You think it's awesome that your children would suffer from severe problems with their muscles, skeletons, immune systems and cardiovascular systems, to say nothing of potentially being exposed to a deadly environment in the event of an emergency or being fried by ungodly amounts of solar radiation?
Although the slight problems you state do sound discouraging... Im sorry, I have to say it...
My Bags Are Packed! When Do We Leave?!?!??!!?
Dear science, please start solving problems and curing diseases or shut the fuck up.
You think it's awesome that your children would suffer from severe problems with their muscles, skeletons, immune systems and cardiovascular systems, to say nothing of potentially being exposed to a deadly environment in the event of an emergency or being fried by ungodly amounts of solar radiation?
Interesting, but I wouldn't worry about ever really getting to one of these planets in the next century or beyond. The US can't figure out how to get another rocket to the moon and the Mars Mission is under consideration by the Obama Administration to be scrapped because of budget constraints, and I don't see how the European Union is going to pick up the slack, as they could only scrape up 4 million for the Tsunami victims a year ago because of how their economies are set up. Maybe the Chinese...
Last edited by AlDaja; October 22nd, 2009 at 10:24 AM.
With that attitude we probably should have never built rockets and gone to the moon, for that matter why even build satellites.
It's not an 'attitude', it's a fact - Mars' gravity is less than half that of Earth (closer to a third, in fact). Long-term human habitation would result in significant health problems.
Disclaimer: FileTrekkers are opinion by personal endorsed.
It's not an 'attitude', it's a fact - Mars' gravity is less than half that of Earth (closer to a third, in fact). Long-term human habitation would result in significant health problems.
Worse than multiple years of weightlessness in Space Stations? Testing has shown that regular exercise prevented bone loss and helped prevent loss of muscle mass.
The only problems I am aware of was time needed for the bodies muscles to re acclimate themselves to to carrying their old weight in earths gravity.
One of the problems being worked on for extended space missions is how to deal with trying to keep the people in shape for two years before they even get to Mars.
As for radiation in space I assume any base on Mars or the moon would have to deal with radiation and thus require shielding or be underground.
One of the proposed projects for Mars was to use lichen which is similar to lichens found in Artic areas to terraform Mars.
EDIT: Found this link which explains many of the problems.
In essence I dont think the problems are insurmountable. They may difficult to overcome or adapt to but so was trying to land a man on the moon 30 years ago.
Last edited by Anlushac11; October 22nd, 2009 at 09:56 AM.
It's not an 'attitude', it's a fact - Mars' gravity is less than half that of Earth (closer to a third, in fact). Long-term human habitation would result in significant health problems.
Agreed. Anyone living on Mars would have to go through aggressive strength training or they would suffer severe organ, muscle and bone damage upon return to Earth. NASA figured this out after the first few orbits into space when astronauts complained about muscle fatigue and other problems, hence why daily exercise is so important for astronauts on the ISP and Shuttle. I highly doubt any of us would qualify (save one or two) given we spend most of our time on our ass in front of a computer.
The only way to get around this is artificial gravity (which isn't too far off in real world application) that is set to Earth norms.
Last edited by AlDaja; October 22nd, 2009 at 10:31 AM.
All we know right now is we look for a similarly sized planet within a hospitable zone from its plant like how far Venus, Earth, and Mars are from the sun.
You can look for the spectrum of a planet, to look for blues and greens - you know, plants and chlorophyll. Of course, there is no guarantee that any plants will be green (I think Sciam did a very good article on blue/red plants on other planets with parents stars of different spectra), but it's a good start.
Quote:
Worse than multiple years of weightlessness in Space Stations? Testing has shown that regular exercise prevented bone loss and helped prevent loss of muscle mass.
Yes. Because you are not staying there for a few hundred days. You are staying there for decades on a planet with significantly lower/higher gravity than the Earth. You will get bone deformation because of the different stresses, muscle atrophy/hypertrophy, etc. Aside from the fact that being in a high gravity environment isn't that good for your organs anyway.
And Matty is right about the immune system as well; the physiological triggers to regulate the immune system are not fully understood, and it is entirely possible that the difference in bone composition/mass brought about by the change in gravity could have a profound, long-term effect on your immune system.
Quote:
As for radiation in space I assume any base on Mars or the moon would have to deal with radiation and thus require shielding or be underground.
How about the radiation in interplanetary space? The Sun shields us from most interstellar radiation, but the sun itself puts out a lot of radiation, and with no Van Allen belts to protect us, you'll probably have either died or become terminally ill by the time you get to Mars.
It would also have to find a way of living on a gas giant...
Nobody ever said any of these new planets were Gas Giants. Just because they are the size of Jupiter, this doesn't nessecerily mean they aren't Rocks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schofield
Maybe some life can...
Quote:
Originally Posted by crisissuit3
Life on that planet could have been their for far longer then the earth. I'm pretty sure that life there has adapted to the extreme gravity.
If life evolved on that planet, it wouldn't have to 'adapt', as it would have evolved to cope with the conditions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Matt
It's not an 'attitude', it's a fact - Mars' gravity is less than half that of Earth (closer to a third, in fact). Long-term human habitation would result in significant health problems.
Surely we'd adapt? Granted it may take time, but if you look at points across the globe, those people living in various locations have adapted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlDaja
The only way to get around this is artificial gravity (which isn't too far off in real world application) that is set to Earth norms.
This!.
Also, just a thought, but these planets may not even be there anymore... Its no secret that when we look at light through space, we're seeing these suns / planets as they were, not as they are. I'm sure also, that by the time we've figured out how to get to these 'rocks' we'll have developed a way to teraform these rocks, and turn them into suitiable planets.
Nobody ever said any of these new planets were Gas Giants. Just because they are the size of Jupiter, this doesn't nessecerily mean they aren't Rocks.
I highly doubt that there is enough rocky matter in the entirety of our Solar System to make up a single body with 8 Jupiter masses. Most large bodies are gaseous because they contain leftover gas from the formation of the star; the negligible loss of mass from the star due to this process gives the gas giants. Whereas you'd be hard put to find a system with that much rocky matter, except from maybe a fifth, or even 6th generation star.
Quote:
Surely we'd adapt? Granted it may take time, but if you look at points across the globe, those people living in various locations have adapted.
Hundreds, maybe thousands of years. I doubt many people would be happy living with a whole horde of physiological abnormalities brought about by the climate in the consolation that maybe a few hundred years down the track their descendants may be more suited to the climate. And in any case, that assumes that the ones unfit to survive just die. More likely, with medical technology, they'd survive, reproduce, and slow the whole process down.
Quote:
Also, just a thought, but these planets may not even be there anymore... Its no secret that when we look at light through space, we're seeing these suns / planets as they were, not as they are. I'm sure also, that by the time we've figured out how to get to these 'rocks' we'll have developed a way to teraform these rocks, and turn them into suitiable planets.
That possibility is so infinitesimally small it may probably be more pertinent to figure out how to get there first before dwelling on the possibility that the planet may not be there when we get there. After all, even the shortest-lived stars have their lifetimes measured in the millions of years; for the yellow and brown dwarfs that we're ideally looking for, lifetimes are in the billions of years. It is so hugely improbable that we happen to travel there in the few thousand years when the star turns nova or something else happens to the planet, and we don't know about it, that I think it's kind of negligible.
Not necessarily. In my mind, nothing we humans say is 100% right, maybe everything we have found out can be proven wrong. I know it sounds stupid, but hey, you never know.
That's all science is. Man's best guess... to put it bluntly
Quote:
Originally Posted by gravy666
32 new space rocks to shoot missiles at. Wonderful.
If you manage to find enough fuel for a rocket to travel there, I'll be damned if you plan on using it for a missle.
Boobs are like bacon. They are juicy and good. There now I won't be perverted anymore. ~Raptor 101
This site is part of the Defy Media Gaming network
The best serving of video game culture, since 2001. Whether you're looking for news, reviews, walkthroughs, or the biggest collection of PC gaming files on the planet, Game Front has you covered. We also make no illusions about gaming: it's supposed to be fun. Browse gaming galleries, humor lists, and honest, short-form reporting. Game on!
The Pub 
Re: 32 New Planets Found 
Linear Mode
