[removed]

Kind of a click-baity title. All missions has some instance of risk. There is no guarantee ever of 100% mission success.

But you could. The technology exists to put solar panels and modular reactor. The technology exists the make buildings with grow lights. The argument isn't that it is worth it. It certainly isn't. The argument was that the technology exists to do it if we had any good reason to.

[removed]

Different gas is picked up by different filters in images. Oxygen is a blue filter for example. When capturing deep space objects a camera like a ZWO has set filters or filters to add to be able to image the gas. It is then stacked in hundreds of images to create deeper gas pronunciation. This is then tinkered with in a photo imaging application like photoshop.

It's functionally unplantable and literally goes dark for months of the year. The outposts are run off of diesel generators. Unless you either set up a nuclear plant or an entire oil/gas refining industry there (which will wreak havok on what fragile ecosystems there actually are) then there's not many avenues to do so with current technology.

It's not that we're 'not motivated' as much as 'motivated not to'.

Light comes in different wavelengths. If you collect light in at least 3 different wavelengths, you have "color" as the human eye/brain knows it. If you want it to match what our eyes see, you collect light at the same three parts of the EM spectrum that the three different color sensors in our eye are sensitive to.

The reason for them giving off different amounts of light in different wavelengths is that different molecules and atoms emit, absorb, and scatter light differently. Things of different temperatures also give off different wavelengths of light. All of which can be collected and assigned to one of the axes of the color space of an image.

[removed]

It’s not an imaginary line, it’s an imaginary gradient between two lines because earth has to complete a full rotation starting at midnight GMT and ending at what ever time zone is on the other end of the gradient.

[removed]

[removed]

A lot of different things in terms of gas and dust. see eg:

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

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

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

[removed]

In images.. an artist. In nature light and different gasses and whatnot.

If you don't fail sometimes then you aren't pushing yourself hard enough.

We literally fund nasa so they can do shit that would probably fail but would be really cool if it suceeded.

[removed]

The antarctic isn't more self sustaining because no one has ever been motivated enough to make it that way. Just because it hasn't been does mean the technology doesn't exist to do it.

Celebrate at 10 am, dinner by 4 pm, in bed by 8. Sounds like fun to me.

No base in Antarctica is self sustaining, and the cost to keep the people on the ISS alive is in the 100s of millions a month and requires the full time work of thousands of people to support.

We can and should visit the places. But living anywhere but earth is fanciful at best for even the most optimistic view of the technology's on the horizon.

A quick Google says a little over 3000 people for the US. Most of which aren't scientists. Looks like there about 70 permanent stations operated by 29 different countries. So without spending too much time digging there is probably between a couple thousand to over ten thousand people living on the continent at any point in time.

Curious — how many people live in the Antarctic research stations and how many are there?

We don't have "difficulty" living in Antarctica... we have been doing it for years. We have also had people on the ISS for a large chunk of the last decade. What do you mean "not even close"?

Edit. In fact there are a lot of small towns in rural areas with lower populations than the antarctic research stations.

I do. Crack of midnight is just so uncivilised.

Nobody wants to celebrate at 10 in the morning. Well ... very few people.