You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
although i do think there are lots of galactic environments where planetary orbits will not be stable
but i don't want an earthlike mars...
i think araeoformation to create a unique ecosystem is good
not so sure about turning it into a new earth...
(i.e. limited, with hardy plants, maybe a few animals, no seas, you'd never get snow on the tharsis volcanos anyway, they're too far above most of the atmosphere, i think)
if you add water there, the whole thing turns into an ocean, pretty homogeneous!... i don't know either way really
especially the barcham dunes in vastitas borealis....
wonderful, and something we would definitely lose in terraforming
i really don't think that's the point in reality for any of this
i can't explain why i feel the way i do about mars..., it seems specific though, i don't get the same thing about venus at all
a mixture of the places, names, landscapes...
if the new rover mission actually suceeds, those photos will be amazing, better than anything we've seen, i'm sure thaqt will turn some people around to our way of thinking
i'm not sure how true it is...
it depends on how much it's been tinkered with to conform with the generally expected composition used to explain away the odd viking results (lots of bizarre superoxides etc.)
which is in my opinion unlikely...
(after all, the organics testing tool didn't pick up life in antarctica, or even *i think* in the american desert...)
i think that the reason it was thought planetary systems were rare was that the mechanism for forming them was considered highly unusual, people didn't realise that they could simply accrete seperately in the disk that formed the star, without lots of coincidental peturbations of the accretion disk. It was thought that all the material in the original disk would usually condense to form the star...
or that they (planets) were even captured bodies completely independant of star formation...
all this shows how many people only seem to apply parsimony selectively, when it suits their (usually) pessimistic views
or maybe i'm just cynical
i've been lurking here for quite a while
but might as well start posting at some point
it's pretty similar in england actually, although here there's all this irritating publicity on potitically unachievable stuff in the papers, like lunar hotels etc., and always, for some bizarre reason, 'within 10 years' (long enough so your unlikely to be ridiculed when it doesn't happen, but not so long that people aren't interested in the story)
ahh, am v. sleepy, plant pathology all night... the joys
but yup, anyway, why don't they just put some demron up on/in the iss, it's light, won't use much mass bringing it there, and could probably put it on the inside of the walls, so no evas needed, seems almost trivial, although knowing nasa politics it might be seen as leading somewhere and get vetoed...
check this out:
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993050
should help silence some of the hardcore naysayers
i remember hearing something once about the advantages of small goats as a food source, obviously far less energy efficient than veggies, but maybe for special occasions?
apparentlythey have good conversion efficiency for mammals
and are not fussy about what they eat + do not take up much space, although i would think something like mealworms would be a better choice, insects generally have a higher proportion of usable protein by mass than mammals
in reality i think soya would suffice
i remember hearing something once about the advantages of small goats as a food source, obviously far less energy efficient than veggies, but maybe for special occasions?
apparentlythey have good conversion efficiency for mammals
and are not fussy about what they eat + do not take up much space, although i would think something like mealworms would be a better choice, insects generally have a higher proportion of usable protein by mass than mammals
in reality i think soya would suffice
Pages: 1