Caprice
Member
How does one propose to ship enough greenhouse gas to do this? You mentioned lack of viable resources on the moon, but the gasses needed to perform this function could not be found on mars either, we'd have to ship them. Sounds like a pretty hefty project, which is part of why I figure it would take thousands of years to terraform rather than just a century.Druidus said:We are not actively attempting to terraform our world. It is merely a side effect of the fuel sources we use. The release on Mars would be equal to more than a hundred times what is released in one year on Earth. Enough to heat it up rapidly.
Have you read any material regarding terraforming that you could share with me, might help me to see where you are coming from.
Surface launch isn't the only time you'd need fuel, you'd still need it to get out of orbit. You'd need more of it to make the trip in a reasonable amount of time from a further distance, so instead it is likely the mission would just have the crew stay on mars until the planets were closer together again.Druidus said:Fuel is only needed when you are taking off and landing. In space, you don't need fuel, because nothing is causing you to stop.
This is a page I have used when talking about a simple mars mission before...
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/marirect.htm
I don't consider just going there and coming back good enough tho, I say if we're going to go we ought to go there with the purpose of creating a perminent presence.. which of course is so costly that no one will do it. The moon is a big maybe in that department, people would have to agree that there is some value in being there and right now the consensus is that it isn't worth it.
Kinda sucks if you ask me, the only way to go there is to prove it is worthwhile, but the only way to prove it is worthwhile is to go there.
I think construction in space is easier, but moving around is harder, while construction underwater is harder (because of the massive pressure of the water itself) but propusion is easier (because of density of water).EnhancedSpirit said:This was what I was going to say. There is vast oceans that remain unexplored, and I think it would be easier to build under the sea, than in space.
I'm all for underwater exploration because some of the technologies that would be neccesary to make progress there would be beneficial not only to us on earth but to any project on a planet like venus with a dense atmopshere. Any development with more than a single possible use gets my full support, shame is there is no way to raise the money for any extenseive space or underwater work... most people just aren't on board with it while healthcare, poverty, and war are still a problem.
My main point against that tho is that these things will always be a problem. You can't eliminate things that are built into our nature due to our own failings. If you could make us perfect, well, then maybe, but if we were perfect, what would be the point?