Yeah science needs to make sure the 1 is without a doubt 1 and 2 is absolutely 2 just so they can figure out what 3 is.

And even then there is always the chance that 1 isn’t quite correct.

We can’t even see dark energy with our equipment. It’s called “dark energy” for a reason.

> They now think the dark energy is vacuum energy in older black holes .

That may be the case, but this is not how science works. Science isn't some Matlock-esque stage play where the hero rushes up, presents incontrovertible evidence, everyone says "yeah, that explains it" and then that's the end. Science is almost always a slow process of building a case piece by piece, layer by layer, which incrementally increases the likelihood of one specific explanation (competing theory) being true while eliminating alternative explanations.

The new idea of black holes being a source of dark energy is right now just a competing hypothesis, not an accepted fact. It may be true, it may not be, we don't know because we don't have enough observational evidence to say for sure. Science is the process of figuring out how to attempt to falsify a theory, collecting observational data, and seeing the results. It's possible that this theory will ultimately win out, but right now it's still just one of many potential ideas about dark energy.

It's like a regular telescope, but wearing a toga!

Let's just call it the Roman Space Telescope or RST for short.

This telescope is mostly a survey instrument, able to image roughly 1/4 of the sky every 5 years to a resolution of 0.11 arcseconds. For comparison, Hubble's resolution maxes out at 0.04 arcseconds, so it won't be quite at that level but it'll still be an enormous amount of very high quality data. Because of its large field of view and 0.3 gigapixel camera it'll return well over a terabyte of data per day (compared to JWST's ~30 gigabytes per day). Combined with JWST and the Vera Rubin Observatory these next generation telescopes will very much usher in a new era of high throughput data-rich astronomy.

You never forget your first time. Stay starstruck!

The Tucker Carlson Center for Climate Science and Immunology.

>Space launch costs have dropped like a stone over the last decade or two, but it still ain't cheap to lift mass into orbit – SpaceX's best prices are still well over US$1,000 per kilogram (2.2 lb).

People have SERIOUSLY not internalized what's about to happen.

I felt my blood pressure rise for a minute

Thank you lmao I was about to google “wtf does Nancy Grace have to do with telescopes” 😅

More importantly, what's a Grecian Urn?

Hmm… some solid Ace vibes here:

>What the...that's it. That's it. Einhorn is Finkle. Finkle is Einhorn! Einhorn is a MAN! OH MY GOD! EINHORN IS A MAN?!

bug on physicists wall overhears:

>What the… that’s it. That’s it. Dark matter is black hole. Black hole is Dark matter. Dark matter is a BLACK HOLE! OH MY GOD! DARK MATTER IS A BLACK HOLE?!

They are supposed to launch this year. Even NASA and the Chinese are heavy into 3D printing rockets. Rocket Lab has been launching 3D printed rocket engines with success. There are dozens of other companies trying to make the engines the same way.

For me, it is the engineering aspect that I find the more intriguing. A kind of applied evolution to creating optimal structures. :)

It's the same in the medical field as well. Extensive V&V for any 'new' device, even if it's based on predicate devices. I think a lot of laypeople aren't aware of the quality and regulatory requirements already in place for industries like these.

[deleted]

Good to know. I started looking up Roman Space Telescope.

That was my first thought.... Poor woman had to live with that name.

But the cost of ink and the cost of producing a rocket is almost the same!

[removed]

Voids are expected in castings, especially steel castings. We do our best to design the tooling to minimize it. However, we also factor those expected defects into the (derating fatigue, for example) material properties when we do our FEA analysis. It seems like these 3D printed designs would be no different.

[removed]

[removed]

I was gonna say, does it yell at a camera with overwrought indignation?

Horrible tv personality!?! Sounds like Grace is Under Fire here.

I hear what your saying. I should mention that I am a mechanical engineer. And to directly address your original post. Your concerned that it’s not clear that the part is designed to appropriately handle the loads or that conditions may change and it may no longer work properly.

The part design can only be robust enough to handle the conditions it is designed for. Getting the right requirements is the first step of the design process. If the requirements change the part would need to be totally re evaluated. This would be true wether it’s designed traditionally or not.

Both methods evaluate the part in the same way. The same simulation of the part would be done (fea). I don’t see any point where the engineer would not be sure if the part can withstand load conditions given. There’s no hidden magic.

TL/DR Wether it’s an organic shape or traditional design. They are evaluated for suitability/ strength the same way. And in both cases the design is only as good as the requirements given. If requirements change, designs always need to be re-evaluated no matter the method the geometry was formed.