/sci/ - Science & Math

that's exactly what we're doing. Google it.

>>6569151
>And a few lichens and bacteria, and possibly tardigrades could be introduced to Mars

Why would we want to do that?

>>6569151
The issue isn't the colony it's getting all that shit there. Even if you do it completely without any form of return transport ("Fuck it, we'll figure that out later") the costs for the dozens of launch vehicles required would be staggeringly expensive, and not to mention far larger than anything we've ever built.

We simply can't get that big of a payload to another planet with our current technology, and no that technology won't magically appear in 5 years.

>>6569157
Apparently they are making the first Mars Colony into a big brother reality show.

>>6569151
The thing I'd be truly worried about is the psychological aspect of the people sent there. Imagine being sent to the "rather unknown", with NO way of coming back, living in a small confined area with other people you'll live with for the rest of your life. Also, there would be close to no hope of progress to human scale at any level besides science. It probably wouldn't be possible to extract or create useful ressources to expand the colony.
Even with a strong psychological training, I think this would be a failure.

>>6569151
Real life is not like Minecraft. Extracting ores from the planet would ask for incredible logistic means.
You need to: Locate the ore, extract it (Probably the most difficult part, human-wise), transport it to the "base", refine it, then have a plant to turn the refined ore into exploitable materials, have engineers design air-tight rooms with those metals, and last but not least, have the infrastructure to mass-product those rooms and build it.
Unless the entire Earth puts its full economy and research to this project, it probably won't be doable in the close future, if not at all.

>>6569166
To begin Terraforming the place

>not just shooting containers of bacteria all over the planet and waiting a few hundred thousand years

>>6569262
I think we could probably do that already. If the right organics doesn't exist, we can probably create them with bioengeneering.
Also, creating an atmosphere would probably be the first step of terraformation. If I recall correctly, sending a few CO2-producing units should create a (lethal) atmosphere... In a few hundreds years.

>>6569273

We could react something with the Fe2O3 from the soil to release some O2 or CO2 maybe?

>>6569289
Or maybe sending CO2-producing units AND CO2-consuming and O2-producing units could make it a breathable atmosphere.
Either way, NASA engineers thought of it before us, and if it's not already made, either it's too costly, impossible, or already done and kept secret.

>>6569151
You'd be much better off developing a Mach-Lorentz thruster and either using it to tow asteroids to Mars or further developing it to exploit wormholes to pull asteroids there - either way you definitely want to terraform the place before you start colonizing it and that means adding mass first.

>>6569171
> We simply can't get that big of a payload to another planet with our current technology, and no that technology won't magically appear in 5 years.

We have thousands of ICBMs, satellites, military aircraft and ships, but a hundred flights with Dragon whatever rockets is above our level of technology? Sure, the space exploration budget might get within an order of magnitude of the military budget again, but that's the price of exploring another freaking planet.

>>6569240
How is that different than the ancestral environment, except that our Areonauts would have sufficient food and water most of the time, would represent the very best of our species, would be in a confined space, but would have access to the most top-of-the line lightweight timewasting materials known to man (the humble computer).

>>6569259
Many useful elements can be found on the Martian surface, if you've got the power supply to extract them. Silica, iron, magnesium, sulfur, nitrogen, oxides, ice, etc. The power supply is the bigger problem: you'd basically need to take a nuclear reactor with you, or *maybe* just something which can make solar panels out of Martian dirt.

>>6569324
> adding mass to Mars

Do you want a whole bunch of extinction-sized asteroid fragments in the inner solar system? Because that's how you get a whole bunch of extinction-sized asteroid fragments in the inner solar system.

>>6569324
Then, why not terraform and colonize the Moon first? It could be useful, as an universal spaceship-building structure because of its low gravity, way closer to the Earth than Mars. Only thing is, we should either import building materials from the Earth, or extract it from captured asteroids.

>>6569343
>Do you want a whole bunch of extinction-sized asteroid fragments in the inner solar system? Because that's how you get a whole bunch of extinction-sized asteroid fragments in the inner solar system.
If you had the ability to tow them into Mars in a controled manner you wouldn't end up with free-floating asteroids. They aren't just going to bounce off if you drop them tangentially at the surface at low starting speeds. You get fragments when shit breaks apart, ricochets off the atmosphere or impacts at a high velocity and/or angle where it bounces back out.

>>6569346
The first step to terraforming is adding or subtracting mass to make it Earth-sized. You remove the benefit of low gravity if you terraform the moon.

>>6569349
I didn't know that. Thanks, I'll have something to read about tonight.
But wouldn't it take a huge load of asteroids to make Mars have about the same mass than the Earth?

>>6569349
[citation needed]

why do you need a certain mass to terraform a planet? plants don't give a fuck about gravity

>>6569240
>NO way of coming back
Most plans include some way to return the colonists who don't want to stay, or if there's some failure and the colony won't be sustainable.

>It probably wouldn't be possible to extract or create useful ressources to expand the colony.
The whole point of sending permanent colonists would be to establish a base capable of growth. Put people there with the means of living for long periods, and the ability to go outside and work with their hands, and that alone would mean they could extract useful resources.

You'd send them with a good nuclear reactor and all the most useful tools you could fit in the spacecraft. They'd be making bricks, plastic, and steel pretty quickly.

>>6569353
Adding mass to planets to give them Earth gravity isn't an idea that's taken seriously, or normally included in terraforming schemes.

>>6569362
but that does lead to some interesting questions
Our bodies are designed to live under the gravitational conditions of Earth. While we could adapt over time, and it likely wouldn't effect humans to any significant degree, have studies been done on plants and the like to see how they respond to different gravity conditions? I'm no expert, but plants in particular seem like they'd have a hard time surviving.

>>6569353
>But wouldn't it take a huge load of asteroids to make Mars have about the same mass than the Earth?
You could always just toss a moon at it.

>>6569364
>have studies been done...?
Why not spend like two minutes googling for this?

Of course studies have been done. They're not entirely convincing because they haven't been done on other planets where the gravity is actually different.

>>6569359
>[citation needed]
The fact everything on the planet is going to be fucking destroyed when you start adding significant mass to it?
DAE common sense?
>why do you need a certain mass to terraform a planet? plants don't give a fuck about gravity
They need enough mass to hold an atmosphere, in the case of Mars the process could also restart it's core considering how much mass is needed (which itself is needed to prevent that atmosphere from being blown away by the solar wind).

>>6569362
>Adding mass to planets to give them Earth gravity isn't an idea that's taken seriously, or normally included in terraforming schemes.
That's because most terraforming schemes are ridiculously simple-minded and assume we will attempt to do so when it's prohibitively expensive to tow asteroids or moons around, we won't (or at least if we do, that work will be tossed out after 100 years of technological development when we have the means to toss a moon at the planet). We really aren't that far off - the Mach-Lorentz thruster (already confirmed to work by multiple labs) will produce exotic matter as a byproduct of operation, once we learn how to channel that exotic matter and/or produce it in large quantities we can make open (warp drive) and closed (stargate-like) wormholes. At that stage it will be nothing to smash a moon or asteroid into Mars or another planet.

>>6569349

We should just take Mercury and crash it into Mars. That way we can trade two useless planets for one sort of useful one.

>>6569406
Or collect up all the comets and pool them into a massive fucking fish farm.

>>6569382
>Mach-Lorentz (reactionless) thruster
>warp drive
>stargate
>>>/x/

>>6569359
I'm no expert, you can easily call the next sentence for bullshit. But I think I read somewhere that human body would loose strength on other planets, which would cause lots of potential deaths and "Race" issues. If we ever succeed to colonise Mars, the humans there would probably be a lot weaker physically than Earths one.
Plus, still probable bullshit, but I saw somewhere that natual sex in low-atmosphere environments would mostly not lead to procreation. Still, colonists could use artificial insemination. But that would probably create a civil war on Earth.
Sometimes I think that we could already live on other planets if Humanity was not that divided.

>>6569417
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodward_effect
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiFhv7IkAms
It's backed by major labs and grants, has actual scientists that work in major labs onboard, etc. It's real tech. If you think theoretical and borderline new (it's actually been studied for decades now) is /x/-tier either because of the novelty or because the theory was turned into sci-fi half a century ago you don't belong here - mindless skeptism isn't science faggot.

>>6569425
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodward_effect
"So far, no conclusive proof of the existence of this effect has been presented."

>It's real tech.
Nope, just wishful thinking.

>>>/x/

>>6569372

lots of studies have been done in a 0G enviroment,no studies have ever been done in a low-g enviroment because it's easy to achieve weightlessness (just shoot something to the orbit), but achieveng low-g for more than a couple of seconds ?

>>6569432
>"So far, no conclusive proof of the existence of this effect has been presented."
Here's the citation for that:
http://io9.com/5972727/the-woodward-effect-allows-for-endless-supplies-of-starship-fuel
>fucking io9
Good job on that one, real fucking scientific of you - don't bother with the theory, don't bother with the equations, don't bother with the published research proving the existence of it, just take a half-assed citation some nitwit made to wikipedia that actually began as "While some tests indicate it might be even greater than Woodward himself estimated, other tests are muddy and inconclusive." from the site io9 and dated years ago. Good fucking work. Now get the fuck out, you don't belong here faggot.

>>6569422

Losing physical strength due to low gravity is not an issue. It only matters if you plan to return to high gravity areas as your body will not be able to cope.

>>6569441
It's unproven space magic.

The support for it in research and funding is about as strong as that for cold fusion. It's just promising something so wonderful that people who don't understand why it's bullshit are terrified to dismiss it, and miss a chance of having Santa Claus come to their house because they didn't believe.

>>>/x/

>>6569450
>The support for it in research and funding is about as strong as that for cold fusion. It's just promising something so wonderful that people who don't understand why it's bullshit are terrified to dismiss it, and miss a chance of having Santa Claus come to their house because they didn't believe.
Here's an idea: disprove the fucking equations that say it's possible or shut the hell up?
Seriously, you're no better than a religious zealot decrying something until the pope or some ancient pedophile say it's OK. Do the fucking research for yourself or just keep your cocksucker closed faggot, literally everyone in the field is taking the research seriously and there is no need to convince the plebs of it - you are the pleb.

Not in the next 5 years.

Maybe in the next 200 years, though. I wouldn't be surprised if we terraformed it by then.

>>6569450
>It's unproven space magic.
TIL Mach, Lorentz and Einstein are space wizards.

>>6569422
What if they discover metatron on Mars?

>>6569460
If he could demonstrate the effect in a convincing and reproduceable way, he wouldn't be fringe character, and I wouldn't be telling you to go to >>>/x/

It's:
- a reactionless drive
- a free energy device
- a faster-than-light drive
- a dessert topping and a floor wax

You're telling me:
- this has been around for decades without convincing evidence
- the mainstream is educated stupid
- God worship only needs a snot brain, but it takes Opposite Brain Analysis to know Harmonic Life.
- Wikipedia claim that the Time Cube is non-science constitutes a Grave error by the half-brain bastard who can't think opposite of the lies he was taught.

>>6569489
>If he could demonstrate the effect in a convincing and reproduceable way, he wouldn't be fringe character
Lel. The effect has been reproduced by multiple labs and the guy in that video actually works in the Lockheed Martin Space Operations lab.
>>6569489
>It's:
>- a reactionless drive
Only if you discount the effects it has on gravity, which YOU would considering you haven't bothered to look at let alone understand the equations.
>- a free energy device
Nope.
>- a faster-than-light drive
Warping space is not faster than light travel.
>- a dessert topping and a floor wax
Running out of arguments? That happens when you have no substance.
>You're telling me:
>- this has been around for decades without convincing evidence
It does have convincing evidence, that's why there are so many labs studying it.
>- the mainstream is educated stupid
Debatable.
>- God worship only needs a snot brain, but it takes Opposite Brain Analysis to know Harmonic Life.
What?
>- Wikipedia claim that the Time Cube is non-science constitutes a Grave error by the half-brain bastard who can't think opposite of the lies he was taught.
>comparing proven physics to time cube
Wow, you just went full retard.

>>6569506
>Lel.
Kill yourself.

>The effect has been reproduced by multiple labs
...almost as many as have refuted it. You could say this about cold fusion, just as easily.

Basically, a handful of kooks have looked at this and detected a very slight force which is easily explained by newtonian physics. Better scientists have attempted to repeat their experiments and found that the apparatus generates forces by mundane means which don't support the kooky new physics.

>and the guy in that video actually works in the Lockheed Martin Space Operations lab.
Do you think that makes him credible? He doesn't have to convince scientists to keep that job, he only has to convince businessmen.

>>- a reactionless drive
>Only if you discount the effects it has on gravity
The assumed, distant, unmeasurable effects, right?

>>- a free energy device
>Nope.
Yep. Oh, but energy is conserved in the universe, by assumed, distant, unmeasurable effects.

>>- a faster-than-light drive
>Warping space is not faster than light travel.
It is, though. The whole logic of general relativity breaks down if you allow negative energy distributions (which, of course, have absolutely no experimental support).

>>6569422
we would reach a whole host of problems with circulation and digestion i'm sure. those humans would definitely evolve into disgusting sub-humans lol

>>6569548
>...almost as many as have refuted it. You could say this about cold fusion, just as easily.
Nice research there faggot, can tell you really put a lot of time into finding that information. (hint: it's wrong)
>Basically, a handful of kooks have looked at this and detected a very slight force which is easily explained by newtonian physics. Better scientists have attempted to repeat their experiments and found that the apparatus generates forces by mundane means which don't support the kooky new physics.
Basically, a single lab refuted the math behind the theory and a paper was immediately published proving them wrong, no valid paper exists disproving the theory or the data produced and published nor is there a single paper that assigns the experimental results to effects other than those described. There is no "kooky new physics" involved, just integration of equations from Lorentz, Mach and Einstein.
>Do you think that makes him credible? He doesn't have to convince scientists to keep that job, he only has to convince businessmen.
Nice, nice - scientists that perform well enough in a competitive industry rank lower than the assessment of some anon that probably isn't even out of college (or in it) yet.
>The assumed, distant, unmeasurable effects, right?
The secondary effects are predicted by theory, who cares if they can be measure as of now if the primary effects can be?
>Yep. Oh, but energy is conserved in the universe, by assumed, distant, unmeasurable effects.
You are prattling at this point, still obviously haven't bothered to look at the equations.
>It is, though. The whole logic of general relativity breaks down if you allow negative energy distributions (which, of course, have absolutely no experimental support).
You are discounting the experimental support from multiple sources because you deem it quack science on account of being the experimental support of something? Great logic there, you will go far in internet shitposting, I'm certain.

>>6569577
>a single lab refuted the math behind the theory and a paper was immediately published proving them wrong

>a non-kook refuted the math behind the theory and a paper was immediately published by the original kook claiming to prove them wrong

Your interpretation is ridiculous, and you don't even have your facts straight.

There has only been one refutation of the math. There has only needed to be one. There have been a couple of experimental refutations. Other physicists have generally not given this history professor's kooky theories or awful experiments any attention, because they don't deserve any.

>>6569608
>There has only been one refutation of the math. There has only needed to be one.
>proving this faggot hasn't even read anything on the subject
There was no paper refuting the math, only the interpretation of experimental data - and only one. The paper was itself immediately disproved.
>Other physicists have generally not given this history professor's kooky theories or awful experiments any attention, because they don't deserve any.
The person that devised the theory isn't the same one doing all the experiments, jackass. There are MULTIPLE labs run by MULTIPLE professional physicists experimenting with the theory and producing results THAT ACTUALLY SHOW THRUST. Let me say that again because it doesn't seem to be sinking in: aside from the math checking out, aside from there being no standing proofs against the methods or data THERE IS ACTUAL EXPERIMENTAL DATA SHOWING THRUST IS GENERATED.

This conversation is over until you develop at least a basic understanding of math. Disprove the theory mathematically or I'm not bothering with further responses to you.

2/10, made me respond this long

>>6569628
>The person that devised the theory isn't the same one doing all the experiments
"In 1990, Woodward's original paper on Mach effects included an experiment with results."
"In 2012 and 2013, Woodward and Heidi Fearn of California State University, Fullerton, announced the results of more experiments"

He was the earliest, most recent, and most prolific experimenter. Most of the results which seem to confirm his theory come from him and people working directly with him.

If other physicists took this theory seriously at all, there wouldn't be a list of a half-dozen experiments. This would be in the news constantly, as hundreds of researchers published new results. It would be huge.

It isn't. This has attracted virtually no attention in physics because it's garbage. The theory is garbage, the experiments are garbage.

If this was a real effect, how fucking hard would it be to put it on a cubesat and prove that it works with trajectory changes? Ion thrusters make significant trajectory changes with very weak forces. Where is the proof-of-concept demo?

There isn't one, and there isn't going to be one, because it doesn't work. He patented the effect twenty years ago, but they're no closer to a practical device after two decades of research, because the effect simply isn't real.

>>6569674
Still no math, fuck off faggot.

>>6569674
tard/10

>>6569324
>believing in Mach-Lorentz thrusters

Look at this idiot, he believes in reactionless drives! Everyone, point at him and laugh.

I suppose you want to power the thruster with a perpetual motion device, while we're violating conservation laws?

>>6571100

As someone who has just heard of Mach-Lorentz thrusters, what the hell are they?

>>6571136

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

A physicist, named Bob Woodward, think's he's worked out that, by combining Mach's Principle (inertia is caused by the gravity of everything else in the universe) and relativity, it's possible to, using what he calls the Mach Effect, push against the rest of the universe to create a thruster that doesn't need propellant. It's not actually reactionless - the reaction mass is the entire universe - but it doesn't need any fuel, just electricity.

Supposedly. There has yet to actually be an independent confirmation of his work, and the Mach-Lorentz Thruster looks a whole damn lot like a Dean Drive, jiggling weights and all...

I don't believe he's a fraudster; he's aware of the Dean Drive stick-slip effect and his experiments seem genuinely rigorous in their attempts to extract signal from the noise. And there might actually be something to the Mach Effect. But I'm not hopeful.

>>6571154
It's worth noting that nobody has actually managed to refute the math behind the Woodward Effect yet.

>>6571154
>A physicist, named Bob Woodward
A history professor, you mean. He studied physics, but he took his PhD in history, and that's his main job.

>>6571157
>nobody has actually managed to refute the math
It's not derived with math from experimentally-supported physics, you twit.

It's derived from an old principle which has been abandoned due to lack of consistency with experiment, comparable to phlogiston or spontaneous generation.

>>6571100
>thinks mach-lorentz thrusters violate conservation laws
Look at this idiot, he believes mach-lorentz thrusters are reactionless! Everyone, point at him and laugh.

>>6571163
>It's not derived with math from experimentally-supported physics, you twit.
nope. not sure why this guy is to zealous about this subject but he is completely fucktarded if he thinks this.

>>6571157
This.
>>6571163
>It's not derived with math from experimentally-supported physics, you twit.
TIL Mach, Lorentz and Einstein = quack science.

>>6569151
>This could probably be done with a few billion dollars.

The estimated cost of the International Space Station ISS is about 150 billion dollars and it's only in low earth orbit.
Just to put this into perspective.

>>6571225
If you just pick up their ideas that didn't work out, then yeah, it is. Any creative physicist is going to have some bad ideas over the course of his career.

Mach's principles didn't all work. Interesting idea, doesn't agree with nature.

>>6571253
>doesn't agree with nature
How?

>>6569151
>This could probably be done with a few billion dollars.
Try a few trillion dollars.

>>6571226
On the other hand, it was mostly launched with the Space Shuttle, which was perhaps the most expensive launch vehicle anyone's ever tried to use.

>>6571226
The ISS is an exercise in wasting as much money as possible.

They mostly put it up there with the space shuttle, basically so they'd have an excuse to keep operating the space shuttle, which was horrendously cost-ineffective.

It is ~450 tons, with ~850 cubic meters pressurized volume. These days, that could be launched with 9 Falcon Heavy flights, which would cost ~$1.2 billion. They used 36 shuttle flights, costing ~$50 billion.

The Bigelow Commercial Space Station is planned to be ~100 tons with ~1500 cubic meters pressurized volume. On Falcon Heavy, the launch cost could be around a quarter billion.

So now, looking at doing it in a sensible way, and with modern technology, we're looking at accomplishing more for around a billion dollars rather than $150 billion, as commercial companies get into it in ways where they're actually motivated to keep costs down.

And that technology isn't standing still, either. Far from it. There's potential for launch costs to be reduced literally to one-thousandth of what they are currently over the next decade, as efficient reusability, cheaper fuels, larger launch vehicles, infrastructure for frequent launch, and new manufacturing technologies are developed.

>>6571258
<<crickets>>

>>6571258
It's complicated, read more if you're interested:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach%27s_principle

Other physicists are generally not interested in the Woodward Effect because the formulation of Mach's principle it's based on has shown no sign of being true in the actual universe we live in.

>>6571303
>It's complicated, read more if you're interested:
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach%27s_principle
There is nothing on that page to suggest it is wrong.

>>6571323
>There have been other attempts to formulate a theory which is more fully Machian, such as Brans–Dicke theory, but most physicists argue that none have been fully successful. At an exit poll of experts, held in Tubingen in 1993, when asked the question, 'Is general relativity perfectly Machian?', 3 respondents replied 'yes' and 22 replied 'no'.
Mach's principle is vague. You can't just say, "It's based on Mach's principle, therefore it's valid." Mach's principle is not, in general, consistent with established theory or the experimental record.

When physicist disagree on whether GR is Machian, they are disagreeing on what Mach's principle means.

Woodward is asserting that it means something which is entirely unsupported by competent experiment, and which violates principles which are well-supported in the experimental record.

>>6569343
>We have thousands of ICBMs, satellites, military aircraft and ships, but a hundred flights with Dragon whatever rockets is above our level of technology?

I want to see someone give me solid information on why Mars Colonies are economically feasible. Why not wait 30 years when the technology is cheaper and more efficient? As of now we don't know of the location of any large resource deposit, farming is, even if possible, several hundred magnitudes lower in efficiency then earth's and all benefits of the 0.3g are outclassed by the moon's 0.1g.

>>6571352
>Mach's principle is vague. You can't just say, "It's based on Mach's Principle, therefore it's valid." Mach's Principle is not, in general, consistent with established theory or the experimental record.
But it is. If Mach's Principle DOESN'T hold true it means gravity is localizable to specific objects which in turn means independent reference frames can determine their inertial state without looking at the rest of the universe which itself is a violation of a constant speed of light in vacuum. It's Mach's Principle + Relativity or neither, they literally don't work apart and Relativity WAS BASED ON Mach's Principle to begin with.
>Woodward is asserting that it means something which is entirely unsupported by competent experiment, and which violates principles which are well-supported in the experimental record.
What is he asserting in contradiction to experiment?

>>6571370
>I want to see someone give me solid information on why Mars Colonies are economically feasible.
One simple reason: Human societies evolved to be unsustainable and we are currently in a global decline. New land has always been the solution - the trade boosts the economy in the existing areas, the new militaries cause the dictatorships and oligarchs of the old lands to faulter resulting in stability, it controls population overflows (both directly and by allowing a place for those at odds with political environments to be ostracized yet remain productive), etc. As a species we've had one key dynamic throughout our history: build tech = get new land and survive. Subtract the "new" part of that relation and we will destroy vast portions of our population in no time.

>>6571374
>>Mach's Principle is not, in general, consistent with established theory or the experimental record.
>But it is.
Well, I think I've spent enough time talking to a hopeless kook.

Enjoy your space magic fantasy. The rest of us will keep on living in the real world without free energy devices, reactionless drives, FTL warp drives, and stargates.

Isn't this whole reactionless drive thing a reductio of Machian physics?

>>6571382

That's waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too vague and far fetched to fly. As of now, nor in the forseable future, we are not in a position where we are this desperate, or in need of, of land. While Mars will be colonize, and in fact must be, there is nothing to indicate that such a colony is need in the next few decades.

>>6571384
>Well, I think I've spent enough time talking to a hopeless kook.
Nice job refuting the reasons why. Good grasp of relativity you have there, nutjob.

>>6571403
>As of now, nor in the forseable future, we are not in a position where we are this desperate, or in need of, of land.
>unemployment figures repeatedly fudged to ariticially instill confidence
>FEMA, DHS, TSA, NSA, etc ramping up on resources in the face of massive budget issues
>all of Human history saying when times get back the government cracks down on it's own citizens to stay in power until it can't even do that
We might be the exception to the rule, but I seriously doubt that.

>>6571409
>unemployment figures repeatedly fudged to ariticially instill confidence
>FEMA, DHS, TSA, NSA, etc ramping up on resources in the face of massive budget issues

Both of these are issues that arose from a previously unsustainable economical system and monetary misuses, along with some dubious financial decisions. Finding more resources will not fix said issues, especially considering that moving the "unemployed" to their potential work place will cost us more, than to keep them unemployed.

>>6571441
>Both of these are issues that arose from a previously unsustainable economical system and monetary misuses
I wasn't assigning blame to your fearless leader faggot, the point is when it starts not in all of recorded history has it ended until a location was inhabited and it started.

>>6569240
Then Make sure they are of Strong Spiritual Faith.

Those with the strongest faith could endure any challange

Why are we going to go with an above ground colony?

There's no environmentalist in space, so you could bite the bullet(cost) and send an atomic powered TBM.

yeah an anal colony LOL

>>6569151

Ok, this has been bothering me for the past few hours. Is there enough sunlight for plants to grow on Mars?

>>6571618

Because it weighs a fuck-ton.

Because it needs a small army of professionals to keep it running.

>>6571635
Weight isn't too terrible, the actual machine could be a reasonable diameter for the same mass as the space shuttle.
>>6571618
Seems like a decent idea, but it would still need a base. The TBM isn't the biggest component of the tunnel, the panels and rebar and such are. Iron is pretty high on the available materials in space and pretty easy to refine but finding it in proximity to the materials for concrete or similar materials might be hard from a space survey alone (unless the rovers have already uncovered some). Would still take a lot of people though that's assumed if you're sending a colony that can sustain itself anyway (something like 40,000 people minimum to prevent genetic defects over time).

>>6571644
Somebody wants to spend 55 trillion on solar roads.

here in the states there are 190,000,000 people who drive in the US

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/onh2p4.htm

190 million times 60,000 dollars equals a bill of
11,400,000,000,000
Personally I want something permanent on Mars where we can leave the facility,and come back 30 years and the facility could be brought back into operation without too much of an issue.

An underground facility won't also have to deal with meteoroid impacts and radiation,like OP"s picture would.


http://projectcamelot.org/underground_bases.html


The idea with an atomic TBM is that it would melt the walls. so you wouldn't need the concrete and rebar.

With no environmentalist you could have an atomic TBM ,and nobody would give a shit about you having a literal mountain of tilings.

You don't need a tunnel boring machine, you just need to scoop up a pile of loose regolith over your shelter.

Could we feasibly have some kind of dust refinery to forge metals there?

As long as there is an energy source, you could also dig caverns and pressurize the air inside them. Send along a 3d printer?

>>6571688
I mean, some kind of replicating machine that can fit on a Dragon payload, and it could build the heavy, simple parts and we would just ship the more precise high technology stuff there until the facilities become specialized enough.

I think it's really important we give astronauts the tools to dig out larger shelters so things aren't so goddamn bleakly cramped.

Martian astronauts should get a complementary 16TB hard drive with like 10,000 tv shows and movies, single player games

you're always a half an hour away at least from earth, even at lightspeed

>>6569151
You moron. You could just build the whole thing underground and it would be radiation proof. Can't tell me NASA is that stupid.

>>6572781
>only source of sustainable energy is the sun unless you manage to refine radioactive materials on Mars within the first few years
>underground
Good job, really thought that through.

OP, the Mars One program will begin in 2030...

>colonizing mars, a planet that can't hold an atmosphere
>not colonizing Venus with glorious floating cities.

It's like you people don't even want to colonize anything awesome.

>>6569349
>he thinks we can send enough mass to have ANY effect on the moon, let alone mars.

>>6573066
>sulfuric acid atmosphere
That is the most retarded idea in the history of retarded ideas.

>>6573078
>implying space colonization can take place with modern technology
It won't happen before we have some magic tech that let's us play God at least within the realm of our own solar system - less than a week to commute to Pluto, the ability to drag asteroids and moons around, etc. Before then colonization can't realistically happen because we don't have the means to do step 1 of terraforming: we can't adjust the mass.

>>6573102
colonizing a black hole

>>6573109
>implying the universe as we know it isn't a black hole

>>6573109

Step one is building a massive rocket and tethering it to the earth so we can move our planet next to the black hole. It will save on transport costs.

>>6569364
>>6569438
>>6569445
A lot of shit happens when Earth life is in space.
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTL_sJycQAA

>>6573102
The vast majority of the atmosphere, including the portion that humans would find comfortable, has no acids.

Look it up. Venus would be the easiest place in the solar system to establish self sustaining colonies.

>>6575558
So what happens when you need to make steel on venus? Where do you get the iron?

Also
>>living in a gravity well and not a space colony

>>6571382
We don't need more land. We need more resources. Mars has plenty of land, but we know nothing of the shit that's on the planet and it would be ridiculous to try and use the planet as a farming world.

This isn't like colonising the Americas. It's not as easy as one rich guy building a ship and sending off a bunch of no name peasants and a couple of guys with swords to build a few houses across the ocean. This is space. It's bigger, colder and far more hostile to life than anywhere on Earth.

>>6571632
Probably, I mean the whole place just looks like a northern winter, and hell we get plants growing in all sorts of shitty places. It's the lack of atmosphere that'll be a problem.

>>6575580
>living in a gravity well and not a space colony
>living on a space colony

Yes, because there's nothing better than a single thing fucking up and killing 20% of the inhabitants.

>>6575596
>>2014 not using redundant systems

Are there any good games about space colonization?

>>6573049
There's an invention called electricity conducting wire, maybe you have heard of it

>>6575606

Between living in a gravity well and a mythical redundant system with 100% success rate, I'd go with the gravity well.

>>6575830
So by living in a gravity well do you mean in the toxic gas clouds of venus or the dry frozen irradiated deserts of Mars where a system failure would be worse.

If the SHTF on a space colony at L5, with 4.1 km/s of delta V you can be back on Earth in 2 days. If you run out of repair patches for your Venusian balloon home, you're sorta screwed unless you've got a rocket with 16.2 km/s delta V and enough supplies for the long multimonth journey.

You're that same guy who thinks space colonies are technologically infeasible aren't you?

>>6569151
>This could probably be done with a few billion dollars.

GET FUCKED. There's no fucking way you can send thousands of tons of material, equipment and people to the Martian surface for anything less than $1 trillion.

The ISS plus operation costs have penned out to about $150 billion. There's no sane way to see a manned Mars surface mission that involves that much more equipment and material and personnel, not costing at least 3 times that amount, and since government would invariably be involved, doubling that cost is not unreasonable. Hence, $150 billion x 6 = $900 billion.

And that's why nobody's doing it. Nobody has a cool trillion dollars to blow on such a boondoggle. Humanity won't do it. Humanity will NEVER do it.

>>6569166
> > And a few lichens and bacteria, and possibly tardigrades could be introduced to Mars
> Why would we want to do that?

We don't, since no government of any means would legally authorize its citizens to perform such an action.

Whosoever leaves Earth to infect Mars with our lifeforms, will have to do so illegally. A clean break. Essentially a self-imposed exile.

>>6575851
>You're that same guy who thinks space colonies are technologically infeasible aren't you?

Nope, I'm the one who doesn't think we'll see Space Colonies before we've done terraformation.

>>6575876
>Nope, I'm the one who doesn't think we'll see Space Colonies before we've done terraformation.
No you're not, I'm that guy.

>>6575860
>There's no fucking way you can send thousands of tons of material, equipment and people to the Martian surface for anything less than $1 trillion.
Falcon Heavy
payload to Mars: 13,200 kg (let's say 5 tons landed on the surface)
price: $140 million, and let's say $60 million for the lander with aerobraking shield

Baseline: $200 billion for delivery of 5,000 tons to Mars surface.

Baseline plan: $20 billion/year (double NASA's budget to provide Mars funds, similar to Apollo program), half of money spend on payload and support, half on launch: 20-year program sending 250 (landed) tons every launch window -- first launch only provides supplies for 2-year survival of pioneers, dependence on resupply is gradually reduced by growing population, accumulating tools, and discovered resources.

Reasonably plausible launch cost improvements:
- Falcon Heavy becomes reusable
- next generation SpaceX superheavy launcher uses cheap methane fuel (rather than costly super-grade jet fuel) and lofts at least five times as much cargo for half the cost in fuel
- "Mars Colonial Transporter" fully reusable Earth-Mars transportation system
- Blue Origin, ULA, XCOR, Orbital, Virgin Galactic competitive reusable launch vehicles
- lunar water mining, hydrogen/oxygen fuel production
- lunar-source propellant production, depots in LEO (for transport to L2) and at L2 (for transport to Mars)
- nuclear thermal rocket lunar shuttle and Earth departure stage
- Mars methane/oxygen fuel production, locally-fuelled shuttles provide transport between Mars capture orbit and Mars surface, increasing landed fraction of payloads lobbed to Mars

Cheap launch services can lead to a fast cycle of technology tests and development of infrastructure, in Earth orbit and on the moon, between Mars launch windows.

It can be done for under a trillion, spread out so the cost doesn't seem crippling in any one year, and the cost can fall to "a few billion" with unsurprising advances in technology.

>>6575976
>20-year program sending 250 (landed) tons every launch window
Sorry, that's paying for 250 tons out of every year's budget, which would mean landing about 500 tons per launch window (they come along about once per two years).

And realistically, if you bought this many Falcon Heavy launches, you'd get a much better price. $10 billion/year buys a lot of technological progress. You could probably get SpaceX's all-reusable system for launch to LEO, and ULA's propellant depot and hydrogen-fueled Earth-departure stage, at a net cost savings even for the first set of launches, which would just be gravy for the subsequent launch windows.

>>6569151
>and use pickaxes to mine resources to build more buildings with
You think this is minecraft, GTFO you fucking autist neckbeard.

>>6575976
>Falcon Heavy

Wait a minute, can the Falcon Heavy even get to Mars? It's not as easy as pointing the rocket to somewhere and saying "go".

>>6576830
Nearly anything that can launch stuff to orbit (with the exception of the space shuttle, in which case the orbiter far outmassed the payload) can launch stuff to Mars transfer orbit. It doesn't take a lot more delta-V than GTO.

SpaceX advertises Falcon Heavy's capacity to Mars transfer orbit as 13,200 kg.

>>6575976

>>6576868
Lies, it takes about 5 km/s, maybe in the 4's if you airocapture. Best case it takes a four to one fuel to everything else ratio to get to mars. Plenty of rockets cant do it. This is why orbiting fuel depots can do wonders for a mars mission architecture.

>>6576946
that infographic is wrong. the Dunning Kruger effect got an "Ig Nobel" prize.

>>6571688
Actually, I think you would be completely correct on this. DMLS is an expensive process in part due to the fact that it has to introduce an inert atmosphere. On Mars, outside is an inert atmosphere, so DMLS becomes as usable as standard plastic printing so long as you can get suitable material to sinter with.

The problem is extracting something that's suitable for something like that out of the martian soil.

>>6571697
I'd imagine that they would have to have an internet connection since they're also being broadcast on reality TV. In addition, they could probably update the hardware of their PC's with subsequent trips.

>>6569151
>Just send a few doctors, farmers, and engineers
If you want to save the human race.
Keep the doctors, farmers, and engineers, and
send the lawyers, and politicians to mars instead.

>>6577080
>The problem is extracting something that's suitable for something like that out of the martian soil.
Also the LASERs. The pump diodes burn out every 1-2 years and they run about 10k - 30k on Earth depending on the power. On Mars you would absolutely have to have them to avoid needing to send over massive quantities of 3D printer parts every couple years (probably about 20-30% of the total weight of the 3D printer). The materials could be recycled on site but you still need chip fabrication facilities there to do it (they are made pretty much like computer chips).

>>6577131
>you still need chip fabrication facilities there to do it
aside from the importance of duct tape, Apollo 13 taught us the importance of having spare parts, and a tool kit. It also taught us that where there's a will there's a way.
spoiler alert
More recently the movie Gravity taught us that some people have no will, but others might be willing to sacrifice themselves to save you.

I believe that millions of people would volunteer to go to Mars, and help start a colony there, for the future of mankind. The first to go might sacrifice themselves, and get Martian cities named after them, or at least Martian middle schools named after them, and they would be remembered for their heroism.
I'd also be willing to bet that a certain duct-tape manufacturer would probably be willing to donate a few cases of duct-tape to help make this possible.

>>6577080
>>DMLS is an expensive process in part due to the fact that it has to introduce an inert atmosphere.
Nope, DMLS is an expensive process because it's slow and requires extensive post processing. With DMLS you have to remove METAL supports, supports you have to build to prevent the part from deforming due to temperature differences. So you end up with a lot of scrap.

Of course, DMLS has other problems, parts often have too much porosity straight out of the machine so they have to be hot isostatic pressed(HIP'd), which is another very expensive process that requires a big heavy machine.

Oh and surface finish is horrible too, so one needs to hand finish the parts. Both these things are necessary or one gets bad fatigue properties.

>> outside is an inert atmosphere
Not to molten metal it isn't, CO2 can react with metal at high temperatures to cause brittleness and other nasty things.

>>6577131
You could use CO2 lasers, but then you have the problem of keeping the tube stable.

Lasers also suck in terms of power efficiency. There is a much better process which I will explain in another post

When we build a colony on Mars, we have a once-in-a-lifetime chance to start civilization anew, and avoid all of the mistakes we made on Earth. This means:

>no niggers allowed
>no anti-vaxxers, creationists, scientologists, climate deniers, or any other such moronic groups allowed either
>nobody with an STD or any other contagious disease can ever go to Mars, until they have that disease completely removed and we can verify 100% that it will not be carried over to Mars
>design the Martian internet to be secure, also net neutral
>when the colony gets bigger, emphasize public transport instead of automobiles, to conserve energy. Also, run everything with solar panels
>basically anything that sucks about Earth, make sure it never finds its way to Mars

This is our chance, guys. We can redeem the human race.

>>6569268
>100 years in the future martian bacteria have evolved and begins a full scale invasion to earth.
Take my money

>>6577184
>aside from the importance of duct tape, Apollo 13 taught us the importance of having spare parts, and a tool kit. It also taught us that where there's a will there's a way.
I think you're missing the point. 3D printer take a long fucking time to build things - to construct a single building a year out of them you would need to have dozens running continuously and you'd be more or less gauranteed that ALL their pump diodes would burn out in that time. To say nothing of the parts used by the colony internally. Most likely the majority of those pump diodes would burn out within the first 6 months. Realistically you're looking at about 1-2kg of pump diodes for each printer, resupply missions only every 2 years, 120 printers for 10 buildings a year (pretty small ones at that) and another hundred or so for the parts used by the colonists at least. That's about 880-1760kg every resupply mission just for pump diodes. It would be much more cost effective to send a small chip fabrication plant along with the initial equipment since you could fit all the machines required into less than that weight easily.

>>6577194
But automobiles are awesome.

>>6577198

what if you use the 3d printers to print a pump diode factory?

>>6577190
>You could use CO2 lasers, but then you have the problem of keeping the tube stable.
Yeah, you'd also lose a lot of precision (that's why most DMLS processes are Nd:YAG crystals or Nd/Y-doped fiber lasers pumped by diodes - the smaller wavelength really goes a long way toward the precision of the finished part and with an adjustable focus on the lens you can run them at the same speed.
>Lasers also suck in terms of power efficiency. There is a much better process which I will explain in another post
Is it cheaper for DMLS? I've been trying to put a DMLS printer together but the LASER is no joke to save up for.

>>6577194
>basically anything that sucks about Earth, make sure it never finds its way to Mars
Pretty much my take on terraforming. Once we finally get to the stage of seeding plants on a new planet I'm sure anyone caught with ticks/bedbugs/roaches/mice in their luggage would be hung.

>>6577200
The tolerances are too shit. Semiconductor fabrication requires a lot of smooth ultra high vacuum seals and precision parts like turbo molecular pumps and such in conjunction with electronics. Aside from the vacuum chamber itself (which can be quite small for a production line since you never want to open or reconfigure it anyway) it's mostly voltage sources, controllers, vacuum pumps, etc. The actual setup is remarkably simple for what it can do - it's just a lot of simple shit compounded in a very delicate manner.

>>6577190
With an average surface pressure of .6 kPa to Earth's 101.5 kPA, I would like to think that the Martian atmosphere is thin enough to function as if it were inert for the DMLS process.

For a very significant portion of tools, you would not need support struts added into the model. Even when you do need them, you can generally place them in a manner that is easily removable by a simple dremel tool.

Also, to all of your doubts on the strength and level of detail on a DMLS printer, this should make you a bit less critical. All post processing was done by hand.

http://blog.solidconcepts.com/industry-highlights/worlds-first-3d-printed-metal-gun/

We have a better chance with Ganymede, Callisto and Europa

>>6577232
>Also, to all of your doubts on the strength and level of detail on a DMLS printer, this should make you a bit less critical. All post processing was done by hand.
Hint: if you can see the grain in a metal it's precision is absolute shit. 3D printers have their place (for intricate things) but they are just another piece of fabrication equipment, they aren't magic. A CNC is oftentimes a better option and is always a better option for precision.

>>6577198
I should have been clearer in what i was saying, rather than trying to be clever. When I said spares, i didn't mean a boatload of replacement Jeeps. I meant chip diodes. Little wafers that weigh a few milligrams. 10,000 of them in a coffee cup

>>6577238
CNC machines have their own list of limitations, and they require the metal to already be forged into a solid mass in order to work.

Also, some minor hand finishing can make all of the grain disappear, and you'd still have to do the same thing to deal with the toolmarks from CNC work.

>>6577190
>>6577080
This better process is called Electron Beam Melting or EBM for short. In EBM one uses an electron beam instead of a laser to MELT and not sinter metal power. This has the advantage that electron beams can be scanned really fucking fast and that electron beams are very efficient at heating things up.

An EBM machine takes around the same amount of energy to make the same object from TITANIUM as a Laser Sintering(LS) machine takes to make said object from PLASTIC. That's how inefficient lasers are.

Now as a bonus, because the electron beam can be scanned really fast, one can prevent the thermal stress problem encountered with DMLS, so one doesn't need supports!

Here's a really cool video of an electron beam doing this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cqa3TMxje14

Notice how everything is scanned before it starts melting stuff? It's heating everything up uniformly to prevent thermal stress.

And with EBM you don't need exotic laser diodes, just an electron gun, which in some cases is just a heated piece of wire.

Of course you do need a vacuum to do it, but this raises some interesting possibilities.

You could essentially do electron beam melting 'outdoors' on the Moon, the vacuum is more than good enough there.

In addition, the Moon has a 'FREE' supply of easily extractable metallic powder one could use as feedstock.

On the Moon IRON, not iron oxide, exist as tiny particles in lunar regolith. By simply passing magnets over regolith, one can extract it. Sure the particles are all jagged, which is bad because it makes spreading our powder hard, but this is easily solved with some ball milling.

In other words, in two simple steps you can make 3d printer feed stock on the Moon.

>>6577250
Pump diodes aren't little wafers. They run at incredibly high energies and produce nearly equally incredible amounts of waste heat. The diodes for a single DPSS or fiber laser are upwards of 1-2kg (for the low power versions) because they have to be physically grown on their waterblock (using thermal epoxies and such is no good, they generate so much heat they need a direct connection to the waterblock cooling them or they explode when powered up). The printers themselves would obviously be much heavier but you're talking about thousands of kg just for the replacement pump diodes for a colony-sustaining number of DMLS printers.

>>6577253
>CNC machines have their own list of limitations, and they require the metal to already be forged into a solid mass in order to work.
Every production method has it's limitations (CNCs are best for precision and 3D printers are best for abstract work). You can always 3D print then touch up with a CNC but either way you HAVE to bring both if you seriously want a colony that can eventually sustain itself (or even just repair itself).
>Also, some minor hand finishing can make all of the grain disappear
lol, no it can't, not without a significant amount of trial and error for every new part.
>and you'd still have to do the same thing to deal with the toolmarks from CNC work.
CNC work doesn't leave tool marks.

>>6577198
That could work. In fact, you might be able to build a pump diode factory, take a printer, and go with the rep-rap approach of simply mass producing them from a single model.

However, I don't think they would be useful for constructing primary building materials. Their real use would be to serve as a micro-factory for tooling and amenities. For instance, if the valve for your Mars toilet breaks, you can print it off and replace it without having to shit in a near-vacuum for a month.

>>6577254
>This has the advantage that electron beams can be scanned really fucking fast
EBM is a much nicer looking process but just wanted to say you can use a negative f-theta lens with a pair of galvos to scan just as fast with DMLS. In terms of maintenance and sustainability of the printer itself EBM looks like a much better solution.

>>6577254
I like it. In addition, once we get some suitable industry on the moon, using it as a launching platform would be exponentially cheaper than using the Earth. That would mean that it would lower the cost of missions, or resupply missions at the very least, if we wanted to go to Mars in the future.

Why haven't we covered the moon in factories yes?

>>6577272
Tons of space expansion strategies involve the moon.

I personally think its because of one of 3 reasons:

>NASA doesn't realize the goldmine the moon would be for a launch pad to other planets.

That is unlikely

>NASA won't do it because it isn't as glamorous as going to Mars and may get their budget cut again.

Kind of likely, or

>We're in a space race to Mars as well, and no one has a long enough attention span to care about these places after someone walks a few steps and plants a flag.

I'd say that's the most likely, public interest has a lot to do with it I'd say.

Needless to say the public are fucking morons. Also, this really makes me want to go to college for electrical engineering.

>>6577280
>I personally think its because of one of 3 reasons:
It's because Obama won the election. We would have had a moon base by now instead of a new tax if Newt won.

>>6577232
>>Also, to all of your doubts on the strength and level of detail on a DMLS printer, this should make you a bit less critical.

I've visited solidconcepts, I've seen the very machine that made the gun, and I'm still not impressed.

Ok I will admit, the sintering process is pretty cool with sparks flying everywhere.

>>you would not need support struts added into the model
Nope, you every much do, anything you print has to be printed onto the metal bed for heat dissipation.

>>post processing
And lots of it too. They probably HIP'd it too. Post processing really limits the usefulness of DMLS

>>level of detail
level of detail isn't the only problem. AM'd parts could have big fatigue problems because of internal porosity and voids, which as of yet we have no economical QA procedures for detecting.

And firing a couple magazines is certainly not enough to demonstrate fatigue properties.

Additive manufacturing still has a ways to go.

>>6577283
Don't want to bring politics into this, but why haven't our fucking presidential candidates learned that Science drives development, development drives industry, and industry drives our fucking economy? Some serious goddamn retardation.

Nothing would require more thinking and R&D than going to another planet and setting up a permanent base.

>>6577290
>Don't want to bring politics into this, but why haven't our fucking presidential candidates learned that Science drives development, development drives industry, and industry drives our fucking economy? Some serious goddamn retardation.
They both invest heavily in "sciences" - they have drastically different views of what is "science" though. The liberals tend to say it's "liberal science", "psychology", "earth science", "data science" and "economic science" whereas the conservatives think it's "physics", "space science" and "health sciences". Kind of ironic given the dim view ascribed to the right in the media.

>>6577294
political* - not liberal in that first "science" quotation.

>>6577294
I typically view the right wing as unapologetic do-anything-for-industry types, and the left as bleeding hearts.

I align myself somewhere in the middle, and take the good from both.

>>6577304
>I align myself somewhere in the middle, and take the good from both.
Most scientists tend to since we're too focused on the research and tech to get caught up in the left/right dichotomy - though the point was that in practice the conservatives tend to invest much more heavily in R&D (even if it's just the military R&D, if you discount the largely bogus field of climate science that's never really produced anything of value the liberals have a long-running history of cutting funding to anything scientific of worth).

>>6577307
I guess you have a point.

Also, I'm reading up on Tesla and his various experiments (the weapons caught my eye, I guess since /k/ is what I'd call my "home" board that makes sense), goddamn did we miss a huge opportunity not hearing him out just a little. I wish so badly that they gave that man more funding.

>>6577272
>>6577280

>>Why haven't we covered the moon in factories yes?
Jimmy Carter wanted NASA to build a self replicating lunar factory in the 80s, but declined when he saw the price tag

See Advanced Automation for Space Missions:
http://www.islandone.org/MMSG/aasm/

It's quite possibly the last thing we'd need to send up to space aside from people.

Coincidentally, some 3d printing-like processes were proposed in it, just imagine if we had actually built it....

But it is more feasible today. In fact we've almost worked out how to PAVE solar cells onto the Moon using lunar regolith!
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20050110155.pdf
How about them apples solar roadways people?


>>6577205
>> I've been trying to put a DMLS printer
I don't want to discourage you, but sintering is hard! Sintering scales with T^4, which means it's really sensitive to small changes in temperature.

You should figure out how to do laser sintering with plastic first. But if you must build your own LS machine, figure out how to monitor the build and correct for errors in real time. If you can do this, you'd make big bucks

>>6577289
Here's more specific details on the gun that states all of the post-processing that they did. They didn't HIP it. All finishing was either done by hand (polishing), with lapping compound (basically a gritty paste), and with a rotary tool (to remove supports).

http://blog.solidconcepts.com/evolution-custom-manufacturing/how-its-made-3d-printed-1911-pistol/

>>6577316
>http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20050110155.pdf
>tfw NASA puts out a PDF with monochrome images that look like they've been run through a thermal transfer fax machine no less than 50 times
why

>>6577334
Here have something that is not potato quality.
http://www.niac.usra.edu/files/library/meetings/annual/jun00/433Ignatiev.pdf

>>why
Because some Congressman found out about NTRS, and flipped the fuck out. He went "OMG, Chinese hackers can see all of NASA's SPEHS SEKRITS! SHUT IT DOWN!"

So NTRS was shut down, until all of the SPEHS SEKRITS(which weren't supposed to be secret anyway) were removed.

But NASA, who didn't have any money to comb through >9000 documents for space sekrits, did a really shoddy job, and NTRS has never been the same since.

Of course most of the stuff in NTRS was also published in other journals, so the Chinese could see it anyway.

So in short, the only people prevented from accessing SPEHS SEKRITs are you and me, all because some congress critter hates China.

http://nasawatch.com/archives/2013/05/wolf-and-bolden.html

> use pickaxes to mine resources to build more buildings with

Lol, lets do this. And I hope you idiot fanboi telephone sanitizers are all on board. Every single one of you.

>>6577262
toilets use way too much water and require paper

the vacuum shitter system is way better, clean efficient. ejects fertilizer pellets for your garden or aquaponics

>>6577280
Once the USSR is restored, the space race will start, again. The moon is not an ideal launch platform, it still has gravity. The Russian space platform was designed as a staging for 20-50 rockets worth of cargo from ground launch. Building a massive transport in space for the trip to Mars. Bulldozers, cement mixers, cranes, and other construction materials. not plastic toy makers

>>6577478
>>gravity
gravity but no atmosphere, so mass drivers work great!
>Moon not ideal launch platform
Oh yeah, just wait till the US builds a self replicating robot factory that uses railguns to shoot seeds of itself all over the Moon.

Then then US has a huge network of mass drivers they can bombard the earth with, that is unless the chinese build one first!


www.niac.usra.edu/files/studies/final_report/880Chirikjian.pdf

>>6577236

Except it's a 3 years journey, so those colonies will have to be self-sufficient from the get-go.

>>6577492

Putting weapons on the moon is illegal by UN decree.

The saddest thing is, we will never see the first martian austonauts again, ive heard its a one way trip

>>6575580
>make steel instead of carbon fiber
Presumably from the planet, or captured asteroids. Not sure why you'd ever want to make steel though. There are much better structural alternatives that can be obtained from the atmosphere as a byproduct of generating breathable atmosphere.

>>6575851
Venus doesn't have toxic gas clouds at the pressure and temperature levels a human would find comfortable. They're all part of the much lower atmospheric layer. A human could stand exposed wearing an air mask on the deck of a floating city with no problem. At that level, our air is also a lifting gas and all its elements are obtainable from the atmosphere using high school science tier equipment.

If we're gonna colonize a planet rather than just set up nearby space colonies, Venus is the best possible choice. I don't think space colonies are infeasible, but they'd have to be big enough to either have enough or generate enough gravity to be survivable long term. They'd also need a constant input of resources unlike a colony on Venus. And they also have to deal with more potential exposure to radiation and meteoroids.

>>6577498
>illegal by UN decree
You mean there's a treaty against it.

And as we all know, every party to a treaty always abides by it faithfully forever.

>>6577498
Ahh, but that's the beauty of it, they aren't weapons until you need them to be.

>>6577194
no sub 140 I.Q people allowed

>>6578032
>Meeting between world leaders
>"So, it is basically known that the US is constructing WMD's on the moon. Care to explain?"
>"Oh, yeah, they aren't weapons. You never know when you'll need to blow up an asteroid."
>"With 100 nuclear missile silos?"
>"Its a big asteroid."

>>6577492
>Then then US has a huge network of mass drivers they can bombard the earth with, that is unless the chinese build one first!

The US would pay China to make it for them. US doesn't make anything themselves anymore, except fertilizer, and CO2

>>6578036
There's not really a difference between a system to cost-effectively return mass from the moon in large quantities, and a weapon to bombard the Earth's surface.

This is one of the big obstacles to developing space technology: like nuclear technology, it's hard to separate peaceful applications from military capabilities.

>>6577464
>the vacuum shitter system is way better, clean efficient. ejects fertilizer pellets for your garden or aquaponics
You can't use Human waste for fertilizer. Humans take a fuckload of different drugs designed to work on Humans that don't often metabolize in plants but still get taken up by them. If you start using Human shit to fertilize the gardens people will go insane if anyone is taking anti-depressants or anti-psychotics or will get fucked up when someone else is taking heart medication or similar. The sanitation system we have on Earth is capable of getting around that issue with A LOT of time and effort but it also takes an enormous amount of space AND water.

>>6577254
In point of fact, SpaceX is currently making "SuperDraco" engines (for propulsively landing its manned Dragon) with electron beam melting.

Yup: 3d-printed rocket engines.

>>6577498
>Putting weapons on the moon is illegal by UN decree.
I don't know what is stupider about that statement - that you think the UN is capable of being effective, that you think anyone would listen to the UN even if they tried to be effective or that you think someone else declaring something illegal that would clearly give you an advantage so extreme you would be the only one capable of declaring AND ENFORCING anything will actually stop anything from happening.
>TL;DR: whoever controls a horde of mass drivers on the moon dictates what the UN enforces.

>>6578096
>Humans take a fuckload of different drugs designed to work on Humans that don't

I feel ya bro. Those things should be banned.

>>6578121
>I feel ya bro. Those things should be banned.
That could actually be a reasonable solution, and a good way to explain why Mars colonists are taking such a hard eugenics stance to anyone they reject without stirring up shit.
>our waste management system doesn't support cleansing the waste of anti-psychotics, anti-depressants, hormones, etc
instead of:
>you are a degenerate crazy person or trap and we don't want to risk mixing your genes with that off our progeny somewhere down the line

>>6576953
>Lies, it takes about 5 km/s, maybe in the 4's if you airocapture. Best case it takes a four to one fuel to everything else ratio to get to mars. Plenty of rockets cant do it.
You need a guided spacecraft to navigate to Mars in any case. Boosts always require course correction. If your upper stage can't boost to Mars transfer, your spacecraft just needs more onboard propulsion.

The payload may end up being tiny, but you don't need a special launch vehicle. NASA's favorite launcher for planetary missions was Delta II for a long time. It was small compared to the options currently available, but it was cost-effective.

>This is why orbiting fuel depots can do wonders for a mars mission architecture.
Fuel depots can be helpful, but they also greatly complicate the mission. Orbital rendezvous and bulk propellant storage are not minor challenges.

>>6578159
>Fuel depots can be helpful, but they also greatly complicate the mission. Orbital rendezvous and bulk propellant storage are not minor challenges.

Orbital fuel depots... designed like offshore drilling rigs. Tether drill, siphons off hydrogen from upper atmosphere, refines, and compresses it into liquid Hydrogen bulk storage tanks.
Deeper drilling for oxygen.

>>6578251
Have any studies been done showing the feasibility of that? Seems like a great way to attain water in space if it's feasible since you could run the compressors off solar and not deal with having to lift the bulk of it up yourself.

>>6578096
>You can't use Human waste for fertilizer.

You can use your own waste as fertilizer for your own personal food supply, and in growing feed for your own livestock. Your personal medications would not contaminate your resources, but instead incorporate them into your diet, reducing your dependence on dosing, once the medication is integrated into your diet.

>>6578347
>Have any studies been done showing the feasibility of that?
I just pulled it out of my butt, and haven't had time to do any studies yet.
>you could run the compressors off solar
not to mention the massive amount of static energy you'd be able to tap from the tether itself dragging through the atmosphere.
(again still in the raw poop form of theory)

>>6577283
>>6577290
The only way we would have that much scientific advancement is if we had a free market and allowed the PEOPLE to control capital instead of the state.

>>6578392
>The only way we would have that much scientific advancement is if we had a free market and allowed the PEOPLE to control capital instead of the state.
Ahahahahahahahahaha. A free market yes, the "PEOPLE" controlling capital would just result in what we get whenever minimum wage goes up (hint: all the prices rise to suck them dry because they are too stupid to manage their money and look for bargains or shop around - not to mention they fact they look down on anyone that does and try to charge them extra if they are on the selling side of the situation because they take a personal offense to someone trying to express their role as a consumer in a free market)

>>6578406
>the "PEOPLE" controlling capital
Yes, which is literally what it is kiddo.
What do you think happens when we abolish central banks and have a deflationary economy. A massive amount of savings gets into the hands of the people which they can use to start businesses, invest or simply retire.

>would just result in what we get whenever minimum wage goes up
What? Unemployment? lol

>all the prices rise to suck them dry
Impossible and historically wrong.
In deflationary economies with mostly free markets prices have gone down dramatically as wages rose thanks to production. This is what happened for decades during the gilded age.

>because they are too stupid to manage their money and look for bargains or shop around
Boy that's some fucking retarded shit. People shop around all the time.
Especially when one company offers a product for like 200 dollars cheaper or something, nobody is going to be retarded enough to buy from the more expensive company and eventually after losing market share the more expensive company will die.

>>6578413
>no-grasp-of-reality/10

>>6578431
>absolutely no argument against basic logic/10

>>6578442
libby thinks logic is a thing/10

>>6578452
But central banks are actually a bad thing.

Please tell me you at least agree with that much.

>>6578454
Leftists LOVE central bankers,

they're actually that stupid.

>>6578455
Making money off of money so you can have more money.

I don't understand how that concept is anything but inherently evil and greedy.

>>6578452
>still no argument
Please leave the science and economics board and go back to /x/, /lit/ or /reddit/.

>>6578456
>I don't understand how that concept is anything but inherently evil and greedy.
I know, yet liberals religiously defend them.

They're massive hypocrites.

>"Liberals"
>"Leftists"
>">>>/reddit/"

Another innocuous thread derailed by /pol/-tier propaganda.

See you in the next global warming thread!

>>6578442
>implying you would be capable of understanding a rational argument
>implying that wasn't the argument
>proving my point
Good job, supertard.

>>6578479
>BAWWWWW I DON'T AGREE SO IT'S /POL/

Incredible the amount of whining from leftists these days.
Why don't you actually try to argue people's points instead of screaming /pol/?

>See you in the next global warming thread!
Oh great, I love deindustrialization and poverty.

>>6578479
>implying it wasn't derailed when some faggot started discussing economics in /sci/
Get fucked tard.

>>6578482
>>implying you would be capable of understanding a rational argument

Ahhhh, it's always great watching economic illiterates go into full damage control mode when they get backed into a corner.

You literally have no argument against anything I said, it's hilarious.

>>6578488
>dubs of truth
/sci/ - 1
tard - 0

>>6578489
>You literally have no argument against anything I said, it's hilarious.
You are incapable of understanding the argument. Said in an abstract enough manner as to prove itself to be a fact when you failed to understand the meaning. There is no sense into getting into a logical debate with you because you are incapable of understanding logical arguments, hence I provided a proof of your own incompetence you were too incompetent to see for what it was. Good job on that by the way, now get bent or at least go back to /biz/ (then again, if you know anything about economics you'd already be there instead of trying to pitch your idiotic economic policies to /sci/).

>>6578454
redirecting back to the topic...
the Mayan central bank survived the collapse of it's civilization, or was it the cause?
Charging families first-born sacrifice interest on home loans, was a bit excessive, considering that the homes were built of mudd, and straw.

The people could have saved their children by simply turning away from the bank, and living inawoods. Rather than abandoning society, they should have overthrown the evil bankers, and seized control of the bank, rather than giving it power over them.
banks do not kill people. banning banks is not the answer. If everyone had a bank, crime would go down.

>>6578497
>redirecting back to the topic...
How the fuck is THAT the topic?
Fuck off back to /biz/

>>6578487
>calling me a "leftist"
There you go again.
How could you even tell that from my post?
My first post in this thread, btw

>>6578496
>You are incapable of understanding the argument.
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHA

HOLY SHIT

YOU'RE ACTUALLY STILL REPLYING AFTER GETTING THIS BLOWN THE FUCK OUT

These excuses are fucking PATHETIC, you couldn't respond to any of my arguments, you won't even explain why you think they're "not logical".

Holy fucking shit, you literally have nothing.

>>6578500
>There you go again.
Because you are a leftist.
I am right aren't I?

>>6578506
nope

>>6578496
>idiotic economic policies to /sci/
The ones you are clearly unable to understand?

You're like a creation scientist trying to debate with a biologist.

>>6578507
Then what are you then, out of curiosity.

>>6578460
>>6578479
>>6578497
>>6578500
>>6578501
Reporting all you faggots, fuck off back to /biz/

>>6578513
>Reporting all you faggots
/sci/ is so typical

This place has really turned into reddit.

Basic scientific research is a public good and best funded by the government.

>>6578511
I don't know, I wouldn't really call myself anything.

>>6578514
This was a pretty cool thread appropriately placed in /sci/ with lots of neat ideas and relevant papers and debate being posted. Then some jackass started derailing with economics. Joot made a containment board for that bullshit for a reason.

>>6578498
how is a colony on Mars different than the Mayan colony that died in central america that was taxed to death by evil bankers?

send adam and eve to mars and let them live free.

>>6578518
Uh the economics of getting to mars is one of the topics of this thread.

>>6578497
That wasn't the topic but all I have to say on that subject is that when you centralize money, you centralize power. Not good.

Anyway, back to the actual topic, I think colonization of the moon is a good first step. Its much closer and a fuck up is much less severe.

But of course we won't do that, because it makes too much sense and is more cost efficient.

>>6578521
The SCIENCE of getting to mars was the topic of the thread. The economics bullshit goes on /biz/ - it is literally taking away potential relevant posts on the subject to post the economics crap here because of the bump limit.

>>6578516
>Basic scientific research is a public good and best funded by the government.

because governments are widards and they can make gold out of thin air

>>6578524
>Anyway, back to the actual topic, I think colonization of the moon is a good first step. Its much closer and a fuck up is much less severe.
The moon would be better as a robotic colony than a Human one. If we're going to start colonizing space we should really just use it as an automated depot with robots manufacturing parts in bulk to avoid the logistical issues of Humans while we develop the tech to throw mercury and/or venus at mars to increase the gravity enough to begin terraforming.

>>6578526
>no slightly off-topic posts allowed

>>6578527
Government can deal with the free rider problem through taxation to fund scientific research that benefits society in general.

>>6578527
>gold
They can print money, they can tax, and they can steal money from other nations.

>>6578530
Hmm... then there are the concerns of long term gravitational effects on the human body as well.

Also, surely you'd have to have a few human overseers to that kind of thing as well? I don't trust a fully automated system.

Maybe just have the overseers rotate out in shifts?

>>6578532
>Government can deal with the free rider problem through taxation to fund scientific research that benefits society in general.
We would have far more scientific advancement if we allowed private companies and non-profit organizations to develop technology.

If we had a deflationary currency they would have the capital to do this and the cost of the resources required would be very small due to their abundance.

>>6578537
The robots could be operated remotely with just the ones that do things like plow the regolith with magnets for iron completely automated. Once all the parts are sorted out standard industrial automation robots could do the fact majority of the manufacturing and can be reprogrammed from Earth. Sweeping up enormous piles of iron and separating out other base materials would be a relatively trivial process and the vacuum would make it easy to do things like chip manufacture on the fly and with pretty simple cleanroom designs. A few hundred rovors with robotic arms, CNCs, lathes, a forge and all that could go a long way towards completely automating the process of manufacturing everything.

>>6569151
>And a few lichens and bacteria, and possibly tardigrades could be introduced to Mars. It has been shown that some lichens can survive in Martian conditions.

send hops, and yeast. get a good Martian microbrewery started. Everyone will want to try Martian beer. Thus solving the financial difficulty, and making space travel affordable.

Like Mos Eisley Cantina, customers will swarm from around the galaxy.

>>6578539
That's an assertion.

Public grants and universities have long been the source of knowledge and basic research into new fields. DARPA, the NSF, and defense spending developed many nascent sciences and technologies like the internet, quantum physics, GPS, and many others. Short-term profit-driven organizations do not have nearly as much to gain from doing basic research as a government can.

>>6578548
>Public grants and universities have long been the source of knowledge and basic research into new fields. DARPA, the NSF, and defense spending developed many nascent sciences and technologies like the internet, quantum physics, GPS, and many others. Short-term profit-driven organizations do not have nearly as much to gain from doing basic research as a government can.

We can do this without the violence of government and we would have more research done.
If individuals had an abundance of savings and disposable income a LOT of money would get funneled into private research projects, when I say a lot, I mean a LOT. Especially if the cost of doing these projects is very cheap thanks to a deflationary currency.

>>6569359
Plants do give a fuck about gravity, have you seen how they grow in zero g? Also he was probably referring to the technicality that terraforming means making something like Earth so you need to have a planet that is as big as Earth etc

Looks like someone got banned XD

>>6578554
>Also he was probably referring to
Still checking this thread until it dies because it's pretty interesting. I was referring to the fact that adding mass to make it suitable for Humans without significant physical issues over time, to hold an atmosphere and ideally to restart the molten core to create a magnetic field and a protective magnetic field is a pretty critical step if you don't want to live underground. Anything we can conceive of at this stage to do such things would necessarily mean you are going to fuck up anything already built (crashing a moon, asteroids, mercury and/or venus into mars for instance) so the first step is logically to increase the mass since it would more or less negate any previous steps (and probably significantly change the climate from which you start the changs to atmosphere and land anyway).

>>6578557
kek

>>6578557
Ah keynes.

>>6578554
>you need to have a planet that is as big as Earth etc
it's not the size of the ship...

>Plants do give a fuck about gravity, have you seen how they grow in zero g?
plants are natural air scrubbers man
we should like have them on all our space missions.
they can't help the way that they were born, so what if they're different from the plants that you're used to seeing. don't be so intolerant or you could miss out on eating awesome space bananas one day.

Okay so I'm a social studies person and I wandered in here by mistake and read this thread.

I'm interested in this "mach effect" you're all talking about. It seems wrong to me that inertia is caused by the gravity of everything else.

Isn't total energy a product of mass and speed? I did a though experiment just now and put two comets in a universe divested of everything else, and put them on a course to slam into each other really fast. Wouldn't they blast apart because of their inertia? If Inertia was the result of the universe's gravity, and the universe had very little, wouldn't the two hypothetical comets just stop when they hit each other? That doesn't seem right. It seems, intuitively, that this Mach guy is wrong, and that inertia is due to the mass of an object and not the gravitational wells of other objects. Someone explain this, 'cause from the outside it looks dumb.

>>6578584
thought experiment

>>6578584
Nigger energy is a product of a shitload of things, mechanical and non-mechanical.

>>6578593
Okay, more specifically I meant the kinetic energy of a moving object.

>>6578593
>nigger energy is a product of a shitload of things

>The Moon is a Harsh Mistress

>>6578584
I agree, having objects momentum be caused by gravity makes absolutely no sense at all.

>>6575863
>illegally

Niggah when you're on another celestial body no government rules on earth over you

>>6569234
Source? I really hope that this is one of those rumours that never actually happen/

>>6578584
You can't do a thought experiment where you remove everything in the universe except two objects and expect the laws to be the exact same as the actual universe that has more than two objects when discussing things like gravity or gravinertial (mach-lorentz-einstein) forces. That's like saying "if there were only the Earth, wouldn't the Earth hurdle off in a straight line instead of going in a circle" - you are subtracting the reason it goes in a circle then acting shocked that it stops going in a circle.

>>6578604
It actually does explain quite a bit (why it's so difficult to pin down inertia as anything other than "a property of a thing", why spooky action at a distance works - oh - and why there is experimental evidence backing the mach-lorentz-einstein interpretation of inertia). If things were purely intuitive they would still be made out of earth/water/air/fire.

>>6578622
>implying they'd let you lift off to escape without shooting you down

>>6578584
think of gravity as invisible tentacles everywhere and on everything
when a woman jumps up and down, she can feel the tentacles pulling on her body parts
men have long observed the effects of gravity
it has contributed greatly to the continuation of our species.
tentacles do not simply let go, they stretch and become weaker with distance.
to learn more about gravity, we need more female astronauts

>>6578671
>to learn more about gravity, we need more female astronauts
SRS pls go.

>>6578708
SRS, your REKT is showing.

>>6578671
>tfw mods removed anti-srs image but don't remove the douchebags bickering about economics
unbased mods

>>6569151
>an immense amount of men
>engineers
>small radiation-proof greenhouse

Do you want the first colony on Mars to be huge, raging homosexuals?

>>6578947
I've seen this a lot already: Why you guys so hard on engineers?

If/when I get to go to college I want to go for Electrical Engineering, just want to know why engineers are so hated.

>>6578947
>implying engineers don't have wives
Obviously the women would go along, they could tend the greenhouses or something.

I do wonder what would be the population ratios for a colony on Mars? Of course you'd need your engineers, farmers and doctors, but wouldn't you also need laborers, lawyers, businessmen, etc etc etc etc etc?

You can't send a thousand doctors and engineers off to form a colony, what do you think would happen? A glorious technocratic society would form? Not likely.

>>6577494
True. It would be very nice though.

Imagine underwater cities

>>6578032
>>6578036
>Ahh, but that's the beauty of it, they aren't weapons until you need them to be.

>"So, it is basically known that the US is constructing WMD's on the moon. Care to explain?"
>"Oh, yeah, they aren't weapons. You never know when you'll need to blow up an asteroid."
>"With 100 nuclear missile silos?"
>"Its a big asteroid."

jesus christ /sci/ sometimes you are so dark and evil

>>6579010
Shouldn't we attempt that here first before worrying about doing it on other planets?

Haven't we only mapped like 5% of the ocean floor?

>>6579014
>imagine underwater cities
use your imagination

>>6578991
>You can't send a thousand doctors and engineers off to form a colony, what do you think would happen? A glorious technocratic society would form? Not likely.
Everyone claims "muh laborors" whenever something like this comes up, but yeah, a glorious technocratic society. The actual labor left in society with modern technology is so utterly small that when you factor in the "I enjoy actually doing something" and the "holy fuckballs I'm driving a bulldozer on Mars" mentalities the result would be a bunch of engineers and scientists actually enjoying their lives without retards running rampant destroying everything they try to build.

>>6579013
>jesus christ /sci/ sometimes you are so dark and evil
>implying the "let's tow an asteroid into orbit and mine it" project won't get turned by the politicians into "opps, we accidently lost control of the asteroid and it slammed into our enemy's capital, we'll send the peace corps in and let's just call it even"

>>6579041
This is how Rapture happened.

>>6579047
Rapture happened because the original storyline of "let's save the senator's daughter from the lesbian brainwashing camp with some insane stolen tech that kidnapped her" was too politically-incorrect for the faggots that took over development before the release and opted to go the "lol look how stupid libertarian ideals are, it made everyone into a drugged up psychopath following the direction of a megalomaniac". You shouldn't confuse somewhat amusing fiction with reality - that's how the liberals manage to get all the unrealistic ideologies into people's heads to begin with.

>>6579064
It was a joke.

Yeah, I think this sort of thing would work out better IRL on another planet because of a few reasons

-They are going to be viewed as pioneers and heroes
-I don't think most "high class" or well educated people are actually so infused with a holier-than-thou attitude that they won't bulldoze or build a building.
-the "enjoy actually doing something" and "holy fuckballs I'm driving a bulldozer on Mars" attitudes that the other anon pointed out are kinda likely.

I know, jokes/sarcasm don't transfer over the internet, you still gotta make jokes every now and then. Where is my damn sarcasm font anyway?

>>6579046
jesus christ /pol/

>>6579047
>>6579064
Rapture didn't even use libertarian principals.

>>6569151
>CO2

thats the problem, the poles are covert in a thick layer of frozen CO2 (called dry ice), beneath the layer is frozen waterice, but to mine it down there would be extremely expensive. Putting a colony at the equator would be a much better idea, because we could extract water from the soil (which is 2%) and use solar energy more efficient, plus it wouldn't be like -80°C, just nice and warm 20°C - -20°C.

>implying Mars and the wider solar system won't become the home of excess essentially-immortal transhumans.
Where else do you figure else we'll get the living space?

>>6579272
Mind virtualization.
Why have thousands of acres of farmland to support living people when ten acres of solar panels in orbit can support a million people living out their wildes dream in a simulated world.

>>6579276
Maybe for the poor people, but the middle and rich classes will want to keep bodies (be they biological, mechanical or something inbetween).

>>6579280
The rich and the middle class will fall behind and become the new poor assuming that happens.
And the poor won't be virtualized, they'll remain as baseline poor humans with no assets.

>>6571370
humanity could be dead from nuclear armageddon/other extinction event in thirty years

>>6578657
/pol/ please no government would really care that much but the scientific community might get butt hurt

>>6579280
>>6579298
>implying the poor won't have their clockcycles reduced to one tick per year to avoid any potential whatsoever for an uprising
>or just unplugging them to reallocate the cpu cycles and energy consumption to that one guy that's overclocking the shit out of his brain
Idiots.