PB666

This is closed time-like curved thread you can post in it anytime, future, past . . . . . What stops them from producing power is they are proof of principle reactors, not designed to sell power, but to guide how best to design future reactors.

The problem is that SpaceX is now traveling in uncharted territory, lets see what their cost structure is. If by recycling they attract future business, then potentially they could secure the whole recycling chain. On some parts it may only be necessary to reforge and anneal any deformations. Sure dumping your rocket on a barge in the Atlantic or gulf of Mexico is going to induce some rust, but you could go with a rust resistant metal which is similarly strong as steel (stainless steel, both common grades is not). Some parts I could see persisting are the fuel tanks, their maximum stress only last for a few seconds, the second stage tank takes the brunt.

Newton said matter nor energy could be created or destroyed, Einstein showed that there was a mass equivalency to energy. Newton's law of universal gravitation states that a particle attracts every other particle in the universe using a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses but also inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.-wikipedia While the above is true, Mass energy equivalents instead shapes the curvature of space-time more fundamentally, as a consequence objects that travel in orbits are non-inertial, while the observer on earth is never non-inertial, they are not either attracted or unattractive they are simply following a space-time. A basketball in flight is non-inertial, I think newton realized this, but it is not attracted to the earths center its simply following the warp of space time conserving the composite of kinetic and potential energy as it goes. I should point that its excellency of approximation works well as one is measuring static forces, its not so great in measuring the motion of bodies in orbit, and consequently resulted in the prediction of vulcan, where no planet was present. For things like GPS, newtonian gravitation would not work. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulcan_%28hypothetical_planet%29 I should point out that Newton if a product of his time, Einstein also failed in some predictions, you can't really blame the past for successes of the future. We are blessed by the work of both. Science is a process, not a product.

Tell me, who brought up Venus, a non-tidally locked planet? And is now trying to pass it off as tidally locked, claiming I changed the definition of tidal locking? In this point I agree, since Venus is not tidally locked by definition it should not be part of the debate at all, its immaterial. It is likely that since Venus rotates retrograde that its orbit was perturbed, since tidal affects can only slow the orbit down but cannot stop it, some alternative force had to be applied to reverse that process. Technically Mercury is not tidally locked it has a 3:2 rotation–orbit resonance has a longer period around 174 Earth days per Mercurian day as opposted to Venus's 116.7 days. its the closest to being tidally locked in our system. OK, you have supplied no evidence for your assertion that tidal locking increases chance of life. I will apply mine, two bodies tidally locked, slow orbits, both Sterile, lifeless worlds. We can include your Venus example. it and the moon are in the habitable zone and both are lifeless. Two of the bodies have lost all of their atmosphere, one has a runaway green house effect. It also has an unstable rotation and uncertain past rotation suggesting core anomolies. IR stars place the habitable zone closer to the Star, making tidal locking and said anomolies more common. http://www.space.com/13950-habitable-alien-planets-tidal-lock-life.html

Yes but if you were feeding from booster to core, the burn time would be less for the boosters, the burn time would be less than 66% of falcon9 because of throttle down at 800kmh. You would thus be dropping boosters around 1 minute 20 seconds, and that would be a speed of around 600 meters per second or so, no where near enough speed to alter gravities effect. TWR would be surface TWR for F9 surface, +0.02, x (ISP20k alt/ISP MSL).

Venus may be an example where so much material built up on one side of the planet that it started to roll over, therefore ending the tidal locking. It is not like a tidally locked planet because it is not a tidally locked planet, period. However it got to that state, its not tidally locked now. The most current research regarding venus poles suggest it could have lower temperatures if it locked up. The atmosphere of Venus has a huge greenhouse effect, Irradiance on the sun facing side heats up the ground and drives high bioling point anionic volatiles out, during the night period these react, The high level of sulfate and C02 in the atmosphere are reflective of intense destabilization (thermodynamic potential) of the Venusian soil, on the night side any cooling results in recombination adding heat back. If you remove the source of ground heating, you would over long periods of time achieve ground chemical equilibrium, I estimate it would take years if not decades because the effects are so deep in the Venusian soils, the ground would begin to cool only slowly. The temperature over the Venusian poles for instance is 100'K colder than models predict. If we extended the poles to cover one half of the planet the depth of coldness would eventually increase. Once stable recombination of sulfate and metals in the venusian soil occurs, the vapor pressure of sulfate would drop, followed by CO2. It would take a very long time for one major reason, Venus has had 5 billion years of geological turbulation to pump high temperature volatiles out, it would take another 5 billion years to recombine them, these were made at a time when water was a catalyst, but hence water is no longer present. If you accumulate solid mass of volatiles on one side of a planet to the point that the mass is attracted to the sun it will begin to rotate once that process begins it cannot be stopped only slowed. Venus may have accumulated mass at one point in its history, but rotation eventually cause this process to stop. You need to think things through, it took 1000s of years to build earths glaciers, if Venus termination has a surface period of even a year, it suffices to severly counter glaciation because during the 220 day cycle 110 days are spend under intense direct irradiation. You give Venus, Mercury is almost completely tidally locked, where is its atmosphere, it about in the same position as the two tidally locked planets in the other thread, if they can have an atmosphere so should Mercury. Clouds have limits also. Take an earth size planet, place winds of 100 m/s (a very strong jet stream) on the surface now drive them along the equator at high altitude to the other side where they collapse, the travel time is 2.3 days, 1.3 days with no irradiance during that time that air loses kinetic energy, at convergence the velocity has dropped considerably, the gas has shrunk, The energy that kept water vaporized falls, the water rains out, then snows and cools the spot at the convergence. All you need is 1 spot as a nucleus, and formation begins. K = kelvin, that is the equilibrium temperature for that body at that distance from the Sun, there is energy flow under the surface of a planet, albeit slow that prevent ultimately from kitting 0K, Zero degree Kelvin is difficult to reach because there is incoming radiation in space. For example if you measure the temperature for an airliner at 33,000 feet (10000 meters) it is typically around -65'F (-58'C) this are the points at which water is no longer stable. In the ITZ the temperature at this altitude is slightly higher, and clouds range much higher, in a polar vortex they can be considerably lower. At the venutian poles the temperature is about 100'K below expectation, I suspect the reason for that is that there is some recombination of sulfate and rock below because local irradiation is insufficient to maintain the instability of S02 in the presence of reactive metals. You can see what happens every year plain as day and night when an ocean is exposed to the absence of sunlight for 6 months, Antarctica's ice area almost doubles by September 15th. If insolance never came to Antarctica, the sea ice would continue to grow and thicken, the life that feeds on the algae would die, eventually the ice would grow to the bottom of the seafloor, the glaciers would begin to slow, ice would begin to thicken to 3 kilometers thick the radius of equilibrium thickness would increase slowly and eventually lower sea levels. In the center of Antarctica you would see the cap reach a level where temperatures where below the sublimation temperature of CO2, CO2 would begin precipitating from the atmosphere, this would cause global cooling, the would be isostatic decline in sea-level and the ice thickness would grow. Antarctic would eventually cover everything from 68'latitutude south, while greenland Ice would melt it would be miniscule compared to sea level falls induced. If we turned Antarctica and locked the northpole to the sun, Antartica would then consume all the water, the sunfacing side would dry up, you would have pools of brine, then salt flats. Life would die, the sunfacing side would have a wholescale burning of hydrocarbons, oxygen would fall somewhat, the hydrocarbons on the 'southern hemisphere' would be perpetually locked in the earth as well as the trees and vegetation in the southern hemisphere, would fall over and form coal fields. C02 would undergo depletion in the coldest artactic regions. Because earth now no longer has a magnetic field (its no longer spinning and tides are no longer slowing the earth down), this causes nitrogen to be knocked out of the atmosphere and it thins. Before to long it thins to the degree that nitrogen starts liquifying at higher antartic layers, followed by oxygen. Then makes atmosphere loss due to radiation and solar winds accelerate. Eventually the earth becomes sterile. It is too far from the sun to become a mercury, so it would retain water and CO2. Earth might, with enough load, turn over slowly because of the mass, and become more like Venus. Why do you feel the need to argue against what is obvious? So far you are providing support of what I am saying, you brought up water, deprive water of sunlight for 6 months and the surface area of Antarctica markedly grows. The only thing you don't do is extrapolate this to its equilibrium point, what if the Earth was around a large star and had a year of 1500 days, how big would Antarctica grow. In fact given what you have said I doubt you understand what an equilibrium point is. Let me help you, If I take a piece of metal that is completely reflective on one side, well insulated in the middle and just a grey/black surface on the other, face the reflective side to the sun, how long does it take for the space facing side to cool in the vacuum of space, now replace the metal with a planet. How long does one side of a planet take to equilibrate. So on earth over night if you live near an ocean it drops 10'C if you live in the mountains it drops 25'C. Thats in 12 hours, if you let the temperature drop say 50'C then certain vapors are no longer stable in the air. If you are setting on a hot world and you have an kilamanjero poking out on the back side of some tidally locked planet you can bet every dollar you have that there is going to be cascade of precipitation that is going to start nucleating precipitation given kilamanjero at the equator also had glaciers. you can assume it will be snow, and given time you have glaciers, and given glaciers tendency to lengthen when sunlight is not present you can expect the phenomena to continue until equilibrium or that that isotatic structure of the dark side is so massive that the planet begins to turn, at which case you prolly will have a Venus, either way the planet is dead. You best case scenario is that the star burns off some of the atmosphere, it doesn't turn and you have lakes of water under mountains of CO2 and methane that have volcanic. The other thing is that CO2 like cold ice water, its going to start building up in the snow and snow melts just like it does at the arctic, so green house gases will fall. You have absolutely no evidence. The conversation is over.

1) 1stage core recovery - 2wice faster than if stage 1 core separates with booster, down range pick up point is 5 time futher out. 2) kerbin drops at surface acceleration unit per alt30k. earth drops 1 acceleration unit per alt300k. 3) LKO is v2295, LEO is v7800, LKO has no drag, LEO does. 4) The falcon 9 launch is almost twice the thrust of the closest engine in stock. 5) The crossectional area to mass ratio of Falcon 9 is 1/2 to 1/3rd anything you can build in the stock game. 6) because of the increase dynamic TWR in kerbin, a F9 FT with a full load of fuel has 10% more thrust to play with, this means at maximum nominal load it can turn to horizontal twice as fast on kerbin than on earth, and gain the needed horizontal velocity twice as fast during the critical turn. 7) kerbin atmosphere scale is 2.6 at 5000, earths is 3 at 10,000, on kerbin Max Q comes quicker and at a lower velocity. 8) Using the F9 even at twr1.1 (dynamic) leaves no room for error or failure. Even burning off 20% of the core stage fuel before separation affords the margin of safety needed to gain altitude or gain horizontal velocity fast. Better not to risk. 9) you did not define the mod you used or the parameters you set. A model that is earth-like or real in the space beyond kerbin prolly acceptable, distrust any model that claims it is earth-like on kerbin itself. Even an earth-like planet, the game model is not completely real , it would be too computer intensive to run.

The most important point you miss, a close orbiting tidally locked planet is a big machine, a dynamo. The heat absorbed on one side is realeased on the other. First nothing will happen, but as soon as you start precipitating greenhouse gases you drive the directive. It is impossible not to have precipitation, and as the rate increases its impossible for it not to reach the ground, and once it hits the ground it undergoes evaporative cooling, sooner or later, that material accumulates, just like glaciers on pur poles. Somehow you dont get the point, with out the sun, those poles would continue to build ice. In the summer the ice in the arctic ocean melts, in the winter the sea ice around antarctica melts. On the dark side of a tidally locked planet whose equalibrium surface temperature is 30 K, there is no 'summer' melting, once the surface cools to preciptation temperature, stuff accumulates until its patial pressure is so low that evaporatio rate equals precipitation rate and surface cools further. There is no end point until there is only left atmosphere that vaporizes at a lower temperature than the equilibrium temperature of the dark side minimum. That leaves volatile hydrogen, which as we know is easily kicked by solar winds. The vaporization temperature of ice is dependent on temperature, as temperature falls the rate falls untilmthe rate is zero, as you deplete one gas from the atmosphere, the next gas will rain or snow out,mthe pressure drops,mthe temperature drops, ding you have monster glaciers. Proof of the pudding is in the eating, show one example of life on a tidally locked planet, on a single star system show one example where a tidally locked planet has a credible atmosphere. mercury, nope, lots of gas passes by mercury, none is captured in a credible atmoshere.

They moved thier exoeriment to L2. I think they are hoping to see a rare event, like a supernova, the problem with detecting gravitons, not the virtual kind, but the kind that pulse from major chnges in mass, the closer you are to them, the less likely you are to survive them.

We know how to look for gravitons, merging black holes, but as quantum can we detect them, they impart so little energy its hard to see a graviton in the same way one might observe a photon. If you can imagine the earth has 10^50 elementary sized particles interacting with space-time at the surface to produce 10 N of force or equiv of 50watts/kg of power, thats something 10E-48 J per particle per second for a kilogram. I think that the detector is trying to do is to sense a , 'water molecule in a brief flood'when two balck holes merge, the question is whether we have sensitivity to detect the unitary particle. This is a ral delimna because gravity is a scalar field either it is not quantitizable like other particles, or thevparticles may not be discrete entities, we see them, but different size everytime. When you say look, in this case you really mean resolving the signal from the noise. If you are a light speed ship traveling by two merging black holes and the fine scale detector only weighs a gram, the signal is going to be rather intense, but it may not be quantizable. When you are on earth, the noise is very intense, you have to observe individual jumps away from the noise as a wave of particles pass. Not easy stuff. Note on the wiki, there is no energy assigned to the graviton.

Oh gee, psuedoscience, have you ever read a clinical case report. There is alot of just technical blah, blah out there. The big problem right now in medical science is getting someone to gather all the clinical data and create associations rather than case reports, we got magic drugs out there being used for off- label applications with no scientific justification, and they're working, just noone is proving that they work. Science is that which expands on the boundary of science, that includes things like the prediction of hawking radiation and other preproven hypothesis, right or wrong. Science is a process, you can report on the beginnining, the middle or in a review, the end. Once you've reached an agreed upon conclusio, its knowledge, not science. Higgs plus five others equal hypothesis, LHC and other colliders = methods, billions of collisions and statistics = data, meta analysis =!conclusion. The problem of hypothesis creation is its a really good idea to add some test or have some test in mind when creating the hypothesis, otherwise you will spawn things like 5, 7, ,11, and 13 dimensional string theories which undermine the credibility of the original hypothesis. Dark matter and dark energy are two examples, the testing right now is not proving what they are just what they are not.

Inter means between, if you need to traverse it would transplanetary. The standing army can also build second stages, which need to occur at a much faster rate. The can also disassemble used expired rockets, build fairings and nose cones, etc. Some of the parts on the expired launches may still be useful in the new launches, the rest will be recycled for cash.

Crossfeed only works well when the post separation velocity can be maintained, his starting accelerations are not that great on the F9 FT, if PL is maxed out the post-booster release TWR could be 1 . . . . wasteful

I think the waving banana was just joking, as in if you dont want to answer science questions its not such a nice place. But i agree, its not so much about answering questions as arguing out of the ideas. Most of the answers are not facts, but the contextual implications of fact sets, for example what does it mean when a rocket engine bruefly runs at 110% of its rated power, does rated power have a meaning, what confines perfomance, and are ISP and Max Q hard facts or just working estimates.

Written by a string theorist? Which camp, the 7 dimension, 11 dimensio, or 13 dimension string theorist. Theories look for patterns of consistencies. BTW, if you want to follow unprovable theories, theology can fix you up, one heretical branch of theology uses occams razor and the scientific methods as its basis. Going back to the unprovables is a kind of reverse evolution. The universe is a quantum universe, which suits me fine because im a statistian. Once you dive into the quantum view you immediately have the possibility of many outcomes, but at least on the relatvavistic scale they coalesce in the observable through mass action. The outcome of quantum scale physics are a set of parallel probabilities. The most probable outcomes end up being realities except when the scale is reduced. An example of small scale events are radiation induced mutations. In this case you cannot predict the decay of the particle, its direction of irradiation or even that it will ionize some nucleotide, its a spontaneous corruption of a common process, which we accept as this thing called evolution. But quantum interactions accumulate on the mass scale and have predictable outcomes as binomial probaility distribution increases, the relative width of the confidence range decreases until at population its a single unique value. If the deBroglie wavelength is smaller than the smallest dimension, then you should be able to test a hypothesis about the object. If you are dealing with mechanics on the planks scale, or with particles you need alot of observations, cause we cant observe quantum time or length. So far as yet we are unable to test the existance of gravitons, its science. Gravitational constant may not be constant. in circumstances were the universe does not give you a consistent answer, proof or disproof, use statistics. If you cannot prove where something is, disprove all the places something cant be. Examine the universe from different perpectives until the only place where credible can be found is the place not eliminated. I would also argue that the process of analysis is subject to statistics, there is a recent paper on dinosaurs where the collective of discoveries is evaluated to propose diversity and estimating gaps, the binomial probaility distribution/poisson distributions are very good at this. I have frequently used these to postulate gaps in human evolution, which oddly get support from genetics a decade later. This problem is that fossiles appear like quanta, but they do not tell the state of the system but the state of an individual in an unknown number of systems, so in looking for systems it is more likely to satisfactorily estimate the number of systems without knowing the state of individuals in a system at any given time. This creates place holder hypothesis which float over typhonomics, as new data appear they can be binned into the placeholders and need not interfere with the state of other existing systems unless warranted. There is a bias in many sciences that becomes profoundly evident in paleontology, something does not exist outside the known bounds until proven, unfortunately this creates a rather large ascertainment and cladistic bias. When you try to mesh physical/paleoanthropology and ancient DNA genetics, which is not an interpretation of how things evolved, but the blueprint of evolved or evolving state (and it begs the environment, phenotype, genotype head butting contest) one runs into mutual disbelief. An example of this is desinovan, its DNA is shared in a mode of southeast asians, and peaks in papua new guineans now claimed to be a single admixture event, but physical anthropology has no evidence of desinovans in the region. And the physical evidence from the region is of some other dwarfed species. Its sometimes not smart to be too constrained by known evidence when it is certain that the known evidence is fractured, its not a license to contrive evidence, but its like creating imaginary numbers to solve problems. The problem is that PA and ancient DNA analysis has filled in some of the gaps near the placholders i created almost two decades ago, but still haven't filled in the most important gaps, so as random data pours in you are still surprised, even if you create placeholders to catch the surprises. Science is sometimes a tempest. With quantum mechanics you do not need to prove everything with perfect observation, but as stated above, we can get carried away, ignore occam, and create a theory in which the universe has 13 dimensions in it. But we also have to be aware of the contrary, the limits of observation are massively larger than the scale tick-tock and step of the universe, theres alot that can happen in that quantum equivilent of space time that we cannot observe. It goes without saying that the smaller the scale of observation, the more indirct those observations become until at some point on has to question observation itself.

I have the star on my ignore list and all that. I think if someones going to build a bypass through the solar sustem, im simply going to rely on the infinite improbabilty drive to save me. I have lots of towels handy. . . . . . . Oh, you wanted me to take this thread seriously . . . . . Really, aliens aren't going to mind us, we are in a fairly boring backwater of the galaxy. If i'm an alien species my biggest concern is finding the best stars to reach out to seed and move on, more or less have all the elements in relatively shallow gravity wells, a stable star, low end of the yellow spectrum, cause i want my colony to last, finally biggest troublemaker are supernova and 'ramblin stars'. Ah and don't forget what to do about the andromeda collision.

Or even more simply because wormholes can potentially violate, do the highest numer of communication events is one, in other words they are quantum entanglements at the upper limit of size.

Everest has gravity, if you climb to the top youll experience more of everests gravity and less of the earth by a tiny fraction of a percent.

Nice pictures. The problem is that when you jettison the boosters you center tank is full, ISP has raised a little, but the problem the remaing rocket now is as heavy as a falcon at launch but with the heavy payload and just a little more ISP, you wont be gaining much speed for a while. IF falcon can power up to 7402 kN and hold velocity might not be so bad, but how do you pour on velocity after max Q. Lets say you have 740kt falcon with a 100% larger second stage , you are not going to be accelerating quickly.

1) mars is not tidally locked 2) energy moves fromnthe position of highest to lowest density. PV=nRT.. If you raise the temperature on one side, volume will increase, if volume increases it will rise and flow in the direction of lower energy. 3) as the gas radiates heat into space, it cools, as it cools it shrinks, A warm planet with a long daylight period will create alot of humidity from water, CO2 is insoluble in hot water so its in a gaseous state, There mibpght be rain an clouds on the warm side, as soon as thae water wapor moves to that side it will precipitate it will rain ou, the, snow out. 4) moisture will keep the atmosphere warm until it sublimates, at that point carbon dioxide will begin to precipitate at high pressure and sublimate at low pressures. As this occurs total system pressure will fall and grrenhouse gases effect will fall. 5) this cycle will continue until most of the water and all of the CO2 is depleted from the warm side, some of the water will be at the termination, next methane will begin to preciptate out at which point atmosphere pressure will drop and the remaing greenhouse gas will be depleted. You could see cyclones like those seen on earth, saturn and jupiter, which are dynamos that drive surface energy to the high elevations. 6) Nitrogen will not precipitate everywhere at the beginning but heat and vacuum are great drivers of energy flow, once its starts precipitating you will see a rapid transfer of surface energy on the dark side until the surface temperature over large areas on the dark side are as cold as liquid nitrogen at pressure nitrogen, the rain itself carries energy, but as the atmosphere thins, it will carry less energy until finally nitrogen will largely be trapped 7) as the surface pressure drops on the warm side, solar winds will no longer be absorbed on the surface of the atmosphere, now these gases are being ionized and as ions are being kicked out of the atmosphere. This will lower pressure further and driving gas into interplanetary space as plasma. The will go through the gases in reverse order of solidification until most of the water is gone, the reainder will be as ice. Once the nitrogen is gone all life one the planet will cease.

before we can discuss Tidal locking effects, we need a set of commonly agreed upon points with which one can do analysis. Characteristics of Atmospheric Gases. kPa = 0.145 PSI, 1 ATM = 101.325 kPa STP is 101.325 kPa at 273k Elemental Helium : Boiling point 4.2 K , Lambda point 2.2 K 5.048 kPa, Critical point 5.19 K , 227 kPa Neon: Boiling point 27.1 K , Triple point 24.6 K, 43.37 kPa, Critical point 44.4918 K, 2769 Kpa Argon : Boiling point 7.302 K, Triple point 83.81 K, 68.9 kPa, Critical point 150.8 K, 4,870 kPa Molecular Hydrogen:Boiling point 20.271 K , Triple point 13.8033 K, 7.041 kPa Critical point 32.938 K, 1286 KPa Nitrogen: Boiling point 77.355 K, Triple point 63.151 K, 12.52 kPa, Critical point 126.2 K, 3.4 MPa Oxygen: 90.188 K, Triple point 54.361 K, 0.1463 kPa, Critical point 154.581 K, 5043 KPa Heteroatomic. Methane, Melting point 90.7 K Boiling point 111.66 K, Triple point 90.68 K 11.7 kPa, 190.8 K 4,640 kPa Carbon Dioxide, MP 216.6 K, Triple point 216.55 K 517 kPa, Critical point 304.19 K 7,380 kPa Water, MP 272.16, BP Triple point 273.16 K, 0.61kPa, Critical point 647.096 K, 22.06 MPa Bold pressures indicat the possibility for periodic liquid precipitation of the gas type as pressure falls, as pressures fall below the pressure limit, snowing of the gas. What is the point here. Bioneogenic planets start with atmospheres of CO2, Water, Methane, Nitrogen and other gases. If major surfaces of the planet are below the triple point temperature (216.5K, 273.16 K, 90.68, 273.16 K). If temperature falls below the temperature of one of the gases, say water, you have the formation of Ice, but the atmosphere can create a dynamic equilibrium. If two are below, for example carbon dioxide, the atmospheric pressure drops as CO2 accumulates in the cold spot and sublimates with circulation. If temperature falls below three, water will become locked by liquid carbon dioxide, which will be stabilized by a sea of methane. At still lower temperature methane freezes, the atmospheric pressure drops further still, if the temperature falls below the triple point for nitrogen there will first be a rain of nitrogen, but as pressure drops it will start snowing essentially locking these on the cold side of the planet. If there are enough of these, the planet might, over time rotate and boil them onto the other side creating a very slow rotation phenomena, but not so fast as to prevent sublimation on the slow moving side, even if life were to form it complex life would be routinely crushed my massive rolling glaciers of ice that melt and reform. However because the pressure on the exposed side is so low, stellar winds and flares will almost certainly kick the isolated gases out of the atmosphere, some will condense on the other side, others will end up speeding out to space. How cold to dark sides of tidally locked planets get. Mercury- closer than the habitable zone. On the dark side of mercury, whose lit side reaches 700K the temperature is average of 100K, if mercury had a primordial atmospheric it would Move 7/8ths of the Argon, Helium and Hydrogen to the dark side, prior to their expulsion No water on the sun facing side, all Water would be locked in ice on the dark side and at poles. No carbon dioxide on sun facing side, carbon dioxide would sublimate on the dark side. Freeze or rain methane in spots. Rain Nitrogen (Oxygen would never form because all CO2 is locked up in ice), which would transfer heat from the surface to space, and further cool down the atmosphere. Our moon, and imperfectly locked example of a Habitable zone planet. Lets go a little colder, lets look at the moon, which is heated up every 30 days on one side. At this distance from its stars, so called habitable zone the dark side has a basal temperature of 30K to 50K degrees. Lets argue that the moon was tidally locked with the sun, Water would boil and sublimate (snow) on dark side. Followed by carbon dioxide. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/13/Carbon_dioxide_pressure-temperature_phase_diagram.svg/330px-Carbon_dioxide_pressure-temperature_phase_diagram.svg.png First if that atmospheric pressure were high enough it would rain CO2, then as the pressure fell temperature would fall and snow of carbon dioxide would coat the ice, this would be followed by methane which would eventually freeze on top of the CO2, later Ntirogen and Oxygen would rain and then freeze on the dark side. Surprisingly Argon and Neon might join the club. The planet would conduct heat to the surface, and this would potentially result in subterrestrial lakes with hot vents, while these potentially melt the most volatile substances on top, the level of insulation spreads this out and limits it they will sublime after melting and vaporization on other areas and at the edges. This will drive eventually water from the edges to the center, the volatiles will flow to the edges and be blow off by solar winds, the pressure would drop keeping ice and carbon dioxide perpetually frozen or sublimating. Caveots, larger planets, better hold atmosphere have greater thermal heat retention and lower surface area to mass, higher potential for subglacial oceans.

If its political thing bringing it up over and over again sidesteps tge restrictions. The reason russian funding is not discussed is cause they are not the king of the mountain, not an apply suited target to take pot shots at.

You found two tidally locked planets that have their Water, CO2, frozen nitrogen all piled up on the dark side, even if you termination glaciers the atmosphere at the termination too low to support life, as for the video and the article its nothing more than prefunding-cycle hype. The third is a speculative planet. The third is actually the most plausible, if it rotates, then it might have deep rock microbes, but no photosynthetic life. Before you go about believing this hype, read the Mercury and Moon pages carefully, even Mercury, so close to the sun, can liquify gases on its dark side, but just like all planets so close to the host stars the occasional magnetic storms suffice to blow off its atmosphere. [Sorry for the Apple-ization of the text I have tried to correct as many errors as I could] There is a reason we thread things, for historic searches of the archives have single well tagged threads make searching easier, rather than having to search multiple threads or threads with useless tags. Now if i want to go back and link an old thread i have to search through three threads with overlapping content Why exactly do you create so many threads anyway?

The probabilty of three habitable planets around a dim red dwarf is next to zero. See other thread you created for red dwarves, where this thread should have been placed.

Low energy red is below the excitation spectrum of chlorophyll b, however it is conceivable that the addition of addition aromatic side chains and rings could afford a lower spectrum. The problem is not just boiling oceans away, now that you are tidally locked, can you have a magnetic field to protect the entire atmosphere. The other question, its just my impression but the majority of red-stars, particularly the low-end of the spectrum are flare stars. If the star is very close to the planet the intense solar flares could actually sterilize the planet with electromagnetic bombardment from the flares itself, limiting life to deep vents and hydrothermal vents. Just read the wikis on the links below. Dim red dwarves have the weight of evidence that disfavors complex life. However they could potentially have a status as a settled planets for an interstellar species and its companion species. The primary benefit for an interstellar species is a very long lived and stable star, The intense IR could be used advantageously such as in steam powered generation with no need for fossil fuels,etc. The problem is that all the planets so far around red dwarves are been superearths.