Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

If we found another living planet

24

Comments

  • #32
    Labarbapostiza
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 963 ✭✭✭Labarbapostiza


    riffmongous wrote: »
    But this is what I mean, your model is far too simplistic and to start a project without fully understanding the system is a dangerous.

    It's a dead planet, and not likely to get any deader.

    For instance in your ice-age example there is no mention of the effects of increased ocean evaporation and clouds on albedo, and will those clouds increase the albedo or decrease it?


    More water vapour in the atmosphere will increase the surface temperature, increasing the humidity meaning you can have even more water vapour in the atmosphere, increasing the temp and so on, at what point does it increase so much that your snow will just melt every season, reducing the albedo further and leading to more radiation absorbed?

    The answer to all these questions is, that atmospheric temperature changes rapidly, it's colder at night than it is in the day. It cools and warms very quickly. The oceans take thousands of years to warm or cool. Ice takes a long time to melt. Before the invention of the freezer, blocks of ice were cut in winter from lakes in America and shipped to south America for cocktails - it takes a long time to melt.

    Snow does melt every year with the flow of the seasons. Why doesn't it all melt? It might on a planet with longer hotter summers. For an ice-age all you need is more snow to fall, than melts, in a year.
    No mention of the martian magnetic field?

    This is something I wonder about. Supposedly, in many descriptions, the earth's magnetic field protects us from being fried to death by high velocity particles coming from the sun. The idea might be as wrong headed as thinking the ozone layer protects us from ultra violet light. Our atmosphere protects us from high energy electromagnetic radiation, maybe you don't need a magnetic field to deflect particles.


  • #33
    Labarbapostiza
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 963 ✭✭✭Labarbapostiza


    riffmongous wrote: »
    But this is what I mean, your model is far too simplistic

    If you look back at my sketchy equations, I have chosen to ignore certain mechanics within the system. Rotations, seasons, etc. But I have accounted for the total energy.
    and to start a project without fully understanding the system is dangerous.

    Dangerous, of course. This is why mankind loves to play God, because it is dangerous.

    In terraforming, I think you might have a great degree of chaos. So, you'll never know precisely how it will go, but on a large scale, it's not that chaotic.


  • #34
    ScumLord
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,789 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    Labarbapostiza wrote: »
    To terraform mars, what I would do first is send some lichen (it might not need modifying), that thrives on CO2, but doesn't need much water. This will increase the atmospheric oxygen, then find a big asteroid of hydrogen and throw it into mar's atmosphere. And then maybe the red planet will turn green and become warmer.
    Isn't all that pointless without a magnetosphere to protect it from the suns rays stripping it all away again?


  • #35
    Labarbapostiza
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 963 ✭✭✭Labarbapostiza


    ScumLord wrote: »
    Isn't all that pointless without a magnetosphere to protect it from the suns rays stripping it all away again?

    I think the claim that the magnetosphere is essential for trapping atmospheric gas may be incorrect. Mars does have an atmosphere. Though the extreme lack of hydrogen on mars would indicate that it has escaped.

    The magnetosphere does not stop high energy sun light from zinging gases into deep space. I think earth loses millions of tonnes of hydrogen to space each year, but it's replenished by meteorites and I believe hydrogen from the sun.

    But it might just take a very long time to leak away. So, if we could find some big icy comets, and plunge them into the current atmosphere of mars, we might be good for a few million years.

    There are trace amounts of water in the Martian atmosphere, and a lot of CO2. On earth the situation is reversed, plants have a lot of water but not much CO2.


  • #36
    ScumLord
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,789 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    Isn't a lot of suns radiation get diverted as well though? Anything that tried to live on the surface would get fried instantly. I suppose there's no point worrying about life on the surface until there's a atmosphere but I'm pretty sure to make mars habitable in the sense a human could walk around outside without protection would require a magnetosphere.

    I don't think there's really any planet in this solar system that we could realistically use, mars is too small, we'd have to supplement the planets natural gravity to make it work for life from earth. I don't think it would be a particularly nice place to live, titan would be much more interesting being an ice planet and it would be cool to look up into the night sky and see Saturn so big.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Labarbapostiza
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 963 ✭✭✭Labarbapostiza


    ScumLord wrote: »
    Isn't a lot of suns radiation get diverted as well though? .


    In terms of photons, no. High energy photons are reduced in energy by collisions in the atmosphere. There is a nice formula, that I do not immediately have to hand, that shows high energy light loses its' energy exponentially as it passes through the atmosphere. So even x-rays from the sun are greatly reduced in energy by the time they reach the planets surface.

    The magnetosphere can only divert charged particles. The sun spews out high velocity charged particles. They're diverted by earth's magnetic field and head to the poles and create the aurora. But some make it through to other parts of the surface of the earth.

    Anything that tried to live on the surface would get fried instantly.

    The mars rover is still beavering away after years. Yes, it's a robot. But if there's no magnetosphere to stop it getting bombarded by particles (which can penetrate to its' electronics) it obviously hasn't been cooked yet.
    I suppose there's no point worrying about life on the surface until there's a atmosphere but I'm pretty sure to make mars habitable in the sense a human could walk around outside without protection would require a magnetosphere. .

    There is an atmosphere on mars. The problem for us, is we can't breath it. It's mostly carbon dioxide. The atmospheric pressure is also much lower
    I don't think there's really any planet in this solar system that we could realistically use, mars is too small, we'd have to supplement the planets natural gravity to make it work for life from earth. .

    There's a huge diversity in life on earth. The different conditions on mars might be great for some existing earth life forms. The lower gravity and higher CO2 might make grass grow as tall as trees. Currently, as it appears there is no life on mars, introducing something that can survive might make it rapidly take over the planet as it has no competition.

    I don't think it would be a particularly nice place to live, titan would be much more interesting being an ice planet and it would be cool to look up into the night sky and see Saturn so big.

    No, not a nice place to live.....But a fun place to visit. Is tourism a worthy enough cause? Why not. When you consider how resources are squandered on earth.

    Doing the kind of research needed for extra-terrestrial human habitats and travel would more likely than not have lots of spinoffs that could solve problems on earth.

    A moon base would be a very good start. For heavy materials, like metals and water, asteroids could be captured and taken to the moon. Launching inter-planetary missions from the moon would be much easier than from earth, because of the much much lower gravity.


  • #38
    riffmongous
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,933 ✭✭✭✭riffmongous


    ScumLord wrote: »
    Isn't a lot of suns radiation get diverted as well though? Anything that tried to live on the surface would get fried instantly. I suppose there's no point worrying about life on the surface until there's a atmosphere but I'm pretty sure to make mars habitable in the sense a human could walk around outside without protection would require a magnetosphere.

    I don't think there's really any planet in this solar system that we could realistically use, mars is too small, we'd have to supplement the planets natural gravity to make it work for life from earth. I don't think it would be a particularly nice place to live, titan would be much more interesting being an ice planet and it would be cool to look up into the night sky and see Saturn so big.
    I saw something on that just a minute ago

    http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-22718672


  • #39
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 94,977 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    riffmongous wrote: »
    I saw something on that just a minute ago

    http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-22718672
    Reaching 1,000mSv is associated with a 5% increase in the risk of developing a fatal cancer.

    ...
    It also needs to be considered in the context of the risks of contracting cancer during a "normal" lifetime on Earth, which is 26% (for a UK citizen).
    Smoking carries a 50% risk of a fatal something so I don't think it would put many people off.

    Of the 536 people went into space up to last November, 18 died. That's a 3.35% risk there. ( It's less per flight )


  • #40
    riffmongous
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,933 ✭✭✭✭riffmongous


    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    Smoking carries a 50% risk of a fatal something so I don't think it would put many people off.

    Of the 536 people went into space up to last November, 18 died. That's a 3.35% risk there. ( It's less per flight )
    But they calculated 660 mSV for the flight to and fro, living on the planet would lead to a much higher dosage no?


  • #41
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 94,977 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    riffmongous wrote: »
    But they calculated 660 mSV for the flight to and fro, living on the planet would lead to a much higher dosage no?
    no
    because you have some atmosphere, and the planet will cut out half the cosmic rays and you can live in a cave

    Humans should probably go to the deepest places as they will have slightly more atmosphere , and better for parachutes too




    or just drop an ammonia rich comet or two on the poles


    And the thing is if you have the technology to drop a comet, you could probably just go live on it instead





    Actually speaking of lobbing comets about , how long would it take for the moon to loose an atmosphere ?


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Labarbapostiza
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 963 ✭✭✭Labarbapostiza


    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    Smoking carries a 50% risk of a fatal something so I don't think it would put many people off.

    Of the 536 people went into space up to last November, 18 died. That's a 3.35% risk there. ( It's less per flight )

    Journalists are more responsible for over blowing the radiation risk than anyone else. Because radiation sounds terrifying and sensational.

    It does become an issue, if you go into space. But, I was reading an interview of an astronaut a few years ago. (There are kranks who claim that any space flight is impossible, because of radiation above the atmosphere). The pilot said radiation was an issue, but that a lot of it could be stopped by shielding that was as thin as aluminium foil.

    What interested me about that BBC article is the claim a lot of the radiation is ejected solar protons - hydrogen. If it could be harvested as water, then it's more of a benefit than a problem.


  • #43
    Depraved
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 156 ✭✭Depraved


    I believe that the technology required to terraform a planet would be based on quantum manipulation of matter, along with the ability to generate massive amounts of energy.
    But if we had that technology then we would have the ability to convert asteroids, moons, gas clouds etc into whatever we needed. Perhaps even take matter from a star and create a new planet from scratch.
    There would be no need to modify any planet that currently had life on it.


  • #44
    tac foley
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,500 ✭✭✭tac foley


    Just to point out that given our present level of technology, it is going to take Voyager 1 - if it was headed in that direction of course - just under 77,000 years to get to the nearest star.

    We'd need some major scientific miracle, if such a thing actually exists, to go fast enough to even begin to consider terra-forming a new planet, especially since we seem to be determined, one way or another, to do it to this one by the use of copious numbers of nuclear weapons.

    Does no harm to dream, though, eh?

    tac, pragmatist.


  • #45
    Maximus Alexander
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,080 ✭✭✭✭Maximus Alexander


    tac foley wrote: »
    Just to point out that given our present level of technology, it is going to take Voyager 1 - if it was headed in that direction of course - just under 77,000 years to get to the nearest star.

    We'd need some major scientific miracle, if such a thing actually exists, to go fast enough to even begin to consider terra-forming a new planet, especially since we seem to be determined, one way or another, to do it to this one by the use of copious numbers of nuclear weapons.

    Does no harm to dream, though, eh?

    tac, pragmatist.

    In fairness, Mars is pretty close by.


  • #46
    silverharp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,854 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    Say a thousand years from now or 5000 even and top speed is say less than .5 light speed with a realisation that warp speed will never be possible. Would it imply that you might have a small number of colonies with further expansion being grindingly slow plus the obvious logistics and communications problems where a round trip message could be 50 years.?

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • #47
    ScumLord
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,789 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    tac foley wrote: »
    Just to point out that given our present level of technology, it is going to take Voyager 1 - if it was headed in that direction of course - just under 77,000 years to get to the nearest star.

    We'd need some major scientific miracle, if such a thing actually exists, to go fast enough to even begin to consider terra-forming a new planet, especially since we seem to be determined, one way or another, to do it to this one by the use of copious numbers of nuclear weapons.

    Does no harm to dream, though, eh?

    tac, pragmatist.
    We simply can't go fast enough to make round trips anywhere outside the solar system. Without some kind of warp technology we're stuck in the solar system or restricted to one way trips on generation ships.


  • #48
    The lazy rat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 36 ✭The lazy rat


    This whole conversation is pointless. The speed of light 187000 miles per second is slow. Do you get that? 187000 miles per second, the speed of light, yes it is ridiculously slow. Terra forming other planets. The mind boggles.

    The world is on fire through greed but still money is squandered on these pie in the sky never to be fulfilled spacer notions.


  • #49
    tac foley
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,500 ✭✭✭tac foley


    ScumLord wrote: »
    We simply can't go fast enough to make round trips anywhere outside the solar system. Without some kind of warp technology we're stuck in the solar system or restricted to one way trips on generation ships.

    As I've already noted, travelling at whatever speed it's making now, Voyager would take 77,000 years to get to the nearest star - and that has NO habitable planets - leastways, for humans.

    tac


  • #50
    Depraved
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 156 ✭✭Depraved


    The lazy rat wrote: »
    This whole conversation is pointless. The speed of light 187000 miles per second is slow. Do you get that? 187000 miles per second, the speed of light, yes it is ridiculously slow. Terra forming other planets. The mind boggles.

    The world is on fire through greed but still money is squandered on these pie in the sky never to be fulfilled spacer notions.

    We may yet find a way to make distance irrelevant, or more manageable. If/When we do. knowledge of space travel will be extremely important.

    Also, we have the possibility of mining/colonising other planets/asteroids/moons in our own solar system. Something that will likely be required with the current population growth rate. For once our species is not waiting for something bad to happen before we act. We are proactively trying to find solutions to future problems and that is a good thing.


  • #51
    The lazy rat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 36 ✭The lazy rat


    Depraved wrote: »
    We may yet find a way to make distance irrelevant, or more manageable. If/When we do. knowledge of space travel will be extremely important.

    Also, we have the possibility of mining/colonising other planets/asteroids/moons in our own solar system. Something that will likely be required with the current population growth rate. For once our species is not waiting for something bad to happen before we act. We are proactively trying to find solutions to future problems and that is a good thing.

    We will never be able to make distance irrelevant, listen to yourself "We may yet find a way to make distance irrelevant". We need to get real here Depraved. What is it you're expecting? Wormholes and the like? It's not going to happen. I like Michio Kaku and respect him but I think he's outlook on these matters is unrealistic.
    We have hit the wall in physics. We cannot figure out what this all encompassing theory of everything is. Einstein couldn't do it and smarter guys than him still can't do it. Cern in Switzerland is 16 mile long joke shop. One of the most monumental white elephants (probably thee most) in history. Bashing particles together at almost the speed of light. What good is bashing particles at almost the speed of light? Surely if anything these particles would have to be bashed at greater the speed of light if anything?
    The global scientific community are just greasing up jobs for themselves and that's basically it.
    A damn shame.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    The lazy rat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 36 ✭The lazy rat


    Depraved wrote: »
    We may yet find a way to make distance irrelevant, or more manageable. If/When we do. knowledge of space travel will be extremely important.

    Also, we have the possibility of mining/colonising other planets/asteroids/moons in our own solar system. Something that will likely be required with the current population growth rate. For once our species is not waiting for something bad to happen before we act. We are proactively trying to find solutions to future problems and that is a good thing.

    We will never be able to make distance irrelevant, listen to yourself "We may yet find a way to make distance irrelevant". We need to get real here Depraved. What is it you're expecting? Wormholes and the like? It's not going to happen. I like Michio Kaku and respect him but I think he's outlook on these matters is unrealistic.
    We have hit the wall in physics. We cannot figure out what this all encompassing theory of everything is. Einstein couldn't do it and smarter guys than him still can't do it. Cern in Switzerland is 16 mile long joke shop. One of the most monumental white elephants (probably thee most) in history. Bashing particles together at almost the speed of light. What good is bashing particles at almost the speed of light? Surely if anything these particles would have to be bashed at greater than the speed of light if anything? I digress.
    The global scientific community are just greasing up jobs for themselves and that's basically it.
    A damn shame.


  • #53
    Maximus Alexander
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,080 ✭✭✭✭Maximus Alexander


    I agree, stop science. It's done. What has it ever done for us anyway?


  • #54
    The lazy rat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 36 ✭The lazy rat


    Maximus Alexander wrote: »
    I agree, stop science. It's done. What has it ever done for us anyway?

    Talk of space travel and terra forming other planets is what I'm specifically aiming at Max. Researching and financing these pie in the sky spacer notions as I previously described them are bleeding rather convulsing money away from where it should be spent. Tax payers financing these fruitloops and their expensive hobbies.


  • #55
    jamo2oo9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,780 ✭✭✭jamo2oo9


    Maximus Alexander wrote: »
    I agree, stop science. It's done. What has it ever done for us anyway?

    Well for one, it's saved millions of lives through vaccines for the most dangerous diseases like measles, chickenpox etc.

    It has helped us to develop better technology like communications, air travel, safer extraction of minerals, methods to get to work etc..

    Science has done a lot to help us evolve the way we do everyday.


    Why stop when we can go further? I don't mean by space travel but for everyday stuff.


  • #56
    Maximus Alexander
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,080 ✭✭✭✭Maximus Alexander


    jamo2oo9 wrote: »
    Well for one, it's saved millions of lives through vaccines for the most dangerous diseases like measles, chickenpox etc.

    It has helped us to develop better technology like communications, air travel, safer extraction of minerals, methods to get to work etc..

    Science has done a lot to help us evolve the way we do everyday.


    Why stop when we can go further? I don't mean by space travel but for everyday stuff.

    I was being tremendously sarcastic. ;)


  • #57
    ScumLord
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,789 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    The lazy rat wrote: »
    Talk of space travel and terra forming other planets is what I'm specifically aiming at Max. Researching and financing these pie in the sky spacer notions as I previously described them are bleeding rather convulsing money away from where it should be spent. Tax payers financing these fruitloops and their expensive hobbies.
    I guess I should hand back the massive grant I got for starting this thread.

    You can't really develop technology for the future without knowing what the future may bring. We've seen that the likes of Star Trek can inspire people to invent mobile phones.

    The fact is most of the problems of prolonged space travel are exactly the same as the problems we have on earth now. Mainly getting the most out of limited resources.


  • #58
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 94,977 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    The lazy rat wrote: »
    We have hit the wall in physics.
    ...
    The global scientific community are just greasing up jobs for themselves and that's basically it.
    A damn shame.
    there's an argument that we haven't advanced quantum mechanics since the 1930's


    http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-31743674
    A synchrotron is a big accelerator that produces powerful X-rays for research; apart from Antarctica, Africa remains the only continent without one.
    ...
    It's very relevant that Africa has such facility, so that dedicated, motivated African scientists can work on problems - biomedical, environmental - that are of particular interest to that region."

    X-ray tomography has proved very useful in lots of ways , as long as you don't do it on healty people.


    Anyway the key word here is living as in living planet.

    Forget the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs , in the grand scheme of things that was a walk in the park compared to the Permian Extinction. Or consider Snowball Earth a time in the past we were lucky to come back from.

    Science and engineering to get us spacefaring capability is the only way we could survive similar extinction events. And by we I don't just mean humans but most higher life forms.

    To get to space we need better materials and to do that we have to understand matter better.



    Also

    It looks like there's liquid water on Ganymede \o/
    and the Juno probe, compete with Lego should arrive there 2016

    *waits impatiently*


  • #59
    Ping Chow Chi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,779 ✭✭✭Ping Chow Chi


    Seems there is water in loads of places in our solar system :D


  • #60
    tac foley
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,500 ✭✭✭tac foley


    'dedicated, motivated African scientists '. Hmmmmm. I'm trying very hard here to recall the name of an African cosmologist/astronomer/physicist/mathematician...

    tac


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Maximus Alexander
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,080 ✭✭✭✭Maximus Alexander


    tac foley wrote: »
    'dedicated, motivated African scientists '. Hmmmmm. I'm trying very hard here to recall the name of an African cosmologist/astronomer/physicist/mathematician...

    tac

    Are you active in the field of cosmology/astronomy/physics/mathematics? Because otherwise I don't really know why you'd expect to know their names.


Advertisement