Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How would the US Space Force factor into a future Stargate series?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #31
    I'd rather see they'd do some other palent/panetiod in our Solar System first, just to see how it would work out. Besides, the Moon has been overdone in other shows already. Plus it would make a great story arc of Earth getting to create a real own-made Moon Base which is not a flying city, flown over from another Galaxy.

    Comment


      #32
      The last few posts were about real life events not Stargate.

      But back to Stargate. Moon base was really meant to be the new SGC. It would be safer for Earth if any hostile attacks could come through the stargate. We can't expect that the new enemies can turn off the Iris soon it or later. It would be nice to buid it on some kind of secret Asgard laboratory or the the Asgard heritage would be built into it instead of leaving it on Odussey. I am guessing the writers had some plans with that ship anyway. They could activate some building drones etc.

      The Solar System is also unprotected. Anyone can fly in and make some trouble on Earth. So I hope they would use the long distance sensors of Atlantis or the new advanced Moon Base would have such things.
      "I was hoping for another day. Looks like we just got a whole lot more than that. Let's not waste it."

      "Never underestimate your audience. They're generally sensitive, intelligent people who respond positively to quality entertainment."

      "Individual science fiction stories may seem as trivial as ever to the blinder critics and philosophers of today, but the core of science fiction, its essence, has become crucial to our salvation, if we are to be saved at all."

      Comment


        #33
        Originally posted by Platschu View Post
        The last few posts were about real life events not Stargate.
        Such as your comments about the UN being neutral. That is very much not a neutral body, and I wouldn't want them running anything.

        Originally posted by Platschu View Post
        ut back to Stargate. Moon base was really meant to be the new SGC. It would be safer for Earth if any hostile attacks could come through the stargate. We can't expect that the new enemies can turn off the Iris soon it or later. It would be nice to buid it on some kind of secret Asgard laboratory or the the Asgard heritage would be built into it instead of leaving it on Odussey. I am guessing the writers had some plans with that ship anyway. They could activate some building drones etc.

        The Solar System is also unprotected. Anyone can fly in and make some trouble on Earth. So I hope they would use the long distance sensors of Atlantis or the new advanced Moon Base would have such things.
        At this point in our development, anyone who flies in can do whatever they want to us, and we would be no more able to affect their actions than my cats can stop me from taking them to the vet. And while my taking the cats to the vet is in their own best interests, we have no such guarantee about the motives of visitors from space.
        The very fact that they have mastered the energies required for interstellar travel makes anything we could do useless. "Independence Day" was a movie, nothing more. And the "virus" solution they used didn't even make sense.

        Comment


          #34
          If they could study the Asgard legacy, then maybe they could make the beaming technology as a weapon. Like any unidentified ship could be beamed away to the edge of the solar system where our X304 ships would make diplomatic talks / wars.

          It would be cool to see the beaming technology not just for transportation, but also for beaming icebergs to the Sahara, so Earth could start a massive terraforming. Or beaming would be used to move objects up and down betwee the proposed Moon base and Washington.

          But since Stargate wants to stay on the current level, maybe this idea could work in an AU episode where we would see some kind of negative side effects of the technology. Like not just beaming away hostile forces, but "stealing" people and lock them offworld etc.
          "I was hoping for another day. Looks like we just got a whole lot more than that. Let's not waste it."

          "Never underestimate your audience. They're generally sensitive, intelligent people who respond positively to quality entertainment."

          "Individual science fiction stories may seem as trivial as ever to the blinder critics and philosophers of today, but the core of science fiction, its essence, has become crucial to our salvation, if we are to be saved at all."

          Comment


            #35
            Originally posted by Platschu View Post
            If they could study the Asgard legacy, then maybe they could make the beaming technology as a weapon. Like any unidentified ship could be beamed away to the edge of the solar system where our X304 ships would make diplomatic talks / wars.
            That would only work if the unidentified ship both lacked shields and jamming technology.

            It would be cool to see the beaming technology not just for transportation, but also for beaming icebergs to the Sahara, so Earth could start a massive terraforming.
            The Sahara goes through green/dry periods every few thousand years. This is tied to the tilting of the Earth. Slight changes to its axis means more or less solar radiation makes it past our atmosphere. One might think less is better, but it's not. More solar radiation means that monsoons get supercharged, and with that additional energy they're able to deposit much more rain over the Sahara.

            The last dry cycle happened more quickly than it should have and one possible explanation is that livestock overgrazed the region. Plants release moisture into the atmosphere, which create clouds that help to foster continued plant growth, so humans may have inadvertently sped up to the Sahara's transformation back into a desert. This part is a hypothesis only. We know that it cycles between green and dry and why, but we don't yet have enough evidence to support a theory as to why the current dry cycle came on faster than it should have.

            A $2 trillion proposal for using desalinated seawater to feed vast Sahara forests has been floated in the past. There are several problems with this. One major issue is that winds actually carry Sahara sand (mainly from Chad) across the Atlantic. It ends up as both food for sea life and as fertilizer for the rain forest in South America.

            The Sahara has grown 10% larger in the last century and is expected to continue to grow at unusually high rates due to climate change, so human intervention to limit and reverse some of its growth is important, but large scale terraforming of the desert is likely a bad idea. It's currently unclear how long South American rain forests have been receiving fertilizer from the Sahara for and how they managed during the last green cycle, but forcing the Sahara to be green ahead of schedule may (among other far reaching consequences) seriously damage the rain forest.

            Projects to reverse climate change should look toward reversing changes caused by humans. For example, deforestation needs to stop, carbon output needs to go way down, and it would be helpful it we could restore some farmland to its natural state. In my opinion, in vitro meat (meat that is grown in a laboratory) is promising technology that, if accepted by consumers, will lower the percentage of land needed for livestock. That will allow us to grow more carbon collecting trees and reduce the global population of methane producing farm animals.

            In the Stargate universe, widespread use of Asgard replicator technology could have a similar effect. Naquadah is also, as far as we know, a clean energy that could be used to replace carbon producing fuels, and a global transportation network using beaming technology will reduce the burden on the environment caused by carbon producing modes of transportation.
            Last edited by Xaeden; 17 April 2020, 05:50 PM.

            Comment


              #36
              I have heard about this project :
              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Green_Wall
              It looks promising. I would also plant plenty of solar energy panels near the sea coasts, so the sea water could be desalted then used to make plantation and small vegetations. Or they should make more oasis with drilling up the artesi water and move some sanddunes around it to change the fields with machines. Just until we have got enough coal or oil, nobody would care about solar energy. I also still remember the "Cave of swimmers", so the Sahara used to be a savannah in the bronze age when those cave arts were painted by humans. But this Green Wall Project would be a major terraforming project for humanity for the next few hundred years.
              "I was hoping for another day. Looks like we just got a whole lot more than that. Let's not waste it."

              "Never underestimate your audience. They're generally sensitive, intelligent people who respond positively to quality entertainment."

              "Individual science fiction stories may seem as trivial as ever to the blinder critics and philosophers of today, but the core of science fiction, its essence, has become crucial to our salvation, if we are to be saved at all."

              Comment


                #37
                There are a number of Sahara terraforming proposals, including one that relies heavily on installing lots of solar panels and wind turbines in the area.

                Again, though, the problem with terraforming the Sahara wholesale is that the Sahara plays an important environmental role as is. We only discovered that Sahara dust fertilizes rain forests in South America in 2006 and have only started doing detailed studies in the last few years. We don't yet know how badly we'd damage those rain forests if we packed that Sahara dust under fertile lands, how badly that would impact ocean life (phytoplankton, a huge absorber of carbon dioxide, depends on dust that winds deposit into oceans to live), or what other damage we'd be doing to another part of the world.

                Here's an article about the Sahara's role in fertilizing South America: https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard...mazon-s-plants

                There's a lot more easy to find information about this subject that I'd recommend reading before jumping on the desert terraforming bandwagon. We need trees to live, but we need deserts as well, and it's not in our best interest to be looking to do away with them. The Sahara supports the growth of rain forests elsewhere in the world, deserts are quite possibly bigger carbon sinks than plant life (https://www.newscientist.com/article...in-the-desert/), arid conditions enable the formation of large mineral deposits, etc.
                Last edited by Xaeden; 17 February 2020, 04:37 PM.

                Comment


                  #38
                  if the Sahara cycles between jungle & desert every few thousand years or so (which is only a blink on the evolutionary scale) then how can the desert period be so vital to an ecosystem on the other side of the planet or to the ocean?
                  or do both south america & the oceans also cycle every thousands years? +_-

                  Comment


                    #39
                    Originally posted by SoulReaver View Post
                    if the Sahara cycles between jungle & desert every few thousand years or so (which is only a blink on the evolutionary scale) then how can the desert period be so vital to an ecosystem on the other side of the planet or to the ocean?
                    or do both south america & the oceans also cycle every thousands years? +_-
                    We don't know yet...

                    It's currently unclear how long South American rain forests have been receiving fertilizer from the Sahara for and how they managed during the last green cycle, but forcing the Sahara to be green ahead of schedule may (among other far reaching consequences) seriously damage the rain forest.


                    That South American rain forests get a lot of their nutrients from the Sahara is a relatively new discovery. A lot more research needs to be done to figure out how this relationship has worked throughout history. It's possible, as you note, that there's a see-saw effect, so that when the Sahara changes back to a wetter/green climate, another part of the world dries up and sands from this new desert area make it to rain forests in South America. Sahara dust is not alone in feeding life in other parts of the world. Dust from other deserts feed phytoplankton in oceans, dust from Mojave Desert supplies nutrients to plants elsewhere in North America, etc.

                    Scientists can track dust storms today, but it's difficult to pinpoint sources of dust in prehistoric times, so while we know the South American rain forests get nutrients from the Sahara, we don't know where its nutrients came from millions or even thousands of years ago.
                    Last edited by Xaeden; 18 February 2020, 06:40 PM.

                    Comment


                      #40
                      I have never heard about this fertizitation study, but it is interesting. I always believed that the sand of the Sahara is completly infertile material as almost nothing lives there. So even if the winds blows to South america, what would it change? There is enough organic matter in the jungle (dead animals and leafs), so I am a bit sceptical about it what sand could change in the food chain of the ocean or the Amazonas. Even spores are carried by insects, not sand.

                      Obviously if the Roman Empire and other ancient civilizations haven't chopped all the forest to build ships around the Mediterrean Sea then maybe the climate wouldn't have changed so rapidly. That is the reason Greece or even Scotland looks like a stone desert or half desert now as the rain washes down the remaining ground from the rocks.

                      The Sahara must have been a big savannak, before animals herds have not started to eat every grass and bushes too. That is the reason how amazing to see trees or mammals on those cave arts as it shows how it used to be.

                      I have been in Petra (Jordan) as well. Okay, that is Arabia, but even the climate must have changed so drastically within 2000 years. There were big grape and olive plantations around this used to be city, but now it is just a massive stone desert. It is still beautiful, it is worth of going there. But it is a fair warning what could happen with lots of other places in this region.

                      So I really would like to see that humanity can slow down the climate change as the Sahara can easily go up to north. Spain, Italy or Greece will be dryer and dryer, so even those countries can turn into a desert easily. Lucky me I have been in the Tabernas desert too, which is the only tiny little desert in Europe. It is located in Spain near Andalucia. Lots of western movies were shot there.

                      Sorry guys for the massive off, but we can return later now to the US Space Force.
                      Last edited by Platschu; 18 February 2020, 01:57 PM.
                      "I was hoping for another day. Looks like we just got a whole lot more than that. Let's not waste it."

                      "Never underestimate your audience. They're generally sensitive, intelligent people who respond positively to quality entertainment."

                      "Individual science fiction stories may seem as trivial as ever to the blinder critics and philosophers of today, but the core of science fiction, its essence, has become crucial to our salvation, if we are to be saved at all."

                      Comment


                        #41
                        and by this line of reasoning just about any forest would require a steady supply of vital minerals from outside

                        it also suggests that nuking a country could make the rest of the world more fertile

                        if environments are interconnected & interdependent on such a large scale then this would make the global ecosystem even more fragile (and crappily uh, designed)


                        so yeah anyway back to the US Space Farce

                        Comment


                          #42
                          That the Sahara used to have more water is the reason why it has nutrient rich dust. The good stuff comes from dry lake beds that are littered with fish parts, and those fish bits contain large quantities of phosphorus. The dust that reaches South America mainly comes from Chad. Dust from elsewhere in the Sahara usually ends up a bit further north in Florida and the Caribbean.

                          I can see why one might think the rain forests have everything they need to be self-sustaining, but actually...

                          Nutrients – the same ones found in commercial fertilizers – are in short supply in Amazonian soils. Instead they are locked up in the plants themselves. Fallen, decomposing leaves and organic matter provide the majority of nutrients, which are rapidly absorbed by plants and trees after entering the soil. But some nutrients, including phosphorus, are washed away by rainfall into streams and rivers, draining from the Amazon basin like a slowly leaking bathtub.

                          The phosphorus that reaches Amazon soils from Saharan dust, an estimated 22,000 tons (24,250 U.S. tons) per year, is about the same amount as that lost from rain and flooding, Yu said.
                          Regarding oceans: Similar to the Sahara terraforming proposals, there's been a longstanding proposal to combat climate change by seeding oceans with iron...

                          Microscopic organisms known collectively as phytoplankton, which grow throughout the sunlit surface oceans and absorb carbon dioxide through photosynthesis, are a key player.

                          To help stem escalating carbon dioxide emissions produced by the burning of fossil fuels, some scientists have proposed seeding the oceans with iron—an essential ingredient that can stimulate phytoplankton growth. Such "iron fertilization" would cultivate vast new fields of phytoplankton, particularly in areas normally bereft of marine life.
                          While the rain forest is fertilized by phosphorus from dead fish, phytoplankton needs iron, which is something that's not uncommon in desert sands because, as I mentioned previously, "arid conditions enable the formation of large mineral deposits."

                          The iron that phytoplankton depend on to grow comes largely from dust that sweeps over the continents and eventually settles in ocean waters. While huge quantities of iron can be deposited in this way, the majority of this iron quickly sinks, unused, to the seafloor.

                          "The fundamental problem is, marine microbes require iron to grow, but iron doesn't hang around. Its concentration in the ocean is so miniscule that it's a treasured resource," Lauderdale says.
                          The Atlantic Ocean is rife with phytoplankton. The same is not true of the Southern Ocean, so some thought they could seed the area with iron to produce more phytoplankton. A new study suggests that it would actually be more damaging to the environment in the long run, much like terraforming deserts would be, because...

                          If scientists were to widely fertilize the Southern Ocean or any other iron-depleted waters with iron, the effort would temporarily stimulate phytoplankton to grow and take up all the macronutrients available in that region. But eventually there would be no macronutrients left to circulate to other regions like the North Atlantic, which depends on these macronutrients, along with iron from dust deposits, for phytoplankton growth. The net result would be an eventual decrease in phytoplankton in the North Atlantic and no significant increase in carbon dioxide draw-down globally.

                          ...

                          "We have to consider the whole ocean as this interconnected system," says Lauderdale, who adds that if phytoplankton in the North Atlantic were to plummet, so too would all the marine life on up the food chain that depends on the microscopic organisms.

                          "Something like 75 percent of production north of the Southern Ocean is fueled by nutrients from the Southern Ocean, and the northern oceans are where most fisheries are and where many ecosystem benefits for people occur," Lauderdale says. "Before we dump loads of iron and draw down nutrients in the Southern Ocean, we should consider unintended consequences downstream that potentially make the environmental situation a lot worse."
                          Anyway, I do agree that the Sahara is expanding too rapidly by now and that efforts need to be taken to reverse the effects of human behavior on its environment, but terraforming it will have far reaching consequences that risk making things much worse.

                          Sources:

                          https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard...mazon-s-plants


                          https://phys.org/news/2020-02-seedin...t-climate.html

                          Comment


                            #43
                            Wow. Nice and very detailed answer. Thank you, I really appreciate it!

                            Even if we could start a mass terraforming around the coasts and the north edge of the savannah-desert border or new oasises, it would take hundreds of years. I doubt that would really have any effect on the fertilizing wind as the Sahara is almost a continent sized part of the planet.

                            The whole idea has just showed up in my mind when I have been the UAE, where they could turn the desert into paradise. Obviously as long as it has been watered. That is the reason it hss felt like a nonstop fight with elements as temperature is quite extreme in Dubai. And while the parks must have cooled down the air, the roads have made it even worse. They must aircon everything including bus stops, but then the tourists' immune system can not follow the changes between the cooled indoor shops and then the outside heat.
                            "I was hoping for another day. Looks like we just got a whole lot more than that. Let's not waste it."

                            "Never underestimate your audience. They're generally sensitive, intelligent people who respond positively to quality entertainment."

                            "Individual science fiction stories may seem as trivial as ever to the blinder critics and philosophers of today, but the core of science fiction, its essence, has become crucial to our salvation, if we are to be saved at all."

                            Comment


                              #44
                              I'm an avid reader of history and Kiffians that lived in the green Sahara where said to have been unusually tall ppl, suggesting a rich food supply etc. From what I've read Israel has been successful in reversing desertification in the Negev. The problem isn't that this wouldn't be possible, rather who would pay the potentially billions or trillions to turn parts of the Sahara green again. The west, China etc. are unlikely to do it and the local nations have too few resources and too many demanding issues requiring this money. Something massive would have to happen

                              Comment


                                #45
                                There is a great deal of concern these days about "climate change". Wouldn't an attempt to terraform the Sahara raise similar concerns?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X