A moon base and thermodynamics
Discussion
The moon landing thread just raised a question about us getting off this rock, as most scientists (source: listening to The Infinite Monkey Cage
) seem to think we'll have to get off this rock someday.
Does the second law of thermodynamics forbid any kind of self-sustaining space mission; such as a permanent manned base on Mars or the Moon, or a long distance manned flight?
) seem to think we'll have to get off this rock someday. Does the second law of thermodynamics forbid any kind of self-sustaining space mission; such as a permanent manned base on Mars or the Moon, or a long distance manned flight?
durbster said:
The moon landing thread just raised a question about us getting off this rock, as most scientists (source: listening to The Infinite Monkey Cage) seem to think we'll have to get off this rock someday.
Does the second law of thermodynamics forbid any kind of self-sustaining space mission; such as a permanent manned base on Mars or the Moon, or a long distance manned flight?
Extra solar is a problem, but not impossible. ) seem to think we'll have to get off this rock someday. Does the second law of thermodynamics forbid any kind of self-sustaining space mission; such as a permanent manned base on Mars or the Moon, or a long distance manned flight?
A Moon or Mars base is feasible.
These planetary bodies all have resources of their own, including water.
The key part is energy, in this case from the sun.
durbster said:
Does the second law of thermodynamics forbid any kind of self-sustaining space mission; such as a permanent manned base on Mars or the Moon, or a long distance manned flight?
No. No more than it does a 'self sustaining' base on earth. I'm curious why you think it would though?I was assuming that a space craft or base would have to be completely independent of its environment, and therefore not influenced by external forces in the same way life on Earth is.
Granted you could have solar but there's no tide or wind which are necessary for an eco-system aren't they?
Granted you could have solar but there's no tide or wind which are necessary for an eco-system aren't they?
durbster said:
I was assuming that a space craft or base would have to be completely independent of its environment, and therefore not influenced by external forces in the same way life on Earth is.
Granted you could have solar but there's no tide or wind which are necessary for an eco-system aren't they?
No you go out a mine minerals and resources, be it the moon or asteroids.Granted you could have solar but there's no tide or wind which are necessary for an eco-system aren't they?
durbster said:
I was assuming that a space craft or base would have to be completely independent of its environment, and therefore not influenced by external forces in the same way life on Earth is.
Granted you could have solar but there's no tide or wind which are necessary for an eco-system aren't they?
Earth has winds and tides but if they suddenly stopped I think mankind would continue well enough. An ecsosystem is merely a closed self-sustaining environment - so if you had sustainable/renewable sources of energy, oxygen, water and food, and a way to dispose of/recycle waste, it should be fine from a technical POV. However I'm not sure what effect it would have on mental health over extended periods.Granted you could have solar but there's no tide or wind which are necessary for an eco-system aren't they?
durbster said:
I was assuming that a space craft or base would have to be completely independent of its environment, and therefore not influenced by external forces in the same way life on Earth is.
Granted you could have solar but there's no tide or wind which are necessary for an eco-system aren't they?
No.Granted you could have solar but there's no tide or wind which are necessary for an eco-system aren't they?
You use the resources that are there. Moons and planets are worlds ion their own right and they will have lots of "stuff" that can be used to help sustain a base or settlement. And the longer humans are there and the more permanent the base, the best use they can make of the natural resources available.
durbster said:
I was assuming that a space craft or base would have to be completely independent of its environment, and therefore not influenced by external forces in the same way life on Earth is.
Granted you could have solar but there's no tide or wind which are necessary for an eco-system aren't they?
You wouldn't even need solar provided you've got plenty of power - from a big nuke plant for example. You can have a relatively small, closed, environment that can support an ecosystem. Granted you could have solar but there's no tide or wind which are necessary for an eco-system aren't they?
I don't really understand the leaving earth idea. We already live on a beuatiful fully resourced planet where we can live without any environmental modifications. A better approach surely would be to keep the earth clean and mine some lifeless bits of rock in space for their minerals, bring them back and leave ours intact to enjoy the life and landscape on top of them. Keep the filth and dirt somewhere already dead.
Different bits of earth with resources is a bit different to other bodies in space that are lacking in pretty much all of the resources needed for life. Keeping moving because we've polluted the last place beyond further use seems a little short-sighted to me and potentially fatal. This is different to exploration of new worlds for their own sake.
Shaolin said:
Different bits of earth with resources is a bit different to other bodies in space that are lacking in pretty much all of the resources needed for life. Keeping moving because we've polluted the last place beyond further use seems a little short-sighted to me and potentially fatal. This is different to exploration of new worlds for their own sake.
Well mankind (if it wished to coninue in existince) will have to leave the Earth one day regardless when the Sun starts to run out of hydrogen. Shaolin said:
I don't really understand the leaving earth idea. We already live on a beuatiful fully resourced planet where we can live without any environmental modifications. A better approach surely would be to keep the earth clean and mine some lifeless bits of rock in space for their minerals, bring them back and leave ours intact to enjoy the life and landscape on top of them. Keep the filth and dirt somewhere already dead.
Because one extinction event, and the human race could be a goner. If you want to mine asteroids, etc, you still have to go and get them, mine them, and so on. Either way, we need to leave the planet to do so.The sun has about 2 billion years left before it gets to be a problem. We've been around about 100,000 years as humans, so we're 0.005% of the way there so far. I imagine an extinction event is far more likely out in space needing constant life support from technology to stay alive than on earth.
On the other hand I'm quite happy to help build a space ship if you promise to send back goody bags of minerals. You could start here http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/10/15/us-space-...
On the other hand I'm quite happy to help build a space ship if you promise to send back goody bags of minerals. You could start here http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/10/15/us-space-...
Edited by Shaolin on Friday 1st March 19:48
Shaolin said:
The sun has about 2 billion years left before it gets to be a problem. We've been around about 100,000 years as humans, so we're 0.005% of the way there so far. I imagine an extinction event is far more likely out in space needing constant life support from technology to stay alive than on earth.
On the other hand I'm quite happy to help build a space ship if you promise to send back goody bags of minerals. You could start here http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/10/15/us-space-...
A long time before the sun goes pop a big rock WILL hit us. Didn't do the dinosaurs much good the last time it happened - we need to be in more than one place before it happens.On the other hand I'm quite happy to help build a space ship if you promise to send back goody bags of minerals. You could start here http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/10/15/us-space-...
Edited by Shaolin on Friday 1st March 19:48
TheHeretic said:
Shaolin said:
I don't really understand the leaving earth idea. We already live on a beuatiful fully resourced planet where we can live without any environmental modifications. A better approach surely would be to keep the earth clean and mine some lifeless bits of rock in space for their minerals, bring them back and leave ours intact to enjoy the life and landscape on top of them. Keep the filth and dirt somewhere already dead.
Because one extinction event, and the human race could be a goner. If you want to mine asteroids, etc, you still have to go and get them, mine them, and so on. Either way, we need to leave the planet to do so.A big ELE occurs on average every 65 million years, so we are overdue.
Getting humans into self sufficient locations off the Earth is critical to our survivability.
Shaolin said:
I'm guessing that the technology to detect and push asteroids off target is easier to develop than launching mankind into space with no coming back (and an equal chance of being hit by asteroids).
Keeping all your eggs in one basket is unlikely to be a prime survival strategy, your mind is plainly made up however, so I'll not trouble you further.Shaolin said:
I don't really understand the leaving earth idea. We already live on a beuatiful fully resourced planet where we can live without any environmental modifications. A better approach surely would be to keep the earth clean and mine some lifeless bits of rock in space for their minerals, bring them back and leave ours intact to enjoy the life and landscape on top of them. Keep the filth and dirt somewhere already dead.
Have you not seen the documentary Alien? Total Recall? Space missions to mine s
t always ends in tears..Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff