231–240 of 264 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would evolutionary timelines or cycles be slower in an overall colder planet? (Thinking of those interactive diagrams for temperature on the kinetic energy of molecules zooming around in closed space)
Well, at least that seems to be the case on earth. Creatures from the cold deep sea have slower life cycles than creatures in the tropics.
Nitpicking, I know, but to call it "Planet Ceres" in the title is more than a bit wrong. This is a dwarf planet at best and is also often classified as a really big asteroid (the only one in the asteroid belt that's rounded by its own gravity). If even the much larger Pluto can't get the "Planet" title, Ceres hardly deserves to be called that in a headline from a major newspaper.
Ceres is a good place for a lander and rover then. Might be some action there. Face it, Luna and Mars are boring, low-value real estate.
You think Mars is boring?? I think it's exciting. The more evidence we find that life may have existed there, the less valid our mythical creation stories of earth as the special only recipient of God's hand. Mythology is fun but it's given too much power in certain societies, while science and truth are devalued in turn.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We'll eventually get to the point where Starship-like rockets only ferry people, cargo, and, maybe, propellant to LEO for transfer to spaceships that don't need to go deep into any gravity well. These ships will then take you to orbit around your destination so you can board another shuttle to the surface.
That would be massively inefficient for travel to Mars, because you can Aerobrake to land and make fuel on Mars for your return.
Nitpicking, I know, but to call it "Planet Ceres" in the title is more than a bit wrong. This is a dwarf planet at best and is also often classified as a really big asteroid (the only one in the asteroid belt that's rounded by its own gravity). If even the much larger Pluto can't get the "Planet" title, Ceres hardly deserves to be called that in a headline from a major newspaper.
Nitpicking, I know, but to call it "Planet Ceres" in the title is more than a bit wrong. This is a dwarf planet at best and is also often classified as a really big asteroid (the only one in the asteroid belt that's rounded by its own gravity). If even the much larger Pluto can't get the "Planet" title, Ceres hardly deserves to be called that in a headline from a major newspaper.
>>If even the much larger Pluto can't get the "Planet" title Damn you Neil deGrasse Tyson Pluto is and always well be a planet
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That would be massively inefficient for travel to Mars, because you can Aerobrake to land and make fuel on Mars for your return.
You could probably aerobrake to get into orbit instead. But eventually it might make sense to build ships that are never supposed to touch atmospheres, or only upper layers. Some design constraints can be relaxed then.
How it will likely work is passengers will take a Starship to orbit. It will be refueled in LEO, then accelerate to Mars injection velocity to match orbit with a passing Cycler. It will dock with the Cycler, passengers will switch to the Cycler for the duration of the journey. The Cycler will be much roomier, have better shielding, and likely rotate to provide Mars level artificial gravity. Passengers will have far better work, entertainment and workout options.
Once the Cycler approaches Mars, passengers will reboard their Starship, and it will Aerobrake to land, while the Cycler continues on in its orbit, which returns to Earth. The Cycler never slows to orbit either Earth or Mars, it just coasts between them but occasionally will need fuel for course optimizations.
The only problem is that Cyclers will take 9 months to go to or return from Mars. They will be like large cruise ships. Starship can make the trip to Mars in as little as 3 months, and some will still do that. They will be the equivalent of the long distance direct flight, trading a less comfortable and less healthy trip for a big time savings.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
True, but in orbit refuelling means 3 or 4 additional refuelling launches, so now your cost per kg is back up to a few thousand $ per kg again. Still cheap for Ceres though.
Yeah, orbital refueling doesn't change the rocket equation unless you can manufacture fuel in space. The only benefit is that you don't need a bigger rocket.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>>If even the much larger Pluto can't get the "Planet" title Damn you Neil deGrasse Tyson Pluto is and always well be a planet
what an odd hill to die on...
Or did you grow up afterwards and learn from elementary school that Pluto is not a planet so people who still insist that Pluto is a planet seem anachronistic?
It would be like Hydrogen being removed from the periodic table and being told that from now on Hydrogen is no longer considered an element. Would you still try to say that you feel that Hydrogen really is an element, even though you are wrong and Hydrogen is not an element and never should have been included on the Periodic Table in the first place?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
what an odd hill to die on...
Probably depends on your age. Did you grow up with Pluto being a planet? Having to learn about it in all levels of schooling as a planet? Seeing images of all the planets and Pluto is included? Or did you grow up afterwards and learn from elementary school that Pluto is not a planet so people who still insist that Pluto is a planet seem anachronistic? It would be like Hydrogen being removed from the periodic table an…
When they decided to change its status to dwarf planet, I looked up the reasons behind it, read up on the complexities of the matter, and could see the reasoning behind the change.
Then again, I hadn't reached thirty yet. Even in my forties I find it takes slightly more time to change my mind on some things...