Leaderboard

Technically, I already have. Thanks, though

The Kirov ? Really ? If the Russians had gotten that right, it would have been the only one, as they failed miserably with their carriers, and had to sell them for liquid funds to India and China ( where they turned out to be crap and almost unuseable ) Did you forget to mention that the Kirov never actually made it out of the Mediterranean Sea, where, during tis second deployment, it suffered reactor damage ? It has basically been mothballed since the 90s, and although the Russians announced plans to overhaul the whole Kirov class nuclear missile cruiser fleet, the Kirov itself ( sometimes known as Admiral Ushakov ), and its sister ship, Admiral Lazarev, were beyond repair. Get your military analysis from Jane's, not YouTube.

You don't consider any of the orbital laboratories or surface rovers to have been meaningful payloads? That would be laughable if it wasn't so sad.

I'll leave that to the scientists and cosmologists as you should. Nonsense. Or do you have any reputable scientific citation to support that? So what? Are you saying you want a medal? budgets, costs will not nor will ever stop mankind's quest for scientific advancement and exploration. Just as I said...there are far more knowledgable people that disagree with you and see your claims as absurd [and probably driven by an agenda] and without any reasonable foward thinking. Or are you claiming to know more then anyone else? Yes I do, and I also recognise you own lack of foresight and knowledge. Yeah of course, 🤣 and he also will never create a reusable rocket!!😁 All unsupported, obviously agenda laden rhetoric.

I’m unfamiliar with it, but super sharp tools / blades and test cuts performed on scrap pieces where you “sneak up” on perfection are good rules of thumb. Cut longer than needed, then dial it in slowly on scrap pieces… maybe even twice… before committing to the final cut on your actual workpiece. Good luck! Edit to add: In fairness, I tend to think ALL miters are hard and prefer avoiding them

It has already been patented for that purpose, but unfortunately it is so expensive to make that it has never been commercialised.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L-Glucose

As I noted previously, your posts are singularily devoid of support. If you wish to continue this dialogue please provide the data to support your claim that it will cost trillions of dollars to "dig an igloo on Mars". You have time. I shall be offline for twelve hours or more.

"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home." Ken Olsen, founder of Digital Equipment Corporation, 1977

And eventually a safe non-return, aka colonisation.

Citation or retraction please. Your choice.

Are you a deuterostome?

As noted above, nobody cares what you believe, but just so you’re aware… humans ARE apes. You may as well be saying you refuse to believe flowers evolved from plants. Lol. Anyway, apologies for continuing the off topic tangent. Cool article in the OP, joigus.

It is not strictly true that water is non-compressible. Liquids are about as compressible as solids, which is to say hardly at all by comparison with gases. But they still compress a bit. If you suddenly expose the water in a torpedo tube to 100atm, you exert that pressure on the water inside and thus on the walls of the tube as well. The water will compress a tiny bit and the walls of the tube will stretch and expand a tiny bit as well. (Because it is only a tiny bit, very little work is done, so there will be very little stored energy in the compressed and stretched materials.) Water hammer is a shockwave caused by abruptly blocking the path of a moving mass of water, thereby causing rapid change in momentum. This change of momentum requires a certain impulse (F x t) and because t is so small (because it happens fast), F has to be great. So that means water hammer creates large forces and hence pressures - a pressure wave. When you open a torpedo tube that is full of water, you do not have this, because the water on both sides of the opening is static and no change of momentum occurs. So it won't cause water hammer, just a bit of stretching of the walls of the tube. As for the equalising valve, I suspect that will be because when you flood a torpedo tube in practice you most certainly do have trapped air, which will compress to 1% of its volume, storing a lot of energy and causing water to flood in as it is compressed - with momentum. So there can be large forces and energies created in that scenario, which you do not want for safety reasons. So you flood it progressively rather than instantaneously. At least, that would be my best guess as to what is going on.

Have you talked to a health professional about this? As you stated this seems fantastical. There could be any number of reasons for you to misinterpreting what is going on. I highly recommend that you consult with your doctor. Maybe you are experiencing a prescription drug side effect or having an allergic reaction to something. Good luck.

I agree. Just try out whether it works or how everything works. After that, you can always check whether you want to self-publish or whether you are looking for a service provider like novum publishing or something else. You will then have to weigh what you want and what you need. But that's just the next step. Is then also a question of what you trust yourself, whether you can do everything on your own or then need help.

It seems to me that you should try to publish your first manuscript through a publishing house, you will find out all the contradictory moments and if you are not satisfied, in the future you will be able to promote yourself.

I would just try a publisher and see what happens. Only then would I take further steps. The first try is like a test. You should get at least some feedback then. Then you can always work on certain passages or parts of the story. Of course I don't know what it looks like now, but you could also work on your work in workshops or let people read your own text over and over again. This is also how you get feedback. On the one hand in terms of the story itself, on the other hand in terms of its own technology.

I only dabble in this, but my understanding is that you want the manuscript to be as polished as you can make it before sending out to an agent. That agent may help with some editing, depending on their experience and expertise, before sending it to an editor. If accepted you will then work with the editor in getting it into final shape. If you have the money you can pay for an editor to look at your manuscript (for instance, this is recommended for people who take self-publishing seriously). Way before all that you might want to send the manuscript to beta-readers - people you trust to look at early drafts to give advice and feedback. Not friends and family - unless they actually give objective advice - but usually people you know in writing circles. Are you writing sci-fi by any chance?

This is where the island of stability is an important statement I buried in there. Turns out Cn-294 has the "theoretical" half life of 300+ years. But really it just depends upon WHICH of the stable isotopes is most easily synthesized. I haven't found the "theoretical" synthesis of those isotopes yet. But it's most likely been found. There's no way around what was said. And this wasn't some "high school" teacher either. They're an expert in their field with a Top Secret SCI clearance.

Lol what? Copernicium294 hasn't been produced in a public setting. Theory isn't 1000s of orders of magnitude off of reality. If the Japanese Nuclear industry says its expected half life is 300 years then its expected half life is 300 years. https://wwwndc.jaea.go.jp/CN14/sp/ Observation says that a respected naval engineer who has TS-SCI clearance stated matter-of-factly that Russians are using hundred-twelve element batteries. How about you look past your own nose and start answering that. Feel free to explain what kind of logical mistake that could have been. What else is a "hundred-twelve" element battery. Did he say element when he meant cells? Do you think THAT is practical?

No. There's nothing out there and no reason to be there. 1/4 gravity over a lifetime is unsustainable. Radiation is too high. I think space enthusiasts just don't realize how worthless space is. Machines can do all the work. And there is no work to be done because there's nothing of any value out there.

"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home." Ken Olsen, founder of Digital Equipment Corporation, 1977 Yeah whatever. There is LITERALLY nothing of value in space. Do we need MORE gold? MORE iron? Do we need to pay $100,000 per pound of bananas because we can't grow enough bananas on earth? Helium-3 was the best bet and it was recently shown that Fusion power won't even use Helium-3 as fuel. So EVERY possible reason to be in space died this year. Satellites are it's own thing and a mature automated technology

Am I talking to brick walls? Delta-V is your space currency. Right now it costs about $400 per m/s per pound. That hasn't changed since Apollo. So please tell me how Musk is anywhere close to the moon. What part of physics don't you understand? NASA paying Musk is outright criminal theft of US tax payer money

What I'm trying to tell you is OF COURSE technology may change over time changing the status quo. We have theoretical propulsion schemes to do this. What I'm proving to you though is Musk'a Oxygen-PR1 rockets can't get to the moon. They just can't. And NO CHEMICAL rocket, even hydrogen and oxygen rockets can get a meaningful payload to Mars. That is physical fact. It's a brick wall of reality. No way around it. What? Northrup Grumman, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, aren't privately funded? They don't take telecom money to launch satellites? What a stupid claim. What? North American Aviation, Now North American Rockwell isn't a private corporation? Another stupid claim. NASA operated both Apollo CSM and Dragon Capsule. Stupid claim that SpaceX is first. Other operators were smart enough to drop their rockets into the ocean. Wait what the literal fuck? Rockwell International, builder of the space shuttle isn't a private company?? These accomplishments are literally shit. None of them are new. And SpaceX has been massively funded by governments for 10 years. SpaceX is using OTHER people's technology. Nothing proprietary. Thrust vectoring required to land a rocket like Falcon 9 or starship isn't anything new and wasnt invented by SpaceX. So all SpaceX did was do what others did and claim they are the first to do it without government funding which isn't true.

I don't know where to post this but physics is most popular and these batteries are "high powered". I don't think they are theoretical either. I think they are highly classified and I'll save you the story but I think someone in a lecture on deep sea submarines accidentally revealed their existence. Their words "...and two, one-twelve element batteries..." was casually stated in listing off the specifications of a declassified briefing on a specific Russian submarine. This got me thinking what was meant. I'll spare the research and give you the conclusions. I'd love to see others help reverse-engineer this hypothesis further. Tl;Dr- 291Cn + 6HF -> CnF6 + 6H(+) I'm not prepared to share every source I found to come to this conclusion but I'll summarize. Copernicium is stated to be a relativistic noble liquid same as Lead-Acid therefore one paper briefly suggested it is possible it behaves chemically similar to lead-acid. Lead-acid reduction potential is 1.69v. Cn(2+)/Cn reduction potential is 2.1v Already comparable to the stronger grid-level storage batteries (molten salt). Lead-acid yields 2O(-) ions in the reaction. CnF6 would yield 6F(-) which beats the pants off Li-ion. CnF6 is theorized to be stable. As is CnF4 (and theorized to behave like HgF4). Cn is supposedly highly radioactive but it's only alpha decay so that should be manageable right? 291Cn and 293Cn are theorized to be islands of stability. They should have half lifes greater than 10 years. So in my estimation...a 291(293)CnF6 battery is completely possible and the only reason it's not well known is its expense to create makes it limited to governments who have a specific need for it. Higher reductive potential means better batteries. 6F(-) means huge kilowatts per weight. In terms of molten salt grid storage a Cn battery could be 150% better than those. Which would explain why the US government has politely disregarded the molten salt potential. 300kw = 400hp roughly and can provide 5knots. That is more than achievable with lead-acid so for submarines needing more tactical speed, a flouride battery makes more sense.

The main point in that article is posted below. “The discovery of this new fossil suggests to us that the evolution of multicellular animals had occurred at least one billion years ago and that early events prior to the evolution of animals may have occurred in freshwater like lakes rather than the ocean.” This finding does not in any way bridge the gap between monkeys and humans.

I though this discussion was about evolution along the lines of Darwinism. “Darwinism is a theory of biological evolution developed by the English naturalist Charles Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce. Personally, I do not believe humans evolved from apes and finding some microbe does not prove otherwise.

Oh wise one, since you speak for everybody, let me tell you and yours, everybody thinks you speak for nobody. This is a digression from the OP. Humans are humans, apes are apes. But since you refuse to accept this I suggest you mate with a female ape and the offspring will end this debate once and for all. agree? (:- I do not belong here, you know it, I know it so away I go enjoy (:-

Look. Musk is NOT a genius. As a person intimately involved in his Gigafactory debacle: 1) his factory is STILL at 25% capacity. Panasonic rightly took over most of the slack making bank of Musks flaccid manhood. 2) lithium ion tech was ALWAYS a dead-end. It's still a dead end for the same reasons now...there's not enough of it and the Chinese own most of it. 3) Capital structure locks TESLA into a death spiral as technology moves away from Li-ion and other car companies move into hybrid solutions for EV vehicles. Why does this matter for SpaceX? 1) Dragon capsule is a spruced up Apollo/Soyuz design. Nothing new. Actually it adds a significant problem glass cockpit. 2) SpaceX dV = 1/4th what is needed to get to moon. 3) SpaceX has NOT moved the cost of orbit per lbs (or more accurately dV(m/s) per kg), one cent. Not one F-ING cent. 4) SpaceX became so "big" because China took 75% of the orbital launch business in-house. Small fish in a shrinking pond. 5) SpaceX just got its teeth kicked in by Northrup Grumman which just changed space commerce forever with Mission Extension Pods that can repair spacecraft at even Geostationary orbits. Nobody wants to launch new satellites. They just have to. Well not anymore. Thanks to Northrup Grumman. Which actually went to the moon by the way. Unlike SpaceX ever will. So what the HELL is the US giving 1% of the total funds needed to get to the moon and die there? (Approximately 200billion US dollars in FY2021 dollars to build enough dV to get to the moon and not get back). Why is the US government wasting US tax payer money on a f-k'ing fraud who has achieved nothing new and CANNOT complete the mission? Corruption at the highest order. Giving billionaires billions for nothing remarkable. The Space Shuttle was remarkable. Musk is going backwards and begging for a methane rocket so he can cut costs because he can't handle Hydrogen. But Methane can't handle dV to the moon. Let alone Mars. What a charlatan and a waste of US money.

Look the problem is NONE OF YOU know how Musk is full of crap. Apollo could shoot the CSM to Alpha Centauri if you wanted it to. Of course it could put a CSM into Mars Transfer Orbit. You wouldn't be able to capture a Mars Orbit. It took the ENTIRE Saturn V to capture lunar orbit, land, take off, and get back to Earth. The ability to go to Alpha Centauri is meaningless. The dV budget is GOD. And the dV of getting to the moon is far....far out of the reach of the Falcon Heavy. Even if the Falcon Heavy can shoot a payload into Mars Transfer. It can't keep that payload there. Yes I'm damned serious. Privatizing public assets is not an achievement, it's theft. The people of the United States invented the rockets that Musk is building. He's using nothing proprietary or new. NOTHING Musks great achievement was tying a bunch of smaller rockets together and calling that a heavy lift capability. So what? Northrup Grumman has the same capability at the same cost. What your argument says is that people are bound to build the great pyramids again. Because why not. If there's no money in it. It will never happen. Giant worthless efforts are what economists call "tournaments". Unless nations see a national security reason to compete sending people to Mars. They never will. And no one will ever be rich enough to do it by themselves. The ISS is astronomically (pun intended) more feasible than the Moon landing let alone going to Mars. The Moon landings cost the US about 500billion USD in today's money. Do you not know what dV is? Do you not understand how expensive getting to Mars is in dV. Forget about money. There is NO chemical rocket that can achieve a reasonable Low Martian Orbit with any meaningful payload.

Thank God I still had it. There is not a single Rocket in existence that can get any payload of any responsible kind to Mars. The reason we can send probes is because probes fall under the 1.6% payload 98.4% fuel ratio. Saturn V was 36% payload and 64% fuel. A Saturn V CANNOT get an apollo space craft (a portable flying toilet in terms of size) to Mars. Let alone get anything back. http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/appmissiontable.php I just cited the dV problem. There is no rocket on earth in existence today that can get anyone to Mars. Musk hasnt changed anything. It's not about MONEY. it's about dV http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/appmissiontable.php Do you even know what delta V budget is? Beece. You mentally do not comprehend what I'm talking about. You clearly have NO Orbital mechanics understanding what-so-ever. How many times do I have to tell you we CANNOT budget for the dV required to go to Mars. We can land probes that fall within a 1.6% payload ratio. That's where it ends. Can you imagine the Saturn V if it was 2^5 times bigger? Lolololol.

Elon Musk can't get anyone to even the Moon. Do you think space travel is magic? Has anything changed since Apollo? Physics maybe? Absolutely not. dV hasn't changed. Rocket engine thrust hasn't changed. Nothing is "magically" more efficient than it was in 1960s. So is Musk capable of spending the roughly 30billion dollars per launch it will take to get a small Apollo type craft to the Moon? No.

Boy you're naive. NASA gave money to Musk because Musk is now a billionaire and can tell congressmen to give him money. The days of the US accomplishing anything are fastly deteriorating. The US is like Rome in the 300s AD just eating itself. Musk has shown ZERO capabilities of putting anything on the Moon