Apok, perhaps you didn't read the beginning of this article, or maybe you aren't reading what I am saying.
Sure I did.
We are debating about doing it with available technology. Not whether it couldn't be done in the future. Please get on topic.
Says who? I'm definitely not.
And I am not using straw man. I have given real facts. You are the one skewing the debate.
Do you even know what a strawman is?
A strawman is attacking a position that the other person does not hold.
You seemed to think that
I was arguing that we should try this
today, when in fact I wasn't.
Gamma radiation is always bad for you.
Actually, it's possible that genetic mutations can be benificial. In the vast majority of cases, they don't have any positive or negative effect though.
In any case, again, it's only bad for you
if it actually hits you and causes damage that is actually harmful
The event of a photon of gamma frequency hitting you is, again, quite rare, unless in extremely high concentrations, such as those from an atomic bomb.
And, when they do, it doesn't absolutely mean it will be harmful. The vast majority of our DNA is not actually functionally used.
There is no such thing as low power gamma rays because to be gamma rays means that it is of very high energy.
I know what gamma radiation is. I know it has high energy.
You seem to be missing that I'm not arguing against gamma radiation having high energy. I'm arguing that it doesn't
actually hit you very often, but rather, pass right through the relatively massive gaps between the atoms.
Simply not true. 90% of our DNA has an unknown function. Geneticists have not figured that out yet.
There is empirical evidence of the majority of DNA not having a function.
When mutations occur, which isn't all that uncommon, they have no real effect in the vast majority of cases.
And regular power stations don't cost billions of dollars. That's like using a Camry as a justification for a Ferrari.
That's begging the question. Maybe it won't cost billions of dollars for the
future solar panels.
No, it doesn't. Everything in space is hard and expensive.
Not everything, and that's also ignoring research and development that will go into making things cheaper and better.
And that isn't an over generalization, that's a fact of life. You tell me how with our rockets
How about future rockets or alternate forms of transportation?
we could get the whole thing up and assemble it without space walks?
automation using machines and computer-controlled systems.
The current heavy lifters have the capacity of one satellite and each launch is several millions of dollars.
You can't make them self erecting because #1 that's too much extra weight
For what? perhaps our current (mind you, dated) shuttles. Doesn't mean it will be too heavy for any future rockets or spacecraft.
#2 the maneuvers in space are too complex to leave to an automated system.
A long time ago, people would have never believed a computer as powerful as we have could fit inside as small boxes as they often do today.
Making assumptions like this is unscientific.
Someone will have to get out side of the craft and tighten some bolts.
Or some kind of machine. Or it might just be built rugged enough to not need it.
This is the way it is for the foreseeable future, so you can't get around that one.
The future is not inherently predictable.
Not in the foreseeable future they aren't.
see above.
The most efficient solar panels that we currently have
I'll finish here.
