It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

To Terraform Mars will be harder than thought

page: 2
16
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 30 2018 @ 04:08 PM
link   
a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF


Oh. Restart the core! That all??


I know. No biggie. geez. What was I thinking?!


Mars' magnetic field is a mess! Wonder what happened to it in the first place?


IMO, and it's not as yet confirmed, the Borealis Basin may be the remnants of an impact. If it is, that would hork the planetary core. The Hellas Basin IS an impact for sure. That'd bigger than anything we know has hit Earth since Theia.

A great way to get some idea what happened would be to drop a half dozen Insight type landers and then drop rocks on the planet. The seismic waves from the impacts would allow us to characterize Mars' interior.



Mars as a new frontier, habitable enough people could lie without spacesuits, building a whole new world is a romantic dream. But like most romances, it's more fantasy than reality.

Now, just to be clear, that volcanic island off the mainland coast is MINE. Keep your grubby hands off it all of you.




posted on Jul, 30 2018 @ 04:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Nickn3

The asteroids and comets have far, far too little water. You need a Kuiper belt object for enough volatiles. That's something in the same class as Pluto.



posted on Jul, 30 2018 @ 04:41 PM
link   
So if the magnetic field of mars is too weak, doesnt that imply that any terraform attempt will be doomed?
Like dust in the solarwind



posted on Jul, 30 2018 @ 04:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: anzha
a reply to: Nickn3

The asteroids and comets have far, far too little water. You need a Kuiper belt object for enough volatiles. That's something in the same class as Pluto.


I seem to remember an episode of Buck Rodger where they towed a frozen asteroid of pure oxygen back to earth through their version of an orbital stargate.

If we have to then we go to the Kuiper belt. All we need are some tugs and change the gravitational constant of the universe. This is dreaming but it’s fun, we can barely get to the moon semi reliably. Perhaps some day, but not in my lifetime.

It’s dreaming unless someone is holding out on me, do one of you guys have a plan for warp drive written on a cocktail napkin, that your hiding.



posted on Jul, 30 2018 @ 04:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: anzha

Trying to terraform Mars is by far and away the dumbest idea I've ever heard of! It sounds like something Maxine Waters or Sheila Jackson Lee would propose.

The only way for humans to successfully inhabit Mars would be underground; they need to find a caves and Caverns systems in Mars.........not on it. Trying to occupy the surface is beyond dumb. Have you seen their massive sand storms? Everything would be destroyed.


The sandstorms wouldn't actually destroy anything. The atmosphere is so thin that even winds of several hundred miles per hour barely generate any force. So the winds themselves won't do appreciable damage. The sand itself is a problem but only in the sense that it gets into everything and can jam up equipment, block solar panels, etc. The main problem with living on the surface is radiation and micrometeorite impacts. The atmosphere is so thin that all the small objects that burn up in Earth's atmosphere would speed right down to the surface of Mars at a few thousand miles per hour.



posted on Jul, 30 2018 @ 05:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Jubei42

As already stated, the atmosphere would stay useful for people for at least a million years. Our species of hominin hasn't even lasted that long.



posted on Jul, 30 2018 @ 06:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nickn3
Perhaps we could even nudge Mars a little closer to the sun using the impacters.10 or 15 asteroids in the 5 cubic mile size should do nicely.
It’s fun to dream.



Moving the orbit of Mars closer to the Sun would probably screw up Earth's orbit.

The Solar system has settled into this balance of orbits, with each orbiting body being dependent on the orbits of its neighbors.



posted on Jul, 30 2018 @ 07:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

I'd recommend against pulling Mars closer. However, one of the things we've learned from exoplanetary orbits is our solar system layout isn't as cast in stone as we thought. It would be possible to drop another planet in between earth and mars, maybe two, based on the closely packed systems.



posted on Jul, 30 2018 @ 08:01 PM
link   
I seriously don't understand what started all this buzz about Mars. No one is going there any time soon. We haven't even built a base on the moon yet. We never even returned there (if we ever even went there at all) and now we're talking about Mars? Completely ridiculous!

Build a base on the moon first and I might believe it's possible to go to Mars. When I was younger, we talked about building on the bottom of the ocean. We never did that either. Mars - not gonna happen. It's all BS to get the govt to fund these private rocket companies.



posted on Jul, 30 2018 @ 08:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Ya know, that was actually a great answer.
If we could do it,
if the world could turn Mars into a factory planet,
you could terra form it into what earth will become if we don't do something

We should find a way to shift all Production work to mars.
We can heat it up without really worrying about pollution because that would help.
Maybe 500 years down the road with heavy pollution the atmosphere would warm up and be more dense.
Then we could blast it with meteors to wipe out the pollution and hit the reset button on Mars with an atmosphere already in place like early earth.

YEAH!!




posted on Jul, 30 2018 @ 08:16 PM
link   
a reply to: toms54

You don't need to go to the Moon to go to Mars. one is not a station for the other. Otherwise, we'd send Mars probes to the Moon and then from there to Mars. We don't.

We are starting to build the Lunar Orbiting Platform-Gateway in 4 years. May I suggest this post I wrote? The intent is to use the LOPG (hate that acronym, btw) as a point to build the Mars ship and also send people down to the lunar surface.

The Chinese are not impressed with it though. They think it better to just go to the lunar surface and build a base directly. If you are limiting yourself to the lunar surface, they're right. If you're planning on a site to build the first interplanetary spacecraft as well as a potential gateway to the lunar surface, NASA is right. It all depends on what your goals are.



posted on Jul, 30 2018 @ 08:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: anzha
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

I'd recommend against pulling Mars closer. However, one of the things we've learned from exoplanetary orbits is our solar system layout isn't as cast in stone as we thought. It would be possible to drop another planet in between earth and mars, maybe two, based on the closely packed systems.


He doesn't mean it's impossible to get it closer, he just means doing so may destabilize Earth's orbit. Sure, looking at exosystems you can find all kinds of oribital configurations. But how do you know they're stable? What we've got now is pretty stable, I woudln't screw with it.



posted on Jul, 30 2018 @ 08:33 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

I was stating we can probably fit a few other planets between and keep it stable. The Titus Bode rule isn't one.

Now if *WE* moved Mars, I bet it'd screw it up. I mean, that's a pretty big thing to do for your first attempt.

If we have the tech to move Mars, I'd rather just send Quaoar to the surface instead, perhaps with some other...stuff.



posted on Jul, 31 2018 @ 12:45 AM
link   
I was just spitballing about moving the orbit of Mars. That would take a type 3 or 4 civilisation and we are barely a type 0. However It would be cool to have another planet in solar orbit directly opposite Earth with similar weather. It could be a lifeboat for human kind.

I love to let my mind wonder about what greatness we may someday be capable of, it beats the hell out of politics.



posted on Jul, 31 2018 @ 01:34 AM
link   
a reply to: anzha

The problem here is what without a magnetic field, it is not just pressure suits, but protective gear to prevent long term damage from the solar radiation that would be bombarding the planet. By having a magnetic field and the rotation would offset the gravitational forces that would be at work. Slowly increasing the mass, via the asteroids, would help start to build the mass to increase the gravity. Also by having an active core, that would help increase the temp of the planet as well.

Most comets are from the Kuiper Belt, while some objects are smaller, the reason for the comet is that their size makes them ideal for use for putting onto the planet for water.

Initially the problem is going to be having protection from the environment.

but as far as a million year time scale, lets just say by that time frame, hopefully the species will be interstellar and travelling to other planets and leaving the cradle.



posted on Jul, 31 2018 @ 05:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: anzha
a reply to: sdcigarpig

A magnetic field isn't required for terraforming on the million year time scale. It would take longer than that for the atmosphere to erode once it has been brought up to sea level..


Yeah but wouldn’t you want a magnetosphere to help block cosmic rays, solar flares and such?


Why would restarting the core of Mars increase the gravity?


I was thinking the same thing.


There are not enough comets to make it worthwhile to hunt them down to use on Mars for terraforming. A Kuiper Belt Object (whether mined and sent in as discreet payloads or all together) makes far, far more sense for water and other volatiles. Ceres would make more sense than comets do.


How long do you think it would take for the dust to settle enough to roam freely?


Totally agree about clean up though. Losing its water and its atmosphere has made Mars into light years beyond a superfund site. At least Venus is worse.


Yeah it would take centuries to terraform Mars fully. Until then it will be “bio-dome” habitats spread all over.


edit on 7/31/2018 by Alien Abduct because: Fixed quotes



posted on Jul, 31 2018 @ 06:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Alien Abduct




Yeah it would take centuries to terraform Mars fully. Until then it will be “bio-dome” habitats spread all over.


Which might be possible with regular supplies from Earth. As we can't live in a biosphere here on Earth successfully.



posted on Jul, 31 2018 @ 10:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: anzha
a reply to: toms54

You don't need to go to the Moon to go to Mars. one is not a station for the other. Otherwise, we'd send Mars probes to the Moon and then from there to Mars.


Thank you for that explanation. It all makes sense now. Of course it's much better to go all the way to Mars and stake your life on unproven technology in a Mars base that's never been tested under off planet conditions. If they can't even do it on the moon, what makes you think they can do it on Mars?



posted on Jul, 31 2018 @ 11:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Alien Abduct


Yeah but wouldn’t you want a magnetosphere to help block cosmic rays, solar flares and such?


The magnetic field would be great, of course. However, restarting the core is even harder than atmospheric and biospheric terraforming. The atmosphere, iirc, takes care of the cosmic rays. The solar flares would be great, but the main concern is atmospheric erosion. Remember Mars is 50% further away from the Sun than Earth is. Flares and the solar wind spread.


How long do you think it would take for the dust to settle enough to roam freely?


Roam freely with or without a suit to protect from the now sea level pressure, but toxic atmosphere?

The former, you could do it within a couple years of the last rock drop. Perhaps even less than a year, but it still requires a suit because the atmosphere, while thick, will be unbreathable. The latter? It would take a century or more. It depends on how fast the various chemical reactions play out. Consider: that's a lot of perchlorate that has to be broken down. When it is, depending on how it is, the chlorine compounds might be as benign as sodium salt. They could be far nastier. Then there is also the build up of oxygen as well. It took time on Earth because of all the metals that needed to be oxidized. While Mars is far more rusty, it will still take time.


Yeah it would take centuries to terraform Mars fully. Until then it will be “bio-dome” habitats spread all over.


Domes, caverns, etc. The problem is the chemical mess. If that leaks in, it'll be nasty. OTOH, it'd be amazing to have different groups designing and releasing their own critters and plants adapted to Mars. Sorta like waves of different visions of life crashing into one another.



posted on Jul, 31 2018 @ 01:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nickn3
It would be nice to locate a few asteroids of frozen o2, co2, and h2o, and put them on a path for re-entery near the equator. The heat friction could melt the chemical ice and rain onto the surface. Perhaps we could even nudge Mars a little closer to the sun using the impacters.10 or 15 asteroids in the 5 cubic mile size should do nicely.
It’s fun to dream.
Nice idea, but..

I seriously doubt a planet can be taken out of its solar orbit, in one piece. It has to do with the planets unique electromagnetic signature. Don't ask me to explain further, I couldn't if I wanted to.

In as far as replacing the water on Mars, it would take a very large effort. Simply put, bucket by bucket, from our oceans. We have more than enough to share.







 
16
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join