>What do you want?

​Vir, "I'd like to live just long enough to be there when they cut off your head and stick it on a pike as a warning to the next ten generations that some favors come with too high a price. I would look up at your lifeless eyes and wave like this."

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

I did not look it up. That’s all

Why'd you bring it up in the first place then?

Good. I'll have time to grab an "I was dragged into a supermassive black hole at the Milky Way's Center and all I got was this lousy tee-shirt."

They did this in The Expanse as well. Prior to starting combat operations they’d suit up and pump air to tanks. Space being large they’d typically have plenty of time to see trouble coming or start some.

[removed]

Spaghettification, only it's a whole ass star.

My headcanon is that blaster bolts are some kind of heated carbon pellets. That would explain why they throw sparks (even when hitting a matterless force field) and leave black soot marks (on surfaces that don't contain carbon)

Still doesn't explain how they deflect and ricochet in one piece

...wasn't that a magical sight to see!? I kind of forgot my knowledge of celestial mechanics and called several friends to look for it the next night; of course, that alignment wasn't there again...

[removed]

So much of modern ballistics is based on this model it's shocking it isn't more widely known.

I'm not sure I understand your comment. I suppose in a way we are but it's more like we're deterriforming it

No, it was multiple factors, the public believing that we were shooting a lot of money into space and politicians needing to line their pockets in different ways. If we let the scientist run it we'd have been on Mars years ago. All things being equal the US would have only continued to fund a lunar program at the rate they had if the Soviets had gotten there first.

Further - there would be sound. There is a hot ball of expanding gas coming from the explosion, moving in all directions. It wouldn't be as loud as an earth explosion would be, but certainly some air particles from the explosion are going to hit your eardrums

IMHO a highly energy release in a ship could cause a ship's atmosphere to react with various materials on board.

It's plausible to me

What do you want?

[removed]

You da man or lady, whatever

> Working on Artemis II & III right now and let me reassure you we will be back to the moon!

I'm sure we will, that's not in question.

The question is, will we manage it before all of the Apollo astronauts who have walked on the moon's surface have died from old age?

For example, we're not planning to land on the moon again until Artemis 3, but that's not even scheduled to happen until 2025, and I'd bet that it won't actually happen until 2027, maybe even later.

Why take so fucking long?

We know Artemis 1 worked, so what's the hold up? Fucking let's go! I know that they want to reuse as many components as possible, but they already have the equipment from Artemis 1 that survived launch and re-entry back. It shouldn't take years and years to test equipment for reuse that they know already worked.

[removed]

I mean. To be fair. Interstellar did have plenty of nonsense.

"Love is the only force that goes beyond gravity, space and time, love is a higher power that supercedes mankind's understanding."

The planet in a stable orbit around a black while is extrodenarily unlikely but not impossible. Somehow, catching up to and landing on that planet, not happening with anything close to the tech in the movie. Even the tiniest error in orbital/entry velocity would send you straight into the black hole. And of course, the whole surviving a fall through a black hole. That's just a no under any reasonable circumstance.

An artificial wormhole that is stable enough for data transfer. Which even in theoretical models requires matter with negative mass.

The frozen clouds that somehow still stay in the sky... yeah.

Don't get me wrong. Interstellar is a good movie. But to say that every detail of the movie is scientifically accurate is wildly inaccurate. Plenty of the movie is scientifically accurate (the imaging of a black hole you mention is a shining moment), but it still takes plenty of liberties as well.

[removed]