that was literal decades ago and it was some TV science journalism show. Quite a well regarded one, I seem to recall, but hardly a scholarly journal. Additionally, that meant my information was probably forty years out of date. So, since I didn't really much care one way or the other, I was more than happy to concede that I couldn't speak with any authority on the subject and leave it at that.

 

Since the subject keeps coming up, I did some googling, and found a Wikipedia page on the subject. Apparently the idea was first proposed by Poul Anderson in a story in 1954. Carl Sagan subsequently looked into the idea and proposed it in the journal Science in 1961. It stayed pretty much non-controversial for thirty years,

 

Turns out the major problem isn't a lack of water vapor in the upper atmosphere, but the atmospheric pressure on the surface. Even if you could convert all the atmosphere, the pressure would still render it uninhabitable. There are current schemes proposed that use Sagan's idea as a component, but it's now accepted that it's not viable as a stand alone solution.

 

 

For hundreds of millions of years, the Sun shone on our planet. Plants captured that energy with chlorophyll and when they died, that trapped solar energy was stored as coal and oil, substances with tremendous energy density that made them idea for use as fuel.

 

Then, over the course of little more than a century, we took those millennia of captured solar energy and we burnt off a sizeable proportion of it. It's not bad science to postulate that adding heat to a closed system makes it hotter.

 

Honestly, I despise the efforts to politicize science and turn it from a respected evidence-based process into just another opinion.

The idea of jumping into a personal spaceship and visiting a city among the clouds of Venus, then bending time and space to jump to a far off galaxy sounds like an exciting idea. But the like I stated, the surface pressures would make it improbable. Though, Venus is a prime example of what Earth was like at one point in time. Depending on your beliefs, whatever event turned Earth into a habitable planet, could happen to Venus. On the other hand, Venus has no moons and it takes roughly the same amount of time for it circle the sun and its own axis.

 

Absolutely, the politicization of science is 100% harmful. It negates the expansion and forward progress of humanity. Modern science puts us in a pitch black round room with a single matchstick, then tells us to find the room's corner.

 

"Give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum on which to place it, and I shall move the world". While mathematically Archimedes statement is true, the execution is improbably. And therein lies the issue, theory based science is passed off as fact and fact based science is labeled "misinformation"

 

Starfield, like many other Sci-fi media show those who think they know best are the ones who destroy the earth and not humanity as a whole. The first artifact was found on mars. Caution should have been taken to keep an alien object from earth. A research facility could have been built on mars, being the lore shows humans can travel to mars and perform construction projects ... i.e. finding the artifact that we know is embedded in a planets bedrock ... this game is full of so many plot holes ... the scientist claims he passed out for 12 days and met himself. Per the PC's interactions, that can only happen at the unity, when all that universe artifacts are joined. Why didn't a dragon ... I mean, starborn appear and take the artifact away. Being they want them, can see a universes past, present and future, and can time travel. And the process of the Unit would cause a massive multi-verse butterfly effect, because the starborns are essentially time travelling and changing another universe outcome. As an electrical engineer and multi-state licensed electrician, the idea of interstellar travel and alternate means of energy interest me... But ... we are not even close to either. The process to harvest the raw materials and the raw materials themselves, to make the current "alternate means of energy", are extremely toxic. They are destroying far more of the earth then an oil spill or mountaintoping does. And many of the materials are mined using unfavorable means and labor methods but so many turn an blind eye to that ... but I digress ...

 

Starfield tries to be so many things ... skyrim, fallout, the outer worlds, starship troopers, cyberpunk 2077/blade runner, so forth and so on. Its like BGS said we can do what everyone else is doing but better and all in one game. BGS took the easy way out and when they didn't wanna fix or fill in a plot hole, they just said its the artifact doing it. Per "the science", humanity cannot function properly as a species on earth but we will once we travel the stars.

 

This is not a conversion I thought I would be having on this site.

Edited September 25, 2023 by New_Dr.Pepper

[moakami]

Sex Labs.. I wonder what is taking the developer so long.

 

 

oh.. and it is missing a bigger variety of weapons.  

I need them nukes man..

 

Also anyone know if they came up with a new name for the Sex Labs of starfield? Like.. Star Labs?

[Nindran]

On 9/25/2023 at 11:49 AM, New_Dr.Pepper said:

The idea of jumping into a personal spaceship and visiting a city among the clouds of Venus, then bending time and space to jump to a far off galaxy sounds like an exciting idea. But the like I stated, the surface pressures would make it improbable. Though, Venus is a prime example of what Earth was like at one point in time. Depending on your beliefs, whatever event turned Earth into a habitable planet, could happen to Venus. On the other hand, Venus has no moons and it takes roughly the same amount of time for it circle the sun and its own axis.

 

Absolutely, the politicization of science is 100% harmful. It negates the expansion and forward progress of humanity. Modern science puts us in a pitch black round room with a single matchstick, then tells us to find the room's corner.

 

"Give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum on which to place it, and I shall move the world". While mathematically Archimedes statement is true, the execution is improbably. And therein lies the issue, theory based science is passed off as fact and fact based science is labeled "misinformation"

 

Starfield, like many other Sci-fi media show those who think they know best are the ones who destroy the earth and not humanity as a whole. The first artifact was found on mars. Caution should have been taken to keep an alien object from earth. A research facility could have been built on mars, being the lore shows humans can travel to mars and perform construction projects ... i.e. finding the artifact that we know is embedded in a planets bedrock ... this game is full of so many plot holes ... the scientist claims he passed out for 12 days and met himself. Per the PC's interactions, that can only happen at the unity, when all that universe artifacts are joined. Why didn't a dragon ... I mean, starborn appear and take the artifact away. Being they want them, can see a universes past, present and future, and can time travel. And the process of the Unit would cause a massive multi-verse butterfly effect, because the starborns are essentially time travelling and changing another universe outcome. As an electrical engineer and multi-state licensed electrician, the idea of interstellar travel and alternate means of energy interest me... But ... we are not even close to either. The process to harvest the raw materials and the raw materials themselves, to make the current "alternate means of energy", are extremely toxic. They are destroying far more of the earth then an oil spill or mountaintoping does. And many of the materials are mined using unfavorable means and labor methods but so many turn an blind eye to that ... but I digress ...

 

Starfield tries to be so many things ... skyrim, fallout, the outer worlds, starship troopers, cyberpunk 2077/blade runner, so forth and so on. Its like BGS said we can do what everyone else is doing but better and all in one game. BGS took the easy way out and when they didn't wanna fix or fill in a plot hole, they just said its the artifact doing it. Per "the science", humanity cannot function properly as a species on earth but we will once we travel the stars.

 

This is not a conversion I thought I would be having on this site.

Maybe because to questions such thing would be considered censored friendly. We live with a religious  dogma like global warming. To questions this or any other believe is wrong even scientist that doesn't agree are shun for not agreeing on global warming 

Edited September 28, 2023 by Nindran

[Miauzi]

Vor 10 Minuten sagte Nindran:

Vielleicht, weil solche Fragen als zensurfreundlich angesehen würden. Wir leben mit einem religiösen Dogma wie der globalen Erwärmung. Diesen oder einen anderen Glauben in Frage zu stellen, ist falsch. Selbst Wissenschaftler, die anderer Meinung sind, werden gemieden, weil sie hinsichtlich der globalen Erwärmung nicht einer Meinung sind 

 

Du spielt ein Weltraum-Spiel - bezeichnest aber den vom Menschen mit verursachten (beschleunigten) Klima-Wandel als ... was bitte ... "religiöses Dogma"

 

kein Kommentar dazu - würde ich meine ehrliche Meinung schreiben wäre (berechtigter Weise) eine Sperre seitens der Moderation für mich fällig

[Trykz]

On 9/19/2023 at 5:28 AM, DocClox said:

(Also, very much in favor of bringing back dogs. There must be tons of genetic material they can use for cloning).

 

There's a quest mod for you:

 

Travel to Earth in search of a pet cemetery to collect DNA samples of common housepets ??

[Miauzi]

Vor 8 Minuten sagte Trykz:

 

Es gibt einen Quest-Mod für dich:

 

Reise zur Erde auf der Suche nach einem Tierfriedhof, um DNA-Proben gewöhnlicher Haustiere zu sammeln ? ?

 

There are dozens of worlds full of "alien" animal races - why shouldn't the people who fled Earth "domesticate" the animals there in their new home?

 

[Trykz]

4 minutes ago, Miauzi said:

 

There are dozens of worlds full of "alien" animal races - why shouldn't the people who fled Earth "domesticate" the animals there in their new home?

 

 

That too ?

[Nindran]

Bring back the dogs breed. Pictures a wealth Neon bring back house pet that man would have richest after. First dog he back is German shepherd named dogmeat

Edited September 30, 2023 by Nindran

[pashax]

On 9/25/2023 at 11:49 AM, New_Dr.Pepper said:

the scientist claims he passed out for 12 days and met himself.

I think the game was trying to imply that the scientist met a Starborn version of himself from another universe trying to educate him. But it isn't delivered very well in the story because aside from roughly two Starborn, all others are just seeking to collect the artifacts for themselves. There's a lot from that mission that bothered me. It seemed like they were setting up some foreshadowing with the destruction of the Earth due to the artifact, but there's no pay off later in the game, and this part of the subplot is just done when the quest ends.

 

On 9/28/2023 at 6:42 PM, Miauzi said:

There are dozens of worlds full of "alien" animal races - why shouldn't the people who fled Earth "domesticate" the animals there in their new home?

I did run across one landed ship on a planet with a pilot that had a pet alien creature following her around.  She mentioned how it had six eyes but was effectively blind and licked things to find its way around and had a tendency to run into things while on her ship.  Unfortunately, I didn't take note of the pilot's name. It's a little weird that there isn't a lot more of that, especially when you consider the xenoweapon stories in the game.

[Miauzi]

Vor 2 Stunden sagte Pashax:

Ich denke, das Spiel wollte andeuten, dass der Wissenschaftler eine Starborn-Version seiner selbst aus einem anderen Universum traf, um ihn zu erziehen. Aber es wird in der Geschichte nicht sehr gut umgesetzt, denn abgesehen von etwa zwei Sternengeborenen versuchen alle anderen nur, die Artefakte für sich selbst zu sammeln. Vieles an dieser Mission hat mich gestört. Es schien, als würden sie mit der Zerstörung der Erde aufgrund des Artefakts eine Vorahnung ahnen, aber später im Spiel gibt es keine Auszahlung, und dieser Teil der Nebenhandlung ist erst fertig, wenn die Quest endet.

 

Ich bin tatsächlich auf ein gelandetes Schiff auf einem Planeten gestoßen, dessen Pilot von einem außerirdischen Haustier verfolgt wurde. Sie erwähnte, dass es sechs Augen hatte, aber praktisch blind war und Dinge ableckte, um sich zurechtzufinden, und dass es dazu neigte, auf ihrem Schiff auf Dinge zu stoßen. Leider habe ich den Namen des Piloten nicht zur Kenntnis genommen. Es ist ein wenig seltsam, dass es davon nicht viel mehr gibt, besonders wenn man die Geschichten über Xenowaffen im Spiel bedenkt.

 

Well - in my case it was an elderly woman pilot and she had landed near me to "walk" her pet.

It also had 6 eyes and was still "blind as night".

 

---

 

The fact that the humans took plenty of domesticated farm animals with them when they fled from Earth - for their newly established agriculture - is hinted at several times in the game.

Even clearer references to the use of xeno-races are given in the quest strand of the "UC Vanguard" ... and I don't just mean as biological weapons - but also as agricultural livestock.

And the most remarkable thing is -> you also settle xeno-animal races on other planets and try to integrate them into the ecosystem there.