Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: diamondgeezer on January 09, 2004, 12:22:15 am
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3381531.stm
Now I know you lot will want to get in here and start telling us all that this is more of Dubyah's bull****, but don't forget the guy really really wants to get re-elected :)
-
apparently he's going to say something in the State of the Union speech sometime later this month (don't know the exact date). If it does happen it will be really exciting. Now all we need to do is dust off those Saturn V rockets.
-
He better be telling the truth! I'll be interested in space when he sends people up towards the moon/mars...without exploding/emploding.
-
Ahh, but what if they just say they're going to Mars, and actually film it in the Nevada desert, like all those conspiracy theories about the Apollo program?
I can't see a Mars mission being feasible until we get much more sophisticated craft, as I remember seeing an episode of Hroizon ro Equinox or something in which they said it would take a couple of weeks to reach Mars.
-
OOOH.
-
Ugh.. the devil just put on the red dress.
-
Originally posted by Petrarch of the VBB
it would take a couple of weeks to reach Mars.
try months. weeks if we develop a nuclear fusion drive between now and then.
-
It's a pretty safe bet to assume they won't be going on your common-or-garden chemical rocket - you'd have to scale the old Saturn 5 up hundreds of times. Expect plenty of new tech for this project :)
-
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/490000/images/_493232_moon.jpg)
-
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
It's a pretty safe bet to assume they won't be going on your common-or-garden chemical rocket - you'd have to scale the old Saturn 5 up hundreds of times. Expect plenty of new tech for this project :)
Actually, I think you'd have to build the ship in space ( isn't the international station somehow though out for that ind of eventuality? ), and use good old space shuttle as an earth/shipyard ( yeah :D ) elevator.
-
Well, yeah, that was one of the ideas with the ISS, along with it actually being completed within our lifetime. The report mentions the possible use of Lunar training for Martian expeditions, so a Lunar launchpad is not out of the question I think...
-
I'd love to see them get it wrong and launch from the moon when it's on the wrong side of Earth.
-
Mind you, the ISS was planned with the expectation of reliable, precision built, on time Russian components, wasn't it?(!)
-
And non-exploded shuttles I reckon
-
Wonder how much of a role the Chinese space launch played in this decision........................?
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/490000/images/_493232_moon.jpg)
:lol:
Anyhow, didn't NASA just develop an ION engine? There was a thread about it a few days ago I think...
-
Lunar base? Man on the moon? Man on Mars?
I'd w00t, but I won't because it's George Dubya. Oh well, nobody's perfect.
They should build some of 'em space elevators.
-
The ones where the cable, even if 1mm wide on Earth, would have to be 1km wide at the other end?
-
Originally posted by Petrarch of the VBB
Ahh, but what if they just say they're going to Mars, and actually film it in the Nevada desert, like all those conspiracy theories about the Apollo program?
More likely up north of WA - it's actually red for miles because of all the iron up there. 'Parantley they found that rover hting just outside of hamersly a few weeks back :p
-
Dubya is desperate. Now that his personal war on daddy's enemies is effectively over, Dubya need a new catch to draw in money. The fact that he chose the space program is probably the one smart thing he's ever done, though.
The Ion engine is far from being able to propel men to Mars. The engine works far too slowly for such a short distance when you can only accelerate half the way there. Now, if we were going to Titan, Ion drives would be perfect.
The space elevator idea, while a fun thought, is totally infeseable. Along with the massive size of the base cables, you'd also have to wait a week or so to get to the top without rocket engines installed on the bottom. Why not just use shuttles? You'd spend the same money on fuel, supplies, and 'Oh S**T!' provisions without the massive cost of building this thing and developing a metal that can withstand the punishment.
The moonbase idea is just like the space elevator idea. A fun thought, but not possible at this time. Sure, scientists say that there is water under the surface of Luna and Silica, Titanium, Oxygen, and other elements in the dusty soil. But the cost of building such a structure along with the cost of supplying it until it got on its feet would be much too high for it to be accepted as an international project. And what if the scientists are wrong? What if there is no water?
Just my $.02...
-
Well, for the water, I always wondered why they keep sending drones to Mars, but they don't send a single one on the moon? They don't like the moon?
-
I read somewhere that Helium-3 can be found on the Moon. The nice thing about Helium-3 is that it's far easier to us as a fuel for fusion reactors than deuterium and tritium.
Now if they'd put a base on Moon to extract Helium-3, maybe we could get the fusion reactors in this century ;)
-
Cool, people on the moon again. That'll be interesting.
-
Feasability, common sense and priority have just been 0wnEd and are now hiding in a corner whimpering.
This really doesn't susprise me in the least. For a month or so now, the White House has been planning the "next big idea", some grandious scheme thats going to insipre America and win Bush the election. People are starving around the world, and yes, even in America. Essentially, welfare, education and healthcare have been cut to that Bush can be remembered as the guy who sent a manned missions to Mars. America will be illiterate, destitute and dieing of 7 seperate desieses, but atleast you can proudly pump up your chest and tell the world how you're clearly superior 'cause you were the first to land on some rock hurtling through space for no other reason than that its there and you could. We've come to the point where politicians don't even have to hide the fact that billions of dollars are going to a project just to get them re-elected.
Yes, this thread was bound to get a few political posts, so there you go. This **** pisses me off even more than the few recent FBI and immigration threads. Its just such a waste of money, money that could be used to help people here on Earth. I suppose that in the minds of the American citizens, bragging rights are THAT important.
And aside from all of that, the phrase "not a chance in hell" comes to mind. Its like those early scuba divers with the bigass suits and the the oxygen being pumped through a hose. Thats the level of technology we're at now. If you ask me, this is an almost certain failiure. C'est la vie.
-
we'll never learn unless we try ;)
But your right in the sense that America has a zillion better things to spend that money on- and the fact that they arent even hiding the fact that its for not much other purpose than an election of all things is what disgusts me.
-
What would be nice, would be if the US decided to wipe out the third world debt owed to it - in the same vein as it's asking countries to ignore Iraqs'.
It's interesting, though..... and any advance in technology can only be a good thing.
-
Originally posted by Nico
Well, for the water, I always wondered why they keep sending drones to Mars, but they don't send a single one on the moon? They don't like the moon?
Well, no, they don;t really. It gets rather irritating after long periods of time. More to the point though, they know pretty much everything there is to know about the moon - it's not all that complex after all - Mars has many more unknowns than the moon, so they're spending more time/money on exploring it.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
*rant*.
Yeah, and instead of spending billions of dollars on making movies, we could just give all that money to the hungry and poor.
What's your point?
-
Originally posted by Black Wolf
Well, no, they don;t really. It gets rather irritating after long periods of time. More to the point though, they know pretty much everything there is to know about the moon - it's not all that complex after all - Mars has many more unknowns than the moon, so they're spending more time/money on exploring it.
Yeah, they have all sorts of therories they've never checked.
As for the money thing: don't care, not my country :p
-
I'm just hoping nothing happens within the next year (probably won't) so GWB still won't get re-elected.
-
just don't mention the EU Ariel (I've spelt that wrong I know) rocket(s) eh ? :p
-
They're still not as powerful as the Saturn V :p Plus, he wants it to be a completely American affair
-
Originally posted by magatsu1
just don't mention the EU Ariel (I've spelt that wrong I know) rocket(s) eh ? :p
Ariadne? (that's probably spelt wrong too......)
The only rocket to have blown up because no-one thought to rewrite the software when they moved the control computer from an old one.... (Ariadne IV to V IIRC)
-
Ariane.
And Ariane5 is probably the most powerful rocket around, right now. And the only one that really works economically, besides all the dumb jokes you can do ( it blew up once, big deal )
-
It blew up because - officially - they used the control system from Ariane 4, which was a much smaller and less powerful rocket, and they didn't even bother their arse testing it.
It's a classic case study for **** software engineering.... although i've heard a rumour that the reason for it blowing up was actually an even more embarrassing software error.
-
doesn't matter how good it is economically if it's just a big pile of scrap on the launch pad.... :blah:
-
At least there's no blood in THAT pile of scrap :rolleyes:
And the economical part comes from the fact that it flies often and blew up one single time.
Geez, that sounds like the Concorde bashing, which flew for 20 years w/o a single pb, it crashes once, and everybody wants it dead.
They would have done the same with Boeing, it would have gone bankrupt long ago :doubt:
-
I Hope it's not just talking that they Forget
because i would be cool if humans could ge to
Mars
-
Venom, it's the most powerful rocket NOW, but I bet you my bottom dollar that the Saturn V was more powerful.
-
Who reckons Spirit found Oil and they're covering it up? ;)
-
Originally posted by Unknown Target
Venom, it's the most powerful rocket NOW, but I bet you my bottom dollar that the Saturn V was more powerful.
Obviously, it was at least twice as big :p
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
It's a classic case study for **** software engineering.... although i've heard a rumour that the reason for it blowing up was actually an even more embarrassing software error.
Blue Screen Of Death?
Also, DG please note that forum rules state that all instances of "to the max" must be in caps lock form with at least two trailing exclamation marks. (Check the sig) :)
-
Even with this, I'll be voting against the guy. He can't violate his own campaign promises repeatedly, screw over the people, suck corporate cocks and be allowed to get away with it.
-
Originally posted by Stunaep
Yeah, and instead of spending billions of dollars on making movies, we could just give all that money to the hungry and poor.
What's your point?
Ask yourself, how many dollars each year get put into movies that are completely pointless, without a hint of artistic vision or anything resembeling an intereating story and characters. Off the top of my head, I could name about 15-20 for 2003. Thats literally billions of dollars down the drain, because some dumb tennybopper wants to see another girl-meets-boy movie. Or another teen movie.
So, should Hollywood stop making movies? Not completely. But for ****s sake, stop paying some egotistical brat 20 million to spend a month so that we can have the same old crap we've had a thousand times before, and never liked. A good movie, like a good book, is an artistic creation and serves the cultural benefit of mankind. However, **** like The "Hack the Earth" Core, or Chasing Liberty can be done away with as far as I'm concerned.
Let me ask you a simple question, and just answer honestly. The implication is that ENTERTAINMENT for Americans is of greater priority than SURVIVAL for say, Africans. And you're OK with that?
-
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/01/09/bush.space/index.html
WE'RE GOING BACK!
And it'll be just the right time for me, too. Give it ten or fifteen years... I'll be in my late 20s... I WANNA GO! :D
-
There's already a thread about it:
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,20011.0.html
Threads merged, so this link is dead. // Sandwich
-
You know, we could probably have developed some sort of nuclear fusion drive years ago, if it wasn't for the fact that that sort of thing was banned in the Cold War era for a good reason.
-
OOps :sigh:
-
Originally posted by Rictor
But for ****s sake, stop paying some egotistical brat 20 million to spend a month so that we can have the same old crap we've had a thousand times before, and never liked.
They do it coz it sells, and therefore makes more money than they spend. You think there's too much of those? Blame all those who go and watch those things. Anyway, that makes the whole statement about wasted money wrong, since doing that crap makes money.
-
In ten or fifteen years I'll be in my late 20s... I can go! Yay!
GWB must have read my mind... not bad for a man with a 91 IQ.
-
Originally posted by Unknown Target
I'm just hoping nothing happens within the next year (probably won't) so GWB still won't get re-elected.
I agree. I hope he puts all of the things in motion so his evil re-election scheme can't be stopped when someone else takes office. (Because for once the schmuck is doing something that might help humanity for once) But I don't want to see him re-elected. :)
-
If he is re-elected... I'm moving to Canada. But I'm still going to the Moon.
-
ROFL That's almost signiaturable ;)
-
Let's not forget that Bush Sr. said these same things in the run up to the 1988 elections. Bush Sr. promised a manned mission to mars in 20yrs and a return to the moon during his administration.
Neither mission was ever funded, nor got to the planning stage. During his time in office, he blatantly ignored his campaign promises. Why should his son do any differently?
-
Originally posted by Nico
They do it coz it sells, and therefore makes more money than they spend. You think there's too much of those? Blame all those who go and watch those things. Anyway, that makes the whole statement about wasted money wrong, since doing that crap makes money.
Number 1, I do blame those who see that sort of crap. Well, not so much blame. Whats between loathing and pity? You may think that its very presumptous of me to judge others, and I would agree with you, however I think that you will admit that the movies I am reffering to have no artisitc merit. Movies are subjective, yes. And I am relucant to label any artisitc (and I use the word loosely) creation better than any other. However, art for the sake of cultural advancement is a valid goal, "art" for the sake of sheer profit is not (IMHO).
Number 2, its not the making of money which concerns me. Its the investing thereof. It doesnt matter how much a person/corporation/governement makes, if they squander it. See what I mean?
And lastly, I may just be stupid in this respect, but can someone explain to me how a mission to Mars will help humanity. Scientific discoveries that do not directly benefit humanity, though marvelous things they are useless when facing the problems of today. I would whole-heartedly encourage the exploration of space if the situation here on Earth were not so dire. Though I am extremely interested in the science behind a manned Mars mission, a swell as the discoveries to be made, that feeling is outweighed by concern. Concern for all those on Earth who's needs (needs, not wants. I'm talking about survival, not luxury) are being ignored to help land a man on Mars aswell as to help the man who is in part reponsible for their situation get re-elected.
The leader that is remembered is not the one who builds schools and funds health-care. It is not the one who helps wipe out hunger or helps restore the environment. Its the one who wins wars, who launches Mars missions, who gives his citizens a "vision", makes them to feel great about themselves, regardless of the reality of their situation or anyone elses. And I must say that I'm disapointed at how eagerly people swallow it.
And yes, I too have noticed that I am being very vocal in the past few days, but atleast my rants always more or less pertain to the topic at hand. That, and they're not flamewars but rather legitimate points.
-
DG's fault for not giving it a clear enough title really :D
-
Well, actually, they'd have to find ways to keep found supplies w/o having a gigantic fridge, water recyclage, power saves, many, many things. I do think the outcomes of things like that on commoners life are real. Not instantaneous, of course, but real.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Let's not forget that Bush Sr. said these same things in the run up to the 1988 elections. Bush Sr. promised a manned mission to mars in 20yrs and a return to the moon during his administration.
Neither mission was ever funded, nor got to the planning stage. During his time in office, he blatantly ignored his campaign promises. Why should his son do any differently?
There's a 2 term limit anyway, isn't there? So why actually keep promises if you can't re-run......
-
I just watched somethin' about Mars expiditions on TV.
NASA is investigating the long term possibilites of terra forming Mars. I'm talking generations here.
What could be bigger than the colonization of Mars ?
Hey, you gotta start somewhere.:rolleyes:
-
Apparently of any planet observed in our solar system, Mars would be by far the easiest of planets to terraform. Its got quite a few of the things that we have here on Earth its just not in the same balance.
One thing I wonder about however...I don't think Mars has a magnetic field. Or at least not one that protects the planet like the Earths field does so whats the deal?
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
There's a 2 term limit anyway, isn't there? So why actually keep promises if you can't re-run......
There is indeed. But he made those promises in the run up to his FIRST term, not his (nonexistent) second term.
-
Up yours copper
:ha:
-
Originally posted by Rictor
*rant no. 2*
Of course they shouldn't waste truckloads of cash on stupid hollywood movies. But that's beside my point. My point is, that there are many things, that we could not do, and instead give the money to the poor. But face it, no-one's gonna do that. Especially not anyone with actual power.
But when faced with a choice of
a) bombing the **** out of another country based on circumstantial or completely false evidence
or b) doing something that actually helps man kind.
my bet stands pretty fairly on b)
-
Originally posted by IceFire
Apparently of any planet observed in our solar system, Mars would be by far the easiest of planets to terraform. Its got quite a few of the things that we have here on Earth its just not in the same balance.
One thing I wonder about however...I don't think Mars has a magnetic field. Or at least not one that protects the planet like the Earths field does so whats the deal?
Being off topic, but have you heard about the Earth magnetic field supposed to inverse itself is the close future? North will become south :D
-
Mars' weak magnetic field and low gravity contributed greatly to the loss of its atmosphere. If we terraformed the place we'd neeed to artificially maintain the atmosphere or it would just blow away in the sloar wind...
-
Originally posted by Nico
Being off topic, but have you heard about the Earth magnetic field supposed to inverse itself is the close future? North will become south :D
I head that that happens about every 7000 years. And the last time that happened was 9000 years ago. You might say that we're due.... :drevil:
-
The Earth IS overdue for a so-called flip-flop. Observe (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3359555.stm).
-
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
Up yours copper
:ha:
[color=66ff00][Centurion]You're ****ing nicked me old beauty.[/Centurion]
[/color]
-
Originally posted by IceFire
Apparently of any planet observed in our solar system, Mars would be by far the easiest of planets to terraform. Its got quite a few of the things that we have here on Earth its just not in the same balance.
One thing I wonder about however...I don't think Mars has a magnetic field. Or at least not one that protects the planet like the Earths field does so whats the deal?
Technically Venus would be better. With gravity that is practically Earth-like as well as being closer to Earth and being comfortably in the habitable zone of Sol (Mars is, but Venus is a better fit) it would be a better planet to terraform.
The trick with Venus is stopping its greenhouse effect, as well as starting some form of plate-tectonics to help stabilize the geology on a long term scale. (Venus' crust is one giant fused plate, and the crust literally flips inside out when the pressure is too great)
-
You want to jump-start a planet's plate tectonics? Well good luck with that.
Terraforming Venus would be a ***** since any equipment there is crushed within minutes
-
Crushed? No. Not crushed. Melted.
-
I believe Carl Sagans terminology was....
Crushed, Fried, and Eaten simultaneously ;)
(Gaseous Sulphuric Acid makes such a friendly atmosphere)
-
Originally posted by Rictor
And lastly, I may just be stupid in this respect, but can someone explain to me how a mission to Mars will help humanity.
[color=66ff00] You've already mentioned Bush's main motivation for a mission to Mars, he wants publicity and in the long run he wants to be seen as some kind of visionary.
As for valid reasons to go to Mars; money isn't stopping us technically, it's been proven that the world currently creates enough food to feed it's current population. Some people have more of the cake than others though. We technically have the cash (speaking pretty much of the first world). Mankind's want for exploration and the inbuilt ability to surmount obstacles drives us. It's a pity that mankind is not more willing to explore methods of living in harmony with his surroundings and taking misery as the obstacle to overcome.
:sigh: Wishful thinking.
[/color]
-
Never mind my little semi-informative rant here, but as an astronomy buff...
One tiny little drawback to either planet's terraforming: lack of a detectable magnetic field. I'm sure you've heard of something we have on good ol' Terra called a Van Allen Radiation Belt? It's effectively a magnetic trap in the planetary magfield, where radiation and charged particles are caught. The interesting thing about it is it serves to deflect cosmic radiation being emitted by the sun.
Another thing, from a geological standpoint: magnetic fields are caused by convecting liquid iron in a planet's core. The 'flip-flop' phenomenon we're expecting on Earth is a result of a shift in the current flows. Now, Mars is effectively a dead planet: the core's probably still hot, but not to the free-flowing degree of Earth. Venus lacks a magnetic field, as well, but I've not heard any reason why it doesn't. Can't use the 'cool core' explanation because it's too damned hot there. :p
End result? Unless you can somehow jump the core of a planet up to around the surface temperature of the sun, and get that liquidized iron flowing about, you're not going to get a magnetic field to deflect the solar wind from stripping away any non-contained atmosphere you generate on it, and no radiation belts to provide an additional defense against cosmic rays. That means an atmosphere-tight colony design: underground and/or 'bubble cities' for the colony proper.
IMO, we need to leave Venus alone for a good bit, until we find some method of peeling off that thick atmosphere so it can cool down a bit. Maybe some kind of orbital shade to block the sunlight coming in on it would be a good start...
-
HOw would a few nukes into the core do?
-
As far as my knowledge goes, nukes to the core of a planet most likely cause massive earthquakes, but little else. And how the hell would you get the nukes to the core?
-
What, like in The Core?
That looked like an interesting movie, if completely implausible. Never saw it though, got terrible reviews. :sigh:
-
Giant moles? how the heck should I know its 3am! :p
-
you... could... use... nukes!:D
and a few nukes to the core would have absolutely no effect at all, we'd probly need a number of largish anti-mater grade weapons to do anything, probly something just large enough to not blow the blanet to bits, used repetadly
and what good would going to mars be, well what if we find something alive up there, this would help to counteract religon and other stupidity, wich would be a good thing
-
You do realize that you'd be trying to heat up a solid (or semisolid) spherical mass of iron with a diameter of nearly a hundred miles at the absolute smallest?
And just how do you expect to get them down into the core in the first place? Tunnel down to it? Great idea! When you get the core to the right temperature, you'll have a geyser of fusion-hot metal being spewed out at you! :rolleyes:
Actually, I don't know exactly how much iron is in Mars's core. I know there's a good bit on the surface, since that reddish hue's all iron oxide (incidentally, a source of oxygen for the future atmosphere :nod: ).
-
In reply to Bobbaou, the ones that cling tightest to it will only shout all the louder and refuse to accept it. That's humanity for you.
It would be good to see man on Mars, if only to prove that the Moon Landing wasn't a fake ;)
-
The sad thing is... so many people everywhere still refuse to believe that the moon landing was real. Even if it's just so that they can deny that American did something else that nobody else has. :sigh:
-
Originally posted by JC Denton
End result? Unless you can somehow jump the core of a planet up to around the surface temperature of the sun, and get that liquidized iron flowing about, you're not going to get a magnetic field to deflect the solar wind from stripping away any non-contained atmosphere you generate on it, and no radiation belts to provide an additional defense against cosmic rays. That means an atmosphere-tight colony design: underground and/or 'bubble cities' for the colony proper.
Um. Hello. Mars and Venus have atmosphere. That's not a problem with magentic fields and the solar wind. The massive thinning of Mars atmosphere and the thickening of Venus atmosphere are related. Venus is a runaway greenhouse: heat is trapped by the atmosphere and never able to escape. That's why its such a hellish planet. Mars on the other hand, has no greenhouse gases to speak of. Heat isn't effectively trapped. The intense cold, combined with the low gravity, allowed for most of the atmosphere to essentially boil off (remember things boil easily at low pressures).
-
wtf?
-
Terraforming Mars would be kinda simple, really. At least getting liquid iron moving, anyway. Since the surface is covered in iron oxide, all you have to do is add aluminum and high heat and boom[/i] instant thermite. Thermite burns at ~3000 C, now im not sure, but I think thats enough to get the party started on the surface.
-
the atmosphere is mostly co2 so how would it burn?
also you'd kill all the martins
if terraforming means you have to raise the green house gasses of mars, well who better to lead the terraforming effort than Bush?
-
Some people are just so cynical. :(
-
Originally posted by Flipside
In reply to Bobbaou, the ones that cling tightest to it will only shout all the louder and refuse to accept it. That's humanity for you.
It would be good to see man on Mars, if only to prove that the Moon Landing wasn't a fake ;)
Nah, they'll just say that the Mars landing was faked too.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
the atmosphere is mostly co2 so how would it burn?
also you'd kill all the martins
if terraforming means you have to raise the green house gasses of mars, well who better to lead the terraforming effort than Bush?
Thermite doesn't need an external oxider. Its built into the mixture of aluminum compounds and iron oxides.
Contrary to popular belief though, thermite is NOT iron oxide. its Fe2O3 (one extra iron atom and one extra oxygen atom).
-
ah, my mistake
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Contrary to popular belief though, thermite is NOT iron oxide. its Fe2O3 (one extra iron atom and one extra oxygen atom).
Actually, rust is mostly Fe2O3, just as a note, along with added H20 groups.
-
Still wouldn't do any good though. What Mars needs is to be spun up. Setting the surface ablaze would really do very little good.
Now, hit it with icy, CHON-heavy comets at a nice angle to impart some angular momentum... that'd do Mars some good. Increase that spin rate and the resulting stresses will put some serious strain on the core, causing it to flex and warp. Before too long (one to two thousand years) and you'll have a properly liquid core. Liquid core-->stronger magnetic field-->Van Allen Belts-->Safer Environment.
There's still the issue of growing things there though. You'd have to start up a ladder. After bombarding the place with icy comets to get water back on the planet, you'd have to do something to thicken up the atmosphere somehow. Starting with lots of algae, lichen and plankton, then moving up to more complex plants slowly. It'd take centuries. Mars would always be in a precarious balance, though, even if you did manage to get it terraformed.
-
"Setting the surface ablaze would really do very little good."
it would look cool, and would make it easier to find :nod:
-
:lol:
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Still wouldn't do any good though. What Mars needs is to be spun up. Setting the surface ablaze would really do very little good.
Now, hit it with icy, CHON-heavy comets at a nice angle to impart some angular momentum... that'd do Mars some good. Increase that spin rate and the resulting stresses will put some serious strain on the core, causing it to flex and warp. Before too long (one to two thousand years) and you'll have a properly liquid core. Liquid core-->stronger magnetic field-->Van Allen Belts-->Safer Environment.
To be honest, I doubt this would work. First, you'd need a hell of a lot of comets to make an appreciable difference in the speed Mars spins at, but more importantly, I have grave doubts that spinning it would have a significant effect on its core temperature. Mars is a lot smaller than earth, so the radiological heat that does so much to keep the Earth's core warm can escape much faster, and unless you have massive gravitational stresses like the Jovian satellites acting on your object, radiological heating is your main source of heat.
-
can't we just nuke Mars yet?
-
Let's build two Huge ass engines, and let's make it orbit!
then do the same with another planet, and let's have a dogfight :D
-
Centurion?!
-
The only way to terraform Mars is to pump it's atmosphere with greenhouse effect gasses (mind you, you don't need many of them. We have gases that are milion times more effective/devastating then the ones that caused the ozon hole).
Mars would heat up, ice would melt(if any) and after planting a bunch of trees - voila!
The oinly problem is I wo't be alive when it's done (for it would take approx. 400 years)
-
Threads merged.
-
Originally posted by Shrike
Actually, rust is mostly Fe2O3, just as a note, along with added H20 groups.
Meh, and we've only just started on Fe2 ;)
Sorry, I really couldn't resist.
-
actually everyone shot down Fe2 in the internal since it would have taken 5 years to do everything.