Life beyond Earth has finally been found; or so it seems

[fncceo]

Now I laughed when the loonies tried to present this as some alien construct. However, what the scientists are now looking at are possibilities, and judging which would be the most likely target for future exploration. If Musk is successful with his BFR, then this could happen within my lifetime.

I'd hate to bust your space bubble, but Mr. Musk isn't going to Mars.

Neither he nor any consortium of private investors will be able to raise the Trillions of dollars such an effort would require.

And nations won't do it for the foreseeable future.

My grandfather was 20 years old when the Wright Bros. flew at Kitty Hawk. He watched the Eagle set down on the moon. Sputnik was launched in 1957, the Eagle landed in 1969.

The total cost of the Apollo Project in today's dollars was $25 Billion and it was a technology dead end.

A manned mars mission would cost many times that and a colony many times that.

The purpose of the Apollo Missions were two-fold. National pride and a not so subtle demonstration to Russia of our missile capability.

We have no need to demonstrate our technology superiority to anyone these days and we aren't the same nation today that could all be behind any kind of national prestige project.

Today people would riots if there aren't enough LGBT astronauts on the mission.

 

[Old Rocks]

A bit of hyperbole there, old man.

The next big missions will be the commercialization of space. The Corps of Discovery, then nothing for about 40 years, other than free lancing mountain men. Then the Oregon trail, and, in the span of a lifetime, a trancontinental railway. Things have a way of developing along unpredictable paths.

 

[flacaltenn]

Life beyond Earth has finally been found; or so it seems
There is a moon circling Saturn that has a warm core, covered in ice and spewing geysers. With a green hew around the geyser points.


View attachment 157184

View attachment 157190

View attachment 157191

View attachment 157193

Explanation: This cylindrical projection global map is one of six new color maps of Saturn's midsized icy moons, constructed using 10 years of image data from the Cassini spacecraft. Discovered by Cassini (the astronomer) in 1684, Dione is about 1,120 kilometers across. Based on data extending from infrared to ultraviolet, the full resolution of this latest space-age map is 250 meters per pixel. The remarkable brightness difference between the tidally locked moon's lighter leading hemisphere (right) and darker trailing hemisphere clearly stands out. Like other Saturn moons orbiting within the broad E-ring, Dione's leading hemisphere is kept shiny as it picks up a coating of the faint ring's icy material. The E-ring material is constantly replenished by geysers on moon Enceladus' south pole. Lighter, younger surface fractures also appear to cross the dark, cratered trailing hemisphere.

Simpler explanation is substances associated with thermal vents. Like Nickel, Manganese, Copper and their oxides.

 

[fncceo]

A bit of hyperbole there, old man.

The next big missions will be the commercialization of space. The Corps of Discovery, then nothing for about 40 years, other than free lancing mountain men. Then the Oregon trail, and, in the span of a lifetime, a trancontinental railway. Things have a way of developing along unpredictable paths.

When a family can sell all their belongings and head across space to homestead an asteroid ... I'll be the first one to sign up.

Until then, I'm afraid the idea of the colonization of space is cost prohibitive.

 

[Old Rocks]

Crossing a continent was cost prohibitive until it was done.

 

[ChrisL]

Fascinating news. I hope to hear more about it. Just because a form of life may exist there, doesn't mean that we could though. I highly doubt that it would be even remotely habitable for us.

 

[fncceo]

Crossing a continent was cost prohibitive until it was done.

How so? All that was ever required to cross the continent was feet and the will to do so.

You confuse the will to do something with the enormous cost to do it. You can't pack your wagon and head for the planets. It doesn't work that way. With the 1950's rocket technology we current use, it costs $2,500 for every kilo of payload into earth orbit. That charming vignette above represents $1,5 Million in payload costs, not including their life support, food, water, and every single thing they will need for the remainder of their lives. Sending that family to Mars and equipping them to live there and survive is Trillions of dollars.

But, hey! I'm up for a challenge. Tell me, precisely ...

1. What technology we use to get us their?
2. How much YOU think it will cost?
3. Who pays?
4. How do they recoup their investments?

 

[fncceo]

I highly doubt that it would be even remotely habitable for us.

Someday, we will have the ability to make it habitable for us. But, for the foreseeable future, the closest any of our species will ever get beyond low Earth orbit is watching the latest 'Star Wars' sequel.

 

[Balancer]

The green is definitely a hopeful sign.

Unfortunately no. Green is a hint of chlorophyll. But chlorophyll is an agent for the assimilation of solar energy. Which on outer planets is not enough for the functioning of life. If there is something alive and there, then it absorbs the energy of underwater volcanoes or something like that. But the probability of such a life from scratch is very low. There is a lack of energy flow for the emergence of complex evolution. Although, of course, for billions of years of existence of life on Earth, it could be brought to outer planets in a viable form. Also unlikely, but theoretically possible.

 

[ChrisL]

Still, it would be really interesting to discover a life form. It would be literally an "alien" life form. Really cool. It would probably be bacteria or some simple organism. Imagine what could be on other planets in other galaxies? I've read that they've seen other galaxies with earth like looking planets.

 

[fncceo]

I've read that they've seen other galaxies with earth like looking planets.

Over 1,000 exoplanets have been discovered orbiting stars in our own galaxy (none in other galaxies). Some are close to Earth in terms of size, temperature, and possibility of liquid water. None close enough to Earth for humans to live on.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The color cameras on Cassini are UV and spectrum filtered, those stripes aren't actually green. They are what are known to planetoligists as 'false-color mages'.

After thinking about your statement I disagree. Not only do the cameras use UV and spectrum filtering but they also pick up true color images as well. I doubt the photo color "green" is a byproduct of UV or spectrum filtered. My bet is the color green is the color we would see which is what it is, GREEN.

 

[Old Rocks]

I've read that they've seen other galaxies with earth like looking planets.

Over 1,000 exoplanets have been discovered orbiting stars in our own galaxy (none in other galaxies). Some are close to Earth in terms of size, temperature, and possibility of liquid water. None close enough to Earth for humans to live on.

Now we don't really know that. You are indulging in the same extrapolation from inadequate data that those that declare life has been found do.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Death Angel, you have no idea what yout are talking about. Tidal forces on the moons of Saturn create heat. And yes, it can be warm enough to have liquid water.

And no, that green color is not from copper. You literally pulled all of that right out of your ass.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Crossing a continent was cost prohibitive until it was done.

How so? All that was ever required to cross the continent was feet and the will to do so.

You confuse the will to do something with the enormous cost to do it. You can't pack your wagon and head for the planets. It doesn't work that way. With the 1950's rocket technology we current use, it costs $2,500 for every kilo of payload into earth orbit. That charming vignette above represents $1,5 Million in payload costs, not including their life support, food, water, and every single thing they will need for the remainder of their lives. Sending that family to Mars and equipping them to live there and survive is Trillions of dollars.

But, hey! I'm up for a challenge. Tell me, precisely ...

1. What technology we use to get us their?
2. How much YOU think it will cost?
3. Who pays?
4. How do they recoup their investments?

A question for you:

Do think the answers to your questions might be different and/or more clear 20 years from now? 50?

 

[fncceo]

Do think the answers to your questions might be different and/or more clear 20 years from now? 50?

Probably not. It's not a matter of time, it's a matter of technology. There hasn't been an advance in rocket technology since World War II.

The trigger behind the great leap in aerospace in 1903 was the internal combustion engine. Before that, no other engine had the power to weight ratio to make an airplane feasible. No matter what kind of aircraft you designed, it would not fly without the right engine. By applying that engine to an already existing glider air frame the airplane was born. Every plane there after was a perfection of that design. A faster, stronger, greater endurance version of the original.

There isn't any significant technological difference between a Saturn V and a V2 Rocket. They use the same technology, one is significantly larger than the other.

There are technologies being pursued that could reduce that lift cost from tens of dollars to pennies per KG but none of them are being pursued seriously. Launch loop, Star Tram, Mass Driver and other maglev technologies show promise but are cargo only systems because of the massive G forces a passenger would have to endure at launch.

The Space Elevator is the most promising known alternative to rockets and would literally open up commercial and private space travel to the everyman. However, this technology would require a massive engineering project that, in the current global political climate, is not being considered.

Anti-gravity technology is a possibility, finding a way of cancelling out the space time warp that all matter generates and using it as propulsion to orbit. But, we currently don't understand the mechanism behind what causes mass to warp space time so finding out how to counteract it seems a long way away.

Once a technology is perfected that can lower launch cost from their current 'astronomical' levels, the push into space won't be measured in centuries, but in decades. Until it is, we are Leonardo DiVinci, playing with models and dreaming of flying into space. It may very well be hundreds of years before that dream is realised.

 

[Old Rocks]

fncceo, you remind me of the articles I read concerning the possibility of aircraft prior to 1900. 50 years later, aircraft were circling the globe.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Do think the answers to your questions might be different and/or more clear 20 years from now? 50?

Probably not. It's not a matter of time, it's a matter of technology. There hasn't been an advance in rocket technology since World War II.

The trigger behind the great leap in aerospace in 1903 was the internal combustion engine. Before that, no other engine had the power to weight ratio to make an airplane feasible. No matter what kind of aircraft you designed, it would not fly without the right engine. By applying that engine to an already existing glider air frame the airplane was born. Every plane there after was a perfection of that design. A faster, stronger, greater endurance version of the original.

There isn't any significant technological difference between a Saturn V and a V2 Rocket. They use the same technology, one is significantly larger than the other.

There are technologies being pursued that could reduce that lift cost from tens of dollars to pennies per KG but none of them are being pursued seriously. Launch loop, Star Tram, Mass Driver and other maglev technologies show promise but are cargo only systems because of the massive G forces a passenger would have to endure at launch.

The Space Elevator is the most promising known alternative to rockets and would literally open up commercial and private space travel to the everyman. However, this technology would require a massive engineering project that, in the current global political climate, is not being considered.

Anti-gravity technology is a possibility, finding a way of cancelling out the space time warp that all matter generates and using it as propulsion to orbit. But, we currently don't understand the mechanism behind what causes mass to warp space time so finding out how to counteract it seems a long way away.

Once a technology is perfected that can lower launch cost from their current 'astronomical' levels, the push into space won't be measured in centuries, but in decades. Until it is, we are Leonardo DiVinci, playing with models and dreaming of flying into space. It may very well be hundreds of years before that dream is realised.

You can't just write off rocket tech because of a stall in tech, not allowed. And we wouldn't really rely rockets, except for steering, for the lion's share of any interplanetary trip. Rockets are archaic and will eventually be limited to escaping Earth's orbit.

Love the maglev stuff... But that is as big a design problem as is the thrust:fuel problem. The acceleration forces will affect our design. But if you were to say that we should be using robots instead of humans anyway, I would agree 100%.

 

[fncceo]

fncceo, you remind me of the articles I read concerning the possibility of aircraft prior to 1900. 50 years later, aircraft were circling the globe.

Why didn't powered flight become practical prior to 1903 (or 1901 if you accept the claims of Gustave Whitefield)?

Otto Lillienthal, Octave Chanute, Horatio Phillips, all had built functional flying machines that could have flown, but didn't.

They didn't fly because they were missing a vital piece of technology and that was an efficient internal combustion engine that had sufficient power to weight ratio to lift their machines off the ground. It didn't matter than all those men had developed aerodynamically sound flying machines. Without the engine to power it, they were as locked to the ground as everyone who came before them.

It wasn't a mystery. Anyone living in the 19th Century who understood aerodynamics understood what was missing and could explain very simply WHY we couldn't fly in 1863 and why we could in 1903.\

The reason I'm skeptical about the colonization of space is precisely because I know how feasible it is. In the 1970's, Gerard O'Neill detailed how space stations could be built to provide earth-like environments not for 10 astronauts, but for 10,000. He proposed entire cities that could be built in high earth orbit or orbital Lagrange Points around the solar system. Those vast cities could provide resources to Earth not only in materials but as orbital power stations. Unlike colonization of fixed bodies, persons would live in those cities for years and not lose bone mass or muscle function and be unable to return to Earth, as would the inhabitants of Mars or Moon colonies.

The technology to build those cities existed in the '70s with one exception. Lift costs were too expensive. The effort, while technologically sound, was much too expensive to any one nation or consortium of nations to fund.

Since then, no technology has been developed (not even the ones I mention above) to eliminate that hurdle.

But, enough of me being a Luddite. I want to hear from you EXACTLY how you envision humans colonizing space. What technology they would use and

Do think the answers to your questions might be different and/or more clear 20 years from now? 50?

Probably not. It's not a matter of time, it's a matter of technology. There hasn't been an advance in rocket technology since World War II.

The trigger behind the great leap in aerospace in 1903 was the internal combustion engine. Before that, no other engine had the power to weight ratio to make an airplane feasible. No matter what kind of aircraft you designed, it would not fly without the right engine. By applying that engine to an already existing glider air frame the airplane was born. Every plane there after was a perfection of that design. A faster, stronger, greater endurance version of the original.

There isn't any significant technological difference between a Saturn V and a V2 Rocket. They use the same technology, one is significantly larger than the other.

There are technologies being pursued that could reduce that lift cost from tens of dollars to pennies per KG but none of them are being pursued seriously. Launch loop, Star Tram, Mass Driver and other maglev technologies show promise but are cargo only systems because of the massive G forces a passenger would have to endure at launch.

The Space Elevator is the most promising known alternative to rockets and would literally open up commercial and private space travel to the everyman. However, this technology would require a massive engineering project that, in the current global political climate, is not being considered.

Anti-gravity technology is a possibility, finding a way of cancelling out the space time warp that all matter generates and using it as propulsion to orbit. But, we currently don't understand the mechanism behind what causes mass to warp space time so finding out how to counteract it seems a long way away.

Once a technology is perfected that can lower launch cost from their current 'astronomical' levels, the push into space won't be measured in centuries, but in decades. Until it is, we are Leonardo DiVinci, playing with models and dreaming of flying into space. It may very well be hundreds of years before that dream is realised.

You can't just write off rocket tech because of a stall in tech, not allowed. And we wouldn't really rely rockets, except for steering, for the lion's share of any interplanetary trip. Rockets are archaic and will eventually be limited to escaping Earth's orbit.

Love the maglev stuff... But that is as big a design problem as is the thrust:fuel problem. The acceleration forces will affect our design. But if you were to say that we should be using robots instead of humans anyway, I would agree 100%.

Robots in space is our future for the next 100 years or more.

The life support requirements of humans makes the expensive lift cost to orbit problem of rockets insurmountable.

The idea of robots in space just doesn't spark the human imagination and is, frankly, anticlimactic.

Robot Kirk just isn't gonna get to nail the Space Princess or fight a Gorn in slow motion.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

fncceo, you remind me of the articles I read concerning the possibility of aircraft prior to 1900. 50 years later, aircraft were circling the globe.

Why didn't powered flight become practical prior to 1903 (or 1901 if you accept the claims of Gustave Whitefield)?

Otto Lillienthal, Octave Chanute, Horatio Phillips, all had built functional flying machines that could have flown, but didn't.

They didn't fly because they were missing a vital piece of technology and that was an efficient internal combustion engine that had sufficient power to weight ratio to lift their machines off the ground. It didn't matter than all those men had developed aerodynamically sound flying machines. Without the engine to power it, they were as locked to the ground as everyone who came before them.

It wasn't a mystery. Anyone living in the 19th Century who understood aerodynamics understood what was missing and could explain very simply WHY we couldn't fly in 1863 and why we could in 1903.\

The reason I'm skeptical about the colonization of space is precisely because I know how feasible it is. In the 1970's, Gerard O'Neill detailed how space stations could be built to provide earth-like environments not for 10 astronauts, but for 10,000. He proposed entire cities that could be built in high earth orbit or orbital Lagrange Points around the solar system. Those vast cities could provide resources to Earth not only in materials but as orbital power stations. Unlike colonization of fixed bodies, persons would live in those cities for years and not lose bone mass or muscle function and be unable to return to Earth, as would the inhabitants of Mars or Moon colonies.

The technology to build those cities existed in the '70s with one exception. Lift costs were too expensive. The effort, while technologically sound, was much too expensive to any one nation or consortium of nations to fund.

Since then, no technology has been developed (not even the ones I mention above) to eliminate that hurdle.

But, enough of me being a Luddite. I want to hear from you EXACTLY how you envision humans colonizing space. What technology they would use and

Do think the answers to your questions might be different and/or more clear 20 years from now? 50?

Probably not. It's not a matter of time, it's a matter of technology. There hasn't been an advance in rocket technology since World War II.

The trigger behind the great leap in aerospace in 1903 was the internal combustion engine. Before that, no other engine had the power to weight ratio to make an airplane feasible. No matter what kind of aircraft you designed, it would not fly without the right engine. By applying that engine to an already existing glider air frame the airplane was born. Every plane there after was a perfection of that design. A faster, stronger, greater endurance version of the original.

There isn't any significant technological difference between a Saturn V and a V2 Rocket. They use the same technology, one is significantly larger than the other.

There are technologies being pursued that could reduce that lift cost from tens of dollars to pennies per KG but none of them are being pursued seriously. Launch loop, Star Tram, Mass Driver and other maglev technologies show promise but are cargo only systems because of the massive G forces a passenger would have to endure at launch.

The Space Elevator is the most promising known alternative to rockets and would literally open up commercial and private space travel to the everyman. However, this technology would require a massive engineering project that, in the current global political climate, is not being considered.

Anti-gravity technology is a possibility, finding a way of cancelling out the space time warp that all matter generates and using it as propulsion to orbit. But, we currently don't understand the mechanism behind what causes mass to warp space time so finding out how to counteract it seems a long way away.

Once a technology is perfected that can lower launch cost from their current 'astronomical' levels, the push into space won't be measured in centuries, but in decades. Until it is, we are Leonardo DiVinci, playing with models and dreaming of flying into space. It may very well be hundreds of years before that dream is realised.

You can't just write off rocket tech because of a stall in tech, not allowed. And we wouldn't really rely rockets, except for steering, for the lion's share of any interplanetary trip. Rockets are archaic and will eventually be limited to escaping Earth's orbit.

Love the maglev stuff... But that is as big a design problem as is the thrust:fuel problem. The acceleration forces will affect our design. But if you were to say that we should be using robots instead of humans anyway, I would agree 100%.

Robots in space is our future for the next 100 years or more.

The life support requirements of humans makes the expensive lift cost to orbit problem of rockets insurmountable.

The idea of robots in space just doesn't spark the human imagination and is, frankly, anticlimactic.

Robot Kirk just isn't gonna get to nail the Space Princess or fight a Gorn in slow motion.

Completely agree, and it's the only smart choice. There is no scientific or economic need (just yet) for humans to challenge Mars or the Moon. We should be in a pure information-gathering mode (is it not the information age?). Cheap probes , and lots of them. And there lies your economic impetus for better rocket tech. Ask Henry Ford.