Are there anons here who don't think we will colonize space?

>>8964499
>Are there anons here who don't think we will colonize space?
Right here. I won't happen for several reasons:
>Incredibly hard to ship resources to and from
>Incredibly expensive to ship resources to and from
>High investment, with no return
No one is going to seriously fund something that's nothing but a big hole. The money will run out eventually.

File: spess rocks.jpg (198KB, 1233x782px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 1233x782px

>>8964503
>being this uneducated
Resources exist in space, everything found on earth can be found in space
anything organic can be grown
the returns would be the exact same as the returns colonies did in ages past, Space has lots of easy to access precious metals and rare earth elements, the nations building those mining colonies will love to have both
http://www.asterank.com/
there's a decent enough map of what can be grabbed here and now
and while you might bark that space gold would crash the market, Remember that you can send a small bit at a time to maintain value, like the good ole diamond cartel does

>>8964529
>Resources exist in space,
>He fell for the space mining meme
Nice anon, nice. FYI real life isn't sci-fi.

>anything organic can be grown
Yeah with fertilizer and water. Where are you going to get those from?

>the returns would be the exact same as the returns colonies did in ages past
No they wouldn't. For starters there are no current space mining operations (some billionaires are putting together to try and make one, but the technology isn't there). Further, you wouldn't be competitive. You would have to sell any resources you mined in spaces for more than the equivalent mass of the same resources mined on earth.

Yeah, me. Without a space elevator powered by a fusion reactor it's not going to happen. Unless said space elevator is a global effort and protected globally as well, brown people are going to try their very hardest to blow it up, and whichever country didn't participate in building and maintaining it will probably help them try to blow it up.

File: 1493595098971.jpg (71KB, 645x1024px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 645x1024px

>>8964553
>shitposting this fucking hard
remove yourself from life, you fucking clown shoe

Phosphorous, Potassium and Nitrogen are all key fertilizers for plants, all three of these are common in asteroids, you'd be able to fertilize your hydroponic farms with the shit you mine
Water is also common in space rocks, where in the blueberry fuck do you think the water on earth came from
and the rare earths on earth are difficult to extract and are quite polluting to refine, space would give more bountiful returns on these elements, and wont have to deal with pollution at all, since all the shit that you can't use for anything, you can just fling into the sun

Europe had plenty of gold in it's mines, didn't stop them from demanding more from the colonies it planted, Space would just be a means for more gold to be acquired

I should learn not to respond to low effort bait

>>8964601
Holy shit anon your such a fucking retard I can barely be bothered to respond. So here, some nigger with a phd.
https://www.seeker.com/mining-asteroids-not-mankinds-silver-bullet-1765750275.html

Fuck off with your shitty infographics, this isn't The Expanse, you underage little faggot.

File: 1458398228626.jpg (58KB, 600x803px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 600x803px

>>8964627
>seeker
>blog article

>>8964705
>Guy has a Ph.D in astrophysics
>Vs. your shitty opinions.
I know who I'm deferring to.

File: 1490979759989.png (315KB, 1332x1856px) Image search: [Google]

315KB, 1332x1856px

>>8964499
All we need is proper motivation, nothing else really.

>>8964717
Sure thing, kid.

>>8964728
Other than
>Technology
>Economic incentive
>Knowledge
But other than those, we're pretty much good to go.

If the big fucking rocket SpaceX has planned ever gets going, shipping resources to space will be so cheap that space stations will pop into existence out of the vacuum. Space habitats would be right after. If.

>>8964728
Stopped reading at "humanity has discovered nearly all relevant science."

>>8964743
>Technology

We already have the tech for space colonization. We wouldn't need to discover anything new to science. It is all just simple engineering.

>Economic incentive

"proper motivation"

>Knowledge

See the first part of this post.

>>8964750
We have. It is all down to engineering now.

>>8964499
Who's 'we'?

>>8964753
>We have
You're a moron.

File: 1357752453412.jpg (25KB, 620x406px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 620x406px

Commercial colonization will probably not happen in the near future. As in next 500 years or more. There's no purpose or reason to do so and I highly doubt anyone will be willing to leave Earth en masse just to live in some squalor dome. Sure the initial hype will be enormous but the disillusionment will be far more greater.

In the next few centuries a more sensible outcome seems to be that The Moon will probably get a legislative treatment similar to the one that Antarctica got and it will harbor international research stations with rotating crews similar to the ISS. After that we might get a kick out of resource hunt in space but that will probably be a long and arduous process that I'm not sure it will pay off.

File: Piasecki VZ-8 Airgeep.webm (3MB, 450x360px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 450x360px

>>8964750
>>8964761
Oh, here's the kid who believes in things like time travel, city hovercraft transportation, and credit limits. kek

File: buscimi cat.jpg (213KB, 1080x1068px) Image search: [Google]

213KB, 1080x1068px

>>8964499
>No known way for humans to make ourselves go fully extinct

>Make oxygen unbreathable
>contagious superbug
>launch all nukes
>doomsday device at earth's core
>destroy earth's magnetic field
>create blackhole
>splice human hunting predator
>increase parasite population x10000
>upload virus to internet making the internet of things go rogue and purge humanity
>etc...

Although, there is probably a method most are overlooking that the common man could use to reach space. on a whim. I'm willing to bet on it.

>>8964499
It is already pre-determined that we will never meet inhabitants of other worlds, this is Mormon canon from the Holy Scripture. I'm afraid that although colonizing space might be a bright and happy dream for many people, it can never be a reality because it is predetermined to be outside of our necessary tasks.

>>8964791
Imagine this...

transfering an atomic signal...

that restructures the elements/ or atoms in a certain isolated area/field, into the form of an item, who structure was copied and destroyed...

ergo, teleportation through the transferring of electrical signals? Could make resource transportation a synch.

>>8964988

No.

>>8965018
What's wrong with that?

>>8964976
4chan is a 18+ website, kid.

Mars needs to be terraformed for us to actually colonize it. That means some fucking how giving it a magnetosphere so it can have an atmosphere and then crashing Haley's comet into it so we can have some fucking water on that hell hole.
Domes are faggotry and a novelty at best.

>>8964503
>Ship resources to and from
That is why you mine from places with less gravity. Moon mining would cost a fraction of the cost.
>High investment No return
Building structures can make billions.

>>8964553
>Resources exist in space
The moon trillions of tons of resources

File: 3435676543567788.jpg (119KB, 500x701px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 500x701px

>>8964499
The only people who will live in space will be the people who are already the ruling elite on earth. I think something like the Elysium movie is likely to happen.

>>8964553
>Where are you going to get water
>One of the most common and easily produced substances in the universe that exists in some form or another on almost every non star object in the universe

>>8964791
By that logic no one would want to live in cities. If a rotating Habitat feels nearly identical to living on earth why would you care? If there is more space in space and so it was cheaper to live and there were jobs why wouldn't you?

>>8965082
>terraform Mars
>colonize Mars

Nope and Nope. Neither can be done realistically.

>>8964976
>Make oxygen unbreathable
how?
>Superbug
Wouldn't kill everyone because of natural immunities.
>Launch all nukes
Wouldn't do it either

>>8965128
They will still import Mexicans to do work for them.

>There are people on /sci/ who don't know about Isaac Arthur
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86JAU3w9mB8

>>8965155
Insert a component into the atmosphere that converts the breathable aspects into something our bodies cannot absorb. Such as using a chemical reaction to turn all of the oxygen in the air into carbon monoxide.

>>8965160
Much easier said than done. You don't even know how to do that.

>>8964553
>Yeah with fertilizer and water. Where are you going to get those from?
poopoo and peepee

>>8965128
Unlikely
If you have the means to build elysium, you can build multiple, and how will you build it? sure as shit not with the rich as the construction workers
the infrastructure needed in space to build something of that size would result in more than one construction project happening, likely a habitat for the workers, that the workers will continue to use and expand

>>8965171
Destroying the oceans and rainforests is a good start already...

>>8964571
Moon mining

>>8964571
Space elevator is not the only launch assist method available
Launch loops are a thing
they're much cheaper, and are built over the ocean, making it very difficult for the religion of peace to make a visit without getting spotted and sunk

>>8965239
Launch loops will get things into orbit relatively cheaply but they aren't very good at getting things back down. If asteroids are going to be mined and the materials brought back here it would be much easier with a space elevator.

>>8965278
It's much cheaper to get things to land then to read orbit.

>>8965239
>Space elevator is not the only launch assist method available

Only it isn't available and never will be.

>>8964571
>Earth space elevator

>>>/x/

>>8965278
You don't bring resources from space to Earth. That isn't economical. They are worth more as refined materials to be used in space at needed locations.

>>8965305
Kill yourself retard.

File: stop it.webm (164KB, 720x402px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 720x402px

>>8965305
>still shitposting
start giving solutions and workarounds fuccboi
you shitting up the place by screeching that everything is impossible and shouldn't be tried is as pointless as posting self help books on /r9k/

>>8965305
>Never will be
How do you know?
Even then the point is that there are other ways.

>>8965278
Orbital ring and skyhooks, built with space materials, can get shit down well enough
the loop will be the perfect thing to start with, because our main problem is getting shit back up
if all else fails, we could bolt fucking parachutes to the cargo we want to send down and do it that way if need be

>>8965324
>>8965308
>>8965361
Space elevators and orbital rings are >>>/x/ and its about time you realize that. There is no "work around", you just shoot off more rockets. The reason we don't do something else is because it can't be done or it simply isn't economical even in the slightest.

>>8965343
The instant you bring resources from space you devalue those resource for the economy. Even if tried to do what DeBeers did and hoard everything forever developing artificial scarcity you still end up tanking the prices on whatever you are bringing back. Resources in space will be worth more in space because they don't need to be brought out of Earth's gravity well.

>>8965371
>Devalue
That is also true for any resource ever mined. You would still make a ton of money though, especially if you were the first or one of the first people doing it. It's better to flood the market with a resource that you have a monopoly on than have a rare one you don't sell often, want proof? See any useful construction material that aren't liked only because they are rare like gold and diamond.

File: 1492473841984.png (37KB, 206x188px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 206x188px

>>8965371
>REEEEE IMPOSSIBLE DON'T EVEN TRY
>NO I WON'T LOOK AT THE NUMBERS
>I SAY IMPOSSIBLE SO IT IMPOSSIBLE
flagrant low effort shitposting should be bannable

>>8965120
>Bro, just ship an entire mining operation to the moon
>Along with the people and some where for them to live
>And the constant resupply to keep them alive
>Then, after all that expense, ship the mined resources back to earth
>Where they still need to be processed and refined
>Then relaunch the rockets back to the moon
>Then sell them for less than the equivilent mined on earth
>Pure profit.
This is the problem with these threads it's impossible to tell if people are really this dumb, or if it's just ironic shitposting.

File: 1496154474768.png (166KB, 351x349px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 351x349px

>>8965396
>ignoring the fact that you can grow your food on site with hydroponics
>ignoring the fact that you can refine the materials there
>ignoring the fact you can obtain significantly more minerals on the moon due to the lower gravity making mining easier and safer
there are more brainlets here on /sci/ than /b/ for fucks sake, if half of this thread is anything to go by

>>8965396
>Bro, just ship an entire mining operation to the moon
>Along with the people and some where for them to live
>And the constant resupply to keep them alive
By that logic man should have never been able to go to either of Earths Poles.
It costs money and time but like all things eventually becomes profitable. It might have a high start up but after that it's relatively inexpensive
>Ship the mined resources back to earth
Far cheaper than sending things from earth to space. You could also make objects that aren't meant to be sent back to earth like satellites, probes, telescopes, ships, ect.
>Then relaunch the rockets back to the moon
Who said anything about having to do that?
>Then sell them for less than the equivilent mined on earth
If it is less that is only because of the less competition and the fact that it is easier to mine stuff in lower gravity. You can also get bigger quantities on the moon.

>>8965399
There is also the fact that since it has been as of yet untapped and there are no environmental concerns you will also have a far bigger pool of resources per area.

>>8965171
I'm willing to bet that a chemist somewhere has looked into this at some point. I'm no chemist, but with the right chemicals, I'm sure you could cause all sorts of irreparable mayhem.

>>8965396
>It's far easier and cheaper to move things out of the moons orbit than earths
>in fact you don't even need to use rockets to get things out of the moons orbit
>Landing is far easier than lifting off
>All fuel can be gotten from the moon too and not only that but even if you did want to bring the rockets back it would be far easier to do since they would only be carrying their own weight

>>8965371
Couldn't we simply make a tower that exits the earth's atmosphere and send ships out from that?
The tower of babel didn't seem like that bad of an idea assuming zero gravity at the top could keep the body stable. It wouldn't take a lot of effort to shot a small ship out into space from space.

>>8965399
>Food
How? You'll still need basic materials to get started.
>Refining
You want to ship an entire mining AND refining operation to the moon. This is what I mean when I say I can't tell if you're a legit retard or just shitposting. Do you have any idea how much that would cost? Also you've now just created another supply issue, since you'll need chemicals from earth to do the refining.
>More
Fucking source on low gravity making it easier. Also you sound like you want to make a cartel just to make you juvenile dreams of space """exploration""" a reality.
>>8965400

>Poles
That's not profitable. It's done in the for national prestige and science.
>Relatively inexpensive
It costs $3 billion a year to keep the ISS going.
>Who said anything about having to do that?
Well the way I had it pictured was you'd use SpaceX like reusable rockets to move materials from the moon to the earth, then just reuse the rockets. Unless you're planning on building those on the moon as well.
>If it is less...
I was being facetious, you can't sell them for less than the earth mined equivilent. Earth mined will always be cheaper, so you'll have to sell at no more than the price of the earth mined product.
>>8965408
You still have to get things from the earth to the moon.
>All fuel can be gotten from the moon
So now we have:
>Mining operation
>Refineries
>Hydroponics
>Rocket fuel factory
All to mine resources that we can mine on earth, for less capital investment, less risk, and a higher return

You people are delusional.

>>8965415
>Higher return
False, a company that has access to the resources of the moon would have a claim to more resources than pretty much any mining company.
>ISS
That is in space and is not meant to be self sufficient.

>>8965415
>Food
>HOW?
It wouldn't be that hard to grow plants on the moon. Light, water, soil would be easy. In fact that hardest part would probably be getting nitrogen to the plants.

File: lunar mass driver2.gif (14KB, 598x330px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 598x330px

>>8964571
Do you know how NASA planned to build these things?

The plan was to put a mass driver on the Moon and shoot bags of moon dust to L2

>>8965153

>By that logic no one would want to live in cities.

No, by my logic no one would want to live in squalor. Some are forced to yes but that doesn't mean they wouldn't want to move out.

>If a rotating Habitat feels nearly identical to living on earth why would you care?

Because it's still a cage no matter how much you try to dress it up. You can't go sit in a car and drive to the next town. You're stuck and you'll feel like it.

>If there is more space in space and so it was cheaper to live and there were jobs why wouldn't you?

It can't be cheaper and it will never be cheaper than making a house on Earth. There are also health issues due to gravity and radiation. The only job that would be unique up there would be the job of maintaining the space station. Any other non maintenance job would require you to interact with Earth ie you'd have to spend a lot of money going up and down for no reason when you could be just on Earth all the time.

>>8964791
I think a lot of people would love to live in space given the opportunity whether they live in squalor or not. Maybe not the majority of people but still a significant amount.

>>8965736

Well I said initially that I think the hype would attract a lot of people but the disillusionment with living in space would quickly trickle those numbers down where it wouldn't be commercially or economically viable.

>>8965749
Right. I think the idea would be to make self-sustaining communities though. Not necessarily for any sort of benefit, at least initially. Once we figure out how to actually live in space we would capitilize on space colonies.

File: 1465774332242.jpg (225KB, 1924x1040px) Image search: [Google]

225KB, 1924x1040px

2050: Fusion is cracked.

2070: Habitats are established on the moon to farm helium-3, an isotope that is abundant on the surface of the moon because of solar radiation creating it constantly. Colonies on Mars established.

2110: Mining of asteroids is economically viable.

2200: Several asteroids have been converted to habitable cylinders. Mars has self sustaining colonies.

2300: Effort's to bring bigger asteroids from the outer solar system inwards commence, solar sales from probes to slow down their orbital velocity and make them fall inwards on their own. Moon mining gets harder and people start to consider mining the gas giants.

2350: L1 Lagrange point mirrors are established over Mercury and Venus, to cool them down for future excavation/habitation, respectively. Mars may get an L1 magnetic deflector shield as well.

2400: The gas giants get their own automated mining facilities. Habitats have been established on their moons.

2500: Things just keep getting mined and colonized for a while.

2600: Mercury and Venus are cool enough to start mining and colonizing. Generation ships have been sent to nearby stars.

2700: Most of the solar system colonised. Inner solar system enjoys easy power from the sun. Outer solar system mostly living on fusion and heavily reflected sunlight.

3000: Type 2 civilisation status reached. Dyson swarm is as complete as can be. Mercury no longer exists. Generation ships reach nearby stars. Type 3 here we come.

File: 1448859811191.jpg (16KB, 600x338px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 600x338px

>This entire thread.

>>8965814
Nice unsourced graph you have there. I hope you understand it's not an axiom. No psychiatric study supports it.

File: 1340511917441.gif (2MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x240px

>>8965819
Your mother's unsourced.

>>8965381
The amounts of stuff you get when mining an asteroid made of the stuff you want to mine is going to tank just about any market once you return it to Earth. Which is why it is worth more in space than on Earth. That doesn't mean you shouldn't bring it back for industrial use even if you didn't get a good profit from it.

>>8965394
Stop being a child. Unicorns don't exist.

>>8965411
We couldn't make something that tall, due to materials strength. Though something similar, like a launch loop that is really high up or blasting off from the top of a mountain would help. For things like that, it just comes down to how good the weather is. Mountain launching would be the best bet, despite bad weather. However, normal launching would beat it out every time.

>>8965415
>>8965422
>food
>how

That's actually pretty easy. The nitrogen comes from the air. Once you have enough in the cycle from air to soil to plant it will balance out. Fertilizer is as simple as taking a shit/piss or as complicated and technical as the Haber–Bosch process.

>All to mine resources that we can mine on earth, for less capital investment, less risk, and a higher return

Resources in space are "worth more" in savings than resources on Earth simply because you need to lift the ones from Earth out of the gravity well. Automated and scalable ore processing and refining are most likely what will be done. That's basically a wee tiny plant that can make more of itself and refine & process as needed.

>You people are delusional.

I think most of them simply lack proper knowledge about engineering. Like the group of people who were constantly trying to redesign SpaceX rockets for landing back when they were crashing a lot of them. They just didn't realize the best KiSS engineering solution was already at play.

File: X on SCI.png (31KB, 694x968px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 694x968px

>>8965819
>psychiatric

>>8965850
>That's actually pretty easy. The nitrogen comes from the air.
There's no air on the Moon.

>>8965871
There is, in some meaning of air.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_the_Moon
Most astronomical bodies have an atmosphere.

>>8965875
80,000 atoms per cubic centimeter is hardly an atmosphere. Oh and practically none of that is nitrogen. So where are you gonna get practical amounts of nitrogen on the Moon?

>>8965889
It is atmosphere, by definition. There are much stranger and less stable atmospheres out there. (I'm another anon, just nitpicking)

>>8965894
I didn't say it wasn't an atmosphere, I said it was hardly an atmosphere. Just nitpicking.

There is no way you are getting significant amounts of anything from an atmosphere that masses about 10 tons over the whole goddamn Moon. Now perhaps someone would like to tell me where we're gonna get nitrogen for this supposed moon base? Or hell, carbon for that matter.

>>8965908
Earth.

>>8965082
There's around quart of water in cubic meter of Mars soil

>>8965889
You'd get the Nitrogen, Phosphorous, and Nitrogen from mining
all those craters on the moon were made by asteroids rich in the same things the still drifting rocks are

>>8966016
Nitrogen, phosphorous, and Potassium*

>>8965871
>>8965875
>>8965889
>>8965894
>>8966016
>>8965908
>>8965932
I was referring to the air you breath. The carrier gas is nitrogen. You can use nitrogen fixing bacteria (cyanobacteria) as part of your cycle.

File: Get_Out_Of_The_Way.gif (500KB, 400x150px) Image search: [Google]

500KB, 400x150px

>>8964571
Most humans will leave earth on STREAM rockets.
We basically have an unlimited supply of water and can use ground based lasers to supply the heat.
There is NO OTHER way to move a few billion people and supplies out of earth's HUGE gravity well.

>>8966016
>>8966017
Potassium is a major component of lunar regolith, phosphorous isn't terribly rare in regolith.

Nitrogen is volatile, it tends to evaporate during impacts.

>>8966216
And where are you going to get that nitrogen on the Moon? Are you gonna ship it up from Earth?

>>8965851
>putting real physical phenomena like time dialation [sic] on one level with flat earth and free energy
Whoever made this bingo is a brainlet, and you're a brainlet for saving it.

>>8965727
You are an idiot. If I live in a large habitat and can move to other habitats it would be no different than being able to go from one city to another on earth

>>8965749
Except the people who live in space would have children and grow in number without limitation

>>8965908
Mine it from crashed asteroids, oxygen from ice. If all else fails bring it from earth and have a natural cycle

File: 1494896993091.png (119KB, 225x227px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 225x227px

>>8966277
Come on friend, use your creativity and brain
http://www.orionsarm.com/fm_store/OrbitalRings-I.pdf
http://www.orionsarm.com/fm_store/OrbitalRings-II.pdf
http://www.orionsarm.com/fm_store/OrbitalRings-III.pdf
there numerous was to get mass things to orbit
they just take infrastructure, a thing we could easily produce with a starter mining base

>>8966429
NOT DEMONSTRATED TO BE STABLE FOR SMALL NUMBERS OF SKYHOOKS.

>>8966429
>Come on friend, use your creativity and brain
Requires materials that do not exist (yet).
Steam rockets are so primitive as to boggle the mind, even the poorest nation can make them.

>>8966422
except that nitrogen and other volatile compounds tend to evaporate during impact.

File: 1473661579141.png (57KB, 800x750px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 800x750px

>>8966437
The material for such a structure would literally be regular old steel
the forces acting on an orbital ring aren't excessively intense to rip it apart

>>8966277
>>8966437
>> even the poorest nation can make them.
Yeah but not the high power laser necessary to drive them. Water is a shitty propellant for laser launch, cryogenic hydrogen offers better performance.

>>8966413

>If I live in a large habitat and can move to other habitats it would be no different than being able to go from one city to another on earth

No it would be moving from one steel container to another.

>>8966416

Sure, if we ban those children from a right of living on Earth.

>>8966446
ORBITAL RINGS HAVE NOT BEEN SHOWN TO BE STABLE FOR SMALL NUMBERS OF SKYHOOKS.

File: 1466270914583.gif (72KB, 650x450px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 650x450px

>>8966451
if it's not stable for low numbers, would that mean large numbers are?
I'm sure there's lots of places that would want a skyhook station to get their space shit going

>>8966449
>cryogenic hydrogen offers better performance.
true... but water is literally free and available everywhere

>>8966501
The cost of propellant is nothing compared to the cost of the vehicle and laser energy. Lower performance means a bigger vehicle and more laser power.

>>8966513

Electrical power PRODUCTION is not a problem (storage is the problem for humanity at thgs time). You can launch vehicle when electrical usage is at a minimum. Vehicle cost can be decreased if you make it use once and done.
Steam power is amazing in simplicity.

>>8964499
>The technology to make moon bases and rotating space habitats exist today
Prove it.

>>8966450
By that retarded logic earth is one big container
Space will have more jobs and cheaper housing

>>8966429
>OrbitalRings

Oh, its you again. Please, use a tripcode, so I can filter you.

File: 2c0a90cd0e1c833912a1596f524ec0f2.jpg (163KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 800x600px

>>8966560
Submarines
Festival Rides
ISS
Subways
Satellites
Rockets

The list keeps going on for tech we already have that would be employed for such endeavors. It is just a matter of specific design and implementation.

>>8966624

>By that retarded logic earth is one big container

No but ships are.

>Space will have more jobs

It wont unless you intend to copy every single possible variation of a job on Earth.

>and cheaper housing

cost of a shed < cost of a high tech orbiting station

You fucking retard. Us humans dont have the technology to go to the moon TODAY. read this shit faggot >>8966433

>>8964553
water can be made and stored

>>8966694
That's incorrect though. You don't lose tech in this age. You lose items, but those can be easily manufactured again. You lose incentive, which is the key element here.

What the fuck is the point of even going to space; I find it terrifying to be surrounded by a cold vacuum 24/7

>>8966829
You are already surrounded by a partial vacuum. If your skin gets cut you could vent out all your blood and die.

>>8966805
shit will take time to make, doubt we can achieve this in 5 years, let alone have a colonised space in 200 years m8

File: 1485903396115.jpg (7KB, 286x176px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 286x176px

>>8966646
disprove the viability with actual numbers, not shitposts

>>8966702
From what?

>>8966694
>Us humans dont have the technology to go to the moon TODAY.
Nigger, we had it 50 years ago. Are you one of those "We didn't go the moon" faggots?

>>8966675
>No, but ships are
There are literally millions of people who live on islands and are happy with it. That is as much a container as a space station. You have no evidence that people would hate living in them.
>It wont
It will because you can fit more people there meaning there will be a bigger job market
Housing will be cheaper to because of less competition from land. As more and more people live on earth the price of housing will continue to rise.

File: 1463357457530s.jpg (3KB, 100x125px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 100x125px

>>8967089
I think perhaps he means that we can't get to the moon with ease. Back then it costed billions to manufacture the tech necessary and it probably costs even more today.

It's relatively cheap and within commoner capabilities to reach orbit or at least a relatively high altitude in this day and age. The next breakthrough in terms of space exploration would most likely begin with it being relatively easy to transport people to and from earth's orbit as well as material.

Then, once it's a relative commodity, we could progress towards planetary transport.

Why worry climate change when literally 8% of the fucking global population doesn't even know there is an outer space

>>8967105
But this thread is more about shipping materials from the moon to earth which is far cheaper or materials from the moon to orbital stations which should be even cheaper than that.

>>8967092

>There are literally millions of people who live on islands and are happy with it. That is as much a container as a space station.

Islands aren't closed hangars. On a space station you are at all times aware that you're in a confined space. Closed space from which you can not easily get out. There is no outdoor in space.

>You have no evidence that people would hate living in them.

People generally don't react well living in squalor.

>It will because you can fit more people there meaning there will be a bigger job market

Space stations are a lot more finite in size than the Earth. I don't understand your reasoning how more people can fit on a station than on Earth. You're also limited to a much lower span of business types than on Earth and not everyone is healthy enough to be in space, let alone work there.

>Housing will be cheaper to because of less competition from land. As more and more people live on earth the price of housing will continue to rise.

Again, the cost of constructing something in space is far more costlier than building something on Earth and maintenance costs would be far greater. There's no viable way to make them cheap.

There's no point in building it when you can do all the things on land for far less and with less risk. A gimmick space casino with a hotel in low orbit maybe; in 200 or 300 years. We aren't designed for space, you'd be just adding unnecessary complexity and health hazards while gaining nothing. Space is good for science, not much else.

>>8967153
What if we altered our bodies to be adaptable to the conditions of space for smoother space exploration and conquest.

>>8966928
I'm sure we can land a man on the moon again in less than 3 years.

>>8964529
asteroids can contain these things, but spotting one and funding a specific mission would still be a huge risk right?

File: 1465340976023.jpg (14KB, 456x456px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 456x456px

>>8967470
there's risk in everything
we are able to make educated guesses on the composition of asteroids, if we wanted to make sure we got good returns, we could just focus on the larger rocks, which would generally have a good blend of everything due to their size
going to Ceres for one of the early bases would probably be a good idea, because you're damn near guaranteed to have everything you need to become self sufficient
http://www.asterank.com/
this lists quite a few of them, with profit margins on top as a bonus

File: MXTether[1].jpg (50KB, 662x350px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 662x350px

>>8966451
Do you even know what a skyhook is? Or an orbital ring? Those two things don't even touch.

>>8967590
why is the tether on some retarded orbit that's not even around earth

>>8967590
I'm referring to a different kind a skyhook, the kind used with orbital rings, which this fag who spams his youtube videos promotes

>>8967599
So you can transfer enough momentum to a suborbital rocket to put it into orbit

>>8967604
>So you can transfer enough momentum to a suborbital rocket to put it into orbit

Hi, ignoramus here. Wouldn't it take a LOT of time and energy to get it into that orbit, then after the 1 pass where you use it as a boost, it wouldn't come back again without another long complicated sequence of orbital maneuvers?

I'm not saying it's bullshit I'm just trying to understand, ya know? Bear with me.

File: Satellite_tether_system.svg.png (36KB, 512x467px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 512x467px

>>8967608
So yeah, it would need to be reboosted after transferring momentum to the rocket. Now what if I told you that you could reboost the tether without using any propellant? Using just electricity provided by solar panels? You'd say that impossible right?

Well guess what it's possible! We can generate force by reacting against Earth's own magnetic field. What we do is when our rotating tether is straight up and down, we run current through it. This generates lorentz force from reacting against Earth's magnetic field. But wait, how do we get current to only flow one way through our tether? We can't just have another cable going back down the tether carrying current the opposite way, cause then we wouldn't be able to generate a net force.

So what we do is put an electron gun on one end of our tether and shoot electrons off. Now we can get current!

But wait, eventually the charge is gonna increase and we aren't going to be able to throw electrons off anymore! Well guess what? Earth's upper atmosphere has plasma, and plasma's conductive. So we put an electron collector on the other end of our tether, now current flows through the tether, out one end, through the plasma, and back again! We can generate force now!

But wait, there's more! We can actually brake our tether by allowing earth's magnetic field to induce a current in the moving tether and putting a resistance between that.

So yeah, tethers are pretty cool. We could reduce the cost of launching stuff into space by a pretty large factor without using any materials we don't have. Once we build one tether, we could bootstrap more tethers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrodynamic_tether
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skyhook_(structure)
http://www.niac.usra.edu/files/studies/final_report/355Bogar.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum_exchange_tether
http://www.tethers.com/LaunchAssist.html

>>8964499
Solar system probably, but anywhere beyond that is not happening this millennium.

muh sky hook

GARBAGE idea

Actual practical ideas: magnetic assist to get speed, then laser beamed propulsion to lift it to orbit
Or just rapidly reusable rockets

>>8967686
A practical tether for boosting 2 ton payloads from LEO to GEO could fit in a single zenit-2 rocket launch. This could eventually be expanded to lift 6 ton payloads from suborbital to orbital

Skyhooks can be used to increase the payload of rapidly reusable rockets. Imagine how much payload a Falcon 9 could lift if it was only going suborbital.

>>8967657
non conventional (Vertical rocket) launching techniques get me rock hard, what do u think about SABRE tech?

>orbital ring

GTFO GB2/x/

File: 1314947771481.jpg (37KB, 549x309px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 549x309px

>orbital ring
>skyhook
>laser propulsion
>space elevator
>launch loop
>fucking steam rockets lol

all of these are sci-fi and/or inherently stupid and belong to >>>/x/

reusable rockets and maybe SSTO spaceplanes (Skylon) are plausible and can stay here

>>8967871
>Communications Satellites
>Real-Time Audio
>Earbuds
>Moon Landing
>Electric Cars
>Tanks
>Video Chat

all of these are sci-fi and/or inherently stupid and belong to >>>/lit/

steam trains and maybe radio are plausible and can stay here

>>8967892
He's talking about things that can never properly work. They either rely on magic materials that can't exist or are not feasible due to economics when there's already a better, working, and cheaper means being used. You on the other hand are being a child who thinks unicorns exist if everyone claps at the same time (you clapped didn't you).

File: costanza.jpg (17KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 250x250px

>>8964529
>the returns would be the exact same as the returns colonies did in ages past

>>8964503
Humans are willing to work towards things for centuries. See the Great Wall of China.

>>8968041
Hordes of village rapers tends to motivate people in a big way.

>>8965024
Premise too far out.

Atomic signal??

>>8968041
Perhaps a monarchy, Dynasty, or Dictatorship would get people off of their asses.

>>8964499
will never happen, Earth is flat.

>>8968457
Don't need authoritarian governments to pull off big projects, if unemployment is high, making it a public works project for good pay, like the autobahn, would let you do it in more democratic environments
though authoritarian is best for when you want shit done quickly, less red tape and bureaucratic hoop fuckery to deal with

File: spindo.gif (47KB, 250x194px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 250x194px

bump

I think it's largely a scifi meme. Unless it becomes profitable and comfortable for living we will at most have some mars lab with 10 people. And considering the current prices (mars mission will cost over 500 billion and they probably won't even land) I can't see it happening

I don't think we will as a collective. I think some fringe scientists will figure it out, and say "fuck you" to all the earth plebs and just take off.

Our leaders are dumb and too focused on maintaining power. The pursuit of space travel, unless economically beneficial, won't happen.

>>8967153
no you aren't. You could easily make an artificial sky. You are retarded.

>>8967153
You can make mre living space from mining th moon and solar system then there is living space on earth. You have no evidence that living in a habitat would be worse than living on eath. Rich people prefer to live on islands so it will likely be the same for space stations

>>8965024
Everything

>>8967871
You're a fucking fag, explain why those things aren't plausible.

>>8970723

That would make the uncanny valley even more jarring. You're also adding another layer of complexity meaning more cost to housing.

>>8970727

>You can make mre living space from mining th moon and solar system then there is living space on earth.

The Moon is smaller than the Earth. Mars may be viable if/when we get to overpopulation eventually. By the way, I thought we're talking space stations and not actual colonization of planets and moons.

>You have no evidence that living in a habitat would be worse than living on eath.

Solar flares, radiation, zero-g effects on the body, micro-meteorites, compression problems and a plethora of other things you don't have to worry about when you're living on Earth.

>Rich people prefer to live on islands so it will likely be the same for space stations

That's what I kinda said. Gimmicky hotels and casions where rich, healthy people who have time for a 6 month astronaut training could go and blow off some steam as a vacation.

File: 1496542885032.jpg (99KB, 680x699px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 680x699px

>go to science fair downtown
>only asian and indian kids
>barely any white people
>few blocks over car show on the street
>insane amount of white people getting drunk

Does /pol/ even realize why they are being bred out of existence?

>>8970748
White people are really dumb, everybody knows this. That is why when you see indian/asian/etc. geniuses, they are at worst a bit shy but they act completely normal. And then when you try to find white geniuses, the only ones you find have severe chronical autism. That's it. White people can only be intelligent if they are literally autistic.

Like seriously, has anyone met a smart white kid born after the 1995 that wasn't literally autistic?

>>8964985
>pre-determined

Fuck off with that bullshit, humanities destiny is not written anywhere, we will either survive into the thousands of years and thrive in space and Earth or perish by manmade or natural catastrophe, but nowhere is it written.

What is a mormon seriously beliving this even doing on /sci/ anyways

>>8970747
>THe moon is smaller than earth
You are a retard. You can make a greater surface area with less material than the earth because the earth has a small amount of surface area per volume.
Also again you have not one bit of evidence to suggest people wouldn't like living in one.

>>8966398
Yes you ship it from Earth.

>>8970751
>>8970748
Actually, it is a cultural thing due to targeted social propaganda by Jews in addition to big pharma pushing for medicating children as hard as possible.

>>8967896
>They either rely on magic materials that can't exist or are not feasible due to economics

https://phys.org/wire-news/225539173/worlds-first-super-growth-carbon-nanotube-mass-production-plant.html

>>8967896
Launch loop and laser propulsion don't require magical materials that don't exist yet

>>8970751
>White people can only be intelligent if they are literally autistic.
*citation required*
Genii contribute new things to thei rfield. "White" or more accurately Western society fosters genius by not being quite as corrupt or hidebound as eastern societies.
Asian and Indian "genius" types are just high achievers and get caught faking research or just doing well in tests but not coming up with stuff.
But yeah, /pol/ are fossils, making their environment noisy and dirty as they pass away.

I think we need a better form of travel before we start talking about colonization of space.

>>8964499
Doable within the next 200 years? Maybe. But what is the point of having human habitats? We can get drones to do everything within the solar system with a 12-24 hour ish delay. No economic value to go to any other planet in our solar system, so it won't happen. Maybe a moonbase for tourists.

Being able to program and control drones which can ship resources around the galaxy without the communications delay would be an economic purpose that could be fulfilled by a human colony of some sort. That's when you get into space empires n sheet. But, we do not have the capability to get even close to the speed of light, with nothing on the horizon. Space is really big, so you're talking a 1500's style 4-5 year voyage minimum with 50 of your closest friends to go discover New America and re-enact Battlestar Galactica.

There's also a shit ton of proprietary things on Earth that can not be reproduced or shipped easily, mostly food (seeds) and drugs. If you end up getting cancer or some other crazy ailment, you are just going to die whereas on Earth you can get medical assistance pretty quickly if you are rich enough. And it's unsure if the human body, or even our electronics can withstand interstellar radiation for long periods of time

>>8970820

>The surface area of the Moon is 37.9 million square kilometers. That sounds like a lot, but it’s actually smaller than the continent of Asia, which is only 44.4 million square km. The surface ares of the whole Earth is 510 million square km, so the area of the Moon compared to Earth is only 7.4%.

>How about volume? The volume of the Moon is 21.9 billion cubic km. Again, that sounds like a huge number, but the volume of the Earth is more like 1 trillion cubic kilometers. So the volume of the Moon is only 2% compared to the volume of the Earth.

You're moving the goalpost because we're talking about space stations and not Lunar habitats or Mars habitats. I'm all for research stations on The Moon.

>Also again you have not one bit of evidence to suggest people wouldn't like living in one.

Nobody is trying to seriously build one? There are zero people willing to live in a submarine? How do you expect me to provide evidence for a fantasy question?

>>8964800
That thing is neat

>>8970800
Baited this fucking hard

>>8971688
>hurrr

>>8971704
>durr

>>8964499
There's no economic reason to put towns in space. What do space people in space towns do for space work that pays for their space rent?

>>8964499
This thread is posted twice a day now fuck me

>>8971119
That would require new physics aka magic.

>>8964791
>There's no purpose or reason
A very small number of countries control all the crucial rare metals. Go to space and you break the monopoly. You can even tank their economies by selling, say, platinum cheaply.

>>8971900
>Go to space and you break the monopoly.

Nothing in space is worth the cost of plucking it from orbit.

We were able to sail on the ocean with wooden boats and discover new lands, therefore it is just as inevitable that we will sail the vast uninhabitable nothingness of space that doesn't have oxygen or islands you can make stops on to resupply, exposes you to deadly radiation, causes your body to wither away, where tiny undetectable rocks can destroy your ship, where distances are longer than human lifetimes, all the worlds you can hope to reach are dead or poisonous or encased in hellstorms...

The optimism is a bit ridiculous, yes.

>>8971904
>Nothing in X is worth Y
said no successful person ever.

>>8964529
Resources do exist in space. As soon as one company develops the technology to harvest the first asteroid, assuming there are absolutely NO problems at all, it would still have awful return because its unrefined.

here are another few reasons
-as soon as one company does it and turns a profit, others will adapt their technology, save tens of billions if not more, and reap far greater rewards
-there will be problems, and lots of them. the capital costs are prohibitively high for any individual company, and i honestly doubt the US will survive long enough to fund it. China has too many domestic economic issues and wont be able to dedicate the resources either, assuming they don't collapse as well
-due to the extreme quantities of resources, as soon as one asteroid is extracted, the market is saturated and prices drop significantly, and so turning a profit would take a long time

im sure there are more reasons, but thats enough. our technology is insufficient at this time, and our political/economic systems arent well suited to it. i hate globalism with a passion, but i doubt anything short of a large multinational effort would suffice

>>8971900

I did mention mining to be a viable strategy, I was referring to commercial colonization (ie habitats for sake of habitats) to not be viable.

With that said I don't have much hope that some economic underdog will suddenly develop mining technology and go mine asteroids.

>>8964499
Unless we extend the life of scientists, physicists, mathematicians, and engineers working on advancing technology, I believe it will be another 300+ years til we colonize space.

>>8971920
So what?

>>8971951
You can't make a profit off it because there are no safe fuels that would be cheap enough to get the rocks down from their high earth orbit or solar orbit.

There is no point to having people in space, period.

>>8971910
I like the cut of this man's jib

File: 1495624556725.jpg (249KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

249KB, 1920x1080px

>>8971910
It's like you don't like the idea of a challenge