this post was submitted on 16 Jan 2025
163 points (98.2% liked)

World News

39595 readers
2608 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

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.

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/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

The moon has been added to the World Monuments Fund's (WMF) list of threatened heritage sites for the first time due to risks from commercial and governmental lunar activities.

The WMF highlights concerns about looting and damage to artefacts from Apollo missions, such as Neil Armstrong’s footprints and objects left on the moon.

WMF calls for international protocols to protect lunar heritage as private space tourism and missions increase.

The 2024 list also includes sites in conflict zones and areas endangered by climate change or unsustainable tourism.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] -5 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

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. 🤷🏻‍♂️

[–] [email protected] 11 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

Without an atmosphere, how can you have smog and smoke?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Over time yes. But not instantaneous. So depending on the amount, it is possible to have smog on the moon.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

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?

[–] [email protected] -2 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

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).

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

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?

[–] [email protected] -2 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

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….

[–] [email protected] -2 points 3 hours ago (3 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 hours ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 hours ago

If you have shown anything on this thread is that you are unfamiliar with all the topics you've brushed past.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

…. 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.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 hours ago

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.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] deranger 6 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

The moon doesn’t have sufficient gravity to maintain an atmosphere. Any smog will float out into space, like helium on earth.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 hours ago (2 children)

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.

[–] deranger 1 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 children)

.0000000000000003 atm or 0.3 nanopascals of atmosphere.

On Earth, this is considered to be a very good vacuum. In fact, the density of the atmosphere at the Moon's surface is comparable to the density of some of the outermost fringes of Earth's atmosphere, where the International Space Station orbits.

the Moon is considered not to have an atmosphere because it cannot absorb measurable quantities of radiation, does not appear layered or self-circulating, and requires constant replenishment due to the high rate at which its gases are lost into space.

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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 hours ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 hours ago

Start on the dark side.