Space colonization

[Sigmetnow]

It’s likely that the technology developed to deal with the CO2-rich Martian atmosphere will lead to unexpected innovations that will help reduce CO2 on earth.  But the biggest effect may result from interest in the missions drawing attention of common folks worldwide to the need for immediate curtailment of CO2 emissions on our home planet.

[Shared Humanity]

Moreover, there is simply no place on Earth where you can safely store huge amounts of carbon:

Um...Plants? 

This statement is so stupid that I cannot even......for...fear...of losing...my shit...and going totally...over the line...and...I...don't...want...to...be...abusive.

[oren]

Do you think that on large cruise ships there should be no lifeboats?

Wrong analogy. Do you think that on large cruise ships there should be a single lifeboat for just one or two persons?
Even worse: Do you think it's worth the cost of this single lifeboat if you need to give up some safety features of the cruise ship?

[gerontocrat]

It’s likely that the technology developed to deal with the CO2-rich Martian atmosphere will lead to unexpected innovations that will help reduce CO2 on earth.  But the biggest effect may result from interest in the missions drawing attention of common folks worldwide to the need for immediate curtailment of CO2 emissions on our home planet.

Mars lost its magnetosphere 4 billion years ago.
No protection from harmful solar radiation.
Density at the surface is 0.6% of that of the Earth

Mars's atmospheric mass of 25 teratonnes compares to Earth's 5148.  i.e. 0.5%.
It is 95% CO2, i.e. 23.75 teratonnes.

The total CO2 floating in our atmosphere is just over 3 teratonnes (say 415 ppmv, 0.63% by weight)).

To get this down to 350 ppm (ha ha) requires CO2 in our atmosphere to be reduced by about 0.5 teratonnes (Just over 500 gigatonnes). This apparently requires a mass mobilisation by the entire World's scientists, industries and politicians. Mars is a 50 times heavier task and you end up with an atmosphere equivalent to 35 km above the earth's surface.

So Musk is going to transform Mars with a few people and some truckloads of stuff. Go to it !!

[Sigmetnow]

It’s likely that the technology developed to deal with the CO2-rich Martian atmosphere will lead to unexpected innovations that will help reduce CO2 on earth.  But the biggest effect may result from interest in the missions drawing attention of common folks worldwide to the need for immediate curtailment of CO2 emissions on our home planet.

...
So Musk is going to transform Mars with a few people and some truckloads of stuff. Go to it !!

I said nothing about transforming Mars.  However, a Mars colony will need to develop efficient methods of making CO2 into methane and O2 to fuel ships to get home, and to scrub CO2 out of the air in the habitat. Unexpected innovations will no doubt result, leading to new developments on earth.

Just as a multitude of private companies are performing R&D on the International Space Station today, they will be researching ways to improve life on Mars (and ways to make money doing it).  Musk/SpaceX are providing the transportation; others will design and build the infrastructure, the supplies, and the government.

Edit:  And as I mentioned, inspiring a majority of the world’s population to unify to act to preserve life on Planet A has the biggest potential for increasing action against climate change.

[GoSouthYoungins]

Moreover, there is simply no place on Earth where you can safely store huge amounts of carbon:

Um...Plants? 

This statement is so stupid that I cannot even......for...fear...of losing...my shit...and going totally...over the line...and...I...don't...want...to...be...abusive.

Thanks for getting to this before me. You managed to be least offensive than I possibly could have, and I don't want to be put back on moderation.


The great irony is that the carbon should go into soil and foliage, which are actually assets. It builds value to store carbon in this way and makes the earth's carrying capacity much greater. And it is the most basic human task. It is good for us...spiritually and physically healthy.

But apparently some people think it makes more sense to do something that has never been done. Not even close. Not even close to close. Likely bordering on impossible. Even if it could be done, it would be the least natural environment possible...akin to a prison.

[kassy]

Space tourism is not space colonization.

How do you think space colonization starts?
With those first brave explorers.

But would you count 16 rich people flying up to the ISS among them?

[Sigmetnow]

The International Space Station has been continously occupied for 20 years, by astronauts, scientists — and tourists — from many countries.

New video:

NASA (@NASA)6/7/19, 10:17 AM
.@Space_Station is open for commercial business! Watch @Astro_Christina talk about the steps we're taking to make our orbiting laboratory accessible to all Americans.

https://twitter.com/nasa/status/1137000745922957313
1-minute video at the link, from Christina Koch aboard the ISS.
(I don’t know why they state the opportunity is limited to Americans. Maybe that’s a Trump thing.)

[Tom_Mazanec]

Moreover, there is simply no place on Earth where you can safely store huge amounts of carbon:

Um...Plants? 

This statement is so stupid that I cannot even......for...fear...of losing...my shit...and going totally...over the line...and...I...don't...want...to...be...abusive.

I think he thinks that there is not enough suitable land to grow enough trees to contain the trillions of tons of Carbon going into the atmosphere (“huge”).

[Sigmetnow]

Space is cool.  And kids, including girls, are now drawn to science and engineering studies because of it.

Almost half of UK children believe Mars colony will be established in their lifetime, poll finds

Nearly half of all children surveyed for a new poll believe humans will establish a colony on Mars within their lifetime. Six in 10 children felt anxious about climate breakdown, with more than a third saying they did not think enough was being done to solve Earth’s environmental problems.
As a result, 61 percent believed mankind would look to space for other places to live in future, while 59 percent expected to holiday in space.

Worries about the future of Earth were not solely confined to the younger generation, as two thirds of parents admitted they were “future-proofing” their children to ensure they have the engineering skills required to tackle a future threatened by climate change. The idea of living on another planet in the future has led to 46 percent of children to develop an interest in engineering and technology.

In total, 1,000 children aged six to 16 and their parents were polled by the Institution of Engineering and Technology. It found that engineering was now the third most popular profession among the children polled (15 percent), with the career only falling behind being a YouTuber (18 percent), or footballer (17 percent). Of those who chose engineering, 16 percent of children said space exploration would be the number one field they would want to work within.

While the profession has historically suffered from a gender imbalance, 36 percent of children who expressed interest in such a career were girls. A total of 37 percent of parents said they would like to send their children to an extra-curricular activity such as a mathematics, coding or science club.
And STEM extracurricular activities proved to be more popular than music (34 percent) and drama (33 percent) lessons. ...

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/mars-colony-life-climate-change-breakdown-iet-engineering-a8954896.html

[Neven]

Space is cool.  And kids, including girls, are now drawn to science and engineering studies because of it.

Isn't conditioning, like, the best thing ever?

[Sigmetnow]

Space is cool.  And kids, including girls, are now drawn to science and engineering studies because of it.

Isn't conditioning, like, the best thing ever?

When it’s for something we really, really need to make happen?  You betcha!

[ArcticMelt2]

Moreover, there is simply no place on Earth where you can safely store huge amounts of carbon:

Um...Plants? 

This statement is so stupid that I cannot even......for...fear...of losing...my shit...and going totally...over the line...and...I...don't...want...to...be...abusive.

Thanks for getting to this before me. You managed to be least offensive than I possibly could have, and I don't want to be put back on moderation.


The great irony is that the carbon should go into soil and foliage, which are actually assets. It builds value to store carbon in this way and makes the earth's carrying capacity much greater. And it is the most basic human task. It is good for us...spiritually and physically healthy.

But apparently some people think it makes more sense to do something that has never been done. Not even close. Not even close to close. Likely bordering on impossible. Even if it could be done, it would be the least natural environment possible...akin to a prison.

News on the topic, which shows that there is very little free land on Earth for new forests.

https://www.sciencealert.com/tree-planting-is-still-the-best-way-to-fight-climate-change-but-only-if-we-act-fast

"If we all get planting, roughly 4.4 billion hectares of our planet's surface could be shaded by trees – enough to pull decades of carbon we've pumped into the atmosphere."

Their calculations revealed 1.7 to 1.8 billion hectares of land areas now covered in sparse vegetation and bare soil qualify as tree-worthy.

If the right kinds of trees could be grown across all of that, Earth would have another 0.9 billion hectares of canopy containing around 200 gigatonnes of carbon.

These numbers could be even higher if we got a little crazy and also planted on agricultural land and throughout urban centres. Roughly 8.7 billion hectares in total could theoretically support trees.

Moreover, due to the growth of the population of the planet and improving its quality of life, the free land area is constantly decreasing.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326903301_Global_land_change_from_1982_to_2016

Here we analyse 35 years' worth of satellite data and provide a comprehensive record of global land-change dynamics during the period 1982-2016. We show that-contrary to the prevailing view that forest area has declined globally5-tree cover has increased by 2.24 million km2 (+7.1% relative to the 1982 level). This overall net gain is the result of a net loss in the tropics being outweighed by a net gain in the extratropics. Global bare ground cover has decreased by 1.16 million km2 (-3.1%), most notably in agricultural regions in Asia.

The total area of tree cover increased by 2.24 million km2  from 1982 to 2016 (90% confidence interval (CI): 0.93, 3.42 million km2), which represents a +7.1% change relative to 1982 tree cover (Extended Data Table 1). Bare ground area decreased by 1.16 million km2  (90% CI: −1.78, −0.34 million km2 ), which represents a decrease of 3.1% relative to 1982 bare ground cover. The total area of short vegetation cover decreased by 0.88 million km2 (90% CI: −2.20, 0.52 million km2), which indicates a decrease of 1.4% relative to 1982 short vegetation cover.

India and China had the largest bare ground loss among all countries (India, −270,000 km2, −34%; China, −250,000 km2, −7%). India also ranked second in short vegetation gain
(+195,000 km2 , +9%), after Brazil (+396,000 km2, +12%). While the short vegetation gain in Brazil is mainly due to the expansion of agricultural frontiers into natural ecosystems, short vegetation gain in India is primarily due to intensification of existing agricultural lands—a continuation of the ‘Green Revolution’.

This means that we are passing the point of no return.

[ArcticMelt2]

Also consider that even more arable land will be needed in the future to replace fossil fuels with biofuels. I’m not saying that at present, billions of people are simply starving.

[magnamentis]

https://ethz.ch/en/news-and-events/eth-news/news/2019/07/how-trees-could-save-the-climate.html

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/07/how-to-erase-100-years-carbon-emissions-plant-trees/

In the "Space Colonization" thread?
You're proposing space forests?  Genius!!

sorry, error, will delete

EDIT: deleted, the arable land had me LOL was meant for another thread however, thanks for the hint.

[Shared Humanity]

Also consider that even more arable land will be needed in the future to replace fossil fuels with biofuels. I’m not saying that at present, billions of people are simply starving.

90% of the arable land dedicated to agriculture is for raising meat. We simply need to quit eating all types of meat, let the freed up land revert back to its natural state as quickly as possible by reintroducing plants that thrive in the various ecosystems.

[TerryM]

After carefully studying the documentary "Earth Girls are Easy" I'ved determined that the scientific breakthrough that will most benefit mankind is the ability to shrink humans.


Once properly sized the problems of sending brave, but tiny humans to Mars colonies shrinks to a manageable size.


Envision a colony capable of housing a million souls that weighs but a few kilograms and fits easily in a size 9 shoebox!


We could start by simply cross breeding Pygmy tribes with members of the Little People of America organization - but this is too slow a process, wouldn't result in the needed size reduction and might retain undesirable traits such as the squeaky voices so prominently featured in films such as the original version of the Wizard of Oz.


CRISPER technology is where we should be looking.


Once we've reduced humans to the size of small kittens we may find that we've genetically engineered our way out of the food, water and housing crises that we're soon to face.


McMansions with 10 square feet of living space will require little heating or cooling. Electric trains and EVs will run off a few "C" cell batteries, and a thin goat could provide sustenance for hundreds.
Christ's feeding the masses a few loafs and fishes will seem wasteful.


Robots will take over all the jobs requiring strength. Our sciences will continue to develop better and smaller micro-technology and micro men. Our problems will shrink away until we will no longer dream of leaving our so recently relatively enlarged home planet.


Are we men, or are we mice. Squeak up boys.
Terry

[gerontocrat]

Terry,
Anyone would think you don't take space colonisation seriously.

Shame on you. Tut, tut.

[Sigmetnow]

Step One:  Getting there.

SpaceX has a new job posting for “Launch Engineer, Starship Operations” at Cape Canaveral.

Launch Engineer, Starship Operations
Cape Canaveral, FL, United States

SpaceX was founded under the belief that a future where humanity is out exploring the stars is fundamentally more exciting than one where we are not. Today SpaceX is actively developing the technologies to make this possible, with the ultimate goal of enabling human life on Mars.

LAUNCH ENGINEER (STARSHIP OPERATIONS)
The Cape Starship Operations Engineer plays a critical role, and is responsible for design, build, and operations for Starship and Super Heavy vehicle development and initial launch capability from Launch Pad 39A. Engineers will be working in multiple disciplines: fluids, structures, instrumentation, civil, and manufacturing. ...

https://boards.greenhouse.io/spacex/jobs/4342965002?gh_jid=4342965002

(Cross-posted from SpaceX thread.)

[TerryM]

Terry,
Anyone would think you don't take space colonisation seriously.

Shame on you. Tut, tut.

Au Contraire Mon Frere
But only when done on the correct scale. 
Terry

[GoSouthYoungins]

Step One:  Getting there.

SpaceX has a new job posting for “Launch Engineer, Starship Operations” at Cape Canaveral.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/27/science/spacex-moon-tourists.html

29 months ago, SpaceX was going to be taking people to moon within 10 to 22 months. Still no real plans to do so. Just hopium/ideas/lies.


I cannot count the number of outrageous things Musk claimed were about to happen years ago and there is still basically no completion of these things in sight.

[Shared Humanity]

Space travel? Maybe. Space colonization? 
Never.

[crandles]

Link dated Feb 2017 suggests 'by late 2018' by Falcon Heavy. So I would suggest that is 20-22 months rather than 10 to 22 months.

When has a project like that ever run to time?

In Feb 2018 SpaceX announced they would not attempt to man rate the Falcon Heavy so it is going to be a starship launch. Last I knew it is "no earlier than 2023". Aim seems to be 7 to 9 people rather than just 2 so more ambitious and not surprising the date has slipped.

Won't be surprised if it slips further.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DearMoon_project

'Lies' suggest intent was different to that stated. Yes Musks timelines are aggressive but he usually end up doing what he promised which I think shows the intent was there. Keeping to time suggested when the timeline is aggressive is difficult and there is likely to be slippage. So what? This doesn't justify suggestion of deliberate deception IMO. I think this is just deliberately trying to wind up fans.

[GoSouthYoungins]

Link dated Feb 2017 suggests 'by late 2018' by Falcon Heavy. So I would suggest that is 20-22 months rather than 10 to 22 months.

When has a project like that ever run to time?

In Feb 2018 SpaceX announced they would not attempt to man rate the Falcon Heavy so it is going to be a starship launch. Last I knew it is "no earlier than 2023". Aim seems to be 7 to 9 people rather than just 2 so more ambitious and not surprising the date has slipped.

Won't be surprised if it slips further.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DearMoon_project

'Lies' suggest intent was different to that stated. Yes Musks timelines are aggressive but he usually end up doing what he promised which I think shows the intent was there. Keeping to time suggested when the timeline is aggressive is difficult and there is likely to be slippage. So what? This doesn't justify suggestion of deliberate deception IMO. I think this is just deliberately trying to wind up fans.

Total hogwash. The number of things this guy says he is doing in a few months and then years pass should clue you in that these are not just "aggressive" timelines, but intentionally deceptive lies.

A person running a company and claiming publicly that something is going to happen in "3 months maybe, 6 months definitely", but then nothing ever happens...HAS TO BE LYING. Plans have to be in place far ahead of time. Things have to be in order.

You should buy some property on Mars. Musk will have us there soon. And living on Mars is the easy part.

[kassy]

We need the spaceship program as featured in the Hitchhikers Guide (Important People First, really....). 

[Sigmetnow]

American kids would much rather be YouTubers than astronauts

It is not clear why kids in the Western world are less interested in space or space professions than those in China. Perhaps it is because America has been there and done that, in terms of lunar exploration, with the Apollo program. Perhaps it is that America's kids today grew up with continuous national human representation in space, aboard the International Space Station, and do not find an orbiting outpost in low-Earth orbit stimulating. Or perhaps the education system in China places a higher emphasis on the value of science and space exploration.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/07/american-kids-would-much-rather-be-youtubers-than-astronauts/

[SteveMDFP]

American kids would much rather be YouTubers than astronauts

It is not clear why kids in the Western world are less interested in space or space professions than those in China. Perhaps it is because America has been there and done that, in terms of lunar exploration, with the Apollo program. Perhaps it is that America's kids today grew up with continuous national human representation in space, aboard the International Space Station, and do not find an orbiting outpost in low-Earth orbit stimulating. Or perhaps the education system in China places a higher emphasis on the value of science and space exploration.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/07/american-kids-would-much-rather-be-youtubers-than-astronauts/

Totals across all choices are significantly lower in UK/US than China.  Either Western kids predominantly have some other career in mind, or are simply more apathetic.  I wonder what relative rates of childhood depression are.

[Sigmetnow]

American kids would much rather be YouTubers than astronauts

It is not clear why kids in the Western world are less interested in space or space professions than those in China. Perhaps it is because America has been there and done that, in terms of lunar exploration, with the Apollo program. Perhaps it is that America's kids today grew up with continuous national human representation in space, aboard the International Space Station, and do not find an orbiting outpost in low-Earth orbit stimulating. Or perhaps the education system in China places a higher emphasis on the value of science and space exploration.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/07/american-kids-would-much-rather-be-youtubers-than-astronauts/

Totals across all choices are significantly lower in UK/US than China.  Either Western kids predominantly have some other career in mind, or are simply more apathetic.  I wonder what relative rates of childhood depression are.

Perhaps they simply want to leave “this ruddy rock” and ply a simple trade on Mars — making pizza, repairing equipment, or being a First Responder.

[Sigmetnow]

Bobak Ferdowsi (@tweetsoutloud) 7/20/19, 10:50 AM
one rough part of rewatching all of the Apollo footage has been not seeing people who look like me. It's a testament to Apollo that it is still such a motivator to work in space, but I'm very happy we've made some progress better representing what society looks like

https://twitter.com/tweetsoutloud/status/1152591534082142208
Images below.

[TerryM]

Can the earth afford to divert it's finite resources by sending people to various planets? If people insist on living in hostile environments allow them access to warmer regions of the Sahara, or colder regions of Antarctica.


Let them burrow far underground beneath the Mariana Trench, build cave cities high in the Himalayas where oxygen is scarce, or create metropolises that float high in the stratosphere. - but eliminate off planet joy rides unless a definite scientific need is found for such an inherently dirty mode of transportation.


It's the filthy rich that brought us to where we are. Demand that they cease in their attempts to escape the planetary catastrophe that they themselves created.
Terry

[Sigmetnow]

Can the earth afford to divert it's finite resources by sending people to various planets? If people insist on living in hostile environments allow them access to warmer regions of the Sahara, or colder regions of Antarctica.


Let them burrow far underground beneath the Mariana Trench, build cave cities high in the Himalayas where oxygen is scarce, or create metropolises that float high in the stratosphere. - but eliminate off planet joy rides unless a definite scientific need is found for such an inherently dirty mode of transportation.


It's the filthy rich that brought us to where we are. Demand that they cease in their attempts to escape the planetary catastrophe that they themselves created.
Terry

So we should make sure they do not develop technology that could be the solution to the consequences of the comfortable lifestyle you now enjoy?

We do have the capability to do many different things at once!  NASA’s budget is only pennies per person, and the technical advances it has brought benefit almost everyone.  If you don’t like the cheaper and faster internet, better satellite phones and GPS, or emergency tracking of planes, ships and cargo that space exploration brings... don’t use them! 

Those explorers in Antarctica or out at sea are betting their lives on advanced life support systems and personal satellite tracking to enable their rescue if needed.  Lessons in space are teaching us about bone and cell degradation, and allowing the purification of new drugs and new metal alloys.  Forbidding space exploration would be like forbidding the education of a child who may someday spur the development of planet-saving tech.  Like the boy from South Africa who grew up to run a company which forced ICE carmakers to finally begin their transition to EVs, and which showed the world that batteries fed by renewables could save the grid and make solar+ batteries more available to low income people.

[SteveMDFP]

...
It's the filthy rich that brought us to where we are. Demand that they cease in their attempts to escape the planetary catastrophe that they themselves created.
Terry

....
We do have the capability to do many different things at once!  NASA’s budget is only pennies per person, and the technical advances it has brought benefit almost everyone.  If you don’t like the cheaper and faster internet, better satellite phones and GPS, or emergency tracking of planes, ships and cargo that space exploration brings... don’t use them! 
....

Terry didn't dispute that satellites and probes to distant places have been more than useful.
But colonizing space or Mars with people is hideously expensive, risky, carries a huge carbon footprint, and benefits very few.  Not even the colonists.  With current technology, it's a fundamentally stupid idea.

[Sigmetnow]

...
It's the filthy rich that brought us to where we are. Demand that they cease in their attempts to escape the planetary catastrophe that they themselves created.
Terry

....
We do have the capability to do many different things at once!  NASA’s budget is only pennies per person, and the technical advances it has brought benefit almost everyone.  If you don’t like the cheaper and faster internet, better satellite phones and GPS, or emergency tracking of planes, ships and cargo that space exploration brings... don’t use them! 
....

Terry didn't dispute that satellites and probes to distant places have been more than useful.
But colonizing space or Mars with people is hideously expensive, risky, carries a huge carbon footprint, and benefits very few.  Not even the colonists.  With current technology, it's a fundamentally stupid idea.

I guess we won’t be adding your name to the list of folks who want to go, then.

I suppose Europeans felt the same way about the first ships daring to explore the new world.  “No reason for them to go — our amazingly modern life here is perfectly fine!  Anyway, they’ll all die when they sail over the edge of the horizon!  They should just stick with sailing the coast and its harbors.”

[Sigmetnow]

human Mars  (@human_Mars) 7/21/19, 12:02 PM
Official renders of @SpaceX #dearMoon #Starship orbiting the #Moon from @dearmoonproject Instagram profile:
     SpaceX #dearMoon Starship orbiting the Moon
     https://www.humanmars.net/2019/07/spacex-dearmoon-starship-orbiting-moon.html

https://twitter.com/human_mars/status/1152972229543636992
Image below.

[Sigmetnow]

New interview, tying in with the 50th anniversary of the Apollo 11 manned moon landing.

”SpaceX CEO Elon Musk on the next giant leap for mankind”



More here (See especially the last items):
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2582.msg214598.html#msg214598

[SteveMDFP]

On the other hand,

5 Reasons Going To Mars is a TERRIBLE Idea


and an interview with Bill Nye on the topic:

Should you go to Mars? ft Bill Nye


Between radiation, need for oxygen and food, and toxic Martian soil and dust, human beings are far too fragile for such a scheme. 

Send AI-controlled robots to build habitats and ecosystems and industry.  In a century, with improved technology, we can deliver people to a self-sufficient, tolerable home.  But it would still be a pretty miserable life.

If society can't survive another century, we just don't deserve to expand beyond Earth.

[Villabolo]

Moon colony first. Kalpana 1 and O’Neill Cylinders second. Mars afterthought.

My plan would be:

Constructing the Sea Dragon. Originally designed in 1962, the Sea Dragon is a massive rocket capable of lifting 500 tons of materiel into low earth orbit and somewhat less to the moon. Its design and components are of utmost simplicity, making it extremely reliable as well as the safest possible rocket. Construction within five to ten years.



A lunar colony of 500 with the establishment of an industry capable of constructing a space habitat. Within ten to twenty years to be fully operational.

A Kalpana style habitat housing several thousand inhabitants. Within twenty to thirty years. 

Construction of an O’Neill Cylinder, housing several hundred thousand inhabitants. Within thirty to fifty years.



An ‘Orion’ style nuclear pulse rocket to explore our solar system. Within ten to fifteen years.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSK_mymJvkM&feature=youtu.be

Total cost for all projects: $20 billion a year times 50 years - One trillion dollars; the cost of the Iraq war or one thirtieth of the yearly cost of the United States defense budget.

There would be no emphasis whatsoever in colonizing Mars or any of the other planets. It’s simply not cost effective compared to free-floating space habitats. What’s more, O’Neill cylinders can replicate a terrestrial habitat, and provide a full earth-like gravity.



Sea Dragon rocket in comparison with other rockets.



Kalpana 1. Courtesy of Bryan Versteeg.



O’Neill Cylinder.



Orion nuclear pulse rocket.

[Sigmetnow]

..
My plan would be:

Constructing the Sea Dragon. Originally designed in 1962, the Sea Dragon is a massive rocket capable of lifting 500 tons of materiel into low earth orbit and somewhat less to the moon. Its design and components are of utmost simplicity, making it extremely reliable as well as the safest possible rocket. Construction within five to ten years.
...

Sorry, but there are many, many reasons why that rocket will never be built.  For one:  very high-pressure propellant tanks require very strong, and very heavy, tanks to contain it — thus requiring more fuel be spent on just lifting them.  And even more fuel to lift that extra fuel....   Pressurizing the fuel outside of lighter-weight tanks by using fuel pumps may not be “simple,” but it is much lighter and thus more efficient.

Great video here if you’d like to learn more about rocket engines (and SpaceX’s currently most powerful on earth Raptor engine, in particular):
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2582.msg201113.html#msg201113

[GoSouthYoungins]

For everyone who voted for anything other than NULL in the original poll...


(We "went" to the moon 50 years ago.)

The first rocket ever built to go to mars...

-blew over in a 40mph wind.

-broke in half.

-rebuilt the "functional" half.

-"test hops" = "suborbital" (a few cms, apparently), typically resulting in fireball and abort.


So, mars in about 10 years, ya?!?

[oren]

GSY, I must say denying the moon landings does not improve your credibility.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings

[DrTskoul]

GSY, I must say denying the moon landings does not improve your credibility.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings

Which what???

[oren]

(We "went" to the moon 50 years ago.)

This implied denial is what I was referring to, maybe i wasn't clear enough.

[DrTskoul]

Was sarcastic sorry. His denial was oozingly apparent...

[Tony Mcleod]

Antactica (a frozen desert) is warmer and wetter than anywhere on Mars.

[GoSouthYoungins]

GSY, I must say denying the moon landings does not improve your credibility.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings

I'm not denying it happened. I'm suggesting that it is suspect.

There is NO third party evidence that PEOPLE went to the moon. The closest thing is people tracking the spaceships coming to and from the moon and really low resolution photos which show basically nothing.

Meanwhile...
-only the US has ever been able to complete this feat.
-only under an administration that ended in resignation over lying and cheating
-nobody has been able to repeat the feat despite HUGE advances in all the relevant scientific fields.

Don't swallow everything you see on TV hook, line, and sinker. Especially from known liars.


(Attached is the best evidence from NASA: a 9 pixel photo. And finally, the best third party confirmation: a reconstruction from images from a Japanese lunar orbiter which shows a background very similar to a background from Apollo 15 photos.) Hint: none of this is compelling evidence.
 

[SteveMDFP]

GSY, I must say denying the moon landings does not improve your credibility.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings

I'm not denying it happened. I'm suggesting that it is suspect.

There is NO third party evidence that PEOPLE went to the moon.

So Apollo 11 only had robots to set up the Laser Ranging Retroreflector?  It's been in use since then.  You can still aim a laser at it to determine the distance to the moon, within centimeters.

Laser Ranging Retroreflector
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_11/experiments/lrr/

The reason nobody has sent people there again is simply that the task is hideously expensive.  Much of the expense cannot be reduced much, despite technological advances, as long as chemical rockets are used.  And then, there's not much of importance for a human to do there any more.  We already have the rocks and soil.  Robotic probes are better and cheaper for anything else.

[GoSouthYoungins]

From 4:25-5:00

"Today we have with us a group of students, among America's best. To you we say, we have only completed a beginning. We leave you much that is undone. There are great ideas undiscovered. Breakthroughs available to those who can remove one of truth's protective layers. There are places to go, beyond belief."

Really sounds to me like a guy subtly hinting that we never went to the moon. Anyone have any other guesses at what he could be referring to as "one of truth's protective layers"?

[GoSouthYoungins]

So Apollo 11 only had robots to set up the Laser Ranging Retroreflector?  It's been in use since then.  You can still aim a laser at it to determine the distance to the moon, within centimeters.

Laser Ranging Retroreflector
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_11/experiments/lrr/

The reason nobody has sent people there again is simply that the task is hideously expensive.  Much of the expense cannot be reduced much, despite technological advances, as long as chemical rockets are used.  And then, there's not much of importance for a human to do there any more.  We already have the rocks and soil.  Robotic probes are better and cheaper for anything else.

Unmanned crafts can collect rocks. Unmanned crafts can drop off a reflector. Do you honestly disagree?

[oren]

I did mention that the moon landings denialism was tarnishing your credibility. Then you denied being a denier, and immediately proceeded to list the denier talking points. Oh well.

[GoSouthYoungins]

The reason nobody has sent people there again is simply that the task is hideously expensive.

Yes, that is a reason. But there is nothing definitive about it. It is expensive to live on mars, but that is not why nobody does.

It cost NASA a quarter trillion dollars (of today's currency) for the Apollo program. Most of that was figuring out how to do "it". The costs from there should drastically reduce. Of course there are some fixed costs which are still pretty expensive. But not prohibitively so.

Crewed expeditions are always a few years away. Russia, China, US, everyone: "About to go back to the moon."

China loans the US more money in a year to buy their products, than the cost of the entire Apollo program. Why wouldn't the Chinese go to the moon if it is doable?!? They claim to want to. The advances in science and industry in the last 50 years are HUGE, and would make the whole thing MUCH easier than it was back then.


Is everyone less advanced than the US was in the 1960s?

OR

Did the Nixon administration lie to everyone?

Hint: this is very easy, don't overthink it