752

submitted 5 days ago by fossilesque@mander.xyz to c/science_memes@mander.xyz

205 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 5 days 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 5 days 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 5 days ago

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

[-] atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works 9 points 5 days 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 4 days ago

Also to launch big spy satellites into orbit.

[-] CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days 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.