top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 19 points 1 day ago* (2 children)

I'm convinced that learning to terraform our own planet is essential before moving out into the stars. If we won't take our own ecosystem seriously we can't possibly go out there and build new ones to live in.

It's actually really obvious the more you think about it.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 9 hours ago (1 child)

    Antarctica is hilariously more habitable than Mars, but none of these techbro futurists ever move to Antarctica. lathe-of-heaven

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 8 hours ago (1 child)

    It's funny to think of scifi now in the context of the current eco crisis. All those worlds full of industry and pollution, for hundreds if not thousands of years. It's been a blindspot of scifi writing and worldbuilding when you really think about it... It is physically impossible for a space faring species to not become terraformers with a huge consciousness about what they're doing with the planets they colonise. It's literally essential.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 7 hours ago*

    JB Foster argues that modern environmentalism doesn't take off until the first nuclear tests in the 1940s, and even then, much of it was liberal in character. In the couple of centuries before that, local environmental degradation such as smog and water pollution might trigger protest. Marx's theory of a metabolic rift was, according to Foster, the first really ecological theory in the modern sense, and even then, Marx's ecology was not widely appreciated among Marxists until the 1990s.

    All that is to say that the mere concept of an ecosystem is relatively new and, in the late 20th century as science fiction really took off, ecology was still abstract for most people. It's only in the 21st century that ecology has asserted itself concretely and shed its abstract veneer. Now it is without question not only that ecology matters, but that its scale is global rather than local, systemic rather than individual.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 45 points 1 day ago

    2028? The degree to which this isn't going to happen is unmatched

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 1 day ago

    At this rate they might not be able to send a nuclear-powered intra-planetary ship to Bahrain by 2028

  • source
  • [–] 14 points 1 day ago (8 children)

    I am merely a big sci fi nerd who tries his best to know how space works. The degree to which this is impossible is like...overwhelming. Also stop being Mars perverts. There is nothing there. We already know that. Venus is a more potentially useful planet. The ISS in my opinion is the most important space thing that we have and we should make more of them. I may be a known gundam fan but part of what made me one was that I had already thought that orbital colonies are the best path forward towards human occupation of space before these ideas of a fucking trip to mars. We can't go to other planets. We just cant. The only way we can learn to do so is by learning how to make living in space comfortably work. We know how to get shit in orbit. Mars is boring, we have sent enough probes to know that

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    Tiangong > ISS and my most anticipated space mission is Chang'e 8, the ISRU test one.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 child)

    Indont know my recent space station lore. But space stations. We need space stations. Once again being this made me like Gundam, I got the feeling from star trek, space is the place. Being a species that can figure out how to live in such a hostile environment and spreading life as we know it, cause we havent seen any other evidence so far, is gonna be necessary for not fucking up earth at this point. I just like holding on to the idea of s future that is cool in at least a bit of my mind.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    Tiangong is the Chinese one, it's way newer and way less jank. It's being used primarily for studying living in space and developing technology for better space living.

    You may remember it as the one with the air fryer barbecue wings.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    Second paragraphs jogged my memory. That sounds like the exact thing we should be doing. Go far plant flag is such a deeply arrogant approach. Space exploration<Space occupation. We can send fucking robots to look at stuff. There is no reason to send anyone to planets

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 day ago* (6 children)

    China's approach to lunar exploration is exactly right. They've been building up experience and technology for living in space with Tiangong, communications infrastructure with Queqiao, and navigation and landing experience as well as observation and samples from the lunar surface with Chang'e. By the time they actually send people to the moon (still before Artemis) they'll be going to a site that's already been surveyed and mapped by rovers, with experiments in making fuel and structures from lunar material already underway.

    I wouldn't go so far as to say that there's no reason to ever send anyone to planets, but the go far plant flag mission is a pretty total waste of time, money, and risk. Did you know Apollo only ever put exactly one (1) scientist on the moon, in the very last mission?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • load more comments (6 replies)
  • load more comments (7 replies)
    [–] 26 points 1 day ago
    [–] 30 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    Imagine being on the USS Abraham Lincoln but a spacecraft

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 day ago (3 children)

    Lmao yeah let's design a spacecraft that requires it's engine to be cooled constantly just to avoid a nuclear meltdown. This is absolutely a viable option in the vacuum of space.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 9 hours ago* (2 children)

    The past few NASA Mars rovers were nuclear powered but launched by traditional rockets. In 2010, two years before Curiosity rover landed with a nuclear-powered system, the Spirit lander (landed 2004) had sent its final signal; it got stuck in a sand trap at an angle that prevented recharging via solar panel. The low Sun intensity, combined with dust and sand, make nuclear a compelling power source for Mars.

    Now, this nuclear power source is not like a nuclear-powered submarine which has an active power plant based on fission of uranium-235. Instead, the spacecraft are powered by plutonium dioxide, which is yielded by reprocessing spent nuclear fuel. The plutonium dioxide naturally decays, giving off a consistent ~100 watts of heat, which is then used to charge lithium batteries which, in turn, power the craft.^1

    Nuclear power was also used in the pair of Voyager spacecraft sent in the late 70s and early 80s and are still communicating today. Because the decay rate of plutonium oxide declines over time (half life of about 87 years), the Voyagers have had to progressively shut down scientific instruments in order to preserve communication back to earth. IIRC, they are basically only sending pings “heartbeats” now.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 day ago

    That is not the reason this thing that won't happen won't happen. Nuclear rockets have already been developed and tested all the way back in the 60s. It won't happen because amerikkka can't build anything and absolutely can't build all the things that this mission would require in two years.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 day ago

    so like abrams and kurtzman trek

  • source
  • Things that will never happen

  • source
  • [–] 18 points 1 day ago

    Full blockade of the Wormhole of Hormuz America and occupation of Deep Space Kharg

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 1 day ago* (2 children)

    This is like Star Trek, but it's the mirror universe where Earth is way more imperialistic than it is in regular Star Trek.

    https://youtu.be/xLuP_90sabY (CW: gun deaths)

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 8 points 1 day ago

    To be fair the post atomic horror preceded the events of the show in Star Trek

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 1 day ago

    I feel like I see that same thumbheaded guy in every space force photo op

    or maybe I just see Vic Mackey everywhere and it's more of a me problem

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 1 day ago

    As fine a way of saying 'no more Artemis missions' as any

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    I mean he said it so we know it’s not happening.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    This is how you get IRL Event Horizon

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 day ago

    That's the funniest shit I have seen all day

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    What the hell kind of propulsion could a nuclear reactor do in space? Don't we just use that shit to heat water to spin turbines here on earth? Don't we basically push ourselves around in space by letting the air out of balloons in the vacuum of space?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 day ago

    The efficiency of a rocket motor is proportional to the exhaust velocity, which is proportional to the exhaust temperature. If you run hydrogen over a nuclear reactor, it gets hotter and therefore faster than if you just burned it. This has already been built and was called NERVA, and should have been used in the 70s with the rest of the cancelled STS program.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    title makes it sound like star wars???

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›