Space colonies aren't possible

>Space colonies aren't possible.

All it takes is a small asteroid traveling 60,000mph to puncture a hole and depressurize the entire thing killing everyone.


>Near light speed travel isn't possible

All it takes is hitting a small asteroid at 180,000mps to puncture a hole and depressurize the entire thing killing everyone.


Why doesn't anyone ever mention this?

Other urls found in this thread:

upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7b/SmallAsteroidImpacts-Frequency-Bolide-20141114.jpg
google.com/search?q=relativity of simultaneity causality
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whipple_shield)
arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0207057)
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Deflector shields dumbass

ever heard of cushions?

>Space colonies aren't possible.
>Live on space colony called Earth.
>Being constantly hit by small asteroid traveling 60,000mph
>upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7b/SmallAsteroidImpacts-Frequency-Bolide-20141114.jpg
>get hit by large asteroid once
>100 teratonnes of TNT
>life goes on
>shitpost on sci about asteroids 66 million years later

Yeah, Earth only has a 300 mile thick atmosphere to shield it.

>All it takes is a small asteroid traveling 60,000mph to puncture a hole and depressurize the entire thing killing everyone.
in reality there wouldn't be any huge open areas filled with people like the picture
it would be more like space stations we have today, lots of small to medium sized rooms that can seal

>All it takes is a small asteroid traveling 60,000mph to puncture a hole and depressurize the entire thing killing everyone.

>a hole

>A

>1 (one) hole

>depressurize ENTIRE THING

Imagine, if you will, a modern warship - it is steel and armor and it is the very definition of sinkable.

Strike one with a ship-killer missile - the P-270 Moskit, for example. Designed for the explicit purpose of wrecking a modern warship, it carries 320 kg of explosives. By mass, it carries fifty times as much explosive as a javelin missile, and a javelin missile will reliably kill a tank - and a battleship does not have thicker armor than a tank - in fact, it has less.

So do that - strike a modern warship directly with a Moskit. It should sink, right? Right?

But it doesn't!

Because at some point, there was a man who thought "Maybe - hear me out here - maybe we should divide our entire ship into smaller rooms, each of which are independently airtight, and have all access between bulkheads and decks be through hatches and airlocks" and people laughed at the fool except not, of course, and so modern warships are essentially unsinkable. They're not indestructible - strike a warship with a Moskit and the remains are not a warship, but the remains float.

So in conclusion you should never be an engineer, you should hang your STEM hat up in shame and go study Continental Philosophy.

Can we build a deflectors somehow?

Also there is very small chance to stumble across something in a little ship in space.

are you quoting yourself?

It's more like highlighting subject titles than quoting

Of the many uses of greentext, this is not one of them.

What we CAN do is make multiple layers of armor that can self-seal, which is a better idea than deflectors or shields.

You know what deflectors are? MAGNETS!

You know what shields are? Ionized plasma controlled by... MAGNETS! The idea being that the plasma does the work of a planetary atmosphere.

STAR TREK science is not as cool as you think it be, but it do.

You realize if an asteroid hits at 60,000mph it's going to go off like a nuclear bomb

Nuclear bombs are not the problem they are on a planet. Most of the energy will go out into the vacuum

Unless your "particle" is the size of a planet, fucking hairsplitter.

>hang your STEM hat up in shame and go study Continental Philosophy.
Ouch.

>Compartmentalized build
>Defense system with high intensity lasers and missiles.
>Ability to separate along some compartments (depending on the trajectory of the object) and engage evasive maneuvers.
>Long range scanners constantly analyzing trajectories of objects several hundred miles around the colony.
>probes in far orbit, sending info on all objects posing a threat.
>Deploy-able thrusters than can mount a bigger object and change its trajectory.
>Thick build with outside view being projected via system of hd hq cameras and screens, so no windows. (In few 100 yrs you couldn't even distinguish it from a real window, even now the high K tech is commendable). And we can simulate sunlight, take care of vit D even now.
>designed to be as much hit-proof as possible, (design that makes it statistically less possible to be hit) - not a solid piece of big steely cube or something.


This just from top of my head.
If people applied thought into the subject for several years Im sure it poses no problem to make the colony safe.

>many uses

I can only come up with 2.

>Flying machines aren't possible.

In order to fly, you need to be lighter than the air. Otherwise you will go down.

And if just 1 mistake everybody dies

Thats space for u, mate. We fly planes, but there is also one mistake from pilot and rip in pepperonis all the humans on board.

No one dies, its safer than living in L.A.

All the systems work together.

U ppl dont think.
Done with this teenage thread.

1. Quoting
2. Misquoting
3. Personal accounts

>Holes.
Say hello to self sealing hulls, compartmentalization, and quickly applicable patches. Christ did you even think about this for a single minute before posting?

All it takes is muh dick traveling 60,000mph to puncture a hole and depressurize your mom

>thread
*website

He's not done with the website, no one is.

The probability of that occurring is pretty low. A 2 inch rock impacting the station would cause the loss of 60% of the atmosphere in 10 hours. However, the probability of this occurring is pretty low, this is a one in 7000 year event. Even if such an event does happen, it provides ample time to patch it.

larger objects would be rarer. A bigger issue is someone going 'aloha snackbar' and driving a spacecraft into the colony.

>Ouch.


I mean, I was perhaps unduly harsh.

But it's just... "There is a problem, therefore the thing cannot be done" is the most amazingly non-stem thing I have ever heard.

But I'm sure user can go on to be a fine STEMologist, he just ruffled me because I happened to have worked on sealing compartments. I'm sure I say equally stupid things when talking about subjects I'm not an expert on.

It could also be a problem if the rock strikes any particularly important part with low redundancy - e.g. nuclear thermobatteries are heavy, you don't send up a lot of them - or strikes anything that is hazardous to clean up - lots of modern civilization requires some pretty noxious products to function.

This thread is retarded. Such a colony would be able to track all significant asteroids from millions of miles away.

point defense lasers to vaporize or push small objects out of the way.

robotic craft will push the larger rocks out of the way from a farther distance.

Good luck trying to treat dilated RKVs like normie objects. Idiots.

why does a space colony have nuclear thermo batteries
and why are RKVs a problem for space colonies?

>why does a space colony have nuclear thermo batteries

Because they weigh less than solar cells, use less oxygen than a chemical generator, store more energy than a chemical battery and are far safer than a nuclear powerplant.

But I mean BESIDES those reasons, you're right - my colony should be using Space Crystals for energy, obvs.

>aren't possible
For people who still refer to mph there are many things that are not possible.

The meek shall inherit the Earth. The rest of us shall go to the stars.

>Space colonies aren't possible.
>breach problem

Compartmentalize. Just because we need to use O'Neil Cylinders doesn't mean they need to be open and spacious.

>Near light speed travel isn't possible

Correct. Humanity will never get anything with a human in it to attain even 10% of C.

>Live on space colony called Earth.

Venus is the only gravity-viable planet in our solar system. Too bad it is so deadly with everything else. All other celestial bodies have gravity that is too low or too high for extended or life long living.

That's only a problem in places with a large atmosphere. A space colony-sized station will be so well honey combed with spaces and voids that it will easily deal with such an impact. Only the modules that are struck will be obliterated.

Don't drive.

>A bigger issue is someone going 'aloha snackbar' and driving a spacecraft into the colony.

Human threat is the 1st and probably only large scale problem humanity needs to address.

It'd use solar. ISS has already got a nice hole in its solar panel array.

The solar panel arrays don't even need to be attached to the station to provide power to the station. Nor does a "NTB."

There won't be any interstellar travel by human beings.

>There won't be any interstellar travel by human beings.
I doubt that. If the development of spacefaring continues and launches continue to get cheaper, eventually some group is going to try their hand at a generation ship. Whether they succeed or not is another topic, but I don't think it's a stretch to imagine that humans will travel beyond the boundary of our solar system (whether you draw that line at Pluto's orbit or the edge of the Oort cloud) within the next 300 years or so.

Oh there will be attempts, but no one will actually make it. You actually have to reach another solar system to be interstellar.

>next 300 years or so

Space faring humans will be no more by then.

Gotta get off earths surface before you can do anything in space..

Then everything will involve the sorta automation that would totally reinvent earth economies

Airlocks.

4.bullet points

>There won't be any interstellar travel by human beings.

Unless, of course, we *haven't* developed every possible technology to its utmost limits.

>You actually have to reach another solar system to be interstellar.
Let's not split hairs.
If a group wants to achieve permanent autonomy by "leaving the solar system", then anything beyond the easy reach of Earth would do.

Sorry, kid, but were are fucking stuck here. Only "seeds" would be able to reach another solar system. Humanity is to violent to use generation ships.

Nope, still the one thing they are not used for, which was my original point.

Einstein-Rosen bridge and zero-point energy to stabilise it, whilst not actually FTL as you're connecting point A with point B as AB. It is functionally FTL.

...

>i'm so FUCKING SMART I can predict EVERYTHING that the human race is capable of.

blow me

>I live in fairy land and space ships will be powered by pixie dust!

Come at me, bro.

>Einstein-Rosen bridge
Sorry, I'm in the "the stars belong to us" camp, but *any* FTL violates causality.
google.com/search?q=relativity of simultaneity causality

>Come at me, bro.
We've got about a billion years before life on Earth become untenable.
Lotta shit can happen before then,
We're not going to be able to hash it all out on a Chinese scrimshaw trading board.
Even if we aren't getting off this rock, there's no way you could possibly know that.
And being more cynical than others doesn't make you better, or smarter.
It's a shame uncle Bob touched you "down there", but you don't have to take it out on the whole world.

A yes, because 100 years ago we could totally predict what technology we'd have in the 1980s, let alone 2017+.

That isn't FTL, it just 'acts' like FTL.

>We've got about a billion years before life on Earth become untenable.

That has nothing at all to do with humanity.

Actually, yes. Not just predict, but state it as complete irrefutable fact.

The truth doesn't need to be believed. Only lies and delusions need to be believed.

Humanity isn't going to last long enough to send people to another solar system with any hopes of survival.

I didn't know you were Nostradamus reincarnate? Shut up, you misanthropic autistic, you a NOT prophetic or insightful.

Sweet Jesus titty-fucking Christ
And I thought you were serious at first, lol.

all presumptions and fallacies based upon what you think you know about accepted science of the present.

scientists used to insist people couldn't possibly travel by locomotive, claiming the human body couldn't withstand moving at speeds above 25mph.

when will you idiots learn that we have only scratched the surface with our current knowledge of physics and the infinite universe ?

All these tears from having your world shattered before you are delicious.

It isn't wrong though.

Oh hey, I shitposted that image last week. Noice.

It really was. Your graph is built upon assumption and fallacy.

>Zero arguments to refute
OK.

We can use plasma shielding to deflect those asteroids ;)

The cost of doing business in space is very expensive. Beyond the orbit of earth all we will ever do is fling drones and rovers around the solar system. Actual colonies and manned missions to other planets are a pipe dream.

Is this copypasta

space colonies would obviously need some sort of deflection technology to be viable.

near light speed travel would have some kind of shielding or physical function to operate successfully.

If it allows you to leave earth in say 2050, go to Alpha Centauri, and return to Earth before 2058, then it *is* FTL.

How exactly is "scientific advancement" being measured? Also, the graph implies that if it weren't for the Christian dark ages, we'd have 2050s-era technology (presumably things like nuclear fusion and quantum computers) by 1000 CE, which just sounds ridiculous to me.

you can make solar cells from in situ resources. We cannot afford to launch space colonies from the ground

I enjoy the thought of colonizing the oceans and such more, as I feel they would simply be less pricey in the long run.

>I enjoy the thought of colonizing the oceans and such more, as I feel they would simply be less pricey in the long run.
What would be the point?

Are you retarded? What do you fucking mean what is the point? There are too many points to even know where to begin. Population, tourism (capitalism woo), developing technology to survive in exotic environments in space in the future, further deep-sea research and exploration.

I didn't read all of the other comments, but I will assume my refutation of your argument has gone unstated. While the premise that a small asteroid can do significant damage to a spacecraft is correct, it is incorrect to assume that the asteroid would destroy the whole colony. Space colonies use compartmentalization in the same way a submarine or large warship does. If there is a hit, that area is sealed off preventing water from getting in or in this case, air from getting out. So then you would say "what about entire showers" and then I would say, why not just put them underground on a small moon or asteroid to prevent this issue in the first place.

Oh yeah guys, forgot to tell you, I was sent back in time to tell you to not make an Einstein-Rosen bridge because it will break the universe. Well, not me, just a few electrons that were worked out causally on a super computer. TY

You never presented an argument in the first place you autismal cunt

How exactly is causality satisfied in extremely curved regions of spacetime that we know for a fact exist? Like the ergosphere of rotating black holes, where particles are seen by outside observers to be moving faster than the speed of light?

I'm not so good at physics, but the idea of a deflector is basically to vaporize whatever hits it. To perform that, you'd need an assload of power, or it'd take too long, and would breach the ship.
If you DID get the power, you'd only have one or two hits before your run out.

>Grand autismo is go
Of course not, was my first post in this thread.

>the idea of a deflector is basically to vaporize
it is sufficient to deflect rather than vapourize. If you detect the impactor well in advance, like at least one year, you could impart a small delta v to make it pass you by at a small margin. The delta v can be imparted by many means including laser heating to create a small jet of boil off material.

Solar winds and other radiation will be a much bigger problem than asteroids. It will need a huge magnetic field or very thick material shielding to protect the occupants.

>terraforming
>FTL
>anything faster than 10% C
>Humanity making it to another solar system

I wish to fuck you tards would go back to and your pseudosci webshits.

>60,000mph
>mhp
I'd give you a decent answer if you didn't use retard units.

For small debris it should be made strong enough to resist the impact.

For larger and more dangerous debris space colonies will be equipped with thrusters so it could avoid asteroids and comets.

What we need are good detection systems that can warn us far enough ahead. I don't expect you could move a colony very fast.

Using lasers to burn up smaller debris or push it into a different path is also an option.

this. Upkeep on a facility of even 2001: A Space Odyssey size would require ridiculous man/robot power, be super expensive, and basically just be impractical.

Who has ever said speed of light travel is even possible, it's not even possible how do you propose anything in regards to something that is impossible

>Who has ever said speed of light travel is even possible
Few.

However travel faster than the speed of light is not outright dismissed. See tachyons. Also use of wormholes can bring you to the target at a speed faster than speed of light through normal space and would also appear at destination that arrival happened prior to departure.

Amerifucks BTFO

Wide-scale electromagnetic fields, bitch nigger

Is Koko real life?

And if so, is Koko a special fancy gorilla or has a latent cognitive ability of lowland Western gorillas in general simply been unlocked within her?

We should ask - is it possible to be at one part of space ''A'' and then in part ''B'' faster than it would took light traveling in a line?

And that it is.
But we can use tricks to do it.

Like Warp engines.

What said.

Also, small asteroids really aren't very common. Earth orbit is the most cluttered place in the universe by orders of magnitude due to space junk, and the ISS has been depressurized due to collision punctures precisely 0 times.

For small, fast debris, you use a Whipple shield (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whipple_shield) which is basically a layer of tinfoil spaced away from the hull. Small debris hits the shield and essentially vaporizes, and doesn't so much puncture the hull as splatter it.

It is now known that thick, multi-layer fabric is even more resistant to meteoroids and small debris than a Whipple shield - this is what the Bigelow inflatable modules use, which is why they're comfortable putting a big inflatable balloon in space without worrying about it popping. They've had a test module up in orbit since 2007, and it's still pressurized.

Also, you've only got 1 atm of pressure difference between the inside and the outside, worst-case. A reasonably small hole- say, 5 cm diameter, which is still really big as impact holes go given typical debris fluxes - is only going to leak about 27 normal cubic meters of air per minute, worst-case. This is a windspeed of 14 m/s, or just on the border between 'strong breeze', and 'moderate gale'. At this rate, a large open space like the one in the above picture will take Fucking Hours to depressurize dangerously, leaving plenty of time to slap a patch over the thing. (as the chamber depressurizes, this will of course slow down).

I think there's a huge difference between the shielding of a colony in place and a ship at very large speeds. If you want interstellar or intergalactic travel, you need to reach such speeds.

In those cases even dust grains become very destructive. Even the cosmic background radiation will cause wear and tear over long travel times.

"We should ask - is it possible to be at one part of space ''A'' and then in part ''B'' faster than it would took light traveling in a line?"

No.

You can, however, bend space so that the shortest path between A and B is shorter than you'd expect, so that you can arrive faster than a light ray would have if you assumed a flat metric.

This is actually the same thing as what you said, I'm just being pedantic.

This is the trick behind Alcubierre drives, Krasnikov tubes, wormholes, etc. You'll still never outrun your headlights; you're just making a path between A and B that's speedier than would be possible for a light ray in flat space.

"Possible", however, is meant only in the mathematical sense - AFAIK, there are no *practical* FTL solutions. That is to say, solutions that don't require either

>A: Impractically large amounts of exotic mass-energy (more than, say, a large moon's worth)
>B: Impractically large densities of exotic mass-energy (denser than, say, neutronium)
>C: Impractically fine feature engineering (needing to squeeze that mass-energy into structures thinner than an atom)

There are definitely solutions that avoid one or two of these problems, but AFAIK none avoid all three. (For more information on FTL solutions and their theoretical plausibility or lack thereof, I refer you to this paper: "The Quantum Inequalities Do Not Forbid Spacetime Shortcuts" arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0207057)

Yes, but near-lightspeed travel is really hard for lots of other reasons and I don't really consider it feasible enough in the near-ish term to worry about practical problems when so many more basic engineering problems required to do it have yet to be worked out. I was just objecting to the claim that large space colonies were impossible.

you are wrong

first, space is very very empty so depending on where you travel the odds are as good as zero of such a thing to ever occur

second, you can easily take measures against this


but yeah, I doubt large scale space colonies will ever exist due to their infeasibility

and near light speed travel wont ever exist for the same reason. I doubt we will ever reach the technological level for it

>There are definitely solutions that avoid one or two of these problems, but AFAIK none avoid all three. (For more information on FTL solutions and their theoretical plausibility or lack thereof, I refer you to this paper: "The Quantum Inequalities Do Not Forbid Spacetime Shortcuts" arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0207057)

Help me out here. I'm code-monkey, not a physicist.
He's overcoming QM related objections to effective FTL.
But what about GR+causality?
I've skimmed the PDF looking for this, but I don't seem to see it.
Even if he's 100% correct about QM, wouldn't effective FTL still break causality because of the relativity of simultaneity?

Actually, he's just avoiding those concerns. There actually are spacetimes that let you take FTL shortcuts without running into time travel issues, so he's only constructing those.

As I understand it, causality is only an issue if you can actually form a closed timelike curve - if there exists a path from some point on a worldline to some point in that worldline's past. If no such paths exist, then there is no way to send information back in time to yourself, or otherwise meddle with your own past in any way. Paradoxes are avoided and causality remains intact.

For instance, when considering wormholes, Krasnikov only examines the case where the wormhole mouths are displaced in more distance than time. Suppose you have a spacetime containing only a wormhole with one mouth on Earth and one mouth on Alpha Centauri, four light-years away but with the Earth end three years of time ahead of the Alpha Centauri mouth.

In this case, going from Earth to Alpha Centauri will put you four light-years away, but three light-years in the past. Sending a message from Alpha Centauri to Earth through the wormhole will simply send it to the same time you left, but slightly later - no causality violation, everything working as normal. Sending that message *not* through the wormhole will arrive a minimum of four years later, or a year after you left - so not so much a time machine or a time capsule.

Likewise, if you start at Alpha Centauri and go to Earth, you'll arrive at Earth three years in the future, and again sending a message through the wormhole will arrive just after you left (no problem), and sending one through flat space will arrive at AC at a minimum seven years after you left (no problem)

And in case it's not obvious, relativity of simultaneity doesn't come into play here, because no matter what the fastest non-wormhole path between the mouths is the straight-line light-ray path between them through normal space. No more complicated path involving outside observers moving at high velocities can possibly get information from one mouth to the other any faster, and so if paradoxes can't arise in this case, they won't arise in any case involving only one wormhole with spatial separation greater than temporal separation.

When you have multiple wormholes, then things get tricky (see also: Roman ring), which is why the paper is only considering one at a time.

>flying
>the internet
>cars
>cellphones

Evidently they ARE used for bullet points, because they were used for exactly that purpose in the OP

Are you that fucking dumb, stubborn, both, or is this bait?

>space junk wrecks your moonbase

detection equipment, armor / shielding, point defense etc. float a zumwalt with railguns around the base or something.

> plow into an asteroid at lightspeed

there'd be a bow wave as you distort spacetime.

so you'd imagine the size and mass of the object you're encountering versus the mass of the craft times the inherent energy to achieve propulsion then times some compression figure based on the "thickness" of spacetime that is being distorted and you've had something like the amount of energy a spaceship would have in a field around it as it compresses spacetime through some sort of mass effect generation, enabling "faster than light" travel.

but then because you aren't really travelling faster than light, you're just bunching up space into folds and jumping small gaps point to point so you're much less likely to plow into anything anyway as you aren't really travelling very far.