PB666

And then you better bring alot of solar, maximum power production at high latitudes is on the order or 150 w/m2. To make methane from CO2 and water requires a nickle catalyst and a temperature of 1000'C

What is the power supply to do this?

I think that you should consider what space X says its going to do for getting to Mars and back are only placeholder recipes. IOW they are grossly stating what they know they have to do to get there and back and are adding plausible details that in actuality will be settled on later. CO2 + 4H2 → CH4 + 2H2O is the process. The component CO2 is available in the atmosphere of Mars is 600 pascals with a composition of 98.7% CO2. Its hard to translate this into earths atmosphere but if we use 44.64 moles per cubic meter. And CO2 is 44 moles per cubic meter then a cubic meter of Martian atmosphere would weigh 1.914 kilograms. However since the Martian atmosphere is much thinner 600/101,300 then they would be ~ 11.33 grams per cubic meter. Note that it is the oxygen that drives chemical energy from rockets, so that the oxygen derived from CO2 that is more important than the Methane, I am not sure how rich Methane/O2 rockets are Kerosine runs rich and Hydrolox rockets a bit leaner, so that there is probably not a full burn to CO2 maybe half CO and CO2 in the output. The reason I say this is that to make methane on Mars will require water. 4H20 ---- >1.3V -----> 2H2 + O2 Chemical Electrolysis. This is a terribly energy inefficient reaction and is very slow. Here are the production methods for hydrogen [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen#Production]. For each CO2 you turn to methane you will need 2H20 to be converted to Oxygen and hydrogen . . .you will need to store the oxygen as well as the methane, there is no condition on Mars were liquid oxygen and methane are stable as liquids so they will have to be cooled and pressurized. The question of feasibility of Methane production is a choice with no alternatives, if they want to be able to return from Mars without have a devoted station in LMO, then they have to produce fuel on Mars. That does not mean that they can produce enough fuel to get back to Earth, but assuming that they bring or deposite enough equipment on Mars then it is plausible, if and only if they can find a source of water, there are low spots on Mars that would make getting the CO2 rather easy, up to 2 kPa of CO2, but getting the water would not be east at all.

Is that so implausible?

Is that a half dollar sized thruster at the center. geeze.

That really depends on the type of engine. If you are talking about a cryogenic engine you can have an expansion cycle, and apparently they have a theoretical limit of 300 kn (which is why the RL10b has such dismal performance but fantastic efficiencies. The fuels (and in space the differential between ATM pressure and vacuum) drives fuel flow, but pressurized fuels drive very high thrust, and pressurization feeds on ISP. However, the thing about electric is that it does not tax your thrust and thus does not tax your ISP. So if we can imagine a space craft on a higher launch trajectory (having separated its first stage), if it needs the solar panels of the second stage for some other function, it can drop them close to 160km in altitude and then use them to power the turbopumps giving more thrust to the engines. Theoretically this should not harm ISP and theoretically you could have a gate in which the pumps function is additive to the expansion cycle at some point, therefore not hurting ISP. Theoretically also, since zero energy is being absorbed by the nozzle into the fuel allowing the greatest expansion in the combustion chamber you could get a few more ISP . . .approaching that 500 limit. You could push an RL10 like engine into the 400-500 kN range. The problem is that with increased thrust there is increased structural requirements of the solar panel. There are applications in which having high storage density Li+ batteries would be useful (particularly in Solar prograde bound LEO exiting space craft that are ION driven). And you could take an engine that was producing 110kn of thrust and tweek it to say 190 kn of thrust and that would probably serve most functions. You probably could not, or would not use an electric motor to drive RS25 or RS68A because these really require too much power, but you might be able to afford the same thrust with smaller and simpler engines and more of them. SpaceX and Electron are not really competing in the same market, in fact electron might make a keen purchase opportunity for Space X. With FH, space X is pushing in the direction of heavier payloads . . . .Which I have to reminde everyone those payloads will come if SX can drive the cost down, and the F9 market will eventually shrink and become more competitive with or without the Electron. SX needs to quickly move into markets which there competitors cannot service.

When you define the probability of something that could occur in a periodic manner you need to define some sort of wave-function that defines the likelihood that a certain event is going to happen at a certain position vector. The inability to control the vehicle after it reaches it burn to orbit point is indeed a red flag, but SpaceX has said nothing in that regard, and indeed it does seem to be able to control its function under a variety of other circumstances. We also have to realize that the satellite is very heavy relative to the second stage after, if the second stage unknowingly burned the PL back into the atmosphere then it might have reentered anywhere (say over the western pacific and landing on California. This is not what appears to have happened, all signs indicate that the F92S burnt up in the S. Indian Ocean and burnt up where it was supposed to have burnt up. So what is the exact evidence that the PL was still attached to the F92S when it finally burn't in. The possibility that the 'Source' gives is just as likely or less likely as the PL was released after finishing its transfer burn to 900 km, then a period of zero probability as S2 burns to orbit, and resumption of probability, as with the likelihood of all points in between that point and the final burn-back to deorbit. IOW the probability functions extends from about 1000 kn east of CC around the Earth once and up to Sudan with a small gap that includes the circularization burn and a small part of the burn-back burn. So that we are once again left with an untenable conclusion, despite a source saying its tenable. . . . . Space X, which is control of the orbiter knows whether its mission succeeded or not, even though the Space X has no knowledge of the fate of Zuma, and the Fed says that only SpaceX knows whether they completed the mission successfully, and yet a source is saying that Zuma was ditched with the orbiter, and SpaceX had no control over the orbiters fate after circularization. So spaceX has knowledge of what its orbiter did but no knowledge over whether the mission failed. I can just see this, two men in deep black suits with dark sunglasses, and a card board box placing the box over SpaceXs computer screen as the guidance displays the inertial readings from S2 as it burned back to prevent some SpaceX FC officers from seeing those values. Or how about standing outside and shutting off power to the building. Whoopsie. ROFL. Has anyone ever watched Get Smart? I expect now that tomorrow someone will leak that during the burn back that the data feed from the orbiter to SpaceX was shut-off or diverted to NASA. Dah-ta-da dah', Dah-ta-da dawh'. Da ta da, de da ta . .[i.e phoney spy saga music] . . The thing about clandestine operations, they always work better when all potential sources of information about those operation actually keep their mouths shut.[an uncleverly disguised hint]

What I find incredible about the statement is not this but the way the story developed. First . . . . fluff comes in . . . . . Second . . . . .there is a ton of mental gymnastics that goes on here by our members over the fluff, we performed exactly as desired by the fluff creators. Third . . . .the facts then get hashed out . . . .Lets do this QM style the observables. There is an observed particle roughly over Sudan, roughly an orbit and a third time period after lift-off with (IOW we have measurements but we lack certain qualities like angular velocity, r-proper, radial velocity) Forth . . . .an attempt was made to estimate the last known state . . . .it is then openly stated here that the stability of the orbit could not be predicted unless the altitude and radial velocity was known before any deorbit manuevers. Fifth .. . . .it is stated that if the failure was as the media stated and that if SpaceX performed its task then only one option as viable, that space X deorbited the satellite (I believe I stated that first, and what I meant was that all other possibilities would have been subterfuge and SpaceX would have been oblivious of Zuma mission performance). The intent was there is a remaining lie to dispatch, and that all other lies and forms of subterfuge had been logically dispatched. (the remaining possibility was that there was a vehicle in an unstable orbit which was plausible but difficult to design based on where the vehicle was launched from and later spotted) Sixth . . . .information then declares or interprets that the orbit was 900 km above the earth at what would either be its minimum or it near its point of circularization, a point in which it was going to deorbit from (so it it was the maximum it would have been silly to deorbit from that point), but anyway . . . Leaving only one unlikely possibility the PL, if lost to atmosphere, had to be deorbited with the second stage. Seven . . .We have " but sources have told Ars that, after the launch, the Zuma payload never successfully separated from the rocket. Instead, it remained partially or completely attached to the second stage and re-entered Earth's atmosphere after 1.5 orbits." Uh, ok, gotcha, bud, you read KSP. So basically someone found out that the fluff was a logical trap, and had to leak out the one remaining viable possibility after the rest of the world (<-me, not a rocket scientist) had already figured out what that possibility was. Imagine us hearing a feast inside a house, we whimper, no response, we cry and scratch at the door [scratch, scratch, large annoying scratch] . . . . a bowl of food appears . . .and we become quite satisfied with what we have been fed . . .but its still dog-food. That is why I laughed.

I meant more dV for the F9 (first stage).

The orbit was X x 900 which 900 appears to be the Pe, it was not going to decay soon.

Does this mean that we are headed for a block 6 F9 with even more thrust and dV, hmmm, so space X knowingly ditched their satellite? lol. . . . . . . . .lol .. .. . .....rofl.

You know how things get hyped up by universities, and the perverted by wannabe YouTube stars. Don't over think it, imagine that if we had the electric field over a matrix of lined positively charged given by the number of electrons. And so we say the field exhibits near stability under a specific set of conditions (which we call Q'/A) if we relate the removal of an electron from the field then new field Q" /A > Q'/A even if Q /A (a neutral version of the same field) > Q'/A (the observed field). The reason one might do this is because charges can be shielded or have the lowest energy state despite having a potential. For example the lowest energy state of helium is the 1s orbital, even though the lowest potential energy of the system* places the electron in the nucleus (in the Bohr model this never happens, in the QED model it very infrequently happens). *before any one jumps all over this . . .one plausibe system . . not the most probable system.

The earth is 6371000 meters in radius. Oceans cover 70% and therefore the surface area covered by oceans are 2.8 * π * radius2. If we assume that the oceans depth is proportional to radius and sort of the average depth is around 3 kilometers on Earth you would need then say 3000 Rmars/6371000 * 2.8 * pi * Rmars2 = 0.0013 x pi Rmars3 R = 3,389,500 meters therefore you would need 1.6 x 10-17 cubic meters of Sea Water (multiple by 1100 to get kilograms). You could probably get away with less but it would be less substantive as a climate buffer. How big would a sphere have to be to contain that amount of water. That is 336.7 km in diameter. So [drum role] assuming Ceres was 40% water by content, if your moved Ceres into Mars orbit, slowed it down considerably, it would have enough water and latent gravitational energy to Wet mars up. The caveot that CO2 all over Mars would sublimate as well as the ammonia and other gases from Ceres, you would have a very toxic atmosphere to deal with. Terraforming would come to mind Also NASA's PPO, your picture would be on the wall as public enemy number 1.

Its not an efficient way to get water to mars, comet redirect would be better. But the point is that if people mindlessly throw themselves at mars, there will eventually be pockets of water underground (highly contaminated but we can deal with that in the Soilent green process) and walla . . . .water. Cometary water is not clean either, its got a number of contaminants that need to be cleaned up.

If enough people buy tickets there will be alot of water on mars, gathered in 2 x 1 x 1 meter rectangular spaces. What was the name of that movie, Soilent green . . . .

BC is between them, Cameroon county and the State of Texas. 12 miles out is US jurisdiction out to 200. Thus mostly internal affairs, legal beagles, the shipping lanes and laws that pertain to international shipping.

Its still Sunday much of the ground operations and Admin aren't working anyway. The problem is for any operation at Kennedy is the sites range officer. So then it can trickle down to SpaceX Yeah if you happen to reach your 70th this week good luck collecting that first social security check in a few weeks.

The excitonium-state lags in its return to the lowest ground state, at least until the entire system tolerates it. Its not really about charges after the electron is returned its about ground state seaking. In protein folding this is nothing new, some proteins take hours to find their ground states, the more complex or interconnected the overall structure, the longer it can take to reach that ground state, and when temperatures are 27 K you don't have the kinetic energy in the structure to push it over any thermodynamic humps. One thing that the article did not disclose is how long did the structure need to sit at that temperature or gradual lowering of temperature (remember entropy cannot be assessed in a state of disequilibrium) In some chemistry that translates into very slow lowering of thermal energy to shake things down to the minimal ground state for that temperature.

I mostly agree, you would not use Lagrange points unless you had no alternative, the problem with Lagrange points is that to use them you essentially waste all the KE of LEO. The hamiltonian is KE-GPE. once KE-GPE = 0 for all intents in purposes past escape dV from LEO you pay one dV and get 4 dV back. So if you need 2500 dV to get to mars from L2 you need 500 dV to get to Mars from an escape orbit at LEO. But I should point out that there will be circumstances were you have to do it. This is the point I was making about function I was making regarding the shuttle that many missed. You don't have to man every facility in space, even if it is a manned facility. Transferring men to these places is the easy part (even SLS can do it, ROFL), when you need men on that station, the important part is to have enough stations such that STS-like systems are obsolete. Once you have the stations in stable orbit, lets say 5 to 7 covers all possibilities, the you can have robots on the stations and occasionally man them, and use any rated launch system. The problem is that the detractors of STS fail to realize, we don't have any facilities and we neither have STS and that is a loss of function. Even if you have 1 such system, you can leverage it to build 2 then 4 then 8. If the stations are ION powered you simply load them up with ARgon (for robotic stations magnesium will do) and send them to the desired elliptical. In addition you can send such a station to Mars and put it into orbit (number 8). It could serve two functions, one receiving crews from mars and then sending them back to Earth, the other repairing ships in transit. We might even have science satellites in martian orbits that occasionally need repairing. Here is an example, you have just collected rocks on Mars, you want to take the back to Earth Kelon Kusk has just donated the Mars hopper (a variant of the BFR) that gets us from mars directly back to Earth. NASAs planetary protection officer (a robust matronly woman wearing combat boots) who says, NO WAY YOUNG MAN, you are not bringing those muddy mars rocks into this house. But then research group X says BUT PPO WE NEED TO STUDY THEM. Here is where compromises come into play, so lets say we do have a base on the moon that has a safe room. Can we then transfer the rocks to the moon, so now we are not talking about breaking in the Earths atmosphere and all the risk that entails, we are talking about a few dV lost. So basically any ship that gets into LMO satisfies the criteria, and any ship traveling between the Mars and Earth satisfies the safety criteria, and any ship that can land on the moon satisfies the criteria (not necessarily manned). There is almost no difference in transporting to L2 or the moon a position above the moon, the dV differences relative to the dV to get from LMO to those orbits are small.

2

Consider a hole to be a type of information, in this way it can be equated with other forms of matter and energy.

Yeah thats right we didn't count the engines on OCISLU either.

But the gods of counting engines and motors care.

Yep " The Roadster is powered by a 3-phase, 4-pole, induction electric motor with a maximum output power of 185 kW (248 hp).[102] " Hey, but we still have the motors for the power windows. Also we can include the motors for the grid fins . . . .there are twelve of them (or 6)

Oh yes, and so we can throw in a variable definition of an engine. " An engine or motor is a machine designed to convert one form of energy into mechanical energy." with modern usages as you stated that apply. I bet the tesla had electric windows . . . . .