Will Trump make it happen?

Will Trump make it happen?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_thermal_rocket
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

what will they do there besides dicking around collecting rocks and getting cancer?

I think he'll start with a moon base

He's gonna grab mars by the pussy

Mineral exploitation, Mars is a treasure to be discovered

Why does everyone think we would live above ground on mars?

>Mineral exploitation
Not worth it because transport costs are through the fucking roof.

its cheaper to just ship it in from china

Because designers

I mean that it will be done when such things as transport costs become cheaper.

Also, Earth's mineral resources are not infinite, if we don't start colonizing we will eventually run out of them

We still need to solve the problem of how to get things into space reliably. Obviously a moon base and/or some kind of orbiting launch station are needed first, but more importantly some kind of source of usable energy that isn't getting more expensive by the hour is required.

The laws of physics really are not kind to space travel, many people don't realize just how far we are from being able to leave the planet easily. Why do you think everybody put space on the back burner once the need for war posturing was over? Because it is really, really hard to get into space and even harder to survive in space.

>I mean that it will be done when such things as transport costs become cheaper.
We don't have the technology to do that. maybe in 100 years and even then its probably cheaper to go for asteroids.

>Also, Earth's mineral resources are not infinite
they might as well be, we can recycle all the necessary stuff anyway.

There will never be Mars colonisation because its a dead rock.
deal with it

why aren't you asking why Trudeau ISN'T making that happen already?

NASA hasn't finished development on all the gizmos they need to do a manned mars mission yet. They haven't even tested their new lander on the moon yet. Schedule says late 2020's for mars.

It's expensive to run this proxy....

....


FROM MARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
pic related

>Why colonize America
>We have everything we need here in Europe
>It's mostly empty undeveloped land
>get over it

What a retarded comparsion.

>Murrican continent
has fresh air, nature, ressources, an atmosphere, a simple wooden ship is enough to get there in a couple of weeks

>Mars
dead rock, no air, deadly radiation, takes MONTHS just to get there, nothing to eat there, no magnetic field to keep the cancer out, no ressources that we really need.

a big fucking Railgun

NOTHING, it'd be like living in Antarctica during winter, only way fucking worse.

>the thing that produces that much power to power that big railgun doesn't exist

so why waste money to build some small shitty colony there?

Just land there once for setting the flag and then move on.

no

>cucked out of having a base on our own moon

Seriously though its like having to go to the next town for the toilet because the assholes upstairs wont let us use theirs.

russians will.

yes for drive the attetion to other things

nothing to do there, nothing to get there.
the apollo missions were a success and everything that needed to be done there was already done 30 years ago.

Earth first user.

No.

err, wrong pic.

>Moonbase to get to Mars

Why would you spend the fuel to leave Earth, just to land on the moon in order to spend more fuel leaving there, too?

You're requiring more fuel and complications.

So what exactly are Moon and Mars colonists going to do? Field Geology and rock collecting?

I can't think of anything that a colony could do that would offset the Old Testament level costs of setting one up.

How much does landing 1 kilogram on the Moon or Mars cost? A whole lot.

>There will never be Mars colonisation because its a dead rock.
>deal with it

Why was there a moon landing then?

We'll colonize Mars for the same reason we went to the moon:

Because it's there and it's a fucking challenge.

>implying Mars wont eventually have a small colony on it and be used as a test site for stuff we don't want in our own backyards
>implying they wont have exciting break breakthroughs in energy creation
>implying the UAC doesn't know what they're doing
>implying anything bad could happen

If we could Launch the Ships from moon it would take less Delta V to reach Mars.

>Why was there a moon landing then?
Cold War shennenigans

>We'll colonize Mars for the same reason we went to the moon:
a manned Mars landing will happen but there won't be a colony because there IS NOTHING TO DO THERE you dense shit.

We went to the moon because it was doable (at a heroic level of cost and effort), and to show the Godless Commies that our way of life was superior to their way of life.

With the Commies gone into the dumpster of history, the only reason to go now is to make money for someone. I can't see that happening.

...

No, it wouldn't, because you'd have to get them from Earth to the moon, first.

Unless you want to build the rockets on the moon with some sort of magical moon ore, it's a retarded plan.

>implying Mars wont eventually have a small colony on it and be used as a test site for stuff we don't want in our own backyards
This ain't the 1940s burger, for such things we have computers to simulate whatever, we don't need to test nucular stuff on some remote dead rock planet that is full of cancer.

>Unless you want to build the rockets on the moon with some sort of magical moon ore, it's a retarded plan.
of course its retarded
the future belongs to Drones who catch mineral rich asteroids and bring them in a stable orbit around earth where they get mined.

Hmmm... Asteroid mining.

Its going to take a -huge- amount of propellant to alter the orbit of a huge dense rock in order to to mine it. How much is lifting all of this propellant to the asteroid going to cost. Is the asteroid going to need to be made of solid platinum and gold to make back the investment?

>This ain't the 1940s burger, for such things we have computers to simulate whatever, we don't need to test nucular stuff on some remote dead rock planet that is full of cancer.

did you not read the entire post?

It certainly makes more sense than some retarded settlement on a dead rock where people play with their balls all day catching cancer.

muh videogames

lay down the doritos and cancer water and get a job

Believe it or not but science has progressed since the 16th century. And it will continue this way. You won't see a space colony in your retarded life, but your wife's grandson might.

>implying niggers and liberlus will move anything forward

Space colonisation is a meme and will always remain one.

Shut the fuck up dumbass.

>want tax cuts
>want to spend trillions of dollars to build Mars base

How does this work?

Sorry to bust your bubble Mr 50% white.

>spend trillions on Mars base where people do nothing all day
>these people come back
>get cancer
>your taxes pay for it

oh sorry, i forgot this is a serious thread on a serious board about visiting Mars

>muh gamer food meme
haven't had doritos in years and my drink is regular old water

stay mad Franz

>mars colony
>come back

Good one.

In today's day and age, money talks and bullshit walks. If you can figure out how to make money from space colonization, it will get done. Otherwise, no.

I was just busting your balls a bit you mangina, relax

>haven't had doritos in years and my drink is regular old water
good

and thats the point, there is nothing to do there and there is no money to be made with it so it won't happen any time soon.

yea that surely makes good capable people volunteer for the mission

A space elevator is easier on Mars.

Too difficult to build underground early on.

Initial bases would probably just be surface bases with the occupants willing to take the risk.
After that you'd probably have above ground bases with the pressurized modules buried under a layer of dirt.

Won't happen

space elevator, please come back, pol needs you

No because Trump will be impeached within months. He will be sentenced to be executed for treason but then pardoned to avoid the dangerous precedent of a president overseeing the execution of his predecessor by the military under his command.

I don't get the deal with building a base on mars. Do a test run on the moon. I know their is shit to mine there. Maybe send a person to mars just because we can type shit. Just think it would be easier to trail run on the moon, I know people probably can't stay long term due to gravity.

Would be a waste of money. We still don't even have plasma rockets.

>14 posts by this negative achmed

You don't need people to build shit, it can all be done with robots. The people won't arrive until the base is finished.

To to bed, Bernie.

Resources
Medical research and other scientific research
Discovery
Exploration
Interest
etc

Never discount the notion of nobility.

Humans will march blindly to their own demise if they believe doing so will advance a cause greater than themselves.

You could inform people that the mission was definitively one way, that nobody would be returning and still have to screen tens of thousands of applicants.

yeah I thought about that but it would be cheaper to send stuff like that to the moon. Then once we have it perfected then spend the money going to mars. Plus I though the moon was full of helium 3 that could be used as fuel. Also it would be better to build ships in space, mining the moon and then lauching from there makes more sense

President Baron Trump will. Kek wills it.

Building on Mars would be cheaper than on Earth (once it starts happening). Launching it into space would be cheaper on mars, so transport cost of a functional "mineral exploitation plant" would not be through the roof.

This whole "maybe in a hundred years" argument is not a good one, because it starts somewhere. Can't just wait 100 years, then it happens. That's not how progress works.

What's ironic about this is that the technology exists to make this possible (maybe).

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_thermal_rocket

On the one hand, this type of engine has been built and tested. It works, and it actually has enough specfic impulse to make a manned mission to Mars possible.

On the other hand, the general public will never permit anybody to launch any kind of nuclear reactor into space. Period.

Robots aren't nearly robust enough to build an underground base. Just joining together prefab modules on the surface would be an impressive feat.
Just driving a rover around the surface is really complicated due to the signal delay of several minutes.

The low gravity and mineral wealth of Mars makes it an EXCELLENT candidate for a colony that will mine resources, build ships, and launch them for only 30% of the fuel used on earth.

If we colonized Mars, within 200 years, we'd see huge manufacturing plants all over it.

it would also be an ideal site for asteroid mining, since as part of the terraforming process, we'd NEED to crash several billion tons of rock into on a regular basis over centuries.

We could then harvest more valuable metals like gold and silver from these asteroids than is actually contained on earth.

Mars would also have several orbital construction platforms.
There are a lot of things that would benefit from being built in a microgravity vacuum environment.

computer processors, for one.
Silicon crystals would be grown MUCH faster, and be free of the imperfections and flaws found in modern silicon.

We'd see a big drop in the costs of production, and increased speed.

There have been fission reactors launched into space before. It's mainly a funding problem rather than public opposition.

Between fuel cells, photovoltaics, and RTG's, fission reactors simply haven't been necessary for anything we've attempted to do thus far.

>he wants to land xenomorphs directly on the planet's surface

Most fission reactors were launched by the Russians. Their government doesn't have the same problems with political opposition that ours does.

There was an enormous shitstorm over the RTGs used on the Cassini mission to Saturn. These things were built to resist anything less than a direct hit from an anti-tank warhead or a close-in nuclear detonation, and people were still freaked out over it.

Any attempt for the USA to launch a reactor would probably be tied up in the courts for longer than the lifetime of the engineers that designed it.

And if you -really- want to trigger nuclear opponents, bring up Project Orion...

>Resources
There are none, they ain't even highly concentrated, have fun driving around on Mars all day collecting useless rocks
>Medical research and other scientific research
we can do that from here or the ISS and via computer simulations
>Discovery
We already done that since the 70s and have the whole Mars planet in HD
>Exploration
already explored everything that is there
>Interest
paying several gorrillion dollar for "Interest". really dumb idea.
>etc
so there is no reason at all to go there.

there is nothing to gain by colonising mars

>The low gravity and mineral wealth of Mars makes it an EXCELLENT candidate for a colony that will mine resources, build ships, and launch them for only 30% of the fuel used on earth.
Blabla assumptions that turn out that there is no Minerals and no spaceships to be build and no use for them.

>If we colonized Mars, within 200 years, we'd see huge manufacturing plants all over it.
Manufacturing what? Fridges?

>it would also be an ideal site for asteroid mining
no it wouldn't.

>since as part of the terraforming process
Mars is fucking dead, you can't terraform shit there you braindead retard, the core is cold since a few million years. try researching before typing our your science fiction bullshit that wouldn't even be good for a direct to DVD movie starring Adam Sandler

the rest you wrote is also fucking bullshit about obsolete technology.

Cant wait for that skype interview from Omicron Perseii XI.
>Puts on best suit & smile

This is one of many reasons you guys get called cucks every second of every day. I bet you think the moon and asteroids are invaluable to human achievement as well.

>he still doesn't get it
is your brain shriveled up from all the Big macs and coke or something or are you really so fucking retarded that you can't even imagine an Operation of such magnitude?

Like I said many times already, its just not worth it. There are no reasons for a Mars colony and there probably won't be any in the next 100 - 500 years.
That it didn't happen already just proofes what I said.

>not worth it
>won't be in in the next 100-500 years
That's right germancuck, just sit back, do nothing, and wait for magic to happen. Just like you always have, just like you're doing right now with your migration crisis.

what are you even trying to discuss here retard?
either bring facts why a mars colony is such a great investment or fuck off.

simple as that.


wait what? there are no reasons and all you could want from there was already done by robots decades ago?
wow thats really tragic for your mars colony.

The technology has existed for a long time. Zubrin says you can do a mars mission with $55 billion, and makes the case for it in his book.

He also says man-made Climate Change isn't real and is an ugly, sweaty, shrill sounding autist, so he's not popular like Black Science Man.

>just $55 billion
>just $55 billion that a few tards sit in their Mars base catching cancer and playing with each others balls

10/10 investment.

...

idc desu senpai, mars is a dead planet. it would be much better used as a place to mine robotically while the actual human habitats are in orbit around it. we should be focusing on perfecting the science behind living in space first. we just don't have any suitable candidates for colonization. venus was our closest chance but it went past the point of no return long ago.

First we should solve the problem with the low gravity, which will fuck up our skeletons/muscles.

Also, why not just send robots to mine the dead rock?

>continues to believe progress happens out of thin air.

You say it's not worth it, then you continue on saying "it won't happen for 100 or so years." You're implying it's just going to pop up out of nowhere, THEN it will be worth it. Except that's not how progress works. It starts now, and works its way into a sustainable project. Pretty much every invention, every project that started used to be expensive and time consuming, and over years of perfection, is not cheap or cheaper to do.
ie:
>transcontinental railroad
>military weaponry
>ROCKETS
>satellites
>ELECTRICITY
>electronics
>COMPUTERS
>civil engineering
>etc
And out the countless inventions, even more projects and inventions came out of some of them.

Project Orion was pretty retarded to begin with, plus it's outright blocked by the Outer Space Treaty.

Project Orion was genius and was actually blocked by the Partial Test Ban Treaty, but nice try at intelligence.

>what will they do there besides dicking around collecting rocks and getting cancer?
Archaeology

I am dead serious

It was clever, but retarded in terms of practicality.

It's blocked by both the PTBT and OST.

>Project Orion was genius

>blowing up nukes in the atmosphere
>genius
pick one

>in the atmosphere
What? I'm pretty sure rockets are used to get it into space, where then the fission engine would turn on.

It really is genius. Our material science and computer modelling is far superior to the 1960s. We can produce shaped charges with very low amounts of wasted energy to cause fallout. We have the technical capability to colonize the solar system right now. It is only that we lack the political will.

Science.

And babies.

>500 Billion dollars

for a greenhouse on mars

Mars probably won't be viable for minerals for a long time. Its not just launching stuff from mars, simply landing anything is a pain because of the non-existant atmosphere.

There are already companies considering the concept of mining asteroid belts for precious metals though.

valid opinion on mars viability
>non-existant

Yes. But only white people will go.

I know, but you start somewhere. Minerals on mars? eh, lot of iron, that's about all we know about it. But you won't know till you start digging.
I've also mentioned asteroids in a former post.

>Trying to terraform mars
>Not colonising Venus upper atmosphere in floating hydrogen dirigibles

Problem with mars is that the gravity is so low, even if humans can live there without health problems they will be weak lanklets.

>>Not colonising Venus upper atmosphere in floating hydrogen dirigibles
Hydrogen? Just normal air would do. The living area would literally be the thing that keeps it afloat.

>even if humans can live there without health problems they will be weak lanklets.
Just carry rocks around

Will Trump make it happen?
Yes as I am due to have a meeting with him to put the plan in motion :D

Yeah, but you'd probably have bladders just for hydrogen as well since its a useful gas (water), is kind of sparse in venus' atmosphere, and would allow your colony to carry more shit.

Would be cool, but also terrifying as fuck knowing that below you was a scalding hot death inferno.

>Be born on Mars

Fuck :( Poor kids