Fandom, TV

Is This Planet Protected?

1,045,443 Comments

The new season of Doctor Who began today with a very triumphant debut of the Eleventh Doctor. There is a definite shift in tone from the previous series (or non-series as it was), and I think this is exactly the episode to reset with. The introduction of Amy Pond was the best companion beginning yet, and I already love her. The rest of the plot didn’t really blow my mind, but the nod to the previous Doctors was glorious and brought out an actual cheer. I think Eleven is a very capable incarnation and I look forward to seeing him in action week after week.

I’m already re-watching because I let a lot of information slip past me the first time. I also want to compile a list of “clues” to watch for as the series progresses because I think there will be quite the payoff with this writing team. For instance, there is a blue lens flare that lingers for a considerable amount of time when there is no known source of light for that scene. Hmmmm. I’m also curious about the possible significance of the “Myth” laptop. Each of those things may be inconsequential, of course, or they could be related to the coming Silence. Who knows?

Who knows, indeed!! *ahem*

1,045,443 thoughts on “Is This Planet Protected?”

  1. What New Glenn will do
    In some ways, New Glenn has already made its mark on the launch industry. Blue Origin has for years pitched the rocket to compete with both SpaceX and United Launch Alliance — a joint venture of Boeing and Lockheed Martin that buys engines from Blue Origin — for lucrative military launch contracts.
    omg ?????
    The US Space Force selected Blue Origin, ULA and SpaceX in June to compete for $5.6 billion worth of Pentagon contracts for national security missions slated to launch over the next four years.
    Blue Origin also has deals with several commercial companies to launch satellites. The contracts include plans to help deploy Amazon’s Kuiper internet satellites and a recently inked deal with AST SpaceMobile to help launch the Midland, Texas-based company’s space-based cellular broadband network.

    New Glenn could also be instrumental in building Blue Origin’s planned space station, called Orbital Reef. Blue Origin and it commercial partners, including Sierra Space and Boeing, among others, hope the station will one day provide a new destination for astronauts as the International Space Station is phased out of service.
    https://omgprice10.com
    omg ??????
    New Glenn vs. other powerful rockets
    New Glenn packs significant power. Dubbed a “heavy-lift” vehicle, its capabilities lie between SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket and the more powerful Falcon Heavy launch vehicle.

    SpaceX’s workhorse Falcon 9, for example, can haul up to 22.8 metric tons (50,265 pounds) to space. While New Glenn is capable of carrying about double that mass, it may also be roughly the same price as a Falcon 9: reportedly around $60 million to $70 million per launch.

    “I think in order to compete with Falcon 9, you have to go head-to-head or better on price,” said Caleb Henry, the director of research at Quilty Space, which provides data and analysis about the space sector.

    The question, however, is whether Blue Origin will be able to sustain a competitive price point, Henry added.

    Still, one feature that makes New Glenn stand out is its large payload fairing, or nose cone. The component protects the cargo bay and is a whopping 23 feet (7 meters) wide — nearly 6 feet (2 meters) larger than that of SpaceX’s Falcon 9 or Falcon Heavy.

    Henry said Blue Origin likely opted to outfit New Glenn with such a large fairing in order to help fulfill Bezos’ vision of the future.

    Reply

  9. It’s perfect time to make a few plans for the longer term and it’s time to be happy.

    I have read this put up and if I may I want to counsel you some interesting things or tips.
    Perhaps you could write subsequent articles regarding this article.

    I want to read even more things about it!

    Reply

  12. Chile’s President Boric leads journey to South Pole in historic trip
    kraken ??? ???????

    Chile’s President Gabriel Boric travelled to Antarctica’s South Pole on Friday, a place where no other Latin American president has set foot, according to the Chilean government.

    Boric led the historic two-day trip, named Operation Pole Star III, to extend the environmental monitoring of pollutants on Antarctica, Chile’s government said in a statement.

    He travelled with scientists, armed forces commanders and government ministers from the Chilean capital of Santiago to Punta Arenas, a city in southern Chile, public broadcaster Television Nacional de Chile (TVN) reported. From there, they made several stops before finally reaching the US-run Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station, according to TVN.
    https://kra23s.cc
    kraken shop

    Chile is one of seven countries that has a territorial claim in Antarctica, alongside Argentina, Australia, France, New Zealand, Norway and the United Kingdom.

    It is also a signatory of the Antarctic Treaty, which dictates that the continent may only be used for peaceful and scientific purposes.

    While Chile has historically carried out scientific activity in Antarctica’s northern sector, the country’s government is now hoping to expand research into the west of the continent, its statement said.
    Boric called his trip to the South Pole an “honor” and a source of pride, TVN reported.

    “This is a milestone for us. It is the first time a Chilean and Latin American President has visited the South Pole,” he said, according to TVN.

    Reply

  13. On a long-dormant pad in Florida, a rocket that could challenge SpaceX’s dominance is poised to launch
    kra25 cc

    On a Florida launchpad that has been dormant for almost two decades, a new, roughly 320-foot (98-meter) rocket — developed by Jeff Bezos’ company Blue Origin — is poised for its maiden flight.

    The uncrewed launch vehicle, called New Glenn, will mark Blue Origin’s first attempt to send a rocket to orbit, a feat necessary if the company hopes to chip away at SpaceX’s long-held dominance in the industry.

    New Glenn is set to lift off from Cape Canaveral Space Force Station as early as next week.
    https://kra23s.cc
    kraken ???????
    The rocket, which stands about as tall as a 30-story building, consists of several parts: The first-stage rocket booster gives the initial thrust at liftoff. Atop the booster is an upper rocket stage that includes a cargo bay protected by a nose cone that will house experimental technology for this mission.

    And, in an attempt to replicate the success that SpaceX has found reusing rocket boosters over the past decade, Blue Origin will also aim to guide New Glenn’s first-stage rocket booster back to a safe landing on a seafaring platform — named Jacklyn for Bezos’ mother — minutes after takeoff.

    Like SpaceX, Blue Origin will seek to recover, refurbish and reuse first-stage rocket boosters to drive down costs.

    For this inaugural mission, a smooth flight is not guaranteed.

    But the eventual success of New Glenn, named after storied NASA astronaut John Glenn, is instrumental to some of Blue Origin’s most ambitious goals.

    The rocket could one day power national security launches, haul Amazon internet satellites to space and even help in the construction of a space station that Blue Origin is developing with commercial partners.

    Reply

  14. The survivors of recent crashes were sitting at the back of the plane. What does that tell us about airplane safety?
    kraken ?????

    Look at the photos of the two fatal air crashes of the last two weeks, and amid the horror and the anguish, one thought might come to mind for frequent flyers.

    The old frequent-flyer adage is that sitting at the back of the plane is a safer place to be than at the front — and the wreckage of both Azerbaijan Airlines flight 8243 and Jeju Air flight 2216 seem to bear that out.
    https://kra23c.cc
    kraken market
    The 29 survivors of the Azeri crash were all sitting at the back of the plane, which split into two, leaving the rear half largely intact. The sole survivors of the South Korean crash, meanwhile, were the two flight attendants in their jumpseats in the very tail of the plane.

    So is that old adage — and the dark humor jokes about first and business class seats being good until there’s a problem with the plane — right after all?

    In 2015, TIME Magazine reporters wrote that they had combed through the records of all US plane crashes with both fatalities and survivors from 1985 to 2000, and found in a meta-analysis that seats in the back third of the aircraft had a 32% fatality rate overall, compared with 38% in the front third and 39% in the middle third.

    Even better, they found, were middle seats in that back third of the cabin, with a 28% fatality rate. The “worst” seats were aisles in the middle third of the aircraft, with a 44% fatality rate.
    But does that still hold true in 2024?

    According to aviation safety experts, it’s an old wives’ tale.

    “There isn’t any data that shows a correlation of seating to survivability,” says Hassan Shahidi, president of the Flight Safety Foundation. “Every accident is different.”

    “If we’re talking about a fatal crash, then there is almost no difference where one sits,” says Cheng-Lung Wu, associate professor at the School of Aviation of the University of New South Wales, Sydney.

    Ed Galea, professor of fire safety engineering at London’s University of Greenwich, who has conducted landmark studies on plane crash evacuations, warns, “There is no magic safest seat.”

    Reply

  15. Most plane crashes are ‘survivable’
    kraken ???
    First, the good news. “The vast majority of aircraft accidents are survivable, and the majority of people in accidents survive,” says Galea. Since 1988, aircraft — and the seats inside them — must be built to withstand an impact of up to 16G, or g-force up to 16 times the force of gravity. That means, he says, that in most incidents, “it’s possible to survive the trauma of the impact of the crash.”

    For instance, he classes the initial Jeju Air incident as survivable — an assumed bird strike, engine loss and belly landing on the runway, without functioning landing gear. “Had it not smashed into the concrete reinforced obstacle at the end of the runway, it’s quite possible the majority, if not everyone, could have survived,” he says.

    The Azerbaijan Airlines crash, on the other hand, he classes as a non-survivable accident, and calls it a “miracle” that anyone made it out alive.
    https://kra23c.cc
    ??????
    Most aircraft involved in accidents, however, are not — as suspicion is growing over the Azerbaijan crash — shot out of the sky.

    And with modern planes built to withstand impacts and slow the spread of fire, Galea puts the chances of surviving a “survivable” accident at at least 90%.

    Instead, he says, what makes the difference between life and death in most modern accidents is how fast passengers can evacuate.

    Aircraft today must show that they can be evacuated in 90 seconds in order to gain certification. But a theoretical evacuation — practiced with volunteers at the manufacturers’ premises — is very different from the reality of a panicked public onboard a jet that has just crash-landed.
    Galea, an evacuation expert, has conducted research for the UK’s Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) looking at the most “survivable” seats on a plane. His landmark research, conducted over several years in the early 2000s, looked at how passengers and crew behaved during a post-crash evacuation, rather than looking at the crashes themselves. By compiling data from 1,917 passengers and 155 crew involved in 105 accidents from 1977 to 1999, his team created a database of human behavior around plane crashes.

    His analysis of which exits passengers actually used “shattered many myths about aircraft evacuation,” he says. “Prior to my study, it was believed that passengers tend to use their boarding exit because it was the most familiar, and that passengers tend to go forward. My analysis of the data demonstrated that none of these myths were supported by the evidence.”

    Reply

  16. ??????? ??? ????????? ?????? ? ?????? ? ??????? ????????? ?????? ?????? ? ?????? ? ??????? – ??? ?? ?????? ??????, ? ????????? ?????????, ??????????? ??????? ????? ??????? ????????? ????????? ???????? ? ???????????? ???. ? ???????? ?????????? ????????? ????? ? ??????????? ?????? ?????? ?????????? ????????? ????????????: ????, ????? ?? ???, ???????? ? ???? ?????? ???????? ????????. ?? ?????????? ???????????????? ?????????, ??????? ???????? ? ???? ??????????? ?????? ????????? ? ?????????????????? ???????? ????????, ?????????? ??? ????????. https://???????????????.online/ ???????? ??? ????????? ?????? ? ?????? ? ???????

    Reply

  17. Scientists have identified an estimated 10% of all species on Earth. Here’s what they found in 2024
    ?????? ???

    A toothy toadstool. A vegetarian piranha with a distinctive mark. And a pygmy pipehorse floating in the Indian Ocean shallows.

    These wild wonders were among the hundreds of previously unknown species of animals, plants and fungi that scientists named and described for the first time in 2024, expanding our surprisingly limited knowledge of Earth’s diversity.

    “Scientists estimate that we’ve identified only one-tenth of all species on Earth,” said Dr.
    Shannon Bennett, chief of science at the California Academy of Sciences, in a statement.

    https://kra23c.cc
    kraken ??????????? ????
    “While it is critical to place protections on known threatened species, we must also allocate resources towards identifying unknown species that may be just as important to the functioning of an ecosystem,” Bennett said.

    Researchers connected to the institution described 138 new species in 2024, including 32 fish. One standout was a pygmy pipehorse named Cylix nkosi. The seahorse relative was originally found in 2021 in the cool temperate waters surrounding the North Island of New Zealand, but the species described this year was discovered in the subtropical waters off South Africa, expanding the known range of this group to the Indian Ocean

    “South African reefs present notoriously difficult diving conditions with rough weather and intense, choppy waves — we knew we only had one dive to find it,” underwater photographer and marine biologist Richard Smith said in a statement.
    “This species is also quite cryptic, about the size of a golf tee, but luckily we spotted a female camouflaged against some sponges about a mile offshore on the sandy ocean floor.”

    The researchers involved in describing the new species chose nkosi as its name. A reference to the local Zulu word for “chief,” the name reflects the species’ crown-like head shape and acknowledges South Africa’s KwaZulu-Natal province where it was found.

    Reply

  24. I love your blog.. very nice colors & theme. Did you make
    this website yourself or did you hire someone to do it for you?
    Plz reply as I’m looking to construct my own blog and would like to know where u got this from.

    cheers

    Reply

  26. New Glenn’s first flight
    Blue Origin formally announced the development of New Glenn — which aims to outpower SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rockets and haul spacecraft up to 45 metric tons (99,200 pounds) to orbit — in 2016.
    ?????? ???
    The vehicle is long overdue, as the company previously targeted 2020 for its first launch.

    Delays, however, are common in the aerospace industry. And the debut flight of a new vehicle is almost always significantly behind schedule.

    Rocket companies also typically take a conservative approach to the first liftoff, launching dummy payloads such as hunks of metal or, as was the case with SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy debut in 2018, an old cherry red sports car.
    https://kra23att.cc
    kraken shop
    Blue Origin has also branded itself as a company that aims to take a slow, diligent approach to rocket development that doesn’t “cut any corners,” according to Bezos, who founded Blue Origin and funds the company.

    The company’s mascot is a tortoise, paying homage to “The Tortoise and the Hare” fable that made the “slow and steady wins the race” mantra a childhood staple.

    “We believe slow is smooth and smooth is fast,” Bezos said in 2016. Those comments could be seen as an attempt to position Blue Origin as the anti-SpaceX, which is known to embrace speed and trial-and-error over slow, meticulous development processes.
    But SpaceX has certainly won the race to orbit. The company’s first orbital rocket, the Falcon 1, made a successful launch in September 2008. The company has deployed hundreds of missions to orbit since then.

    And while SpaceX routinely destroys rockets during test flights as it begins developing a new rocket, the company has a solid track record for operational missions. SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket, for example, has experienced two in-flight failures and one launchpad explosion but no catastrophic events during human missions.

    Reply

  37. With havin so much content do you ever run into any problems of plagorism
    or copyright violation? My website has a lot of unique content I’ve either created myself or
    outsourced but it looks like a lot of it is popping it up all over
    the internet without my agreement. Do you know any ways to help protect against content from being ripped off?
    I’d certainly appreciate it.

    Reply

  49. The survivors of recent crashes were sitting at the back of the plane. What does that tell us about airplane safety?
    kra cc

    Look at the photos of the two fatal air crashes of the last two weeks, and amid the horror and the anguish, one thought might come to mind for frequent flyers.

    The old frequent-flyer adage is that sitting at the back of the plane is a safer place to be than at the front — and the wreckage of both Azerbaijan Airlines flight 8243 and Jeju Air flight 2216 seem to bear that out.
    https://kra23c.cc
    kraken ?????
    The 29 survivors of the Azeri crash were all sitting at the back of the plane, which split into two, leaving the rear half largely intact. The sole survivors of the South Korean crash, meanwhile, were the two flight attendants in their jumpseats in the very tail of the plane.

    So is that old adage — and the dark humor jokes about first and business class seats being good until there’s a problem with the plane — right after all?

    In 2015, TIME Magazine reporters wrote that they had combed through the records of all US plane crashes with both fatalities and survivors from 1985 to 2000, and found in a meta-analysis that seats in the back third of the aircraft had a 32% fatality rate overall, compared with 38% in the front third and 39% in the middle third.

    Even better, they found, were middle seats in that back third of the cabin, with a 28% fatality rate. The “worst” seats were aisles in the middle third of the aircraft, with a 44% fatality rate.
    But does that still hold true in 2024?

    According to aviation safety experts, it’s an old wives’ tale.

    “There isn’t any data that shows a correlation of seating to survivability,” says Hassan Shahidi, president of the Flight Safety Foundation. “Every accident is different.”

    “If we’re talking about a fatal crash, then there is almost no difference where one sits,” says Cheng-Lung Wu, associate professor at the School of Aviation of the University of New South Wales, Sydney.

    Ed Galea, professor of fire safety engineering at London’s University of Greenwich, who has conducted landmark studies on plane crash evacuations, warns, “There is no magic safest seat.”

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *