/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11849725
>Is this an actual argument people try to make? I’ve never heard this before. This is, quite literally, retarded
No that's the strawman seething Martian bring up when you show them they won't be making a self-sufficient base on Mars from just a few SpaceX-Conestoga.
Except when they are just too ignorant to understand the concept of gradual colonization of SPACE (not limited to Mars) using infrastructure.

>>11849732
>I am literally a student training to be a radiation safety tech at this moment.
Assuming it's true, at least from this post your error seem to be from completely misunderstanding the context and the long term implication.
By the time you make dedicated orbital habitat radiation shielding will easy, modular, you'll move it around using robotic arms assuming it's not water pumped from tank to another. It won't bring extra mass that you don't already have available or cannot afford.
On Mars radiation shielding mean forever living and digging underground or fighting the still existent gravity anytime you want to progress faster than by digging.
At least if you tell the truth I assume you aren't the kind of retard who think you can go Mars direct without years of developments on a place who can receive and test high-tech life-support system.

>>11849740
>You seem to be the retard that's invoking miracles, like fully self sufficient orbital habitats backed up by massive deep space production and supply chains popping up out of nowhere because we decided to build a Moon base with a hypothetical space elevator.
You'll get those supply chain appearing more realistically and faster than anything equivalent on Mars. Being able to make 1 tiny base on Mars with no real ability to grow because there's no "magical onmifactory" shouldn't could as "must colonize first"
Also pretending SFIA is bad because it make "Mars pioneer" look incapable of long term thinking is a poor strawman.

>>11845151
People are way too harsh about AD ASTRA. I'd bet they simply didn't have the budget for an extended infrastructure and new 3D model.

The start of the movie is them loosing the space elevator (shaped like a stupid space tower but still valid for what they use it for). In those condition it make sense that going back to the station on Neptune would be a lot more difficult.
And yes, said station on Neptune should have been a gigantic nuclear spaceship.

I concede that whatever was their budget they could have made much better choice. But the MATH does work.

>>11845172
You clearly wouldn't appreciate this kind of movie even if it was done with top notch hard-SF.
There's a lot wrong with what you say as well.
With transplanetary spaceship you'd be very lucky to have fuel to maneuver it closer, hoping your engine exhaust don't cause damage.