JoeSchmuckatelli

That looks like a sand casted explosive shell - from the early part of last century or the latter part of the previous. Am I correct - or is it something else?

Short answer is 'yes'. Give me a bit for references - basics, before I continue: it is actually part of your visual sense - you can spot the one person in a crowd that is looking at you, even if they are far away. Your brain is working on a variety of levels and has evolved for survival - so if a pair of eyes are focused on you within your field of view - you will sense that. (1 person in a crowd of 100... You will identify that person) even if you are not immediately cognitively aware that you saw a potential threat (or mate) you will be subconsciously cued to look again for the individual and will most likely correctly identify the 'starer'. You will not - despite what some may say - 'feel a tingle' if someone outside of your field of view is looking at you (psychic gaze sense). The brain does not work that way. On the other hand, if you have a crowd in front of you, and someone behind you is oddly focused on you - you can pick up clues from the crowd's behavior that will direct you to look behind you for a threat If you can find the full episode (and correct episode) Brain Games did a piece on this several years ago - same episode talks about proprioception, vestibular sense and others Edit - having spent a minute googling, there is a lot of utter horse pucky out there on this and other 'psychic' subjects (people so want to believe). The subconscious 'sense' that I describe is actually supported by scientific research - but good luck finding it casually. I hope the info I gave you is helpful if you want to keep digging. I don't have the patience to debunk the 'faith' of the internet psychic crowd and the pseudoscience that clouds actually true things

Is there a limit to the distance from the central star that objects in orbit should be self organized into a planetary disk? (numerous Kuiper Belt and presumably Oort Cloud objects are off axis.) Do we have enough info on exoplanets to confirm that they typically organize into a disk?

Second stage is moving fast enough and goes high enough that it pretty much has to be built for orbital speed reentry, right? Also - isn't the downrange pretty far off? If both are true - this increases recovery costs. I remember reading that engine recovery is worth it - but while that's true for a stage that lands 'dry' (ship or shore) is that still true for one that gets doused in seawater? ... What's a biconic crew capsule?

Speed of sound through the substance as a sole media? e.g. https://www.google.com/search?q=speed+of+sound+through+steel&oq=speed+of+sound+through+&aqs=chrome.2.69i57j0l4.8164j1j9&client=ms-android-samsung-ss&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

Okay - I am a little confused... what is the basis of BO's objection to the NASA award if they don't even have a working rocket at this point? (SN has at least flown and landed)

That was an Awesome! video - and I would be equally freaked out to be in a plane that close to a launch (ofc - I'm the guy who can't believe it when I see another plane cross at 1k above or below). (Mind you that's flying commercial, where I expect / hope for safety. Flying military I tend to sleep through all the stupid ahem stuff I see going on in the air around me - mil pilots are karazeee!) ((( sleeping proves you are too cool to care about whether the plane / helo is going to explode in the next few minutes --- keeps the troops calm)))

You could also let Thak bonk you on head with stick. When you wake up - it is here!

Where will New Glenn be relative to SH in terms of lift, seeing as they're both unbuilt? I've not seen a graphic showing Falcon next to SH - but NG looks like a beast

Apologies in advance - but BO has actually been off my radar. What do they have flying? All I know is they have a big booster in development that got pushed back to the end of next year - and that they're watered off at SX

Regardless - I want BO to succeed so that we not only get more competition into the space 'space' - but also so that the increase in supply will drive an increase in demand With more actors getting involved at lower costs, we should see some pretty exciting and unexpected developments in the next decade

Between your answers and @K^2 I'm starting to get a broad picture of the answer. When talking about the mathematical observation /theory, if you can't tell the difference between particles in the same state - even if measured at different times and places - there is no way to prove that you are not seeing the same particle twice. This does sound like a philosophy question and something that makes thinking about approximations easier. The reality is that you might be seeing two different particles or the same particle - but for the work / understanding you are trying to accomplish /achieve... It is a distinction that does not matter. Between this and responses to my past quibble about determinism and questions about Relativity & curved spacetime and 'folks in the know's' explanation that these are powerful, working mathematical approximations for what is really going on... I get a nice fuzzy picture for stuff I don't have the maths to winkle out for myself

So - this is my understanding, too... because without another burn your ship is not going to get dirty or wet. (but if you don't get your Pe above... nope - you're suborbital no matter how fast you might be going) Grog likes simple meanings of words.

I've got a 2700x, 16 gigs of RAM and a store bought 3070. (I'm one of the few people in the world who got to pay Retail). Are the slow downs in multiple games and the desktop - or just one game? With my setup, for the first time ever, I ran into the issue of being CPU bound. Turning up the graphics settings actually helped as it told the game to send more asks and tells to the GPU (Game had been designed for the RU market and the architecture is very CPU focused rather than GPU focused)

There is a whole lot to unpack here.

I definitely had one of those moments the day before yesterday. Fantastic run going, and all of a sudden it all went sideways... Using a PMC I couldn't land any shots on AI Scavs. They were tearing me up. Kept trying, then ran out of ammo. Just about lost my mind, but I recovered, ran away... Found a gun. Snuck across the map with fabulous loot... Only to have it go sideways again! at the extract. Dumped a full mag into... Nope. Died to a Scav. I literally just turned off the PC and went to watch a movie

Bid protests are common - getting your pocket congressman to write a bill in your favor? Priceless

Okay - but you both wrote (effectively) Which is one of those brain twisting things about QM I'm starting to become aware of. So going straight to this tangent - does not the fact that we can see different colors of the rainbow imply, intrinsically, that different photons are different? (feel free to get philosophical, if you are willing to indulge my curiosity)

Best answer - makes sense to Grog.

Okay - well is that a 'technical definition' based on altitude? Because to me, 'orbital' means 'not hitting the planet' where 'suborbital' means it gets wet or dirty at the end of the flight.

Of course we want max velocity - how else are we going to reach the Sun's inner Alderson point with shields down?

Could SN 15's final flight be part of of the suborbital SH test? 'landing in the Pacific somewhere near Hawaii'? Or are they more likely to use one of the more recent SNs?

Question(s) about photons and light: I presume that when I heat an element in a dark space, the process by which I see the glowing metal requires the liberation of, or creation of a photon from the element. Is this correct? If so... when the light from the element reflects off a nearby surface, allowing me to see that object - am I seeing a photon (the same photon) liberated from the original blackbody emitter - or am I seeing a new photon excited from and/or originating from the object illuminated by the element? (I'm fairly sure that what I'm seeing is a photon from the emitter scattering off the reflective surface). Similarly, when viewing a translucent object (like a plastic bottle, skin or alabaster) I presume we are seeing photons scattering and reflecting off of different layers of the material that gives it the translucence / semi-transparency we see. Is this correct? When I see a shadow of an object - am I correct to assume that the opaque object has sufficient density to scatter the observed wavelength to such a degree that photons from the emitter just cannot penetrate? i.e. when I shine a flashlight at my hand, I see the shadow of my hand on a plate, but if I send a more energetic particle, like an x-ray, my hand goes from mostly opaque to semi-transparent given the different energies of the observed particles/wavelengths? When I feel heat from the emitter - I again presume that heat is reaching me via photons - and the energy from those photons are being absorbed by my skin cells, which are then excited enough to have their temperature raised. Is this correct? Finally, If I'm correct thus far in my understanding, can someone help me understand this? - an article that suggests the light we see from a star may be millions of years old before it ever leaves the star and enables us to see it: A Photon’s Million-Year Journey From the Center of the Sun (futurism.com) I would presume from what I've written above that a photon created in the heart of a star would have been absorbed or scattered to such a degree that what light we are actually seeing from the star is not photons originating in the core, but, effectively, blackbody emissions from the surface, or particles energetic enough that the surface is effectively transparent to them - but originating fairly close to the surface. (just as the element in a lightbulb creates the photon, but the glass of the bulb is transparent enough for the photons to escape) The article suggests I have a flaw in my understanding - I just can't get past the photon originating in the core of a star not being absorbed by some atomic interaction in the depth and density of the core that would result in any given photon never being able to escape the core - but one liberated / created closer to the surface could.

According to the NASA administrator they apparently are trying to beat the US to the lunar pole landing site. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.space.com/amp/nasa-administrator-bill-nelson-first-congressional-hearing

?? I'm not one to quibble with you about anything orbital mechanics related - but if ISS has to reposition, wouldn't being tied to a giant spinning counterweight be a bad idea? That said, sure - it would be great to see the potential of SS and heavy lift realized!