211–220 of 236 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is hydrogen on Venus. Very little. Some hydrogen chloride and hydrogen fluoride.
I'm just gonna leave this here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_atmosphere Hydrogen chloride 0.1–0.6 ppm Hydrogen fluoride 0.001–0.005 ppm
Do you think there could be more landings on Venus like the Russian one in the 1960s? How did the Russian probe even land and take a photo if the surface temperature is enough to melt metal?! Could you build a small rover to withstand the elements for a few hours?
It lasted what, 8 seconds before transmission ceased? It was definitely a success since they expected it to last about 5 seconds.
Venera 7 lasted 23 minutes before failing (although landed in an awkward orientation due to parachute failure).
Venera 8 transmission for nearly an hour, but wasn't equipped with a camera.
Venera 9 operated for 53 minutes, had issues with the lens cap so only took pictures from one of the cameras.
Venera 10 operated for 65 minutes, same lens cap issue as above.
Venera 11 operated for 95 minutes, and Venera 12 operated for 110 minutes. Neither of these successfully released their lens caps.
Venera 13 managed 127 minutes, and both lens caps deployed.
Venera 14 which had the same design as Venera 13 only lasted for 57 minutes. Its lens caps deployed, but one landed directly underneath the surface compressibility tester arm, and returned information for the compressibility of the lens cap rather than the surface.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow, that's... actually pretty sensical. The science part of me rejects it for having no evidence. But the pragmatic part of me would put its money underneath the theory. The reason The bigger question is: how did the first Protozoa form? The usual primordial soup theory of random chance? One good thing about this theory is that if there are 10^7 habitable planets at any given moment, each of them are "trying to prod…
If we work under this assumption, then I’d expect all the living material out there to be of the same chemistry and origin - again unproven conjecture but I’ll be surprised if two life forms of completely different chemistries can compete on comparable levels in the same environment - one will probably always be more efficient than other due to fundamental limits on the chemistry of their constituent molecules; I fee…
Growing up I absorbed all the space stuff I could find. But it wasn't until recently that I realized that the solar system didn't just form into some static natural state where it largely didn't change until say the sun was finished with it's lifespan. Rather it evolves, changes, planets are habitable, then not, moons are formed and break up, even frozen planets are geologically active and are changing, Saturn's ring…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And it could be again... It could. On the other hand Earth could become the next Venus, if climate change runs out of control. No?
No. For one, Earth is much further away. But most importantly, we have no clue if our current carbon levels are any sort of maxima in regards to what the planet can handle. We just have our own little recent industrialized history, and some charts about the past that are, at best, educated guesses. As George Carlin would say, "The planet will shake us off like a bad cold" Climate change is more important for our spec…
The article mentions massive amounts of C02 released 500 million years ago by volcanic activity in the Siberian Traps. The dinosaurs evolved on an Earth with six times the amount of C02 in the atmosphere we have today. So we're nowhere near a maxima. It's just a question of how difficult climate change will be for our civilization and parts of the biosphere we rely on.
Growing up I absorbed all the space stuff I could find. But it wasn't until recently that I realized that the solar system didn't just form into some static natural state where it largely didn't change until say the sun was finished with it's lifespan. Rather it evolves, changes, planets are habitable, then not, moons are formed and break up, even frozen planets are geologically active and are changing, Saturn's ring…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm just gonna leave this here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_atmosphere Hydrogen chloride 0.1–0.6 ppm Hydrogen fluoride 0.001–0.005 ppm
Like I said, it's very little, but that's not none.
If you knew anything about chemistry past checking wikipedia, you'd just call it none.
Maybe they crashed their huge spaceship on Earth and killed the dinosaurs. Two of them survived and started gardening.
Having three planets with their own unique plants and animals, and having colonization by humans at our current tech level, is a fascinating alternate reality.
Maybe they crashed their huge spaceship on Earth and killed the dinosaurs. Two of them survived and started gardening.
I love thinking about an alternate reality where Mars and Venus swapped orbits so that both were habitable. Having three planets with their own unique plants and animals, and having colonization by humans at our current tech level, is a fascinating alternate reality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Considering the industrial revolution had been in full swing for a century before the use of fossil fuels became widespread I think you make a poor argument. Just because we were the first doesn't mean we'll be the last. A billion years is a very very very long time, and there are multiple billions of years in the Earth's future.
The industrial revolution's beginning is defined by coal mining and the steam engine. I don't understand what you mean about it having been in full swing for a century before that.