YNM

You know that there're currently two of them docked to the station, right ? XD We actually have real-life proposals to do this, although for launching from and returning to the Earth...

Directly from the affected country here. Article from BBC Indonesia (google-translated) Additional article from Kompas.com (from Indonesian national newspaper Kompas) (google-translated, although some images don't show up so here's the original) Images of the debris found so far (translated version) Seems to me a combination of bad weather and bad aircraft condition from either bad maintenance or old age (probably not helped by the ticket price freeze w/o any government support and reduced passenger amount [and as such revenue] from the pandemy). Definitely not the same error as 737MAX have (or, well, had), and yes this time you may blame us, unlike last time. EDIT : CNN coverage When the crash happened, it rained where I live (to the east of Jakarta). There were reports that bad weather were to be expected around the capital. Boeing 737-500 retains many users here, since these days the only jet planes of that size would be an Embraer or the CS100/300 (now A220), and that'd also mean pilot re-training. EDIT 2 : Graph of the fall from planefinder.net : What I find interesting is that the speed actually also decreases while descending. While this means that they weren't intentionally slamming it into the ground, it means that the descent was intended... but why so far ? I'm wondering if it's a wrong barometer setting... Given the storm condition, could it be that they set their barometer too high, therefore causing altimeter readings that were too high ? But 737s are equipped with radar altimeter as well up to 2500 ft so they should've known ? (idk if this plane had an operational one though) EDIT 3 : sorry, read the time backwards ! EDIT 4 : Given the sudden deceleration and falling out of the sky, I'm expecting a mid-air breakup. Really sorry for reading the graph backwards. Stall speeds are basically free-fall velocity, right ? EDIT 5 : Turbine from one of the engine has been extracted (translated, original). It is in parts and no-longer encased. Deffo not the same as the MAX (where they lifted the whole core intact, just separated from the outer casing). Maybe the engine somehow exploded ? Or it broke after something else explodes... or just on contact with water.

"Rendezvous" is not the same as "Intercept". ASAT missiles intercept satellites the same way torpedoes intercept ships. But rendezvous is more akin to trying to berth/dock a ship to a seaport (hence the term "docking" and "berthing" also being used in space). There are a few basic considerations to be given when doing a rendezvous : 1. The likelihood for the velocity vector equalization to not happen, either due to cancellation of the whole manoeuvre or due to failure when doing the manoeuvre 2. The effect of exhaust on the vicinity of the object we're doing rendezvous with. There are often other reasons as well, such as timing your operations with the most favourable window (say, you want to try to have the docking when comms are clear and it's "daytime"), or wanting to have more assurances (think this was fairly more urgent on the Shuttle, at the very least after loss of Columbia), and also the amount of fuel you're willing to throw away. If you're referring to the fact that Soyuz have "expedited" rendezvous procedure, think this has to do partly with how fairly cramped the Soyuz capsule is, and reaching the station with it's more spacious pressurized modules would be a nice thing to have. Shuttle on the other hand was perfectly capable of properly destroying the entire ISS if it hits even at low speeds, as well as the larger amount of exhaust produced (due to larger mass and as such larger propellant usage), combined with the manual operations, so you don't really have any other way but to be very sure of everything along the way.

We actually did a less-than-explosive test on this, the way we actually did it was that if we can create a new eyewall on the outside of a tight, small eyewall then the magnitude of the storm could be reduced due to the slightly weaker vorticity. Unfortunately, that is exactly how eyewall replacement works, and you end up with a stronger storm soon after the process ends. Seriously, if you want your nuke to undo a storm, it'd have to engulf the whole vortex region out (the bit that's visible as a storm), and this is like hundreds of kilometers in radius. You'd not only wipe out the storm, you'd wipe out the surface of the Earth with the size of the storm, too. Tornadoes are even worse because the supercell where it originated is almost always larger than the size of the destruction made by tornadoes, and the weather trough where the supercells form and goes extends for very long distances and you have to undo it all (it's like trying to undo the whole structure that makes hurricanes possible, ie. from west coast of Africa all the way to the Carribean, albeit much smaller in size).

We've got machines that'll assemble things without a human, we've got machines that will disassemble anything without a human, but we haven't got a repairing machine that isn't controlled in each step by a human, indeed. Part of the reason why these days they don't really like the idea of repairing stuff... otherwise their machine investment is going to go nowhere.

What if the companies that produce the vaccines are state-owned ? What if the researchers worked with the military ? They're a thing over here. But yeah, like, sure, I'd rather go and help them test things out myself, since I can't volunteer for the day work (which I'm sure they need every last one of those who want to now). The problem is that the place that I live in has since focused way too much on saying that "vaccines would be the end of the whole thing" when it's obvious that it isn't. The populace has only helped this further, and I have to look no further than my neighbours (and as such my own friends, at least from childhood).

Meanwhile, here the president is pushing to get a vaccine that is still under testing and review in other countries to get approved. (trial phase 3 results still not announced -> sets up distribution (limited) anyway -> despite saying in end of Jan, gets in mid Jan anyway) Like, sure, vaccine is the light at the end of the tunnel, but if your only view of it is through a really grimy window, how can you be sure that that's the end of the tunnel, or the headlights of a train about to smack into you ? I mean other than the fact that the tunnel is probably going to collapse soon anyway (test positivity rate has been higher than 20% since mid-December, with it never falling beneath 10% since the start of the pandemic. Hospitals are all fuller than a barrack). (full official national data as of 5th Jan 2021 - one of the regional hospitals on 20th Dec 2020) Honestly, this is why I'm partly a bit on the too sceptical end of the spectrum when it comes to vaccines, especially given where it comes from. If there were a vaccine that was developed only by the countries that successfully did out the pandemic, I'd be more open to them, perhaps. EDIT : Right, I forgot to put this one on : I wonder why...

We actually have gone quite a bit from there, and these days you get a thing to buzz on the rear of your head if you're in proximity of a machine in operation, there are also variants that alerts the machine operator. Shouldn't be "too difficult" (well, would need more hardware and more testing) for the proximity software to tell if you're going to hit a worker, and stop the machine before that ? (although I know there are cases where this would be more dangerous, and would be somewhat inconvenient.)

Have you ever seen concrete just released from it's formwork ? They're roughly the same colour as the binder used. The same happens with asphalt concrete (yes, they're also a form of concrete - binder with aggregates), you don't see the (sometimes) relatively paler aggregates, you see the black colour of the bitumen/tar used (if anything, if your aggregate stops being covered with black asphalt, they'll soon break free from the road surface).

Assuming labour is involved - be it heavy labour or "smart" labour - I'm sure that they'll have breaks and off-work time, where they'd spend their time in the habitation module or something. We can make those to have artificial gravity instead. If anything, for heavy labour it'd be better to leave the workers with less mass (and therefore less weight) on. Depends on the binder used. If anything, the real question is on the size of the aggregate used. The reason why we add gravel (coarse aggregates) and don't make concrete out of sand (fine aggregates) and hydraulic binder cement only is because they'd shrink when setting in large proportions, also it'd heat up much more due to more binder used, and in general it's more expensive. Now we do have non-shrink grouts which are specially engineered concrete (ok, maybe mortar) with only binder and fine aggregate, and they don't shrink, but it's much more expensive. Unless a different process is used then the fine regolith alone might prove too fine for normal concrete as is made on Earth, you'd have to find the coarser aggregates as well.

Well, that's the idea of why they want to use the water in the asteroids itself. The amount of CH required to do the initial capture is much smaller compared to the amount one would need to take the materials back. Also I'm thinking that the target bodies to be served are for, say, a moon outpost, or an orbiting station (still think that it's much better for mobility compared to planetary surface bases). Plus the technology could become usable once we get to the gas giants to capture smaller objects (which does exist, given dust rings).

Think the Parker Solar Probe and OSIRIS-REx is capable of some advanced autonomous operations (that means that it was not pre-programmed, and it's more than stationkeeping). In outer space, organic materials might be the one of relatively rare materials, so organic-containing asteroids would be the one that they seek more. (Barring just skipping to the gas giant's moons, of course.)

Yep, and currently we may as well be totally blind to those objects. Huh, so basically like ion engines but for water, and instead of an ion-plasma generator it's an open-end microwave... Honestly I was wondering why they didn't propose to use a variation of ion engine or such. It is low thrust but you would do near-constant thrusting in some way anyway I suppose...

Lol XD I was just hoping if they did mention a plan to do more scouting - and they did ! The model they use to simulate the dV expenditure uses 4000 "synthetic low-dV target which will have to be discovered". The "~600 candidates" are out of this modelling. Plus they're working closely with NASA so I suppose they know well what they're doing. At the very least this means that they're aware that they (probably more on NASA's part) need to do a lot of the groundwork, namely to observe and discover lots of small NEAs/NEOs. And another positive thing is that this might mean in both increased vigilance on PHAs, as well as (maybe) increased asteroid sample return missions... I'd definitely wait for us to collect more pristine samples than a mere 65 g of loose medium-sized gravel !

Alright XD Yeah they were a moderator over the other forum ages ago, so I was wondering if you were someone that I should've heard the name of somewhere else.

That's a good point. Films need a plot point - a way so that a conflict exist and could be resolved. In some cases this might have some basis in science (or at least partially), then we'd call it "science fiction". If you have a plot point that doesn't involve something imaginary, then it'd just be a documentary, in a way - like sure, I've seen lots of documentaries about a project (say construction or tech development), and it's almost a proper film in a way, if all the obstacles and hurdles are documented well, and is explained well enough. I guess we'd just have to accept that, if you want a fictional plot point, (vaguely) based on science, and it could sell, it would need to be not quite right. If it was entirely right, it'd be a scientific paper. Though I'd add that one more point that might affect how something is perceived is the presentation - that is, is it live-action or animated. I think most of us know that we're fine with completely whimsical fantasy animation, but a live-action one can be harder to swallow most of the time. Assuming that the main plot point exist, but the point is that they don't really. I would agree that the way it's handled is very good in itself, at least based off the synopsis.

Wait... weren't you on Transport Tycoon forums at some point in the past ? Dropbox (by the dropboxusercontent edit) works as well, I've often stashed things on Discord too XD Not sure about Google Drive (or google photos).

One of the reasons why I like the parody/comedy stuff more (ie. HHGTTG, I'd add in Flash Gordon). And if I am being honest, why can't we have tropes ? I mean if people start to believe that films are in any way real then that's more alarming than what's in the film itself. (although there are films that turn real as well, and ofc there are documentaries.) But yeah, like, a few times, a film might have bad sciences in it, or in reverse terrible plots, but they have other bits that makes them remarkable, like Contact or Interstellar (I know the latter would raise quite a number of eyebrows but trust me if you focus on the father-daughter connection it makes much more sense than focusing on the sci-fi).

Do they currently have any candidates, or a program to scout potential objects ? If they did found one, would they send a sampling mission (or just a close-observation probe in general) to it to examine the feasibility ? I'm asking all these because they will have to rely a lot on the amount of water they can get out of the captured object. If it turns out that the kind of bodies that they're seeking is really hard to find, then one might call the architecture unworkable. One would need to worry what exactly they will be able to mine as well (given the high-water-content asteroids all usually have more organics on it than metals - that might actually be more desirable in outer space), but if the mission design remains to rely on water then the water content is mission-critical.

I honestly wonder if we should have another category for "films-that-have-some-SF-but-not-necessarily-hard". I mean, lots of actors have raked up popularity by playing evil characters...

It's way more massive than the 30 m capture horn, so no. 1998 KY26 is about 30 m in diameter, and is somewhat water-rich (X-type), would be visited by Hayabusa2 (extended mission) in July 2031. Sample from Bennu is returning in September 2023, so maybe we'll have to see if the water content expectations are realistic or not.

Seems like they'd have to scout around for a water-rich asteroid then. C-type asteroid 101955 Bennu (sampled by OSIRIS-REx) is at least only 1% water by weight from close-range spectroscopic measurements, while S-type 25143 Itokawa is about .051% water from sample analysis. C-type is the ones that are expected to have more water in general (and indeed up to 12% water by weight have been predicted) but they're found more on the outer parts of the Main Asteroid Belt.

I question if we'll have interplanetary wars any time soon... that time you spend trying to get hold of an "important"planet could be as easily be used to colonize a planet that no one's been in it. Took us a long time to ran out of island, a good few centuries before we have fight on who-have-what between major powers. Given the number of planets and/or celestial bodies out there, the first few "wars" would be just like how the colonizers of ye olde had to deal with indigenous people etc. rather than between two major powers. Maybe wait few tens of millenias or something... Not really, Japan only pretty much tried to take most of Asia under the pretext of "liberating from western colonizers". The reason why their military looks weak once the US get it's act together and pushed in was because they never had much of one to start with - because they don't need much of it against (what was practically) 3rd world countries ! Kind of expecting the same with if you were having an empire that was just starting business.

idk, this could very well be a mutual misunderstanding of each other's intent and reaction. You said that he have a buddy, which means that he's capable of doing social interaction I suppose, albeit not in a way that you welcomed. Perhaps you could convince him that you're OK, while also talk to him directly how you like things or not. Failing that, perhaps you can ask a thing or two to his buddy, or your friends about how you feel about him (who knows if they feel the same way you do ?) I do have to ask though, while the interaction with OP seems to have failed for him, OP says he have a close friend, I wonder if people within the spectrum find it easier to talk among themselves, or does the same difficulty happens ?