pfft the environment.

It probably killed people, just not from radiation poisoning

THing is, they can claim everything on radiation as well

like random people getting birth defects. How do we know if its related to radiation

@ping The problem that caused Chernobyl was a design flaw that had already been fixed in reactors 10 years younger than it, and Fukushima's problem was the backup generators being flooded because the tsunami was larger than any recorded

But dont get me wrong, Id love nuclear power.

I'm relatively sure the problem that caused Three Mile Island was also a design flaw that had already been fixed in newer plants

And even then it still worked pretty well

But I gotta respect the wishes of those who dont

Even i am an outlier when it comes to how I think here

Solar/wind is still too new. Needs to be improved more.

People are afraid of nuclear power because they think nukes and hear scary works like radiation

Yeah.

Did you even watch the transformers movie??? It blew up because they were trying to harness power from an alien reactor core

kek

Oh shit I never heard about that, ping! 😮

Then there is the problem of waste which the US really hasn't fixed yet

DHMO lol

@Grenade123 > People are afraid of nuclear power because the EPA and the media tells them to be afraid of it despite not knowing shit about it.

@CreativeRealms both are mature tbh

Pretty mucb

Still, can we trust the media when they do a 180 on it?

Wind is pretty gimmicky

Who would we trust to tell us that it is safe

The waste issue was fixed, but Carter (I think) outlawed Breeder reactors in the U.S. because at some point the fuel is weapons-grade

Wind is alright, though people keep going on about 'da birbs doe.'

I guess birds kept running into the turbines or something?

Wind costs way too much

Wind and solar are both affected by the weather, as well

Was it fixed? What are they currently doing with it? Besides leaving it somewhere and not checking on it

Even less of a long term investment than nuclear

No matter how good your power grid is there will always be dead spots with nothing but solar/wind power

alternative power is getting cheaper as tech progresses

Not to mention solar panels rarely (if ever) actually pay for themselves on a consumer scale

Everyone go geothermal

Wut

Lmao

*hydro power?*

I remember that discussion about electric cars......

Like I said, where does the power come from? Coal mines.

@Revan got a source on that? People that have been using solar for 5+ years say theyve payed themselves off

You get less efficient vehicles which still get their power from "unclean" sources

Let's tape into those natural corrosive, high pressure, toxic vents! This is safe.

@ping No, I don't have a source, but the people whose panels have payed for themselves most likely live in very sunny areas that rarely have clouds

@GingaBomber Not to mention mining the materials for the batteries

And that

Like fuck man, apple gets their metals from third world countries

Electric cars are slightly better even with that factored in but the subsities make it not worthwhile.

So does every other major place building things tbh

@GingaBomber large power plants are several times more efficient than car engines

How about transferring and storing all that power

"It's fine bruh, just build like a giant battery bank or something." <:hmkGrin:284219474440355840>

Need better batteries.

Combine that with regenerative breaking and the fact that 20% of the US power grid is from hydro power plants

I mean, at the car charging stations, the prices fluctuate like crazy, where at night, its pretty much free, to the afternoon where its realyl fucking expensive

Actually, I think the best argument for nuclear power is that The Simpsons, which has a track record of foreshadowing (if not outright predicting) future events, features Homer Simpson working at a nuclear power plant

Dont get me wrong though, combustion power is definately not very efficient

especially with how much of it going to heat energy

firey explosion energy

@GingaBomber Yeah, the least efficient part of a car's engine is the combustion reaction

But electric cars still have to solve alot of issues

@GingaBomber most people charge their cars at night though

I don't see any problems with electric vehicles

And I can argue that i can refuel any time of the day

o7

I put my faith in the thought that by trying to build a self sustaining colony on Mars will result in us not needing to worry about global warming aside from trying to maintain things that are astecticly pleasing

How long till the environmentalists complain

I think we need more advances in AI/Robotics before we can actually commit the resources to any moon/planet colonizing.

Exosuits, for example.

And what has musk been doing?

His best.

But we need more people can just Musk.

Grandstanding

If you don't force a hard deadline one yourself, things will never get done.

Musk has been grandstanding

When they say outstanding in his field, ill be more likely to assume it literally than metaphorically

Didn't Newt Gingritch say we'd have a moon colony by 2020 if he was elected president in 2008/12?

That shit was hilarious.

I think that's because he was going to concentrate funding on NASA, but it was still a *very* optimistic estimate

Only reason id see them building a moon base is for taking advantage of the low grav for scientific research

the low gravity there wouldnt be good on the body

There is very little reason to build something on the moon except maybe to act as a place to build large craft

I think the quickest way for us to create artifical gravity fields would be to be forced onto another celestial surface.

Just tell the government we found the possibility of there being oil on the moon.
Problem solved.

The ISS is great, but that isn't a planet or moon.

the moon is boring asf

not much reason to live there

Sorry, that was a bad joke on my part. I wasn't even trying. lol

mars however is an absolute gold mine

'eh.

Mars might be worth.

Do we know if it has any exploitables?

We could turn the moon into a giant weapon's platform.

@JadenFrostwolf the sad fact is you could tell trump that and it would probably happen faster than his wall

@GingaBomber the surface is covered in charged perchlorates

Get that wall up first

only slightly more hospitible and it would be a perfect place for bacteria

Well, he certainly got his gorilla channel up quick, didn't he? <:Kappa:327142715592540171>

Gotta spend my tax payer dollars on that wall which can't defeat aircraft and work visas

we can only hope there is a significant amount of water on mars

Or Canada

Walls do work though.

otherwise it's hard to make methane

Well, walls are not entirely ineffective, or else they wouldn't have been used so much in history.

Walls work, sure, but idk if we have the resources to protect or maintain it.

you rather pay taxes spent on wellfare to the mexicans that get across?

They aren't perfect but they have a huge impact.

At least hes deporting them

It's not like we're gonna try to make the American version of the Great Wall

@ping I would argue that the moon is very worth going to because then we could build larger structures/ships in orbit due to the lower gravity

*Or will we?*

@Revan there's no reason we can't do that in LEO

Yo, want to continue this in chat?

talk

How about you let communities take care of their own and give me my money back so I can actually help the homeless dude down the street?

@ping No, you're not thinking large enough

@Revan But then we would have to pressurize those ships/buildings

what?

And if we tried, I feel like it would go poorly.

I'm talking about things bigger than a mile

yeah even then

we can do that in LEO

The fuck is LEO

low earth orbit

Ah

There's still a larger risk of it falling out of LEO than falling out of LLO (Low Lunar Orbit) though

Someone's been playing lots of KSP.

Ksp is great

I've never played but I want to get it one day.

And I have way too many hours in that game.

KSP is fun, I got bored quickly.

@Revan how the fuck is it going to fall out of LEO

@Dionara mods.

All the mods

if I wanna play a modded game in space, I'd play Space Engineers.

Don't stop modding until your computer flat out gets up and walks away

when i go from KSP to SE it makes me depressed

because no orbital mechanics :(

@ping The same way anything falls out of any orbit. It gets too heavy for the speed it's moving

@Revan no.

@ping you do know orbital decay is a thing right?

^

Don't we have to constantly push the ISS back into the correct orbit?

^

*Unlike what the Chinese did with Taidong*

Fucking slanty-eye nerds, can't even keep things in space.

@Grenade123 i'm aware but it's minimal

Basically every supply mission involves a little boost back into orbit

the ISS is very low

so it needs more of a push

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