UmbralRaptor

Sort of! Also, it's really cool how fast LIGO has gone from "we can detect gravitational waves" to constraining stellar astrophysics.

Also because it's way larger, triaxial, and has a lower albedo than expected? >:D Looks like the paper is open access with nice high rez diagrams for now.

Going to guess an optical counterpart to a gravitational wave detection. (Probably not, since I don't think VIRGO and ESO have much overlap?) And it won't be aliens. It's never aliens.

Deeply imperfect solutions, but I'll use these next time the question comes up in IRC, etc.

Do we know if a new demo will be released, and if so around what time? That dead link on the main page is sort of embarrassing. Seeing as the last post in the last thread about the missing demo was August 31, I thought I might was well ask.

Stock KSP's planets are on rails, so no actual momentum exchange is possible, though you can get some weirdness from exiting at the same speed but different distance from the star (or planet for a moon flyby). You can also do strange things to momentum&energy by transferring propellant in some cases. Relatedly, Principia's planets are unaffected by the gravitational pull of your craft. Such a violation of conservation laws is rather difficult to spot, though, and the planet and star pulling on the craft part should act just like real life. (If with the planet not marginally changed in speed).

Huh, these are mostly well past the 1.6 RE rule of thumb. Also I'm somewhat confused as to which ones have both radial velocity and transit measurements.

The paper, and a second closely related one. Also, is this the ArXiv preprint? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ about the Vanadium oxide. I'm also confused on what the relative concentrations of H2O and VO are, and what sort of scale height the atmosphere would have in that region. Are these things that are impractical to find at the present?

I ran into a similiar issue a few days ago, and emailed Squad, though haven't gotten a reply yet. The direct download links @PT posted should also work. Note that this demo is of 1.0.0, there are no engines with thrust vectoring, and the campaign missions end once you've reached orbit.

In which we learn that Kipping et al were hestiant to mention Kepler-1625 b I, because they'd had a lack of successes, and it has yet to be confirmed.

??? All moons have day/night cycles. Is this about ones that are tidally locked to their planet (on the wiki, but IIRC Mun, Ike, Laythe, Vall, and Tylo), planets that are tidally locked to Kerbol (none since Moho was spun up in 0.18), or something else?

The paper in question is indirectly linked at the end of the article, and mainly focuses on a lack of detections. Also lots of simulations and cleverness with Bayesian statistics. Is there a recommended textbook for them? I was not expecting that, but suppose it fits, given Kipping et al's terrible luck with exomoons to date. Also there seem to be vague hints of super-Ios? For Kepler-1625b, they say a 10x Jupiter mass/1x Jupiter size planet, orbited by a Neptune sized moon at ~19 planet radii. But with lots of caveats, up to and including that the parent star's properties were probably poorly defined up until the most recent Kepler data release.

Not so much starquakes as pulsations, though that tends to be limited in how deep it can go (I think). Conditions can in some cases be replicated at very small scales in the lab, but the closest things to direct measurements of the core of a star come from neutrinos. (Constant low level flux from Sol, and that one-off from 1987A)

Mostly modeling given the observed energy output, size, and mass. (All hail the polytropes?) In the case of the sun, neutrinos are also detectable.

I'm insufficiently familiar with the details of B9, but wanted to point out that depending on the engines selected and details of aircraft design, supersonic flight might be easy. Just because an engine "looks like" it belongs on a 747 doesn't mean it isn't perfectly suited to operate on a supersonic bomber. Given the supersonic capabilities available to the B-70, B-1A, Tu-22M, T-4, and Tu-160, I'm uncertain about that.

Regolith

What sorts of engines are you using? (Relatedly, how long did it take a Concorde to go supersonic?)

Uhoh. Was this like NOAA-19?

Four very different modes sounds like an engineering nightmare, especially given the thrust to drag problems of pure scramjets (and that the simpler augmented NTRs were shown to have a negative payload fraction!). That said, wasn't Starship Congress looking for designs out to 2115 or so?

We're still trying to figure it out. I *think* eggrobin's the maccollo polygon is the result of a craft orbital period half that of the Mun, and something about resonances keeping the apoapses at the leading/trailing edges of the Mun, while the periapses are along the Mun-Kerbin line. (Apparently reversing where the apses are makes the orbit unstable) Also not sure what happens if the orbital period is, say, 1/3 or 1/4 that of the Mun.

1c looks to be the densest, but mind the error bars.

Apparently. An interesting detection, but probably something in the instrument or analysis?

To preemptively kill silly hype, this is about a hot Jupiter, so it's not aliens. Astrobites writeup Actual paper on ArXiv High resolution ~3.2 micron spectra of 51-Peg picked up some reflection features of the planet. They found water vapor (~100 ppm), but no methane or carbon dioxide (upper limits on concentrations unclear). The measurements also pinned down the mass and orbit a bit better, (inclination frustratingly close to transiting, ~0.476 MJ making it more Saturn-like, and no eccentricity to speak of) Rotational speed is <5.8 km/s, so for any plausible radius the sidereal days are longer than Jupiter's. (Tidal locking suggested, but far from confirmed)

Oh good, the actual article is paywalled. My solid state physics is a bit weak, so what does a 32.5 eV plasma frequency mean in terms of conductivity and optical properties? Similiarly, does the 7.7e23 particles/cm^3 have any effect on (thermal and/or electrical) conductivity, and does it mean that the material density is ~1.28 g/cm^3? (At the, uh, interestingly high pressure)

Dust just might work after all. Though obviously additional observations will be needed...