Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

IglooCrusade t1_j2dvvi1 wrote

I don't get why interplanetary travel takes up so much of this subs time when it's nowhere near attainable or sustainable in any of our lifetimes.

Edit: people,.give me an ETA when we can blast the moon with microwaves.

Then tell me how long that will take to apply that tech to Mars.

Then laugh at yourselves, lmao.

−33

WMVMW t1_j2dxx9f wrote

Feel free to submit your own posts.

43

IglooCrusade t1_j2ebsl7 wrote

But would they get any traction in between all these fluff pieces about travel that won't happen?

−12

khanzarate t1_j2ec0z0 wrote

Sure won’t if you don’t post em.

13

IglooCrusade t1_j2ecabx wrote

So why post them when you guys are just going to jerk each other off about something else?

−14

khanzarate t1_j2ecyao wrote

Well if you’re gonna be that bitter about it maybe you better just not, and jerk yourself off on how much of a waste of time it would’ve been, instead of actually trying.

Literally the only result of commenting how you wouldn’t waste your time here.

14

Jak03e t1_j2eheo9 wrote

Dude, you know you like...don't have to be here right?

12

electricblue187 t1_j2e20or wrote

It’s been attainable for 50 years. It’s a question of priorities. Specifically, human space exploration or ‘politics by other means’

27

IglooCrusade t1_j2ebogj wrote

50 years?

You're saying we could have landed on Mars in the 70s?

−4

electricblue187 t1_j2en24d wrote

Humans landed on the moon in 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972 If we prioritized human space exploration over empty consumerism and pointless self destruction who knows what might’ve been accomplished since then?

12

arewemartiansyet t1_j2e27jp wrote

That's either incredibly pessimistic or uninformed unless you are betting on SpaceX completely disappearing. Even then there are other private launch providers will eventually develop the required hardware.

16

Apokolypze t1_j2e7csw wrote

He also apparently missed the 1960s in school. Given this article is talking about the moon, which we've already been to.

12

IglooCrusade t1_j2ebii9 wrote

You mean it talking about blasting the lunar surface with microwaves?

Did we do that in the 60s when we landed?

3

Apokolypze t1_j2ec60t wrote

I'm guessing at least some of the radiation given off by the eagle landers was microwave, but obviously the magnitude described in the article is hypothetical

5

IglooCrusade t1_j2edep9 wrote

No, they did not use microwaves to blast debris from underneath the lunar landers.

−2

Apokolypze t1_j2ee7mg wrote

No shit, I was merely saying it probably gave off some microwave energy. Blasting the surface with microwaves to scienmagically make a landing pad is hypothetical.

3

IglooCrusade t1_j2eblar wrote

>eventually

Uh, yeah of course. But while you're alive, they won't be running supply missions to Mars, no.

−1

fencethe900th t1_j2fmdfu wrote

You are incredibly pessimistic, considering you've assumedly lived through SpaceX's increase in performance over the last half decade.

1

Spank86 t1_j2es4o8 wrote

30 seconds.

I've shoved a stick in the bit that makes mine think the doors closed and ive got it on the windowsill turned on, juat got to line the bugger up. Eyeballing it should be fine, the moons pretty big.

1

slickbandito69 t1_j2e6cil wrote

Its certaintly unsuatainable, which is the argument nobody's talking about here.

−3

IglooCrusade t1_j2ebxb8 wrote

No, just blasting the lunar surface with microwaves for no good reason, lmao.

0