/sci/ - Science & Math

>colonies on Mars, a low gravity world
Say it with me:
JELLO
BABIES

do you think musk was strawmanning or is he just dumb by not realizing you can make the cylinder in the asteroid instead of moving material from them

>>10671771
Just grow the babies in a centrifuge then

>>10671771
Rotating slanted rings will let us boost the gravity of living areas. Babbies will be fine.

>>10671883
Like an O'Neill cylinder?

>>10671773
I get the impression that any way other than his way he shoots down, so he's not building structures in space it's obviously dumb. Same deal with his bs on not using LIDAR in self driving cars.

>>10671766
Elon Musk really has no idea how to do this shit.
Thinks like an incel trapped in a gravity well.
Never actually read O'neil, just the cliff notes.

>>10671773
>Yeah dude just carve this space station out of rock, that's how Asimov does it

>>10671773
Building a o'neill cylinder inside a asteroid might be doable, but at this point, it might be better to do a mars base. A small Mars colony would be doable within few decades. While a small Oneill cylinder would take maybe hundred+ years due difficulty in transporting goods in space.

>>10671963
You'll always have the difficulty of transporting goods until you set up the logistics and infrastructure, and Bezos seems to be breddy gud at that sort of thing I hear.

>>10671969
You'd need a fleet of hundreds/thousands of ships. Only one I see is Elon Musk doing it and he likes the Mars idea since you really don't need the scale of transportation for Mars itself. Few big lugs would be needed to send the initial goods and then localized vehicles can gather all the resources and then become self-sufficient much faster and have a much long term sustained growth.

Humans do not belong in space.

Machines do.

>Musk will create a technocratic Martian government with sole objective of being independent system
>Bezos will create belters region whose sole purpose is to work like slaves for earth/mars

They might be the first ones to get out of Earth, but the O'Neillian revolution will come sooner or later and it will dwarf anything the jello babies might build on Mars. The muskrats stranded on their gravity well will seethe while the rest of mankind builds prime real estate all throughout the solar system.

Elon musk is what a brainlet believes a smart person to be

>>10671766
O'Neil cylinders are the end game. Prior to that you just use smaller stanford tori, bernal spheres, or hollow out and spin up asteroids to simulate gravity.

>>10671897
impractical as fuck

>>10671771
we dont know the effects of Martian gravity

>>10672022
you need to walk before you can run

I agree that huge, rotating orbital arcologies are the end goal, but lunar and Mars base are first steps in humanity expansion into space that will enable later developments

>>10672058
Why? Carnivals have versions of this tech, its very simple.

>>10671771
I don't see the problem with weighted suits. It's obviously not the same thing as higher gravity but in regards to the positive physiological effects it should be similar.

>>10672139
It's very simple but you also don't spend most of your waking hours in one, do you? Shitting, eating, sleeping, working, socializing etc.

>>10672150
That's only for muscle, but the internals in the body might be squishy. We don't know how it will affect the body.

>>10672150
>I don't see the problem with weighted suits.
Because you're stupid.

>>10672159
>just muscles
And bones, but not as much. It wouldn't do much for the eyes and other parts of the body though as you said, but then again those problems may not be as bad in low G and those problems were found in zero G.
>>10672161
elaborate mr genius

>>10672217
I read somewhere that first martians (born on mars) will be myopic due to gravity and may require glasses (or laser correctives)

>>10672241
I see, interesting. Still not the end of the world though.

>>10672217
>elaborate mr genius
Increasing mass is not similar to higher gravity. Lifting or holding things up may be similar, but moving things around would not be similar at all.

Imagine thinking you will leave this lil rock

HAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Space is not a place you want to go, for now

>>10671771
Have a ton of martian babies and see which ones turn out better. Those ones have more babies. They will essentially evolve into another species, but it can be done.

>>10671771
JELLO BABIES!
JELLO BABIES!
JELLO BABIES!

>>10672150
reposting from a differetn thread:

it would help a bit, but is it enough? dunno. your body uses pressure on the feet while walking to help pump blood up the body, and your legs help serve as a kind of reservoir of blood for the rest of the body in case you need a sudden increase of blood flow.

would wearing weights help with pumping? will gravity pull on the blood enough that it properly collects where your body expects it? pressure on your brain might be higher than it is on earth, what's the effect of that? dunno. we experience vision problems if we're in microgravity too long. does the same thing happen with reduced gravity? dunno.

side note - having skeletal muscles isn't just about moving around, too, it provides an important last-ditch source of protein for metabolism in an emergency. in starvation mode, your body will eventually start cannibalizing muscles for calories. too long without food and you'll start burning up the muscles you need to stay alive. take two people with the same amount of body fat but different muscle development because one is adapted to smaller gravity - the low-gravity one will die first in a famine. we dont have to worry about that here but if i was a mars colonist i'd be very concerned about the idea of losing our food supply.

also i dont believe we know anything about how low/micro-gravity affects vertebrate development

>>10672454
I think the implication is that the jello babies will turn out better.

Well I think many have pointed out these types of practical problems.
You would need an entire space industry surrounded around getting enough materials just to make all space colonies.

>>10672322
I admitted that you fucking retard, I said from a physiological perspective it seems similar.
Obviously, if you try to match the weight you'd have on Earth, that means your mass increased ~3 fold, so accelerating or worse coming to a stop (say while running) becomes very difficult. Highschool physics. So you don't try to match the weight, obviously, you just increase it to some degree which should greatly reduce muscle loss and bone loss.
>>10672592
Yeah ok so it seems like it might be an open problem on whether it could be beneficial or not, and regardless they'd almost certainly need other tools to deal with the other problems (other anon rightly pointed out vision issue).

>>10671979
Saying Mars and self sufficient in the same sentence is a joke. It would take a thousand years for them to be self sufficient. They would have to mine everything, same as on Earth, but harder because they can't breath the air.

No matter the scenario Mars is going to be dependent on Earth for a very long time. Best they can do is the low hanging fruit. Low value, heavy things like concrete, steel and glass.

>>10672156
You could build a gravitron city on the moon that was very close to being fully horizontal that would easily house thousands of people.

>>10673362
The only thing the moon has going for it is being close to Earth. All the things that people complain about Mars. Things like radiation are 100 times worse on the moon.

>>10673357
You realize what you're doing right? If Mars would take thousands of years, then O'neills would take millions of years. Not only can't they not breathe, they don't have any gravity. Your argument is hella dumb. Ofcourse this is not how its going to get. Once Mars builds their own eco-habitat domed/underground cities, they'll be able to create their own environment in that controlled environment.

>>10673357
>They would have to mine everything, same as on Earth
Water isn't hard to access on mars, the atmosphere is very frequently near 100% humidity. To mine water, all you need is enough electrical power to run what amounts to a really badass dehumidifier.
As for metals, Mars has never had mining occur on its surface. Fortunately, that means weird things you don't find as often on Earth anymore like exposed ore deposits right on the surface are a thing. Add the reduced gravity and that should make mining equipment a lot more inexpensive to both operate and construct.
The biggest materials problem with Mars is the lack of petrochemicals. Those will need to be either synthesized like fuel will be, or derived from bacteria/algae/plants grown in immense farms. Fortunately we think easily accessible nitrogen-containing compounds are relatively common in some areas' regolith, so at least fertilizer won't be as much of a pain as we thought.

Elon is a smart guy but he's being dishonest here. He's just plugging his Mars colony. Same thing with LIDAR. Really it would be better to have a Mars base and some O'Neill cylinders, not just one or the other. You can't industrialize space without having orbital platforms for industry to take place.

>>10673369
Okay point taken. Mars would take less time to develop.

>>10673376
Mining today is a labor and heavy equipment process. Where on Mars are they going to get something like a giant caterpillar? The only thing that makes sense is a hand drill in a pressure suit. Dangerous as hell.

>>10673385
You would be surprised how fast things are likely to develop in terms of heavy industry on Mars. The thing that is likely to remain earth-based for a very long time will be computer chips, because they need such a huge amount of supporting industry to be possible in the first place.

>>10673385
>where they gonna get heavy machineries
Initial digging/tunneling/mining/3d printer machineries would have to be made of completely light-weight/strong materials like carbon-fiber and would have to be small enough to be fit on ships like Starship. Then later heavy machines would have to be built from Mars itself with Martian iron/steel building process. Or maybe 3D print it using the martial ores materials. Most would require autonomous mode or require very minimal human intervention in early stages.

>>10671766
retarded analogy
building something in an ocean is far more difficult

>>10672539
Can't we just give the jello babies robot suits? Why is this a problem?

>>10671963
>100 years
>for anything
Good job outing yourself as a retard

>>10673369
>O'Neil cylinders don't have gravity

>>10673512
only planets have gravity

10673514
Ah, it was bait

>>10673512
>o'neill cylinder
They have, but only from their mass. Which will give you tiny fraction of G, which will be lessened by the fact that the mass will surround you and effect will partially cancel itself out. The feeling of weight will come from the fact that they rotate, but floor prevents them from flying away. Stop ridiculing 99,9999% correct answer.

How hard is it to move mass from an asteroid to an orbital structure? You could just build the cylinder next to the asteroid you're mining for the materials. Everything is done outside of a gravity well, low delta V, no atmospheric protection needed.

And you get full 1g.

>>10673514
and your mom

>>10671771
We don't really know much about jelly babies yet. We need some partial g experiments, not ug, and need to start breeding apes in space.

>>10671904
Musk has clearly always been autistic, so his reactions to alternatives he isn't using make sense. Anyways, he's right and wrong about this. Massive space colonies make sense in the distant future since they're a more effective use of mass, but lunar and martian colonies will be a necesarry stepping stone and can be conceived with modern technology. Bezos even admits this; he thinks space colonies will be generations down the line. Musk is interested in the near future, and for the near future the idea of large space colonies is absurd.

>>10672058
And oneill cylinders are somehow more feasible?

>>10673376
>Water isn't hard to access on mars, the atmosphere is very frequently near 100% humidity.
because the planet is almost always below freezing, its trivial to be at 100% humidity when your air only holds half a thimble of water on a good day

>>10671771
>increase bone density artificially
>increase muscle structure artificially
>wait a few generations
>???
>profit

>>10673512
conservation of momentum =/= gravity

>>10673572
However for the purposes of biology and physical experience, they're one and the same
Don't be a autist

>>10671771
what is is crispr for if not for exactly this

>>10671766
So much more practical to throw thousands of comets at Mars to terraform it!

>>10673547
That's nothing a good compressor can't solve.

>>10671766

they can both go live on Mars for all I care

hot shot billionaires.

like when this faggot claimed that hydrogen isn't a energy source, but batteries were.

>>10673385
>Where on Mars are they going to get something like a giant caterpillar?

they will have at least large bulldozers and industrial vehicles and stuff, starship is big enough to land such payloads

>>10673546
yes, because they are in space and dont have to deal with friction when rotating

>>10673768
Hydrogen is useless if you don't have oxygen to pair it with.

>>10671766
Mars colony is easier at first.

Large space habitats are a better long term goal.

>>10673974
You are and idiot and have no idea what you're talking about.
Oxygen is the biggest component in the composition of the crust of most planets. It's the 8th most common element in the universe.

>>10673768
neither is an energy source, they are both energy storage

>>10674048
you need molecular oxygen you moran, not fucking rocks

>>10673974
FUSION
U
S
I
O
N

>>10674059
Stop posting you absolute bell end.

>>10674079
Not him but how ARE you going to get the oxygen out of the rocks

>>10674112
Hit them together real hard. Worked for cavemen, right?

>>10673679
>>10671771
We don't need to change the universe to suit our needs, we need to change our biology to deal with living in space.

>>10674173
I guess we need to become space beings. Our intergalactic descendants will surely think us bereft.

I don't think living on mars is actually an option, we are probably just going there to cannibalize it for resources. There's no magnetosphere and very little atmosphere. Wouldn't it be like living in Chernobyl except with more harmful ionizing radiation?

>>10674427
No
Living underground solves the radiation issue
Also, a sat at L1 producing a 1 tesla magnetic field stops most solar radiation

>>10671766
>>10671766
Imho musk doesn't want consumees distracted from his agenda of sending people to mars.

Everyone knows space structures are the future for our species.

>>10674655
Absolutely, but space structures won't be sustainable in the way a whole freaking planet with gravity would be.

>>10674713
Quite the opposite. Space structures are more mass efficient. There is a lot of wasted mass in planets.

Each has advantages and disadvantages. Planetary settlement or space structures. I like to pretend they balace out in the end.

I prefer space structures. However, planetary settlement is a necessary step as well. Both will probably evolve together, hand in hand. It's what's best for everybody.

That being said I won't stand in the way of mars settlement. I even encourage it. Whatever the cost. I just won't pay it.

Efficient asteroid mining will make both Mars colonies and O'Neil cylinders trivial.

>Send tiny group of mining/construction bots to asteroid belt
>Bots are simple, can make replacement parts and repair themselves
>Bots gradually assemble copies of themselves over a few months
>Copies go to new asteroid
>Repeat for a few years
>Now have fleet of thousands of mining bots
>Iterate and produce bigger and better infrastructure to improve resource extraction
>Start shipping resources around the solar system
>Autonomous infrastructure continues to grow through replication
>Build whatever you want

Why spend so much energy hauling materials out of our gravity well and over to mars when we can just build the habitats in orbit using in-space materials and drop them in? With the exponential growth that self replicating machines could achieve, we can increase our available space capabilities ridiculously rapidly. This should be possible in a few decades with advancements in robotics, AI, and flexible manufacturing techniques e.g. 3D printing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5mhUm6NzqE

>>10672677
>>10672539
>>10672022
>>10671771
Literally just lift.

>>10674739
>However, planetary settlement is a necessary step as well.
I think it's just nice, but space structures are far superior on so many levels. We aren't purely pragmatic though, I think planet settlement is a bit romantic or whatever and tourism is a thing. And it's not like everything that works has to be the optimum most efficient thing.

I do think that the problems are going to be huge tho, so I reckon it'll go moon base -> extra planetary space structures -> Mars or Venus or both settlement depending on what's good with what we have to hand tech wise.

>>10674739
mass efficiency is not required when you have a whole planet of resources available

Daily reminder the only reason musk wants a mars colony is to escape climate catastrophe on earth. It's not about long term human survival, its the ultimate innawoods bugout spot

>>10674739
>Space structures are more mass efficient
That's because they have to be. Where as on the planet, there's limitless resources at the tip of your drill machine. Its not like you can't make a mass efficient structures on mars, heck with the ground already provided, you'd only need to make 1/2 of the mass for a closed ecosystem.

The problem of space structures is you need the mass source from somewhere (asteroids) and a huge transportation(ships) network to get those rolling in. Where as on Mars, any generic vehicle can transport objects on land if needed for supercheap or if you don't want to, you can just drill where you are and have endless source of mass.

The irony is that colonising Mars is also a dumbass project too, that will not and cannot happen without trillions of dollars.

It surprises me that more people aren't looking into the warp drive. With that, colonisation of entire galaxies would be easy.

>>10675100

>>10675126
desu i more made the point that if you're trying to engineer the impossible, why not go even bigger. fuck mars, lets go to other galaxies.

>>10675154

I think Mars doesn't have enough frozen co2 to heat it up enough. Also where would you get the nitrogen too?

>>10673416
We can't do what you say on Earth right now. There is no 3D printing of large machines as you describe. Best we have is some rocket parts. Some pieces of a car.

>>10673932
A small bulldozer weighs 18,000 pounds. That of course runs on diesel and is not atmosphere sealed. A battery powered Mars one with a pressure cabin would weigh much more.

D3K2 tier 4 CAT

Mars colony makes no sense either. There's literally no non-science reason to move to Mars. It has no profitable natural resources to begin with. People won't want to live in a pressurized can for their entire life. At least if you could make an o'neill cylinder out of an asteroid, companies can make money from mining it.

>>10675996
> People won't want to live in a pressurized can for their entire life.
But what if people were born like that though? If you don't know what the alternative is, you'll never yearn for it. I don't disagree Mars colonisaton is unfeasable, but what you said isn't the biggest problem.

>>10671773
You know how far are they right?

So here's a question.

Now that this board has got internetinal attention from such prominent hobbyists as the unifier of all physics, who else might we be able to attract to this board? How would we prepare this place to look nice for when Must finally notices us?

>JELLO
>BABIES
The future of humanity is already demoed in Ricky Bearwick

>>10674754
>Bots are simple, can make replacement parts and repair themselves

Just a simple von Neumann machine bro lmao

>>10671766

Oneill cylinders are great in theory but you really need a fusion economy to make it work, if we are stuck with chemical and solar ion propulsion for a while, which seems like the case then really mars/luna are the only options. The dv required to get to/move materials from the asteroid belt is just obscene.

>>10676382
>implying he doesn't already shitpost here
You know he does.

What would the point of having floating colonies in space even be when you don't have any resources to exploit?

>>10676671

Exactly, there is no point.

Once the whole surface of the Earth is 100% occupied, we might want solar panels in space. Until then? Complete waste of time.

>>10676671
There are resources to exploit in space though. Including planets.

The most promising designs imho use the obvious resources of solar and potentially fusion to keep the station running. They're positioned such that they're useful for getting to the asteroid belt, but also Mars or whatever. The problem going straight for those things is that direct access from Earth at any time is impractical, you'd have very limited windows every few years if you wanted to be efficient.

>>10676684
>They're positioned such that they're useful for getting to the asteroid belt, but also Mars or whatever. The problem going straight for those things is that direct access from Earth at any time is impractical, you'd have very limited windows every few years if you wanted to be efficient

Having stations at various points doesn't really help this, you lose a massive amount to dv burning to make rendezvous with the station, for what?

>>10676684
Why not settle on the actual celestial body to more easily exploit them, then? Even if they are 100% uninhabitable it would still be cheaper than building a giant hull to house the colony.

>>10676690
You're making the mistake of thinking these as fixed points in space, which is the issue a lot of "muh delta v" people have.

>>10676697
Why not both? Obv there are serious issues with setting up a fixed colony to a particular set of asteroids or whatever. There are serious issues with setting up a Mars colony, not least material transport and communication. There seems to be a lot of "AI will fix it" fantasizing as well on these things, and it won't. Get humans into the environment, then we can start to get things working while also having extra planetary settlements.

>>10676709
They are "fixed" points in space though. The only way they can be not "fixed" relative to the origin point is if they are moving faster or slower along their plane of travel and then you are having to burn dv to catch up and slow down. Again, for what? And where are the thousands of tonnes of fuel for refueling coming from? Are the stations shipping it in from Earth/mars/asteroid belt on other rockets that have to also waste massive dv to match orbits to refuel other rockets?

Do you know literally anything about orbital mechanics? Seriously articulate the advantage of these stations or fuck off.

>>10676709
How are they not fixed stations you imbecile? Do they carry 9000 niggatonnes of methalox to move orbits on a whim?

>>10676709
>Why not both?
Because why? Just use whatever rock your exploiting to build habitats on or in. Don't make this huge, unwieldy sphere thing without a natural orbit. Obviously you shouldn't set up anything on bodies that are destined to fly into the sun or something, but we can predict that. There is no reason to build giant space stations purely to support more population because without having resources said population will perish anyways.

>>10676756
>Just use whatever rock your exploiting to build habitats on or in.
>Hey guys mine this asteroid, we'll see you in like 50 years or so...
Not to mention:
>hey guys, instead of having at least one station working on mining several asteroids, we're going to spend at least as much condemning you to hell to mine one

>>10676713
Jesus you are stupid.

Space stations for a start will have to burn fuel to stay in stable orbits over long periods, exactly how much and often is down to design and placement. Part of the attraction to them is that they're flexible and can move too. There's no reason for all of them to be in the same orbit as Earth or Mars or even each other though (or even in the same plane), so they'll be moving at different rates around the sun. I'm not sure why you're not aware this is a thing considering this is true of all bodies in space.

>>10671766
>guy who wants to terrform mars thinks oneil colonies don't make sense.

>>10676772
>Part of the attraction to them is that they're flexible and can move too
>Bro just change the orbit of my 1000 megatonne O'Neill cylinder lmao

>There's no reason for all of them to be in the same orbit as Earth or Mars or even each other though (or even in the same plane), so they'll be moving at different rates around the sun. I'm not sure why you're not aware this is a thing considering this is true of all bodies in space.

So you put one in a halfway orbit between earth and mars at a halfway velocity, your rocket has to burn out to there at a specific time in the synodic cycle, burn to slow down to match dv, then refuel with fuel obtained from ???, then your rocket has to wait for the synodic cycle to line up, burn again to match orbits with your target. Literally what advantage does this have, you are not changing the dv required to match orbits with their other planet dickhead. You are increasing it massively and requiring tens of thousands of tonnes of fuel to be imported to the cylinder for no benefit.

This is exactly the same reason as why gateway is bullshit, get a clue dickhead.

>Bezos and O'Neil cucks have zero clue what they are talking about, next in the news, finitists also have zero clue what they are talking about

>>10676807
>

>>10676816
Cope

>>10676816
Ironic that a bezodrone would post this

>>10673376
>The biggest materials problem with Mars is the lack of petrochemicals
You can circumvent the need for this with slave labor, farms and gravity.

Basedboy Starlink detractors also BTFO'd by BASED Elon Musk.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1132897322457636864?s=19

Terrestrial astronomy is almost dead anyway. Space telescopes are the future. And revenue from Starlink will help SpaceX construct them sooner.

Nah, I agree with Bezos. We dont know how serious effects of low gravity are on human health, but if martian gravity is not enough to counteract the negative effects, then Mars colony is dead on arrival (Moon colony too obviously). Then we are left with Venus only. O'Neill cylinders may be harder, but they can provide 1G. And we dont have to make them as large as in sci-fi movies, especially at the beginning.

>>10676859
How bright are starlinks? Watching Iridium flares is so fun.

If you're stupid enough to believe in O'Neill cylinders, why not just build Dyson Spheres and Ringworlds while you're at it.

>>10676867
> We dont know how serious effects of low gravity are on human health
Sounds like a great reason to do a Mars mission and find that out.

>Mars colony is dead on arrival
Musk's plan is to make a one-way trip with no rescue anyway,

>>10676882
Roasted much?

>>10676883

>Sounds like a great reason to do a Mars mission and find that out.

It would be cheaper to make a simple rotating station and find out in LEO.

>>10676882

>If you're stupid enough to believe in O'Neill cylinders, why not just build Dyson Spheres and Ringworlds while you're at it.

O'Neill cylider does not have to be big. See pic. We could do this with current technology.

>>10676933

>>10676657
no you don't. the solar energy would be enough. If we have the ability to build an o'neill cylinder, we could probably build a massive mirror as well.

>>10676933
who the fuck would want to live in that piece of shit for the rest of their life lmao.

>>10676959

Me.

>>10676933
Just like dyson spheres and ringworlds can be done with current tech, right champ?

>>10676976

>comparing Dyson spheres to small rotating stations

>>10676933
>>10676981

I don't like Musk, I don't like O'Neill cylinders. I have no stake in this. But I will say that while Musk is a druggie buffoon he isn't an idiot, and is quite capable of critical thinking. He also raises a fair point, but terraforming is currently beyond us.
Honestly though, permanent settlements like Admundsen on alien planets is far more likely than either orbital habitats or terraforming.

>>10677003

O'Neill cylinders can be done with current tech. Dyson spheres and Ringworlds cannot.

>>10677024
Of course they can, you moron. That's why you shouldn't fall for stupid bait from that shitposter.

Fucking newfags.

>in order to grow the colony, you would have to transport vast amounts of mass from planets/moons/asteroids

No, you brainlet. You can build O'Neill cylinder close to a source moon/asteroid (not a planet, deep gravity well), no need to haul vast amounts of mass anywhere far.

>>10677024
>Dyson spheres and Ringworlds cannot.
Ackshully...
They're just really big projects we can't afford.

>>10673617
they're not because gravity is uniform and consistent, while centrifugal force is inconsistent and nonuniform

>>10675072
sounds like a long term survival to me.. nobody said it will be you personally who will survive tough

>141 replies
>ctrl+f "Isaac Arthur"
>0 results

This way you disappoint me boyos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTDlSORhI-k

>>10675936
>A small bulldozer weighs 18,000 pounds.
Starship will be able to land 100-150 metric tons.

>>10677039

>while centrifugal force is inconsistent and nonuniform

Nope:
https://www.artificial-gravity.com/sw/SpinCalc/

>>10677043
Also a pretty good one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3D7QlMVa5s

>>10677051
you don't understand

O'neill Cylinders > planetary settlements

Musk is a brainlet when it comes to this.

>>10677093
cylinders are better but also harder and thus they are not the first step in humanity expansion into space

>>10677093

He is also a brainlet when it comes to Starship.

>hurrr durrr lets use natural gas rocket to colonize the solar system
>look how retarded I am!

Chemical rockets should be used strictly to go from Earth surface to LEO. Once in space, nuclear propulsion is strictly superior to anything chemical.

>>10677109
bullshit

1. nuclear propulsion does not exist yet and likely will not in foreseeable future

2. nuclear thermal merely doubles specific impulse over chemical, and may have heavier engines, it is better but not any kind of a qualitative change at all

3. chemical is sufficient for Mars missions

>>10677115

>nuclear thermal

Meme.

Direct nuclear is better (fissioning fluid/gas, perhaps augmented by non-fissionables, is expelled for propulsion). Try these:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fission-fragment_rocket

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_salt-water_rocket

>>10676365
once you're in space you're halfway to everywhere

>>10677115
>for Mars missions
>even going to Mars in the first place
literally retarded

>>10676790
>So you put one in a halfway orbit between earth and mars
No.

>>10677115
they have had nuclear propulsion for a long time they just didn't want to use it inside the earth magnetosphere due to it being toxic. they couldn't split atoms safely enough. this first model was blowing up nukes behind a ship and riding on the shockwaves produced and was stupid as fucking hell.

>>10671766

But terraforming Mars will take centuries or even thousands of years.

Just build on these points. Anything that you build here will maintain its position relative to the large orbiting bodies.

>>10677396
if only i had a time machine.

>>10671766

>SpaceX is just Musk's excuse to spend billions of dollars on mankind's most expensive Space Opera cosplay endeavour ever.

>>10677508
he probably saw a ufo and is just mad that his rich ass doesn't have one.

>>10677449
only L4 and L5 are stable equilibria

>>10677630
In one axis/direction, they're unstable in a perpendicular direction you will notice.

>>10672539
The amount of autism that went into this

>>10678245
I like how it's all unfounded

>>10676933
A rotating habitat has to be at least 250m wide in diameter. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHKQIC5p8MU&t=566s

>>10679337
I can think of a better design.

>>10679337
it only needs to be this long, does not have to be an actual circle tough

a near term rotating habitat can be as simple as this, Starship for scale

>>10679976
imagine the Coriolis effect

Burp.

>>10671771
Mars is not space.
It might make no difference.
Not sure why we haven't launched avrover with a couple rats and a sonogram onboard yet. We can just kill them after the experiment is done.

>>10674754
You can't turn rocks into an energy source.

>>10675072
Do you not release that if living on a planet with an environment like Mars is feasible, then living on a climate ravaged Earth is even more feasible?

No matter how bad earth gets, it's still going to be easier to set up some domes here than on Mars.

>>10681172
Mars doesn't have unwashed masses

>>10681169
>what is Mass–energy equivalence

>>10681169
No, but you can turn hydrogen into one, and there is water-ice in the asteroid belt.

>>10681172
Martian rocks cannot stage a revolt and swarm his compound

>>10671766
Looks like Bezos will be the man to go down in history lmao.

>>10671904
Yes, but you don't have to have everyone live on the cylinder, just infants and maybe a caretaker. Toddlers and older should be transported to the planet and live with assisted 'gravity' from rubber

>>10677003
>I'm pretending to be an idiot!

>>10679976
Reminds me of the tethered arklets from seveneves

>>10675100
>>10675154

>>10681974
It seems your jimmies have been rustled... Or have they?

>>10681926
Idiot, the hydrogen from water ice isn't an energy source, it's an energy storage.

>>10682576
it is an energy source with fusion

>>10682578
Fuck off, we're talking about near-future shit

dont mind me, just being a fucking 2 kW/ton energy source

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2019/05/seaborg-molten-salt-reactor-will-fit-on-a-truck-and-cost-less-than-coal-power.html

single Starship could land two of these babies on Mars for a whopping 100MW of electric power

>>10682584
2kW/kg

>>10682584
>molten-salt-reactor-will
>will
You know what the greatest energy source is kids? Imagination.

>>10676365
only really in terms of distance rather than delta-V, which is your primary limiting factor in building a rocket

>>10673376
> the atmosphere is very frequently near 100% humidity
its also 6 mbar, so its not like there's much water there anyway
> dehumidifier
lol, it takes hours in humid environments on earth just to get a few grams of water out of a cubic meter of air, you're not getting shit out the anemic martian atmosphere

>>10671921
Its certainly easy to do given that many asteroids have escape velocities of a few meters a second, so excavation isn't particularly difficult even if the asteroid is solid instead object of a loosely bound pile of gravel

>>10682778
>so excavation isn't particularly difficult even if the asteroid is solid instead object of a loosely bound pile of gravel
I think surface conditions are going to be a shit, not enough information on how to "mine" (or anything remotely similar) them, so lots of scope for failure and bad design choices. However, the first habitat(s) will also make this problem a lot easier to solve (actual human beings near the problem rather than very far away), so the main limiter is a mixture of being able to identify good objects for accessible resources and wanting to put material in space.

>>10676959
I already live in my room.

>>10673505
>>10674814
That really wouldn't help.

>>10678245
I'm pretty sure is was piecemeal'd from several sources.

>>10678302
>t. smoothbrain

>>10683224
You have absolutely zero data points that suggest that 1/3 gravity will be deleterious

test

>>10684277

You have no evidence that it wont be deletrious.

>>10672539
What the fuck is this shit? I'm not reading all that but im guessing it's saying pregnancy and birth off Earth will produce fucked up offspring?
Not in a crushed body way.
Your body would grow as it would on earth but reduced gravity would effect things such as muscle strength and bone length. You'd actually be taller and weaker. You'd perform worse on higher gravity planets and better on lower ones.
Thats the idea of 'Martians' and such in the future.

>>10684277
Astronauts in micro-g have all manner of deleterious alliments. Meaning there's a curve between no gravity and Earth gravity that needs to be studied. Saying less gravity on Mars will cause health problems is valid based solely on that. How bad it will be is anyone's guess.

Just think. All you boys out there have dicks. And I want to suck every one of them.

>>10684415
I'm not a girl, so you don't have to be disgusted by how many dicks I've sucked.

>>10684344
>You'd actually be taller
No evidence and also unlikely. Without stimulation, your bones tend to grow less so you'd be dwarf.

>>10684415
why are you posting on this board?
can you please just delete your comments and leave

>>10684422
I cannot. I am a male nymphomaniac. This condition doesn't allow me to delete comments.

>>10684419
So you're saying despite the human body being designed to grow against the force of gravity and a pressure of 101 kpa that lowering the force the body has to grow against wouldn't change anything?
You wouldn't not have stimulation, you're not just laying in a bed as you age and your body conforms to Earth standards.
The best, nonhypothetical proof, on humans, is the small height increase of astronauts due to zero g.

>>10684448
>The best, nonhypothetical proof, on humans, is the small height increase of astronauts due to zero g.
You get that because of the spine elongating due to fluid between vertebrae (much like your height increase from sleeping). I also did not say nothing would happen, I said you'd get space midgets.

>>10684454
I know, and I'm saying that you wouldn't get space midgets. The human body is set to grow to some height against some downwards force. Lessening or removing that force doesn't remove the force the body itself has been told to genetically produce. At most the base adverse effects you could easily assume would be things such as osteoporosis and muscular atrophy. You'd get Skelton lanklets who couldn't take a punch.

>>10684307
It's almost like more research is required before we can say if the Mars missions are bullshit or not