Before I opened it, I thought it was a text transcript of records of the noisy insect and was very, very confused and curious.

That’s new, I only know https://theuselessweb.com/

Well, the currently approved lander is a modified starship simply standing on some legs. Your solution would work, but it isn’t what will happen during Artemis. Not with the money available (other options were much more expensive), and even if there was more money, almost certainly not under current administration.

I didn’t read the article, just watched the video. But my guess is dynamic interactions of the exhaust gases with the regolith. I don’t think it’s something there’s much data about. Without a landing pad, a landing of a full Starship may be a risky business. Of course the landing thrusters on the tip should help a lot, but still. And now that I think about it, the launch from the surface might be worrying as well. We’ve seen what Super Heavy did to a robust concrete slab without a deflector. Starship is nowhere near that powerful, but regolith is no concrete, and you preferably don’t want flying debris damaging your engines when you’re trying to come back from the Moon.

It says you still need eggs. Can you replace them and make it from blood, beer, flour and blood?

Would you mind defining what an annihilation is? What I read (which isn’t much, admittedly) sounded like it’s just a particle and antiparticle interacting in a way that makes them disappear and other particles appear, while conserving a momentum and charge of the whole overall interaction. How is it fundamentally different from, let’s say, two high-energy photons colliding and creating an electron-positron pair? I’m not saying it isn’t, I’m just curious why and how.

Huh, I never really thought about boson antiparticles, thanks for driving me to it. I did a little digging and I’m happy to report that what I wrote seems to be accurate, it isn’t known whether neutrinos are their own antiparticles or not. The term Majorana particle only applies to fermions, which I didn’t know. As for photon-photon annihilation, why do you think it can’t happen? Annihilation is when 2 particles collide and produce a bunch of other particles, often photons, but not necessarily. Does that not happen to photons? For possible neutrino-neutrino annihilation, my quick uninformed search suggested that possible neutrinoless double beta decay may be interpreted as annihilation of neutrinos. The wiki particle says it would require change of the neutrino to a right-handed one, which seems like a requirement for annihilation anyway? I don’t know, I really barely know anything about this stuff. But it seems that if neutrino is its own antiparticle, its annihilation with itself is not obviously out of the question. I had no idea we don’t know where they take their mass. That’s very, very interesting, thank you!

I live under the impression that we don’t conclusively know, although some headway was made. There is a chance that neutrinos are their own antiparticles. I think the right term to start a search on the topic is Majorana particles. This theory was featured in Project Hail Mary by Andy Weir, BTW.

I apologise, I don’t have time for a more exhaustive explnation, I would have to study it again first. If you want, I can try to have a look at it later.

Why does it get so downvoted? Is it just because it’s an unexpected idea? I think it could be an interesting discussion. Is Charon a moon? How about Ganymede and Moon? They are bigger than Mercury… Of course nothing will change, but the discussion might be interesting. And personally, I wouldn’t mind living on one of the binary planets, if it was useful.

Personally, if I bookmark something, the odds of ever getting back to it are very, very low, and so are the odds of deleting obsolete bookmarks of unread news etc. But the songs tips are great, I’ll have to look into it, thank you!

And 30 tabs is very tame.