Green Baron

It's not a question, but it doesn't merit it's own thread and i found it worth to share here: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/eurocreationism/ This is concerning, especially the case where a ministry of education forbids to teach evolution in school ... fortunately this time he was chased out of his chair. In order to not step on forbidden ground i hold myself back with further comments, draw your own conclusions.

On the probability of liquid water on mars: http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms13459 Also a nice synopsis about data from mars as well as a discussion of weathering rates. The latter is a difficult thing on earth as circumstances can change quickly. Not so on mars these days. Judging from the weathering of iron in chondrites it seems like they can lie around an mars' surface for 10s of millions of years without much change ... a bad sign for water.

@The Optimisthas a point. It is not difficult. What remains to do if maneuvers like orbit, landing and docking are done automatically ? The game is already pretty repetetive. MechJeb is the perfect mod for the OPs needs, and it should stay a mod imo. Automatisms bear the danger of making it pretty boring. A new player will never have that feeling of accomplishment when the first kerbal stands on the ladder on mun or minmus. Soon enough there'll be that "oh no, not again a mun landing ..." sigh to rescue, readout temp., plant flag, visit monolith. The Optimist offered his personal help, i'd take it, just to prove him wrong :-) You're probably doing too much during ascent. Main thing is the rocket design in VAB, especially TWR and staging, and a little balance and drag. You have all the time in the world for design. If it's long and pointy with payload at the top then it'll probably work. A typical manual launch to orbit involves space bar, the D key, watch and do nothing, stage and throttle, eventually more D key pressing to tweak the ascent, a coast phase and throttle to circularization (or just flip AP and PE in the beginning). You'll make it ;-)

I absolutely support this :-) There is nothing like a slender rocket climbing up in the sky on a hyperbolic trajectory ...

Compared to rockets we do have enough plane parts i think. And especially for the eager fighter guys .... isn't this is a newtonian physics based space game, originally peaceful ? There are mods that deliver the bang and boom, cockpits of all sorts, engines in all colours and sizes. Plane parts in more sizes than rocket parts are already in stock game. Planes are overemphasized imo, as a pure rocket player i must use mods for satisfaction. Just my opinion ...

*pausing for one minute's silence* Honestly, for me it's the rocket parts mods and mods like OPM that keep me playing KSP ...

Yes. Back to the ro..ckets. There hasn't been much attention to rockets since ... aeh ... lemmy think ... many releases. I find there is already far too much "airplane" stuff in the game, and the aerodynamics "model" doesn't really feel like aerodynamics. My wish is rockets. And stuff to explore, planets, asteroids, moons, moonlets, comets, terrain, features, ... maybe even an overhaul of the science-system because it's too easy and too fast to be an interesting game concept, but that's cosmetics. I'm not going to riot 'cause that's not my style and it is only a game. Before all we want to go in the opposite direction, to space. Or don't we ? :-)

Well, it would be funny, but honestly, it only works with a certain imagination of archaeologic work ;-) No archaeologist judges a find without it's context, in fact a find without it's context maybe pretty nice for a catalogue but rather useless for archaeology. Examples ? Context: mixed up layer -> find nice but useless (neandertal tool and wwII ammo side by side) Context: bought from a fence -> find nice, scientific use questionable (disc of Nebra) Context: found lying on the surface (can happen in a desert) -> find nice, without comparable specimen useless (neolithic style stone tools) Everything a future archaeologist will find is quite automatically from the first example since we just love to dig these days. So trying to mix up the mixed up even more won't help that much if you want to fool somebody. btw.: if you mean radiometric carbon dating that got a little more complicated since we mess with nuclear stuff and since the change in composition of reservoirs (CO2 from ice melting and ocean warming, more lighter isotopes in the air, less in the water blabla). They'll probably find another method for dating carbon stuff then. Also, even under the best circumstances, radiometric carbon dating only works 60ky backwards ...

If you could, that's the point. I live in a rural area, there is only very rudimentary mobile service here and no cable internet. That's why i have that expensive satellite connection because any other solution is much worse. Sure, the towns have 3G, in the centers even 4G as well as dsl. But there is the problem of getting the data out into some sort of backbone. The fibre glass cable ends on the other side of the island, in the capital, so those in the towns here might have a nominal 10 or more mbit/s cable connection, but in the average it is much lower. As Nibb said, it's a niche product, it'll be most welcome for a few remote areas, but i'd say nothing for a mass business to earn billions. The newest satellite service, 22Mbit/s, no limit, free calls cost 72,-/month, i read. The density of potential customers is very low, even in the underdeveloped parts like the west side of an atlantic island there are only a few dwellings with a satellite dish. If they are cheaper then the 45,- i pay right now and have proven that it works, then i'll consider to change. But i don't think they get a cable user to unplug his stuff. Edit: end-user business is strenuous ... :-) Yeah, so i read. Nevertheless it is what i would do, secure the frequencies and get over the bureaucratic stuff first before i start to spend money ... but that's a guess. Reality check: Falcon 9 must get to flight again. Hopefully soon(tm)

"A lot helps a lot" "Nothing comes from nothing" "What's gone, is gone" Valid in experimental chemistry as well as in the kitchen :-)

I gave up trying to solve this numerically (am an idiot in math). Since the soupmosphere was dismissed i found that aiming for a twr of 1.5 to 1.7 and a (vacuum)dv of ~3300m/s is a safe launcher concept. Manual flight, using ker, starting the "gravity turn" right of the pad or at very low speed. It does get warm. Kerbin is a small ball for it's mass, the atmospheric gradient is smaller than the real one, and the heat production follows the smaller scale as well, making the first 40km altitude pretty shiny. For interplanetary departures i aim higher than 75-80km, to avoid departure through the atmosphere ... :-)

I think it's unrealistic to make money with it, even with rented bandwidth for the IoT. This is probably just a claimstake before someone else (google, facebook, bezos, ...) comes up with the idea, so they can say "Hey, we were the first to propose this !"

Really, that is not a problem. You dig out neandertal stone tools, tooth paste and ww2 ammo from the same layer. It is not too difficult (in most cases absolutely no problem) to distinguish between a clean and undisturbed finding and a mixed, dumped, dug, washed, relocated, overturned, flowed out or whatever mess. 19th century archeology: judging a layer by its content is a valid method for dating, but, of course, if no border to another layer (a discordance, hole, ditch, trench, tree root, animal burrow ...) can be found then of course the age of the layer is determined by the youngest "ingredient", which in this case would be the cell phone ... Not regarding any physical/chemical dating methods. :-) Edit: the dinosaur bone, if not totally fossilized, would not survive in a peat bog. Sour environment -> bones are gone. But the leash, if from leather, survives a long time ;-)

Actual Iridium/Thuraya/Globalstar/Inmarsat phones can probably serve as a guideline. The internet-companies prepare services (terrestrial/cable and orbit/satellite) as well. It could happen, that due to growing competition, gains from such a service might be lower than expected. Regardless of the business model for such a network (serve end-customer, rent bandwidth, ...). btw., i pay 45euro/month for a 20GB/month satellite internet connection ... so, as far as i'm concerned, SpaceX, just do it, things can only get better.

Thanks. I do not understand everything, but i look forward to the discussion and reproductions.

Could be a German specialty ... anyway, the (German) medical dissertation isn't comparable to an engineering dissertation.

Banned for banning a confused fellow. Go to jail, do not pass [space], do not collect 200 :-)

Yes, the paper seems to address mainly psychological research, which is a discipline of medicine, right ? In general medical doctors must write a dissertation, so just the sheer number of medical dissertation makes it difficult for the authors to add something new to the discipline, usually the meaning of a dissertation. So medical dissertations are often statistical works which generally have the problem to choose an appropriate sample. Sometimes the sample is limited to a few dozen patients with a certain symptom or being treated with a medication that is in clinic testing. Here funding surely is a problem (who pays the study ;-)), but i think most are aware. Imo this is a good point to check the seriousness of a publication in natural sciences. The scientific method includes the clear obligation to describe exactly the composition of a sample (where, why and under which circumstances exactly were the samples taken) and justify, if necessary, why e.g. runaway-data was dropped, etc. Usually this is done in serious papers, but to judge the correctness one needs a deeper knowledge of the case, often inter-disciplinary.

I'm not a follower of psychology, i must admit. Well, there may be a spark of truth in it that the urge to bring out something thrilling leads to silly announcements (faster than light particles, alien stars with megastructures, reactionless drives, ....). I don't see any better way than the current principle of peer-reviewed publishing in scientific journals, in combination with hopefully fruitful discussions as a part of the process. I personally too find the coming out on social media, magazines and news papers dangerous to the public perception of science, far too much nonsense is titled ("scientists have found out ..."), and on a closer look you only find hot air. These are my criteria to judge the seriousness of a publication: - the authors are actual researchers in the field - it's published in a peer-reviewed journal without being announced on a pre-print server, social media, magazine ... - it somehow leads to a discussion in the community, being cited by others, answered or asked directly - if it's based on an actual experiment, that experiment can be reproduced without bending any laws There is a grey zone, of course, but much stuff can be sorted out that way. New discoveries are generally not done by a single person but a large team, in many cases from different scientific fields. It can take a few years from first finding until a serious publication is written. And during that time many things have already been discussed and adressed so that a thing like "we broke the laws of physics" is sorted out before it sees the light of day. On the other hand, a discovery that claims to break any laws, published on a social media network thing is likely to be bogus. That said without stressing psychology :-) Edit: we should distinguish between research for a given goal, mostly technological / engineering / medical, in any case connected with an economic thought in mind on the one hand and pure, basic fundamental research, in public institutions or universities, in some cases even done by people who choose their own goal, on the other hand.

The trench is not a bad plan if you want the box to survive an indefinite time. Leave the lead, then its light enough to get sheared off and a clast in the accretionary wedge under the continent. Only problem: nobody will find it there ... it is as far under the carpet as it can be .... :-))

Apparently a fart caught fire during surgery. I do not claim any scientific correctness for this, just to make that clear ;-)

You're mean :-) Seemingly they are preparing for flight again. Spacing: According to this page some satellites in stationary orbit are "just" 73km apart, debris not counted. Seems like at some time a coordinating position is needed to administer slots and spacing or we really get a lot of new "open clusters" ... population III :-) ?

(-: si ti ,seY You have an Access Control List ? :-) Hey guyvv, letf fow off our profeevef ! (puts in teeth) I once crashed with a paraglider ... @crasher925, do you still feel old ? Would you, if you met one of us in the subway, get up and offer your seat ? Just you dare ! O.o .... i'm not making friends here :-)))))))))

Hua ! Outch, my back ... I probably felt older at the age of 12. I'm on the older side here in this forum. Having nothing to learn would make me feel old. Some people refuse to get old until they die of old age :-)

Small changes have been measured directly under and downwind of the rotors, cooling by day, warming by night. The hypothesis is that the rotors mix the ground layer vertically. The rest (like the link in the op) is mainly based on models and simulations. Models can always be adjusted to serve a purpose ...