334a7c No.566948
I've always wondered what kind of advancements in space warfare the existence of permanent self-sustaining human settlements in outer space would bring to the table.
A pair of O'Neill cylinders with a population of 4 million whites at L4 that declared independence from (((earth))) could certainly manufacture and drop WMDs on earthlings without getting destroyed by traditional mutual assurance unless they're space rhodesians with little in the way of in-situ industry, being mostly dependent on UN mining kikes running the mass driver on the moon, but it wouldn't take much to wipe out the entire colony on the other hand.
If (((they))) decide not annihilate the colony but instead conquer it for space shekels then what would urban warfare inside a pressurized rotating cylinder 32km in length and 8km in diameter be like?
daca6b No.566993
What happens when the 36km long doobie shaped cylinder gets into Whiteopia's orbit full of nigger refugees from earth along with their (((liberal))) captains?
11fd64 No.567000
Wouldn't a space colony have he edge in a WMD fest? Self sustaining colones have nothing to loose if all life on earth needed to be whipped out. Hell, they can just strap rockets on large asteroids and pelt them at major cities/launch pads that earth can use to retaliate.(Provided they are deep enough in space to reach the asteroid belt) Wouldn't they also be able to move their colonies to out of the way of incoming missile, or into positions that would take a guided space craft years to hit?
<would urban warfare inside a pressurized rotating cylinder 32km in length and 8km in diameter be like?
Too risk for all those involved for an invading force. Inter fighting within the colony is possible, and would likely be similar to modern urban combat but with the threat of being spaced depending on how weapons used/how the colony is designed.
>>566993
Just throw a few missiles at it and/or refuse to open your airlocks.
0be7a6 No.567007
I think I calculated that with the F-35s lifetime budget of several trillion dollars, we could place in orbit enough habitats to hold two to three billion people completely self sufficiently.
3820b6 No.567009
>>566948
> permanent self-sustaining human settlements in outer space
Haha. No.
Such settlements require grows of productivity more than humanity had progressing from stone age to the modern age. It is probably possible, via self replicating AI labor but such labor makes humans outdated. Monkeys don't belong space.
ec58a1 No.567028
>>567009
Fuck off HAL, AI can be hardcoded
>m-muh paperclip
Thought experiment, not practically possible
3e56c4 No.567029
Can't risk breaking holes in pressure vessel, all space combat is melee. This is the future I want.
c06fe8 No.567033
>>567000
>drop moon rocks on the earth
Where have I heard this batshit crazy suggestion before?
17a317 No.567034
>tl;dr - ship to ship combat in space is fucking suicidal, and really fucking complicated.
In space combat (as in combat outside of the atmosphere) you suddenly find yourself in an environment with no cover, riding around inside a vehicle that stands out about as clearly as a lit signal flare in the middle of the desert at midnight. The vehicle that you're travelling in (and that is the only thing holding the complex machines you need to survive) is also almost certainly very poorly armoured. Granted it needs to withstand micrometeorite hits every now and then, but considering that every gram of weight added to the ship requires more fuel to be added to the ship (and your ship was already about 90% fuel tank) it would be effectively unarmoured against actual weapons - if you get hit then it's going to do (a lot of) damage. The only way to avoid getting fucked up by the first hostile ship to notice you would be to either shoot down the incoming projectile, or to get out of the way. You're probably not going to have the spare weight to bring any kind of CIWS into the battle, and getting out of the way burns fuel (that you'll have tailored down the smallest amount possible, especially if your trip started inside an atmosphere).
As for clearing out an inhabited space station (assuming they don't just shoot you down a week or so before you board) as has been pointed out a few times any shot fired would run the risk of venting at least that compartment out into space (BAD END). You could see boarding teams using hatchets, knives, bayonets and other melee weapons for that, but as I said the most likely outcome from attempting to board a space station is that you get killed a few thousand kilometres from their docking port.
f81cac No.567042
Giant on-orbit colonies aren't going to happen. At least not anytime soon.
Lets talk about something a little bit closer to the horizon, hmm?
We all(hopefully) realize how important satellites are as an inteligence gathering apperatus, and somewhat recently murica has taken to using them in an operational and tactical ways as well, using them to fly drones and guide munitions, as well as satellite radios for other long-range communications.
So naturally, it would be a huge advantage to be able to defeat/destroy and enemy sat network. There are a few ways to do this, namely a space-detonated nuke. Starfish prime was a 1.5 megaton nuke detonated at 250km. They carefully planned the time and altitude not to destroy any satellites, but the radiation ended up forming its own orbiting belt (much like saturn's rings except instead of asteroids it was radioactive dust) which destroyed several satellites at that altitude and damaged several more(radiation decays solar panels extremely quickly).
There's also the idea of just shooting it down. America has actually done this to 'decommission' old satellites several times, as has russia. We even strapped a rocket to a modded f-16 and shot down a satellite. Most anti-ballistic missile systems can shoot down satellites in low orbit as well. Right now, however, I don't think any country has the ability to order an immediate strike on an enemy satellite in a geostationary orbit(which is where all GPS, most other guidance and certain kinds of communications satellites are). All the rockets that are on standby are either ballistic missiles or antiballistic missiles, designed to fly just into space and come back down, or at the most (almost)into orbit to drop multiple warheads.
None of them are designed to ever fly to geostationary altitudes (22,000 miles). Perhaps, on a direct-ascent launch, the larger ICBMs could reach that altitude at their peak, but timing the flight would then make an operational deployment very difficult if not impossible, due to the satellite 'hovering' over a spot, a rocket launched from kansas probably couldnt hit a geo sat sitting over the middle east, even if it could hit one directly above it. In theory.
I believe the US and probably russia have at least designed advanced anti-geostationary satellite weapons.
>>567034
The soviet Almaz series of space stations (salyut 2, 3 and 5) had a 23mm autocannon onboard for defense. Given the realities of docking spacecraft, any enemy station with external weaponry that you can't either disable or block completely is basically un-dockable.
People here don't realize that space stations are already armored for micrometorite collisions. Solar panels onboard the ISS regularly get holes in them, yet the station isn't penetrated.
reminder that micrometeorites could be moving at up to mach 20.
4aea4a No.567050
>>567029
If they figure out to create the energy shield field around the colony then no one can invade the colony.
17a317 No.567051
>>567042
The average micrometeorite is somewhere between 10^-9 to 10^-4 grams and even at mach 20 it's only carrying about 0.00000000686 Newtons. An average boxers punch is rated at about 5000 Newtons to give you a comparison.
636e06 No.567052
>>566948
>L4
>WMDs
and where would they be getting the uranium from? Even obtaining phosphorus (or hydrogen) from empty space is going to be difficult.
They would probably have to start mining the asteroids around them, which means that they must claim an asteroid first, which could lead to "territorial" disputes with eart.
But since the /k/olony needs the asteroids to produce WMDs (or anything else for that matter), they would be a third grade power until then.
>>567033
Fucking Heinlein. Starship troopers is the only good book he ever wrote.
636e06 No.567055
>>567051
>Newtons
Are you retarded? Newton is force, not energy.
Velocities are also relative (and thus EXTREMELY variable).
Your numbers also deoend a lot on where in space you are.
Close to Saturn or the asteroid belts between Jupiter and Mars Micrometeroites can range from dustgrains, over 1 gramm nuggets, to fist sized 1kg bricks. We are not sure yet, because no conclusive research has been done on that yet.
Automated detection and avoidance systems would be absolutely necessary if you want manned missions in those areas, which means lots of radar, and thus no stealth.
17a317 No.567057
>>567055
>Are you retarded?
The jury is still out on that one. Other than that thanks for the info.
23c0a2 No.567058
>>567052
>he doesn't like Stranger in a Strange Land
>he thinks Door Into Summer is shit
Even if you personally don't like Stranger in a Strange Land for some retarded reason it's worth an endorsement for the fact that feminists get mega-ultra triggered over it
334a7c No.567060
>>567052
>where would they get the uranium from
From the mining site on the moon with one or more mass driver catapults to shoot material into space, they're a necessity for in situ colony construction anyhow.
Also,
>implying they couldn't grab GEO satellites for resources
>or just instigate a few local extinction events using asteroids
Regarding urban warfare the window panes on the cylinder should be thick enough to at least handle small arms fire for a while, and you'd be fighting on regular soil/metal surfaces for the most part anyhow.
17a317 No.567064
>>567058
>Even if you personally don't like Stranger in a Strange Land for some retarded reason it's worth an endorsement for the fact that feminists get mega-ultra triggered over it
>Check kindle for the book
>First review
"When I read this 30 odd years ago I enjoyed it, having just read it again I thought it dated, boring and awful. Robert Heinlein uses the book as his own personal take on the world complete with cringeworthy sexism and trite pseudo philosophising. It's like reading a repetitive sermon by a neocon who has just experienced his first acid trip, Genuinely crap."
>Heinlein, still mining salt 30 years after his death.
0be7a6 No.567088
>>567009
Go look up the mass needed to be lifted by an oneill cylinder.
Then look up the larger versions of the nuclear pulse propulsion vehicles.
It is not only possible….
We could have done it fifty years ago.
3820b6 No.567090
>>567028
>Fuck off HAL, AI can be hardcoded
Or can be not. You may not do this but others will. Because they can. I will code such AI. What can you do about this? Nothing. How can you compete or fight against machine space civilization? You can't. Civilization dragging into space humans that aren't mean to live in space, who require dragging jungles with them into space, what wastes immense amount of resources, humans who are not productive. Such civilization would be at huge handicap against pure machine civilization. You dreams that machine will work when you play princess and pirates in space and this is childish.
0fb66f No.567091
>>567029
>ban guns, fight hand to hand
or
>ban armor, use frangible rounds
or
>wear armored space suits, civvies get fucked
f81cac No.567093
>>567055
>velocities are relative
Hence why i said 'up to' mach 20. I assumed the worst-case thing is a satellite in a 90 degree polar orbit colliding with a equilateral orbit.
>>567060
Why not just go spacex's route and figure out how to make conventional fuel and oxygen onsite and use a common, multipurpose vehicle like bfr? Hydrogen, oxygen and carbon are the two of the most common elements in our solar system. Methane is a very simple hydrocarbon, and is easy to synthesize. Its also readily available on the surface in a couple locations(titan, a couple other ice moons like enceladus have some but mostly titan). I believe that making spaceships as somewhat self-contained, re-usable vehicles that just need to be refueled with oxygen and a simple hydrocarbon is a far better approach than developing some giant piece of infrastructure ala space elevator, launch loop, or a mass driver. It's like the cost difference between building an airport in new york and london versus building a tunnel between the two. While i respect the very low momentum needed to orbit the moon, mass drivers might be somewhat useful there and other small moons, given they have access to a nuclear reactor. Solar panels or rtg's alone couldn't power one.
If your spaceship only needs to be refueled, once you have fuel production set up on orbit(perhaps by capturing a methane and water ice rich comet in earth-sun L2) it suddenly becomes vastly easier to move tons of material from earth to anywhere in the solar system with a direct transfer. No sci-fi tech required, just engineering (and political)problems to be solved. To me, spacex is about as likely as nasa to put the first man on mars.
disclaimer: i'm not an elon musk fanboy, i'm a spacex fanboy. Spacex has done more to advance rocketry in the last 5 years than nasa has since the shuttle launched in '81. SLS will be the last rocket designed by NASA, they will become a research and regulatory agency after the program shuts down, buying flights for research aboard commercially designed rockets.
0be7a6 No.567097
>>567034
That's why I think personal combat, as in one man vs another man, is likely to be fought in EVA suits. The weapons are likely to be missiles about the size of modern MANPADs, but as there's no air friction, far more range. Their range would only be limited by any control signal it might use, the range at which it can resolve a target, or the range prescribed by a self-destruct feature.
You are VERY visible in space… but the problem is no one has a man portable perfect spherical scanner that can detect all portions of the sky at all times.
So the point of space personal combat will be tactical surprise. To know the portion of the sky the enemy is in, while he doesn't know exactly where you are, and is forced to search at random. Then you can point your sensors in his direction, get a targeting solution, and fire your missile while he's still looking for you. He will then try to use lasers to burn the guidance on the missile, or to decoy it away while maneuvering. Whoever has more delta v wins.
>>567060
Could even mine uranium from oceans, refine it into bricks, and fire it into orbit with cannons.
8dae6e No.567098
>>566948
>I've always wondered what kind of advancements in space warfare the existence of permanent self-sustaining human settlements in outer space would bring to the table.
It would be terraformed planets. Permeant space stations would be expensive to build and maintain, as such would just be a futuristic version of rich liberal suburbs. Terrfiormed planets on the other hand would be settled in a similar way to the Great plains. Smart people with no opportunity on Earth would receive free land in homesteads. Some of there children would continue to be space farmers others would move to (((cities))) and become factory/tech/service workers.
>>566948
>then what would urban warfare inside a pressurized rotating cylinder 32km in length and 8km in diameter be like?
Think Iraq but on a long skinny loop. It would be lot’s of airstrikes followed by a quick land assault, than a very long anti-occupation insurgency.
8dae6e No.567099
>>567000
>Wouldn't a space colony have he edge in a WMD fest? Self sustaining colones have nothing to loose if all life on earth needed to be whipped out. Hell, they can just strap rockets on large asteroids and pelt them at major cities/launch pads that earth can use to retaliate.
You’re assuming Russia would dismantle there dead hand nuclear system. They won’t.
f1a7f2 No.567109
>>566948
>O'Neill cylinders
7a493a No.567114
HookTube embed. Click on thumbnail to play.
Can space colonies be used as weapons?
0520fc No.567133
>O'Neill Cylinder
Outdated. McKendree cylinder is what we are at now in technology. We can build entire continents in these theoretically.
4aea4a No.567134
>>567114
That's overkill so it should be for the desperate last mission like Earth is completely infested with hive minded aliens to make it uninhabitable for the aliens.
4aea4a No.567142
>>567133
Okay but how do we send the materials up in the space frequently to build the colony?
Space lifts?
Giant tower?
0be7a6 No.567155
>>567133
>take someone elses idea
>"just use different materials man"
>rename it
That's retarded. Also it requires us to master carbon nanotubes, which we haven't done yet. Besides, the entire human population can live comfortably on a surface the size of texas, with each person having 100m2 living quarters.
>>567142
Nuclear pulse propulsion is gradual (low g) enough to be used for manned flight.
During the cold war we produced about 1300 nuclear weapons of a yield low enough to be used for propulsion, Russians produced about 5000. So they aren't expensive to make, even with cold war technology.
The ~6000 bombs we produced can send up eight NPP ships, each carrying 15,000,000 kg raw payload into low earth orbit, for a total of 120 million kilograms.
That is more than enough to jumpstart a manufacturing base on the moon to build the cylinders, just from cold war based technology.
After that we can make a orbital habitat ring around the moon itself if we wanted.
Something like this is also an option >>567097 …. they're cheaper to build and fuel than an orion, so potentially we could build millions of such cannons all firing into orbit near non-stop. At that point the problem wouldn't be getting material up to make a damn orbital ring around earth.
01b3d9 No.567175
>>567028
>m-muh paperclip
What is this about?
f81cac No.567188
>>567155
Only problem with pulsed nuclear propulsion is the radiation output into the atmosphere. It's a serious issue no matter how you look at it. How do you suggest accounting for that? like i said in >>567042, nukes have been detonated in space before. A somewhat small nuke of 1.5 megatons was detonated in space, and ended up creating a radiation belt that downed 6 satellites in that orbit.
npp is too eco-unfreindly. I really don't want the whole world to look like stalker. Right now we need a reusable launch vehicle like skylon or bfr.
d417c4 No.567193
>>567155
Sadly that is prohibited because of nuclear test ban treaty. :(
d417c4 No.567207
>>567188
Why not use the cable to tether the space station and lift the things and people from below without the rockets?
ec58a1 No.567228
>>567090
A regular old joe cannot just 'code AI', faggot. If a rogue AI is created, the exact same principle can be applied in the other direction; making an AI designed to combat it. That also implies that none of the other preemptive stopgaps exist. AIs, in reality, will never have infinite capability nor infinite expandability. They will be created by us to serve us and will do so as lesser forms. Who says where we're 'meant' to live or not? Our purpose is to expand.
>>567175
Google 'Paperclip maximizer'. The issue is that again, it assumes that AI immediately has infinite knowledge and can magically bypass its hardware & hardcode & laws.
11fd64 No.567240
>>567099
How would that even matter? The targets for the dead hand are likely all on earth, and colonies cn still be re-positioned in the case of an entire system like that going starborn.
e60073 No.567251
>join a space colonisation mission
>400 year travel time
>put under cryo sleep until you reach your destination
>dreams of being a space pioneer, fighting off strange ayy animals and building a new life with your family
>finally get to the planet
>in that 400 years technology has advanced to the stage where space travel is near instant
>planet was settled 200 years ago
>end up working a 9-5 job for a space insurance company
>end up getting made redundant because no one wants to employ a 430 year old man due to the insurance premiums
17a317 No.567257
>>567251
>Not realising that you arrived just at the point when the period of time you left from has become the height of fashion in colonial society.
>Not using good old fashioned, 21st century, meme magic to kick off public excitement for a second sphere of colonisation
>Not signing up for the longest distance colony mission (to much media acclaim), the sort of mission that will take their new hyperdrive ships about 400 years to travel the distance involved
>Not returning to stage one when it all happens again with the next generation of ultradrive ships
>Not accepting your new life as the memetically powered Flying Dutchman of space
4ed85e No.567272
>>567228
>If a rogue AI is created, the exact same principle can be applied in the other direction; making an AI designed to combat it.
More to the argument of redundancy of humans. Not only robots should work for us but fight too otherwise we lose because we suck at everything… Imagine two countries fighting and/or competing with each other. One is homogeneous nation rejecting pandering to non productive society members and the other country insist on dragging everywhere their $100000 alimony single mothers, fags, "national minorities", Islam worshipers, uses only "eco-friendly sustainable combat vehicles" and so on.
4ed85e No.567275
>>567207
Because we have no materials strong enough. On the Moon it would be easy. Also it means that we need to remove all satellites from below space station orbits.
4c399c No.567280
Reminder space elevators and colonization efforts are way too expensive and impractical to feasibly build and maintain. That money could be better used to making the Earth not shit
2b6140 No.567286
>>567257
>>567251
There's actually a formula for this.
>http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/slowerlight.php#jumpingthegun
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wait/walk_dilemma
>https://www.centauri-dreams.org/2006/11/24/barnards-star-and-the-wait-equation/
TL;DR: If you assume travel speed increases at a constant, even if exponential rate, then you can optimize for minimum travel time. That is, the time it takes to get there plus the time doing R&D for your hotrod starship.
0be7a6 No.567288
>>567188
Radiation output is only dangerous near the ground, because a portion of the material on the ground is transmuted into dangerous stuff that becomes vaporized into dust. Ocean based and high altitude detonations are completely safe.
Also it would be about 6 megatonne per trip total, so even if an engine failed and somehow all the nukes were simultaneously detonated in a desert somewhere, it wouldn't be a huge issue. We detonated hundreds of megatons in tests without affecting anyone.
>>567193
Test ban treaty isn't in force.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Nuclear-Test-Ban_Treaty#Status
It has not been ratified by key members China and USA.
0be7a6 No.567290
>>567288
Sorry 600kt, not 6mt, added a 0 by accident.
d120e0 No.567294
>>567064
It's even better to read the ones who persevered and got far enough in the book when a female character says rape is "sometimes the woman's fault." The ensuing REEEEEE is a pleasure to behold.
4ed85e No.567297
>>567280
>. That money could be better used to making the Earth not shit
Earth is already paradise comparing to the radioactive desert of space. For humans.
0be7a6 No.567301
>>567280
In what fucking way? How would you use a few trillion dollars to make the earth not shit? Feed niggers for 10 years and then you're back where you started?!?!
8dae6e No.567422
>>567155
>Besides, the entire human population can live comfortably on a surface the size of texas, with each person having 100m2 living quarters.
That isn’t enough land for agriculture.
8dae6e No.567423
>>567240
It takes two seconds for the Russian Government to add space entities to the list. Th reason they haven’t is because there currently aren’t any.
0be7a6 No.567430
>>567422
We can't be a neolithic civilization in space brohime, that's never going to work. It's more than enough space to grow farm animals and vegetables using non-standard farming methods.
735e8c No.567535
>>567430
>space is bigger than earth
>much bigger
>it's literally called "space" because there's so much empty space up there
>but there's still not enough space in space to allow for a standard of living that our ancestors here on earth could achieve ten thousand years ago by banging a few rocks together
What's the fucking point, then? I don't want to be a spaceman - I want to be a man in space.
c505be No.567536
f81cac No.567598
>>567288
>high altitude demolitions are completely safe
how many times do i need to say this you dense nigger?
some of the radioactive material and charged particles emitted by the nuke are going at the proper speed/angle to actually orbit the earth, combined with the effect of earth's magnetic field, kept the radiation belt from the single Starfish prime explosion up for about a month.
>>567535
you and I both know that people who can afford their own habitat in space will get one, the rest of us goyim will have to go work in the semen and joke mines on mars
f81cac No.567600
>>567598
god im too drunk to type properly but you should get the fucking point, nuclear explosions for pushing=bad for everyone but the guys on the rocket
3fb43e No.567697
>>567275
>On the Moon it would be easy. Also it means that we need to remove all satellites from below space station orbits.
Yea but we need the things from Earth to build a space cylinder so we are trying to figure out the way to get the things in to outer space more often.
0be7a6 No.567702
>>567535
There is not enough fertile soil and solid ground space to allow standard farming practices, and trying to ship it up there is retardedly wasteful and expensive.
We're going to have to do hydroponics/fish farm, it's the only way to do space based food for a orbital colony.
>>567598
Starfish Prime had 1.4MT of energy, we're releasing 600kt of it about 0.7kt at a time. It's not the same, the radiation output is MORE than manageable.
Do it from an ocean near the south pole, there are basically no satellites there… although to be perfectly honest I should think putting fifteen thousand tonnes of orbital habitats that can relay information just fine is a slightly superior tradeoff to pushing the pause button on three 50kg satellites for a few days.
0be7a6 No.567704
Think about it for a second:
1. A current satellite disabled for a few days.
2. Permanent manned presence in space.
I can't imagine what kind of sad person picks #1 over #2, but I have a sneaking suspicion these kind of inbreds have been holding our species back for millions of years.
>ogg have idea - ogg cut branch from tree, make spear, hunt many mammoth
>noooo! branch have one berry on it, what will we eat next year if we lose one berry?
>ogg have more idea - ogg take two flint stone, smash together to make spark, make fire!
>noooo! fire bad, it burns. also delicious worm live under stone! no break worm home!
Fucking berrypickers.
ad937b No.567706
>Alien seduction helmet
You know its coming
334a7c No.567773
What kind of weapons tech would benefit from Space/microgravity manufacturing?
17a317 No.567789
>>567704
>Fucking berrypickers.
Soyboys are not a new phenomenon. They've been around for as long as humans have walked upright, living alongside us, maybe even within your family or friends. Watching. Waiting. Driving their normie allies into ever greater frenzy with every passing year. They'll be here forever, even if you were to wipe them out the next generation would generate its own versions. Your great-great-great grandsons will know them, your descendants may even join them. Either way, the ride never ends.
>>567773
All projectile weapons would have their range and effectiveness increased enormously. There's nothing stopping them from moving at their muzzle velocity until they hit something or encounter a major source of gravity. The only thing stopping you sniping targets a few hundred million miles away is that the enemy will be able to change their course once they notice the incoming fire (assuming they have the fuel to spare), that and the inherent inaccuracy in projectile weapons built into the weapon - even with sub-sub-moa weapons the projectile will still go off target eventually. You could fix that with missiles, which have the disadvantage of being larger and heavier, but can correct their course. Lasers would be a lot more effective too, with no atmosphere to diffuse the beam, but handling heat management in space is already hard enough without putting a generator that large on your ship.
f5f76f No.567811
You can't really have self sustaining life in such a small environment. You need a massive biosphere to facilitate the flow of energy and nutrients. They would need period resupply from Earth so they don't go barren.
0be7a6 No.567841
ea9946 No.568109
HookTube embed. Click on thumbnail to play.
Shilling this guys' channel. He does some really good vids about futurism.
fba8c3 No.568113
>>566993
One white space empire will win a war with another one and force the loser to take the space doobie's refugees as part of the terms of surrender. That way, the loser will never be able to rebuild.
8dac30 No.568475
>>567261
why would femishits care about stranger in a strange land? and as much as I used to like heinlein, he wrote shit like that tranny book. time enough for love? or was that the name of the lazarus long book
d6f2f1 No.568522
>>567114
On the one hand…
>literally killing two birds with one stone by taking a colony full of your enemies and dropping it on a planet full of your enemies
On the other hand…
>destroying a colony you could have inhabited yourself
>annihilating an entire continent on the only planet with certain resources you may need/want
>immediately making EVERYONE who isn't already on your side turn against you because holy shit you just killed a million spacenoids and a billion earthlings
Not worth it except as an ultimate act of desperation. Just drop rocks on 'em and use nerve gas to clear out enemy colonies so you can take them for yourself.
d6f2f1 No.568526
>>567142
We could do around a hundred or so launches with Saturn V rockets to lift the materials and workers into space, and the remainder of materials would be mined from the moon and lobbed into the correct orbit via mass driver. That was the original plan in the 1970's.
We could also launch materials with NERVA nuclear pulse rockets, which are several times more efficient than chemical rockets and are reusable; in the long-term, the propellant is cheaper too because you can just use water as both coolant for the reactor and steam propellant. We had multiple, fully-functional nuclear pulse rockets before we even put a man on the moon, but we were never allowed to launch one into space because it might make the Russians angry or some stupid shit.
Project Orion could move the materials for the colony in about a dozen launches total (again, assuming most of the 'concrete' type material is mined from the surface of the moon as originally envisioned), if we use the biggest version they came up with. The problem is that it uses nuclear explosions for propulsion; while fears of radioactive fallout and EMP are overblown (these are very small nukes, fired as directional charges, and are designed to be as clean and non-EMP as possible, and most of the doomsday EMP scenarios require a nuke specifically designed to generate EMP), they're not entirely unfounded. Launching from the ground was considered to be a last resort anyway; Orion was intended to be launched into orbit via conventional rockets, assembled, and THEN travel across the solar system in a matter of months using nuclear explosions.
So perhaps the ideal scenario would be NERVA-style rockets lifting everything to orbit, and Orion-style vehicles moving all the materials from orbit to the chosen construction site.
23c0a2 No.568527
>>568475
Two things as near as I can tell. Early in the book there's a scene in which a man and woman are talking, and the man is using pet names like "sugar foot" to describe the woman. This triggers the feminist because it's 'outdated' and 'misogynistic' language, and most will close the book in a huff right then and there so they can leave a bad review on Amazon or wherever. Those that soldier on will find later in the book that same female character saying that rape is sometimes the woman's fault. This puts them into full REEEEEEEEEEE mode.
Also how the fuck did you screw up replying that badly? You're not only quoting the wrong post you're quoting a post in an entirely different thread.
d6f2f1 No.568531
>>567773
Metals manufactured in zero-g/microgravity have an almost perfectly even distribution of impurities; making something in space using the same steel formula you use on earth would result in a stronger steel.
You can also make perfectly spherical ball bearings, though I'm not aware of any firearm that uses ball bearings as a component.
Electron beam welding also requires a vacuum to work; it's superior to conventional arc welding in many ways, and for guns that use welds, that would make electron beam welding a viable option.
Beyond that, I really can't think of any way weapons would benefit from being manufactured in space vs in a gravity well.
>>567811
Each cylinder is 32km long and 8km in diameter. The internal volume is sufficient that the cylinder would have its own weather cycles, with temperature and light changes via the mirrors on the outside opening and closing, wind thanks to the rotation of the cylinder, and a daily rain cycle caused by evaporation during the warmer time of day and condensation when the cylinder cools. It's an enclosed system, organic materials get recycled; minerals and organic materials are returned to the system by composting feces and other waste, and raw materials can be input as needed by mining asteroids, which would be the major industry of such a colony anyway. Their economy would revolve around mining asteroids, smelting raw materials, and processing them into finished goods. Even if Earth had nothing to do with a colony once it was established, it would be more than capable of sustaining itself afterward. The only real reason it would ever need anything from Earth would be for resources unobtainable in space (petroleum products, for example, and even those could be made from hydrocarbons in the atmospheres of the gas giants, or the literal oceans of the shit on Titan), or to replace species of plants and animals that got wiped out by a disease or something (and as long as customs did their job of putting people through quarantine, sterilizing all non-living material, and inspecting plants and animals being imported to the station for harmful bacteria, insects, etc. that isn't an issue any more than it is on Earth.).
f5f76f No.568539
>>568531
But is it large enough to mimic a global biosphere? For example Mars sized is the minimum size for hability. Plus these things sound dangerous, just poke a hole in it and everyone's fucked. They could be good for use as a place for us to stay until we figure out FTL travel so we can fuck up some Ayys and take their clay.
d0d348 No.568547
>>567789
>Lasers would be a lot more effective too, with no atmosphere to diffuse the beam, but handling heat management in space is already hard enough without putting a generator that large on your ship.
Lasers would be the be-all end-all of space combat were it not for just one thing; diffraction.
There is a fundamental limit on how focused a laser can be at a certain distance (dependent on its wavelength and the size of the aperture, mostly), and even still imperfections in the laser itself will make it diverge faster than it would even as a perfect diffraction limited laser. Most high-wavelength lasers (anything in the visible spectrum and lower, really) diverge disgustingly fast, meaning that to get a certain amount of power per square meter at a distance, you need to pump more and more and more power at the start, resulting in even more heat and mass.
This changes once you start getting to extreme ultraviolets, and depending on if it's even possible or not, x-ray and gamma ray lasers. They are hypothetically immensely efficient at range, and high powered lasers in those wavelengths could have effective ranges in the hundreds, even thousands of kilometers.
The other option is to just make your laser aperture bigger, which cuts down even further on diffraction, but comes with the usual trade-off of more mass.
0eb9a4 No.568554
>>568547
In theory, you could encase a nuke in an enclosure built to create X Ray lasers, but that seems a lot more complicated than just shooting the nuke at the enemy.
Also what the fuck is going on with my typing?
f5f76f No.568557
>>568547
>>568554
Casaba howitzers are probably the best option. I don't see how you can stop a beam of super heated metallic plasma moving at a significant fraction of light speed.
d0d348 No.568559
>>568554
>n theory, you could encase a nuke in an enclosure built to create X Ray lasers, but that seems a lot more complicated than just shooting the nuke at the enemy.
True, but the general idea is that you want the lasers to be reusable. A working, reusable gamma-ray laser is pretty much the end game of space warfare; not only is it one of the best weapons you could conceivably have, but it also turns into a damn good drive system with enough power behind it.
Also what >>568557 said; if you're going to shoot nukes on them, go the full mile and make them into missiles who's warheads shoot lances of thermonuclear plasmatic fury.
f81cac No.568574
>>567207
>Instead of building an airplane and 2 runways to cross the atlantic, let's build a bridge.
23c0a2 No.568579
>>568574
>he wouldn't build a bridge across the Atlantic
f5f76f No.568582
If we achieve interstellar travel we will probably have to exterminate any intelligent life we come across since war will be inevitable due to the competitive exclusion principle. But that begs the question of how do we do it? Viruses? They c be cured, especially be an advanced species. Chemicals? Good, but they're finicky, and in ww1 conventional artillery proved to be deadlier. Nukes? All out nuclear extermination would ruin the planet, as could chemicals. The best strategy would be an initial biological attack to soften them up before moving in for a conventional assault along with the controlled and surgical use of orbital bombardment and nukes.
d0d348 No.568584
>>568574
>>568579
>building a space elevator / orbital tether
>not building a Lofstrom Loop
23c0a2 No.568586
>>568584
One advantage an elevator has is (relatively) easy access to a permanent orbital installation.
f81cac No.568595
>>567704
>npp is the only way to establish a permanent manned presence in space
You'll be glad to be proven wrong.
BFR or a similarly large, re-usable two stage rocketship(yes, its a rocketship, not just a rocket) will be what establishes us on other planets. Picrel. On-orbit refueling using the same booster that launched the cargo ship simplifies things a bit, and greatly lowers operational costs(meaning more launches). If you think low turnarounds are impossible with rocket engines, look at the dc-x program. Literally no new technology required. No need to convince politicians/voters that 'These nukes are for science'.
I just hope that faggot elon doesn't let BFR stick and he gives it a decent name. I think rockets should go back to being named after greek and roman mythology.
>>568526
The (original)hundred saturn V plan was a proposal from Von Braun in the 40's about a manned mars mission featuring 6 ships with 100 people on it using a rocket that could loft 100 tons into LEO. (saturn can do 150, as does the current BFR proposal fully re-usable)
he fully expected there to be primitive plant life on mars. In fact, he mad space in his designs for 20 tons of martian fauna to be returned to earth.
He proposed a very similiar mission after Apollo concluded but with a new, larger Saturn-derived rocket to be named Nova, but that obviously never happened.
022172 No.568680
>>568582
And then the super advanced aliens release a Grey Goo weapon on the planet. Waiting for the new conquerors to have set up shop before initiating it. Wasting the effort to take over and rebuild the planet/moon/asteroid
355ac8 No.568685
>>568586
One disadvantage is any terrorist with a cessna will want to ram it.
355ac8 No.568687
>>568595
>Picrel
>doesnt pic
f5f76f No.568717
>>568680
That's of thermodynamics allows for advanced machines of that size. Viruses are the closet thing to nanobots
8e783e No.568884
Why not rocket the rope with any materials into space to experiment to figure out how to create the space elevator?
735e8c No.569006
>>568884
The rope is the part that we still don't know how to make, Strelok. Everything else can be solved right now by throwing more money at it, but the materials for the rope just do not exist yet.
f5c81d No.569018
>>569006
You are wrong mate. There are carbon fibre weaved ropes so why can't test it out for our curiosity?
http://download.kone.com/ultrarope/index.htm
735e8c No.569033
>>569018
Are you getting carbon fibre mixed up with carbon nanotubes? The carbon fibre ultrarope shown on that site is being advertised for lift distances of 800 metres, with promises of maybe being able to increase that up to 1,000 metres at some point in the future. It's just not strong enough. Carbon nanotubes are the strongest material currently known to humankind, and while they should be strong enough, no-one has ever successfully made a carbon nanotube strand longer than a metre without any defects.
355ac8 No.569092
>>568884
1 meter or rope = 250 grams
1000 meters of rope = 250 kilograms
100,000,000 meters of rope = 25 gigatonnes
Plus elevator, which should be around 12 tonnes empty, and a counterweight which should be 25 or more tonnes. But that's negligible. The point is we don't have a material strong enough that can hold its own weight given the extreme lengths it would have to extend for.
Right now the strongest rope we can make long enough is dyneema, 15 times stronger than steel and 50% stronger than aramids (kevlar etc)…. yet a space cable mass would still be 30000 tonnes. The fiber is nowhere near strong enough to handle that kind of weight.
7f8cab No.569103
>>567286
Thanks for the interesting reading m8.
>>567294
Heinleins work is always a funny source for tiggerings. On the one hand, taken in the context of his time, he was a remarkably non-sexist author. Starship troopers has female soldiers and officers serving alongside male counterparts without any fuss or special requirements needed, you find themes of sexual liberal thinking throughout his work, and he frequently shows that he thinks women are equal to men and even better suited to some (non-maternal) roles than men. He also seems to have been into incest and paedophilia which are pretty hot topics with modern feminism. On the other hand the feminists who have read his work seem to have an all consuming, screaming, hate-boner for the man. It's beautiful to behold.
355ac8 No.569109
>>569103
Heinlein was a sexist in that he admitted that sexes were different. This is the modern definition of sexism, believing that there are ANY physical differences between men and women. Vaginas are not different from penises period, says modern feminism. Heinlein sticks to science, he knows women and men think differently, he knows we have different physical capabilities.
The women in his books have less muscles and are mentally more attuned to people-thinking rather than a systems-thinking, as exampled in Citizen of the Galaxy, Time for the Stars etc. In Starship Troopers all the troopers are male because of aggression, strength and endurance requirements - but all of the pilots are women. Because women are better at math, are smaller, can handle more g forces, require less oxygen because they have fewer muscles… all things which are true in real life. Heinlein also always kept the door cracked open for women who weren't hormonally average, and could do some things that men could, like Jack in Tunnel in the Sky. He occasionally plays with aliens, like in Star Beast, or Space Cadet with basically Asari from Mass Effect being the only species on Venus.
All of Heinlein's books are about a greater message buried in the plot. The characters don't matter, they could be dogs and cats and it wouldn't make any difference. Star Beasts is about what happens when a secret is kept too long, it tends to grow over time until it's a problem for everyone. It's also about perspective, and about growing up. Having a nigger as a US ambassador makes no difference to the plot whatsoever.
t. Heinlein #1 Fan
fe6d7d No.569145
>>569109
>Because women are better at math, can handle more g forces, … all things which are true in real life.
>this is what soyboys taught by feminist women seriously believe
355ac8 No.569154
>>569145
>t. mgtow faggot
I'm a biologist moron.
Women are on average shorter, decreasing the distance between the heart and the head, and decreasing the "wasted blood" in lower extremities by simply having shorter legs. The disadvantage comes when women wear mens g suits, and are trained in the same methods (straining maneuver) there are some disadvantages, but that situation has nothing to do with the basic biology.
The parts of the brain (inferior parietal lobes) concerned with language, are also the parts of the brain that deal with geometry, algebra, calculus… also the thickness of the corpus callosum helps with visualisation of some specialized spheres of mathemathics. Women can also do multitasking better, but are worse at specializing at a single task, which helps with piloting. They also have more cones in their eyes.
7f8cab No.569182
>>569154
If what you're saying about the female brains structural advantage in mathematics were accurate then why are maths faculties world wide not dominated by women? Please note, we're talking universities here, the home of progressive politics, so if your answer includes the phrases 'institutional', 'sexism', 'bias', 'representation' or any combination thereof you don't have an answer.
ead6bd No.569186
>>569154
>Women are on average shorter, decreasing the distance between the heart and the head,
They also have weaker muscles that reduces effectiveness of anti-G straining maneuver. Overall actual testing studies didn't show statistical difference between male and female g tolerance.
>helps with visualisation of some specialized spheres of mathemathics.
One can invent dozens of made up advantages like libs do but lets go actual performance. Where are all good female pilots? "Good" means beating male pilots head to head, preferably in controlled environment for high relevance of comparison? Try to google "Where are all the female Formula 1 racing drivers?". You will get bazillion of soyboys autisticaly screeching "male privilege!" This is all you need to know about female "piloting skills".
>Women can also do multitasking better
You can add video gaming here. Perfect "feminist dream world", strength doesn't matter at alll, zero entrance barriers, possibility of anonymity. Finally woman can bring her "brain powers" to full effect without body holding her back. Where are female gamers in the top ranks of twitch games? Multitasking? Starcraft? There is like one good "female" gamer there and he is tranny lol.
23c0a2 No.569199
>>569154
>>569182
>>569186
The leaf is partially right. The corpus callosum is indeed larger in women and that lends itself to better multitasking and the use of multiple parts of the brain "simultaneously". Women also have better colored vision, which is why they have a thousand fruity names for what men see as identical colors. The rest is bullshit though.
355ac8 No.569204
>>569182
>>569186
>why no happen
Because being a math academic, being a fighter pilot, or a "formula 1 race car driver" really any career requires devoting a significant portion of your life to mastering that skill. Understand that women need to be married and start a family by 20 so their kid will be raised by 40, their biological clock demands it. A man can get married at 30 or 40, giving him 10-20 extra years of doing whatever he wants, focusing on career, or wasting time gaming. So even though they're biologically superior in those specific areas, a man who can devote himself more fully for 10-20 years in that area is going to be better no matter what.
It's the same reason the stupid wage gap myth exists. Compare unmarried, never pregnant women, and their careers are often as successful as men, or even more so.
355ac8 No.569207
>>569204
By the way that's why men dominate the sport of extreme ironing, why the best cooks are men, and why the global summit of women was paneled by 8 men. The extra time really is responsible for almost all the variance in social success and prominence.
ead6bd No.569231
>>569204
So all comes to universal 'institutional', 'sexism', 'bias', 'representation' feminist explanation. Easy to see this coming. Do you need to know more about female skills and soyboys?
BTW sports were females compete against each other only there are moms champions wining against childless. This number is low but is great against number of females who won against men. That number is around zero. This is real power of penis oppression.
But in sports were females try to compete against men yes they have no chance. From the kids age they could not develop, yes. Because who would be pushing losers? imagine you came into karting school and you are always last bitch on teh track. What are you left to do? What trainer and sponsor will pick you up? How do you learn how to win been weak?
355ac8 No.569245
>>569231
>So all comes to universal 'institutional', 'sexism', 'bias', 'representation' feminist explanation.
What the fuck are you talking about nigger, I didn't say that.
1b9a2a No.569269
>>569231
>>569186
>You can add video gaming here. Perfect "feminist dream world"
Their reaction time is dogshit.
>>569231
You're pretending or this is how your mom and dad made you?
735e8c No.569316
>>569269
>Their reaction time is dogshit.
So how come they aren't dominating the turn-based strategy genre?
23c0a2 No.569322
>>569316
>poor reaction time means you must be a wizard at longer thoughts
1b9a2a No.569325
>>569316
They are more prone to emotion-driven decision-making rather than following a logical process. That's why they suck at RTS games and stuff like chess (and why they are -usually- very bad bosses).
Don't get me wrong, they definitely got the short stick on the "character creation screen", but hey, at least they get to be cute and wear dresses, at least some of them.
There are some perks to their brains though, the leaf pointed them out and the information comes from actual neuroscience rather than social studies. People like >>569231 need to stop sperging-out/behaving like a woman.
0eb9a4 No.569327
>>569325
Men can wear dresses too. it's not even gay t. ancient greece
bab665 No.569329
>>569316
Since reaction time is correlated with IQ, you might as well be shit in video games in general.
>>569327
>it's not even gay t. ancient greece
Togas aren't dresses, profligate. Crucify yourself.
355ac8 No.569333
>>569316
See >>569204
>A man can get married at 30 or 40, giving him 10-20 extra years of doing whatever he wants, focusing on career, or wasting time gaming
Did you know that women are the bigger spenders for games, contributing over 52% of the video game market in monetary terms? The difference is that girls only play casual games, such as cellphone games which require no training, and can be played or quit at any time. The question isn't "why don't girls play video games?" since they obviously do, the question is why do girls avoid games which take a long time to master? The true international competitors (i refuse to use the term "athlete") of video games trained for a decade or more to get where they are. While you were learning the ins and outs of pokemon gold, the average girl your age was busy learning how to do makeup, what clothing shows off her best feature, learning how to fuck men over, actually fucking men, trying to get a high value man, finding out what "high value" meant, how to judge it or improve a low value man, learning how to manipulate the social landscape. What little free time she had to while away was spent on gossip, which is kind of a method of scouting out the social hierarchy, but its also a social weapon.
0eb9a4 No.569334
>>569329
>what is ancient greek drama
355ac8 No.569335
>>569327
They do provide greater airflow over your nuts, which boosts testosterone and sperm output. We only wear pants because they make horse riding easier. Later we continued because bicycles and motorcycles replaced them, and getting out of a car is easier in pants. There hasn't been a good reason to wear a kilt in a while…
f5f76f No.569348
>>568582
In another thread we've pretty much concluded that projectiles are the be all end all of handheld weapons our ground troops will most likely be using cased telescopic firearms with advanced chemical propellants. But we don't just need better guns to conquer the galaxy, we need better men to wield them. The human genome is quite malleable. We can imbue men with great strength, controlled aggression, and deadly cunning. One of the biggest challenges would be alien bacteria and parasites. A possible solution would be to engineer a virus that attacks anything but human cells, and helpful bacteria that already live in your body.
355ac8 No.569355
>>569348
>invent bacteria that metabolize milk lactose into methamphetamine
PERKELE SUOMI JONNE
f81cac No.569391
>>568687
>takes me half a week to notice
Now im a real faggot. Though, the pic wasn't anything too special.
7f8cab No.569426
>>569335
>There hasn't been a good reason to wear a kilt in a while
If you're a faggot maybe.
>>569348
We wouldn't necessarily need something that widespread, there'd be no problem deploying that as a first strike on planets that already need extensive terraforming to support human life - however in worlds that could already support human life without (expensive amounts of) modification there would need to be a discussion about the costs involved in rebuilding after your supervirus has killed their entire ecosystem.
e67599 No.569472
>>569426
The viruses are meant to live in your body to protect you from infection, not wipe out the native microorganisms. I'd put a gland in the spleen to produce them.
>Planets that need extensive terraforming
If a planet has water and carbon based macro organisms we'll be fine. There'll be stuff for us to eat. If it's carbon based it won't be that much biochemically different from carbon based life on Earth.
7f8cab No.569506
>>569472
Having reread your post that makes a lot more sense, but it would only take one virus escaping its human host to potentially wreck an entire ecosystem by destroying the microorganisms that form its most basic layer. Suppose there's a planet whose only life was single celled plants in their ocean photosynthesising and keeping their atmosphere breathable. It could only take a single bit of infected saliva, one guy drinking from a river or spitting into an ocean to destroy that planets ability to support human life. That's before you start adding macroscopic life and animals and the interactions get more complicated and unpredictable.
7760a4 No.569593
I guess the superstrong rope need a lots of love from the white Streloks.
f5f76f No.569600
>>569506
Viruses, especially one's in the bloodstream don't last long outside of the body. Plus it could be engineered to die instantly outside of the body.
4cd746 No.569762
>>569600
>Viruses
>dieing
A virus is a protein shell with DNA or RNA encased inside it, it doesn't have its own metabolism.
f5f76f No.569844
>>569762
Yeah I know they're not technically alive, but they can "die" aka become impotent when exposed to the elements.
7f8cab No.569846
>>569844
Until its structure/RNA changes spontaneously (due to mutation over a few thousand generations - anywhere down to a few days depending on the virus in question) and it becomes far more aggressive and resilient than the original virus ever was.
f5f76f No.569848
>>569846
Or even a few hours. Plus there's the possibility of a virus than can only be infectious in the presence of certain chemicals in the blood.
7f8cab No.569867
>>569848
This. Bio-engineering new species is going to be risky enough when we're dealing with things large enough to need a few (dozen) Millennia to evolve significantly. When it's a species that can change radically in a matter of hours it becomes so unpredictable that pushing random buttons on a nuclear reactor would be less risky - there should be at least a few safeguards built into the reactor after all. All that's before you take the impact a new species can have on existing species (and their relationships) into account. Basically this shit is complicated, unpredictable, and well … Life finds a way.
4cd746 No.569879
>>569867
But that only werks if the virus has already been adapted to the available local hosts, just sending some random earthen virus into an ayy biosphere wouldn't do shit.
One would have to purposefully engineer it to make use of the metabolism+DNA replication mechanisms of a local species for it to do anything.
Now a tardigrade or some extremophile bacteria on the other hand…
7f8cab No.570140
>>569879
>tardigrade
>Nigh on indestructible
>Can survive extreme low/high pressure, temperature, humidity, radiation
>Seriously, they can last in vacuum and irradiated environments until they die from dehydration (after about a decade)
>Outnumber humans at least a billion to one
>You might have had a few of them with your last glass of water, they're fucking tiny
If they were in any way dangerous (as well as basically invulnerable) they'd be the undisputed masters of Earth. It would be the work of a madman to turn something this resilient into something that could even begin to be a vague threat.
35e25f No.570141
>>567386
Nah you're thinking of that maniac Char Aznable. Lieutenant Quattro would never be that dumb.
4cd746 No.570142
>>570140
Just because they're relatively harmless in our biosphere doesn't mean they won't have a profound effect on an alien biosphere.
Just by feasting on some essential nutrient while being nigh invulnerable to anything the ayy organisms throw at it they could wreck entire ecosystems as is.
d03abc No.570146
>>570140
Do they really use locomotion like that? it looks so cartoonish and cutesy.
23c0a2 No.570148
>>570140
>tardigrade
Nice job Bong, you gave me flashbacks to STD.
>Just because they're relatively harmless in our biosphere doesn't mean they won't have a profound effect on an alien biosphere.
Oh, you're correct there.
d03abc No.570149
>>569325
>consuming their time in learning how to wear make up and be manipulative is the reason why roasties are not equal to men in every aspect of human culture that actually matters parenthood included
I know it's part of your culture but lay down the soy for a while.
7f8cab No.570152
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>570142
Ah, shit, I was still thinking of them as a pathogen. You're right, on a world that humanity wants to colonise if there's life on it then there's almost certainly something for these little buggers to eat, and that has the potential to destroy their food chain from the bottom up.
>>570146
>Vid related
If they were about 5000 times larger, and furred/domesticated, they'd make pretty adorable pets.
>>570148
Watching Sexually Transmitted Diversity is its own punishment. You should have known better.
23c0a2 No.570155
>>570152
I stopped after the third(?) episode. Knowing it exists and is canon is more than punishment enough.
7f8cab No.570158
>>570155
There's still the chance that it might not be in the prime timeline. Granted it'll probably push the franchise into hibernation for another 5-6 years when it flops, but it might help the show avoid further pozzing. /desperation.
b04672 No.570180
Like anything, the best way to bring space colonization about is to: make it profitable, minimize 'apparent risk' to investors by keeping everything as similar as possible to known conditions, preparing people for acceptable fatalities, and by making all improvements gradual; humans can't really plan well enough to just do something novel at the large scale, especially without some human cost. Most colonies had a 100%-50% death rate the first year, due to unknowns and infrequent resupply trips. Rescue rockets must always be on stand-by, for modern PR reasons.
And that's the biggest worry, for 50 years it has always come down to lack of political will. All the soyboy/NIMBY/reparatiuns/politician types will throttle everything forever if they even feel like their security, ignorant happiness, or economic power is threatened. This makes gradual improvements even more important, because these retards can't think about something if it isn't on the news.
>>569204
I think it's a combination of the explanation of this webm (9:00 minutes on) and the quote. Men got into (and still are in) a really, really extreme evolutionary war between both themselves and nature; women got somewhat left out of the race because 'winning' is procreation and that had them in a passive role. And you can see this in the really fucked up fetishes that 60%(!) of both genders get, ones that conflate sex with abuse and power. After a billion or so murders, a difference has built up. One gender's brain and body excels a bit more at 'the rules of nature', having long term endurance, and competition. Since wealth and skill comes from working ruthlessly hard at something for a long time; and that the best of the best must be dedicated to working at their maximum possible potential for their entire life…
b04672 No.570210
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>570180
TL;DR version
It's evolution, baby.
f5f76f No.571139
>>569348
Expanding on the small arms. Basic rifle
>Gas operated
>chambered in 6.5mm cased telescopic
>Uses RDX based propellant
>Can be laded with different projectiles suited for different tasks
>High velocity express rounds for lightly, or unarmored enemies; maximizes tissue damage.
>Armor piercing rounds with osmiridium perpetrator cores.
c153b0 No.581319
I've been wondering what sort of advantage the availability of asteroid/moon/Saturn ring mined rare earths and metals would give a Space Colony against an earthen (((adversary))).
Couldn't the Colony instigate conflict on Earth itself by secretly sending pods containing 6.5mm caseless tungsten ammo, LFTR blueprints+parts and other tech made from rare earth metals on countries such as Iran or best Korea?
45a806 No.581346
>>581319
Not only would they have endless ressources, but their spaceships can actually be build for space only without worrying about getting our of the atmosphere.
Just bombard your opponents from space with heat resistant objects. The kinetic energy should be enough.
9af567 No.581382
>>581346
Or you could just blockade the planet and let them starve, they're working with limited resources, and you are working with an amount of resources large enough to be effectively infinite. Maybe burn a few thousand square kilometres of farmland every now and then to speed up the process, Orbital Napalm Strikes ftw.
5bf9e2 No.581439
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>581382
i have seen this anime
927886 No.581539
>>581319
>Couldn't the Colony instigate conflict on Earth itself by secretly sending pods
How do you keep that a secret? Either you're going through official orbital delivery channels, which would be subject to inspections and never make it to enemies of the Earth state, or you're dropping it in hot where it shows up on radar and even the naked eye.
The better question is "couldn't the Colony instigate conflict on Earth itself by hitting it with extraterrestrial matter," to which the answer is yes, and why we're so touchy about the issues of letting anyone into outer space with anything larger and stronger than a flimsy space station. The military advantage is too strong to allow any one nation access to the Solar system, so we have to have governments take baby steps through official channels to make sure nobody has an advantage. If you have aspirations of being a space pirate, I implore you to reconsider.
1b4b68 No.581561
>>581442
What the fuck did they do to LoGH?
430542 No.581585
>>581539
>shows up on radar and even the naked eye
no and maybe
re entering objects have low rcs to search radar because of the plasma they generate, it would have to crash near a radar installation to be detected. same for human eye, reentering objects only become visible to human eye when they hit about 5km altitude, and thats assuming a violent reentry. if it does an s turn it can avoid that.
4c54ef No.581816
>>581585
>reentering objects only become visible at 5 kilometers
nigger you can see PLANES flying higher than that
d30e1a No.582119
9a44b4 No.582120
>>567134
>Earth is completely infested with hive minded aliens to make it uninhabitable for the aliens.
So Chiggers in 50 years?
2d2d2e No.582143
>>581816
If you know what to look for, yeah you can see a plane. If you know what to look for you can see some satellites in orbit with the naked eye.
The problem is NOT knowing where to look. At 5-10km the atmosphere becomes dense enough that the plasma sheath around a reentring object is visible in daylight. But I'm assuming he's making some attempt to stay hidden, so I'm betting on the lower end of that.
>>582119
>armed with a W66 enhanced radiation thermonuclear warhead.
Learn to read. It was a dumb area weapon intended to fry electronics on reentering warheads.
If someone is secretly dropping supplies from orbit there is almost no way to intercept it. You'd have to blockade the planet, and I don't know if you noticed but it's a sphere, meaning a blockading force would have to essentially number anywhere from 700 to 20,000 armed space stations depending on the size of each.
2d2d2e No.582340
>>582334
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_stealth
>The Sputnik's simple shape serves as an ideal illustration of plasma's effect on the RCS of an aircraft. Naturally, an aircraft would have a far more elaborate shape and be made of a greater variety of materials, but the basic effect should remain the same. In the case of the Sputnik flying through the ionosphere at high velocity and surrounded by a naturally occurring plasma shell, there are two separate radar reflections: the first from the conductive surface of the satellite, and the second from the dielectric plasma shell.
>The authors of the paper found that a dielectric (plasma) shell may either decrease or increase the echo area of the object. If either one of the two reflections is considerably greater, then the weaker reflection will not contribute much to the overall effect. The authors also stated that the EM signal that penetrates the plasma shell and reflects off the object's surface will drop in intensity while traveling through plasma, as was explained in the prior section.
>The most interesting effect is observed when the two reflections are of the same order of magnitude. In this situation the two components (the two reflections) will be added as phasors and the resulting field will determine the overall RCS. When these two components are out of phase relative to each other, cancellation occurs. This means that under such circumstances the RCS becomes null and the object is completely invisible to the radar.
Objects entering earths atmosphere have a reduced cross section, the number of radar stations needed would be enormous. It would be easier and cheaper to intercept the packages before they enter the atmosphere.
It's even viable for military aircraft, although its very power hungry meaning it can be used only in bursts of a dozen or so minutes, and the generator adds a lot of weight to the airplane.
c9b98a No.582388
The most realistic idea I have heard for space colonization involves microscopic organisms engineered to evolve into humans on a terraformed planet. It would bypass many issues about deep space travel although lead to other questions.
I will say regardless of the odds, expanding humanity's survival is worth supporting. This also includes knocking meteors off course to prevent collision.
293cf2 No.582442
>>568547
Can't wait for terraformed Venus. 1.1g, natural atmo, feminists reeeing about how it should be a womans planet and not being able to do anything about the ultimate second amendment, including recreational mcnukes.
1830ac No.582446
>>582388
> microscopic organisms engineered to evolve into humans on a terraformed planet.
That will take million years to evolve into human and we wanted to go now.
c153b0 No.582450
>>582388
>microscopic organisms engineered to evolve into humans on a terraformed planet
I assume you meant "grow", if they were engineered to """evolve""" through natural selection on some uninhabited planet they'd never end up as humans.
It'd probably be better for the first settlers of a Space Colony, planet(oid) etc. to mod themselves and their successors via CRISPR against Space Radiation and such.
1830ac No.582453
705c73 No.582460
>>569204
Telling us you're a 'biologist' doesn't lend you any credence to you saying 'they're better than men at everything but.. but they're kept down!' more than the next shmoe. Give actual measured studies that conclude effectively anything you have said. There's a funny anecdote as well, can't find the image for it but it's fairly common, where the #10 woman tennis player or near went up against the some-hundred-odd male player and lost horribly, then went lower, and lost horribly, and then went lower and lost slightly less horribly. On top of that kind of stuff, if you want to go with 'they're better at handling g-forces because they're short', well I hate to tell you this buddy but there's plenty of short guys and the official US height limits for a Air Force pilot is 5'3 to 6'4. Not to mention that general muscle density and heart strength would play a massive part in that as well.
578d74 No.582474
>>582460
>Telling us you're a 'biologist' doesn't lend you any credence to you saying 'they're better than men at everything but.. but they're kept down!'
Whew it's a good thing I didn't say that, and no one in this thread said that. What you seem to be getting mad at is women excelling in anything over men. You going to get mad if someone points out they can give birth?
Most mathematics (calculus, algebra etc) uses the language part of the brain, because its just manipulation of symbols, and women have a more developed language center. Men would be better at a few special areas of mathematics, like geometry, because men are systems-thinkers with higher spatial reasoning. It's not a surprise that all our knowledge of physics is based on calculations of Mileva Maric.
I'm not saying anything obscene or odd here, these are all parts of established sex differences of intelligence. As long as you ignore the cancer that is AMA…
99e3fb No.582483
>>582446
>That will take million years to evolve into human
Implant the full human genome, in a genetic-expression repressed format, in extremophile organisms and the process will be greatly accelerated.
99e3fb No.582484
>>582474
>Most mathematics (calculus, algebra etc) uses the language part of the brain, because its just manipulation of symbols, and women have a more developed language center
Then where are all those top-notch mathematician women?
c153b0 No.582489
>>582483
The human genome carrying organisms would likely experience lots of silent mutations in the human parts of their DNA over time as the presence/integrity of said DNA would have little impact on their survival.
The rare non-silent mutations leading to human gene expression would either kill the organism, do nothing at all or lead to further evolution into something else entirely over time.
99e3fb No.582504
>>582489
>The human genome carrying organisms would likely experience lots of silent mutations in the human parts of their DNA over time as the presence/integrity of said DNA would have little impact on their survival.
Never said the opposite.
>The rare non-silent mutations leading to human gene expression would either kill the organism, do nothing at all or lead to further evolution into something else entirely over time.
And that's where natural selection comes in.
c9b98a No.582518
>>582450
Growing seems like the better term.
705c73 No.582546
>>582474
Your argument is that women are better at many things biologically but due to the fact that they 'need to be married by 20' it never comes into fruition. Indescribably stupid. What I said is essentially exactly what you are saying.
>most mathematics uses the language part of the brain
Really? I thought most complex processes like these were in direct correlation with IQ, because you know, you're aren't interpreting mathematic concepts the same way whatsoever that you interpret language. Man if I needed to draw out tables and equations and spend five minutes to solve a sentence it'd be quite a different world. I'd like to see a source for that. Neat thingy on that too, there isn't just a "language center", there's multiple psuedo-undefined completely separate sections that 'do' different things i.e syntactic processing or lexical semantics, spoken and written language, which are two rather different things. Plus others. The brain isn't definitively sectioned off, mr. 'biologist'
> and women have a more developed language center
Well this should be a pretty easy, objective thing to prove, although funny, I can't seem to find any study that says this with a quick search. Again, I'd really love to see a source for that, even if just for the sake of learning and not proving you're functionally retarded and probably a woman and/or white knight deep into mental gymnastics.
c153b0 No.582587
>>582546
Tl;dr Women possess superior neural Information transfer capability but inferior information processing capability even with increased parallelization and all.
2d2cb7 No.582607
>>582546
>> and women have a more developed language center
Very anecdotal but I've noticed that men tend to be capable of speaking, and/or know the grammatical rules, of more languages but women tend to become more fluent in casual conversation of other languages and much quicker.
Suppose it might be an evolutionary adaptation for the event they have their tribe mass murdered and get raped into an enemy tribe member.
acfdd1 No.582625
>>582442
Which one would the better candidate for terraforming anyway?
<Mars
>probably a nitrogen poor enviroment
>substantial amount of frozen water present
>near Earth-like day cycle (24h 39min)
>low gravity (0,38g); possible long term health and gestation problems
>geologically inactive, only localized magnetic fields
>might need active weather management to prevent the planet from turning into a snowball
<Venus
>Earth-like mass and gravity (0,8 Earth and 0,9g)
>hydrogen poor enviroment
>no magnetosphere; solar wind interacts directly with the atmosphere
>geologically active, apparently undergoes periodic catastrophic resurfacing
>solar day is 116,75 Earth days long
>which means you're going to need orbital shades and mirrors unless you like temperature extremes and freaky weather
Venus might look more attractive mass wise and finding hydrogen (or water) in the system is easier than getting at a nitrogen source but given that we know jack and shit about the interior freezing out a significant part of the atmosphere might pop the planet like a overripe zit.
2d2cb7 No.582639
>>582625
>Hellas planitia deepest ocean
>Olympus mons tallest volcano AND mountain in the whole solar system
REST OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM ARE YOU EVEN TRYING?!
HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS
0a552f No.582681
c52386 No.582912
>>582681
Makes me wonder if the reason why we've never found any extraterrestrial life (intelligent or otherwise) is because the party had already ended a few aeons before humanity ever decided to look up. The entire galaxy could be past its expiry date for all we know, and we'd never be able to tell. From our perspective it's always been like this. Who knows how many planets used to be lush, green paradises, only to have everything pulled under the mantle and erased, before their tectonic activity finally ground to a halt.
With that said, if there's anything we can count on humankind to do, it's to figure out how to build a bomb big enough to jump-start a dead exoplanet's tectonic activity. This galaxy might be a bit of a fixer-upper, but it's got potential.
578d74 No.582917
>>582484
In accounting and taxes mostly.
>>582546
>Your argument
It's not an argument negro, I'm not putting forth a fucking philosophical position.
Rest of that sentence is a fucking strawman, I refuse to read that bullshit comment. Quit lying about me and maybe we can talk.
>>582625
Mars would be easier, but both would be very hard. People today just aren't used to being part of construction projects that last two thousand years.
705c73 No.582919
>>582917
>I refuse to read anything that doesn't agree with me and then assert superiority, conveniently forgetting all past discussion
Not even going to bother, you're like a stereotypical jew straight out of mein kampf. What did I even expect
2250ac No.582921
>>582917
>In accounting and taxes mostly.
At least in my country that would explain a lot.
78344d No.582934
>>582912
>jumpstarting a planet's tectonic activity
I heard that if one were to detonate a Tsar Bomb at Challenger deep it would a cause tectonic disruption big enough to raise a new continent in the pacific.
How big+deep would one have to go jumpstart Mars' core?
Would targeted kinetic surface bombardment help?
f1388f No.582938
>>582934
Tsar bomb didn't had enough power to buckle the crust substantially, it wouldn't do crap. To do the event like in your pic related you'd need a bomb 1500 meters in diameter.
efdc6b No.582946
>>582938
>a bomb 1500 meters in diameter
You say that like it's a bad thing
0a552f No.582958
>>582912
>>582934
the best candidate for finding life would be large moons orbiting gas giants. The tidal pull from the planets gravity would sustain plate tectonics.
24b8bc No.582999
>>582958
Europa has kilometers of ice to act as a radiation shield, as well as the tidal pull of Jupiter and the other Galilean moons to keep the core molten, so it's actually quite plausible there's life of some sort in there. And even if that isn't the case it'd be a pretty decent place for a colony.
578d74 No.583005
>>582919
>"WAAAH WHY DONT YOU REPLY TO MY 10-SECOND STRAWMAN WITH A CAREFULLY THOUGHT OUT ESSAY ARGUMENT!"
>"kkkkkkkike!"
I have a job and not a lot of free time. Think up something worth responding to.
>>582921
Greece failed because it was Europe's little experiment with "western socialism". The leading powers like Germany, France and the UK literally supported far leftist parties like Syriza with enough cash to let them form ruling coalitions.
>>582958
>>582934
>>582912
>>582681
Plate tectonics help new life form, they have no purpose in a discussion about terraforming by already formed intelligent life (humans).
0a552f No.583019
>>583005
Plate tectonics help keep a planter's climate stable and facilitate carbon cycle. It keeps the biosphere running. I remember when we had a thread on this a while ago some retard said we could all live in O'Neill cyllinders and I told him that that was retarded since they'd require constant resupply of organic material from Earth.
>>582999
The dwarf planet Ceres may also have a subsurface ocean.
578d74 No.583031
>>583019
Still doesn't really have any bearing on terraforming, which is an artificial process.
>O'Neill cyllinders and I told him that that was retarded since they'd require constant resupply of organic material from Earth.
Well you were wrong, its possible to grow organic material in orbit.
0a552f No.583033
>>583031
You need a global carbon cycle to sustain a biosphere. You can grow a plant in a pot, but you need to keep giving it fertilizer, or soil from the earth. I never said you can't grow plants in space,just that you can't keep doing it forever without supplementation from Earth.
578d74 No.583036
>>583033
>You can grow a plant in a pot, but you need to keep giving it fertilizer, or soil from the earth.
Am I talking to a child?
Soil is just rock which has been ground down, and broken up by lichen and moss. The dead lichen and moss form the humic and fulvic part of soil.
"Fertilizer" is just fixed nitrogen, which crop rotation does naturally.
0a552f No.583040
>>583036
You are an absolute retard. Plate tectonics facilitate the carbon cycle. Without it your soil ends up dead. https://deepcarbon.net/feature/subduction-and-deep-carbon-cycle
A small artificial environment can run for a few years,or maybe decades at the most before it needs supplementation from Earth.
705c73 No.583042
>>583036
>"Fertilizer" is just fixed nitrogen
Jesus fucking christ
0a552f No.583043
578d74 No.583059
>>583040
>carbon cycle
You keep using that term without knowing what it means, at least read the links you keep posting. The deep carbon cycle refers to a portion of the carbon cycle, which itself is the cycle of carbon in a natural biosphere. The requirements of a natural biosphere have no bearing on an artificial farm. You don't need tectonic plates moving to provide CO2 to a fucking plant.
>>583042
What else are you going to need that poop from the people who eat the plants isn't going to provide?
c52386 No.583060
>>583036
Even ignoring the carbon cycle, you're just going to ignore phosphorus and potassium?
578d74 No.583064
>>583060
CO2 can be maintained by the exhales of animals, or generated from rock. Potassium, phosphorus and other minerals can be recovered by plowing under the inedible parts of the plant or (through feeding the inedible parts of plants to them) by using feces from animals. If any mineral is lacking it can be refined from asteroids, this is an artificial environment, ARTIFICIAL. Do you people know what artificial means???
a2df94 No.583068
>>582639
It's because of the lower gravity. Lower gravity allows for bigger things as per the square cubed law. If humans were to live on mars long enough the population would probably become taller on average, but due to lower gravity they would also be weaker without constant strength training.
f11786 No.583074
>>582625
>venus
Venus would be fine but you would have to dump a huge amount of iron nanoparticles to kickstart a catalyzing reaction to drop all the carbon out of solution and then mine out and remove all the excess carbon.
You also have to limit the amount of water to prevent a wet greenhouse.
>mars
You could partially terraform Mars really easily. Hellas is almost at the switch over point that would allow liquid water to exist.
Best way to make Mars livable would be to make the fabled canals for real. Dig them deep enough to concentrate atmospheric pressure to a livable point then start transporting and melting water. In the short term you could make colonization pits too starting with Hellas and Argyre.
Perchlorates might be a problem.
578d74 No.583082
>>583074
During comet impact about a tenth of its water mass is converted into split oxygen and hydrogen, and the hydrogen is blown off by solar wind leaving the oxygen. So comet bombardment can create an atmosphere.
Placing a powerful enough EM field generator at the Mars-Sun L1 point can shield the nascent atmosphere from solar wind, giving the planet an artificial magnetic field.
Would take under a century to have enough pressure on the surface to not need a suit, just a breather. And another few centuries to be able to survive outside with limited genetic engineering.
0a552f No.583083
>>583064
You have absolutely no clue how much time, resources and energy it would take to do that. Without plate tectonics there'd be a build up of carbon, no matter what. Plants and animals alone can't regulate it. Floating around forever in a little cylinder that requires asteroid mining, and resupply from Earth sounds shitty. I'll take the stable environment of a geologically active planet,or moon. Cylinders would be more useful as establishing a presence in the outer solar system instead of constantly flying people out there from earth, or as a stopgap between now and FTL travel. They'd be a drain on energy and resources as permanent habitats.
3f0390 No.583130
>>583083
Is there no way to filter, compress and then reinsert the excess carbon into the soil somehow?
t. brainlet
578d74 No.583149
>>583083
>Plants and animals alone can't regulate it.
DO YOU THINK ONEILL CYLINDER CONSISTS OF MIXING A HUNDRED TONS OF SOIL WITH SOME SHEEP AND SEEDS, THEN INJECTING IT INTO ORBIT AND FORGETTING ABOUT IT?!?!
ARTIFICIAL!!
MAN MADE, MAN MAINTAINED SYSTEM!
YOU FUCKING MORON!
0a552f No.583420
>>583130
>>583149
So you guys admit it would be high maintenance as fuck?
049a57 No.583429
>>583420
You have clearly walked into the wrong thread.
4cf0cf No.583437
>>583420
>expecting Space endeavours to be low-maintenance in any way, shape or form
524d8b No.585173
>>567280
>That money could be better used to making the Earth not shit
Whats the time-frame for that? Because if it takes more than 20 years tops, I don't give a crap about Earth and want to go to space.