/sci/ - Science & Math

So you want to paraterraform the moon, then terraform Mars, then disregard the cost of it all?

And your question is for what is cheaper?

>>2624780
No? Are you a moron?

>>2624773
Not going to Mars
Seriously, going to Mars is expensive and useless

>>2624783
hahaha twas me in disguise

>>2624786
Ensuring the survival of the human species isn't useless to me

The first option.

It's a lot less costly to ship supplies(in this case fuel) up from the Luna's gravity well than it is from the Earth's

At any rate doing stuff in orbit is cheaper than a moon base. It is also cheaper to get to orbit than to get to moon. But sure if you ignore the fact that the moon is not earth then it is cheaper to launch from moon.

>>2624794
Not only that, but we could also make fuel and rockets on the Moon

Not doing it at all and getting in junction with nature, allowing evolution to progress far into the future. Humans die, our DNA attaches to epic flying beasts who can shoot fireballs or conjure spirits to heal wounds; or, go to the moon, have a realization that it was much better on Earth, and that living on a dessert and cold land was a terrible glitch in Gods matrix.

Evolution!

>>2624791
Then fixing the earth is over 9000 times easier and cheaper

>>2624797
That's the rest of the supplies part.

Of course, if you wanna go to Mars in STYLE, you manufacture the parts on the moon, ship the components into lunar orbit and assemble the vehicle there.

>>2624805
oh oops, an asteroid/comet fell down to earth and made fixing the earth about 90,000 times more expensive

>>2624805
'Earth' will never be fixed. We have a natural war instincts, and with our developed technology we could make our civilization go down the shitter. However, if we had developed bases all over the solar system, or civilization would stay there and could prevent world wars on the Earth if it had developed weaponry.

This is as if Columbus said that going to the New World was useless.

>>2624819
>Implying no asteroid/comet can fell down on mars

>>2624819
>>2624827
Asteroids aren't the main threat at all

>>2624824
Because it's impossible to make a war on Mars?

>>2624824
>This is as if Columbus said that going to the New World was useless.
Going to india by the west would have been useful, going to the new world was useless AND a mistake

>>2624827
>implying Mars and Earth will BOTH be hit by an asteroid at the same time
>implying you're a fucking idiot who doesn't fucking get the point ever no matter the implying

>>2624794
it's called the moon in English not luna
so unless you are going to write in Spanish or Italian i suggest you use its actual name
luna is latin and is never used in modern astronomy in English

>>2624830
It is, but the chances of a war being on the Earth and Mars in the same time are incredibly small, so that one planet's civilization can fix another's. It seems like you aren't very bright and completely failed to understand this concept.

>>2624838
As far as I remember they were supposed to do it on the moon when I was a kid
Where's your second civilisation now?

>>2624841
I'd thought your head would have already exploded since people all the time, all over the world use words that you can't stand.

>>2624844
Bush re-started this project and planned to get men to live and work on the Moon, but Obama canceled it.

>>2624849
So what have been done since Nixon?

>>2624847
in astronomy there is enough confusion through language barriers we don't need to make it worse by using different just because someone doesn't like it
it has one English name that everyone knows thats enough

neither.
get a space elevator, make everything in orbit or empty space.
cheapest solution.

off course getting a space elevator isn't fucking easy or cheep.

>>2624791

it wont do that.

>>2624857
I don't care, I'll use Luna. People here are knowledgeable enough to know what it means.

>>2624849
good

also sage for troll thread

>>2624861
Yes it will, you don't seem to be very bright

>>2624849
It was just a political ploy of the republicans. They knew they'd probably lose the next election, so they say they'll put a man on the moon again to win some points, then when Obama saw how fucked-up the budget was, he HAD to cancel that unrealistic program. And Bush&Co went "Exactly as planned"

>>2624872
Nice conspiracy theory you got there. I don't subscribe to your lunatic views though.

>>2624872
You should have send bush to live on the moon

>>2624872
It wasn't unrealistic at all.

>>2624878
Oh come on. Bush declared that plan so fucking late that there was NO WAY he could have been the president even if it had happened.

>>2624884
it was, USA have no more money

>>2624864
so you want to be a fanboy fine but you don't really get science if your that fucking attached to a name

>>2624869

we will never survive dude.
the universe will end all life will end.
we will all die and everything we have done will fade away to nothing.
live in the fucking now.

>>2624896
By that time we would find the technologies to cope with it

>>2624896
that some new song from an emo teen band?

You'll die eventually, why not hasten the inevitable and an hero. Right now. Quickly!

>>2624904

that is very optimistic of you.
that said, I'm pro colonizing planets, but i think mars is just hype.

you do it you garner momentum, people "get" into space again, you give the program a jump start but mars itself isn't that good of an idea.
there are better places to colonize then mars.

personally i think america will decline from it's position of super power and some other country will lead the space race.

one way or another we have several things we need to achieve before we can even think about colonizing planets.

>>2624909

got what i said backwards.
live the now, love your life, enjoy it, use it to the fullest.
you only get one.
worry about the future, but don't obsess and understand it's all meaningless, so you might as well have fun.

>>2624920
The energy crisis is coming, before the massive wars for petrol will start, we need to colonize space to ensure our survival.

>>2624925
What if my instincts tell me to have fun, but my reason tell me that all morality is based on survival of the species, and that I should try to go against my instincts and ensure the survival of our species instead?

>>2624929
Go with what you think is more important.

But know this, if you think your fun is more important than the survival of the species, if it sets your will against ours, we will rend you down to nothing.

>>2624929

this is how i choose to live my life.
you choose how you want to live your life.
that said, i don't think I'm smart enough or influential enough to make the universe a better place for everyone.
i sure as fuck don't think i can make sure we as a species can survive, nor am i certain we deserve to.
I'm just trying to take care of the people i love and care about.

>>2624926

colonization isn't required, orbital power plants can fix the energy problem, so can nuclear power and we have enough resources for about 200 years.

>massive wars for petrol will start

i doubt this will ever happen, but i can give no facts to that or against it.
it's simply a hypothetical.

>>2624945
This will never replace petrol, and petrol is also used to make plastic to make most of the consumer items, and so on.

>>2624945
Not saying you're wrong, but posting this is mandatory:
The Romans waged war to gather slaves and wealth. Spain built an empire from its lust for gold and territory. Hitler shaped a battered Germany into an economic superpower.

But war never changes.

In the 21st century, war was still waged over the resources that could be acquired. Only this time, the spoils of war were also its weapons: Petroleum and Uranium. For these resources, China would invade Alaska, the US would annex Canada, and the European Commonwealth would dissolve into quarreling, bickering nation-states, bent on controlling the last remaining resources on Earth.

>>2624936

he deleted his post for some reason...
anyway ye, personally i think that for a species to develop technology it needs to evolve from a curious species and one that has high levels of social co-dependence.
alway thought this needs to be added to the drake equation.

>>2624956
I forgot to add 's', wanted to repost it but then forgot to.
Let me restate this:
While my instincts tell me to have fun and be a happy person, my reason tells me that I should do actions which would ensure the survival of the human species, as it's what all non-religious or cultural morality based on - it's hard wired in us, but our instincts aren't adopted to the new environment. Therefore, I will try to act against my instincts to ensure the survival of the human instincts, as I see it as more valuable.

>>2624973
samefag here
* to ensure the survival of the human species
Going to stop listening to the radio and post in the same time.

>>2624975
Samefag here,
I also started a project to ensure the survival of the human species. I already bought a website located at www.space-colonization.com. If you want to join, email me: cinitiator@live.com

>>2624953

this from fallout?
love that game.

but yes resources are limited, but war isn't always the only way.

war is the most likely possibility, even if we do expend to space.
china going to war for territory to mars, Arabs and israelis fighting over mining rights in asteroid fields i mean going into space won't change who we are.

guess i just choose to believe in human kind despite having no proof to back it up.
faith is a bitch.

>petrol is also used to make plastic

lots of other shit to, we more or less built out world on petrol

>>2624975

>act against my instincts to ensure the survival of the human species.

why do you think we are worth saving?

>>2624981

how is a site with a u-tube video and a facebook group a big thing that helps us in any way?
you want to make space colonization possible?
make building the infrastructure for space colonization cheep and affordable.
everything else will be easy.

>>2625003
Hey retard, we're more likely to survive if we're spread all over the solar system than if we're staying on a single planet.

>>2625028
That it's assembling people for a coup d'etat in certain countries.

Building it in orbit from components both from the moon and earth is the optimum way. On the moon there is no are and no air resistance so you can build a linear accelerator to shoot stuff into orbit 100x easer than a space elevator. All the metal structure, solar arrays and oxygen should come from the moon because resources are abundant and the cost to orbit can be made very low.

>>2625034

why?
whats the difference between nuking one planet and nuking fifty of them?
also if we destroy ourselves why should we survive.

>>2625053

you'd have more success with a lobbying group then this.
you'd have almost no success with a lobbying group.

http://www.siliconindia.com/shownews/ISRO_finds_cave_in_moon_can_be_used_as_base_station_for_astrona
uts-nid-79567.html

Huge ass cave found on the moon.

>>2625082
The difference is that nukes which are flying over several astronomical units are quite easy to avoid maybe?

>>2625082
>you'd have more success with a lobbying group then this.
nope

Space colonies could start wars against Earth targets and always win. They also could end wars on Earth easily. They could even resist the wars US starts against various countries, while no country on Earth would dare to, not even China, UK or Russia. So yes, space colonization would help the human species to survive.

>>2625106

sure you just need to steer the planet to the left and they will miss.

>>2625107

i didn't say you'd have any success, i just said you'd have more success.

>>2625348
You seem to be a very untalented and mentally dull person. Nukes are easy to detect and avoid by using various anti-missile systems when we know they're coming at us from distances of astronomical units.
On Earth, the distances are of thousands of kms to kms, so it's very hard to avoid them there.

A coup d'etat would have more success than lobbying.

>>2625348
You only need to get another nuke to detonate within a few kilometers of the attacking one and the electronics on the attacker are gone and it's off course.

>>2625443

>You seem to be a very untalented and mentally dull person. Nukes are easy to detect and avoid by using various anti-missile systems when we know they're coming at us from distances of astronomical units.
On Earth, the distances are of thousands of kms to kms, so it's very hard to avoid them there.

a) why do the nukes have to come from a different planet?

people on mars can as easily nuke mars as we can nuke earth.

b) orbital nuking is not easily avoided and if we have space flight it can be easily done.

if you are talking about actually nuking mars from earth instead of all the other easy ways of nuking mars then yes, it is more difficult but not impossible, for instance if the number of nukes is larger then the number of anti planetary bombardment missiles on the target you are fucked either way.

earth has lots of nukes.

>A coup d'etat would have more success than lobbying.

if you care about my opinion or simply like to debate then explain to me why this is so with logic instead of making a blank statement.
or better yet, give evidence supporting your claim.

>>2624830
Why the fuck would anyone send troops on Mars?

>>2625501
to destroy all who oppose

>>2624830

why?

Mars will be colonized because it's in a gravitationally in favorable position. Whoever has a fuckton of H-bombs on Mars can hold the Earth a hostage.

>a) why do the nukes have to come from a different planet?

>people on mars can as easily nuke mars as we can nuke earth.

This was one of the dumbest arguments I've ever heard.

Hey retard, if a world war starts on Earth, Moon survives and helps the Earth to restore the order.
If a nuclear war starts on Moon, Earth survives and helps Moon to restore the order. If a world war starts on Earth, and Moon isn't properly colonized, our civilization is gone. Understand now?

>if you are talking about actually nuking mars from earth instead of all the other easy ways of nuking mars then yes, it is more difficult but not impossible, for instance if the number of nukes is larger then the number of anti planetary bombardment missiles on the target you are fucked either way.

A very dumb statement, but not dumber than the first one. Do you realize that those nukes would take days to get to the Moon, and months to get to Mars? By that time, the colonies could be easily transported a few thousand of miles away.

>if you care about my opinion or simply like to debate then explain to me why this is so with logic instead of making a blank statement.
or better yet, give evidence supporting your claim.

Because many countries have troops of hundreds to a few thousand of people, which can be easily gassed/blown up in sleep.

1) Space colonies could serve as peacekeeping and helping groups, which could help restore order on Earth's countries, continents or even entire Earth after wars and other catastrophes. If such groups were located on Earth, they would most likely be destroyed during wars. However, destroying those groups from another planet is virtually impossible.
The peacekeeping/helping groups could also prevent wars if the attacking side has poor space defense systems. This would increase the probability of the human species' survival.

2) Even if the Earth's civilization got completely destroyed (by a nuclear or any kind of war) the civilization on other planets would still remain. This would save the human species.

3) Space has plenty of valuable resources which could be returned to Earth for profit.

4) Space tourism would also be a source of financial profit.