Greatest Scam of All Time

[Anonymous No.9438265]

Lets review some facts about SpaceX and Mars "colonization."
>Mars has essentially no atmosphere, meaning that everyone will have to live underground or indoors. This will take THOUSANDS OF YEARS to change assuming full efforts at terraforming. No water or plant life will happen on the surface for THOUSANDS OF YEARS.
>Mars has 0.37g's of gravity at its surface. People WILL NOT BE ABLE TO REPRODUCE on the surface of Mars. Martians will have to have children only on rotating space stations in Mars orbit, and those children MUST grow up on the station or they will be permanently deformed.
>SpaceX's entire system relies on using a "propellant plant" that doesn't exist, and won't exist until dozens of people are stranded there with no hope of leaving until its built. This propellant plant will require the output of SEVERAL LARGE NUCLEAR REACTORS to fuel even just a couple ships for a return journey. SpaceX claims that they can do it with solar panels (LMAO!)
>SpaceX claims that the LARGEST ROCKET EVER BUILT will not only be cheaper to fly than the smallest orbital rocket ever built, but SIX FLIGHTS will be cheaper than one of the small rocket flights. Anyone with half a brain knows this is horseshit.
>Elon claims that they can make rocket travel "as safe as airliner travel." The safety of rocket travel would have to improve 10,000% to match that of airliners. People ACTUALLY BELIEVE that this is not only realistic, but that it will happen WITHOUT A LAUNCH ESCAPE SYSTEM.
>SpaceX claims they can design, build and fly THE LARGEST ROCKET EVER BUILT in 2 years and be ready to fly it to Mars in 4 years.
Why do people still believe the leis this company spews, /sci/?
Is it all just a bunch of delusional redditors with sci fi fantasies?

[Anonymous No.9438267]

Oh and I almost forgot:
>SpaceX claims that they will do this in 2 years WITH NO OUTSIDE INVESTMENT OR OTHER FINANCIAL HELP despite not even paying off Falcon 9 development yet.

[Anonymous No.9438903]

>>9438265
>>people will not be able to reproduce.
Bullshit. Prove it faggot

[Anonymous No.9439191]

>>9438265
Rockets don't work in space, there is no atmosphere to push against.

[Anonymous No.9439241]

>>9438265
>This will take THOUSANDS OF YEARS to change assuming full efforts at terraforming.
I'm pretty sure Musk has acknowledged that full terraforming would take thousands of years.
>People WILL NOT BE ABLE TO REPRODUCE on the surface of Mars.
That's just speculation at this point. 0.3 g is not 0 g.
>This propellant plant will require the output of SEVERAL LARGE NUCLEAR REACTORS to fuel even just a couple ships for a return journey.
A hundred megawatts of output is all that's needed for the refueling, you don't need a nuclear reactor for that.
>"hurr let's just ignore the fact that re-usability is what makes the rocket cheap"
ok kid
>The safety of rocket travel would have to improve 10,000% to match that of airliners.
You should stop listening to thundercuck, who bases his statistics on other rockets, some of which failed due to engineering errors.
>SpaceX claims they can design, build and fly THE LARGEST ROCKET EVER BUILT in 2 years and be ready to fly it to Mars in 4 years.
Ok that's true, spacex has a history of delaying shit, the falcon heavy was supposed to launch last november.

[Anonymous No.9439253]

>>9439191
>when you get woke and realize that the project you and your friends did during university that involved a vacuum chamber and a small thruster means you were part of the Illuminati conspiracy.

Feels bad man

[Anonymous No.9439254]

this is a bait thread for the sole purpose of shitposting
just report the bloody thing instead of replying to it
this is the several hundredth time they've posted it

[Anonymous No.9439261]

>>9438265
>will take THOUSANDS OF YEARS
What-everrr, Grandpa.

[Anonymous No.9439274]

Eron can burn somebody MONEY and that person happy with it.
That's the difference between Erin Mask and Faggots like you OP

[Anonymous No.9439357]

>>9439241

[Anonymous No.9439368]

>>9438265
>Greatest Scam of All Time
is this is a climate change thread?

[Anonymous No.9439369]

>>9438903
>Prove it faggot
Why the homophobia?

[Anonymous No.9439400]

>>9439369
Newfag pls go >>>/reddit/

[Anonymous No.9439499]

>>9439369
because faggots can't reproduce.

Gays literally will not be able to go to mars, as they will be liabilities. Living things in general live to reproduce, gays cannot do that = worthless.

[Anonymous No.9439507]

>>9439357
That's it? You make a whole thread trashing SpaceX and you can't stand up to a single post actually taking the time to argue with you? Anti-SpaceX shills are so easy to beat.

[Anonymous No.9439584]

>>9439253
Is this something that literally happened?
My research is starting to disturb me.

[Anonymous No.9439673]

You forgot that no magnetosphere = no terraforming. Though it's a scifi meme anyway

[Anonymous No.9439683]

>>9439241
>A hundred megawatts of output is all that's needed for the refueling
Methane contains 55.5 MJ/kg. Electrolysis and the sabatier reaction are fairly efficient, so for simplicity, let's say that 100 MJ/kg of electricity is needed to synthesize it. 240 tonnes of methane is needed to fill the tank to capacity. The oxygen will be produced as a byproduct of the methane synthesis.

So 24 million MJ is required, or 6.7 million kWh. With 26 months between Mars launch windows, that means about 20,000 hours, so around 0.4 thousand kWh per hour, or 400 kW is needed. "A hundred megawatts" is off by orders of magnitude.

Now, what does this means in terms of the hardware required? The average solar irradiance at Mars is about 600 W/m^2, about 44% of what we get above Earth's atmosphere, though Mars's thin, never-cloudy, sometimes-dusty atmosphere blocks less light. For simplicity's sake, we'll estimate that a non-tracking panel on the Mars surface receives an average of 200 W/m^2 (accounting for night and off angles), generates 50 W/m^2 (25% electrical conversion efficiency), and is 10 times the mass per unit power of a typical 20 kg per kilowatt satellite power system in Earth GEO (which is held square to the sun, never experiences night, and is in brighter light).

20,000 m^2 of solar panels is required, a field of 100 x 200 meters, about four football fields: a significant but not daunting deployment task. 200 kg per kilowatt gives us an 80 tonne mass. This fits easily into the capacity of a single BFR, with ample room for other equipment.

However, this assumes that the BFS must be refilled to capacity, when in fact it only need to be refilled enough for the return launch. Applying the rocket equation (to a ~265s average Isp, 6.1 km/s delta-v, and 100 tonne mass at end of departure burn) suggests that, for a typical light return load, the BFS would only need to be filled about halfway (to 41% capacity), halving the power requirement.

[Anonymous No.9439712]

>>9439191
Let it go NYT.

[Anonymous No.9439732]

>>9439673
they've already figured out that we could put a station at mars's L1 producing a magnetic field to protect Mars
1 tesla was the requirement if I recall

[Anonymous No.9439741]

>>9438265
>solar panels on a planet filled with sand

[Anonymous No.9439756]

>>9439741
*cough*

>>9439732
even so, terraforming is a meme. Just dig tunnels everywhere.

[Anonymous No.9439758]

>>9438265
> greatest scam of all time
Oh finally we can have a discussion about "man made climate change" and talk about how it's bull-
> spacex

[Anonymous No.9439764]

>>9438265
Is Elon Musk using public money for this or his own? If it's his own, then you're the retarded cunt to waste your time writing this bullshit on a taiwanese cartoon imageboard.

[Anonymous No.9439769]

I think the government should stop this conman from endangering people and the environment! Rockets are incredibly dangerous things and we should leave the government to deal with them. We don't want some idiot to poke a hole in our protective blanket so we all die from space radiation.

[Anonymous No.9439774]

>>9439769
>We don't want some idiot to poke a hole in our protective blanket so we all die from space radiation.
0/10
Try Again.

[Anonymous No.9439790]

[Anonymous No.9439809]

>>9439191

this

Musk BTFO

[Anonymous No.9439845]

>>9439732
>1 tesla was the requirement if I recall
So that's why he made his roadster be the payload for Heavy!

[Anonymous No.9439846]

>This propellant plant will require the output of SEVERAL LARGE NUCLEAR REACTORS

It takes 25.9 GWh of energy to fuel a BFS Spaceship. Sorry for leddit link but it must be done

https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/738c0j/i_calculated_the_energy_required_to_produce_the/?st=jcgibq8s&sh=c9aca020

This is the same as an energy output of a 3 MW power plant over one year.

An average nuclear plant is enough to fuel up hundreds of BFS per year.

[Anonymous No.9439864]

>>9439790
olo

[Anonymous No.9439870]

>>9439846
>Sorry for leddit link but it must be done
Hey, wanna know why we don't?

>energyForSabatierGWh = 18.7 GWh
The sabatier reaction is EXOTHERMIC. It doesn't require an input of energy, other than the supply of reactants. 72% of his result is pure nonsense. There's no sense in wasting time digging deeper into such an incompetent analysis.

This was already analysed, far more competently, in the thread: >>9439683

[Anonymous No.9439887]

>>9439774
>giving it a (You)
fucking newfags

[Anonymous No.9439914]

>>9439845
Underrated post.

>>9439241
>>People WILL NOT BE ABLE TO REPRODUCE on the surface of Mars
>That's just speculation at this point. 0.3 g is not 0 g.
Besides, it's even easier to generate 1g on the surface than on a fucking space station. If you can rotate a space station you can rotate a small building too.

>Ok that's true, spacex has a history of delaying shit, the falcon heavy was supposed to launch last november.
It was supposed to launch in 2013. Then in 2014. Then in 2015. Then early 2016. Then late 2016. Then early 2017. Then mid 2017. Then late 2017. Then January 2018.

[Anonymous No.9439923]

>>9439914
Speaking of the Heavy, is there a way to watch the static fire test that's supposed to happen in a few hours?

I want to watch on a chance of the biggest rocket blowing up.

[Anonymous No.9439936]

>>9439756
>terraforming is a meme

Maybe so but having a magnetosphere helps out a lot whether or not you intend on geoengineering the planet.

[Anonymous No.9439938]

>>9439764
His own, well and whatever money he gets for gov't contracts now that he has a product (for the Mars expidition it's probably all funded by him and seed funders who iirc are some of the richest companies in the world like Google.

[Anonymous No.9439942]

>>9439683
The energy requirement is underestimated somewhat, or at least optimistically in the initial step:
>Methane contains 55.5 MJ/kg. Electrolysis and the sabatier reaction are fairly efficient, so for simplicity, let's say that 100 MJ/kg of electricity is needed to synthesize it.

The sabatier reaction requires 50% as much hydrogen, by mass, as the amount of methane produced. Hydrogen's specific energy is 142 MJ/kg, so the ideal cost for sabatier methane (with no recovery of the sabatier reaction's released energy) is 71 MJ/kg. This is under 100 MJ/kg, but we still have to account for the efficiency of the hydrogen electrolysis.

Theoretical efficiencies of hydrogen electrolysis range up over 90%, but practical cells are more usually in the 50-70% range. 71% efficiency would be required to hit 100 MJ/kg, and it might be achievable (current large electrolysis plants achieve 70% efficiency), but it's not a conservative estimate in keeping with the spirit of the analysis. 60% is conservative, and results in about a 20% increased energy requirement. Rounding up brings the required mass of panels from 80 to 100 tonnes to fully refuel one BFS per window, or 50 tonnes to refuel one unloaded BFS per window.

Remember, these are conservative estimates. There are solar panel options that could be much lighter, and easier to deploy. For instance, in 2015 perovskite thin films were demonstrated working with 12% conversion efficiency at 3 microns thick, reducing the required mass by a factor of 100 while also being flexible, permitting roll-out deployment. The entire thing could be deployed as a roll-out mat and simply staked down around the edges. In this case, the whole array might be under a ton.

There are many options between these extremes of the sure-thing conservative option, and cutting-edge ultralight thin films.

[Anonymous No.9439948]

>>9439923
This guy's watching Falcon Heavy pretty closely, reporting for NSF:
https://twitter.com/ChrisG_NSF

Latest news is that the static fire has been pushed back another day. They're going to keep pushing it back every time they notice anything even slightly worrisome. This is a huge test, and they don't want to blow up another launchpad.

[Anonymous No.9439954]

>>9439914

>If you can rotate a space station you can rotate a small building too.

You need several hundred meters of diameter to decrease Coriolis force. A small centrifue is not enough. Much easier to rotate a space station than any building on a surface.

[Anonymous No.9439958]

>>9439948
Yeah I don't understand why people who aren't trolling actually bring up the delays. It's clearly not vaporware since we have seen leaps of progress made already.

Ffs even if SpaceX did end up flopping the work they've done has opened up the door to corporate space flight and development.

[Anonymous No.9439965]

>>9438265
>but that it will happen WITHOUT A LAUNCH ESCAPE SYSTEM.
first demonstrate that a launch escape system is actually worth a damn

[Anonymous No.9439973]

>>9439756
yeah and it had to go into periods of long hibernation

[Anonymous No.9439974]

>>9439948
Neat, thanks.

>>9439954
Still, from an engineering perspective there's very little about space that makes anything easier there. A bit less air friction (but Mars almost has none anyway), and slightly easier design for the bearings. That's about it.

Everything else is easier on the ground. Repairs, safety, power and thermal management, supplies, personnel rotations, etc. etc. Building a huge space station several hundreds meters in diameter just to generate 1g is a ludicruous idea.

[Anonymous No.9439976]

>>9438265
anyone with IQ above 120 is able to see this, no need to educate retards, we need to teach them to think for themselves which is impossible by definition, so they are best left alone

[Anonymous No.9439978]

>>9439954
Building banked circular tracks is pretty easy. It's basically just a mile of road. When you're ready to go beyond a car on that track, it's just a mile of street with buildings on top of some sort of bearing. There's no significant structural challenge.

[Anonymous No.9439987]

>>9439499
what do you mean they can't reproduce?
they could just take their sperm and fertilize a cell in vitro

[Anonymous No.9440004]

>>9438265
>THOUSANDS OF YEARS

It would take 100s of thousands of years, actually.

[Anonymous No.9440012]

>>9440004
we terraformed earth pretty well in just a hundred years though

[Anonymous No.9440017]

>>9440012
Because there was already several billion of us here.

[Anonymous No.9440021]

>>9439974

From en engineering perspective it is an order of magnitude easier to build a rotating space station than to build a rotating land base. There is no friction in space. Slightly easier to design bearings? You dont even need bearings iin space.

>Everything else is easier on the ground.

On Earth maybe. Not on Mars, where you need basically what is a space station anyway just to survive. The only advantage of Mars base over a space station is easier access to material resources. But then you dont need to live there permanently to use those resources anyway. Have an industrial base on Mars, but have actual colonists live in cozy 1g rotating space stations.

[Anonymous No.9440031]

>>9440021
>The only advantage of Mars base over a space station is easier access to material resources.
Setting aside that that's an absolutely huge advantage, decisive by itself, you're only considering one habitat in isolation, and you're assigning no value to the freedom to range out over the Mars surface in vehicles, without spending precious reaction mass.

The ease of building new habitats, and the cost of travelling between them, is incomparable.

>From en engineering perspective it is an order of magnitude easier to build a rotating space station than to build a rotating land base.
Not even close to true. Consider how easy it is to build a banked curve. That's work for bulldozers. It's a mile of road, and a car to ride on it: >>9439978

[Anonymous No.9440042]

[Anonymous No.9440083]

>>9440031

>Setting aside that that's an absolutely huge advantage, decisive by itself

It is a decisive advantage in favor of having a mining base on Mars. It is not a decisive advantage in favor of settling on Mars permanently, because then you run into the whole JELLO BABIES (and JELLO ADULTS) issue. A potentially huge disadvantage.

>you're assigning no value to the freedom to range out over the Mars surface in vehicles, without spending precious reaction mass.

Because there is little value in it. Also, only a very small amount of reaction mass is needed to move between space stations in nearby orbit.

>>9440031

>The ease of building new habitats

Sure, simple habitats are easy to build on Mars. But not rotating habitats with natural gravity, which is what we were talking about.

[Anonymous No.9440096]

>>9440031

>It's a mile of road, and a car to ride on it:

A car riding on a road is not a a permanently habitable colony.

[Anonymous No.9440097]

>>9439965
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_7K-ST_No._16L

[Anonymous No.9440119]

>>9440096
Make it a large RV then. There are lots of people who find those permanently habitable... not that it needs to be permanent anyway.

But no space station is permanently habitable on its own either. Even something as small[*] as the ISS with its token crew requires huge resources to remain habitable for even a year. If you put those resources towards building ground facilities you'd probably have a town-sized 1g habitat in a year.

[*] Small compared to a rotating station capable of providing 1g.

[Anonymous No.9440204]

>>9440096
That's like saying, "a can floating in space is not a permanently habitable colony". It depends on the details.

Picture a triple-wide, two-storey train car. That's a comfortable family home with room for corridors to connect to the car in front and the one in back. Of course, you can scale up arbitrarily.

On Mars, you'd get 1g by travelling at 160 km/h on a 1.35 km banked circular track, at 2 circuits per minute. The air resistance would be negligible and the rolling resistance and vibration can be kept arbitrarily low. It's slow enough that coupling or decoupling (either for transportation, or to add or remove a car without stopping the whole train) with a unremarkable wheeled vehicle would be routine. Power can be supplied by induction through the track.

You can have a domed town in the middle, with gardens, low gravity sports facilities, etc. Windows in the train look up at the town. Signs or a more lavish mechanical arrangement can turn the whole thing into a big clock.

There's no reason to believe that everyone would need or prefer to live in 1g all the time. Even if pregnant women and small children turn out to need it constantly (the least likely scenario), that's only a few years of life, and others can spend plenty of time off of the train.

[Anonymous No.9440227]

>>9440012
We haven't changed it very much at all. Not like what Mars would need for humans to live there. You have no clue what you are talking about.

[Anonymous No.9440732]

>>9439369
You still haven't proven it faggot

[Anonymous No.9440777]

>>9439756
*inhales*

[Anonymous No.9440778]

Where does he get his money?
No, really, where the FUCK does he get the money for this?

How is he going to launch BFR in 2 years when it will cost $10 billion to develop? Where will he get the money at all, let alone get it in two years?

[Anonymous No.9440781]

An atmosphere could be developed by filling the atmosphere with gases , gradually (trees and people etc) or buy burning tons of stuff that put out greenhouse gases.

[Anonymous No.9440986]

>>9440778
It was the earlier ITS concept that was going to cost $10 billion, and that was for the full development program including unmanned and manned test flights to the Mars surface.

They've scaled it down to half the size, and what they're talking about accomplishing in 2 years isn't the full program, just the initial orbital launch.

Anyway, nobody believes it'll fly within 2 years. That's a "no earlier than" date. Musk's standard time estimation approach is to state the earliest possible time, if everything goes right.

[Anonymous No.9441017]

>>9438265
Let's review some facts about electric cars and gasoline "replacement
>batteries have essentially no useful capacities outside of 50F to 80F, they either explode or just put out 0 power
>electric engines have no gears. People WILL NOT BE ABLE TO SHIFT THEIR GEAR BASED ON TERRAIN anywhere. Slopes will have to be avoided on routes, and those routes better not have debris that damage the batteries.
>Tesla's entire system relies on using a "high capacity low weight battery" that doesn't exist, and won't exist until dozens of alchemists explode themselves trying to find this supposed "magical fix" that makes batteries better. This battery will require the output of SEVERAL TRADITIONAL BATTERIES THE SIZE OF YOUR ENTIRE CAR to push even a go-cart. Tesla claims they can do it with phone batteries (LMAO!)
>Tesla claims that the LONGEST STANDING FUEL NETWORK EVER BUILD will not only be more expensive to use than their new "superchargers", but FREE CHARGES will be given to all tesla owners. Anyone with half a brain knows this is horseshit.
>Elon claims they can make electric cars "as good as gasoline cars". The range of electric cars would have to improve 10000% to match that of gasoline engines. People ACTUALLY believe that this is not only realistic, but that it will happen WITHOUT A NEW BREAKTHROUGH IN ELECTRIC ENGINES.
Tesla claims they can design, build and sell THE ONLY ELECTRIC CAR TO EVER ENTER MASS PRODUCTION in 2 years and be ready to bring it to a 30,000$ pricepoint in 10 years
Why do people still believe the leis this company spews, /sci/?
Is it just a bunch of delusional /o/ rejects with a grudge against big oil?

[Anonymous No.9441065]

>>9441017
>electric engines have no gears.
Unless you put a gearbox on one, just like any other engine.

[Anonymous No.9441072]

>>9438265
Thata right, lots of people are going to die so that your and my great great grandchildren can have the benefits of a space economy.

[Anonymous No.9441256]

>>9441017
Wait is this a joke or for real electric cars still suck

[Anonymous No.9441258]

>>9441256
full electric cars still suck but hybrids don't

[Anonymous No.9441314]

Why would we even think about going to mars before we send like a thousand ships there with robots to start building all the shit we need ahead of time? This should be super long term and cost like a trillion dollars. We should have a station with greenhouses n shit, solar panels, shit to start mining whatever the fuck we need, shit to turn that shit into steel or plastic or nuclear energy... Just tons n tons of shit. It would probably require a great deal of alchemy. What the fuck is on mars beside dirt? If we want water, enough to coat the planet and create an atmosphere n shit, we'd have to gather the hydrogen and oxygen ourselves.

There's no point to going to Mars in its current condition.

[Anonymous No.9441367]

>>9438265
everyone focuses on Mars for colonization, but for the reasons you stated (especially low gravity) it's a poor candidate for terraforming.

believe it or not, Venus has much better potential, in spite of its current hellscape. all you'd need to do is bombard it with a large amount of hydrogen along with a catalyst, and the Bosch or Sabatier reaction would convert the atmosphere into water and byproduct (graphite/methane). from there, just let it cool down, install some sort of magnetic shielding, and it would be habitable. Venusian surface gravity is 0.9, which is another major point in its favor. apparently, its slow rate of rotation isnt even an issue, since it would increase albedo on the sunside and help regulate the climate.

[Anonymous No.9441424]

>>9439357
>-703
>applying anything reddit related is acceptable here
>fucking normies in disguise

[Anonymous No.9441446]

>>9439732

Yeah and didn't the same study indicate that if you did that, the Martian atmosphere would start to regenerate from polar CO2 very quickly? Something preposterously positive like that I think.

[Anonymous No.9442211]

>>9441367
Mars = a lot of water
Venus = no water

Mars low gravity is nothing compared with the lack of water.

[Anonymous No.9442260]

>>9442211
I doubt that, I think gravity is a major issue. and as I said, you'd have to terraform with hydrogen bombardment anyway, and the chemical reactions I mentioned would produce all the water you need in situ.

[Anonymous No.9443058]

>>9441314

[Anonymous No.9443585]

>>9442211
water can be made

gravity can't

[Anonymous No.9443662]

>>9439845
>Sensible Chuckle . Webm

[Anonymous No.9443681]

>>9440204
>A chunk of city filled with people hurling along a banked track at 160 km/h on a set of bearings 24/7

What could possibly go wrong

[Anonymous No.9444417]

>>9443585
>water can be made
>gravity can't

switch those two around bubby

venus can't into hydrogen compounds

[Anonymous No.9444571]

>>9444417
as I said, just add hydrogen and you're set.

[Anonymous No.9444578]

>>9438265
Look at SpaceX through the lens of a cult such as Scientology, and then you will understand it. Especially look into Elon Musk's crazy plan to install himself as Praetor of Mars and try out all kinds of wacky political ideology. He's taking taxpayer money and fleecing investors so they can essentially become courtesans in his new galactic religion.

[Anonymous No.9444910]

>>9444578
This and also the simulation hypothesis is literally creationism

[Anonymous No.9445204]

>>9443681
A lot less than what could go wrong in a space station, given the same resources.

[Anonymous No.9445628]

>>9444910
creationists don't have a foothold on the entire internet though

[Anonymous No.9445729]

>>9438265
They faked the moon landings as well as the mars rover.

What does that tell you about Space X retarded claims? It's a scam.

[Anonymous No.9445819]

>>9440732
>You still haven't proven it faggot
Prove what, homophobe?

[Anonymous No.9445858]

>>9439191
You’re incorrect. Rockets and engines in space behave according to Isaac Newton's third law of motion: Every action produces an equal and opposite reaction

Example : If you stand on a skateboard and throw a bowling ball forward, that force will push you and the skateboard back. However, because your weight on the skateboard is heavier than that of the bowling ball, you won't move as far.

[Anonymous No.9445900]

>>9445858
don't respond to it you fucking retard
it's posted in every single fucking thread related to rockets to shitpost

[Anonymous No.9445947]

>>9445819
Holy shit dude do you plan on annoying 4chan into becoming PC? I've seen you 9/10 threads here for days.

[Anonymous No.9446052]

>>9445947
It's a meme you dip

[Anonymous No.9447157]

>>9438265
>everyone will have to live underground or indoors
> People WILL NOT BE ABLE TO REPRODUCE on the surface of Mars
no shit dumbass you just said they have to go UNDERGROUND not on the SURFACE did your mother beat you on the head with a hammer

[Anonymous No.9447189]

what will the flag of mars look like?

[Anonymous No.9447223]

>>9445947
>Holy shit dude do you plan on annoying 4chan into becoming PC?
I'm not a "dude".

[Anonymous No.9447229]

>>9447189
a jolly roger but aliens

[Anonymous No.9447262]

>>9447229
brb moving to mars

[Anonymous No.9447275]

>>9445858

The gas can only push on the rocket, if itself, has something external to push off against. The gas doesn't need to push against a vacuum to get out the rocket, it will just equilibrate in all possible directions.