Rdivine

Is it possible for a planet to form such that it's rotational period is less than, or equal to the orbital period at 0m elevation? [velocity of the rocks at sea level would be orbiting the planet] If such a planet exists, the materials at sea level would essentially be orbiting the planet itself. Beside's that, what would happen to such a hypothetical planet's oceans? Is it possible where it's atmosphere is also moving at close to orbital velocity as well? What would happen to it's shape? The poles of the planet would experience the same weight force, but the equators would be weightless. Hence, is it possible that it's shape remain a sphere, or something similar? The existence of such a planet sounds crazy, but recently i saw this video that postulated the existence of doughnut-shaped planets.

Hi guys! This post isn't about spaceflight, but more about science. Where do we waste energy most at? This question is to find out which aspect of our lives consume energy most inefficiently, and if this trend may be true if alien life exists. Share your answers below!

Circling back to the topic, it's sad how the majority of the population have little to no knowledge regarding space. Whenever i'm having a conversation about space with them, i really want to facepalm myself so hard... My friend even thought that objects in orbit are just floating there not moving at all.

More of a philosophy question here, but it still falls under "geeky" so... When does something come into existence? When does something start existing? For example, when did you come into existence? You can argue that you came into existence when you were conceived, but the atoms that now make up you already existed before you were created. If we time travel backwards, can we call those atoms that would make up you "you" ? Let's say i have a boat made up completely of old planks, and a separate pile of new planks. I remove a wooden plank from the boat and replace it with a new plank each day. At the end of the year, all the planks of the boat have been replaced. Where is the original boat? Is it the one made of new planks, or the pile of old planks? Let's answer the first question. You came into existence when the universe began, because the atoms were created when the universe began. However, everything else also came into existence at that same point in time. How many "things" were created when the universe began? Or maybe there was an infinite amount of things created already? Perhaps at this point in time, there exist an infinite number of things because the atoms that would make up those things in the future already exist!

Is it possible to build an elevator at the poles? The elevator would be shaped more like a sharp pyramid for structural integrity.

I'm not Dr. Evil, i swear.

Replacing 3 systems with one isn't a great idea. Look at the F-35 for example... I guess the main role of the SuperDracos should be to serve as an escape tower. Secondary role : land propulsively.

Hello! So NASA has plans to return a small asteroid/boulder from an asteroid to lunar orbit, and send crew to retrieve samples from it. However, why go through all that trouble? I propose a mission that sends a small probe to a large asteroid( roughly between 300m - 1km in diameter) which would already be on a trajectory that will intersect Earth's, and place it in orbit. The satellite could use gravitational tugging to set the asteroid on a near-collision course with Earth. The asteroid would then undergo aerocapture into an eccentric orbit around Earth, and it's perigee would be raised slightly so that it's orbit would decay slowly. After a planned amount of time, the asteroid would undergo reentry and land somewhere on Earth. Hopefully, due to it's large size, it wouldn't burn up completely, but large boulders of it would make it safely to Earth for recovery and analysis. To prevent any endangering of population, it could be done over Antarctica. It might be a less-costly and less-complicated idea, and it would allow for more samples of the asteroid to be taken. Do you think it is possible?

Neither should we hear rocket burns, explosions and kerbals screaming space music XD

Quick question here. Why are most rocket launches able to perform a single burn and reach a circular, low earth orbit? In KSP, whenever we try to launch a rocket, the apoapsis is always way ahead of the spacecraft, and we have to cut the engines off so that the apoapsis doesn't increase any further. However, launches such as the space shuttle, orbcomm-2, and most launches only perform a single burn, and do not reignite their second stage to circularize their orbit. Why is it so? I also realized that some rocket launches such as Jason-3 reignite their second stages, but why not just perform a single burn to orbit like other rockets?

Everytime an engine is ignited, there is an ignition sound accompanying it. However, whenever the engine is reignited, there is no ignition sound. It sounds trivial but i guess it improves the gameplay experience

0 + 1 = 1 Join the light side.

A new rocket already? I haven't seen much progress regarding the falcon heavy, yet they are starting on another one. p.s. Elon Musk looks different and aged... I suspect meth stress.

Hello! @CAKE99

Why does the crew dragon have 4 parachutes instead of 3? Is it a redundant feature?

Quick question. Do the numbers beside "spin" actually represent angular momentum?

I'm pretty sure the original post was meant to be a joke mocking the silly properties of weighing machines More to the point, negative mass would respond opposite to gravity, this it is repelled away from normal matter. However, when both negative masses encounter each other, they would demonstrate normal gravitational forces on each other (like how two negatives form one positive).

Mood music for each planet would be an excellent idea. It would blend in well with the surroundings, and you would have a different experience everytime you visit a different planet. Plus, another reason to go interplanetary!

Surprise! It must be @CliftonM next.

Particles with negative mass do not fit inside the analog of magnets, unfortunately. Negative mass particles accelerate in the direction opposite to applied force, hence effectively cancelling the force out altogether. This implies that a particle with negative mass cannot be moved by normal action-reaction forces, hence you might be able to achieve infinite energy by harnessing its lack of reaction to ordinary forces. Additionally, negative mass particles would respond to gravity and other fundamental forces, but the situation i set up was under an ideal situation with no gravity or other interfering forces. Plus, as long as the concept is there, it is theoretically possible to actually build an object with negative mass, given enough time, or a huge leap in technology. Now, all this is made under the assumption of the existence of an exotic matter only with negative mass changed relative to it's "normal" counterpart. Hence, the focus on this thread is on negative mass itself, not the particles Oh, and a better analog would be ; A unicorn that can fly is consistent with the rules of biology and evolution, but we don't have the capabilities to breed one yet Now, don't i have a point here? I'll... I'll show myself out.

Is it possible to have an object made out of exotic matter which demonstrates properties of negative mass? A particle of negative mass would accelerate in the direction opposite of applied force, thus pushing an object with negative mass would be impossible, as it would just accelerate in the direction opposite of the push, cancelling out your push force in the first place. This would allow for intergalactic train tracks, where vessels use wheels to push against rails of matter with negative mass, and perhaps infinite energy. (Infinite energy can be created by , let's say, attaching a very long elastic band to two hooks made of negative mass moving away from each other, and harnessing the elastic potential energy.) The velocity of a negative mass object can be determined by the initial velocity when it is synthesized, and it would also create more paradoxes. For example, what would happen if two cubes made of negative mass collided with each other? Since their motion cannot be changed by an external force, they are essentially unstoppable. Hence, would the cubes pass right through each other? All these possibilities sound very cool, and despite being inconsistent with the expected behavior of "normal" matter, negative mass is mathematically consistent and introduces no violation of conservation of momentum or energy. Now, only one of the statements below are true. 1. Negative mass is possible, allowing for unstoppable objects and (perhaps) infinite energy. 2. The current mathematics regarding the conservation of momentum or energy is incorrect/incomplete. You can vote on which statement you would think is true in the polls above! Meanwhile, share your opinions below!.

You're right. Plus, the propellant requirement would drop due to decreased mass from the absence of their brains Alright, that's enough teasing. Let's keep it classy shall we ?

I propose that NASA set up a program to send flat-earthers and conspiracy theorists to space, and leave them there because we don't need them back down.

I've wondered, what if we hit that 0.007% of it not existing at all? There's always a chance

I've seen it a few times but didn't really paid attention. Didn't know that it was a rare occurence