[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

100%. This is actually a pretty bad issue with space terminology. E.g. When talking about your highest altitude and lowest altitude for an orbit, for earth it's apogee or perigee. But the -"gee" suffix is specific to Earth, Gaia. So if you start orbiting the Moon, these same terms change to apolune or perilune, to reference the Moon's name, Luna. And should change based on the name of whatever planet is being orbited.

KSP has done a great job making the more agnostic terms, apoapsis vs. periapsis, more commonplace. And I wish more people picked up on it. It's embarrassing to watch supposedly knowledgeable people try to describe the orbit of a Mars satellite using "apogee" and "perigee".

Edit: just to make clear how simple it could be, and how confusing it actually is:

There's only 2 prefixes:

• apo- (highest)
• peri- (lowest)

But the suffix is supposed to change based on the name of the body being orbited. When instead, there's a suffix that's agnostic to the body's name: -apsis. Which could be used for any orbit of any body. Even if it still has a stupid scientific name, like TRAPPIST-7

As you said, it's because normally it's called an Earth-quake. Which is technically referring to the physical ground/dirt (or sometimes Earth in some cases). It's realistically a little clever way to both differentiate the planet its on and still refer to it as a "quake" in some way. Others also find it funny to name it like that. Idrc, I think they sound a little funky but that's because we call them earthquakes, since we're on earth and it's shaking.

As for why astronauts are referred differently? It's because they're a different culture and sometimes language, not everyone uses all western names/naming scheme. I'll agree I think they should all have one name. It probably came about during the space race and since it was a competition, people wanted their creation to be referenced.

I don’t think so, I’m my opinion.

In general, underground structures are safer than structures above ground due to inertial forces.

Also, the primary reason for going underground on Mars is to try and protect against radiation. While solutions for surface level structures have been proposed to try and mitigate this problem, the costs and level of efforts associated with them make us lean more towards underground being the preferred approach initially.

But this data should be very valuable for teams to figure out where exactly to build. Most epicenters of these marsquakes occur in one general region.

Mars REALLY dont want us there. cant blame it

I was thinking about that, but not even just underground, it’s effects on above ground habitation too. Would suck to constantly have quakes that could damage essential structures and put everybody at risk so often.

Nah, if anything it’s just informing the decisions they make to make sure that the underground shelters can handle this sort of geology

Good, now we can focus on fixing THIS planet

I gave 2 a Google, 2 wildly different results - longest earthquake was in sumatra, 2005, lasted 10 minutes. Or, there was another also in Indonesia described as a 'slow slip' that lasted 32 years

They don't need to. Passing winds are more effective than a brush.

Adding all the mechanics necessary to run a brush takes up more development time, space, weight, and power for not much benefit.

[removed]