Why don’t we colonize space?

Why the fuck would you want to colonize an empty void? At least colonize the ocean first where you actually have a constant water and food supply.

precisely.

until we colonise the earth, space must wait.

Attached: standard of beauty.jpg (644x375, 28K)

Kek we'll send the poor bastards to venus or some shit

"We"?
Because you're putting all of "your" money into social programs, and expect that you'll be able to hitch a ride on someone else's rocket.
Hey, remember when we built the giant space ark, and they decided to only tell the smart people about it?

is that the same woman? I cant tell. fucking chinks

same reason we don't colonize the australian outback: it's really inhospitable and there's not much point

How can we colonize space if we can’t even get off this planet?

nasa.gov/content/goddard/van-allen-probes-spot-impenetrable-barrier-in-space

Low gravity is a problem.

We are. Have you not been paying attention to american space company competition? We have like 4 different companies competing to be the first to colonize space properly. Course spacex is the furthest ahead but the others arent doing nothing.

no. they're clones. CIA was pouring money into clone-detection technologies since at least the 70s, probably the 60s.

Attached: hoen.jpg (673x373, 22K)

we 40K now

Attached: IMG_1826.jpg (1024x1024, 235K)

>elon musk

Isn’t this the guy who has defrauded the US taxpayer by 20 billion already?

>that hare

Attached: OIZy9AN.jpg (600x600, 45K)

>Low gravity is a problem.

Spin big torus shaped stations

Attached: 5151B60F-3CCE-4F15-9070-23FF1D0140EF.jpg (650x518, 75K)

SpaceX is a meme. It doesn’t comtribute to anything new. It uses kerolox rockets to put containers in space. This is literally what the Soviets did in the 50s.

Attached: p3zEtxM.png (500x533, 66K)

YESS

Attached: 1526957058023.jpg (960x652, 113K)

Because it's not economically viable.
dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/10/stranded-resources/

I also recommend this article:
dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/

>SpaceX is a meme. It doesn’t comtribute to anything new.

Attached: 1517951345268.webm (800x444, 68K)

This guy knows

The spinning space station meme. If it were so easy, why aren't they doing it experimentally on the ISS?

Because the ISS is a boondoggle, it took them over a decade to agree to even test a simple inflatable module

Attached: 20151222-beam-01.jpg (2560x1440, 2.63M)

Just send some niggers up there, they're used to the sun. Can't be more dangerous than in Malmö

in theory, no - its a lot simpler than rocket science
but the first task is getting resources up there
and rocket science is really fucking hard

Short answer: cosmic background radiation.

Attached: 1523146405443.png (710x573, 410K)

because the outward force needed to simulate gravity would tear apart the station

Are you offering to pay for it?

Jeff Bezos is. He wants to build a torus station, Musk wants to colonize Mars. The new space race is between men, not nations.

Attached: Fermi Paradox-The Great Filter.png (402x617, 301K)

It is that hare.

Sieg Zeon?

We are being dragged down by the hordes of degraded beings who inhabit this planet.

You forgot the music to go with the pic

youtube.com/watch?v=PtBy_ppG4hY

>Why don’t we colonize space?

Non-meme answer.
The ruling class loses it's stranglehold over us. The farmer isn't going to let their cattle wander off the farm.

This is unironically a filter.
Instead of going spacewards we play world soupkitchen and if our culture is dragged down enough noone will dare to look up anymore.

Attached: 1451275045676.jpg (424x601, 26K)

space does not exist

Attached: 03_973739.png (511x400, 223K)

Yeah wtf man just strap 10 rockets together (strong rope) put 10 people in each ship and fire them.motherfuckers up. Space colonised.

We have to actually get to space first. We can't even get to the damn moon.

>It can’t be that hare

>hare

Your rocket just exploded on the launchpad, and you are now out about $80 million.

Dude, the Soviets recovered the first and 1+1/2 stage of the Soyuz in the 50s and 60s as well. Again, this is nothing new.

This.

Attached: 4d23a303e3f84ef9a3c7e2e360a40e0d22a5c17a1cf2812fae26967f8f7deeb8.jpg (500x668, 154K)

Attached: 1531169175077.jpg (1200x957, 400K)

The ISS is a bullshit bureaucracy that works like the EU. It is going nowhere.

Because we haven't been able to recreate biospheres with complex ecosystems in them

I'd like to hear about the Soyuz propulsive landings, got any articles for me to read about them?

Boats have been shut out now. We just need to make sure the border to Turkey is shut.

you cant have a baby in space
you need the magic called gravity

And the money was not thrown away, the space program continued diligently, making huge progress.

We know.

Attached: 0256e666de1d1148d5daf59f8a7709c7cfd87ac5465376d88be37c4cf1735433.png (1127x733, 446K)

Why would you need propulsive landings when you can just recover the boosters and 1 + 1/2 stage without having to waste fuel?

Seriously, don’t fall for the meme that doing something more complicated is better than doing the same thing simpler.

The Soviets recovered the stages, extracted fhe engines, refurbished them and off they went again. The stage itself was used for scrap metal. It is literally not that much different than what SpaceX ends up doing today, 90 percent of the costs of a first stage are in the engine. Russia doesn’t recover the stages any more as refurbishment is not wanted by customers, they value 100 percent reliability over a slight cost reduction.

space.stackexchange.com/questions/7991/what-happens-to-the-soyuz-boosters-that-land-in-the-kazakhstan-desert

That is why you spin the ring, mate.

Why was there ever a welfare introduction at all? If you aren’t working and born poor, you should be living on church charity handouts, not from taxpayer handouts. We aren’t all religious nutcases who want our hard earned shekels handed to obese degenerates.

A Falcon 9 already costs less than a Soyuz because of the fact that they're refurbished, but more importantly the next SpaceX rocket is reflyable from the ground up, which means it can deliver Saturn V sized payloads for $7 million a pop

>A Falcon 9 already costs less than a Soyuz because of the fact that they're refurbished

On a per launch cost, the Soyuz costs less than a Falcon 9. On a per kg to GTO basis, we can debate what the costs are as SpaceX is operated at a severe loss and Soyuz is mostly operated and build by government owned companies, so the question is whether the launch price of actual payloads should be looked at or the average cost per launch on a “x expenses in a year divided by y launches”.

This is by the way also the case why Soyuz, Long March and Falcon had about the same number of launched in 2017.

Attached: 1F3C9375-8E96-4D84-8F0C-1AC0B430995E.jpg (1694x953, 89K)

modern engineers cannot even spell anymore
nevermind design rocketships. U hare me

Honestly the Soyuz is depressingly expensive for a launcher that's been built over and over, hundreds of times for half a century in a country with pittance wages even for experts.

You can't casually dismiss the entire concept of reusability, how much do you think a plane ticket would cost if you had to dump the 747 into the Atlantic at the end of every flight?

>Honestly the Soyuz is depressingly expensive for a launcher that's been built over and over

Why should costs go down only because you build something over and over? Considering the number of single engines Soyuz uses and boosters and considering it is pretty much a government produced rocket, it is a miracle that it is so cheap.

2016/17 info:

Soyuz U: $48M
Soyuz ST: $61M
Proton: $68M
Proton/Block DM: $95M

It worth mentioning that, since the most of the rockets are produced at the state-owned enterprises, and launches are made by the state-owned space forces, there is a different price tag for the own government programs w/o any margin profit, for example the price tag for Soyuz 2.1a is just $24M.

>Why should costs go down only because you build something over and over?
I think somebody coined the phrase "economy of scale"

>You can't casually dismiss the entire concept of reusability, how much do you think a plane ticket would cost if you had to dump the 747 into the Atlantic at the end of every flight?

There are things you can reuse and other things you cannot. If we had ramjet planes that go right into orbit, obviously we would reuse the whole thing for each flight. But 1950s kerolox rocket stages? It is at the end a question of the cost you incur to either do a seawater landing and refurbishment or the penalty you get from having to restart the engine at descent with some fuel left in it (e.g. the Falcon 9 Heavy has a massive performance penalty if flown in reuse comfiguration - look at the 90mill price tag for reusable config at just 8mt to GTO and then the * for expandable flights).

Attached: 096327CD-03BE-4CDD-93A5-41BD76F078B5.jpg (2048x1462, 345K)

Economy of scale means you build more (e.g. 1000 Soyuz rockets instead 20), it does not mean you build something at the same or a lower number each year.

Digital Physics: The Universe Is a Programmed System google.co.uk/search?kgmid=Jow Forums11gbkr4pkr&hl=en-GB&kgs=dce16cb09a16526d&q=Digital+Physics:+The+Universe+Is+a+Programmed+System&shndl=0&source=sh/x/kp&entrypoint=sh/x/kp

Relevance?

The speed of light is a rule set, perhaps before conquering our galaxy we should grow up first.

My free will.

>Living in space and shit can't be that hare lip

Attached: Laughing_Lunatic.gif (200x163, 702K)

I really enjoyed rama, couldn't get through the first chapter of rama 2 though

Same reason we don't have high speed rail in most of America. Earth still has room and it works. Just because you don't have 10 acres of land full of hookers and dude weed doesn't mean shit, this is the most prosperous time in all of human history.

the speed of light doesn't fucking matter.

>just because light isn't instantaneous, means that time travel is possible

by that logic, since sound isn't instantaneous, light travel should be possible.

Einstein was a fraud. and modern science is a fraud.

"We also haven't fully explained why a fetus needs gravity to form a head from a tail."

I'd rather fuck shit up in space

Irrational numbers disprove the simulated universe theory.

Irrational numbers are irrational because they can be calculated to an infinite number of decimal places, take 1 human, with infinite pen ink and paper and he could write out the square root of 2 for an infinite amount of time.
Now, if you try to represent the square root of 2 on a computer, what happens?

You run out of memory. (i.e bits)

Now consider what I've just told you about giving a human an infinite amount of time, pen ink and paper, that he could keep writing out the next decimal in an irrational number indefinitely. For the simulated universe theory to be true, then this universe would need to exist within a computer with unlimited memory, a physical impossibility. Irrational numbers could not possibly exist within a simulation.

Now whenever I present this information to people, the easy way out for them is to say "well we don't know the capability of the technology used to simulate the universe", well the simple fact is that it cannot be physically infinite.

>The speed of light is a rule set, perhaps before conquering our galaxy we should
>find a non-circular definition for this "Universal Constant".

Attached: Christopher_Langan_Awakens1.gif (339x382, 804K)

>Van Allen belt meme
You realise you literally just have to go around it right

But they do it on the ISS though. Granted, not in a torus, but they rotate entire spaceships around and stand at one end to achieve the same effect

There's no money to be made, no oil to claim, and now brown people to kill.

Why would we waste, time, money, and effort to go into an infinite void of nothing? Liberal faggot.

If the universe is infinitely large you can build an infinitely powerful computer.

Attached: 1521321175209.jpg (1366x1425, 2.23M)

Too busy babysitting people who can't build a functional society.
We're never leaving Earth, bro.

Energy is finite

Maybe the simulation runs really slowly

Or maybe they just delete the fag hogging all the memory

Not the entire ISS, just one module. But they would need to spin it so rapidly, it would probably still cause problems to the overall stability.

Will you be adding a post on vibrations lol.

Consciousness is the computer?

Because we have a debt-based economy.

Get rid of the jews and we can have space.

Attached: 1504046250650.jpg (1888x1273, 649K)

Its gonna be like colonialism all over again and its gon be great

Attached: 1519555021798.jpg (200x178, 6K)

A Spaniard who likes his beer.

Cheers.

>It can’t be that hard, can it?
It is incredibly hard and not fruitful at all right now.
A lower quality and far more expensive life is all that could possibly be managed right now and for the foreseeable future.

I come bring family

Attached: IMG_0272.jpg (600x399, 106K)

It's not hard, it's expensive.

We have the technology and the resources, and among the regular folk, the will.

What we don't have is the money / elites. Probably because they can't see past their own noses.

The first ones into space are going to be bazillionaires. It's like whatever's past trillionaire. The amount of resources and expansion potential in space is incredible.

It's called torque

You'd need two counter-rotating segments and there'd still be instability and stress.

Easier to design with rotation in mind from the start.