18 thoughts on “Light Posting”

    1. Maybe because people might ask what is nonotheists?
      I might be considered an agnostic, but I don’t particularly want to be known as agnostic.

      I don’t have an argument for the idea that God is unknowable,
      other than perhaps, that one could also say, that it appears majority of existence is, likewise, unknowable.
      I don’t believe that more than 90% of matter in this universe is not
      blackholes or the other type of matter we are familiar with.
      Or I believe we know more, but I am not sure.
      Maybe 99.9% of the mass of this particular universe is unknown stuff.

      1. Have people become afraid of the term atheist thanks to the “Godless Commies” think and maybe the assholish antics of Madelyn Murray O’Hare? The one thing you know is, an agnostic is an honest person. “Might be a Santy Claus, might not. Whose to say the Tooth Fairy ain’t leavin them prezzies?” (Something I said when I was 7, which got me sent to the principal.)

    2. Because the opposite of theist is atheist. Agnostic is an admission of cluelessness (about the existence of God), much misued nowadays. “Launcher agnostic” is pretty much meaningless. Maybe we can coin the phrase “launcher polyamorous?” On the theory a payload tied to a specific rocket is “launcher monogamous?”

  1. “To determine where dry ice might be located in the lunar polar craters, Norbert Schorghofer of the Planetary Science Institute and colleagues determined temperatures in these craters using 11 years of observations by the Diviner instrument aboard NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter. Diviner measures the amount of visible and infrared light coming from the Moon. Using these measurements, surface temperatures can be computed with a precision of ±7°F (4°C). From these temperatures, the team calculated the sublimation rate of dry ice, which is the rate at which solid carbon dioxide becomes gaseous and would escape from the Moon. Schorghofer and colleagues estimate that the amount of dry ice deposited on the Moon is between about 0.02 inches (roughly the thickness of a fingernail) and 2 inches every billion years. For the sublimation rate to be less than this delivery rate, the temperature must be below -370°F (-223°C, 50 K). Based on this result, between 41 and 147 square miles (106 and 381 square kilometers) of the area near the lunar south pole are cold enough to trap dry ice, about 40% of which are within Amundsen Crater. These results reveal a potentially important resource for future lunar colonies since dry ice is useful in fuels and for sustaining life.”

  2. Here’s a dumb question:

    CO2 + 2H2O = CH4 + 2O2, right? (Counting molecules on my fingers again…)

    The Raptor mixture ratio is 3.6, or 78% O2 and 22% CH4. Is that by mass, molecular weight, or tank volume? Everybody here but me probably knows the answer.

    1. I am not a rocket engineer, but here’s a thread from reddit that might help:


      From that, apropos of your question were these comments:

      madplayshd 6 yr. ago
      Stoichiometric ratio is 2:1. 2O2 + CH4 -> CO2 + 2H2O.

      [deleted] 6 yr. ago
      That’s a molar basis. For rocketry, we use a mass basis.

      LtWigglesworth 6 yr. ago
      Mass Ratio vs Molar Ratio. 2mol* 32g/mol :1mol * 16g/mol

      Hope that helps. The claim is stoichiometric ratios are rarely used in rocketry calculations because the mix is usually run rich to keep components cooler. Except of course in the case of O2 rich which the oxidizer pre-burner for Raptor is running. Secret sauce metallurgy in play there. Or maybe that’s my ignorance showing. If anyone can enlighten me on that I’d appreciate it.

      Is mix ratio held constant? Is that an Rvac ratio vs Rsl?

    2. 2.7 LOX kg mass to 1 kg mass of Methane is about Musk’s rocket fuel

      6 kg LOX kg to 1 kg LH2 is about LOX/LH2 rocket fuel

      9 kg of Water makes 8 Kg LOX to 1 Kg LH2

      Volume rocket fuel is more liquid Methane or liquid Hydrogen to volume of Liquid Oxygen.
      When burn Raptor engine you get H2O and CO2 and CO
      Or to make Raptor mixture need H20, CO2, and CO
      Or Carbon, Hydrogen, and Oxygen
      Though with CO2 on Lunar surface you could make CO + O2 rocket fuel, or with H2 you make water and methane.
      One advantage of having CO2 is you can store liquid Methane easier than liquid Hydrogen.
      So, storing some gasous hydrogen in large volume tank to make Liquid Methane into smaller tanks.
      Or another way to look at it, is when you make rocket fuel from water, you get a surplus of Oxygen, you can balance the surplus {get rid of it} by making more mass of Liquid Methane rocket fuel.
      Anyhow having enough CO2 on the Moon, makes lunar water more mineable. Or you could mine lunar water if has less concentration of H20 per cubic meter of ore.
      But it seems lunar water per kg is worth more than CO2, but CO2 could be easier to mine even if lower concentration than water, though the higher the concentration of CO2 is obviously better. The more concentration of CO2, cheaper the CO2, and the more minable is a lower concentration of water, is.

  3. Here’s a smarter question: which 19th century belief system has done more damage to humanity, Psychoanalysis or Marxism? Marxism is more overt, but I’d vote for Psychoanalysis, as the damage is more personal and pervasive.

    1. I think you meant to say Psychiatry in general. Psychoanalysis is only one small part of the overall profession and is strictly based on observation therapy w/o the drugs.

      And if you disagree, I get to zap you and step up to the next higher voltage. What’s not to like?

    2. One thing the two have in common is that both true believers and haters talk as though they were created ex nihilo by their founding prophets. The evidence is obvious that Socialism existed before Marx and psychiatry existed before Freud, just as Reform Judaism existed before Jesus.

      1. The fact is, Marx and Engels created Marxism (the word I used) and Freud created Psychoanalisys (the word I used). As for ex nihilo, socialism was coined in 1832, psychiatry in1808, so yes, those words existed. Too bad that’s not what I was talking about. The fact is, you can asert anything you want by redefining terms, and isn’t that what good Marxists do?

    3. To billions of people, Marxism.
      Drugging, electrifying, and staring at your navel, probably directly
      harmed the western world, the most.
      Marxism murdered the poor, and the shrinks damaged people who had enough money.

      1. That’s what most people choose, because, as I noted, the harm Marxism does seems more overt and is more easily perceived by people who don’t want to look beyond that. However, we’re not talking about shrinks harming rich people,we’re talking about the fact that the ideas of Psychoanalysis have seeped into every espect of our society. A good case can be made that Psychoanalysis opened the door for Marxism. If you think about it, Marxism accomplished little in the 70 years between the publication of The Communist Manifesto and the October Revolution, because until the late 1890s, Psychoanalysis hadn’t prepared the battlespace for it. An equally good case can be made that Psychoanalysis paved the way for Adolph Hitler. There’s a wonderdully rediculous book called “The Psychopathic God” by Robert Waite that everyone should read. Wikipedia is full of this stuff because the Wikkijackasses love it. A good starting place is “The Hermanuetics of Suspicion,” which relates Marx, Freud, and Nietsche. Also hilarious, with links to the much broader theoretical discussions.

Comments are closed.