Author Topic: Episode #716  (Read 2831 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Steven Novella

  • SGU Panel Member
  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1842
Episode #716
« on: March 30, 2019, 12:11:27 PM »
Guest Rogue – Tyler Black; News Items: Back to the Moon, Get Rid of Statistical Significance, Alcosynth, Predicting Suicide, Coal vs Renewables; Who’s That Noisy; Science or Fiction
Steven Novella
Host, The Skeptics Guide

Offline GodHead

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 91
Re: Episode #716
« Reply #1 on: March 30, 2019, 01:17:48 PM »

Offline skepticahjumma

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 14
Re: Episode #716
« Reply #2 on: March 30, 2019, 02:46:30 PM »
I enjoyed Dr Black’s participation. He was very pleasant and fit in well.

Offline fuzzyMarmot

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 683
Re: Episode #716
« Reply #3 on: March 31, 2019, 04:04:39 AM »
I thought Dr. Black was an excellent guest, too, He offered some very intelligent contributions and had a great sense of humor.

Offline lucek

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 136
Re: Episode #716
« Reply #4 on: March 31, 2019, 07:32:14 AM »
I definitely got who's that noisily but given it's the third hit on youtube for relavent criteria I was probably like the thousandth person to get it. It sucks because I normally listen while going to school on Saturday but had to study. College has cost me a wtn win.
You have the power, but. . .
Power is just energy over time and. . .
Energy is just the ability to do work.

Offline Quetzalcoatl

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5107
Re: Episode #716
« Reply #5 on: March 31, 2019, 12:42:37 PM »
I think Cara is right in that the statement about if NASA is not able to send manned space missions with its current budget it has to be re-organized is probably another way of saying that climate research and so on needs to be done away with. Because let's face it, the Trump administration has zero interest in scientific research. Its interest, I'd assume, in returning to the moon is an expression of nationalism. Therefore to that mindset it makes sense to strip NASA's climate research, and make it focus on manned missions instead.

I really liked this week's quote and its sentiment, and I agree with it.
"I’m a member of no party. I have no ideology. I’m a rationalist. I do what I can in the international struggle between science and reason and the barbarism, superstition and stupidity that’s all around us." - Christopher Hitchens

Offline Paul Blevins Jr.

  • Keeps Priorities Straight
  • ***
  • Posts: 395
Re: Episode #716
« Reply #6 on: March 31, 2019, 03:12:45 PM »
We won't be back to the moon in five years.

Offline daniel1948

  • Isn’t a
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8767
  • I'd rather be paddling
Re: Episode #716
« Reply #7 on: March 31, 2019, 04:08:14 PM »
I was a little surprised, and very pleasantly so, to hear one of the rogues who usually are so in favor of sending humans into space, say that sending people to the moon would not be worth it if it meant cutting back on the much more productive and cost-effective robotic missions. It's a no-brainer that Trump wants to end climate research. But it would also be a research disaster if robotic missions to other solar system objects were eliminated in order to put people on the moon.

It was great to hear that even Forbes now says that solar and wind are more economical than coal. And if I understood it right, it's even more economical to build new solar and wind capacity than to continue to operate existing coal-fired plants. And that's even without counting the external costs of coal.

But I have one question about "advanced nuclear": I understand that newer technologies are safer than the old ones, but what about the disposal and storage of the waste? Up until now, nuclear waste has never been considered in the economics of nuclear, with the government accepting all the responsibility, and "temporary" waste storage facilities are many times over their design capacities and have become effectively permanent storage, which they are ill suited for. This stuff has to be stored for many many times longer than the entire history of human language. Perhaps longer than Homo sapiens has existed. There is no way we have the technology to insure the safe isolation of this stuff. We are producing poisons that for all practical purposes last forever. Do the newer "advanced" nuclear technologies avoid the production of long-lasting radioactive waste?

I got SoF right, but for the wrong reason.

(click to show/hide)
"Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think long and hard before starting a war."
-- Otto von Bismarck

Offline Friendly Angel

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4465
  • Post count reset to zero in both forum apocalypses
Re: Episode #716
« Reply #8 on: March 31, 2019, 08:52:23 PM »
The Daphnia water flea, with 31,000 genes, for reference:

You can buy these things on line for fish food and science experiments.

Amend and resubmit.

Offline stlc8tr

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 49
Re: Episode #716
« Reply #9 on: April 01, 2019, 01:33:22 AM »
Spacewalk Reassignments: What's the Deal?

Yeah, I was disappointed that the Rogues didn't have a more nuanced take on the spacesuit news story.

Offline 2397

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2850
Re: Episode #716
« Reply #10 on: April 01, 2019, 04:57:09 AM »
NASA's budget cut by half a billion, and it's going increase 1% every year... which means cut by half a billion at once with additional cuts every year, if that's not on top of inflation.

Offline Ron Obvious

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 242
Re: Episode #716
« Reply #11 on: April 01, 2019, 09:17:07 AM »
I was a little surprised to hear the Rogues' excited reactions to Pence's statement about going back to the Moon in 5 years.  Nobody really believes this, do they? It's clearly just another throwaway line like Bush Sr.'s mission to Mars.

This administration hasn't the slightest interest in science or exploration, though to be fair, neither did the previous ones.  I could only see an interest in this if the Chinese were a genuine threat to colonise the place first, which seems many years away.

The immediately following statement about the budget cut at NASA brought to mind Biden's crack from a few years ago: "Don't tell me what you're for; Show me your budget."

Offline seamas

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2470
Re: Episode #716
« Reply #12 on: April 01, 2019, 11:59:15 AM »
NASA's explanation isn't very satisfactory, considering there are numerous Astronauts that have NO space suit in their size at all (they have NONE is small).

I would think that smaller, lighter weight astronauts would be in demand considering the cost per kilo of putting someone into orbit, and probably a conservation of resources as well.
I mean it isn't the 1960s when having some macho square-jawed American Hero manly man was considered a crucial part of the space program propaganda.

Offline 2397

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2850
Re: Episode #716
« Reply #13 on: April 01, 2019, 01:53:13 PM »
How big of a deal is it to add another suit to the wardrobe?

I wouldn't be surprised if this was a simple matter of not being able to justify paying for it yet. If this was to be the first ever pair of women on a spacewalk, and they haven't had men of a similar size, then it's the first time they've needed two suits of that size. The main issue was not realizing that before publicizing the spacewalk.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2019, 02:01:01 PM by 2397 »

Offline Ah.hell

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 13291
Re: Episode #716
« Reply #14 on: April 01, 2019, 02:12:06 PM »
Kind of reminds me of a Dilbert comic, marketing making an announcement that engineering heard about on the news and collectively went, "Wait, what?".


? ? ? ?
Extra Larger 

Also, was one or more of the women particularly petite?