Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: FlamingCobra on October 07, 2011, 07:57:21 pm
-
Moving this discussion from another thread..
We all know that Venus is a ****ing inferno. We all know that Venus most likely had liquid water at one time. And plate tectonics. And probably a carbon cycle too.
So what happened?
Here we discuss exactly this question.
If we look at Venus' atmosphere now, we find that it is nearly devoid of hydrogen; which should be present because Venus had water at one time. All the hydrogen has blown away because there is no natural magnetic field to hold it in place.
The question of why it doesn't have a magnetic field boils down to "Why doesn't Venus have a dynamo?"
Does the core not spin because Venus rotates too slowly, or does it have to do with something else? Like lunar tidal forces. Because Venus doesn't have a moon.
-
We don't really know what causes the Earth to have it's magnetic field. There are speculations, but we don't know for sure. If we found out, that would have helped with explaining Venus.
-
I actually developed this (http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2010/298/e/d/venus_sunset_by_invertedvantage-d31il2q.png) concept last year, supposing colonization efforts on Venus would result in floating cities. Mining would be done by blasting huge chunks of rock out of the planet and floating them up to the upper atmosphere. Resources would be easier to transport to and from space given that the conditions about 50 km up are actually quite favorable - 71 degrees F, 1 Earth atmosphere of pressure. If some sort of resistance to the sulfuric acid rain/clouds could be developed, it may be a viable option.
-
Moving this discussion from another thread..
We all know that Venus is a ****ing inferno. We all know that Venus most likely had liquid water at one time. And plate tectonics. And probably a carbon cycle too.
So what happened?
Here we discuss exactly this question.
If we look at Venus' atmosphere now, we find that it is nearly devoid of hydrogen; which should be present because Venus had water at one time. All the hydrogen has blown away because there is no natural magnetic field to hold it in place.
The question of why it doesn't have a magnetic field boils down to "Why doesn't Venus have a dynamo?"
Does the core not spin because Venus rotates too slowly, or does it have to do with something else? Like lunar tidal forces. Because Venus doesn't have a moon.
It's likely that it rotates too slowly; or, it's also possibly that tidal forces from the sun could keep the liquid core, if it exists, tidally locked. Really, there's a lot of possible reasons Venus could be lacking a magnetic field. It seems to be rather rare for terrestrial planets to have strong magnetic fields capable of shielding them to the extent that ours does.
That being said, oddly enough, Venus could be our best hope for colonization. Structures supported by gas torus supports, floating on the incredibly dense atmosphere. We wouldn't have to worry about the long-term effects of microgravity on human physiology, and even though the colonies would be floating above the bulk of that atmosphere, they would still be protected from micrometeorite impacts or errant debris. It's kind of interesting to think about, at any rate.
-
We don't really know what causes the Earth to have it's magnetic field. There are speculations, but we don't know for sure. If we found out, that would have helped with explaining Venus.
So......... dynamo is "speculation"?
What if we somehow put Eris in orbit around Venus? It's not that much smaller than the moon. It would generate tidal forces. Would the tidal forces cause the core to spin?
If we caused planetoids from the Kuiper Belt (besides eris, which I think is rocky) to collide with venus, the impact could alter its rotation AND deliver large quantities of water to its surface, which could stay liquid if we cooled the planet with "sunshades" beforehand. Right?
Liquid water would make the crust viscous enough to subduct and BLAM! You have plate tectonics. with plate tectonics, BLAM, you have a carbon cycle. Right?
-
Moving things that size is a helluvalot of energy you know. . .
-
We don't really know what causes the Earth to have it's magnetic field. There are speculations, but we don't know for sure. If we found out, that would have helped with explaining Venus.
So......... dynamo is "speculation"?
What if we somehow put Eris in orbit around Venus? It's not that much smaller than the moon. It would generate tidal forces. Would the tidal forces cause the core to spin?
If we caused planetoids from the Kuiper Belt (besides eris, which I think is rocky) to collide with venus, the impact could alter its rotation AND deliver large quantities of water to its surface, which could stay liquid if we cooled the planet with "sunshades" beforehand. Right?
Liquid water would make the crust viscous enough to subduct and BLAM! You have plate tectonics. with plate tectonics, BLAM, you have a carbon cycle. Right?
I'm not quite sure what the point of this would be, even if it were possible.
-
Terraforming, essentially.
-
So......... dynamo is "speculation"?
Not really. It certainly involves fluid convection in the earth's core, though as I understand it the exact details are still being worked out. Not really my area of though.
What if we somehow put Eris in orbit around Venus?It's not that much smaller than the moon. It would generate tidal forces. Would the tidal forces cause the core to spin?
The time required for it to have even a minute effect would be far longer than the remaining lifetime of our Sun, so unfortunately it'd be a futile exercise. :/
If we caused planetoids from the Kuiper Belt (besides eris, which I think is rocky) to collide with venus, the impact could alter its rotation AND deliver large quantities of water to its surface, which could stay liquid if we cooled the planet with "sunshades" beforehand. Right?
Changing the orbits of Kuiper Belt objects to bring them to a collision with Venus wouldn't require as much delta-v as changing the orbits of main belt 'roids, but you'd have to send something out to the Kuiper Belt in order to move them in the first place, which is expensive as all hell.
As for the change in Venus' rotation, that would require a LOT of asteroid impactors. Really you'd need to hit Venus with a similar order-of-magnitude mass, so we're talking 1000km-diameter sized objects to do the job. Not very practical...
Liquid water would make the crust viscous enough to subduct and BLAM! You have plate tectonics. with plate tectonics, BLAM, you have a carbon cycle. Right?
I'm not sure what liquid water would do for you there, plate tectonics is driven by thermal convection currents in the planet's mantle.
-
Well, because venus rotates the other way then all other lanets, one theory is that somehow, in the past, something turned Venus upside down. The only reasons i can think of that would cause this are series of massive earthquake (magnitudes 9+ are known to hamper with Earth's axis) or loss of a moon (according to sims, if Earth lost the moon, it would start rolling on it's orbit, making one hemisphere permanently day and the other night). About the hydrogen, it might have all just reacted and turn into acids.
-
Don't think earthquakes would do it. Earthquakes can indeed redistribute the planet's angular momentum around a bit, but the angular momentum as a whole has to be conserved, meaning an outside force is necessary to explain such retrograde rotation (either that or Venus just formed that way). Most likely it was due to giant impacts early on in the solar system's history. The same is hypothesized to explain the crazy tilt of Uranus' rotation axis.
-
About the hydrogen, it might have all just reacted and turn into acids.
you don't understand how chemistry works do you?
-
Terraforming, essentially.
Thank you
Well, because venus rotates the other way then all other lanets, one theory is that somehow, in the past, something turned Venus upside down. The only reasons i can think of that would cause this are series of massive earthquake (magnitudes 9+ are known to hamper with Earth's axis) or loss of a moon (according to sims, if Earth lost the moon, it would start rolling on it's orbit, making one hemisphere permanently day and the other night). About the hydrogen, it might have all just reacted and turn into acids.
This may explain Venus' retrograde rotation
http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q50.html
I'm not sure what liquid water would do for you there, plate tectonics is driven by thermal convection currents in the planet's mantle.
From Wikipedia: There is no evidence for plate tectonics, possibly because its crust is too strong to subduct without water to make it less viscous.
I also read somewhere that Earth's crust would not subduct without an ocean because of its size. If Earth were larger, its crust would be able to subduct without any liquid water at all.
-
Terraforming would be insanely expensive, extremely time-consuming, and there's always the possibility that we could dump money and time into it without producing results. We know a lot of things, but manipulating an entire ecosystem on such a vast scale would basically be a shot in the dark. Floating platforms supported by gas toroids is probably our most realistic option for colonizing Venus, or almost any extraterrestrial body. The planet's slow rotation would mean nothing, and the temperature, pressure, and gravity would all be at normal levels. We would just need construction materials, resistant to sulfuric acid and suitable for forming load-bearing structures, that could be produced on a large scale. Given that materials science is one of the strong points of the human race, in my opinion, this shouldn't be too incredibly difficult.
-
Yeah, but the big question would still be, "Why?"
I mean, I know about the appeal of doing stuff because they can be done, but I seriously have to ask myself why terraforming Venus should be a good idea when you could more easily colonize Luna or Mars.
-
Yeah, but the big question would still be, "Why?"
I mean, I know about the appeal of doing stuff because they can be done, but I seriously have to ask myself why terraforming Venus should be a good idea when you could more easily colonize Luna or Mars.
That was kind of what I was wondering. Yeah, it would be a huge scientific leap or whatever, but if we screw it up it'll just be a massive waste of time and money.
That being said, Venus is still our best option - a base on the moon makes logistical sense, because constructing materials there and launching them from there would be a lot less expensive than doing it from Earth. But if we want to expand past that, Venus is a much better idea than Mars. Just without the terraforming.
-
Umm.
Why? Because, way I see it, colonizing Mars represents a huge challenge, but it could actually be done using current technology. The same can not be said about Venus, not by a long shot. And still the question would be why, because as far as I can tell, the ressources that may be available on Venus are so inaccessible as to make retrieval somewhat challenging....
-
Umm.
Why? Because, way I see it, colonizing Mars represents a huge challenge, but it could actually be done using current technology. The same can not be said about Venus, not by a long shot. And still the question would be why, because as far as I can tell, the ressources that may be available on Venus are so inaccessible as to make retrieval somewhat challenging....
I don't think it's a question of the technology as much as it is the difficulty. Mars has much more extreme temperatures, almost no atmosphere, and just a little over 1/3 g on the surface. We still really don't have any idea if humans can live in a low-gravity environment for the extended periods of time necessary for colonization efforts. We would have to protect the people living there not only from the extreme temperatures but also from the near-vacuum. The thin atmosphere also provides little protection against impacts.
On Venus, at the altitude of the supposed floating cities, breathable air would be a lifting gas, and thus, storage of breathable air would also double as support for the aerostat habitats. The temperature and pressure at that altitude is very similar to conditions on Earth, and thus humans would only need to be protected from corrosive gases (something we're already very much capable of doing). Leaks in the air torus would diffuse very slowly due to the minute pressure differential, and wouldn't be overly dangerous. The atmosphere of Venus rotates much more quickly than the planet itself, and thus the day/night cycle would be fairly tolerable. We already have materials that can be structurally sound in a corrosive environment ; the engineering challenges are great but not insurmountable, although the same could be said for Mars as well. Essentially, Venus would be a better option for human reasons - no artificial gravity necessary, no chance of getting exposed to a near-vacuum or flash-freeze temperatures. Also, Venus is much more protected from meteorite impacts due to its thick atmosphere. Even at the altitudes the aerostats would be floating at.
-
...Mars has much more extreme temperatures,...
What.
-
...Mars has much more extreme temperatures,...
What.
I'm sorry, I should have clarified. The aerostat habitats on Venus will be at an altitude such that the insane pressure-cooker surface temperatures of Venus are reduce to a much more livable range of approximately 30-115 degrees F, in comparison to the average surface temp of -81 F on Mars.
-
Mars has much more extreme temperatures,
AAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA
Mars Temperatures:
Lowest: -133 Degrees Celsius
Mid: -55 Degrees Celsius
Highest: 27 Degrees Celsius
Mars atmosphere:
Ambient pressure: 6*10^-3 bar (or about 0.006 bar)
Mostly CO2, N
So, in other words, it's not that far away from a high-altitude environment on Earth, minus the oxygen of course. We kinda know how to deal with that, and given that the greatest natural obstacle would be sand storms (Something we know a lot about too), I have a bit of trouble seeing how Venus would be _easier_.
Whereas the construction of giant, permanently floating structures is an area of engineering we have little to no experience with, not to mention doing so in an atmosphere that is highly corrosive. And much as I hate to point it out, but asteroid impacts are pretty much a null issue, given how rare these things are.
-
Terraforming, or getting a habitat on venus will be insanely hard, the moon is easier, and mars easier still (despite the initial distance problem).
I wonder if slamming some comets into venus might help :P
-
Mars has much more extreme temperatures,
AAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA
Mars Temperatures:
Lowest: -133 Degrees Celsius
Mid: -55 Degrees Celsius
Highest: 27 Degrees Celsius
Mars atmosphere:
Ambient pressure: 6*10^-3 bar (or about 0.006 bar)
Mostly CO2, N
So, in other words, it's not that far away from a high-altitude environment on Earth, minus the oxygen of course. We kinda know how to deal with that, and given that the greatest natural obstacle would be sand storms (Something we know a lot about too), I have a bit of trouble seeing how Venus would be _easier_.
Whereas the construction of giant, permanently floating structures is an area of engineering we have little to no experience with, not to mention doing so in an atmosphere that is highly corrosive. And much as I hate to point it out, but asteroid impacts are pretty much a null issue, given how rare these things are.
I clarified my temperature remark.
I realize that my field is nuclear engineering and not materials or structural engineering, but from a medical standpoint, humans would be better off on Venus. It's not even known if we can exist for long periods of time in low- or microgravity situations without permanently debilitating bone loss, nevermind the various other physiological concerns.
What I do know is that, if someone's pitching the idea to people, health concerns are gonna trump engineering concerns.
-
given that mars is right next to the asteroid belt i think it would be a better idea just to hit mars with asteroids, especially in the ice caps, to help thaw them out. mars's moons are small enough it might be possible to just push them in as well. id just use solar sails and a lot of time, as it would be the cheapest way to deal with that. then again this just might make the conditions on mars less habitable.
-
What I do know is that, if someone's pitching the idea to people, health concerns are gonna trump engineering concerns.
Uh. And they wouldn't just cancel the whole idea why, exactly? Sure, we don't know a lot about long term effects of low gravity environments, but we DO know about the effects of being crushed to death by atmospheric pressure, being exposed to acidic rain, and all the other fun deaths one may have on Venus. And seriously? "Health concerns trump engineering concerns?" You're awfully optimistic about our ability to build safe floating environments, you know. And you still haven't answered the question why the hell we should go to Venus, when there's almost nothing to do there but float in the clouds. Making an argument for a moonbase is easy, there's ressources there. Making an argument for a Mars base isn't much harder, given that turning it into a more friendly environment seems rather straightforward, and can be accomplished with a minimum of yet-to-be-discovered magic technology. Venus? What the hell is on Venus that would make going there a worthwhile pursuit?
-
Venus could be a lot like Earth. . .
in several million years.
-
What I do know is that, if someone's pitching the idea to people, health concerns are gonna trump engineering concerns.
Uh. And they wouldn't just cancel the whole idea why, exactly? Sure, we don't know a lot about long term effects of low gravity environments, but we DO know about the effects of being crushed to death by atmospheric pressure, being exposed to acidic rain, and all the other fun deaths one may have on Venus. And seriously? "Health concerns trump engineering concerns?" You're awfully optimistic about our ability to build safe floating environments, you know. And you still haven't answered the question why the hell we should go to Venus, when there's almost nothing to do there but float in the clouds. Making an argument for a moonbase is easy, there's ressources there. Making an argument for a Mars base isn't much harder, given that turning it into a more friendly environment seems rather straightforward, and can be accomplished with a minimum of yet-to-be-discovered magic technology. Venus? What the hell is on Venus that would make going there a worthwhile pursuit?
Besides the low gravity, there's also flash-freezing and near-vacuum concerns if the environment is breached, along with a large pressure differential. If your suit gets a hole knocked in it, the air is gonna leave. Quickly. Same goes for the habitats themselves. Air leaks would be extremely dangerous. Full pressure suits would be necessary for any exploration, with exposure to the exterior atmosphere resulting in internal hemorrhaging and flash-freezing of the skin. On Venus, since the temperature and air pressure would be very close to Earth's, a full pressure suit wouldn't be required, although it would be advisable. A leak in the suit would diffuse air outward very, very slowly (see the "space suits" used in handling extremely dangerous biological substances), slowly enough to make patching the leak as easy as putting a piece of tape over it.
Neither planet has much to recommend it as far as resources go, really. Mars' surface is mostly basalt. However, Venus' atmosphere has useful concentrations of some trace gases like argon and neon: useful in industrial processes as non-reacting atmospheres. But I don't want to justify it that way because that's not a big deal. What is a big deal? Doing it because we can. Doing it because maybe some people don't want to live on this planet anymore. Either way, we stand to learn a lot about ourselves, and either way, who knows what science will get out of overcoming the obstacles necessary to colonize other planets. I don't care if it's inflatable habitats on Mars, floating cities on Venus, or submarines on Europa - I'm going to advocate doing it. Venus wouldn't require any "magic" technology, and neither would Mars. But, regardless of the science, it's going to boil down to protecting ourselves from hostile environments. And despite the conditions on the surface, the proposed habitats in the upper atmosphere have only one hostile factor - corrosive gas, which we can be sealed away from with minimal difficulty. It also stands to be mentioned that Venus receives quite a bit more solar radiation thanks to the inverse-square nature of light intensity, and thus solar panels wouldn't have to be as large.
-
There is no evidence for plate tectonics, possibly because its crust is too strong to subduct without water to make it less viscous.
[citation needed]
The presence of water in the crust is what helps drive volcanism along subduction zones, since the water gets heated and converted to steam, which rises and melts rock along the way to generate rising magma plumes.
I'm not convinced water helps to make the crust "less viscous" or that this has any role in allowing subduction to occur. The primary mechanism for subduction is the presence of a collision boundary, with one side of the crustal mass being less dense than the other. For an ocean-continent subduction zone, the oceanic crust is the one to sink because the oceanic crust, being made of basalts, is more dense than the continental crust, primarily made of granites.
I also read somewhere that Earth's crust would not subduct without an ocean because of its size. If Earth were larger, its crust would be able to subduct without any liquid water at all.
As I understand it, the reason a larger planet is more capable of having plate tectonics is because it takes longer for a larger planet to cool down, so those convection currents continue for quite some time. I recall reading (I think in Scientific American) a couple months back that Earth is hypothesized to be about the minimum size planet capable of sustaining active tectonics for as long as it has.
Again I'm not sure how water would play a role, but I'd be interested in seeing that research. :)
-
On Venus, since the temperature and air pressure would be very close to Earth's, a full pressure suit wouldn't be required, although it would be advisable. A leak in the suit would diffuse air outward very, very slowly (see the "space suits" used in handling extremely dangerous biological substances), slowly enough to make patching the leak as easy as putting a piece of tape over it.
You're operating under the assumption that these conditions exist on your posited "floating colonies". The engineering challenges for such colonies are so large so as to make my head spin. Besides, Venus is famous for sulfuric acid rain. According to my Chemical Process Safety textbook, the OSHA-mandated 8-hour Personal Exposure Limit is 1mg H2SO4/1m^3 air. Chemical companies that expose their workers to concentrations higher than that face fines and legal action. On Venus, a suit breach, even at high altitudes (you're sticking with this idea, seriously?) wouldn't result in some fines and upset lawyers, it would result in a case of sulfuric-acid-in-environment-suit, likely followed by injury and a very possible irreversible death.
Venus wouldn't require any "magic" technology, and neither would Mars. But, regardless of the science, it's going to boil down to protecting ourselves from hostile environments. And despite the conditions on the surface, the proposed habitats in the upper atmosphere have only one hostile factor - corrosive gas, which we can be sealed away from with minimal difficulty. It also stands to be mentioned that Venus receives quite a bit more solar radiation thanks to the inverse-square nature of light intensity, and thus solar panels wouldn't have to be as large.
...Floating cities don't need "magic technology". Indeed.
Also, "it's just some corrosive gas" (paraphrase)? Oilfields on Earth that have to deal with high concentrations of hydrogen sulfide gas (corrosive and notoriously toxic) have to apply perhaps the best petroleum engineers on the planet to simply avoid killing workers, while using one of the most expensive gas separation and removal processes in the industry.
Furthermore! While the inverse-square law does apply to Venus, you have forgotten to take Venus' famed cloud cover into consideration. Modern-day solar panels are minimally functional (if at all!) during cloudy days on Earth; without sparing a few minutes for some back-of-the-envelope calculations, I'm pretty sure that solar power would not be a very viable option for power on Venus.
I doubt this post is really going to alter anybody's mindset, but I'd grown tired of ill-informed speculation and magical engineering.
-
Hey TwentyPercentCooler, have you read the Red Mars trilogy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_trilogy) by Kim Robinson? I think it'd be right up your alley!
-
On Venus, since the temperature and air pressure would be very close to Earth's, a full pressure suit wouldn't be required, although it would be advisable. A leak in the suit would diffuse air outward very, very slowly (see the "space suits" used in handling extremely dangerous biological substances), slowly enough to make patching the leak as easy as putting a piece of tape over it.
You're operating under the assumption that these conditions exist on your posited "floating colonies". The engineering challenges for such colonies are so large so as to make my head spin. Besides, Venus is famous for sulfuric acid rain. According to my Chemical Process Safety textbook, the OSHA-mandated 8-hour Personal Exposure Limit is 1mg H2SO4/1m^3 air. Chemical companies that expose their workers to concentrations higher than that face fines and legal action. On Venus, a suit breach, even at high altitudes (you're sticking with this idea, seriously?) wouldn't result in some fines and upset lawyers, it would result in a case of sulfuric-acid-in-environment-suit, likely followed by injury and a very possible irreversible death.
Venus wouldn't require any "magic" technology, and neither would Mars. But, regardless of the science, it's going to boil down to protecting ourselves from hostile environments. And despite the conditions on the surface, the proposed habitats in the upper atmosphere have only one hostile factor - corrosive gas, which we can be sealed away from with minimal difficulty. It also stands to be mentioned that Venus receives quite a bit more solar radiation thanks to the inverse-square nature of light intensity, and thus solar panels wouldn't have to be as large.
...Floating cities don't need "magic technology". Indeed.
Also, "it's just some corrosive gas" (paraphrase)? Oilfields on Earth that have to deal with high concentrations of hydrogen sulfide gas (corrosive and notoriously toxic) have to apply perhaps the best petroleum engineers on the planet to simply avoid killing workers, while using one of the most expensive gas separation and removal processes in the industry.
Furthermore! While the inverse-square law does apply to Venus, you have forgotten to take Venus' famed cloud cover into consideration. Modern-day solar panels are minimally functional (if at all!) during cloudy days on Earth; without sparing a few minutes for some back-of-the-envelope calculations, I'm pretty sure that solar power would not be a very viable option for power on Venus.
I doubt this post is really going to alter anybody's mindset, but I'd grown tired of ill-informed speculation and magical engineering.
You're assuming that the acid leaks into the suit - I invoked a comparison with chemical and biological hazard suits for a reason. If there's a leak, the air goes out, not in. Positive pressure. There are currently people working with things much more dangerous to humans than acids ensconced in such suits. They carry tape with them to seal holes quickly. It's nothing incredibly high-tech besides the materials science that went into the suits' construction.
Fighting corrosive gas doesn't require magical technology. Those oil industry workers are trying to avoid being exposed to the gas in an open environment. These proposed habitats are a closed environment - the difficulty is in sealing the environment in the first place. Yes, it's difficult, but we already have materials that can do this. No magic necessary.
Solar panels would likely be floated much higher than the habitats themselves, attached by cables. Nitrogen-oxygen mixture is a lifting gas, something lighter would be even more so. These habitats will already be above a great deal of the atmosphere, things floating higher could be comparatively unobstructed by cloud cover. You have to remember that these won't be anywhere near the surface; I certainly haven't forgotten that the cloud cover is legendary.
Any colonization efforts are going to involve a lot of speculation and a lot of surprises when we get there. But please, I'm not the smartest guy on the planet but I'm not an idiot, either. I'm a fairly vocal advocate of colonization efforts, so I try to stay informed. I'd be happy with us going anywhere at all at the moment.
-
This thread has a lot of information that is contrary to what I've been taught. For starters, the hydrogen isn't missing... It's found in the sulfuric acid that is present in much of the atmosphere.
Second, if I remember my astronomy class correctly, the fact that there is an atmosphere at all is evidence that there is a magnetic field, otherwise solar winds would have stripped it away.
Third, that magnetic field is evidence of a yet molten core, as the molten convection processes are what create the magnetic fields. On Mars, there are "wrinkle" ridges that denote a shrinkage of the core, likely due to cooling and solidification of the core, which is why Mars has almost no tectonic activity, almost no magnetic field, and consequentially, almost no atmosphere. And that's the fundamental difference that makes Venus a more viable terraforming target. Even if we got an atmosphere on mars, without core activity it would just blow away under the sun.
-
i think the colonization of venus would be a good canidate for a third or fourth colony, definitely not the first colony we would consider. if anything it would be no more than a gas mining outpost. the moon then mars are prime first and second colonies. you need the moon as a base for further colonization. moon is a good candidate for mining, and once a colony is established it becomes your shipyard and space port as well. you also have access to helium 3 to power fusion reactors, to provide power for climate control on extremely hot or extremely cold planets. you need this infrastructure long before you even can consider a colony on another planet.
you need to be able to launch some serious tonnage in materials to build floating cities on venus. then the question is where and how do you build it. your best bet is to build the floating city as several modules that can be joined in the atmosphere. youd need to launch a large number of these if launching from earth, or you can build fewer, larger modules on the moon. it might be possible to drop the entire city in the atmosphere if you can make it survive re-entry. it might have a large enough cross section and relatively low mass to volume ratio and slow down rapidly in the upper atmosphere, then let it fall til buoyancy takes over.
of course then youre back to why. gas mining is about the only reason to do this. mars at least has the possibility of being terraformed. also being closer to the sun it is not a viable backup colony for humanity for the eventual solar expansion, and i very doubt it would be a self sufficient colony thanks to the lack of useful access to the surface for resources. also having gravity close to that of earth, export of mined materials (gasses) becomes less economically viable, as you cannot launch them cheaply (cheaper than earth-launch however). its not as high a value in terms of colonization that the moon or mars, and so those places should be colonized first. we already know how to deal with zero/low atmosphere situations.
-
i think the colonization of venus would be a good canidate for a third or fourth colony, definitely not the first colony we would consider. if anything it would be no more than a gas mining outpost. the moon then mars are prime first and second colonies. you need the moon as a base for further colonization. moon is a good candidate for mining, and once a colony is established it becomes your shipyard and space port as well. you also have access to helium 3 to power fusion reactors, to provide power for climate control on extremely hot or extremely cold planets. you need this infrastructure long before you even can consider a colony on another planet.
you need to be able to launch some serious tonnage in materials to build floating cities on venus. then the question is where and how do you build it. your best bet is to build the floating city as several modules that can be joined in the atmosphere. youd need to launch a large number of these if launching from earth, or you can build fewer, larger modules on the moon. it might be possible to drop the entire city in the atmosphere if you can make it survive re-entry. it might have a large enough cross section and relatively low mass to volume ratio and slow down rapidly in the upper atmosphere, then let it fall til buoyancy takes over.
of course then youre back to why. gas mining is about the only reason to do this. mars at least has the possibility of being terraformed. also being closer to the sun it is not a viable backup colony for humanity for the eventual solar expansion, and i very doubt it would be a self sufficient colony thanks to the lack of useful access to the surface for resources. also having gravity close to that of earth, export of mined materials (gasses) becomes less economically viable, as you cannot launch them cheaply (cheaper than earth-launch however). its not as high a value in terms of colonization that the moon or mars, and so those places should be colonized first. we already know how to deal with zero/low atmosphere situations.
I absolutely agree that the moon should be our first target. Helium-3 and titanium deposits, both useful for our future endeavors, and a much better launch platform for further explorations. After that, though, you're right that Mars has more useful resources (iron, nickel, chromium, some titanium, and who knows what else). I agree that it's likely Mars will be the second logical target for launches and development. Mining efforts, certainly. But, unless we can develop some kind of counter for bone loss induced by low-gravity conditions, I also think it's likely that either humans will only build the infrastructure and let robots take over the mining, or else tours of duty on the surface will be short, with the inhabitants shuttling back up to a space station with artificial gravity. Not that there's anything wrong with that at all.
Long-term colonization, though, will be a different animal. What I'm really arguing is that Venus is a better option for long-term habitation by humans for medical reasons. Why would people live there? Independence. Food, water, and air would likely be sustainable without outside intervention, and it's possible that people would want to live there for the same reasons that humans expanded to different territories on Earth. But the way things really turn out will likely be more nebulous. Really, I'm happy with any moves our stagnant society makes in regards to any of this.
-
By the time living on Venus is viable, I honestly believe we will have come up with the technology to survive in low G environments indefinitely. It's feasible that we'll figure out that problem in the next couple decades.
-
If I remember my astronomy class correctly, the fact that there is an atmosphere at all is evidence that there is a magnetic field, otherwise solar winds would have stripped it away.
No, Venus has no magnetic field... it's possible it had a stronger one in the past, but presently the upper limit on its strength is 10-5 that of the Earth's (http://dawn.ucla.edu/personnel/russell/papers/venus_mag/), based on measurements from a number of spacecraft that went there, namely the Venera and Pioneer missions.
A magnetic field is not strictly required to maintain an atmosphere. It certainly helps prevent the gradual erosion of particles from the upper atmosphere by direct contact with the solar wind, but the primary force at work is the planet's gravity. Venus is massive enough to hold onto a substantial atmosphere despite the solar wind.
Other factors are the temperature (at higher temps particles move more quickly and thus can escape the planet more easily) and molecular weight (lighter molecules like H2 can escape more easily then heavier ones like CO2).
Third, that magnetic field is evidence of a yet molten core, as the molten convection processes are what create the magnetic fields. On Mars, there are "wrinkle" ridges that denote a shrinkage of the core, likely due to cooling and solidification of the core, which is why Mars has almost no tectonic activity, almost no magnetic field, and consequentially, almost no atmosphere. And that's the fundamental difference that makes Venus a more viable terraforming target. Even if we got an atmosphere on mars, without core activity it would just blow away under the sun.
It's possibly a combination of several factors.
For one, Mars has weaker surface gravity so is less able to hold onto an atmosphere. And as you mentioned, Mars it has also cooled down and ceased all tectonics. This is also because Mars is smaller, and smaller planets cool more quickly. It may very well be that both Mars and Venus had magnetic fields in the past, but Mars lost its field well before Venus did, which would also help explain why Mars has little atmosphere now while Venus still has a significant one.
-
i see that eventually we will have colonies everywhere. eventually they will have at least some degree of trade once the infrastructure is in place. right now were still prospecting, looking for viable modes of colonization. might even involve moving celestial bodies into more favorable orbits. i could imagine landing very large nuclear-water engines on ice rich dwarf planets or small moons, using the ice itself as propellant. granted you would consume most of the body in the process, but once its in the goldilocks zone it becomes potentially habitable. you might even build artificial planets by collecting a number of smaller objects and artificially coalesce them. things like lack of useful gravity and pressure are not as insurmountable as one might think. it may also turn out that gravity is not as critical to survival, and we could also allow natural selection or genetic engineering to adapt humans to low gravity environments.
-
Umm.
Why? Because, way I see it, colonizing Mars represents a huge challenge, but it could actually be done using current technology. The same can not be said about Venus, not by a long shot. And still the question would be why, because as far as I can tell, the ressources that may be available on Venus are so inaccessible as to make retrieval somewhat challenging....
Because we do not know what long-term effects on human biology will result from Mars' lesser gravity?
-
Umm.
Why? Because, way I see it, colonizing Mars represents a huge challenge, but it could actually be done using current technology. The same can not be said about Venus, not by a long shot. And still the question would be why, because as far as I can tell, the ressources that may be available on Venus are so inaccessible as to make retrieval somewhat challenging....
Because we do not know what long-term effects on human biology will result from Mars' lesser gravity?
By the time living on Venus is viable, I honestly believe we will have come up with the technology to survive in low G environments indefinitely. It's feasible that we'll figure out that problem in the next couple decades.
-
All I'm saying is, for terraforming purposes, Venus is more desirable than mars because of one factor - size.
How did we go from terraforming to floating colonies anyway?
Also, mars has no magnetic field so its atmosphere would have to be replenished constantly.
-
All I'm saying is, for terraforming purposes, Venus is more desirable than mars because of one factor - size.
How did we go from terraforming to floating colonies anyway?
Also, mars has no magnetic field so its atmosphere would have to be replenished constantly.
I ignored the talk of large-scale terraforming because I have doubts about its feasibility. Look at the massive controversy about climate change on our own planet. The temperature and air composition changes have been minuscule over the course of several hundred years of modern technology and we still haven't had any conclusive proof that we had any significant effect on it. I have no doubts that human ingenuity would eventually find a way, but given how many variables an entire ecosystem has, it might take too long or cost too much to be a viable option. I'd love to see it, but I'm skeptical.
-
All I'm saying is, for terraforming purposes, Venus is more desirable than mars because of one factor - size.
How did we go from terraforming to floating colonies anyway?
Also, mars has no magnetic field so its atmosphere would have to be replenished constantly.
I'm saying that size is not nearly as big of a problem as EVERYTHING ELSE. I don't think we'll see terraforming in the next thousand years, but I think you'll see humans able to live in space for extended periods in the next hundred. Certainly humans will have been to Mars fairly soon (as long as there is political will and industrial might for it), but Venus is a long time from now in any case.
-
All I'm saying is, for terraforming purposes, Venus is more desirable than mars because of one factor - size.
How did we go from terraforming to floating colonies anyway?
Also, mars has no magnetic field so its atmosphere would have to be replenished constantly.
I ignored the talk of large-scale terraforming because I have doubts about its feasibility. Look at the massive controversy about climate change on our own planet. The temperature and air composition changes have been minuscule over the course of several hundred years of modern technology and we still haven't had any conclusive proof that we had any significant effect on it. I have no doubts that human ingenuity would eventually find a way, but given how many variables an entire ecosystem has, it might take too long or cost too much to be a viable option. I'd love to see it, but I'm skeptical.
:wtf:
I really don't think you're that dumb. Do more research.
-
All I'm saying is, for terraforming purposes, Venus is more desirable than mars because of one factor - size.
How did we go from terraforming to floating colonies anyway?
Also, mars has no magnetic field so its atmosphere would have to be replenished constantly.
I ignored the talk of large-scale terraforming because I have doubts about its feasibility. Look at the massive controversy about climate change on our own planet. The temperature and air composition changes have been minuscule over the course of several hundred years of modern technology and we still haven't had any conclusive proof that we had any significant effect on it. I have no doubts that human ingenuity would eventually find a way, but given how many variables an entire ecosystem has, it might take too long or cost too much to be a viable option. I'd love to see it, but I'm skeptical.
:wtf:
I really don't think you're that dumb. Do more research.
Sorry, I'm not convinced by the available research that humans are the ones causing large-scale climate change. The number of natural causes is staggering and the variables are many. I support cleaning up our act as a species, however.
-
Fine, name the natural causes that are responsible for the post-industrial temperature anomaly, and explain why the radiative physicists and paleoclimate experts are wrong about climate sensitivity with regard to increased greenhouse gas concentrations.
-
Fine, name the natural causes that are responsible for the post-industrial temperature anomaly, and explain why the radiative physicists and paleoclimate experts are wrong about climate sensitivity with regard to increased greenhouse gas concentrations.
Historical records point to countless prior warming/cooling cycles far before humanity had established any industrial capacity. Greenhouse gases can also have natural origins, natural phenomena can change local climates for short periods of time, and the cascading nature of an ecosystem is both fickle and unimaginably complex. I freely admit that climatology isn't my area of expertise, but I'm not convinced one way or another. I believe that we will wind up having a negative effect if we keep mindlessly consuming and abusing our ecosystem, however. But in the context of the thread, given the abuse that our planet has taken from us, changing the climate of a planet as hostile as Venus or Mars would take an absolutely massive amount of ingenuity and effort.
-
I'm glad you agree that 'business as usual' is a bad idea, but I have to say I'm surprised you're not convinced we're responsible the current warming trend.
Climate is indeed naturally variable over the long term (mainly due to orbital changes, continental drift, etc), but what we're witnessing in modern times is unequivocal. Nobody has successfully proposed a natural mechanism that has been capable of explaining the current warming trend.
Note how you neglected to propose one as well.
And what's more is that the CO2 rise in modern times is similarly unequivocal, and there's no question that human activities are responsible for it. Note you neglected to propose a source for the observed CO2 concentrations.
Similarly, nobody questions that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Increasing CO2 leads to warmer global temperatures. The observed increase in temperature is in remarkable agreement with what is expected from the increased CO2 concentrations. It's fairly simple physics.
Note how you neglected to show how the atmospheric physicists and paleoclimatologists are wrong.
I'm not trying to be aggressive on this, but I'm just hoping you're basing your opinion on evidence instead of emotion. Usually it's only religious fundies and oil-men who dispute AGW.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RYBDTnS7dg&list=FLn2qvxRRvn5js1xWCS5xyvQ&index=31
;D?
-
Note how you neglected to show how the atmospheric physicists and paleoclimatologists are wrong.
because proving evolution wrong will prove creationism right. all he said was it isn't conclusive, and until we get 200 earths half with 200 years of industrialization and half without I don't think you can prove it to absolute certainty.
-
Nothing in science can be known with absolute certainty.
It's the radiative physics and paleoclimate data that says that the observed increase in CO2 results in the observed increase in temperature. If he's going to argue that it's not conclusive then he needs to support that statement.
-
Nothing in science can be known with absolute certainty.
exactly. I think that is all he said.
-
To ignore human intervention into recent climatic changes is a fallacy. However, it is also worth noting (as has previously been stated) that natural heating and cooling cycles due to CO2 concentrations are nothing new on Earth. Human intervention simply isn't helping matters. High CO2 concentrations in the far past were counteracted with huge expanses of forest, etc. Thus, I think most everyone here would agree that increased development and industry from human habitations ADDED to the "natural carbon cycle" of Earth is the actual problem at hand.
...Not that this hasn't already been stated in some form or other already.
-
The fact that we can't stabilize the climate of out own planet, however, suggests to me it will be a looong time indeed before we can think of touching another planets, especially profoundly enough to terraform
-
All I'm saying is, for terraforming purposes, Venus is more desirable than mars because of one factor - size.
How did we go from terraforming to floating colonies anyway?
Also, mars has no magnetic field so its atmosphere would have to be replenished constantly.
I'm saying that size is not nearly as big of a problem as EVERYTHING ELSE. I don't think we'll see terraforming in the next thousand years, but I think you'll see humans able to live in space for extended periods in the next hundred. Certainly humans will have been to Mars fairly soon (as long as there is political will and industrial might for it), but Venus is a long time from now in any case.
What about O'Neill Cylinders?
-
That's an entirely different thing.
-
I'm saying that size is not nearly as big of a problem as EVERYTHING ELSE. I don't think we'll see terraforming in the next thousand years, but I think you'll see humans able to live in space for extended periods in the next hundred. Certainly humans will have been to Mars fairly soon (as long as there is political will and industrial might for it), but Venus is a long time from now in any case.
I'm asking if we'll have humans in O'Neill Colonies or Stanford Tori within the next hundred years.
-
I'm asking if we'll have humans in O'Neill Colonies or Stanford Tori within the next hundred years.
Doubtful. We might have small colonies on other worlds by 2111, but astroengineering skill on the scale of Island Three will probably elude humanity for at least that long.
I realize I'm being a pretty serious wet blanket in this thread; I'm hopeful for space colonization and mind-blowing construction as much as anybody here. However, if this thread is going to be serious, then there are very real concerns that must be addressed before pen can even be put to paper designing such structures. Barring a certain and catastrophic threat to Earth's biosphere, foreseeable global economics will most probably prevent ventures more serious than the ISS or private companies like Virgin Galactic. With the only real money to be made in space being the tourist dollar of the very wealthy, the only other driver for space exploration, private or public, is good old human curiosity. Which is admittedly a powerful force, just probably not hundreds-of-billions-of-dollars-powerful, particularly when that money could be spent, say "uplifting" third-world countries to set them up as global players (damn, I sound like an obnoxious hipster with that).
Concerted efforts at space exploration and colonization, as I see it, are less of an "if" and more of a "when". The only catch is that the "when" will probably be "once we've got matters figured out on Earth". And who really knows how long that will take?
-
Just thought I'd drop back in to point out how people thought this nifty little thing called the "airplane" was an interesting little gimmick around this time a hundred years ago.
One hundred years is a loooong time on the technological scale, at the rate we've been moving.
-
The unfortunate problem with that analogy, Scotty, is that the principal early investors in aviation were the military organizations around the world. It's not that the technology was derived by military interests initially, but it certainly was and is still now developed and evolved from those interests.
I mean, just look at the budget that the government allocates for the military over the space program; imagine what NASA could do if we switched those allocations for just two years...
The fact is that either space has to become more interesting to the general public that said public can influcence their respective governments to invest in more spaceflight programs, or we need to find a way to kill ourselves in space to get more of a driving initiative rolling for space colonization. It's very sad, but I think it's true.
-
Just thought I'd drop back in to point out how people thought this nifty little thing called the "airplane" was an interesting little gimmick around this time a hundred years ago.
One hundred years is a loooong time on the technological scale, at the rate we've been moving.
What have we invented in the last ten years that really compares?
We've made some impressive bounds in biology and health, yes, but where's my fusion reactor? Where are the flying cars? I take a bus to work that is a heck of a lot like every bus made after 1980.
-
Nothing in science can be known with absolute certainty.
exactly. I think that is all he said.
Well bob, with all due respect, does that mean someone would be right in claiming that the theory of evolution is not conclusive? What about gravity?
Just because we can never be 100% certain doesn't mean we cannot be certain beyond a reasonable doubt. I and the vast majority of climate scientists seem to think it's well beyond a reasonable doubt that human activities are responsible for the current warming trend.
Also since I think this thread is too interesting to continue to muck up with climate-debate, I'll just leave this (http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml) here and suggest that anyone with doubts on the issue watch it. It's a very good presentation on climate-altering forces.
-
Nothing in science can be known with absolute certainty.
exactly. I think that is all he said.
Well bob, with all due respect, does that mean someone would be right in claiming that the theory of evolution is not conclusive? What about gravity?
yes
-
That's exactly how science is based.
Nothing is infallible, only very strong, the more challenged the theory is the stronger it becomes. We don't really know enough right now to be able to call anything 100% definitive though.
-
Yep, Bob pretty much hit it on the head there.
Look, I'm not saying I disagree with the notion that we will wind up negatively impacting our climate permanently if we go on like we have. I support the green movement (the real green movement, not the fake hipster crap that involves "hybrid" cars and legendary levels of smugness) and I think that we need to start treating nature and our environment with the respect its due, because it's been showing us lately what we are - dust that can be wiped away effortlessly.
All I was saying is that I'm not 100% convinced yet that this particular current warming trend isn't part of a natural cycle. I think we should take action like it is (I'm reminded of the xkcd "What if it's all a scam and we create a better world for nothing?" comic), but the La Nina/El Nino cycles, solar output variations, carbon dioxide being released from melting ice (which is a cascading process that only needs a trigger, that can be natural or artificial), methane released from natural processes...none can deny that there are a lot of variables here, and we have no "control group," so to speak.
Like I said, we should act like it is our fault and make appropriate changes. I think the people that are sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU when anyone talks about man-made climate change is either ridiculously shortsighted or stand to lose something from clean-up efforts, such as big businesses that are going to have to dip into their record profits, god forbid.
-
i never considered earth climate as a static entity. if you had managed to clone a t-rex it probably wouldn't survive long in our atmosphere. the air was denser and hotter back then. and yes i do think we have been tweaking the atmosphere with our emissions. however i think that the projections of what our climate will be like in the future if we dont reduce our emissions, are grossly exaggerated. further more im more concerned about surviving the next ice age than the global temperature going up slightly. we may actually need to make the planet warmer at some point. will definitely give us a crash course in atmospheric engineering.
-
Nothing in science can be known with absolute certainty.
exactly. I think that is all he said.
Well bob, with all due respect, does that mean someone would be right in claiming that the theory of evolution is not conclusive? What about gravity?
yes
Right, I almost forgot it's just as likely everything poofed into existence ten thousand years ago, and the moon's just a light stuck on the sky-carpet. :)
-
Relative likelihoods remain, obviously, current theories are far more likely than creationist ideas. It's just that that likelyhood never reaches 1.0. 0.999999999 is a possibility, though.
-
Fundamental premise of science: you can never prove a hypothesis, you can merely show a lack of data that would suggest it's wrong. Same goes with theories, which are simply hypotheses with a lot of collected data that don't contradict them.
The theories of gravity and evolution both have piles of data behind them, very little of which says they're wrong, which means they're the best explanation we have.
The fact that theories are, by their nature "un-provable" does not give credence to people who scoff and claim "that's just a theory." Our modern society is built on the premise that a lot of theories are mostly-correct and the best explanation we have to date. True facts don't really exist in science.
-
newtonian physics is solid reliable in the engineering world, as is general relativity and quantum mechanics. they are close enough to be able to base working technologies on. but theres still a lot of room left to better define the laws of nature.
-
The theories of gravity and evolution both have piles of data behind them, very little of which says they're wrong, which means they're the best explanation we have.
In addition, basic gravitational attraction and natural selection can be more specifically referred to as scientific laws, meaning that they describe the results of repeated observation. For instance, in a "weak" (i.e. everyday) gravitational field, we can verifiably measure that two objects with mass are attracted to each other by the inverse square of their distance apart. In the same way, individuals of a species that have a certain advantageous trait are able to better survive and pass on their genes than those that don't, which we can see in action with something like bacterial resistance to antibiotics. Laws are pretty much the closest science comes to stating something with complete certainty, since they basically proclaim, "This is something we're directly seeing happen, and here's what we're seeing." That isn't to say that certain laws don't become defunct, or apply in every single situation, but they are things that tend to stand the test of time.
-
We should always be aware, though that is possible for incorrect theories to actually produce correct results, take, for example, certain markers in Egypt that still predict the Suns' rise on certain days despite the fact they were based on the assumption the Solar Systems was Geocentric. Often it is tiny errors in those predictions that uncover the mistake, in this case I believe it was retrograding that first opened people's eyes to the idea of Heliocentrism.
That said, the possibility of finding such a vast error as that in something as stringently peer-reviewed as stuff on Evolution and Gravity would be phenomenally unlikely, our knowledge of the Sun wouldn't affect us much so long as it comes up at the right time in the right place if your only interest in it is 'when to plant the crops' etc, however, both Gravity and Evolution are the bases of large pyramids of discovery and very little of that pyramid has made more than minor changes to the basic theories.
I'd say we know more about Evolution than Gravity though, oddly enough.
-
We should always be aware, though that is possible for incorrect theories to actually produce correct results, take, for example, certain markers in Egypt that still predict the Suns' rise on certain days despite the fact they were based on the assumption the Solar Systems was Geocentric. Often it is tiny errors in those predictions that uncover the mistake, in this case I believe it was retrograding that first opened people's eyes to the idea of Heliocentrism.
That said, the possibility of finding such a vast error as that in something as stringently peer-reviewed as stuff on Evolution and Gravity would be phenomenally unlikely, our knowledge of the Sun wouldn't affect us much so long as it comes up at the right time in the right place if your only interest in it is 'when to plant the crops' etc, however, both Gravity and Evolution are the bases of large pyramids of discovery and very little of that pyramid has made more than minor changes to the basic theories.
I'd say we know more about Evolution than Gravity though, oddly enough.
That's probably true enough; we know the mechanics and equations that predict the effects of gravity, but its mechanism of action is still pretty much a complete mystery.
It's also true that sometimes the smallest anomalies can shoot a huge hole into a theory, like how the unexplained precession of Mercury's orbit led to the hole in classical mechanics that led to GR.
-
I do think a lot of confusion arises with regards to Evolution as a science because it is, in no way, predictive. Lots of people learn that science is the art of prediction through observation, I could tell you with 95% accuracy where Jupiter would be in the sky at this moment in 5000 years time, for example. We can, with effort, trace a fair chunk of the paths various animals took to become what they are today, but we cannot, and I doubt we ever will be able to tell you what would happen in the future.
Evolution is a much more chaotic science, but the interesting part is that it is not alone in that respect, anyone who has ever encountered Boyles laws and things like Brownian motion know that not all sciences are capable of dealing with specifics because it would be impossible to deal with the number of uniquely interacting variables.
-
newtonian physics is solid reliable in the engineering world, as is general relativity and quantum mechanics. they are close enough to be able to base working technologies on. but theres still a lot of room left to better define the laws of nature.
For example... it could still turn out that we are all sentient programs run in some mad science experiment in the *real world*.
Heck, we could even be their version of a perverted RealityShow: MyUniverse 2.0: Watch the pathetic earthlings try to understand the laws of the universe that randomly change in every new season"!!! Mwahahahaha good fun! Look, this season, in the medieval period, they are roasting each other on stakes again over a disagreement!
What? Don't anyone dare tell me it's any less plausible than "uh god dunnit!". :P The evidence available to support, or discard, either "theory" is exactly the same.
-
Not impossible flipside, just beyond our current capabilities!
Enough computer power and enough information and eventually we'll be able to run 'true to life' global simulations, which will include the genetic codes of all life on an individual basis as well as communal.. :P
Eventually......!
-
Not impossible flipside, just beyond our current capabilities!
Enough computer power and enough information and eventually we'll be able to run 'true to life' global simulations, which will include the genetic codes of all life on an individual basis as well as communal.. :P
Eventually......!
Yeah... and maybe we all are actually part of one of these models being run :cough:
I mean...for example, imagine a civilization attempting to compute the longterm effects of a terraforming package... assuming obscene amounts of computing capacity, genetic/evolving algorithms, etc. ... that's how it would be done, wouldn't it?;) We already use the principles of evolution, on a very basic level, to perfect our own engineering designs after all.
Granted... in that case someone propably forgot to "turn us off"... or just enjoys being a galactic voyeur. ;)
-
Not impossible flipside, just beyond our current capabilities!
Enough computer power and enough information and eventually we'll be able to run 'true to life' global simulations, which will include the genetic codes of all life on an individual basis as well as communal.. :P
Eventually......!
Yeah... and maybe we all are actually part of one of these models being run :cough:
I mean...for example, imagine a civilization attempting to compute the longterm effects of a terraforming package... assuming obscene amounts of computing capacity, genetic/evolving algorithms, etc. ... that's how it would be done, wouldn't it?;) We already use the principles of evolution, on a very basic level, to perfect our own engineering designs after all.
Granted... in that case someone propably forgot to "turn us off"... or just enjoys being a galactic voyeur. ;)
Been reading "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" lately, have we? =)
-
Well, the thing about Evolution is that it is, quite literally, powered by random chance, that's why I don't think we'll ever produce a mathematical model for it.
Interaction with the Envvironment and each other is what defines 'fitness', but the actual motor for the changes that take place is random mutation, and nature can find very strange solutions to problems, I'm not sure it could ever be predicted.
-
it can be predicted to an extent, for instance microbes WILL develop resistance to drugs that kill them.
-
Well, the thing about Evolution is that it is, quite literally, powered by random chance, that's why I don't think we'll ever produce a mathematical model for it.
Interaction with the Envvironment and each other is what defines 'fitness', but the actual motor for the changes that take place is random mutation, and nature can find very strange solutions to problems, I'm not sure it could ever be predicted.
Well...
Mutation rates ARE predictable (even with today's technology), so it is possible to determine the chances of a particular bp mutation in a whole genome (roughly speaking). As most mutations are single bp replacement, then it's a matter of determining bp's that can cause codon changes, which would produce proteins with altered functionality. For that matter, duplications and translocations/transversions tend to occur in particular places (which are sort-of predictable, even now). Don't get me wrong, it's spectacularly complex, but ultimately all it really comes down to is some crazy statistics and background knowledge of the biochemistry.
What's toughest about predicting evolution is predicting what types of selective pressures are going to be exerted, rather than when or how mutation is going to actually occur. But if we know the selective pressures exerted on the system, there's a pretty good chance we'll eventually be able to reliably and accurately predict when and what type of adaptive traits will arise in the population - at least in the short term.
In fact, we've already [sort of] done this - there was a journal piece published in Science a few years back about predicted and observed evolution of formerly ground-dwelling lizards after the introduction of a terrestrial predator. The little buggers split into two populations - long-legged ones that could run faster and dig deeper, and short-legged varieties that could climb trees to escape. And what's craziest is this was documented over only 2 years.
it can be predicted to an extent, for instance microbes WILL develop resistance to drugs that kill them.
<nitpick> Technically, they already have the resistance, it's just the very few resistant individuals will now outcompete those that aren't resistant. </nitpick>
-
Been reading "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" lately, have we? =)
That quote in your sig is still one of the best one-liners ever written. :D
<nitpick> Technically, they already have the resistance, it's just the very few resistant individuals will now outcompete those that aren't resistant. </nitpick>
Apparently, there are certain types of bacteria that don't have much of a natural propensity to develop antibiotic resistance, for whatever reason. I was reading a recent article about scientists being able to sequence the genome of the bubonic plague circa the Black Death (which is pretty crazy in and of itself), and it turns out the thing really wasn't any less resistant to simple antibiotics than the modern incarnation is.
-
Granted... in that case someone propably forgot to "turn us off"... or just enjoys being a galactic voyeur. ;)
We could be paused every day for the whole night in the world of those who run our simulated universe and we won't know about it.
All the time the simulation is stopped lasts zero seconds for us.
Same thing with time compression- our perception is compressed as well.