• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

235 Excellent

About Steel

  • Rank
    Rocketry Enthusiast
  1. Can I also just point out that the article never mentioned that they found anything in the Atacama, just that they plan to test this technique there.
  2. Tardigrades are already a thing I'm afraid:
  3. Yeah please see the other thread on this for my quick and dirty explanation
  4. You have to be careful even then, from my quick skim the method used in that paper is based on semi-classical assumptions. That's great for scattering and ionisation at low-ish energies (which are the two things the paper is looking at), but doesn't take into account the effects of the strong force, weak force or annihilation.
  5. From what I've read, even if you only allow a single proton and anti-proton to come into contact, there's no guarantee.
  6. Yeah, I mean with anything like this, even when you simplify it the results tend to obey some form of distribution, there will not be one particular energy that is the magic answer.
  7. It also depends on the energy of the collision. There are numerous allowed variations that don't involve anti-proton/proton annihilation (or indeed any annihilation at all). These include elastic scattering and the formation of positronium and antiprotonic helium amongst others [1]. References: [1] S. Jonsell, P. Froelich, S. Eriksson, and K. Strasburger, “Strong Nuclear Force in Cold Anithydrogen-Helium Collisions”, Phys. Rev. A, vol. 70, no. 6, p. 62708, 2004.
  8. I'm assuming you mean metastable metallic hydrogen
  9. Just to be completely, unnecessarily pedantic, Russell's teapot is actually supposed to be between Earth and Mars, nowhere as exciting and distant as the Oort cloud. Also, since the inner edge of the Oort cloud is - by many estimates - almost a light year away, then even the Solar Probe is not going to get there any time soon.
  10. I have a feeling this is being overhyped as something that it is not. As far as I can tell the paper is reporting on negative effective mass, not negative mass. From what I remember from my solid-state physics, negative effective mass (which is what the paper is about) is a very well known phenomenon. Will read the paper and report back. EDIT: So I've skimmed the paper, it's a false alarm. The paper reports on the behavior of a Bose-Einstein Condensate of rubidium atoms (i.e atoms that most definitely have a positive mass) that is put into a regime whereby it has a negative effective mass. Negative effective mass is a well known and well studied area of solid state physics, indeed the electrons in a simple 1D metal lattice can have negative effective mass . What's interesting and novel about this research is that the whole condensate is put into a negative effective mass state, so that the researchers could actually probe the properties of the system. However, effective mass =/= mass! Effective mass is just a convenient way of encapsulating the behaviour of the system. TL;DR: Scientists cooled down some rhubidium atoms to a point where they behave like they have (but do not physically have) a negative mass. Very exciting for the scientists, not that exciting for everyone else.
  11. I'm not sure it's specifically those diseases that have people worried, it's the ones that have a link to diet (i.e heart disease, diabetes, strokes, even gout is making a comeback e.t.c). These are increasing and at the moment the consensus is that poor diet is a big factor (not necessarily just sugar, but thats certainly part of it). However, the most prevalent and dangerous thing that's on the rise (and is pretty solidly linked to diet in most cases) is obesity. In the US and the UK over 1/3 of people are obese, and it comes along with a whole range of health risks, as well as a statistically higher chance of suffering from other diseases mentioned earlier. Sugars - especially refined ones - are well-linked to weight gain and are known to have addictive properties, so there's little doubt that they are partly to blame for this.
  12. Except for developmental costs and cost to manufacture (which, I think, is where ARCA are coming at this from). IMO their thinking is that a big chunk of cost will be saved by not having to develop and manufacture two engine types, two different tank and plumbing set-ups and the associated systems required for stage separation e.t.c as well as not having to do so much work to make sure the mission flies successfully (i.e if there's only one stage, they don't need to spend time and resources working out how to separate successfully, light the second stage engine, make sure that the fuel settles e.t.c ).
  13. Bigass doesn't even cover it. The recent Eagleworks EM drive supposedly "produced" (you may be able to tell that I still think EM drives are a load of absolute rubbish) 1.2 mN per kW of energy supplied. Even assuming this is improved by a factor of 100 by the time you attach a huge EM drive to a hollow planet then we have 0.12 N per kW. To obtain an acceleration of an Earth mass planet of just 0.001 g needs roughly 6x1022 N which requires 5x1026 J to produce. So if you have an EM drive capable of moving a planet, you have already invented an energy source to power a planet killer.
  14. You are right, but it's only 39 years in the past so the probability that intelligent life has sprung up or died out since then is pretty slim
  15. You've misread the article I'm afraid, the planet with a 2000 C surface temperature is 55 Cancri e, an example of one of the only two other super-earths with atmospheres that we knew about before this new discovery, GJ 1132b. However, I completely agree with the sentiment that life cannot simply be assumed because we know some planets might have water vapour in their atmosphere.