Green Baron

What a steaming pile of s... ! I always used Intel processors, until now. Will switch to AMD asap if boards permit, have to check this.

I assume you mean FL50 :-) Flight level 500 is right in the stratosphere, even for jets unreachable (Concorde !), execpt a few military ones ...

A pilot is licensed either private (mostly VFR), commercial (may fly for money, e.g. the boss of a firm), or airline transportation (may fly commercially scheduled flights). If you want to look up the details: PPL, CPL, ATPL, according to what the rules say (FAR for America, JAR for Europe, but they don't differ much and the one can fly in the other's garden). Besides these three licenses (plus supplemental ratings for IFR, instrument landing, long range, etc. pp. which can be really expensive !) there are the type ratings for different aircrafts. Automatic is that for a simple aircraft with a fixed prop and gear during basic PPL, with which you must start. So-called complex aircraft (variable prop, retractable gear) and multi-engine is a different rating, usually done on a small two propeller engine thing like a Piper Seneca or so. Having mastered that you have to rate yourself for the craft you want to fly (e.g. Dash 8, A320, B737, and so on) and keep and renew that rating (besides health checks) if you want to fly somebody else around. So, in principle, you can fly an A380 with a PPL, if it is your plane and you only fly privately. But few do such a thing. Idk, a few actors fly privately jets ... That's it in very brief, but there may have been changes in the past 20 years :-) Edit: yes, things have changed. Wikipedia says that instrument and complex aircraft are requirements for ATPL.

Yep, probably/maybe/who knows more on the acidic side. And for those who like it green there is another one: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170131080007.htm

I hope that is not a form of precipitation :-) Clear, gusty winds, 24°C max. We are 3-4°C above the monthly average.

To clarify: yes, an airliner must fully demonstrate controllability during level flight, approach and landing. This includes banking and turning against the full thrusting engines on the other side. It must be able to safely take off in case of a failure on one side when passing v1. The difference in thrust between a two engine airliner and one with four engines is about the same on a failure on one side. The lever of the four engine one is worse since one engine is farther out. This must be compensated with a higher speed to maintain controllability. Since an airliner in such a case usually touches down with a much slower speed than the minimum control speed necessary for turning against the full thrusting good engines, a go around with two engines on one side might be difficult. Hope that clarified things.

Of course it depends on the moment of the engine out, worst case is usually just after passing v1 during take off run. Besides military stuff, there are B747, A340 and A380 and a small one Avro something flying these days. Any more ? JAR/FAR part 25 states the airworthyness criteria for commercial airliners, but i don't know them by heart :-). I think a four engine commercial aircraft must pass your scenario, in principle. But usually, if such a thing really happens, the sweat running from the crews foreheads might locally influence physics at that moment .... :-/ Zoom to see: we all don't get younger ;-) Edit: praise the search engine (all except google), here you go: https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/11582/can-the-airbus-a380-safely-fly-with-two-engines-out-on-the-same-wing

... oh, and check ocean salinity of the archaean ocean. If possible ;-)

That depends. From what i read few people make them. With flat frames you want to correct different illumination in your setup, like vignetting, dust on surfaces in the path (filters), or maybe a streetlight that gives a slightly lighter border on one side. If you can exclude or minimise these things before they appear then flatframes aren't necessarily necessary. Dark and bias frames are.

He, that's me peeling off the swastika

Probably, i sacrificed almost half an hour search now, i only found another 777 flight from New Zealand to the Americas, which was diverted to Kona in the longest 1 engine flight until now, in 2011. These things happen ... I read about it when it happened a few years ago, if i recall it right, the failure was discussed in conjunction with maintenance problems on a part that showed use wear, and when the other engine was checked the exactly same problem showed up.

It must still be seen how relevant this really is. Shallow salty shelves are a rare and ephemeral thing. But early earth was surely not purple, the landmasses (different than today's continents, rather small terranes collected in cratons, imagine a lot of drifting and shifting madagaskars) were rather red like Mars today because much oxygen was bound. Some Permian provinces today give an impression of how things might have looked at the time plants conquered land: red and weathered. But this is very difficult to reconstruct (meaning: don't cite me :-)). Photosynthesis in greater style started about 3 billion years ago, as documented by for example banded iron formations. Atmospheric oxygen was present by then, but not in concentrations as high as these days. But this is all subject to discussions and even controversies.

The math isn't always correct, since normally the two engines are of the same type and the same maintenance intervals and part exchange regulations apply the probability that two engines fail because of maintenance is higher than half. There was a case of a 787 i think, one engine failed because of oil pressure problems in the middle over the Pacific, they diverted to Hawaii and after landing during the following checks it became obvious that the other one was just close to the exactly the same failure. The certification process of commercial airliners are meant to exclude these sort of accidents.

24°C right now (afternoon max.). Lazy lizards linger on the garden wall in the sun and the cat has coiled itself up under an almond tree in the garden. They predict 18°C max and rain for the end of the coming week.

I know that, okay ? It is because it is fitful. But i just realised that there are birds with a sideways bent beak. "I want you an my left side, honey." :-)

It is out of reach. It is already far above Mars (almost Jupiter orbit height !) and almost rectangular to the solar ecliptic, no way to get it. Even if it had been spotted 2-3 months before it came close to the sun there would have been no chance. We must wait for the next one and hope that better telescopes get a better view. Oh, and it is a typical asteroid ;-)

I'd like to see the weight & balance sheet of that Rutan-insect. Is it principally different from a symmetric aircraft ? Also, does the asymmetry add a level of complexity to the procedures in case of an engine failure ? Like, fails the right engine: pray to Ra, fails the left engine: pray to Ishtar ? Well, organisms aren't always symmetric as well, though all the flyers are, i think.

To summarize: what is the second engine on a two engine aircraft for ? It takes you to the crash site .... Yeah, that's an old one. I like the asymmetric designs :-)

True. Just nitpicking: you forgot to cite the "might ...." :-) O, btw., i see you have arrived in 2018 as well. Happy new year !

As a relief from the monotonous starship talk a few serious thoughts on Ummagamma: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-017-0361-4 tl:dr: billions of years of exposure to cosmic radiation might have covered it in an insulating shell, which can be the reason why there is apparently no surface activity.

That sounds like if Mint has installed the Nouveau driver, which is "suboptimal" because Nvidia does not work with the open source community. Install the proprietary Nvidia driver. I don't know how it is called (i use debian), best browse through a Mint forum for the name of the package you must install.

As said, us the native Linux version of KSP, not the .exe under wine. So delete wine and its folders, download the Linux version of KSP, unpack it in a folder of your choice and have fun. You don't need a start script (any more), i run it without. Either add the program to your desktop or call it from a terminal directly out of your installation folder with "./KSP.x86_64".

Hmm, i personally think that the next "dark age" will be self-inflicted by climate change, depth pile up, conflicts, overpopulation, carrying capacity limits, anything else ? :-) ... that said: i think, but may be totally wrong, that the number of newly discovered neos is going down or at least stable on a low level since several years. And from what is known/calculated/estimated/whatever there is nothing to fear in the next several hundred years. So, if at all, then it must be a suddenly appearing asteroid that hasn't yet been noticed (improbable) or something new from high above (tno etc.). All in all i think phos are less of a danger.

How do you know ? And do we really need this kind of effusions in here ? This is not a scientific journal but a game forum. The standards that we have are absolutely ok though not always rigorously enforced ;-) But your scenario should not go through the review process at all if was a real journal without anybody noticing. If it does, then there is something basically wrong with the process between submission, review, corrections, etc. until the real publishing goes, well, public. If you would stick to your standards it'll be almost ok for me, but, with all respect, you have yourself have violated publishing and citation rules several times in here as well as kind of a history of claims that we could discuss in length & width :-) Last time with claiming Neandertals lived "at least 500kya" without a correct source. Which i then let go through because it was grossly off topic in the EHT thread. Question is then: do you want to be measured yourself at these your standards ? Better not, eh ?

I don't quite understand what you mean with "general idea". Do you think that dark matter must be concentrated like the light one, in stars, planets, etc. ? The standard model of cosmology says 5% "normal" baryonic matter, 70% dark energy, 25% dark matter (+/-). Black holes, neutron stars and the likes belong to the "normal" stuff. And yes, that is a view on the level of galaxies and larger i think (but do not know) simply because our observation methods aren't fine grained enough yet. Dark matter distribution is estimated by observation (grav. lensing, cosmic microwace-background) as well as theoretic modeling.