You are not logged in.
Bradguth's idea that Venus is older than Earth and Mars because its rotation rate is slower is fatally flawed.
4.5 billion years ago (roughly), just after Luna was formed by that monumental collision, Earth was rotating once every 5 hours. It would still be rotating about once every 5 hours except for the influence of the Moon! Tidal forces worked to slow Earth's rotation, capture the Moon's rotation, and simultaneously move the Moon further and further away from Earth. All this because of that impact!
A planet the size of Earth or Venus has enormous energy stored up in its angular momentum. Without external influences, that momentum is maintained because energy can neither be created nor destroyed. So a planet will maintain its rotation rate virtually indefinitely unless it is acted upon by something else .... say, a major impact or tidal forces.
In other words, Venus' slow rotation gives absolutely no indication whatsoever as to its age. The most likely explanation is probably a massive impact early in the history of the solar system, though nobody knows for sure.
Funny, that Earth and Mars should have practically the same period of rotation. Nothing implied, and I appreciate the coincidence...but it still seems pretty weird to me.
Regarding Venus, Shaun: The comparison with Earth and threat might kind-of instructive, but its terribly slow rotation makes it an unconvincing example to use for your commendable purpose.
And Byron: Glaciation might be prevented by our own selves, spreading soot about on persistant snow accumulations to force them to melt entirely each summer. Not original, I admit...but, are we not the first humans on Earth to recognize the threat, with the capability of spreading soot from the sky to prevent the warm sunlight from being reflected back out into space-- and thus break the cycle of recurring ice-ages. We're very good at spreading dirt around, you'll admit.
Asteroid or comet impact: Now there's a real good reason for inhabiting more than one place in the Solar System!
Not at all, Phobos.
The Soviets profited by being able to do their thing in secret. I applauded NASA's openness during the Moon-race. But now, we depend upon the substantially same Soyuz modular space hardware they developed to keep the ISS regularly supplied with not only consumables and rubbish removal, but crew rotations also. So your sense of something amiss rings a bell.... But that was then, this is now, and the price of warfare hardware and the attention of the government is being diverted, as during the Vietnam obsession. Much, much more individual pressure is needed, at the same time as the anti-terrorist effort runs its course.
Just to interject a political observation, I can't help being amazed at the coming together of the former East-bloc nations under NATO, with Russia and China waiting in the wings! It must have something to do with the "outside threat" scifi scenario where the world comes together when faced by aliens from space. In this case, it's not aliens, but someone of Earth reminiscent of the James Bond movie-villian, Dr. No. As much as I hate to give credit for any such "coming together" to you-know-who, it's hard to dispute.
Could it be that the unforseen result of the governments coming together to fight this non-fictional outside threat continue cooperating--in space, on Mars and the Moon? And might not (chaos theory-wise) this and like organizations by pressing intangibly ahead during the present struggle, influence the direction of this cooperation? I rest my case, and relinquish my soapbox to you.
Thanks, Shaun, I needed that bit of positivity. Gets the old thinker going when someone "out there" responds...especially by adding something to the offering!
So far, the lack of nighttime thermal infrared imagery, with or without visible same, I find impossible to understand...not even discussion as to why. If Themis IR scans are being received, you'd think pride of accomplishment would be sufficient motive. How frustrating to this Mars buff!
How about Stirling engine power?
I'm struck by tha absence of suggestions for the use of Stirling Engines (of the appropriate sort) for propulsion of surface vehicles on Mars--or even the Moon.
The existence of adjacent "hot" (solar exposure) and "cold" (shadow exposure) on Mars should make it a natural, I would think.
There's loads of internet background material about the history and principles involved, but nothing on the internet I can find about extraterrestrial applications. Why not...?
What on Earth are you talking about? The industrial and science capacity of China at present is far beyond that of the US when it first placed a man into space, so I have no doubt that they could send up a taikonaut - on their own - by the end of this decade.
However, China, sensing a good bargain, went and bought much of the Soyuz technology off Russia, which sped things up by no small amount (and also saved a lot of money). Chances are that they'll send someone up in the next two years.
As for computers, what's the problem with using US made computers? Everyone does - no doubt including all the countries in the Axis of Evil!
I'm not sure I agree with all of this scaremongering about China, either. There's no doubt that they're not the most benevolent of nations, but frankly they don't pose any military threat from space, not compared to the US who are literally decades ahead in technology.
Here's more information about Shenzhou, the Chinese spacecraft.
Made in China U.S. computers should be readily available....
Hi Oker56!
I think we have to come to grips with the fact that the majority of our politicians are scientifically illiterate too. It's not just most of the population - our leaders, in all countries, are essentially ignorant of mathematics and basic science.
Here in Australia, and I'm quite sure in America, most of our politicians are lawyers. Even the ones who end up in charge of the science and technology departments of government, frequently know little about their portfolios. They have to rely on teams of advisers.
But that's not the same as having a proper grasp of science and the kind of space technology which interests us here at New Mars.I bet Hilary Clinton is virtually clueless about nanotechnology. I bet she had no input into her speech about it and she couldn't care less about any kind of technology! She's just another lawyer with her eye on political power.
But this disease of ignorance, which breeds disinterest, is endemic in the world's populations as a whole. Even in 1st World countries where education is supposed to be a cornerstone of society, most people have no idea of the most basic concepts of gravity and what it means to be in orbit around a moon or planet.
Go out and ask a few people why astronauts float around in space stations. I bet nearly all of them will tell you it's because they have escaped Earth's gravity!
My own father-in-law thinks we remain stuck to the ground because atmospheric pressure pushes us down. This logic also explains (at least for him) why you're weightless in space ... no air pressure!! I began an attempt to set him straight on all this, but his eyes glazed over soon after I started, so I gave up!People's lack of knowledge of even our own solar system is astounding - and you can forget the rest of the universe. Many don't know that the Sun is just a star. They don't know that just 10 kilometres above their heads is a place which would kill them if they were exposed to it - 10 kilometres!! A lot of us drive further than that to get to work each morning!
We are so much like ants, scurrying around on the thin crust of our rocky planet, completely absorbed in the trivialities of our lives, and totally oblivious to the true reality of our situation. It's like most of us are blind, or like blinkered horses seeing nothing but the next few metres of dirt directly in front of us.
So few of us actually understand the incredible size, beauty, and potential of the solar system we inhabit that it's small wonder we can't get "public and political support" ... most people simply don't comprehend what we're trying to tell them!???
I have to interject: Ants at times sprout wings and fly, so their impression of surface features can't be all that limited! We fly, and the relation of our size to ants and relative heights above terrain could be arguably comparable. My tiny point is: awareness of surface features and distances must be enhanced by heights above. Intelligence then takes over. Merely talking about it, without experiencing eg. Earth from a distance, is probably futile. Which is why I long to see on some TV channel (interspersed with commercials, if need be) a continuous image of the whole Earth.... I leave the extrapolation for the moment to you, but will think further on the concept as a do-able means of conveying what you wish to your dad, et al.
Regarding bone mass and calcium loss: Is 1-gee optimum just because life evolved on Earth? What would have happened if it had been 2-gees? Or 1/2-gee? Now we are faced with 1/3-gee (Mars) and 1/6-gee (Moon). Why wouldn't each of these gravities have optimums, as well. Admittedly, 0-gee hardly need upright strength, so optimum would be detrimental under accelerations not submerged in liquid. But, shouldn't we investigate the positive effect(s) of diminished gravities on bone mass and calcium loss, not to speak of heart and blood circulation consequences...we may find life not so risky (from falling) and longevity increased (less work) as a consequence. I for one won't write-off less than 1-gee habitat undesireability until some data along these lines becomes available....
Reminds me of that big old carrier that roamed the desert in the first Star Wars film (Episode IV).
Well, that's a relief! We've figured out a couple of ways of getting off the planet routinely...so the problem of how to get there in the first place routinely is pretty much all that's left, right? Let's see, now....
But...would, where craters are, be where we would wish to establish the first colony...with respect to all the obvious: water, minerals, atmospheric pressure, shelter from winds, access to eg. launch rails (my own "hobby horse") up the sides of Tharsis volcanos, etc. As my real estate agent keeps telling me: location, location, location!
How foolish! This is Mars, remember, where a typical woman from Earth would be able to do a typical man from Earth's work, brute or otherwise... Also, where's the incentive to civilization without kids to bring up at the same time as pioneering? You belong in Victorian times, when women were purposely hobbled. For shame!
With respect, not only "because it's there," but because we're only here, and we'd better be there as well, before it's tool ate!
I like this idea, however it strikes me that that the actual construction of the canyon habitat would be a great deal more difficult than that of a similar dome. You would need all kinds of cranes, cables, bridges, ect, ect.. on both sides of the canyon.
Definitely a post-dome idea, but what an improvement,eh?
I like this idea, however it strikes me that that the actual construction of the canyon habitat would be a great deal more difficult than that of a similar dome. You would need all kinds of cranes, cables, bridges, ect, ect.. on both sides of the canyon.
Agreed, that roofing over canyons would be 2nd generation habitat construction...but with the water "discoveries" much more inspiring! Very welcome reaction(s).
This is a similar idea to that proposed by Marshall Savage in his book 'The Millenial Project'.
He proposed using transparent overhead covers for naturl depressions, specificaly small craters, and using water as the ballast to counteract the upward air pressure. The idea itself is an elegant design solution but gets a little held up in the search for adequate water. A good source of water would help the problem. I'm not sure if other problems with the design have been discovered, some of his ideas have met with much less than successful practice.
Comments and background material appreciated. Water/ice would filter out visible light and heat, so I would propose reinforced plastic, strengthened by (gas balloon-like) netting on top and by diagonal tension cables between the netting and canyon sides below.
As we've established in other threads, even a tent containing an atmosphere of only 500 millibars pressure, in present conditions on Mars, will have to resist an outward force of 5.17 tonnes per square metre of its area. Assuming a modest valley enclosure with dimensions of, say, 500m by 50m, the tent will be pushing upwards with a force of nearly 130,000 tonnes.
Add a superstructure of alloy tubes across the valley - like the poles of a large tent - and securely attach the roof material to that framework. The strength of the poles will help hold the roof up and the weight of the poles will help hold the roof down.
Engineer the roof by using water ballast along the edges (trapping the roof perimeter under water tanks or other stored materials) - attaching the roof fabric to a alloy tube superstructure (which give support and adds weight) - filling layers in the fabric sandwich with a clear liquid which is allowed to freeze (to add weight and insulation).
A liquid/frozen layer within a fabric sandwich might also be engineered to have self-sealing properties in the event of a minor leak.
Also, given that refraction will occur as sunlight passes through water ice, settlers can inhabit a valley often filled with countless tiny rainbows. [Some] or [Most] or [All] of the cliff dwellings should be designed to be vacuum tight all by themselves to provide redundancy in the event of a leak.
How wide of a valley do you propose we look for?
A kilometre span, at least, should be feasible on Mars, over kilometre-plus deep canyons. However, a water-jacket of any useful thickness wouldn't be sufficiently transparent to visible and infrared wavelengths to provide light and warmth--a cold, blue valley habitat would result.
The idea of covered canyons, which could be lengthened as required, might be a way of of "upstaging" terraforming, as another alternative to permit mass-habitation because the roofing-over tributary valleys, capable of supporting millions of folks, is do-able with with existing construction techniques. And it would provide us with diverting, day-to-day news we back on Earth could identify with--using remote interactive presence, as virtual pioneers, for example--instead of the ho-hum space news we are being offered at present.
The moons are chondrite, which is usually something like 5-10% water by mass (much of which is chemically bound, so heat is needed to drive it off). The ill-fated Phobos 1 spacecraft the Russians launched detected hydrogen ions near Phobos before it failed, suggesting the regolith has bound water in it. You probably need to drill into the moon and heat the "bedrock" directly to extract the water; the regolith itself has been bombarded by micrometeorites and cosmic rays and would be depleted in water.
-- RobS
In studying Robert Richard's hollow asteroid project, it seems to me the size of Phobos satisfies his requirements for such a project. Aside from the spin-up means to obtain the required (0.6 gee?) artificial gravity, and the hollowing out (by means of strategic mining practice, if the internal composition of Phobos can withstand a spin rate of 0.2 rpm or so...I would think it an ideal place for a self supporting population of 50-thousand, say, "buffer" colony for mars. Water seems to be plentiful from accessible cometary asteroids, and the mined material after refining, should be valuable as off-planet electromagnetic rocket reaction mass.
If your rail is long enough, then you can keep the acceleration within tolerable limits for humans. But how long is long enough? That depends ... !
If you need to send people to Earth from the surface of Mars, you need a final velocity of 5000m/s (Martian escape velocity). Let's assume that an average human can tolerate a 5g acceleration for a limited time. At 5g acceleration, it's going to take 100 seconds to reach 5kms/s. So far, so good.
But, to accelerate at 5g for 100 seconds, your rail needs to be a whopping 250kms long!
Even if you only want to transport people from the surface to LMO (low Mars orbit), you will need a final velocity of about 4000m/s. At 5g acceleration (this time for 80 seconds), your rail still needs to be 160kms long!
And I'm not sure how many people could cope with 5g acceleration for 80 seconds. Is this tolerable for most humans?
My biggest concern is atmospheric drag and heating. Even up on the higher slopes of Olympus Mons, I believe the atmospheric pressure is still 1 or 2 millibars. This doesn't sound like much but, at a velocity of 4 or 5 kilometres per second, I think it would produce significant problems.
Atmospheric drag will probably be the show-stopper for any kind of rail-gun launching system on Mars, even for LMO-bound cargo which can be accelerated at 50g (which, incidentally, would still require a rail 16kms long! ).
The Moon is the ideal place for a rail-gun system with its low escape velocity and negligible atmosphere. But for Mars, unless the Podkletnov gravity-modifying device gives us a new way of overcoming gravity wells, I'm still a space elevator fan!!
I am strongly opposed to a space elevator for Mars, since it would necessitate the elimination of Phobos and Deimos, which are "God-given" platforms of inestimable value for future LMO operations. The much-to-be-desired alternative, of kilometres-long launch rails up the slopes of Olympus Mons, in any direction, would seem the ideal solution to reach any LMO. It should eliminate, besides, the need of boosters for inanimate payloads, such as surface manufactured space-platform modules and/or consumables. Launched Eastwards, the lesser acceleration to gain LMO might even permit boosterless astronaut shuttle operations. Single-stage boosters could be added to shuttles carrying non-astronauts, or where acceleration by rail alone might turn out be too great even for astronauts, to reach polar LMO for instance.
But for goodness sakes, don't propose anything that will do away with the natural moons of Mars!
As for electrical power: Vertical wind-tunnels using Martian atmosphere in stretches of the "chaotic" canyon tributaries, with multistage turbo-electric generators at their bases, driven by the flow of solar heated Martian "air" from beneath low transparent roofs, with guy-wires from the high canyon sides to stay the kilometres-high "chimneys." With enough roof coverage, the accumulated warmth during daytime might be sufficient flow to supply electricity during nighttime. East-west canyon alignment would of course be advisable, and alternative (eg. fuel-cell) power during sandstorms provided for.
By anchoring a translucent roof above a suitable canyon tributary, and constructing cantilevered living quarters along the sides, many advantages over a domed structure, as a follow-on habitat, might be obtained. With a "droop" to the canyon floor at either end to seal the ends, webbed netting (in the manner of gas balloons on Earth) the roof-envelope could be restrained from blow-outs by means of diagonal guy-wires anchored to "hard points" at the ends of struts driven into the canyon sides.
Warmth trapped from sunlight would then permit liquid water to be collected in lakes (eventually streams) along the canyon floor as atmospheric pressure buids up. Cantilevered-balcony cliff dwellings above the canyon floor would avoid flooding within the habitat, as well as provide an "instant" water-world lifestyle, greatly in advance of possible terraforming.
Post-occupation tunnelling into the cliffsides, would give easy access to potential below-surface mineral and water resources, provide expanding living space and protection from meteorites, solar flares, UV and cosmic radiation.
As for electrical power: Vertical wind-tunnels using Martian atmosphere in stretches of unpressurized tributary, with multistage turbo-electric generators at their bases, driven by the flow of solar-heated Martian "air" from beneath low transparent roofs, with guy-wires from high canyon tributary sides to stay the kilometre-high "chimneys."
With enough area-coverage surrounding the base(s), the accumulated warmth could be sufficient even to supply electricity during nighttime. East-west canyon alignment would of course be advisable, and alternative (eg. fuel-cell) power during sandstorms provided for.
Having tried and failed to locate any proposals of systems for launching spacecraft routinely up to Low Mars Orbit, and noticing the location of the three Tharsis volcanos in the vicinity of the equator, I came to the conclusion that they might be ideal for supporting magnetic levitation, electromagnetic acceleration ramps. Given the heights of these peaks, which apparently penetrate the densest atmosphere, it might even be possible to gain LEO by launching eastward, without 2nd-stage boost! (I could be wrong.)
Olympus Mons, somewhat north of the equator, would appear to be ideal for polar orbits, being higher and having longer slopes for additional acceleration required without the planet's rotational assist.
I am not in favour of a "space elevator" on Mars, which would sacrifice Phobos and Deimos because they would get in the way. (They should be valuable as, eg. habitats, observatory platforms, freight and consumables depots....) Vocano acceleration launch-ramps would avoid the necessity of doing away with them, as well as provide ramps for mass-drivers of raw materials.
Having read: Red Mars and Green Mars and began reading but couldn't finish Blue Mars, I was struck by the cavelier treatment of those two handed-to-us-on-a-platter satellites, which would be so useful in the human exploration and settlement of Mars, not to mention later exploitation(s) I am sure will be apparent.... The "space elevator" proposition would of course place them in jepardy, so my thought it: scrape the elevator, as too vulnerable (see said Mars books) and substitute electromagnetic acceleration ramps on the volcanos, instead.
So the secret is to do away with all the work, let most of this surplus population die, then the survivors (all 12 of em) can live off the naturaly occuring food and not have to work 40 hour weeks.
I don't buy it.
Or develop artificial intelligence to the point where it can do most of the human labor autonomously and then make people share holders in the state who recieve dividends from these largely robotic dependant corporations (I believe Alaska does something like this.) And yes, before you go calling me a hypocrite for suggesting such a socialistic thing, I still think people should have all the rights to start up their own businesses if they choose. Yeah, you scoff and laugh now but in 100 years, 200 years....
You had better define "artificial intelligence," because robots capable of "thinking" surely would become bored, like humans, with most repetitive labour and go on strike...or contrary to Asimov's precepts: even (gasp!) rebel!