/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8229624
I'm willing to wager that there isn't enough trapped in the ice. Having little atmosphere isn't as big of a deal as the Microgravity problem, as well as the lack of a magnetosphere which would mean constant bombardment of harmful solar radiation during the day. The magnetosphere also would help keep the atmosphere on the planet, as the sun is stripping the atmosphere away, albeit very slowly.

>>8229624
>How would we go about terraforming Mars?
not science, please fuck off

>>8229624
>How would we go about terraforming Mars?
Slam another planet or decently sized moon into it then wait thousands of years for it to settle down. By then we likely would have better technology which could terraform other planets in other solar systems.

>>8229624
Musk has a mind to nuke the poles, that might release enough water. The lack of a magnetic field is a large problem as well. We had a thread a while ago about crashing one of mars' satellites into it, the consensus was that it would take millennia for the dust to settle.

Really no matter what, surface life on mars is very, very distant. Any colony in the next thousand years is gonna have to be entirely underground, shielded from the radiation.

>>8229624

>>8229624
>How would we go about terraforming Mars?
We don't bother. Build enclosed cities. The monumental investment of time and money required to terraform mars is a poor investment when it could be colonized without undertaking a grandiose and poorly conceived attempt at geoengineering. The technology needed to keep a colony functioning on mars would be simple compared to the technology required to set up the supply line and infrastructure needed to undertake a millennia long geoengineering/terraforming project (mature radiation shielding for spacecraft, mature large-scale artificial gravity systems, mature oxygen regeneration and ISRU technology, etc.).

I don't think anyone talking about terraforming has any clue how much sheer tonnage of shit is required

Look at what we are doing in regards to earth with CO2
All we're done is possibly increased the CO2 concentration by 100 ppm
By burning materials just dug up from the earth

And then you think we can terraform MARS?

>>8229624
> How would we go about terraforming Mars?
We can't. Terraforming is a science fiction plot device, not something we could actually do.

> Is there enough gases trapped in the ice caps that carpet bombing them would release enough CO2 to create a sufficiently pressurized atmosphere?
Not even remotely.

> Is there enough oxygen and water in the ground to provide for biochemical processes?
There's no free oxygen. If you want oxygen, you'd have to extract it from water or CO2 or rock. And you'd need to do that faster than the iron in the rock absorbs it.

> What kind of time frames and challenges would we be up against?
The main challenge is the impossibility. It's not a matter of toggling from Mars' current state to some other stable state. It's a matter of dragging Mars' environment away from its equilibrium state and holding it there.

>>8229624
>How would we go about terraforming Mars?

Can't. Atmosphere's too thin, there's not enough gravity to sustain one if you somehow built it up, and no magnetic field to protect it from the solar wind blowing it away.

Leave that sad-ass little planet alone, like it belongs. It sucks.

>>8229845
Asteroids are the best bet, they won't add much mass but they will add elements to the atmosphere and their masses will make it much easier to redirect their orbits to exactly where we want them to hit; likely the poles, where the debris will coat the ice, decreasing it's albedo and making it significantly easier to heat and then it too can vaporize and thicken the atmosphere making more things like water vapor and carbon dioxide availible for plants and microorganisms to do their thing mostly unassisted.

>>8229836
Yes it is, it's also engineering. Now lead the way and fuck off first.

>>8229624
>How would we go about terraforming Mars?
Crash something larger than phobos into it and sit and wait. Without restarting the core of mars terraforming it is a pipe dream and definately not within our life time

>>8229916
>600 years to terraform mars

What the fuck is this idiot smoking?

>he thinks "terraforming" is more than a meme

>>8229624
>How would we go about terraforming Mars?
You don't because that's stupid.

There's nothing wrong with a nice enclosed subterranean mall to live in. It's a great place for human society to get used to being a multi world species before greater expansion.

By the time terraforming becomes plausible we will have discovered multiple Earth-like planets and probably have the tech to travel there. Please stop bringing up terraforming, it makes you seem like a retard.

>terraforming Mars
>>/x/

>>8229873
>The monumental investment of time and money required to terraform mars is a poor investment when it could be colonized without undertaking a grandiose and poorly conceived attempt at geoengineering.
Yes.

Also, The monumental investment of time and money required to colonize mars is a poor investment when literally every investment on earth pays more profit.

>>8229624
>How would we go about terraforming Mars?


We don't, digging into the ground and making habitats makes 100% more sense in every way imaginable. First we need to get people ON mars before we can even THINK about terraforming.
Seriously if terraforming was so easy we'd do it to Africa and a fuck load of other places that could produce O2 to combat our C02 footprint.

>>8229970
>We don't, digging into the ground and making habitats makes 100% more sense in every way imaginable.
Yes, on earth. Habitats above ground make even more sense.

>>8229972
I meant on mars.

>>8229975
I know, which is no less idiotic than OP's terraforming suggestion. We're not running out of real estate development oppoprtunities on earth any time soon.

>>8229985
>We're not running out of real estate development oppoprtunities on earth any time soon.

>Lets put keep all eggs in one basket, because I like it better, fuck what others want and what's best for humanity overall

>>8229624
Waste of time since we cant change the gravity, just build artificial enclosed habitats instead.

>>8229989
>Eggs in a basket
This bullshit has been debunked many times, no need to beat a dead horse.

>>8229985
the amount of the earth that humans(whites) are allowed to live on is rapidly shrinking

>>8230003
I hope you're a troll and don't expect a serious response to this level of idiocy.

>>8230006
Do you live in a cave?
If Hillary wins, America will become a white minority country where open oppression of whites is acceptable.

Lichens and time.
Lots of time.

>>8230013
Did you know that it is haram for Muslims to explore space?

I'm not even kidding, Google it. Mars might be our best hope to get away from them.

>>8230015
this

>>8229624
>How would we go about terraforming Mars?
Don't bother, terraformation is a pointless and juvenile fantasy. Concept exists solely for autists to write bad sci-fi on Mars but still have the option of showing silly facial expressions without helmets.

>>8229989
>that op

still get's me every time it's great

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Io3uS4uA0wI

>>8230082
bbbut...
we still can colonize it, right?

>>8230082
>terraformation is a pointless and juvenile fantasy
Thank you Alexander Pope,
now fuck off, and try to
quash some other ideas.

this reddit tier elon musk le mars le hyperloop science is annoying

>>8230002
You can't really argue that setting up self-sustaining off-world colonies wouldn't drastically improve our species security.

>>8230669
Most of the things that could kill the species on earth would also kill it on mars; there are not many exceptions.

Among those exceptions, some can be mitigated by developing better shelters on earth, e.g. underground or underwater.

Generally it's a question of opportunity cost for the same spending; I'm assuming limited funding for this goal because no one really gives a shit. (Neither should they, humantiy is overrated)

>>8230697
>Most of the things that could kill the species on earth would also kill it on mars; there are not many exceptions.
I'm not really sure what you mean by that. A dinosaur-killer asteroid hitting Mars would kill everyone there as dead as one hitting Earth would, yes. But the chances of both planets getting hit simultaneously, or within a small timeframe, is so unlikely that you might as well call it impossible.

There's a very narrow selection of existential threats that would kill everyone across multiple locations in the solar system. Gamma ray bursts or a fucking alien invasion, pretty much.

Spreading humanity outside of Earth would rule out all planetary-scale calamities as something that threaten the entire human species.

>>8229624
Robert Zubrin devotes one or two chapters in his book "The Case for Mars" to the topic. You should read it if you're interested.

>>8229961
Interstellar travel will remain a dream because traveling at relativistic speeds won't happen due to the extreme energy demands.

>>8230726
>A dinosaur-killer asteroid
Not that anon, but the dinosaur-killer asteroid left the deep sea virtually untouched. So what he said about "some can be mitigated by developing better shelters on earth, e.g. underground or underwater" applies here. So no need for spreading to another planet for that specific purpose.

>>8230337
Yeah.

>>8229624
The Number 1 thing the Mars Atmosphere need in order to be more habitable is PRESSURE

It really doesn't even matter too much what it is comprised of, it just needs to be thicker

Mars lacks a magnetic shield like earth has and Nasa's Maven probe has shown that Mars is losing atmosphere even today

If we could dump heavy gases like Flouro carbons or pollutants mars could hold a thicker atmosphere

If the atmosphere is thicker the planet will warm up and liquid water could exist on the surface without boiling away or freezing

From a human standpoint we could use machines to break apart the CO2 into breathable Oxygen, and if there was sufficient pressure at the surface you wouldn't even need a space suit just an oxygen mask

>>8230726
> But the chances of both planets getting hit simultaneously,
In order to be useful as a backup, the martian colony would need to be self-sufficient to the point of being able to survive on its own for as long as it takes for earth to recover then create (or at least maintain) a space program capable of recolonisation.

While this isn't strictly impossible (unlike terraforming), it's still many orders of magnitude beyond our current capabilities.

Even with a concerted effort, it will be a century or two before we could create an off-world colony which a) doesn't need a continuous stream of supply missions, and b) won't suffer 100% mortality the first time that something important fails.

That's assuming that humans can survive long-term in Martian gravity. This isn't actually a given.

>>8229624
This would be a process that would take upwards of thousands of years to truly get it Earth-like.

Start by gathering nickel/iron asteroids and sending them to the surface to build the planet up. Not all at once, of course, but over the course of years the mass would build up. If heavier elements could be found to speed up the increase in mass especially if radioactive isotopes are present. Throw in a few hundred comets for water, methane, and additional CO2 to build the atmosphere. At some point there would be enough material that the pressure under the surface would heat and melt material, much of it nickle/iron, that would start producing a stronger magnetic field.

Yadda yadda, we get to where we can get O2 in the air to breath and have surface gravity closer to what we are familiar with...maybe about .75 - .85G.

>>8229624
Terraforming, no.
Colonizing with intent to establish it as an industrial center, however, has some merit.
Unfortunately, the moon is probably a better candidate for exoindustry what with its proximity and the abundance of fusion fuel trapped in its regolith.

Well doing anything on mars with large amounts of atomic explosions is also going to offset both its rotation speed and axis, aswell as its revolving path in relativity to the sun. I say we just light a campfire and let it burn for a billion years, theres really no simple solution and the amount of variables are in the millions. Bombardment would increase temperature, however not magnetic field until there is seismic activity inside the core of the planet. Putting bombs inside the planet would cause it to expand and create fissure and earthquakes. Containing a small amount of fission inside the planet would perhaps cause it to implode. Planets are formed from already heated material that cools on the outside, and your core stays moving like fluid. Relatable to a tootsiepop. Once those lolliopos are hardened and 20 years old, there no way to make it brand new again. By restoring the energy lost from the core, through a series of chain reactions and movements burrowing into the planet we may be able to reheat the core of the planet, thus restoring the magnetic fields strength temporarily. It would need to be sustained or somehow magnified to rebuild the planets atmosphere. Then we could work on heat and balancing the atmospheric elements.
Would it be possible to mass produce polonium through a mars satellite & transporting it to the surface to produce a negative polarity on the planet? Im not sure if the sun is positive negative or what.

>>8231636
This.

Basically, we just have a small self sufficient economy, that produces everything it needs.

It would have heavy industry just as we do here on Earth with one difference, no need to make things green or environmentally friendly--just dump all the CO2 and greenhouses gases into the air that you want and don't bother trying to make it clean. In 10,000 years who knows what will happen.

>>8231544
this is pretty much it.

>>8229624
No need for terraforming.
http://www.space.com/33563-nasa-mars-colonization-plan.html

While NASA is exceedingly coy about it, there are more than a couple of indications that there is an extant biota on Mars.

>>8231636

>space industry
>gravity well

>>8230726

Humans are 100% destined for extinction. We cannot as a species exist without our biota; That is our planet and the other organisms which live on the surface. We can make a pretty sad attempt at recreating it but we cannot exist without it for any length of time. It would be far easier to just reengineer humans or use artificial constructs which are much better suited to space.

Human legacy may be in space, but not humans we are done. Also this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bU1QPtOZQZU

>>8232198
>Human legacy may be in space, but not humans
That makes it even less rational to pay for it.

>>8232207

>fug you i got mine :DDDDDDDD

America sure has gone to shit.

My nigga it would just be easier for us to change our biology than to change than to change an entire planet.

Changing the creature to fit the planet will be quicker than changing the planet to fit the creature.

>>8231516
>self-sufficient
That's what I fucking said.

But you're right in that developing a colony to the point that it could operate completely self-sufficiently would be a lengthy project.

>>8232268
If you think there's value in paying so that future robot overlords can have a space future, you're gone with the pixies.

Keep sucking Elon's dick and bumping shit threads like this whenever you can while misrepresenting and insulting everyone who disagrees, I'm sure it will win you many donors and investors.

>>8232268
> implying any other countries (except for China all of a sudden) invest in space travel.

>>8232763
>except for China
top kek
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vfXYCVCE60

>>8232769
that presenter makes me want to punch his fucking face

>>8232268
>fug you i got mine
Go to hell, you parasitic little shit.

>>8229624
Fake ass photo of mars

When are you guys gonna realize NASA is a satanic Freemason organization

>>8229942
>>8229836
>>8230359

>>8232944
Why don't you go back to masturbating to Atlas Shrugged, you ridiculous fuck. You're living up to the other anon's caricature a bit too much.

>>8229961
>and probably have the tech to travel there.

Literally, LITERALLY never happening.

>>8231544
>>8231999
You're fucking stupid and don't belong on /sci/.
First, the entire asteroid belt has about 5% of the mass of Earth's moon. So you couldn't "build the planet up" by doing that.
Second, learn the rocket equation. Redirecting an object from the asteroid belt to Mars requires enough delta-v so that you'd expend more reaction mass than the object itself weighs, making the entire process an exercise of utter stupidity. Because you'd either have to bring that reaction mass from somewhere (like Mars or Earth), meaning if you left it there you'd have more mass in the first place. Or you use part of the mass of the asteroid as reaction mass, which reduces the mass to "build the planet up" even further.

>>8233198
You're talking out of your ass

All of you idiot are talking about shit that's not even real. We haven't even gone to the moon you fucking retards

>>8233181
What about the alcubierre drive?

>>8233426
You mean the thing that needs more energy than there is in the entire universe to work?

>>8233426
Requires "negative energy" which doesn't exist.

>>8233235
>calls people retards
>believes the moon landing was an hoax.

>>8233454
>acknowledging obvious bait

>>8229624
>How would we go about terraforming Mars?

You don't. It is impossible to terraform mars within the time span humanity has to live as a species. You are talking 100k years of planetary bombardment using asteroids, moons, and comets. 15-20k years for shit to settle down for space travel in the solar system to be viable again. 100k years for the planet to stop being so fucking unlandable due to new plate tectonics. 500k years for things to be somewhat close to being able to seed terraforming lifeforms on it. Antoher 500k years to wait for all that shit to come to fruition enough to set foot on it and breath the air.

Granted that something doesn't fuck up along the way.

Why? Because Mars' core is cold, which won't protect anything, and Mars' doesn't have enough mass to keep an atmosphere.

>>8230337
No, there's not enough gravity. The human body will be like Jello and having children on it is just going to be a lesson is how horrific you can fuck up a human body in 0.38g.

>>8233441
What about something like dark energy which pushes away objects in space? Couldn't that be used to move the space around the ship?

>>8233007
I see you suffer from the delusion that people owe you money and status because of your space hobby.

Newsflash parasite: We owe you fucking nothing.

>>8233530

More like 50 million years to even make a dent in the planet's atmosphere. It took three billion years for Earth's biota to oxygenate this atmosphere, and that was in a comparative safe haven.

>>8234210

>libretardian

>>8234378
Funny how you would mock that, given that the US military could stage a coup at any time, shoot your gaylord Musk in the head and confiscate all his assets for their own luxury.

On second thought, perhaps you're right. Maybe they should.

>>8234487
hello alex jones

>>8234497
I didn't say they will stage a coup, you goddamned imbecile. I said they could if they chose to, which is undoubtedly true.

The only reason your gaylord Musk has property rights and personal liberties is because the men with guns allow him to.

And in return, his imbecile fanboys mock the rights and liberties of others. You know what, parasite? You'll get the damage you deserve in the end. You must be by far the shittiest person I've met online in a long while.

>>8234505
>muh military threat
Are you scared of your own shadow too ?

>>8234506
Typical Elton Musk fanboy: Cannot even read.

Jesus Christ, this board is overrun by imbeciles.

>>8234508
sshhh...they're tracking your internet traffic right now. dont say anything bad about them cumkid ;)

>>8229624
>How would we go about terraforming Mars?
Cockroaches and moss

>>8234487
>>8234505
>could
>if

A lot of shit "could" go down "if" those two words had any weight at all.

>>8234506
bu..but.. the globalists anon..

>>8229624
It's not as simple as people think.

>"OH WE WILL COLONISE MURS BY 2020"

seriously, think for two fucking seconds and you realize just how hard it is to do.

>>8235798
Colonize
Terraform

Choose one, my underducated friend

>>8235527
>missing the point
You mock individual rights and liberties and pretend we owe you money and status for your space hobby, you imply collectivism should be the norm.

I point out the only thing keeping the men with guns from shooting Musk and taking his stuff as Mao would have done is that we have an opposite norm, for better or worse.

I never said your shitposting is likely to change that, although you're clearly trying your best and history is full of examples where cultural shifts drastically change to new equilibriums in a short timespan, especially when combined with other contingent factors. If you take social peace or constitutional rights for granted, you're naive.

>>8229832
1/3rd Earth gravity is probably pretty ok in reality. Solar radiation sharply drops off between Earth and Mars too, enough that even the thin Martian atmosphere does a decent job of warding off what little makes its way that far out. If humans can manage to thicken Mars' atmosphere enough to produce Earthlike pressures, the lack of a magnetosphere won't even matter because no radiation will be getting through anyway.

On top of this, Mars loses its atmosphere at geologic timescales and is well within the possibility of human replenishment. The rate of loss is incredibly slow.

>>8229985
We aren't running out of undeveloped land here on earth any time soon, you're right. What we have run out of, however, are places free of hopelessly outdated laws and broken regulatory systems and corrupted corporations where the intrepid and enterprising can flourish and drive our species forward. There is literally no place on Earth like that any more, and I doubt there ever will be again. The need for a new frontier is vastly more important than the majority of people will ever realize and cities beyond Earth's surface are our best bet for that.

>>8231636
The moon is closer but poses more serious energy storage, gravity, and resource issues that Mars does by a long shot. It's also generally a much more extreme environment; radiation levels on the surface of the moon are dramatically higher than those on the surface of Mars, not to mention the extreme temperature swings the moon sees (Mars is much more temperate). The moon also doesn't put us any closer to the asteroid belt while it's Mars' backyard.

If you can get the transit issue figured out Mars is a vastly superior option to the moon. That issue is a hard one, but far from insurmountable.

That said, there's no reason we can't colonize both at the same time and in fact if congress wasn't sucking the dicks of Boeing and Lockheed we'd probably be able to do exactly that.

>>8235884
I doubt that any government will give you money or even permission to create permanent settlements in space without strong influence on their part.

It would be irrational for them to do so because a permanent off-world presence implies potential weaponization of the gravity well, and no sane agent wants additional enemies with WMDs like that.

None of that matters of course since it's all science fiction anyway. Unless there's a technological singularity starting from earth, self-sufficient off-world colonies won't be a thing for a long time to come.

>>8235914
>None of that matters of course since it's all science fiction anyway. Unless there's a technological singularity starting from earth, self-sufficient off-world colonies won't be a thing for a long time to come.
We don't know that unless we fucking try. Fucking hell, what's with the insane levels of risk aversion that have crept both into the space industry and its spectators over the past 40 years? Of course nothing is ever going to happen if everything has to be 300% safe and likely to return profit immediately.

The issue is not lack of technology or cash. The issue is that everyone has turned into overcapitalistic chickenshits.

>>8235921
>The issue is not lack of technology or cash.
Sure it is.

>>8235933
It's really not. That's where most of the space industry gets it wrong: you're not supposed to keep doing the same outrageously expensive shit, you're supposed to try to find vastly cheaper and better ways to get the same result.

Can you imagine if silicon valley had adopted the same mindset that plagues spacefaring today? We'd all still be putting around on 6502s hooked up to monochrome displays, if the general public owning computers even came to be a thing.

>>8235942
We're not *supposed* to do anything; I for one would be perfectly happy if no human feces ever touched the surface of mars.

It's only people like you who have become so obsessed with it that you think it's some kind of quest for the holy grail.

>>8234505
Libertarianism is basically anarchy for the rich.
That idiot Ron Paul was backed by a Texas billionaire.

>>8231544
>thousands of years
>building mass with asteroids
>hundreds of comets

You're too stupid to post here

>>8232188
Source?

>>8229898
There's enough gravity for the atmosphere to stay there for centuries or even millennia. Which is nothing on geologic timescales, but pretty fucking long on human timescales. So it's definitely worth it.

>>8233439
The sphere design needs more energy than there is in the observable universe.

The ring design needs a lot less and might actually be possible if we have a way to create negative mass.

>>8235854
>missing the point

Not at all. You hinge your entire fantasy on "if" and "could". That means it is entirely irrelevant and you are merely masturbating with some retarded fantasy.

Also, don't confuse one anon for another.

>>8235871
When you increase the atmospheric pressure, it will lose atmosphere much faster.

>>8234377
>it took three billion years
look at that steep slope in pic related
I'm pretty sure it would be a lot faster with organisms already having gone through billions of years of evolution (earth life), human involvement and a smaller and thinner atmosphere.

>>8236539
He has none, ignore him.

>>8230786
You don't have to travel at relativistic speeds. If you can get an almost self-sustaining spacecraft that's all you need. 10,000 or even 100,000 years is a blink of an eye in the grand scheme of things.

>>8236548
You're an idiot and your bullshit semantics are 100% useless waste of time.

Go kill yourself now.

>>8236625
Generational spacecraft are equally infeasible as we aren't able to make things that last this long.
Besides, there are lots of people who wanna try out colonizing Mars. But who volunteers for riding in what is essentially a space prison for his entire life plus all his offspring for a timescale longer than humans have been sedentary?

The lack of a magnetic field on Mars pretty much makes colonization impossible. Unless we lived in lead buildings, humans would be cooked by the first big burst of solar radiation.

>>8237239
>Generational spacecraft are equally infeasible as we aren't able to make things that last this long.
Not today, anyway. I wouldn't be surprised if the development of manufacturing in space with virtually limitless resources (asteroid belt) will enable the construction of crafts vastly more massive, durable, and capable than anything we've ever seen before.

That's a ways out though. We'll probably only be starting to manufacture in space in earnest when I'm in my late 50s to early 70s and that's an optimistic estimate (currently in late 20s).

>>8237312
Vastly more massive crafts will be enabled not by the availability of some resource but be driven by demand. And for that a Mars colony would be the best enabler.
The age of sail and exploration didn't come about because some new resource was available. The ships were made of wood, just like before. Instead demand drove construction. Which came from the desire to reach and trade with far off places like America or the Spice Islands.

>>8237312
>Not today, anyway.
>10,000 or even 100,000 years space travel

>>>/x/

>>8229624

>>8229624
>nobody posted it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQH6lvzDKZ4

>>8229624
can you actually see the red planet with your naked eye?

>>8236547
>The ring design needs a lot less energy than more than there is in the observable universe and might actually be possible if we have a way to create something which we're not even perfectly sure if can exist in the first place

You see why nobody's taking this seriously yet, right

>>8240856
take your degenerate cartoons back to >>/a/

>>8232956
Question
What would Freemasons gain about lying about planets, space etc.? I can understand the whole lying about certain historical events and stuff, but what would they gain by lying about things they can't rule over apart from giving sceptics more ways to discover them?

>>8240381
yeah, it's even got an orange-ish color to it.
it's also pretty easy to find planets with the naked eye. stars twinkle, planets don't.

>>8240862
keeping you interested in those things while they do something else

>>8240381
yes it is actually among the brightest "stars" and is even destinctively red/orange in color
Good chances you can see it this night

check
http://www.skymaponline.net/
or similar softwares for better details on what you have to look for/ where to look

>>8240858
>>>8240856
>take your degenerate cartoons back to >>/a/

you've become a meme. how degenerate is that?

>>8240858
take your meme forcing back to >>>/b/

>>8240865
It would give them far more 'distraction' time if they told us about the things we can look at which are real, i.e. the planets and shit, because then we'd doubt them less.
I vote for believing them about the irrelevant things like space until you prove they're in power and dethrone them, THEN work on the giant lizard egg theory or whatever foilheads believe the Moon is.

>>8240869
I will, when we get a quality topic on this board.
talking about terraforming mars and proving to degenerates that Mars indeed exists and that the earth isn't flat is boring and it's just lazy people not using google.

>>8240875
science isn't about belief faggot.
if you do base it on belief in NASA you're no better then them foilheads.
NASA is also just a huge business out to make as much money as they can. as is television, music, politics etc.

>>8240881
How do the tides work in your theory, then?

>>8240877
>No threads I like on /sci/
>plan a: start a thread that I deem interesting or contribute to improve existing ones
>plan B: shitpost and spread cancer on /sci/ until someone takes care of my needs for me
So plan b is it for you. ok

>>8240881
>NASA is also just a huge business out to make as much money as they can
TOP KEK.

>>8240898
I know how the tides work.
I know the Earth is a sphere and that Mars exists.
I know how to prove it though.

do you?

>>8240907
I bet he went to google, so he can look smart on an anonymous board


summer is so fun

>>8240921
Actually I went to wikipedia, far quicker way to find relevant links AND annoy people in one go

>>8240907
Yeah, by asking these blokes
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1977SvAL....3...96A

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=2QVmiMW0O0MC&pg=PA509&lpg=PA509&dq=%22tidal+force%22+perturb&source=bl&ots=46yDoQd9k7&sig=bep2Wi1UfMQhsfmHAd1N2VfWTso&hl=en&ei=J1GYSvTeDIKNjAe8lvm_BQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22tidal%20force%22%20perturb&f=false

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442%282002%29015%3C0370%3AMCVITA%3E2.0.CO%3B2

You should probably read https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=6EqxPav3vIsC&redir_esc=y at some point too

There was one in Dutch too, but fuck Dutch I hate that language.

Also here's one from myself: how the fuck would Mars cause regular, measurable tides if it doesn't even have a regular orbit with us?

>>8240899
I've made plenty
90% of this board is brainlets though. summer is even worse.

I bet most people ITT haven't even tried to look at Mars in the sky. what's sad is the information about most of these topics is a couple of google searches away.

>>8240929
I get the feeling a lot of shitposters itt are just trying to find shorthand ways to give idiots simple proofs of [x] celestial object exiting without having to get their own telescope. It doesn't help when they start adding in rules like the proof can't be from NASA in case they have an argument with a reptilian believer in the near future.

>>8240927
thanks for a bunch of links, you should probably read them.


mars does not cause tides on earth though. it's too far away.

>>8229859
Correct me if I'm wrong but Mars did have a magnetic field and an atmosphere in the past. Once that MF died the atmosphere was eroded by the solar wind.
Any way we could restart it?

>>8240942
>mars does not cause tides on earth though
...yes? That was MY point, why did you mention it in your first smart-ass post if that wasn't your explanation for the moon not causing tides?

>>8240939
you don't even need a telescope though. naked eye, binoculars..
brainlets are making it a bigger problem then it is and seem to make it an obligation to prove that they can come up with new experimental methods for foilhats (who are usually trolling anyway).
I don't care what they do in their free time, but even good threads turn to shit quickly.
if someone isn't willing to go outside and look at the stars for 30min, then they shouldn't be asking questions about Mars.

>>8240865
>>8240947
that was my first post.
I said I know how tides work as well. right here: >>8240907

you proved that you don't though. answered my question, thanks.

>>8240953
So you were shitposting and/or a diagram of a tidal bulge is all you were looking for?
It's actually quite hard to figure out what you're trying to get out of me here (which could be intentional to make yourself look smarter, can't tell, anonymity and all), 'how tides work' is a pretty vague phrase in a discussion ranging from earth to whether or not space itself is real.

>>8240961
>whether or not space itself is real.

>>8240967
Don't blame me, ask the guy who posted the Hebrew interpretation of reality earlier

>>8240961
you were the one who asked how tides work in my theory. I told you I know how they work and I don't have my own theory or something. just because I'm not a NASA fanboi doesn't mean I don't know shit about science.


and how tides work is definitely not a vague question, don't make philosophy out of everything.

and since you're confused about my posts, here's my question: can you prove the earth isn't flat without using NASA pictures and google? have you proven it to yourself or are pictures on the internet and posts which can be edited by literally anyone really enough proof for you?

>>8240975
>ships disappear over the horizon because ghost ships

>>8240980
could be a curved flat plane. try again.

>>8240975
You said you knew how they work, without mentioning what sort of theory you invest yourself in, while mentioning you don't put much value in what NASA says, during a discussion about the moon and whether it's a rock in space or not. This produced an image of someone at least trying to get written proof of tides/Earth/Mars/etc. being real, not someone asking if I can prove to myself satisfactorily my own beliefs.
Which I can, as I have been to different timezones, seen different constellations, read mathematical summaries of the movements of planets and seen them in the sky.

The only thing you've achieved today is showing me what people mean when they tell me that I sometimes say too little during discussions and confused them.

Also, how can you be this sort of person yet not know how to use capital letters?

>>8240986
You're mum is a curved plane

>>8240986
well, the way it curves must mean it is roughly spherical
One does not even need complicated math

>>8240975
>are tons of photographical evidence and centuries of scientific experiments and maths really proof?

>>8241001
Honestly, it's probably not even his fault. He's just a part of rising momentum that's set upon attacking the status quo.

>>8240989
NASA isn't some almighty God in proving things. astronomy is one of the oldest, if not the oldest, observational science. moon being a rock in space has been proven way before nasa, same with earth, moons, tides..but you know this already.

see, you got my point. science can't be answered with a few clicks and a few posts and some NASA pictures. people actually think this is how things are proven in science.
for those of us who know the science, the pictures are amazing.

physics experiments (if they're good) can be replicated at any time and place. when I was studying astronomy, I had a hard time picturing the observable sky as a half sphere. I went outside, I studied the sky, I studied the horizon. Only then I understood what they meant by observable sky.

but these people don't care about physics really. or changing their perspective.

you cannot expect to answer these questions people have when it takes some hard work and experience to start seeing things like tides, movement of planets, stars etc. most of these people can't add two fractions, ya know?


PS I am not an English major. I don't care to capitalize just so someone would take my point seriously, we're talking about science.

>>8229624

Fund massive research into magnetohydrodynamics and automation.

Send a von neumann factory to one of the mars moons to spend 50 years building a massive orbital laser array around mars; meanwhile build a huge mass driver on the other moon, shoot large chunks of it into orbit non stop for decades in such a way that the moon orbit destabilizes so that it crashes into mars.

Shoot the lasers into the resulting crater in just the right way that the core of the planet will start moving to create a magnetosphere.

Wait a few years for the dust to settle, drop a space elevator cable from the moon with the von neumann factory, get rare materials from the blown up crust into the factories and shit down massive amounts of robots. Use the lasers and robots to chop chunks of those outrageous mountains in mars and use the materials as building blocks to pave over the crater and build basic infrastructure.

In the mean time, clean up the orbit from the chunks expelled during the moon crash; once orbits are clear and the planet is geologically stable enough, built lots of automated factories to pump out air until there's enough for an atmosphere with similar pressure and content to earth's. This part might take a few centuries.

Seed the planet with vegetation, microbes and one or more large genetically engineered herbivores as useful as our traditional livestock (cows, sheep, chicken, etc). This part might also take a few centuries.

Give the finishing touch building a large fully automated metropolitan area. Then finally send in the human colonists.

>>8240994
she is ;)

>>8241001
>>8241006

post it then, the proof

>>8241025
According to you there is no proof you cunt, I spent ages trying to figure out what you wanted me to post before I realised you were wasting my time to try and make a point about personal proof. All you did was waste my time in the end, since I already know I can provide basic scientific theories myself.

>>8241001
>>8241006
Don't humour him, he'll reply with bullshit until you say something like 'I can't prove it to you any further over the internet'.

>>8241031
I never said proof had to be over the internet. quite the opposite actually.
give methods of proof.

>>8241033
Since I am too lazy to list hundreds of different concepts and how they prove the shape of the earth, here is a pop-sci linke with 10 simple things that are easily applicable as experiments for everyone

http://www.smarterthanthat.com/astronomy/top-10-ways-to-know-the-earth-is-not-flat/

also:

https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/iss_ustream.html#.V59klbiLSUk

>>8241040
see, you don't need NASA pictures to prove anything. just some basic math and physics.
if people cannot accept that, don't give them the NASA pictures, they prove NOTHING to a person who cannot into basic math and physics.

>>8241025
>she is ;)
Prove it without using pictures or Google

>>8241044
i dont know, what you have against NASA and why you constantly bring up how unreliable you think they are.

Anyway, do you really think simple experiments like this would convince a flat earther?
They wouldnt. They would explain away everything with a misunderstanding of phsics or with a shitty "hypothesis" that explains the observations

>>8235903

>The moon also doesn't put us any closer to the asteroid belt while it's Mars' backyard.

In a literal sense, no it doesn't. But that's not the whole story.

It'll be a hell of a lot easier (and we'll have a lot more reason) to go to the asteroid belt if we had a moon base. The biggest expense of going to the asteroid belt is leaving Earth's gravity well. If we could manufacture and supply spacecraft from the Moon, it'd be a hell of a lot cheaper and faster to get to the asteroid belt than it would be if we had to build that infrastructure on Mars.

We still need to go to Mars, because we need to actually finish something without the politicians switching plans around every four to eight years, but a moon base would make Mars and the rest of the solar system a lot closer for everyone.

>>8240381

Install google sky map on your phone. It's free.

Go outside at night and hold the phone at arm's length while moving the phone around. How well it matches up with the sky depends on your phone's hardware, but when you see Mars on the screen, you should be able to see it fairly close in the sky.

Unless it's below the horizon of course.

You can see all the planets out to Saturn with the naked eye, although Mercury might give you trouble.

>>8240946

Not realistically, no. We could crash Mars and some other planet together and hope that the resulting core is hot enough to have convection, but the time it would take before the planet would be anywhere near usable would be measured in millions of years.

Far easier to build some kind of shield that allows EM radiation but deflects the solar wind.

>>8241164
That's all true but the moon will always, always be on life support from Earth save for some crazy tech jump like replicators. Mars on the other hand has a chance. It'd need a great deal of initial momentum, but it would be able to keep its reliance on Earth to a minimum after a while.

This is important because something like an ongoing moon colonization program would be a juicy budget cut target for politicians and if funding for that gets cut, it's all over, whereas with Mars the situation would start out delicate but eventually stabilize to the point where things could keep moving (albeit more slowly) without government backing.

Of course this is all moot if commercial interest becomes strong enough that corporate funding outweighs government funding before the government decides to close the valve (if they do), but that's not something we can count on.

Really I'm just sick of space programs getting slashed to hell and back and not being able to do anything about it.

>>8242552

>Really I'm just sick of space programs getting slashed to hell and back and not being able to do anything about it.

I hear that.

The moon would make stuff possible that's currently not. Imagine having a spacecraft with the fuel capacity of a Saturn V that's already in orbit - how fast could you get to Mars? Hell, how fast could you get to Neptune? But it'd take commitment and an initial investment that beats the Apollo program.

Mars wouldn't help much there, though. Sure, we'd be committed to keeping them alive and supplied, but the colonists would be focused on survival for at least the first century or so. I'm afraid NASA's budget would be just enough to keep the colonists from dying, but not enough to keep up their other programs.

It'll be a while before commercial space companies will have a financial interest in anything besides satellite launches. Of course, if any of the asteroid mining ventures actually succeeds, we'd get most of the benefits of a moon base - making Mars and beyond cheaper.

>>8241017
remember when nasa said we'd find prove aliens exist & we'll find them in the next ten years

>>8242605
Even if you absolutely hate human space exploration, and a lot of the more conceited scifags do as well was normies, you must admit that the far side of the moon would be an excellent place for radio astronomy.....and yes, it could be done remotely.

>>8242605
>if any of the asteroid mining ventures actually succeeds

All of those ventures failed to get the initial capital they needed to get things off the ground

>>8244703
Not to mention we aren't even fully invested to the point of doing proper deep sea mining for precious metals. How the fuck would space mining be more viable now?

Not to mention locating asteriods with precious metals is pretty fucking difficult if you want something other than probably iron/nickle

>>8244722
>we aren't even fully invested to the point of doing proper deep sea mining for precious metals

I sincerely hope we never are, mankind has fucked up our oceans enough without strip mining them.

Space is great because it's basically all dead rocks in a void. The sea is full of life, let's leave it be.

>>8244731
When speaking with investors lowest option wins, SpaceX and reusable rockets is a huge leap forward for affordable space travel, but still and small small step towards any mining operations.

>>8244734
Well in that case

>>8244745
There is a possibility that on Mars we find some interesting new metals/minerals that would interest more investors.

>>8244753
Possibly, that would be cool but I really doubt it just because of the way our solar system formed.

The outer planets might have some chemical forms that are rare on Earth, but extracting them would be problematic. My guess would be that Earth probably has a greater variety of minerals than Mars does.

This is an interesting topic though.

>>8244722

Space is easier than deep sea.

Think about it: you've got a vacuum vs. a highly pressurized corrosive environment. Sure, there's micrometeorites and radiation in space, but we've had stuff out there for decades that are still functioning.

Besides, no matter what we do, we can't ever realistically mine the mantle or core on our planet. Rock at those pressures acts like Jello. That's where all the good stuff is; almost all the heavier elements in the crust came from space. Why not go to the source?

>>8244753

We've still got Mars' gravity well to worry about.

With the moon, we can just slingshot the stuff right off the surface. Mars has about twice the gravity plus an atmosphere. Then we have to get the stuff where we want it; transferring stuff from a lunar orbit to an Earth orbit doesn't take that much, especially compared to transferring it from Mars to Earth in a reasonable time frame.

If we had orbital shipyards at Mars, then sure, that'd work. But that's so far away that it's still well within the realm of science fiction.

There is no economic reason to go to Mars. We should still go there, but we aren't going to make any money at it.

>>8240907
>what is science?

>>8246027
Its for visit, we have to act like quest there, we need to have our base, and not influence live in metal downthere. We need to ask if we are invited at the orbit, not having landed before...

hey look, I've discovered a new """""""planet"""""""

>>8229832
I think a full blown magnetosphere like earth's is just overkill. A thin array of magnets over a much smaller atmosphere is all we really need. I mean our atmosphere goes tens of kilometers up, the tallest trees and buildings come nowhere near that. It's easier to solve the problem of pressurizing a few hundred meters of space, or even less, than it is to get a planet sized magnetosphere going.

>>8246402

Want to try that again when you're sober?

>>8246533

OK, I'll bite. How are you going to pressurize only a few hundred meters of space? Wrap the whole planet in a balloon? Make a bromine atmosphere?

Mars does not exist.

>>8246570

So what's the little red dot in the sky that doesn't move with the stars?

>>8246569
Heh, well that still sounds like a simple task if you put it in perspective. If it were up to me I'd just lay some manageable domes real close to each other as needed, something like bubble wrap except bigger. The magnets... just let them float on balloons a little ways up, though I'm not sure about buoyancy on such a thin atmosphere so maybe we'd need towers for that.

>>8246596

OK, I misunderstood. I thought you were suggesting a shallow-but-high-pressure atmosphere.

Yeah, no issue with domes. I dunno how well the magnet array would work, though - magnetics isn't my field (no pun intended).

>>8246609
>I thought you were suggesting a shallow-but-high-pressure atmosphere
I'm sure some crazy geniuses in the future will find a simple elegant way to achieve just that if we get sick of domes for some reason.

I'm not that well versed in magnets either, but let's see... the simplest magnet is just a wire with current, so perhaps holding the electric grid on top of the domes would be a good idea, if that's not enough there's always static magnets.

Tera-forming is tricky, as it would suggest we know how life starts on any planet. Any gas could cause an atmosphere but it's hard to say if that's all we need, or if it's even needed at all. There are extremophiles such as the Water Bear that can live in pretty much any environment. If CO2 was released and created a thin O2 atmosphere solar winds could rip it away just as fast as it forms. You would need some kind of plant life, probably algae to continuously restock your supply. The best bet is liquid water. Purple algae could live deep enough in the water that they are protected from harsh environments and radiation. They would take a very long time but eventually they would build up an atmosphere, and also create purple oceans, The reason they would be purple or pink is because those light waves propagate further and photosynthesis could take place in lower light conditions, such as deeper waters, where it is safer. Eventually, once there is an atmosphere as a result of bi-products of the purple algae; more than likely, a mutation would take place and green algae would start to form toward the surface as green as a photo-receiver is much more efficient. So many green algae would grow and take up the surface that light would not make it down into the waters and the purple algae would die out. Now that there is a mass of green algae at the surface and an atmosphere starting to form...with no competition or threats it would grow out of control and cause a run away greenhouse effect. It's not a far cry from there that bigger plant life would form add a few billion years for evolution and ta-da you have a life forming planet! Congratulations!

>>8246027
Slowing down to deliver things on the moon is harder than landing things on a object with a atmosphere to slow things down. Right now, neither the moon or mars is worth mining. Mars is by far the easiest in "babby's first step" to living off world.

Mining and space profiting off space travel is a completely other thing. Mars provides some of the most forgiving and easiest adaptable environment to humans.

>>8246659

Ideally, we wouldn't have to know how life starts on a planet; only how life maintains the system that allows life to continue on a planet. Things like carbon/water/nitrogen/etc. cycles. We would jump start the process and go straight to the soil-forming stage.

That means we'd have to manually add an atmosphere and oceans using comet material or whatnot. There's already carbon there, and if there's not enough we could always get some from asteroids. From what I've read on sites that aren't full of tards (i.e. not 4chan), if we give Mars a thick atmosphere it should stick around for tens or hundreds of millions of years.

I'm not saying any of this is feasible, mind you. Just that we shouldn't have to start from the primordial ooze stage.

>>8246696

>Slowing down to deliver things on the moon is harder than landing things on a object with a atmosphere to slow things down.

True, but it's definitely doable. We've done it before several times using 1960s technology. Only sensitive stuff (like people or machines) needs to be slowed down all that much, anyway. Need water? Lob a block of ice at the moon, slow it down just enough that it shatters into manageable bits. Need dirt? Same thing.

And we'd mostly be concerned with sending stuff up from the moon anyway. That's the whole point.

>Right now, neither the moon or mars is worth mining.

Mars, no. And it likely never will be.

The moon, on the other hand - maybe. It's got metals, and there's studies that show that water is a lot more plentiful in the regolith than previously though. It'd be expensive to set up, but if we can mine and process metals on the moon, it'd give us a long term savings on materials in orbit.

>Mars is by far the easiest in "babby's first step" to living off world.

Sure, for colonization. I don't suggest the moon for colonization, only for making space cheaper in the long run.

Materials in space need to be cheaper. That means we either get them from space, or get a cheaper way to put them there. Moon/asteroid mining is one way, the other way would be a space elevator, if we can figure out how to build one.

>People talking about terraforming
>People talking about space mining
>People talking about floating Venus colonies

How about we focus on actually stepping foot and completing a few research projects first before we consider mining or colonization.

>>8229946
That's a rough estimate but it will take centuries to terraform mars. But it will futile because the planet does not have a magnetosphere. Unfortunately we don't know how this thing works or what's it full purpose. Let alone where it located on a planet core. Creating an artificial version is way too advanced for us even in our most theoretical depictions of the future. We have a better chance of solving nuclear fusion and end world hunger then creating an artificial magnetosphere.

>>8246711
They're going to mine a couple of Asteroids in 2019 for science.

>>8246750
Yes for sciene, not for private selling of materials and goods

>>8246858
There's one company that's going to do that. Planetary resources Inc. They're also going to launch a probe to mine an asteroid in the hope of learning how to do it before going back to mine a rock for commercial purposes.

>>8246706
>Materials in space need to be cheaper. That means we either get them from space, or get a cheaper way to put them there.

You also need to construct a series of factories and train people in working in near or at 0 G. That's a pretty fucking long way away, not to mention smelting then cooling said material will be hard as shit.

>>8246978
Manufacturing in 0G/microgravity (such as the moon) is just generally going to be huge, huge pain in the ass. Gravity does us huge favors here on Earth, providing dead simple ways of separating materials and keeping dirt, shavings, powder, etc on the floor and in collection vessels instead of floating around clogging up machinery and the lungs of workers.

Nearly every manufacturing technique and type of equipment we have here on Earth will work fine on Mars with little or no adaptation, because while its gravity is weaker it's still enough. On the moon, everything would have to be reinvented.

>>8246978

Agreed. That's why I mentioned earlier in the thread it would take a huge investment and commitment that we haven't been seeing from our governments. It's a workable idea from a strictly practical point of view, but unless something changes it's dead in the water politically.

>>8247094

The Moon's gravity is only half that of Mars'. It's hardly microgravity.

Things will have to be redesigned, yes. Smelting will be a challenge. But, certain things become easier in lighter gravity as well. I imagine we'll make a greater use of fans and pneumatics to do the things 1/6th gravity can't.

>>8237312
Ever seen Ascension?

>>8246450
>>8246447
That looks pretty interesting actually. Imagine buying one and carving into it's surface to design your own custom terrestrial planet/ moon.

>>8247159
Mars is still a lot closer to earth(around 30%), not to mention having an atmosphere is very helpful when attempting to cool melted materials.

>>8248900
This. Mars is generally better suited to human coloniztion than the moon is.

Mars has:

>Greater variety of raw materials
>Much greater quantity of raw materials
>Raw materials are more readily available for consumption (atmosphere, huge slabs of ice)
>1/3 Earth gravity is a hell of a lot more than 1/6 (moon) and will most certainly have greatly reduced detrimental effects
>The martian atmosphere, even being as thin as it is, reduces fuel needed for landing there
>Surface temperatures are FAR more temperate than those of the surface of the moon
>Ambient radiation on the surface of Mars is far less than that of the surface of the moon
>Martian colonies would give us a second entirely separate (and far less fuel intensive) launch point in the Solar System positioned perfectly for science and industry in the asteroid belt and giving a second set of launch windows
>Genetic modification of plants to grow on the Martian surface is within reason, but 100% impossible on the moon
>A short night-day period

Moon has:

>no atmosphere
>basically no magnetic field
>gravity is all fucked up
>struck by 5 tons of comet every day, not safe and dust always flying about
>nothing useful inside of it
>14 days of darkness


The radiation, while less on Mars, is still the biggest problem. And also, actually getting there.

VENUSIAN COLONIES WHEN

>>8246706
>Need water? Lob a block of ice at the moon, slow it down just enough that it shatters into manageable bits. Need dirt? Same thing.

Literally what? Enjoy collecting ice filled with rocks/dust that are so razor sharp they can cut your organs up, not to mention being irradiated as shit. Lobbing shit to the moon is stupid, delivering large payloads is equally as hard.

Working in the conditions the Apollo teams had was stupidly hard and they barely did anything complex given the gravity was so counter productive. Having 30-35% of the gravity is a lot better than having ~1/10th

>>8248934
1/6

I agree with you, but you're strawmanning.

>>8248907
Maybe not for large scale colonization quite yet but mars is going to be the easiest and most forgiving to learn how off world colonies would function.

>>8248938
Yeah you're right not sure why I typed 1/10th.

>>8248940
Agreed. They're going to be on their own out there.

>>8248907
>The radiation, while less on Mars, is still the biggest problem. And also, actually getting there.

That's an easy problem.
Step 1: Put sand bags on top of hab.
Step 2: Already fixed.

or

Step 1: Collect ice
Step 2: Melt ice into water
Step 3: Line the walls of your settlement with the tanks you'll fill with that water.
Step 4: You're all set.

As for getting to Mars, I don't really think it's an issue. Think about it, if astronauts can spend 1 year in space then return to Earth's gravity and walk around just fine then surely astronauts who spend 6 months traveling to Mars will be able to get out and walk around in > 1/2 Earth's gravity. Mars gravity is in a sweet spot that makes it easier to work in, but it's strong enough to prevent catastrophic damage to muscles and bones. BUT if you're really worried about this a good option is to just get to Mars faster. We can already do that, but VASIMIR will probably need more funding.

>>8248959
>then surely astronauts who spend 6 months traveling to Mars
Problem is staying and going back, unless we plan on a permenant colony, and then we'll have have long term dedication to launches, which probably wouldn't be too hard to secure. Starting an actual self-sustaining population is a completely different matter. I think about 10,000 individuals is the benchmark for any population that won't eventually have incest-related problems.

>>8248982
>Problem is staying and going back
Pretty sure the first few people going to mars know full well there is a slim to no chance of coming back. The first few groups of researchers, yes researchers, are going so that we may learn how to produce ways for people to go to mars and come back.

>>8248982
I think we should just send about 200 or 300 individuals over a couple years.

Many of those astronauts should be geneticists and medical doctors and they should bring with them frozen embryos, sperm, eggs etc. we've already got about 600,000 in deep freeze essentially forever because people don't know what to do with them, and they can't just toss em in the trash every now and then a sterile Catholic couple opts to have one implanted.....Anyway when those first hundred astronauts arrive all the equipment they need should already bee there, and the base should more or less already be built by drones. I imagine they'll spend most of their time gardening, watching movies and fucking.

>>8249000
Yeah probably.

Trips confirms.

>>8229624
I have the final word on this.

There will not be a permanent colony on Mars that has a 3rd generation of humans. They will try to have children, but that generation will be horrific and die before breeding age.

>>8249002
>and fucking.
For what purpose? Other than entertainment

I mean, the first pregnancy off of Earth is going to be a huge deal, and I'm not sure it would be approved, due to the risk there may be to the child born in 1/6 gravity. The risk to the embreyo is kind irrelevant, if it dies, it dies and we don't try it again. Or maybe we do, just to see if it was a coincidence or not.

Do you think whatever organization funds this is going to let that happen?

>>8249009
We still can only speculate what 1/3rd of gravity has on humans right now. We can't rule out anything because we haven't done any actual testing. Let's see how mice turn out first before we rule anything out, if we dedicate enough time to it there could be solutions to this problem.

>>8249009
sounds like the plot to a low budget scifi movie, i wonder if the director of sharknado is working on anything at the moment

i am a film major and im stealing this idea

>>8249014
>We can't rule out anything because we haven't done any actual testing.
but that's boring!

>>8249012
oops, 1/3 gravity

also >>8249014 is right, but I'm still skeptical about the possibility of it actually being approved. Whatever dumbass buearecrat is running it might think it's just too dangerous.

>>8249017
And that is why it sucks so much discussing mars and inter solar system travel. People always want to jump thinking that things will happen in 5-10 years because NASA made bullshit claims to everything during the Apollo missions.

In actuality it will be probably 100+ years before colonization of Mars is a feasible reality. Anyone discussing this has already been born far too early.

>>8248934

>Enjoy collecting ice filled with rocks/dust that are so razor sharp they can cut your organs up

What, you think I'm suggesting sending guys out in spacesuits to pick the stuff up by hand?

And - funny thing - when you melt the ice, you can filter all the regolith out.

>not to mention being irradiated as shit

Radiation isn't a problem unless you're hanging around out on the surface. Cover your base in bags full of regolith or build your base in a hole/lava tube/whatever. Are you even trying?

>Working in the conditions the Apollo teams had was stupidly hard and they barely did anything complex given the gravity was so counter productive.

Seriously? You're blaming the gravity for their limited capabilities? Not the fact they were in spacesuits, or that the lander was so tiny?

It's amazing anything ever gets done on the space station - it has even less (effective) gravity!

>>8248907

I wasn't suggesting the moon as a colonization target. Treat it like a space station, keep personnel on a two year rotation, mandate daily exercise.

>>8249012
>is going to let that happen?

Do you think they can stop it?

>>8249074

okay I'll bite

You literally said the word "Lob a block of ice at the moon, slow it down just enough that it shatters into manageable bits", do you not know what that implies?

>Radiation isn't a problem unless you're hanging around out on the surface
Talking about the things you are "lobbing to the moon" then picking up your water off the surface is pretty stupid.

>Seriously? You're blaming the gravity for their limited capabilities? Not the fact they were in spacesuits, or that the lander was so tiny?

I bumped the wrench and it went 20 feet from me now I gotta go find the stupid thing on a dusty moon. The suits were part of the problem but working in those conditions is more difficult. In the ISS things will bump a wall or simply float, on the moon they will start to descend.

>>8249102
Good point. Mars is too far away for that shit.

>>8249134

>do you not know what that implies?

That we'll be using some kind of equipment to collect the water? Rover with a trailer and a claw, perhaps?

Seriously, what were you thinking it implies?

>Talking about the things you are "lobbing to the moon" then picking up your water off the surface is pretty stupid.

Not sure how that goes with the previous sentence.

>I bumped the wrench and it went 20 feet from me now I gotta go find the stupid thing on a dusty moon.

You'd have to bump it pretty hard to make it go 20 feet, even on the moon. Unless you're using aluminum wrenches.

And amazingly, that problem's already solved. Clip the tool to your suit.

And again, you've got everyone hanging around outside. Is that your idea of a moon base? Everyone out on the surface using sleeping bags?

If everyone approached problems the way you do, we wouldn't have made it out of Africa, much less off the planet.

>>8229624
your only chance is some "The Core" level shit where we get the non-existent magnetic field to churn up. Any artificial atmosphere would be blown away rapidly by the solar winds that mars' ass-tier magnetosphere doesn't shield against.

Growing up, it was presented as being as simple as genetically engineering some microbe that would be able to turn mars shit -> oxygen and useful stuff. This is not the case. The magnetic field/solar wind problem is frankly insurmountable. We would likely have better luck fucking with Venus tbqhfam.

>>8249208
I read somewhere that if any country ever did establish a colony on Mars by the time there were more than 20 people living there it would essentially have to be granted its own sovereignty because there is no practical way for any country to impose jurisdiction at that distance aside from a blockade of supplies---but if the place was self sufficient with food and O2 there's nothing that anyone on Earth can make them do.

we cant
not until we achieve true ai

>>8249409
The lack of a magnetosphere is probably less of an issue than the iron in the regolith absorbing oxygen as fast as you can create it.

That was a major issue for Biosphere 2, and that was just normal soil. Mars has a /lot/ of iron.

But you're also up against the fact that 1/6th gravity means you'd need 6x thicker atmosphere to get the same pressure.

>>8248982
Musk figures that a population of roughly one million is the magic figure for enabling full (or near full) self-sustainability of cities beyond Earth's surface. It's the whole reason he's so obsessed with building rockets big enough to send hundreds of people (and the supplies they need) instead of settling for the 5-10 person missions you'd expect from NASA. If you're only sending 5-10 people every two years you'll barely even have a research outpost, let alone a colony, but if you instead launch at least 100 people each time you've got a pretty decent chance of kick-starting the machinery of self-reliance and establishing a real city.

Once bare minimum infrastructure and regular cargo shipments are in place, manpower is going to be by far the most need and the most deficient. They've got to build everything from scratch, and that isn't going to happen with a population of 10 or 20.