PB666

[url]https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-s-europa-mission-begins-with-selection-of-science-instruments[/url] 7 instruments so far, if the went to the inner moons what should they look for?

[quote name='micr0wave']Higher sun activity surely helped. When look at the whole energy flow from 'outside' (space), what comes in, goes out. That equilibrium is somewhere at -15°C or so. You could pump as much CO² and other things into atmosphere, the equilibrium will not change, just the location of that point changes. The higher that layer is, the higher the temperature below will be.[/QUOTE] Solar output is in decline and the variation does not explain the rise in temperture when pan evap rates have fallen. Its not how much the sun puts out, its really about the amount that strikes below 3km in altitude. Heat generated at those altitudes disproportionately is radiated back tonspace with lower secondary transports, particularly below the water vapor enriched layers of the atmosphere. Or let met put it this way burning alot of aerosol making fuels cools the earth in the shortrun, but heats the earth in the long run, the full effect of every CO2 added today takes about 50 to 100 years to materialize, so basically you are looking at the added effect of all the C02 added years ago. If we stooped addingCO2 today, the temperature and climate change would still increase until all the secondary affects equilibrated.

[quote name='SomeGuy12']TLDR, the heliums come hurtling out of the plasma in the middle of the reaction. As Nuke points you, you can add an electron back from a wire mesh grid energized to high voltages outside of the reaction core. Once it's neutral, the big honking magnets in the reactor no longer affect it, and it will just float around randomly outside the core. You have a vacuum pump always on, sucking gas out of the core, and it will get sucked out from that. The gas you have sucked out of the reaction probably then has to be cooled and condensed, and the helium separated, and then you can make party balloons or use it to cool your superconducting magnets or just vent it because you don't care.[/QUOTE] You have adhd? The guy writes two moderately long sentences and its a struggle for you to read? When the internal temperature of the reactor is in the millions of degrees,myou dont have to do much sucking to get the helium out, it pretty much wants to be gone through any opening that you provide.

[quote name='micr0wave']The end of 'snowball earth' is basically made by the vulcanic emissions, given the long lifetime in atmosphere of CO² and his buddies, the lack of a biosphere which could have digested said CO², it could accumulate over a longer time and cause enough warming through the greenhouse mechanics to melt the ice covering the globe.[/QUOTE] If we are talking about geological time frames as with snowball earth, its a maatter of increasing solar output that eventually does the trick. Increases in heavier atoms in the sun tend to concentrate in the fusion core, increase the density therein and increase the rate of fusion of other elements, in a few 100 million years, pretty much end game. CO2 rise is generally a very short term issue, 10,000s of years. This will be no diiferent, with the demise of coal reserves and depletion of forest we will see pan evaporation rates go up, this will have tragic consequences on some areas, but other areas that are now waste lands will see an increase of biomass, if humans step out these areas will remediate CO2 in a few hundred years creating new coal beds. The problem howver is that humans disallow forest recovery, and just about every parcel of land that humans employ undergo soil carbon loss. There are things we can immediately do to stop CO2 rise, one of them is to stop the burning of forest for clearing land, and the other is look to replace firewood as a source of cooking fuel. However this will increase global warming proper, but also increase rainfall in the semitropics and particularly in the Hadley cell. Both are easily done, trees are a valuable commodity, even trees cosidered waste have value in the building industries, but also brush can be ground and tilled into local soils pevent aerosol production. Better is to maintain a moratorium on the destruction of primordial forest. Even dried wood can be chipped and used for soil carbon. Coal by itself is not the primary cause of pan evaporation rate declines, in south east asia its the aerosols of wood and wood that is converted to charcoal. The problem is so bad that in the region NW of chernobyl, scientist studying the behavior of farmers who had higher levels of bone strontium found that the cause was not so much drinking the milk or eating the crops, these lost there transferable radioactivity after the first season. The problem was they would till the chaff up and burn them roots and all, very easy to prepare the soil for the next season, but they burned soil minerals and then they breathed the radioactive strontium. Compositng would have lost the minerals for a season but would have kept soil carbon and soil minerals on the earth. CO2 problem is a complex issue it gets into legacy issues that were not so important when population densites were low and people lived 40 years. This takes us to the core psychology of the climate change deniers, because the obvious truth out there is that social status symbols like hummers, lot corn-fed cattle dinnerrs at expensive restaurants, and big airconditioned houses, and of course we need a quad core 3.8 ghz cpu with a 250 watt gpu to play ksp all contribute to global warming. So then what we have are vested interest in opinions, which as we can see in this thread are boistered by books from popular authors. I see that alot because i live in a town that oil built and so no self-respecting male wants the gov telling him what to do with his 8 mpg ford duely that he uses to commute to his job as the company plumber. Of course that lincoln arc welder he carries in the back once every three years could be equally well carried in a rental, or 4 cylinder tacoma. The word progressive takes on a negative connotation because the alternative is that climate change deniers are wantedly embracing legacy problems to the point of economically risky behaviors. This is what happened in 2008/9 financial crises when many deniers ended up bancrupt trying to commute after oil peaked at 4.00/gallon, and the two of three companies that made these monsters went bankrupt. But climate science does not pour from popular books and ex-spruts (political drips) it comes from the peer reviewed primary literature, the amount of literature in support has grown astronomically since 1980, several publications can from indivuals supported by hostile industries who found it implausible to deny the effects of anthropogenic climate change. Most people had expected global warming, more than currently observed. This undermined the models in two ways. 1. CO2 and gases in general do not like sea water, however CO2s solubility goes way up in cold rainwater and snow and inversions in the winter arctic concentrated CO2 in the sea ice as a reserve that forced CO2 into the arctic ocean that eventually found its way to the sea floor of the pacific and at such high pressures CO2 is quite soluble, and sodium carbonate in sea water is converted to sodium bicarbonate, acidifying the water. This CO2 enriched water dissapeared until recently, as it has begun rising up in the Pacific Northwest and spoiling shellfish fisheries. So this hidden reserve was found. This gets to the heart of the climate change denier problem. CO2 rise could never be predicted based on the known anthropogenics, could it be predicted at all? Of course the climatology was never previously asked if you double the concentration of an atmospheric gas, whereall will that gas go. Even though the climate denier's science is far from perfect, they demand that the peer reviewed literature be perfect or they would not believe the theory. We can say the same thing about gravity, classic physics and relativistic physics. The deniers fail to understand that science is not an object, like something an engineer deals with, its a process. If we look at the CO2 level problem this way it was never a problem but a scientific challenge. It is still a challenge because we know the gas went down, so where will it come up next. You can protect a fishery using industrial lime enriched water, but its of little use after the fishery is dead. 2. The second issue was that even though CO2 levels that were evident predicted a temperture rise that rise was not evident. At the same time odd regional behviors were being observed, the most evident of which was that regions with intermediate climate were having long periods of hot dry weather weree interrupted by periods of cooler weather with more frequent decadal rainfall events, this includes the two historically severe el nino events that occurred in the late 20th. One key finding was the high altitude jet trails, and increases aerosol production over south, southeast asia and china where lowering the pan evaporatotion rates and lowering surface water tempertaures in specific areas. So basically at times and seasons were aerosols were low and incident angles were vertical lots of humidity accumulated in the atmosphere and increased the chance of decadal storms, surface rain water and secondary rains cooling reagions. At other times when aerosols where high the normal cloud rainfall patterns failed to materialize causing historic droughts, heatwaves, and forest fires increasing the levels of aerosols from dust storms over Africa and smoke particulates elsewhere. Since it was obvious that heat trapping did not have to result in a linear correlation with temperture, but could interact with other variant factors manefesting itself predominately in climate change. This another core misunderstanding of climate deniers. When you apply energy or trap energy in a system, te trapping force only alters the dynamic equilibrium of the system. In this system there is water, air and a whole lot of space beyond the atmosphere to radiate. Instead of heating what else might happen. The level of thermoclines may increase, this has been observed in some areas of Asia. This would increase the strength of typhoons over asia, increase the surface water temperatures as has been seen in the gulf of Mexico, it could icrease circulation of water and wind into the arctic and increase transglobal energy dissipation. So we see that that afford faster energy transport out of the system can allow for a lower equilibrium temperture. Typhoons and equitorial/polar energy transports are ways the system is trying to cool itself. So now i have cut through the denier BS we are back to the topic that seeded this post.

Not nazis, just easily decieved by the industrial-military complex. tagging this onto: [url]http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34859398[/url]

[quote name='adsii1970'][URL]http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-natural-or-manmade/[/URL] <--- former NASA scientist. To believe that man and his industry is the cause of all global climate change, how do you explain the end of the last ice age - long before man was anything more than a hunter-gatherer?[/QUOTE] looks like he found a way to pedal his credentials and sell a book, nothing new there.

You could 3d print fred flintstones car, lol.

[quote name='adsii1970']I sure hope you are kidding about this. I do not deny climate change, as the Earth has a long record of climate change. I do, however, reject the idea of man-can used global climate change for several reasons: Firstly, the models used by the ESA, NASA, and other organizations do not consider solar cycles or vulcanism as sources of heat. At least back before Al Gore began his crusade, even some scientists actually reported through National Geographic that one volcanic eruption releases as much chlorofluorocarbons into the atmosphere as man, in the industrial capacity of the mid 1990s, could release in 300 years. Yet modern supporters of man-caused climate change never address these two issues. There are other factors that are also ignored that easily fall into this category - such as the shifting of the Earth's axis since the great Indonesian earthquake. According to JPL's website, there have been about ten earthquakes that have shifted the Earth's axis between five and twenty centimeters. May not seem like a lot at the surface, but in astronomy and related space sciences, this is huge. For the ISS, fifteen centimeters means the difference between frying and freezing. Secondly, climate change is a natural process. This has been highlighted in several posts so there is no need to "beat dem taters again"... Thirdly, the "solutions" proposed by those who adhere to the man-caused global climate change philosophy are really not solutions. Punishing western Europe and the United States economically and industrially through heavy green regulations yet exempting China, India, and Russia makes no logical sense at all. I will use this example - if a room is a non-smoking room except for grandpa, everyone will still smell like smoke even though there is only one smoker present... This is simply another way to rid the world of capitalism pure and simple. Solar energy and wind power are neat from a novelty perspective, but cannot sustain a modern and developing society in the manner that fossil fuels have (What about all those eagles and Canadian geese who are killed by windmills?). Nuclear power, which gets a bad rap, is the obvious "alternative energy source" but somehow, in spite of the overall safety record, is held with a lot of disdain. Fourthly, it does not address the faults of Malthus. There is this corresponding belief that the world is overpopulated, which is simply not true. We have no idea what the "tipping point" is on Earth. Everything is based on the work of Thomas Malthus, from the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century. His theory was flawed because of several reasons: 1) he did not consider the role of disease and pestilence on the human population; 2) he based his theory on the idea that agriculture was as fully developed as it ever could be; 3) did not consider the application of technology to overcome some of the issues faced by population. With all the famine in Africa and southeast Asia, there potentially is plenty of food, yet the United States, Canada, and most of Europe actually pay farmers NOT to maximize their production. Fresh water issues? Again, Israel has nearly perfected desalination; this is the answer to the world's freshwater "shortage" especially when it is coupled with reclamation technologies used here, within the United States (this is a newly emerging technology developed within the last twenty years). Fifthly, it is about population control and global wealth redistribution. If one is truly objective, look at the advocates for changing society and then how they somehow exempt themselves from following their own recommendations. New York City's current mayor, DeBlasio, Gore, and others call for us to abandon our large houses and live in smaller and more energy efficient homes of around 500 square feet; use less energy, and now the movement is trying to rid our society from air conditioning. This is setting up for three classes of people - the politicoclass, the "approved" wealthy and entertainment class, and everyone else, who will be reduced to serfism. Can local climate change be contributed or caused by man? Yes, but again this is on the micro level and not the macro. The best example of this is Russia (the old Soviet Union) and the projects that have lead to the death of the Aral Sea... Now, if you were simply kidding, no harm no foul! :cool:[/QUOTE] Looks like i should add the lower ninth ward to the list, more space is needed. If BS were gold you would be a very rich man.

wouldn't it be great if we could move all climate change deniers to the bikini islands or florida city and just keep them there.

put it in party balloons, problem solved. Helium is very valuble now a days. H3 is a starting material for some of these new age reactors.

[quote name='WedgeAntilles']Yourself. PB666. ZetaX. Micr0wave. Peadar. The reason you don't see other people as stubborn as myself is because you're not looking. Or, more likely, you overlook their sins because they're on your side..... You guys do realize that by talking about this in here, you're giving away how other people can push your buttons....? ....lying to the whole world and getting away with it. Their attempts to clean up their act are a sham. They are a closed society in which anybody who attempts to expose their shenanigans has a disturbing tendency to disappear. Pretty much the only thing we can do to verify China's (alleged) compliance is spy on them with satellites, and there's been nothing observed by that route that backs up your claims. That is a total lie. Everyone's rebuttals were rebutted. Precisely. Thereby proving you [B]don't[/B] understand how the system works, and that the scientific community's (alleged) consensus on the issue is a consensus of the deluded. Bingo. There's been a gigantic amount of research aimed at figuring out, by way of example, Fermat's Last Theorem. How many people did it take to finally prove Fermat's Last Theorem? [B]One.[/B] Bravo to Andrew Wiles.[/QUOTE] BTW the same could have been said about any large US city in 1970. Remember my grade school sitting out on the pickup, with 350 V8 engines belching out yellow fumes laden with lead oxides and unburnt hydrocarbons. Remember coming into houston, you could smell it about 50 miles before yo reached it. Took a couple of decades to clean up the air. It hits hard when a 200 mile region of interstate 10 is identifed as the cancer triangle, or the cancer capital of the US, there is a readon MD ANderson cancer hospital, one of the biggest cancer treatment centers is in Southeast Texas. Rheumatoid arthritis, for example which has a huge link to poor air quality, its rate did not start dropping until a few years ago, the damage takes time to accumulate, and it takes time to repair, but i assure that the chinese are well on there way to start the remediation process, they have to, neccesity is the mother of invention.

[quote name='WedgeAntilles']Then don't reply to me. You think I'm different or unusual here? I'm not. I'm a veteran of many, many global warming threads (I'm a master debater, har har!). That thing you just said in that quote box three lines up? You're not the first to say that, by a billion light-years ("country mile" just doesn't cut the mustard here). I've seen almost literally a billion people say that, and not just at me--at each other. In every global warming thread, and in every global warming thread that even touches offhandledly on global warming. There was a time once, long ago, when I found you, and other alarmists, equally frustrating. People like you just kept saying the same things, over and over and over, using the same worn-out tactics that had never worked before and yet were used again and again. Today, I'm at the point where I just don't care any more. My interest in this topic is entirely academic. Wrong. If I didn't exist (only in yo' dreams, sucka!) you would still be completely unable to deal with the problem, because of two minor details named "China" and "India". Those two nations are never going to listen to the global warming scare. Ever. Hell, China has straight-up told the rest of the world (in almost exactly these words) that they're not going to do anything about it unless somebody else pays for it. Which is not going to happen. Those two nations are determined to modernize and become as rich as Europe and the United States. Which will end with them emitting [B]EIGHT TIMES[/B] as much greenhouse gases as the United States currently does. The only thing that will stop them is if you go to war against them. Which also is not going to happen. Problem unsolvable.[/QUOTE] China's politicians are not only beginning but are well on their way to facing the reality of their problems. There own scientist are now predicting that 3/4s of the population will suffer from breathing related disorders, either as a result of smoking or coal pollution enough to be consider a factor in early deaths. China is in the process of dealing with permit corruption that has allowed the worst polluters to avoid shut downs and fines. China is the worlds leading producer of solar panels and is trying to catch up on both hydroelectric and wind energy. China has the fastest growth rate of nuclear relative to any country. With the potential cost of spiralling health care needs you can bet your bottom dollar that china is very interested of at least cleaning up dirty coal, if not replacing it entirely. What they really want is natural gas like the US has and if the US were smart it would start subsidizing liquification ships and coerce a deal with China, it is in both countries short and long term interest to do so. India is a bit more complicated situation they have alot of coal they wish to exploit, and their pollution is a bigger problem to africa and the middle east due to faulty pan evaporation rates. The econmy is less cetralized and their remains legacy corruption issues as well as opportunistic corruption due to slow pace of reforms and progress.

[quote name='S1gmoid']Hey, I noticed that trying to do proper gravity turns requires some heavy trial and error, so I decided to create a 2-dimensional simulation of a gravity turn, assuming no active steering, except that the thrust is always applied in prograde direction. For now I'm assuming a vacuum, because it gets complex enough without accounting for changing thrust and drag. This is the model I wrote up: d[SUP]2[/SUP]s[SUB]x[/SUB](t) / dt[SUP]2[/SUP] = |a[SUB]thrust[/SUB](t)|*(v[SUB]x[/SUB](t)/sqrt(v[SUB]x[/SUB](t)[SUP]2[/SUP]+v[SUB]y[/SUB](t)[SUP]2[/SUP])) = (F[SUB]thrust[/SUB]/(m[SUB]dry[/SUB]+m[SUB]fuel[/SUB]-t*(F[SUB]thrust[/SUB]/I[SUB]sp[/SUB]))) * ((ds[SUB]x[/SUB](t)/dt)/sqrt((ds[SUB]x[/SUB](t)/dt)[SUP]2[/SUP]+(ds[SUB]y[/SUB](t)/dt)[SUP]2[/SUP])) d[SUP]2[/SUP]s[SUB]y[/SUB](t) / dt[SUP]2[/SUP] = |a[SUB]thrust[/SUB](t)|*(v[SUB]y[/SUB](t)/sqrt(v[SUB]x[/SUB](t)[SUP]2[/SUP]+v[SUB]y[/SUB](t)[SUP]2[/SUP])) - g(t) = (F[SUB]thrust[/SUB]/(m[SUB]dry[/SUB]+m[SUB]fuel[/SUB]-t*(F[SUB]thrust[/SUB]/I[SUB]sp[/SUB]))) * ((ds[SUB]y[/SUB](t)/dt)/sqrt((ds[SUB]x[/SUB](t)/dt)[SUP]2[/SUP]+(ds[SUB]y[/SUB](t)/dt)[SUP]2[/SUP])) - g[SUB]o[/SUB]*(R/(R+s[SUB]y[/SUB](t))) Now this is a bit more involved than we ever got during calculus class, and if I remember correctly, there probably doesn't exist a closed form expression for s[SUB]x[/SUB](t) and s[SUB]y[/SUB](t). Can someone point me in the right direction for programming a reasonably accurate numerical evaluation of this?[/QUOTE] If you are talking about post lauch turn to horizontal you have to include drag. When i launch from the moon i turn to 45 as quickly as i have verticle ascent, and seconds later to horizontal, which is ussually going to zero thrust as the apo approaches the desired orbital radius. A key component of vector change has to be launch pressure and atmospheric curve. So on kerbal you want the equilibrium velocity to be 100 m/s at msl. since the atmosphere curve at this altitude is 5000 feet it means that atm is 1/2.6 at 5000 than it is at msl. Given this two bits of information can be added. 1. assumming that you have leading edges at 45' or less relative to the axis of travel, you can disregard mach pressure effects to 280. Drag comperable to msl at 5000 is ~160 2. If this motion was sideways and according to a ground motion of 170 you have 330 m/s for omega squared r which is trivial negation of gravity, you have more loss of gravity due to altitude. Thus it is more productive to invest in altitude. 3. However, pitchin 1-5 degrees down offers some horizontal with essentially no cost of dr/dt To 10k one can accelerate to 250, but the problem now becomes a drag versus thrust issue, if you have alot of thrust or you coefficient of drag is low you can significantly turn, if you have allot of dv and you thrust is lower or drag is high, keep the vertical ascent past 15k. Essentially hoovering waste dv and proximach drag eats dv at alts below 15k At 15k the push past mach can begin but significantly turns become harder as momentum increases and a properly tuned ascent does not have the ship glowing red at 36k alt and shuting engines for circularization shortly thereafter. Its a good idea to have a stage event here or throw off some SRBs. A couple reasons, the space engines work well from here, and you want to control a rapid delta degree/delta time turn to 45 ~24k alt, this keeps vel below 1000. Here is were you want full thrust going because we want to stretch apo to 70k, but because r has not drppred g much yet, and because omega is still negating a fraction of gravity angle is up to keep a good climb, by 36 you want 30', 42 alt 20', and above zero until you establishe a desired apo. If you happen to be below 1000 m/s at 36k alt you can apply all that dragless theory, otherwise you are basically keeping things avoiding drag past 42k alt and you dont care at all past 55k.

[quote name='SomeGuy12']I think you mistyped "[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fused_quartz"]1700[/URL]" celsius. Well, if no substance can both take the heat and pressure of a rocket engine and also is transparent to visible light, you could use something transparent to IR or microwaves... Or don't have a window at all. Heat up a mess of tubes, exposed to the outside, and those tubes have the propellant flowing through. I just don't know how to evenly heat a cylinder of tubes when the laser only shines from one side. (presumably with really clever optical design, you'd make the tubes have all kinds of internal mirrors or something to evenly distribute light)[/QUOTE] Glass is an amorphous solid, it pours at ambient temperture and pressure, you dont see it however unless you are patient to stand still for a couple of hundred years. You can add atoms to glass that make it pour less quickly. Howevere, i work with glass in the lab so i can tell you that if you dim the lights, we have burners that with pressurized air burn an almost invisible blue, the moment it starts to glow the reddist of reds ever it can be deformed. In the high pressure of a rocket engine at 700 to 800'C it would begin to start swelling and eventually ball out and open up, not quickly, but for optical purposes it would destroy the lensing effect. In addition the glowing you see are ions, this will destroy transmission of the glass. glowing red hot temperature of glass [url]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incandescence[/url] We can simluate that pressure in the laboratory which i routinely used to do for composition analysis, either by creating a vacuum, 14psi, or placing under nitrogen pressure. In fact it is quite difficult because you have to control the temperature of the glass to keep it from imploding, it has to stay or below the fusing temperature. Bizarre as it sounds if i tried to push the glass it would shatter, but under vacuum the small of motion that the vacuum creates on all the glass molecules allows one to slowly bend the glass without breaking it. And by turning the glass one can seal off one end of a tube from the other end creating a permanent vacuum. [url]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass_fusing[/url] The important thing that the burner is not a rocket engine, its a tiny 1/4 inch burner using methane and less than 1 psi of air. IOW its on the low end of heat production.

Given all the really bad science threads we have been seeing lately it might be refreshing to see what actual scientist might be up to: [url]http://phys.org/news/2015-11-nasa-mit-humanoid-robot-software.html[/url]

UV only works for pathogens within a line of sight or surfaces that can reflect uv, such as stainless steel.It would not remove virus that are inside equipment panels or instrument panels or hygiene equipment. Formaldehyde is available in space in comets. It can be made from reaction of plasma hydrogen with carbon dioxide or the oxidation of methanol all of which are found in space. Depressurrization and repressurization with formaldehyde would reach every surface. UV could also be used. A cesium source could be used for sterilization but this is only rated for microbes not small viruses, something like a tmv could survive 10 fold higher doses of radiation than a bacteria could survive.

Get rid of the battery replace it with an H2/O2 fuel cell. BTW, there is one thing to remember about Fuel cell drive jets. They do not flame out over 15km alt. If you increase the wing surface area then you have less speed at lower altitudes, but use less power and can climb to FL600 or even 800. You have to provide a scrubber for passenger air, since you have O2 on board anyway. This technology could theoretically exceed the distance of the traditional jet. The engine is radically different since it cannot rely on airfuel expansion as in a traditional jet. Breaking the sound barrier past FL550 is not that difficult, the problem is that to make it useful for SST you have to have a bigger and less efficient engine relative to low speed.

[quote name='SomeGuy12']PB666, what are you talking about? Lasers do need to be "lensed" (lens and mirrors are 2 alternate ways to do the same thing). In fact, they obey the same laws as any other light source. What do you think [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_Weapon_System"]that [/URL]is? Inside the laser turret, that shiny thing you see is a mirror. Longer range needs a bigger mirror, and you need a range of around 100 kilometers for an orbital launch. The lasers shine through a window onto a heat exchanger. The (ceramic, metal, whatever) plates in the heat exchanger get hot from absorbing laser light. The propellant flowing over the plates in turn heats up. Rocket roar comes out the bottom. It's the same principle as NERVA, except minus the nuclear reactor.[/QUOTE] Refocusing laser is the least of you problems, its a red herring inyour argument. Its like saying you can fix fusion energy using a better water filter on the cantinas kitchen refridgerator. Glass and quartz start melting around 800, they would never survive the heat of explosion. Your idea is far fetched and implausible.

[quote name='SomeGuy12']It's a heat exchanger. There's a gigantic array of lasers on the ground with mirrors that can keep the spot size small enough to keep the heat exchanger illuminated during ascent. This is for reaching orbit. The payload of the spacecraft contains stuff for maneuvering in space. You leave the spacecraft power source on the ground...[/QUOTE] Huh, lasers don't need to be lensed. Thats not your primary problem, a heat exchanger needs a to undergo thermal conversion to electricity. The most efficient method we have is steam conversion, each step in the process adds mass (steam generator, steam lines, return flow pumps, exchanger), slows down the process, produces inefficiencies, and reduces the maximum transfer rate. steam engine works on a cooldown zone on the low pressure side, so there is a maximum amount of hv you can add to the high pressure evaporator side before you exceed the cooling capacity on the low pressure side. And the big problem is that that the condensor plate needs to operate below 100'F. And your rocket works most efficiently below 30000 meters close to the speed of sound, if you examine the ideal gas equation, ambient thermal gas velocity plus mach one and your surface temperature for convectionsl heat exchanger is already up there. If you are going to heat the exhaust gas directly just remember light carries momentum if you target the exhaust gas you will slow down the differential building pressure and heat back into the nozzle, which will probably explode. Most modern engines drive the fuel through the nozzle to cool the casing down and preheat the gas to the decay point if you laser the gas at the nozzle it overheats and the engine explodes. If you are going to go this direction, by far a light oil burning turbine is a much much better choice and if you are going to go that route just put the platform on a ring of jet power engines with an electric fan driven exhaust gas removal system, get your thrust directly at least you can get the craft to 20 km and keep the launch boosters. You have turbofans out there that can produce 100,000 ft/lbs of thrust and work to 15,000 meters. You are even going to get remotely close to this level of thrust with a remote powered system, the conversion systems are too too slow.

[quote name='StrandedonEarth']Yeah, viruses should be able to survive hard vacuum. Heat is the best, they'd need to cook the inside of the ship. The ship is radiation shielded, but a lot of radiation from inside the ship should also work.[/QUOTE] Go to within 50 million kilometers of the sun, open the airlock then point the airlock at the sun. Wait. Have the ship pass through the suns corona. Less radical, Sterilization with formaldehyde gas (reacts with any amino groups). How, remove most of the air, flood the compartment with formaldehyde gas and pressurize the space with water saturated air, wait and then evacuate, on refill scrub the air with GAC.

[quote name='SomeGuy12']If you wanted an SSTO with non embarrassing mass fractions, you need higher ISP. You can't do much better than 500 with the most exotic chemical propellants. Nuclear has the problems of the reactor itself being heavy, the shielding, if there is any, being heavy, and the reactor has to be constructed very carefully and there is always a risk of it crashing and leaving a radioactive mess that is difficult to clean up. So why not construct an enclosed chamber. Quartz or other transparent material is used as a window along one side. There's a stack of plates with holes in them. The plates closer to the window have larger holes, and around each hole there is a ring of material with a surface that absorbs the frequency of laser light you are using (so it probably appears black). The plates also have heat radiator fins on the back side, opposite where the laser light comes in. Essentially, you use this apparatus to super-heat hydrogen flowing through the chamber and you send it out the bottom. The plates are made of the same material they make NERVA reactor tubes, so you should be able to reach temperatures that can produce 1000 ISP. You might have an air-breathing phase of flight where ram air intakes are opened to send ordinary air through the chamber instead of hydrogen, so that you don't have to consume onboard propellant.[/QUOTE] Just to correct you, the thermnuclear gas heated rocket is limited by its internal temperature limit of about 4000 degrees and the nuclear fuel density required to prevent overheating. The problem is that limits the amount of gas that can be heated and accelerated, and although it creates a higher ISP the thrust is much lower. In addition because it has a higher operating temperature it is rather restricted to heavier metals. The atm ISP is a much lower ratio og vacuum ISP and the engine irself is not safe for atmospheric use. THerefore as a launch engine its a nogo for just about every reason. The drive you describe, much better designed is the VASIMR is a deep space engine. As has been discussed before energy production densities in space are petty relative to land versions, exceptionally are oxidation reduction reaction which produce uncoverted heat-thermal expansions. The VASMiR with its 5 newtons of thrust is a 200 kw. That is essentially 40kw per newton, this will effectively limit any addon production of thrust to the electrical energy production density per unit mass. Since solar panels cannot be deployed during launch phase, batteries are not weight effective, you are left with piddly nuclear reactors for craft that would have to have nuclear during deep space flight stage. Therefore you still have risk. if you are considering tracking lasers and craft solar panels you are still limited to 50 kw per meter of panel. if you had 100 square meters per ship that is 5000 kw or 125 N, consider how many newtons the average launch engine produces. It would not even suffice to lift the panels.

[quote name='fredinno']ahhh!! What the .... Is that??[/QUOTE] A modified Jaguar, the m6 is where you drive modified british cars, ;^).

[quote name='Alshain']Unless he is using Visual Basic and a Windows Store project. Or any combination of the 4. WPF is not exclusive to C# and XAML is not exclusive to WPF.[/QUOTE] So this is the basics. Windows forms (from 1987 to present) has a runtime implimentation in C++, C#, VB, VB6 .. ... . . . . , Currently you have class implementation in whatever language you program in partial class as the constructor, and looks like the backdoor is C and C++. Microsoft is not adding new components, but they are maintaining compatibility -well developed dialog boxes -Programs that do not need 3D implementation, fixed format texted (like PDF), or Media players. -Programs that only need GUI or GUI+ -Problems are in the interactions, VB6 gave way to Net, which markedly changed the way classes were handled. The old data sharing has changed many times, for example OLE, gone, its replacement, gone, etc. WPF - ([URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Presentation_Foundation[/URL]) originally targeted for XML, XAML is employed to simplify the conversion. 2006, Microsoft .NET Framework 3.0, - Uses generic design, skins can basically replaced most elements of the gui -Forms, video, graphics, fixed format text, .. . . . -Problem is Windows 8 introduced WinRT, which has been haldheartedly accepted, this is followed by win10 with a push toward WUP, and WPF is platform specific for the most part. -Microsoft Expression Interactive Designer, provides a front-end design tool for backend programming via XAML. -Because of its generic design some features of windows tool box are missing, you have to essentially reprogram the tool to reimpliment the feature (example the multicolumns feature of a list box is missing). Microsoft however has built a database of WPF 'objects' that can be used, if you can find them in the mess that is now called MSDN. WinRt (Windows Runtime) hit the scene with the genuinely unpopular Windows 8. ([URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%2B%2B/CX"]C++/CX, [/URL]and the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Managed_code"]managed code[/URL] languages [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_Sharp_%28programming_language%29"]C#[/URL], [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VB.NET"]VB.NET[/URL], [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JavaScript"]J#[/URL] and [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TypeScript"]TypeScript[/URL]), it is managed using C++, and based on [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Component_Object_Model"]Component Object Model[/URL] (COM) that allows interfacing from multiple languages. UNfortunately there are problems developing code COM because the support is not what it should be. -Allows code to run on a greater variety of devices. UWP universal windows platform. ([URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%2B%2B"]C++[/URL], [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C"]C#[/URL], [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VB.NET"]VB.NET[/URL], or [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XAML"]XAML[/URL]) Back door is C++ but supported in C++, VB.NET, C#, and [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JavaScript"]JavaScript[/URL]. -allows developers to create and distribute Universal Windows applications across all [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft"]Microsoft[/URL] platforms that support the UWP

[url]http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34832669[/url] Clear the M6, looks like they are getting ready to roll!

[quote name='WedgeAntilles']This doesn't seem right. The gate isn't a teleporter; it simply creates a deformation in spacetime, which would require a fixed amount of energy to create and maintain. Such a gate shouldn't be aware of any matter passing across that deformation. I'm a smart person (and also modest!), but this is actually making my brain hurt. The interaction between such a gate and gravity seems to introduce so many paradoxes that I'm starting to think wormhole gates are impossible. (Now that you've got me thinking about it, though, a teleporter wouldn't cause this seeming paradox--because a teleporter would teleport kinetic and potential energy as well as mass. If you teleport an object that has more energy, the teleportation itself requires more energy)[/QUOTE] Teleporters can only transport information +/- 1/2 spin Wormholes as far as we know are nothing more than quantum entangled pairs, so again pretty much bits of energy at the most fundemental levels. For teleporters the energy will anyway flow, its just the state of flow is not dtermined until one quantum particle is resolved. Theoretically the type of gravity that would travel through a wormhole is quantum gravity not classic gravity, and thus would be limited by planks time at the extreme (like big bang) example. In our mundane space time the flow of gravity would be rather limited, same is true with all particles. I could imagine it like this, suppose it took enegy x to feed an electron through a wormhole, of course in doing this you are also feeding its wave function so potentially one photon also. Therefore 1 quantum particle maybe sqrt x. So a proton is made up of 3 quarks and 3 gluons maybe sqrt x^6 energy x^3 (assuming the proton is at 0'k, which is technically impossible because it could not enter a wormhole at that temperature). So then we add an electron to make a hydrogen atom, thats x4. Then a hydrogen molecule x12. a helium atom x28 and so on. I m grossly oversimplifying things here because it has to do with quantum probabilites, but you cannot think of wormholes as gates for things that are probable on the macro scale, only things that are probable on the planks scale. If you could find a way to stretch that scale to things like Einstien bose condesates it still might be plausible, but here again some form of entanglement might be required.