CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33648
PostPosted: Tue Jul 30, 2019 12:01 pm
 


stratos wrote:
Okay I'm going a bit off the norm here for this thread. Mars once had an atmosphere and it went away do to Mars low density ( Please correct if wrong). So any Terraforming we do will be at best temporary because Mars wont hold an atmosphere that is life sustainable. OR is part of the terraforming planned is to somehow increase Mars density. IF yes that leads to questions about orbit change, gravitational pull changes and so many other things.

So is Mars really a good candidate for terraforming?


Short answer: No.

Mars lost it's atmosphere because it lost it's magnetic field. The magnetic field on Earth deflects the solar wind that would carry particles off with it. Mars was a very wet planet, and at only 1/4 the size of Earth, it still had oceans the 3 to 4 times the size of the Caspian Sea, or to 5 times the Great Lakes.

Some reason, the radioactive elements in the core stopped producing heat. That solidified the core, and the way to generate a magnetic field is to rotate electrically conductive elements.

There is a lot of water left below the surface of Mars, enough that we could make some small seas, but with a lack of atmosphere the water would just evaporate off. With a lack of magnetic field, the solar wind causes radiation that would be very harmful long term to Humans.

It would be smarter to find ways to create enclosed spaces under the surface in order to keep pressure and block the solar radiation. As discussed above, lava tubes are already made holes into the crust that likely can be pressurized. Because any colonization effort needs to be cheap, the more materials we find there makes the job cheaper and easier.

The same goes for the Moon.

Helpful?


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33648
PostPosted: Tue Jul 30, 2019 12:04 pm
 


Also, Venus is a worse candidate. Although it's almost the same size as Earth (and it rotates west -> east) the atmospheric concentration of Co2 is so high that there is likely no way to remove it.

There is also quite a lot of water, but it is in the form of water vapour.


Online
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Montreal Canadiens
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 29404
PostPosted: Tue Jul 30, 2019 12:05 pm
 


I don't think you can do much with a planet that has no magnetic field and no volcanic activity.

EDIT: Posted this before seeing Doc's post.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 20862
PostPosted: Tue Jul 30, 2019 12:08 pm
 


DrCaleb wrote:
Also, Venus is a worse candidate. Although it's almost the same size as Earth (and it rotates west -> east) the atmospheric concentration of Co2 is so high that there is likely no way to remove it.

There is also quite a lot of water, but it is in the form of water vapour.


NASA's High Altitude Venus Operational Concept looks cool - maybe someday that technology could enable tiny cloud colonies like Bespin in Empire Strikes Back.



Last edited by bootlegga on Tue Jul 30, 2019 12:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33648
PostPosted: Tue Jul 30, 2019 12:12 pm
 


raydan wrote:
I don't think you can do much with a planet that has no magnetic field and no volcanic activity.


You could live inside them. The thing you can't do without is water though. Taking water from Earth is extremely expensive, so it needs to be there already.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33648
PostPosted: Tue Jul 30, 2019 12:13 pm
 


bootlegga wrote:
DrCaleb wrote:
Also, Venus is a worse candidate. Although it's almost the same size as Earth (and it rotates west -> east) the atmospheric concentration of Co2 is so high that there is likely no way to remove it.

There is also quite a lot of water, but it is in the form of water vapour.


NASA's High Altitude Venus Operational Concept looks cool - maybe someday it will have tiny cloud colonies like Bespin in Empire Strikes Back.


It did look pretty wild. Good for research, but I don't see it as a livable habitat long term. What good would it do? Manufacturing? Fuel production?


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Toronto Maple Leafs
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 9013
PostPosted: Tue Jul 30, 2019 12:16 pm
 


DrCaleb wrote:
Also, Venus is a worse candidate. Although it's almost the same size as Earth (and it rotates west -> east) the atmospheric concentration of Co2 is so high that there is likely no way to remove it.

There is also quite a lot of water, but it is in the form of water vapour.

I think they proposed seeding the atmosphere with blue-green algae back in the 70's or 80's, the algae was supposed to convert the CO2 into O2. The issue of atmospheric density is more the issue... redirect a water high asteroid to Venus? Hope the impact blows some of the atmosphere off of it?


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Dallas Stars


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 17724
PostPosted: Tue Jul 30, 2019 12:25 pm
 


Quote:
Helpful?


Semi, it does explain why my line of thinking was flawed. To me living underground is not appealing, necessary yes appealing no.


Online
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Montreal Canadiens
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 29404
PostPosted: Tue Jul 30, 2019 12:25 pm
 


Gee, maybe we could move our efforts and money into saving the planet we already have. [huh]


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Toronto Maple Leafs
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 9013
PostPosted: Tue Jul 30, 2019 12:26 pm
 


But then I find this:
From Carl Sagan,
"Here's the fatal flaw: In 1961, I thought the atmospheric pressure at the surface of Venus was a few bars ... We now know it to be 90 bars, so if the scheme worked, the result would be a surface buried in hundreds of meters of fine graphite, and an atmosphere made of 65 bars of almost pure molecular oxygen. Whether we would first implode under the atmospheric pressure or spontaneously burst into flames in all that oxygen is open to question. However, long before so much oxygen could build up, the graphite would spontaneously burn back into CO2, short-circuiting the process."

Fuck.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Dallas Stars


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 17724
PostPosted: Tue Jul 30, 2019 12:29 pm
 


llama66 wrote:
DrCaleb wrote:
Also, Venus is a worse candidate. Although it's almost the same size as Earth (and it rotates west -> east) the atmospheric concentration of Co2 is so high that there is likely no way to remove it.

There is also quite a lot of water, but it is in the form of water vapour.

I think they proposed seeding the atmosphere with blue-green algae back in the 70's or 80's, the algae was supposed to convert the CO2 into O2. The issue of atmospheric density is more the issue... redirect a water high asteroid to Venus? Hope the impact blows some of the atmosphere off of it?


I think an atmosphere fly thru would be more effective and less harmful for removal of toxins in the atmosphere. Just a thought no science behind it.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33648
PostPosted: Wed Jul 31, 2019 5:30 am
 


llama66 wrote:
But then I find this:
From Carl Sagan,
"Here's the fatal flaw: In 1961, I thought the atmospheric pressure at the surface of Venus was a few bars ... We now know it to be 90 bars, so if the scheme worked, the result would be a surface buried in hundreds of meters of fine graphite, and an atmosphere made of 65 bars of almost pure molecular oxygen. Whether we would first implode under the atmospheric pressure or spontaneously burst into flames in all that oxygen is open to question. However, long before so much oxygen could build up, the graphite would spontaneously burn back into CO2, short-circuiting the process."

Fuck.


I was going to say, the problem with your algae theory is twofold. The heat. Surface temperature in the upper mountains is over 200c. 'Sea' level would be over 800c. 8O Algae would become as carbonized as Han Solo.

The other is that there is basically no visible light that reaches the surface of Venus, and no water except in gas form. Nothing for the algae to eat, no energy to eat it with. :(


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33648
PostPosted: Wed Jul 31, 2019 5:35 am
 


raydan wrote:
Gee, maybe we could move our efforts and money into saving the planet we already have. [huh]


Whhhaaaaat? Spend billions to stop polluting so that we can save hundreds of trillions in real estate? That is not the Capitalist way! Selling a solution like snow machines for the poles, or screw jacks for Manhattan highrises and Venice style skiffs is the way we should go.

Spend more! Pollute more!


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Dallas Stars


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 17724
PostPosted: Wed Jul 31, 2019 7:08 am
 


raydan wrote:
Gee, maybe we could move our efforts and money into saving the planet we already have. [huh]


I understand the sentiment but would want the money to come from somewhere else.

"NASA's budget for fiscal year (FY) 2019 is $21.5 billion. It represents 0.49% of the $4.4 trillion the United States plans to spend that year." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA


I would seriously look into the Military budget, make sure no detrimental cut would endanger our military personal. Not sure what other huge money pits we have but my next would be the "aid money" and such sent to other nations.

Heard this years ago and still in favor of it. Shut down a lot of the military bases over seas. That would save a ton of money and said money could be used along the lines of Ray's statement.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33648
PostPosted: Wed Jul 31, 2019 7:18 am
 


stratos wrote:
raydan wrote:
Gee, maybe we could move our efforts and money into saving the planet we already have. [huh]


I understand the sentiment but would want the money to come from somewhere else.

"NASA's budget for fiscal year (FY) 2019 is $21.5 billion. It represents 0.49% of the $4.4 trillion the United States plans to spend that year." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA


I would seriously look into the Military budget, make sure no detrimental cut would endanger our military personal. Not sure what other huge money pits we have but my next would be the "aid money" and such sent to other nations.

Heard this years ago and still in favor of it. Shut down a lot of the military bases over seas. That would save a ton of money and said money could be used along the lines of Ray's statement.


Or you could just regulate emissions, like was done for Sulfur Dioxide to successfully control Acid Rain. :idea: I know the Right Wing media has made a boogie man of 'Carbon Taxes', but that's what's worked in the past.


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 2402 posts ]  Previous  1 ... 151  152  153  154  155  156  157 ... 161  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.