Posts by Poor Coco

LOHAN ideas..

Re: Another mighty initial thrust idea

Which Youtube vids are you referring to? Your post had no URL. I would assume that mine behave the same as those — considering they both depends on physics!

Re: Another mighty initial thrust idea

“Take a look at unguided amateur rockets?” Dude, I have built over a hundred of them, and designed around 30 — including rocket planes. I do in fact know what I am talking about.

Re: Another mighty initial thrust idea

“(contrary to common belief, the only reason it should divert from straight flight, once the rocket motor is burning, is if another additional force acts upon it).”

Well, the real problem is that the plane is dynamically *unstable* until stabilization moments are created by fast airflow; prior to that point any disruption that causes a minor change in the direction of the nose will lead to continually increasing deviations leading to tumbling and a total waste of the engine impulse. So, yes, it will require a destabilizing force — but those forces are EVERYWHERE, from asymmetry between the line of thrust and the CG of the plane; from turbulence in the exhaust gases; from launch rod friction; the list goes on and on. Unless non-aerodynamic stabilizers are used — and a launch rod WILL NOT WORK I will repeat that a million times — there is no realistic chance of an interesting powered flight.

Re: Another mighty initial thrust idea

Well, no, that’s not exactly correct. I think the point is that static friction is always at least as great (at its maximum) than sliding friction — which is true, pure and simple. I guess the objection was that a launcher floating in space would not present a great load to a plane launching off of it, in order to overcome static friction (including potentially frozen-together components).

However, while I agree that a slender guidance rod is completely wrong here, it’s not due to static friction considerations (which could be overcome by the launcher’s inertia or, worst case, by a heavily detuned piston launcher) but because a guidance rod would be barkin’ useless for something as heavy as LOHAN, especially one cantilevered into an aluminum plate. In addition to having great propensity for freezing to the launch lug, it would be floppy as hell and not direct the plane effectively. Indeed, launch rods are ONLY used in ground-based launchers with rockets weighing a couple of hundred grams tops — anything bigger than that uses a rail or tube launcher.

Re: Here's a thought

It’s been done before — they’re called rockoons.

Re: Another mighty initial thrust idea

Magnus seems to think the only thing potentially stabilizing the launcher would be a physical anchoring; this makes me think he or she has not studied dynamics.

The positional stabilization will not be absolute in the sense that a ground-mounted launcher would be, where reaction forces and moments are absorbed by the earth. Rather, the reaction forces will be neutralized at a designed balance point; the mass ratio of the plane and launcher will determine that. As for the moments/torques, those can be controlled by altering the moment of inertia of the launcher — if there is a long boom, then mounting a camera or two on its tip will greatly increase the moment of inertia and thereby reduce gyrations (while giving really neat camera angles).

As far as the boosters go, I seriously doubt a boost-glider engine will suffice. They are designed to supply low thrust and long burn durations, which is the opposite of LOHAN’s initial requirements because she MUST GET MOVING FAST, at least off-the-line, or she will never get momentum at all because she’ll be tumbling; in that case we should skip the rockets entirely and we have a glorified PARIS. Therefore short-duration boosters with beefy gyros which are dropped off on burnout seem like an ideal design.

Here is a plan view of my booster configuration: http://autographic.ca/TheRegister/LOHAN_plan.png [Warning: big fat PNG file]

Re: Another mighty initial thrust idea

Not quite, Magnus — you are right, the launcher should be considered free-floating, and the balloon will have negligible effect on the launch dynamics. But there are still plenty of ways in which the effects of the plane and launcher can be adjusted to allow a more positive launch than release at zero airspeed (which has ~0 chance of success).

Re: Launch-smaunch

The 80g will not be borne by the aircraft; it will be divided up between the launcher and the airplane according to their respective masses. If the aircraft weights twice as much as the launcher, it will undergo 1/3 of the acceleration while the rest will be taken by the launcher. However, it is never a zero-sum game: any capture of initial exhaust gases to improve the initial flight speed will be beneficial. Finally, it’s easy to reduce the kick of the system, simply by adding small vents to the pistons. Any craft that can sustain the stresses of high-speed flight will be able to handle a 10g longitudinal impulse without a problem.

"Can we agree that this is basically the minimum possible speed we can expect aerostabilization — that it would be silly to expect a rocket-plane in 5% of an atmosphere to be stable at under 80 km/h?"

In your response to this, you say it would be silly and then state — just as I suggested — that we could expect minimum aerostabilized speeds of 80 km/h. That means if we don’t block ALL instabilities BELOW that speed, we will never REACH that speed because we’ll tumble and waste all the thrust from the main engine. And a piston launcher is a device that will help there.

Another is gyros, but they have undesirable side-effects at high speed. Therefore I propose a two-stage design: there will be the long-burning, low-thrust main engine and four, fast-burning JATO boosters strapped to the rear fuselage. Now, stability is still an issue — but not if we have gyros IN THE BOOSTER PACKS which are ejected when the boosters burn out. The gyros will be spun up by batteries in the launcher, and the booster packs will drop to ground with a parachute or drag streamer.

This way we have positive stabilization and hard off-the-line acceleration (two mass-intensive parts) that are only present while needed; and when the plane hits 80–100 km/h (say, 25 m/s or higher) and can manage its own thrust, the booster-stabilizers go their own way. This will happen automatically if they are held in place by their own thrust — drag will drop them off passively, or we can use ejection charges.

Finally, we can use the hard-point at which the boosters join the fuselage to (slightly) steer the booster roskets to provide a modicum of thrust vectoring in the critical early stages.

Another mighty initial thrust idea

We need to get LOHAN moving really fast off the line. Unfortunately, since she’s a boost-glider, that is antithetical to the design of her engine which is aimed at a long, smooth burn and not an almighty kick in the pants.

I have suggested a piston launcher as a possible remedy. But I have another idea now.

What if the aircraft is suspended @ CG (its wing roots) on a rocket-trolley? The plane and cart engine ignitions are simultaneous in a sort of cluster launch (this will require a lot of kick into the igniters, probably a capacitive-discharge ignition). But the launch-cart would have the fastest-burning engines available, and as many of them as is feasible. When they burn out, the JATO cart will simply fall off the airframe and parachute down (deployment triggered by aircraft separation).

This will accomplish a few goals: (1) bring up initial thrust to maximize off-the-line speed. (2) Keep aircraft weight and bulk down by jettisoning the boosters, while allowing a long burn for the sustainer engine as is desirable for a boost-glider. (3) Eliminate the reaction kick of the piston launcher.

Re: Launch-smaunch

“…because of that tenuous atmosphere she reaches the required speed much faster, due to lower drag. I'm still not convinced aerodynamic control is impossible, but I'll let the boffins give the final word on that matter. I'm a mechanical engineer, not an aerodynamicist.”

As someone with (a little) experience launching rocket planes, I will tell you right now that even at or below sea level, aerodynamic drag would never be the limiting factor — simple dynamic equilibrium, Newton’s Third Law, is the problem.

Look at the chart at http://0.u.is/_7p42 — the curve of interest is the one labeled G12-RCT. (They have said they are using a more powerful motor, but let’s use this for now). The initial thrust, right after ignition, ramps up to max power in a couple of milliseconds (see how the curve appears to intersect the vertical axis on the graph) so we can consider the thrust to be 8 lbs, roughly 40 newtons.

Given an aircraft weight of only 500 grams, which will be MUCH less than it really is, how fast could it get over three metres’ acceleration if we ignore all drag sources? Well, 40N/0.5kg = 80 m·s^-2 or about 8g; this sounds impressive (and it is), but let’s see how fast it’s going after three metres’ acceleration at 80 m·s^2:

x = v0*t + .5*a*t^2 but v0 = 0, therefore t = sqrt(2*x/a) = sqrt(2*3/80) = 0.274 seconds

Its speed will be 80*.274 = 21.9 m/s = 78 km/h or about 50 mph.

Can we agree that this is basically the minimum possible speed we can expect aerostabilization — that it would be silly to expect a rocket-plane in 5% of an atmosphere to be stable at under 80 km/h? Then it means we have to keep the mass of the plane below (500g/80N)*[initial thrust of final chosen engine] for it to work. And I don’t think that’s feasible.

Now what happens if we put in a piston launcher? The initial thrust gets immensely magnified until it’s essentially an impulse of huge magnitude, 10 times greater at least. With my small model (and a ground-based launcher) I got the plane up to ~60 km/h in about 30cm. The benefit of an air-launched one would diminish since the pad would launch itself backward — it would depend on the mass ratios of the two parts.

Re: Launch-smaunch

The advantage of the piston launcher is that it will provide a consistent launch effect whether it’s suspended by the balloon or in free-fall (after the balloon pops).

The reaction mass for the piston launcher is not so much the girder (which will be even less significant, as it can be a lot shorter) but the equipment (firmly) attached to it: batteries, sensors, cameras and so on. If these are mounted near on the structure to the piston tube, the structural stresses will be manageable, and it will be possible to make the launch forces pass near the centre of mass of the launcher/payload — this will eliminate torsional moments almost entirely.

Yes, it will give a hard kick to the cameras — but it will give an equal kick to the plane, which really, really needs it!

Re: Launch-smaunch

Despite her backronym (which has been recognized as inaccurate from the time it was suggested) nobody says that LOHAN will be anywhere near the Kaman line or anything like in orbit. However, at the altitudes we expect her to launch the atmosphere is exceedingly tenuous — 3–5% of sea level pressure, tops. That’s thicker than the Martian atmosphere at ground level, but not by a whole lot.

In order to achieve aerostabilization in this tenuous air, the craft will require airspeed and lots of it. Since the craft will necessarily be unstable until this high speed is reached, unless it is otherwise stabilized it will tumble and wil simply never get to a speed where it IS stable.

So how do we stabilize the craft initially? I can see four possible approaches:

• Launcher: stabilize the craft mechanically while it accelerates, like ground level rocket launchers.

• Gyroscopes: an internal gyro maintains the craft’s heading as it accelerates; shortly after aerostabilization occurs the gyro is halted so as not to impede control.

• Thrust vectoring, which in my view is only attainable with vanes impinging on the rocket exhaust.

• Reaction control thrusters — this is almost certainly impractical.

Disadvantages of these approaches:

• Mechanical stability during launch must be done without an anchored launcher; this means it must use inertia, which means it must be heavy, which limits the balloon’s maximum altitude. It also implies a large launcher, since it will take some distance for the aircraft to reach speed. This can be mitigated ONLY by using a piston launcher. (I feel like I am talking to a wall here; is anyone reading these? I am the only person to utter the words “piston launcher” or to suggest capturing and utilizing otherwise-lost initial thrust energy.)

• Gyroscopes are necessarily massive and/or bulky (in order to get a large moment of inertia) and they require a strong, rigid mounting to the airframe; this could be tricky. On the other hand, when the aircraft reaches aerostable speed, it’s simple to stop a gyroscope using an H-bridge — just short the terminals of the motor. (It will coast freely while an open circuit is maintained.)

• Thrust vectoring will require making some pretty serious components; I imagine a ring with vanes being steered by servos. Problem is, it will place a heavy component at the extreme aft of the craft, which is the worst possible location for a massive component as far as aerodynamic stability goes.

Re: Non-Circular Launch Rail?

The rail would have to be exceedingly wide in order to impart any stabilizing moment — and if it was, then any roll motion it’s intended to correct would either damage the rail or jam the launch.

Far better to use separate, widely spaced rails (such as lightweight trusses guiding the wings directly).

Re: Launch rail (rod) and backplate issues (reprise)

This sounds like an increasingly sane proposal.

THEREFORE, I am going to take a number of previously-mentioned points and amalgamate them into one coherent counterproposal to El Reg’s approach.

Centrally, the core flaw in the Register’s Official Design (the ROD) is the rod itself. It’s too prone to jamming due to icing or to the tube freezing in place; it’s going to be too flexible to provide significant guidance since (a) the launcher will be dangling in mid-air, not anchored, and (b) it will only be attached at a single point at the tail end; it’s going to be rather heavy no matter what, if it’s long enough to hold the plane in a straight line as the craft launches; finally, it will impart a wild and unpredictable rotational moment on the launcher platform due to inevitable friction when the plane launches. The last point will render the direction of launch entirely unpredictable and will make the launcher useless for capturing takeoff video.

Therefore I suggest a totally different approach to the launcher, a π-shaped configuration with a transversely-mounted equipment bay; four short longitudinal trusses bracketing the wings; a piston-launcher which both contains initial exhaust to protect the instruments while providing dynamical stability that utilizes the launcher mass as a launch anchor; and gyro-stabilization for both the launcher and the plane, powered by batteries in the launcher.

As the plane approaches launch altitude, the gyros will spin up. These will lock in the direction of the launch, and the ones in the launcher could in principle be used to provide launch directional control (if they are spun up first). The gyro on the plane will be powered by a tether line; on launch this will separate and the drop in input voltage can trigger a timer that will, after a few seconds, engage a braking circuit in the fashion of an H-bridge which will slowly stop the gyro and allow the autopilot to perform aerodynamic control as the craft gains speed.

Once the gyros are are spun up, their momentum should be maintainable without too much power input, so this can confer directional stability even if the balloon unexpectedly blows. An accelerometer should easily detect this event, and can trigger immediate launch if the gyros are at speed and the device suddenly finds itself in low gravity.

Initial launch energy will be substantially amplified using a piston-launcher, which will (a) contain launch exhaust to protect the launcher payload, (b) magnify the initial thrust by at least an order of magnitude, and (c) lock the position of the tail w.r.t the launcher at the time of ignition, providing a positive lock on launch direction.

The legs of the π consist of a pair of short trusses around the wing bases with PTFE-coated rails that enforce the initial direction of separation, two-axis constraint can be achieved with rails along the fuselage as well. While these will be much, much bulkier than a launch rod, they will not be heavier because they can be built in a stiff space-frame style rather than relying on the rigidity of a slender rod or tube: they can be MUCH stiffer for the same weight.

It’s also worth considering that a compact payload will be easier to transport to the launch site than a long slender one; it also provides camera mounting points on either side of the aircraft, permitting better launch video and still images. Finally, by having a launcher that symmetrically encloses the tail of the aircraft rather than dangling the plane below it, the problem of torque moments causing wild gyrations is greatly reduced.

If any interest is shown in this proposal I would be happy to draw up schematic proposal plans.

Re: Ice issues on the launch Rod ...

A copper pipe with heating wires would probably weigh as much as the airplane.

Re: Another alternative launch idea

Given the tenuousness of the atmosphere, I figure some sort of vectored thrust is mandatory. Of course, a swiveling nozzle is unfeasible, but the V-2 (and later, the Redstone, which was a sort of super-V-2) had directable vanes that projected into the exhaust and provided a modicum of thrust vectoring.

Note the “jet vane mounting plates” here: http://www.myarmyredstonedays.com/Photos/page8/shell_04.html

And the vanes themselves: http://www.myarmyredstonedays.com/Photos/page8/shell_10.html

“During powered-flight phase, the combined effects of the jet vanes in the exhaust stream of the rocket motor and air rudders on the thrust unit produced the necessary control torque to reposition the missile.” — http://www.myarmyredstonedays.com/page12.html

But I still think the only way to get an initial kickoff with any alacrity at all, is to use a piston-launcher and use inertial reaction to get that plane moving forward.

Re: Launch at balloon burst

A pressure switch a really silly idea. Why? Balloons hold essentially zero gage pressure, just enough to be balanced by the (very small) inward component of the tension of the thin layer of latex. It would be really hard to detect that.

What would be far easier to detect? The change from ~1g gravitational force to ~0g as the balloon bursts and the rig starts to fall. That would also do with a sensor right next to the microcontroller (maybe even built into it) rather than requiring a long (and thus heavy and interference-prone) lead to a delicate and iffy sensor.

Re: Another alternative launch idea

Dangling the aircraft from a string gives no dynamical stability whatsoever on engine ignition. That means it will immediately try to turn around backwards — but with a rocket engine firing, it will simply tumble at random and probably break the airframe. Launch stability is an absolute requirement, and for that we MUST use the mass of the payload package and the effects of a stabilizer rail.

Re: Thrust driven swing wing

As to “how much atmosphere”: we can expect only a few percent of sea-level air pressure. 80,000 feet is about 24km, which is the lower stratosphere[1]. The pressure at 20km is about 5500 Pa or about 5.5% of sea level pressure.

Now, using the formula $F_D = 1/2 /rho v^2 C_d A$ [2] for incompressible flow aerodynamics (LOHAN is not supersonic), we can see the drag is proportional linearly to the air density $/rho$ and quadratically proportional to the airspeed $v$. It’s also linearly proportional to the frontal cross-section area (which would be improved by folding wings) and the drag coefficient (which would probably be impaired by folding wings causing a lumpier shape).

A servo motor would not be particularly heavy, but if it was located in the tail as you suggest it would wreak havoc on the balance even for a light motor — but there is really no need for that motor to be anywhere but near the hinge point. However it would take a long time, probably 30 seconds or so, to extend the wings. By that point the most optimistic benefits of folding wings are certainly gone.

You do have a good idea, though, having a relatively heavy battery in the launcher; it could be used as a heater for the touchy bits of the plane. It would also add mass to the launcher, which would add to dynamical stability on launch.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Atmosphere

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_(physics)

Re: Launch at balloon burst

That would require a box containing the plane which, being large and able to withstand a significant air-pressure difference, would weigh a hell of a lot.

Re: Thrust driven swing wing

The moment resistance of a fixed wing can come from the mechanical properties of the skin, which will be far lighter than a hinge (because the opposite edges will be further apart and therefore subjected to much smaller tensile/compressive forces). Additionally this would obviate the requirement for energy storage for unfolding the wing — and using the engine thrust to open the wing is the worst possible approach, since that would mean unfolding the wing near the maximum airspeed. If you were to unfold the wing you would want it to happen near apogee, where the airspeed stresses are minimal.

The two advantages of swing-wings would be a more compact body at launch (which, given the essentially unlimited space around the craft, is an insignificant benefit) and the nullification of lift forces during the high-speed portion of the flight. But those could be zero anyway, if an airfoil section which is nearly symmetrical is chosen and flaperons are positioned at a slightly negative angle for the launch. Come to think of it, they needn’t even be flaperons; they could be standard ailerons with a lightweight, simple device to give slight negative displacement for the launch.

Re: Balloon Bouyancy

The separation could be made absolutely positive with a piston-launcher system (as I mentioned above); the only issue is the payload bay in the launcher would have to record the launch while undergoing several G’s of opposite acceleration.

Re: Thrust driven swing wing

Problems: complicated and heavy for little benefit. If the plane was being launched on a big rocket and was going supersonic during upward cruise, then folding the wings away would be useful. But since the aerodynamic effects prior to engine ignition are negligible, the weight and complexity are not worthwhile.

Re: wild rotation?

The design can be widely adjusted for reaction effects and responsiveness. If there is no blast plate at all, there is a small drag force (from friction) in the direction the plane launches. Installing a blast plate across the exhaust would capture some of the thrust energy and redirect it perpendicularly, canceling it out.

Another option is to enclose the exhaust gases in a piston-launcher, which turns almost 100% of its initial thrust to pushing on both the launcher and plane; this makes a much stronger reaction force. That kicks against the launcher and violently jolts it — which gives a launch pad that retains stability in free-fall, and also protects nearby delicate bits extremely well.

I have photos that demonstrate the thrust containment; I have built a black-powder piston launcher made entirely of combustible materials. It's untouched (save the blast containment tube, which is a bit cooked) after three launches. It launches 1:48 scale F-104 plastic models with Estes engines.

LOHAN enjoys a silicone lightbulb moment

Let me be the first to point out…

…that your vacuum pump sucks.

Mine’s the one with the vacuum line in the pocket.

LOHAN lifts lid on revised mission summary

Why the blast deflector?

It’s not like you have anything to deflect the blast FROM — those are on ground-based pads to avoid setting grass fires. You’ll be about 15 miles too high to worry about that…

Also, what are the Teflon strips on the bottom edge of the truss for? They have no evident purpose.

Finally, I am in complete agreement about the use of a launch RAIL not a launch rod. It will be possible to get equivalent stiffness with far less mass if you are not depending on a single rigid mounting point. [ahem.]

Terrafugia flies first prototype: Flying cars 'within a year'

I like it.

The nose has a friendly 5mph bumper rather than a whirling propeller. It’s kid-friendly!

NASA: The future of space is public/private partnerships

Re: PROFITS?

I bet, in the longer term, the company that builds a Gauss gun mass-driver in the crater of Olympus Mons to bring Martian minerals into space without using rockets, will make a shockingly great sum of wealth.

El Reg appoints Special Projects Burro

Like everyone at El Reg...

...Aladdin's sure to make an ass of himself. Welcome to the IT crowd, amigo!

LOHAN's fantastical flying truss cleared for lift-off

Temperature coefficient

That should not be too much of a problem; the seals don't need to be really tight since they don't hold pressure for many milliseconds. Leakage is okay. Adjusting the pieces so they slide smoothly and easily coming out of a standard freezer is probably good enough.

Re: Here's my single-balloon idea!

Dynamical instability is the problem. Now go back to your marketing "work".

The aircraft will be initially dynamically unstable. Without a launch rail of some sort it would just flutter around pointlessly instead of flying.

Re: Re: Testing

The exploding-into-flames issue can be solved while increasing initial acceleration, by use of a piston launcher. I have launched rockets from a launcher made of 100% flammable materials (hardwood, balsa and cardboard with no protective coatings) and the piston-launcher does an amazing job of containing the gases while they burned. Caveat: I was using black-powder, not APCP. Be empirical.

The piston launcher will allow you to use the mass of your launch rail and electronics as an inertial anchor and also to get much more efficient use of the first burst of exhaust gases. It works like this: you attach a body tube to the end of the rocket motor using a friction fit. The body tube has external sanded-down centering rings that allow a slightly larger tube to slide freely around it while still maintaining a reasonably airtight seal. The larger tube is closed off at the back end and is solidly anchored to the launcher structure (it faces substantial net forces upon launch). The inner and outer tubes should be connected with a line to disconnect the inner tube from the engine after they pull apart from each other.

When the motor fires it compresses the interior of the tubes, exerting a powerful force on the plane (and, per Newton, on the launch rig) as the two tubes separate. It also contains most of the exhaust from the initial milliseconds of burn, protecting the rig quite effectively.

Squirrelled away: seeds survive 30,000-year winter

In El Reg maths...

70 Grays = 60 Cyans + 45 Magentas + 30 Yellows.

Greenpeace releases 'Cool IT' rankings

As they say on KOL...

I ♣ SEALS

Tame the gas monster with sensors, suckers and a spiffy new fan

Why not solar thermal?

It's low-tech and effective. http://cansolair.com/ is a company based in Newfoundland that converts used drink cans into solar thermal air heaters; one unit, 4'x7', can maintain 1,000 square feet of living space in Newfoundland (so the UK should be fine). Shipping will be a bit pricey, but talk to them, they may know someone in UK/Europe who is making a similar project (or you could make your own if you are feeling hacker-ish).

Jackpot: astronomers tag Goldilocks planet

You couldn't just turn around....

... but you could shut off the engine halfway[1] and then disconnect the engine and reattach it at the front. You could also, in the early stages of the flight, excavate fuel from the cometary nucleus such that the instrument package is buried deep inside; and the fuel would be removed from the aft end to maintain as much shielding as is feasible for the high-speed part of the journey. The goal would be, upon arrival, to have a slender chunk of fuel left over (reinforced by fuel delivery tubes), with the engine at the fore end and the now-uncovered instruments aft. There is really nothing that could be done to absolutely protect the engines in the deceleration phase of flight; there would have to be enough small-ish engines that redundancy could handle the loss of a few from collisions whose damage can't be repaired.

[1] You would actually continue positive acceleration past the exact midway point, since the decreasing fuel mass would result in much greater acceleration magnitude at the end of the flight.

Acceleration is simply change in velocity...

...so speeding up and slowing down are both accelerations in the language of physics.

As far as collisions, yes, dust particles hitting the leading edge at relativistic speeds would emit X rays or gamma rays, and a good sized rock would make a big explosion. You would need a really serious shield.

Why not use your fuel? If you have a fusion motor, your fuel could be a huge ball of ice. If you basically have a cue-ball of ice for fuel with a fusion ion drive attached to it, you can use the fuel as a debris shield without worries about explosions being catastrophic events.

Plus, you can get lots and lots of water ice already in orbit; capture a cometary nucleus in the outer solar system and Bob's your uncle.

We could have that answer soon...

We know that complex organics form readily; look at Titan and Enceladus for that. We also know that in an aqueous environment featuring complex organics and energy input that more complex molecules tend to form. We also know that the first Archaea appeared when the Earth had barely cooled; based on that single data point we can state with reasonable odds that the simplest chemistry of life happening in the lifetime of a planet is not a trillions-and-trillions against chance.

And given that last estimation, and the increasing odds that there are trillions and trillions of planets, we can conclude with decent odds there is, at least, simple life somewhere else.

That of course tells us nothing about the existence of advanced sentient species; we may well be the first of those to exist, at least within our light-cone.

Brit pair deported from US for 'destroy America' tweet

Here's a hint...

...look at the cretin in the Prime Minister's office.

Untangling the question of antimatter mass

IANAP, but...

....I did study university-level physics and I am a keen student, so I will give these questions a shot.

A1) The mass is converted to energy according to the famous Einstein equation I need not repeat here. The photons emitted are gamma rays with LOTS of energy.

A2) That is what the boffins are attempting to determine. AFAIK the only distinction that is definitively known about partices vs. antiparticles is opposite electric charge. This would imply, for example, that there is no such thing as an antineutron. Photons are massless which is equivalent to saying they move at the speed of light; but photons of different wavelength have different energies.

A3) There is a lot of reason to believe that quarks themselves are not fundamental; I refer you to M theory, a.k.a. superstring theory, for elaboration. Brian Greene is an excellent resource.

Russia and NASA plan to COLONISE the Moon

And keep up the terrrorism bullshit?

see title, dumbass.

"The dark side"?

The "dark side" of the moon is no darker than the other side, it simply faces away from Earth. That would be advantageous for radio astronomy, but that's it. OTOH, having zero atmosphere means the most you need to do to eliminate the interference of the sun is to use a shade or occlusion disc, and you would have no need for fancy adaptive optics. OTOOH, you would still need vibration isolation that an orbiting 'scope would not.

A better plan for "spent" nuclear fuel

would be to convert into energy the 99.3% (for CANDU reactors) or 99.5% (for light-water reactors) of the fuel which remains behind, by burning it in a thorium reactor. http://energyfromthorium.com/

I mean, really? Taking 600,000 tons of fuel (just counting the US supply) to THE FAR SIDE OF THE MOON? Seriously, that is a terrible idea.

First ever private rocket to space station in launch delay

"So which other private companies (other than satellite TV providers) has sent cheese into space and back?"

Why, the creators of Wallace and Gromit, of course.

Doomsday Clock ticks one minute closer to annihilation

http://www.thebulletin.org/content/doomsday-clock/overview

The problem...

...is that all the abundance you cite is due to the overexploitation of non-renewable resources; and when they are exhausted we are all royally screwed.

Kids should be making software, not just using it - Gove

It's a good idea, switching teaching Word to the English curriculum and Excel to the mathematics one. Computer courses should be about, well, computers: how they work under the hood. Why is this so seldom the case? Four years ago I took pre-engineering courses here in Canada and there was an eye-gougingly bad MANDATORY course on Word and Excel (which even required us to hand in our assignments on floppies... have you ever heard of servers, you fools?) which was so pointless that I openly rebelled, much to the enjoyment of my fellow students. Things were not much better in actual engineering school. They taught us a dead-end C-based math tool that was less powerful, more abstruse and far, far less common than, say, Python but had the advantage of stroking the ego of the professor, who'd coded the P.O.S. language. Then they proceeded to teach C++ without ever talking about a scripting language. This succeeded in convincing the vast majority of future civil engineers that computers are stupid tools to solve problems with, since if you try to use them to solve a problem you wind up with many more problems and a lot less time on your hands. This is not to say, of course, that C++ is useless. But, in 12 years of Python development (including many scientific and some fairly computationally-intensive tasks) the sum total number of times I have needed to resort to a C-oid module for performance is precisely zero. Which, by my figuring, puts me way ahead of someone who'd slavishly adhered to the only languages I was taught in school (the complete list: BASIC, Fortran, C, C++).

Google's Schmidt strikes Carrier IQ off Xmas card list

Don't Be Evil....

....but feel free to do business with Dr. Evil, that's okay.