What space body should be colonized first, if any

Author: Alec ,

Posts

Total: 38
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,474
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
I think the moon should be colonized first because it is closer to Earth then Mars is.
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,713
2
1
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
1
2
--> @Alec
That's a good idea. Barring other obvious challenges for resources, I think the major obstacle is the fact that the moon's surface spends either a lot of time in the cold dark out of the Sun or extreme heat when in the Sun because it takes about 28 days to rotate.
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,474
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
Your obstacle is a legitimate concern and it can be solved with solar panels and batteries which would store the energy for nighttime use.
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,053
2
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
2
3
3
--> @Alec
The moon is 250 thousand miles away - mars is on average 1000 times further away.   I can't think of anything about Mars that could compensate for the vastly greater distance.

Stronn
Stronn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 511
2
2
4
Stronn's avatar
Stronn
2
2
4
Imagine what discovery of large gold deposits on Mars would do to spur space exploration. 
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,474
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
The moon also could be mined for materials.  It's proximity to Earth would make trade easier then Mars.
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,474
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
Change the weight of these space bodies too much by transferring materials ( ie. like gold from Mars to Earth) and we could change the orbits of these bodies. In the case of Earth, that would be immediately catastrophic.
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,713
2
1
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
1
2
--> @Alec
it can be solved with solar panels and batteries which would store the energy for nighttime use.
Storing energy isn't the issue, its the going from 2 weeks of intense heat to 2 weeks of intense cold and dark. The facilities would have to take all that into consideration regarding the building materials being used that could handle these changes.

There is again the problem of constant barrage of meteorites hitting the surface as there is no atmosphere to protect anyone or the facilities.
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,713
2
1
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
1
2
--> @ethang5
Change the weight of these space bodies too much by transferring materials ( ie. like gold from Mars to Earth) and we could change the orbits of these bodies. In the case of Earth, that would be immediately catastrophic.
Hahahahahaha! Venturing out into Science is not your forte.

The orbits of the planets are  primarily dependent on the mass of the Sun, so if their mass changes, their orbits remain intact. You can see that here in Keplers laws...

Gm1m2/r2 = m2rω2

So  ω2 = Gm1/r3

where ω = 2π/T where T is the time for a complete orbit

Note that m2 (the mass of the planet) cancels out.

ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,474
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
....if mass changes, their orbits remain intact. 
Gentle readers, can any of you tell Einstein here why this is illogical?

What poor science knowledge, what militancy in that ignorance.

Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,713
2
1
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
1
2
--> @ethang5
Gentle readers, can any of you tell Einstein here why this is illogical?
Begging someone else to come and rescue you from your massive ignorance isn't going to work. I provided the formula for you, but it's all just Greek to you, isn't it. You have no idea what's going on, as usual.

What poor science knowledge, what militancy in that ignorance.
You're obviously referring to yourself because if not, then you would have to be referring to Kepler. That's his work, not mine.
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,474
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
--> @Goldtop
This is delicious, so I'll wait to see if anyone can point out to you why you're wrong. It will also give more time to be ignorant and militant and say things I can embarrass you with later.

Here is a hint. Orbiting bodies are actually falling, and we know that falling bodies all fall at the same rate regardless of mass. But an orbit is a balance achieved between gravity and centrifugal force.

Change the the mass (or speed) of the orbiting body and the balance is broken. Where you got confused was thinking that since more mass would not increase their speed, the orbit would remain intact.

Net mining is not a substitution for an education.
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,713
2
1
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
1
2
This is delicious, so I'll wait to see if anyone can point out to you why you're wrong.
Of course, that's what you always do, but it never happens. You can't show me I'm wrong because you're incapable of doing so because you haven't the foggiest clue what you're talking about.

Where you got confused was thinking that since more mass would not increase their speed, the orbit would remain intact.
You mean, where Kepler was confused and Ethan is going to come along and educate us? LOL. What a buffoon. No clue whatsoever.
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,474
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
"Storing energy isn't the issue, its the going from 2 weeks of intense heat to 2 weeks of intense cold and dark. The facilities would have to take all that into consideration regarding the building materials being used that could handle these changes."

I think they can.  A similar issue would be present for Mars.  Martian nights are cold.

"There is again the problem of constant barrage of meteorites hitting the surface as there is no atmosphere to protect anyone or the facilities. "  This also applies to Mars since the Martian atmosphere is both small and non flammable, therefore breaking up meteorites would be ineffective.

RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 348
Posts: 10,629
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
11
Assuming NASA's story is up to scratch with reality, I would argue that theoretically, Jupiter would be the best one to go for.
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,474
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
Jupiter is a gas giant.
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,474
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
--> @Goldtop
You mean, where Kepler was confused and Ethan is going to come along and educate us?
Just you. You haven't a clue, even after the hint. Kepler was talking about the relation of mass to speed, not orbital balance. But please go on.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 348
Posts: 10,629
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
11
--> @ethang5
Ah yes, I forget the story sometimes. So we can't colonise it because there's nothing solid in it? Shame.

ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,474
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
Yeah, can you imagine the amount of real estate? But even if there was ground to stand on, the gravity would be sick.
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,474
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
Jupiter's moons are too far away and too cold for colonization.
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,713
2
1
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
1
2
--> @ethang5
Kepler was talking about the relation of mass to speed, not orbital balance.
The above forumula is talking about gravity in a two body problem, you were the one talking about orbital balance in post 12, Cleetus.

Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,713
2
1
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
1
2
--> @Alec
I think they can.  A similar issue would be present for Mars.  Martian nights are cold.
They're two different environments, not similar at all. The moon is much closer to the Sun and gets 2 weeks of intense radiation whereas Mars gets almost the same as the Earth, about 12 hours in which the effect is much less intense.

Plisken
Plisken's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 709
2
1
5
Plisken's avatar
Plisken
2
1
5
--> @RationalMadman
Jupiter also has a lot of gravity and a heavy atmosphere.  There is a gigantic storm on it called the red spot that has been going on for hundreds of years, supposed to be the size of earth right now.
Plisken
Plisken's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 709
2
1
5
Plisken's avatar
Plisken
2
1
5
Mars has groundwater on it
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,474
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
Kepler was talking about the relation of mass to speed, not orbital balance.

The above forumula is talking about gravity in a two body problem,
Which is shat I tried to tell you genius. Its talking about a falling body pulled by gravity.

you were the one talking about orbital balance in post 12, Cleetus. 
It was always about orbital balance Clem. You, in your militant ignorance, just didn't know it.