- 41,780
- 167,266
The Astronomy Thread
- Thread starter Araxen
- Start date
- 41,780
- 167,266
Looks like it. Aurora - 30 Minute Forecast | NOAA / NWS Space Weather Prediction Center
actually, another predicted spike around 4am utc with current models.
- 4,584
- 8,528
Well I'm assuming everyone has seen this? In a way I'm glad since there is a lot going on this weekend anyway RE: Superbowl but still sucks cuz I want people on the damn moon AND MARS before I croak!
www.space.com
NASA just delayed the Artemis 2 moon mission because its giant rocket has a leak — we've seen this before
The agency had been eyeing Feb. 8 for the historic liftoff. Now, it's no earlier than March.
- 1
Big Phoenix
Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
- 49,442
- 108,819
Yeah about that...
I think its just them saving face for their beyond optimistic original target dates. I know somewhere else here I said SpaceX wasnt going to Mars before mid 2030.
Big Phoenix
Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
- 49,442
- 108,819
BrutulTM
Good, bad, I'm the guy with the gun.
- 15,744
- 52
I'll admit that Elon captured my imagination on this Mars thing, but the more I learn about it, the more it seems like the idea of a self-sustaining colony on Mars is not possible and certainly not possible anytime soon. It's also not a great plan as far as a "backup" for humanity to go on after the destruction of earth when the Mars colony is about a hundred million times more likely to get wiped out than the earth one. A moon base sounds cool though.
Cybsled
Naxxramas 1.0 Raider
- 18,377
- 14,889
Realistically a moon colony always made more sense - Mars does have a few advantages (atmosphere even if thin and probably more water), but you need to prof of concept a lot of this sort of thing and a moon colony is a good way to do that since a lot of that same technologies have crossover. Plus if shit hits the fan, help can arrive in days rather than months
The only really viable non-earth option for a self-sustaining colony is Titan, but it’s too far away and would require massive leaps in propulsion technology to make it a real option
The only really viable non-earth option for a self-sustaining colony is Titan, but it’s too far away and would require massive leaps in propulsion technology to make it a real option
Big Phoenix
Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
- 49,442
- 108,819
The moon is even less viable than mars. No water, 2 week long nights, high radiation etc.
Thinking you'll have a self sustaining lunar outpost in 10 years is beyond smoking crack. They don't even know if they're useful deposits of water in the shadowed regions. I think it will eventually be the industrial heart that powers solar colonization but right now there are some massive issues and unknowns to long term habitation.
Mars is an infntely better target for colonizing. Only downside is travel time.
- 1
Cybsled
Naxxramas 1.0 Raider
- 18,377
- 14,889
Moon really depends on how feasible it is to extract water from the southern crater. If that is no go, it sort of kills the prospect of a colony of size.
Titan has easily accessible water and methane/hydrocarbons in massive quantities, thick atmosphere means pressure differentials aren’t as big a concern and also grants additional radiation protection, and lower gravity + thick atmosphere means air transportion can occur.
You’ve got everything you need to make oxygen, water, fuel, power generation, and even creating polymers/plastics once you process raw materials on site. Even wind turbines would be a viable option for power generation (although you’d probably still want nuclear for reliability)
Like I said, biggest negative is it’s really really far away. Transit times would be measured in years
Titan has easily accessible water and methane/hydrocarbons in massive quantities, thick atmosphere means pressure differentials aren’t as big a concern and also grants additional radiation protection, and lower gravity + thick atmosphere means air transportion can occur.
You’ve got everything you need to make oxygen, water, fuel, power generation, and even creating polymers/plastics once you process raw materials on site. Even wind turbines would be a viable option for power generation (although you’d probably still want nuclear for reliability)
Like I said, biggest negative is it’s really really far away. Transit times would be measured in years
Furry
Email Loading Please Wait
- 27,394
- 40,384
Plus you can always divert objects in the oort cloud to intentionally crash in places you want to become viable. Many things are possible with long term thinking with even modern tech. Biggest problem is getting out there and investigating objects to figure out what chemical processes would be available to us.
- 1
BrutulTM
Good, bad, I'm the guy with the gun.
- 15,744
- 52
Yeah I didn't mean that there was ever going to be a sustainable colony on the moon, just that it would be cool to have a space station there. I don't think travel time is the "only" downside to Mars though.
Cybsled
Naxxramas 1.0 Raider
- 18,377
- 14,889
Mars has upsides and downsides
Pro:
Potentially more usable resources. For example, the moon is thought to be iron poor at least at the surface
Potentially more accessible water ice and even liquid water at depths
Paleontology potential (from a science perspective)
Potential cave systems and canyons can help mitigate radiation concerns
Closer to outer solar system could make future deep space missions more viable
Temperature extremes are less extreme than the moon
Higher gravity means potentially less low G health concerns
Cons
Perchlorates in the soil are a health concern
Radiation is still a concern
Solar power would work, but be less viable than the moon and also subject to interruption due to dust storms/buildup
Longer transit time = more time in space outside the protection of the earth’s magnetosphere more health concerns
If shit goes wrong, no help is coming in time
Pro:
Potentially more usable resources. For example, the moon is thought to be iron poor at least at the surface
Potentially more accessible water ice and even liquid water at depths
Paleontology potential (from a science perspective)
Potential cave systems and canyons can help mitigate radiation concerns
Closer to outer solar system could make future deep space missions more viable
Temperature extremes are less extreme than the moon
Higher gravity means potentially less low G health concerns
Cons
Perchlorates in the soil are a health concern
Radiation is still a concern
Solar power would work, but be less viable than the moon and also subject to interruption due to dust storms/buildup
Longer transit time = more time in space outside the protection of the earth’s magnetosphere more health concerns
If shit goes wrong, no help is coming in time
- 1
BrutulTM
Good, bad, I'm the guy with the gun.
- 15,744
- 52
Mars is awesome except that the soil is poison, everything is radioactive, you are required to live in an airtight and climate controlled container that the dust will begin destroying immediately, and the gravity and barometric pressure will destroy your bones and muscles if there's anything left of them after months of zero G and cosmic rays just to get there. Then you have to spend several more months in zero G if you want to go back to earth at which time who knows if you can even recover to the point where you can live in earth's gravity and pressure.
Volunteering to go to Mars is basically signing up to sit in a glorified Winnebago that you can't leave for any reason where your body is going to be slowly destroyed and if anything malfunctions you are guaranteed to die. Sounds awesome. Even in a post climate change or nuclear apocalypse scenario, the earth is about a million times better place to live than Mars.
Volunteering to go to Mars is basically signing up to sit in a glorified Winnebago that you can't leave for any reason where your body is going to be slowly destroyed and if anything malfunctions you are guaranteed to die. Sounds awesome. Even in a post climate change or nuclear apocalypse scenario, the earth is about a million times better place to live than Mars.
- 2