Recent comments in /f/space

NotStaggy t1_j4yk6fp wrote

Edit: don't read what i posted. I'm probably wrong i didn't understand tidal lock definition. Left it here because for shiggles.

Sadly no. The definition of a planet: It must orbit a star (in our cosmic neighborhood, the Sun). It must be big enough to have enough gravity to force it into a spherical shape. It must be big enough that its gravity cleared away any other objects of a similar size near its orbit around the Sun. The gravity requirement would make both objects to massive to be tidaly locked and in the goldilocks zone I believe.

−2

freylaverse t1_j4yim47 wrote

Very misleading article imo. There is every likelihood that we will one day have the capacity to set up cities on planets of similar size and temperature and live there without issue, as well as find better candidates than Mars. The thing is, we will never get to that point, ever, if we let our current planet die. That future is a long way away, but I certainly wouldn't say it will never happen. I can't stand Elon Musk, don't get me wrong, but not because he wants to move to Mars.

4

healing-souls t1_j4xuvek wrote

well they never tested any engine configurations other than the 4 rocket one they used for the one launch. In theory it could use anywhere from 2-8 engines.

They never used it to put anything into orbit so none of the satellite deployment stuff was ever tested.

And they never launched with humans so none of the life support or other functions were fully vetted.

Read the article someone else posted about it, it's a good read.

2