danielravennest

danielravennest t1_j5zmnfi wrote

For me personally, I went to work on the Space Station project the following year. Space systems is my career, but Shuttle technology carrying people was too flawed. That was borne out by the second Shuttle accident, and I fear for crew flying on the SLS rocket, which is still Shuttle tech (in some cases literally reused old Shuttle parts).

22

danielravennest t1_j5w3jq3 wrote

Small world department. I was working for Boeing's space systems division at the time, and we had a two-stage solid rocket in the cargo bay that flight. It was intended to send a NASA communications satellite to high orbit.

People in our division knew the astronauts, because we trained them how to deploy the upper stage with the satellite from the cargo bay. Until they found our rocket intact on the ocean floor, we didn't know if the accident was our fault, because it was 27,000 pounds of rocket fuel. Man that was a tense couple of weeks.

136

danielravennest t1_j5vv6rz wrote

Clearcutting is not good forestry practice. You want to do selective cutting, so enough trees remain to hold the soil in place and allow natural regeneration from the remaining trees. You can plant some new seedlings if you want to alter the species mix.

Then you need to turn the harvested trees into durable wood products, not cheap particleboard crap that end up in a landfill in a few years. You want to store the carbon.

Depending on the soil types and species, you may need to fertilize to maintain forest production. Removing harvested logs removes nutrients.

Source: used to own a tree farm.

23

danielravennest t1_j5vu17b wrote

As I suspected, this idea is from architects, who come up with nice looking but impractical designs. It is left up to us engineers to make something practical that works.

10

danielravennest t1_j5kg3vg wrote

Reply to comment by FragleFameux in Rosette Nebula by Kujisann

The author's photography details has "color correction", so this isn't the original colors. This photo has no correction, just straight the way the camera took it.

The Rosette Nebula is part of a giant molecular cloud, about 5000 light years away. Hot young stars are exciting the molecules in the cloud, causing them to emit light, somewhat like neon lights in stores have the gas excited by electricity.

Red is typically from ionized hydrogen, the most common element in the Universe. The middle part of this hydrogen discharge tube shows the natural glowing color. Other colors come from other elements.

1

danielravennest t1_j5jxzbt wrote

The Family Dollar in my town is literally across the street from the small-chain supermarket. But they carry items like clothing that the supermarket doesn't. Meanwhile, the big chain stores like Kroger and Walmart are 4 miles away. I almost never shop at Family Dollar.

15

danielravennest t1_j5jwr3d wrote

"The Galileo atmospheric entry probe was based on the design of the large probe of the Pioneer Venus multi-probe.

It was released July 13, 1995, when the main Galileo spacecraft was still about 50 million miles (80 million kilometers) from Jupiter.

The probe hit the atmosphere at 6.5 degrees north latitude and 4.4 degrees west longitude at 22:04:44 UT Dec. 7, 1995.

The probe returned valuable data for 58 minutes as it plunged into the Jovian cauldron. It endured a maximum deceleration of 228 g’s about a minute after entry when temperatures scaled up to 28,832 degrees Fahrenheit (16,000 degrees Celsius).

The probe’s transmitter failed 61.4 minutes after entry when the spacecraft was about 112 miles (180 kilometers) below its entry ceiling, evidently due to the enormous pressure (22.7 atmospheres).

Data, originally transmitted to the main spacecraft and later transmitted back to Earth, indicated an intense radiation belt about 31,000 miles (50,000 kilometers) above Jupiter’s clouds, few organic compounds, and winds as high as about half a mile per second (640 meters per second).

The entry probe also found less lightning, less water vapor, and half the helium than had been expected in the upper atmosphere"

From https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/missions/galileo-probe/in-depth/

5

danielravennest t1_j4w0lq5 wrote

They simply can't. The best that can be done is about 6% for photosynthetic bacteria, who don't need to waste energy making cell walls, roots, and other defining features of plants. Genetically modified bacteria have been made that emit ethanol and diesel molecules, but that only becomes competitive at about $100/barrel for petroleum. Prices haven't been high enough for long enough to get that industry off the ground, and attempts to make the process cheaper have stalled.

9

danielravennest t1_j4vp8fq wrote

Plants should be used to grow things they are good at, like lumber and food. There are plenty of rooftops and parking lots that can do solar without using any more land, and agrisolar can share land with plants. Trying to make electricity at low efficiency with plants is a waste of space that can be put to better uses.

15

danielravennest t1_j4vkt5p wrote

Plants are only about 2% efficient in converting sunlight to usable energy. Solar panels are now commercially available at 22% efficiency.

Most plants don't use sunlight over 10% of the daily peak intensity. So it is quite feasible to do "agrisolar", where panels take most of the sunlight first, and plants below use the rest. This can be either outdoors or in greenhouses with solar roofs.

180

danielravennest t1_j4dsau4 wrote

Reply to comment by markmevans in The multiverse by Manureofhistory

There is yet another idea based on string theory. It proposes that the universe has more than 4 dimensions, but the additional ones are "rolled up" to quantum size. It would be possible that different sets of four out of ten dimensions exist, with different ones rolled up. These universes would be "perpendicular" to ours and thus unobservable.

1

danielravennest t1_j4drjzx wrote

Reply to comment by Whatmeworry4 in The multiverse by Manureofhistory

Nothing. The Big Bang explains features of the "observable universe", like the cosmic background radiation and the original elemental abundances. It says nothing about what what is beyond our range of observation.

If there were an already existing universe within our range of observation, we would expect to see stars older than the ones we see. The age of the ones we see max out at a bit after the Big Bang.

4

danielravennest t1_j4dqdfe wrote

Reply to comment by Manureofhistory in The multiverse by Manureofhistory

There are way more theories than experiments, because theory only needs a blackboard, or a pad and pencil, while experiments cost real money. Science makes progress when experiments invalidate theories until there can be only one.

5