|
On November 14 2013 16:39 SjPhotoGrapher wrote: The last things humans need to do is go spread their bullshit to other planets.
Hopefully if aliens ever find us they wipe us out just like the Colonial Americans did to the Native Americans.
You should really read some more before you blindly post such comments. Even some people who were disgusted by humans as a species in the beginning, describing them as akin to parasites (this was even referenced in The Matrix) and destructive force have changed their mind over the years.
Take for example Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis (if you ask why it's important in the exoplanet thread then you should know that Lovelock is the guy who invented the way of finding exoplanets except he was using it to study our own - it's all about the atmosphere composition and it's instability where life is present). In great oversimplification it states that the planet is one big organism and all living organisms there function to keep it alive etc. etc. Of course, as with all living organisms, you have your pathologies. At first humans were thought to be something akin to cancer or other illness but now Lovelock (at age 94 I believe) stated that he was wrong and in fact humans might be Gaia's developing brain.
It's all very interesting. The hypothesis itself and how it has evolved over the years with people trying to both debunk and support it leading to some incredible scientific discoveries.
|
WoW! Great thread, thank you!
|
|
On November 15 2013 05:37 algue wrote: I can't believe the US aren't trying harder to bring freedom on these planets
Gotta love the murica hate in the exoplanet thread
lmao
|
On November 15 2013 02:50 hypercube wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2013 00:22 oBlade wrote:On November 14 2013 20:17 Zaros wrote:On November 14 2013 20:02 Tobberoth wrote:On November 08 2013 04:03 Grumbels wrote: Stars are quite far away from us. I think the nearest star will still take us around 10.000-100.000 years to travel towards using current technology. Obviously that's too long for generation ships and the like. More like 50-100 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxima_Centauri There have been concepts since about the 70s (getting more and more feasible) to accelerate a probe to on the order of 10% of the speed of light which would do the job, there just happens to be no money for it and we have a mental block about launching things into space that have the word "nuclear" in them. It's not a mental block, it's a result of rational analysis. Building a large nuclear arsenal and sending it into space is a huge security risk (I'm guessing we're talking about Project Orion type propulsion). It's not a route we should aim for, especially in the current environment. Plus there are probably other options that are feasible, like solar sail driven by lasers from Earth. On a general note, worrying about unquantified risk is not irrational. See, all I said was "nuclear" and you instantly jump to there might be a risk with one kind, nuclear pulse propulsion. What about nuclear thermal rockets, what about nuclear electric propulsion, what about fusion rockets?
If you think there is some vague risk inherent to nuclear arsenals, that's an issue separate of using the technology for something useful like propulsion or electricity. Nuclear arsenals exist anyways. They are already a latent threat. Similarly, there is a risk in driving a car but so far it hasn't made everyone up and switch to bikes. There are nuclear reactors in orbit right now so it's hard for me to be worried.
If you think there is some specific risk with nuclear pulse propulsion that you can't articulate, the only reason it's "unquantified" risk to you is because either you didn't read the studies, or because the studies don't exist (in which case the solution is for us to study the technology not just dismiss it out of hand as "unquantified" risk which is just lazy). Of course a technology's risks aren't fully known if it's new. It's cowardly, not rational, to curl up into a ball with your fingers over your ears anytime a new technology comes along and say "I've got a personal computer and a portable phone, the rest of you can stop trying to move civilization forwards now."
|
On December 31 2013 03:24 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2013 02:50 hypercube wrote:On November 15 2013 00:22 oBlade wrote:On November 14 2013 20:17 Zaros wrote:On November 14 2013 20:02 Tobberoth wrote:On November 08 2013 04:03 Grumbels wrote: Stars are quite far away from us. I think the nearest star will still take us around 10.000-100.000 years to travel towards using current technology. Obviously that's too long for generation ships and the like. More like 50-100 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxima_Centauri There have been concepts since about the 70s (getting more and more feasible) to accelerate a probe to on the order of 10% of the speed of light which would do the job, there just happens to be no money for it and we have a mental block about launching things into space that have the word "nuclear" in them. It's not a mental block, it's a result of rational analysis. Building a large nuclear arsenal and sending it into space is a huge security risk (I'm guessing we're talking about Project Orion type propulsion). It's not a route we should aim for, especially in the current environment. Plus there are probably other options that are feasible, like solar sail driven by lasers from Earth. On a general note, worrying about unquantified risk is not irrational. See, all I said was "nuclear" and you instantly jump to there might be a risk with one kind, nuclear pulse propulsion. What about nuclear thermal rockets, what about nuclear electric propulsion, what about fusion rockets?
Yes, I made an assumption: I said so in my post. You too have made a bunch of assumptions about what I believe and decided to attack them. When someone comes along who actually believes all those things I'm sure he'll answer your post in detail.
|
All I could glean from your post was "nuclear bad, oh and look solar sails" which didn't change my original claim that many people have a mental block about this kind of technology. Having so little to go off of, I wrote everything about you in conditionals hoping something would be applicable, and that if none of it was, you could still clarify what if anything you think about the subject. I posted because I think space is fascinating, not to watch some guy get offended.
|
Astronomers have discovered direct evidence of water on the dwarf planet Ceres in the form of vapor plumes erupting into space, possibly from volcano-like ice geysers on its surface.
Using European Space Agency's Herschel Space Observatory, scientists detected water vapor escaping from two regions on Ceres, a dwarf planet that is also the largest asteroid in the solar system. The water is likely erupting from icy volcanoes or sublimation of ice into clouds of vapor.
"This is the first clear-cut detection of water on Ceres and in the asteroid belt in general," said Michael Küppers of the European Space Agency, Villanueva de la Cañada, Spain, leader of the study detailed today (Jan. 22) in the journal Nature.
The research has implications for how Ceres formed, and supports models that suggest the planets moved around a lot within the solar system during its formation, Küppers told SPACE.com. [See more photos of the dwarf planet Ceres]
Ceres, a dwarf planet or giant asteroid (depending on the definition used), is the largest object in the asteroid belt, orbiting at 2.8 astronomical units (the distance from Earth to the sun).
The "snowline" is thought to partition the solar system into dry objects inside the asteroid belt, and icy objects such as comets further out. But the finding of water on Ceres suggests more mixing has occurred.
Source
|
Scientists believe they have detected the first liquid waves on the surface of another world.
The signature of isolated ripples was observed in a sea called Punga Mare on the surface of Saturn's moon Titan.
However, these seas are filled not with water, but with hydrocarbons like methane and ethane.
These exist in their liquid state on Titan, where the surface temperature averages about -180C.
Planetary scientist Jason Barnes discussed details of his findings at the 45th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference (LPSC) in Texas this week.
Titan is a strange, looking-glass version of Earth with a substantial atmosphere and a seasonal cycle. Wind and rain shape the surface to form river channels, seas, dunes and shorelines.
But much of what's familiar is also turned sideways: the moon's mountains and dune fields are made of ice, rather than rock or sand, and liquid hydrocarbons take up many of the roles played by water on Earth.
The vast majority of Titan's lakes and seas are concentrated around the north polar region. Just one of these bodies of liquid - Ligeia Mare - is estimated to contain about 9,000 cubic km of mostly liquid methane, equating to about 40 times the proven reserves of oil and gas on Earth.
Source
|
I guess since Titan has an atmosphere and was known to have liquid surfaces that's not so surprising Did they find out how large the waves were, though? IIRC there was a proposed mission to send a flotable probe to one of Titan's liquid areas, but they didn't know how the winds and waves would affect the survivability of the probe.
|
CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) — Scientists have uncovered a vast ocean beneath the icy surface of Saturn's little moon Enceladus.
Italian and American researchers made the discovery using Cassini, a NASA-European spacecraft still exploring Saturn and its rings 17 years after its launch from Cape Canaveral. Their findings were announced Thursday.
This new ocean of liquid water — as big as or even bigger than North America's Lake Superior — is centered at the south pole of Enceladus and could encompass much if not most of the moon. Enceladus (ehn-SEHL'-uh-duhs) is about 310 miles across.
The data do not show if the ocean extends to the north pole, said the lead researcher, Luciano Iess of Sapienza University of Rome. At the very least, it's a regional sea some 25 miles deep under miles-thick ice. On Earth, it would stretch from our South Pole up to New Zealand — at the very least.
Cassini's rudimentary instruments also cannot determine whether the moon's ocean harbors any form of life. Another mission using more sophisticated instruments is needed to make that search.
Source
|
On April 04 2014 14:50 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote ++ Show Spoiler +CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) — Scientists have uncovered a vast ocean beneath the icy surface of Saturn's little moon Enceladus.
Italian and American researchers made the discovery using Cassini, a NASA-European spacecraft still exploring Saturn and its rings 17 years after its launch from Cape Canaveral. Their findings were announced Thursday.
This new ocean of liquid water — as big as or even bigger than North America's Lake Superior — is centered at the south pole of Enceladus and could encompass much if not most of the moon. Enceladus (ehn-SEHL'-uh-duhs) is about 310 miles across.
The data do not show if the ocean extends to the north pole, said the lead researcher, Luciano Iess of Sapienza University of Rome. At the very least, it's a regional sea some 25 miles deep under miles-thick ice. On Earth, it would stretch from our South Pole up to New Zealand — at the very least.
Cassini's rudimentary instruments also cannot determine whether the moon's ocean harbors any form of life. Another mission using more sophisticated instruments is needed to make that search. Source Lets go fishing!
|
suffeli
Finland772 Posts
NASA's Kepler Discovers First Earth-Size Planet In The 'Habitable Zone' of Another Star
Using NASA's Kepler Space Telescope, astronomers have discovered the first Earth-size planet orbiting a star in the "habitable zone" -- the range of distance from a star where liquid water might pool on the surface of an orbiting planet. The discovery of Kepler-186f confirms that planets the size of Earth exist in the habitable zone of stars other than our sun.
While planets have previously been found in the habitable zone, they are all at least 40 percent larger in size than Earth and understanding their makeup is challenging. Kepler-186f is more reminiscent of Earth.
"The discovery of Kepler-186f is a significant step toward finding worlds like our planet Earth," said Paul Hertz, NASA's Astrophysics Division director at the agency's headquarters in Washington. "Future NASA missions, like the Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite and the James Webb Space Telescope, will discover the nearest rocky exoplanets and determine their composition and atmospheric conditions, continuing humankind's quest to find truly Earth-like worlds."
Source
edit. removed huge pictures
|
And it's rather close on astronomic scales
All these worlds and so out of reach.
|
So when do we start terraforming? Terraforming is gonna be fun; I wonder what the international rules and norms about it are. As much as it'd be fun to start, it's probably better to go slow, given how hard it is to dislodge life once it's in place.
|
I remember watching an interesting documentary on sea life, like deep deep sea life, like the kind that uses sulfur to breathe, and it then jumped into suggesting that (name of astronomer) was convinced that this means our best bet for finding life was in planets that had ice exteriors (even those without atmospheres). The core would heat up the interior ice and overtime this is where life would form.
Of course all speculation and I can't find the documentary anymore... but you know cool stuff.
|
All these worlds and so out of reach.
And they've done studies on how many people you'd need to send on a colonization mission to maintain genetic diversity... around 40,000. Gonna be a long time before we build anything capable of going into space and holding 400 people much less 40,000, not even considering needing to travel hundreds of light-years...
|
You don't need that many people; you need that much genetic diversity. With effective cryostorage you need only a few dozen people or even less, maybe none, though none would be hard to do; with tens of thousands of embryo in storage. Far less to ship while providing enough genetic diversity.
|
On April 19 2014 12:15 Nacl(Draq) wrote: I remember watching an interesting documentary on sea life, like deep deep sea life, like the kind that uses sulfur to breathe, and it then jumped into suggesting that (name of astronomer) was convinced that this means our best bet for finding life was in planets that had ice exteriors (even those without atmospheres). The core would heat up the interior ice and overtime this is where life would form.
Of course all speculation and I can't find the documentary anymore... but you know cool stuff.
That's why europa is a candidate, ice sheet and possible warming core.
|
We need to first start on this solar system first to establish the science and economics first.
|
|
|
|