Shpaget

U238 is the "ordinary" uranium, not 235. 238 is less radioactive, meaning less impact on probe's sensors. I doubt that the choice had anything to do with weapons. Kinetic energy of that probe travelling at 5%c is all the weapon you need. Anyway, anybody willing to ballpark the amount of antimatter they would need? Perhaps something more precise than "orders of magnitude more than all the antimatter ever produced combined"?

I was unable to find their estimate on how much antimatter they think they need for the mission (and testing). Also, what are the power requirements for the containment thing? And how do they plan on taking a small amount of antimatter out of it?

Ahh, makes much more sense.

Electroless? So how do you power it?

Speaking of chutes, what's the "spread angle" on drogues?

As someone who bought the game in mid 2012, I remember the whole free/not free/free again for existing customers drama and how SQUAD handled the situation professionally. Four and a half years later, seeing how the game changed and the amount of new content I honestly can't say I got what I paid for. I got so much more. $15 over this period is about 1 cent per day. The fun and knowledge I get every day from KSP (and I don't even play it any more) certainly is worth more than that. I have no objections to a paid DLC that would bring in a decent amount of content and would gladly pay another $15 for it. After all, KSP and the revenue it generates is what keeps SQUAD employees fed. I have to respect that fact. I also have to respect the fact that it is SQUAD that has to make an honest and thought out decision whether to charge for any future update and if yes to make that amount reasonable and comparable to the cost of making the update. Anyway, let's look forward to the update that is about to be released and worry about future when the time comes. After all, SQUAD is yet to clarify the meaning of the last dev blog.

And there I was wondering why the blue line was above mason's post. "Hmm... I don't remember reading this topic..." Anyway, a modern micricontroler based flight compuer that costs just a few bucks would easily run the Apollo mission, play solitaire and twidle its digital fingers, but rad hardening is still an issue, and smaller the microcontrollers get, the harder it is to protect them. Analog circuitry is much more robust in that regard. That being said, the various mechanical solutions they came up with are marvelous!

Unless you are time constrained, I see no reason not to start with the earliest known observations and proposed models. Of course, you will need to judge your audience and be ready to skip stuff or offer an abridged version if all they want to hear about is Apollo. I personally am fascinated by the invention of telescope and think the history of it would make an interesting class. It is probably not practical to offer night time observations, but you sure could arrange for a scope to be pointed at the Sun, it's just as interesting.

I bought one for my friend's son, who used it in his house in the mountains where he has poor access to grid. It was working fine, but got stored away in a dark box for a few months and the battery bloated and destroyed the thing. Apparently, it should not have been stored in the dark, as the solar panel needs the light to keep the battery in good health. Other than that, it worked as advertised. As for the phone, I'm using a Chineese Doogee Valenzia. It's almost two years old, and works excellent, appart from the wifi, which has poor signal and can be flaky. Also, after a year of usage I had to replace the battery, which started to inflate. Since it took about a month for the battery to arrive, the inflation caused the back cover to deform slightly, so it doesn't close fully any more. Anyway, I'm quite satisfied with the phone, and would consider buying another Doogee.

In any case, I don't mind listening to NDGT and I don't consider him nearly as aggressive as, for example, Michio Kaku, in forcing his viewpoint. Getting back to the game, what do you thing the devs could bring us, in terms of educational content? The universe is so huge and we know next to didly squat about any planet outsine our solar system, and not a huge amount about them either. How do you present in an interestig way a known exoplanet, when all you know about it is orbial period and a ballpark for mass? If you go in details, you need to make those details up and that is no longer education. If some made up characteristics are presented as facts, it may introduce confusion in some.

Someones academic achievement in school is not the sole criteria I judge someone on. Yes, it shapes my opinion, just like many other things, but it's far from the most important characteristic of somebody. Just out of curiosity, who are you talking about? Yeah, apart from the realistic physics and large universe claim, there is very little detail available.

www.spaceodysseygame.com Neil DeGrasse Tyson is apparently working with game developers to bring us an educational exploration game which is supposed to include realistic physics, including universe expansion. Interesting. "Be part of Dr. Tyson’s journey to create Space Odyssey, an intense gaming experience of galactic exploration and colonization. With it’s foundation based in scientifically accurate game-play, you’ll create your own celestial civilizations to compete with others in an intense game of strategy." It's also supposed to be a proper multiplayer: "Cooperate, compete & interact with friends and others on a galactic scale to shape the universe." Release date is some time in 2017. Obviously it's too early to be sure, but what say you? Are you optimistic, or do you expect another No Man's Sky?

That's an old puzzle, or variation of it. http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath668/kmath668.htm

It can happen. Remember, velocity is a vector, the direction of your movement is just as important as the speed. Imagine if velocity x is needed for circular orbit at height y, and then you make a small turn "up" (not straight up, just not tangential to your previous orbit). In that manoeuvre you lose a small amount of speed. You now are in an elliptical orbit and your speed is lower that the one needed for circular orbit at your altitude.

Just because you don't agree with my point of view it doesn't mean I'm hostile. I've been nothing but polite and calm. You may argue that I'm dismissive regarding OST, but I believe I've provided reasoning behind my every statement. I've also been polite in pointing out that you are misquoting the OST. I went through two independent copies of OST, and neither contains the statement you posted. It says something slightly different. "The activities of non-governmental entities in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall require authorization and continuing supervision by the appropriate State Party to the Treaty." Which brings me to my previous point of there being no guidelines or regulations regarding the authorization process, or what does this "continuing supervision" mean and entail.

Not taking that credit. Give it to somebody else.

I can give you one if you ask me nicely. It's worth as much as any permission the FAA might give you. I'm unable to find "member states must provide authorization and oversight for their commercial entities" part in the OST. Which article is it from? Anyway, what "member states must provide authorization and oversight for their commercial entities" means is this: "Oh, somebody told us that they are going up there so we're just going to nod our heads in approval and twiddle our thumbs while they do it, maybe shake an angry finger if they mess something up. Not like we can stop them or anything." It certainly does not mean "no commercial entities will operate in outer space without approval from the member state, under the penalty of this and that". Nor does it detail and define on which parameters would a government give or deny a permission for a space mission. Not only is OST unenforceable and has no penal system for those that defy it, UN itself is almost entirely toothless and completely so when it comes to individuals and private companies. It has absolutely no power over them. And I will say it again, there are plenty of countries that are not signatories to the OST. Setting up a daughter company in any such country is perfectly legal and circumvents the OST, for whatever OST is worth.

Not necessarily. If the effect is evident, significant, reproducible and quantifiable, you don't need to understand how it works to be able to say that it exists and works. We can even use it without understanding it (provided that it is economical and useful, of course). Yes, understanding how and why something works can lead to improvement and optimisation of the design, but it's not mandatory.

Impossible to tell without knowing how common are Earth sized planets that receive similar amount of light.

It would be a poor name if it turns out it's a scorched dry desert, as it probably is.

This sort of discussion always brings up a certain thought in my head. Assuming a marine life with DNA or similar structure, would it be such a stretch of imagination to assume the possibility of evolution to stumble upon an exceptionally robust DNA fixing mechanism? A life form that occupies shallow waters and over generations spreads to intertidal regions and eventually land would experience gradually stronger radiation. Over multiple generations it is plausible that a very strong DNA repairing mechanism emerges. Such organism would have no or little problem with existing levels and types of radiation.

No. JWST has about the same resolution as Hubble (~0.1 arcsec). Proxima b and Proxima Centauri are separated about 0.036 arcsec.

And then there is the concept of relativistic mass increase, which some proponents defend and others reject, but if true it basically means that as the object's speed increases, its mass also increases and reaches infinity at c, meaning that no object with mass can travel at c. http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic1214842.files/11lev-okun-on-mass.pdf Black holes are tricky, but I wouldn't say they get a pass on breaking the laws of physics. They may be using some loopholes, though.

Apparently the author of the article didn't read his own article.

"All reasearch, always" is most certainly is not the case. There are plenty of classified projects. Also, the very existence of Export Control is a proof of some data being witheld from the public. And then there is access that razark mentions. "But the plans were on display..." "On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.” “That’s the display department.” “With a flashlight.” “Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.” “So had the stairs.” “But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?” “Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard."