Yes we can!
Wait, that one's taken too? Uggh
UraniumBlazer
joined 2 years ago
I just smile extra wide then to somehow show that I didn't mean it to come out that way lmao
Would love to see the tankies explain this.
If only... Shoutout to all zoophiles who miss that dino pussy. I feel ur painnnnnn /s
Ahem akshually, this photo was taken a few hundred million years ago. Then, the continents didn't look like they do now. So ahem no, you need to go to school. Uhuhuhuhehehehe.
/s
I have no idea how many brain cells I lost writing that lmao
Just like the Lord intended!
The Lord being me. You're welcome.
/s
Assuming it is circumglobal, would we put it at a specific latitude?
I don't see why you would need to put it at a certain latitude. I think it would be more of a web of straight lines between major population centers.
If a web how do intersections work?
Just how maglev intersections work. We would probably need to have a spheroid-ish tube piece for the intersection with > 2 holes.
In terms of what goes in the tube, weβd have to build an absolute shitton of what are effectively spaceships if they are to be airtight enough to hold a comfortable atmosphere for any significant period.
The most expensive part of a spaceship is not keeping it airtight. Rather, it is other systems (like the engines, life support, ability to handle significant heat/pressure differentials and so on). HSR bogies are already airtight (not as airtight as spaceships of course) to handle the pressure differential at the front of the train vs the back of the train. I don't see this being that big of a challenge honestly.
And if itβs intended for passenger use exclusively, why use discrete personal cars at all instead of a bus?
I don't understand. The hyperloop that I'm talking about is a train. The spaceships that I'm mentioning would have capacities of a few hundred as well (like normal planes).
Which would be incredibly cheap even in 2024 (compared to the amount of resources being transported).
Whose cost would be energy and light wear and tear on the railgun. Which won't be much at all.
(I thought by "travel", u meant having to use spaceships to transport material which would be significantly more expensive).
I'm not rlly that aware of how boring works, so I'll take ur word for it there I suppose.
Any moon mining is going to be expensive because it's the moon. That kind of travel is going to be expensive.
For this tho, u don't have to "travel" anywhere. U just build a one time installation on the moon, which would be expensive. Once it's built, u just launch stuff from the moon using a railgun like system with enough velocity to deorbit it, use the earth's atmosphere to slow down enough that the material doesn't vaporize on a crash landing in a designated location. This would most likely be how we would get our material in the future.
I'm sorry you feel that way. I think I explained my position very clearly whenever I disagreed with you.
I did "look into stuff" as you asked. Perhaps I didn't look into the resources that you were talking about. Maybe you should've linked those sources in your post instead of saying "go look it up".
I do listen to what other people have to say. That doesn't mean I have to agree with it always, no? Whenever I disagree, I always explain my underlying motivation.
I really cannot see how I was arguing in bad faith anywhere above.
U forgot "NATO bad". Shame on you comrade tankie /s