Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Andrew425]

I really wish Newt was serious when he said that.

Because if he was, and I was American I would think very hard about voting for him.


But in all seriousness we are looking at the wrong planets.

Venus is where we want to go. We can terraform that puppy in 20 years. Use the science from that to combat any sort of climate change on earth. Also have a near earth planet in weight.

Venus terraforming would take at least 100 years, and that wouldn't solve all the problems. The atmosphere is way to dense, full of sulphides and the planet suffers from a runaway greenhouse effect. The best thing we can do is drop some genemanipulated algae in there, wait a 100 years while they clean up a bit of the atmosphere and then we still have to build our base floating in the air because the pressure on the surface would turn us into pancakes. Also, while there would be enough oxygen in the atmosphere to breathe, the sulphides make the air extremely poisonous and corosive. Doesn't sound like a good place to live to me.

As for using the science to combat global warming on earth, forget it, the best we can get are some Co2 eating, higly acidic resistant algae.

I'd like to think we could do it faster.

Giant solar sails to cool down the planet. Drop some anti suphides.

It will be surviveable in 20 years. Habitable in 50.

And then we got earth 2.0

Best plan out there. No bone loss or anything.

[sneakey pete]

True but plating for a space station is alot more expensive than drilling a cavern up.

Except your talking about digging stuff up on the moon. I really don't see why you think that making occasional adjustments to dodge things in LEO is harder than... flying all the way to the moon. landing on it, and then digging a hole.

[10ebbor10]

I really wish Newt was serious when he said that.

Because if he was, and I was American I would think very hard about voting for him.


But in all seriousness we are looking at the wrong planets.

Venus is where we want to go. We can terraform that puppy in 20 years. Use the science from that to combat any sort of climate change on earth. Also have a near earth planet in weight.

Venus terraforming would take at least 100 years, and that wouldn't solve all the problems. The atmosphere is way to dense, full of sulphides and the planet suffers from a runaway greenhouse effect. The best thing we can do is drop some genemanipulated algae in there, wait a 100 years while they clean up a bit of the atmosphere and then we still have to build our base floating in the air because the pressure on the surface would turn us into pancakes. Also, while there would be enough oxygen in the atmosphere to breathe, the sulphides make the air extremely poisonous and corosive. Doesn't sound like a good place to live to me.

As for using the science to combat global warming on earth, forget it, the best we can get are some Co2 eating, higly acidic resistant algae.

I'd like to think we could do it faster.

Giant solar sails to cool down the planet. Drop some anti suphides.

It will be surviveable in 20 years. Habitable in 50.

And then we got earth 2.0

Best plan out there. No bone loss or anything.

Problem is Venus atmosphere is 92 times as thick  as earth, wathever you do, you can't get those away.

Solar sails are a way to propulse spacecraft, not cool planets, I think you want some sort of solar  lense shield. Problem with that is that planets are really freacking big, in order to build a lens that would cool the earth by 1K for a respectable budget, you would need to be able to launch Saturn V's for 900$ a piece.

Anti sulphides exist, but Venus atmosphere is really thick, so you would need a mindboggling big amount of them to have any effect.

[10ebbor10]

True but plating for a space station is alot more expensive than drilling a cavern up.

Except your talking about digging stuff up on the moon. I really don't see why you think that making occasional adjustments to dodge things in LEO is harder than... flying all the way to the moon. landing on it, and then digging a hole.

Because digging holes on the moon isn't that hard. Bassicly it's get a robotic drill(Not hard, I mean they're making plans to dig through Europa's ice layer) and then detonate some kind of explosive, tada giant hole with reinforced walls. No need to worry about radiation( provided you 're deep enough), meteorites( just watch out with solar panels) and other stuff.

As for dodging stuff in LEO, we don't now were most of the stuff is. If we're really unlucky, some space crap hits a sattelite, turns it into chrapnel resulting in a chain reaction that could take out a whole lot of satelites.

[Tellemurius]

True but plating for a space station is alot more expensive than drilling a cavern up.

Except your talking about digging stuff up on the moon. I really don't see why you think that making occasional adjustments to dodge things in LEO is harder than... flying all the way to the moon. landing on it, and then digging a hole.

Problem is with a structure this size we would need to adjust CONSTANTLY. 3 days to the moon won't kill us and if we start hitting up Ion or Nuclear drives that timeframe would be in hours instead. I for one like stable ground to stand on while working and robots can't fix everything :/

[10ebbor10]

I would rather not like to use Ion/nuclear drives that close to earth(Isn't very healthy) and you wouldn't gain that much time because halfway there you already need to slow down.
Chemical drives might be useful because they use way less fuel, but also provide less thrust.

[Tellemurius]

I would rather not like to use Ion/nuclear drives that close to earth(Isn't very healthy) and you wouldn't gain that much time because halfway there you already need to slow down.
Chemical drives might be useful because they use way less fuel, but also provide less thrust.

Technically you are right but a ion/nuclear drive is much more effective than chemical drives in vacuum environments and there has been discussions of using ion drives for Moon cargo delivery.

[10ebbor10]

I would rather not like to use Ion/nuclear drives that close to earth(Isn't very healthy) and you wouldn't gain that much time because halfway there you already need to slow down.
Chemical drives might be useful because they use way less fuel, but also provide less thrust.

Technically you are right but a ion/nuclear drive is much more effective than chemical drives in vacuum environments and there has been discussions of using ion drives for Moon cargo delivery.

Ion drives are slower then conventional drives, and the International SPace treaty prevents you from bringing nuclear weapons in orbit.

[Tellemurius]

I would rather not like to use Ion/nuclear drives that close to earth(Isn't very healthy) and you wouldn't gain that much time because halfway there you already need to slow down.
Chemical drives might be useful because they use way less fuel, but also provide less thrust.

Technically you are right but a ion/nuclear drive is much more effective than chemical drives in vacuum environments and there has been discussions of using ion drives for Moon cargo delivery.

Ion drives are slower then conventional drives, and the International SPace treaty prevents you from bringing nuclear weapons in orbit.

Its not a weapon...... is for science, travel

[sneakey pete]

True but plating for a space station is alot more expensive than drilling a cavern up.

Except your talking about digging stuff up on the moon. I really don't see why you think that making occasional adjustments to dodge things in LEO is harder than... flying all the way to the moon. landing on it, and then digging a hole.

Because digging holes on the moon isn't that hard.

You're not grasping the required effort to get to the moon. You need to change your velocity by about 6km/s to get from LEO to the moons surface. Not only do you need to do that for all of your equipment, you also need to get the stuff to do it into orbit in the first place.

[Tellemurius]

True but plating for a space station is alot more expensive than drilling a cavern up.

Except your talking about digging stuff up on the moon. I really don't see why you think that making occasional adjustments to dodge things in LEO is harder than... flying all the way to the moon. landing on it, and then digging a hole.

Because digging holes on the moon isn't that hard.

You're not grasping the required effort to get to the moon. You need to change your velocity by about 6km/s to get from LEO to the moons surface. Not only do you need to do that for all of your equipment, you also need to get the stuff to do it into orbit in the first place.

So about launching a space platform material straight on the moon. Yea this plan is no different.

[kaijyuu]

How bout we tie a rope to the moon, drop the other end toward the earth, and make a space elevator!


Or do we not have a strong enough material to build said rope yet?

[10ebbor10]

How bout we tie a rope to the moon, drop the other end toward the earth, and make a space elevator!


Or do we not have a strong enough material to build said rope yet?

.
1.We have a material that might be strong enough, but so far we failed to get more then a few grammes of it.
2.The moon has an elleptical orbit, at some points it's closer then other, which is not a good idea for your space elevator
3. Unlike CHaron(Pluto's moon), the moon isn't always foating above the same spot of earth. Therefore you space elevator's groundstation would need to fly all around the earth.

Space elevators might solve the energy problem though, as we can reuse energy from objects that ccome down to have other objects go up.

[sneakey pete]

You're not grasping the required effort to get to the moon. You need to change your velocity by about 6km/s to get from LEO to the moons surface. Not only do you need to do that for all of your equipment, you also need to get the stuff to do it into orbit in the first place.

So about launching a space platform material straight on the moon. Yea this plan is no different.

That does not make any sense, what on earth do you mean?

How bout we tie a rope to the moon, drop the other end toward the earth, and make a space elevator!


Or do we not have a strong enough material to build said rope yet?

.
Space elevators might solve the energy problem though, as we can reuse energy from objects that ccome down to have other objects go up.

Still a change in velocity of around 4km/s to get from geostationary (as in most space elevator proposals) orbit to the moons surface.

[10ebbor10]

You're not grasping the required effort to get to the moon. You need to change your velocity by about 6km/s to get from LEO to the moons surface. Not only do you need to do that for all of your equipment, you also need to get the stuff to do it into orbit in the first place.

So about launching a space platform material straight on the moon. Yea this plan is no different.

That does not make any sense, what on earth do you mean?

I think he thinks you would want to build your space base in moon orbit rather than earth's orbit.