AngelLestat

it said that it is 5 times more massive than earth, so not sure if the density will change or not... Surface gravity? The most probably with that mass and even a bit lower light pressure, that it will have a more dense atmosphere. How much it will be hard to know.. but if the atmosphere is very dense, then it will have high surface temperatures as venus.

Max capacity of free viewers reached, I cant see it

ah ok, so it will be the west coast launch pad.. thanks.

That is why a reusable rocket can reduce cost by a lot. I always said this.. but many still believe that the only cost you cut is the one related to manufacture.. So at the end, you reduce cost in operation (which depend on how often you launch), manufacture and almost all the testing cost (which is a lot). Where is that? I imagine the US country center? To land stages that take off from west coast?

I did it on purpose to show that the nasa way is not the only way... You dont need to develope a new type of launcher for each new mission you want to do. You use everything you have at your disposal. Nasa way is the most inefficient and expensive way to do it. They start to develope things without know their goals, that is a very bad way to do it because they dont know what to include or not. Another big error is start to design the lander, and then design a new launcher capable to carry that lander including the transfer vehicle.. Instead the other way around. Also they tend to always choose the oldest technology avariable when in fact, they should be leading on the technology edge. Nasa way = very expesive and time-consuming which ends in program cancellation due lack of funds. The people also lose interest when programs takes decades to complete. My way: find the best alternative, focus in that alternative, and do it. Nasa never has a clue in what to focus their energy. So if you said that any other way that differs from NASA is not realistic, then I am disagree. As you can notice in my post, my objective was not to be 100% serious. Also I was writing at the same time that I was thinking. But now that I did the math, it will need some changes.. In fact 3 delta4 heavy will be enoght to put 4 womens in the moon surface with some kind of isru experiments. But they will need some kind of fuel transfer, which is not nice. If I take into account what is the minimun mass for each vehicle, it gives me that each lander will need at least 5 tons, which 3 tons are fuel, and only take off 1 ton leaving all equipment and legs behind 450 isp. The transfer capsule will be 4 tons.. engine + tanks + solar panels, truss + docking ports, etc, 8 tons (does not need much thrust 380 isp). It can have stages so it goes back lighter. If we use 1 delta4 heavy launch to just allow the half of the moon transfer deltav, and then we complete the transfer with an equal booster, then we have 2 extra delta4 heavy launchs to include the transfer vehicle and landers, and we can also increase the landers mass.

2005: I find a good team of 200 specialist, we start with 2 month of brainstorming ideas to make the most cost efficient program. After 1 month, I notice that the ideas so far are trash, so I ignore them all and I make my own (which it took me 1 month). Then the team works for 3 extra months refining my ideas and trying to find weak points (which.. let's be honest, they will not find any). It needs 4 deltaIV heavy launches. (rule number 4 is dumb) First launch will be for the transfer booster "engine and tank, using methane" (go and back) Second and Third launch for the 2 inflatable landers, using h2-o2 engine. Four launch for the transfer capsule + solar panels + side docking ports and extra stuff. ................................lander 1 transfer booster --> truss ports --> capsule ................................lander 2 All using the most lighest materials. The crew will be composed by 4 females, 2 in each lander (they weight less, they eat less, plus its their turn on the moon) Light landers = less fuel needed = less transfer booster fuel needed. -No need for previous LEO missions (boring and pointless), we have vaccum chambers or other way to test it, also.. is not the first time humans go to the space or moon.. Then we spent the next 7 months developing the vehicles and all the cargo. Astronauts starts the trainning. 2006: all new contractors are selected and the construction begins. December 2007: The mission is launch. They land and start to make all kind of ISRU experiments. Then, they play soccer on the moon because is cool. (the moon suits will be these) After all that, they go back to the earth, and we forget about the moon because is boring. Not sure how my dear forum fellows will surprice me with other constellation ideas.. but, it seems that it will be a waste of their time.. because mine will be the best

?? you know that those shoes does not remplace the need for centrifuges, right?? Centrifuges are not just to keep your feets on the ground..

It does not matter? Walking over land you cross millions of different type of stones, you never know if some of those stones are in fact a piece of pelvis from a particular kind of reptile who nobody found until now. If you read about reasearch on possible techniques for interstellar distances comunications (in case one day we will be able to sent a probe to alpha centauri), you will notice that they need to use very complex algorithms in many frequencies at the same time (to track and correct errors in transmisions). So anyone who has not the right algorithm and frequencies to track that transmission, it may look just as background noice. And that will be just for the radiowaves case.. they can use laser, gamma rays, neutrinos, atom size wormholes or who knows.. We dont know the directions of the incomming transmission or frequencies, also the inverse square law as magnemoe and gpisic mention. We may discover once a while things by error or chance. But it does not mean that someone will receive funds to mix chemical solutions at random to see if something happens. And if the people behind SETI does not understand these simple facts, in which there is a huge chance that they are wasting their whole life to see if they can win the lottery with one ticket, then this is another clue that people behind seti are not the best for the job either. The only possibility that I can think to contact another intelligence, it will be if this intelligence leaves transmitters beacons every 10 to 30 light years to detect any new intelligence civilization rising, so they can answer and teach that civilization how to survive the tech age. (contact movie-book plot) But if that is the case.. why they dont make von neumann probes and leave them in each planet waiting to be activated under certain circustances? that is true for "we". Our tech grows as one grain to the time over the sand pile, our intelligence factor is constant (our brains dint become more powerfull in the last 50000 years), the only thing that is not constant and makes our tech grow in some kind of exponential rate, is the fact that our populations and access to education grow exponential, also the tools we use to help us in this matter. Our brains are really limited to understand many complex things at the same time, that is why we may think in a particular long evolution tech trend. But that is not the case.. Because once we understand the mechanism of conscience (which is only the way of how information is related and storage), then an AI would arise. Even with the power of today super computers (which is estimated to be from 1% to 70% the power of our brain, it will be able to analize and discover things at a rate hard to imagine for us. The most part of our brain is used to control our whole body and senses, that is not an easy task, that is why there is a strong relation between body size and brain size. Why we can dream with such power of details, even if our senses or control from the body are not all shutdown, but when we are awake is really hard to imagine something with few details, the answer is because the brain is more focus in that task when is dreaming, the same for autistic people, they can do math or other actions as a computer. An AI does not have those focus limits, it can also increase its "brain power" at the same rate of their discoveries. It will be so fast, that it would not require even experimentation to confirm something, due it incredible power to make simulations. One day humans might think is possible to colonize other planets and the next day or year an AI will understand that is pointless because there are much better options, and later it may discover that even those options are pointless. So maybe it decide to leave the universe. Or who knows. That is why is called the singularity. So at that rate of progress, is impossible to say hello to someone else.

So.. no more spacex activity until september? No even dragonv2 tests? The real bad news is that we will need to wait until april of 2016 for falcon heavy.

Why you want so much antennas if you are not able to read beyond the second paragraph?? People wants to understand a ET signal and we can not understand a single english post.

I am agree that is a waste of money.. The universe is full of live... but find an intelligence life form (close to our same technology) in our close neighborhood which can receive our radio signals and they care to answer, is very unlikely. More unlikely is try to intercept signals from a higher tech civilization, because for sure they comunicate in a very different way, we can not be sure what we will use as comunication in only 100 years. Also each time I am more convinced that once we reach the singularity, every will change in matter of few years or maybe days. After that, an IA or "us" will find almost all about the universe, and they will learn to leave it, or any other outcome that is impossible to imagine. We need to forget about the ilussion of having an ET friend to talk to. Evolutions takes billions of years, but the technologic age only 500 to 1000 years. And even between the same tech period, our technology, algorithms and methods would be super different.

Sorry, I mistake, I enter to the spacex site webcast section and I read that the talk would be at 12:30 pm (noon as was mentioned in the twitter) but I dint notice that it was a 22 days old news.

in one hour here: http://www.spacex.com/webcast/ ------------------------Edit------------------------------ Sorry, is not in one hour, I mistake..

It seems interesting if we point to some binary black hole or BH and neutron star in this galaxy, or some other massive objects in different galaxies. But there is a problem. neutrino detectors are very heavy, so all you gain in magnitud, you lost it at chance to detect them, but is a great idea to study neutrinos comming from a single target, and not from the whole universe. About gravity waves, is also very complex, but sounds good. I know, but we are not talking about using this to just discover new planets... with that magnitud increase, we would be able to see the planet without the incomming light of its star. So we can learn a lot more on that planet to the point of know its true value as destination. What you mean by extinction and scattering? If we would be able to see the horizon, that is the 100% proff that black holes exist, and analizing the light distortion finger print, it would tell us a lot about its nature.. Rotation speed, gravity variations and compare all that with our predictions. Not sure, those are 2 very different techniques.

amazing, is incredible what evolution does with just time.

Yeah I hear about using the sun as gravitational lense 5 years back, but never in so much detail as is explained in the video. I dont know about optics, but in the video seems very well explained. Although the presentation is quite outdated with some info. For example, they already found planets in alpha centaury system, so maybe they would not need 1 million km tether to map the whole system, if we know the exact position wherem the planet will be at some moment, then we can map just that part of the system. About how to get there.. the best way would be solar sails, not with current solar sails materials as kapton or mylar, they will need to use CNT. The benefics of solar sail is the high speed that you can achieve and you can use the solar sails as a big parabolic to focus your comunications with earth. If you have a telescope, you will need to transfer a lot of data. But visualize the black hole in the center of the galaxy seems also a very good target.

I still cant find that article that I am talking about, I find some similar, but that one was very well explained, for example what % they left it as peroxide or clorine (I dont remember), and what they did with the others, all with their prices.. Something about molten salt and some addoms to release again the energy (in case they needed to produce electricity). But well I will find it later. About the last graphic, they said this: So the technique will be to separate the custom more-concentrated electrolyte solution from the sea water by a semi-permeable membrane and allow pure water to pass through it by osmosis from the relatively dilute sea water. But well, it does not seems like a serious study. Heh, there is not free energy there, even if we let the hydrogen expand in the bag meanwhile rise, to be extracted without compression, the energy is very far from the needed to split that amount of hydrogen back. 1 m3 of hydrogen has 1500 kwh, if you let it rise keeping the 700 bar, you get only 20kwh. That is close to 2% of the energy, and if we let it expand it will be 5% to 7% more, which is the energy needed to compress it. Yeah, is like you said, it just make the method more efficient by other means, but not sure how much improve we are talking about...Including compression vs other methods, maybe 3 or 5%? It would be great if we can get the heat from an hydrothermal vent, that would reduce the power needed by a lot, also all hydrothermal vent are pretty costant. Not sure how the sea composition change with deep, this is on average:

Yeah, it seems that electrolysis in sea water is very complex, I read some time ago an article which explained how to extract all the compounds of seawater in a efficient way and then selling all those compounds by separate.. It was Na, Cl, h2, o2, some metals, etc. But I cant find the article. But well that is not my question, but I understand that is still very difficult to answer because electrolysis seems to be more experimental than theory, and it has hundreds of different ways to do it. There is no way to resume the problem to which is more efficient from the energy input perspective? 1 bar water electrolysis or 700 bar water electrolysis? Ignoring the fact that is seawater... But I guess this is one of those thing that can not be put in simple math. Or maybe the calculations will differ a lot from the real methods. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It seems that I was not the only one with this idea.. here there is another method to do it: https://scottishscientist.wordpress.com/2015/04/23/off-shore-electricity-from-wind-solar-and-hydrogen-power/

heh, But you dint mention this in your first post, also even gamma irradiation is emitted from contaminated particles, so I have doubts on how wrong was the reporter... I will need to see the video, but well.. is not weird lessen reporters messing stuffs, more on science topics.

I'm always wondering what would be the most cost/efficient way to exploit and storage wind energy. Now I want to know the benefics on deep water electrolysis, not sure if it would be cost/efficient (seems not) but I want to understand better the background physsics of this approach. But I dont have practice with electrolysis calculations and Gibbs energy, also is not easy to identify the source of all energies involved (wind or enviroment). So I will need your help to answer these questions: 1-What are the benefics (on efficiency or cost) doing deep water electrolysis vs surface? 2-what of the methods mentioned seems more cost/efficient? Energy sources involve? 3-Efficiency added if we exploit hydrothermal vents (black smokers) on electrolysis or other process. Graphic details and extra info: There are 3 methods, of course we can delivery the o2 and h2 using the same method, but this help to visualize in 1 image. Something which is not very clear, is the pressure relation with the electrolysis efficiency, in theory taking into account the Gibbs Energy, it should cost more energy split water under pressure, but is the other way around. Also all best efficient methods work with high pressure electrolysis. "high pressure electrolytes will consume less power in the process of electrolytic decomposition. The main reason was stated to be the shrinking effect of pressure on the gas bubbles which cause the ohmic voltage drop and power dissipation to reduce. Moreover, high pressure electrolysis has less power demand for the phase of product compression", the max efficiency is at 700 bar with 250 c http://www.electrochemsci.org/papers/vol7/7043314.pdf Method A This is the most simple case to visualize with Force * Distance = Work, If we produce 1m3 of hydrogen with water at 700 bar, then in that volume we have 42kg of hydrogen. This is equal to 5600 mjoules/m3 = 1583 kwh (energy of 1m3 h2 at 700 bar) Lifting force and work: 9388 N * 7000 mts = 65.7 mjoules = 18 kwh Then we need to add the oxygen lift force and work. If we produce 1m3 of hydrogen, then we should (??) produce 1/2 m3 of oxygen, at 700bar weight 375 kg aprox, this provides 1225 N of force * 7000 mts = 8.5 mjoules = 2.3 kwh 18 + 2.3 = 20 kwh which seems negligible, but it does not need compression. A1--> h2 load, displace water out A2--> tank full of h2 rising A3--> the tank release the h2 and let the water in, it remains open all the way down. Method B In this case we dont use a fixed tank, we use a bag, and we allow the bag expand meanwhile rise, this calculation is not simple, we should integrate, but we would need to include the pressure variable in some way. But is pointless, because the extra energy we would get, it will be the same (in theory) needed to compress the gasses back at 700 Bar. Method C Here we produce and exploit the flow that we get injecting h2 or o2 bubbles to a pipe, the bubbles transfer the kinetic energy to the flow, all bubbles over the 7000 mts help on this, depending how much water flow we allow under the tank it will determine the storage pressure (10 bar= huge flow same values than method B, 700 bar = small flow same values than method A) In theory, we should have the same power output vs the other methods. But with this we have extra benefics, we are injecting cold water full of nutrients in the surface, this increase the algae and plankton, which will absorb sun light (as solar panels) and absorb extra co2, it can be used as a perfect place to fish. So? what methods seems better? we get some beneficts from the thermal gradient in the sea or is negligible?

It seems ok, you can not have a suit to fight radiactivity emisions, but you can avoid breath or enter in contact with radiactive material.. If you breath it, those radioactivity particles will remain in your body even if you leave the place, also.. inverse square law.. if something is in contact to you, you receive the 100%.

it seems wrong, but I prefer this than become obsolete against machines.

Cool, the first time I read this news: http://io9.com/5903221/meet-xna-the-first-synthetic-dna-that-evolves-like-the-real-thing Yeah but not so sure about how much frame has this concept, it seems that the frame is always organic chemistry. ------------------------------------------------------------- I love how something as simple like the evolution process and heritage can create such complex machines which complexity still eludes our understanding, like conscience. But I also love to see this same mechanism applied in very different cases as memetics. Wiki: The meme, analogous to a gene, was conceived as a "unit of culture" (an idea, belief, pattern of behaviour, etc.) which is "hosted" in the minds of one or more individuals, and which can reproduce itself, thereby jumping from mind to mind. Thus what would otherwise be regarded as one individual influencing another to adopt a belief is seen as an idea-replicator reproducing itself in a new host. As with genetics, particularly under a Dawkinsian interpretation, a meme's success may be due to its contribution to the effectiveness of its host. Memetics is also notable for sidestepping the traditional concern with the truth of ideas and beliefs. Instead, it is interested in their success. As Richard Dawkins prove, the evolution process is better understood from the gene perspective, so we are just survival machines – robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes. "A chicken is just an egg's way of making more eggs." Is not so easy to understand, but if we do, we can find similarities of memes with genes. If somebody wants, I can explain this with more detail.

So thinking out of the box for you is that? Well if you never was out, how can you understand what we are talking about. Also I said one foot inside on solid ground, the other outside, that is the only way to advance on science. If you dont do that, is impossible, not even by error or accident.

Ah ok, if that is the case, then I am agree, it seems a good start point definition for life. But genetic is the study of genes, and genes are small pieces of information base on ADN. So maybe a new word should be used as remplacement.