Mars Curiosity

[kenneal - lagger]

That is science fiction. Mars now has a solid core so no magnetic field to speak of and so no protection from the solar wind. The solar wind would strip off gases produced by terra forming on Mars leaving the thin atmosphere that is now found there.

[adam2]

A post that previously appeared here, regarding cold fusion, has been moved to its own thread in the nuclear power forum.
Feel free to add to it.

[SleeperService]

That is science fiction. Mars now has a solid core so no magnetic field to speak of and so no protection from the solar wind. The solar wind would strip off gases produced by terra forming on Mars leaving the thin atmosphere that is now found there.

It's the low gravity that's the killer for atmosphere stripping. Once distorted by the solar wind the Martian gravity isn't strong enough to reflatten the atmosphere as the planet rotates. So any extra is spun off and carried away. Like the little whirlpools that form behind an obstruction in a river before being carried away.

Venus is also streaming a tail of atmosphere behind it due to the higher intensity of the solar wind and proportionately weaker magnetic field, despite it's higher gravity. This stream of gas reaches out past Mars before becoming too diffuse for us to measure.

Those books aren't even science fiction they're fantasy. If you wanted to thicken up the Martian atmosphere you'd need to dig a very big hole a long way into the planet then hit it with iron rich asteroids travelling pretty fast. If the planet stays in one piece you could, in theory get gravity upto near Earth levels with a molten metal core. You'd need radioactive isotopes in there to keep it molten as well so it might take a while for the radiation to drop. The magnetic field you'd also build would actually delay the drop in radiation by trapping it in the atmosphere rather than letting the stuff be carried away.

[ceti331]

i think matt savinars peak oil doc explains mars very well, its a popular distraction.
overpopulation deniers like to say "we're not confined to one planet".. or "exploiting mars will be like the progress made in the americas all over again".

in reality, the chances of anything useful coming from mars are a million to one

[emordnilap]

But...if Mars's gravity is so much lower than earth's, we could mine any resources there and simply pipe them back here. They'd just fall here.

[Standuble]

Do they even need to Terraform Mars? Can't they build underground colonies to defend against solar winds etc. and filter co2 into oxygen? I don't see how terraforming Mars would solve water and food issues anyway.

They should forget manned missions and aim for one way trips to Mars. A company called Mars One think they can establish a colony in the North pole and land the first people down in 2023. Part of me hopes they can.

[Little John]

What on earth is the point of trying to set up human habitations on a frigid and arid planet that has little by way of any atmosphere when we cant even manage our own living support systems here on Earth where we have everything going for us.

To be fair to the NASA team, I don't imagine they think it is any more serious a proposition than I have just indicated.

As much as I find the remote exploration of Mars a fascinating and admirable achievement, in terms of where we are all going to be living into the deep future, that place is here, on earth. We humans have simply got to come to terms with that and grow up before it is too late.

[RenewableCandy]

I think that's about right. After all the clue's in the name: "Curiosity" We're (virtually) on Mars purely for the furthering of human knowledge.

[Standuble]

As much as I find the remote exploration of Mars a fascinating and admirable achievement, in terms of where we are all going to be living into the deep future, that place is here, on earth. We humans have simply got to come to terms with that and grow up before it is too late.

The long term future on Earth will be bleak and primitive for humanity in my understanding. Outside of a declining ecology and a potentially chaotic climate we will be suffering the effects of resource depletion. The sources with the highest concentration of iron, copper etc. have been used and what remains today (and recycling of old ore) needs modern day technology to be extracted. If technology regresses to the point where we have to use less modern methods, would we still be able to make use of the various metals and resource we have around us to fuel civilisation? We could possibly be forced back to the stone age on the whole in the worst case scenario if we can no longer maintain technology. The scenario of very long-term agricultural subsistence may have its charms but in my view is not a favourable outcome.

That's why I think we should aim to build a colony, if only to supply Earth itself with iron ore or other minerals. Humanity are very poor at managing living support systems that's true but faced with harsh conditions we could rise to the challenge. But I'm no expert on any of this so if you see any holes, pry them open.

[Little John]

As much as I find the remote exploration of Mars a fascinating and admirable achievement, in terms of where we are all going to be living into the deep future, that place is here, on earth. We humans have simply got to come to terms with that and grow up before it is too late.

The long term future on Earth will be bleak and primitive for humanity in my understanding. Outside of a declining ecology and a potentially chaotic climate we will be suffering the effects of resource depletion. The sources with the highest concentration of iron, copper etc. have been used and what remains today (and recycling of old ore) needs modern day technology to be extracted. If technology regresses to the point where we have to use less modern methods, would we still be able to make use of the various metals and resource we have around us to fuel civilisation? We could possibly be forced back to the stone age on the whole in the worst case scenario if we can no longer maintain technology. The scenario of very long-term agricultural subsistence may have its charms but in my view is not a favourable outcome.

That's why I think we should aim to build a colony, if only to supply Earth itself with iron ore or other minerals. Humanity are very poor at managing living support systems that's true but faced with harsh conditions we could rise to the challenge. But I'm no expert on any of this so if you see any holes, pry them open.

If you think getting our shit together here on Earth in terms of sharing stuff more equitably, in terms of conserving stuff more carefully and in terms of not f***ing our eco-system up is impossibly difficult, then how the hell do you think it is even worth considering the possibility of setting up a self sufficient and sustainable colony on Mars?

This is just fantasy land stuff. Like I said, it's time for humans to grow up and learn some damned humilty before it is too late.

[biffvernon]

supply Earth itself with iron ore

Excuse me but iron is almost the most abundant element on Earth. It's something we are never going to run out of. Fourth most abundant after aluminium, silicon and oxygen in the crust.

[ceti331]

supply earth with iron ore? earth is 30% iron. we're not running out of that.
what we're running out of is energy.

there is no stored energy on mars.

sure there are hydrocarbons elsewhere in the solar system, but without corresponding O2 to burn in, it doesn't represent stored energy.

i'm more into peak oil than MMGW but can you imagine the environmental impact of brining home hydrcarbons from titan and burning them in terrestrial oxygen ?!

That's why I think we should aim to build a colony, if only to supply Earth itself with iron ore or other minerals. Humanity are very poor at managing living support systems that's true but faced with harsh conditions we could rise to the challenge.

I look at it this way.
people seriously under-estaimate just how amazing fossil-fuels were;
fossil fuels were the equivalent of another 8 fresh fertile earths for us to colonize (in terms of plant matter, readily refined stored convinient to use energy)

mars on the other hand is like discovering a single large, remote desert. Its probably less useful than the sahara or antarcica or the bottom of the ocean.

look at our place in nature as part of a cycle involving a symbiosis plants- even oil usage is part of that, even though we have an illusion that we're seperate. our fueled machines still need plants recycling oxygen for them to work at all.

matt savinar is right - politicians approve sending because they know it fires the imagination.

The scenario of very long-term agricultural subsistence may have its charms but in my view is not a favourable outcome.

we have very little choice in the matter, we had an inheritance from plants and we are so used to splurging we can't remember anything else..we take "progress" for granted.

hehe. even if you could establish a base there with a few people living in a tin can, all that matters is how hospitable the place is for the producers of life, *plants*, otherwise it would just be a resource sink.

[ceti331]

http://mars-one.com/en/

let me get this straight..
the plan is to permanently maroon some people on a dead planet for a reality TV show.

?!?!?!

if this was feasible it should be blocked, just incase there are people dumb enough to volunteer.

[RenewableCandy]

Nah it'll be a wind-up. They'll send them somewhere that isn't actually Mars.

[DominicJ]

Nuclear propulsion
Building a city on mars, or the moon, is easy, self sustaining, is harder.