this post was submitted on 14 Jun 2024
325 points (97.7% liked)

Space

8034 readers
371 users here now

Share & discuss informative content on: Astrophysics, Cosmology, Space Exploration, Planetary Science and Astrobiology.


Rules

  1. Be respectful and inclusive.
  2. No harassment, hate speech, or trolling.
  3. Engage in constructive discussions.
  4. Share relevant content.
  5. Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.
  6. Use appropriate language and tone.
  7. Report violations.
  8. Foster a continuous learning environment.

Picture of the Day

The Busy Center of the Lagoon Nebula


Related Communities

πŸ”­ Science

πŸš€ Engineering

🌌 Art and Photography


Other Cool Links

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 60 points 2 weeks ago (6 children)

Spending any resources trying to colonize another fucking planet, while we continue to render ours uninhabitable is so fucking stupid. How about we re-learn how to live in balance with natural systems here, and then try and terraform another planet from scratch?

[–] [email protected] 40 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

To me, colonizing another planet is not about expanding or moving the human race somewhere else. It's a backup plan. Right now, our entire species exists all on this one planet. There is a non-zero chance that we could all be eradicated in an instant by a sufficiently large asteroid or comet, or by nuclear war. There is no backup for the human race or any other species on earth. Once we have a colony, we greatly increase our likelihood of surviving the end of the world. I think that's worth investing in, and we should bring as many species with us as possible. For all we know our planet may be the only oasis of life in the galaxy or even the universe. Didn't you think we should have a backup?

[–] PetteriSkaffari 17 points 2 weeks ago

You left out eradication from climate change or biodiversity loss. Not instant, but an even less zero chance. Quite likely, in fact.

[–] elephantium 10 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Do we actually know how to build a self-sustaining colony? Last I heard, we still had fundamental science and engineering questions to be solved even if we suddenly had an unlimited budget.

Things that come to mind include building a sustainable closed ecosystem, figuring out a long-term power source (is there uranium on Mars? Nuclear reactors run for a long time, but we can't rely on fresh fuel rods being shipped from Earth), and planning for enough industrial base that things like mining the necessary uranium, digging tunnels, housing construction, etc aren't colony-ending problems.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 weeks ago

Yes, all of those challenges are excellent reasons to be pursuing colonization.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 19 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

The same argument existed since the beginning of space exploration, if we, as a species would have heard those arguments, we wouldn't have satellite today, and all the other advances space exploration brought.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)

I once met someone who said that it's a pipe dream to think we could have equality between races before we had equality within the same race, and that we should make sure that there aren't any poor white people before we start worrying about PoC.

These two projects build on each other. Furthermore, each has a minimum time that no amount of researchers working together can push us below. To say we shouldn't do one because we haven't done another only serves to reveal your ignorance.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Trying to raise a child before retiring is stupid for the same reason. Yet here we are not waiting to organize our lives into serial convenience.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 weeks ago

That is not comparable. It's more like shopping for a new car while the one you're in is veering towards the cliff edge.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] aeronmelon 50 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

"Travel to Mars*!"

*Some shrinkage may occur.

[–] disguy_ovahea 9 points 2 weeks ago

Like a frightened turtle.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 47 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (3 children)

In the 1990s solar flares were a known problem we've yet to solve. Without the earth's magnetic field or eleven feet of concrete, a CME bakes astronauts crispy golden brown.

With the moon shots, we just timed them with solar minimum and hoped to get lucky. But instead of a couple of weeks, a mars shot is nine months in space. So we're going to need some new materials with which to make our crew compartments CME proof.

And this is one of hundreds of problems we need to fix before we can send people to mars. It's going to be a while.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] LemmyKnowsBest 5 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

He has such rosy cheeks and healthy radiant complexion

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 weeks ago

How about eleven feet of concrete?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Fungah 30 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

Can we not do the whole the rotat8ng ring artificial gravity yet?

Like. Why are we not doing this? Can we not do this?

[–] [email protected] 79 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (12 children)

If you haven't noticed, the space stations we do build require international cooperation and are basically just a bunch of rocket sections stuck together. The ISS, in all of its glory, took years to assemble and has some serious design constraints.

A project of that magnitude would require lots of highly specialized parts to be launched into orbit first, or, we somehow manage to build an entire fabrication facility in orbit where it can process raw materials.

The concept of a rotating ring is simple. Developing the means to build it is hyper-complex.

[–] grue 18 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

You don't have to build a whole ring. You just need a boom and a counterweight.

I guess the hard part would be that a truncated-circle-sector-shaped room is more awkward to launch than a rocket-section-shaped one of equivalent usable space. (Also, you need a tube and a ladder down to a docking port at the center of mass, because spaceships can't line up with a target swinging through an arc.)

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Anticorp 7 points 2 weeks ago

We definitely have the resources and aptitude to accomplish all of that. It's just that our leaders would rather spend it fighting each other instead.

[–] MotoAsh 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Not THAT complex. They already have several prototypes they're planning on testing. They won't be giant rotating stations, but rooms of a few meters across. It doesn't take much rotation to get useful amounts of g's.

[–] Red_October 21 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Not THAT complex.

How hard could it be? It's not like it's rocket science or anything.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] AFKBRBChocolate 23 points 2 weeks ago (7 children)

β€œYou can’t protect them from galactic radiation using shielding, but as we learn more about renal biology it may be possible to develop technological or pharmaceutical measures to facilitate extended space travel.”

I wonder why

[–] [email protected] 23 points 2 weeks ago (11 children)

If you're asking about the shielding, probably the mass required for materials that are generally used for radiation shielding. If the craft is built terrestrially, the amount of energy necessary to launch would be insurmountable with current chemical rockets.

Now, if the craft were manufactured in space (and forming of the shielding materials were practical in low-G), the problematic materials could be shuttled up over time, making it a non-issue. This would, of course, also mean that the craft could not be used for re-entry and would require landing craft. And there's all the logistics challenges (supplying air, etc). Probably though the direction that will be necessary for long-distance space craft.

[–] AFKBRBChocolate 10 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)

That's seems a lot different from "can't be."

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] SkybreakerEngineer 7 points 2 weeks ago

Also means that you have to haul all that shielding to Mars and back, so some combination of bigger engines, more propellant, or just go slower

[–] AA5B 6 points 2 weeks ago

That’s the benefit of setting up a permanent orbit for transit. You could make a much bigger ship with more shielding and more comfort for a long haul, but only need to get it up to speed once. Then you just need smaller shuttles with good acceleration on both sides

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 19 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

I though Mars missions were supposed to be one-way, kinda.

Like the trip is so long, you can't come back immefiately, but have to at least camp on Mars or maybe even stay forever.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 2 weeks ago

With the current technology that we have, it would be that way where you get there but it will be difficult to impossible to get back, relatively speaking. But we’ve been at work to try to not make that a reality for those visiting the planet.

This is one of the reasons why the rockets from SpaceX are so valuable in that they can land the same way they take off. Because with other rockets, we’d need a situation like we had on the moon during the Apollo years where a ship orbits the planet and waits for a separate landing ship to come back which is a waste of fuel and cuts down on the potential time that can be spent on the planet as well as resources that would be consumed and need to replenished and also waste of humans waiting in orbit instead of being part of the ground crew.

While that technology is now here, there is still much testing that still needs to be done to ensure safety is there.

What you may also be thinking of is the time in which it takes for a ship to travel between the earth and mars. At its shortest, the trip could be as little as 6 months, but is more as both planets orbit the sun further away from each other, so we are trying to find a time that works with that orbiting schedule as well so it doesn’t have to be a one way trip and they can get there and come back in a reasonable amount of time while having enough resources to last the journey.

[–] Fedizen 17 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (3 children)

Why not send a bunch of pigs to the moon and see if they adapt to microgravity after a few generations then see if any adaptations are usable.

[–] Rakonat 62 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

I don't know that Law Enforcement possess the skill and know how to establish a settlement on their own but I like your thinking, friend!

[–] Fedizen 9 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

lmao could also make a great reality tv show: "Moon Pigs"

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 weeks ago

How did you not see Pigs in Spaaaaaaaace?

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] jpreston2005 16 points 2 weeks ago

Another article that can't even bother linking to the actual research

Astronauts have an unusually high rate of kidney stone formation, with 1-year post-flight astronauts experiencing incidence rates of 2–7 times that of pre-flight estimates, and in-flight risk estimated to be double that again5. This is of mission critical significance, one Soviet in-flight renal stone episode nearly caused a mission termination due to the severe symptoms, but was relieved by spontaneous stone passage by the cosmonaut just before an urgent deorbit was initiated

It has been demonstrated that spaceflight associated changes in urinary biochemistry favour kidney stone formation

the kidney is an exquisitely radiation sensitive organ; it is the dose limiting organ in abdominal radiotherapy

Our data robustly and orthogonally supports tubular remodelling occurring in microgravity with and without GCR (Galactic Cosmic Radiation). This is highly likely to have functional consequences, as tubular remodelling does in other scenarios39.

Renal remodelling in microgravity (possibly related to the cephalad fluid shift) may therefore be a primary event that causes subsequent dysregulation of serum and urine electrolyte homeostasis. This is supported by the prompt return to baseline of humans on return to terrestrial gravity.

Sounds like GCR is a big concern to Renal functionality due to it's sensitivity to radiation, but they don't think it's the main driver of astronauts subsequent renal dysfunction. Interesting stuff.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

So what you really mean is β€œhuman exploration of space generally speaking in doubt”

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

If the issue is gravity, we could go to Venus and spin space craft to get centrifugal force.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Shardikprime 14 points 2 weeks ago
[–] masquenox 13 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Gee... it's almost like all the overmoneyed people who tried convincing us that "colonizing" space was (somehow) a "logical" thing for humanity to do is far, far too privileged and spoilt to realize just how ridiculously fragile humans are outside of the ecosphere we spent millions of years evolving to survive in.

But hey - I still say we should fire a few billionaires off in a spacecan on a one-way trip to Mars just to be sure...

[–] ulkesh 7 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Make sure to first redistribute their money to people who actually deserve it.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] unreachable 8 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

how about the "non kidney" part, especially on male?

[–] WhatAmLemmy 23 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

There are dozens of astronauts who've spent years in the space station. Granted that's across multiple missions, but the gravity on Mars might end up being enough to mitigate the damage.

I'm more concerned with the "artist's impression of a Mars colony" being a few low res shapes placed on top of what is very obviously a close up of a few square feet of Martian surface. Have they already outsourced chat GPT's image gen to even cheaper models?

[–] [email protected] 20 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

What is this? A colony for ants!

[–] angrystego 11 points 2 weeks ago

It must be the shrinkage.

[–] NocturnalMorning 11 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Did you read the article? The research states that based on their findings the astronauts would need dialysis on the way back. How would mars gravity help with that if the damage is already done to the kidney when you get there?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Etterra 7 points 2 weeks ago

Wait a minute, that's one of the worst kinds of shrinkage!

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next β€Ί