Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

    •  
      CommentAuthorTrim
    • CommentTimeAug 6th 2021 edited
     
    Unlikely in my unhumble opinion.

    Turning Phobos and Deimos into one gee habitatats as well any convenient asteroids would be healthier and safer for the Astronaunts, no need for so many so called suicide dives.

    Phobos is due to crash into Mars in a few thousand years anyway. (probably over a million)

    With Phobos's orbit altered a Martian space elevator could be easier.
    • CommentAuthorBigOilRep
    • CommentTimeAug 6th 2021
     
    Posted By: Trimconvenient asteroids

    For certain definitions of "convenient"
    •  
      CommentAuthorTrim
    • CommentTimeAug 6th 2021
     
    We would need nuclear powered spacecraft and Aldrin cyclers.

    But any carbonaceous asteroid within the correct size and orbit could be added to the ring of habitats around mars.
    • CommentAuthorBigOilRep
    • CommentTimeAug 6th 2021
     
    Great, really looking forward to it.
    •  
      CommentAuthorTrim
    • CommentTimeAug 6th 2021
     
    A mass driver and/or skyhooks might allow a similar ring of habitats around earth, they could be handy to dump a small amount of methane and co2.
    •  
      CommentAuthorTrim
    • CommentTimeOct 10th 2021
     
    The Phone Call That Invented SpaceX - YouTube

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-n7tbiB6MmU YouTube
    •  
      CommentAuthorTrim
    • CommentTimeOct 15th 2021
     
    Elon Musk About Germany - YouTube

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PxarqgFC-I0
  1.  
    I worked as an engineer in Munich for eight years. I agree with him.
    •  
      CommentAuthoraber0der
    • CommentTimeOct 22nd 2021 edited
     
    Elon Musk being rude to retired Starfleet Admiral Kirk again: ---> https://youtu.be/lEIk-wTMLcU
  2.  
    wrong billionaire
    •  
      CommentAuthorTrim
    • CommentTimeOct 22nd 2021
     
    Good cop, bad cop.

    Bezos is assumed to be the bad cop but I prefer his ideas of getting mankind off earth, would you really like to live and die on Mars.

    His rocket company is useless he should sell that business to ULA, they should be able to organise it much better, if he still wants to compete with Elon he should invest in Skylon.

    With his cash the spaceplane should be able to make three or more flights a day using carbon free fuel getting his satellites into orbit.

    A glass road made out of molten regolith should make taking off and landing on the moon a lot cheaper, just think of spinning wheels.

    Should cause you some confusion.
  3.  
    Posted By: Trimwants to compete with Elon
    That's where I stopped reading
    • CommentAuthorenginerd
    • CommentTimeOct 22nd 2021
     
    I know it is just semantics, but sometimes semantics lead us to focus on the real situation. There is no need to save the earth. The earth is fine, will be fine, and doesn't care. The issue at hand is about saving people, and things that people like and need (like certain plants and animals). And the evidence suggests that nobody wants to save ALL the people either, just the right ones.
    •  
      CommentAuthorTrim
    • CommentTimeOct 22nd 2021
     
    As long as all trappers and some juicy babes are on the list, things might work out fine, maybe.
    •  
      CommentAuthorpcstru
    • CommentTimeOct 23rd 2021 edited
     
    Posted By: enginerdI know it is just semantics, but sometimes semantics lead us to focus on the real situation. There is no need to save the earth. The earth is fine, will be fine, and doesn't care. The issue at hand is about saving people, and things that people like and need (like certain plants and animals). And the evidence suggests that nobody wants to save ALL the people either, just the right ones.

    I wouldn't say nobody. Perhaps your semantic pirouette, by focusing on people, loses that in "saving the earth", those (semantically incorrect) people are encompassing everyone.

    [ETA, there is another dependency issue; we don't for certain know what the certain other things are for certain. Exactly which other organisms do we need to save to save ourselves?]
    • CommentAuthorBigOilRep
    • CommentTimeOct 23rd 2021
     
    Posted By: pcstruI wouldn't say nobody. Perhaps your semantic pirouette, by focusing on people, loses that in "saving the earth", those (semantically incorrect) people are encompassing everyone.

    Everyone and every species and inanimate object.

    You could argue that humanity (ie everyone) made themselves extinct or at least cut down in numbers significantly, then this would allow many other species to thrive. Biodiversity would certainly improve. Maybe this would be "saving the planet"?

    As it is, we aren't trying to save any planet, but trying to maintain the climate in an equilibrium suitable for Homo Sapiens to thrive.
    •  
      CommentAuthorTrim
    • CommentTimeNov 20th 2021
     
    Working with Elon.

    Tesla is a META CYBORG!! Former Telsa Employee's ASTOUNDING revelations! - YouTube

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9bUKN4t0hD8