kerbiloid

Probably, a successfully rescued Hubble would consist of: 1) depleted or outspent components (electronics, mechanics); 2) one-way components ("once open, never close" or "brake the strut/decouple the cover, then expand") 3) mirrors. Do you really need these mirrors?

I remember the time when there was written in the books: "There are at least 2000-3000 asteroids in the asteroid belt, so the astronomers have met a problem with names for the newly discovered ones."

Paleogene, epoch of enormous mammals. In "Walking with Beasts" series and etc. it looks like an uncanny valley alive. Mind tells: "This is just a dog. Kind of. This is just a pig. This is just a... e-eh... some animal too. Probably this... thing will purr if scratch its ears", But eyes see something absolutely alien, improper and abnormal, something of deformed and erroneous shape as that dog in "The Fly" movie. But this creature is not deformed, it's absolutely healthy and happy, though it looks like a human's nightmare. P.S. Anomalocaris is fine, too (from Cambrian). My first successful KSP lunar ship was called "Anomalocaris-4" due to its idiotic shape and serial number.

He is mostly right, but he is confusing cause and effect. In fact, Space-X has been created as a market promotion trick of KSP.

Not too big. Why N/A ?!

And when combustion stops...

Still much more easy than build a 26 km high tower. And a spacelift requires more than 26 km height. The building of a lunar spacetower presumes that a construction industry is already built on the Moon surface, just because 1.6 << 7.8, and its easier to build a metallurgical plant in place than to deliver every truss from the Earth. So, when the spacelift will appear in agenda, the "heavy" traffic will be mostly upwards (from Moon to space) or sideways (along the Moon surface). And will require more launches than landings. Passengers and auxilliary movement of course will be bidirectional, but the "up" is covered by the launch ramp, "Down" - yes, ramp is useless.

That's why instead of direct democracy , which you've described, there is almost always used representative democracy.

Probably you mean the injection into transfer orbit.

They can vent them in turn. For example, any plane can vent its fuel (into an atmosphere full of oxygen)

In terms of French Revolution "equality" means "equality before the law", so these two statements look contradictory.

As yet only one ship indeed had met this need (Soyuz-11), and exactly on that ship there were no spacesuits, it looks like placebo. Maybe useful for evacuation, of course. But yet no crew had been evacuated, and it looks unlikely whether a rescue ship can be launched in time.

The "electronic revolution" of 1970s splits the space era in half: before computers — "cannot do", after computers — "not required". Probably only lesser details could change, as the robots make useless most of pre-1980s projects, while without robots those projects would stay dreams.

Probably after NASA had built a huge hollow wheel to make the gravity, they were pitting wits against a problem: how to use all this large empty space? The cheapest ways they have found: gym, lounge, winter-garden and disco-bar with karaoke, because they consist mostly of air.

, but with large fan. Also, this is a launcher. With SpaceX precision this makes sense. This aerotube stays in the backyard of Musk's facility, catching the falling stages and dragons, spitting up falcons. No more land rent or so is required, just a backyard or a gothic castle. Here you can see a Standalone Rocket Facility with an aerotube at its right side, (Also this will assign a clear meaning to: why Dragon needs to precisely land onto a bull's eye rather than other ships which are happy with their chutes and a piece of desert.)

Lunar orbital speed is just 1.6 km/s. It's just a gun shot speed, rather than the terrestrial 7.8 km/s, and there's no air drag. So, no need in a Lunar spacelift, just a V-1-style railway ramp is required. And a tiny engine for the apoapsis burn. Orbital speeds of puny ice moons and cereses are ~100-300 m/s. It's a problem not to launch from their surface, but not to launch too fast, So, instead of a spacelift - a sportcar is in order.

MJ, not KJ. TNT is much weaker than fuel, it just releases its energy at once. In case of Falcon we probably don't have an explosion (as in vacuum bomb), but just a fast burning. So, more temperature effects than a shockwave. Also a mighty blow into the deck, causing strong vibratory inputs which can damage the observer's organism. Btw, just remembered a casus from 1904 Russian-vs-Japan war memoirs. A midshipman stayed on board of a damaged warship to blow it up. After preparing all stuff he had made a rope cradle - hanging from a pole, above the ocean, below the deck level, After he had ignited the delay cords, he took his place in the cradle and happily survived the ship explosion.

If KIC 8462852 builders become aware of us, our social order wouldn't play a greater role than an ants colony order for an excavator driver..

As I can understand, this topic is dedicated to the Popper's criterion, which declares this "unfalsifiable means non-scientific" assumption. As for these two universes, of course if the second one is based on such complicated laws that nobody can get a predictable result, then "science" (i.e. structurized empirical knowledge) is not in order. As an absolutely unpredictable system is usually called "chaos", so, either this is a pure chaos, or this universe is based on short-range predictability. But, anyway, looks we are talking about different things here - falsifiability vs usability, just different themes.

To make a prison for their fugitives.

Mathematical axioms are absolutely falsifiable, though. And axioms are not just a question of faith, they are absolutely exact definitions which are designating the range of applicability of the theory which they belong to. If you can draw a line crossing its parallel line, the you've successfully run a test which falsified the corresponding axiom. (As you indeed can draw such line, this means that your test had crossed the limits of the range of applicability of Euclid's theory, not that Euclid's geometry is wrong). So, we have not a scientific criterion of a scientificity here, but just a non-scientific assumption taken as a non-falsifiable (i.e. non-scientific) axiom. And then we are trying to use it as a scientific criterion of scientificity. This just would mean that the theories describing their world differ from others, they are out of our theories' range of applicability.

But what makes to think that this is Venus whose rotation is reverse, rather than Earth? A planet appears from a swarm of snowballs orbiting the Sun on more or less same distance with more or less same speed. So, when a protoplanet continues its way through its native swarm, with orbit radius R and orbital speed V, there are snowballs more distant from the Sun,with orbits R+dR and V - dV and there are snowballs closer to the Sun,with orbits R-dR and V + dV. So, when the protoplanet gathers them: It chases the first ones, hits them by its "forehead" (i.e. the planet prograde part distant from the Sun), and this adds an angular momentum in backwards direction. The second ones chase the planet themselves and hit it into its "back" (i.e. the planet retrograde part close to the Sun), and this adds an angular momentum in... also backwards direction. So, if nothing large hits the planet, it must rotate exactly like the Venus does: slowly, almost tidally locked, in backwards direction. While the Earth and Mars as we probably know were either directly hit or tidally rotated (doesn't matter in this case) and we can be absolutely sure that their "normal" rotation is in fact a "post-traumatic" one. Also, afaik, there is no real continents on Venus, but there are la-arge fields of so-called tesseras., appeared due to the crust compression, which tells us that it was never molten at once as a significant part of the Earth body was, so we can hardly presume that it was hit by something. In fact, Venus looks like the most natural and untouched planet of the rocky ones. The vanilla planet as it is.

This is a consequence from the initial theory, though. Newtonian physics is just a particluar case of more common relativistic one, for trivial conditions (v << c, space curvature → infinity, etc). Newtonian theory is not wrong, it just has more limited range of applicability. Also the relativictic theory is a limited case of some greater one. I mean: we need to go deeper the initial assumption (i.e. the scientificity criterion) declares that a theory (i.e. this assumption itself, too) can be treated as a scientific one if and only if this is possible to imagine a test when the theory gives a wrong answer. For example: if we will drop an apple, and it will fly up instead of fall down, then Newton's theory would be invalidated ("falsified" as they call this).. So, Newtonian theory is true or wrong, but it's scientific. While if we declare "dropped apple will either fly or fall", we can't make an experiment which can invalidate this assumption (because in any case the apple will either fly or fall). So, this theory is unfalsifiable and thus, non-scientific. But is it possible to imagine a theory which is scientific and unfalsifiable? If we can't imagine such theory, then the initial assumption (Popper's criterion, btw) is itself unfalsifiable, thus non-scientific and we cannot use the falsifiability as a scientific criterion of scientificity.

They would be peaceful and constructive. As a 80 tonnes bulldozer building a school or hospital over an ant heap.

Can the initial assumption be falsified? ("If you cannot falsify a theory, it cannot be valid scientifically").