1389: "Surface Area"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
MisterH
Posts: 31
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2011 11:02 am UTC

Re: 1389: "Surface Area"

Postby MisterH » Thu Jul 03, 2014 12:49 am UTC

Anyway, This is very similar to the Gravity chart.

User avatar
Whizbang
The Best Reporter
Posts: 2238
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 7:50 pm UTC
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: 1389: "Surface Area"

Postby Whizbang » Thu Jul 03, 2014 1:09 am UTC

I don't think he included the oceans, merely gave the coast outlines for familiarity.

Mikeski
Posts: 1096
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:24 am UTC
Location: Minnesota, USA

Re: 1389: "Surface Area"

Postby Mikeski » Thu Jul 03, 2014 1:45 am UTC

Whizbang wrote:I don't think he included the oceans, merely gave the coast outlines for familiarity.

Then the "Earth" tile on his map would be the size of the continents. All the not-continents area in that tile must represent the oceans.

User avatar
Whizbang
The Best Reporter
Posts: 2238
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 7:50 pm UTC
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: 1389: "Surface Area"

Postby Whizbang » Thu Jul 03, 2014 2:06 am UTC

They represent the surface underneath the oceans. Like said in the quote below, not including the land under the oceans would require not including land under an atmosphere, leaving a significant portion of the solar system's surface out of the map.


armandoalvarez wrote:
RFredW wrote:
Blackfoot wrote:What is the extra space around the Earth land area? Can't be the oceans, as this is solid surface only.


I completely agree that this comic has an odd "liquid counts as solid, but gas doesn't" vibe, and would have preferred a fair fight. Possibly it's tied into events in this week's "What if".

ttfn
Fred

It's completely fair to include "the extra space around the Earth land area": there is solid surface directly below our oceans. To discount that solid surface just because it has liquid above it would be like discounting all the surfaces that have atmospheres above them.

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1389: "Surface Area"

Postby Klear » Thu Jul 03, 2014 2:54 am UTC

What if: Interplanetary Cessna wrote:There's no surface to hit; Jupiter transitions smoothly from gas to solid as you sink deeper and deeper.


I don't have a better source for that, but it makes sense.

User avatar
Jahute
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2014 3:27 am UTC

Re: 1389: "Surface Area"

Postby Jahute » Thu Jul 03, 2014 3:34 am UTC

Anyone else get a weird optical illusion when looking at the embiggened image?

9squirrels
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 7:02 am UTC

Re: 1389: "Surface Area"

Postby 9squirrels » Thu Jul 03, 2014 4:49 am UTC

I feel like IO should have been landlocked or something. After all, we should "make no landings on IO"...

User avatar
Neil_Boekend
Posts: 3220
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2013 6:35 am UTC
Location: Yes.

Re: 1389: "Surface Area"

Postby Neil_Boekend » Thu Jul 03, 2014 12:51 pm UTC

MisterH wrote:
Xenomortis wrote:
tomandlu wrote:Do Jupiter and Saturn have no solid surface at all (or am I just going blind)?

Basically, no.
As you descend into Jupiter's atmosphere (or the other gas giants), the pressure keeps increasing. After a while, the gas surrounding you starts becoming more and more liquid like (and eventually you might hit some exotic ices).


Until you land on a lump of metallic Hydrogen and if we're not allowing that because it's sloshing about, why has Randall included the Earth's oceans?

I'd say he didn't. He included the ocean floor. For recognition purposes he drew the continents on it.
Mikeski wrote:A "What If" update is never late. Nor is it early. It is posted precisely when it should be.

patzer's signature wrote:
flicky1991 wrote:I'm being quoted too much!

he/him/his

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 3059
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1389: "Surface Area"

Postby orthogon » Thu Jul 03, 2014 1:07 pm UTC

Neil_Boekend wrote:
MisterH wrote:Until you land on a lump of metallic Hydrogen and if we're not allowing that because it's sloshing about, why has Randall included the Earth's oceans?

I'd say he didn't. He included the ocean floor. For recognition purposes he drew the continents on it.

An improvement would be to include some recognisable or well-known features from the Moon, too.
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

User avatar
moody7277
Posts: 617
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2008 7:06 pm UTC
Location: Extreme south Texas

Re: 1389: "Surface Area"

Postby moody7277 » Thu Jul 03, 2014 2:30 pm UTC

9squirrels wrote:I feel like IO should have been landlocked or something. After all, we should "make no landings on IO"...


If you're talking about 2010, that was Europa.
The story of my life in xkcdmafia:

Tigerlion wrote:Well, I imagine as the game progresses, various people will be getting moody.


BoomFrog wrote:I still have no idea what town moody really looks like.

jpvlsmv
Posts: 85
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 9:43 pm UTC

Re: 1389: "Surface Area"

Postby jpvlsmv » Thu Jul 03, 2014 3:43 pm UTC

orthogon wrote:
jpvlsmv wrote:For reference, if this comic were printed the size of a standard SD card, the surface of the sun would be 1.5 square meters, or the size of a "square foot garden" that can provide a year's worth of vegetables for one person.

So a "square foot garden" is over 16 square feet? That's inflation, I suppose... That, or marketing.

I couldn't come up with a better (more interesting) example of that size.

But yeah, the "square foot" in that garden plan is reference to the area allocated for each different type of vegetable... so you may have 1 square foot of spinach growing next to a square foot of tomato plants next to a square foot of strawberries, arranged in a 4x4 grid.

Also, note that the person-year's worth of vegetables from this size garden requires a significant level of skill and care. In my case, the area of the sun would produce more like 1/180 person-vegetable-year per year. (I guess that unit simplifies to the timeless person-vegetable) I buy from the local farmer's market instead.

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 3059
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1389: "Surface Area"

Postby orthogon » Thu Jul 03, 2014 3:56 pm UTC

jpvlsmv wrote:But yeah, the "square foot" in that garden plan is reference to the area allocated for each different type of vegetable... so you may have 1 square foot of spinach growing next to a square foot of tomato plants next to a square foot of strawberries, arranged in a 4x4 grid.

Also, note that the person-year's worth of vegetables from this size garden requires a significant level of skill and care. In my case, the area of the sun would produce more like 1/180 person-vegetable-year per year. (I guess that unit simplifies to the timeless person-vegetable) I buy from the local farmer's market instead.

Thanks - I didn't mean to be dismissive: I'm genuinely interested by the idea. Can you perform crop rotation on your 1 sq.ft. "fields", or are they too close together for that to work? Also yes, I had thought that the units didn't need time - effectively it's saying that the land requirement is 1.5m^2 per person. (I'm not sure how "vegetable" fits in dimensionally; it's a bit like "air" in "air-miles": not exactly multiplicative). Is this for a vegetarian, or is it just the vegetable part of an omnivore's diet?
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

DanD
Posts: 333
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 12:42 am UTC

Re: 1389: "Surface Area"

Postby DanD » Thu Jul 03, 2014 5:25 pm UTC

orthogon wrote:
jpvlsmv wrote:Can you perform crop rotation on your 1 sq.ft. "fields", or are they too close together for that to work?


You don't need to for one of the purposes, and it's to close to work for the other. Crop rotation distributes new nutrition, and since you're going to turn over the soil in your garden every year, those are all going to get mixed around. The second advantage, that disease organisms (or insect pests) for a specific crop don't accumulate due to the rotation is going to be a problem. The mobility of these organisms is bigger than the total garden. The small size does give you an advantage in active control measures, since you can physically pick out insects and such.

One alternative would be soil rotation. Since many "square foot" gardens are in raised beds, you could swap in new topsoil (from compost or whatever) every year, and let the old stuff age out somewhere else.

User avatar
Crissa
Posts: 294
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2011 8:06 pm UTC

Re: 1389: "Surface Area"

Postby Crissa » Thu Jul 03, 2014 5:30 pm UTC

Disease prevention in small footprint gardens is very, very difficult. You'd have to swap out all your tools and bins as well as the dirt itself. Not practical. Professional horticulture uses fast-degrading fumigants to clean their small footprint high intensity farming, something that's just not practical or safe for the backyard person.

Usually, though, you can just switch varieties out or skip a carrier crop. Fire is good, if you have access to it.

-Crissa

jpvlsmv
Posts: 85
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 9:43 pm UTC

Re: 1389: "Surface Area"

Postby jpvlsmv » Thu Jul 03, 2014 5:59 pm UTC

orthogon wrote:
jpvlsmv wrote:But yeah, the "square foot" in that garden plan is reference to the area allocated for each different type of vegetable... so you may have 1 square foot of spinach growing next to a square foot of tomato plants next to a square foot of strawberries, arranged in a 4x4 grid.

Also, note that the person-year's worth of vegetables from this size garden requires a significant level of skill and care. In my case, the area of the sun would produce more like 1/180 person-vegetable-year per year. (I guess that unit simplifies to the timeless person-vegetable) I buy from the local farmer's market instead.

Thanks - I didn't mean to be dismissive: I'm genuinely interested by the idea. Can you perform crop rotation on your 1 sq.ft. "fields", or are they too close together for that to work? Also yes, I had thought that the units didn't need time - effectively it's saying that the land requirement is 1.5m^2 per person. (I'm not sure how "vegetable" fits in dimensionally; it's a bit like "air" in "air-miles": not exactly multiplicative). Is this for a vegetarian, or is it just the vegetable part of an omnivore's diet?


Again, I'm exactly the wrong person to give good information about this. My best garden was about 3 square meters in size, had 4 different crops, and made enough vegetables for two side salads. (Hence, 1/180 of a person-vegetable-year in a growing season in double the area, but I could probably have done better if I hadn't disconnected the automatic watering hose)

chris857
Posts: 100
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 5:04 pm UTC

Re: 1389: "Surface Area"

Postby chris857 » Thu Jul 03, 2014 6:05 pm UTC

Blackfoot wrote:What is the extra space around the Earth land area? Can't be the oceans, as this is solid surface only.


I took it to be seafloor. As opposed to say the gas giants where we can't for sure define a solid surface anywhere, the seafloor is decidedly solid.

square_one
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri May 30, 2014 7:29 pm UTC

Re: 1389: "Surface Area"

Postby square_one » Thu Jul 03, 2014 6:41 pm UTC

keithl wrote:
Pfhorrest wrote:Someone remind me again why colonizing Venus is totally out of the question? Yeah it's got the runaway greenhouse thing but at least it has an atmosphere and the right gravity and such; since we'd need to reprocess the atmosphere of any planet we wanted to settle, why can't we do Venus?


There are serious proposals for colonizing Venus - but not the surface!

Aerostats filled with oxygen and nitrogen, which is buoyant in CO2. The temperatures are fairly cool high in the Venus atmosphere. You will need to import water, and lots of it, not sure how to deliver that without a lot of pesky delta V. Perhaps there is some bound in the rocks below. All the structural carbon you could ever want, and plants can help you make more.


This.

Venus has some interesting problems...but Mars has that pesky lower gravity, which I would imagine to be a bigger problem (and harder to solve) when it comes to a long-term human population.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 1389: "Surface Area"

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Jul 03, 2014 7:03 pm UTC

jpvlsmv wrote:
orthogon wrote:
jpvlsmv wrote:But yeah, the "square foot" in that garden plan is reference to the area allocated for each different type of vegetable... so you may have 1 square foot of spinach growing next to a square foot of tomato plants next to a square foot of strawberries, arranged in a 4x4 grid.

Also, note that the person-year's worth of vegetables from this size garden requires a significant level of skill and care. In my case, the area of the sun would produce more like 1/180 person-vegetable-year per year. (I guess that unit simplifies to the timeless person-vegetable) I buy from the local farmer's market instead.

Thanks - I didn't mean to be dismissive: I'm genuinely interested by the idea. Can you perform crop rotation on your 1 sq.ft. "fields", or are they too close together for that to work? Also yes, I had thought that the units didn't need time - effectively it's saying that the land requirement is 1.5m^2 per person. (I'm not sure how "vegetable" fits in dimensionally; it's a bit like "air" in "air-miles": not exactly multiplicative). Is this for a vegetarian, or is it just the vegetable part of an omnivore's diet?


Again, I'm exactly the wrong person to give good information about this. My best garden was about 3 square meters in size, had 4 different crops, and made enough vegetables for two side salads. (Hence, 1/180 of a person-vegetable-year in a growing season in double the area, but I could probably have done better if I hadn't disconnected the automatic watering hose)


I grew up on a farm, so I can probably chip in...you can do some fairly intense farming on say, a balcony or what not, but expecting a vegetable garden the size of a balcony to support a person is...extremely optimistic. You usually just simply don't have adequate sun. Particularly small garden layouts tend to assume that you can build vertically, and essentially capture significant extra light due to unobstructed sun in every direction. Realistically, if you're building a tiny garden, it's usually because you only have a tiny space, and there's other stuff about. Your house. Fences. Neighboring houses. Perfect insolation is not normal.

You basically don't need to worry about crop rotation with small plots. Nutrients will leach across via water, and anyway, there's a certain degree of soil mixing as you harvest root vegetables and the like.

If you want to supplement with a balcony/backyard garden...awesome, but start small. Get like, a few tomato plants growing first. Build up good soil, and get one crop humming smoothly before you try to grow all your stuff from scratch. That ends up being a way to dump a lot of money at dead plants.

TomTAC
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Nov 06, 2013 12:29 pm UTC

Re: 1389: "Surface Area"

Postby TomTAC » Fri Jul 04, 2014 12:31 pm UTC

BlueNight wrote:As a Doom player, I was initially disappointed that Phobos and Deimos weren't on here, but then I remembered that they are "small rocks": 1,500 km^2 and 500 km^2. By comparison, the smallest labelled bodies on the chart are Miranda and Vesta, at 700,000 km^2 and 800,000 km^2.


I had noticed their absence, and wanted them there, somewhere. They're bigger than the "1km+ asteroids". I think of Phobos and Deimos as in a separate class with Earth's Moon, since there are only three moons this side of the Asteroid Belt.

I was hoping (unlikely as it is) that they might be included in that unlabeled spot west of Triton.

eran_rathan wrote:@Phorrest - Regarding Venus, the upper atmo is pretty habitable - its just a matter of figuring out how to stay up there all the time (breathable air mixes are a lifting gas in Venus's atmo, so that helps).


It is probably worthwhile to describe, at least once, this description of Earth and Venus: Earth has lots of CO2 and sulphur, and most of it is tied up chemically in solid rock, in the Crust and the Core. Venus, on the other hand, has released most of the CO2 that would otherwise be tied up in rock.

I got that factoid from attending a planetary science lecture at a nearby university. If true, then a terraforming effort could include trying to rebind the excess CO2 to the Crust.

Removing the sulphur would disrupt a major factor in the weather of Venus, but terraforming does that anyway. (See http://solar-flux.forumandco.com/t320-s ... ed-planets for information on the Sulphur Cycle.)

User avatar
PinkShinyRose
Posts: 834
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 6:54 pm UTC
Location: the Netherlands

Re: 1389: "Surface Area"

Postby PinkShinyRose » Fri Jul 04, 2014 2:22 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
jpvlsmv wrote:
orthogon wrote:
jpvlsmv wrote:But yeah, the "square foot" in that garden plan is reference to the area allocated for each different type of vegetable... so you may have 1 square foot of spinach growing next to a square foot of tomato plants next to a square foot of strawberries, arranged in a 4x4 grid.

Also, note that the person-year's worth of vegetables from this size garden requires a significant level of skill and care. In my case, the area of the sun would produce more like 1/180 person-vegetable-year per year. (I guess that unit simplifies to the timeless person-vegetable) I buy from the local farmer's market instead.

Thanks - I didn't mean to be dismissive: I'm genuinely interested by the idea. Can you perform crop rotation on your 1 sq.ft. "fields", or are they too close together for that to work? Also yes, I had thought that the units didn't need time - effectively it's saying that the land requirement is 1.5m^2 per person. (I'm not sure how "vegetable" fits in dimensionally; it's a bit like "air" in "air-miles": not exactly multiplicative). Is this for a vegetarian, or is it just the vegetable part of an omnivore's diet?


Again, I'm exactly the wrong person to give good information about this. My best garden was about 3 square meters in size, had 4 different crops, and made enough vegetables for two side salads. (Hence, 1/180 of a person-vegetable-year in a growing season in double the area, but I could probably have done better if I hadn't disconnected the automatic watering hose)


I grew up on a farm, so I can probably chip in...you can do some fairly intense farming on say, a balcony or what not, but expecting a vegetable garden the size of a balcony to support a person is...extremely optimistic. You usually just simply don't have adequate sun. Particularly small garden layouts tend to assume that you can build vertically, and essentially capture significant extra light due to unobstructed sun in every direction. Realistically, if you're building a tiny garden, it's usually because you only have a tiny space, and there's other stuff about. Your house. Fences. Neighboring houses. Perfect insolation is not normal.

You basically don't need to worry about crop rotation with small plots. Nutrients will leach across via water, and anyway, there's a certain degree of soil mixing as you harvest root vegetables and the like.

If you want to supplement with a balcony/backyard garden...awesome, but start small. Get like, a few tomato plants growing first. Build up good soil, and get one crop humming smoothly before you try to grow all your stuff from scratch. That ends up being a way to dump a lot of money at dead plants.

If it works on a balcony, if should work on a roof too. Maybe if you only eat garden cress you can sustain yourself if you happen to live in the right climate or build a greenhouse.

cct
Posts: 28
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 1:55 pm UTC

Re: 1389: "Surface Area"

Postby cct » Fri Jul 04, 2014 2:42 pm UTC

Crissa wrote:Fire is good, if you have access to it.


No! No! No! Fire is dangerous. Fire must be kept out of the hands of humans. If a species starts using fire, they may evolve into something intelligent - if they don't kill themselves first. The last thing we need in this solar system is intelligent humans.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3617
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1389: "Surface Area"

Postby rmsgrey » Fri Jul 04, 2014 7:01 pm UTC

cct wrote:
Crissa wrote:Fire is good, if you have access to it.


No! No! No! Fire is dangerous. Fire must be kept out of the hands of humans. If a species starts using fire, they may evolve into something intelligent - if they don't kill themselves first. The last thing we need in this solar system is intelligent humans.


Sounds more like the first thing we need..

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1389: "Surface Area"

Postby Klear » Fri Jul 04, 2014 8:56 pm UTC

cct wrote:
Crissa wrote:Fire is good, if you have access to it.


No! No! No! Fire is dangerous. Fire must be kept out of the hands of humans. If a species starts using fire, they may evolve into something intelligent - if they don't kill themselves first. The last thing we need in this solar system is intelligent humans.


Me am play gods!

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10226
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1389: "Surface Area"

Postby addams » Sun Jul 06, 2014 5:18 am UTC

Klear wrote:Re: Colonizing Mars instead of Venus - it's great that with a lot of effort we could probably come up with an expensive plan how to terraform it at least a little bit over several decades, but we can fly to Marx now.

That is a funny one.
It would make a good Moto.

Clean it up and put it on your Bumper.
Who would be following you home?

Did you intend it to be funny?
I hope so. I laughed.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
Crissa
Posts: 294
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2011 8:06 pm UTC

Re: 1389: "Surface Area"

Postby Crissa » Sun Jul 06, 2014 7:14 am UTC

square_one wrote:Mars has that pesky lower gravity, which I would imagine to be a bigger problem (and harder to solve) when it comes to a long-term human population.

It's not a problem if you don't plan to leave.

-Crissa

Mikeski
Posts: 1096
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:24 am UTC
Location: Minnesota, USA

Re: 1389: "Surface Area"

Postby Mikeski » Sun Jul 06, 2014 5:01 pm UTC

Crissa wrote:
square_one wrote:Mars has that pesky lower gravity, which I would imagine to be a bigger problem (and harder to solve) when it comes to a long-term human population.

It's not a problem if you don't plan to leave.
The Terran Tourism Board finds your comment... disturbing.

armandoalvarez
Posts: 126
Joined: Thu May 03, 2012 1:39 am UTC

Re: 1389: "Surface Area"

Postby armandoalvarez » Sun Jul 06, 2014 7:30 pm UTC

Crissa wrote:
square_one wrote:Mars has that pesky lower gravity, which I would imagine to be a bigger problem (and harder to solve) when it comes to a long-term human population.

It's not a problem if you don't plan to leave.

-Crissa


Is it only a problem if you leave? I see two problems with this 1. Long-term low-gravity vs. long term weightlessness; and 2. Long-term weightlessness does seem to cause health deterioration that would be a problem whether you want to return or not.

Weightlessness versus low-gravity: we know a decent amount now about what happens if you stay in weightlessness for months on end, but the longest anyone's ever been in a low-gravity environment is 3 days, so I don't know if we have much evidence one way or the other about the long-term effects of low-gravity. Maybe simply sending someone on Mars into a weight room a few times a week and tripling their Earth workouts would do it.

But supposing the effect of low-gravity is similar to weightlessness, the effects of weightlessness on the human body seem to me at least to be stuff you don't want whether or not you're returning to a 1g environment, like skeletal deterioration.

User avatar
HES
Posts: 4889
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 7:13 pm UTC
Location: England

Re: 1389: "Surface Area"

Postby HES » Sun Jul 06, 2014 7:49 pm UTC

That's what evolution is for.
He/Him/His Image

q0dr
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2014 3:43 pm UTC

Re: 1389: "Surface Area"

Postby q0dr » Sun Jul 06, 2014 8:48 pm UTC

What's the small, unnamed area between Triton and the 1 KM+ Asteroids? :?:

User avatar
PinkShinyRose
Posts: 834
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 6:54 pm UTC
Location: the Netherlands

Re: 1389: "Surface Area"

Postby PinkShinyRose » Sun Jul 06, 2014 9:17 pm UTC

armandoalvarez wrote:
Crissa wrote:
square_one wrote:Mars has that pesky lower gravity, which I would imagine to be a bigger problem (and harder to solve) when it comes to a long-term human population.

It's not a problem if you don't plan to leave.

-Crissa


Is it only a problem if you leave? I see two problems with this 1. Long-term low-gravity vs. long term weightlessness; and 2. Long-term weightlessness does seem to cause health deterioration that would be a problem whether you want to return or not.

Weightlessness versus low-gravity: we know a decent amount now about what happens if you stay in weightlessness for months on end, but the longest anyone's ever been in a low-gravity environment is 3 days, so I don't know if we have much evidence one way or the other about the long-term effects of low-gravity. Maybe simply sending someone on Mars into a weight room a few times a week and tripling their Earth workouts would do it.

But supposing the effect of low-gravity is similar to weightlessness, the effects of weightlessness on the human body seem to me at least to be stuff you don't want whether or not you're returning to a 1g environment, like skeletal deterioration.

Why are skeletal deterioration and muscle atrophy a problem if you stay in the low gravity conditions? I would be more worried about obesity, if people already get that on earth it's going to be a big problem in environments where walking or jumping hardly requires any energy.

armandoalvarez
Posts: 126
Joined: Thu May 03, 2012 1:39 am UTC

Re: 1389: "Surface Area"

Postby armandoalvarez » Sun Jul 06, 2014 10:02 pm UTC

PinkShinyRose wrote:
armandoalvarez wrote:
Crissa wrote:
square_one wrote:Mars has that pesky lower gravity, which I would imagine to be a bigger problem (and harder to solve) when it comes to a long-term human population.

It's not a problem if you don't plan to leave.

-Crissa


Is it only a problem if you leave? I see two problems with this 1. Long-term low-gravity vs. long term weightlessness; and 2. Long-term weightlessness does seem to cause health deterioration that would be a problem whether you want to return or not.

Weightlessness versus low-gravity: we know a decent amount now about what happens if you stay in weightlessness for months on end, but the longest anyone's ever been in a low-gravity environment is 3 days, so I don't know if we have much evidence one way or the other about the long-term effects of low-gravity. Maybe simply sending someone on Mars into a weight room a few times a week and tripling their Earth workouts would do it.

But supposing the effect of low-gravity is similar to weightlessness, the effects of weightlessness on the human body seem to me at least to be stuff you don't want whether or not you're returning to a 1g environment, like skeletal deterioration.

Why are skeletal deterioration and muscle atrophy a problem if you stay in the low gravity conditions? I would be more worried about obesity, if people already get that on earth it's going to be a big problem in environments where walking or jumping hardly requires any energy.

Obesity would be another problem, but I would say that skeletal deterioration is still a problem on Mars, because you still have plenty of potential for trauma, and now that trauma will more easily lead to broken bones.

9squirrels
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 7:02 am UTC

Re: 1389: "Surface Area"

Postby 9squirrels » Mon Jul 07, 2014 2:06 am UTC

moody7277 wrote:
9squirrels wrote:I feel like IO should have been landlocked or something. After all, we should "make no landings on IO"...


If you're talking about 2010, that was Europa.


Really? I thought it was Io, I really need to go back and re-read those books. It's been a looooong time.

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1389: "Surface Area"

Postby Klear » Mon Jul 07, 2014 2:09 am UTC

armandoalvarez wrote:
PinkShinyRose wrote:Why are skeletal deterioration and muscle atrophy a problem if you stay in the low gravity conditions? I would be more worried about obesity, if people already get that on earth it's going to be a big problem in environments where walking or jumping hardly requires any energy.

Obesity would be another problem, but I would say that skeletal deterioration is still a problem on Mars, because you still have plenty of potential for trauma, and now that trauma will more easily lead to broken bones.


I wouldn't be worried about that. Do you know how much would a burger cost on Mars?

User avatar
PM 2Ring
Posts: 3707
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 3:19 pm UTC
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: 1389: "Surface Area"

Postby PM 2Ring » Mon Jul 07, 2014 12:36 pm UTC

9squirrels wrote:
moody7277 wrote:
9squirrels wrote:I feel like IO should have been landlocked or something. After all, we should "make no landings on IO"...


If you're talking about 2010, that was Europa.


Really? I thought it was Io, I really need to go back and re-read those books. It's been a looooong time.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001:_A_Sp ... m_the_film
Although the novel and film were developed simultaneously, the novel follows early drafts of the film, from which the final version deviated.[5] These changes were often for practical reasons relating to what could be filmed economically, and a few were due to differences of opinion between Kubrick and Clarke. The most notable differences are a change in the destination planet from Saturn to Jupiter, [...]

User avatar
Whizbang
The Best Reporter
Posts: 2238
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 7:50 pm UTC
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: 1389: "Surface Area"

Postby Whizbang » Mon Jul 07, 2014 2:45 pm UTC

Re: Space Obesity

Wall-E-2.jpg

rmsgrey
Posts: 3617
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1389: "Surface Area"

Postby rmsgrey » Mon Jul 07, 2014 5:04 pm UTC

PM 2Ring wrote:
9squirrels wrote:
moody7277 wrote:
9squirrels wrote:I feel like IO should have been landlocked or something. After all, we should "make no landings on IO"...


If you're talking about 2010, that was Europa.


Really? I thought it was Io, I really need to go back and re-read those books. It's been a looooong time.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001:_A_Sp ... m_the_film
Although the novel and film were developed simultaneously, the novel follows early drafts of the film, from which the final version deviated.[5] These changes were often for practical reasons relating to what could be filmed economically, and a few were due to differences of opinion between Kubrick and Clarke. The most notable differences are a change in the destination planet from Saturn to Jupiter, [...]


The original novel had the second (third?) Monolith on Iapetus, a moon of Saturn.

It's kinda irrelevant since the book of 2010 adopted the film of 2001's continuity for the most part, which is where "All these worlds are yours except Europa. Attempt no landings there" comes from.

User avatar
drachefly
Posts: 196
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 3:25 pm UTC

Re: 1389: "Surface Area"

Postby drachefly » Thu Jul 24, 2014 5:35 pm UTC

HES wrote:That's what evolution is for.


That's what eugenics is for. It's evolution minus 99.9999% of the misery.

tropicalindex
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2014 5:36 am UTC

Re: 1389: "Surface Area"

Postby tropicalindex » Fri Aug 01, 2014 5:41 am UTC

Yes I agree, Missile Gap is the story!

For some reason, version one of this post got flagged as spam. I think this forum software needs a bit of a review?

I saw somebody else mentioned Charles Stross' "Missile Gap".

That's EXACTLY what I logged in to say - It's from a compilation of his off-cuts called 'Wireless'. It's not very good, overall, but I did like the sheer weirdness of Missle Gap, at least for the first half. Getting Carl Sagan and Yuri Gagarin and project Pluto into the same story was worth it I thought. And a valid use for an Ekranoplan!

And moderators. You can still bite me.

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26510
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: 1389: "Surface Area"

Postby SecondTalon » Fri Aug 01, 2014 6:45 pm UTC

Nothing needs review, everything is working as intended, please read the rules thread.

Unless you want to be bitten. That can be arranged too.
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

User avatar
mathmannix
Posts: 1445
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:12 pm UTC
Location: Washington, DC

Re: 1389: "Surface Area"

Postby mathmannix » Tue Aug 12, 2014 5:51 pm UTC

drachefly wrote:
HES wrote:That's what evolution is for.


That's what eugenics is for. It's evolution minus 99.9999% of the misery.


You know who else liked eugenics...
I hear velociraptor tastes like chicken.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 40 guests