New Mars Forums

1) Even if you can create Ozone in the "Hole", I wonder how it remains there against the wind.  I also wonder how it remains stable, in the presence of the rock of the crater walls, and in the presence of CO and CO2 it may very well react with chemically.  Without Ozone, you would not have any reasonable hope of an external biosphere of significant value to the purpose of terraforming.
2) The heat will keep ice melted or evaporated.  That is a problem.  Moisture tends to move from a source of heat and condense at cold spots.  How do you keep the moisture from migrating to the polar ice caps?  Won't you end up with a dry crater bottom?  Yes, if you continue to melt ice and have a canal refill the lake fine.  But I am not sure how much help the crater is then.
3) Day night and seasonal temperature flux.  How much atmosphere would you need to avoid nightly freezes outside of the lake?  Again, very much against the survival of significant plant cover.
4) What are you going to do about dust storms?

A loop field or something the size of a remnant field that already exist just stronger and is a power eater to maintain.

Could anyone provide me a schematic/diagram for Lake Matthew Team's Omaha Field proposal, or a link to it? I've seen its claimed power requirements and energy-blocking capacity, but I'd like to be able to see a diagram of its circuitry and power sources if possible. Thanks!

Lake Matthew Team - Cole wrote:

GW Johnson wrote:

It's fine (and fun) to dream up all these ways of doing things better,  utilizing resources predicted to be there at these various destinations.  The point I have tried to make in multiple threads on these forums is:  "you inherently do not know that those resources really are there,  until you actually go there and dig or drill".  Applies to Mars,  its moons,  asteroids,  comets,  and any other planet or moon. 

The feedback I keep getting is nothing but arguments-from-authority:  this or that paper or prestigious name says the buried resource stuff is there.  It's all based on remote sensing in one form or another,  precisely because no human has ever actually been there and dug or drilled...

Lumping us in with less informed [straw-man?] posters is inappropriate.  Rejected.  We do understand the literature, warts and all, and we apply it, even in our own novel designs.  As for Deimos:  We quantified the Deimos possibilities in forum, not you.  E.g. post 1, post 2.  That's not fallacious argument from authority, that's knowing more than you.

Anyone taking your own posts at face value would have been badly misinformed on that topic.  So before posting again, read our refs, and read something more; maybe then you'll have some information or self-correction for the thread.

And do keep it on-topic.  This is the thread for the new Omaha Shield proposal, specifically; not for rehashes of old and irrelevant text.

The origin of the Martian moons revisited by Pascal Rosenblatt Royal Observatory of Belgium 46th ESLAB Symposium: Formation and evolution of moons Session 5 – Observational constraints June 27th 2012 – ESTEC, Noordwijk, the Netherlands.

Like your above references these are all spectral for its color guess work via wavelength and other such optical, while they are probable and from other on the ground tests performed on Mars can be taken with a near acuracy for this data be used. Why as we used these same tools for mars before going and putting the rovers on the surface which has been comfirmation.

Abstract On the formation of the martian moons from a circum-martian accretion disk by Pascal Rosenblatt, Sébastien Charnoz

"up to 30% of the volume"

It's fine (and fun) to dream up all these ways of doing things better,  utilizing resources predicted to be there at these various destinations.  The point I have tried to make in multiple threads on these forums is:  "you inherently do not know that those resources really are there,  until you actually go there and dig or drill".  Applies to Mars,  its moons,  asteroids,  comets,  and any other planet or moon. 

The feedback I keep getting is nothing but arguments-from-authority:  this or that paper or prestigious name says the buried resource stuff is there.  It's all based on remote sensing in one form or another,  precisely because no human has ever actually been there and dug or drilled...

Since Mars had a remnant magnetic shielding in areas why no use long bar magnets on the hull to start the process of a shield and then create a static magnetic shield via RF transmission, one could seed the bubble with ionic elements that would be supended in the shield field.

The Roadmap

While we have found a new approach to the active protection with respect to the existing literature, we do not consider MT4 as the ultimate, optimized result. A systematic exploration could be carried on various kinds of “not fully confined” magnetic field configurations and geometrical coil layouts, which could deliver a similar or better result. The fractional contribution to the dose reduction due to the magnetic field suggests that there are “gaps” in the magnetic coverage, therefore the number of pumpkin coils can be increased/optimized. The mass of the coils could be further reduced by refining the optimization of the coil geometries and by applying advanced structural materials, whose cryogenic properties are not yet known.
Further steps of technical and conceptual developments have been identified and collected in the following SR2S roadmap:
- Increasing the TRL of the conductor (the SR2S prototype production allowed identifying the main issues);
- Optimization of the Active Shield configuration;
- Improving the pumpkin configuration in terms of number, shape, dimension and total current of coils as well as of their distance from the habitat;
- Studying new and innovative “not fully confined” magnetic field configurations and geometrical coil layouts, which could deliver a similar or better result;
- Deepen the knowledge of light structural materials. Within SR2S we proposed the use of many advanced materials but the cryogenic properties of most of them are not well known;
- Further development of the magnet cryogenics including enhancing of PHP TRL;
- Explore new solutions for quench detection and protections (non-insulated winding);
- Study of ancillary equipments like power supply or flux pump;
- More detailed studies of the shield assembling in orbit.

...it seems to us that two problems exist.  First, the magnetic bubble has two poles located at the ends of the spacecraft, and therefore particles that follow the field lines will be directed in at both ends...  Second, it has been learned recently that magnetic structures in the solar wind frequently break the Earth's magnetic field lines and attach themselves to their ends.  This creates a direct thoroughfare of radiation into a "hotspot" region... the bubble might completely break and be swept away... leaving the spacecraft with no shielding at all just at the time it is needed the most.

Regarding galactic cosmic rays - I wonder how much of the surface dose results from secondary particles generated in the Martian atmosphere?  These would presumably have lower energy but higher flux.  For lower energy charged particle radiation, a magnetic field would be an effective means of deflecting radiation and reducing dose rate.  A magnetic field protecting a base doesn't need to be mobile and a big iron core electromagnet might be an acceptable solution.  A vehicle could generate magnetic shielding whilst the engine was running and the crew could assemble a temporary dirt shield for those periods where the vehicle was not moving.

How good is liquid methane as a shield?  Or even LOX. I'm thinking in terms of doughnut tanks with a shelter in the middle.