Don't apologize, you've done nothing wrong. Some people open their noise hole without seeing the big picture, they should be called out on it.piinyouri said:
Mr.Mattress said:
Deuterium is the catalyst for some (probably most) nuclear fission reactors. Potential fusion reactor fuels include Deuterium+Tritium, Deuterium+Deuterium, Dueterium+He3, He3+He3, and something involving Boron I forget the details of, though if we get anything running in the next couple decades it'll probably be one of the first two.bfgmetalhead said:
Nah, if you actually lived in those times then going to Mars would be as unremarkable as flying across the world is today. You'd grow up with the idea and it would seem boring. Instead you'd be wishing you were born another thousand years in the future when time travel has been fully realised... and Half Life 3 has been released.omega 616 said:
But still they come...latiasracer said:
call me mad but I think venus would be a more long term place to settle, yes I know it is really hot (hotter than mercury), but mars is a lot smaller than earth while venus is a similar size, changing a very hot atmosphere on venus seems a lot easier than artificially increasing gravity on mars. whithout that increase there could be a huge range of forseen and unforseen consequences. astronauts usually are not left in space too long (less than a year I believe) for gravity like reasons (such as bad for muscles and spine), needless to say long term colonisation of mars would be...problematic. venus would be better (imo), if you can fix the whole temperature thing and hurl some ice comments at it for water.Sleekit said:kinda weirdly hard to place a value on a inhabitable planet isn't it ?...but i'm sure we could manage to do so eventuallyExterminas said:
i'm also sure many of those who become Martians will probably think it's a lovely planet.
they'll probably have something like Marstube montage videos set to Hoppipolla.
the key value to us left on Earth is probably in terms of trade...each new colony would increase the amounts of economic activity between them and Earth would probably enjoy a gilded position as the progenitor.
...and ofc it greatly increases the long term survival chances of our species.
the first one probably makes the biggest difference in that respect.
when we "do" one...we kind of learn most of what we need to know to live, if not spread out amongst the stars, at least spread out across this solar system.
after that it's just a case of building a better engine...
I was talking long term (100-1000 years). mars gravity is about half that of earths which could cause people to have the same problems astronauts have (loss of bone density and muscle). venus is similar gravity to earth. and while the climate is dangerous, I was saying that changing venuses climate would be a 100x easier than changing mars gravity. and if we could change a planets atmosphere than moving water to it seems easy in comparison. the problem whith venus is it rotates to slowly in th wrong direction, that would be the real difficulty, changing it's rotation and setting up a magnetic field to stop solar windswombat_of_war said:hell of alot hotter, enough to melt lead, rains sulphuric acid and the air pressure crushes things with ease due to the runaway greenhouse effect if there is anything in this solar system that fits the text book example of hell its venus. nasty ass place to try and settle and you need a hell of alot of specialised gear not to mention any sort of mistake is going to be instantly fatal and in a very painful screaming in agony sort of way.legendp said:call me mad but I think venus would be a more long term place to settle, yes I know it is really hot (hotter than mercury), but mars is a lot smaller than earth while venus is a similar size, changing a very hot atmosphere on venus seems a lot easier than artificially increasing gravity on mars. whithout that increase there could be a huge range of forseen and unforseen consequences. astronauts usually are not left in space too long (less than a year I believe) for gravity like reasons (such as bad for muscles and spine), needless to say long term colonisation of mars would be...problematic. venus would be better (imo), if you can fix the whole temperature thing and hurl some ice comments at it for water.Sleekit said:kinda weirdly hard to place a value on a inhabitable planet isn't it ?...but i'm sure we could manage to do so eventuallyExterminas said:
i'm also sure many of those who become Martians will probably think it's a lovely planet.
they'll probably have something like Marstube montage videos set to Hoppipolla.
the key value to us left on Earth is probably in terms of trade...each new colony would increase the amounts of economic activity between them and Earth would probably enjoy a gilded position as the progenitor.
...and ofc it greatly increases the long term survival chances of our species.
the first one probably makes the biggest difference in that respect.
when we "do" one...we kind of learn most of what we need to know to live, if not spread out amongst the stars, at least spread out across this solar system.
after that it's just a case of building a better engine...
edit: then agian the lack of magnetic field and rotation would make it difficult, perhaps flying out into the galaxy looking for other earth like worlds.
from this it seems there is plenty of water for long term colonisation and less specialised equipment for a colony
Well, i was going to sleep but clearly not anymore.Higgs303 said:
