/sci/ - Science & Math

I wouldn't. Humans are not worthy to be on other planets. Yet.

>>7512760
Why?

>>7512768
Well, we have messed up Earth. I personally don't think we can be trusted not to mess up Mars or whatever.

We have good intentions, but we aren't as wise as we think we are.

>>7512768
I would build elysium but automate the defense systems this time

>>7512788
>humans are evil meme
stop this fucking shit. "We have nessed up earth" what does mess up even mean? Why would a green earth be btter than an earth full of technology or a desert earth.
mess up Mars? how can you even mess up anything on mars. do you think other civilizations will come around and think "Hey, that planet would have been great for whatever if humans hand't 'messed it up'"?

who cares if we fuck up Mars?

Lets say we wouldn't trash other planets, and hereby deemed worthy. I'd rather use space travel for science use, and definitely not for vacation use. Even let's say I'm gonna get bankrupt (Chances still are)

$1 Trillion guys...

NASA got $18B last year.
ffs..

How can you ruin mars? I'm pretty certain that no life would ever develop there and it's not like could destroy the planet itself.
Earth is beautiful and valuable because it contains life, mars has none.

More telescopes.
$1 trillion telescope program.

>>7512757
Probably investing in a cheap way to get material (not people) in and out of orbit, creating habitable space colonies, even if small in scale (the focus for this should be radiation shielding and creating sufficient force so that human phisiology doesn't get fucked by micro gravity) and mining the few NEAs that are around the earth in reasonable distances more than once every 12 years. After that, invest in manufacturing in space, create ships thataren't supposed to be atmosphere ready, using materials launched by the first system and piloted by a small number of humans that are ocaccionally brought into orbit through space planes or the like.

the fact that we are destorying our planet is not unknown. so why would u allow humans to even destroy more planets?

>>7512757
>imagine if money wasn't an issue.
>Your budget is $1 Trillion.
I would do 7 more ISSs.

Then complain about not having enough money to do anything really grand.

>>7512757
a trillion dollars on fusion research.

>>7512760
Scientists and engineers absolutely are worthy as they are the only ones that do anything worthwhile to society.

- Probably throw a bit of it at the Skylon concept, I've got money to burn and it would be nice to see it come to fruition.
- Significant research and development on a Launch loop system.
- Heavy research on manufacturing in zero G and vacuum conditions.
- Hopefully find enough cool things you can make into space to incite other nations and companies to invest in it. If the Launch loop proves to be a success, hopefully others will start building them as well.
- Put the remaining money (and any further generated from all the space manufacturing) towards a full orbital ring system.

>>7512757
It's easy: take the Saturn V, re-engineer it to benefit from new technologies like carbon fiber reinforced polymers. Then I'd make a joint venture with SpaceX to benefit from their soft landing technology. Keep the rest of the money.

>>7513397
>>destroying a planet

what a faggot you are. a planet is just a resource.

we're not destroying earth. we're civilizing it.

10 billion for new telescope.
10 billion for Europa flyby to check the water it shoots out for life.
10 billion for a non el cheapo titan rover.
10 billion for a fully reusable launch system for leo.
10 billion for skylab 5.
50 billion for a mars direct camping trip to learn about mars and deep space travel.
200 billion for other science, rovers, flybys etc. I'm just an ignorant child so I don't know much about non pop sci missions. I would leave it to the people who do know their stuff and with a little insight or advice from those guys, the budget could increase or decrease up to a hundred billion based on what they spoon feed to me.
600 billion on an Elon Musk Mars colonization type plan using fully reusable mega rockets. Doing a Mars bad ass camping trip would be cool and it would prove that we can get humans to another planet but if humans want to get dead serious about living on other planets then you have to do it cheaply without expendable rockets or this whole budget couldn't even get 100 people on mars. Humans turning into a multi planet species would fundamentally change our direction, leaning more and more into making the space odyssey, star trek type dream go into the ballpark of reachable. I'm not saying 3001 the final odyssey is the future bible or anything, I know we might kill our selves or do some dumb shit to hold us back, (Don't worry violent simmons guy i'm partially self aware that the world isn't perfect and space isn't economical) but getting serious about having humans on more than one planet will change the game.
50 billion for asteroid mining. (maybe it should be more, I don't know much about it)
50 billion for fusion. Having fusion powered space craft would also change the game a little (and the energy game on earth to a whole other sport of course) but I wouldn't put more than 50 billion dollars worth of eggs in that basket unless you go big or go home. If the mars plan messes up then all of it should go into fusion until its achieved.

>>7514146
Cynically shitting all over my post/criticisms are appreciated.

I would just like to comment that comparisons with budgets and results of past and current space programs is more likely to be misleading than helpful.

Pretty much nobody has had the money in their pocket, and the law on their side, to simply pursue goals in space as efficiently and effectively as possible. Instead, the money and authority are always subject to politics, and politics is a game of compromise.

>>7512757
Dump pretty much all of it into unmanned missions, and robotics and AI development.
Put the rest into propulsion.

Humans make for shitty space travelers--a robot doesn't require several tons of supplies and a heavy life support system to survive. It won't go insane from extended trips in cramped quarters (hell, it doesn't even need quarters), it won't degenerate in microgravity, it won't get cancer from cosmic radiation, and so on.
It would be far more efficient to advance robotic explorers than to advance the crutches needed for squishy ones.

>>7513786
That's what you say until the metastreumonic force comes for you.

>>7513751
>>7513751
This, because who doesn't want to master the power of the stars?

I also would invest in gold.

>>7513786

I'll civilize you with Ebola.

>>7512757

Every cent toward a space elevator (or a related workable concept). Once you have cheap access to orbit the rest is much easier.

>>7512757
>Your budget is $1 Trillion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA
> the total amounts (in nominal dollars) that NASA has been budgeted from 1958 to 2011 amounts to $526.178 billion
>when measured in real terms (adjusted for inflation), the figure is $790.0 billion, or an average of $15.818 billion per year over its fifty-year history.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure we could do something impressive with that figure.

>>7512788
It's kinda impossible to mess up the ecosystem of Mars. If we make it habitable at all for humans then we've made an improvement to it.

>>7514390

KEK

>>7514334
This is probably a good answer. Even for colonizing other planets you would still benefit immensely from having robots on the planet for a couple of years building shit before sending any people

>>7514146
Cost savings via reusability are turning out to be fictional. The added cost (and risk( of the system makes the reusability not worth it.

For large vessels we should be able to piece whatever we want together using SLS, which can bring up to 130 metric tons to LEO.

Fusion by itself is quite likely not achievable for $1 trillion, with space applications a long way off regardless of budget.

>>7512788
>Well, we have messed up Earth.
ARE messing up. The distinction is kinda important.

>I personally don't think we can be trusted not to mess up Mars or whatever.
Uh, Mars is a frozen, airless desert. What would "messing it up" even mean?

>We have good intentions, but we aren't as wise as we think we are.
And we can only learn to do better by trying.

>>7514334
I'm not convinced that human explorers are as worthless as people think they are. Yeah, for short term missions a robot is going to deliver more scientific payload to the site. But for long term missions requiring maintenance, adaptation and changing goals, humans still kick the ass of any robot we will build in the foreseeable future. Look at the ISS for example.

I'd just dump half of it into extreme R&D and exotic propulsion designs. Our current technology is just shit for anything that isn't symbolic picnics on the Moon or Mars. Maybe revive project Orion too while we're at it.

>>7514404
The ISS needs constant resupply missions for food and other supplies and the crew is always changing.

Now imagine that outside of Low Earth Orbit. It would be next to impossible to resupply the craft and changing the crew would be out of the question--the astronauts would not only have to deal with bone and muscle loss over an extended duration, but also dangerously high exposure to cosmic radiation without the protective bubble of Earth's magnetic field.

Solutions to these problems could certainly be developed, but they would be both costly and bulky and would never truly remove our inhibiting factors. The money would be better spent on machines.

>>7514409
>bypassing the Outer Space Treaty of 1969
>shipping nuclear weapons in space with public knowledge
Good luck with doing that with any amount of money.

>>7513751
Build a dyson sphere

>>7513774
They already redid the Saturn 5 engine.

>>7514551
Pic related

500 billion to robotics R&D.
10 billion to rovers, fly-bys, etc with a focus on searching the solar system for life.
250 billion for a Mars colonization mission.
10 billion to telescopes.
80 billion to R&D for solutions to problems of humans in space such as cosmic radiation damage and the effects of microgravity.
100 billion to new propulsive methods
40 billion as something to throw at fusion but it probably can't be achieved in the foreseeable future
10 billion for space tourism R&D

I'd open up a sports station, both an actual station in space with space based sports arenas and a television satellite.

and space sports bars.