SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 16 submissions in the queue.
SoylentNews
First green leaf on moon dies as temperatures plummet
The appearance of a single green leaf hinted at a future in which astronauts would grow their own food in space, potentially setting up residence at outposts on the moon or other planets. Now, barely after it had sprouted, the cotton plant onboard China’s lunar rover has died.
The plant relied on sunlight at the moon’s surface, but as night arrived at the lunar far side and temperatures plunged as low as -170C, its short life came to an end.
Prof Xie Gengxin of Chongqing University, who led the design of the experiment, said its short lifespan had been anticipated. “Life in the canister would not survive the lunar night,” Xie said.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
First Green Leaf on Moon Dies as Temperatures Plummet
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 86 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Q: Do you know what the death rate around here is?
A: One per person.
(Score: 0, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 18 2019, @01:52PM (6 children)
since when is logic or reason involved here?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 18 2019, @06:08PM (2 children)
Since it is a goddamned experiment! They expected it to die in the night, either the sprouting was the ultimate goal or they also wanted to gather some data on the death of the plant at night.
To imagine that a large team just forgot about the freezing night temperatures on the moon is more stupid than the "mistake" you assume they made.
(Score: 2) by AssCork on Friday January 18 2019, @06:27PM (1 child)
A team of student interns led by "Do what I say or it's curtains for you" PhD types have been known to make mistakes in the past.
Just popped-out of a tight spot. Came out mostly clean, too.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 18 2019, @11:46PM
Not saying it isn't possible, but Occam's Razor points to this being a part of the experiment. Just because something is technically possible doesn't make it likely.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday January 18 2019, @06:31PM (2 children)
Light affects germination. Light on an atmosphereless moon is different than light on the earth.
Does logic and reason lead you to any conclusions about the purpose of this experiment?
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Friday January 18 2019, @07:11PM (1 child)
We know quite well how to create that sort of light here on Earth, in order to see how plants react on it. Indeed, as Planck spectrum, it is one of the easiest spectra to replicate.
When doing an experiment, you want to change as few parameters as possible. On the moon, you have the unique opportunity to check the parameter setting "strength of gravity = g/6" on your plant growth. You wouldn't want that result spoiled by an additional spectrum of light parameter change.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 19 2019, @05:42PM
That is a common misconception and almost always a waste of limited resources but for the most trivial experiments. Experiment optimization is a much more elaborated process than to brute force your way in.
What you really want is to map the space of the experiment parameters to the results and then find the optimum with the less possible number of test and for that usually you need to change all parameters at once.
There is lot of technical literature for the math inclined about experiment optimization, and even an good introductory MOOC Experimentation for Improvement [coursera.org].