791–800 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, when you zoom out a bit, it’s not a stretch to say that both Apollo and Vietnam shared the same goal of countering the USSR.
The Vietnam War was us violating Vietnamese sovereignty and self-determination and losing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Forget about the snacks, I wonder about the toilet in 10 days in such cramped living conditions.
Toilet fan has already jammed. Not sure if this means the shit has, or hasn't, hit the fan.
https://www.space.com/space-exploration/artemis/theres-a-bit...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
If anything shouldn't be allowed to be taken, it's my money for a war that wasn't even green lit by Congress. Ain't no transgender opera in Colombia did kill anyone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
sending people to the moon was never useful. We can get more done with robots, both cheaper and safer. There are plenty of more useful things we can do instead. okay what is more useful is a matter of opinion. you can disagree, but I stand by it
Then you are wrong (and maybe MAGA? to ignore facts like that). An estimated three orders of magnitude of more science was done in the 12 days astronauts were on the moon than if robots had done those missions. HSF costs about, but it returns a lot of results as well.
What an odd thing to bring up out of nowhere.
Minutes after launch they reached "ten thousand miles per hour". That's 2.78 miles per second. Nuts. No doubt the speeds go even higher later too. I'm sure people here are already familiar with the speeds these things go, but that's the first time I've confronted a fact like that and it blew me away.
Escape velocity is 25,020 mph (6.95 mps), so not completely surprising. Note that escape velocity applies to a situation without continued propulsion and also without air resistance, but still you can imagine that the order of magnitude is similar.
But can't you escape gravity slower, just by going higher and higher at lower speed? Like a plane? (ie not vertically, but at an angle)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> According to general relativity, you (and the ground) are accelerating at 1g I don't believe this is correct. If I lock two rockets in opposition to each other, they aren't accelerating. They're pushing at each other. And their propellant is accelarating away. But their displacement and orientation are unchanging, which means their velocity is zero which means acceleration isn't happening. Similarly, the normal for…
It is correct, and you're also right that two rockets tethered to each other would not feel acceleration. The acceleration we feel in Earth's gravitational field is affecting our speed, though - it's slowing down the speed at which we move towards the future.
I just realized that the energy of the exhaust would warp local spacetime. So one might feel acceleration depending on how that geometry settles.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly what I mean. People who obsess over space are so egotistical they can’t imagine someone not thinking it’s “the best”. It’s interesting, but no more important than any other science or field of study. And no, I’d prefer we take care of our home planet and make it a sustainable place to live first. It’s ludicrous to think we have any chance of surviving elsewhere if we can’t stop ourselves from making our natur…
I too wish we would all hold hands and sing kumbaya and collectively decide to simply make things better here on Earth but sadly it seems far off. The best alternative demonstrated so far seems to be for some of us to push the limits of what is possible and watch all boats rise with the tide. Better this than slinging Tomahawks at school children.
I’d rather the one be slinging tomahawks, than the one receiving tomahawks because my country decided to reduce military spending.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Starship is just obscene. The thing is never going to work for its designed purpose once you understand what the mission looks like (basically insane amount of refuel dockings while the thing is in orbit)
> insane amount of refuel dockings while the thing is in orbit What's wrong with this? Lots of launches is fine until we build the scale required to make a proper depot worthwhile. (Which, by the way, is part of Artemis's plans. Though currently it looks like a bunch of glued-together Starship tankers.)
The only question is whether the cost of flying all those missions would be prohibitive: by the stated goals, starship should be able to do the refueling missions cheaper then an SLS launch.
Obviously if it can't then it's failed, but the point of it is cheap heavy lift to LEO which is very obviously quite valuable.
Building a big specialty rocket to get to the moon is waste.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> HLS isn't going anywhere I've been hearing this about every SpaceX project for the last twenty years.
Judging by the fact it's 2026 you must be writing this from the Mars base.
SpaceX was started in 2001. It announced Falcon 9 and messaged its reusability ambitions in 2005.
Falcon 1 wasn’t going anywhere because making rockets is too hard. Falcons 5 and 9 weren’t going anywhere because medium lift is a different ball game. Falcon Heavy wasn’t going anywhere because timing that many engines impossible. Reuse is impossible. (The kerosene will clog everything.) Then, after refly: the total launch market will never be more than $5bn, so reuse is useless.
More recently stainless steel can’t work. Now it’s shifted to reuse and refurbishment being too difficult, or refueling being impossible because of boil-off. Because keeping shit from boiling, apparently, is just unsolved engineering. ಠ_ಠ
Not everything SpaceX does is genius the first time. But they’re ridiculously good at not persisting with stupid. The idea that a dozen rapid depot launches is somehow a gating concern, again, as a tech demo, we’re building the depot eventually, is just such a weirdly small and big concern.