Qinglong wrote:What science would you use to get ... VENGEANCE?
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.
Peryite wrote: Does the surface get worn out from light rays bouncing off of it, so the tiny particles that reflect the colors we see reflect duller colors instead?
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.
Peryite wrote:So I was wondering, how does light damage happen? Does the surface get worn out from light rays bouncing off of it, so the tiny particles that reflect the colors we see reflect duller colors instead?
A Combustible Lemon wrote:Death is an archaic concept for simpleminded commonfolk, not Victorian scientist whales.
Randall Munroe wrote:Getting to space is easy. It's not, like, something you could do in your car, but it's not a huge challenge. You could get a person to space with a small sounding rocket the size of a telephone pole. The X-15 aircraft reached space just by going fast and then steering up.
But getting to space is easy. The problem is staying there.
Blackfish wrote:So I was on another forum and there was a statistic mentioned off-handedly that getting materiel from Earth's surface to space costs $10000 a pound.
So I was thinking: are rockets going vertically up really the most efficient way to get things into space? I mean, while a commercial flight obviously goes quite a bit lower than outer space, the cost per pound is also a mere fraction of the price. And what about hot-air balloons, like how Felix Baumgartner went up, where I'd imagine you wouldn't need nearly as much fuel?
(As you can tell, I have only the faintest conception of the science.)
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest