PB666

hold 4, LC not ready not sure what it meant

Im adding the complications on the front side, I gsve a volume under several circumstances. Sure one could create a balloon out of lead despite th fact it would never work.

Again I would point out that the structure is context dependent. The atmosphere of Venus at atmospheric pressure is : 50000 75c 1.066bar (107985 Pa) 55000 27c 0.5314bar 75'C is (273+75)k = 348K CO2 is 44 and N2/O2 is 29.3 so the advantage is not as great as you think the gas density at 50000 is only 26% (1.45 kg/m3) higher than earth, thus instead of needed a tensor volume of 60 cubic meters to support 100 kg. The problem with this it the current types of materials one might use are not stable to the heat and/or the temperature. At 55000 feet the temperature is more agreeable but you would need to create a tension barrier on 110 cubic meters. Again I believe that a situation where standing outside temperature is untenable, since the energy gain, would be less over the volume when weight of the cooling sytem is factored in. For all intents an purposes nuclear is a non-starter because you are trying to dissipate heat in a high heat environment, so that the only source of power is solar. Solar may be a non-starter because of the vulnerability of solar to sulferic acid. At 55000 meters the survival metric is higher but the volume is also greater. So lets say you have a perfect sphere of volume 110 made of carbon fiber of d=1.4 1400kg/m3. r = 2.97 meters. surface area is 35.3 meters. Again we are conceiving that the volume is a vacuum, to use hydrogen add another meter and for helium add another couple of meters. Lets say the barrier was 0.010 mm thick, then the mass would be 1400 kg * 35.3 * 0.01 = 494.2 kg. So basically at this mass the thickness would have to be less than 2 mm in thickness. Again this is credible, So lets then argue our payload is 50 kg, that means the thickness would be 1mm in thickness. There is some improvement if you decide to go to say 1000kg, the surface area to volume goes down but the stress on the binding points go up. The next problem is that you have create a lighter than air ship, you are at the bottom facing Venus and the ship is above you reflecting both sunlight (which you need) and heat back at you which your don't. This both makes nuclear a non-starter and solar difficult. We could talk about experiences with H2SO4 but the only know substance that I have worked with in the laboratory that is stable to the substance is certain types of glass. While the vapor pressure of H2S04 is low, the problem is that H2S04 has the lowest pKa of any acid for its first proton and secondarily H2S04 is an oxidant and at that pH is a very strong oxidant and exposure to sunlight and UV would only increase its oxidation potential. CO2 is the most oxidized state of carbon and although it can form carbonic gas transiently in strong acid its not likely to buffer its effects. When we talk about the stability of metals, i don't believe there is one that is stable over time, carbon is best described as a semimetal it can take on the role as an oxidant and reductant. However in a highly acidic environment it more than likely adopt a role as a reductant, it will want to deliver electrons to sulfuric acid. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aromatic_sulfonation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitration. And you can surmise its effects on Carbon fiber.

But there is nonetheless a missing component to the system. In order to be lighter than air there has to be a set of tensors that bound the object being evaluated. If you wanted something, like a drop of water to be lighter than air, you can compress the air, but you are also compressing the water. Likewise if you want to take air and make it lighter than air by compressing the air outside, you have to resist the effect of that air on the air. So its more important to define the context than to define the context in which that comparison metric is true. Tungsten hexaflouride could be used to displace an airship, but only if the parameters of the airship are defined. Therefore if I had 100kg and atmosphere is 22.4 liters per mole of N2/O2 which we can basically has a molecular weight 29.2 grams (=0.0292 kg) per mole, the you need not fancy scenarios. Since the mass of gas per liter is 1.3 grams/liter since there is 1000 liters in a M3 and 1000 grams in a kg that converts to 1.3 kg per meter. We can also look at this from pressure. PV = nRT R = 8.3144598 V = Meter cubed = 1 P = 101300 Pa n = number of moles T = 293 101300 = 293 * 8.314 * n n = 41.3 41.3 moles x 0.0292 kg/mole = 1.214 kg per meter cubed. Thus without any stipulation of gravity, escape velocity . . . . . . . we have any ship that has a volume 82.34 cubic meters and a mass of 100 kg can float in Earths lower atmosphere. Its not the density of material comprising the ship that matters per say but the ability of that material to resist the (tension) on its exterior surface. If you took the ship to the top of mount Everest it would have to increase its volume by (101,300/38,210). The postulate is easier if you are using a material whose innate properties are relatively bouyant. For example a very light payload helium balloon in a completely elastic container will continue to rise as long as the the molar ratio of hydrogen to N2/O2 11.6:1, however even in this situation the physical constraints on the system (the more elastic a material the more it weighs, the less elastic the more its likely to break under its own pressure). So in both situations the ability to resist a force, either exterior or interior is missing from the original argument.

It makes a number of assumptions that can be falsified. First that, the ball and the planet are inelastic, which is almost never true. I would not say indefinitely but indefinably, simply because the elasticity of neither is specified. Also this is a two-body problem, which does not really exist. If we can imagine the earth and the moon as a two body problem, both have some elasticity, and thus the Earth's rotation slows, the moons increases, and some of that energy becomes a magnetic field. In the above situation if the tube in which the ball fell was elastic, the ball would impart some of its energy on the tube (causing heat) and it would loose some of its energy, the problem is that there is no form of matter that is completely inelastic. Everything compresses if sufficient force is applied. If a third body is placed in the system in which an object is not rotating but orbits about a star or a moon orbits about a planet, the ball would not continue to fall strait, it would eventually conduct heat to the ball in the form of friction, over time the amount of collisions would increase. A third instance is that the planet is orbiting is parent galaxy, although this is more of a hairy problem since in a galaxy the forces are spread out in many directions and one of the tensors is dark matter (an is, except for the vector product, intangible). As a consequence a non-rotating objects orientation relative to galactic basis is changing over geological time scales. The forth problem is gravitational waves, since two objects oscillating with respect to each other are expected to create gravitational waves at very small levels, since wave production is energy, this is loss of energy to the system. The falling object is transferring through more u/r than a satellite leaving earth orbit as it falls, this is very tiny amount of energy loss since most i trapped within the system but if the system is observed from the outside then this is not true. So the problems apriori's are insufficient. For example, if this is the only two objects in the visible universe (which is counter to the definition of the universe because we must see it to be visible), and its light is what we observe by (including falling objects on kinetically inactive spheres), and those two objects are at 0'K (non-elastic), which by definition we cannot observe them except through gravitational observations and Heisenberg uncertainty applies. You cannot observe a system even with gravitational waves, without affecting the system. So if your system is perfectly conservative you cannot observe it, and if you observe it, then it cannot be indefinite.

Seriously. Think major compression tension coming from all directions, in the matrix of the iron core you would not be moving, except inward under a massive crushing force. The pressure on the last cubic material of core at the center of the Earth is 44,145,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 P. The compressibility of water 5.1×10−10 Pa−1 which will decrease in a temperature dependent manner. You ----Core----> Soup + carboard like boney material - crushed within moments, pressure cooked within minutes, displaced within hours or days, out of the core within billions of years. I would say that within an hour nothing of you would be recognized down to the DNA level, there would be nothing about that mass that could identify you except your initial mass and the amount of bone-mass that you had. You would hear your body being disintegrated.

Technically you could retain the hydrogen with a double walled tank in which the second wall is used to recapture hydrogen. You would have to carry helium along as a refrigerant to and a sizable heat exchanger to drop heat from compressed helium into space, solar panels to drive the compressor. It all gets kind of iffy with current solar panels beyond the asteroid belt due to the lack of power. The hypothesis here arrives at the problem is that more refined the thrust generation the lower the power, bomby like things such as SFRBs are great at producing power but have lackluster ISP. Photon drives which have pentultimate ISP have almost no thrust, and ION drives that are intermediate have minimal thrust. The problem NTR is to leave orbit it needs help, the engine is not the best at shutting down. On and ION drive I can reduce off power heat simply by tilting solar panels. The second problem is the place you want to use it the most, that critical last pass of LEO as it heads into deep space, politically is not agreeable. X -ION drive, cannae, photon . . . .very low trust high efficiency engines . . . .Need alot of electric power . . . . . power supply not available (solar bulky/heavy and limited by sun, fission inefficient limited by heat). Y- NTR drive . . . .heavy. . . . .low thrust . . . . .moderately efficient . . . . . . . . Need alot of bulky hydrogen, may have heat problems when attenunated. Z -Hydrolox drive . . . . light weight . . . moderate/low thrust . . . . . inadequate deep space efficiency . . . . Need alot of bulky hydrogen.

It did not start in reality. Or lets put it like this . . . .how could something else destroy earth. Thats easy: Alpha centauri prime at closest approach goes super nova. a black neutron star passes by planet 9 and throws its orbit into earth. a black hole passes through our solar system barely missing the sun and orphaning all of the planets. a black hole or dark neutron star passes close to earth and tosses it from our solar system. The earth passes so close to a black hole part of it is spagettified. The earth collides with a black holes and it ceases to exist. The cosmological constant suddenly increases by a factor of 10 and begins spreads through non-vacuum space gravitational constant drops by a factor of 10. A set of scientist in a far off galaxy 10 million years ago unable to detect quantum gravity, and frustrated by the fact that entropy and time is rooted in a particle that they cannot observe, realize that the only solution might be in the scalar. The idea was to impart so much energy on two protons that they would form virtual black holes that would collide and demonstrate a super massive quantum gravity particle. The experiment went according to plan until the potent singularities (moving so close to the speed of light that space-time curvature was infinitely abrupt) and virtually reached a single quantum foam element within a measure of quantum time statistically sufficient that both singularities merged but the black holes ceased to exist the quantum space-time element. Energy density went to infinity momentarily causing an inflationary cycle creating a mini-universe (just as ours was created), dark energy from our universe poured into that universe during the inflation and began sucking energy from our universe. We had all of 10-30 of a second to realize that our universe was caused by careless scientist in a previous universe that were trying to prevent the heat death of their universe by studying quantum gravity, a cycle that has repeated is self an infinite number of times, each time its denizens not realizing that is their vanity encoded in their survival instinct that would ultimately cause the demise of all sentients. The Vogons being tipped by the galactic hyperspace council decide to put a hyperspace bypass through the Earth, so they blink it.

I don't know if it interesting. It does seem to me that he sets his goals low . . . . like wow if it gets off the launch pad without damaging it, that's a win (really). I would think that if there was significant risk of damaging the launch pad that they would not attempt to launch. Mach shock on the boosters Lower static atmospheric pressure (accelerate slower between 250 and 280 m/s) Increase Sears-Haack shape of the booster nose cone Decrease rate of turn before max Q.

You cannot kill everything on the surface that easily. . . . . . .its difficult to make something foolproof because fools are damn clever . . . .some of those bugs would thrive on your radiation. You can make the earth inhabitable to certain species. . . .but wait. . aren't we already doing that.

So far as yet we cannot destroy our own planet, if we were to vanish tomorrow, the planet would respond, it would remediate and we would be back to having 100ky ice ages interrupted by 15 ky climate optimums. Lystrosaurus was the most popular therapsid after the Permian-triassic extinction event represent 95% of the terrestrial fossils, within 5 million years it was gone. Past success is not an indication of futrure performance. The essential problem with being king of the mountain is that you are necessarily set for a fall, its not possible to move any direction but fall. ON the micro scale just about every empire that has ever risen has fallen, just the name empire appears to be a curse, but its not the style of the politics, its simply the arrogance of success and getting set in ways that are inflexible. Lystrosaurus.

This is not easy but can be done. Probably the easiest way to go about destroying earth is to collect massive objects in the Kuiper belt, slow down their prograde motion and it if properly targeted to cross the ellipitcal of Earth and both intersect at the same time . . you would of course with several 100 kilometers of mass destroy all life on the surface, but the radial velocity would suffice to cause the earth to alter course. If the impact occurred when earth radial velocity was the smallest you could cause earth to essentially cross close to Venus during the southern summer and basically sub equatorial rainforest would be toast anyway. Antarctica would melt.

They are tracking it in the same way we track theirs and Chinese satellites, probably lower tech, but still.

Oh, well that is a simple-minded approach, but you can also increase the wavelength and intensity of or vary the length of waves sent back and forth to the earth to look for things that cannot be seen. We don't really care about Russians missile program, because they have alot, they are a known, whose current nuclear and missile program do we really care about, and where is it likely to be. BTW just putting a highly super-secret payload into space at between 40-50 inclination that appears to have drawn out fluff from the media is enough in and of it self to get the intelligence agencies of some countries to send an advisory to their leader to move with caution. The uncertainty of what it is creates risk for a variety of governments around the world. Which means that it is trackable by the Russians, which means its not a secret as you think it is.

Or to state better. What is the evidence that it has failed. Remember satellites sometimes fail to communicate on a first pass, but manage to communicated on later passes. Someone might have leaked a tenative finding, or just thrown out fluff to confound the media.

Because its intent is to spy or potentially defend against someone who does not think we can spy or defend against them. It could be a continuations of Reagan's star wars program.

I'm tempted to give advice on how to improve performance, the problem is that just about any redox reaction is too dangerous to play around with. high energy redox reaction don't proceed like other chemical reactions as they generate heat and also free radicals that can greatly accelerate the rate of reactions, they go critical. If you are creating an SFRB you need to remember that confinement is your primary problem, and the fuel needs to be in a matrix in which your can control mass flow and acceleration. The second is your primary concern in the testing side, so you don't even need to launch, you can have a rocket in a jig with a spring type scale attached to measure the force production over time. You don't have to go solid, you could use two liquids, such as hydrogen peroxide and hydrazine. H202 is problematic in that in storage and preignition flow it needs to be kept stable. Typically H202 is shipped at 68% relative to water or less, which would lower the ISP, but also lower nozzle temperature and increase the overall work efficiency of the blast. If it is kept cool and hydrated you can consider it to be stable. 68% H202 is hard to get outside of an industrial or research setting. Hydrazine is also unstable in the anyhydrous form, so you also want to keep this in a stabilizing solution, although it does not need to be water, water makes mixing with H202 somewhat more convenient since it is like water and in water. And if you get this proper, igniting this without blowing yourself to high heaven is the issue. SO I want to tell you a story. Once upon a time, in my old lab I had a researcher that claimed that the b-mercapto ethanol we was using was bad. So I took 10 ul of BME and 10 ul of a 30% solution of H202 and placed it in 1 ml of water. So both oxidizer and fuel are at a 1:50 ratio of what an actual mixture in a rocket would be. After about 20 seconds he began repeating, "look its bad, see bad" at about 45 second it blew then entire contents of the liquid out of the test tube without leaving a trace of liquid. BME is not an ideal fuel and having a 50:1 ratio of deadwood did not stop the reaction, its only SLOWED it down. That demonstrates the potency of liquid redox reactions. Vinegar and Baking soda is an acid base reaction, its not a redox, when you think about reactions think acid base is to redox what redox is to nuclear, its intermediate in magnitude between those two. Since obviously you cannot reach above 10km altitude you could, with modern lithium batteries use a series of fans just like on a gyrocopter to compress air, compressed air at very high levels is extremely explosive (you could theoretically ignite air, and that is the big risk of decapping pressurized Oxygen, but you would not be reaching those pressure). This is essentially a turbo jet but without the turbine. This is very old hat, Rudolf Diesel demonstrated this at the Chicago's worlds fair by compressing cotton in a glass tube and a plunger, causing the cotton to explode. Cotton is essentially a chain of sugar, therefore any starch or sugar water solution would suffice. The good thing about this system is that oxygen flow is powered, meaning that if the sensor wire is rapped around the pre-expansion chamber, a failure in preignition dislodges a solenoid and stops airflow the wires and terminated the reaction (to STP levels), all you have to do to lower risk is have good fuel containment. But what is the best fuel . . . .ethanol would be a suitably good liquid fuel for burning in a pressurized air system. On a compressed air system you want a closable aperture at the head of the rocket that controls air flow, this also would improve aerodynamics. You can potentially make the system safer by lowering the percentage of ethanol in water to 60% and use a tiny amount of something that autoignites well in pressurized oxygen to initiate the preignition. Something like HPLC tubing feeding the highest heat point of the compressed air. So the risk of methanol and ethanol can be stated as such . . . .more dangerous than gasoline . . . . .gasoline has chemical impurities (benzene, toluenes, meta-xylenes) that are harder to burn and produce less heat than ethanol. Methanol can be easily stored in a relatively explosion resistant chambers but I have seen the following even occur twice, one resulting in injuries. The most dangerous situation for contained methanol or ethanol is not a full canister, its a canister that is almost empty, that gas air mixture flows out heavy (in the case of ethanol) and runs along a surface until it finds a flame, the flame travels into the cansister and where the container ignites and becomes its own rocket (much better than your 10 meter rocket). So you definitely don't want oxygen or air to be used to pressurize the methanol tank. However you could use a chemical resistant baffle that is spring tensioned to provide pressure. Methanol has the same molar mass as O2 so that it will flow out and mix with air more readily. Methane of course, I have seen two houses that were converted to match-sticks because of methane. If you can get it, methanol may be the best choice. Of course if your batteries are powerful enough you don't need methanol, just compress the air at very high pressure, and at its highest pressure heat it another 1000 degrees. Another way to do this is to preignite a very fuel rich mixture around the oxygen tube and spray that into a reaction chamber for ignition. There are lots of ways to make a rocket, very few of them are safe, so its better to start very small and test your way toward better designs. You don't need to be in restricted airspace to test the designs.

It was less than that or they would not have been spotted close to Khourtum. Try 40N 127E. Remember that from a satellites point of view the best orbit is one that flattens out on the Z axis over its target.

If you are at the center of the planet, compress you to a density of about 2, without much excitement, since the metal at the temperature and pressure would act like peanut butter being squeeze through a 30 guage needle and over the next few billion years your remains will slowly drift to the outer core. Since there is no net gravity at the center there is no differential gravity, but there is a slight favoritism of heavy metals (uranium, gold, lead, but in particular siderophilic heavy metals) and you are not one of these so your bulk would thermodynamically want to exclude from the center over time. You should consider this however, the energy potential is -u/r, current you are at 6391 km (r) if you were at the center 4E14 kg m3/s2/0 is infinity. But we know that the barrier stops a few centimeters before when E is somewhere close to the speed of light squared (as anything inside that volume would be a black hole, the earth is not a point mass anyway). Your density, fully compressed is 2 and the stuff at the center of the Earth is 6~8, and although the full potential energy is not achieve because the earth is not a point mass, your ability to move your bodies volume of material from the center of the earth is limited. Imagine that your weight is say 50 kg, you would have to move net of 150 kg of metal from the center of the Earth to the surface, so lets say the average gravity peaks at 3 million radius and goes down. In order to move that 150kg would require theoretically about 7 times as much specific energy as to launch into a circum solar orbit. This does not even consider the cost of excavating dirt stabilizing the walls of the tube. IOW, it would take more specific energy to just displace your weight to earths center than has ever been generated for any solid object (not counting the core of 2H-3H devices) by human.

Well looks like I am going to have to do a full update of Ubuntu. My days of being a sysadmin are long over, and good riddance. All I have to do is keep my wife off the click bait.

Its in orbit and the government doesn't want you to know its in orbit. The more confusion there is about its orbital status, the happier they are.

Gravity in newtonian terms is an acceleration vector and can be dissociated into component vectors. It is caused by the warping of space time, the warping of space time is near its highest at the CoM. The vectors are pointing in opposing direction if you were at the center of a sphere and we created 6 vectors A, B, C, D, E, F representing both direction of a 3-axis basis R3 A and D representing X, B and E representing Y and C and F representing Z A + D = Φ, B + E = Φ, C + F = Φ the zero vector. These vectors represent the field. You should also note the zero vector in a r3 coordinate system simultaneous represents all direction, thus just because the net acceleration is zero does not imply that all vectors representing that field are also zero and directionless. Even if you were to hollow out the earth creating a shell with 1000 km of space at the center the composite vector would still be zero. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_law_of_universal_gravitation

Target: My garage Ground Activities (if any): Rolling, Stopping, Rolling, Stopping, etc. Propulsion: Ford 4 cylinder Engine in a Probe Goals: Global warming and Metabolic syndrome one bang and chug at a time Other: Get Starbucks coffee, a crispy creme donut, Just hang a while, then home.

Damn, who da f* greased January.

Jeeze, when is NASA going to stop using pounds. He must have been a really old timer. Thrust = 50 kN at 841 kilograms (Not to bad) as 1250 ISP * 9.8 = 12250 m/s Ve The question is not so much level is throttleability, can it be shut off. Here's what we can see, what if we have a controller the size of a flea and the hydrogen tanks are 20% of the total fuel and tank weight. Its rather simple then to lower the Ve to 9800 (back envelope primary estimate) . Lets just say that we can shed hydrogen tanks as we use some that we only at the end carry one small tank at the core which all other tanks drain into. If we 11300 - 7800 = 3500 dV 3500 dV = 9800 ln (M0/M1) 0.4292F x Engine mass = 360.23 Kgs of hydrogen (liquified I think thats like 3600 liters of hydrogen). Initial A = 50000N / (360.23 + 841) = 41.62 (4.162 G) results in 84 second of burn time. dΘ/dt of LEO is 0.001230 and the burn would occur over 0.10325 radians (6 degrees, actually less because we lost 30% of the mass at the end) the cosine losses would be less than 0.13% IOW, yes it can leave Earth orbit. Thus the reason for not exit Earth orbit is do to the nature of the exhaust propellant. Lets say we place a restriction that its burn span needs to be less that 45 degrees, that means 22.5 on one side and 22.5 on the other side of an assumed hyperbolic periapsis. Lets assume the average speed is 10,000 m/s and that the dΘ/dt is thus 0.0015, therefore the allowable burn time for exit is 523 seconds, if we set this as our criteria (again speed will increase), 523 Second at 50,000 N = 26150000 N * sec. 2135 kg of fuel used. 427 kg of tanks used, 841 engine 3500 = 12250 ln( (PL + 2135 + 841 + 427)/(PL + 841)) e0.2857 = (PL + 2135 + 841 + 427)/(PL + 841) = 1.33333 k * 0.33333 = 2135 + 427 = 2562 k = 7868 PL = k - 841 = 7047 kg. Therefore you could carry on the NTR 7047kg of PL (i.e. more than a flea on a rocket engine) to Earth escape. This is a bit of an over estimate, because a substantial amount of the burn would be at non-optimal velocity due to separation from minimum orbit before burn completion. However it the rocket can be throttled on and off completely, then the orbit can be achieved in a number of kicks. This of course is not the limit of the rocket, because we could increase the number of kicks and increase payload. But I single NTR of this type would hardly transport a crew, at least 30T of space craft, to Mars Orbit.