China's and others' missions to the Moon

[xtreemchaos]

mars to build a vessel to contain an atmosphere that you convert from mars' existing atmosphere

i don't think we are going to live fulltime on Mars, yes we will most likely visit but people will die and that will be the end of that. there is a good chance of a base on the moon because its close and we can get stuff and kit there easy compaired to the red planet.

 

[Vayra86]

i don't think we are going to live fulltime on Mars, yes we will most likely visit but people will die and that will be the end of that. there is a good chance of a base on the moon because its close and we can get stuff and kit there easy compaired to the red planet.

A Mars Penal colony doesn't sound like the worst idea though

Out of sight... out of mind and perhaps even out of air

 

[ty_ger]

i don't think we are going to live fulltime on Mars, yes we will most likely visit but people will die and that will be the end of that. there is a good chance of a base on the moon because its close and we can get stuff and kit there easy compaired to the red planet.

Then what does SpaceX think they are doing? They cancelled the moon mission. What is their supposed goal now?


I would think that a moon getaway would be more feasible.

 

[xtreemchaos]

SpaceX think they are doing

i can not get in to Musk's mind but you can make a lot of money out of imposable all im saying who know's what his real goals are but i think he should be the first to ride starship or he's chicken.

 

[Caring1]

I'm no rocket surgeon by any means, but I believe Mars has more atmosphere than the Moon, so it could be possible to rejuvenate that and kick start life again there.
Unless the hollow Moon conspiracies are true.

 

[Assimilator]

I'm no rocket surgeon by any means, but I believe Mars has more atmosphere than the Moon, so it could be possible to rejuvenate that and kick start life again there.
Unless the hollow Moon conspiracies are true.

The biggest problem is that Mars lacks a magnetic field, which allows its already tenuous atmosphere to escape, and offers no protection from the solar wind. In that regard Venus is arguably a better option for colonisation - the surface will kill you, but build aerial habitats 50km up and the "only" thing you have to contend with is the sulphuric acid.

 

[WonkoTheSaneUK]

I'm no rocket surgeon by any means, but I believe Mars has more atmosphere than the Moon, so it could be possible to rejuvenate that and kick start life again there.
Unless the hollow Moon conspiracies are true.

Some > none is correct.
You just need Arnie to go to Mars and switch the atmosphere generators back on.

 

[ty_ger]

Some > none is correct.
You just need Arnie to go to Mars and switch the atmosphere generators back on.

I guess my question was related to distance and stuff. If you need to build a container either way to contain the desired atmosphere, which one is more feasible?
Mars could be converted by energy. Moon's could be created chemically. Either method would need a lot of chemicals or equipment.

 

[R0H1T]

It has a higher harvestable solar output which is good for us

That's based on its proximity to the sun? In which case the much bigger size of Mars should also be taken into account. Or again do you mean closer/easier to make use of?

build aerial habitats 50km up and the "only" thing you have to contend with is the sulphuric acid.

Is there enough time to make yourself a bacteria I guess?

Either method would need a lot of chemicals or equipment.

That's almost a given but Mars is slightly better IMO because of more(?) water. Any real plans of colonization's probably a few centuries away because at last for Mars people going there are unlikely to ever come back!

 

[dirtyferret]

This is the science forum, so please try to contribute. China landing on the moon is an achievement. Logical discussion is welcome - trolls will be ejected.

So is North Korea launching satellite (at least the second one exploded) but you must admit there is reason to also be apprehensive on the achievement without it becoming a flame war by trolls.

I'm no rocket surgeon by any means, but I believe Mars has more atmosphere than the Moon, so it could be possible to rejuvenate that and kick start life again there.

I've never played a rocket surgeon on TV but I have stayed at a Holdiay Inn express before and I believe what @Assimilator stated is the correct issue on the lack of a magnet field for Mars.

 

[kapone32]

Mars is the only choice. To colonize Venus we would need to direct about 6 or 7 Comets to it to cool it down. Then we would have to put an artificial moon beside to stabilize it's orbit. Robert Heinlein theorized that Mars could be made habitable using Algae. In one of his books he talks about dropping algae bombs for a century to have Mars start to change the chemistry so that Humans could live their. The Moon is for mining of precious metals and elements that have different properties than what you find on Earth. He also thought about Mars though and there was a Cartoon called Exo Squad that is an homage to his books. Before you discount him the first place I read about the slingshot effect was a Robert Heinlein novel written circa 1957.

 

[Assimilator]

Mars is the only choice. To colonize Venus we would need to direct about 6 or 7 Comets to it to cool it down. Then we would have to put an artificial moon beside to stabilize it's orbit. Robert Heinlein theorized that Mars could be made habitable using Algae. In one of his books he talks about dropping algae bombs for a century to have Mars start to change the chemistry so that Humans could live their. The Moon is for mining of precious metals and elements that have different properties than what you find on Earth. He also thought about Mars though and there was a Cartoon called Exo Squad that is an homage to his books. Before you discount him the first place I read about the slingshot effect was a Robert Heinlein novel written circa 1957.

Mars soil contains a high percentage of perchlorates which are incredibly toxic to organic life. Not to mention the lack of carbon dioxide and liquid water, oh and that protective magnetosphere I mentioned above.

 

[kapone32]

Mars soil contains a high percentage of perchlorates which are incredibly toxic to organic life. Not to mention the lack of carbon dioxide and liquid water, oh and that protective magnetosphere I mentioned above.

That is not me but this is official

According to ESA, Mars' atmosphere is composed of 95.32% carbon dioxide, 2.7% nitrogen, 1.6% argon and 0.13% oxygen. The atmospheric pressure at the surface is 6.35 mbar which is over 100 times less Earth's. Humans therefore cannot breathe Martian air.

There is plenty of Carbon Dioxide. I know that the Magnetic field is gone. For me that is why the planet is red, something ejected a major part of the core. Of course we could also create Iron based meals. We also have algae that eats iron as well.There is also the theory of what would happen to the surface if there was more oxygen to interact with all of that iron.

 

[R0H1T]

The only options after earth are ~ bad, not so bad, batsh!t crazy or we'd have better chance with a black (white?) hole! So it doesn't really matter that much IMO

 

[R-T-B]

That's based on its proximity to the sun?

Yes, and the size of Mars has no impact on the distance of its orbit. Its just dimmer out there.

Keep in mind I'm talking per panel, not planetwide potential.

As I recall von Braun proposed a single rocket rather than the multistage solution that went to the moon.

Yes, and that probably would have worked it just would have cost more, hence Von Braun approving the cheaper plan an associate presented to him.

What is their supposed goal now?

I dunno, they are doing fine launching sats for the government.

50km up and the "only" thing you have to contend with is the sulphuric acid.

Heck 50km up the sulfuric acid isn't even super strong... it's nearly earth pressure and mostly co2!

The only options after earth are ~ bad, not so bad, batsh!t crazy or we'd have better chance with a black (white?) hole! So it doesn't really matter that much IMO

This. Colonizing Antarctica is going to be way more doable and pleasant than any planet for decades, if not centuries, to come.

 

[A&P211]

Ladies and Gentlemen, last reminder to stay on topic and try not to get yourself entangled with earthly matters.

Lets get involved with moonly matters.

 

[ARF]

China's mission returns with rocks from the far side of the Moon.

Chang'e-6: China's space probe returns with rare Moon rocks

The Chang'e-6 has landed after collecting the first ever samples from the far side of the Moon.

www.bbc.com

China's lunar probe has returned to Earth with the first ever samples from the Moon's unexplored far side.
The Chang'e-6 landed in the Inner Mongolia desert on Tuesday, after a nearly two-month long mission which was fraught with risks.
Scientists are eagerly awaiting the Chang’e-6 as the samples could answer key questions about how planets are formed.
China is the only country to have landed on the far side of the Moon, having done so before in 2019.
The far side - which faces away from Earth - is technically challenging to reach due to its distance, and its difficult terrain of giant craters and few flat surfaces.
Scientists are interested in this less-explored side as it is hoped it may contain traces of ice, which can be harvested for water, oxygen, and hydrogen.

China returns samples from the moon's far side in historic 1st (video)

The lunar material touched down in China's Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region early Tuesday morning (June 25).

www.space.com

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

20 minutes, 20 questions. I only need about three though.

1) When will an independent 3rd party verify results? I don't trust that the US would go back today, and the only reason that I trust the Soviets and US went in the past was an abundance of freely available data. Most of which is in the form of photographic and video evidence.

2) I have...concerns that China is going to introduce problems with data. I have these concerns because NASA demonstrated that even a "completely clean" mission introduced potential biological contamination. As Jeff Goldblum is want to say "life finds a way" and that's a concern for China, Japan, the US, and anybody else doing these missions.

3) I make no comment about my personal beliefs that this was or was not a valid mission. That said, I do have to ask about funding. Politics aside, there are concerns I have that China can fund a proper analysis of the material brought back...given unrelated issues. I...worry that potentially good science and data will be lost to...let's call it intervening factors. I hope that China can get the resources necessary to deal with whatever they've brought back properly.

Regarding the rest of the FUD about Venus, Mars, and colonization...I want to ask you a question. Would you volunteer to give-up the internet, comfort, a reasonably lifespan, and freedom to jump on a rocket, get baked by radiation, touch down on a planet where you couldn't go outside, and live your short life toiling below ground trying to make the surface even slightly livable for your great grand children? That's what a colony on Mars looks like on the bright end today...and on the dark end it's death in the black before you even get planet side. Consider me...divested of desire to leave Earth any time soon, unless technology makes about a 300 year leap in the next 20 years. This Chinese moon mission is...an attempt at China to say they might do such a thing...and I hope they do. Politics aside, it's going to take a lot of dead bodies to make any planetary terraforming possible...and I'm not signing up for that right now.

 

[Vayra86]

Why would we get humans on the ground there (Mars, or even the Moon) if we can place a station in orbit and get the planetside work done by robots?

It looks all nice and idyllic, those habitat spheres in sci fi fantasy but @lilhasselhoffer has a point. You have to be a drone under autocratic regime to 'volunteer' for that. Also interesting doubts to cast upon the Chang-e mission, food for thought Though I think we should not underestimate the Chinese here. They're not screwing around. These are some real achievements and they're not unknown for other 'firsts'.

 

[TheinsanegamerN]

Why would we get humans on the ground there (Mars, or even the Moon) if we can place a station in orbit and get the planetside work done by robots?

It looks all nice and idyllic, those habitat spheres in sci fi fantasy but @lilhasselhoffer has a point. You have to be a drone under autocratic regime to 'volunteer' for that. Also interesting doubts to cast upon the Chang-e mission, food for thought Though I think we should not underestimate the Chinese here. They're not screwing around. These are some real achievements and they're not unknown for other 'firsts'.

Ideally, to eventually build out the infrastructure to live off of the Earth. If anything happens to the blue planet, the species goes *poof*.

That is not me but this is official

According to ESA, Mars' atmosphere is composed of 95.32% carbon dioxide, 2.7% nitrogen, 1.6% argon and 0.13% oxygen. The atmospheric pressure at the surface is 6.35 mbar which is over 100 times less Earth's. Humans therefore cannot breathe Martian air.

There is plenty of Carbon Dioxide. I know that the Magnetic field is gone. For me that is why the planet is red, something ejected a major part of the core. Of course we could also create Iron based meals. We also have algae that eats iron as well.There is also the theory of what would happen to the surface if there was more oxygen to interact with all of that iron.

Point *technically* made, but he's not wrong either. Les then 1% the atmo pressure of Earth. Without a magnetic field, no atmosphere could be contained long term, and that 95% CO2 doesnt do any good when there's so little of it.

 

[mechtech]

That is not me but this is official

According to ESA, Mars' atmosphere is composed of 95.32% carbon dioxide, 2.7% nitrogen, 1.6% argon and 0.13% oxygen. The atmospheric pressure at the surface is 6.35 mbar which is over 100 times less Earth's. Humans therefore cannot breathe Martian air.

There is plenty of Carbon Dioxide. I know that the Magnetic field is gone. For me that is why the planet is red, something ejected a major part of the core. Of course we could also create Iron based meals. We also have algae that eats iron as well.There is also the theory of what would happen to the surface if there was more oxygen to interact with all of that iron.

Theory or reality..................I guess it depends on how much buy in?

Great Oxidation Event - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

as for a moon base, I think the moon should be off limits for any individual nation, maybe something similar to Antarctica, but perhaps international things like a telescope would be fine.

 

[dragontamer5788]

Mars soil contains a high percentage of perchlorates which are incredibly toxic to organic life. Not to mention the lack of carbon dioxide and liquid water, oh and that protective magnetosphere I mentioned above.

I can't get over the fact that people think its easier to raise Mars's temperature by +80C than to reduce Earth's temperature by 2C.

If you have some magic terraforming equipment to turn Mars into a habitable planet, just use it on Earth and save Earth instead. The problem with techno-bros is that they want to be seen as tackling unrealistic problems so that we stop paying attention to the realistic problems they're currently causing to us.

 

[Caring1]

I can't get over the fact that people think its easier to raise Mars's temperature by +80C than to reduce Earth's temperature by 2C.

If you have some magic terraforming equipment to turn Mars into a habitable planet, just use it on Earth and save Earth instead. The problem with techno-bros is that they want to be seen as tackling unrealistic problems so that we stop paying attention to the realistic problems they're currently causing to us.

You miss the fact it IS easier to warm a planet with global warming, than it is to cause global cooling.
Unless you have some techno bro knowledge you want to share to prove otherwise.

 

[Assimilator]

You miss the fact it IS easier to warm a planet with global warming, than it is to cause global cooling.
Unless you have some techno bro knowledge you want to share to prove otherwise.

His point -> .











Your head -> o

 

[Caring1]

His point -> .











Your head -> o

Wrong, but anyway.... unless you have verifiable scientific proof that it's easier to cool a planet than heat one up, i'm out of that conversation.