Jump to content

Talk:Colonization of the outer Solar System

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


About the introducton

[edit]

I am not sure their is any formal proof of existing liquid water anywhere in the solar sytem. Steam and ice, and traces of rivers that might have been of liquid water, yes -- but no actual present water.

  • so interresting and good source of info. This is wikipedia at its best. Congrat's ;)

I just disagree with the word "iceteroids" because asteroids is from aster+ oids (like a star). At max, it would be iceoids, maybe... -Pedro 00:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you and Mr. Zubrin can have it out. For now, it's a common portmanteau. siafu 01:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ganymede, Triton

[edit]

Are there any ideas for these and other major moons? -Pedro 16:06, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It says Ganymede receives 8 rem per day. Are we talking 24 hours or are we talking a Ganymede day? The linked source doesn't seem to indicate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.106.178 (talk) 16:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

separate articles

[edit]

do you think there should be separate articles for Titan and Europa? --Revolución hablar ver 17:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, as Titan and Europa are two very different environments, one having a thick atmosphere (Titan), and the other a deep ocean (Europa). Felix Dance 11:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the sections discussing the use of floating cities on Jupiter contradict themselves, the first saying that floating cities would be possible (with the right preperations), the second saying that Jupiter would not be a good choice for floating cities due to gravity/radiation concerns. Just a thought. --MrBaseball (talk) 02:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's still a bit about that in the article, but it should probably be removed, since no one actually seriously considers it. All RS's that I can see think about the moons of Jupiter and Saturn – even the moons of Uranus and Neptune seem too futuristic for them, so the giants themselves should be even more so. Double sharp (talk) 09:25, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Future expansion

[edit]

I saw that someone added in a bunch of links to articles with no content, and that someone else deleted them. Let's build these articles on this page first, like for Pluto and each individual satellite. Once we get more than a page for each, we can see about breaking it off. Until then, it's not worth it. Chadlupkes 04:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did the deleting (actually reverting to redirects here) and I agree with you. I left comments on the incident at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Space Colonization--agr 10:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uranus

[edit]

The section states: "By using balloons filled with hydrogen, large masses can be suspended underneath at roughly Earth gravity. "

But Uranus atmosphere is itself mostly hydrogen. So I doubt the faculty of this statement. Does anyone have more information on this?

84.160.237.96 21:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Yes, Uranus' atmosphere, as well as the other gas giants, is not entirely composed of hydrogen. According to NASA's fact sheets (http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/uranusfact.html), Uranus' atmosphere is comprised of only 82.5% hydrogen, with the remainder being mainly helium and methane (which is 2.3%). This would easily be enough to provide boyancy for a large aerostat, with some proposals suggesting hanging loads of several thousand tons suspended below hydrogen spheres over a kilometre in diameter, although I do not have a reference for this at the moment. Felix Dance 11:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I recon that those constructs of sphreres for the hydrogen need not be able to endure high pressure densities as the hydrogen inside would have the same preasure as the atmosphere outside, but would have to be very large to provide sufficiant boyancy. Large constructs tend to be heavy. So how exactly would these sphreres look like? If the hydrogen would be under preassure to retain structural stability of the sphere, it'll surely leak out through almost all materials. If not, the sphere needs to have structural stability of its own, adding weight to the structure, decreasing the overall density.

Are there any numberes on that subject? 84.160.217.236 19:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As explained above, a small percentage of the atmosphere is comprised of heavy compounds. Balloons would have to be large, but boyancy would be in the order of Earth's atmosphere due to the large mole mass of the methane (2.3%). The idea has been around in Science Fiction for a while so I would be supprised if there was no independant research on the issue. Balloons weighing a few tons could contain millions of cubic metres of hydrogen, allowing hundreds of tons of lift. Felix Dance 00:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Several people have already been in Uranus, back in college. Should the article mention this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.15.179.171 (talk) 23:36, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

removed "rocket fuel" speculation

[edit]

While it's probably true that there are goodies out there from which to manufacture rocket fuel, let us remember that even interplanetary distances are so damn far as to make rocket propulsion for getting around amongst them downright silly. for instance, if we are to accelerate to even 100 miles per second, it would still take ~ 7 years just to get to Jupiter, let alone to Saturn, which is roughly twice as far out. I'm not going to do the joules-to-matter math here, but at joule you can see how much energy is required for this sort of trip. Even if you were to use fusion instead of, say, potassium perchlorate, and get much higher efficiency, it would still take an awful long time to get anything done. So, consider the phrase 'sustain life,' which is far more generic. I don't think anyone is going to deny that there are organic compounds (Io and Titan come to mind), water ice (Europa), and liquid water (Europa again) out there. Further, the previously mentioned ingredients plus sunlight do life sustainment make. Indeed, even without sunlight, Jupiter and Io are pretty warm places to hang out. This has been speculated ad nauseum in (science) fiction, and recently by the likes of NASA with, say, the Huygens probe. Anyhow, I think it doesn't need the {{fact}} template now. At least not there. 63.242.163.2 23:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't Cassini Huygens reach Saturn in under 7 years? Saturn is further out than Jupiter as well.WolfKeeper 04:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit seems to be based on OR, and from looking at it, you've made some mistakes with your analysis; for example, Cassini used a Venus slingshot I believe.WolfKeeper 04:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not having tracked more than the last bit of this exchange, just to pipe in with my two cents - there are references out there, which we should collect, for outer Solar System resources being susceptible to exploitation as rocket fuel; Cassini used slingshots of Venus, Venus a second time, Earth, Earth a second time, [fact-checked self — r.d.] and then Jupiter, after originally being launched with chemical rocket fuel; and the relative crappiness of chemical propellant doesn't nullify the potential value of developing chemical propellant resources in the outer Solar System - it can be combined with other techniques, as the creative slingshotting of the Cassini mission planners illustrated, and don't forget that it can be used to ship slow-boat freight, for shipments with relatively low time decay in value per mass density. Spacecraft don't need to move that fast when there are no or few people in them, to be of value. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 05:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speculation

[edit]

This article needs a cleanup, there is a lot of speculation and not that much facts —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.68.237.197 (talk) 02:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agreed. there is no scientific or economic justification to even consider such colonization. There are a large number of intractable problems to consider even reaching Mars, much less the rest of the solar system.--173.69.135.105 (talk) 02:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If a problem is intractable, why bother considering it? :P —Tamfang (talk) 04:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be removed

[edit]

This article contains many fallacies and false claims, with little or no evidence to support hypotheses, nor substantive commentary on the topic. Until an expert is able to produce a better document, this article should be removed from Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.10.96.6 (talk) 07:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Colonization of the outer Solar System. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Colonization of the outer Solar System. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:27, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Colonization_of_the_outer_Solar_System&oldid=1206582703"