Same problem needs to be solved if we want to get to Mars, or beyond, so...

Ok but we're talking about escape velocity from the moon, for an object flung towards Earth. At a certain distance from the moon, along such a trajectory, Earth's gravity has more influence on an object than lunar gravity, so it starts being pulled away from the moon without needing to expend more energy than is needed to reach that point.

My question is whether the escape velocity from the moon alone greater than the velocity required to reach the point where Earth's gravity can just take over.

I fail to see how that had anything to do with my question then.

So, you're saying the baseball is too small for Earth's gravity to be relevant here?

That's about 5,324 MPH for Americans.

I'm curious about what this "escape velocity" actually means though. Is that just the raw velocity needed to escape lunar orbit as if the moon was the only thing in the universe, or is it just what you need to get out past L1 so that Earth's gravity becomes dominant enough to pull you away?

Since you mentioned anxiety over your potential reincarnation, I'm gonna set aside the physics of the question (which I certainly don't understand) and address the metaphysics (which I also don't understand, but that's kind-of my point).

There's a lot about the human soul and free will that we don't understand right now. We don't even know if these are literal things in the first place, let alone how they are connected to or influenced by the physical world.

So, let's go ahead and assume the universe is operating on an infinite cycle of big bangs and big crunches and that it never loses nor gains matter nor energy in between cycles - so, eventually, it's inevitable that a random shuffling of the matter and energy will create a physical state identical to today. Whether you (for any definition of "you") will end up back here, making the same post on a new Reddit for the same reasons, is still very much uncertain.

Let's suppose that your soul - that is, the "I" in "I think, therefore I am" - is actually something firmly bound to the physical realm, created and destroyed with your physical body. In that case, along an infinite timeline of universe renewal, there may indeed be a future instance of you who lives an identical life but that wouldn't actually be you. You would have completely creased to be at the moment of your death, and the new instance would just be an entity who happens to think and operate exactly as you did when you were alive.

Conversely, let's suppose that the soul is eternal and will eventually find its way back into an appropriate body after the one it currently inhabits has perished. Yet, for whatever reason, it carries no memories from one body to the next. (Otherwise we would clearly remember our past lives, unless this just happens to actually be everyone's first life.) In this case, we're eventually going to run into a situation where "you" will be in the same body and probably under similar starting circumstances but now we've got to address the question of "free will". Is it guaranteed that you, with no memory of this life, will make the same choices that led you to the state of mind you are in today? Even if so, since you can't remember the last time you did this, is it really still the same "you"?

I think the actual answer to the question you're really asking is more philosophical than it is astronomical, and it's one that nobody today is currently equipped to address definitively. It's certainly an interesting area to explore but, absent religious faith, until we develop science and technology that can quantify the properties of the soul, there's not much we can do but aimlessly speculate.

If there happens to be such a breakthrough in our lifetimes, I'm sure that would be interesting to learn from. Until then though, focus on enjoying the life you have now and let the next one (if there is one) worry about itself.

>For the first time NASA's budget is smaller than the $26.3 billion dollar budget for the Space Force.

I mean, considering how young the Space Force is, isn't this a bit of a weak comparison point?

10 hits out of "10 or 11" shots is actually pretty good aim compared to most officer-involved shooting stories.

After a quick Google and skim, I think you might be right.

For those unfamiliar, a very cursory reading of some top Google results turned up:

• LEOSA is a federal law, which allows current and retired LEOs to carry their guns anywhere in the US despite local laws which would otherwise prohibit or restrict them.
• There are some exceptions to LEOSA, particularly with regards to government property.
• Notably, there does not appear to be any exception for bars, nor carrying while intoxicated, both of which would normally be off-limits in state or local laws.

I think the general intent of LEOSA isn't totally bad, but it's very poorly implemented. Allowing people covered under LEOSA to carry in places no other citizen would be allowed to carry under any circumstances is a particularly egregious overreach.

Of course, I could be wrong. Like I said, I only spent a few minutes Googling this so far. In this particular case, I think I'd be happier to be wrong.

For the responding department, the treatment he was given is actually quite rare. It had been well over two decades since an on-duty officer in that department had shot at anyone.

> This was the first time in 26 years Saratoga Police have discharged their weapon on the job.

Would be nice if we had more communities and police agencies that could maintain this kind of record.

It's usually illegal to carry in a bar, regardless of whether you're drinking. Laws vary by jurisdiction though, and there's a certain subset of (otherwise law-abiding) CCW practitioners who choose to carry regardless of whatever the law says.

Wow. Much better hit rate than we're used to hearing about.

Any vehicle or payload that returns to Earth's surface, without completing at least one unpowered lap around it, is technically sub-orbital - right?

Personally, I think describing a vehicle or payload, or the flight thereof, in terms of "orbital" or "sub-orbital" is only really relevant if it reaches an altitude where an unpowered orbit is even possible to begin with. That would put the minimum height at around 150 km.

But, per Wikipedia at least, it seems the Kármán line (or a similar "border of space" that's relatively close to it) is the more commonly-accepted mark.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-orbital_spaceflight

>up to an including any amateur rocket

Ok, now you've gotten my curiosity. Who's actually sending shit up to space (and back) from their backyard‽

"A company called Northrop Grumman"‽

You must be one of today's lucky 10,000.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman

Relevant XKCD: https://xkcd.com/1053/

You didn't cover "actually private, sub-orbital, non-crewed". Is that because there are none, or there are too many?

As I wrote this though, I realized that probably most worthwhile applications for a sub-orbital non-crewed rocket would be military...