MBobrik

. Quantum Electrodynamics does not tell you things you don't want to be true (yet). That's why there is little ideologically or economically motivated denialism directed against it.

. You are not the boss here and you are not he one who tells what an argument is and not ( you even don't seem to understand what an argumentum ad hominem is ... ) And I am going nowhere, I will stay and expose each and every piece of your propaganda for what it is - shameless spin and lies. . Exhibit #2 : . . You are just pulling things from your, ehm, nozzle. If this were indeed a kind of general rule, virtually all modern science and technology would work only under the circumstances it were developed and that's it, because as I already mentioned, virtually anything needs some sort of calibration.

Oh crap ! . I unintentionally provided a denialist with a nice soapbox to dump his propaganda from and left it unattended for days. . So let's untangle this mess. First, note the modus operandi of a typical denialist. Note how he seizes on each detail to use it as an excuse to sweep everything off table. . Are you comparing high time resolution data with low resolution data ? Averaging the higher time resolution data is the normal, in fact the only sane thing to do. We all, who have to statistically evaluate data sequences, regardless in which area of science or engineering we are working in, do it almost daily. But what does the denialist do ? Hey ! You --gasp-- Averaged ! That is TAMPERING !!!!111! Off with the head ! . Using some external data to calibrate your model/measurement method/device ? Virtually everything humans came up with needs at least some calibration. But for a denialist, any calibration counts as fudging the data. Off with the head ! . Previous models failed to replicate certain detail the new model replicated successfully ? Denialist says : "see, you are admitting that previous models were all utter hokum ! Off with all the models" (including the new one which actually worked) And of course, for a denialist there is nothing like overkill, and once he came up to speed on spinning, he switches his engine to the high octane fuel - brazen lies. "Global warming stopped in the last 15 years" . Uh no.

. Omg. I've made some predictions about your behavior, and, bingo ! You fulfilled not only one, but two I considered the most probable. . I had the suspicion from your first post where you essentially repeated the denialist talking points against modern climatology. Thank you for confirming that you are objecting against what I wrote basically because you've just an ideological ax to grind. . TheNewTeddy can at this point summarize, and I think that he was interested in writing hard science fiction, not hardcore ANTIscience fiction

here you are. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/mar/27/climate-change-model-global-warming . And I've made some predictions about your answer too. We shall see how accurate they turn out to be

Extrapolation that works only within the original conditions where the theory was developed is no extrapolation. Which are all factors well within current physics knowledge, and their effect can be quantitatively calculated from already decades old basic principles.

The physics of water condensation is hardly the frontier of human knowledge. Most of it is several decades old. I think that our theories about it are robust enough to warrant a little extrapolation.

Enjoy

I found niche uses for all engines. But the white radial overweight fuel guzzler. It has a slightly greater gimbal range, but not enough to make a difference. If it had, say 20 x the normal gimbal range, I would have some use for it, but right now, you are better off with a radially attached fuel tank and a normal engine.

Opacity of a water vapor cloud at different wavelengths can be directly measured here on earth. And from there, the net effect on energy flow is quite straightforward to compute.

Because this follows from basic physics, it can be understood through theoretical analysis and simulation. Low clouds serve as negative feedback due to high albedo. But high clouds on the contrary trap more heat. And you will get clouds all the way through stratosphere when the atmosphere is saturated with water like it would be with a 85 deg average temperature world.

The Hoverer hovercraft landing on top of the Desert Temple to plant a flag.

. the same as earth. Smaller proto-moon forms in L5 or L4 of the large proto-moon, and grows until the configuration becomes unstable and it crashes sideways to the big moon. And there you have your tertiary accretion disc.

. As I said and westair repeated, the situation around freezing point and boiling point is not symmetric. The point where the entire atmosphere becomes unstable due to wet runaway greenhouse effect is low compared to the boiling point and more pressure does have only limited effect because the thing depends on absolute water vapor amount in atmosphere, not its relative proportions. It increases slowly with pressure because denser air traps heat on its own, so it will require more water vapor till it becomes unstable, but that is very limited because you are racing against an exponential function. At earths pressures and insolation it is around 25 degrees Celsius, so, say at increased pressure and decreased insolation can it be 28 or 30 deg C, but almost surely not 85 deg or more.

. earths average temperature is cca 15 degrees C. that world would require average global temperature 115 degrees C. while of course the boiling point of water can be increased vastly through pressure, there would be still a lot of water vapor in the atmosphere that would trap heat and create a wet runaway greenhouse. If your world is gonna to have water oceans, it most probably can't go much above say 30 degrees C average temperature without going all the way to hundreds of degrees.

As I said, such thing would most likely not be gravitationally stable. To maximize stability, the ocean world would have to be very far from the brown dwarf and the habitable sub-moon very close to the ocean moon. I would still not be stable, but it will hold together a few million years till the blue star explodes and everything will be obliterated anyway. . say orbital period 14 days for the ocean world and six hours for the sub-moon. . ( habitable means reductive atmosphere and some bacteria in hot springs, in the short period nothing more manages to evolve, except when it is terraformed )

. Warping would have to be global - equal time speed for all.

Kerbals can deploy solar panels manually during EVA. Just plan a short stop in your next manned mission in that direction.

Bodies orbiting gas giants, or brown dwarfs or small stars can't have moons on their own because the gravitational perturbations from the parent body are just too big. Rule of thumb, if something becomes tidally locked, it can not have moons. Though this is not an exact derivation, if the perturbing body has enough influence to tidally lock the moon, then it has enough force to kick anything out of orbit over long time too.

You can use this as your lander. It lands on M-1x1 Structural Panel to save weight, so don't land on any steep slope ( not that legs would help you much better ) . . It uses seats, so beware the seat bugs. While seated don't - Quicksave/Quickload - Switch vessels - Interrupt flight and go to the spaceport - Feed your Kerbals at midnight . And, one more thing, it has a brutal TWR and no ASAS. But you said you are a good pilot

planted flag on top of the Desert Temple .

check the Delta V map 4500 + 2 * ( 860 + 210 + 640 ) = 7920 m/s bare minimum. I would add at least 500 m/s to the lander and another 200 m/s to the launcher. and x 100 m/s to the moon and back trip. so say 8800 m/s would do it.

. nuf said

My Laythe express used a ring of six nukes...