NATION

PASSWORD

Mars or a border wall?

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

Should the US build a wall or land on Mars?

Border Wall!
38
14%
Mars!
162
58%
I'm not murican so Border Wall
13
5%
I'm not murican so Mars!
64
23%
 
Total votes : 277

User avatar
Coalition of North American States
Secretary
 
Posts: 40
Founded: May 31, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Coalition of North American States » Wed Oct 18, 2017 9:07 am

I know! Build a trade hubs on Mars, Ceres, and Ganymede, then use them as bases for asteroid mining.
Independent American. I support the Bill of Rights. I DO NOT support either party. Or the Green Party, or the Libertarian Party. I'm purely Independent.

Call me CoNAS

Copy and paste this into your sig if you think the two party system is bad.
Generation 41, the first time you see this copy and paste it to your sig and add 1 to the generation

User avatar
Dooom35796821595
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9309
Founded: Sep 11, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Dooom35796821595 » Wed Oct 18, 2017 9:40 am

Coalition of North American States wrote:I know! Build a trade hubs on Mars, Ceres, and Ganymede, then use them as bases for asteroid mining.


Easier said then done. Without a cheaper and more robust way of getting materials and personnel into orbit, like a space elevator, any venture would be very costly.
When life gives you lemons, you BURN THEIR HOUSE DOWN!
Anything can be justified if it is cool. If at first you don't succeed, destroy all in your way.
"Your methods are stupid! Your progress has been stupid! Your intelligence is stupid! For the sake of the mission, you must be terminated!”

User avatar
Neutraligon
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 34821
Founded: Oct 01, 2011
New York Times Democracy

Postby Neutraligon » Wed Oct 18, 2017 10:08 am

Dooom35796821595 wrote:
Coalition of North American States wrote:I know! Build a trade hubs on Mars, Ceres, and Ganymede, then use them as bases for asteroid mining.


Easier said then done. Without a cheaper and more robust way of getting materials and personnel into orbit, like a space elevator, any venture would be very costly.

Are you talking about the elevator that is an actual physical construct going miles into the air (serious engineering issues there), that somehow does not have issues due to things like winds in the atmosphere, hurricanes and all that jazz?
If you want to call me by a nickname, call me Gon...or NS Batman.
Mod stuff: One Stop Rules Shop | Reppy's Sig Workshop | Getting Help Request
Just A Little though

User avatar
Redsection
Minister
 
Posts: 2117
Founded: Jan 03, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Redsection » Wed Oct 18, 2017 10:11 am

Hmmmmm , use border wall money to invade Mexico and then make Mexico pay for our mars expedition !
[*]National Syndicalist
[*]Soon to join the American Blackshirt Party
[*]Majority European, Native American ancestry, latino heritage
[*]Anti: Globalism , Communism , Nazism, Satanism
[*]Pro: Fascism, Guns Rights, Militias

User avatar
Sovaal
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13696
Founded: Mar 17, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby Sovaal » Wed Oct 18, 2017 10:23 am

Redsection wrote:Hmmmmm , use border wall money to invade Mexico and then make Mexico pay for our mars expedition !

No need for a border wall when you have no border.
Most of the time I have no idea what the hell I'm doing or talking about.

”Many forms of government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe.
No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is
the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried from time to time." -
Winston Churchill, 1947.

"Rifles, muskets, long-bows and hand-grenades are inherently democratic weapons. A complex weapon makes the strong stronger, while a simple weapon – so long as there is no answer to it – gives claws to the weak.” - George Orwell

User avatar
Dooom35796821595
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9309
Founded: Sep 11, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Dooom35796821595 » Wed Oct 18, 2017 11:23 am

Neutraligon wrote:
Dooom35796821595 wrote:
Easier said then done. Without a cheaper and more robust way of getting materials and personnel into orbit, like a space elevator, any venture would be very costly.

Are you talking about the elevator that is an actual physical construct going miles into the air (serious engineering issues there), that somehow does not have issues due to things like winds in the atmosphere, hurricanes and all that jazz?


Yeah, bit beyond our capability at the moment.
When life gives you lemons, you BURN THEIR HOUSE DOWN!
Anything can be justified if it is cool. If at first you don't succeed, destroy all in your way.
"Your methods are stupid! Your progress has been stupid! Your intelligence is stupid! For the sake of the mission, you must be terminated!”

User avatar
Neutraligon
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 34821
Founded: Oct 01, 2011
New York Times Democracy

Postby Neutraligon » Wed Oct 18, 2017 11:25 am

Dooom35796821595 wrote:
Neutraligon wrote:Are you talking about the elevator that is an actual physical construct going miles into the air (serious engineering issues there), that somehow does not have issues due to things like winds in the atmosphere, hurricanes and all that jazz?


Yeah, bit beyond our capability at the moment.

Yeah, especially when we don't have anything able to support the weight of what is being proposed. Our tallest buildings now are nowhere near a mile high.
If you want to call me by a nickname, call me Gon...or NS Batman.
Mod stuff: One Stop Rules Shop | Reppy's Sig Workshop | Getting Help Request
Just A Little though

User avatar
Dooom35796821595
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9309
Founded: Sep 11, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Dooom35796821595 » Wed Oct 18, 2017 11:31 am

Neutraligon wrote:
Dooom35796821595 wrote:
Yeah, bit beyond our capability at the moment.

Yeah, especially when we don't have anything able to support the weight of what is being proposed. Our tallest buildings now are nowhere near a mile high.


I think most designs would just have a (obviously very strong) flexible cable compose most of the elevator, and the shuttles would climb it to reach orbit. Still beyond out reach, but better then a 120,000KM skyscraper. :)

And I think current skyscrapers are limited to 1.6KM theoretical height when using steel as the main component...I forget the name of the rule but it has to do with the base having to tolerate the entire weight of the structure. The tallest under construction is 1KM, in Saudi Arabia I think.
When life gives you lemons, you BURN THEIR HOUSE DOWN!
Anything can be justified if it is cool. If at first you don't succeed, destroy all in your way.
"Your methods are stupid! Your progress has been stupid! Your intelligence is stupid! For the sake of the mission, you must be terminated!”

User avatar
Neutraligon
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 34821
Founded: Oct 01, 2011
New York Times Democracy

Postby Neutraligon » Wed Oct 18, 2017 11:44 am

Dooom35796821595 wrote:
Neutraligon wrote:Yeah, especially when we don't have anything able to support the weight of what is being proposed. Our tallest buildings now are nowhere near a mile high.


I think most designs would just have a (obviously very strong) flexible cable compose most of the elevator, and the shuttles would climb it to reach orbit. Still beyond out reach, but better then a 120,000KM skyscraper. :)

And I think current skyscrapers are limited to 1.6KM theoretical height when using steel as the main component...I forget the name of the rule but it has to do with the base having to tolerate the entire weight of the structure. The tallest under construction is 1KM, in Saudi Arabia I think.

Flexible cable needs something to attach to, otherwise it would...flex under int's own weight. Even our nano tubes today are not able to do what you are talking about.
If you want to call me by a nickname, call me Gon...or NS Batman.
Mod stuff: One Stop Rules Shop | Reppy's Sig Workshop | Getting Help Request
Just A Little though

User avatar
Dooom35796821595
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9309
Founded: Sep 11, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Dooom35796821595 » Wed Oct 18, 2017 11:48 am

Neutraligon wrote:
Dooom35796821595 wrote:
I think most designs would just have a (obviously very strong) flexible cable compose most of the elevator, and the shuttles would climb it to reach orbit. Still beyond out reach, but better then a 120,000KM skyscraper. :)

And I think current skyscrapers are limited to 1.6KM theoretical height when using steel as the main component...I forget the name of the rule but it has to do with the base having to tolerate the entire weight of the structure. The tallest under construction is 1KM, in Saudi Arabia I think.

Flexible cable needs something to attach to, otherwise it would...flex under int's own weight. Even our nano tubes today are not able to do what you are talking about.


Either an asteroid towed in from the asteroid belt, or a reeeeealy long cable. And yeah, that's the biggest problem. Graphite has been suggested, but even that might not be enough.
When life gives you lemons, you BURN THEIR HOUSE DOWN!
Anything can be justified if it is cool. If at first you don't succeed, destroy all in your way.
"Your methods are stupid! Your progress has been stupid! Your intelligence is stupid! For the sake of the mission, you must be terminated!”

User avatar
Old Garcy
Secretary
 
Posts: 30
Founded: Jun 25, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Old Garcy » Wed Oct 18, 2017 7:00 pm

Go to mars and make Mexico pay for it.
70FPS is the velocity of freedom. All safety laws that require grey triggers should be modified.

User avatar
Grenartia
Post Czar
 
Posts: 42499
Founded: Feb 14, 2010
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Grenartia » Wed Oct 18, 2017 11:13 pm

Neutraligon wrote:
Dooom35796821595 wrote:
Easier said then done. Without a cheaper and more robust way of getting materials and personnel into orbit, like a space elevator, any venture would be very costly.

Are you talking about the elevator that is an actual physical construct going miles into the air (serious engineering issues there), that somehow does not have issues due to things like winds in the atmosphere, hurricanes and all that jazz?


To be fair, as long as there's a counterweight at the other end (assuming said end is far enough away from the surface), then the whole "wind" thing isn't much of a problem.

Primary problem is mass producing a material that can handle that amount of tension.
Impeach Humanity, Legalize Death Stars, Life is TheftWis/Gren 2016 Something all cisgender allies should start doing. I wear teal, blue & pink for Swith. ⚧Copy and paste this in your sig if you passed biology and know gender and sex aren't the same thing.⚧
"Don't take life so serious. It isn't permanent."-Dyakovo
I'm a pansexual Androgyne. Also a Christian.
Please use they/them/their when referencing me, as I do NOT appreciate the other pronouns.
Textbook definition of irony
Quotes of awesomeness

User avatar
Grenartia
Post Czar
 
Posts: 42499
Founded: Feb 14, 2010
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Grenartia » Wed Oct 18, 2017 11:16 pm

Dooom35796821595 wrote:
Neutraligon wrote:Flexible cable needs something to attach to, otherwise it would...flex under int's own weight. Even our nano tubes today are not able to do what you are talking about.


Either an asteroid towed in from the asteroid belt, or a reeeeealy long cable. And yeah, that's the biggest problem. Graphite has been suggested, but even that might not be enough.


Problem with an asteroid, at least the first one that comes to mind, is getting it inside the Roche limit. Most designs I'm aware of use a cable longer than the geostationary orbit altitude, with a station at the end as a counterbalance. Also, the material you're thinking of isn't graphite, its carbon nanotubes. Different allotrope.
Impeach Humanity, Legalize Death Stars, Life is TheftWis/Gren 2016 Something all cisgender allies should start doing. I wear teal, blue & pink for Swith. ⚧Copy and paste this in your sig if you passed biology and know gender and sex aren't the same thing.⚧
"Don't take life so serious. It isn't permanent."-Dyakovo
I'm a pansexual Androgyne. Also a Christian.
Please use they/them/their when referencing me, as I do NOT appreciate the other pronouns.
Textbook definition of irony
Quotes of awesomeness

User avatar
Kubra
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12876
Founded: Apr 15, 2006
Libertarian Police State

Postby Kubra » Wed Oct 18, 2017 11:20 pm

Old Garcy wrote:Go to mars and make Mexico pay for it.
go to mexico and make mars pay for it
“Atomic war is inevitable. It will destroy half of humanity: it is going to destroy immense human riches. It is very possible. The atomic war is going to provoke a true inferno on Earth. But it will not impede Communism.”
-Comrade Posadas

User avatar
The Emerald Legion
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9871
Founded: Mar 18, 2011
Father Knows Best State

Postby The Emerald Legion » Wed Oct 18, 2017 11:30 pm

Dooom35796821595 wrote:
Coalition of North American States wrote:I know! Build a trade hubs on Mars, Ceres, and Ganymede, then use them as bases for asteroid mining.


Easier said then done. Without a cheaper and more robust way of getting materials and personnel into orbit, like a space elevator, any venture would be very costly.


You mean the thing that, due to Mar's gravity, would actually be possible to build on Mars? Hence why having a permanent settlement on Mars is important?
"I must play this game by my rules/ I will conquer the world with my tools/ All my machines are made for destruction/ I will build my empire/ I will succeed and you will see/ With my machines there is no retreat." ~ E.G.G.M.A.N.
I frequently lapse into self parody, that isn't to say that I don't have extreme views, just that I occasionally go over the top for comedic effect.
Genivaria wrote:The Emerald Legion is NSG's personal Reaper.

The Drone Empire wrote:"Enlighten the willing, enslave the conquered, eradicate the defiant."
A typical Legionary strategy meeting.
The appropriate pronoun for me is It.
Philosophically Biophobic.

User avatar
National Conservative America
Envoy
 
Posts: 286
Founded: May 23, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby National Conservative America » Wed Oct 18, 2017 11:35 pm

Why are we even still funding a PUBLIC company?! We should spend as much as we want to build a wall. Sieg Heil America!

User avatar
Neanderthaland
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6434
Founded: Sep 10, 2016
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Neanderthaland » Wed Oct 18, 2017 11:42 pm

National Conservative America wrote:Why are we even still funding a PUBLIC company?! We should spend as much as we want to build a wall. Sieg Heil America!

We want to spend $0.00
Ug make fire. Mod ban Ug.

User avatar
Zanera
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9717
Founded: Jun 28, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Zanera » Wed Oct 18, 2017 11:46 pm

Neanderthaland wrote:
National Conservative America wrote:Why are we even still funding a PUBLIC company?! We should spend as much as we want to build a wall. Sieg Heil America!

We want to spend $0.00


And only half a tibia.

User avatar
Dooom35796821595
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9309
Founded: Sep 11, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Dooom35796821595 » Thu Oct 19, 2017 2:46 am

Grenartia wrote:
Dooom35796821595 wrote:
Either an asteroid towed in from the asteroid belt, or a reeeeealy long cable. And yeah, that's the biggest problem. Graphite has been suggested, but even that might not be enough.


Problem with an asteroid, at least the first one that comes to mind, is getting it inside the Roche limit. Most designs I'm aware of use a cable longer than the geostationary orbit altitude, with a station at the end as a counterbalance. Also, the material you're thinking of isn't graphite, its carbon nanotubes. Different allotrope.


Wouldn't it need to be outside the Roche limit, since being inside it would cause the asteroid to disintegrate due to gravitational tidal stresses. I think 36,000 KM would do, in theory. And to get it there, we'd just have to attach a thruster or two and be very careful, don't want it to get caught in earths gravity well. That would be bad.

I meant Graphene, which does form carbon nanotubes when rolled up. Or we could use the diamond teather from Futurama https://www.technologyreview.com/s/5436 ... anothread/

The Emerald Legion wrote:
Dooom35796821595 wrote:
Easier said then done. Without a cheaper and more robust way of getting materials and personnel into orbit, like a space elevator, any venture would be very costly.


You mean the thing that, due to Mar's gravity, would actually be possible to build on Mars? Hence why having a permanent settlement on Mars is important?


But why would you want one on mars? It would be considerably more expensive then building one on earth, wouldn't have much potential for fiscal return, and there's nothing on Mars worth taking off the planet, most of the stuff will need to go down, which can be done with gravity.
When life gives you lemons, you BURN THEIR HOUSE DOWN!
Anything can be justified if it is cool. If at first you don't succeed, destroy all in your way.
"Your methods are stupid! Your progress has been stupid! Your intelligence is stupid! For the sake of the mission, you must be terminated!”

User avatar
Alvecia
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 19548
Founded: Aug 17, 2015
Democratic Socialists

Postby Alvecia » Thu Oct 19, 2017 2:48 am

Dooom35796821595 wrote:
Grenartia wrote:
Problem with an asteroid, at least the first one that comes to mind, is getting it inside the Roche limit. Most designs I'm aware of use a cable longer than the geostationary orbit altitude, with a station at the end as a counterbalance. Also, the material you're thinking of isn't graphite, its carbon nanotubes. Different allotrope.


Wouldn't it need to be outside the Roche limit, since being inside it would cause the asteroid to disintegrate due to gravitational tidal stresses. I think 36,000 KM would do, in theory. And to get it there, we'd just have to attach a thruster or two and be very careful, don't want it to get caught in earths gravity well. That would be bad.

I meant Graphene, which does form carbon nanotubes when rolled up. Or we could use the diamond teather from Futurama https://www.technologyreview.com/s/5436 ... anothread/

The Emerald Legion wrote:
You mean the thing that, due to Mar's gravity, would actually be possible to build on Mars? Hence why having a permanent settlement on Mars is important?


But why would you want one on mars? It would be considerably more expensive then building one on earth, wouldn't have much potential for fiscal return, and there's nothing on Mars worth taking off the planet, most of the stuff will need to go down, which can be done with gravity.

Lot of natural resources on Mars. While it would probably be better to just build the factories there, the end products would eventually have to leave.
British
Atheist
IT Support
That there is no exception to the rule "There is an exception to every rule" is the exception that proves the rule.
---
Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he'll stop asking you to catch his fish.
That's not happening
That shouldn't be happening
Why is that happening?
That's why it's happening?
How has this ever worked?

User avatar
The Huskar Social Union
Post Czar
 
Posts: 45097
Founded: Apr 04, 2012
Left-wing Utopia

Postby The Huskar Social Union » Thu Oct 19, 2017 2:49 am

Go to Mars, you might actually accomplish something worthwhile doing that
Im Irish and live in Belfast Im a Leftwinger and im an Atheist

‘I never thought in terms of being a leader. I thought very simply in terms of helping people’ - John Hume

I like: The Red Agenda, video games, Not being a Wanker, Art, History, Blondes, Redheads, English Brunettes, Fortifications, Old Gregg, Tanks
I Dislike: The Blue Agenda, Being a Wanker, Gatekeeping, Likes and Dislikes lists, Dismantling Fortifications, Zealots, People who dont like Tanks

User avatar
Dooom35796821595
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9309
Founded: Sep 11, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Dooom35796821595 » Thu Oct 19, 2017 2:53 am

Alvecia wrote:
Dooom35796821595 wrote:
Wouldn't it need to be outside the Roche limit, since being inside it would cause the asteroid to disintegrate due to gravitational tidal stresses. I think 36,000 KM would do, in theory. And to get it there, we'd just have to attach a thruster or two and be very careful, don't want it to get caught in earths gravity well. That would be bad.

I meant Graphene, which does form carbon nanotubes when rolled up. Or we could use the diamond teather from Futurama https://www.technologyreview.com/s/5436 ... anothread/



But why would you want one on mars? It would be considerably more expensive then building one on earth, wouldn't have much potential for fiscal return, and there's nothing on Mars worth taking off the planet, most of the stuff will need to go down, which can be done with gravity.

Lot of natural resources on Mars. While it would probably be better to just build the factories there, the end products would eventually have to leave.


Why not build both, and one on lunar for good measure. Lunar could be a technology demonstrator.
When life gives you lemons, you BURN THEIR HOUSE DOWN!
Anything can be justified if it is cool. If at first you don't succeed, destroy all in your way.
"Your methods are stupid! Your progress has been stupid! Your intelligence is stupid! For the sake of the mission, you must be terminated!”

User avatar
Alvecia
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 19548
Founded: Aug 17, 2015
Democratic Socialists

Postby Alvecia » Thu Oct 19, 2017 2:57 am

Dooom35796821595 wrote:
Alvecia wrote:Lot of natural resources on Mars. While it would probably be better to just build the factories there, the end products would eventually have to leave.


Why not build both, and one on lunar for good measure. Lunar could be a technology demonstrator.

Not much need for it on the moon tbh. Construction and maintenance would probably cost more in the long run than just regular launch given it's low gravity and lack of atmosphere.
British
Atheist
IT Support
That there is no exception to the rule "There is an exception to every rule" is the exception that proves the rule.
---
Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he'll stop asking you to catch his fish.
That's not happening
That shouldn't be happening
Why is that happening?
That's why it's happening?
How has this ever worked?

User avatar
Dooom35796821595
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9309
Founded: Sep 11, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Dooom35796821595 » Thu Oct 19, 2017 3:01 am

Alvecia wrote:
Dooom35796821595 wrote:
Why not build both, and one on lunar for good measure. Lunar could be a technology demonstrator.

Not much need for it on the moon tbh. Construction and maintenance would probably cost more in the long run than just regular launch given it's low gravity and lack of atmosphere.


But it would reassure investors on the earth/mars elevator, and might reveal unknown problems that could be addressed before building more expensive ones. Also, Lunar tourism would probably be a thing. The moon is also closer, the distance to mars is always a pain.
When life gives you lemons, you BURN THEIR HOUSE DOWN!
Anything can be justified if it is cool. If at first you don't succeed, destroy all in your way.
"Your methods are stupid! Your progress has been stupid! Your intelligence is stupid! For the sake of the mission, you must be terminated!”

User avatar
Alvecia
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 19548
Founded: Aug 17, 2015
Democratic Socialists

Postby Alvecia » Thu Oct 19, 2017 3:05 am

Dooom35796821595 wrote:
Alvecia wrote:Not much need for it on the moon tbh. Construction and maintenance would probably cost more in the long run than just regular launch given it's low gravity and lack of atmosphere.


But it would reassure investors on the earth/mars elevator, and might reveal unknown problems that could be addressed before building more expensive ones. Also, Lunar tourism would probably be a thing. The moon is also closer, the distance to mars is always a pain.

I feel like it's just a waste. Why build it when it's much cheaper and easier to use another method? I also feel like you wouldn't need a full working prototype to reassure investors. Particularly one that's bound to be financially worthless.
Last edited by Alvecia on Thu Oct 19, 2017 3:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
British
Atheist
IT Support
That there is no exception to the rule "There is an exception to every rule" is the exception that proves the rule.
---
Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he'll stop asking you to catch his fish.
That's not happening
That shouldn't be happening
Why is that happening?
That's why it's happening?
How has this ever worked?

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Arkhane, Bing [Bot], Enormous Gentiles, Greater Cosmicium, Halloweenie, Nobel Hobos 2, Nyoronet, Osthauser, San Guglielmo, Sharania, SwedishHunger, The Steel Cathedral, United States of Kuwait, Washington Resistance Army

Advertisement

Remove ads