/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12800124
I'd settle for this

>>12733849
Alright SFG. Pick your poison.

OPTION A
>You are a low paid welder working in Boca Chica. You get to be hands on with Starships and every time you watch one fly you get to tell yourself that you built that thing with your team. The downside is that you make shitty money and you will never get to fly into space, although you can at least appreciate your work getting others to.
OPTION B
>You are a well paid engineer working for Boeing. You love your job but you dislike your company greatly. Job security is also in question because if SLS is cancelled, you will not have a job. You also have a heart condition which means you will never fly in space, but you make six figures so you’re not poor.
OPTION C
>You are a billionaire with an inoperable brain tumor. You will die within a year or two. However, you were able to cobble up enough money to fly on Crew Dragon for a 1 week private mission to the ISS. The downside is that the strain of re entry will likely kill your because of your tumor, so it would be a one way trip.
OPTION D
>You are transported to a timeline where Apollo landed on Mars in 1983, but then was defunded. Your life is no different than it is now, except that the ISS was started in 2008 and SpaceX does not exist. However, the shuttle is still flying, and the three Apollo-Mars missions we got gave some cool pictures.

From Callisto, Jupiter is 16 times the size of the Moon in its sky. From Io, Jupiter is 70 times the size of the Moon in its sky.
Just learned this. Wish I could really visualize it. The Galilean colonies are gonna be awesome.

>>12660935
It doesn't. As far as I know there's been nothing to suggest it would. Only people saying that according to our current interpretations of our understanding of the universe it would cause something fucky wucky with energy and that it just isn't possible so the next totally logical conclusion is to say that it being possible would destroy the universe and cause paradoxes.
>>12660981
Speaking on the second part.
How true is this?
And if it what all does it mean?
And also would it mean that people are saying it's impossible to go faster than light the same way people thought it was impossible to go faster than sound?

>>12555165
After yesterday's events, I don't know (at least as far as Starship and similar/related is concerned).
I know it's been discussed before, but I think now would be a good time to give it some more serious thought: What would happen to SpaceX in the event of massive social upheaval?

>>12539198
geez, I'd prefer this

>>10839713
>>4.4 lightyears in a decade
i hope it's not all work and no play

>>10832349
That doesn't mean they'll ever be mounted to a vehicle. The soviets had a surprisingly large stock of unused engines from the N1 left over and sitting in warehouses for decades.
>>10832345
Orion has one major problem: it's too heavy to carry a lander and itself to the moon with the service module it has. The idea for moving Gateway to LEO allows you to either gas up a modified SLS second stage, solving the weight issue, or say to hell with Orion we're flying to the moon and back in something else that ferries between the lunar surface and the Gateway.
That something could be Zubrin's super/reusable LEM from his Moon Direct proposal, a Blue Origin LEM with full reusability, or even Starship if NASA is nervous about launching and recovering crews on a vehicle with no escape system and no parachutes from the Earth.