PB666

Low pressure in an engine of that would be 200 PSI or so and outlet pressure above 14 PSI in the atmosphere (deepending of exhaust manifold design and the size of the exhaust valve) .. .. . . .It would not change much until you got into really dense atmospheres.

She is actually looking for plasma lensing in gas that gets X-ray. My bets are on the elephant.

You want to scroll back to May, [Setting time machine in reverse] <ping> . . . .<ping> OK im back, what was I looking for again?

Excellent, then the only thing slowing it down is its low power output

Its not off-topic, this is exactly what we want. . . . .I have been investigating mixture ratios. Will get back on the answer.

A low thrust, a non-turbopumped engine with a fairly long nozzle can develop and exhaust velocity close to 4000 if there is perfect conversion to work, as you turbopump the engine to increase thrust you have to spoil part of the power for the turbo pump. In addition the engines run oxygen rich, they do this to increase ISP but also protect the bell housing from heat, this retrieves some of the heat but increases exhaust mass. 375 is a decent ISP for a moderate size space engine it would be on the high side for a powerful engine (such as a lift-off engine).

You cannot see a black hole, when you are looking at a black hole you are actually looking at the structure of space-time around the black hole. The information you gain is not about the black hole, because most of the black holes we observe produce hawking radiation at such a low frequency its hard to detect. The fine structure of space, the quantum foam, is believed to be distorted to its extreme around a black hole. If we imagine a black hole as a lens, it is possible to see in the lens potential distortion of parallel rays of light passing in very close proximity. In looking from a single telescope one may not be able to resolve distortions caused by the distortion of quantum space-time (hypothetical quantum foam) by using multiple telescopes spread apart at great distances it is possible to see effects of quantum space time on arrival times and photon energies. The evidence that supports further examination of space-time comes from this observation. " Blazars are likely to originate from matter falling into a black hole and possibly a binary black hole. The velocity dispersion (which is the maximum difference in the velocity toward or away from Earth) observed in the galaxy is 372 km/s which predicts a black hole mass of (0.9 − 3.4) × 109M⊙. However, dispersion of velocity was also measured as 291 and 270 km/s so the central mass may be less.[13] A 23-day variability suggested that an object may be orbiting the central black hole with a 23-day period.[13] " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markarian_501#Gamma_rays " The gamma rays from Mrk 501 are extremely variable, undergoing violent outbursts.[5] The gamma ray spectrum of Mrk 501 shows two humps. One is below 1 keV and can be considered to be X rays and the other is above 1 Tev. During flares and outbursts the peaks increase in power and frequency.[5] Flares lasting 20 minutes long with rise times of 1 minute have been measured by MAGIC. In these flares the higher energy gamma rays (of 1.2 Tev) were delayed 4 minutes over the 0.25 TeV gamma rays.[9] This delay has led to various theories, including that space is bigger at small dimensions with a foamy quantum texture.[10] The foam would create a variation in the speed of light for higher-energy light gamma-rays and the lower-energy radio waves and visible light. " Using Marharian 501 to study quantum foam is like using a GBU-43 MOAB to plow a vegetable garden. Yes is has the photon energies that would distort quantum space-time, the problem is that there is alot going on in a Gamma ray burst from a binary black hole. Again a much more refined way for examining the fine texture of space-time around potential energy wells in space-time is you use many telescopes far apart from each other that look at more carefully studied EM sources,. This is what they are doing. The importance of quantum space-time and its proof and characterization is extremely important to the bounds of space travel. The tyranny of the speed of light, direction of entropy, time, dimensionality, and the fundemental forces in the Universe are all effected by the character of quantum space-time, its like 41 of the physical universe. IN the other thread we are discussing how to extract energy efficiently in space without classical electrical generation. This all goes back to entropy, by studying space-time around back holes in 100 or 200 years we may uncover clever ways to extract most or all of the energy from an energy source, making Fusion power in space a thing. If we could do this of course, fusion power would be easy in and of itself.

Remember that it has to slow down to recharge, it solar panels probably do not allow it to run 24/7 In anycase the wheels would not survive another 20 km.

Its kind of short.

Impactors produce unpredictable results and contamination. They could sheer the face off of an escarpment, such that the rover could access the escarpment and drill into the rock. Its smarter to have a rover with an electric jackhammer built into its design, reach a rock face, jack into a half a meter, go back and photographically catalog the debris, chisel a little bit more, pick up the chert liberated and sample it. For the cost of one missile you could have a dozen electric jackhammers.

It could travel alot faster. The reason it slowed down was to do sampling and science along the way AND. . . . because they were favoring the wheels.

looks about right.

In the presence of excess CO2 carbonates form bicarbonates, another form of carbonate. In the addition of more acid carbonates are liberated, this is a banana in the discussion of mars because the soils are alkaline. In alkaline soils carbonates are stable. But this misses the other issue SO3 and P205 are also not in their most stable states, in fact why is there not Na2SO4. You have two salts, that if hydrated and passively dehydrated would form a more stable salt, what type of energy placed them in the high energy state? Where was the water when this happened . . . .was there some superhuge calamity that struck the Martian surface in the last 3 billion years that we have evidence of . . . .or was Mars just to unstable for the persistence of liquid water in its equatorial regions. Read the wikilinks I provided and investigate, you will see that these oxides should not exist on a hydrated planet, the may have been derived from hydrates, but when they came to exist, there was no hydration present. You simply cannot get around this problem, if the sedimentary substrate on Mars has significant alkali oxides, it has been denatured by energy, period. Second point, what is the timeline, when could have the heat that generates these oxides, recently, or during the early timeline for Mars. Third point what is the timeline for mafic basalt to have formed, in the very early mars, or over the course of Martian geology. Hawaiian islands are a very recent formation on Earth, their basalts are from the pushing up of magna through the very carbon and sulfur rich sea floor and produces the gases that create a very porous stucture . . .Hawaiian basalts are bananas. The basalts noted in martian metorites are very fined grain structure with small pores AND they formed recently on Mars, also. And the mafic basalt the sample was water free. What is the specific evidence that they will accept as refutation of their hypothesis? Since they reject most other evidence? Not scientific, speculative. Fact - The 80 or so surface show minerals demonstrative of active dehydration (as opposed to passive evaporation of hydrates at nominal temperatures) on the surface. Answer- the water must have gone underground. Fact - The dehydration conditions appear to have been too energetic to support water in any for for long periods. Answer- the water was perserved underground in chemicals in the basalt at high pressure. Fact - The conditions, not current, most likely occurred in Early Mars, during the time with crustal heat flux was folds higher. pressures would have dropped very early in Martian history. Answer- the water was trapped in pressurize chambers 20 km to 90 km down The basalt that would have allowed occurred over the entire history of Mars at least a few billion years. How is this a hypothesis that can be disproven in the foreseeable future? Also the heat flux was from the core of the planet outward, deep chambers of hydroxides and other hydrates 20-90 km down would have been much hotter than a surface that appears to have had considerable energy to cause carbonate and hydroxide decomposition. Answer - read the paper all their evidence fits like a glove. Cat . . . mouse . . . . game. nough.

A salt can be acidic (such as sodium hydrosulfate (your water softener), or basic such as (trisodium phosphate). The compounds become basic or acidic when placed in a ionizing solvent. Salts can have water, for example a common salt of sodium phosphate is hydrated NaHPO4*H20. This is why I distinguish water from hydroxide salt. Salts can have water, but a hydroxide of a metal is a salt not a hydration of a salt. In addition the hydroxide of a metal need not come from water at all, it can be generated from a redox event. Not all hydroxides are good bases, some are relatively stable to neutral pHs, just not the alkali salts (left hand of periodic table. This is why i specifically referred to transition metal salts and not alkali salts. The metals salts often do not give up their hydroxides easily. The chemical structure show are not how the electrons arrange in the salt. For example natural tin (tin oxides) binds small hydroxides readily and chelates them and are stable at pH 7.0. Lead hydroxide is also know as Orthoplumbic acid. I do expect both hydroxides and carbonates in their analyses because, depending on the cation valencies it can be very difficult to liberate complexed and polyvalent anions from a salt matrix by heat. Of course almost any hydroxide that ever existed will undergo displacement in the presence of a good monoprotic acid (such as 6N HCl).

I assume it can, I took a toyota over a railroad track once at 65 MPH and only broke one McPherson strut mount, The front wheel went about a foot off the ground since it plays about six inches that would have been about 3 gees on each of the two front tires. If you dropped a car from say six feet on the ground most everything would survive, but the following would suffer damage, most struts have a stop that prevents you from grounding out your vehicle, the pressure on the stop would warp the strut housing, go beyond that and you damage your muffler. If your gas tank if full the strap might break (i've seen this happen in an old chevy). If you drop a stretch limo from that height you would bend the frame at the center. Of course if you took a tacoma/hilux nothing would happen. Some production sports cars need to avoid railroad tracks and travel at low speed while crossing due to profile.

Carbonates are everything, carbonates are the lowest energy state of minerals in the presence of water and carbon dioxide, to put this in a more meaningful way give the level of C02 in the martian atmosphere if there was significant distribution of water since a past heat event, then we would expect all the minerals detected at oxides on the surface to be carbonates, and no carbon dioxide on the Martian poles and very little in the martian atmosphere. The cognate oxides of carbonates and/or hydroxides are the most abundant minerals on Mars, how did they get there, the fact that more carbonates are found on phobos than on Mars tells all . .they were in the solar system, they did take part in the formation of mars, there bioproducts are in the martian atmosphere and surface (except water), and they are stable in the presence of a very rare atmosphere . . . . all of these conditions are conducive to the presence of carbonates on Mars today, but they are rare. Major energy event on surface of Mars. If you don't get that you don't know squat about chemistry. I repeat this once again so that it can be made clear, at the energies required to make the compounds below, the surface conditions are not conducive to the presence of water, at these conditions the atmosphere is not conducive to the stability of dihydrogen oxide. This does not mean that all biproducts of water disappeared everywhere. It means the overwhelming majority of water on mars was essentially 'blown off the surface' by an excess of energy. Do you see a single carbonate on the list of major minerals detected at 59 and 23 sites? Few carbonates means no liquid water on the surface during a heat event. Read these pages on production of oxides and you will understand. In a water free, CO2 free environment at current martian temperatures these minerals would take a 125 pentillion years to form. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_oxide#Preparation '850'C https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnesium_oxide#Production 1000-1500'C https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcium_oxide#Preparation '825'C https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium_oxide#Production 1000'C https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur_trioxide#Preparation 463'C https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosphorus_pentoxide#Preparation - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosphorus#Allotropes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potassium_oxide#Production requires a two step process involving calcium oxides '825'C If there model does not explain this it does not explain squat. Also the mafic rock that they tested had no water.

This is all the chemistry you need to know. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PIA16572-MarsCuriosityRover-RoverSoils-20121203.jpg When you understand the heats involved to convert Alkali metal carbonates into Alkali Oxides you basically know that one of their assumptions is garbarge. There was clearly enough energy flux on mars to dehydrate the planet without merry-fairies creating basaltic laval refuges on Mars. The question is when. Read up on Earth's Archean, the period following the late heavy bombardment. Heat flux 3 fold. This paper is not science, first, the hypothesis it proposes in not a testable hypothesis, how do you disprove that large 90km deep reservoirs exist? The deepest well dug on Earth is 13km deep, and they had to stop because of the latent heat of Earth. Imagine how hot Mars was 20 to 90km down 4 billion years ago, there would not have been water going down on Mars its flux was up, up, up. You cannot disprove the hypothesis, in fact every counter argument they seem to have an excuse why its not applicable, but in fact if you dug a well in a prime spot and found no water, they would simply say the water is elsewhere, you cannot disprove it. There is no precedence to say this is where the water is being stored, they claim the water is stored in minerals. Nickle hydroxide is a salt, it is not water, a salt is a cation and anion in a lattice. Water inonizes roughly 10-7/mole of water, it is not a salt, its a solvent. Some salts of water do not decompose easily, but we have 59 and 23 rover samples on Mars indicating that most of Mars hydrated and carbonated minerals close to the surface underwent higher energy decomposition, how they did this is unclear, but it wasn't merry-fairies or aliens with ray guns. The conclusion in non-occamic. Occams conclusion would stipulate that the forcing events that caused the decomposition of alkali carbonates (one mentioned has a decomposition temperature of 1500 to 2000'C) also eliminated water from the Martian surface. IOW the conditions required to make oxides from hydrates require 100s of kJ/mole, on Earth occur at temperatures in excess of 800'C and would naturally occur if all CO2 and H20 were removed over a million billion years. The other problem is that the second assumption that in the time when most of the basalt flowed, would have been water to flow into them? Basalt flows 20 to 90 km deep take 100s of millions of years to cool during the 3.8 to 2.5 billion years ago heat flux was > 2 times what it is presently thus not just basalt flows but flows that cooled to permit water at martian subsurface temperatures and atmopheric pressure. The basalt is an igneous rock but the early basalts would have been different and likely reflect the separation of (and times required) between felsic and mafic layers. Basalt they are talking about is mafic, so they are talking about volcanic activity that occurred after 4 million years ago in a period where the water was already gone and would have been permissive to water flow a billion years later. " Roughly three-quarters of all Martian meteorites can be classified as shergottites. They are named after the Shergotty meteorite, which fell at Sherghati, India in 1865.[8] Shergottites are igneous rocks of mafic to ultramafic lithology. " The majority come from rocks on the order of 180 million years ago (After the overwhelming majority of Mars water was long gone). So the basic idea that early martian water got trapped underground is bunk, because the rock formation took time to appear and the water was gone. However more recent martian meteorites suggest water is present transiently on martian surface. We would scarcely notice the addition on Earth, but with a planet that is dryer than bone dry, the addition of space-water from comets would have profound effects. We could debate where the water went but we cannot debate its fate, its not on the surface and it did not hydrate the alkali oxides nor form carbonates. Therefore these events were probably localized and extremely episodic. Sure the water could have trickled underground or frozen at the poles. Or it make have just flowed into a deep Sand dune and locked away as a alkali hydroxides that slowly absorb carbon dioxide and turn to hard stone. Again Nature has a long and well noted history of publishing poorly refereed science. They (Science and Nature) have pointed to a substantially higher retraction rates for coffee-table science magazines. I don't really credit anything in either magazine but if you can find something in a peer-reviewed field specific science journal I would be happy to take a look at it.

Is it? only on a tangent and a whim. The topic was how quickly _we_ could get to Mars if _we_ wanted to; not how quickly Elon dreams he could get to Mars is he still wants to, Space X is not backrupted, either by his business or his desire . . . . . . . . . . Don't forget the falcon heavy was supposed to be a thing in 2013 (About the time this thread was started). As I understand it if we poured all resources into send one very poor individual to Mars how soon could we get there thats 2020. That assumes we could put a credible crew compartment on a FH and send it to Mars and that somehow it could get landed, it would not probably take off an the individual would die on Mars, probably within a few months if all worked well. That would come against a public outcry of potential xenobiotic contamination given the improperly resourced vehicle. We have six years to 2024 to develop a Manned Mars lander, it took more than six years for Musk to create a much simpler FH. So that 2024 is a very very naive time estimate. I recommend that this thread be closed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moment_of_inertia#Newton's_laws <---Read this /wiki/Moment_of_inertia#Motion_in_space_of_a_rigid_body,_and_the_inertia_matrix . These describe the phyics of motion for object whose application force vectors do no go through the center of mass (IOW they are not translation accelerations but rotational accelerations) I would add to that the math is very complex and you need at least one error detection. M = momentum, r= rotational δMr/dt + δMobject/dt = Vexhaust * mass flow k-caret is a unit vector normal to the plane of rotation (don't worry about it in a 2-d system of acceleration). Because rotations can be described in three axes (minimally 2, in the roll plane of XY and δ(Z/r)/dt at Z=0 Define position as R = (0,0,0) and r = pXYZ = SQRT(pX2 + pY2 + pZ2) the position vector components in a object specific coordintate system Define unit vectors [i = x,y,z] iu = pi/pXYZ Each thruster has a set of 6 position vectors and a position magnitude (δr). Define a global coordinate system in which any translational motion of R can be translated into the global coordinate system as subcomponent vectors of acceleration that also where the component vectors a[i = x,y,z] is the additive of all subcomponents athrust + agravimetric + aaerodynamic It is neccesary to carry both positions and velocity vectors. Where [iu = Xu, Yu, Zu the unit position vectors] and 0 and 1 are starting and ending times of the interval. change of velocity attributed to gravity is 0.5g(-iu0)*δT + 0.5(-iu1)*δT and the change of position caused by gravity approximates to 0.375g(-iu0)*δT2 + 0.125g(-iu1)*δT2 in each of the three directions. If done properly this will take care of the translational aspects. For computational reasons convert back to Keplerian Elliptical when needed (Such as during warping). For rotational aspects use the objects coordinate system Ic = the moment of inertia about point R (0,0,0) where alpha is the angular acceleration about R and omega is the existing angular rotation about R in the existing plane. If the added motion is purely rotational, for example all energy is conserved in Ic*w if the craft is not rotating and thrust is applied then it becomes torque resulting in angular motion. YOu will need to use vector math to determine the Θ and φ components and direction. There are two directives, 1 is to push and the other is to roll (assume we want to roll in any of three axes). In the push directive set up 12 points (double cube) (sensors) and test the push balance, tone the RCS output for each set. pushes 12 points because user can combine 1X, 1Y and 1Z to generate composites that are rotated 45 degreees to each axis (like firing LK and H simultaneously in KSP) When inputs H, or HK or HLK each thruster will respond at different levels. To roll you want to balance along the axis of rotation thrusters. I forgot to add to this yesterday, this is how to interconvert between two coordinate systems ( I had a much longer post that I shortened to stick to the relevant posts, but I cropped to much) The translational thrust must be converted from the ships axial based coordinate system to the global coordinate system.

The report is bunk. Ive seen the mineral analysis from mars. The presence of oxides instead of the hydroxides or carbonate forms is gives no indication that water is locked up in the minerals, quite the opposite, the minerals have been purged of water. A tell tell sign is the presence of calcium oxide. We get calcium oxide here on earth as a form of potash, you take limstone and bake it till it decays. It is very difficult to get calcium to mineralize in the oxide form with the presence of water or carbon dioxide, the most stable salt is calcium carbonate. You can test this at home, take cooking lime and place about a quarter teaspoon in a gallon of water an stir it, within a day or so you will have a nice layer of calcium carbonate on the surface.

This thread has been dead for 3 years and we get a reply to a single word out of context. Necro . . . .

See I nailed it, either that or Manley read my post agreed with me, and we both got it wrong. lol. So apparently the reason they splashed stage 1 is that it was the older block 4 design they did not want to use anymore, either that or they did not want to pay the other guys Navy to get permission to retrieve their stage. Anyway I think SpaceX was brilliant in the way they have created interest. I would be cool if the next time this happens they could spell their name in the Sunset, you'de have people calling 911 claiming that Elon Musk had bought the sky. lol.

None the less they probably should play some music suitable for crashing. At least we can hear that . . .up to a point.

What about the longevity of the speakers in space (all the energy is deposited in the suspension) although I guess according to the laws of conservation, the energy no absorbed by the suspension should return back to the amplifyer as electricity.

They do deorbit over days and weeks, and in general it takes very little dV for a space craft at LEO to change its periapsis to the point the craft will enter the atmosphere. The earth is 6,000,000 meters in radius and you only need to change radius by 100,000 to 400,000, that is the change of a of only 0.83% (dv<100 m/s) if you divide that by a week that an acceleration of 0.0001 m/s. If you were to consider space as air and that specific force = k*m*v2 where v = 7800 then the k*m proportion of the 10-12 either the mass in space is rather ineffective at slowing things down or there is very little of it, we know the second is true, there is very little static pressure everything in space is in high relative motion, the forces that are created are not created by compact wholly elastic collisions but by molecules colliding at high speeds, speeds sufficient to create plasma and force chemical reactions on the surface. Its all about boundary layers and fluid motion. This is all old hat, pretty much since the first attempts to pass Mach speed it was notice that fluids moving at high speeds do not behave as lower speeds. In the case of the nose of a rocket the boundary layer separates, that layer determines 'whats' fluid and 'whats' craft. The effective mass of the space craft increases, but more importantly the pressure on the nose cone increases because the surface that 'sees the flow of air' effectively increases. Two molecules are bound together because they are under the boundary layer, they cannot move laterally as fast as the vessel moves forward, they slow down relative to the outside and for a moment become bound to the ship. The important point here is that if you want to control the behavior of an object in fluid then one aims at flows that are laminar and boundary layers that can be relatively easily predicted. As speed increases the only real way to predict behavior is to use a Sears-Haack shape and a parachute is not that. I suppose you could have a very long and wide Sears-Haack shaped balloon hanging from a long tether, but that defeats the point of drag. Secondarily as the drag increased the object would want to fall below the space-craft, pulling it -Radially and very little retro, the craft would be pulled back wards and the balloon vertically. Thus as force increased the tether would be behind the space craft on its Z-axis, which the craft has already cleared of molecules, which means the drag rate would fall. The point about drag in space is that for reflections you want to create oblique angles relative to the prograde vector. However if you create too oblique of an angle you would loose control, therefore you need to both control the reflections (such as the rolling backwards of a heat shield) and have rigidity with respect to the space craft. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, one way Space X handles space craft control flow at superMach speed is with grid fins, rigid structures that protrude. To create more drag in space you need more contact surface. If the crafts orientation is Z to the direction of travel then the drag is created by surfaces in the XY plane (IOW along the XY component of its surface projections), therefore to slow the craft down faster it would need more surface and surfaces that have at least 2 rigid components each. A simple solution is to have folded aluminum foil, thin as possible, or even plastic, sets of two poles on two hinges that are orientied in the Z direction when folded and that -Z relative to the space crafts direction of travel (dZ/dt by definition is always positive since the coordinate system is spacecraft specific). When deployed the poles expand, the tip of each pole (starting at -1z unit vector relative to base) would change dZ = dXY so that one set of poles would have moved 0.707x, 0.707z unit vectors and 0.707y and 0.707z. (this means Z relative to the hinges coordinates the end of the pole is -.293z), they tile back away from the direction of travel. Four such sets would create a set of spoilers around the space craft. In this system as the craft turns the pressure on the leading foil would increase while on the lagging foil would. Another way is to create an inflatable but flattened donut around the space craft that is also at -Z relative to direction of travel and tiles backward. However by the time you have done this, even using carbon fiber, you have added more weight than the added rcs fuel to burn periapsis back to 6480000 meter where the crafts orbit would decay much faster. If you are so high in orbit where the RCS to burn back is too high, you are also too high up for increased drag to be effective, its effectiveness is the square of the speed times the density, both of which are lower in high orbit, so its best to RCS these space craft to a graveyard orbit and await a cleanup space craft. Grid fin like structures make sense in spaceXs situation because the craft does not have to reach all the way to orbit, the fins are light relative to the weight of fuel, it cannot use parachutes due to weight and durability and because fairly heavy grid fins will certainly encounter heavier atmosphere as part of the need to land. A deorbited spacecraft almost never needs to land. There is a situation however where this might be useful. We can imagine clean up space craft, its ION driven and has solar panels, behind the craft is a wiremesh that can be expanded to allow more junk, in front of the craft is a hole that opens to allow stuff in. Lest assume that each bag is lightweight, so that the cleanup craft can carry several of these. Once the bag is full of space debris the space craft descends to its lowest possible safe altitude and releases the bag. Remember that lowest possible safe orbit, even for an empty ION drive spacecraft is not very low, since its typical accelerations are in the 0.0001 to 0.01 range. By the time the space craft finishes that bag is heavier and considerably more dense that the original space craft, and you would not want the bag to collide with other objects because in doing so it would scatter debris. Embedded in the perimeter garbage enclosure you could have very thin-walled inflatable manifolds that swell up and increase the rate of drag, the manifold could be a flatten do-nut shape that is released from the outside of the cage. This then could lower the spacecrafts orbit so it is no longer a threat to other orbiting spacecraft; however, it would not be able to control its point of reentry. Thus at some appropriate point it might be useful to draw the bag back in to control where it lands (cause no one really wants a bunch of radioactive spent spacecraft to come flying down into their major metropolitan area). Notice that in all of these designs, none employ tether, tethers lack the ability to govern control.