Kerwood Floyd

There are two fundamental issues that any calendar/clock reform has to deal with: 1. Because the second is the central base unit of the SI, redefining the second requires redefining every* other base and derived unit in the SI. In practical terms, this means you cannot redefine the second. You can mess around with any larger units of time, but the second, at this point, is baked into so many other things as to be pretty much unchangeable. 2. The seven day week is here to stay until all three Abrahamic religions go away (which is not likely to happen for a very long time). I know that both of these points have been made up-thread, but I think they bear emphasizing. * Well, I guess not the mole.

Is Halon heavier than air? Is there anything comparable that is heavier than air? If so (and money is no object ). build a giant "bathtub", fill it with whatever, and land your rocket in the bathtub.

OK, I think we were both right and just not understanding each other. What difference does it make whether LUCY gains speed relative to Earth? If it gains speed relative to the Sun doesn't that get it to (the vicinity of) Jupiter faster than otherwise?

I don't think this is correct. The total speed and energy of the planet and the spaceship combined remains constant. But the spaceship can gain (or lose) speed or energy while simultaneously the planet loses (or gains) an equivalent amount.

I was getting ready to conclude that the render is, as you say, 'meh', on other grounds. Several of the interiors in those renders looked like they were designed for a 1 g environment, They either had a definite up/down orientation, or a lot of wasted volume for a 0 g environment. (I hope I'm making myself clear)

Well, that might just be a red herring.

Well, there's no way it survives re-entry. So, like @Elthy I think I'd put my money on staging. Like @Lukaszenko this is mostly to protect myself from too much disappointment.

Yeah, the tests you don't screw are the best (Sorry. I almost never call attention to simple typos, but this just seemed too good to pass up)

The vast majority of "rational" calendar reform founders on the fact that the Abrahamic religions will never give up on the seven day week. I believe there are proposals, however, that accommodate that.

OK, thanks for the correction

I may have read once that more massive black holes "leak" Hawking radiation at a higher rate than lower mass black holes. So, if you accelerate a black hole to a substantial percentage of the speed of light (easy, right?) its relativistic mass increases and it evaporates through Hawking radiation faster than it would otherwise. This approaches fitting the definition of "killing" a black hole. I'm sure there are reasons why this doesn't really work. For instance, (a) does relativistic mass count for this purpose?; (b) "faster than it would otherwise" may only apply in a frame of reference that isn't useful; (c) I'm an idiot; (d) ...

Can anyone help me? Sometime in the last week or so, I saw a picture of a computerized control panel for an auxiliary diesel generator. As I remember it, the diesel was on a submarine and the picture was posted in one of the threads on the Science & Spaceflight sub-forum. But now I can't find it. Can anyone point me to it? Thanks

The thing about the N-1 that jars for me is how the stages aren't mostly cylindrical, like I'm used to.

Did I miss something? It seems to me that SpaceX need to keep doing the SS 10k hops until they figure out what's up with the fires inside the skirt after landing.

I think the point is that most of the time since 1957 the upper stages have fallen down in such a way that we knew they were falling in the ocean far from inhabited areas, and indeed, far from busy shipping lanes. This time we have only a vague idea where it's coming down.

I am a big fan of SpaceX, and am amazed at what they have accomplished so far, but I am going to believe they can do all that only when I see it actually happen.

It might help to read this wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology)

Fair enough. But there is still the question whether heavy water is available, even in a lab, in sufficiently pure form for this to prove fatal.

This sounds fishy to me. Why can't the body use heavy water? I suppose that if every single hydrogen atom in every single water molecule was deuterium instead of protium, then that might be a problem. But as I understand it, "heavy water" is merely water with a higher than natural proportion of deuterium, but still in absolute terms a relatively low proportion. How high a proportion of deuterium would be necessary to render the water unusable?

A market is required because the shareholders of Boeing and Airbus, etc. require it. Arguably, as long as Musk has the money, SpaceX can produce thousands of Starships without there being a market, but simply because Musk wants to.

This article is awfully light on details, but sounds intriguing: https://news.sky.com/story/new-concept-for-rocket-thruster-exploits-the-mechanism-behind-solar-flares-12202285 Does anybody know anything more about this proposal?

Cheer up! It's not all that bad. They'll fly sooner or later

Well, my understanding is that the German scientists and technicians that didn't go to the US in Paperclip and instead went to the USSR were put to work, much like their US-bound counterparts.. Although I believe I've read that the Soviet space program relied on their German imports to a much less degree than did the US program.

Ok then. Thanks

I asked because it wasn't clear to me how properly it followed the planned ascent. I didn't know if both of the engine outages during the ascent were planned. If they weren't then it probably fell significantly short of 12.5 km. On the other hand if it actually came within a margin of error of 12.5 km then I guess they were planned.