Confidemus Posted May 27, 2013 Author Share Posted May 27, 2013 Alpha Centuari isn't a binary system, it's a tertiary system, of the three stars Proxima is the closest to us, and used to be considered a system in it's own right. I had no idea Proxima Centauri was now Alpha Centauri C... Although A nd B are true binary, with Proxima, or Alpha C being quite a bit more distant, I believe. Course, I could be wrong about that as well, being no expert!!! Now... More fun facts? How about starquakes? That's right, STARquakes.. On a neutron star, the gravity on the surface is millions of times greater than the surface gravity of the Earth. This weight causes the crust to shift and produces a starquake. The contraction, even though only 1 millimetre in depth, causes a resulting starquake that is about a billion times more powerful than any earthquake on the Earth. (Another cause for starquakes is spindown, which is the star trying to reform it's perfect spherical shape as it loses angular momentum - just to cover all my bases!) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ric Posted May 27, 2013 Share Posted May 27, 2013 I know that spending on space exploration is relatively (and surprisingly) low. I'd rather see us fix the problems on this planet before exploring the universe, though - like I said, I don't expect that many people will agree. I probably wouldn't object to £10m being spent on space exploration if the 'defence' budget wasn't quite so, er, astronomical. Obviously it's a bit daft to compare like for like, but even the simplest of things like removing the out dated, energy inefficient and ridiculously poor street lighting with LED light that not only will need less servicing, will last longer, can be controlled easier, costs less to run and (most importantly for the stargazers) don't suffer from light pollution would be a good start. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quentin Taranbino Posted May 27, 2013 Share Posted May 27, 2013 With the technology we have, would it be possible to populate and live on the moon and 'turn' it into a liveable place? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ric Posted May 27, 2013 Share Posted May 27, 2013 With the technology we have, would it be possible to populate and live on the moon and 'turn' it into a liveable place? If anything it's easier to live on the moon than it is to live under water. So a very resounding "yes" is the answer. You couldn't (to use the sci-fi term) "terraform" it though, that would indeed be stuff of the movies. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confidemus Posted May 27, 2013 Author Share Posted May 27, 2013 With the technology we have, would it be possible to populate and live on the moon and 'turn' it into a liveable place? It would take tens, if not hundreds of years to terraform the moon. Firstly you'd need to pump millions of tons of co2 and water out there, then there's the problem of the plants needing day and night cycles, which they wouldn't get on the moon. Also, the moons gravitational field isn't strong enough to hold onto any gases or liquids we pump there. These are basic things you would have to encounter first of all as well as many, many others... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthAyrshireKillie Posted May 27, 2013 Share Posted May 27, 2013 It would take tens, if not hundreds of years to terraform the moon. Firstly you'd need to pump millions of tons of co2 and water out there, then there's the problem of the plants needing day and night cycles, which they wouldn't get on the moon. Also, the moons gravitational field isn't strong enough to hold onto any gases or liquids we pump there. These are basic things you would have to encounter first of all as well as many, many others... Not according to Newt Gingrich 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ric Posted May 27, 2013 Share Posted May 27, 2013 (edited) The biggest problem with living on the moon, in fact the biggest problem on leaving Earth is the lack of a magnetosphere. It protects us from a huge amount of stuff we want to avoid. There is no way to generate a similar thing on the moon, so basically anyone living up there (and they would have to live in hermetically sealed units, not on the open surface) would be subjected to all sorts of nasty stuff that the body is just not capable of dealing with. For example astronauts complain of darting white lights in their eyes. That is down to cosmic rays passing through the eye, although there is a lesser supported theory that it could be cosmic rays actually passing through the part of the brain that deals with eyesight, triggering the visions that way. Technically, if you are in space, you can "see" the stars even with your eyes shut. Edited May 27, 2013 by Ric 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthAyrshireKillie Posted May 27, 2013 Share Posted May 27, 2013 Have you studied this stuff Confidemus? Or are you just interested in the universe. Either way excellent reading mate! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Addie Posted May 27, 2013 Share Posted May 27, 2013 If anything it's easier to live on the moon than it is to live under water. So a very resounding "yes" is the answer. You couldn't (to use the sci-fi term) "terraform" it though, that would indeed be stuff of the movies. Ok I know we were having wee spats earlier but I am going to challenge this properly if I may? Surely living under the water is easier due to the fact that electrolysis would be the main supply of O2? It would also be easier to supply a colony under the sea rather than the Moon. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ric Posted May 27, 2013 Share Posted May 27, 2013 (edited) Ok I know we were having wee spats earlier but I am going to challenge this properly if I may? Surely living under the water is easier due to the fact that electrolysis would be the main supply of O2? It would also be easier to supply a colony under the sea rather than the Moon. Of course, Addie, I have no problem with discussing it. In a like for like environment, and setting aside the problem of the missing magnetosphere, the pressure from the water and it's corrosive nature causes considerably more problems than the sterile low pressure environment of the moon. In terms of 02 generation this could be handled several ways. There is water on the moon for example, considerably more than you would expect. Not only that, self contained units that generate electricity via solar power (something water dwelling doesn't offer, or offers at a much lower rate) can recycle a huge amount of what we expel. How do you think that Russian cosmonauts have managed to survive living in the Mir for over a year? The problem is, as you would expect, the difficulty of getting the equipment up there, assembling it, and to a lesser extent resupply. It all depends on the depth of the water we are talking about, but even then just a few 100 meters below the surface of the water and it's as dangerous and deadly as space. For example if you were to go up, say 3000 feet in the atmosphere with nothing but a good coat, you'd be fine. Do that in the ocean and you would be crushed like a tin can by the pressure. Edited May 27, 2013 by Ric 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confidemus Posted May 27, 2013 Author Share Posted May 27, 2013 Have you studied this stuff Confidemus? Or are you just interested in the universe. Either way excellent reading mate! Nothing more than books, tv programmes and the like, which i've hungrily absorbed for years and years. I'm in no way qualified, which has shown on occason, but it's fascinated me for years. The enormity and power of it leave me in awe. Cheers for the nice words, mate.. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthAyrshireKillie Posted May 27, 2013 Share Posted May 27, 2013 The enormity and power of it leave me in awe. That's what she said 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Addie Posted May 27, 2013 Share Posted May 27, 2013 Of course, Addie, I have no problem with discussing it. In a like for like environment, and setting aside the problem of the missing magnetosphere, the pressure from the water and it's corrosive nature causes considerably more problems than the sterile low pressure environment of the moon. In terms of 02 generation this could be handled several ways. There is water on the moon for example, considerably more than you would expect. Not only that, self contained units that generate electricity via solar power (something water dwelling doesn't offer, or offers at a much lower rate) can recycle a huge amount of what we expel. How do you think that Russian cosmonauts have managed to survive living in the Mir for over a year? The problem is, as you would expect, the difficulty of getting the equipment up there, assembling it, and to a lesser extent resupply. It all depends on the depth of the water we are talking about, but even then just a few 100 meters below the surface of the water and it's as dangerous and deadly as space. For example if you were to go up, say 3000 feet in the atmosphere with nothing but a good coat, you'd be fine. Do that in the ocean and you would be crushed like a tin can by the pressure. I can see your point there actually. I am an ex submariner so a life under the waves is something I can image more sustainable as long as the depth is at a reasonable level of say half a Km. However to truly explore the dephs of the sea and live there I guess it would only be worthwhile to do so at larger depths so can accept that the Moon may be a better option as long as the solar blasts can be dealt with. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthAyrshireKillie Posted May 27, 2013 Share Posted May 27, 2013 Nothing more than books, tv programmes and the like, which i've hungrily absorbed for years and years. I'm in no way qualified, which has shown on occason, but it's fascinated me for years. The enormity and power of it leave me in awe. Cheers for the nice words, mate.. Yeah I know what you mean. I always laugh when religious people say the idea of a universe without a god as "boring". The universe is amazing and mysterious enough without needing an all powerful deity 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confidemus Posted May 27, 2013 Author Share Posted May 27, 2013 I can see your point there actually. I am an ex submariner so a life under the waves is something I can image more sustainable as long as the depth is at a reasonable level of say half a Km. However to truly explore the dephs of the sea and live there I guess it would only be worthwhile to do so at larger depths so can accept that the Moon may be a better option as long as the solar blasts can be dealt with. It says something that more people have been on the moon than at the deepest points of our oceans. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ric Posted May 27, 2013 Share Posted May 27, 2013 I am an ex submariner so a life under the waves is something I can image more sustainable as long as the depth is at a reasonable level of say half a Km. However to truly explore the dephs of the sea and live there I guess it would only be worthwhile to do so at larger depths so can accept that the Moon may be a better option as long as the solar blasts can be dealt with. I am sure you know the quote that we know more about the moon and it's surface than we do for a large percent of the Earth's oceans. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confidemus Posted May 27, 2013 Author Share Posted May 27, 2013 Yeah I know what you mean. I always laugh when religious people say the idea of a universe without a god as "boring". The universe is amazing and mysterious enough without needing an all powerful deity For me,the idea of a universe with a god is boring. I'd like to see the almighty explain quantum physics and Quark stars... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Addie Posted May 27, 2013 Share Posted May 27, 2013 I am sure you know the quote that we know more about the moon and it's surface than we do for a large percent of the Earth's oceans. Absolutely. We are still discovering more species under the sea even today. However I guess that deserves a separate thread as it's off topic. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthAyrshireKillie Posted May 27, 2013 Share Posted May 27, 2013 For me,the idea of a universe with a god is boring. I'd like to see the almighty explain quantum physics and Quark stars... THE DEVIL!!....Would be the answer I imagine 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quentin Taranbino Posted May 27, 2013 Share Posted May 27, 2013 Thanks lads, I like those answers. Next question - also moon related. What would the effect be on earth if the moon was to be blown up by nukes? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.