i agree like i think venus is a better option then mars in the long term but i do think that the moon should come first because from the moon you can launch bigger rockets with more payload capability,s and less need for fuel
especially since venus has a similar density and mass to earth, meaning similar gravity, upper atmosphere could be breathable, and it is only 4 months away
The Moon, Mars, and Titan feel like worlds that get progressively more habitable (or at least amenable) the farther away you get -- the Moon is right there but has no atmosphere to protect from radiation or micrometeorites, Mars is far away but offers half-decent protection (plus the terraforming stuff if we're talking ultra-futuristic), and Titan is crazy far away but you wouldn't even need a pressure suit I'd call that lazy game design if this weren't real life
Don't terraform the moon because than all of it's usefulness will be gone because the moon is for industrialization and there's no atmosphere which makes it a perfect place for launching and buildings rockets and plus a space habitat is more manageable in the moon because its literally close to us and it aint that bad and its not a place for living but for industrialization
@@famimoldchannel I mean once upon a time humanity could have spread all across the solar system and the moon could stop being as efficient as it seems now, then it could become a living world just like Earth. But that would be far future and in the near future it's absolutely insane to even attempt to terraform anything so I do not think this question matters much
@@Big-Megabyter yea but right now the moon is perfect for exporting and industrialization and maybe in far future it can become into a living world after all of other usefulness of the moon naturally wears down as humanity progresses
7milion years later if humanity doesn't nuke itself in 2034 or allowed the cyborg ai borgs to take over. and if we fix our earth starting now those worlds could be terraformed by futuristic even means though humanity probably ould become the imperium of man.
Just a small correction. People love to hype up Helium 3 as this amazing fusion energy source. But sadly that's more marketing hype than reality. The fusion fuel of choice is Deuterium-Tritium for very good reasons. It's fusion reaction has about 100 times the cross section of anything else and it releases more energy to boot. If you have a working Deuterium-Tritium reactor and you try to run it on Helium3-Deuterium, you'll find that it suddenly produces several orders of magnitude less energy at the same temperature. You can try to crank the energy output back up by increasing temperature and compression (And destroy your reactor lining even harder and make breakeven almost impossible...), but you could do the same thing with good ol 'D-T and get way more energy to boot. The supposed benefit of Helium 3 is that it releases less neutrons. Its not completely aneutronic since you'll get a D-D side reaction that will spit out enough neutrons that you still need to worry about them, but the overall flux will be a bit lower. That's a very tenuous benefit for the massive sacrifices in performance. Furthermore, those neutrons aren't actually bad. You can use them to transmute other elements. In fact, that's the whole idea behind the D-T cycle: You capture the neutrons from the reaction, use them to split Lithium into Tritium and Helium, and then you feed the Tritium back into the reactor. It makes its own fuel. And this is also why, even if there is some unknown reason we really want a Helium 3 fusion reactor, sadly, we won't be mining the moon for it. That exact same trick of splitting lithium with neutrons can also be used to produce Helium 3. In fact, Helium 3 is the decay product of Tritium. Just store the Tritium in a big can somewhere for a few decades and you have Helium 3. So in conclusion: We have very good reasons to go to the moon and turn it into an industrial power house. Helium 3 mining is not one of them. And if you see any fusion company advocate for any fuel other than D-T, that's a big warning sign that its a scam company.
Interesting. Nuclear physics isn't one of my primary knowledge areas. I've gotten a vague sense in recent years that Helium-3 may not end up being the preferred fuel but I couldn't tell you about it in great detail. I'll look into this subject more in the future. Thanks for pointing that out!
@@Xandros_Official No problem, its one of those things where media and science fiction consider it amazing, while people who actually have experience in the field all agree that it is completely infeasible as a fuel source. Maybe in the very very far future when you need a fusion reactor right next to squishy organics, and you need to save every bit of mass you can so you can't afford shielding, that He3-He3 will make sense as a fuel. So maybe on a very small and lightweight spaceship or something. But for most purposes you can think up, D-T is just so much better. If you want a bit of an introduction to the actual technology of nuclear fusion, the various tradeoffs of fuel types etc, I can recommend this playlist by Improbably Matter. I can vouch that what he says is accurate. Should give you enough of the fundamentals to know what to search for if you want to learn more. ua-cam.com/video/JurplDfPi3U/v-deo.html Looking forward to more videos, love the channel!
I've been saying this shit since like 2016- going to the moon is not only more feasible than going to mars off the rip, but can be used as a basis for which to set up our future mars bases.
Getting a stable moon station and asteroid mining set-up is far more important. Doing those things would make settling Mars far easier and have much more significant implications for Earth than settling Mars.
Ι has no idea you existed 7 minutes ago. Your video was funny and while it didn't teach me anything new and it didn't challenge my worldview, it was hilarious, and I agreed with it. I am subscribing and sharing your videos to friends.
The Superintendent is my favorite AI in all of sci-fi. I will not elaborate for those that don't understand what I'm talking about, but you know Xandros. You know.
@@graysonbaker9053 oh - it'd *much* more than just a testing ground. It's the ideal place for all your shipyards that build interplanetary (or even interstellar in a couple of centuries or so) space fleets. In contrast to asteroid mining, you'd be able to use the same tools and techniques that work on Earth. As a bonus, your personell can easily do the same kind of rotating shifts as is practised with oil rigs, since the commute is measured in days, not months. It's not a colonisation target as in "millions of people living, getting born, and dying" there (at least I hope so for the "dying"-part) and more of a hub for mining, heavy industry, interplanetary logistics, dangerous research (though biological research facilities are bet put in The Belt or beyond), etc. Maybe there'll be the odd casino with blackjack and hookers, but I'd think the Moon would primarily be an industrial place with little to no permanent residents and possibly hundreds of thousands (or even millions) of workers, engineers, and scientists who don't not actually live there permanently.
>waste land There's no such thing as a 'waste land', all land is either valuable or potentially valuable. So we colonise the Moon first and then we colonise Mars, like Xandros said.
Luna is the closest and most important object in the solar system besides the Earth for us (not counting the sun obviously). No other planet or moon has as much of an effect on us and our future. It's our closest friend and companion, stellar wise. Basically the training site for living in space and on other worlds.
I really want a video from ANY CHANNEL that discusses in great detail the possibility of gold on the moon. Also, Mars might have some HUUUGE opals by earth standards.
Oh yeah I just need that secret American Psycho Dr. Doofenshmirtz Batcave Minecraft underground base with the most sophisticated technology instruments ever created to finally feel alive again
I am a Venus guy. Why? It's much easier to have too much of something and not need it than to have too little of something and need more. It's usually phyically cheaper and easier to remove what you have too much of rather than adding to something that doesn't have enough. Mars doesn't have enough heat, enough light, enough atmosphere, enough gravity, enough magnetic field or really enough of anything except Iron, Perchlorate, whisp thin CO2 gas and some frozen water here and there. Venus on the other hand has too much of all these things except for water and magnetic field. The planet doesn't turn fast enough but with a sun shade and a mirror you can find solutions to that too. The biggest problem is reducing the atmospheric pressure and removing most of the CO2. You can split the CO2 in to carbon and Oygen. The remaining uneeded CO2 can be frozen and shot at Mars to increase pressure there. Leaving behind the Nitrogen, which there would be nearly the right amount to give us an earth like atmosphere. Finally you just need to figure out how to react out the sulfuric acid and replace/convert it back in to water. Sounds easier than bringing all the missing raw materials to a place that will still not have sufficient sunlight, heat, or gravity regardless of what you do.
I don't mind the Moon first argument, just think its a false dichotomy, I enjoy the hype for space exploration in general, we can do things simultaneously, seems the government wat to pay for trips to the Moon, and SpaceX is taking that money to self fund their trips to Mars, no problem with that,. Humanity needs to be more excited for how the world can change for good by expanding to the stars, we were supposed to be there by now, lets get on with the exciting adventure!
Not really. The amount of funding that is available to do space exploration is limited. So you have to make a choice either way, mars colony or moon colony. In an ideal world we’re politicians don’t exist we wouldn’t have to choose, but we don’t live in that world.
The most common type of rock there is called breccia, which exists on earth, basically basalt, but in second place is formations of KREEP (potassium, rare earth elements and phosphorus) so lots of that interesting stuff is found in uniquely immense quantities.
This is a really common argument that's almost entirely based on a misunderstanding. It's super important to realise that humans are experience-based learners. The earth is a paradise planet. The planetary equivalent of having super rich parents who pay for everything for you. When do kids who grow up super rich learn how to budget? Is it before or after they're cut off and have to learn how to survive on their own? As long as the earth is still providing us with the resources we need without us having to bother learning how to carefully manage them we'll keep treating the earth the way we are now. There are only two pathways out of this. One is by enough of us spending time away from the earth to learn how to budget resources effectively by willingly living somewhere that requires those skills, and the other is to keep pretending we're somehow just sort of magically going to become more responsible for no actual reason until we've completely fucked things up here. Then we'll be forced to learn how to budget resources effectively. Because the paradise planet we started with won't exist any longer. There is no such thing as staying here and fixing this planet. We won't do it. We really will just continue behaving the way we are now until the FO part of FAFO kicks in. The whole reason it's called Fuck Around and Find Out is because that's what we do. We keep Fucking Around until the Finding Out part happens. This truth is extremely relevant to our current situation. It's a very big mistake to imagine otherwise.
@nogwartmushplat1015 we don't need to move anywhere to "learn how to budget". Humanity is perfectly able to budget its resources currently, but the problem is the older generations who refuse to care, seeing as they will be dead by the time FO kicks in for their FA.
@7HEMUFFINMAN This is not true. I wish it was. There is no magical future moment where the people preventing the rest of us from making good decisions all disappear. The amount of stupid around you will not change. You've convinced yourself there'll come a moment in the future when we won't have to deal with those people any more, but that's not how it works. The amount of stupid around you will not change. The world is going to be full of monumental dickheads refusing to use their brains all the way to very end.
I'd say... Even the Moon on its own is too advanced, We need to first perfect LEO Space Habitats, and cycling between planets. We have just started to *'actually land'* rocket that are reusable... With reusable meaning more 15 uses. maybe more than 20. Those rockets need to get to the point they are capable of being used like Cars, trucks, Airplanes... You know, Fuel runs out, you fill it back up. Like an Airplane, you check between flights. When we get to that point, We will *really* work on Space habitats. When we havw those reliable enough that you don't wory about needing to be saved by the earth every day... Then Body locked Settlements can be on the table.
Made this whole video only to ignore the biggest and most applicable argument to his moon first theory. The moon depends on the earth, if earth dies, mood dies. Mars is not effected if made self sufficient.
As i know, Moon has water ice, iron, titanium, gold, thorium and many other resources, it can be self-sufficient. And even if something really bad happens to Earth (like 10 km asteroid hitting it), Moon can still live for some time at least.
@@ReddwarfIV Yeah, good point. However, as i know, these resources can be founded on asteroids. So, this is not really a problem for a developed Moon colony.
I'm more of a mercury guy, it's basickly the moon+ more iron; more water; more helium3, more sun and actual carbon, definitly worth a visit afther the moon. So yeah mercury is definitely not in first palce but it might be second place. Try outcompeting mercury for power and what if solar isn't competititve in space just go where it produces 10 times the amound of energy 10 times higher margins. Basickly mercury it's worth a lot of money so C tier
I used to like science. But then their was a girl who was into me and i wasn't into her and she liked science. So I kind of got out of it. In hindsight she was a nice girl maybe I should of given her a chance.
Yet again absolutely brilliant. Hope Elon’s listening cos the alternative is to build loads of space stations before we dare even put a foot down on mars. 👍👍👍
"Moon first then Mars" has to be the most common normie space opinion I see. It's the exact same logic as "Earth first then space." (Attempting to focus human effort together on one thing before moving onto the next) People who believe this think that the will and ability to go to Mars will be guaranteed to exist in another couple decades, when our current ability is only with a single company who's shareholders would probably rather see them expand their satellite constellation business than waste money on space colonization. Not to mention that the Moon is not even a better candidate for near term exploration than Mars because a direct transfer from LEO to Mars costs less Delta V than LEO to an areobraking around Mars.
that is exactly one of the reasons why we should use the moon to get enough resources to colonize other planets because the low gravity allows for resources to be transported more easily
We should terraform the Moon. The Moon already has about a quarter of Earth's land area, if we could terraform that then we'd have a Mini Earth right in our cosmic backyard. And yes, I'm aware that terraforming the Moon would probably take at least a few hundred years to achieve.
The problem with terraforming the Moon is that it would get in the way of most if not all the things that would make the Moon useful. The Moon being a barren wasteland hostile to all known forms of life is an advantage in this case.
No, we shouldn't. Terraforming the Moon gets rid of literally everything that makes it a good place to colonize in the first place. Terraforming in general is a bad idea, no matter where you do it, but most definitely the absolute worst place to terraform would be the Moon.
@guru-loop >Terraforming the Moon gets rid of literally everything that makes it a good place to colonize in the first place. And what are all of those good things?
@@Rishi123456789 Well, firstly the fact that it doesn't really have an atmosphere makes it easier to lauch stuff from the surface of the moon. Secondly it's a lot easier to access it's resources when there isn't an ecosystem getting in the way. Imagine that you have a river from which you can easily obtain drinkable water, and then one day you decide to pave the whole river with concrete to make it easier to traverse it. Sure, now you can just walk across without needing to use a boat but now you can't access the water anymore. That's what terraforming the moon would be like. The best we could do would likely be para-terraforming some small areas, wich in my analogy would be like building a bridge instead of paving the whole river.
@@Rishi123456789 no atmosphere, no ecosystems to fuck up, as is mentioned in this video we can take what we want without having to worry about that. theres probably some other stuff too, also theres literally no point in terraforming the moon or anything for that matter this early on in humanity's future
Dont be a child ..mars is the best place to go in the whole solar system....titans is further, moon has no atmosphere....mars us just in the middle of both...cant believe its hard for u to see that...yeesh . This is real life....the easiest option is never the best...
Dude the moon IS good because it doesn't have an atmosphere. Its right there and without an atmosphere we can launch and land so many things without an atmosphere to burn everything
kyplanet, xandros, and anthrofuturism are the three chaddest small space youtubers
Absolutely
What about angry astronaut
@@AstroBot_99 i dont consider above 100k subs to be small
How small space UA-camrs when space big?
@@AstroBot_99 He fell off hard
“Are you a Mars guy or a Moon guy?”
“I’m a Venus guy”
After the moon creating sky cities on venus seems like a cool idea.
i agree like i think venus is a better option then mars in the long term but i do think that the moon should come first because from the moon you can launch bigger rockets with more payload capability,s and less need for fuel
especially since venus has a similar density and mass to earth, meaning similar gravity, upper atmosphere could be breathable, and it is only 4 months away
@TheMCA99 Upper atmosphere isn’t breathable but it’s the closest place in the solar system to Earth in terms of temperatures and pressures.
@@MDE_never_dies exactly
The elon trolling at start was s tier
You mean joking about?
Best way to realize how good having luna is, is by imagining what space exploration would be like if we didn't have it.
Obviously we should live on the sun first
we should terraform the sun
In my opinion, the aesthetic of colonies on the moon look JUST as cool as colonies on mars, for different reasons.
The Moon, Mars, and Titan feel like worlds that get progressively more habitable (or at least amenable) the farther away you get -- the Moon is right there but has no atmosphere to protect from radiation or micrometeorites, Mars is far away but offers half-decent protection (plus the terraforming stuff if we're talking ultra-futuristic), and Titan is crazy far away but you wouldn't even need a pressure suit
I'd call that lazy game design if this weren't real life
Don't terraform the moon because than all of it's usefulness will be gone because the moon is for industrialization and there's no atmosphere which makes it a perfect place for launching and buildings rockets and plus a space habitat is more manageable in the moon because its literally close to us and it aint that bad and its not a place for living but for industrialization
@@famimoldchannel I mean once upon a time humanity could have spread all across the solar system and the moon could stop being as efficient as it seems now, then it could become a living world just like Earth. But that would be far future and in the near future it's absolutely insane to even attempt to terraform anything so I do not think this question matters much
@@Big-Megabyter yea but right now the moon is perfect for exporting and industrialization and maybe in far future it can become into a living world after all of other usefulness of the moon naturally wears down as humanity progresses
@famimoldchannel that's exactly what I implied
7milion years later if humanity doesn't nuke itself in 2034 or allowed the cyborg ai borgs to take over. and if we fix our earth starting now those worlds could be terraformed by futuristic even means though humanity probably ould become the imperium of man.
I subbed, now my toilet is safe from conventional explosives
For now.
@@Xandros_Officialoh no
Just a small correction. People love to hype up Helium 3 as this amazing fusion energy source. But sadly that's more marketing hype than reality. The fusion fuel of choice is Deuterium-Tritium for very good reasons. It's fusion reaction has about 100 times the cross section of anything else and it releases more energy to boot. If you have a working Deuterium-Tritium reactor and you try to run it on Helium3-Deuterium, you'll find that it suddenly produces several orders of magnitude less energy at the same temperature. You can try to crank the energy output back up by increasing temperature and compression (And destroy your reactor lining even harder and make breakeven almost impossible...), but you could do the same thing with good ol 'D-T and get way more energy to boot.
The supposed benefit of Helium 3 is that it releases less neutrons. Its not completely aneutronic since you'll get a D-D side reaction that will spit out enough neutrons that you still need to worry about them, but the overall flux will be a bit lower. That's a very tenuous benefit for the massive sacrifices in performance. Furthermore, those neutrons aren't actually bad. You can use them to transmute other elements. In fact, that's the whole idea behind the D-T cycle: You capture the neutrons from the reaction, use them to split Lithium into Tritium and Helium, and then you feed the Tritium back into the reactor. It makes its own fuel.
And this is also why, even if there is some unknown reason we really want a Helium 3 fusion reactor, sadly, we won't be mining the moon for it. That exact same trick of splitting lithium with neutrons can also be used to produce Helium 3. In fact, Helium 3 is the decay product of Tritium. Just store the Tritium in a big can somewhere for a few decades and you have Helium 3.
So in conclusion: We have very good reasons to go to the moon and turn it into an industrial power house. Helium 3 mining is not one of them. And if you see any fusion company advocate for any fuel other than D-T, that's a big warning sign that its a scam company.
Interesting.
Nuclear physics isn't one of my primary knowledge areas. I've gotten a vague sense in recent years that Helium-3 may not end up being the preferred fuel but I couldn't tell you about it in great detail. I'll look into this subject more in the future. Thanks for pointing that out!
@@Xandros_Official No problem, its one of those things where media and science fiction consider it amazing, while people who actually have experience in the field all agree that it is completely infeasible as a fuel source.
Maybe in the very very far future when you need a fusion reactor right next to squishy organics, and you need to save every bit of mass you can so you can't afford shielding, that He3-He3 will make sense as a fuel. So maybe on a very small and lightweight spaceship or something. But for most purposes you can think up, D-T is just so much better.
If you want a bit of an introduction to the actual technology of nuclear fusion, the various tradeoffs of fuel types etc, I can recommend this playlist by Improbably Matter. I can vouch that what he says is accurate. Should give you enough of the fundamentals to know what to search for if you want to learn more. ua-cam.com/video/JurplDfPi3U/v-deo.html
Looking forward to more videos, love the channel!
I'm still into hydrogen, this thing is everywhere
We are so back moonchads
I've been saying this shit since like 2016- going to the moon is not only more feasible than going to mars off the rip, but can be used as a basis for which to set up our future mars bases.
venus is the only one where you don't have to deal with deadly radiation and low gravity
I've never seen a space video with such a tone and vibe before and I love it
Yup
Getting a stable moon station and asteroid mining set-up is far more important. Doing those things would make settling Mars far easier and have much more significant implications for Earth than settling Mars.
Ι has no idea you existed 7 minutes ago. Your video was funny and while it didn't teach me anything new and it didn't challenge my worldview, it was hilarious, and I agreed with it. I am subscribing and sharing your videos to friends.
Titan mention: instant sub.
100% agreed, Moon is the way forward
Another banger, keep em coming 🙏🙏
0:42 this hurts me so bad, people nowadays have such a protagonist syndrome
I feel like you're secretly alternatehistoryhub, still great tho, subscribed
WOOOOOO LETS FUCKING GOOOOOOO ITS A NEW XANDROS VID!!!!!!!!
Star wars when?
30 milion years later if humanity does nor nuke itself.
You sir got an instant subscribe from me
Man, You keep making me laugh, And i don't know how.
5:12 "What's so special about going to space?"
The Superintendent is my favorite AI in all of sci-fi.
I will not elaborate for those that don't understand what I'm talking about, but you know Xandros. You know.
I mean... booth are a dead waste land but one has Helium-3 and the other just have Ice and dust.
the delta-V will force us to go moon first. Which is great. Moon is S tier settlement because the wifi to earth will be minimal latency
@@graysonbaker9053 oh - it'd *much* more than just a testing ground. It's the ideal place for all your shipyards that build interplanetary (or even interstellar in a couple of centuries or so) space fleets. In contrast to asteroid mining, you'd be able to use the same tools and techniques that work on Earth.
As a bonus, your personell can easily do the same kind of rotating shifts as is practised with oil rigs, since the commute is measured in days, not months. It's not a colonisation target as in "millions of people living, getting born, and dying" there (at least I hope so for the "dying"-part) and more of a hub for mining, heavy industry, interplanetary logistics, dangerous research (though biological research facilities are bet put in The Belt or beyond), etc.
Maybe there'll be the odd casino with blackjack and hookers, but I'd think the Moon would primarily be an industrial place with little to no permanent residents and possibly hundreds of thousands (or even millions) of workers, engineers, and scientists who don't not actually live there permanently.
"Dead wastelands" = investment opportunities
>waste land
There's no such thing as a 'waste land', all land is either valuable or potentially valuable. So we colonise the Moon first and then we colonise Mars, like Xandros said.
@@cuteButKindaDeadlyBreloom If you have a ship capable of areobraking, Mars requires less delta-V. Time is the bigger drawback
Remember, the moon is a harsh mistress
100% underated
WHERE CAN I GET THE BACKGROUND MUSIC?
It's the intro to Neo Seoul by After the Burial 🫡
Amazing work
Luna is the closest and most important object in the solar system besides the Earth for us (not counting the sun obviously). No other planet or moon has as much of an effect on us and our future. It's our closest friend and companion, stellar wise. Basically the training site for living in space and on other worlds.
Bro, you are so funny. Not only I'm sharing this, subscribing to you but I want you to make a video why it's a good idea to live on Titan.
Fuck yeah bro thanks for sharing 👍 I'll do one in Titan at some point :)
I really want a video from ANY CHANNEL that discusses in great detail the possibility of gold on the moon.
Also, Mars might have some HUUUGE opals by earth standards.
very much so enjoyed this video :3
Oh yeah I just need that secret American Psycho Dr. Doofenshmirtz Batcave Minecraft underground base with the most sophisticated technology instruments ever created to finally feel alive again
Skip both and go to Callisto
Dude I'm trying to eat here. I coughed twice in under 2 minutes.
There, subscribed twice
I am a Venus guy. Why? It's much easier to have too much of something and not need it than to have too little of something and need more. It's usually phyically cheaper and easier to remove what you have too much of rather than adding to something that doesn't have enough. Mars doesn't have enough heat, enough light, enough atmosphere, enough gravity, enough magnetic field or really enough of anything except Iron, Perchlorate, whisp thin CO2 gas and some frozen water here and there. Venus on the other hand has too much of all these things except for water and magnetic field. The planet doesn't turn fast enough but with a sun shade and a mirror you can find solutions to that too. The biggest problem is reducing the atmospheric pressure and removing most of the CO2. You can split the CO2 in to carbon and Oygen. The remaining uneeded CO2 can be frozen and shot at Mars to increase pressure there. Leaving behind the Nitrogen, which there would be nearly the right amount to give us an earth like atmosphere. Finally you just need to figure out how to react out the sulfuric acid and replace/convert it back in to water. Sounds easier than bringing all the missing raw materials to a place that will still not have sufficient sunlight, heat, or gravity regardless of what you do.
I don't mind the Moon first argument, just think its a false dichotomy, I enjoy the hype for space exploration in general, we can do things simultaneously, seems the government wat to pay for trips to the Moon, and SpaceX is taking that money to self fund their trips to Mars, no problem with that,. Humanity needs to be more excited for how the world can change for good by expanding to the stars, we were supposed to be there by now, lets get on with the exciting adventure!
Not really. The amount of funding that is available to do space exploration is limited. So you have to make a choice either way, mars colony or moon colony. In an ideal world we’re politicians don’t exist we wouldn’t have to choose, but we don’t live in that world.
The most common type of rock there is called breccia, which exists on earth, basically basalt, but in second place is formations of KREEP (potassium, rare earth elements and phosphorus) so lots of that interesting stuff is found in uniquely immense quantities.
First we will colonize antarctica, then moon, then mars
I dont only go to the mun in kerbal space program because i suck at the game, mom! Xandros told me moon gooder!11!1!
We will obviously be going to the moon but we will use it as a jump off point.
that was hot...
"Are you a Mars guy or a moon guy?"
Personally I'd prefer making the earth livable but if I _had_ to choose I'd say Titan
This is a really common argument that's almost entirely based on a misunderstanding. It's super important to realise that humans are experience-based learners.
The earth is a paradise planet. The planetary equivalent of having super rich parents who pay for everything for you. When do kids who grow up super rich learn how to budget? Is it before or after they're cut off and have to learn how to survive on their own?
As long as the earth is still providing us with the resources we need without us having to bother learning how to carefully manage them we'll keep treating the earth the way we are now.
There are only two pathways out of this. One is by enough of us spending time away from the earth to learn how to budget resources effectively by willingly living somewhere that requires those skills, and the other is to keep pretending we're somehow just sort of magically going to become more responsible for no actual reason until we've completely fucked things up here. Then we'll be forced to learn how to budget resources effectively. Because the paradise planet we started with won't exist any longer.
There is no such thing as staying here and fixing this planet. We won't do it. We really will just continue behaving the way we are now until the FO part of FAFO kicks in.
The whole reason it's called Fuck Around and Find Out is because that's what we do. We keep Fucking Around until the Finding Out part happens. This truth is extremely relevant to our current situation. It's a very big mistake to imagine otherwise.
@nogwartmushplat1015 we don't need to move anywhere to "learn how to budget". Humanity is perfectly able to budget its resources currently, but the problem is the older generations who refuse to care, seeing as they will be dead by the time FO kicks in for their FA.
@7HEMUFFINMAN This is not true. I wish it was.
There is no magical future moment where the people preventing the rest of us from making good decisions all disappear.
The amount of stupid around you will not change.
You've convinced yourself there'll come a moment in the future when we won't have to deal with those people any more, but that's not how it works.
The amount of stupid around you will not change. The world is going to be full of monumental dickheads refusing to use their brains all the way to very end.
You literally spelt it aluminum in the vid, lol.
FUCK.
@@Xandros_Official fair reaction
omg why does this only have 990 views
Those wojak/chads in the thumbnail are just brilliant
Humanity will inherent the stars 🗣 (probably not THE stars)
I'd say... Even the Moon on its own is too advanced, We need to first perfect LEO Space Habitats, and cycling between planets.
We have just started to *'actually land'* rocket that are reusable...
With reusable meaning more 15 uses. maybe more than 20.
Those rockets need to get to the point they are capable of being used like Cars, trucks, Airplanes...
You know, Fuel runs out, you fill it back up. Like an Airplane, you check between flights.
When we get to that point, We will *really* work on Space habitats.
When we havw those reliable enough that you don't wory about needing to be saved by the earth every day...
Then Body locked Settlements can be on the table.
we should fix the planet we have first.
can china start going for space exploration so usa do something since they only get shit done with competition ?
Made this whole video only to ignore the biggest and most applicable argument to his moon first theory. The moon depends on the earth, if earth dies, mood dies. Mars is not effected if made self sufficient.
Yeah, Mars has everything required to be self-sufficient, in an easy to access form. Which is also an advantage it has over Venus.
As i know, Moon has water ice, iron, titanium, gold, thorium and many other resources, it can be self-sufficient. And even if something really bad happens to Earth (like 10 km asteroid hitting it), Moon can still live for some time at least.
@@DennimaTheHylotl Only very limited amounts of carbon and nitrogen, though.
@@ReddwarfIV Yeah, good point. However, as i know, these resources can be founded on asteroids. So, this is not really a problem for a developed Moon colony.
we have such boring world building they even added a easy to get mineral rich natural satelite for us to make our space civilization with
I'm more of a mercury guy, it's basickly the moon+ more iron; more water; more helium3, more sun and actual carbon, definitly worth a visit afther the moon. So yeah mercury is definitely not in first palce but it might be second place. Try outcompeting mercury for power and what if solar isn't competititve in space just go where it produces 10 times the amound of energy 10 times higher margins. Basickly mercury it's worth a lot of money so C tier
NASA need to hurry they lil ah up bruh im tryna have lunar TSA detain me for having goldfish crumbs in my bag within my lifetime
Delta V and Critical Mass by Daniel Suarez moon-pilled me I recommend to everyone here.
because NASA is so slow i think we will get faster to Mars with SpaceX realistically
Im sure there is more metals deeper in the crust ofvthe moon. Kilometers deep.
British friend showed me your channel. Excuse me while you get another sub.
Also.. ALU-MIN-UM (I will fight)
no I did not show you this to act this way. I'm disappointed.
inject these types of videos into my blood stream
Chart says Aluminum, Says Aluminium. You just want to watch the world burn dont you.
I still think Earth is better place to live
I used to like science. But then their was a girl who was into me and i wasn't into her and she liked science. So I kind of got out of it. In hindsight she was a nice girl maybe I should of given her a chance.
Не, я выбираю Энцелад - он очень красивый и есть Титан под рукой
Personally, it's Mün or Bust
Moon cheese all the way 🤤
Helium 3 is mid
Luna for life!
What has Mars ever done for me?
Also Luna is prettier
Yet again absolutely brilliant. Hope Elon’s listening cos the alternative is to build loads of space stations before we dare even put a foot down on mars. 👍👍👍
"Moon first then Mars" has to be the most common normie space opinion I see. It's the exact same logic as "Earth first then space." (Attempting to focus human effort together on one thing before moving onto the next) People who believe this think that the will and ability to go to Mars will be guaranteed to exist in another couple decades, when our current ability is only with a single company who's shareholders would probably rather see them expand their satellite constellation business than waste money on space colonization.
Not to mention that the Moon is not even a better candidate for near term exploration than Mars because a direct transfer from LEO to Mars costs less Delta V than LEO to an areobraking around Mars.
No. Mars first. Moon gravity is too low.
that is exactly one of the reasons why we should use the moon to get enough resources to colonize other planets because the low gravity allows for resources to be transported more easily
Too low for what?
As Kyplanet said, "Low gravity is a blessing not a curse"
We should terraform the Moon. The Moon already has about a quarter of Earth's land area, if we could terraform that then we'd have a Mini Earth right in our cosmic backyard. And yes, I'm aware that terraforming the Moon would probably take at least a few hundred years to achieve.
The problem with terraforming the Moon is that it would get in the way of most if not all the things that would make the Moon useful. The Moon being a barren wasteland hostile to all known forms of life is an advantage in this case.
No, we shouldn't. Terraforming the Moon gets rid of literally everything that makes it a good place to colonize in the first place. Terraforming in general is a bad idea, no matter where you do it, but most definitely the absolute worst place to terraform would be the Moon.
@guru-loop >Terraforming the Moon gets rid of literally everything that makes it a good place to colonize in the first place.
And what are all of those good things?
@@Rishi123456789 Well, firstly the fact that it doesn't really have an atmosphere makes it easier to lauch stuff from the surface of the moon.
Secondly it's a lot easier to access it's resources when there isn't an ecosystem getting in the way.
Imagine that you have a river from which you can easily obtain drinkable water, and then one day you decide to pave the whole river with concrete to make it easier to traverse it. Sure, now you can just walk across without needing to use a boat but now you can't access the water anymore. That's what terraforming the moon would be like.
The best we could do would likely be para-terraforming some small areas, wich in my analogy would be like building a bridge instead of paving the whole river.
@@Rishi123456789 no atmosphere, no ecosystems to fuck up, as is mentioned in this video we can take what we want without having to worry about that. theres probably some other stuff too, also theres literally no point in terraforming the moon or anything for that matter this early on in humanity's future
Dont be a child ..mars is the best place to go in the whole solar system....titans is further, moon has no atmosphere....mars us just in the middle of both...cant believe its hard for u to see that...yeesh . This is real life....the easiest option is never the best...
Dude the moon IS good because it doesn't have an atmosphere. Its right there and without an atmosphere we can launch and land so many things without an atmosphere to burn everything
There, subscribed twice