kerbiloid

Probably after NASA had built a huge hollow wheel to make the gravity, they were pitting wits against a problem: how to use all this large empty space? The cheapest ways they have found: gym, lounge, winter-garden and disco-bar with karaoke, because they consist mostly of air.

, but with large fan. Also, this is a launcher. With SpaceX precision this makes sense. This aerotube stays in the backyard of Musk's facility, catching the falling stages and dragons, spitting up falcons. No more land rent or so is required, just a backyard or a gothic castle. Here you can see a Standalone Rocket Facility with an aerotube at its right side, (Also this will assign a clear meaning to: why Dragon needs to precisely land onto a bull's eye rather than other ships which are happy with their chutes and a piece of desert.)

Lunar orbital speed is just 1.6 km/s. It's just a gun shot speed, rather than the terrestrial 7.8 km/s, and there's no air drag. So, no need in a Lunar spacelift, just a V-1-style railway ramp is required. And a tiny engine for the apoapsis burn. Orbital speeds of puny ice moons and cereses are ~100-300 m/s. It's a problem not to launch from their surface, but not to launch too fast, So, instead of a spacelift - a sportcar is in order.

MJ, not KJ. TNT is much weaker than fuel, it just releases its energy at once. In case of Falcon we probably don't have an explosion (as in vacuum bomb), but just a fast burning. So, more temperature effects than a shockwave. Also a mighty blow into the deck, causing strong vibratory inputs which can damage the observer's organism. Btw, just remembered a casus from 1904 Russian-vs-Japan war memoirs. A midshipman stayed on board of a damaged warship to blow it up. After preparing all stuff he had made a rope cradle - hanging from a pole, above the ocean, below the deck level, After he had ignited the delay cords, he took his place in the cradle and happily survived the ship explosion.

If KIC 8462852 builders become aware of us, our social order wouldn't play a greater role than an ants colony order for an excavator driver..

As I can understand, this topic is dedicated to the Popper's criterion, which declares this "unfalsifiable means non-scientific" assumption. As for these two universes, of course if the second one is based on such complicated laws that nobody can get a predictable result, then "science" (i.e. structurized empirical knowledge) is not in order. As an absolutely unpredictable system is usually called "chaos", so, either this is a pure chaos, or this universe is based on short-range predictability. But, anyway, looks we are talking about different things here - falsifiability vs usability, just different themes.

To make a prison for their fugitives.

Mathematical axioms are absolutely falsifiable, though. And axioms are not just a question of faith, they are absolutely exact definitions which are designating the range of applicability of the theory which they belong to. If you can draw a line crossing its parallel line, the you've successfully run a test which falsified the corresponding axiom. (As you indeed can draw such line, this means that your test had crossed the limits of the range of applicability of Euclid's theory, not that Euclid's geometry is wrong). So, we have not a scientific criterion of a scientificity here, but just a non-scientific assumption taken as a non-falsifiable (i.e. non-scientific) axiom. And then we are trying to use it as a scientific criterion of scientificity. This just would mean that the theories describing their world differ from others, they are out of our theories' range of applicability.

But what makes to think that this is Venus whose rotation is reverse, rather than Earth? A planet appears from a swarm of snowballs orbiting the Sun on more or less same distance with more or less same speed. So, when a protoplanet continues its way through its native swarm, with orbit radius R and orbital speed V, there are snowballs more distant from the Sun,with orbits R+dR and V - dV and there are snowballs closer to the Sun,with orbits R-dR and V + dV. So, when the protoplanet gathers them: It chases the first ones, hits them by its "forehead" (i.e. the planet prograde part distant from the Sun), and this adds an angular momentum in backwards direction. The second ones chase the planet themselves and hit it into its "back" (i.e. the planet retrograde part close to the Sun), and this adds an angular momentum in... also backwards direction. So, if nothing large hits the planet, it must rotate exactly like the Venus does: slowly, almost tidally locked, in backwards direction. While the Earth and Mars as we probably know were either directly hit or tidally rotated (doesn't matter in this case) and we can be absolutely sure that their "normal" rotation is in fact a "post-traumatic" one. Also, afaik, there is no real continents on Venus, but there are la-arge fields of so-called tesseras., appeared due to the crust compression, which tells us that it was never molten at once as a significant part of the Earth body was, so we can hardly presume that it was hit by something. In fact, Venus looks like the most natural and untouched planet of the rocky ones. The vanilla planet as it is.

This is a consequence from the initial theory, though. Newtonian physics is just a particluar case of more common relativistic one, for trivial conditions (v << c, space curvature → infinity, etc). Newtonian theory is not wrong, it just has more limited range of applicability. Also the relativictic theory is a limited case of some greater one. I mean: we need to go deeper the initial assumption (i.e. the scientificity criterion) declares that a theory (i.e. this assumption itself, too) can be treated as a scientific one if and only if this is possible to imagine a test when the theory gives a wrong answer. For example: if we will drop an apple, and it will fly up instead of fall down, then Newton's theory would be invalidated ("falsified" as they call this).. So, Newtonian theory is true or wrong, but it's scientific. While if we declare "dropped apple will either fly or fall", we can't make an experiment which can invalidate this assumption (because in any case the apple will either fly or fall). So, this theory is unfalsifiable and thus, non-scientific. But is it possible to imagine a theory which is scientific and unfalsifiable? If we can't imagine such theory, then the initial assumption (Popper's criterion, btw) is itself unfalsifiable, thus non-scientific and we cannot use the falsifiability as a scientific criterion of scientificity.

They would be peaceful and constructive. As a 80 tonnes bulldozer building a school or hospital over an ant heap.

Can the initial assumption be falsified? ("If you cannot falsify a theory, it cannot be valid scientifically").

Slaves, building a Dyson sphere with pickaxes and shovels...

27 single engines on start. This begins to resemble N-1 with its 30. Probably, ~1 bar/10 m * 4 g, i.e. several bars of pressure.

Many astronomers will earn Ph.D. Astronomical faculties will build a Wall against school pupils' zerg rush to protect the last remains of professional respectability. Cinema, toys and souvenir vendors will go to sleep with "KIC 8462852" name on their lips. Preachers will get a visible and ultimate evidence for their followers. Every fastfood cafe will include a KIC8462852burger in their menu. Several years later nobody cares. As no visible profit can be gained.

No problem for many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, but this is obviously beyond the range of applicability of the modern physical theories.

Keeanu Reeves beats a face of computer virus as Johnny Mnemonic, then he beats a face of computer antivirus as Neo. Opponents alter, methods stay the same.

In any case you should select an initial Earth year, some Earth year when you presume 01.01.YYYY on Earth = 01.01.0000 on Kerbin. And count days from that date. According to wiki , "Kerbal Space Program first compiled on 2011 January 17". So, you can take 2011 as a Kerbals' Great Awakening Year and use "01.01.2011 00:00:00 GMT" as a zero moment "00.00.0001 0:00:00 KMT". In the Kerbin system you use not a Kerbin's planetary time (counting visible passes of the Sun over the sky watching from surface), but some absolute time, and there is integer days amount in a year, so there cannot be a leap year. If you were an ancient Kerbal gazing at the Sun from the ground and creating an empiric calendar, then you would get a fractional days number in a year and probably should use leap years with an additional day or month.

I'm afraid, the process direction is reversed here. But before any atmosphere can freeze, it first must appear. Planets appear mostly from the space dust which is, say, a dirty snow. All gases listed above (except H and He) are mostly frozen snowflakes → snowballs → snow hills → protoplanetary bodies. If the body is being created far from the Sun, it stays more or less icy, as: it's enough cold to keep them frozen, less numerous bodies with large distances between them. So, we get Kuiper planetinos, icy moons of gas giants, comets, other snowy stuff. If the body appears close to the Sun, when it's hot, then the dust is hot and looses much of volatile chemicals (hydrocarbons and so on). Here we receive a rocky planet rich with metal oxides but absolutely poor with H2O, CO2 and other volatile substances. Also, all kept volatiles are bound inside chemicals compounds (hydrates, carbonates, etc) and release when they get molten under 1500 K temperatures and release as volcanic gases. So, if the space body is far and cold, the ice stays icy, just permanently loosing into space the most volatile or "UV-splittable" compounds. If the space body is hot, it had lost all volatile substances billions years ago. It's atmosphere is more or less greenhouse, the Sun luminosity is constantly increasing, so why would it freeze? And even if so (say, ice creation enforces albedo) — what can be frozen here except of H2O, CO2 and SOx if there is nothing more except very cryogenic O2/N2, which anyway stay gaseous on such distances. So, we can't get a frozen ice from a gas which is gone far ago — on Mercury or Venus.

Plants are not necessary green. http://www.livescience.com/1398-early-earth-purple-study-suggests.html

Some other pages with pictures from the same site (in case it's hard to navigate through Russian) (Content page http://cosmopark.ru/kpk_isz.html ) http://cosmopark.ru/7k/7k.htm http://cosmopark.ru/rb/index.html http://cosmopark.ru/lk.htm http://cosmopark.ru/lun9.html http://cosmopark.ru/lun10.htm

Just some images of TKS VA interior, maybe something useful for IVA. http://cosmopark.ru/ur500/tks.htm http://cosmopark.ru/ur500/tks2.htm http://cosmopark.ru/ur500/tks3.htm

Sulfate-reducing bacteria are anaerobic.

Then you probably can explain how an oxygen atmosphere can co-exist with "energetical" amounts of H2S.

Oxygen 1s22s22p4 Sulfur 3s23p4