• gon [he]@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    105
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    Holy shit.

    I’ve never been alive in a time when every human has been on Earth. That’s crazy to think about…

      • can_you_change_your_username@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        2 months ago

        I like pedantry but want to go the other way. The ISS orbits in the thermosphere, still inside Earth’s atmosphere. I say that you haven’t really left Earth until you exit the atmosphere.

        • stebo@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 months ago

          i mean, even those guys who went to the moon still stayed within a very close proximity to the earth compared to the size of the solar system

          only when people travel to mars they will really have left the earth

          • can_you_change_your_username@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            2 months ago

            So basically, the Karman line is the theoretical highest point that an airplane can fly, or at least it was when it was calculated. If it were recalculated today it would be higher because of technological advancement. The definition used by the agencies that define it as the edge of space set an altitude near the originally calculated line. The functional difference between being above the line and below the line is that the keplar force will keep an object above the line from falling to Earth within 24 hours while drag will slow the object below the line enough for it to fall back to Earth within 24 hours. It’s fine as a functional definition but I see no reason that it should be universally applied. In the scope of this discussion why should we consider something that will fall back to Earth in 25 hours not be on Earth but something that will fall back to Earth in 23 hours to be on Earth?

            • itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              2 months ago

              That’s highly pedantic, you need to draw the line somewhere. At 120 km you get long-ish sustainable orbits, at 80 km objects decay within a single orbit. The ISS sits at around 420 km, well above that

              Btw, the airplane limit calculated by von Kármán was closer to 80 km, the 100 km limit is not based on his calculations.

                • bstix@feddit.dk
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  The Milky Way is in a sort of orbit around the center of the Local Group which is the name for the local group of galaxies. It’s not a clean circular orbit and it’s not possible to calculate the rotation time, because the pull from other galaxies is stronger than their collective centre of point of gravity, but sure, it rotates overall on that scale too.

                  The next levels are different. The Local Group is part of a larger supercluster of galaxies that do not seem to rotate. It’s more like flows of galaxy clusters. Depending on the point and scale we look at, it may be shrinking or expanding. Perhaps there is some rotation to it, but the scale of both distance and time is so incredibly large that it’s meaningless.

      • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        unfortunately i feel you can’t call yourself spacefaring unless you actually control the ship, and we have about as much control over our trajectory as a mosquito has control over the amount of blood inside a blue whale

    • SippyCup@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 months ago

      It’s the year 3250. Two harsh desert planets are in a bitter dispute over mineral and water mining rights over the asteroid belt. The Mars coalition insists that Earth may lay claim only to those rocky bodies that fall past her orbit. Earth insists that anything beyond their respective atmospheres is fair game. They use loaded language and plan to argue that an ‘atmosphere’ is one that sustains life, meaning she plans to mine uninhabited stretches or Martian soil too. There is serious debate on Earth of the inhabitants of Mars are even human anymore, cross breeding has become exceptionally difficult. Martians have a lower natural fertility rate and often need IVF to reproduce. Earth gravity is too strong for martians to safely return to the home planet, and so few Earthlings have ever seen one in person.

      The dispute, unresolved, leads to the second interplanetary war. A billion people will die on both planets. Mars will lose precious irreplaceable atmosphere. Earth will lose access to much needed water. The conflict only ends when neither can keep up the fight any longer.

  • kungen@feddit.nu
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    2 months ago

    By 2030, everyone will most likely be back on Earth again when the ISS gets decommissioned :(

  • bollybing@lemmynsfw.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    2 months ago

    What about Bogdan, who was catapulted into space in 1377 in a freak trebuchet accident which was never recorded?

    • MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 months ago

      Long term occupancy of the ISS started in November 2nd, 2000. Since then there has always been at least one person Manning the ISS.

      So at least one human has not been on earth for every day since then, thus, all of humanity was last on earth on November 1st 2000. The statement is factually correct.

  • DarkCloud@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Space is a priority so we can ignore climate change. Rockets put our many many plane flights worth of pollution, elon musk has done over 30,000 of them (mostly for StarLink). Quite a few ended up just dumping raw pollution and parts into the ocean.

    No price is paid but by the environment.

    • LostXOR@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Rockets are launched so infrequently that their effect is negligible compared to other sources of pollution. They’re definitely still a problem (debris falling on populated areas is a concern), but the aviation industry burns a rocket launch worth of fuel a few times per minute.

      • DarkCloud@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        263 rockets in 2024 alone. A 747 carries 10 tonnes of fuel to burn, a rocket carries 1,500 tonnes of fuel to burn.

        Seems like they’re both bad, but rockets don’t have as much of a point to them.