Steel

You're never too old to learn new skills.

@Green Baron The author herself has some more thoughts [1]. Personally, my view is that the money could almost certainly be better invested in several, less expensive projects with defined goals and targets (which the FCC doesn't really have).

For your reference, an opinion (from a physicist) about why pouring billions into a giant supercollider might not be such a great idea. [1]

Simply, they inject it at a higher pressure than the combustion chamber pressure. It's why most engines rely on turbo pumps to pump the fuel.

This is why some physicists think parts of theoretical physics are loosing their usefulness. People spend time making lots of very clever theories by looking only at the mathematics, but do not worry whether or not they actually relate to our universe.

As far as I understand it, the negative root is still valid from a purely theoretical standpoint (as it is in many equations) however we have no evidence for negative masses, and many cosmological theories do not allow for it, so the root is ignored.

No. It doesn't matter what is providing the acceleration (even if it is a massive, physics breaking, free energy machine) you cannot accelerate a massive object to, or past, the speed of light.

Short answer: no. Simplifying it massively, for heat to be transferred between two particles, you require energy to be transferred between the two (i.e one particle loses energy, the other gains it). Just because two particles have their states entangled doesn't mean that energy is transferred between the two, so it's not a mechanism that can be used to transfer heat. Also on a side note, the concept of "heat" at the level of quantum particles doesn't really mean very much, heat is very much a macroscopic phenomenon.

82km, which is space in the USAF definition (above 80km), but not above the Karman line.

https://backreaction.blogspot.com/2018/12/no-negative-masses-have-not.html?spref=tw&m=1 A reaction. Picks up on something key that I missed when reading the paper originally. The paper required these negative mass particles to repel each other, where as in general relativity they would attract.

It's interesting work, and the results are notable. However, the paper is far from extensive and a simulation of 50,000 particles is not much to shout about, so I'd stop well short of jumping to any conclusions without further, more detailed, corroborating work. The biggest hangup for me is that his model is for a "continuously-created negative mass substance". There's something about requiring a substance that has to be constantly created in order for it's effects not to be diluted by spacetime expansion that just doesn't feel right to me - completely non-scientific, I know.

My idea would be to make one of them an underground civilisation that rarely went above ground. Don't know whether that works in with whatever story you have so far, but that's my two cents.

I don't think Artemis and The Martian have much in common other than their author in all honesty. I loved The Martian, but Artemis didn't hit any of the same good points for me personally. I'd heartily second the earlier recommendation of KSR's Mars Trilogy. I've only read Red Mars, but it's hands down amazing and I've already lined up the other two.

According to this post you get an ISP of about 260 s for HTP(95%)/Ammonia mixture.

Yeah as @tater said, it's not really a film that celebrates his achievements with big shots and a grand soundtrack, it's a much more intimate film than that.

No, but I think a hybrid is a much easier motor to work with. Gives you the benefits of throttling without the inherent difficulties of a liquid bi-prop engine (fuel mixing, two sets of plumbing e.t.c)

I'd also suggest that a forum perhaps isn't the most efficient method of planning something like this. Maybe put a Slack channel (or similar) together with interested parties, then post periodic updates on progress here to update people and generate interest.

Just my quick thoughts: If this gets to a serious point of asking for money from people, people will expect serious documentation. There are 1000's of people who have ideas for low cost rockets, but very few will have detailed sourcing plans, every single part designed, costed and sourced and a genuine plan a out how they'll build and fly a rocket. All of that stuff will be needed before anyone will even have the conversation about money. One other thing. With a project so complex, you have to factor in the fact that there will be a lot of testing involved, some of it destructive. I can almost guarantee the first attempt (as well as the second, third and maybe fourth) at designing and building some parts will fail, and that all needs to be factored into the project.

7:1 for H2O2/RP-1 Also, why jellied?

LRO images have a resolution of about 100 m [1]. So the short answer to how much it would help is "not much". [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Reconnaissance_Orbiter

I've only skimmed it, but this might answer some questions: https://medium.freecodecamp.org/the-programming-language-pipeline-91d3f449c919

I'm going to say getting clear glass of any kind would be almost impossible, let alone of high enough quality to make lenses.

Photosynthesis is horribly inefficient, I think man-made solar panels are better by a factor of 10 or so.

I'd hazard a guess that it's very fuel rich exhaust which is why it's so flamey

One thing I will say is that it's so good to finally see opportunities like this spring up somewhere other than the US.