Maybe if they could get in-orbit refueling to work on the Falcon? IIRC, Starship would require that for trips out of LEO, anyway. Nobody has done it before with a crewed rocket, and there's been some criticism that Starship's plan relies on this thing that hasn't been proven.
The Lunar Gateway is supposed to have a final assembled mass of 63 metric tons. May or may not be able to make that work at all with Falcon.
Incidentally, that mission was one of those surprising successes. The drone they sent was really barebones so it could tag along on another mission. Lots of people thought even doing that was a waste of launch mass. Nobody expected it to work all that well. It ended up working incredibly well and got used far beyond its planned mission until its rotor blades broke.
The Falcon series would be very limited for a moon mission. The Saturn V could get 47 metric tons into a trans lunar injection. Falcon 9 can get about 27 metric tons into GTO--not even to TLI (which isn't even listed in public information I could find, though one random Reddit post claims 3 metric tons). The Apollo lander was 17 metric tons, and it could take two people and a rover for a little tour on the surface. We can maybe shave some of that weight off with a new design, but probably not by half or anything really significant like that.
If we want to go back to the moon, it should be for more than taking pictures and picking up some rocks. You may not even be able to do that with a Falcon rocket.
NASA doesn't exactly rely on Starship for this, though. SLS does technically exist. It's just expensive, took far too long to build, and should probably be written off. Bezos might have something coming up, but who knows. Still relying on another space billionaire either way.
No, they would not. The kind of software development done in aerospace is very, very different from the commercial industry at large. Writing 20 lines per week might be considered a breakneck pace because of all the formal verification that needs to be done on every single line.
They followed the money. The US Congress saddled NASA with a mandate for a Shuttle without funding it properly. The Russians never even developed crewed rockets that could do anything interesting beyond LEO. Everyone else wasn't doing much until the last decade or so.
There have long been plenty of smart people at NASA, and they're wasted on poor funding and management. It has nothing to do with IT.
If anything, I feel like Pf2e is more streamlined than DnD5e overall. At the very least, everything is in just one book.
The way critical success/fail works is better, too. Rolling a nat 20 doesn't automatically make an unskilled character super good at something, and rolling a nat 1 doesn't make a super skilled character fumble it completely.
Lots of leases are for 7-10 years, sometimes more. They're likely contractually obligated to keep it for now. The sunk cost on that is at least part of the reason why RTO was being pushed so hard.
Tons of office leases have expired since lockdown times and weren't renewed. Not a lot of them left, and that's why RTO mandates have waned. Still get a few "the cruelty is the point" people like what's in OP.
5e needs a better way to balance encounters than Challenge Rating. It also has important rules for players in the DM book. Both of which are problems you can work around.
Yeah, it's basically fine. It got a lot of new people interested in RPGs (and Critical Role certainly helped, too). If they're all now looking for other systems to play, that's fine, too.
That would save colonies near suburban areas. That would not save colonies surrounded by hundreds of acres of farm. There is far, far more farmland in the US than suburban yards.
You need to convince farmers of that, not people who own suburban lawns. Though people with suburban lawns should convert over, their affect is going to be small compared to hundreds of acres of farm run by a few people.
Let me be clear: natural lawns are a good thing, and my wife and I are converting over piece by piece. However, I think people jumped to that conclusion here because they're already preconditioned to it. Natural lawns are never going to undo the damage caused by overuse of agricultural pesticides.
My question is if we could attach an induction loop to a standard T8 bulb. If a bulb has burned out its electrical contacts, perhaps it could still be reused as it is.
I'd guess that even if it were possible, it needs a lot of special electronics. Not worth the effort compared to getting an LED bulb.
"Insiders hope" might be better phrasing than "insiders admit". Tariffs at this level weren't being recommended by anyone besides Trump, because they're stupid as hell. The right-libertarian wing of the party doesn't want any kind of tariffs what so ever. The protectionist wing wants some tariffs, but not strong, across the board tariffs like this.
Nobody wants this except Trump. Almost literally nobody. His supporters back it because that's how cults work. Nobody thinks this is a good idea of their own accord.
Car thermostats for the radiator. You don't want the coolant flowing when the engine first starts, because it will run like shit. So you have a cylinder filled with wax that expands with heat. That controls a valve to set the flow of coolant. Low tech, works fine, no particular reason to change it.
That is being a Nazi. Finding an "other" to blame all your problems on is central to the idea. If they let up on this for a moment, they'd have to solve actual problems, and they don't know how to do that.
Maybe if they could get in-orbit refueling to work on the Falcon? IIRC, Starship would require that for trips out of LEO, anyway. Nobody has done it before with a crewed rocket, and there's been some criticism that Starship's plan relies on this thing that hasn't been proven.
The Lunar Gateway is supposed to have a final assembled mass of 63 metric tons. May or may not be able to make that work at all with Falcon.