Official space thread vol.....Astronaut status

Wait, wait, wait....Pull up.


This hasn't been posted?


Okay...This thread isn't the official space thread unless Sagan Da Gawd blesses it.





Great mind taken far, far too soon from us.
 
y'all realize that any species advanced enough to interpret and respond to our response in an intelligible manner in our span of existence would likely be A) advanced beyond our feeble comprehension, B) intent on war, conquest or dinner, or C) simply annoyed with the crazy space monkeys blasting foreign gibberish and throwing trash in their direction, right?

exploration excites me too, but we haven't even adapted to each other yet so we have a lot of internal advancement to do before we dare contact an alien species.
 
y'all realize that any species advanced enough to interpret and respond to our response in an intelligible manner in our span of existence would likely be A) advanced beyond our feeble comprehension, B) intent on war, conquest or dinner, or C) simply annoyed with the crazy space monkeys blasting foreign gibberish and throwing trash in their direction, right?


exploration excites me too, but we haven't even adapted to each other yet so we have a lot of internal advancement to do before we dare contact an alien species.

Dat there SN to post ratio.
 
SEPTEMBER 12, 2016

Chemical study confirms theory of Moon formation

by Brett Smith

In a new study published in the journal Nature, researchers have used state-of-the-art techniques to support the theory that the moon was formed by violent, high-energy impact rather than a mild, low-energy impact.

In the 1970s, two sets of astrophysicists independently came to the conclusion that the Moon was created by a glancing collision between a Mars-sized object and the still-forming Earth. The massive impact theory explained many things, like the large size of the Moon in relation to the Earth and the rotation rates of the Earth and Moon, and it gradually became the primary theory for the Moon's formation.

In 2001, however, researchers reported the isotopic makeup of various elements in terrestrial and lunar rocks are almost identical. Studies of samples acquired by the Apollo missions in the 1970s indicated Moon rocks have the same amounts of the three stable isotopes of oxygen as Earth rocks.
With the odds that an impactor would have the same isotopic signature as the Earth being quite small, this finding is a major stumbling block for the glancing, low-energy impact theory. One prevalent high-energy impact model describes how the impact was so violent, the impactor and Earth's mantle vaporized and blended to form a thick melt/vapor mantle atmosphere that grew to more than 500 times bigger modern-day Earth. The Moon formed as this cloud of material cooled.

Earth and lunar landscape
This study shows that the Moon has a violent origin (Credit:

Studying Moon Rocks

In the study, researchers evaluated seven lunar specimens from several missions and examined their potassium isotope ratios. They learned that the lunar rocks were enriched by around .4 parts per thousand in the heavier isotope of potassium, potassium-41.

The only high-temperature process that could split the potassium isotopes in this way, according to the study team, is unfinished condensation of the potassium from the vapor phase during the Moon's formation. As opposed to the lighter isotope, the heavier isotope would preferentially drop out of the vapor and condense.

Research has shown, however, that if this sequence occurred in an absolute vacuum, it would lead to an enrichment of heavy potassium isotopes in lunar specimens of approximately 100 parts per thousand, much greater than the value the team discovered. High atmospheric pressure would subdue fractionation, and for this reason, the study team said, the Moon likely condensed in a pressure of greater than 10 bar, or about 10 times the atmospheric pressure at sea level on Earth.

Hence, the team’s finding the lunar rocks are filled with the heavier potassium isotope props up a violent, high-energy mantle atmosphere simulation, with lunar rocks containing more of the heavier isotope than terrestrial rocks.


image: https://1worldonline.com/1ws/rest/w...ws/space/1113415785/moon-origin-study-091216/
 
From Mars

2165013
 
SEPTEMBER 12, 2016

Chemical study confirms theory of Moon formation

by Brett Smith

In a new study published in the journal Nature, researchers have used state-of-the-art techniques to support the theory that the moon was formed by violent, high-energy impact rather than a mild, low-energy impact.

In the 1970s, two sets of astrophysicists independently came to the conclusion that the Moon was created by a glancing collision between a Mars-sized object and the still-forming Earth. The massive impact theory explained many things, like the large size of the Moon in relation to the Earth and the rotation rates of the Earth and Moon, and it gradually became the primary theory for the Moon's formation.

In 2001, however, researchers reported the isotopic makeup of various elements in terrestrial and lunar rocks are almost identical. Studies of samples acquired by the Apollo missions in the 1970s indicated Moon rocks have the same amounts of the three stable isotopes of oxygen as Earth rocks.
With the odds that an impactor would have the same isotopic signature as the Earth being quite small, this finding is a major stumbling block for the glancing, low-energy impact theory. One prevalent high-energy impact model describes how the impact was so violent, the impactor and Earth's mantle vaporized and blended to form a thick melt/vapor mantle atmosphere that grew to more than 500 times bigger modern-day Earth. The Moon formed as this cloud of material cooled.

Earth and lunar landscape
This study shows that the Moon has a violent origin (Credit:

Studying Moon Rocks

In the study, researchers evaluated seven lunar specimens from several missions and examined their potassium isotope ratios. They learned that the lunar rocks were enriched by around .4 parts per thousand in the heavier isotope of potassium, potassium-41.

The only high-temperature process that could split the potassium isotopes in this way, according to the study team, is unfinished condensation of the potassium from the vapor phase during the Moon's formation. As opposed to the lighter isotope, the heavier isotope would preferentially drop out of the vapor and condense.

Research has shown, however, that if this sequence occurred in an absolute vacuum, it would lead to an enrichment of heavy potassium isotopes in lunar specimens of approximately 100 parts per thousand, much greater than the value the team discovered. High atmospheric pressure would subdue fractionation, and for this reason, the study team said, the Moon likely condensed in a pressure of greater than 10 bar, or about 10 times the atmospheric pressure at sea level on Earth.

Hence, the team’s finding the lunar rocks are filled with the heavier potassium isotope props up a violent, high-energy mantle atmosphere simulation, with lunar rocks containing more of the heavier isotope than terrestrial rocks.


image: https://1worldonline.com/1ws/rest/w...ws/space/1113415785/moon-origin-study-091216/
when you consider how big a factor  the Moon is for life on Earth as we know it, it really blows the mind to think about just how unlikely our set of planetary circumstances are.

naturally, with an effectively infinite number of planets orbiting almost as many stars in countless galaxies, there are bound to be quite a few out there, but assuming life can only exist in these or similar conditions, I feel like Earth-type planets are pretty damn rare--if I had to guess, maybe only in the thousands--and it really makes you think about the concept of existence.

just wanted to give Luna her well deserved kudos.

 
 
^then how many of those thousands:

-got hit by a large comet/asteroid
-went the Venus route and were slightly too close to their star and never cooled off
-were slightly too far and went into a permanent ice age
-in their moon formation, got their rotational axis knocked over too far and ended up with extreme seasons, or didn't get knocked over at all and have no seasons

I think the idea of other earth-like planets out there is more human imagination than anything, don't forget they thought Venus was a tropical Amazon before they went there :lol:
 
Last edited:
for sure man, there are so many unlikely circumstances that led to the development of life as we know it that Earth-type planets have to be rare as all hell.

still, simple mathematics mean the probability of us being totally alone in the Milky Way, let alone the universe, are dubious at best...quick lap around Google tells me there are 100 thousand million stars in our own galaxy (with who knows how many planets around each) and then hundreds of billions of galaxies just like it...usually bigger.

when you think about it, a couple thousand out of...um...that many really ain't a whole lot. even if there was only one Earth every billion galaxies or so, there are still a few hundred.

I think more than anything it highlights the sheer unfathomable expanse of the cosmos...we live on a small wet rock orbiting a dim star in the backwoods of a relatively unremarkable galaxy. crazy.

love this ****, man. 
pimp.gif
 
 
Last edited:
Dudes i love this thread. That thought of the universe and space is crazy. I knew i should of been a astrophysics :smh:
 
still, simple mathematics mean the probability of us being totally alone in the Milky Way, let alone the universe, are dubious at best...quick lap around Google tells me there are 100 thousand million stars in our own galaxy (with who knows how many planets around each) and then hundreds of billions of galaxies just like it...usually bigger.

That's a trick on your brain, b. You know humans typically don't do well with really large/small numbers... enter... irrationality.

You have to remember, not all stars are capable of sustaining an earth-like planet.

- all of the stars densely packed at the center of a galaxy are too close to super-massive black holes that are at the center of most galaxies, their high speed, eccentric orbits and other related activities rule them out.

- stars that are more massive the sun are brighter and hotter, and usually live wild but short lives, not nearly long enough for life to develop.

Also, you have to remember, most stars come in pairs, which makes the consistent day/night cycle we have impossible.



Whenever you hear that they've found another earth-like planet, you should take it with a grain of salt. They cant take a picture, they can only detect it's presence, estimate its size (gas giant or terrestrial), and get a glimpse at its composition. They cannot tell if an exoplanet has a magnetic field, without it, life as we know it is impossible. Venus and the Earth have about the same mass, the Earth has a strong magnetic field, Venus doesn't have one at all, yet Mercury has one, so mass does not guarantee a magnetic field.

It's clear that all of these planetary scientists/astronomers/astrophysicists are driven by their desire to find life outside of Earth, that's why we go to Mars so often when Venus is closer. Thats why there are projects in development to go to Europa and Enceladus before going back to Uranus and Neptune. There's no hope for life near those planets, so they say they are too far and out of reach... ...yet they sent the New Horizons probe to Pluto... :rolleyes
 
Last edited:
That's a trick on your brain, b. You know humans typically don't do well with really large/small numbers... enter... irrationality.

You have to remember, not all stars are capable of sustaining an earth-like planet.

- all of the stars densely packed at the center of a galaxy are too close to super-massive black holes that are at the center of most galaxies, their high speed, eccentric orbits and other related activities rule them out.

- stars that are more massive the sun are brighter and hotter, and usually live wild but short lives, not nearly long enough for life to develop.

Also, you have to remember, most stars come in pairs, which makes the consistent day/night cycle we have impossible.



Whenever you hear that they've found another earth-like planet, you should take it with a grain of salt. They cant take a picture, they can only detect it's presence, estimate its size (gas giant or terrestrial), and get a glimpse at its composition. They cannot tell if an exoplanet has a magnetic field, without it, life as we know it is impossible. Venus and the Earth have about the same mass, the Earth has a strong magnetic field, Venus doesn't have one at all, yet Mercury has one, so mass does not guarantee a magnetic field.

It's clear that all of these planetary scientists/astronomers/astrophysicists are driven by their desire to find life outside of Earth, that's why we go to Mars so often when Venus is closer. That why there are projects in development to go to Europa and Enceladus before going back to Uranus and Neptune. There's no hope for life near those planets, so they say they are too far and out of reach... ...yet they sent the New Horizons probe to Pluto... :rolleyes

Yo you just blew my mind bro. Great knowledge dropped. Repped
 
That's a trick on your brain, b. You know humans typically don't do well with really large/small numbers... enter... irrationality.

You have to remember, not all stars are capable of sustaining an earth-like planet.

- all of the stars densely packed at the center of a galaxy are too close to super-massive black holes that are at the center of most galaxies, their high speed, eccentric orbits and other related activities rule them out.

- stars that are more massive the sun are brighter and hotter, and usually live wild but short lives, not nearly long enough for life to develop.

Also, you have to remember, most stars come in pairs, which makes the consistent day/night cycle we have impossible.



Whenever you hear that they've found another earth-like planet, you should take it with a grain of salt. They cant take a picture, they can only detect it's presence, estimate its size (gas giant or terrestrial), and get a glimpse at its composition. They cannot tell if an exoplanet has a magnetic field, without it, life as we know it is impossible. Venus and the Earth have about the same mass, the Earth has a strong magnetic field, Venus doesn't have one at all, yet Mercury has one, so mass does not guarantee a magnetic field.

It's clear that all of these planetary scientists/astronomers/astrophysicists are driven by their desire to find life outside of Earth, that's why we go to Mars so often when Venus is closer. Thats why there are projects in development to go to Europa and Enceladus before going back to Uranus and Neptune. There's no hope for life near those planets, so they say they are too far and out of reach... ...yet they sent the New Horizons probe to Pluto...
eyes.gif
eh, idk man...there's so much we've yet to even document, let alone explore, that to rule the possibility out just seems arrogant.

yes, the vast majority of space is inhospitable to life and it's absolutely true that scientists currently believe 90 percent of galaxies don't support life as we know it but that still leaves...what, tens of millions of potential candidates? 

I mean, the OBSERVABLE universe is 14 billion lightyears across and scientists believe most of space lies beyond it. you're telling me the Earth is a one-in-countable-infinity shot? there's no other benevolent yellow dwarf star in all the cosmos? no other scenario where events unfolded in a similar fashion somewhere else?

will we ever make contact with outside life? maybe not with our current technology, given that out next door neighbor Andromeda is something like 2 million light years away...I don't know anybody who has a hyperspace engine or 2 million years to spare. I just think space is too damn big for us to be alone in it.

now, will we ever make contact? the span of our civilization might be too short. but still, you have to admit the odds are against us being that special. I'd bet everything I owned on there being at least one other Earth out there somewhere.
 
eh, idk man...there's so much we've yet to even document, let alone explore, that to rule the possibility out just seems arrogant.

yes, the vast majority of space is inhospitable to life and it's absolutely true that scientists currently believe 90 percent of galaxies don't support life as we know it but that still leaves...what, tens of millions of potential candidates? 

I mean, the OBSERVABLE universe is 14 billion lightyears across and scientists believe most of space lies beyond it. you're telling me the Earth is a one-in-countable-infinity shot? there's no other benevolent yellow dwarf star in all the cosmos? no other scenario where events unfolded in a similar fashion somewhere else?

will we ever make contact with outside life? maybe not with our current technology, given that out next door neighbor Andromeda is something like 2 million light years away...I don't know anybody who has a hyperspace engine or 2 million years to spare. I just think space is too damn big for us to be alone in it.

now, will we ever make contact? the span of our civilization might be too short. but still, you have to admit the odds are against us being that special. I'd bet everything I owned on there being at least one other Earth out there somewhere.

I didn't intend to rule it out completely, I do know those numbers are staggering. My point was more so about those who speak like its a done deal and it's just a matter of time before we confirm it.

Personally, I hope there's nothing out there. I think if our society can last long enough, we will come up with a way to shorten the time it takes to travel the stars, but I don't let the curiosity of other beings outweigh my innate human selfishness, let's have the whole universe for ourselves.
 
Last edited:
I didn't intend to rule it out completely, I do know those numbers are staggering. My point was more so about those who speak like its a done deal and it's just a matter of time before we confirm it.

Personally, I hope there's nothing out there. I think if our society can last long enough, we will come up with a way to shorten the time it takes to travel the stars, but I don't let the curiosity of other beings outweigh my innate human selfishness, let's have the whole universe for ourselves.

Honestly i think if we do find life they will be so far advanced they wont even bother to acknowledge us.

Or it can be the other way around and they will be less advanced and we will inslave them :smh:
 
I didn't intend to rule it out completely, I do know those numbers are staggering. My point was more so about those who speak like its a done deal and it's just a matter of time before we confirm it.

Personally, I hope there's nothing out there. I think if our society can last long enough, we will come up with a way to shorten the time it takes to travel the stars, but I don't let the curiosity of other beings outweigh my innate human selfishness, let's have the whole universe for ourselves.
laugh.gif
 I can respect that. besides, contact with another intelligent species is not likely to go well for at least one party (probably Team Terra) so it might be best for us to be isolated.

on a semi-related note, I've always liked the theory that we may be one of the first forms of life to develop in the universe...after all, Earth civilization is only 10,000 years old with the Earth in the billions of candles, so it took a loooooooooooooooooooooooooong time to get past plankton and ****. 

I think that would be the most interesting outcome, to find out there is other life but it's a few hundred million years behind. just typing the phrase "alien dinosaurs" gets my geek a-going, but I'll definitely say that gets deep into the speculative side of things.
 

just discovered this thread and I want in. Here's a video if not posted already about the initiative to go to Mars. I fast forwarded to the part where he answers why humans should go. very dope.

Also here's the pillars of creation zoomed out

 
With all this talk about finding other life, lets not forget the following (without getting too technical):
- We actually may be one of the first "intelligent" forms of life and may die off before we ever make contact
- Cosmic Event Horizon vs Particle Horizon (there are certain galaxies we can "see" but never be able to interact with)

A few interesting videos to check out:



 
[h1]
nerd.gif
[/h1][h1]NASA to Hold Media Call on Evidence of Surprising Activity on EuropA[/h1]

http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/n...-on-evidence-of-surprising-activity-on-europa

​NASA will host a teleconference at 2 p.m. EDT Monday, Sept. 26, to present new findings from images captured by the agency’s Hubble Space Telescope of Jupiter’s icy moon, Europa.

Astronomers will present results from a unique Europa observing campaign that resulted in surprising evidence of activity that may be related to the presence of a subsurface ocean on Europa.

Participants in the teleconference will be:
  • Paul Hertz, director of the Astrophysics Division at NASA Headquarters in Washington
  • William Sparks, astronomer with the Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore
  • Britney Schmidt, assistant professor at the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta
  • Jennifer Wiseman, senior Hubble project scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland                                                                  
  •  
 
Was there an update on the report of a radio frequency being caught from another planet or galaxy close by? 

I remember reading about that a couple weeks ago
 
Off World[h1]It’s Official: We’re Going to Mars[/h1]  NASA/JPL-Caltech

[h5]IN BRIEF[/h5]A bipartisan bill was passed by the U.S. Senate committee that oversees NASA space projects. The bill would allocate $19.5 billion in funds to NASA in 2017, but it has a critical mission for the space agency: send men to Mars.

[h2]FUNDS ARE ON THE WAY[/h2]
It looks like Republican and Democratic senators alike are keen on safeguarding America’s space programs. With the potential chaos of a new president on the horizon, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation passed a bipartisan bill giving NASA $19.5 billion to continue working on a mission to Mars. It also includes support for the continuation of the program to send astronauts on private rockets to the International Space Station (ISS) from American soil no later than 2018.

“We have seen in the past the importance of stability and predictability in NASA and space exploration – that whenever one has a change in administration, we have seen the chaos that can be caused by the cancellation of major programs,” Republican Senator Ted Cruz, lead sponsor of the bill, commented. “The impact in terms of jobs lost, the impact in terms of money wasted has been significant.”

The NASA Transition Authorization Act of 2016 includes an overall authorization level of $19.508 billion for fiscal year 2017, but it still needs to be passed by the Senate as a whole, of course. The budget allotted is the same as what was approved by House appropriators and a bit more than the version released by the Senate Appropriations Committee. The Obama administration, likewise, proposed $19 billion in funding for NASA.
journey_to_mars.jpeg

Credits: NASA
[h2]MAKING IT RAIN, NASA-STYLE[/h2]
The Senate is not giving NASA money just for the sake of exploration. It is also a challenge, a mandate, actually. The bill requires that NASA make it an official goal to send crewed missions to Mars in the next 25 years.

The bill allocates funds for different components: $4.5 billion on exploration, nearly $5 billion for space operations, and $5.4 billion for science. It also does not scrap NASA’s controversial plans to send men on asteroids  and collect samples by 2021. It does, however, require the space agency to regularly send progress reports to Congress, justifying its $1.4 billion cost. 

“Fifty-five years after President Kennedy challenged the nation to put a man on the moon, the Senate is challenging NASA to put humans on Mars. The priorities that we’ve laid out for NASA in this bill mark the beginning of a new era of American spaceflight,” said an optimistic Florida Sen. Bill Nelson, senior Democrat on the Commerce panel. 

The bipartisan support behind the new bill shows that space exploration is an issue that all parties can agree is vital to our growth as a nation and a species. Now we just have to wait to see if it passes the Senate.

http://futurism.com/its-official-were-going-to-mars/
 
Back
Top Bottom