PB666

Well certainly if you are talking about commercial jets a kerosene like fuel is the best choice, biofuels such as palm oil would represent about 80% of the fuel and something like ethyl butanoate as 20%. But we cant really consider a battery. In a mad max situation in which fossile fuels became pariah fuels, you could move use non-chemical energy sources to drive super high speed trains to the extremes of countries or continents, and then hydrogen powered jets across oceans. Supposed you neede to fly from new york to taipei tiawan. You would take HSR to Seattle, Washington then a flight from Seattle to Hokkaido, the HSR from hokkaido to fukuoka and the a hydrogen powere jet to taiwan. If you wanted to travel to Austalia, you might fly to hawaii from the west coast, the a flihght tp tahiti, and then tahiti to sydney. However i have to say this the limit of fuel on a craft is not volume, but wing loading and weight. You could very easily increase the volume of a wing without dropping efficiency. You could also increas the volume of the fuselage. Increasing the wings volume could have a positive effect, since it means that jets can fly slower and higher, potentially normal jets flying at 13-16 km. The limit of altitude is largely determined by stall IAS for level flight, the angle of attck required to kepp the craft level at a given weight, and about 0.9 mach. So if aircraft can overcome the 44,000 ft limit because they can fly and thier engines work at slower face velocity the efficiency would suffice to overcome the limitations you give and keep long distance jets in the air using hydrogen.

The current proposal only caps emissions to limit temperature to 2.7 and most countries are not in agreement, India says it will ignore the agreement and do as it pleases. 3 degrees is plausible. Its immaterial, pockets of late summer water are hot enough now to produce Super category 5 storms. Its all about timing, Cat 5 plus within 50 miles of a coastline. Most frequently what we are seeing are cat 5 storms that develop 2ndary walls before coming ashore, these make massive storm surges because there is nowhere for trapped water to escape, but peak water velocities are attenuated close to shore because the central pressure weakens with broadening. You get a storm moving about 2 miles per hour 150 miles from a shore, water temperature 30 to 33 degrees celcius, right upper level winds, super catagory five landfall is possibility, all you need is a shoreline with boulders at a depth of 10 feet or so, and the 10-30 meter/sec water will toss those little suckers right out of the ocean and onto land.

They provide cheap home for barnacles. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cornwall-34941462?post_id=433569096811136_504819956352716

much larger than actual boulders and blouder too.

Another reason for defining variables in plain English, someone may upgrade the forum and this results in unintelligible variables. I found this: Which reiterates what I said: See minutes 26:18-30:17

The thing is that you often need to get the fuel tank into orbit, then fuel it via ports. If you have infinite time ahead of your launch you can send your tank via ion-drive and solar, even using an photon-impulse drive (CFG mod a light) to get the tank into orbit at the destination. It only needs solar panels, a small drive, do a little oberth affect around some planets, a reaction wheel. If you have it use a mech-jeb unit, and whatever antennas are needed. Tanks can also carry empty science stations and solar panels so . . . .

Another link: http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34985807

Well in the game i modded a super sized lvn, made a bunch of light weight xlong mgs and bulit a cage around the lvn. put a flat oval fuel tank on top and on the down facing side of the oval two lander pieces and all the science stuff. But .....my kerbals don't breed and are fairly resistent to radiation poisoning, but i was able to hop four times on the mun before refueling. With two ships i managed to get all the mun science. I think NASA prolly has the imgur photo marked as the lander design not to show to congress, ;^). The problem with lvn is that you need many, they are very heavy, very hot, and cannot carry much weight (mass times local gravity, and you really need a thrust/mass to land that is 3 times the surface gravity of the celestial you are landing on or you will waste fuel. they are really something you put on a super huge tank and only use when you burn window can be fraction of an hour in length. Thats not a lander.

Any advanced culture would be familiar with https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_time 1 second = e^99.629 in base 2 that would be 1100011 101 e = 2.71828 = 10 1011....... They could prolly figure the e thing ou if you brought it to enough places all digitally it would be on off pause on off on on ...... long pause. you would have to explain power system and then a video of quantum mechanics. 10 101101 ^ 1100011 101. or simple by a mickey mouse watch.

Apologies to the moderators, but I can see this thread going nowhere. Apply https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory to war. It should be rather apparent to the US and Russia that setting nationalism aside it is almost always better to work with potential foes than against them, war is often very unpredictable as would be head to head confrontation in military styled A/C. Iraq is a training ground, it wasn't needed, we saw the same phenomena in the Indian wars of the late 1800s. You bring in Humvees, the enemy brings in IEDs, you bring in better protected vehicles, they then modify the explosives. Arrogance turns soldiers into fodder.

http://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/experts-say-climate-change-may-spawn-giant-flying-boulders/60596/ I think some might be interested in this.

The xenon detector suggests that it does not interact with matter at all, no observed interactions. I was thinking about this problem. In order to know what DM is we first need to know what matter is, the discussion as Tyson points out is not visible matter versus invisible matter, but visible sources of gravity versus invisible sources. Here in lies the principle problem, and it not just dark gravity, visible sources of gravity as mentioned here before is not perfect. If we talk about the ability of matter-energy to warp space-time, its defined by G, the universal gravitational constant. But in fact we have never defined G, we have defined GM for certain objects, one being earth GMearth = G * (SumM[Visible] + SumM[Invisible]) = 3.98600442 ×1014.(Note this is three decimal places better than G). If we state that DM does not interact with matter strictly then I can take a cubic centimeter of iron, pull it away from its resting source, and it should not carry residual or mass dependent accumulations of dark matter, and therefore I can measure the density of iron, water or whatever. Surface experiments have confirmed that G is accurate minimally to 6 decimal places. We can therefore estimate density of earth as 5.513 g/cm3. We can rewrite the equation above, converting density to KMS system. GMearth = G * Volume (D[Visible] + D[Invisible]) = 3.98600442 ×1014 In doing this we would find that if D invisible is >5X visible then the Earth is so constructed of water. Obviously it is not, the earth has a density above that of silicon dioxide. It cannot be absolutely said that there is no Dark density to the earth, but it can be said that the density of dark matter in the earth under represents the dark matter:visible matter ratio of the universe. And that suffices, unless, we have really miscalculated G. Now we know that GM is pretty good, otherwise GPS systems would not work. Mantle appears to be made of olivine. "The project, which is running under the auspices of the International Ocean Discovery Program (IODP), would give scientists access ultimately to fresh, unaltered peridotite - the rock, rich in olivine minerals, that, because of the size of the mantle, makes up the bulk material of the planet's interior. - http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34967750" Olivine's (Fe,Mg)2SiO4 specific gravity is 3.3. http://www.minerals.net/mineral/olivine.aspx. Below this is the lower mantle . . .it appears to be made of more dense (Fe,Mg)2SiO3having specific gravity up to 4.03 (for CaTi03) There is a deeper problem than this. Suppose we had a model where a dark matter strand became the nucleating body of the earth. OK and so visible matter accumulated around the nucleus. Here's the problem, since earth originally formed in collided with another mars like planet (lepton/photon/hadron interactions defining the collision), the dark matter nucleus would be oblivious to these interactions, both objects would have exherted dV on each other, but not the dark matter, which would have continued on in its orbit, deflecting strongly as it passed by the other bodies nucleus. IOW the collision produced intense momentary inertial references frames for both objects; however the dark matter remained in a non-inertial reference frame and continued about a unknown orbit about the sun. But lets say for some magical reason it didn't, the nuclei would be now circulating in the earth (since the moon was formed from earths surface material it lost its nucleus). Why would it be circulating, 1. The Thera/preEarth orbit is different from the earth moon orbit about the sun. The combination resulted in an evolving center of gravity relative to both earth and moons center. 2. The dynamo at the center of the earth creates a magnetic field, this is created by the moon/tidal effects. For every reaction there is an equal and opposite reaction. 3. Because the moon formed from earths surface material and because it is being accelerating by earths tides that position would not be the earth/moon cog, it would be offset and/or have a different period. Therefore this fictitious nucleus would have a motion relative to the earth. If such a massive nucleus had a motion relative to the earth then gravity at any position would not be constant and would not be predictable with the positions of the sun or moon. In fact if Ddark was and significant fraction of Dtotal then we would see surface gravitational anomalies everywhere, all the time. GPS would not work. Therefore a conclusion is that there is no significant dark matter in the earth or that it lacks any cohesion within the earth. Even if dark matter lacked cohesion, the Earth/Thera collision would have resulted in the decoupling of dark matter from the earth, and it would be detected in orbit about the sun, or otherwise thrown from the earths orbit by long term interaction with the earth and jupiter. Occam's razor applies here, unlikely that dark matter was the nucleus for earths accretion in any significant degree. This does not rule out the possibility that rapidly traveling intersecting threads of dark matter brought dust particles together into larger clumps, just that the clumps would not bind the threads. So here is the basic problem, if dark matter lacks cohesion, suppose I very carefully carve out a cube of rock holding it in place as I carved it, then I placed a scale under the cube as a cut the last amounts of rock holding it in place, using a telescoping feet on the balance that was attached from chains above I would weigh the cube for rock, it would weigh more. If I then took the rock out and carried it to say a high peak or measured its momentum in space, it would show less mass. Obviously we are not seeing these types of anomalies either. The same logic can be applied to just about every body of the solar system. So my conclusion is that either some fundamental physics is way wrong or that dark matter spends a minuscule amount of time in our solar system. If Dark Matter was a major constituent of the Oort cloud (IOW that 4/5ths of the systems missing dark matter was in the Oort cloud) the keplarian motion of our solar system would not work (In fact we would not have the Keplarian laws of motion). So this pretty leaves the Dark gravity stuff in deep interstellar space or in planes above and below the galactic plane. These are my ideas, I would like to hear critiques or counter arguments.

Humans are not computers are neuromuscular system is integral with the CNS. NOt a simple as you think, unused human systems have to be fiktered out and new observational systems would have to be integrated in. Anyway it doesnt matter having a cyborg at alpha centuari is of no more use than having a simple computer, it doesn't solve the call back home and inform mission.

It has to have some viscosity (like friction in accretion) otherwise it would not confine itself proxi-galactic sufficient to alter the gravity of galaxies? Has anyone modeled yet the movement of dark matter between galaxies to see what the preferential non-cohesive distribution would look like.

http://www.cnet.com/news/teslas-elon-musk-introduces-beautiful-money-saving-home-battery-back-up-system/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/uciliawang/2015/05/01/from-elon-musk-the-battery-packs-he-hopes-will-rule-them-all/ Elon thinks hydrogen is a loser fuel. http://www.wired.com/2013/10/elon-musk-hydrogen/ Toyota and Honda would disagree, even though they don't have a decent proposal to make hydrogen. http://world.honda.com/FuelCell/ https://ssl.toyota.com/mirai/?dfaid=DFA:1698801:120387914:295362048:62973859 Interesting both musk and toyota used the same 8-letter word, Musk as a mockery and toyota as a source of fuel. Hydrogen is the problem, http://esc.fsu.edu/electrolysis.html Hydrogen can be made efficiently on very small scales, but not cheaply or efficiently on large scales. The modern motor fleet uses 100,000s of tons of hydrogen bond energy equivilents a day. We have to consider the two equivilancies. Lithium is abundant if you don't mind separating sodium and potassium from lithium in sea water. The ratio of sodium:potassium:lithium in the earths crust is 8000:266:1. There are only so many uses for sodium and potassium hydroxide that are economically useful. Of course one of them is to absorb C02, but then you have residual HCl you have to store. So lithium is expensive. Then there is platinum. Electrolysis is not efficient, needs alot of platinum or platinum treated palladium and generates alot of waste heat, mostly of little use because the heat is at sub boiling temperatures (unless you do pressurized electrolysis). Electrolysis does not work well heated either. At best hydrogen would cost as low as $5.30 the equivilent of one gallon of gasoline. Since gas is now running $1.90 a gallon hydrogen fuel cells are not feasible unless cities subsidize them. And there are good reasons cities would not do this. 1. It would be a tax on the grid, whereas electric cars and gas/electric hybrids would be less so. In fact in japan you see now electric power companies tapping into the hybrids ability to generate electricity to feed the grid during peak demand. 2. It requires a whole new infrastructure. 3. Consider the optimal compliment of solar and wind power distributed globally to support the worlds needs, we would need 2 to 3 times that capacity to convert it all to hydrogen and then back to electricity or to power vehicles, and BTW that still does no give us the chemicals we need to build plastics or electronics. There are some reasons why hydrogen is attractive. Wind power is often generated far from where it is used, and at peak supply the price of electricity often drops to zero (as in parts of North Central Texas). Another example is that European plan on building solar farms in Africa, but transporting electricity from Africa to Europe by any known means is inefficient and subject to disruptive acts over long distances. Hydrogen could be made in africa and piped to Europe almost invisible to disruptions and burnt cleanly where it is needed, including neighborhood fuel cells. Electric battery is no substitute for bond energy for long distance transportation such as on Jets. In some places solar power will not be possible for long stretches. Nuclear power plants can be used but often represent a third or less capacity because they tend to produce at a constant rate, if we increased nuclear energy we could feed all electric during peak demand and part electric and part hydrogenesis and lowest demand. Lithium ion storage like solar panels are the most useful at the load, not the source, and are best coupled to each other, and while mobile are less mobile than hydrogen. The choice of storage has some dependency on function. You would not want a lithium ion battery running a transpacific wide-bodied aircraft, it would be kind of silly to use solar panels on a home to create electrolytic hydrogen and then convert that back to electricity. You might have a hydrogen/lithium-ion hybrid car that one might mandate in a highly polluted city, like Delhi or Beijing, but the politics there is decades to centuries away.

Throw your eyeball out the window, see where it lands then land on top of it. :^). Well, its like this, they changed the name of the group, and theoretically speaking, you could eyeball a landing on the moon, I scarcely remember a dude named Armstrong looking for a spot to land c.e. 1969 ish.

Thats how i imagine dark matter, as material that circulates in elliptical orbits around gravitationally defined systems, it flows rapidly around peak densites and lingers in between and around these peak densities.

How long do solar cells last? Certainly not 40,000 years are even 4000, prolly not even 4 hundred.

Gravity is the ability to curve space-time, its generally a combination of energy in the form of rest mass [quarks(massive but miniscule), gluon (no rest mass-all mass comes from interaction energy), W and Z bosons that interact with the higgs field, and electron]. Simplifing, the interactions give mostly massless fields mass which, in turn, curves space time. mostly its the energetic interactions that create mass, and most of the interactions are measurable. There are also x and y bosons, theoretically, and self-interacting gluons, called glueballs. So either empty space has the ability to warp space time, or some type of interaction of fields is occurring in that produce inertia curving space time. The problem with fields that only interact with quantum vacuum (ie the virtual particles created and obliterated therein) is that such fields propogate at the speed of light, thus would not stay in a place as to create a noticable gravity. So to have a force that say holds a galaxy together it needs to linger in and around the galaxy for a bit of time. So guage bosons and gluons are massless, but they get mass via interactions which slow them down very quickly, light on the other hand travels great distances, shows no mass while traveling but imparts momentum leaving and arriving, neutrinos exhibits mass episodically and are to energetic to be captured explaining dark matter. Thus for dark gravity to be generated by a wave instead of a massive particle, it would have to propogate slow enough that it is mostly captured (orbits) by visible matter stuff, Something that interacts between light and gluons with itself or something else. IOW it would be a field or interaction of fields that exhibits both energy and mass, it would lack charge or spin unlike e- and p+ and would not interact with protons via nuclear forces like a nuetron.

Its Kerbal if the pilot gets out and uses his jet pack to push his ship around. Circularize the orbit by jeb, some have even managed to return to kerbin. (Not withstanding that 10 MP is not sufficient and jet packs get infinite refuel). Remember Hayabusa I, the Japanese are awfully clever on thinking up work arounds. The odds that Hayabusa would deliver its cargo back to earth and be recovered were like a million to one against. One that I can think of use the solar panels as sails (needs an ion drive to balance). Thing about space an non-inertial reference frames, you have alot of time to tinker with 'stuff'

Com'on seriously, you don't think our super fancy telescopes would see the gravimetric distortion created by a filament passing while taking pictues of the horsehead nebula.

https://dailyroutinenews.com/science/scientists-just-saw-a-black-hole-eat-a-star-and-spit-some-of-it-back-out-for-the-first-time-ever/ Could not find the original thread this was posted in, but this is an update.

The issue of threads was brought up here. This article is relevant. http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/11/scientist-says-huge-clumps-of-dark-matter-may-lie-just-beyond-the-moon/ I really dislike the presentation of science in this article, it begins with heavy speculation to defend something that is speculative. I have to say that if dark gravity threads existed so close to earth our space observaties would probably have detected momentarily anomolies in the star field in the same way the sun difracts starlight during a solar ellipse.

Platinum and palladium can be justified with hydrogen fuel cell cars and electrloysis of water into hydrogen, provide really cheap electricity becomes available. I don't know if the moon is a good source of platinum, asteroids are a good source of magnesium and nickle, magnesium could be useful for ion drives and nickle could be useful to build the drives structure.

Technically doesn't the F-35 qualify as thrust vectoring? Partial in the third axis