/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.2416659]

Space colonization discussion thread

[Anonymous No.2416669]

1. Go to the moon
2. Establish a colony
3. ???????
4. Profit!

[Anonymous No.2416675]

>>2416669
Yeah, I've got a problem with step 3.

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.2416679]

I wish to live in a L5 rotating habitat with a 1G base level, but I will spend most of my waking time on the 0.75G level.

[Anonymous No.2416687]

>>2416675
I'm sure the moon people will figure SOMETHING out and then well swim in that moon money!

[Anonymous No.2416715]

Have there been (m)any actual studies on terraforming done? Any real science?

[Anonymous No.2416720]

>>2416715
Well, it's not exactly something that's easy to do experiments with.

[Anonymous No.2416722]

>>2416715
>Wikipedia
>Terraforming
>History of Scholarly Study

[Anonymous No.2416727]

>>2416722
>mfw there's something called "Astrophysics Engineering"
>mfw this is my calling.

[Anonymous No.2416735]

>>2416727
gays in space!

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.2416741]

>>2416727
There's a what now?

[Anonymous No.2416760]

>>2416741
From the wiki:

Beginning in 1985, Martyn J. Fogg began publishing several articles on terraforming. He also served as editor for a full issue on terraforming for the Journal of the British Interplanetary Society in 1991. In his 1995 book Terraforming: Engineering Planetary Environments, Fogg proposed the following definitions for different aspects related to terraforming:[9]

Astrophysical engineering: taken to represent proposed activities, relating to future habitation, that are envisaged to occur on a scale greater than that of "conventional" planetary engineering.

>mfw

[Xlore !!oIaXoksOFZm No.2416761]

Until we have a moon base.

We are not colonizing any other planet.
We also need a permanent space station other than the ISS.

Until then the Mars circle jerking needs to stop.

[Anonymous No.2416770]

>>2416761
2nded

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.2416772]

>>2416760

[Anonymous No.2416784]

>>2416761
>>2416770
http://www.brahmand.com/news/Man-on-Mars--someday-some-way!/6108/3/15.html
Written 5 days ago.

Excuse the fox link:

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/12/30/nasa-scientist-publishes-colonizing-red-planet-guide/?test
=faces

NASA also seems to be okay with this recently. I wouldn't say it's too far-fetched.

>mfw we have a booming Mars colony by the end of the century.

[Xlore !!oIaXoksOFZm No.2416794]

>>2416784
Just because NASA wants to go doesn't mean it isn't retarded.

They are just doing it so they can feel special just like with the moon.
At this time it is way to expensive to launch a shuttle from earths surface.
We need bases close by that are in low gravity to launch or space shuttles from.
Mars being as far as it is and the materials required to form a colony would cost way more launching shuttles from earth.

I have the same fantasies as Inurdaes or anyone else. But i am looking at the problems now, and trying to colonize or land on mars with other BIGGER problems to deal with first is just stupid.

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.2416810]

>>2416794
Earth -> Mars = 1G
Earth -> Luna -> Mars = 1.17G

The people that will go to Mars will still come from Earth originally. It's perfectly reasonable to expect a direct Earth to Mars mission, as not only less propellant will be used in the process but it is cheaper than building a moon base to construct ships from the lunar rock and soil.

[Anonymous No.2416806]

>>2416794
See, I believe the contrary is true: The more problems we have here, the more we should invest in going to another planet, as it would unite us (hopefully) as a world or large organization and then through these ties would allow greater ability to solve the issues at hand.

It's like buying a teenager a new car and parking it in the driveway but forbidding them to drive it until they do all their chores.

[Scia !!cjW58FjfJHZ No.2416808]

Rocket science student here

The private sector are the only ones who can realistically colonize the moon

Because only they can make it cheep and affordable

Support SpaceX today!

[Anonymous No.2416815]

>>2416808

You're not even out of high school.

You don't even go to high school, you're homeschooled. Stop calling yourself a "rocket science student".

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.2416816]

>>2416808
>colonizing moon
>cheap and affordable
Pick one

Until the construction of a operational space elevator I do not see massive investments from the private sector into colonizing other worlds.

[Anonymous No.2416823]

>>2416659

did they check the composition while on the moon or after bringing sample back to earth? if they checked it on the moon, how do they know that their equipment works properly in outer space? and if they checked in on earth, how do they know the samples weren't altered in the return flight?

[Xlore !!oIaXoksOFZm No.2416827]

>>2416806
By bigger problems i meant space traveling problems not earth problems.

>>2416810
You just want a huge ship to take everything you need with you and never come back.
Colonizing is normally an investment, which means constant communication and travel back and forth. Without the means i mentioned before it will cost a lot more.

[Samefag !SHjzCSZsqE No.2416836]

>>2416816
Companies are already looking to mine lunar water. Combined with solar-generated electricity, that equates to hydrogen and oxygen liquid fuels outside of earth's gravity. That means you only need just enough fuel to get into orbit, then you can refuel cheaply without having to haul a shitton of extra fuel to get you where you need to be.
Cargo capacity goes up, costs go down.

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.2416852]

>>2416836

[Anonymous No.2416863]

>>2416827
>>2416827
I fail to see how traveling through space is a bigger problem than getting your ship there to begin with.

If we could enter/exit orbit cheap and with ease, then colonization would be cake.

[Xlore !!oIaXoksOFZm No.2416859]

>>2416852
>now he understands

[Samefag !SHjzCSZsqE No.2416865]

>>2416852
The problem is, you can't own the moon or lay claim to it by some treaty of versailles of some year (every treaty you don't know, is a treaty of versailles of some year - history 101)
Companies are trying to get around that, so they can have property rights for their mining operations.
They're already talking with SpaceOne about operational logistics...once they get the legalities straightened out, it's mine mine mine!

[Xlore !!oIaXoksOFZm No.2416875]

>>2416863
You didn't get my point did you?
read here. >>2416836

You are correct we need ways to travel in space without leaving earths gravity, or to leave earths gravity cheaply before we try to colonize other planets.
Thats all i am getting at. And a way to make gravity on shuttles and space stations would help

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.2416876]

>>2416859
I had this mental image of a ship from Earth landing on the moon and then being refueled, and then lifting off once more.

[Anonymous No.2416880]

>>2416865
Hey bro, dibs on that one crater.

[Xlore !!oIaXoksOFZm No.2416884]

>>2416876
I lol'd

Well at least you understand now.

[Anonymous No.2416899]

ontopic: AWESOME.

offtopic:

Inurdaes have you got that technocratic republic of sci blog going yet? If so, post link, if not, horry teh pheuck up.

[Scia !!cjW58FjfJHZ No.2416900]

>>2416815
I'm enrolled in a college level NASA course

Id say that allows me to call myself a rocket science student

[Anonymous No.2416903]

Until we have an easy way to get out of a gravity well, we're screwed for any sort of large scale plans.

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.2416909]

>>2416899
What blog? Here's the forum though. You have to understand seriously serious planning won't begin until I have acquired a method of funding for our operations. ~2020.

http://technocraticrepublic.freeforums.org/index.php

[Anonymous No.2416907]

>>2416900
>I'm enrolled in a college level NASA course

Guess who? I hate you so much.

[Scia !!cjW58FjfJHZ No.2416912]

>>2416876
Descent stage motherfucker have you heard of it?

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.2416914]

>>2416912
I have, there would just be no point in going Earth - Moon - Mars that way.

[Scia !!cjW58FjfJHZ No.2416916]

>>2416909
Aussies have never done anything important

Except getting stabbed in the heart by a stingray

[Scia !!cjW58FjfJHZ No.2416924]

>>2416914
See this bitch

Its a fucking Descent stage

on the goddamn moon

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.2416930]

>>2416916
>>2416924
You do not anger me, it is only disappointing that such a relatively talented mind is so nationalistic.

[Samefag !SHjzCSZsqE No.2416938]

>done in the past
>most efficient way
>not appeal to authority
>logically valid
nope.jpg
If it takes X amount of fuel to get your ship to orbit, take X+5% or so, instead of all of the fuel you need to make the burn for lunar approach.

[Scia !!cjW58FjfJHZ No.2416940]

>>2416930
>>2416930
Never said my country was great

Just that your was irelevant

Enjoy your floods

[Scia !!cjW58FjfJHZ No.2416947]

>>2416930
also this is the best way to get to the moon

United States approved

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

[Xlore !!oIaXoksOFZm No.2416953]

i think people confused what i said.

The moon or permanent space station would be the launch point for the mission(s) to mars.

I am also not saying those bases would only have the point of getting us to another planet. They would have purposes just being easier to launch shuttles would be one of them.

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.2416962]

>>2416940
Uh huh. Like I implied in my previous post, I do not care.

[Scia !!cjW58FjfJHZ No.2416963]

>>2416953
Yes it would

a self sustaining moon using it situ resource utilization will open the solar system

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.2416981]

>>2416963

>No Carbon
>No radioactives
>Helium-3 requires processing 100 million tonnes of rock and can be obained from the Energetic Neutral Atoms zone
>Water also requires huge processing

Why is the Moon valuable, again? And please for the love of God just justify this whole lunar base thing with actual science and real, sourced numbers, not just "shut up your third world liberal furry you jelly of USA?".

[Samefag !SHjzCSZsqE No.2416992]

>>2416981
>water
>huge processing
what the fuck am I reading?

[Scia !!cjW58FjfJHZ No.2416994]

>>2416981
>>2416981
The Moon has unique significance for all space applications for a reason that to my amazement is hardly ever discussed in popular accounts of space policy. The Moon is the closest source of material that lies far up Earth's gravity well. Anything that can be made from Lunar material at costs comparable to Earth manufacture has an enormous overall cost advantage compared with objects lifted from Earth's surface. The greatest value of the Moon lies neither in science nor in exploration, but in its material. I am talking about the possibility of extracting elements and minerals that can be processed into fuel or massive components of space apparatus. The production of oxygen in particular, the major component (by mass) of chemical rocket fuel, is potentially an important Lunar industry.

[Samefag !SHjzCSZsqE No.2416995]

>>2416992
>>2416981
>water >huge processing >therefore not valuable*

[Scia !!cjW58FjfJHZ No.2417002]

>>2416994
What are the preconditions for such an industry? That, it seems to me, must be a primary consideration of the long range planning for the Lunar agenda. Science studies provide the foundation for a materials production roadmap. Clever ideas have been advanced for the phased construction of electrical power sources – perhaps using solar cells manufactured in situ from Lunar soil. A not unreasonable scenario is a phase of highly subsidized capital construction followed by market-driven industrial activity to provide Lunar products such as oxygen refueling services for commercially valuable Earth-orbiting apparatus.

[Scia !!cjW58FjfJHZ No.2417004]

>>2417002
also

shut up you third world liberal furry you jelly of USA?

[Samefag !SHjzCSZsqE No.2417010]

>>2417004
>>2417002
You're bad at referencing posts.

[Xlore !!oIaXoksOFZm No.2417018]

>People still confusing my moon base concept.

The moon will not be self sustaining. If anything we need a space elevator to do what i am saying.

The bases are just so shuttles do not launch from earth.

[Anonymous No.2417022]

>>2416994
It's only with the latest administration that the moon has been scrapped. Until then it was the focus of space policy.

[Anonymous No.2417031]

>>2416981
>can be obained from the Energetic Neutral Atoms zone
How? In what quantity?

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.2417167]

>>2416992

I mean extracting soil, burning it in the fucking furnace at hundreds or thousands of degrees to get a drop of water.

>>2416994

>Earth's surface. The greatest value of the Moon lies neither in science nor in exploration, but in its material. I am talking about the possibility of extracting elements and minerals that can be processed into fuel or massive components of space apparatus.

For what market? A few space hotels?

>The production of oxygen in particular, the major component (by mass) of chemical rocket fuel
>chemical rocket fuel

Okay buddy. Enjoy lifting 200 million tonnes of soil to get a few tonnes of fuel to accelerate a ship into orbit and then run out.

>>2417002

>Science studies provide the foundation for a materials production roadmap. Clever ideas have been advanced for the phased construction of electrical power sources – perhaps using solar cells manufactured in situ from Lunar soil.

For what? Broadcasting power to Earth. lolok. Enjoy people going all paranoid when they hear "microwave lasers".

[Scia !!cjW58FjfJHZ No.2417227]

>>2417167
so now your disagreeing with NSS the Soceity that Von Braun founded

http://www.nss.org/settlement/moon/

stay classy CCM

[Anonymous No.2417251]

Xlore, if you're still around...

I think you need to provide a concrete example to help people better understand.

The advantage of a moon base of permanent space station is that you never have to use fuel to leave orbit. That's where so much fuel is burned, and it should be avoidable. With a space elevator (a good shot at a cheap way to get heavy objects out of orbit,) we can lift ship parts off planet, piece them together in space, and launch from the low-gravity moon, or no-gravity space station.

This alone would save immense amounts of money, and make space travel more prevalent.

A moon colony could constantly mine for cheaper fuel. It would be cheaper by virtue, that getting it to the point of delivery is cheap/quick, and as described above, is pretty easy. (And if done as a private enterprise, it could be sold to ships, public and private.)

For bonus points, make large ships to traverse space, and smaller vessels for atmospheric entry. It's a common trope in sci-fi for good reasons. Hell, even ocean-faring ships did that.

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.2417362]

>>2417227

Now you're disagreeing with Robert Zubrin the guy who invented the magnetic sail, Mars Direct, the Nuclear Salt Water Rocket, and founded the Mars Society, not that I care because that would be an argument to authority or whatever it's called. I just wish you could address my concerns instead of just saying "But this guy 60 years ago said this!". If you could think for yourself and make your own arguments, that would be nice.

[Xlore !!oIaXoksOFZm No.2417408]

>>2417251
For a better explanation.

People were saying that the moon base would be self sustaining. Which would mean no help from anywhere else.

On the contrary if we had a space elevator earth would be helping the moon base out loads of times.

The point of the permanent space stations and moon base are, like have been said, to have an area where shuttles can launch from. But that would only be one of their purposes. They could do tons of things, mining being one of them.
But non of them would be self sustaining.

That was my only gripe with what people were saying.

[Scia !!cjW58FjfJHZ No.2417442]

>>2417362
But then again Von Braun landed a man on the moon and all Robert Zubrin does it Bitch


My point is we should cultivate the moon so that we can actually colonize mars.

To launch from earth you have to deal with
1.Atmosphere
2.6 times the gravity
3.Environmental concerns


Thats a large pain in the ass

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.2417782]

>>2417442

But you'd have to wait decades and invest trillions on the Moon to enable them to be both self-sustaining and have launch capacity for the whole of the solar system, I think dealing with six times the gravity and an atmosphere is good enough if the rockets reach a destination that is actually worth a thing.

Greenland is closer to Europe than America, but they didn't stop there.

[Anonymous No.2418450]

>>2416963
No it wouldn't, it would still cost too much to send people anywhere (and like it or not, people are Made on Earth©). We need to figure out a way to get a human from ground to orbit for little or no money per kg.

Once you do that you can build town sized space stations and send them all over the solar system if you want. You're pretty much free to do anything and a moon colony (not just a base) is not much harder to construct or maintain (in terms of money or resources, not time) than a Ceres, Mars, main belt, Europa or Titan colony.

[Anonymous No.2418477]

All of your space colonisation bullshit with its completely myopic assumption of the unchanged biology of humans in the future is totally, totally stupid, no matter how well researched your ideas are, no matter how knowledgable you are in astrophysics, your ideas are completely futile without acknowledging the future of post-biological humans, and with that the entire thread was completely shat on by me.

Goodsnight.

[Anonymous No.2418501]

>>2418477
We want to do this in the next 100-200 years, not 1000-2000. Please don't shit on threads with science fiction, this isn't /pseudo sci/.

[Anonymous No.2418607]

>>2418501

>science fiction

PRO TIP: All speculative discussion in this thread is science fiction, genius.