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.
inquisitive1977
reply to post by JadeStar
Interesting so does that mean with all of our current production we could have it effectively heated for life in 80 tears?
JadeStar
winofiend
Treespeaker
Hey, thats a really interesting article.
Thanks for showing that to me....if we survive long enough tera forming should be one of our largest goals.
If we can learn how to shape a viable atmoshere elsewhere we may learn how to heal ours....and have a place to start to dump the stuff thats bad for us and good for plants....
Great post to get rhe grey stuff musing..
Cheers, merry holiday
We're pretty good at terraforming as it is. We're the masters of it, actually.
We took a beautiful blue oasis that was covered in lush green forests and have turned it into a sterile rather barren concrete machine.
You can't get better than that!!!
Well the ironic thing is if we moved about 20% of the industry responsible for all of that on Earth to Mars we'd have another warm, wet oasis on the Red Planet in about 400 years, thus giving us two habitable worlds in our solar system.
edit on 23-12-2013 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)
Grimpachi
JadeStar
winofiend
Treespeaker
Hey, thats a really interesting article.
Thanks for showing that to me....if we survive long enough tera forming should be one of our largest goals.
If we can learn how to shape a viable atmoshere elsewhere we may learn how to heal ours....and have a place to start to dump the stuff thats bad for us and good for plants....
Great post to get rhe grey stuff musing..
Cheers, merry holiday
We're pretty good at terraforming as it is. We're the masters of it, actually.
We took a beautiful blue oasis that was covered in lush green forests and have turned it into a sterile rather barren concrete machine.
You can't get better than that!!!
Well the ironic thing is if we moved about 20% of the industry responsible for all of that on Earth to Mars we'd have another warm, wet oasis on the Red Planet in about 400 years, thus giving us two habitable worlds in our solar system.
edit on 23-12-2013 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)
Are you sure about that. From what I understand Mars will never be able to keep an atmosphere such as ours because its core is no longer molten so it no longer has the capability to generate magnetic field like our magnetosphere all the lighter gases of Mars escape into space.
ATM we do not have the technology to even try to restart the core so terraforming Mars is simply science fiction.
Anyway check out this paper about the Magnetosphere of Mars.
Serious science
Over the past 30 years the concept of planetary engineering - more popularly known as terraforming - has moved from the arena of science fiction towards serious scientific attempts to determine its future practicality. The word terraforming was first coined by the science fiction writer Jack Williamson and can be definedas a process by which a barren extraterrestrial planetary environment can be altered to one that is suited for life. Any argument that such an idea remains fantasy is countered by our emerging appreciation of the fact that mankind already has the ability to alter the Earth's global parameters...
The apparent youth and smoothness of the surface have led to the hypothesis that a water ocean exists beneath it, which could conceivably serve as an abode for extraterrestrial life.[11] This hypothesis proposes that heat from tidal flexing causes the ocean to remain liquid and drives geological activity similar to plate tectonics.[12]
Sounds like a bad plan. I can think of lots of reasons why not.
JadeStar
we would never have atmospheric equilibrium on a billion year scale but if it's worth having a couple hundred thousand years on the planet, I say why not.
Sremmos80
Musta been an ET from one of those planets that came down and gave the director the idea for waterworld
TommyD1966
reply to post by CosmicDude
Pretty cool.
It looks the the water wasn't detected in any way, but instead is suggested by 'modeling.'
According to Wikipedia:
Kepler-62e is a super-Earth exoplanet (extrasolar planet) discovered in orbit around the star Kepler-62, the second outermost of five such planets discovered by NASA's Kepler spacecraft. Kepler-62e is located about 1,200 ly (370 pc) from Earth in the constellation of Lyra. The exoplanet was found using the transit method, in which the dimming effect that a planet causes as it crosses in front of its star is measured. Kepler-62e is most likely a terrestrial planet in the inner part of its host star's habitable zone[2] and has an Earth Similarity Index of 0.83.
Given the planet's age (7 ± 4 billion years), stellar flux (1.2 ± 0.2 times Earth's) and radius (1.61 ± 0.05 times Earth's), a rocky (silicate-iron) composition with the addition of a possibly substantial amount of water is considered plausible.[2] A modeling study accepted in The Astrophysical Journal suggests it is likely that a great majority of planets in Kepler-62e's size range are completely covered by ocean.[3][4]
Wiki link to Kepler 62e
TommyD1966
reply to post by JadeStar
Thanks JadeStar,
Where did you get the radii and mass numbers?
Edit - duh, #'s are in the link I put above.
What I think I really mean is how is the mass calculated -- specifically that is?
Transit I guess gives you the diameter/radius.edit on 12/23/2013 by TommyD1966 because: More info added