someone saw that kurzgesagt video on how to terraform Mars with lasers

Lasers and microwaves are both pretty inefficent for this. A few dozen heliostats could easily melt regolith from lunar orbit. Focusing a hundred square meters of reflected sunlight on a single square meter will melt a diamond when there's no atmosphere to attenuate the energy.

I don't get why interplanetary travel takes up so much of this subs time when it's nowhere near attainable or sustainable in any of our lifetimes.

Edit: people,.give me an ETA when we can blast the moon with microwaves.

Then tell me how long that will take to apply that tech to Mars.

Then laugh at yourselves, lmao.

Not with that attitude, pshh

Feel free to submit your own posts.

It’s been attainable for 50 years. It’s a question of priorities. Specifically, human space exploration or ‘politics by other means’

That's either incredibly pessimistic or uninformed unless you are betting on SpaceX completely disappearing. Even then there are other private launch providers will eventually develop the required hardware.

Its certaintly unsuatainable, which is the argument nobody's talking about here.

Does diamond melt? I know in the presence of high temperature oxygen, diamond will burn but idk what it does in a vacuum.

Pretty sure everything melts if you get it hot enough

Then there's the logistics of getting so many microwaves up there. Important questions should be asked. Are we talking 900W, 1000W, or those big 1200W behemoths? Could this be a joint venture between NASA and GE? Will the microwaves be reusable once they hit the surface?

He also apparently missed the 1960s in school. Given this article is talking about the moon, which we've already been to.

I actually have no idea. I have some experience with allotropes of carbon at high temperature but that was also at high pressure in a fluid environment. I have no idea what would happen in a vacuum but that wasn't really the point I was making.

Not a lot can stand up to unfiltered solar power when it's concentrated 1000 to 1. The energy is free, they'd only need propellant to set and maintain the orientation of the mirrors. With enough of them they could probably cut a tunnel straight down.

According to google, diamond in a vacuum, when heated high enough, sublimates straight to gaseous carbon. In order to liquify diamond, you need pressures nearly 100,000 times greater than atmospheric pressure at sea level AND lots of heat.

[removed]

So... Interior of a star?

[removed]

The wattage doesn't matter as much as the sheer volume, the more you can ram into the moon at once the bigger dent it will make

[removed]

You mean it talking about blasting the lunar surface with microwaves?

Did we do that in the 60s when we landed?

>eventually

Uh, yeah of course. But while you're alive, they won't be running supply missions to Mars, no.

50 years?

You're saying we could have landed on Mars in the 70s?

But would they get any traction in between all these fluff pieces about travel that won't happen?

No, just blasting the lunar surface with microwaves for no good reason, lmao.

Sure won’t if you don’t post em.

I'm guessing at least some of the radiation given off by the eagle landers was microwave, but obviously the magnitude described in the article is hypothetical

interior of a planet, like where diamonds are natuarlly formed inside the hearth :D .

So why post them when you guys are just going to jerk each other off about something else?

Heh true, I kinda missed the obvious one there huh

[removed]

Well if you’re gonna be that bitter about it maybe you better just not, and jerk yourself off on how much of a waste of time it would’ve been, instead of actually trying.

Literally the only result of commenting how you wouldn’t waste your time here.

[removed]

No, they did not use microwaves to blast debris from underneath the lunar landers.

No shit, I was merely saying it probably gave off some microwave energy. Blasting the surface with microwaves to scienmagically make a landing pad is hypothetical.

That would be so damn cool.

I completely agree. I thought about it for the first time 5 or 6 years ago when they were talking about 3D printing habs. I had a giant 3D printer (100x100x150cm) that I would run nylon through and it used more power than the rest of the building it was in. I couldn't see the practicality of 3D printing with local materials in an environment where energy efficiency was key. It didn't make sense. But if the energy was essentially free, instead of 3D printing they could essentially build a solar powered CNC machine.

Living underground makes more sense anyway. They need all the radiation shielding that they can get. Put the water supply on the roof above the living spaces and they'd be even safer.

There's a reason Musk started his boring company.

Dude, you know you like...don't have to be here right?

The real trick is getting them all to work with the doors open

The benefits of 3d printing is you can take raw materials to orbit and create a structure that couldn't exist in 1g conditions with no or little waste. CNC milling creates lots of waste as shavings and chips that are hard to reform into usable materials.

You're missing the point.

The RFP was for 3D printing ground based habitats. Nothing that NASA or the ESA has actually pushed forward in terms of habitats involved 3D printing in low g. The competitions that they actually spent money on were for surface structures.

We're not talking about an actual CNC. The "wasted material" you're talking about is vaporized lunar rock. There's plenty to go around and you get a couple orders of magnitude more volume for your energy input by cutting down into it rather than building up with it. And that's before you even run the math on radiation shielding. Nobody is living off Earth without several meters of mass between them and the outside for any length of time any time soon

I like 3D printing, I've spent half a million on it over the last 10 years or so, but it's overhyped and it gets dropped in as a magic solution for every problem these days.

Redditor for 11 days. Totally legit account. /s

Humans landed on the moon in 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972 If we prioritized human space exploration over empty consumerism and pointless self destruction who knows what might’ve been accomplished since then?

After reading the article it seems like hitting the regolith with concentrated solar light directly would reduce the equipment mass quite a bit.

Edit: grammar

30 seconds.

I've shoved a stick in the bit that makes mine think the doors closed and ive got it on the windowsill turned on, juat got to line the bugger up. Eyeballing it should be fine, the moons pretty big.

[deleted]

If we add more mass to the moon….how would that affect us here on earth?

[removed]

[deleted]

What about the ones that explode with tin foil and some draino in the movies 🎥

Weren't they using that in the video?

If they made a big enough tunnel the off gassing would effect the lunar orbit

That's so far beyond the capability of our species that it's not even worth discussion. It's like saying that if we built a big enough skyscraper we'd have to worry about it knocking down satellites.

They want to build on moon or want ancient buildings on moon?

You are incredibly pessimistic, considering you've assumedly lived through SpaceX's increase in performance over the last half decade.

I can’t imagine a scenario where the mass we add isn’t extremely below negligible.

[removed]