• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Today in science and space

sanman said:
Click to expand...


The Kola borehole is still the record holder for "true vertical depth" and is a testament to the Soviet urge to break records for no scientific or economic purpose.

"Moon, kshmoon, we will beat you to the center of the Earth itself!"
 
Ug make hammer said:
The Kola borehole is still the record holder for "true vertical depth" and is a testament to the Soviet urge to break records for no scientific or economic purpose.

"Moon, kshmoon, we will beat you to the center of the Earth itself!"
Click to expand...
Do you know why they stopped drilling?
I understand that the stoppage was abrupt and no reason was given...
 
HangLow said:
Do you know why they stopped drilling?
I understand that the stoppage was abrupt and no reason was given...
Click to expand...

I think the money stopped. They were privatized after the fall of the Soviets, and tried to run it as a tourist attraction. But I guess there isn't much to see with a borehole.

The fact they had to branch off repeatedly from the main (vertical) bore suggests they were having trouble with the rock being too hot and plastic to drill. If your purpose was to actually reach the mantle, you'd dig on an oceanic plate instead: it's a lot thinner and the seawater above cools it more effectively.
 
After watching that video, I tried to work out what air pressure would be in a deep mine or subway. But I got a ridiculous answer. Perhaps someone can set me straight:

Ph = P0 x e^(-mgh/kT)

where
P0 is sea level pressure, 1 atm
m is mass per air molecule, 28 Da = 4.65 x 10^-23 g
g is force of gravity, very close to 9.81 m/s^2
h is -3000 m
k is the Boltzman constant, 1.38 x 10^-23 J/K
T is absolute temperature, say 25 C = 298 K

The calculation is fairly basic, since the tiny exponents cancel out. But having h be negative kicks out the power of e massively. Given that the air column gets denser and denser the lower you go, and the mass of that air column increases cumulatively with the pressure, I was ready for anything up to 10 atmospheres at 3 kilometers down.

What I actually got: 2.53 x 10^144 atm

Oops!
 
HangLow said:
hey @Gatsby and @Glitch; see above post...
do you two brainiacs want to give @Ug make hammer a hand ^^^^
Click to expand...

I'm guessing the short answer is that I have the wrong formula. Or it's just an approximation which doesn't work for negative h.

It would be good to know though. Ten to the power of 144 is not just a little bit wrong!
 
Ug make hammer said:
After watching that video, I tried to work out what air pressure would be in a deep mine or subway. But I got a ridiculous answer. Perhaps someone can set me straight:

Ph = P0 x e^(-mgh/kT)

where
P0 is sea level pressure, 1 atm
m is mass per air molecule, 28 Da = 4.65 x 10^-23 g
g is force of gravity, very close to 9.81 m/s^2
h is -3000 m
k is the Boltzman constant, 1.38 x 10^-23 J/K
T is absolute temperature, say 25 C = 298 K

The calculation is fairly basic, since the tiny exponents cancel out. But having h be negative kicks out the power of e massively. Given that the air column gets denser and denser the lower you go, and the mass of that air column increases cumulatively with the pressure, I was ready for anything up to 10 atmospheres at 3 kilometers down.

What I actually got: 2.53 x 10^144 atm

Oops!
Click to expand...
To calculate the atmospheric pressure for a given altitude use:

Atmospheric Pressure.jpg

At a depth of 3 km, using a temperature of 19.5°C (-3,000 x -0.0065), the atmospheric pressure should be 1.40 atm (141.855 kPa or 20.57 psi).
 
Glitch said:
To calculate the atmospheric pressure for a given altitude use:

View attachment 67429243

At a depth of 3 km, using a temperature of 19.5°C (-3,000 x -0.0065), the atmospheric pressure should be 1.40 atm (141.855 kPa or 20.57 psi).
Click to expand...

Most of the same variables and constants, but without that deadly power of e. Your result is a bit under what I would expect, but it's not crazy like my result. I'll go with that, thanks!
 
Ug make hammer said:
Most of the same variables and constants, but without that deadly power of e. Your result is a bit under what I would expect, but it's not crazy like my result. I'll go with that, thanks!
Click to expand...
The reason it appears so low is because we are talking about the atmosphere, and not a liquid. In sea water or even fresh water, the pressure is going to be considerably greater at that depth. In sea water the atmospheric pressure at 3 km depth would be 300.165 atm (4,411.209 psi). Freshwater is less dense, therefore at 3 km depth the atmospheric pressure would be 291.451 atm (4,283.156 psi). It also gets colder at depth in water, whereas it gets warmer at depth when not in water. For example, the Kola Super Deep Bore Hole at a depth of 12.272 km would have a temperature that is 79.768°C above the temperature at sea level, even though it would only have an atmospheric pressure of 2.4 atm (35.27 psi) at that depth.

There is never a good reason to use the Stefan-Boltzmann constant. It is based upon a theoretical object that cannot exist in the real-world, a black body, and therefore should only be used to provide very rough estimates and never relied on for accurate information.
 
Last edited:
And now for something completely different:

Molten rock solidifying in a vacuum under 1/6th gravity is different from the Earth varieties.

Shocking!
 
psikeyhackr said:
And now for something completely different:
Molten rock solidifying in a vacuum under 1/6th gravity is different from the Earth varieties.
Shocking!
Click to expand...
Here's a kicker; Seawater and Moondust forever...

Much speculation has been created around the idea of harvesting Helium-3 from the moon to use as a clean energy source. The promise of commercial fusion power has fuelled what was once thought of as science fiction. So, how close are we to starting mining lunar Helium-3?

1672451669267.png​

Unsurprisingly, the aspiration of mining Helium-3 from the Moon has attracted much interest recently. A study from the University of Wisconsin reports that about 25 tons of Helium-3, corresponding to a fully-loaded spaceship, could power the United States for a year.

In an economic point of view, this means one ton of Helium-3 would cost $3 billion (can you think of other commodities with a similar price?). So, why are we not mining the Moon yet?

One stumbling block is designing a spacecraft to carry the equipment and crew to the lunar surface. Despite being created 40 years ago, the Apollo Saturn V remains the largest spaceship to date with a capacity of 50 tons. Even if it is still the benchmark of a reliable space rocket, more advanced space technology may be required to allow extraterrestrial mining.

Another issue is the mining process itself. To extract Helium-3, the surface of the Moon needs to be heated to 600° C (1,112° F). However, because the concentrations are low, over 150 tons of lunar regolith are required to obtain one gram of Helium-3. Despite not being a particularly difficult extraction process, the development of the machinery, transportation, and infrastructure has a total estimated cost of ca. $20 billion.

www.geologyforinvestors.com

Helium-3 Mining On The Moon: Houston, We Have A Problem | Geology for Investors

www.geologyforinvestors.com

Also:

newatlas.com

China discovers new mineral – and a possible energy source – on the Moon

It seems China's Chang'E-5 robotic Moon mission has discovered more than water on the lunar surface. Scientists have confirmed the discovery of a new mineral, a transparent crystal named Changesite-(Y), as well as a promising potential fusion fuel.
newatlas.com newatlas.com
 
Last edited:
HangLow said:
Here's a kicker; Seawater and Moondust forever...

Much speculation has been created around the idea of harvesting Helium-3 from the moon to use as a clean energy source. The promise of commercial fusion power has fuelled what was once thought of as science fiction. So, how close are we to starting mining lunar Helium-3?


Unsurprisingly, the aspiration of mining Helium-3 from the Moon has attracted much interest recently. A study from the University of Wisconsin reports that about 25 tons of Helium-3, corresponding to a fully-loaded spaceship, could power the United States for a year.

In an economic point of view, this means one ton of Helium-3 would cost $3 billion (can you think of other commodities with a similar price?). So, why are we not mining the Moon yet?

One stumbling block is designing a spacecraft to carry the equipment and crew to the lunar surface. Despite being created 40 years ago, the Apollo Saturn V remains the largest spaceship to date with a capacity of 50 tons. Even if it is still the benchmark of a reliable space rocket, more advanced space technology may be required to allow extraterrestrial mining.

Another issue is the mining process itself. To extract Helium-3, the surface of the Moon needs to be heated to 600° C (1,112° F). However, because the concentrations are low, over 150 tons of lunar regolith are required to obtain one gram of Helium-3. Despite not being a particularly difficult extraction process, the development of the machinery, transportation, and infrastructure has a total estimated cost of ca. $20 billion.

www.geologyforinvestors.com

Helium-3 Mining On The Moon: Houston, We Have A Problem | Geology for Investors

www.geologyforinvestors.com

Also:

newatlas.com

China discovers new mineral – and a possible energy source – on the Moon

It seems China's Chang'E-5 robotic Moon mission has discovered more than water on the lunar surface. Scientists have confirmed the discovery of a new mineral, a transparent crystal named Changesite-(Y), as well as a promising potential fusion fuel.
newatlas.com newatlas.com
Click to expand...

Deuterium/Tritium requires a higher activation energy than D/D. It's selling point is that it doesn't emit neutrons (which are quite frankly nuclear waste) but we don't have stable D/D fusion yet. "Twenty years away" as they always say.
 
Ug make hammer said:
Deuterium/Tritium requires a higher activation energy than D/D. It's selling point is that it doesn't emit neutrons (which are quite frankly nuclear waste) but we don't have stable D/D fusion yet. "Twenty years away" as they always say.
Click to expand...

Oops, I meant Helium-3 not Tritium. Deuterium/Tritium still releases neutrons.

And for all we know, Helium-3/Helium-3 might too. Nuclear reactions are probabilistic, there's always a side chain. We could find out how much of a problem nuclear waste from He-3 actually is, using the NIF, long before harvesting it from the Moon.
 
Ug make hammer said:
Oops, I meant Helium-3 not Tritium. Deuterium/Tritium still releases neutrons.
Click to expand...
That's alright I didn't notice. I have been hearing that fusion power is 20 years away for so long I don't even pay attention.
 
Heads up! A retired NASA ozone layer-studying satellite from 1984 is comin' down!

scitechdaily.com

Fiery Destruction Expected: NASA Earth Radiation Budget Satellite To Reenter Atmosphere Today

In early January NASA’s retired Earth Radiation Budget Satellite (ERBS) is expected to reenter Earth’s atmosphere after almost four decades in space. For 21 of those years, the ERBS actively investigated how the Earth absorbed and radiated energy from the Sun, and made measurements of stratospheric
scitechdaily.com
 
phoenix2020 said:
Love it though it's not my brainchild, just a great thread to have :)

The article about tracing the origins of the Black Plague is particularly interesting. I didn't know DNA of plagues survive in teeth.
Click to expand...
Not forever.
 
A type of freshwater plankton has become the first organism seen thriving on a diet of viruses, according to a new study by researchers from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln in the US.

"And then I see the plankton where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning?"

You first Donald. :LOL:
 
Ug make hammer said:
A type of freshwater plankton has become the first organism seen thriving on a diet of viruses, according to a new study by researchers from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln in the US.

"And then I see the plankton where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute.
And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning?"
You first Donald. :LOL:
Click to expand...
I thought of that... COVID-eating plankton...
either that or stick a U-V lite up his butt...
it may just work... the bastard was a genius...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom