Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Poll

How many people can fit in a space dinghy?

Less than a thousand
5 (35.7%)
From a thousand to a million
0 (0%)
Several million
1 (7.1%)
Several billion
1 (7.1%)
I do not know
4 (28.6%)
Null
3 (21.4%)

Total Members Voted: 14

Author Topic: Space colonization  (Read 1928 times)

oren

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3134
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 347
  • Likes Given: 727
Re: Space colonization
« Reply #50 on: December 22, 2018, 12:28:38 PM »
Quote
and here we go: yes, I am saying that the moon landings are not verifiable...they are not repeatable...the Nixon admin is renowned for lying...NASA claims to have lost/recorded over the original tapes...and no one has gone since the Nixon admin despite our technology drastically improving in every relevant realm.
GSY, you have fallen for the moon landing denial claptrap, very sad.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings

No one has gone again simply because of a lack of political will to spend the required amounts and take the necessary risks. But maybe someone will soon - as a private endeavor. Thanks to the advancement of technology, costs have gone down significantly.
NASA has landed automated rovers that have been traveling for years on the surface of Mars, and still people believe it's impossible to land humans on the nearby moon for a few hours - a much easier undertaking.

What's next? Flat Earth? Chemtrails?

Nemesis

  • Guest
Re: Space colonization
« Reply #51 on: December 22, 2018, 01:09:43 PM »
What's all the fuzz about raising some funny flag on the moon 50 years ago? It was the cold war, it was about military domination of the orbit. Most of space exploration is rooted in military aspirations of some funny "superpowers" :)

What would the average Joe win from some funny men on funny Mars? Nothing. Funny gamez of the funny elite who fucked up the natural life-basis of mankind on Earth :)

crandles

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2119
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 26
Re: Space colonization
« Reply #52 on: December 22, 2018, 01:31:23 PM »
This may mean that the tectonic catastrophe on Venus occurred relatively recently.

Why are you assuming that there was a "tectonic catastrophe" on Venus? I don't see why I should assume anything other than this is your hobby horse for which you have zero evidence.

Thick atmosphere does sound unusual but given that

Quote
The early Earth during the Hadean eon is believed by most scientists to have had a Venus-like atmosphere, with roughly 100 bar of CO2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus#Evolution

perhaps it is not that surprising.

ArcticMelt1

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 77
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Space colonization
« Reply #53 on: December 22, 2018, 01:54:14 PM »
This may mean that the tectonic catastrophe on Venus occurred relatively recently.

Why are you assuming that there was a "tectonic catastrophe" on Venus?

Because Venus is much closer to the Sun than the Earth. In addition, there is no magnetic field on it. In this regard, it should lose the atmosphere much faster than the Earth.

The fact that Venus has a superdense atmosphere compared to the Earth is a very mysterious fact.

Recent studies suggest that in the past, ocean and life could exist on Venus.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/nasa-climate-modeling-suggests-venus-may-have-been-habitable

Quote
Venus may have had a shallow liquid-water ocean and habitable surface temperatures for up to 2 billion years of its early history, according to computer modeling of the planet’s ancient climate by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York.

Previous studies have shown that how fast a planet spins on its axis affects whether it has a habitable climate. A day on Venus is 117 Earth days. Until recently, it was assumed that a thick atmosphere like that of modern Venus was required for the planet to have today’s slow rotation rate. However, newer research has shown that a thin atmosphere like that of modern Earth could have produced the same result. That means an ancient Venus with an Earth-like atmosphere could have had the same rotation rate it has today.

In general, current knowledge suggests the similarity of the geology of Venus and the Earth.

https://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/slidesets/venus/slide_40.html
Quote
This slide shows a comparison of rift zones on the three largest terrestrial planets. The Venus SAR image is of Devana Chasma as it runs from Theia Mons in the north to Phoebe Regio in the south. On Earth, digital topography and bathymetry are used to create this shaded relief portrayal of the East African rift system as it runs north and intersects at the Afar triple junction with the oceanic spreading centers of the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden. The Mars image is a Viking image mosaic of the Valles Marineris system.

Liquid water is needed to form rift tectonics.

But these are all hypotheses, because precisely the direct drilling of its surface can tell exactly about the geological past of Venus. Unfortunately, such a project will be extremely expensive and difficult. I fear that humanity will learn the terrible truth about Venus’s past too late to draw conclusions about the future of the Earth.

ArcticMelt1

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 77
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Space colonization
« Reply #54 on: December 22, 2018, 02:46:18 PM »
Quote
The early Earth during the Hadean eon is believed by most scientists to have had a Venus-like atmosphere, with roughly 100 bar of CO2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus#Evolution

perhaps it is not that surprising.

There is an opposite opinion.

https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo2713

Earth's air pressure 2.7 billion years ago constrained to less than half of modern levels

Quote
How the Earth stayed warm several billion years ago when the Sun was considerably fainter is the long-standing problem of the ‘faint young Sun paradox’. Because of negligible1 O2 and only moderate CO2 levels2 in the Archaean atmosphere, methane has been invoked as an auxiliary greenhouse gas3. Alternatively, pressure broadening in a thicker atmosphere with a N2 partial pressure around 1.6–2.4 bar could have enhanced the greenhouse effect4. But fossilized raindrop imprints indicate that air pressure 2.7 billion years ago (Gyr) was below twice modern levels and probably below 1.1 bar, precluding such pressure enhancement5. This result is supported by nitrogen and argon isotope studies of fluid inclusions in 3.0–3.5 Gyr rocks6. Here, we calculate absolute Archaean barometric pressure using the size distribution of gas bubbles in basaltic lava flows that solidified at sea level ∼2.7 Gyr in the Pilbara Craton, Australia. Our data indicate a surprisingly low surface atmospheric pressure of Patm = 0.23 ± 0.23 (2σ) bar, and combined with previous studies suggests ∼0.5 bar as an upper limit to late Archaean Patm. The result implies that the thin atmosphere was rich in auxiliary greenhouse gases and that Patm fluctuated over geologic time to a previously unrecognized extent.

GoSouthYoungins

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 623
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 33
  • Likes Given: 95
Re: Space colonization
« Reply #55 on: December 22, 2018, 02:55:19 PM »
I can't believe there is genuine discussion on here about which other planet we could live on...as if it is a serious possibility. I understand as a purely theoretical sort of thing it might be fun to discuss, but colonizing another planet has about a 0.1% chance in any of our lifetimes. Mars, Venus, and the Moon are about 1000x less hospitable than Antarctica or Mount Everest or the Mariana Trench. Those who believe the Elon Musk line that "living on Mars is the easy part" are full blown delusional.

It took humans 65 years to get from the first powered flight to the "moon landing". In the 50 years since, we have regressed (or more likely no one ever went to the moon, but the point is simiilar). The idea that in the next 115 years we will not only but a person on other planets but colonize them is insane and totally unsupported by evidence.

People can't even live in enclosed systems here on earth for a sustained period of time! The best example being Biosphere 2, which is located in a place as conducive to easy living as possible (Oracle, AZ is prime from low tech passive structures). And they spent 4 years and hundreds of millions of dollars building the place. AND YET nobody is running closed-system experiments directly involving humans and they have not been for a quarter century because...it basically doesn't work.  As for the "Mars analog habitats", they are a total joke unless you happen to believe that Nunavut or Utah are analogous to Mars.
big time oops

crandles

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2119
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 26
Re: Space colonization
« Reply #56 on: December 22, 2018, 03:10:46 PM »
Quote
The early Earth during the Hadean eon is believed by most scientists to have had a Venus-like atmosphere, with roughly 100 bar of CO2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus#Evolution

perhaps it is not that surprising.

There is an opposite opinion.

https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo2713

Earth's air pressure 2.7 billion years ago constrained to less than half of modern levels

Quote
How the Earth stayed warm several billion years ago when the Sun was considerably fainter is the long-standing problem of the ‘faint young Sun paradox’. Because of negligible1 O2 and only moderate CO2 levels2 in the Archaean atmosphere, methane has been invoked as an auxiliary greenhouse gas3. Alternatively, pressure broadening in a thicker atmosphere with a N2 partial pressure around 1.6–2.4 bar could have enhanced the greenhouse effect4. But fossilized raindrop imprints indicate that air pressure 2.7 billion years ago (Gyr) was below twice modern levels and probably below 1.1 bar, precluding such pressure enhancement5. This result is supported by nitrogen and argon isotope studies of fluid inclusions in 3.0–3.5 Gyr rocks6. Here, we calculate absolute Archaean barometric pressure using the size distribution of gas bubbles in basaltic lava flows that solidified at sea level ∼2.7 Gyr in the Pilbara Craton, Australia. Our data indicate a surprisingly low surface atmospheric pressure of Patm = 0.23 ± 0.23 (2σ) bar, and combined with previous studies suggests ∼0.5 bar as an upper limit to late Archaean Patm. The result implies that the thin atmosphere was rich in auxiliary greenhouse gases and that Patm fluctuated over geologic time to a previously unrecognized extent.

>There is an opposite opinion.

My quote clearly suggest that it is "believed by most scientists" and therefore clearly allows the possibility of other opinions. However my quote was clearly about Hadean eon (4-4.6bn years ago) and you try to argue with something from 2.7 billion years ago which is towards end of Archean Eon. So it doesn't exactly refute what I said, does it.

ArcticMelt1

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 77
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Space colonization
« Reply #57 on: December 22, 2018, 03:39:51 PM »
As I understand it, it is only theoretically possible to judge the atmospheric pressure 4-4.5 billion years ago - sedimentary rocks with like age on Earth are simply not preserved. In this regard, recent studies of rocks with an age of about 3 billion years completely negate this opinion of the "majority". If 4 billion years ago there were very high atmospheric pressure, then it should have been higher than today and 3 billion years ago. However, recent studies do not confirm this.

ArcticMelt1

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 77
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Space colonization
« Reply #58 on: December 22, 2018, 04:33:54 PM »
Actually, Wikipedia provides a large number of alternatives to the superdense atmosphere of the ancient Earth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faint_young_Sun_paradox

Quote
The faint young Sun paradox or faint young Sun problem describes the apparent contradiction between observations of liquid water early in Earth's history and the astrophysical expectation that the Sun's output would be only 70 percent as intense during that epoch as it is during the modern epoch.

Quote
Greenhouse hypothesis[edit]
When it first formed, Earth's atmosphere may have contained more greenhouse gases. Carbon dioxide concentrations may have been higher, with estimated partial pressure as large as 1,000 kPa (10 bar), because there was no bacterial photosynthesis to convert the CO2 gas to organic carbon and gaseous oxygen. Methane, a very active greenhouse gas that reacts with oxygen to produce carbon dioxide and water vapor, may have been more prevalent as well, with a mixing ratio of 10−4 (100 parts per million by volume).[9][10]

Based on a study of geological sulfur isotopes, in 2009 a group of scientists including Yuichiro Ueno from the Tokyo Institute of Technology proposed that carbonyl sulfide (OCS) was present in the Archean atmosphere. Carbonyl sulfide is an efficient greenhouse gas and the scientists estimate that the additional greenhouse effect would have been sufficient to prevent Earth from freezing over.[11]

Based on an "analysis of nitrogen and argon isotopes in fluid inclusions trapped in 3.0- to 3.5-billion-year-old hydrothermal quartz" a 2013 paper concludes that "dinitrogen did not play a significant role in the thermal budget of the ancient Earth and that the Archean partial pressure of CO2 was probably lower than 0.7 bar".[12] Burgess, one of the authors states "The amount of nitrogen in the atmosphere was too low to enhance the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide sufficiently to warm the planet. However, our results did give a higher than expected pressure reading for carbon dioxide – at odds with the estimates based on fossil soils – which could be high enough to counteract the effects of the faint young Sun and will require further investigation."[13] Also, in 2012-2016 the research by S.M. Som, based on the analysis of raindrop impressions and air bubbles trapped in ancient lavas, have further indicated a low atmospheric pressure below 1.1 bar and probably as low as 0.23 bar during an epoch 2.7 bn years from present.[14]

Following the initial accretion of the continents after about 1 billion years,[15] geo-botanist Heinrich Walter and others contend that a non-biological version of the carbon cycle provided a negative temperature feedback. The carbon dioxide in the atmosphere dissolved in liquid water and combined with metal ions derived from silicate weathering to produce carbonates. During ice age periods, this part of the cycle would shut down. Volcanic carbon emissions would then restart a warming cycle due to the greenhouse effect.[16][17]

According to the Snowball Earth hypothesis, there may have been a number of periods when Earth's oceans froze over completely. The most recent such period may have been about 630 million years ago.[18] Afterwards, the Cambrian explosion of new multicellular life forms started.

Quote
Greater radiogenic heat[edit]

The radiogenic heat from the decay of 4 isotopes affecting Earth's internal heat budget over time: 40K (yellow), 235U (red), 238U (green) and 232Th (violet). In the past the contribution from 40K and 235U was much higher and thus the overall radiogenic heat output was higher.
In the past, the geothermal release of decay heat, emitted from the decay of the isotopes potassium-40, uranium-235 and uranium-238 was considerably greater than it is today.[19] The figure to the right shows that the isotope ratio between uranium-238 and uranium-235 was also considerably different than it is today, with the ratio essentially equivalent to that of modern low-enriched uranium. Therefore, natural uranium ore bodies, if present, would have been capable of supporting natural nuclear fission reactors with common light water as its moderator. Any attempts to explain the paradox must therefore factor in both radiogenic contributions, both from decay heat and from any potential natural nuclear fission reactors.

The primary mechanism for Earth warming by radiogenic heat is not the direct heating (which contribute less than 0.1% to the total heat input even of early Earth) but rather the establishment of the high geothermal gradient of the crust, resulting in greater out-gassing rate and therefore the higher concentration of greenhouse gases in early Earth atmosphere. Additionally, a hotter deep crust would limit the water absorption by crustal minerals, resulting in a smaller amount of high-albedo land protruding from the early oceans, causing more solar energy to be absorbed.


Greater tidal heating[edit]
The Moon was much closer to Earth billions of years ago,[20] and therefore produced considerably more tidal heating.[21]

Alternatives[edit]

Phanerozoic Climate Change
A minority view, propounded by the Israeli-American physicist Nir Shaviv, uses climatological influences of solar wind, combined with a hypothesis of Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark for a cooling effect of cosmic rays, to explain the paradox.[22] According to Shaviv, the early Sun had emitted a stronger solar wind that produced a protective effect against cosmic rays. In that early age, a moderate greenhouse effect comparable to today's would have been sufficient to explain an ice-free Earth. Evidence for a more active early Sun has been found in meteorites.[23]

The temperature minimum around 2.4 billion years goes along with a cosmic ray flux modulation by a variable star formation rate in the Milky Way. The reduced solar impact later results in a stronger impact of cosmic ray flux (CRF), which is hypothesized to lead to a relationship with climatological variations.

An alternative model of solar evolution may explain the faint young Sun paradox. In this model, the early Sun underwent an extended period of higher solar wind output. This caused a mass loss from the Sun on the order of 5−10 percent over its lifetime, resulting in a more consistent level of solar luminosity (as the early Sun had more mass, resulting in more energy output than was predicted). In order to explain the warm conditions in the Archean era, this mass loss must have occurred over an interval of about one billion years. However, records of ion implantation from meteorites and lunar samples show that the elevated rate of solar wind flux only lasted for a period of 0.1 billion years. Observations of the young Sun-like star π1 Ursae Majoris matches this rate of decline in the stellar wind output, suggesting that a higher mass loss rate can not by itself resolve the paradox.[24]

Examination of Archaean sediments appears inconsistent with the hypothesis of high greenhouse concentrations. Instead, the moderate temperature range may be explained by a lower surface albedo brought about by less continental area and the "lack of biologically induced cloud condensation nuclei". This would have led to increased absorption of solar energy, thereby compensating for the lower solar output.[25]

On Mars[edit]
Usually, the faint young Sun paradox is framed in terms of Earth's paleoclimate. However, the issue also appears in the context of the climate on ancient Mars, where apparently liquid water was present, in significant amounts (hydrological cycle, lakes, rivers, rain, possibly seas and oceans), billions of years ago. Subsequently, significant liquid water disappeared from the surface of Mars. Presently, the surface of Mars is cold and dry. The variable solar output, assuming nothing else changed, would imply colder (and drier) conditions on Mars in the ancient past than they are today, apparently contrary to the empirical evidence from Mars exploration that suggest the wetter and milder past. An explanation of the faint young Sun paradox that could simultaneously account for the observations might be that the Sun shed mass through the solar wind, though sufficient rate of mass shedding is so far unsupported by stellar observations and models.[26]

An alternative possible explanation posits intermittent bursts of powerful greenhouse gases, like methane. Carbon dioxide alone, even at a pressure far higher than the current one, cannot explain temperatures required for presence of liquid water on early Mars.[27]

ArcticMelt1

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 77
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Space colonization
« Reply #59 on: December 22, 2018, 04:42:24 PM »
There is also a hypothesis that a ocean on ancient Earth was formed as a result of meteorite bombardment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cool_early_Earth

Quote
Cool early Earth

The cool early Earth (CEE) theory posits that for part of the Hadean geological eon, at the beginning of Earth's history, it had a modest influx of bolides and a cool climate, allowing the presence of liquid water. This would have been after the extreme conditions of Earth's earliest history between 4.6 and 4.4 billion years (Ga) ago, but before the Late Heavy Bombardment of 4.1 to 3.8 Ga ago. In 2002 John Valley et al argued that detrital zircons found in Western Australia, dating to 4.0–4.4 Ga ago, were formed at relatively low temperatures, that meteorite impacts may have been less frequent than previously thought, and that Earth may have gone through long periods when liquid oceans and life were possible.[1]

In 2016 Gavin Kenny et al. replied to suggestions that zircons were formed by melting during tectonic subduction at plate boundaries, and argued that at least some of them were formed by meteorite impacts.[2]

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13388
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 169
  • Likes Given: 96
Re: Space colonization
« Reply #60 on: December 22, 2018, 04:47:24 PM »
Suggestions for further, mostly science-based, reading/viewing:

NatGeo‘s Mars series, now in season two. Much of the show is interviews with actual scientists and Mars researchers, and activists trying to save earth today.  The fictional Mars drama is good, but I wish they had knowledgeable consultants to guide their medical depictions.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/tv/mars/

Seveneves, by Neal Stephenson
Excerpt:
Quote
“We will have to do both,” the president said. “Go into space, and underground. Obviously the latter is easier.”
“Yes.”
“We can get to work building underground bunkers for . . .” and she caught herself before saying something impolitic. “For people to take refuge in.”
Doob didn’t say anything.
The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said, “Dr. Harris, I’m an old logistics guy. I deal in stuff. How much stuff do we need to get underground? How many sacks of potatoes and rolls of toilet paper per occupant? I guess what I’m asking is, just how long is the Hard Rain going to last?”
Doob said, “My best estimate is that it will last somewhere between five thousand and ten thousand years.” …


The SpaceX Mars plan.
Musk:  “It will be like Shackleton’s ad for Antarctic explorers: ‘Difficult, dangerous, a good chance you’ll die, excitement for those who survive.’ That kind of thing.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/11/elon-musk-colonise-mars-third-world-war

https://www.inverse.com/article/51273-spacex-elon-musk-reveals-when-first-mars-colony-will-take-shape

http://www.visiontimes.com/2018/12/09/mars-colonization-comes-with-jobs-and-finance-options-for-tickets.html
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Nemesis

  • Guest
Re: Space colonization
« Reply #61 on: December 22, 2018, 05:08:06 PM »
" “We can get to work building underground bunkers for . . .” and she caught herself before saying something impolitic. “For people to take refuge in.”

What kind of people will take refuge in underground bunkers? Sure, the money elite (and some servants):


Nemesis

  • Guest
Re: Space colonization
« Reply #62 on: December 22, 2018, 05:17:12 PM »
Well then, good luck to these folks trying to escape from their predicament...

"... Oh, I see dreams
I see visions
Images I don't understand
I see Goya's
Paranoias..."



kassy

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 144
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 59
Re: Space colonization
« Reply #63 on: December 22, 2018, 06:09:10 PM »
Quote
Now there are many works that suggest the existence of life and oceans on Venus in the past. It cannot be ruled out that there once was also a rational civilization, which destroyed both itself and the planet.

The transition to Venus´ Greenhouse climate is thought to have happened 4 billion years ago. It happened because the sun increases in luminosity year over year slowly warming up the planet.

And then it got hotter. Non need for tectonic catastrophes there and the chance of a rational civilization is zero.

You have a billion year time frame and it took half a billion years from first live to evolving photosynthesis. On Earth it took another billion years before the Great Oxygenation Event which allowed multicellular life to thrive.

Crandles in #43 shows why an event in the range you obsess about is not even possible.

(I am still undecided whether Alderaan would have hit 100C... )

PS: thanks NeilT for some good points on the moon.

 

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13388
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 169
  • Likes Given: 96
Re: Space colonization
« Reply #64 on: December 23, 2018, 01:32:54 PM »
...
The SpaceX Mars plan.
Musk:  “It will be like Shackleton’s ad for Antarctic explorers: ‘Difficult, dangerous, a good chance you’ll die, excitement for those who survive.’ That kind of thing.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/11/elon-musk-colonise-mars-third-world-war

https://www.inverse.com/article/51273-spacex-elon-musk-reveals-when-first-mars-colony-will-take-shape

http://www.visiontimes.com/2018/12/09/mars-colonization-comes-with-jobs-and-finance-options-for-tickets.html

In answer to the the poll question:  Musk envisions eventually 100 persons per ship — with 1,000 ships making the trip during the Earth-Mars rendezvous period every two years.  He figures a Mars population of one million is the minimum to be self-sustaining.

Musk had teased some changes to the most recent Starship design....  But last night he shocked us with new information on Twitter, and we now have pictures of the prototype Starship being built in Texas (the diameter of the real thing, but shorter in length)  which should begin “test hop” flights by next spring!

Quote
Elon Musk: I will do a full technical presentation of Starship after the test vehicle we’re building in Texas flies, so hopefully March/April
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1076608579652616192

<< Wait... March/April 2019!? This is much sooner than expected, yes!?

EM:  Yes
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1076608854643814400

SpaceX CEO Elon Musk says Starship (BFS) hop tests could start in early 2019
https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-ceo-elon-musk-starship-bfs-hop-tests-early-2019/
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

sesyf

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 39
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 17
Re: Space colonization
« Reply #65 on: December 23, 2018, 01:40:50 PM »
Weeeelll... moon dust just got a lot more dangerous...

https://agu.confex.com/agu/fm18/meetingapp.cgi/Paper/440491

From New Scientist:

To estimate how many radicals would be produced in humans after exposure to lunar dust, Donald Hendrix at Stony Brook University, New York, and his colleagues took dust from two iron-rich minerals – olivine and augite – found on the moon, and soaked it in a liquid that simulates human lung fluid.

After 15 minutes, the two minerals had released about nine times more hydroxyl radicals per litre of fluid than quartz dust, which is highly toxic.

I do suspect that as we are adapted to our environment the very technical environment we would be forced to live in Moon and Mars (and also the gravity is weaker among other things) would be very problematic on many levels...

Archimid

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1598
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 101
Re: Space colonization
« Reply #66 on: December 23, 2018, 02:17:37 PM »
Quote
and also the gravity is weaker among other things

I wonder what evolutionary changes are required for humans to be perfectly adapted to a g/3 environment. Taller humans? Shorter humans? More or less dense humans? Would the proportions of extremities change to optimize movement? In a few thousand years we will know if left to nature.
Technologies like gene editing might hasten that process considerably.

Then, whether by way of nature or by way technology, we have to ask ourselves, are these Homo Sapiens? I don't think so. Then humans can't colonize the universe because H. sapiens will eventually evolve to match their environment. However, humans can spread life to an otherwise lifeless solar system. Maybe,eventually the stars.

But before we do that, we must solve climate change.
I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

ArcticMelt1

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 77
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Space colonization
« Reply #67 on: December 23, 2018, 03:39:20 PM »
In answer to the the poll question:  Musk envisions eventually 100 persons per ship — with 1,000 ships making the trip during the Earth-Mars rendezvous period every two years.  He figures a Mars population of one million is the minimum to be self-sustaining.

Good news. It is hoped that by the end of the 21st century millions of people will live and work in space. This will be a good insurance against disasters on Earth.

Nemesis

  • Guest
Re: Space colonization
« Reply #68 on: December 25, 2018, 05:11:17 PM »
Trump surely is on the side of Elon Musk, the saviour of the world, when it comes to colonialization of Mars:

" 18.6.2018 - Trump’s Space Force Is Almost a Real Thing
The president on Monday announced he has directed the Department of Defense to create a sixth branch of the military

... While contemplating the infinite frontier during a meeting with the National Space Council, the president announced the creation of the “Space Force,” a new branch of the military that will be tasked with handling extraterrestrial affairs. “I am hereby directing the Department of Defense and Pentagon to immediately begin the process necessary to establish a Space Force as the sixth branch of the armed forces,” Trump said...

Trump also continued to tout the prospect of a mission to Mars, which he is more than happy to leave in the hands of the Elon Musks of the world – or at least of America...

... Trump signed White House Space Policy Directive 1, which called for the United States to work with the private sector in an effort to put more men on the moon and, eventually, Mars. “The directive I am signing today will refocus America’s space program on human exploration and discovery,” Trump said at the time. “It marks a first step in returning American astronauts to the Moon for the first time since 1972, for long-term exploration and use. This time, we will not only plant our flag and leave our footprints – we will establish a foundation for an eventual mission to Mars, and perhaps someday, to many worlds beyond."

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trumps-space-force-is-almost-a-real-thing-665983/

Also quite interesting:

" Trump presidency 'opens door' to planet-hacking geoengineer experiments

As geoengineer advocates enter Trump administration, plans advance to spray sun-reflecting chemicals into atmosphere...

Within Republican ranks, former House speaker and Trump confidant Newt Gingrich was one of the first to start publicly advocating for geoengineering.

Within Republican ranks, former House speaker and Trump confidant Newt Gingrich was one of the first to start publicly advocating for geoengineering.

“Geoengineering holds forth the promise of addressing global warming concerns for just a few billion dollars a year,” he said in 2008, before helping launch a geoengineering unit while he ran the right-wing think tank American Economic Enterprise. “We would have an option to address global warming by rewarding scientific innovation. Bring on American ingenuity. Stop the green pig.”

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/true-north/2017/mar/27/trump-presidency-opens-door-to-planet-hacking-geoengineer-experiments

See also:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/oct/14/geoengineering-is-not-a-quick-fix-for-climate-change-experts-warn-trump

Sure, Trump denies fossil fuel induced climate heating publically (being heavily supported by the fossil fuel industry, who denied fossil fuel induced heating for many decades despite their very own contrary scientific findings too^^), so it makes sense to quit the Paris agreement and to bet on technical solutions for *none-existing* fossil fuel induced climate heating while striving for Mars :) Denying fossil fuel induced climate heating despite one's very own scientific findings? Well, that's a well known strategy of the fossil fuel industry, isn't it? Yes, it is and Trump's presidency fits perfectly into that scheme. And at the same time parts of the fossil fuel industry admit fossil fuel induced climate heating is real. Supporting both sides of the coin to maintain overall control is a well known strategy as old as Empire.

Nemesis

  • Guest
Re: Space colonization
« Reply #69 on: December 25, 2018, 07:08:24 PM »
What's going on behind all the smoke and mirrors?

"Eisenhower warns us of the military industrial complex."



There is the president of the US (like Eisenhower or Bush or Reagan, Clinton, Obama, Trump and what have you) and then there is the Pentagon (and the CIA and the NSA) and it's military force. What's the engine of the military industrial complex? Fossil fuel delivered by the fossil fuel industry (who knows the science about fossil fuel induced climate heating and who supported Trump). Remember Dick Cheney (weapons industry)? Remember Rex Tillerson (oil industry resp Exxon)?

Space colonialization? Star wars? Geo- resp climate engineering since Svante Arrhenius? Fossil fueled geopolitics? Admitting to fossil fueled climate heating, then denying it? Signing to Paris, then resigning from Paris? Many sides, but one coin.