SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the at-least-the-ice-cream-won't-melt dept.
As you probably know, NASA recently announced plans to send a mission to Jupiter's moon Europa. If all goes well, the Europa Clipper will blast off for the world in the 2020s, and orbit the icy moon to discover all its secrets.
And that's great and all, I like Europa just fine. But you know where I'd really like us to go next? Titan.
Titan, as you probably know, is the largest moon orbiting Saturn. In fact, it's the second largest moon in the solar system after Jupiter's Ganymede. It measures 5,190 kilometers across, almost half the diameter of the Earth. This place is big.
It orbits Saturn every 15 hours and 22 days, and like many large moons in the solar system, it's tidally locked to its planet, always showing Saturn one side.
Before NASA's Voyager spacecraft arrived in 1980, astronomers actually thought that Titan was the biggest moon in the solar system. But Voyager showed that it actually has a thick atmosphere, that extends well into space, making the true size of the moon hard to judge.
This atmosphere is one of the most interesting features of Titan. In fact, it's the only moon in the entire solar system with a significant atmosphere. If you could stand on the surface, you would experience about 1.45 times the atmospheric pressure on Earth. In other words, you wouldn't need a pressure suit to wander around the surface of Titan.
That's great news. No pressure suit needed to walk on the surface of Titan, only a rebreather and a wool sweater.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Tuesday March 28 2017, @05:21PM (3 children)
Yes, I like! Plans to send an orbiter to Uranus. James Webb going up at last.
There's even talk outside NASA of how Alpha Centauri could be visited. Make probes extremely small, like about the size of a grain of rice, and propel many of them to 0.25c with Earth based lasers, hoping a few survive the trip and are able to send reports back.
As for colonizing Mars, well, it's one of those ideas that many seem to be wishfully thinking is more possible and practical than is probably the case. There's too much romance around the idea. Probing Alpha Centauri might prove easier than colonizing Mars.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by takyon on Tuesday March 28 2017, @06:12PM (2 children)
Breakthrough Starshot [wikipedia.org] requires technology that doesn't exist yet. The StarChips need to be hit from a significant distance by GW-class laser energy, and the lightsail needs to resist being vaporized by the lasers. I imagine receiving transmissions from the craft will be difficult as well.
We need to think of Mars colonization as an experiment in sustainable habitation. Can we live on any rock without need for resupply? We can grow a few plants, 3D print a few tools, or drink our own recycled urine on the ISS, but the station needs to be periodically boosted and there's no real manufacturing capability. There never will be unless we start bringing asteroids to space stations. On Mars, you are on the ground. Sure, the atmosphere is complete crap, but there is abundant water, minerals, etc. A habitat could be built and expanded without resupply. If you can double the size of a colony without spending an Earth dime, you should be able to do the same on Ceres, Europa, Rhea, the Moon, wherever.
JWST could be the most important instrument of astronomy this side of the century, with the capability to observe Planet Nine and maybe find life on exoplanets.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Tuesday March 28 2017, @07:54PM (1 child)
Think of Mars colonization this way. It's a heck of a lot easier to colonize Antarctica. Antarctica's advantages are: breathable atmosphere, much closer to civilization, instant communication, various travel options with the rest of Earth that are far, far cheaper, more sunlight, and plenty of fresh water. But we haven't done it. Why? Not worth the trouble?
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday March 28 2017, @09:15PM
Yes, I've heard the Antarctica argument. I don't like it. Here's why:
http://www.coolantarctica.com/Antarctica%20fact%20file/science/can_you_live_in_antarctica.php [coolantarctica.com]
Under current plans, NASA would send maybe 5 people to Mars, temporarily. They may orbit the planet or land and spend less than a year there. While there is no permanent habitation of Antarctica, we can see that orders of magnitude more people visit or live there than we could expect to send to Mars. Even Musky's most ambitious plans yet call for about 100 settlers to be sent using the Mars Colonial Transporter (sorry, the "Interplanetary Transport System").
There is little incentive to create industry in Antarctica, such as producing plastic and steel there, because it can be done elsewhere cheaply and shipped there. With Mars, it will be cheaper to make things on Mars than to get them shipped from one gravity well to another.
The Antarctic Treaty and its Protocol on Environmental Protection is likely to prohibit industrial scale activity on Antarctica. Unless you have advanced technology that doesn't exist yet, like a replicator, you're not going to be able to produce materials on site. It might be easier to find, locate, and use mineral resources on Mars than at glacial locations in Antarctica, such as the unclaimed portion.
Edit: Here's some more on that:
While there could be similar concerns over industrial activity and environmental protection on Mars, there will probably not be a total ban on mining, and certainly not an enforceable one. If people manage to create settlements on Mars that don't require resupply, they will have the power to govern themselves and live their lives even if Earth decides not to send any more stuff to keep them alive.
People can (relatively speaking) easily come and go from Antarctica, so there is little incentive to live there permanently. You don't have to essentially abandon your family and friends... you do your stint and go back. On Mars, you may be required to commit to stay there for a much longer period of time. Your craft may be one-way (Mars One proposal although Mars One was a joke), or you might experience technical problems that prevent you from safely leaving Mars and returning to Earth. So you should have a plan to live there semi-indefinitely or indefinitely. Even if Earth were willing to fund a rescue mission, it would take months (using current propulsion) to reach you (and they could face the same problems), so you need to produce some food or water (or carry a lot of supplies on the journey there, which doesn't work out given mass requirements).
Antarctica is 14,000,000 km2. Mars is 144,798,500 km2. If you want to live out your libertarian or authoritarian fantasies on Mars, you have much more surface area and volume to work with. The 14 million sq. km. figure is actually much less if you only consider the portion of land not already claimed by a nation.
There are unanswered science questions about Mars that are easily answered about Antarctica. Is there life on Antarctica? Yeah, there [wikipedia.org] is [wikipedia.org].
I'm sure someone can think of more reasons.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]