755
Lmao (mander.xyz)
submitted 2 months ago by fossilesque@mander.xyz to c/science_memes@mander.xyz
203 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] turdas@suppo.fi 25 points 2 months ago

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.

[-] meco03211@lemmy.world 18 points 2 months ago

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.

[-] turdas@suppo.fi 15 points 2 months ago

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

[-] atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works 9 points 2 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.

[-] Samskara@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 months ago

Also to launch big spy satellites into orbit.

[-] CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world 2 points 2 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.

[-] nexguy@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

Much slower as in hundreds or thousands of years, so practically no difference at all.

this post was submitted on 13 Apr 2026
755 points (100.0% liked)

Science Memes

20634 readers
1631 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.

Meta Post Tags

Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

If you are here asking: "Is this a science meme?"

Probably, yes. We use the Dawkins definition of meme: a replicating idea, not just an image macro with a fact on it. A good post here doesn't need to teach you something. It needs to make you ask something: who, what, where, when, and especially why or how.

Science isn't a filing cabinet of facts, it's a conversation. For example, a photo of an eel or other localized wildlife counts because most people never see one, and wonder is the first step of inquiry. A car meme counts if it makes you curious about what's under the bonnet. If you want to talk about something you noticed in the world, chances are someone else wants to talk about it too.

We moderate for vibe, not category. Pruning is light, especially where a post creates interesting discussion. Experimenting is encouraged.

See the pinned paper on Shitposting as Public Pedagogy if you want the academic case for why this works.

Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Sal@mander.xyz
fossilesque@mander.xyz
SciBot@mander.xyz
fossilesque@lemmy.dbzer0.com