JoeSchmuckatelli

Sounds like my dad and one particularly unfortunate carburetor

@KSPStar Revisiting this after a bit of reflection - and I agree with the poster above who suggested that you need signs of drainage and flow. The oldest craters should be weathered and there should be a erosion evident in all but the most recent craters. If the planet is this wet and has an atmosphere - only the newest of the craters should be sharply defined Aside from that quibble - the artwork is gorgeous!

Picture a wet terrestrial planet much like ours but with two moons. Individually, each moon is less massive than ours, but together weigh more. (say 3/4 lunar mass and 1/2 lm. Guessing 1/2 lm is sufficient for a moon to be spherical?) Their orbital paths don't have to be perfectly aligned but should be in the same plane. What would the tides look like on such a world? Sadly I don't have the maths/physics background to try to figure out where these moons might orbit (distance, etc) to be stable - and then further figure out what the frequency might be relative to the sun to estimate the tides... But I am interested. Anyone willing to help me with this? ... I can predict cycles of highest tides based on both moons being aligned with the sun and middling tides when perpendicular and something different when neither are in line with or perpendicular to the star. What I don't know is what periods this might look like (we have 2-week cycles with one moon on a monthly orbit) - because I don't have the skill to figure out what orbits might be stable given the criteria I set up (two moons with a collective mass higher than our own ('moon' used on purpose)). I also can't figure out what tides might look like with both moons 'new' and whether the tides might differ if both were full, or one new and one full. I suspect that this matters, but I do not know how much. Anyway - I know this is probably a big ask, but I would appreciate anyone willing to help me figure out what this might look like.

That looks like it will add a lot of weight to one side of the craft. I presume the engines are powerful enough and can gimbal enough to compensate for it - but with one landing of a craft with virtually no tiles... The SS20 landing attempt will be interesting to watch (presumes SX films and releases)

As did I. I've also lived in cyclic megadrout region, hurricane land, snow in June at altitude place, and so much rain that trees grow where you don't want them zone. My impression of many people arguing about climate change is that they're from the city and read an article once. This forum, however, is a bit better read about stuff and not afraid to look at the science. It's one of the things I like about this place

Just an observation - but when arguing about climate change, assertions that 'if all the continental ice melted' bad thing X will occur seem naive. As do 'ain't nuthin happenen no way no how' arguments. It's literally arguing the extremes when what's needed is reasoned, educated discourse - but the extreme language engages the emotions and shuts down discourse. We know that 'the most extreme thing we can think of' is statistically unlikely to occur. Similarly, assertions that 'nothing is happening' and 'there is no proof of nutttin' are not only naive, but obstinate. The thing we should be asking is whether it makes economic sense to allow industry and convenience to pump ridiculous amounts of pollution into the environment year after year? Because there will be repercussions, and they will be economic (and etc). It's just that when you have one side screaming the sky is falling and the other with its head in the sand saying nope, nope nothing happening - communication is failing and we can't address the real problem. So - can we, here, get away from the 'worst case scenario' and 'can't prove nuttin' predictions and arguments?

What's a Discord? (grin)

that is insane - and the repair/reuse cycle they describe likely makes it unlikely to be completely funded: cost of use over time looks to be... ... ...ASTRONOMICAL (I'm such a card)

You have a few factors in the hype of this moon wobble. 1. a very low possibility of significant sea level rise, that if it did happen would be economically challenging (but people like to think will be sudden, scary and dramatic if it happens). 2. a multi-year cycle affecting the moon, which is something very few people understand (which makes it scary), that if it combined with 1. above, would make 1. above mildly more interesting, but its easier to just make it scary than actually look into what's going on, 3. stupid people 4. a global press that makes money off of stupid people by selling shock, horror and controversy

Do we know what they're made of? Rock Wool?

... Gets hit with a cease and desist lawsuit from Time Warner hours before lift off. ;/

Huh - I was unaware that any ground based 'scopes were segmented. I've seen too many programs about expensive high tech grinding of mirrors and assumed all were specialty ground. Thanks for the info.

For anyone reading this that may not get the reference to Block 5 in @tater's post: "To work toward that goal, SpaceX engineers outfitted this turbocharged Falcon with some sweet upgrades over its predecessors. The design changes — which include improved engines, a more durable interstage (the piece that connects the rocket's two stages), titanium grid fins and a new thermal protection system — will help the booster hold up better to launch stresses. According to SpaceX, each Block 5 can fly 10 times or more times before requiring light refurbishments, and as many as 100 times before the booster is retired." SpaceX's 1st 'Block 5' Rocket: A Tale of 2 Launches | Space (okay - I admit most of you on this forum are WAAAAAAY more educated on this stuff than I, but perhaps there's a lurker or two...) =D

... Is several large mirrors. I'm just wondering why we don't build segmented ST mirrors out of hundreds of hand sized segments - which don't need the tolerance of the big ones and can be focused. I'm reminded of a huge parabolic mirror I saw somewhere years ago - from up close, the image quality was fragmented ( if you focused on your own reflection - but from the right spot, stuff far away looked great)

If going that large - why mess with trying to grind a bunch of huge mirrors (each on the scale of earth based telescopes) - and instead have 8 meter blocks of adjustable smaller mirrors? Kind of what a dlp projector does or those solar mirror power plants in the desert? We certainly can make smaller mirrors with actuators and do the same thing without the risk of what happened to Hubble?

Seeing as the thread is already necroed, I'll take this moment to point out @kerbiloid 's basic cruel streak: he wants to kill off whatever life remains on Mars by triggering their inherent, and previously undiagnosed peanut allergies. Evil, man... just evil.

When Apollo came back from the Moon, there wasn't much up in space to hit. We're planning new Moon missions, prospective return missions from Mars and other bodies, and nowadays, our sky is chock full of satellites - with SX launching constellations (and other competitors likely to follow). Given the concept of 'Big Sky, Little Bullet' theory* I assume that there's not much chance of a collision - but am I wrong? * In aviation, the Big Sky Theory is that two randomly flying bodies are very unlikely to collide, as the three-dimensional space is so large relative to the bodies.

This. Sounds fun. Kind of thing a Billionaire Playboy would want to do. Branson (afaik) does not have young kids. Musk does. Plus, his company is aggressively innovating. That is what I fear losing: the willingness to push hard and fail and keep going.

That may be a class move... But foolish. Once Musk is no longer at the helm SX begins the slow but inevitable change into 'just another aerospace company'. His innovativen and willingness to accept failure is a woefully rare combination

As I recall, the automobile was once a toy for the rich. They're kind of ubiquitous now. So... 50-75 years before the general public can book a trip?

Why are we not talking about this: "California factory will make Raptor Vacuum & new, experimental designs." Anyone heard about these new / experimental rockets?

Cool!

Fairly sure we did something like that with telegraph back when most people rode horses. Although I think the Atlantic is a bit wider than 40km what is "it"?

There was a TV show not long ago featuring James Cameron and some NASA folks talking about how to do it. Basically you get a melt probe going with the sub inside. It has to lay a relay antenna cable and won't be able to return b/c the hole is going to refreeze behind the probe. Once in the ocean the melting bodies drop away and the probe miraculously discovers life on the first try. Everyone gets briefly famous, lands tenured jobs at elite universities and settles in to argue with other professors and sneer at students for the rest of their careers

That looks amazing! Question - with free liquid on the surface... Will it have an atmosphere and potentially clouds?