You are not logged in.
Hmm.
I'll be damned if I can remember the numbers I used - I thought I'd put them in the post, actually - but tinker with it a while and I'm sure you'll see what I mean, even if not to that extreme.
Ex Astra, Scienta
Offline
i understand why, it assumed that anything above a certain mean temperature is habitable, and didnt take into account a maximum mean temperature. i dont think that would be too hard to fix.
Offline
Yeah, probably. I still say we should just live in domed areas, though. Leave the planet as primal as possible. Keep a red sky instead of a hideously bright white one for most of the years of the terraforming. I somehow doubt that'll be all that pleasant to look at.
Ex Astra, Scienta
Offline
I'm sure some of you out there have read this already, but if not check it out.
Brute force, very accelerated, and highly traumatic terraforming. Very un-Red. As a "space imperialist" (to borrow Nova's term) I must admit a certain attraction to the concept.
Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Offline
I just love the way people almost always ignore the 'white sky' problem. It's fantastic.
Ex Astra, Scienta
Offline
What would that be?
Offline
Carbon is white. Most plans call for pumping large amounts of carbon dioxide into the Martian atmosphere as a 'first phase'. A dominantly carbon dioxide atmosphere would mean a dominantly white sky - which could prohibit moving outside entirely. Think snow-glare x1000, but coming from above instead of below.
Ex Astra, Scienta
Offline
Could we pump out something else with it to dilute the white? Pure oxygen or nitrogen?
Offline
Probably, yes, but then it would be an entirely different style of terraforming. Would have to be more brutal, unless you import all the oxygen and nitrogen - and not everyone finds the brutal option all that appealing.
Except for 'space imperialists', naturally.
Ex Astra, Scienta
Offline
I don't want a mostly carbon dioxide atmosphere for technical reasons, not asthetic. I mean, we don't even know if Earth-life can be adapted to such an atmosphere. Can our species adapt quick enough to such a change? Even if they're genetically engineered, they may not be able to for long periods of time (at first it may seem like we've created a species that can handle it, but a decade mass species die out, and since ecosystems are interdependent on those within it, one species could cost the whole ecosystem).
So, that said, I think it's important that we try to get the atmosphere just right.
Do you have actual ?snow glare from carbon dioxide? data? Where someone explains just how bring the effect would be? I doubt it has an amplification effect, if anything it should disperse the light, in which case it would be a soft white.
Some useful links while MER are active. [url=http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/home/index.html]Offical site[/url] [url=http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/MM_NTV_Web.html]NASA TV[/url] [url=http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/mer2004/]JPL MER2004[/url] [url=http://www.spaceflightnow.com/mars/mera/statustextonly.html]Text feed[/url]
--------
The amount of solar radiation reaching the surface of the earth totals some 3.9 million exajoules a year.
Offline
Perhaps I wasn't specific enough. 'Snow glare' was an example only. And I was saying it would be 1000x worse than snow glare simply because snow glare can be escaped - a white sky can't.
I'm hunting for a link to post here that supports what I'm saying, but haven't had luck yet. But I'm pathetic at finding things online quickly, so that doesn't mean all that much.
The problem wouldn't actually be with the colour of the sky, per se. That would be a symptom of the problem, though. The problem would be the little tiny fact that our eyes are adapted to a particular spectrum of light - an atmosphere composed largely of carbon dioxide would produce a different spectrum of light to the one back here on good ol' Terra, where there is a good deal more other junk floating about in our atmosphere. There's already more light in the red wavelength inside Mars' very slight atmosphere, and that in itself would no doubt cause problems with sight.
Am I making sense yet?
I'll get back to you on that link.
Ex Astra, Scienta
Offline
Wouldn't the CO2 outgas other gases?
Offline
That's what sunglasses are for.
They change the spectrum of light so that things are more comfortable. Ever go from living in a cloudy place (like Seattle) to a sunny place (like, say, Los Angeles)? You have to adapt. It's not like sunglasses are a difficult thing to deal with.
Some useful links while MER are active. [url=http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/home/index.html]Offical site[/url] [url=http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/MM_NTV_Web.html]NASA TV[/url] [url=http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/mer2004/]JPL MER2004[/url] [url=http://www.spaceflightnow.com/mars/mera/statustextonly.html]Text feed[/url]
--------
The amount of solar radiation reaching the surface of the earth totals some 3.9 million exajoules a year.
Offline
BTW, one should point out that we're not going to be wanting to walk around without glasses anyway. Especially initally, when Mars would lack the whole, ozone layer thing, and your eyes have to deal with UV light.
Some useful links while MER are active. [url=http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/home/index.html]Offical site[/url] [url=http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/MM_NTV_Web.html]NASA TV[/url] [url=http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/mer2004/]JPL MER2004[/url] [url=http://www.spaceflightnow.com/mars/mera/statustextonly.html]Text feed[/url]
--------
The amount of solar radiation reaching the surface of the earth totals some 3.9 million exajoules a year.
Offline
Yeah, but glasses decrease your range of vision. And alot of people aren't suited to contact lenses.
Might mean more accidents, maybe?
And no, I've never been to a sunny place. I live in Britain. ??? :;):
Ex Astra, Scienta
Offline
Yeah, but glasses decrease your range of vision. And alot of people aren't suited to contact lenses.
Might mean more accidents, maybe?
And no, I've never been to a sunny place. I live in Britain. ??? :;):
*Interesting. In my locale, we have sunshine an average of 320 days of the year. Today, typically, is absolutely cloud-free. I love it.
But I recall very cloudy weather, oh yes indeed...Iowa [where I was born and raised] is generally cloudy, blustery and no stranger to heavy mists and fogs.
Sunglasses won't decrease your field/range of vision in sunny climes; on the contrary, they're almost a necessity...unless you like headaches.
--Cindy
We all know [i]those[/i] Venusians: Doing their hair in shock waves, smoking electrical coronas, wearing Van Allen belts and resting their tiny elbows on a Geiger counter...
--John Sladek (The New Apocrypha)
Offline
I've been all over the country. To both the places I've described. It reallydoes suck to go from a dark and clundy place to a really sunny place. I wear glasses, so I just got prescription sunglasses. It made the transition easier.
Some useful links while MER are active. [url=http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/home/index.html]Offical site[/url] [url=http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/MM_NTV_Web.html]NASA TV[/url] [url=http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/mer2004/]JPL MER2004[/url] [url=http://www.spaceflightnow.com/mars/mera/statustextonly.html]Text feed[/url]
--------
The amount of solar radiation reaching the surface of the earth totals some 3.9 million exajoules a year.
Offline
It reallydoes suck to go from a dark and clundy place to a really sunny place.
*Well, I think it can go both ways...considering the adjustment involved. It took me about 3-4 years to really appreciate extremely sunny weather. But now, 10 years later, just 2 days of cloudy weather is almost unbearable. In 6/2000 I went to Iowa for a 5-day visit; 2 days of *their* cloudy weather [worse than anything we get around here occasionally] and I was aching to jump a plane for home. I'd forgotten (somehow) what "lowering clouds" are. Ugh. Gimme sunshine any day.
--Cindy
We all know [i]those[/i] Venusians: Doing their hair in shock waves, smoking electrical coronas, wearing Van Allen belts and resting their tiny elbows on a Geiger counter...
--John Sladek (The New Apocrypha)
Offline
Dont they have glasses that adjust to the amount of light and provide the optimum amount of tint?
Offline
Certainly Cindy! I lived in Colorado before I went to Seattle, and I must say that Iwas quite depressed there for awhile. It took some major adjusting. And I never did quite get over that experience. Dark time in my life I suppose.
soph, I have those kinds of sunglasses. I'll never forget the reaction people gave me whenever I would walk from indoors to outdoors. ?Hey! When did you put on those sunglasses??
These days it's second nature, though. And people aren't surprised by transitional lenses at all.
And anyway, who knows, perhaps by the time we're living on Mars, we would have perfected VR type glasses! We could walk around with cool looking, Matrix-esque lenses which change color, have vidscreens and so on. It'd be really cool.
Some useful links while MER are active. [url=http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/home/index.html]Offical site[/url] [url=http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/MM_NTV_Web.html]NASA TV[/url] [url=http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/mer2004/]JPL MER2004[/url] [url=http://www.spaceflightnow.com/mars/mera/statustextonly.html]Text feed[/url]
--------
The amount of solar radiation reaching the surface of the earth totals some 3.9 million exajoules a year.
Offline
Does anyone have a link to this 'white sky' thing?
I remember reading somewhere that raising Mars' atmospheric pressure to 2 bars of CO2 (maybe impossible anyway) would produce a white sky. But I can't find the site at the moment.
Another site, click here, suggests that: "If the Martian atmosphere were to be completely cleansed of dust, the daytime sky would appear blue, just as our own sky because of Rayleigh scattering by the molecules (primarily carbon dioxide molecules) which make up the atmosphere."
This seems to be saying that CO2 molecules are just as capable of producing a blue sky as nitrogen/oxygen molecules. All you have to do is keep the dust out of the air - which is going to be much easier in a denser more water-laden atmosphere anyway.
So maybe a terraformed Mars with, say, a 500 millibar CO2 atmosphere (ahead of a fully converted N2/O2 atmosphere further down the track), and a new ocean in the north, would have a beautiful blue sky, except during dust storms.
Who is actually right here?
???
The word 'aerobics' came about when the gym instructors got together and said: If we're going to charge $10 an hour, we can't call it Jumping Up and Down. - Rita Rudner
Offline
I think that teraforming should start right now, just send some Icbm's to mars and melt the south pole co2 cap by covering them in dust. Mars is a life less place whats a little fall going to harm. Besides radition good for the bodie in small doses why do think Americans are so healty its thanks to fall out from 50 test in neveda, and all that radon gas in the house. Let not for get lead paint. Those were sure the good old days metaporical speaking since I was born in th 80's.
Now days thanks to the EPA you can only get a little mericury from city water. If you dont belive me than why do poeple with cancer get radiation treatments?
Any ways it better than waiting for are decedents do do the job, if you dint get the memo you be a distent picture in family photo album, with your great great grandchildern make fun of the way you dressed. Why wait SEIZE THE MOMENT.
I love plants!
Offline
Where's Earthfirst's July 4 post? ???
The word 'aerobics' came about when the gym instructors got together and said: If we're going to charge $10 an hour, we can't call it Jumping Up and Down. - Rita Rudner
Offline
The gremlins must be bored stealing socks out of dryers because Shaun's July 10 message has also disappeared.
My people don't call themselves Sioux or Dakota. We call ourselves Ikce Wicasa, the natural humans, the free, wild, common people. I am pleased to call myself that. -Lame Deer
Offline
Can anyone recommend some background reading on terraformation (I'm aware of the basics at a sci fi reader level, but would like something a bit more in depth) and any theory behind "eco-economics" and "bio-infrastructure"?
Offline