|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Discussion on sci.space.science
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Discussion on sci.space.science
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Discussion on sci.space.science
On Wednesday, August 8, 2018 at 7:34:07 AM UTC-4, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article , says... I forget how many octillion tons of oxygen it would take, but the problem is getting it there in the needed quantities and then keeping it there. Apparently nearly all of its atmosphere (even assuming it was Earthlike at one time) has long since departed due to the effects of gravity and solar radiation. Keeping it there isn't much of a problem. In the short term (hundreds of thousands of years) it won't lose enough to matter. A few more Kuiper belt objects would make up for the loss. So the idea is that they spend a decade or so "pumping it up" to Earthlike atmosphere, and then that will last for millions of years before it leaks away? In the long term, you put a giant electromagnet between Mars and the sun in order to produce an artificial magnetic field to mimic the protection earth's magnetic field gives it. Note from above this gives you hundreds of thousands of years to perfect that tech and scale it up to sufficient size. The arguments against terraforming Mars sound a lot like the myriad of arguments against heavier than air travel before the Wright Brothers successfully demonstrated that it was possible. Yet a few weeks ago, I flew to Shanghai and back for a week long business trip which is a 12 hour time zone difference from where I live, so roughly half way around the planet. And that was only a bit over one hundred years later. Terraforming is on a much bigger timescale, so we have a much longer time frame to perfect the tech necessary to complete the task. Really. Heavier than air travel was a matter of engineering developments that provided a powerful enough engine and an airframe that could handle the 100+ mph speeds that would keep it airborne. A 600-pound machine. The theory was known for hundreds of years if not thousands. The arguments against terraforming Mars are like trying to explain to someone how the Sun can be a hydrogen bomb but there is so much mass there that gravity alone is sufficient to create the temperatures needed for hydrogen fusion, and this hydrogen fusion process will last for at least 5 billion more years before it runs out of fuel. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Discussion on sci.space.science
On Aug/8/2018 at 10:00 PM, Scott M. Kozel wrote :
On Wednesday, August 8, 2018 at 7:34:07 AM UTC-4, Jeff Findley wrote: In article , says... I forget how many octillion tons of oxygen it would take, but the problem is getting it there in the needed quantities and then keeping it there. Apparently nearly all of its atmosphere (even assuming it was Earthlike at one time) has long since departed due to the effects of gravity and solar radiation. Keeping it there isn't much of a problem. In the short term (hundreds of thousands of years) it won't lose enough to matter. A few more Kuiper belt objects would make up for the loss. So the idea is that they spend a decade or so "pumping it up" to Earthlike atmosphere, and then that will last for millions of years before it leaks away? That's about it. I would change the word decade for century. There is also a little more to terraforming Mars than adding an atmosphere, but that is the bulk of it. You would also want to add water, which would probably be a side effect of adding the atmosphere. Then you want to grow plants. Before you can say that Mars has been terraformed you want plants to have been growing plants for a century to add O2 to the atmosphere and a layer of topsoil. Alain Fournier |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Discussion on sci.space.science
In article ,
says... On Wednesday, August 8, 2018 at 7:34:07 AM UTC-4, Jeff Findley wrote: In article , says... I forget how many octillion tons of oxygen it would take, but the problem is getting it there in the needed quantities and then keeping it there. Apparently nearly all of its atmosphere (even assuming it was Earthlike at one time) has long since departed due to the effects of gravity and solar radiation. Keeping it there isn't much of a problem. In the short term (hundreds of thousands of years) it won't lose enough to matter. A few more Kuiper belt objects would make up for the loss. So the idea is that they spend a decade or so "pumping it up" to Earthlike atmosphere, and then that will last for millions of years before it leaks away? More like hundreds or thousands of years, but yes. In the short term, losing atmosphere is a manageable problem. In the long term, you'd likely want a technological solution (like a strategically placed giant magnet) that would reduce the rate of atmosphere loss. In the long term, you put a giant electromagnet between Mars and the sun in order to produce an artificial magnetic field to mimic the protection earth's magnetic field gives it. Note from above this gives you hundreds of thousands of years to perfect that tech and scale it up to sufficient size. The arguments against terraforming Mars sound a lot like the myriad of arguments against heavier than air travel before the Wright Brothers successfully demonstrated that it was possible. Yet a few weeks ago, I flew to Shanghai and back for a week long business trip which is a 12 hour time zone difference from where I live, so roughly half way around the planet. And that was only a bit over one hundred years later. Terraforming is on a much bigger timescale, so we have a much longer time frame to perfect the tech necessary to complete the task. Really. Heavier than air travel was a matter of engineering developments that provided a powerful enough engine and an airframe that could handle the 100+ mph speeds that would keep it airborne. A 600-pound machine. The theory was known for hundreds of years if not thousands. This really isn't any different. The theory is rock solid. You're essentially recreating the magnetic shielding that the earth has thanks to its magnetic shield. This is not at all different than heavier than air flight before it was proven possible by the Wright Brothers. The details needed to create such a huge magnetic field are "just engineering problems to solve". Granted it may take hundreds or even thousands of years to actually implement the solution. But, that's still a very short amount of time when you consider the actual rate of atmosphere loss you'd have on a terraformed Mars without any magnetic shielding. People that say terraforming Mars would be impossible are just like those people that used to say "If God had meant man to fly, he'd have given man wings". Jeff -- All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone. These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends, employer, or any organization that I am a member of. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Discussion on sci.space.science
On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 7:46:41 AM UTC-4, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article , says... Heavier than air travel was a matter of engineering developments that provided a powerful enough engine and an airframe that could handle the 100+ mph speeds that would keep it airborne. A 600-pound machine. The theory was known for hundreds of years if not thousands. This really isn't any different. The theory is rock solid. You're essentially recreating the magnetic shielding that the earth has thanks to its magnetic shield. This is not at all different than heavier than air flight before it was proven possible by the Wright Brothers. Building a 600-pound machine when the metallurgy and engineering was at a point to sustain 100-mph flight, is rather simple compared to building a magnet that weighs quadrillions or quintillions (or whatever) of tons. A 300-ton Boeing 777 is also a speck in comparison. The details needed to create such a huge magnetic field are "just engineering problems to solve". Granted it may take hundreds or even thousands of years to actually implement the solution. But, that's still a very short amount of time when you consider the actual rate of atmosphere loss you'd have on a terraformed Mars without any magnetic shielding. People that say terraforming Mars would be impossible are just like those people that used to say "If God had meant man to fly, he'd have given man wings". Possibly the theory behind warp drive is "rock solid" as well, if you are looking at thousands of years until actually implementing the solution. Assuming that quintillions of tons of oxygen can be found and moved to Mars. The Sun example is apropos. It is hard to humanly comprehend the amount of mass that we are talking about. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Discussion on sci.space.science
JF Mezei wrote on Thu, 9 Aug 2018
14:24:38 -0400: On 2018-08-08 07:36, Jeff Findley wrote: Actually you can estimate the rate of loss over time based on how much of an atmosphere is there today. You can also estimate it based on other factors like how big Mars is, how strong the solar wind is at that distance, and etc. It's not like we're completely clueless here. Since there is knowledge that Mars used used to have thicker atmosphere but lost it over time, is there a point is going through efforts to add more gas to its atnopphere if the extra gas will be lost anyways ? It's all about time scales. Can you add enough gas fast enough and will it lose it slowly enough to be worthwhile. Everything we build is going to decay. This wouldn't be any different. -- "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man." --George Bernard Shaw |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Discussion on sci.space.science
In article ,
says... On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 7:46:41 AM UTC-4, Jeff Findley wrote: In article , says... Heavier than air travel was a matter of engineering developments that provided a powerful enough engine and an airframe that could handle the 100+ mph speeds that would keep it airborne. A 600-pound machine. The theory was known for hundreds of years if not thousands. This really isn't any different. The theory is rock solid. You're essentially recreating the magnetic shielding that the earth has thanks to its magnetic shield. This is not at all different than heavier than air flight before it was proven possible by the Wright Brothers. Building a 600-pound machine when the metallurgy and engineering was at a point to sustain 100-mph flight, is rather simple compared to building a magnet that weighs quadrillions or quintillions (or whatever) of tons. A 300-ton Boeing 777 is also a speck in comparison. It's "just" a question of scale. Again, we went from a first heavier than air flight measured in yards to Boeing 777s flying half way around the world in about 100 years. So, building a big magnet to shield Mars ought to be something we can do in several hundreds or several thousands of years. Tech keeps getting better and better. Manufacturing keeps getting better and better. We have the entire asteroid belt to use for raw material if we have to. I don't see any fundamental show-stoppers given much time and effort. The alternative is to keep dropping comets on Mars, from time to time, to make up for the loss. Either way, loss of atmosphere is something to deal with on a very, very long timescale and really is not a show- stopper for terraforming Mars. The details needed to create such a huge magnetic field are "just engineering problems to solve". Granted it may take hundreds or even thousands of years to actually implement the solution. But, that's still a very short amount of time when you consider the actual rate of atmosphere loss you'd have on a terraformed Mars without any magnetic shielding. People that say terraforming Mars would be impossible are just like those people that used to say "If God had meant man to fly, he'd have given man wings". Possibly the theory behind warp drive is "rock solid" as well, if you are looking at thousands of years until actually implementing the solution. Not the same thing at all. We know how to build electromagnets. We use them all the time. They also keep getting better with each passing year. Electric motors were crap for electric cars in the 1970s, but now they're quite good and both hybrid and electric cars which use them are quite common. Same thing with the Wright Brothers. We'd been building gliders for centuries before their first powered flight. "All" they did was to miniaturize and lightweight a gasoline motor so that it became a viable means to add power to a glider. I put "all" in quotes because their achievement was quite historical and in many ways made our modern society possible. But from a physics point of view, both Langley and the Wright Brothers knew that this was absolutely possible. It was just a question of who would achieve the goal first. Warp drive has not been demonstrated at all. Not the same thing at all. Assuming that quintillions of tons of oxygen can be found and moved to Mars. The Kuiper belt has a total mass estimated to range between 1/25 and 1/10 the mass of the Earth. Mass of Earth is about 6 * 10^24 kg. We'll also have some losses due to using some of the mass of the objects as propellant. Also not all the mass of the objects will be volatiles, so we'll have to discount that as well. So let's say we have 5 * 10^21 kg of volatiles we can "easily" get to Mars. The mass of earth's atmosphere is "only" about 5 * 10^18 kg. So, I think we're good considering the orders of magnitude we're talking about here. Again, even if the magnet thing doesn't pan out, just keep dropping Kuiper belt objects from time to time. We've got the mass in the Kuiper belt to spare. The Sun example is apropos. It is hard to humanly comprehend the amount of mass that we are talking about. Yeah, the numbers we're talking about are huge. Jeff -- All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone. These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends, employer, or any organization that I am a member of. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Discussion on sci.space.science
"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
... In article , says... On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 7:46:41 AM UTC-4, Jeff Findley wrote: In article , says... Heavier than air travel was a matter of engineering developments that provided a powerful enough engine and an airframe that could handle the 100+ mph speeds that would keep it airborne. A 600-pound machine. The theory was known for hundreds of years if not thousands. This really isn't any different. The theory is rock solid. You're essentially recreating the magnetic shielding that the earth has thanks to its magnetic shield. This is not at all different than heavier than air flight before it was proven possible by the Wright Brothers. Building a 600-pound machine when the metallurgy and engineering was at a point to sustain 100-mph flight, is rather simple compared to building a magnet that weighs quadrillions or quintillions (or whatever) of tons. A 300-ton Boeing 777 is also a speck in comparison. It's "just" a question of scale. Again, we went from a first heavier than air flight measured in yards to Boeing 777s flying half way around the world in about 100 years. So, building a big magnet to shield Mars ought to be something we can do in several hundreds or several thousands of years. Tech keeps getting better and better. Manufacturing keeps getting better and better. We have the entire asteroid belt to use for raw material if we have to. I don't see any fundamental show-stoppers given much time and effort. The alternative is to keep dropping comets on Mars, from time to time, to make up for the loss. Either way, loss of atmosphere is something to deal with on a very, very long timescale and really is not a show- stopper for terraforming Mars. The details needed to create such a huge magnetic field are "just engineering problems to solve". Granted it may take hundreds or even thousands of years to actually implement the solution. But, that's still a very short amount of time when you consider the actual rate of atmosphere loss you'd have on a terraformed Mars without any magnetic shielding. People that say terraforming Mars would be impossible are just like those people that used to say "If God had meant man to fly, he'd have given man wings". Possibly the theory behind warp drive is "rock solid" as well, if you are looking at thousands of years until actually implementing the solution. Not the same thing at all. We know how to build electromagnets. We use them all the time. They also keep getting better with each passing year. Electric motors were crap for electric cars in the 1970s, but now they're quite good and both hybrid and electric cars which use them are quite common. Same thing with the Wright Brothers. We'd been building gliders for centuries before their first powered flight. "All" they did was to miniaturize and lightweight a gasoline motor so that it became a viable means to add power to a glider. I put "all" in quotes because their achievement was quite historical and in many ways made our modern society possible. But from a physics point of view, both Langley and the Wright Brothers knew that this was absolutely possible. It was just a question of who would achieve the goal first. Umm, I'd say it was more than that, thought that was a big part of it. The ability to control via wing-warping was sort of new. But also their realization that a prop really needed an airfoil shape also made a difference (not sure but guessing it helped make their tiny gasoline engine setup efficient enough to actually work). So a bit more than just the motor :-) But agreed, it was basically an engineering problem. Warp drive.. it s bit more. Warp drive has not been demonstrated at all. Not the same thing at all. Assuming that quintillions of tons of oxygen can be found and moved to Mars. The Kuiper belt has a total mass estimated to range between 1/25 and 1/10 the mass of the Earth. Mass of Earth is about 6 * 10^24 kg. We'll also have some losses due to using some of the mass of the objects as propellant. Also not all the mass of the objects will be volatiles, so we'll have to discount that as well. So let's say we have 5 * 10^21 kg of volatiles we can "easily" get to Mars. The mass of earth's atmosphere is "only" about 5 * 10^18 kg. So, I think we're good considering the orders of magnitude we're talking about here. Again, even if the magnet thing doesn't pan out, just keep dropping Kuiper belt objects from time to time. We've got the mass in the Kuiper belt to spare. The Sun example is apropos. It is hard to humanly comprehend the amount of mass that we are talking about. Yeah, the numbers we're talking about are huge. Jeff -- Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/ CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net IT Disaster Response - https://www.amazon.com/Disaster-Resp...dp/1484221834/ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
I am stunned theres so little discussion here about the space suit malfunction | bob haller | Policy | 2 | December 25th 13 04:12 AM |
Great Griffin/ESAS Discussion At Space Politics | Rand Simberg[_1_] | Policy | 24 | May 23rd 07 07:21 PM |
sci.space.tech and sci.space.science Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | s.s.t moderator | Policy | 0 | April 18th 04 11:59 AM |
sci.space.tech and sci.space.science Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | s.s.t moderator | Policy | 0 | February 29th 04 12:00 PM |
sci.space.tech and sci.space.science Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | s.s.t moderator | Policy | 0 | February 22nd 04 12:00 PM |