PB666

Whats the point of it then?

Actually chemist use dH20 or ddH20 to signify the level of purification.

I think I posted this in November. Yes Magnesium and several other metals have advantages over nobel gases as ion drive propellants because, essentially, the are container-less. ISPs I have seen quoted are in the range of 8000 to 35000 (Vexh = 80000 to 350000 m/s) We have no effective EPGs to run these systems Solar is too bulky and too heavy per panel length, Nuclear is too heavy and needs to much cooling system mass. Or let me put it this way, our most effective is solar. Mass grows in spacecraft 3 dimensionally but solar panels grow 2 dimensionally. As a spacecraft grows in radius (such as to accommodate humans) the needed radius of solar panels grows r^3/r^2 or r^1.5. The same is also pretty much true for cooling panels. Its not very long before the radius of the panel exceeds all kinds of things (such as structural limits on extensions, voltage stability for step up transformers and wires). We have a nice long thread on the perils of ion-based electric powered thrusters. Good for transporting and staging fuel and supplies, not so good for transporting humans. Higher ISP, very efficient on fuel, very inefficient on power (panel area or nuclear cooling area and mass) Lower ISP better on acceleration but wastes fuel. Useful only for temporary bursts of speed.

Previously we have had the discussion here about the hazards of space travel. http://microcapmagazine.com/2016-03-12-researchers-found-that-ancient-dust-found-in-meteorites-actually-came-from-exploding-stars/ This article discusses the origin of dust. The authors found using fingerprint Isotopes that particles in the meteorite, basically dust grains, prolly did not form in space, but formed in a classical Nova (reaction of a binary star companion with a dwarf) shooting essentially grains of dust into space. Previously people have been thinking that gas ejected from nova slowed down and interacted in places like our oort cloud forming dust, this study shows that the particles actually are ejected into space.

Just another point: - Kennedy served under 3 years, most of the space moon shot was done under the Johnson administration. - That was over 50 years ago, the US has generated 2 magnitudes more GDP/(rated for inflation) since then, and we still have not done these things. Here is what we did - we collected gobs of moon rocks and sand - we brought them back and we are still analyzing them. Here is what we did not do - build a colony, establish an outpost. Can I make a simple point, one that NASA has probably thought through exhaustively - what are your goals that cannot be obtained by unmanned missions - Dance on mars - hard to get scientific support - Collect samples - Unmanned can do - Do chemistry - Unmanned appears to be doing - we have new rovers going - Build an outpost - What is the purpose of the outpost - explore potential habitation - premature - test building methods and longterm human protection schemes (not being discussed here) - Build a colony - way, way, way premature. So lets cut this down to its bare essential element. The very hardest thing that we have to do in a mars mission is not the travel to mars, we can do that, its the landing. But we are talking in this thread about 60 year old schemes that do not deal with the problem of landing (except Orion Nukes which lets just face it, impractical and prone to Murpies law). But what are humans going to do? colonize. Ok. No survival plan. Return - reorbit is even harder. If you land on mars with an nuclear engine, you cannot get out of the friggen rocket, so forget colonization. Miemos is a dirt ball, its got loose soil, you can land with hyperglolic or LFOx. The loose substrate can easily be dug into, you could create an underground chamber to protect your inhabitants from whatever. Th dV for landing on the moon from HEO is about the same as for the Moon. If there was such a thing as an ISRU you could potentially create fuel for landing a traditional vehicle on mars.

If the planet is very dense and very large and has no atmosphere, the burn is precisely at periapsis and is very short duration the effect can be profound. Find a nice black hole you could have a really nice oberth effect, provided the black hole does not rip your ship to shreads.

This looks a bit like troll bait. Ill bite anyway. 1. Moon is 400,000 km and Mars, along the transfer is around 1000 times as far. 2. The minimum efficient transfer time is around 8 months 3. Landing heavy stuff on mars is challenging. 4. The fuel required to regain orbit is very heavy if human is the cargo. 5. Quick land and transfer windows that are not sci-fi (including anything that elon musk has to offer) do not come promptly after good earth to mars. Efficient trips take more than 2 years. 6. Humans have this thing about need to be fed, watered, change their diapers, supplied oxygen, deplete carbon dioxide, warmed, and protected from all kinds of perilous things in space. 7. Human flybys offer little advantage, the goal has to be land or bust.

Think about it like this in the first few billionths of a second the universe expands to opposing vectors of at least 6c, at that point its maximum size is 0.05m, after 380,000 years the bounds of the expansion are now 380,000 x 1016 x 6 in diameter minimally and its all pretty much curved space time. That is roughly 1022 times large than the inflation that is inflation, and at the edge there is less pressure so you can get expansion on top of inflation. The problem is that while relatively close things in our epoch say 200,000 light years away are somewhat red-shifted a distance of a couple hundred thousand years is going to completely redshifted to nothing. Light that leave point x needs to travel not to me but toward a point in front of me, so that the hypotenuse that it travels is actually a vector that is faster than c, it never reaches me, at infinite time frame some of this light reaches but by that point is so dim and red-shifted it would be difficult to detect.

Because we know that conclusion is invalid. Hubble keeps seeing beyond the edge. Beyond the CMBR there's the neutrino horizon, beyond that if you had sensitive enough equipment there is an exotic particle horizon and so on. Lets get to the crux. The problem is not the edge; the problem is inflation, this ties into the other thread. Theoretical time zero is a hypothetical time point we can never see in front of, it goes like this Quantum universe - in so called because its either a singularity itself or its a singularity that has begun to disintegrate. Its state is define by non-quantitizable length and time Gravity breaking - Time 0 - quantum gravity gives rise to essences of what we call space-time. The basic problem is the gravitational constant is probably not the one we use and Planck's length is probably not the length scale and if you had a cesium clock (impossible with laws of that time) it would not be ticking at the current rate. The high density of energy warps space, but there is no matter, it is not confined. We get out of this inflation Inflation - expansion transition - the previous state is one of either observing or being, you could observe as an outsider an expansion, but as an insider literally you would have to actually be the expansion, since the first defies the definition of universe its impossible (not to mention perilous) and the second is that singularities cannot both observe and exist. As a universe type singularity its entire lot of information is within an infinite energy density and a set of properties we do not understand (temperatures have no meaning on our scales, matter cannot exist . . . .). Unless a model of a multiverse exists the singularity cannot ever be observed. Then the question is what is the inflationary state, is it a quantum expression of a singularity? The question is not trivial because if inflation is simply a distorted dying gasp of a quantum singularity then if you do not observe the edge of the universe then it can never be observed, not that it does not exist. There are at least a couple of good reasons. 1st the distortion in formative space-time is inflation which means comoving space is limited to scales smaller than planck's length. As these scales stretch apart they inflate more space and so on, until the most opposed points are moving away from each other >6c (this is not objects moving, but comoving space is moving, there is no rest mass, and energy pours into the comoving space as it forms - still quantum properties of the universe). The space you exist then is either then edge or not edge, if its not edge it will never be edge, because your reference frame is locked into a comoving space if the universe is say 100U in area and only things within 1U length from the edge can view light from the edge, then the 30 interior units say that the universe is boundless in all directions, and no observation they can ever make would convince them otherwise. CMBR makes this worse, because it delays the time by which we can see edge things, not only do we have to deal with spatial distortions caused by inflation, but with millions of years of expansion so instead of 70/100 ths of the particles having a view of the edge, now only 30/100ths have a view. The particles on the edge, most likely see nothing, they never progress beyond the simplist. By the fact that we see CMBR across the horizon tells us we were never near the edge, that we will never see the edge and it does one other thing to our vision . . . . . Just about everything above I wrote is speculation because the veil of CMBR makes it the last observable point in the universe, unless you are a neutrino counter, in which case you can see ever so slightly before, and everything that happened before and further away is just speculation. We have a Cheshire universe, either the edge exists or does not, if you do not observe the edge it still might have existed.

Well that's white washing a fantasy. Still a fantasy and still fantastically dangerous.

If wishers were horses beggars would ride. 1959 . . . people here are still regurgitating how bad SLS was, I mean seriously if you think the shuttle was inefficient you are going back to 1959 for a prototype? You have a bunch of companies including some that propose manned mission to mars, if this was even remotely possible you would have something like it in some sort of proposal. \ Orion for the record is also just a whacked out proposal, it will never get off the ground, at least terran soil. Mars is hard, a single launch is not going to provide all the requirements, and 39 day transfer times are child's talk.

Well if you can do this in the garage and your relays and rf generator can face any direction only the resonance chamber matters then we can effectively rule out 2 of these things. Their last report ruled out a bunch of possibilities. I would actually have to see what the clearances are in the vacuum chamber. I wish we would stop calling this an EMDrive, its not, in terms of its principle the rf is tossed into a resonance chambers in which electrons oscillate in confined areas, the output thrust is a magnitude higher than the EM and therefore there has to be a push off mass. A thrust in the micronewton range they literally could be pushing of a thread or some sensor. Planks length is a factor that is rooted in space-time (rising the split between quantum gravity and relativistic gravity), as I understand it quantum distance can be less rooted, although I cannot imagine a circumstance at STP or ST vacuum in which that might be the case. Even a centimeter jump is well outside plank's length, which I suspect is just an average of distribution. Maybe these folks need to do a fall-off study to see how far the transfer has signal to noise. I could imagine circumstances in which this quantum transfer distance is a skewed distribution of lengths with the lowest probability of transfer several times longer than planck's length (i believe is ~10-8 meters). You could have a selection process within the drive which basically builds 'fairy' energy up until such a quantum transfer path becomes available, it then jumps and transfers momentum. That's all fine but the machine would have to be doing something very powerful or very clever, because twisting the distribution should take very high energy densities, and if those energy densities don't exist then the resonance has to be creating the brief (say planck's time) appearance of very high energy density. The gedanken question here is when they talk about a singularity universe and infinite energy density, dissolution of space-time, that quantum space allows unlimited density, but of course was unstable and spread possibly as a consequence of acute distortion of quantum properties that spread into space-time. When the universe is the size of say a greatfruit is it still a singularity or is it transiting, and when does that singularity cease. Is it necessarily an assumption that energy itself created inflation or are energy and inflation a manifestation of some other process. If spatial distortions are the sole manifestation of energy, meaning nothing else can operate QFD to alter the fate of virtual particles, then nope its not going to be effective even at 0.01 mm, but if something else is there that can spatially distort the length, then. In intelligent processing they deal with sort of phenomena all the time, the video was about information and information transfer. What if we think about the rf resonance thruster is an information processing unit instead of a thruster, something like a microprocessor. Decisions are made to transfer momentum we have a tetrahedrod and the transfers on oneside off each face can occur. The decission on three faces is to allow transfer lengths of say 1nM and a skewed distribution from 0 to 10 nM, on the back facing side opposed from the electron resonance tube the transfer lengths are from 0 nM to a meter but the distribution mean has only stretched to say 10000nm. In this skewed distribution a specific sort of energy builds up along one direction, sort of like electrons traveling across a chain of 4n+2 orbitals, that then perturbs a field, lets call it the quantum length determinant, which is most of the time randomly pointed in all directions and oscilates around its average value at any point in space. Theoretically a transfer could occur across that meter, just like the probability that a set of diodes and transisters when placed into a circuit could form a processor that could add two numbers. The electron resonance then begins a process of selection suppressing fields that appear that whose lengths are too short and favoring the longer ones, it could even undergo concatenations were virtual particles are handed to new pairs as they arrive carrying the energy to some target molecule. Once the energy arrives at the target the field determinants vanish.

If the internal centrifuge is in a electromagnetically suspended vacuum chamber then there is no friction. Allow astronauts to enter chamber, then seal it, seal the chamber door, evacuated the chamber and spin the centrifuge, if air leaks out simply pump it back in. No friction, no air loss, if there is a breach, no problem just make the chamber differential thin, pressure equilibrates. The only problem with this design is that is it massive. You need a craft wall to keep air from escaping into space, you need a chamber wall to keep barrier air from getting into the chamber, you need the spinner wall, and pumps inside the spinner, as well as a induced current generator (or hefty battery) to run the pump.

This video seems to suggest that virtual particles can transfer energy over distances. I presume that he is talking about distances within plank's length, but what he is suggesting is exactly what the Cannae drive is observing but over a much smaller length scale, or maybe not. (Note I drafted this video into this topic, he does not mention Cannae). Again transfers could be happening on the surface of the chamber or with air molecules in non-vacuum apparatus (but it should not work in a complete vacuum of space where distances are many magnitudes greater). An alternative is that the transfer of hv is happening on loose molecules on the surface that are accelerated to high velocities (such as copper ablation). He also suggests that there should be an upper limit, that as you increase power the direction of output would become more chaotic. I think what is key here is that the excitation and wobble frequencies of molecules are discrete, including copper, so it should be possible to know if rf used matches that of copper or some other molecules.Therefore if we replace the surface metal on the cone of the chamber with one type that had a particular wobble frequency and then use copper on the plate, by shifting wavelength between two frequencies one should be able to kill or even reverse acceleration, if the metals are oblating at their surface. This does not get rid of the other problems that I mentioned, that this device would take tremendous amount of power relative to Newton produced and we still do not have an onboard power supply that is weight efficient enough to produce enough thrust to overcome the weight of that powersupply and its cooling elements (or 2-D layout as in the case of solar panels) that would render the acceleration cost effective.

http://www.drewexmachina.com/2014/10/02/the-fate-of-comet-halley/ Well based on this article the precise orbit of Halley cannot be predicted beyond a revolution and a half, therefore its future orbit cannot be predicted. The introduce a variable known as the Lyapunov exponent which sets a maximum limit on predictability.

http://mars.nasa.gov/news/whatsnew/index.cfm?FuseAction=ShowNews&NewsID=1894

Uh on the interstellar propulsion thread I proposed just this. But you have to have a big ship and people would have to exercise in the chamber. With a generation ship this is entirely possible, you go into the centrifuge for 16 hours a day, also going to the bathroom, even bathing from time to time. But during the work shift you are zero G. I should make the point though, if the ship has a two fold axis of symmetry that is close to perfect, once you spin the whole ship up you need only make minor tweeks to keep it spinning in the direction of motion _once its sufficiently far enough away from massive objects_. I should point out that whatever you have seen in sci-fi, its nowhere near adequate to the task. omega^2*r = 9.8m/s2 if r is 4 meters then omega is 1.56 radians per second, that means roughly an 8 meter (24 foot) cylinder is spinning at 0.248. 4 meters is crowded however if r is 8 meters then omega is 1.106 radians per second. if r is 16 meters then omega is 0.78 radians per second. It may not seem like much but once you get something 100 feet across spinning full circule every 10 seconds. The outside of the circle is traveling at 13 meters per second so it has considerable damage force if not contained, but most important, it also is a cylinder traveling in air, and experiences drag which requires a constant force to keep it going.

Silly. take out all the middlemen and go base two. Base 10 is 5 x 2, base 12 is 3 x 2 x 2, base 30 is 2 x 3 x 5 - all of these bases have in common is 2.

There's lots of reasons, the question is not whether edge exist, but whether uniformity in CMBR is persistent in all the views of the universe, from a scientific point of view even though we do know per fact that CMBR is a view limitation, not a universe limitation, we cannot argue beyond it, but that does not mean there is good reason to think that other views of the universe exist.

No problem, we will just launch you up-side down. Redout is much better.

1. Parts of the universe are _Still_ traveling away from each other at faster than the speed of light the are also expanding more rapidly due to negative energy, we cannot see them, we can only see to the limit of the CMBR. 2. The universe did not expand faster than the speed of light, technically it inflated, cosmic inflation is a process in which a massless universe creates our equivalent of volume; the problem is that definitions of space and time, in fact space-time itself was not much of a useful commodity. Quantum universe is peculiar in that objects can travel very fast in small space, there is no particular acceleration limit, the problem is this is limited to volumes in the planks scale. 3. We can only imagine an edge because we are obviously not the edge, the universe itself is supposed to be about 92 billion light years across, in fact this is a minimum it can be larger. 4. I would guess that the edge of the universe is occupied by low energy photons spreading at light speed radially, having red shifted out of the annihilation range, forever traveling outward radially, this is prolly followed be a slew of neutrinos and then highly diffuse antimatter matter, some stable exotic particles. The issue here is that by being on the outside that means that the largest vector component of velocity is radial, otherwise they would undergo friction or Em/matter interactions, or Em/Em interactions. Thus the remainder, lets say 300 billion light years, traveling radially the density of energy in that space is on the order of 1/100. . . . . 000 of the space at CMBR which means matter and light are too diffuse to interact. If and exotic particle decays it decays into energy that still moves out. 5. At the very edge there is supposedly the propogating higgs field and every now and then a photon.

Seen the von Braun plans on TV briefly. Plausible but not valid. Food no problem, 2400 calories per day packs nicely, Water no problem, recycle urine, oxygen well, its not that you need oxygen, you need to keep a vapor pressure above 0.2 ATM and keep CO2 well below 0.05ATM which means you need to carry a hydroxide or oxide of metal along to scrub. For every pound of food you need maybe 10 lbs of air (with tanks, scubbers, etc). Artificial gravity, not going to be useful in a soyuz style craft, radius is too small, you need bigger structure. Next you need a power supply, couple of space station sized panels would do. Project Orion was never anything more than a proposal, its hardly valid. So now we get to what we have . . . . . . . . \ For shipping supplies and fuel - solar panels and xenon (it would take a decade to set up the staging areas). For landing on Mars and then reorbiting - hand wave alot, nothing exists. For safely protecting travelers in space outside of earths magnetic field for 2.5 years - hardly credible. For the tour d'France you need a multispeed racing bike, and we are still flirting about on training wheels. Well folks have voted and thinks its a fraud or something (maybe what trump was inferring with his small hands).

Been tinkering with the parts, what I have found. Seriously the fuel drilling time is about 6 times that of metal drilling time. What would be cool is a ore drilling apparatus that extracts the metal and oxidizer and fuel at the same time. On earth at least oxygen in the surface it tied to metals (those red deposits you see in iron rich areas). Metal Ore is just about everywhere including most areas that have fuel bearing ore, so it makes sense that on auger can get ore for everything. Of course what will happen is that you will max out metal storage, the ISRU/smelter could give you the ability to make metal poop piles that can be later harvested by kerbals (though most will be wasted) On non-oxygenated planets they would be tied with carbonates and other complex reduced oxygen state compounds. For metal ore supply line (such as in space). Just add a small amount of metal capacity to your tank or part and/or carry a smelter, Ore goes to the smelter then to the small tank, it is then processed by the workshop into parts. Create a good area for part storage, therefore modify the cfg for Rocket Part storage and add a tiny amount of metal storage. So given I made my own stand alone space-factory that comes complete with everything except the launch pad, its huge, about 1/8th the volume of the VAB in its largest form and I have storage for parts, ore and metal, as well as a engineering lab and fuel storage. As the factory grows I add RP containers on size3 (mod) docking ports, and I can breed the factory. So I supply from kerbin basically with metal ore and this is fed into the smelter and comes out basically as rocket parts because the factory works faster than the smelter. The smelter itself has metal storage capacity so, metal addon is not really needed with a smelter anyway. For Roving resources the story is different, since these probably wont (shouldn't) have an engineering shop, basically the metal storage is the end product of the vessel, in this case have a ____load of batteries so that your smelter processes ore as fast as it comes onboard, which means small ore tank, big metal tank (lots of solar panels, batteries and some thought into radiators). The big problem with off-world resource supply (granted that minmus is easy pickings), is not metal (use the smallest auger and smallest smelter and about 1/5th metal storage relative to fuel) is that fuel from ore is disproproportionally slower than metal from metal ore. It requires more power, more converter capacity, a longer operation time of the ISRU. Therefore its wise (unless you intend to cheat) to keep the two processes separate. In otherwords unless you want to spends months to years mining ore, you need to double down (I have 8 on my rover) on your ore drills and the smallest possible metal ore bit. For most of the time the metal ore bit is idle as with the smelter, and ISRU is mostly idle and everything is waiting for supply or (so you dont need large storage tanks). Definitely convert the ore on site, because ore is heavy and contains little fuel, since this is the case just take a small ore tank, or simply add ore storage to the ISRU and keep it running. This means scaling the ISRU to the supply capacity (which means lower operating capacity, less battery usage and less need for heating) and requires some modification of the cfg file. Have the rover port in low orbit to a transporter and promptly return. One other thing, metal builds up very quick on inspace faciltiies so best to have a dirty laundry list of SC to build or the transfer ships will be overwhelmed with unused metal. Bottom line. Space Stations - Lots and lots of part storage if you make big things, metal ore can be stored on transports, metal can be stored on transports, the metal ore capacity of the smelter is sufficient. Rovers - lots of ore making capacity, little ore making, smelting and storage capacity, but decent metal storage capacity. Little more ore storage and ISRU capacity, and lots and lots of fuel storage. Transporters - Make consolidated tanks (for example instead of bunches of tank craft short fat tanks - e.g. rcs - because stability and transfer facility is a beach. Don't put workshops on transporters, it only waste fuel since you have to transport the shop and double the metal storage space (space for metal and for equal amount of metal parts). Bases, the point is why have a launch base on a planet when you can have one in space, just refuel the drilling ship and reciprocate. It may be true you don't have to take the rover, but the problem is the rovers weight is minor compared to the mass of metal (metal is very heavy) and fuel, and a rover does not need to be manned (except for an engineer occasionally). Since bases basically only need to feed themselves, they really don't need much fuel and metal ore is basically for construction. What is needed here is a 'seed' part that can be planted and basically allows one to grow one part at a spot or expand a part off another part.

By valid I mean technologically complete means of keep folks alive and getting them down and back, alive. Nope, nope nope, nothing. Roughly speaking anything can be published, practically speaking nothing that can be practiced.

Well NASA has a super top-secret technology known as "ginormous super-feet (otherwise known a teenage mutant ninja clown shoes), which allows them to walk on the thoroughly amorphous surface of Jupiter.