The Astronomy Thread

Abefroman · Apr 18, 2017

pharmakos said:
was hoping i wouldn't have to say much for you to realize.

there is no dark side of the moon.

I guess I should have clarified. There are craters near the poles that are always shadowed in darkness which allows the water to exsist there in greater concentrations since the sun hasn't stripped it away. This is where it makes the most sense to get it.

You are correct that there is no dark side and that the moon is just tidally locked with earth.

Oldbased · Apr 18, 2017

Bonus points if they can use the dish in a spot such as to target earth with death lasers should someone get out of line.

Abefroman · Apr 18, 2017

Olebass said:
Bonus points if they can use the dish in a spot such as to target earth with death lasers should someone get out of line.

Why bother with all of that when you can just throw rocks?

Oldbased · Apr 18, 2017

Abefroman said:
Why bother with all of that when you can just throw rocks?

Do you really feel humanity is as low as some bugs? We are better than that.

pharmakos · Apr 18, 2017

what if they're really big rocks?

Cad · Apr 18, 2017

Abefroman said:
Resource Prospector
Moon Has a Hundred Times More Water Than Thought

No clue on how much it will cost or how many materials it will take to get it going but the tech is already there. Energy wont be a problem it's getting everything there that will. It would be mined on the dark side of the moon and processed on the light side where they would be able to use solar.

I don't see this happening in our life time or ever honestly. We sure as fuck could do it if this planet would get it's shit together.

The "dark side" isn't always dark, the "dark" side just always faces away from the earth since it's tidally locked to the earth. The rotation period of the moon matches its orbit with earth so once you are in darkness on the moon you'll be in darkness for ~14 days. Then 14 days of light, etc...

Dandain · Apr 18, 2017

Also, because no atmosphere, when in the Sun on the Moon temps can reach 250F, when in the dark it can be -250F. This temperature differential is less an issue in a polar crater, its just always psycho cold measured at -400F. Also being underground can be used for this issue although I don't know how deep. I believe the most recent Chinese rover on the moon basically stopped working near instantly due to this temperature differential issue.

iannis · Apr 19, 2017

Dandain said:
Also, because no atmosphere, when in the Sun on the Moon temps can reach 250F, when in the dark it can be -250F. This temperature differential is less an issue in a polar crater, its just always psycho cold measured at -400F. Also being underground can be used for this issue although I don't know how deep. I believe the most recent Chinese rover on the moon basically stopped working near instantly due to this temperature differential issue.

That temperature diff can also be used to create electricity. Thermoelectrics. Unfortunately, the materials which have the properties you need are rare earths and I have no idea how well the system scales. But. If we reach back into the way back of good ideas that never found popular usage, you could also build a stirling engine to use that gradient. That requires a lot more mass than thermoelectric engines, but it requires no special materials. Low tech free energy. You don't even HAVE to set up a fission engine or massive solar arrays for zero cost (to you, minus investment and maintenance) electricity.

It's basically a SPAAACE waterwheel. But waterwheels still work. We just call them hydroelectric dams these days.

Ukerric · Apr 19, 2017

Abefroman said:
You are correct that there is no dark side and that the moon is just tidally locked with earth.

The only way you have a dark side of the moon is if you listen to Pink Floyd

Oldbased · Apr 20, 2017

NASA coverage of the crew launch was pretty awesome. Had about every detail of the Russian rocket/capsule you could think of and a live launch.

Sentagur · Apr 20, 2017

Tuco said:
I think if we can harvest helium-3 and water from the moon it becomes much more attractive.

But before that tech exists I don't see the value in creating and supplying a moon base. And that's something that's on the table for the next 10-20 years.

Even if fuel/energy is shipped in from earth processing asteroids on the moon and shipping back just the valuable shit would be worth it, not to mention not having to worry of someone nudging the asteroid wrong way on the way to earth and wiping out a whole hemisphere by mistake.

Tuco · Apr 20, 2017

Sentagur said:
Even if fuel/energy is shipped in from earth processing asteroids on the moon and shipping back just the valuable shit would be worth it, not to mention not having to worry of someone nudging the asteroid wrong way on the way to earth and wiping out a whole hemisphere by mistake.

What kind of impact are we looking at if a building sized asteroid in LOE gets its orbit fucked up and the orbit decays until it falls to the earth? It seems like asteroids with long orbits around the sun are traveling much faster relative to the earth than our orbitting satellites. It'd be a bad day for sure, but it wouldn't be a hemisphere ending event right?

This is the kind of argument I know so little about and have so little influence over I don't care about it, but putting an asteroid into a massive gravity well (the moon) makes zero sense to me when the cost of lifting out of that gravity well is pretty extreme right now. That in addition to any given area of the moon only having visibility to the sun 50% of the time (or whatever) means that your solar power will be cut in half compared to whatever you get if you have something in low, medium or high earth orbit (or at lagrange points).

khorum · Apr 20, 2017

The idea was to smelt the stuff into fluffy metal "wiffle balls" then steer them into the cislunar lagrange points. Dunno how they plan to do that with helium-3 though, but if we've got FUSION!!! for reals it's always been kinda silly to think we'd need to go to the moon to fuel it...like why fucking bother with fusion if we need to mine the fucking MOON for it?!?!?

Tuco · Apr 20, 2017

khorum said:
The idea was to smelt the stuff into fluffy metal "wiffle balls" then steer them into the cislunar lagrange points. Dunno how they plan to do that with helium-3 though, but if we've got FUSION!!! for reals it's always been kinda silly to think we'd need to go to the moon to fuel it...like why fucking bother with fusion if we need to mine the fucking MOON for it?!?!?

I think people go with this chain of logic:
1. We need to colonize other planets.
2. The moon is the closest large celestial body we can colonize.
3. Let's find reasons to colonize the moon.
4. ???
5. We're now an interstellar species.

It's like figuring out how to make a sustainable colony can be done by just putting some good ole' honest settlers there and letting them work it out. And if we built a colony it wouldn't just be another drain in resources before we finally cut it off and let it rot next to the lunar rover.

khorum · Apr 20, 2017

Tuco said:
I think people go with this chain of logic:
1. We need to colonize other planets.
2. The moon is the closest large celestial body we can colonize.
3. Let's find reasons to colonize the moon.
4. ???
5. We're now an interstellar species.

It's like figuring out how to make a sustainable colony can be done by just putting some good ole' honest settlers there and letting them work it out. And if we built a colony it wouldn't just be another drain in resources before we finally cut it off and let it rot next to the lunar rover.

That's why it will be a Columbian Effect to get man off the planet. The first time a PRIVATE wildcat colony works on an asteroid somewhere and they turn a PROFIT while having babies in space, it will open the floodgates and we'd be off to the races.

If it depends on state or institutional subsidy then everyone will know it's bullshit.

Tuco · Apr 20, 2017

khorum said:
That's why it will be a Columbian Effect to get man off the planet. The first time a PRIVATE wildcat colony works on an asteroid somewhere and they turn a PROFIT while having babies in space, it will open the floodgates and we'd be off to the races.

If it depends on state or institutional subsidy then everyone will know it's bullshit.

Wasn't Columbus funded by Spain?

The first profitable asteroid mining operation might be done by a private company, but I think it'll be partially funded by the State, and will certainly use tech that the State did a lot of the initial research on.

Even SpaceX, which is sort of the poster-company for private industry innovation, is heavily funded/subsidized by the US.

Sentagur · Apr 20, 2017

Tuco said:
What kind of impact are we looking at if a building sized asteroid in LOE gets its orbit fucked up and the orbit decays until it falls to the earth? It seems like asteroids with long orbits around the sun are traveling much faster relative to the earth than our orbitting satellites. It'd be a bad day for sure, but it wouldn't be a hemisphere ending event right?

This is the kind of argument I know so little about and have so little influence over I don't care about it, but putting an asteroid into a massive gravity well (the moon) makes zero sense to me when the cost of lifting out of that gravity well is pretty extreme right now. That in addition to any given area of the moon only having visibility to the sun 50% of the time (or whatever) means that your solar power will be cut in half compared to whatever you get if you have something in low, medium or high earth orbit (or at lagrange points).

How do you capture an Asteroid and bring it here for mining.

I would assume after we find a juicy one we would strap some rockets on it, calculate the trajectory and shoot it to earth.
To save on fuel cost and out of pure necesity i am pretty sure we would use earth gravity to capture and slow it down before its maneuvered into orbit or L point for harvesting.
This is the dangerous phase i am talking about what if the trajectory doesnt send it to orbit but is off and sends it into collision. If we are talking small rocks then who cares but why would we trying to grab something that small in the first place. Imagine something the size of a city block or larger filled with heavy or maybe even radioactive materials smacking at terminal velocity(best case scenario) into a populated area.

Tuco · Apr 20, 2017

Sentagur said:
How do you capture an Asteroid and bring it here for mining.

I would assume after we find a juicy one we would strap some rockets on it, calculate the trajectory and shoot it to earth.
To save on fuel cost and out of pure necesity i am pretty sure we would use earth gravity to capture and slow it down before its maneuvered into orbit or L point for harvesting.
This is the dangerous phase i am talking about what if the trajectory doesnt send it to orbit but is off and sends it into collision. If we are talking small rocks then who cares but why would we trying to grab something that small in the first place. Imagine something the size of a city block or larger filled with heavy or maybe even radioactive materials smacking at terminal velocity(best case scenario) into a populated area.

Definitely worth the risk! It seems like it didn't take much to bring you from a hemisphere ending event to a city-ending event though.

I'm not an astrophysicist but I feel like the risk of putting it at a lagrange point or in some earth intersecting orbit and putting it on the moon seems similar enough that the moon wouldn't be a good option.

Sentagur · Apr 20, 2017

Tuco said:
Definitely worth the risk! It seems like it didn't take much to bring you from a hemisphere ending event to a city-ending event though.

I'm not an astrophysicist but I feel like the risk of putting it at a lagrange point or in some earth intersecting orbit and putting it on the moon seems similar enough that the moon wouldn't be a good option.

Oh i am definitely an avid user of hyperbole, it makes every conversation more fun. It is a very interesting topic and i am sure smarter people than I already thought of most of this crap.
I do remember someone mentioning that any asteroid mining attempt will have to first jump through some international law loops that were made to prevent militarization of space. Because it would be trivial to modify a system designed to capture asteroids for near earth mining into something that lets you bombard shit on earth with huge space rocks.

khorum · Apr 20, 2017

Tuco said:
Wasn't Columbus funded by Spain?

The first profitable asteroid mining operation might be done by a private company, but I think it'll be partially funded by the State, and will certainly use tech that the State did a lot of the initial research on.

Even SpaceX, which is sort of the poster-company for private industry innovation, is heavily funded/subsidized by the US.

He was a private-public venture from all over including Portugal and Spain, but the term refers to the demonstrative effect of his journey. We already proved you can put a man on the moon and a nuclear-powered robot on Mars.

The Astronomy Thread

Naxxramas 1.0 Raider

> Than U

Naxxramas 1.0 Raider

> Than U

soʞɐɯɹɐɥd

scientia potentia est

Trakanon Raider

Musty Nester

Bearded Ape

> Than U

Low and to the left

I got Tuco'd!

Murder Apologist

I got Tuco'd!

Murder Apologist

I got Tuco'd!

Low and to the left

I got Tuco'd!

Low and to the left

Murder Apologist