I still can't get over how we have landed on Mars.
>90 x earth pressure
>almost pure carbon dioxide atmosphere
That is amazing! When do we send matt damon?
at some point some important people thought that it'd be a good idea to shoot shit in space to prove country superiority
it's kinda sad how something as awesome as idea of leaving Earth was driven entirely by interests of important people who managed to sell this shit for average joes
half of the world still has one foot in the stone age.
So many countries can't even provide clean drinking water or a stable source of electricity, let alone even dream of putting together an effective space program.
Huge part of Russia still has one foot in the stone age, and yet russian space achievements are astounding.Delivering water or electricity for everyone was never anyhow connected to space exploration.
But anyway, many countries have their space programs and no one knows anything about it. There is shitload of satellites from smaller countries around Earth, for example i bet no one ever heard about United Arab Emirates space program - and yet it's there, they placed several satellites around the globe.
>prove country superiority
Well, there was also that thing with the cold war and the nucular bombs and stuff. The star wars program may seem like a joke today but back then the soviets perceived it as an existential threat, since it would theoretically allow the US to wipe them out without fear of retaliation. Owning space pretty much meant you owned the world.
I love the way 1960s soviet spacecraft look, there's something creepy and analog about space programs at that time.
I had a dream the other day that humans are actually from venus. Caught in politics and war thousands of years ago, we ignored climate change until it destroyed the planet, and a few were able to escape to earth where we are now doing it again.
>he actually believes we landed on "Mars"
I expect average American to believe this, but we on /g/ should really know better.
They landed a shitty rover rover on the moon, with plans stolen from us, help received from us, and it malfunctioned.
DECADES after we sent men to land on the Moon. China can continue to make my phone, but they have a while before they are exploring space, unless we hold their hand and guide them into the 21st century, but I'd much rather we work with the Russians or Japanese than China
It's just that in the CCCP, photographic film tech never really advanced. When the west transitioned over to echtachrome etc the soviets never got the memo. That's why all the photographs from that era look to iconic.
Fuck the surface scum, it will always be fucked down here. Look to the stars and beyond, and let the miserable masses sort it self out. At least the space program is a beacon of hope and inspiration amid a sea of trash and chaos.
unless you were involved in the Rover's mission, You are not part of the "We" that accomplished that.
you can think it's cool, but you can't claim credit. do something of your own that you think is super cool.
in Soviet Russia, Mars lands on YOU!
>akshully I think it was the US.
Climate change is real, but man made climate change is not.
The Earth naturally changes. The air used to be about 30% carbon dioxide when dinosaurs were around, there was an ice age, all different climates than today but no, this time it's man made.
Remember how they used to call it global warming? Well the winters in 2013-14 where I live were the coldest winters I remember.
You're the idiot for thinking that science, technology, and the overall progression of mankind are partitioned into neat little boxes.
Leaps in space tech usually bring leaps in earth tech as well. A drop dead easy example is developing the ability to grow crops in space or on other planets (Mars, chiefly). If we do that, we can grow crops practically *anywhere*, even out in the middle of the Sahara desert or at the bottom of the ocean.
Neglecting any given type of science is flat out a bad idea. There's no valid excuse for it, with finance-related reasons being particularly invalid. Instead of sucking away resources from NASA, we should cut back on things like absurdly huge military expenditures and subsidization of big oil. There's enough to go around it it's spent wisely.
It represents a solid, but not insurmountable challenge as well as our best bet for putting eggs in baskets beyond earth to prepare for inevitable (whenever it may be) global catastrophe, both of which are worth a lot. For the latter, we're basically shitting on the toil and strife and efforts of all of our ancestors if we go extinct or get thrown back to the stone age when colonization of other planets was well within our reach.
if you go by that metric, then everyone who's ever done business with the US, either directly, by trade agreements with the US government, or indirectly, by buying US products, or even spending money in their own country who does business with the US can get a participation medal and Feel Good Prize for participating.
It's the perfect way for anyone who's a lazy, incapable piece of crap to pretend that they are actually making a difference in the world.
>It's the perfect way for anyone who's a lazy, incapable piece of crap to pretend that they are actually making a difference in the world.
and thus feel entitled to the benefits thereof someone who solves problems and creates solutions.
Im not sure, it could be just swamp gas
>United Arab Emirates
You can't even call it that. They've designed two satellites, and they were launched by other agencies, one of them from Kazakhstan and the other from Russia. Both of the DubaiSat satellites' purpose is to monitor their crazy constructions (Palm Islands, The World islands for instance). I'm in Dubai right now and I've seen their "space center", it's nothing impressive. I've been to the ESA facilities in Belgium and they're much more impressive.
I really don't give two fucks about climate change, whether it's real or not.
I live in a cold inland city hundreds of metres above sea level. I hate winter, people literally freeze to death here every year, our cars get raped by the cold weather and we pay big to heat our homes. I have nothing to lose if the Earth returns to an Eocene climate. The people who are going to lose big are all the fuckers pumping carbon into the atmosphere- ie China, India and the United States. I don't see why I don't see why our government is so intent on shooting us in the foot when there are 2.8 billion people who aren't doing jack shit to solve the problem. They'll reap what they sow soon enough, and I'll be laughing as birch forests start growing in the Eastern Arctic.
To the guys arguing about the countries not having landed a rover on Mars, I ask if its really necessary.
Of all the things, I feel that space exploration should be a joint venture between all the space agencies in the world, from the smallest to the biggest. There's no point in every country trying to land a rover on Mar's when its already been done and probably been done better by someone already. It shouldn't be a dick measuring contest but collaboration so that we can learn more, faster.
I liked the part in the Martian where the Chinese helped NASA with their resupply launch. Or in Armageddon where countries get together to face a threat bigger than themselves. I like that kinda shit.
Hell, all non-military scientific endeavors should be collaborative.
>know that Mars is much much further away from the Sun than the Earth is
>there's no way the Sun would look that large in the Martian sky even at a close point in the orbit
>something fishy going on there
the reproduction of food isn't ready their need more genenic variions to suit mars its not easy ya know.
temps are like 0 to 255 that is hard on any plant seriously
also it has to be eatable to humans that is really really hard to do.
also there is the debate about engines whitch ones to use and how should they be used
present rockets can't stay on all the time but we have other things we can use as well as normal rockets
as space has no drag wer can build even the weakest engine and go really realy fast but its about endurance that rocket scientists care about.
besides landing with humans is much harder than machines
no shit machines don't need food or big ships
but no human has left earth to a forienge planet in a long , long time
we can't just rely on machines that's only half the story.
we need human in more than one place to ensure our survival.
man, if only we could get some kind of microbe going that would rapidly multiply and turn the carbon dioxide into oxygen we could have a nice earth like planet right next door. it's tragic that venus ended up like it did. somewhere out there there has to be a solar system that ended up with multiple planets of similar condition in the habitable zone. any intelligent life that arose in that solar system will have a huge jump start in space exploration.
so in other words we need to stop advancing mankind forever? your idea is stupid. it's impossible to save everyone. trying to save people that can't make it on their own only grows a problem to the point of a crisis. ex. africas artificially inflated population. what do you think will happen when western aid is inevitably cut off from africa? there will be hell to pay, mass famine, war, the worst of human nature will come out. and all because you stupid fucking idiots with hearts bigger than your brains wanted to feel good. you never stopped to think of the ultimate repercussions of your actions. what was once small groups destiny to fade away has become multi-million's inevitable violent collapse.
>present rockets can't stay on all the time
Saying this is completely pointless because rockets would never ever need to be "on all the time" to begin with. The burn it takes to reach Mars is completed before the rocket even leaves low earth orbit altitudes. Then the rocket is no longer used until it has reached Mars and it's time to achieve orbit. The rocket spends 99% of its time shut off.
>ended up with multiple planets of similar condition in the habitable zone
The probability that there are such planets is very small, let alone that there are multiple in the same solar system.
Besides, Venus would probably still be too hot to live on without the CO2. Is there an estimate to how hot it would be?
Yes, the cover for the camera lens.
Of the few probes that made it, died within minutes.
Frankly it's cool as fuck simply because of the hellish environment.
The only reason why the surface is a gas at those high pressures is that it's so hot.
They teach you these things, but only when you're over 15 years old.
>You said the surface is gas. Venus's surface is solid.
I'm talking about the atmosphere on the surface. The surface atmosphere - as opposed to the atmosphere further from the rocky surface.
As I was saying, at those pressures, if the atmosphere was colder, that probe would under liquid carbon dioxide.
it'd still be hot but without all the CO2 trapping in the heat it would be a better candidate for colonization than mars since it is more similar to earth in mass. the three major factors going against venus is the abundance of co2, its super slow rotation and a lack of a magnetosphere.
>For that to happen, the atmosphere would have to be something besides CO2 that doesn't trap the heat, right?
If the planet cools off naturally, over millions of years, or Billions of years, it could happen.
Technically, the atmosphere is Supercritical fluid, so it's not technically a gas... but it's easiest to think of it like a gas.
It's just barely Supercritical because of the high pressure. But if it were colder like under 30° C (86° F), it would be a liquid.
see this chart.
what do you mean? i said venus would be preferable to mars since it has a more similar mass to earth. i'm really not very optimistic about colonizing mars. imo it's a dead planet and it would be foolish to send humans there. i think it would make more sense to work on the technology to create space colonies, then set up space colonies orbiting other planets like mars while using robotics to mine and/or terraform the planets. it's just pissing in the wind to put a bunch of human beings on a lighter planet with little atmosphere and no magnetosphere. future mars colonists are going to have extreme health issues.
I don't know. I'm just saying IF it cooled off.
It might never... But if the Sun suddenly disappeared, it would still take a long time to cool off because I think there still might be active Volcanoes on Venus, but, again, I'm not sure.
I was asking why Venus would be preferable to Mars based on mass.
I picture planet colonization to start with closed off environments. But how do you get temperatures down to where you can actually start growing plants? Seems impossible.
Actually, at some level in the atmoshere, like 50km off the surface, the temperature, gas constituents, and gravity are almost exactly like the surface of the Earth.
So a Floating City at that altitude would be perfect.
Mars may seem boring as all fucks, but it's still a planet with lots of places to explore and with potentially interesting shit hiding somewhere. I'd certainly prefer living there to being trapped in a depressing piece of metal orbiting it.
Use balloons like a blimp... Although the sulfuric acid clouds would be another thing to deal with
>Again, how do you make something so massive float 50kms above the surface?
Indeed, this seems like a far greater leap in technology than what we'd need to establish long-term colonies on Mars.
We've found life in harsher environments on Earth.
The surface might have life, so might the atmosphere higher up.
But exploring the surface is going to take a hell of a robot that can withstand 750° C temperatures and the pressure like 90x Earth's surface.
The Russian probes only lasted a few minutes.
jetsons predicted venus colonization.
True, but our bodies will adapt. It'd be interesting to see the effects of a long time spent in space. I think a dude on the ISS is on a year long mission right now.
I'm sure there's materials that can withstand the acid.
Also, how would 2atm pressure feel like? I'm sure with time we could move lower to around 3-4 atms of pressure as our bodies grow stronger.
You mean thin fucking pillars supporting shit? Fuck no. It's unaesthetic as fuck and also looks hella unsafe. What kind of material would be strong enough to support that kinda weight at that size? Carbon nanotubes?
I was wondering the same thing. I've scuba dived myself and once you equalize the pressure in your sinuses, it doesn't feel too different.
Thanks for pointing out the confusion between pressure and gravity. I guess we shaved off 10 klicks off the height. 40 more to go.
>how do you make something so massive float 50kms above the surface? I
You know how Helium and Hydrogen float in our atmosphere because they are lighter than it? The breathable air (Nitrogen, oxygen, etc) of our atmosphere is a lifting gas in Venus's atmosphere.
Granted, it probably could float a city on it's own lifting properties alone, but it would tremendously help.
Ok, but would they be stable? Winds would be a real bitch.
Yeah, but what are the chances of having two so close together? What were the chances of two golden tickets being in two Wonka bars in the same shop on the same shelf? Pretty damn slim.
>Ok, but would they be stable?
Ah, I made a bad typo. I meant they probably COULD'NT float a city on its own. I only know air is a lifting gas on Venus, not how stable or strong it would be.
there are three planets in our solar system that are in the habitable zone so i doubt it would be unreasonable to think that somewhere out there among the billions of stars there might exist a star system with multiple planets of similar mass in the habitable zone that all have a molten iron core and large quantities of h2o.
yes. there are lots of variables but both venus and mars are in the habitable zone of our sun. if mars had bulked up enough to maintain a molten iron core it could easily be full of life right now. there used to be lots of water on mars but the core cooled naturally, and without a magnetic field the lighter elements were slowly stripped away by solar winds.
venus had a better mass but more varied issues. it has a screwed up rotation, still no magnetic field despite the mass and without a way to deposit atmospheric CO2 back into the ground, volcanic activity ruined venus' future as a habitable planet.
So the habitable zone itself is fairly common but other variables make planets in the zone inhabitable. So I guess our best bet is to find a planet which is easiest to transform.
Speaking of the habitable zone, what factors determine the distance a piece of rock takes up orbit in around its sun?
>Ok, but would they be stable? Winds would be a real bitch.
I think in that zone, the winds are around 200 mph. But if the "blimp" could ride with the wind, it might not be that big of a deal.
On the surface of Venus, though, the winds are slow. The Supercritical atmosphere is like 5-7% as dense as water here on Earth... that's pretty dense for what is essentially a gas-like state.
all stars have a habitable zone. the habitable zone is defined as the distances from a star where liquid water can form on the surface of a planet. it can be further or closer to a star depending on things like mass/luminosity.
>Speaking of the habitable zone, what factors determine the distance a piece of rock takes up orbit in around its sun?
could you rephrase the question? when a star forms there is a cloud of dust that surrounds it. due to the gravity of the star the dust eventually forms into a disk which then combines in certain spots to form planets. stars also sometimes capture external bodies and if the trajectory is right they become locked into orbiting the star.
>you won't be around when terraforming is completed
Just what do we even live for.
But winds mean storms too. It'd be too unreliable. You'd be at the mercy of the weather.
If the habitable zone is so common, why does every 'potential alium encounter' argument have them take our planet cause we're in the zone?
You answered the question. But based on that, shouldn't there be plenty of planets similar to ours? I guess its because detecting planets is pretty difficult. They have no inherent radiation that can be detected.
One theory is that the bottleneck point where most life dies out comes before it gets very advanced. I think that's the most likely.
that makes sense but remember that we barely know our own solar system, how can we even make assumptions about life on other star systems? How about the whole universe? Maybe the universe is full of advanced life and we can't even see it.
lol no, if the earth somehow got destroyed we'd all be dead in an instant. Nothing we can do. There's events in space that could wipe out our entire solar system. We won't be safe from extinction until we've colonized multiple solar systems.
And even then, the possibility remains for galactic or universe-level catastrophe, in which case we'll only be safe once we've gained the ability to travel to other dimensions/planes of reality (if such things even exist).
>The Venera probe managed to survive long enough to send pics back from hell.
It was built in hell, so, that kind of makes sense.
No, humans do have an influence on the climate. However...
* Maximum possible forcing for a doubling of preindustrial CO2 is +1.2C.
* Doubling CO2 levels again would result in a fraction of that forcing because the relevant IR band will be saturated.
* AGW climate models assume a positive H2O feedback to rising CO2. That's how they wind up with +2C to +8C of predicted warming.
* The range is so wide because nobody can agree what the +H2O feedback is.
* "The pause" in warming over the past 18 years suggests that there is no H2O feedback, or at least no significant feedback.
When you cut through all the politics and bullshit, that is the state of the science. We can't model H2O's response because H2O has an extremely chaotic life cycle in the atmosphere. CO2 on the other hand is well mixed and relatively stable.
We can calculate an upper bound on CO2's warming *absent feedbacks* because it is stable and the calculation is basic physics.
We cannot calculate what water will do because it's not stable in the atmosphere. We can't model chaos. We can only plug in assumptions and argue about our assumptions while observational data comes in.
And the observational data does not look good for AGW proponents.*
* I'm going off the satellite and balloon records here because the surface record is fucked beyond belief. Far, far too many problems, assumptions, "corrections", etc. An honest scientist would look at everything and conclude that the surface record margin of error is larger than the claimed warming signal.
The incredible pressure difference means that something that only floats holding up say 10kg here would be able to hold up some magnitude of that there. So, in theory, you could have extremely heavy objects on a series of huge balloons that will float on a very very high pressure cloud of heavier gases. Meanwhile, it's breathable and comfortable for human life where these balloons will be floating. The real questions are a) Where do we get the material to fill these ballasts with and b) what do we make these ballasts out of?
A is presumably easy to answer as the technology it would take for us to travel to the planet and build in that atmosphere imply a fair aptitude for space travel and therefor space mining.
The b, I do not know. If we get good at creating carbon fiber nano tubes or if things like carbyde become particularly prolific, it might be very very easy. Otherwise, I don't know. Diamondillium?
Generally the body consumes material it doesn't use in order to re-purpose that material for something else.
The lack of gravity generally means the lack of muscle usage which results in muscle atrophy.
Bones shrink, muscles shrink, equilibrium are lowered and so on. Everything that we use in the gravity rich environment of Earth is everything we will lose in the free-fall of Earth orbit and the 0g of interstellar travel.
Hence why they have to do resistance training in space.
Obviously aging will be fixed and powered external armor will keep us safe through most physical events like car crashes and explosions and gas leaks and so on and so forth. This is the only way forward.