Is /Sci/ ready to travel outside this world?
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2016/04/55-years-gagarin-ula-bigelow-present-commercial-stations/
>It only took 55 years to begin planning
>>8001847
Did the ISS inflate that module yet that SpaceX delivered the other day?
>>8002063
i don't think they've unpacked it yet even
i thought it was install week after docking
inflate some time after that
let astronauts in after a few months
throw away in 2 years
This doesn't sound great to me. This is a really vague "partnership".
I expected them to announce a firm launch contract for a BA-330 to definitely fly within a year or two. Instead they announced that an Atlas V had been reserved for a possible 2020 launch, which they apparently hope NASA will pay for.
The launch vehicle they're talking about using, Atlas V 552, doesn't actually exist yet. Like Falcon Heavy, it's a planned but undemonstrated configuration of an existing launch system. The dual-engine upper stage is planned to fly in November, but that might be delayed because Atlas V is currently grounded while they investigate the premature engine cutoff on the booster from the Cygnus launch.
So this is really weird, to announce getting all cozy with ULA for a first launch several years down the road just as SpaceX is getting their act together with reusable rockets.
>>8002063
Its happening this weekend
American private companies will have a space station operating in space, before China.
>>8002411
China had a space station in 2011, and it was manned for the first time in 2012. It's still in orbit, although it has lost telemetry and is considered dead. They've got another one going up, and its crew launch, this year.
The first crew entering China's first space station:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvwKB2jblwk
Whats the point of this bigelow shit, couldn't they just launch the first stage of a rocket to orbit, and then use that as habitable area?
>>8002800
The concept of a rocket stage as space station is known as a "wet workshop". It's a pretty questionable idea. They had it back in the Apollo days, but made Skylab a rocket payload rather than a modified stage anyway.
It's not easy to design a rocket stage. You'd probably need a lot of them for the trouble of designing a combined stage/station to be worthwhile.
>>8001847
>tfw you will never have a Bigelow330 personal spacecraft with a shower, lander, rotating sleep module, gym, multiple RTGs and VASIMIR propulsion
Why live?
>>8002899
why would it be questionable
At the very least it would be a nice big open area where you could play squash or w/e
Sure, you'll be sending up lots of rockets to build a space station anyways
>>8002964
>you'll be sending up lots of rockets to build a space station anyways
Well, no, not if you're sending up a wet workshop or an inflatable. That's kind of the point: that you don't have to send up lots of rockets. You build it on the ground, you send it up in one piece.
Skylab was just sent up as one launch. BA 330 is just one launch.
ISS was a lot of launches because it's a jobs program. It gave them something to do with lots of launches. It's oversized, overcomplicated, and rather lacking in purpose.
What they ought to be doing with space stations now is experimenting with centrifugal gravity and working out how to shield against deep space radiation (as opposed to sheltering from solar storms in Earth's magnetosphere).
>>8003008
Well, once the second stage is reusable, then the idea of using it as a wet workshop is irrelevant.
Possibly these inflatable habitats are safer too
>>8002335
Yeah, once I heard they wanted NASA to pay I was like, "What kind of business model are you hoping for here?"
Sadly, the BA-330 module is too long too fit in the F9H. They are stuck with Atlas since it is the only one that is long enough to fit the module in.
>>8003042
>business model
this is not about bizness
this is about exploration
>>8003062
Someones still gotta pay
Hoping for NASA to hand you billions ain't going to work out
>>8003042
>Sadly, the BA-330 module is too long too fit in the F9H.
That's some crazy bullshit, though. Building a longer fairing is really fucking trivial. It's too long to fit in the current F9 fairing. SpaceX is building a longer fairing for Falcon Heavy, which should be ready in 2018.
The real problem between Bigelow and SpaceX is that SpaceX doesn't need Bigelow technology. They design the launch vehicle, they design the spacecraft. Their next-generation rocket is going to be 10-15m diameter. What Bigelow's doing is redundant with what SpaceX is doing, not complementary.
This is the problem with a company like SpaceX: they want to take over everything they learn about from their customers. Soon they may find that nobody wants to do business with them.
They started out as a satellite launcher and NASA crew transportation contractor. Now they're preparing to build their own satellites, for their own competing communication business, and making NASA look ridiculous with their own far more ambitious manned spaceflight plans. Customers are just stepping stones to them.
What is their intention on Mars? To found a new independent state full of successful, daring, and technically proficient people beyond the reach of existing nuclear deterrents? Even if they could not intercept a nuclear attack during its several-month travel time, dug-in Martian colonists with sealed life-support systems have far less to fear, far less to lose than Earth-dwellers. Is America just a stepping stone to them as well?
>>8003124
america's just a stepping stone to the current globalist politicians anyways m8
If bigelow habitats are superior in durability, size vs weight, etc, no reason why SpaceX wouldn't use them
Unless they'll be making their own integrated inflatable/expandable habitats.
>>8003124
>What is their intention on Mars? To found a new independent state full of successful, daring, and technically proficient people beyond the reach of existing nuclear deterrents? Even if they could not intercept a nuclear attack during its several-month travel time, dug-in Martian colonists with sealed life-support systems have far less to fear, far less to lose than Earth-dwellers. Is America just a stepping stone to them as well?
You're rambling. Who cares what they do so long as they are successful.
>>8003184
>>Their next-generation rocket is going to be 10-15m diameter.
Bigelow's inflatable technology has one thing going for it: it shrinks down to fit inside standard fairings. By building large-diameter rockets, SpaceX is making that irrelevant.
It doesn't make any sense that an inflatable system would be better in any other way than a system built to its full size without needing to be inflatable. Inflatability is a feature that has significant costs.
>If bigelow habitats are superior in durability, size vs weight, etc, no reason why SpaceX wouldn't use them
AJR's RL-10s are superior in many ways to SpaceX's Merlin 1D Vacuum upper stage engines. They're pretty much standard on American upper stages. But SpaceX didn't use them, because then they'd be at the mercy of a single supplier for a major component, with no way to reduce its cost or produce a followup model.
>>8003241
Except merlin 1D is RP-1 and not liquid hydrogen.
An inflatable habitat that fits in the 10m width might end up 50m+ wide, vastly more living space than a rigid prebuilt structure can provide.
I don't see why inflatability has to cost much either, in the end its just the material costs. Which is likely cheaper & stronger than thin aluminum alloys or whatever is used.
>>8003261
>Except merlin 1D is RP-1 and not liquid hydrogen.
Yes, they chose to go with Merlin 1D, and therefore built a stage that held RP-1 in it. It's normal for American rockets to have a RP-1-fueled lower stage and a hydrogen-fueled upper stage.
>An inflatable habitat that fits in the 10m width might end up 50m+ wide, vastly more living space than a rigid prebuilt structure can provide.
Not a Bigelow inflatable habitat. BA 330 expands to 6.7m diameter. The largest proposed model, BA 2100, would only be a 12m model, and that's at 70-90 tons.
Inflatability doesn't give you "vastly" more living space. And there are other compact-packing options, such as in-space construction from sections or in-space manufacturing.
>>8003277
It's normal for american rockets to be completely uncompetitive and only for government launches too
Now SpaceX has produced the cheapest rocket on the market, must be doing something right not going with liquid hydrogen.
Noone has done inspace construction or manufacturing yet, so thats still just hypotheticals.
>>8003277
>Yes, they chose to go with Merlin 1D, and therefore built a stage that held RP-1 in it.
They DESIGNED Merlin 1D in house. Obviously they must've reasoned that RP-1 was the better choice for their purposes, or else they would have designed it to burn hydrogen instead. Remember, reusable 1st stages have been a major (though not 100% critical) part of their long-term plans for F9, and by using a denser, higher-impulse upper stage over a lighter, lower-impulse one, they reduce the amount of velocity and downrange distance the reusable stage must deal with upon boostback and descent. They also eliminate many of the issues associated with using a hard-cryogen like LH2 as a propellant.
>>8003336
RP-1 offers a lower ISP than LH2 though.
>>8003310
>Now SpaceX has produced the cheapest rocket on the market, must be doing something right not going with liquid hydrogen.
Yeah: they're producing as much in-house as possible so they can control costs.
That's my point here: if, for instance, they start planning around using a Bigelow transit habitat for trips to Mars, that's a major mission component they have no control over. They couldn't make it cheaper, they couldn't make it better.
Robert Bigelow's a real-estate guy, with no experience in technology. So he's doing real-estate things: trying to acquire key properties (patents) and then find tenants who need them, so he can charge rent. The last thing SpaceX wants to be doing is taking stuff to space to pay rent on it.
>>8003241
>>Their next-generation rocket is going to be 10-15m diameter.
do you have any facts to back that up?
>>8003336
>by using a denser, higher-impulse upper stage over a lighter, lower-impulse one, they reduce the amount of velocity and downrange distance the reusable stage must deal with upon boostback and descent
This is nonsense. There's no reason that choosing hydrogen fuel would have made their stage a lower-impulse one. They could have made a hydrogen-fuelled upper stage
They went with Merlin and RP-1 for the upper stage for development cost reasons. They originally planned to replace it later with a hydrogen upper stage. Raptor was supposed to be a hydrogen-fuelled engine.
Raptor was rethought as a methane-fuelled engine again largely for development cost reasons, and because they realized that they could make it a booster engine as well instead of also developing the less efficient Merlin 2 they were planning.
It's likely that after Raptor is finished, the engine team will be put to work designing a hydrogen-fuelled engine.
>>8003432
>They could have made a hydrogen-fuelled upper stage
Whoops, didn't finish this thought:
They could have made a hydrogen-fuelled upper stage the same mass as the RP-1-fuelled upper stage they did make, and just had more payload capacity. If they had done this, they wouldn't have needed to make Falcon Heavy, Falcon 9 with a LOX/H2 upper stage could serve the whole established GTO market with its simple booster.
>>8003408
Do you know what a fact is? That was a fact. Do you mean you want a source? There are references in the wikipedia article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Colonial_Transporter#Super-heavy_lift_launch_vehicle
SpaceX and Musk have been talking about a 10-15m vehicle for a while.
>>8003461
Hydrogen is quite difficult to store, yes. Both to keep it cool and to prevent leakage is quite a big challenge from what i've heard. The cool-part might be a rather easy fix in space though, if you have enough radiators.
One more thing is that hydrogen causes enbritlement over time, which might make it impossible to store it over long spaceflights
>>8003461
>Can hydrogen even be stored for reasonably long periods of time without leaking?
The difficulty of storing hydrogen in space is not that it leaks, but that it boils. You have to keep it extremely cold. This isn't reasonably possible with passive thermal management, it takes cryocoolers, which are heavy (particularly in space, where they need to use radiators for heat sinking), and could fail.
Storage of warmer cryofluids such as liquid oxygen and liquid methane aren't as hard, but are still no picnic. "Space-storable" propellant usually means NTO/MMH or straight hydrazine, which are liquid at room temperature. There are various less-toxic replacements proposed (all three of these are extremely nasty), but these are the established technology.
>Unless someone, or spacex themselves are doing refueling in orbit, a hydrogen engine is probably not so useful.
That doesn't make much sense. Hydrogen engines are useful for upper stages because of the higher specific impulse. This means more payload to orbit for the same-size booster, especially to higher orbits, such as GTO or Earth departure (i.e. Mars). The storage issues aren't important for upper stages, which burn up their fuel shortly after launch.
>>8003493
The question isn't payload per size of booster, but of $ per kg
Is it cost effective to use liquid hydrogen second stage rather than just building a bigger rocket?
Have to imagine it's not, since SpaceX ignored it
>>8003510
>The question isn't payload per size of booster, but of $ per kg
There's a pretty obvious link, when you need a much bigger rocket to launch the same payload.
>Is it cost effective to use liquid hydrogen second stage rather than just building a bigger rocket?
>Have to imagine it's not, since SpaceX ignored it
I just explained that SpaceX didn't "ignore it", in this post: >>8003432
They couldn't afford the money or time to develop a liquid hydrogen engine before launching Falcon 9. They thought it was a good idea and had people doing preliminary work on the possibility.
>>8003432
>This is nonsense. There's no reason that choosing hydrogen fuel would have made their stage a lower-impulse one.
LH2 has very low density and significantly less density impulse than RP-1. If you were to replace the F9's upper stage with an LH2 stage of the same external dimensions, it WOULD have less impulse. This is a simple fact. Achieving the same impulse from an LH2-fuelled upper stage would demand a stage with larger volume and dimensions.
And IIRC, the F9's diameter was chosen because it was the largest diameter whose segments could be transported economically by truck and rail. Hydrogen-fuelled stages like the Shuttle ET or Saturn S-IVB, by comparison, had to be transported by barge or by custom "guppy" cargo aircraft.
>>8003444
>They could have made a hydrogen-fuelled upper stage the same mass as the RP-1-fuelled upper stage
>same mass
Mass is largely irrelevant from a cost standpoint.
>Falcon 9 with a LOX/H2 upper stage could serve the whole established GTO market with its simple booster.
Falcon 9 can already serve the GTO market comparably to a Delta IV or Atlas V x0x, and at significantly less cost.
>>8003461
>Can hydrogen even be stored for reasonably long periods of time without leaking?
No, but neither can liquid oxygen. Boiloff is a fact of life with cryogens. The big issue with LH2, however, is that it's cold enough to liquify air itself. Without insulation air will actually condense onto the outside of an LH2 tank and drip off in sheets. This causes an unacceptably high boiloff rate due to heat transfer, as well as the explosion hazard from liquid air puddles Thus, insulation (and all the weight associated with it) is an absolute necessity for an LH2-fueled rocket, whereas LOX or LNG tanks can be built simple and light (and much much smaller too, since their contents are so dense).
>>8003493
>This means more payload to orbit for the same-size booster
W R O N G
Weight yes, size no.
>>8003657
>If you were to replace the F9's upper stage with an LH2 stage of the same external dimensions, it WOULD have less impulse.
>same external dimensions
Dumbest assumption ever.
>the F9's diameter was chosen because it was the largest diameter whose segments could be transported economically by truck
Diameter. Not length. Anyway, upper stages are much lighter and easier to transport by air.
>>They could have made a hydrogen-fuelled upper stage the same mass as the RP-1-fuelled upper stage
>>same mass
>Mass is largely irrelevant from a cost standpoint.
Are you a complete idiot, then? They could have put an upper stage of the same mass on the same booster because the same booster can lift it.
>Falcon 9 can already serve the GTO market comparably to a Delta IV or Atlas V x0x
That's nice, but Delta IV and Atlas V have been TERRIBLE FAILURES in the GTO market, and anyway, they aren't only available in x0x. Ariane 5 and Proton are the competition. Falcon 9 is undersized for the GTO market.
>>Hydrogen engines are useful for upper stages because of the higher specific impulse.
>>This means more payload to orbit for the same-size booster
>W R O N G
>Weight yes, size no.
B O O S T E R
That's the first stage. You don't need to change anything about the booster to put a higher-specific-impulse, same-mass upper stage on it and get more payload. Most of the rocket is booster.
Jesus.
>>8003124
>What is their intention on Mars? To found a new independent state full of successful, daring, and technically proficient people beyond the reach of existing nuclear deterrents? Even if they could not intercept a nuclear attack
I stopped reading right here after "what is their intention on Mars?" caught my eye.
Nobody is going to fire a fucking nuke at another planet, that is absolutely retarded. There's engineering challenges just to make that a possibility and then there's the issue of actually taking the nuke and bringing it down precisely where it needs to go, all the while Mars has a thin enough atmosphere to fire up at said nuke with success.
This is ignoring the big fucking fat "why" in the room though, something I'm so very eager to read.
>>8004387
>thinking that some little McMurdo-style Mars colony is going to have anti-missile weapons
And yet you're calling other people retarded.
>>8004418
>>thinking that some little McMurdo-style Mars colony is going to have anti-missile weapons
>And yet you're calling other people retarded.
beeble gan be build stuff???? :DDDDD
I'm only going with whatever wild west scenario you have in your head, in reality none of it would be necessary because nobody is going to lob a nuke at Mars.
>>8004434
I'm >>8003124
not >>8004418
You ask why someone would nuke a Mars colony? Why would someone nuke an Earth country?
The point is that the Mars colony may quickly become a major political power. It would be unacceptable to other major powers for the nuclear deterrent to not apply to it.
So there are reasons why there may be strong political opposition, or even war, in response to this plan of founding a Mars colony: to prevent this situation from arising where the nuclear deterrent is ineffective.
>>8004658
>the Mars colony may quickly become a major political power
How?
They can't determine policy.
They don't have gold resources.
They must depend on supply lines.
This isn't like the Moon is a Harsh Mistress, Mars, even the Moon are essentially worthless for just about anything that could give them political power.
Besides, you wouldn't use nukes against another planetary body. That is retarded. The best weapons are kinetic bombardment. Which is rather simple to do and you can't really shoot them down.
I'll give you one thing though. Should a Mars/Lunar colony ever become a political power, that the rest of humanity takes seriously, it will mean humanity is stepping in the right direction.
>>8004716
It depends entirely on how quickly colonization ramps up. If it turns out that the sum of Mars colonization is roughly equivalent to that of Antarctica, you're entirely right. If instead we end up with a martian population in the hundreds or higher and they're able to build strong enough infrastructure to be mostly self-sufficient after a decade or two, there's going to be some shit hitting the fan back on Earth, causing a spacefaring advent of the likes of which has never been seen. If done seriously, Mars colonization could be the spark it takes to get the developed nations of the world to break out of its perpetual navel gaze and look to the stars.
>>8004737
I still don't see them becoming a major political power. The main reason is that the colony would be completely scientific in nature. Colonies of the past were never scientific ventures. They were always resource based. A Mars colony will always be a complete drain on society in all ways except science. It isn't like they'd suddenly withhold their scientific discoveries. If they decided to cut all ties, it could mean an end to the economic drain on Earth. That's about it. It isn't like Earth will have its supply of Martian dust bunnies cut off.
>>8004746
Once again it all depends on how it rolls out. If NASA is the one to first establish a colony, yes, it will forever remain a drain because that's just how government agencies work.
If it's instead private companies that get there first, we'll see a much, much bigger focus on infrastructure and self sufficiency, because that's how companies work. In fact, becoming self-sufficient will probably be a bigger priority than whatever research is going on. Research in earnest won't begin until they're able to survive a missed launched window or something else similarly catastrophic.
And while the colony wouldn't be a major political power, it'd absolutely trigger a massive political response if highly successful because 1) it's a major point of national pride and 2) classic human "I'm not getting my share of the pie" jealousy, even though said pie is made of shit.
>>8003722
>Dumbest assumption ever.
Not if cost is a major consideration.
>Diameter. Not length. Anyway, upper stages are much lighter and easier to transport by air.
An LH2 stage with the same impulse as the existing Falcon 9 upper stage would have to be over twice as large - that is, roughly the size and (empty) weight of the lower stage. An LH2 stage with the same fueled WEIGHT, as you seem to be implying, would be THREE times bigger, or even LARGER than the lower stage.
>They could have put an upper stage of the same mass on the same booster because the same booster can lift it.
Not without extensively redesigning the rocket and incurring substantial additional manufacturing, transportation and operational costs.
>Ariane 5 and Proton are the competition.
And they both have WHAT kind of upper stage, again? :^)
>Falcon 9 is undersized for the GTO market.
Good thing they're making the Heavy, then.
Seriously, why is it so important to you that there only be one variant for all different launches?
>B O O S T E R
>That's the first stage.
"Booster" usually refers to either parallel stages (stage 0) at launch, or informally to the rocket as a whole. I've literally NEVER seen the term used to refer narrowly to core stage 1.
>>8004746
>The main reason is that the colony would be completely scientific in nature.
This is not what SpaceX is talking about doing. Anyway, you don't call a science base a "colony". The Antarctic bases are not "colonies".
We're not talking about some little NASA Mars outpost. SpaceX has stated an explicit goal of building a self-sufficient Mars colony that could survive if some disaster wiped out the Earth. They're talking about getting their rocket tech to the point that outmigration will cost $500,000, making it reasonably affordable to successful people, like buying a house, so a million people can move to Mars.
>>8004658
>The point is that the Mars colony may quickly become a major political power.
Then obviously they will have enough resources to defend themselves.
>It would be unacceptable to other major powers for the nuclear deterrent to not apply to it
What a completely bullshit statement, that isn't how geopolitics work. Who the fuck would develop a missile delivery system complete with a warhead capable of striking a specific target on Mars when it's chock full of difficulties? Really, you have to suspend every bit of common sense and logical thinking to even come up with a vague justification for it much less SELL that idea to get it approved.
No, a war between, say, the USA and Mars would be "stop sending them food."
Fucking ridiculous.
Also,
>>8004756
>1) it's a major point of national pride
What? A privately-funded, self-sufficient colony that goes "yeah, we're independent now because we're in an entirely different orbit and Earth politics don't mean shit to us" isn't going to exceed some arbitrary "national pride threshold" or something.
>2) classic human "I'm not getting my share of the pie" jealousy
You do understand how economies work, right?
Plus this "pie" we're talking about? Every nuclear-armed nation on the planet is treaty-bound not to declare it their slice, or even a portion of a slice as their own. Actually an independent Martian colony would be beneficial simply because they're not legally beholden to follow some treaty signed well before they were ever a nation, whoever does business with them is getting a piece of a pie that they wouldn't otherwise been able to have.
None of this really matters though because my original post? >>8004387 where I say, "nobody is going to fire a fucking nuke at another planet, that is retarded," is still a spot-on assessment. It's never going to happen, not until there is a real reason for a serious Earth (all of it) vs Mars conflict and if that's the case then refer to the first part of this post.
>>8004766
>An LH2 stage with the same impulse as the existing Falcon 9 upper stage would have to be over twice as large - that is, roughly the size and (empty) weight of the lower stage. An LH2 stage with the same fueled WEIGHT, as you seem to be implying, would be THREE times bigger, or even LARGER than the lower stage.
The Falcon 9 upper stage is not half the mass of the lower stage. That's ridiculous. If you tripled its volume, it would still be only about half the size of the lower stage.
>"Booster" usually refers to either parallel stages (stage 0) at launch, or informally to the rocket as a whole. I've literally NEVER seen the term used to refer narrowly to core stage 1.
It's pretty much never used to refer to the rocket as a whole. It is commonly used to refer to the first stage.
Okay, I'm not going to talk to you anymore. You're a stupid, ignorant person playing know-it-all, and I know you're just going to carry on asserting wrong, stupid things until I give up on replying.
>mars colony becoming big political power
/sci/ says the funniest things. It is more entertaining than /x/.
>>8004811
>What? A privately-funded, self-sufficient colony that goes "yeah, we're independent now because we're in an entirely different orbit and Earth politics don't mean shit to us" isn't going to exceed some arbitrary "national pride threshold" or something.
That's not what I was saying at all. I'm saying other countries are going to look and say, "Hey, the United States has a few hundred people on Mars. It looks like they're doing well. Why the fuck aren't we out there too?".
>>8004811
>None of this really matters though because my original post? >>8004387 where I say, "nobody is going to fire a fucking nuke at another planet, that is retarded," is still a spot-on assessment. It's never going to happen, not until there is a real reason for a serious Earth (all of it) vs Mars conflict and if that's the case then refer to the first part of this post.
I do agree with this.
>>8004811
This is so full of contradictions and confused thinking I don't know where to start.
>No, a war between, say, the USA and Mars would be "stop sending them food."
>What? A privately-funded, self-sufficient colony that goes "yeah, we're independent now because we're in an entirely different orbit and Earth politics don't mean shit to us" isn't going to exceed some arbitrary "national pride threshold" or something.
Are you acknowledging a scenario where they're self-sufficient or are you refusing to acknowledge it and assuming they depend on shipments of food from Earth?
>Who the fuck would develop a missile delivery system complete with a warhead capable of striking a specific target on Mars when it's chock full of difficulties?
So you're picturing a scenario where a missile that can hit Mars is "chock full of difficulties", but transportation to Mars is also so routine and affordable that a large, self-sufficient colony is built and declares political independence.
Make up your mind! You can't just shift between fundamentally different scenarios as you deal with different aspects.
>Every nuclear-armed nation on the planet is treaty-bound not to declare it their slice, or even a portion of a slice as their own. Actually an independent Martian colony would be beneficial simply because they're not legally beholden to follow some treaty signed well before they were ever a nation
So, you:
1) acknowledge there's a standing treaty between all the major nations not to claim any territory in space, but
2) you think all of these guys ready to fight over not letting each other claim territory are going to be 100% okay with a new player claiming territory?
Why? Why would that make it okay with them?
>>8004758
So many cool things in that shot.
>>8004830
>That's not what I was saying at all. I'm saying other countries are going to look and say, "Hey, the United States has a few hundred people on Mars. It looks like they're doing well. Why the fuck aren't we out there too?".
This is why independence would be a preferred option, I've put a great amount of thought into this and a confederation of city-states on Mars would probably be the best form of government for the planet. This would allow for any unwilling colonies to be brought into the fold at their discretion while also maintaining political autonomy.
>>8004845
>This is so full of contradictions and confused thinking I don't know where to start.
Excellent, I know this is going to be entertaining, I'll just reply with paraphrasing of your responses.
>Are you acknowledging a scenario where they're self-sufficient or are you refusing to acknowledge it and assuming they depend on shipments of food from Earth?
"I don't understand hyperbole or economic warfare, I believe everyone else is as insane as I am and I base my opinions around that."
>So you're picturing a scenario where a missile that can hit Mars is "chock full of difficulties", but transportation to Mars is also so routine and affordable that a large, self-sufficient colony is built and declares political independence.
"I don't know what 'self-sufficiency' means."
>Make up your mind! You can't just shift between fundamentally different scenarios as you deal with different aspects.
"I think only in extremes, gray areas do not exist because I am disconnected from reality."
>1) acknowledge there's a standing treaty between all the major nations not to claim any territory in space, but
"I'm going to try and use your words against you, just wait!"
>2) you think all of these guys ready to fight over not letting each other claim territory are going to be 100% okay with a new player claiming territory?
"People in charge of stuff are unhinged lunatics! Everything in real life is a game of Risk!"
>>8004858
I'm sorry, maybe I was a little mean to >>8004845 I'll address two point specifically to try and make up for it:
>Are you acknowledging a scenario where they're self-sufficient
Yes.
>or are you refusing to acknowledge it and assuming they depend on shipments of food from Earth?
Yes. This might confuse you so let me explain, both scenarios can exist at the same time. While the colony may be practically self-sufficient it can also rely on other goods (or services, depending on the nature of interplanetary trade) to fulfill secondary needs, much in the same way cutting off trade with Cuba has left that country with a large amount of 50's-era cars and trucks that have been kept in service. Sure, Cuba technically can survive on it's own but it has been affected by the cessation of economic activity.
>but transportation to Mars is also so routine and affordable that a large, self-sufficient colony is built and declares political independence.
What are you defining as "so routine and affordable" exactly? Certainly not anything that would provoke the Martian colony to devote enough time and effort to actually become practically self-sufficient. Nobody designs a city or state or nation to be self-sufficient unless there is clear need, and something so isolated and constantly in peril as a colony on another planet would have that as their first priority.
There, a little bit nicer response.
>>8004881
>I'm sorry, maybe I was a little mean to >>8004845
Sure, the problem with replying with a string of idiotic strawman arguments is that you're being "mean" and not that you're being stupid. You're only embarassing yourself.
>>Are you acknowledging a scenario where they're self-sufficient
>Yes.
>>or are you refusing to acknowledge it and assuming they depend on shipments of food from Earth?
>Yes. This might confuse you
No, it doesn't confuse me at all that you're completely comfortable contradicting yourself and then elaborately rationalizing it. I'm not interested in your rationalization.
Look, this was, from the beginning, about SpaceX's stated goal of building a self-sufficient colony. Genuinely self-sufficient, able to carry on if life on Earth is wiped out. You can't say, "Oh, I'm addressing your point, because I'm talking about a situation where they have partial self-sufficiency, but it's also fair for me to assume that they are not ACTUALLY self-sufficient and will be devastated by stopping resupply shipments." Well, you can say it, but everyone's going to think you're an idiot.
>What are you defining as "so routine and affordable" exactly?
I've already been specific about how "routine and affordable" they're talking about: about $500,000 per person. See: >>8004804
>Certainly not anything that would provoke the Martian colony to devote enough time and effort to actually become practically self-sufficient.
This thinking is just so fucking confused. Countries build ICBMs to be able to deliver nuclear weapons to each other's cities, but there's essentially no cargo that would be worth shipping from point-to-point on Earth by ICBM. How can you fail to grasp the basics of this relative cost sensitivity?
At this point, I'm just going to consider it confirmed that you're basically incapable of forming a coherent argument or participating in a rational discussion, and stop talking to you.
>>8002904
>flying in outer space on your own
When SHTF near Uranus or whatever there ain't no ground control to save your ass.
>>8004737
>>8004658
>>8004434
>>8004418
>>8004658
Isn't this pretty much what happened with the British Empire and America?
>America rebels
>Succeeds through outside help
>Ever since then the British have found it virtually impossible to dislodge the new government
>Infighting in Europe
>The relative isolation of the Western Hemisphere
>But most importantly because the Americans had half a continent to themselves the nuclear option of the day, blockading was completely ineffective
>Isolated America with all it's resources eventually outstrips even the British Empire
>2016 Britain is now America's bitch
So yeah maybe the people saying a Mars colony would be a terrible threat to Earth have a point. I can see how it goes down
>WWIII on Earth
>Chinese funds a rebellion on Mars just to get at the Americans
>Americans don't have the money or spare resources to retake it, have to concentrate on China and Russia
>By the time the war is over Mars has built up too much autonomy
>America tries but their nuking is ineffective
>Too hard to nuke an entire dug-in planet
>Most nukes shot down anyway
>America gives up
>Mars quickly takes over the solar system due to having much lower escape velocity
>2216, Earth becomes Mars's bitch
>>8005106
>Mars quickly takes over the solar system due to having much lower escape velocity
Don't forget that due to the selection bias of getting to Mars in the first place, most of the population is mostly going to consist of highly intelligent/knowledgable/otherwise capable people. They'd have prowess, agility, and drive that outstrips that of 99% of the organizations on earth, and they'd be entirely unimpeded by politics and luddites. It's a recipe for explosive growth once existing there ceases to be a problem.
>>8004937
>Sure, the problem with replying with a string of idiotic strawman arguments is that you're being "mean" and not that you're being stupid. You're only embarassing yourself.
Half of this sentence is using terms incorrectly and the other half is misunderstanding what's happening. I tried to tone it down a bit and actually answer you, but whatever.
>I'm not interested in your rationalization.
It's not rationalizing anything, I'm citing real-world examples to reinforce my point. You're an idiot.
>Look, this was, from the beginning, about SpaceX's stated goal of building a self-sufficient colony.
Yep, and then some dumbass, i.e. (You) brought up the colony being nuked.
>Genuinely self-sufficient, able to carry on if life on Earth is wiped out.
Okay...
>You can't say, "Oh, I'm addressing your point,
I was addressing a completely stupid argument, I can say whatever the fuck I want. You're an idiot.
>I've already been specific about how "routine and affordable" they're talking about:
>$500,000 per person.
>"routine and affordable"
You're an idiot.
>This thinking is just so fucking confused.
Oh boy...
>Countries build ICBMs to be able to deliver nuclear weapons to each other's cities
Oh boy!
>but there's essentially no cargo that would be worth shipping from point-to-point on Earth by ICBM.
priceofteainchina.jpg
>How can you fail to grasp the basics of this relative cost sensitivity?
Well I can breathe through my nose and I graduated high school, I'm pretty sure that's got something to do with it.
>and stop talking to you.
Good. Fuck off from wherever you came from and never return.
>>8005172
Good point
>obscene amount of tl;dr pedantic trolling posts
Jesus, /sci/, go take a cold shower or something.
>>8005106
>>WWIII on Earth
>>Chinese funds a rebellion on Mars just to get at the Americans
Ignoring the ridiculousness of "WWIII" in a the modern age with it's globalized economy and complete lack of incentive for such a war to happen, why would they even bother?
So the Martian colony rebels. Wow, literally nobody would give a single fuck.
>>America tries but their nuking is ineffective
Why is everyone here so obsessed with nukes flying between planetary orbits? It's not going to fucking happen, if Pakistan and India haven't nuked each other yet then there ain't going to be Minuteman IIIs flying off to Mars.
>>Mars quickly takes over the solar system due to having much lower escape velocity
Riiiight, so I presume SpaceX is going to launch a gigantic anus for the Martians to pull things out of, or perhaps it's a magic hat. Merely having a lower escape velocity does not make a military superpower, even if it did have the necessary resources (and that's a big "if" by the way) it certainly doesn't have the infrastructure to get those resources. Have you ever looked into what goes into getting steel? It's not an easy process, and that's just one material out of hundreds, maybe thousands, needed to produce anything that would "conquer the rest of the solar system." This goes for >>8005172 too, just because somebody can afford to go to Mars doesn't necessarily mean they'll be "highly intelligent/knowledgable/otherwise capable people." Actually it'll likely be people who "fucking love science! xD" Mars isn't going to be populated entirely by geniuses and it isn't going to become a military superpower.
Sorry, real life just isn't that exciting.
>>8005290
>Riiiight, so I presume SpaceX is going to launch a gigantic anus for the Martians to pull things out of, or perhaps it's a magic hat. Merely having a lower escape velocity does not make a military superpower, even if it did have the necessary resources (and that's a big "if" by the way) it certainly doesn't have the infrastructure to get those resources. Have you ever looked into what goes into getting steel? It's not an easy process, and that's just one material out of hundreds, maybe thousands, needed to produce anything that would "conquer the rest of the solar system."
It's simply a matter of people and time. Get a few shiploads of people out there and give them a decade or two; I'm quite confident that things will move more quickly than you think they will, as long as the colonists' goals reach further than "Let's stare at mars pebbles under a microscope!"
>>8005172
>Everyone on Mars will be smart and capable while everyone on Earth is bureaucratic or lazy
You've been watching too much of The Exapnse
>>8005351
I don't even know what that is, is it a network TV show? Haven't had cable for about half a decade now
>>8005366
You can watch it on their website.
http://www.syfy.com/theexpanse/episodes
>>8005106
>2216, Earth becomes Mars's bitch
Might happen faster than that. The world changes faster and faster.
>>8005172
There's brain drain to consider as well: those people are leaving countries on Earth.
One of the thing that makes America the power it is, is that talented, ambitious people move there, and in doing so, they move away from the countries where they were born. One of the things that limits it is that it has a large legacy population of people who weren't selected for talent or ambition, but were crowded in to serve as cheap labor, and they vote.
Now, what if those sorts of people go to Mars from America, and from other countries instead of to America, and from other countries even when they wouldn't have gone to America because America wasn't hardcore meritocratic or technological-progress-oriented enough for them?
So anyway, what happens if the intellectual elite all run off to another planet together, and leave the overpopulated, underskilled world behind to collapse back to savagery? Do they get to meet the Atlanteans and the dinosaur people who did this before?
>>8005403
Mars would definitely be a more flexible society because basically everything they do would be new. No entrenched cultural ideas.
>>8005407
That might just mean they don't know how to get along and end up killing each other.
>>8005419
If you don't like your neighbors just leave. Plenty of room. If a whole planet isn't enough to prevent you from being a spaz nothing would help.
>>8005403
Whether it's realistic or not is another issue, but it's very easy to imagine a scenario where Earth eventually becomes the stagnant, backwater planet in the system.
>>8005403
>So anyway, what happens if the intellectual elite all run off to another planet together, and leave the overpopulated, underskilled world behind to collapse back to savagery? Do they get to meet the Atlanteans and the dinosaur people who did this before?
Sounds like Elysium.
>>8005431
>Earth
You mean Europe?
>>8005424
>If you don't like your neighbors just leave. Plenty of room.
Yeah, just go live in a cave by yourself on Mars. No big deal.
Part of the motivation of leaving Earth is probably to get away from the political conflicts. The main body of colonists may be extremely unfriendly to anyone who figures they can opt out of their society and stay on Mars.
There's conflict over terraforming and other environmental concerns to consider. There will be the people who want to look for life and prevent contamination, the people who like living on a dead planet where everybody's in sealed habitats and even nuclear spills are no big deal, and the people who want to increase the thickness of the atmosphere and get plants growing as soon as possible.
Anyway, what sort of person moves out to Mars, and gives up the warmth, comfort, and beauty of the planet we evolved to live on? Probably a lot of real weirdos, with strange religious beliefs.
>>8005433
>without smart people, no one would get smarter
then how are there smart people now?
>>8005457
>gives up the warmth
>muh warmth
Stay in Kenya faggot, Norway would just be too uncomfortable.
>>8005457
>>Anyway, what sort of person moves out to Mars, and gives up the warmth, comfort, and beauty of the planet we evolved to live on? Probably a lot of real weirdos, with strange religious beliefs.
I think you'd get a lot of people who on Mars could make an impact larger than what they're capable of on Earth by many magnitudes as well as many who find Earth life mundane.
>>8005471
Without enough smart people to keep a modern economy running, there could be a time of chaos leaving only a handful of surviving (and not very bright) humans, who revert to hunting and gathering.
They'd breed smart people again eventually, but they'd basically be starting over from the caves. The implication was that this happened before with humans (the Atlanteans), whose remnant recovered, and with non-humans (dinosaur people), whose remnant went extinct (at least in some iteration).
>>8005473
I live in Winnipeg. It gets as cold here as it gets warm on Mars. But if you move one-way to Mars, you're never going to play frisbee barefoot on grass under a big blue sky again.
>>8005498
>you're never going to play frisbee barefoot on grass under a big blue sky again.
So? Sounds like some hippie shit.
>>8005508
This is what I'm saying: the people who would want to move to Mars are going to be psychologically abnormal.
>>8004716
>The best weapons are kinetic bombardment.
this fucking meme shit
>>8005403
>One of the thing that makes America the power it is, is that talented, ambitious people move there,
this was true like 80 years ago
not really true anymore
You go into any business, and most of the critical essential ppl are white
>>8005536
So should endorse the idea then. Or are you worried nobody will want to stay and play with you?
>>8005498
>never gonna play Friday again
While this may be true for the first 20 years or so, if the Martian colony really kicks off and gets its population up to a million or more, I've no doubt that you'd be seeing stadium-sized enclosed forests and fields with clear domed ceilings and strategically placed heatlamps, which you could in fact play barefoot frisby in. It may not technically be the same, but on a primal level it'll scratch the same itch.
For later generations of colonists, life on Mars has the potential to be quite pleasant, and that's ignoring the possibility of eventual terraforming.
>>8005342
>It's simply a matter of people and time.
No it isn't. Not even close. I'll explain further but,
>Get a few shiploads of people out there and give them a decade or two; I'm quite confident that things will move more quickly than you think they will,
See no, you're drastically overestimating the rate at which anything gets done because, and I'm just guessing here, you've never experienced what it's like to live on the edge of "nowhere." I regularly take trips up to Alaska to pan for gold, even temporary encampments north of a certain invisible boundary are all but impossible because of logistical concerns. This is on our own planet by the way, every single issue of moving stuff to Alaska and then moving through Alaska is magnitudes more difficult when you're doing all of that ON ANOTHER PLANET.
Look, you're trying to assert that Mars will be a "military superpower" in a few decades. Unless you're moving thousands of people at once you simply won't have the numbers to do it, provided those same people are reproducing at a rate of one child every year. Let's say every year ten thousand people go to Mars, that means in a year's time they'll get there, settle, and then conceive one child. So next year you will have fifteen hundred new people, but only a thousand of them will be able to repeat that process. Meanwhile you have five hundred infants that need to be fed and cared for, and let me tell you babies need a LOT of resources. So the next year after that you have four thousand people, but only three thousand can reproduce, a thousand are toddlers or infants...
This is just manpower, we're not even getting into the resource problem I mentioned. Then there's the issue of actually handling that volume of people on a planet that is absolutely not a good place to live, and then while you're doing that you need to actually build even MORE stuff for the inevitable influx of more people. Meanwhile the Martian colony is somehow building a military??? What?
>>8005557
>You go into any business, and most of the critical essential ppl are white
What the fuck has that got to do with anything? White doesn't mean native. Elon Musk is white. Elon Musk was born in South Africa and moved to America. America runs on high-grade immigrants like that. Anyway, a lot of them are asian.
America is staying the dominant world power because all the most ambitious, talented people move to it, because it still manages to attract them as the best place to get rich or famous. It couldn't stay on top this way just with native talent. Even aside from the issue of sheer numbers, it's really not that good at fostering native talent. It has a rotten public school system and a cancerous youth culture.
>>8005684
this sort of "race doesn't matter" ideology is nonsense
My point is almost all modern immigration is not at all "high grade immigrants", and in fact the opposite.
>>8005667
Thats why you need to build roads and shit
I'm sure they'll have some automated bulldozers that can produce a flat road
>>8005627
I only see what's in front of my face, don't give me this speculative bullshit.
>>8005738
impossible science is impossible
>>8005738
>build roads and shit
Giving you the benefit of the doubt but uh, no. That is not what will make a Martian colony a military superpower in a few decades. Try again.
>>8005667
>Unless you're moving thousands of people at once you simply won't have the numbers to do it
the real martian threat is the fact that they have an almost unretaliable first strike advantage.
establishing a sovereign nation on mars gets rid of MAD.
>>8005778
>the real martian threat is the fact that they have an almost unretaliable first strike advantage
Except not.
Every disadvantage of sending a nuke to Mars is also there when it's sent from Mars, and then it's also a matter of "why." I mean ignoring the glaring "how" the "why" is magnitudes greater when you're arguing Mars firing a nuke at Earth. What possible reason could Mars have to nuke any nation on Earth when it would mean a greater and more concentrated retaliation?
Thankfully none of you will ever make it to Mars because you're all retarded.
>>8005733
>My point is almost all modern immigration is not at all "high grade immigrants", and in fact the opposite.
Regardless, most of America's top talent pool is high-grade immigrants, because in a world with international mobility, the most talented and ambitious people are going to tend to come together in one place, and a majority of them aren't going to all be born in that place.
Pull your head out of /pol/ for a second and recognize that this isn't about whether you deport illegals or open the borders to refugees, or even H-1B temporary-worker visas. This is about legal immigrants of exceptional ability, and often substantial means, mostly from other first-world countries.
America attracts more of those high-grade immigrants than any other country. If it failed to do so, it would lose what leadership it has now. They'd gather somewhere else.
>>8005789
>Every disadvantage of sending a nuke to Mars is also there when it's sent from Mars
except rocket size. a martian attack could deliver significantly more in terms of payload just because of the reduced gravity well.
>hat possible reason could Mars have to nuke any nation on Earth when it would mean a greater and more concentrated retaliation?
the only reason some nutjob dictator with access to nukes hasn't fired some of them off is because the threat of mutual annihilation is almost guaranteed.
the distances of the planets lend a sense of security, even if it may be false, that they could survive and even triumph.
>>8005794
>This is about legal immigrants of exceptional ability
Who bring their whole families with them, all of which go on government subsidies, none of which are exceptional.
Then they produce children which regress towards the norm of their home country
Does AMERICA benefit from high grade immigrants? No, do AMERICANS benefit from these immigrants? No.
All it does is displace americans from these jobs/careers/industries.
It's not a good thing. And of course ignores that 95%+ of immigrants are not high grade.
>>8005796
>the distances of the planets lend a sense of security
are you a retard
It's exactly the opposite
The close distances on earth is what makes first strikes plausible, being able to hit enemy strategic assets on the ground before they can react
>>8005796
>except rocket size. a martian attack could deliver significantly more in terms of payload just because of the reduced gravity well.
This proves you have absolutely no fucking clue how nuclear weapons work. We're not talking about just moving the nuke from Earth to Mars or vice versa, we're talking about a launch in anger designed to strike at a target on another planet. Assuming everything goes right (and this is a big if) the CEP of an interplanetary nuclear weapon would be enormous, like entire European country enormous.
Meanwhile to intercept all you have to do is fucking throw a big rock at it or point a laser at it and keep it there.
>>8005796
>the only reason some nutjob dictator
Oh boy...
>is because the threat of mutual annihilation is almost guaranteed.
Yeah if they're that deranged and they're chomping at the figurative bit to launch a nuclear weapon the threat of retaliation simply is not enough of a deterrent. There has to be a goal, some thing that they'll get from successfully striking their target, and so far you haven't provided that. What you have provided is a woeful lack of understanding of basic geopolitics.
>the distances of the planets lend a sense of security,
Oh and apparently a lack of understanding of basic human psychology too.
>>8005789
>Every disadvantage of sending a nuke to Mars is also there when it's sent from Mars
First of all, this just isn't true. Earth is downhill of Mars. To launch from the Earth's surface to Mars requires a high-thrust, multi-stage rocket providing about 14 km/s of delta-V. To launch from the Mars surface to Earth requires a low-thrust, single-stage rocket providing about 6.5 km/s of delta-V.
14 km/s might not sound a lot worse than 6.5 km/s, but the rocket equation isn't linear. The simplest calculation shows that it's at least ten times harder. With staging and the thrust and structural requirements to overcome the higher gravity and atmospheric drag, it's more like a hundred times harder.
Secondly, Mars colonists would live in habitats that are sealed (to keep the air in) and subterranean (to block the cosmic rays). Mars has no running water or groundwater, so any fallout would be in a layer on the surface. Dust would settle out of its thin atmosphere quickly, so there'd be no fear of nuclear winter. Nuclear bombs would have a very limited radius of effectiveness, and the fallout would hold no special horror.
>>8005803
>>This is about legal immigrants of exceptional ability
>Who bring their whole families with them, all of which go on government subsidies, none of which are exceptional.
>Does AMERICA benefit from high grade immigrants? No, do AMERICANS benefit from these immigrants? No.
>All it does is displace americans from these jobs/careers/industries.
Yeah man, that's exactly how it works. Guys like Elon Musk and Albert Einstein just steal jobs from hardworking native-born Americans, and bring their families in to leech off the welfare system.
There are no advantages to Americans or America in letting the top 0.1% performers in the world gather in America, become Americans, and do their work in America.
>>8005813
>First of all, this just isn't true. Earth is downhill of Mars.
See this: >>8005806
>This proves you have absolutely no fucking clue how nuclear weapons work. We're not talking about just moving the nuke from Earth to Mars or vice versa, we're talking about a launch in anger designed to strike at a target on another planet. Assuming everything goes right (and this is a big if) the CEP of an interplanetary nuclear weapon would be enormous, like entire European country enormous.
>Secondly, Mars colonists would live in habitats that are sealed (to keep the air in) and subterranean (to block the cosmic rays). Mars has no running water or groundwater, so any fallout would be in a layer on the surface. Dust would settle out of its thin atmosphere quickly, so there'd be no fear of nuclear winter. Nuclear bombs would have a very limited radius of effectiveness, and the fallout would hold no special horror.
Unless this hypothetical Martian nuclear device is intentionally dirty then fallout on Earth isn't going to be a significant problem either. Why? It's going to be a single nuke that will likely never make it because, once more, it will travel for nine fucking months and will get intercepted.
Oh, and just to humor your inevitable, "but it will have some cool thrusters and stuff!" response, we can intercept nuclear launches from one point on the planet to another. Assuming this is Mars versus the USA it would mean getting past Aegis/GMD, MIM-104s/MEADS, and THAAD, plus there's ASM-135 ASATs to go along with the RIM-161 SM-3s of the Aegis system.
In short: no, shut the fuck up, stop trying to argue about things you don't understand.
>>8005806
>CEP of an interplanetary nuclear weapon would be enormous, like entire European country enormous.
no, absolutely wrong. MIRV's were invented specifically to beat cheesy shit like kinetic kill and lasers. warheads are small as fuck, independently steerable, and hard to detect. Especially if you factor in current stealth technology.
>Yeah if they're that deranged and they're chomping at the figurative bit to launch a nuclear weapon the threat of retaliation simply is not enough of a deterrent.
yes, that is what i am assuming.
>There has to be a goal, some thing that they'll get from successfully striking their target
how about 70 virgins and eternal afterlife? yeah i know thats cheap. dumber things have instigated conflict though, america went to war over a 2% tax, and against a bunch of mexicans, and each other. If the potential for conflict exists, there will be conflict.
>>8005825
>the CEP of an interplanetary nuclear weapon would be enormous, like entire European country enormous.
>It's going to be a single nuke
Are you kidding me with this shit?
These are seriously the stupidest assumptions I've ever seen on a /sci/ thread.
I understand what you're doing here: you posted some extremely stupid shit, and then you got embarassed because someone called you out on it. You thought that launching from Mars to Earth was about as hard as launching from Earth to Mars. You didn't think about how nuclear weapons actually work, and how this would be affected by the way Mars colonists would ordinarily live.
So now you're trying to bluff as if you knew these things, but they just weren't relevant. But your reasons for claiming so are TEN TIMES MORE STUPID than the fuck-up you're covering for.
>>8005837
>no, absolutely wrong.
Shut the fuck up, no.
>MIRV's were invented specifically to beat cheesy shit like kinetic kill and lasers.
No they were invented because a single nuke going fifteen miles off course sucks, but if you throw a bunch of tiny nukes only one or two are going to be way the fuck out there. Difficulty of interception is just a happy byproduct of that, nuclear missiles are still ballistic weapons and MIRVs were an attempt to address that.
>warheads are small as fuck, independently steerable, and hard to detect.
Yes, with decades of military engineering they are. Mars would be starting from scratch.
>Especially if you factor in current stealth technology.
"I have no idea how 'stealth technology' works but it sounds cool."
>yes, that is what i am assuming.
See this mentality is why gun owners hate "gun-grabbers," they automatically assume that just because somebody can automatically means they will. Meanwhile in reality millions of people carry firearms every day legally and they don't get in gun battles.
>yeah i know thats cheap. dumber things have instigated conflict though
Except the ABILITY to wage war has played a significant factor in every example you've listed. Mars wouldn't have these abilities and so far to date only two nuclear weapons have been used in anger and there has always been severe debate about the necessity since. Wars aren't just fought "just because," that's stupid.
>>8005841
>I understand what you're doing here:
>reeee you ignored the pretty numbers I posted!!!
Shut the fuck up, no you don't. Settle down.
>You didn't think about how nuclear weapons actually work,
I'm apparently the only one here who actually knows how they work.
>how this would be affected by the way Mars colonists would ordinarily live
?????
In what fucking universe would Martian colonists be sitting around building nukes all goddamn day? Jesus Christ put down the WH40k codex, and stop projecting your crazy bullshit.
>>8005856
>Mars would be starting from scratch.
thats your assumption, not mine m8.
>Mars wouldn't have these abilities
and the entire argument hinged on them having those abilities.
you keep dodging my point, which is mars is the high ground which breaks MAD.
>>8005869
>>Mars would be starting from scratch.
>thats your assumption, not mine m8.
Look, I know you're trying hard to argue your position because you made it and you don't want to back down now. I'm going to rescind my harsh tone toward you and just politely ask you to step back and consider the situation: does anything you're saying even make any sense?
Mars would never nuke Earth. There has to be political and economic incentive for war and if you can come up with a real tangible reason for one then please, say so. Then there's the ability, North Korea has yet to actually put a nuclear device on a missile and their nuclear program goes back to the 1950's, building a missile with a nuclear warhead stuffed in the front isn't easy. They would absolutely be starting from scratch because, get this, nobody likes nuclear proliferation.
>and the entire argument hinged on them having those abilities.
Which is why it's a dumb fucking argument.
>you keep dodging my point, which is mars is the high ground which breaks MAD.
No, it doesn't because there is no mutual assurances. There is nothing mutual about that relationship, Mars has fuck all for resources, fuck all for infrastructure, and the entire trip is this slow, agonizing process that (even if it takes less delta-v) leaves the missile wide open for intercept. Then when it GETS TO EARTH it's subject to several layers of anti-missile defense that have all but rendered ballistic missile exchanges obsolete. Assuming current technology trends continue there will be laser-based ballistic missile defense both in the USA and in Russia, so that's yet another layer.
Oh and all of this? All your argument? Your silly argument based off of Mars being inhabited entirely by cartoon characters?
It's ignoring the very real scenario that more than one nation would be responding to the threat; a collective response from a planet that's had millennia of civilization and an insurmountable amount of tactical resources.
>>8005888
my assumptions were thus.
mars had a decent enough infrastructure/logistics to construct said nukes.
mars had somebody in charge with the will to use them.
these aren't unreasonable assumptions to make if you are planning out long term interplanetary colonies. colonies have a tendency to do things like this.
i don't know how you can't understand a simple strategic analysis.
>>8005816
>Brings up random billionaire as if a Paypal equivalent wouldn't have existed if we didn't have mass immigration
>Pretending modern mass immigration has anything to do with that
>Pretending I have ever said anything against white immigration
Are you a marxist or something, because you don't make any sense at all
>become Americans
Now you are engaging in a fantasy, in a delusion, in an outright denial of reality.
>and do their work in America.
Work that they do benefits THEMSELVES, not "America".
Maybe ask one of these people what they would think about mass immigration if it was THEIR home country.
>>8005856
>>MIRV's were invented specifically to beat cheesy shit like kinetic kill and lasers.
>No they were invented because a single nuke going fifteen miles off course sucks, but if you throw a bunch of tiny nukes only one or two are going to be way the fuck out there.
You're both wrong. MIRVs were invented primarily because large nukes are mass-inefficient for area of effect, and nuclear weapon delivery is mass-constrained. The missiles cost more than the warheads. However, the missiles have scaling factors that make them more expensive per unit mass below a certain size. So they put multiple small warheads on a single medium-sized rocket.
Large bombs are inefficient weapons because the different effects fall off at different rates, all faster than linear. The longest-range effect is the visible-light flash, which falls off at the square of the distance, but it's relatively easy to shelter against and can be hampered by clouds and the horizon. The more devastating shockwave, fireball, and ionizing radiation all have more severe non-linear fall-off, so past a certain point, multiple, widely-separated detonations are a more efficient way of damaging ground area of city than simply increasing the yield of a single bomb.
CEP (Circular Error Probable -- what you'd call "accuracy" if you weren't an irredeemable git trying to use jargon as a substitute for actual understanding) is essentially an archaic concept for modern nuclear warheads in modern re-entry vehicles launched on modern ballistic missiles. This isn't the 1960s. They land them where they want to land them.
I'm not going to respond to the rest of this post, which is inexcusable garbage.
>>8005915
Alright. Alright.
>mars had a decent enough infrastructure/logistics to construct said nukes.
How? What a silly, retarded assumption to make when my entire argument thus far has been "that will never happen you guys are dumb motherfuckers stop watching sci-fi and thinking it's a documentary."
>mars had somebody in charge with the will to use them.
WHY. Why would they use it? Why? Tell me fucking why.
>these aren't unreasonable assumptions to make if you are planning out long term interplanetary colonies.
>these aren't unreasonable assumptions to make
>these aren't unreasonable
>Mars nuking Earth
>not unreasonable
Jesus Christ on hockey skates I cannot even begin to imagine how you see the world.
>colonies have a tendency to do things like this.
[citation needed]
Detailed source on this extremely dubious claim.
>i don't know how you can't understand a simple strategic analysis.
Oh that isn't what's happening here, you're somehow mixing up my contempt with misunderstanding your "analysis." No, I understand it perfectly, I just think it's completely fucking stupid and irrelevant.
>>8005926
well CEP without GPS guidance is still somewhat poor
But it isn't a relevant number for nukes, even against hardened targets
>>8005926
>The longest-range effect is the visible-light flash, which falls off at the square of the distance, but it's relatively easy to shelter against
thats why we invented the neutron bomb.
>>8005916
>mass immigration
Holy shit, this is 100% not about MASS immigration, and I have made that clear repeatedly. This is about America attracting much of the elite talent that springs up around the world in each generation.
I'll point you back to this: >>8005794
>Pull your head out of /pol/ for a second and recognize that this isn't about whether you deport illegals or open the borders to refugees, or even H-1B temporary-worker visas. This is about legal immigrants of exceptional ability, and often substantial means, mostly from other first-world countries.
>>Pretending I have ever said anything against white immigration
What the fuck is wrong with you? You've been consistently objecting to immigration of elite individuals as irrelevant to America's success. You say stuff against immigration in ways that includes white immigration in the same post where you put this stupid greentext.
Does /pol/ give you brain damage or something? You just hear "immigration" and it shuts off all rational thought, and you post, "Stop all immigration! Build wall! They don't contribute anything! Most immigrants are bad! Stop all immigrants! I never said anything against white immigrants! All immigrants are bad! No immigrants do anything for America! Stop immigration completely! I never said anything against white immigrants!"
Like, holy fuck, man. I am 100% not talking about mass immigration. That's not remotely relevant to the thread.
>>8005938
>How? What a silly, retarded assumption to make when my entire argument thus far has been
because if you put a bunch of people together for a long enough period of time, and let them multiply they are going to spread out. thats the point of colonization. 20 years can build nations nowadays. you'd have to intentionally choke mars from earth to keep it from happening.
>WHY. Why would they use it? Why? Tell me fucking why.
because you would choke mars to keep it from happening.
>>8005926
>You're both wrong.
No, I'm not actually. While everything you've said is true do note I've had to either pick that or "it was to make things more accurate" to fill this tiny, tiny space. Sure, saying that wasn't the whole truth, but I felt that should have been sufficient. I got ignored anyway, so in hindsight whatever I said was completely irrelevant.
>CEP (Circular Error Probable -- what you'd call "accuracy" if you weren't an irredeemable git trying to use jargon as a substitute for actual understanding)
>reeee he didn't say precision!!! he said accuracy!!!!
Like he would know the difference, fuck yourself.
>I'm not going to respond to the rest of this post, which is inexcusable garbage.
Fuck you, all you wanted to do was sperg about nukes, and I assume you ran into the 2000 character post limit too. This is why I said what I said rather than elaborating on a point that probably could have used it were it a serious discussion. It's not though, I'm arguing against somebody who is trying to come up with a viable scenario where Mars somehow builds and uses nuke(s) against Earth.
>because if you put a bunch of people together for a long enough period of time, and let them multiply they are going to spread out. thats the point of colonization. 20 years can build nations nowadays. you'd have to intentionally choke mars from earth to keep it from happening.
Uh, again, you need to ship people to Mars by the thousands for the society to grow to a population large enough to support all the many, many different industries needed to have a functioning military.
>because you would choke mars to keep it from happening.
Again, put down the WH40k codex because real life is not an orgy of psychopaths slaughtering each other.
Having said that let's look at your response: Mars would nuke Earth because Earth strangled Mars of the resources they needed to build their nation because...? Really, because why? Even if we get to that why, how is Mars building a nuke again?
>>8005941
>thats why we invented the neutron bomb.
Don't tell me, let me guess: you think the neutron bomb is a strategic weapon that "kills the people but leaves the buildings intact, so the attackers can take and use the buildings and stuff for themselves". That's a myth.
The neutron bomb was a TACTICAL weapon, designed mainly for killing people in tanks and APCs, which are built to resist much sharper, more focused violence than the relatively fluffy blast of a nuclear detonation, and consequently are only destroyed in a relatively small radius around nuclear detonations.
Neutrons have a relatively short range in air, and one that varies greatly with the humidity. Neutron bombs also have very significant conventional nuclear blast effects, they're just designed to allow fusion neutrons to escape. Contrary to the myth, they're not at all a good way to kill people in buildings without knocking them over and setting them on fire.
Neutron bombs have gone out of favor for a couple of reasons. Changes in tank design have tended to make them better at protecting their crews against neutrons, and relatively simple modifications would make them much more effective. Tactical nukes in general have been de-emphasized as nuclear war seems less and less probable, and nuclear arsenals are increasingly focused on deterrence.
>>8005950
But it is completely irrelevant
What did Musk contribute? He got rich essentially by luck off some dot com startup. Then he's merely hired Americans to run certain businesses for himself.
>>8005973
>I've had to either pick that or "it was to make things more accurate"
>I've had to either pick the actual truth or some complete bullshit
>the bullshit fit in the available space more easily, so it was completely justified
>please pay no attention to the relationship between what I'm now saying was intentional bullshit and my previous demonstrated misunderstandings
>no really, I totally understood this stuff from the beginning, and am not wildly trying to convince strangers to respect me on an anonymous weeaboard
Isn't it exhausting to care what people who can't see who you are think of you? Can't we just have nice, ego-free discussions where we all contribute what we have and try to each come away having more than we started with?
>>8006009
>>I've had to either pick the actual truth or some complete bullshit
Except it's not. MIRVs were developed before guided warheads were ever a thing (do note, BALLISTIC missiles) so they were absolutely a method to soften the consequences of any misses.
>Isn't it exhausting to care what people who can't see who you are think of you?
I'm pretty sure your self-assured arrogance isn't going to change how you feel about me, you've made that perfectly clear. As for how I feel about that: I don't give a fuck.
>Can't we just have nice, ego-free discussions
Mmm. I don't think there's an ego problem here.
>where we all contribute what we have and try to each come away having more than we started with?
Did you miss the part where the discussion was about Mars being a military dictatorship and nuking Earth? I ask because that actually happened and you're acting like this discussion had a chance to begin with, it's just been retarded banter.
>>8006002
>What did Musk contribute?
Yes, comrade. He is of Kulak parasite class, preying on honest, stronk worker, giving nothink to society.
When the commies seized "the means of production" from rich factory-owners, they tended to discover, to their horror, that the factories no longer produced the same goods, at least not to the same quality, in nearly the same quantity. The owners themselves were an essential part of "the means of production", with their clarity of purpose, their networks of connections, their other resources to draw on in troubled times, and their management skills.
There's always luck involved to a certain degree, but Musk is one of the smartest, most focused, most practical, and hardest-working people on the planet. He manages. He makes deals. He chooses directions. He picks people to delegate authority to, and decides when to take it away again. If he had fallen into money just by luck, he might have started Tesla and SpaceX and built a car and a rocket as vanity projects for a while before running out of money, but he turned them both into cutting-edge, industry-leading businesses.
You know what normally happens to people when millions of dollars falls into their laps from a lottery win or surprise inheritance from distant relatives? They end up broke again in a few years. Even tends to happen to rich kids, when their parents just leave them money instead of raising them into the family business.
You go on thinking like a bone-deep third-rate man, though: everyone more successful than you is just lucky. America doesn't need the world's top 0.1%. It could settle for its own top 0.1%, and this wouldn't cost anything at all...
>>8006045
>You know what normally happens to people when millions of dollars falls into their laps from a lottery win or surprise inheritance from distant relatives? They end up broke again in a few years.
As somebody who grew up dirt poor I can explain this in one simple sentence: Poor people simply do not understand money, it is an intangible, fleeting force in their minds.
When you live hand to mouth, paycheck to paycheck, money stops being a resource and instead it's a bi-weekly event that allows you to do things in a limited amount of time. It's hilariously fucked up to see that mindset when I go back home and realize, "holy shit, I was like that at one point too." Without properly weaning the mind out of that mode of thinking anyone who obtains a surplus of cash will piss it away as fast as possible, it's almost a guarantee.
>>8006045
Good for him
But this sort of concept of "America" is a fantasy of internationalists or globalists. Where America is a country independent of its populace, its just an idea or a proposition.
Do these people feel any real loyalty to an "America"? A lot of them don't, especially the jews.
>>8004823
not the one you are talking to, but i felt like adding to the discussion.
From this site, http://spaceflight101.com/spacerockets/falcon-9-v1-1-f9r/
the lower stage is about 420,700 kg loaded and the upper stage is about 96,600 kg loaded.
also the whole "first stage vs booster"-discussion seems rather arbitrary, as it seems that most documentation i can find use both, sometimes like this:
>The return flight of the first stage booster starts at the moment of separation from the Falcon 9 second stage that is delivered to a trajectory from where it can boost the payload into its desired orbit. First stage burn duration in missions that include a propulsive return is on the order of 160 seconds.
>>8006385
also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Booster_(rocketry)
>A booster rocket (or engine) is either the first stage of a multistage launch vehicle, or else a shorter-burning rocket used in parallel with longer-burning sustainer rockets to augment the space vehicle's takeoff thrust and payload capability. (Boosters used in this way are frequently designated "zero stages".)
>>8006129
Damn globalists. Why do they want to destroy anyway?
Jesus, /sci/. Talk about tl;dr. At least it isn't trolling buffoonery. Hats off to you.
>>8002411
Also China is planning to launch their second station this year in September.
>>8003345
but higher impulse density, which is ideal for the high-thrust first stage.
