Sure won’t if you don’t post em.

No, just blasting the lunar surface with microwaves for no good reason, lmao.

But would they get any traction in between all these fluff pieces about travel that won't happen?

50 years?

You're saying we could have landed on Mars in the 70s?

They don’t emit light/infrared. So even if it’s possible to zoom in on things so small, you still couldn’t see them anyway.

>eventually

Uh, yeah of course. But while you're alive, they won't be running supply missions to Mars, no.

You mean it talking about blasting the lunar surface with microwaves?

Did we do that in the 60s when we landed?

I am in awe of the people who create the flight plan for these and other space excursions. Ok, so they use computers, but they have to know celestial mechanics in order to program the things. It’s an incredible achievement.

[removed]

Yeah, it definitely beats all the posts in this sub where non-adblocked users get a separate (unrelated) video playing between every paragraph, if not every sentence.

[removed]

[removed]

>You're using an example where it was government funded efforts, namely through WW2, that advanced aviation in leaps and bounds and created the modern aviation industry.

Did it, though? It mostly achieved the opposite. It concentrated power unfairly on a few large companies, heavily regulated the market, and stalled progress for decades.

>At best it's uncertain whether government slows down progress. Government funding seems to still be the only way to pay for technology where the return is too far in the future and too risky to be worth the investment for private investors.

No, it isn't uncertain. Before governments started messing with the market so much in certain areas, those areas where entirely private. Even trains where initially private. Undersea cables. The telegraph.

>Why would you say that government stagnates the private sector? If the private sector saw a profit in it, what's stopping them from funding, building and launching their own right now?

This is the usual BS with government funding. The government enters an industry, heavily regulates it, then becomes the primary customer before the industry has a chance to develop. They arbitrarily and unfairly fund a few large contractors, to the point where it becomes IMPOSSIBLE to compete with them, because they are receiving fortunes in government money. And then you look at it and say "See? This wouldn't have happened without the government".

Think about SpaceX. Getting into the launch market, where monsters like ULA and its parents Boeing/Lockheed where so well established thanks to the government, getting billions, and all the launches? How about launching itself. Wanna build your own launchpad? Good luck with that, think about how hard BC was and still is to get going thanks to regulations. The government already had all the land that was good for launching, and they weren't sharing. They made SpaceX pay for Vandenberg, and then still didn't let them launch from there in the end. Add to that ITAR, and all the other stupid regulations.

The government never helps, all it ever does is get in the way.

The wattage doesn't matter as much as the sheer volume, the more you can ram into the moon at once the bigger dent it will make

I found it fascinating to know those spacecrafts would approach to location of some of well known stars in millions of years later. For example, Pioneer 10 to Aldebaran.

[removed]

So... Interior of a star?

[removed]

I get that you and many people want something to be true, but without even the smallest bit of evidence otherwise, it remains just an unverified and untested theory.

According to google, diamond in a vacuum, when heated high enough, sublimates straight to gaseous carbon. In order to liquify diamond, you need pressures nearly 100,000 times greater than atmospheric pressure at sea level AND lots of heat.

I actually have no idea. I have some experience with allotropes of carbon at high temperature but that was also at high pressure in a fluid environment. I have no idea what would happen in a vacuum but that wasn't really the point I was making.

Not a lot can stand up to unfiltered solar power when it's concentrated 1000 to 1. The energy is free, they'd only need propellant to set and maintain the orientation of the mirrors. With enough of them they could probably cut a tunnel straight down.

>The truth is, had there been no space race or NASA, we would've gotten something like SpaceX far, far sooner.

You're using an example where it was government funded efforts, namely through WW2, that advanced aviation in leaps and bounds and created the modern aviation industry.

At best it's uncertain whether government slows down progress. Government funding seems to still be the only way to pay for technology where the return is too far in the future and too risky to be worth the investment for private investors.

It's the government that's been the primary source of funding for fusion energy since the 1950s. Only recently, as late as last year, after all the government funded work and breakthroughs has private funding started equaling government funding.

Efforts to build a base on the Moon and send humans to Mars are still primarily government funded. Very few private investors seem to see a prospect of return on investing now.

Why would you say that government stagnates the private sector? If the private sector saw a profit in it, what's stopping them from funding, building and launching their own right now?

He also apparently missed the 1960s in school. Given this article is talking about the moon, which we've already been to.

Then there's the logistics of getting so many microwaves up there. Important questions should be asked. Are we talking 900W, 1000W, or those big 1200W behemoths? Could this be a joint venture between NASA and GE? Will the microwaves be reusable once they hit the surface?

Pretty sure everything melts if you get it hot enough