Orbital Mirrors Could Create Earth Like Environment On Mars

Originally posted by Shmigoli
At the present time, of course not. In a century or two, yes. We have no idea what technology will be available in the future.
Hell, over a century ago todays technology would seem completely alien and unbelievable. Imagine if the same is true 100 years in the future from now.

I don't understand your fist point, but I think it is obvious we can't predict what new technologies are available. But as I have previously stated, it will always take less fuel to 'terraform' currently inhospitable areas of the world than terraforming another planet.

Originally posted by One_small_step
Umm just with regards to the geosync orbit...

Firstly, with regards to many earlier posts, we have 'geo-sync' in effect with many satelites currently orbiting the earth.

The mirrors would most probably have their own rotation, thereby reflecting the light on the area when it would be in darkness, although as you state, it does seem logical to have the 'are of terraform' near the poles to ensure Mars doesn't block the sun from the mirrors. I hope the creator of this has also realised that light reflected by mirrors is not as strong as natural light and that the light would spread unless the mirrors are arranged in a concave.

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
A few point to the Nay sayers.
Why not? We can send an inflatable station for the production of the mirrors, and as a temporary shelter until the terraforming begins.
And this isn't for a military or economic gain. No infrastructure needed. This would be purely scientific. What gains have been made from the Mars rovers, aside from knowledge? Exactly.

Inflatable station? There's still the problem of transporting the whole thing there, including the materials to make the mirrors. Why not just send the 'temporary station' and not bother with terraforming?

I think it's obvious there'd be no military gain, it's too far from the Earth; an ISS type structure would be much more effective. But even more effective are islands in strategic places, which is what the military currently uses. Any economic gains (although I can't currently see any) would be very long term, in the short term it would be a massive waste of money.

What more would be learned that couldn't be learned through 'Mars rover' style projects? If it's purely scientific then it should be done with the minimum of expense. I think we have the technology available for a manned mission to Mars at present, but the reason it isn't underway is because the general population would agree with me in saying it would be an absolute waste of resources. So... exactly, there'd be no scientific reasons that would necessitate the terraforming of part of the planet that couldn't be achieved in other ways.

"Why not" is not an argument for carrying out this project. It is up to its advocates to provide concrete, irrefutable, reasons for going. The simple answer to why not is why... it'd be a waste of time/energy/money/everything involved in making it happen, as that time/energy/money could be used helping the Earth overcome the perils it currently faces.

its a clever idea but i cant see it being putting in motion any time soon nasas still moaning about going to mars never mind terrafroming it but i do beleive eventually in the future we will get involved in terrafroming but probaly not in our lifetimes

Originally posted by byhiniur

Originally posted by One_small_step
Umm just with regards to the geosync orbit...

Firstly, with regards to many earlier posts, we have 'geo-sync' in effect with many satelites currently orbiting the earth.

The mirrors would most probably have their own rotation, thereby reflecting the light on the area when it would be in darkness, although as you state, it does seem logical to have the 'are of terraform' near the poles to ensure Mars doesn't block the sun from the mirrors. I hope the creator of this has also realised that light reflected by mirrors is not as strong as natural light and that the light would spread unless the mirrors are arranged in a concave.

Yes we have many in geosync around earth and like these satelites they remain in same orbit when its night over the ground they are providing a service for.
So when its night, they can't see the sun because sun is lighting up the opposite side of the planet. Even if the (orbital mirrors) rotate they physically can not see the sun at this point.

So these orbiting mirrors will face the same situation, at some point the orbiting will not be able to relect light because the light source (the sun) will be on the opposite side of the planet.

Which then the following problem will present it self, while supposedly providing a blamy 20deg celcius during the day, a night temperatures will plummet to way below freezing which will effect anything thriving in the daytime 'balmyiness'.

Not sure about the sustainability of such an effort, however the initial problem remains constant.

I'm not a nay sayer at all, I would love to see more mars initiatives in my lifetime.

I hope to see a return sample mission in my lifetime.

Exactly, so having it near a pole will remove the problem of Mars blocking the sun. The mirrors would have to have their own rotation in order to pinpoint the suns rays onto one spot throughout the night or else the satelite would just shine the suns rays onto a patch that would go along a longitude rather than being concentrated on one space.

Yet this is just a problem with the mirrors in operation.

I don't see the point in having them in operation. There is no benefit from terraforming Mars, it is a complete waste of time. We already have a completely servicable environment i.e. THE EARTH.

From what I can gather from wikipedia's explanation of Mars climate:

1. There is relatively no oxygen there... there is in the desert and at our polar caps.
   
2. There is hardly any atmosphere there... there is surrounding currently inhospitable areas of the earth.
   
3. In the martian winter temperatures dip to 140 degrees celcius... on earth the temperature at the ice caps drops to 40 degrees celcius.
   

So to all the people who want to see Mars terraformed, you are being ignorant to the fact that the inhospitable places on earth are far better places to carry out 'terraforming', the cost of terraforming Mars would pay to remove global debt and there is no need to have an area of hospitable land 35 million miles away from earth.

Can anybody provide solid reasons for terraforming this distant body called Mars, I doubt it very, very much.

[edit on 19/11/06 by byhiniur]

Originally posted by byhiniur

Originally posted by Shmigoli
At the present time, of course not. In a century or two, yes. We have no idea what technology will be available in the future.
Hell, over a century ago todays technology would seem completely alien and unbelievable. Imagine if the same is true 100 years in the future from now.

I don't understand your fist point, but I think it is obvious we can't predict what new technologies are available. But as I have previously stated, it will always take less fuel to 'terraform' currently inhospitable areas of the world than terraforming another planet.

My point was, technology and knowledge today is not advanced enough to terraform Mars. In the future, technology might be completely different and advanced to were terraforming Mars could 'easily' be done using techniques that we would never think of today. The prospect of terraforming Mars could be quite reasonable.


Your second point. If we tried to terraform inhospitable parts of Earth. It would mostly likely affect the hospitable parts of the planet as well. For example: If we tried to warm up Antarctica to be livable or even just a small part of it. The polar cap will melt, sea levels will rise, oceans will change currents etc. Ruining the balance of the global climate.

Terraforming Mars is way less riskier to the populace then trying to 'terraform' parts of the Earth.


[edit on 29-11-2006 by Shmigoli]

Originally posted by byhiniur
So to all the people who want to see Mars terraformed, you are being ignorant to the fact that the inhospitable places on earth are far better places to carry out 'terraforming', the cost of terraforming Mars would pay to remove global debt and there is no need to have an area of hospitable land 35 million miles away from earth.
[edit on 19/11/06 by byhiniur]

That's very true and I may add that the Earth is already terraformed and hospitable and you're absolutely right. The inhospitable places on earth have a higher priority of needing to be terraformed than other places on Mars. If we were talking of having a place on mars being terraformed it would be ridiculous because of three things:

one. It would be hard to deploy the mirrors
two. No one is telling of the back up plan of what to do if this doesnt work
three. It doesnt make sense to terraform mars on one location when earth has a workable climate and is hospitable already (like you said).