/sci/ - Science & Math

on the surface?

where all the dust billowing around carries a variable electric charge that are mind boggling huge?

and might as well be sand blasting everything?

in a thin or no atmosphere in broad daylight making an excellent target for random rocks falling out of the sky?

hell! where do i sign?

>>2181006

The idea is to inflated the structure, then cover it with dirt for 'free' radiation shielding (pic related). Free in that you didn't have to carry it with you. Plans that make use of in-situ resources are consistently the most economical.

>>2181006
don't be so negative.
we would just grow our food supply in the inflatables.
You can still hide in a can.
Don't panic.

>>2180992
i don't see why we don't do it now.

plants can create oxygen
plants can create food
on mars, we can use the ice water from the polar ice caps for water to grow the plants, as well as sunlight and the soil there, or soil we bring there if martian soil is not suitable.
drinking water comes from ice caps as well
inflatable habitats like you said.

only thing we really need is public outcry for such a project and/or support in terms of money

>>2181012
the concept drawing makes me wonder if several centimeters of loose dirt will provide sufficient protection

Another possibility for maximizing livable space and minimizing cost is using subsurface lava tubes. The dense volcanic rock coating the interior would keep air loss to a minimum (easily eliminated with spray-on sealants) so creating a vast, habitable area could be as simple as sealing the entrance with an airlock and pressurizing/heating the interior.

>>2181006
Surely you must be joking. You NEVER choose people who know what they're getting into!

Anyway, just get a ridiculously huge spaceship that can hold everything needed for colonization (ie food, water, oxygen, shelter) and also those atmosphere changing tools from Spore. We have those, right?

>>2181020

You make it sound easy, but the things you discuss are actually huge technical challenges. We need room to grow those plants, energy, and to exploit water from the poles we'd need to either locate the base there (bad idea) or build a pipeline, a massive project even on Earth. Part of how you get ambitious shit like this done is finding clever ways to simplify and drive down costs, so that you can successfully pitch the idea to those with money.

Pic is the interior of an inflatable habitat. Modestly sized, even a fairly small, cheap rocket could send it to Mars in a single launch. Bases like these could serve as temporary living space while astronauts survey the landing site for lava tubes to convert into habitable colonies. The airlocks and equipment to fit/seal them in place would actually be heavier and costlier to send than the temporary habitats. But install one and presto, hundreds of thousands of square feet of living space for the price of the front door.

>>2181023
yes...living in a LAVA TUBE is more preferred

>>2181037
yet one dude goes nuts and run amok with a scalpel or something and you lose all of it

>>2181042

Obviously they'd be selected according to safety. But ultimately I think lava tubes are the best way to go.

Why? Because to meet both the air and food requirements of a single human being you need 45 square feet of crops. You can condense that a bit if you use nonedible crops that maximize oxygen production but if you plan to feed people sustainably from grow ops you need a minimum of 45 square feet consisting of tomatos, soy, corn, etc. etc. to satisfy all nutritional requirements.

That means you need lots and lots of room. And room does not come cheap if it's in capsule form. You need to find cheap ways to create large, sealed enclosures and lava tubes are just that, premade and waiting for us.

>>2181047

Has that ever happened, even once in the history of spaceflight?

Using an S-IVB stage like they did with Skylab would work for a living module or whatever, but of course getting it to another planet would be quite the challenge.

I guess using it as a wet workshop would work, but landing that huge thing gently would be a challenge

>>2181062
an inflatable habitat?

not to my knowledge, no.

i am often wrong though so it wouldn't surprise me in the least.

begs the question why they have guns on the space station though doesn't it?

There's a third possibility I haven't seen discussed very often: Monolithic domes.

These differ from geodesic domes in that they're made from concrete and raised by an inflatable dome balloon from beneath. Essentially you pour the concrete over the balloon, wait for it to partially harden (till it's gelatinous and can hold it's shape) then inflate the balloon and leave it until the concrete is fully dried.

The benefits of this approach are twofold; first, we could use martian soil for the concrete, meaning we would need to bring only the balloon ('airform') and the adhesive agent. Like the other suggested approaches, this maximizes the living space you can create per launch.

The second advantage is speed. Monolithic domes are regularly raised within the span of a single day. We could have fairly massive habitable domes ready to live in very quickly. It would take a bit longer on Mars due to the need to add multiple layers of concrete to handle the stresses of internal overpressure, but assuming the capsule they came in can sustain them for a few weeks, it's a viable plan.

>>2181072

Just on the Soyuz. Locked away in case they land in the boonies somewhere

>>2181072

>>an inflatable habitat?

No, I meant some dude going crazy with a scalpel in space.

>>2181057

if we are going to be building a colony i promise you the food they have will be genetically modified
this would almost be a necessity as crops for oxygen and crops for food would require to much space
the genetically modified food could not only produce extra oxygen but higher yields with the use of less energy and nutrients

>>2181085

If this can be done, why has it not already been attempted on the ISS?

>>2181079
lies.

Salyut 3 had a 23 mm rapid-fire cannon mounted on the outside, along the long axis of the station "for defense against space-based inspectors/interceptors"

inb4 Lisa Nowak lol

>>2181094
what makes you assume it hasn't?

>>2181115

Salyut 3 no longer exists though. Last I heard the only weapon that is up there these days is the hand gun that flies with the Soyuz

>>2181123

>>what makes you assume it hasn't?

I have heard nothing to the effect that it has. While it may be going on secretly, for the purposes of this thread we are taking for granted only technologies known to be feasible at this time, by way of existing, proven examples.

>>2181094
GM (genetically modified) foods scare people
most of these fears are unfounded and there are suspicions as to whether they can cause damage to humans or cause other unknown effects
DNA is very complicated, some protein codes over lap each other, so in a worse case scenario changing the code could result in some nasty consequences
a lot of testing would have to be done to ensure the foods safety
also it wouldnt suprise me if some of the plants they have on the space station have at least been bred to express certain traits
also as of right now most researchers are more worried about getting plants to grow better on earth rather then space

I've thought about this for awhile, bring a shitload(convert that into standard units) of Uranium and power the colony with fission energy

>>2181132
well yeah, that's what you're heard about

when salut 3 was in orbit you didn't hear about it's weapons systems

>>2181083
how would i know?
it's not like they would tell us or anything like that.
i think it pompous to draw conclusions with such a poor sample....not a lot of astronauts to begin with now is there?
even the strongest minds snap at some point over some totally pointless thing. Many studies and proofs exist on the matter if you bother to look.

>>2181133
this is feasable, we are genetically modifying food as we speak for arid countries such as africa
we have a special kind of sweet potato that grows to tremendous sizes even in arid conditions

we do have the technology and are applying it on earth far more rapidly then the average person believes, so i feel that it is relevant
getting back on topic now

>>2181148

Agreed, but it makes no sense to plan around a contingency that to the best of our knowledge has never occurred. We must go with the best information available to us, even if it is incomplete
.
>>2181140

No point in having the GM foods argument, I am completely on your side. I think those opposed to it are in part responsible for anyone who starves as a result.

>>2181133

Ah! Finally someone privy to the workings of the space station.

so you are suggesting there is no such thing as genetically produced crops?
or is it the producing extra oxygen?
or is it the higher yields with the use of less energy and nutrients bit that gets you?
they got it down separately just not all in one plant yet.

what do you think they are tinkering with up there anyways?

>>2181143

I've always wondered about ICBMs. Weapons of mass destruction/nuclear weapons are not allowed in space, but the rules are bent for an ICBM

i feel a colony on mars would be silly due to the lack of pressure
titan would make more sense
despite its frigid temperatures it has an atmosphere, as well as loads of natural gas
im not quite sure how an atmosphere of methane would handle a spark tho

>>2181178
the best information available to me is that humans are irrational, destructive, and prone to stupidity, and emotional outbursts.
Especially when confined for long periods of time.

it makes perfect sense to me to plan around a contingency that to the best of my knowledge has occurred on a daily basis on the globe somewhere whether it be by circumstance, accident, or planned study.

>>2181183

>>Ah! Finally someone privy to the workings of the space station.

I believe I said the opposite of this, that we *don't* know what they have up there.

>>so you are suggesting there is no such thing as genetically produced crops?

No, just that we are not yet knowledgable enough with regards to genetic engineering to produce crops with the precise traits we need for a Mars grow op. This is a nearer term technology than usually discussed in space threads, though, I'll give it that.

>>or is it the producing extra oxygen?

No problem there.

>>or is it the higher yields with the use of less energy and nutrients bit that gets you?

This is in fact problematic to some degree as you can't get something from nothing. You can only push plant efficiency so far.

>>they got it down separately just not all in one plant yet.

Right, so we don't have it yet. That was my point. Spacebros have a bad habit of thinking "this seems plausible in my head, we have things similar to it now, therefore it's doable if only those evil politicians would get out of the way and the world would financially back my vision". Flattering, but when it comes to actual technological progress, you cannot casually skip developmental steps. They have to happen, or you get nowhere,

>>what do you think they are tinkering with up there anyways?

I don't know, but I sure won't use my ignorance as a wild card to assume it's whatever technology I'd like them to be working on.

>>2181193

>>humans are irrational, destructive, and prone to stupidity, and emotional outbursts. Especially when confined for long periods of time.

Absolutely true, which is why I'd only endorse the use of inflatable habitats as temporary shelters while lava tubes are located, sealed and pressurized.

There have been 43 missions to Venus, 73 missions to the moon, 40 missions to Mars, and 9 missions to the sun. There are about 4,000 satellites orbiting Earth.
Fuck everyone who says a colony ship isn't possible. If all of the effort that went into the above went into building one we would have humans living wherever.

*Above figures likely to be outdated.

Is it that fucking hard to capitalize the first letter of your sentences? Jesus Christ.

>>2181203
do research on GM foods, you are mistaken on where we are with our technology now, and where we will be in 10 years

>>2181203
seeing how they are gonna send a fucking mustard plant to the moon...idk


i'm sure you are right though.
All the years up there growing plants and various algae...i'm sure none of them are genetically modified in any way as well.
that would be intelligent.
I have never known NASA to be like that

>>2181228

>>Fuck everyone who says a colony ship isn't possible. If all of the effort that went into the above went into building one we would have humans living wherever.

If all of that prior effort hadn't happened, we'd still have no idea how to even begin building a colony ship.

I won't argue that it's both possible and desirable, but those earlier missions were crucial in their own right, and in no way threatened the eventual exodus of mankind to other worlds. When we do build such vessels they will probably use a very old, familiar technology, as it's still the cheapest, fastest thing we've got:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_pulse_propulsion

If people could be made comfortable with the launching of these from old nuke test sites, we could send an entire colony up in one go. Just build the colony into the interior of the vessel, make the pusher plate out of uranium (so you can cannibalize it for fuel later) and you're good to go. The vessel is now suitable for use as a massive space colony or, with a lot of very precise math and some retrorockets, it could be landed on low gravity moons to act as a planetary colony as well.

It's really a waiting game in this case. Eventually it will become painfully clear that magical warp drives and antigravity aren't going to show up any time soon and if we want to establish ourselves in space in a big way, this is the only way we have to do so without destroying our economy in the process.

>>2181238

>>do research on GM foods, you are mistaken on where we are with our technology now, and where we will be in 10 years

I've done a great deal of research on that topic. I'm currently pursuing plans to built a geodesic hydroponic greenhouse, suitable to feed me essentially for free. It's how I happened to know the square footage of crops required (and crop mixture) to sustain a human being.

We're simply not as far along as you'd like. We're getting there, but as I said in the first post, best to rely on technologies we have access to right now rather than hinge our plans on expected breakthroughs. That's how a lot of ambitious plans fall flat.

>>2181235
no.

i just wake up every morning, rub my hands with glee, twiddle my mustache and carefully plan how to specifically piss you off.

yes. your secret suspicion is true. we all have a meeting while you sleep.

>>2181223
I can understand that. Seems reasonable.

the problem just moves to a larger can where a switch or few turned off can kill the lot.
groovy.

>>2181284

>>the problem just moves to a larger can where a switch or few turned off can kill the lot.

I don't think it'd be any more of a threat than it is in Earth. Less so if anything, as only trained professionals would be present.

With the sheer space lava tubes provide, they could be made quite earthlike. Diffuse grow lights that provide full spectrum illumination (good for treating depression) could be cleverly concealed in rocky outcroppings, and the floor lined with fertile soil that would soon be blanketed with grass and ferns. See pic, and imagine that on Mars.

>>2181300
wait...

where do you get the metric tonnage of fertile soil using lifeless alien regolith and current tech?

>>2181329

>>where do you get the metric tonnage of fertile soil using lifeless alien regolith and current tech?

Soil itself is just a growth substrate. Something for a plant to sink it's roots into so as to remain securely in one spot. So long as the plant is receiving light and nutrients, it'll grow in almost anything. Many constant-flow hydroponic setups use aquarium gravel as the growth substrate, and simply pump the nutrient solution (diluted into water) through said substrate at a rate calculated to permit the plants to consume their fill.

"Lifeless alien regolith" is therefore, in the very worst case scenario, at least useful as a growth substrate and possibly more. I've studied up on hydroponics but don't know enough about traditional farming to tell you what it'd take to render martian soil fertile. Probably select bacteria, fertilizer, mineral mixtures and a good deal of tilling. I expect most of the nutrients/bacteria/mineral solution needed to plant an entire lava tube could be sent on two or three rockets.

>>2181023
>Suddenly lava floods the all inhabitants.

>>2181363

If you've got a better idea, I'd love to hear it. Completely sincere about that too. I love discussing this stuff.

these discussions are too depressing...
I wish I could wake up in a future with space colonies instead of waking up from a future with space colonies.

>>2181057

>Because to meet both the air and food requirements of a single human being you need 45 square feet of crops

Could I have a source on that?

>>2181329
>lifeless alien regolith.
Not true. In fact, you could grow asparagus in martion soil, as is, if you kept it watered and warm enough.

http://hubpages.com/hub/NASA-You-can-grow-asparagus-in-Mars-really-well

>>2181404

>>Could I have a source on that?

"Undersea Colonies", by ex-NASA engineer Dennis Chamberland. It's also cited in Koblick's "Living and Working in the Sea", the bible of undersea habitation.

I recommend the former. Koblick is a very dry, technical writer whereas Chamberland brings the topic alive.

>>2181363

Mars is geologically dead to the best of our knowledge. If a lava flow kills our colonists I'd be excited more than anything.

>>2181417
That's what I was thinking.
>Lava flood kills everyone
>"Holy SHIT! Where'd lava come from? This is awesome!"

>>2181417
True I'd be jotting down data while watching humans boil and burn to death as they slowly die.

Very good moment to discover that mars is an active planet and how humans die under the circumstances.

I think the cloudtops of Venus deserve a look. Oxygen functions as a lifting gas on the planet, so a gigantic bubble filled with air could be used to house a base and potentially support farming, what have you. The problem, of course, will be resupplying it as we won't be able to physically land next to it, but an intricate spaceship->plane->dock at the colony procedure would be necessary.

The advantages, however, include near-Earth gravity and perpetual solar energy if a modest amount of thrust keeps the colony floating on the sunny side.

>>2181413
i was unaware a diet of asparagus could keep a person functioning.

this is grand news indeed

>>2181435
isn't there a great deal of corrosive acid fucking everywhere?

>>2181448

Not if you stay above the clouds. If you lose altitude, yeah, you're pretty much fucked.

there is nothing in space valuable enough to justify the cost of anything except minute scientific expeditions, this will not change in the future

Space Habitation is the stuff of Fantasy

>>2181456

>>there is nothing in space valuable enough to justify the cost of anything except minute scientific expeditions, this will not change in the future

Which is why the focus of this thread is ways to bring down the cost. That way it's easier to justify if only on the grounds that we need an offworld population in the event that the Earth is devastated by an asteroid.

>>2181442
Asparagus is just an example to show the soil is somewhat hospitable.

>>2181456
...are you insane?
Don't you think about the future of humanity at all?
We CAN'T stay on this planet. If we do, we're doomed.

We're probably doomed anyways, but to claim that there's nothing valuable enough in space... Fuck, that'd be like a european claiming there's nothing in America to justify the cost of trans-atlantic transportation.

Well, I'm just glad not everyone is as myopic as you...

>>2181474
I intended to say "a seventeenth century european". Would have made my point better.
But whatever. I'm tired.

I like your lava tubes idea OP, I think the safest bet is living underground because it's an easy environment to seal, pressurize and warm up. Also it probably gives you the most efficient radiation shielding. Was thinking of a moon base dug out by robots, even human controlled ones since you get used to the lag.

I haven't researched this, but how do you make a livable atmosphere for humans? Is it just the correct percentage of oxygen with the rest being any harmless gas, or do we need something more. Water and energy gets you quite far on the gaseous department.

>>2181456
you're breaking my heart
also
>there is nothing in space (that is) valuable
what's more valuable than space? the realty on Earth is already divvied out. granted that we have yet to establish major underground or ocean colonies. but the last time I checked population grows exponentially.

>>2181474

To be fair, the relative cost of inter atlantic colonisation was several orders of magnitude below that which we face with space. Personally I think we must look at alternative launch methods before we consider building an exoplantary base.

>>2181481
You're wrong.

We spent 3 trillion dollars on the Iraqi War. We have the money and the resources; we just need to learn to use them on the right things.

>>2181491

How is that relevant to anything? You think the Europeans put aside their wars to concentrate their entire national economies to colonising the Americas? Or did the governments largely ignore the colonies and the process continued because all it took was a ship and some indentured servants?

>>2181479

>>I think the safest bet is living underground because it's an easy environment to seal, pressurize and warm up.

Only lava tubes, it turns out. Not just any cave network will do, as they'd lose air through fissures. As lava tubes are created the heat converts the lining of the tube into a very dense volcanic rock that, while not perfectly airtight, is closer than you'd get in a cave formed by other means

>>Was thinking of a moon base dug out by robots, even human controlled ones since you get used to the lag.

Sure, but why dig it out first when we can use preexisting cavities? Recently an entrance to subterranean lunar lava tubes was spotted, pic related. Why not use what is already there?

>>how do you make a livable atmosphere for humans? Is it just the correct percentage of oxygen with the rest being any harmless gas, or do we need something more.

Well you need the correct pressure, which means you need a structure capable of containing that pressure. Again, why lava tubes are the favorite approach for subterranean moon/mars bases. You also need a system to circulate air, preferably in a continuous stream from one end of the tube to the other so it's rebreathed to the greatest (safe) extent before it's infused with more oxygen, which will have to be refined out of the regolith. Luckily for us both Lunar and Martian regolith are 40% oxygen.

> Most of the space threads on /sci/ take for granted technologies that are either in their infancy or purely speculative.

Don't I know it. Feels bad, man.

>attach solar sail to asteroid
>park it at a langrange point
>build giant space colonies

Some day ;_;

>>2181519

Take heart. What NASA won't do, SpaceX will. They even have prototype inflatable habitats in the works. Pic related.

The fact that you can collapse such habitats into a much smaller space means that a company like SpaceX could plausibly put one on the moon with one of their larger rockets. They'd need to send the inhabitants separately, but the fact that they can realistically do such a thing is pretty staggering.

I'm thinking four launches in total;

Payload 1: Habitat. Sets down like traditional lunar lander, self-inflates from compressed air canisters.

Payload 2: Rolled up solar film. A rover-like system unrolls it once the lander sets down.

Payload 3: The life support module. Power is connected from the solar film to this module, and hoses for air circulation go from here to the habitat.

Payload 4: Supplies. Food, water, etc. Sufficient only for a temporary stay of a few weeks, long enough to get the habitat up and running.


Further missions would add a greenhouse for oxygen and food production, as well as scientific facilities.

>>2181467
Antarctica is somewhat more hospitable as well.

note the swaths of humanity and crops

>>2181580
I'LL LIVE TO SEE THE UNIVERSAL CENTURY SOMEHOW GODDAMNIT

>>2181512
I was not aware that the moon had caverns, also couldn't artificial heating harden the rock? Thinking about a moon base first since I think it's way faster and easier to get to. I wanted to say cheaper, but going to mars shouldn't take that much more money. Especially since to my knowledge plasma/ion engines are well on their way to actually being usable.

I'm not too well versed in geology and shit so I don't know how easy it is to make hospitable caverns, but it would still seem to be a sensible first longtime solution.

>>2181601

>>note the swaths of humanity and crops

You mean this massive self contained science colony with hydroponic greenhouse?

>>2181602

Some day we'll fight for spacenoid independance.

SIEG ZEON

>>2181608
exactly

a whole thousand people live there...it's a wonder why there aren't more....i mean...it's earth for heavens sake

>>2181616

>>a whole thousand people live there

Twice what you need for a viable breeding population. Humanity has bounced back from sub-1,000 population bottlenecks before.

If we could get even 500 people living self sufficiently on Mars, the longevity of our species would be a lot more secure than it is now.

>>2181616
You can easily find cheaper and more hospitable places on earth.

Lava tubes solve both the pressure and the radiation issues. But relying upon them reduces the set of possible base locations, and there are other factors which need to be taken into account when choosing a location.

Using other caves or simply digging holes means that we would need pressurised habitats, but going underground one way or another is the only viable solution for radiation shielding. Living on the surface is not an option.

OTOH, maintaining greenhouses on the surface might make more sense. If we're reliant on solar power, there's going to be a lot of inefficiency in using solar arrays to power "indoor" lighting.

If we opt for a fission reactor, it's going to require a lot of shielding. We would probably want to make that from martian sources. Also it would need to be a low-pressure design; I wouldn't want to rely upon a "homegrown" (i.e. made-on-mars) pressure vessel.

The main issue with agriculture is the phosphorus. Mars has plenty of H, C, N and O, but not a lot of P, so we'll probably need to take that, and recycle it. That's likely to be the limiting factor in the amount of biomass we can maintain.

>>2181623

Wait, you support breeding age couples living on Mars? What do you expect 0.38g to do to developing children? The only viable colonists are elderly men who are of little utility on Earth anyway.

>>2181614
I say we begin now...everyone's souls are chained down gravity right now...

>>2181629

And that's what a high value contribution to a space thread looks like. Bravo sir or madame.

What about the possibility of a spray-on sealant for cave interiors? Much like the filling in self-healing bike tires the sealant would be forced into the spots where air is leaking by overpressure, going exactly where it needs to without direction and clogging up all potential avenues for air loss. That might expand potential base locations a bit.

>>2181646
Can't let you do that Char.

> Luckily for us both Lunar and Martian regolith are 40% oxygen.

That doesn't help in the slightest unless we have practically unlimited energy. Photosynthesis of CO2 is probably the best bet. It's not strictly the most energy-efficient solution, but it avoids the need for a separate energy source, and results in useful products. Even if we rely upon non-edible plants or algae, they can be used as fuel, fertiliser for edible plants, cellulose for polymers, reduced to carbon for smelting, etc.

>>2181669

>>That doesn't help in the slightest unless we have practically unlimited energy

So you send a compact fission power plant. The sort used on submarines. It's not unlimited energy but it's an incredibly powerful, longlived source. It would make refining air from regolith practical.

Until Likeafish technologies demonstrated low power centrifugal separation of air from seawater it was commonly believed that nuclear powered dialysis (how submarines replenish their air) was the only hope for longterm colonization of the seafloor. Perhaps a similar breakthrough will be made for regolith -> air processing, but until then the best option is probably a compact, self contained nuclear reactor.

>>2181692

A reactor that size will last what, ten years on a single slug? It's a good short term, brute force solution but eventually you'll want to use plants.

>>2181474
>We CAN'T stay on this planet. If we do, we're doomed.
Nope, even a mass extinction like an big-ass asteroid collision would fail in rendering the earth less habitable then space

>european claiming there's nothing in America to justify the cost of trans-atlantic transportation.

always the New World with you geeks

America was both A: cheap as fuck to get to, and B: profitable! Space is neither

>>2181480
>herp-a-derp population pressure

as the earths population grows the relative value of raw materials will rise, making space habitation even more cost prohibitive

>>Leave caves
>>Evolve sentience
>>Create civilization, and space travel
>>Venture to new world
>>Live in caves

Full circle, bros.

>>2181692
> So you send a compact fission power plant. The sort used on submarines.

How much does that weigh? My guess would be: as much as the rest of the colony combined. See comments in >>2181629

That creates a big chunk of added complexity. Even if we make the shielding from martian iron, and use the lightest (i.e. lowest-pressure) design we can find, it's still going to be a BIG chunk of the total payload.

We certainly can't afford to send another one as a backup, so if something goes wrong with the reactor and the entire colony runs of it, it's game over. With solar arrays and greenhouses, you are going to have some level of redundancy. You might lose some proportion of your capacity, but you're unlikely to lose it all in one go.

>>2181649
> What about the possibility of a spray-on sealant for cave interiors?

It would probably work, but I'm not sure how much point there would be. Unless the total leakage is negligible, it would need to be pressurised with martian atmosphere (i.e. CO2) rather than breathable air, as you couldn't afford the loss of oxygen from even relatively minor leaks. Pumping in atmosphere to maintain pressure is much easier than making up for lost oxygen.

The critical modules would still need to be sealed to preserve oxygen and pressurised in case a leak occurs. You can't be entirely sure that cracks won't occur once the cave is pressurised.

OTOH, having a pressurised cave means that construction of additional facilities can be done without everyone having to wear spacesuits. If the cave is large enough, any loss of pressure would take hours or days, so you wouldn't have to walk around in spacesuits all the time just in case.

Also, it means that people don't spend their entire lives cooped up in a small space, although I don't think that is as much of a problem as is often assumed.

Pressurised or not, caves of some form are the only viable solution to the radiation issues. Cosmic radiation is enough of an issue on the ISS which is within the earth's magnetosphere. Heck, they're a significant issue for airline crew (you get more radiation in 2 hours at 30,000 feet than in 24 hours at sea level). Valentin Lebedev spent 211 days in LEO and lost his eyesight due to cataracts as a result of cosmic radiation. A single solar proton event could deliver a lethal dose if you can't hide behind something with significant absorption.

>>2181806

>>How much does that weigh? My guess would be: as much as the rest of the colony combined

Which is why I set aside one launch purely for the reactor. If it fits in a submarine it'll fit in the payload bay of a Saturn V.

>>With solar arrays and greenhouses, you are going to have some level of redundancy. You might lose some proportion of your capacity, but you're unlikely to lose it all in one go.

The idea is to send small "survival shelters" first, solar powered inflatable 4 to 6 man habitats like this one >>2181037 which provide astronauts someplace livable to sleep, eat, shit, bathe and spend downtime. Once the first lava tube is sealed and air is flowing, the solar panels for those small habitats would be used to power lighting and circulation fans in the lava tube. The habitats would be deflated and brought inside for storage, in case they are needed at some point in the future.

Eventually there will be solar, nuclear, and possibly geothermal. Rest assured no one power source would be wholly relied upon, not in a permanent capacity.

>>2181746
>America was both A: cheap as fuck to get to, and B: profitable! Space is neither
also C: no natives to genocide, no fun

can you stream Ika Musume?

I've only read about half the thread but I've got a question.
Why haven't we sent some moss or algae or bacteria or something to mars? Genetically modify it specifically for that environment then shoot it there and watch what happens.
Even if we don't go to Mars for another millennium it'd be cool to arrive and find a semi-alien garden of eden we started.

> Which is why I set aside one launch purely for the reactor. If it fits in a submarine it'll fit in the payload bay of a Saturn V.

I'm not sure that will be enough. The information I can find suggests that a submarine reactor vessel weighs around 100 tons, which is almost exactly the payload of a Saturn V to LEO. But we're not going to LEO, we're going to mars. The payload of a Saturn V to translunar orbit is 45 tons, and mars will be even worse than that.

Oh, and we also have to be able to land it on the surface of mars. So far, we've been having rather mixed success with that. And while it doesn't need as soft a landing as we need for the crew, it needs to be soft enough that the vessel remains serviceable. Somehow, I don't think that we're going to be landing a 100-ton reactor vessel using airbags.

>>2181902
> Why haven't we sent some moss or algae or bacteria or something to mars?

There is hardly any phosphorus on mars, and we currently have absolutely no idea how to make a lifeform which can exist without it. There are five critical ingredients for carbon-based life: H,C,N,O,P. Mars has plenty of the first four but, so far as we can tell, almost none of the last one.

On the plus side, we only need relatively small amounts of phosphorus compared to the other four, so a ton of phosphorus might sustain several hundred tons of organic life. That would be enough for a sizeable colony with greenhouses producing food and oxygen, but we aren't going to be terraforming any time soon.

>>2181916
>almost none of the last one.
that's because local microbes have accumulated all in their nuclei and conserve it internally for their metabolic needs that's why there no phosphorus to be found outside of them

Everyone, shut the hell up for a minute.

Proposing solutions to a hard problem is the WRONG way to go about actually solving the problem. It is much better to first discuss how exactly the problem works, what needs have to be met, etc.

Here's what I see Martian colonists needing:

Food.
Water.
Air.
Clothing.
Living room (preferably sheltered from radiation).
Some way of working on the surface.
Electrical and mechanical power.
Power tools (can't build everything by hand, would take too long)
Some sort of manufacturing or machine-parts fabrication facility.

Am I missing anything?

i don't believe in space

>>2182085
Then your going to hell.

This may sound strange, but as far as I can see it will be easier to colonize Venus than Mars. Why?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_Venus

"The problem with Venus is merely that the ground level is too far below the one atmosphere level. At cloud-top level, Venus is the paradise planet."

So basically sky cities on Venus are easier. Also Gaining Energy is Far more easier thanks to closer proximity to sun. Not to mention atmospheric composition.

>>2181940
> Am I missing anything?

Raw materials. Mars has decent amounts of iron and aluminium, but smelting them takes a lot of energy.

There's going to be a limit to what can be manufactured locally. There's no point in shipping highly specialised machinery until the total mass of "product" exceeds that of the machinery.

How do I always miss these threads what the fuck?

>>2182316
...have you taken into account the immense energy required to keep a CITY floating above the clouds?

>>2182582

No such thing.

In the 1920's Buckminster Fuller calculated his "Cloud Nines", that is, geodesic domes so large that their mass became irrelevant and they simply lifted off the ground. No Hydrogen, no Helium, just air, and it could hold thousands of people and thousands of tonnes of equipment on nothing but air warmed by their own waste heat.

I don't know how feasible it would be on Venus' atmosphere, but it most certainly has the required Carbon.

>>2182589
Oh yeah, I had forgotten about how dense the atmosphere is.

Hm. More feasible now, I suppose. I think Mars would be a less immense engineering venture though.

For the first missions, rockets, either nuclear or chemical, will do just fine.

When the colony is set up and you want to haul stuff and even people, pic related.

>>2181940

>Food.
Algae tanks and aeroponics.
>Water.
Recycled through urine stills. Seriously. Also plastic to drain moisture in atmospheres and drills.
>Air.
Algae, CO2 trapping and recycling
>Clothing.
See manufacturing.
>Living room (preferably sheltered from radiation).
Inflatable habitats, expanded, with a rigid frame put in them, then half-buried and with supplies lining the walls.
>Some way of working on the surface.
Rovers with trailers, tricycles, stuff like that.
>Electrical and mechanical power.
Solar.
>Power tools (can't build everything by hand, would take too long)
Easily.
>Some sort of manufacturing or machine-parts fabrication facility.
Tools must be made lightweight and scaled down as much as possible, perhaps a tiny version of a human-operated and fully-reprogrammable assembly line. Some minor refining ovens and a 3D printer, molecular assemblers if possible.

Woah, what the fuck did I miss. This is what happens when I sleep. I really gotta stop doing that.

>>2182945

Tell me about it...

There is no reason for space colonization. Robots can do automated work like exploration and terraformation on a much more efficient scale than crews. In a few decades mechanized bodies and cyborg technology will be a distinct possibility, rendering the developments in habitats for traditional human biology obsolete and pointless.

Human colonization accomplishes nothing.

>>2183320

>>There is no reason for space colonization

There's a point beyond which expansion and progress must be driven by willpower rather than pragmatism. Otherwise we condemn ourselves to stagnation and eventual extinction.

Why does an artist paint? The world does not need his painting. Why do some build homes in the mountain, when the suburbs or city would be more practical?

All true humans should have a fire in their belly; the unstoppable need to progress, to expand, to go places nobody has ever gone and do things nobody has ever done. That path is the path of growth and continued survival for humanity. Those who oppose it have become enemies of their own species.

>>2183337

gotta grow cannabis if you really want to meet human nutritional requirements.. and why can't you just plug the lava tube with a giant inflatable dildo? that said.. kudzu

>>2183337
Obviously you did not read what >>2183320 just said. It's much easier and practical to change ourselves into hardier and stronger beings that can withstand the force of over 9000 suns than to terraform extraterrestrial planets to suit our current weak and puny biological selves.

>>2183320
>Human colonization accomplishes nothing.
Except the minor matter of survival of the species after the earth is inhabitable.

And in the shorter term, any practicability of mining other moons and planets. Completely automated mining isn't realistic.

>>2183337
The proverbial fire is best applied towards exploring the nature of useful sciences like nanotechnology, quantum computation, and robotics. Not sending humans to Mars or the moons of Saturn which accomplishes nothing a probe couldn't do. Human colonization is a fool's errand for those preoccupied with science fiction novels rather than those who are interested in the tangible rewards of pragmatic research.

In other words, spending billions on humans to Mars causes the enormous opportunity cost of taking away billions that could be spent on renewable fuels, nanomaterials, or synthetic biology.

>>2183384

>>It's much easier and practical to change ourselves into hardier and stronger beings that can withstand the force of over 9000 suns than to terraform extraterrestrial planets to suit our current weak and puny biological selves.

I agree completely. You've misunderstood my position. I don't consider terraforming a realistic option.

Then again I also don't consider genetically engineering new types of humans for colonizing other worlds to be a realistic option. Can't be done with current knowledge.

Plans that rely on speculative technologies materializing as expected and on time regularly fall flat for obvious reasons. As we already have the technologies necessary to colonize other worlds (NOT terraform) but in a simpler fashion than usually discussed, it makes good sense to plan around those technologies instead. If something better comes along down the road, we can integrate that after the fact. The crucial thing is not to rely completely on speculative tech.

>>2183352
What makes me alive is real scientific progress, of which human exploration accomplishes little of.

>>2183393

>>The proverbial fire is best applied towards exploring the nature of useful sciences like nanotechnology, quantum computation, and robotics.

Is it really either/or? Can't we do both?

>>Not sending humans to Mars or the moons of Saturn which accomplishes nothing a probe couldn't do.

Except for securing the longterm survival of the species.

>>Human colonization is a fool's errand for those preoccupied with science fiction novels rather than those who are interested in the tangible rewards of pragmatic research.

The tangible reward of colonizing other worlds is that if an asteroid devastates the Earth, it's not the end of our species.

>>In other words, spending billions on humans to Mars

Woah there. The entire premise of this thread is that there exist cheaper ways to colonize other worlds. Citing the current cost, using current methods, completely ignores the propositions put forth so far.

>>causes the enormous opportunity cost of taking away billions that could be spent on renewable fuels, nanomaterials, or synthetic biology.

First, we're funding the fuck out of all of those. NASA gets only a tiny fraction of their funding. Secondly, it's not as if there's a single pool of funding for all potential research, and that nixing one pursuit frees up money that can be spent on other pursuits. It doesn't work that way. You can't tell SpaceX to fund synthetic biology instead, because you are not a majority shareholder. Nor can you, as an individual taxpayer, dictate that NASA should focus on nanomaterials instead of spaceflight when I, another taxpayer, think they should continue to focus on spaceflight. You don't have that kind of authority and shouldn't, because it would destroy us.

Lastly, what good are any of those technologies if we die without ever spreading beyond Earth?

>>2183445
Easier to learn how to detect and deflect an asteroid than to colonize mars. I'm all for going to check space out once I get a mechanical body.

ITT: Nobody realizes that the point of space exploration is not just colonization.

Can you pronounce "Eleven and a half thousand watts per square meter of panel surface"? No? That's the wattage at Mercury Orbit, by the way.

ENERGY, you luddite nutjobs, ENERGY, and Suns are the best source of it: Enough energy to supply all our needs, to fuel never seen before industrial growth, and scientific growth, because science needs energy, and when energy is scarce it's prioritzed for suvival rather than research, as most of you will obviously be able to see.

Enough energy to support whole civilizations. Enough energy to launch starships.

>>2183471

>>Easier to learn how to detect and deflect an asteroid than to colonize mars.

No it isn't.

Breaking apart an asteroid only increases the area of impact, the kinect energy imparted is identical. So nukes are out. Which you probably don't care about as you were thinking of the "constant, gentle nudge via ion engine fixed to one side".

Which brings me to the second issue; we can only hope to deflect an asteroid by that method if we spot it in time, as it has to be very far away still. We don't, typically. Most near misses are spotted too late for us to stop them, if we'd needed to. NASA lacks the funding to survey most of the sky. When we see one headed for us, if the history of asteroid tracking is any indication, it will be too late to do anything about it.

Third: You and I probably mean very different things by "colonize". Perhaps you're picturing vast gleaming cities covered by domes. I'm proposing we send a small inflatable habitat as seen here >>2181037
survey for subterranean lavatubes as seen here >>2181023
then seal some up with airlocks to the surface, and pressurize the interior. We'd need to bring the inflatable shelter (deflated and collapsed to save space) the airlock, the life support machinery, tools, and an adhesive agent for making concrete from martian regolith. With a Saturn V equivalent heavy lifter, that could all be sent in a single launch, with the crew module sent separately on the second. The Apollo missions also used dual Saturn V launches, yet somehow did not economically ruin us. If anything they drastically accelerated scientific progress.

>>2183474
This. If we get into space solar in time it might prevent the second dark age we seem to be barreling headlong into.

>Build colonies in lava tubes
>colonies in lava tubes
>in tubes
>TUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUBES

>>2183384
>It's much easier and practical to change ourselves into hardier and stronger beings that can withstand the force of over 9000 suns
I read it; it's just retarded. Humans are and always will be biological. The earth will not be able to support biological life forms forever.

>>2183393
>In other words, spending billions on humans to Mars causes the enormous opportunity cost of taking away billions that could be spent on renewable fuels, nanomaterials, or synthetic biology.

That's not how it works. Space exploration doesn't necessarily take any money away from other scientific research.

Not that I think there's any reason to send people to mars or saturn any time soon. I do think it's time for a permanent moon colony however. If some government(s) decide to fund that, it's not like they're going to reduce other scientific grants to do it. The science to be gained by a scientific base and optical and radio telescopes on the moon, however, is huge. There's science to be done there that can't been done any other way.

And the progress towards developing the technology for long term survival in space is something that we should be working on all the time. That way we will eventually arrive at the ability to have completely autonomous sustainable extraterrestrial environments.

>>2183539
>Humans are and always will be biological.
keep believing that.

>>2183553
>the magical singularity-fairy will come along any day now and whisk me away to nerdtopia

Keep on believing that.

>>2183509
>Breaking apart an asteroid only increases the area of impact, the kinect energy imparted is identical. So nukes are out
If a nuke displaces the trajectory, it makes no difference how many pieces it's in. Also, breaking it apart IS a solution, even if it doesn't change its total energy. Breaking it apart means that energy is released in the form of heat in the atmosphere instead of in a ground impact.

>>2183553
>bazinga detected

Colonizing space is kind of pointless with our current technology. Think about it, a colony on the moon, mars or another moon like titan wouldn't be able to function alone. Here's why I'm against it right now

Any colony would be completely reliant on Earth for constant resupply and maintenance

A potential colony would be extremely fragile as would the crew. There would be a need for state of the art medical facilities and a constant stream of medical equipment

The inhabitants of the colony would waste away due to living in a low gravity environment. Even with a large amount of exercise, their bones would still waste away. There's no way to counter this effectively as of yet. This means the colonists would have to be replaced regularly, to recouperate on Earth (probably once a year)

If there's even a small accident the entire colony could be put at a serious risk of death. Even worse, waiting for help from Earth would take months for a planet like mars.

Severe mental health problems could develop for any potential colonist. Isolation, claustrophobia depression, lack of motivation and insomnia.. just to name a few.

Power generation is a huge problem. The colony would probably have to run on batteries or a nuclear fission reactor, requiring constant maintenance and fuelling from Earth. Solar cells would be inadequate for storing the energy required.

I haven't even mentioned all the economic factors involved. The cost of a building and maintaining such a colony would run into the trillions of dollars.

>>2183599
I don't think any of those apply to a moon colony. Solar can easily provide all their power, just like on the ISS. Part of the research that needs to be done is how to counteract bone loss. We have zero experimental data on what kind of bone loss to expect with long term moon gravity.
>constant stream of medical equipment
wat?

>>2183474
We're better off investing in our planet for Energy. Between nuclear fission, energy farming (wind and tidal) and geothermal power.. we'd have no energy problems. All of these things are in their infancy, even nuclear fission. Engineers and scientists pretty much stopped improving nuclear power plants in the 1970s. If nuclear fission became more popular we could increase the efficiency of the plants.

>>2183611
There's not an infinite supply of uranium. Taking our energy from the climate system is just stupid, imo. All those things basically shut down when the next ice age comes. Personally, I'd like the species to survive the next ice age.

>>2183616
>There's not an infinite supply of uranium.
I refer you to this. Bill gates is investing heavily in it

>TWRs, once started, use depleted uranium instead and are considered to be able to operate for up to 100 years without fuel reloading.

He hopes to build one in china this decade

>>2183626
Forgot the link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrapower

>>2181020
solar panels alone would not be able to fuel the base
people are self obsessed and perpetually slower than the scientific community, except during major war, which now threatens our existence because of nukes. We will not have another wave of scientific advancement.

>>2183631
You can have major war without nukes. You can also have major war with tactical nukes.

>>2183631
>We will not have another wave of scientific advancement.
Not true. Since the wars/military operations in the middle east began in 2001, huge advances have been made in robotics. The US conducts a huge amount of military operations in Pakistan, but nobody ever hears about it because over 95% of them are carried out by UAVs.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=idea-festival-speaker-robots-are-ch-2010-09-30

>>2183445
>Is it really either/or? Can't we do both?

Funding is not infinite and research grants are not in surplus. A choice must be made and the practical sciences which provide gains in economic productivity and quality of life take precedence over romantic colonies.

>Except for securing the longterm survival of the species.

Colonization does nothing to save Earth or deflect an oncoming asteroid. It would be much wiser to launch robotic ships of great mass to slowly pull asteroids out of their collision paths with Earth.

>The tangible reward of colonizing other worlds is that if an asteroid devastates the Earth, it's not the end of our species.

If our beautiful planet Earth and 99.9999% of all people are dead, I really could not give less of a fuck that the species will continue living on some dead planet.

>First, we're funding the fuck out of all of those.

Spending money on colonization means we have less money to spend on science useful to the people living real lives on Earth.

>You don't have that kind of authority and shouldn't, because it would destroy us.

Hahaha it's hard to take you seriously when there hasn't been a cataclysmic asteroid impact in over 65 million years, and colonization would do nothing to save Earth.

>>2183681
>If our beautiful planet Earth and 99.9999% of all people are dead, I really could not give less of a fuck that the species will continue living on some dead planet.
>dead planet
You hit the nail on the head here. Every other planet in our solar system <span class="math">is[/spoiler] dead as far as we know. The likelihood of finding any sort of life anywhere else in our solar system is extremely low.

Humans can't survive on a colony without Earth with our current technology.

>>2183695
Our current technology could support us.
Our current funding, can not. If obama had flipped out and funneled all those $800 trillion into a moon colony instead of a financial bailout, we'd have people living on the moon already. permanently.

Instead, nasa have to live off the land with a $10billion a year budget or something equally pathethic.

>>2183352
that picture would be awesome if the world "what" wasn't in their twice

>>2183707
>$800,000,000,000,000
that's more money than there is on the planet.

>>2181078
It might be too damn cold on Mars for the concrete to work. You'd need to mix something that dries to what you need and will be flexible enough at -20C.

>>2183728
at the same time if it's under -20 using pycrete would be a brilliant idea, after we had grown stuff

>>2183695
That's the whole fucking point. To develop the technology so that the human race can continue to thrive after the earth is no longer habitable.

>>2183732
no need for that, mix mars soil with mars water and let that shit freeze, it might not be pykrete and it might not float, but it wil be stronger than ice and melt slower, like pykrete.

>>2181037

been inside it, its not as large as it seems

Ask a NASA Contractor at 18 antything

>>2183739
why are you only a contractor?
how are you today?

So, what? Basically this?

>>2183681

>>Funding is not infinite and research grants are not in surplus. A choice must be made and the practical sciences which provide gains in economic productivity and quality of life take precedence over romantic colonies.

But you don't dictate how that money is spent, and I disagree with your classification of scientific outposts on other planets as impractical and romantic. My vote cancels out yours.

>>Colonization does nothing to save Earth or deflect an oncoming asteroid. It would be much wiser to launch robotic ships of great mass to slowly pull asteroids out of their collision paths with Earth.

Yes it does, and I already explained why deflection is not an option.

>If our beautiful planet Earth and 99.9999% of all people are dead, I really could not give less of a fuck that the species will continue living on some dead planet.

Then you don't deserve to be part of this species.

>Spending money on colonization means we have less money to spend on science useful to the people living real lives on Earth.

Most of the fields you consider useful science have benefited tremendously from the space program. Most of the technologies that we consider modern resulted either from WW2 or the Apollo program. Which method of accelerating progress do you prefer?

>Hahaha it's hard to take you seriously when there hasn't been a cataclysmic asteroid impact in over 65 million years, and colonization would do nothing to save Earth.

It's hard to take you seriously when you don't know that asteroids strike the Earth constantly, just usually in remote places where no damage results. Pic related. The fact that we've gone so long without a globally devastating impact only means we're due for one sooner rather than later.

>Colonization does nothing to save Earth or deflect an oncoming asteroid. It would be much wiser to launch robotic ships of great mass to slowly pull asteroids out of their collision paths with Earth.

>If our beautiful planet Earth and 99.9999% of all people are dead, I really could not give less of a fuck that the species will continue living on some dead planet.


You care more about some stupid rock with moss growing on it than the propagation of our species? You are fucked man. Straight fucked mentally.

>>2183755
>implying a personal stake in the future of humanity.
not like you'll contribute anything.

We need a 80% tax rate if we want to make any of this real. Do people really need to buy shity items all the time, anyway?

>>2183773
>We need a 80% tax rate if we want to make any of this real.

Source?

>>2183773
If you have an 80% tax rate you won't have ANY money for science. lrn2economics.

>>2183778

>>2183748

More like this.

>>2181587
You mean Bigelow. SpaceX only makes the rockets which will launch them.

>>2183982

Yeah, my bad.

Personally, I don't think the time is right for space colonies. But the need is clear, we only have half a billion years of comfortable life left on the Earth before the sun starts heating up. In the meantime, we should keep on doing space science, picking away at all the big and little problems we would encounter.

* Keep exploring. Every corner of the solar system might be hiding an untapped resource.
* More weightless science. Gravity wells are a pain, it would be better to learn how to live without.
* Construction and mining techniques. Also called In-Situ Resource Utilization. A prerequisite for moon, asteroid, and Mars colonies.
* More space robotics. Get shit done in space.
* Better space propulsion. VASIMR and solar sails for more economic use of valuable propellant

One thing that most people miss is the gravatation. I know this sounds stupid, but interned at NASA and they said by the time someone reaches the target, their bone would have resorbed to about 80% of its original mass due to stress sheilding. They were working on training equiptment to stabilize the bone structure, but it was impossible without being just baggage.

To colonize, we would need to address the following:
-- generate energy
-- source for hydration (water)
-- a renewable food source (something that can be harvested)
-- recycable air supply (which can be possible with enough crop for food, but, the soil is not recycable)
-- solid and liquid waste management and recycling (this is the most important)

>>2183752
>But you don't dictate how that money is spent, and I disagree with your classification of scientific outposts on other planets as impractical and romantic. My vote cancels out yours.

Never claimed I was dictator of all the world's money. I simply stated the aforementioned technologies are more valuable to pursue than idealistic colonies on dead planets.

>Yes it does, and I already explained why deflection is not an option.

There are a litany of proposed strategies to avoid an asteroid impact. I offer you to provide compelling explanations for why they are all not an option.

>Then you don't deserve to be part of this species.

Adorable. Well I believe I do. So by your rules "My vote cancels out yours."

Unless you want to offer a compelling explanation for why should care some astronauts have a 10x10 room on Ganymede when everything and everyone I've known is dead on Earth.

>Which method of accelerating progress do you prefer?

We must provide ample university funding and research grants, in addition to patent reform and increasing competition in the technology sector.

>It's hard to take you seriously when you don't know that asteroids strike the Earth constantly, just usually in remote places where no damage results.

>usually in remote places where no damage results
>no damage results

There hasn't been a major extinction event in over 65 million years. If you don't see the folly in panicking over space colonies when we have actual priorities then I don't think anything will make you see.

>>2184180
>There are a litany of proposed strategies to avoid an asteroid impact.

Forgot my link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_impact_avoidance#Collision_avoidance_strategies

>>2181456
Bullshit. There are all sorts of economic minerals and shit in space. The fuck do you think asteroids are made of? Ever ponder how many deposits on Earth of valuable and rare metals are at impact sites? There is immense money to be made in space.

>>2184194
There are also all sorts of minerals under the antarctic ice sheet, but you don't see anyone mining that shit either, because it's too much trouble to be economical.

>>2184138
> Personally, I don't think the time is right for space colonies. But the need is clear, we only have half a billion years of comfortable life left

The whole of recorded human history is less than 10,000 years.

Look at where we were 1,000 years ago, 500, 200, 100, 50 years ago. Saying that we /need/ to start colonising space /right now/ is like deciding that you should have a fire extinguisher, and worrying about whether you'll be able to get one within the next five minutes.

Right now, the level of progress is roughly what it should be. We have a sizeable, manned space station in LEO. We send people up there, they stay for months, we bring them back. We've added modules, encountered problems, solved problems.

Trying to colonise mars within the next decade or so would be like crossing the atlantic in a rubber dinghy because you're too impatient to save up for a plane ticket.

Fifty years from now, we're likely to have made vast strides with technologies such as robotics, fusion, ion drives, nanomaterials, nanomachines, solar power, genetically modified organisms, and much more.

>/sci/ take for granted technologies that are either in their infancy or purely speculative
>infancy or purely speculative
>autofilters in my head to 'not enough funding'
Also you know where I stand with space colonization.

is this thread still going?

>>2184220
that and the fact that the antartic is 'neutral' land protected by the antartic treaty in the 50's. you couldn't start mining it without laying a claim of sovereignty to it, which would contrevene the treaty.

Posted this a few days ago: http://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/ej0i2/an_idea_to_support_insitu_utilization_of/

Basically a method of sending multiple colonies to Near-Earth Asteroids to compensate for the fact that NEA's and the Earth orbit the sun at different velocities. This gives you a chain of NEA outposts, which can then use solar power and the asteroid's inertia to setup a free-energy logistical train between outposts.

bags of crushed asteroidal rocks = serious business.