I read yesterday that instead of the solar max that was expected for 2012 now scientist have detected evidence that the sun may be going into a quiet mode with virtually no sunspot activity. With very few CMEs would this offer us a window of opportunity to do some extensive manned exploration?

Say would it give us time to build a habitat on the moon that would shield humans from future solar activity? Recently I have come to believe that officials are afraid of sending men out beyond the protection of earth's magnetic field. One big CME aimed in the right direction while astronauts are sitting on the surface of the moon or Mars would surely cook them.

except for the fact that there have been several coronal mass ejections in the last month, That would be interesting. It seems you've read something from someone who is trying to rewrite science. We are in a period of increased solar activity.

We've got enough space probes out there to give us a fair warning about incoming particle showers to get satelites and the electric grid secure enough that we don't see much disruption.

Heck I remember watching the News one night and the meteorologist was explaining the phenomena to the public and one of the effects is disruption in satelite signals. at which point the stations signal got scrambled for several minutes.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

I think maybe you are out of date. The article I read was not by a crackpot scientist.

Check this out
http://www.space.com/11960-fading-sunspots-slower-solar-activity-solar-cycle.html

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

If you read the article carefully they suggest that the next dormant cycle may be especially quiet. Since we are not having major flares they believe the next cycle will be quieter. nothing more.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

Here's another article posted on the National Geographic web site.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/06/110614-sun-hibernation-solar-cycle-sunspots-space-science/

As I understand it the sun may be entering a period of no sunspot activity and possibly for quite a while. Of course no one will make an absolute prediction but there are those who think we may be entering another Maunder Minimum.

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

you'll once again need to really pay attention

When our star drops out of its latest sunspot activity cycle...

Meaning its not out of its current active phase. However, when it does stop it will be in hibernation. It says exactly what the other thread said.

I do find it interesting that the last solar hibernation coincided with the little ice age. Maybe we'll slow down a bit on global warming in the next 20 years because of this.

I think the CPDN people have used every type of possible variation of climate stimulating activity except the solar hibernation.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

I figured that this forum would be populated by people who find my level of comprehension of the subject matter beneath them. My original post was to ponder whether we might be entering a period of time when manned space travel will be a little safer than up to now if this data does turn out to be an indicator of the sun going into hibernation. I don't have a clue as to whether it will really happen and I suspect that you don't either.

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

It's a good idea you had. I've read recent articles on the possibility of an extended lull in solar activity. It didn't occur to me, nor to any of those authors, it seems, that this would be an excellent opportunity for manned space flight. For example, one of the most serious obstacles to a manned Mars mission is the radiation doses that would be accumulated en route, out and back, and while on Mars, which has insubstantial magnetic and atmospheric protection. Michael

Just watched a NASA conference on Mercury. Its magnetic field is feebler that the Earth's. Venus and Mars have no magnetic field.
Tullio

---

Isn't there a planned flight for mars in the next 10-15 years

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

Like I wrote in my original post I think that along with the re-evaluation of the quantity of water contained in the rocks on the moon this possible lull in sunspot activity can provide a window of opportunity to get a safe habitat built on the moon without overly exposing the constructors to high levels of solar radiation. Other manned missions could be scheduled if the activity stays low.

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

It could be built on the dark side of the moon don't you think?

there is no dark side of the moon or didn't you pay attention when Pink Floyd said it. The far side of the moon is a bad place to put a space station. It's constantly bombarded by small meteors that would ruin any space station in a short time. The best bet is to find a spot on the south pole near one of the craters that we know has Ice in it and build there.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

there is no dark side of the moon or didn't you pay attention when Pink Floyd said it. The far side of the moon is a bad place to put a space station. It's constantly bombarded by small meteors that would ruin any space station in a short time.

Really?!

The bombardment is worse than in Earth orbit, say where the ISS is? Remember your gravity wells before answering.

The best bet is to find a spot on the south pole near one of the craters that we know has Ice in it and build there.

Yes a source of water would be a nice thing to have handy.

---

No dark side of the moon ?

Then we should build it at night only.

Daddio has been on top of this question now for several years,

A good place for a lunar colony might be in one of the lava tube caverns of the sort they have begun to detect on the Moon. It wouldn't necessarily have to be near the pole, in order for ice to be retained in these. Go several meters below the surface, and the temperature extremes begin to be smoothed out by the mass of rock and thermal inertia. The average temperature in the Moon should be about 20 degrees C. below the freezing point of water. That's still cold, but much closer to a livable temperature than the ~ minus 150 C. that would be found at the poles. Michael

there is no dark side of the moon or didn't you pay attention when Pink Floyd said it. The far side of the moon is a bad place to put a space station. It's constantly bombarded by small meteors that would ruin any space station in a short time.

Really?!

The bombardment is worse than in Earth orbit, say where the ISS is? Remember your gravity wells before answering.

The best bet is to find a spot on the south pole near one of the craters that we know has Ice in it and build there.

Yes a source of water would be a nice thing to have handy.

I never mentioned anything about earth orbit but yes I'd say either place is sub optimal for space exploration/base camp

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

there is no dark side of the moon or didn't you pay attention when Pink Floyd said it. The far side of the moon is a bad place to put a space station. It's constantly bombarded by small meteors that would ruin any space station in a short time.

Really?!

The bombardment is worse than in Earth orbit, say where the ISS is? Remember your gravity wells before answering.

The best bet is to find a spot on the south pole near one of the craters that we know has Ice in it and build there.

Yes a source of water would be a nice thing to have handy.

I never mentioned anything about earth orbit but yes I'd say either place is sub optimal for space exploration/base camp

No you didn't mention earth orbit, but you did say it would be ruined in a short time. Just what is a short time? Is earth orbit worse from a small meteor standpoint? How long has Mir, Skylab, ISS been operating? Longer than a short time? BTW don't forget the moon is in earth orbit.

Simply tying to point out that future meteor impact may not be a large factor in site selection on the moon. Availability of water obviously is a large factor. As would be availability of Sunlight for electricity generation.

---

As an amateur radio operator, I really miss them sun spots...

As an amateur radio operator, I really miss them sun spots...

No skip huh?

---