You are not logged in.
Terraforming is an unpractical waste of resources. All humans have to is subsist from the resources that are available in the solar system in sustainable and rational way. All we need is enough water to drink, enough air to breate, enough food to sustain
Well that may work for you but I want some cable TV, Internet without a 6 minute click delay and beer. And girls, lots of girls.
Vincent
Argument expected.
I don't require agreement when presenting new ideas.
-Dana Johnson
Offline
Like button can go here
Terraforming is an unpractical waste of resources. All humans have to is subsist from the resources that are available in the solar system in sustainable and rational way. All we need is enough water to drink, enough air to breate, enough food to sustain
Well that may work for you but I want some cable TV, Internet without a 6 minute click delay and beer. And girls, lots of girls.
Vincent
lol! We all want that.
but seriously, astro-engineering is not needed to sustain life on another planet, just clever and efficient use of the resources available in the solar system. Its far more economical and wise for us to adapt technology to a sustain us on another world than to adapt an entire planet into an 'Earth'.
Thats pretty much what humans have done to survive on the various regions of Earth through history, we adapted technology to suit an enviroment.
The fact that we trade useful goods across the planet is also an important example.
Offline
Like button can go here
The first paragraphs from the preface of the text book "Terraforming: Engineering Planetary Enviroments" written by Martyn J. Fogg
In late May 1993, just weeks after the contract to write this book was signed, I was on a plane from London to Denver. My eventual destination was the University of Colorado in the foothils of the Rocky Mountains at Boulder. My purpose in going there was to present at the Case for Mars confrence, at a session that was to be held to discuss the possibilities of terraforming Mars, that is, to render Mars habitable for terrestrial life. The whole trip was in daylight and, once the cloudy Atlantic had been crossed, the unfolding panorama below, all the way from the Soutern tip of Greenland to Colorado, was unobscured. From that point onward, I oticed three distinct kinds of landscape over which the plane passed.
The first was a spectacular wasteland of ice, dazzling to look at, that gradually gave way to a more somber, greenish-gray tundra, pock-marked with glacial lakes and moraines. Eventually trees appeared, sparse and stunted at first, but becoming mroe abundant until, from morizon to horizon, the land was cloaked in dark green forest. From Greenland through Newfoundland to Northern Quebec, scarcely a sign of human presence was visible. All was wilderness. The immensity of it was breathtaking. What fools we are to even think of remaking planets!, I thought to myself, shaking my head.
Only when well into the skies of Ontario did artificial markings on the ground become obvious. Pensil-thin and ruled-straight lanes in the forest marked the presence of power lines on the northern shores of Lake Superior the first towns could be seen, with their nested hierarchy of houses, blocks and neighborhoods, connected by streets, roads and highways. But my second landscape came after the vastness of the lake had been traversed and was as equally extraordinary to look at, if only because of it being so diametrically opposed to what had come before. Now the aircraft was crossing the domesticated prairies of Minnesota and South Dakota and this time, as far as the eye could see, there was laid out an entirely anthropogenic landscape. Agroecosystems--huge fields of grain--were set like tiles in a mosaic, a patchwork of geometric, mathematical shapes: squares, rectangles, circles and the occasional trapezium, colored from bright green to a tawny brown, according to the ripeness of the crop. Wilderness was banished from this place of functinal necessity. Perhaps after a while it became monotonous, but still not without a workaday beauty of its own. As well as its different appearance, it conveyed an opposing message to that scenery of just two hours before: hubris opposing humility--we do not need to dream of remaking worlds when we are already doing so.
The italics are as they were written in the book.
Copyright 1995 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc. Published by SAE International.
SAE Order No. R-153
ISBN 1-56091-609-5
Offline
Like button can go here
Beer is made by fermenting barley; barley can grow in a greenhouse. So we can have beer on Mars. TV normally transmits all cables at once to the decoder box in your home, then your box selects one channel for your TV. We can just as easily transmit all channels to Mars. Large internet servers on a Mars base can cache the most recent or most likely to be accessed web sites; you can access pages from that cache as quickly as any high speed internet connection here on Earth. Uncached pages will take a few minutes to download. As for girls, I just want one.
Offline
Like button can go here
Vincent makes an unintentionally important point.
Keep in mind that just because people can function in dorm sized tin cans and cubicals, doesn't mean they want to. Humans are still biological creatures, and while they are willing to work, still want the two weeks at the lake every summer that they deserve. And they can't take a 6 month one way voyage back to Earth to do it.
A terrestrial surface is teeming with space that can be delegated for that sort of thing. Where are you going put that on floating city?
"Yes, I was going to give this astronaut selection my best shot, I was determined when the NASA proctologist looked up my ass, he would see pipes so dazzling he would ask the nurse to get his sunglasses."
---Shuttle Astronaut Mike Mullane
Offline
Like button can go here
Bit of a false analogy by Fogg I'd say.
My general view is:
1. We can't do everything at once. NASA tries to and you can see why, but that does mean something like colonisation of Mars is given a fairly low priority. In fact it would be better really if NASA was split. There should be a Space Colonisation Agency and a separate Space Exploration and Science Agency. I think we should focus on Mars colonisation because it is doable with current technology.
2. Mars colonisation can begin with entrenched habitats and then proceed to more complex paraterraforming. Terraforming should not be a first stage goal.
3. Paraterraforming could be quite sophisticated. It might involve creating a huge inhabitable area by sealing off a gorge or large crater.
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
Like button can go here
I created a design for a biochemical life support system. It recycles cabin CO2 and water into O2, but rather than H2 or methane that have to be dumped into space, the by-product is carbohydrate. The easiest biochemical system would produce starch with a little pectin. There are a lot of things you can do with starch, but the one that comes to mind is fermentation. Hawaii has a very bland, pasty food made from a vegetable, it's called poi. The plant is taro but the food is poi. You can eat it fresh, but they often leave it to ferment. Fresh it's reportedly slightly sweet, but after fermenting a couple days it becomes less sweet and slightly sour. I noticed fermentation would add protein, lipids, and the complete vitamin B complex; in fact yeast is the best source of vitamin B that I know. Polynesian islands had a shortage of protein, so I'm sure fermentation developed as a means to enhance their nutrition. Fermentation of pure starch from a life support machine would also add needed protein, lipids, and vitamin B for astronauts. However, do you know what you get if you distil it? There's a name for the distillate of fermented starchy food: vodka.
So, if Russian cosmonauts go along to Mars, and we include this biochemical life support system, how long before a 'still is setup? Do you think it'll be operating before the hab even lands on Mars?
Offline
Like button can go here
Commodore wrote,
Vincent makes an unintentionally important point.
What makes you think it was unintentional, man does not live by air and food alone.
Vincent
Argument expected.
I don't require agreement when presenting new ideas.
-Dana Johnson
Offline
Like button can go here
In the thread "Building soil" I proposed a means to produce deep arable soil on Mars.
http://www.newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5466
Simply heating Mars will produce an atmosphere sufficient to walk outside without a spacesuit. It'll still be a CO2 atmosphere, so you'll need an oxygen mask, but just warm clothing and an oxygen mask is a lot safer and more convenient. Buildings won't require pressure so they will be easier and cheaper to build. Geologists can handle rocks with bare hands. And you can start agriculture.
The point of this thread is peat bogs. The most common form of growing peat is sphagnum moss. That grows in symbiosis with algae. Most large plants won't grow unless there's sufficient oxygen; ironic since they are net producers of oxygen. But algae will grow where there is no oxygen at all. The ideal environment for sphagnum is sand and water. It requires pure water; no chlorine, fluoride or alkali. Sphagnum produces a strong acid that breaks down minerals in the sand to release nutrients like calcium, potassium, phosphate, and trace elements like iron. Everything in fertilizer except nitrate is leached from the rock and sand. Algae fixes nitrogen from air with water to produce nitrate, but it can't produce acid to leach other nutrients from rock. What one can't produce, the other can; the two organisms thrive together.
Partial pressure of nitrogen on Mars is above CO2 on Earth. Since plants fix CO2 to form carbohydrates such as celulose and lignin for wood, I believe there is enough nitrogen for algae to fix nitrogen.
So warm mars above -78°C at the poles to sublimate the dry ice; that'll produce more than sufficient pressure. Warm it above freezing to release water. That's all you need for peat bogs to grow. Peat bogs will convert inorganic regolith into arable soil.
If you want to convert a section at a time, cover a peat bog with transparent plastic. It will hold the oxygen in, creating an oxygen atmosphere over that bog. When enough oxygen has accumulated, plant blueberries, strawberries, raspberries, and other plants common to a peat bog: forbes and shrubs. Forbes are like grass; there's a technical distinction. If the acid is not too strong, you can plant black spruce. That will grow into a forest; there's a peat bog with a black spruce forest growing in it in the US. The trees will lift the plastic up. It'll puncture the plastic, but some release of oxygen is Ok. As long as the partial pressure of oxygen under the plastic remains high enough for plants. Larger plants will produce more oxygen anyway. After a few years you'll have a boreal forest.
Offline
Like button can go here
Whatever happened to Fake Gravity? You seem to have chucked it out without a second thought. Not even a first thought.
Io would be better than Venus if you're talking about sheer amounts of Sulpher. But then add it travel time, radiation, and all the other stuff, and venus becomes more attractive.
I think we should focus on Mars colonisation because it is doable with current technology.
what point are you trying to make? We can colonize ANYWHERE with current tech. Even the stars are within our reach. It's called funding. whereever is cheaper to colonize intitially will get the funding. And that means Venus or, most likely, the Moon. Now I know most of you are focused on Mars to the exclusion of all else, which clouds your judgement a lot. I'm glad you don't get to decide what NASA does, you'd wreck it.
Living on Mars and living on the Moon aren't that different in terms of the habs; they both have to be designed for Vacuum. The Moon get's more energy, it's closer to Earth, travel times are a lot shorter, but I think the first off world Colony will be in a C-Type asteroid. Mars and the Moon will have outposts though.
Use what is abundant and build to last
Offline
Like button can go here
Venus has 90% of Earth's gravity. That alone means you need a rocket as large as one from Earth just to get back into orbit. You can't land a multi-stage rocket and re-launch. The only way I can see any craft landing on Venus, or even entering the cloud layer, and then being able to take off again is with nuclear engines. Considering the thick atmosphere, it would best use that atmosphere, which means a nuclear jet engine (RAMjet or turbine) with a nuclear thermal rocket for the last push after leaving the atmosphere. Without that, any atmospheric entry on Venus is a one way trip.
This technology can be done, but it won't be cheap. This alone makes me think Venus is a very expensive destination.
Offline
Like button can go here
Why? A few on this thread keep arguing for floating cities on Venus, but why? What's the point?
Mining asteroids can provide gold, silver, and the complete platinum group of metals: platinum, palladium, iridium, rhodium, ruthenium, and osmium. That's all 8 precious metals. The metal asteroids are rich in them. I have already made a presentation at a Mars Society conference how we can harvest them and bring them back to Earth economically. It would be automated, astronauts only going out to fix equipment and hopefully not even that.
etc.
this is exactly what I am trying to say. First of all, I think the psychological effects of being suspended in the air in a balloon all of the time will be large. Secondly, Venus is not really a planet we can make earthlike, so it will be floating colonies now and forever.
-Josh
Offline
Like button can go here
Whatever happened to Fake Gravity? You seem to have chucked it out without a second thought. Not even a first thought.
Fake Gravity? We are restricted to real physics, not science fiction. The only artificial gravity is centripetal force by rotation. To avoid getting dizzy you require a large radius, which can be done for a spacecraft enroute, but not in an atmosphere. Energy loss to drag would be expensive. As for the moon or asteroids, are you seriously expecting astronauts to live in a giant merry-go-round? That significantly complicates the design, and would be an impediment to entering/leaving.
Io would be better than Venus if you're talking about sheer amounts of Sulpher. But then add it travel time, radiation, and all the other stuff, and venus becomes more attractive.
I'm not talking about sulphur. The attraction of Venus is an Earth size planet with a solid surface, carbon/oxygen/nitrogen/hydrogen atmosphere, and all the resources to sustain industry and a biosphere. Io doesn't have an atmosphere. If you try to build an atmosphere, the active volcanoes would wreck it. Remember volcanoes on Io are so powerful they spew material not only into space, but out of Io orbit, directly into orbit about Jupiter.
Offline
Like button can go here
I agree Jumpboy. The appeal of Mars is that we can see from the robot missions, that it is a world comprehensible to us. Terribly cold, where we won't feel so heavy and where we can't breathe, but nevertheless a world that makes sense. Crucially it is a world with accessible water as well.
We can see what it might once have been and what it could be again.
But the real point is, if we can get there we can start living there on a permanent basis without too much trouble.
Floating cities over Venus, though good sci-fi, are not to my mind a practical proposition in the next few decades. Asteroid mining might well be and a lunar base definitely is. For me the sequence is Moon, Mars, Asteroids, Venus.
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
Like button can go here
Fake Gravity? We are restricted to real physics, not science fiction. The only artificial gravity is centripetal force by rotation. To avoid getting dizzy you require a large radius, which can be done for a spacecraft enroute, but not in an atmosphere. Energy loss to drag would be expensive. As for the moon or asteroids, are you seriously expecting astronauts to live in a giant merry-go-round? That significantly complicates the design, and would be an impediment to entering/leaving.
Moon is now without atmosphere. I'm sure that a structure could be constructed rotating over other pushed over a superconductor (to avoid friction) and using electromagnets to gain the speed loose.
The structure would be like a curved cone to make the floor always perpendicular to the sum of real gravity and centrifugal force.
This structure could be constructed in a subterranean cave to avoid dust and have greater protection.
Offline
Like button can go here
Spaniard -
You've got money to blow on subterranean artificial gravity machines? Lucky man!
We know people have lived in zero G without compromising their health in any serious way. I think in terms of getting started on the moon , we can live with 1/6th G. It would make sense to develop a permanently inhabited colony, but with temporary residents. It will be the ultimate gap year experience. Rich kids will be lining up to pay to go there and help out with exploration and running the lunar hotel.
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
Like button can go here
Spaniard -
You've got money to blow on subterranean artificial gravity machines? Lucky man!
We know people have lived in zero G without compromising their health in any serious way. I think in terms of getting started on the moon , we can live with 1/6th G. It would make sense to develop a permanently inhabited colony, but with temporary residents. It will be the ultimate gap year experience. Rich kids will be lining up to pay to go there and help out with exploration and running the lunar hotel.
good god, I hope they never let something so tacky happen.
I don't want people on the moon just because they are rich. At least when NASA sent people up, it was because they had some merit.
Offline
Like button can go here
Gregori -
That's a bit like saying rich kids shouldn't be allowed to go to South America or Africa and help dig wells.
Depends if you want a real economy on the moon or not. Only an economy is going to defray the cost of colonisation and exploration.
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
Like button can go here
Gregori -
That's a bit like saying rich kids shouldn't be allowed to go to South America or Africa and help dig wells.
Depends if you want a real economy on the moon or not. Only an economy is going to defray the cost of colonisation and exploration.
Well, being rich really shouldn't be the entrance exam. I prefer things done on merit.
I'd rather shove the moon up their asses than hand it to a bunch of tyrannical landlords and aristocrats.. we have enough of those problems on Earth for centuries, we don't have to export it to the rest of the universe.
We can have a real economy on the moon/asteroids/mars and colonies without resorting to that bullshit.
Offline
Like button can go here
We can have a real economy on the moon/asteroids/mars and colonies without resorting to that bullshit.
Really?
Who's going to pay for it?
"Yes, I was going to give this astronaut selection my best shot, I was determined when the NASA proctologist looked up my ass, he would see pipes so dazzling he would ask the nurse to get his sunglasses."
---Shuttle Astronaut Mike Mullane
Offline
Like button can go here
To put Commodore's point another way, if I read him right, ISRU on earth is for the foreseeable future going to be a whole lot cheaper than importation of resources from other planetary bodies.
What is required to kickstart space colonisation is an economic incentive that could operate now. This is how colonisation has proceeded throughout the ages.
I wasn't arguing for a rich kids' colony. But I was being realistic. It's only really an extension of the observable fact we can see today that the space tourists so far have of course been mega-rich.
The thing is, if NASA remain purist and don't think in terms of lunar economic development, the private sector will move in - as soon as it becomes economically feasible (and I don't think that it as far away as some people think).
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
Like button can go here
We can have a real economy on the moon/asteroids/mars and colonies without resorting to that bullshit.
Really?
Who's going to pay for it?
Everybody. Thats how NASA has worked and its doing pretty fine so far. I think on a global scale, there will come a point where humanity as a whole should invest in settling the solar system. The actual spending on space is miniscule compared everything else. I heard Stephen Hawking bitching about this recently. http://space.newscientist.com/article/d … onies.html
Something along the lines of a system of five year plans that puts the basic infrastructure in place for living, transporting and trading in space. This R&D and infrastructure will make it much easier and more profitable for companies to trade in space. The government(s) can then establish a licensing system to recoup the money through taxing space companies.
A form of asteroid mining is where we should be going with space. There is an incredible amount of useful minerals in the NEO's and asteroid belt.
Offline
Like button can go here
We can have a real economy on the moon/asteroids/mars and colonies without resorting to that bullshit.
Really?
Who's going to pay for it?
Everybody. Thats how NASA has worked and its doing pretty fine so far. I think on a global scale, there will come a point where humanity as a whole should invest in settling the solar system. The actual spending on space is miniscule compared everything else. I heard Stephen Hawking bitching about this recently. http://space.newscientist.com/article/d … onies.html
Something along the lines of a system of five year plans that puts the basic infrastructure in place for living, transporting and trading in space. This R&D and infrastructure will make it much easier and more profitable for companies to trade in space. The government(s) can then establish a licensing system to recoup the money through taxing space companies.
A form of asteroid mining is where we should be going with space. There is an incredible amount of useful minerals in the NEO's and asteroid belt.
And why shouldn't tourism for people with more money than sense be apart of that?
The trouble is you can't get blood from a stone. The US afford this, the rest of the world, by and large, can not. If Europe got rid of socialism, they could match NASAs current budget. Various other democracies like Australia, Brazil, or SKorea combined could probably do the same. Russia's priorities are a bit of an enigma. The US, if it got it's act together could do five times what its doing now. Thats whats going to get the job done.
So thats maybe a third of the worlds population represented. You can't colonize space with a third of the world represented without them becoming colonies of those countries, and repeating the mistakes of the past. Furthermore, theres a big difference exploration and colonization. While the former answers the technical questions, the latter has vast social, economic and political implications that have nothing to with the former.
"Yes, I was going to give this astronaut selection my best shot, I was determined when the NASA proctologist looked up my ass, he would see pipes so dazzling he would ask the nurse to get his sunglasses."
---Shuttle Astronaut Mike Mullane
Offline
Like button can go here
And why shouldn't tourism for people with more money than sense be apart of that?
The trouble is you can't get blood from a stone. The US afford this, the rest of the world, by and large, can not. If Europe got rid of socialism, they could match NASAs current budget. Various other democracies like Australia, Brazil, or SKorea combined could probably do the same. Russia's priorities are a bit of an enigma. The US, if it got it's act together could do five times what its doing now. Thats whats going to get the job done.
So thats maybe a third of the worlds population represented. You can't colonize space with a third of the world represented without them becoming colonies of those countries, and repeating the mistakes of the past. Furthermore, theres a big difference exploration and colonization. While the former answers the technical questions, the latter has vast social, economic and political implications that have nothing to with the former.
I've a slightly better idea for those with more money than sense! Tax the bejeezuz out of them. They can afford it, they won't end up begging on the street. Honestly, I don't see a couple of rich space tourists paying that much of a meaningful role in a space economy or colonization.
I think there will be buisnesses in space, but the way to make that happen is to invest in targeted R&D and Infrastructure programs. Kinda like 5 year plans, that move everything up a level, get it up to standard. The wealth in space will come from its enormous mineral reserves.
Europe get rid of socialism? I think not. I don't think we're socialist enough. Actually thats such a stupid thing to say since Europe consists of many countries with different social policies, a lot of them very very right wing. Wrecking social programs will not be a boon for space.
Socialism is not an obstacle to developing space and tech as we've done excellent work with CERN, ITER, Ariane 5, Venus Express, Mars Express, Jules Verne ATV.. etc etc
I think that there should be more co-operation in space rather than individual nations competing.NASA's budget is being ripped to pieces, so even the US space prospects aren't looking too good. If that tab could be shared by several nations, that would be awesome. If the US cut down its military spending (like in Iraq), it could afford to do a lot more than its currently doing.
Someone should tell Washington there is oil on Mars, so they can bring "democracy" to it.
Offline
Like button can go here
Ok, this is descending dangerously close to a political thread, so I expect some of this to be split off there. Never the less, I'm not going give this a free pass...
I've a slightly better idea for those with more money than sense! Tax the bejeezuz out of them. They can afford it, they won't end up begging on the street. Honestly, I don't see a couple of rich space tourists paying that much of a meaningful role in a space economy or colonization.
Oh yeah, cause those people are just working to hand over everything to the state, right? Cause they'll just stay rich forever, no matter how much you tax them. And everyone will still aspire to the high office of goverment cash cow.
Actually, no, history has proven this to be wrong.
As for the value of space tourism, it has a lot to do with how we structure the program. Economy of scale is the key to everything, as it will make the dollars go farther, and increase the prospect of truly private space travel. The day Bill Gates decides he can afford his own space yacht is the day he decides he can put his servants into space.
And then of course theres the souvenirs.
I think there will be buisnesses in space, but the way to make that happen is to invest in targeted R&D and Infrastructure programs. Kinda like 5 year plans, that move everything up a level, get it up to standard. The wealth in space will come from its enormous mineral reserves.
True business as we know it on Earth is far on the other side of colonization threshold. Beyond some of the more exotic stuff, we have our physical needs covered on Earth. And its incredibly expensive and/or dangerous to bring stuff to the surface. The real advantage of those resources is to mitigate the cost by building everything we need off world.
Europe get rid of socialism? I think not. I don't think we're socialist enough. Actually thats such a stupid thing to say since Europe consists of many countries with different social policies, a lot of them very very right wing. Wrecking social programs will not be a boon for space.
Socialism is not an obstacle to developing space and tech as we've done excellent work with CERN, ITER, Ariane 5, Venus Express, Mars Express, Jules Verne ATV.. etc etc
To what end exactly? Do you really think you can solve everyones problems?
If you really want tax revenue, teach people how to take care of themselves so that they are not pinching every penny to survive under oppressive taxes.
I think that there should be more co-operation in space rather than individual nations competing.NASA's budget is being ripped to pieces, so even the US space prospects aren't looking too good. If that tab could be shared by several nations, that would be awesome.
Space exploration is not a pot luck supper. The more systems the more everything costs. The ISS should have proved that beyond a doubt.
If the US cut down its military spending (like in Iraq), it could afford to do a lot more than its currently doing.
That worked so well before.
Someone should tell Washington there is oil on Mars, so they can bring "democracy" to it.
Washington doesn't want anymore oil, its apparently bad for the environment, and the anti-war party likes the tax revenue the high prices bring. So much so they are trying desperately to make it worse.
"Yes, I was going to give this astronaut selection my best shot, I was determined when the NASA proctologist looked up my ass, he would see pipes so dazzling he would ask the nurse to get his sunglasses."
---Shuttle Astronaut Mike Mullane
Offline
Like button can go here