AngelLestat

Pluto is boring.. is small, it does not have any significant atmosphere, there is not energy there, is geologically death, it has not future use for humanity.. is just like any other rock out there. We should destroy it... for not particular reason, or crash it against neptune, to see what happens.

can someone make a graphic to understand what is the idea behing this ? with the angles and the magnetic fields lines.. Because from my point of view, it does not have much sense.

haha, you are just trying to define us "humans", and anything that is not like us (with our mechanism) then is not alive.. but let me see this from another perspective... What if something naturally evolve with a different mechanism (this mean "not genes") and is intelligent.. Then you comunicate with this being, is that thing alive? It would not enter in the "artificial life" definition because it was not created. So by your definition, a coral would be more alive than this thing?

You call that an "atmosphere" ? It has 0,000003 bar on pressure... It does not matter how thick it is, I would not notice the difference with vacuum.

There are 2 kind of people, those who can think out of the box, and those who cant. All the discoveries are done it by the first type of people, they just need to have one foot inside and the other outside, because you need some solid ground to base your steps. Then the second people may read and learn from the first type; and thanks to them, their box expand. Extremophiles include biota which are able to survive several kilometers below the ocean's surface near hydrothermal vents and microbes that thrive in highly acidic environments It is now known that extremophiles thrive in ice, boiling water, acid, the water core of nuclear reactors, salt crystals, toxic waste and in a range of other extreme habitats that were previously thought to be inhospitable for life. What?? First I am not trying to prove anything, you are the "claim guy"... remember? You are making claims in frames which nobody else in the world did!! You are the one saying that life in jupiter clouds is impossible. "all kind of life" And nobody else in the word speak of life as if carbon was the only possibility and even if they talk about "life as we know it", they never use words like "impossible", they use "unlikely" Why?? first because they are not completely dumb, that would be translated as "the end of their career", second because we dont understand or study all possible bonds between all elements we know in all possible enviroments (pressure, temperature, mix). Extremophiles already prove us wrong in many aspects, so what then? in that time (few years ago) we dint have basic chemisty law knowledge? So the one who does not understand science is me? . . but.... all other scientist use the words that I use, and nobody use yours. Why is that?

That is right, but those radiators are not only needed to reject the heat from the small solar panels, they are also to reject the heat received over all the sat surface. So is not a good example to compare the direct relation between (PV area---> radiator area needed), and I remember you that RTG or nuclear power will also need radiators which size also depends on how close are you to the sun.

You dont know to read???? I need to quote my own words again? "Learn to speak properly: These are exactly the first results in google with "life jupiter clouds":" "You can see that some pages reach the conclusion that life is unlikely and some others said that is possible. But if their conclusion is to show negatives, they use "life as we understand it" or "life as we know it". This is not about the articles!!! This is how to speak properly in science!! Find a scientist article from an astrobiologics claiming that life is impossible there or in similar places, without the words: "life as we know it". Easy, you will not find nobody so dumb to make such claim. What happen? you dint find any paper claiming the same thing in so general aspect of life as you did? If you are right, why no scientist in the world use those words? Even when scientist talk about "life as we know it" they are very carefull to not said things as impossible or cant happen, they said is unlikely.. So those are the lessons that you need to learn. But not sure if that is possible. Ok.. find a paper or article saying that is impossible.

Please, search an astrobiologics making the same dumb claim, also life can come from asteroids and then reach the clouds, we dont even know where life was generated for first time in earth. Second.. There are water droplets, and those can be like sea for microbes. Then you have a mixture of hydrogen, ammonia, methane and a host of various organic compounds, all the things that "life as we know it" needs. Life can survive without water, then reborn when in enters in touch again. Yeah, the discussion is over for you, there is no way you can add any logic to your words. The best quality of scientist, which allow them to learn and move forward, is to recognize their ignorance. People who does not do this, are the most ignorant people in the world. "Being a scientist requires having faith in uncertainty, finding pleasure in mystery, and learning to cultivate doubt. There is no surer way to screw up an experiment than to be certain of its outcome." Learn to speak properly: These are exactly the first results in google with "life jupiter clouds": http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Life/J_environment.html http://www.universetoday.com/15134/is-there-life-on-jupiter/ http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,895649,00.html https://astrobioloblog.wordpress.com/2011/04/19/life-in-our-solar-system-%E2%80%93-jupiter/ http://www.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/eng/publications/nrc_pubs/tapping/2014/2014_04_03.html You can see that some pages reach the conclusion that life is unlikely and some others said that is possible. But if their conclusion is to show negatives, they use "life as we understand it" or "life as we know it". It seems that is very hard to find someone who does not understand the fact that we know almost NOTHING about life yet. To not write so much, read above. We are talking about life in jupiter clouds, but you are changing the subject to "life started in pure gases without liquid or particles", which is impossible to not find liquids or solids in atmospheres. Also pure gases can form solids or liquids too under certain conditions. Life is about replicators. If you have a replicator who adds certain errors and code some info in each process, you have evolution. We dont have ANY idea of all possible replicators which under certain enviroment can create complex or simple life analogous to what we know it. Culture expresions are replicators, with its base unit meme. software or instructions can be replicators inside a computer, we can have different kind of replicators in chemistry under extreme (for us) conditions, we know almost nothing on chemistry under high pressures or heat or lack of it. How many different bonds can appear? Complex effect may arise as super conductors, super fluidity, or different states of matter. Of course life as we know it is impossible to survive under high temperatures, but if is base on bonds that only happen at those temperatures, then what is the problem? If it would be an intelligent artificial (with our same level of understand it) but without any example of life base on ADN. It would not be able to imagine that life "as we know it" can exist.

As Win7 said: "life as we know it", if you claim to know how all the life in the universe starts, even without a clear definition of "live" because we know only 1 case and we are not sure how it started, then.. you are dumb. This is equal to said that earth was the center of everything in previous times. Only ignorance can allow such claims. Yeah.. is unlikely.. but who knows!

PV cells lose efficiency due heat, so if you radiate that heat away, no matter how close are you from the sun, they will capture the same % of energy. That is why some solar panels design, use PV cells with higher efficiency (much more expensive) but concentrating solar light (using lens or parabolics) in the small cell, and they use heat pipe or different ways to radiate the heat in passive way. This is not a global tech graphic because I dint find any for this year, this is between (first solar) tech vs SI, but it work as example of efficiency vs temperature.

ok, thanks for the tips. and sorry if I was too hard with the vulcan, but I cant stand see money spent in ways that are not efficient, and in my opinion, projects like vulcan, sls, orion, etc. They all can be faster developed, cheaper and with higher goals.

RTG all the way, or if the budget is enoght and you need energy, a nuclear reactor then. Solar panels are great, but each technology has their place, and beyond jupiter are kinda pointless.

I dint know what all those acronyms mean, but I imagine that was related to this crap, so my previous answer, is in fact my main answer to your question. Also you said that the commercial satellite market is irrelevant to the new vulcan? lol why in their video they hope to become the main provider for the world? LOL. Also the date for the first stage test is 2019, but the rocket second stage would not be complete until 2023! haha this people is delusional, no even the goverment will risk to keep them alive until the 2023, so they will need some comercial customers before that time. Even if the goverment loves ULA, when people start to question why they paid 2 or 3 times higher prices with ULA instead launch with spacex, all politicians will save their own asses and will terminate the program. Vulcan estimate cost for 29 tons to leo will be 160 millions, some said 120... At that time, falcon heavy would be a super common rocket, and their current price is 130 millions 50 tons to leo, at 2023 we can expect full recovery of the core boosters, which may reduce the cost to 50 millions 29 tons to leo. So yeah.. nobody will save Vulcan, and even if they keep doing lauches for the DoD, that would be nothing.. compared to the world space business. Keep cheering for ULA, it will be fun come back here once a while to laugh.

Fallacy? to said something is false you need to prove it, and the evidence points the other way around. Or the new constellation google-spacex program would be in the way even with the old (before spacex) launch cost? Also all the spacex schedule for the next 3 years is already taken, that means a lot part of that money is already in their pockets and helping in their development. Saturated?? all launch companies even with higher cost than spacex has their hands full, how it will be that possible in a market already saturated? When we started this discussion 1 or 2 years before, I could understand if you dint share my view. But now.. with all the evidence showing exactly that.. not sure what you want to prove. I never said that , I need to search my old post answering this same question? I give you total details and porcentages how the cost would drop in testing, building, operation, etc with each step in reusability and why, also I told you how the cost of sattelites would drop, I also did some predicitons about the new spacex move to provide general parts for custom satellites. Also I give you details and numbers about the real cost for spacex in employes, and how much of all that was for development and how much for operation. I also show how the cost that I estimate had total coherence with the funds that spacex receive + profits. But it seems that I still the one who dont understand the space business... DoD? EELV? I can deal with english, but not with its millions of acronyms. I imagine that DoD is departament of defence, but I dont want to google and waste time looking the others. But I imagine that the question would be related to USA and its beloved militar companies. Which is one of the points where I was agree with Nibb31, there is a lot of political aspects there, but it would not be enoght.

sorry, but until now since I am in this forum, many of my predictions become true and the others are all in good path taking the last news. I may sound presumptuous, but I always had a good eye for new tech and its potential. So you should not said despective things like "try to read" just because we have different opinions, even with all the goverment support for ULA, it would not be enoght.

heh, that quote of Richard Branson is really funny. But I believe that the space business is changing, all companies and countries know it, is a race to see how will dominate the big portion of that market, so few will become very rich, meanwhile others will terrible fail. Not sure you my friends, but I would not bet on the vulcan knowing how delayed are and how short is their step towards the future. I might be wrong.. If we keep touch these 3 or 5 years.. we will see.

The amount of launches per year is proportional to your launch cost, and your launch cost is directly proportional to how much time (work hours) take you to build and test each rocket. Time = Money That is a lesson that your nasa friends needs to learn, or keep labeling all their designs and projects as "unique and mindblowing tech" (which are not, is just the same old **** than always) to just find an excuse to the decades of development. And you always forget about the test times, that is included in the manufacture and is about the 1/3 or half of the total cost. If after all the evidence and new plans you still think that the launch market will not increase, then... not sure why there is so many companies trying to reuse parts and so many new players in the space business.

Congrats Neil, after so much wait and work, you (or your team) finally press the launch button. How big was the rocket? Video ? video ? Video??? come on, dont be lazy

Well I will not make points to see which of all different methods is better. I can see how much light is this vs other methods, but I think they are taking the bad approach on money recovery, because they focus only in the whole rocket cost and how much they can recover with the lower effort. But there are things like "how much time it will take to launch the next rocket" that are not into account with this method. How heavy and extra fuel your rocket needs is nothing in cost difference if you can reuse the parts. The cost rise a lot due the time it takes you to launch the next rocket and all safety test that you need to do, more stages = more possible fails. A company who only now start to think how to recover just a small part of the rocket and that it will need to wait 4 years more to launch stuffs, it would not be able to compete with all the other techs coming or the ones that are already ahead from them. For example sable engines are in current developement and all studies from USA or ESA show that the theory and the real test are solid. Even if we later discover that 1 stage to orbit will be still hard, 2 stages vehicles with sable engine would be a lot more efficient. So all the time of developement that this idea will cost to them it will be for nothing. This is the same fail approach of the SLS. And that happens to the companies without vision.

Lol, you are being serious skyler?

I dont know.. that method to recover stuffs seems too weird, is like.. "hey, we dont have a clue how to do it, but what if we try..." Is not an elegant solution. And all that deployment and coordination to just recover the engine. There are better ways to do it.

So the one that you was using is not full hermetic in the head? I was imagine something like this: So I thought.. why he can not touch or scratch from the outside with the nose exception (depending the type of mask). But if you had parts of your heat at open, then I understand why you can not touch your face. Yeah, of course that if something similar to "zombies" happens, we may discard the living dead and the thermodynamics violations that we see in the movies. But a virus like rabies but much more stronger, is possible. There are some infections or paracities know, that when infect some animals (mostly insects) they trigger in the victim a special pattern of actions and behavior which may be seen as mental control by its complexity. Such actions helps to spread the paracite or virus. Take a look to all these examples of the real world: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/10/141031-zombies-parasites-animals-science-halloween/ Of course, evolution takes time and is always in equilibrium, but this proff that might exist a designed toxin to produce similar effects to war world Z, an infected that the only thing he wants (but using its brain) is to damage others, the tricky part is how the toxin prevent infected fighting among themselves.

yeah, maybe is quite soon to cheer.

I read today (but I guess the news is a bit old) that Sony pictures plans to make a Robotech Franchise. They already have director and productor. When I was little, I love this series. I hate it the total lack of realism or logic in transformers or other cartoons of that time. The history and characters were also very complex, it was great. Movie news: http://www.forbes.com/sites/olliebarder/2015/04/29/james-wan-in-talks-to-direct-upcoming-robotech-movie/ Not sure how much time until is finish, maybe 3 or 4 years at least. How else is feeling enthusiastic about this film?

Heh scary. So you cant even touch the inside side of the plastic from the gear? So you need cloth between, and what happens with that cloth? Because the gears are just to not let enter atmosphere particles which you can breath or they can stick to your body. But the inside from the suit should be equal safe than the interior (by safe I mean discarding all the penetrating radiation we receive) Or I missing something? Maybe in the UK, Canada and Germany.. But I would not so sure on other places, inspections can be bribed, many countries have their own sovereignty and those standards may be taken as recomendations for them... I really doubt that my country nuclear plants fulfill all safety standards. Yeah.. that might be true in the UK or USA. But not all other countries had military bases every 100 km. In fact, military in some coutries is just a force to deal with some minor disasters, because they never go to war, they dont need it. Here in Argentina if someone goes to a military base, it will be to help them, not otherwise My first estimation that I did depends on how fast it will spread. So yeah, I dont have a real number. And it would vary depending the movie we watch, if is world war Z, it will be pretty fast. Another factor to have into account is CHAOS. Our systems and cities can deal with just a certain amount of chaos, but if that increase all changes. Even if a zombie invasion dint reach your city, only with the news you will have total chaos, people assaulting supermarkets, getting arms, trying to leave the city, cars crashing against services infrastructure, it will all collapse in matter of hours. If you are in a big group of people, just 1 that is bitten, it will compromise all the others. In chaos scenaries, even without zombies, people is the most threatening to our survival. So we need far away all we can from the danger. So even if we find people in those locations, we may have more chances, because it would not be under high stress or frenesi moments. By last, if you survive in your city shelter, but you are rouning out of resources, so you need to move on.. I prefer leave a shelter in the middle of nowhere than in the city.. It all depends on the magnitud of the chaos.