/sci/ - Science & Math

[∞ß☢✘SⓣяucⓣiOи卐☪☭ !a4K0Q1Ozys!!zYN5Lcx71zu No.1665498]

Yes/No, why?

[∞ß☢✘SⓣяucⓣiOи卐☪☭ !a4K0Q1Ozys!!zYN5Lcx71zu No.1665505]

biizzzzumppp

[Anonymous No.1665509]

Man, Martian kids are gonna be soooo super pissed when they realise us Earth kids get two Christmases.

[снайпер No.1665513]

Something we can consider when we've got a few hundred trillion dollars extra laying around.

Until then, there are a hundred other projects and programs I would rather see funded than terraformation of mars. For instance, the construction of the first O'Neil cylinder, or solar power satellite.

[Anonymous No.1665520]

Too expensive. It would be less expensive to make Sahara desert green.

[Anonymous No.1665524]

The gravity on mars is unhealthy for humans, that's the biggest problem I foresee

[Anonymous No.1665528]

>>1665513
>push it back, not yet, push it back, not yet
>OHFUCKAHUGEASTEROIDIWISHWEHADBUILTABASEONMAR...[static]

[Anonymous No.1665529]

>>1665498
you need something to hold that atmosphere, and currently mars has the shittiest magnetic field.

[Anonymous No.1665530]

There is absolutely no incentive whatsoever to build on other planets in comparison to the aforementioned O'Neill cylinders etc.

[Anonymous No.1665539]

mars doesnt have gravity so how would you overcome that

[Anonymous No.1665541]

Assuming it would take a thousand years, then sure, it is possible.

[Anonymous No.1665545]

>>1665530
Um, minerals aren't infinite on Earth.

[Anonymous No.1665551]

>>1665539
>mars has no gravity

[Anonymous No.1665552]

>>1665545
So we can send automated mining devices, yes? Yes.

[Anonymous No.1665556]

Humans will have artificial bodies in 100-150 years from now anyway and those will withstand everything. So terraforming Mars would be nothing but a waste of time and money.

[Anonymous No.1665560]

>>1665539

That's what velcro is for. Velcro on everything!

[Anonymous No.1665561]

>>1665556
>artificial bodies
>100-150 years

lol no, theres a shitload of stuff in the human body we dont know the machinations of, you can replace someones entire body without knowing everything about it.

[Anonymous No.1665564]

>>1665498

No.

2012.

See you in hell.

[Anonymous No.1665576]

>>1665560
I just imagined a docking procedure using velcro.
Many thanks anon, I lol'd.

[Anonymous No.1665577]

>>1665524
Then we need to colonize the asteroids. No unhealthy gravity there.

[снайпер No.1665581]

>>1665528
I already said there are better, less costly alternatives like O'Neil cylinders.

Not to mention with a robust space economy based on asteroid mining, redirecting asteroids should not even be a problem.

[Anonymous No.1665586]

>>1665561
Plus, aliens would never be able to board our ships because they lack the opposing velcro side.
Goddamn, give this man a Nobel Prize.

[снайпер No.1665589]

>>1665577
>Unable to comprehend what artificial gravity is

[Anonymous No.1665592]

>>1665498
The biggest issue to colonizing mars is the lack of a strong magnetic field.
If solar flares present problems on Earth with our awesome magnetism, just inmagine the havoc they would wreck on technology on mars.

[Anonymous No.1665598]

>>1665581
Ah sorry. Jumped the gun there. My apologies.

[Anonymous No.1665626]

Already been done.

[Anonymous No.1665655]

>>1665626

Aren't you supposed to be on /x/? They miss you there, you should return immediately.

[Anonymous No.1666370]

I say do it. Opening up a mining colony on Mars means more money, more space to make more domes and more people. Greenhouse-gas-intensive industries could be relocated there and the natural byproduct of the factories would eventually lead to a greenhouse gas effect. While this is going on humans will discover how to create an artificial ionosphere to protect itself from solar wind as well as how to create more space-resistant plants to set foot on the new planet. Water bears would be set loose to reproduce as they please. The only downside would be eliminating any microbial life that may be native to Mars.

[Anonymous No.1666391]

No, would not work. There is no gravity on mars, and the atmosphere would float away. Also, there is no way to bring enough rocks from the earth to make gravity on mars without greatly disturbing earth.

[Anonymous No.1666392]

>>1665592
This.

You'd need to find a way to get it's core spinning to make a shield to stop flares from knocking out all your systems.

[MIGHTIEST MIGHTY MAN !!DMhpCpzFmH5 No.1666399]

>>1666370
People want to build their factories in the places it would cost them the least to manufacture, I somehow believe Martian factories would be quite costly.

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.1666405]

>>1665513

This.

Why leave a gravity well just to jump into another? For the short term, we don't need Mars: Just a few orbitals, access to resources on the asteroids, and a few exploratory missions and outposts installed on Mars, the Moon, and Cisjovian space.

Full-scale terraforming? Not until we have molecular assembly, otherwise it will take too many resources.

[Anonymous No.1666412]

No magnetic field, gravity too low to keep an atmosphere.

>lol no, theres a shitload of stuff in the human body we dont know the machinations of

Hence the 100-150 year grace period.

[Anonymous No.1667595]

anti-troll bump as per the ancient covenant

[Anonymous No.1667660]

>>1667595
and again

[Anonymous No.1667691]

fuck you all for posting in troll threads

fucking idiots, all of you

[Anonymous No.1667723]

>thousand-year project
In today's USA you can't expect any large scientific project to keep on going for more than 4 or 8 years. We're all about pushing the problem just far enough into the future that the next administration has to deal with it. I wonder what types of political/social changes would have to happen for any real multi-generational project like this to actually happen.

[patachu !LULZISTwQI No.1667741]

why redirect meteorites when you have Phobos around?

[Anonymous No.1667759]

It's political suicide to throw large amounts of money at something that won't be at least half done by election time. Good luck Trying to convince the politicians to free up enough money for something that won't be completed in their lifetime.

[Anonymous No.1667786]

>>1667759
This is why we need an immortal God-Emperor...

[Anonymous No.1667799]

>>1667786
Nah. Lets start a technocracy.

[Anonymous No.1669907]

>>1667741

Phobos would just come apart into a ring system and then bombard the surface of Mars with little planetoids pieces of itself.

Fail, and a big waste of a trillion dollars

[Anonymous No.1669922]

Without a magnetic field the atmosphere gets blown off. It's not like that stupid demonstration in The Core, think of it more like seeds being blown off dandelions.

[Anonymous No.1669929]

>>1667786
>>1667799

Helios has spoken

[Anonymous No.1669944]

But I won't be around in a thousand years...

FML... :(

[Anonymous No.1669950]

No. Why? To research Mars, you do not need a permanent colony. To colonize space, stations/asteroids are a much better - no, make it the only - option.

[Anonymous No.1669954]

>>1667741
As much as i like that idea i have a suspicion that the idea of 600megatons worth of nuclear warheads stacked on a spacecraft is going to make people rather uneasy.

[Anonymous No.1669961]

A thousand year plan? I like it. I hope this means you'll fix that irregular wobble Mars has compared to the Earth, which will no doubt fuck up any climate after a longer period of time.

[Anonymous No.1669970]

>>1665539
Heavy boots

[Anonymous No.1669972]

>>1669922
Only that it takes a few hundred thousands of years for any significant atmospheric depletion to occur due to solar wind. It would be pretty easy to regenerate the atmosphere for the decades it takes to build a artificial magnetic field(put a few loops of wire around the equator, put current trough it.) something far easier than restarting the core activity.

[Anonymous No.1669975]

>>1669954
For a flight that long you're going to need some kind of reactor anyway.

[Anonymous No.1669977]

>>1669975
Also, SSBNs.

[Anonymous No.1669998]

religion and FAITH is more important than racist science

[Anonymous No.1670015]

Tell me /sci/, why is there no nation of scientists purely dedicated to getting shit done?

[Axel the Possum No.1670021]

>>1669972

What're the power requirements for something like that? The actual cost of building that much wire and maintaining it aside (both of which may be feasible, all things considered), how much energy would you need to be producing to resist solar flares?

I do agree with the other people here that our first goal should be space stations, but before those become feasible, we need a way to get stuff into space that isn't "strap explosives beneath them and hope they don't kill us" and a way to get back that isn't "throw ourselves against the atmosphere at ridiculous speeds".

[Axel the Possum No.1670035]

>>1670015

Three reasons.

1. Scientists typically aren't good fighters. Few men of science would go out to a territory and say "This shit's mine!" Well... At least, not since the Victorian Age of Naturalism ended.

2. Scientists aren't great with politics. Sure, many can wheel and deal, but the number of views held by scientists are so diverse that a coherent nation would devolve into the same bickering that goes one everywhere else. Ever seen the committees that run the inside of academic institutions?

3. Scientists aren't great with economics. You'd need millions of citizens to keep the country's systems running, and a large additional portion to the "getting shit done" factor, since a lot of investigative science is something that doesn't see returns in the short term. Without business interests assisting, your country would be an economic sink-hole.

The best way to get science done is to make it economically interesting to corporations. They have the money and the manpower to get shit done.

[Anonymous No.1670054]

>>1670015
Because most people aren't and can't be scientists for many reasons, it's how society works and with all those people around you get a whole different set of priorities which are focused on just surviving in the short term. Science gets done for what society deems necessary, which for those problems involved in that short term survival strategy tend to be fixed quite adequately, the long term shit however just gets ignored until it becomes a problem in the short term. This has worked for us so far, but eventually we'll run into a long term problem we can't fix in the short term.

The best thing you can hope for in space exploration and colonisation is another dickwaving contest between two great powers.

[Anonymous No.1670072]

almost familiar looking; positive associations in regard to image: not present

[Anonymous No.1670078]

>>1670054
Not really. Just ask the Maya or Easter Islanders.

[Anonymous No.1670100]

well, if you want a "nation" of scientists, ask your government to stop wasting money on pointless shit and have them build labs and pay for people to be educated on some science field. maybe it'll pay for itself when they come up with nanobots that assemble food, houses and machines with solar power. Or not, having a ton of unemployed, starving, crippled and/or ignorant people also has its advantages.

[Anonymous No.1670469]

for starters mars's iron core has cooled off enough it doesnt produce a magnetosphere so RADIATION and its mass is too small to hold atmo on its surface so yeah WASTE OF TIME AND MONEYZ

[Anonymous No.1670496]

Maybe when Earth has 20 billion people with another 1 billion in space, then we'll start terraforming Mars.
I suspect Mars will be the Antarctica of the next thousand years.
Wait, why don't we just terraform Antarctica?

[Anonymous No.1670700]

»Yes/No, why?

money

[Anonymous No.1670730]

if I recall correctly, mars is farther away from the sun than earth (lol). this means whatever solar radiation does get there is going to be significantly reduced, needing a less powerful magnetosphere.

[Anonymous No.1670742]

>>1670469
Higher radiation than Earth doesn't equate to inhospitable. An underground home and protected transportation would mean the average Martian wouldn't get much more radiation than you or me. It would just be part of life for them. Martian kids would ask why us Earthlings build our homes on top of the ground instead of in it.

[Anonymous No.1670743]

>>1665498
Mars's atmosphere is already mostly carbon dioxide, and besides, Mars's gravitational pull is not great enough to hold onto an atmosphere for very long.

[Anonymous No.1670749]

>>1670496
Because it has OVER 9000 metric fucktonnes of water ice.

[Anonymous No.1670760]

>>1670743
Define "very long". It took a billion years or more for Mars to lose its atmosphere. That is ridiculously slow on a human time scale. On top of that we can always add what little escapes!

[Anonymous No.1670787]

Lower gravity alone would make this impossible.
I'm pretty sure you can't have healthy babies without proper gravity.

[Anonymous No.1670789]

>>1670760
Well it obviously wasn't billions of years considering the sun has only been around for about 2.5 billion. And what would you plan on filling the atmosphere with? You are either going to have to bring something to the planet to fill it with, or find something solid already on the planet that you can vaporize into something usable.

[Anonymous No.1670801]

>>1665498
Even in this pictures best case scenario, 5.6psi isn't enough sustain life. That would be like trying to live at the top of Mount Everest.

[Boomer !!bcdVCSUmpgT No.1670819]

>>1670801
5.6psi actually makes Everest sound NICE to live on. And as has been mentioned time and time again, in this thread and elsewhere, everyone keep repeating it until people get it through their heads,

IT WOULD LOSE THE ATMOSPHERE

Not enough gravity = not enough air pressure = atmosphere escaping.

[Anonymous No.1670830]

>Well it obviously wasn't billions of years considering the sun has only been around for about 2.5 billion
>the sun has only been around for about 2.5 billion
>2.5 billion
I'm not talking to you anymore.

[Anonymous No.1670834]

>>1670789
>The sun has only been around for 2.5 billion years
oh lawdy yous dumb

[Anonymous No.1670836]

>>1670819
IT WOULD TAKE A BILLION FUCKING YEARS EVEN IF WE MAGICALLY LOST THE ABILITY TO GIVE IT MORE!

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.1670849]

>>1670789
The Sun formed 5 billion years ago. Earth formed 4.5 billion years ago. Life arose 3.5 billion years ago.

[Anonymous No.1670853]

>>1670787
What IS "proper gravity"? 1G? 2G? .5G?

at worst, kids in lower gravity will just grow a bit taller.

[Anonymous No.1670856]

No

Pointless waste of money

[Anonymous No.1670879]

>>1670789
Additionally the universe as we know it formed after the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago. You now know all the cosmological dates that the average /sci/ poster learned when they were ten.

[Boomer !!bcdVCSUmpgT No.1670895]

>>1670836
No, it hypothetically took a billion years for the hypothetical ancient martian atmosphere to completely outgas through chemical processes. That is assuming it formed an "atmosphere" much different from the one it currently has. Mars was not an earth like planet at any point in its development. And once we get all of that "Mars had an atmosphere it took it a billion years to lose" nonsense out of the way, what mechanism are you proposing to generate atmosphere faster than mars can lose it? How do we magically gain an atmosphere giving ability, assuming we cannot magically lose it.

And then, once we have overcome those obstacles, you still have to deal with the martian gravity only giving you a maximum of 5.6psi atmospheric pressure. The gravity on mars just will not keep the atmosphere down.

Good luck trying to make Mars warmer as well, that will only increase the speed of atmosphere loss.

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.1670929]

Drop off automated super-greenhouse gas factories on the surface. As they role across the surface processing regolith they would spew out gases that make carbon dioxide look like an ice pack. These factories would be sent to Mars relatively cheaply using solar sails. Once there, the sails would be cannibalized and re-purposed into orbital mirrors.

Because Mars has HUGE elevation disparities the low lying regions would gain a thick atmosphere relatively quickly. There, the first algaes and lichens would be introduced with more complex life being introduced over time. Slight genetic alterations would help tailor make life for the high altitude like, cold environment.

To add to the atmosphere more quickly comets would have their trajectories around the Sun slowly changed by throwing mass off in different directions using fuel from the comet itself or simply using rocks and mass drivers. The comets would be redirected to intercept Mars' atmosphere where they will burn up, releasing a lot of heat and a lot of needed gasses.

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.1670947]

>>1670895
>the martian gravity only giving you a maximum of 5.6psi atmospheric pressure
[citation needed]

>hypothetical ancient martian atmosphere
It had liquid oceans dude. A liquid water ocean couldn't have existed in Mars' present form.

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.1670962]

>>1670895
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v338/n6215/abs/338487a0.html
>ABUNDANT geomorphic evidence for fluvial processes on the surface of Mars suggests that during the era of heavy bombardment, Mars's atmospheric pressure was high enough for liquid water to flow on the surface. Many authors have proposed mechanisms by which Mars could have lost (or sequestered) an earlier, thicker atmosphere but none of these proposals has gained general acceptance. Here we examine the process of atmospheric erosion by impacts and show that it may account for an early episode of atmosphere loss from Mars. On the basis of this model, the primordial atmospheric pressure on Mars must have been in the vicinity of 1 bar, barring other sources or sinks of CO2. Current impact fluxes are too small to erode significantly the present martian atmosphere.
>1 bar

[Boomer !!bcdVCSUmpgT No.1670972]

>>1670947
>[citation needed]
Good luck with that.

>Nuh-uh, mars totally had an ocean

Hypothetically... not even theoretically. Theoretically an ocean on mars was possible at one time, but everything about the present state of mars can be explained without having to make Mars like Earth at one time. Study harder. Sensationalist media is not research. Sci-fi novels are not research. Discovery channel has been slipping downhill badly... very, very badly.

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.1670975]

>>1670895
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1998/98JE02074.shtml
>Based on tabulated crater densities, the process of atmospheric cratering can account for a loss of 50–90% of the Martian atmosphere since the onset of the geologic record.
So unless you plan on dropping a gawdam planetoid on Mars you don't have to worry about the atmosphere simply floating away.

[Boomer !!bcdVCSUmpgT No.1670981]

>>1670962
Cute. Gonna link us all to the article that claims there is anti-matter in the sun next?

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.1670986]

>Good luck with that.
I was referring to your lack of a citation.

>Hypothetically... not even theoretically.
Give me a single expert that believes Mars never had a hydrosphere, just one.

[Boomer !!bcdVCSUmpgT No.1670989]

>>1670975
That's nice... except Mars does not have the gravity to hold one down in the first place. The equivalent of a planetoid never fell on Mars. And that statement only means the rocks still falling on mars simply cause it lose atmosphere even faster.

[Boomer !!bcdVCSUmpgT No.1670997]

>>1670986
>Appeal to authority for me!

And we are done here!

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.1671004]

>>1670981
>say Nature isn't a legitimate source
I just linked you to two peer reviewed scientific articles on the topic with abstracts that lay it out in plain English. You don't get better sources then that. Do you want me to take you back the fuck in time to show you the atmosphere or do you claim to be the leading expert on Mars' primordial atmospheric conditions?

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.1671012]

>>1670997
What the fuck? How old are you? Are you a philosophy major? Nature is the arguably the best peer reviewed scientific publication on the planet. Youz be troll'n.

[Boomer !!bcdVCSUmpgT No.1671055]

>>1671004
>Peer reviewed articles are always 100% correct, and are not being published for peer review.

Had to reply to that one, in case anyone thought they should believe everything they read. I'd ask you to show those articles the same skepticism you are showing me... except you have no skepticism. You are jumping on the articles you read that happen to re-enforce your bias.

I wanted to terraform Mars too. But I did actual research on what we know of Martian conditions. I didn't go looking for feelgood articles to back up my bias. Be skeptical, and when you begin encountering problems try and find a way to overcome them, don't just shut your eyes and say "Well i guess it must not exist."

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.1671082]

>>1671055
SO READ THE DAMN ARTICLES! You go to university don't you? Most universities give you access to scientific publications like Nature.

You are taking this appeal to authority thing WAY too far. By your definition, every scientist is guilty because they all cite previous articles. If you have a problem with their findings then right your own scientific article and submit it to a peer reviewed journal.

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.1671092]

>>1671055
SO READ THE DAMN ARTICLES! You go to university don't you? Most universities give you access to scientific publications like Nature.

You are taking this appeal to authority thing WAY too far. By your definition, every scientist is guilty because they all cite previous articles. If you have a problem with their findings then write your own scientific article and submit it to a peer reviewed journal.