Off-Earth Colonies Discussion

[Anonymous No.8794047]

Colony Requirements:
1: Must be self-sustaining after being initially setup.
2: Must have healthy children born in the colony for more than 5 generations without technological or genetic augmentations.

These requirements are extremely steep for starting an off-Earth colony within our solar system. #1 requires a very balanced, closed loop ecosystem, which is difficult to do. #2 is very difficult just because of gravity restraints.

After seeing the screenshot image (blue sections of this image) I decided to do some research into what celestial bodies might be viable for colonization (white section of this image). It seems that no planets, asteroids, or moons can have a colony on their surface, yet floating cities on Venus and the gas giants (except Jupiter) is viable. However, many moons and asteroids can be converted into O'Neil Cylinders.

This takes for granted that we could build a floating city at 100kPa level on the gas giants and Venus as well as being able to build O'Neil Cylinders out of moons/asteroids and get the moon/asteroid to spin at 1g without flying apart. Getting them to spin at the right speed for 1g is the biggest hurdle.

Building O'Neil Cylinders that orbit the sun would be fairly easy, just costly. Those are at least well within our technological realm right now without much hand waving, magic, or "special material we almost have out of the lab".

[Anonymous No.8794317]

[Anonymous No.8794323]

[Anonymous No.8794365]

>>8794323
what about on earth colonies in the middle of the ocean

[Anonymous No.8794392]

>>8794365
Didn't go well for China

I know it's a bad example, since these weren't intended to be self-sufficient
But a nation extending its sphere of influence will alwais cause international friction. Unless it's some bullshit tourist attraction like the Palm island.

[Anonymous No.8794438]

I love seeing the 100s of artist's images of O'Neill cylinders, but I really do think that these things will be more like multiple floors/cylinders, one inside another like some massive apartment building rat warren. Each level would have a different gravity of course. Only some levels with in a proper gravity range would be for living. I really don't see a massive open space in the middle.

Not only that, but how much shielding is needed to prevent cosmic and solar radiation from harming people while still allowing sunlight in? Is that feasible? Even astronauts are exposed to some pretty bad radiation in their suits and in ISS. Is there a way to allow sunlight in without allowing harmful radiations? Would a layer of water over the window work? Would it just be better to convert the sunlight to electric then power lights?

>>8794365
>Off-Earth Colonies Discussion

Those would be neat, but this thread isn't about that. Though, I'm sure such endeavors would help with design and technology for space-based things.

[Anonymous No.8794459]

>>8794047
>build O'Neil Cylinders out of moons/asteroids and get the moon/asteroid to spin at 1g without flying apart

Maybe something akin to spray-on truck bed liner as small part of such a construction. The moon/asteroid would be hollowed out in patterns similar to shells like described in >>8794438 so that it still has some integral structure instead of ripping everything out like in >>8794323 After that, you install bracing and spray everything with a polymer. Not just stuff like rebar and shotcrete, but over top of that use spray-on truck bed liner (spray-on space liner). I know some people use it for reinforcing underground bunker walls and help make structures more blast proof.

>webm from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSvVy6oiMZI

[Anonymous No.8794819]

>>8794047
>1: Must be self-sustaining after being initially setup.

How long will you give me to get "initial setup" done.

A moon colony would likely take a long time to reach self-sufficiency, for example.

[Anonymous No.8794850]

>>8794819
It would take years of course. All colonies are like that normally. Plus, there'd be a lot of stuff to move there.

[Anonymous No.8795317]

[Anonymous No.8796060]

[Anonymous No.8796151]

>tfw when discussion thread without actual discussion.
>tfw there are a lot of "depressed astronaut" photos online for some odd reason

[Anonymous No.8796630]

[Anonymous No.8796697]

>>8794047
>OP image
>hurr animals and plants will adapt to shit ecology (despite that for now they seem to be going extinct in droves instead)
>durr people will be left in the dust and won't even be able to live on other planets (despite being sentient and having technology, genetic engineering, and quite probably cyborg stuff at their disposal)
>P.S. science won't advance anymore because I, the prescient neckbeard, said so

But fuck logic when you can jerk off to your doomsday fantasies and huge phallic objects in spess, right?

[Anonymous No.8797024]

>>8794323
>That brown exterior
Looks like a turd, not an option.

[Anonymous No.8797033]

>>8796151
You don't need to be in space for no one to hear your soul scream.

[Anonymous No.8797234]

>>8796697
You don't understand the science behind any of that do you? It isn't about doomsday scenarios. It is just hard facts. Shit happens. Die or deal with it. You can't stick you head in the sand, hope it goes away, and come out smelling like roses.

>>8797024
kek

It also doesn't have any support structure from the looks of it. Thus, when it spins up to 1g speed it will fly apart, if it even makes it that far. Roche Limit is kind of a dick to sci-fi. What is the term for a celestial object spinning so fast that it overcomes its own gravity and flies apart? It isn't Roche Limit, but that is kinda similar.

[Anonymous No.8797248]

>>8797234
That's also its roche limit I think.

[Anonymous No.8797276]

>>8797234
>>8797248
Here's an okay read about it, check the 2nd answer; the really long one:

http://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/40189/how-fast-would-a-planet-have-to-be-spinning-for-the-centrifugal-centripetal-forc

It doesn't mention what such a phenomenon would be called though. I know Dyson came up with the "planetary spin motor", which spins a planet up faster. He even proposed that you can destroy a planet by spinning it fast enough to overcome its own gravity. I think that might be the first mention of it in history that I can remember.

[Anonymous No.8797280]

>>8797276
>Dyson came up with the "planetary spin motor"

>How to Disassemble a Planet
https://spacearchaeology.org/?p=105

[Anonymous No.8797284]

>>8797276
>tfw you will never spin into oblivion

[Anonymous No.8797300]

>>8794850
>pic

On the tv show "The Expanse" they spin Ceres up to 0.3g, but Ceres is only like 0.029g. They also don't show that they've stabilized anything on the asteroid.

Ceres also seems to have an iron-rich clay mineral composition with lots of water locked up in it (hydrated minerals). That plus just enough g-force is why it is round, in comparison to smaller asteroids. If it was spun up to 0.3g without complete support, it would fly apart.

[Anonymous No.8798187]

>>8794438
I always hate how sparse they are. Most of the land is nothing but water and wilderness. When in actuality the water will be in tanks, there will only be a tiny bit of wilderness like Central Park, and everything else will be life support, waste processing, food growing, technical shit, and living quarters. Unless that is these things are only supporting 100 people at max.

[Anonymous No.8798205]

>>8794438
You wouldn't have windows in those, just internal LED lights, otherwise cooling becomes too hard.

[Anonymous No.8798217]

>>8798205
Wouldn't they have stuff on the outer surface for growing crops?

[Anonymous No.8798697]

[Anonymous No.8799402]

[Anonymous No.8799862]

[Anonymous No.8799884]

>>8799862
>That steel super structure connected to that white rod
triggered.

[Anonymous No.8799954]

>>8794047
>Must be self-sustaining after being initially setup.

What really sustains a colony is going to be economically determined more than any other factor.

The problem is one of purpose. Any permanent colony must be based on trade and not autarky. The whole reason to create a colony is ROI. Resources must be traded for finished goods.

If you mean we should use in-situ resources to contribute to lowering the LCO then that's more feasible.

Also,

>2: ........without technological or genetic augmentations.

why is this a dealbreaker?. it should be standard for humans in the future... coming from a preventative health care perspective

[Anonymous No.8800432]

>>8799884
Pretty much all those images trigger me. That one even has sports fields.

>>8799954
As soon as you start altering someone's genes as something they will pass on to their children they are no longer homo sapiens.

If an off-world colony can't be self sustaining then they are going to die out when something trivial happens on Earth that prevents supplies from reaching them. All it takes is one Muhammad to trigger Kessler syndrome around Earth and all space travel is fucked for decades. It is one thing to have less than a dozen people on ISS or a lunar base, it is something else when you have 10k to 100k on a colony.

[Anonymous No.8800449]

>>8794392
It went very well for them. The international community yapped and yapped, but they're still there going at it.

[Anonymous No.8800599]

>>8800449
>>8794392
I think that anon, might have been meaning underwater colonies? Technically, you could have multiple layers of floating cities, one on top of each other from the sea floor to the surface.

But yeah China is being a dick as usual and not respecting local authorities in those areas.

Can you fucking imagine when those dicks start trying to colonize the moon, eros, and any other near Earth asteroid over 1km in diameter? NASA shouldn't have banned them from ISS.

[Anonymous No.8800616]

http://www.asterank.com/
http://www.asterank.com/3d/

There's a really nifty tool for plotting the orbits of known asteroids. Some are gone, like 2014 AA which smashed into Earth.m It even shows how valuable, how cost effective, and how accessible they are.

[Anonymous No.8800772]

[Anonymous No.8801112]

[Anonymous No.8801829]

[Anonymous No.8801860]

Why not just colonize harsh regions of earth? It would be ideal conditions for civilization and settlements compared to off planet. With just a bit of work colonies in Antarctica could happen or under sea like biosock. Seems like it'd be a good first step any ways. Better than sand bar island too.

[Anonymous No.8801874]

>>8801860
>Why not just colonize harsh regions of earth?
>Off-Earth Colonies Discussion

[Anonymous No.8801890]

>>8801874
>sci-fi discussion
>not based in reality
>ignores constructive and politely phrased suggestion to embrace real world problems
You have to be 18 to use this board

[Anonymous No.8801908]

>>8801890
>>8801860
You should probably make your own thread, kid.

[Anonymous No.8802718]

[Anonymous No.8802788]

>>8794047
>>8794438

This is the way I think it should be inside. Keep in mind that I didn't draw any support structure at all. This only shows how the floors/levels should be inside the spinning cylinder or asteroid. Each line is a living/working area and it shaped like a cylinder itself. Actual living levels would be those within the proper gravity ranges and everything else would be for working, life support, farming, etc. I suspect that these would be spinning faster than the 1g needed. That way more levels would have a g-range within human tolerances, thus more living space.

>>8801890
>>8801860
>>8794365
>>8794392
I don't think this thread has much at all to do with Earth or its problems. The only thing that we can do on Earth that relates to the thread subject is to post stuff about all the experiments done specifically for testing technology for a space colony. Like Biosphere 2 or as abstract as what Stefania Follini did.

Other similar things, some directly related to Mars/space colonies, some not:

BIOS-3
Eden Project
HI-SEAS
MARS-500
Hampture
Mars Desert Research Station
Flashline Mars Arctic Research Station

[Anonymous No.8802809]

>>8802788
>Hampture

Shit like this makes me want to do cool things too.

[Anonymous No.8802848]

>>8794047
This is why we need to either genetically modify ourselves or become cyborgs.

[Anonymous No.8802857]

>>8802848
I'm not so sure. We've been adapting things to our needs for over 100k years instead of adapting to the environment. Tech CRISPR may change things, but I'm sure we will use other tech to change other environments to suit out needs before we change ourselves. I'm sure we will start colonies on Mars, but they will more than likely fail due to not enough gravity. However, other than living in big centrifuges on Mars, I don't see a way to combat that problem with non-genetics or non-cyborg type of tech.

There would need to be quite a bit of social pressure to actually change humans into something that can live on Mars. That would be a very radical change in society when you have people going apeshit over stuff like this >>8802809 already and that doesn't even concern humans directly or DNA changes.

Bringing about that sort of social change will either be a great day for science or mean that something really bad is going down and doing it is a last resort. Of course, I'm speaking from a USA perspective. Maybe other cultures like China or even private companies working outside of any government laws would have no qualms doing that at all. Like that Chinese doctors that started messing with embryos long before the US ever considered making laws to allow it ( http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/02/us-panel-gives-yellow-light-human-embryo-editing ).

Eh, time will tell.

[Anonymous No.8802868]

>>8802809
What is this?

[Anonymous No.8802880]

>>8802868
You don't know about Hampture? Some guy keeps a hamster habitat underwater. There have been many versions:

http://hampture.blogspot.com/

[Anonymous No.8802884]

>>8794819
We'll get better at it. Our first colony probably will take decades to get self sufficient.

[Anonymous No.8802899]

>>8802884
That kind of sucks, but you are probably correct. It means there's more possibility for cancellation due to the costs or resupplying for so long. It would certainly need to be company-funded. Government projects rarely go on for that long without getting reviewed for axing many times. All it takes is a new president or similar change to fuck things up.

[Anonymous No.8802915]

We could bombard Venus' atmosphere with hydrogen to convert the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to water and elemental carbon. Then we'd just have to speed up Venus' orbit to match Earth's, or as close as possible.

[Anonymous No.8802930]

>>8802915
We should migrate Mercury to Venus and turn it into a binary system and use the tidal forces to speed up Venus.

Hopefully this doesn't fuck up to solar system and shoots Earth outside the habitable zone.

[Anonymous No.8802961]

>>8794047
what the fuck
these idiotic threads are always filled with imbecile kids roleplaying space explorer or some shit

kill yourselves

[Anonymous No.8803145]

>>8802915
>>8802930
No and no. None of that would work. The only reason you have a colony on Venus isn't to live on the surface. It is to high in its magnetosphere, do science, and perhaps gather resources of some sort if possible.

>changing the Delta-V of an entire planet

>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.8803163]

>>8800432
>it is something else when you have 10k to 100k on a colony.

but the point your missing there wont be that many out there unless there is some economic incentive.

Colonial infrastructure is going to be different from expeditionary infrastructure.

There has to be resources and some some sort of industry. The way a local economy gets built in a colony is by trading with the home population for revenue. Or else why would someone build a city in a remote area without some sort of industry.

Some things can be local in nature:
Personnel Services
Food Production and Services
Construction Materials
Water Production
Air Production
Fuel Production
Support Services (Fire, Police, Medical)
Utilities

Other things must be imported:
Hi-Tech Goods
Textiles
Luxury items
Industrial Capital
New Vehicles
Minerals not found on Mars
Petroleum products
Interplanetary Shipping Services

You going to need legal oversight, something like an Interplanetary Trade Commission, for off-world jurisdictions.

For every scientist and engineer, your going to need support services. Janitors to clean floors, warehouse workers, miners, scrappers, accountants, lawyers. etc.

[Anonymous No.8803167]

>>8803163
>>8800432


You'd have to scale up infrastructure with population gradually over about 100 years. Something like this.

Planetary Planetary authority would govern all relations between colonies and other polities.

Colonial Government- a colony would have abundant services. The population of a colony is over 100,000 people up to 300,000. This includes all unincorporated lands adjacent to incorporated lands.

City- population of 10,000 to 100,000. This is incorporated land.

Township- a unincorperated township has a population of 1,000 to 10,000.

Camp- a camp is a human settlement or community that is larger than a outpost but, smaller than a township. A camp generally does not have many services. The population of a camp varies however, the average population can be from 20 - 1,000.

Outpost an outpost has a tiny population (<20) and very few (if any) services, and few buildings.

Claim- a claim would only have 0 to 2 permanent buildings and few to no people on it. It would have negligible services, if any.

[Anonymous No.8803180]

>>8800432
So, the next consideration is what resources are going to convince people to invest.

Fusion economy needs deuterium and helium3 so Out Planetary Gas Mining is an option.

REE mining in the Belt will be a major source of income.

Mars however is resource poor, anything it offers can be found on Earth for 1/100th of the cost.

Mars however does offer a logistical advantage. Its proximity to the Belt in relation to earth can save on transportation costs. Raw materials can be shipped to Mars for processing and fabrication, reducing the load for the second leg to Earth.

[Anonymous No.8803373]

>>8803163
>>8803167
>economic incentive

What is Elon Musk's incentive to colonize Mars?

>some sort of industry
>why would someone build a city in a remote area without some sort of industry

That would be maintaining the colony itself. Working for the benefit of the colony would probably be for what people are paid. I'm sure the beginnings of asteroid colonies would be mining-based for actual export industry. After that probably some small amount of tourism. There's a very good chance that these early colonies will be boom-town oriented and die out when people leave in search of wealth. Then the colonies would come back to life if there ever becomes serious population pressures in the solar system.

>>8803180
>what resources are going to convince people to invest.

Mining resources for asteroids for sure. Companies are already gearing up for that very thing now. Ceres may be a better place to do processing and fabrication than Mars. I'd imagine the delta-v for getting off Mars would be better spent slingshotting around it instead, if needed. I suppose it may depend on the location of the asteroid as to its cargo destination. Earth's moon may be better for it all.

[Anonymous No.8803470]

So seriously what economic incentive do you have for building colonies?

>> Mining asteroids/Mars
Asteroids/Mars have the same resources Earth does. Sure we can mine them and ship them to Earth, but this is not necessarily economical.

In addition, it would be cheaper to mine said places using robots.

>>helium 3
Fusion doesn't work yet

[Anonymous No.8803500]

>>8803470
>muh economic incenses

[Anonymous No.8803517]

>>8803470
>So seriously what economic incentive do you have for building colonies?

Because there are people that want to live in space, or on other planets?

[Anonymous No.8803588]

>economic incentive

What is the economic incentive for the LHC? It cost something like 9 billion to make and 1 billion a year to run. It's been running for 8-9 years? What is the actual pay off from that?

ISS cost something like 150 billion and each shuttle flight was 1.4 billion and there was like 36 of them.

How about Las Vegas? Seems like the real reason it became anything was because it had legalized gambling of all things.

Musk even states that the reason he wants to go to Mars is to help humanity in case of global disaster. And, he's actually going to do it the absolute madman.

[Anonymous No.8804476]

[Anonymous No.8804702]

>>8803588
>Las Vegas
>Where is the economic incentive for gambling
ahahahahahaha brainlet

[Anonymous No.8804714]

>>8801829
>FLOWING RIVER

[Anonymous No.8804743]

>>8800432
>That one even has sports fields.

Yeah, sorry Brainiacs, the Jocks are coming to space as well.

[Anonymous No.8804751]

>>8801860
>Why not just colonize harsh regions of earth?

We have, many of them.

But there are some speculative advantages to being in at least a few places other than Earth, as an insurance policy, that you do not get by building a city in Antarctica or something.

[Anonymous No.8804759]

>>8802809
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACQr0IZIb5I

[Anonymous No.8804766]

>>8802880
>http://hampture.blogspot.com/
For any reason other than "look ma, I am being weird on the Internet!"?

[Anonymous No.8804853]

>>8804702
It didn't have much going for it until then.

>>8804743
What happens to a baseball when it is hit by a bat and is being affected by Coriolis effect?

[Anonymous No.8805570]

>>8804714
Every damn one of these things has some sort of open water that looks like their main source of water storage. Evidently, there's no water barrels in space.

[Spook !pAkI/BHgvA No.8805785]

>>8794047
where do we get the metal for building those structures?

[Anonymous No.8805806]

>>8805785
Pretty much everywhere even Earth itself at first.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_of_the_chemical_elements
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6a/Elements_abundance-bars.svg

As you can see, we have a "lot" of metals to use.

[Anonymous No.8805858]

>>8805785
>land on 16 Psyche (253.16km diameter and 90% metal)
>build colony inside
>send all dat phat metal out for building other stuff

[Spook !pAkI/BHgvA No.8805873]

>>8805858
the OP image says we won't get very far in space and can't colonize structures

[Anonymous No.8805888]

>>8805873
Read it again. Half is blue and of one opinion, the other half is white and of another opinion. It is a rebuttal or fine tuning of ideas from one OP to another OP. At least it seems like that. Which is why one has floating colonies on gas giants and instead of colonizing an asteroid, essentially destroys it and turns it into an O'Neill Cylinder. Even that last part #6 clears up your observation.

[Spook !pAkI/BHgvA No.8805897]

>>8805888
oh didn't notice

>>8805806
well I hope there's as much as it says there.

[Anonymous No.8805903]

This thread is useless masturbation. No one is running any numbers on these things.

>>8805858
Ok, so how do you mine Psyche? As of yet, we do not have ways to mine stuff in microgravity.

Is it necessarily worth it to mine Psyche?

Sure Psyche probably has a lot of metal, but delta V costs and transit time may not make it economical.

[Anonymous No.8805910]

Thoughts on The Expanse's depiction of colonizing our solar system?

[Anonymous No.8805948]

>>8805910
Ceres would have flown apart at 0.3g rotation. It is mostly popsci garbage.

>>8805903
>Ok, so how do you mine Psyche?

The same way companies are developing asteroid mining right now. Though, I'm not sure how they are planning and designing. OSIRIS-REx and Hayabusa 2 have already been launched and will take samples from asteroids and return them to Earth. Deep Space Industries has a line of "Prospector" spacecraft to test asteroids for mining.

>Is it necessarily worth it to mine Psyche?

Not from an Earth perspective. There's only like $120-$150 billion worth of stuff in Psyche at best. That's not worth anyone's time or money to go there and bring it back to Earth. Though, for people trying to build out in the solar system it might be priceless to them. Especially, if they are building near the asteroid belt. The extra Delta V may even be worth it to them. Even DSI says that the stuff they will be mining will most likely only be used in space and not on Earth.

>No one is running any numbers on these things.

Someone is.

[Anonymous No.8806650]

>>8794047
>Kalpana One Space Settlement
https://settlement.arc.nasa.gov/Kalpana/KalpanaOne.html

https://settlement.arc.nasa.gov/index.html

[Anonymous No.8807014]

>>8805910
Great concept, poor science. Better science than most books/games/tv shows though, which isn't saying a fucking lot.

The ideas are correct for the most part, it is the execution of those ideas that is the problem.

[Anonymous No.8807631]

>>8805948
>>The same way companies are developing asteroid mining right now.
and that is what?

>>The extra Delta V may even be worth it to them
ok and how does the delta V, time, and extraction costs compare with simply extracting materials in place on the other asteroids?

Transit time could be a significant issue, for example, the Dawn spacecraft was to take 2 and a half years to transit from Vesta to Ceres before it ran into issues with it's reaction wheels. Years just to deliver materials from Vesta to Ceres.

Anyway what's the point of this thread if no one here is gonna run the numbers?

[Anonymous No.8807806]

>>8807631
>and that is what?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_mining

>no one here is gonna run the numbers

That doesn't matter in the slightest. Need is all that matters. If you need something you go and get it regardless of the cost or time involved. Remember, space travel is only based around the most optimal launch windows. Even if travel time is 10-50 years for cargo, it may be totally worth the wait. Besides, I'm sure a mining project will have 100s and 1000s of cargo launches, all at different launch windows slowly crawling their way to whatever destinations.

Crunching the numbers right now is a moot point. We don't know where those materials will go nor from where they will come. Nearly all locations have those materials already, but in unknown quantities. It won't be until after the celestial body completely surveyed, and resources calculated that we will need to crunch the numbers for importing or exporting resources to where ever they will need to go or come from; if it will even be a colony location.

It would be nice to have a database of all celestial bodies in the solar system, their stats, their trajectories, etc and a script to calculate the Delta V for all possible combinations between all of them.

Those stats are needed first. Which is why companies like DSI, NASA & governments like Japan are making and sending prospector drones to collect & bring back samples.

>Anyway what's the point of this thread

"Off-Earth Colonies Discussion"

What will colonists of O'Neill Cylinders and Mining Asteroids do for fun?

If you spin an asteroid to artificial 1g what type of support structures would it need to prevent it from flying apart?
Would it even fly apart?

Where would be the best places for O'Neill Cylinders or similar structures?
Solar orbits for max power input?
Orbits around planets to take advantage of their magnetospheres for radiation shielding?

What kind of waste heat problems and solutions would there be for a 10k population colony?

[Anonymous No.8807816]

No taxes on Mars.

There is your economic incentive.

Allow companies to establish branches or headquarters on Mars, on the condition they actually have a few people working there.

If you're a large software company you could just beam your products back to Earth.

Heck, we could send all CS to Mars, this would solve 2 problems at once.

[Anonymous No.8807823]

If Venus had a thinner atmosphere, or was further away from the sun it would be perfect for colonization. Too bad God is such a troll.

[Anonymous No.8807829]

>>8807816
Companies would be taxed for whatever they do interacting with Earth governments. They may not be taxed for anything pertaining to the off-Earth colonies/footholds, but the instant they try to interact with Earth the taxes will start rolling in. The reason companies send work overseas is because of reduced labor costs. Why pay an American minimum wage when in China you can pay them 1/50th of that?

I don't think sending people off -Earth to work in order to save money, on normally Earth-based work, will be a thing.

>>8807823
>Too bad God is such a troll.

If Venus was ideal then there'd be life on it and we'd be competing with them and God would still be a troll for that too.

[Anonymous No.8807842]

>>8807829
That's why Mars needs to be a tax evasion scheme.

[Anonymous No.8807853]

>>8807829
>>8807842
>>8807816
Thankfully, this thread isn't about Mars since you can't actually colonize it without several 100,000 years of extensive terraforming bullshit like >>8806691

[Anonymous No.8807865]

>>8807853
Yet it's gonna be the first thing we colonize. Albeit in domes or underground.

[Anonymous No.8807896]

>>8807865
>colonize Mars

JELLO BABIES
JELLO BABIES
JELLO BABIES

[Anonymous No.8807972]

>>8794047
>Must have healthy children born in the colony for more than 5 generations without technological or genetic augmentations.
1. We don't know how low exactly gravity affects humans, we don't know if people born on Mars are going to be significantly less healthy due to its low gravity, and we will not know it until we try it.
2. Why are you inventing stupid arbitrary rules like "no augmentations"? There will be augmentations and they will allow us to adapt to a lot of stuff.
3.
>We will never actually colonize another celestial body
Bullshit without any serious arguments. Not even taking into account a possibility of finding an Earth-like exoplanet, it's still bullshit until you prove that Mars gravity has major effects on human health.

[Anonymous No.8807974]

>>8807972
*how exactly low gravity affects humans

[Anonymous No.8807985]

>>8807829
>then there'd be life on it and we'd be competing with them
Why would we "compete" with them? For what? And with whom? Unless you think they'd also have a sentient species, with a civilization, in the same age and technological level as we have, and the probability of such a coincidence is absolutely minimal.

[Anonymous No.8808046]

>>8807972
>t. cyborg

>>8807985
>pretending a hypothetical /x/ situation needs to conform to your hypothetical /x/ rules

[Anonymous No.8808086]

>>8808046
Hypothetical != purely fantastical. Just look at the life on Earth. What if the asteroid that hit us 65 million years ago didn't hit us? The dinosaurs could live for many millions years, what would they evolve into? And that's only one of a countless random events that altered the course of evolution. Even if we assume that it's normal for complex life to eventually develop into sentient life, and then assume that we take two very similar planets with similar conditions, the time it will take for sentient life to develop may vary by hundreds of millions of years. And it only took 1-2 hundred thousand years for homo sapiens to create civilization, and that's with the ice age. It only took ten thousand years since the start of the interglacial to get to where we are now. 10k years to build modern civilization compared to the evolutionary scales is nothing, we don't even take such numbers into account when talking about evolution. Any small random event could delay our development by 10k years, and it would mean literally nothing to us. And then you have _a few hundred years_ for us to go from a point where we had no idea if there's life on Venus to the point where we can get there. A few hundred years can make such a difference that there'd be no point of "competing" since one of the civilizations is vastly superior to the other.

[Anonymous No.8808232]

>>8794047
Wouldn't it be relatively easy to genetically engineer humans to produce proper bones in martian gravity? I mean I know you said no genetic engineering, but by the time we could feasibly set up a self-sustaining colony anywhere, we would also be able to make humans able to live and reproduce under martian conditions.

[Anonymous No.8808286]

>>8800432
>As soon as you start altering someone's genes as something they will pass on to their children they are no longer homo sapiens.
This is the most retarded thing I've seen on /sci/ today, and there is a flat Earth thread in the catalog.

[Anonymous No.8808302]

>>8808046
>>t. cyborg
Really, the Chinese will have no problems with genetically enhanced humans, the west will have to catch up. And it's not some distant perspective either, it will probably begin in our lifetimes. As for technological augmentations, we already have pacemakers, robotic protheses, retinal implants, artificial hearts and many more. We already could enhance a human's running ability with a prothesis if they really wanted. Right now, all that stuff is very inconvenient and usually worse than the corresponding healthy organs, but it can change in a couple of decades.

[Anonymous No.8808306]

>>8804714
>>8805570
>>8798187
Yeah, let's lock a million people between boring white walls for their entire lives, because that will surely have no adverse psychological effects, and rely on some magical tech that turns their waste into food, instead of using already available things with a proven reliability record, like nature, to do the waste recycling and food production.

[Anonymous No.8808313]

>>8804766
I think it's called a "hobby", when you do something that is not necessarily useful in the real world, but requires some problem solving.

[Anonymous No.8808342]

>>8804759
>title is "mouse breathing water"
>actually breathes another liquid
>narrator says "there is a lot of oxygen in water, they don't call it H2O for nothing"
>narrator then goes on about how a mouse breathing a specific fluid, that contains much more dissolved oxygen per volume than water ever could, means that we will have mechanical gills in the future which will make us able to breathe underwater
>narrator says that "liquid breathing will make decompression unnecessary", even though decompression has nothing to do with the method of breathing, but with the gases dissolved in our blood and the pressure difference
The show's writers must have worked their asses off to put that much retardation into 1 minute and 43 seconds.

[Anonymous No.8808371]

>>8808306
Take a queue from the movie, "Cargo" (2009). The spoiler for the movie is:
The colony failed/couldn't be done in the first place and everyone was put aboard a space station in suspended animation. They live in a matrix-like virtual reality world without knowing the truth.

[Anonymous No.8808379]

>>8808342
>>8804759
Anyone remember this?

[Anonymous No.8809317]

How do you "land" on a big asteroid?

[Anonymous No.8810434]

>he thinks that anything less than 0.7g will be livable as a colony and have normal children

Space is gonna cuck you senpai.

[Anonymous No.8810541]

population colonies at Earth-Moon Lagrangian points, and mining/research/launch-pads on the moon.

Very large cylinders at L points, completely green for produce. the "country".
Smaller, village sized cylinders supporting about 100 people like >>8798187 says can orbit the L points.

It won't be a vast population, but it will be sustainable. Food from each large growth cylinder can be distributed to nearby L points, and supplies can be shipped in from Moon

[Anonymous No.8810707]

What about waste heat?

ISS has a ton of waste heat from only 75-90 kilowatts energy used and whatever the crew produces.

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/structure/elements/radiators.html

What you see here is only for 6 crew. Can you imagine the fucking size of the radiator system for an actual colony 10k-100k in size? They'd probably have massive "wings" of radiators and solar panels.

[Anonymous No.8810710]

>>8810707
forgot pic

[Anonymous No.8811142]

>>8810541
Why not have the food production on the same station? Going between stations is rather wasteful.

[Anonymous No.8811471]

>>8808371
...that's actually a pretty good solution for what the hell we're going to do once our population gets too much even for colonies.
As bleak as it would seem to normal people nowadays, we've already had a large amount of fiction based on the idea of being in a fictional world, so it wouldn't be very hard to introduce the public at large to it as a long-term goal.

[Anonymous No.8811503]

>>8811471
>Maybe that's what happened already and we are all in a simulation right now.

I wonder what type of simulations it would be. Like everyone is in some MMO sim, would people have a choice of the type of sim as an individual, would non-human sims be allowed, and so on?

[Anonymous No.8811512]

>>8811503
>>8811471
>>8811142
>>8810710
>>8810707
>>8794047
stop littering the board with your cringy roleplaying you fucking autists

[Anonymous No.8811531]

>>8811503
those subtitles are wrong...

[Anonymous No.8811541]

>>8811512
Flatearther, amirite?

[Anonymous No.8811542]

This sort of stuff is so far in the future that talking about it is pointless

First of all, western civilization is dying and has had subreplacement fertility for 50 years
So the idea that we will colonize anything is pure fantasy

After that, mining of asteroids is very overrated compared to just mining on mars/earth/moon/jupiter moons/etc

[Anonymous No.8811603]

>>8811542

[Anonymous No.8811607]

>>8811603
How much nickel-iron do you think anyone needs?

[Anonymous No.8811652]

>>8811607

[Anonymous No.8811661]

Forget the exploration of space. Focus on your own biology and the environment's biology and turn your own planet into an utopia.

>inb4 a million angry scientists throw their coffee mugs at me.

[Anonymous No.8811692]

>>8811503
> longest show only went 4 seasons

SG1 went for 10!

[Anonymous No.8811708]

>>8811692
Only seasons 6-10 aired on SyFy. It was well established on Showtime for 5 years before the transition, which did little to change things on the show itself. It was like they bought fame and talent. They didn't make it themselves.

[Anonymous No.8811738]

>>8811708
What does /tv/ think of Legion?

[Anonymous No.8812318]

>>8807631
>that is what?

http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/military-robots/nasa-training-swarmie-robots-for-space-mining

>>8811542
All wealthy modern societies experience a massive drop in birth rates. Poor countries have high birth rates. There's a stabilization point that has to be addressed to reach an equilibrium. Also, you do know that non-western countries are now entering space right? China has their own space station (Tiangong-1). It will burn up in the atmosphere sometime at the end of this year. Their second one is scheduled to be launched next year (Chinese large modular space station).

There's 13 countries that have launched things into orbit and 6 government space agencies (CNSA, JAXA, ESA, ISRO, NASA, & RFSA). There's over 50 countries that have junk in orbit right now. 5 more countries are expected to enter space with their own space agencies in the "near-future".

There's going to be land grabbing going on and all sorts of problems with that and treaty signing. It will be a political fuck-all when China starts landing men on the moon and Mars ( http://www.businessinsider.com/nasa-china-collaboration-illegal-2015-10 ).

>>8811471
>>8808371
That'd be good for generation ships to exoplanets.

>>8811512
More awareness is needed about the need for future space exploration and colonization. Have you been keeping up with any space news at all?

http://www.spacex.com/news
https://www.nasa.gov/topics/journeytomars/index.html
http://www.space.com/news
http://www.space.com/22743-china-national-space-administration.html

>>8811607
All of it! Or, as much as humanity can get their hands on at least. Metal is the thing that a space faring civilization is built on.

>>8811661
>turn your own planet into an utopia.

I'm not sure that killing 86.5% of the population would go over very well.

However, sending 13.5% of the population out to colonize the solar system would fair much better. That's about a billion people.

>>8811738
Who cares? Go ask them.

[Anonymous No.8812326]

>>8794047
1: best bet is mars
2: hows about super weighted suits made out of lead or iridium to simulate gravity on the body?

[Anonymous No.8812335]

>>8812326
VIIP may still put people blind, just slower than on the ISS. Gravity does a shit load to the body, from bone density to intracranial pressures. We need extensive testing on low gravity places like the moon and Mars to see how the human body will react to them. I'm sure it will be a curve as to the effects lowering the gravity will have on the body. We need to find the tipping point.

In actuality, it would be cheaper, safer, and better to use a set of rotating space stations or modules of different spin rates to simulate different gravities for a study like that.

[Anonymous No.8812737]

>>8812318
Without competition the chinese will dismantle all their rockets, and aircraft, and ships
Then sit in China for the next 1000 years

[Anonymous No.8812758]

>>8812737
That's not how the Chinese work anymore.

[Anonymous No.8812946]

>>8812318
It's not mining in microgravity

[Anonymous No.8812962]

>>8812946
Irrelevant when the article is about the networking system being developed. That is software, not hardware. They are testing the new software with some random hardware they already have. The software can then be used with some modification with many other forms of mining robots. Like this sticky feet asteroid mining prototype.

[Anonymous No.8813001]

>>8812318
The design is too elaborate to last, it'll quickly go like the rover wheels. The astronauts better carry few shovels just in case.

[Anonymous No.8813375]

>>8813001
>too elaborate to last

[Anonymous No.8814345]

>>8810707
I imagine the radiators for waste heat will also be used as shielding from radiation. Maybe something that looks a bit like this.

[Anonymous No.8815312]

>>8802788
>>8794438
That's really one of my pet peeves. Look at this one. Fucking skyscrapers.

[Anonymous No.8815562]

>>8815312
Sky scrapers make more sense than fucking cropland lol

[Anonymous No.8815831]

>>8815562
Partially. There shouldn't be any structures at all except some recreational stuff. Everything should be one big series of connected levels. I suppose something like the Deathstar interior would be the closest visual I can give. Only not designed by a retard.

[Anonymous No.8815902]

>move to outermost habitable level of the spin station
>higher gravity makes you swole without even trying

[Anonymous No.8816202]

>>8815902
>> but it causes your spine to shrink turning you into a manlet

[Anonymous No.8816856]

>>8816202
People on Earth experience much the same gravity everywhere, with a small margin of difference. There are super tall people, super short people, and everything in between. Gravity doesn't affect that, in the manner you are thinking. What they may experience is more problems with joints and spinal discs. That's about 1cm-2cm difference in height due to compression during hours awake. In 1g the difference is about 1cm, from morning to night, fyi.

Personally, I'd rather live in slightly increased gravity above 1g than in gravity experienced on Mars (0.377g) for instance. Diseases looking similar to hypophosphatasia and VIIP would probably be far more common in lower gravity "colonies."

[Anonymous No.8816860]

Venus is better to colonize first

[Anonymous No.8816879]

>>8816860
It may be, but how corroding will those sulfuric acid clouds be at the 100kPa level to the floating cities? I guess they'd need to be buttoned up pretty tight using plastic coatings. That's around 32F/0C at the 100kPa level, which won't harm the plastic.

[Anonymous No.8816997]

>>8794047
The gravity problem on Mars is overrated, and the lack of magnetic field is *way* overrated.

Setting up underground, or if you prefer, a 1 foot layer of water, ends your radiation problems on Mars.

We've successfully gestated mice in Zero-G, and returned them to Earth, with the only ill effect being an inability to balance that they quickly overcame. Now, humans are quite a bit bigger, but nearly 40% gravity is quite survivable, even for developing children, and unlike zero gravity, has no effect on adults you couldn't compensate for.

Now, bringing those Mars born children to Earth would be a problem, but even then, not a fatal one.

>without technological or genetic augmentations
...and that's a silly self-limitation, considering many people born on Earth fail that test.

[Anonymous No.8817067]

>>8816997
VIIP

[Anonymous No.8817070]

>>8816997
>and that's a silly self-limitation

When things go sideways on a distant colony, you don't want to be relying on some tech that may no longer be able to help you during that situation due to scarcity.

[Anonymous No.8817328]

>>8794047
>We land on an asteroid.
>Just as we are about to break the surface the ground crumbles.
>Inside is the space faring equivilant of /pol/
>"Fuck off space Xthatans we are full"

>ofw

[Anonymous No.8817627]

[Anonymous No.8818529]

>>8817067
That's a Zero-G problem, not a ~40% Earth Gravity problem.

>>8817070
Genetics you kinda keep.

And we could lose millions to billions on Earth due to any number of sudden scarcities.

Though yes, if you are technologically augmenting every citizen, it does rather have to be done on the cheap.

[Anonymous No.8819068]

>>8818529
>That's a Zero-G problem, not a ~40% Earth Gravity problem.

We really don't know that, but if you want to go by the numbers then it is a 40% problem. Also Mars is 37.6%-37.7% g, not 40% g.

>>8818529
>Genetics you kinda keep.

We haven't don't much with CRISPR and human genetics to know how well everything will work out when changing humans to such a degree as making them live on Mars or where ever.

Losing tech on a colony may include losing the ability to use something like CRISPR or manufacturer a drug to prevent some aliment caused by lower g. In order to prevent that from happening, we shouldn't rely on such things. Being 100% self sufficient would be best and at the lowest level of technology possible for keeping the colony alive. Obviously, losing tech so far that you can't patch an air rupture would be pretty bad, but I think distinct things like that are kind of a moot point. Basically, the higher the tech needs to be to survive the more that can go wrong with it in an emergency (short term or long term.)

[Anonymous No.8819112]

>>8819068
>We really don't know that, but if you want to go by the numbers then it is a 40% problem. Also Mars is 37.6%-37.7% g, not 40% g.
I don't think you understand what ~ means and +/- <3% isn't going to make a lick of difference. You'd be lucky to feel that.

>We haven't don't much with CRISPR and human genetics to know how well everything will work out when changing humans to such a degree as making them live on Mars or where ever.
You don't need to genetically engineer humans to live on Mars. You might need to in order for them to live somewhere else. But as I don't expect a colony on Mars, or any other celestial body, within a hundred years, given the state of genetic engineering today, it's ludicrous to rule it out as a tool for colonization.

>Losing tech on a colony may include losing the ability to use something like CRISPR
Anyone who has been modified by CRISPR will pass on those modifications to their children, regardless of any loss of technology that may happen later, no further technology required.

Barring terraforming, you're going to be at the risk of technological failure, regardless of which planet, and again, even on Earth, say if a solar flare were to wipe out the power grid, the results would be catastrophic. Yes, you want to minimize your reliance, but it is inevitably going to be higher abroad. Genetic engineering, however, is a one time and done deal, save for fresh arrivals born on Earth.

[Anonymous No.8819243]

>>8819112
>I don't think you understand what

You said something incorrect and it was corrected.

>You don't need to genetically engineer humans to live on Mars.

Source? Papers please. I don't recall any human or living creature for that matter landing on Mars.

>Anyone who has been modified by CRISPR will pass on those modifications to their children

I wonder how well it will work out for humans.

[Anonymous No.8820444]

[Anonymous No.8821276]

Look at all these terraformed O'Neill cylinders to imitate Earth. We have an Earth right now. Don't waste it.

[Anonymous No.8821277]

>>8819243
>You said something incorrect and it was corrected.
No, 37.7% is actually "~40%". That's within the standard margin. If I said it was "40%", you'd have a point, but you don't know what ~ followed by a percentage means.

>Source? Papers please. I don't recall any human or living creature for that matter landing on Mars.
True, there maybe other factors yet to be discovered or accounted for, but from what we know about raising mammals in various levels of gravity, the effects of various levels of gravity humans, and about solar radiation, no, you don't need to. It might help though - granted, it might also help here.

>I wonder how well it [CRISPR] will work out for humans.
If you mean whether or not it works on humans, that's a long settled matter. To what degree it can be refined might be a question - but given that we're talking about something that's probably at least a century off, barring a dark age, some sorta HGE is going to be available, certainly...

If you mean whether or not it will result in some sort of nightmarish war involving genetic abominations and airborne retroviruses bent on re-making mankind to some crazed nation or individual's vision... *shrug*

[Anonymous No.8821283]

>>8821276
Sooner or later, something is going to waste the Earth for us, even if we don't. Many of those possibilities occur with no warning, and a few are inevitabilities rather than possibilities.

Also, as far as the "solve all problems on Earth" thing goes - it's not as if we don't have enough people to work both on that and work on a backup plan. It's a rather minute sliver of the workforce that's dedicated to anything even resembling the effort. ...and some of our problems may take longer to solve than this biosphere has to live.

[Anonymous No.8821289]

>>8794438
if you jumped in an O'Neill cylinder, would you float or would you land back on your feet?

[Anonymous No.8821666]

>>8821277
>No, 37.7% is actually "~40%". That's within the standard margin. If I said it was "40%", you'd have a point, but you don't know what ~ followed by a percentage means.

"hurr i was only trolling"

Moran.

>>8821289
u'd land u tard

[Anonymous No.8821728]

>>8811542

>First of all, western civilization is dying and has had subreplacement fertility for 50 years

Any evidence for that? Birth rates are stable, but that's to be expected of any human population that reaches a certain life expectancy.

[Anonymous No.8822253]

>>8821728
Meh, there's just the usual stats. A civilization becomes richer and more modernized and their birth rates start to stabilize. "Growth" is a huge problem for humans. The instant things slow down they think the end is near. We should strive for equilibrium before it gets too late.

[Anonymous No.8822263]

>>8821666
>u'd land u tard
why

[Anonymous No.8822616]

>>8794047
>It seems that no planets, asteroids, or moons can have a colony on their surface
So build under the surface.
>Building O'Neil Cylinders that orbit the sun would be fairly easy
If you have the capability of building O'niel cylinders you can build a colony inside of lava tubes on Mars or under domes on the moon or in pressurized tunnels inside of the larger asteroids.

[Anonymous No.8822632]

>>8795317
This makes me wonder, Sidonia generated it's gravity from thrust right? And it had been traveling at its vector for presumably centuries with an acceleration of about 1g at that rate it would only take about a year or so to theoretically reach lightspeed which it wouldn't because of it's mass.
What confuses me is what happens when you get to the fastest speed attainable for a space ship? Are you forced to slow down? do you reach a point where you nearly instantly exhaust your fuel supply trying to accelerate further or do you reach a point where the effects of time dilation are so great that the heat death of the universe occurs in front of you once you reach it?
Can a ship accelerate at 1g indefinitely?
I will admit I am a brainlet and this shit confuses me.

[Anonymous No.8822737]

>>8822616
It is referring to not being able to use gas giants or Venus and surface colonies. Stuff like Mars is completely disregarded because of lack of gravity. All those asteroid ones are below the surface anyway. That's because they are spinning and you have to walk on the inside surface shell(s).

>>8822632
>Sidonia generated it's gravity from thrust right?

I was wondering the same thing last season. By the time I caught on that something was amiss it was too late to go back and watch every damn thing just to find out. Had I started watching it from the beginning with that in mind I'm sure I'd find out. It is either all incorrect or there's some hand-waving magic science they are using.

>Can a ship accelerate at 1g indefinitely?

No, nothing is able to do that. There's not enough mass/energy in the universe for something like that.

>What confuses me is what happens when you get to the fastest speed attainable for a space ship? Are you forced to slow down?

That would only be a very few scant % of C. Not very fast really. If you start talking about things going faster then you are in the realm of sci-fi and any discussion is a moot point because you can use hand-waving magic science at that point to do anything or experience anything.

[Anonymous No.8822831]

>>8807896
I'm pretty sure 1/3g isn't going to kill anyone although it will most definitely cause health issues however it isn't insurmountable either, maybe all colonists are put on steroid cycles or we could use gene therapy to overclock their bone and muscle growth.
Maybe we build huge spinning dome cities that produce spin gravity?
Or maybe they just fucking deal?

Any way you slice it colonizing mars is more realistic than everybody living in massive spinning spaceships since every factor that you claim as holding back mars colonization is even greater in space.

[Anonymous No.8822840]

>>8822831
>Maybe we build huge spinning dome cities that produce spin gravity?

Just make those in space. No friction to deal with then.

[Anonymous No.8822841]

>>8811503
>those subtitles
kek

[Anonymous No.8822854]

>>8816856
>People on Earth experience much the same gravity everywhere, with a small margin of difference. There are super tall people, super short people, and everything in between. Gravity doesn't affect that,
Gravity doesn't affect it because all those people are living in a 1g environment in they lived in different gravities there would still be genetic height variances but the differences would be exaggerated by differing gravity.
Basically a person who would have grown to 6'5 in a 1g environment may grow to 7 feet in a .5g environment

[Anonymous No.8822858]

>>8816860
It would be far more difficult than mars.
We could theoretically colonize mars now but colonizing venus is beyond modern technology.

[Anonymous No.8822862]

>>8817070
>When things go sideways on a distant colony, you don't want to be relying on some tech that may no longer be able to help you during that situation due to scarcity
So I guess nobody can have a pacemaker or glasses or rely on insulin injections here on earth because those could hypothetically fail or become unavailable.
I guess earth is uninhabitable

[Anonymous No.8822869]

>>8821289
>if you jumped in an O'Neill cylinder, would you float or would you land back on your feet?
Fall sideways into the "ground" at terminal velocity

[Anonymous No.8822880]

>>8822840
>No friction to deal with then.
But a ton more radiation, and less resources to work with.

[Anonymous No.8822888]

>most important rule in strategy games is scouting
>we're not properly doing that since muh costs
>second most important is expanding
>we're not doing that at all because muh economic incentives

das it mane, I can't wait for the ayys to come and extinct us

[Anonymous No.8822913]

>>8822737
>That would only be a very few scant % of C. Not very fast really.
Eh, even under current physical theories, it should be possible to get very close to C actually, it's just the scale of the infrastructure involved is rather staggering.

The two conventional methods involve either remotely beaming power to the ship, or kugelblitzing a micro black hole together (which sounds fantastical, but with a solar array the size of a small state and some really accurate lasers, really isn't - though finding a way of dealing with the resulting gamma radiation from the micro-blackhole is a bit on the dicey side). You can then get a ship the sizeof a skyscraper that, for instance, can get to Trappist-1 in less than a hundred years, and it'd be less than 10 years for everyone on board, despite being a 40 light year journey. ...and there's plenty of potential targets closer than that.

Doing it with the fuel aboard the ship is next to impossible, but there's some ideas on that, even if they involve a ship the same size, or larger, where is 99% of the mass is somewhat unconventional fuel.

But while it's theoretically possible, all that requires industrialization, forward thinking, and self-discipline far beyond mankind's current abilities and scale. You might not need virtual biological immortality to achieve the journey itself, but you'd probably need it to be that forward thinking and for the species to be willing to dedicate itself to such a project en mass.

Still, we're talking about colonizing planets in this system, which, while challenging enough, is a much simpler first step, and doesn't really require anything not already at the edge of our fingertips.

[Anonymous No.8823027]

>>8822913
>it's just the scale of the infrastructure involved is rather staggering.

Staggering as in all the fucking mass and energy in the entire known universe staggering.

>>8822854
We are not plants, but it sort of fits. We are "determinate". The only thing limiting us is our genes which dictate how large and tall we grow or don't grow. When something gets fucked up, some of us don't stop growing "indeterminate". Gravity doesn't play a part in that. What gravity does play a part in is bone density and intracranial pressure.

[Anonymous No.8823037]

>>8822880
That's why we are talking about turning asteroids into those types of structures. They come with their own materials and shielding.

Aside from that, the solar panels and waste heat radiators themselves will add a shit load of shielding for a colony. You need to understand that most of those artist's representations of space colonies in asteroids and man made objects all lack waste heat radiators. The people inside will eventually cook from all the waste heat they and their tech is producing.

[Anonymous No.8823316]

>>8823027
>Staggering as in all the fucking mass and energy in the entire known universe staggering.
No, we're talking relativistic speeds, not actual light speed. Enough to have significant time dilation effects can be achieved with a "mere" ~100 petawatts, which is doable with either method, if still staggering - just micro-black hole staggering rather than fry the universe staggering.

[Anonymous No.8823976]

>>8823316
The faster you go the more massive things have to be.

>it should be possible to get very close to C actually,

You have no clue just how much mass is required to even get more than 30% of C let alone "very close to C". You brainlets fucking kill me with your ignorance.

[Anonymous No.8823992]

>>8823976
Dude, srlsly... Pic related.

At 0.3C - you basically pick up negligible mass.

At 90% of the speed of light, you pick up ~2.294 times your rest mass.

Woopdiefuckigndoo.

Meanwhile you're aging more slowly, relative to those on Earth by that same factor.

And at 1G acceleration, you're as close as you can get to the speed of light within the year.

[Anonymous No.8823997]

>>8823316
>>8822913
>>8823992
Even with a nuclear based thrust, Mass Ratio~=10^16590

Good luck with that since there's only like 10^100 particles in the known universe.

>he thinks we are talking about your increase of mass due to relativity

We are talking fuel consumption here, the size of the ship/or its launcher/pusher you'd need to actually do anything like this. It is many times more than the mass of the known universe just to get anything near "very close to C".

This shit increases exponentially.

[Anonymous No.8824084]

>>8823997
That's why you either a) Don't have your fuel on your damned rocket, or b) use an artificial singularity, or c) have a ship that is almost entirely ludicrously efficient fuel.

But no, you don't need the energy of the entire universe to push massive amounts of matter to 90%C, as matter is getting pushed to 90%C in quantities more massive than our entire solar system all the fucking time - look up accretion discs.

If we use the formula, we find that reaching 94% of the speed of light at 1G, and then to sustain that for forty years, accounting for the resulting mass increase, takes 46 billion megajoules per kilogram during that time. For a million kilo rocket (half being the mass of the singularity), that's well within the power output possibilities of something putting out ~160 petawatts a second.

There is the problem that, looking at the chart, a black hole with that half-million kilo mass and the power output required is going to evaporate at bit before the end of those forty years, but you can slow yourself down "for free" with a Bussard Ram jet well within that remaining time. (Or, more sanely, just don't go that fast to begin with, allowing you to use a singularity that'd last longer.)

It's a one-way trip, of course, but, barring FTL, interstellar space colonization generally is, as everyone you knew back home is probably dead anyways. (Not that you couldn't repeat the process on the other end and return that way, eventually, but there'd probably be no real reason to...)

[Anonymous No.8824121]

>>8822888
>muh costs
>muh economic incentives
You treat economics as though it was something you could toy with and not expect catastrophe. Don't fuck with the economy, or it will fuck you right back. Would you disregard the laws of physics and try to jump over the grand canyon? Unless you're suicidal you wouldn't. Then why do you suggest we disregard the laws of economics?

[Anonymous No.8824170]

>>8824084
Christ man, shut the fuck up if you don't know what you are talking about. Heat death of the universe (if real) would happen long long long long before you could ever do anything like that at all.

90% C isn't "very close to C" due to exponents.

[Anonymous No.8824178]

>>8794047
>must be self sustaining
Good luck with that lol
t. Ecosystem science

[Anonymous No.8824185]

>>8822888
LOL the nanny state isn't the people's nanny
You don't need to wait for ayys to extinct us, they are betting on when we will go extinct as they watch our socio-ecological systems collapse under our economic inventions

[Anonymous No.8824298]

>>8824178
Yeah, that really is a big hurdle, more so than anything else really.

>>8824084
v = In(Start Mass/End Mass) * ISp * 9.81
Mass Ratio = e^(v/V-Exhaust)
V-Exhaust=ISp*9.81
Mass Ratio = e^38199.85

>ship that is almost entirely ludicrously efficient fuel.
>ludicrously efficient fuel.

Oh right, magic fuel for the magic ship that travels as magic speeds. You belong on >>>/x/

[Anonymous No.8824391]

>>8824170
90% is close enough to get you helpful relativistic effects, and making the singularities is entirely within modern physics, unlike say, the Alcubierre drive. Black holes that size one should be able to be assembled in mere months by orbital solar arrays of but a few hundred miles across with even modern levels of efficiency, and should you be able to make one, you can theoretically choose its vector in the process.

Though there is the sticky bit of directing all that gamma radiation usefully without cooking the crew.

It's a thousand years hence thing, to be attempted well after colonizing the local system, but even with our comparatively primitive modern science, it's something we can run numbers on. Certainly not a near "heat death of the universe" project.

Granted, by then, we may be so long lived and efficient we don't give a shit about how long it takes to get there anymore.

[Anonymous No.8824404]

>>8824391
>blackholes

>>>/x/

Wow, this thread really turned to shit.

[Anonymous No.8825077]

[Anonymous No.8825325]

why dont we practice whit the moon first?

[Anonymous No.8825379]

>>8825325
Yeah, we can gather a shit load of science there treating it like a sandbox. Same as the ISS.

[Anonymous No.8826302]

This image got me thinking.

What structures can't be built in an O'Neill Cylinder or rotating ring? Since the closer you get to the center the less "gravity" there is, but there will be a stronger difference in Coriolis effect from the bottom of a building to the top. Meaning you may be able to build "top heavy" structure that you could never build on Earth under 1g. However, the forces of Coriolis effect means that you will need to do something different for internal support structures.

Of course the egg shell withing an eggshell design like in >>8802788 image is the most logical use of space and design structure. In most artistic representations the artists show one big open area and normal buildings.

[Anonymous No.8826865]

What is the end game for humanity in this or any solar system? Suppose we actually survive everything thrown at us and colonize local space. If we never reach population equilibrium, we will always need more land to colonize. We'd eventually mine everything in the entire solar system and build a Dyson swarm around the sun. There'd be nothing left but the sun and the swarm of space colonies. The colonies would orbit the sun in a pattern that ensures all orbiting colonies get enough energy to survive.

That pretty much the end. We couldn't continually send out colony ships to other solar systems because that would make us lose resources.

[Anonymous No.8827040]

>>8826865
Why did we ever come down from the trees? Or leave Africa? Or cross the Atlantic?

Life adapts and spreads whenever and wherever it can - that's how it survives. If we get off this rock, we take the story of pretty much all life on Earth along with us - but if we don't, it all ends here.

Though I assume some sorta population equilibrium is inevitable, and the idea is that each system colonized puts out its own colonizers, as otherwise, yeah, we will end up filling up the galaxy in short order, and using it up before we even get a chance to get started on The Last Question. (Or, more likely, use the planet up before we colonize anything.)

There are still events that can wipe the life out of whole solar systems, but not very many that can render whole galaxies sterile, so it is true, we can probably stop worrying about survival for awhile after colonizing a few well spaced red dwarves, and then move onto bigger problems, which may or may not be surmountable, and possibly others we haven't discovered yet.

[Anonymous No.8827187]

>>8827040
>>8826865
In the end, it will boil down to Dyson swarms around all viable stars across everything we can reach. After that, it will only be a war for the supplies on those swarm bodies until resources are so well used we can't reuse them.

We'd need to be able to reconstitute matter in such a was as to completely reuse everything we can get our hands on for survival use. Of course the more we need to do this the more mass and energy is lost. If heat death of the universe is a real thing, we'd essentially die out due to that. Of course, "humanity" wouldn't exist since we'd have changed so much, over the course of that length of time, as to no longer be hominids most likely.

If we can match the Delta V, we'd be able to hop onto the Andromeda galaxy as the two galaxies pass through each other. That will be the best hope for humanity to prolong themselves. We have something like 4 billion years before that happens and a few million years to do something about it before the event is over.

The things in the OP are merely the first step in something like that.

[Anonymous No.8827737]

[Anonymous No.8827764]

>>8827187
That assumes that, despite all this radical change to our core nature, that we retain this infinite growth model and the idea that breeding is a right, rather than a privilege, even after achieving virtual biological immortality (or some other form thereof).

I really suspect one of the Fermi Paradox's "Great Filters" is that a species must abandon its instinctive infinite growth model to become space faring at all, lest it uses up or destroys its planetary or system resources before it can begin to spread among the stars. Thus, any given space faring race isn't going to colonize more than a handful of systems and will never really need superstructures. This would go towards explaining why we've never seen real evidence of any, beyond the other simpler explanations: namely that complex life is just rare, and we're kinda out in the boondocks, in terms of our galactic position.

Andromeda and the Milky Way will snap back together to form one galaxy eventually - though I could see some choosing to take the ride anyways. The collision is less dangerous than it sounds, but it may risk a quasar being born at the new galactic center, which would spread incredibly intense radiation throughout - though, by then, we might have ways of dealing with such disasters.

[Anonymous No.8828254]

>>8803517
Are you retarded? No one is going to pay for a space colony if there isn't a valid reason to build it and pay for people to be sent there.
>I FUGGIN LUV SIENS XDDD
Not a valid reason.

[Anonymous No.8828338]

>>8828254
Let's see what Musk does.

>>8827764
Love that webm.

[Anonymous No.8828386]

>>8828254
There's extremely valid reasons (ie. survival).

The problem is, survival isn't profitable.

[Anonymous No.8828396]

>>8828386
The tech developed to go to and colonize space gives a massive amount of profit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spinoff_technologies

[Anonymous No.8829250]

[Anonymous No.8830166]

Anyone following Bigelow Aerospace's stuff? Like their proposed lunar depot. I really like the idea of their inflatable stuff.

[Anonymous No.8831185]

[Anonymous No.8831321]

>>8794047
Why no augmentations?

I mean if we could splice shit into the human genome to make us more adapted for life on Mars (bone density, rhythm, etc.) why shouldn't we?

[Anonymous No.8831357]

>>8831321
>Why no augmentations?

Read the thread.

[Anonymous No.8831378]

>>8831357
10 matches for "Augmentations" and the only "reason" I found among them is shit.
>>8808302
>Really, the Chinese will have no problems with genetically enhanced humans, the west will have to catch up.
We're not making a permanent space colony in the near future.
We seem to get over our ethical concerns very quickly this century.

[Anonymous No.8831396]

>>8831378
Seems like you didn't read the thread. It isn't our fault you suck. Lurk moar, kid.

[Anonymous No.8831404]

>>8831396
>reading every thread you post in
Do people do this? Seems like a waste of time if its a repeated thread.

I did a ""Ctrl+F" for Augmentations and "Genes" because I'm pretty sure you'd need to use one or the other to have this conversation.

I lied, I actually found two "arguments" but the second is so fucking retarded that I felt I shouldn't reply to it.
>As soon as you start altering someone's genes as something they will pass on to their children they are no longer homo sapiens.
Its retarded because its not even an argument.

[Anonymous No.8831572]

>>8831404
I guess no one will be able to help you if you don't learn to help yourself.

[Anonymous No.8831864]

>>8831404
>they are no longer homo sapiens.

There are a shit load of people in the world that already have serious fucking issues with race, religion & CRSPR. Good luck with the lobbing needed for such radical changes to the human genome in order to live off Earth in currently non-livable places. It will be better to just not do that in the first place.

I wonder if any insurance company would give cover healthcare for such an individual. I'm sure there'd be court battles over "what is considered human."

[Anonymous No.8831965]

>>8831864
NTG, but - that might be a valid argument, if you were planning to colonize a planet, tomorrow...

...But realistically, I think we're talking a couple of centuries, at least, by which time all those inevitable battles will be over, and all new ones will be in play.

(Though it'll be a sad state of affairs if medical insurance companies are still a thing.)

[Anonymous No.8832105]

>>8831965
I really don't think jew-types will disappear in the next century and Musk is planning to do "something" ASAP. Let's see how that plays out in the next 20 years or so. Everything is conjecture, but the history of human nature has already laid a pretty compelling argument against changing humans into something else.

Merely removing such a thing from the equation, actually frees up the OP. It means we can colonize things sooner rather than later. We don't need to change public opinion or develop better gene editing techniques or take decades of off-world study in these places to understand what needs to be changed in the first place. We only need to better develop the current technology for rockets, robots, space stations systems, and mining. Of course we could do everything at once, but the gene editing stuff is going to be a late late comer.

So yeah, a colony that anyone can join, right away without a host of gene editing or meds (all with currently unknown side effects), seems a whole lot better than the alternative.

[Anonymous No.8832108]

>>8794047
>Building O'Neil Cylinders that orbit the sun would be fairly easy, just costly.

It's a stupid autist idea, so shut up already. Nobody wants to live in a spinny space can.

[Anonymous No.8832172]

>>8832108
>R: 209 / I: 81

Glad you could contribute.

[Anonymous No.8832221]

>>8830166
Inflatable habitats are a meme

[Anonymous No.8832260]

>>8832172
>Glad you could contribute.
Are you truly?

[Anonymous No.8832274]

>>8830166
>>8832221
https://www.engadget.com/2016/11/25/nasa-iss-beam-inflatable-update/

[Anonymous No.8832799]

[Anonymous No.8832808]

>>8832274
This is one of those "WTF didn't we think of this sooner!?" things.

...at the same time, as the guy you're responding to kinda points out indirectly, it's one of those things that sounds so retarded it's really no wonder it took us so long to actually try it.

[Anonymous No.8833403]

>>8832808
Yeah, no shit. I mean it makes perfect sense once you think about it. Even the shielding is marginally better against larger impacts and radiation. The 2-year test run will give more data. I hope it goes well.

I was thinking that they could even add another layer on the inside of one of those things. A layer that has a bladder for water, intended for extra radiation shielding. It would hook up to their water system and act as extra storage, thermal mass, and radiation shielding.

[Anonymous No.8833487]

>>8833403
>>8832274
>>8830166
I really like these things. I wonder if they could have shapes like this and be able to link them together around a core then spin it up to 1g. Each color would be one module that would fit on a rocket like the normal units. Then piece them together and inflate.

[Anonymous No.8834315]

[Anonymous No.8835048]

[Anonymous No.8836285]

[Anonymous No.8837319]

[Anonymous No.8838184]

[Anonymous No.8839035]

http://highfrontier.com/

Well, shit, anyone try this yet?

>High Frontier is a space colony simulation game currently under development by Strout and Sons.
>The demo works exactly like the full game, except that it doesn’t save any data to disk, so when you quit, all your designs and colonies go poof.

[Anonymous No.8839102]

>>8839035
The gross lack of options is a bit frustrating.

[Anonymous No.8839128]

>>8839035
Interestin'... Though I'm kinda booked on the /v/ side at the moment - and that does sound like an epic time killer.

[Anonymous No.8839477]

>>8839128
I've not gone past the design part yet. I'll test the rest out later though. It seems easy enough to balance numbers and maths for spinning and related seems correct. This was literally one of my designs, but it does need other options for design.

[Anonymous No.8840680]

>>8839477
>>8839035
>>8839102
>>8839128
Well, it is fun for about an hour. Might be a good learning tool for general popsci on the subject.

[Anonymous No.8840693]

>>8794047
>without technological or genetic augmentations.
Why?
I mean... it's still doable... but why?

[Anonymous No.8840702]

>>8840693
You should probably read the thread.

[Anonymous No.8840753]

>>8804766
The guy is(/was) really enthusiastic about seafloor colonization, the way many posters here are enthusiastic about space colonization. The rodent habitat is supposed to be a proof-of-concept. He had aspirations of building a human submarine habitat too.

[Anonymous No.8840769]

>>8840693
RTFT - but to TL;DR, since you're the tenth person to ask without bothering to do so, I don't think anyone really made any argument against genetic modifications beyond either "my feels" or thinking that colonization is something that's going to happen before it becomes commonplace on Earth (which I doubt). It does entail the additional hurdle that any new arrivals will have to be genetically modified though.

Some technological aids do have the problem that, in the event of disaster, they may become difficult to produce. While you do, of course, want to minimize reliance upon them, the same is true of many technological aids in use on Earth (imagine, for instance, the power grid getting blitzed by a solar flare) - though OP is probably thinking more along the lines of cyberware.

[Anonymous No.8840789]

>>8840753
Life got in the way I think.

[Anonymous No.8841600]

[Anonymous No.8842423]

>>8840769
>my feels

That's pretty much the only thing that moves human history along.

[Anonymous No.8842435]

>>8842423
It has an equal propensity for holding it back, or even sending it in reverse, so that's neither here nor there.

You're basically saying humans move human history along, so yeah, that'd be assumed. In this case we're speaking of a particular feel, namely "fear" (or at least "disgust").

For better or worse, practicality tends to win out over such aversions eventually, for better or worse. "Greed" is also part of "muh feels" I suppose. There's too many money and power making opportunities for the lid on that particular Pandora's box to stay on for very long.

[quantum anon No.8843235]

god dammit.... none of the pictures are loading...

[Anonymous No.8843352]

>>8843235
Working fine here (USA-west) - not sure why you posted that particular funky geometrics image though.

[quantum anon No.8843441]

>>8843352
false alarm... computer was acting stupid...

[Anonymous No.8844074]

[Anonymous No.8844534]

why do so many hypothetical space habitats use such large windows, wouldn't that be unsafe

[Anonymous No.8844633]

>>8844534
It only depends on what type of shielding those windows use and how the structure is designed for holding in 1atm. I'm sure most of the artistic stuff is very poorly designed for anything at all other than looking "neat" or uses magic hand-waving materials that don't exist "yet".

[Anonymous No.8844756]

>>8844534
Actually, depending on the materials and assuming there's some water in between two layers of transparency, it can be fairly safe and block radiation, while still providing a view and lookin' all aesthetic.

As far as tensile strength is concerned, most anything that hits the station is going to do so with such energy that it isn't going to much matter if the habitat is made of titanium or paper mache.

If you segment the "glass", it actually has an advantage over metal, in that, assuming whatever the transparency is actually made of is designed to shatter or disintegrate, impacts will create predictable area loss - rather than, as with metal walls, where the impact completely dictates the shape and size of the hole you receive.

Not that I think the images depicting space habitats with lots of windows are actually considering much of any of this and aren't just trying to look neat.

...Though in some sci-fi you occasionally see some sorta rubber-ish glass that doesn't shatter but actually forms a seal around the point of impact, sometimes self-sealing smaller punctures (such as those from micrometeorites), but I think we've yet to develop any material like that.

On the other hand, there's also weight and size to consider - most transparent materials are both heavy and not foldable - though I suppose a few can be chemically created on the fly and then "sprayed" into a frame, and that might actually be convenient.

[Anonymous No.8844797]

>>8844756
The cupola on ISS uses multiple panes of glass for a window. Using water shielding can be a thing and sealant inside can be a thing. If something punches a hole, the sealant would clog it. Basically a clear version of fix-a-flat that hardens when its constitutes evaporate;preferably something that changes color when that happens so you can easily spot it.

>I suppose a few can be chemically created on the fly and then "sprayed" into a frame, and that might actually be convenient.

FYI, there already exist 3D printers that print glass. It is like looking through a shower door though.

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

I'm sure something similar can be made that is structurally sound using another material.

[Anonymous No.8845759]

[Anonymous No.8846548]

>>8822831
It's simpler than that: just make everyone wear heavy steel gauntlets to bring them back down to earth-ish conditions. Functional and fashionable.

[Anonymous No.8846853]

>>8846548
That's not how it works.

[Anonymous No.8847001]

>>8794047
2: Must have healthy children born in the colony for more than 5 generations without technological or genetic augmentations.
>he doesn't want to create whole new branches of humans

[Anonymous No.8847003]

>>8794365
why the fuck should we do it? its already perfectly doable to do it and has been done countless of times, look at the netherlands for example, more than 60% of the country is build thanks to humans.

[Anonymous No.8847007]

>>8808306
I haven't left my house for more than 8 months now, its perfectly doable you retard

[Anonymous No.8847012]

>>8802718
>gravity magically works in space

[Anonymous No.8847015]

>>8807816
>have to invest billions of dollars first
>suddenly the amount of companies that can do is reduced to around 1 or 2
>These companies have a huge global monopoly already and have no need for Mars
This isn't happening anon, bring your freemarket bs somewhere else

[Anonymous No.8847023]

>>8807816
>allowing jewish companies to do unregulated activity on a planet lightyears away
that can't go wrong

[Anonymous No.8847027]

>>8794047
>Humanity has discovered all reevant science
Stopped reading here, how did this bullshit get 250 replies?

[Anonymous No.8847030]

>>8847023
It would make a good movie.

[Anonymous No.8847133]

would pic related work?

[Anonymous No.8847152]

>>8847023
>lightyears

[Anonymous No.8847156]

>>8847133
This is the dumbest thing I've ever seen.

[Anonymous No.8847157]

>>8847152
>he thinks planets in our solar system can be self-sustaining colonies

[Anonymous No.8848163]

>>8847133
See, this is why popsci is killing real scientific education.

[Anonymous No.8848289]

>>8803373

To save on delta-v liability, wouldn't it be a good choice to use L4 or L5 instead of the moon or mars? Depending on how large is the sweet-spot, it could be a place to either process asteroid ore, or a parking lot to keep outbound supplies or incoming ore until needed.

[Anonymous No.8848345]

>>8848289
You mean the Lagrange points for Earth? It really depends on where the materials need to go. They'd certainly need to be in L4/L5 or what ever planet they need to go to, but if a planet isn't their destination then who knows.

[Anonymous No.8849016]

I've been googling and googling and found one small solution for low g health:

http://nsbri.org/2005/09/space-cycle-tests-artificial-gravity-as-solution-to-muscle-loss/

>A bike-like centrifuge that creates artificial gravity may help astronauts combat muscle atrophy in space. Through a study at the University of California, Irvine, the National Space Biomedical Research Institute (NSBRI) is exploring the concept of a Space Cycle for inflight resistance-training exercise.

[Anonymous No.8849034]

>>8846853
Constantly carrying around weights would be a passive form of exercise to offset the lower gravity

[Anonymous No.8849051]

>>8849034
For things like VIIP you need the actual force on your entire body for it to work. Just having force on a few parts isn't going to help much for similarly triggered diseases.

[Anonymous No.8849128]

>>8849051
Having weights on your wrists would transfer the load up your arms, across your shoulders, down your spine, and into your legs. The only part of your body it couldn't "work out" would be your neck and skull.

[Anonymous No.8849134]

>>8849051
>>8849128
Also I should add that this would just be for preventing bone and muscle atrophy. Potentially cardiovascular too since you'd be doing a lot of work swinging around that inertial mass.

[Anonymous No.8849138]

>>8849128
We mean everything. Including your organs and the fluid inside your eyes.

[Anonymous No.8849151]

>>8849138
Why not wear those during the day and sleep inside a centrifuge at night? Then you can get away with a much smaller centrifuge if it only has to fit a bed.

[Anonymous No.8849607]

>>8849051
VIIP is a microgravity problem - not a problem on, say for instance, Mars, and certainly not Venus, and certainly not for an O'Neill cylinder.

He's right, in that, for adults at least, you could easily maintain your muscles and avoid any real problems at the near 40% gravity Mars provides with simple augments and a regime (theoretically).

You will still get some bone loss, because the continuous microfractures you get from everyday movement under Earth gravity wouldn't be happening as frequently, but for a healthy adult, that should be well within tolerance. Nothing like the problems you experience in zero gravity, where none of that is happening.

However, that process is a whole lot more important for a developing child. Weights ain't gonna cut it for them. You either need to have them spend a lot of time in an orbiting O'Neill cylinder, or live with the fact that, depending on who you listen to, they will either be extremely debilitated when visiting Earth, or be outright incapable of doing so. (Though, some have also pointed out that this lack of bone and muscle mass means they will be free to dedicate more calories to other systems.)

There's a world of difference between zero gravity and what you get on Mars, while at the same time it's still low enough to give you a serious advantage when using the planet as a staging point, unlike say Venus, while still giving you effectively infinite room to expand and close access to a variety of resources, unlike say an O'Neill cylinder.

Granted, all three are going to be rougher than Earth no matter what you do, but no one said it was going to be easy.

[Anonymous No.8849979]

I'm not sure why we are discussing <1g since the OP's subject prevents this from happening. Since there is a chance of adverse health happening due to <1g the OP completely removes all chances of it happening or need for fixing/preventing if/when it does happen.

You may as well talk about AIDS and HIV for all that <1g matters to the conversation, for they are all terribly off topic.

>>8849607
>VIIP is a microgravity problem - not a problem on, say for instance, Mars

Source? Mars only has 0.377g

I'm sure anything under 0.75g is going to give humans health problems. I know there has to be a curving scale for this stuff. Where 1g is good health and 0g is bad health after x amount of time.

>>8849151
>much smaller centrifuge if it only has to fit a bed.

Standing an walking in 1g is what prevents VIIP and other related stuff. It is the jarring of your entire body and pull from head down to toe that keeps everything in good condition.

[Anonymous No.8850035]

>hurr durr planet is dying
>let's launch highly polluting rockets to solve that

neat

[Anonymous No.8850045]

>>8850035
>he thinks the planet is dying
>he thinks rockets have much if any impact on the environment

[Anonymous No.8850063]

>>8849979
Low gravity might have negative long term health impacts, but it could be good for retirees.

If I was old and sick with terrible joints I might consider living on Mars if it meant I could walk again, even if it meant dying sooner.

[Anonymous No.8850074]

>>8812318
>I'm not sure that killing 86.5% of the population would go over very well.
why? worst case scenario, people resist it, start a war and voila, lots of people die, you get what you want anyway

[Anonymous No.8850084]

>>8834315
looks very retarded, like something a 14yo made in ksp

[Anonymous No.8850096]

>>8794323
I would go insane.

[Anonymous No.8850112]

>>8850096
>I would go insane.
even if you were locked with 18 yo space cuties and had little competence?

it actually makes a lot of sense for space fearing culture to by poligamic and male centered. Since it only takes one male to impregnate a very large amount of females.

[Anonymous No.8850213]

>>8850074
That's a moot point that doesn't need a rebuttal.

>>8850096
>>8850112
All built up psychological projection, of a hypothetical situations, is torn down when confronted with reality. We simply don't know what will happen or what is the best course of action.

>>8850084
I don't think it matters what it looks like at this point so long as it functions properly.

[Anonymous No.8850220]

>>8850213
>I don't think it matters what it looks like at this point so long as it functions properly.
sometimes function can be inferred from looks.

i see that and i see needles complexity oversymetrical design philosophies and a lack of material proportions betwen the parts to the total which is in all complex multivariable systems the basis for overall performance-output stabilization

[Anonymous No.8850222]

>>8850213
>That's a moot point that doesn't need a rebuttal.
actually its relevant objective truth

[Anonymous No.8850360]

>>8850220
What you are seeing is a modular design lacking a pretty form factor covering that millennials are so accustomed to seeing. I bet you'd have flipped you shit 30 years ago if you were a part of the HAM Radio community and got to see some of our builds. Function over form, dead bug for life.

[Anonymous No.8850382]

>>8850360
>Function over form
thats one design philosophy

the other is that the prettiest form results from the best function.

american spacecraft look nicer than soviet ones and they worked better and exploded less

[Anonymous No.8850391]

>>8850382
>the other is that the prettiest form results from the best function.

I can tell you are not an engineer.

[Anonymous No.8850402]

>>8850391
>I can tell you are not an engineer.
i can tell youre not a good engineer like santiago calatrava.

a good engineer knows not only objective rules of the universe but also knows that their interactions are so complex that they might as well be magic and artist magic thinkers are involved

[Anonymous No.8850456]

>>8850402
>santiago calatrava

All his stuff looks like shit, kid. Terrible example.

[Anonymous No.8850470]

>>8850382
Is that why the Soyuz is considered the most reliable launch vehicle to date, and it continues to serve flawlessly for astronaut transportation to the ISS while the space shuttles are relics now?

[Anonymous No.8850486]

>>8850456
>is a 60yo virgin
>thinks he can criticize someone with 2 degrees

[Anonymous No.8850756]

>>8850486
>60yo

I'm not sure how you got that close to my age, but I have far more degrees than just 2. Most of them are in CAD and Drafting areas.

>tfw probably talking to my own grandson on 4chan

Stop dicking around, Jimmy. This is a website for adults.

[Anonymous No.8850794]

>>8849979
0.377g's is nearly 40% Earth norm. The only real long term health effect from that, for an adult, which may not be countered by weights and regimen, is a reduction in the bone microfractures that actually increase bone density. It's fairly negligible as opposed to micro gravity, where you're losing about 1% bone density every month, and your capillaries start bursting, and all the other internal problems that entails, etc. etc.

But again, that's much more critical for a young child, and an older individual may already be losing bone mass for other reasons (postmenopausal women usually lose about ~0.5% bone mass per month, though this effect eventually slows.)

[Anonymous No.8850808]

>>8850382
>the other is that the prettiest form results from the best function.
That's the sort of philosophy that is known in the field as "completely wrong".

[Anonymous No.8850816]

>>8850220
>sometimes function can be inferred from looks.
If the function is to pick up chicks, yes.

But that thing looks a hell of a lot better than half the shit we put up there... Have you even see the mish-mash mess than is the ISS? Damn things not even symmetrical. Skylab looked way shittier than this thing as well - granted, that thing actually did fall apart. All of our space stations have been clunky jumbled messes so far though, all looking far less thought out than that (>>8834315 ) design, and built-as-they-went, to be sure.

[Anonymous No.8850860]

>>8794047
The most annoying problem is of course the human problem.

The colonists will soon get ideas of grandeur and point their guns at us, denying us entrance or their minerals.

[Anonymous No.8850976]

>>8850794
We don't know. There's no science on it. We may as well err on the side of caution. That's the whole point of the OP it seems.

>>8850816
I think the main reason is that the ISS is for lab work and all that stuff is different labs and different designs stitched together like Frankenstein's monster. While on the other hand, the one in >>8834315 is purpose built with one thing in mind.

>>8850860
I don't think the point is to take minerals from them per se, but to get them self sustaining so they don't need to rely on Earth or anyone else. If they can say "fuck off" then they have reached that point and it is time to let them do what they want. However, I seriously doubt there will be any North Koreas in space.

[Anonymous No.8851017]

>>8850976
>I seriously doubt there will be any North Koreas in space.
Probably some day... But it's far off enough that we can worry about interstellar wars later. I mean, even if you do have them, ya still increase the odds of the species surviving overall, whereas if we keep all the eggs in this basket, everything's eventually and inevitably doomed.

>>8850976
>There's no science on it.
There's a lot of science on it, we do tons of animal research on this shit. Actually turns out you can gestate small mammals, even in zero-G, and the only thing they lack when being exposed to Earth for the first time is balance, which they tend to pick up within a few days. We've tested some stuff with airplanes and larger mammals, and even people, and it seems lower gravity (but not micro gravity) has no real ill effects on them, even if the longest you can run such tests is a few days at a time.

Granted, yes, we're not going to know anything for sure until we have a long term science base on Mars or whatnot. But that's not colonization, merely the first step, and it's unlikely that any problems you do run into will be sudden, given that those even in zero-G aren't particularly sudden. (Though there's the potential for aneurysms, so far no one's had one.)

[Anonymous No.8851055]

>>8851017
>There's a lot of science on it, we do tons of animal research on this shit. Actually turns out you can gestate small mammals, even in zero-G

And it turns out poorly. I think there's a link already ITT. We are talking about low G, for which there is no science. Airplanes simply don't count because you can't freefall for years to maintain low G for such testing.

[Anonymous No.8851081]

>>8851055
True, you can't simulate zero-G without going full free fall, but you can actually setup low gravity labs with airplanes that go for days at time with refueling. Though it's also true, for obvious reasons, the short micro-gravity tests are more common.

But yes, like I said, you're not going anything for sure without a long term base. You can only infer from those tests, and what we already know of the zero-G tests. However, you can run the numbers and make some guesses about how much gravity is needed to maintain certain bodily structures, and prevent the issues you see in long term zero-G, so you're not entirely blind (or more to the point, apt to become so unexpectedly).

[Anonymous No.8851092]

>>8794047
An often-unexplored alternative for colonization is Mercury which is surprisingly hospitable to human life, in many respects more than Mars.

Advantages:
* Temperatures at the polar regions are much colder, less than 273 K (0 °C, 32 °F). This is hotter than the average temperature of Mars, and the closest temperatures to Earth alongside those found in the Venusian upper atmosphere.

* There is little doubt that there are considerable deposits of ice and perhaps other volatiles in the shadowed regions of polar craters.

* The polar areas do not experience the extreme daily variation in temperature seen on more equatorial areas of Mercury's surface. (Also unlike Mars)
Being the closest planet to the Sun, Mercury has vast amounts of solar power available. Its solar constant is 6.3-14.5 kW/m2, on average 6.5 times that of Earth or the Moon. (And almost 12 times that of Mars)

* Mercury is also theorized to have a crust rich in iron and magnesium silicates, with the highest concentrations of many valuable minerals of any surface in the Solar System, in highly concentrated ores. This makes colonization economically viable.

Neutral:
* Gravity on the surface of Mercury is 0.377 g, more than twice that of the Moon (0.1654 g) and almost exactly identical with the surface gravity of Mars.

Disadvantages:
* The lack of any substantial atmosphere, colonies would have to be built underground or with dome structures providing an artificial atmosphere. (Same as in Mars)

* Mercury is also deep in the Sun's gravitational potential well, requiring a larger velocity change (delta V) to travel to and from Mercury than is needed for other planets, although, in the past, gravity assist orbits using Venus have been used to reach Mercury.

* Mercury's magnetic field at the surface has just 1.1% the strength of Earth's. Colonies would need to be shielded from radiation. (Same as in Mars)

[Anonymous No.8851104]

>>8851092
Overall, however, the huge potential for mining, insane amounts of solar energy and underground farming, as well as the friendlier temperatures in the Poles and the presence of ice, make Mercury a much more interesting candidate than Mars. I do not know why Mercury is never talked about, the planet could be colonized with the technology we have RIGHT NOW.

[Anonymous No.8851128]

>>8851092
>colonize mercury

JELLO BABIES
JELLO BABIES
JELLO BABIES

also just as a general message to the retards that post in this kind of thread: fuck off

[Anonymous No.8851133]

>>8851128
Jello babies are a meme we do not know the long-term effects of low gravity environment on the human body. (Low gravity is not the same as zero gravity)

[Anonymous No.8851146]

>>8851133
off-earth colonization is fucking retarded

[Anonymous No.8851150]

>>8851081
I agree, but I still think we need to do what we can with what we already know and can do right now. Hopefully, someone like Bigelow will make some spinning habs. They could have several toroids for different gn. Like one for Mars g, Earth G, and so on.

>>8851092
https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/mercuryfact.html

>6.674 Earth ratio radiation

Damn. Mars is 0.431, fyi.

Mercury is talked about, but ITT it doesn't meet the gravity/size parameters. If we tossed those out we'd be able to colonize nearly everything in the entire solar system starting today if someone was willing to pay for it. We'd get the moon tunneled up like the best Heinlein books. I'm sure it would advance medicine pretty quick when people start getting sick from various aliments.

>>8851128
>>8851146
Hide the thread and go back to /b/, kid.

[Anonymous No.8851160]

>>8794047
this will be another failed government program to scam people out of money. Prove wrong, protip: you cunt.

[Anonymous No.8851163]

>>8851128
>>8851146
>>8851160
Wow, you are angry and bitter.

[Anonymous No.8851171]

>>8851150
>HURR I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE I WANT THE WORLD TO BE LIKE MY SCI-FI BOOKS BAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWW

>ignore me if you don't like it kid :^)

are you out of middle school even

[Anonymous No.8851176]

>>8851163
wow, literally nothing to say. play pretend space explorer somewhere else

[Anonymous No.8851235]

>>8851163
>yfw that this is correct because you feel that you are not smart enough or brave enough to make space colonization true so you hide behind this pseudo-conservatism and angrily lash out at people who support it
why does it have to be like this, bros

[Anonymous No.8851242]

>>8851235
>pseudo-conservatism
stop being retarded
the reason people shit on you isn't they're dumb and closed to "new ideas", it's that you have literally nothing of value and are just randomly roleplaying while saying shit that comes out of your ass and you just made up

[Anonymous No.8851286]

>>8851242
this is not an ironic post, dummy

[Anonymous No.8851291]

>>8851092
Mercury is a better option than one would think, to be sure - but Mars and Venus are still better targets. It's a good 3rd-4th target though - excellent place for a solar research station, to be sure.

[Anonymous No.8851296]

>>8851291
>solar research station
jesus you fucking idiots are full of cringe, stop making these threads

[Anonymous No.8851308]

>>8851296
Well, it's true, satellites will probably get ya everything you could possibly use, and having a staging point on Mercury probably wouldn't help that much.

Still, you could just hide the thread ya know.

[Anonymous No.8851518]

>>8851296
There's a higher concentration of solar wind at that distance. You could launch shit into the sun all day long too. I wonder how much more delta-v you'd get using a solar sail starting from Mercury or if the gravity would merely cancel that much out.

[Anonymous No.8851627]

>313 / 115 / 81 / 4

Impressive. 1 image for every 2.72 posts. Nearly 4 posts per IP. All those tl;dr length posts.

/thread