New Mars Forums

It's not so strange. 

"Separate but equal" is just getting another chance.   

Yes, Cobra, but then economists would have to tell the truth!  The end result could be a disastrous academic version of Liar Liar.

It's not paranoia if they're really after you.

Perchlorate is a component of perchlorates (ammonium perchlorates, sodium perchlorates, potassium perchlorates, etc.), which are used in the majority of low-grade explosives and pyrotechnics in the world.  Household matches, fireworks, road flares, solid-fuel rocket-propelled weaponry of all types, model rockets, and the space shuttle all use some sort of perchlorate.  Because they make such good oxidizers, chemicals of this type are also used as industrial reagents and cleaning agents, though not on anywhere near the same scale as their use in rocketry. 

The single largest use of perchlorates - of any type, bar none - is as rocket fuel.  The largest and most widespread industrial use is in military ordinance, not space travel.  However, the single largest mass of perchlorates reacted in any system in the world is estimated to be the Space Shuttle's SRB's. 

It's a bit like nuclear material here in the states - it's pretty much ubiquitous, with dozens of applications.  If you own a smoke detector (and you should), you've got a little piece of nuclear science right in your bedroom.  Little bits of nuclear material are everywhere.  But the biggest, most dangerous masses of it are found in military and aerospace applications.

Perchlorates are the same way.

Hmm... perhaps hot cocoa is called for after all.  Quickly.  :;):

I was worried for a while that coffee wouldn't grow on mars.  However, after some research, I've determined that cafe arabica is very resilient in terms of low light tolerance, handles a wide range of temperatures, and is really only picky about its humidity.  So, we can have coffee on Mars.

Strawberries are even hardier than coffee.  With dozens of fragiria species to chose from, most of them edible, surely at least one will like Marsian greenhouse conditions.  (I'm trying to eradicate an inedible one in my back yard that's so tough it could probably grow on Mars right now, saving the trouble of a greenhouse.)

Perhaps cocoa will be similarly accomodating.

Hello all.

Here's an excerpt of an interesting Scientific American article with yet another take on global warming:

http://sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa0 … Scientific American Article

The complete article claims a regular cycle of CO2 and CH4 concentrations over time, corresponding to the precessions of Earth's orbit (and consequent changes in solar radiation).  It further claims that ice ages tend to correspond quite closely to these orbital cycles and corresponding CO2 & CH4 cycles. 

According to this, CO2 concentrations tend to be highest immediately after an ice age rather than before, then slowly decreases until the start of the next ice age.  (Sorry, The Day After Tomorrow isn't consistent with their data.)  The only period that differs from this pattern is the last 8000 years, which roughly corresponds to the invention of agriculture.  They go on to claim that not only did global agriculture cause a global warming event, but that major changes in atmospheric CO2 over the past 2000 years have all corresponded with major pandemics and famines in human history.

In short, dramatic drops in the amount of cultivated land caused dramatic drops in atmospheric CO2.

They say that, according to this cycle they've discovered, Earth should already be entering a new ice age.  However, the current cycle is different, with much more stable CO2 levels over time, and the cause of that is agriculture.  The last two centuries of fossil fuels are just an unusually quick and large spike.   

Farming altered the global climate, and farmers are holding back the ice sheets.

Alas, an early warning system is unlikely, and charts of the necessary scale aren't possible. 

At the speeds involved, all you would need to produce the kind of destruction RMS Titanic suffered is something about the size of a grape. 

There's no way to track every meteorite of that size.

Why assume a need to avoid the ice caps?  That is, after all, where most of the known water is.  For all we know, there may be no recoverable water at the lower latitudes. 

As a rule, we should follow the water.  We've found some; now we should follow it.

Really now, GCNRevenger.  Errorist clearly isn't retarded, merely undisciplined.  (In fact, I'll bet that his parents actually give him permission to use the Internet.  They're so cute at that age!  :;): )  Why, my two year old just today asked me "why?" in ridiculous circumstances for the 910th time - one for each day she's been alive.  Joy!  A darling child, just darling... She's not developmentally delayed, so it's no surprise that Errorist - who is likely close to her in age, judging from his posts - behaves similarly.

Be patient, friend, and let him grow.   

Ultimately, I'm with Euler.  Data on our rates of emission supports the assertion that we're making the CO2.  Variation in isotope ratios over time confirms it.  We're making the extra CO2. 

As for the cause of global warming, I look at it this way.

We're experiencing a gradual climate shift - an increase in average temperature.  There are two (2) perfectly reasonable theories about why that is so, with supporting evidence for each, not just one. 

Theory number 1 says we're retaining more heat because of the extra CO2.  Theory number 2 says we're getting more heat because of the sun.  Both theories say "More Heat", and furthermore, their outcomes are the same for small increases over short times.  We don't yet have enough information to tell the two apart.  We can't really tell which one we're dealing with until the climate shifts out of its present regime.

You can create a return matrix using those states ("Theory 1", "Theory 2", and "A Little of Both") and our choices ("Decrease Emissions", "Increase Emissions", "Keep It the Same"). 

Try it, and see if you don't come up with something that strongly suggests "Keep It The Same".  The Kyoto treaty choses "Decrease Emissions" instead.  The Kyoto treaty is not the best choice.  Unfortunately, "Do Nothing" is subsumed under the "Increase Emissions" choice, since doing nothing would continue our present unrestrained growth.  Doing nothing is not the best choice, either. 

We should stabilize emissions, and not be lazy about it.  But we shouldn't panic, either.

Ah, but Errorist didn't write it, so we have no clue as to its accuracy.   :;):

As for there being no conclusive proof about human responsibility for global warming, I should point out that sufficient proof does exist.  (Not the same thing as conclusive proof, I admit, but often the best you're going to get.) 

The proof of human responsibility for global warming is about as rigorous as the proof that Martian meteorites really are from Mars.  Characteristic isotope ratios are considered adequate proof of origin in both cases. 

I've got to agree with you about one thing, though, Cobra Commander: There's no evidence - sufficient, conclusive, or otherwise - of what's going to happen now that global warming is occurring.

Perhaps the US Midwest will become a desert again?  Perhaps the wild grapes will grow in Canada again?  Perhaps New Orleans will vanish like a sand castle during our first hurricane season with forty-two named Atlantic storms? The Patriots might even win the Superbowl.  Who knows?

Bush has taken a risk withholding our participation in the Kyoto treaty, but it was an acceptable risk under the circumstances.  It buys the US time we wouldn't have had if we'd ratified in 2001.

Ok, did some research...

Saddly, there are only two known species of edible moss (facai moss and harbunia), and those are used only as spices.  Lots of other edible plants like seaweeds and lichens are referred to as "moss", but are not true mosses.  Moss has no food value.

Still, faster-growing varieties could be employed for oxygen generation.

IMHO, the best reason to "save" the Hubble is the practice it can give us for other applications.   Hubble will soon no longer be the cheapest solution for its original function (astronomy), but using it as a target for other purposes may be cheaper than launching new test hardware.

For example, the recommendation has been made that it be used for testing space-based weaponry.  That is an excellent idea.  The Hubble Space Telescope is huge.  Large sections of it are bound to survive any attack and can be later surveyed to assess the effectiveness of the weapon.  This is facilitated by its low orbit, which can be reached by surveillance satellites and will allow for orbital decay of any debris.

Alternately, Hubble is semi-modular.  We can gut it and press those removable modules into service elsewhere.  Non-modular sections may be desirable mission targets as well.  The main mirror is pretty big and no doubt still good and in near-pristine condition.  Perhaps it could be removed and stored for later use.  The old gyroscopes could be brought home and examined to determine the unknown failure mode that laid them low.  Hands-on evaluation of failed satellite equipment is woefully lacking in modern aerospace engineering and could help lengthen satellite operational lifetimes (increasing profits). 

Also, we can test in-orbit rondevous technology by sending a second satellite to net or latch onto Hubble for a planned de-orbit burn.  At some point, we're likely to want that ability.  A defunct telescope sounds like the perfect place to practice.

Any information we can get from Hubble's component parts would be invaluable.  It would be a shame to just scrap it.

We should strip it instead.