/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12530642
How practical is beamed power propulsion compared to something like atomic engines?

>>12332637
Tell NASA and Boing that if Starship makes it over the karman line before SLS its ogre, mandate Copernicus – B to be built with restrictions to cost-plus and begin asking Lockheed how much resurrecting Venturestar would cost along with adjusting it to carry crew and mate with Copernicus – B.

What large scale operations in space could actually be feasible with current and near future technology that would actually make money and not just be a sinkhole for government subsidies?
>space based power
>asteroid mining
>planetary mining
>gas giant mining (upper atmosphere scooping)
>etc

How would /sci/ realistically advance space colonization in our society? What driving forces can be utilized to further push industry, colonization, and general Human involvement in space faring operations?

Thank you, Elon. The progress that SpaceX is making is one of the few things that gives me any hope for the future these days.

>>11962024
You would need a nuclear ferry/shuttle to take it to mars and the current NASA is obsessed with destroying Von Braun's legacy.

>>11714680
based and HFY pilled

>>11705985
>Venture star + Nuclear ferry
Imagine...

>>11698508
>T*rrans can have an orbital sanctuary for all it matters.
That could work.

How would ownership of NTR engines work? Would it be on a loicense basis? Or would it be kinda like Dune and there's a Fission Guild that only leases you NTR engines?

New Thread: >>11680477

>>11597048
Kill SLS, re-fund Lockheed to make a manned Venturestar, then build a nuclear shuttle in orbit with an Artemis capsule docked at the front and make von braun's Mars project come true.

>>11590257
IMAGINE

>>11583643

>>11545574
>Gravity also make sure everything stuck stay stuck.
That's the point. Let go of a piece of rubble on Mars and it'll drop to the ground and stay there. Let go of a piece of rubble in orbit and it'll drift away from you. Meaning that constant work is needed to manage free materials in orbit. Which is a bad thing especially for materials that are really tiny such as shards of metal or pebbles.

>No gravity HELP docking
How so? On a planet one would just land the rocket on the designated pad. Sure, it's more challenging than docking, but it is not incredible.

>rescue is only one interception away instead of needing a successful takeoff/landing.
Fair point, but the landing part wouldn't be a significant problem as the technology behind it is being refined right now.

>You don't NEED artificial gravity, it's a bonus.
For everyday living? No, it's needed.

>If you are going to bring up "I have space station with everything I need"
I didn't say that. I said that a surface martian colony would have to wait just as long as an orbital martian colony to get help from Earth.

>Tomorrow we could switch the discussion to which one develop faster: space or surface centric infrastructure.
I say develop both simultaneously. There are plenty of unknowns regarding future space flight and habitation. Only focusing on one possibility is more risky as it might turn out to not be the way of the future. Maybe orbital only is the optimal best, or maybe surface bases are better, or perhaps a mixture of both. No one will know this until it has been attempted, and attempting all possibilities should be strongly encouraged.

>>11413729
https://library.sciencemadness.org/library/books/ignition.pdf
http://risacher.org/rocket/
http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/

>>11396916
Imagine Venture stars being sent beyond low orbit via nuclear ferries.