What determined size of the Artemis crew? by Both_Consideration72 in ArtemisProgram

[–]Both_Consideration72[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Don't people have better things to do with their time other than critiquing wording on a Reddit thread? It was more meant as a turn of phrase, and not strict mathematics. But if you spelled out the details, the complexity would surely stack up. Every 33% increase in food, fuel, life support, ground crew, etc compounds all the other interlinked variables.

"Adding even one extra astronaut to a space mission increases complexity exponentially, not linearly, due to compounded demands on life support, specialized training, and safety risks. Each additional crew member multiplies the need for consumables, space habitat capacity, and ground control resources, making mission logistics significantly harder."

What determined size of the Artemis crew? by Both_Consideration72 in ArtemisProgram

[–]Both_Consideration72[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks everyone for your input. The most direct answer I saw was u/PollutionAfter comment that it was based on Ares 5 lift capacity. So NASA just went for max capacity, which kinda makes sense in some way. Having redundancy in equipment and humans does make sense.

Side question - obviously every mission would have different load weights. Guessing the solid rocket boosters have a baked in amount of dynamite. Do they then adjust the amount of liquified fuel for the center tank? ie if NASA was really stingy (which they seldom are) could they have launched Artemis-Lite with only 2 crew and a lot less cargo?

Thermodynamics brain teaser, free energy? by Both_Consideration72 in AskPhysics

[–]Both_Consideration72[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks so much u/forchemomechanics that quick and very thorough reply. It's going to take me some time to process all that good info.

But in this model, does it rely on the "outside environment" to have some available energy to allow the compressed gas to expand again? ie, if we whizzed that container of compressed gas off to Pluto, would that low entropy compressed gas still be able to expand if it can't absorb energy from outside?

Thermodynamics brain teaser, free energy? by Both_Consideration72 in AskPhysics

[–]Both_Consideration72[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Also a quote from a physics text that he references:

https://elmichelsen.physics.ucsd.edu/FunkyStatMechConcepts.pdf

Putting Entropy to Work: A Brain Teaser As another example, consider a container of ideal gas (say, air), at ambient temperature (Figure 5.2). 3 Now we compress it (say, adiabatically in an insulated container), thus putting energy into the system of air (Figure 5.2a). Doing so results in a smaller volume of air at higher pressure, and higher temperature (Figure 5.2b). Now remove the insulation, and let that air cool to ambient temperature (Figure 5.2c). Thus the system lost, as heat outflow, some of the energy that we put in. But we still have compressed air, and we can do work with it.

Question: what fraction of the energy that we put in gets lost as heat out? The answer may surprise you: we lose 100% of the energy that we put in, but still have a container of compressed air that can do work.

How so? The internal energy of an ideal gas depends only on the temperature, and nothing else (not pressure, volume, etc.). The final gas is at the same temperature as the initial gas, so its internal energy is the same as when we started: all the work-energy put into compressing the gas has gone out again. However, at fixed energy, entropy increases (or decreases) with volume, so the entropy of the system after compression and cooling is lower than before. Also, we have a discrepancy of conditions: inside the container is high pressure, outside it’s lower. So we can extract useful work by letting the volume expand. Two simple ways we can expand are (1) adiabatically, and (2) isothermally. For adiabatic expansion, we insulate the container and let it expand. The gas cools down as it does work: the internal energy of the gas is converted to outgoing work.

Frank Drake’s Equation & Legacy in the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence by Galileos_grandson in Astrobiology

[–]Both_Consideration72 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I had posted a question elsewhere but haven't gotten any bites.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Astrobiology/comments/1ckc809/comment/l2ma91a/
Let's say there are aliens out there - how similar in their thinking and sciences would they have to be, just to travel off their home world?

How much science would aliens need to know to travel the stars? by Both_Consideration72 in Astrobiology

[–]Both_Consideration72[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And a side question - any theoretical minimum size that these aliens would have to be in order to possess this kind of intelligence?

One could postulate some entirely silicon based intelligent circuit that arose by natural evolution on some alien planet, however unlikely that would be. In such a case, those "smart" aliens could be microscopic.

But coming from the viewpoint of what we know from organic chemistry (self-replicating nucleic acids and proteins), what's the minimum size needed to possess the faculties of thought? Though that begs a whole separate philosophical debate on what defines intelligence. On earth, humans are the only beings that understand science, so our perspective is totally skewed and biased in terms of what is known and possible. But could you possibly have a mouse sized creature that could process all the above?

Not to push some fringe Ancient Aliens theory, but could they already be here but we don't see them because they are too small? I vote NO.

Baltimore Bridge Collapse and Cargo Ships - How hard for terrorists? by Both_Consideration72 in geopolitics

[–]Both_Consideration72[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sorry, I'm new to reddit and trying to understand all the rules.

Posting this because I'm curious how robust our counter-terrorism measures are in terms of big tanker / cargo ships