zapatos

I think that the objects around a larger object do NOT depend on the gravity waves of the larger object in any meaningful way.

18 minutes ago, paulsutton said:

Is automation a solution here?

 

A solution to what?

Male ducks have clockwise corkscrew-like penises. When a female duck is not interested in the male's advances she tightens up her anti-clockwise corkscrew-like vagina to prevent the male from achieving his full (amazingly long) erection. Mother nature certainly has a sense of humor. 

Quote

Ducks' bizarre genitalia is a result of a sexual arms race. Forced mating is common among ducks, so while males' long, flexible penises increase their chances of successfully fertilising a female, the females' anticlockwise vaginas give them a level of control.

"Those complex structures prevent full eversion of the penis of unwanted males, so their sperm ends up closer to the cloacal entrance where the females can get rid of it more easily." 

https://www.sciencefocus.com/nature/duck-penis-corkscrew

2 hours ago, Genady said:

The last part meant to be rather "never reached the Earth's escape velocity"?

Yes, thank you.

6 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Zap means gravity, methinks.

Yes, that way too.

Funny how what you are thinking can get lost in translation on the way to your fingers.

No, the space shuttle could not go to the moon as it didn't carry enough fuel. The space shuttle never escaped earth's velocity.

30 minutes ago, Photon Guy said:

The National Park Service does not send people into space, which can be very risky. If the space industry was run by private businesses they would be far less likely to take unnecessary risks that can result in people being killed, because they wouldn't want the backlash. 

Perhaps you con make a complete and concise argument rather than moving the goalposts every time I question your statements. You are making me dizzy.

55 minutes ago, Photon Guy said:

I know that today they are a government funded and government run organization just as they were back then. 

So is the National Park Service. If you distrust an agency simply because they are government funded and run you are probably not making a fair assessment.

23 minutes ago, Photon Guy said:

It's the management of NASA that I don't like. It's because of how careless and impatient the managers can be that we had disasters such as Challenger and Columbia. With Challenger the engineers knew there was something wrong, they knew about the faulty 0-ring and they warned management but management decided not to listen to them and went ahead with the launch anyway. One of the engineers even knew that Challenger was going to blow up before it happened but management wouldn't listen to him. Just to satisfy their own egos and impatience they decided to throw safety out the window and it cost lives.

With Columbia they knew that some of the crucial heat shielding had been damaged and they could've launched a rescue mission with Atlantis or they could've even allowed some of the crew members to do a spacewalk and repair the damage but they didn't, and that too cost lives. 

So that's what I don't like about NASA, how they can be so utterly careless and ignore danger and as such it leads to disaster. 

That was two decades ago. What do you know about them today?

4 hours ago, Photon Guy said:

I don't really trust how NASA is run

Can you please expand on which aspects of NASA you find untrustworthy?

Quote

The private sector has become increasingly involved in space exploration. Companies like Virgin Galactic, SpaceX and Blue Origin are taking people to space in their own private spacecrafts. And NASA is increasingly partnering with private companies to accomplish its missions.

https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2023/07/20/americans-views-of-space-u-s-role-nasa-priorities-and-impact-of-private-companies/#:~:text=The private sector has become,companies to accomplish its missions.

4 minutes ago, TheVat said:

How would many generations that know they are only placeholders....footnotes in history feel about their lives? 

How do you feel about being a placeholder for your descendants 100 generations from now? You were born and raised on earth, got an education, a job, ate food, etc. Basically you lived your life with the built in constraints that come with your environment. Being born on a starship would be similar; you live your life based on the constraints of your environment. If you leave earth you are embarking on a journey for a brand new life. Just like many of those did who crossed the Atlantic hundreds of years ago. Even the second generation will not likely long for earth as they have never known it. 

On 9/16/2023 at 7:42 AM, Gian said:

Since at least WW2, scientists and science fans have been speculating about how to accelerate a spaceship fast enough to reach other star systems.

We already have spacecraft that move fast enough to reach other star systems. There is no required minimum velocity required to travel that far. What is required (among other things) is an appropriate amount of time. Most velocities we achieve will ensure that whomever embarks on the journey will die before reaching the destination. Since we would already need to figure out how to survive for generations in space for such a journey, does it really matter if that is three generations or 100?

As a representative said today, things weren't nearly so chaotic when George Santos was speaker.

On 9/16/2023 at 10:25 AM, Janus said:

Nuclear fission converts ~ 0.1% of the mass into energy.  If all of that energy was convert into KE for the remaining mass (acting as the reaction mass), then you might get a exhaust velocity of ~.045c.

So let's say that you want to reach 10% of c.(43 yrs to Alpha Centauri).  Using the rocket equation gives us an answer of needing over 8kg of fissile fuel per kg of payload you want to get to Alpha C.  If you want the trip to end with you being at rest with respect to your destination, this jumps to 75 kg of fuel per kg of payload.

This is impractical.

Fusion is the better option since it converts a larger percentage of the mass into energy, thus giving you a higher exhaust velocity, which decreases the fuel to payload ratio needed to reach any given velocity.

Can you please explain why the highlighted section is true? I'm curious why slowing down didn't also use roughly 8kg of fissile fuel per kg of payload thus increasing the fuel needed to 16kg per kg of payload, rather than 75kg.

The design of Morton Thiokol's solid rocket boosters for the Space Shuttle was limited in size due to the width of a horse's ass.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/4-feet-85-inches-space-shuttle-horses-ass-william-batch-batchelder

On 9/24/2023 at 7:55 AM, Growl said:

What is real? Real is what we can detect and interpret with our 5 senses, tools and methods enhance the usefulness of our senses... is it real? Well are you able to interpret it?

I read your post and it made me happy. Well, I was happy until I realized since I couldn't detect 'happy' with my five senses that is is not real, and thus I am not 'really' happy. Now I'm sad. But wait. Since I can't detect 'sad'.... <endless loop>

You shouldn't toy with people.

If you don't tell him where to place the flux capacitor how is he ever going to get this thing to work?

I agree. He tried arguing his case but they basically  said "too bad, that's the policy". They let him rewrite the paper by the next day for half credit. He was pretty pissed and said he didn't feel in the least bit bad about what he did. 

It's hard to believe that his actions were what they were after when they wrote the policy.

My son recently got a mild reprimand for plagiarizing his own work. He was writing two different papers at the same time on a related topic for two different classes and reused a page or so from one paper on the other paper. They were turned in a couple of days apart and the second paper popped up as a violation due to the same text.

I (and he) didn't even know you could plagiarize your own work.

There could be 50 reasons he responded the way he did, many of which are perfectly reasonable.

My opinion is that you should always assume the most respectful interpretation of a person's response/words/actions/etc. until you have evidence to the contrary.

Can everyone who is on your team please stand up? I must have missed the invitation.

My experience is that banks always figure out their mistakes. I imagine simply giving up and saying 'we can't figure out why our numbers don't match' is unacceptable.

7 minutes ago, grayson said:

Yes, but we can find an average

So you opened this thread for help in calculating an average?

2 minutes ago, grayson said:

Yes, but in calculus, you are graphing a function. You can't just put in numbers and expect it to come out as a graph

You can't just pick a random set of numbers and expect to find a consistent 'rate of change'.