TheGatesofLogic

umm, why was a tethering cable dismissed? lander probe carries sinker probe in its undercarriage and releases it onto the icy with a long thin tether held in the larger hub-probe, this is not a ridiculous length of cord and is in fact quite reasonable under the expected conditions. Overall it is a difficult but feasible idea. worst case scenario the tether must have several deployable hubs which lower tether drag.

ptr421: It looks like your augurs are not imbedded in the ground, the drills do not collide with the ground, so they need to be imbedded in the ground to be able to function and activate the drill animation.

most of the parts that aren't his own are from KSP Interstellar and KAS, I'm not sure what you're talking about. Does anyone know yet how the joint changes affect Bahamuto's parts if at all? I might check later if nobody knows.

I'm not sure it would be easy to find Newton's Principia on a kindle or nook if that's what you mean, but since it has been out of copyright protection for just under 240 years (actually it was published a hundred years before international copyright law was even established) it is now freely available on the internet in several places, and a quick search netted me this site https://archive.org/details/newtonspmathema00newtrich which supplies an variety of different file formats, but unfortunately sports a long preface on newton's life at the beginning that I advise you simply skip over. I'm not quite sure on the book k^2 mentioned and since i am not entirely familiar with it, it may still be in copyright, in which case you would have to buy it.

ugh, it is a very small portion of the scientific community that supports antimaterial gravitational repulsion, and the reason for this involves light being it's own antiparticle. If antimatter had a gravitational repulsion from normal matter then it would be expected that light, because it is it's own antiparticle, would have to propagate asymmetrically with respect to these fields, and this leads to several interesting phenomena which potentially violate many known laws, including causality in certain situations. Current understanding predicts that antimatter would appear exactly like normal matter except when in the presence of its opposite, leading to some interesting astronomical phenomena which have yet to be onbserved if the universe created antimatter and matter in equal parts, such as annihilation spectra barriers in intergalactic space due to the mixing cosmic winds of particle and antiparticle pairs.

Well certainly it requires accompaniment by a more comprehensive and modern text, I recommended primarily because it helps (well helped me at least) some people understand the equivalence between different (and more often than not more elegant; Newton's personal notation is not something I would recommend compared to the notation used by Leibniz) approaches to the same problems when read in such conjunction with some other work, which I believe is something too often ignored in modern math classes. It's also fascinating from a historical perspective, however that's a little bit off of the topic, and more of personal opinion than anything else.

I think that was the biggest run-on sentence I've ever read. I recommend adding periods and spacing out your ideas. Oh, and thinking before you type something, yeah... that's pretty important too... on a side note, there wouldn't be a "year before the red giant phase" the transition a few billion years and is very gradual, besides, terraforming mars would take a little more than a year, more like 2000 years, give or take half a millenia, just to establish a self-sustaining biosphere.

Yeah, many integrals are not quite so easily formulated from scratch and when they start getting complex knowing how to solve by parts becomes utter necessity, and that isn't something one can do with as comparably small a methodology as derivatives require. BTW when I was in eighth grade my grandfather gave me a very old copy of Philosophæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica and I fell in love with the book. I highly recommend it for your beginnings in calculus as it tends to describe things in a way seldom used in more formal calculus courses and leads to an excellent basis in ones ability to understand the reasons for the equivalence between the different methods of integration and derivation. Although its heavy in classical mechanics (I assume this will be a non-issue as it was for me since you are taking calculus at such an age, ability to understand mechanics and ability to understand algebra/trigonometry/calculus tend to go hand in hand) it is also very math oriented and in my opinion is a must-read for anyone even considering taking any calculus course. Although it might seem like an old and boring book, Newton was excellent at describing his methodology within it and it is far more enjoyable than the modern textbooks one sees on a daily basis.

Awesome mobile mining setup you've got there man, looks very similar to my own setup, though mine uses 4 very small Fission Reactor/generator units attached radially so I wouldn't have to worry about power station alignment (they are slightly custom parts, as the models are actually AArtisan's .625m fission reactors that i wrote up as parts and slightly rescaled, while the generators are repurposed laser drives). I just want to thank you for putting the amount of work you have into these parts, they really are VERY impressive.

Hey man, those are awesome! is there any way you could put the models up for download for private use? I'd really love to use some of them as replacement models for stock parts and for some custom parts for my own private use.

one could describe the appearance of quantizations in minutae as evidence of float rounding, where quantum mechanics is the function for rounding floating values. Furthermore one could argue that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle indicates a boundary at which the maximum data package held by descriptors of the rounded floats is reached.

AC circuitry always requires complex numbers by necessity. Imaginary numbers are extremely important. Also: if you want to be an aerospace engineer and you are failing algebra, please don't. I don't trust you in such a case with my life. Aerodynamics and mechanic requires high levels of calculus for simplification (I think of calculus as a simplified way of doing EXTREMELY complex math despite the fact that many people consider calculus as complex). Also, how did you get an A in Physics in high school if you can hardly do trig? Highschool Physics courses are like 50% vector analysis nowadays aren't they? Btw Calculus isn't the study of math as variables get exponentially smaller, only part of calculus is the study of functions as they approach continuums or in other words as variables become infinitely small yet still not zero and number as infinitely many, these are called infinetisimals, and one way to envision them is a .000... and infinitely on with a 1 at the end. the calculations of Riemann sums and complex volumes wuld be nearly impossible without calculus, and aerodynamics HEAVILY relies on the curvature of these volumes which can be described much more easily using calculus. I honestly can't think of a single branch of math that is PURELY theoretical nowadays. When I originally wanted to major in Nuclear Physics and Engineering I had to take 3-4 calculus courses IIRC and had to learn 3 computer languages to be able to poperly model systems, and if trig and algebra is hard for you, those types of classes will kill you, end of story.

this doesn't work, the objects moment of inertia might change as the process progresses, but only in such a way as to conserve momentum through the repetition of the cycle, and the center of mass will never move

like what has been said before, reactionless thrusters being impossible aren't the issue, it's the matter of the impossibility of using rotational inertia to do so that's the issue. Some proposed thrusters nowadays are completely reactionless (by reaction-less i of course mean without using any reaction mass if that wasn't clear) including several types of quantum thrusters, photon drives, and at least one relativity based thruster that i've read about. Also, don't use the M Drive as a commercial title please, a relativistic based resonance propulsion device currently being developed is known as the EMDrive and you may incur some legal issues there.

Haldeman's Marsbound series was solid, if a little bit out there, the premise of the books was fantastic to say the least. His book Camouflage isn't very spacey but it does have some solid ground in that area as well. As was said Niven is definitely a must read and if your looking for something with a little more social edge to it then pretty much any of John Scalzi's books are high up on the list as well. With regards to Orson Scott Card, Ender's Game is solid, but the sequels are far better though they approach the level of philosophical journal in their own ways. Other great SF authors include several that were named before like Heinlein, Asimov, Sagan, and Clarke. I think a really good SF author that's not quite in this category but is worthy of some mentioning is Sigler, whose novels include a substantial amount of solid science imbedded in quite impressive stories. i've not actually read anything by Egan, but i've been meaning to, heard his books are pretty decent.

eh, that's what i meant be specifying the "somewhat"ness of the initiator design. Also when i mentioned exact criticality i assumed people would recognize that the precision would necessarily have To be done via external control. I was unaware of the neutron beam initiator designs however. I too could build such a design, they really aren't very complex. Enriching the uranium would take me several centuries though.

no bomb ever "shoots neutrons" that would be an easy way to make your bomb fizzle out. initiators for pure fission bombs and also fusion boosted fission primaries are technically still classified but it's HIGHLY likely that they use a foil coated polonium neutron source that is commonly suspected to have a shape similar to a golf ball in order to provide neutrons at exactly the right moment. the difference between a bomb and a reactor btw is that a reactor is maintained to be exactly critical, so that for every split atom of fuel only one more atom is split by the neutrons released. in a bomb the goal is to have as many neutrons as possible from any one atom split other atoms in the shortest amount of time so that the maximum amount of energy possible is released before heat causes the fuel to expand beyond criticality.

obviously it's made of immortal lifeforms from the Messier-22 Globular Cluster in the constellation Sagittarius that evolved on a world frequently thrown around to the extremes of planetary climates. if you don't get the reference you really need to reconsider your taste in books…

a hydrogen bomb IS fusion, however it is not pure fusion (we have not achieved true breakeven with pure fusion yet). The fusion of hydrogen atoms in a 'hydrogen-bomb' is triggered by the heat and pressure waves of a fission explosion usually using the "gadget" model of nuclear exllosion devices. The gadget model uses plutonium or uranium (typically higher yield with plutonium) in a sphere with a dimpled polonium activator in the cenfer surrounded by specially shaped and bilayered explosive charges which compress the plutonium to supercritical levels. In a hydrogen bomb this gadget is shrrounded by a thin separating layer, then a highly pressurized layer of hydrogen, typically enriched with deuterium, then a strong containing wall and bombshell. When the plutonium explodes the incredible energy waves are used as fuel to trigger the much more energetic fusion process.

one way i prefer to think of it is not pockets of altered time, since that impression can lead to a grsat deal of confusion, but rather as bending spatial coordinate lines. Say you are looking at your standard x v y v z coordinate space. Now suppose you have a gravitational source moving parallel to the x-axis but behind it (negative in z-units) and it is approaching the z axis (positive x motion). As the source approaches your coordinate system the system is twisted so that from your point of view it seems like the coordinate system no longer matches up with a coordinate system that you are in as the observer, if you take that "bending" of space and approach time in a similar manner you can somewhat visualize time dilation as a result of gravity by removing say east and replacing it with time as a coordinate line. This btw also helps with visualizing einsteinian geodesics which describe the shortest distance between gravitationally affected points

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/59545-0-23-Extraplanetary-Launchpads-v3-7-1/page41 there is this model that is from a while back, but i'm not sure if that's what you mean.

thats not true at all. titan is smaller and has a FAR denser atmosphere, despite being a moon and having some loss due to tidal interactions with saturn and its moons. Really, mars can easily hold a substantial atmosphere and estimates of the atmospheric pressure as a result of greenhouse initiagions are actually quite high.

Nuclear powered perfluorocarbon generators. They last a long time, and the necessary ingredients can be found in the proper locations in the martian soil. Perfluorocarbons are better greenhouse gases than CO2 by factors of 10^3-4 when present in the right mixtures. Once enough are released to also release some of the trapped CO2, the Co2 will add to it independently causing a runaway greenhouse effect. This effect will peak twice throughout the process, the first being the CO2 release stage, and the second being the stage at which some of the Polar ice begins to melt. The ice-melt will boil rapidly and produce water vapor, which is actually a very effective greenhouse gas in its own right. The ultimate effect of this could by massive increases in atmospheric pressures and possibly lakes and seas of liquid water, opening the way to biological introduction and Gaea-type stabilization. Mind you the biosphere could take up to 4000 years to complete enough to be stable, but the intial stages might take only between 50-250 years.

I apologize, i've been considerably more hostile than i had any reason to be, and i am still shaking my head at some of my stupid attacks on your beliefs. This doesn't change my view in any way mind you, except with regards to how i approach the argument. Also, the name TheGatesofLogic doesn't actually have anything to do with logic in the classical sense but refers to an interest i had in digital binary as a kid. I am having a difficult time trying to assess your arguments in a way that does not open itself to logical criticism. I'll continue thinking on the matter.

So the most extensively tested theory in all of history that has yet to incur any evidence against it is nonsense because? You can't argue something if you don't have an arguement. Please tell me.