PB666

Mass interacts with higgs boson, the higgs field imparts inertia, gravity is simply the way inertia behaves in curved space-time. The graviton is suspected to exist, but has never been proven. It likely existed as a particle at the beginning of the universe during the preinflation epoch, but is largely regarded to be a field now. If you look at the post that I made earlier, they are launching a satellite that they hope, if it works, that will tell them if it is even possible to detect gravitons, but not actually detect them. From what I understand matter and some forms of energy that gain inertia because of Higgs interation release gravitatinal waves that then warp space-time. Space-time is simply a four dimensional representation of an event parameters, and in the case a vacuum space the events typically are an object in enertial reference frames. Gravity warps space time, in order to contract such that it pulls, one really needs a black hole. The problem is that black holes are essentially frozen in time, once you cross the event horizon. So it will not collectively accelerate easily. What you need is something that is the opposite of non-inertial energy, and that is a problem because it implies it cannot be inertia, because then it is massive and carries momentum, there its energy aspect needs to be negated. From what I understand negative energy can exist on the quantum scale, for times 10^-43 second and for tiny tiny lengths, lengths smaller than the nucleus of a proton. It does not stack well, this is a problem with QM. see K2s comments on Cannae drive. There is a speculation that negative energy may exist under exotic conditions and there is speculation that completely empty space, devoid of any matter or light, well, theres alot of speculation, including a cause of the big bang. I will create another thread on space-time and there is a collection of about eight videos that explain all of this. not tonight though.

That is a possibility you don't actually have to do that they can each have their own mirrors. The manuevering thrusters unfortunately are not that accurate that they would separted systems used the same focal pts. The problem, IIRC, is the polarization and phasing; visible light is in the sub micron range, so it means you kind of want various detectors to be the same distance to the target. Even a scope set up on girders has a dampening problem that would require some vibration dampening even in space. Its not an easy problem, but given that hubble will go bye-bye in a few years we need an idea for a next generation visible light telescope.

We are white matter. And the deal is, dark matter is coyly being relabeled dark gravity, because there are questions whether it is a particle in normal space-time. Specifically we are white particulate matter with some added kinetic and potential energy. If we really get into it most of our mass is an energy field called a gluon. So basically fields called quarks which are more particulate and unstable are stabilized by gluons and these then form things like protons, electrons are leptons in which is a field as much as a particle gets its mass from the higgs. Its murky white, but white none the less.

No lagrangian points in KSP, :^( . The SoI are black/white. Yeah, I am here trying get an idea interesting enough to build it in blender and execute it in Unity/KSP. They are not going to have N-body dynamics in KSP, apparently, because they can't deal with crash and collision issues in low craft orbit for celestial satellites. The other issue is decimal points and processing power. After having solved the deep space high velocity Kraken I don't think they wnat to mess with it. KSP can think about gravity in a newtonian sense, however if you want to have n body physics, there is no choice but to move to spacetime which means you would need at least one inertial hopefully CoM, reference frame for all super surface craft trajectory, and consider the curvature of spacetime. Kepler/Newton did not have to deal with lagragian points, nor did they have to deal with dilation, even though dilation was evident in mercuries orbit.

I kept looking for busts but I didn't see any, so i guess the theory is not quite warped enough feel free to warp it. :^) Ergo, something more boring, a synopsis. So a warp drive is basically a pressure tensor behind the traveling field an a negative energy pressure tensor in front. It could also be gravity, but then you would have to move E = mc^2 in front. Since the inflaton established that localized average space-time could expnd faster than the speed of light. The it is possible. But the inflaton was active when there was no light and no normal matter, so that while things were moving away at greater than C, actually nothing was moving away. It lack something a warp drive would need, modulation. A quantum bubble that is unstable invited a bizarre version of space time to pour in everywhere in the bubble and the a tiniest fraction of a second later stopped, all hell broke loose all kinds of wierd matter appeared and disappeared light built in then prtons and electrons and we have CMBR. Not the best way to treat normal matter you want to move. Currently there are ongoing studies of dark energy, the results are pardoxical. Either Einstiens cos. constant is real, and we are really inept at measuring it in local space, or dark energy is like a very shy virgin, she only would wants to reveal herself when noone else is looking, and it would appear that any matter (single cesium atoms are too big) disrupts the field. Basically unless we can build a very big vacuum capable of eliminating even hydrogen atoms, we can't be sure. If it turns out that she is really shy, then we can cause it to enter space where we want it to, it accelerates in the 10-3 range so it can get you to c in say 3000 to 30000 years. Negative energy, thats a much bigger problem. It does not exist except in relative terms. And you have to create energy in front of your ship faster, faster than the ship is traveling. There are tacheons, not known to exist, and other exotic fields not known to exist. And so that is why everyone says its bust. Dark energy we don'T know what it is, and negative energy we don't know it exists outside of quantum mechanical speculations.

I don't mean to burst your bubble but its ...League..., lol, sry, hmmph. Of course it would have to be assembled in space, which is why instead of having far fetched manned landing, lets have a manned space venture at L2, complete with centripedal station capable of say 0.1 g. So that we can see how to obtain better long term survival in space, build things in space and have a world finder to boot. JWST is really designed to look in the infrared, if you want to look for the best evidence of chlorophyll, its in the visible spectrum.

We've having a hefty discussion as to why aliens are invisible to us. This thread is going to make the assumption that if alien life exists and we could reach them that we coukd eventually uncover them and know whether they existed or are in the process of evolving to that state. I want to state in advanced that any interstellar worthy sentient can be around any star that obviously is stable, so it does not mean aliens can't exist. The sceptor here is whether they might have evolved in that system. I also want to state that we can only see transects around stars in which the planet corsses the stars light, This is not a majority of stars which is why we are caring about planets hundred to thousand light years from us, the drive to discover versus statistics. And now you see my POV. The basic problem here is that we are trying to identify a mythical dragons liar using a childs tricycle. I can't force NASA to create the telescope he describes, but I have mentioned it several times. If you truely want to know whether we are alone, you actually need something that can generate semi-steroscopic vision of intragalactic space, and you really can't do this and filter starlight from orbiting celestial light from earth. The hubble device itself is crippled because of its mirror. The telescope does not have to be a football pitch in size, it could be a triangle with three different mirrors, offset mirrors, each about the size of JWST and it might suffice. In addition you may want to filter light according to polarization and spectrum, this is a problem because of uncertainty, which means you need alot of light and you need to be able to eliminate alot of wavelength scattered light at undesired frequency, you also need to see the frequency shift that results from the planets rotation. This may be decent for detecting close planets but for seeing far off planets we would need a larger scope, the greater the distance the larger apart the mirrors would need to be. The hubble view of Pluto shows us just how badly the problem is, the space weather arguments shows how little we gleamed from hubble and may reflect errors and assumptions about its perspective. Hubble is not the fie here, its retrofitting is designed for Universe studies like the view of some deep see creature, but we need the view of an eagle of a cheetah. Something that can ltach on to a view with both eyes, and gather and characterize it over a broad range of soectra and light qualities. The telescope mission I think is of equal priority to any manned mission.

Because artificial gravity greatly increases the mass. To some degree tension based excercise can slow down the skeletomuscular effects of microg. Centripedal force is omega2r. So that if you want to increase a on the brain and eyes of a six foot tall man you would need a floor at least 6 feet from the center of rotation, and so if you want acceleration at least half on the brain than on the feet it means that you would have a room 8m in diameter, plus a floor that can both support weight and pressure, so ther you have mass, and then you have disk that is 10m wide that you have to launch. The other problem is that unless you have a sophisticated gimbling system you have to despin to burn a different direction, each time burnining dV to spin up and down. Also communication, that fixed parabolic antenna wont work. The rotating crew cabin creates drag against the power units in split systems and the teflon interface will leak gas over time. They could create a gravity pod, a small biradial that could be extended and twirling the vessel at some slow speed in which the nauts workout under weights say at say third g for 30 minutes to but exercises would be limited to squats, pull ups and verticle activities. This can be compensated for by more time in the unit. If the cannae drive actually works in space it could be used to create gravity without wasting dV of fuels and it becomes more plausible, you could have spin excercise cycles and despin navigation and communication cycles.

I don't which is worse, this video or the sleep paralysis thing. BTW, the vid is now language blocked.

Well I guess this video half answers the OP's question.

That depends on wher the planet is in the goldilocks zone and how unstable the stars output is. A smaller planet would need to be closer to the star than earth and the stars output would need to be more stable than the typical star. A larger planet could farther from its star in terms of output.Life in general is hard, the great oxygenation event was critical here on earth, it allows for thinking warm blooded animals, without which sentiency would likely not occur.

They are risk takers, there are those who aren't intimidated by their ignorance and those that are.

Yes, because it makes sci easier for mun and minmus.

Not to mention that earth's orbit is not circular, and the sun wobbling barycenter distance because of Jupiter and saturns orbit, big things cannot hide behind the sun. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycentric_coordinates_(astronomy) https://innumerableworlds.wordpress.com/2009/04/03/the-wobbling-sun/

In her defense, her district does not cover NASA. lol. And unfortunately you've prolly never heard of Bill Clemence, Or several other east Texas Congressman who have tried to stop The EPA claiming things like CO2 is not a greenhouse gas and mercury isn't all that poisonous and all kind of other denials. This little SJL faux-pas is minor compared to what some of our East Texas elite have to say. We also produced Lyndon B Johnson and Ladybird so....... You might think why the voters would ..... The last ballot there were about 50 predecided and 6 contested elections. gerrymandering does not make the politicians smarter.

True.

context. This is not about blowing vuvuzuelas at a soccer match, its about intruding into a zone in which non-participnats would not be expected to intrude. Same as streaking onto a field or throwing hazards at the players. - - - Updated - - - Wait until a terrorist flies an object into Buckingham palace or the Hague and watch how fast that would change. Europe appears to be targeted via the mass transit system (Madrid, london 2x) and the Offices, Ethnic areas. Europe is easy to get into. US is harder to get into (Unless for some bizarre reason you are hispanic, its surpringly easy and staying is even easier) and so the strategy has been get in and do something big fast. Yes, their is illegal traffic over the mexican border, but thier are few public safety risk, I have traveled some of the no man's land on the rio grande, its a really large area with nothig there. I could see copters in 5 years that could literally carry illegals over and drop them off and returns, then another picks them up shy of the 50 mile border station and drops them off on the other side. There are areas in w texas were ther is no border control, its all natural barriers, but if you gyro copter someone over a cliff, they walk 10 miles over the mesa land and they are on 90 and there are no control stations, they are in. I expect the US might have to install automated EMP stations that can drop electronics out of mid-air.

With the FAA nothing has to be done, they are charged with protecting the public safety in the airspace, so they can force airspace over an event. Area 51 is covered by old espionage statutes. The white house is in the DC airspace, other than military its a no-fly zone below a certain alt. Basically if I create an event in the middle of a desert, and there is a reasonable risk that a someone or something could be used to terrorize that event. The FAA might chose to close that space and send out a NOTAM and thats it. They now have the authority. So, this may offend some hobbiest, but ignorance is not a defense, even a model plane hobbiest is responsible for knowing what these are in some contexts.

http://gas2.org/2015/08/24/graphene-converts-heat-electricity/ Could increase power output of solar panels in space by placing it on the back side of solar panels, or on the heat radiators.

In this particular circumstance one player was intimidate more than another player, if you influenced the outcome of the match, and it turned out that you had a vested interest in the outcome, you might also be subject to a RICO investigation, particularly if you had placed bets in Las Vegas. So there are all kinds of legal hazards for buzzing a sports match, there are federal laws regarding match-fixing. On top of that their may be municipalities or states that apply laws regarding camera use and distances, such as in Sweden. And the US Supreme Court ruled that use of photographs or other recordings in places where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy is can be subject to legal or civil action. IOW, if you are doing something extra-ordinary, then there are a number of avenues that you act in a way that people are unaccustomed to your actions, be it airline pilots, people walking on the street, someone undressing in their bedroom in from of an open window behind a fence, or a player at a match you could be subjected to different avenues of civil and legal action. Generally speaking, unless the laws protect you from action, if you harm someone or violate their privacy you can be arrested and/or sued. In the case of New York they can simply extend FAA jurisdiction and you will end up spending money in court trying to reverse fines or punishments, it will not cost them anything. Imagine the following, It is February 5th, the Superbowl, X's team is losing, but not by much, X flies in low with a quad-copter and scare the quarterback of the opposing team, he is sacked hard and fumbles and the my teams recovers and scores, while the quarterback goes to the bench injured, minutes earlier I place a bet on the game that my team will win. So now you could suffer RICO investigation, the losing team could file a civil suit against you, the quarterback could charge you with assault, a rap you would probably beat, but the civil suit for injury would stick. The FAA may have restricted airspace over the event, as they sometimes do, and you would be in violation of that airspace designation, which would result in probably a misdemeanor charge and a fine. The RICO match fixing investigation alone you might beat if the prosecution cannot prove you collaborated with anyone, but it would go on for years and be incredibly expensive to fight.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/09/150903131726.htm

Easy enough done, take the capsule, apply a dV of about 18000 m/sec, heading orbital retrograde, when it crashes into the sun, it has officially travelled to a star. I kind of recommend a heat reflector though, it would kind of melt before reaching its target.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34152577

Check your airspace, you can find this by looking up the local maps of your airport. Although ignorance is not a defense, and the FAA would likely give you a warning, if you are in a city and you fly anything, there is a pretty good chance once your cross 500 feet you are violating an airspace rule. Best to fly in the country. I think that should set the minimum altitude for drones over residential areas at twice the height of the average utility lines. In cities that means you would have to fly between 60 feet and 500 (or 2000 feet) if you fly off the easement. Here is Manhattan. I think anyone could be arrested for flying a drone in Manhattan. Under these rules, technically, without communicating with an ATC, since drones don't have radio communication they are pretty much limited to flying over the Hudson or East Rivers. The Hudson river has an absolute ceiling of 1500 feet and helicopters, rescue vehicles and seaplanes have the right of way, I think the Hudson river is a seaplane-port from back in the 1930s to 1950s. http://nata.aero/data/files/GIA/airspacerestrictions/0303airspacerestrdcny.pdf http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/05/faa-fines-80s-band-bassist-for-violating-nyc-airspace-with-quadrocopter/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airspace_class F and G are uncontrolled airspace. You can fly there pretty much without legal recourse, but civil recourse if damage results. The deal is that the airspace rules do not say, no-drones, if you are in A-E space and something happens, the FAA will have jurisdiction and they will not be kind to you.

There is no indefinite travel, humans expire in the microgravity of space and the ship needs Argon, less so than ion drives. The hope with VASIMR is that once they get the power they want then they can reduce the waste heat. I thonk this is were they are going. And as point of argument NASA has clearly stated that they do not have a meaningful interstellar technology, and it is clear That LFOx is not it. So they are willing to Push alternatives for the same reason the Germans pushed traditional propellants. The critical point is to place an improved ION drive in circumstances of high payload and I agree. Consider the problem to be solved viable interstellar is essentially 1g at 1year and the reverse. We cannot even get close to this. And I think all would agree that VASiMR is not it. But even 1/10th this would require an advanced nuclear device. And anything beyond Mars will need nuclear. So an orbit that has significant radial velocity reaching mars with a viable payload is a major step forward in terms of efficiency per mass. If this were not tbe case we would not be arguing about it. NASA is not alone now. all the major space agencies have landed something on the moon and reached or landed on mars, The brits landed beagle but its panels failed to open. So the context makes the problem hard. There are context specific issues that have to be defined. 1. The dV for M intercept in 39 days, this I don't think is the major problem......strictly in terms of hums on board. 2. Decellerating on martian approach, add a couple of days. 3. Orbital insertion, this will be a problem for Vasmir because the humans have to be on board, decels at peri will have to be kicks which means that time is wasted, Not smart to do Aerobraking with panels or nuclear, and the drive could be damaged. 4. LFOx carried to decel and land, which means a lander weight, which means payload doubles or triples. So lets say you are at 50 days, you left mars, at 39 days earth was slightly ahead of Mars, now its several degress ahead, there will be know 39 day return. The ship will have to reach the Vasmir and that ship will have to kick its to a higher period. And then it have to produce double or triple the radial velocity, because simply reducing orbital velocity will slow the ship relative to earth it will not regain higher speed until close to perigee. 5. So the ship now has to maintain its orbital speed by applying alot of negative radil velocity, it will need to oeri at almost venus-mercury orbit and then intercept earth coming in, The gain is the lander can be jettisonned, but Now slowing to earth is a problem. 6. One solution is given the energy is to stop at L2 and transfer the crew to a pod for transfer back home, a second is once arriving past L2 decel into a elliptical orbit and kick back to ISS and dock, refuel the ship and recrew it, then exchange Martian crew for A soyuz pod. 7. Since the lander is not time dependent, it can be sent on a regular Hohman a year before the crewed mission and parked in a martian orbit. You could Even land a return lander on Mars if you can control the landing site lication. So niether the lander or the return launch vehicle need to transit in 39days. 8. So that leaves the essential problems Essential problems 1. You have a free docking port, you can LFOx into a mars crossing orbit, we know we can get 100 tons x whatever of feul from the russians, this is not the problem, the problem is the time and thrust required fir an ION drive to stop at Martian Insolance. It maybe the case that only Nuclear can do this. Panels and girders and/or radiators would have to lose alot of mass per watt. 2. That venus crossing orbit is loaded with problems, there is alot of sun, but you dont need sun at least not until close to earth, you could have a shield ship that intercepts interior to venus but thats really difficult. You could reposition the panels. the dV required would mean weeks of peak acceleration off of Mars, assuming a load of argon was supplied with lander coupling. you could partially fold one panel to reduce absorption and store the others but this also adds weight. 3. The essential Mars return vessel landing is not solved. We could sky crane humans down but not the return ship, too heavy. alternative is to use indvidual command chairs in which you have a controlled ascent to an apogee that then circularizes, three ships for three nauts, the weight of each launch vehicle is cut. lol. Samples would have to be curtailed. you could land a ship and the nauts refule from separte fuel lands. You could have dead minimu weight lauch vehicle in which no food water, and minimal air to reach the vasmir. you could intercept the ship at an eccentric opa used an EM tether to quckly grab it and then pull it to a minimum orbit which vasmir intercepts. So right now as it stands a one year Mars mission is only viable as a suicide mission. The landing mission alone begs fir two ships and 2 or more LEO fuelers. The return ship begs for at least 1 more ship and at least 1/2 a ship for argon or a shield ship with nuclear. So lets say we are arguing about the best of several bad alternatives.