lajoswinkler

Yes, the "fur" are spiculi, collosal structures towering above photosphere.

That's the term? Lobsterman? LOL, I must remember that. Lobsterman, lobsterman, does whatever a lobster can!

I need the latest unbiased news about this. Is it a failure as I thought? Short and sweet, please.

Any fans here? It doesn't have to be Dionea muscipula, others are welcome, too. How do you take care of them, any photos, videos you've made?

It might be gigabits per second...

UK is high up north, so the sunlight is not plentiful. Low angle of rays means lower UV content, too. What they're doing is good, unless they're burning once a week. That's even worse than steady, daily exposure without burning. Some people, mainly in cultures where sunlight was scarce. Scandinavian countries, UK, Ireland, etc. American culture is extremely young. Those photos were made in the eve of commercialism. People in the regions of the globe where sunlight is plentiful developed protection. Wide hats, white, light clothing. Even siesta is one of those protections. I live in the Mediterranean so every time there are summer tourists from UK and other northern countries, they fry themselves to death and become instantly recognizeable. They go around looking like very loud hotdogs.

Again, I've dumped two Kerbals on Eve, something I haven't done in a long time. Now with faster CPU/GPU, maybe things will work out better. Here I'll mark the success of the mission. Notable mods: Deadly Reentry, Kerbal Engineer Redux, KOSMOS, Procedural Parts and Real Chute. The lander and the nuclear tug are in Kerbin's orbit, slowly pushing at 1/3 thrust on each periapsis. The Katla ascent vehicle has more than 12 km/s of delta-v in atmosphere of Eve, so it should be able to reach orbit even from the ocean level. It has been tested for dynamic stresses and climbing of Kerbals. Expected speed of descent is 15 m/s. Kerbals board the external seats. It is equipped with a huge heatshield and will be dropped near the stranded Kerbals which will reach it by a rover. The tug, connected to the vehicle, has over 8 km/s of delta-v and might serve as a return vehicle to a station in Kerbin's orbit.

Relatively short exposures (compared to the stuff stupid people do) are beneficial because of vitamin D synthesis and serotonin etc. Exposing yourself more than you need is pure fashion and the main factor behind a large increase in melanoma. Before modern times of supermarkets (I'm using them because they're like a temporal beacon in the timeline) the structure of society was a lot more different. Basically what KerbMav said. Even the working class protected itself because no one in their right mind thought that baking in the sunlight was a smart thing to do. People wore protective clothing, hats, avoided the sun if possible, just like any other animal when confronted with a negative stimulus. Nowdays, the fashion industry, something totally nonexistent before modern times, fabricated the need and the appeal of tanned skin. All of the sudden it was fashionable, a social marker for "I'm a cool dude". Sun booths started opening, production of ultraviolet quartz lamps skyrocketed particularly in USA. Being dark was suddenly appropriate... but not too dark, otherwise you "belong at the back of the bus". More than a decade later melanoma started rising and pharmaceutical companies and doctors realized s*it is about to hit the fan unless something is done. Protective sunscreen creams were developed with increasingly large protection factors. That slowed down the speed of growth of melanoma incidence a bit. 80s brought us the increasing awareness of ozone depletion. Sunscreen factors finally started going over 30, but people still mostly didn't give a f*ck. Melanoma was growing in incidence. Nowdays, with the spread of WWW, new kinds of douchebags are heard - the ones that blame the sunscreens for melanoma, which is unsupported by evidence. Time will show what will happen next. Sunscreens are historical firefighters trying to put down a fire in an oil refinery. Without them, hell would break loose, but the hoses aren't enough, so the fire is still growing.

For the majority of my life I've been playing in atmosphere and sometimes in hydrosphere of Earth. I'm dreaming of playing in mud. Sterile mud (not a fan of germs).

Great, thanks for more nightmares. Slenderman has huge hands.

I am hungry and I need to pee.

Yes. You saw a Slenderman. You saw a tall man with huge hands and tentacles in the forest who has a suit and a tie, no face, and was imagined by peeps at Something Awful forum. Yes.

I wouldn't recommend female children to go into space. Females are born with a complete set of eggs, as opposed to males, in whose bodies a dynamic equilibrium of gametogenesis and reabsorption (or expelling) occurs. You don't want those eggs to be bombarded with ionizing radiation. No one can decide to do that to a kid, and a kid is too ignorant to understand the consequences of such trip.

Minors need parents' approval. Other than that, I don't know.

Yeah, I meant for bodies without atmosphere. Obviously, in KSP you can just throw something right at Eve and avoid the fuss, but that's not how things work in real life if you want your astronauts to survive the reentry. I forgot about the angular momentum. Yes, that counts. Anyway, the differences are not dramatical for slowly rotating bodies.

In the terms of ÃŽâ€v, it doesn't matter. It's basic conservation of energy. Whatever your path is, net energy exchange between a system and environment is the same. You still have to brake, i.e. expell gas. Orbiting is done beforehand for the convenience of choosing a landing spot, leaving an orbital module, etc.

You mean, the lumpness of the gravity field? It might not be important because there's already a very small amount of attraction to begin with. I'd like to see Rosetta lowered on the comet when the time comes. Surely the operators could do that. Or at least uncontrolled impact.

It's difficult to say. They are so huge that any visible changes in real time, at a distance where they look large as our Sun, would be nonexistent. Even the speed of light is too slow. They are absolutely huge.

One would assume the Moon has collected enough charge already... How was the grounding arranged? Capacitors, resistors? How does that work?

Those were the tactile sensors for the approaching ground. I don't know whether there was any charge equalizating system onboard. Nope, they would just light up the little control panel light in the cabin. The pilot would then shut down the engine.

I was talking about general usage, such as skygazing, etc. Monochromatic red light can be quite confusing.

Does anyone here know how was this problem mitigated during the Moon landings?

Exactly. The bulkness of the material needed to be shoved around is too much. What works for a small missile doesn't have to work for a submarine.

Well, the myth goes that you can use even very bright light, but exclusively red, and your night vision will be fine, which is not true. If one needs to light a map, read something, etc, very dim white is the best because only red wavelength is not easy to focus on and monochromatic lightning doesn't allow for recognition of red stuff on white background, etc. If one just needs to avoid obstacles or if a glowing display is needed, dim red is perfectly fine. Ditto.

Red light indeed is the least powerful radiation, but it's way more important to use dim light. Bright and rich red as "night vision protection" is actually a myth. If you can choose between decent red illumination and dim white light, choose the latter. In fact, retinas have the most sensitivity for green, so you can use very dim green and still protect your night vision while being able to do your work.