• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Space...the final frontier?

Caprice

Member
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.
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.

Have you read any material regarding terraforming that you could share with me, might help me to see where you are coming from.

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.
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.

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.

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 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).

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?
 

Druidus

Keeper of the Grove
[size=+2][/size]

[size=+2]Creating a Martian Greenhouse[/size]
terraforming-stage1.jpg

terraforming-stage9.jpg

[size=-2]Photo courtesy Lightworld[/size]
[size=-1]Mars before and after terraformation.[/size] Terraforming Mars will be a huge undertaking, if it is ever done at all. Initial stages of terraforming Mars could take several decades or centuries. Terraforming the entire planet into an Earth-like habitat would have to be done over several millennia. Some have even suggested that such a project would last thousands of millennia. So, how are we supposed to transform a dry, desert-like land into a lush environment, where people, plants and other animals can survive. Here are three terraforming methods that have been proposed:
  • Large orbital mirrors that will reflect sunlight and heat the Mars surface.
  • Greenhouse gas-producing factories to trap solar radiation.
  • Smashing ammonia-heavy asteroids into the planet to raise the greenhouse gas level.
NASA is currently working on a solar sail propulsion system that would use large reflective mirrors to harness the sun's radiation to propel spacecraft through space. Another use for these large mirrors would be to place them a couple hundred thousand miles from Mars and use the mirrors to reflect the sun's radiation and heat the Martian surface. Scientists have proposed building mylar mirrors that would have a diameter of 250 km (155.34 miles) and cover an area larger than Lake Michigan. These gigantic mirrors would weigh about 200,000 tons, which means they would be far too large to launch from Earth. However, there is the possibility that the mirrors could be constructed from material found in space. If a mirror this size were to be directed at Mars, it could raise the surface temperature of a small area by a few degrees. The idea would be to concentrate the mirrors on the polar caps to melt the ice and release the carbon dioxide that are believed to be trapped inside the ice. Over a period of many years, the rise in temperature would release greenhouse gases, such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), which you can find in your air conditioner or refrigerator.

Another option for thickening the atmosphere of Mars, and, in turn, raising the temperature of the planet, would be to set up solar-powered, greenhouse-gas producing factories. Humans have had a lot of experience with this over the last century, as we have inadvertently released tons of greenhouse gases into our own atmosphere, which some believe is raising the Earth's temperature. The same heating effect could be reproduced on Mars by setting up hundreds of these factories. Their sole purpose would be to pump out CFCs, methane, carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

These greenhouse-gas factories would either have to be ferried to Mars or made out of materials already located on Mars, which would take years to process. In order to transport these machines to Mars, they would have to be lightweight and efficient. These greenhouse machines would mimic the natural process of plant photosynthesis, inhaling carbon dioxide and emitting oxygen. It would take many years, but the Mars atmosphere would slowly be oxygenated to the point that Mars colonists would need only a breathing-assistance apparatus, and not a pressure suit as worn by astronauts. Photosynthetic bacteria could also be used in place of or in addition to these greenhouse machines.

Space scientist Christopher McKay and Robert Zubrin, author of The Case For Mars, have also proposed a more extreme method for greenhousing Mars. They believe that hurling large, icy asteroids containing ammonia at the red planet would produce tons of greenhouse gases and water. For this to be done, nuclear thermal rocket engines would have to be somehow attached to asteroids from the outer solar system. The rockets would move the asteroids at about 4 kilometers per second, for a period of about 10 years, before the rockets would shut off and allow the 10-billion-ton asteroids to glide, unpowered, toward Mars. Energy released upon impact would be about 130 million megawatts of power. That's enough energy to power Earth for a decade.

If it is possible to smash an asteroid of such enormous size into Mars, the energy of one impact would raise the temperature of the planet by 3 degrees Celsius. The sudden raise in temperature would melt about a trillion tons of water, which is enough water to form a lake, with a depth of one meter, that could cover an area larger than the state of Connecticut. Several of these missions over 50 years would create a temperate climate and enough water to cover 25 percent of the planet's surface. However, the bombardment by asteroids, each releasing energy equivalent to 70,000 one-megaton hydrogen bombs, would delay human settlement of the planet for centuries.

While we may reach Mars this century, it could take several millennia for the idea of terraforming to be fully realized. It took the Earth billions of years to transform into a planet on which plants and animals could flourish. To transform the Mars landscape into one that resembles Earth is not a simple project. It will take many centuries of human ingenuity and labor to develop a habitable environment and bring life to the cold, dry world of Mars.
They say millenia, and I agree. But the initial stage of introducing plants and life will take much less time.

Here is a site that will explain the concepts of terraforming, and several research papers on it:

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~mfogg/
 

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
actually if there is water.. and it looks increasingly like there is.. then you have all the fuel you need. :D
You don't need a shuttle.. a VTOVL craft would be perferable... and is in the works. Taking off and landing in a vertical position would remove any need for a runway.
66% gravity means you need less fuel. The best plans for Mars missions have fuel producing ships sent ahead of the main mission to convert H20 into liquid Hydrogen and liquid Oxygen.

as for loss of musscle and bone, that is potenally correctable. There are systems in development to reduce the loss and maintain the body at 'Earth' normals. Humans have survived a year in space and been able to recover without serious issues. Any effects of loss would be lessened by the gravity of Mars and make such bone and mussle maintanance easier.

anyway the idea of terriforming Mars is nice but far more impractacle. The idea of CO2 emmiters and Biome generators are fun in the game SIM EARTH but totaly unfeasable. CO2 must be produced from something, it can not simply be generated... and Biome Generators are utterly byond our capiblities.

the point of a Mars mission would be to determine what Mars is really like (ie is there life?) any attempt to 'terriform' would distroy that. Not to mention should life be there it would likely kill the only other currently detectable life forms in the Univerce... :tsk:

wa:do
 

Druidus

Keeper of the Grove
actually if there is water.. and it looks increasingly like there is.. then you have all the fuel you need.
biggrin.gif
Only if you find it near your landing point.

You don't need a shuttle.. a VTOVL craft would be perferable... and is in the works. Taking off and landing in a vertical position would remove any need for a runway.
66% gravity means you need less fuel.
But it is much more massive than the moon, so the problem is getting the fuel there. So far, your suggestion seems most likely.
The best plans for Mars missions have fuel producing ships sent ahead of the main mission to convert H20 into liquid Hydrogen and liquid Oxygen.
I agree with this, though I hadn't thought of it.

as for loss of musscle and bone, that is potenally correctable. There are systems in development to reduce the loss and maintain the body at 'Earth' normals. Humans have survived a year in space and been able to recover without serious issues. Any effects of loss would be lessened by the gravity of Mars and make such bone and mussle maintanance easier.
Yes, but if animals and plants are born on Mars, and never subjected to the gravity strength of Earth, they will have a hard time "returning" to Earth. A year in space is not the same as eighteen years, from birth to adulthood, on Mars.
anyway the idea of terriforming Mars is nice but far more impractacle. The idea of CO2 emmiters and Biome generators are fun in the game SIM EARTH but totaly unfeasable. CO2 must be produced from something, it can not simply be generated... and Biome Generators are utterly byond our capiblities.
Ah, a Sim Earth player? Fun game. Regardless, CO2 emmiters can produce CO2 from burning any hydrocarbon. Use the reflective mirrors to make a "natural" carbonic gas emitter. As a planet heats up, cloroflourocarbons are released, along with other such gases. The reflective mirrors provide the boost necessary for those releases.

By biome generators, I mean large air ships run on solar power that cruise the Martian airways dropping seeds (once water begins to flow) in certain areas.

the point of a Mars mission would be to determine what Mars is really like (ie is there life?) any attempt to 'terriform' would distroy that. Not to mention should life be there it would likely kill the only other currently detectable life forms in the Univerce... :tsk:
Heating up Mars and letting the water flow once more is not going to destroy any life that it has, indeed, likely, it will help that life. Like an algae bloom.

Interesting to note, however, is whether life that developed on Mars would have the same genetic coding as us. DNA and RNA or something else entirely?
 

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
Heating up Mars and letting the water flow once more is not going to destroy any life that it has, indeed, likely, it will help that life. Like an algae bloom.
however any life is likely to adapted to feeding on frozen water and very little of it at that. Releasing large ammounts of liquid water would likely kill off the native life. Like overwatering a cactus.

Hyrocarbons are not likely to be very common on Mars... as Organic molicules they are rather scarce.

wa:do
 

Druidus

Keeper of the Grove
as Organic molicules they are rather scarce.
On the contrary. There are over two million organic conpounds, which are relatively common, while there are only fifty thousand inorganic compounds. Organic compounds do exist on Mars. Regardless, the giant space mirror is the way to go for terraforming Mars, at least at first.

however any life is likely to adapted to feeding on frozen water and very little of it at that. Releasing large ammounts of liquid water would likely kill off the native life. Like overwatering a cactus.
Yes, but with water, those that do survive get a much enhanced chance at greater diversity. Some will survive, life is surprisingly resilient. It does not make it right to destroy them, however. I'm not all that certain that life will be destroyed by the release of water on Mars either. Either way, the first initial testings on any possible Martian life will determine the answer to this.
 

Engyo

Prince of Dorkness!
Druidus said:
Interesting to note, however, is whether life that developed on Mars would have the same genetic coding as us. DNA and RNA or something else entirely?
This program looks quite interesting, for all of you following this thread. Note though, that the scientists all extrapolated these other life options, still using DNA/RNA.

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/channel/extraterrestrial/

Sunday 8pm (at least here in Houston).
 
Top