Are there anons here who don't think we will colonize space...

Sure thing, kid.

Other than
>Technology
>Economic incentive
>Knowledge
But other than those, we're pretty much good to go.

If the big fucking rocket SpaceX has planned ever gets going, shipping resources to space will be so cheap that space stations will pop into existence out of the vacuum. Space habitats would be right after. If.

Stopped reading at "humanity has discovered nearly all relevant science."

>Technology

We already have the tech for space colonization. We wouldn't need to discover anything new to science. It is all just simple engineering.

>Economic incentive

"proper motivation"

>Knowledge

See the first part of this post.

We have. It is all down to engineering now.

Who's 'we'?

>We have
You're a moron.

Commercial colonization will probably not happen in the near future. As in next 500 years or more. There's no purpose or reason to do so and I highly doubt anyone will be willing to leave Earth en masse just to live in some squalor dome. Sure the initial hype will be enormous but the disillusionment will be far more greater.

In the next few centuries a more sensible outcome seems to be that The Moon will probably get a legislative treatment similar to the one that Antarctica got and it will harbor international research stations with rotating crews similar to the ISS. After that we might get a kick out of resource hunt in space but that will probably be a long and arduous process that I'm not sure it will pay off.

Oh, here's the kid who believes in things like time travel, city hovercraft transportation, and credit limits. kek

>No known way for humans to make ourselves go fully extinct

>Make oxygen unbreathable
>contagious superbug
>launch all nukes
>doomsday device at earth's core
>destroy earth's magnetic field
>create blackhole
>splice human hunting predator
>increase parasite population x10000
>upload virus to internet making the internet of things go rogue and purge humanity
>etc...

Although, there is probably a method most are overlooking that the common man could use to reach space. on a whim. I'm willing to bet on it.

It is already pre-determined that we will never meet inhabitants of other worlds, this is Mormon canon from the Holy Scripture. I'm afraid that although colonizing space might be a bright and happy dream for many people, it can never be a reality because it is predetermined to be outside of our necessary tasks.

Imagine this...

transfering an atomic signal...

that restructures the elements/ or atoms in a certain isolated area/field, into the form of an item, who structure was copied and destroyed...

ergo, teleportation through the transferring of electrical signals? Could make resource transportation a synch.

No.

What's wrong with that?

Veeky Forums is a 18+ website, kid.

Mars needs to be terraformed for us to actually colonize it. That means some fucking how giving it a magnetosphere so it can have an atmosphere and then crashing Haley's comet into it so we can have some fucking water on that hell hole.
Domes are faggotry and a novelty at best.

>Ship resources to and from
That is why you mine from places with less gravity. Moon mining would cost a fraction of the cost.
>High investment No return
Building structures can make billions.

>Resources exist in space
The moon trillions of tons of resources

The only people who will live in space will be the people who are already the ruling elite on earth. I think something like the Elysium movie is likely to happen.

>Where are you going to get water
>One of the most common and easily produced substances in the universe that exists in some form or another on almost every non star object in the universe

By that logic no one would want to live in cities. If a rotating Habitat feels nearly identical to living on earth why would you care? If there is more space in space and so it was cheaper to live and there were jobs why wouldn't you?

>terraform Mars
>colonize Mars

Nope and Nope. Neither can be done realistically.

>Make oxygen unbreathable
how?
>Superbug
Wouldn't kill everyone because of natural immunities.
>Launch all nukes
Wouldn't do it either

They will still import Mexicans to do work for them.

>There are people on Veeky Forums who don't know about Isaac Arthur
youtube.com/watch?v=86JAU3w9mB8

Insert a component into the atmosphere that converts the breathable aspects into something our bodies cannot absorb. Such as using a chemical reaction to turn all of the oxygen in the air into carbon monoxide.

Much easier said than done. You don't even know how to do that.

>Yeah with fertilizer and water. Where are you going to get those from?
poopoo and peepee

Unlikely
If you have the means to build elysium, you can build multiple, and how will you build it? sure as shit not with the rich as the construction workers
the infrastructure needed in space to build something of that size would result in more than one construction project happening, likely a habitat for the workers, that the workers will continue to use and expand

Destroying the oceans and rainforests is a good start already...

Moon mining

Space elevator is not the only launch assist method available
Launch loops are a thing
they're much cheaper, and are built over the ocean, making it very difficult for the religion of peace to make a visit without getting spotted and sunk

Launch loops will get things into orbit relatively cheaply but they aren't very good at getting things back down. If asteroids are going to be mined and the materials brought back here it would be much easier with a space elevator.

It's much cheaper to get things to land then to read orbit.

>Space elevator is not the only launch assist method available

Only it isn't available and never will be.

>Earth space elevator

You don't bring resources from space to Earth. That isn't economical. They are worth more as refined materials to be used in space at needed locations.

Kill yourself retard.

>still shitposting
start giving solutions and workarounds fuccboi
you shitting up the place by screeching that everything is impossible and shouldn't be tried is as pointless as posting self help books on /r9k/

>Never will be
How do you know?
Even then the point is that there are other ways.

Orbital ring and skyhooks, built with space materials, can get shit down well enough
the loop will be the perfect thing to start with, because our main problem is getting shit back up
if all else fails, we could bolt fucking parachutes to the cargo we want to send down and do it that way if need be

Space elevators and orbital rings are and its about time you realize that. There is no "work around", you just shoot off more rockets. The reason we don't do something else is because it can't be done or it simply isn't economical even in the slightest.

The instant you bring resources from space you devalue those resource for the economy. Even if tried to do what DeBeers did and hoard everything forever developing artificial scarcity you still end up tanking the prices on whatever you are bringing back. Resources in space will be worth more in space because they don't need to be brought out of Earth's gravity well.

>Devalue
That is also true for any resource ever mined. You would still make a ton of money though, especially if you were the first or one of the first people doing it. It's better to flood the market with a resource that you have a monopoly on than have a rare one you don't sell often, want proof? See any useful construction material that aren't liked only because they are rare like gold and diamond.

>REEEEE IMPOSSIBLE DON'T EVEN TRY
>NO I WON'T LOOK AT THE NUMBERS
>I SAY IMPOSSIBLE SO IT IMPOSSIBLE
flagrant low effort shitposting should be bannable

>Bro, just ship an entire mining operation to the moon
>Along with the people and some where for them to live
>And the constant resupply to keep them alive
>Then, after all that expense, ship the mined resources back to earth
>Where they still need to be processed and refined
>Then relaunch the rockets back to the moon
>Then sell them for less than the equivilent mined on earth
>Pure profit.
This is the problem with these threads it's impossible to tell if people are really this dumb, or if it's just ironic shitposting.

>ignoring the fact that you can grow your food on site with hydroponics
>ignoring the fact that you can refine the materials there
>ignoring the fact you can obtain significantly more minerals on the moon due to the lower gravity making mining easier and safer
there are more brainlets here on Veeky Forums than /b/ for fucks sake, if half of this thread is anything to go by

>Bro, just ship an entire mining operation to the moon
>Along with the people and some where for them to live
>And the constant resupply to keep them alive
By that logic man should have never been able to go to either of Earths Poles.
It costs money and time but like all things eventually becomes profitable. It might have a high start up but after that it's relatively inexpensive
>Ship the mined resources back to earth
Far cheaper than sending things from earth to space. You could also make objects that aren't meant to be sent back to earth like satellites, probes, telescopes, ships, ect.
>Then relaunch the rockets back to the moon
Who said anything about having to do that?
>Then sell them for less than the equivilent mined on earth
If it is less that is only because of the less competition and the fact that it is easier to mine stuff in lower gravity. You can also get bigger quantities on the moon.

There is also the fact that since it has been as of yet untapped and there are no environmental concerns you will also have a far bigger pool of resources per area.

I'm willing to bet that a chemist somewhere has looked into this at some point. I'm no chemist, but with the right chemicals, I'm sure you could cause all sorts of irreparable mayhem.

>It's far easier and cheaper to move things out of the moons orbit than earths
>in fact you don't even need to use rockets to get things out of the moons orbit
>Landing is far easier than lifting off
>All fuel can be gotten from the moon too and not only that but even if you did want to bring the rockets back it would be far easier to do since they would only be carrying their own weight

Couldn't we simply make a tower that exits the earth's atmosphere and send ships out from that?
The tower of babel didn't seem like that bad of an idea assuming zero gravity at the top could keep the body stable. It wouldn't take a lot of effort to shot a small ship out into space from space.

>Food
How? You'll still need basic materials to get started.
>Refining
You want to ship an entire mining AND refining operation to the moon. This is what I mean when I say I can't tell if you're a legit retard or just shitposting. Do you have any idea how much that would cost? Also you've now just created another supply issue, since you'll need chemicals from earth to do the refining.
>More
Fucking source on low gravity making it easier. Also you sound like you want to make a cartel just to make you juvenile dreams of space """exploration""" a reality.
>Poles
That's not profitable. It's done in the for national prestige and science.
>Relatively inexpensive
It costs $3 billion a year to keep the ISS going.
>Who said anything about having to do that?
Well the way I had it pictured was you'd use SpaceX like reusable rockets to move materials from the moon to the earth, then just reuse the rockets. Unless you're planning on building those on the moon as well.
>If it is less...
I was being facetious, you can't sell them for less than the earth mined equivilent. Earth mined will always be cheaper, so you'll have to sell at no more than the price of the earth mined product.
You still have to get things from the earth to the moon.
>All fuel can be gotten from the moon
So now we have:
>Mining operation
>Refineries
>Hydroponics
>Rocket fuel factory
All to mine resources that we can mine on earth, for less capital investment, less risk, and a higher return

You people are delusional.

>Higher return
False, a company that has access to the resources of the moon would have a claim to more resources than pretty much any mining company.
>ISS
That is in space and is not meant to be self sufficient.

>Food
>HOW?
It wouldn't be that hard to grow plants on the moon. Light, water, soil would be easy. In fact that hardest part would probably be getting nitrogen to the plants.

Do you know how NASA planned to build these things?

The plan was to put a mass driver on the Moon and shoot bags of moon dust to L2

>By that logic no one would want to live in cities.

No, by my logic no one would want to live in squalor. Some are forced to yes but that doesn't mean they wouldn't want to move out.

>If a rotating Habitat feels nearly identical to living on earth why would you care?

Because it's still a cage no matter how much you try to dress it up. You can't go sit in a car and drive to the next town. You're stuck and you'll feel like it.

>If there is more space in space and so it was cheaper to live and there were jobs why wouldn't you?

It can't be cheaper and it will never be cheaper than making a house on Earth. There are also health issues due to gravity and radiation. The only job that would be unique up there would be the job of maintaining the space station. Any other non maintenance job would require you to interact with Earth ie you'd have to spend a lot of money going up and down for no reason when you could be just on Earth all the time.

I think a lot of people would love to live in space given the opportunity whether they live in squalor or not. Maybe not the majority of people but still a significant amount.

Well I said initially that I think the hype would attract a lot of people but the disillusionment with living in space would quickly trickle those numbers down where it wouldn't be commercially or economically viable.

Right. I think the idea would be to make self-sustaining communities though. Not necessarily for any sort of benefit, at least initially. Once we figure out how to actually live in space we would capitilize on space colonies.

2050: Fusion is cracked.

2070: Habitats are established on the moon to farm helium-3, an isotope that is abundant on the surface of the moon because of solar radiation creating it constantly. Colonies on Mars established.

2110: Mining of asteroids is economically viable.

2200: Several asteroids have been converted to habitable cylinders. Mars has self sustaining colonies.

2300: Effort's to bring bigger asteroids from the outer solar system inwards commence, solar sales from probes to slow down their orbital velocity and make them fall inwards on their own. Moon mining gets harder and people start to consider mining the gas giants.

2350: L1 Lagrange point mirrors are established over Mercury and Venus, to cool them down for future excavation/habitation, respectively. Mars may get an L1 magnetic deflector shield as well.

2400: The gas giants get their own automated mining facilities. Habitats have been established on their moons.

2500: Things just keep getting mined and colonized for a while.

2600: Mercury and Venus are cool enough to start mining and colonizing. Generation ships have been sent to nearby stars.

2700: Most of the solar system colonised. Inner solar system enjoys easy power from the sun. Outer solar system mostly living on fusion and heavily reflected sunlight.

3000: Type 2 civilisation status reached. Dyson swarm is as complete as can be. Mercury no longer exists. Generation ships reach nearby stars. Type 3 here we come.

>This entire thread.

Nice unsourced graph you have there. I hope you understand it's not an axiom. No psychiatric study supports it.

Your mother's unsourced.

The amounts of stuff you get when mining an asteroid made of the stuff you want to mine is going to tank just about any market once you return it to Earth. Which is why it is worth more in space than on Earth. That doesn't mean you shouldn't bring it back for industrial use even if you didn't get a good profit from it.

Stop being a child. Unicorns don't exist.

We couldn't make something that tall, due to materials strength. Though something similar, like a launch loop that is really high up or blasting off from the top of a mountain would help. For things like that, it just comes down to how good the weather is. Mountain launching would be the best bet, despite bad weather. However, normal launching would beat it out every time.

>food
>how

That's actually pretty easy. The nitrogen comes from the air. Once you have enough in the cycle from air to soil to plant it will balance out. Fertilizer is as simple as taking a shit/piss or as complicated and technical as the Haber–Bosch process.

>All to mine resources that we can mine on earth, for less capital investment, less risk, and a higher return

Resources in space are "worth more" in savings than resources on Earth simply because you need to lift the ones from Earth out of the gravity well. Automated and scalable ore processing and refining are most likely what will be done. That's basically a wee tiny plant that can make more of itself and refine & process as needed.

>You people are delusional.

I think most of them simply lack proper knowledge about engineering. Like the group of people who were constantly trying to redesign SpaceX rockets for landing back when they were crashing a lot of them. They just didn't realize the best KiSS engineering solution was already at play.

>psychiatric

>That's actually pretty easy. The nitrogen comes from the air.
There's no air on the Moon.

There is, in some meaning of air.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_the_Moon
Most astronomical bodies have an atmosphere.

80,000 atoms per cubic centimeter is hardly an atmosphere. Oh and practically none of that is nitrogen. So where are you gonna get practical amounts of nitrogen on the Moon?

It is atmosphere, by definition. There are much stranger and less stable atmospheres out there. (I'm another user, just nitpicking)

I didn't say it wasn't an atmosphere, I said it was hardly an atmosphere. Just nitpicking.

There is no way you are getting significant amounts of anything from an atmosphere that masses about 10 tons over the whole goddamn Moon. Now perhaps someone would like to tell me where we're gonna get nitrogen for this supposed moon base? Or hell, carbon for that matter.

Earth.

There's around quart of water in cubic meter of Mars soil

You'd get the Nitrogen, Phosphorous, and Nitrogen from mining
all those craters on the moon were made by asteroids rich in the same things the still drifting rocks are

Nitrogen, phosphorous, and Potassium*

I was referring to the air you breath. The carrier gas is nitrogen. You can use nitrogen fixing bacteria (cyanobacteria) as part of your cycle.

Most humans will leave earth on STREAM rockets.
We basically have an unlimited supply of water and can use ground based lasers to supply the heat.
There is NO OTHER way to move a few billion people and supplies out of earth's HUGE gravity well.

Potassium is a major component of lunar regolith, phosphorous isn't terribly rare in regolith.

Nitrogen is volatile, it tends to evaporate during impacts.

And where are you going to get that nitrogen on the Moon? Are you gonna ship it up from Earth?

>putting real physical phenomena like time dialation [sic] on one level with flat earth and free energy
Whoever made this bingo is a brainlet, and you're a brainlet for saving it.

You are an idiot. If I live in a large habitat and can move to other habitats it would be no different than being able to go from one city to another on earth

Except the people who live in space would have children and grow in number without limitation

Mine it from crashed asteroids, oxygen from ice. If all else fails bring it from earth and have a natural cycle

Come on friend, use your creativity and brain
orionsarm.com/fm_store/OrbitalRings-I.pdf
orionsarm.com/fm_store/OrbitalRings-II.pdf
orionsarm.com/fm_store/OrbitalRings-III.pdf
there numerous was to get mass things to orbit
they just take infrastructure, a thing we could easily produce with a starter mining base

NOT DEMONSTRATED TO BE STABLE FOR SMALL NUMBERS OF SKYHOOKS.

>Come on friend, use your creativity and brain
Requires materials that do not exist (yet).
Steam rockets are so primitive as to boggle the mind, even the poorest nation can make them.

except that nitrogen and other volatile compounds tend to evaporate during impact.

The material for such a structure would literally be regular old steel
the forces acting on an orbital ring aren't excessively intense to rip it apart

>> even the poorest nation can make them.
Yeah but not the high power laser necessary to drive them. Water is a shitty propellant for laser launch, cryogenic hydrogen offers better performance.

>If I live in a large habitat and can move to other habitats it would be no different than being able to go from one city to another on earth

No it would be moving from one steel container to another.

Sure, if we ban those children from a right of living on Earth.

ORBITAL RINGS HAVE NOT BEEN SHOWN TO BE STABLE FOR SMALL NUMBERS OF SKYHOOKS.

if it's not stable for low numbers, would that mean large numbers are?
I'm sure there's lots of places that would want a skyhook station to get their space shit going

>cryogenic hydrogen offers better performance.
true... but water is literally free and available everywhere

The cost of propellant is nothing compared to the cost of the vehicle and laser energy. Lower performance means a bigger vehicle and more laser power.