JoeSchmuckatelli

Thanks for the explication. The Space.StackExchage answer gave me a different opinion: you would still see the ship: The thing it did not do was discuss the viewer's distance from the ship. A Kerbonaut on EVA, if close to the ship should be able to readily see it - and even if in varying shades of white be able to discern differing parts. Mainly due to the albedo compared to the illumination: if you are close, you will perceive more of the reflected surface light & the information it contains... move far enough away and you will see just a vague reflection, and farther still the 'black silhouette' against the brighter background - where the reflected starlight is insufficient to show the ship because the incident light of the stars from behind it is brighter than any light reflected off the various surfaces of the ship. Further still, and it would have to occlude a star for you to even know it was there. I think the problem is that - for purposes of this discussion - you were arguing different things in that thread. My interpretation is that you did not want to see stars in the immediate background of any large reflective/illuminated-by-the-system-star body because the light reflecting / illuminating that body would be significantly brighter than any 'ambient' illumination provided by the background stars. That could make sense given the photographic images you provide - but I don't think it's entirely controlling. Blocking the immediate illumination from the receptor should (at least in vacuum) allow visibility of background stars. for example: NASA is thinking of implementing 'star shades' to block starlight to enhance a space telescope's ability to spot exoplanets: To Study the Next Earth, NASA May Need to Throw Some Shade | WIRED

Thanks - just the kind of info I was looking for!

I remember from that thread you had a very 'energetic' opinion - but I don't think it was debunked. From what I recall... you suggested that stars are not visible from space? (Because, ahem, Hubble, Gaia, etc.) Or was it that a large, reflective body like a planet would overwhelm any sensor, including the Mark 1 Eyeball and prevent stars from being imaged in its vicinity? Please explain what you're arguing again - and respectfully, remember I am the resident knuckle-dragger - so I am actually interested to know what you're saying so as to not misinterpret it.

An interesting (and very technical talk) about the movement of ancient peoples as seen through the lens of genetic sequencing: A few excerpts: 'Modern' Humans are not distinct from Neanderthals and Denisovans - and Cro Magnons and Out of Africa people are not 'the true humans' - rather we are all mixtures of 'Ancient' and 'Modern' Human lineages which interbred over generations. The spread of Anatolian farmer-culture wasn't the latest significant replacement event in the populations of Europe or Asia (Farmers didn't entirely out-compete pre-existing hunter-gatherer populations and then hold on to develop the dominant culture) The people who built Stonehenge are not likely the people who later (and currently) populate the British Isles A (likely the first) Steppe population dominated Northern and Western Europe, parts of South and Central Asia and moved on to the Americas Native Americans have ancestry that is related to Northern and Central (North) Europeans via the Steppe group - and also a distinct, ancient 'pulse' of DNA more closely related to Aboriginal and Papua New Genean people in the Central and Southern parts of the Americas - information if true which could form impetus for new archaeological studies. Clovis people did extend to the Southern-most parts of South America - but there was a subsequent 'replacement event' bringing in cultures unrelated to the Clovis

Roman mile missing 'pace'. 1000 paces = mile Pace is the measure derived from counting each time the left foot strikes the deck

I pontificated on this a while back; having spent many a moonless night deep in the desert... it's certainly possible to see by starlight. Admittedly, on Earth I'm being benefitted by atmospheric scattering and the amazing properties of the Mark 1 Eyeball. I suspect that some of the problems with photographic methods is, as mentioned above, exposure. It's likely that a space-walking Kerbonaut could see his craft illuminated by starlight in interstellar space.

That is an elegant thought. Be interesting to see if they give it some form of proto-glass / silicate composition!

I read in there that they've discounted any causality from either moon... although I often wonder how seismologists are so certain about this: given that moons can deform liquids on the planet, I'd always assume some sort of magmatic stirring. Neat question. I'm not certain of the answer, but I assume the shape has something to do with the tensile properties. I'd be interested in how you'd go about trying this. Maybe extrude a blob of liquid glass (to allow it to become spherical) and then 'capture' it in a water container? Extrude the water around the blob of glass? (Thing is... I'd not want to do this experiment inside any habitat. I've seen too many vids of people trying to make Prince Rupert drops with glass shards exploding everywhere on contact with the water. Likely not good for airway passages or lungs!)

That can be read in a couple of unpleasant ways...

I zoomed in - think its an "o". If you look at the 'u' in Altitude it has a different shape -assuming the same font. Gop it is... ...now, what is it?

Weight of W boson might require adjustment to the Standard Model https://www.sciencenews.org/article/w-boson-particle-mass-standard-model-physics (Temporary Note to Mods and Forumites - I've been posting my science news links to the 'Questions that don't' thread... But thinking about it, we might want a science news article thread to both keep from sidlining questions or losing the info that some might find interesting. If there is an existing thread, please merge)

I saw that the tourists are restricted from the Russian modules... Are the Russians restricted to their own modules - or can they access the whole station?

That is the clencher. If you go through the history of the Boeing shenanigans - they kinda asked for it: Thus far, SX is providing the government with more affordable services than it enjoyed previously... but should it change its tune? (i.e. drive others out of the market then jack prices back up) Then something might be done

The restriction against some of the really large mergers is that they form an unreasonable restraint on trade or promote uncompetitive practices. BO so far doesn't really have a product in competition with anyone. They are a tourism launch service provider, at best, with hopes of competing (in the future) in the commercial launch space. Should BO and ULA merge - the DOJ / FTC would likely only object if in doing so they effectively block other potential providers from access or effectively 'corner the market'. The odd thing is that this is an exceptionally 'rarified' economic space: there's already not a lot of competition and the government hasn't seen fit to block what was previously (effectively) a monopoly or protect their traditional suppliers from competition (SX). It would be stupid to try to shut down SX at the moment, because they're both successful and have reduced costs for the government; in other words they're making this industry competitive... so to worry that they're being anti-competitive is unreasonable (no indication of 'dumping' for example). Now, if SX were to try to buy ULA and, perhaps, RocketLab - that WOULD look like SX was taking steps toward being uncompetitive... and that would likely be blocked.

Under what theory? They'd have to have a contract first, right?

Cosmologist

I clearly missed that - thanks for the info!

The line from the video - 'a single pixel, but its a star you can visit' (or however it was said) certainly gave me that idea of freedom to do such... but logically, I don't think so. They've been pretty open about having built two systems for exploration; the one we are used to and the new one that's reachable end-game. Anything more would be likely hideously difficult to do. I'm guessing we only get to go to the nearest.

I just wish SX would coordinate these things with my wife. (We just got back from a Caribbean Cruise - would have loved to watch the launch!)

I'm reliably informed that the 'pitch drop' prediction coincides with my National Churro Day prediction as the anticipated release date. I'm going with that until further notice.

We've determined the release date as June 6: National Churro Day. Using the power of pure speculation

Calling this now then: Churros for EVERYONE!

Yeah - I interpret the main image as you do; we built a rocket, the Kraken broke our rocket. I'm too uninformed to guess as to the line in the lower left - but it does stand out. I don't like, however your ' 7*7*23 ' - that looks too much like a release date in a year too far (also not FY23)... so... what if you have to subtract '1' from each number: 6/6/22? I mean, June 6 is National Churro Day, and Squad came out of Mexico... so it just makes sense! National Churro Day | Holiday | Checkiday.com

That looks like a standard 'landing can' atop a separator attached to a fuel tank, with maybe a torque wheel or battery and nose-cone 'chute at the other end. Doesn't look 'spaceplane-ey' to me

I think they'd have to, given the expected time space and distance -- which is super cool that they're talking about this, because up until now... I'd never even thought about this in all my SciFi reading and daydreaming about other worlds.