Colonizing Mars

[Anonymous No.9550858]

A, "colony," is a place where humans will reproduce while a, "base," is merely a place where humans will be stationed at temporarily. A colony is also mostly self-sufficient while a base requires constant resupplyment. Here is a small list of difficulties faced when considering the colonization of Mars. If even 1 of these things cannot be addressed the colony will fail:

• Radiation
• Gravity
• Energy production
• Air processing
• Water collection
• Food production
• General resource collection
• Manufacturing
• Entertainment
• Child rearing

General info about Mars' environment:

• Gravity (g): 0.377g (37.7% of Earth's 1g)
• Atmospheric Pressure (AP): 0.636 kPa (0.62% of Earth's 101.325 kPa AP at sea level and 1.88% of Mount Everest's 33.7kPa AP)
• Radiation: 0.2 to 0.3 Sv per year (97-98% more than Earth's average of 6.2 mSv/0.0062 Sv per year.)
• Solar Radiance: 590 W/m^2 (59% of Earth's 1000 W/m^2)

Viable Energy generation methods:

• Wind
• Solar
• Nuclear
• Geothermal
• Biomethane
• Extracted geo-originated hydrocarbons
• Biomass incineration

Post Mars-colony-related images, ideas, comments, solutions, criticisms, autistic rants, Jello babies, and Musk idolizations ITT.

[Anonymous No.9551179]

>>9550858

[Anonymous No.9551182]

>>9551179

[Anonymous No.9551185]

>>9551182

[Anonymous No.9551295]

>>9551179
>>9551182
>>9551185

based on the faulty premise that 1g is required for survival.

[Anonymous No.9551474]

>>9550858
Yeah, I don't think we can colonize other planets and I'm not sure we even should.

[Anonymous No.9551492]

>>9550858
The real question is if the rotational habitat meme would ever be viable

[Anonymous No.9551525]

>>9551295
Whether it's 1g or 0.85g, the likely assumption from studying humans in 0g is that all these tiny celestial bodies with less than 0.4g won't be sufficient to sustain current human physiology, and there's no indication that our bodies or even our children's bodies can quickly adapt.

[Anonymous No.9551528]

colonizing planets is a big meme
rotating stations is better

[Anonymous No.9551543]

>>9550858
>Radiation
Few feet of dirt overhead, HBNN and other shielding in vehicles and spacesuits
>gravity
Not sure yet how bad this is as a problem, if it's very bad for pregnant women we can build rotating habitats to top off the gravity and make it safe
>energy production
solar and nuclear-nuclear as a back-up and baseload for nights,solar is actually good on mars,the thinner atmoshpere makes up for the more diffuse sunlight so it balances out to be decently useful
>air processing
combination of plants and well-understood chemistry routinely used on submarines for months at a time
>water collection
not a serious concern if you pick your location right
>manufacturing
we're living through the beginning of the age of automation, where there are resources we can and will build factories and infrastructure
>entertainment
entire brand-new planet to explore. science to do. low-gravity sports. jet-packs are vastly easier to make workable on mars.
>child rearing
people have raised children in stone-age conditions in the arctic. we can do it.

[Anonymous No.9551551]

>>9551492
These enormous sci-fi cylinders with the inside walls covered in farms and lakes never will because it's an utterly insufficient return on the expense of resources, energy and effort, but I can see us eventually taking up residence in rotating rings or large pods on a rotating stick with a counterweight, possibly for purposes of asteroid mining.

I believe to remember that a diameter of somewhere around 450 meters is sufficient to prevent motion sickness in nearly all people based on current medical understandings, and such a station would be a minor undertaking compared to settling on a celestial body.

[Anonymous No.9551563]

One idea i've had for plant growth is to avoid the use of domes since they're vulnerable to atmospheric weathering and make the people going into them and the palnts growing within have to be exposed to quite a bit of radiation. Instead of having them in domes,you build your greenhouse underground and take sunlight to it using fiber-optic cables, which are much easier to produce on mars than a large, pressure-rated transparent dome, don't expose the plants to any significant amount of radiation, and let you gain the advantage of underground radiation shielding while still being naturally lit and do not need a dedicated power-grid draining source of artificial light like if buried plants wre lit solely by LEDs. you could also modify the system with back-up LEDs if a dust-storm blocked off most sunlight for some time.

[Anonymous No.9551568]

>>9551551
>utterly insufficient return on the expense of resources, energy and effort
Unless space to live becomes extraordinarily valuable.

Nice dub 551a by the way.

[Anonymous No.9551583]

>>9550858
No way to know until we get there. Some things are just unpredictable. For example, the Mars base will need electronics, but we can't know what it will take to make more because some of the processes for making electronics are proprietary. We might also run into problems that cannot be foreseen.

[Anonymous No.9551590]

>>9550858
Mars colonization is basically illegal by the planetary protection treaty. We cannot currently rule out the existence of life on Mars. As such, any human habitation on Mars would contaminate the environment and prevent us from ever knowing if there was life on Mars.

[Anonymous No.9551597]

>>9551525

a baseless assumption

[Anonymous No.9551600]

>>9551590
Correction: Mars colonization is basically illegal by the planetary protection treaty with the current understanding of Mars. However it is inevitable that at some point either life on Mars will be found or life on Mars will be ruled out. The only uncertainty is how much time will pass until that point.

[Anonymous No.9551603]

Here is a good link for Mars composition.

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

>>9551551
The rotating sticks become unstable and rotating tubes that are too long also become unstable. The best shape is basically a torrid. The internal structure would be like an onion, where each level would experience a different "gravity" but would make better use of space. Regardless, any spinning object with a hole in the middle may very well have lakes, trees, buildings simply as entertainment for when people come up from the lower levels.

>>9551563
I've been considering many things with light and growing crops. The amount of light Mars receives versus what is needed to shield out radiation means there's a point where it may not be feasible. You may get ambient light for people to see and use, but not enough for plants to grow. I feel the same thing will apply to using fiber optics due to the nature of fiber optics. They'd be fine for human use light I'm quite sure.

As for power, I think using nuclear power via RNGs would probably work well.

>>9551543
I agree with everything. Barring problems with gravity harming health, I think everything can be done. Otherwise, its back to spinning something in space. I think resource refining will be the biggest hurdle. As in, well there be concentrations of metals/ores high enough to replace the wear and tear on the machines that are mining, processing, and manufacturing?

>>9551583
Electronics design won't be a problem.

>>9551590
>>9551600
The treaty simply won't matter when you throw enough money at it.

[Anonymous No.9551609]

>>9551597
I'd call it reasonably cautious rather than baseless. The bottom line is that we can't send settlers to other planets until we know what the changing gravity will do to the human body.

[Anonymous No.9551611]

>>9551603
Electronics design isn't the point. We need technology to survive in space Much of the processes to produce this technology are proprietary, so we cannot plan out a self sustaining Mars base because we don't know what processes are required.

[Anonymous No.9551619]

>>9551611
That isn't a problem since you can simply purchase that information. We aren't sending reality TV contestants up there or anything (yet).

[Anonymous No.9551622]

>>9551603
>The best shape is basically a *toroid.
I wasn't really intending to specify how thick or thin such a ring would be. Could be more ring-like, could be more donut-like. Of course it would be a waste of space and an engineering challenge to only make it one level. You could have a number of levels of similar gravity for human habitation (around a dozen at 1g +/−10%, and then further greenhouse levels and research levels or power generation levels at lower gravity. Maybe it would even be nearly disc-like. What you can't do however are lakes in the middle because the middle will be zero gravity.

[Anonymous No.9551634]

>>9551622
It wouldn't be the exact middle and how large it is will also determine how far away from the center the first layer would be.

Also, check this out if you've not seen it already. The station design is the best part. I don't recommend going past that.

http://highfrontier.com/

[Anonymous No.9551645]

>>9551619
Oh but we need this information to figure what we need to mine in the first place to make a sustainable Mars base. For example, maybe we need a significant amount of an element that is difficult to obtain on Mars just for the tooling to produce the technology we need to survive.

[Anonymous No.9551657]

I've always wondered about the composition of planets as you go outwards on an accretion disk. Generally, the most valuable elements are heavier, so you'd think that they'd comprise the outer planets more. There's a high probability that there are significantly more radioisotopes on mars than there are on earth, so nuclear power would probably be the most feasible means of energy generation.

[Anonymous No.9551661]

>>9551645
This conversational loop should have ended when it was stated that you can purchase that information. Electronics isn't magic. If it was, China wouldn't be able to steal everyone's stuff and make cheaper versions.

[Anonymous No.9551686]

>>9551590
Fuck the treaty, a piece of paper is not going to hold us back from our manifest destiny.

[Anonymous No.9551694]

>>9551563
I like it

[Anonymous No.9551708]

>>9551686
Whoops! You seem to be in violation of international law by attempting to launch shit factories to Mars. All your launch assets and ground facilities have been seized. If you attempt to launch you will receive a FREE Orbital ATK (TM) THAAD interceptor in your first stage fuel tank

[Anonymous No.9551725]

>>9551708
Good luck with that in the face of billions of dollars in lobbying.

[Anonymous No.9551743]

>>9551725
Yeah like people are going to spend billions of dollars lobbying to overturn a well established treaty, just to colonize mars. Where is the money in colonizing mars?

[Anonymous No.9551753]

>>9551743
That is literally what will happen, but only if colonizing it is viable health-wise.

>Where is the money in colonizing mars?

The payoff is not dying if something happens to Earth suddenly. As is in something worse than what Mars is right now.

[Anonymous No.9551755]

>>9551743
Are you joking? If transport can be sorted there will be loads of big companies gagging for the chance to setup or Mars, this is not to mention the massive inflow of cash that Musk or whoever else will get in the form of deposits for rides to Mars. It's all about long term investments my man.

[Anonymous No.9551761]

>>9551753
>>The payoff is not dying if something happens to Earth suddenly
where's the MONEY in that?
>>9551755
>>If transport can be sorted there will be loads of big companies gagging for the chance to setup or Mars
that's just a baseless assumption

[Anonymous No.9551765]

>>9551761
>where's the MONEY in that?

It will all be on Mars for a start. At least all viable currency.

[Anonymous No.9551767]

>>9551182

by the time we have the technology and capability to do this we really aren't going to need planetary colonies anymore

[Anonymous No.9551771]

>>9551761
It's not fucking baseless. Take a look at literally any colonisation effort in the history of man. It's all funded by companies looking to get in nice and early as well as private emmigration funding.

[Anonymous No.9551780]

>>9551765
I think you misunderstood the rhetorical question, where is the profit in starting a mars so as to not die in the incredibly rare event that something happens to the earth that does not somehow take out mars?
>>9551771
History doesn't necessarily repeat itself. Things could be different this time due to the complete lack of basic resources like breathable air. It is still very much an assumption.

[Anonymous No.9551792]

>>9551780
You underestimate people's want to live longer and have their children live longer on down the line. People with exceedingly long term goals who have money see things like this.

[Anonymous No.9551797]

>>9551792
And how big is that market? And how are you going to get the money to lobby to even go to Mars before you have customers?

[Anonymous No.9551798]

>>9551780
Due to the lack of atmosphere and complicated control systems required there will be MORE need for infrastructure and expensive works which means big money which means investments and returns.

[Anonymous No.9551803]

>>9551798
and if there aren't people there in the first place, then there's no market for such things.

[Anonymous No.9551809]

>>9551803
>Be Elon Musk
>Announce tickets to Mars for a deposit
>Suddenly have fucking huge cash injection to lobby politicians (Which I might add are very cheap to buy)
>Companies see massive cash injection and get a hard on providing a whole planet of infrastructure contracts
>Lobby government themselves too

[Anonymous No.9551811]

>>9551797
Are we in the same time line? Because in my timeline, this shit is already beginning. Also, do you even know how economies work?

>And how big is that market?

All you need is one person with enough money and that has already happened.

>how are you going to get the money to lobby

Already done; PayPal.

>before you have customers?

Already lined up.

[Anonymous No.9551820]

>>9551811
>how are you going to get the money to lobby
>Already done; PayPal.

And Amazon!

[Anonymous No.9551855]

>>9551811
Musk hasn't started lobbying to take down the Outer Space Treaty though. Also might I remind you that Red Dragon got cancelled?
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/07/spacex-appears-to-have-pulled-the-plug-on-its-red-dragon-plans/

[Anonymous No.9551871]

>>9551855
BFR

[Anonymous No.9551885]

>>9551603
As long as you can gather and intensify the light before it goes into the fiber it should do fine for crop growth, just have to make sure the light is still rich in different wavelengths for plant health.

[Anonymous No.9551887]

>>9551657
It's more complex than that,but we have no reason to think mars doesn't have similar amounts of various heavy metals. indeed,gold and silver are probably a LOT easier to find on mars since it hasn't been mined for thousands of years like earth.

[Anonymous No.9551901]

>>9551803
you are close to understanding but not quite there.

What is an economy? it's a system for giving people what they WANT. If you can make people WANT something, you can control an economy, direct it. Hate on jobs all you want, i hate his products, but by god that motherfucker could make people WANT shit. If you get people to want to go to mars then the money will follow them there and economies will grow, both internal to mars and external to earth.

Imagine if someone,a master sculptor,went to mars, used a martian rock to make a beautiful statue, and then put it up for sale here on earth at auction. It would probably sell for a half billion dollars. Why? No one needs it! But people would WANT it. That's a good example. Humans are not logical creatures. we are passionate. I KNOW mars is going to be a harsh,dangerous place of challenging work and exploration,but i would go there in a heartbeat because i value the act of exploring a new place a great deal. Giving people these values, infecting them with a mind-virus, is already happening with these very popular rocket launches.

[Anonymous No.9551902]

>>9551885
When you start to do things like trying to concentrate light and transmit it, you start running into lots of problems with how light works.

The main thing here is what you essentially have is a really tiny window that's really thick. Instead of trying to concentrate more light into the small window, why not just make the window much wider? Well, you can, but due to internal reflection requiring a narrow fiber you can just add lots more fibers to make a larger window and omit the concentration step. Then you are back to the radiation problem again.

[Anonymous No.9551918]

>>9551902
these things have already been made
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqC4R0IcZ_k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chI-bUl0s7Q

There's no reason this wouldn't work for mars, you could even bounce in extra sunlight using mirrors if you wanted. I don;t understand your objection, the radiation isn;t an issue since you can bend the cabel so there is no path for it to "leak" down into the greenhouse.

[Anonymous No.9551934]

>>9551918
but how are you going to make that on mars? How are you even going to determine if you can make that on Mars? You can't because the manufacturing processes for fiberoptics are proprietary.

[Anonymous No.9551936]

>>9551901
but if those things are illegal by international treaties, it's pretty fucking hard to change that.

[Anonymous No.9551938]

>>9551525
We could, however modify our genome if we could figure out exactly what effect the low gravity had and what to do to counter it.

[Anonymous No.9551941]

>>9551528
Stations can die pretty easy, colonization with mini colonies would also be weak, but terraforming could work.

[Anonymous No.9551946]

>>9551934
But anon, there is no copyright law on mars :P

seriously doe, it's glass nigga

[Anonymous No.9551947]

>>9551941
>>Stations can die pretty easy
then don't have just one station, have a bunch.
>>terraforming could work
yeah in centuries time.

[Anonymous No.9551952]

>>9551936
chinese, american, and european space agencies are getting serious about space, as are private businesses. Treaties can be rewritten.

[Anonymous No.9551953]

>>9551568
But when would it become more valuable than poor people's lives?. Not morally, but financially

[Anonymous No.9551957]

>>9551609
We could easily figure it out by sending long term teams of people and studying them

[Anonymous No.9551960]

>>9551934
>fiberoptics are proprietary.

In science class in the 1980s we learned to make fiberoptics.

>>9551918
Now you have a radiation problem again. Also, radiation doesn't follow an fiber optic line like light does. So, having one or a couple fibers is fine, it will just absorb into the walls. It is when you have tons of them and you start poking too many holes into your shielding for them that hings become a problem.

>>9551936
lol Not with money it isn't.

[Anonymous No.9551963]

>>9551941
>terraforming could work.

Please read: >>9551182 & >>9551185

>>9551953
>when would it become more valuable than poor people's lives?

Back when poor people were invented.

[Anonymous No.9551975]

>>9551946
copyright is not the issue. Because the processes for making fiberoptics are proprietary we cannot currently assess what is needed to make them on Mars which is what we need to do to make a sustainable Mars base. It is not just glass. We may need certain rare elements like platinum and rhodium to work the glass at scale.(https://www.technology.matthey.com/pdf/pmr-v31-i2-054-062.pdf)) What's important here is not that we need these elements, but how MUCH we need, and how much we need to replace them. We need this in order to have this thread and glass companies are not necessarily going to give away trade secrets.
>>9551960
>>In science class in the 1980s we learned to make fiberoptics.
yeah, but not at scale which is what you'd have to do for a mars colony


It's not just fiber optics though, it's EVERYTHING a Mars base needs. This is greatly complicated because because we don't know how much of what we need. We don't know how fast people are going to go through resources like space suits and what not and really can't know until we send people to Mars.

[Anonymous No.9552049]

>>9551975
Well you ship all the complicated stuff there
But you can make the bulk materials on mars, the glass, the steel, the water, the methane fuel, carbon composites, rubber, oil, etc....

There is lots of stuff you don't NEED
Such as fiber optics for example.

[Anonymous No.9552054]

>>9552049
Jesus, do you not know how anything works in business? If you need something, you buy it. If you need something designed, you pay someone to design it. If you need something someone else has designed, you pay someone to reverse engineer it or you flat out buy it.

[Anonymous No.9552089]

>>9552049
>>Well you ship all the complicated stuff there
that's not self-sustaining

[Anonymous No.9552098]

>>9552089
It's just part of the process, first you setup the manufacturing base for large scale, simple, heavy items so they don't have to be shipped at tremendous cost. Once that is set up then manufacturing for micro components can be organised. As far as we know, all the elements in some form are present on Mars much as they are on Earth, it is a matter of finding and extracting them. Remember Mars hasn't had thousands of years of strip mining so there should be copious resources very easily accessible.

[Anonymous No.9552113]

>>9552089
Until there are millions of people there, you don't have the demand or the people to be running production lines for stuff like fiberoptics. Wireless will do just fine.
You are never going to be building electronics on Mars, at least for the foreseable future, because you are months away from the real market & you will always be behind manufacturers on Earth

The #1 issue faced will be developing machinery that doesn't run on proprietary hardware, software, and is customizable on Mars.

[Anonymous No.9552119]

>>9552089
>self-sustaining

That comes later.

[Anonymous No.9552124]

>>9552113
>Wireless will do just fine.

They were talking about using fiber optics for getting sunlight underground. A mirrored glass rod will do the same thing.

[Anonymous No.9552322]

>>9552113
If Mars developed and produced their own standardised, modular technology with free as in freedom software I would be off this rock as fast as I can buy a ticket. I hate this non-standardised planned obsolescence proprietary bullshit that permeates every fucking device I have to deal with.

[Anonymous No.9553250]

>>9552322
You should look into "Open Source Hardware" technologies. There's quite a few DIY wiki for such things where people share schematics and help flesh out better designs for all manner of devices and equipment. There's even one wiki dedicated to farm equipment.

https://www.oshwa.org/definition/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_open-source_hardware_projects

I agree a colony on another planet should have such a system. It would greatly help if and when things go wrong or need to be changed on the fly. Even people on Earth can make the same thing at home and give feedback and design changes.

[Anonymous No.9553290]

>>9551603

>The rotating sticks become unstable and rotating tubes that are too long also become unstable

source for the stick? as far as I know stick is a stable shape for rotation

[Anonymous No.9553294]

>>9551603

>As for power, I think using nuclear power via RNGs would probably work well.

RNGs are too weak, NASA is already researching Kilopower reactors for space, this concept should scale up to a megawatt, and you need a megawatt or more to manufacture enough propellant anyway

[Anonymous No.9553299]

You could probably build a small scale O'neill cylinder with the hundreds of billions that a self-sustainable mars colony would cost, and there you would have 1g and you could fly it around the solar system as you please. Theoretically even strap some nuclear fusion engines on the back of that baby, and you got a generation ship to travel to other solar systems with.

[Anonymous No.9553307]

this is how a realistic rotating space station looks like

[Anonymous No.9553317]

>>9553307
Isn't there a need for an equal counter rotating weight to prevent some sorta spin?

[Anonymous No.9553402]

>>9551525
>less than 0.4g won't be sufficient to sustain current human physiology
Why do you need 1g bones on a world with less than 1g?

[Anonymous No.9553503]

>>9553290
It depends on how long it is, if I recall correctly. It has to do with Dzhanibekov effect/Tennis racket theorem I think, but that's probably not all.

[Anonymous No.9553505]

>>9553294
I was thinking more along the lines of spreading out the power stations so that there's a lot of redundancy in case of failure or even general maintenance.

[Anonymous No.9553512]

>>9553402
Because it can mean the difference between normal bones and powdery bones. There are some pretty nasty brittle bone diseases that are not solved even by living in 0g. It is pretty horrific as it sounds.

[Anonymous No.9553573]

why colonize mars when we could colonize Venus

[Anonymous No.9553586]

>>9553573
Better resource management on Mars.

[Anonymous No.9553657]

Planetary protection will prevent any attempts at colonization/manned missions, and likely impose strict limits on robotic ones. They are already arming up in response to spacex's achievements.

[Anonymous No.9553694]

>>9553573
Because you're not colonizing Venus, you're merely floating around on top of it in glorified research stations with external supplies. Unless of course you can figure out a way to robotically mine for resources on the 730 K hot surface. Even then I doubt that any human settlements would ever become completely self-sustainable, they'll probably all rely on trade of missing resources between one another.

[Anonymous No.9553699]

>>9553657
>Planetary protection will prevent any attempts at colonization/manned missions, and likely impose strict limits on robotic ones.
Fucking nofunners. Brah you can't go there, you'll disturb the non-existent ecosystem!

[Anonymous No.9553763]

>>9553699
Oy vey think of the rocks!

[Anonymous No.9553765]

>>9553657
Sure thing, kid.

[Anonymous No.9553779]

We, therefore, the representatives of this Martian colony, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the universe for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of this colony, solemnly publish and declare, that Mars is, and of right ought to be a free and independent planet; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the United Nations of Earth, and that all political connection between them and the planet Earth, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as a free and independent planet, have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent planets may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

[Anonymous No.9553790]

>>9553317

not if the shape of the station is inherently stable under rotation, and short cylinders are

[Anonymous No.9553818]

>>9553779
>six months later

[Anonymous No.9553872]

>>9551551
>These enormous sci-fi cylinders with the inside walls covered in farms and lakes never will because it's an utterly insufficient return on the expense of resources, energy and effort,
Farms and lakes are meme from artists, "insufficient return" has no real meaning.
The objective is colonization itself, which means trying to reach self-sufficiency.
About the resources, it's not really different from building enormous sci-fi pressurized domes on mars, and if you add centrifuges to fight low gravity it's exactly what you would do in space, only in space it works better.
For example when you put in rotation the colony it will go on basically on its own, and the design is a lot simpler.
Mars offers what exactly? insufficient gravity? You don't want that.
Water? Maybe, but our solar system is actually already full of water in very low gravity.
I don't know if we will ever colonize anything outside of earth, but I'm willing to bet that if we ever will do it it won't be a planet or a moon.

[Anonymous No.9553876]

>>9551295
But it is

[Anonymous No.9553879]

>>9553872
Good luck with assembling habitat from nothing and making production line in zero g.

[Anonymous No.9553883]

>>9553872
Insufficient return in supplying the self-sufficiency effort in relation to the resources invested. Space habitat farms, if anything, will look like this, not like terrestrial surface farms next to lakes.

[Anonymous No.9553891]

>>9551957
Gee i wonder why we havent.

[Anonymous No.9553908]

More space habitat farming. Proteins are important. Hakuna matata!

[Anonymous No.9553918]

>>9553908
yum

[Anonymous No.9553922]

>>9553891
NASA built ISS without rotating wheel to specifically study effects of microgravity on human body, not because they couldn't make it technically.

[Anonymous No.9553925]

>>9553922
>>9553891
They had a spinning module on the books, but cancelled it due to funding cuts around that time. It's never been picked back up as far as I know.

[Anonymous No.9553926]

>>9553922
Doubt it. A rotating ISS would've either had to be enormous (450 meter diameter at 2 rpm for Earth gravity) or rotate so quickly that severe motion sickness would've prevented any human habitation.

[Anonymous No.9553929]

All these threads ignore the simple fact that Mercury is the easiest planet to have viable colonies on.

>Free hot/cold reservoirs at edge of polar craters for heat management and energy conservation
>Intense solar flux when needed for direct energy production
>Magnetic field filters charged particle radiation
>Abundant mineral resources and MASSIVE energy reservoir allows for quick fabrications of colony parts

It's as easy as pumping salt into the illuminated zones to warm up then pumping back to shadow to boil water and turn turbines. From energy comes light, O2 recycling, battery charging, smelting, etc.

[Anonymous No.9553931]

>>9553926
>>9553925
https://web.archive.org/web/20060929044226/http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/news/2001/news-homehome.asp

[Anonymous No.9553933]

>>9553931
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nautilus-X

[Anonymous No.9553943]

>>9553931
This article doesn't imply NASA having considered a rotating space station at any point, it only uses the concept as an opener to elaborate on the challenges of designing a habitable environment in space.

>>9553933
This thought experiment was only envisioned in 2011 when the ISS was long up in space and mostly assembled, and therefore has nothing to do with the development of the ISS.

[Anonymous No.9553948]

>>9553929
Mercury has nearly the same gravity as Mars. Its Solar Irradiance is 9082.7 W/m^2. It also has a magnetosphere.

[Anonymous No.9553962]

>>9553948

magnetosphere alone is pretty useless against cosmic rays, the main radiation threat in space

Earth is protected by our atmosphere, on Mercury you still have to be underground

[Anonymous No.9554044]

>>9553573
Mars resonates better with peoples needs/desires
also you wont get crushed by atmosphere/dissolved to death if your floating platform crashes by accident

[Anonymous No.9554048]

>>9553929
I'd like some sort of traction city/moving city on Mercury but it would have to be built to survive in case it stops moving/breaks down

[Anonymous No.9554506]

>>9554048
That would be neat for sci-fi, but crap for reality. Just about every semi-viable planet or moon in the solar system has humans living there as mole people. Exceptions being the few where you can float on the gasses.

[Anonymous No.9554587]

>>9553779
>cringiest moments of 2177

[Anonymous No.9554595]

>>9553908
>implying we wouldn't be eating delicious boiled prawns fed with algae from the waste management center

[Anonymous No.9554615]

>>9554595
prawns are entirely too inefficient to grow. think about how much of them are inedible. all of the shell, head, and claws are pretty much trash, but still require input energy to make.

[Anonymous No.9554625]

>>9554048
Nah that'd be shit mate.

Realistically you'd be looking at large reflective domes set over craters, with vertical settlements bored down into the bedrock of the crater.
The domes would be a truss structure covered in foil which would be highly reflective on the top side to reduce thermal absorption and charcoal black on the bottom to maximize radiative cooling, with several layers of this material forming a stack with small gaps on the very rim of the dome to allow infrared light to leak out.
Top surface and surroundings at noon would be at several hundred degrees, bottom dome sheet layer would be at a hundred or so degrees below zero.
The dome's purpose would only be to provide shade and insulation from the heat of the Sun, everything built under the dome would need to be pressurized on its own.
Colonization would begin with small settlements at the bottoms of permanently shadowed polar craters, and would expand from there by performing excursions towards the equator just after sunset in whatever particular area they'd be building in, and they'd spend about 140 Earth days building before the Sun started to come up.
Transportation worldwide would be accomplished by vacuum tube shuttles buried several meters below ground to avoid thermal expansion and contraction effects and would be faster than air travel on Earth.
Most civilization would be clustered around the north and south poles because there is access to permanent sunlight and therefore unlimited power. Settlements elsewhere would be installed mostly to mine valuable resources like nitrogen compounds and hydrated minerals, most of which would be buried under many meters of Sun blasted rock.
Invar would be a very popular alloy due to its incredibly low thermal expansion ratio, as would titanium for its resistance to heat in general.
Mercury is the fastest planet to get to from Earth and is easier to get to than any of the gas giant planets.

[Anonymous No.9554628]

>>9554615
You don't eat the entire pawn? I crunch that shit up. Tasty.

[Anonymous No.9554645]

>>9554625
Not bad really. I can't quite think of any thing wrong.

[Anonymous No.9555238]

>>9553879
>habitat from nothing
Planetoids prejudice

[Anonymous No.9555262]

>>9555238
>ywn be fusion furnace operator reprocessing annefrank into useful materials

[Anonymous No.9555270]

>>9554587
>cringiest moments of 2177
Top 10 saddest anime deaths

[Anonymous No.9555276]

>>9550858
Why people want to live on Mars is beyond me.

Living on Mars means you are going to drink your own and your crew member's piss and eat plants that were grown in your own your crew member's shit. You will have to do heavy workout for hours everyday just to keep your body from falling apart. There is no nature, no sunlight, only you and a small crew in tiny habitats and you can die everyday from a tiny malfunction in the life-support systems. And none of this will change, because meaningful terraforming takes millenias.

And all this for that? For still having to board a rocket if you go to space.

Building a moon base or a space habitat is barely harder than building a mars base, and at least you have the long term advantage there that going to space is really easy. In a space habitat you literally can walk into space, from the moon you can cheaply and easily reach space with a maglev cannon.

[Anonymous No.9555287]

>>9555276

moon is dry and may not have enough volatiles, space habitats lack resources unless you are next to a large asteroid

>you are going to drink your own and your crew member's piss and eat plants that were grown in your own your crew member's shit. There is no nature, no sunlight, only you and a small crew in tiny habitats

applies to any space colony

tiny habitats with no nature is how many people live in dense cities even on Earth, at least on Mars you can find solace in the fact that you are colonizing a new world

[Anonymous No.9555305]

>>9555287
It's not like you need such large amounts of water. A depot of a 50-100 cubic metres of water ice is more than enough for a first proper base. And depots of that size are certainly on the moon.

Space habitats can fly around and mine asteroids.

[Anonymous No.9555317]

Build underground bases on Mars and Mercury.

Build a floating city on Venus, you could use breathable air as the lifting gas. Harvesting nitrogen, sulfuric acid, hydrogen sulfide, and carbon dioxide could make water and oxygen with and it would be easy in the Venus atmosphere.

[Anonymous No.9555321]

>>9555287
Moon has the big advantage of being much closer to Earth though. Even if you end up taking a couple of hundred tons of water with you to the moon, it would probably still be cheaper than building the same habitat on Mars without the water. Plus, as already pointed out, you can leave the moon much easier and cheaper than you can leave Mars. So all in all, due to much lower transportation costs, a moon base would end up cheaper, even if we don't find water there.

[Anonymous No.9555327]

>>9555321
Base, yes.
Sooner or later we're going to do it.
Colony, no.

[Anonymous No.9555333]

>>9555327
A space colony consisting of moon - space habitat - asteroid mining could be self-sufficient and permanently settled since you can have 1g in the space habitat. A mars colony by itself will never be either, and connecting it with asteroid mining/space habitat is much harder due to big gravity.

[Anonymous No.9555340]

>>9555333

Mars gravity is higher but still low enough to make SSTOs viable (think BFS)

also Mars has atmosphere so air braking is possible reducing a lot of the delta-v cost of landing

there are no large asteroids near Moon

however, a space colony consisting of a Mars - space habitat - Phobos mining could be self-sufficient, too

[Anonymous No.9555345]

>>9555340
Those still need hundreds of tons of fuel everytime they launch, and Mars is still going to be much further away from earth than the moon is. If we are going to colonize space

1. build a lunar base
2. mine lunar rock and shoot it to space with a maglev cannon
3. build small scale space habitat out of lunar rock and materials from earth
4. fly space habitat to asteroid belt and let them mine
5. lunar base keeps shooting lunar rock to space
6. build next space habitat
7. fly it again to the asteroid belt
etc.

is the best way to do it. Basically spam space habitats until the space colony has reached self-sufficiency and can grow on its own.

[Anonymous No.9555349]

>>9555345
We need a working maglev cannon for that

[Anonymous No.9555356]

>>9555349
Yeah, building one that can shoot 5kg of rock or so into space from the moon surface isn't going to be that challenging.

[Anonymous No.9555365]

>>9555345

>Those still need hundreds of tons of fuel everytime they launch

Mars has abundant hydrogen and carbon, so making fuel is easy as long as you have enough power (several megawatts)

>4. fly space habitat to asteroid belt and let them mine

this costs even more fuel and is even further away than a Mars trip

[Anonymous No.9555368]

>>9555365
>Mars has abundant hydrogen and carbon, so making fuel is easy as long as you have enough power (several megawatts)

And yet, you are going to waste away hundreds of tons of water with every launch on a planet where water will be the most valueable ressource.

>this costs even more fuel and is even further away than a Mars trip

In a space habitat you would have shielding, gravity, and enough ressources to live for years without resupply. So no need to hurry. Going there with ion thrusters is good enough.

[Anonymous No.9555377]

>>9555368

>And yet, you are going to waste away hundreds of tons of water with every launch on a planet where water will be the most valueable ressource.

Will it? Water on Mars is abundant, comparable to Earth in some places. It may not be very valuable at all. Water is only in short supply in cislunar space.

[Anonymous No.9555386]

>>9555377
>Water on Mars is abundant, comparable to Earth in some places

No, it's absoluetely not. There are thin layers of water ice at some locations, but those would be used up pretty quickly if you are burning hundreds of tons away with every launch. After those deposits are empty you will have to extract water from rock and ice, which will be expensive and thus the water will be very valuable. But if you want to transport thousands of tons of material from Mars to space, then even those would be gone pretty quickly.

[Anonymous No.9555392]

>>9555386
Mars had liquid ocean one time, there is plenty of water.

[Anonymous No.9555401]

>>9555392
This doesn't mean that "water is abundant". If you need rockets to go to space the water depots that are easy to prep will be gone within a couple of decades. After that the mars economy would be dead because leaving the planet without importing fuel would be almost impossible.

[Anonymous No.9555410]

>>9555386

There is a lot of water ice in polar regions on Mars, similar to Earth, and all you have to do to extract that water is to melt it. Mars is not going to run out of water anytime soon, even if a BFS launches every day.

>If you need rockets to go to space the water depots that are easy to prep will be gone within a couple of decades.

It will not be gone. You are seriously underestimating the amount of water, and anyway, vast majority of that water will return to Mars atmosphere after it is used in a launch burn. It is actually a renewable resource.

[Anonymous No.9555416]

>>9555401

[Anonymous No.9555421]

>>9555416
>>9555410
You're not going to build at the polar caps, because building there means 6 out of 12 months no sunlight, and there are no other ressources to build things nearby. The first mars base would most definetely be near a water-ice depot somewhere at the equator.

[Anonymous No.9555423]

>>9555410
>>9555392
>>9555377
>>9555365
Argue as much as you want SpaceX-shill, Mars has no advantage over a space habitat that mines the asteroids and several big disadvantages.

[Anonymous No.9555436]

>>9555423
Delta-v of nearest possible harvestable asteroids is too high. We've sent more probes to Mars than to any other celestial body for reason.

[Anonymous No.9555447]

>>9555423

Bezos is all about Moon and asteroids. I think Musk will be right in the short term (a century), first space colony will likely be on Mars, but in the long term, most humans will probably live in orbital colonies and not on planets.

[Anonymous No.9555466]

>>9555447
No, first will be on the moon, and then habitats. There will be no one willing to invest in the dead end that is a mars colony.

[Anonymous No.9555487]

>>9555436
We didn't even start looking properly yet and we already have >10 asteroids that would be worth it in our direct neighbourhood.

Also, if a infrastructure consisting of a lunar base, a permanently inhabited space habitat, and smaller habitats that house the mining teams was put in place, almost all asteroids in our neighbourhood would be worth mining, since cost of doing so would drastically go down.

[Anonymous No.9555491]

>>9553779
>Divine Providence
Thought and prayers for our Martian colonists who all died in a stupid accident that could have been prevented if some idiot did pull a lever instead of asking Jesus to do it for him.

>>9553908
What's the greenish brown block made of? It looks like hashish.

[Anonymous No.9555493]

>>9555487

examples of those asteroids?

[Anonymous No.9555498]

>>9555487

>smaller habitats that house the mining teams

you cannot have a small space habitat, it needs several meters thick outer walls to protect against radiation, and a counterweight to enable spin gravity

even the smallest habitat will be larger than what SpaceX is proposing, good luck hauling that mass to an asteroid and back

it will probably happen but not anytime soon

[Anonymous No.9555502]

For Venusian colonization you could ship water or methane produced on the Moon in one way capsules

Aerobraking to terminal velocity, then inflating a balloon until they float in the atmosphere.

[Checkmate Moonies No.9555522]

according to this http://spacenews.com/op-ed-mars-for-only-1-5-trillion/ the first mars mission would cost $230 billion. the second and all other mission to the red planet would cost $142 billion. the craft to get to the red planet would cost $130 billion. so nine missions to mars would cost $1.5 trillion.

so the $1.5 trillion for nine missions now lets take the crew size of the ISS for the craft to mars the size is 6 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Space_Station

so to get people to fill up space x city on mars https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/world-news/648590/elon-musk-mars-colony-spacex-bfr-rocket-moon-plans-adelaide-instagram-twitter of 1 million people would take 166,666 missions the total cost of all theses missions $23.6 quadrillion that's 236 TIMES larger than the GDP of earth.

no let say our humans want to relax and take a hike on Olympus Mons. since the red planet has a harmful atmosphere they would need a space suit. according to wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_suit a space suit cost $12 million to give everyone on mars a space suit would cost $12 trillion

[Anonymous No.9555538]

>>9555522
>the first mars mission would cost $230 billion.
If you get there using shitty expendable rockets like NASA, chinks or russkies want.
>a space suit cost $12 million
If you want to supply everyone with EVA vacuum suits. Mars has way less hostile environment than orbit.

[Anonymous No.9555541]

Living in a space habitat sounds like it would feel like actually living in space, where you just put on your space suit, and go out of the habitat for a space walk.

Living on mars sounds like living on earth, just under much shittier circumstances.

+1 for habitats

[Anonymous No.9555605]

>>9555498
This is what a small one looks like. It would be stationed between earth and moon so it would still be covered by earth's magnetosphere. It would gradually grow as it gets material from the moon base.

[Anonymous No.9555616]

>>9555538

>like how NASA China and Russia want

Who else can actually do it? You?

[Anonymous No.9555619]

>>9555616
Some business man called Elon.

[Anonymous No.9555634]

>>9555276
>Living on Mars means you are going to drink your own and your crew member's piss and eat plants that were grown in your own your crew member's shit.

I'm a farmer. I literally do this already.

Once the needs for maintaining life are set and routine, people will start making areas for general entertainment. Like the stuff you'd be missing. I'm sure botanical gardens will be a huge thing eventually. Then again, cities on Earth are already like that.

>>9555321
Going to the moon and going to Mars is pretty much the same thing, due to how the orbits work.

>>9555305
You don't fly the habitat to the resources. You let robotics do it for you and deliver it.

[Anonymous No.9555635]

>>9555421
>no sunlight

Why would you need it? You'd be underground and using nuclear power.

[Anonymous No.9555637]

>>9555619

Large space projects are impossible without massive government effort.

Even the biggest private companies cannot amass the needed financial, industrial, and technical resources for a Martian expedition.

As a matter of fact it is rather dubious if any single country can do it alone. International cooperation is likely requirement for success.

[Anonymous No.9555639]

>>9555447
>>9555423
Blue Origin is also shooting for Mars, fyi. They have an entire campaign for it. Also, I agree that space colonies are the way to go. However, we can't start making those until after we make lunar and Mars bases so to develop and test mining & resource gathering equipment. The ISS exists for a similar reason though more for health studies than anything else.

[Anonymous No.9555641]

>>9555493
Not him, but here you go:

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

[Anonymous No.9555645]

>>9555522
>those prices

I haven't opened the link, but that seriously sounds like NASA grant chasing money to me.

[Anonymous No.9555648]

>>9555637
Well, you see, the thing is, giant corps and their driven founders typical run governments. For things like NASA, they don't much care, but for things like their own needs and wants, they give a huge damn about. Thus, they lobby, make deals, do pay offs, and get the massive amounts of money they want. They can do this because they are movers and shakers who control the world. If you want only a single example, think of the corporate businessman who is now the president of the USA.

[Anonymous No.9555658]

>>9555639
Mars doesn't seem like it can add anything though. It's unnecessarily far away and has a big gravity well. Transportation cost will always remain high because of this. Take the materials you need form moon and asteroids, trade rare metals with the earth, and keep growing until you are big enough to be self-sufficient.

[Anonymous No.9555668]

>>9555658
I think it needs to be done simply for the fact that humanity as a whole needs it, even if it ends up being only a propaganda machine to get us into space. Its pull on our imagination has already gotten us this far. The tech that's been developed already has been a huge boon to space travel. The tech to be developed to utilize Mars and the Moon will be an even greater boon to everything else.

[Anonymous No.9555679]

>>9555668
It can also backfire though. If a mars settlement fails, people die, and the settlement gets destroyed, then people will say we should stop wasting money on that. And chances of that happening are much bigger than for the moon, because sending resupplies to the moon is much easier, than sending them to Mars.

[Anonymous No.9555682]

>>9555679
No one stopped manned spacefights after Soyuz and Shuttle disasters.

[Anonymous No.9555688]

>>9555679
>"IF"

Doesn't matter.

[Anonymous No.9555787]

>>9551551
>insufficient return
This would have 0 meaning at the time when these things can realistically be build (2100+) where humans have advanced to the point at which fusion gives practically endless energy and advanced automation through an intertwined narrow-AI robot armadas has replaced human labour almost completely in and off planet.

I'd sure choose to live on a o'neill cylinder at 1G, supplied and built by resources from the asteroid belt that never waste energy entering/exiting planetary gravity wells and maintained by a fleet of autonomous machines than hide in an underground bunkers on an irradiated piece of shit 0.3G jellobaby factory planet like mole people.

[Anonymous No.9555790]

>>9555605

>It would be stationed between earth and moon so it would still be covered by earth's magnetosphere.

Wrong, magnetosphere does not protect against cosmic rays. You still need several meters of shielding. On Earth you are protected by an atmosphere. Even ISS is unprotected, hence why nobody stays longer than a year on it.

[Anonymous No.9555792]

>>9555634

>Going to the moon and going to Mars is pretty much the same thing, due to how the orbits work.

Except for the fact that launch window to Mars only opens every 2 and a half years, while you can go to the Moon anytime. Also, travel time is much longer.

[Anonymous No.9555800]

>>9555790
You can use literal human shit to do the shielding though. 1 metre of it is enough. Shielding really won't be the big issue.

[Anonymous No.9555807]

>>9555800
>Shielding really won't be the big issue
>launching several tons worth of shielding for every square meter of outer hull surface isn't a big issue

[Anonymous No.9555811]

>>9555800

You need at least 3 meters of shielding to protect against cosmic rays long term, more if we are talking about pregnant women and children (which is the point of a colony). Shielding is a significant factor which limits how small any colony or long distance space ship can be.

[Anonymous No.9555827]

>>9555811
You would need 3 metres to make the radiation 0, but having a little bit radiation isn't that bad. You have a little bit of radiation anywhere on earth. 1 metre would give you a level of radiation that is considered safe on earth.

>>9555807
since 1 metre of water is enough shielding, you would need exactly 1 ton of shield for every square metre of living space.

[Anonymous No.9555840]

>>9555790
>Wrong, magnetosphere does not protect against cosmic rays.

Yes it does.

[Anonymous No.9555850]

>>9555827

You need 5 meters to make radiation as low or lower as on Earth surface. You need 3 meters to make it an order of magnitude higher, safe for adults but dangerous for pregnant women and children.

>>9555840

No it does not. Cosmic rays have high enough energies that only tons of mass are sufficient to shield against them. Magnetosphere protects against solar protons and solar storms, but those are not such a big deal anyway. It also protects our atmosphere from being stripped off and thus indirectly protects us against cosmic rays. But it is the atmosphere itself that truly shields us.10 tons of shielding per square meter. Thats what you need to truly live in space.

[Anonymous No.9555853]

>>9555827

>You would need 3 metres to make the radiation 0

not true, even on Earth we do not have zero cosmic radiation, and we have the equivalent of 10 meters of water above our heads

[Anonymous No.9555861]

>>9555792
You can go to Mars any time. The "optimal" launch window is only open for that long. For unmanned missions it really wouldn't matter once the infrastructure for space travel has been fleshed out a bit better. There's a good chance they'd be launch unmanned resupply missions every month non-stop once things get going regardless of launch windows.

>>9555807
He's right. Shielding isn't an issue when you have a shit load of stuff in space you can use as shielding material. No need to bring it up out of a big gravity well when you can have robots mine and ship it to where you need it for building.

>>9555840
It is the gases in the air that protect against the GCRs and such.

[Anonymous No.9555864]

>>9555850

>You need 5 meters to make radiation as low or lower as on Earth surface.

you actually need 10 meters of water to make radiation as low as average radiation on Earth surface

5 meters may be enough to make it as low as high radiation regions on Earth, tough, and those are still considered reasonably safe to live in (however I think some correlation with cancer rates was proven)

however 1 meter of water is not enough at all

[Anonymous No.9555969]

>>9555850
>>9555861
Magnetosphere does protect you idiots. Not-perfect protection doesn't mean no protection at all. This is also why flying over the poles is more dangerous than anywhere else.

Also, the ISS is outside of our atmosphere and is only protected by the magnetosphere and aluminium.

For a spacecraft outside the magnetosphere you would create a magnetic field around it and shield the rest with water in the walls.

For space habitats the walls are probably going to be so thick that additional shielding might not be needed.

[Anonymous No.9556054]

>>9555969
We are talking about using physical shielding on stations. The magnetosphere is worthless for that. You don't need to use a magnetic field.

[Anonymous No.9556073]

>>9555864
This is bullshit. With 1 metre you have similar shielding as you would have on earth.

High energy cosmic rays can't be shielded anyways, neither by the atmosphere nor anything else, but they are super rare, so they are not going to be a big issue.

[Anonymous No.9556088]

>>9553779

We will reunite you with the Terran Empire of Man, peacefully or by force, but you WILL be reunited.

[Anonymous No.9556095]

>>9550858
>Radiation
Exposure could be reduced by building habitats underground and additional radiation shielding coming from the habitats structural materials.
>Gravity
The longterm effects of reduced gravity are still not known (only 1g and 0g) so this may or may not be a serious concern but if it is perhaps some kind of rotating habitat could be built on the surface to simulate earth gravity?
>Energy
Nuclear seems the safest bet but solar and wind could supplement that as well.
>Air
Probably the same methods used currently, electrolysis of water.
>water
Any habitat would have to be built near a source of water ice and manage that supply for air,water,food and fuel.
> Food
Would have to be grown mostly in green houses maybe use insect farms as a protein source and perhaps occasional supplemental rations sent from earth.
>resource collection
Any habitat would have to be built close to available resources but harder to reach stuff could be collected using robots which would have been sent first.
>Manufacturing
Tools would be built as needed with 3d printers and cnc machines basics like clothing would be made using very basic materials like paper and plastic.
>Entertainment
With the use of satellites it may be possible for martian colonists to download data from the internet at a delay it would be slower than dial up but it would be something, later they can also set up their own local servers and digital copies of movies/books can be sent on supply missions.
>Child rearing
I would imagine there would be strict population control for a long time until infrastructure improves to allow otherwise.
Children would be detained to specified modules of the habitat to prevent them from damaging anything or hurting themselves/others.

[Anonymous No.9556114]

>>9556073

Not bullshit at all. Earth atmosphere has mass of 10 metric tons per square meter. Same mass of shielding is required to match Earth surface radiation level in deep space. Lower masses may still be viable but not much lower.

Cosmic rays are the biggest radiation threat in space, they are not rare at all, and can be shielded by a lot of mass.

[Anonymous No.9556121]

>>9556114
Even that isn't sufficient for shielding against high energy cosmic rays. Even the whole mass of the earth is probably not sufficient. Luckily though the percentage of high energy cosmic rays is minimal. What is dangerous is the big amount of low energy rays, and you can shield that pretty easily.

[Anonymous No.9556128]

>>9556121
True, there's a doomsday situation where a GCR wave from another galaxy wipes out and basically sterilizes whole galaxies "nearby."

[Anonymous No.9556133]

>>9555491
???

[Anonymous No.9556143]

>>9556121

>What is dangerous is the big amount of low energy rays, and you can shield that pretty easily.

no, you need 5 meters of water to shield against those

you are confusing cosmic rays with ultra high energy cosmic rays

cosmic rays are very common and while not being as energetic, still require a lot of mass to shield

[Anonymous No.9556163]

>>9553818
>attacking them
Earth could just refrain from sending supplies and screw them over.

[Anonymous No.9556173]

>>9556143
>no, you need 5 meters of water to shield against those
400 times the dose of background radiation on earth is still considered safe. To achieve that, you need 1 metre.
>you are confusing cosmic rays with ultra high energy cosmic rays

they are the same thing, once they go over a certain energy value they are called ultra high energy, but it's the same thing.

[Anonymous No.9556175]

>>9556163
They just stated they are now independent. Meaning they think they are self-sustaining.

[Anonymous No.9556195]

>>9556173

>400 times the dose of background radiation on earth is still considered safe. To achieve that, you need 1 metre.

this is not true at all

average radiation on the ISS is around 200 msv/year, roughly 100 times the natural background, and nobody is allowed to stay up there for longer than a year because it definitely increases risk of cancer

there is some wiggle room but for any space colony with children you pretty much have to stay below 50 msv per year

that requires 5 meters of water

[Anonymous No.9556201]

>>9556173

>they are the same thing, once they go over a certain energy value they are called ultra high energy, but it's the same thing.

that energy difference is important

ultra high energy cosmic rays are impossible to shield against but also extremely rare, so they are pretty much a non-issue for our discussion

ordinary, medium energy cosmic rays on the other hand are very abundant and still require lots of mass to shield (multiple tons per square meter)

these are the most significant issue for long term stays in space

here, educate yourself

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

[Anonymous No.9556204]

>>9556195
are you the same guy who thinks high energy cosmic rays are different from cosmic rays?

[Anonymous No.9556212]

>>9556201
Even in that article it says the atmosphere only shields against <1gev particles.

[Anonymous No.9556219]

>>9556195
the background radiation can vary by as much as 50 times between permanently inhabited locations , and there is no correlation yet to be seen between cancer and living in such locations. radiation on earth is much lower than it needs to be.

[Anonymous No.9556482]

>>9551182
>>9551185
Its easier and faster to make Venus atmosphere habitable than to bombard Mars with asteroids until it has higher gravity.

[Anonymous No.9556515]

>>9556482
How much baking soda do we need to neutralize Venus' acidic atmosphere?

[Anonymous No.9556517]

>>9555861
>He's right. Shielding isn't an issue when you have a shit load of stuff in space you can use as shielding material.
Not only that, but most important of all the shield doesn't need to rotate too, so its structural cost can be minimal.
Of course that implies a compact design for the habitat like a sphere.

[Anonymous No.9556533]

>>9556515
Cool it with shields, bombard with hydrogen from Saturn and Jupiter.

[Anonymous No.9556539]

Asa hobby, I make solar cookers. My favorite ones are solar box ovens. They are basically a well insulated box with a couple pieces of glass over them and several reflectors. In a well built one, temps can go from 75F to 450F in about 13-15 minutes. When I view the artistic structures >>9551551 mentions, there's usually quite a bit of sunshine being reflected into the habitats.

The O'Neill cylinders are basically giant solar ovens in most artistic renderings. The vacuum of space is an excellent insulator after all. ISS has problems with overheating and that's mostly from the goings on inside. It's heat exchangers are pretty large and take up quite a bit of area.

[Anonymous No.9556563]

>>9556539
>in most artistic renderings.
You already have your answer.
O'neill himself admitted that those designs were unlikely to be the working ones, they were intended more to illustrate the concept to the masses.

[Anonymous No.9556573]

>>9556539
which is why you'd have radiators.

[Anonymous No.9556609]

>>9551551
you can hollow out an asteroid and turn it into a habitat. of course the amount of work that would require will only be avaible if you have large space-economy in place with millions of people living in dozens or hundreds of space habitats.

[Anonymous No.9556635]

>>9556195
Astronauts on ISS need to leave because of microgravity, not because of radiation. In Ramsar, Iran there is a similar level of natural background radiation, as is on the ISS, and tens of thousands of people are living there since millenias.

[Anonymous No.9556638]

Guys Mars could have molten crust and active volcanism, that means thermal energy.

[Anonymous No.9556687]

>>9556609
I'd rather cover my space station with the waste material from asteroid mining. More controllable weight distribution.

[Anonymous No.9556702]

>>9556573
You are better off to do what t he ISS already does and not reflect a giant sun onto your habitat. You're going to end up cooking people if you have a mirror like that.

[Anonymous No.9556744]

>>9556702
>>You are better off to do what t he ISS already does and not reflect a giant sun onto your habitat.
by how much? If you can't provide numbers you don't have an argument. Also the ISS has radiators too:
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/structure/elements/radiators.html

>>You're going to end up cooking people if you have a mirror like that.
prove it. Don't forget the space station has a day night cycle

here are some of the numbers for the Stanford Torus:
http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2016/ph240/martelaro2/

[Anonymous No.9556802]

>>9556744
The ISS doesn't have windows that remain open and doesn't have a giant mirror blasting it with an extra sun.

[Anonymous No.9556806]

>>9556744
It's important to keep in mind that unlike Earth, ISS has two major sources of radiation: the sun and the Earth, and the latter fills nearly half the sky. The activity within is also a signficant contributor to heating.

A colony in deep space would be able to have a radiator behind a sun shield that was always radiating directly to cold starlight.

[Anonymous No.9556838]

>>9550858
>If even 1 of these things cannot be addressed the colony will fail
No, that's a stupid way of looking at it. Pioneering is always associated with horrible problems /deficiencies. If everyone had your autistically perfectionist attitude no new innovations would ever be accomplished.

[Anonymous No.9556844]

>>9556838
This, first English colony in North America was lost, didn't stop making USA.

[Anonymous No.9556860]

>>9556838
>>9556844
Are you both retards? If you can't survive, you die, you colony dies. End of story. Make a new colony, with things fixed, means it is a completely different colony.

[Anonymous No.9556889]

Planets should be used as nature reserves and for people who want to lead a more natural life. In terms of anything a cosmopolitan human would want, most planets other than Earth aren't good candidates unless you want to put simulated humans there. O'Neill cylinders, orbital rings and other sturctures are vastly more attuned to human comfort and resource efficiency.

[Anonymous No.9557441]

>>9556889
If we ever get off this rock for good, all the planets' resources will eventually get used up.

[Anonymous No.9557455]

>>9557441

Highly doubt it. The rocky planets have pitiful concentrations of resources. There's no need to ever use them except in the most extreme circumstances.

[Anonymous No.9557456]

>>9555605
Titanium thrusters woud be lighter and just as powerful.

[Anonymous No.9557457]

>>9557455
You misunderstand. Unless something stops us, we will use every bit of matter in the solar system including the sun itself.

[Anonymous No.9557463]

>>9557457

Well yeah, eventually. But the timescales here are immeasurable. If we use the resources in the Sun, the Sun's life could be extended by trillions of years. We could terraform and de-terraform and then terraform again Mars millions of times on that scale. 100 millions years would just be a footnote in that kind of history.

[Anonymous No.9557514]

>>9556802
And yet it still has radiators

[Anonymous No.9557592]

>>9557514
It has radiators to simply things, rather than because it needs them
all surfaces radiate naturally

[Anonymous No.9557869]

>>9550858
>A, "colony," is a place where humans will reproduce
what is a male prison colony

[Anonymous No.9557944]

>>9550858
>>9550858
>Radiation
Make the habitats underground, there you go , infinite rad shielding. Maybe lava tubes
>• Gravity
rotating habitats undergound
>• Energy production
solar or nuclear
>• Air processing
A lot of very good redundnat machines
>• Water collection
A lot of very good redundnat machines and water ice
>• Food production
A lot of very good hydroponics growing machines
>• General resource collection
simply use mining machines we use them on earth its the same thing with a good airlock,
>• Manufacturingssss
manufacture on mars, just slowly grow your industrial base on mars an make i bit until it is as big as it is needed et voila
>• Entertainment
we are the better entertaniment society in the rworld . besdise all boosk and games, besides
>• Child rearing
perfctly raziesd just an earth with all the foods they get hjere in an underground rotattin habitat

[Anonymous No.9557948]

>>9557944
>rotating habitats undergound

How is that going to work if you have gravity? Towards one site, you would always have a different force than towards the other.

[Anonymous No.9557969]

>>9557948
do you know what a bank in a race track does

[Anonymous No.9557975]

>>9557969
So? Living in such a thing would mean you would always feel a force pulling you towards the direction of Mars. Meaning living there is not really possible.

[Anonymous No.9557984]

>>9557975
And combined with the centripetal force pushing you outwards, you could live at 1 g

Do you not understand basic physics

This sort of thing is ONLY if 37% of a G isn't suitable for human life, instead you could sleep in centrifuges.

Possibly would want even higher than 1 g too for toughening the body up

[Anonymous No.9558003]

>>9557984
You would feel 1g only at one very specific point of the habitat. 1 metre away from that point the "g-force" would be slightly different and your body would notice that, unless we are talking unreasonably huge habitats (diameter >10km).

[Anonymous No.9558013]

>>9557984
Sleeping in 1g is no big difference to sleeping in 0g. You would have to walk, stand up, walk around etc in 1g to avoid muscle decay.

[Anonymous No.9558042]

>>9557984
>instead you could sleep in centrifuges.
Actually it's the other way around.
You can sleep in low gravity since it's not very different anyway, while you should spend some time walking and doing physical stuff at 1G.

[Anonymous No.9558062]

>>9550858

Regarding the problem of gravity, could lead laced clothing prevent muscle decay?

For the most part, because gravity only pulls down, and not sideways or at diagonals, it seems possible. For work done at an angle, for example by the knee moving at an angle while walking, we could try specifically addings weights on top of the knee, and on the shoe, etc.

[Anonymous No.9558072]

>>9557944
If you are going to live in spinning habitats underground, then really what is the point of going to Mars? You could also just find yourself an asteroid with a lot of water ice and metals in the size range 2-5km diameter and live there underground.

[Anonymous No.9558077]

>>9557975
>what are force vectors

[Anonymous No.9558079]

>>9558072
Whatever you'd call underground on an asteroid since they're just loose piles of gravel. Also spinning them to achieve Earth gravity would tear them apart. Better to live in a space habitat nearby while mining them. You could build a stationary protective hull around it (think washing machine) that's covered in astroid mining waste materials.

[Anonymous No.9558089]

>>9558003
Look at this, you bonehead. That one specific point would be the whole floor, lovingly indicated here in green.

[Anonymous No.9558090]

>>9558072
Why not go on a world, where

A: you have an atmosphere, thats very convenient for cooling things or dumping pollutants
B: You have gravity, thats also convenient
C: You have a whole fucking world worth of resources, more than Earth likely because you can dig far deeper + no water
D: Far less Delta-V needed to reach Mars because of aerobraking
E: You want to condense population at one location, not economical to spread things out
F: Fuck off with this space habitat nonsense, its ridiculous

[Anonymous No.9558094]

>>9558090
Besides it has no earth disasters, there may be volcanism which could be used for energy, 8 times more deuterium than Earth, no tornadoes, tsunamis, floods, forest fires.

[Anonymous No.9558106]

>>9558079
You're not spinning the asteroid, you're spinning the habitats inside the asteroid. The asteroid would just be a source for ressources and provide shielding.

[Anonymous No.9558108]

>>9558089
the force felt along the green line would increase with height, since centrifugal force will become stronger.

[Anonymous No.9558111]

>>9558090
1. Asteroids have a higher density of metals than Mars
2. Asteroids are closer than Mars
3. Asteroids have no gravity well
4. Once the colony in the Asteroid has grown so big that you hollowed out the whole Asteroid, you basically created a generation ship

[Anonymous No.9558113]

>>9558111
5. marsian atmosphere shielding is almost non-existent, you would still have to live under thick shields, so the only difference to an asteroid would be that shields need to be a bit thicker

[Anonymous No.9558119]

>>9558089
No, it would not. At the top of that green line the force is stronger than at the bottom. The difference grows proportional to the size of the spinning wheel.

[Anonymous No.9558120]

>>9558090

>A: you have an atmosphere, thats very convenient for cooling things or dumping pollutants

Martian atmosphere is so thin that it is useless for any radiation shielding or cooling. It may be good for aerobraking but thats about it.

>>9558090

>B: You have gravity, thats also convenient

It is not. 1g is maybe convenient. Mars gravity is too low to provide any significant health benefits but high enough to be a potential issue for launch/landing. Low gravity worlds are worse than both zero or 1g gravity worlds.

[Anonymous No.9558122]

>>9558111
>. Asteroids are closer than Mars
No. Delta-v of Mars is lower than nearest potentially profitable asteroid. 4.1 vs 4.664 on Ryugu

[Anonymous No.9558124]

>>9558120
Its easier to set up industry on gravity than on spinning wheel with g-force.

[Anonymous No.9558125]

>>9558122
Good to know you know exactly that none of the millions of near-earth asteroids are worth settling.

[Anonymous No.9558128]

>>9558125
You can settle Proxima Centauri b.
>earth gravity
>earth size
Except its very distant like asteroids.

[Anonymous No.9558129]

>>9558124
The closer it is to earth, the easier it is to set the colony up, because it is easier to fly things there (and back, like exhausted astronauts that need a break).

[Anonymous No.9558132]

>>9558128
It actually has at least 1,3g.

Pic related, this is what space actually looks like. There are MILLIONS of asteroids within 1,3 AU and thousands of those are >1km big.

[Anonymous No.9558133]

>>9558124

easier to set up an industry, but only because we do not yet have much experience with zero g industry

not easier to set up an actual colony, if humans need that 1g

[Anonymous No.9558142]

>>9558132

only 886 are >1km big, and of those many are on significantly different orbits than Earth and only approach us intermitently, so delta-v needed to match their orbit will be comparable to a Mars burn, but without the benefit of aerobraking

[Anonymous No.9558145]

>>9558132
Most of them are boulders couple of meters long, also separated by millions of kilometers, asteroid fields look nothing like Star Wars, the profitable big boys as Ceres are almost as distant as goddamn Pluto. It all works only if you have sci-fi no propellant engines, Mars is achievable with modern technology.

[Anonymous No.9558151]

>>9558106
Yeah, but you only need a tiny fraction of a multiple kilometer asteroid to create sufficient shielding. Hollowing out the entire thing just takes too much time, and might make it disintegrate.

[Anonymous No.9558159]

>>9558108
>>9558119

[Anonymous No.9558161]

>>9558125
>Good to know you know exactly that none of the millions of near-earth asteroids are worth settling.
http://www.asterank.com/

[Anonymous No.9558168]

>mars colonization
every single brainlet that takes it seriously and sees point in it should be fucking euthanized

[Anonymous No.9558171]

>>9558168
Hello Jeff.

[Anonymous No.9558178]

>>9558159
So you would be living on stairs?

[Anonymous No.9558182]

>>9558142
It's less than a mars burn for a lot of them, and returning to earth is easy and fast, unlike Mars.

[Anonymous No.9558186]

>>9558182
Not if you collect junk, do you propose to mine hydrogen for fuel which screws metals like acid?

[Anonymous No.9558198]

>>9558145
A profitable one is coming so close to earth it is almost going to hit us in 2036 (Apophis).

[Anonymous No.9558201]

>>9558198
A: You have no clue whats actually in the asteroid until you send people there to dig in it
B: Asteroids will never have the same variety of resources as a planet, plus they are not in nice circular orbit so travelling between "Asteroid colonies" takes a lot of delta-v
C: No aerobraking means that they can't do things like fire raw lumps of metal from lunar colonies

[Anonymous No.9558232]

>>9558201
>>Asteroids will never have the same variety of resources as a planet
and pray tell what resources are these?

[Anonymous No.9558235]

>>9558232
diamonds

[Anonymous No.9558242]

>>9558235
that's it? Also we've never found industrial diamonds anywhere except earth.

[Anonymous No.9558271]

>>9558201
Variety of the whole planet doesn't really matter though. It's not like you will be able to carry thousands of tons of ressources across thousands of kilometres on mars. You will only access the ressources in a radius of a few hundred kilometres around your base for the first few decades. And the variety for such a small piece of land is really almost non-existent on Mars.

[Anonymous No.9558287]

>>9558232

all the various chemical elements

on a planet you can look for ores and ultimately disover great variety because the planet is so huge

on an asteroid only a few kilometers large it is possible that many required elements are missing or in very low amounts

[Anonymous No.9558291]

>>9558271

>You will only access the ressources in a radius of a few hundred kilometres around your base for the first few decades.

But we are not talking about a simple base here, which must be regularly resupplied, but an actual self-sufficient colony.

[Anonymous No.9558295]

>>9558291
Which is still not exactly the same as a globalised economy that exploits all the ressources the planet has to offer.

[Anonymous No.9558300]

>>9558287
You won't be able to exploit a ressource thousands of miles away.

[Anonymous No.9558506]

>>9557869
An old word used with a different meaning.

[Anonymous No.9558509]

>>9557944
>rotating habitats undergound

[Anonymous No.9558517]

>>9558062
Weighted clothing would not help prevent things like VIIPs and other system failures.

>>9558072
>>9558079
>>9558106
>>9558151
Like in >>9551179 you'd simply net the asteroid/gravel ball and burrow inside it. You can either spin the entire thing or only maintain a spin inside for your habitat. It'd be like a big sun shield that never moves.

[Anonymous No.9558523]

>>9558159
>>9558089
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAdb7XlWTbk

Ever been on one of those?

[Anonymous No.9558527]

>>9558171
Bezos is actually going for Mars too. Has been since like 2016 when it was announced.

[Anonymous No.9558539]

>>9550858
mars is not worth it. Unless there was a way to encourage a magnetosphere and an atmosphere to maintain a gravity and keep radiation out it would be more trouble than it's worth. Applying the technology to do that will cost astronomical amounts both financially and time wise.

You are better off starting with the moon and then heading to one of Saturn's moons after. Those might be easier to colonise and/or terraform

[Anonymous No.9558542]

>>9553908
>blade runner 2049

[Anonymous No.9558544]

>>9558539
Saturn and Juputer have crazy radiation.
>Europa receives 5.4 Sv (540 rem) of radiation per day,[2] which is approximately 1,800 times the average annual (yearly) dose of a human on earth at sea level

[Anonymous No.9558556]

>>9555635
Solar power is feasible bud. Also to stop the colonists from going insane

[Anonymous No.9558684]

>>9558556
Solar power has nothing to do with colonist's mental state.

[Anonymous No.9558843]

>>9558684
If the colonists are going to be eating algae and busting their asses to survive, then most are going to be suicidal.

[Anonymous No.9558853]

>>9558843
That has nothing at all to do with solar power. Nuclear power can give you all the energy you need with far less problems over time.

[Anonymous No.9558860]

>>9558556

you need a lot of power to manufature rocket fuel

solar power is a pain in the ass if you need multiple megawatts

nuclear is the way to go, Mars colony will have lots of difficulties even without being power starved

[Anonymous No.9558867]

>>9558860
Geothermal energy.

[Anonymous No.9558872]

>>9558556

>Also to stop the colonists from going insane

people do not go insane from lack of sunlight, nor from being underground long term, or isolated from rest of civilization

can this stupid meme that Mars colonists will be mentally unstable suicidal snowflakes die already

[Anonymous No.9558882]

>>9558867

ever weaker than solar, also mars is geologically dead

https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/kilopower

nuclear is the best power source for a space colony, maybe supplemented by solar, wind and RTGs but not relying on them

[Anonymous No.9558900]

>>9558684
It's called daylight you dummy. I for one would much rather go to Mars if I can look at an aesthetic vista for twelve hours a day, not live in a worse version of Scandinavia.
>>9558872
They wouldn't be snowflakes, but it does you no good to live in a dark wasteland half of your life. It makes logical sense that you want your first and probably central location of the human population on the new world to have a proper day and night cycle.

[Anonymous No.9558903]

>>9558882
>also mars is geologically dead
>However, the European Space Agency's Mars Express orbiter photographed lava flows interpreted in 2004 to have occurred within the past two million years, suggesting a relatively recent geologic activity.[55] An updated study in 2011 estimated that the youngest lava flows occurred in the last few tens of millions of years.[56] The authors consider this age makes it possible that Mars is not yet volcanically extinct.[7][56]

>The upcoming InSight lander mission will determine if there is any seismic activity, measure the amount of heat flow from the interior, estimate the size of Mars' core and whether the core is liquid or solid.[57]

[Anonymous No.9558908]

>>9558900
>not live in a worse version of Scandinavia.
Its called Siberia.

[Anonymous No.9558916]

>>9558903
God I hate (((probes))) so much. They're like Caltech NASA funded science projects, they never get shit done. "Traces of organic molecules" "Water could have flowed here" shut the fuck up NASA.

Voyager and Curiosity are cool for the pics tho

[Anonymous No.9558982]

>>9558900
That has nothing to do with growing food and making energy. The reason you don't have big windows is because of radiation.

[Anonymous No.9558984]

>>9558982
Even on EVAs, engineers/explorers/whatever returning to the base with gorgeous daylight photos would make people feel more at home. A permanent night time bunker would do nobody any good for mankind's new home. Not unless the polar caps have some truly invaluable resource for the colony.

[Anonymous No.9559070]

>>9558900
>I can look at an aesthetic vista for twelve hours a day
You would live underground under a dome.
But I guess tech at the time will be good enough to display virtual landscapes.

[Anonymous No.9559074]

>>9559070
There will never be an incentive for people to explore Mars if it's suicide-inducingly dark for half the year.

[Anonymous No.9559332]

Every thread people bring up radiation, no magnetic field, blah blah blah.

What is the radiation on the ground with no dome?

[Anonymous No.9559387]

>>9559332
>people who don't even bother reading the OP before posting

[Anonymous No.9559434]

>>9551295
1 g is needed for survival or at the very least .75-.85g our bones and muscles need gravity to survive, even if you had a kid and theoretically raised it in orbit, it would probably only live to 10 or 15, 20 tops look at all the sick kids in child hospitals for a good analog.

I can see oneil cylinders or asteroid bases happening or something like a massive starship out of starwars, but other than that I don't have much hope for humanity, Earth is our home for the most part, we will need to leave it eventually incase of universal fuckups like neutron stars or a nearby supernova, but for the most part we will be staying here for the near future

[Anonymous No.9559442]

>>9551936
Germany promised not to invade Poland, get with the real world.

[Anonymous No.9559445]

>>9553573
Because Men go to Mars and Women go to Venus

its called MANkind for a reason anon, if you're gonna do something do it right.

[Anonymous No.9559461]

>>9555853
people still live in Ukraine even though Chernobyl, same thing with Japan and fukushima, Japan is doing quite well last I checked

[Anonymous No.9559465]

>>9559461
This is faulty logic. The people are not being irradiated, like they would be in space without proper shielding. Also, there are still a load of birth defects, caused from Chernobyl, happening to this day. Areas around Fukushima have begun to have higher rates of birth defects and cancers.

[Anonymous No.9559680]

>>9559442
SpaceX can make the biggest rocket in the world, but the Air Force can still shoot it down.

[Anonymous No.9559736]

>>9559680
Why would they when everyone is in bed with each other?

[Anonymous No.9559743]

>>9558916
Yea and despite billions of dollars spent on probes, SpaceX needs to do all the prospecting/exploration themselves to find a place to set up a colony

[Anonymous No.9559771]

>>9559743
I think SpaceX is only going to be the transportation company. I think another company will be doing the actual colony stuff.

[Anonymous No.9559801]

>>9559771
?
Why the fuck do you think Musk started an autonomous electric car company, a digging company, a vacuum tunnel company, a satellite company, etc

He's a complete mars autist, everything he does is about mars.

[Anonymous No.9559805]

Also I would not be surprised to see Musk start a hydroponics company, and maybe some sort of construction company

Stuff like that needs to be ready for them in 2026

[Anonymous No.9559825]

>>9559801
SpaceX is a travel company. There will be another company for colonization and other supporting stuff. That doesn't mean Musk won't own the other company.

[Anonymous No.9559832]

>>9559825
The Colony Company.

[Anonymous No.9559874]

>>9559825
Not to begin with, that might happen later when you have people who aren't doing multiple jobs.

[Anonymous No.9559876]

>>9559832
ColonX

[Anonymous No.9560451]

>>9558062
You'd also need to weight your blood, since the hearth is the main muscle that cause problem in low gravity.
Pic related a few hours a day is almost enough for other muscles.

>>9558900
>to have a proper day and night cycle.
I have a clock and a switch, I don't need the sun.
Also Mars doesn't have a 24h sunlight cycle.

>>9559074
What are lightbulbs?
Let me guess, it's not "natural light" that has the magical propriety of preventing suicide?

>>9559832
East Mars Company

[Anonymous No.9560455]

>>9560451
t. cold country depressedlet

[Anonymous No.9560745]

>>9551551
Automated space construction will make it feasible. You never going to have enough workers in space to build something like that unless there is already someplace for those workers to live.