Zubrin on about Mars again

Marvin the Martian wrote:

:On Sun, 05 Apr 2009 04:22:14 -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote:
:
: Marvin the Martian wrote:
:
: :On Sun, 05 Apr 2009 01:12:51 -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote:
: :
: : Marvin the Martian wrote:
: :
: : :On Sun, 05 Apr 2009 00:18:13 -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote:
: : :
: : : Marvin the Martian wrote:
: : :
: : : :On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 06:05:27 +0000, Derek Lyons wrote:
: : : :
: : : : Pat Flannery wrote:
: : : :
: : : :Zubrin always puts the cart before the horse; he wants people to go to
: : : :Mars, so he is constantly trying to find some economic or philosophical
: : : :reason for that to happen,
: : : :
: : : : And that fetish for Grand Themes is a great deal of what keeps him and
: : : : his ilk grounded.
: : : :
: : : : D.
: : : :
: : : :The reason for going to the moon:
: : : :1) Fresh bag of moon rocks.
: : : :2) Build an observatory.
: : : :
: : : :The reasons for going to Mars:
: : : :1) New bag of Mars rocks.
: : : :2) Biology: find if there was life on Mars, Is life on Mars, and if not
: : : :why not?
: :
: : Silly. It won't tell us anything we don't already know from the much
: : more biodiverse Earth.
: :
: :Of course it would tell us much, as any life found on Mars evolved on a
: :different planet, probably totally independent from life on earth.
: :
:
: which would REALLY tell us nothing, then, since it's totally
: different.
:
:That is so non sequitor. You learn from observing different but similar
:things. You learn by getting a broad sample, not a narrow sample.
:

So you would expect to learn about biology by watching glassblowing?

: : : :3) Climate science: we accuse CO2 of global warming. Mars has more CO2 in
: : : :it's atmosphere than earth. We could learn about climate there. Especially
: : : :if we try to terraform it.
: :
: : Really silly and runs the 'learning' the wrong way. First you
: : understand, THEN you terraform. Doing it the other way around it just
: : nuts and guaranteed to fail.
: :
: :It's called hypothesis and experiment. We have a hypothesis that says CO2
: :causes warming, We study the Martian climate to see how CO2 affects its
: :climate, and take some ice core samples to see what the CO2 levels were in
: :the past. This would give us clues as to how climate behaved on Mars.
: :
:
: Except there's no big variation and no place to take ice cores from
: that will tell you anything. You have to have growth of the ice caps
: for ice cores to mean anything.
:
:The Phoenix lander found ice. First by just landing on it and then by
:scraping the surface. Another probe found ice several miles deep. So,
:there ice from which to take ice cores.
:

But ice cores tell you nothing unless you have some clue as to the
deposition rate (and there actually has to BE a deposition rate, not
just fossil ices).

:
:Growth can be determined to exist or not exist via isotope dating. Since
:there are no tree rings or such to compare it to, it would be a crude sort
f dating but it would show a sequence.
:

Would it? Why? You REALLY need to learn something about this stuff
before expressing silly opinions.

: :
: :Then we can experiment with powerful greenhouse gases and see if we can
: :cause a runaway greenhouse effect and get liquid oceans on Mars again.
: :
:
: Yes, and vastly increasing the atmosphere (with anything) would have
: no effect at all, so any change would be from these "powerful
: greenhouse gasses".
:
:How do you know there would be no effect until you do the experiment?
:Of course there would be an effect. The experiment shows what that effect
:would be.
:

Experiments only work when you can control all other variables. Your
position amounts to changing EVERYTHING and then when you see a change
wanting to claim that one out of the thousands of things you changed
is responsible for it.

:
:And just the fact that the CO2 level is 18x that found on earth, and there
:isn't much warming, might tell us something.
:

Or it might not.

: : Mars doesn't have more CO2 in its atmosphere than Earth, by the way. The
: : percentage is higher but the amount of atmosphere is microscopic.
: :
: :Mars has 7.6 mb of atmosphere, 95% of which is CO2, or a partial pressure
: f 7.2 mb.
: :
: :Earth has 1013 mb of atmosphere, 0.035% of which is CO2, or a partial
: ressure of .4 mb.
: :
: :So, even pressure wise, Mars has about 18x the CO2. Now, it's colder on
: :Mars so the molar density of CO2 on Mars is higher still than on Earth.
: :
:
: See the "Unsolved Puzzles" section:
:
: http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclo...Marspoles.html
:
:That's a slick personal blog, but it does not support your claim that Mars
:has less CO2 than Earth. It talks about total CO2 in frozen ice caps, which
:is irrelevant to the amount of CO2 in the respective earth's and Martian
:atmospheres NOW.
:
: :
: : : :4) Mars can support a colony.
: :
: : So can the Moon.
: :
: :Carbon based life forms made mostly of water need carbon and water to
: :survive. Mars has lots of carbon and lots of water. The moon has no carbon
: :and very little water. Any colony on the moon would be doomed to eventual
: :extinction without contant replentisment of carbon and water from earth.
: :
:
: Silly. You're talking huge quantities of stuff even if it's
: relatively rare by comparison. When you need more, go out and snag
: the nearest convenient asteroid.
:
:The effort today is to get a 60 ton Hab and a 60 ton Return to Earth
:vehicle on the Martian surface. It is a major effort at the cost of tens
f billions of dollars...
:
:And you flippantly talk about moving asteroids about? And saying that the
:lack of carbon and water on the moon is an issue for colonization is silly
:because you can move asteroids about?
:

What 'lack'? Try reading this again. "You're talking about huge
quantities of stuff even if it's relatively rare by comparison".

Get it now?

:
:Are you... trolling?
:

Perhaps you should try... reading?

: : : :5) at 4 km/s to LMO, and being able to support a colony, Mars
: : becomes the : :gateway for humanity to the solar system.
: :
: : Easier to get off the Moon than to get off Mars.
: :
: :Yes. But it is easier to land on Mars than on the moon due to aerobraking.
: :
:
: Well, no. That makes it HARDER due to the thinness of the Martian
: atmosphere.
:
:The rocket equation dictates mass ratios of rockets to fuel. The more fuel
:you have to bring (to the moon to land) the less mass you can land on the
:moon. Aerobraking means you can reduce Kinetic energy by friction with the
:atmosphere and don't need to bring the fuel to slow the craft down, like
:you do on the moon.
:

Yes, aerobraking would mean that IF YOU COULD DO IT. But just waving
your arms and chanting 'aerobraking' doesn't allow you to simply
dispense with the 4.1 km/sec velocity change you need to get down from
low orbit.

:
:This is why the delta V to Mars during a launch window is LESS than the
:delta V to the moon.
:
:What you say has no basis, makes no sense, and isn't true.
:

Take off your shoes...

: :Total up down delta V is much better on Mars. The delta V to get to Mars,
: :during a window for a Hohmann transfer orbit, is less to get to the
: :surface of Mars than it is to get to the surface of the moon!
: :
:
: Show your work. No hand waving at the Mars end about aerobraking.
:
:You betcha.
:
:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_v...e_Solar_System
:
:The rest is arithmetic.
:

Yes, it is. Let's add it up, shall we?

Moon = 10+4.1+1.6 = 15.7 km/sec

Mars = 10+2.5+0.7+0.6+0.9+0.2+0.3+0.9+4.1 = 20.1 km/sec

Just getting to Mars orbit takes more delta V than getting down to the
surface of the Moon (16.1 km/sec vice 15.7 km/sec).

Hint: Arithmetic - get some.

And aerobraking doesn't get you back UP, even if you magically assume
it eliminates all need for fuel on the way down (and for Mars that's
not even a close approximation).

:
: :And in the distant future, Mars can support a space elevator made of
: :common Kevlar. The moon has such a slow rotation, so not as well.
: :
:
: But you don't need one, since Lunar gravity is low enough for a rail
: gun to be useful.
:
:1) You can't bring all the material to the moon to build a rail gun.
:

You don't need to.

:
:The
:cost would be huge. And no carbon and little hydrogen on the moon means all
:those nifty plastic insulators have to be brought up from earth at a huge
:cost.
:

Nonsense.

:
:2) There is no known way to make good electrical contact with the
rojectile even at lunar escape velocity. Making Kevlar, on the other
:hand, is current technology.
:

Uh, is this supposed to mean something?

: : :
: : : :Going to the moon cost about as much per day as going to Mars. So,
: : why are : :we going to the moon and NOT Mars? : :
: :
: : Makes no sense.
: :
: : :
: : : Because all your preceding 'logic' isn't logic. : : :Is there a fact
: : you dispute or a reason that doesn't follow in my post? :Then please
: : point it out! I wouldn't want to be wrong. Just saying "isn't :so" is
: : not convincing at all. I need to know why.
: :
: : I trust that addresses your concerns?
: :
: :Yes. I was worried I was wrong. I wasn't.
:
: I see. Your head is up and locked, as well as fact free. Carry on. I
: shan't bother with you further.
:
:LOL!
:

You're getting no smarter. Perhaps you should give up?

--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

OM wrote:

:On Sun, 05 Apr 2009 02:28:31 -0500, Marvin the Martian
wrote:
:
:Is there a fact you dispute or a reason that doesn't follow in my post?
:Then please point it out! I wouldn't want to be wrong. Just saying "isn't
:so" is not convincing at all. I need to know why.
:
:...Asking Fred for such information is like asking your dentist to
:remove a hemorrhoid and tell you what he's doing while he's down
:there, especially explaining why he's got both hands on your shoulders
:wbile he's checking your prostate.
:

I see OM is still the same dickhead he's historically been.

I'm beginning to think that the folks betting on him getting the
moderators tired of his crap are right.

--
"You take the lies out of him, and he'll shrink to the size of
your hat; you take the malice out of him, and he'll disappear."
-- Mark Twain

OM wrote:

:On Sun, 05 Apr 2009 16:41:57 -0500, Marvin the Martian
wrote:
:
:I try not to. But Fred does make it hard...
:
:...Eric Chumpko said that as well. That's why they were a married but
:bickering couple for over a decade.
:

And he continues to hallucinate.

OM is among the worst trolls here, so far as I can tell. Has he ever
posted ANYTHING worthwhile?

--
"You take the lies out of him, and he'll shrink to the size of
your hat; you take the malice out of him, and he'll disappear."
-- Mark Twain

Marvin the Martian wrote:
:
:water vapor is, by far, the major greenhouse gas. I've not seen data
:where it is increasing faster than CO2, but it would make sense it would
:due to the temperature increase.
:

But then you need to take into account the increase in albedo from the
increased cloud cover (hence less insolation hence less energy
deposition and heating at the surface).

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

On Wed, 08 Apr 2009 01:45:13 -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote:

Marvin the Martian wrote: :
:water vapor is, by far, the major greenhouse gas. I've not seen data
:where it is increasing faster than CO2, but it would make sense it
would :due to the temperature increase.
:

But then you need to take into account the increase in albedo from the
increased cloud cover (hence less insolation hence less energy
deposition and heating at the surface).

And as Svensmark showed, cosmic rays cause cloud nucleation.

CO2 has very little to do with climate change, other than to be an effect
and not a significant cause.



--
http://OnToMars.org For discussions about Mars and Mars colonization

Marvin the Martian wrote:

CO2 has very little to do with climate change, other than to be an effect
and not a significant cause.

You need to start again at arithmetic.