/sci/ - Science & Math

ok what other major active mars effort are there going on?

Thanks for your efforts to discredit Elon to help short TSLA stock, 10 shekels have been deposited into your account.

>>10000813
actually what has changed is the BFS, the BFR is still looking as planned.

>>10000979
They're planning to build the BFS, or at least a test article, before the BFR. Plus, the redesign of the engines, fins, and probably overall mass may warrant significant changes to the BFR.

>>10000926
>the only reason to criticize glorious leader is if you are evil
How are people like you not considered a cult yet?

The new iteration looks like a cartoonish rocketship from early sci-fi.

It's perfect.

>>10000813
Remember that the Falcon 9 didn't exist ten years ago, and that the early F9s looked way different from current day.

Really, the only thing that's wildly different here is the fin/leg design. It's probably going to change again, too.

>>10000813
The spaceship portion might undergo hopping tests in two years. Just the spaceship portion. Just going up and down

>>10000813
>>complete design change yet again
Preliminary designs are preliminary designs. Of course they'll change as they do more technical development. The fact the design has changed only points to the continued development of the ship.

I find the redesign somewhat embarassing and very outdated. The space shuttle at least looked futurustic and this is ... cartoonish. Like from cheesy old scifi.

>>10000813
At this point they could just add wheels and land it horizontally. But I guess the vertical-landing meme needs to be kept alive.

>>10002071
That will come naturally after they tame the size a bit. As it is it simply cannot be built while expecting it to work.

My prediction is they'll go for the larger dream chaser concept.

>>10002071
>At this point they could just add wheels and land it horizontally.

Yeah you need an airstrip for that, plenty of those on Mars.

>>10002026
>cartoonish. Like from cheesy old scifi.

And I love it. It looks like a Shuttle but more sleek. Finally the space age we were promised.

>>10002087

>startup company is going to mars

haha oh wow

>>10002087
Would a terraforming operation to build airstrips on Mars be worth it?

>>10002094
Building them would be easier than using them I guess.

>>10002093
The ELON MEMES thread is on /g/ right now, pls go there.

>>10002087
You don't necessarily need that actually. It would still be impossible due to Mars' thin atmosphere. Having wheels attached would still be an advantage. It could land horizontally on Earth anywhere with a long enough runway, and on Mars you could lay it on its belly and drive the rocket around the surface.

>>10002113
Thanks anon that thread is golden. Shill delusion at maximum firepower.

>>10001081
this

>>10002091
>tfw the future we should have had will be real

>>10002172
>yfw those designs were actively avoided because they looked dated
>instead the then popular and fresh futuristic spaceplanes were picked as the way

>>10002178
>>10002172
it is worth nothing that those designs were like that because they mimicked the von braun V2 rocket. Von braun, aka known as the best rocket engineer to ever live, so fuckin damn popular that the americans had to put a nazi in charge of their most important program or they had 0 chacne of success.

>>10002178
The SSTO meme, hydrogen meme and the spaceplane meme really did set back the space program for decades. At least the intent behind Shuttle (reducing costs through reusability and high launch rate) was great, but the actual execution was horrible.

>>10002229
Scramjets that will take us to orbit are just around the corner bro forget those dangerous rocket things!

>>10002155
>muhhh parachutes

hot OC coming through

>>10002306
>jeff who's capsule not just falling down
>bfs not being 100km long

>>10002306
Only one of them is real, while the other is a CGI.

>>10002306
That was fucking quality. saved.

man, Yusaku Maezawa is going to have a lot of room onboard if it's really just going to be him and maybe an ex-astronaut for assisting him

>>10002306
someone please add shitty voice effects done by mouth to this

>>10002306
add the beta caricature in the window of the bezos beta bubble

>>10002354
I did

>soibois masturbating over cgi rockets

>>10002374
it's being built at San Pedro. You can literally go sit at the docks with a pair of binoculars and watch if you want.

>>10001076
>the bfr rendering changed
>HAHA ELON MUSK IS FINISHED!!!

funny you accuse him of being in a cult when you seem to be one of those dudes with a permanent hardon for him

>>10001081
Upright landing of rocket like Falcon 9 looks like cartoonish rocketship from early scifi.

the real question is, will R7 derivatives ever go away? Or will Korolev's designs still be flying well into the 2100s?

>>10002672
That depends on whether or not Russia's plan to replace the current Soyuz models with the Soyuz-5 is successful or not. If it is, Korolev's designs/R7 derivatives will cease to fly once the Soyuz 2.1 has been phased out in favour of the Soyuz-5; which as you can see from this diagram, despite bearing the Soyuz name is basically an upgraded Zenit, as shown by it's lack of boosters and single RD-171 first-stage.

>>10002704
One wonders what Russia could do if its space program wasn’t so mismanaged and wrought with corruption. They’ve got some smart cookies over there

>>10002578

I mean sure, but that's a spent booster and this is a self-contained spaceship that's being designed to act alone even without a booster, if it's acting in a small enough gravity well. This is a ship that lands on the surface of an unknown planet, and down the ladder climbs steely-eyed missile man Lance Beefchunk with his laser pistol at the ready, itching to take down the rubber suited alien monster of the week so he can secure their fuel reserves.

wonder what the "cockpit" of BFR will be. if crew Dragon is an indicator, a bigass screen and only a couple red buttons for emergency actions

>>10003141
Yeah but you know who invented that idea? Wernher von Braun. Who are you to argue?

>>10003286
>wanting pilots on your automated spaceships

>>10004512
“Commander” is probably the better term

>>10004517
I sure hope there won't be many of those. Pilot lobby is one cancer that will haunt the airlines for a long time with all the safety issues it brings.
Coincidentally similar pressure was involved in the space shuttle design and its automated capabilities.

>>10004542
there will still be commander-related tasks to perform, even if they have nothing to do with maneuvers or flying the thing

>>10001076
>How are people like you not considered a cult yet?


They are considered a cult, please try and keep up.

>>10004512
I highly doubt the first landing on Mars will be autopiloted.

>>10000926
He didn't mention your idol-fu. He mentioned more delays in a rocket program.

>>10004554
of course it will be

>>10004554
Anon, I...

>>10004554
Their reaction time better be good for that final retroburn.

>>10002188
Wrong on a couple of points.

When WvB was put in charge of designing rockets for the US Army after the war, it was far from the US's most important project, and he nad his team languished for want of funds -- many of them left for private employment in aerospace.

When he was allowed to start working on launching a satellite, his team was made subordination to the Navy team, that repeatedly failed to get a Vanguard up.

WHenthe US manned program bagan, he was not in charge of the program, and orbital Mercury flights as well as Gemini flights did not use his boosters. He WAS in charge of the Saturn series of boosters used in Apollo -- and it is probably worth noting that Saturn series boosters never had a launch failure.

>>10002229
>At least the intent behind Shuttle (reducing costs through reusability and high launch rate) was great, but the actual execution was horrible.

Blame Proxmire et al for that.

>>10004558
You should check out to what length NASA went, precisely because they have no pilot to safely land their crafts. None of the techniques NASA uses can be used by the BFS.

>>10004563
BFR doesn't suicide burn. A vertical landing has been done many times by the pilots in the Apollo program.

>>10004571
lay off the devil's lettuce bruh.
BFR will just use the same sort of refined landing programs that F9 uses. To put a human in charge of ANY part of the BFR's propulsion/engine/control systems is grade-A retarded.

Plus, unmanned BFRs will already have landed on the surface before a human ship goes to mars

>>10004571
>>10004574
No pilots will be involved. Your dad's going to rely on universal basic income I'm afraid.

>>10002378
You could pretty much do that with the Spruce Goose as well.

>>10004575
BFR will hover-land you brainlet. Elon confirmed that.

>>10004577
Just so you retard understand how NASA landed Opportunity on Mars:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSbAUtyO7xo

They literally covered it in airbags and let it bounce around until it stopped. Have fun doing that with the BFS.

>inb4 nasa demands manual pilot so the astronaut corps remain employed
>congress passes it as a law
>also whips few lines about martian landing requiring orion and solid rocket boosters

>>10004583
where did I mention hover-landing? They're going to use their experience with F9, and probably some of the same code stack, for the BFR landing programs.

Still, zero humans will ever be involved, beyond picking out the landing spot on earth beforehand.

>>10003141
>Lance Beefchunk

Can we all for one moment lay aside our differences and unite behind a drive to require the first man on Mars to legally change his name to Lance Beefchunk as a part of the selection process?

>>10004586
are you just baiting for (you)'s at this point? Why are you trying to equate the MER rovers and BFR?

>>10004586
I'd call you retarded but you are already aware of that.

>>10004586
It would be entertaining, though. I mean, the whole point of space flight is the entertainment, right?

>>10004593
And I'm baiting fanbois like no tomorrow.

lmao.

>>10004589
Yes there will, because earth-mars is several minutes communication. If that pre-chosen landing spot is missed or is actually not as suited as expected, there is no way to react. A human pilot can react and pick the best landing spot and land the ship there.

>>10004601
a human will pick the landing spot, but a human will not be the one landing

>>10004589
They are not, the BFR is a way bigger ship and unlike F9, will not suicide burn. So other than the fact that they are also going to use retrograde burning to slow the rocket down there are no smiliarities.

>>10004599
I don't understand how you get enjoyment from wasting people's time, but whatever

>>10004601
not an argument. We have excellent surface maps of Mars; and SpaceX (& others) have demonstrated accurate landing capability. to think that there will be enough error in the system that BFR can miss the preset landing spot by a significant amount is stupid, especially when considering that unmanned BFRs will be doing the same exact landings in advance.

Humans are probably the biggest source of failure modes that exist. Humans will not have manual control of BFR at any point.

>>10004610
>I don't understand how you get enjoyment from wasting people's time, but whatever

Welcome to 4chan, I hope you enjoy your time here.

Which traditionally is considered to be forever, but I'm not sure /sci/ approves of the "forever" concept.

>>10004610
>We have excellent surface maps of Mars

Sure, but we'll need much better ones before trying to land a big-ass ship with people on it.

What are the biggest objects we can resolve on our current imaging? About the size of a house? Something a lot smaller than that can fuck up your landing.

Which is not to say we can;t get better imaging before the landings would happen, just pointing out that we'll need to.

>>10004610
So how exactly are you going to know what the wind and weather conditions are in a specific point 6 months later?

The lander in Apollo 11 was also supposed to be autopiloted. However, the pre-chosen spot was covered by big rocks. Armstrong then took control over the vehicle and landed it 500m manually, with 0,5m/s touchdown, which is waaaaaay softer than the softest automated landing (New Shepard).

>>10004618
so convienent that we're sending a cargo version first, a thing that is fully capable of bringing a giganigga satellite along to map everything in detail

>>10004618
the resolution of current maps are actually quite good https://pubs.usgs.gov/sim/3292/

>>10004618
( https://www.uahirise.org/catalog/ for more )

>>10004625

>>10004639
>>10004625
You have a pretty weird definition of "good". None of this pictures are suited to pick a landing spot.

>>10004644
the pictures aren't what you use, moron. They're just interesting, hi-res photos.
The datasets you would use are boring radar heightmaps and such. HiRise isn't for that. And the datasets are more that sufficient.

>>10004644
(but, that's not to say that HiRise is useless). It does still have ~40cm resolution

>>10004622
Its highly unlikely but definitely possible they might preland cargo ships and put sats in orbit beforehand but who knows.
It's not like its going to happen anyway.

>>10004644
download the JP2's and see for yourself; can't fit much into 4MB lol

Our best bet is getting the LOP-G up and running this century while maintaining our expert base and industry for better times and budgets.

I don't think its good idea to waste our effort on things that are just pointless.

>>10004654
You could absoluetely not see a 50cm rock on radar maps.

>>10004670
thus using HiRise in conjunction. Paul Wooster says they're using both to pick a landing spot

>>10004669
>t. Mo Brooks et. all.

>>10004676
And then they are going to have a human pilot steering the ship in case the landing spot won't be as good. Also, human controlled landing > computer controlled landing. If you think otherwise, just sit in an airplane where the landing is done autopiloted and one where it's done by an experienced human.

>>10004681
>human controlled landing > computer controlled landing

that's going in my collage for sure, holy shit lmao

>>10004681
Unironically this. AI will take over unless we block it at every corner and letting it rule over our skies and space is just suicide. I hope the astronauts will push hard for manual control.

>>10004681
You're being a retard on purpose
I bet you're just here for (You)s

>>10004688
space threads are easy for you farming. All you have to do is say a half-truth, or something so stupid that people think you're just horribly misinformed

>>10004685
t. delusional soibois who doesnt know shit about ai

>>10004689
Do not recommend.
I've been pretending to be retarded for years on 4chan and look what happened.

>>10004690
I thought soibois were the ones who thought AI would take over? why are you changing the definition on us like that? It gets confusing

>>10004696
No, it's all true. Elon, like you, doesnt know shit about AI, which is also the main reason why his Tesla factory is facing bankruptcy.

>>10004370
I'm not arguing anything, I'm saying this design choice has my raypunk nostalgia boner trying to fight its way out of my pants

>>10002093
>16 year old company is a "startup"
wow

>>10004567
the us consistently fucked up launchs, they didnt have smart people of their own to do it, they needed nazis. High command did not want the extremely negative PR of putting a nazi in charge, until it was explained to them that there was no american even close to that level of intelligence, until it was made clear to them that it was either accept that nazis were smarter or lose the technology race. The soviets didnt have this problem they kept advancing with true soviets in charge, even tough they had like literally 1/10.000 the budget to achieve the same things. Soviet intelligence+american money would have gotten us to mars by 2000

>>10004596
yes, i think the most important part of space exploration is for me to look at it via a computer monitor while i smoke dope and listen to stoner rock while saying "woah dude thats crazy"

>>10005100
>The soviets didnt have this problem they kept advancing with true soviets in charge, even tough they had like literally 1/10.000 the budget to achieve the same things. Soviet intelligence+american money would have gotten us to mars by 2000

You do not study your history then. The US got a lot of former Nazi scientists, yes. The Russians were the first to invade Nazi cities and had access to all the plans and hardware, plus nazi scientists.

Do you seriously think that the Russians went from nothing to Sputnik on their own? Ha ha ha ha ha....

>>10005437
that's not to say the Russians didn't have a handful of big brains themselves. I don't think it is useful to argue over who's krauts were the better krauts desu.

>>10005437
both americans and soviets had access to german plans, in fact, americans got a fully functional V2, even with that advantage they were completely unable to solve it wiht their inferior american education, it took a nazi.

soviets objectively didnt need a nazi in charge, americans did, its objective fact

>>10005668
We got a handful of V2s. We launched one off of an aircraft carrier, even

>>10005668
Soviets literally deported every single eastern-german that had a somewhat higher education and let them work in the SU. Every single piece of nuclear, airplane and rocket industry in the soviet union was german-made.

source: my nuclear physicist granddad who was forced to work for the commie plague.

>>10000926
everyone knows Elon is shorting stock himself to gain control in his company in a buyback

>>10005104
Well I doubt I am ever going to to go to space so for me yeah that pretty much is the most exciting part.

They're waiting for Star Citizen to come out first.

>>10006280

Sounds like bullshit.

And if your granddad was a war criminal he deserved a lot more than being allowed to work on something.

>>10006286
Based, I would do that if I was him

>Hmm I bet this blunt will tank my stocks so I can buy a bunch back
>Thank you Joe you are my greatest ally

>>10006381
>Made delivery vehicles for payloads
>War criminal

Might as well hang half the planet then you fucking brainlet.

>>10006381
>Everybody who had an education and a job during WW2 is a war criminal now

Such is the power of jewish propaganda.

Concerning the slavery of german intellectuals:

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

>>10006395
And this:

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

>>10006392

You support genocidal regime you take part of the blame for what it does.

Running away from responsibility is not going to work.

>>10006409
>hurrdurr somebody who worked in america during the vietnam war killed vietnamese people

thats not how it works you retard.

>>10006409
Every American, English and Russian soldier, designer, pilot and factory worker should have been held to the same standard for their being complicit in the war crimes of places like Dresden, Berlin and Hamburg, or are women and children fair game because of the people in charge?

>>10006417

Throwing blame around changes nothing about the reality of the atrocities committed by the nazis.

>>10006426
>Throwing blame around changes nothing about the reality of the atrocities committed by the nazis.
You know there were huge war crime trials after world war 2 and the people who were actually decision makers for the perpetration of warcrimes have mostly been executed, and those who escaped and are still alive are still being extradited for prosecution, right? Stop trying to score internet points against dead men who have already been judged.

>>10006426
So just to be clear, children are viable targets for firebombing and this is not a war crime?

>>10006436

That's a trick question and you know it.

>>10006442
Fuck off it is, you are claiming that anyone involved in the german rocketry program (a war crime) should be tried as a war criminal, ok fair enough. Now you won't hold the same standard for another war crime?

>>10006312
I dunno i think we will land on mars before 2748.

>>10001081
Early sci fi was based rockets were still considered bleeding edge tech and most writers were at least somewhat familiar with physics, stuff like star trek and star wars ruined sci fi by making it more fantasy based with stuff like warp drives.

>>10000813
Is this bait?

>>10004579
What's your point?
The spruce goose flew

>>10000813
>Musk to announce first passenger
>Video feed on date of launch cuts to interior of the rocket
>quick cut of Bezos tied to chair and with gag in the mouth shouting muffled screams
>rocket blasts off as Musk laughs manically on live tv visibly high as fuck on meth

>>10006381
First soviet rocket was a freaking copy of V2

>>10007740
Soviets were making rockets before WW2

>>10007825
Yeah and black powder rocket were here for centuries.Turbopump driven ones were done by Goddard independent of germans but A4 has exceeded a scale of all previous designs by orders of magnitude and Russians use HTP driven turbines to this day a tech developed by Von Braun

>>10007623
Kek, meth head Elon Musk fucking around with the trillions from the space boom sounds like a hilarious timeline

New tidbit

>>10002290
If youre actually interested in the development of the sabre engine, the youtube channel S-S-T-O has been following its development very closely for quite some time. I think the whole thing is a pipe dream if im being honest but its pretty interesting.

>>10002672
SpaceX will put them out of business. Those rockets will only exist to launch government payloads at a loss.

>we will be on Mars by 2040
>we will never be in Mars in my lifetime
there is a 100% chance either of these happen and my estimated lifespan brings me to about 2100

hmm, where are the grid fins on the BFB? New control authority hardware somewhere? Or do they pop out of the upper ring?

>>10008536
Won't the methalox engines have blue exhaust?

>>10008561
>Won't the methalox engines have blue exhaust?
Probably, but who's going to argue with dramatic lighting?

>>10008561
maybe in vacuum?

>>10008561
( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7kqFt3nID4 )

cropped and enhanced

>>10008578
enhance that, Mr. Bond

>>10008551
>2100

You must be over 18 to use this website.

>>10008587
the lifespan of most people on this site (inb4 everyone here is 13) is believed to be 2100 or beyond. there are legitimate theories that the first person to live to 200 was born in 2007

>>10008556
elon answered this question, neat https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1041559524618821633

>>10008606
SpaceX confirmed for just shitting out cool-looking CGIs and don't give a fuck about accuracy.

>>10004512

>>10008591
Based on what? Some future hopeful prediction of life extension technologies?

There is 0 credible basis for such a claim.

>>10008720
Marketing is retarded confirmed!
Wait we knew that

>>10002094
I like how terraforming now means "pave it over."

what does bfr stand for
Big Fucking Rocket?

>>10012580
Yeah

Does anyone else just want to keep Mars as Mars and not terraform it to Earth2.0? I'd rather just live in habitat bubble and enjoy the environment of Mars as it is.

>>10012703
You will never need to worry about that in your lifetime. Mars bases will be tunnels, just like moon bases.

>>10012703
they literally cant terraform it anyway, at least not without an enormous import of materials to build the atmosphere from scratch basically

>>10012703

Only Venus in this system can become an Earth 2.0.

360 view https://www.spacex.com/sites/all/themes/spacex2012/images/mars/03_TurnTable4.mp4

>>10013655
I think I saw the numbers run one time on how it would go if Venus's atmosphere were made habitable, and it ended up with some ridiculous amount of pure carbon coating the entire surface of the planet. I wish I could find that article/paper again, but I've turned up nothing so far.

>>10013742
Carl Sagan ran the calculations and estimated that there would be a few hundred meters of graphite pulled out of the atmosphere if they tried to convert all the co2 into carbonates, but long before that it would spontaneously burst into flames due to the retard high levels of oxygen it would create.

>>10012703
Its somewhat improbable to make Mars into Earth 2.0 for atleast few hundred years.

Here's a better alternative. Make a mars city inside a crater. Build walls around the crater, generate artificial atmosphere, and a city inside.

Webm related. Cowboy Bebop.

>>10013970
Extra extended cut

>>10013970
Redirecting Halleys comet to enter the Martian atmosphere at an extremely low trajectory would terraform it overnight, and its a short period comet with an orbit of 75 years. Its next Earth flyby is going to happen in 2061.

>>10013922
That's what it was.

>Convert atmospheric CO2 into separated oxygen and carbon
>Carbon combusts and goes right back to being atmospheric CO2
>Oh no

>>10014364
Wouldn’t the atmosphere stratify into layers though?

>>10013970
>>10013986
Can someone smarter than me explain why there is any chance of this working? With no dome to contain the atmosphere wouldn't it immediately diffuse into Mars much thinner atmosphere?

>>10014368
Well, with the entire surface being coated in graphite, and the goal being to remove noxious/harmful compounds from the atmosphere, eventually the oxygen layer will meet the surface and bada-bing bada-boom the whole planet is on fire.

>>10014375
Well, we can use magnets to restore the mar's atmosphere. On a smaller scale like the dome, a magnetic shield could limit the diffusion.

>>10014389
On a large scale, generating an artificial magnetic field for the planet would help limit atmosphere loss and hazardous surface radiation, but on a small scale like a crater the magnetic field will do jack shit to reduce diffusion.

>>10014389
I think the forces acting on a magnetic shield make its deployment highly improbable. It'd be easier to redirect a swarm of comets every 100,000 years or so to top it off, or on an ongoing basis. Because the rate of loss is actually quite slow.

>>10014397
>>10014403
Think about it for a second.

Lets suppose a large magnetic shield was deployed over the whole planet to stabilize the atmosphere from being blown the fuck out by the solar winds. This solves the greater problem of long term atmosphere issue. This isn't quite the problem at hand right now.

On the dome section, there is artificial atmosphere generated. However in order for the artificial atmosphere to stick stay, there needs to be enough pressure generated to keep the atmosphere down. If you look at the video, the clouds are basically only near the height of the dome, and not high above it in the greater atmosphere. This suggests that the atmosphere is kept in check by the walls. On the walls itself, there seems to be generation of atmosphere at constant rate(13 secs in). Then there's also these tall metal poles all across the walls. What is it for? My guess is some type of local electromagnetic field that generates a enough pressure around the dome to slow down the escaping atmosphere.

Active EM fields can increase air pressure with enough power, this can lock the atmosphere in a small(relative to the planet) area. So passive magnetic field for planetary scale + active magnetic field for local dome level.

>>10014435
Sounds like a whole lot of work you could avoid by just building a roof.

>>10000813
it's a jewish scam

>>10000821
It's already feasible for SLS to send a space station in orbit of mars, which would be pretty cool. Actual landings would require block II, so basically advanced boosters + a beefier upper stage than EUS, maybe something with a J2X engine, or SEP.

>>10014440
Nah, its actually quite effective.

Planetary magnetic field would have to be done anyway for long term colony. The localized magnetic field would be cheaper than building few km of roof over the dome, since all it takes is electricity + few long em rods. Plus you get the view of the space with proper sunlight/sunset time.

>>10014435
>Active EM fields can increase air pressure with enough power
Lmao no they can't. How is that supposed to work? EM fields don't have any major effect on atmosphere, it's not a forcefield.

>>10002229
>hydrogen meme
fuck off spacex, hydrolox engines are the most efficient out there.
>SSTO meme
shuttle semi-reusability was a meme, a proper ssto would be incredible. Bring back the venture star.

>>10014453
If you can get it working, the biggest problem would be keeping crazy fuckers away from the off switch.

Even if you melted all the carbon there is on Mars, and somehow managed to keep the carbon in the atmosphere, you would be warming the planet by a whooping 5 degrees, that puts it from an average temp from -80 to -75. There are no other useful greenhouse gases on Mars, so that's about it. If you wanted to increase the temperature to 0 degrees Celsius, you would need such a buttload of greenhouse gases, that Mars' gravity could never hold on to it, regardless of magnetosphere or not. So all in all, yeah terraforming is not really an option, not even theoretically.

>>10002306
definitely gonna tweet this to elon

>>10014461
You can generate super-greenhouse gasses using nuclear powered factories. Much more effective than methane or CO2.

>>10014464
Out of what?

>>10008783
>fucktons of research into the matter
>numerous new discoveries on how aging works, and how it can be manipulated
>NEVER EVER NEVER EVER
ah, I see, you're a retard

>>10014456
Atmosphere of mars can be separated into attraction to magnets, repelled by magnets or simply neutral.

CO2 makes up ~96% of the mars atmosphere. CO2 is repelled by magnetic field. So a strong enough magnetic field can increase the atmosphere in check. Since CO2 are the majority of martian atmosphere, the overall impact of a strong magnetic field would increase the atmospheric pressure.

This is similar but weaker case with Earth's atmosphere. We have nitrogen(78)/oxygen(21%), while nitrogen gets repelled by magnetic field, oxygen is attracted to it. This interaction is what causes lightning/thunderstorms.

>>10012580
officially big falcon rocket, otherwise big fucking rocket

Before you move giant asteroids to artificially create an atmosphere on Mars, it would probably be easier to smash together some asteroids and create a new planet closer to the sun and in an orbit perfectly aligned with earth. This would mean easier to generate earth atmosphere, you could replicate earth's gravitation, and you could travel between earth and the new planet all year round much easier.

>>10014478
It depends on how much fluorine you can mine from the crust. You'll mainly be making carbon-fluorine compounds chosen to trap different frequencies. Details in this paper: http://www.pnas.org/content/98/5/2154

>>10012580
Big bFr Rocket.

>>10014498
All the asteroids added together equals about one Moon. Our solar system is pretty crappy by galactic standards.

Radiation and micro meteors are going to kill these ignorant people if this whole nonsense ever gets close to reality. I'm not sure if it should be legal for spacex to do something like this. It's a company owned by a well known conman and I don't think the american public should allow such people to risk other people's lives.

>>10014558
HAHAHAHA no. All asteroids added together have more mass than all planets in the solar system combined.

>>10014574
You have to be 18 to post here.

1. Create an atmosphere sucking machine
2. Suck the atmosphere out of Venus
3. Distribute the atmosphere to Mars, Titan, and other places in the solar system
4. Create multiple habitable planets
5. Profit

OR

1. Create planet-mover-machine
2. Move all planets into the goldilock zone
3. Create multiple habitable planets

All that's missing is some cool-looking CGIs, and we are basically good to go.

>>10014566
They’re sending ships unmanned the first few times to eliminate any future risks and to conduct whether or not the radiation will breach the ships.

>>10014458
[laughs in hydrogen embrittlement]

>>10002026
have you seen what the interior of the dragon 2? bfs will probably look like that inside x100. Also Space Shuttle looked very utilitarian not futuristic at all, I have no idea what you're on about.

>>10002341
he's inviting his art school buddies, no joke. also based.

>>10014620
>bfs will probably look like that inside x100
>We get the future where Apple unironically designs spaceship interiors

>>10001081
He literally said he only went with this design because it looks like a rocket from Tintin. Don‘t have the picture on hand, but I thought of that image even before he said it.

>>10014620
That's literally retarded though. You should minimize the space you need to keep pressurized, temperatured, and filled with breathable air, not just have a giant hall that is useless. Im pretty sure they are going to have a fairly small cabin for that specific mission that isn't much bigger than the Dragon 2.

>>10014707
The whole concept of "let's transport 100 people in one go" is retarded. For Mars for example, 100 people mean you would need to carry approx. 50 tons of food with you just so that the passengers don't starve while going there. And this is just the food. There is a lot of other weight associated to keeping a 1000m3 volume habitable in space. All in all I highly doubt that with the payload capacities the BFS has, that you could transport more than a dozen or so people to Mars. The BFS is big, but most of it would be unused emptiness because it is too weak to utilize all that space. And that is all assuming they have 0 payload with them btw.

>>10014449
Source. SLS can't send its capsule to low lunar orbit.

>>10014449
>>10014740
Also a pricetag if available. Rough estimation will do too.

>>10014707
>You should minimize the space you need to keep pressurized, temperatured, and filled with breathable air
Why live in a bucket when you can live in a house when both will cost roughly the same?

>>10014747
Because keeping the bucket habitable in the hostile environment of space is easier than keeping the house habitable. I also highly doubt that the BFS could even carry the needed life support system to keep 1000m3 habitable.

>>10014764

Your detailed and highly technical explanation convinced me.

How's the shorting going?

Look at it another way - they're taking their time perfecting the conceptual design, while at the same time developing critical technologies that would be necessary for the project (Raptor engine, large structural segments and tanks, etc..).
With each design iteration, they can check the concept against up-to-date data about their expected engine performance and structural capabilities, and delve into the design to check for other possible problems.
Since the Raptor is probably not ready anyway and they still haven't finished their Falcon 9/Heavy work, it's not too much of a loss to work this way.
If they had decided to work in a more traditional way, and start detailed design work on the first concept that looked decent, they might have run into some serious trouble with the engine performance or the structure, forcing them to scrap and rework parts of their design (and possibly actual fabricated parts).

>>10014911
SpaceX is not public you moron.

Also, as a rule of thumb, you calculate 1 ton ECLSS for 10m3 of habitable space, so for 1000m3 you would need 100 tons, which is way more than the BFRs TLI capacity.

>>10006409
You are a blithering moron.

>>10014950
Well, Musk's updated figure for this month is 100 tons all the way to TMI, meaning mass to TLI should be slightly better than that. So the BFR is going to be able to take people to the moon with all that pressurized space, even if it fully complies with your rule of thumb.
And the BFR should be able to better the rule of thumb, because it's both large and integrated. Its pressurized volume is an order of magnitude bigger than the shuttle, and similarly sized to the ISS but integrated into one vehicle as opposed to modules, so it should be able to best either one.

>>10014764
It is easier to keep 1000m3 habitable than 5m3. Much more buffer in the system.

>>10014950
>Also, as a rule of thumb, you calculate 1 ton ECLSS for 10m3 of habitable space

No you cannot, especially for higher volumes. ECLSS mass does not scale linearly with volume.

>>10002306
>not calling it blue virgin

>>10015182
It's 100 tons after complete orbital refueling, which is not what this mission is going to include. They have 20-30 tons to TLI.

>>10015202
It is, if you have limitless payload capacity. There is a reason why the Apollo crew modules were small.

>>10015205
It absoluetely does. ECLSS have capacities of air they can keep breathable. Linear growth of volume means linear growth of ECLSS. 10m3 means 12kg of air, 1000m3 means 1200kg of air, that needs to get filtered.

>>10014364

Bury it underground.

>>10014458
>Bring back the venture star.
This, the venture star parts where 90% complete when they cancelled the program.
And construction had already started on the launchbase
Also i recently found out that the failed tank story is seriously twisted around.
They had failures in the carbonfiber tanks, so the team made aluminium tanks next to the carbon fiber ones.
And turned out that the aluiminium tanks were just as good and a bit lighter then the carbon fibre ones.
But because of some bulshit reason congress would back out of the funding if the venture star did not take off without the carbon fiber tanks.
Then they pulled the plug out because of more bullshit reasons.
So here we have a almost finished very promising SSTO that has stopped death in its tracks, but then the us army comes to the rescue, but then they get cockblocked too by congress.
And even now, many years later after the carbonfiber tank problem has been fixed they still refuse to even talk about restarting the project.

We were so close to finding out of aerospikes where the real deal or not.

>>10014449
>It's already feasible for SLS to...
stopped reading there

>>10015249
You seem to be quite good expert and dedicated spacex thread poster. Can you tell me what other lies has musk been spreading about this sci-fi rocket?

>1 ton ECLSS for 10m3

For 1 week? 1 Month? 1 Year? Forever?
Give more info I'm curious.

>>10015967
Edit. According to people over at NSF, a simple open loop system that supports dozen people for a week will weigh about 2-3 tons. Even Mars can be reached with such system with some payload sacrificed. Closed system will yield better results over long trips and offer mass savings at the cost of increased complexity.

The "ton for ten cubic meters life support" seems to be just a generic anti-spacex shitpost from a retard.

>>10014740
are you retarded? SLS block 1, with ICPS, can already put >26T on a trans-lunar injection.

>>10015249
It's not about the volume of air you absolute imbecile, it's about the rate it is consumed and requires recycling.

>>10016044
On side note, Falcon Heavy can do ~24 T to trans-lunar injection.

>>10016255
I wonder how many falcon heavy's you could launch in trans-lunar injection for the price of one SLS.

>>10016271
Falcon Heavy full expendable is $150M. For the red tape of NASA, lets increase it to $200. For single SLS launch cost, a conservative estimate is around $2 billion dollar, each. So you can take 10 Falcon Heavy to the moon for the price of a single SLS mission to the moon.

>>10000813
>Why do people still think that this is happening?
they are uneducated

>>10016324
So one SLS has 26t lift to the moon, and lets say that out of 10 heavy falcons 3 blow up on launch.
so spaceX could get about 168ton to the moon.

But i will be honest, i would pick the SLS over the Falcon to get to the moon if i had to choose.
More safety build in probably.

>>10016338
>a launch system that has never seen flight or even been fully assembled
>more safe

>>10016352
Nasa cant afford another of their rockets blowing up, too many handouts on the line.
Dont want to get in to a situation where all those people need to explain why this overbudget rocket build by the smartest minds of the country blows up on the launchpad.

>>10016357
They'll achieve that by just never launching.

>>10002026
Space Shuttle looks like boring old 90s future. This looks like the retrofuture we were supposed to get all along.

>>10016324
>TWO THOUSAND MILLION DOLLARS

Man this shit is out of control.

>>10016338
The biggest expense for NASA isn't their hardware, but rather the SLS itself. The SLS itself is supposed to cost anywhere ~$50 billion dollar over the course of its lifetime/launch. While the project for the lunar gateway is only ~$2.7 billion.

Thankfully the first launch will only be in 2024, if BFR proves itself by then, NASA will be forced to cancel the SLS and say "FUCK YOU ULA/BOEING/etc."

Even if Falcon Heavy launchers had 50% failure rate, Falcon Heavy will still be cheaper for NASA and save NASA billions of dollars.

>>10016402
>50% failure rate
Good luck finding somebody to strap in on the top of that shitshow.

>>10016408
Nasa isn't going to launch crew until 2030s.

NASA can launch 20 falcon heavy with 50% casualty and still come out on top $30-40 billion dollar cheaper.

>>10016413
No, i'm talking about somebody taking the chance of going to space on a rocket that has a 50/50 chance of blowing up.
Kind of a cliche but we cant afford anybody dying because of spacetravel right now because every waste of a human on the planet will crawl out of the woodworks and start wailing about how we should stop spending money on space travel.

>>10016419
Falcon Heavy has a 100% record, so its not an issue.

The 50% chance is a hypothetical worst case scenario where NASA's cargo mission would save them dozens of billions of dollars.

>>10014603
It's nothing but pure sci-fantasy but it's fun to imagine ultramassive tankers that are a tenth of the size of Earth hoovering up gas from Venus for distribution elsewhere in the solar system.

>>10016424
>Falcon Heavy has a 100% record
I would be carefull with those kind of claims until they launched more then one.

>>10016432
November is close enough. Should be interesting to see them land all 3 boosters this time.

>>10015656
There was probably some carbon fiber company with congressmen in their pocket that was going to get an exclusive contract to manufacture those tanks. When the plan for the tanks changed, these congressmen just cancelled the project altogether. "If I can't have this business, nobody will."

This is one of the many problems with government-driven space development.

>>10016419
It wouldn't be necessary. The maiden flight demonstrated a long enough coast time to do a fast rendezvous with a previously-launched spacecraft. This would also increase the payload capacity for the Earth departure, since the departure stage can be launched with more propellant instead of a payload.

There's no plan to man-rate Falcon Heavy.

Anyway, Falcon Heavy's irrelevant for manned spaceflight. Important for satellites for 2 or 3 years. They might launch it a hundred times even. But BFR's just around the corner, and it's ideally suited for manned spaceflight. There's no point in wasting funds on any manned projects using something inferior. By the time you finish development of whatever you want to do, BFR will be ready for it to fly on. You don't have to try and squeeze things into tight spaces and tighter mass budgets. You can launch 8-meter, hundred-ton payloads to wherever you want them. You can launch crews of 20 with supplies for years.

At this stage, why even think about anything else?

>>10016484
>Falcon Heavy is irrelevant for manned space flight
Sorta in the fashion that Falcon 9 is irrelevant. current Falcon 9 design is roughly 5 years old. Falcon Heavy will be used for atleast 5 years. By which time BFR will mature into a beautiful baby.

>>10016503
>current falcon 9 design is roughly 5 years old
You haven't been following all of its improvements and versions. The newest version, block 5, has a black interstage and is much more efficient and easier to refurbish.

>>10016503
No, Falcon 9 is planned to carry Dragon, so it's relevant to manned spaceflight. Not real important stuff, but at least it's a return to America launching its own astronauts, and there'll probably be commercial customers. Falcon Heavy likely won't do anything at all for manned spaceflight.

>>10001081

Agreed.

>>10016419
Kek, you fucking luddite. BFR is set to blast people around the Earth as a geotransport system. You're gonna see these beasts regularly come screaming in from LEO within a few years, whether you believe it or not.

LOOK AT THIS SHIT. How can anyone hate on this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBlIvghQTlI

>>10016044
TLI is not lunar orbit you moron.

>>10016402
This is not entirely correct. NASA's hardware is extremely expensive per ton to the point many claim launch costs are irrelevant and will not make a dent in the budgets even if launches were free and not mass constrained. Crazy, right? Met that argument great many times when arguing with people defending the cost and schedule of the JWST, among others. It boils down to "this is how it was done and how it should be done, its space science!".
This issue will become glaring when launch costs drop even more and comical situations might arise where mass optimized good-old-way made one of a kind buggy worth ten billion dollars is landed on the moon for a few million. Then moved to its location with cheap modified off the shelf commercial hardware acting as surface transport protecting the fragile buggy until its mission may begin.

And that number for the lop-g is plain false. Maybe those money will cover the paperwork currently being done on it.

Unless some big changes in the way contracting and budgeting works, NASA will be caught with its pants down in the era of cheap space travel.

>>10016948
Developing and building a certain payload takes several years. Now imagine being a researcher involved in the Curiosity program. You spent a decade of your life developing, building, and testing the rover. Then the day finally comes. It touches down on Mars. And it doesn't work, because of some little fuck-up or unexpected error. So all your work was for nothing. Also, economically speaking, it makes more sense to invest 3 billion in a probe that works, than 1 billion in one that doesn't.

But the psychological factor is more important. You need to be able to present successes. The russian stopped sending probes because they had a lot of failures due to non-optimal preperation. NASA is producing successes. That's the difference.

And yes, since the real money sucker is the probe development, launch costs are generally seen as not so relevant.

>>10016948

Astrophysics is more based and should be the sink of more money than the useless (albeit realistic) obsession with Mars and GRUK WANTS BIGGAR PAYLOADS.

JWST, no regrets.

>>10016822
That damn near brings me to tears...

>>10016999
Oh I definitely want more telescopes but not long term lockheed welfare programs like jwst.

>>10015249
>There is a reason why the Apollo crew modules were small.

ECLSS is not the reason at all.

>>10017330
Oh yes, it is. If it was no big difference between sending 50 or 3 people, we would definetely not have sent only 3.

>>10016999
Science will greatly benefit from cheap access to space, too. Once BFR is viable, 15 diameter interferometric telescope is just a matter of time.

>>10017335
Again, ECLSS is not the reason. Structural mass is. Saturn V could not have launched a much bigger spacecraft to the Moon and back even if it was empty.

>>10015983
You can't control which air is being filtered. If you have 1000m3 habitable, you need ECLSS filtering all the air no matter how big the crew is. This means you need much larger capacities, which means much bigger weight.

>>10017330
You are responding to autistic baiter and a zealous fan of thunderfuckingfoot of all people. He exists for those (you)'s and is shitting threads like this solely for them.

I honestly can't wait for bigger scopes in space. We need those.

>>10017344
They could, without a doubt, put a big "fairing" over the upper stage to give the rocket a "smoother" look. It would maybe weigh 2-3 tons max. You should look into Orion development, and why they are making only half the space habitable there.

>>10016948
The age of cheap mass-produced space payloads can't come soon enough. This one-off bespoke shit is plain stupid… we should be leveraging economies of scale just like we do everywhere else.

Don't make and send single Cassini to Saturn, make hundreds or thousands of the damn things if not more and throw them at every marginally interesting target.

>>10010188
Well, this is earth today.
So i guess terraforming could now mean that

>>10017441
So how long do you think your plastic probes can survive in space?

>>10000813
>tfw no bfr

>>10017458
If ISRO can do a Mars mission for $70 million, aerospace companies can do more for cheaper.

>>10017441
I remember reading the story of some poor fellow who dared suggest during some spacey meeting about rovers and such toys, the heretical notion of using more reliable and cheaper structural elements instead of highly mass optimized "aerospace grade" unobtanium alloys. With the BFS becoming a reality payloads will no longer be so mass cons-

The reaction to his unspeakable words was grim to say the least.

The cost of probes and shit is way, way inflated. I'm pretty sure I could put together a basic bitch probe in my fucking garage with the right components, it's not like they are very complicated.

>>10014620
>Also Space Shuttle looked very utilitarian not futuristic at all,

True. everything NASA makes has been 100% function before form. Most of it still looks awesome to me though.

>>10016815

Is this what Virgin Galactic is planning?

>>10017710
Amazing. It was the golden age of sticking random bits of plastic and foil onto papier-mache models. They looked so fucking stupid and odd that they passed as high tech.

>>10017509
That was a very basic probe with a shelf-life of 6 months and still cost the pajeets close to 70 millions to built.

>>10017699
Space is -270°C cold and has a radiation like Chernobyl. You coudlnt built something that lasts 1 week in that environment in your garage.

>>10017778
>insulation and shielding is difficult

lmao brainlet

>>10017800
>He wants to insulate the instruments that are supposed to do the science.

Well, if you want to send a lead ball up, you can do that.

>>10000813
>Falcon 9 has been changed countless times
>Incredibly cost effective
>Optimized for close to a decade now

ur gay n u dont understand engineering.

>>10017732
The last I heard they aren't even going to reach space, and were never meant for travel..

>>10002026
I don't see the problem :)

>>10014016
It's relative flyby velocity is 70km/s, we might be able to get a ship to intercept the comet either by starting out ahead of it or placing something into it's path, but said ship is going to need a huge amount of delta-v to safely match relative speeds with it to avoid getting slapped to powder in a collision. A ship with a magnetoplasmadynamic drive might have enough delta-V to match speeds and some spare monoprop or other higher thrust propulsion system to land, but a high thrust rocket will never have enough propellant to even moderately alter it's course, and an MPD would have to be enormous and extremely power hungry, and have a lot of stockpiled propellant to do the job, and it would take a long ass time for the change to happen. It would probably be a lot easier to push much slower moving smaller icy bodies from the belt inward.

>>10016815
Well probably not see them, they'd have to land relatively far away from population centers to avoid noise pollution. I probably wouldn't care too much but there are some faggot normie fucks who don't like listening to the roaring of rocket engines 24/7.

>>10000813
>op is a faggot
Why?
It's literally just a meme Thread fantasy at this point. Why do people still think that it's worth replying?

>>10000813
bfr?

>>10018330
I dont think they would land terribly far away, or the entire point of them would be defeated. I think they would ultimately strike a nice balance between a distant rumble and a short drive to the city limits.

>>10017458
There are ways to space-proof electronics that don't involve stupidly expensive, specialized parts.

>>10017458
if the plastic is thick, a fair while
add in some metal and they go even longer

>>10004571
you fucking retard, stop

>>10018587

I wonder how practical it will be to enclose the critical electronics in pressurized container. Sort of like pseudo life support. Thermal control will be easier if convection is available and there will be no issues with outgassing. This should have quite severe impact on the cost involved in picking out the electronics. The drastically increased mass might be unacceptable now with the current launchers, but in the future...

>>10017778
>muh space is hard meme

Cubesats are disproving that assertion right now. You can use off the shelf parts and they work just as well as expensive custom ones in space, as long as you know what you are doing.

>>10016352
don't forget: same architecture that caused the Challenger disaster: segmented solids next to hydrogen tanks.

>>10019634
You mean: As long as you copy blueprints NASA and others spent billions to develop.

>>10019634
lol. cubesats cost 50-100 thousand to build and are tiny ass bullshit.

>>10019634
Space is hard stop trying to destroy my future career I don't want to change specialization when I'm halfway through already.

>>10019586
Thermals are definitely a problem, but in most cases they're the most easily dealt with, especially if you're working with the energy efficient, high-power, low heat electronics found in modern consumer electronics.

A lot of the difficulties faced by those building spacebound electronics stem from their use of radiation-hardened variants some power guzzling toaster oven shit that was cutting edge over a decade ago – as an example, IIRC Curiosity was built around a rad-hardened variant of a 400Mhz PowerPC CPU. That's the same CPU used in fucking Gamecubes and circa 2000 fruit colored iMacs in a craft launched in 2011!

This approach isn't good at all for a number of reasons. You're better off with mass redundant modern tech combined with confidence voting systems – instead of an expensive single slow rad hardened computer that you can't afford to ever fail, use shitloads of tiny, cheap, (comparatively) fast totally separate ARM SoCs. The end result is the same if not more reliable and it costs far less.

SpaceX uses the latter approach for Dragon's electronics and will likely do the same for Starlink and BFR.

>>10020802
iirc SpaceX's entire code stack is C++. And yeah, dragon just uses like three COTS intel processors with double redundant computer units

>>10020927
For the rockets/capsules, I think you're right. Those also run on some custom Linux variant.

From what I've heard a lot of their ground stuff is C# and Python.

>>10020992
makes it easy to hire good coding talent. No weird proprietary stuff. SpaceX's entire coding team is only about 100 people, which is quite small

>>10019928
what is your specialization? creating overpriced garbage?
if you're doing spacecraft, you'll still have a job, since you could just switch to commercial industry
Mining drones instead of sampler

>>10012703
terraforming mars would be such a massive task it wouldn't be done in merely thousands of years with current texh

>>10022584
If it's going to take thousands of years, it wouldn't matter if you start with current tech because you won't stay at that level. It may not be the most efficient method compared to starting 100 years later.

>>10016815
>>10018418
>>10018418
Frankly I don't see using rockets as particularly practical for earth to earth transport.
Part of the problem stems from the fact that the quicker ballistic trajectories have rather high g forces upon renetry, and you still have to deal with local weather, proximity to population centers ect.

If you really want to go futuristic and want cheap geotransport you just build a orbital ring.

>>10000813
Is OP samefagbumping this shit?

>>10022624
no, i bumped it when i was responding to posts in the 2nd half of the thread

>>10022584
Yeah, it would be much easier to build o'neill cylinders then to turn mars in to a planet where humans could live under the same conditions of earth.
Lets be clear, o'neill cylinders are fucking hard for humanity as it is now, but terraforming mars is a hundredfold harder.
Humanity will probably be living in a singularity/digital world anyway when looking at our current advancements.

>>10022653
>o'neill cylinders are fucking hard for humanity as it is now
the only hard thing about them is getting industry in space, they're easy to build because you can just make them out of steel.
>Humanity will probably be living in a singularity/digital world anyway when looking at our current advancements.
this assumes that every person would go digital or that there aren't any groups that wouldn't

>>10022606
>If you really want to go futuristic and want cheap geotransport you just build a orbital ring.
You first need to perfect, cheap ground to space transport in rockets,mining&refining in space, automated construction in space and spinning up the entire loop.
Oh and clearing all the space debries because they will fuck up the orbital ring long before you ever finish it.

>>10022658
>this assumes that every person would go digital or that there aren't any groups that wouldn't
Those will be called control groups by the immortals who live in cyberspace.

>>10014435
wasnt there talk of just putting a magnet at the mars Lagrangian point L1, put it on a satellite or demos and the magnetic field would cover the planet from solar windows, basically a solar window umbrella

https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/14352/place-a-satellite-at-sun-mars-l1-to-shield-mars-from-sun-radiation

>>10022669
>Those will be called control groups by the immortals who live in cyberspace.
are they really immortal if i can accidentally kill them all by triping over a power cord?

>>10002306
learn to use powerpoint at least

>>10022699
depends on what your definition of immortality is.
But this is a spaceX circlejerk thread, not a thread about immortality.
And the tread is almost dead anyway.

>>10022693
The L1 point is not stable, and then you're dealing with the pressure of all that radiation, which means the propulsion system will have to be unattainbly strong to maintain its orbit.

>>10000813
>Why?

4chan is an 18yo + only website.

>>10022669
i think hybridization will occur. maybe even like altered carbon, We just skip robotic travel all together and go transfers from one planet to another into a compatible host body. 11 minutes to mars (non including time to create the body)

Assuming we just remain hybrids that are still biologically based
we will be living on planets and in orbit rings that loop around entire planets. the width the planetary ring could be the size of a manhattan allowing billions upon billions of humans. Humanity could likely reach a trillion population in the coming years(centuries)

>>10000813
The brain damage incurred with even a short journey through open space would be significant enough that the crew would be useless upon arrival, if they even managed to land. NASA et al have known this for decades. Space travel in [current year] is just drip fed to the public to maintain interest and the notion of progress.

For example the recent story they put out, something like "genetic activity goes off like fireworks in space." They've known this since the 70's. Experiments with various forms of low intensity non-ionizing radiation, microgravity, zero-field conditions (lack of geomagnetic field), and so forth. This is just a rehash of what we already knew. Everything is. It's just PR.

Refer to:
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19810017132.pdf
for a lens into the past. And look for reviews of soviet literature. The effect of zero/sub field conditions was a point of major interest in biophysics in the USSR, and remains so to this day. It's been a point of interest for me. What would it be like to live in different frequency ambient ELF fields? Some research has already been done on this in local contexts, and they indicate mostly negative changes for higher intensity (eg ~50uT), but this was still within the geomagnetic field.

>>10012703
>I'd
You're not getting either in your lifetime.

>>10022726
Still would be limited compared to living in the virtual world.

>>10022729
Explain why all the apollo program astronauts lived for so long after getting exposed to to space outside of earths magnetic shield.

>>10022902
>Explain why all the apollo program astronauts lived for so long after getting exposed to to space outside of earths magnetic shield.
Lifespan isn't really relevant. The brain is made of a number of delicate structures that are designed to be strictly one way processes, ie, they don't tolerate damage or repair well. Being pelted with nuclei traveling near c, cosmic rays, etc is a type of damage the brain has a poor ability to defend against, compared to other body systems.