It doesn't make any sense to expand inward into the solar system anyhow.
why?
Because conditions are only going to worsen for the inner part of the solar system. I know that's on a scope of billions of years, but expanding outward gives us baby steps toward getting people out of our system. The only possible thing I can see about trying to get man on Venus is developing the technology to get man-made machinery and structures made that can withstand its environment. Which would be an achievement yeah. But then what?
It doesn't make any sense to expand inward into the solar system anyhow.
why?
Because conditions are only going to worsen for the inner part of the solar system. I know that's on a scope of billions of years, but expanding outward gives us baby steps toward getting people out of our system. The only possible thing I can see about trying to get man on Venus is developing the technology to get man-made machinery and structures made that can withstand its environment. Which would be an achievement yeah. But then what?
Can't we just send a fucktonne of hydrogen into Venus? Either that or some kind of "plant bomb" that would gradually degrade the CO2 in the atmosphere.
theSquid on
0
Options
DynagripBreak me a million heartsHoustonRegistered User, ClubPAregular
How is building the first self-sustaining colony on a foreign planet NOT beneficial to mankind? I mean that's the big thing about finding water there, right? That we can build an enclosed ecosystem and shit?
'cause it'll be crazy expensive and more than likely very far from self-sustaining in reality, no matter what shows up in the PR pamphlets?
A sphere is a solid object, well in dysons view, and there isnt enough material in the solar system to create one
A Dyson Bubble is a bunch of densly packed non orbiting platforms that would take up less building material but still cover the same area. Granted you dont absorb 100% of the outgoing radiation due to the space between each platform, but you still consume massive quantities of it. And unless you are already on your way outwards harvesting resources from extra solar system areas, its the only option till you leave it.
Excellent research goal of a Moon Base: an observatory (be it radio or optical or IR or whatever part of the spectrum you want). If it's put on the far side, it won't get any interference from Earth-based transmissions (for radio observatories). Also, you can make MASSIVE mirrors that never require cleaning (so you could make a very low-cost Super-Hubble).
As for long-term goals, really I've said before that it's way easier (and more logical) to build massive stations at the L-points. You do need a moon base for the initial mining operation to build such stations though.
How is building the first self-sustaining colony on a foreign planet NOT beneficial to mankind? I mean that's the big thing about finding water there, right? That we can build an enclosed ecosystem and shit?
'cause it'll be crazy expensive and more than likely very far from self-sustaining in reality, no matter what shows up in the PR pamphlets?
It's not like the Lunar Lander was a freaking Eco-Dome.
The technological advances we'll need to make to sustain our existence on a non-Earth rock will be invaluable in helping our species make the inevitable move out into space, and it's going to return dividends here like the space missions have been since the 60's.
Excellent research goal of a Moon Base: an observatory (be it radio or optical or IR or whatever part of the spectrum you want). If it's put on the far side, it won't get any interference from Earth-based transmissions (for radio observatories). Also, you can make MASSIVE mirrors that never require cleaning (so you could make a very low-cost Super-Hubble).
As for long-term goals, really I've said before that it's way easier (and more logical) to build massive stations at the L-points. You do need a moon base for the initial mining operation to build such stations though.
We already have observatories at that Lagrangian point. Granted they'll need to be replaced eventually, but still.
How is building the first self-sustaining colony on a foreign planet NOT beneficial to mankind? I mean that's the big thing about finding water there, right? That we can build an enclosed ecosystem and shit?
'cause it'll be crazy expensive and more than likely very far from self-sustaining in reality, no matter what shows up in the PR pamphlets?
It's not like the Lunar Lander was a freaking Eco-Dome.
The technological advances we'll need to make to sustain our existence on a non-Earth rock will be invaluable in helping our species make the inevitable move out into space, and it's going to return dividends here like the space missions have been since the 60's.
Not to mention having terrestrial uses as we try and become more sustainable in our living practices here.
What if your engineers aren't a bunch of pussies and you just manufacture a dyson sphere that has a smaller diameter than the entire solar system.
Sure, you cut off planets from sunlight. Necessary losses.
The equations I saw were based on a 3 meter thick dyson sphere if I recall right. It was a while ago I was reading up on this, and it was also deep into 2 bottles of wine. And they still fell well short of materials. This also encompassed to the point of earth if I recall or else obviously earth itself would become an unsustainable hulk of rock. I suppose you could build it with minimal materials, but hell even 3 meters doesnt deal with the issue of the constant barage of extra solar bodies smashing into it and its inability to deflect or defend against them
Maybe motion sensored plasma cannons to blast that shit to tiny pieces covering the entire exterior. Badass. Its time I get down to the design table. Anti gravity cannon mounted tanks and dyson sphere equipped with plasma cannons. Yea this second bottle of AP is doing only terrible things.
Excellent research goal of a Moon Base: an observatory (be it radio or optical or IR or whatever part of the spectrum you want). If it's put on the far side, it won't get any interference from Earth-based transmissions (for radio observatories). Also, you can make MASSIVE mirrors that never require cleaning (so you could make a very low-cost Super-Hubble).
As for long-term goals, really I've said before that it's way easier (and more logical) to build massive stations at the L-points. You do need a moon base for the initial mining operation to build such stations though.
We already have observatories at that Lagrangian point. Granted they'll need to be replaced eventually, but still.
The point of having the observatories on the moon is you can service them with impunity (and do some construction on-site, which cuts the price).
The L-point stations would be primarily for habitation - even with the best terraforming effort, you won't be able to control the environment to such an absolute degree as onboard bernal spheres or o'neill cylinders. That, and there's enough material floating around the solar system to make enough of them to support around 5 to 20 trillion people.
EDIT: This also solves the dyson sphere problem of killing all the planets by blocking all the sunlight. The stations could run on nothing but solar ANYWHERE in a four light-day radius around the sun, so you'd pretty much just be building a very diffuse dyson sphere-like-system that only uses enough power to support the inhabitants of the stations.
Which is a bad thing....how? I liked his writing. Sure it was simplistic and fun, and got horribly horribly massacred by hollywood, but for when it was written...not bad at all
I was mostly referring to the one specific story where said convicts took over the moon and starting throwing rocks at the Earth. Now, they had good reason to do so, but still.
EmperorSeth on
You know what? Nanowrimo's cancelled on account of the world is stupid.
Which is a bad thing....how? I liked his writing. Sure it was simplistic and fun, and got horribly horribly massacred by hollywood, but for when it was written...not bad at all
I was mostly referring to the one specific story where said convicts took over the moon and starting throwing rocks at the Earth. Now, they had good reason to do so, but still.
The Moon is a Harsh Mistress is the title.
The moon is used as a penal colony by every nation on Earth, and all the forced settlers effectively grow grain to feed the immense population back on Earth. The trouble is, the moon is being depleted of elements critical to fertilizer and water, which would result in horrific famine on the moon within about a decade. The only weapon they've got is the magnetic catapult used to send grain to Earth, which is re-purposed to throw canisters filled with 100 tons of rock to great effect.
The point about Venus is that it's approximately Earth gravity and can hold an atmosphere. We just crash comets and asteroids into it to blow the atmosphere off into space and let it cool (it's only hot coz of super-global warming), and to add water to crash out the sulfuric acid in the air.
If you were going for a long term base, perhaps the solar panels could be used as a stopgap till a (very small) nuclear station was set up
You can't build nuclear power plants! Think of the effects on the spotted moon owl!
/space-hippie
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
0
Options
Donkey KongPutting Nintendo out of business with AI nipsRegistered Userregular
edited November 2009
Space hippies are going to be the worst when we start hurling various types of bombs at Mars and Venus to test terraforming feasibility and tech.
Wouldn't a giant nuke aimed at Venus cause nuclear winter? Wouldn't that be a good thing?
Donkey Kong on
Thousands of hot, local singles are waiting to play at bubbulon.com.
Space hippies are going to be the worst when we start hurling various types of bombs at Mars and Venus to test terraforming feasibility and tech.
Wouldn't a giant nuke aimed at Venus cause nuclear winter? Wouldn't that be a good thing?
A nuclear winter is mainly caused by ashes from flammable things such as cities. Nuking an empty toxic hellscape wouldn't do much, I imagine. Besides, Venus' atmosphere is already about as reflective as it is possible to make one (that's why it's so bright in the sky), so adding to that likely wouldn't do much, either.
Anyway, the best part about the water on the moon is that it's in permanently-shadowed craters at the poles. If you climb up to the rim of those craters, you get permanent full-strength sunlight—so the power issue is easily solved.
You know what's cool is the idea that there could theoretically be stars in existence that have been encased in Dyson spheres by advanced civilizations, and we would never be able to find them.
I mean, yeah, extremely unlikely, but theoretically possible.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
The equations I saw were based on a 3 meter thick dyson sphere if I recall right. It was a while ago I was reading up on this, and it was also deep into 2 bottles of wine. And they still fell well short of materials. This also encompassed to the point of earth if I recall or else obviously earth itself would become an unsustainable hulk of rock. I suppose you could build it with minimal materials, but hell even 3 meters doesnt deal with the issue of the constant barage of extra solar bodies smashing into it and its inability to deflect or defend against them
The construct Dyson originally proposed was a massive fleet of heliocentric orbital satellites. They were not a single cohesive structure, which is mechanically impossible with any materials that humans currently know or even reasonable conceive of.
The equations I saw were based on a 3 meter thick dyson sphere if I recall right. It was a while ago I was reading up on this, and it was also deep into 2 bottles of wine. And they still fell well short of materials. This also encompassed to the point of earth if I recall or else obviously earth itself would become an unsustainable hulk of rock. I suppose you could build it with minimal materials, but hell even 3 meters doesnt deal with the issue of the constant barage of extra solar bodies smashing into it and its inability to deflect or defend against them
The construct Dyson originally proposed was a massive fleet of heliocentric orbital satellites. They were not a single cohesive structure, which is mechanically impossible with any materials that humans currently know or even reasonable conceive of.
Hey, just because the required compressive strength is orders of magnitude beyond any material we've ever constructed is no reason to get all pessimistic.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
It doesn't make any sense to expand inward into the solar system anyhow.
why?
Because conditions are only going to worsen for the inner part of the solar system. I know that's on a scope of billions of years, but expanding outward gives us baby steps toward getting people out of our system. The only possible thing I can see about trying to get man on Venus is developing the technology to get man-made machinery and structures made that can withstand its environment. Which would be an achievement yeah. But then what?
You have to take the scale of things into account. Any steps you take within the solar system are absolutely minute in comparison to the step you'd need to take to reach even the nearest star. Alpha Centuari, the nearest star, is approximately 10,000 times further away than Neptune is from the Sun.
His Corkiness on
0
Options
Donkey KongPutting Nintendo out of business with AI nipsRegistered Userregular
It doesn't make any sense to expand inward into the solar system anyhow.
why?
Because conditions are only going to worsen for the inner part of the solar system. I know that's on a scope of billions of years, but expanding outward gives us baby steps toward getting people out of our system. The only possible thing I can see about trying to get man on Venus is developing the technology to get man-made machinery and structures made that can withstand its environment. Which would be an achievement yeah. But then what?
You have to take the scale of things into account. Any steps you take within the solar system are absolutely minute in comparison to the step you'd need to take to reach even the nearest star. Alpha Centuari, the nearest star, is approximately 10,000 times further away than Neptune is from the Sun.
Propulsion-wise, maybe. In terms of toughening up hulls and developing incredibly robust life support systems, we've got a nice array of conditions to work with close to home.
Donkey Kong on
Thousands of hot, local singles are waiting to play at bubbulon.com.
Still, the idea that "this isn't enough of a leap, therefore it isn't worth the bother" is kinda dumb. Yes propulsion systems. They're likely to derive at least tangentially off of the science that is used to develop propulsion for the inner solar system.
Also: it's a fucking colony on the goddamn MOON. What part of that does not scream fuckawesome?
The part that's not going towards starving african paraplegic kittens. 8-)
I've decided that the US military budget should immediately be halved and the half that is saved should be spent on whatever the biggest problem of the year is decided to be.
.......rea.....really....
With all the problems and equipment short comings of the military as it is, you want to cut it in HALF
You talk like that money goes towards funding crazy impossible projects like anti gravity cannons .... which would be awesome.... actually we should start funding some of that unicef money i shell out every halloween towards projects like this. Anti GRAVITY CANNONS. I dont know what it would do or how it works, but I want one....mounted on...A TANK...or...something
Seriously tho...you wernt serious about cutting military spending in half were you. Im not to sure why so many people think cutting military spending means the US being less involved in world issues and its projection ability. It just means its going to be done a lot more half assed with a lot more risk to the troops. That kind of issue needs to be dealt at the ground up with politicians and world issues, and not ball chopping off the middle system that is forced to maintain those decisions at the risk to its men and women serving.
I'm sure they would figure something out.
L|ama's seeming desire for everyone to wear hairshirts
Also: it's a fucking colony on the goddamn MOON. What part of that does not scream fuckawesome?
The part that's not going towards starving african paraplegic kittens. 8-)
I've decided that the US military budget should immediately be halved and the half that is saved should be spent on whatever the biggest problem of the year is decided to be.
.......rea.....really....
With all the problems and equipment short comings of the military as it is, you want to cut it in HALF
You talk like that money goes towards funding crazy impossible projects like anti gravity cannons .... which would be awesome.... actually we should start funding some of that unicef money i shell out every halloween towards projects like this. Anti GRAVITY CANNONS. I dont know what it would do or how it works, but I want one....mounted on...A TANK...or...something
Seriously tho...you wernt serious about cutting military spending in half were you. Im not to sure why so many people think cutting military spending means the US being less involved in world issues and its projection ability. It just means its going to be done a lot more half assed with a lot more risk to the troops. That kind of issue needs to be dealt at the ground up with politicians and world issues, and not ball chopping off the middle system that is forced to maintain those decisions at the risk to its men and women serving.
I'm sure they would figure something out.
L|ama's seeming desire for everyone to wear hairshirts
what?
bahaha oh that's funny
He's talking about the half of the money that goes to retarded experimental projects that never go anywhere and eat up billions of dollars of money, or for weapons that don't actually exist yet and may never exist.
I would think that the money spent on R&D is the best money that could be spent. It just needs to be spent more judiciously (aka buy materials for normal costs, not inflated ones).
Seriously, for the OICW, it cost millions. How the hell can that be? Even custom made parts cannot cost that much. The OICW was, objective wise, a worthwhile project and produced a lot of promising avenues and technologies. But the cost is silly.
The same is true for a lot of corporations. I've seen college workshops churn out incredible pieces of tech on string budgets, meanwhile corporations spend millions to do the same.
edit: Take a look at one of the recent great robot races. The winner? Stanford, who had a small team and pretty much off the shelf parts.
The problem with Venus is 1) it got it's shit wrecked at some point and is actually spinning in the opposite direction and 2) No magnetosphere, which means holy fucking radiation batman.
I would think that the money spent on R&D is the best money that could be spent. It just needs to be spent more judiciously (aka buy materials for normal costs, not inflated ones).
Seriously, for the OICW, it cost millions. How the hell can that be? Even custom made parts cannot cost that much. The OICW was, objective wise, a worthwhile project and produced a lot of promising avenues and technologies. But the cost is silly.
The same is true for a lot of corporations. I've seen college workshops churn out incredible pieces of tech on string budgets, meanwhile corporations spend millions to do the same.
edit: Take a look at one of the recent great robot races. The winner? Stanford, who had a small team and pretty much off the shelf parts.
Well it does help to have unpaid or underpaid grad students doing a lot of the work instead of doctors.
I would think that the money spent on R&D is the best money that could be spent. It just needs to be spent more judiciously (aka buy materials for normal costs, not inflated ones).
Seriously, for the OICW, it cost millions. How the hell can that be? Even custom made parts cannot cost that much. The OICW was, objective wise, a worthwhile project and produced a lot of promising avenues and technologies. But the cost is silly.
The same is true for a lot of corporations. I've seen college workshops churn out incredible pieces of tech on string budgets, meanwhile corporations spend millions to do the same.
edit: Take a look at one of the recent great robot races. The winner? Stanford, who had a small team and pretty much off the shelf parts.
Well it does help to have unpaid or underpaid grad students doing a lot of the work instead of doctors.
So, wait, these military people get paid hundreds of thousands a year? That doesn't even BEGIN to address the issue. Also evidently the undergrads kick the shit out of whoever the military pays.
I would think that the money spent on R&D is the best money that could be spent. It just needs to be spent more judiciously (aka buy materials for normal costs, not inflated ones).
Seriously, for the OICW, it cost millions. How the hell can that be? Even custom made parts cannot cost that much. The OICW was, objective wise, a worthwhile project and produced a lot of promising avenues and technologies. But the cost is silly.
The same is true for a lot of corporations. I've seen college workshops churn out incredible pieces of tech on string budgets, meanwhile corporations spend millions to do the same.
edit: Take a look at one of the recent great robot races. The winner? Stanford, who had a small team and pretty much off the shelf parts.
Well it does help to have unpaid or underpaid grad students doing a lot of the work instead of doctors.
So, wait, these military people get paid hundreds of thousands a year? That doesn't even BEGIN to address the issue. Also evidently the undergrads kick the shit out of whoever the military pays.
You found water on the moon. That's great. That's wonderful. End the recession, smarty pants.
I would think that the money spent on R&D is the best money that could be spent. It just needs to be spent more judiciously (aka buy materials for normal costs, not inflated ones).
Seriously, for the OICW, it cost millions. How the hell can that be? Even custom made parts cannot cost that much. The OICW was, objective wise, a worthwhile project and produced a lot of promising avenues and technologies. But the cost is silly.
The same is true for a lot of corporations. I've seen college workshops churn out incredible pieces of tech on string budgets, meanwhile corporations spend millions to do the same.
edit: Take a look at one of the recent great robot races. The winner? Stanford, who had a small team and pretty much off the shelf parts.
Boy do I love finding promising avenues and technologies for killing brown people!
Posts
Where we will meet the sun people like in the Futurama videogame.
You know how much an apartment that big would cost on the Sun?
Those guys were dicks
I suppose its better than the ghosts on mars tho
I saw that movie. F that.
Dyson sphere, duh.
If we're going to be doing it elsewhere, this is as good a place to start as any.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Pfftt. Dyson BUBBLE is the way to go.
.......what?
how is a bubble different than a sphere?
Venus is fucking metal.
We must migrate to it for the fuckawesome factor.
Can't we just send a fucktonne of hydrogen into Venus? Either that or some kind of "plant bomb" that would gradually degrade the CO2 in the atmosphere.
'cause it'll be crazy expensive and more than likely very far from self-sustaining in reality, no matter what shows up in the PR pamphlets?
A sphere is a solid object, well in dysons view, and there isnt enough material in the solar system to create one
A Dyson Bubble is a bunch of densly packed non orbiting platforms that would take up less building material but still cover the same area. Granted you dont absorb 100% of the outgoing radiation due to the space between each platform, but you still consume massive quantities of it. And unless you are already on your way outwards harvesting resources from extra solar system areas, its the only option till you leave it.
Sure, you cut off planets from sunlight. Necessary losses.
As for long-term goals, really I've said before that it's way easier (and more logical) to build massive stations at the L-points. You do need a moon base for the initial mining operation to build such stations though.
The technological advances we'll need to make to sustain our existence on a non-Earth rock will be invaluable in helping our species make the inevitable move out into space, and it's going to return dividends here like the space missions have been since the 60's.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
We already have observatories at that Lagrangian point. Granted they'll need to be replaced eventually, but still.
Not to mention having terrestrial uses as we try and become more sustainable in our living practices here.
I dont even know what I'm debating anymore.
The equations I saw were based on a 3 meter thick dyson sphere if I recall right. It was a while ago I was reading up on this, and it was also deep into 2 bottles of wine. And they still fell well short of materials. This also encompassed to the point of earth if I recall or else obviously earth itself would become an unsustainable hulk of rock. I suppose you could build it with minimal materials, but hell even 3 meters doesnt deal with the issue of the constant barage of extra solar bodies smashing into it and its inability to deflect or defend against them
Maybe motion sensored plasma cannons to blast that shit to tiny pieces covering the entire exterior. Badass. Its time I get down to the design table. Anti gravity cannon mounted tanks and dyson sphere equipped with plasma cannons. Yea this second bottle of AP is doing only terrible things.
The Rusty Cage here we come
The point of having the observatories on the moon is you can service them with impunity (and do some construction on-site, which cuts the price).
The L-point stations would be primarily for habitation - even with the best terraforming effort, you won't be able to control the environment to such an absolute degree as onboard bernal spheres or o'neill cylinders. That, and there's enough material floating around the solar system to make enough of them to support around 5 to 20 trillion people.
EDIT: This also solves the dyson sphere problem of killing all the planets by blocking all the sunlight. The stations could run on nothing but solar ANYWHERE in a four light-day radius around the sun, so you'd pretty much just be building a very diffuse dyson sphere-like-system that only uses enough power to support the inhabitants of the stations.
I was mostly referring to the one specific story where said convicts took over the moon and starting throwing rocks at the Earth. Now, they had good reason to do so, but still.
The Moon is a Harsh Mistress is the title.
You can't build nuclear power plants! Think of the effects on the spotted moon owl!
/space-hippie
Wouldn't a giant nuke aimed at Venus cause nuclear winter? Wouldn't that be a good thing?
Anyway, the best part about the water on the moon is that it's in permanently-shadowed craters at the poles. If you climb up to the rim of those craters, you get permanent full-strength sunlight—so the power issue is easily solved.
I mean, yeah, extremely unlikely, but theoretically possible.
Hey, just because the required compressive strength is orders of magnitude beyond any material we've ever constructed is no reason to get all pessimistic.
Propulsion-wise, maybe. In terms of toughening up hulls and developing incredibly robust life support systems, we've got a nice array of conditions to work with close to home.
I'm sure they would figure something out.
what?
kpop appreciation station i also like to tweet some
bahaha oh that's funny
He's talking about the half of the money that goes to retarded experimental projects that never go anywhere and eat up billions of dollars of money, or for weapons that don't actually exist yet and may never exist.
Seriously, for the OICW, it cost millions. How the hell can that be? Even custom made parts cannot cost that much. The OICW was, objective wise, a worthwhile project and produced a lot of promising avenues and technologies. But the cost is silly.
The same is true for a lot of corporations. I've seen college workshops churn out incredible pieces of tech on string budgets, meanwhile corporations spend millions to do the same.
edit: Take a look at one of the recent great robot races. The winner? Stanford, who had a small team and pretty much off the shelf parts.
kpop appreciation station i also like to tweet some
Well it does help to have unpaid or underpaid grad students doing a lot of the work instead of doctors.
You found water on the moon. That's great. That's wonderful. End the recession, smarty pants.
Boy do I love finding promising avenues and technologies for killing brown people!