Space In General

Won't stop gravity not being enough to stop the gasses disappearing though. It is a total non starter.

Venus would be possible though.
 
You don't need an atmosphere though, you could live indoors.

I like this idea, but on the Moon, which is far easier, quicker and cheaper to access. There you could much more easily develop the the concept of living indoors in lunar caverns which are accessible from the surface. The lunar conditions are much harsher than Mars, so once once your system is perfected, you could more confidently establish a sound and thriving colony on Mars.
 
Won't stop gravity not being enough to stop the gasses disappearing though. It is a total non starter.

Venus would be possible though.

Venus would be even more difficult. You'd need something to block the sun out to help cool it down and then somehow filter out the harmful and incredibly dense gases from the atmosphere, and then maintain adequate oxygen levels with another planet with no protective magnetic field, and then put up with intense heat and sunlight for weeks at a time, and then constant darkness for weeks at a time.

I like this idea, but on the Moon, which is far easier, quicker and cheaper to access. There you could much more easily develop the the concept of living indoors in lunar caverns which are accessible from the surface. The lunar conditions are much harsher than Mars, so once once your system is perfected, you could more confidently establish a sound and thriving colony on Mars.

And it's in close proximity to the Earth in case you ever need to go back there.
 
It seems that my town's decision to switch to LED street lights has an extra bonus. Less light is scattered upwards and thus the nights have become a bit darker compared to last year. I'm seeing more stars from my back yard.

And as another bonus, the highways around town have their lights turned off completely, so that when I head a few miles out of town it becomes even darker. Time to dust off the telescope. 👍
 
If the US had spent even a quarter as much money on NASA as they do on the DOD, we'd have landed humans on mars years ago.

It's a shame, really. As of now, NASA gets like 0.5% of the budget, and the years leading up to the moon landing, they got like 4%. And with just that, look at what they managed to accomplish.

Here's a graph made of sadness for you all. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ederal.svg/1000px-NASA-Budget-Federal.svg.png

We totes need more space stations to do cool research in. There's lots stuff we use every day that has its roots in space technology. Granted, there's also a lot of stuff we use that comes from military technology, but we also spend 60 times more money on that so that's to be expected.

It seems that my town's decision to switch to LED street lights has an extra bonus. Less light is scattered upwards and thus the nights have become a bit darker compared to last year. I'm seeing more stars from my back yard.

And as another bonus, the highways around town have their lights turned off completely, so that when I head a few miles out of town it becomes even darker. Time to dust off the telescope. 👍
That's just really awesome. Light pollution is a big pain in the ass. I hope more cities follow suit so that the general brightness level in the night sky decreases. Even if the light pollution is strongest near the source, the combined light from cities can light up the more sparsely populated areas in the regions by a considerable amount too. At one time, I was seriously considering night sky photography, but I would basically get **** results unless i drove hundreds of miles away.
 
Last edited:
If all Space agencies worked together we would probably heading towards the moons of Jupiter and Saturn by now.
 
Hubble zoomed in on Mars to capture a picture of Comet Siding Spring:

10712423_10154730581200285_338171854368632250_o.jpg
 
Won't stop gravity not being enough to stop the gasses disappearing though. It is a total non starter.

Not so, the gravity on Mars is about 40% of Earth gravity, it couldn't support as thick an atmosphere but it could (and does).

Remember that Earth's atmosphere is also stripped at the top and that it relies on constant regeneration. The theory on Mars would be no different. It wouldn't be easy but it isn't a total non-starter. The long-term key is to introduce enough biological machinery in the form of sustainable flora.

The wiki on Mars Terraforming's quite interesting.
 
The long-term key is to introduce enough biological machinery in the form of sustainable flora.

The wiki on Mars Terraforming's quite interesting.

Wouldn't it be a problem with the distance to the sun? The distance from sun to Mars is 150% of the distance from sun to Earth, which means that to absorb the same amount of energy per unit if time, you'll need a surface area that's 2.25 (1.5*1.5) times bigger on Mars.

lifeonmars.jpg


Is it possible for an organism to grow 2.25 times bigger without an increase in energy?

I suppose that plants that normally grow in more shady areas could make it though. Or the plants could simply grow slower than on Earth. Isn't the year much longer on Mars as well?

Another option could be to use the same principle as on solar power plants, to use mirrors to concentrate the sunlight on a smaller area.

Maybe it would be doable after all...

Edit: Now I want to write a sci-fi novel about this :P
 
Last edited:
Well, that was disappointing.... shows how useless cell phones are for video! (At least it was landscape and not portrait....)
 
Well, that was disappointing.... shows how useless cell phones are for video! (At least it was landscape and not portrait....)
From my knowledge most cellphones, point and shoot, and even camcorders are not good because of the massive amount of light coming in at one central point, and the exposure can not be turned down enough on these devices without loosing all the details..

Every camera is going to get blown out unless you have a neutral density filter of some type on it, or it is just a camera with amazing exposure capacity... B&W is best because it will pick up mostly all contrast and level it out..
 
My point exactly. Without being able to tighten the shot or meter for the monstrous highlights, there is no compensation for the massively bright flame, and thus a complete blowout of any useful detail.
 
Seriously, NASA needs to hurry the **** up with that new giant space telescope. I want close up pictures of exoplanets!
 
How the Earth spins in relation to the stars



-

iefyzlls5ytfbbhp9tse.jpg


Crescent Saturn and its crescent moon. This has to be one of the most beautiful pairs of heavenly bodies we're lucky to see, thanks to the Cassini spacecraft.

In this photo, Titan's crescent nearly encircles its disk due to the small haze particles high in its atmosphere, scattering the incoming light of the distant Sun. The image was taken in violet light with the Cassini spacecraft wide-angle camera on August 11th 2013, and added to theJPL photo library on November 3rd 2014. The view was obtained at a distance of approximately 1.1 million miles from Saturn. [NASA/JPL-Caltech/Space Science Institute]

http://gizmodo.com/crescent-saturn-and-its-crescent-moon-this-has-to-be-o-1655362995
 
Kind of wishing I had thought ahead and requested time off/saved to make the trip to Florida for the Orion test launch. Will certainly do that for the next one. Looking forward to seeing it all assembled and standing up on the launch pad.
 
No love for Rosetta and Philae in this thread?

The little guy is gonna make his landing tomorrow morning.


These videos are awesome too...

 
Back