PDA

View Full Version : The truth about Mars!!!



shrox
04-06-2012, 12:09 PM
The main problem with Mars is it won't hold oxygen, In 1997 I started working with Dr. Chris McKay of NASA/Ames, The Planetary Society with Robert Zubrin as an adviser on a terraforming Mars proposal, doing images and animations, and contributing some speculation as well. We determined that while a thick atmosphere could be generated, it would be mostly carbon dioxide because of it's weight and heat trapping capabilities. We could have an agricultural paradise...except for one thing I noted and kind of killed the whole idea..no oxygen, no insects for pollination. That means mostly grasses and conifer trees, some rooting vegetables, but no flowers and fruits. It could still be a shirt sleeve environment, but if you went outside, you'd have to bring some breathing apparatus with you.

Mars just will never be the second Earth people dream about.

safetyman
04-06-2012, 12:15 PM
I would assume (not a planetary scientist by any stretch) that Mars could hold an atmosphere if the right mix of chemicals were somehow introduced. Our moon could never hold an atmosphere because it lacks a sufficient gravitational force to hold onto it. Mars, while it doesn't have a breathable atmosphere, may have a sufficient gravitational element to support and sustain a breathable atmosphere if one could somehow be introduced? True?

Bill Carey
04-06-2012, 12:22 PM
I think of Mars as a future manufacturing facility. Probably loaded with the same raw materials as Earth, no ocean to make most of it inaccessible. Enough gravity to work normally, but little enough that we can make beanstalks with today's technology to fling the products anywhere in the solar system. Proximity to the asteroid belt for those hard to find materials. It's got it all, even without the oxygen.

shrox
04-06-2012, 12:25 PM
I would assume (not a planetary scientist by any stretch) that Mars could hold an atmosphere if the right mix of chemicals were somehow introduced. Our moon could never hold an atmosphere because it lacks a sufficient gravitational force to hold onto it. Mars, while it doesn't have a breathable atmosphere, may have a sufficient gravitational element to support and sustain a breathable atmosphere if one could somehow be introduced? True?

It can hold a thick atmosphere, just not one we can breathe, like I said it would be mostly carbon dioxide.


I think of Mars as a future manufacturing facility. Probably loaded with the same raw materials as Earth, no ocean to make most of it inaccessible. Enough gravity to work normally, but little enough that we can make beanstalks with today's technology to fling the products anywhere in the solar system. Proximity to the asteroid belt for those hard to find materials. It's got it all, even without the oxygen.

Anyplace other than Earth is a very, very difficult place for us. There has never been a large number of humans living without some access to an outside atmosphere. Even Biosphere II had to finally open up and allow outside air in, because the "bionauts" were actually beginning to die a bit. Until we have proven the technologies on Earth, like a city size population in a sealed environment (air, sanitation, food, waste, power, etc.), Mars colonies just aren't viable for a while.

rcallicotte
04-06-2012, 12:42 PM
So...what you're saying is that my lifelong dream of being sent to Mars as a willing guinea pig to live out the rest of my life is moot?

Shucks.

There go my plans for a planetary architectural association.

shrox
04-06-2012, 12:43 PM
So...what you're saying is that my lifelong dream of being sent to Mars as a willing guinea pig to live out the rest of my life is moot?

Shucks.

There go my plans for a planetary architectural association.

How long do you want the rest of your life to be?

cresshead
04-06-2012, 12:48 PM
The main problem with Mars is it won't hold oxygen, In 1997 I started working with Dr. Chris McKay of NASA/Ames, The Planetary Society with Robert Zubrin as an adviser on a terraforming Mars proposal, doing images and animations, and contributing some speculation as well. We determined that while a thick atmosphere could be generated, it would be mostly carbon dioxide because of it's weight and heat trapping capabilities. We could have an agricultural paradise...except for one thing I noted and kind of killed the whole idea..no oxygen, no insects for pollination. That means mostly grasses and conifer trees, some rooting vegetables, but no flowers and fruits. It could still be a shirt sleeve environment, but if you went outside, you'd have to bring some breathing apparatus with you.

Mars just will never be the second Earth people dream about.

Saturn's moon titan is much smaller than mars and has a very dense atmosphere that it retains to this day. It's more dense then our own on earth. it also has seas and lakes.

earth 101 kpa
titan 146kpa

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titan_(moon)

if mars could have a dense c02 amosphere...it would be more akin to Avatar's Pandora.
also plants breath out oxygen...so the atmosphere would have oxygen as well as co2....just not sure how much.

jeric_synergy
04-06-2012, 12:49 PM
How long do you want the rest of your life to be?
Hah! Touche'.

"Mars: The Pittsburg of the Solar System".

How much lower is the floor of some of those giant canyons? I'm thinkin' partial pressure (and probably using it wrong) here: how about roofing and partitioning some canyon floor?

Gonna be living in tincans for a long time. Maybe some genetic engineering for human Martians?

shrox
04-06-2012, 12:49 PM
Saturn's moon titan is much smaller than mars and has a very dense atmosphere that it retains to this day. It's more dense then our own on earth. it also has seas and lakes.

earth 101 kpa
titan 146kpa

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titan_(moon)

Yes, seas and lakes of hydrocarbons!! Not too good to drink, but it would certainly burn...if there was oxygen. A dense atmosphere is not a problem, a dense, oxygen rich atmosphere on Mars is a problem.

cresshead
04-06-2012, 12:57 PM
Yes, seas and lakes of hydrocarbons!! Not too good to drink, but it would certainly burn...if there was oxygen. A dense atmosphere is not a problem, a dense, oxygen rich atmosphere on Mars is a problem.


mars did have seas and oceans in the past....and STILL has flowing/seeping water...we've seen evidence of this from then ESA mars obiter also it has permafrost...and current estimations that there's alot of water locked up in the surface with evidence of pack ice shapes.

if it used to have oceans and a more dense atmosphere...i might do once again...:)

for life you need water...not a dense atmosphere of oxygen....life in the water creates oxygen.
you need to warm up mars....simple as that [that's not simple btw!]

jeric_synergy
04-06-2012, 01:02 PM
Here's a title for a Mars film: "Oasis" The struggle to maintain the first colony on Mars.

Mini-series, not film. And since it's the FIRST colony, you can feel free to crash comets on the far side of the planet (VFX ka-ching!).

Oh no, Timmy got trapped on an in-bound comet!!! Will Space-Lassy rescue him in time?

RebelHill
04-06-2012, 01:05 PM
Mars could never again hold any atmosphere of any kind.

Since its insides cooled its had no magnetic field, hence no deflection of the solar wind, which stripped away its atmosphere. Its gravity could hold an atmosphere, but it wouldnt stick around, no matter what.

shrox
04-06-2012, 01:09 PM
mars did have seas and oceans in the past....and STILL has flowing/seeping water...we've seen evidence of this from then ESA mars obiter also it has permafrost...and current estimations that there's alot of water locked up in the surface with evidence of pack ice shapes.

if it used to have oceans and a more dense atmosphere...i might do once again...:)

for life you need water...not a dense atmosphere of oxygen....life in the water creates oxygen.
you need to warm up mars....simple as that [that's not simple btw!]

But the oxygen will disappear in about a century, then the whole surface based civilization had better start building domes...

We really thought this all out. It just can't happen. Sure, it could with a Star Trek force field to hold it in, but otherwise the oxygen drifts upward, and is eventually blown off by the solar wind. In the lighter gravity, gases that settle here act like helium on Mars. Not quite as buoyant, but too light to remain in useable quantities.

shrox
04-06-2012, 01:10 PM
Mars could never again hold any atmosphere of any kind.

Since its insides cooled its had no magnetic field, hence no deflection of the solar wind, which stripped away its atmosphere. Its gravity could hold an atmosphere, but it wouldnt stick around, no matter what.

This too. And no protection from cosmic and solar radiation. No aurora either... It's a lonely little planet we have, isn't it Mr.Hill?

rcallicotte
04-06-2012, 01:14 PM
Lol


how long do you want the rest of your life to be?

RebelHill
04-06-2012, 01:14 PM
nah... there's most likely hundreds of billions of planets like ours strewn throughout the universe.

well... lonely, yes... just unlikely alone.

shrox
04-06-2012, 01:19 PM
Is there air out there? You don't know!!!

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lmpt5fqNMS1qj3p4eo1_500.gif

jeric_synergy
04-07-2012, 01:28 AM
Since its insides cooled its had no magnetic field, hence no deflection of the solar wind, which stripped away its atmosphere. Its gravity could hold an atmosphere, but it wouldnt stick around, no matter what.
Sounds like some cool science! So, you need a molten core to get a magnetic field?? How does that work?

(Seriously, I want to know!)

tischbein3
04-07-2012, 01:40 AM
And no protection from cosmic and solar radiation.
..Wich in consequence would make it also hard time for plant life.... or make longterm life conforable.

But honestly, Isn't humanity funny? we didn't even settle a single step on this planet, but already dream about _terraforming_ a whole planet ? Not to mention that we are still in the beginning of understanding our own weather ? Or try to terraform our own (growing) deserts instead.

Its already start with idea of beeing a whole year on mars when humans travel there the first time:
One of the things the russian strongly objected in their own mars landing plans, because for them the risk of something going wrong during such a long timeframe.

RebelHill
04-07-2012, 02:01 AM
Sounds like some cool science! So, you need a molten core to get a magnetic field?? How does that work?

(Seriously, I want to know!)

google earths magnetic field perhaps?

In truth, it needn't be molten. A magnetic field is given out by every single atom due to electron obits. Ofc in almost all materials the electron orbits of each atom arent aligned with one another, so the magnetic field cancel one another out with no one pervading field direction.

To make a permanent magnet, you simply need to reforge the material so that all of the electron spins are in alignment with one another, and due to the specfic elemental and atomic properties, this is easiest with iron. its also how electromagnets work as you pass a current in a single uniform direction through the material, and the magnetic field caused by this electrical flow is always aligned to the current direction (u can think of electron spin as current direction too to this end).

Ofc... this is a pretty rare occurrence in nature.

By having a molten iron core inside a planet you have both an exchange of heat, and also a freedom of motion separate from that of the crust. This combination of motion causes friction, which leads to the development of flow lines (or currents, like water currents) of huge swathes of material travelling in the same direction, with the same momentum.

This drags the atoms out into a state of alignment with one another, their electron spins line up, and the magnetic fields of each add up on top of one another, creating large scale field lines.

silviotoledo
04-07-2012, 05:59 AM
"Never say never "

Justin Bibier :)

cresshead
04-08-2012, 12:47 PM
we don't know everything...so current theories are just that, conjecture based upon our current knowledge and computer simulations.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14717-saturn-magnetises-its-moon-titan.html

shrox
04-08-2012, 01:11 PM
we don't know everything...so current theories are just that, conjecture based upon our current knowledge and computer simulations.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14717-saturn-magnetises-its-moon-titan.html

Well, sure, but that doesn't happen on Mars.

cresshead
04-09-2012, 06:06 AM
sure maybe an earth like atmosphere is not doable but creating a sustainable colony on mars underground [safe from cosmic rays and micro meteorites] or in pressurised domes is a possibility...don't write off Mars as a second home just yet.

no one has walked there yet...we'd learn so much more in a day with someone walking around on mars than any rover could in 50 years of trundling around with a camera and a makeshift shovel.

we've done tests here on earth with rovers...in a fossil rich site and they failed to find any fossils....rovers are just not good enough compared to someone 'on site'

the Human race simply have to get off earth otherwise we're doomed to extinction and mars is the nearest best bet to set up home and not have all our eggs in one basket [earth]

as for the statement 'the truth about mars"
it's what your people think right now based on what they know right now..tomorrow could prove them totally incorrect or there maybe a solution to this problem...it is not an absolute, finite thing...100 years ago people were convinced there were canals on mars...they were the best minds at that point in time working with the best telescopes of that age, and they got it quite wrong.

i'm not saying your wrong...i'm saying that to come out with a 100% cast iron conclusion is premature at best...it's the popular view in 2012 and might be true but it's not 100% conclusive and has room for doubt/error/misunderstanding, to say otherwise is not being scientific.

only 10+ years back the world was convinced we found fossil microbes from mars...that 100% cast iron statement fell flat.

i hope you agree :agree:

cresshead
04-09-2012, 06:46 AM
I would assume (not a planetary scientist by any stretch) that Mars could hold an atmosphere if the right mix of chemicals were somehow introduced. Our moon could never hold an atmosphere because it lacks a sufficient gravitational force to hold onto it. Mars, while it doesn't have a breathable atmosphere, may have a sufficient gravitational element to support and sustain a breathable atmosphere if one could somehow be introduced? True?

wrong.:D

the moon has 1/6th earth's gravity and no atmosphere [actually the moon does have an atmosphere...but it's tiny]
titan [saturn moon: less dense than our moon, but slightly larger] has earth's 1/10th gravity and a huge dense atmosphere 60miles thick

so gravitational force is not the limiting factor.

http://www.astronomynotes.com/solarsys/pics/titan-triton.jpg


earth vs titan

http://kagmi.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/titanearthcomparisonnasa.png

earth vs mars

http://galaxywire.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/earth-mars-size-comparison.jpg

http://www.centauri-dreams.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Habitability_Image_LR_1.jpg

cresshead
04-09-2012, 07:04 AM
big picture alert!!!

http://thethoughtstash.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/west-valley-mars-180-degrees-panorama.jpg

shrox
04-09-2012, 11:38 AM
sure maybe an earth like atmosphere is not doable but creating a sustainable colony on mars underground [safe from cosmic rays and micro meteorites] or in pressurised domes is a possibility...don't write off Mars as a second home just yet.

no one has walked there yet...we'd learn so much more in a day with someone walking around on mars than any rover could in 50 years of trundling around with a camera and a makeshift shovel.

we've done tests here on earth with rovers...in a fossil rich site and they failed to find any fossils....rovers are just not good enough compared to someone 'on site'

the Human race simply have to get off earth otherwise we're doomed to extinction and mars is the nearest best bet to set up home and not have all our eggs in one basket [earth]

as for the statement 'the truth about mars"
it's what your people think right now based on what they know right now..tomorrow could prove them totally incorrect or there maybe a solution to this problem...it is not an absolute, finite thing...100 years ago people were convinced there were canals on mars...they were the best minds at that point in time working with the best telescopes of that age, and they got it quite wrong.

i'm not saying your wrong...i'm saying that to come out with a 100% cast iron conclusion is premature at best...it's the popular view in 2012 and might be true but it's not 100% conclusive and has room for doubt/error/misunderstanding, to say otherwise is not being scientific.

only 10+ years back the world was convinced we found fossil microbes from mars...that 100% cast iron statement fell flat.

i hope you agree :agree:

That's ail true, but this was discussing making the surface of Mars habitable as a shirt sleeve environment. You could have something very similar to Earth, but only for a short while, as the oxygen will drift upward due to lower gravity. So....for long term you could have a CO2 atmosphere with shirt sleeve temperatures, but you'd have to have a breathing apparatus.

So on the surface you can have an oxygen atmosphere or long term atmosphere, not both. You can bury tin cans anywhere you like.

And shrink your pics, I don't have a 50,000 x 15,000 monitor...

jeric_synergy
04-09-2012, 11:52 AM
big picture alert!!!

Bloody annoying. :devil:

I LUV having to scroll sideways three screen widths to reply.

++
I'd say a much more realistic hope for Mars terraforming would be equivalent to THE most inhospitable
landscape on Earth. Say, Antarctica. Getting to that would be a major miracle in itself.

Antarctica at 26,000 feet would still be a stretch.

cresshead
04-09-2012, 01:54 PM
Bloody annoying. :devil:

I LUV having to scroll sideways three screen widths to reply.

++
I'd say a much more realistic hope for Mars terraforming would be equivalent to THE most inhospitable
landscape on Earth. Say, Antarctica. Getting to that would be a major miracle in itself.

Antarctica at 26,000 feet would still be a stretch.

opps...that was a really big pik!
can no longer edit....drat..moderator will have to delete the link!

shrox
04-09-2012, 02:46 PM
opps...that was a really big pik!
can no longer edit....drat..moderator will have to delete the link!

Yeah, just because you picked up a bargain Jumbotron from the local stadium bankruptcy sale doesn't mean we all did...

http://smokeys-trail.com/TN/images/jumbotron-frontside2009.jpg

sandman300
04-09-2012, 05:15 PM
Interesting topic, It's always strange to see what was science fiction become science fact. I looked to see if these people you mentioned had published anything on the subject but I couldn't find anything.
I did find this (was wondering if this is what you worked on)
http://web.archive.org/web/20070915152013/http://aerospacescholars.jsc.nasa.gov/HAS/cirr/em/10/10.cfm

It seems to me, from what I read, the lack of a magnetic field is what lets water vapor escape the planet. But then again we have very little understanding of how our own magnetic field works let alone how integrated it is in the homeostasis of our planet. Anything we try to do could potentially have disastrous consequences.

We're likely better off leaving Mars alone for a couple of hundred years till we understand our own planet.

shrox
04-09-2012, 05:29 PM
Interesting topic, It's always strange to see what was science fiction become science fact. I looked to see if these people you mentioned had published anything on the subject but I couldn't find anything.
I did find this (was wondering if this is what you worked on)
http://web.archive.org/web/20070915152013/http://aerospacescholars.jsc.nasa.gov/HAS/cirr/em/10/10.cfm

It seems to me, from what I read, the lack of a magnetic field is what lets water vapor escape the planet. But then again we have very little understanding of how our own magnetic field works let alone how integrated it is in the homeostasis of our planet. Anything we try to do could potentially have disastrous consequences.

We're likely better off leaving Mars alone for a couple of hundred years till we understand our own planet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_McKay_%28planetary_scientist%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Zubrin

http://www.themartian.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/mn_mars1.jpg

http://chapters.marssociety.org/youth/mc/images/issue5/mts_4.jpg

http://www.shrox.com/FourOnMars.JPG

cresshead
04-09-2012, 05:50 PM
i'm currently reading Mars by Ben Bova, it seems pretty accurate so far.

jeric_synergy
04-09-2012, 05:59 PM
Anything we try to do could potentially have disastrous consequences.
On Mars? Would we be endangering the pristine Martian forests?

We're likely better off leaving Mars alone for a couple of hundred years till we understand our own planet.
Bruce Sterling points out that nobody talks about "colonizing the Gobi Desert, and it's a million times more hospitable than Mars."

shrox
04-09-2012, 06:13 PM
...Bruce Sterling points out that nobody talks about "colonizing the Gobi Desert, and it's a million times more hospitable than Mars."

Yep.

sandman300
04-09-2012, 08:16 PM
On Mars? Would we be endangering the pristine Martian forests?
Ha ha, it is easy to laugh at but has anyone really thought about what would happen to a planet by redistributing billions of metric tons of mass from the polar caps to the atmosphere? Marsquakes? could it through off the planetary rotation? What about the moons? Maybe if the process is taken slow enough things could keep a balance but there is a lot of high end math that I couldn't even touch. We know that Mars' core is cooler than the earth's but any more than that we don't know.


Bruce Sterling points out that nobody talks about "colonizing the Gobi Desert, and it's a million times more hospitable than Mars."
It could be done, just look at Las Vegas. Although I'd imagine the Chinese
government might be concerned with the idea.:tongue: It's all about the Location.

But hey, 70% of the earth is water, lots of room for growth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_colonization

jeric_synergy
04-10-2012, 12:20 AM
First, the wideness of this thead is pissing me off. Just sayin'.


Ha ha, it is easy to laugh at but has anyone really thought about what would happen to a planet by redistributing billions of metric tons of mass from the polar caps to the atmosphere? Marsquakes? could it through off the planetary rotation? What about the moons? Maybe if the process is taken slow enough things could keep a balance but there is a lot of high end math that I couldn't even touch. We know that Mars' core is cooler than the earth's but any more than that we don't know.
Who cares? It's a frickin' lifeless desert.

Of course, the question "who cares" was asked in KSR.

tischbein3
04-10-2012, 06:18 AM
Bruce Sterling points out that nobody talks about "colonizing the Gobi Desert, and it's a million times more hospitable than Mars."

Exactly, its cheaper, more realistic, more profitable in short term for all humans (you know the magical 10billion humans mark ?) and it could provide actually provide some fundamental knowhow, how this "magic - terraforming" stuff should actually happen.

Thtas the difference between thinking and dreaming about the future ;)

cresshead
04-10-2012, 02:27 PM
On Mars? Would we be endangering the pristine Martian forests?

Bruce Sterling points out that nobody talks about "colonizing the Gobi Desert, and it's a million times more hospitable than Mars."

whilst you can't really disagree with that argument for budget and such...
the idea here is to get off this planet and set up home in more than one place...
in time for that huge asteroid which might wipe out the human race on earth...
or some nutters decide to have a nuclear war here and wipe ourselves out.

prometheus
04-15-2012, 09:47 AM
Interesting..didnīt know Mars could never sustain oxygen.
Well I guess it should be treated as experimental project as a jump point to travel to other worlds perhaps.
Getting as much as possible right when traveling and living there, using dome or building complexes That can sustain oxygen created or delivered.

We need to find faster ways to travel, we need to find decent possible nearby stars and planets to aim for, and that aint easy is it?
And what if we canīt find any, that would leave us with the only option to develop technology to control bodies in space in order to create
planets of our own..and perhaps create energy sources similar to the sun.

I really donīt see any chance of getting to mars within 2036 as some scheduled, maybe or maybe not.

What do you guys think will happen in that area, will we ever attempt to get there? and
if so, when do you believe this will happen?

If I would be in charge:) I think a lot of probes and robots sent to Mars would be the best route to find out about the planet in the beginning, and to find out how to travel there the best way and let robots set up stations and complex carrying vegetation farms etc.

Next to that we need to solve energy problems here on earth and advance our technology in terms of rocket propulsion and advanced computers to a level several generation away from today before it will be reliable I guess.
Just my visions on it.

shrox
04-15-2012, 01:20 PM
China is the next big space power. They will be on the moon perhaps by the end of the decade, and on Mars within a decade after that.

Their hardware seems a little better than ours too...

starbase1
04-15-2012, 03:58 PM
The tricky bit with Mars is landing...

It's not generally known but Korolev's N-1 rocket was originally designed to be able to carry out a manned Mars flyby. He was more than a bit optimistic about growing food and oxygen along the way, but basically you need significantly less lifting power for a Mars flyby than a lunar landing.

It didn't have the lift capability for a Moon landing mission, and was really stretched to fill the Moon landing role with more engines and other modifications.

The Soviets also worked out that with the right timing you could swing in and have a manned flyby of Venus on the way home - this was their MAVR mission plan.

We've had the capability to send men to Mars and Venus for 40 years.

safetyman
04-16-2012, 05:27 AM
Colonizing Mars permanently is a moot point because the Sun will eventually enter a Red Giant stage and leave our solar system incapable of sustaining us. We need to look at ways to leave our system and our galaxy eventually (tall order to be sure). We only have about 5 billion years, so I suggest we start now.

prometheus
04-16-2012, 06:08 AM
Colonizing Mars permanently is a moot point because the Sun will eventually enter a Red Giant stage and leave our solar system incapable of sustaining us. We need to look at ways to leave our system and our galaxy eventually (tall order to be sure). We only have about 5 billion years, so I suggest we start now.

That will probably go through experimental jump points in order to learn how to travel etc...as we did by first going to the moon, and what is in fact planned again before we try to go to mars.

Or would it be better to aim for a travel directly to nearest stars without
such in between jump points?

I personally think we need to learn from those jump points before the longer travel to nearby stars.

Im curious about what speed we would be able to acheive in order to reach nearest stars?
and how long would that speed take us? uhh..half the speed of light (150 000 000 m/s) would yield aproximatly 8.4 years to nearest star (rule out the sun)

Surviving lethal cosmic rays by using magnetic shield generated from the space vehicle? would that work? how much energy would be needed to sustain that? and pray nothing goes haywire with computers and electronics during 8.4 years, will there really be so advanced computers and system that just wonīt fail, I hope thereīs a good back up system in there.


Apart from that, finding right stars wich carries tellus like conditions must be a huge task and to verify it, and it might just be that there isnīt any one "close to us".

Questions about how many will go on the first experimental travel to the first star? once feedback can be sent back about the "new earth" in a reasonable time, we might know itīs ok to go, and start a massive project of generation clusters to travel there.

dsol
04-16-2012, 07:04 AM
Why would you want to terraform Mars? It's probably cheaper to just build a habitat in orbit. Or on the Moon - it's a lot closer and there's He3. Plus there's something to be said about preserving the natural exotic beauty of the rest of the solar system.

Would you despoil a future (inter)national park? Think how cool it will be once we can mine the asteroid belt for raw materials, and start building Orbitals. Then we can pop down to beautiful unspoiled Mars for a spot of sight-seeing!

prometheus
04-16-2012, 07:08 AM
Why would you want to terraform Mars? It's probably cheaper to just build a habitat in orbit. Or on the Moon - it's a lot closer and there's He3. Plus there's something to be said about preserving the natural exotic beauty of the rest of the solar system.

Would you despoil a future (inter)national park? Think how cool it will be once we can mine the asteroid belt for raw materials, and start building Orbitals. Then we can pop down to beautiful unspoiled Mars for a spot of sight-seeing!

As mentioned in the thread above, that now seems out of the question.

I think itīs a lot easier if a similar earth like planet can be found, next to that a planet that might be able to terraform, next to that...create our own, next to that..just drop it.:D

shrox
04-16-2012, 01:37 PM
Why would you want to terraform Mars? It's probably cheaper to just build a habitat in orbit. Or on the Moon - it's a lot closer and there's He3. Plus there's something to be said about preserving the natural exotic beauty of the rest of the solar system.

Would you despoil a future (inter)national park? Think how cool it will be once we can mine the asteroid belt for raw materials, and start building Orbitals. Then we can pop down to beautiful unspoiled Mars for a spot of sight-seeing!

Our moon will eventually be visibly defaced by He3 mining, as large tracts are sifting out to get the He3 from the top few centimeters of lunar soil. Footprints from over 40 years ago remain:

http://img.ibtimes.com/www/data/images/full/2011/09/07/156122-nasas-lunar-reconnaissance-orbiter-image-of-the-moons-surface.jpg

jeric_synergy
04-16-2012, 02:04 PM
THose landing sites needs some domes over them.

shrox
04-16-2012, 02:07 PM
THose landing sites needs some domes over them.

The should be part of the National Park Service. That be the coolest park ranger job ever!

jeric_synergy
04-16-2012, 02:39 PM
No single nation owns the Moon, so it would have to be a UN site.

(That legal stuff will cause no end of problems, including discouraging Moon industry.)

shrox
04-16-2012, 02:51 PM
No single nation owns the Moon, so it would have to be a UN site.

(That legal stuff will cause no end of problems, including discouraging Moon industry.)

America OWNS the moon, we have to seize it from the Soviets! I saw it in a 1950's film about it!

prometheus
04-18-2012, 10:39 AM
I thought Naziīs claimed some land at the dark side of the moon...Im pretty sure I saw something about that ....somewhere:D

When the moon hitīs your eye like a big..pizza pie...Thatīs amoree...trallala.