PB666

Convert yourself to pure energy and place yourself on an inflating quantum bubble. The traveling faster than light was the result of the initial state of the material universe and the apparent addition of some dark energy hence. Its not so much a function of distance as a function of trigonomrty and time elapsed since the big-bang. As stated space is expanding. If two dots sat next to each other and space started expanding at the beginning the dots would not notice that all dots are in on the surface of a baloon, but each dot would begin separating from the next closest dot and each dot no matter which direction is moving away from the next closest dot. finally the dots look at each other and they are red shifted, and some dots finally dissappear over the event horizon. that inflation occurs seems certain, recreating the state of inflation is not trivial. But at 92 bly span and 45 bly over 13.8 bly means roughly some things are expanding away form each other at 6C, but this is not really a cogent argument since their space and our space are so far removed and inflated there is no observable value.

Cant say directly to derivatives but in statistics the first order is you average, second order is your variance, third order is your assymetry and forth order is kurtosis. The last two unfortunately are not applied as often as they should be. Many random probability assessments begin with the assumption of normality, and these two can be used to check for non-normality in the distribution. There are often simple ways of correcting non-normality, if the data is consistently higher than 1, then a log transformation frequently takes care of positve skewing and much of the kurtosis at once. Positive skewing is often observed in biological and natural responses. How this plays out technically is that if two groups have different means and the data is skewed positively, then the group with the smaller mean will have less variance, and the higher group will have higer variance. The students T test is so -so suited for comparison with unequal variance, and so if substntial difference in variance is detected you should then opt to use Welches approximation test. Using the approximation when there is no difference in variance can result in artifactually low random p-values, particularly if one group is much smaller than the second.

At the moment of the big bang begins space-time are rather difficult to define. And i should point out that K2 is presenting one explanation, there are others in which the universe we are expnding in is one of many expanding in empty space. this is where i dive into the evasive visible universe that every Tv program likes to use. Visible universe on average is becoming less dense due to a wider expansion. but that does not mean energy is distributed according inflation. And i should point out that there has been open debate whether the higgs field precede the big bang, inflated the universe itself. But technically speaking if the universe is everything light cannot be beyond, and it is poosible that feilds that travel at the speed of light in a strait line define the edge of the universe. As for his neutrino stuff, IIRC, inflation places the energy capable of generating light also sufficient for light to creat matter and anti matter, so light would not be alone, high energy gamma intersects can also create matter. The question would be if the matter also looks like matter in our visibke space. We get back to the core thing is we see a rather unifirm visible universe and conclude that it is the same everywhere, its no more than an educated guess. The honest answer is that we do not know, and unless someone creates a big bang to test the hypothesis we would never know, and testing the hypothesis itself would destroy all knowledge as we know it, including ourselves, a possible hypothsis for the origin of our universe (sinister grin). Time in my opinion is a fascination of sentiency. Light has no concern of time, its only mass that creates a sense of time, without inertia the universe expands and nothing transpires. Our electrons zipping around our atoms, causing synapsis create a sense of time and space, these are ways of characterizing the universe that make 2-dimensional sense out of a three dimensional universe. In a way the universe has come of age, but if we go back to the moment inflation ends, every bit of space is inflating away form ever other bit of space at speeds at event horizon deltas and time in our sense is virtually useless, its only now that things are pretty spread apart and there is a consistency of time form place to place, we actually have to look hard to find evidence of it. Newtons Mercury observation was the first in all earths history that someone detected the effects of dilation and it wasn't realized for 400 more years.

Thats a profound question. The precise answer is that the Time to the big-bang is not the same for everything but it would be pretty close if inflation had a relatively constant effect. I contend that this is not the case, the to a degree inflation had a larger impact on thing furter from the original center of expansion, in either case the direction of in versus outbound is unknown. This because relative to everything elses everythings speed to everythig else is a function of distance, however there is a shift between close stuff and stuff 5 billion ly from us. There are apparently really big galaxies beyond 5 billion light years and I speculate these might point in the direction of the center. If we could travel several hundred times the speed of light we might find much older universe in their time frame when we stopped. The problem is that things that are 7 billion ly light travel, they a 10s of lightyears away now and traveling away form us close to the speed of light. There is a theoretically estimated size of the universe of 92 billion years, this is based on how big the quantum singularity of infinity density and energy might have been. Its based on several fundemental constants and makes alot of assumptions. It could be way wrong, and we may be in a non-interesting part of the universe where inflation was all but constant. Then of course, hypotheticalities fall apart with relativity, since you cannot travel faster than the speed of lihgt, there is no absolute or universal time, and the real dimension of time is space-time and space appears to be expanding relative to other space way faster than the speed of light. So then no-ones going to waste alot of bandwidth studying something so elusive, but rather come up with practical solutions, like a inertial wrist watch that automatically reports your age and the reference frame time of the beings where you are currently passing by.

I have a comment to those who are saying they don't have some of the bugs others see. I think the dichotomous attitudes are due to the fact that constant players over the variuos patch cycles have a perspective of what the game used to be like pre 0.25 (hilariuosly unpredictable physics, particular with large craft) and the bugs have evolved over time. The problem is that in the school of hard knocks the struggle to succeed and be successful one has also evolved ones engineering skills and play strategies to circumvent the bugs and new engineerin problems. Then we get to the point where we are not actively trying to distinguish the bugs from not-bug problems. When 1.02/.04 came out I had alot of problems with heat, now the problems are minimal and i don,t know why. Odd things like my Kerbal is overheating, but there is no atmosphere where he is flying, but not lethal levels so mainly annoyed. Fewer problems not using old add-on parts and using new crafted parts. Some of this may be due to old part-tools and stuff. To those having problems just play easy mode and save alot, whatever problems you are having, it would be 10 times worse playing 0.22 or 0.20, and we all lived through th experience.

Science in general occurs in tiny steps the public never sees, there is general little debate other than in the peer review process. The editor of a journal has alot of power, but ultimately any science can be oublished in some obscure or university journal in a foriegn language. Scientist are leary of the big hypey stuff, people who hype thier work are often less productive, push the data or take credit for other peoples works. Thus scientist are basically conflict avoiders. If its big and hypey, its probably not good science. Becareful of some of the food experts, there is a deep secret about food related health issues. Alot of it is controlled by our genetics, some of it is the consequence of childhood diseases, and other things you never hear about. The problem is that food sensitivities and associated risks might only affect a few percent of the population per sensitivity, but the risk in that population can be quite high. Take one example - rhuematoid arthritis Destruction of the synovial lining and juxta articular bone mass Increased risk for type Ii diabetes Increased risk for cardiovascular disease and stroke Risk Female 3x DR shared epitope 4x Smoking 5x Periodontal disease 2.5x Aggravating factors - diet high in animal fat, diet high in sugar, severe respiartory infections Slowing effects - TNFa modulators, omega 3 fats, moderate exercise What you see on TV, even PBS, its not this. The TV folk are not familiar with the sphere of the literature, often just part and the part they work on. And the treatments they suggest may only be effective in a small potion of the population. In RA The TNFa drugs are only effective in some people. There is an area of Africa where noone gets RA, the gene is present, but it is unclear why the disease is not present. RA howver is the second most studied autoimmune disease. Comparing twins raised together and apart for diseases like Type1 diabetes we also know what the env and genetic cummulaives are, and we know that the proportion of known risks are a tiny fraction of the total risk. So the bottom line is that someone tells you that X causes Y, and frequently you look at the primary literature and X explains a 5% increase in Y. Or alternatively you might look at it like it that in a select group based upon some gene say 20% of the population X inreased the risk of disease by 25% and in the rest of the population it had almost no risk increase, or may have even decreased risk of Z.

No it is not possible, the gravity is too weak and the level of sunlight is too small. Dig down 150 miles, create a hole that gas sinks into use solar panels too provide power for Leds. then place CO2 tolerant microbes and let them make O2. Need a methane/Co2 separater so that you can burn off the methane. Thats as far as you can go, eventually the atmosphere will thin cause it will all sink in the little holes you create.

Whatever the EM drive is interacting with, its only slightly better than EM momentum by itself, it could be a very weak interaction, although I agree, not likely to interact with DM electromagnetically. We assume that the resonance is what is creating the force, the resonance may be interacting with the walls of the chamber and creating another non-electromagnetic field. - - - Updated - - - I thought I was clear, for most interaction it behaves like a field and not as a particle. Testing it on the ground has one major problem, the ground is very massive, and this is exactly what the test needs to avoid, mass of any kind behind the device which can be pushed off of.

Sorry, its a gasbag of hype and the links don't work for the godaddysite. - - - Updated - - - Better hurry, this planet is going way-bad and fast. Looking like population bomb is kicking in a big way and climate change has pitched into help.

Dresteroids in highly predicatable orbits. They respawn indefinitely, I think these may be the source of universal dark matter :^).

I heard Unity 4 had a problem with multicore processors (or multithreaded cores) not sure. Does Unity5 work better with multicore processors than single core processors?

torque wheels on some capsules will cause craft to pull to one side. If you are relying on control surfaces to control the craft its better to silence the torque wheels on any modules (such as craft inside a cargo bay, or satellites) as they are all active. Since this is a space game, I don't see then need to do space planes, so I can't help you with the other stuff, but if you want to test this is a problem set a capsule face up, the place MGS going to the front and back of space plane hanger, then place four wheels coming off the MGS, you will note that when you hit the "W" button to move forward there is a small jerk to one side, if you go to the cap and disable the reaction wheels it will stop and your rover will go strait.

More fluff, the KH-11 cost 3.16 billion dollars, points down less than 100km and does a small fraction of what the hubble does in terms of its spectronomy. The whole point of the failed mirror was it was a prototype mirror that was designed to look into the deepest of space (14 billion light years), not in some politicians bedroom window. In addition to this, the fact that hubble is continually operating, it has actually increased the need for manned science, because everytime it finds something unique you have ground telescopes point themselves and the combined power of the hubble and ground telescopes that have really given us some detailed spectrographic information about alot of stuff that happened very long ago and very far away. The unrepairable telescopes have given us alot of down time. I would actually like to see a manned observatory at L2, complete with a hexagon reflector array 10s of meter across in which the whole assembly was built in space, initially manually focused with electronic, and with a small crew of scientist and technicians that are capable of constantly upgrading the optics. Based on the science we are seeing and the level of red-shifting I think it would be really cool to give high resolution data from each part of the spectrum. Everything in this world can be replaced by robots except 3 things, the scientist that discover new robotic technologies, the engineers that build the prototypes, and the technicians that perfect the first prototype (and of course the partens of these three individuals). In a manned science program you replace the robots with the three people who could have made them, and put their hands and brains to work on solving the problem at hand and not solving the problem that solves the problem at hand. When you want to characterize the universe to every last star in the visible field, you can have robots build hubbles and launch them into space. When you want to go out and test to see if something might exist, or probe really new questions and you have repeats of different questions to be asked every time, then you really want the human hand involved. If you have an observatory station and a shuttle program and you want to look at something in a new way, then the next delivery mission you include the newest detector, filter, whatever. If you want a one time rocket to do the same, then you are 5 to 10 years away from having your equipment go up, and if its a russian, ESA or SpaceX rocket, good chance you loose the payload. Only once ever did shuttle lose its payload before it could be launched. Imagine if hubble had been on a SpaceX rocket.

Could've would've should've, but what country has launched another hubble like telescope. NASA is not alone, there's ESA. Our planet hunter telescope lost attitude control (2 of 4) after a couple years of life, another scope lost it helium. If these had be part of an advanced shuttle mission we could have dispatched the shuttle and repaired them and returned. I hear all the arm-chair rocket experts thinking that a deep space robotics program is the equivalent to a near space science and astronomy program. They are not, these are apples and oranges. Yes, the robotics are great, but geeze if we had a manned geological lab on mars just think about what else could be accomplished (and I am not a proponent of a mars mission because of the risk). But in the cases we can utilize manned space flight, definitely we should take advantage of its benefits.

But you open another bag of worms... if DM explains the orbits in this galaxy then its either really big rare stuff, or semiubiquitous. Niether of which are WIMPs. Alternatively its a feild and not a particle for most interactions in which case the standard model is incomplete. but if there are missing fields in the standard model, and I think that its 50:50 then certainly one of these interactions could explain the effect. Its just so much easier to get NASA to build a space worthy drive and throw it up on USAFs Gps launch mission. It ether produces thrust in space that does not saturate due to depletion or local saturation, and you can sleep well at night knowing physics is not broken, otherwise you have a whole new NSF worthy physics to explore.

That's not fair. There are lots of things in which having a brain attached to a pair of hands gives faster innovation. The hubble was the best most advanced and productive science mission ever, so I really don't see a comparator for you to justify your logic. The Hubble would have been dead before it started had it not been jury-rigged during its optics 'upgrade'. The telescope has been upgraded several times and this has given it a much longer life, can you imagine how long it would take to get funding for a new launch of a new telescope for every piddly upgrade. Shuttle program expensive, people died, but it was still worth and it showed a committment to space and science. This contract/soviet minimalist ISS supply and crew rotation is cheepy attitude toward space science. The first thing people will start asking when the Hubbles batteries die is why we could not come up with another repair/upgrade mission. You guys are going to miss it when its gone.

too many distractions in th pm, i play before breakfast afew minutes. i think more about design than actually play the design, once i know a new design works its time to move to the next problem. This months problem is making a pod rover seat combo that allow really cheap repeat landing a science missions. Needs to be able to store science. next phase a more efficient landing engine, since it has a docking port jr I was thinking about addition bottom nodes on either side of the port's node on a specialized fuel tank. I've already built a grand tour ship with Vasmir like engines and a lander. I occasionally was refueled when i missioned to eve or Duna system. Im not into the grandious designs anymore because they are impracticle in hard mode, Hard mode gets you in minimalistic designs, design efficieny and combo designs. the designers delimna is how to make things more efficient with out reaching for a warp engine, a fusion reactor, a nerva with a 2000 Isp, or a LfOx with an Isp > 475. So the other way is too reduce weight with tight designs, less panels, smaller reaction wheels, and no-heavy science. Also small doesn't need man. thrusters (IRL yeah they do, but really small ones will do, haven't built those yet) - - - Updated - - - my new system in bits and pieces including M$10 is on the way, Socket 775 board i am using has a problem communicating with the new networking hardware, can only link now with wifi and this gives A cold boot block on the bios. Thinking about a windows linux dual boot, I wanna do some C programming, getting tired o windows, too Much Gui.

radiate - to convert energy of one form into another, to take vibrational energy in the form of object heat and release in the form of black body radiation as previously described by Max Plank E = hv.

Gluten free no problem, my kerbals don't eat as far as I know, they have chlorophyll in their skin.

Canon like a religion . Oh please no, that is overthinking the game. Kerbals are might little minions, they are not to much in demand since I use MechJeb, They are also my little lab techs, they make science become data and data become science. They also keep my experiments clean. Other than that I stay away from the little buggers, you know a creature that can live for a year in an EVA suit floating around the sun must not care to much about personal hygiene, just an opinion.

CO2 to fuel So before start what is a fuel - classically its something that can burn in an oxidation/reduction reaction. The classic oxidant is oxygen, but it can be NO2, SO3, N205 or any number of compounds that have oxidation states in excess of those in the fuel. In rockets you want oxidants that are dense, but also have a high oxidative capacity to weight ratio, So for insance using S8 or S02 is not particularly wise when one considers that the sulfer has high atomic weight. Likewise the reductant in the reactant, which on earth since O2 is widely available and non-limiting the reductant is considered classically the fuel. H2 has the highest energy to mass ratio, but it is also the hardest to pack and requires another gas to deliver. The next highest is lithium hydride and beryllium hydrides which are very unstable. Then there is Lithium borohydride LiBH4, this is very useful in chemical synthesis, and it is rather unstable around water. Finally there is CH4, CH3OH, CH20, CH3CH2OH, CH2=CH2 (Methane, Methanol, Formaldehyde, and ethanol, acetylene gas), NH3 can also be a fuel and it can be tightly packed as a solid monopropellant as NH3NO3 (classic fertilizer, cause also of the largest non-wartime man-made disaster). The carbon compounds can also be used to make other fuels and to make other components of rockets. For example denatured cellulose is used to make coal, which is used to make carbon steel. The basic problem lies in the fact that we rely very heavily on phototrophs to build these fuels. The reaction, of course requires a source of hydrogen The reaction involves Chlorophyll and Nicotine adenine dinucleotide phosphate (NADP+) 2H20 + 2NADP+ -----> 2NADPH + 2H+ + O2 ATP is also generate and I will basically remove these two from view with the abbreviation AN to signify the simple reductant and energy sources. And thus in this simple step we have part of the fuel, oxygen. The reductant will also work, but it would be very inefficient. We need to take that energy In the calvin cycle, the NADPH and ATP are added to append CO2 to an organic compound (below designated R), but unlike in chemical synthesis the natural cycle is pretty much a stepwise reduction and elongation which can be basically simplified to the understanding (with Calvin of course rolling over in his grave, heh-heh). Each step requires a combination of AN. CO2-R -------------------> HCO-R ---------> H2CO-R --------> H3C-R. [acetate-carboxyl] [glucose aldehyde] [glucose hydroxyl] [fat terminal] Each step adds electrons and protons via AN and specialized enzymes, two of the steps loose oxygen. The more hydrophobic compounds difficult to deal with outside of storage (fat) and cellular structures (cell membranes, aliphatic amino acids), so there is a preference in nature to used oxidized compounds. Note that two of these are components of glucose, in fact glucose is basically composed of 1 aldehyde and 5 hydroxyl groups. The primary end product of photosynthesis. Any compound of N carbons with one aldehyde or ketone and N-1 hydroxyl groups is a sugar. To make oil is very simple take a the first compound, undergo a dehydration reaction with the second compound and you have an ester. If the ester has a long enough fat terminal on either end you have oil. e.g. CH3CH2CH2CO2CH2CH3 Ethyl butryate - A fairly simple and fruity smelling oil that can be used as a condensed fuel. If we take the trios sugar and reduce it one more time we have glycerol. If we dehydrate it with 3 carboxylic acid (acetic acid, butric acid, palmitic acid, steric acid, and/or etc) we get oil and fat that is commonly found in fat cells and can be burned anywhere oil can be burned (Diesel engine for instance). These oils are very energy rich but have a lower density than water or methanol. To describe the basic problem. To make fuel you can either 1. Make lots of solar panels (rare earth dependency) and create hydrogen and oxygen from electrolysis. very material intensive and inefficient. This may change, and electrolysis may become so efficient that other pathways would be useless. But still hydrogen storage is problematic because it requires the reduction of temperature to near absolute 0 and or significant pressurization, and this is also wasteful. 2. Break light prismatically into the photosynthetic spectrum and photosynthetically fix CO2 and use the rest to heat and electrify the operation. If you have a fusion engine you also may have a source of power in which LEDs provide optimal growth for plants. To do this we have to know what we need. CO2 (lots of that in deep space), H20 (also lots of this), and a selection of minerals. If we choose 2 we can devise strategies to compact oxygen (e.g. O8) and increase its storability and so that the storage space issue is effectively dealt with. But trios sugars can be useful in other ways, for example you can make citrate, and it is relatively easy to rip the protons off of citrate and have a compound with 3 or 4 negative charges on it, and because of its mass and charges its relatively easy to control its position in space, so for instance if you want to acceleration something to say 0.1c as a reaction mass. The great thing about citrate is that it has alot of C and O and very little H, so if you have alot of CO2 and only a little water, but alot of hv and a good accelerator, you can toss these little buggers out with 100 times the reaction mass per moleculer (far fewer erosive collisions with your accelerator). You can do something even more clever, you can take heavy metals that might be availabe in some alien soil, and chelate them to citrate or compounds like EDTA and have an excess of positive charge sticking out in space, and in doing so you can increase the reaction mass per particle to say 300, 500 or 1000 daltons. IN doing so you can completely solve the charge imbalance problem that occurs with ION drives (electrons and protons are discharged at different speeds) Instead of having something with all the positional certainty of a bag of gnats, you can pretty much linearly accelerate your mass in a strait line. You could even do one step better than this, you could covelantly link naturally magnetic compounds in a magnetic field and essentially create a molecular rail gun, balancing the charge in reaction masses so that charges do not accumulate. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -- OK so if we choose #2 we simplify have the following 2 Trios sugars + AN ----------> glucose N glucose -----------> celluloselen=n + (N-1) H20 (alternatively glycogen) just about every organism does this, and plants are really good at it, So for instance the tallest natural object in the world is largely composed of cellulose and water. And cellulose stores very nicely, you can dehydrate it (e.g. kiln dried wood), you can emulsify it with oil, you can hydrate it to form fiber. You can place it in a denaturing oven without oxygen and create charcoal, pure cellulose can result in graphene. Denatured cellulose is the primary fuel of the early industrial age, and it is also the primary cause of respiratory death in China (4000 estimated per day). So cellulose is useful, but also problematic. To get around the problem cellulose needs to be converted back to glucose, and this is where the problem for biogenic fuels lie. For example most of the energy in a corn plant is not in the corn, but in the vegetative part of the plant. In fact if a plant wastes alot of energy and water growing seed, it could spend that energy growing more cellulose which ultimately has more energy. Cellulose is useful in nature, because it lifts and separates the soils and provides avenues for growth and hydration, but in space, these are not really necessary or desirous, because denaturation of soil in a closed system creates molds, smells and CO2 (several times more than the CO2 produced by the people that eat the food the plant produces). An example is a compost heap of weight 400 lbs and roughly loose half its weight at the same level of hydration within a couple of weeks. Also once in space and traveling you need the CO2 to make more cellulose, but you do not need C neccesarily to store fuel, since storage can be in H-H form, you can crack hydrocarbons to form hydrogen, releasing CO2 to be used again. But even if this is not desired, you can convert a two carbon sugar to methane, releasing one CO2 and increase the reductant energy per gram and a get one CO2 for recycling. So the basic holy grail of biorenewable fuel industry is efficient cellulose catabolism. Simply - to get bugs to break it to glucose and give it to us before they eat it and make waste heat and more bugs. But heres the catch, the bugs are a means to an end, the bugs produce enzymes, which is really what is wanted. They carry the blueprint and we humans want to do that task and leave the bugs in the compost heap. If you can get to glucose, you can essentially split glucose, remove 2 useless carbon dioxides, and arrive at ethanol, which is storable, not corrosive, and particularly useful on special occasions. The problems is that the bacteria that convert to cellulose to glucose are kind of selfish, they want to use the glucose for themselves after investing the energy (i.e. why cows produce methane). So basically the DOE in the US and other organizations are looking for a magic creature that will take cellulose and for a small price convert it to glucose for us, which we will then send to the fermentor for alcohol production. One of the places they have been looking are in hotsprings and deep ocean vents. The reason for this is that an increasing number of industrially useful enzymes have been engineered from these sources of exotic microbes. Industry likes enzymes that work at high temperature because at lower temperatures enzymes are often slow, don't interact with compounds specifically as we like or because the reaction energy profile can replace the need for AN or other energy with kinetic energy (maybe more sloppy but rate of biological reactions increase 2 fold for each 10'C thats a 100 fold increase in reaction rate. The 1,4 linkage that defines cellulose is for whatever reason particularly stable to enzyme activity, and at high temperatures at least one of the sugars can undergo linearization to form a free aldehyde, and this can lower the stability of the bond, making it easier to break. One clever bug Caldicellulosirupteor bescii may have evolved a Tungsten-hydrolase that uses the element to do this more effectively than all other enzymes, and at high temperature. Many enzymes have metal cofactors, zinc is particularly common cofactor in DNA regulation, molybdemum is found in other cellulases, but typically exotic metals like Tungsten are not used in enzymatic reactions, and the fact this bug seeks it out and incorporates is potentially evidence for it specialization toward high temperature catabolism. Afterall the microbes in a compost heap become more effective at high temperatures and these things can bake very close to the boiling point of water before they start to slow down. http://www.asm.org/index.php/journal-press-releases/93631-unlikely-element-turns-up-in-enzyme-commercial-renewable-fuels-might-ultimately-result So the one thing that humans can do is put this into an a protein that is essentially silenced, express it in a bug, such as e. coli or a cell free expression system, use an enzyme like pepsin or trypsin to cut of the appended ends in the presence of tungsten, then purify the enzyme to crystalline form and walla you have s bug-free cellulose converting concentrate suitable for space travel. By being able to work at elevated temperature means that one does not need to add AN to get the hydrolysis to work, which means you can use waste heat to cocatalyze the reaction and make it fast. Seems far-fetched, actually no, the enzymes you add to your private cesspool or grease trap, crystallized enzymes. Glucose anabolism can be seen as advantageous if we can solve the catabolism problem with cellulose. 1. Storage options - glucose, cellulose (dehydrated), ethanol, ethane, methane, H2 are all potential products derived from photosynthesis. 2. Complexity options - Larger and more controllable reaction masses for ion drives and mass accelerators. 3. Widely available starting materials in deep space - Asteroids and planetoids are loaded with the basic starting materials CO2 and H20. 4. Photosynthetic spectrum - is in the peak range of sunlight, but also can be duplicated with LEDs and small power in basically a water tank with proper nutrients. 5. Storage density, much easier to store oil than hydrogen and other alternative fuels. How useful cellulose might be for interstellar travel, during space flight you are traveling for a very long period to your destination, once you arrive there you need to grow and expand into a space colony which then eventually terraforms a planets and then colonizes the planet. But once the ship gets there it is essentially drained of reaction mass. But with cellulose you can essentially solve the problem without initially creating more space ship. Cellulose can be made into long molecules, 100s of feet long, and linked to each other to create large self-reinforced structures that are compatible with space, bundled in smaller and larger units until you essentially have a log tied to the vessel but essentially floating in space. No need to store them on board, cellulose is not volatile and it is solid, to argue that you need to tie it to the ship with something, well rope is also cellulose. When you need to slow down, bring a structure on board, convert it to alcohol. And use if for whatever. So for instance CO2 is abundant in the outer stellar system, but not wear you need it, with PV usable light. So basically build cellulose storage units and use the nuclear engine and reaction mass to get to the interior system build a new station (carbon fiber would be a good choice, with an aluminum coating on the surface). You could even use cellulose to coat the ship to control temperature (insulative properties of cellulose, one of the oldest insulators) and resist the effects of radiation (lead embedded cellulose) and deal with some of the cosmic radiation and high velocity bolloids by providing a means of embedding other solids into a matrix. Then return to interstellar ship to the outer system to collect more raw materials.

THe IR isnt useful because E = hv. The gamma range has a background radiation the isnt derived from the sun, things like radon, potassium, iodine, etc give off a few hundred CPM, although these hv are relatively powerful you would have to many many times more to amount to anything, which lucky for us they dont. the actual dpm per cubi meter is much higher, you would have to go to considerable more effort to capture it. unlike the sun gamma comes from local matter so that the collector has to placed in the ground close to the highest source. What we do is take the most active earth, separate the most radioactive elements, purify them and place them in pellets and let the fission process create heat, causing steam to boil. A photomultiplier tube is a device used to detect by amplifying an initial electric signal created by gamma rays. These are used in gieger counters and gamma counters.

. That is pretty much th jist, The economic multiplyer effect with a completely funded US program is un questionable, Russia is cheaper but also less reliable and a crew accident will happen sooner or later and then we will be asking why we used their system. Shuttle was shut prematurely, we cant even upgrade or repair hubble anymore. At least we should have had an operational system running. Dont think its going to get better, the conservs are out for blood, things have not been going their way lately and they want to prove they not just cheep talk.

. But that statement to another scientist makes no sense. In the scientifc world the most alien things to human on earth either gave rise to the cell or their mitochondria. Other archea or certain types of soil bacteria are far more dissimilar to humans than a cephalopod. This would be like me concluding that a chimp is a alien ape because of the anomolous evolution of its Y chromosome. When we say ape, quintessentially we think chimp or gorilla to a lessor degree orangutan, then gibbons, thus that logic means nothing. The other logic would be as an outsider, but octopus live in all oceans and preceed humans by millions of years so ..... There is only on sense that is left, they are not the product of abiogenesis.

Well, if you think mainstream science is weird, try filtering it through Reddit and you get "Octopuses May Be Aliens, Scientist Claim" But of course with all the stress and bickering over quantum and relativistic physics, space-time, dark whatevers, and quantum entanglement, we do need a bit of comic relief This little bit of humor comes from http://yournewswire.com/octopuses-may-be-space-aliens-scientists-claim/ It was as if the octopus genome had been “put into a blender and mixedâ€Â, said co-author Caroline Albertin, also from the University of Chicago. A bigger question is do reporters need a license to practice, hmmmm I guess that would violate free speech.