I think it has less to do with that, and more to do with using UFOs as a disinformation campaign. Want a cheap way to flush out spies? Leak that we have alien technology, say it's in a warehouse in the desert, and wait to see who starts poking around.
And: want to get people to not take seriously reports of secret experimental aircraft being tested in Nevada? Make people think they're UFOs.
See: Batteries for Venus Surface Operation
More recent work: https://scholar.google.com/sch...
There is already a model for a rover to operate on Venus...
I like this one better: Venus Rover Design Study, AIAA SPACE 2011 Conference & Exposition.
(alternate source: https://www.researchgate.net/p... )
Lunar rocks don't have any helium, either.
The helium (and the nitrogen) is in the regolith.
While the red states love to engage in Communism (government control of businesses - like one warehouse for all the states liquor) for the benefit of the wealthy at the expense of the poor.
Mississippi was a blue state until early 2026.
??
The last time Mississippi was solidly blue in presidential elections was 1956.
They did slightly go for Carter over Ford in 1976 ("slightly" meaning by about 1% margin) but in the wake of Nixon, and of Ford's pardon of Nixon, the entirety of the confederate south from Texas through Virginia did.
Other than that, Mississippi has been solidly Republican in presidential voting, usually by double digits.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Helium and Neon are available in the lunar regolith. So substituting them for Nitrogen is a practical solution if necessary.
Why would you do that? If you're harvesting the trivial fraction of a percentage of volatiles from lunar regolith, nitrogen is also available in lunar regolith, so just use that.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citation...
(Just for those who don't know, the story of the computer running a fast-food restaurant "Burger-G" is fiction.)
Nobody is proposing to add helium to the atmosphere in a lunar base. This is done in deep-sea exploration because they need a high pressure atmosphere, and they can't use nitrogen because it is narcotic at high pressure (not to mention the need for decompression to avoid risk of the bends when ascending).
Lower pressure does not change your vocal timber.
Nobody, nobody, minds legal immigrants.
Turns out not to be true; the current administration has also slashed legal immigration:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/t...
https://www.theatlantic.com/id...
Except for white South Africans:
https://www.reuters.com/world/...
The question "who is responsible for accidents" here is no different from a thousand other "who is responsible" judgements. Unless you have some reason to think that a repaired John Deere tractor is more likely to cause accidents than a non-repaired one, this is just a distraction.
We have a legal system that addresses questions of who is responsible. If you don't like the way these decisions are made, you need to fix the legal system, because changing right-to-repair laws won't do beans to solve that problem.
The multi-km range seems a stretch, but quantum magnetometers based on Nitrogen-Vacancy defects in diamond is a real technology.
https://www.photonics.com/Arti...
https://www.ll.mit.edu/r-d/pro...
https://www.nist.gov/programs-...
https://academic.oup.com/nsr/a...
https://pubs.aip.org/aip/apl/a...
Your assignment: Find out why reusable rockets are only useable for very specific launch envelopes. If you use them out of that launch envelope, there are just as disposable as the rockets you think are some sort of complete waste.
Interesting. I've never seen this claim made before; do you have a reference?
https://www.teslarati.com/spac... Forgive the link, it is a real rah-rah piece.
CEO Elon Musk says SpaceX has successfully expanded the envelope of orbital-class rocket recovery with its 50th booster landing, meaning that all Falcon boosters will have a better chance of safely returning to Earth from now on.
https://space-offshore.com/boo...
"Falcon 9 missions may need to land on a droneship instead of RTLS due to the weight of the payload or the overall mission profile."
I think you have academic access. Here is a good technical report on a lot of rockets that land after use. https://www.sciencedirect.com/.... You'll need academic credentials to download it. But it has a lot more info - and as part of the launch envelopes, there is constraint based on payload as well as direction. If you are going to land, there is a significant reduction in payload.
Looks interesting, I'll take a look when I get back in to work.
Fun fact, the first picture in here has a wrong timestamp, dated April 2nd 2016... https://www.nasa.gov/image-det...
Probably the metadata is in UTC, and they forgot to convert it for Americans.
Your assignment: Find out why reusable rockets are only useable for very specific launch envelopes. If you use them out of that launch envelope, there are just as disposable as the rockets you think are some sort of complete waste.
Interesting. I've never seen this claim made before; do you have a reference?
Your comment has nothing to do with the fact that mass is explicitly part of the source term in Einstein's field equations.
I'm not sure why you'd say this.
I'm saying this because mass is part of the source term of the Einstein field equations. Are you being deliberately obtuse because you want to extend this meaningless conversation infinitely long despite the lack of any content here?
You claim the T00 term is mass density, and seem to be claiming specifically that it is invariant mass density,
Huh? No, rho/c is just one term of the tensor. If you want it in some other frame, you can't just take one term out of a tensor, you have to use the full tensor.
If you label the T00 term energy density, it's not invariant either. One term out of a tensor is not invariant no matter what you label you put on it.
...
Mass is not a *fundamental* source for gravity.
Correct. The stress-energy tensor is the fundamental source for gravity. Which mass is a part of.
I give you Einstein himself: "The mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content"
Correct. And you plug it in as the 00 term in the stress energy tensor.
or at more length, Matthew von Hippel: "Mass Is Just Energy You Haven’t Met Yet" and Don Lincoln: "A person’s mass is made not of 'stuff' in the way we normally think about it, but rather our mass is made of energy."
I don't know what you think those quotes means, but I don't think either one is denying the existence of mass, nor saying that mass is not a source of gravity.
The faster I go, the behinder I get. -- Lewis Carroll
