Ok glanced at the debate in the video which was pretty bad. to live on the moon we would need to ship ice there, and unless an ice meteor comes by which we deflect to the moon and/or mars you can't live there. Europa has water, but its probably too cold.
it would honestly be easier to use Europa and warm it up, or god sakes even somehow TOW Europa to a warmer orbit.
If you could like get Europa, and tow it to Earth orbit like a month or so behind earth. you could just get in a space ship, stay perfectly still and Europa would be there in a month, second earth. WOOO. And we could DO that. would take like 50 years, and you'd need robots to go to jupiter, mine it for some HE-3 gas or something to use in the rockets we'd use to break Europa from orbit, but once its broken free and pointed in the right direction it may take 150 years but its a totally new planet (yes its moon but its got a radius of 25% of earth's apparently)
Or maybe we could take it and throw it at mars and make mars have water that way. once it gets water we feed it with microbes and plankton and whatnot that make atmosphere, 150, 200 years later we got a planet we can live on.
so we can do this, and yeah it will take like 500 years. but we can do it right now. and in like 100 years we might come up with ways to speed up the process, or some ice meteor could come along or something useful.
Regarding the Speed of light, I always felt that was alot of hooie astrophysicists hold sacred because Einstein said it, and that guy could break atoms with his mind. so if you want to talk about the light speed barrier which you assume exists because the same people who crash expensive probes into mars and say OOPS are confident it exists.
I'll post 3 things which are basically plot holes in why the light speed barrier does not exist.
1.) The speed of light, when you go the speed of light or near it, light is still apparently going the speed of light RELATIVE TO YOU. So light is going faster than light. It strongly suggests a calculation error.
2.) When you go close to the speed of light mass and TIME ITSELF are affected. Time which apparently people can use said equations to go BACK IN TIME. so believing in the light speed barrier is like believing in robots from the future can come back in time to I dunno. but again its a point suggesting a calculation error.
3.) On Cosmos that series on Hulu with Neil Degrass Titan, the man stated if you look up at the stars no matter where you stand in the universe it looks like you are at the center of the universe because light from the distant stars has not reached us yet beyond a certain point. which either means the galaxies are moving faster than light away from each other and we are moving faster than light RIGHT NOW. or theres something fundamentally flawed with our perspection of the universe at large. Or we are actually at the center of the universe right now.
...so in short there is no light speed barrier. what we are experiencing is due to the 'local' effect of the milky way galaxy being inside a black hole in its center. we exist inside a bubble of space time which is inherently bent and misrepresented because of the gravity forces from its center which we do not fully comprehend.
I also think its highly possibly that this is generating some sort of field that is confusing our perception of the universe at large. How I'm not positive, I'm picturing it as a giant gravity lens thats altering the various things we percieve from the universe at large, Light, infared, anything that can be bent by gravity.
and would also postulate that the further we get from the center of the galaxy the faster we can go probably because light also goes faster. also a whole bunch of other things but they don't bear merit on the discussion at hand.
FINALLY regarding expense. NASA was stupidly expensive. it was pork, it was a bridge to nowhere. it was throwing money to cronies and not even caring what happened to it.
If you had a Monetary policy with an endgame in mind of MAKING money, it would be possible to do it cheaper.
we currently use rockets that lift thru the atmosphere that are huge heavy and expensive, both to repair/maintain and to fuel.
a ridiculous notion is to simply catapult the stuff into space with like a railgun (slingshot honestly)
but you can get the thing up to the upper atmosphere with a frigging balloon. and then you can just use a much smaller rocket, maybe launch from Everest if you need to.
Get Bill Gates on it, he'll find a way to make it make money if thats your goal. its merely expensive because you had the wrong people on it for making it not expensive.
making it not expensive was not their goal.
it would honestly be easier to use Europa and warm it up, or god sakes even somehow TOW Europa to a warmer orbit.
If you could like get Europa, and tow it to Earth orbit like a month or so behind earth. you could just get in a space ship, stay perfectly still and Europa would be there in a month, second earth. WOOO. And we could DO that. would take like 50 years, and you'd need robots to go to jupiter, mine it for some HE-3 gas or something to use in the rockets we'd use to break Europa from orbit, but once its broken free and pointed in the right direction it may take 150 years but its a totally new planet (yes its moon but its got a radius of 25% of earth's apparently)
Or maybe we could take it and throw it at mars and make mars have water that way. once it gets water we feed it with microbes and plankton and whatnot that make atmosphere, 150, 200 years later we got a planet we can live on.
so we can do this, and yeah it will take like 500 years. but we can do it right now. and in like 100 years we might come up with ways to speed up the process, or some ice meteor could come along or something useful.
Regarding the Speed of light, I always felt that was alot of hooie astrophysicists hold sacred because Einstein said it, and that guy could break atoms with his mind. so if you want to talk about the light speed barrier which you assume exists because the same people who crash expensive probes into mars and say OOPS are confident it exists.
I'll post 3 things which are basically plot holes in why the light speed barrier does not exist.
1.) The speed of light, when you go the speed of light or near it, light is still apparently going the speed of light RELATIVE TO YOU. So light is going faster than light. It strongly suggests a calculation error.
2.) When you go close to the speed of light mass and TIME ITSELF are affected. Time which apparently people can use said equations to go BACK IN TIME. so believing in the light speed barrier is like believing in robots from the future can come back in time to I dunno. but again its a point suggesting a calculation error.
3.) On Cosmos that series on Hulu with Neil Degrass Titan, the man stated if you look up at the stars no matter where you stand in the universe it looks like you are at the center of the universe because light from the distant stars has not reached us yet beyond a certain point. which either means the galaxies are moving faster than light away from each other and we are moving faster than light RIGHT NOW. or theres something fundamentally flawed with our perspection of the universe at large. Or we are actually at the center of the universe right now.
...so in short there is no light speed barrier. what we are experiencing is due to the 'local' effect of the milky way galaxy being inside a black hole in its center. we exist inside a bubble of space time which is inherently bent and misrepresented because of the gravity forces from its center which we do not fully comprehend.
I also think its highly possibly that this is generating some sort of field that is confusing our perception of the universe at large. How I'm not positive, I'm picturing it as a giant gravity lens thats altering the various things we percieve from the universe at large, Light, infared, anything that can be bent by gravity.
and would also postulate that the further we get from the center of the galaxy the faster we can go probably because light also goes faster. also a whole bunch of other things but they don't bear merit on the discussion at hand.
FINALLY regarding expense. NASA was stupidly expensive. it was pork, it was a bridge to nowhere. it was throwing money to cronies and not even caring what happened to it.
If you had a Monetary policy with an endgame in mind of MAKING money, it would be possible to do it cheaper.
we currently use rockets that lift thru the atmosphere that are huge heavy and expensive, both to repair/maintain and to fuel.
a ridiculous notion is to simply catapult the stuff into space with like a railgun (slingshot honestly)
but you can get the thing up to the upper atmosphere with a frigging balloon. and then you can just use a much smaller rocket, maybe launch from Everest if you need to.
Get Bill Gates on it, he'll find a way to make it make money if thats your goal. its merely expensive because you had the wrong people on it for making it not expensive.
making it not expensive was not their goal.
