frankwunderli13.bsky.social
Journalist, technology, spaceflight, batteries, BatterySky
411 posts
236 followers
93 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
Japp. Wahrscheinlich wieder zu starke Vibrationen. Auch die Triebwerke sind deutlich unzuverlässiger geworden.
comment in response to
post
Starship is turning into a disaster for SpaceX. Can't rule out this being the result of, shall we say, dissatisfied workers.
comment in response to
post
Seems I was too busy looking at the stream myself at that time. Good catch.
comment in response to
post
This is just after G+15 min.
comment in response to
post
Here you can see them discussing the orientation in the live stream. They seem to know quite well (gestures before that scene showed how it tipped over as well).
comment in response to
post
Meanwhile, the press conference is live: plus.nasa.gov/scheduled-vi...
comment in response to
post
Didn't see it the first time. This is a screen-grab of a discussion we couldn't hear and I'm pretty sure the guy on the right shows the assumed position of the lander (this followed very clear hand waving indicating a falling-over-motion).
comment in response to
post
Not having trained contingency plans for problems with power generation after the landing is not indicative of professional conduct of any space mission.
They need more planning. Contingencies cannot be intuited.
comment in response to
post
Seems like they have a power generation issue. They don't know the orientation of the lander. Quite possibly another fallen-over moon lander.
The confusion on the intercoms speaks volumes about the company.
comment in response to
post
They are now discussing how to vent the fuel tanks, confused about what would happen when turning on/off which system.
They've had a year since the last flight and didn't have time to practice that or create a checklist?
comment in response to
post
It seems like they are using figures that were fixed half a century ago in 1976. So the result is bullshit. www.who.int/data/gho/ind...
comment in response to
post
Probleme mit der Infrastruktur am Boden, soweit ich weiß.
comment in response to
post
Will the US military go along with Trump? Are there red lines?
comment in response to
post
40 years ago Japan had a wildfire problem that was worse than what they have today. It says so right there in the headline.
comment in response to
post
But not sustainably forever - not without a mathematically (rather than just rhetorical) exponential rise in immigration or births, which is not being observed with respect to the 1940/50s as a baseline.
comment in response to
post
Age standardization doesn't push human life expectancy above 100 years either.
comment in response to
post
There were huge spikes in birth rates too in the past. The timing is just right that it could have prevented the curve from being a bit more smooth.
But regardless of what happened, humans live less than 100 years on average, therefore death rates must rise above 1000 per 100,000 per year.
comment in response to
post
*age at the time of death
comment in response to
post
True. Darn. Sorry.
comment in response to
post
The first babyboomers started to die.
comment in response to
post
Polar bears cross-breed with brown bears all the time. If they were to disappear, brown bears in mostly snowy conditions would develop white fur through selection over time. As we see with artic [insert species here] (foxes, rabbits, leopards etc.) Species are not constant, only speciation is.
comment in response to
post
That's how science works, going all the way back to medival times - and if you don't like William of Occam, I'll refer you to Francis Bacon.
We, as humanity, have been through this many times. Extraordinary claims of collapsing ocean currents require extraordinary evidence, which isn't there.
comment in response to
post
If you claim that there is an invisible pink unicorn in my room, the burden of proof is on you to give me evidence of its existence, instead of telling me that I must prove to you that it isn't there.
comment in response to
post
The scientific consensus, also cited in the paper, is that the THC is stable. Over 90% of models agree with that conclusion AND (importantly!) practical observation.
Models producing instability are outliers and have the burden of proof on them that they reflect reality, not the other way around.
comment in response to
post
It omits the extremely important observation, that the THC has been stable for several thousand years despite major freshwater influx. But it somehow suggests that models reproducing this observations are "stability biased", because there is an early unstable spherical-cow-model of the problem.
comment in response to
post
1) This paper is not by the same author, he is merely a co-author with a minor contribution that completely reflects the paper I cited.
2) The paper follows the same fallacy as the statement "we cannot rule out that there is an invisible unicorn in this room, we must evacuate it at once".
comment in response to
post
Can you give me a link that actually works?
comment in response to
post
Under realistic conditions - most importantly including the lack of LGM-sized ice sheets on earth - the THC is very stable against disruption, because there is not enough freshwater anywhere near the arctic that can flow into it fast enough to accomplish that, by an order of magnitude.
comment in response to
post
In case you didn't notice:
This is a simulation of meltwater pulse 1A that lead to a collapse of the thermohaline circulation (THC), after 4-500 years of this rate of melting of the ice in Canada, Europe and Siberia. Except under present day conditions, with magic freshwater inflow.
comment in response to
post
Yes, for a freshwater forcing of 420.000 cubic meters per second. That's 36.3 cubic kilometers per day or 13,245 cubic kilometers per year. That's a sea level rise of 3.7 meters per century or a complete melting of the Greenland ice-sheet within about 150 years.
Ridiculous.
comment in response to
post
If there is no hysteresis it means that any cooling - such as through reduced thermohaline circulation - will result in warming through a strengthening of the thermohaline circulation without any meaningful delay. Thus: no collapse and no protracted cooling (as seen in NGRIP ice core data).
comment in response to
post
That's not what the conclusion of the paper says.
comment in response to
post
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - and I haven't seen anything of the latter.
comment in response to
post
And who is going to close the Bering Strait to make all that possible? There has been no collapse of the thermohaline circulation ever since sea-levels were higher than about 50m below current levels - the depth of the Bering Strait. www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1...
comment in response to
post
Ich frage mich ja ernsthaft, warum es als Widerspruch gilt. Etwas weniger extreme Positionen in einer extrem dogmatischen Partei werden von außen trotzdem als zu dogmatisch wahrgenommen, während sie von Innen als zu pragmatisch gelten.
Ist das in der heutigen Gesellschaft wirklich so schwer?
comment in response to
post
It's thanks to old politicians and their voters who don't care about solving current an future issues of the "younger" (below 60) population that democracy is in trouble in the first place.
comment in response to
post
Es reicht nicht zu sagen "Demokratie ist die schlechteste Regierungsform, bis auf die anderen, die von Zeit zu Zeit ausprobiert wurden", nachdem man aufgehört hat, andere Optionen auszuprobieren und keine nennenswerten Reformen - trotz bekannter Probleme - mehr durchgeführt hat.
comment in response to
post
Manche (nicht ich) neigen dann dazu, die maximal destruktive Option zu wählen, wenn es keine konstruktive Option mehr gibt. Das ist kein Makel der Wähler, sondern ein Makel der Demokratie, über den nicht genug gesprochen und gegen den nicht effektiv vorgegangen wird. Mit schweren Konsequenzen.
comment in response to
post
Es gibt leider keine politisch effektive Auswahlmöglichkeit "ich bin mit allen Optionen unzufrieden, und zwar aus folgenden Gründen:" auf den Wahlzetteln. Das führt bei einigen zu Hilflosigkeit, wenn alle Wahlmöglichkeiten in der eigenen Lebenserfahrung zu schlechten Ergebnissen führen.