much heavier objects are a lot more prectible because of their mass

It's like the ISS is slowly dozing off to sleep, but we slap it and yell **WAKE UP**

their orbits will degrade a slower

Yes, its orbit would degrade slower, but it would degrade even more slowly in low lunar orbit

It's more of a guarantee

but who cares

I do.

I like space shit.

The people building it may

It's why I fucking play EVE

if you go into a 100km higher orbit

you won't have to deal with anything

Yeah but wouldn't that make it harder to resupply?

stop.

Let's just orbit the sun to build things

use your brain

Problem solved

Oh, another reason to go to the moon, as @Dionara just mentioned, is getting stuff to the orbit to whatever you're building

I don't know astrophysics.

1/6th the gravity = less fuel to get materials up

So basically, the only use of the moon is a construction site and warehouse

I thought we were talking stuff from earth to the ISS

Not from the moon to ISS

the ISS is in a position where the cost in fuel of pushing it is less than what it would cost for every resuply mission to get to that higher orbit

We started this asking why build shit on the moon

if you put it on the moon it would cost many times more

Unless there is a self-sustaining colony on the moon.

You can build on the moon to eventually make it easier to get to mars.

That hs a surplus of supplies to send.

@Dionara you can't have a self sustaining colony on the moon

@ping Would it be any harder than building a self-sustaining colony on Mars?

@ping We can't make green houses, inject soil with nitrogen to make it more fertile, create gravity fields?

Does the moon have the required water?

If so, then that's the only reason not to colonize the moon

mars has water, minerals, energy, an atmosphere to keep you from getting cancer

Well, idk about the atmosphere.

It has one, yes

Mars has a minimal atmosphere

But idk if it will be enough xD

We would still need some sort of covering for the colony

Pretty sure the atmosphere on Mars is still filled with things that give you cancer

a lot less than earth, but infinitely more than the moon

And isn't the dust toxic?

On mars

probably

Show of hands

the surface is covered in perchlorates

which have been known to be toxic on earth

Who has a degree in astrophysics, or has taken classes on the subject?

I need to ask a scientist.

Either way, I think it probably takes roughly the same technology to colonize mars as the moon. But the moon doesn't seem to have much value compared to mars.

the moon has rocks that have to be melted to filter out the minerals, little to no chemical energy, no water, and a whole lot of depression

This is why I'm not discussing it all that much.

@Dionara Pretty sure the answer to that for all of us would be "No, I don't have a degree and I haven't taken classes on the subject"

RIP

I need to talk to a scientist.

Lemme get on reddit.

I have a degree from Kerbal space camp.

I was the only survivor

Nuclear power I'm an armchair expert via my brother, who studied Nuclear Engineering for his B.S.

Nice

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_of_the_Moon

the surface is basically unform, and completely useless for growing things

Now I'm becoming a bit less of an armchair expert in Materials Science via my brother since he's studying that for his Ph.D.

I find Mat.Sci. harder to understand than nuclear power

I wonder if comets are a viable use for space travel. Just land on one and have it take you places.

@CreativeRealms I believe NASA has proposed that for research expeditions

It’s pretty logical. Also you could mine them and build ships out of it (maybe).

First you have to stay on one.

Also, are the structural stable enough to ride?

Basically, get out of Earth orbit, land on a comet, and use that to get closer to your objective before leaving again

Just don't get too close to a star or your ride melts

@Grenade123 In theory, any comet should be structurally stable enough to ride. The only trick would be attaching to it for the ride

Oh, and picking one big enough

I think we need to get a science channel in here

I think we need to get some more scientists in here too

I would love that

That way we aren't just speculating on everything

Hey, if politicians can make legislation on this stuff being less informed than us, why can't we speculate?

About the only things I can speak with authority on are programming and nuclear power (again, thanks to my "armchair expert" status)

And even in programming, I acknowledge there are languages I know basically nothing about

My armchair experience comes from way too much science and discovery channel.

I don't really have the authority to speak on anything.

And personal interest in the topics

@Revan what's your native programming languages?

We can combine stuff you know about with stuff you don’t know about. Nuclear powered rocket ships.

There is a drive idea based around firing nukes to use as propulsion

The university I went to for Computer Science started with C and C++, then moved on to Java. Since graduating, I've worked mainly with Java and Javascript (I'm most qualified as a web developer nowadays)

I also know enough of the following to be "dangerous": Lisp, Erlang, Ada, FORTRAN

Oh, and Groovy and Kotlin

Oof Fortran

but those are just Java with nicer syntax

I started with java in highschool. Uni did C/C++, and I'm a c# developer now.

@Revan Kotlin and groovy are far from "Java with nicer syntax"

I know none of those things.

I've looked into C# on occasion, but the companies I've worked for haven't been that big into C#

With some web development as I know JavaScript, just not great

@ping I know there's more to it than that, but they're both supersets of Java

Any valid Java code is also valid Groovy/Kotlin code

C# has only really started to take off recently now that the .net framework is going cross platform