AngelLestat

Ok, I understand.. I follow this since a long time, something I notice over the last decade, is that every time, predictions and studies contain extra details with less uncertainty, but the real issue, is that the new predictions are not in the center margin of old predictions, in fact new prediction are in top or exceed the worst case of old predictions, that is scary, more if we saw the half of the world who still think global warming is a conspiracy from little green guys (kerbals). you know we can not derail the topic, never mind.. eat it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emissions_of_energy_sources Dont worry, nuclear will be still usefull for the next 5 to 10 years.. after that there is not point to keep making them. 1) There is a whole branch of science that study measuments, is a science and is exact.. You can calculate how big is your error (with the exception of human error). 2) You will always have a chance to be wrong.. but I guess lately that chance is 1 vs 99. It can be only a coincidence that all evidence points to the same place? yeah.. but unlikely. heh, you are saying that all scientist in the world are cheating with this? How they change the values from the real data they receive? Nobody review their works? This is the same that PakledHostage explain, scientist compete a lot between then, there is nothing more rewarding for a scientist than prove all other wrong. And right now all others is the vast majority by far. Read my answer to 78stonewobble. predict climate change trends is easy.. predict local effect on short periods of time is not. But that theory of the pacific ocean if you read the actual paper, has a lot of evidence, also you can see the same "hiatus" every 30 years aprox.. in your same graph. Well in that case I really hope you become a climate scientist to help to fill that uncertainty. Meanwhile, I guess the forecast is enoght clear to secure the house as prevention, dont you think? After all is the only house we have.

By politics I imagine that you are talking of country politics. Not NASA politics.. because in that case this topic is pointless and many others should be also closed.. without any censorship logic, because nobody can choose or vote on NASA.Also, if we can not discuss an space program.. in the kerbal space program game, then.. well you know.. But as you point, I will not touch the country politics. Take a look to the end of this pdf: http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/664158main_sls_fs_master.pdf There are listed all agencies and companies which work or will work on the SLS project. First you have all NASA agencies and different NASA centers, then few companies as Boing or Rocketdyne will handle the construction of single parts but under the NASA design, control and procedures. When I said NASA should outsource projects, I mean exactly that. Projects.. not just components. Like this: you have a project.. then 3 big companies are interested to participate.. You give 5 millions each so they can present a preliminary design base in X requirements, the winner is selected to develope the whole project, then it can be another design step to better define the contract budjet and time frame, the companie can outsourced different works, but is all manage by them. If the money or time lapse is exceed, is on them to solve it. And of course, I am not the only one who see this.. There are many reports pointing this. Take a look to this article: http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2330/1

Your first instance and you are already wrong.. I never ask a question, another guy ask this question, sojourner answered... The answer in my opinion was wrong, so I give mine.. sojourner continue the discussion, in my second answer I already point him that neither of us would be able to prove it, but he continue.. why I am the bad guy in all this? And I follow all spacex attempt and missions since this topic was created. Also.. apology for stealing time when there are only 16 hours left.. Choose a good sit and wait without interruptions

I know that nasa is not a company.. where I said that? SLS is not outsourced.. maybe few "few" components are.. But the majority of the project is done in all the different NASA agencies. All the design is done by them. Also many times that nasa outsourced things, they keep all controls, designs parameters, procedures, documentation, policies, etc. So all that inefficient buracracy, enters in the job of other companies, which they become just another NASA branch.

I dont blame people, I blame NASA for be so ineficient with any project they have.. Is impossible to spent billions and billions with more than 15 years in developement for something that any other company can do it at 1/3 of the time and money. Also not matter how good is your design, if you take that time to completed, it will be totally outdated on technology and by the current/mission needs. I will love if they get more funds.. (and less funds to the "defence sector"), but only with a big change in policy or just outsourced all big projects to other companies.

what?? nibb, if you dont have idea what we are discussing.. then try to not interrupt please.. sojourner said this: "Because the NASA part of the mission is the CRS-7. They won't let the first stage landing steal the limelight on their channel." Which is similar to said in irony that they are jealous and competing with spacex. And I am saying that the ones against the desision to not show the landing attemp at the end of the mission is for sure spacex. Because if they fail, it will looks like the mission fail. And they want to keep those things well separate. But I guess the nasa channel has none issue to show the landing attempt.. why it would be?

where do you think the large part of the funds to develop falcon9 or heavy is comming from? Also if they can show that in the video means extra viewers and popularity for the nasa channel. (each landing attemps is like a mars landing in viewers) But not you or me can prove this.. Just that my theory seems to have a bit more logic than yours.. as "nasa being jealous and competing with spacex..." please!

And you base that on what?? They can add picture and picture or just show the video at the end of the second stage ignition. In that case why nasa show the pad abort test for dragon2?

Ok, not sure if I understand but let me try. You are saying since now we have 800gt in the atmosphere (instead 550gt before fossil fuels) we are capturing 5 Gt extra (trees and sea) by year, so in case we stop with the co2 emissions, the co2 will go back to the normality? If that is your logic, then yeah.. it should happen like that. But if we keep with the co2 emissions then it will trigger some chain of events that even if we later stop, it will continue to rise and nobody is sure if can be stopped. In fact calculations show that even if we stop now with all the emissions, the heat will keep rising by 30 years if I remember correctly. Because it will take a time to absorb that extra co2 in the atmosphere, also the heat absortion due sun light takes time, seas are huge capacitors. First let me point that what peader1987 said is true, it does not matter the accuracy of your instruments, if you had millions of them and you only care on the average, you will had the most accuracy data. The uncertainty bars is because measure the earth temperature is not easy. You have different seasons all with their different cycles and micro changes in the sun radiation and earth orbit, you also had weather. What I mean.. you have energy... but energy sometimes may be heat, and some others may be kinetic, etc. You have that same energy that is in constant change, but you are only measuring temperatures. Also you dont have a thermometer in each part and deep of the oceans and the atmosphere, some times the heat rise over the big majority of your instruments, sometimes down, some times is deep in the oceans, etc. But you dont need to follow the local trends, you need to follow the general trend, and is rising without question. And not only rising.. is rising in the same value expected due our current co2 levels, in fact it would be a surprice and mistery if the temperature would not be rising. And again.. follow the general trend. Here explain the hiatus in the last years: http://climate.nasa.gov/news/1141/ "The Pacific Decadal Oscillation affects surface temperature," Loeb said. "It's a pattern of temperature shifts, primarily over the Pacific, that occurs about every 20 or 30 years." - - - Updated - - - aww for the comment seems like you miss me.. Also I never said price drop exponentially, just linear as they are doing it.. 70% in the last 5 years.. remember? and they keep droping. So you need a full understand for this to just take more than a grain of salt? So fully understand means waits 50 years with the water on our feets and then said.. ah yes.. is happening.. is 100% true.. now lets act.. aww.. not we cant.. is too late.. The only uncertainty we have, is that if global warming will be terrible, or just very bad..

I am not a good friend of NASA lately, but I am totally sure that the desicion to not show the landing attempt is all on spacex hands. First they wanna show that the main objective (carry something to space) is accomplish, then they want to control how to show the "fail or sucess" of the landing attempt. If they show it in the same video, the mission might look like a fail. So that is why they want to keep well separate... mission for one side.. technologic development in the other.

What? the co2 capture by seas and trees is always lower than the amount released! Take a good look to the graph, you are mistaken the cycle values with the real co2 capture. Seas and trees capture 5 gt by year, humans release 9 gt by year, that equal to 4 gt extra co2 by year, in 50 year (even with constant emission and ignoring emissions due global warming) we would have 200 gt extra co2 in the atmosphere, which 800 + 200 = 1000 gt. (of course it will be higher than that due many effect that I already explain) If we do the cold water pump technique to increase plants and plakton, only a small porcentage of all that added co2 cycle will be captured by oceans. Then is how I said it, but you dint confirm it, you are talking of the overall cycle, but you can not take the amount of co2 captured by the cycle, because it release it again in the next season.

Why you apply 2 times the force proportion if in this case gravity and density doesn´t has nothing to do with wind speed. We already have the force that will be applied on the body (a 40km/h wind). Also the OP takes that the martian atmosphere is 100 times less dense than earth, but nasa said it is only 61 times less dense (dont forget that is 95% co2) Mars atmosphere at surface, density: ~0.020 kg/m3 Earth atmosphere at surface, density: 1.217 kg/m3 1.22 / 0.02 = 61 http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/marsfact.html http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/earthfact.html But if a body does not touch the soil very often, then it does not lose inertia so often either. Not sure what are you saying, I dont know the full plot of the book or movie. But about that object, like I said, maybe is big, not aerodynamic and light. Like this: Rockets here on earth doest not take off with higher winds either, even a small change on angle of attack can cause severe dynamic pressure. Yeah, but well, we dont know so much mars as earth, in earth we can have hurricanes of 350km/h, they are very rare, but happens. And you know how is this.. if in reality something is rare.. in movies happens all the time.

But you can not take the average, because 200 years ago we release almost nothing of co2 to the atmosphere compared to now. And even if we reduce the amount of co2 emissions by year, the overall emission will keep rising, because the current earth temperature rise, more water vapor, more methane and co2 due permafrost melting, less ice --> lower sun refraction, etc. That is why everbody said that if we reach to the 2 degress celcius increase then we reach the point of no return, because it does not matter if we dont emmit more co2 at that point, the earth will intensify a chain of events which will release by it self a lot more greenhouse gasses which cannot be stoped, and in case we can, it will cost a LOT more than do it now. This is like dodge an asteroid, if you do it 10 years before, you dont need much energy, if you do it the last year, it will be 1000 times harded. Take into account that the last time earth had these co2 values, humans did not exist. Yeah, again not total sure what you mean by 30% to 40%, the problem here is that not because co2 levels rise we would have always a constant % that will be absorbed, global warming may change local weather, wet places may become dry, and dry places wet. But forest, towns and crops places can not be relocated from one day to the other, which end up dying --> higher levels of co2, seas acidification may also become a problem for life, if we dont increase the amount of life we can not absorb much co2. But we already understand which are the process that contributes to co2 capture, but all evidence point that all those process will weaken with the time rather than strengthened. Yeah but just to clarify, there was some strong volcano events which burn huge forest and started an chain of events which end up with mass extintions, but those are not common, are event that happens once every hundred of millons of years. In fact, if we take into account all the earth eruptions or volcano activities in the last 100 years, that total co2 is equal to the co2 released by human activity this last year.

Ok, that is close to my mental estimation, if fact I was imaging something as 80km/h, but I dint understand your math, why do you do the sqrt of 2.66, what does it means? First let me notice that I dint read the book and I dont remember the trailer, just that it has some interstellar cast on it. I was just pointing that the OP review was not complete. About how much it can accelerate it all depends on its density. Also remember that is low G, and lightweight dust can help to transfer momentum to other bodies. Time out.. I will see the trailer again so I can understand what are you talking about.. ............. hey.. it does not look so bad.. https://youtu.be/lQqhfq87FgY?t=39s It show that the wind is super fast, but they walk without problem, the problem comes when matt damon is hitted by another object body (which may have lower density). Seems accurate considering that is a movie.

not sure what you mean. I dint understand the sentence. Yeah, that is a good point that I dint mention. Let me further clarify this to others: Now atmosphere contains 800 Gt of co2, but 200 years back was like 550 Gt, that increase of 250 gt extra in the atmosphere only contribute to 2 gt of extra co2 captured by year on the oceans. So is clear that nature by it self cant compesate the extra co2 emissions. http://www.climatecentral.org/news/the-last-time-co2-was-this-high-humans-didnt-exist-15938 Yeah it may be similar as use water irrigation and fertilizers on land. It may help, we just need to control it. Where is the 50 millions years value come from? In my example I said that 50 years (strong time lapse of human activity) is nothing compared with climate change times. So nature can not balance this. From what I can see, mostly all graph or sources of info are correct, sometimes they choose different ways to measure (ppm, Gt=bmt, or some weird imperial units), there are some graph which was made in different years, 90s, 2000, now.. and you can see how the levels increased with the years. Also sources choose different ways to show data, for example they may separate or merge effects. Plus bad conversion or translations. Humans release almost 9 gt by year, this includes the effect of deforestation. From those 9gt by year, less than 30% is absorbed by oceans (2gt) and (3gt) by forest. Or maybe the 30% to 40% that you are talking about is the one absorbed by the sea from the total cycle (90 sea + 120 Forest + 5 Extra), so in that case seas absorb a 40%. Different graphs: 199x http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/pix/research/climate_ecosystems/AnthropogenicCarbonCycleBox2.png http://worldoceanreview.com/en/files/2010/10/k2_kompo_kohlenstoffkreislauf_e_en.jpg 200x http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/kling/carbon_cycle/carbon_cycle.jpg http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/research/themes/carbon/img/carboncycle.gif 201x http://clas-pages.uncc.edu/mesas/files/2015/01/carbon-cycle-boiled.png http://s20.postimg.org/567ve34l9/Carbon_cycle.jpg The basic understanding is clear, also the consequences.. So try to take more than a grain of salt next time. Until they become furnitude or biofuels.

Now the question is how much 40km/h wind force effect on 1/3gee, that will be equivalent to bodies with much lower density here on earth. Also the wind is 400km/h, all dust or projectile travels at that speed, which is something to have into consideration with respect to damage.

Ok good.. Now I understand your point and question.. But the same link you post, explain it. Take a look to this picture: The oceans absorb only 90 gt by year and expel the same value. It only absorb 2 gt extra by year due human activities. But you dont need to forget that there are already 800 Gt in the atmosphere. Why does not absorb all of that? Because the earth already was in equilibrium, an equilibrium who took millions of years to reach, it may have changes... but they take time... and 50 years for earth or climate time is nothing. Also the water by its own does not absorb co2, life does, so we are talking about the ocean surface who has 1000 gt vs 800 gt of our atmosphere. So that amount extra of co2 will not be absorbed naturally, but... one of the best plans to capture co2 uses the oceans, we just need to improve the technique and see if its safe. If we pump cold water from deep using the same waves, we carry nutrients to the surface where plants and plakton can glow (and only a few % of that plankton will be capture in the deep). But there are some concerns wih this, a huge amount of plants can become poison in some cases. https://youtu.be/c3XwOs6jz5o?t=3m18s

Thanks Airlock, I never see that full video.

I read the last posts yours, and I still dont have a clue in what´s your point. Can you detail your conclusion or opinion please?

This doesn´t answer the topic question, but might help to those who seems confused about the co2 natural cycle and the human hand in all that. This second video is a bit long but explain the same thing with more detail.

Yes, it's what I always told my language teacher whenever I received the test results.

and also because they´re ne... what it follows? Well does not matter, I already notice this in the week without know it was an important conjunction. I will look it with more attention the next days.

OMG, this discussion is still going? I dont really want to meet that 9% who still thinks the change is bad, something is broken up there, is creepy. But well, I found these videos (sorry if someone post them before), they have a funny way to make the point.

ok thanks for the answers guys.. That cargo bay looks amazing.

Congrats Ser, this is a reality addom that I will love to install.