/sci/ - Science & Math

apple pie > chestnuts

this is now a cosmos thread

Froth of the cosmic ocean reporting in

>>1737401

derp

We are a way for the cosmos to know itself. We are creatures of the cosmos and always hunger to know our origins, to understand our connection with the universe.

The cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be.

The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of star stuff.

itt: atheist faggots circlejerking

The idea of a canal network built by Martians may turn out to be a kind of premonition because, if the planet ever is terraformed, it will be done by human beings whose permanent residence and planetary affiliation is Mars. The Martians will be us.

damnit I nostalgia'd hard

>>1737439

>>1737446

>>1737446

back to page 1, Sagan damnit

>>1737451
You haven't heard my idea on starting the terraforming process by crashing Phobos into Mars' North Pole?

>>1737492
we should fucking do that someday, 's not that hard !

>>1737492
>>1737512

Phobos' orbit is nearly equatorial. the energy required to get it into polar orbit, then lower its orbit below the Martian surface is probably a few orders of magnitude greater than just nuking Mars with everything we've got.

>>1737512
Fuck I'm saving that.
The thing I would like to do before this is first check with all the calculations and physicists and geologists and all that that doing this would release enough CO2 and other gases in the air with the collision that it would start a runaway greenhouse effect (that we later on stabilize by creating oxygen with algae, etc)
Right now it seems like a very cheap (comparatively) way of completing 50% of terraforming Mars, and quickly too.

>>1737517
Detonate some nukes 'under' it to get it into a changing orbit?
There is no need to send Phobos crashing into Mars that very day. It can be done over a couple months or so, as the orbit lines up and then the secondary detonations take place.

>>1737492
>>1737512

Why would you want to "terraform" Mars? It's a unique environment unto itself. People say we should melt its ice poles so the human explorers can have air and water. But you have to remember we need the air and water so we can explore, we're not exploring so we can extract air and water. Mars should be studied and understood before we ruin it like we're ruining Earth. And if we find any life on Mars, primitive and single-celled as it may be, we should leave Mars alone, it belongs to Martians.

ITT: people that don't realize that we don't need to terraform. Spaceships are superior......

>>1737523
Because to date we have not found life on Mars. If we do, it will most probably be fossilized. And do you really want to give up a nearly Earth-like planet for microbes?

Terraformation is going to happen anyway. Starting it earlier is better.

>>1737523

Oh wow. Could you please limit your tree-hugging faggotry to Earth? Thank you.

>>1737512
Very inefficient way to knock it out of orbit.

Objects travel slowest at apogee. Assuming the force you can apply is the same at any point in the orbit, it will result in the same change in velocity. Doing this at apogee will have a greater effect because the change you cause is a larger percentage of the overall speed. Further, you should direct the force exactly opposite to the direction of travel.

The aim is to get the perigee ('lowest point', roughly) of the orbit below ground level - or at least deep in the atmosphere. It wouldn't be trivial for a moon, and even opposite and at the perigee you'd probably need amazing warheads.

Anyone know if there are specific terms when referring to Mars' apses? Oh, wikipedia does, but I don't like them. Will stick with Earth's for now.

>>1737531

>Anyone know if there are specific terms when referring to Mars' apses?

The generic terms (regardless of the primary body) are "periapsis" and "apoapsis". Using anything else ("perigee", "perihelion", "pericynthia" etc) is semantic faggotry.

>>1737534

>pericynthia

That's "Pericynthion", the argument of periapsis of a Lunar orbit.

>>1737534
I'll keep that in mind in future. (Not sarcasm.)

>>1737534

The planet-specific terms are useful when describing interplanetary orbits, especially complex ones that slingshot around several planets, like the Voyager 1 and 2 spacecraft.

Don't mind me, just bumping interesting threads