McRamFan Posted February 8, 2018 Share Posted February 8, 2018 4 hours ago, Ellafella said: Non-stick frying pan and ermmm..... Under the Space Act of 1958, NASA's research and technological innovations must benefit everyone, not just astronauts. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spinoff_technologies Teflon was not develop by the space programme, was used and thus raised its profile, just like Velcro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddie Posted February 8, 2018 Share Posted February 8, 2018 7 hours ago, Mafiabob said: Still amazes me people still think the Earth is flat..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Sagan Posted February 8, 2018 Share Posted February 8, 2018 4 hours ago, RamNut said: Ok...... A reasonable estimate on this planet - which is obviously well suited to our needs - is that it requires 0.25hectares of land to produce enough food for one peron. Thats 2500m2 or say 0.6 acre. for a small community of 20 people thats 50,000m2 of productive farmland or 12 acres. Big building. 1 acre of farmland requires 27,000 gallons of water per week. Thats 1.4 million gallons of water per year. For the 12 acres to support food production for just 20 people thats...... 17 million gallons of water per year on a planet with no surface water (just for food production). Each person needs 550 litres of pure oxgyen per day. 200,000 litres of oxygen per year. So those 20 people need..... 4 million litres of oxygen per year on a planet with no oxygen. The food won't grow at temperatures of minus 100 degrees C. Those 12 acres need heating from -100 degrees C to a temperature that the plants can tolerate. Most plants require day temperatures of 70 to 80 degrees F. During the day the temperatures can be boosted by greenhouse effects, but at night heat will be lost by radiation to the night sky. The 12 acres of self contained structures will need heating on a planet which can't even support a naked flame. Not that the plants will grow anyway, even after importing 1.5 million gallons of topsoil. Plants fix nitrogen via bacteria in the roots. But there is no nitrogen. It simply isn't sustainable. The astronaut pioneers who go to inhabit another planet will have to survive as stone age hunter gatherers. Best not to choose a planet with nothing to hunt, nothing to gather, no air, and no water. I'm disappointed by your analysis. Everywhere on Mars is evidence of a watery past. That water didn't vanish. Because the planet is currently colder, it's frozen just below the surface at all latitudes. For instance https://www.universetoday.com/138256/huge-sheets-ice-found-hidden-just-beneath-surface-mars You say there's no nitrogen, when the Curiosity rover has identified plenty of nitrogen: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/03/18/1420932112 Then there's apparently "no air". Mars is the red planet because it's effectively rusty, through the procss of oxidation, so the entire surface has oxygen locked into the soil. And it's in the water too. I don't doubt that to use these in situ resources to help create a self-sustaining society and eventually a sustainable biosphere is not easy. It's perhaps one of the greatest challenges humans will have ever faced. But the rewards are enormous and we will find a way. The next rocket SpaceX have in development, the BFR, holds 100 people at once and they will be building lots of them to take colonists to Mars, with the plan being to have a population of a million by the end of the century. At first these colonists will live in buildings created by autonomous drones, sent ahead, effectively using the regolith from the surface to 3D-print them. Or in lava tubes, hollowed out by vulcanism and easily sealable and heated, offering protection from cosmic rays. Eventually new materials and technologies will allow canyons to be roofed and sealed, with rivers once again running through them. It might take thousands of years, but what a project to be involved in from the beginning. Leading, one day, perhaps millennia hence ut hopefuly sooner, to a warm planet and a breathable atmosphere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev Posted February 8, 2018 Share Posted February 8, 2018 4 minutes ago, Carl Sagan said: 5 minutes ago, Carl Sagan said: I'm disappointed by your analysis. Everywhere on Mars is evidence of a watery past. That water didn't vanish. Because the planet is currently colder, it's frozen just below the surface at all latitudes. For instance https://www.universetoday.com/138256/huge-sheets-ice-found-hidden-just-beneath-surface-mars You say there's no nitrogen, when the Curiosity rover has identified plenty of nitrogen: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/03/18/1420932112 Then there's apparently "no air". Mars is the red planet because it's effectively rusty, through the procss of oxidation, so the entire surface has oxygen locked into the soil. And it's in the water too. I don't doubt that to use these in situ resources to help create a self-sustaining society and eventually a sustainable biosphere is not easy. It's perhaps one of the greatest challenges humans will have ever faced. But the rewards are enormous and we will find a way. The next rocket SpaceX have in development, the BFR, holds 100 people at once and they will be building lots of them to take colonists to Mars, with the plan being to have a population of a million by the end of the century. At first these colonists will live in buildings created by autonomous drones, sent ahead, effectively using the regolith from the surface to 3D-print them. Or in lava tubes, hollowed out by vulcanism and easily sealable and heated, offering protection from cosmic rays. Eventually new materials and technologies will allow canyons to be roofed and sealed, with rivers once again running through them. It might take thousands of years, but what a project to be involved in from the beginning. Leading, one day, perhaps millennia hence ut hopefuly sooner, to a warm planet and a breathable atmosphere. Wouldnt it be easier and more productive to shift the emphasis onto preserving the planet we already inhabit, rather than colonizing a new one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamNut Posted February 8, 2018 Share Posted February 8, 2018 I said no surface water and your article refers to nitrates not nitrogen. but to be honest its makes no difference. fundamentally its not habitable for the many reasons given. No life without a biosphere. Simples. Unless you are willing to wait a few billion years in the hope that something changes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Sagan Posted February 8, 2018 Share Posted February 8, 2018 6 minutes ago, reveldevil said: Wouldnt it be easier and more productive to shift the emphasis onto preserving the planet we already inhabit, rather than colonizing a new one? Easier but certain to lead to our extinction. The only way to preserve humanity is to become a multiplanetary species, or we inevitably go the way of the trilobites or the dinosaurs. Given the entire rest of the universe appears dead at the moment, that may then mean intelligence is some sort of evolutionary dead end that never spreads. I admit it's a personal (and perhaps speciesist) opinion but I'd like to see the universe teeming with life, and even better if it had a human origin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamNut Posted February 8, 2018 Share Posted February 8, 2018 Quote The next rocket SpaceX have in development, the BFR, holds 100 people at once and they will be building lots of them to take colonists to Mars, with the plan being to have a population of a million by the end of the century. 100 people = 60 acres of greenhouses. 85 million gallons of liquid water per year. 20 million litres of oxygen. The problem gets worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamNut Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 8 minutes ago, Carl Sagan said: Easier but certain to lead to our extinction. The only way to preserve humanity is to become a multiplanetary species, or we inevitably go the way of the trilobites or the dinosaurs. Given the entire rest of the universe appears dead at the moment, that may then mean intelligence is some sort of evolutionary dead end that never spreads. I admit it's a personal (and perhaps speciesist) opinion but I'd like to see the universe teeming with life, and even better if it had a human origin. We will inevitably go the way of the trilobites and the dinosaurs and we don't need to worry about what comes after. the evolution of complex animals and plants requires a previous biosphere of bacteria and viruses, and many remarkable and highly improbable chance events were required to get that far. even bacteria and viruses are miracles of evolution which we cannot yet explain. but life needs water. And complex life needs oxygen. And therefore we need a certain temperate zone. We are as reliant on water as tadpoles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MuespachRam Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 Elon is the most important human on the planet right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxjam Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 7 minutes ago, RamNut said: We will inevitably go the way of the trilobites and the dinosaurs and we don't need to worry about what comes after. Only 'inevitably' if we accept our fate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highgate Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 4 minutes ago, RamNut said: We will inevitably go the way of the trilobites and the dinosaurs and we don't need to worry about what comes after. the evolution of complex animals and plants requires a previous biosphere of bacteria and viruses, and many remarkable and highly improbable chance events were required to get that far. even bacteria and viruses are miracles of evolution which we cannot yet explain. but life needs water. And complex life needs oxygen. And therefore we need a certain temperate zone. We are as reliant on water as tadpoles. Pushing Mars into the habitable zone where liquid water can exist, is just a matter of pumping enough greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and thereby raising the temperature by trapping the heat from the sun. I say just, but that is an enormous challenge in itself. But the bigger challenge will be keeping the new atmosphere from escaping into space like most of the last one did. With a gravitational pull of a fraction of the Earth's and no liquid core to produce the dynamo required for a significant magnetic field, any Martian atmosphere will be readily stripped away by the solar wind. Still, there are already theoretical solutions to these problems so maybe in the future it will be possible. Long-term survival and expanding into space is surely a worthwhile, even obligatory goal for humanity, Although, nothing should deflect from the fact that maintaining the environment on Earth must be our primary concern. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamNut Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 13 hours ago, TigerTedd said: It won’t happen overnight, but the theory is all laid out to start a colony underground with the occasional pressurised biosphere / greenhouse on the surface to paraterraform, then start populating the surface with various algae’s and hardy bacteria that’ll soak up the co2, create oxygen, and break down into methane to create an ozone and terraform the surface. That’ll take a century or two though. The stuff I’ve read says that colonising the moon (with the underground / biosphere paraterrorming plan), or even asteroids in geostationary orbit, would be a better short term plan, as a stepping stone. We should walk before we can run, seeing as they’re right on our doorstep, and only week round trip if it all goes pear shaped. algae need water. The cyanobacteria that created the oxygen atmoshere on this planet live in the sea in a temperate zone. And it took a billion years to create the appropriate atmosphere. Even if we could speed that process up Mankind would run out of time in waiting to transform another planet. We'd be wiped out by then. Furthermore you can't sprinkle payloads of algae on the surface of mars or the moon and expect them to survive. This shows the inter-dependency of life. We survive on this planet because the bacteria, the plants, the animals, and the fungi etc etc make the planet habitable and maintain its habitability for us. We should learn to respect the fact that we cannot exist without the rest of the eco-system. One day the penny might drop. Perhaps after 100 dead astronauts sit permanently frozen and refusing to decompose on the surface of mars. P.s. Is there something morally wrong about bio-poluting another planet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamNut Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 Quote One day the penny might drop. Perhaps after 100 dead astronauts sit permanently frozen and refusing to decompose on the surface of mars. Thats the book you should write keith. A darker sci-fi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ram1964 Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 On 07/02/2018 at 00:34, eddie said: Shouldnt he have his lights on, whats the speed limit up there!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Sagan Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 1 hour ago, RamNut said: algae need water. The cyanobacteria that created the oxygen atmoshere on this planet live in the sea in a temperate zone. And it took a billion years to create the appropriate atmosphere. Even if we could speed that process up Mankind would run out of time in waiting to transform another planet. We'd be wiped out by then. Furthermore you can't sprinkle payloads of algae on the surface of mars or the moon and expect them to survive. This shows the inter-dependency of life. We survive on this planet because the bacteria, the plants, the animals, and the fungi etc etc make the planet habitable and maintain its habitability for us. We should learn to respect the fact that we cannot exist without the rest of the eco-system. One day the penny might drop. Perhaps after 100 dead astronauts sit permanently frozen and refusing to decompose on the surface of mars. P.s. Is there something morally wrong about bio-poluting another planet? While many scientists would probably agree with that PS, I can't really comprehend it. It just seems irrational to me, but I recognize I may be in a minority. 1 hour ago, RamNut said: Thats the book you should write keith. A darker sci-fi. I try to make my sci-fi pretty dark as it is. Perhaps that's why I find this idea strangely compelling! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sith Happens Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 Don't know what all the fuss is, making mars habitable is just a case of defrosting a block of ice, I seen it in total recall so it must be true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TigerTedd Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 I don’t think there’s anything morally wrong with terraforming mars. It’s just making a barren rock green. Like planting trees on the side of a barren mountain or a desert. I don’t think anyone would object too much to that, but that would actually affect whatever ecosystem currently exists in that desert. But there is no ecosystem on mars. At best there might be some as yet undiscovered bacteria. If we found an ecosystem there, then yes, we shouldn’t really screw with it, that is immoral. But providing there isn’t one, we’re just growing trees on a rock, and restoring the river system, I can’t see anything wrong with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramit Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 We take for granted that Mars is vacant real estate and that we are free to leave this planet. Irrespective of that, perhaps we should get our act together on Earth before mucking another planet up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted February 9, 2018 Author Share Posted February 9, 2018 7 hours ago, MuespachRam said: Elon is the most important human on the planet right now. You say that but this forum wouldn’t be here without me. Let that sink in for a minute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richinspain Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 On 8/2/2018 at 01:39, TigerTedd said: And 100 years ago, we didn’t think walking in the moon was possible. 40 years ago, we didn’t think that instantaneous communication between the masses was possible. 20 years ago, we didn’t think fitting an entire library’s worth of songs in your pocket was possible. Yesterday we didn’t think landing a rocket after shooting a mannequin to mars was possible. Imagine what we think is not possible now, but might be possible in 20 years time. The Rams finally get promoted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.