If the Earth were 100 pixels wide • Hacker News Board

Re: If the Earth were 100 pixels wide

#121

Post by afterburner » Thu, Apr 04, 2013, 1:16 AM UTC

ohazi wrote: post #51

Is anyone else a little bothered by the fact that the reported speed was 1/5 the speed of light, yet the flyby necessarily increased to well over the speed of light in order to actually get you to Mars before you got bored and closed the tab? Traveling at the speed of light would have taken 5-20 minutes. Traveling slower than that would have taken even longer...

Speed of light: 1.07925285 × 10e9 km/h Reported speed: 200,000 km/h

So more like 1/5000 the speed of light. But as pointed out below the reported speed may be way off.

I wonder if a mistake about the speed of light was made; it's about 300,000 km per second.

Re: If the Earth were 100 pixels wide

#122

Post by marcosdumay » Thu, Apr 04, 2013, 1:30 AM UTC

austenallred wrote: post #6

This is the first time I've actually been able to comprehend the perspective of distances so big they don't mean much as a number. Thank you.

You can easily build an in 1:2e9 scale replica of the Solar System. You'll just need a 90cm sphere to use as the Sun, some 4-5 km of area do arrange things and a paquimeter for measuring the planets. At this scale, everything is just about as big/small as one can manipulate.

Bu you won't be able to place the Voyager in there. For that you'll need a car and a road trip.

Re: If the Earth were 100 pixels wide

#123

Post by jrockway » Thu, Apr 04, 2013, 1:48 AM UTC

jarek wrote: post #112

primitur wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm more bothered by the authoritative fact that 'the timeline for a manned mission to Mars is the 2030s'. Says who, NASA? They're not the only ones trying to get there.

Does anyone else have a realistic more aggressive timeline?

I'm planning to head over tomorrow. I'll let you know how it goes.

Re: If the Earth were 100 pixels wide

#124

Post by Houshalter » Thu, Apr 04, 2013, 1:59 AM UTC

vacri wrote: post #84

afreak wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Simply put: the core is likely solidified just like Mars and its magnetic field is very weak, causing the weather to be influenced by only its rotation and solar winds. It would be far more difficult to terraform than Mars really. Also a Venusian day is something like 5,800 hours and its surface temperature is capable of melting lead.

Moving to a Mars orbit would have a significant effect on the surface temperature. More of a problem is the bulk of the atmosphere being carbon dioxide (breathing even a 5% mix is excruciatingly painful for humans), but the real challenge would be dealing with the rains of sulfuric acid... at least Mars wouldn't be trying to dissolve your hermetically sealed environment.

Would the weather really stay the same if you lowered it's temperature so much by moving it away from the sun?

Re: If the Earth were 100 pixels wide

#125

Post by sjwright » Thu, Apr 04, 2013, 2:05 AM UTC

marcosdumay wrote: post #122

austenallred wrote: post #6

This is the first time I've actually been able to comprehend the perspective of distances so big they don't mean much as a number. Thank you.

You can easily build an in 1:2e9 scale replica of the Solar System. You'll just need a 90cm sphere to use as the Sun, some 4-5 km of area do arrange things and a paquimeter for measuring the planets. At this scale, everything is just about as big/small as one can manipulate. Bu you won't be able to place the Voyager in there. For that you'll need a car and a road trip.

The satellite or the Intrepid-class starship?

Re: If the Earth were 100 pixels wide

#126

Post by pjungwir » Thu, Apr 04, 2013, 2:16 AM UTC

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the scale model of the solar system strewn around the Boston metro area. If you live there, it's pretty fun to visit all the planets. One year the MIT Mystery Hunt had a puzzle related to it.

Re: If the Earth were 100 pixels wide

#127

Post by fusiongyro » Thu, Apr 04, 2013, 2:16 AM UTC

afreak wrote: post #86

fusiongyro wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like to believe we could circumvent some of these problems technologically. After all, there is no particular reason to feel bad about macroscopic terraforming on a lifeless planet. Yes, it would be more work than Mars. But it's also bigger than Mars and further from the asteroid belt. No planet but Earth is going to be ideal.

The amount of energy you'd have to expend to fix Venus would be far more costly than trying to keep Mars warm by using baseboard heaters on every square metre. One of the largest issues facing Venus is that it is effectively a dead planet. Mars is a dead planet too but it's far easier to make it warmer than to cool down Venus so we can live on it. On top of that, Mars has water frozen at its surface and perhaps in li…

I appreciate your taking the time to reply, but I think it's a little soon to be saying never. For one thing, we have spent a lot more time and energy trying to figure out what's going on with Mars than Venus.

Though of course Mars is a better prospect today. Frankly, I think the important thing is to have a backup, as it were, and to that end whatever serves will do. But if one backup is nice, two is even better, and the cost of making a good backup is highly justified.

Re: If the Earth were 100 pixels wide

#128

Post by InclinedPlane » Thu, Apr 04, 2013, 2:24 AM UTC

incision wrote: post #72

InclinedPlane wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where'd you get the idea that Venus has a solid core?

An extrapolation from the weak magnetosphere [1] I'd guess. 1: http://www.universetoday.com/36161/core-of-venus/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus#Internal_structure

Re: If the Earth were 100 pixels wide

#129

Post by mark-r » Thu, Apr 04, 2013, 2:29 AM UTC

devgutt wrote: post #110

mark-r wrote: post #26

I'd love to see the Sun included on the opposite side of the scale. Its diameter is 109 times that of earth, making it 10900 pixels. Would be just as impressive a demonstration.

I didn't go through much, but I'm quite sure that in that scale, It would be a flat line

I tried simulating it, and it's just enough curvature to get the point across. Assuming I didn't have a bug of course.

Re: If the Earth were 100 pixels wide

#130

Post by stouset » Thu, Apr 04, 2013, 2:31 AM UTC

larrydavid wrote: post #113

crazygringo wrote: post #48

Very rarely have I seen a single idea so perfectly illustrated. Impeccable timing and presentation. Unexpected, every step of the way. Kudos.

Yes this was really well executed. Kind of a shame to see a lot of the top comments dominated by the picking at any inaccuracy they can find (not surprising, it seems a trademark of HN these days). Ok it isn't a perfect scientific simulation but rather a rough visual guide to grasp the scale of space travel, and I think it achieves that well.

That's the thing: people are arguing that, as astonishing as the portayal seems, it still manages to give people a gross underestimation of how big these scales really are.

As portrayed, it seems like it only takes a minute or so to get to Mars at 20% of the speed of light. But really, they continue speeding up the starfield to multiples of superluminal speeds. As great as that distance seems, it's even more than an order of magnitude larger than depicted.