You are not logged in.
The quoted above open-sky terraforming of Mercury as it is orbitaly and rotationaly ( not even mention such enormous astroengeneering works as moving or spinning faster the planet) advocate David Semloh, states that even the elipticity of the Mercurian orbit is tolerable in terms of insolation and termal ballance. In his scheme, as you see shirt-sleeve livable for humans are just about 2 mln. sq. km. at the poles, where lots of pockets with microclimate ideal for habitation are forming -- to biult cities, etc. About 1000 km south and north of the repected poles, harvestable biota lives. The rest of the planet is covered constantly with thunder-storm clouds` cover. The equatorial currants push the heated air mass, together with the completelly evaporated from the lower latitudes water, in these directions - UP, to the night side, and finally to the poles, where the air demoisurizes (the same way as it is on Venus, minus the water). This circulation effectively blocks the heat off the habitable and inhabited pollar regions.
In the polar areas the long diurnal cycle is not a problem. The Sun moves around the horizont - big and red - its direct heat blocked by hundreds of km.s air line. Enen on the circumpolar "night side" there is enough 'twighlight'.
If the polar colonisators ever decide to terraform the rest of the astronomical body surface -- mirroring out or deflecting the light from these regions, than 3 month of day and 3 months of night, could occur to be adaptable for organisms. As shown the air flows redistribute planetwide the heat, without evaporating the entire water tables at big noon, or freezing it at big midnight.
With its original diurnal cycle Mercury will resemble Venus ( 2 months day + 2 months night) -- a situation known from the earths polar regions with even worse lenght of 6 months.
Yes, here higher from the polar circle there aren`t trees, but trees with winter/night sleep are engineerable. Effective and vivid human-compatible ecology could be instaled (say, via migrational mechanism of certain species for distribution of the energy) even on tidally locked worlds. If the last are around , say, brown dwarfs -- than we should consider IR-light photosynthesis...
But, surely Mercury could be made human-livable without total roofing, change of its orbit or axial rotation, or complete parasoling, thus the planet to retain most of its uniqueness, and to be beautiful, interesting place to live.
Mag-sail`s manner artificial magnetic field increase could be used the planet to keep its atmosphere so close to the Sun.
Niotice, that planetary outer-surface open-sky human-compatible worlds could be sustained by soleta light deflection even as close as several solar RADII to the Sun. That means dozens of thousands times bigger insolation than earth receives. And as I many times pointed out -- as far as half the distance to the nearest star by soleta light collection...
Mercury is not so hot and illuminated world in astroengineering sence!!!
Very interesting, Karov, where can I get more info on David Semloh's scheme?
My search on google got me to this site: http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/planet … ges]Planet Mercury Society but I didn't find anything on terraforming.
The simulations show that if a planet with atmosphere is tidaly locked around a star, than its air currants will be sufficient to balance the average temperatures on the night and the day side. Plant life off cource could be groun only on the day side (not all of it) and along the twighlight zone, if artificial diurnal cycle is not induced by mirrors. On Venus not only the thick atmosphere equalizes the day-night and pollar-equatorial temperatures -- the specific weather system balances the big differences out also, as proposed for Mercury, by David Semloh, from the quote above.
But, to stop the spin of Mercury is simply ineconomical.
If the air currants can balance the temperatures on an acceptable level, why do we need to change the rotation in the fist place?
If we are able to move Mercury away from the Sun, even to its aphelion position and change its rotation to match Earth - that would be a much better solution. We could get a hot but tolerable climate, possibly only on and near the poles. The rest of the planet, if its too hot could be domed or dug.
Mercury's magnetic field (1% of Earth levels) is protecting it from excess radiation when it is not in perihelion.
I am sure there could be other engineering solutions - even with the way Mercury is right now.
There are some who believe that terraforming Europa is out of the question because of the probability that life already exist there. The fact that the Galileo probe was intentionally crashed into Jupiter's crushing atmosphere to protect the findings regarding its ocean would certianly add to that intrigue.
Should an attempt a terraforming be made, the prospects of harvesting land from nearby asteriods could create the needed land mass.
I'm not a scientist, just fascinated by the prospects for the coming generations of human in the regards to space colonization.
Here is a neat link.
Beautiful pictures, Hope55! Looks like fantasy but very exciting. Welcome on board
Sorry, Martian Republic, I didn't delve into it. You're probably right but I'll quote R. Zubrin again: "Let's get the baby out of the operation room alive first and worry about which college she goes to later." We're stuck at the moment - only talking but no human missions are planned yet. We could start with a small colony - then build cities. People need to learn to survive on Mars first - grow food, extract oxygen, build protection from radiation and cold.
No projects will ever get get started if the politicians hear about billion dollar budgets. We should ask for what's achievable. Continuous human missions to Mars are achievable and affordable.
Scroll down to NASA-ESA Study Shows Mars Direct Affordable
http://www.marssociety.com/]The Mars Society page
If the same face of Mercury always faced the Sun, then a large part would be under similar conditions as the poles, allowing ice to settle, providing more water. On the sunny side, it would be easier to aim the solar cells toward the Sun.
The transition zone would be an interesting place to live.
Mercury rotates 3 times in 2 of its years, a fact known since 1965 but the solar day is twice as long as its orbital period (year). Venus has (luckily) an opposite effect because of its retrograde rotation.
Orbital or Sidereal period 87.97 Earth days
Synodic period 115.88 days
Rotation period 58.646 Earth days =
2/3 orbital period
Solar rotation period
(noontime to noontime, or
one Mercurian day) 175.84 Earth days =
2 Mercurian years
Some Sci-Fi passage about the terraformed Mercury. I would say it's paraterraformed, though:
The planet closest to the sun is Mercury, and it is the fourth world to be terraformed. Unlike those previous, however, its surface is not inhabitable. Rather, while the surface of Mercury is bleak and lifeless - baked on one side by the sun, cold and dead on the other - it has shielded starports located along the Terminator Line between "dayside" and "nightside", which provide access to a vast underground network known as the Webway, which connects artificial subterranean biospheres known as Underworlds.
Mercury is the domain of Mishima, and its insular nature means that others have had very little success in encroaching upon its domain. The largest Underworld - and the base of Mishima's operations - is Longshore, Mishima's primary starport. Longshore is a vast cavern with the Underground Ocean on its floor, and includes several islands that lie beneath an artificial sky. The central island, also known as Longshore, is located underneath a crater that provides an opening to space, shielded by an ancient wonder of technology known as the Celestial Shield - a plastic dome that keeps air in and radiation out, but which allows starships to pass through, and then knits itself back together once they have passed. Although Mishima is not on the best of terms with the Brotherhood, the Longshore Cathedral can be found here, the Brotherhood's only base of operations on Mercury.
The other major starport is Fukido, which is basically the Mercurian equivalent to Hong Kong in some respects. Due to a bit of a bungle on the part of the Mishimans, Imperial managed to secure a lease to 99% of the properties in Fukido, which is located directly opposite Longshore. The lease only lasts for 99 years, and is bound to expire in a few years, but Imperial has operated it as a nearly anarchistic capitalistic free enterprise city, and various entrepreneurs have flocked here despite the lack of long term security, and the ever present danger that Lord Moya (the Mishiman Lord Heir that oversees Mishima) might just get fed up with Imperial's antics, break the agreement, and drive the foreigners out of the city.
Although Longshore is Mishima's largest city, its official capitol is Yamato, located in yet another, less accessible underworld, though not far from Longshore underneath the surface.
Could someone answer these terraforming mars related questions for me for a paper I amm writing?
1) How long will the whole process take?
2) What steps must be taken to terraform Mars?
3) What is the ratio of Eath/Mars size?
4) Is it ethical?
Thanks for the help!!
I am sure Mars can and will be terraformed.
:band: :band: :band:
I hope we won't have big security and safety problems right at the start of colonization, we just need all these precautions and be aware of all possibilities.
The sooner Mars is terraformed - the better: less dependency on domes, oxygen supply, etc.
Basically you mean what if a dictator takes over?
Yes.
Even independence movement could take different shapes. Whatever the cause, often innocent people die because of the "freedom fighters".
I agree with MarsDog and ecrasez_l_infame - we want nice people on Mars. I wonder if candidates should be screened not only for their character but for political views?
Slightly off-topic. I would go to live on Mars if given a chance - I only have one concern - what if some idiot decides to violently take power on Mars and turn everyone into slaves or similar. Even volunteers that go to Mars could be crazy, you never know. The human factor bothers me more than the natural difficulties. The police should be created in the very first steps of the colonization.
You mean if NASA would send 50 astronauts and one starts a martian cult to which 25 of the others join. Now they don't want to go back to Earth and don't take orders anymore from Earth.
Well that could be a problem
. Houston we have a problem.
Hey didn't the US start this way? Didn't they show the middle finger to the British?
No, I didn't mean that. This scenario is very likely to happen sooner or later - I meant when someone takes control of say, a dome and decides who will breathe and who will die. If you watched the Total Recall, you know what I mean. The independence movement is one thing but if someone usurps the power they are already given - it's worse. A vicious person could do a lot of damage, that's why I think we should stay away from sending inmates to Mars.
Slightly off-topic. I would go to live on Mars if given a chance - I only have one concern - what if some idiot decides to violently take power on Mars and turn everyone into slaves or similar. Even volunteers that go to Mars could be crazy, you never know. The human factor bothers me more than the natural difficulties.
*I've thought about that too.
--Cindy
Hi Cindy
This possibility can't be excluded. The Total Recall movie with Schwarzenegger is an example of what could happen. Earth is too far away - cops can't reach you.
Don't get me wrong I'm interested in Mars too, but without getting control over the U.S. Government or some other major government, what your talking about doing is impossible.
On another forum I was suggesting that we build a city on Mars and do it in a forty to fifty year time frame, but it was based on having a Pro-Space President like Kennedy. It was based on Federalizing the Federal Reserve, re-arranging the tax code, have a government rite off system for private enterprises and massive government built structures and creating a Constitutional Martian Government of self rule. Any body that thinks they can do it without a major government backing them up is sadly mistaken.
Go to the web site below for more information and read it closely. If you really understand what he saying, then you will understand that without a major government backing this up, it not going to happen.
http://www.transhumanist.com/volume4/sp … /space.htm
Your talking about doing something that even the U.S. Government can’t do in it present form. So one of those other people on the forum said to me on that other Space forum, your talking about trillions of dollars to build that Mars City. And I said your right, it is going to cost trillion of dollars, that why only the government can do it.
That why you hear so many people that talk about private enterprise in space and about how good it would be and they have these Grandiose Plans of building hotel, generating power, mining, etc, don’t do any thing, they can’t fund it. That why the U.S. Government through NASA could go to the moon, but thirty years later, private enterprise hasn’t copied it. That why any serious private space venture is either a communication satellite or a NASA Contract that some private business got.
I'm sorry it that way, but it is that way and we can not change the rule to suit you because want to chang the rules.
Larry,
Billions - yes, trillions - no.
If the initiative is given to private enterprises much more can be achieved.
In Robert Zubrin's estimates - a full blown mission to Mars could be made for a minimum of 5 billion dollars. It won't go over 20 billion - if done by NASA may cost half a trillion. $20 billion is a lot of money in the real world.
Building the first Martian city would cost 50 billion maximum if given to private companies. The problem is noone is going to make this offer, even with the latest initiatives announced.
I both like and dislike the idea of sending inmates to Mars. I agree with the points that criminals back then are different from now. Mars won't be a nice place to live if you knew it was swamped with murderers. Don't worry, when Mars becomes a little populated there will be local criminals (inevitably) and prisons are part of any state, so the local criminals will do the hard work.
I also agree that there will be enough volunteers, so we don't need to worry about finding workers. The extremely hard work - digging, lifting should be done by robots or human controlled machines - excavators, cranes, etc.
Slightly off-topic. I would go to live on Mars if given a chance - I only have one concern - what if some idiot decides to violently take power on Mars and turn everyone into slaves or similar. Even volunteers that go to Mars could be crazy, you never know. The human factor bothers me more than the natural difficulties. The police should be created in the very first steps of the colonization.
I was just curious what people thought should be the Official Language on Mars. If the, no offence, Americans get there way we'll all be speaking English. But English is a very poor language with very little structure.
So shouldn't Mars have the perfect language? I say Yes.
And the language I came up with is Italian. Italian is simple to learn for most people in the G7 nations. Also it has a good few grammar rules, not to may though, and are kept to 99% of the time, unlike English. Also it is the closest modern Language to Latin, which most Martian Nomenculture is in. But the reason Latin would not be suitable would be it is missing to many words needed in the modern World. Correct?
Tell me what you think? Is there another language you think is Best (more perfect so please no one who says everyone should speak English, cause most already do....loads speak Spanish and that is just as bad as English).
btw I am not Italian.Also, Italian is only spoken by 80 million people so it will put (more-or-less) everyone in the same boat - everyone will be on level pegging, no one will have language advantage in either way;
a) by not having to learn a language
b) or by having a second, private language.Everyone will have a new language and an old.
This would be best right?Also, anyone know any Italian Names for Martian Nomenculture...I am curious.]
???
I am Russian but I don't have any problem if the official language becomes English. The language is the natural choice; no one should impose, which language to speak. On Earth English is used in many cases as the lingua franca even between non-English speaking countries or organizations. If some other language becomes dominant on Mars it will become the language of communication and the official language.
In the European Union they've got a bit of a problem with so many different languages used in each country, so many translators required and the combinations, so they use interpreters/translators for other languages. So, for instance, you need to translate from Maltese into Slovenian but there are no translators handy - they will use a Maltese/German and a German/Maltese to work around the problem. It creates a logistical nightmare - because each country is respected and representatives from each country should receive documents and verbal translations in their own language. But these are official people. In Australia, like in other immigrants' countries for example, there are a translated booklets for different services to help people to understand better if they don't know English but because the majority speaks English we immigrants adjust and speak this language too. English is more the language of the common use rather than official, although it is official too.
I believe it's not important at this stage to fantasize and decide which language should be used on Mars if there are no people on Mars. If Americans come and settle first - it's going to be English, if the Japanese come and settle first - it's going to be Japanese. If we get mixtures - let the Martians decide what they prefer to use.
We should not let the size of these projects scare us. Think about the project size of building highways across the world. Or even better, building a train track across America with 1800’s rechnology.
I think you may be understating things. Terraforming Venus or affecting the temperature/orbit/rotation period of something that large, with anything other than the "Bomb it" or "Hit it with a big rock and see what happens" aprroach; I just can't see us doing it in the next 200 years.
This is more like building the Space Shuttle in 1812.
You're right. If people are pessimistic even in a simple discussion l like this, then it is impossible, of course.
I know only if people want something badly they can do it, if it's a low priority - this will never be done.
---
Changing Venusian atmosphere is the achievable minimum we should be concentrating, maybe with a temporary shield - all other projects - rings, spinning up Venus, shifting it - are pure fantasy with the current or near future technology.
I'd like to hear some opinion about Venus with the Earthlike atmosphere (maybe thicker) - I read some estimates that the average temperature would be only 15-20 degrees higher than on Earth. I think the polar regions and beyond might be quite comfortable - equatorial areas too hot. There is no axial tilt on Venus. So, there won't be seasonal changes due to the inclination but only due to long days and nights (56 days/56 days). Night - winter, day - summer. Long mornings and evenings - spring and autumn (fall). We might leave the Venusian rotation alone and adjust to it.
Liquid salty oceans will keep the temperatures warmer at night and it may not even freeze completely.
Spinning and shifting planets are theoretically possible but IMHO not realistic - too expensive. Even building rings. I am not sure if any government/organization will ever consider this.
The key problem with the hot Venus is in its amosphere, not its rotation. If Venus could get Earth's atmosphere - its structure and amount - it's going to be much cooler - we will be able to land on Venus and build habitats. It will be hot during the long days and cold during the long nights but it may be tolerable. If a nitrogen/oxygen atmosphere, thicker than on Earth is created and enough water to create a cycle - the impact of 56 days long days/nights will be softened. (solar day, not rotational period, which is twice as long). Winds will spread the temperature more evenly, clouds will protect from overheating. The atmopshere should be rid of CO2 and CO.
Inverted cone, cable anchored, balloon building structures would reflect on the top, while deflecting surface heat radiation into space.
-
The incoming radiation would be reduced by the top reflecting area, while all of the surface area would be able to radiate to space.
Yeah, something like that. Balloons are a good idea for reflecting light.
Anatoli, you are so right about the 5-second space-news slot at the end of the news.
I estimate there are about 8-10 minutes of national and international news (Forget the international news if an Aussie football player has stubbed his toe and will miss an important match on the weekend! Forget the national news too if an Aussie cricketer has been caught cheating on his wife! ), followed by commercials, followed by 8-10 minutes of sport (even if the first 8-10 minutes have been all football and cricket anyway! ), followed by commercials, followed by the weather.
Then comes the light-hearted stuff in the dying seconds. An old-age pensioner accidentally hit the accelerator instead of the brake in his driveway and drove into the neighbour's ornamental fish pond ... fortunately nobody got hurt (chuckle, chuckle, titter, titter)! And President Bush said America should return to the Moon by 2020, and go on to Mars. ["Well, there's no green cheese on the Moon ... time to go check for little green men on Mars." - (condescending smiles and more tittering as the signature music strikes up and we fade to yet more commercials! )]As I think I've said before, it's as though there's no universe above their heads; the world stops at the cruising altitude of a 747 - or at the local football ground for some of them!
To describe these people as parochial simpletons is an insult to parochial simpletons in my view!!!
:angry:[Sorry. I guess I'm just in a frustrated mood tonight. I'll probably feel better after dinner!
]
You described it very well, Shaun Were you referring to Channel 9's 'Today' morning program? I only watch it because there's nothing else on.
Take a look at the detailed map of the terraformed Mars from the Red Colony site.
http://www.redcolony.com/map/index.html]The Future of Mars?
Paraterraforming is just other way to keep and regulate atmosphere. There are designs with equal value for Mercury without the necessity of roofing the world. Matter of money and aesthetics.
There is big difference between building flimsy parasols and soletas and huge, robust, massive rotating structures. The first thing is far easier. They are easier maintainable and replaceble.
I am excited about Mercury (I don't think many people are). To add to above listed, I had an idea:
If Mercury can hold atmosphere (at least for hundreds/thousands or millions of years), we could probably design shade and mirror sysems on the ground to allow the light to penetrate only partially onto the ground. The closer to poles - the simpler the design. Cities could be built in pretty deep valleys, protected by tall natural or artificial mountains. Almost like domes but only partially closed. Very little sunlight could keep the temperatures down. What do you think, does it make sense?
*Just a comment (and I don't mean to take this off-topic): Why bother with all these moons? Why -not- space colonies? At least with space colonies you can move about, deploy probes, study phenomenon up-close, etc. Think how quickly that would aid our understanding of the Solar System.
About the only beneficial use I see for terraforming a lot of celestial bodies is getting good experience for when -- and if -- the human race moves out of the Solar System entirely.
Beyond that, Mars and maybe another celestial body or two is plenty.
I really don't understand the disinterest in space colonies, and I've been participating here for 2 years. Thanks, KSR.
Just my 2 cents' worth.
--Cindy
I think space colonies are a good idea ad they are not too hard or too expensive compared to planet terraforming. You can decide on the design, size, location, rotation, distance form the Sun, etc but it's more exciting and much more value in making the other worlds as homes. Space colonies will hardly ever become real homes to anyone. Even living on a ship is possible but boring. People will want to go home. Where is home? Only Earth, of course. I, personally, would prefer to live on a large domed asteroid than on a ship.
To other posters. Mars and the Moon are not the only colonizable/terraformable places, although they are the "easiest" and the closest - and this where we should IMHO start.
Mercury poles are ready to be colonized as they are. Someone suggested to live in Venus clouds - see Venus thread(50 km above the surface) - pressure - 1 bar, temperature - 0 to 50 C - nice! (Need some protection from acids). Titan is even more prepared. No pressurized suits required - 1.5 bar pressure. Very warm clothes (-180 C) (or some technology to keep warm) and energy sources required. Callisto and Ganymede are not worse than Mars and the Moon. Too cold but lots of frozen water ready for use.
http://www.spaceweather.com/venustransi … nd1.jpg]My favorite pic so far
*Looking through those hazy cloud bands, Sol looks like a cross between Jupiter and Saturn with one of its moons passing in front. Love those oranges and yellows. Really a striking pic.
--Cindy
There's a moving (time-lapse) pic as well (as the Sun is setting), from Hong Kong -- via the link in my 1st post.
My region missed out on the transit entirely <pout>. But these glorious pics are making up for it!!
Wow! Great pics. Thank you, Cindy.
I think if you really to make more people interested in space you must build orbiting hotels in space. Where you can go for $10.000 a week.
![]()
![]()
I don't think its funny. But I do understand that you may think so.
Its just that Mars and Moon and humans on them are age old stories. Getting people on Mars is such an old story and nothing has happened since the 50 years that people said its possible.
Its like when I see a brochure or on TV something about a holiday on a exoctic island with scuba diving and stuff. But now imagine there are no commercial airlines and only sailing ships. Do you really think people would be that interested in going to some far region? Or would think of it as something realistic?
You can argue to people that's technically possible but most humans are pretty down to earth and will then say: "Well then do it." Or "I will believe it when I see it"
I only laughed about the joke, it doesn't mean that I like the way things are going with the space exploration. I agree with what you said. If I were a billionaire, I would heavily invest in space exploration but I am not.
I think if you really to make more people interested in space you must build orbiting hotels in space. Where you can go for $10.000 a week.
Let me add my 2 coins.
The popularity of space exploration could be boosted if we have more and better sci/fi movies, say based on K.S. Robinson's Mars trilogy, Case for Mars and others - optimistic - less war and scary aliens, nasty viruses, more achievable results, no speed light travels - new frontiers - Mars settlement, etc.
Journalists contribute to unpopularity of space exploration by talking about huge budgets needed to get something done. They need to be better educated in this.
Yeah but people don't want to see realistic movies. They want star trek, star wars with sounds in space, they want gravity, aliens like humans etc.
If you look at the http://www.imdb.com/boxoffice/alltimegr … non-us]top twenty of best all time selling movies you will see only two movies (Titanic and Forrest Gumb) that are some what realistic the rest are all fantasy based.
However you had movies like http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0199753/]Red Planet and http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0183523/]Mission to Mars I have seen both but its a long time ago. One of them was kinda of like the book Red Mars. But anyway I guess they didn't sell to well. BTW they are not bad movies but just not Star Trek, Star Wars with huge empires and wars.
I watched both movies, Smurf. They are good but we need more and better. Enemy Mine (an old one) is a good one too, as well as the Planet of the Apes and it's positive - stop the war, all intelligent species are equal, etc. I think, Mars Trilogy could be a good base for a movie but they should add some action and use a bit more fantasy. I liked the final part of Total Recall - Terraformation made easy