Jaelommiss

Department of Defense is looking into purchasing and operating Starships for "sensitive and potentially dangerous missions". The article is light on details and I can't find corroborating articles, but it'll be interesting to see how it works out if it's true. https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/space/spacex-dod-has-requested-taking-over-starship-individual-missions

Edit: After looking at more of the authors' works it's almost certainly fake. I should have looked into it more closely before posting. https://futurism.com/scientists-fungus-growing-mars https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351252619_Fungi_on_Mars_Evidence_of_Growth_and_Behavior_From_Sequential_Images "Fungi thrive in radiation intense environments. Sequential photos document that fungus-like Martian specimens emerge from the soil and increase in size, including those resembling puffballs (Basidiomycota). After obliteration of spherical specimens by the rover wheels, new sphericals-some with stalks-appeared atop the crests of old tracks. Sequences document that thousands of black arctic "araneiforms" grow up to 300 meters in the Spring and disappear by Winter; a pattern repeated each Spring and which may represent massive colonies of black fungi, mould, lichens, algae, methanogens and sulfur reducing species. Black fungi-bacteria-like specimens also appeared atop the rovers. In a series of photographs over three days (Sols) white amorphous specimens within a crevice changed shape and location then disappeared. White protoplasmic-mycelium-like-tendrils with fruiting-body-like appendages form networks upon and above the surface; or increase in mass as documented by sequential photographs. Hundreds of dimpled donut-shaped "mushroom-like" formations approximately 1mm in size are adjacent or attached to these mycelium-like complexes. Additional sequences document that white amorphous masses beneath rock-shelters increase in mass, number, or disappear and that similar white-fungus-like specimens appeared inside an open rover compartment. Comparative statistical analysis of a sample of 9 spherical specimens believed to be fungal "puffballs" photographed on Sol 1145 and 12 specimens that emerged from beneath the soil on Sol 1148 confirmed the nine grew significantly closer together as their diameters expanded and some showed evidence of movement. Cluster analysis and a paired sample 't' test indicates a statistically significant size increase in the average size ratio over all comparisons between and within groups (P = 0.011). Statistical comparisons indicates that arctic "araneiforms" significantly increased in length in parallel following an initial growth spurt. Although similarities in morphology are not proof of life, growth, movement, and changes in shape and location constitute behavior and support the hypothesis there is life on Mars."

I know it's massively impractical, but I'm curious how much CH4+O2 a nuclear aircraft carrier (or a cargo ship retrofitted with a reactor) could produce from desalinated seawater and atmospheric CO2. I love the idea of a mobile launch platform that produces its own rocket fuel. If it's used exclusively for refueling launches then it could spend months or years away from port.

Family and I saw it fly overhead a few minutes ago. Went out to watch ISS, didn't think I'd see Endeavor. Saw a dim speck trailing 40? Maybe 60 degrees behind the station. Maybe it was something else, but it looked to be going the same speed and in the same direction. Coolest thing I've ever seen in my life.

The observable universe is a sphere that we are in the center of. The edge of the observable universe is the surface of that sphere. For the edge of the observable universe to be falling into the event horizon of a black hole, the observable universe must be nested inside a black hole. This black hole would have its mass on the outside of its event horizon. I lack the training to definitively state that this is impossible, but I have a hard time believing that the observable universe exists inside an inverted black hole without that assertion coming from a reputable figure in the scientific community. There are a few other things that you said that I am skeptical of, but they would require far more explanation than I have time for right now. It sounds a little bit like you're suggesting that the observable universe is a white hole. I'm not confident enough in my knowledge on that topic to say anything about that. Could you tell us a little bit about your education on the topic? Getting a sense for what knowledge went into forming your idea would help us assess it further.

Not sure that would work on Mars. Might find better success on the Moon.

If only there were some way that it could lift itself from one place to another. Say, by using its enormous fuel reservoir to power some sort of engine... I know, I know. I'm just being silly. It's a good question.

Quoth Wikipedia regarding Juno I (the vehicle that launched Explorer I) , "The Juno I consisted of a Jupiter-C rocket with a fourth stage mounted on top of the "tub" of the third stage, and fired after third-stage burnout to boost the payload and fourth stage to an orbital velocity of 8 kilometres per second (29,000 km/h; 18,000 mph). The tub along with the fourth stage were set spinning while the rocket was on the launch pad to provide gyroscopic force in lieu of a guidance system that would have required vanes, gimbals, or vernier motors."

Shouldn't you exit the body's surface with the same speed that you entered at? Your path accelerating towards the core should perfectly mirror your path moving away from it barring any other forces being applied to the craft (such as burning engines).

Unless I made a mistake, that much thrust over two seconds would be sufficient to accelerate a 5 tonne male elephant to over 450 m/s.

I'm not sure how much they would actually end up saving. R&D is expensive, opening a new production line is expensive, hiring new employees to work on that line is expensive, renting or building an additional factory (assuming there's not sufficient space in their current facilities) is expensive. Saving 40% of their fairing costs on some flights probably wouldn't recoup the costs that are required up front in a reasonable time frame. The new employees that this would require is an expense that will eat into any savings. More importantly than all of that, designing and implementing a new fairing introduces a potential point of failure in a mature and reliable product.

I know just enough to take wild guesses, but not enough to identify why I'm wrong. If someone could point out where my guess falls apart (I'm loathe to call my spitballing a hypothesis) I'd appreciate it. If a star's orbit was deflected by another star such that it was within a blackhole's Rosche limit, would that explain the appearance of the gas cloud? The subsequent accretion disk could also explain the dramatic rise in luminosity. If a single star is insufficient for this amount of gas and luminosity, how likely would it be that multiple stars would suffer the same fate in such a short time span (my gut feeling is that this is so unlikely as to be almost impossible, but I don't know the numbers for it)? The article mentions that a blackhole of this size could not destroy a larger star from tidal forces, but if a larger star passed so close to the black hole that a portion of it passed within the Schwarschild radius (or close enough that mass was lost) could we see a larger star get disintegrated? This would require such precision that it seems incredibly unlikely, but, again, I don't have any of the numbers on it. The second explanation provided by the article, that a supernova was not obscured by debris, seems more probable than any of my wild imaginings.

They should protect the nozzles with water-proof caps instead of the legs. Also, drink water is less agressive than sea water. You quoted a statement about reusing fairings that went for a swim. The first stage's reusability is in no way dictated by the landing conditions after which a fairing may be reused.

BFR doesn't move itself into orbit around the Earth. It moves Earth into orbit around the BFR. To land it puts Earth back where it's supposed to be. Calling it now. (Top that for insane speculation!)

"Look! You can see the two things both firing their engines!" It's Scott Manley official: stages are henceforth to be referred to as things. Congratulations to SpaceX on successfully shooting their smaller thing into space and successfully recovering their larger thing. I bet their engineers can't wait to get their hands all over it.

Most likely landing pads one through four were planned before the decision was made to cancel landing pad three. Renaming pad four after cancelling pad three would be a waste of time and manpower, plus a possible source of confusion and inefficiency given that landing pad three meant something entirely different in the recent past. It's easier to build landing pad four to completion and then rename it than it would be while it is still an active project, but even then it would serve little purpose. If they were sequential, such as train stations along a single line, then it would make more sense to rename them, but that's not the case. All three pads are independent and the number is just a title for them.

I suspect that increased drag at its current altitude would overcome any potential gains from a solar sail. Might work if you raise its orbit before deploying it, though. Edit: Wikipedia (yeah, I know) says that drag and solar pressure are equivalent at roughly 800km, so we'll need to boost the station higher than that for it to work.

Looks interesting. How much can be tweaked between simulations? Can a user start with more or less asteroids, change the range of masses they start with, their initial velocity, etc? Does it give you the option to automatically save a screenshot periodically (say, every year) so you can run a more populated simulation over several days, then go back and watch it? In any case it looks like the sort of thing I'd spend a few hours playing around with, then leave running overnight to see how much it changes.

Definitely Penguin, if only so that we can get headlines like "astronauts ride four penguins to Mars."

The solution is surprisingly easy. Information, no matter how it is stored, is likely to degrade, be misunderstood, or considered a hoax. I have something far simpler in mind that, so far as I can tell, does not violate any of the initial assumptions.

"It's actually a very tricky question," says Dr Simon O'Toole from the Australian Astronomical Observatory. "A lot of people think it's just taking the highest and lowest points on the planet and finding the average, but it's not that simple. Because there's no sea level on Mars any more, zero altitude is defined as a specific atmospheric pressure of 610.5 Pascals, about six millibars. This value was chosen because it's the triple point of water on Mars, where it can exist as gas, liquid or solid." Courtesy of ABC News. I'm not sure whether it's correct or not, but it sounds plausible and I'd personally believe it unless corrected by an expert.

If you look at the painting closely, I think you'll find that people are leaving the ferry. They probably got tired of waiting or suddenly discovered an inexplicable hatred towards watercraft.

And here I thought pornography was against forum rules (not that I'm complaining).

It's interesting to look back at previous flights. I didn't realize that they hadn't failed a mission in 15 months (17 consecutive successes), or that it's been 18 months since they last failed to land a booster, or that a quarter of this year's flights were on reused boosters.

He's 61 years old. How much do you think he's going to be passing on his genome in the future?