PB666

Im pegging the hype train on this one, the videos say they will be sharing the data and we would see the discovery process, instead they feed examples and conceal the actual data. Putting it out now would cause publication issues, but you know that when you create a website to publish information directly you have already obviated the peer review process, for the public it then become the bachelorette or some other Fox TV program.

Well at least its good for its comedic value [or not]. I am really not impressed with this D-news science stuff. But to give them credit they do make 60% of the critiques.

https://palereddot.org/planetary-transits-how-can-one-measure-the-mass-size-density-and-atmospheric-composition-of-a-planet-one-cannot-even-see/ Methods in planet classification via transit analysis

Here is the latest installment to the controversy http://www.space.com/32295-super-heavy-dark-matter-particle-proposed.html These are sub-blackhole size particles According to the authors these things are spun out of inflation. There are several problems I have with this. 1. The current model is that following inflation was followed by -a. the pair production period (along with massive amounts of exotic matter), which terminated with an essentially expanding (now inertially) plasma universe - this is effectively the big bang. Namely because whatever happened before was big, but not associated with normal matter. -b. because of the high initial density of energy and d(CMRF-Ucog)/dt for any given particle that the energy density per unit space dropped per unit time. This means that plasma densities fell, but also that the movement of particles away from each other as they moved into other CMRF (comoving reference frames - the average motion of protons), particularly electrons meant that at some point electrons had to slow down relative to protons and this meant that molecular hydrogen and deuterium-hydrogen could form. -c. With this happening the density of the universe was increadibly high and as space cooled down, hydrogen coalesced into the first generation of stars, because these stars were only made of hydrogen they had to be massive to ignite, and because of the need to be massive they emmitted light at hydrogens unltraviolet, xray and blue wavelengths -d. this causes space to reheat, but unlike CMBR, it reheated space unevenly and the astronomical evidence currently suggests that there are starfields that deeply penetrate the reionization period that are also older than most visible first generation galaxies. This then puts reheating out of the initial inflationary period. The other problem I have, while it may be true that during inflation lots of exotic material/energy could have flowed into an emerging space-time, if alot of stable gravimetric material flowed into the universe, from all that I have read the universe was essentially awash with material instability, nothing could really survive, the ultimate fate of these high energy densities was ultra-high gamma radiation. With further expansion these shifted energies downward. The problem is that if a near black-hole particle formed, the absorption of hv would have easily converted them to bh. The density would have been so high in fact it would have been nearly impossible to prevent hv interactions (superposition) on top of particles that would have instantly created black holes all over the place. The plasma of the current universe would have simply been gobbled up. The caveot here is maybe GBH were created at then end of inflation, but we have to remember that setting inertia aside the universe is basketball size or smaller, you cant get the universe quantity of galaxies worth of black holes inside a basketball and expect things to go well.

Oh geeze, back to weapons again, haven't we learn weapons and space are self-defeating. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_laser This is the only weapon you will need in space, pulse ruby laser will have the best targeting, you'll need a varient because metals can be designed to resist particular frequencies. 3 frequency variants should suffice. No pesky debris field to deal with, simply cut the wires to solar panel, external coolant lines, or pit the docking ports - the will force the crew to need to evacuate on the escape pods and you can bide your time to puncture the hull.

Yes but there are apparently third party ways of determinism, that means that if particle A can be determine then when B reads the determinism of creates the anticorrelation B. Again, I have seen two papers on this in the last 3 years but I have to find them. The order problem is a problem, but one of the abstract mentions that quantum entanglement at great distances is problematic, this is because the interference that space-time creates, notably all the other events going on in spacetime. The nonlocality problem loopholes have basically been a fight to extend the entangled distances to the point that decision making on one side does not affect the other sides registration. What you are refering to is the loopholes, because early experiments had particle measurements going on at very short periods after entangled particles are generated, now they are registering them at great distances, IIRC in the canaries or meridian islands they sent photons between islands so that there were completely different sets of instruments. I have to find the paper but I believed they used third party particles to communicate. Altering the photo without destroying. This is one of the papers. The boundaries of FTL may be questionable in this case, again in quantum length scale these are tremendous differences, but I think the appropriate measure would be a natural log scale that would determine the rarity of finding (selecting particles) capable of maintaining pure entanglement at these distances. At least there is the plausibility that you could engage in FTL with appropriate selection and a repeater but the difficulty would be scalar with the log of distance (and the probability that some other interaction or interference occurs). I read this paper now and I am less certain of FTL communication. What the really need to do is this experiment once they have a measurement device on two spots on the moon and they can transmit from the ISS.

Im going to see if I can root up some of the recent studies that suggest that B can be biased on read. We can debate the studies. Will edit in a bit. This paper basically argues that the more you try to lower noise in you particle selection process, the more simultaneous your reading operations have to be. That would be problematic for galactic transcommunication schemes because of the time and space would require excessive screening and but the ability to read simultaneously becomes less and less probable with distance. This basically argues my point, that communication on very recent timeframes may be possible, but at very distant timeframes may be statistically impossible. Nye may be right in the concept but wrong in the actual practical application. More later. http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080813/full/news.2008.1038.html http://www.isciencetimes.com/articles/6986/20140324/scientists-demonstrate-three-way-quantum-communication-light-speed.htm http://www.sciencemag.org/news/sifter/physicists-break-quantum-teleportation-distance-record 100km. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/336/6086/1280 Here is an example of interference based forcing of quantum entanglement http://science.sciencemag.org/content/345/6201/1132.6.full There are much better articles by I have to find them.

You can't drain the launch site much below MSL, it simply fills back in, there is no water blocking pan between the gulf of mexico, the riogrande and the site, it simply leaches in from the surrounding soil. I have a good experience on the eastern edge of South Bay, not pleseantly good, just experience wise. I saw a tow truck dig (Ford F350 4 x 4 base frame) itself about two feet down on terra firma, before we could get it hooked to an anchor it was already filling in with water, it was a mess the tow truck was wenching itself up on the side in order to dig sand into the bottom of the pit, then rolling across to the other side, it has about a 45' ramp on the exit side before it got out. At least in South Bay, the pan is on the surface, you break it with a vehicle, your dead in the water even if you don't see it, yeah, that was a hard lesson. I literally took may car to the car wash and washed out the interior of the car with the blaster nozzle. You get your compaction up (weight) to as high as you can, vibrating the soil helps to then you start draining as much water out as you can (not much). Anything below the spring tide maximum, you wick water out, it flows back in. Anything above that it still flows by much more slowly. In fact in the village that is the reason they don't drink the water, the wells are all salted in, thats why they collect water off the roofs of their houses. I suspect now muniwater has made its way out. That neighborhood, it hasn't grown since I was there in '83, there's a reason for that. The key is the vegetation, you see lines and ridges in the vegetation above the water line, those are areas which the salt concentration at root level is too high, marsh grasses will grow in salty water, but not full salt in hot climate, there has to be an inflow of freshwater to brackish it up a bit. The areas devoid of grasses means there is a constant inflow of salty water that basically replaces rainwater after evaporation and transport has taken its toll. This is not the everglades, soils here are very sandy, no trinity clays or equivilents and silt to sand ratios are lower than on the upper texas coast. its more of a fine grit than anything else.

The galactic black hole is just a small amount of energy in our galaxy, we would orbit pretty much the same if you replace the black hole with an equal amount of energy close to the center of the galaxy, there are galaxies that lack black holes of any signficant size and there are galaxies that have black holes much larger than expected, its a galactic theme but not a necessity.

http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2016/03/hey-bill-nye-please-stop-talking.html I have to disagree with this individual and agree in part (small) with Nye, I think you can get instantaneous communication, the problems are this Particle A is split into Particles BC at which point they are entangled. ParticleA (plural;A[]) is split into serially into particles BC and set into a linear array B[] and C[] B[] and C[] are carried off into some far off part of the galaxy. According to quantum entanglement if the series B[] is determined, then C[] is also known no matter the distance as soon as C is examined. So the current studies I have seen is that B[] can be determined (resolved and semi-randomly forced - meaning that some of the time the observer can force the outcome of B, we will call this array B[~] therefore A[] -> A[x~] where x is the opposite of the state of B. The problem then arises in the space-time relationship. If ship b and c travel to opposing ends of the galaxy their spacetime hypergeometry begins to start diverging (and not only this but we cannot see them and we cannot realize the differences in warping). We have tested relationships of a few kilometers, communication seems to work, but anything beyond that distance and entangled particles become unstable, they don't last. For the scheme above to work the particles are trapped in state of non-interaction, but the problem is that to accelerate, carried some place, and decelerate the particles are interacting and therefore one or the other will be resolved sooner or later. The second problem is that for b to communicate with c is that b and c have to have a common ancestor and a shared devotee that protects their non-state. That means that communication requires a preparative process, but not only that, meaningful resolution may require some simultaneous observation. Suppose this scenario we fix these problems. We send out a colonization ship that wakes in say 10000 years, far beyond rf range, and in that ship there is a box, and in the box there is a matrix of say 1000 B[] and in each B[] there are a million B So then A knows when the ship arrives and settles, careful estimates of the space time geometry are assessed, the were probes sent from time to time from both parties to calibrate any unknown irregularities that have occurred. B[]1 is configured and gets a 30% bias, which means each bit needs to be repeated 10 times, with a parity bit to check for errors, thats 90B per byte of information. So the first message can be 10,000bytes long. The last sentence in the array is how long until the next message is sent, its repeated several times so that any nonsense is weeded out. A[]1 is then resolved and received. It now knows when to open A[]2. It also knows that if it wants to send a message back it has to before B[]2 is sent, because once B[]2 begins resolving its either set or not, As B[]2 is being programmed, the programmers realize it is set, so they read that message and then program B[]3 instead, and back and forth in this way communicating. This is not a declaration that the problems of communication can be fixed, but if they are fixed, this is how quantum entangled communication might work. In the same comoving reference frame resolving simultaneity is not that difficult because there is no relative vector differences, but once the comoving references start changing. If B and C need to be observed simultaneously for communication to work B being set and C being read, then communication is a highly improbable event as spacetime diverges.

They are going to bring in select-fill, some sort of material with high initial compaction. Most of what I see in the satellite photo is basically rio-grande sand, basically West Texas silty sand, relatively dense with low organic content. You basically scrape any surface organic stuff to the side. Bring in the select fill and build up (From what I see 10,000s of truck loads) then depending on what you are going to do, lay down the forms pour the concrete, then take the stuff you tossed to the side, mix in some compost and layer it on top, add about an 1/8th of an inch of sand and put flats of st augustine grass on top in the high end areas and toss short growth bermuda in the middle end areas and xeroscaping stuff in the transitional zones. Although they could use xeroscaping plants and cobble across the whole area and save money on water. There are alot of choices now, south texas xeroscaping is particularly useful next to launch pads, prickly pear does not mind to much getting blasted by fire. On the east side you have a surge impact zone (it needs to be able to survive 15 knt of tidal force), so its likely they are going to drive some sort of barrier material into the ground, based on what happened during Allen, they will need to go down about 12 feet to prevent undercutting, On the south side a reasonable transition in select fill along with some permanent barrier should do. I don't see the development in South Bay going very far, I think they are going to run into environmental impact considerations, but most of that is not property they own anyway. SPI is sinking, its got both global warming sea level rise and lower sand accumulations because the dams at Amistad and Falcon lake and water usage from New Mexico and Mexico basically prevent alluvial sands from reaching the coast and blowing up. So south bay development is also going to run into rising cost of building up to safe height. For gulf hurricane we are no longer just looking at airspeed but integrated kinetic energy instances, for example IKE, a cat1-2 storm on impact had a storm surge of 17 feet (3 meters) and basically shaved 10s of meters off parts of the coastline. Building requires insurance, and insurance companies look now for structures that have the platform layers at 20feet or higher, preferably 25 feet above MSL, and from what I have been told piers that go down twice as far as structure goes up. Everything below, basically the insurance companies wants to blow out during a storm surge leaving only the piers and the structure on top. Road improvements are another problem, the roads out there are laid on blocks of of granite 6 to 8 ft cubed (if you look at satellite images of south jetty you can see the blocks), and basically they dig down 8 feet below sea level drop these blocks in a couple high, fill in around with aggregated and put road material on top. The bulk of the blocks was not sufficient during Allen to prevent the roads from being torn, it simply ripped the blocks up and tossed them in the laguna madre. This road is going to have to be doubled in size so that is going to be a major stumbling block to progress, once they get inland then the road bed does not need so much basement support. Mt chimbo doesn't look too bad now does it?

Getting permission from the Mexican government is not as difficult as you might think. I see a path heading south east that would present as a corridor, by the time you reached yucatan you would be well over airspace. BTW not every dot on these maps are active wells, some of the Mexican wells are no longer producing.

Boca need not launch inclined north, it can launch inclined south over Mexican waters. It can do equitorial, inclined, polar if it wanted to.

If space X is overcapacity then they just Do more at boca-chica and let someone else you kennedy.

Yeah, try moving that down boca-chica beach access segment. First they have to have portage and a launch facility then we can talk about heavies. You know that the distance between South Bay and Mexico in places can be measured off in meters. lol, Yes it can be done. OP is right in one sense, to make this a KSC replacement $ite alot of development will need to be done.

Pretty self explanatory. Not a fan of the graphics, at one point he sort of confuses expansion for inflation, at least in my opinion negative energy tensor is inflation (late onset).

In the beginning it was niavete, sputnik did not have a problem or create a problem. And there was drive, drive to get to the moon first, The GPS stuff is not to much of a problem becacuse the diiferential velocites arent that high. There were whoopsies, like satelltites that blew up, and then there were 'did i dobthat? when the chinese blew up their own satellites. There is a basic assumption about satellites that you can always communicate with them, but there are instance tgat as soon as a payload gets into space it dumbs up. Many satellites die and thats it. If you are lucky enough to have satellites with a relatively high apogee you can spend a small amout of fuel to place it in a decaying orbit, but this first reduces the eccentrity and then finally decays, while it does this it plows through circular orbitals and risk hitting stuff. Even hitting dead stuuf is bad because it creates 1000s of more objects. If the sat retains more fuel, if it retains communication, and if the actuators still actuate, then you can do a two point burn to either junkyard staus or deorbit.

Seriously, you wanna buy land on the east coast for a mission control facility. At the time Johnson Space center was planned you could actually buy land in West Texas for 50cents per acre (with the mineral rights). NASA is on a veritable swamp that has been drained (bayous that have been opened up), before it was built you could go on the property and pull crawfish out of the holes in the ground. There is still alot of land around NASA one could develope even though huge upper middle class neighborhoods have been built. That part of Texas needs only one thing (two) to go from swamp to space age facility. Electricity and Air conditioning. Think about when air conditioning became popular in the south. I think a bigger problem for Space X's Boca Chica Village, Cameron county site (Just to be accurate) is the environmental impact since it is building into protected areas and park lands. The impact studies at the fed and state level are going to be killers. If they had built it along the Brownsville ship channel closer to the industrial area across from hwy 24 I think they would have less impact to deal with because these areas are not part of the wetlands proper. To create a pad they are going to need to bring in alot of fill, that is for certain, they need to raise the base elevation to about 10ft above sea level to avoid just normal 5 year flood events. Just to make a point, even though its very unlikely a major flood on the rio grande/bravo could place the facility de-facto in Mexico, so they prolly need to wall off the south side.

" SpaceX announced in August it had selected a site in Brownsville, Texas, to construct a commercial launch facility independent of Air Force and NASA, which own the property at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station and Kennedy Space Center. " Not in Brownsville. Its actually closer to port Isabel and SPI. But then when it comes to international space politics who needs to be accurate.

Nope. Nothing strong enough to hang from 45,000,000 meters

Wow, ISS the movie set, what a great Idea, we could have aliens hopping all about, inseminating segornia weaver. You exaggerate.

But you see how out of the rio grande they sort of north by about 3'. That due to NML, at least in the mid 90s it was still in place. So if you are going for GSO those rigs aren't a problem. If you are servicing the ISS it is, but we have to remember that there are two directives for non equitorial orbits their is the rising and falling, so you can launch to the south and take the lawsuits from Mexico.

Actually is not well known but there is a sort of no-mans land a wedge that goes out from the Rio Grande that claimed by mexico and the US. If you are Mexican and you go there the US will chase you out and vice versa. Been chased before. Because there has not been too much rig development in the region. Basically strait out from the proposed site. Less than optimal is the fact that the proposed launch pad is right now a brachish marsh. Its elevation is about a meter, the last major storm that blew through their missed boca chica and tore up miles of highway to the north, basically deposited reef dewelling fish in lagunas it created in south padre island. That was allen in 1980, now we are talking about canes that pack 160 to 200 mph winds as major, the surge heights are in the 6 to 12 meter range. Having said all that I like the site, I think it would be great to go sit on the beach and watch rockets take off. Its just not going to be a heavy launch site for a long time. Plus if they dredge a channel in south bay then the back end is now a great fishing place.

Correct, about the first thing in the thread, it gets the projectile into space at 2-3 km/sec for muzzle velocity. The problem is that at apogee it needs something to circularize the orbit, that means an additional 6 km/s of dv. Consider 3000 m/s at 9.8 meter sec = 300, if you launch at a 45' angle that 0.707 then radial vector is 2121 m/s that only give 215 seconds of time. The horizontal velocity is only 2121 and the needed circularization velocity is 6483000 m therefore speed required is mu =398,575,072,480,000 V = SQRT(mu/6483000) = 7800 This means it climbs to an altitude of slightly more than = 4.9 * T*2 = 226,500 meters (this is without factoring out significant drag), at that altitude an additional 7800-2100 dv to achieve orbit, that is a majority of the velocity it would take (5700 m/s). At 2 g it would take 285 seconds. Consequently after launch it would take 142.5 seconds prior to apogee to burn orbitally apogee to successfully obtain orbit, That means 70 seconds after launch at an altitude of approximately 130km (not a bad altitude for burning on a space thruster) you would need to burn about 280 seconds at 2 g parallel to the surface of the earth. Thats actually kind of a long burn but for a modern second stage engine with good ISP its not to bad. Problem is you are talking about tons of mass, and more than a meter in diameter, the walls of the gun would have to be thick.

Right, in Ecaudor as well as Boca chica. But a point to be made is that about 25 miles north of boca chica, a road laid on two high stack of granite (6x6x6ft) cubes was washed out in more than a dozen places by a single storm, and yet its still acceptable as a launch site. Does Space X have a really bad Idea, or can you engineer a launch site in just about any remote location? BTW, look at the road, on one side South bay, on the other side a salt Marsh . . .judging by my walk a couple of decades ago the salt marsh is growing (sea-level rise, and since the rio grande has been dammed up the replacement of subsidence has not been happening. The rail head in brownsville ship channel but the proper yard is up in harlingen. The red line is about 12 to 15 miles, that is new track that would have to be laid, part of which is in the port of Brownsville. In addition you have the potential of a diversion off the Brownsville ship channel (BSC) and you can see the intercoastal cannal a couple of miles up the channel as it winds through port isabel and then through the laguna madre, the other branch silts over. The blue lined channel I drew to the south does not exist, it would have to be dug to 2 fathoms in the middle of a wildlife protection area on the edge of a State park. The rail line past the narrows between southbay and the riogrande is basically unstable land. You would not expect it to survive a severe storm. The channel is preferable this is Rio grande sediment, it comes pretty much from New Mexico and West Texas and is dense packed sandy silt, pretty good compaction, you would want to use this silt to build up your facility between the google marker and the termini of the canal and the rail lines. This would be the only way to avoid the effects of severe storms on command and control. Elevations here are a meter.