/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12514218
>Plug-in-City
What in that concept is supposed to be different?
Just building easier to dismantle and move around?

I've googled it, what is liberating for people if they have to live in shittier building so it can be moved with them?

>>12115619
Here we go again, mixing up religion with politic, some countries don't get the point of the separation between church and state.

>>12115659
It's natural to worry about a country with a lot of power and not that much restrain or political stability. Yes I'm a yuropean, but even the burger-citizens are getting worried to be ignored by their government.

If you guy insist on bringing politic and religion here, how about switching to the political structure of a Mars colony? I mean beside worshiping Elon as the prophetic CEO-Emperor of Mars.

>>11849888
>Not an argument unless you're arguing against space colonization as a whole, because you need the exact same things to allow your orbital habitat fantasy
I'm arguing space colonization require lot of development with efficient back&forth plus a supply chain between all the place of interest. Your kind of dreamer believe you just need a few cargo drop on Mars.
btw, I vote we give up analogy because it lead nowhere.

>Aerobraking is easy and you cannot deny that. It's easier to design a spacecraft that can aerobrake than it is to design a spacecraft that gets an additional 1000 m/s of delta V.
I can easily deny that. Ballute may improve efficiency but if you are going to move any useful mass instead of a spaceX BFR you won't be able to use it for everything. Up to know we have been using vehicle light enough to brake in Mars thin atmosphere and only things we could launch in orbit in one go, not counting refueling from Earth at the start.
And please don't go pretend I want gigaship, it's just that once your design become more and more sophisticated and modular it will become counter-productive to design everything around aerobreaking instead of paying for fuel you've made cheaper in an early stage of your infrastructure.

>a skyhook off of Phobos
Its a minimum in my book, but with the local moon I think a Martian elevator would be more efficient on the long term, after a few fix.

>we're talking about how to get even a LITTLE BIT of industrial capacity set up and growing
Yes yes, again the new frontier myth where you can "build anything starting with your trusty space-shovel".
In case you didn't understand yet, I consider the minimal industry needed to have actual "growth" to be far superior to thousands of BFR... and you shouldn't start before you developed most of the tech on the Moon, and it's not next.

>>11849891
Not really, they relies on maximizing efficiency and long term thinking. I'll agree that most of mankind seem incapable of that.

>>11544455
Sure... which is why SPACE COLONIES are better at that.

Just count the number of variables,
>space colony built on specs to match Earth
- can include 1G artificial gravity as you wish,
- must protect you only from vacuum and radiation which is just a simple shade
- If you need to leave in a hurry, you can use rockets who don't have to be built for reentry and landing

>surface colony built on specs to match Earth
- except it can't give 1G nor 0G
- must protect you from deadly toxic atmosphere
- radiation, which is harder if you have to build your entire civilization underground
- constant erosion
- if you were stupid enough to live on a very geoactive planet, earthquake
- If you need to leave in a hurry or need anything from outer space you require a spaceship built to land, protected from all the kind above, and it will waste fuel just fighting gravity
And we assume you maintained full access to your escape rocket through a pressurized tunnel instead of needing 2 airlocks and extra suits.

>>11544460
Considering Phobos negligible gravity it's no different from having a simple structure separating both with a rail system on it.

>>11544481
You can have better ground by building it in space yourself.

>>10890006
That's not what DeltaV map say. Near Earth asteroid would be easier to reach and leave than going to Mars, on the long term it would be cheaper to redirect and colonize asteroids -plural- than keep Mars colonies supplied with all the stuff they didn't know they needed.

>>10890102
That's bullshit of the same level as "alien want to steal the water of Earth".

There's enough resources in one average asteroid to supply the entirety of mankind for years and you aren't bothered by gravity unless you will it. Any free mass is going to be radiation shielding, you get to chose the position and orientation of your shield and move everything of value in a single piece. There's no wear and tear to speak of, this isn't TV where micro-asteroid storm happen as often as rain.
Done right you can expand your infrastructure indefinitely with low cost magnetic/tether launch, protecting and optimizing our civilization just moving factories or colonies. That's also what make airless moon more interesting.
Aerobraking is for primitive who don't have infrastructure, once you have proper space colonies you are halfway to anywhere.

Your "martian resources" are only going to be what you can dig out of the tiny crust of a cold highly irradiated hell with only water at the poles. Your resources are going to be thousand kilometers apart with none of the luxury Earth pioneer enjoyed. You'll be fighting the gravity well, dust storm and cold at all time, living underground as Mars only have shielding during the night and wasting energy just fighting the planet.

Set a surface colonies on Mars and you are just digging another overpopulated shithole who resent the free belters who enjoy custom paradise.
So stop clinging to oldspace memes and embrace the future of mankind as a true spacefaring civilization.

Would you live in a Mars colony?