PB666

I thought they might be crators of retun ejected material caused by degassing nearby, some of the surface is soft enough it wouldn't take much to crater it.

I use a hand held 'ipad' 'cause i frequently respond to stuff during small breaks between other activities. I have found responding to quotes almost impossible if there is a large embedded image, any attempt to edit image out fails and frequently the reply gui disappears and completely resets. In response to RIC the problem that i don't seem to be able to select text unless it is quoted, its not to much of a problem with small amounts of quote text, but with large volumes of data, it becomes very glitchy.

Please don't flood the group with oversized images, it makes editing quotes difficult on some devices.

sorry

http://www.cosmosup.com/hypergiant-red-star-vy-canis-majoris-is-going-to-die-soon/ VYcm is a very large red giant that is heading toward its immenent demise. The star is ejecting cuurently mass from its outer layers into the surrounding media, when the corona loses enough mass it will begin to collapse. The scientist of this article have found that the star is beginning to produce increasing larger dust grains. I speculate these are prolly being turned up from the radioactive core. They also claim that the larger dust grains would likely survive the pending explosion being accelerated in the surrounding media. Such large grains are useful for accretion models of the type that formed our solar system, in the same way certain salts can be used to seed rain clouds.

I cansolve the problem, replace the moons iron silicate core with lead, this will raise the specific gravity. in the center you can have high atomic number metalics in an iron core that generates a magnetic field, lead being fairly soft will melt. Are we fairly far from reality land yet, the moon of course would be cooler, so we just spray paint it black and then add water. done, problem fixed. Oh, by the way doing this we made the bay of fundy tides now catastrophic, hmm, gps system does not work anymore, lets see, but tidal energy is now competitive with all other renewables. Now why is it exactly that we want an orbiting celestial with the surface properties of earth that has 1/20th the surface area (guessin) when 90% of the earth remains largely unoccupied?

First, on the space station there are duty shifts, you have several each day and there are no night cycle. If there were families on board that would be diiferent but then you have a gravity problem. This is just like a hospital with three shifts per day. Second, the latency problem spacetime propagates in all directions at the speed of light if you can coomunicate without latency you effectively can see the future, so this can cause paradoxes, not in the setup you describe but slight modifications thereof. If we say have earths velocity is relative to a comoving, the speed we expect earth to be moving if we extrapololated the red shifts we observed to average values. 442 b is relative to a comoving, and relative to that one or the other is undergo more accelerations, this particular world has time dilation relative to the other, and the clocks will tick at different speeds. In this case to communicate, earth would need to send out a timing pulse to identify. The time shift is quite significant because the futher two stars are form each othe the higher the probability and diiferential that the two stars relative motion will be greater than the velocities of close stars.

if hydrogen were available i would drive a hydrogen powered car, it takes the engine out of the vehicle, replace with fuel cell and bigger battery, put an efficient solar panel on the roof. For most people the battery would get them were they needed to go and the hydrogen would make the diff. When hybrids came out everyone said they would't last and you have to replace battery every 50,000 mikes. My prius at 100k miles is the most carefree car i ever owned, if i want to travel cross the country, i dont even consider the price of gas. The other thing at 100k im still on the factory brakes. Bring on the hydrogen let the naysayers and fear mongers cower in the corner together. My next investment, solar panels and an inverter for my house. Maybe i'll start generating electrolytic hydrogen, modify my old pickup to run on hydrogen. Solution to hydrogen, place a blow-out vent on the roof of the car, if the tank goes over pressure the hydrogen, much lighter than air goes bye-bye. BTW the most dangerous fuel is oil, it stays in one place and burns hot, hydrogen has a density on 15th air, it will not stay in on place waiting for sparks, it will go up. I used to have a business associate who ran a whole fleet of propane powered nissan trucks in his company, he routinely got 300-400k miles out of the trucks, never once heard of a fire, many cities are using propane buses. Non particulate emitting engines are the way to go in big cities. Of course if you can reduce CO2 to CO you can treat it with hydrogen and generate formaldehyde, which can be converted to methanol by any nuber of means and used as a fuel which is has one of the highest energy densities for a clean burning fuel. Its also a regulatory mess because of substance abuse.

There are other differences besides the logos, hey maybe there contract with the united rocket tower logo painting union expired. Isn't this kind of trivial for a science forum, just photoshop the labels onto the tower and send it back to them. lol.

Cause it iritates you?

Thats correct, but i think you have to assume that every high peak was sacred to some village at sometime. Its not totally on themselves, but not particularly savey if they did not investigate obstructions first. Im just not to keen on new age shamans trying to block science. The court did not decide in favor or against, per say, one group protested that proper order was not followed, but the court did not do this blind.

Ah the optimism, i suspect that the passing of earth around saturn given maxwells equations would eventually impart a magnetic field around saturn. It would be disasterous. The lagrangian l2 would be close to mars, don't know if mars orbit would be stable, its moons would prolly be torn from its orbit, saturns rings would mean a constant asteroid impact issues, and saturn would be a big attractor for asteroid belt strays, the earth being a shield satellite would take a disproportionate number.

777 has short runway take off and land capability, with a half load of fuel its about the same as a 737. If she was announcing from san antonio she maybe talking about 18/36 at lacklandwhich is used to handling fully loaded galaxy c5a and 747 , it was a piggy shuttle stopover. It used to be a usaf training center that has now become a contractor area for military stuff.m

The Holy Order of Celestial Observers.

It ferments to methane gas, CO2 and sulfides, intractables remain. You don't want it in the space craft. You can chemically oxidize it with a minimal amount of solid oxidant. I think you are way low of water, unless you are going to recycle urine. you can place the feces in a dehydrater and extract the remaining water, then you can simply bag it as a coprolite ($#!t crackers) LiOH + CO2 generates Li2CO2 but the reaction is drive by moisture in the air, and the water is salt hydration, you can get it out with heating or lypholization but then some of the CO2 will also evolve. Its better if you have liOH cartriges, once a month put the copros and cartriges in a bag and eject them into space . . . . .bye, bye.

look carefully, i think you will find that it is a slightly different launch tower.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/hawaii-supreme-court-voids-telescope-construction-permit-n473236 I wonder, can't a mountain be sacred and have a telescope on it, why does it have to be one or the other? Anyway this was to be a 30 meter wide telescope making it one of the lagest ground based space observatories.

http://sciencetrib.com/2015/12/see-magnified-image-of-the-faintest-galaxy-from-the-early-universe/ Another early galaxy

I might not be an objective opinion on the matter since i've worked with things many fold more dangerous than hydrogen. If you want to rate use according to danger we shouldnt be useing lithium ion or lead batteries. I think a better word is unfamiliarity, which is not really a problem for an aircraft service technician. I'm actually looking forward, most folks are strangely unawre that the world was once a bunch of CO2 that went underground as reduced carbon and carbonates, coal being the majority, all the easy oil is gone, its all 80 to 100 dollar on just about every recent dig, the next generation of wells will be 180-200 stuff like deepwater wells, etc. Even the shale plays, the oil drops out real fast. Unlike the others, ide actually like to preserve petroleum for neccesities like air travel and wean the auto industry. When CO2 is 600 ppm you will be able to grow and harvest a forest in half the time, we can bulldoze these under ground and regenerate coal beds, not so easy for oil. Conservation has its own benefit aside from dealing with climate change. If oil reaches 200 bbl an economy class ticket to japan would cost 4 or 5000 dollars.

But wouldn,t you like to see a 100 to boulder being tossed from the sea. Hmmm, but wait, i guess the storm would not be very hospitable to human observation either. oh well. Climate chane is here and coming, its not about the descendants its about how best to live long and prosper, lol.

How do you know that aliens aren't visiting us right now. If in fact interstellar travel requires ftl and warp drives, then i think any being capable of ftl travel of this way, pretty much they do not need to make themselves visible to monitor our activities. Its prolly the crap is the reason they have not revealed themselves if they are here. PS i dont think FTL is possible, the practical space travel is about 0.01c and we would end up sending durable space seeds to other worlds but not ourselves.

Sorry i cant quote this properly, please link the file p, I will follow the link the advanced imbedded medias make editing quotes very difficult on hand helds. First, if you are launching a rocket from a 777 you don,t really need significant fuel so you can lower the wing loading a place the rocket on the outside of the jet engine. The diasadvantage of the 777 is mach limit is a bit lower than 747, but the whole point of a high altitude launch is to get the rocket above the mess. While the 777 is going to have an orientation of about 8' at its altitude max, the concorde easily gains altitude at 44,000 and with a reduction in fuel can really gain altitude rapidly and launch a rocket above mach 1 above 30000 feet. Operating cost for an old 747 is pretty high. ,

This thread is established for the discussion of Virgin Galactic http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35002459 i don't think this is new, but i guess its now formal that they are going to use 747 for a launch platform. My critique here is that in that class the 777 is a better choice, given that it has a slightly higher flight ceiling and is less cistly to get to that altitude and back. If one is looking for altitude why not find an old concorde, if they still exist

However great you think reusability is, once it is accomplished and repeated it will belong to competitors in a snap of the fingers and improved by competitors shortly thereafter, Musk has good common sense about energy conservation, but Besos has good ideas about economy. Remeber that musk wanted to send mice to mars even before his car companies wheels were rolling, not good in the economic sphere. The Indians, Iranians and Chinese wont give a hoot about patents they will reverse engineer the stuff, none of the big players want to be left behind. The russians also have a status quo they want to preserve they wouldn't want the privates to take the remaining profit out of the space program. Everyone has an impetus to copy if it is more economical, and that is what they will do. I should add that space industries have huge multiplyer effects because almost all the goods used to engineer and make rockets in the US are locally produced, its not killing the bidget tonsubsidize this, but the US must make sure the product is competitive for the reasons stated above. We can't just throw $ into a hole and expect the long term outcome to be good. These jobs are high salaried with a good taxable base and these people buy goods that support thier local economy. Just take a loknat the development around clear lake texas, they have even added a new port, and east texas has become the largest manufacturing center in the us, The government could be buying contracts with a dozen companies for the same platform profile and it would all be good for the economies in the short term. Boca chica is a practical desert, sure its green but mainly green on alot of loose sand, there is nothing there, but wait a decade or so. The question is not whether delivering stuff to space can be economically profitable, the question is whether space delivers back something that is profitable. Musk mousing up mars is a ego-shot, deliver a drone to a roid or comet or a martian moon and start doing some chemistry and delivering back to earth samples with that recoverable space vehicle.