802
Lmao (thelemmy.club)
submitted 4 months ago by to c/science_memes@mander.xyz
271 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 39 points 4 months ago (9 children)

I assume the amount of energy required for 'only' 50% more is massive.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 26 points 4 months ago (6 children)

    Apparently with 50% higher gravity it would be pretty much impossible with chemical rockets, but with the median of the estimate (so about 12.43 m/s^2^) it would be possible, you'd just need an incredibly large rocket, or non-chemical propulsion (e.g. nuclear).

    A space program on that planet would definitely advance much slower than on Earth.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 19 points 4 months ago (4 children)

    How well funded have our space programs been? Maybe they aren't diverting massive portions of their resources to war and can actually focus on space.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 17 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    They were well funded back when their real goal was to develop ICBMs capable of delivering nukes.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 4 months ago

    I get what you are saying, but the Saturn V was never intended to be an ICBM. Depending on what numbers you look at too, they weren’t actually that well funded. Some of the largest estimates that I’ve seen place NASA’s inflation adjusted budget between 1960 and 1973 at just under $600 billion. Or roughly half of what we’re spending in one year on the military currently.

    To put it another way, at its absolute peak budget NASA received roughly 4.6% of the current military budget.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago

    Iirc near that +50% level you end up needing a saturn 5 to launch sputnik, so its more expensive to the degree that it might just be deamed unfeasable, at least at the technology level humans started launching rockets at.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Also i wonder since the diameter is larger, is this effectively like putting everything in a higher orbit which is also more difficult then if it was just twice as dense.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •