/sci/ - Science & Math

first for permanent moon base and space elevator

>>10975679
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5F9ON5YO33g

Aerial flyby of SpaceX's Starship Cocoa Facility 15 September 2019

>>10975684
>Aerial flyby
Glad it's not one of those ground-based flybys.

>>10975679
Live views of the Boca Chica SpaceX Complex

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aDOpyUmfL4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jy7bjxXpJdc

>>10975694
desu an underground flyby would be pretty interesting. Does the Boring Company have any equipment for that?

Starship Texas prototype likely interior configuration and dimensions, from NSF.

What's your favourite space related music, /sfg/?
https://youtu.be/XW-8yCKwhBE

>>10975705
Musk, we know you are reading this. Make this happen. You know you want to.

>>10975725
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKnVaDwUg5s

Press G to pay respects to Gemini, the Little Spaceship that Could.

>>10975725
>>10975730
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0bcRCCg01I

>>10975725
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDXfQTD_rgQ

Space shanties fuck yeah!

>>10975732
GG, Gemini.

It was technically a garbage ship. But it taught NASA some very important lessons about spaceflight. Not only that, but the development time was amazingly quick iirc. I can't imagine NASA of today pulling off another Gemini without years of delays and political fiddling.

>>10975725
Fucking Raptor Command

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPU8992gL1E

>>10975752
>>10975737
>>10975734
>>10975730
>>10975725
why is space music so good

JEMEN-KNEE

>>10975740
The spiritual successor to Gemini is the Starship prototyping program. Move fast and weld things. Learn on the fly. Orbital docking and refueling. Big ambitions. Small budgets.

>>10975766
WE WANT A WINDOW

>>10975767
truly the most important connection is window memes

a window for every passenger, elon, a window in every cabin

>>10975737
Based and vacuum pilled.

>>10975773
Just have one huge window in the floor that's way better.

lmaoing at >windows faggots, dude just open up the top so you can see through

just make the whole ship out of glass

how the fuck is windows real nigga just look away lmao

>>10975725
https://youtu.be/uW8da8wIzLs

>>10975725
I like the verse for the naval hymn "Eternal Father Strong to Save." Verses had been added for servicemen on land and in the air, Heinlein composed a Space verse for "Ordeal in Space."

Almighty ruler of the All
Whose power extends to great and small,
Who guides the stars with steadfast law,
Whose least creation fills with awe,
Oh grant thy mercy and thy grace
To those who venture into Space.

For those familiar with the hymn, I was surprised to see how many additional verses had been composed. There is a good list in the Wikipedia article, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_Father,_Strong_to_Save

>>10975725
This song for sure. Some folks will prefer other versions, I am sure.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anqkLPC1dnE

when old space wins: https://youtu.be/XMbvcp480Y4

>>10975737
>>10975725

another great space shanty

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TvCNjQmhwc

>>10975843
original version here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w34fSnJNP-4

>>10975773
>Elon Musk says that Starship will have windows
>everyone gets so excited for it that the first trip to Mars gets fully booked in seconds
>Elon-years pass
>Starship is complete
>no windows
>nervously the passengers enter it
>launches
>refuels at Shelby propellant station
>heads to Mars
>journey kinda boring without being able to see outside
>starts capture burn
>suddenly every light inside turns blue
>controls are unresponsive
>intercom turns on and blasts...
>"DOWNLOADING UPDATE (1 of 237) PLEASE DO NOT TURN OFF DEVICE"
>somewhere on an unnamed island, Elon and Bill are laughing their asses off while sipping on margaritas

>>10975858
nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

>>10975858
I kekked pretty hard, anon.

>>10975773
>a window for every passenger, elon, a window in every cabin
And, cancer for everyone!

>>10975725
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYYRH4apXDo

>>10975879
radiation is the treatment for cancer, just add more windows

>>10975879
ass cancer

>>10975879
windows provide better radiation protection than the steel does

>ywn fly to mars in a spaceship made out of windows

>>10975917
You know what they say about people who live in glass spaceships?

>>10975904
>they are shielding only with steel
How deluded are you? You also can't shield a window enough to prevent cancer and still see out of it to see anything worth while except the sun itself. At least not for lengths of time they would be exposed to a window. They'd need retractable shielding for the windows or have useless windows thicker than the walls.

>>10975932
Based retard

>>10975932
cupolo is the best spot on the ISS for radiation dose

>>10975932
>>10975879
You have no idea how radiation in space works. Starship will have a solar flare shelter and otherwise will not have any cosmic ray shielding, relying instead on a fast trajectory to minimize the dose. Windows are therefore fine, probably even better than the hull due to lower proton number creating less secondary radiation.

>>10975767
AND A HATCH WITH EXPLOSIVE BOLTS!

NO BUCKS, NO BUCK RODGERS

>>10975806
Not using transparent aluminum.

>Do you even materials science?

Just two more weeks, my friends...

>>10975858
>AND NOW I LEAVE YOU TO....
(your moosey fate! your moosey fate!)
... YOUR MOOSEY FATE!!!!!!!!

>>10975893
BRILLIANT!

Why would you use windows in space? By the time we have commercial space flight you'll be able to plug your brain directly into a computer and see a 3D composite created by cameras on the outside of the shuttle.

>>10975761
JEMEN-EYE

>>10976049
yes, that is the correct way to pronounce it
that is not how it was pronounced

>>10976053
To be fair, jemen-knee is the germanic (and therefore correct) way to say Gemini. Jemen-eye is a yank bastardization.

>>10976053
Since it is Latin, the proper pronunciation should be Gay-mee-nee

>>10976074
I thought it was Greek

>>10975725
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxX6phlbds8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6VnsUxtYyA

Is Artemis 2 going to be ready in time?

OBJECTIVE NASA PROGRAM TIER LIST
>PIONEERING GOD TIER
Gemini
Apollo
>GREAT PROGRESS TIER
Skylab
>JOBBING TIER
Artemis
Shuttle
>DARK AGE TIER
ISS
JWST

Feel free to expand with programs I missed.
>

>>10976112
Redstone/Mercury
Skylab should be in betrayal tier

>>10976112
what about MOL

>>10975740
>I can't imagine NASA of today pulling off another Gemini without years of delays and political fiddling.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analysis_paralysis

>>10976112
ISS in lowest tier? Come on.

>>10976156
Set human innovation in space back for at least 30 years.

>>10976156
ISS is a fucking joke

>>10976156
The West could've funded a robust interplanetary exploration program for the same cost with greater return. The ISS exists to justify the Shuttle.

>SLS will never fly
>Orion will never fly
>JWST will never fly
>NASA/ULA/Boeing are leeches of the american economy.

>>10975489
>NASA’s Space Launch System, or SLS, is a powerful, advanced rocket for a new era of human exploration beyond Earth’s orbit

>>10976260
>advanced rocket for a new era of human exploration beyond Earth’s orbit*
*Launch pad is destroyed each launch
*Costs hundreds of millionsw of dollars and rising!
*Pemanently in development, will never actually fly

>>10976263
I note that Congress, despite SLS being almost ready to fly, has only funded the development of SLS, they have not funded the production of SLS and likely never will

Say it with me

SENATE

LUNCH

SYSTEM

>>10976274
SLS Launch System

>>10976259
>>10976260
>>10976313
why doesn't our government just put SpaceX in charge of space? They're clearly more competent.

>>10975858
>>10975858
>>journey kinda boring without being able to see outside
>>starts capture burn
>>suddenly every light inside turns blue
>Hear a voice "That's enough stop the simulation"
>Starship was actually in elons basement it was a mockup

>>10976319
Privatizing previously government run functions have not always delivered the desired solution.
In other words, corruption always finds a way.

>>10976336
i think i watched a pilot show with that kind of premises a long time ago.

>>10976340
>implying the government isn't already completely corrupt

>>10976319
no government will ever accept defeat

>>10976354
Nobody is denying that, just saying that privatizing has its fair share of corruption.

>>10976362
Corruption can have subtly different motivations, though. Corruption which leads to a greater human presence in space is a good thing.

>>10976384
In this case its government funded corruption vs company's who are trying to outperform to get that sweet goverment funded cake.

>>10976313
What would be the yeeting capabilities of this absolute unit?

>>10975725
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6bumUQwQIU

>>10975725
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbfsALc7pPc

how will claw machine games work on 0-g space stations

>>10976263
pic related

>>10976460
there's probably a huge number of 0g carnival games yet to be discovered

and imagine, not just sex in space, but all the weird fucking fetishes 0g enables

>>10976460
>0g sportsball
imagine

>>10975679
How successful would we be in doing our own space program? /sci/ and /diy/ building a few ork tier rockets and try to create space colonies with the power of autism. If you want something done right, you do it yourself

From L2, in regards to the KSC Starship “launch pad”:

Four weeks was the time from start to finish, so expect foundation work for a week or so. Mount is in the HIF. One week to install.

The long pole is GSE work.

>>10976492
what does GSE stand for?

>>10976488
We can probably get a Karman line hopper done technically. The hard part would be to have enough people, time, and money for it.

>>10976488
I made this logo a while back for a hypothetical scisat cubesat. The problem is FCC communication permits take like four years to get

>>10976497
Ground support equipment, so piping, fuel tanks, wiring etc

>>10976492
Wait, where is it confirmed Starpad will only take a month to build?

>>10976313
Delet this cursed image

Why aren't we mining the moon for he3?

>>10976313
Needs F9 boosters instead of those antiquated defense welfare solid rockets.

>>10976561
not enough He3 to make it worth it

>>10976561
too expensive to bring it back.

>>10975715
What about the small header tanks that have been shipped?

>>10976584
NSF are fuckheads, wait until the 28th and the SpaceX presentation

>>10976561
we haven't got fusion working yet, you're asking why there was no oil refineries in 1800

>>10976617
why weren't there?

>>10976569
Not quite. The cost is perfectly manageable, we just don't have a rocket that can go to the Moon/land/bring back a good chunk of 3He back to earth to sell.

If Starship can transport 100,000 kg of 3He from moon and back to earth, the profit is $300+ billion.

>>10976634
no, it's too expensive to extract, in absolute terms
capturing and refining it from the regolith costs more in terms of energy than you could possibly get out of it

>>10976617
Wrong. The Chinese had been doing that since the birth of Christ. They were not just drilling underground for crude oil, but also refining them for use in heating/light at night.

>>10976643
I should have clarified petroleum as opposed to whale oil or whatever.

>>10976661
Comment still stands. The Chinese had been using petroleum since Zhou dynasty and refined petroleum since the Han dynasty. So its been in use for 2000-3000 years depending on whether you're asking for crude petroleum or refined petroleum.

>>10976617
>>10976643
>>10976669
the "no refinement before 1800s" poster is an idiot. Just about everyone with access to it in the form of seeps found at least a few ways to at least crudely refine it.

>>10976634
>300+ billion

Lmao who is even going to buy that? Assuming you could somehow manage to process the literally billions of tonnes of lunar cancer regolith to get that much.

>>10976561
To quote Atomic Rockets.
> Because of the low concentrations of helium-3 (1.4 to 15 ppb in sunlit areas, up to 50 ppb in permanently shadowed areas), any mining equipment would need to process extremely large amounts of regolith (over 150 million tons of regolith to obtain one ton of helium-3)

tl:dr the stuff is too rare to really "mine" it even with generous value with it

>>10975879
t. retard

>>10976045
no

>>10976086
how based can you get

>>10976112
>artemis in jobbing
>shuttle in jobbing
those are both dark age and you know it, at the very least Shuttle is dark age, it's literally responsible for the big 30 year nothing

What does one eat on extended missions in space, space MREs and protein nutrition bars?

>>10976259
correct, yuo are smart

>>10976740
110 tons = 300 billion.

1 ton = 3 billion. Helium-3 mining on moon is lucrative because its extremely rare on earth while the moon has millions of tons of Helium-3 deposits. The only way we're getting helium-3 on earth right now is through nuclear weapons radiation. And we can only produce few dozen-hundred Kg per year. Meanwhile just a single Starship filled with He-3 could generate power equivalent to the entire US energy consumption for 3 years.

With 10 Starship filled with 1000 ton of helium, that would be enough to power everything in the US, from cars, to aircraft, to hotdog stands to homes to everything, for 30 years.

Helium-3 is extremely valuable. People just haven't mined it yet because we don't have the presence on moon, mining materials, fusion reaction isn't there yet, etc. But the perfect storm is coming really soon and if we're not ready, we'll be left in the moon dust.

>>10976792
yeah
frozen fruit

>>10976800
it would take power equivalent to tens to hundreds of years of the entire US energy consumption to extract it, or worse
you're talking about moving and processing billions of tons of material just to extract one starship worth of He3
BILLIONS OF TONS OF MATERIAL

>>10976792
Freeze dried food mostly. A bland bacterial vegimite can be grown from the methane from shit. Aeroponics if you have the space and ambition

https://news.psu.edu/story/502406/2018/01/25/microbes-may-help-astronauts-transform-human-waste-food

>>10976763
this
deuterium on Earth is simply too common for Lunar He-3 to compete even if we get magic extractors running anyway, besides deuterium is also much easier to fuse and aneutronic fusion isn't that groundbreaking to begin with. Imagine if you were comparing two jet fuels, one costs 10c a liter and produces 10 tons of thrust in a certain engine, the other produces 11 tons of thrust but costs $2,000,000 a liter. The cost vs the benefit means you throw that second fuel out the window.

>>10976800
>Helium-3 is extremely valuable
Helium 3 will never be a better fusion fuel economically than deuterium, and we don't need to go ANYWHERE to get that shit.

We could build a space elevator reaching from the lunar surface to the height of geostationary orbit with a single strand of fishing line
https://arxiv.org/abs/1908.09339

>>10976813
It will be when you realize that Helium-3 fusion will be much safer (no/very little radioactive material) and produce much more energy(upto 6 times more) than Deuterium.

Thus lot cheaper/smaller fusion reactor without spending extreme amounts on safety protocols.

>>10976842
And it makes free protons and alpha particles. Which can be used to make electric power directly.

>>10976112
>NEVER EVER TIER
DUMBO, NERVA, TIMBERWIND

>>10975715
UH, THIC

>>10976871

>>10976336
>>10976345
We Ascension now.

>>10976803
Show me your numbers.

>>10976839
How many FH launches would it take to send up a slightly more sturdy line, say something like 1/8th braided steel cable?

>>10976926
right here: >>10976763
150 million tons for one ton of He3
for 110 tons of He3 you'd need to process 16.5 BILLION TONS of Lunar regolith at least

>>10976805
Wait, if they're just using the shit to generate methane to feed the methanogenic bacteria, why not tap the giant water tower full of CH4 you're flying to space on?

>>10976842
It takes a much higher energy level to fuse 3He than D-T. That means we not only have to have fusion working, we have to have it working long enough to at least get to the second generation of the technology.
>>10976853
There are easier aneutronic fuels too. Lithium isn't just for batteries.

>>10976992
Because you need that to land and not fly out into space

>>10976929
Fishing line works MUCH better because it has a higher strength to weight ratio. It can't be built from steel. The single strand of fishing line version requires about 40 Mt of line so you can go do the math on it.

>>10977021
Fishing line would get fucked up by the temperature swings,

>>10976800
Fucking retard

>>10976868
;~ ;

I sometimes think of the moon as an eye that is staring straight at me and observing my every move.

>>10976958
Don't forget that by 'process' we aren't talking scooping and sifting, we're talking scooping, loading into massive ultra-tight pressure vessels, crushing every grain of sand and dust until every void is cracked, collecting 100% of the liberated gasses, separating the He-3 from that, and dumping the wastes.

Maximum of 50 parts per billion is just what's there for you to grab, you have to actually do the work, and there's no way you're getting 100% yield.

>>10977086
t. schizo

>>10977086
>T. Perturabo

>>10977086
Beware the eye of the Midnight Rock

Elon's going to reveal a Tesla Model 3 modified for use as a Mars buggy, either at Boca Chica or as a render. I have no reason to think this other than pure speculation.

>>10977152
yeah, Tesla vehicles have obviously been designed with extraterrestrial adaptation in mind

>>10977038
nothing a thin vacuum deposited layer of aluminum won't solve

Will Elon use Starship to yeet a Tesla Semi into space?

>>10976249
What returns?

>>10977206
No the first payload will be a moai statue

>>10977206
Falcon Heavy sends a Roadster to near-Mars orbit, Superheavy sends a 2020 Roadster to the Martian surface.

>>10976805
>Freeze dried food mostly.
These days it's a lot more MRE-like in terms of preservative techniques.

>>10975715
Why are you posting that retarded shit?

>>10976260
>advanced rocket
>engines from the 70s

>>10976634
Absolutely nobody on earth has any use for large quantities of Helium 3 outside of research. You won‘t be making money with that.

Would you fuck Gwynne Shotwell?

Nobody would find out or believe you so you wouldn't get any clout.

>>10977351
100% MILF as fuck

>>10975737
>>10975752
this is so good

>>10976241
ISS provides permanent human presence in space for decades, helped us to solve bone degeneration in space, and cultivates the nascent commercial space industry, including SpaceX

it is indeed overpriced as fuck and too small for what should have been, but still, putting ISS below Shuttle and Artemis is just wrong

>>10976492
>Four weeks was the time from start to finish

damn, was expecting like half a year minimum, turns out things can move quickly if corruption is out of the equation

>>10976561
He3 fusion is HARDER than D+T fusion, and we still have not managed to get that working

helium-3 is useless in foreseeable future

>>10975725
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHOrpFeXUao

>>10977383
That and US fracking has probably solved the helium shortage.
>https://geology.com/articles/helium/

>>10977409
lol is this author's name an AI rewrite of M. King Hubbert?

>>10977477
DELETE

>>10977476
don't care, only care about where helium on Earth is produced. Which is via Natural Gas deposits, which has produced so much natural gas that the shit is cheap enough to make shitloads of plastics and resins from that it out-competes petroleum for the same processes.

>>10975725
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfe8tCcHnKY

>>10975725
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DY8nqIfsQkU

>>10975932
>>10975964
Radiation is blocked by mass
spaceship or station windows are very thick and heavy to be safe, while walls are relatively thin aluminium alloys

Why can't we ever leave the Local Group no matter how fast we go?

>>10977612
because the space inbetween the Local Group and the rest of galaxy groups is expanding faster than light, so nothing, even if travelling at c, can make all the distance, as the sapce left is always growing. Actually, this is not hapening now, but will hapen in a few billion billion years or so

>>10975725
In keeping with the Age of Sail theme:
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRZAEWqxbPc

>>10977620
So when that happens the skies will go dark and we won't be able to see anything outside of the LG?

>>10977612
so if we mastered space travel in the next 100 years, how broadly across the universe could we spread before the window of opportunity is over?

>>10977628
sadly, yes. The skies will slowly grow dimmer and dimmer as the last remaining light arrives. It will be more redshifter as time grows as the expansion of space makes the wavelength of the light larger. If there is intelligent life left by that time, they will never know that they live in a full, rich universe. They'll think that their galaxy is all that there is. It's pretty sad when you think about it. We're living in the right moment of the universe.

>>10977631
Depends of what you mean by space travel. If faster than light travelling is possible, via wormholes or whatever space-curving technology, then it could be able to get from one point to another even if separated by an infinitely expanding space. If by space travel you mean physical travelling, as in a high velocity, maybe even faster than c, then depends on that velocity. The expansion will never stop, it will always be growing, so even if you could move at 10000c, there will be a time when the expansion rate surpasses that velocity. Anyways, there will be a point in which the expansion is so fast that even galaxies, solar systems and planets, even atoms are ripped apart from each over. That will be the ultimate end, even if we survive everything else.

>>10977636
Though again, if FTL ever happens this is all out the door. The door isn't 100% closed on us, there is a sliver of a crack.

>>10977644
sounds like we need to evolve into plasma based intelligence

>>10977648
plasma is still matter, it's the same problem. The only way to avoid the end is to stop being physical, to stop being tied to space, so that whatever happoens to it doesn't affect you. That could imply many speculatory things. Maybe exiting the universe, if possible. Maybe becoming gods, if possible, and stopping space expansion and reverting entropy at will. Maybe somehow signalling the hosts of this simulation, if this is a simulation, that we want to live, that we are counscious, an maybe in an act of mercy they stop the universe expansion and reverse entropy. This is all speculation and we're likely millions of years away from even grasping these concepts.

>>10975679
$

>>10977650
Kind of like the Technocore in Hyperion?

>>10977660
who knows. in the meantime, humanity has to try not to go exctint.

>>10977612
>Why can't we ever leave the Local Group no matter how fast we go?

We can. It will take billions of years until expansion cuts us off. We can seed many other local groups with life until that happens.

>>10977644
>The expansion will never stop, it will always be growing, so even if you could move at 10000c, there will be a time when the expansion rate surpasses that velocity.

It is not that simple. I read an explanation by a physicist somewhere that if you do the math, it turns out you can travel arbitrarily far even in an expanding universe, because speed of expansion ultimately always gets offset by there being more space not just in front of you, but in the back, or something like that. However, travel time may be extremely long. I will try to find the source later.

On Labpadre stream, there was delivery of 2 additional large silver tanks.

Correction: there was a delivery of ONE silver tank. The other one remained on the flatbed and left the build site for ... who knows where. -NSF

>>10977742
>by there being more space not just in front of you, but in the back,
the point stands. Yes, as you travel, as space behind you also expands, you get afar very quickly, but it's a useless gain, because the space ahead of you is also expanding, and as all parts of space expand at the same rate, the ratio of distance is still the same.

>>10977607
windows are also made of lighter elements, while Starship is made out of iron

>>10977090
And you get other useful gases, and then refine the waste solids for valuable elements.

>>10977753
And lighter elements are better cosmic radiation shielding material than heavier ones.

>>10977831
yes, it is known

>>10975766
>The spiritual successor to Gemini is the Starship prototyping program. Move fast and weld things. Learn on the fly. Orbital docking and refueling. Big ambitions. Small budgets.
Absolutely everything you said is wrong, stop trying to put Musk and SpaceX into everything by force and read about Gemini before you insult it again by comparing SpaceX's ambitions to it.

>>10976263
>*Pemanently in development, will never actually fly
So just like le Starship

>>10975725
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPAhbqTZR_c

>>10977377
ISS needs to be higher than Shuttle by default because every single problem with its design and cost and results is 100% the fault of Shuttle.

>>10977971
Isn’t it the other way around though? It’s pretty insulting to compare a skyscraper sized rocket designed for full reusability and interplanetary travel, to an upgraded Mercury capsule sitting on top off an ICBM.

>>10977976
You really still believe this after Starhopper? Nobody’s going to cancel the Starship program unless SpaceX run out of money which is unlikely considering the F9’s manifest.

>>10977409
Helium 3 only makes up a tiny tiny fraction of helium contained in the Earth's crust, because that stuff came from alpha particles given off by the decay series' of uranium and thorium. Alpha decay always produces alpha particles, aka helium-4 nuclei. Helium 3 comes from the beta decay of tritium, which isn't naturally produced in any significant amounts on Earth, but it is produced in stars, which when a star dies gets cast out into a gigantic nebula where it decays into helium 3. The Sun formed with significant helium 3 content, which has been a component of solar wind, which has been depositing tiny little bits of helium 3 and other gasses into tiny sealed voids in rocks and dust on the Moon for its entire life. This means the Moon has way more helium 3 than Earth, but that's only relative to Earth's microscopic natural supply, meaning the Moon's total He-3 reserve is likely only a few hundred thousand tons, and the vast majority of that is going to be in the upper meter or so of dust and rock.

>>10977778
None of that other stuff is valuable enough to justify selling to Earth. You have a large amount of stuff too cheap to profit off of, and you have a small amount of valuable stuff that you can't make enough of to break even. Therefore the operation is a waste of time and money and effort.

>>10977976
Starship has almost caught up to SLS in terms of its developmental progress and it's not even been one year yet while SLS recently passed a decade.
Raptor engines have been on the back burner for longer, but all of SLS's engines have existed for literally 40 years by now, so that's a moot point.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1909.06348v1
>A potential second interstellar object C/2019 Q4 (Borisov) was discovered after the first known interstellar object 1I/'Oumuamua. Can we send a spacecraft to this object, using existing technologies? In this paper, we assess the technical feasibility of a mission to C/2019 Q4 (Borisov), using existing technologies. We apply the Optimum Interplanetary Trajectory Software (OITS) tool to generate trajectories to C/2019 Q4 (Borisov). As results, we get the minimal DeltaV trajectory with a launch date in July 2018. For this trajectory, a Falcon Heavy launcher could have hauled a 2 ton spacecraft to C/2019 Q4 (Borisov). For a later launch date, results for a combined powered Jupiter flyby with a Solar Oberth maneuver are presented. For a launch in 2030, we could reach C/2019 Q4 (Borisov) in 2045, using the Space Launch System, up-scaled Parker probe heatshield technology, and solid propulsion engines. A CubeSat-class spacecraft with a mass of 3 kg could be sent to C/2019 Q4 (Borisov). If C/2019 Q4 (Borisov) turns out to be indeed an interstellar object, its discovery shortly after the discovery of 1I/'Oumuamua implies that the next interstellar object might be discovered in the near future. The feasibility of a mission to both, 1I/'Oumuamua and C/2019 Q4 (Borisov) using existing technologies indicates that missions to further interstellar objects are likely to be feasible as well.
THE FUCKING OBERTH KUIPER MANEUVER

>>10977971
You're right. It's insulting to compare Gemini and Starship. Gemini was neither ambitious nor cheap.

>>10978073
sorry about the white space my bad

>>10978073
needs the mythical RS-25U

>>10978073
thanks I hate it

>>10978067
It's good to see the Greeks being relevant to the present day. We'll teach all the belter children the story of Icarus – don't slingshot around the sun or you'll fucking die.

>>10978073
Could superheavy even lift the SLS core stage like that?

>>10978098
yeah, easily
Core stage mass less than the propellant on Starship
the upper stage and payload will mass less than the heat shield and dry mass of Starship

>>10977976
This is bait

>>10978067
>A CubeSat-class spacecraft with a mass of 3 kg could be sent to C/2019 Q4 (Borisov)
>3 Kg
L M A O

>>10978143
it's a brave little toaster anon. Plus cubesats have already gone interplanetary. Although we'd new tiny nuclear power systems for such a mission. Honestly we really need optical comms because you can transmit more data at less power with lasers. If you can aim them...

>>10978073
Maybe SLS DOES get to fly after all...

>>10978137
No, do you see hyperloop happening? Or FH moon flyby, Musk is a fraud and liar.

>>10978303
now THIS is bait

10978303

thunderf00t detected post discarded

>>10978019
>selling to Earth
Or we use it in space and it is less we have to launch.

toilet

>>10978338
Which is more efficient?
>Weld, come down every two hours to shit and piss
>Weld continuously shitting and pissing as needed

>>10978336
Or you mine something worth actually mining instead of memium-3.

>>10978345
Platinum metals

>>10978342
says the man who's never had his portapotty catch on fire

>>10978348
fuck that
IRON, ALUMINUM, and TITANIUM

>>10978345
lunar rock to make portals

>>10978353
This is true, I have never had a portapotty catch fire on me. It sounds unpleasant.

>>10978356
This, the real utility of the moon is bulk structural material

>>10978338
:D

>>10978303
This man has the right idea. You know what Elon is? An IMMIGRANT, from a SHIT HOLE COUNTRY. We need rockets DESIGNED and BUILT by AMERICANS for AMERICA. SLS is making great progress at providing jobs for thousands of Americans from coast to coast. What's more important to you, son? Space, or AMERICA?

The Senate Appropriations Committee hereby moves to rename SLS to the American Launch System. All in favor say "amen".

>>10978356
>>10978367
Isn't Mars the better source of iron? What with the surface being composed largely of iron oxides.

>>10978388
I believe it also has a better atmosphere for welding

>>10978388
Mars is very far away.

>>10978388
The moon has a shallower gravity well and is less than a week away

>>10978395
Mars is very far away, but not significantly harder to reach than the moon. Starship is by design capable of reaching both. The difference is that Mars is only accessible every two years, and flights are a bit longer. But voyages of "several months, once every two years" is better than what we colonized the Americas with.

>>10978388
Mars is far, both in distance and in terms of delta V. Also 0.5% of the mass of lunar regolith is free iron. That means iron itself, no oxides. This free iron can be trivially extracted using magnets. Moon's also close enough that round trip time's about 2.7 seconds, making controlling robots on the surface from earth much easier
>>10978394
The Moon has a very good vacuum meaning you can do electron beam welding. Hell you can fucking pave solar cells on to melted regolith on the surface with vacuum deposition.

>>10978401
Do you think walking from Seattle to Portland is hard? Its not impossible, but its hard right? It takes about 5 days of walking 14 hour everyday at a pace of ~3 mph(walking pace). How about walking around the earth twice(14K miles)? 10 months of walking 14 hours a day/everyday would accomplish that.

If moon travel of 3 day journey sounds hard, then 6 months in space journey is quite harder. Just because we could in theory do it, doesn't mean its relatively easy.

>but moon is easy
So easy, only few countries have done it.

>>10978459
Why would you bring such a senseless comparison? Nobody's walking to the moon, and covering distance in space does not equate to covering distance on Earth. You seem to have a flawed view of what the word "relative" means.

Furthermore, no, you're still pretending distance, time, and dV are interchangable. They are not. Time is a largely solved factor, we've used the ISS as a long term orbital habitation laboratory for decades. We've largely solved the bone loss problems (which, by the way, are more concerning on the Moon than Mars, with a third again of Mars' one third g). Distance is literally irrelevant to difficulty other than driving time. The required change in velocity is how you should compare the relative difficulties of getting to Mars and the Moon.

The dV needed to go from LEO to the Moon is ~6km/s. The dV needed to go from LEO to Mars is ~7km/s. Both of these are on top of the ~9km/s needed to achieve LEO. So this vaunted "Mars is soooooo far away!!" difficulty comes down to a difference of under 10%.

>but space is hard!
Yes, and? We're not in Ethiopian Mud Hut Building General, we're in Spaceflight General.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FshtPsOTCP4
Nuking Mars ain‘t enough according to this australian surfer/astro physicist.

>>10978467
Space is hard. Only 0.001% of human population is doing space stuff and less than 0.0000001% have been in space.

>>10978477
Okay. That's literally irrelevant to any discussion we've been having. Are you going somewhere with this?

>>10978473
Nuking Mars is no more than a ceremonial groundbreaking on the terraforming project. It would give use some interesting data about how changing the atmosphere changes surface conditions, but it's not a solution to terraforming.

>>10978484
>nuking Mars

We night want to protect our investment first.

>>10978500
Atmospheric stripping takes place over millenia. So does large scale terraforming. Let's actually get a Martian economy existing before we strain it with megaprojects.

>>10978500
Mars lost most of its second atmosphere because it was 1/3 g, Venus has a negligible magnetosphere and has a massive atmosphere

>>10978512
Venus is also literally the gates of hell.
>muh aerostats
no

>>10978514
But that doesn’t disprove my point, Mars has a thin atmosphere because of its low gravity. It needs less of a magnetosphere and more of a hard-light dome around the planet to hold the new atmosphere in

>>10978520
A magnetosphere would help significantly, though. A lot of atmospheric loss that wouldn't occur otherwise is caused by the solar wind. It wouldn't eliminate depletion, but greatly reduce it.

>>10978514
Trivial matter to freeze it to approx pluto levels in one human lifetime.

Main requirement is spacefaring civilization which should be obvious since you need to be one to get there anyway.

>>10978525
Atmospheric erosion from usable down to current levels will eons. Nuke and use it now then let the far future generations figure it out.

>>10978512
>>10978504
It isn't just the stripping. We need to shield Martians from the radiation.

>>10978535
They won't live on the surface until it's terraformed anyways, and the radiation 10 foot under Martian bedrock is lower than Earth's surface.

>>10978512
yeah but they lost literally all of their hydrogen

>>10978467
a) There has been no long-term study of partial gravity's effect on human physiology. We've got 1-g and No-g, but nothing in between.

b) Pretending that the moon's relative proximity compared to Mars is irrelevant is disingenuous and retarded

>Nuke Mars!

Mirrors and lenses are superior in literally every aspect to this dumb shit idea.

>>10978500
That would require a fuckhuge magnet, a fusion reactor to power it and some serious thrust to keep it in place.

But if you can do all that, then teraforming mars would be a reality.

>>10978559
the meme goes that it requires about the same magnetic flux as a fridge magnet

>some serious thrust to keep it in place
you don't understand lagrange points

>>10976130
Why not just Mercury? Why leave out the Mercury Atlas missions?

>>10978572
>you don't understand lagrange points
Your forgeting you just created a fuckhuge magnet with a magnetic field bigger then a planet that constantly gets blasted by the sun's magnetic field.
That thing wont stay put.
Keep up.

>>10976249
I think you are missing the point that a "robust exploration program" would surely have suffered from the same organizational issues that beset the ISS program.

>>10978581
yes it will

>>10978559
i have heard that it would take a couple of gigawatts to power that magnet
not a lot when you compare it to earth power consumption

>>10978467
The original context of this was getting iron for use in space, so you also have to take into account the dV cost of getting off the ground. This will be higher on Mars than it is on the Moon.

>>10978514
>>no
that is not a compelling argument against colonization of the atmosphere of Venus. Might I remind you that the atmosphere of Venus provides similar radiation shielding to Earth's atmosphere, similar insolation to Earth's surface(even when cloudy), CHNOPS elements are available in the atmosphere, similar temperatures and pressures to Earth's surface.

>>10978692
Based retard

>>10978559
A solar array a 10th of the size of manhattan could power it with some spare capacity.

>>10978597
It's literally a magnetic solar sail, you'd need to counteract that thrust

Yet another article has popped up hinting that the US has some sort of offensive space capability that they have yet to reveal. I'm wondering how close we are to actually seeing the reveal.
https://breakingdefense.com/2019/09/spacecom-to-write-new-ops-war-plan-100km-and-up/

>“US officials have been hinting for a while now, since the end of the Obama Administration, that the US has capabilities in space no one knows about which, if revealed, could serve as a deterrent,” Weeden said. “That may be some sort of super-secret offensive space capability that’s already deployed. But I think it’s more likely a latent capability that the US could operationalize on very short notice, like the recent test of a Tomahawk beyond INF treaty limits.”
>“That’s stuff I can’t talk about,” said one former Pentagon official, “but I will tell you there is a lot of talk that is seriously under represented in reality.”
The Tomahawk is a good example. Maybe there's a version of the SM-6 that can go even further into space than the 2008 ASAT?

>>10978772
gravity will do that just fine

>>10978778
I'll say it again. XF-37B.

Are ceramic heatshield tiles opaque or transparent to microwave radiation?

>>10978772
Ion Thrusters.

>>10978805
Probably opaque.

Pictured: POLSA secures judiciary funding in preparation to accept the invitation for ecommerce magnate Yusaku Maezawa's lunar excursion by sending self proclaimed "rudeboy" Kuba Wojewódzki as a national representative on the circumnavigational trek to our nearest celestial neighbor. (Colourized)

>>10978903
>Kuba Wojewódzki
A. Who?
B. renowned Polish moron

>>10978778
There are probably three distinct areas of space-based weapons for the United States, one being space to surface offensive weapons, another being space to space offensive weapons, and the third isn't an offensive weapon at all but rather nuclear deterrents.

Space to space weapons are probably the most simple comparatively, as they can just be kinetic kill vehicles sat in orbits designed to intercept other nation's satellite infrastructure with minor course corrections. I don't think the US or anyone else for that matter is overwhelmingly concerned with Kessler syndrome at this point so they don't much care about the consequences of ramming shit into other shit. Like >>10978787 says, there are probably versions of the X37B, derivatives thereof, or completely unknown contemporaries that can serve as offensive space based weapons with either missile payloads or perhaps even some sort of laser. Though I think the power required to run a laser is more than could be generated or stored on a platform that size.

Space to surface weapons also probably exist in some way, but thats pretty hard to determine and I don't grasp how they'd function beyond just dropping nukes from the sky and creating a nuclear square rather than triangle.

>>10978950
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_Orbital_Bombardment_System

>>10977612
Procedural generation gets iffy beyond NGC 3109

>>10978805
depends on the type of ceramic. Silica tiles are going to be fairly transparent. Reinforced carbon carbon will be opaque and so will anything with silicon carbide.

>>10978076
Only thing it needs is the ability for the RS-25 to start in mid air. Also modifications to the thrust structure. All RS-25 Vac would get you is an increase in Isp, however the current RS-25 already gets about 70 seconds more Isp than Raptor vac so it'd be an Isp improvement regardless, in fact vacuum RS-25 wouldn't get more than a dozen seconds of Isp more than what it currently does because the expansion ratio is already quite high for a sea level engine.
Obviously a lot of the Isp gains are gutted by the larger dry mass of the tank, but the fact that there's three stages instead of two actually helps a lot at least for yeeting payloads onto super high energy trajectories.

Also overall this thing would do much better than SLS in terms of payload, even in reusable booster mode. In reusable mode the Booster would be separating at like mach 5, meaning the SLS core stage (2nd stage) would only have to start firing once it was already pretty much out of the atmosphere and moving quite fast. With low payload masses this thing might be able to get the entire 2nd stage into orbit plus the core stage before stage burnout. In expendable mode it's get even higher and faster, meaning even better performance. It'd act a lot like a suped-up Saturn V, with higher Isp on every stage, higher propellant mass on every stage, and higher thrust on the first and second stages. It'd also be retarded to try to get Boing engineers to play nice with SpaceX engineers, and this idea is a non started from the get-go because it doesn't spend money on solid boosters.

>>10978098
I wrote in the picture that the entire SLS stack sans boosters weighs LESS than the upper stage of Starship Super Heavy. In fact as other guy pointed out, SLS core stage plus exploration upper stage (the big one that doesn't exist yet) PLUS over 100 tons of payload weighs less than just the METHALOX load on Starship. Not only could the Booster lift that thing, it'd be able to lift it more easily than the thing it's currently designed to push.

>>10978174
If you have a micro-RTG generating a few dozen watts for your little cubesat all you really need is a big array to listen to the radio signals, because it can afford to take years to download all the data.

>>10978336
Yes, that works, but you don't mine materials in unreasonably large amounts. We don't mine ANYTHING on Earth with our entire global industrial capability even near to the amounts we'd need to be mining and processing to get significant amounts of He-3 on the Moon. A Lunar colony with dozens of millions of people would still only need to be mining tens of thousands of tons of material in total annually from the Moon, which equates to less than a kilogram of helium 3 a year if you have 100% extraction efficiency. It's not worth the effort in any aspect.

>>10978356
based
Also don't forget basalt fiber, it's not used for much here on Earth right now but good basalt fiber (similar to glass fibers) have extremely high strength to weight ratio and, since basalt is one of the most common minerals in the solar system even on asteroids, is likely to be the best over-wrap support material for making large rotating orbital habitat structures available. A contract for enough basalt fiber for a single 3000 by 250 meter cylindrical habitat bottle with a one meter thick wrap layer would be worth huge money; you'd be looking at 2.551 MILLION cubic meters of basalt fiber.

>>10978959
I bet that one of America's "latent capabilities they aren't allowed to say they have but totally have anyways" is a FOBS version of the Trident II. Or even just existing hardware capabilities that aren't enabled for treaty compliance.

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

Lots of new development from Starship @ Florida

>>10978388
Common misconception.
Mars's surface is not mostly composed of iron oxide. Mars' surface is mostly coated in a very thin layer of iron oxide dust, blown around by wind for billions of years. That's why any time a land slide or impact disturbs the surface it generally turns that spot black, the dust layer hasn't had time to reform yet and so you only see the true color of the rocks underneath. In reality a fair amount of Mars' surface does have iron bearing minerals, but it's no more or less prevalent than here on Earth or the Moon really, except there's no free oxygen to oxidize iron on the Moon and on Earth iron bearing soil tends to also be quite fertile and thus gets covered over by plant life, except in some deserts (also most of Earth is covered by water which hides a lot of iron deposits too).

>>10978525
If Mars had a magnetosphere as strong as Earth's for its entire history it'd still have lost about as much as it has up to this point, solar wind only makes up about 10% of the gas loss at Mars, it's a minimal effect. The vast majority of gasses escape due to the low escape velocity of Mars plus the warmish temperature of the gasses; If Mars were as far out as Jupiter it'd probably have no problem holding onto an atmosphere as thick as Earth's, and it'd definitely have no problem out at Saturn, where even Moon sized objects can have atmospheres exceeding the density of Earth's.

>>10978527
Not trivial at all, it'd take tens of thousands of years of cooling off if you shaded 100% of incoming energy until Venus got to the point that nitrogen would start condensing, which is what you need if you plan on removing the CO2 ice that froze out earlier, since you definitely need electromagnetic launch systems in order to fire that stuff away as cheaply and rapidly as possible, and you can't do that where there's still ~2 bar of nitrogen at the surface.
Radiative cooling slows down as objects cool, meaning it may only take a few years before the surface temperature is no longer hot enough to melt lead, or a few decades before carbon dioxide starts condensing to form oceans, but with every degree lower the next degree takes even longer, plus you have a ridiculously big thermal storage mass to allow to radiate energy away. It doesn't help either that CO2 also has a heat of vaporization, which means the act of condensing that gas into liquid will also release heat energy and slow the process down even more.

>>10978535
Adding gas is what blocks radiation. It's also what blocks radiation here on Earth. If our magnetic field dropped out right now we would not be hit with any more dose than we currently absorb from cosmic rays, because ONLY cosmic rays have the energy needed to either reach the ground or produce secondary radiation that is strong enough to reach the ground and still be ionizing.

>>10978544
Venus still has a decent amount of hydrogen compounds. Mars actually has even more, though most of it is frozen underground. If we're planning on undertaking a project as huge as terraforming then throwing in a comparatively tiny amount of hydrogen mined from the outer solar system wouldn't be a big deal by comparison.

>>10978554
Nuke Mars is simply easier to print on a T shirt and generates public interest among retards, who make up most of the public. It's just a nice buzzword phrase.

>>10978541
they'll be doing shit on the surface for work, which makes it needed anyhow
besides, zero atmospheric stripping is better than some

>>10978572
>the meme goes that it requires about the same magnetic flux as a fridge magnet
At what distance? Obviously not at the magnetic source's surface otherwise we could literally just put a fridge magnet there and be done with it. If you mean at a distance of 6000 km, then okay, you're talking about creating a magnetic sail significantly more powerful than what the Earth's core dynamo generates, and that qualifies as a mega-engineering project, a project a million times bigger than anything we've ever built and probably bigger than all the things we've ever built put together.

What's the benefit of this ambiguously massed magnetic field generator? it slows the rate of atmospheric escape from Mars by, at MOST, 10%, because that's the total amount of stripped gas that is removed by solar wind and charged particles, with the rest coming from other escape methods mostly related to Mars' low gravity. It's a gigantic waste of time and effort, is what I'm getting at. Also it wouldn't even block cosmic rays, like our own magnetic field also doesn't block, so it'd be useless as a radiation shield as well.

>>10978554
Every thing counts. Elon wants the whole world to talk about Mars and not just let it be a scifi/talk of the nerds. The key aspect of "Nuke Mars" isn't the nuking part, its the Mars part.

>>10978621
It's also an enormous power draw for a spacecraft, plus that figure is what you need in terms of power if your magnet is made of a superconducting material, which means now you need to keep this thing at cryogenic temperatures constantly or it doesn't work, also you need to manufacture billions of tons of superconductor to build it in the first place.

>>10979195
keeping something at cryo isn't difficult in space

>>10978778
There have been murmurings that the USA has something similar to the SOL from Akira that uses a proton stream instead of a laser. The Dugway lights from 2005 were possibly a test of this system.

>>10978950
>Like >>10978787 # says, there are probably versions of the X37B, derivatives thereof, or completely unknown contemporaries that can serve as offensive space based weapons with either missile payloads or perhaps even some sort of laser.

Google the AWST article from the 2000s on the alleged "Blackstar" program. I'm not at all sure that they got it 100% right, but it's very likely that Blackstar or something similar to it flew. There's also talk that the USMC SUSTAIN concept may have lead to a functional article similar to the Air-Launched Sortie Vehicle concept. Musk wasn't the first guy to dream up using a sub-orbital vehicle for rapid point-to-point transport.

>Though I think the power required to run a laser is more than could be generated or stored on a platform that size.

Chemical laser with a small number of shots is probably what they'd go with.

>>10978692
Here's a real argument against colonizing Venus, go ahead and at me.

Venus colonization is a waste of time and resources. It is a waste because it does not actually expand our capabilities i space, which is what our first priority needs to be at least until such time as we have already established a permanent and significantly industrially capable human presence in space. The reason we can't do the previous on Venus is because A; it is very resource poor, although many vital resources do exist in at least some amount in the atmosphere, it is an incredibly small concentration and thus takes a very long time comparatively to harvest, and B; Venus has nearly as deep a gravity well as Earth's, with the added complication that two-way orbital transport systems need to deal with the lack of an accessible surface to land on, forcing them to land on hardware suspended in the atmosphere as well. This means that unlike on Mars, where a Starship-class vehicle can refuel on the surface and launch directly onto a trajectory back to Earth, such a vehicle on a floating Venus colony needs *two* stages just to reach orbit, and then needs several refueling flights in order to have the delta V to reach Earth. This means that compared to an Earth-Mars or Earth-Moon transport system, an Earth-Venus transport loop is going to be much more resource-intensive and require much more time and complexity per trip.

Those same transport drawbacks also apply to going to any OTHER destination in the solar system from Venus. The only object you'd make any gains on trying to visit from Venus would be Mercury, and even then a Starship-class vehicle simply lacks the delta V to do a Mercury round-trip, due to its proximity to the Sun. Every other object requires more delta v to reach from Venus than from Earth, Mars or Moon.

The actual reason to colonize Moon or Mars is so that these places can act as stepping stones to get far more mass into orbit for far cheaper.

>>10979159
We don't need sea level mars to get to earth sea level. Something comparable to 10,000 to 14,000 feet should do.

Light activity without pressure suits or oxygen. Heavy work would need supplemental oxygen.

>>10979257
If you could get 0.2 atmospheres of pressure you could do Empire Strikes Back breathing masks

>>10979252
>>which is what our first priority needs to be at least until such time as we have already established a permanent and significantly industrially capable human presence in space
and perhaps we could accomplish this faster on Venus than we could anywhere else because of lower requirements on the amount of life support hardware you need to import.
>> it does not actually expand our capabilities i space
prove that Mars actually does this.
>>it is very resource poor
bullshit. CHNOPS are available directly from the atmosphere and clouds.
>> The only object you'd make any gains on trying to visit from Venus would be Mercury
transit time from Venus to the asteroid belt is faster than from Earth or Mars because phasing opportunities occur more often.

>>10978805
STOP RIGHT THERE. DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT BEAMING POWER THROUGH THAT HEAT SHIELD.

>>10979268
>>10979257
>>10979159
>>10978525
Ya'll are forgetting that it has been shown to be impossible to terraform mars with current technology:
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/goddard/2018/mars-terraforming/

>>10979181
Adding a magnetosphere of arbitrarily high strength would only reduce atmospheric stripping by 10% at most, because the other 90% of atmospheric stripping happens through mechanisms with nothing to do with solar wind.

Tick-Tock Michoud.

>>10979207
It is though, especially when it's huge and it's having to generate and use gigawatts of power. Remember, every watt of power is a watt of heat you need to get rid of.

>>10979277
10% is still 10%
the station could be used for other things too

>>10979271
Well it's a good thing we can build cities entirely out of carbon and oxygen, it would suck if we needed things like metals to build cities.

>>10979274
I was actually thinking about whether a radar could be hiding behind X-37B's heat shield.

>>10979275
Terraform as in "make Earthlike", yes. However, you can VASTLY improve the Martian environment simply by bringing the pressure up to the Armstrong limit. A thin, unbreathable atmosphere is a lot less hassle when you just need warm clothes and an oxygen mask. Making Mars equivalent to the summit of Everest is totally doable.

>>10979271
>and perhaps we could accomplish this faster on Venus
Irrelevant because you can't fix the fact that Venus has too much gravity to easily escape from. Which is the main thrust of my argument.
>prove that Mars actually does this
Mars or Moon both allow for vehicles that are 50% payload by mass to act as reusable SSTO. That alone is a huge expansion in space capability. We can also do electromagnetic launch and even space elevator technology on the Moon, and while Mars lacks this capacity it also has two convenient quadrillion-ton lumps of rock in nice circular equatorial orbits for us to exploit as well, which given that Mars also has low gravity and a thin atmosphere for braking would be well within the capacity of SSTO vehicles using chemical fuels (methane or hydrogen).
>bullshit
I already said that, and that they exist in very low concentrations, except for carbon and oxygen atoms. Good luck generating significant amounts of phosphorous from gasses at Venus. Also, iron, copper, zinc, calcium, sodium, chlorine, bromine, iodine, and more are all also just as vital as phosphorous and nitrogen and carbon, but you need to go to the ground and dig up minerals to get them. This is obviously challenging even if it's theoretically possible on Venus.
>transit time from Venus to the asteroid belt is faster than from Earth or Mars because phasing opportunities occur more often
The asteroid belt has launch opportunities constantly because it's a swarm of millions of objects. Mars is a better place to start from because you can just wait for targets to drift by and maneuver to them. Ceres is even better, since it's right in the belt. Lag between launch windows is no issue.
Overall, reread my comment because you missed 90% of what I actually said.

What if we yeet Ceres into Mars

>>10979275
Who cares about current tech? We're talking in principal. Some things just don't work as solutions no matter how much mass your civilization can throw around. Artificial magnetosphere is one of them, not because it can't be done, but because there's no benefit.

>>10979306
not enough mass to make a difference

>>10979282
The 'station' would first and foremost be a billion ton block of superconducting material with a solar shade and a big solar array. You don't get any other utility out of it unless you build that utility in, in which case why not just build that other station somewhere else more advantageous. Also, if the big ass magnet station doesn't really do jack shit, why even build it at all?

Don't misunderstand, when I say 10%, I don't mean that adding a big magnetic field would make Mars' atmosphere 10% bigger, I mean it'd stay exactly the same but lose mass at a 10% slower rate, meaning it's still trending down significantly. Therefore we need to import/release huge amounts of gas anyway, in which case screw the magnetosphere and just import slightly more gas. We're incentivized to deliver gas as fast as possible anyway because it offers maximum yield the faster we pump new gas into the atmosphere. Ideally we'd deliver a massive sphere of carbon dioxide and water ice all at once to build up the atmosphere in one shot, then we can just let it slowly escape again and top it up once a century with a small impactor form the Kuiper belt or wherever.

Personally I don't see the point of terraforming Mars anyway, just build underground and slowly para-terraform the place.

>>10979283
this

>>10979319
>Personally I don't see the point of terraforming Mars anyway, just build underground and slowly para-terraform the place.
This but also bring the surface to the Armstrong limit

>>10979288
>> simply by bringing the pressure up to the Armstrong limit
"Inventory of CO2 available for terraforming Mars" by Jakosky and Edwards show that it's extremely difficult to bring pressures up on Mars above 20 mbar. Making Mars equivalent to the summit of Everest is currently not doable.
>>10979314
doing so requires processing a large fraction of the surface. Perhaps there is no benefit to doing this.

>>10979326
If we're accepting an unbreathable atmosphere and only care about pressure, we don't need to limit ourselves to CO2 (which is toxic anyways). Oxygen is decently prevalent. CFCs are nice for the greenhouse effect, and give us a use for all those perchlorates. Regardless, any planetary-scale engineering needs centuries of work anyways.

I started envisioning a magnetic siphon composed of large orbiting rings that would take up a diffuse stream of Venus's atmosphere and yeet it into Mars's orbit to be slowly absorbed, but then I remembered CO2 wasn't polar and got sad again.

>>10979345
New plan, crash Mars into Venus

>>10979337
We want something half way breathable and below the Armstrong line. So a loss of habitat atmosphere is an emergency, and not a catastrophe.

>>10979352
Blow up mars and rebuild it as Cybertron

>>10979306
it would give Mars a big owwie

>>10979365
>Martian surface pressure brought above the Armstrong limit
>Dome cracks
>airplane oxygen masks dropping everywhere

>>10978298
I heard u talking shit like I wouldn't find out...

>>10979337
>>oxygen
>>CFCs
for either of those gases, you still need to process a significant portion of the surface.

wth is going on in here?

Why do people go on about this Mars nonsense. There is nothing there. Its just an uninhabitable rock with nothing on or in it.

Any worthwhile investment in space will take place right in orbit. Everything else is either worthless or out of reach by tens of thousands of years. Be happy you can still see any stars at all.

>>10977224
Hey, we got this one in Waterbury we're trying to figure out what to do with.

>>10979449
we can do a lot with an uninhabitable rock, desu

>>10979521
>responding to it
stupid newfags

>>10979528
as long as I have fun desu

>>10979449
there's probably gold in them hills, maybe oil too

>>10979278
Deled dis

>>10979842
>Orbital depot

>>10979171
>https://orionsarm.com/fm_store/TerraformingVenusQuickly.pdf
tldr; ~100y*

>>10978073
>air-startable shuttle engines
>no solid rocket boosters

Rejected.

>>10980033
yikes

>>10979449
At least on Mars you have rocks. What do you have in orbit? Nothing. At least, nothing you don't put there, unless you're mining asteroids small enough to have negligible gravity, which definitely classify as uninhabitable rocks even more so than Mars.

>>10979252
good post

>>10980033
>window size as a capability
just

Hey guys, assuming unlimited industrial capacity/capability, what's the best way to lock up Venus' excess carbon with minimal imports from other solar system objects?

I'm thinking about it from the perspective of at least a type 1.5 civilization where us humans have colonized Moon and Mars to well beyond the point of total self sustainability, we've recently-ish achieved total self sufficiency in the Jupiter and Saturn systems, we've got colonies growing in the Uranus system and around Neptune as well as a few smaller ventures into the Kuiper belt, we have a pretty large presence in the asteroid belt though we're still way off from Dyson swarm levels of orbital habitat construction, etc. From this point of view, Venus is simply seen as a project world, not as something to devote all our time and attention to, and since we're a space economy anyway it makes sense to at least get what we can out of the planet.

Anyway, what I'm thinking is, first we'd 'colonize' Venus by maneuvering a set of big orbital habitats into a 1000 km altitude orbit, for example, to establish a manned presence to control the hardware down below. Second, we'd send a pioneer wave of unmanned floating vehicles into the atmosphere to start harvesting and cracking CO2 to get the carbon to make large amounts of high strength fibers (carbon fibers or nanotubes, doesn't really matter). These floating drone factories load up with carbon until they start having trouble staying aloft, then they fashion big bottles with these materials and inflate them with light gasses to provide more lift, and continue. The goal here is to set up the ability to construct very large floating platforms in the sky, not to live on them though or even have them accessible to people, this is purely an industrial effort so far.

>>10980033
>inb4 tries to patent largest windows in spaceflight history

>>10980157
part 2

So once we have a robotic industry chugging along making floating platforms to work from, we start phase 2, which is to construct high strength high temperature resistance cables (probably nanotubes of one kind or another, if carbon nanotubes work and we can make them in bulk that's great), and start lowering these tethers down into the atmosphere to attach them to the surface. At this point we need to have robotic technology, even if it's rudimentary, that can operate at 400 C with little or no cooling, OR we need to use robotic vehicles that carry enough thermal battery mass to survive working for a few hours then quickly leaving the atmosphere to dump heat before getting back to work. Anyway, what we start doing is mining the surface for two things, silica compounds and alumina compounds. We want to use the alumina to make aluminum, which we launch into space via a big rocket sled on a launch loop tethered to the ground and supported by balloons, and use to build large thin mirrors to start shading the planet (remember we're trying to minimize imports from elsewhere). The silica on the other hand is going to need to be mined in greater quantity, because we're going to use it to produce large amounts of silicon carbide. Silicon carbide 'rocks' are convenient because the chemical is stable even at very high temperatures, and given a decently high volume to mass ratio would take geologic time to oxidize back into silica and carbon dioxide. So we start making as much of this stuff as possible, in the form of cannonball sized rocks, and drop them back onto the surface. That's how we sequester the carbon in Venus' atmosphere and cool it down at the same time.

>>10980157
Waste of (a long) time. At that point mega projects like solar shades should be possible opening great many possibilities that are certainly better than plopping people in 1000km solar furnaced orbits to play with rc toys in hades.

>>10980171
Finally, if we keep this up, we can eventually get Venus to the point that it has an extremely oxygen rich atmosphere with non-toxic levels of CO2 and no change to the amount of nitrogen (about 3x what Earth has presently). That oxygen is a problem, sort of, but here's where our only big imported resource comes in. We send large amounts of hydrogen to Venus, in the form of sun-shaded artificial 'comets' of hydrogen ice, which impact hard and fast enough to react and form water vapor, which condenses in the now much cooler atmosphere and starts raining out. This process takes a long time, but at the end of the day you transform >110 atmospheres worth of oxygen gas (because refining the silica produced oxygen as well as refining the CO2) into a large hydrosphere, and the water is mostly light water as well because this hydrogen came from the outer solar system where stripping of the lighter isotope of hydrogen doesn't happen.

>>10980179
It's gonna take a long time no matter what, the general idea is just set up large scale silicon carbide manufacturing on Venus then import hydrogen to react with the free oxygen to get rid of the thick atmosphere while also adding big water.

>>10980190
Still the GOAT space aesthetic

>>10978912
>Kuba
>not Kubo
Maezawa wtf u doin

stop shitting up the thread with retarded gay space zeppelin venus colonisation meme sperging, it's not happening

>>10979501
>its a wanker
had me a giggle m8

>>10980033
so much cope

>>10979279
>every watt of power is a watt of heat you need to get rid of
we are not building a space heater desu

new thread

>>10980443