If you threw a hammer at escape velocity toward earth it would hit earth because it would be pulled into the gravitational field. If you’re adding velocity toward the center of the system and you’re already orbiting the body, you’re going to go eccentric if the speed is low and impact if the speed is high. You’re ripping that hammer and it’s gonna burn up in atmosphere

There is a finite amount of potential energy that is stored by you being elevated in a gravitational field. That’s why going up a mountain is harder than going down a mountain, you’re putting energy into climbing, and getting it back when you descend

If you imagine being out in space, and you fell to earth (negating air resistance) — you’d be moving very very fast. When you started, there is a lot of energy stored — you’re at the very top of the “mountain”

That means that you have a certain amount of kinetic energy corresponding to your speed and mass.

When you “hit” earth, and imagine a soft landing where you aren’t obliterated — that kinetic energy is exactly equal to you “climbing” the mountain — I.e. being out in space.

When you want to climb the mountain to get out of earth’s gravitational field, then you need to use that much energy to get up to speed to jump out.

Escape velocity is simply how fast you’d have to start out at to get away from earth, negating air resistance.

That’s extremely unlikely. They don’t have different photons than we do

Well, omoamumao wasn’t sending any signals out — voyager does (or did?) send out a radio signal

Quantum computers can’t solve impossible problems — they can solve some instances of very high complexity computation in less time compared to classical computing.

Like I said — a missile doesn’t have a hard time figuring things out quickly enough, it has a hard time gathering accurate information (flare countermeasures), or determining where the craft will be in X time (unknowable since it is piloted) and then getting to the correct position at the right time because it is a physical aircraft bound by physical laws.

Kinematics are not complex problems compared to computational techniques on a classical computer

If you were talking about some type of quantum camera that (insert made up helpful feature here), sure, maybe; but the inputs to your quantum computer are the same as the classical one. And after the quantum computer does its job, even, somehow, let’s pretend it does it instantaneously, are still limited by response time of the missile and Physical laws. Which are the real crux of the difficulties anyways

OP missed the logic by miles

Sorry you should try a megafemto hypercamera analyzer if you want decent results read a book please

Then put that in the post lol

But also that’s an even less reasonable answer because a quantum computer isn’t a communication device. If you’re talking about quantum communication, that won’t be somehow unphased by other effects, it just pertains to fidelity of communications in the face of intercepting a signal

Furthermore my points still stands as the limitations are not onboard computers, but rather physical realities of the missile as an aircraft

I like your level of condescension after reading a handful of articles on quantum computing

Then put that in the post lol

But also that’s an even less reasonable answer because a quantum computer isn’t a communication device. If you’re talking about quantum communication, that won’t be somehow unphased by other effects, it just pertains to fidelity of communications

Furthermore my points still stands as the limitations are not onboard computers, but rather physical realities of the missile as an aircraft

I like your level of condescension after reading a handful of articles on quantum computing

Higher cost, same function. Waste.

A missile isn’t limited by its computation. It’s limited by information gathering (knowing position and vector of its true target) and physical limitations of itself a a physical aircraft.

A quantum computer won’t do a better job of analyzing incoming info (cpus don’t gather information) and certainly won’t help it fly any better, other than adding weight

The term is solar noon — you can look up based on your location here:

https://gml.noaa.gov/grad/solcalc/

Come on man of course that’s what he meant

You lost us with the water iron

It would nearly immediately freeze.

The vacuum of space would cause water to boil off, drawing energy from the mass until it froze

I went to undergrad for physics and took some (not many) Astronomy courses and I do not think I knew this. Thanks

I like your comment and agree, and in some ways I think the freeze-dry flavor of boiling might even be spookier to many people.

People have been getting boiled for a lot of human history, but not freeze dried — that’s some space-age torture

To clarify for any layfolk — you don’t boil as in “getting hot”. The pressure drop means that the boiling point of water is lower than body temp, so the liquid will turn to a vapor and escape the body (high pressure moves to low pressure), which will remove heat from your body

So you’re not on the stove boiling, you’re stuck in a (painful) freeze dryer

As someone who supports space exploration, saying “we need” to launch one a year is a pretty childish way to scope out space travel plans

No no please crucify me I’ve been waiting for this

I like how we are talking about humans pushing our outer limits for exploration, but within the context of believing that some magical oracle man can guess the future

How many “good” regions are there? I assume some rock types would be unsuitable for anchoring (maybe it’s anchored so deep it doesn’t matter?) but definitely not near tectonic plates and presumably not in any type of water? Would need to be close to a major port or shipping hub, and probably some other criteria

Kinda like asking — my car has a 16 gallon gas tank, how much torque does my car output?

We’d need to know engine displacement and gearing to determine a ballpark for torque, and it would only be an estimate

You’ve given us total amount of fuel, which is how much energy you have to spend. But the burn rate and nozzle design determine thrust (among other secondary factors mentioned in this thread). Imagine burning 13 lbs fuel on the ground. What is your thrust? Very low. Ok, say you have a super small nozzle and burn rate. Burn lasts a long time, but low thrust. Huge nozzle and high burn rate? Very large thrust for a short time

Willie would only use it in a bind and leave you double the cash to cover it

Unless you’re the IRS