JoeSchmuckatelli

I got to show off my MAD DAD SKILLZ when my daughter had a problem she could not solve on her computer. One driver update later -

@sevenperforce - thanks very much! It's Interesting... I figured that being diffuse the gasses would very rapidly lose energy and cool to something similar to the background temperature of the vacuum... Of course I assumed that without thinking about the how. Thinking about the pressure being more closely related to rate of heating /cooling did not come into my guesswork. If I understand you correctly, the particles of gas in the box gain energy from either direct contact with the element or the thermal / infrared radiation given off by it. Similarly, the gas particles constrained by gravity must be either hot from the emission sources (whatever star they were ejected from) or through absorbing thermal radiation from the stars of the galaxies in the cluster - which keeps them hot. So in order to cool, the hot gas particles would have to either hit something else that is cooler (moving towards equalibrium) or cease receiving energy and be able to cool via emissions of their own thermal radiation. (How'm I doin?) Thus because they are constrained by gravity in the region of a cluster, the particles are constantly receiving thermal energy radiation and stay hot. Further guessing that whether a ship flying through that region would have to concern itself with the million degrees temperatures melting it would entirely depend on the speed of the craft (which directly affects the rate of collision with the hot particles). Cool! Thanks for your time!

Related: Smart males marry tall women. The Genetic Correlation between Height and IQ: Shared Genes or Assortative Mating? | PLOS Genetics Duh.

I would not think so. Cryocooler Webb/NASA Hubble has one too - but it's to allow the NICMOS to see IR. THE NICMOS COOLING SYSTEM—5 YEARS OF SUCCESSFUL ON-ORBIT OPERATION (scitation.org) ... Edit: so maybe, depending upon feature creep. For pure optical, I doubt it.

I saw a blurb on this the other day and was intrigued. Unfortunately much of what I wanted to read was paywalled. Then I stumbled on this: People don't mate randomly – but the flawed assumption that they do is an essential part of many studies linking genes to diseases and traits (msn.com) "Scientists use the findings from genetic correlation analyses to figure out the potential shared causes of [various]traits... Here, geneticists investigate whether the genes associated with a given trait are associated with other traits or diseases by statistically analyzing large samples of genetic data. Over the past decade, genetic correlation analysis has become the primary method for assessing potential pleiotropy across fields as diverse as internal medicine, social science and psychiatry. However, just because a gene is correlated with two or more traits doesn’t necessarily mean it causes them. Virtually all the statistical methods researchers commonly use to assess genetic correlations assume that mating is random. That is, they assume that potential mating partners decide who they will have children with based on a roll of the dice. In reality, many factors likely influence who mates with whom. The simplest example of this is geography – people living in different parts of the world are less likely to end up together than people living nearby. We wanted to find out how much the assumption of random mating affects the accuracy of genetic correlation analyses. In particular, we focused on the potential confounding effects of assortative mating, or how people tend to mate with those who share similar characteristics with them. Assortative mating is a widely documented phenomenon seen across a broad array of traits, interests, measures and social factors, including height, education and psychiatric conditions." ...without accounting for cross-trait assortative mating, using genetic correlation estimates to study the biological pathways causing disease can be misleading. Genes that affect only one trait will appear to influence multiple different conditions. For example, a genetic test designed to assess the risk for one disease may incorrectly detect vulnerability for a broad number of unrelated conditions. I've cut & pasted parts from the article somewhat out of order to give an idea of what the authors write. If you are interested in genetics and heritability, this is a pretty good article! Link to the study itself: Cross-trait assortative mating is widespread and inflates genetic correlation estimates | Science

So - isn't that something that once the basic infrastructure is established just becomes a maintenance item? Someone is getting paid; it can't just be server manufacturers and AC installers. Just pondering whether Disney might just start buying time on SX to deploy their own sats.

Fantastic lung capacity and a long range blow dart?

Disney Ekes Out Slim Profit as Streaming Losses Grow - Variety I mean, they own the IP. Is transmission really that expensive?

Is Earth a self-regulating organism? New study suggests our planet has a built-in climate control (msn.com) Y'all might find this interesting. Not a cure, but it does talk about resilience.

Presuming SS gets working... they have heavy lift available they don't / won't have to wait for... So - maybe, possibly, it could be on time?

Um.... First point: given the timeframes involved and the absolute power of our sun compared to any of the planets... that's not exactly feasible. The GeoEngineering nonsense is a panic-attack-driven piece of nonsense that seeks to address human pollution caused warming by interfering with another source of warming; our primary one. In other words - MOAR Pollution... but with good intentions. (And... don't forget which road is paved with good intentions!) If and or when the sun decides to get variable enough to mess with our planet in any life-threatening way... there ain't a durn thing we can do about it (aside from getting off this wet rock). Second, I will point out that not knowing something - i.e. not having the data - isn't the same thing as it being smart to start doing reckless tinkering with stuff you don't understand. Put plainly, we don't know what we're doing. We have some data that shows that at least once (Pinatubo)* a volcanic eruption had a cooling effect. The process is poorly understood. There have also been other volcanic eruptions that may have increased warming (Tonga-Hunga Ha'apai)**. Historically, massive volcanic imputs into the atmosphere have been linked to mass extinctions (Deccan Traps / K-T boundary). So, to even begin to attempt a volcanic level of atmospheric tinkering... we'd have to dump hundreds of tons of material into the stratosphere... which may be a really stupid thing to do. Further, if you look at smaller-scale attempts at geoengineering, like seeding clouds, our efforts produce mediocre results.*** Again, we have good ideas, but don't know what we're doing. So when I hear people saying its too hard to address pollution and human behavior - that the only thing to do is reckless geoengineering on a global scale? I'm not impressed. *Global Effects of Mount Pinatubo (nasa.gov) **Tonga volcano sent tons of water into the stratosphere, which could warm Earth : NPR ***Cloud seeding - Wikipedia

Block the sun. Stupidity at its finest.

I can't actually argue with that. I'm not entirely against it... just leery.

Question for the smart guys: how does something so diffuse as the gasses between galaxies have temperatures in the millions of degrees? Chandra :: Photo Album :: Frontier Fields Galaxy Clusters :: March 10, 2016 (harvard.edu) @K^2 - you still here?

Look - for most players that's a bridge too far. I'm one of those folks. We're already operating on a very flimsy idea of how orbital mechanics works, don't have the maths background to calculate anything for ourselves and are going off of forum posts and YouTube videos. Just building a ship that can do *whatever* is pretty much the limit of what we're capable of... I like the idea of building a rover to do my destination work - and then building a ship with MOAR POWER to get it there; it's an easy crutch. If on top of that I had to also figure out snax and water and gasses to keep my Kerbals alive? "Yes, ship can get there - no Kerbals will not survive the trip" isn't really adding anything to my gameplay enjoyment. But for you SSTO Grand Tour guys? I won't begrudge you the added joy of having yet more limitations against which to work. (Thus, toggle difficulty)

That would be the only way I'd like it. I've always presumed some parts of ship building and missions were 'automated' or 'behind the scenes' - like I don't have to create a wire diagram to build a ship, or add snax... so why should I have to futz around with LS? I get that some people would like even more granularity - so for them, a togglable LS setting would be nice. For me? Nah.

People will still complain of bad connection

https://news.sky.com/story/watch-orions-flyby-of-the-moon-during-nasas-artemis-mission-12752363 Oh - and I can see stars in the same frame (for anyone who remembers this argument from the KSP2 sub)... ...whenever it shows 'telemetry driven animation' on the screen

This will probably be nothing more than building a 'something' - which requires a certain number of 'somethings' to support another bunch of somethings that make up the colony. So... you want to build a launch pad on Minmus. First you need an outpost (base). So you send a ship there and unpack the something that builds the base. Then you need power. So you send a ship there to unpack that. Then you need food. So another mission brings that. (Presto-whammo, you place it where you want it and it gets built - presumes you have the right mix of resources plus maybe a 'seed part'). Then you can build an ISRU facility. Same thing. Then you can build a basic manufacturing (low level VAB?), then you need new food, and etc to keep expanding. Presumably at some point you've built the 'base' up enough to automate bringing in resources and then its really a management game to expand the Colony. With Interstellar; you probably need to build a ship big enough to build a bunch of colony parts (seedparts?) and then start dropping them on a likely place. Like one giant ship per Interstellar attempt should create the basic Colony that lets you explore the new system. /speculation

Good news on the political front: looks like Webb will enjoy continued funding! James Webb Space Telescope's early science thrills Congress | Space

Game won't be that -- there are enough of us 'baked in' to the project that it will sell. Kerbal is simply that unique. Whether it goes GRFPS7* levels of 'viral' is unlikely, but I suspect another reprise of the first game; where word of mouth, pure silliness and fan recommendations lend to solid sales over time. KSP2 won't bust. *GenericReskinnedFirstPersonShooter7

It looks like PCG did not have any info from NS other than what has been quoted. The MMO speculation is likely drawing conclusions and wishful thinking

That's better than DSL!

That's cool! The comms are wifi. Does that mean they are talking to an on board server that resends via the main comms of the ship - or is it possible for the wifi signal to be picked up by a different satellite? (I know wifi is generally considered short range on Earth - but space is a different environment)

Taken via an arm&camera or attending microsat?