Controversial New Theory of Gravity Solves "Dark Matter" Problem by Countach_3D in space

[–]UncleWillard56 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

From a total layman, that's very interesting. Maybe it's all residual gravity from black holes? How far does the gravitational pull of a supermassive black hole like TON618 reach? Could that be what ties it all together? We're all just circling the drains of the universe?

Remember the Google Lunar X Prize competition? The contest ran from 2007 to 2018 and concluded without a winner. ~ What's up with the obsession over the letter X? What's the meaning of their logo, with a swoosh in the X? by In-the-clouds in space

[–]KyleIsThisTall 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I used to listen to INXS on The X while playing Xtreme Sports on Gameboy Color

Remember the Google Lunar X Prize competition? The contest ran from 2007 to 2018 and concluded without a winner. ~ What's up with the obsession over the letter X? What's the meaning of their logo, with a swoosh in the X? by In-the-clouds in space

[–]Jiminy 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

They also might not have wanted to show good pics or video because they thought Russia or some other govt could use that to reverse engineer the rockets and landers. Pics aren't everything but they help. But I'm not going to trust it without proof so I have to assume hoax otherwise.

Remember the Google Lunar X Prize competition? The contest ran from 2007 to 2018 and concluded without a winner. ~ What's up with the obsession over the letter X? What's the meaning of their logo, with a swoosh in the X? by In-the-clouds in space

[–]In-the-clouds[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

moon landings were hoaxes

You and disagree with me on many things, including this. I think calling all the successful moon landings a hoax is itself a false rumor. The gullible worldlings would rather believe that UFOs contain aliens from other stars. People are forgetting that men have been making experimental spacecraft for decades.

Remember the Google Lunar X Prize competition? The contest ran from 2007 to 2018 and concluded without a winner. ~ What's up with the obsession over the letter X? What's the meaning of their logo, with a swoosh in the X? by In-the-clouds in space

[–]Jiminy 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That's true. This x prize was going to just be a way to funnel money to foreign companies, since for NASA to give taxpayer money it'd be illegal unless it's a USA company. I think they also put the requirement for hd pics and video because certain people involved didn't know moon landings were hoaxes, and that's also why no one collected the prize. Since they couldn't.

Remember the Google Lunar X Prize competition? The contest ran from 2007 to 2018 and concluded without a winner. ~ What's up with the obsession over the letter X? What's the meaning of their logo, with a swoosh in the X? by In-the-clouds in space

[–]Jiminy 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

A company allegedly just landed on the moon, guess they're too late to get this prize. It's good to give prizes like this, it encouraged aviators like Lindbergh to fly.

Remember the Google Lunar X Prize competition? The contest ran from 2007 to 2018 and concluded without a winner. ~ What's up with the obsession over the letter X? What's the meaning of their logo, with a swoosh in the X? by In-the-clouds in space

[–]In-the-clouds[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It is strange how Google offered so little. The grand prize was only $20 million for a moon mission. But they are willing to pay $60 million per year to Reddit to have the right to crawl their pages???

Remember the Google Lunar X Prize competition? The contest ran from 2007 to 2018 and concluded without a winner. ~ What's up with the obsession over the letter X? What's the meaning of their logo, with a swoosh in the X? by In-the-clouds in space

[–]Jiminy 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I like how it offers a reward of $30 mill to land on the moon, it'd cost billions just for the rocket fuel.

Someone could fake a moon landing but this also said it requires high definition videos and photographs from the moon, so NASA would be disqualified.

A non profit called the XPRIZE foundation started it

There's been a few different X prizes. It's started by Peter Diamandis. Elon Musk is on its board, if I had to guess I'd bet he suggested using X in the name. There's something called the Archon X Prize. Archons are gnostic demons. That was a scam just to get the DNA donated from people 100 years old, so the elites can study how to live longer.

They tried to launch human remains, including those of Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry, on a rocket to the moon. The mission failed. It appears that all of the "participants" burned up over Australia. by In-the-clouds in space

[–]In-the-clouds[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The participants — as they are called by Celestis, one of the memorial spaceflight companies involved in the mission — were in capsules that were set to “remain on the lunar surface

Interesting comments under this article:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/01/18/peregrine-human-remains-navajo/

Experimental aircraft, test objects made by men, are often referred to as UFOs. Beings from other star systems will never come to Earth in spaceships. Beware of the incoming lies. Aliens cannot save the planet. Only Jesus is the Savior of mankind. by In-the-clouds in space

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Almost certain that they would be targeting a civilization with more mature technology than us.

Experimental aircraft, test objects made by men, are often referred to as UFOs. Beings from other star systems will never come to Earth in spaceships. Beware of the incoming lies. Aliens cannot save the planet. Only Jesus is the Savior of mankind. by In-the-clouds in space

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I grant the possibility.

You would expect unaliened probes first. Or some kind of communication attempt via EMR (Or something the propagates equally fast ... gravity waves perhaps, if they've got absolute fucktonnes of energy. )

Experimental aircraft, test objects made by men, are often referred to as UFOs. Beings from other star systems will never come to Earth in spaceships. Beware of the incoming lies. Aliens cannot save the planet. Only Jesus is the Savior of mankind. by In-the-clouds in space

[–]Musky 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Ever hear of the dark forest theory? The universe is teeming with hostile life so every lifeform tries to stay as silent and safe as possible and here we are blasting signals out into space so everyone else avoids us because we must be crazy or total badasses.

Experimental aircraft, test objects made by men, are often referred to as UFOs. Beings from other star systems will never come to Earth in spaceships. Beware of the incoming lies. Aliens cannot save the planet. Only Jesus is the Savior of mankind. by In-the-clouds in space

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The universe is 13.7 billion years old.

It would be unlikely that someone would show up in the next 10.

Experimental aircraft, test objects made by men, are often referred to as UFOs. Beings from other star systems will never come to Earth in spaceships. Beware of the incoming lies. Aliens cannot save the planet. Only Jesus is the Savior of mankind. by In-the-clouds in space

[–]In-the-clouds[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

UFOs keep people away from finding their only hope of salvation, like Santa Claus takes attention away from Jesus at Christmas. The world is getting set up to worship a beast.

Experimental aircraft, test objects made by men, are often referred to as UFOs. Beings from other star systems will never come to Earth in spaceships. Beware of the incoming lies. Aliens cannot save the planet. Only Jesus is the Savior of mankind. by In-the-clouds in space

[–]In-the-clouds[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

"They" are using spaceships, but they are men building top secret aircraft.... They are not beings from other stars.

Experimental aircraft, test objects made by men, are often referred to as UFOs. Beings from other star systems will never come to Earth in spaceships. Beware of the incoming lies. Aliens cannot save the planet. Only Jesus is the Savior of mankind. by In-the-clouds in space

[–]SMCAB 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Religion aside, you are correct. This place is a construct, and was put here for a reason, and the farcical made up bullshit of space just takes away from people figuring out their purpose.

Nix - Pluto's satellite - How do they come up with these names? The IAU desired names to fit an "underworld mythological scheme". Do they work for the underworld? Also known as Hades, kingdom of darkness, hell, under the earth.... by In-the-clouds in space

[–]dumpshit 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

the names had to be picked from classical mythology, in particular with reference to the underworld — the realm where the souls of the deceased go in the afterlife.

This wording makes it look like there is no hope for the dead, as if they all go down and none can go up. If you turn to Jesus and receive his salvation, you can be free from going down into the pit.

~

The way of life is above to the wise, that he may depart from hell beneath. Proverbs 15:24

you DO NOT talk to Edwardyou DO NOT talk to Edwardyou DO NOT talk to Edwardyou DO NOT talk to Edwardyou DO NOT talk to Edwardyou DO NOT talk to Edwardyou DO NOT talk to Edwardyou DO NOT talk to Edwardyou DO NOT talk to Edwardyou DO NOT talk to Edwardyou DO NOT talk to Edwardyou DO NOT talk to Edwardyou DO NOT talk to Edwardyou DO NOT talk to Edwardyou DO NOT talk to Edwardyou DO NOT talk to Edwardyou DO NOT talk to Edwardyou DO NOT talk to Edwardyou DO NOT talk to Edwardyou DO NOT talk to Edwardyou DO NOT talk to Edwardyou DO NOT talk to Edwardyou DO NOT talk to Edwardyou DO NOT talk to Edwardyou DO NOT talk to Edwardyou DO NOT talk to Edwardyou DO NOT talk to Edwardyou DO NOT talk to Edwardyou DO NOT talk to Edwardyou DO NOT talk to Edwardyou DO NOT talk to Edwardyou DO NOT talk to Edwardyou DO NOT talk to Edwardyou DO NOT talk to Edwardyou DO NOT talk to Edwardyou DO NOT talk to Edwardyou DO NOT talk to Edwardyou DO NOT talk to Edwardyou DO NOT talk to Edwardyou DO NOT talk to Edwardyou DO NOT talk to Edwardyou DO NOT talk to Edwardyou DO NOT talk to Edwardyou DO NOT talk to Edwardyou DO NOT talk to Edward

Nix - Pluto's satellite - How do they come up with these names? The IAU desired names to fit an "underworld mythological scheme". Do they work for the underworld? Also known as Hades, kingdom of darkness, hell, under the earth.... by In-the-clouds in space

[–]In-the-clouds[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

From the IAU website:

the names had to be picked from classical mythology, in particular with reference to the underworld — the realm where the souls of the deceased go in the afterlife.

This wording makes it look like there is no hope for the dead, as if they all go down and none can go up. If you turn to Jesus and receive his salvation, you can be free from going down into the pit.

~

The way of life is above to the wise, that he may depart from hell beneath. Proverbs 15:24

Lunar Terraforming: Building an Underground Moon Base by UBERGheist in space

[–]aishdUAYOIuywdoIUSAD 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

saw in books from the 1950s 60s

one point someone made is it IS easier to build interplanetary spacecraft ON the Moon than doing the same in orbit

That's a fascinating point, and it's certainly true that the Moon has some unique advantages for spacecraft construction. For example, the Moon's gravity is much lower than Earth's, which means that it takes less energy to launch a spacecraft from the Moon. Additionally, the lack of an atmosphere on the Moon means that there is no air resistance to contend with, which can also save energy. However, there are also some challenges to building spacecraft on the Moon. One challenge is the lack of resources. The Moon is a very dry and dusty place, and there is very little water or other resources that can be used for construction. This means that any spacecraft built on the Moon would need to be made from materials that are already present on the Moon, or that would need to be brought from Earth. Another challenge is the extreme temperatures on the Moon. The Moon's surface can reach temperatures of up to 127 degrees Celsius during the day, and can drop to -173 degrees Celsius at night. This means that any spacecraft built on the Moon would need to be able to withstand these extreme temperatures. Despite these challenges, there are still some experts who believe that it is possible to build spacecraft on the Moon. In fact, NASA is currently working on a project called Artemis, which aims to send humans back to the Moon by 2024. One of the goals of the Artemis program is to build a lunar gateway that could be used as a base for future missions to the Moon and Mars. If NASA is successful in building a lunar gateway, it could pave the way for the construction of spacecraft on the Moon in the future.

Lunar Terraforming: Building an Underground Moon Base by UBERGheist in space

[–]twolanterns 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

saw in books from the 1950s 60s

one point someone made is it IS easier to build interplanetary spacecraft ON the Moon than doing the same in orbit

BUY FACEBOOK REVIEWS by gabrilla in space

[–]gabrilla[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Buy Facebook Reviews Facebook is the largest social media right now and it’s doing far beyond just connecting friends and family. A vast number of people are doing businesses only based on Facebook and it’s growing fast. When a person is shopping or getting a service online, more than 92% of them check the reviews

NASA regains contact with mini-helicopter on Mars by Musky in space

[–]magnora7 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Wow nice. I look forward to all the youtube videos in 50 years "We found this abandoned rover on mars and recharged it!"

Iran launched a satellite higher than they ever had before, about 460 miles above the Earth's surface. by In-the-clouds in space

[–]In-the-clouds[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Another source: dw.com

Failed Moon Mission Carrying Human Remains Will Slam Into Earth’s Atmosphere Today by WoodyWoodPecker in space

[–]Oyveygoyim 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Another failed mission to the moon...but we totally did it in 1969 and had men wslking on it...

Water ice buried at Mars' equator is over 2 miles thick by neolib in space

[–]JoeyJoeJoe 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

There's a machine up there to melt the ice. Aliens built it, but they were scared to turn it on. I saw that in a documentary somewhere with Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Peregrine lander: US Moon mission on course for fiery destruction - "Astrobotic has positioned the Peregrine spacecraft for a safe, controlled re-entry to Earth over a remote area of the South Pacific ... We expect re-entry to occur at approximately 16:00 Thursday, January 18 EST (21:00 GMT)" by neolib in space

[–]neolib[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Updated title:

Peregrine lander: American Moon mission destroyed over Pacific Ocean

A tracking station in Canberra, Australia, confirmed loss of signal with Peregrine at 20:59 GMT.

First US lunar lander in more than 50 years rockets toward moon with commercial deliveries by neolib in space

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

There's no need for back pressure of any sort.

This is the error in your assessment.

Here's an exceedingly clever experiment, which stimulates the removal of the atmosphere with a rocket.

Rockets can't work in the vacuum of space science experiment.

Notice how the rocket jumps backwards when the parachute comes out. The equal and opposite reaction that doesn't occur with the rocket.

First US lunar lander in more than 50 years rockets toward moon with commercial deliveries by neolib in space

[–]Alienhunter 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This is very easy to prove with a vacuum chamber and some pressurized spray can of any sort. Place the pressurized spray can onto a cart or suspend it from the top of the contained, then depressurize it and see if it moves.

There's no need for back pressure of any sort. The initial push is from expelling the matter in the first place.

First US lunar lander in more than 50 years rockets toward moon with commercial deliveries by neolib in space

[–]Alienhunter 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Once you are in orbit you don't need that much fuel to maintain the orbit. Over long periods of time gravitational irregularities and atmospheric drag do cause low earth orbit satellites to fall out of orbit and burn up but these effects are minimal and only build up over time, so long as you keep things high enough and prevent them from dipping back into the atmosphere they can maintain an orbit for many years on a small amount of fuel.

The voyager probes were able to go past all those planets without falling into an orbit essentially because they were going way to fast. The point of the voyager probes was essentially to fly them out as quickly as possible during a planetary conjunction that allowed for relatively easy access so they could snap pictures. The consequence of sending them out quickly is that they are going too fast to stop afterwards so they just fly past. It was the same with the recent probe to Pluto, in order to get the probe there in a reasonable amount of time, which is still more than a decade, they need to fly it so fast that it's prohibitively expensive to slow it down and insert it into an orbit on the other end.

First US lunar lander in more than 50 years rockets toward moon with commercial deliveries by neolib in space

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Again you are simply misunderstanding the third law of motion. No atmosphere is necessary to push against.

Your premise assumes that the equal and opposite reaction in the third law will apply force in a vacuum.

For a gas to apply force, it has to apply pressure. But had molecules can only apply pressure to one another if they're contained.

The atmosphere functions at a container with back pressure at 14 lbs/(in2).

The inertia of atmosphere (resistance to gaseous expansion), applies back pressure to the exhaust gases, which applies back pressure against the rocket surfaces, and the equal and opposite sequence does work on the rocket and it's is moved.

Combustion in a vaccine doesn't have an enclosure of atmosphere.

In a vacuum, as soon as the molecules ignite and expand they are forced into empty space without resistance.

No inertia of gases in the atmosphere to create back pressure. The gases expand without resistance into the vacuum of space.

No back pressure, and no compression of gases, and no build up of pressure against the surface of the rocket.

No work applied to the rocket. No movement.

There's no way around this reality. The rocket exhaust won't build up back pressure (thrust), which means there's no efficiency.

Bro. This is physical reality. I don't like it either, but there's nothing for it.

First US lunar lander in more than 50 years rockets toward moon with commercial deliveries by neolib in space

[–]Alienhunter 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Again you are simply misunderstanding the third law of motion. No atmosphere is necessary to push against. A jet engine would work fine in a vacuum as a source of thrust assuming you brought your own air to use. (In reality since a Jet engine needs to suck in air from the surrounding atmosphere to work it won't work in space) rockets simply bring everything with them they need to function in space.

You also aren't fighting directly against Earth gravity. Once you achieve orbital velocity which in terms of energy needed is absolutely the biggest hurdle, then you need relatively little energy and thrust to make course corrections as you're in a vacuum condition with no air resistance and therefore no drag. In an orbital velocity that 95% of normal ground level acceleration works to keep you in an orbit and also can be used to gravitationally slingshot you out further if you are smart about how you go about it.

Keep in mind that you are at about 75% of escape velocity in low earth orbit. The amount of energy you need to escape from low earth orbit is far lower than the amount of energy you need to reach low earth orbit in the first place. The amount you need to reach the moon is even less than that as the moon is still in earth orbit.

It's one of the counter intuitive peculiarities of orbital physics we don't consider in terrestrial situations. Same as how the energy required to leave the solar system entirely is much lower than the energy required to go to the sun despite the fact the sun is much closer. If you wished to send a probe to impact the sun you'd have to work against the Earth's velocity to place the probe in an orbit that had the probe lose most of its relative velocity against the sun which is much harder to do than get the probe a bit more velocity to do a slingshot maneuver around the sun and achieve a parabolic orbit that will see it fly out uncontrollably into the void.

First US lunar lander in more than 50 years rockets toward moon with commercial deliveries by neolib in space

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That's how it would work in a vacuum though. And that's how rockets work.

Then why wouldn't it work with water in air on a jet ski? It's the identical principle.

And liftoff consumes the 1st stage rocket in mid atmosphere less than 25 miles.

There's more than 200,000 more miles to the moon with the second stage rocket, and maybe the main unit rocket.

You think they can travel another 100,000 miles directly against 95% gravity? The Earth's radius is 7000 miles.

The rocket leaves the atmosphere at 7100 miles from Earth's center of G. The inverse square law of gravity doesn't shrink significantly for a huge distance.

It's easily 8-9 newton's of constant gravity, with a seriously diminished propulsion; assuming your model theory. Hopefully, we're at least in agreement about this.

In reality, the vacuum of space would draw out the rocket exhaust as quickly as it's produced.

The foundational propulsion mechanism between a rocket and a jet engine is the same.

The method of generating thrust differs, one is strictly combustion.
The other is a positive feedback loop of compressing ambient air (oxygen source) in a turbine, and mixing in fuel for enhanced combustion, which generates increased airflow and compression, [in positive feedback loop] until the sufficient thrust is generated.

Both depend upon high velocity gaseous exhaust applying force against the atmospheric environment.

I realize you attribute the equal and opposite concept in space, but that can't happen.

Pressure requires a surface to compress against. The atmosphere is compressed against the Earth's surface and gravity.

There's no opposing compression surface in a rocket nozzle cone. The vacuum draws it out without resistance.
Zero compression. Zero thrust.

First US lunar lander in more than 50 years rockets toward moon with commercial deliveries by neolib in space

[–]Alienhunter 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The actual work done to move the jetski in water is not produced by the equal and opposite push from the water jet.

That's how it would work in a vacuum though. And that's how rockets work.

If you've got unlimited rocks you could just build a space vehicle that consists of a catapult, hurling rocks into the black to push you forward. Slowly and surely. Doesn't matter what the shit is, you take some mass and expell it in the opposite direction of where you want to go.

The problem in real world examples is we don't have unlimited fuel, fuel is heavy and it's very difficult to carry enough of it to go to wherever you want since you need to accelerate to about 40,000 kph to escape velocity.

Low Earth orbit is like 30,000 kph for example so you're already 3/4ths of the way there with that. Gravitational pull at orbital velocities really is less about overcoming the pull and more about shaping your orbital vector.

First US lunar lander in more than 50 years rockets toward moon with commercial deliveries by neolib in space

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

A Jetski also would be propelled forward in air as well however this thrust is simply insufficient to counter both gravity and friction

The actual work done to move the jetski in water is not produced by the equal and opposite push from the water jet.

Be honest about this. The propulsion of a water jet on air vs water jet in water is incomparable. The amount of work done (force x distance) in the air is literally negligible.

This same principle applies in space, where the is literally nothing to push against. Zero work can be done on the vacuum of space. It literally vacuums the exhaust gases out of the rocket as quickly as they are produced.

Literally vacuumed out.

Also, Gravity doesn't disappear in space. The Earth's radius is 7000 miles, and the atmosphere is 100 miles max.
The rocket is still feeling 95% of gravity's effects continuously.

Meanwhile, the rocket gases are vacuumed out of the rocket engine.

Bro. Every bit of interplanetary space travel is 110% impossible with rocket propulsion.

It's horrid reality. But it's the actual factual truth of physics.

First US lunar lander in more than 50 years rockets toward moon with commercial deliveries by neolib in space

[–]Alienhunter 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Assuming the Jetski has an infinite amount of water, it would work in space as there's minimal friction to overcome, merely on the third law principal.

A Jetski also would be propelled forward in air as well however this thrust is simply insufficient to counter both gravity and friction.

We tend to visualize this as a push against something in terrestrial situations but it isn't how it actually works. Think about how if you use a water hose at high pressure you can feel the push back before the stream is in contact with anything. Or for a more extreme situation, a gun.

You could easily use a gun to propel yourself in space same as throwing a rock or just pissing would also produce thrust. It's just not going to be very effective when compared to a rocket.

The rockets used in a vacuum do need to be designed differently than ones used in atmosphere for practical purposes. (You can't light a firework in space for example because there's no oxygen to combust) this is solved in space rocket designs by having the reaction take place in a chamber that has the necessary agents for combustion already prepared.

Essentially you bring your own air to "push off against".

First US lunar lander in more than 50 years rockets toward moon with commercial deliveries by neolib in space

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

"Tyranny of the Rocket Equation", which is how to carry enough fuel for their payloads, and that we can't leave "low earth orbit", and yet here we are going to the moon again. It's astounding.

This.

And they're completely omitting the zero propulsion in space detail.

First US lunar lander in more than 50 years rockets toward moon with commercial deliveries by neolib in space

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's all bullshit.

99%.

Near earth orbit is possible. They can launch satellites into orbit.

They can slingshot it out of the atmosphere.

First US lunar lander in more than 50 years rockets toward moon with commercial deliveries by neolib in space

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

No atmosphere necessary.

Apply this concept to a jet ski. It uses an impeller to force a jet of water out the back and push against the body of water to propel it forward.

Now take a jet ski out of the water, and assume an infinite supply of water jetting out of the back into the air.

Do you believe the jet ski will be propelled forward, by high density water in the air? It still has the equal and opposite reaction.

Rocket exhaust works on the atmosphere in the same way that the water jet works against a body of water.

It's the exact same principle.

First US lunar lander in more than 50 years rockets toward moon with commercial deliveries by neolib in space

[–]Alienhunter 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Newton's third law of motion.

You are confusing a jet engine which indeed requires air to run with a true rocket engine, that just blasts out matter at high velocity to produce thrust according to Newton's third law.

It's the same phenomenon as when you sit on a cart and throw baseballs. You'll move backwards as a result of the force of your throw. No atmosphere necessary.

First US lunar lander in more than 50 years rockets toward moon with commercial deliveries by neolib in space

[–]SMCAB 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Look into Hubble if you haven't. Just a couple quick notes. The specs of the Hubble telescope, match the specs of the telescope on the plane they call SOFIA. That plane flies in our atmosphere. Some believe that this is what's actually taking the pictures thay claim the Hubble is taking. In fact, they have both released pictures on the same day that match eachother. That makes no sense.

If you study Orbital Degredation, the math says that the Hubble should have plummeted into our oceans years ago, yet they keep "pushing it" back into place. They do not fly missions there to reload the "propulsion" that supposedly keeps it in place. Yet somehow they are able to just push it back into place, without it flying away perpetually, which is exactly why they tell you a voyager type probe keeps flying away perpetually is possible. They push it and it just keeps going because there is nothing to stop it. Yet they fly so close to planets, but never get caught in orbit, but they have no propulsion to get out of orbit.

It's all bullshit.

First US lunar lander in more than 50 years rockets toward moon with commercial deliveries by neolib in space

[–]SMCAB 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I absolutely have. A rocket engine, or air propulsion cannot work in a vacuum. There is zero resistance to push anything forward. It's so crazy. I've seen all of the videos of true vacuums built and propulsion inside that can't even move a flag. Everything NASA(US Defense Dept) tells you dies under the weight of its own details.

It just baffles me how Mr. Pettit stands on a stage to this day and claims they can't solve the "Tyranny of the Rocket Equation", which is how to carry enough fuel for their payloads, and that we can't leave "low earth orbit", and yet here we are going to the moon again. It's astounding.

First US lunar lander in more than 50 years rockets toward moon with commercial deliveries by neolib in space

[–]neolib[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Updated title:

US company says its moon landing attempt is in jeopardy because of a ‘critical’ fuel leak

UPD And another update:

Moon landing attempt by US company appears doomed after ‘critical’ fuel leak

First US lunar lander in more than 50 years rockets toward moon with commercial deliveries by neolib in space

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

+1 "funny" karma for the hoaxters.

First US lunar lander in more than 50 years rockets toward moon with commercial deliveries by neolib in space

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

They now have engine problems and have the solar panels facing the wrong way? For fucks sake. Why would the propulsion system of the lander have anything to do with this? The lander isn't flying the rocket is.

You're spot on.

Have you seen the evidence proving rockets can't function in space?
Rocket [exhaust] thrust pushes off of the atmosphere, and that's why they use second stage rockets. Analogous to a jet ski impeller forcing water out into/against a lake (body of water), etc.

The second stage rockets diffusers are tuned for efficiency the lower pressure environment of the upper atmosphere.

Zero atmospheric pressure in space = zero rocket efficiency. Period.

An inescapable fact of rocket propulsion.

I'm curious about the solar panel as they relate to engines. Maybe they have ion engines, or another tech. But probably not.

Like you said, They'll hoax away for $70 million a day (paraphrased).

First US lunar lander in more than 50 years rockets toward moon with commercial deliveries by neolib in space

[–]SMCAB 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

The last time the U.S. launched a moon-landing mission was in December 1972. Apollo 17’s Gene Cernan and Harrison Schmitt became the 11th and 12th men to walk on the moon, closing out an era that has remained NASA’s pinnacle.

Yet they threw away all the data and info or lost it all? A mother keeps her little rascals kindergarten paperwork in a tote for eternity, yet NASA lost all the data pertaining to its "pinnacle." I think their pinnacle is swindling 71 million dollars a day from you.

I'll bet anything those aren't private companies either. Friends of the program I say.

Edit: They now have engine problems and have the solar panels facing the wrong way? For fucks sake. Why would the propulsion system of the lander have anything to do with this? The lander isn't flying the rocket is.

NASA flies extremely close by volcano world, captures wild footage by Musky in space

[–]package 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Looks more like an axe head made of some fancy alloy.

NASA flies extremely close by volcano world, captures wild footage by Musky in space

[–]iDontShift 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

anyone that is involved in astrology seems to hate nasa

things you never know until you ask questions

did you know helium is used by nasa at huge rates? maybe because satellites are just helium balloons? they found one in africa

NASA flies extremely close by volcano world, captures wild footage by Musky in space

[–]Mark_Shill 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

NASA = Never A Straight Answer

NASA flies extremely close by volcano world, captures wild footage by Musky in space

[–]In-the-clouds 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The images were posted to swri.edu

This image reminded me of a baby Jupiter.

This is how the moon looked last night. I'm not used to seeing the shadow on the top of the moon, but rather on its sides. by In-the-clouds in space

[–]In-the-clouds[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Taken by Romeo Esparrago on January 1, 2024 @ Georgetown, Texas USA spaceweathergallery2.com

Could Mars Be the First Terraformed Planet? by scienceloop in space

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The abstract of the thesis.

JWST Takes a Look at Uranus Again, Finds More Surprises 😮 by Megatron95 in space

[–]totally_normal 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Inevitable headline. Man saved when JWST finds precancerous anal polyps?

Chinese Long March rocket booster almost destroys a house as it returns to earth. by iamonlyoneman in space

[–]iamonlyoneman[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

They are working on Buck Rogers (and SpaceX) style reusable vertical landing boosters, but for now China is randomly littering tons of metal and poison literally all around the world. Not very cash money of them.

Could Mars Be the First Terraformed Planet? by scienceloop in space

[–]ZekeTheAnt 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Do you want the short, sneaky answer or a profoundly calculated thesis ?

Could Mars Be the First Terraformed Planet? by scienceloop in space

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Whats especially tactical about the asteroid belt?

Could Mars Be the First Terraformed Planet? by scienceloop in space

[–]ZekeTheAnt 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Nobody on this planet knows about what Ceres actually is made of, I agree. But look at its tactical position in this solar system. This position is clearly optimised by something or someone, I believe.

Beware of Hypocrites - The average American uses about 440 gallons of gasoline fuel per year. Meanwhile, the SpaceX Super Heavy booster holds about 1,670,000 gallons of methane fuel.... and one of them exploded last month within minutes of its launch. Who is using the most fuel? [video] by In-the-clouds in space

[–]In-the-clouds[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's clear that the leaders of the world abide by a different set of rules than what they expect their citizens to follow. If you can afford it, you can buy an electric car.... While the big guys burn all the fuel.

Orion Nebula (December 19, 2023 from Austria) by In-the-clouds in space

[–]In-the-clouds[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

why are spacefags still active here? ridiculous by FlatEarthDaveTV in space

[–]WoodyWoodPecker 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

why are spacefags still active here? ridiculous by FlatEarthDaveTV in space

[–]FlatEarthDaveTV[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

are you serious

why are spacefags still active here? ridiculous by FlatEarthDaveTV in space

[–]WoodyWoodPecker 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

No, nor is it flat. It is shaped like a pear with most of the mass towards the middle near the equator.

why are spacefags still active here? ridiculous by FlatEarthDaveTV in space

[–]FlatEarthDaveTV[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

is the earth spherical?

why are spacefags still active here? ridiculous by FlatEarthDaveTV in space

[–]WoodyWoodPecker 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Small pale dot!

Could Mars Be the First Terraformed Planet? by scienceloop in space

[–]scienceloop[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

??

Could Mars Be the First Terraformed Planet? by scienceloop in space

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Titan's a good call ... and you get the protection of Saturn's magnetic field.

Ceres is bloody cold, and pretty small. You'd have a better shot with our moon.

Could Mars Be the First Terraformed Planet? by scienceloop in space

[–]ZekeTheAnt 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It is Titan. Or Ceres. High on my Markov-Chain for "obtuse" forms of life in a sphere of about two lightyears around earth, I believe.

Could Mars Be the First Terraformed Planet? by scienceloop in space

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah, I reckon Venus is a better bet.

If you don't mind sulphuric instead of water, no oxygen and a shitload of CO2, it's perfectly comfortable now, so long as you don't go below an altitude of about 60 miles.

Give or take the lack of magnetic field to protect from solar and cosmic radiation.

Could Mars Be the First Terraformed Planet? by scienceloop in space

[–]Alienhunter 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Mars is clearly the most habitable planet besides the earth but that doesn't mean much when you'll suffocate to death anyway.

Would Mars be the first planet to terraform? Yes. Do we have the technology to terraform it? No.

Could Mars Be the First Terraformed Planet? by scienceloop in space

[–]SMCAB 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The deserts on earth are already habitable.

Could Mars Be the First Terraformed Planet? by scienceloop in space

[–]hfxB0oyA 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'd argue that earth is.

Could Mars Be the First Terraformed Planet? by scienceloop in space

[–]carn0ld03 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

My money's on Venus.

Could Mars Be the First Terraformed Planet? by scienceloop in space

[–]package 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

cool ai-generated click farm you fucking loser

Could Mars Be the First Terraformed Planet? by scienceloop in space

[–]socks_the_jew 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

i am a jew

कालसर्प दोष पूजा त्र्यंबकेश्वर by trimbakeshwar123 in space

[–]trimbakeshwar123[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

<p><a href="https://pandittrimbakeshwar.com/%e0%a4%95%e0%a4%be%e0%a4%b2%e0%a4%b8%e0%a4%b0%e0%a5%8d%e0%a4%aa-%e0%a4%a6%e0%a5%8b%e0%a4%b7-%e0%a4%aa%e0%a5%82%e0%a4%9c%e0%a4%be/">कालसर्प दोष पूजा त्र्यंबकेश्वर</a></p>

Impressive animated GIF of Jupiter, recorded over three hours from Wisconsin (by Thomas Jorgenson) [click this link to watch] by In-the-clouds in space

[–]geoferdy 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I think the edges are too smooth though, has been processed.

Impressive animated GIF of Jupiter, recorded over three hours from Wisconsin (by Thomas Jorgenson) [click this link to watch] by In-the-clouds in space

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Well, now im worried.

Impressive animated GIF of Jupiter, recorded over three hours from Wisconsin (by Thomas Jorgenson) [click this link to watch] by In-the-clouds in space

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

They had that same red Jupiter dot in the same place forever.

Many years ago I had a strange telescope encounter. Some seemingly benevolent character had a very high-end reflector telescope set up on the sidewalk of a popular boutique section of town.

I was walking with my girlfriend and friends at the time, and the owner was letting people look at Saturn through, which was very cool.

My girlfriend looked into the telescope and exclaimed, "IT LOOKS FAKE!"

We laughed at her, and dismissed her comment.

Passing through that section of town a few years later, I noticed the friggin freemason lodge was right across the street from where the telescope was set up, and I was blown away.

I've thought about her gut reaction, and I had suppressed a similar reaction. It actually looked weird.

Something was off, but I can't describe what it was.

We're surrounded by an ocean of bullshit science.

Impressive animated GIF of Jupiter, recorded over three hours from Wisconsin (by Thomas Jorgenson) [click this link to watch] by In-the-clouds in space

[–]SMCAB 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I thought that. I just don't waste my time arguing about space here. It's nauseating.

I've observed Jupiter many, many times and have never seen that movement in three hours. In fact it doesn't spin at all while I'm looking at it. Like from hour to hour.

China Space Station - Yeah, China has their own.... They don't need that other space station where the Americans and Russians commonly abide together (ISS) [picture taken by Michael Tzukran December 3, 2023] by In-the-clouds in space

[–]Musky 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Tiangong literally means Sky Palace. The Chinese use a lot of heavenly themed names in their space program.

Impressive animated GIF of Jupiter, recorded over three hours from Wisconsin (by Thomas Jorgenson) [click this link to watch] by In-the-clouds in space

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Starting at the beginning of the replay.

Track any major feature near the equator as it progresses across along the equator.

These features travel almost the entire length of Jupiter from left to right... During a 3-hour window as observed from Wisconsin?

This gif suggest that Jupiter completes a half a rotation every 3 hours. Full rotation in roughly 6 hours.

Or 4 full rotations per 24 hour period.

Most photos I've seen included the great red dot [allegedly a 400 year old storm or whatever], which makes a brief appearance in the last moments of the gif.

This 3-hour gif of Jupiter from Wisconsin is fake and geh.

Impressive animated GIF of Jupiter, recorded over three hours from Wisconsin (by Thomas Jorgenson) [click this link to watch] by In-the-clouds in space

[–]SMCAB 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Jupiter is by far the coolest planet to look at in my telescope.

You need some impressive equipment to make a gif like this.

Impressive animated GIF of Jupiter, recorded over three hours from Wisconsin (by Thomas Jorgenson) [click this link to watch] by In-the-clouds in space

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That is amazing.