Yes, reddit, the Artemis program is made to get water for the rich people.

Maybe not in our lifetimes, but expansion into space is inevitable, all that's stopping us is costs, and those have been going down for a long while now.

[deleted]

They absolutely do produce soot, and the production of hydrogen is horrible for the environment as well.

Methane is not so bad. Still produces soot but not nearly as bad.

Space X uses kerosene and liquid oxygen.

Virgin galactic uses HTPB and liquid nitrous oxide

Blue origin uses liquefied natural gas.

I do hope for alternatives for commercial use but am also very hesitant to support en made space tourism at the moment.

But you’re correct in that hydrogen and methane are cleaner that what is used now

That wasn't a choice, it was forced. Congress forced the SLS to be an ultra expensive zombie of the Saturn V to let the people who worked on the Space Shuttle mantain their job. I don't think people understand how much of a ridiculous waste of money it is to use RS-25 engines on a rocket. Those engines are VERY expensive, but that's because they are meant to be reused.

Least they could have done is figure out a way to, at least, recover the first stage of the SLS.

Can industrial waste processing bring back the flora and fauna that have been removed by humans? How about removing the mercury from our air and waterways? Or all the radioactive particles we have been pumping into the world for the past few decades? I guess it isn't so much about squandering the natural resources of the planet, more along the lines of rapidly making it into an inhospitable wasteland.

I'm skeptical about that. A few days ago, a news article was posted on this sub, where a hot gasgiant with a silica atmosphere was found orbiting a binary star pair at 9x the distance between sun and pluto. We're presently using many instruments and technologies to observe exoplanets and transit method is just one of them.

Never say never, but the evidence in our own solar system indicates that Jupiter was also on its way inwards until stopped by Saturn. So it may be that gas giants make their way inwards by default unless circumstances dictate otherwise.

The science of how we look for planets means it’s a lot easier to see a gas giant close to a star, since their orbit causes the greatest change in the light detected.

[removed]

That's part of the reason. We've also made very poor architectural choices with Orion and SLS, both of which have been insanely expensive. We've also had very questionable program leadership and half-hearted management over the lifetime of the program. The current lunar program is the 3rd iteration of beyond-LEO human spaceflight within the past 15 years.

Well I do industrial waste processing. Can you tell me what resource we can't yet recover so I can tell marketing?

Okay, but can leader of Space Force actually be Steve Carell?

It also could be possible that we’re just better at finding gas giants close to stars compared to other planet types

They aren’t redirected. They travel in a strait line. It’s the space that is warped and the light curves with the space.

In fact, the escape velocity of any gravity well is dictated by the mass of that first body, not the second, because it’s a function of warped space. That’s true whether it’s the Earth, the Sun or a black hole. And the second body, whether it has the mass of a moon or a massless photon, isn’t a factor.

Dark Matter and Dark Energy are called “dark” for two reasons, they are both not directly observable and are poorly understood. So it’s apropos. But electromagnetic energy (EM), light and photons are neither dark nor misunderstood. There are full quantum particle and wave and field descriptions for them.

I'm not sure that hydrogen or methane powered engines produce very much soot at all.

Then you might find this interesting: https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/images/pia03480-estimated-radiation-dosage-on-mars

The main impact of a magnetosphere is that it protects atmospheric water from having its hydrogen split off by the solar wind, and then escaping, which hydrogen is far more prone to doing due to its lower molecular mass. Hence why Venus is bone dry but has nearly a hundred times as much atmosphere as Earth despite getting twice as much solar radiation. This is far too slow to be of significance to human activities, though. Terraforming will involve undoing billions of years of losses in just centuries, if you can terraform a planet then maintaining its environment is trivial.

I don't think a trip to an LEO station or a cruise around the moon is out of the question. I think we'll be on Mars by the time you're in your 60s but I'm not sure tourism to Mars would be available then.

I’m 28. If I take good care of myself health wise, and with a bit of luck I feel like I could be able to be able bodied enough to space travel in my early/mid 60s still..

Depends how old you are. Space tourism is already a thing now and the first commercial tour orbiting the moon has already been booked with SpaceX. Not sure when tours of the Lunar or martian surface will be realistic though.

I would argue that if you had companies operating on the moon/mars then that would require some level of labourers - so I think the same way we have off shore drilling , we could see the equivalent option open in the work force. Off planet drilling, off planet mining, etc.

To answer your question though My definition of space tourism is definitely the equivalent of a carnival cruise line space ship that takes you on excursion trips to the moon and mars.

I know we constantly hear about x, y and z investor planning to build moon resorts and various moon based companies…and obviously Elon is constantly pushing ambitious agenda, but I never understand how realistic these goals are and what timeline they are realistically looking at.

I know we are in a period of time where technology is rapidly advancing like none other in history, which makes me wonder if these ideas are more than just ideas but potential reality before the end 2060-2065?

The reference I was going for.

I actually don’t know, but I really doubt it.

The largest issue is that the soot from rockets is something like 500 times worse than normal soot and is absolutely horrible for the ozone layer. When these corps are questioned about environmental impact they typically dodge the question or compare it to the aviation industry which is a crock.

They very well may develop clean alternatives however so long as there is a demand but that also may increase costs in the short term and may hinder your goal.

[deleted]

They haven’t found any clean energy alternatives yet?