PB666

Im sure all of them have some level,of science, right now SX is learning how to build a rocket pad on a polluted wetland, sure the are going to do some mat science on the last launch engine bay. You have a specific set of sciences that you want to limit to....are they going to engage in space science, prolly, if its for the benefit of space travel and including manned space travel. Things like what is the most efficient way to do......I you don't think the current pardigms suffice then you have to design and test new ones. On each succesive launch spaceX is testing the limits, performance, and durability of their equipment, a rather empiracle science but science none the less. Not every test result will profit them. Science is a big blobby boundary layer, its that which expands itsel outward and that which releases knowledge to its interior. No they are not testing bacterial hypothesis on enceladas, but then neither am I.

But there are a collection of about a dozen stars that orbit it just like stars in a polynary star system would. When we say the GBH is the center, or is the center of rotaion different (outside) of the boundary of the black hole orbiting stars? Given that its 1 millionth the mass of the galaxy. Might ther be other smaller black hole with similar orbiting stars that we haven't identified yet?

They have not yet designed some of the components that go in the service module. The video was talking about having space margins of less than a centimeter.

I was going to put this in cool sciency stuff, but . . . . . Heres a question, if a black hole is not exactly at the center of rotation of a galaxy, is it a polynary stellar system? sort of like alpha-centauri, except having a central star it has a central BH.

SpaceX maybe capturing defense contracts for reasons other than cost. Theres a wall street artcle arguing the ULA will have trouble using RD-180 engines ti fulfill their defense related launch contracts. http://www.wsj.com/articles/rocket-engine-row-threatens-some-civil-space-programs-1463607075?mod=rss_Business This may sound like good for SpaceX side projects, but given the ground settlong delays at BC site, they would have no choice put delay those Mars plans unless the DOD offers them other launch site options. Related: http://www.space.com/32922-nro-spacex-launch-contract-surprise-announcement.html

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/summary-info/global/201604 http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2016/4/supplemental/page-2 http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/teleconnections/enso/indicators/soi/ http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/teleconnections/enso/indicators/sst.php http://sealevel.jpl.nasa.gov/science/elninopdo/latestdata/ here's a publication that may help explain how it git started. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016GL069204/full

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-36339523 Clearly, its not near to being over. At least for them.

But I think 2020 is probably closer to correct than 2019

Uh thats two years late.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36343542 Well who wants to bet it will not meet the deadline?

When you are talking about IS travel its best to drop the ISP and use exhaust velocity, also known as ISP (m/sec) otherwise known as exhaust velocity. ISP (sec) = exhaust velocity / 9.806 Yes it will increase ISP and the craft will become less and less efficient, the problem is that no energy process can produce the power to do this, since a nuclear reaction can only convert about 2% of its mass to energy, if you used that energy to accelerate the reactant you would only have 0.14c exhaust velocity. However since energy capture is imperfect its about 0.1c. You could accelerate reaction mass to near c, but then you would be throwing off waste nuclear reactants with no momentum, and so that the reaction mass would be wasted. To achieve better acceleration you would need to create antimatter and annihilate and capture and convert energy. Using one proton and one antiproton an exhaust velocity of one hydrogen to near c can be achieved or so you have to do a Lorentz transformation, and that's pushing the issue. I created a table for this, for a perfect energy capture annihilation you want about 1.5 the annihilation mass as propellant. This has already been discussed in another thread on nuclear solar power and why it can never be better than a generational interstellar space ship.

It means that drag force and side drag cannot be separated form each other completely, acceleration increases velocity, the craft is accekerating through max q. Therefore all forces matter and are complex. Since acceleration is being applied at the engine and it has the weight of the entire craft bering down on it plus the force of drag plus side drag, at the first stage/ second stage you do not have the weight of the first stage nor side drag because the boundary layer collapses below it. At the second stage payload connection you can subtract the weight of the first and second stage and side drag from the boundary collapse. And finally at the nose cone/payload inteface you have pretty much the drag force plus a small amount of force cotributed by its weight In each case weight is equal to mass * acceleration.

Where is the force coming from, the interior of mars is less dynamic than earth. Sure you can generate a hideous wave by having an imaginary cosmic foot step on mars, but like when does that happen.

Its the undercase greek r. Newtons law basically states the have tonbe oppossing forces at maxq you have acceleration and aero dynamic pressure. if you nose piece is reasonable well designed, the the stress moves down the craft. You have g-force, ground relative acceleration pushing upward and drag force pushing down. The most stressed part is the first stage second stage connection, then the second stage payload connection, then the payload nosecone connection. The other force at MaxQ is the boundary separation, it separates from the nose cone and hits the rocket further down the lengthbwith speed. This is a side crushing force, below max q for the falcon it travels down the rocket, above maxQ it travels down the plume.

If its hall effect you need a massive power supply, solar or rtg would be sticking out of the craft.

It seems like a insane conclusion to me, tsunamis on a world that barely had water, isn't there a more conservative conclusion?

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36333760

You can have it, it will wash fresh the bays for the next 2 months just because of lag effects, I won't be porting anytime soon, less I go visit SpaceX BC.

I hope they do get some, but we been getting it here. I have more cloud volume over my house than they have in the whole State of California at the moment.

http://backreaction.blogspot.ca/2016/05/the-holy-grail-of-crackpot-filtering.html This is so dead spot on.

CPT involves the replacement of matter with antimatter. Even so Lorentz invariance can be broken under certain circumstances, but then that reemphasizes my point, such symmetry breaking is not a likely outcome in our observable universe. And here in lies the problem because gravity is a scalar field, and so what types of scales are we talking about that is tolerant of the violations. I can't prove that the conditions required to break are only suitable at the 'beginning' of our universe, but there is no evidence such conditions exist in our known universe. If you know otherwise I'de be happy to look. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_searches_for_Lorentz_violation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_searches_for_Lorentz_violation#Time_dilation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_searches_for_Lorentz_violation#Gravitation Edit:

NOTE: This post is not about global warming per say its about an unprecedented climate anomaly that occurred in 2015-2016 and about its future. Please respect the intent of the thread and do not drive this again into politics. https://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/april-2016-earths-12th-consecutive-warmest-month-on-record This blog is basically recapitulating my previous thread OP with details and predictions from NOAA. The problem is that they actually previously predicted its decline last fall that we would be neutral by the spring, Obviously we aren't, its May and El-nino rains, the most severe that I have seen, so I think that the call of el-Nino is not as fast and the la-Nina may not develope as quickly. As El-Nino suggests decline, we have in the last month had two decadal floods, this follows a decadal flood we had last year (2 depending on the area) and expect another event of sorts today. "When it rains it rains, but when it really rains, its El Nino." If you scroll down the page you can see GOES of my state, Im in the area that has not yet been hit. Note the cloud coverage over the entire state including over Big Bend region areas of which get less than 8 inches of rain per year. The recent floods we have had are not the typical flood systems that fill up one or two major river systems. We have events that filled rivers from the Guadalupe river all the way to the Calcasieu river in Louisiana, not within a protracted event but as a single contemporary system.

I don't think it is allowable accept at the quantum scale, I was creating a thread this morning but cancelled it because of my IPAD was not allowing edits. Some of the new science coming out that says that the universe is filled with interactions, even possible on the scale of the universe. You can make sense of these things until you go back in time, at which point if there is some preordained interaction from the early universe and go back into time, now that interaction would be split into 2 or 3 ways, this would become non-deterministic if it was initially deterministic. The problem is that we don't know enough about these . . . In our universe we don't see: a negative temporal vector negative mass (which could be seen as a type of space-time energy vector) negative energy (same as above) and of course without these you can't have FTL. This observations makes relativistic observations of FTL, closed timelike loops, wormholes, etc improbable in a scale of spacetime, however there is a black swan. If we look at the universe as being composed of an infinite number of quantum domains (placeholder domains that then exist for the purpose of populating normal space) that appear and disappear along a space-time timelines governed by comoving space, then we cannot really expect to see any of the three violations, but what if comoving space is very ill-defined, such as boundary between a supermassive blackhole and its very center (which we cannot see). It might get murky and quantum effects in relativistic space could be creepy and unexpected at the observable scale (which we cannot observe). Imagine and electron and positron traveling at each other so close to the speed of light close enough to interact but not close enough to annihilate, and that as they interact clusters of particles might appear to go back and forward in time ever so briefly, as if they were there but not there, because for those particular particles time has all but stopped and very very close to the speed of light quantum time would be something we could clock. Again it would still be limited by the probability that an accumulation of events, but instead of it happening so fast, it would be slow enough to observe, a brief moment before the interactions particles appear and disappear, the interaction occurs and later particles are observed flowing away. If I then take this analogy one step further, suppose in the early universe, before space-time exists, when a quantum singularity is giving way to quantum domains, its certainly plausible that you could have negative temporal vectors and negative energy. As energy pours into the Universe negative energy may pour into stable quantum domains (if energy did pour into the universe) and negative energy likewise. You could have a bubble flowing along the negative vector in a dynamic equilibrium with our universe that then collapses on every bit of energy in our universe at some future/past point reconstituting the quantum singularity. But this exception basically proves the point, that we would have to do something really weird to make backward time travel plausible on our time scale. Maybe the potential for time travel exists, but because of determinism in our universe we cannot access it. You see the basic reason that I have a negative opinion of warp drives, time travel, worm holes and to a lessor degree black hole drives. All of these things require a pattern of behavior that is inconsistent with the relativistic universe. More importantly many of the conservation laws that we have are likely a response to the big bang, and the interactions we observe like G are a part of energy conservation on the universal scale which means we must (should) have some means of conserving long range interactions even if we, to date, cannot observe them other than as scalar field theories.

Because on Iceland if you have an excess amount of electricity you can create hydrogen, and use that with electricity.