TRANSMISSION LOG...

Fans of the original Space 1999 have gone back and forth on how much REAL science should be injected into the reimagining that is Space 2099, particularly regarding the well being of astronauts during long term space travel.

NASA’s breakthrough biocapsule might represent a huge advancement in the well being of astronauts traveling in space, making it possible for astronauts to go years in space without ever seeing a doctor.

This isn’t the first we’ve heard of the biocapsule, as it was introduced some months ago as a possible method of tending to astronauts health needs in space.

Today we get an update (via gizmodo) of how exactly the biocapsule could work:

An astronaut is going to Mars. The round-trip journey will take between two and three years…so, prior to launch, the astronaut is implanted with a number of NASA Biocapsules. A very small incision is made in the astronaut's skin for each Biocapsule (probably in the thigh), which is implanted subcutaneously…after it's complete, the astronaut's body is equipped to deal with a whole host of problems on its own.

Perhaps one of the most encouraging developments from the biocapsule is its ability to increase the astronauts’ exposure to radiation.


…When astronauts travel beyond Low Earth Orbit they are at risk of acute radiation exposure from "solar particle events," sudden releases of intense radiation from the sun, which can damage bone marrow and wipe out someone's immune system.That's where the NASA Biocapsule kicks in: It could be filled with cells that sense the increased levels of radiation and automatically disperse medicine to help the body compensate.

This isn't science fiction. We already use a hormone called G-CSF (Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor) to treat cancer patients who are receiving radiation treatment.
So given the biocapsule’s ability to ostensibly bring a hospital to space, what possibilities does this present for the narrative of Space 2099?

One of the objectives fans have been calling for is absolute realism, one where the grind and difficulties of exploring space for long periods of time are NOT ignored; is it radical to assume a small device implanted into the skin could compensate for the rigors of traveling in space? Would it eliminate the need for a character of Doctor Ben Vincent’s nature or would a device be so specific that only one "character" could operate it?

Wouldn’t it be interesting to see its effects on other species, or those with the ability to take the form of different alien species (see Space Warp)...

If a biocapsule could treat many conditions, couldn’t it also be used as a weapon to cause many as well?

Senior Member in our Forums Mlindroo said:

My problem with the space suit above is it violates Martin Bower's cardinal rule of SFX design: 'a detail has to look like it's serving a purpose.' In this case, why would an astronaut wear a BLACK space suit?? The external layer of real-life space suits is white since it reflects light (temperatures on the lunar day side may reach 120 degrees centigrade / 250 degrees Fahrenheit so good thermal protection is essential). On the other hand, the bright orange suits of Space:1999 would also make perfect sense in the permanently shadowed areas at the lunar poles.

Special thanks for starting the thread, but let's explore it in more detail. As mentioned, space suits are white for a myriad of reasons, notably to stand out in front of the black of space and to reflect light/heat. Space suits also have either zero or four red stripes to distinguish one astronaut from the other.

But the latter assumes the astronaut is traveling with just one partner. What if there needed to be something more distinguishable than stripes or the color of a sleeve? What if astronauts were working in more than pairs? Most importantly, what if there needed to be something to distinguish between protagonist from antagonist?

As also noted by mlindroo, space suits are evolving and one day could look something like this:


The below was proposed by Dave Newman at MIT and is dubbed the "Skinsuit."

From Newman's study:

The GLCS is a promising concept to reduce physiological deconditioning (particularly skeletal) on future long duration missions.

It may significantly improve the static and dynamic loading of astronauts to sustained 1 g levels with no power or noise, and minimal volume or mass, while also resisting painful spinal elongation, and providing neuromuscular stimuli.

While the above differs in the depiction we've given on the Space 2099 poster, it is indicative of how the space suit could evolve in the next decade, let alone the turn of the twenty-second century.

While we can't divulge the the details on the suits as of yet, we can tell you that functionality hasn't been compromised for style. The main advantages of a white space suit exist in environments we are familiar with TODAY and are compensating for elements we can not control, but imagine if we were able to better control elements like thermal activity and were exploring environments that didn't have a "black back-drop." Having a darker suit or one with the ability to change colors could have a completely different set of advantages we've never seen before.

Consider also the material used to make the suit might REQUIRE it to be black...

Hypothetically, as we saw yesterday, aviation should invariably be different come 2099, is it radical to assume the space suit wouldn't be different as well?

One can make a strong case that modern commercial aviation has remained much the same since the late 60's -- louder and using more fuel than ever -- all while the price of a barrel of oil has increased 28 times. This alone should explain why NASA is reaching out to the top aircraft engineers to help revolutionize air travel in the near future.

What’s resulted are the following concepts of how Commercial aircraft could evolve over the next 20 years.

Based on the following, are we able to forecast what aircraft could reasonably look like in 2099? How accurate is the initial aircraft appearing on the Space 2099 poster look based on these renderings?




BOX WING JET
Target: 2025

Adapting the lightweight materials found in the F-22 and F-35 fighter jets, Lockheed martin has designed a looped-wing configurationthat would increase the lift-to-drag ratio by 16 percent, making it possible to fly farther using less fuel while still fitting into airport gates.

This model also ditches the turbofan for “ultra high bypass turbofan engines,” improving efficiency by as much as 50 percent

The additional lift would also allow for deeper, quieter descents over populated areas, reducing noise by as much by as much as 35 decibels.





SUPERSONIC GREEN MACHINE
Target: 2030

It certainly looks the part, and on paper travels at speeds of 1.6 Conventional turbofans, which would be switched on during takeoff and landing reducing nitrogen oxide pollution by 75 percent.

The plane’s most distinctive quality is the inverted–V tail, that would all but eliminate a sonic boom from occurring overland, one of amyriad of factors causing the shutdown of the Concorde.

“Instead of generating a continuous loop of loud booms, the plane would issue a dull roar that, from the ground, would be about as loud as a vacuum cleaner.”


SUGAR VOLT
Target: 2035

“Hybrid” comes to commercial aviation with one of the first planes to ostensibly be battery operated; once in the air, pilots could switch to an all-electric mode.

A longer wingspan would allow for more lift, and the folding wings (as shown) would allow forplanes to still access most boarding gates.

Together, the high-lift wings, the hybrid powertrain and the efficient open-rotor engines would make the SUGAR Volt 55 percent more efficient than the average airliner. The plane would emit 60 percent less carbon dioxide and 80 percent less nitrous oxide.

The greatest benefit the hybrid system would provide is a shorter runway. The Sugar volt could use a runway as short as 4,000 feet, which could bring cross country travel to smaller airports who currently don’t have a runway in excess of 5,000 feet, the minimum length needed for a 737 to takeoff.

How could this come in handy if on a base, say with limited space?


TRANSPARENT AIRPLANE
TARGET: 2050

This model was re-created last year, and falls into the more sizzle than steak category. Dubbed the "transparent plane" it would allow passengers a clear view of the sky and the outside world while traveling.

Given all of the above, what would aircraft look like seventy five years into the future? Given that our society’s current focus is on more efficient travel across the country and between continents, what would it take to have aircraft travel between planets and what functionality would it need to develop?

Do you think this offers a realistic portrayal?

It’s been three months since the announcement that Space 1999 would be re-imagined as Space2099, so where is the show in terms of development?

Some of you have wondered what the function of the website is and why there is such a focus on encouraging discussion, particularly regarding current events involving thescience fiction and space community.

Beyond the fact that these events and topics have engendered us into creating a sic-fi series in the first place, we want the development of Space 2099 to feel like a collaborative process, one where reactions to real world events could plausibly be extrapolated into the narrative of Space 2099 as a realistic series.

We believe the development of Space 2099 offers the unique opportunity to reimagine a popular series, while also reflecting on the state of our current society as we look forward almost a century into the future.

While the storyline of Space 2099 is in place, due to the fact it is in development, we can’t elaborate on the specifics at this time. But what we can do is reflect on the lessons that Space 1999 taught us, how it applies to our modern world and what the future could hold for a series that explores…the future in a way that’s plausible.

There are countless stories that reflect how the future of our society is being shaped everyday, many of which could impact the course of Space 2099. We see it only fitting to encourage a realisitc discussion around these issues as they not only impact our daily lives, but also are relevant to the storyline and meaning of a series set in the year 2099. This site is a vehicle to explore who we are now in order to hopefully understand what we may become in the future.



We are not generating discussion for the sake of keeping people busy or to test your knowledge; we have a genuine interest in understanding what fans of a show going on a 40 year hiatus would like to see out of Space 2099. This site's main function is to give fans a pertinent voice and to help determine what's realistic and what's plausible. Needless to say, we consider it a privilege to read firsthand what fans do and do not want to see and consider this information invaluable.

To those of you who have engaged in conversations and have made suggestions for how the series should take its course, we thank you for your enthusiasm for Space 2099. It is our goal to expand our community by discussing as many issues as we can that realistically could impact the universe of Space 2099, all while providing relevant updates on the series as it moves closer towards production.

Few sites have the chance to not only create engaging discussions revolving around the sci-fi world but have those discussion shape the development of a realistic series that takes place in the future– this is what excites us the most as we move forward with Space 2099.

We have some of the most intelligent, enthusiastic and passionate science fiction and space fans on the face of the planet interacting on our site (believe us, we’ve read the discussions). It is our hope that we can give you an experience that allows you to feel part of Space 2099 in as many ways possible.

Thank you for being a part of the journey so far and in the months to come, as we move closer to officially taking off.

The United States hasn’t been terribly proactive in its attempt to advance its space exploration program, but that hasn't stopped its citizens from exploring the great beyond.

According to Wired Magazine, a group called Planetary Resources, Inc. is planning to ostensibly launch robots into space and begin mining asteroids for their precious metals and resources.

As you might assume, the group is funded by a team of wealthy billionaires (who apparently found annuities and trust funds too boring).

“The resources of Earth pale in comparison to the wealth of the solar system,” said Eric Anderson, who founded the commercial space tourism companySpace Adventures, and is co-founder of a new company along with Peter Diamandis, who started theX Prize foundation, which offers prize-based incentives for advanced technology development.

Consider it was less than a decade ago that the star “Lucy” was found, which in essence was composed of crystallized carbon 4,000 km wide. Lucy a.k.a. BPM 37093, is roughly 50 light years away, so it’s a little auspicious to assume the teams at Space Adventures and X Prize might start a “diamond rush” anytime soon.

But there’s another resource asteroids possess which might be just as valuable: platinum. According to the near earth objects program, roughly 9,000 Near Earth Asteroids orbit the earth every year (with only 1,000 of them being larger than 1 km in diameter) and it’s estimated that these asteroids could contain billions of dollars worth of platinum, a resource that at $1500/ounce is almost equal in value to gold.

Again according to Wired, Space Adventures has sent seven private tourists to the International Space Station while the Ansari X Prize has been involved in a spurt of non-governmental manned spaceships.

Needless to say if anybody could make something like this happen it might be this group.

“We have a long track record of making large-scale space ventures real,” said Diamandis.

Who are the “billionaires” specifically backing the endeavor? Google’s Founders and CEO/Chairman Larry Page and Eric Schmidt are reportedly involved, albeit it might be less for resources and more for an enhanced "street view." Avatar Director and renowned filmmaker James Cameron is also an “advisor” as is former Astronaut and Endeavor Mission Specialist Tom Jones, as well.

Despite some of the most prominent names on the planet being involved, the project would require some of the most advanced and obviously expensive technology ever created by man.
Within the next 18 to 24 months, Planetary Resources hopes to launch between two and five space-based telescopes at an estimated cost of a few million dollars each that will identify potentially valuable asteroids. Within five to seven years, the company hopes to send out a small swarm of similar spacecraft for a more detailed prospecting mission, mapping out a valuable asteroid in detail and identifying rich resource veins. They estimate such a mission will cost between $25 and 30 million.

The process of returning the materials to Earth would most likely be the most difficult portion of the project. The only material ever returned to Earth from an asteroid was accomplished by the Japanese space Agency in 2010, which returned dust material from 25143 Itokawa after failing on its first attempt five years prior. But how much would this cost civilians?

A paper at the Keck Institute posits that the cost of a full life-cycle asteroid capture and return mission to be $2.6B.
Despite the high costs, the idea of mining asteroids for their resources is nothing new, in fact it was over a hundred years ago in 1903 that Soviet Rocket Scientist Konstantin Tsiolkovskii said “the exploitation of asteroids” is one of the main “14 points” for the conquest of space.

As Space 1999 fans know, the idea has also been a major theme in science fiction as well, but the difference is that today the technology is advancing closer to reality.

To test the validity of this assertion, NASA sponsored a small study in 2010 to investigate the feasibility of identifying, robotically capturing, and returning to the International Space Station (ISS). The study concluded that while challenging there were no fundamental show-stoppers that would make such a mission impossible.

As also noted in the paper, the mission could bring the international community together in a global effort to "capture" asteroids:

The retrieval of a several-hundred-ton carbonaceous asteroid would present unparalleled opportunities for international cooperation.The retrieval could be carried out under the same philosophy as the Apollo program, “in peace for all mankind,” but with a significant advantage. An international panel could be formed to oversee both curation of the body and the review of proposals for its study.

While the effort might unite the international community, it could conversely cause an economic catastrophe. If a valuable resource such as platinum became fungible, its worth would obviously go down considerably. In an age where dollars are being printed seemingly at will, what kind of effect would a dramatic INCREASE in the supply of precious metals have on our culture?

As production moves forward on Space 2099, fans continue to help shape THEIR unique vision as to what the re-imagining of Space 1999 could be like; honoring the original series but still creating a show that connects with newer audiences.

One of the central themes of the original Space 1999 was the evolving struggles of the cast discovering a new universe, all while facing an uncaring, hostile one of their own. Inherent with this struggle is the metaphysical question: is God real and who is "telling us what to do?"

Religion, more specifically the notion that God is a very real thing, might not be something we can always explicate in a manner that makes sense to us -– just like science is something we understand exists but can not always comprehend -- but should that limit the MUF from once again having a presence on Space 2099?

If there’s a place to discuss the presence of God, or conversely the lack of a divine creator, would exploring the cosmos be the best setting to do so? Can humans understand their role in the universe without exploring the galaxy and beginning to question who could have constructed such a seemingly endless world? Was it simply a mysterious force or should it be something "more specific."

As pointed out by PapaBryant (great handle btw) in our forums:

“I understand that not all will subscribe to that interpretation of the series (having divine elements) in fact I know some might be hostile to the idea of ANY SF that deals with metaphysical issues), but I do think that the new series would do well to follow this "formula" to bridge the old and the new.

When the new BSG came out, they dropped the Cecil B DeMille melodrama, but kept and cleaned up the Mormon theological elements that series creator Glen Larson put in the show. They juxtaposed two historic religious struggles - the struggle between Monotheistic Christianity and Pagan Rome and the modern struggle between Islam and the West (with their secular ramifications) - within a SF backdrop based on the story of the Exodus, with great dramatic success.

But Space: 1999 did that first; albeit the struggle was between belief and unbelief. I think that if the inhabitants of Moonbase Alpha come to the slow realization that their journey was either at the behest of a powerful entity or that they are being helped along their journey by a God or God-like entity might prove to be an interesting development story-wise.”

Senior Space 2099 Member al-feersum mentioned on the forums that:


Here's a look at the math as Originally Posted by 'pedia


Another senior member mlindroo chimes in:

Asimo has gone from "automatic machine" to being able to make its own decisions.

The latest video exhibits some of its latest features and innovations, mainly being able to detect other objects, walking on uneven surfaces and the ability to generate its own autonomous behavior.

It are these capabilities that are moving Asimo towards co-existing with humans in a practical environment.

Asimo is the brainchild of Honda's Advanced Steps In Innovative Mobility, which began in 1986. The mission's focus is on engendering education the sciences and robotics, but has the long term ambition of developing a practical use in an environment coexisting with people

Given the recent geopolitical strife occurring amongst some nations going nuclear, Asimo could be adopting a more prominent role as a first responder in a nuclear disaster.

"During the first 24 hours (of the nuclear disaster) there were things that should have been done but were not done because it was too dangerous for people to do them."

There might not be a better example than at the recent nuclear disaster in Fukushima, according to this account.

The workers in charge of the venting operation took iodine tablets. It was a feeble attempt at protection against the radiation they'd soon encounter, but it was better than nothing. They gathered protective head-to-toe suits and face masks connected to air tanks. At 3:45 a.m., the vent crew tried to measure the radiation dose inside the reactor building, which had been off limits for 6 hours. Armed with handheld dosimeters, they opened the air lock, only to find a malevolent white cloud of some "gaseous substance" billowing toward them. Fearing a radiation steam bath, they slammed the door shut. They didn't get their reading, but they had a good indication that things had already gone seriously wrong inside the reactor.

Asimo isn’t without its share of criticism, primarily the lack of a long term focus and Honda's apparent desire to promote a short term “robotic hype machine.”

Recent announcements by Russia have proclaimed advancements in their space program and the desire to begin “probing” planets within our own galaxy. Meanwhile, The United States has all but put their efforts on pause.

Fans of space 2099 have clamored for what the series should entail; what it should keep from the original Space 1999 and how it should be re-imagined.

But step back from the elements of the storyline and look at the significance of what the show can accomplish; a show which has the main premise of literally launching humans into the bounds of space. Could it open up the importance of not only exploring outer space, but sending human beings to do it?

A paper recently published in Astronomy and Geophysics by Ian Crawford, supposes why human space exploration will tell us more about the Solar System than will robotic exploration alone.

Here are the many advantages versus robotic space exploration:The fact of the matter is that most human astronauts can accomplish in a matter of minutes what a “probe” can achieve in roughly a day. Do we have the luxury of time to be dependent on robots who are terribly less efficient than humans?


The argument is often made that probes are less costly than sending a human, which on the surface (pardon the pun) is certainly true.



But compare the costs saved using probes to the long term benefits of human space exploration. The current Mars Science Laboratory (MSL), which is launching a probe to one site, costs around $2.5 billion. Compare this to the Apollo, which was 70 times more expensive at $175 billion (in today’s dollars) but explored SIX sites. Of course there are the obvious differences between a Lunar and Mars mission, but when all is said and done, Crawford estimates that:

“human missions like Apollo are between two and three orders of magnitude more efficient in performing exploration tasks than robotic missions, while being only one to two orders of magnitude more expensive.”

The crux, as recently echoed by Dr. Neil Degrasse Tyson, is that space exploration needs to have a geopolitical or social reason behind it in order for it to be enacted; mere curiosity is never enough to motivate our endeavors into outer space and will most likely relegate exploration to robotic probes.

As Crawford once again states:

“The fact is that while robotic planetary missions are science-focused, and essentially their whole costs are therefore borne by scientific budgets, human spaceflight is not wholly, or even mainly, science-driven.

Rather, the ultimate drivers of human spaceflight tend to be geopolitical concerns, industrial development and innovation, and employment in key industries.“

While the Space 2099 storyline is in development, we can tell you that one of the focuses of the show is to expand the human imagination, to go beyond the desire to use robotics as our footstep into the final frontier and to encourage us to literally step into it all on our own.

Crawford supposes that we need a geopolitical reason in order to ignite us, but is it lofty to assume that a TV program could fuel our desires? Could showing what the world looks like in 2099 shift our focus and motivate us to discover space and evacuate the current mindset that 2012 is the only world we live in? Could Space 2099 re-create not only the world of Space 1999 but do so in a way where we look at 2012 differently?

Perhaps we’re just dreamers, but as fans of the show, are you any different than us? What do you think?

The Russian Space Agency announced they're closer to undertaking interplanetary missions by 2025.

Despite the recent physical limitations discussed on long haul interplanetary travel, the Russians believe they have developed a nuclear propulsion system, producing 100 to 150 kw of energy with less reaction mass.

The Russians are believed to be shelling out close to a quarter of billion dollars over the next five years for the engine, which comes on the shoulders of recent announcements to all but take over space – probing Mars, Venus and Jupiter, while inhabiting the moon by 2030.

In addition to the above, the Russians dropped $20 billion on a space facility, which should be wrapped in 5 years and allow the Russians new capabilities in space. But Despite the recent plans and the “allocation of funding” last year was a bad one for the Russians, failing a record of 5 missions, one of which caused a rift between their United States counter-parts.

Nuclear has risen as the better alternative to sources like solar, as Nuclear is unaffected when it moves away from the sun and is believed to be one of the only valid energy source capable of producing enough thrust to travel from planet to planet.

But it also is being scaled back, with Germany all but claiming to cut it off by 2022 and Italy banning it altogether. Nuclear power currently powers 6% of the world’s energy and 15% of its electricity, but how would it transition to outer space?

Nuclear power has been studied as a fuel source by the U.S. ever since the 1950’s, when radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTGs) were first created.

Today, RTG's are exploring the outer planets of the solar system and orbiting the sun and Earth. They have also landed on Mars and the moon. They provide the power that enables us to see and learn about even the farthermost objects in our solar system.

Recent “nuclear discussions” have circled around countries being allowed to use the power to build bombs, but could nuclear energy be the key to launching us further into space?

Consider how much oxygen and hydrogen the space shuttle uses now, and nuclear might look like a more attractive option.

According to NASA:

The space shuttle uses, believe it or not, half a million gallons of hydrogen and oxygen on every flight. During the initial part of the liftoff, it's using a thousand gallons per second.

Now if we were to take the pumps on board the orbiter that are pumping the hydrogen and the oxygen, and we were to pump water instead, we could drain an average-sized swimming pool in about 25 seconds. So that gives you some idea of how much fuel and oxidizer we're using here at NASA.

What would you rather see? The continuation of Space 1999 or a re-imagining of the series as a whole?

For those of you who might have missed it, that's exactly what's being discussed in our forums.

While we know where we stand, we'd like to hear your opinion on how the original Space 1999 series could best be remembered through Space 2099, and what challenges a re-imagining could represent versus doing a "reboot."

Here's Space 2099 member mlindroo's thoughts on the subject:

I think the choice really is between "a re-imagined next-generation continuation" vs. a full reboot.

The difference between these two options is not as great as you may think. In both cases you have to essentially start over from scratch with new actors, different (modern) interior sets & props, costumes...I hope the basic format of the show, the Eagles and Moonbase Alpha exterior are not tampered with (too much) but that's about it.

The differences between these two alternatives would be --

1) If the series is rebooted, new actors will presumably play the familiar characters of Koenig, Bergman etc. whereas the main characters will be retired if it's a next-generation series. E.g. the Moonbase commander will not be named "John Koenig" and may be a vastly different character (think J-L Picard vs. Kirk)

2) If the series is rebooted, there will presumably be a remake of the pilot episode explaining how the Moonbase and the main characters ended up in interstellar space in AD 2099 (or wherever the new series takes place). A next-generation show would probably omit this, except perhaps for a brief flashback at the beginning of each episode.

To me, point (1) is actually a strength of the "next generation" format ... as successful as Ron Moore's BSG remake was, a number of fans still complained that the "Starbuck" character was a woman etc.. So you avoid unwelcome comparisons.

I also think it would be fascinating to have actors such as Juliet Landau and Christien Anholt who are real-life descendants of original series stars!

While there is no way the original series actors can have significant roles, I would also love to have some of them back for just one episode. The best Space:1999 episodes dealt with life, death and the passage of time. I am probably partial because I remember the original show 35 years ago, though.

Unfortunately, point (2) is probably a showstopper. I would imagine the makers of Space:2099 will want to fully explain the format of the show without the constraint of being a "next generation" successor. So it could be regarded as a wasted opportunity, particularly since there would be very little continuity from the 1970s show anyway in terms of back-story. Still, the next-generation format probably could work too (Star Trek The Next Generation was a major success after all).

Imagine going from New York to Beijing in two hours...without ever leaving the ground. As pointed out in our forums, Evacuated Tube Transport Systems would move you faster and safer than a car/jet and would be much more cost effective.

The premise is to put a superconducting maglev train in evacuated tubes, then accelerate using linear electric motors until the design velocity is attained. Passive superconductors would allow the capsules to float in the tube, while eddy currents induced in conducting materials drive the capsules.
It would take the 400 pound capsules roughly 3 minutes to achieve 4,000 MPH, versus an 85,000 pound jet going against the wind at roughly 500 knots. It would make communicating face to face possible with anyone on the face of the planet, connecting different cultures in a manner like never before.

The giant impact theory, which hypothesizes that the moon
was created by Earth’s collision with a Mars-sized planet (Theia), has long stood as one of the most popular theories as to how the moon was created.

This hypothetical collision is said to have produced a large disc of magma orbiting the earth that later became the moon as we know it

But in order for the hypothesis to remain consistent with the laws of physics, computer models suggest that 40% of the magma must have come from the Theia, and not Earth.

New research, published in Nature Geoscience, tested titanium isotopes in 24 separate samples of lunar rock and soil and found that the moon’s proportion was effectively the same as Earth’s and different from elsewhere in the solar system.

The study explains that it’s unlikely Earth could have exchanged titanium gas with the magma disk because titanium has a very high boiling point.

The researchers aren’t refuting the “giant impact” hypothesis just yet, but they are calling into question.

Other hypotheses', such as the Fission Theory, propose the Earth and Moon essentially split into two, while others on claim that a partial blow from a passing body may have left Earth spinning so fast that it “threw some of itself off into space like a shot put, forming the disk that coalesced into the moon”.

Scientists are still using “Giant Impact” as the jumping point for lunar discussions, but have yet to answer the question: Where did it come from and how did it come to be?