PB666

Nobody over 50 can ride a hover boards, don't you watch the news, they day you hit thirty your butt smacks the ground. It is kind of cool they way they got black holes to chirp. I think the small black hole was actually saying help Help HELP HELP! oh-F. (silence).

Well if its DOD you never know, they are still flying B52s, but also should they decide to launch from a dark site, they may not want to advertise the size of their payload.

But you know if the launch pad had a pneumatic mass accelerater builtin that could give a ship 30m/s of bump for the following reasons. Smaller or fewer boosters. Allow higher loading of LfOx, and particularly some of my so-and-so wants to friggen go to mars solar powered stuff, I don't need alot of power at launch, high T/W ratios are the dreaded enemy of things that create alot of drag, and you get T/W with altitude, anyway so if you simply had something to get you close to maximum safe dynamic stress, then that's all you need. Or to state simply, a hoovering verticle ascent above the launchpad below maximum safe dynamic stress velocity is as wasteful as can be (just look at the dm/dt). One of the biggest problems in launching ships where T/W is close to m*g is that they are not very stable over the launch pad, they tend to want to roll and there is no steering currents around the ship. As has been discussed here before, also raise the atmosphere to say 5000 meters also improves the performance of draggy loads, they are trying to gain speed as the atmosphere thins.

Uh, well if you consider that the energy sent out by those two modest sized black holes in those moments of ultimate marriage that we measured was about as much energy as every star our galaxies produced in a day. We are arguing in this group about how to dissipate waste heat of 10 to 100 MW of power, not a chance in hell can we generate the power to actually create the warping of space, let alone confining that warp to a coconut shell and impossibly creating the antithesis of that. Alcubierre is a trek wannabe fantasy. If (x unknown exists) and (y unknown exists) and we could produce e at several magnitudes higher than we are currently capable, and negative e then . . . . . nope, nope, nope, nope, nope. 1.3 billion light years away they warped space time over a surface of 4/3rds pi r2 ( sufficient to detect here on earth), think about it, Thats a surface of ~1 x 1051 meters which it chirped.

Are they required now to boost/degrade the launch or intermediate stages into graveyard or atmosphere. I understand now that there is some requirement for decluttering space.

Sets the upper limit of graviton based on I, i believe. Masses and distance are based Hubble distance of the surrouding stars. Masses based on intensity of gravitational lensing . . . . . . This is not apparently what they did, they used wave annihilation from interference and measured basically tiny amplitude shifts, see the Manley video.

No offence PB666 but that was about as clear as mud! Axis theta? Defy Newtonian Physics? Theta is the angle of destrotion along the distorted axis. **edit** Is it the *frequency* that is changing rather than the *path-length*? Because that would tally with what I know about gravitational red/blueshift and does not require a measured *distance*. According to Manly's video its the phase interferencance for waves passing at 90' Angle as a intensity osscilation, They put a upper limit on the size of the graviton of 10-15.

Well, and thats the reason Hubble dies in 5 years and there is no suitable replacement. Its a reason the Russians to transports our nauts to space. If you are asking the question to have a vibrant space program with progressing science, not some science going backwards, then NASA has to progress more rapidly than it has been doing. Some of you are of the impression that cutting edge technologies have to be perfect or they should not be used, it is in the imperfections that scientist learn. In the world that exist Ted Cruz could be the next president then congress could cancel the space program entirely. But if you are asking what should be done, we have to think somewhere on a level above that brainless congress that we currently have. The primary reason, IMHO, that we have not made significantly more progress toward Mars is we lack key infrastructure in space. The last few threads I have introduced basically emphasize the point that when you are in need of 19,000 dV from LEO to Mars to LEO, you are in significant need of space infrastructures. It doesn't matter if you get it by 50 private rockets and a space factory or 5 heavy rockets and minimal space assembly, you still have to be willing to invest in infrastructure if you are going to Mars is a major way. If you are begging for rides from severly economically challenged post-2nd world countries with crumbling infrastructure and a fascist leader, chances are you have already been making the wrong decisions about space. No need to say anymore about what should or shouldn't be done. If you want a cogent analogy about resource allocation, do an economic study of the veterans administration. You will soon see that the problem with VA functionality has at least some failure on the part of the funding agencies and more specifically the public funding legislation.

NASA should not cancel anything, Congress should stop war-mongering around the world and use the money to fund these programs.

There is an L2 point on the far side of the moon, problem is that you have to get really far from the moon to have enough inertia to keep a line from falling into the moon essentially you would need to be on the edge of earths SOI. Its just a bad idea. If you want a space elevator you need it on a fast spinning small moon, even then it is questionable.

Philae will after a few more passes of the comet become a circum solar satellite.

Manley video much better explanation than mine, so edited out reply.

corrections are not easy, close to the landing site.

So optimal efficient velocity is when drag roughly equals the force of gravity which results in 4200 dV to reach space, about 1200 dV used basically to counteract drag. This is a speed profile of 100 (0), 160 (5000), 256 (10000) to about 18000 (Mach perterbations limit) meters (safely) then 1000 to about 32000, 1500 to about 45000 alt. If you doubled that speed you would triple the force of drag so instead of needing 1200 dv you would need 3600 dv again at low altitude at Mach you would have restrictions the went up very rapidly If you doubled that speed again it would be more like 14400 dv required. Since that dV is all going into heating you have to consider that this is going to translate into heat on the surface, explosive heat. Second, shooting an object into space does not place you in orbit, either you escape SOI or you are on a hyperbolic trajectory that intercepts the planet. Third, So lets say we apply 20000dV, lets say the viability limit is 300 m/s OK 20000/300 = 66.66 seconds and so distance is 1/2 a t 2 = 667km. IOW you would need to have a hole through the center of mass of kerbin and 67km the other side to have enough distance to accelerate the object to reach the surface. Flat answer no, you cannot do this from KSC. To determine which altitude you could do this see how much dV it takes starting with 0dV at a given altitude to reach space, the determine the energy diffeential between orbit (apo = peri = 671000, Vo = SQRT(u/671000) and sitting on kerbin (apo = 600km radius, Vo ~ 175 m/s, peri = 1 or 2 km, calculate the semimajor axis, the keplars area rule can be used to determined)), this then defines the energy between the two states and can be used to calculated dV. The dV not used is a combination of waste 'hoovering' and drag. I might be possible to do from KSC if you reduced the coefficient of drag on the parts, but to be fair you would have to make much longer parts which are much heavier. Drag is composed of two parts, the part caused by collisions and the part caused by sliding. You can reduce the collision drag, but not the slide friction, some propose ejecting hot gas along the surface of an object to reduce sliding drag. You would have to make the parts extremely resilent to heat and you could not turn after launch below 36000.

You need to edit your edit, lol Here is LIGO explained. http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35524440 One step closer to quantum gravity.

I think we have to be pretty gullible to follow some of these thoroughly untested fantasies (or pretty much anything Zubrin says). 0.026c is a complete fantasy, and the skeptics have major problems with his 1M ISP 20% enriched solution also.

I agree that the flight dynamics are very tricky, I'm just remembering that the turn diameter for a 747 at cruising altitude is around 25km, getting a precision course at 7 times that speed and 45 times the kinetic energy is . . . . . A runway to get a airplane to take off of about 160 kts is about 1.5 km, if you wanted about the same G forces would have to be about 60 km long, but there are no theoretical limitations. If one then set up a railway with electromagnets on that track and had superconducting magnets on the ship you could Maglev the ship in. The problem is this take the moon, a minimal eccentricity to land, lets say we found high ground so it avoids many low spots, but still we are talking about an apo/peri difference of at least a few kilometers, Ok so no we a 60 km long strip and the greatest impact forces are going to be at contact, which means to say the magnetic repulsion is going to have to be greatest as the ship reaches the track. Ediff = 1/2 (Vdiff (Sin diff theta))2 So that the part of the track which the ship joins has to be exactly the same shape and position as the ship orbits (which places the track necessarily on the equator). But if we consider that the apo/pe difference is likely to be 10 or 20 km minimum and the track is 45 miles long, then that end of the track is going to be way off the ground. I agree though, I think this is a better solution than a space elevator. The problem with a lunar space elevator is that the orbit is so slow, that the counter mass somewhere 100000 kilometer away from the moon to balance the weight of the wire really makes this is not feasable. OTOH accelerating a ship even if from 0 to say 300 m/s on a track saves removes a considerable amount of the most expensive dV, the dV spent while the ship is verticle fighting gravity while it is hoovering over the ground trying to gain altitude to clear down stream obstacles. If you can give a ship 50 to 100 m/s vertical ascent velocity you can spend the vertical ascent velocity as the sin of a small angle along a horizontal acceleration vector, which means very little is wasted. The space shuttle had to correct for problems that a moon slider would not. 1. The shape of the outer atmosphere 2. Winds aloft 3. Interactions of the airfoil that differed from trip to trip (weight changes, heat shield degradation and replacements, etc) These do not occur in the vacuum of the moon.

I use firefox and its botched. Must be chrome specific html code.

Is god your eyedoctor?

Think about it. 9000 ISP is actually the HiPep highest output flat panel ION drive. Second I gave alternative drive capabilities. So that issue is dealt with, the choice of drive was one that went from 2500 ISP to 10000. This fits all the capacity requirements, 1. Able to use alot of power 2. Power to momentum conversion is efficient 3. The footprint is reasonably small (.31 x .91) or about a quarter of a square meter./ 4. Because we are talking about how to get people to Mars we need speed, to get speed you sacrifice Xenon mass. I think I made is quite clear, Solar panels are the limiting factor, and the mass of the solar panel I got off of NASA web pages, 1 kg per meter^2. The efficiency was set at the highest available. Ultimately however its not the MASS of the I know alot of you guys out there are trying to WISH up a way to Mars, let me remind everyone of the saying, If Wishes were horse beggars would ride. There aint a ride out there. Getting ION drive to Mars, no problem, getting the dV required to go to LMO and back, not a problem, getting humans to mars with 66 1000 foot panels is a big problem. We might wish we could build such a craft, it aint going to happen. Let me state this as I was designing a panel for the game, . . . . . . .1000 feet recieves 1340000 watts of power from the sun, at 40 percent that is 450 kW right so that basically means that producing 24 volts, that translates into 18750 Amps

OK to make this blatantly obvious. Mass grows in three dimensions, volume space, but solar panels grow out in two dimensions and the discussion limits efficiency to 40% with an absolute limit of 100%, which drops output to 16 and 40% at Mars. To be blunt 66 1000 ft panels is not practical, therefore a 2 person ION driven trip is not possible. ION drives should be used to station fuel supplies which manned missions pick up and use but use different propulsion systems to reach those fuels supplies. ION drives should be used for transporting non-perishables only. Unless you design half height, 8th weight humans that don't mind living alone for years at a time in a coffin size vessel, solar efficiency and the neccesity of laying out panels in a 2D plane set the absolute limit in how useful solar can be for carrying weight. Even if we circumvent that problem, the ion drives themselves need to be layed out in a plane, so here again we reach the practical limitation. Structural rigidity in a 2D space is far less than in 3D. So some manner of stabilization in space needs to be improvised. Of course, if we start talking about building structures in a space factory, whereby we are building 20 football field sized ships, then you can relax these restrictions a little, but you are never going to have crewes of a dozen people going to mars by ION drive, and we can rule out conventional nuclear because it has exactly the same problem with heat exchangers. B O T T O M L I N E The limitations suggest that we build many low mass carriers and use the low mass carriers to ship fuel to drop off points where the fuel is condense into a refueling plug (hyperglolics right now appear to be the best option). These limitations suggest we do not ship humans with nuclear or solar panel powered spacecraft for thrust energy but use hyperglolics. In essence you are building a railway to mars, just like the railways of old, where the train stops, picks up fuel and supplies and goes to the next station. If you have alot of time to ship by ION drive then a 9000 ISP drive will be great for resupplying fuel. But the reality here is that we need to start designing multimission ships that once in space perform all future missions in space.

Moon is for metals, but consider that aluminum is also a component of propellants, other metals could also be used to make solid rocket cores.

Why would neutrons align in a magnetic field, and second why would they reflect? I know neutrons are deflected by certain nuclei, I am not aware that anything reflects them like a mirror.

The unified forces are represented by quantum gravity or as to say the higgs field is resolving, as the energy density falls in quantum version of space-time (which is to say complete chaos; neither measures of space or time have meaning), relativistic space-time appears along with the unified three remaining forces with space-time comes gravity, BUT there are questions about its meaning because there is a cogent argument to be made gravity is a quantum response to the spread of energy density. Since, during unification, energy is not that spread out theerfore gravity may not have been that meaningful. In addition, there is no rest mass, and apparently the amount of energy in the universe is changing (or somehow converting from quantum state(s) to other quantum state(s) or is simply an unstable constant). Another problem of declaring the existence of gravity is that the quantum state of the universe at this very early transition is not clear at all, quantum mechanics states that objects can shift around in space and time without paying the energy cost, so if the universe is represented by a single or few quantum states, even if space time is resolving. If you tried to actually measure the warping of space your hypothetical ruler would end up in a thousand different values at once. The universe has to get to a point where there are sufficient enough quanta around that their relationships stabilized space-time. But even this does not work well temperature and space-time both have problems, because both require inertial reference frames and that implies mass, which does not exist, theoretically gravity exists, but until mass shows up temperature and gravity are rather meaningless. Again I should state that gravity only appears to us to be constant, I repeat appears, in the laboratory it cannot be measured to the level of other constants, and some speculate that the gravitation constant wavers and fluctuates. Gravity is the measure of how space-time warps in response to energy most notably rest mass but it does not respond to all energy equally. The more the effort is made to get rid of all sources of extraneous energy, the more the constant appears to vary. We can add to this uncertainties regarding dark matter and energy. lol. My opinion is that the force of gravity resolves not at once but slowly, the resolution of the quantum singularity starts the process but until mass appears and remains its not constant. Somewhat arbitrary but since some models have energy pouring into the universe creating a barrage of unstable exotic material . . . . . .I should state the standard disclaimer, there are no observable universe before CMBR, and it is unclear whether or how quantum gravity exists.

de Sitter precessional / Einstein-Lense-Thirring differential . Not sure at all how it fits into this discussion, to observe you have to be observing an inertial reference frame around a massive object, its the difference between the expected and observed motion.