Moontanman

6 minutes ago, TheVat said:

 

Could be.  I grew up in farming country so am pretty familiar with anhydrous ammonia - the strongest solution you can make is 34% ammonia by mass.  IOW, 34% NH3 in NH4OH (ammonium hydroxide).  This would be an industrial strength cleaning agent which would kill microbes (but not viruses unless it is converted to quaternary ammonia).  I know it's all nonsense so far, but I wouldn't want someone naive to read this and think ammonium hydroxide could be part of any sort of nutritional medium.  

The OP is alluding to the idea that life could evolve to use ammonia as a solvent and the idea that in some ways ammonia might be a better solvent than water but possibility of ammonia as a solvent is dependant on more than just whether or not ammonia is a good possibility for a biological solvent.  

5 minutes ago, Gian said:

Moontanman

I guess it may be advantageous to send unmanned spacecraft with all this equipment accompanied by robots and ai which could get it all set up and functioning before the human explorers arrive?

GIAN🙂

I would think that by the time we get around to a base on Titan a robotic setup of the base would be SOP but I see no reason why it would be necessary.  

3 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Which you still have not done, due to your many paragraphs of profuse apologies given as plenipotentiary ambassador of the Vogon League.  Still waiting for the research data on growing terrestrial microbes in ammonia.  

He doesn't have it... somethings are truly impossible. I think this is a bot that is just messing with us. 

2 minutes ago, Gian said:

You'd have to take either nuclear or some other source of potential energy with you (batteries?) plus some oxygen and petrol to get started I guess

GIAN🙂XXX

Nuclear is the only real option here for a long term stay on Titan. Titan does have advantages, having an atmosphere is a big plus for many reasons, lots of ice, methane, ammonia, nitrogen, I can even imagine deposits of alkaline metals like sodium and potassium being present in the ice crust... but Titan is a low energy environment (wind power maybe?) we will have to bring our energy with us. 

1 minute ago, Gian said:

Well obviously fusion would be best, but meanwhile they could set up electrolysis machines to separate the oxygen and hydrogen and thus - combined with nitrogen - make air. Then set up methane generators in a big barn.

Plus, I assume that at those temperatures foodstuffs would be preserved almost indefinitely.

If the scientists had packed a stack of hamburgers and bread rolls in the Huygens Probe, I bet when explorers finally get to Titan in eg 50y time and find the Probe, the first thing they could do is have a Big Mac as the stuff is still fresh

Yet is still requires energy to make the electricity to run "electrolysis machines" where do you get the energy?

3 minutes ago, Gian said:

MOONTANMAN

Dr Lorenz says the light levels are like a deeply overcast day here on Earth. But yes there is obviously insufficient light to grow crops. He also says there's never any break in the clouds.

But I thought that with shed loads of methane readily available as fuel,  plus water ice, explorers could generate breathable air and electricity to create heat and UV lights to grow stuff in big greenhouses.

Wikipedia says

"Titan is primarily composed of ice and rocky material, which is likely differentiated into a rocky core surrounded by various layers of ice, including a crust of ice and a subsurface layer of ammonia-rich liquid water."

Sounds like there's everything human beings need

Cheerz

GIAN🙂XXX

You would have to have an energy source of some kind, nuclear is almost certainly necessary. Controlled fusion would be ideal and of course will be possible in 20 years. 

4 hours ago, NormaVega said:

To investigate the viability of ammonia as a substitute for water in the nutrition of living beings, a series of experiments were carried out under controlled laboratory conditions. Various single-celled organisms, including microorganisms and algae, were selected as test models. These organisms were grown in growth media containing ammonia instead of water as the primary solvent. Conditions of temperature, pressure and nutrient concentration were carefully controlled to simulate an environment favorable for the growth and survival of organisms.

 I absolutely call BS on this, sources please!

This assertion about ammonia ignores the problems with a planetary body with significant amounts of ammonia. First of all, how do you stop ammonia from mixing with water? The two chemicals have a major affinity for each other, each dissolves into the other and they nearly always occur together. 

That doesn't necessarily mean that  mixture of ammonia and water couldn't support life but while planetary chemical and geophysical processes favor the persistence of water they do not favor the persistence of ammonia which can be used as fuel by life forms as well as being destroyed by planetary chemical processes. 

The conditions that would favor the presence of ammonia in or on a planet are unknown at this time but do not appear to be part of a rocky planet's possible chemical persistence.    

Fluorine is going to make up for a lack of carbon? Where are you going to find the fluorine? There is 4800 times as much carbon in the universe as fluorine. It might be possible for life forms to metabolize free fluorine, carbon compounds like paraffin are stable with hydrogen fluoride which can be seen as a solvent gas but the rarity of fluorine and it's reactivity pretty much insure that free fluorine would not persist in an environment.    

Then you have the problems of just how much fluorine there would have to be on a planet for free fluorine and fluorine compounds to exist. On the Earth we have oxygen, the entire earth is dominated by oxidized chemicals, rocks, and minerals. Free oxygen couldn't exist in any significant amounts without everything on the Earth being saturated by oxygen. The same would have to happen for any planet dominated by fluorine but the key is that oxygen is more abundant than fluorine, 8800 times as abundant as fluorine to be exact. 

Fluorine is simply too rare and reactive as an element to have fluorine play a role similar to oxygen or in combination with carbon to replace any of the major players in life as we know it.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_and_occurrence_of_fluorine

Quote

In the universe[edit]

Abundance in the Solar System^[1]

Atomic number	Element	Relative amount
6	Carbon	4,800
7	Nitrogen	1,500
8	Oxygen	8,800
9	Fluorine	1
10	Neon	1,400
11	Sodium	24
12	Magnesium	430

At 400 ppb, fluorine is estimated to be the 24th most common element in the universe. It is comparably rare for a light element (elements tend to be more common the lighter they are). All of the elements from atomic number 6 (carbon) to atomic number 12 (magnesium) are hundreds or thousands of times more common than fluorine except for 11 (sodium). One science writer described fluorine as a "shack amongst mansions" in terms of abundance.^[2] Fluorine is so rare because it is not a product of the usual nuclear fusion processes in stars. And any created fluorine within stars is rapidly eliminated through strong nuclear fusion reactions—either with hydrogen to form oxygen and helium, or with helium to make neon and hydrogen.^[2][3] The presence of fluorine at all—outside of temporary existence in stars—is somewhat of a mystery because of the need to escape these fluorine-destroying reactions.^[2][4]

https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/you-asked/does-wearing-bra-make-your-breasts-sag

Quote

Published studies have found that breast size and age are the primary predisposing factors to breast ptosis (the medical term for sagging). One study of eleven young women published in 1990 found that after three months of wearing a “well-fitted” bra, their breasts hung down more.

4 minutes ago, geordief said:

As an avid non reader of the Bible ,but having read that parts of the OT advocates some odious actions  can I ask if perhaps there are indeed some passages where rape is advocated, or described in an approving way?

Like the good lord I too am fishing ,but for evidence 

I've read the Bible several times, while I don't memorize it I do recall passages where the rape of girls who haven't "known" a man is allowed as spoils of war.

5 minutes ago, toucana said:

Judge Lewis A. Kaplan did so in August 2023 while dimissing a counterclaim by Donald Trump for defamation in the E.J Carroll case.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/07/donald-trump-rape-language-e-jean-carroll

Kaplan had already outlined why it was not defamation for Carroll to say Trump raped her.

“As the court explained in its recent decision denying Mr Trump’s motion for a new trial on damages and other relief [in the New York case] … based on all of the evidence at trial and the jury’s verdict as a whole, the jury’s finding that Mr Trump ‘sexually abused’ Ms Carroll implicitly determined that he forcibly penetrated her digitally – in other words, that Mr Trump in fact did ‘rape’ Ms Carroll as that term commonly is used and understood in contexts outside of the New York penal law.”

The title of my post was satirical - (one reason it was in quotes), and took aim squarely at the rampant hypocrisy of a grifter and moral imbecile like Trump attempting to wrap himself in the American flag while hawking overpriced GBA themed bibles in the middle of holy week.

IC, a bit of a sensational title for an actual discussion, poisoning the well I think. While I think Trump, IMHO, is accurately described as a rapist it is my opinion his "Bible sales" is nothing but a another grift and I find it odd that Christians in general don't find it tantamount to a slap in the face but rapist Bible?   

5 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Perhaps the Trump is a rapist meme has lost its edge, given the general cynicism about wealthy men (especially those born into wealth) and their sexual proclivities.  I think Zombie Bible works, given the sort of mindless followers of TFG who would buy it.

Did the OP make the claim of "rapist Bible"? 

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

"The rapist bible" Is a telling title, it's an excuse for you to assum that every bible is spouting an evil message, and so anyone who reads it are either evil or stupid; guess what, it aint that simple.

A very difficult concept for those that just know...

 

"The rapist Bible"? Where and who claimed this? 

Needs cream cheese!

5 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

That reminds me, are you interested in joining my professional hide-and-seek team. Turns out, good players are hard to find.

Groan! 

Dad jokes... eeewww!

17 hours ago, toucana said:

Spotted this week in a very smart district of my hometown

 

 

Whoa! Talk about passive aggressive! 

18 hours ago, Gian said:

Dr Ralph Lorenz who was one of the scientists on the Cassini Huygens project which explored Titan tells me

 

"The Sun at noon on Titan = 0.1% of noon sun on Earth but this is still 500x brighter than full moonlight, you’d see fine, as proven by the Huygens images"

 

He also adds that yes cloud cover is total so explorers wouldn't be able to see the night sky or Saturn from the Titanian surface.

 

Cheerz

 

GIAN🙂XXX

 

 

JANUS and MOONTANMAN

That's interesting about light levels, particularly regarding explorers growing stuff on Titan.

Obviously it's far too cold to grow stuff on the surface but I wonder if there'd be enough light to grow crops in giant greenhouses.

Plus there's shed loads of water ice on Titan so sources of water and oxygen are already there, although I guess farmers would have to take a fair amount of compost with them to get started lol.

And once oxygen has been harvested, I guess the plentiful supplies of methane could be used to generate heat and more light.

Cheerz

GIAN🙂

I doubt that plants we grow for food would grow well enough under 0.1% Earth sunlight to feed us but nuclear power could be used for supplemental lighting.  

So basically the World is turning Fascist and the only way it can be stopped is if everyone gets off their asses and do something about it... We're Fucked!  

10 hours ago, iNow said:

If you mean the rules about doing anything at all and whatever it takes to “win,” then no.

What will change is Putin using his recently rigged election like a trophy while simultaneously aligning with powers which are rapidly becoming hegemonies (I’m also unconvinced these recent terrorist events within country weren’t just Reichstag fire type events designed to further consolidate power and make more fierce and forceful crackdowns on dissenters more palatable.

And the US election is sure to swing the pendulum of the world one way or the other in a short few months. 

Yes. You were much more concise, and IMO correct. 

So we are all just waiting to see if the word turns fascist in few months? 

20 hours ago, Janus said:

Direct sunlight ~100,000 lux

0.1% of that 100 lux, which is equivalent to an heavily overcast day, and brighter than that of the hallway lighting of a typical office building. A moonless clear night is ~0.002 lux

An interesting tidbit here is that Sunlight on Earth is much more intense that we need to see but that the human eye is a very poor judge of light intensity. An interesting experiment is to look at a 40 watt fluorescent light bulb inside and outside in the sun.  Indoors the 40 watt bulb will be almost too bright to directly look at comfortably but outdoors the 40 watt bulb will all but vanish in the sunlight. Plants need significantly less than full sunlight to grow as well, it depends on the species of plants but Earthy plants (underwater plankton) can grow and reproduce at 1% of Earth's surface light intensity. From my own hobby of growing coral I've been made aware of how important light intensity is and how bad the human eye is at judging light intensity. many under water ecological niches are defined by light intensity.     

1 hour ago, Gian said:

Is it known why Titan happens to have at thick atmosphere when none of the other moons in the solar system do? And from the surface of Titan, is there ever a break in the clouds (doesn't look like it) so that Titanians (I know there arent any but maybe one day) can see Saturn and the sunshine from the surafce?

Cheerz

GIAN🙂

Gian, the intensity of sunlight on the Surface of Titan is about 0.1% of what we see on the surface of the Earth. 

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titan_(moon)

Quote

Titan's surface temperature is about 94 K (−179.2 °C). At this temperature, water ice has an extremely low vapor pressure, so the little water vapor present appears limited to the stratosphere.^[67] Titan receives about 1% as much sunlight as Earth.^[68] Before sunlight reaches the surface, about 90% has been absorbed by the thick atmosphere, leaving only 0.1% of the amount of light Earth receives.^[69]

As for why... You ask a question that has crossed my mind many times, I have read that the reason why Jupiter's giant moons do not have atmospheres has to do with Jupiter being being very hot in it's youth and this prevented the Galilean moons from having atmospheres. I am not really sure if this is accurate or not. 

6 minutes ago, KJW said:

Photosynthesis is made up of two sets of reactions: light reactions and dark reactions. The light reactions are associated with the absorption of light to drive the synthesis of two short-term energetic substances as well as the production of oxygen from water. The dark reactions use the two short-term energetic substances from the light reactions to produce sugars from carbon dioxide. The light reactions naturally require light, but the dark reactions do not occur in the dark even though light is not actually used in the dark reactions. Instead, light acts as a regulator of the dark reactions.

What this means is that the synthesis of sugars (or at least those synthesised from carbon dioxide rather than from other sugars) does not occur in the dark. Thus, for growth to occur in the dark, it would seem that the sugars required would have to have already been synthesised during the daytime.

 

OIC what you are getting at, the dark period vs light period isn't about running photosynthesis in the dark. The length of the night controls hormonal output that controls the growth of the plant and it's seasonal growing, flowering and fruiting. 

My idea that is if the dark length controls these factors, ( I am shooting for 24 hours of day and 12 hours of night) slowly decreasing the length of night should trigger the growth cycle independent of the day length.

At least that is my speculation.