RamNut Posted February 11, 2018 Share Posted February 11, 2018 11 hours ago, MuespachRam said: What you have also failed to take into account is that we don’t know how we will have evolved...it is quite feasible that we might not need all the things you talk about in years to come. Don’t forget, we started off as little sea creatures. We will evolve into big yellow blobs of fat, reliant on technology to feed us, move us and change our nappies. We will exist in virtual reality where we see ourselves as beautiful athletic creatures striding across a verdant Martian landscape which we will have terraformed. blind grubs fed by mechanicl drones. Our brains will no longer be able able to distinguish between fact and fiction. We're half-way there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TigerTedd Posted February 11, 2018 Share Posted February 11, 2018 16 minutes ago, RamNut said: We will evolve into big yellow blobs of fat, reliant on technology to feed us, move us and change our nappies. We will exist in virtual reality where we see ourselves as beautiful athletic creatures striding across a verdant Martian landscape which we will have terraformed. blind grubs fed by mechanicl drones. Our brains will no longer be able able to distinguish between fact and fiction. We're half-way there. That’s bleak, but believable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MuespachRam Posted February 11, 2018 Share Posted February 11, 2018 1 hour ago, RamNut said: We will evolve into big yellow blobs of fat, reliant on technology to feed us, move us and change our nappies. We will exist in virtual reality where we see ourselves as beautiful athletic creatures striding across a verdant Martian landscape which we will have terraformed. blind grubs fed by mechanicl drones. Our brains will no longer be able able to distinguish between fact and fiction. We're half-way there. There you go...see we can live on Mars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highgate Posted February 11, 2018 Share Posted February 11, 2018 1 hour ago, RamNut said: science fiction. Except NASA are full of genuine scientists and engineers, not fiction writers. That doesn't mean they'll be correct, but we should take their claims seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McRamFan Posted February 11, 2018 Share Posted February 11, 2018 4 hours ago, RamNut said: science fiction. The differnce is science takes fiction, works out how to make it fact. You have heard of biosphere's, nanites, hydroponics? You just have to build a biosphere over the frozen water, devise a way to capture it in liquid form, not that hard being as we have systems that can turn rank invested water into drinkable and its the size of a flask, and away you go. From that water you can extrapulate hydrogen and oxygen, giving you two fuels. Burn the hydrogen with the oxygen, capture the energy and direct it to what needs it, whilst the 'exhaust' is gathered, that happens to be water... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamNut Posted February 11, 2018 Share Posted February 11, 2018 6 hours ago, McRamFan said: The differnce is science takes fiction, works out how to make it fact. You have heard of biosphere's, nanites, hydroponics? You just have to build a biosphere over the frozen water, devise a way to capture it in liquid form, not that hard being as we have systems that can turn rank invested water into drinkable and its the size of a flask, and away you go. From that water you can extrapulate hydrogen and oxygen, giving you two fuels. Burn the hydrogen with the oxygen, capture the energy and direct it to what needs it, whilst the 'exhaust' is gathered, that happens to be water... Just build a biosphere over the frozen water.....and devise a way to capture it in liquid form.... so the building has to be totally hermetically sealed, and the internal temperature and pressure have to be increased to overcome the -100 deg c nightime temperatures, and increase the atmospheric pressure by a factor of 15-20x to enable liquid water to exist. Not sure how it is proposed to get it to the surface but ignoring that...... it then takes more energy to split water to obtain hydrogen than is subsequently released by burning it?? So what was the point??? 9 hours ago, Highgate said: Except NASA are full of genuine scientists and engineers, not fiction writers. That doesn't mean they'll be correct, but we should take their claims seriously. The idea of an inflatable ballon () to deflect the solar wind is a hypothetical idea and "may be described as fanciful" (to use their own words). This balloon/shield would be located in space somewhere between mars and the sun. It would have to rotate around the sun at the perfect rate to provide a permanent solar eclipse from mars. If thats not science fiction i don't know what is. The reality is that mars is too small as well as too cold .there isn't enough mass, magnetism, or gravity. Life on earth is highly evolved and well adapted to a very specific and narrow ecological niche. It doesn't transplant very well from a to b. Most extinctions were brought about by relatively minor changes in sea level, temperature, or atmospheric composition. Change of habitat is the big killer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highgate Posted February 12, 2018 Share Posted February 12, 2018 16 hours ago, RamNut said: The idea of an inflatable ballon () to deflect the solar wind is a hypothetical idea and "may be described as fanciful" (to use their own words). This balloon/shield would be located in space somewhere between mars and the sun. It would have to rotate around the sun at the perfect rate to provide a permanent solar eclipse from mars. If thats not science fiction i don't know what is. The reality is that mars is too small as well as too cold .there isn't enough mass, magnetism, or gravity. Life on earth is highly evolved and well adapted to a very specific and narrow ecological niche. It doesn't transplant very well from a to b. Most extinctions were brought about by relatively minor changes in sea level, temperature, or atmospheric composition. Change of habitat is the big killer. Yeah, giving Mars back it's magnetic field is essential for any planet wide terraforming, otherwise you are just talking about sealed self-contained bases. Once that is achieved it will be possible to manipulate to planetary temperature. The plan you mention is just one proposed, there are others, such as building superconducting rings around the planet. Nobody is suggesting that any of this is going to be easy, just that it may be possible in the future. It's a valid and worthwhile area of research. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McRamFan Posted February 12, 2018 Share Posted February 12, 2018 18 hours ago, RamNut said: it then takes more energy to split water to obtain hydrogen than is subsequently released by burning it?? So what was the point??? No it does not, especially when the energy you need to do it is in utter abundance and won't run out for a few billion years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddie Posted February 12, 2018 Share Posted February 12, 2018 57 minutes ago, McRamFan said: No it does not, especially when the energy you need to do it is in utter abundance and won't run out for a few billion years. Not by burning though. You would require a sustainable nuclear fusion reaction, which is still a long way off. Using electrolysis to split water into hydrogen and oxygen, then combining them chemically again to generate power incurs a net loss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamNut Posted February 12, 2018 Share Posted February 12, 2018 1 hour ago, McRamFan said: No it does not, especially when the energy you need to do it is in utter abundance and won't run out for a few billion years. Eh? It takes more energy whatever the source of that energy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sith Happens Posted February 12, 2018 Share Posted February 12, 2018 I remember once reading about crashing a comet into mars would potentially strengthen the magnetic field, add mass to increase gravity and also potentially thicken the atmosphere by throwing ice etc into the sky. Simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TigerTedd Posted February 12, 2018 Share Posted February 12, 2018 18 minutes ago, Paul71 said: I remember once reading about crashing a comet into mars would potentially strengthen the magnetic field, add mass to increase gravity and also potentially thicken the atmosphere by throwing ice etc into the sky. Simple. But the Martians would interpret it as an attack and it would start an interplanetary war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamNut Posted February 12, 2018 Share Posted February 12, 2018 3 hours ago, Highgate said: Yeah, giving Mars back it's magnetic field is essential for any planet wide terraforming, otherwise you are just talking about sealed self-contained bases. Once that is achieved it will be possible to manipulate to planetary temperature. The plan you mention is just one proposed, there are others, such as building superconducting rings around the planet. Nobody is suggesting that any of this is going to be easy, just that it may be possible in the future. It's a valid and worthwhile area of research. 12 superconducting rings would measure 250,000 km of 600mm diam hollow copper cables, and would require @10 million kw of power to create a magnetic field equivalent to Earth. given the lower solar intensity on Mars this needs 120 million m2 of photovoltaic panels. 160,000 miles of cable? 120 million m2 of photovoltaics?? its a nice idea for a scientist wanting to get something published but the numbers are crazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamNut Posted February 12, 2018 Share Posted February 12, 2018 27 minutes ago, TigerTedd said: But the Martians would interpret it as an attack and it would start an interplanetary war. They would if they weren't already as stiff as a dead parrot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe. Posted February 13, 2018 Share Posted February 13, 2018 7 hours ago, RamNut said: 12 superconducting rings would measure 250,000 km of 600mm diam hollow copper cables, and would require @10 million kw of power to create a magnetic field equivalent to Earth. given the lower solar intensity on Mars this needs 120 million m2 of photovoltaic panels. 160,000 miles of cable? 120 million m2 of photovoltaics?? its a nice idea for a scientist wanting to get something published but the numbers are crazy. So it is feasible with current technology then? As habitation of Mars is likely to be generations away, wouldn't it also be likely that the technology available becomes both more efficient and more advanced? As isn't that generally what has happened with virtually everything we have invented? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamNut Posted February 13, 2018 Share Posted February 13, 2018 2 hours ago, Joe. said: So it is feasible with current technology then? As habitation of Mars is likely to be generations away, wouldn't it also be likely that the technology available becomes both more efficient and more advanced? As isn't that generally what has happened with virtually everything we have invented? I wouldn't call 160,000 miles of 600mm diameter copper cable feasible. Have we got that much copper? How would we get that to Mars? Envisaging 160,000 miles of superconductors is like trying to give a jolt of electricity to a corpse and hoping to spark it into life. Its like Dr Frankenstein trying to animate a dead corpse. Everything has a finite lifetime. All suns eventually fade and tide. Even planets can die. Mars is dead. A once active planet cooled and died. Tectonic activity stopped. The atmosphere disappeared. The surface water disappeared. It became a cold, dry, and tectonically inactive planet. It has become a hostile inhospitable world with none of the environmental requirements for life on Earth. trying to live on Mars is like trying hump a corpse. Ultimately futile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TigerTedd Posted February 13, 2018 Share Posted February 13, 2018 17 minutes ago, RamNut said: I wouldn't call 160,000 miles of 600mm diameter copper cable feasible. Have we got that much copper? How would we get that to Mars? Envisaging 160,000 miles of superconductors is like trying to give a jolt of electricity to a corpse and hoping to spark it into life. Its like Dr Frankenstein trying to animate a dead corpse. Everything has a finite lifetime. All suns eventually fade and tide. Even planets can die. Mars is dead. A once active planet cooled and died. Tectonic activity stopped. The atmosphere disappeared. The surface water disappeared. It became a cold, dry, and tectonically inactive planet. It has become a hostile inhospitable world with none of the environmental requirements for life on Earth. trying to live on Mars is like trying hump a corpse. Ultimately futile. It passes the time though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McRamFan Posted February 13, 2018 Share Posted February 13, 2018 13 hours ago, eddie said: Not by burning though. You would require a sustainable nuclear fusion reaction, which is still a long way off. Using electrolysis to split water into hydrogen and oxygen, then combining them chemically again to generate power incurs a net loss. Photovoltaics have alredy been developed by NASA that are anything between 3 and 10 times better than anything on any roof or field. The tech development is out there, we will be on Mars, just that no one on this forum will be alive to send an email to a friend there. 12 hours ago, RamNut said: Eh? It takes more energy whatever the source of that energy. They said that about nuclear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highgate Posted February 13, 2018 Share Posted February 13, 2018 20 hours ago, RamNut said: 12 superconducting rings would measure 250,000 km of 600mm diam hollow copper cables, and would require @10 million kw of power to create a magnetic field equivalent to Earth. given the lower solar intensity on Mars this needs 120 million m2 of photovoltaic panels. 160,000 miles of cable? 120 million m2 of photovoltaics?? its a nice idea for a scientist wanting to get something published but the numbers are crazy. Impressive research! But nobody is suggesting we are going to achieve this over a long weekend. Terraforming Mars is something that will probably take centuries to complete, after permanent bases have been established. And we will be able to use the raw materials on mars to complete it, rather than transport them from Earth. If we don't destroy ourselves here first, then it seems inevitable that our future includes Mars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boycie Posted February 13, 2018 Share Posted February 13, 2018 22 hours ago, RamNut said: 12 superconducting rings would measure 250,000 km of 600mm diam hollow copper cables, and would require @10 million kw of power to create a magnetic field equivalent to Earth. given the lower solar intensity on Mars this needs 120 million m2 of photovoltaic panels. 160,000 miles of cable? 120 million m2 of photovoltaics?? its a nice idea for a scientist wanting to get something published but the numbers are crazy. Don’t ask me to price it ffs! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.