|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Discussion on sci.space.science
On Saturday, August 18, 2018 at 8:43:19 AM UTC-4, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article , says... On Saturday, August 18, 2018 at 8:28:40 AM UTC-4, Jeff Findley wrote: In article , says... One of the articles that I found, said that if the terraforming process went awry, that fixing the issues might make the whole process far more difficult and time consuming than it would be from starting with the virgin planet. True. There is always a chance that something might go awry. But there is also the chance something will go awry with earth's climate as well (natural cycles, man made problems, and etc.). There are no guarantees in this universe. True. The Sun could go nova and expand its envelope to beyond the orbit of Mars. I'm sure it will, eventually. If humans want to survive on that sort of timescale, we need to GTFO of the solar system. On that timescale, terraforming Mars is "practice" for terraforming exosolar planetary bodies. What if they go to another solar system and then that star blows up also? |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Discussion on sci.space.science
JF Mezei wrote on Sat, 18 Aug 2018
12:48:30 -0400: On 2018-08-18 10:04, Alain Fournier wrote: CO2 is quite transparent to visible light. Sun light will go right through and hit the ground where it will be transformed into heat. CO2 is much less transparent to infra-red radiation. So heat at ground level will have a somewhat hard time escaping to space. It will do so by heating the atmosphere a little higher which will then heat the atmosphere again a little higher etc. When you have a thick , compressed and compact atmosphere, when the ground emits infrared, the CO2 captures it at an altitude that is part of the weather and thus warms the atmopsphere people on the ground feel But if most of the heat is captured by CO2 that is very very very high up and far away from "weather" atmosphere, then the heat at that altitude may not benefit the atmpsphere on the ground. So Venus obviously isn't hot because most of the CO2 is 'up high' due to lower gravity? Mayfly, meet reality. You may get better efficiency placing black panels at ground level to heat the low altitude atmosphere instead of moving celestial bodies to impact Mars to add CO2 to it. Or heck, a nuclear power plant does put out large quantities of heat day and night. Again you've forgotten that the point is increased atmospheric pressure and radiation shielding, not just to make it a little warmer. -- "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar territory." --G. Behn |
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 |