PB666

Im in no great hurry to get space junk to alpha-centauri, I would like to see the technology capable of getting things around the solar system faster and fusion reactors that can work in space. Then we can talk about how humans can survive in space colonies. There is a marginal point of sending a postage stamp to alpha-centauri that is unlikely of reporting back anything other than two stars in orbit around one another.

Yeah, and the game also has a history, building rockets in the early versions anything like a NASA sized rocket was really really hard, since 0.25 its become somewhat easier. And while KSP did not have system failures it had the kraken, which often depended on how you built.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/05/160524212015.htm There could be some truth to this, but if it was a complete explanation there would be far more distortions in our view of the deep cosmos. Edit: Another link added. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8205/823/2/L25

Escape velocity would be in the mm/sec range starting from the tip of the TNG.

You like your turbopumps. 1. structural design. In ksp parts are joined either at node attach points or surface attach point, In real life attachment of parts generally occurs near the outside rim for stabikity. 2. Part scalability for function, particularly true when talking about mounts and off sets. Without these critical features rockets are no more thsn out of control bombs. 3. Zero height adapters, can you make a falcon 6, 7, 8 or nine rocket without using a radial attachment point, illmdesigned for the task of engine mounts 4. The ability to run over the stated maximum thrust. 5. Reaction wheels, cannot comoensate indefinitely without rcs KSP would be better if you could design in the game your tanks including the structure critical joining surfaces, if you did it right you would get a dV bonus over the stock tanks. In addition we could have and engine design gui whereby you designed your engine up an engine bay, like on the falcon ir saturn V 1 st stage. Again you get some bonus for a good design. There could be a variety of interstage couplings.

http://maslam.net/australian-engineers-edge-closer-to-the-theoretical-limits-of-sunlight-to-electricity-conversion/ New three frequency top later allows a broader band of absoption.

The old core dump. True blue was NT4.

Not to mention you could power to jool with ion drives and solar panels, to get to jupiter with ion drives would be near impoosible without fusion power. In the game i have built mun launch vehicles that took off with ion drives, completely impossible in rl.

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160520-the-hunt-for-invisible-galaxies

You could do it more quickly if you used lead and other heavy metals. Since these have a higher density, and because a = u/r^2 if r is smaller you can reduce M, effectively reducing the amount need by (1-density of Iron/Lead) * 100%. Of course finding a source of lead to create a fake deimos might be challenging. BTW if you look into the sky, everthing that you see in miniscule on the cosmic scale, most of the really grand stuff requires a telescope to see (like galaxies) and the heaviest stuff is invisible. You would actually need less molten iron than deimos's mass because its made of carbonates and other impurities, and because its not completely gravitationally rounded or solid. The surface is rather loose. So if you did use molten lead you really could get the mass down.

http://phys.org/news/2016-05-movies-droplets-blown-x-ray-laser.html How xrays can tear things up. Enjoy.

As opposed to insert gigantic floating cities in the atmosphere? Seriously one could devise an expensive scheme to deprive venus of sunlight the orbital insertion of floating cities could be technologically impossible.

Cloud civilizations are precarious, all you have to is lower the mass of atmospheric gas and floatation stops. You would not terrifrom venus, geeze, the best you could do is have shielded colonies. There is not enough hydrogen on venus to terriform, venus would be a last ditch desperate effort to survive in our solar system, not a smart one given the sun will eventually wipe it out. By never i mean not going tothe oort cloud kuiper belt and slinging hydrogen rich comets at it. In the habitable zone earth is it, even a postacopolyptic earth is better than the two alternatives.

A dried mud flow covered by loose sand that eroded away.

Invent a hypothetical solar shield at L1. Cause the atmosphere to collapse, no more floating cities. Same technique, but then modulate the temperature, captur oxygen and bury S8 under ground, same with catbon, you now have a breathable atmosphere, but still no water. So life is now trapped in domed structures which capture any moistue very limited. Each domed structure is separted from others. The most precious resource on Venus is the atom hydrogen, which is largely released from Sulfuric acid and very small amounts, so that each colony tries to find more efficient ways to extract and retain in order to expand. Without rain the surface becomes a dangerous poisonous landscape that few venture into, and wars are not wise. They risk the loss of precious hydrogen.

It take two changes of velocity to reach orbit, and an olympic runner could not get enough traction in low gravity on lose soils. Need those EVA jets.

You live in the world and physical laws that exist, if you change the issue of observation, which is intellectual interpretation of a physical process, then you also tamper with the physics. The critical challenging perspective for you, creating the hypothetical is how does one truly observe the past without changing the past. The better the view you have of the past, the more likely you are to critically interfere. Its quite an energetic adventure to reach the past, and the effort pays off with qualitative information, but the problem is that you may not exist in the future to transmit back the observations if you have interfered with the future timeline. A perfect observation scenario is you are on a meteor that naturally is about to exit our solar system, never to return, you monitor heat from the surface of that asteroid, avoiding observation of entangled photons. Consequently you have low quality data to report. Direct observation means you observed previously entangled photons, in situ observation means you are directly interfering with the massive particles, which means you have altered the timeline. IOW, you cannot use the laws of physics to observe, and then start negating the laws of physics so you won't irreversibly interfere. I'm not saying all observations have a causality effect, but any really informative observations might. Of course you could observe the Chixulub impact from interstellar space and note the exact date and time. A super powerful telescope might see the crater, and you might then direct future scientist how to study it. . . . .Such supermassive telescopes would still tweeking the orbit of other objects (oort cloud comets, the suns orbit about the galaxy). So you would need to observe, really good observations, but not have mass, not emit EM, My interpretation is that such a non-interfering time traveler is invisible in the present because they have would have to have no mass or energy to not interfere in the past. They do not exist. The only alternative I could see is if you traveled at FTL to some point very far away and from that point you observed the past, then you returned to Earth, I think we would know that also, and the quality of your observations would be poor.

You could actually land on the moons from an orbiter with an EVA suit, The exit velocity is 11 m/s so . . . . . . Just put a few extra propellant cans and down you go . . . . .get rid of the extra cans and replace them with moon rocks.

SEP is for transfers, the LH2 and LO2 are for landing. And it looks like they want to take on the moons of mars not mars directly, if you are looking for an easy sample return, impact ejecta from mars will be far more abundant on these than any other place in the solar system. Although I do not see any ion drives, with a mass that size you would need have a few square meters of iondrives. I also dont see any Ion drive propellant tanks.

There is a plethora of explosion driven nuclear techniques. Critically however, none have been tested in a way we could assay the large scale earth launch viability. If one could land one on the moon with conventional rockets and then test its ability to control liftoff speed, and to travel outward from earth as far as its fuel lasted into deep space you might have a sense. Most of the ground tests have been done on small scales and have not really put the inertial buffers and device injection into long-term testing.

Radioactivity and cooling result in volume losses of rock. During accretion the heat and sorting of minerals create chemical disequilibrium whereby siderophiles end up at the bottom and are reactive with oxygen, and the volatiles end up at the top, on the boundaries of energy release and cooler temperatures. Over time the aging of rocks creates a disequilibrium that has available energy, very small amounts, that can but utilized by biotes comparable to archea. This is a lower grade energy source than say deep sea vents, but it does not also rule out the possibility that those vents exist. Looking at the red trails on the ice it seems to me that there is alot of reduced metals (iron, manganese, etc) in the water, that are occasionally being pushed through the cracks in the ice to the surface. This is indicative of a weathering process as if there was not weathering these should eventually settle out in clays at the bottom of the sea. On the issue of earth like, no not exactly, Earth has plants that maintain a redox potential of around 300 mV, that going to probably below -500 mV on Europa. While this doesn't mean there is a major difference at the crack interface, because likely on both cracks are filled with plastic sediment and in both cases the redox in the deep sediments is very low, but as minerals diffuse up the sediment the redox begins to rise and the oxidation state of the minerals change, they precipitate on earth and stay in the sediment.

I find it fascinating that we have a thread on this. I can think of better examples of confusing English Lorry. Prior to using BBC news i always though this was a decorative bird. Its actual meaning is cow-dung, to lorry someone is to soil them. Tractor trailor could be used, but tractor is used in circumstance when you a overwhelming need to pull something a slow speed with alot of drag or friction, doesnt realy qualify. We have pickup truck, really ive never picked up my truck. But people use Pickup. It makes no sense, either Husband in Norse means Housebound, seems that in the modern age its should say Wifebound, Wifband. Even more moderneque Alloband. Even in the historic period it was the wife that got bound to a house.

This is not an uncommon critique. Setting of confidence ranges frequently involves the inclusion of all sources of variance, many need to be cross multiplied. Studies often replace variances with discrete values either because they dont think the variances are so great or it makes their calculations look trivial or undersampled.

higher, Crs-8 was 6600 kmh and the next launch peak velocity was at 8800 kmh.

NASA im ordering you to gonto andromeda this instance, or you wont get any dessert. Did it work? If we launch at andromeda now, we might just get there about the time our two galacies collide. Alpha centauri is much easier, instead of taking 1000000s of millions of years, it will only take 10000s of years.