NASA Confirms Ice at Mercury's Pole
- Thread starter Encaen
- Start date
Flooding the earthCardinalPiggles said:
Anyway, this would make colonizing Mercury a possibility. Mercury is most likely composed of the most heavy materials out there, meaning that if we do finally get off this rock it would be a possible mining planet. We can deal with the freezing cold, just redirect heat from the scalding hot side to the cold side (EXTREMELY SIMPLIFIED).
Convection requires that some form of medium for the heat transfer, and that medium must be able to flow. If you think about a convection oven versus a standard one, there is a fan which blows air around in a convection oven. That allows the air to serve as a means for heat transfer so your food cooks more evenly and faster. In a (near) vacuum, there really isn't (significant) transfer via convection. The posted above me shows, well, Hollywood convection.FalloutJack said:
With convection out of the picture, you're left with conduction and radiation for heat transfer. Rock is a lousy thermal conductor, and radiation is the least effective means, not to mention that the poles, due to their very narrow angle to the sun, would receive very, very little light in the first place.
This is cool but when this story sits next to this [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/120891-North-Korean-Scientists-Confirm-That-Unicorns-Are-Real] on the news feed, one can't help but think that the quest to discover evidence of Unicorns outweighs the importance of anything on Mercury.
I always like hearing about stuff like this. Water is the basis of life, so the more water we find out there, the better.
Second time I've been told that haha, I'll get to it sometime I swear!llew said:
In fact I might go on a bit of a Dr Who marathon over Christmas, that sounds great.
So while we're talking about this, could anyone explain to me what makes water so special? I know it's the basis for all life or something, but why?
Because all living things we know of require a vast array of biochemistry to take place. We need a solvent which is 1) common in the universe, 2) able to tolerate temperature variation, 3) causes spontaneous organization of solvents to allow some kind of barrier between self and non-self, 4) is stable enough to spectate in a lot of organic reactions, 5) can dissolve a very wide array of organic compounds.DaWaffledude said:
When we look at the universe for those criteria (and I'm sure there are a lot more we could think of), water easily fits the bill and not much else does. Water allows fats and oils to make a membrane (think drop of olive oil in a pot of water) and dissolves many polar or ionic compounds (salt).
So the search for water at Mercury is probably not related to life itself, but if we were trying to find life, seeking water first is a good way to narrow the field of contenders.
DaWaffledude said:
The water in its self is not important. According to all the theory's of Mercury's creation the water should not be there, so they have to go back to the drawing broad.
The max temperature at the poles is just above 100C, its like trying to melt an iceberg at the bottom of mineshaft with a kettle on the surface. The just isn't enough energy there.FalloutJack said:
Okay, of all the answers I've received, yours is the one that confuses me. You have told me that the pole temperature of Mercury...is well above the temperature by which water freezes. (100C = 212F) This is a far cry from the permafrost-covered landscape of Antarctica. I'm afraid I still don't follow. I mean, if that's the lowest temperature to be found on Mercury's poles, WHY is there ice there? Nevermind water for a sec. The poles are not at freezing temperatures if what you're saying is true. Help me out with this one.albino boo said:
FalloutJack said:I know you got a few responses to this one, but those were some physics mumbo-jumbos. I offer a simple analogy!Karthesios said:
Imagine that you are Mercury, the Sun is a big-ass bonfire and the rest of Space as a very effective freezer. Now go sit naked close to the bonfire and put the freezer behind your back. Your front side will soon start burning from the heat but your ass will feel like it's about to turn into and ice cube, so you turn. Now your ass is warm but your face is freezing. The heat just can't spread fast enough with nothing to hold it.
And that's how it works
Credit goes to my high school geography teacher.
Actually, I understood most of that mumbo-jumbo. College wasn't wasted on me. However, the guy ahead of you said that the poles were 100C (212F). Space, that is the general temperature of space, is suppose to be somewhere in the neighborhood of about -273F. So, you see, the freezing...isn't happening. And now, I'm trying to get him to elaborate on how non-freezing levels of heat still have ice on the planet closest to the ever-loving sun. Perhaps you'd also like a shot?dangoball said:
FalloutJack said:
The maximum temperature in full sunlight is 100C, the temperature inside the craters out of direct sunlight is -200C. The rock walls of the craters are only being heated up to 100C. The article suggests there maybe up to 1 billion tons of ice, so the heating effect on solid rock from the sun is never going to be enough to melt the ice. Hence my analogy about mineshafts and icebergs.
See, mercurys aint that different, now all we need is a good old fashioned 50s rocket to visit the alines living there....
Nothing, merely an alien life form frozen in ice being avakened taking over the bodies of the africans that drink the water and contrling thier minds making sure they populate like rabbits and go on violent rampages killing eachother. oh wait, that already happens. yeah, nothing would change.CardinalPiggles said: