this post was submitted on 10 Sep 2024
7 points (68.4% liked)
Space
1416 readers
162 users here now
A community to discuss space & astronomy through a STEM lens
Rules
- Be respectful and inclusive. This means no harassment, hate speech, or trolling.
- Engage in constructive discussions by discussing in good faith.
- Foster a continuous learning environment.
Also keep in mind, mander.xyz's rules on politics
Please keep politics to a minimum. When science is the focus, intersection with politics may be tolerated as long as the discussion is constructive and science remains the focus. As a general rule, political content posted directly to the instance’s local communities is discouraged and may be removed. You can of course engage in political discussions in non-local communities.
Related Communities
🔭 Science
- !curiosityrover@lemmy.world
- !earthscience@mander.xyz
- !esa@feddit.nl
- !nasa@lemmy.world
- !perseverancerover@lemmy.world
- !physics@mander.xyz
- !space@beehaw.org
🚀 Engineering
🌌 Art and Photography
Other Cool Links
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
no, it does not. it costs thousands of usd to lift single kilogram of material to orbit, so the expansion there is effectively very fucking limited.
whatever you can do in space, you can do on ground far more cheaper.
you are watching to much scifi, this isn't star trek.
I think you're missing my main point which is that it's possible to do it If reusable spacecraft become available.
Your objections make no sense if such a technology exists.