Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Checktheusernombre t1_j0ujz33 wrote

Thinking this might have an impact on any plans to build future habitats underground?

23

NorthernViews t1_j0uo63y wrote

Replying to Checktheusernombre (#971,056)

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.

7

TigerXXVII t1_j0up6cv wrote

Replying to Checktheusernombre (#971,056)

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.

28

Tinmania t1_j0uqkb1 wrote

Marsquake, coming soon to a candy section near you!

−2

secret2u t1_j0v2iz3 wrote

Insight is the first thing to twerk on Mars. Heeyyyyyy!!!!

0

leojg t1_j0va4za wrote

Personally I don't understad the need to switch the name depending on the planet. I mean an earthquake is the earth as in the ground moving.

The same goes for calling astronauts different things in different conuntries.

63

paul_is_on_reddit t1_j0vd064 wrote

Ok. Why wasn't the probe designed in such a way so that the dust could get cleaned off of the solar panels? I mean, it's loaded with scientific gadgets and such, why couldn't they make some sort of small brush to clean the dust off the panels?

2

Senrakdaemon t1_j0ve3fa wrote

Replying to leojg (#972,909)

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.

7

jackinsomniac t1_j0vlvee wrote

Replying to leojg (#972,909)

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

33

SheeEttin t1_j0vqwsr wrote

Replying to paul_is_on_reddit (#973,097)

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.

3

mercyful_fade t1_j0wagzs wrote

That's terrifying. We would be to live in water bed buildings.

2

Grahamthicke t1_j0wcqoc wrote

A ten hour quake....what could be causing this?

2

SynthPixels t1_j0wet52 wrote

Silly questions:

  1. Is the “logarithmic scale” mentioned in this article the same as the Richter scale?

  2. Is there such a thing as an earthquake lasting up to 10 hours?

  3. Any hypothesis as to why seismic activity would be so different on Mars compared to on Earth?

18

MaxcapItaly t1_j0wsfp0 wrote

Replying to SynthPixels (#975,646)

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

11

mrdungbeetle t1_j0wumlr wrote

A Marsquake would've made for a better plot in The Martian than the dust storm.

5