JoeSchmuckatelli

It's almost like they want to fly it fairly soon

And more Planet 9 stuff from the guy who demoted Pluto: https://www.nbcnews.com/science/space/astronomers-are-still-looking-elusive-planet-9-rcna1872 @magnemoe@magnemoe re: low methane brown dwarfs - is there a possibility of "Gen 1a" stars - that might have formed in the gaps and remnants of the earliest Gen 1 that formed and collapsed or blew up before the main body of Gen 1's did their thing?

Amateur Astronomer accidently finds exceedingly rare star while playing CS This Very Weird ‘Accidental’ Star Could Help Reveal the Secrets of the Cosmos (msn.com)

@SunlitZelkova wrote about this a while back - but here is an article about the kilometer + long ship proposed in China https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.livescience.com/amp/mega-spaceship-china-proposal.html Article also addresses the giant solar array to beam power to the ground. Sidebar - does CN have its own version of Popular Science?

Slapping myself across the forehead... 8o Of COURSE they are foreground stars... They'd have to be. SMH - I'm an idiot sometimes! Thanks! Found this on the wiki - it's pretty cool https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2b/Centaurus_A_EN.webm

Not sure - but won't this be the largest thing we've ever attempted controlled reentry with? Note: not considering things like Skylab or spent stages

Fingers crossed!

It got me thinking about this post (and related discussions with @K^2... "It might be that the ratio in spacings is preserved in red shift, not the absolute spacing, but same principle. In scattering, you lose some of the intensity of light, and you might lose more at some wavelengths than others. So the overall shape of the spectrum, the envelope if you will, can actually end up similarly distorted, but the gaps will stay exactly where they were. Edit: This is a very artificial example. I made up all of the parameters, but it's good as an illustration. You have intensity on the Y axis and frequency on the X axis. So redder light to the left, bluer to the right, but you can pretty much ignore the actual numbers. The dashed curve is the original spectrum. It's the black body radiation with three gaps. Red curve simulates red shift. Everything is proportionally shifted to the left, which includes both the overall shape of the curve and all the gaps. Blue curve simulates scattering. I did compensate for the intensity loss, because you can't be certain about how bright the source is, so it's valuable to compare the light at the same relative intensity, but other than that, this is pretty realistic to what you might get. You can see that the overall shape is not that different from red shift, and to the eye, if this is in visible range, they'd look close to identical. Even if you were measuring, given various sources of noise, you might not be able to distinguish between the two all that well. But the gaps in spectrum stay exactly where they were with the original. There is almost no light coming in at these frequencies, so scattering doesn't affect it at all." ... The question then is - if this galaxy is unique in having enough dust around it to have a halo like this or if it's just uniquely illuminating its cloud and most galaxies are like this? Weird quote due to the mobile version of the website (I think)

I know that the dust lane is illuminated by stars behind it - I'm talking about the halo glow above and below. It's bright enough to dim the light from the stars behind. The translucent spherical glow that the band crosses - the stars behind the band not only backlight the band, but also light up the surrounding area like a streetlight in fog. It's that part of the photo that has caught my attention.

Fascinating image: This is the Centaurus A galaxy. While the dust clouds are beautiful... the thing that strikes me is the glow. For the telescope to pick up this glow - doesn't that imply a significant amount of dust beyond those dark clouds we see? (To glow - does not the light from the galaxy have to reflect off of and scatter from... something? i.e. dust and gas beyond those beautiful dark and illuminated tendrils?)

The CCP is currently reining in any industry /tech / media billionaire / expert / superstar who thinks they are special. Once re-education and conformity have occurred we will be at the new / old business as usual

You win one internet. Well played, sir

Back when I first started playing KSP the idea of a reusable stage wasn't on my radar. Even trying to 'trick' the game into letting me put an octo on a stage and try to recover it was a lot of work - that often interfered with my ability to Neanderthal my way into orbit. However the (currently) highest profile space company (weird to not say 'agency') is routinely landing and reusing stages. There are lots of other agencies and companies going for reusable, too. I know that a lot of the development is 'future-tech / end game expansion' - but what's going on with the early-to-mid-game experience, where players are likely to expect to see current tech in action?

Don't be afraid to showcase failure. Folks understand that space is hard. SX has had success with this - take a page from their book and hang on! Viel Gluck!

https://www.nbcnews.com/science/space/sail-away-rocket-launch-test-simple-solution-space-junk-rcna1881

Acknowledging the potential for this to be political... Hoping it won't be. I'd like to ask about the science of detection and avoidance of Havana Syndrome / directed energy weapons. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Havana_syndrome Current presumption is directed microwaves - is there a way to use a phone or something else cheap & ubiquitous to detect a directed energy attack if microwaves are the culprit? Early speculation resolved around sonic weapons as a possibility - given some of the symptoms. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_weapon Has this been discounted? Finally - does anyone know whether these need line of sight - or can they be used through walls, windows, etc.?

I remember beating this horse a few weeks ago

Wait... That site @DDElinked to might have some truth to it? (I glanced at it, but then dismissed it as a kook site.)

SMH - my earliest lesson about radiation came from my father's stories of the people who used to lick the brushes used for painting the radium lines on watches. He had a few from his grandfather. That movie and images like those kerbiloid posted absolutely slay me.

We don't need a cold-war-esque response, as that would make a certain segment of the population demand more government involvement and a military styling. I'd rather see more visibility and success with the commercial startups - that would showcase 'hey, here's a whole new industry with lots of job prospects' that gets kids excited for going to school for engineering and science degrees - rather than just trying to see what sorority they can get into at Alabama

So... here is an example of a visible failure - that I don't think hurts this company. While I missed the stream, if Manley says it was well done, that's good enough for me. If anything, this openness helps to elevate their visibility and shows that they are working and have several mature systems (flight controls, flight management, etc). The smart thing was for the CEO to have stood in front of the other booster - which was a very SX - style "space is hard, but we are iterating fast" move that is a good look for these startups.

That was one of the most remarkable things to learn - I knew about her and P. Curie's awards - but to hear that her daughter won one too? Amazing family

Without a better place for this - I stumbled upon a really good biopic of M. Curie. Really enjoyed it and learned quite a bit about her. https://m.imdb.com/title/tt6017756/ Worth a look if you have reached the end of Netflix and somehow missed it

Which part takes 4 years to build, I wonder

It's a bad look all around. 'Don't get down and waller with the pigs... The pig likes it - and all you git is covered in stink" * phrasing altered for this board