FANDOM


  • What would you do, if you were in charge of the Ark after the nuclear apoclypse ?

    I would go to the moon.

      Loading editor
    • If I was stuck in space for 100 years, I would go to Mars because being on the ground is safer than being in space. Mars has all the resources you need to survive. Given enough time , we might be able to transform mars to a more earth like planet and create a new home for humanity.

        Loading editor
    • I'm an avid "space guy", and have to say that keeping in orbit and waiting was the best plan. It would be to hard to settle the moon, or even get there. Getting to mars would be a massive strain on the thrusters, but might be possible. However, the Ark would likely lack neccessary resources and greenhouse gas production to terraform the whole planet any time within this millenia. While I advocate mars colonization in real life, the Ark would unfortunately have insufficient resources for such a task and is best left in orbit. If I ran the Ark... I probably would have had the oxygen systems maintained and checked much more regularly :)

        Loading editor
    • As it is today, earth orbit is littered with space debris,not to mention metorite, making it a dangerous place. Being in orbit for a 100 years would be like playing russian roulette. To gurantee humanity survival, I would split the group up and send some of them to the moon. The moon is literally in our backyard,it wouldn't take much to get there, since you are in space already. Once a moon base is established, it would become a lifeline to those left in orbit.

        Loading editor
    • 96.250.185.108 wrote:
      As it is today, earth orbit is littered with space debris,not to mention metorite, making it a dangerous place. Being in orbit for a 100 years would be like playing russian roulette.

      I actually had this discussion with a astrophycisist at the kennedy space center a while ago (unrelated to the 100 show though) about the issue of space debris. I had asked him about it since i had found Gravity (the movie) a little unrealistic, with how it handles space debris. He said and i qoute (to the best of my ability, it was a while ago) "We have a lot of problems when sending up rockets into space, funny enough though, space debris and meteorites are not one of them. While it IS true that debris in space can cause a lot of damage, theres actually not that much considering the amount of space it's spread out across. Furthermore, we're actually really good at knowing what is up there. We have a whole system to keep tabs on both the debris and the satilites in orbit. Should any debris be headed for a satilite we make sure to then adjust that satilites orbit to avoid any damage."

        Loading editor
    • 188.182.215.87 wrote:
      96.250.185.108 wrote:
      As it is today, earth orbit is littered with space debris,not to mention metorite, making it a dangerous place. Being in orbit for a 100 years would be like playing russian roulette.

      I actually had this discussion with a astrophycisist at the kennedy space center a while ago (unrelated to the 100 show though) about the issue of space debris. I had asked him about it since i had found Gravity (the movie) a little unrealistic, with how it handles space debris. He said and i qoute (to the best of my ability, it was a while ago) "We have a lot of problems when sending up rockets into space, funny enough though, space debris and meteorites are not one of them. While it IS true that debris in space can cause a lot of damage, theres actually not that much considering the amount of space it's spread out across. Furthermore, we're actually really good at knowing what is up there. We have a whole system to keep tabs on both the debris and the satilites in orbit. Should any debris be headed for a satilite we make sure to then adjust that satilites orbit to avoid any damage."

      Space is becoming more dangerous with every new satellite launch. As the pace of launches increase, so will the risk. We can track  bigger objects, but objects smaller than 1/2 inch are unknown an pose a real danger in orbit. There's an article in the  April 21,New York Times (free online)  that can explain the problem of space debris.

        Loading editor
    • 68.132.187.232 wrote:
      188.182.215.87 wrote:
      96.250.185.108 wrote:
      As it is today, earth orbit is littered with space debris,not to mention metorite, making it a dangerous place. Being in orbit for a 100 years would be like playing russian roulette.
      I actually had this discussion with a astrophycisist at the kennedy space center a while ago (unrelated to the 100 show though) about the issue of space debris. I had asked him about it since i had found Gravity (the movie) a little unrealistic, with how it handles space debris. He said and i qoute (to the best of my ability, it was a while ago) "We have a lot of problems when sending up rockets into space, funny enough though, space debris and meteorites are not one of them. While it IS true that debris in space can cause a lot of damage, theres actually not that much considering the amount of space it's spread out across. Furthermore, we're actually really good at knowing what is up there. We have a whole system to keep tabs on both the debris and the satilites in orbit. Should any debris be headed for a satilite we make sure to then adjust that satilites orbit to avoid any damage."
      Space is becoming more dangerous with every new satellite launch. As the pace of launches increase, so will the risk. We can track  bigger objects, but objects smaller than 1/2 inch are unknown an pose a real danger in orbit. There's an article in the  April 21,New York Times (free online)  that can explain the problem of space debris.

      It is for that reason that Roscosmos and the CNSA have begun using increasingly more "satellite killers" and earth to space missile systems, in an effort to destroy old debris which no longer serves a purpose. In addition to this, most satellites, by design, fall back into the atmosphere and burn up on re-entry several years after they have ceased functioning. It's an issue, but not one that's going unmanaged or without counter balances.

        Loading editor
    • Chancellor1 wrote:
      I'm an avid "space guy", and have to say that keeping in orbit and waiting was the best plan. It would be to hard to settle the moon, or even get there. ...

      Hey 'space guy' getting to the moon is relatively easy once you are in orbit. The hard part was leaving the earth. If you have  time on your hands,it can be done with very little fuel  and gravity assist.

        Loading editor
    • 96.250.185.108 wrote:
      Chancellor1 wrote:
      I'm an avid "space guy", and have to say that keeping in orbit and waiting was the best plan. It would be to hard to settle the moon, or even get there. ...
      Hey 'space guy' getting to the moon is relatively easy once you are in orbit. The hard part was leaving the earth. If you have  time on your hands,it can be done with very little fuel  and gravity assist.

      True... but my main concern is actually settling it. It's totally inhospitable, and the Ark likely wasn't equipped with proper Lunar Landers or outposts. It does not seem as though the Ark's landers contain sufficient fuel for a controlled descent and then a relaunch to a sufficient altitude as to enter Lunar orbit, let alone perform docking with the Ark again. Even if you landed everyone would need a spacesuit (although even these may fall short in some areas, as Lunar specific suits are better for the Lunar Environment and preventing wear and tare on excursion. I don't think they have hundrers of space suits. Bringing all of farm station down to the Lunar surface would be a bad idea, because relaunching the Ark (which wasn't designed to land) and escaping Lunar influence and entering a proper Earth orbit and then deorbiting into the Earth atmosphere would be far too difficult on be fuel supplies. As such, food would be insufficient on the Moon, with very little ability to grow more, as Lunar soil simulants produce fairly minimal amounts of fodder in contrast to Martian or Earth soil samples and simulants. It's simply far safer, more feasible, and more forward thinking you stay in orbit. I'd ability note that the moon is impossible to terraform with current technology.

      Orbit is the best and easiest way to survive.

        Loading editor
    • Shouldn't there people living on the moon and mars, given the time period the story takes place in. Well the idea of going to the moon is not to send the entire ark, but a small group of people to establish a base to look for resources. (air,water,etc) There should be enough resources among the 12 stations to support such a mission.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.