Can someone please explain to me why this idiot wants to go to mars instead of making a moon base?
>Mars is 6-9 months away, if anything happens on mars you are fucked
>moon is close and can rescue get supplies and rescue parts in a short time
>Virtually no coming back from mars
>No H3 to mine
>No magnetic shielding
>No confirmed water
>Moon can be used for space port and space craft building for future studies
Why mars instead the much closer and cheaper moon?
>>8150505
Because the moon landing was fake and they don't want to reveal the film studio on the dark side.
But seriously. It's about achievement and culture I guess.
H3 mining is retarded futurist nonsense that will never be economical, even if fusion reactors became a reality today.
Getting significant amounts of water from Martian regolith is not believed to be a problem.
The notion that the moon is 'closer' to Earth, and can be used as a port in between other destinations, fails to take into account astrodynamics, in which delta-V is the main consideration.
Mars has an atmosphere (which is extremely handy for ISRU), has fairly heterogeneous regolith, and is overall the most Earth-like planet in the solar system.
>>8150513
>Because the moon landing was fake and they don't want to reveal the film studio on the dark side.
That doesn't even make sense. How would it expose it as fake?
>>8150521
Because the robots made the movie, no human crew.
>>8150527
You do realize there's been tons of Russian landings, a Chinese landing, and you can see the shit everyone leaves behind still up there.
Fucktard.
Publicity, pure and simple. There's nothing on Mars that can't be found for far less effort closer to Earth.
>>8150505
>More resources to establish a base
>Less energy required to send a large lander to Mars
>Mars is better for colonization
>>8150516
>Mars has an atmosphere
Not really, not to mention phobos will likely blow up mars surface and tear up the atmopshere in the process
>>8150521
he might have been sarcastic, you know
>>8150613
This
>>8150505
because moon is already an alien base.
>>8150607
>Less energy required to send a large lander to Mars
What? Mars is way farther away and has a short window for launches
>>8150516
>and is overall the most Earth-like planet in the solar system.
Venus is far more earthlike for floating habitats
Everything on mars will be done remotely, just like on Venus, however you'll have a nice temperature/atmosphere, unlimited wind energy, and 90% of a G which may or may not be extremely important
>>8150634
aerobraking is free delta V
>>8150505
because the moon is easy
>>8150643
>floating habitats
Not this shit again
>>8150651
?
Enjoy walking around on mars in a fucking spacesuit, and counting the days until you get organ failure from the low gravity
Meanwhile I'll be flying a glider around on venus
>>8150505
If you set aside the difference in distance from Earth, Mars is objectively a far better colonization target in every single way. It's not even easier or more fuel efficient to launch moon missions. The return on investment for Mars is far greater too.
I can drop a list of points if you like.
>>8150648
No it's not
>>8150651
Venusfag is as stubborn as a klingon and as unrelenting as a romulan
>>8150660
>Venusfag is as stubborn as a klingon and as unrelenting as a romulan
kek
And he never goes away, like some sort of Dominion super-herpes
>>8150654
>counting the days until you get organ failure from the low gravity
No research on this yet, one-third gravity is not the same as no gravity
Venus has no way to gain local resources or an effective way to resupply floating habitats without basically flying a missile into it.
>>8150671
You would have something similar to elevators
>>8150660
>I can drop a list of points if you like.
That would be great so we can use it as a copypasta for people who in the upcoming months will be asking the same question on WHY NOT THE MOON IT HAS H3!!!!!
>>8150643
Well I certainly won't disagree with all that. But then again I also think zepplin/airship technology shouldn't have been abandoned when it was. With all of our advances in aerodynamics since the piston age it could've been glorious.
>>8150681
Do we even have any use for H3? Isnt it just toted as a fuel for the currently non-existent fusion reactors?
>>8150702
>Epstein Drive when???
>>8150614
>I was only joking, I'm not samefagging at all!!!
Double Fucktard.
>>8150702
H3 is only good for research purposes at this point, and even then we can basically make it on earth easier for the limited tests we run
Because humans have never left earth and everything is only a show to keep you from asking important questions, like why aren't we told earth is flat
>muh MOON
We could go to an entire new planet and you want to go to the shitting moon? Are you kidding me?
>>8150505
Because Musk is a smart man that understands people's motivations.
The number of people who actually give a shit about space exploration is small, and the number that care about Luna even smaller because most of them are hopping up and down screaming MARSMARSMARSMARS!
In their minds there's no point going to the moon because we "been there done that"
But Luna has great potential for astronomy, controversial scientific research and tourism. In Futurama Bender joked about a moon park with black jack and hookers, but that might actually be a good idea. A lot of casinos have a minimum pay to play amount, some stupid people dump everything they have into the game. If the casino was on the moon just being there guarantees you're rich enough to play in a high stakes game. Also nobody can tell you not to fuck whores--who makes the laws on the moon? Nobody. There are thousands of millionaires who are curious about space and wouldn't mind spending a weekend on the moon, but don't necessarily want to live there for years as they'd have to on Mars. For Luna you could take off on Sunday and be back home on Earth by Saturday.
>>8150731
people think distance matters. But if shit goes wrong on moon or mars, you are fucked with our current space tech. However, with 3d printing and such mars is much more forgiving than the moon, especially to micro meteors
>>8150660
>>8150681
Well, let's see…
• Greater variety of raw materials
• Much greater quantity of raw materials
• Raw materials are more readily available for consumption (atmosphere, huge slabs of ice)
• 1/3 Earth gravity is a hell of a lot more than 1/6 (moon) and will most certainly have greatly reduced detrimental effects
• The martian atmosphere, even being as thin as it is, reduces fuel needed for landing there
• Surface temperatures are FAR more temperate than those of the surface of the moon
• Ambient radiation on the surface of Mars is far less than that of the surface of the moon
• Martian colonies would give us a second entirely separate (and far less fuel intensive) launch point in the Solar System positioned perfectly for science and industry in the asteroid belt and giving a second set of launch windows
• Genetic modification of plants to grow on the Martian surface is within reason, but 100% impossible on the moon
>>8150654
the lack of hydrogen to make water makes venus shit though not to mention going to orbit is much much harder. we also lack any kind of experience in construction of floating habitats. on mars that stuff can atleast be simulated to a degree.
>>8150781
thanks man
>>8150783
Wouldn't floating habitats also be much easier on mars as well since wind systems and such are much easier to predict unlike venus where 1000+ mph are common?
>>8150505
no confirmed water? on mars? are you retarded? curiosity even proved there is much more water on mars than we thought up to 12 percent of the regolith in some samples were ice. not to mention the poles wich are not only made up of dry ice but also regular ice.
also the moon severely lacks ressources, the low geological activity and lack of an athmosphere etc. mean that you dont really have ores anywhere instead most metals etc. are pretty evenly distributed throughout the regolith.
moon
>no atmosphere
>basically no magnetic field
>gravity is all fucked up
>struck by 5 tons of comet every day, not safe and dust always flying about
>nothing useful inside of it
>OP trying to act like he knows what he's talking about in any way as if he's flabbergasted that Elon Musk could even conceive such an idea
shut the fuck up OP. you're probably some 18 year old that is maybe in his first year of university who shitposts on /sci/ instead of studying
>>8150681
we can just use tritium made out of lithium instead though. or wait until it decays into he3 and use that. as long as he3 competes with tritium its not going to be competetive.
>>8150789
Ho2 I mean not carbondioxide shit
28 days long day/night cycle is the biggest factor.
It pretty much limits you to polar regions for sunlight. But even then, you'd have to land on a fucking peak/crater rim to get the sunlight.
If you could somehow do it, exploration would be a no-go, as surrounding terrain would be chaotic as fuck. The Sun being low on the horizon would compound the problem, elongating every asperity's shadow to infinity.
>>8150765
That's not necessarily true. It depends on the situation.
We don't know what sort of affects low G will have on babies. It will probably make weaker bones, but that may not be permanent and there's a difference between micro-gravity, 1/4 gravity and 1/16 gravity. If a woman gets pregnant she can come home and stay for 9 months, skipping all that. On Mars this is impossible, distance DOES matter.
If man's appendix swells and is about to burst he can come back to Earth and have it removed at any hospital....interesting related story:
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/03/antarctica-1961-a-soviet-surgeon-has-to-remove-his-own-appendix/72445/
>this requires a level of badassness I could ever hope to achieve, what sort of man could cut into his own guts? I'd just fucking die.
>>8150801
what are you on about I just said confimed HO2 on mars as ice in the mars dust and as part off the ice on the poles. the OTHER part of the ice being CO2..
>>8150815
>I just said confimed HO2 on mars as ice
source?
>>8150803
>28 days long day/night cycle is the biggest factor.
No it's not. Have you've never heard of fuel cells? RTGs? Every module could have it's own. Maybe even some kind of modular PM-3A nuclear reactor for the entire site.
>>8150820
Good luck with thermal management.
>>8150804
This is why the transition between 5-man outpost to 100+ colony to 1000+ city must happen as quickly as possible if human presence on Mars is to have any level of permanence. It's also why any form of manned Earth to Mars transportation after the first couple of flights needs to be able to carry more than 5-10 people.
You need specialists from as many fields as possible to make long-term habitation feasible, which means that sending people to Mars is an all or nothing endeavor. You can't just throw 5 guys in a tin can at Mars once every launch window.
>>8150804
Didn't say babies, chances are if you are born on mars you ain't going to earth any time soon you'd be a space baby for life, or you'd need some really fucking intensive phyEd program for it
>>8150803
>I have no idea what I'm talking about
the post
>>8150830
Imagine growing up knowing that you're the first individual in the hundreds of thousands of years of your species' history to be born both on Mars and anywhere other than Earth. It'd be a hell of a trip.
>>8150822
Don't need luck, we have multiple demonstrated spacecraft examples for 2/3 of my suggestions. Most were in the past, some are still currently operating.
How can you not be aware of this?
Also, if when I mentioned an RTG you're thinking of that scene in the Martian where the guy actually puts one inside his habitat volume that's not at all the implementation I would suggest, but assumed that was obvious.
>>8150830
Do you even lift?
Is it worth sending a Bowflex to Mars for the colonists or should they just bring in big rocks for their gym. I wouldn't waste resources 3D printing a fancy weight set.
>>8150737
>Luna
You do realize that's the Latin word for moon right?
You don't call Earth "Terra" do you?
>>8150833
Well I'm curious how you propose to generate power to heat your base for 14 days strait without any solar input.
>>8150835
Fuel cells would require a constant flux of hydrogen/oxygen to be shipped there.
RTGs are fine for probes or rovers, but not for bases. We're running out of plutonium for them anyway.
So we're left with nuclear reactors. Congratulations, you've solved your heating the base problem. Now the problem is to avoid frying the astronauts.
>>8150852
>Fuel cells would require a constant flux of hydrogen/oxygen to be shipped there.
Yeah. And? oxygen and hydrogen will have to be shipped there anyway, would you like to guess why?
>RTGs are fine for probes or rovers, but not for bases.
Why aren't they? Do you really think that they can not be scaled up or just have multiple RTGs for one habitat.
>We're running out of plutonium for them anyway.
We're not running out in the sense that there just isn't anymore that exists, we simply need to ramp up production again--litterlly the only thing needed to do that is gov approval.
>So we're left with nuclear reactors. Congratulations, you've solved your heating the base problem. Now the problem is to avoid frying the astronauts.
Well yes, I suppose the astronauts will be fried if they live in the same place where the reactor is located, but any reasonable person understands that you do not do this, you put the reactor in a crater 60 miles away. Believe it or not, there are ways to transport power over distance.
>>8150874
But you wouldn't need to ship them on Mars.
Which actually remove the need for the nuke options. Which would be much easier there, btw, because there's a medium in which to dissipate heat.
>>8150874
>have H2O on mars readily available
This solves a fuck load of problems by this one simple fact
>>8150874
Moving the reactor far away means you can't use it for hear, but then if you can transport the power with cables or via microwaves I suppose you can also transport heat by piping out heated water (SOME most needs to be kept for the reactor).
>>8150890
True, but I see no reason why we shouldn't have people in both places. The Moon and Mars will require different things.
>>8150901
>The Moon and Mars will require different things.
yes, Mars requires less of them
>>8150903
Don't be so autistic, not everyone who wants to visit space wants to be there for a long time, and they shouldn't have to there's a market for both.
>>8150925
I was merely stating that if you were to look at things required that mars would require less of everything compared to the moon. Even if you counter in radiation for travel.
>>8150935
>Even if you counter in radiation for travel.
So you're saying 6 months of radiation from interplanetary travel is no big deal?
>>8150966
depends how you shield it, relandable rockets make it affordable
>>8150741
>To be fair, if humans are serious about colonizing space Mars is the only reasonable choice.
Absolute bullshit, pic related.
Hey, I work in LA...should I buy a new home in Pasadena or THE MIDDLE OF THE MOJAVE DESERT?
Best bet for mitigating radiation risks is just to speed up the craft to shorten travel.
They should be researching a higher powered version of VASIMIR to cut journey time down to 40 days.
>>8151010
>muh L1 tube
>>8151014
So tired of seeing this meme vasimir 40 day travel everywhere. It's sci-fi figures all the way. From power generation to propulsion efficiency, not to mention super-conductor materials that we don't even know can even exist.
It's oversold tech to make a living of pretend to develop technology to milk NASA.
>>8150505
Can't land on the moon because of the space Nazis
>>8151020
>muh L1 tube
L5, numbskull.
And anyway, before he invented those things, O'Neill was ardent about first building a moonbase for resources.
Gotta walk before you can run. This guy >>8150737 gets it, though...Musk is a genius at self promotion. SpaceX exists solely to relieve the US of the embarrassment of launching astronauts and payloads on Russian rockets, but there he is, catering to fantasies centered on Matt Damon movies...
Musk has a dream and it is a big dream.
>>8150516
Hey tard you don't land on the moon to refuel, you do it in lunar orbit or in some orbit between geo and llo.
>>8151124
You process moon rock into fuel in then drop it in lowish earth orbit
Suppose you are getting energy from Mars, when you set up the generators, how do you get energy from Mars to Earth?
You send batteries back and forth?
>>8150645
Most if not all of the Flat-earth/9-11/moonhoax shitposting are ironic though
>>8150505
Kennedy said:
"Not because they are easy, but because they are hard".
We arent in the cold war anymore but we are still simians. Meaning we have to constantly prove ourselves or other apes will think we are weak.
>>8150505
Some esoteric knowledge that will really reshape humanity.
>>8151219
>Meaning we have to constantly prove ourselves or other apes will think we are weak.
This. Chimps will rip us to fucking shreds if they see our weakness. The only apes that aren't waiting for the moment to become the dominant species are bonobos because they're too busy fucking to start war.
>>8151191
>Suppose you are getting energy from Mars
No.
>when you set up the generators
What generators?
>how do you get energy from Mars to Earth?
Why would we be doing this? Are you mentally challenged?
>>8150654
>Wanting to fly through a carbon dioxide atmosphere filled with sulfur clouds
You're a big guy
You know, if overpopulation starts to be a serious thing, there are lots of vacant places on earth with much more favorable conditions than other planets, like the deserts, and the poles, and the oceans.
Mars is 6-9 months away
PLUS
1 year waiting for a good return orbit
PLUS
6-9 months return
Mars is 2 years away.
It's more easy
Wouldn't it be an idea to test out shit like habitats, power-generation, life support, shielding and so on on the Moon before going of to Mars? In a perfect world where budgets dont exist and all that crap, but still...
>>8150788
floating habitats were only proposed for Venus because the surface is uninhabitable (its hotter than the surface of mercury IIRC)
I read somewhere once that making the first martian base in a crater was still being researched, makes scenes given pic
>>8151360
You can return immediately or something
Its actually slightly illegal to go back to the moon:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/51/70505
>(a)Establishment.—
>As the Administration works toward the establishment of a lunar outpost, the Administration shall make no plans that would require a lunar outpost to be occupied to maintain its viability. Any such outpost shall be operable as a human-tended facility capable of remote or autonomous operation for extended periods.
>(b)Designation.—
>The United States portion of the first human-tended outpost established on the surface of the Moon shall be designated the “Neil A. Armstrong Lunar Outpost”.
>>8150781
Bout fuckin time, it seemed like no one has the sense to attribute its [Mars] proximity to the fuckin Asteroid belt - raw material.
Fuckin amateurs, speculating amusement parks and general faggotry, baka, it's all about that fuckin pantheon of platinum statues.
Mars is closer to Titan, which is the most viable candidate in the outer solar system for further colonization.
Prove me wrong.
>>8151324
Nothing wrong with a carbon dioxide atmosphere, sulfur is very low concentrations.
Wheras on mars you are literally living in a fucking vacuum.
Really, venus is far more practical as a long term colonization target.
Why not both?
>>8151199
>>ironic
Have you argued with these people? I'm sure a lot of them are religious cultists.
Also look at flat earth videos and how many upvotes they get. There are tons of people that believe this crap.
>>8150505
I have heard it argued that, given the fact that Mars has some atmosphere and almost surely has frozen water, that even though it takes longer to reach, sustaining a base there would be easier.
Of course, the downside is that the Earth obstructs your view of Venus, oh my.
>>8150608
>Not really,
Yes, really. Not a breathable one, but it has one, that gives you benefits like moderation of temperature extremes, etc.
>not to mention phobos will likely blow up mars surface and tear up the atmopshere in the process
Phobos is pretty small, even if it did for some reason impact the planet in the lifetimes of any of us or our descendants for many generations.
>>8150643
>nice temperature
>Venus
Wat cat demands an explanation, are you mad of liquid lead or something?
>>8150679
Not any time soon you wouldn't.
http://www.popsci.com/carbon-nanotubes-cant-handle-space-elevator
>>8150788
Hard to make things float in a thin atmosphere though. An airship that would fly easily on Venus might struggle to get off the ground on Earth and be essentially a surface structure on Mars.
>>8150822
What is insulation. Big piles of dirt would be a good cheap way to go.
>>8150521
The moon landings were faked in a soundstage on the moon.
The only thing they sent to the moon were shipments of crackers, to pay the moon people for the fake landing footage.
>>8150901
>Moving the reactor far away means you can't use it for hear, but then if you can transport the power with cables or via microwaves I suppose you can also transport heat by piping out heated water (SOME most needs to be kept for the reactor).
Here on Earth, I use electricity from a nuclear reactor many miles away to run an electric furnace that heats my house. Presumably moon people will be smart enough to think of this, as well.
>>8150992
Our only available evidence for the economic viability of "relandable" spacecraft indicates otherwise
>>8151228
>The only apes that aren't waiting for the moment to become the dominant species are bonobos because they're too busy fucking to start war.
And the Gorillas, they are too busy trying to save our children when we toss them into the enclosure.
>>8151352
This is absolutely true, and absolutely irrelevant to the discussion.
>>8151502
yeah but you'd be on the fucking moon
what are they gonna do to you lmao
>>8151571
Yeah, establishing some industrial capability on Mars and launching asteroid belt prospecting and mining missions from there makes way more sense than trying to cope with increased gravity and distance by doing the same from Earth.
Industrial establishment would be expensive initially but should pay itself off quickly, as both Earth and Martian colonies would have use for the extracted resources. And really, more than anything what you need to build things like factories are people. Send the bare minimum needed equipment and have the people you sent along with said equipment to manufacture everything needed locally. Once you've cleared that hurdle the sky is the limit.
>>8150521
It's called a joke
>>8152031
this isn't the /joke/ board. this is the science and mathematics board. go practice your jokes somewhere else, nobody cares here.
>>8150781
another thing: Mars has a short night-day period. Any permanent base on the Moon has to deal with 14 days of darkness and cold at a time. The few manned missions to the Moon were brief and timed to be during periods of daylight.
>>8152269
Not only is it short, it's almost identical to Earth's night-day cycle (24 hours 40m), so it clicks nicely with human biology.
>>8151797
they will send the space border patrol
>>8150516
>delta-V
Since the moon goes around the earth doesn't it mean that once per month the moon has a higher velocity relative to the sun compared to the earth?
Doesn't that mean that timing rockets with this event should result in a increased delta v?
>>8153817
Yes, that combined with the lack of atmosphere makes it a pretty good spacecraft launching platform. But that's really the only thing you can do there.
Mars is flat
>>8150505
Because he wants to "backup" humanity in case of a catastrophe like a giant asteroid/comet impact or pandemic.
Mars is a much better target for long term colonization than the moon.
The moon does have its use, but it wouldn't be suited for long term colonies.
Anyway space stations would be even better for that purpose. But building space colonies is an even bigger challenge (and more costly).
>H3
Get those fusion reactors working first boi.
>>8150516
>The notion that the moon is 'closer' to Earth, and can be used as a port in between other destinations, fails to take into account astrodynamics, in which delta-V is the main consideration.
If you want to get to Mars without dying from radiation along the way, you need a lot more delta-V than you would need to get to the moon.
>>8150505
>Mars is 6-9 months away, if anything happens on mars you are fucked
if anything happens on the moon you're also fucked. Also a moonbase willl probably be a station to go to before going to mars anyway, you're just too stupid to get information and now you're maing up shit.
>moon is close and can rescue get supplies and rescue parts in a short time
No, when you're fucked on the moon you're fucked, period.
>Virtually no coming back from mars
We won't send people if they can't come back.
>No H3 to mine
Also not on the moon, Did't i tell you already you're making things up because you're not looking for information?
>No magnetic shielding
Also not on the moon
>No confirmed water
You're wrong agin, 3rd time is enough to cal you a filthy liar isn't it?
>Moon can be used for space port and space craft building for future studies
So it will be. for going to fucking mars.
>>8150505
Because whoever colonizes mars first is fucking king of Mars. If he can get an independently ran colony built on the planet he would essentially own it until another power of equal size came to contest it.
Maybe, the most important question is, why not?
You've got the technology to do do it anyway.
>>8154513
Nobody's "dying from radiation along the way".
Figures have it you'll have a 1% increase of cancer risk in your life time. Which is already 20% btw.
>>8156304
Mars is nobodys to conquer. What are you gonna do if I rape your shit on Mars into pieces and build my own on top of it ?
There are no laws for any parties that agree about the ownership of land for anywhere else other than Earth. There is literally, legally or internationally nothing you can do to stop getting wrecked when it comes to Mars.
>>8156316
Don't worry Anon. We'll find a way to make it like home.
>>8151797
JUDGEMENT GUN MORPHING
>>8153817
No, because to get there, you'd have to expend a large amount of Delta-V than just launching from LEO.
>>8156316
While this may be true at first, I expect nations will fucking tear themselves apart, when asteroid belt mining becomes a thing.
Nothing like a ton of gold dropping from the sky.
>>8156316
I believe I covered that when I said:
>Until another power of equal size came to contest it.
![planetwar_rmeeyppz[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/jiTKbjP.jpg "planetwar_rmeeyppz[1].jpg")
>>8156316
>>8156320
>>8156342
>>8156343
When are we getting Mars divided into separate nations and having our MW1 ? Keep in mind that the generations that are born and grow up on Mars will look significantly different from us due to the gravity and the ecologic structure of Mars.
I say we see the first planet-scale Mars warfare before 2300s
>>8156347
My approach is that a Mars civilization will certainly have orbital nursery for women to bear their child, if (and most likely) it turns out gravity isn't enough for fetus development
>>8156347
I think it depends on the political climate back on earth. If we are still as divided as we are now we probably would see conflict. If we all come together under a one world government (as painful as it sounds) we could probably create a "Federation" that could govern all the planets and resources in our solar system and squash any world wars from happening.
Unifying as a people would be ideal for a space faring species.
>>8156359
what kind of preventitive effects would low gravity have on pregnancy ?
>>8150505
There IS confirmed water in the soil of mars in the form of ice dumb dumb, and the moon doesn't have "magnetic shielding" either ya dumb-dumb. Also your first three points were pretty much all the same point. Space colonization at this time is a watse of money, time, and resources whether that be the moon or mars yo
>>8156361
We don't know yet is the answer.
It helps that the fetus develops in a liquid, so we can infer that it wouldn't be much.
However, it could make it weaker when it comes to muscles, heart power, and bone structure. Brain development is the most unknown and worrying, I guess.
>>8153817
You guyz madeded that wurd up cuz it sounds cool liek mach 5 huh?
>>8156360
>muh one world socialist government will lead to paradise!
fuck off you idiotic commies
>>8156360
Let's be honest, conflict on Mars will be a thing among Martians.
"Hello, this is Earth. We just sent your enemy nukes, that will arrive in about 6 months."
>>8156370
I'm not saying I would like it. I'm as free capitalistic conservative nationalist as it gets. I just think if we had 5+ nations trying to fight for territory in space it would complicate things.
I think a fix would be to basically do what everyone jokes about and have America run the solar system. You'd let people have their independently governed territories like states, but all of the big things are ran by a federal government. It makes sense.
>>8156376
Nah, that may be a thing at first.
But once Mars is really independent from Earth resources, they'll break away.
You can't just send a police/military force there to get them in line. The delay is always gonna play in their favor.
>>8156383
Assuming the travel time stays the same then yeah it would make sense for Mars to govern itself separately. So for the immediate future a Martian planetary government would make sense for the same reasons that the US broke off from the British crown.
I was more thinking about down the line after our ship tech may (or may not, I know fuck all about ships and space theory) allow us to reach Mars in a period of a few weeks or less rather than a half year. (Again this would be very far down the line.)
>>8156376
multi-national projects just turn into fucking disasters as inevitably one country doesn't pull their weight
Spacex's success comes from being able to make immediate decisions, sane decisions, not being beholden to 1000 different groups, and vertically integrating everything together in one company.
Look at how much the ISS has cost, and its literally fucking nothing
>>8150834
they'd probably be a massive cunt
>>8151767
>nice temperature
>Venus
It's a nice temperature in the upper atmosphere of Venus where the pressure is approx. 1 atm. where floating habitats would be located.
>mars
kek
>>8156399
That's a very big leap in technology. In fact we don't know of anything that would get us there in this time-frame.
Planets alignment still remains a thing, even if you can travel faster than conventional rockets. So you have launch windows, no matter how advanced your technology is.
>>8150505
Moon, Mars, no difference. There's no rational reason to colonize either. The benefits aren't worth the cost.
It's conspicuous consumption, like buying a megayacht or having giant-ass parades. Except that today, everything needs a pseudo-moral rationalization, so Musk talks about how superhero comics inpired him to save the world.
>>8156525
Yeah, I assume it would take 3-5 decades of our current method of travel (after we already landed) to figure out something fast enough.
I know there are some very reasonable doubts that lightspeed travel is even possible to begin with, but if we keep the momentum we've had the last 10 years I think we'll eventually learn.
Based on my nonexistent knowledge on anything.
>>8150505
sustainability
/thread
>>8156563
probably one of the dumbest posts I've read this year
>>8156735
Yup.
Humanity has always been a race of explorers. We find out new ways to go to new places just because we can. Space is the ultimate Frontier in that aspect.
It also can be outhere last hope if this planet becomes too contaminated somehow.
The technology is finally at a point where we can touch the stars, and there is power in getting there first. Why wouldn't we try to be the first?
These people make no sense.
>>8150822
fuel cells also produce heat, in addition to water and electricity
>go to moon
>20cm asteroid traveling at high speed kills everyone as they sleep
or
>go to mars
>20cm asteroid burns up
>>8150634
delta-v to the moon is pretty similar for mars
>>8157148
Doesn't mars have areobraking making shit much easier?
>>8157165
the problem with that is it takes a lot of time to do it safely and efficiently
aero capture is also pretty dangerous
if you get the angle wrong then you'll burn up or have to waste fuel
ESAfag here
The moon has all the essential chemical properties for human life, ice traced in the polar surfaces as well as compounds of oxygen found in the soil (which can be used to create water) can sustain a lunar base.
A colony on Mars would be completely useless, and as >>8151010 put it, a colony on the Moon would actually be extremely useful, not only for the trivial reasons like "overpopulation" or "resource exhaustion" but also cheaper launches, 1/10 the price that on Earth.
Did you know that it takes 1000kg of propellant to lift 1kg of payload into space?
Building a base on the moon would accelerate space technology to a whole new, unimaginable level.
>>8157224
and as far as I'm concerned, this is a long-term project that they've been working on. Before they get anything down on the moon, expect a space station and few satellites first within a space of 10-20 years
>>8157224
>Building a base on the moon would accelerate space technology to a whole new, unimaginable level.
Only if a meaningful level of manufacture (that is, 90%+ of it) all the way from mining to end product occurs on the moon.
Mars would support a greater range of industry with little or no support from Earth after getting that initial kickstart thanks to the large variety of materials available. Moon manufacturing will always require Earth imports.
>>8157240
as far as I'm informed, the Moon has as capable of resources as Mars in terms of mining.
how will a base on mars do anything? the risks involved are so huge and its sustenance will cost a ridiculous amount. You think once they send off god knows how many rockets to mars in the first run of making this "colony" they won' need to send more?
How will colonizing Mars even be profitable or appealing to "settlers"? Most people willing to commit their lives to living in complete isolation are considered far too psychologically unstable for a short flight, let alone spending their whole lives in a fragile hub in the middle of nowhere.
>>8157224
>ESAfag
I can tell. NASA already went to the moon. If you fags want to pay for another trip, go ahead. We're going to Mars.
>>8157254
For any of the settlers, going to Mars will be a life goal of theirs. The isolation is nothing compared to the chance to live their dream.
>>8157254
Not just mining. There's a lot that can be done with the atmosphere on Mars, for instance.
And no, I'm not under the delusion that they're going to be able to stop sending rockets after a few years. They'll probably have to keep the pace up for at least a decade. However, there is a tipping point where most of whatever equipment and materials needed to set up manufacturing capabilities has been provided and most necessities can be produced locally. This isn't possible on the moon because there's a lot of stuff that isn't on the moon and can't be produced from materials that are on the moon.
>>8157265
Yes. Living (and possibly dying) on Mars is not just a once-in-a-lifetime chance, it's a once-in-a-species chance. Better yet, because there aren't billions of people on Mars, you have an actual chance at having real tangible impact and purpose even if you're just a janitor or a cook. Lots of folks would trade an easy life for tat.
>>8157277
Also, growing plants without a dome is a very real possibility on Mars - parts of Mars seasonally have temperatures as high as 68F° and we've already grown things in Mars regolith simulant here on Earth, and that's without any kind of genetic manipulation. The ability to grow plants without having to build domes is a huge advantage and could provide several resources critical to self-sufficiency. That's impossible on the moon.
>>8150505
The main reason is because Mars has the best shot at finding evidence of extraterrestrial life.
Technically Europa or Titan might have a better shot, but they are virtually impossible to land humans on with our current tech/costs.
Yes we have rovers, but they are slow and limited in their abilities. A team of human scientists on the surface would blow the rover science out of the water.
It's also easier to get people excited about Mars and thus get funding, as the moon is yesterday's news to the general public.
>>8156765
>Humanity has always been a race of explorers. We find out new ways to go to new places just because we can.
Yep, that's called conspicuous consumption. Doing something expensive because you can.
>It also can be outhere last hope if this planet becomes too contaminated somehow.
People recycle this as if it made sense. Back in reality, there is no realistic scenario where a colony on Mars allows humanity to survive if it can't survive on Earth. Cosmic disasters like GRBs, supernovas or rogue stars would kill life on Mars too. Catastrophes on Earth will not make Earth less livable than Mars, no amount of contamination can do that. Mars is more deadly than Earth ever will be during the lifetime of the human species. And you would need a completely self-sufficient colony that requires no support from Earth. Totally out of scope cost-wise.
There is no business model. There is nothing of value to be mined or produced on Mars that would be worth the cost.
But hey, keep pretending we skeptics are the ones who make no sense.
>>8157587
Ultimately we have to go interstellar to ensure our survival, but we have to start somewhere, and the clock is ticking.
>>8151771
popsci is not a legitimate source. The problem with carbon nanotubes mainly boiled down to "current manufacturing techniques cannot produce a rope strong enough to support a space elevator, and it will presumably be some time before creating ropes meeting the required specifications is possibly". These breakthroughs may or may not ever happen, and we may develop a more suitable replacement before carbon nanotube manufacturing is perfected (boron nanotubes come to mind).
And for the record, kevlar rope may be perfectly fine for a Martian space elevator.
>>8157598
>These breakthroughs may or may not ever happen,
Synthetic biology seems not many decades off from materials production, where I would imagine carbon allotropes would be a relatively easy target, though I agree with the majority of the rest of your post.
>>8157595
I don't mean to be rude, but this is another silly meme that fails under skeptical evaluation.
Yes, eventually the sun will exhaust its fuel and heat up the Earth to the point where we can't survive. But this doesn't pose a serious limitation in the next billion years. That's a billion with a b. Humans have only been around for a couple of hundred thousand years. That's less than 0.1% of the time we still have left.
By then, they will no longer be human anymore anyway. Even if no Singularity or guided evolution happens, no species stays the same for such a period of time. It don't be "us" anymore anyway.
Also, time discounting is a thing. There are near-term objectives that have to be reached long long before space colonization becomes a survival necessity. For example, we need to avoid a slip into totalitarianism, rogue AI, pandemics and so on. Space colonization helps with none of these.
>>8157587
Do you not know there has been three world extinction events that we know of? Humans are still here because of luck. The sooner we spread out the less we have to worry about a single meteor wiping out the species.
>>8157605
>I don't mean to be rude, but this is another silly meme that fails under skeptical evaluation.
In principle I agree, but
>Yes, eventually the sun will exhaust its fuel and heat up the Earth to the point where we can't survive.
Only the extremely naive use this as the primary necessity for spreading out.
>For example, we need to avoid a slip into totalitarianism, rogue AI, pandemics and so on. Space colonization helps with none of these.
These are some of the types of things that proponents of space colonization argue it WILL help with, not to mention the "what if another object hits us like the dinosaurs" argument. Though it's grim as fuck and not exactly my view, it's hard to argue "having enough off-world colonies to survive and continue into the future in the case that Earth and/or its population becomes unsalvageable" is something achieved if this kind of colonization were successful.
>>8157608
Yes, there have been extinction events before, but I would argue it's easier to survive in shelters on Earth than to build a self-sufficient Mars colony that can bootstrap reverse colonization after losing contact with Earth.
As for asteroid impacts, space colonization and asteroid mining may actually increase the risk. Once you have industrial capacity in space, you can weaponize the gravity well. Just direct rocks to fall on Earth instead of missing it. Some people want to do things like these.
In the end, it's questionable how valuable humanity really is. Most people are pretty evil and cause a lot of suffering. On Earth, we are mostly replacing other suffering animals who would have existed anyway, but if space colonization really happens, that would multiply the total amount of suffering. I don't trust people to get a high quality of life if they create a high quantity. Humans torture all the time.
But none of this matters because the funding isn't there anyway, Musk can't afford a self-sufficient colony and there is no business incentive.
>>8156369
Dear god you should kill yourself.
And I refuse to believe this is just bait, not even your average troll is dumb enough to come up with a post like this. This is advanced retardation.
>>8156367
I doubt one third gravity would have super detrimental effects on things like brain development. The main worry would be babies being born with weak muscles and underdeveloped hearts, although it's hard to tell how much gravity influences fetal development at this point in time. Perhaps genetic engineering will have advanced enough by that time to counteract the decreased gravity.
>>8156383
>You can't just send a police/military force there to get them in line
Sure you can't economically send an invasion force to conquer an unruly planet, but you could always park one of these puppies in Low Mars Orbit and dare them to try something drastic.
>Can reach Mars in days to weeks
>Payload consists of 500 20 megaton nuclear warheads delivered by precision guided hypersonic reentry vehicles, with significant in-atmosphere maneuvering capability capable of hitting anywhere on the planet. All in this warship carries a combined yield of 10 gigatons, an unfathomable amount of firepower that can lay entire continents to waste
>Extensive defensive measures consisting of but not limited to: five 127 mm naval guns for CIWS defense against incoming missiles and boarding craft, ten specially designed Casaba howitzers firing classified munitions possibly used for pinpoint orbital bombardment, and a directed-energy weapon array consisting of high powered pulsed lasers that can fry anything from enemy satellites to ballistic missiles
>Carries a crew of 30 with sufficient supplies to last for months or even years. Power for life support and weapons systems is provided by a huge nuclear reactor near the rear of the ship. Depleted Uranium armor plating doubles as both protection from missile shrapnel and radiation. Carries five small spacecraft for ship servicing and crew escape.
>Propelled to enormous speed by detonating shaped nuclear charges behind the massive pusher plate. Warhead payload doubles as ship propulsion, saving weight and cost. Can reach outer solar system in a few months, if not less.
>Topping it all off, the Orion battleship comes in an optional unmanned version as well. Carrying a single 3 Gigaton warhead, the Orion can accelerate to top speed and perform a planetary kamikaze attack. Travelling at hundreds or perhaps thousands of kilometers per second, it makes its attack run. The combined kinetic and nuclear energy would destroy most of Europe.
>>8157647
Needless to say, this thing would fuck your day up, especially if you're a Martian separatist with little means of escape.
http://www.defenceaviation.com/2013/04/usaf-nuclear-powered-doomsday-machines.html
>>8157612
So when Yellowstone goes off, or a big meteor hits and everything on land dies from weeks-months of zero sunlight, you think living in bunkers is enough to keep humanity moving forward? You want that instead of us colonizing other planets and surviving instead of spending millenia getting back to where we were before the apocalypse happened.
So your answer to stop "space rocks" hitting earth is to all sit in the same target because humans 'could' make space rocks hit earth. Guess what, the people who attacked earth are humans that are not extinct from a space rock hitting earth....
Oh humanity is evil, blah blah. How about you go cut your wrist and save the universe from another evil human. You know, the universe where space rocks fly around and wipe entire planets clean of life for no reason. Oh woe is the beautiful, Good universe that is evil humans who protect our weak members that Nature commands to die might spread.
>>8157587
It's not "colony on mars"
It's living offworld in general
>>8157679
>So when Yellowstone goes off, or a big meteor hits and everything on land dies from weeks-months of zero sunlight, you think living in bunkers is enough to keep humanity moving forward?
Hahaha, oh wow. If you seriously believe that going to Mars helps you survive in such an event, while bunkers on Earth can't, then you're fucking retarded. Pro tipp retard: Mars is already dead. No vulcano eruption or asteroid impact will ever make Earth more deadly than Mars has always been.
>How about you go cut your wrist
Go to hell, retard. You are living proof that my misanthropic argument is factually correct. Why would I ever support people like you?
>>8157682
>I'm sure you'd be able to convince people to not go to Mars with misanthropy.
Of course not. But the argument is still correct. The inability of humanity to be rational and moral is the very reason why nothing good will ever come of it. Now think for a second: if I'm in a minority of people who actually give a shit, why would I support those who don't? This is why Musk is a bullshitter, all this self-absorbed pretentious talk about saving the world, newsflash retard, you're not making anything better, no matter what you're telling yourself.
Oh, and when he goes bankrupt and there are still people on Mars, guess who will have to pay billions in taxes to bail them out.
>>8158132
Remember, you're talking to people who think that a Martian colony would be self-sufficient because of 3D printers.
>>8150516
>retarded futurist nonsense
>he wants to go to fucking mars
You can't make this shit up. I wonder how much of the cyanide spiked Kool-Aid you'll drink when Elon starts handing it out.
>>8158132
Doesn't matter if the argument is correct or not. People aren't going to pay attention to it.
>>8158132
Thats why we need to go colonize venus, it'll be like living on platforms in the ocean, 50~ km above the surface.
If hydrogen is not found in good supply on venus, then I'm sure plenty can be found on nearby asteroids to ship to venus.
>>8158994
That's like saying it doesn't matter if evolution is real or not. People are going to be creationist.
First of all, that basically proves my misanthropic argument. Second, there are always some people who are still sane. I am addressing that minority, not the insane majority.
I said before that there is no business model and Musk can't afford a self-sufficient colony. So taxpayers are going to be asked to pay the difference. We can and should protest taxation for projects that don't benefit us.
Because that would start some serious globoeconomical shit.
>>8159240
Secondly*
Tax payers don't have to pay shit for a privately funded expedition. The people will fucking die due to issues dealing with the lack of gravity there. So he's technically contributing to what could ba your misanthropic ideal.
>>8150505
Because saying things like that gets you on news and it is really good for publicity/investor trust.
Also gov't may contract them for some reason to do it. Or they may become some kind of sub contractor on a gov't project if they show some kind of long range launch capability.
Moon base is a don't care in the eyes of media.
>>8159251
Tax payers also don't have to bail out large private banks, until they do.
My misanthropic ideal isn't that more people die shitty deaths, nothing is gained by that. The alternative is to stay on Earth, displace other suffering animals though selfish material consumption and make up for the lower death rate with a lower birth rate. That should be compatible enough with human nature.
>>8150505
Yes. The more media distractions from what actually matters on a social level the better. (for whom?)
Regardless of how likely an extinction event is to occur soon, to the best of our knowledge we're the very first intelligent species in history to have developed enough to potentially decouple its own fate from that of its own planet. With that in mind, it's immeasurably idiotic to not follow through with that possibility as soon as possible. What we have on our hands is not just the chance of a lifetime, century, or even a millennium - it's a chance that as far as we know only occurs once every several million or billion years, and whatever occurs within the next century (or even the next couple of decades) will dramatically change the course of our species' history for the rest of its existence.
How in the everliving fuck can anybody nonchalantly throw something like that away?
>>8160978
>How in the everliving fuck can anybody nonchalantly throw something like that away?
there is the question of whether or not our species is really worth preserving.
when you get older you may realize there's literally no point to anything we're doing, and leaving our planet just means spreading a pointless existence like a plague. It's your call though.
>>8150505
Idea for mars (or moon) survival:
>land on body
>drill into the body a good ways (~50 meters maybe)
>create a cavity underground and seal it to make it air-tight
>you now have a radiation-shielded and airtight area that won't be affected by weather if there is any
>don't need to worry about seismic activity probably either
>the ambient temperature will be easier to control too
>>8150505
who gets there first gets to set the rules and divide the territory later on.
>>8150513
>But seriously. It's about achievement and culture I guess.
Think that those "idiots" are starting space colonization, in 200 or 300 years this will be vital for the survival of humanity.
>>8163074
>in 200 or 300 years this will be vital for the survival of humanity.
No, it won't. Bullshit doesn't become true if your repeat it a lot.
We have another billion years on this planet before it becomes uninhabitable, possibly longer. Until then it will be the most habitable place in the known universe.
All we have to do is adjust our birth rate to the death rate and don't subsidize those who refuse to do so.
>>8163084
>All we have to do is adjust our birth rate to the death rate and don't subsidize those who refuse to do so.
"All we have to do is adjust our birth rate to the death rate and don't subsidize those who refuse to do so." that's the problem , Anon. Will be much cheaper colonizing space, if not in 200 or 300, in a thousand...
>>8163093
No, it really won't be cheaper. Not sure how you got that idea into your head. Too much sci fi?
>>8163102
From NASA, they are outsourcing the production of rockets because is cheaper. With time and long scale prodution will be chepear. Space tourism to Earth orbit is $250 thousand now, in 20 years will be $15 thousand. I really don't see or read science ficction, they not interesting, reality is much more.
>>8163102
Anon, you are not so smart, i almost 100% sure you have Lenin or Che Guevara posts in your badroom ceiling!
>>8163112
You are incorrect, and of course trying to distract from the issue.
Funny what happened to
>in 200 or 300 years this will be vital for the survival of humanity.
>>8163109
Even if space tourism to earth orbit was $200 there would still be no cheap habitat in space. The people who pop out children exponentially aren't the ones with the money anyway. The rich people who do space tourism have huge appartments on Earth, which are objectively much better than those doable off-world.
>>8163120
>The people who pop out children exponentially aren't the ones with the money anyway.
Have you seen Mormons? Holy fuck dude. Ivy league Mormon families are capital multiplication machines.
>>8163123
Point taken.
>>8163120
See how technology has developed over the past 200 years, how can you be so skeptical about the next 200 years? Our future is on space, and this initial effort today is essential for this. First let's explore the mineral resources of neighboring planets, to live on another planet is still a very distant reality.
>>8151785
kek'd
>>8151785
Is that why their arms were so rigid and constrained? It all makes sense now...
>>8151785
Many of the people are unaware that there were 6 successful missions landing on the moon, completing a total of 12 men who were able to walk on the lunar surface.
>Capitalism
>Not enough money for both
>People are too ambitious
>>8163128
>this initial effort today is essential for this
If technology is so good in 200 years and people are so rich, you can punt the problem to them instead of spending money in your lifetimes. And if you turn out to be wrong, e.g. because there's a nuclear world war or stagnation or something, then your money now would be wasted anyway.
If you do basic research now, there's the risk that other nations will steal it in the meantime.
>Our future is on space
Mine isn't. I think it's expensive, unethical (because of the extra suffering that would not naturally evolve), and I don't have kids anyway.
>>8150505
2many lizard ppl on Moon. Don't want another lizard president, now do we?
>>8163149
>If technology is so good in 200 years and people are so rich, you can punt the problem to them instead of spending money in your lifetimes.
HOW DO YOU THINK IT GETS SO GOOD, YOU FUCKING MONG?
>And if you turn out to be wrong, e.g. because there's a nuclear world war or stagnation or something, then your money now would be wasted anyway.
So would absolutely anything else we did with it.
>If you do basic research now, there's the risk that other nations will steal it in the meantime.
Are you stuck in the early 1900s?
>Mine isn't.
No one said yours was, "our" means humanity, I wont be going to space either because my life is too short.
>unethical (because of the extra suffering that would not naturally evolve)
I didn't know your post could get more retarded.
>>8163149
You would probably say to the inventor of the abacus, centuries ago, to stop wasting time and money with his invention. "We don't need computers now, let the future generetion spend money on that" , is that your way of thinking?
Do not be short-sighted, think big, think again.
>>8163155
>k in the early 1900s?
this Anon speaks stronger then me. Thank you.
>>8163155
>HOW DO YOU THINK IT GETS SO GOOD, YOU FUCKING MONG?
Wow, did I hurt your space-religion feelies?
Technology gets good if there is application for it, providing utility to consumers. If you can't do that, the funding is unsustainable.
>So would absolutely anything else we did with it.
No, I'm pretty sure my spending has utility in my lifetime, before I die.
>"our" means humanity
Funny how this little meme has parasitized in your brain. I don't identify with "humanity" since it isn't even my nation. Hell, we don't even like each other, as evidenced by your very own behavior. I'm sure the feeling's mutual, and I'm sure you have the same perception of most other random people you meet online. That is humanity, the pieces of shit who insult you on the internet and hope you die in pain because you have the wrong identity, belief, religion etc.
>I didn't know your post could get more retarded.
Insults, no substance. Fact: If space gets colonized, there will be additional suffering and torture. Fact: You and I won't benefit from it. Fact: The people who will benefit from it won't share our values or our culture (because they will be other nations or because it mutates over time). Fact: They won't be grateful or even respect us. Fact: We have costs now if we pursure this.
Do whatever you want, I'm done communicating with obnoxious cunts like you.
>>8163172
>ny how this little meme has parasitized in your brain. I don't identify with "humanity" since it isn't even my nation. Hell, we don't even like each other, as evidenced by your very own behavior. I'm sure the feeling's mutual, and I'm sure you have the same perception of most other random peop
you are attackin another anon, not me, from the beginning of this conversation. Now i'm going to lunch. Keep going without me, please!
>>8163164
what abaout this? If the pioneers thought like that we all were damned .
>>8163172
Fact: you just spewed a massive load of rhetorical horse-shit that stems from your feels. So much stupid I wouldn't know where to begin. Everything you've said is tangential or only vaguely related. You speak "fact" about socioeconomics that make fundies and conservatards look educated.
>>8163183
I note you couldn't or wouldn't actually address any of the points I made. You are clearly upset because I hurt your space utopia feelsies.
Either way, this conversation is over. Feel free to waste your own money or political capital on your space religion. I personally will just optimize my own wellbeing and national security instead.
>>8163186
this is what you do when you can not win solid arguments.
>>8163192
Hahaha, you didn't even try. You engaged with none of my points.
I actually do like a proper discussion about almost any topic but rarely do I meet someone who actually engages with arguments.
You just completely ignored all of them:
>So much stupid I wouldn't know where to begin.
Good riddance.
>>8163186
>i'm done talking
>ok you're stupid
>HAH GOT YOU I'M DONE TALKING NOW
>someone else says something
>HAHAHA YOU'RE SO DUMB I'M DONE TALKING
>>8150560
lmao America only went to the moon, but China is probably going to within the next 4 years.
>>8163393
?
china has no heavy lift vehicle
Not even on the drawing board
why do you imagine them going anywhere in the next 4 years
other than buying some falcon heavy launches maybe
>>8163415
>china has no heavy lift vehicle
>Not even on the drawing board
Long March 5 is a heavy-lift vehicle in the final stages of development (it should fly later this year), comparable to Delta IV Heavy in capabilities. Long March 9 is a super-heavy in early development (won't fly before 2025), targetting the approximate capabilities of the Saturn V.
They have demonstrated orbital rendezvous, and with the substantial payload of LM3 and crew capability of LM2, they wouldn't need LM5 or LM9 if their intent was to assemble a mission to the moon in LEO with space-storable propellants.
The Chinese space program has already demonstrated crew launch, docking and crew transfer operations, safe crew return, soft landing on the moon, and safe entry and landing of a capsule contents from trans-lunar space to the Earth's surface.
Their plan is to perform a robotic lunar sample return using LM5 next year, something which only the Soviet Union has ever done, and which hasn't been done since 1976.
>>8163445
SpaceX could put several men on the moon via the Dragon V2 well before the chinks.
>>8150505
my guess is the atmosphere means you don't have to worry about shit slamming into your base when you don't expect it to.
