Shpaget

Which can happen in any case, whether SpaceX launches the stuff or not, with one difference being that if SpaceX sells the rockets, the cost of the free ones would be partially offset by the revenue from the ones that were sold earlier.

Well, yeah. Earlier in this thread, we've established that, etymologically, planets are wandering stars, so Jupiter is a star, right?

Elon Musk is a businessman first. I don't see a reason not to sell the rockets as he is not responsible for what happens after they reach orbit. Those people will die on Mars, no question about it. If they die because Mars One didn't provide them with enough food, it's not Elon Musk's fault. There would be no fallout for SpaceX, everybody would blame the M1, just like no one blames McDonnell Douglas and their Delta II for the failure of Mars Climate Orbiter. What fraud? That makes no sense. Do automobile companies face investigation for fraud after a person uses a car to drive to place he then robs at gunpoint? People die and get forgotten. Remember Challenger accident? The shuttle was grounded for a few years and then everybody moved on.

Why are some of you guys so bothered by the label we put on things? It has absolutely no effect on the thing that is labeled. Pluto is exactly same, being called a planet or not. For language to work, there have to be some artificial limits and boundaries that humans agree on. Those boundaries do not necessarily exist in nature so, for the purposes of language, we have to group objects into certain categories, even though there is not necessarily a hard limit between different categories.

That doesn't mean Musk will not sell them the rockets. Launching 14 Falcon Heavies would generate quite a bit of exposure and media attention, not to mention provide a whole bunch of data for the SpaceX to improve the machine. And if Elon Musk doesn't think Mars One is viable, all the better. It means M1 is not a competitor to his project, so there really is no reason not to sell the rockets.

Does that mean our Sun is a binary star, since Sun Jupiter barycenter is outside the Sun?

Every time the engine displacement happened to me was when I knowingly skimped on the Micropore tape in an attempt to reduce the mass and increase the apogee. The motor would usually go all the way through, ripping through the parachute. It's kind of weird for the motor to get stuck halfway.

Crusade? All I'm doing is asking for numbers. You guys are all up in arms because I dare to question partial data and the Mr. Von Untouchable. The wiki article has already been linked and I pointed out the problems with it. I desire the aircraft Karman used for his calculation. Which one was it? That's all I ever wanted, haven't I said this before?

Do you have the calculation?

Do you think they have regular Earthside meetings, reminiscing about the good-ol' days?

I'm saying that Karman pulled the number out of his derrière. Wiki article does not reference any specific aircraft, nor gives any specific numbers regarding what I said was needed for the calculation. Funny enough, there is even the [citation needed], which I swear I didn't put in there.

One way to measure the age of the Universe is by measuring the distance of distant stars (standard candles, for example). We can also measure the expansion of the Universe (Hubble constant). Using those two figures we can calculate the age of the Universe. From your neutron star backyard observatory you would observe the rate of the expansion to be faster than when observed outside the time dilation effect. At the same time you would be slowed down compared to the outside observer, making those two effects cancel each other out and the calculation of the age of the Universe would get you the same answer as when calculated outside the gravity well.

Makes sense. As much as "height of an average human, rounded up to a nearest hundred km". Without mass, aerodynamic lift and buoyancy this has no meaning. Using figures for "generic aircraft" also makes no sense, since generic aircraft are designed to fly at around 10km and at much lower altitudes. All aircraft experience centripetal forces in level flight, and all orbiting crafts experience aerodynamic forces. Dismiss that fact in this scenario is just pointing to a number and saying "That is a pretty one, let's pick that.". Which IIRC is exactly what Karman did when he didn't fancy the number he got by math.

That's a very bad way to live your life. Judge the claims by their merits, not by the person making it. Especially when you don't know who the person is.

Author most likely just copy pasted from a wrong line.

This is the second time this comes up on these forums and I have to react again. This makes no sense. What plane, with what wings, carrying how much cargo?

Even the space.com is overexcited about this. http://www.space.com/30272-space-elevator-inflatable-concept-patent.html To make the matters worse, the article includes an idiotic clickbait video link titled "Is a Space Elevator to the Moon Possible?". Well, no, says Betteridge's law.

It most certainly did. That's exactly my point. Once the WWII was over, slowly all (or at least a lot of) the technology developed for military and kept under wraps during the war came out and became mainstream. Look at the aviation. The jet engines were developed for the military. The first proper airliner (de Havilland Comet) entered service in 1952, but it was plagues with issues. You see, Camcha, my argument is that because of the war the world changed. Of course, this change follows the war, it's not instantaneous.

Some estimates put the number closer to a million. Not that I have anything against nuclear power, on the contrary, but Chernobyl continues to be a serious problem we still haven't dealt with properly 30 years after it happened. As for the lack of progress and technological advancement, it's understandable. We haven't had a proper war in decades.

You assume there is a viable unlocking mechanism. If they used some kind of randomly generated key which discarded after encryption, it's pretty hard.

Eh? Does not compute. No, flywheels most certainly can not do that. They can help with rotation, not translation, and when wind shears and jet streams start to flop it around you get a giant Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man.

Since the Earth is the only planet with known life, you could argue that ""eating" has a specific biological meaning that applies only to certain types of Earth life and not others. Grumkins aren't from Earth so definitely don't "eat" in the strict technical sense. However, they do something else, with its own name, that has the same effect"

Spiders are not so much a problem as those frigging huge centipedes. Luckily I live in central Europe where we don't have creepy crawlies. Just your regular crawlies.

Photovoltaics are not particularly efficient, either, yet are widely used.

Not even close. Each year more than three times as many people die than the death toll of entire WW1. Even total deaths in WW2 are lower than the number of deaths each year. Contrast that to some extraordinary advances in practically every aspect of our modern lives.