It was on the top row. Maybe it's fixed, or perhaps I dreamed it, because now when I go to puzzle 33 I see the word was "BRINGI / NG". Yesterday it was two words "BRI/NG" and "NGI".
I couldn't figure out the start. Finally gave up and got the answers. A word was "NGI"? Huh? Never heard of it, and can't find a definition for it which isn't an acronym.
One of the Wikipedia citations says it's due to storm erosion, not rising sea levels. The effect is as if the island slowly migrates while the lighthouse stays in the same place. Also, in that part of the world the land is still uplifting after the glaciers, at a faster rate than sea level rise, so the sea level is effectively going down.
I'm guessing the restaurant isn't in New Mexico. When I was in South Africa I was going to visit the family of one of my Indian students. He was worried about me, so I explained "red or green." Then, as a test, I got the hottest chicken from Nando's, without breaking a sweat. Only once, in NM, have I reached a v on lalochezia's scale - Did Not Like!
That's ... one way to slant it. Sure, we don't have access to the same materials. (We're not going to use asbestos now.) And we don't have people with the same skills. But we also have better materials and alternative skills. 10 years ago, Pratt & Whitney Aerodyne designed the F-1B (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocketdyne_F-1#F-1B_booster ) based on the F-1 engine, but using a better design and more advanced construction techniques. The design estimate was an engine 15% more powerful than the most advanced Apollo-era engine, cheaper to build, and more reliable. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovD0aLdRUs0 for the slant I prefer. The reason why we don't send people to the moon is there's no good reason which justifies the cost, both in human lives and financial.
Looks like I could stick my hand through the bottom and be able to catch a falling plate. Maybe I should go there and try! Checking ... Err, no. At almost $5,000 and 30 hours of travel to fly to Xi'an it's rather out of my league. (I honestly didn't expect it to be *that* expensive.)
I have a hard time not interpreting it as an infrared photograph. Researching now, Kodak Aerochrome gave the distinctive pink color I'm thinking of. Wikipedia has an example.
There are plenty of people on Earth who want a sustainable city for inhospitable climates. Why not start there? Argentina pays a lot of money to keep their Antarctic colony going, for example. There's plenty of cheap land in our cold deserts, shipping is a lot cheaper, and survivability is rather higher, so I would expect sustainable cities here first, But of course, this is link is more marketecture than anything else. Sigh, I'm getting old and blasé.
A problem with that interpretation of Giovanni Stanchi's picture is that Giuseppe Recco's Still-Life with Fruit and Flowers (ca. 1670, so essentially the same time as Stanchi) shows a much more normal looking watermelon. Stanchi's watermelon looks more like modern "hollow heart" watermelons, likely due to impropert pollination. (Of course I nearly only buy mass-produced store-bought fruit and veg so have little experience with produce outside of that conformity. I'm basing my opinion here on what I've read elsewhere, not personal experience.)
The article says the proposed vehicle uses nuclear thermal propulsion, not nuclear pulse propulsion. I used the average distance to Mars, because the link refers to it as "on average around 140 million miles away". Mars 2020 is using low-energy Hohmann transfer orbit. A three month transit requires a higher-energy orbit, resulting in a shorter travel distance than a low-energy orbit. I don't know how much shorter. My goal was to show that the overall g-force could be very low, though I made the wrong assumption about how the engine operates. A longer trip needs less energy and less (integrated) g-force.
Sure, we don't have access to the same materials. (We're not going to use asbestos now.) And we don't have people with the same skills.
But we also have better materials and alternative skills. 10 years ago, Pratt & Whitney Aerodyne designed the F-1B (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocketdyne_F-1#F-1B_booster ) based on the F-1 engine, but using a better design and more advanced construction techniques. The design estimate was an engine 15% more powerful than the most advanced Apollo-era engine, cheaper to build, and more reliable.
See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovD0aLdRUs0 for the slant I prefer.
The reason why we don't send people to the moon is there's no good reason which justifies the cost, both in human lives and financial.
Maybe I should go there and try! Checking ... Err, no. At almost $5,000 and 30 hours of travel to fly to Xi'an it's rather out of my league. (I honestly didn't expect it to be *that* expensive.)