Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-07-2023, 12:39 PM
 
Location: NE Mississippi
25,575 posts, read 17,286,360 times
Reputation: 37329

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by blisterpeanuts View Post
According to Space.com, the Indian lander is to touch down on August 23.



The one thing that I don't understand is why it will die after 14 days. Can't it recharge during the day? But, maybe it doesn't have protection for its electronics and moving parts against the bitter cold of night. Low budget.

Anyway, let's hope they're successful.
One of the biggest obstacle - and one that may never be overcome - is moondust. It is a fine, sharp edged powder that gets everywhere and ruins everything, dead or alive.

And it poses extreme health risks:
ARTICLE

Quote:
No, Schmitt wasn't allergic to the moon. NASA scientists now understand that pieces of moon dust — especially the smallest, sharpest particles — pose clear health risks to astronauts. A recent study published in the April issue of the journal GeoHealth examined exactly how dangerous that dust can be on a cellular level — and the results are as ominous as the dark side of the moon. In several lab tests, a single scoop of replica moon dust proved toxic enough to kill up to 90 percent of the lung and brain cells exposed to it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-08-2023, 11:56 AM
 
Location: In Little Ping's Maple Dictatorship
335 posts, read 154,532 times
Reputation: 880
A little late to the party, but I wanted to say I cannot understand how terraforming a planet that with an unhabitable environment into something that would allow humans to live on it is somehow easier than "fixing" the planet we live on that currently provides for our every need.

Sending people to colonize Mars with our current level of technology would be akin to condemning them to horrible death. Maybe someday we'll be able to colonize the stars, but it isn't happening anytime soon.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2023, 12:13 PM
 
6,706 posts, read 5,937,576 times
Reputation: 17073
Quote:
Originally Posted by MickIlhenney View Post
A little late to the party, but I wanted to say I cannot understand how terraforming a planet that with an unhabitable environment into something that would allow humans to live on it is somehow easier than "fixing" the planet we live on that currently provides for our every need.

Sending people to colonize Mars with our current level of technology would be akin to condemning them to horrible death. Maybe someday we'll be able to colonize the stars, but it isn't happening anytime soon.
Until we can solve the problems of radiation and deadly dust, colonizing Mars will remain a distant dream.

Elon Musk wants to do it, to provide some redundancy in case something happens to the Earth (for example, a nuclear war followed by nuclear winter that wipes out most life including humanity).

But, as you say, if we can fix human society so as to prevent future wars here on Earth, that would help a lot.

However there is still the urge to explore, to grow, to learn, which is baked into our species. Most of us will not be interested in making "the leap", but a few more adventurous souls will.

It's my opinion, expressed in numerous postings here that everyone's probably tired of hearing, that humanity will eventually move into outer space on self-built planetoids in the form of giant rotating platforms a.k.a. O'Neill Cylinders. They will provide Earth-like gravity, plenty of space for human habitat, farms and bodies of water, and thick shielding against the radiation and meteorites of outer space.

They will be robotically built, using raw materials mined from the asteroids. Once a certain tipping point is reached, with a certain minimum infrastructure of transport to and from the Belt, and robots smart enough to do space construction, these things will start to be built quite fast.

Mars and the Moon as a realistic habitat, though... not going to happen unless in the very far future, when nanotechnology might be available to convert the poisonous surface into something less dangerous.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2023, 10:00 PM
 
Location: NE Mississippi
25,575 posts, read 17,286,360 times
Reputation: 37329
Here's a wonderful article about reaching the speed of light, how long it would take to get going that fast and so forth.


To break it down; if your vehicle accelerated steadily so that you always felt 1G, it would take an incredible 2.65 years to reach the speed of light. 2.65 years. And then you'd be blazing along at 300,000,000 Meters/sec. But you would want to slow down so that you don't go slamming into where you're going, right?
Right. So you would turn your ship around and start braking. Same rule applied; 1G of braking for 2.65 years.
By this time over 5 years has passed since you left earth, but that's 5 years for YOU. The people back home have not had the same experience. They have experienced many. many years.
In fact, says the article, a trip to the center of The Milky Way would take about 20 years. Of course, you would want to come back, so the round trip would take 40 years. But that's only for you!
The folks back home?.... Well, they experienced an incredible 60,000 years!


It sounds so easy if you call it FTL. Makes it sound almost doable. Like it was a venture worth pursuing.
But it's not. It will forever remain a matter of conversation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-12-2023, 04:52 AM
 
6,706 posts, read 5,937,576 times
Reputation: 17073
So a robotic spacecraft that could withstand 10 G could reach light speed in 0.265 years (3 months, more or less)?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-12-2023, 09:31 AM
 
Location: NE Mississippi
25,575 posts, read 17,286,360 times
Reputation: 37329
Quote:
Originally Posted by blisterpeanuts View Post
So a robotic spacecraft that could withstand 10 G could reach light speed in 0.265 years (3 months, more or less)?
I suppose. Seems like it to me, but sometimes the math of progressive speed does funny stuff. But since there would be no resistance, maybe it's all straightforward.

All that is needed is an engine that could provide enough power for long enough to "git er done".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-12-2023, 09:20 PM
 
Location: NE Mississippi
25,575 posts, read 17,286,360 times
Reputation: 37329
Quote:
Originally Posted by blisterpeanuts View Post
So a robotic spacecraft that could withstand 10 G could reach light speed in 0.265 years (3 months, more or less)?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Listener2307 View Post
I suppose. Seems like it to me, but sometimes the math of progressive speed does funny stuff. But since there would be no resistance, maybe it's all straightforward.

All that is needed is an engine that could provide enough power for long enough to "git er done".
Turns out it was a bit more complicated that we knew.
That 2.65 years?..... That is the time that passed for the passengers on the space craft. The time for people left on earth would be much, much longer. So while you only experienced 2.65 years, they grew old and died knowing that you were out there going faster and faster.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2023, 10:50 AM
 
8,418 posts, read 7,417,538 times
Reputation: 8767
Speaking of travelling to Mars...and travelling at a constant 1G acceleration, I pondered how much rocket propellant would be needed to move a spaceship at 1G for a given amount of time. I stumbled across this article about doing a Mars run one way with constant 1G acceleration/deceleration. It turns out that the Earth to Mars run would take about 2 days, which seems to assume that Earth and Mars are at their closest.

The rub is that to move a space station the size of NASA's hypothesized Deep Space Habitat that far at that acceleration would take about 2.8 terawatts, which is akin to how much energy we as a species currently output on a yearly basis. Constant human travel at 1G to other planets in the solar system is currently well out of our reach.

I do think that humanity will step onto the surface of Mars. It's a propaganda victory that competing superpowers will chase, provided said competing superpowers don't go nuclear on each other instead.

I don't think that anyone will colonize Mars...unless a Matt Damon gets abandoned there by one of those Mars propaganda landings.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2023, 12:13 PM
 
Location: NE Mississippi
25,575 posts, read 17,286,360 times
Reputation: 37329
Quote:
Originally Posted by djmilf View Post
Speaking of travelling to Mars...and travelling at a constant 1G acceleration, I pondered how much rocket propellant would be needed to move a spaceship at 1G for a given amount of time. I stumbled across this article about doing a Mars run one way with constant 1G acceleration/deceleration. It turns out that the Earth to Mars run would take about 2 days, which seems to assume that Earth and Mars are at their closest.

The rub is that to move a space station the size of NASA's hypothesized Deep Space Habitat that far at that acceleration would take about 2.8 terawatts, which is akin to how much energy we as a species currently output on a yearly basis. Constant human travel at 1G to other planets in the solar system is currently well out of our reach.

I do think that humanity will step onto the surface of Mars. It's a propaganda victory that competing superpowers will chase, provided said competing superpowers don't go nuclear on each other instead.

I don't think that anyone will colonize Mars...unless a Matt Damon gets abandoned there by one of those Mars propaganda landings.
Great info! Some of it, pretty funny!

The reason I believe we will not go to mars - OK, there are actually lots of reasons, but the reason that matters most - is I believe the age of competing super powers is coming to an end with both China and Russia imploding economically and no other country powerful or malevolent enough to muscle their way to the status of super power. That's a little of a different topic, though.


The economic collapse of Russia (happening now) and China (just starting) coupled with human population decline will change everything we have seen in our lifetimes. The mars race will die and there will be no push from society to go. I think.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2023, 02:56 PM
 
Location: Ohio
24,621 posts, read 19,170,143 times
Reputation: 21738
Quote:
Originally Posted by LKJ1988 View Post
Why even go? It's dead , barren. We need to get to other planets with life that are light years away but no way to ever get there without a jump drive.
You don't need to find life but you do need to find a variety of minerals and metallic ores. Of course, I'm assuming that future generations on Earth don't want to live like people did in the 1880s or even the 1920s.

Quote:
Originally Posted by blisterpeanuts View Post
True but as has been noted previously, we do know how to block radiation; it just requires lots of material.
Quote:
Originally Posted by M3 Mitch View Post
I think the delay between two consecutive missions would be long enough that it could be considered a 200 REM dose, followed by another 200 REM dose, not adding them up to make 400 REM. 400REM acute dose is where you are starting to see measurable damage, although it's not yet into the serious damage "Get this guy to the hospital!" level.
The data is wrong.

38 of us, myself included, were exposed to 50,000 to 70,000 millirems over a period of 2-4 years. All of us are fine. Of the two who are dead, one drowned and one died in a motorcycle accident.

As a reminder, Hollywood is not a reliable source of anything nuclear. Everything they dream up is wrong. Having said that, they actually came kinda close in one film (True Lies). Kinda.

Most people on Earth are exposed to 33 millirems/year. Some a little more, some a little less.

All of you overstated the danger of radiation without touching on the only real radiation problem.

The Sun produces A-, B-, C-, M-, and X-Class solar flares. M and X are the most dangerous because they also have proton storms accompanying them. As you recall, the Carrington Event was an X-17 Class solar flare accompanied by a massive proton storm with energies around 30,000 mEv (Million Electron Volts) that fried most of the telegraph system in the US.

Also, as you recall from spherical geometry in the 5th grade, the Sun can eject a solar flare at any point on the sphere. That's the bad news. The good news is both Earth and Mars are in the Plane of the Ecliptic so the Sun must eject a solar flare from the region of its equatorial band that is within plus or minus 5° of the Plane of the Ecliptic in order to have a chance to hit Earth or Mars or a spacecraft travelling to/from Mars.

Since Earth's magnetosphere offers little to no protection against high energy proton storms, there's no way a spacecraft could protect itself, unless it was able to move out of the path of the ejecta, and that certainly would be a possibility if the spacecraft were designed to do that and not interfere with its arrival on Mars.

I have found most people are wowed by numbers.

Yes, in Space it's possible you might be exposed to up to 2,000 millisieverts (if you happened to get caught in a solar flare) and that sounds really, really scary because 2,000 is a big number but it's only 200 rems.

200 rems ain't gonna kill you.

Would 3,000 to 5,000 rems kill you? The only truthful answer to that question is "It all depends."

It isn't how much radiation you get it's how quickly you get it. That's the principle behind a certain ERW the Media dubbed "the neutron bomb."

If you're within 2 miles of the detonation you'll get 3,000 to 5,000 rems within an hour or two or three. If you're 3-4 miles away, you're still not safe. We live in an Aluminum world. The bomb knows that. Well, the designers knew that. Tanks have Aluminum. Infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers are made of Aluminum. Your car, your office/building, your home, your cell-phone has lots of Aluminum.

Aluminum will capture the fast moving neutrons and convert to a radioactive isotope of Aluminum. It has a half-life of only minutes. The nucleus is highly unstable and to get itself "right" it will eject one of the most powerful gammas ever observed. That gamma is 10x more deadly than the neutrons. So even if you're 3-4 miles away, you can still get 3,000+ rems in a few hours.

The truly sad thing is you'll be jumping for joy because you won't have any symptoms of anything and you'll think you made it; you survived; you're home free.

You'll go about your business and 3 days later you'll face plant dead. Obviously you can't face plant whilst sleeping but you'll be dead just the same.

If you were exposed to 3,000-5,000 rems over a week, you would show symptoms and you would be incapacitated and unable to function. Medical treatment would be futile and a waste of resources because death is the outcome.

Although possible, it is highly unlikely you could be exposed to 3,000-5,000 rems in a month. The only way it would be possible is if it was voluntary, you lacked awareness, or you were trapped near a source and unable to escape. You would show symptoms about 2 weeks in and be incapacitated to varying degrees. Medical attention offers a better than average chance of survival.

Over the course of a year, and again that would have to be voluntary, or not aware you were near a source, or you were aware but have no way to get away from the source, but it isn't much of an issue. Some people might experience mild radiation sickness. A few others might feel lethargic. There isn't anything in the way of medical treatment, but for those freaking out they could consume mass quantities of foods and beverages that are known anti-radicals.

Anything beyond one year is basically a nothing-burger.

The risk of cancer is a crap-shoot. There aren't any really good studies and the one that would be is still classified (the radiation experiments illegally conducted by the government at what was then Cincinnati General Hospital).

The cells in your body reproduce at different rates. Some reproduce every 20 minutes others reproduce in hours or days and some like nerve cells never reproduce.

Your body is mostly Hydrocarbons and H2O. Certain foods and beverages, many toxins like UDMH (Unsymmetrical Dimethylhydrazine), and ionizing radiation can break the bonds on H2O and the Hydrocarbons producing free radicals like C+, H+, H++, -OH and others.

Those free radicals roaming around your body might attach themselves to the nucleic acids that are the DNA in your cells. Very obviously, that alters the nucleic acid to something else.

During cell reproduction the "data" in the affected gene gets garbled in transmission. The usual result overwhelmingly is death. The two cells produced are dead, or die immediately or within a brief period. There's no harm to you.

Less frequently, the result is benign. The medical term is leukoplakia. Those cells are abnormal in appearance and/or structure and may or may not function properly but they cause you no grief. All the cell tissues in your mouth reproduce rather quickly. Your dentist or oral surgeon might swab you and hit your mouth with ultraviolet light as part of an oral cancer screening. It isn't unusual for people have oral leukoplakia but if there are large numbers of cells (meaning an extensive area) your dentist or oral surgeon might suggest a biopsy to be on the safe side.

Less infrequently you get berserker cells. These are abnormal and often reproduce faster than they're supposed to. They are harmful to you. They will destroy the surrounding cell tissues. That's what we call cancer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by blisterpeanuts View Post
Space is dangerous. Unfortunately, so is Mars and the Moon.
Life is dangerous. Perhaps we should all cower together in a cave. But then, caves are dangerous.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top