|
Mercrom posted:If you think about it the reason we haven't colonized the ocean yet is because of international treaties. Those drat politicians always ruining science. Have we not colonized the ocean? We have lots of people that are primarily at sea for years at a time.
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 02:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 07:58 |
|
|
With regard to space science, I'd like to post two neat channels. Science journalist and overall cool guy, Fraser Cain: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=channel?UCogrSQkBJn1KF0N9I4oM7eQ Speculative science enthusiast and engineer, Isaac Arthur: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=channel?UCZFipeZtQM5CKUjx6grh54g
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 02:59
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:"Anomalies Relative to Timeseries Mean" Right... Meaning that they averaged the data from 2002-2016, and plotted (20XX - average), and they did this So that they can compare data between sectors that have different masses depending on their locations ...right?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 03:37
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Yeah but the challenge of colonizing antarctica isn't that it's technologically hard, it's that humans from 53 countries declared strict limitations on what can be done in antarctica. People don't want it. Antarctica basically has a little bit of a lot of different resources and people decided none of it was worth ripping the whole place up over or fighting bloody wars to try and see who can claim some but not very much oil or whatever that is buried there. If it was some giant source of anything people would care and if there was nothing no one would want it but when it turned out to be "meh" everyone decided everyone backing off was the answer. Do you really believe this? The reason nobody has colonized Antarctica is that it's practically worthless as living space. And any given vacation spot in the solar system is worth much less.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 03:55
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Isn't it also illegal to colonize celestial bodies for the same reason? No, only that countries can't claim ownership of celestial bodies. The US could put as many outposts on the Moon as they want, but they can't say "the Moon is literally US territory".
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 04:19
|
|
|
If you're wondering why we'd want to try colonizing in outer space when there are so many better options available, it's so that we can start learning how to do it effectively now, so that we're not scrambling in a panic in the future when there are no better options.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 04:24
|
|
|
I always wonder what nerds think of when they imagine a scenario that makes the Earth less habitable than Mars.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 04:40
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Do you really believe this? The reason nobody has colonized Antarctica is that it's practically worthless as living space. And any given vacation spot in the solar system is worth much less. There is enough oil America is currently unsuccessfully trying to end the mining ban.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 04:40
|
|
|
Mercrom posted:I always wonder what nerds think of when they imagine a scenario that makes the Earth less habitable than Mars. Does every human currently live in the exact most habitable place and no where else?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 04:41
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Does every human currently live in the exact most habitable place and no where else?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 05:17
|
|
|
A_Bug_That_Thinks posted:Right... Right. The choice of the zero-point is arbitrary, I suspect they normalized to the mean of each dataset so you can visually compare the slopes of each region.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 05:28
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Does every human currently live in the exact most habitable place and no where else? Lol. Are you actually dumb enough to think you've scored a point with that one? "Humans sometimes live in marginal areas therefore they will migrate at enormous expense to live in completely uninhabitable places. And if they don't, we ought to see to it that they do. " Should we just rename this the Science Fiction and Fantasy Thread?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 06:13
|
|
|
Anyway, what do you guys think the first economic activity outside LEO will be?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 06:15
|
|
|
Null-g porn.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 06:22
|
|
|
Mercrom posted:I always wonder what nerds think of when they imagine a scenario that makes the Earth less habitable than Mars. insurance against big rear end asteroids humanity's collective firepower can't handle and poo poo
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 08:23
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Mercrom posted:I always wonder what nerds think of when they imagine a scenario that makes the Earth less habitable than Mars. Apes taking over the planet Earth just as we started successful terraforming of Mars? So we have to make it on Mars and thrive before we can recolonize our home planet?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 09:13
|
|
|
A bombastic TV celebrity man with zero impulse control getting elected to command Earth's largest pile of nuclear weaponry?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 09:18
|
|
|
blowfish posted:insurance against big rear end asteroids humanity's collective firepower can't handle and poo poo I'm more worried about aliens than asteroids. VitalSigns posted:A bombastic TV celebrity man with zero impulse control getting elected to command Earth's largest pile of nuclear weaponry?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 09:51
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Lol. Are you actually dumb enough to think you've scored a point with that one? "Humans sometimes live in marginal areas therefore they will migrate at enormous expense to live in completely uninhabitable places. And if they don't, we ought to see to it that they do. " Is there a connection between your videogame icon and being really mad and condescending about this?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 12:17
|
|
|
I'm guessing he's just frustrated. Space colonisation isn't a subject you can discuss with simple analogies. Yes, technically space colonisation is like any other kind of colonization or migration. Except the costs are millions of times greater so the rewards need to be too. The reason no one has colonized Antarctica isn't just because of a treaty. If Antarctica was as livable as the Americas, or had easily accessible natural resources, no treaty would stop colonization or exploitation. Also yes, guaranteeing the continued survival of the species in the unlikely event the Earth is completely hosed is a priority. It's just a very low priority to the vast majority of people who would worry about it less than the mercury content of tuna. You can sell an asteroid deflection plan. It's harder to sell the assurance that only most people will die when the asteroid hits. The idea of space colonization as a safeguard for humanity isn't just about engineering, it's also about philosophy. The suggestion that the flock split up so that the wolves can catch only a few of you is a cold one.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 13:59
|
|
|
Like my question is: space X has actual plans for a mars base. They have engines in production to go to mars. Is the idea they don't know as much about science as we do or is the idea that they have run a decades long scam that involved building multiple space worthy rocket ships to eventually reveal in 2030 they were a hoax all along?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 14:36
|
|
|
Short answer: Elon Musk is delusional, and no one calls him on it because he's rich. Having money does that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 14:43
|
|
|
The instant arctic, seafloor or antarctic mining is profitable is the instant you start getting any colonization in those spots btw. Treaties mean nothing. They're not so much enforced, as much as grudgingly followed...sometimes...when you don't have another choice.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 14:44
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Like my question is: space X has actual plans for a mars base. They have engines in production to go to mars. Is the idea they don't know as much about science as we do or is the idea that they have run a decades long scam that involved building multiple space worthy rocket ships to eventually reveal in 2030 they were a hoax all along? His timeline is a couple of decades too fast. Right now we can only send very very small things to mars. If you want to send enough food, supplies and eventually people to mars you're going to need to see some amazing breakthroughs. Musks' Plan 1. Fund Rocket Science 2. Major game changing breakthrough happens that fundamentally changes the economics of space flight by orders of magnitude 3. Mars base
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 14:46
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Short answer: Elon Musk is delusional, and no one calls him on it because he's rich. Having money does that. Like that is it? That is the rebuttal? He has a company, the rocket for the first launch is already built, but it's all fake and he's literally insane? Like spaceX makes the primary launch vehicles for most huge portions of space infrastructure. Do the people that use that know that he is a madman who doesn't know what he's doing? Or was that all real and it's just future stuff that is fake? He is sending a guy on a trip around the moon in a couple months, is that real or fake?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 15:07
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Like that is it? That is the rebuttal? He has a company, the rocket for the first launch is already built, but it's all fake and he's literally insane? Like spaceX makes the primary launch vehicles for most huge portions of space infrastructure. Do the people that use that know that he is a madman who doesn't know what he's doing? Or was that all real and it's just future stuff that is fake? He is sending a guy on a trip around the moon in a couple months, is that real or fake? No... that's not it. We've been building rockets that go into space successfully for quite a while. He's built a better rocket with some nifty new features, but ultimately the jump is from owning a car in the 80s to owning a car today, not owning a horse and then owning a car. Landing (humans) on a celestial body that far away is something we've never done. Colonizing another celestial body is something we have never done. Colonizing an inhospitable environment isn't something we've done without a ton of financial pressure. The kinds of technological leaps required to solve the problems here are all extremely difficult first-time issues. So far all he's done is improved on a solution we've had for over half a century. I don't mind him being aspirational, and I can support that insane drive because even if he falls short, interesting things will be developed in the process. But thinking that because he's figured out how make a better rocket he will suddenly also solve a bunch of foundational problems with space travel and colonization is untenable. Pembroke Fuse fucked around with this message at 15:19 on Sep 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 15:15
|
|
|
He made paypal, sold it, then started some other companies. None of that requires him to be The World's Greatest Genius. In one sense, I can respect the guy. Unlike a lot of his peers, he's actually doing something with his money, something fun, that's not stashing it all in an offshore bank account. He thinks he wants to go to Mars? Awesome, at least he started building rockets. Go for it champ! Does that actually mean there's going to be a martian colony within 50 years? Pfffffttt, nope.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 15:17
|
|
|
Pembroke Fuse posted:No... that's not it. We've been building rockets that go into space successfully for quite a while. He's built a better rocket with some nifty new features, but ultimately the jump is from owning a car in the 80s to owning a car today, not owning a horse and then owning a car. Landing (humans) on a celestial body that far away is something we've never done. Colonizing another celestial body is something we have never done. Colonizing an inhospitable environment isn't something we've done without a ton of financial pressure. The kinds of technological leaps required to solve the problems here are all extremely difficult first-time issues. So far all he's done is improved on a solution we've had for over half a century. What are you expecting though, warp drives or something? What could there possibly ever be except better rockets with better features? What technological leap do you want? As a race we humans spent 380 million dollars to make the movie john conner on mars and no one even watched that. The heavy falcon space x rocket that is launching in november has enough power to make it to mars and costs 90 million. It is literally cheaper to send a guy named john conner to actual mars with three other ships full of supplies than make a bad movie that no one liked.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 15:42
|
|
|
The problem with Musks plan is that he's mainly focused on the price to get there but that's just a small part of the cost of a permanent base. Even if we assume everything Musk hopes for pans out what are people going to do once they are there to pay for all the hardware and supplies to keep them alive longer term? Is SpaceX just going to perpetually send supplies? Seems like quite the overhead, generous as it may be.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 15:49
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Short answer: Elon Musk is delusional, and no one calls him on it because he's rich. Having money does that. Money also has a funny way of making things happen, assuming the things in question are technically possible at all. I'm not particularly gung-ho about human colonization of space (although I'll fight anyone who says that space exploration/research itself is a waste of resources), but the fact that people with money are willing to back these ridiculous ideas is a good indicator that they're going to happen. I think Elon Musk's timeline is off by quite a bit, but he's rich and the problem he's throwing money at isn't actually impossible to solve. My concern is that this is going to come down to Musk (or someone like him) going forward with a plan that's technically feasible but logistically difficult and expensive over the long term. I wouldn't be surprised if "what do we do with Elon Musk's idiot stranded Mars colonists?" is a real question that gets asked at some point in my lifetime.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 16:01
|
|
|
Bates posted:The problem with Musks plan is that he's mainly focused on the price to get there but that's just a small part of the cost of a permanent base. Even if we assume everything Musk hopes for pans out what are people going to do once they are there to pay for all the hardware and supplies to keep them alive longer term? Is SpaceX just going to perpetually send supplies? Seems like quite the overhead, generous as it may be. That is fine though, isn't it? Like say in 20 years musk has done what he says, he gets space flight down to 500 dollars per pound, he perfects his heavy launch vehicles, he gets landing down, he figures out the round trip to mars and gets it all set up. Then like, we can't make a space colony because he forgot to even think about how to get them hardware and supply. Like we are still one step closer, he didn't solve literally every single issue imaginable with his giant brain, but elon musk II in 2050 that is really good at food science or something can start working on his new company and not get shot down by investors based on "yeah but why invent mars food, no one invented mars yet!?!??!". If spaceX manages the rockets part it's okay if they don't get every single other part too, although there is a reason his other companies are stuff like giant batteries and a company that uses a robot to dig a big hole. But I think it's fine if we invent space ships one year and deal with that issue then someone else deals with the next issue. like I think a lot more people would be thinking about how to make a mars colony if space X had already answered the "yeah but how do we get to mars" part. So it's cool if he's the sci-fi hero that personally works out every single aspect all at once to make rapture, but that probably won't happen and it's fine if he *just* figures out the human space flight part and leaves other parts for later.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 16:23
|
|
|
Some of the responses in this thread read a lot like climate change denialists yelling that they know better than those scientists.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 16:36
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:What are you expecting though, warp drives or something? What could there possibly ever be except better rockets with better features? What technological leap do you want? Man, I'm not arguing that we're misusing our resources. Frankly all five Transformers movies could have funded most of the space program for a few years. I'm not expecting warp drives, but I know the "hard problems" of space travel haven't been scratched yet. Please don't get me wrong, I don't hate Elon Musk and hope he's able to make a dent... but I feel like space travel for a lot of people is a sort of an "out" that lets them forget about the fact that they should be fighting to keep this planet functioning, because realistically we're not getting off this ball of mud for a very long time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 16:55
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:Some of the responses in this thread read a lot like climate change denialists yelling that they know better than those scientists. Owlofcreamcheese posted:Like my question is: space X has actual plans for a mars base. They have engines in production to go to mars. Is the idea they don't know as much about science as we do or is the idea that they have run a decades long scam that involved building multiple space worthy rocket ships to eventually reveal in 2030 they were a hoax all along?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 17:03
|
|
|
isn't the problem with going to mars not the rocketry but the gigantic amounts of radiation and how to protect crew from that on a multi-year journey?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 17:14
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:Some of the responses in this thread read a lot like climate change denialists yelling that they know better than those scientists. which scientists?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 17:18
|
|
|
Mercrom posted:I don't know who you are talking about, but gently caress off. No where I've ever been is self sufficient, mars certainly wouldn't be, but the town I live in doesn't manufacture anything but maybe pizzas from pizza ingredients, my state if you domed it up from outside goods has no computer or automobile manufacturing, and no neodymium mines. No man is an island and all that. Like the first mars colony will be a research station, the second one will be a research station, the 5th one will probably still mostly be a research station. But it feels okay to have steps to things. We don't need the absolute first person on mars to build mars new york single handedly, It'll be way easier to build manufacturing once we have actual people on mars. We can send the first 10 air purifiers, let them 3D print 1 part for the 11th one then aim for the 100th one being mostly made on site. It doesn't feel productive to like start with "well if they can't do it the first day it's impossible".
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 17:36
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:No where I've ever been is self sufficient, mars certainly wouldn't be, but the town I live in doesn't manufacture anything but maybe pizzas from pizza ingredients, my state if you domed it up from outside goods has no computer or automobile manufacturing, and no neodymium mines. No man is an island and all that. It takes billions of dollars to create semiconductor manufacturing plants. on Earth. With All the infrastructure already built. Considering how important semiconductors (that is, electronics) are to pretty much all advanced machinery, any off planet base is going to need the ability to produce those before it can say it is self sufficient. Your not gonna get more than one research station on Mars also, since a second one would have to compete with the first. Likely any expansion of interaction on mars would be part of the same base or connected to the first one such that they basically share everything. Also not much of a lifeboat if it cannot survive without earth. thechosenone fucked around with this message at 17:52 on Sep 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 17:42
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:No where I've ever been is self sufficient, mars certainly wouldn't be, but the town I live in doesn't manufacture anything but maybe pizzas from pizza ingredients, my state if you domed it up from outside goods has no computer or automobile manufacturing, and no neodymium mines. No man is an island and all that. also isn't the idea of a mars base being a lifeboat or whatnot imply that they would either be mostly self sufficient or capable of being mostly sufficient on short notice? Like, I think off planet bases sound super cool too, but There is plenty to talk about even with regards to mr.Musk's plans to reduce the costs of what we are already doing. It's cool to talk about stuff that is really far off, but there are alot of interesting technologies that are alot closer to today. thechosenone fucked around with this message at 17:50 on Sep 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 17:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 07:58 |
|
|
botany posted:which scientists? The ones that Musk has hired to figure out how to get to Mars. I mean, unless you're under the impression that he's designing all this stuff by himself.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 17:51
|
|