>space station producing and launching satelite for a fraction of what it currently costs >rerouting asteroids with ridium, zirconium, palladium and gold using unmanned probes to crash them on the moon >orbital factories engineering advanced fiber optics and protein crystals for pharmaceuticals >3D printed moonbase using moondust to make space concrete for the future solar system exploration program >actual space elevator with much much less restriction on the moon
That's why we are not going for Mars. Mars has no value, it's too far, too expensive. And that's why Chinese are not allowed on the ISS. Its a (Texan) Republican Rep. with ties to the heavy industry who urged Obama to cease further cooperation with Chinese concerning space.
God, I fucking hate space elevator faggots... They are the tree hiding the forest.
Thanks ruskies, we do not need your rusty shity tin can anymore
Logan Torres
This is implying the west has decades of life left. We're going to fall before we come anywhere close to sustaining off-planet stations.
This is just a pipe-dream.
Jace King
Nobody has ever sent anything into space. NASA are a bunch of lying Masons. Satellite is an anagram of 'latest lie.' Just CGI and models.
Jeremiah Gonzalez
>what is SpaceX >what is Axiom you understand that this is happening right now ?
Lucas Bell
>spherecuck fairy tales
Kayden Campbell
We are not going to Mars because people keep baselining chemical propulsion for in-space travel.
Robert Carter
It's too costly to operate outside Earth with the current technological paradigm. Unless a miracle happens you won't see space mining etc.
Parker Ortiz
complicated as shit. if there is one thing we know it is massive complicated tech is not sustainable
Julian Taylor
>Mine asteroids and other planets to only give money to feed blacks and welfare queens No thanks.
Get rid of the trash on Earth first and then reach for the stars.
John Thompson
Ok, so tell me what does a Mars mission is going to bring tto mankind ? What about a Mars colony ?
The same thing as the winter base Concordia in Antarctica, absolutely nothing.
We are not talking about sending miner directly on the asteroids, but using probes to change the trajectory of an asteroid to make it crash on the Moon or Earth.
>what is Vulcan engine
Hybrid reactors are the future. It just a conventional jet engine using hydrogen with a boost of oxygen once it reaches high atmosphere.
Levi Ramirez
concrete does not last in space, as one of the main components is air. Moon concrete will not happen because the moon has *almost* no atmosphere
Owen Peterson
Fuck off retard. The term 'satellite' has been used in that way since Kepler. And you can literally watch satellites orbit.
I understand private corporations are attempting to expand space exploration and exploitation in a dying society. They require decades before they come any where close to being independent and capable of sustaining off-planet stations. Those are decades we don't have. The government will cut off their cashflow as it begins to focus on the problems of social decay.
In the end we will fail, as every society before us has.
Henry Hernandez
>complicated as shit Its not THAT complicated. In fact its mostly 80s tech, which died just to lack of long term foresight in British government. Even the engine itself isn't that complex - all the cycles it combines; a pre-cooled jet, a rocket engine and a ramjet, are well known by now. All that was needed was cooling, and that's been solved. What's left is working out technical kinks and production.
In general, when it comes to aerospace complexity, its already gone and getting complex. Problems in the past, like synchronising multiple rocket engines in the N1 Soviet lunar rocket, are less and less of an issue today such as in SpaceX's multiple engine Falcon 9 and on's, due to the advent of far more complex and now familiar computer technology, avionics packages, and vectorable thrust.
Brayden Sanchez
Well, the main thing colonizing Mars would provide would simply be a safety net for an apocalyptic happening on Earth. If a massive CME or whatever wipes life off of Earth, there would be humans still alive on Mars to try to carry on.
Caleb Hughes
>Ok, so tell me what does a Mars mission is going to bring tto mankind ? Inspiration. Space exploration is about that and about making sure we can explore deeper and deeper. You are essentially asking whether the Vikings should even try to venture West or Greenland because Greenland is a cold shithole.
>What about a Mars colony ? Impossible because long term settlement won't work in a 0.38g environment. Even if your life expectancy reduces by just 10 percent and that of your baby by 20 percent, settlers won't take the risk. Why go to Mars and risk a reduced life for your kid if you can stay on Earth. Venus is where the music is.
>Hybrid reactors are the future. It just a conventional jet engine using hydrogen with a boost of oxygen once it reaches high atmosphere. Nothing that uses liquid oxygen is the future. Nothing that uses liquid hydrogen is the future. Nothing that tries to bruteforce its way to orbit is the future. We have gone from Concorde back to Airbus 320s for a reason.
Jace Kelly
>Gone from Concorde BACK to Airbus 320s We never went BACK. The Concorde was just never very economical on its own. It was made and designed and put out to market as a vehicle for very fast, high class, high market, and expensive long distance executive travel. It was never meant nor ever would be any good for mass public travel at a cheap cost outside of the longest distances or over land.
You're making technomagic out of what is beyond the stepping stones
Bentley Thomas
>sustaining off-planet stations Nobody talked about this.
It's like nobody can imagine how much profitable is orbital economy. It costs millions to get a satelite into orbit and all the double-triple checking to make sure it will last several decade only make it more expansive.
A satelite factory would assemble a satelilte like someone is assembling a computer and laucnh it using solar powered railgun. And what if it falls after 2-3 years ? Just launch another !
>bruteforce its way to orbit It's designed for a plane, not a rocket. A plane use lift force.
Thomas Gray
>It's designed for a plane, not a rocket. A plane use lift force. With bruteforce I mean using liquid hydrogen (an unsustainable cost and failure fuel), using a switch from air breathing to internal oxygen (amazingly complicated) to requiring a massive spaceplane.
With chemical propulsion bruteforcing our way to orbit is never making us spacefaring. The kg to orbit cost must be below 1 cent to make us spacefaring... and every 87 yr old grandpa must be able to go without risking a heart attack.
Leo Barnes
Oh, as far as setting up sustainable infrastructure in orbit, yeah - there is a fuckton of stuff that could be done with that if it happened. I think it's still kind of a large step to take at this point though, especially with nothing at all really in place yet. Hopefully it's able to begin happening within the near future, though.
I was just specifically referring to the bit about colonizing Mars with my reply.
Camden Ortiz
So, can we all agree on the fact that colonizing Mars would not profit to the economy ?
Connor Long
I'm sure eventually it would, but at our current point technologically I think the initial cost for anything for-profit would be way too high for anyone to want to go for it. So right now, yes. We have a fair bit more of a ways to go before that's the case. Though that in-orbit infrastructure would probably be the biggest step towards that.
Luis Lopez
>The kg to orbit cost must be below 1 cent to make us spacefaring How would (you) achieve this?
