Recent comments in /f/space

KeaboUltra t1_ja37e24 wrote

Reply to comment by PandaEven3982 in what's the future of space travel within the next 27 years in 2050 to 2100 by LatterCardiologist47

Nor are you because not once have I said or thought blowing up the planet wasn't capable of that. You're hyper focused on destruction, saying that none of our current projects are meaningful and all I'm literally telling you is that humanity is already making steps towards making significant strides onto being a space faring species no matter how much capacity we have for destruction and irrelevant to what you deem significant. Humanity has plenty of potential until we blow up, just as we have plenty potential to advance. Has it happened yet? It makes zero sense to be completely on either side when we would likely achieve significant progress (that is to say ANY space colony, inner planet or just between earth and the moon) whether humanity peacefully or violently reaches that reality. It random chance, with supporting facts and evidence that drives people to believe what we're capable of in the near future but it's like you want the world to blow up, why? Because only you know what the future holds? You, someone who seriously thinks climate change will really be about who bakes or drowns? How can I care to read the full extent of your post when the majority of your points is under researched hyped up doomerism? You brought up an interesting perspective initially and all I wanted was to provide differing perspectives surrounding a similar position yet you all have the same panicky, anxiety induced hopeless responses about the world as if human depravity and destruction is new, yet here we are talking wirelessly on a web forum, waiting to see which country establishes a moon base first.

0

GoodbyeSkyPrime t1_ja36plt wrote

Reply to comment by ca_fighterace in Explosions in space movies? by DemonOfTheAstroWaste

Good question. In depressurizing, you have effectively 2 options. Vent your atmosphere into space, or pump it into tanks. In The Expanse, there isn’t a technology to manufacture atmosphere. Venting atmosphere into space would make it unrecoverable and would be very bad for everyone involved. The only option would be storing it in tanks for later repressurization.

3

Hyack57 t1_ja35ds6 wrote

Reply to Explosions in space movies? by DemonOfTheAstroWaste

What’s bothered me more is that any armada engagement in space - all the ships seem to approach each other on the same plain as if space had some form of gravity necessitating a specific orientation.

2

ithappenedone234 t1_ja318p6 wrote

Reply to comment by kog in NASA's Artemis moon program receives salute from Apollo 11's Buzz Aldrin (video) by kevindavis338

> Artemis 2 is slated for next year, what are you even talking about?

So not mission capable then. Like I said.

> Starship has literally years of testing to go before NASA will consider it human safe

So not mission capable then. Like I said.

  1. NASA won’t be going to the Moon or Mars without Starship, because their own eval was that it was the best option.
  2. NASA is not the sole arbiter of what is human safe. We are in an era surpassing the bureaucratic largess and technical incompetence of NASA that has gotten people killed and results in running grossly over budget (again) and running years late (again) and wasting so many repair parts that died on the shelf.
1