/sci/ - Science & Math

O'neil fags btfo'd

>>11849676
>CO2 and N2
Still nothing worth going on Mars. Again it's like pretending Antarctica is better to live in than America based on water quantity.

>Yeah if you can process quadrillions of tons of material per year and are only supporting a tiny population growth rate. On Mars there are mineral formations containing phosphorous that are several thousands of times more concentrated than any asteroidal material.
Part of the memes, exaggeration included. The numbers I've seen make it just as easy to find than Mars and easier to get.

>So the ability to block 100% of incoming radiation from space and achieve high growth rates is somehow harder than having literally nothing but hard vacuum and space debris until your colony is totally complete and ready to be moved into?
You don't understand how radiation work do you?
If you can't build a space colony, you can't live on Mars. It's as simple as that. Blocking radiation on a space station will be trivial and reusable. Looking at the level of your argumentation it's clear that you'll be assuming the worst possible design for anything that goes against your Frontier meme and a double standard for your Mars hellhole

>Uh, yeah, lmao. That means people living on Mars will have an easy time surviving, due to lots of available resources. Duh.
...only after we learned how from the Moon and the rest of the solar system. Jovian moons are more attractive than Mars.

>>11849695
>no, you can do hydroponics, you're clearly retarded thinking we're gonna have massive o'neil cylinders within any of our lifetimes
Look who didn't follow the discussion and make assumption I didn't.
Making O'neil cylinder would be easier than achieving a equivalent base on Mars.
Really, are you part of the retard who think all they need is a space-Conestoga and miraculously you'll transform everything there into a city?

>>11849715
Making O'neil cylinder would be easier than achieving a equivalent base on Mars.
aahhaahahhahaha

>>11849715
>Sending gorillion of tonnes of mass up the well and then assembling it is easier than sending people and machinery to Mars who can use the resources in situ

Confirmed retard

>>11849715
>Again it's like pretending Antarctica is better to live in than America based on water quantity
Except by your own analogy, the Moon is more like Antarctica whereas Mars is like America, because while the Moon has one 'resource' (proximity to Earth) at the expense of literally every other aspect, Mars has literally everything you could want.

Mathematician: How to write 4 in between a 5?

China: Is this a Joke?

Japan: Impossible!

America: The question's wrong!!

UK: Rubbish !!

India: F(IV)E This is the reason you find Indians everywhere in the world in finance, business, medicine, engineering & arts... anything to do with optimising your brain!!

British: Can u Swim?
Indian: No
British: Then a Dog is Better den u because It Swims. Indian: Can u Swim?
British: Yes!
Indian: Then What's the Difference between u & Dog… British Shocked,Faints!! Indian Rocks!

European : Y do U indians come in all colors, look at us,we R all white..?

Abdul Kalam: Horses too come in different colors but donkeys R all the same..!!!

Einstein & a Indian sitting next to each other on a long flight...

Einstein says:
"Let's play a game...
I will ask you a question,
if you don't know the answer,
you pay me only $5
and
if I don't know the answer,
I will pay you $500..."

Einstein asks the first question:
What's the distance from the Earth to the Moon...?

Indian doesn't say a word,
Reaches his pocket,
Pulls out a $5...

Now...
It's the indian turn...

He asks Einstein:
What goes up a hill with 3 legs
and
comes down on 4 legs..?

Einstein searches the net and asks all his smart friends...
After an hour he gives Indian $500...

Einstein going nuts and asks:
Well...
so what goes up a hill with three legs and comes down with four..?

Indian reaches his pocket and gives Einstein $5...

Einstein fainted.....

Send to all Indians all over the globe! Magic Missing Indian flag in this? Don't worry send this message to only 2 groups u will shock to see all these flags will become Indian flags Created by: engineering students Of CIT

>>11849715
>Making O'neil cylinder would be easier than achieving a equivalent base on Mars.
Is this an actual argument people try to make? I’ve never heard this before. This is, quite literally, retarded

>>11849715
>You don't understand how radiation work do you?
I am literally a student training to be a radiation safety tech at this moment. I understand radiation better than you. What I was ASKING was, WHY would you even mention that Mars is irradiated by space radiation when literally any space station would be getting irradiated WORSE? The solution to blocking radiation is simple enough; put ten meters of solid material between you and deep space, because that's the only thing capable of fully blocking galactic cosmic rays and the secondary radiation they produce by scattering off of atomic nuclei. On Mars, you simply scoop some material off of the ground with a front end bucket loader and dump it on top of your habitat, simple as. In space you need to manufacture and install your radiation shielding, not to mention actually ship it to location.

>>11849715
>Jovian moons are more attractive than Mars.

>four iceball moons with more restrictive resource profiles, greater transportation delta V requirements, and a VASTLY harsher radiation environment are more attractive than Mars
You are an imbecile, go consume more of the mindless media drivel that Isaac shits into your waiting and eager mouth.

>>11849715
>Really, are you part of the retard who think all they need is a space-Conestoga and miraculously you'll transform everything there into a city?
You seem to be the retard that's invoking miracles, like fully self sufficient orbital habitats backed up by massive deep space production and supply chains (probably fusion powered and fully automated, obviously, because you've actually just been parroting SFIA this entire time and not thinking) popping up out of nowhere because we decided to build a Moon base with a hypothetical space elevator.

>>11849666
>Learn to read, Mars resources are only good to live there
Learn to research, Mars has higher quantity and quality sources than the moon for basically every significant resource. Your alternative is not the Moon in many cases but sourcing enormous amounts of raw resources from deep within the Earth's gravity well due to scarcity and low quality. Good luck competing with Mars on that basis, it can source most raw resources just as easily as Earth while launching them more cheaply in larger quantities. "Only good to live there" ironically is more appropriate for the Moon where even many of the available resources will be prohibitive to export.
>>11849715
>If you can't build a space colony, you can't live on Mars. It's as simple as that. Blocking radiation on a space station will be trivial and reusable.
You provide radiation protection on the surface with a shovel. You provide radiation protection to a space station with a mature launch infrastructure... from the planet you've already colonized.

>>11849735
>four iceball moons with more restrictive resource profiles
well, three, but yeah pretty much everything else you said is right. they are still pretty good for colonization, with the exception of io though

>>11849723
India will never colonize space and will never become a superpower because they are about to get into a major military conflict with China which will culminate in nuclear war between India and Pakistan shortly before they surrender to China, who in their weakened state will be attacked and subjugated by America and South Korea, and while all this is happening the SpaceX Mars and Moon colonies will achieve self sufficiency and begin a period of rapid development and expansion to worlds beyond via huge orbital motherships constructed at Phobos, with the goal of setting and securing claims on every object within reach of Earth using chemical and nuclear thermal rockets, thus locking down the access market and guaranteeing that the first movers into the colonization of the entire Local Group will be english speaking western capitalists, and all will be right in the universe at last.

>>11849698
>No, because it's easier to make vehicles that can go from Earth or Moon to Mars, land, refill with Martian propellants, and then launch again to Phobos or Deimos, than going directly to either of those moons.
Math say no. It's like you aren't even trying. If you want a true colonization fleet you'll want the Moon first anyway.

>>11849711
>Infrastructure from where, exactly?
From proper research&development and expansion program. Plenty of import-export instead of being a isolationist who believe Mars will be his new freontier.
Are you also that level of retards who think just getting tools on Mars will replace megaton of factory?

>Is open space not even more irradiated? If you can shield a space station why can't you shield a ground base?
Shielding in space don't have mass limitation. Your ground base will literally be underground.

>Uh, no. Based geologybros can look at the same 20m rock cut for literal days, and that's your basic minerology on Earth.
You can't expect a population of only geologist.

>You're the one in denial, who also seems to have a poor grasp on what a real American would call the Old West. Also, experiments have proven that plants can grow in zero G, [...]
We have very little data on Mars soil, those analogs are what they ideally hope to achieve after importing everything that's missing from Earth. We can't actually farm on Mars soil.
You'll be using hydroponics everywhere the hard way. The main difference is that you want to be down a gravity hole without access to all the improvement that still have to be developed.

>>11849722
>Except by your own analogy[....]
In my analogy "America" is the Union of every MORE interesting place in the solar system connected by transport.
You are just drunk on the pioneer meme that "Mars have everything" and you are a seed who can magically grow a colony from dirt. Even if "maximizing human population" was your only goal, you wouldn't colonize Mars first for that.

Your trolling is sloppy.

>>11849749
Io has ice, it's sulfur dioxide ice but still ice nonetheless.
Also, in order to actually develop a healthy civilization in the Jovian system, they'd need to colonize Io no matter what, because that's where the physically accessible rocks and metals are.

>>11849758
>io has ice
yes it has ice, but like 99% of io's mass is silicates, the ice is only a few centimeters thick usally if i am correct. io is much more similar in composition to the terrestial planets.
>they'd need to colonize Io no matter what, because that's where the physically accessible rocks and metals are.
they don't have to colonize it per say but there might be a few human settlements to oversee mining operations eventually.

>>11849756
>Math say no.
You did your math wrong.
The total delta V budget required to go down to Mars' surface and launch back up to Phobos is greater, yes, but since you can refill on Mars that means that the Vehicle only actually needs ~6 km/s of delta V or so. This is enough to comfortably get an intercept with Mars, at which point in scenario A you only need ~300 m/s of delta V leftover to execute a landing burn. In scenario B, even if you use aerocapture and aerobraking to a lower orbit, you still need about a kilometer per second additional delta V to actually rendezvous with Phobos, and for Deimos it's even worse. That means you need over 7 km/s in a single stage vehicle, because multiple stages means you're not reusable and therefore not sustainable. 7 km/s of delta V is pushing it, especially for a useful payload mass fraction.

>>11849753
I feel like starting a colony when your mother planet is wrapped up in nuclear war is kind of a problem but yeah, I could see this happening. Would elon recruit any democracy loving american to his colony or do I need to pay my $2 million to get there

Colonization is a toxic word.

>>11849775
>or do I need to pay my $2 million to get there
250000, not 2 million

>>11849756
>From proper research&development and expansion program.
Mars will have a better one than anything you could do on the Moon or asteroids. Mars is better for doing things faster and in greater capacity.

>Shielding in space don't have mass limitation. Your ground base will literally be underground.
Uh huh, and building underground means I have zero deep space ballistic transportation costs in order to get my shielding, whereas your orbital habitat needs to have it shipped in.
>You can't expect a population of only geologist.
Not everyone who visits the grand canyon is a geologist. Mars is more grand than a thousand grand canyons. Furthermore, it will be possible to build structures such as parks that will be far larger than any orbital habitat could be, due to there being no requirement to handle the tensile strain of spinning to produce gravity.
>those analogs are what they ideally hope to achieve
No, if you knew anything you'd know that they used exact minerals as were discovered on Mars, crushed them into sand, and added the known amounts of salts etc, in order to replicate Mars soil composition as exactly as possible except for specific grain structure (due to manual crushing instead of natural erosion).
Your argument against farms on Mars is hilariously stupid because you can't farm in 'orbital soil' either, unless you can make it from raw materials, and if you can do that in space you can do it on Mars using Mars materials too, retard.
>You are just drunk on the pioneer meme that "Mars have everything"
Mars DOES have everything, everything it needs to be the best first step to take at least. That's what actually matters, getting into a position that magnifies our abilities to expand into space. The Moon requires too much investment from Earth to reach any similar capacity and would perpetually rely on Earth anyway, and doing accelerated wide-range colonization from Earth itself is obviously not feasible.

>>11849775
Well the idea would be that we'd start the colony ASAP, and it would already exist by the time shit hits the fan, and since we couldn't just abandon that entire population to their deaths in any case, we'd definitely keep throwing care packages their way to get them on their feet. In fact a global emergency going down while a decent early colony was already operating could actually spur the effort to accelerate even more.

>>11849756
>Math say no.
Imagine thinking you're such hot shit when you don't understand basic orbital mechanics.
>Shielding in space don't have mass limitation.
You have that exactly backwards comparing it to surface installations. The cost of radiation protection on a surface is the cost to run a bucket loader for X amount of time and not one cent more. The cost on a space station depends first on your $/ton to orbit cost, then installation as loading tens of thousands of tons of material into an orbiting frame is its own infrastructural challenge. And of course, you had to refine all the metals and create all the launch infrastructure to get that frame up, as well. All of this is post-colonization work.
>We have very little data on Mars soil
We've been sending shit on and around Mars to study this shit for decades. Yes, the data is there, you just have a serious issue with actually putting in any amount of effort to find it. And yes you can grow in Martian soil, just deal with the perchlorates first. Not that you need to, soil growing anywhere but Earth is a meme for anything but aesthetic purposes; it would be more efficient to isolate the nutrients you want and use them for hydro- or aeroponics.

>>11849786
get colonized

>>11849786
You have been blacklisted from entering space.

>>11849732
>>11849745
Simply by virtue of being on the ground you've already blocked 50% of radiation. In a crater maybe pushing 70%. Although it's a pathetic amount of atmosphere of Mars it's still adds some extra protection.
And then as you say all that's needed after that is regolith which you can get outside with a shovel.
There's simply no comparison between the two. If you can launch enough materials or generate an artificial magnetosphere in orbit you can do the same on the ground.

>>11849786
You no longer have permission to access any space above the karman line. All flights containing you with an apogee above the karman line are now doomed to failure.

>>11849725
>Is this an actual argument people try to make? I’ve never heard this before. This is, quite literally, retarded
No that's the strawman seething Martian bring up when you show them they won't be making a self-sufficient base on Mars from just a few SpaceX-Conestoga.
Except when they are just too ignorant to understand the concept of gradual colonization of SPACE (not limited to Mars) using infrastructure.

>>11849732
>I am literally a student training to be a radiation safety tech at this moment.
Assuming it's true, at least from this post your error seem to be from completely misunderstanding the context and the long term implication.
By the time you make dedicated orbital habitat radiation shielding will easy, modular, you'll move it around using robotic arms assuming it's not water pumped from tank to another. It won't bring extra mass that you don't already have available or cannot afford.
On Mars radiation shielding mean forever living and digging underground or fighting the still existent gravity anytime you want to progress faster than by digging.
At least if you tell the truth I assume you aren't the kind of retard who think you can go Mars direct without years of developments on a place who can receive and test high-tech life-support system.

>>11849740
>You seem to be the retard that's invoking miracles, like fully self sufficient orbital habitats backed up by massive deep space production and supply chains popping up out of nowhere because we decided to build a Moon base with a hypothetical space elevator.
You'll get those supply chain appearing more realistically and faster than anything equivalent on Mars. Being able to make 1 tiny base on Mars with no real ability to grow because there's no "magical onmifactory" shouldn't could as "must colonize first"
Also pretending SFIA is bad because it make "Mars pioneer" look incapable of long term thinking is a poor strawman.

>>11849804
>just deal with the perchlorates first.
Which is easy enough, considering they're water soluble and also decompose quite easily. in fact if left to soak in water perchlorates decompose on their own over time, which is why perchlorates only exist in soils on Earth in areas of extreme aridity like the Atacama desert (perchlorates are produced when UV light interacts with chlorine salts in the soil, meaning very dry, salty soil exposed to intense UV for a long time builds up lots of perchlorates. Guess what the conditions on Mars's surface are like?).

You're right, though, hydroponics and aquaponics are far more efficient and effective in a lot of ways, notably in terms of volumetric productivity density and nutrient pickup and utilization rates.

>>11849809
>Although it's a pathetic amount of atmosphere of Mars it's still adds some extra protection.
Notably, it blocks pretty much everything the Sun throws out except for UV, which is not an issue for 100% blocking. Cosmic rays and the particle scattering they generate are your only concern once you're on Mars.

>>11849786
Your ideology will not propagate along with Mankind as we expand ever outwards into the cosmos. You and every likeminded person on Earth will remain on Earth, and will grow evermore irrelevant to the totality of the human population and zeitgeist as sextillions upon sextillions of humans flourish above your head.

>>11849715
>Again it's like pretending Antarctica is better to live in than America based on water quantity.
And an orbital """colony""" is like pretending that it's better to live on a cruise ship and have boats come by every month to deliver supplies. Except that you're in the middle of vacuum, and can't even trade fish for those supplies, or even drink the water that you aren't floating in.
>>11849723
POO
IN
LEO

>>11849812
>pretending SFIA is bad
SFIA is actually bad, though. Watch his video about the paperclip maximizer, and notice that literally every single argument he makes about the behavior of general AI is simply wrong. He is an optimist WAY beyond the point of fault, it makes every single argument he makes suspect as a result.

>By the time you make dedicated orbital habitat radiation shielding will easy
Yeah, and that'll take a SHITLOAD OF TIME because you need to have made the effort to go out and colonize the Moon, Mars and the asteroids and learned things along the way in order to get to that point. I'll also point out that imagining that space habitats will only use materials that they would have needed to bring along anyway as shielding material is a total fantasy; No space habitat will need to have as much water as would be required to fully blanket itself with a layer ten meters thick, unless it was horrendously bad at recycling said water, in which case you don't have the technology to live in a space habitat anyway. The same goes for literally any other material or substance. If you have the recycling tech to allow for orbital habitats at all, you either have a large amount of dedicated shielding mass or you are getting your nuts irradiated to hell. Oh, and you seem to misunderstand what I mean by 'expensive to move around'; I'm talking about propelling it through space, as in getting it to you habitat in the first place, AND needing to push it along with your habitat everywhere you go. Every bit of additional mass you drag along is ten times its mass in propellant you need to be loaded up with, remember.

>>11849745
>Learn to research, Mars has higher quantity and quality sources than the moon for basically every significant resource. Your alternative is not the Moon in many cases but sourcing enormous amounts of raw resources from deep within the Earth's gravity well due to scarcity and low quality. Good luck competing with Mars on that basis, it can source most raw resources just as easily as Earth while launching them more cheaply in larger quantities. "Only good to live there" ironically is more appropriate for the Moon where even many of the available resources will be prohibitive to export.

Learn to follow the full chain from >>11849484, remember the argument and stop nitpicking. Mars have lot of raw material but it's not easily accessible without entire chain of industry or for a start technology you'll develop much faster on the Moon. By the time we gave the technology you need to live on the Mars you'll have a lot of better choice than Mars who will be at best a side project.
For the rest, it's just wrong for reasons and basic match that were explaining multiple time, the moon is WAY more accessible than Mars will ever be
You'll find another of your point have been already answered.

>>11849771
Your math rely on easy refueling on Mars, easy aerobraking with whatever undefined spaceship of anysize you have in mind.
My math use specialized orbit-to-orbit cargo, nuclear propulsion for the serious stuff. Using different kind of chemical engine depending of ISRU, and eventually making use of the advantage of having no atmosphere to cancel any fuel use.
You are thinking only short term with a few SpaceX Conestoga who will achieve nothing important, I'm thinking long term with a proper infrastructure that will grow exponentially.

Done my way you might actually colonize Mars faster as, say, a penal colony.

>>11849837
>And an orbital """colony""" is like pretending that it's better to live on a cruise ship and have boats come by every month to deliver supplies. Except that you're in the middle of vacuum, and can't even trade fish for those supplies, or even drink the water that you aren't floating in.
This, exactly. Orbital colonies cannot exist, only orbital habitats. A colony is an organization of people and industry that can grow over time. An orbital habitat is a vehicle that can, at best, sustain a fixed maximum of occupants for a maximum amount of time before being restocked or replaced.

>>11849862
>Mars have lot of raw material but it's not easily accessible without entire chain of industry
Not an argument unless you're arguing against space colonization as a whole, because you need the exact same things to allow your orbital habitat fantasy, except to a greater degree in a harsher environment.
The Moon is more accessible, nobody is arguing against that, but the Moon is a tougher nut to crack and anything we attempt to do there will take longer and be more difficult than on Mars.

Colonizing the Moon because it's closer is like colonizing the sea floor just off the coast of California rather than sailing over to Hawaii and colonizing that instead. Distance is a factor, but by no means is the most important.

>>11849862
>Your math rely on
My math RELIES on, learn to speak english.
Aerobraking is easy and you cannot deny that. It's easier to design a spacecraft that can aerobrake than it is to design a spacecraft that gets an additional 1000 m/s of delta V.
If you wanna play the "spare no expense" game, you can do electromagnetic launch from Mars too, you know. You could even hang a skyhook off of Phobos into the upper atmosphere, and by using a rube-goldberg machine like you seem to favor, get launched with no propellant in order to grab the hook as it goes by, then climb the tether to Phobos and shove off into orbit. The reason this isn't as useful to contemplate as propellant manufacturing is, this is a megastructure concept and would require a significant amount of resources, time, energy, and industry to already exist. We're not talking about how to do things once we can already do everything, we're talking about how to get even a LITTLE BIT of industrial capacity set up and growing SOMEWHERE apart from Earth's surface, and Mars is the best place.

>>11849862
Your entire argument hinges on the rationale for all human choices to be maximizing comfort, and presumes all deviations from this behavior pattern are erroneous, aberrations, or mistakes born from sheer stupidity.

>>11849732
>The solution to blocking radiation is simple enough; put ten meters of solid material between you and deep space, because that's the only thing capable of fully blocking galactic cosmic rays and the secondary radiation they produce by scattering off of atomic nuclei. On Mars, you simply scoop some material off of the ground with a front end bucket loader and dump it on top of your habitat, simple as. In space you need to manufacture and install your radiation shielding, not to mention actually ship it to location.

Quoted for truth.

>>11849862
>I made up a scenario where I did some mental gymnastics to inflate the complexity of utilizing Martian habitation and resources, go read it
No, lol. How about you stop posting until you have a better understanding? That makes a lot more sense than whining because everyone else isn't playing by your braindead "Isaac Arthur taught me everything I know about space" playbook.
> technology you'll develop much faster on the Moon.
No one ever said the Moon won't be utilized. A developmental playground is one of its primary purposes, and is clearly what SpaceX has in mind as well. The problem with the Moon is that it is a stopgap with long term reliance on Earth and Mars for resource stability. The sustainable population on the Moon is a function of the export capacity of better locations. You also want to shill for space stations, where this is even more true. You simply have a lack of a basic understanding of resource availability, orbital mechanics, supply chains, etc. Stop relying on mama bird to shovel information into your mouth and go out and do your own research, come back when you have a more complete understanding.

>Your math rely on easy refueling on Mars, easy aerobraking with whatever undefined spaceship of anysize you have in mind.
And he's right, because not doing that is retarded and because that is the basis of the vehicle that is actually going to start Mars colonization.
>You are thinking only short term with a few SpaceX Conestoga who will achieve nothing important
You really do believe you can just make something true by saying it, lmao. That shit makes all of the wild fantasies you have possible. Good luck conjuring a space station out of thin air because you never figured out launch infrastructure.

>>11849797
>Uh huh, and building underground means I have zero deep space ballistic transportation costs in order to get my shielding, whereas your orbital habitat needs to have it shipped in.
...do you even know where "my space habitat" would be? (and I'm not actually planning for dedicated orbital habitat in first phase)

At all the various station needed for refuel, or factory, or asteroid being mined for decades with the installation then moved to the next one, or even attached to a lunar space elevator which is conveniently close to a Lagrange point.
All those place make more sense economically than Mars because you'll be depending on "import" for century.

Btw, what you call "import" I call it "moving stuff where I need it". People incapable of thinking large scale shouldn't be discussing space colonization.

>in order to replicate Mars soil
I heard you right the first time. They still couldn't farm on it before alteration. They'll most likely require biengineering and I'm assuming we both meant INDOOR hydroponic with radiation protection and fake UV. Have to be clear because fiction have suggested fantastic stuff for long.

>Mars DOES have everything, everything it needs to be the best first step to take at least
Again you do seem to think you'll magically build/3D print any technology you need there without import from Earth. At least I am being realistic with the Moon.

>>11849804
>Imagine thinking you're such hot shit when you don't understand basic orbital mechanics.
Say the guy who clearly don't understand the logistic implication and probably can't imagine spaceship design beyond what's fed by Musk dream.
Also you are the only one imagining I only want to shovel Earth soil to orbit. I do believe we will make fully self-sufficient hydroponic technologies.
I'm arguing against the retarded idea that Mars soil will be ready to be farmed without any kind of industrial processing. So you'll likely be using/upgrading with whatever tech was developed on Earth.

>>11849907
>can't imagine spaceship design beyond what's fed by Musk dream.
Your only idea is reducing capability and inflating costs by ignoring aerocapture and ISRU. You don't have an imagination, you have retardation.

>Martian soil
Everything has already been said, go back and read it and then do the research and confirm it.

>growing on stations
Much like putting shielding on stations, this is simply the cost of growing planetside plus the cost of orbital export. I don't know what world you live in where you create carbon, water, phosphorous, and nitrogen out of the vaccuum, but in the real world you'll be sourcing all of that from Mars, after Martian processing, and you'll suck Martian dick for it if they tell you do because the alternative is starving to death.

>>11849723
based

>>11849861
>SFIA
>paperclip maximizer
You mean the episode he deliberately made funkier because the basic concept have already been discussed to hell, and told you about why?
You just have a closed mind incapable of understanding irony.

inb4 "No U"

>Yeah, and that'll take a SHITLOAD OF TIME
Still faster than accomplishing anything similarly relevant on Mars.
Again, being able to set up a base and farm for a while without real industry to grow and expend shouldn't count as a colony.

>I'm talking about propelling it through space
I understood you the first time, you are the one who don't get that with all the stuff you'll need moved around anyway it will have to be child play. Also there's plenty of method and you only need to cast a shadow.
From your post you do seem to think that claiming 360° shielding will not make you look like an idiot.
Despite (you) I'm assuming by this post you've read and remembered this time that I never said "orbital habitat first step", I said Moon first until we get all the technology, then likely massive development for automated asteroid mining. By that time you'll have more than enough method of protecting against radiation.
Of course you'll inevitably have base on Mars because of the sheer popular prestige of it, but the real effort of the expansion of Mankind will be done with space infrastructure and around low gravity source of material.

>>11849888
>Not an argument unless you're arguing against space colonization as a whole, because you need the exact same things to allow your orbital habitat fantasy
I'm arguing space colonization require lot of development with efficient back&forth plus a supply chain between all the place of interest. Your kind of dreamer believe you just need a few cargo drop on Mars.
btw, I vote we give up analogy because it lead nowhere.

>Aerobraking is easy and you cannot deny that. It's easier to design a spacecraft that can aerobrake than it is to design a spacecraft that gets an additional 1000 m/s of delta V.
I can easily deny that. Ballute may improve efficiency but if you are going to move any useful mass instead of a spaceX BFR you won't be able to use it for everything. Up to know we have been using vehicle light enough to brake in Mars thin atmosphere and only things we could launch in orbit in one go, not counting refueling from Earth at the start.
And please don't go pretend I want gigaship, it's just that once your design become more and more sophisticated and modular it will become counter-productive to design everything around aerobreaking instead of paying for fuel you've made cheaper in an early stage of your infrastructure.

>a skyhook off of Phobos
Its a minimum in my book, but with the local moon I think a Martian elevator would be more efficient on the long term, after a few fix.

>we're talking about how to get even a LITTLE BIT of industrial capacity set up and growing
Yes yes, again the new frontier myth where you can "build anything starting with your trusty space-shovel".
In case you didn't understand yet, I consider the minimal industry needed to have actual "growth" to be far superior to thousands of BFR... and you shouldn't start before you developed most of the tech on the Moon, and it's not next.

>>11849891
Not really, they relies on maximizing efficiency and long term thinking. I'll agree that most of mankind seem incapable of that.

>>11850012
>continued and flagrant display of a lack of understanding of launch and orbital mechanics and infrastructure
Scaling up only makes aerocapture easier. I get that your sole source of information is Isaac Arthur, but even he told you about volumetric vs. surface area growth and that's enough to conceptualize this, so I don't know why you have such a problem. Like most of your other dry mass concerns, heat rejection is a function surface area, and thus only becomes more mass efficient with scale.

>In case you didn't understand yet, I consider the minimal industry needed to have actual "growth" to be far superior to thousands of BFR...
That just makes you phenomenally poor at planning infrastructure, which is an understatement considering the utter lack of competence on display.

>>11849871
Depens on what you mean by "orbital". Near-Earth asteroids are perfectly fine for colonisation and there are a thousand of them larger than a kilometre in size. And once you have been mining them for a few years, hollowing them out and built rotating habitats for workers and tourists, you can slap a few ion engines on those suckers and nudge them into a closer Earth orbit over the next decades. We're going to mine these anyways, so why not bring them to us?

No idea why you're pretending that self-sufficiency is a requirement for a colony either. Many nations on Earth aren't even close to self-sufficient. A trade port in Earth orbit, complete with refueling stations, hotels and space-docks for working on ships is going to be a more or less permanent home for people sooner or later. People are going to add their own residences to it, superrich old folks will charter their own mansions in orbit, service industry and zero-g research and manufacturing will find their niches. A few of these will grow large enough to govern themselves and be recognized as city states. They start taxing their populace and voila, you have a small nation in orbit. Then they can use that money to mine asteroids and sustain themselves with all necessary resources, if they want to, so your purist self-sufficiency requirement is fulfilled as well. I honestly think this pathway is much more realistic than colonies on Mars, you're going to have a vastly greater influx of money and people in Earth orbit, trade and profitability will allow orbital infrastructure to flourish like off-world colonies never can. The Earth sphere will be center of the solar system for a LONG time.

>>11849900
>No, lol. How about you stop posting until you have a better understanding?
Say the guy going by antique mars-colony argument and wishful thinking. I might actually stop talking to YOU because you keep making double standard without consideration for truth. You were just here to defend your "Mars First" rhetoric but now you'll claim it was some other anon, Me I'm making point Mars will not self colonize without hundreds years of development with much more efficient first step.

>No one ever said the Moon won't be utilized
As said there's been enough Mars first proponent around there, SpaceX is forced to go to the moon because despite whatever his megalomaniac CEO think it's the obvious first step. As for the rest, again you've been twisting words and ignoring precedent answer so there's no point arguing with you. You are the kind of guy who make us want to insult you non stop.
Good work on that part troll,

>>11849938
>strawman

>>11850032
>Scaling up only makes aerocapture easier.
Common sense say no.

>I get that your sole source of information is Isaac Arthur
Wow, we know that on the Internet it's easy to give too much important whatever was posted once with the source of everything, but here that's just disingenuous.

I'll feel bad having to ignore honest question about the feasibility simply because of delusional oldschool pioneer, if not troll.

>>11850056
>not one single argument, just posting to satisfy the "I got the last post in" function
I had fun explaining all of this stuff but it's time to wrap this up.

>>11850036
>self-sufficient
That doesn't mean you can literally feed yourself with no help from anybody else. But it does mean that you have enough economically useful products or services that you can buy what you need to survive. An Antarctic outpost doesn't have to do this because they are paid for by science budgets from elsewhere. Although technically you could argue that the science and research being done there is a service, it just isn't valuable enough for people to live there permanently and raise families.
Martian and lunar colonies will at least have material resources that can be used in space that will be cheaper than the same from Earth due to the lower gravity.

>>11850056
>Common sense say no.

Your "common sense" is wrong. The bigger the spaceship, the better it is suited for aerocapture.

>muh asteroid colonization

Vast majority of asteroids are lacking either metals or volatiles.

Near-Earth asteroids are a meme since they are especially baked dry by the Sun.

Only rare differentiated asteroids such as Vesta are an exception.

>>11850036
>hollowed asteroids zooming around is more realistic than just burying a few pods into martian soil
Jesus Christ lemme guess, you think it's all gonna be made by AI robots or something right?

>>11850137
If you hollowed an asteroid you'll have accomplished more for the future of mankind than if you buried a few pods on mars.

>>11850115
Everything you wrote is reasonable, but I still think you're missing my point. Those Antarctic outposts aren't economically viable because they aren't being used economically. They're only there for science and research, as you noted yourself. Antarctic boat tours on the other hands are a multi-million dollar industry. Who's to say that Amundsen-Scott Station wouldn't be a profitable tourist location if you dropped a McDonalds, a high-tech luxury hotel and a penguin petting zoo down there?
There is no reason why the economic output of your space colony can't be based almost entirely on service industry and only minimally on manufacturing. Hell, I'd argue that it's the easiest path to profitability, as that's already the case for all advanced economies on Earth! It will take a long time before Mars or any other planetary colony can manufacture anything valuable to anyone but the people on Mars who absolutely need it. Yes, internal industry is an avenue for growth too, but it can't really enable the explosive trade and economic growth you can have near Earth.
>>11850137
I'm talking exclusively about economic viability here (as that is what I think will drive most efforts in space in the next few decades). "Planting a few pods into martian soil" will be cool no doubt, so be my guest, but don't expect a functioning - much less flourishing - colony to come from it. Hollowing out Asteroids is far-fetched at the moment, as is all talk about extraterrestrial colonies, I only brought it up as an example for what you could do in Earth orbit.

>>11850148
Yes, but which is more likely to happen first? I'm not saying orbitals will never happen, I'm saying planet probing will come first.

>>11850152
>>11850148
>muh few pods
No one is talking about pods. With the first couple of cargoships on Mars, decades more near-term than any single talking point you have, there will already be a couple thousand m^3 of available wet workshop space plus the equipment on board to expand that considerably. We will have basic manufacture and earth-moving on Mars long before the first basic mining operations on any asteroid, let alone hollowing them out en masse.

Near-earth asteroids are a paritcularly dumb suggestion as most of the easily accessible mass under this umbrella is in the form of Moon-like rock. Everything already said about the Moon applies but even more restrictively, they are good sources of very specific minerals but poor or non-existent sources of biological building blocks and other volatiles.

>>11850152
You actually think it's more economically viable to build an orbital outpost than just land on a planet? How will that shit be constructed? How exactly do you plan to regulate everything? I can understand a small Von Braun ring, but I highly doubt an O'Neill cylinder will actually be made before Mars is colonized proper.

>>11850152
I think you would definitely want to use economic incentives to push initial development, but I also think market debasement is inevitable long-term. Can't have a market economy without scarcity, the future is beautiful

The nearest future of spaceflight and especially colonization belongs to robots. You would be delusional to deny the obvious. Autonomous robots are becoming a thing, the space industry will soon adopt all the innovation we already have on Earth. And it's becoming increasingly clear that normies aren't interested in living outside of Earth, are sperging out at the slightest hint of danger to humans, and don't like any bad publicity in general. It's impossible to make any non-flag planting mission in these conditions, neither politically nor business-wise.

>b-but muh InSight and the mole
>b-but a human would have done it in 5 minutes with a shovel
InSight is a low-budget mission (yeah... this is JPL/NASA and not ISRO, just think of how much they would have spent to get humans with shovels there) which is designed to do precisely one thing. Space industry didn't adopt all the innovations we have here yet, because of the long development cycles. Chinese were the first to use autonomous landing hazard avoidance in 2013, JPL is finally doing that in 2020 (in case they don't miss the launch window). Robotic exploration, construction, and preparing the site for humans is the future.

In the next decade we'll see UGVs and/or autonomous aircraft mapping the Mars. That is my prediction, and I'm objectively right by all metrics.

>>11850190
You're focusing on the asteroid part when I just said it's not even necessary for an orbital outpost in the first place.
>>11850194
>You actually think it's more economically viable to build an orbital outpost than just land on a planet?
Note how you just shifted goal-posts to "landing on a planet" again. That is easy. No shit. The discussion was about colonies and long-term human presence in space.
>How will that shit be constructed?
Exactly like everything we have crafted in orbit so far, including the ISS, which need I remind you is the only place outside Earth where humans have lived long-term so far. How do I plan to get the massive amounts of building material into space? With the equally massive launch vehicles you need to land on and build a presence on Mars. You can only launch shit to Mars every two years, so the amount of mass shipped to LEO will exceed that shipped to Mars by orders of magnitude if we want it to. Economics of scale and the need to fund your launch company when you're not sending stuff to Mars will make Earth orbit cheap and accessible.
>O'Neill cylinders
I don't think I ever said anything about O'Neill cylinders or even rotating space stations. AGAIN, I'm talking about near-term orbital infrastructure. If SpaceX delivers on their promises Re:Starship, putting a ISS-sized space station into orbit will cost you under 100 million in terms of launch price.
>>11850204
Bless capitalism and free market economy.

>>11850190
>We will have basic manufacture and earth-moving on Mars long before the first basic mining operations on any asteroid
Now that's an oldschool pioneer bias, please describe what you mean by basic. Because if you are happy just to move some earth around you are nowhere ready to have proper growth.

Is there any way to calculate the size of an object’s sphere of influence?

>>11850238
>You're focusing on the asteroid part when I just said it's not even necessary for an orbital outpost in the first place.
You have consistently, throughout two threads of pretty much everyone pointing out the problems with your arguments, relied on 'muh asteroids' as the only source of carbon and volatiles in your fantasy space economy, I'm telling you how stupid that is regardless if what you think your point is right now. Mars is objectively the best near-term source for all of this, and will dominate the economy of the off-Earth inner solar system from inception into the foreseeable future. The only interest of near-Earth materials outside of the moon is rare heavy metals, which does not form the basis of a growing colony. Beyond that you're looking at belt asteroids which will be more expensive to source from than Mars.

>hurr just source everything from Earth btw I'm thinking long term guys really
You have no sense whatsoever. Even if you built all of your rockets on Earth, they become far more capable outside of it. Once we're building rockets on Mars dedicated to the task, which is still more near-term than anything you're talking about, the gap in capability only increases. Even with large launchers, the actual cost of raw material sourcing on Earth will be swamped by the launch cost, while on Mars both are low.

>>11850250
>>11850235
>It's not proper! Muh robots! YOU CAN'T JUST DO THAT!
haha digger go brrrrrr

>>11850263
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphere_of_influence_(astrodynamics)

>>11850270
Me and my operator are still going to replace you.

How come SpaceX still haven't delivered any Mars mission after almost two decades of promising it? Not even a plant in a box.

>>11850283
They're building the Mars rocket right now. Have patience, SpaceX is still moving much faster than their contemporaries.

>>11850276
What the fuck is this thing even for?

>>11850283
SpaceX has existed for less than two decades and despite internal goals did not have a proposed mission to Mars until 2017, which was scrapped.

>>11850263
The "sphere of influence" is not a scalar value and doesn't have a "size" or a "radius". Maybe in ideal conditions, but not in real ones where there are a lot of other celestial bodies affecting it.

What you need to realize is that trajectory is just a trajectory. There's a whole class of trajectories (a viable ones, and used in practice!) that's based on edge cases, for example ballistic capture (see the Dawn probe), or the interplanetary transport network.

For example, Sun's "sphere" of influence (AKA Hill's sphere) isn't actually a sphere, it's a complex gradient that is constantly changing due to multitude of factors such as interstellar matter perturbations or the proximity of nearby stars (that come and go, see Scholz's star as an example).

The n-body problem provably doesn't have an analytical solution, it only has a numerical one.

>>11850308
Grant collection? Apparently it could never operate in vaccuum and has been stashed and deorbited, is probably stowed away in a locker somewhere.

I'm not sure why you guys seem to be convinced there is a competition between space habitats and mars ones.
The technology needed to go there is the same, and outposts will be made everywhere from mars, to asteroids, to the moon etc.
Time will tell which will grow faster (if any), and they will probably all depend on each other.

>>11850264
I don't care about your /sfg/ drama. Please adress my arguments as posted and don't go strawmanning on me.
>Once we're building rockets on Mars dedicated to the task, which is still more near-term than anything you're talking about
That's the best thing you can come up with? Building rockets on Mars is nearer-term than profitable space tourism, space hotels and fuel depots in LEO? No. Just no. It will take a colony tens of thousands, more realistically hundreds of thousands strong to support the supply chains for any complex manufacturing. If you have the heavy launch vehicles to build a colony like that, you're still limited by 2 year synodic periods. In the remaining 2 years you have to do SOMETHING with your launchers, or your company isn't going to do very well, so it follows that orbital infrastructure will grow extremely fast compared to anything that's further from Earth than the Moon. Orbital stations will house far more people and produce much more economic value than extraterrestrial colonies for a long time. They have access to a costumer base billions strong just a few hours away. It does not matter that they aren't self-sufficient in any way and I don't know why you're so obsessed with the concept.

>>11850324
No one's saying never make space habitats. SFIAfag and other orbital-firsts think we should just ignore Mars and start with massive orbital structures right out of our asses. The point is that we get to the stage of launching massive orbital structures faster through Mars than through any other method, because of its unique traits of high resource availability, ease of access, ease of colonization, and low launch penalty.

>>11850321
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/main/robonaut.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robonaut
>fly robot up
>works for shit
>fly it back down to fix it
>fly it back to space
What the fuck is this bullshit, you already have astronauts this thing is pointless

>>11850338
Yeah but if something bad happens to it, no one dies

>>11850324
This. The future of space flight is uncertain. Even the brightest minds in the field don't agree on what would be the best path for exploration and colonization. The only way that path can be figured out, is to move on from studies and into the field itself. That's why all but the most obviously bad ideas should be tried in a form of shotgun colonization.

>>11850270
But it doesn't!

>>11850311
>SpaceX has existed for less than two decades
That changes everything.

>>11850329
>billions of people will want to spend a first-worlder's life savings to take more than two years of their life to visit mars, and most of a year of that locked up in a tin can just to get there and back. (it's worse if they don't saty on Mars for the whole synod, because then they have to spend two years in the tin can)
ok hotel roomer

>>11850283
>>11850355

>>11850343
>Even the brightest minds in the field
aka /sfg/

Why aren't there more remotely operated moon rovers?

Unlike Mars, where signals from earth can take 30 minutes to reach, the moon is close enough that operators can exploit (almost) real time streaming and drivability.

Imagine a livestream of a moon rover with a modest 4 second delay.

>>11850360
I’d do it

>>11850367
Probably because the country that can send probes across the solar system most reliably (the US) has already gotten all the research about the moon it needed from Apollo. That's why there's such a strong lobby for robotic probes in space exploration. While a manned mission will demand a greater budget upfront, such a mission completes it's objectives much faster than an equivalent robotic mission and thus it's total budget over its lifetime is smaller than said robotic mission. Probes are simply more sustainable than manned missions. It's even better if probes have to be small and limited in scope so more have to be launched.

>>11850329
>muh strawmanning
Make a better argument then. "Hey, I was retarded, Mars colonization is key to the interplanetary future of humanity" would be a good place to start.

>Building rockets on Mars is nearer-term than profitable space tourism, space hotels and fuel depots in LEO?
None of these things support a growing population off-Earth on their own. The only thing that does that is access to large amounts of raw resources relevant to both industry and biology. In this role, Mars is the breadbasket, Earth will be outcompeted due to launch penalties.
>In the remaining 2 years you have to do SOMETHING with your launchers, or your company isn't going to do very well, so it follows that orbital infrastructure will grow extremely fast compared to anything that's further from Earth than the Moon.
The Martian colony will only continue to grow, and unlike Earth the vast majority of its economy will be focused on space infrastructure. Yes, cis-lunar space will be a very active place. But when it comes to permanent habitation, it will continue to be limited by orbital export. When it comes to shipping shittons of cheap raw materials, Mars will dominate. It doesn't really change anything that the glut comes in periodically.

Only two weeks until the Mars launches can start flying
I'm already aroused.

>>11850367
There aren't many Moon rovers in general except for Chinese, and Chinese were a bit cargo cult-ish to JPL's Mars rovers, implementing the slow semi-autonomous command loop. Astrobotics, the closest one to send real-time teleoperated Moon robots, wasn't getting a lot of orders for their commercial robots lately, and JPL is too focused on another astronomical bodies to be ready to send rovers to Moon.

>>11850367
Also, the Soviet proved in 70's that a
>a modest 4 second delay
is not useful for anything scientifically relevant, except maybe for making rover travel distance records

>>11850362
>unable to answer the simple questions

>>11850384
I've been watching some of those assembly videos too, will be cool to see that thing once it's on the surface. Hopefully this skycrane works as well as the first one, before Curiosity landed I was at least 40% sure it would fuck up somehow and nosedive like a Boeing airliner.
I'm glad I was wrong but man, still makes me nervous.

>>11850391
>The first time SpaceX proposed a Mars mission was 3 years ago, not almost two decades ago
>they're building the infrastructure right now
It was answered

>>11850369
great, now we just need 999,999,999 more

>>11850401
You only need about 10,000 unrelated people to start a long term colony. 500 if you're fine with Iceland-levels of accidental incest.

>>11850396
He knows, ignore him.

>>11850392
Ackchually the skycrane was dead simple. The only untried thing was the tethered link between the crane and the rover, like the lithobraking was in previous landings. Current landing tech (which already made its way into textbooks thanks to JPL) makes this trivial for anyone. I'll be genuinely surprised if JPL will fuck this up this time. I'm much more excited about the helicopter drone.

>>11850396
But their initial goal was to send a plant to Mars. (I know that I'm explaining it to a fanatic, though)

>>11850407
Given that there will inevitably be continuous genetic transfer between Mars and Earth, I think it would be difficult to establish a realistic lower limit for a viable population. Realistically population growth will be almost entirely Earth migration for the first few decades and it will continue to be a significant factor ad infinitum.

>>11850424
How much of a smoothbrain do you have to be to see a company with nothing but a mission statement to its name to immediately go to Mars? If you misunderstood what was "promised" that's on you as the only person so willfully retarded.

>>11850424
That was Musk’s original idea; then he had grander visions.

Jesus this thread is a shitshow but I’m gonna try and explain some stuff.

1) Orbital habitats are great but they require very advanced construction technologies that either don’t exist today, or haven’t been used on a scale like that (in space). Also an orbital Colony lacks access to resuources unless it’s somehow hooked to an asteroid, but at that point it still has a very finite supply.

Now a manned mars base may not have the best living conditions, but it uses current tech and doesn’t require any huge advances in construction technology. We can build a mars base right now, but not a 1 kilometer wide rotating wheel.

2) That faggot whose flaming SpaceX is retarded, don’t respond to him.

>>11850461
I don’t see how a Martian colony would have poor living conditions.

>SpaceX general
>/sxg/

>>11850484
why did you post a webm of a tranny

>>11850360
Anon, I-i said the exact opposite.

>>11850420
I'm more confident now that it worked once, I really had to see it work to be sure even if it all made sense on paper.

>>11850360
>b-but my 3 months trajectories!
None of these became a reality

>>11850461
Asteroids are a great source of material if and only if you have access to the good ones, which basically means you're out in the belt. Near Earth asteroids are potentially good for extracting high margin materials like gold and pt but shit for anything else.

Have there been any proposals, designs, or mission plans that use a manned lander as a skyscrane to land a pressurized rover?

>>11850487
because she's sexy, isn't that obvious?

>>11850511
it is a he anon, and he isn't "sexy". people with mental illnesses will not be allowed on mars anon, at least not for a while

>>11850510
>Manned lander as a skycrane
The skycrane doesn't really land though, does it? Hence "lander" vs. "sky"crane.
>expendable manned skycranes

>>11850516
>Skycrane kamikaze pilots

>>11850514
>people with mental illnesses will not be allowed on mars
Wait a second, there's seemingly no shortage of people who want one-way ticket to Mars

>>11850516
>The skycrane doesn't really land though, does it? Hence "lander" vs. "sky"crane.

No, but a lander could hover, drop the rover onto the ground, then land nearby. It acts as a sky crane, at least temporarily. It seems to work quite well in KSP when you want to explore the surface extensively, and simplifies getting the rover.

>>11850528
*and simplifies getting the rover to the surface and fitting it in the launch stack

>>11850504
Honestly even a small asteroid like Bennu or Ryugu (Both only 500 meters across) and is close to earth (both are NEAs) would be hard as fuck to move to a useful orbit. They’re small but they’re really heavy. So good luck moving that shit in a reasonable time frame without Fusion or the like.

However, Bennu alone has enough resources to build TWO 1.6 kilometer long rotating Toruses, with enough material left over to build a third to 70% completion.

>>11850522
having an urge to explore doesn't mean you have a mental illness. on the other hand, gender dysphoria is a mental illness

>>11850380
>Mars colonization is key to the interplanetary future of humanity
I'd disagree on "key", but it's pretty important yeah. I'm just saying that near term, orbital habitats will be more populated and profitable than a Mars base and that eventually, they can shift into colonies.
>None of these things support a growing population off-Earth on their own
It will take many, many decades until Mars has a population that meaningfully grows from anything other than immigration. And if that counts for you, I don't see your beef with orbital colonies.
>In this role, Mars is the breadbasket, Earth will be outcompeted due to launch penalties
Possibly. In the very far future. Maybe. You can argue that, but I don't really buy it. It would take Mars hundreds of years to match Earth's population. Earth has the Moon attached, where metals are even more accessible than Mars and remote control is possible (inb4 the automation isn't there yet, you're literally making prognostications about centuries into the future). Earth is also the best source of Uranium in the entire solar system, so it can afford to build crazy shit like nuclear thermal rockets, while Mars can't. There are other forms of getting tons of mass into orbit, meme technologies right now, but probably doable in a century or two which is the timescale you're talking about.
>>11850461
You're conflating Mars base and Mars colony. Yes, we can land on Mars. Yes, people can stay there full time. That is not colonization. We can't build giant rotating habitats yet, true. But we will be able to before Mars has even a thousand people living on it.
>>11850324
Respectfully arguing is fun, actually.

>>11850549
> We can't build giant rotating habitats yet, true. But we will be able to before Mars has even a thousand people living on it.
that won't happen unless blue origin actually reveals the new glenn tomorrow and then reveals they have a rocket at least as powerful as the saturn V ready by 2025, because SpaceX doesn't plan on building large rotating habitats.

>>11850510
The skycrane comes from the complexity of unloading the payload from the lander, especially a tall one. You inevitably end up with either capsizing/center of mass problem, or the complex mechanical device that unloads the payload that is heavier than the already emptied lander. The tethered skycrane is simpler than that.

In a manned mission, the complexity of the pressurized lander with a life support system already far surpasses the skycrane, so you don't need one. Additionally, you have a bunch of clever monkeys to deal with almost any problem instantly. Just a simple ramp or a pulley (just like with Apollos) would do.

In fact, you don't even need a skycrane if you have a proper autonomous landing hazard avoidance system. (like the Chinese did many years ago on the Moon, and nobody doesn't have this till this day). The skycrane really is an overengineered JPL-specific thing that they are trying to sell as the only possible solution. It isn't.

>>11850479
>I don’t see how a Martian colony would have poor living conditions.

Low gravity.

>>11850542
>However, Bennu alone has enough resources to build TWO 1.6 kilometer long rotating Toruses, with enough material left over to build a third to 70% completion.

source?

>>11850599
>Low gravity.
Not a poor living condition.

>>11850599
we had this discussion last thread

>>11850377
>all the research about the moon it needed from Apollo
>"Yeah guys, there's no carbon up here"
>KAGUYA rolls around
>これは何ですかお兄ちゃん?
>Fucktons emanating from it, much more than can be attributed for from solar winds and micrometeorites
Yeah, you sure "explored" the moon with Apollo.

>>11850599
Low gravity sounds like a novelty rather than something that genuinely reduces living conditions.

>>11850605
He probably made a general estimate for a rotating space habitat of an arbitrary size by assigning an arbitrary mass-per-square-meter of interior surface area, then divided the mass of Bennu by the resulting mass per orbital habitat.

>>11850607
And the one before that, and the one before that.

>>11850611
Zero gravity is awful for health long term. Martian gravity may be as well. Especially since we are talking about a colony here, not just ISS-like station.

>>11850407
Tourists don't make a colony.

>>11850619
>Martian gravity may be as well
all the 0-g problems are specifically related to not having gravity at all. With weak gravity it most likely will be completely fine barring muscle degradation which has been figured out.

>After a decade or a couple decades, we have a capability to land X ton of cargo on Mars
Now what?
Where's the life support for humans?
Has anybody even touched the long-term living without being supplied from Earth every few weeks?
What am I supposed to do after I land on Mars?
What is the goal, in details?
Almost two decades have passed.
Is all this supposed to be developed sequentially, and not in parallel?

>>11850619
>Martian gravity may be as well
So you are making a claim with zero evidence, okay. I can do that too; Earths gravitational strength varies across its surface and this does not affect the health of those people living across these gradients of gravitational strength, therefore any amount of gravity stronger than microgravity will have no deleterious effect on the human body.

>>11850617
and neither one has been able to answer the questions

>>11850627
Wishful thinking. We have no idea about the effects of Martian gravity.

To sum it up:
>rotaring habitat in orbit
Advantages:
>fast to reach with little deltaV
>no launch window required
>can make use of asteroid mining economicly
Disadvantages:
>relies either on asteroid mining or a prohibitively large quantity of mass send to shield from radiation
>asteroids need to be moved from the belt to earth orbit

>Mars base
Advantages:
>plenty material for shielding
>many ressources to make use of allready there
>aerobraking possible
Disadvantages
>requires more deltaV to reach
>longer travel times
>few possible exports to earth

To make rotating habitats in higher than LEO work, we would realisticly need to capture an asteroid containing the required ressources into Earth orbit to be processed.
That however takes years after we have a reasonably cheap heavy launch vehicle and possibly a huge nuclear or ion thruster powered tug that can reasonably move asteroids in the kiloton range.
Alternatively the initial habitat needs to move all the way out to the belt.
Both of wich move such habitats into the far future, but eventualy economicly profitable operations.

A Mars base is possible in the not so far future.
The required technologies for landing there have been proven and a launch vehicle for larger manned Mars missions is under development.
By default that base would be required to be largely self-sustaining as the supply chain would be long and launch windows are years appart.
However that is easier to archive as many ressources on Mars could be exploited.

In my humble opinion the question is not one or the other, but to send out the required asteroid search and capture mission(s) at about the same time as the first wave of colonists to Mars.

>>11850235
>And it's becoming increasingly clear that normies aren't interested in living outside of Earth

please dear god let it be true

>>11850647
also currently nobody other then blue origin plans to make such orbital habitats, while spacex plans to start a colony

>>11850631
>Now what?
Use that cheap cargo capability to it's fullest. Manned missions. More involved probes. Cheaper probes.

>Where's the life support for humans?
Long term space life support has been done for decades.

>Has anybody even touched the long-term living without being supplied from Earth every few weeks?
NASA has done some research. There's even Earthly examples of it such as Antarctica.

>What am I supposed to do after I land on Mars?
Either work to establish more infrastructure, or do research since you're no longer restricted by a dinky probe with hours of lag-time.

>What is the goal, in details?
Whatever is possible and has funding for.

>Almost two decades have passed.
Passed since what?

>Is all this supposed to be developed sequentially, and not in parallel?
All of the stuff for Mars has already been developed in some way. More stuff can be developed faster and better once significant cargo can be sent to Mars.

>>11850631
>Where's the life support for humans?
Use the same stuff developed for Dragon on Starship, but bigger for larger crews. For the base, use the same life support systems as on Starship, but build into support frames as modules similar to a portable generator.

>What am I supposed to do after I land on Mars?
>What is the goal, in details?
Use materials and equipment sent from Earth to unpack and set up a large solar array, CO2 acquisition pumps, and water ice harvesting equipment, in order to start propellant production.
One the propellant plant is up and running, subsequent sinodal shipments will include expansions for the power array as well as additional equipment to set up additional ISRU production systems, for materials such as extruded basalt and basalt fiber, steel, aluminum, glass, and chemistry systems such as Haber-Bosch reactors.

>Is all this supposed to be developed sequentially, and not in parallel?
No. The goal has been improving since SpaceX began; Elon first wanted to land a small greenhouse on Mars to spur space development. Since then he changed his mind and started to develop space technologies directly, and the end goal has risen to become enabling cheap and reliable enough two-way transportation between Earth and Mars that a colony can be started.

>>11850647
>>no launch window required
You have a launch window no matter what object you're going to.

>>11850612
>>11850605

Source: Stanford Torus habitat

> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_torus

> Location: Earth–Moon L5 Lagrangian point

>Total mass: 10 million tons (including radiation shield (95%), habitat, and atmosphere)

Asteroid Bennu mass:

>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/101955_Bennu

> 78 billion kg (78 Million tons)

I was wrong, looks like you can make seven habitats as opposed to just two.

>>11850647
>rotaring habitat in orbit
>relies either on asteroid mining or a prohibitively large quantity of mass send to shield from radiation

Not if you place it in low equatorial Earth orbit.

>>11850654
To be fair:
To build a Von Braun's wheel, O'Neill cylinder or some other structure like that above LEO without asteroid mining would require to launch a total mass well en excess of what can reasonably be paid even with an optimistic Starship.
So it requires asteroids to be mines in earth orbit, wich moves it way out in the timescale.
The required space-tug first has to be designed, built and launched.
Same goes for Starship.
The processing facilities are probably overlapping with a possible Mars-project.
However that will probably be more of a research project.
>>11850662
If it's a rotating habitat in a low inclination orbit around earth you can reasonably lauch pretty much whenever you like.
The Hohmann transfer between LEO and the higher orbit only has to wait a few minutes more or less.
So no launch window required.
(That doesn't realy work with ISS as it has a quite significant inclination to be reached efficiently from Baikonur)

>>11850570
>>11850510
One of the reason for the skycrane was to avoid damaging the rover instruments with dust from the soil displaced by the descent engines.
If you have a pressurized rover, you can put your fragile instruments inside and not bother with all this mess.

>>11850667
Enjoy your twice-annually 90 m/s reboost maneuvers, each one requiring a 2% wet dry mass ratio at 470 Isp to complete, which for a one million ton spacecraft is ~20,400 tons of hydrolox propellant.

>>11850667
Then you basicly have another ISS, but spinning and larger with no economy to speak off.
The only reason to do that I could think off would be to research the effects of different gravity levels on the human body, but I'd go smaller than a Von Braun's wheel for that, two modified "wet workshop" Statships on a teather with a docking port at the common center of mass should be sufficient.

>>11850689
>a rotating habitat in a low inclination orbit around earth
For what purpose

>The Hohmann transfer between LEO and the higher orbit only has to wait a few minutes more or less
For a starting orbit about equal to the ISS' orbit you're looking at ~90 minutes between transfer opportunities.

>>11850691
Which wasn't a problem with other rovers somehow. The Soviets landed heavy rovers before.
>If you have a pressurized rover, you can put your fragile instruments inside and not bother with all this mess.
You mean create an even bigger mess.

>>11850702
Or just use high ISP ion engines for stationkeeping.

>>11850691
>If you have a pressurized rover, you can put your fragile instruments inside and not bother with all this mess.

I basically just attached the rover to the bottom of the lander, about two meters below connected by steel girders and decouplers.

>>11850722
>Finishes stationkeeping burn in five years, deorbits

>>11850707
>For what purpose
We don't care about russias ability to reach it and lower inclination orbits are easier to archive from launchpads near the equator, like KSC.
>For a starting orbit about equal to the ISS' orbit you're looking at ~90 minutes between transfer opportunities.
Why would you send it to an orbit with that much inclination at such a low altitude?
Sounds like a waste of fuel = payload capacity to me.
Not only to launch it, but to keep it in orbit.

For higher orbit of low inclination, one can launch a rocket form KSC at any desired time.
The transfer window would be reached at worst after just over one single phasing orbit of less than one hour.

So no launch window required.

>>11850689
>If it's a rotating habitat in a low inclination orbit around earth you can reasonably lauch pretty much whenever you like.
>The Hohmann transfer between LEO and the higher orbit only has to wait a few minutes more or less.
>So no launch window required.
>(That doesn't realy work with ISS as it has a quite significant inclination to be reached efficiently from Baikonur)
1. If you are launching something to LEO and your site is not located at equator (and even Alcântara is 2 degrees off the equator), launching at an inclination lower than your latitude is prohibitely expensive.
2. You need a launch window to match the phase of the station anyway.

enjoy the orbital mechanics pal

>>11850722
>ion engines
>pushing a million tons
Yeah, okay. To use SpaceX's Starlink satellites as a baseline for a spacecraft that we know for certain can produce enough ion thrust to counteract drag and boost its orbit, you'd only need an ion thruster array with 4.405 million times the thrust of a single one of the Starlink krypton thrusters. That means you need a power supply with 4.405 million times the output, lmao. Good luck.

>>11850734
Wasting deltav/fuel to the Earth rotation is one of the really minor problems in the spaceflight

>>11850734
>Why would you send it to an orbit with that much inclination at such a low altitude?
It has nothing to do with inclination, it has everything to do with orbital period and phase angle to the target object.
If your LEO vehicle has exactly the same orbital plane as your high Earth orbit station, you need to wait until the right departure time so that you reach apoapsis while the target is passing nearby, otherwise you're gonna have one hell of a delay as you either catch up the station or let it catch up to you over several days or even weeks, being in a similar orbit and thus having a low relative velocity.

>>11850736
>1. If you are launching something to LEO and your site is not located at equator (and even Alcântara is 2 degrees off the equator), launching at an inclination lower than your latitude is prohibitely expensive.
Depends on how much lower inclination we're talking about.
The additional deltaV requirement grows exponential with the deviation your launch site has from the equator.
At 2° for example it's not that big of a deal, and at higher orbits it's even easier due to the lower orbital velocity.
>2. You need a launch window to match the phase of the station anyway.
For a near equatorial launch site and an equatorial orbit that's not required.
One can launch the vehicle into an orbit of the same 0° inclination and vary the length of the coasting phase to reach the transfer window.

>>11850734
>orbit of less than one hour
Those do not exist around Earth, dummy. ISS is scraping the upper atmosphere and takes an hour and a half to complete an orbit.

>>11850734
Well alright if you're going to make astronauts to fly in a tin can for two days or more, you don't need a launch window. If you're aiming for conditions comfortable for humans (a couple hours at most), you need to precisely match the time.

>>11850756
>rotational habitat in LEO
Not only would it be subject to tidal forces, it would also have significant athmospheric drag.
And we're talking about something rather huge here, not just some tiny ISS.

>>11850765
>and vary the length of the coasting phase
Yeah... That's a problem

>>11850767
what if I want an underground orbit in a boring company tunnel though?

>>11850751
>That means you need a power supply with 4.405 million times the output, lmao. Good luck.

We are talking about a million ton station here. Starlink sat is ~200 kg. So the math checks out actually. Million ton station will have that kind of power.

>>11850771
>make astronauts to fly in a tin can for two days or more, you don't need a launch window
That's kind of normal now, but two days would only be required if the orbit of the habitat is in LEO, wich would be a terrible idea as the frontal area of such a habitat would be enormous and so would be its athmospheric drag.

>>11850729
>>Finishes stationkeeping burn in five years, deorbits

Stationkeeping burns are not time limited. They are in ideal application for ion engines. VASIMR was even proposed as stationkeeping thruster for ISS.

https://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/k-4/features/F_Engine_That_Does_More.html

>>11850777
Yes, I was the one to bring up the fact that a large rotating space station in a low enough orbit to be protected by the magnetic field is going to require reboosting, and reboosting such a gigantic object is going to require gigantic amounts of propellant or power, depending on what propulsion system you pick.

>>11850778
As established that's hours at worst unless your habitat is low enough to scrape on the athmosphere itself.

>>11850782
>Million ton station will have that kind of power
If it had that much power, the solar panel array (or the radiator array if you're using nuclear) would be so large that you couldn't have this thing in LEO anyway, because it would produce meaningful amounts of torque and drag.

>>11850789
So we agree that a large rotating habitat in LEO would be not exactly a good idea?

>>11850798
Uh, yeah, that was my point. I think you're confusing me as being the anon who suggested putting giant rotating habitats in LEO to save on shielding mass, which is so retarded it's almost based.

>>11850795
>If it had that much power, the solar panel array (or the radiator array if you're using nuclear) would be so large that you couldn't have this thing in LEO anyway, because it would produce meaningful amounts of torque and drag.

Nope, drag depends on density of the object in question. While big station has higher drag force, it also has higher inertia, so it cancels out.

Stationkeeping requirements in LEO are manageable as proven by countless satellites and the ISS.

>>11850808
>Nope, drag depends on density of the object in question.

Lead cubes proven to fall slower than paper airplanes by 4Chan anon

Can anyone find a problem with my idea for expanding manned expoloration, other than the fact it'll cost more than anyone is willing to spend?
>LEO station @ same inclination as the moon
>LLO station in polar orbit
>2 space tugs running between them
>one for crew and supplies
>another just for fuel
>fuel is to refuel reusable lunar landers
The only problem I can see is the limited transfer windows due to the LLO station being polar but I think it's worth it and the ~600m/s extra delta-v to be able to land anywhere on the moon.

>>11850820
>Lead cubes proven to fall slower than paper airplanes by 4Chan anon

What? Lead cubes will absolutely deorbit much slower than paper planes.

>>11850820
>a sail catches less air than a cannon ball

This is your brain on ignorance.

>>11850808
>While big station has higher drag force, it also has higher inertia, so it cancels out.
A big station would actually be significantly less dense than a small one, anon. The gigantic solar panel array would only make that worse. Regardless, the biggest issue would be torque produced by the atmosphere due to the fact that the habitat would be large enough that it would experience significantly more dynamic pressure on the side projecting down towards Earth than on the side projecting away, because of the denser atmosphere.

>>11850801
That was kind of my point as well, if the difference in altitude is significant, the phasing orbit takes a few hours at the absolute worst.
Not several days like some Anon claims, that's the case for ISS as it's so low that going much lower is unrealistic wich results in having quite low differences in orbital periods wich results in many phasing orbits.
With a rotating habitat in a higher orbit the difference in orbital periods is significantly greater.
At GEO the difference is exactly as long as an orbit over the surface takes, so almost exactly one orbit at a low LEO.
That orbit also wouldn't have to be long therm stable, so it could be lower than ISS is now.

Sadly this board has no IDs, it would make discussions a lot easier.

>>11850829
> What? Lead cubes will absolutely deorbit much slower than paper planes.

Exactly! They are much denser but obviously have less drag. A giant solar array would catch huge amounts of air and cause the station to de orbit much quicker.

>>11850822
>LEO station @ same inclination as the moon
for what purpose
>LLO station in polar orbit
for what purpose
>2 space tugs running between them
Gonna need some serious propulsion upgrades to make round-trip high payload mass fraction tugs a practical option
>fuel is for lunar landers
Just launch it directly to the Moon, slap a station into Lunar orbit if you really want to, or better yet just park Tankers in Lunar orbit to service reusable landers until the Tankers are empty and can come back to Earth using reserve propellant.
Less stops along the way is better. One decent architecture is a three stage reusable vehicle, first stage is a big booster, second stage achieves low Earth orbit, and third stage gets to Lunar orbit with significant payload and returns. Do several propellant runs to the Moon to fill up a single reusable Tanker, then send your manned mission to rendezvous with the full Tanker, refill the Crew spacecraft tanks, then have the Tanker come back while the crew goes to land on the Moon, returning later with a big haul of materials to study. If you get Lunar ISRU set up then you don't need to refuel anything anymore to do round trip Lunar surface missions, the third stage can get to and land on the Moon all on its own, and with native propellants can launch back to Earth.

>>11850834
>A big station would actually be significantly less dense than a small one, anon.

If it is a big oneill cylinder filled with air, then yes, but otherwise no, depends on how it is constructed

>the biggest issue would be torque produced by the atmosphere

you have a citation for that? seems like this would not be significant to me

>>11850840
>A giant solar array would catch huge amounts of air and cause the station to de orbit much quicker.

Not if the station is giant as well. The ratio of drag to mass is the same.

>>11850837
>Not several days like some Anon claims
I think he was actually talking about the transfer from a low orbit station to a mid or high orbit station, like geostationary. At some point the habitat advocate guy had mentioned minutes between transfer windows for a vehicle in LEO to a high orbit station, which is simply not true; you need to wait a bit more than a full orbit if you miss your phase angle for that kind of transfer, which is over an hour minimum.

>>11850822
>same inclination as the moon
For what purpose? It's not going to stay in the same inclination for particularly long seeing as that's not how orbital mechanics work. Two objects at different orbital periods at the same inclination don't stay at the same inclination except for a teeny tiny window.

>>11850856
Stop talking about size as if it's relevant here. What you mean to say is specific drag, ie aerodynamic force per kilogram times square meters. If you scale up a solid cube the volume and therefore mass goes up by the cube whereas the surface area goes up by the square, which means the specific drag goes down.
However, an orbital habitat is not a solid object, it is hollow, and worse still, it will actually have proportionally less mass per volume the larger you scale it up, meaning specific drag only goes up.
The solar panel array also scales up differently than a cube; the length and width get much larger, but the thickness remains the same, which means the thickness proportional to the area goes way down, which means specific drag goes up.

Here is what needs to happen.
Someone like Bigelo builds a rotating space hotel that creates the 40% or so gravity on mars.
We dont even know what that gravity will do to humans long term. Get people living like that long term. 0g causes very bad health problems over months.

First batch of Starships sends a habitat, fuel processor, tunnel boaring/mining rig.

Mining rig is also creating space for underground habitats, factories and such. Have to find a way to mass produce steel with nuclear power.
3d print machines to 3d print all the needed machines. The real colony wont happen until its being built from mars resources and it will take time to develop the tools to do it.

Shipping everything there every 2 years will not be very effective.

>>11850852
>you have a citation for that? seems like this would not be significant to me
A 200 meter wide object sitting in a low Earth orbit of 300,000 m has one side sitting at 299,900 m and the other at 300,100 m, which results in only a fraction of a percentage of atmospheric density disparity, but this imbalanced force acts over a huge surface area, meaning it adds up to a significant effect on weeks to months long time scales.

For comparison, the yarkovsky effect has a noticeable affect on the orbits of objects tens of thousands of times more massive than the habitat we're discussing here, and it works using far tinier forces, from the simple emission of infrared light from warm rocks rotating into shadow.

>>11850850
>for what purpose
A LEO station is valuable for research, the ISS is getting old and if you are going to get 4x the volume from the first inflatable hab launch you might aswell put it in an inclination where it can be a stop on the way to the moon without costing any delta-v.

>for what purpose
LLO because it will be our first station outside the magnetosphere, useful for developing the kind of shielding we'll need for Mars in the long term.

>Gonna need some serious propulsion upgrades
Why? I get you are going to want decent thrust to weight on the manned tug to get a 1 or 2 burn TLI but without a lander it would be on the light side.
For fuel you just run a few RL-10s, who cares if TLI takes a few orbits?

Your plan is fine for just getting to the moon but I want us to figuer out the shielding needed for interplanetary missions.

>>11850867
We stop the ISS precessing, why would this be different?

>>11850879
>Shipping everything there every 2 years will not be very effective.
It will take 8 to 12 years, since they will be sending hundreds of Starships per launch window by year 6.

>>11850879
>Wasting time fretting about muh gravity

Or you could just go.

>>11850879
Good idea with the spinning hab, if it turns out people need more than 0.4g we can make centrifuges on Mars but shit gets a lot harder.

>>11850547
Captain, incoming transmission from the based department.

>>11850883
Now you're just dodging your dumb ass "lunar inclination" poor ass understanding of orbital mechanics with a "oh but the ISS is slated for deorbiting".
The 51.6° degree inclination of the ISS actually serves a purpose, access from Baikonur, Japan, Kennedy and all sorts of other launch sites. Your 5.145° degree inclination serves none whatsoever.

>>11850872
>However, an orbital habitat is not a solid object, it is hollow

Not really. Bigger orbital habitat will need thicker hull to contain the pressure inside. All other things being equal, pressure vessel wall thickness needs to increase with increasing size. It will also have stuff inside.

We know that LEO drag is manageable anywhere from microsat spacecraft size to ISS spacecraft size. There are good reasons to believe this relationship will continue to hold for larger sizes as well.

>>11850893
Isn't the moon around ~23?
Just googled it's 23.44 and it does serve a purpose, a supply / fuel launch can hit both without it costing any delta-v.

>>11850892
Pick up the call.

>>11850905
Sorry, I was copypasting from google too and took a ecliptic plane number. It's still a fucking pointless station. The moon is always there to launch to from the earth. We don't need a fucking waystation in LEO for it. It's like having a tool booth on your front porch.

>>11850883
>Why? I get you are going to want decent thrust to weight on the manned tug to get a 1 or 2 burn TLI but without a lander it would be on the light side.
>For fuel you just run a few RL-10s, who cares if TLI takes a few orbits?
Propulsion upgrades as in Isp, not thrust. Hydrolox can't get you the delta V you need to do a round trip to Lunar orbit and back to low Earth orbit, even with zero payload on the outward leg. You'd need to use nuclear thermal propulsion at a minimum. Delta V is a function of stage mass ratio and propulsive efficiency. Hydrolox is really hard to get a good mass ratio with, especially if you're trying to store it long term. If you had nuclear thermal, you could build a propulsion system that got >600 Isp with a propellant density about 6 times greater than hydrogen, which means a tank 1/6th the mass before considering you'd also need less insulation. Also, you could try to use aerobraking on the return leg of the trip, but you'd need a thermal protection system in that case.

>>11850903
Not any of the previous anons but what is the purpose of all of this? The reason for a station in very low orbit like ISS, afaik, is mostly that it's safer for the astronauts. If you have a giant shielded rotating station, there's no reason to have it so low. The dV penalty to inject a bit higher would be small and easily offset by the much lower refueling rate. In addition, a giant station with shielding is essentially an asteroid, and if for any reason it could not be contacted for an extended period and went into an uncontrolled deorbit due to lack of stationkeeping authority it would be catastrophic.

>>11850914
I'm not saying we need it for lunar missions, I'm saying we need a LEO station for experiments within the magnetoshere and it might aswell be capable of sharing launches with the moon.
>launch 10 crew
>6 disembark in LEO 4 goto the moon

Is there any reason not to do this other than needing a little more station keeping fuel?

>>11850922
We got to the moon on a hydrolox LTI and returned with hydrozine which has much worse ISP...
Sure ditching chemical would be nice but I don't like the odds of selling the general public on putting a reactor core ontop of a rocket in current year.

>>11850948
It's fucking pointless is what it is. Why fuck around and drop off crew for a fartbox when you can just send them up a budget rocket instead?

>>11850883
>but I want us to figuer out the shielding needed for interplanetary missions
There won't be any magic substance that can block cosmic rays with less than ~10 meters of shielding. It's just physics; heavy nuclei like fully ionized iron atoms moving at >80% light speed take a while to stop, and in doing so produce showers of secondary radiation.
This is a physical interaction of particles slamming into particles; the only things you can do are to limit the secondary radiation produced by using light nuclei in your shielding material, and to avoid using metals for shielding because even a light metal can interact with secondary radiation to produce xrays.
This means your materials of choice include hydrogen rich plastics like HDPE, hydrocarbon waxes, water, and liquid hydrogen. These materials will stop cosmic rays and their secondary radiation particle showers the best with minimal xray production, and any amount of shielding will help, but to fully block cosmic ray radiation to a level equal to standing at sea level on Earth, you need a shielding layer about ten meter thick. However, if you only want to reduce the level of dose each astronaut would receive per deep space flight (ie the dose just on the way out to Mars) down to a level comparable to a nuclear energy worker's dose limit on Earth, you would only need a few tens of centimeters to accomplish that.

No, we don't need to expose astronauts to cosmic radiation to figure out how to handle it. Given that we already understand what radiation is and how it works, AND how to attenuate cosmic rays as effectively as possible, performing a mission that exposed astronauts to the full brunt of cosmic rays just to gather data would in fact be immoral on top of being entirely devoid of any real scientific value.

>>11850925
>Not any of the previous anons but what is the purpose of all of this?

The reason is that radiation rises quickly above 600km altitude. A station in an equatorial Earth orbit below 600km requires almost no shielding in order to approach an Earth-like radiation environment. However, increase either inclination or altitude, and suddenly you need multiple tons per square meter of hull for shielding. This is a LOT of mass.

http://space.alglobus.net/papers/RadiationPaper.pdf

>>11850948
>We got to the moon on a hydrolox LTI and returned with hydrozine which has much worse ISP...
That's two stages, anon. That's not a reusable tug, that's an expendable rocket.

>>11850955
tfw no polarized hull plating

>>11850948
>I'm saying we need a LEO station for experiments within the magnetoshere and it might aswell be capable of sharing launches with the moon.
Do you not realize by the way that you can transfer from the ISS' orbit to the Moon directly with no plane changes twice every month? You literally just wait until the Moon is in the right position then burn prograde to extend the apoapsis of your orbit out to kiss the Moon's at such a time that by the time you swing out there the Moon will have orbited into position. Along the way you can do a cheap course correction to end up on literally any Lunar orbit inclination you want.

>>11850953
What budget rocket do you suggest? BFR and New Glenn are going the be the cheapest yet despite being fucking huge.
small =/= cheap these days.

>>11850955
>There won't be any magic substance that can block cosmic rays
The new shielding with layers of different density are an imporvement that didn't exist a decade ago and that isn't considering the magnetic options.
>performing a mission that exposed astronauts to the full brunt of cosmic rays
That isn't what I'm saying, I'm saying the RnD would be part of the LLO program.

>>11850960
I'll have a fuckaround and see what I can get but you might have a point. What is a lunar round trip? ~7km/s?

>>11850974
Fair point.

>>11850958
I'm aware of the radiation problem, I referenced it in my post. But the concept is for a giant shielded station, anyway. Just go all the way and shield the thing. Cheaping out and making it reliant on regularly chugging hundreds of tons of fuel for stationkeeping to so that it doesn't put Australia out of its misery for good just to save on shielding mass when you're already making a one million ton station is dumb.

>>11850555
SpaceX is a launch provider. If demand is there, they will supply it. Elon wants to shoot up like a Starship a day. At that point large space stations are within the budget of the average billionaire or company.

>>11850969
Unless your hull plating has the secondary ability to launch metal ions at >80% of light speed away from your spacecraft, you can't catch incoming cosmic rays.
Just imagine the electromagnetic field strength required to accelerate a tiny railgun projectile to 240,000 km/s over a few inches, and run that in reserve so you're catching those projectiles and slowing them down enough that they can't hurt you on impact.

>>11850984
>are going the be
You don't know shit about when and what they'll cost.

>>11850988
> Elon wants to shoot up like a Starship a day
a lot more then that

>>11850991
I know the cheapest manned rocket flying today seats 7 making a split crew mission viable.

>>11850984
>What is a lunar round trip? ~7km/s?
8 km/s, actually.

>>11850988
also you might get von braun type stations, but you aren't gonna get o'neil cylinders that way

>>11850987
Agreed.It's a ridiculous solution to a simple problem.

>>11851001
Makes me wonder if putting a heat shield on a tug would be worth it just for the aero-braking.

>>11850987
You are really underestimating the shielding mass needed. This is quite penetrating radiation we are talking about. Shielding mass will dominate the mass of the whole station. If you can sidestep that by putting it in equatorial LEO, then it is very much worth it. Mass of the stationkeeping fuel is small in comparison. Doubly so with efficient ion engines.

>>11850988
>Elon wants to shoot up like a Starship a day
Elon wants to shoot up a Starship every four or five hours, launching each Booster 5 or 6 times a day, and reusing each Starship after two days (one day to rotate the launch and landing site into position for reentry, and a second day for routine maintenance and payload stacking).
He also wants this to be a per-launch-complex thing, and have many launch complexes operating at the same time. He's quite literally talking about megatons-to-orbit-per-year launch capacity here.

>>11850955
>>11850990
>>11851017
Can they not be deflected by magnetic fields? If you slap a superconducting coil on a tether and put it a few hundred meters in front of your ship, even a tiny deflection would make them miss the ship, kind of like a wind shield.

>>11851017
He also said spoken language will be dead in 5 years because of neural links.

>>11851016
>Mass of the stationkeeping fuel is small in comparison. Doubly so with efficient ion engines.
Mass of stationkeeping fuel needs to be constantly supplied. This is undesireable. Also, a million times the ion thruster power isn't just difficult to generate and manage, you need to be able to service your ion thruster array as they inevitably break down.

>>11851021
I heard Elon say that you're fucking retarded.

>>11851020
Cosmic rays? No, they're simply moving far too fast to be significantly deflected.

>>11851021
Okay? Newton believed in alchemy, that doesn't make calculus wrong.

>>11851020
>it a few hundred meters in front of your ship
Cosmic rays are omni-directional, there is no single direction to point your magnetic deflector, and if you surround yourself by a deflector sphere you can't really deflect anything anyway.

A magnetic deflector on a boom MIGHT be useful for solar charged particles, but I have not looked into it. Static electric forces get fucky in vacuum anyway, so no matter what we say we're probably both wrong in some aspects.

>>11851036
Shoot the cosmic rays down

>>11851035
>>11851036
My point is who is going to be demanding 6 launches a day? Lets say launch costs were free and all people had to do was develope and manufacture payloads and get approval to fly it. How many launches would be needed then?
Those 6 launches a day are based on the ariline plan and just like concord I can't see it being economically viable to run engines with 1/20th of the ISP of an airliner when the primary running cost of airliners is fuel.

>Road closure still green for tomorrow.
I hope it's a full on pressure test and not just an equipment dry run...

>>11850998
>>11851017
Dude is fucking insane. 4 Starships a day means shipping over 8 times more mass to orbit in a year than humanity has IN THE ENTIRETY OF SPACEFLIGHT HISTORY TO DATE.

>>11851059
Odds are it's SN5 which should be a flight after pressure tests and gound firings.

>>11850308
>>11850338
It take a long time to prepare for EVA, the suit are bulky and in the end you can only operate for 8 hours.

Once the technology work right you could have remote-drone working non stop, remote controlled even from Earth without risking anyone's life more than necessary. It would increase what we can do in space a lot if we can do human-rated job with robot without worrying about failing to bring them back.

It's obvious.

>>11851055
>My point is who is going to be demanding 6 launches a day?
SpaceX, because Elon will dump net profits from Starlink into the Mars effort in order to make colonization happen even if they need to do it all on their own.
Starlink is expected to pull billions in profits every year. Say that's $10 billion to inject into SpaceX, optimistically, over every two years. That's 500 Starship launches per year at $10 million per flight, 1000 total over two years, and since each Starship bound for Mars only needs about 5 Tanker flights, that's 166 Starships headed to Mars with 150 tons of cargo each, or a grand total of 24,900 tons of cargo sent to Mars every two years.

Now, it's pretty obvious that SpaceX won't need to achieve 10% of this flight rate before NASA and other organizations start their own projects that require additional Starship flights. Launch assurance be damned, Starship WILL kill SLS off in this scenario, meaning NASA will be free to bulk buy Starship Lunar missions (and of course even more Mars missions), both of which will be backed up by plenty of Tanker flights.

The thing you need to know is that Elon is, in fact, completely serious when he says he wants to retire on Mars, and the other fact to note is that he's getting older every day.

>>11851062
Elon Musk is our god; and he will lead us to our destiny

>>11851085
Maybe you are right and I hope you are, I just don't see a martian collony and all the R&D that involves happening for under a trillion.

>he says he wants to retire on Mars
When did he say that? Every time I have seen him asked if he would go himself he says no or dodges the question.

O'NEILL CYLINDER... HOME

>>11851009
>heatshield for aerobraking
Not realy required to be that strong actualy.
With a perigeum at the correct altitude you can decrease your apogeum in severall passes with little thermal stress to the tug.
You max need to design it to withstand some increased thermal stresses, but nothing like an ablative or silicate heatshield would be required.
Maybe at worst inconel or something like that.
While that does take time, it could be usefull for returning cargo where speed is not the main objective.

Who will be first billionaire to build their own casino in space?
Starship price: 100$ per kg to LEO.
Mass ISS: 450000kg
Required launches: 5
Total: 45 million bucks

>>11851085
elon wants to eventually send 1000 crewed starships to mars at once and ten thousand tanker starships

>>11851130
A big Bigelow will be the first tourist targeted station, it will be used for movies, porn and then turned into a hotel.

So I take it Starship is most likely going to use some passive system to protect against cosmic radiation? Like a room all the astronauts can go into? When NASA has talks of sending man to Mars did they ever come up with a way to protect against radiation?

>>11851101
> I just don't see a martian collony and all the R&D that involves happening for under a trillion.
that is what starlink is for

>>11851130
more like 70/kg for starship

>>11851101
> just don't see a martian collony and all the R&D that involves happening for under a trillion.

Stop thinking like NASA is doing it.

>>11851135
They haven't locked anything down but last I heard the general idea was putting the engines, fuel tanks and a water tank between the crew and the sun.

>>11851142
It would take ~100 years for starlink to make that based on current profitability estimates.

>>11851151
i meant making a shit ton of money in general, i still doubt it will take a trillion, several hundred billion, yeah, but not a trillion

>>11849756
IESLB

>>11851078
>IESLB
Jesus christ, you ever heard of the letter 's'?

>>11851134
Porn is pure evil. It should be removed from the universe.

>>11851227
true

>>11851227
I can post porn whenever I like. What are you gonna do about it? Ban me?

>>11851232

>>11851146
As a matter of fact, nobody is doing it yet.

>>11851236

>>11851236
Neat, now I have something I can post at those "foil and cardboard" fags whenever they pop up.

>>11851242
I have more of them.

>>11851245

Extremely naive assumption on O'Neill Cylinder weight and cost incoming.

Assume 200m radius for comfortable 1g without problematic coriolis forces. Length 400m. Outer frame made from welded together 2m x 2m steel I-Beam grid. Gives 1000km of I-Beams total. I-Beam weight is 33kg/m, total tonnage of grid frame is 33000t. At $70/kg projected future SpaceX price point equals $2.3billion. Assume total cost 100 times basic grid cost. Equals $230 billion. Within price point of most western governments and some large companies. Assume launch prices drop further (18m Starship variant). O'Neill Cylinder cost <$100 billion within decade? Should be investigated further.

>>11851101
>When did he say that?
He's mentioned wanting to retire on Mars multiple times in interviews. Just do a google search.

>>11851246
Last one.

>>11850883
>LLO station
You know about the mascons, right?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_concentration_%28astronomy%29#Effect_of_lunar_mascons_on_satellite_orbits

>>11851135
Eat the cosmic ray dose, use the supply closet as a solar storm shelter, do a 4 month transfer to Mars instead of 6 in order to cut down on overall exposure times, once on Mars get under shielding. That's the plan.

>>11851232
Proton bottom looks sexier

>>11851227
Porn is awesome. I came to a nice black woman’s rear end a few minutes ago

>>11851247
Building an O'Neill cylinder using materials from Earth is not the best idea.

>>11851261
This one? https://twitter.com/mefeater/status/1273301124892811265

>>11851260
I wonder why SpaceX didn't employ the trick that was used on the Proton to get more volume without increasing length on the Falcon 9. Too much production inertia on the Falcon 9 to change the tankage?

>>11851252
They aren't a problem since there are frozen orbits around the Moon. LRO orbits it for years with no apparent issues

>>11851272
Delivery by roads.
They kind of did, with Falcon Heavy.

>>11851261
That’s more degenerate than a neutron star

>>11851260
So are those aluminum dust cover burst disks in those nozzles or does the RD-275 really have a 1:1000 expansion ratio somehow?

>>11851265
If launch costs are low enough, does it really matter? Earth based manufacturing has economics of scale to it that won't be matched on other planets for hundreds of years.

>>11851284
Correct, it's a set of black holes

>>11851278
Proton is being assembled from parts though, the biggest of which is 4.1m (they have huge issues transporting it by the railroads, having to stop the incoming traffic), and the 1st stage is 7.4m wide after being assembled.

>>11851272
Falcon was supposed to be a launcher family, remember? The modularity turned out to be a meme. (sort of)

>>11851288
Looks like some kind of protective disk judging from this cutaway image.

>>11851288
>aluminum dust cover burst disks
This exactly. They are removed before flight.

>>11851294
God dammit...

>>11851284
“Degenerate” seems to be the /pol/tard term for “Something I don’t like for no real reason”.

>>11851291
One kg of steel costs less than $1/kg. One kg of inert shielding material, which you need many times more of than steel on an O'neill cylinder, more like in the cent/kg range. Let's say your launch costs reach ~$35/kg with Starship 18m, the vast majority of what you're paying is going into launch costs. This means a heavy economic incentive to chase lower launch costs no matter what. Also, the Earth will likely lack the cadence to actually supply the materials and surrounding industry to actually develop this thing. Just because you can put a number to the skeleton (which, to reiterate, is not the majority of the mass of the structure by a longshot) doesn't mean it's practical to build it.

>>11851291
>If launch costs are low enough, does it really matter?
It's less about launch costs and more about launch utility.
Is it really worth it to build a single O'Neill cylinder when you could instead accomplish large settlement and development projects on the Moon and Mars? I don't think so.
O'Neil cylinder habitats are something you build when rotating ring habitats aren't spacious enough, and rotating ring habitats are something you build when you want to go out far enough in the solar system that easy trips back to Earth aren't practical and the local body you're developing isn't attractive as living space on its own. The most probably early-days example is the asteroid belt, specifically starting with Ceres. If you're going out to the asteroid belt you are staying for a while and you are going to be living in rotating habitats. The development of such habitats and vehicles in Mars orbit using Phobos and Deimos as construction material makes logical sense, as the delta V requirements to get out into the main belt are low and the lessons learned with Mars to fall back on as an industrial base would speed progress.

>>11850754
An extra couple hundred meters per second are still free delta v just to not pander to retarded Russian launch sites

>>11851340
>Is it really worth it to build a single O'Neill cylinder when you could instead accomplish large settlement and development projects on the Moon and Mars?
Mars, no, because launch windows aren't flexible. Once Elon launch cadence is reached we will have capacity to spare. We'll have so much capacity people won't even know what to do with it at first. Moon, yes. But eventually you want to build spinning habitats on the Moon too to get around those JELLYBABIES issues.

>>11851371
Any proof moon babies will be jelly babies or...?

>>11851294

>>11851371
>Don’t adapt to your environment. Instead, adapt to the environment of earth for no reason.

>>11851388
The thing is, he doesn't even HAVE ANY proof that babies born on the moon or other moons would be jelly babies, just his own guess.

>>11851371
Elon has said that the way they're gonna do Mars is launch as fast as they can all the time and build up a fleet of hundreds of Starships will full tanks in Earth orbit, which will all depart at once for Mars once the window opens. Because of this, most of the launch capacity of the Starship fleet could be eaten up by Mars efforts, if they wanted to focus on that.

>>11851376
His ass. We don't know and we don't have compelling reason to believe it will, yet.

>>11851390
They’d presumably have lower bone density and weaker muscles, but there is no reason to care as long as they stay there.

>>11851392
>2 years worth of refueling efforts sitting on standbye in orbit
Imagine the absolute kino of the simultaneous departure.

>>11851376
We have rat experiments showing that rats born in space had some issues with development, i remember reading one a few years ago saying that rats born in space usually have issues regarding their hind limbs and gait

>>11851399
>naked-eye visible night departure of hundreds of rockets to Mars
That would be SO COOL.

>>11851404
In microgravity? Or in simulated lunar gravity

>>11851392
Quote please. That's not in any way economically sustainable. Starships parked in orbit do not turn profit and blowing the companies entire fleet of launch vehicles on a single mission at once sounds idiotic. No fucking way has Elon ever said that.

>>11851404
>legs and walking
Won't need either of those living in permanent freefall.

>>11851410
Microgravity, ie useless unless neglected to wrap it up on the way there.
>Welcome to Mars, transit jellybaby abortion stations to the left

>>11851406
>naked-eye visible night departure of hundreds of rockets to Mars
>pseudo-astronomers across the world seethe

>>11851417
>Photojournalists all have simultaneous orgasms.

>>11851411
Not that guy, but have it from the horse's mouth, that's the plan
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1217993568482025472

No, it isn't supposed to pay for itself, everything else (primarily Starlink) is supposed to pay for it over the near to intermediate term.

It's almost like he's serious about Mars or something.

>>11851414
Abortion is murder

>>11851411
Here's his tweet, nigruh
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1217993568482025472

>>11851412
Rats in micro-g do just fine maneuvering by climbing on walls; and even learn to jump across open spaces with their tails. The issues are caused by the vestibular system developing incorrectly due to the lack of an actual detectable “down”but a sense of balance isn’t relevant in micro-g anyway

>>11851411
>>11851422
>>11851427

>>11851424
Not on liberal Mars it ain't.

>>11851424
Don't conceive in micro-g then. Until proven otherwise I don't believe that babies born in significant gravity will experience deformity; in the case that they do, we'll use spin gravity nurseries.

>>11851435
Yeah and killing blacks wasn’t murder in 1850 it’s still wrong

>>11851435
>liberal mars
i hope not

>>11851437
>Don't conceive in micro-g then

Why not? Even if they come out weird, weird people are still valuable.

>>11851417
https://youtu.be/WlKgCweQpNA?t=136
Imagine the sight

>>11851435
Left wingers can't even hold together a normal city on Earth, much less an extraplanetary colony.

>Explorers set off from Elongrad to Deseado Crater
>They uncover an underground bunker not built by any human
>In the ancient computer they find coordinates for a outer system object
>It’s a mass relay

One topic that interests me is what sort of issues might effect another civilization close to or beyond our level of technology.

If we were to encounter another life form or evidence of an existing complicated society amongst the stars who’s to say we wouldn’t then become involved in their squabbles?

Surely more then likely there wouldn’t be complete unification on issues amongst their own society either.

>senate armed services committee is making a requirement that the military have a backup to GPS
>suggests that a proliferated LEO constellation is the preferred solution
Looks like OneWeb really is back on the menu.

>>11851435
>implying Mars isn't going to be ran by a fascist dictatorship

>russia plans to destroy a satellite with a missile asat test soon
based

>.@NASA & @SpaceForceDoD have signed an agreement to share data from the USSF Space Surveillance Telescope in Australia with NASA's Planetary Defense program. Together, NASA, USSF, & RAAF will find & track near-Earth objects (NEOs) to be ready for any potential impact threat.
also based

>>11851513
AGAIN?
Why?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-satellite_weapon#Russian_ASATs

how big a boat would you need to do saturn v sea launch

>>11851523
they've only done untargeted launches with it before, they haven't actually hit a sat with it yet

>On 23 May 2013 at approximately 05:38 UTC, the Ecuadorian satellite NEE-01 Pegaso passed very close to the spent upper stage of a 1985 Tsyklon-3 rocket over the Indian Ocean. While there was no direct collision between the satellite and upper stage, Pegaso is believed to have suffered a "glancing blow" after passing through a debris cloud around the Tsyklon stage and striking one of the small pieces.[3][4] After the incident, the satellite was found to be "spinning wildly over two of its axes" and unable to communicate with its ground station.[3] Efforts to reestablish control of Pegaso failed,[4] and on 28 August 2013 the decision was made by EXA and the Ecuadorian government to declare the satellite as lost.[5]

based tsyklon asat

my ancestor :)

>>11851059
BASED TANK POLICE

>>11851526
It would probably need to be large enough to hold 1000+ tons of mass on a 15x23m square of it's hull without collapsing, that probably covers the weight of the flame deflector and service structures, plus the 3300 tons of the fully fueled rocket once it's stacked and ready to fly.
I'm sure a ship could handle it, but the height of the Saturn V and it's support structure might be a serious tipping hazard at sea, I'd go with something like the Hibernia oil rig instead, the absolute unit weighs in excess of 50k tons. I'd imagine it's why Elon is looking to build platforms to launch Starship at sea rather than launch platform boats.

>>11851569
>It would probably need to be large enough to hold 1000+ tons of mass on a 15x23m square of it's hull without collapsing
I don't get this "reusable launch platform" meme.

>>11851569
>flame deflector
Why deflect it?

I think alot of the fearmongering about China and the Moon is because China publicly drops pics and vids from the Moon. If America dropped a rover there then there wouldn't be as much hoopla over it.

>>11851406
>>11851399
Oh fuck I'm getting so hard, and I know Musk will do this just because it would look awesome. It'd be like Sci-Fi movies where ships jump to hyperspace at the same time.

>>11851605
Is there fearmongering about China and the Moon?

>>11851585
Well on a ship you'd probably rather prefer the rocket doesn't drill a hole through the hull while taking off.

>>11851627
There's alot of it in American political and military circles. It's mostly bullshit but it helps secure funding for national security spaceflight.

>platform
No way they're going to be platforms like we're used to seeing. They'll be large like airports or small cities at sea, kind of like the things you see in the Caspian Sea.

>>11851642
Elon is finally going to build Outer Heaven.

>>11851642

>>11851631
just put the rocket over a moon pool, problem solved bro

>>11851642
Libertarian sea nation when?

>real antennas
goddamn this mod is fucking autistic and based

>>11851399
depots BTFO
>>11851411
>profit
Going to Mars is a long-term dream, it's not for short-term profits. Private companies don't have to give a fuck about profit.
>>11851433
That's like the bonus prize in the cereal box that is Starlink.

>>11851674
whats the age of consent in the middle of the ocean?

>>11851706
Whatever the law of the nation the ship is registered to says it is, or the law of the nation you’re a citizen of.

>>11851674
Hopefully soon so you can take your degeneracy somewhere else

>>11851727
Don’t tread on me, bootlicker.

Does making a base on one of Mars' moons before placing people on the planet's surface make sense?

>>11851786
No, it's harder to get to Phobos or Deimos than Mars.

>>11851786
In addition to >>11851789, they're essentially Mars-minus, close to Mars in composition but lacking the atmosphere and possibly lacking in water ice, making them inferior for ISRU. So no, definitely not before. Once Mars has a strong infrastructure they will make a good source of mass and raw materials in orbit.

>>11851786
>>11851789
>>11851814
There is one kind of convenient thing about asteroids: there's a way to build habitats with artificial gravity more simply than spinning the whole thing. You build a set of train tracks around the most evenly circular section and ride around the tracks at a modest speed.
Phobos is 22.2 km in diameter, so if you got your train up to near the top end for modern bullet trains you could maintain about 0.2g inside.

>>11851786
>>11851789
The lack of aerobraking is the big problem.

>>11851846
The thing phobos and deimos (and the like, but they are good candidates due to their proximity to a more interesting body) are good for is sheer raw material-to-orbit capacity. You can do artificial gravity on them but they aren't anything special - you'd use a banked track, same as you would on any other planet or moon if you had cause to do so. A bumpy track around the circumference would be awful.

decane NTRs when?

>>11851900
>A bumpy track around the circumference would be awful.
Why not build a huge bridge around the circumference then? Phobos gravity would be so minor that the required support structure can be minimal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-wC7IvSb-k
*POMF*

>>11851734
>licks the boot of some guy who pays him to lick boots

>>11851962
Maybe? You're pulling at 1 or whatever g away from the surface of a rubble pile. It needs to be well anchored. A track or spinning structure in a hole is a little better in this regard as at least you aren't pulling directly away from the surface. Either way, contending with the rubble nature and low gravity putting in a lot of mechanical stress is going to be a challenge as most likely the whole thing is going to try to crumble around you and fling off bits of itself.

what isp would you get with sewage as NTR propellant

>>11851954
>density isn't anything special, ISP is low
I don't see why you would do it over methane or water
>>11852002
Piss NTRs are okay

>>11852002
Really shitty.

>>11850652
This. Semi-spergs like us are the perfect candidate for colonization. We are capable of socializing, but can also handle being stuck alone for longer periods than normalfags. We (or at least I) also happen to be more contrarian and less willing to obey big brother and stuff unlike normalfags, who will happily put on mind control devices if it promised sex or something equally as primitive.
However, semi-spergs aren't egotistical aspie faggots who do nothing but jerk off about how they're soooooo much better than "neurotypicals" and actually do the work they need to, rather than claiming to be like various historical figures without doing what they did to be written in literature. We know our shit stinks, and because of this humility, we are probably the best candidate for interstellar colonization.

Finally saw Starlink. They are bright. They move faster than I expected too.

>>11852074
Yes

>>11852053
Humans are a dead end. Future sapients will be genetically engineered, synthetic, and cybernetic.

>>11852118
I like this. It'd make more sense to just have the pioneers of mankind gradually bring their minds into computer mediums. The future doesn't rot, or at least doesn't look disgusting when death occurs.

>>11852003
It's a nice compromise between density and ISP along with methane and similar hydrocarbons
density isn't a huge deal in civilian applications, but once you start armoring your spacecraft it gets real important

>>11852118
I'm not so sure about cyberntics and synthetic integration anymore, but Musk may change my mind as he's revolutionized so much else. In any case, the transition will likely be continuous and we will always consider ourselves "human" in whatever form. In any case, I welcome our efficiency-oriented future midget space overlords.

>>11852118
go back to being dead, Sovereign

>>11852136
I don't see what would make it worth it. ISP should be a little higher than water, not much, while water is about as much denser than decane as decane::methane. There's no reason to use it over water, especially when you consider the ease of water ISRU, one of the main reasons to ever use a water NTR.

so many newfag redditors eating low effort bait
Lurk you triple niggers, at least one year before posting

>>11852191
who are you quoting

>>11852146
I sure wouldn’t call myself human if I had diverged sufficiently. Humans are terrible.

>>11852191
Did your boyfriend write this, Shelby

>>11851447
>400 years hauling a fucking Steel ssto to alpha Centauri. And meme equipment like methane production
>not docking with a asteroid First to mine and produce the necessary landing vehicles
>prefabbed anything
>doesn’t even nuke earth before leaving

>>11851059
All road closures canceled now

>tfw no good capsule mods for ksp
reeeeee

>>11852344
Near Future mods have some capsules dunno if you’ve checked that out yet

>>11852358
yeah i've been fucking with NFS, but they don't have any configs for RO stuff and the pods from it that would be most useful for me also don't have good IVAs

>>11852250
You work with what you got I guess. Never messed with KSP interstellar but I'm intrigued now after reaching Eeloo and planting a flag.

>tfw don't have someone less lazy than me to make RO/RP1 configs for interstellar and integrate everything into the tech tree

>>11851284
>>11851294

>BioSphere 2
What went wrong?

>>11852531
None of the “synergists” were actual scientists. They were a bunch of hippies who had no idea what they were doing because the program was started by a billionaire who just threw a bunch of money at the project and didn’t care about the hardcore science

>>11852535
Would it be beneficial to redo?

>>11852531
ants are the apex predator

>>11851585
>>11851654
>imagine the acoustics

How do we get to the centauri star system before the end of this century?

>>11852665
You know the Alcubierre Metric? Some guy named Lentz figured out a version that doesn't require negative mass, but it needs Alcubierre's original "an entire star's worth" mass energy to work in its current state.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.07125

>>11850734
you only don't have launch windows if you're launching from the equator, to the equator
KSC to the Skylab orbit has a launch window once per day

>>11852693
>launch windows
lmao bro just upgrade ur fucking dv

The EUSSR has admitted that the Ariane 6 is already obsolete because of SpaceX

>>11852586
A lot of people here say no. I think it would be worth it if we did it with competent people. Biosphere 2 is still operational and runs earth science experiments. It also has living quarters and a kitchen and stuff, but those aren’t used anymore. If we threw in some scientists they could do a “test run” of a closed-system environment
>>11852665
Launch thousands of TINY cubesats with solar sails. (You need a lot of them because they would be so small, the likelihood of them getting destroyed is pretty big)

>>11852707
>EUSSR

>>11852665

>>11852720
That expression has been used forever.

>>11851424
murdering those babies would be a mercy
>>11852074
yeah
were yours twinkling? I saw them when I think they were still spinning from deployment.