/sci/ - Science & Math

First

>>11832516
Okay so the whole PROOOOONTING thing is actually pretty cool, but Jesus why does everyone spam that goddamn buttplug shape? It looks terrible.

Get your ass to Mars!

Anon let it go.

Pick your poison boys
>https://youtu.be/5QbM7Vsz3kg
>https://youtu.be/OQpoj62KUnQ

>>11832537
except only one of those streams is poison

>>11832529
its spammed because it was the latest proof of concept, noone actually believes the buttplug will be the final product just that the buttplug showed us good ideas.

>>11832533

>>11832540
true

>>11832516
So much bigger than SN4

Don't you guys love asian launches?

>>11832552
Remember, each prototype has upgraded interior hardware, such as better designed tanks, better designed plumbing, etc etc

>>11832516
Hopefully someone will come up with an automated VAB for starship that builds them like ships
>One area makes rings with sheet steel and welds it
>One building makes nose with cargo/passenger bay
>VAB takes the components, autowelders weld the sections together while workers attach all the piping and components not preassembled into the sections along with wiring and engines
Model T starship manufacturing

>>11832524
Why not factor in all planets? Given enough time, there's plenty of energy available to disassemble even Jupiter into a cloud of resources to sort and use. You can probably add a few orders of magnitude to the population estimate.

You know what, fuck it, mine the Sun too, until it's down to a stable red-dwarf mass and output, and use all that material as well. All the objects in the solar system other than the Sun only contain about 0.2% of the grand total mass, so if you strip mine the Sun's outer layers until it only masses 20% of what it does today, you now have four hundred times as much material to build with. Of course most of that is hydrogen and helium, so you're mostly just getting fusion fuel, but that still lets you grant your entire dyson swarm of habitats with a delta V approaching 50% light speed even with modestly efficient fusion propulsion.

In fact if you're mining the Sun and have fusion power plants that can generate net power when fusion regular hydrogen and helium 4 you may as well strip the Sun all the way down until it can't sustain fusion anymore, and then continue stripping it until it's gone completely, because your habitats will be able to make much more efficient use of all that fuel for orders of magnitude more time than the Sun has left to live.

>>11832537
>calm of the texan wind whilst wreckage of sn7 is accompanied by sn5 for testing
vs
>basedboys chattering about the heat of the chick who is there every fucking day and will never sleep with them

>>11832529
Oh shit this is a phase angle diagram for interplanetary transfers in Ksp, isn't it

>>11832548
Pretty. I still wouldn't move there permanently. But traveling across our system and living for a while here and there would've been amazing.

>>11832533
>>11832548
>”Come home Seeker of knowledge and Child of the Omnissiah”

>>11832563
because the planets are beautiful and unique and fuck turning them into a bunch of rotating habitats, the trillions of minor planets on the other hand are not particularly beautiful or unique

>>11832575
>>11832574
my final goal is being one of the first colonists of titan

In awe at the size of this lad etc.

>>11832577
This. If we truly are the first or at least one of the earliest, we can afford the luxury of preserving our system (and a few other, as resorts or whatever) as close to natural as possible and mine everything else until nothing is left.

>>11832560
Elon and company are literally figuring out how best to manufacture these things so that they can design an optimal factory for shitting out a hundred Starships per year (along with accompanying Boosters, in a 10:1 ratio).
It's gonna be better than model T, it's gonna be better than Liberty ship mass production.

>>11832529
Whys Eve pink?

>>11832571
yeah

>>11832563
I like the planets nigger. Go mine Barnard’s Star

>>11832575
>"Thank you for this Opportunity"

>>11832578
Be on the lookout for sheets of paper that eat hydrogen while you’re there

>>11832583
we don't have to CONSUUUUMMEEE every other star system either, we can be perfectly fine just consuming minor planets

>>11832516
Space travel is a meme that will be forgotten in the wars.

>>11832601
We won’t be permitted to leave the solar system without close supervision.

>>11832593
no

>>11832604
>drops shit on you from orbit
nothing terrestrial, kid

>>11832604
terra wars are a footnote to this century.

>11832604
Then get off this forum and die for your masters, goy

>>11832604
If we are truly dumb enough to wipe ourselves out, martians will be laughing at mere mentions of our ruins for centuries.

>>11832606
by who
>>11832604
how is it a meme exactly

>>11832577
Okay, so are you gonna convince 99.99999% of humanity of that when the number of people who live on planets or even on stations orbiting planets is a rounding error compared to the population living in Solar orbit habitats? If you don't, they'll just muscle their way to accessing those resources. By that time living on an actual planet will seem as archaic and backwards to the majority of humanity as living in a mud hut in the woods seems to a person living in a big city. Regardless of how you or I think, or what we want for the future, that's probably the way she's gonna go.

>>11832615
yes, and they if try anything we will kill them with RKVs

>>11832591
So do I. The people living in orbital habitats in the future, and who make up the super-majority of humanity, probably won't give a shit about planets.

>>11832609
>>11832608
>>11832609

Let's see how you maintain these high flows of energy without fossile fuels. To think of space is ridiculous. What comes next is societal collapse after fossile fuels become unviable because the energy return on investment is too low.

Society will need to go through a regression in order to consume less energy, so that green energy can substain it.

Societies will be localized autocracies.

But before all of this happens, the finantial system crashes because of the huge difference between real economy and finantial economy, which will lead to wars because people will refuse to believe what's happening and will blame everyone else.

>>11832613
>by who

Those who have watched us with interest since Word War 2.

>>11832613
>by who
Jews and jewesses who are trying to get a stranglehold on every other race in order to relegate them to subservient roles while they remain the absolute masters. They don't want space colonization of any kind because it makes their goal harder to reach, and indeed makes it impossible if such space colonization efforts are successful and are able to grow and spread on their own.

>>11832622
>Let's see how you maintain these high flows of energy without fossile fuels.
we orbit a natural fusion reaction. fossil fuels are for plastics and other polymers.
>replying to a peak oil fag in 2020
what is my life?

>>11832624
yeah, the tribe won't have nearly as much influence in space as /pol/ thinks they do. /pol/ is composed of schizos who think they are destined to rule everything for all eternity

>>11832622
Doomer leave, nobody wants to argue with you.

>>11832622
>Let's see how you maintain these high flows of energy without fossile fuels

We have over 200 years worth of fossil fuels in harvestable, known deposits; likely more accounting for undiscovered deposits. Stop reading Malthus.

>>11832629
>fusion reaction
It was theoretically possible for 40 years and I've seen no real progress. Safe to assume there's not gonna be progress in the next 40.

Nuclear fussion energy is a meme.

>>11832628
I'd love to see them try and destroy a mars colony and then get BTFO'd by RKVs

>>11832634
>It was theoretically possible for 40 years and I've seen no real progress.
we literally orbit one.

>>11832630
>yeah, the tribe won't have nearly as much influence in space as /pol/ thinks they do

I was talking about fucking aliens not “Muh Jews” LMAO

>>11832631
Yeah you just wanna believe in fantasy. Might as well believe in god.

>>>11832633
>200 years
kek imagine believing this

>>11832634
>It was theoretically possible for 40 years and I've seen no real progress. Safe to assume there's not gonna be progress in the next 40.

He was talking about solar power dumbass

>>11832639
Yeah, good luck harvesting its energy without anything other than the green meme energies.

We've already all but depleted millions of years of accumulated energy in the form of fossiles in barely 100 years

>>11832640
so you're an /x/ schizo, not a /pol/ schizo, even worse because you can't even offer any proof

>'trolling outside of /b/'

>>11832648
I've just begun to accept that some people are in fact this stupid

>>11832645
>when he realises fossil fuels are delayed fusion by-products
there is no shortage of energy available to us. the problem is storing it.

>>11832633
Ok so here's a simple fact for you. We're already looking for deeper and smaller deposits because the easy ones are depleted. We need to invest considerably more energy to obtain fuel from those deposits, which means the energy return is much slower, and as time goes on, it'll be insignificant and inviable, even if there's fuel left.

But even assuming we still have 200 years, if we were to keep this level of society, there would be no life left on earth by 2100

>>11832618
10 billion people vs 10 quadrillion people, who have been spending the past few centuries perfecting the manufacturing technology and techniques to build gigaton scale orbiting space habitats. Yeah I'm sure your RKVs and nukes are gonna bother a swarm of ten-gigaton kinetic impactors coated in ablatives and wiffle shielding to a depth of 100 meters closing in on Earth (or whatever planet) at 30 km/s. I'm sure your pitiful industrial capacity on the ground can keep up the war effort for decades if necessary as the billions of factory complexes above your head produce more steel in the form of centimeter wide shot pellets in one minute than Earth today does in a year.

>>11832633
Collapse will be welcome, in order to save the planet.

>>11832641
>kek imagine believing this

Kek imagine being ignorant and not knowing it.
There’s about 50 years of harvestable crude oil, probably more because of undiscovered reserves, but heavy oil, oil sands, and extra heavy oil reserves are more than twice as large as crude oil reserves. Stop talking about something you don’t know anything about.

>>11832657
<3 you dyson swarm anon

>>11832652
Indeed it is. What ar eyou going to use? batteries? on freighters, the bigger the battery, the less space there is for cargo. Hydrogen cells? highly flammable?

>>11832655
> But even assuming we still have 200 years, if we were to keep this level of society, there would be no life left on earth by 2100

I don’t believe you’re dumb enough to believe this, and must be trolling.

>>11832664
You're

>>11832664
Then quit replying to him.

>>11832658
The planet is just a rock; of no use or purpose except for us to turn into resources.

>>11832664
Look at the data. Loads of species are going extinct every day. Human activity is unsubstainable in any form without flora and fauna diversity.

Then there's climate change.

You guys are delussional.

>>11832662
in sfg terms you can do a direct solar to metholox/hydrolox conversion. the only fossil fuels involved would be in the plastic components that could make that happen.

>>11832670
Sure, and when there's no sun because it's cloudy?

>>11832669
>You guys are delussional.
we're getting off this rock. we're not delusional, it's you with your tedposting and thinking we're all going nk with windmills that's delusional.

>>11832674
Yeah to where, Mars? good luck making it autonomous kek.

But no, I don't believe we will be regressing, I believe we will die, after the nuclear war. I'm not so delussional as to believe humans will give up power to save the planet.

>>11832672
then terrans can't tedpost on 4chan.

>seal up lava-tube, pressurize and partially flood with water
>bring some inflatable rafts
>"Lunar Tunnel of Love"
Thoughts

>>11832678
No logic whatsoever. Just:
>Go away man, we're better off in our fantasies. Kek.

Grow up.

>>11832622
Nuclear power, problem solved.
>but muh reserves
A lie perpetuated by greenpeace etc. We have enough used uranium fuel rods from non-breeder reactors to run the United States with nothing but breeder reactors for over 300 years, not a gram of additional uranium mined. If you include the 'reserves' that I mentioned, that timeline for power supply extends to tens of thousands of years. However, in reality, breeder reactors are efficient enough that you don't actually need concentrated ore deposits in order to make gains on extracting that fuel; the average chunk of continental crust on Earth contains enough breeder reactor fuel to give you eight times the energy return of the same massed chunk of coal, AFTER you subtract the energy costs of extracting that nuclear fuel from the rock. This basically means that we have as much nuclear fuel on Earth as we have rocks in the ground, which translates to millions of years of abundant energy supply. That's plenty of time to either figure out fusion reactors, or move into space where solar is the best option. We aren't running out of power any time soon. Fuck doomers.

>>11832676
fuck of sarah connor

>>11832669
>Human activity is unsubstainable in any form without flora and fauna diversity.

Breaking news: Farms stop working because the Venezuelan rock slug, a creature with zero relation to human agriculture to any extent, has gone extinct. Scientists baffled

> Then there's climate change.

Oh no it’s slightly warmer. Plants can deal with it, and may even benefit from the greater CO2 concentrations.

>>11832683
Nuclear power is deemed unsafe, that's why most countries are denuclearizing.

>>11832682
nah. happeningfags are cancer.

>>11832682
No logic whatsoever. Just:
>da world is gunna end even do der is centuries of fossil fuels

Grow up.

>>11832688
It's not a happening. In fact it's been going on for years. If you don't know about it yet it's because you decide not to research on your own.

>>11832686
I refuse to answer to a retard who doesn't understand how the biosphere works.


Anyway, you guys won't be laughing in about 20 years. When these posts are all but forgotten.

Enjoy your fantasies while they last.

>>11832688
>>11832689
He's not going to stop until several of his posts fail to get replies or mention in a row, then he'll get bored and go fap to traps or something.

>>11832687
>Nuclear power is deemed unsafe
under whos authority? even my shitty country is building reactors.

>>11832692
>I refuse to answer to a retard who doesn't understand how the biosphere works.

I refuse to answer to a retard who thinks Mongolian sand beavers have any relevance to whether or not farms work.

I won't answer any more, it's obvious you just wanna be blindly optimistic.

It's ok. Give a few decades.

>>11832693
>proont/moxie/vr/doomer is all the same person
at last i truly see

>>11832657
>assuming the people who support the protection of planets won't have any orbital industry themselves
>RKVs and nukes are gonna bother a swarm of ten-gigaton kinetic impactors coated in ablatives and wiffle shielding to a depth of 100 meters closing in on Earth
If we're using antimatter weapons and RKVs travelling at upwards of 99% of lightspeed, then yes, it will bother them.

>>11832693
Probably true; so let’s ignore him; starting now.

If any of you is interested in actually knowing any truth. Here's a pretty good summary:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WPB2u8EzL8

>>11832601
So, let's say you're doing rotating habitats and you need like 50m of soil/water/whatever, and another 50m of structural support.
Population density on Earth is 7.5e9/5e8 = 15 per km2 (that includes water in earth surface)
So with 1km^3 you can "house" 150 people (assuming a pulled-from-my-ass density of 5, that's 5e12kg, so you get 3.3e10kg per capita)
The total mass of the asteroid belt is around 2.39e21kg, which give us room for around 70 billion people.

Not *that* much, but the population density is obviously super low.

>>11832680
I assume buoyancy would be exactly the same on the moon?

>>11832700
He's not at all biased no no, the green party is the sanctuary of knowledge and science.

>>11832707
Stop replying.

>>11832704
If you created a giant hollow sphere, would you be able to orbit the barycenter in the middle of it, or am I thinking wrong?

>can avoid jelly babies with spin gravity, only really possible in the lunar vacuum
>very flat gravity well, easy access to space
>you could even builda meme space elevator if you wanted to
>close to Earth, remote control and rapid travel between the two possible
>will always be our bros, Marsfags might rebel some day
>polar craters have eternal sunlight
>you can practically do asteroid mining for cheap because asteroid impact craters aren't eroded and the good stuff just stays there forever
>razor-sharp levitating dust everywhere
>okay that one isn't actually a pro
Moon > Mars prove me wrong.

On a similar vain to this doomer faggot argument
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960852414013911
Hydrothermal liquefaction can make hydrocarbons out of most any biomass including most plastics, so you get fuel and stock for polymers in manufacturing
It leaves nutrient rich water and sludge, which can be used as fertilizer or fed into a bioreactor, methanogenic bacteria love the HTL waste as it’s nice and broken down, and you get a lot of methane that can be upgraded to natural gas quality
The sludge after the 2 processes are still full of plant nutrients which make a great fertilizer
Any big city with enough power can utilize those to recycle their waste without material loss and gain useful hydrocarbons that also be used as feedstock afterwards

>>11832718
>close to Earth, remote control and rapid travel between the two possible
that isn't necessarily good

>>11832652
>the problem is storing it
>>11832662
>Indeed it is. What ar eyou going to use?

The sabatier reaction is the optimal solution that is being ignored right now because people who farm for green energy grants don't have the tact to explain to the drooling masses that methane made from CO2 from the air doesn't contribute to CO2 emissions when you burn it.

Here's what we should be doing. Build massive solar farm, the specifics don't matter. When the Sun comes up, energy goes into the grid, as normal. When the Sun gets higher, and the grid isn't asking for that much power, you bring online arrays of water electrolysis modules. Each module is sized to take ten kilowatts or so, and you have thousands upon thousands, for smooth effective throttling of the power going into the grid. The hydrogen produced from these modules is stored briefly, and fed into a decently sized Sabatier reactor. In this chamber a heated nickel mesh (brought to temp using electricity but once the reaction starts it's exothermic and doesn't require any input power) catalyses the reaction of CO2 captured from the atmosphere with hydrogen to form methane and water. The resulting vapor mix goes to a cooling tower, the water is recovered, the un-reacted CO2 is separated and sent back to storage, and the methane is liquefied into large on-site tanks. Also, on the side, there are compressors running constantly that are harvesting CO2 from atmospheric air. This CO2 can't have oxygen in it for obvious reasons.

When the Sun starts to go down, the electrolysis modules are gradually taken offline until the plant isn't producing more power than the grid can take. Soon, as the Sun goes down completely, the grid will be demanding more than the panels can supply, so the plant switches to night mode, bringing online several methane gas turbine generators, which work by burning the methane produced the day before, releasing that stored energy. These run all night until the Sun comes back up.

>>11832718
Try spinning that SOB, Spindly moon wizard
Let’s see it

>>11832718
Jelly babies are good.

>>11832720
>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960852414013911
Kek, biomass has an energy return on investment close to 0. What a fuckin meme.

>>11832705
I'd presume so, yeah. Might be easier to swim though.

>>11832687
It’s deemed undesirable by the state because it didn’t fit their deindustrialization schemes

>>11832713
There's a nice mathematical result which says that if you're inside a spherical shell, no net gravitational force is exerted by the shell on you, regardless of your location within the shell. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_theorem))
So no, if you're inside, you're in zero-G.

Since Venus’ atmosphere is literally thicker than the ocean, could you not swim through it???

>>11832672
Scale the system up enough that on sunny days there's a surplus of generated methane, which remains stored on site until cloudy days, during which any shortfall in production can be made up for with methane combustion. It's not a complex problem to solve. Simply design each power plant to have a methane storage capacity that would let them run for 240 hours with zero solar production and you'll never end up not being able to satisfy the grid.
>but you'd need more panels!!
yes, and more methane tanks too, but that's not a hard problem to solve.

>>11832736
What about on the exterior? I’d assume you’d be pulled downward

>>11832728
I'm not talking about spinning up the moon. Rotating habitats work just like the do in space, you just have to build them perpendicular to the surface and slant the walls by 9 degrees vertically.

>>11832724
That's an interesting hypothesis. But have you considered maybe it's not that it can't be sold to the drooling masses but that the testing isn't solid? Or that we can't guarantee an energy return on investment comparable to the kind that fossile fuels provide?

It's not just a matter of alternative energy sources, but of maintaining the same or a similar energy flow in our civilization.

>>11832687
>Nuclear power is deemed unsafe
By mouth breathing retards. Nuclear is the safest form of energy production on Earth, even including all past accidents and the people killed by nuclear bombs (through fallout and directly being vaporized). Coal power kills literally millions of people every year and we don't give a shit.

What I'm wondering is why a greenpeacefag comes in here and complains.
Any decently sized space station/colony will require pretty high efficiencies for the closed loop system.

>>11832730
>Meanwhile you’re looking for a place to store the city’s shit supply and looking for phosphorus
It’s an efficient biomass recycler, that’s it’s point.
All you need is thermal energy for the process, light for the food you grow and some electricity for pumps and shit and your city no longer has a shit problem and some useful products

>>11832749
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster

It's not the same scale. Nuclear waste could be on earth for thousands of years

>>11832751
>What I'm wondering is why a greenpeacefag comes in here and complains.
Bored concern-trolling, I assume /tv/ is slow today.

>>11832751
Just ignore them

>>11832753
Nuclear waste can itself be burned by numerous modern reactor designs; and is harmless when sealed away anyway.

>>11832737
The density of the air at the surface is 67 kg/m^3, which is 6.5% that of water, so you have pretty much zero buoyancy

>>11832752
Perhaps, but the energy return on investment is negligible at best. I'm not saying there aren't enough alternative sources, but that those sources can't provide the energy return on investment you need to power this kind of civilization.

>>11832753
So what?

>>11832747
>the drooling masses
no one cares. we're going off planet.

>>11832749
We need to work on Integrated fast reactors and MSRs now so when we have a Martian/Moon/Wherever the fuck city, we can just package up the components that are made of unobtabium to get one started and have a crew that knows what the fuck they’re doing

>>11832744
yup, as if the mass of the shell was punctual at the center

>>11832768
we need the reactor tech that currently powers us/uk/french subs and us/russian ships to be allowed in the private sphere, under strict guidance, but allowed.

>>11832759
>burned
what?

>harmless when sealed away
If you mean, sealing it away like in Chernobyl, even now, it's emitting radiation through the walls, but it's not intensive enough to affect anyone that's not directly behind.
You could also try to keep it within safe temperature parameters by having a constant input of energy to that end, but I don't need to tell you what that would mean on the long run when nuclear waste piles up.

>>11832753
we solved literally every single problem with nuclear power 50 years ago, but stupid countries don't want to invest the proper amount of money so they cut corners and use outdated reactor designs giving nuclear a bad name. The great Cucking that keeps the world from widely adopting nuclear power is one of the biggest tragedies of the 20th century.

>>11832581
>those dents
they really don't care for quality control do they

>>11832777
>sealing it away like in Chernoby
no

>>11832777
Just drop it down a hole, tripsman. Put a lead manhole cover on it and call 'er a day.

>>11832779
Perhaps in a few decades they'll be forced to, and we'll see.

>>11832558
The Japanese rockets are Hydrolox + Solid boosters.
Only Chink rockets and russian proton are full cancer stick

>>11832784
kek, I think it's a bit more complicated than that

>>11832698
>If we're using antimatter weapons
If people on planets have antimatter you can bet your ass people in space have it too, and in greater quantity since how much you can make is directly tied to how much energy you are working with as a civilization.

That being said, it doesn't matter what weapons tech you consider, a 99% c projectile isn't going to stop a billion tons of iron, while it's certainly gonna cost a lot more. For one thing really fast projectiles don't even act like fluids when they collide with solid objects, they actually act more like radiation, because they move too fast for any interaction other than direct nuclei-on-nuclei scattering to have significant effect. For another, their ability to transfer momentum is garbage, they mostly just dump heat into whatever they hit, which means in the most effective case scenario your 99% c projectile is going to turn that billion ton slug of iron into several million slugs of iron massing around a ton each, and that's going to cause just as much damage if not more when it strikes the planet.

I think you're missing something obvious, which is the fact that any dyson-swarm like civilization warring with a civilization on a planet is not only going to have an immense population and resources AND high ground advantage, they're also going to have an immense technological advantage, because MOST of the people will be living in that swarm, which means MOST of the innovations will be made there, and of course since they will be living in by far the harsher environment they will have MOST of the motivation to actually develop and improve pretty much any technology you can imagine.

Finally, dyson swarm crowd-sourced laser array BTFOs any planet. A single gigawatt laser firing from one in a thousand habitats blasts the surface of any planet with millions of terawatts of light and heat, and requires basically no effort.

>>11832791
>antimatter weapons
get a load of this space preacher

>>11832700
>truth
faggot

Alright /sfg/, you've been selected to pilot the first starship to Mars, what music do you put on as you take the helm? On landing?

>>11832790
the only thing that's complicated is finding the room in the budget for it. Literally the only reason it hasn't been done.

>>11832797
rebut it, faggot

CLEAN UP YOUR MESS BEFORE YOU PLAY WITH YOUR NEW TOYS ELON!

>>11832791
i'd buy dyson swarm bro a beer.

>>11832777
>what?

Fuel rods go bad over time because undesirable isotopes accumulate, but reactor designs exist that can utilize the typically undesirable isotopes, thus improving efficiency and fuel rod lifetime.

> If you mean, sealing it away like in Chernobyl

Throw it underground.

> even now, it's emitting radiation through the walls, but it's not intensive enough to affect anyone that's not directly behind.

Oh so it’s rendered irrelevant.

>>11832790
Not much desu

>>11832798
raining blood

>>11832803
"no"

>>11832798
>what music do you put on as you take the helm?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ef4RPJNedsc

>>11832718
>I'm so thirsty
>when are the nitrogen shipments from Titan arriving? We need that fertilizer
>So fucking hot for the past 48 hours, I fucking hate noon
>Here you go Earth, here's 1000 tons of sheet aluminum for trade. O-oh, yeah, I guess 10 kilograms of phosphorous will be fine (sobs)
Poor little moon man

>>11832810
It's still an unsafe and dirty energy source. You're not gonna get people to approve of having a nuclear plant nearby.

>>11832720
>Climate change from CO2 release hurts the biosphere
>So let's just slash and burn the fucking biosphere for energy
I don't get it

>>11832828
i live less than 10 miles from a nuclear plant that was constructed long before my 30 y/o boomer ass was born. no fucks given. build more.

>>11832791
what if we just kill all the people trying to start a dyson swarm, or more accurately, kill everybody trying to start the first space habitats

>>11832832
cool, stash em all in 'ere, I want nothing to do with it

>>11832559
Its really exciting, especially since SN5 and SN6 will do hops

>>11832775
US subs use PWRs so that’s just a pipebomb with shitty burnup
Russian subs use liquid lead cooled metallic rod reactors, a prototype sodium cooled reactor but without the breeding or the high burnup, probably the best model out all of them
https://www.ne.anl.gov/About/reactors/integral-fast-reactor.shtml
ISRs are best investment so far since it doesn’t need especially specific components and materials outside normal reactors while still demonstrating what we want from a reactor

>>11832798
>On landing?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2e_Pek92-Gw

>>11832835
>I want nothing to do with it
Cause you a damn pussy, pussy.

>>11832828
> It's still an unsafe and dirty energy source

Way safer than coal or oil. Dunno what you’re on about.

>You're not gonna get people to approve of having a nuclear plant nearby.

Doesn’t bother me. I wish I had a tiny reactor in my house.

>>11832838
i want to know more.
seriously where to learn nuclear properly?

>>11832529
Its because of the ease for the printer. The buttplug is good because its one of 5he first designs proposed that could be done in an automated fashion. Sure its a shitty design but NASA has to start somewhere.

>>11832847
stop

>>11832849
Calm down man he asked about it, I've been talking about Starship too.

>SOL: 157
>WARNING: HEATER FAILURE
>WARNING: POWER SYSTEM FAILURE
>WARNING: SOLAR PANEL EFFICIENCY OFF NOMINAL
>WARNING: ELECTRONICS TEMPERATURE OFF NOMINAL
>WARNING: POWER SYSTEM FAILURE
>WARNING: MAIN BATTERY BANK FAILURE. SWITCHING TO AUXILLARY.
>WARNING: MEMORY BANK CRITICAL.
>WARNING: INSUFFICIENT POWER
>WARNING: AUXILIARY BATTERY BANK FAILURE
>WARNING: COMMUNICATIONS ANTENNA INSUFFICIENT POWER
>WARNING: COMMUNICATIONS INSUFFICIENT POWER

JPL: It’s been a long run my friend. From the planet earth, we thank you Phoenix. Rest now. You did a great job and we’re so proud of you.

>PHOENIX: TRUE/ACTUAL: SEND MESSAGE Y/N
>Y: MESSAGE : 01010100 01010010 01001001 01010101 01001101 01010000 01001000

>WARNING: MEMORY BANK FAILURE WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING
>WARNING: COMMUNICATIONS ARRAY: UNABLE TO SEND/RECEIVE SIGNAL FROM EARTH
>WARNING: CPU SHUTDOWN IMMINENT
>WARNNNNNN
>WARRNNNN
>WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
>WWWWW
>wwww
>w


“ Under the wide and starry sky,
Dig the grave and let me lie.
Glad did I live and gladly die,
And I laid me down with a will.

This be the verse you grave for me:
Here he lies where he longed to be;
Home is the sailor, home from sea,
And the hunter home from the hill.”

>>11832747
>the testing isn't solid?
Sabatier reaction works and has worked since the 1800's when it was invented.
>energy return on investment
That's an argument against a method of power generation, this is energy storage. Regardless, you can imagine this exact system but using nuclear reactors instead of solar panels and it still works, just has different utility. In the nuclear case, you're allowing your reactor to run at 100% all the time, which is best from an economics standpoint, and the surplus methane that you produce (because even at peak draw your power plant only needs a tiny bit of gas burning to supply the grid) is shipped away to be burned as fuel in vehicles like airplanes and ships and cars, again all 100% carbon neutral. If you don't like handling methane it's a fairly simple reaction (all the oil and gas companies already do it) to use methane to build longer chain hydrocarbons, though you'd probably only ever go as high as butane because it's easily stored as a liquid and that's all you need to avoid pressurized gas explosions in minor traffic accidents and avoid needing insulation on your airplane fuel tanks.

>>11832843
CO2 emissions are reversible, nuclear waste is not, and requires tons of energy thrown into it just to render the waste safe. And what happens when earth is full of nuclear waste?

IF, and that is a big IF, we had another 100 years of fossile fuels to spend, the ideal scenario would be to find a perfect equilibrium between green energies and CO2 emissions.
But good luck convincing a million kings of the hill in the world that they have to follow X model, even if it means they're strategically impaired in the global geopolitical landscape.

>>11832854
i can't do another proont/toonel/doome thread. pls stop.

>>11832564
yeah i think labpadre is better too but im not going to only post one link

>>11832798
Liftoff
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1f2TEQMJHhU
Midflight
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=L2VqGJaQz4A

>>11832855
;_;
god speed little man

>>11832856
>m but using nuclear reactors instead of solar panels and it still works, just has different utility. In the nuclear case, you're allowing your reactor to run at 100% all the time, which is best from an economics standpoint, and the surplus methane that you produce (because even at peak draw your power plant only needs a tiny bit of gas burning to supply the grid) is shipped away to be burned as fuel in vehicles like airplanes and ships and cars, again all 100% carbon neutral. If you don't like handling methane it's a fairly simple reaction (all the oil and gas companies already do it) to use methane to build longer chain hydrocarbons, though you'd probably only ever go as high as butane because it's easily stored as a liquid and that's all you need to avoid pressurized gas explosions in minor traffic accidents and avoid needing insulation on your airplane fuel ta
Definitely will look into it. But if it was so wonderful, I think someone would've taken advantage of it by now.

>>11832859
kek okay, how many pressure tests does SN5 need to accomplish before their next hop?

>>11832753
>Nuclear waste could be on earth for thousands of years
Okay? Toxic waste products from coal burning will be on Earth forever. Cadmium and mercury don't get any less toxic over time. What a fucking non-problem.

>>11832871
net CO2 quantity is reversible, we've got the flora to take care of it, we only need to reduce the emissions to sustainable levels.

>>11832858
>CO2 emissions are reversible, nuclear waste is not

Modern reactor designs produce waste that is only hazardous for a few centuries.

> and requires tons of energy thrown into it just to render the waste safe

Don’t see what’s so difficult about throwing stuff in a hole.

> And what happens when earth is full of nuclear waste?

That’d never happen even if we burned all the uranium on the planet.

>>11832869
1 ambient test, 1 full pressure test, 2 wet dress rehearsals, 4 static fires, then 1 small hop, then 1 full scale 150 meter hop. that is my guess anyways.

>>11832529
I don't even really mind the plug shape, but why the fuck even bother with the interior that looks like something Glade designed? If anything, the PROONTing should be used to create a shell for something like a vertically oriented inflatable habitats that could then be safely buried up to the entry hatch.

>>11832798
>what music do you put on as you take the helm?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARcgqTx3NOg
>On landing?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGvW6jHUHiY

>>11832877
>throwing stuff in a hole.
you also need a proper container inside that hole. Lead. So add to that the power cost of producing and manufacturing the container and transporting it, and then same with the waste. And the cost of digging the hole deep enough.

>>11832864
>not playing DARE on liftoff
>not playing You've Got The Touch on landing

What happened with Starliner, haven't heard anything about it in a while.

>>11832890
Stealin that idea, that’s way better

>>11832888
>you also need a proper container inside that hole.

No you don’t. Doesn’t matter that it irradiates nearby rocks.

>>11832882
>I don't even really mind the plug shape, but why the fuck even bother with the interior that looks like something Glade designed?
You want to stick-build a house in EVA suits? The point is that you just pressurize, add the smaller effects and luggage, and you're moved in. I'm not even the PROONT fag and I get that.

>>11832877
We're just talking theoretical anyway. We'd need actual numbers to see if its viable, and to assess the true danger of nuclear energy. Also nuclear plants would need to be subsidized by the government, otherwise you'd risk the company going bankrup at some point and generate a nuclear hell.

>>11832888
we bury it not because it's inherently unsafe to exist on ground level in a warehouse somewhere, but because we can't entrust future generations to do anything properly and if some 2500 blm protest gets irradiated for smashing a waste dump it'll be the 'colonialists' fault again.
nuclear waste is a problem of spastics and their twat politics.

>>11832894
kek, yeah, also doesn't matter if it contaminates crops and underground water.

t.retard

>>11832900
>Also nuclear plants would need to be subsidized by the government

Okay communist

> otherwise you'd risk the company going bankrup at some point and generate a nuclear hell.

Someone else can just buy the rods.

>>11832905
Agreed.>>1182907

>>11832906
>kek, yeah, also doesn't matter if it contaminates crops and underground water.

Put it away from crops and groundwater tables people are actually tapping.

>>11832907
>Okay communist
Stopped reading there. Don't answer me any more. Fuck outta here with your politics bullshit
>>>/pol/

>>11832893
All yours anon.
>filename
>>11832892
Well their demo missed ISS, then idk haven't heard jack since that.

>>11832921
>Mentions the government
>How did this get political

>>11832906
geologists would have a word with you.

>>11832907
>subsidizing industries is communism
yeah you don't know much about politics do you
>>>/pol/ maybe you can learn about them by going to pol

>>11832924
hurr

>>11832777
>>burned
>what?
Breakdown of long lived fission products into short lived fission products via neutron absorption, turns your 10,000 year half life shit into 1 year half life shit that is effectively all gone after 50 years.
The issue is you can only use neutron flux to 'burn up' fission products if you have a way of separating the fission products from the nuclear fuel, otherwise the fission products poison the chain reaction of neutron production and kill the reactor. This is by no means an impossible problem, but can realistically only be accomplished using fluid fuels like molten metal alloys or molten salts with low temperature liquid ranges. Luckily using a fluid fuel can also solve like 16 other problems in nuclear energy production, so it's definitely a worthwhile technology to pursue, and indeed is being developed right now by several nations.

>If you mean, sealing it away like in Chernobyl, even now, it's emitting radiation through the walls
No, first of all the waste would be entirely different (ceramic slugs incorporating short lived fission products and the progeny of longer lived fission products that were 'burned' by additional neutron exposure), and secondly it would be stored embedded into a stable matrix like hydrated clay, packed into a stainless steel or aluminum bronze drum, stacked inside of an underground bunker, and buried by filling that bunker with concrete. Just as a solution off of the top of my head. The waste drums would be harmless after a few centuries anyway.

Oh, and Chernobyl is not 'emitting radiation through the walls', the exterior surfaces were contaminated by dust when the reactor literally puked its guts out through the roof. Regardless, there's radiation in everything and aroudn everyone, radiation alone is not a problem, it's radiation in large enough dose rates for a long enough time that matters.

>>11832915
Yeah, forget about the hydrosphere cycle and radioactive rain.

>>11832930
Politics are dumb.

>>11832788
Russia is in asia

>>11832801
Nukes and solar panels

>>11832937
>Yeah, forget about the hydrosphere cycle

Plenty of aquifers are stagnant and don’t go anywhere.

>>11832940
correction, russia east of the ural mountains is in asia, russia west of the ural mountains is part of europe

>>11832950
Baikonur is in Asia (in Kazakhstan) so their rocket program counts as Asian.

>>11832828
I'm literally an advocate for putting a nuclear reactor in the center of every major city to supply hot steam to buildings for heating in the winter, fuck you.

>>11832835
Enjoy becoming an angry old boomer who hates and fears the world as it progresses around you, we'll be going to space.

>>11832845
>properly
Do your own research, write down questions you have and things you don't get, build up a knowledge base. Seriously, you can learn more than what 99% of people know about nuclear power, and gain the ability to actually carry on a meaningful conversation with an expert, in about a weekend.

>>11832858
>and requires tons of energy thrown into it just to render the waste safe
Nope.
>And what happens when earth is full of nuclear waste?
It already is, since we're literally pulling all this uranium and thorium out of THE GROUND. You wanna know what a nuclear hellscape looks like? It's what Earth looked like before the industrial revolution, for hundreds of millions of years.

If it didn't make normies lose their fucking minds, the optimal solution to radiological waste would literally be to react those isotopes to form water soluble salts, and dilute those salts in the deep ocean. The radiation levels on Earth would not change by any degree significant enough to affect anything but sensitive scientific equipment.

For the habitation, why not just have a machine make regolith concrete culverts from a hole dug for the living area stack them with crane and concrete glue them together
Nothing real fancy and building techniques that are well known and can be automated and expanded on

>>11832867
Well, there hasn't been incentive to do so. Why would an energy company spend billions building these systems when they're already comfy where they are? Especially with fossil fuels getting billions in subsidies and the aging nuclear power stations trying to keep as low a profile as possible as to not freak out the normies nearby with muh spooky atom.

The first carbon neutral methane plant will probably be built by SpaceX because Elon will want to improve public perception of the company when oldspace inevitably decries his hundreds of annual super-heavy launches as 'ruining the environment'. He'll pull a big press conference and announce the project to use solar power to generate a million tons of carbon neutral methane per year and stumble through a quippy joke about how "even our propellants are reusable" and it'll all be a great success. Meanwhile existing energy companies will be shitting their fucking pants, like absolute mudslide even getting the socks dirty, because they will see the writing on the wall.

>sn5 moving to the pad, dragon to test 4 crew soon
>iss spacewalk
>relativity building a pad at vandy, also signed up another customer
>india changing the laws to spur their own new space industry
>liberals demanding nasa's blood on several fronts
Lots of stuff going on today.

>>11832876
Which you can do using nuclear power to make chemical fuels from CO2 form the air. There IS no sustainable amount of fossil fuel burning. You're either adding an arbitrarily small amount of CO2 to the system and saying it doesn't matter, or you're adding no additional CO2 to the system because you aren't burning carbon from underground.

>>11833006
stop

>>11832888
The hundreds of meters of free rock stacked on top of any long term waste storage site are more effective than ten meters of solid lead shielding. Also, having studied radiation and actually gone through school to deal with active environments, I can tell you that lead shielding is mostly just a meme. It's only used for working right next to gamma sources, and only for temporary work. MOST shielding in the industry is steel, concrete, water, or plastic, depending on the type of emission.

>>11832824
Mars doesn't have a lot of Nitrogen either. In the worst case scenario you can just mine asteroid for volatiles and things that aren't found on the moon.
Also, yeah, that's how trade works. I bet your country doesn't have the semiconductor industry to supply its own population with computers and smartphones either, only China and Taiwan have. Probably half of the stuff you have in your room is made in China. So in this analogy, replace Moon with any moderate sized country and the Earth with China. Not exactly the end of the world, unless you're one of the people who sperg out the moment they hear the word globalism. In the future it will be universalism. Shit fucking works.

>>11832906
Irradiation =/= contamination, fucking retard. Do you think eating a tomato grown outside will give your insides a sunburn, too?

I hate to drag politics into this because...uh... I hate politics but I’ve always been bothered by the fact that most scientists and science types are huge liberals, but for some reason seem to forget that liberals in office usually divert funding away from space exploration to “Earth Sciences”

Like your average redditor is all “HAHA I LOVE SPACE AND SCIENCE AND NASA” but they seem to turn a blind eye when funding gets cut to planetary exploration. They do, however, lose their shit when “Climate Observatories” are cancelled. They even flip flop on their stance of manned missions. I remember on “r/Space” people were defending the cancellation of the Artemis Program if it did happen. But it’s like bro why I mean you want boots on other worlds right?

>>11832900
You are literally just a FUD poster.
>>11832905
All these super expensive 'permanent' disposal facilities will be dug up again in 50 years anyway to recycle all that unused uranium and other isotopes as a cheap nuclear fuel supply in breeder reactors. It's literally a waste of time and effort to do anything other than place used fuel into dry storage above ground and surround it with security guards at the moment.

>>11833035
wash your mind of the lot of it. focus on what matters.

>>11833035
It's because people with graduate science degrees spend their formative years in Marxist pressure cookers called university campuses. The only fix is to finish what Joseph McCarthy started.

>>11832937
Unless your physical containment has holes in it, nothing radioactive escapes. Radiation may penetrate a few meters into the surrounding rock, but that's just it, it's only radiation, and in fact it's only gamma rays, because alpha and beta have no hope of passing through even a wafer thickness of steel or rock, and no neutrons are being produced because there's no chain reaction being sustained. So you've got gamma rays firing off and irradiating the rocks around the waste. What happens? Well the gamma rays knock electrons around until they get absorbed like any other form of light, depositing energy as heat as well as causing a few chemical changes to the rocks surrounding the waste. These chemical changes are 100% confined to altering the crystal structure of a few grains of minerals, and bumping some electrons in some materials up in energy level and into 'traps' where they get stuck. This is all a complex way of saying if you gave the rock to a lab and had them study it suuuper closely they could maybe tell it had been blasted with gamma rays for years. It doesn't contain any contamination or radiation except for what was already there, in naturally occurring uranium and thorium and radium and potassium deposits.

Fun fact, amethyst crystals are actually brown like black coffee when they first form, and only turn purple through millions of years of exposure to natural gamma radiation underground, which bumps the electrons of the iron impurities that turned it brown into a higher energy state, which makes it reflect purple light instead. When we grow amethyst artificially we grow quartz in an environment with dissolved iron, then ship the brown crystals over to nuclear facilities and expose them to cobalt 60 sources for a few weeks, which turns them their characteristic purple color.

>>11833035
marxism can do a lot of shit with your mind
and yes, modern "progressivism" and "liberalism" is an unholy mixture of classical liberalism and marxism

>>11832950
Correction, Europe is a region of Asia, not a continent. Europe is less of its own continent than India, in fact.

I often hope that , somewhere amongst the sea of stars, there is an intelligent, practical, and scientifically minded species who solve all issues with empirical investigation.

>>11833058
this
i don't know if the mines kid is here, but does anybody know how leftist that place is?

>>11833068
europe is usually considered a continent
also europe is far larger then india

>>11833006
Concrete doesn't work on Mars and if you need to bring any special building materials from Earth to build your habitat you may as well say fuck everything and build out of thin sheet metal and bury that with excavated soil. This discussion needs to stop for a week at least.

geologybros running the show tonight

>>11833078
>Concrete doesn't work on Mars

Martian concrete uses sulfur, not water

>>11833078
>>11833081
stop

>>11833032
>Mars doesn't have a lot of Nitrogen either
Martial atmosphere is 2.6% nitrogen gas. For every 100 tons of atmosphere a colony captured for use as Sabatier feedstock, they're gonna get ~95,400 kg of CO2 and CO, 2600 kg of nitrogen, 1900 kg of argon, and 30 kg of water. In effect, people living on Mars will have free access to unlimited amounts of nitrogen.

>>11833089
You need bacteria to fix it into usable form then

>>11833076
I don't consider Europe a continent, because it makes no sense to do so. Europe is about 3x the area of India, but that doesn't really have any bearing on Europe being a continent. The only definition that it makes sense to use to describe continents is "large body of land surrounded by ocean". Any large area of land that is only surrounded by ocean on three sides is therefore connected to another large body of land and cannot be considered its own continent. Of course you could argue about how large an area of land needs to be in order to be a continent instead of an island, but the definition still holds water much better than whatever crap lets someone call Europe a continent, especially since the Urals don't even fully cross Asia.

>>11833062
Dutrowpilled

>>11833081
So you want to set up a sulfur mine before you can unlock the ability to build living space, got it

>>11833162
ultimately they are gonna be living in the ships for a while.

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

?

>>11833112
No you don't, just use the Haber-Bosch process, like we do on Earth.

>>11833168
people need to stop overanalyzing these 3-pixel wide features of the surface

>>11833167
Of course, but they'll be living in them for a lot longer if they're trying to get sulfur mining up and running on top of everything else rather than spiral welding some metal TUUUUBES and burying them in trenches

damn this has gotta be one of the least on-topic /sfg/ threads in a while

>>11833162
Mars has plentiful and easily accessible sulfur, what's the problem?
I will support basically anything that isn't p*****

>>11833162
Never said the first living spaces should be made from sulfcrete.

>>11833178
It’s over twenty meters tall

>>11833197
Yeah I'm gonna go take a raft up-river and get drunk, check back later.

>>11833203
so is ur mums cunt so ill make sure to get a selfie which coooooooooonspirators will claim is fake anyway

>>11833197
its because elon didnt tell us if sn7 passed or not.

>>11833216
have you got a loicens for that insult.

>>11833226
anarchy in the uk (space industry)

One proposal i've seen is that the martian colony should be placed in one of the lower areas of mars, so you have higher atmospheric pressure for the ISRU and you get a little more passive radiation protection. I'm trying to figure out how much protection you get from that-the area proposed is 11 kilometers below mean elevation on mars, I'm curious as to how much low the overall radiation flux of such an area is. Does anyone have any suggestions as to how i would answer that question?

>>11832683
>which translates to millions of years of abundant energy supply. That's plenty of time to either figure out fusion reactors
5 million years from now: "Fusion reactors within 10 weeks. Still."

How about we put a concentrated solar power satellite into Martian stationary orbit equipped with one of these to drill into Mars and reheat the planet’s core and revitalize the planet’s magnetosphere

>>11833266
lets get there first

>>11833015
>>liberals demanding nasa's blood on several fronts
they do that every day.

>>11833235
The priority should be energy (sunlight, wind) and resource accessibility (water, rich regolith, ore and minerals). By maximizing those your increased efficiency and output swamps the imperceptible disadvantage of running the compressors a bit harder and mining slightly more overlay material.

>>11833266
Okay, so there was a proposal from someone at NASA that we could get mars to restore its own atmosphere really quickly with a fairly weak couple tesla dipole floating between it and the sun, but i seem to have heard that this proposal is sharply criticized for how it depicts the speed of the restoration.

Here it is-https://livestream.com/viewnow/vision2050/videos/150701155

what's the general consensus on this?

>>11833266
Starship could easily launch hundreds of satellites that can collectively start to heat up Martian soil/ice/etc to help with extraction of water. They can also use it to give 24/7 sunlight to areas that need sunlight.

>>11833200
>Mars has plentiful and easily accessible sulfur, what's the problem?
It's not that it's rare, it's that concentrated sulfur deposits are relatively rare, and you probably don't want to source your water from an area with a shitload of sulfur cuz it'll require additional cleaning steps or screw up your hydrolysis equipment. Even if that isn't a problem though, having to set up just one solid raw material mining and processing system (for water ice) will be a lot easier and faster than having to set up the same processes for two very different materials. Since getting a shitload of water is the most important process to do first, it means any sulfur mining will be delayed anyway. Therefore, since getting some long-term rad shielded habitats built quickly will be a priority, and we will be waiting for sulcrete production for at least a few sinodes, it makes sense to at least start off with cut-and-cover tube habitats.

Sulcrete can happen later, it's not super important to get going right away. I'm not arguing that it will NEVER be useful or reasonable to build with, just that it isn't gonna be a realistic option for the first five or six sinodes after starting colonization.

>>11833289
From what i remember from previous threads it would have to be a massive magnet, about as big as phobos.
And it would need fussion levels of power to run it and also something to keep it in place because the sun would push it away.

>>11832878
I doubt it'll take 4 statics, also i don't think sn5 will do the big hop just the baby one.

>>11833315
Will SN5 & 6 have nose cones and fins applied?

>>11833281
wind? why the fuck would anyone use wind power on mars? That would operate at like, 10% of the capacity of wind power on earth if you were lucky. solar has virtually identical performance on mars as on earth.

>>11833315
i think SN5 will still do the 150 meter hop just because they can and they probably dont wanna wait for SN6 to be ready to get in a hop as well

>>11833336
Wind is one way to offset power dips during dust storms, when winds are high and solar is basically unusable.
>nb4 just use backups like methane fcs
Yes I know, I have talked about that before. Wind is not a necessity, but in the long run you will want indigenous power at all times so you never have dips in productivity.

Even if you still get absolutely incensed at the mention of wind it does nothing to address the overall point which was that elevation a pointless tertiary factor.

>>11833289
>>11833307
Could a sufficiently large plasma magnet sail work?
An O’neill cylinder with a concentrated solar energy station on the sunward side with a spinning magnet sail to generate the magnetosphere needed
A MHD collector at the sunward end collects solar particles and accelerates them out the back (away from Mars) for station keeping

>>11833336
>wind? why the fuck would anyone use wind power on mars?

It works pretty well during dust storms, when solar does not.

>>11833355
The problem is the atmosphere is so thin you don’t get much energy from wind unless you had frictionless bearings and even then would be too much engineering cost for little gain

>>11833336
>solar has virtually identical performance on mars as on earth
nope

>>11833148
>The only definition that it makes sense to use to describe continents is "large body of land surrounded by ocean". Any large area of land that is only surrounded by ocean on three sides is therefore connected to another large body of land and cannot be considered its own continent.
Says who?
Also, have you heard about the Eurasian tectonic plate? Are you campaigning to have it renamed to Asian tectonic plate?

>>11833375
>>The only definition that it makes sense to use to describe continents is "large body of land surrounded by ocean". Any large area of land that is only surrounded by ocean on three sides is therefore connected to another large body of land and cannot be considered its own continent.

So there’s just three continents. Good job.

>>11833329
Depends on the size of the hop they do, my guess is SN6 will have it

>>11833307
>fussion

>>11833338
SN6 is already halfway done but i agree

>>11833381
There's six, actually.

>>11833375
>Says who?
Anyone who doesn't give a shit about the naming schemes the Roman's used to describe their immediate surroundings. Also, I'm basically saying that Europa and Asia are on the same continent, which you can call Eurasia if you want but just calling it Asia makes just as much sense.

>>11832855
Great. You nerd sniped me and now I have Still Alive playing in my head.
>>11832878
And a partridge in a pear tree?
>>11832996
>out of THE GROUND
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor
It's a lot harder now due to natural decay over a few billion years, but it's real.

Imagine the amount of xheap labor from /pol/fags elon could get if he announced an ethnostate for his colony. Maybe its too radical but in my mind a double ideological work ethic would make people work so much harder.

>>11833408
>There's six, actually.

All of Asia, Africa, and Europe is connected. All of South America and North America is connected. So there’s only two continents between them.

>>11833410
99% of /pol/fags are out of shape and unsuited for a world where niggers no longer do all of the hard labor

>>11833409
>And a partridge in a pear tree?
Yes.

>>11833417
No, there are canals between NA ans SA, and Africa and Asia.

>>11833395
kind of exists
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion%E2%80%93fission_hybrid

>>11833410
>>11833418
ironically enough there probably will be some ethnostates on mars, and not all white ones, but the first SpaceX colony will likely be purely merit based

>>11833408
>>11833417
Geology anon here. We don't have a strict definition of "continent", that's more of a geographyfag thing that they like to argue about. I agree with 6 though... Asia and Europe are one unit

>>11833425
>ans
and*

>>11833427
Yeesh, why not just do breeding, baka. People will conceptualize anything if it means they don't need to think about muh spooky fission reactor.

>>11833431
>philippine plate
>does not contain the philippines
What did geographyfags mean by this

>>11833408
>Also, I'm basically saying that Europa and Asia are on the same continent, which you can call Eurasia if you want but just calling it Asia makes just as much sense.
By your definition India is part of that too. As is the Arabian peninsula. As is arguably the entirety of fucking Africa because that strait isn't wide enough to be a called an ocean.

>>11833431
>I agree with 6 though... Asia and Europe are one unit
Based and rationalitypilled.

>>11832900

Government subsidy isn't the only possible business model. For one thing, bankruptcy doesn't necessarily mean assets just sit around, they change ownership. Another firm has an opportunity to acquire the capital minus without the debt of the original firm. Nuclear operators can be bonded as a condition for insurance so if they run out of funds they will still have a reserve to reasonably cease operations.

>>11833425
If small bodies of water like that count, then there’s hundreds of continents!

>>11833381
>So there’s just three continents. Good job.
Uh, what? Are you literally forgetting about Antarctica and Australia? There's two, so what's the third?

>>11833078
>This discussion needs to stop for a week at least.
I second that. Please can we talk about politics instead?

>>11833431
> We don't have a strict definition of "continent", that's more of a geographyfag thing that they like to argue about.

No shit. Continents are made up.

>>11833447
Your mom

>>11833439
I mean to be fair, the Philippine plate subducts under Eurasia and melts, and that molten material rises to create the volcanic islands of the Philippines. So in a sense, all of the rock that makes up the Philippines comes from that plate

>>11833447
>Uh, what? Are you literally forgetting about Antarctica and Australia?

I was counting Antarctica as the third continent. Australia makes a fourth. Can’t think of a fifth one unless you think Greenland is big enough.

>>11833447
He probably meant how NA and Asia are connected by that tiny thing.

>>11833148
Europe is a geographic continent, but not a tectonic continent. see >>11833431
It's sort of like gender being a social construct.

>>11833441
>By your definition India is part of that too
Yes, absolutely. India is a region of the continent.
>As is the Arabian peninsula
Sure. Are you saying it shouldn't? Why
> As is arguably the entirety of fucking Africa because that strait isn't wide enough to be a called an ocean
It is a sea however, and contains a spreading divergent boundary between the African and Arabian plates.
See >>11833431 for the most based interpretation.

>>11833459
That still makes four.

>>11833466
>based
Based on what?

>>11833462
Europe being considered a continent is exactly like demi-sexual otherkin being considered a separate gender, thank you for that perfect analogy.

Without Europe/Europeans, the rest of the world would still be throwing rocks and using bows and arrows.

>>11833472
based on the novel by stephen king

>>11833475
Continents don’t exist objectively.

>>11833472
Based on motherfucking plate tectonics, the coolest aspect of planet Earth

>>11833472
Reality

>>11833476
False, gunpowder was developed by the chinese. Without the chinks the west would still be using bows and arrows.

>>11833482
Yes, and yet there is a right and wrong way to deal with that fact regardless, just like gender shit

>>11833487
I didn’t realize the short bus dropped people off in this thread

>>11833472
>>11833480
haha so funny and original haha lmao!

>>11832655
>We're already looking for deeper and smaller deposits because the easy ones are depleted.
FFS the UK (for example) shut down its entire coal industry with the express intention of leaving millions of tonnes of coal underground. There's enough for decades, should we need it. Here's something I found with a few seconds research:

'The UK has identified hard coal resources of 3 910 million tonnes, although total resources could be as large as 187 billion tonnes.'

>>11833498
where do you think you are?

>>11833466
>It is a sea however
Bosphorus strait is a sea?

>>11833498
>haha so funny and original haha lmao!
Yes.

>>11833490
>Yes, and yet there is a right and wrong way to deal with that fact regardless, just like gender shit

Sex exists objectively. Gender does not. There is nothing to “deal” with because it isn’t real.

>>11833499
Ironically several large mines are reopening in cornwall because renewable energy has lead to increased demands for copper

>>11833501
Forget the Bosporus. You can go a few hundred miles north East and walk from Russia into the Middle East

>>11833500
boards.4channel.org/sci/thread/11832516

>>11833501
Nigga I'm talking about the Red Sea, why the fuck are you over in Turkey

>>11833504
>Sex exists objectively
People who are born with both male and female sex organs, or neither, and people born with XXY or XYY genomes, or people who are chimeras of differing sex siblings, disagree.

>>11833536
>What is a genetic disorder

>>11833535
But you agreed that the peninsula is part of muh Asia uber alles. What's separating the peninsula from Africa?

>>11833536
>Quadrapeds exist objectively
>Uh ackhually der r mutants with fiev legs so haha

>>11833418
>>11833428
As someone who has done labor jobs being out of shape doesn't matter because the job kicks your ass in shape anyway.

>>11833563
Sure but being in shape in the first place is vastly preferable. People who don’t exercise are bad people.

>>11833507
This. Europe and the middle east are both regions of the continent of Asia, or Eurasia if you prefer.

>>11833536
So u be sayin da wee ladz with da two heads be norm, 'now what 'm sayin?

>>11833550
The red sea, lmao

>>11833557
Okay
>continents exist objectively
>uh ackhually der r isthmuses and land bridges so haha

>>11833508
Then you would be right.

>>11833563
Yup, the only difference is how much work you got done at the end of the day. The fittest human on Earth can't do manual labor for eight hours and not be wiped afterwards.

>>11833620
>continents exist objectively

Land exists objectively. Whether or not any particular piece of land gets to be a continent is arbitrary and not based in any particular characteristics except “big”.

>sfg geography and renewable energy general

>>11833636
Agreed. The best analogy would be that Continental and Oceanic crust are the unarguable X/Y chromosomes, whereas the definition of “Continent” is analogous to gender where you have some fags arguing what technically counts, how many there are, etc.

>>11833636
>Land exists objectively
I disagree

>>11833645
I think it’s called for. Earth is a planet. If we were all born on Mars 100 years from now we could argue the science behind planet Earth, that elusive place we’ve never visited. I mean if Mars gets covered with an 11m ocean it will have landmasses, but it doesn’t have plate tectonics- so trying to argue what counts as a “continent” there will be a real nightmare

>>11833657
What Musk determined to be an continent will be a continent, duh.

>space flight general

>>11833649
Based
Building off of that, if it's above sea level and made of continental crust, it's a continent, and if it's above sea level and made of oceanic crust, it's an island. This applies to any piece of land no matter the size. Islands in lakes aren't islands because lakes aren't oceans, and also seas don't really exist, they are the equivalent of national borders on the water.

>>11833667
who fucking cares? give me an opinion on hydrolox first stages.

>>11833657
Mars' entire surface is covered in a single continent, Globopanaerea. If we start melting surface water and forming an ocean, the resulting landmass will be renamed Panaerea and the ocean Panaerothalassa.

>>11833455
I've always found thinking at these scales kind of mind-bending. Does the rock really go under some other rocks taking a bit of the sea with it, so that the gas coming out of volcanoes etc reflects the composition of the sea water? Sometimes I wonder if the geologists are just having a laugh with us.

>>11833674
They're shit no matter what you do to them. Moving on, does the Moon have continents? I think its lithosphere must be cracked in enough places above the transition depth between plastic and brittle transformation that we can find and define different plates, regardless of whether or not they're static.

>>11833678
Tectonic action depends on an ocean. Maybe it could be kicked off.

>>11833680
Yeah that’s exactly what happens. The water is dragged down, typically trapped in hydrated minerals or porous rock/sediment, and a whole bunch of geochemical processes alter the melt and can create new types of rocks/minerals that will solidify as it rises up and cools. I wish we had another planet with plate tectonics, it’s so dumb having a sample size of 1. Like did venus have plate tectonics? Probably, but why did it stop??

>>11833680
>Does the rock really go under some other rocks taking a bit of the sea with it, so that the gas coming out of volcanoes etc reflects the composition of the sea water?
The rock that makes up the ocean floor is impregnated with ocean water, yeah, but it's not like it's dragging down pockets of sea water or anything, it's just made up of hydrated sedimentary rocks and basaltic minerals. These hydrated minerals have lower melting points than chemically dry rock, so they melt easier, and since liquid rock is less dense than solid rock the large molten pools that form rise up via faulting the ground.

One of the reasons I laugh at people who want to use subduction zones as a means of permanently disposing of nuclear waste is the fact that they're actually risking all that shit being sprayed everywhere by radioactive volcanoes a few million years down the line, rather than just burying the stuff in a vault inside of a large continental massif like the Canadian Shield, where it stands a good chance of staying put until the Earth's tectonic activity finally stops. It isn't a real problem either way of course, it's just funny how the extreme over the top solution they have is so god damn retarded.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1275892743542173696 Most of you guys have probably seen this but september pretty much confirmed for next demo. I wonder if they'll have a full starship/superheavy stack with heat shields and everything by then.

>>11833694
Unlikely. Mars doesn’t have the gravity to sustain large scale tectonics. At least that’s what our textbooks say now... how fucking crazy would it be if we hydrated the surface with an ocean and slabs started moving. But I digress... it most likely can’t sustain tectonics and also I think it’s one of those things where once tectonics stops it’s pretty much impossible to start it up again (a la Venus)
>>11833704
Wegenerpilled

>>11833694
It depends on a lot more than just an ocean. Mars is too cool by now to have any sort of tectonic activity even if it had retained a large ocean for its entire history, and once it stops you can't just add water to make it go again.
It's also possible that Mars is simply too small to allow for tectonic activity like on Earth even if you suppose it had the right temperature and mantle viscosity; Mars being physically smaller means it has more curvature at its surface than Earth, which may impede subduction of plates into the mantle for any planet that size. I'm sure there's some kind of magic ratio of surface curvature to crust thickness and mantle stiffness range that you need to be in for tectonic activity to happen.
Venus on the other hand could be manipulated into having tectonic activity like Earth, if you had infinite time and resources of course. First you'd need to make its surface much cooler and import a global ocean's worth of water. Second you'd need to trigger another catastrophic resurfacing event, to get rid of all the old crust and allow new crust to form in the presence of that global ocean I mentioned. Then you just wait, and with a little luck some plates will begin to subduct under others and form mid ocean ridges and transverse faults and so forth, and over time recycle enough crust material and process enough mantle material to bring significant amounts of felsic minerals to the surface, forming continental crust which would tend to ride over oceanic crust and conglomerate and grow over time, just like on Earth. All you'd need is a couple quintillion of tons of raw materials and about five billion years.

>>11833716
> Unlikely. Mars doesn’t have the gravity to sustain large scale tectonics.

Add Ceres to Mars

>>11833703
>Probably, but why did it stop??
It probably had them very briefly, but once the primordial oceans were baked off and the surface temperature rose to over 400 Celsius, the crust became too malleable to break into plates, and the melt temperature of the minerals in the crust became too high to allow for plate tectonics. Instead, Venus undergoes catastrophic resurfacing, after enough radiological decay heat builds up to thin the crust enough that it all collapses and sinks into the mantle at once, over a very short time geologically speaking.

>>11833716
Mars almost certainly once had oceans and there is no evidence of any kind of plate tectonic activity. At least for a few hundred million years the surface has been stagnant, as indicated by the hot spot volcanoes that haven't moved.

>>11833729
Yeah Venus would be such a cool case study if we had God-like powers to manipulate a bunch of stuff. I’m sure it has the right internal factors for continued tectonics... but a huge problem is that the relic plates have probably been stagnant for millions (if not billions) of years and during this time has probably built up a colossal veneer of volcanic melt on the surface making it harder and harder to restart the process.
The irony of planets the size of Venus/Earth is that their large size brings about a LOT of accretionary and internal radioactive heat. If you have a process like plate tectonics with water it gives the planet a way to use that energy to drive plates and mitigate cool surface temperatures. If, however, plate tectonics stops then you suddenly have a bunch of internal energy that will drive surface temperatures into oblivion by feeding a huge system of surface volcanism that can’t be mitigated

>>11833711
I didn't see that, thanks anon

>>11833734
Mars is roughly 711 times more massive than Ceres, so adding it to Mars wouldn't a significant difference. In fact you could add Venus to Mars, and throw in Mercury because why not, and the resulting planet would still be a bit less massive than Earth.

>>11833754
Venus probably doesn't have any rocks at all that are older than a few hundred million years, because when it resurfaces it isn't just volcanically erupting huge amounts of material that cover the surface, the ENTIRE solid surface of Venus seems to become unstable and sink into the mantle, basically erasing all topography and resetting the clock.

>>11833740
What do you suppose originally boiled the water off and drove the initial positive loop of heating, and why was Earth different? Is it simply the fact that Venus is closer to the Sun or is there something more to it? Also love the term “catastrophic resurfacing” that’s a very poetic way of phrasing it

>>11833768
Wait so it just isostatically depresses the entire crust?? What no way... I wonder if Venus has a global lithospheric mantle from all the crust getting pushed down from overburden pressure

>>11832753
Spent nuclear fuel's ambient radioactive exposure is reduced to elevated ambient levels within a few hundred years. You don't want to eat the stuff, but you don't want to eat asbestos or lead, either, and those are natural minerals.

>>11833760
>711 times more massive than ceres

Doesn’t Venus spin slow as fuck, and in the wrong direction according to its orbit? I suppose this could either be due to two things:
>>11833774
Something slammed into the side of Venus, causing this initial runaway greenhouse effect. This would also explain the strange rotation if we assume it impacted venus in the “retrograde” direction of spin, so to speak. Or...
>>11833780
Plate tectonics stopped, for whatever reason, and a giant malleable lith mantle formed. Now the entire crust “floats” as one giant unit and could somehow start spinning in the opposite direction.

Either way, it’s a fucking shame that getting a lander on Venus would be hard. Even a mechanical computer lander would be basic at best, and probably wouldn’t be able to study a lot of the complex questions we still have about the planet

>>11833774
Increased solar irradiance, and a thicker nitrogen atmosphere. Venus has more than twice as much nitrogen than Earth in its atmosphere, it's just that since there's another ~90 atmospheres of carbon dioxide that fact gets glossed over.
So, going back to the beginning of Venus' history, the Sun was less bright and Venus had less CO2 (probably only an atmosphere's worth or less), but more nitrogen than Earth, and had recently had its oceans form.
Earth at this time would have been frozen over with ice, and quite cold. Venus on the other hand would have been getting hit with about as much light and heat as Earth does today, maybe a bit less. This would have given it enough energy to keep its surface water melted, meaning it would have huge areas of very low albedo ocean to continue to absorb that energy. Combine that with a thick nitrogen and CO2 atmosphere, and Venus would have started off very balmy and comfortable at this point.
This golden age on Venus would have only lasted a few hundred million years however. The Sun has been increasing its output ever since it formed, and due to being so close and having several warming environmental factors, Venus' environment would have quickly become unstable and slipped into a positive feedback loop of water evaporation leading to increased greenhouse effect leading to higher temperatures and more evaporation. Eventually those oceans would have dried and with no evaporative cooling to hold it back the global average temperature would have shot up beyond the boiling point of water, killed any primitive life that may have arisen during the previous period, and turning Venus into a permanent hothouse. Fast forward a few hundred million years and any plate tectonics that had started earlier would be stalled, as the new crust that had been forming without the presence of those oceans would not support the process. Most water would have been lost and replaced with volcanic CO2.

>>11833780
>Wait so it just isostatically depresses the entire crust?
Crust on Venus is close to the same density as the mantle, but over time the mantel keeps warming up with nowhere for the heat to go. On Earth this heat gets released through the movement of tectonic plates, literally quenching hot magma with subducting crust. On Venus the magma underneath the crust simply warms up until it's less dense than the solid crust on top, the crust destabilizes, breaks apart, and sinks into the mantle. For a brief period, there doesn't exist any continuous crust on Venus, just plates of sinking, ancient crust, newly cooled areas of very thin crust, and a bottomless ocean of magma surrounding them.
It's not just isostatic depression, the old crust literally sinks and is destroyed.

>>11833711
And yet still no data on the pressure test? Is Zeus still poking at poor SN7's remains?

>>11833789
There is no wrong direction to spin, but yes, Venus rotates very slowly and in the opposite direction of most of the other planets (Uranus' axial tilt is so extreme at over 90 degrees that it's a bit of a weird case). This does have some ramifications for its climate, but it's important to note that Venus' entire atmosphere actually blows around the surface once every four days and is mostly opaque, so from a global climactic perspective Venus actually rotates once every 96 hours.

>>11832575

>>11833824
They have guys working nearby it, so probably not. The robot makes sense as a way of quickly checking the debris to make sure there are no uncontrolled COPVs sitting at high pressure waiting for someone to sneeze nearby without risking anyone's life, but once the debris is known to be same having people just look at the thing is infinitely more convenient.

>>11833711
>september
It's been almost a year and we still haven't had a single flight. They should spend less time on power point presentations and more time on flying.

>>11833794
Mmmm yes this actually makes sense. In fact, Earth was "frozen" only briefly. Remember that Earth had stable liquid water pretty much right after it formed, even before radiative forcing. That's why the faint young sun paradox exists. Whatever the cause of this paradox, a warm Earth would most likely mean a warmer Venus, leading to that destructive positive loop. I have two questions though:
How much does orbital distance effect heat? Here in the Northern Hemisphere we experience colder temperatures when our orbit is actually closest to the Sun. This is because axial tilt has a way larger effect than orbital distance. But when you move a planet way closer, like Venus, does that orbital distance become way more of a problem?
Also, you mentioned Nitrogen gas. I hadn't thought of that before. Venus had/has way more Nitrogen in its atmosphere. Did this play a role in heating early in Venus' history?

>>11833838
. . . Have you looked at literally any other space agency in the last 45 years, anon?

>>11833835
I was speaking metaphorically.

>uncontrolled COPVs sitting at high pressure waiting for someone
Don't they have enough live sacrifices on site to appease them?

>>11833848
>everyone else being shit means i should be shit too

Ah, ah, ah, I'M PROOONTING

>>11833847
Venus receives about twice as much light and heat as Earth. Earth's orbit is circular enough that its total solar energy influx only changes by a couple percent throughout an orbit, whereas on the ground as either hemisphere goes from pointing to the Sun then away the local solar influx can change dramatically. Venus is about 50 million kilometers closer to the Sun than Earth, whereas Earth's orbit only changes our planet's distance from the Sun by just 5 million kilometers (and since we're dealing with the square cube law, a relative change of ten times the distance has far more than ten times the effect).
Yes, having twice as much nitrogen compared to Earth would have made a difference. Another thing that would make a big difference is the lower gravity, which means the atmosphere on Venus is significantly taller than on Earth for the same partial pressure at sea level (need to stack more mass to get the same eight in lower gravity). Having a taller atmosphere means every layer is also taller, meaning Venus had a thicker troposphere, meaning more and higher altitude water clouds, which means increased greenhouse effect from an equal amount of average humidity.

Apparently Io's atmosphere can at times become 3x as thick as earth's...

>>11832940
I guess my point was asians (i.e. the Japanese) can do "clean" rockets. It's chinks and russians who insist on dumping hypergolic boosters onto villages

>>11833854
They aren't, though. SpaceX is getting ten times more shit done than all other agencies combined. Stop complaining about nothing.

>>11833861
Thanks anon. I've never thought about how all of these factors would all play a role together. We got really good RNG with the Solar System. Lots of fascinating solar system bodies to study and compare to Earth.

>>11833859
Martians won't be

>>11833878
>prooonting
what?

>>11833868
Source? Also do you mean thick as in surface pressure or thick as in height above the surface? I fucking hate this ambiguity of language. It's even worse when people say thick when they mean dense, ie "Venus' atmosphere being thicker because it's made mostly of CO2", fuck.

>>11833882
As in surface pressure. I think it is more of a localized phenomena related to volcanic eruptions.

>>11833870
The cleanest rocket engines are actually gonna be the methalox ones, because anything burning hydrolox is doing so using hydrogen made as a waste product during fossil fuel refining, which therefore represents a much larger CO2 contribution. Meanwhile, the methane in the rocket represents most of the CO2 emitted from the entire extraction, refinement, and transport processes, lmao.

>>11833878
I like this

>>11833888
Checked, and what are the byproducts of a CH4 + O2 reaction?

>>11833875
Nice pyrite. Is that an olivine aggregate on the right? That fossil below is neat, looks like the gladius of a squid or something

>>11833880
Some anon shitted up two or three of the last few threads saying that giant printers are the simplest and best options for habitats on Mars, and his only source was a university project that did not take any radiological concerns into account.

>>11833875
>We got really good RNG with the Solar System
We got really good RNG for the earth to be honest. It's likely that an earth-sized planet with a moon as large as Luna is very rare - Ganymede and Titan are larger and heavier but compared to their planets they're many times smaller. Only Pluto and Charon have a smaller mass fraction, but they're not rocky planets.

The moon is very likely to be vital in allowing life to exist because it stabilises the earth's axial tilt - Mars by comparison wildly wobbles by 10s of degrees over just a few million years, fucking up the climate massively

>>11833888
By clean I just meant not cancer-causing toxic fuels

>>11833886
Ah okay, so basically the statement should be "Io has been observed to briefly have gas eruptions which locally exert up to approximately three bar of pressure on the immediate area".

>>11833908
Forgot image, full size: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8d/Small_bodies_of_the_Solar_System.jpg

>>11833906
Ah, okay.
On another note, I thought everyone agrees that an underground base is the way to go. At least, for our first try.

Certainly on the moon. It offers some protection from small impacts, the regolith could plug a hole (not well but enough), in addition to the radiation protection.

>>11833908
Any planet with bad RNG won't produce complex critters let alone humanlike life, so saying we got good RNG with the Earth is basically saying "it is shaped like itself". I think it's fair to say we got lucky with Mars, though. Its existence is pretty much coincidental and just happens to be an easy launch and landing target with a complete profile of basically all useful resources for human expansion.

>>11833892
CH4 plus O2 makes water, CO2, and some side products such as CO from the incomplete combustion of methane, due to the engine running overall fuel rich for efficiency reasons.

>>11833910
Dealing with hydrogen embrittlement gives engineers brain cancer

>>11833908
Just curious why you use "Luna" and "the Moon" within the same post. I see other people here do that too. Spanish/Italian your first language or is there a practical reason for it?

>>11833920
>fuel rich
afaik basically all methalox runs oxidizer rich. SpaceX definitely does with theirs.

>>11833921
I'm English - I would only use "Luna" when I need to distinguish the Earth's moon from satellites of other planets. It helps remove the ambiguity.
In that post I just messed up and used "the moon" the second time because that's its real name in English.

>>11833711
Unless SpaceX has a flight-proven vehicle to show off, it won't appear like much progress has been made, regardless of whether it's a Starship, Super Heavy, or both. As ridiculous as we now think it was, Musk told everyone that Mk.I would be the first Starship flight hardware, as he has nearly every prototype since. Also, at the current rate, I can't see an orbital, reusable Starship ready this year.
What I wanna see are commercial launch contracts, launch infrastructure, new timetables, etc, not SN11 or whatever.

>>11833917
>I thought everyone agrees that an underground base is the way to go. At least, for our first try.
So does everyone with any knowledge of the realities of construction and manufacturing, anon. Unfortunately prooontfag is not one of those people.

I agree, ~10 meters of loose regolith offers excellent protection from even centimeter-scale impactors as well as total shielding against all solar and cosmic radiation, and it's hyper-abundant. Regolith probably wouldn't block any holes, being on the outside, but it would definitely slow down the leak rate of even an otherwise catastrophically large hole. That being said, anything we're burying in regolith is gonna have at least a double hull, to prevent any exterior damage during construction or interior damage during habitation having serious consequences.
Off the top of my head, compressed lunar-dust regolith sintered into curved panels would be nice to place between the outer habitat hull and the regolith cover layer, providing a crushable material to prevent pressure points from harming the vessel underneath. The same regolith tiles could be used inside as well, and be made more porous to offer better insulation. Of course these materials wouldn't be absolutely necessary, just a nice upgrade to perhaps develop once the first few habitat facilities are operational.

>>11833902
The green one is a xenolith, a chunk of the mantle explosively decompressed to the surface through a kimberlite pipe. It probably contains diamonds based on where I got it from but I don’t want to bust it up. And that fossil is an Orthoceras, one of the world’s first successful predators. It used jet propulsion to move and was a precursor to squids

>>11832788
dont forget India!!

>>11833936
>I don't want to see testing, I want to see an launch dates and contracts for an untested vehicle
Cool story BO

>>11833945
India is even worse - they have four stage rockets just to get like 5 tonnes to LEO and two of the stages are all solids

>>11833947
Do they model their fucking rockets in KSP or something lmao

>>11833951
Who the fuck knows

>>11833939
>Unfortunately prooontfag is not one of those people.
Is he actually stupid, or does he just play one on the internet?
>Regolith probably wouldn't block any holes, being on the outside, but it would definitely slow down the leak rate of even an otherwise catastrophically large hole.
That's what I meant. It buys you time.

Now the next question is, how much should we build here and how much should be assembled on the moon itself?
If we still had something with heavy lift capabilities like the Saturn V we could launch some pretty huge pre-assembled habitats.
Skylab was essentially a Saturn V third stage.

>>11833945
>>11833953
What does this guy look blue?

>>11833925
No, they absolutely don't. You're confusing combustion cycles with overall engine propellant consumption, and it's the latter that matters for figuring out what the engine is emitting.

SpaceX's Raptor engine is a full-flow staged combustion engine. Basically, it means it burns a little bit of the fuel with most of the oxygen in one preburner, and most of the fuel with a little bit of oxygen in the other preburner. These preburners exhaust through turbines which spin the pumps that pressurized the propellants in the first place. Note that the fuel pump on a full flow staged combustion engine is running super fuel rich, and the oxygen pump in a FFSC engine is running super oxygen rich, and BOTH preburners dump their exhaust through the turbines and into the main combustion chamber. Inside the main combustion chamber, the fuel rich gasses and oxygen rich gasses combine and are burned. The engine as a whole however is consuming more methane than the stoichiometric ratio would require, for the amount of oxygen going in. The engine runs methane-rich. The engine has individual preburners that are either fuel rich or oxygen rich, but the main combustion chamber is fuel rich. The reason all rocket engines run fuel rich overall is because fuels tend to have much lower molar masses than oxygen, since hydrogen and carbon and nitrogen are all lighter atoms than oxygen. Lighter gasses move faster at the same temperature as heavy gasses, and rocket efficiency is a direct result of exhaust velocity, which means a lighter exhaust makes a more efficient rocket. Now, running off-stoichiometric means the combustion temperature is not as hot, which does reduce exhaust velocity, but up to a certain ratio of additional fuel, the exhaust velocity increase due to having lighter gas particles actually beats the reduction due to having cooler exhaust, which means the most efficient mixture ratio of any rocket using hydrogen, hydrocarbons, or hydrazine fuels, is fuel-rich.

>>11833954
Camp out in skylabbened cargo Starships and import more steel rolls to weld until enough power and space exists to do local smelting

>>11833953
>>11833951
Oh yeah they also have a knock off of Ariane 5, except it uses fucking UDMH/N2O4 for fuel

>>11833958
Because he’s actually the famous Kerbin, Tobias Funke

>>11833961
To add to this because I ran out of characters, BO's BE-4 engine uses an oxygen-rich staged combustion cycle, but nonetheless still runs fuel rich, because it's only the engine's PUMP that is actually being run oxygen rich. The BE-4, like Raptor, consumes more methane than is required to fully react the oxygen it consumes.

>>11833936
>What I wanna see are commercial launch contracts, launch infrastructure, new timetables, etc, not SN11 or whatever.
>What I want to see are handshakes and schedules, not real hardware and testing
What?

>>11833940
Sick shit, anon. If I had my collection with me I'd offer to compare each other's rocks.

Whats these 2 target looking things for? Computer tracking for a hop?

>>11833961
My bad. Methalox has a very high stoichiometric ratio so even though O/F is high it's still fuel rich.

>>11833966
And they're gonna launch people on it, so they can poo in space.

>>11833954
>Now the next question is, how much should we build here and how much should be assembled on the moon itself?
In my opinion, don't bother sending prebuilt habitats, just live in the Starship you landed inside as well as others that are landed and retired from flight, until you have shipped over enough metal bending and welding equipment that you can fabricate your own large tubes to bury. Basically, ship windows and airlocks and rolls of steel, and build the habitat in-situ. This lets you take maximum advantage of Starship's huge launch capacity, because otherwise you're volume limited on what you can pack into the vehicle, which means a smaller habitat than what you arrived inside, or relying on inflatables (which can't exactly be welded together easily).
Maybe bring a few habitats to help you join retired Starships together and/or do work on the ground.

>>11833966
>they also have a knock off of Ariane 5, except it uses fucking UDMH/N2O4 for fuel
So basically it's an improved Ariane 5, lmao. Fuck hydrolox first stages.

>following the Agency’s April 30 decision, leaders of the Committee reiterated their concerns and expressed disappointment in NASA’s deviation from Congressional intent with bill H.R. 5666
>congress had directed NASA to place more focus on sending humans to Mars than on returning to the Moon, to delay sending a crewed mission to the Moon until 2028, and to have full ownership of the lunar lander, instead of buying those services from a private company amd deemphasized many of the scientific plans related to lunar missions that are seen as vital to NASA, including making use of lunar ice at the Moon, and it sought to restrict the development of a “continuously crewed lunar outpost or research station”
>the CLPS initiative has the legislators’ approval, but they also direct NASA to use lunar landers that operate using the Space Launch System
>curiously significant because all three cosponsors of H.R. 5666 receive thousands of dollars in campaign funding from a Boeing-associated PAC each campaign cycle
>Upon closer look, it is not the fact that NASA is partnering with private companies that seems to bother original cosponsors of this bill; instead, the opposition stems from the way in which NASA is doing it and who the Agency is doing it with.
Big YIKES.

>>11834009
Yay unlimited campaign finance and lobbying

>>11833921
People don’t like to use the same term multiple times in the same paragraph

>>11833988
Yup. It's kinda like how hydrolox engines seem to consume way more oxygen than hydrogen because of oxygen's density being so much higher, but in reality there can be twice as many mols of hydrogen passing through the engine than are necessary for stoichiometric combustion. For example, the Space Shuttle ET was mostly hydrogen by volume, but carried ~626 tons of oxygen and only ~105 tons of hydrogen.

>>11834009
So can we justify nuking Boeing yet, or do they still have some military contracts to fulfill?

>>11834009
Fuck congressional meddling and, unfortunately, fuck NASA by extension even with good actors in place because of their limited authority. Let SpaceX buy the fucking moon and make NASA pay entry fees.

>>11834024
Hydrolox density is such a meme.

>>11833982
Probably for the ULA sniper to shoot. They seem to have an insider...

>>11834029
I like how Jeff Bezos is given a payload number