/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8469201
At least not in this millennium anyway

>>8469203
>not in the next 984 years
"no"

>>8469201

What makes you think it's impossible?

If the EM Drive works then, maybe

>>8469203
gonna be faster than that if we will have millions on mars/moon by the end of this century.

>>8469201
With nuclear pulse propulsion you can send spacecraft careening off at 10% of lightspeed, meaning you can place them at a nearby star in "just" a few decades.

The reason no one does it now is because of fear of bringing that much nuclear material into orbit, but if you built the craft in the first place somewhere with a smaller gravity well and no atmosphere to fuck up it'd be ideal.

>>8469240
>If the EM Drive works then, maybe
That's a no then

>>8469245
The issue with speculating about orbital or lunar construction is our current inability to lift heavy cargo further than the ISS without using unidirectional (non-returning) spacecraft. If we can economise our fuel sources and create an International Space Launch System then it would be less of a hassle to begin the design on necessary infrastructure.
Heavy Scientific Industry ultimately depends on the available workforce and their happiness; sure you can contract a workforce of engineers and chemists to conduct minor fabrication in a sub-surface lunar complex, but without the aforementioned ISLS to facilitate supply and build the SLC initially there is no chance of reducing the cost for further space exploration.
Indeed, lowering the cost of escaping gravity is the single most daunting task facing Humanity reaching further into the void.