11–20 of 55 posts
They found the gravity was weaker.. but it should actually have been weaker. So is it weaker or stronger?
"They found that the moon’s gravity was weaker at the south pole. At first glance, that is not so surprising; there is a depression at the pole, and lower mass means less gravity. But the depression is so large that the gravity should actually have been weaker." They found the gravity was weaker.. but it should actually have been weaker. So is it weaker or stronger?
"They found that the moon’s gravity was weaker at the south pole. At first glance, that is not so surprising; there is a depression at the pole, and lower mass means less gravity. But the depression is so large that the gravity should actually have been weaker." They found the gravity was weaker.. but it should actually have been weaker. So is it weaker or stronger?
* There's a depression -> gravity weaker.
* Less of a difference than expected from the depression size -> something denser
* Water is denser than ice, and in a known relation -> size/volume of lake.Earlier quoted context omitted.
I doubt in orbit rendezvous with ISS would be safer and cheaper. It might be safer from planetary contamination standpoint, but complexity of such maneuver would handily offset that. On top of that there is a host of other issues due to the cramped space on ISS. For example: not enough space for proper isolation of sample, not enough equipment to properly study sample, and the fact that limited manpower would be avai…
That makes sense. But regarding your last sentence: I'm not very fond of that risk analysis. Potentially introducing an alien aquatic micro-organism (that's what we hope to bring back, remember) into earth's system... No competition, paradise compared to its hostile home. No meteorite has ever been shown to carry life, but into this case we intend to deliberately introduce it, either controlled or uncontrolled. NASA…
A life form which evolved in a (relatively) low-energy environment (low temperature, low light level, lower pressure) is more in hell than in a paradise. Earth organism evolved to make the best of available resources on Earth, be it energy or materials; the organism would be teared apart in no-time.
That is, unless it is a highly intelligent and evolved life form with big environment alteration capacities, but then it might already be a problem, just one we aren't aware of.
"Dr. Tsou devised a way to capture comet particles and bring them back to Earth for NASA’s Stardust mission and has been suggesting a similar method for a spacecraft that would fly through Enceladus’ plumes and then return to Earth for scientists to examine. The challenges are to make sure that the interesting particles would not break apart, to take precautions that any alien life would not infect Earth, and to fit…
I doubt in orbit rendezvous with ISS would be safer and cheaper. It might be safer from planetary contamination standpoint, but complexity of such maneuver would handily offset that. On top of that there is a host of other issues due to the cramped space on ISS. For example: not enough space for proper isolation of sample, not enough equipment to properly study sample, and the fact that limited manpower would be avai…
I'm surprised that we aren't equally worried about contaminating Enceladus with terran microbes.
"Dr. Tsou devised a way to capture comet particles and bring them back to Earth for NASA’s Stardust mission and has been suggesting a similar method for a spacecraft that would fly through Enceladus’ plumes and then return to Earth for scientists to examine. The challenges are to make sure that the interesting particles would not break apart, to take precautions that any alien life would not infect Earth, and to fit…
I doubt in orbit rendezvous with ISS would be safer and cheaper. It might be safer from planetary contamination standpoint, but complexity of such maneuver would handily offset that. On top of that there is a host of other issues due to the cramped space on ISS. For example: not enough space for proper isolation of sample, not enough equipment to properly study sample, and the fact that limited manpower would be avai…
The amount of oxygen in the atmosphere helps a lot. The onset of photosynthesis caused a mass extinction ~two billion years ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxygenation_Event
I love that name. It sounds like some kind of a party.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I doubt in orbit rendezvous with ISS would be safer and cheaper. It might be safer from planetary contamination standpoint, but complexity of such maneuver would handily offset that. On top of that there is a host of other issues due to the cramped space on ISS. For example: not enough space for proper isolation of sample, not enough equipment to properly study sample, and the fact that limited manpower would be avai…
Eh, I've played KSP, an orbital rendezvous in LEO on your return isn't that hard. If you have enough precision and fuel leftover to start a safe decent, you have enough precision and fuel to dock with the ISS. I'm surprised that we aren't equally worried about contaminating Enceladus with terran microbes.