New Mars Forums

If this information has already been mentioned in another forum, I apologise!
   But have you all seen the news about the discovery of a major lake basin to the south of Gusev crater?!
   Gusev is at about 15 deg. S. and 187 deg. W. and lies at the lower end of Ma'adim Vallis.
   The lake basin contained 5 times more water than the Great Lakes of North America and they have found the ancient shoreline!
   At its northern end, the paleolake flowed over a ridge which acted as a natural weir. Eventually, the ridge eroded and flow rates increased. This led to ever faster erosion and the final catastrophic collapse of the ridge. The Ma'adim Vallis, which is a larger feature than the Grand Canyon, was gouged out by billions of tons of water flowing north out of the 2240 kilometre-long lake towards Gusev crater!!
   Exciting enough though this may be, what interests me is the fact that the surface of the lake appears to have been about 1.5 kilometres above datum. And yet, water was flowing out of it over the natural weir formed by the ridge! Scientists have deduced from this that Mars must have been even warmer and wetter than they had guessed. And I suppose the atmosphere must have been quite dense even at some considerable altitude.
   This is all very welcome news for those of us interested in terraforming Mars, since the more water we have to work with, the easier the task will be. And this seems to indicate that Mars once had simply huge quantities of water! Although much may have been lost to space, it's looking more and more as though there's probably still enough there to fill that northern ocean Kim Stanley Robinson described so vividly!
   Anyone for a dip?!!
                                           

Just returning to the "back-packs" briefly. I believe they were commissioned by the U.S. Army in an attempt to produce a highly mobile arm of the infantry.
   Two drawbacks disillusioned the military. The first was that the fuel which could be realistically carried allowed only 3 minutes of flight. The second was that a soldier flying one of these things was a 'sitting duck' and could easily be shot by enemy ground troops as he flew over!
   We assume that on Mars nobody will be shooting at us! But remember we'll already be dressed in bulky pressure suits before we get down to strapping on a 'rocket-pack'. Sounds a bit awkward to me!
   But maybe something more akin to the 'flying bedstead' used in training by the Apollo astronauts would be more practicable. In any event, you'd have to head for home when your fuel gauge registered half-full because of the lack of convenient gas stations on Mars!
   Just a further brief comment regarding peroxides in the Martian soil. The concept of such oxides and superoxides was hypothesised to explain the results of the life-detection experiments on the Viking craft. More specifically to explain the apparent lack of organic molecules indicated by the Gas Chromatograph Mass Spectrometer results. Since then, more than two decades of painstaking research by Dr. Gil Levin (who devised and ran the Labelled Release experiment) has discredited the accuracy of the GCMS. The scientific community has, for reasons I am unable to fathom, studiously ignored Dr. Levin's work and still clings to the now untenable idea that the soil of Mars is full of peroxides and therefore self-sterilising.
   In view of Dr. Levin's work and the fact of vast quantities of water ice just below much of the planet's surface, I'd be prepared to bet that there are no peroxides or unstable superoxides in the regolith at all. I think much of the regolith is not only amenable to life but, in accordance with Dr. Levin's interpretation of the results of his own LR experiment conducted on Mars by Viking, will be found to be teeming with bacteria and other microorganisms.
   If anybody out there wants to call me a nut, go ahead! But read about Dr. Levin's work first. It's fascinating stuff!
                                         

I don't think we rely on compasses as much as we used to for navigation because Global Positioning System satellites have largely taken over.
   As Bill points out, on Mars we don't have such a system ... yet. And we can't use magnetic compasses either because of the lack of a planet-wide field.
   But even though we can put a GPS system in place and solve the navigation problem for us and our machines, that doesn't answer the question about the effect on Earth-evolved animals of living without a global magnetic field. I read somewhere that during polarity reversals on Earth (which occur every few million years), when for a brief period there is no clear north or south, the animal extinction rate appears to increase. Whether this may be due to animals being unable to navigate to breeding grounds or to "fly south for winter", or whether it is due to the solar wind being able to reach Earth's surface in the absence of our protective field, thus increasing radiation-induced mutations, is unclear.
   God knows what might happen on Mars! Maybe ecological chaos ... or maybe life will quickly adapt and find alternative means of navigation. We won't know until we get there, I suppose.
                                              ???

Oh yehhh! Of course. Simple really. Thanksalot Tom!!
                                         

I have long been a highly enthusiastic fan of balloons on Mars. I can't remember how long it's been since I was supporting The Planetary Society's Mars Balloon Project ... not just vocally and spiritually, but financially as well. I love the idea of it! (I've still got the T-shirt somewhere! )
   Even though the German Mars Society's balloon, like TPS's before it, is not strictly a dirigible in that it cannot be steered in a desired direction, I'm sure it would still return marvellous images. Such images would go a very long way toward impressing on the public that Mars is A REAL PLACE!! ... Somewhere interesting we can go and explore.
   One question. How will TMS in Germany get Archimedes to Mars?
                                             

I suppose this isn't the site to discuss global warming, but since it's been brought up ...
   I think that if CO2 keeps increasing indefinitely in our atmosphere, then temperatures will rise. But future energy production may not involve fossil-fuel burning for much longer. There are any number of ingenious innovations which will undoubtedly be used to give us cheap and plentiful energy.
   As for current global warming, I honestly don't believe there is any. Last year I read about a weather satellite equipped with heat sensing technology capable of determining the  temperature of Earth's surface. Theoreticians had calculated that the average temperature of the night time hemisphere of our planet should be different at full Moon than at new Moon by 1/200 of a degree C. (due to reflected solar heat from the Moon's surface). The weather satellite I mentioned was used to test this prediction and, sure enough, it detected a temperature difference of exactly 1/200 of a degree. A tribute to the accuracy of the satellite's remote thermometer.
   That satellite had been in orbit for over fifteen years when this experiment was done, measuring temperatures all over the planet.
   In all that time, despite its proven accuracy, its data has shown absolutely no change in Earth's average temperature!!
   Most of the cities on Earth that keep temperature records, do so with thermometers set up in little meteorology boxes. These boxes, or stations, were originally set up on the outskirts of town, away from the roads and buildings which might have affected the accuracy of the data collected. Today, it has been found, most of these stations are still where they were put maybe decades ago. The trouble is, the cities have grown all around them. In fact, one of these stations was found next to the tarmac of a large airport!
   It's small wonder that meteorological data is showing that average temperatures are rising when the thermometers are being surrounded by hot buildings and traffic! But the fact of the matter, from more accurate satellite measurements, is that from 1985 to 2000, Earth's average temperature never varied!
   Earth has been subjected to sudden injections of staggering amounts of CO2 many many times in its history from mind-boggling volcanic eruptions. Sure, the climate warmed dramatically and sea-levels rose. There have been just as many episodes of extreme ice-ages, some of which are believed to have frozen the oceans as far as the tropics or even closer to the equator!
   But did Earth become another Venus or freeze over completely and permanently? No. Despite a severity in climate changes that we as a species will never be capable of reproducing, Earth's complex repertoire of checks and balances brought the planet back to its temperate norm.
   We greatly overestimate ourselves. Compared to mother nature, we are still a puny force.
   And did you know we are well overdue for the next ice-age?
This interglacial period has run its course and new evidence suggests that when an interglacial ends, the temperature drop is precipitous. You can go from a balmy interglacial to a full scale ice-age in less than a human lifetime!!
   I am personally unconcerned about "global warming". I think the next ice-age is a much bigger worry. In fact, in a few decades, the catch-cry may become: "Burn more fossil fuels! We need more CO2 ... the glaciers are coming, the glaciers are coming!!!"
                                         

Hi BGD!
   I don't think we know enough about the Martian regolith and the amounts of chemicals in it to really get a handle on what would happen if you swamped it with water.
   But your point is well taken. It may take a long time for the chemistry of a new Martian ocean to settle down and, in the early stages, the pH may fluctuate wildly. I don't know. And I don't think anyone else really does either.
   I have expressed concern in another post about how any Oceanus Borealis, being centred on the north pole, would be prone to freezing. Cindy raises this fear again, and rightly so. It could be a major problem unless we keep the average temperature on Mars close to 293K, which is warmer than Earth's average of about 288K.
   Phobos brings up the subject of tides. This is a potentially very significant difference between Earth and Mars as far as ocean life goes. I tend to ignore it and hope it will go away! But the long-term consequences of not having tides could conceivably be critical to the survival of a marine ecosystem. Does anyone have any educated input on this subject? Adrian! ...  You're a biologist. Any ideas on this one?
                                     :0

Hi Cindy!
   I believe one of the famous Mars meteorites (SNC meteorites, I think they call them) showed evidence of salty water having percolated through it at some stage.
   Since reading about that, I have tended to think in terms of a salty ocean on Mars in the past. Assuming there was an ocean at all, of course!
   If we do ever (re)create an Oceanus Borealis, and if it's salty, I can't see any reason in principle why we shouldn't be able to introduce Terran sea-creatures. But the ecology of Earth's oceans is complex and one creature depends on another which depends on another etc. I suppose marine zoologists would have to start with the lowest members of the food-chain first and then gradually introduce other species at the appropriate times.
   Then there's the problem of numbers. There is, for instance, a minimum number of, say, blue whales in Earth's oceans, below which they won't find each other often enough to breed successfully! So you probably couldn't drop a few whales into your brand new Martian ocean and expect them to carry on from there. It would take a lot of planning by very smart people to make the whole thing work, and I wouldn't be surprised if they made quite a few false starts before getting it right.
   This is an interesting thing to consider. Thanks for bringing it up! It just goes to show that terraforming, though complicated, is really just the beginning of something that will keep humanity busy for many centuries to come!
   We'd better get started as soon as possible!!
                                         

I understand "tacking" into the wind in a yacht on Earth, but that uses the pressure of the water on the hull and the keel in such a way as to allow you to sail almost straight into the wind. (Well ... within, say, 30 degrees of straight into the wind, anyway.)
   There's nothing for the ship to push against in interplanetary space, so tacking would be difficult, I think.
   Obviously, there's a simple explanation or people like Sir Arthur C. Clarke wouldn't be so enthusiastic about it.
   It's just that I can't quite get a handle on it and would appreciate an "idiot's guide to solar sailing"!!!
                                         

Cindy's 110% right when she says there are "more kooks where these two gals came from"!
   That's why those of us serious about space exploration and Mars colonisation get packaged up with all the nutcases and tarred with the same brush!!!
   And the average shmuck in the street doesn't know his a** from his elbow and thinks we're all just escapees from the local psych. ward!
   Which brings me back to the late, great Carl Sagan, who insisted we OWE IT TO OURSELVES to be skeptical, or else start believing in pixies again and burning innocent women as witches!
   Sorry! Sometimes I get a little bit hot under the collar.
                                      :angry:

I've never bothered to look up the principles of solar sailing. Moving away from the sun seems self-explanatory but how do you sail sunwards?
                                        :0

Cindy asks where China is going to get the money for a Mars mission.
   They stated recently that the big costs are in technology development and that they are prepared to learn from other space-faring nations. In other words they're happy to buy second-hand technology, especially from Russia I assume.
   I think also that Cindy's reaction, although perfectly understandable when you see how NASA does business, is based on a misperception: Sending people to the Moon, or even Mars, is probably not as expensive as we're led to believe; especially if you're prepared to buy cheap from other nations.
   There's some guy in America who is the "cheapskate's Maharishi Yogi"! He has shown that he can feed and clothe himself, and even furnish his home, for a tiny fraction of what most of us pay. This man never stops bargain-hunting! I think China will do the same in space.
   Your hero and mine, the great Dr. Zubrin, has pointed out how NASA can get the bill for manned Mars missions down from the $500 billion of 1989 to maybe $30 billion today. Most people will tell you that the primary obstacles to such missions are NOT technology and NOT money, but the lack of political will.
   If China, which appears to have the political will, puts aside just $4 billion a year between now and 2015, they'll have about $50 billion towards their dream of Taikonauts on Mars; more than enough for Mars Direct style missions. And it's  relatively inexpensive form of international prestige, too!
   I think China might just surprise us all.