[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math


View post   

File: 26 KB, 310x250, news-052410f.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR] No.3656191[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Most conceptions of an effort to colonize mars require modular habitats to be constructed on the planet's surface. Each module must be delivered by a lander, then moved off of it by robot and attached to the rest of the habitat.

We've never done this. It's how we constructed the ISS, but that was in zero G. delivering modules into a gravity well and then needing powered equipment to lift and move them around, eventually mating them to each other is something we've simply never tried to do.

What I propose is that we simulate this mission in the ocean. Modules will be delivered via slow descend aboard replica landers, using ducted prop thrusters instead of retro rockets, but using the same software and principles involved in landing habitat modules on the surface of Mars.

The landers and modules will be ballasted such that they weigh exactly what they would on Mars, adjusting for the strength of the thrusters of course, and they will be assembled by robots nearly identical to the ones we plan to use on Mars (but designed for subsea use.)

Once the habitat is constructed, a crew of aquanauts will live in it for one year, performing EVAs, gathering samples and so on, with power provided by a nuclear reactor aboard one of the landers (as per Mars semi direct) which will also provide oxygen, hydrogen and desalinated water from nuclear powered hydrolysis the same way modern submarines do. The crew will be cut off from the surface and without any kind of support for the duration of the mission, reliant on dehydrated food stores and whatever they can grow in the hydroponics module.

Would /sci/ support this?

>> No.3656198

why don't we just colonize the ocean?

>> No.3656201

Why don't we just colonize the ocean and the solar system straight up?

>> No.3656211
File: 368 KB, 1326x1600, ventbase_alpha_Ken_Brown_Mondolithic-1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>3656201
>>3656198

We're gonna. But this is an excellent rationale for funding a true 1atm modular research outpost with nuclear powered oxygen/water production in the deep sea.

Nobody throws money at expensive projects like this "just because". There needs to be a compelling case for it, and simulating/practicing construction of a Mars base in an analogous environment seems like a promising raison d'etre for a project like this.

>> No.3656212

Why don't we just colonize the sun after we're done with that?

>> No.3656227

>Implying the Navy doesn't already have bases like that for resupplying submarines
>Implying one of them having a meltdown and imploding isn't what made the "Bloop" sound

I bet you naieve niggers think they just up and quit after the sealab program.

>> No.3656233

why dont we colonize Sirius?

>> No.3656234

>>3656212

You colonize the sun, we'll hang back and watch.

>> No.3656236

>>3656212
>>3656234
>>3656233

Am I going to need to delete and repost this thread? :-\

>> No.3656239

why dont we just colonize yo mamas ass?

>> No.3656242
File: 272 KB, 2048x1365, MuskLookingBadass.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>3656211
>Nobody throws money at expensive projects like this "just because".
If I ever become exceedingly wealthy some of the first things I will do is throw money at promising projects 'just because.'

>> No.3656248

>>3656236

Probably, Mad Scientist.
Someone let the trolls out...

>> No.3656259

why dont we just colonize 2 threads made by the same guy about the same topic?