PDA

View Full Version : Query about Mars


Andrew McKay
June 22nd 03, 07:52 PM
I was musing about the following situation, maybe someone can offer
some thoughts?

WRT to Mars my current understanding is that the climate is harshly
carbon dioxide (is it?). If it is then we know that trees and plants
can change carbon dioxide into more friendly climatic gasses for human
habitation.

So if there were water deposits found on Mars, how viable would it be
to engineer some serious vegetation on the planet so that the
atmosphere starts to develop more human friendliness? Obviously the
vegetation would also need its own life support systems such as
insects and so on, so it would generally take rather more than a
packet of seeds from the garden centre.

I appreciate it's not an overnight change, and it could in fact be
hundreds of years (or longer) before the climate was friendly enough
to support human life.

The question is purely rhetorical as I'm interested to know if this
would be a feasible option.

Andrew

Problems scheduling resources? Check out
KazPlan Enterprise and Personal Editions!
at http://www.kazmax.co.uk/OurSoftware.asp

Sally
June 22nd 03, 10:09 PM
The CO2 atmosphere at the surface of Mars has a pressure of around one
hundredth of sea level pressure here on earth. Actually, the CO2 partial
pressure on Mars might be similar to that on earth, but the big problem is
that liquid water will not hang around for long at this atmospheric
pressure, it will be either solid or gaseous depending on temperature. The
water in any (earth like) higher plant cell on Mars will either freeze and
disrupt the cell contents or it will boil and burst the cell walls. Maybe at
some depth below the surface things might be more conducive to plant growth
if an alternative to solar input could be found for an energy source. Or
maybe plants could one day be grown under pressurised domes.

However, my scepticism to most Terraforming ideas arises from the fact that
we have a perfectly good Earthlike ecosystem here on Earth, and we can't
even maintain that. So what chance do we have of constructing one from
nothing?

Sally

"Andrew McKay" > wrote in message
...
> I was musing about the following situation, maybe someone can offer
> some thoughts?
>
> WRT to Mars my current understanding is that the climate is harshly
> carbon dioxide (is it?). If it is then we know that trees and plants
> can change carbon dioxide into more friendly climatic gasses for human
> habitation.
>
> So if there were water deposits found on Mars, how viable would it be
> to engineer some serious vegetation on the planet so that the
> atmosphere starts to develop more human friendliness? Obviously the
> vegetation would also need its own life support systems such as
> insects and so on, so it would generally take rather more than a
> packet of seeds from the garden centre.
>
> I appreciate it's not an overnight change, and it could in fact be
> hundreds of years (or longer) before the climate was friendly enough
> to support human life.
>
> The question is purely rhetorical as I'm interested to know if this
> would be a feasible option.
>
> Andrew
>
> Problems scheduling resources? Check out
> KazPlan Enterprise and Personal Editions!
> at http://www.kazmax.co.uk/OurSoftware.asp

Andrew McKay
June 22nd 03, 10:33 PM
On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 22:09:13 +0100, "Sally"
> wrote:

>However, my scepticism to most Terraforming ideas arises from the fact that
>we have a perfectly good Earthlike ecosystem here on Earth, and we can't
>even maintain that. So what chance do we have of constructing one from
>nothing?

With that I have to agree.

Thanks for your comments. WRT to the air pressure situation, I
understand. Presumably it would be feasible to build some sort of
environment which could support life though?

Andrew

Problems scheduling resources? Check out
KazPlan Enterprise and Personal Editions!
at http://www.kazmax.co.uk/OurSoftware.asp

Sally
June 23rd 03, 12:09 PM
Yes, given sufficient willpower and resources I believe that it would be
possible. There are several projects underway around the world attempting to
maintain isolated mini-ecosystems. The Eden project was (I think) one of the
first. It even had a small crew of people in the dome. Some valuable lessons
were learned before things started to go wrong. I think that it had to be
abandoned due to excessive CO2 buildup. The crew were also struggling to
produce enough food from the system and lost a lot of weight.

Sally

"Andrew McKay" > wrote in message
...
> Thanks for your comments. WRT to the air pressure situation, I
> understand. Presumably it would be feasible to build some sort of
> environment which could support life though?

G=EMC^2 Glazier
June 23rd 03, 01:17 PM
Hi Sally that is the reason why they have to dig down for those red
Martian clams. Sponges,and clams were the first major structures in the
early days of life,They strain bacteria out of water(no teeth) Moby
told me this,and added that like man came from the ape octopus came from
the clam. Bert

Sally
June 24th 03, 01:26 AM
Clams are molluscs, I think. Same group as Moby and garden slugs and snails.
Last octopus I saw was in the wild, peeping at me from under a rock on the
sea bed.

I wonder about the chances of some local area on Mars having enough
pressure/temperature/energy input to support some sort of life? I'm thinking
of some sub surface location where a mini-ecosystem could survive, like the
communities around black smokers here on earth. I believe that specialised
clams have been found around those black smokers.

Did you know that octopus eyes are similar to ours? Except their retina is
the other way around with the optic nerves at the back. This means they
don't have a built-in blind spot like us poor vertebrates.

Sally

"G=EMC^2 Glazier" > wrote in message
...
> Hi Sally that is the reason why they have to dig down for those red
> Martian clams. Sponges,and clams were the first major structures in the
> early days of life,They strain bacteria out of water(no teeth) Moby
> told me this,and added that like man came from the ape octopus came from
> the clam. Bert
>

G=EMC^2 Glazier
June 24th 03, 03:18 PM
Hi Andrew My feeling is Mars has to many things that are not beneficial
for the small one cell structures to get started. These are the
reasons. No magnetic field. No atmosphere to shield it from harmful
space radiation.Bad temperature changes. No hard evidence of of
water,and I could go on and on. Andrew if these probes that land on
Mars don't find water,that to me means it will be a very long time
before man steps on Mars. These probes might tell us its very much like
the moon,and the moon is only three days away,and can serve the same
purpose. Bert

David Knisely
June 24th 03, 08:52 PM
Bert posted:

> No magnetic field.

Now now, Bert, we have been through this before. Although Mars does not
have a well-developed global bipolar field like that of the Earth, it
*does* have a magnetic field. Please go to the following URL and read
the article:

http://mgs-mager.gsfc.nasa.gov/publications/grl_28_connerney/grl_28_connerney.html

> No atmosphere to shield it from harmful space radiation.

Bert, you simply *have* to start watching what you say! Mars *does*
have an atmosphere. It provides *some* protection from radiation from
space, although its protecting ability is somewhat limited compared to
that of the Earth.


--
David W. Knisely
Prairie Astronomy Club: http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org
Hyde Memorial Observatory: http://www.hydeobservatory.info/

**********************************************
* Attend the 10th Annual NEBRASKA STAR PARTY *
* July 27-Aug. 1st, 2003, Merritt Reservoir *
* http://www.NebraskaStarParty.org *
**********************************************

G=EMC^2 Glazier
June 24th 03, 10:51 PM
David you use "some" protection I see that as not a hell of a lot. Even
find dust particles that would burn up in earth's atmosphere could
easily come down and make it to the surface of Mars(yes) Mars has only
1% of the earth's atmosphere. Its surface is dust. the moon's surface is
dust. David because you challenge me on water on Mars I have now gone
from clams 50 feet down to worms. David I am so glad that by
Christmas the probes will all be landing,and I hope I'm wrong and your
right. Your thinking is why the probes vare on there way. Your
thinking is mush more intriguing than dust storms creating erosion. When
I was young and there were Mars pictures of those straight cress crossed
lines on Mars,and they were canals of running water I went along with
that theory.I preached it an ended up with egg on my face. David we
have had other lander pictures,and they show a dry surface. I still have
egg on my face, Mars is a dry planet. That is my gut feeling as of now
Bert

David Knisely
June 25th 03, 06:14 AM
Bert posted:

> David you use "some" protection I see that as not a hell of a lot. Even
> find dust particles that would burn up in earth's atmosphere could
> easily come down and make it to the surface of Mars(yes)

No. Most micrometoroids and smaller meteoroids do *not* make it to the
surface of Mars. The atmosphere is thick enough to stop that. Larger
objects can make it down, but the lack of a continuuum of smaller impact
craters clearly shows the weak but noticable shielding effect that the
thin Martian atmosphere has.

> Mars has only 1% of the earth's atmosphere.

Again, you have to clarify what you have said. The average atmospheric
*pressure* on Mars is about 7 millibars, which is about 0.69 percent of
the pressure on the Earth at sea level. The approximate mass of the
Martian atmosphere is about 4.1 x 10^16 kg. The mass of the Earth's
atmosphere is about 5.6 x 10^18 kg, so the Martian atmosphere is only
0.73 percent of the mass of the Earth's atmosphere. This is *less* than
one percent of the Earth's atmosphere.

> Its surface is dust.

Its surface has *some* dust on it. There are quite large areas of solid
exposed bedrock as well, along with a huge population of small rocks and
larger nearly boulder-sized rocks. The surface is very rough and not
covered with the very thick and finely-gardened regolith that is found
on the moon. This clearly shows that the surface is being protected
from continual bombardment by small objects over much of its history,
which is in stark contrast to the surface of the moon

> David because you challenge me on water on Mars I have now gone
> from clams 50 feet down to worms.

Nope, I challenge you because you can't seem to get very many of the
facts right. You say that Mars has no atmosphere (which is just plain
wrong), and no magnetic field, which is inaccurate.

> Your thinking is mush more intriguing than dust storms creating erosion.

Back to the childish insults again I see (sigh).

> Mars is a dry planet

Compared to the Earth or Europa, it may be. However, it has a great
deal more water than bodies like Mercury or the moon have, and there are
*facts* to support this. You seem to be ingoring the facts again. Why
is that Bert?
--
David W. Knisely
Prairie Astronomy Club: http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org
Hyde Memorial Observatory: http://www.hydeobservatory.info/

**********************************************
* Attend the 10th Annual NEBRASKA STAR PARTY *
* July 27-Aug. 1st, 2003, Merritt Reservoir *
* http://www.NebraskaStarParty.org *
**********************************************

Painius
June 25th 03, 10:36 AM
"Andrew McKay" > wrote in message ...
> I was musing about the following situation, maybe someone can offer
> some thoughts?
>
> WRT to Mars my current understanding is that the climate is harshly
> carbon dioxide (is it?). If it is then we know that trees and plants
> can change carbon dioxide into more friendly climatic gasses for human
> habitation.
>
> So if there were water deposits found on Mars, how viable would it be
> to engineer some serious vegetation on the planet so that the
> atmosphere starts to develop more human friendliness? . . .

Let's say... some forms of life, we'll call them "luman beings," are
searching this section of the galaxy for a new place to live. The
lumans come across our Sun and find that the third planet from the
star has the best overall rating to support their species. But they
just have to make a few... uhm... adjustments to make the planet
perfectly suitable for lumans.

It's unfortunate that these "adjustments" will eradicate all forms of
life presently residing there. But who cares? The lumans are only
interested in making a place for themselves. Other life forms are
insignificant and can be anhilated. For lumans, it's okay to develop
other planets toward more "luman friendliness."

Are we human? or luman?

> Andrew
>
> Problems scheduling resources? Check out
> KazPlan Enterprise and Personal Editions!
> at http://www.kazmax.co.uk/OurSoftware.asp

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Stardust in the solar wind...
all that is or ever been.
all we see and all we sin...
stardust in the solar wind.

Paine Ellsworth

G=EMC^2 Glazier
June 27th 03, 03:54 AM
David I'm watching what I say. Let me ask you this does Mars atmosphere
have an ozone layer? A very well received theory put together in 1996 by
a German biochemist has the precursors of life may have first formed
around volcanic cracks in the ocean floor. His reasoning the earth's
atmosphere 3.5 billion years ago had no ozone layer. Without a ozone
layer there is no protection against ultraviolet radiation. Not until 3
billion years ago did the earth create an ozone layer and then life took
off. I think there has to be oxygen in the atmosphere to create ozone.
Has the Martian atmosphere some oxygen? I posted not to long ago that
a planet two times bigger than the earth,and lots of surface water
heated by the planet's internal heat could be more beneficial to life
than a planet near a sun,and no way to block out harmful radiation.
Harmful radiation from our sun kills a half million people a year
Still I like our sun,but I'm smart enough to stay in the shade.
Bert .

David Knisely
June 27th 03, 06:15 AM
Bert posted:

> Let me ask you this does Mars atmosphere
> have an ozone layer?

Not like the Earth's. There is a small amount of Ozone in the
atmosphere of Mars (about 0.03 ppm at the surface), but its shielding
effects are fairly small.


> Without a ozone
> layer there is no protection against ultraviolet radiation.

Life originating in seas and oceans might also have some protection by
being under water.

> Has the Martian atmosphere some oxygen?

Yes, it does, although again, the amount is fairly small (Martian
Atmospheric composition at the surface: 95.32% Carbon Dioxide, 2.7%
Nitrogen, 1.6% Argon, 0.13% Oxygen (diatomic), 0.03% Water Vapor, ect.).


--
David W. Knisely
Prairie Astronomy Club: http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org
Hyde Memorial Observatory: http://www.hydeobservatory.info/

**********************************************
* Attend the 10th Annual NEBRASKA STAR PARTY *
* July 27-Aug. 1st, 2003, Merritt Reservoir *
* http://www.NebraskaStarParty.org *
**********************************************

David Knisely
June 28th 03, 07:31 AM
Bert posted:

> Lets say that these Christmas Mars landers all land(that is
> doubtful)

Well, there are no *landings* (note the plural) scheduled for
Christmas. There is only one landing scheduled for that day (the
British Beagle-2). The only other landings will be the Mars Exploration
Rovers, and they are scheduled to reach Mars in January of 2004
("Spirit" will reach Mars on January 4th). Unlike you, I am hopeful at
least one of these landers will make it down successfully.

> Lets say half of their probing equipment works.

Lets say more than 80% works.

> They find
> nothing more than what the 1962 Mars lander showed us (dust and rock.)

What?!! There was *NO* Mars lander in 1962! We hadn't even soft landed
on the moon in 1962, and the first probe to Mars didn't get there until
1965! A successful Martian soft landing was not achieved until July
20th, 1976 with the Viking-1 lander, so again, you are off by about 14
years! The last lander which reached the surface succesfully was
Pathfinder in July of 1997. Where in the world are you getting your
information??

> Would we go back again?

We will as long as questions remain to be answered about Mars (and even
with the new rovers, questions will remain, as many of the more
interesting areas on the planet have yet to be fully explored on the
surface).

> I just hope we don't have any antenna
> problems,for that has been NASA biggest problem.

Hardly. The biggest problems with NASA are lack of money and a somewhat
lack of vision.
--
David W. Knisely
Prairie Astronomy Club: http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org
Hyde Memorial Observatory: http://www.hydeobservatory.info/

**********************************************
* Attend the 10th Annual NEBRASKA STAR PARTY *
* July 27-Aug. 1st, 2003, Merritt Reservoir *
* http://www.NebraskaStarParty.org *
**********************************************

Jonathan Silverlight
June 28th 03, 10:10 AM
In message >, David Knisely
> writes
>Bert posted:
>

>> I just hope we don't have any antenna
>> problems,for that has been NASA biggest problem.
>
>Hardly. The biggest problems with NASA are lack of money and a somewhat
>lack of vision.

I think he's referring to the Galileo HGA, which crippled that mission,
and possibly the recent problem with SOHO. But why not simply kill-file
the guy? You won't teach him anything.

--
"Roads in space for rockets to travel....four-dimensional roads, curving with
relativity"
Mail to jsilverlight AT merseia.fsnet.co.uk is welcome.
Or visit Jonathan's Space Place http:\\www.merseia.fsnet.co.uk

Bill Sheppard
June 29th 03, 04:05 AM
Jonathan S wrote, regarding Bert:

>...why not simply kill-file the guy? You
>won't teach him anything.

The which Painius responded:

>This surprises me, Jonathan! Bert is
>sometimes inaccurate and frequently
>imprecise, and yet he's rarely off-topic.
>More importantly, you have no idea how
>much i've learned from David and Bert
>as a result of their backnforths.
>Sometimes what is perceived by some
>as trolling is merely a useful Devil's
>Advocate thingie. I'm not saying that Bert >does this on purpose, but
it seems that
>sometimes this is how it turns out.

Bert has been a benefit and an asset in more ways than one. Besides
Painius' aforementioned example, I have on several occasions grabbed
some 'insights' as a direct result of interacting with Bert. On another
occasion about 3=BD years ago, Bert (then known as Herb) was posting on
the subject of gravity-inertia equivalence. Interacting with Herb, I did
a web search on that subject. Totally fortuitously, I ran onto Henry
Lindner's flowing-space model of gravity and his 'clearing house' of
other people's flowing-space models of gravity(!!). I about fell over.
Up to that moment, I had no idea that other people besides Wolter have
been intuiting the very same model.
So I owe Herb (er, Bert) an unending debt of gratitude
for steering me onto this fortuitous find. Thanks, Bert.

oc

Bill Sheppard
June 29th 03, 05:18 PM
Bert wrote,

>We here all love science, and that is our
>common denominator. =A0

You said it all right there, Bert. Moreover, it don't hurt to apply a
little intuitive extrapolation (IE) 'outside the box' of the visible
cosmos once in a while.

oc

G=EMC^2 Glazier
June 30th 03, 10:59 PM
Hi BV It all came down to politics. New brains came into NASA ,and they
took one look at the Saturn and said it had no wings.(they were aircraft
engineers.from calif.) Just think if they did not scrape the Saturn,and
just improved on it(let it evolve) We would have gotten a bigger bang
for our bucks than staying in low earth orbit for 36 years(yes?) We
missed the chance of a life time to have as you say a base on the moon.
What we have now is nothing. And that is very sad. Bert

BenignVanilla
July 1st 03, 03:20 PM
"G=EMC^2 Glazier" > wrote in message
...
> Hi BV It all came down to politics. New brains came into NASA ,and they
> took one look at the Saturn and said it had no wings.(they were aircraft
> engineers.from calif.) Just think if they did not scrape the Saturn,and
> just improved on it(let it evolve) We would have gotten a bigger bang
> for our bucks than staying in low earth orbit for 36 years(yes?) We
> missed the chance of a life time to have as you say a base on the moon.
> What we have now is nothing. And that is very sad. Bert

Why did we abandon the Saturn V? Aside from political assumptions, what was
NASA's response/reason?

BV.

G=EMC^2 Glazier
July 2nd 03, 08:16 PM
Hi Jeff What Scott posted is true the Saturn V could build a base on
the moon,but it was not reuseable. The Shuttle on the other hand can go
round and round 300 miles up(low orbit) for 113 orbits,and only blow up
twice. Killing 12 astronauts,and waste 36 years. Seems 40 years ago
there was a choice to build a base on the moon or stay in low orbit for
the next 36 years. I went for the moon,for with the Saturn V its only 3
days away. I have been flamed for going in that direction for all those
years(still am) When you think of outer space you have to think big.
You have to have great vision. We throw billions of dollars
away by not recycling plactic jugs cans,and the Saturn V was not
recyclable but what a bang it gave for the buck. We should have sent
one up to the moon each 4th of July ,and with 36 trips we would have a
base on the moon flying the American flag. Now we have
nothing. Bert

G=EMC^2 Glazier
July 3rd 03, 10:33 PM
BV with a moon base just 3 days away.You could build on the moons dark
side a great mirror telescope. You could build a great radio telescope
that does not get man made waves. interference The moon has gravity.
It is a free 2,000 mile in diameter satellited. NASA missed the boat,for
they did not have the brains to operate the Saturn V,and they had to
scrape it,or they would have egg on their face. They now have egg on
their face because the Russians had to go up to rescue the astronauts in
the space station.(go figure) Bert

Henry Hansen
July 7th 03, 10:11 PM
It's refreshing to see I'm not alone in thinking that we squandered 30
years by staying in low orbit. One can only imagine how a permanent
[robotic] base on the moon would have driven improvements to our
technology.

Shouldn't we build a permanent robotic base on Mars, and only send
humans there when we have verified that the systems are operational and
can sustain life?

Perhaps we should start with the moon, where radio propagation delays
are not a big issue.

Hopefully the upcoming Mars landers / robots will capture the public's
imagination like they did back in 1976 with Viking, and 1969 with
Apollo.

Don't forget that the media also played a role in trivializing later
Apollo missions, and this probably had some impact on political
decisions.

Henry.

~~~

(G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote in
:

> Hi Jeff What Scott posted is true the Saturn V could build a base on
> the moon,but it was not reuseable. The Shuttle on the other hand can
> go round and round 300 miles up(low orbit) for 113 orbits,and only
> blow up twice. Killing 12 astronauts,and waste 36 years. Seems 40
> years ago there was a choice to build a base on the moon or stay in
> low orbit for the next 36 years. I went for the moon,for with the
> Saturn V its only 3 days away. I have been flamed for going in that
> direction for all those years(still am) When you think of outer
> space you have to think big. You have to have great vision.
> We throw billions of dollars away by not recycling plactic jugs
> cans,and the Saturn V was not recyclable but what a bang it gave
> for the buck. We should have sent one up to the moon each 4th of July
> ,and with 36 trips we would have a base on the moon flying the
> American flag. Now we have nothing. Bert
>