10 Space Myths We Need to Stop Believing Why you shouldn’t get your facts from Hollywood. 1. We explode in space Like many of the myths that will follow, this idea was mostly created by Hollywood. Oftentimes, moviemakers aren’t really that concerned with the facts. Exposure to space will definitely kill you, but not instantly and not in such a visceral way. 2. Venus is often referred to as our twin but this shouldn’t give you the impression that it is exactly like our planet. 3. The Sun is actually glowing, not burning. 4. Ask anyone to draw a Sun and they will immediately reach for the yellow crayon. Thing is, though, that we see it yellow thanks to our atmosphere. Regardless, we don’t need to see the Sun to know what color it is because we can tell from the temperature. 5. At a glance, this one seems logical enough. What isn’t a myth, however, is the idea that the Earth is sometimes closer and sometimes further away from the Sun. 6. Again, something we’ve talked about, but it is mentioned often so it bears repeating. 7. 8.
Stanford torus Exterior view of a Stanford torus. Bottom center is the non-rotating primary solar mirror, which reflects sunlight onto the angled ring of secondary mirrors around the hub. Painting by Donald E. Interior of a Stanford torus, painted by Donald E. The Stanford torus is a proposed design[1] for a space habitat capable of housing 10,000 to 140,000 permanent residents.[2] The Stanford torus was proposed during the 1975 NASA Summer Study, conducted at Stanford University, with the purpose of speculating on designs for future space colonies[3] (Gerard O'Neill later proposed his Island One or Bernal sphere as an alternative to the torus[4]). It consists of a torus, or doughnut-shaped ring, that is 1.8 km in diameter (for the proposed 10,000 person habitat described in the 1975 Summer Study) and rotates once per minute to provide between 0.9g and 1.0g of artificial gravity on the inside of the outer ring via centrifugal force.[7] Construction[edit] General characteristics[edit] Gallery[edit]
Change The Way You See The World In 82 Seconds Dyson Spheres: The Ultimate Energy Shell Game The world’s exponential population growth will soon need to flatten out otherwise within a few hundred years every square foot of the Earth’s surface will be taken up by a human. (Which reminds me of one of my favorite bumper stickers from a space advocacy group in the 1970s that read: “American Needs Space to Grow.”) With this population growth, mankind’s hunger for energy has also increased exponentially. And if this continues, we will soon consume more energy than the Earth receives from the sun. Should they exist, this could be a common problem faced by burgeoning civilizations across the galaxy. ANALYSIS: Looking for Alien ‘Bubbles’ in Other Galaxies A solution to this energy demand is to become an extra-terrestrial civilization and harvest the resources of a planetary system to colonize space. This so-called Dyson Sphere would provide a virtually infinite living space 600 million times larger than the surface area of the Earth. So where would that energy come from?
stars.chromeexperiments Self-replicating spacecraft The idea of self-replicating spacecraft has been applied — in theory — to several distinct "tasks". The particular variant of this idea applied to the idea of space exploration is known as a von Neumann probe. Other variants include the Berserker and an automated terraforming seeder ship. Theory[edit] In theory, a self-replicating spacecraft could be sent to a neighbouring star-system, where it would seek out raw materials (extracted from asteroids, moons, gas giants, etc.) to create replicas of itself. Given this pattern, and its similarity to the reproduction patterns of bacteria, it has been pointed out that von Neumann machines might be considered a form of life. The first quantitative engineering analysis of such a spacecraft was published in 1980 by Robert Freitas,[1] in which the non-replicating Project Daedalus design was modified to include all subsystems necessary for self-replication. Implications for Fermi's paradox[edit] A response[4] came from Carl Sagan and William Newman.