top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 56 points 2 years ago (3 children)

just send all the billionaires to mars and the rest of us will have to learn how to survive without them

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago (1 child)
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    That's a common misspelling of "thrive".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 44 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    both are not mutually exclusive

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 2 years ago

    Yep. People definitely want to colonize the first one. The only thing keeping apartments off that location is strict governmental regulation of space like that. The desire is definitely there though.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 26 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    I don't think space travel is inherently a bad idea. But I don't think it'd be the billionaires to get us there, especially not someone like Elon.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    SpaceX is a rocket ship manufacturer, NASA outsourced that like the US military outsources aircraft manufacturing to Boeing or Lockheed Martin.

    Elon is not going to/was never going to "get us there" he's just the guy who owns the company that makes the vehicles. Idk what this huge miscommunication is and how people got to the idea that he's personally going to be the one who pushes humanity to mars, he doesn't even have a say in the operations NASA uses his spacecraft for.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 25 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    The poor moon, it gets skipped over. Doesn't it deserve to be colonized too? Maybe we could put an amusement park there or something.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 23 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Shhhh!!! 🤫 This the best chance we have to get rid of a bunch of them all at once

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Me (a sysadmin): We need an off-site backup. Preferably in a completely different "availability zone".

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago

    I love the thought of being one of the only programmers on Mars. Being able to say: "I'm gonna do it my way. What are you gonna do, travel to Mars?", when some comes up with a stupid request, would be absolutely priceless.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 14 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    Okay, but The Planet Crafter is really cool for exactly that reason. You slowly but surely make a barren wasteland livable, it's extremely rewarding

    Edit: I may have misunderstood the intention of this meme, but I still stand behind Planet Crafter being a fun game

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 45 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Meanwhile on earth we are slowly but surely making a livable planet a barren wasteland

    For money

    For like 400 massive douchebags

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Yeah, pretty much. What was the name of that movie? Oh yeah, Elysium. That's probably what's going to happen, isn't it

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Bet Elongated Husk will be the one to build the Elysium.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago (7 children)

    It's not about prime real estate, it's about increasing the redundancy of humanity's survival. Two planets are better than one.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 2 years ago* (4 children)

    There seems to be a large amount of overlap between people who say things like "It's hubris to think that humans can change the atmosphere of the earth enough to make a noticeable difference in 400 years" and "we can make Mars inhabitable by humans in 50 years"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    What the fuck, no there isn't. Are you actually implying most people that are interested in a mars colony are climate change deniers?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

    More the other way around, I know a surprising amount of climate change deniers that think we need to colonize Mars to save the human race.

    I'm not trying to say it can't or it shouldn't be done, but it has to be both. We have to find a way to live sustainably and also expand.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    In order to colonize mars, having a good space station in orbit would help out immensely. We're talking big enough to stretch out and hold a few hundred people.
    The station would need to grow crops and have minor but flexible manufacturing.
    At that point, why would you colonize mars vs just make more stations?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    For real, resource extraction is a big one. Finding ice means they can make, besides water, oxygen and rocket fuel. Not to mention that shelters for radiation are incredibly hard to make without a huge amount of mass, which we cannot efficiently get into orbit without a space elevator. Hence being able to extract it from the location of the colony, say dig into the ground or build thick walls with bricks made from soil, is necessary for long term survival of the inhabitants. I think it is cool that due to these reasons having air balloons over Venus might even be a better option due to it having a protective atmosphere.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    You can make a radiation field by running a large motor that would save you from the solar radiation.
    In space you always have access to the sun. A cheap form of power. You need a lot more batteries if you're on the planet.

    Venus is a much better idea over mars.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Didn't know that it was feasible to create a radiation field by running a large motor. Not that I doubt you, but if you have a source I would be very happy to read more about it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I heard about it on one of Isaac Arthur's videos. I can't remember which one, but the analogy he used was that earth's magnetosphere is essentially a big motor created by earth's metal core spinning. (Oversimplified) So you should be able to build a motor that would shield a station

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Space stations don't produce raw materials, even if they could self sustain their human populations with food grown onboard they'd require the resources of earth to build and expand, so they're still dependent on Earth.

    A space station wouldn't make anything inherently easier, unless it was attached via space elevator just having a chunk of metal in orbit doesn't change how much energy you need to get things out of the gravity well.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (4 replies)
    [–] 8 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    That's Kirkjufell in Iceland

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago

    Lol so true.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago

    I wouldn't mind leaving a lot of Earth's natural beauty alone, as much as SpaceX's mission doesn't resonate with me very much

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago

    Villia Starlight strikes again.

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›