Quantcast
[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Maintenance is complete! We got more disk space.
Become a Patron!

/sci/ - Science & Math


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 866 KB, 1070x954, moon.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9263333 No.9263333 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

Why not colonize the Moon before Mars?

>> No.9263354

Because there is absolutely nothing there of worth nor are there any prospects of life.
t. alium who lives there

>> No.9263368

>>9263354
Same could be said about Mars, though.

>> No.9263371

>>9263333
No atmosphere, no protection against sun's radiation, constant bombardment of asteroids

>> No.9263377

>>9263368
>potentially has a usable water supply
>has an atmosphere (but a very small one at that)
>occasionally has livable temperatures
Gee sure sounds similar
That said, Mars is a shit option for colonisation. Venus is where its at.

>> No.9263391

Only mars has all the elements needed on it to 3d print what ever we need. Atmosphere just needs some buffing up humans are real good at that. Mars has both frozen water and frozen co2. So with the ground having carbon and the atmosphere already being mostly nitrogen all they need to do is plant some plants and melt that north pole and we are in buissnes

>> No.9263398

>>9263391
>Atmosphere just needs some buffing up humans are real good at that
>all they need to do is plant some plants and melt that north pole and we are in buissnes
Enjoy your bone atrophy and cancer

>> No.9263435
File: 70 KB, 645x729, really dumb wojak.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9263435

>>9263377
Boy I sure do love 450 degree C surface temperatures, sulphuric acid rain, and a surface pressure 90x that of Earth which will instantly crush you to death!

>> No.9263451
File: 436 KB, 1350x646, 1496870790557.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9263451

>>9263333
>>9263333
You know that whole Jello Babies meme every time someone talks about Mars colonies? Well, you can apply that to the Moon colonies too only worse, IF they'd even be able to grow a fetus without something bad happening.

>> No.9263452
File: 55 KB, 645x729, 1504038581288.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9263452

>>9263435
>humans can only colonise surfaces

>> No.9263499
File: 315 KB, 1332x1856, 1490979759989.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9263499

>>9263435
>>9263452
Use the dense atmosphere to make floating colonies.

>> No.9263516

Because muh Elon Musk said Mars.

>> No.9263517

>>9263354

The Moon is a requirement for colonizing mars fag.

>> No.9263546
File: 107 KB, 500x426, Lucas Hershlag Pointing Laughing.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9263546

>>9263517
>hey lets waste out Delta-V on stopping at the moon

"HURRRRR ME DUM DUM"

>> No.9263598 [DELETED] 
File: 145 KB, 645x729, grug.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9263598

>>9263452
>>9263499
WOW IT'S NOT AS IF A "FLOATING CITY" IS GOING TO COST LIKE A FUCKING BILLION QUINTILLION AMOUNT OF CURRENCY TO BUILD IS IT

JESUS CHRIST WHY IS THIS BOARD SO FUCKING STUPID

MARS HAS LAND WHERE YOU CAN GROW STUFF

VENUS OFFERS NO OPPORTUNITY FOR EXPANSION

HOLY JESUS FUCKING CHRIST YOU ARE SO STUPID IT'S UNBELIEVABLE

IF IT WAS ECONOMICAL TO LIVE IN FUCKING "FLOATING CITIES" THEN WE'D ALREADY BE DOING THAT ON EARTH WOULDN'T WE - AND YET WE DON'T BECAUSE THE DOLLAR PER SQUARE FOOT WOULD BE OFF THE FUCKING CHARTS

"LOOK AT ME I'M ON 4CHAN WHICH MEANS I'M A CONTRARIAN AND I WILL NEVER SUPPORT THE PREVAILING VIEW, I WILL ALWAYS SUPPORT A MINORITY VIEW EVEN IF IT'S FUCKING STUPID JUST BECAUSE I'M SO DESPERATE FOR ATTENTION"

>> No.9263626
File: 47 KB, 1226x386, why am I wasting my time on this retard.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9263626

>>9263598
Is it a common thing for you to go on autistic rants when you get proven wrong on /sci/? Are you this autistic?
>hurr durr THING COSTS MONEY
I think money won't be an issue when we are faced with the extinction of our species.

>> No.9263710

>>9263546

You launch rockets from the Moon retard. Or better yet just use the material on the Moon to build a larger ship in space.

>> No.9263712
File: 2.01 MB, 267x200, laughing.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9263712

>>9263626
>proven wrong
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Sorry that I destroyed your ideas and you're so desperate for a victory that you'll stretch the truth to beyond any resemblance to reality.

>> No.9263724
File: 100 KB, 433x419, 1499630356427.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9263724

>>9263712
>Le angery retard goes into damage control mode
Get off 4chan if it makes you this emotional.

>> No.9263842
File: 2.90 MB, 290x189, laughing planet of the apes guy.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9263842

>>9263724
>i completely destroy your insane ramblings
>you're so butthurt that you can't stop posting out of anger

>> No.9264009

>>9263546
>refueling is not possible ever
>building ships in lunar orbit is not possible ever
are you merely pretending to be retarded?

>> No.9264085

An outpost on the Moon makes a lot more sense than an outpost on Mars. An outpost on Venus is absurd.

However, an outpost on Mars has more political and profit potential, at least until it fails disastrously.

>> No.9264175

>>9263626
>I think
I doubt that
>money won't be an issue when we are faced with the extinction of our species.
a) Extinction is either so far into the future that it completely fails at being motivation for anything or else so close to us that it must be completely spontaneous and so too late for us to do anything about it.
b) If you were actually concerned about long-term extinction you would support Mars over Venus. The only reason to support colonization of Venus is because floating cities sound cooler and more sci-fi than boring old biodomes.

>> No.9264225

>>9263333
It's easier to make an inhospitable atmosphere hospitable than a non-atmosphere.

>> No.9264243

>>9263333
basically humans need higher gravity than the moon can provide, otherwise we turn into porcelain
you'd have to cycle through the entire population every couple of months or so

>> No.9264494

>>9264243
>basically humans need higher gravity than the moon can provide, otherwise we turn into porcelain
They manage to survive on the space station just fine

Just because microgravity affects our body (which it obviously does) doesn't mean that those effects are necessarily BAD, or that we can't get used to them over time.

>> No.9264504

>>9264243
>>9264494
Also just to point out - most of the bad things happen when you get back down to Earth. Because you're lacking in bone density, muscle density, red blood cell count, etc.

But when you're up there in a microgravity environment, I don't think the effects are very bad at all. Although yes, when you first go up there, you can get headaches and disorientation, because you're not used to not having gravity acting on your body. You're not used to an environment where there is no "up".

So the only thing that is painful is adjusting from one environment to the other. But that has nothing to do with the question of whether we can survive for long periods in microgravity. And I don't see any reason to suggest that we can't.

The two most important things for an off-Earth habitat are AIR and WATER. And then of course food, but if you have the first two things, then you can grow food.

Gravity is really a much less important concern.

>> No.9264540

>>9263398
???????????????????????
Increasing the atmosphere thickness also increases the amount of radiation that gets through?

>> No.9264552
File: 204 KB, 864x486, mars colony.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9264552

>>9263391
Literally this

>>9263398
>bone atrophy
Why is that important when you don't NEED bone density in low-gravity environments, you fucking moron?

>cancer
And that's why humans should build CAVES into the sides of Mars' canyons (including the biggest one which is over 4x as deep as the Grand Canyon) to protect us from too much solar radiation.

>> No.9264564

>>9264552
>Why is that important when you don't NEED bone density in low-gravity environments, you fucking moron?
That's weird man, just letting yourself get medically fucked because you don't NEED to be normal

>> No.9264580
File: 50 KB, 645x729, extremely dumb wojak.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9264580

>>9264564
If you're white and you go to a country with a stronger sunlight, then you will tan, and your skin will go darker

This adaptation by your body means that, if you return back to the cooler climes of Northern Europe, then you won't be absorbing as much Vitamin D anymore (until your tan wears off)

So by your logic we should never go to hotter countries because these adaptations are just OBJECTIVELY FUCKING BAD for us and we should never adapt to anything ever?

>> No.9264601

>>9264580
Your skin, white or not is designed to produce melanin in response to higher levels of sunlight (idk the details) that's not the same as bone atrophy. I'm not a bioethicists though.

>> No.9264621

>>9264601
Your muscle and bone is designed to atrophy when it's not needed.

That's why those things increase when you do lots of exercise and weight training. If you stop your weight training, then they will decrease again.

Building muscle and bone density is expensive for your body - it requires energy and nutrients. So it only builds up those things when it HAS to.

>> No.9264990

>>9264009
Why refuel on the moon? The lack of fuel makes the ship have less mass, therefore needs less delta V to propel it forward. It's factually more efficient.
Work = work output/ work input. Once out of the atmosphere work output stays the same as you only need X joules of energy to keep the ship moving at a constant speed, as there is little friction so slow the ship down. However you are still losing fuel, making work input decrease due to less mass needing to be pushed. Refueling is only a good idea if you need the fuel to complete the voyage.

>> No.9264997

>>9264621
but it's unhealthy for your muscle and bone to atrophy, it's not designed to
Coming back from atrophy isn't a smooth process but losing your tan is
melanin protects your blood (and skin) from UV rays, it has a purpose

>> No.9265122
File: 55 KB, 600x601, 1443958346638.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9265122

>>9264990
yep, you're shitposting

>> No.9265143

>>9265122
I'm not the original post that was replying to, just throwing in my 2 cents. How is that wrong? That's simple physics.

>> No.9265167

The amount fuel weighs is significantly less than what the fuel can push
By the time you get into orbit, your tanks are near empty, and any trip further out would have to be a slow drift
By refueling, you can continue burning your engines, dramatically shortening the time it takes to get to your target

Fuel is cheap, time is not, so spending extra fuel to save a fuckton of time is an easy decision

>>
Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.
Captcha
Action