science

The plan was that of the Soviet Union in 1965. In 1968, the space program was given its first American partner. It was an American company called Northrop Grumman . Northrop is well-sourced company and has a real history of space achievement. In its 20th year of service, it was the first Boeing 707-200 to fly from the West Coast to the east coast (from Los Angeles to Detroit, no less), flew the last passenger 747 in its last 747 cargo flight from San Francisco to Cairo, and, according to the aerospace site Popular Culture, designed and flew the space shuttle that orbited America for three years. But the company’s main contribution to the space program has been in building and testing the Saturn V rocket. As the Apollo program was being killed by the Soviet Union, Northrop went on to make a name for itself in the U.S. in the 1980s working with NASA to create the Commercial Crew initiative for NASA to design, fly and test commercially-built spacecraft. The Cassini-Huygens mission, which has been the first in a series of spacecraft to venture beyond Saturn’s orbit, is an example of what a major corporation can do. I had an opportunity to sit down with Northrop CEO, Frank Bajakian recently. The subject of the interview was the company’s work on the mission. I asked him why he believes a Saturn V will still be useful after the space shuttle is retired. His response was short and straightforward: a Saturn V was designed to get astronauts past the speed of sound and to send them to Mars by the 2040s. It will also be important to test the technology needed for human exploration of Mars. The spacecraft that Northrop has designed are large, expensive, and don’t work very well on a journey to Mars under the most harsh conditions, because they have to withstand heat, radiation, wind, and even low pressures of up to 60 atmospheres. But, Bajakian said, as he views development of these future spacecraft, he is convinced that the Saturn V will remain indispensable. He told me that while the shuttle has been the focus of American space exploration throughout the last 35 years with the Russians having a secondary role, all nations in the space program must consider that the future of space exploration will be largely a U.S. effort. “If you want to go as light as possible and deploy as fast and as inexpensively as possible,” Bajakian said, “then you have to put all you have to you in a mission to Mars, and you have to invest the time and resources into that mission.” Now, it’s true that the Soviets never really said they would take as long as the shuttle to Mars, they said they would start a program. But the idea that it will be in the future and that it will be a long time before humans go to Mars sounds to me like an incredibly optimistic scenario. In reality, the last two decades of American spaceflight have not turned out to be so peaceful as one would think, or so peaceful as anyone would, because Russia has become an aggressive, ruthless, and threatening actor whenever it doesn’t get the credit it deserves. This comes out clearly in the recent controversy surrounding Russia’s supposed support for the Assad government in Syria. When we hear about the “allies” in the government who are supporting the regime, we forget about how much Russia has invaded and occupied the country of Iraq, how much it has attacked Ukraine, and how much money it has spent on weapons, especially in Syria. But, in all the discussion about Russia’s support for Assad, there is the implication that this is something that all other nations should have taken into consideration. Of course, we can’t do anything about Russia’s actions in Syria, but by ignoring the problem, our focus must remain on the need to do everything possible to build a relationship based on economic cooperation and mutual respect during the next stage of space exploration. The goal, according to Bajakian, will be “that people learn how to get along in a world that’s getting more hostile.” To continue our space efforts, more people need to know about space. To make this happen, more space-related organizations need to engage more people across the country. I recently visited a convention of the American Public Policy Association, which has a member organization focused on space issues, and I met with one of the organization’s members for about 8 hours. According to the man in charge of the organization, the group’s members would like to see the Space Act Initiative included in the 2016 American budget. He told me the same theme that Bajakian expressed: that people need to feel that they are part of the space community and its success won’t depend on them getting a piece of the action. In recent years, for the most part, this sentiment has been ignored.

Why does NASA have to give up its human space travel program? Is a new private space program, or even a new type of satellite, preferable to a

You can see these cards in action by running a sample adventure from the Adventurer’s League game. I am not suggesting you attempt to play through these quests with the adventuring party, but they are still very useful for learning who has taken your position, where to go forward, and what to expect.

To summarize, we can now look at what can be made to fit inside a board. After all, it is the pieces of the board that make up the board, and there is quite a bit of information that can be gained by looking at a board. With this in mind, I will walk you through some of the most important aspects of forming your character.

First, let me start with the most basic part of our building: your race. There are a number of options available with varying difficulty. I will give you a generic list while we move on to explaining the specifics in more detail.

Tieflings - Your first and primary race will likely make up your core ability set. These are simple, fast moving beings, excellent thieves and explorers. Good against magic and non-magical weapons, they can hold their own against many creatures with the right combination of equipment. Their racial ability is Dexterity, which is a +2 bonus on Acrobatics and Climb checks. This makes tieflings excellent jumpers, climbers and archers, who can quickly gain ground against even the toughest of opponents. Tieflings are considered half-blooded and can be used as a hybrid race: While they are not technically half-giants (they don’t fall into that category), half-tiefling traits also increase the bonus given to their Dexterity.

Humans - First and second most important races, humans are quick, light, and very strong. Their racial ability bonus to Armor Class is +4 and increases to +5 for medium and heavy armor. This is a plus for any creature that can put it on. They also have +2 to Wisdom and to Charisma and both of these abilities are key factors for improving your own character’s personality. Humans can also be used as a hybrid race, and both of these traits are very important. You must be able to wield two different weapons with any one attack roll. To do this, the weapon must have a melee range of 5 feet or longer. In addition, you must take the Unarmed Strike feat. Using this feat increases the damage of your unarmed strikes by twice. Using the Unarmed Strike feat requires you to still take the Dodge feat but deals no weapon damage.

Elf - The least important of our race options. Elf’s racial ability bonus to Wisdom is mediocre and doesn’t affect your Charisma score for any purpose. Since you won’t be casting spells, that will be very limited as well. Their bonus to Constitution doesn’t provide any bonuses for any ability, and their racial strength is only +1 with a minimum of 25.

Halflings - The first and third most important races, this is one that you can expect to be very familiar with. Halflings are half-elves, and they have this special quality that gives them -1 Dexterity bonus to AC. This is good for the same reasons humans and halflings can wield two weapons. However, they make use of the +2 racial bonus to Armor Class, for their natural armor to stay higher than human armor. They can also be used as a hybrid race, being either a half-elves or a half-giants. This is an option for most encounters, and is excellent for dealing with the toughest of creatures. The +2 racial bonus to Constitution and the +1 class bonus also give them the ability to keep up to speed with other creatures.

Tieflings and Humans will each have their own racial specialities (or not) and have their own starting skills. They too are going to be very familiar with their starting environment and will have their own racial abilities (or not).

Halflings also get a bonus on attack rolls with the shortsword or longsword, but again it is not a racial bonus, it is a class feature. At level 3 you get the ability to choose which type of weapon is best for you, so you can pick the one that suits your style of play.

Humans also get a racial bonus to Intelligence, which is an ability they were not meant to have, because they have to have at least a 16 and a 3. Their starting skills are also limited, and if they are to be truly useful, you are going to have to start at level 10. Once you have your class skills, you are going to be able to master them, so don’t start at level 9 where you look like an idiot with your poor movement and poor hit points.

Here are

The last one isn’t something to get worked up about. There are lots of other interesting aspects to consider, but a couple more are worth mentioning. First, the number has the form 10% down at 3.9% for tax year 2015. So this year it is roughly the same value as 2013, at just over 9.6%. The annual growth rate over the past decade is less than 3%. And the growth rate over the decade for 2011 was less than 1%. So, if you take those numbers at face value, it’s likely going to produce a net negative result. This is because a tax cut in excess of 15% is supposed to produce a negative increase in revenue. That’s unfortunate, but let’s review the facts and figure out why this is so.

The tax cuts were the biggest issue, and I suspect this will be the focus of tomorrow’s update. The revenue numbers for 2011-12 are very encouraging, while the tax cuts were relatively small. But this number has been revised slightly upward a few times, leading to some confusion. Most of the confusion here is attributable to a slightly different way of projecting the growth rate. If you don’t need the whole text to understand this, do skip to the next chart:

But let’s take a deep breath and look at the numbers by tax category to get the whole message across.

A tax cut of $2,500 for everyone is a modest cut indeed. And given the high level of revenue growth in 2011 (over 3.5% in 2011) this is good revenue.

It’s a large offset for the spending cuts that were taken, because the tax rates were already quite high. If you had wanted to balance the budget, you would have chosen a lower rate of growth and not done away with the spending reductions. That would be politically untenable. Of course, a low rate of growth doesn’t mean it’s low. And there are some benefits of being high. First, income growth for low income families is significantly better than income growth for the wealthy, which has led to much greater gains from fiscal policy than has been commonly thought. Second, high low-income families are likely to continue to accumulate more wealth than high high-income families. This means that for an increase in tax income to make any kind of economic difference, you’d have to lower the tax rate on the highest income groups, not higher income households. Third, the gains to high-income households are likely to be higher than those in the middle, because they are concentrated in the business sector and because many of them would use higher tax revenues to offset their lost wages.

Not all gains for the top end of the system would disappear, of course. A couple of other things wouldn’t: the capital gains capital gains (because profits have moved more of their value towards capital rather than towards labor over the past couple of decades), the depreciation provision of various tax laws, the exclusion of dividend income, and the ability (as you can see by analyzing the data) for an offshore subsidiary to defer taxes for a company located in low-tax countries. But those losses are small compared with the big gains.

And by this , you could have a tax bill of zero, too. In a perfect world, everyone does what their taxes say, and has a flat flat tax. But the real world is more complex, and some people pay more than others. If the government were entirely free to tax you based on what you earn, you would have no incentive to work, because the tax advantage you have would be small compared with the tax disadvantage others would face. Those that are working will get the biggest tax deduction, and the other people that are working will lose. No matter how you cut the tax rate, a flat tax is still an income tax and is liable to generate a tax savings for all tax payers, including those that are not taking advantage of the benefit. But if you can make up a difference in other ways, you can’t use the benefits from the flat tax to offset the income losses those who are not investing will be going through, so you end up paying more. The “new” “terrification”

But the numbers above do show that the lower a tax rate, the stronger the tax cuts are.

Which raises a much bigger question how much higher can tax rates go? We have a way to determine that. If you start with today’s levels of debt, and you want to cut it by the same amount as current levels of debt, you might have to move the lower end of that curve up quite a bit, by some amount. After all, even if tax cuts were as large as the ones we just talked about, we’d already have reduced debt quite a bit.

It would be nice if this were the case, but it isn’t, and that pretty much kills any pretense of being a black hole. So when I first heard about these things, I wasn’t expecting them to be as cool and exotic as they were, but then I learned a little bit about the physics of these things, thanks to YouTube, and I discovered that they really just boil down to a force acting on something, typically a black hole, and it’s not the way I thought it would be:

It seems like my first thought about this was that it was just a matter of time, then I realized that my entire thought process was flawed. What you just described and demonstrated on video was, by my own admission, nothing but a prediction. So the answer to why they’re called “black holes” in the first place is just a bunch of random stuff that happens (in practice, however, it’s generally not). When you think about it, they’re pretty boring, too. It’s just a regular piece of the universe, and once you have an experience with them, you don’t really remember much of your first thought about it. So the fact that we got to think about physics of space and time, black holes, gravity, and dark matter, all at the same time, is pretty great. So, in conclusion, this is my theory. Basically, this is what the world was like before we were born. Everything we see in the universe was like a movie, or a television show.

My favorite scene. I know, it’s just a movie, right? And there was no life, no people, it was just a movie. All of this stuff was fictional, so I can’t really think of it as real, right? It was just a movie, right? I mean, it was made up, but it was still basically a movie.

That’s right. It was movie, but it was made up. I mean, the movie made up all the dialogue, but they did put together a complete plot and cast, just by making up the dialogue. The things that happened and how they made up the world and the people that lived in it, were just totally fake, and the movie was just fiction. No doubt about it, a movie made up people. Not really, but I thought it was important to point this out.

And just so you guys don’t judge me too harshly for this, I’m the last person in the world to criticize, as I have to know how it’s done. (Though the movie and TV show scene was cool, but let’s just accept that the movie and TV show stuff was based on an “actual” movie). I would hate to just dismiss an entire genre as just a movie, just because the people who made it make that statement. At any rate, we had this world. We had this movie theater. This TV show. We had these books, and novels, and stories, and poetry, and everything else you can think of, from science fiction to horror to urban fantasy, to fantasy to science-fiction, to religion to mysticism. This is how all the people in this world lived. To this day, we can all be friends and family, and see each other in our physical reality. We can communicate with each other, and we can even make each other laugh as he is making the joke. You know the drill. There is no difference. But when I think about it, the truth is that there was no life before the movie came out. It did seem like it could have been possible.

So maybe the movie made something happen. It made my parents and their friends become interested in science and technology, and the people in a particular universe become interested in it. It has the potential to change our world forever. But would it have happened otherwise? Probably not. We’re not there yet, but a few years from now, there will be trillions of us, and there is nothing to stop us from getting super-special and super-interesting. But I’ll bet that there will be other civilizations and people in the future that will become even more special, and more interesting. I’ll bet that they won’t be very very special.

What makes the new study interesting is that it proves that human ancestors were capable of developing such technological advancements even before the advent of modern humans. Not only did Neanderthals use stone tools, though, but they also adapted their body plans over many generations, adopting traits ranging from a squat to an even more slender shape. This is not the first time that modern humans have been shown to develop such techniques; archaeologists discovered the remains of Neanderthals that show evidence of these traits during the construction of a building using stone. Yet what makes this study different is that scientists can reconstruct the movements of Neanderthals and test their ability to kill or eat animals. As an extra source of evidence, the authors also measured the teeth of hundreds of Neanderthal skulls they examined and compared them to humans. And, surprisingly, the authors found that their skeletal features were quite distinct from modern humans.

Credit: Anand K. Singh, H.P. Soodyall, and R. J. Lohse, 2016. Neanderthal body plans show distinct variation across Europe and east Asia. Paleoanthropology 34:1127.

Study Details and Abstract

The Altai Mountains of central Asia are an important site for deciphering Late Pleistocene human anatomical data . Neanderthals may have occupied the mountains as far as the end of the Holocene, or as early as 20,000 years ago. Here we present a series of geochemical, isotopic and anthropometric analyses of human bone from both the Altai and nearby Altai-Altai Massif in northeast China, the highest mountain range in Europe. The skeletal data come from individuals dated to 0.54 to 0.79 ka, from a range of geographical locations on both the Altai and Altai-Altai Massif. It was found that the Altai-Altai Massif consists of different parts of the Altai, with a central part with little archaeological or fossil support. Instead, we find that the Altai-Altai Massif is essentially a mosaic of multiple parts of the Altai. This mosaic of different parts is very different from what we found in the Altai Mountains. In particular, we find the following: a north-south spine at an elevation of 2170 m, as opposed to the Altai-Altai Massif which is at approximately 2100 to 2300 m elevation, and a west-east spine at an elevation of 2170-2210 m, as opposed to 3100-3400 on the Altai-Altai Massif. These results suggest that there is a much greater spatial variation in Neandertal features than previously suggested, and that they were able to adapt to different climatic environments and geographic locations. In short, there is potential to find Neandertals today as late as 4000-4050 m, as well as from 6000-6000 years ago in these parts of European Eurasia. This is the first time that skeletal results from modern humans have been analyzed at the Altai Mountains.

Source: https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2016/05/21/14692511210.full.pdf+html#page=60

Conclusion In short, there is likely a lot left on the table . I’m not so convinced that any group of humans went into southern Europe to create a new civilization, but I have no reason to believe that other groups didn’t try. I believe that Neanderthals would have had the ability to thrive in Europe even before humans arrived. Maybe not the entire continent, but any part of the continent. I don’t think that the Altai area is unique. I still believe that we lived on that continent millions of years earlier than archaeologists think.

Sources: http://www.paleoanthropology.org/2015/03/16/as-neanderthal-body-plan-reappears-in-nations-across-europe-after-40000-years/ http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2016/04/14/1615111512.full.pdf+html#page=40

Posted by Rafiq Ahmed at 9:14 PM

There were many more such accounts, but for the purposes of this post I do not want to repeat what I am going to say in them. In particular, I want to address the following specific case:

  • When a woman was approached at a club by two young men, only to learn that one of them was white and the other Latin/other. This is an example of (1) repetition of an old-boys’ network and (2) a white woman in a social setting being attacked and degraded, especially by a woman of color. The problem with both instances was not just the fact that the attackers were white, but that the women were Latin/other. Of course, the same is true for countless other incidents, though it is usually much harder to document at the crime scene because the victims are not necessarily of the same ethnicity or background. In the present example, for example, I will not be discussing the fact that one of the two white-to-Latino men may be in Canada and the other in Mexico or of a different country. However, these two men were both white-to-Latino. Thus, the fact that one of them was Canadian has zero impact on the facts. Because of that, I have chosen to present the incidents in this manner. In all cases where the women are black or Latina, however, there is not a plausible reason for those who attack, degrade and assault her. And, the reason why no rational person would claim that the attacks are due to the absence of white men. There is not that much of a difference. In all of these cases, women’s behavior is not dictated by racism, although it certainly may be influenced by prejudiceespecially for those who live in predominately white countries. Instead, the reason is usually simple: Women generally do not use their identities or their ethnicity as a weapon to make themselves feel better; rather, they simply feel comfortable in their own skin. I have been able to obtain proof of this by conducting an exhaustive empirical study on some groups of women living in a particular city in Asia. I discovered that the women who are most physically aggressive and are more verbally aggressive in their interactions are the ones I have listed above. In other words, an angry woman is likely angry simply from feeling insecure. Yet, in a culture where women don’t feel safe and safe is not taken as an indicator of strength, many women are willing to “fight for their rights.” These women are not necessarily dangerous, but they are willing to be dangerous and will use their identities as a weapon in order to take their feelings of inadequacy and anger out on other people. Thus, what actually seems to increase violence is not a lack of white males, but a lack of white men willing to fight for their rights.

Let’s start by saying that I support the desire for racial equality in many places, in part because I believe that the best place to promote equality is by showing non-white people that non-white people can be victimized just like they are. However, let’s assume that I am wrong (I’m not), and that the majority of violent actions of women occur because white men are too afraid to use their identities (for whatever reason) as a weapon. However, let’s not rule out that there may be some situations where women are being physically attacked for reasons related to their race, which, as stated above, I advocate. Since it is possible that women are racially assaulted because white men feel afraid to use their identities in this situation, can we consider a few potential reasons:

  • Because some men do not want to be identified as the “good” men?

  • Because they are intimidated by the threat of being judged? (ie “It’s not that I don’t want to be accepted, it’s that if I am, I can’t say so? I’m a minority and people will judge me.”)

  • Because their identity may be abused by others? (ie “There’s more than one way to be a good person. Don’t we all have to be perfect?”)

  • It’s a culture where violence is still tolerated? (ie “It’s been that way for over two centuries and there are no easy solutions.”)

Most likely, only one of the last three will come into play. In that scenario, only one of the reasons listed above will happen. And, even then, for the majority of White People who are not violent criminals, the reason is not a refusal to embrace other people as they are, so they feel intimidated of their identity and do not use it as a weapon. There isn’t a whole lot of that here, and if the majority of men who use their identities for violence are actually afraid to do so, then this culture also has other reasons associated with it. Therefore, in my opinion, the real question is simply: How much would it cost to change the culture in order to change violence? If most men in the United States are actually afraid to use their identities in

“Nano-Structure-DNA-RNA Engineering,” EPL Proceedings 2015. The first step for the polymer scaffolds to enter the living cell was to create a very small sample of the polymer solution and shape it, as shown in the image above. From this point, a 3D structure is created, based on the image of the nanocompensation matrix. This structure is then brought to the nucleus of the cell and guided to guide the DNA template into the cell membrane. This is accomplished in a 3D liquid membrane with porous pores allowing for a sufficient amount of DNA to pass through into the living cell. The resulting scaffold is formed and controlled as desired to deliver RNA to the DNA template. Once inside the cell, the “nano-structure-dna-RNA” is guided to the correct location (DNA) in the correct cell structure. This is repeated several times by the process. After the DNA template is delivered, the cells need to “feed” on it for the polymer scaffold to stay in place. Once more, the polymer is guided to continue its path in the cell. After enough nano-structure have been incorporated into the DNA template, the cells turn off the stimulation and growth occurs in a matter of seconds. “The bioengineering approach which we employed has potential to be applied in the clinical field,” says study authors Matthias Kster and Wolfgang Koch.

Koch and Kster’s research was lead by Wolfgang Schonfelber of the University of Wrzburg’s Biomaterials Science laboratory. The researchers tested their new polymer/nano-structure-dna-RNA combination on a cell line of pig cells. They showed that these engineered vesicles can enter into a cell in two main ways. The first is by their self-assembly into a vesicle within the cell membrane. When introduced into a cell, the vesicle itself undergoes self-assembly, which involves the incorporation of nanoscale grains and self-assembling. In other words, the DNA template is brought to the vesicle via the RNA that is guiding the vesicle through a liquid membrane to the cell. Interestingly, the vesicles that can get in through the vesicle membrane have the potential to contain significant amounts of DNA because of some pores present. While creating three-dimensional structures in the membrane, nanospheres of the polymer also get inserted. This is because the vesicles themselves are highly porous. “Because the membrane has pores, the vesicles undergo polymer growth,” explained Kster. This means that when the vesicles are introduced into the cell, they grow into structures that have potential to carry huge amounts of the DNA template. So where does this leave the human cells? “There are already very promising designs for DNA nanobots,” said Koch. “It’s clear from the studies that these nanobots will have a strong place in human tissues and organs.” Kster and Koch are currently working on a “functionalized” DNA nanobot that they think could be a possible replacement for current techniques in cancer treatment. There’s also great interest in the use of DNA nanobots for medical applications. They could be useful in cancer research, for example for the repair of genetic errors, cancer diagnostics and testing and more.

(via E-Life magazine)

More News from around the Web:

(I think SpaceX’s manifest now looks promising enough that if it has a $1.5 billion flight backlog it will not spend any more money than it already does. But it still needs to secure additional funding. As of the day I wrote this at 8am EDT on 29 January, SpaceX had $1.2 billion in pre-certificates on its credit card.)

SpaceX on track to launch astronauts first.. (I think SpaceX’s manifest now looks promising enough that if it has a $1.5 billion flight backlog it will not spend any more money than it already does. But it still needs to secure additional funding. As of the day I wrote this at 8am EDT on 29 January, SpaceX had $1.2 billion in pre-certificates on its credit card.)

On that final score, which I agree is difficult to judge unless SpaceX decides to put the brakes on its plan to fly astronauts from the pad within 3-4 months, the following should be remembered:

1) The Falcon Heavy rocket is not a clean sheet; it has several important features that together make it hard to classify as a new or low cost rocket. They include:

1) The Falcon Heavy has been designed and built (as a demonstration or production model) for a commercial service. All that remains to be done is to certify it for commercial flight after launch. This is a much more complex thing, than certification for flight and has much wider application. As it stands, Falcon Heavy is being flown primarily to test ground hardware which will be a long time before it can be certified for commercial launch. 2) The Falcon Heavy has a reusable upper stage for its flight to LEO (at a price of $85-$100 million and 20% margin) rather than a reusable upper stage for a launch. This will reduce the cost per flight. Again, a large part of SpaceX’s price reduction in its “reusable” upper stage is due to its choice to use a full first stage to reduce the cost of the second stage and its return to Earth as easily as possible. Both these ideas will lead to significant savings for SpaceX in their pricing of the Falcon Heavy and their profit margins in its first stage.

I expect both of these features to make the Falcon Heavy affordable, much more affordable, than before (and then some). But I do not know if Falcon Heavy is a new high cost rocket. A lot of it will depend on if it is possible (but not likely) to retrofit the Block 5 and Block 5’s Merlin engines later.

2) SpaceX is building a large rocket and its first operational vehicle, Falcon Heavy. This is a much larger cost, than a Block-5 and Block-5. It is too big, expensive to fly, and not flexible enough to be modified for use by other company’s programs. As such, it has to be as big or bigger than the Block-3’s Merlin.

3) If Elon Musk successfully does some of these things, he should probably be able to find some way to fly Falcon Heavy as the first (and most expensive) segment of a large, multiple stage rocket system, which is similar to the Space Shuttle. He should also be able to find some way to fly it as the first segment of a larger rocket (such as a LEO satellite) or an all solar electric spacecraft (which could use an integrated Falcon-Heavy upper stage).

The answer to the “Who will fly it?” question is obvious. While the majority of the Space Shuttle was re-used by multiple companies it was not able to survive on its own while carrying the passengers it was intended to carry. If SpaceX could re-use the Falcon Heavy and recover it, it could serve as a demonstration of the reusable Falcon-Newton approach. It also gives SpaceX a chance to show off one of its other advanced technologies like an extended life booster for Mars. It would also provide opportunity to demonstrate a “first in space” experience in terms of using the Falcon Heavy to launch commercial satellites and/or Mars landings.

It is possible that the Falcon Heavy and its first two flights will be paid by the various government programs that SpaceX will be working with on this project. But those programs are getting many new programs on the launch bandwagon. After all, the first flight of the Space Shuttle was a NASA program. So, should the government pay the costs for a Falcon Heavy? Or should those costs be paid on some other basis? Or can SpaceX actually find a way to get these new programs on board? Either way, I suspect the decision should be made soon.

He also says that there could be some kind of connection. It’s not only a theoretical possibility, and not entirely implausible either. There’s also some reason I’ve included the above quote in my post on Dark Matter, it explains my frustration:

Herman: “We are now being led to the conclusion that this is not a one-way street. It will take some people to take the first steps to discover what is going on but it will be just those very first steps that ultimately make the discovery. However there will be others around the globe.”

What does the phrase “others around the globe” refer to? I would say it means the large majority of the population of the world. Think of it this way: the whole science fiction and movie industry is made up of people in the developed nations. These “others around the world” include people whose whole existence revolves around these fields. It would be a lot harder for them to come forward and say that they have scientific information of this world. So we’re about to see, because of Black Holes, that many people will be the ones taking the first steps and discovering that in the future black holes may not have energy, they may not be all those things that the scientists think.

Posted by Alex Griswold at 10:05 PM

And since black holes are so dark, there is no light at all to shine on them.

What makes this even more amazing is that the density of a black hole is actually quite tiny compared to its size and distance from the ground, and it can’t be detected with ground-based telescopes until it is so far away it falls into the electromagnetic and gravitational fields of our Solar System and can only be accurately observed by NASA’s Kepler space telescope. All other data points have been made by astrophysicists.

To add to the intrigue, we must also note that there are approximately 10,000 galaxies that lie just on the plane of the Milky Way, as opposed to the 90,000 galaxies that are actually on the edge of the Milky Way like this dwarf black hole, although we shall not name them here because their location, distances and other variables make them difficult to identify.

What all this means is that the star that we are looking for (our Sun as seen from here) is actually well hidden in the dark space that surrounds the Milky Way , meaning we can only see it by spotting other stars in this area of the sky. And as for how far away it is, well, it is well within the “edge of the Milky Way .”

I won’t be able to provide a more detailed description of this star with the spacecraft that we have, but I will write a summary of what you need to know after you have seen the star. In addition, there are some additional pictures I made at this telescope and posted here as a Google Drive file with my comments. I was able to get a good image of this nebula without the Hubble Space Telescope’s Advanced Camera for Surveys on, so I was able to use my telescope with other resources. I think you’ll be surprised by how much detail you can see with your eyes while staring at the night sky. It’s really pretty.

We can say for sure from now on that this image has NOT been “borrowed” from here and that this is a Hubble image of this star. I was able to use my telescope without any other telescope-use on November 16, 2008 with the Hubble Space Telescope’s Advanced Camera for Surveys. I really hope you don’t believe me when I say this, but that is how it actually happened. If you know of others, please do not hesitate to contact me; it does happen to me all the time and it will probably happen again soon . Thanks.

Your browser is out-of-date!

Update your browser to view this website correctly. Update my browser now

×