PB666

Think about all the warming global warming causes. Seriously.

Cyclohexane is probably a good choice for rocket fuel. The octane use is not l-octane, but q-octane, its used because the 1-carbon has a hydrogen that is easier to remove, easier ti ignite.

Seriously, the energy goes intonspace anyway, converting earth in china to solar panels also reales earths energy. The reason we don't convert yellowstone into electric power plant is because its a national park. The majority of energy is released under Lake Yellowstone, it keeps the lake warm in the winter, if we were to capture that energy we would substantially change the ecology of the lake.

Mass is mass, it does not matter what form it comes in, and the ionization energy is not that big of an issue when you are talking about High ISP drives. But getting an electron off of Magnesium is really easy. The saving grace of Xenon is that it more easily compresses, it also has a higher liquid density.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platypus, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaver I can make them bark if you want and slobber when they get excited, like a lab. The breathing through skin wont work for a labrador sized creature, it would have extreme difficult fleeing predators. Even open circulatory system is problematic. Note there is a land based size limit on arthropodan. The largest are generally noctural burrowing animals. You need to use more imagination, you are recapitulating phylogeny. How about a 3 legged diaphanous swamp walker that can blast is victims with Fresnel lens effect created by starlight passing through triagular shaped cells in the wings.

Of course we should wait, but some here are impatiently waiting for aliens to invade us and bodysnatch us with little green laser pointers. We have to humor them or they will end all their thread titles with 10^infinity exclamation points (i don't think they have read the definition of the gavian subspecies of Homo sapiens that habituates the internet).

Solid magnesium make be a better choice in the future, it does not need container, its relatively stable in space, and youncan produce a decent ISP with it. In space it is relatively easybtomfind, argon can be found aroud the outplanets in more abundance, zenon is almost impossible to find. Once in space you blow the fairings off the magnesium an when you need fuel have a robot gompick it up and shove intonthe feul tank.

kN = 2* efficiency * kW / ISP * g kN = kilonewtons kW = kilowatts - the power output of the solar panels or nuclear reactor than can be used in the ION drive. ISP * g = exhaust velocity. The energy goes into the energy of the ejected plasma, which generally ranges from 2000 m/s to 1000000 m/s

Oh the thread that just keeps on misrepresenting the science goes on and on. Its all the more credible because of all the exclamation points used. Habitable planet given its mass and atmosphere is a relativley thin zone, of course there are alot of planets around sunlike stars, there simply are no earths around sun-like in a comparable position in its habitable zone, except of course Earth. There may but you are simply trying to lead the argument. I wonder why you feel the need to be the engineer of the hype train?

this thread is duplicate material we have already discussed.

I completely get your point, its pre-1940s, Adam smith 'the invisible hand' of the market place, it was discredited in the great depression, and even Alan Greenspan basically said that "we got it wrong" thinking that the markets would manage themselves. You don't get mine. Your argument is a false dicotomy, we can either do this or that. We can do both and more, we did skylab and Apollo at the same time, and at the same time built out an interstate system, increased the capacity of our ports. The resource base of the US is much greater than it was in the 70s, we have more oil production, our economy is more efficient, productivity has increased, we have more universities with more technology programs. There is no resource lacking. The selfish creature is a cyclical beast, and the cause of the cyclicality is hunger/gluttony. And when I look around the words I hear are from the gluttonous talking about their wants, not the hungry talking about their needs. But the second statement is false, although the people may not move, money is still a motivator, and if they are moved to produce that which inspires them, they will be inspired and do better things. If they are motivated to buy four-wheelers and bust the neck in mud pits, that may be what moves them, but it will not move them forward. If today the government said, NASA you can tell the treasury to print any money you need for any program with the condition that: 1. Every dollar had to be spent on developing or employing underdeveloped talent in required fields. That includes reimbursing underprivileged kids for college education if they are employed by NASA (that a certain percentage would be a requirement and that the selected should come from all over the country) 2. That they must educate the public about the cost and benefits of the programs. That the education system must feed and distribute these to qualify for educational scholarships. 3. They could spend no more that the educational system can feed them qualified graduates. 4. That every dollar of personal income tax revenue that propagated as a result of that revenue was given back to the treasury to cover the printing and excess goes into the coffers. 5. That all future expansion would be dependent on successes. That they be also allowed to increase their outstanding money supply for expansion based on the total economy traced to NASAs involvement. There would be no tax burden of NASA in 15 years, it would be self-sustaining. Its hard for a non-economist to see this, but its an essential fact of progressive industries. You might not see the effect but then again the invisible hand was too invisible for most in the 1930s. The difference between the invisible hand and progressive public funding is that one completely failed and the second is a repeated success. You would have to trace incomes from say few-life-choice impoverished that goes to college, works for NASA takes up a career earning 300$ per hour repairing high end equipment, but if you did look hard you would eventually find it. The only caveot to this thought experiment is that once private sector employment was full and inflation began, no expansion or new planned programs of NASA could occur. The publics will is not connected to the monetary success of the program, its an illusion that is created by self-defeating greed not self-interest. A selfish person wants all who could possibly share his tax burden share it because that other person has life successes and marginal income. Funding only programs that keep folks at or below the marginal taxable income does not share the tax burden it adds to that burden, the smart selfish person wants progressive industries he wants infrastrcuture, he wants social stability and safety. It is far better to be amoung the moderately poor in an advanced society with good infrastructure, than to be amoung the moderately rich in a poor society with no infrastructure.

You know the feeling, and it burns all the way to the bone.

Are you kidding me? By that very same logic we should have never gone to the moon. You're trying to dress up ignorant greed as social impoverishment; you can't expect me to buy this. Its not about the money, im sorry, tech pays back. Every single intellible economist says the same thing, invest in space, science and the tech industries. Every city that has laid out revenues for high tech development has got a payback. Here they simply donated the land for a medical center and now its the biggest med center in the world. I don't live in the biggest manfacturing city in the US for dumb random luck. Invest in ports, Tech, space industries, it comes back. We can have an intelligent discussion about whether the shuttle program was efficient or could be made more efficient via outside contractors. Whether a 40 year old design need a major reworking and redesign, sure, what 40 year old design doesn't but to simply throw all the capacity out the window was short sighted and in my mind made poor economic sense? It took us 7 years to get to the moon the first time, we know how to do it, if it was just a tradeoff, why arent we there right now, if its mars why are we doing the unmmaned tests right now,myou been through almost 5 years without a shuttle and we are cheering at what, 20 year old deep space science missions, and relanding commercial satellite missions. Cutting the shuttle afforded nothing that you are talking about, not even a working capsule. Musk is moving forward because he sees a lack of will on the part of the West, he's right thats a problem. But he can't be the solution because his marginal revenue is insuufficient afford what the West should have already done and needs to be doing. If you took any agency director and got him drunk you'de hear the same thing. Avoiding 2.2b, but it is perfectly evident talking to people that there is a gross misunderstanging of science and what it has accomplished and what it does, even for people who take benefit from the tech/science economy. And this social dysfunctionality comes as they peck out messages to their kids on their low mass high tech cellphones, while driving around in their hightech car with a GPS navigation system on the dash and radio playing a satellite music program of only the music they want to hear. If you asked most of those people they could not give you the foggiest idea how the GPS works or got there, where the satellite signsl comes from, because frankly, they don't care thats someone elses problem, it used to be a collective problem that most willed to progress. In 1970 90% of what we did inspace was about non-service scientific cutting edge enegineering, space and planetary science, now its flipped, most of the money spent on space is for non-science related service industries. If you ask anyone in industry what is the future prospects and competitve status of cutting your research budget by 90% you will get the same answer, future competitive status and new product lines will suffer. Musk knows this, thats why hes taking risks, but he owns the company and his mind sees the future. And btw one of the major beneficiaries of the Shuttle's end is Musk, because he can feed in the capacity vacuum. Even if you go the efficiency route, I simply asked the question,mwhy did we not put forth the resources to make a smaller more efficinet version of the shuttle 30 years ago when we started realizing it was too costly. Why was there not a concern about its potential loss of capacity. The complete loos of a manned capacity is completely indicative of what the problem is. How is it that you can reach the moon and get back in 7years of dev, but in the 15 or so years when we knew the program would end or has ended we don't have the capacity and are in a rushed dev thereof? The only single credible answer, there is no other valid answer, is that in 1962 we collectively had the will and in 2000s we collectively do not have the will, In 1960s we were willing to take the risks, and in 2000s we are not willing to take the risks.

No reason or logic. Fine A magic umbrella like the one Mary Poppins used. A quantum fragmentor that seriallizes all consituents to small bits, then waits until those bits randomly assume the right momentum and then places the bits back in the right spatial position. Lets see a huge rubber bouncy ball as a heat shield in which the sheild burns off completely leaving a bouncy ball. A huge leather baseball mitt to catch the craft with. A large spiral slide where the craft intercepts the end of the slide and then bobsleds around on it until all its forward momentum is lost to friction. A huge speaker that blasts low frequency sound at the craft. A pair of space suspenders that pull the craft back and hurl a second craft at high speed into the earth (a space wedgey). Im sure there are an infinite number of very bad ideas.

I won't respond to this they way its needs to be responded because of 2.2b, but there is a completely valid and intelligible response to this. It does not have to be the space shuttle per say, we threw away the capacity of the space shuttle with out either verifying that the capacity was obsolete or reproducible in some other platform. Some of the aspects, Shuttle can send 7 people to space, more if modified, the US's current capacity is ZERO, it cannot send a bay mounted device, it is appreciably difficult to launch the same payload of sensitive equipment, we have Zero repair capacity, we have Zero pick up and return home capacity for payloads over 5t. It really cannot launch devices into space that need astronaut assistance. We lost all of this with the shuttle, sure, as a scientist I see the termination of the shuttle program as many steps backwards and very slow and all but uncertain steps forwards along the compromised technologies. If I want to go play with a shuttle, its only 20 miles away, but I don't; that's not the point, the point is that it is foolish to terminate a program with a huge capacity loss. Money, truely, is not the issue, because we have afforded much/much greater outlays of money in relative dollars in the past, and these programs are payback programs. Just take a look at resupply, you got 6 different firms out now stumbling over their ineptness trying to resupply the ISS. Have actually considered all the cost of these failures? So far as yet the shuttle never failed a resupply after launch. It crashed after the resupply, but its mission was completed. Saying money is the issue is like saying If we removed 90% of the trees from Europe, therefore the discovery of the Americas by Columbus is economically a bad idea. This is the ultimate in short term thinking, and really think about it what place does it have in this forum, isn't the forum about discovery and progress, its not about retreating ideologies. If Spain had given up exploration of the Earth, think about what they would have missed (all the trees they could ever imagine, all the spices, all the technologies, the political expansion, future economic trade, etc). Had 90% of the trees suddenly disappeared in Europe, they could simply ship their shipbuilders to Yucatan and start building all the ships they needed in America and haul lumber back. Look just at SpaceX recycling, how that has energized the group, the shuttle was recycling back in the 1980 that was 36 years ago, lol. It not only recovered the two boosters it also recovered the core launch vehicle. So WTH are we cheering at SpaceX? Mainly because they are recapitulating past success and offer a valid opportunity to functions shipped overseas. Because they are cheaper, they still have not as yet launched anything like Hubble into space, have no crew capacity, and there is no commitment or plan to have a repair capability. The argument is why don't we replace, OK suppose the turn around time of JWST is 5-10 years, no suppose JWST get to its station and does not work, thats a scientific loss of 5 years, minimum, how many years did we lose with the hubble, 2 years? Its not just about cost, because time is money and we've lost alot of it since that capacity was terminated. Again it does not need to be the shuttle, but it needs to be about something tangible, and as long as you guys ignore that I'm inclined to poke the occasional fun at shuttle-haters.

1593b is my choice because Larger a better chance of holding its atmosphere. Larger and further from a orange star means less chance of gravitational locking. The wavelengths it receive are more credible for photosynthesis. As a larger planet it is more likely to have larger moons, As a larger planet it is more likely to have a liquid/solid core interface and because its not locked and has most of it rotational energy preserved its more likely to have a magnetic field. As such can preserve hydrogen, as such can preserve water, as such can have an oxygenated atmosphere, The habitable zone would be nearer to the equator and this is unlikely a space-faring planet at any point in the future. The flip-side however 1593 could be a small gassy planet with a relatively small core. I put that at about 70% probability. It may have once been a gas giant but the star might have blown off most of its atmosphere. None of the planets discovered i see as particularly conducive to life, those with earth like orbits are too large and are greenhousy, those that are in the right zone for their size are all close to red stars.

But its more problematic than that. Cessna's have a higher energy density and lose mass as they fly, the mass loss of lithium ion batteries is negligible they have a higher density and lower energy density (because half of the engines fuel density comes from air). The lithium ion batteries need to be heated constantly in the coldness of the outer solar system. The engine would have to be replaced with an electric motor, and its not even certain that the prop would survive the cold operating temperatures, the glass windshield would need to be replaced with cameras or some double glass insulation, the weight in insulation would add 20% more weight to the airframe, the crew has to carry their own oxygen, the cabin would need to be pressurized, the landing gear would have to be replaced with skids, the weight distribution would change and the wings would have to be moved. Second I am addressing the rest of the post concerning drops with inflatables, that only works really well for small objects on relatively cold planets, Mars in particular, for the other planets, not so sure thats going to be any use. So you need some retro-thruster to take away orbital velocity to land. Third, when people get all dreamy-eyed about landing living flesh on other worlds they seem to instantaneously forget all the rather stark differences between those worlds and earths. Things like: Nitrogen liquefying out of the air at ground level in dark spots, the ground may not be compacted and have the consistency of very lose snow, the air is so cold. In the case of Venus, its metal warping hot, ion-batteries will not survive. I don't know if anyone here has ever working in Liquid Nitrogen, I've had to remove samples under the liquid surface, the cold penetrates very very quickly. You can suffer frost bite in seconds under the protection of insulated gloves and with a liquid shield, in fact its safer to dip your hands directly in and grab a sample than where any kind of protective glove because the gloves just bind the cold to flesh. Gloves may protect you from heat, that is because the moisture of the skin acts as a coolant and heat decreases density, they are very poorly protective against extreme cold. Everything contracts in the direction of the skin. If you take liquid nitrogen and place it in a low density plastic beaker, and place that in another plastic beaker, within a few seconds ice crystals begin to grow on the outside of the second glass beaker, this is because the nitrogen in the air acts as a catalyst for for energy transfer. Insulatoins break down also, I see tanks out in the halls here that simply don't hold nitrogen anymore because the insulation, sealed entirely, breaks down because of the hot/cold differential. Frozen carbon dioxide and water take on a different consistency than solid ice. The outer planets are altogether hostile for advanced life, and require long trips through rather inhospitable space. There may be life at the bottom of some sea on Enceladas, I'm not going to discount that possibility, but fishing out of ice-hole is insane.

Cessna is a horrifically bad idea just about under any circumstance, even titan is dubious, hand glider, lol before you get a hand glider to pedal up to speed your fingers and toes have frozen, your body temperature has dropped and you are dying. I think the Curiousity's drop method or SpaceX style relanding are the best bet for most of the atmosphere-less celestials.

Docking port wont work inside a relanding equipment bay. Of course its no good purpose, howver its a good exercise to plan how one might do it. The biggest problem is renentry, the HST was never designed to come back to earth. if you wanted to have a museum, jus put a holographic image of the HST in orbit in the museum. The space shuttle is probably the biggest thing we have returned to earth, the occasional payload. We have lost that ability, which is a bit of a shame, along with all the other unique capabilities lost by the shuttle. For what good reason in an economy the size of the US's IDK.

They dont have a basement that big, lol. Your argument is reductio ad absurdum and is self invalidating. To get even to the point we can consider market saturation too limiting factirs need to be considered, 1 the backlog of unlaunched contacts with rtf payloads, and the lag between price reduction and market response. The cost to the buyer is not only the launch price, but also vehicle wear waiting, the cost of money waiting, and the lack of an ability to spend time and resources in other places while waiting. While this may seem to support you case if their net profit increases because of recycling then they can afford to extend their facikities a lower the turnaround time lower the costs tonthe buyer. It the risk to the buyer and the price to the buyer decrease more buyers will enetr the market.

How about this for an alien planet species. . . . . Alot more fun. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=sabre+tooth+cats&iax=1&ia=images

If you had 100 metric toones of diamonds in your basement the you'de have a pretty damn big basement. Diamonds are not that rare anymore, high grade diamonds in the whites are. Whose going to stamp them cut them, distribute them? What about declarations. If i had a 100 metric tonnes of diamonds in my house i would sell the house with a disclosure agreement to the largest diamond dealer in NY.

Doesn't exist, that excuse hasn't worked since the EMdrive took off. lol. You don't need am arm. a tniy electric motor with a pulse drive, two mounts and a reel with 6 lb test. mount these two to two recess in the side of a ported cyclinder. position the space craft, open the doors,mhave a tiny robots drive by tiny iondrive go our pulling the line out (no tension), first they cut off the solar panels, and then joining themselves to two previously determined positions. reel the hubble into the bay, close the door. The next part is the fun part cause the hubble weighs major tonnage, you need to bring it to LEO and attach huge heat shield and parachutes, the best solution is to place it sideways on the shield insied a frame tha has parachutes. There is no particularly good place to land, somplace with alot of fresh snow like buffulo, new york in the winter. Or the the frame could have four diagonally mounted braking rockets. In any case you want to land on land. You could land in a sugar cane field, or on bamboo field.

Ok its two brown dwarves one spiining very rapidly and the other one at L3 not spinning at all. Ah, ive got it, its a black hole spinning so fast the it forms the shape of a donut, lol.

They said that when mercury approaches the disc of the sun from our perspective it was makes on a momentary teardrop shape.