World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
Commercial and mining activities on the moon are infinitely better than anywhere on Earth.
There's no life on the Moon, there's no environments to be destroyed, species to be displaced, no atmosphere or oceans to pollute, etc.
If we're going to insist on continued industrialization it would be best to put it somewhere it's not poisoning the environment, like the moon.
This specifically is a valid concern.
Until we've mined so much that the ratio of mass between the Earth and the Moon causes tidal changes and eventually the Earth pulls the Moon into the Earth and all life is destroyed. How quickly do you think we can speedrun that?
The industrial revolution was about 150-200 years ago and our planet is dying because of it. Can we beat that record?
Hmm, that's an awful lot of material to move the one way. I'd actually expect a lot of what's built on the moon will get shipped further outward.
Right now, it's moving a couple of centimeters away every year, so a bit of that would actually be a good thing.
I'll take "Hyperbolic & Catastrophic Exaggerations" for $400, Alex.
I'm pretty sure you're reply is tongue-in-cheek, but that did get me thinking how long it would take to actually destroy the Moon by mining.
Let's say we used mass drivers to launch 1000kg of material from the Moon to the Earth every second, non stop, until the Moon was completely dismantled. The moon has a mass somewhere around 7.35×10^22^ kilograms. Dividing the Moon's mass by the rate of removal, we get Time=7.35×10^19^seconds. Divide that by 35,536,000 seconds in a year, and it would take us about 2.33 trillion years to dismantle the moon.
Considering how the Earth only has, maybe, a billion years until the Sun's natural life cycle makes life on Earth impossible, I'd wager that we're good. Drill baby, drill.
Uh, that's not how orbital mechanics work
And also, let's say we have to remove 10% of the moon's mass to noticeably affect the tides (and it's not enough to just mine it, you'd also need to remove it from the moon's gravity well which is... A whole thing by itself, so let's ignore that for funsies), which is about 7*10^21 kg. I can't find statistics for total mining activity, but we mine about 2.6 * 10^12 kg iron each year. Let's just take the 10x value of that to be safe, 2.6*10^13 "stuff" mined each year
In order to mine 10% of the moon's mass, it'd take roughly 10^8 years, or written out, 100 000 000 years
And, as mentioned, this is while ignoring that you'd need to actually remove the moon's mass from its gravitational well, which simply won't be done at this scale
Worrying about this problem is so ridiculously out of scope that it's laughable
What's the point in mining the Moon if we're just gonna leave what's been mined there? Of course it would be removed.
Where did you get that 10% is what would be required to affect the tides? Why don't we just say it's 90% to back your point up even more?
The point is, if allowed, we'll fuck it up like we fuck up every environment. Why must we insist on destroying everything just so some rich people can get richer? Climate change is upon us and instead of acting to prevent it we're looking to do similar destruction elsewhere.
When you look up at the vastness and marvel of space and planetary bodies, are you desperate to see dump trucks, bucket excavators, and orange flashing lights looking back at you?
We might use the mined materials to build stuff on the moon. Even if we were mining to bring resources back there’ll be a lot of stuff dug up that we don’t want so we’d obviously want to leave that there. We’d need to process the ore on the moon to extract the small amount of material that we’re after.
90% would be an obviously ridiculous number to use so would undermine their argument. Assuming their numbers are correct then it would take 10,000,000 years to remove 1% of the moon. And we wouldn’t remove all of the material that we mine so we’d take even longer than that to actually remove 1%.
Having said that, I really don’t agree with the sentiment of letting people do what they want on the moon because it won’t affect us. We should be more considerate of every environment just as a matter of principle.
I bet I could destroy all life with only half an A-press.
Yea! And you also have to worry about any solar panels we install on the moon reflecting more sunlight back at the Earth and heating it up!
Oh wait, no you don't. And if you spend even 2 seconds thinking about it, you'd realize how meaningless of a concern that is.
The headline is misleading, it doesn't appear that they want to "protect" the whole entire Moon. They're just concerned about sites of particular historical importance like the Apollo moon landings, and the artifacts at those locations.
Basically, Americans are scared now that China is leading in the second race to the moon, they're gonna destroy the shit the Americans left up there.
Building a moon colony and preserving it all in a museum around the lander with all the explanation text in Chinese would be such a flex though.
Like "these are archaic artefacts of an empire of old".
Solar radiation has bleached the flags they've left behind, so it's impossible to know who they were or why they left a little square with a drawing of a dick
so safe...
The only argument I can make against it is that it might change how the moon looks from Earth if it's all covered in smog and smoke and shit. 🤷🏻♂️
Without an atmosphere, how can you have smog and smoke?
Not having an atmosphere doesn't mean that gases and particles will simply vanish. The moon just doesn't have enough of a gravitational pull to keep them around for long.
You’re describing the act of something vanishing to be honest though.
The moon doesn’t have enough gravity to hold an atmosphere, it’ll always vanish.
Over time yes. But not instantaneous. So depending on the amount, it is possible to have smog on the moon.
Yes in the same way you can “survive” in the vacuum of space. The moon doesn’t have the gravity potential to hold an atmosphere, so while smog may “appear” it’s be gone just like the person who was alive in the vacuum of space for a few minutes as well.
But that doesn’t mean people can and should claim People can live in the vacuum of space now does it?
I really don't understand what you are trying to say here. Yes, the process of diffusion is faster on the moon, but even on earth every second lighter parts of the atmosphere escapes into space (and heavier particles that pass by are attracted by gravity).
It’s not faster on the moon, there’s no restriction because of the lack of atmosphere.
You need gravity for an atmosphere, and you need an atmosphere to hold other particles. Without both, you CANT have “smog”.
Edit, your line of reasoning isn’t that you think it’s possible to terraform the moon or something is it?
But the moon has its own gravity field. Just not enough to keep a permanent atmosphere. Also, not having an atmosphere doesn't mean the space above the surface is devoid of matter. In fact, even in interstellar space, you can find particles. And an atmosphere is not something that's holding particles in. An atmosphere is made up of particles in a dense field gravitationally bound to a celestial body.
Not enough to keep ANY atmosphere. This is the part you are hung up on apparently.
Yes nebulae are visible because they are particles spread usually METERS apart, that’s only visible as a cloud THOUSANDS of light years away. If you were in the center of the nebulae it would be invisible from that perspective. Like being on earth and looking at the moon, there wouldn’t be enough density of particles to say, hey there’s “smog” there. Because the particles float away freely, unlike on earth. And they are also helped carried away by solar winds too. Which you know the atmosphere helps prevent on earth on other planetary bodies….
No, I am totally not. You are hung up on the part where you think that for something resembling smoke to exist, an atmosphere is necessary. Have you never seen RCS thruster being fired in zero gravity?
Yes, there won't be fields of funnels causing smoke clouds that block the view from Earth. But exhaust products being expelled into the vacuum causing measurable dimming effects? Certainly at some point.
I don't get what you're missing here. An atmosphere is the trapping of gasses, the moon doesn't have enough gravity, they will disperse into space very quickly. It's why the ISS doesn't have it's own atmosphere and if they pumped out smoke from that thing it would drift into space, not from a smog cloud around them.
If you have shown anything on this thread is that you are unfamiliar with all the topics you've brushed past.
…. A particle ejected VS Smog… don’t you notice how engines don’t produce smoke in space…? That’s the comparison you should be making.
Using an RCS on earth would look the exact same, other than particles would stick around instead of as you can plainly see in the video, its bursts are IMMEDIATELY gone.
You’re comparing an apple to a piece of steel now, they’re totally different situations and particles.
Engines in space don't produce visible smoke because A) they are precision engineered to burn 100% of the fuel they are supplied with, and what is colloquially known as smoke is unburned particles. All this awesome smoke that engulfs rockets before they take off? Most of it is vapour from water under the platform, protecting the structure from melting. B) Thrusters in general are build to expel the reaction mass as fast as possible in order to go as fast as possible with the least amount of fuel.
So yeah, you are trying to compare what happens in a cars' engine with what's going on in the exhaust: It's the same stuff but under very different circumstances.
If we're doing stuff to pump things into the surrounding area on the surface, eventually it would have an atmosphere. That's literally how we plan to terraform Mars.
The moon doesn’t have sufficient gravity to maintain an atmosphere. Any smog will float out into space, like helium on earth.
There is an atmosphere on the moon. It is very thin but it does exist. Gasses will mostly escape, but particulate (smoke, soot, dust, the components of smog that aren’t the fog part) may hang around for a while before settling to the surface.
.0000000000000003 atm or 0.3 nanopascals of atmosphere.
I feel like saying the moon technically has an atmosphere is like saying an astronaut has an atmosphere if they farted in space sans spacesuit because some gas lingers around them.
Except they won't because the gravitational pull generated by a human body is so low that the gases expelled are likely moving faster than escape velocity.
Start on the dark side.