Nuclear engines tend to be both heavy and have low thrust, which mostly cancels out the Isp advantage.

What medical applications?

The problem with hibernation for space travel is that you need to figure out a way to test it on humans, and I don't see how you can get approval to do that in the west.

This might help:

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/72174/why-do-moving-particles-emit-thermal-radiation

Radiation is all about bodies emitting photons, where the amount of energy depends upon how hot the body is. That's why fires feel warm, infrared heaters feel warm, and the sun feels warm.

Conduction is about direct heat transfer. Heat is just thermal movement of the atoms in a body, so put that in contact with a colder body and the hot atoms run into the colder atoms and make them move faster, transferring heat.

Convection is the same as conduction, except that the transfer is done through air.

Go to Taunton.com and buy one of their deck building books.

Go to your permitting authority and ask for their guidelines and code requirements for building decks.

I'm just pointing out that announced launches do not always translate to actual launches.

Which orbits?

Wrt fairings, iirc SpaceX has an extended fairing launch as part of NSSL. They also have a vertical integration one.

The big government program is NSSL , and both SpaceX and ULA are certified to do all of their launches, as that was a requirement to bid. And NASA has chosen falcon heavy for Europa clipper, a high energy mission.

What launches is ULA able to do that SpaceX can't?

Amazon has bought a ton of capacity but we don't know the details of those contracts. Amazon may have the ability to flex to the provider that is more successful or cheaper.

AR hadn't made an engine since the rs-68, and that's a gas generator.

That ULA chose to go with blue origin is either an indication of what they think of AR's technical ability, of how much AR wanted, or some mix of the two.

Currently sf uses NSSL to buy most of their launches from SpaceX and ULA, and others they contract out individually.

In their proposed new approach, they do pretty much the same.

The real question is how many of the launches that would have been in the first category get moved to the second.

There's no shielding behind the reactor so there's a ton of radiation coming out. The hydrogen won't be radioactive.

I support the ntr program because I also want to see somebody try to do one for real.

That doesn't mean I think they will be practical. The NASA reactor program is very conservative in their mass goals, and I can't find any details on what this project is actually trying to build.

NEP need to get rid of lots of waste heat. The designs I've seen either used massive radiators or liquid metal and high temperatures. Neither is particularly exciting.

The inside of blood vessels have epithelial cells and a really weird coating known as the glycocalyx.

There are things that damage the glycocalyx and epithelial cells and processes that work to repair them. Some of the compounds in smog are excellent at causing damage, and that increases risk.

Here's a reference for you.

The energy to get to Mars and Venus is much, much less than it takes to get to the gas giant moons.

This is a bit confusing and there's a lot of incorrect information out there.

The aerobic system - which gives you power for low-intensity efforts - is dual-fuel. There is a pathway where it can be fueled by glucose (glycolysis/pyruvate oxidation) and another one where it can be fueled by fatty acids (beta oxidation). Both of those paths feed into what is known variously as the Krebs cycle or the TCA cycle.

The obvious question is how the body determines whether to burn fat or glucose. It's a bit complicated.

If your blood glucose is elevated from carb intake, your body will preferentially burn glucose to try to get the blood glucose to go back down.

If blood glucose is normal, then the body will burn glucose and fat based on the kind of training you have done. Mostly high carb training, you will burn glucose. Mostly low-carb training, you will burn more fat.

At higher intensities, the additional power only comes from glucose. So a highly-trained aerobic system is better for burning fat.

So, if you want to burn a lot of fat, you need to train your body with extended periods of zone 2 training without much glucose around. Fasted is the best, but you need to transition gradually or you can run out of glucose ("bonk"), which is no fun.

This also means that the idea that you should "eat carbs to fuel your workout" is bad advice for those who want to lose weight.

Because the CEOs are playing a different game than you think they are playing.

CEOs are part of a club where they end up with golden parachutes - they make a lot of money even if the company does poorly - and their compensation is decided by their corporate boards, where board members are paid to be on the board.

This is true to a lesser degree in management in most companies - you become successful in management by how well you fit in and play the political games in the company. Being better at your job is not required and can actually be problematic as it makes others look bad.

There are special glass cleaners for wood stove doors.

Insulin has a lifetime of about 5-6 minutes in the bloodstream - it is degraded by the insulin-sensitive tissues and also by the liver.

If somebody has insulin resistance or type 2 diabetes, they have hyperinsulinemia. This is because their body is constantly producing excess insulin because their liver is producing excess glucose.

Look at the NASA kilopower designs, and the KRUSTY testbed.

Fission gives free heat if you are either a) willing to build a heat-transfer system to get the heat where you want it or b) live right next to a nuclear reactor.

I've been foreperson on a couple of juries, one criminal, one civil.

In my state, jury decisions must be unanimous. Criminal trials require "beyond a reasonable doubt", and civil trails require "with a preponderance of evidence".

One of the interesting things about being on a jury is that jury members are forbidden to discuss anything about the trial during the trial and only talk about it when they are in deliberations.

The jury will get very specific instructions from the judge as to the specific legal requirements for finding guilt, and the jury will spend a lot of time discussing what those mean. If they have questions, they can ask the judge for clarification.

For criminal cases, it's difficult to convict because of the high standard. The case I was on was fairly easy as the prosecution witnesses were not deemed to be credible.

Our civil case was a bit easier to come to agreement on because a) it's not about putting somebody in jail and b) the jury gets to decide the monetary awards, which gives them a lot of flexibility. In the civil case I did 11 of us converged quickly but we had one holdout - we were able to reach an agreement by changing the award structure so that the person who won didn't get much in the way of damages.

That is generally my belief - they are mostly in the "wouldn't it be great" category.

I do support the NASA program because there's an open question as to practicality of NTR engines and I think settling those kinds of questions aligns well with NASA's charter.