Hunting.Targ

For once, Ryker's vigorous clapping seems appropriate... If the engines are not safed and immediate evacuation is necessary, those slides will not be deployed, only the forwardmost and aftermost slides would be deployed. Unless there is a fire, most turbines take less than two minutes to spin down, and once the plane is on the ground, there is a fuel cutoff control for each engine in case of fire or the need for rapid egress. Outside of that, there should be no forced air ahead of or behind the engines by the time the aircraft has come to a stop. Plus the slides would only be detached immediately in the event of a water landing, in which case that is all moot. This is quite innovative... and... weird. I just would like to note that I will never fly Delta again; I was on three different aircraft and all three times the seats were just too small.

Yup. Three things are important; Contrast; avoiding extremes of contrast is especially important to avoid eye strain and its long-term health penalties (onset of myopia, other problems focusing). Your eyes have muscles not just around them but in them as well, and they heal very slowly. Always have one alternate light source on that creates indirect backlighting behind the monitor, so there isn't an extreme of contrast in your field of view. Proper nutrition; anyone who uses a computer a lot should ensure they get enough vitamins A, D, E, and K, as well as enough protein. It is easy to fall into a cycle of consuming carbohydrates, simple sugars, and fats to keep blood sugar and Myelin levels up, but protein is essential to proper metabolic health, and should be consumed with every meal. Animal meats, eggs, cheese, and nuts all provide protein. Protein bars for athletes or diabetics are also quite helpful. Regular breaks. I try to stick with at least 15 minutes every 2 hours. Unless you're doing something that is involved or intense, a short break, along with a snack or a walk, can have a variety of benefits; re-normalize circulation in both body and brain, re-adjust blood sugar and hormone levels, and stimulate the removal of wastes from tissues. And again, DarkGravity is absolutely right. If you have another episode, especially after implementing the steps above, please seek professional medical help. Many hospitals or health care networks allow you to call a Nurse Practitioner (someone who has a nursing credential or degree, but not a medical license or M.D.) for free advice. I would find such a phone number or similar hotline, and post it near the computer or put it on voice dial on a cel phone. You're not protecting lives or national security, so there's no need to put yourself at risk.

Now that looks interesting; it reminds me a little of the hand control of the NASA MMU first fielded on the Space Shuttle Orbiter; it has similar characteristics, allowing for full translation and orientation control on a single instrument. THX! ; that was more helpful. Logitech has made some cool stuff; I have packed away somewhere a trak-ball made for graphic design that fit quite well inside the finger grip area; it had five buttons, and zones for both coarse and fine control. Would never use it for a FSP or flight sim, and I had to clean it regularly, and even spread a drop of olive oil on the ball for maximum glide and sensitivity, but it had its moments. WAY better than most digitally-actuated controllers. - - - Updated - - - BTW, it is possible to create support if you can get the API and driver specs; there is (was?) a dinosaur joystick that had a multitude of buttons on it before gamepads came out, and I seriously considered updating the drivers because I wanted to use it to play MechWarrior: Mercenaries. But after getting the first gamepad (this one, the Belkin Nostromo n50), I never looked back. For me joysticks are all about quality design and construction; and report/refresh rate. All the extranea can be handled by the keyboard or a supplementary input device. Which is why your 3Dconnect device looks so appealing; too bad it doesn't work in the VAB. (Have you written to them about driver compatibility now that 1.0 is out?)

Both the second and meter are now defined in terms of fundamental physical constants, aliens most certainly would understand it. You then go on to say that we should replace these with arbitrary angles, in degrees rather than radians lol? I think that Darnok is saying that the metrics (i.e. standardized units) by which we measure various quantities would probably not be immediately intelligible to an alien culture, since the basis for establishing such units is not a universal absolute; they can be calibrated against natural phenomena such as half-lives, pulsars, and controlled standards (such as the yardstick and atomic chronometer in Grennwich, UK), but while it may be recognized what a second measures, the quantity and system of measure will take some learning. Our own system of minutes and seconds is derived from the navigational system of latitude and longitude - the rotational period of the earth is a natural phenomenon, but the divisions themselves are arbitrary - it could just as well have been 1000° or 1024. This was illustrated in Battlestar Galactica and Farscape, who threw around Yarans and Centons, or Arns and Microts, instead of Years and Seconds. I hope that's illustrative. - - - Updated - - - Incidentally, the reason that Gabriel Farenheit gave for his system that had 180° between the freezing and boiling temperatures of water, was that he hated fractions and wanted a system that got him out of doing math with them.

(emphasis by quoter)Self-insured => taxpayer-insured. Also of note; after the Challenger incident, the United States Air Force backed away from using the Shuttle Orbiter as a launch vehicle for its surveillance satellites and other classified operations; they went with the Atlas/Centaur program instead, which was operated completely in-house. I still have a copy of a Shuttle operations manual with a mission profile for self-contained satellite insertion that would, hypothetically, be used to insert a payload into orbit that would then self-transfer into a new orbit meeting the mission profile. (The Shuttle Orbiter was trackable from ground telescopes and radar; a stealth satellite using an ejectable booster motor would be much more difficult to track to a new orbit.)

First of all, the system of mathematics and logic is a language. And like all language, it is bourne out of not just facts and concepts, but out of a certain way of thinking and perceiving. I once had an engineering teacher who came to my home country as a student not knowing the language, but he learned algebra, calculus, and chemistry just by reading and working with the formulae and symbols in textbooks. Any language has rules, and may be innovated and modified over time, but the purpose of modifications is to express thoughts, ideas, (and emotions, in the case of linguistic languages), and perceptions with some degree of clarity. Mathematics is different in two respects from the linguistic languages of the world. First, it is universally recognized and understood, as I illustrated above. Because scientists are trying to understand the same phenomena in the same universe using the same methodology, they have developed, without negotiation or overt conflict, a largely universal system of representing their ideas. Second, mathematics allows little leeway in the way of context or subjectivity in how a concept is expressed; classical logic as the foundation of mathematical expression and reasoning requires certain conditions to be met when working with figures and quantities; the principles of identity, non-contradiction, and commutation of operation, albeit in slightly different forms, have appeared in multiple cultures in multiple eras throughout recorded history, just as have other ideas like currency, domestication of animals, art, and division of labor. From this, it is therefore likely, but not by any means certain, that it stems from fundamental properties of the the universe in which we live. Beyond this, there are certain inescapable concepts, such as Pi and e, the trigonometric functions and the conic sections, that cannot be altered no matter what you do to the expressive or numerical systems themselves. No numerical system can accurately express the value of Pi, but our mathematical system can define and expess the idea of Pi in a finite expression. We can show the ideas, and can see that what we are representing in our system of expression are really fundamental properties of our reality, things that would not be different even if we contrived to make them so. So I do think that everyone quoted above is as close to the truth as we can get without getting together and writing a paper about it (admittedly, it would be a philosophical, not a scientific publication). "Mathematics is the language with which God has written the universe." -Albert Einstein

Aside from the 'dark hole' possibility, a ballistic unidentified launch could easily be assumed to be an ICBM, depending on the point of origin. Since it is unlikely to get intercepted on ascent, once the flight path was seen to be an orbital insertion, and not a ballistic free-fall, everyone watching (which would probably NOT include news media) would probably calm down somewhat and start looking for the party responsible. The U.S., Russian Republic, Chinese Republic, and Japan, all especially have an interest in know who put what up into space to do what. There's an interesting little factoid on Wikipedia about the Skylab mission; the end of the mission was a planned deorbit that was to send the module on a descent trajectory into the Great Australian Bight, but actually scattered debris up to 100 miles inland of the coast. NASA was, somewhat tounge-in-cheek, fined for littering. This fine was paid 30 years later by a radio show host who raised proceeds from his listeners.

There's a lot of good stuff here; I can hardly add anything that would be useful without pushing towards data overload. Just one thing, since you said you're hosting an observing party - well, two things. The advise about external lights is absolutely imperative. I would send out e-mails or make phone calls (txting is WAY too casual nowadays), and inform everyone attending that 1) cel phones should be OFF or left in a safe location before they enter the observing room. A phone that makes noise is a distraction - a phone that lights up can mess up everyone's night vision, as it takes up to 1 hour for human eyes to adapt to low-light conditions. 2) In addition to phones, all other light sources should be off 15-30 minutes before the viewing starts, unless you want to start with the moon. Come up with a few conversation starters, get all the lights off (your 'viewing audience' should be aware what you're doing and why), and yak it up for a bit until you're ready to point at some objects with the telescope.At the absolute most a red bulb should be used to see and adjust the telescope (a photography darkroom bulb is expensive, but possibly worth it if the fixture is in the right location). Plan your session. Don't get familiar with a whole slew of objects and not know what you will be looking at. Check the sky charts for that night, check the weather, and know sunset time, sunrise time, and what major objects will be in the sky that night (Ursa Major & Polaris, Orion, Casseopaeia, Pleadies, etc.) Decide what you will look at, and in what order. Not only will this help you stay organized and focused, but knowing your way around the sky is important. The most advanced app won't help you if you decide to look at something only to find out on the night that one of your viewing objects of choice is 20° below the horizon somewhere between the windowsill and your shoes.

I do have to say, though, that I feel this is being approached the wrong way - by NASA, SpaceX, MarsOne, the whole lot of them. Star Trek had one thing right about spacecraft design; if we're going to travel between stars and planets, we don't need the same ship to do everything. Having a starship with atmosphere-capable shuttles is a close parallel to the idea of a naval ship with longboats; you don't take the ship right up to shore, there's too many difficulties and risks. In the same way, putting more and more requirements on a single spaceframe will geometrically increase the cost and complexity of such a vehicle, especially if it is expected to lift-off through and re-enter atmosphere. SO, having said that, here's how I feel the challenge of interplanetary travel should be tackled: -> We have the ISS in Low Earth Orbit. This is a functional staging point for personnel to go to further mission sites. --> Build another station in Geosynchronous orbit, inclined perhaps 12 - 25° and position it over Europe, so it can communicate directly with mission sites of NASA, ESA, Russian Federal Space Agency (FSA), and JAXA (Japanese Aerospace eXploration Agency). Progressively outfit it with power, command, habitation/recreation, construction/repair, and flight & mission control facilities. => Locate two small asteroids, one ore-rich, one mostly ice (preferably in solar orbits not too different from Earth's), and build a mission to relocate each to a parking orbit either in high earth orbit, lunar orbit, or an earth-moon LaGrange point ( L4 or L5 ). I would speculate a combination of nuclear and ion engines, and possibly a gravity tractor probe. ---> While the above is in transit, build a basic moon base, one that would be supervised and directed by the high-orbit station. ==> As each asteroid approaches its parking orbit, install facilities either on the asteroid or in lunar orbit that can sample and process ore into alloys and water into fuel (LH2 and LO2, or potentially Hydrocarbons such as Hydrazine or Kerosene). Also add capabilites to either the space station or mining stations to do high-quality materials fabrication in microgravity, such as microcircuits, gem crystals, and large-scale solid-state devices. ===> Having done all that, build a proper moon base on the dark side that can do exotic and dangerous things like process nuclear material (there are several inactive Russian satellites with actual reactors in high parking orbits whose cores could be processed) and engage in subassembly fabrication for transport back to an assembly site, either at the high-orbit station or elsewhere in the earth-moon system. ====>> THEN you build an interplanetary transit vehicle, which is resilient, robust, and redundant enough to stay in space for its operational lifetime, which will hopefully be 2-5 decades. That's my plan to put humans on other planets. - - - Updated - - - No, not atmosphere. But the annual dust storms that cover up to 1/3d of the planet and easily match the wind velocity of a class 5 hurricane might be something to consider.

Boy, you said it right there. I do understand that there are object in semi-stable 'horseshoe' orbits near L3, L4, and L5, but that would be a very sensible suggestion, since it would remove a degree of rotation and reduce the complexity of observational calculations. There are observations that Hubble did quite effectively using just its earth orbital parallax, and that saved a great deal of time over doing them over doing it on a solar orbital parallax. Doing things such as parallax ranging on a solar orbit would make a daunting mission schedule; each ranging would need to be done at orbital antipodes, which would lead to a LOT of repositioning. It would also greatly increase the complexity of maintenance missions; travelling much farther than lunar orbit would 1) take longer, 2) require a radiation-hardened craft, since it would be travelling outside the earth's magnetosphere, and 3) be significantly more since it would involve a non-conic transfer from earth orbit around a positive gravitational influence to a null point between influences. So; trade-offs. Still a worthwhile idea. Indeed. As far as going to Mars; there's a thing about habitability; there may be more technical challenges to surviving and pioneering on Mars, however, it has key similarities to Earth that are relevant for living creatures: => It has more than double the size and gravity of the moon. Living on Mars would be less disorienting aesthetically and kinesthecially, especially to mammals. => It has a comparable rotational period. No major adjustment of circadian rythyms would be needed, and the health effects of a different gravity level would be less pronounced than living on the moon, which has a surface gravity of about .16Gs (only 1.57 m/s2). So to maintain a physique that could survive re-entry and return to earth's surface (if that eventuality were planned for) would require a less taxing daily regimen. => There are pre-organic compounds on Mars. There is the potential to encapsulate and process land mass into biomass, for use in farming, composting, and grading for permanent structures. And given the weather on Mars, permanent, even perhaps subterranean structures would be at least strongly advisable, if not essential. The moon, while not having any weather, also has no dirt, dust, or other materials that could potentially be chemically treated and then processed by microorganisms or plants. There's just dust, sand, and rock. So BYOB (Bring your own Biomass), unless you want to ship space food to a moon base 1-4 times a month (now does that sound cost-effective?) So It's a trade-off. I don't look at either as being inherently 'better' or 'more worthy' than the other; they each have their own unique challenges.

To visit? I would have to say... {researches and studies for ~45 min.} Triton. Not quite as scientifically interesting as Uranus' moons, but I would be fascinated (and honestly a bit scared) to visit somewhere where you can barely find Earth in the sky. However, that having been said, if I could live anywhere in the Solar System, I would live on the moon. In a pressurized base built inside a low-pressure craterdome. It's close to home , and it having about the highest gravity of any moon, would require the least strenuous daily workout to stave off health issues. And I could stay in touch with family, and even send/receive parcels! I hope I have sufficiently answered the question.

At that you are rather on the mark; we are very blessed to live on a planet teeming with life and biodiversity. But is it not up to us to 'make' other planets interesting? You - you're in my mind! Who are you?!? Seriously, you picked my top two locations.

The atmosphere has nothing to do with the reactor; a fusion reaction chamber is a sealed, evacuated environment that has a very specific composition before and during operation. It's plasma physics, not rocket chemistry. If you're talking about matter density; I don't think everything in the Kerbol system is denser that elsewhere/when; just the planetary cores. Maybe two neutron stars got into a spiral dance and one came apart through tidal forces, scattering stellar fragments through a nebula that formed a planetary system with superdense centers. IDK. But that shouldn't have anything to do with fusion either; physics is physics, unless you find a doorway to another universe (or 'brane', as they're now saying). It's a process called neutron capture; it's one way that Canada produces heavy water for their naval propulsion reactors. A hydrogen nucleus can 'capture' a neutron (under the right conditions, of course) and become deterium. All you need is a source of neutron flux of the appropriate density and energy distribution. It's nuclear chemistry.

'Nobody's perfect'. And in an age of apathy and cynicism, I'll take hero worship over hero-bashing any day. Elon Musk has faults and shortcomings. So did Steve Jobs, and Sam Walton, and John F. Kennedy or Ronald Reagan, and Stephen Speilberg or George Lucas or Jim Henson. That didn't stop them from accomplishing great things. The people who really damage our culture aren't the ones who have faults (that's everybody), but the ones who try to hide them and live up to the image that hopeful, sometimes naïve fans paint onto their reputations; Tiger Woods and Lance Armstrong come to mind. I do agree with you about losing objectivity and becoming overly defensive. At the same time, I think that we can be respectful while being realistic. That takes effort from both sides.

ALSO: The XB-70 Valkyrie Designed as a supersonic strategic bomber in the 1950s-'60s using advanced engineering and construction techniques, its mission profile became obsolete with the advent of Surface-to-Air Missiles. The two prototypes were used jointly by the U.S. Air Force and NASA for aerodynamic research. 4nOkkBSAThis is more than an airframe to me; it is engineering art.

Orthographically projected diagram of the P-51D Mustang Specifications (P-51D Mustang) Data from Erection and Maintenance Manual for P-51D and P-51K.[103] The Great Book of Fighters,[104] and Quest for Performance[105] General characteristics Crew: 1 Length: 32 ft 3 in (9.83 m) Wingspan: 37 ft 0 in (11.28 m) Height: 13 ft 4½ in (4.08 m:tail wheel on ground, vertical propeller blade.) Wing area: 235 sq ft (21.83 m²) Empty weight: 7,635 lb (3,465 kg) Loaded weight: 9,200 lb (4,175 kg) Max. takeoff weight: 12,100 lb (5,490 kg) Powerplant: 1 × Packard V-1650-7 liquid-cooled supercharged V-12, 1,490 hp (1,111 kW) at 3,000 rpm;[106] 1,720 hp (1,282 kW) at WEP Zero-lift drag coefficient: 0.0163 Drag area: 3.80 sqft (0.35 m²) Aspect ratio: 5.83 Performance Maximum speed: 437 mph (380 kn, 703 km/h) at 25,000 ft (7,600 m) Cruise speed: 362 mph (315 kn, 580 km/h) Stall speed: 100 mph (87 kn, 160 km/h) Range: 1,650 mi (1,434 nmi, 2,755 km) with external tanks Service ceiling: 41,900 ft (12,800 m) Rate of climb: 3,200 ft/min (16.3 m/s) Wing loading: 39 lb/sqft (192 kg/m²) Power/mass: 0.18 hp/lb (300 W/kg) Lift-to-drag ratio: 14.6 Recommended Mach limit 0.8 Armament 6× 0.50 caliber (12.7mm) M2 Browning machine guns with 1,880 total rounds (400 rounds for each on the inner pair, and 270 rounds for each of the outer two pair) 2× hardpoints for up to 2,000 lb (907 kg) of bombs 6 or 10× T64 5.0 in (127 mm) H.V.A.R rockets (P-51D-25, P-51K-10 on) One of the fastest, most powerful single-engine propeller planes ever manufactured, along with the Corsair and the Zero. Featured in the films The Tuskegee Airmen, Red Tails, and Empire of the Sun.

THINK POSITIVE. Your conditions are benign, not progressive or aggressive, and you have a good chance of major to complete recovery. There are implants and other aids that can help deal with hearing loss. Prayers of healing for you. Take care of yourself. Hope to see you back later in the year.

I've never been comfortable buying stock models, and I don't like rebuilding every few years. I love upgrading hardware; but once I get nestled into a groove with a particular OS and a particular software layout and a particular array of tweaks and setting adjustments (is there a theme here?), I don't like to move everything in either a backup or a partition image and re-integrate. If I can get a tower I'd be comfortable working in (and LOVE looking at!), and a motherboard I'm confident won't be dated in 5 years, I'd be happy to part-swap for 5-10 years, even if it's not the most cost-effective way to use hardware. Besides, one of the fun side benefits of upgrading is building Frankenstein rigs with old parts. {Note: I also might consider building a compressed-coolant system like Kryotech used to sell, and THAT would be worth sinking money into.} Only because I don't want to mess with a desktop every 6-12 mos until I can have exactly what I want, and because I decided against having my own laptop for a variety of reasons - a desktop and smartphone is quite enough technological productive capacity for me. If it's that important, I'll scribble in my notebook and flesh it out later. If I can have a computer I can hang on my office wall and not tinker with for a few years, I will be fine with that. I do appreciate you both pointing out the points of other options. It's just that my compelling reason is neither economy nor portability and convenience, it's - ... simplicity. Even I, as a geek among geeks, realize that I can't think about everything in accurate detail all the time. Sometimes it's necessary to sacrifice things one genuinely enjoys and excels at for the sake of focus and effectiveness. It's not a personal decision (well, it is aesthetically), it's a priority decision. Like the late Steve Jobs, I believe that there are times that technology should 'just work', and be so transparent you see right through it to the task. Much as I enjoy looking at technology, I am at a point where I need to look through it, but I'm not about to throw down for a 'war horse' or a 'big rig' machine, so I will settle for a 'camel.' So I do thank you both for your advice, and I do plan to make use of it in the future. Yes, I do understand that. I was just asking what particular unit you picked out and why. I have used a few joysticks in my many, many Müns of computing, and the first one was still the best experience. It was simple, but powerfully effective. 3 buttons, 2 toggles, manual axis bias adjusters, and a graphite-lubricated hard plastic ball-bearing socket. Many flight sims were ravished by that instrument. Too many of the more modern designs, while looking way cooler, to me feel plasticky, unrefined, and plain old cheap. If it doesn't feel like it belongs in a cockpit, it's not likely to earn my respect.

Well, congratulations and godspeed! You really are in for an adventure. I will try not to say too much, but I have to admit that I am quite spoiled: my grandfather made his own telescope back in the heyday of garage amateur astronomy; a 12.5" (~320mm) Newtonian reflector with a correction motor added later. It is now mine, and I have not used it much in the last 10 years. When building your own, learn a lesson from the Hubble; the specifications for the primary mirror are of critical importance. Be sure your intended focal length and concavity are compatible with an existing line of eyepieces, or you may need those to be custom-made as well. The primary mirror should either be special-ordered or fabricated professionally, just like a major observatory; glass grinding, polishing, and coating is by no means a DIY project anymore. Also, it would be in your interest to subscribe to a periodical for amateur observers; if you are just interested in skywatching, I'd recommend Sky & Telescope ; their focus has always been on observing the night sky. If you can't or don't want to have it delivered to you, you can always subscribe to the website too, although I believe the online content is more limited. Again, best of luck.

Certainly sounds interesting; like a 'mini-sim' for research within KSP. Do you have any plans or interest to interoperate with contracts, so that contracts can actually appear for specific experiments, or vice versa?

Various stuff from OCRemix (Disco Dan and McVaffe are my favorite remixers). Also Vangelis (Mythodea is phenomenally atmostpheric).

At this point, to replace a 7-year-old home office machine, I think I will just get an all-in-one and put some more memory into it. That's until I can build a dream machine, something I can sink $5-10K into. I'm just annoyed that I can't find an integrated touchscreen with both AMD and Windows 7 that's not an HP. What I would like to know is does anyone here use a joystick, and if so what and why? This is important to me because I used to be big into flight sims (small surprise I'm here now, no?)

I am Hunting.Targ pretty much anywhere I am. Many, many Müns ago I tried to choose a handle that would be unique; easy to recognize and unlikely to be copied. I succeeded, I think. I have never had to put a numerical prefix or suffix on it anywhere. And then I met the woman I married and found out she had done the same thing. Life is :0.0:some.

I'll buy into that. People seem to easily overlook how open-ended KSP really is; it doesn't suffer from 'level bloat' or 'demigod crowding', where a multiplayer game fills up with experts or highly skilled, highly levelled players that leave noobs feeling like everything they do has been thought of and that they're walking down well-trodden paths with no truly 'new' adventures to chase. In KSP, you choose what problems you solve and how you solve them. That freedom itself is inviting and empowering to the new player. Yep; if they slow down the release rate, modders will become more confident in their work, and hopefully we'll see more compatibility and stability as a result. I'm new myself; after watching passively for several months, I'm on board with 1.0. A lot of people have laid the groundwork, and I fully plan to start my own episode line out of my own knowledge of science, technology, aviation, and aerospace (I'm a decently good simulator pilot too; Watch out Scott Manley!) after a few dry runs. The party's hardly over; its moving outdoors.

Huzzah. Another victory for masculinity. I'm serious. A man keeps his wife, a wife keeps her commitment, and another man keeps his honor. You may not have the thrills of romance, but you still have a life. Grieve, adjust, and keep on living. Otherwise, you'll never know who you could have met.