/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.11631709]

The BEST potential colony.

[Anonymous No.11631740]

>wants to live on the gas moon
LMAO

[Anonymous No.11632205]

>>11631709
Nice picture of Callisto, and the only good one we have actually.
What else can you tell us about that makes Callisto so good?

[Anonymous No.11632227]

Venus, we just need to replace its atmosphere and fix its rotation.

[Anonymous No.11632300]

>>11631709
Have fun with your potentially lethal radiation. .1msv a day isn't as bad as the other Gallilean moons but it's still a problem. I also don't understand what in the fuck you intend to do to make your Callisto colony profitable. You can't mine anything useful (as it's probably under hundreds of miles of crushing, freezing ocean), there isn't anything there but irradiated ice. You could maybe have a research facility or something but there isn't any other viable reason to actually live on that rock.
>>11631740
Too cold and likely really difficult to survive on. The ground is a watery/slushy mess and everything will be covered in methane. The atmosphere makes landing easy, but it also means getting anything off Titan will be 10x harder because it has to fight miles of thick atmosphere. Still easier than getting off Earth but not by much. It also has the same issue as Callisto in that there isn't really much to do there. You could mine and refine methane and ethane products I suppose but there aren't a lot of other readily available resources.
>>11632227
Wouldn't even need to do that. Using oxygen to float habitat modules in Venus' upper atmosphere would be viable with even current tech. The problem is that getting anything to and from those modules will be nightmare tier. Probably any colonists you send will be living on Venus for a long time. They also better hope that water and oxygen from Earth never stop getting delivered or they are fucked. Again, what actual industry do you plan on setting up? You can't mine the surface and there aren't that many useful gasses in the atmosphere to refine.

The truth is that none of the other rocky/icy bodies in our Solar system are really all that great either for colonization or even basic industrial purposes.

TBC

[Anonymous No.11632313]

>>11632300
The future of humanity in space will be in orbital habitats constructed specifically for human needs. O'Neill cylanders and rind stations/worlds. It's highly unlikely humans will ever live long term beyond the asteroid belt, because it simply takes too long to get there, or even communicate with something there. Rocky worlds may have a few research bases and maybe even recreational areas for tourists, but they will never have fully functioning independent colonies with millions of people living in them. Building colonies pretty much anywhere other than maybe Mars is simply inefficient and lacking economic incentive when it would be far cheaper and more profitable to mine out asteroids and then build habitats inside the remains.

[Anonymous No.11632325]

>>11632313
asteroids being non-differentiated bodies may not have every chemical element needed in abundance and are often rather small

best would be something like a rotating 1g orbital colony but located around an airless moon such as Callisto, mining resources from it and using mass drivers to launch them to orbit

>Callisto .1msv a day isn't as bad as the other Gallilean moons but it's still a problem

It is mostly solar protons which are easier to shield than galactic cosmic rays. So anytime you are inside the colony you are totally safe, and even outside in a vehicle there could be viable shielding of 1 ton per square meter or so.

[Anonymous No.11632445]

>>11632325
>may not have every chemical element needed
Mass-spectroscopy is a thing, even from Earth we've identified thousands of asteroids composed of rare-Earth minerals and valuable elements. Anything and everything from gold to water is abundant and plentiful in the asteroid belt. Hell, mining out a portion of Ceres alone would provide for the next 1000 years of human space colonization.
>are often rather small
There are hundreds of thousands, possibly even millions, of asteroids over 10km^2 in the Solar system. Even more if we found a cheap way to get to the Kuiper belt. We could mine just asteroids and comets for the next 10k years and probably not run out of material.

Humans are tiny compared to even a small asteroid. To put it in perspective, humans have mined like .0001% of the minerals on Earth, and the total mass of all the asteroids in the Solar System is like 1000x that.
>It is mostly solar protons which are easier to shield than galactic cosmic rays
That's actually news to me, i'll have to look into that in more depth. Radiation is honestly an area I could be more knowledgeable. I would appreciate a source if you have one.

I'm also still confused about what resources you plan on mining from Callisto? The only resource you could viably mine would be water ice and water. Anything heavier is probably beneath miles of subsurface ocean and well beyond our current tech to get at.

[Anonymous No.11632645]

>>11632445
Callisto could be used as a base to fling your craft using Jupiter. Also the Jovian moons are all believed to abundant in Sulfur Dioxide.

[Anonymous No.11632654]

>>11632445
And it could be a good quarry as it seems rather stable in structure.

[Anonymous No.11632687]

>>11632445
>The only resource you could viably mine would be water ice and water.

Only 25% of Callisto surface is water ice.

>Mass-spectroscopy is a thing, even from Earth we've identified thousands of asteroids composed of rare-Earth minerals and valuable elements.

Those are metallic fragments of planetary cores and thus deficient in volatile elements. Asteroid field as a whole is rich in resources however they are spread out and no single rock will likely have all the chemical elements in abundance. We ain't gonna colonize a 10km rock.

Differentiated, large asteroids such as Ceres or Vesta are another matter and I think those represent the sweet spot for a mining operation, especially since you can actually mine the metallic core itself in addition to volatile-rich crust, and everything in between.

Then put a rotating colony in orbit around it and you have access both to abundant, diverse resources as well as natural 1g gravity.

[Anonymous No.11632692]

>>11632227
>we just need to replace its atmosphere and fix its rotation
see you in a million years then, hope you got some of that immortality stuff, good luck

[Anonymous No.11633821]

>>11631740
Sure.

[Anonymous No.11634157]

>>11631740
Imagine the smell

[Anonymous No.11634234]

>>11632300
>but there aren't a lot of other readily available resources.
nitrogen

[Anonymous No.11634274]

>>11632313
Fuck that, Gundam always ends badly in the long term.

[Anonymous No.11634278]

>>11632227
Couldn't you build a kind of shade to make the braaptmosphere rain down? and lower the temperature?

[Anonymous No.11634313]

>>11634278
Yeah that's one of the suggested method to deal with it. Then I think the idea is to bury the CO2 under high pressure or shit like that.

[Anonymous No.11634711]

>>11631709
I think Venus is the most ideal for like, actual living as opposed to outposts staffed by experts.
The gravity being so similar to earth's is a big part of that, we still aren't sure what the long term effects of low gravity are on the human body let alone a developing fetus.
Terraforming could happen but that's take centuries, floating cities however would be totally doable and allow us a good foothold do do things like mine mercury and set up solar farms.

[Anonymous No.11635380]

The BEST potential colony.

[Anonymous No.11635447]

>>11632313
Do you really want to be colony dropped though?

[Anonymous No.11635669]

>>11634274
>>11635447
Earthnoids need to realize that the future of humanity is in Space. You cannot fly because your soul is bound to gravity. In order for humanity to reach the next stage of evolution our souls must be allowed to fly.

Zieg Zeon

[Anonymous No.11635687]

>>11631709
I tought colonizing moon will be easier, but simultaneusly think, it's already colonized.

Why it's called colony? We should get different word for new plane of existance.

[Anonymous No.11635861]

>>11632227
Hit it with a couple of ice comets and an asteroid. Do calculations just right to make a right mix of gases. Asteroid should shake up and disengage the fucked up tectonics along with rotation and tilt.
This is a task for humanity for a bit later.
In the meantime use it for research.
>>11631709
Lunar colonie first. Then orbitals. Then Mars + orbitals. Then the rest.

[Anonymous No.11635957]

EVROPA....home...

[Anonymous No.11635961]

>>11631709
Fuck you I want to do Star Wars.

[Anonymous No.11636260]

>>11635957
>born to early to live in a sub-aquatic Europan colony habitat
Life is meaningless

[Anonymous No.11636459]

>>11631709
Where my Mercury bros at?

>Comfy 0°C temperatures in areas of the North Pole
>Extremely rich in iron, ores, magnesium silicates, and other minerals
>Evidence of water ice and organic compounds in the North Pole
>Gravity-assisted trips using Venus can be done efficiently
>Best place to build and experiment with solar sails
>Has a (weak) magnetic shield, unlike Mars
>Good stepping stone to colonize Venus later on

You could easily build underground Mercury mining colonies with current technology, self sufficient in food (hydroponic farming), water, and energy.

[Anonymous No.11636468]

>>11636459
Does it have seasons?

Because I'll be pissed if we build something during the winter and it melts during the summer.

[Anonymous No.11636485]

>>11636468
It has no seasons, the day/night difference is what can kill you in Mercury, but luckily it's tidally locked so areas of its North Pole are permanently shadowed.

[Anonymous No.11636496]

>>11631709
>getting trapped in an even bigger gravity well
Nah orbital colonies in the asteroid belt. Your only big problem is there not being a big enough object out there to catch inbound trajectories but if you have a weighstation at mars you can warehouse freight there until favorable windows for resupply open.

[Anonymous No.11636505]

>>11634711
>floating cities however would be totally doable
The problem with floating cities is that its much harder to takeoff and land from and you can't exploit any heavt resources because youd get crushed and melted on the way to the surface. You've also got the lives of everyone in said colony hinged on a single fail point at whatever keeps your city buoyant.

[Anonymous No.11636536]

>>11636485
Will you get cooked trying to get there?

Seems like you'd have to suicide burn when you're right over the pole, because if you overshoot you end up in the 800F getting cooked part of the planet.

[Anonymous No.11636578]

>>11636536
Any ship going there would be shielded against radiation and high temperatures. Same as any ship going to Venus, Mars, etc.

Compare Mercury to Mars:
>The solar light intensity on Mars is .43 that of Earth, which makes solar power and agriculture much less practical than on Mercury. The gravity of Mars is 38% of Earth, essentially equal to Mercury. The magnetic field of Mars is .1% of Earth, and its atmosphere density is 2% that of Earth, so protection from ionizing radiation would require underground habitation, the same as on Mercury. The average equatorial surface temperature of Mars is about -45°C (-50°F), which would be the constant temperature underground. And of course the temperature gets much lower away from the equator. Such low temperatures can be withstood by machines such as the Spirit, Opportunity and Curiosity Mars rovers, but not by people. Human habitation of Mars would be problematic because of the very low temperatures, limited solar power capacity, and a biological history which precludes oil, gas and coal deposits. Human habitation would probably be impossible without nuclear power, and uranium mining and nuclear plants would be very challenging in an airless, cold enviroment. Also, concentrated uranium deposits are probably less common than on Earth because they depend on sedimentary and hydrothermal processes which are more prevalent on Earth

Mercury is actually easier to colonize than Mars because energy is plentiful and the soil is rich.

http://www.einstein-schrodinger.com/mercury_colony.html

[Anonymous No.11636649]

>>11636578
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the sun much, much more intense near Mercury than near Mars?

It seems like the entire time until you actually land, you'd be constantly trying to shed enough heat to not die.

[Anonymous No.11636686]

>>11632445
>asteroids over 10km^2
>km^2
ohshit, the flatearthers have spawned flatasteroiders.

[Anonymous No.11636708]

>destroys the future of humanity
nothin personell bro

[Anonymous No.11636736]

>>11636649
>Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the sun much, much more intense near Mercury than near Mars?
Yes that's the point. You could get solar powered colonies on Mercury while it'd be much harder on Mars. On Mars you would need an additional energy source because the Sun is so weak. Poor energy output makes for poor farming as well.

>It seems like the entire time until you actually land, you'd be constantly trying to shed enough heat to not die.
If you landed in the North Pole you would face temperatures of below zero celcius., pretty comfy for Human life. From there large rovers could go to the twilight or daylight zone and collect solar energy until more permanent solar power plants could be set up. Or the rovers themselves could turn into solar power plants.

Mercury has the additional advantage of being a stepping stone to colonize and terraform Venus which IMHO is the big prize in the Solar System. With proper terraforming (which true would take thousands of years) Venus could be an Earth-like paradise world. To start confronting that challenge it makes sense to colonize Mercury first, which aside from the distance involved, it's relatively easy to do.

Mars in contrast has nothing to offer. It may have made sense in 2004 but the hype for Mars is not as logical knowadays with all the info we have gained about Venus, Mercury as well as the Jovian moons.

[Anonymous No.11636757]

>>11635957
>Introduce hydrothermal vent ecosystem from Earth to Europa
>Pompeii worms, crabs and squid everywhere
>Preservationists scream "NOOOOO!! YOU CAN'T JUST INTRODUCE LIFE TO THIS UNINHABITED MOON! WE MUST KEEP THIS BALL OF ICE THE SAME!"

[Anonymous No.11636761]

>>11636757
there aren't any hydrothermal vents on Europa

[Anonymous No.11636776]

>>11636761
>hydrothermal vent
oh wait nvm there might be because of tidal forces

[Anonymous No.11636778]

>>11636578
>>11636459
>Mercury becomes transit gate for interstellar ships as they do a slingshot around the Sun
>Mercury shipyards repair ships before they scoop up solar wind in a magnetic funnel and shoot it out the back of the plasma engines before getting slingshotted out toward the jovian system for another boost toward other star systems
That sounds like a good idea

[Anonymous No.11636785]

>>11636757
>>11635957
>Implying it won't be stripped to the core for Best Planet terraformation
Nothin' personnel belters

[Anonymous No.11636790]

>>11636785
>Opens Sol ring
Lel

[Anonymous No.11636816]

>>11636785

Blue Crescent is the worst part of that Sami knock-off shit, you cannot into vexillology.

[Anonymous No.11636921]

>>11632325
>asteroids being non-differentiated bodies
All indications are that Psyche is differentiated, the core remnant of a destroyed planet.

[Anonymous No.11637154]

>>11636686
>he hasn't taken the flatspace pill
>>11636736
I just feel compelled to point out, even with the advantages of a Mercury colony, Mercury is much harder to get to than just about any other planet. Probes can get gravity assists from Venus and Earth, but a direct manned flight to Mercury would be enormously expensive in deltaV costs. I don't think human habitation of Mercury will be viable until something like fusion torch ships or orion drives or something is available simply because of how challenging getting to Mercury actually is.

[Anonymous No.11637235]

>>11632227
Venus doesn't have much hydrogen and how the fuck are you going to increase Venus' rotation speed?
>>11632300
>>delivering water and oxygen from earth to venus
are you stupid or something? you can obtain oxygen from the atmosphere on venus and water/hydrogen from comets and asteroids. Getting significant amounts of water into venus atmosphere would still be a tremendous undertaking.

[Anonymous No.11637237]

>>11636785
I think you left out Amos' much warranted correction.

[Anonymous No.11638364]

>>11632227
Save Venus for later, when we can feasibly terraform it.

>>11632313
>implying we can't just do both

>>11636785
This.

>not just importing Europa's water to Mars and Venus

[Anonymous No.11639122]

>>11638364
I'm not saying we CANT build colonies on the terrestrial worlds; i'm saying there is no economic incentive to do so, particularly when one considers the disadvantages of such a scheme. In fact, in the early days of space exploration I expect that the first true off-Earth permanent habitations will be on the Moon and Mars. In the long term however I expect that orbital colonies will be more economically viable simply because you don't need to fight gravity every time you want to move someone or something to the location of the colony. Landing on or taking off from large terrestrial bodies is very expensive, even on relatively low mass objects like Moons or Mars it costs significantly more deltaV (and thus rocket fuel) to come and go than it would to get to and from one orbital colony to another. Any resource you can get from a terrestrial world can be got easier, with less fuel and less heavy equipment, from an asteroid or comet, than from a terrestrial body. There isn't any reason to inhabit terrestrial bodies other than for scientific research or recreation/vacation purposes. That's why I suspect that while humans will certainly inhabit Mars, the Moon, and possibly Venus; those populations will never be very large. In contrast large orbital colonies make sense because they much easier to manufacture than a terrestrial based colony of equivalent size. They could even be made self sufficient, gathering solar energy for power and using automated drones to capture ice and water from asteroids for both drinking water and oxygen production. Earth is already becoming over crowded. Building large habitats for millions of people on the Moon and Mars will take decades, possibly centuries, and be massively expensive. Building an equivalent orbital colony would still be expensive, but likely much quicker, especially when we start mining asteroids.

[Anonymous No.11639131]

>>11639122
I do want to add as a caveat that Mars will likely have a fairly substantial population regardless. It's position is vital for going anywhere beyond the asteroid belt, it's easy to get to, it has an abundance of easily ex tractable resources, its fairly easy to build on/in, etc. Mars orbit will likely be where the major ore refineries and storage facilities are, and possibly it's the best location for a gravity assist tether system around phobos for getting either beyond the asteroid belt or in toward Earth/Venus/Mercury.

So Mars will almost certainly be a major hub either way, but orbital colonies still just make more economic sense than most terrestrial worlds.

[Anonymous No.11639137]

the chad gas moon vs the virgin geyser moon.

[Anonymous No.11639153]

>>11632300
Ive always wondered about the venus idea, if the floating cities would be able to always 100% deal with the turbulence and wind, and shifting weight, without reaching some point where they get wrecked. I wouldn't feel the safest being the first colonists. Plus I heard about ideas to tether it to the surface one way or another.

Either way, colonize the atmosphere and thats a lotta red tape when you finally want to terraform.

[Anonymous No.11639189]

>>11635669
Riddle me this, zeekfag: How exactly are your souls unbound by gravity even though you all live in O'Neill cylinders that emulate perfect 1.0g Earth gravity?

[Anonymous No.11639220]

>>11639189
*colony drops you*

[Anonymous No.11640604]

>>11639122
>>11639131
If we ever master interstellar travel, do you think we might settle on Earth-like worlds?

[Anonymous No.11640620]

>>11640604
What else would the point of interstellar travel be?

[Anonymous No.11640710]

>>11632300
>The ground is a watery/slushy mess
No. The water is frozen into ice hard as concrete.

[Anonymous No.11640909]

>>11640604
There isn't any immediate need. Humanity could grow to trillions of individuals living on millions of orbital colonies before the resources of our native Star system are exhausted. For the next 100k years or so the only reasons humans would have for going to another star would be either scientific research (which is better accomplished by probes anyways), or the destruction of Earth and the desire to make a new "home" world. I suppose it could be a possibility that long term research efforts in other star systems might develop small colonies because they never intend to return home; and it's equally possible that humans may start colonizing other star systems in order to freely practice extreme political or religious beliefs, but there are no economic or societal reasons for humans to leave our solar system for the foreseeable future.

[Anonymous No.11640922]

>colonizing a celestial body
I sure hope you guys don't do that

Assuming we can create carbon nano tubes at scale, consider the McKendree cylinder

>460 km wide, 4000 km long

>As much surface area as all of russia, except every square meter of a McKendree cylinder (or any O'neallian space habitat for that matter) is as good as the next. Consider that 60-70% of russia is uninhabited, and still hosts 130M
>Perfect control of gravity, radiation exposure, temperature, air pressure, etc. etc.
>Can use low gravity sections for superior manufacturing
>More than large enough to support weather systems
>No gravity well to contend with, i.e. easy transport to and from
>Is transportable (asteroid headed your way? literally just m o v e the whole fkn thing)
>Can literally create any world you want

There is literally no reason to colonize any celestial body besides Earth. Rotating habitats are the superior way in every regard. Planet fags BTFO get neilpilled

[Anonymous No.11640937]

humanity will become robots before colonization is technologically feasible at which point it will be unnecessary. (it is already unnecessary but will be even moreso)

[Anonymous No.11640945]

a white one
/thread

[Anonymous No.11640950]

>>11631709
Keeping earth habitable should be prioritized over colonization.

[Anonymous No.11640961]

>>11636708
THANK YOU SUPPLY SIDE JESUS

[Anonymous No.11640993]

>>11636485
Mercury is not tidally locked. It is in a 3:2 orbit-spin resonance

[Anonymous No.11641010]

>>11640993
Spin-orbit. My bad.

[Anonymous No.11641081]

>>11640620
>What else would the point of interstellar travel be?
Oh shit, that's a good point. I wasn't thinking when I typed that out.

>>11640909
>For the next 100k years or so the only reasons humans would have for going to another star would be either scientific research
Are there really that many resources in our solar system alone?

Also, I could see people branching out to other star systems. Not everything has to be based 100% on logic. Why did people migrate out of Subsaharan Africa?

[Anonymous No.11641126]

>>11635380
BUILT.

FOR B W P
(big white people)

[Anonymous No.11641150]

>>11641081
>Are there really that many resources in our solar system alone?
The non-Solar mass of the Solar system is like several million times greater than the total mass of the Earth, and we've used maybe .001% of the total mass of the Earth. Now obviously precious metals and other important resources are probably a higher percentage but not by much. But just in rough figures anything that exists on Earth exists in a million times greater quantity in the Solar system. Of course a lot of that material is effectively beyond Human acquisition, but by the time we start running out of easily aquirable resources (several thousand years), we could start extracting matter from planetary cores or even simply converting all matter into whatever we desire. The Sun itself will continue to produce nearly limitless energy for billions of years.

I never meant to imply Humans wouldn't have any reason to settle other star system, merely that there would be no logical economic reason to do so for a very long time. See my post again. I mentioned religious or political settlements, scientific ventures, etc. But any interstellar human colony will be done for "human" reasons, not economic or survival reasons. If people colonize another system it will not be because we "have to," but because we "want to."

[Anonymous No.11642111]

>>11641150
>we could start extracting matter from planetary cores
Wouldn't this be an incredibly terrible idea, and would probably make a planet dangerously unstable one way or another, such as making it geologically inactive?

>or even simply converting all matter into whatever we desire.
Is that even possible?

>I never meant to imply Humans wouldn't have any reason to settle other star system, merely that there would be no logical economic reason to do so for a very long time.
Fair enough. Sometimes I wonder if we're in the VERY, very early stages of a great, galaxy-spanning civilization, like how people in prehistory were alive before the first great settlements.

[Anonymous No.11642317]

>>11642111
>planet dangerously unstable
By the point that we would be able to access those resources, it wouldn't matter
>Is that even possible?
All it takes is enough energy. All matter is made up of the same sub-atomic particles. With enough energy you can rearrange the particles in any matter into some other kind of matter. Energy is the prohibitive factor there.
>galaxy-spanning civilization
If that was a thing, it almost certainly would have already happened in the Milky Way. I assume you are familiar with the Fermi paradox, but if you aren't I recommend reading up on it. If galactic civilizations are possible there must not be any reason for a species to leave their star system. There is of course a small, remote possibility that humanity is unique and either is the first intelligent species in our galaxy, or the only intelligent species in our galaxy, but the chances of that are (pun intended) astronomical.

[Anonymous No.11643293]

>>11640909
What would the sky look like on one of those planets, assuming a similar atmosphere to Earth?

[Anonymous No.11643606]

>>11642317
>I assume you are familiar with the Fermi paradox,
I know all about the Fermi Paradox. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if we were the first or only intelligent species in our galaxy. At least, I hope we are. The alternatives are boring.

>everyone just stays in their own solar system

Well, so much for interstellar exploration and settlement.

Also, the odds of us being produced as an intelligent species were pretty astronomical in and of itself.

[Anonymous No.11643928]

>>11636459
Imagine bros, the Mercury dwarf civilization.

[Anonymous No.11643935]

>>11635957
>not taking the far sexier Ganymede with a magnetic field of it's own.

[Anonymous No.11643954]

>>11643935
>dig deeper
>find Ice 9
>everybody dies

[Anonymous No.11643968]

>>11635861
If humans develop fusion by then, the ice in the comets can be the fuel also, just build engines in the rocks and set them on course

[Anonymous No.11643988]

>>11643954
Lmao

[Anonymous No.11643995]

>>11643954
But what if you found... IceNine?

[Anonymous No.11644331]

>>11631709
Australia.

[Anonymous No.11644350]

>>11632645
You are dumb, read about all the moons before saying this or that

[Anonymous No.11644435]

>>11643935
>Ganymede
And do what? Dig into the ice, live at enormous pressures?

[Anonymous No.11644536]

>>11632227
>>11632300
>>11639153
why are we able to float massive colonies in venus' atmosphere but not on earth's? Is it just that much more dense that it becomes practical?

[Anonymous No.11644664]

>>11644536
Atmospheric pressure at 30,000 feet on Venus is about equal to atmospheric pressure at sea level on earth.

You need floating colonies just to get close to what earth has on the surface.

[Anonymous No.11644819]

Space colonies are s o y b o y fantasies that will never get built.

Focus on getting your own real life together. Get /fit/, get /biz/ and get /laid/. Stop dreaming about some stupid space fantasy you will never have.

t. Reality.

[Anonymous No.11644947]

>>11644819
>Space is fantasy
>Having casual sex and accumulating frivolous items is the only meaning in life

[Anonymous No.11644967]

>>11644819
Where else are we going to go?

[Anonymous No.11645284]

>>11640620

Space habitats make ever star system a potentially habital one. Colonizing planets would be for prestige/sentimental reasons.

[Anonymous No.11645902]

>>11644819
Space colonies is a long term objective.
Getting laid a short term one.

[Anonymous No.11646078]

>>11644536
>why are we able to float massive colonies in venus' atmosphere but not on earth's?
Oh but we can. Buckminster Fuller had plans for that, mile wide structures where a single degree warmer air inside would float the entire structure.

[Anonymous No.11646143]

>>11644819
lmao look at this retard that can't walk and chew gum at the same time

[Anonymous No.11646146]

>>11636459
>>Has a (weak) magnetic shield, unlike Mars
Mars dosen't have much of a magnetic field either

[Anonymous No.11646199]

>>11644947
Without consumerism space colonization will always stay a fantasy, so you better start buying fag.

[Anonymous No.11646219]

>>11642111
>Sometimes I wonder if we're in the VERY, very early stages of a great, galaxy-spanning civilization, like how people in prehistory were alive before the first great settlements.

Interesting thought..

[Anonymous No.11646370]

>>11646146
I think what that anon was trying to say is that Mercury has a stronger magnetosphere than Mars, he just worded it funky

[Anonymous No.11647707]

>>11635957
Far too much radiation: >>11647201

[Anonymous No.11647992]

>>11643954
What does Ice IX even look like

[Anonymous No.11648285]

>>11639131
yeah mars is the best candidate right now by far
>>11640950
>Keeping earth habitable
the world isn't coming to an end

[Anonymous No.11648379]

>>11640710
the ground has a crust with a weak, muddy interior. some scientists have referred to the surface of titan resembling a creme brulee.

[Anonymous No.11649647]

>>11648379
>muddy
Is that a statement on the material (minerals as opposed to water) or texture? Not sure from the context.

[Anonymous No.11649668]

>>11640620
Resources: rocks and sunlight needed for orbital habitats. Eventually all the asteroids and moons in the solar system will be used up or claimed, and colonies will fight over access to sunlight.

[Anonymous No.11650107]

>>11649668
You can extrapolate energy and land use. I think it will be a long time before we use all energy incident on Earth. And it will take far greater time before we will need all energy output from the sun.
>Physicist and futurist Michio Kaku suggested that, if humans increase their energy consumption at an average rate of 3 percent each year, they may attain Type I status in 100–200 years, Type II status in a few thousand years, and Type III status in 100,000 to a million years.

[Anonymous No.11650131]

>>11635957
Or it least it was... until I fucked everything up.

[Anonymous No.11650148]

>>11640620
Finding Ayys

[Anonymous No.11651575]

>>11631740
BRAAAAAP

[Anonymous No.11653082]

>>11632325
>It is mostly solar protons which are easier to shield than galactic cosmic rays.
Is it the same on Mars?

[Anonymous No.11653147]

>>11639131
you forgot the best bit; that it has an atmosphere to aerobrake in. Helps cut down on delta V requirements a tonne.

[Anonymous No.11653155]

>>11631709
Reminder that Venus was habitable for 3 billion years

[Anonymous No.11653158]

>>11646078
i mean on Venus you dont even need any temperature or pressure differences to stay afloat, a normal atmostpheric mix will do the job about half as well as an equal volume of helium on Earth.

[Anonymous No.11653160]

>>11653155
>around Pre-Cambrian explosion
maybe eukaryotes are venusian

[Anonymous No.11653420]

>>11653155
It's just a theory.
A very intriguing one, admittedly.

[Anonymous No.11653457]

>>11635957
ALL THESE WORLDS ARE YOURS, EXCEPT EUROPA. ATTEMPT NO LANDINGS THERE.

[Anonymous No.11654282]

>>11653160
Early on it is possible that even Mars was more suitable to life than Earth.

[Anonymous No.11656144]

>>11653147
A launch will be needed to recover the test samples taken. And it is considered a hard problem. Some talk about making fuel on Mars for the return journey.