AngelLestat

Yeah I know what you mean about photons. But even if is dimensionless, singularities had ring shape, which is weird from our point.

Not sure yet, this still means nothing, Of course I believe that sooner or later they will find evidence that once was or there is life, but we are still far to find it.

That is the key, many times convenience is more important than security, it all depends on the % of frauds that you can manage. Anyone can copy a credit card number or also the same owner can buy something and then reclaim as if was a fraud, he will get their refunds back. But try to do that 2 or 3 or more times and for sure they will start a investigation and sooner or later, the thief is catch. If someone wants something very secure, it will need to spent a lot of time of his/her life to achieve that. Is all about risk and benefics. All average countries already had all finger prints of their citizen, if someone from outside (from a legal institution) wants that information, they just need to ask for it. Also not all people use their real name as user name. I would focus more in what kind of information people post in facebook or related social networks, that can be way more usefull for bad people or institutions than your fingerprint.

Yeah, is a similar concept from the energy point of view than a lifting body or airplane without engine, in fact. Is easier and safe land an helicopter without engines than any airplane, plus you can land in any place (even the top of a building), not need for a runway. About specific technical aspects, not sure yet. Is in development. But this does not mean that we dont know if it works or not.. We know that it works. In the 60th for the apollo program, they reach to the conclusion that it was a reliable method but they dint have time to the development. Space industry is allergic to changes, if something "works" they keep using it without analyze if there are better ways to do it. But well, now in the 2013 they took this concept again to finish the developing process. You can find many ways to do it (some using existing technology) and it would work just fine.. But if you will develope something, better find the best way to do it from the begining. This takes time. Right now they are focus in the best way to deploy and start rotation for its own. Faster the rotation starts, faster you will have control over the capsule which translate is safety. They are testing with passive ways of starting rotation or using alternative methods as air pressure as initial blade propulsion or small solid charges in the tip of the blades, etc. About how much it can glide, what is the max angle.. not sure. It will depend on how much speed can achieve horizontal. In helicopters using autorotation is 30 degress as we can see in this picture. I guess higher angles can be achieve it for capsules, it will depend on the drag of the capsule, weight distribution, etc. Something like this: More horizontal speed it means extra lift, maybe they can find a way to use the rotation energy plus the extra wind speed (apparent wind generated by your same speed as sailboats do to travel up to 8 times faster than wind) to generate more lift an forward propulsion. Something good about rotors, is that you can open them at much higher altitude than parachutes, faster rpm is not a problem for a short blade.

From our point of view using theories that are not quite accurate in that frame of reference.

Iapetus is the natural satellite which it seems has the most % of water according to its volume. They think measuring its density that it may be 80% water.

Iskierka, Robotengineer, Superluminaut: Capsule reentry does not need to be so accurate if you use the heli-blade method, it can fall at 15km/h vertital speed but with an horizontal speed of 100km/h "not sure about the real number", that's enough to correct any deviation in the reentry. Many things was already explained in the topic, here is a recap: helicopters landing without power: https://youtu.be/2voCedPQMUo?t=3m https://youtu.be/E2a9H8Xw8Mo?t=1m47s You can keep searching videos, is a very common procedure that any pilot should know. If you still hear the sound of the engine, is just because this is done with students and double command. When practicing, instead of actually shutting the engine off completely though, they usually just turn the engine down enough to disengage it from the rotor. This way, if the student encounters a problem during a no-power landing, the helicopter can be throttled back up to avoid an accident. Given that this isn’t an option during actual engine failure, it’s critical for helicopter pilots to practice this until they have it down pat. Helicopters rotates due the engine torque, not because the rotor blades spin. In fact when helicopters had a problem with the tail rotor, pilots shut down the engine to avoid spin without control, then they land with autorotation. In the capsule case, the blades rotates due wind, so there is not torque and the rotor friction against the capsule is negligible plus the difference on mass, and to counter it is enoght a very tiny fin in the capsule body. Here the test in the 60th With 2 very tiny fins on the side, plus today technology and a pilot, that thing will fly and land better than anything.

yes... because a keylogger which with the correct troyan file can infect not just one, if not several computer over all the internet without doing forense work in a strange house. And if a device fails to recognize a true fingerprint from a fake one, then we just need to blame the device..

You are all forgeting something.. that it would be an user choice.. To those users who has the "device" and they think is better for them... they will use it.. For those who think the opposite or believe that is annoying, they can keep the old method.. In my opinion it will be more safe, but I dont want to buy the device... So I will do it the old way: ********* With the time hacks that points to certain model of device will appear, the same way that if hackers knows what model of router someone is using, they have more chance to exploit.

we are in the 2015, if we can not deal with a moving part then we are doom. also.. a parachute deploy can be take it as a moving part. about how the rotary method land? easy, first you fall at the same speed than a parachute or maybe a bit faster (it all depends on how small are your blades), but when you are close to the ground, you change the pitch of the blades, which transform faster rotation (kinetic energy) into more drag and lift. So you land soft. Even any helicopter which are not designed for this task, all can land without engines (and they control where it lands without spin or anything).

a parachute deploy seems more complex than a 45 degress change in 3 blades which are extended centrifugally. first the parachutes needs to be perfectly prepacked, then the top cover needs to shot away with the mini parachute guide to push the others. Any turbulance or high wind in that moment it may compromise the operation, and you fall without any horizontal control, so you need to choice your location way far from the coast, then you need to add the ship boat recover cost and the parachutes repack in the water. Also the flotation bags and try to eliminate all that possible corrotion from sea water. if you land in ground, you need to remplace those solid charge which doesn´t give you a so soft landing either. The recovery needs to be in deserts to avoid any problem with ground disparity. So all that recovery also has a cost. In the other way, you just land in your base with a very soft landing which reduce any possible problem on damage devices in future operations. Which is translated into less money in maintenance, safety checks, tests and faster reusability. Here there is more information about the rotary capsule. http://research.jsc.nasa.gov/BiennialResearchReport/2011/82-2011-Biennial.pdf

relax, it was commented in the edit reason. you mean lifting body + parachute as ESA mini shuttle? I dont really now why they choose that, it seems like the worse idea ever. First, you have to deal with this problem: or the USA variant: So the added mass of the faring plus the extra volume which cost deltaV in aerodynamics. Normal capsules does not have that problem. Second, if you get some much trouble to achieve that, why it needs extra parachutes and land in sea??? Just to reentry? That is something that capsules does very well. But this add the parachutes mass plus backup parachutes mass, and it lands on the corrosive sea. If someone wants to explain me how is that efficient, be my guess. Dont forget that if you use parachutes, you need also the mass for the backup parachutes. None can be guided. How´s that will be more efficient than heli-blades with a tiny wing shape parachute as backup? This option is guided and it requires less mass.

But they may be the main method in some cases, about ballons yeah, I dont think that may count as land (even if you do) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I found this video from test that Nasa did with heli-blades for the apollo program, the test was good, but discarded due lack of time in developing. My choices would be: Manned capsule back to earth Main method, heli-blades Backup method, tiny paraglide (wing shape parachute) with 2 seconds solid boosters landing on sea. Liquid Rocket Booster The baikal concept use wings and a a breathing air jet engine to return to base which land horizontal. Not sure what modifications are needed or what different concept may be used to allow main stages to return earth and survive reentry. Probes: Well this depends a lot on many things as gravity, atmosphere composition, arrival deltav, surface, etc.

I add lithobraking, there is other method or info that I still miss? the question was rephrased. Maybe that is why is the only method which does not need a backup. But in my opinion, the deltav lost it in the ascent plus design things which they need to be taken into account, counter many of their pros. The capsule does not spin, if it does it will be very easy to counter with tiny control surfaces. Helicoters spin (without tail rotor) due engine torque against the wind. But this is a very different case, the capsule mass vs blades is a lot higher, the rotation comes from the wind and the rotor friction against the capsule is negligible. You can see the autorotation videos in helicopters that I post, which they can guide and land the helicopter without main and tail rotor. As k2 points, in reentry; control surfaces or wings does not work, you need a passive way to mantain the spacecraft oriented without waste much rsc, but without control surfaces once you are at low height, there is not passive design which can save you. Of course control surfaces failures are very weird, airplanes depends on them all the time. Also if someone goes through so many difficulties to have a lifting body design, then what is the point to include a backup landing method.

I dont know if call it "arragements". All helicopters can do that. Even if they have not motor, controls still works. of course images would explain better than me: Just using the rotor inclination, an helicopter can reach 300km/h (not thrusters) So without engine 200 km/h (horizontal) can be achieve it. Before touch the ground the blades change the pitch angle and the inclination to get a soft landing. Some real helicopters doing autorotation landing, this is something that everybody should learn if they want their license. https://youtu.be/E2a9H8Xw8Mo?t=1m47s https://youtu.be/2voCedPQMUo?t=3m

I add the wing case which I forget, also some pictures :S When someone said parachutes, please define if is normal parachutes or wing shape parachutes. In my opinion, normal parachutes is the worst method, of course is very well tested and it works fine to land in sea (it needs rocket thrusters to land on ground) The thing why they never were remplaced, was just because the space industry is allergic to changes. If somebody in charge of a mission or development said "lets test with another landing method", he/she risk to lose his/her job in case something wrong happen, but if something wrong happen with parachutes, then is not his/her responsibility. But I guess space industry should be in the edge of technology, not in the bottom. Take into account that you can choose combinations, for example rocket thrusters with heli-blades, etc. I guess parachutes and rocket thrusters are more risky than the heli-blade or wing method, so is more probably they need backup methods.

What of these methods is better to land capsules, boosters or probes? Normal parachutes: -the technology is very mature, it works. -descent is not guided -terminal speed still high -considerable mass added -required high space volume -it needs heat protection. -regular with turbulance, bad with high winds. Wing shape parachutes: -the technology is very mature but not in current use for the named examples. -descent is guided -required mass and space a bit lower than normal parachutes. -softer descent than normal parachutes -it needs heat protection -bad with turbulance, regular with high winds. -it can not be partially open so easily as normal parachutes, so the acceleration force is stronger. Heli-blades http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/news/rotocapsule.html "the wind passing over the rotors as the capsule descends would make the blades turn, a process called auto-rotation that has been proven repeatedly on helicopters but never tried on spacecraft" Close to the ground you can vary the blades angle to convert high rotation speed energy into extra drag which it gives a softer landing without big blades. A similar concept is used by the maple seed: -part of the technology is very mature, we need to learn the best way to integrate to current capsules, probes or boosters. -descent is guided -very soft landing -Less mass than parachutes -less volume than parachutes -it may avoid heat protections in some cases. -regular with turbulance, regular with high winds. Rocket thruster -the technology is mature but not highly tested, spacex choice. -descent is guided, extra fuel provide a big change in landing location. -required mass and space depends how much we want to change our landing location, for just landing may be similar or a bit higher than parachutes. -it can land in planets without atmospheres. -a thruster may be welcome in any kind of spacecraft to be used for different purposes. -it does not need much heat protection. -very soft landing. -bad or good with turbulance and high winds depending if it is a booster or capsule. -ignition and thruster mechanism are complex, so they may fail. Wings or lifting body shape: -the technology is very mature, but aerodynamics are complex, so it requires hard developing and testing. -descent is guided, it can achieve long distances. It needs a landing strip. -mass and volume needed is less than normal parachutes, it can be used to lower reentry speeds. -soft landing -regular (close to good) with turbulance and high wind speeds. -they may be a problem in rocket ascent or to be included inside farings. Lithobraking: Used more frequently as a complementary method to landing but although with high potential in some particular cases as main method. Breakthrough in materials will increase by a lot its performance. -common used for short deltav changes or high depending surface density and payload hardness. -very low volume and mass required. -hard landing -descent is not guided. -good with turbulance and high wind speeds. -heat is not a real issue. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Some of those pross and cons depends on my opinion and knowledge, so they may be wrong. I am not sure if I include all possible methods. In your opinion, which method should be used for each case? it will need a backup method, which one?

I am not a F1 follower and not sure if I understand the rules, but I guess sucking is referred to the cars which creates a vacuum down the chassis, this may done with aerodynamic shape or using the engine to suck air beneath. The first cars banned in use this effect was because they not let it pass any air under the car with a kind of moveable skirts. The danger with this system is that if the car jump a little or some wheel is in the air at certain moment, all the suction force is loss, so the car will crash very hard. But if you gain downforce even if the car is flying, I guess there should not be any problem.. But not sure.

It was test it in space like 20 times! In theory and practice, it work!!!! Its even at sale as commercial addom to deorbit cubesats!! http://www.tethers.com/Products.html if you dont know the difference between cannae drives and this, then leave the science section or learn something about it.

It was done it already. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_tether_missions They just need a little more experience to avoid tether cuts due debris or maybe high electrical current. As a new technology, the fact that we dont use them yet, it does not mean that it would not work. Solar Sails for example.. They work... They can be very usefull. But it takes time and the ISS duty is not over yet.. So what is the rush?

I dont see much point to keep it in orbit once its duty is over. Of course all venting and with systems shutdown. But for the attitude control, there is a way to avoid the iss fall without spent any proppelent. Electrodynamics tether. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrodynamic_tether http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19980223479.pdf It works as power source and propulsion method, it use the same atmosphere particles at that height to push against and earth´s magnetic field to get the energy from. It require 1 launch, and you avoid to place the space station in another which was not the original.

I read it vger, but I have not time to a long answer. Too busy this week. Just few points: You are taking all the bad examples (which some are not, also is good to have competitiveness, we will be dead without it) of humanity and relating all with aggression which in many cases has nothing no to do. You are also ignoring all good effects of aggression. Picking examples and ignoring others just to validate an idea is not the way to make science or progress. You can not compare, vaxxers really help the pacient, meanwhile "brain wash plus aggression remove" put you in a very weak spot against something who doesnt have it. You really believe that we are so intelligent? All the wonders that you see is thanks to culture, in other words: accumulation of achievements. But take one person without parents who was raised by wolfs or chimps. You will notice amost any difference on intelligence between the animals and that person. If we live 30000 years ago, our brain, intelligence and body will be almost exactly as today. In fact in those times we have a lot of extra defences against diseases and we were stronger (or better adapted). But in those times, just dig a hole to make a trap, is something out of our minds. Maybe an einstein of those times was the first to said "eureka" on that. So the point is.. we are not so intelligent as you may think, no matter how aggresive or selfish some people is; bur there is something crear.. If we were more smart, we would not doing the things that we do with our planet.. Because if we know that the things we do are not so efficient as it can be plus the future problems that we get (or our childrens), then we would not do those things. This is a good example in very good educate countries, were there is almost no aggression cases, they take care the enviroment, show how much money you have is frowned upon, etc. So you need intelligence.. and we get that only with a good education. That is the missing key.

Ok, what you said on too many old people vs young is a problem that I dint thoght before. The biggest increase of population would happen in Africa and Asia-Oceania By 2050 would increase a 40%, which it means 2,8 billons more. We are already depleting many of all the not renowable resources, we are also taking more of the renowable resources which the earth can produce it. Of course there are intelligent ways to get resources without taking them to exhaustion, but theory differs greatly from the practice. So what happen if this amount of people start to consume what an average medium class does. The answer is: not possible. You can keep feeding them.. But to what cost? Each extra human which born it means that it will be less terrain and resources for other species. We are the root of all problems, and this root will increase a 40% by 2050. Even right now we can not deal with our resources in a eco-friendly way. Do not underestimate the help that our genes still give us. Is a lot, more that we can imagine. We can sit and start to make a list and we would not finish that list even in 10 years. Of course some of these behavior-feelings-instincs are not helping us. That is why we have our culture-intelligence, to solve those things and know when we need to listen our instincs or not. But this does not means that we need to open our body and start to see what may be usefull or not, if someone wants to do it with him/her self.. Perfect, But not with all the Humanity. Is crazy.. And the true is that you can not be sure that it will be an improvement. Differences is the key, yes it may die few thousands on the world due aggression. But how many can survive thanks to that in a different enviroment which we are not used. There are Tigers which live with human families in their own house. The key is that many of the aggression instincts are not being activated in under some enviroments. In human behavior, Where complex enviroments, culture and instincts merge in ways impossible to predict, disjoin or quantify; saying that some insticts that are related to panic attacks needs to be removed, is like remove KERNEL32.DLL from windows because is the file that pop up an error when we try to execute a particular game. Now you are mixing aggression with selfishness (which a good grade of this is very important), that is why we feel attractive to some selfish mates.Also if an event X happens which only aggressive and resistant (against some kind of virus) may survive, lets said that only 1 of 1000 or 10000 had those characteristics. After that event, almost the 100% of the remaining population are inmune to those kind of events. see how fast evolution can work? Lol.. so all the humanity needs to trust in someone like that? if he is bad, the humanity is doom.. Lets take the risk... That is the problem of socialism, in theory may sound ok.. the rulers promise that kind of things. But as we see in practice, nothing good come out when you deposit so much power in one person. Are you saying that kill someone in self preservation it does not need aggression instincts? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ok I will cut a bit with negatives, lets see the good things about the project that can be applied even in a free market world. Sharing resources: If urban zones are well designed from the begining, a lot of efficienct characteristics may be added. There is something call "simultaneity coefficient" that saves a lot of energy and resources when is taken it into account. No everyone is using internet, Bicycles, lawnmower, hot water or many others common items at the same time. Here where I live, as the country has some security issues, people is starting to live in gated neighborhoods. The cost is similar, but are well organize. 5 or 10 from the neighborhoods people are democraty choosen to solve the problems. There is not more than 400 houses by neighborhood, so they know each other. Then you have people who is good with law, or with finance, or to care the green spaces, etc. So is easier to join forces to solve problems, even for act as 1 to push request leaded to local politicians. Not only that, there are many neighborhood each one with its administrations that join forces to make requests and control companies or local rulers. In my neighborhood we had all that, we have internet that is paid between all and share it with wifi.. That is how we get the same service but at 1/10 of the cost. Other neighborhood had sustainable energy solutions, for example for hot water, cooling, etc. If you want to have that only for you, you need to expend a huge amount of money in storage and hardware. However for a big community all that is easy and very cheap. You can estimate what it will be the average consumption to determ storage and the hardware is cheaper. Is like drop 1 coin to the air or 1000 coins to the air. In the first case, some days you dont use hot water and others lack. But in the 1000 coins case, you are sure that it will be head a 46% to 54%. This way resources are consumed more efficient, and the political power is decentralized.

Thanks Sal_Vager, and yeah, I have a similar opinion about this. But you are removing a key trait of what made us humans, which may be very related to survival in more ways that we can imagine. First, Survival of the fittest does not means "stronger, aggresive, selfish, etc", it means whatever the traits and strategy which work for certain species at certain enviroment. This may also be "cooperative, altruism, intelligence, empathy (which all animals has, is a key factor for survival), etc" So what I am saying: before bet and comprimise the whole species to changes which nobody can predict with enoght certainty (even with tests), lets not ignore the method that never fail over 2000 millons of years. If we can not solve "X" problem of any other way.. then yeah... better a 10% or 1% than extinction. But it does not need to reach that state to help, as I said, some of our traits (even aggression) can help the development of other traits which can get us ready to solve problems or take hard decisions. Why we can not use both? Right now technology can not help us either against an asteroid impact of several km on diameter, but life survive in the past. Maybe this time it will with intelligence (living underground for some time) and with some aggresive traits, as take hard decisions over that time. Evolution (genes) give us all day at all moment tips of how to survive. We feel a strong force to reproduce our selfs, we know by smell or taste if something is good or bad for us. what we need at all moment, what we should fear or not, how to react, feel empathy for our alike (kill our relatives or the beings with more similar ADN to us, is not a good strategy for mostly all cases), then we have more complex feelings and mechanism which if you study them carefull, all are there to help us to survive. Right now, we feel that we are smart enoght to ignore some of our mom tips, and decide what may be good or not for us.. the problem is that we dont realize that we only have four years, and the house is full of knifes. What happen in all the sceneries that you can not imagine? Also if the first guy who came for this idea (to remove aggression) and then force everyone to the treatment.. how it will do it in case he was treaty before? Because to force someone to do something they dont want it, is needed "aggression". So if really this is need it to save the humanity, how you accomplish this? You may said.. ah ok.. maybe certain grade of aggression is needed, just a %. Then this same fact is refuting the hypothesis. Nature already made the experiment to measure what is the right value of aggression and all the enviroment triggers which it needs to activate, and still it makes tests all the time with few differences to improve it. Yeah I read that quote many times, Richard use these words as a shield against religious critics and to avoid explain them in more detail his opinion. In his book "the selfish gen" is very well explained how species shape their behavior and even morals. This was something that Darwin could not explain very well from the point of view on the individual or species as a group. From the point of view of genes, all has sense, that is why Richard is so famous for. But the expression "darwinian sociaty" was usually used to describe the hardest aspect of life, that is why he use it here. The fact that even its books seems as if nature would not really care "the selfish gene", but that is just a title, genes has not will or conscience, is just matter that follow physics rules. If you look that from our perspective, the mechanism may looks selfish, but that mechanism produce all kind of behaviors and strategies which some are totally contrary to selfishness. To finish, intelligence is just another trait we receive from evolution. So is a tool that we use and we should not ignore.. But the same goes for our others traits.

if B9 already solve the texture problem when you scale and bend wings, why Squad cant?