Is it really necessary to send humans to those places just to get the knock-on benefits? Couldn’t we do those things directly, without going there?
It seems to me that, today, those who have the money to spend on these endeavors would only do so if there were perceived short-term benefits to themselves. That means they plan to exploit the resources, or increase their own power somehow.
I know the good engineers that make this happen are doing it for the challenge and in the pursuit of knowledge, and I know that’s why we poors support it, but that doesn’t “pay the bills.” What is the motivation behind the money? Why are they really doing this?
If their resources cost more to harvest than what it costs to send a rocket back out, it’s a dud. Sending humans, lifeforms evolved for life on Earth, is stupid beyond belief.
You send life engineered to what best fits the environment, and if your society can’t cope with that fact because it is too species-centric, you get nothing. Never mind what actual interstellar travel requires, which is coping with timescales and hibernation states completely alien to us. Because a lot of what space requires involves a lot of what we can’t cope with, it is far more likely that it will belong to our predecessors.
The moon is a great starting point to explore the rest of the solar system, doubly so if we found water on it.
I’ll quote JFK (probably more Ted Sorensen) on this one « we don’t do this things because they are easy but because they are hard […] »
… And we need to make sure we beat the Russians. Space travel is to a large part an arms race.
And to provide a material reason to explore the solar system, if we can mine the asteroid belt, resource scarcity will be a thing of the past. A single 1-mile diameter asteroid can contain $20 trillion in metals.
This is why the billionaires are staging their own space race. Whoever can mine the asteroid belt first owns the world. It’s also why privatizing space exploration is such a terrible idea and why we must have a global socialist revolution before anyone reaches the belt.
doesnt seem like it was thier goal, its mostly space tourism.
Another reason privatization would be a disaster: there’s very little difference between hauling an asteroid back to Earth’s orbit and hauling one to collide with the planet The latter is actually much easier due to not needing to slow down at the end.
I wonder how many decades or centuries it’ll take before the first megalomaniac demands a ransom to not drop a giant rock on Earth or another colony.
Once intrasolar travel becomes common, kinetic kill vehicles will be an omnipresent threat.
Hopefully if were at the point of being able to haul massive asteroids back to earth, we also have the technology to intercept it and move it, or destroy it, and we have that capability ready on demand.
Oh no I don’t think we would. Once an asteroid is earth bound and past its apoapsis there is very little you can do (even with near infinite propulsion) to make it not collide with the earth.
Destroying it turns one big problem into a billion small problems with the same velocity and trajectory, which is also a no win scenario.
Hopefully, but we’re not a very forward-thinking species. More likely we’d only give haulers just enough fuel to make gravity-assisted trips (which are only possible when orbits match up optimally) because it’s cheaper that way, making on-demand interception unlikely.
Destruction doesn’t always work either. If it’s struck close to Earth most of the fragments will still hit, and even if they’re too small to survive reentry they will still dump tons of heat energy into the atmosphere.
Physics is a harsh mistress.
I wonder how much heat energy fragments would actually dump and if it would be statistically significant. Somebody do the math!
I couldn’t find any hard values, but Wikipedia does have a chart displaying the energy asteroids of various sizes would release if they exploded before hitting the ground, as well as the total kinetic energy they’d have upon hitting atmosphere. All that energy would still have to go somewhere even if it’s fragmented.
I also found that a single 50 meter fragment is enough to destroy an entire city and surrounding metropolitan area, so even if the heat isn’t an issue you’d still have to somehow ensure zero large fragments survive interception.
That’s a huge reason I believe, hope, that we will never do that. A more efficient and less catastrophic approach is to do some level of refining out at the source and only send back together refined, pure minerals.
…. Although I realize the irony of advocating for sending, say a rod of pure tungsten, back to earth
And more realistically, I have a hard time believing that will ever be cheaper to bring to earth than to mine locally. While there maybe a handful of elements worth it, more realistically you are mining for use in space
In the case of musk and his billionaire friends, they just want to escape the consequences of their actions and become above the law. Basically they want to be a king, with no laws restraining them.
It’s also a good distraction, doubt they actually think people will live on the moon or Mars
Someone else pointed out that you could set off every nuke that has ever existed and the earth would still be more hospitable than mars
To repeat myself a little, it’s all a distraction from making things better here, like the bezoes quote about getting 10,000 Einsteins in the future by expanding in the solar system, and it’s like dude, you might have 100 Einsteins pissing in bottles in your warehouse right now but they can’t afford school or groceries or rent
Or in the words of Stephen Jay Gould,
“I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops.”
I read that as getting 10,000 Epsteins by expanding in the solar system …
Why not both
10,000 Epsteins vs. 10,000 Einsteins
Who would win?
Einsteins figure out how to give killer massages.
The Moon and Mars are not a distraction. It’s been a Nasa goal for a long time to go to Mars. Politics has stopped us from doing it for a very long time. We’re lucky we got to put probes around it and rovers on the ground.
There’s a difference between musk and bezo talking about Mars, the moon and space, and nasa talking about it.
getting 10,000 Einsteins in the future by expanding in the solar system
This is incredibly random but I’ve been wondering lately what might happen if we colonized a place where comparatively speaking time moves much faster than on Earth.
In theory you could bring back years of advancement in a shorter timespan, but this is obviously just a pipe dream.
Interstellar is just a movie, mate. There is no such planet, time passes at the same rate everywhere - ie the caesium standard.
Time dilation is a thing, but as far as I’m aware it’s not possible to travel someplace, pass any greater amount of time, and then return as though less time had passed - that’s time travel. It’s theoretically impossible, at least with current technology and understanding of relativity. Great movie though.
As far as we know, traveling through time backwards is impossible.
Traveling through time forwards is very much possible though - in fact we are doing exactly that right now!
I explicitly said ‘return back as though less time had passed’ - i.e. backwards time travel - was theoretically impossible.
I never claimed travel forward though time was not.
It’s not about returning back in time - it’s just one place would travel forward slower than another place.
You’re telling me what I was talking about? Returning back in time is exactly the comment I was responding to.
This is incredibly random but I’ve been wondering lately what might happen if we colonized a place where comparatively speaking time moves much faster than on Earth.
In theory you could bring back years of advancement in a shorter timespan, but this is obviously just a pipe dream.
This goal is impossible for the reasons I explained.
I didn’t get the idea from the movie, I’m talking about how time passes differently depending on the pull of gravity; and that’s why I kind of alluded to this being theoretical at best. I don’t actually think it’s feasible to find an enormous planet just to have time pass more quickly.
Yep, and as I said, the return trip with all the rapidly evolved super-geniuses would be the impossible part of the plan.
You can’t travel someplace else - experience say 100 years, and then travel back to your place of departure and have had only 20 years passed. That’s fundamentally impossible.
have had only 20 years passed
Have had only 20 years pass in the local frame of reference, not the frame of the evolved super geniuses. Thus everybody on earth gets to enjoy the benefits, if there are any.
The problem is that your return to Earth would slowly move you back down the dilation losing the gains.
You can take two routes to a restaurant. One is very short but curvy and has a slow speed limit. The other is a really long straight shot with high speed. You can think of your scenario as such a case where even though the straight path is longer, it takes the same “time” to get to the restaurant.
You would be taking the faster, longer route while Earth takes the windy slow route but as you arrived back you would still be in sync.
Edit to add: Spacetime is a single thing which is why the above behavior the case.
That’s not how time dilation works. Astronauts that have spent significant time on the ISS have experienced — however marginally — less time than their identical twins on Earth.
I just wished they got the fuck on with it and left earth already, so we can turn off their radio coms and start fixing things
I mean everyone makes a choice everyday to listen to their shit.
Not really. I have never voluntarily listened anything about musk. Good example, this thread lol.
It’s a lot cheaper to launch with just the fuel needed to get to the moon, then refuel there and launch again in the much lighter gravity. It’ll make it easier/cheaper/less resource intensive to explore space.
This just pushes the question up a level. Why explore space? All the things we need, all the things we like, all the problems to solve - they are here.
“Because the knowledge itself is worth the effort” would be my answer.
My answer would be that it isn’t.
There’s nothing inherently noble in exploration. It is, in fact, a conspicuous luxury in a world where needless suffering abounds.
We’re more than capable of doing both. People in power just don’t want to.
We are capable of what we do. If the system can’t produce an outcome, then it isn’t capable of it.
Consider why those in power would be willing to spend resources planting flags in space, but unwilling to feed the hungry or tend the sick.
Tourism. Tell me you don’t want to try sleeping in reduced gravity.
Probably invent some new sports. And because we don’t know what we don’t know. So it’s hard to build a robot to look for what we don’t know about.“The Earth is just too small and fragile a basket for the human race to keep all its eggs in.” - Robert A. Heinlein
We must terraform Mars and live like kings!
How about you start by terraforming the Sahara desert or shut the fuck up, Elon.
While I would very much like to save the environment on Earth, people are not going to stop consuming the planet’s resources and allow that to happen. Equally as important, we don’t know how to save our environment. Do you know how to terraform the Sahara? I don’t. In fact, there are dozens of scientists with dozens of different ideas of things we can try that could help mitigate global warming and help restore natural environments. But doing so would amount to performing experiments on the Earth’s biosphere and we only have one biosphere to work with. If the experiments goes wrong, which any researcher can tell you is very likely, then we could do even more damage and maybe have no biosphere left at all.
A better plan is to go someplace like Mars and experiment there. Learn how to create and manipulate a biosphere someplace where a failed experiment won’t potentially wreck the biosphere we need live in.
Edit to add: Do you really want to let the Elon Musks of the world spread reflective dust in the ionosphere, or launch a giant sun-shade into orbit to block some of the sun’s light from hitting the planet? Wouldn’t it be better to do the experiments somewhere else?
Equally as important, we don’t know how to save our environment.
Absolutely bizzarre logic.
We definitely know how to DESTROY the environment, and we can’t even stop doing that.
If you having trouble finding a comfortable sitting position, it could because the shoulder of an Exxon marketing executive is constantly in the way.
Do you know how to terraform the Sahara?
it’s on earth, it doesn’t need terraforming, it’s already tera-form.
the rest of your ideas sound like musk fanboy fantasies.
For the most part, the resources that we need to survive are renewable if we use them responsibly. And the things that aren’t renewable we can be quite economical about using and should last centuries if not millennia into the future, when hopefully we have better technology to give us alternatives.
We do not need to terraform the Sahara to save Earth. The point is that if you’re so gung-ho about terraforming things, how about you start with a smaller challenge that’s closer to supply lines and labor?
Going to Mars is just a bad plan, period. There’s nothing on Mars for us. Going to the Moon, fine, the low gravity and the Helium-3 and the short distance I can definitely see an argument being made for it. But Mars? There’s no reason whatsoever to go there.
Apparently if you terraform the Sahara, it’s bye-bye rainforest in South America. The Amazon rainforest needs the dust that lands over there from the Sahara.
Bye-bye is probably a bit of an overstatement. Yes plants need phosphorous, and some more than others, but I don’t think the Amazon would disappear without the phosphorous influx from the Sahara. Change - sure, probably - but there’s still plenty of nutrients and water for vast forests to continue existing there.
Change - sure, probably - but there’s still plenty of nutrients and water for vast forests to continue existing there.
The soil itself is pretty barren in the Amazon. The vast majority of the nutrients and minerals in that biome are in the trees and plants themselves. Without the continual topping-up from the Sahara, the Amazon is on a ticking clock.
Gaze upon the Amazon River:
Consider its breadth and depth. A titanic quantity of water, enough to drain a continent, emptying in endless torrent into the abyss of the sea. Except it’s not just water. Look at the color of it. It’s not blue; it’s brown. Consider the amount of water in that river. Then think of how much soil and dead plant matter must be flowing with it in order to turn it to such a rich chocolate brown.
That is where the Amazon’s phosphorous ultimately ends up. Nothing lives forever. Every plant and animal eventually dies. When it does, much of what it was gets recycled back into the plants and animals of the Amazon, but some doesn’t. A lot doesn’t.
Without the Sahara, the Amazon is on borrowed time.
Let’s say that if the nutrients of the Sahara were consumed by plants and animals in the Sahara, then the Amazon would be deprived. Let’s say the Amazon would disappear.
In turn, we’d get a forest in the Sahara that would be about 30% bigger than the Amazon. So a net win I guess?
Anyway, it’s not the point. I’m just saying it’s moronic to belive that we can terraform fucking Mars.
I would say that you should have more faith in your fellow human beings. We would have never accomplished anything if our ancestors had your poor misanthropic attitude.
We could use Brawndo, it has electrolytes.
No. The deserts are not an empty void just waiting to be filled with more corn fields. There are species that are adapted to there, can only survive there, and would be driven to extinction if we eliminated all of Earth’s deserts. The total biosphere per acre is not high in deserts, but the species that do live there have just as much right to live as any other.
This really gets to the whole point of space colonization. The Earth is a jewel. Every inch of it is covered in life of a wondrous variety of forms. And every time we as humans shape a biome to our will, we degrade or destroy whatever species was there before.
The great thing about space is that it truly is empty real estate. Maybe Mars has some bacteria living miles beneath the surface, maybe. But it is for all intents and purposes a dead rock. We can colonize it to our heart’s content. We’re not stealing any land from any natives by colonizing there. We’re not wiping out native species by setting up vast agricultural plantations. It’s a place that we can let our technology loose to the limits of its abilities, and we can do so without destroying a biosphere so complex that you probably have to scour a thousand galaxies before you find its equal.
In the very long term, I hope humanity greatly decreases its impact on the Earth. My dream would be for Earth to return to a mostly wild state. Most people would live in space. The only people living on Earth would be either:
a) Living in very dense towering cities built to be incredibly environmentally efficient and sustainable. b) People practicing extremely low-impact lifestyles like the Amish or people who willingly choose to live as neo-hunter gatherers.
The vast majority of the human species, and all of our industry, would move off of Earth. Earth would essentially become one big nature preserve.
Bro. The Sahara desert is over 9 million square kilometers. Let’s say our wildest dreams could be realized and we managed to re-green half of the Sahara, it would still leave an area larger than all of India (~3.5 Mkm2) for your highly specialized mice and lizards. They’d be fine.
Now, let’s talk space. My point is - if you think that you could use the “empty real estate” on Mars, then why don’t you try it out on fucking Earth first, where you have shorter supply lines and access to manpower? A little demonstration of your incredible powers!
You know - if you think you can fly, don’t jump out of a window. Try taking off from the ground first. Test your wings in a safe environment.
Oh, what’s that, YOU FUCKING CAN’T? Okay then don’t talk shit.
Frankly, there’s no point. We already know how to green the Sahara. That fact is not in any doubt. You don’t actually prove anything or accomplish anything by doing so. We have all the technology; there’s just no economic reason to do so. Spam solar panels, desalination plants, and water pipelines. Technologically, it’s quite simple. Performing such a thing would prove nothing about our ability to settle Mars. The technical challenges are completely different. Whether we can actually settle Mars is a different question entirely. Settling somewhere on Earth does not provide any useful information on whether we can do so on Mars.
And ultimately, the point of expanding off Earth is so we don’t have all our eggs in one basket. You’re just proposing that we more heavily exploit our current basket, rather than expanding out to another one.
And terraforming is hardly the first step here. You don’t jump directly into something like that. You figure out how to build a city first. Once you have a billion people living on Mars, then you can consider something as grand as terraforming.
Brb finding something preposterous from Starship Troopers
Is there some benefit Delta V wise to having a lunar or orbiting lunar base perhaps?
Yes, the escape velocity is much less for both.
There are so many reason we do these things as engineers. For me, it used to be about having all our marbles in one basket on Earth. But, as I get older, I find the science and engineering are just the better parts of humanity. There’s so much nasty stuff happening in the world out there
We launched The Nancy Grace Roman Telescope at the end of August, and I literally cried watching it separate from the rocket. 5 years of my life, and a president who tried to cancel the program, not once, not twice, but three times. All of the work we did at the end of last year under duress of the OMB crap, and NASA cutting 25% of the workforce, trying go defund Goddard.
So, yeah, this stuff isn’t just something I do for money, or the challenge. I do it bcz it’s my life, it’s what makes the bestof humanity, all of the knowledge and hope we have as a species.
The moon could be like an orbital gas station which is much easier to land and launch from compared to Earth (no atmosphere, less gravity). Building a buffer on the moon would make it considerably easier to ship mass to other planets. I don’t really see a way we build a Mars base without having succeeded on the Moon first.
This just pushes the question out one ring. What do we need to do on other planets that we can’t do on Earth?
The sad answer is there isn’t really anything. Go live on Mars and it will suck compared to Earth - no nature to enjoy, instrument limited variety of food, largely cut off from the rest of human culture and experience. After hundreds of years, it might be developed to look like suburban Ohio - you’ll have some iron mines and some Applebee’s and maybe enough people that the martian memes are fire … but you still won’t have a beach, or anything to see outside, or a blue sky.
It will just be Earth, but worse.
Because exploration is in the human DNA. We seek to push out further, see and learn about new places, and further our understanding. Your question is like asking “why did explorers sail ships across the Atlantic when they had a perfectly good continent already?” At first, the new world was just “Europe but worse”, or the various islands of the Pacific were just “Asia but worse” - humans have always felt the need to explore and see what’s around every corner.
Sure, the Moon and Mars may be boring compared to all the sights on earth, but space exploration starts somewhere. Just like sailing the ocean, you start with learning how to build a boat that can cross a lake or river; you don’t start by building an ocean liner.
European exploration across the Atlantic was driven by a desire for trade routes with Asia that did not pass through the intervening Islamic civilizations that were often in conflict with the explorers, it was an economic motive. After the European discovery of the American continents, they were, in fact, largely ignored for about a century.
If exploration is so core to the human experience, why did the people of Asia - much more numerous than the Europeans even back then - not undertake any large exploration or colonization efforts? Or those of Africa?
The economic motive for space exploration is rather weak. There are asteroids full of valuable metals, but they are very far away and recovery would be more difficult and expensive than expanding Earth extraction efforts. We evolved to live here, life elsewhere disagrees with our biology - reduced gravity is great for your back and terrible for your heart and brain.
We don’t need the living space, and the population looks set to decline by the end of the century anyway.
While I understand you want to ascribe some kind of moral imperative to exploration, it is a large and completely unnecessary expenditure of resources that could be better deployed to make life here better for far more people.
If exploration is so core to the human experience, why did the people of Asia - much more numerous than the Europeans even back then - not undertake any large exploration or colonization efforts? Or those of Africa?
You have deeply disappointed Admiral Zheng He. This may cost you your head.
And then he got back and they dismantled all the boats and never did it again. Definitely had exploration in the DNA.
And meanwhile the peoples of modern-day India, southeast Asia, Korea, Japan, Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc. never did this. Curious.
You’re a member of a species that owes its entire existence to exploration and expansion. We expanded from one biome in a tiny corner of Africa to a species of billions dominating an entire planet. We explored every corner of it and adapted to every possible biome. We learned how to live everywhere from isolate islands to endless deserts to polar wastes. We’re the ultimate explorer and colonizing species.
I cannot comprehend how a human being can look at that and then respond with the most bone-headed take imaginable, “we don’t have exploration in our genes.”
China engaged in all sorts of colonization. How do you think they ended up with Taiwan? India engaged in colonization in Sri Lanka and other areas. You’re just ignorant of history.
I cannot comprehend
I believe you find yourself thinking that a lot if you don’t understand why people disagree with you.
It will just be Earth, but worse.
If people had had your attitude, humanity would still be huddled in one tiny corner of Eastern Africa, never having advanced past hunter-gathering. “Why go to that new empty valley over the mountains? First you have to get over the mountains. Then once you get there, there’s nobody there. You’ll be all alone. It will be just like our current home, but worse.”
If that one corner of Eastern Africa was the only habitable place on the planet, and getting to the next valley over required generations to live in suffering while available resources are used to make mountaineering gear, and settling that valley would represent a constant resource drain for centuries at a minimum…
Sure, same thing.
People didn’t leave Africa due to the moral imperative to explore, they did not have the resources to support large scale migration on a whim. They left Africa for food.
There’s no food on Mars, or the Moon.
Human expansion on Earth did require just the kind of investments you’re imagining. You’re just not using your imagination.
You couldn’t just immediately enter a new valley and start eating whatever you found there. Some things might be edible, but many could kill you. You encountered entirely different biomes than what your culture was adapted for, and you encountered new species that may or may not be habitable.
I imagine most expansion on Earth happened a lot like space colonization will happen in the future. When traveling to a new area, it probably started with exploratory expeditions. Small groups would go over the mountains and explore. Maybe they would bring back a few kinds of food to try. Maybe there they would find a few species they were already familiar with. (Similar to how there will be some resources we can use right from the get-go on Mars.) Later more regular expeditions would go, maybe once a year a group from the tribe would cross the mountains to gather some rare food type or animal skin. Over time, as people spent more time in the new biome, they did the hard work of figuring out what was edible. They did that hard painful work. And in time, they learned enough of about the plants and animals in the area to be able to safely gather enough food to sustain a population. It took generations. It was a learning process. A lot of people died in the process.
The thing you need to not forget about Mars is that we are no longer hunter gatherers. It doesn’t matter if we won’t find a garden of food on Mars, waiting for us to eat. We’re an advanced industrial civilization. We don’t gather food; we grow and manufacture it. What matters is not if there is food on Mars, but if there are the raw materials to support our food factories. Sure, settling Mars will require a lot more resources than hunter-gatherers than our ancestors needed when colonizing the next valley. But we also have a hell of a lot more resources and technology at our disposal than those ancestors did.
Say we put in all that effort, expend all those resources - what do we get for it?
Another place to put strip malls and parking lots. With the added benefits of brain swelling, heart atrophy due to the reduce gravity, and shortened lifespans from the increased radiation.
Or we could just, idk, make Earth a better place to live. If we have all these resources, surely it would be easier to make Earth more habitable given the much better starting conditions than to go to dead dust ball months to years away and try to live in an ant farm.
Just a thought
The problem is that you will never reach a point where you feel it’s worth expanding off of Earth. There will never be a point where things are perfect and all our problems here are solved. In fact, if we ever do reach that point, we probably shouldn’t expand out that point, as that means we’ve probably become a species of entirely self-obsessed narcissists that believes we are perfect.
Self-criticism is healthy. But you shouldn’t allow it to hold back your own life or your whole species.
I think you just have far to little faith in your fellow human beings. Thankfully history isn’t moved forward by naysayers. For every inventor that transformed the world, there were a hundred jealous naysayers that said it shouldn’t or couldn’t be done.
Just a thought.
It is only a “problem” if you consider space exploration a moral imperative.
I don’t. There isn’t anything up there that we can’t get easier down here. The resource expenditure is a poor investment. Not to mention how much this would further inequality.
If there will always be problems on Earth, then it sounds like we’ll never be bored staying here.
Exon Mobile on the moon. As long as they have some snacks I think it would do well!
The best way I can say it is it’s kind of like exercise. Going to the Moon makes about as much sense as " pick up heavy object, put down heavy object." The Moon itself doesn’t really accomplish a lot in the moment, but the practice of engineering all the little things that it takes to get to the Moon, and learning about the universe along the way, is kind of like exercise for society coming together to solve hard problems.
Now you’re correct that there’s a lot of hard problems right here on earth for us to try and solve, and that’s valid. But I also need you to think about just how little funding actually goes to NASA. Or Space X for that matter. It’s actually a lot less difficult (and expensive) to get to the Moon than say, teach all our children to read properly.
The skills we build and the things we learn along the way however can be turned around and repurposed for lots of other hard problems down the road that are a lot closer to home. It sure as hell beats the other kind of “exercise” we’ve historically done to advance our skills which mainly consists of killing each other by the millions.
Does that make sense?
we actually seem not at all concerned about doing anything with the moon, it’s either launching more satellites or going to mars.
It is a really good “proving ground” for longer term human habitation of something like a settlement on a foreign body, without being so far away that some kind of rescue is basically impossible should something go wrong.
Also, going from Earth > Moon > Mars, or where ever, is probably less complex from a total at one time payload perspective than trying to move everything you would need for that longer term destination all at once.
Plus as you alluded to, you can’t really put a price on the political good will that comes from doing something like that. The Moon is a cheaper way to get that good will and some experience from point one as a starting point.
There are resources on the moon. Like helium which the sources on Earth are slowly depleting because helium that gets released in to the air is basically gone, it floats up to the upper layers of the atmosphere and some atoms will eventually get knocked into space and leave Earth’s gravity. Also some scientific experiments require low gravity. Currently they are doing them on the ISS or in a reduced-gravity aircraft. In a moon base you can do a lot more science with more people.
Also some people that are researching lab grown organs think that in order to grow an entire organ that it has to be done in low gravity. So imagine in the future we could have a moon base that grows organs for thousands of people at a time.
he extration does nor make sense. He-3 extraction might.
helium which the sources on Earth are slowly depleting because helium that gets released in to the air is basically gone
so we fill kids balloons with it.
So imagine in the future we could have a moon base that grows organs for thousands of people at a time.
Read: thousands of billionaires at a time
If organs can’t grow in Earth gravity then what the fuck am I
You didn’t build your full grown adult organs cell by cell in a vat. Like if they ever able to make organs they are more like constructing them cell by cell then growing them naturally. Growing them would be probably too slow anyway. Not everyone can wait 15 years for a new heart.
They were grown cell by cell in a fleshy vat
A fleshy fucking marvel, bitch
But without all the helium the earth will fall down.
Wake up, sheeple! The government is trying to bring down the moon!
We’re hoping to send all the billionaires one way to mars
have awesome space sex
