/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.4424103]

Possible? Economically feasible? Discuss.

[Anonymous No.4424113]

>Possible? Economically feasible? Discuss.
Yes. No. No thanks

[Anonymous No.4424114]

Post the rest of that image, and then we'll talk.

But in all honesty, it is feasible. Will any nation, or hell the world invest in such a project when the end result will be Mars turning back into a lifeless rock? Doubtful.

[Anonymous No.4424116]

It was my understanding that Mars was incapable of holding an atmosphere, even if you were able to produce the gasses for it

[Anonymous No.4424117]

>>4424114
What would make it regress so?

[Anonymous No.4424122]

>>4424117

If humans leave, Mars cannot sustain its atmosphere -which like the image shows- is entirely man made. Over a few hundred years, it'll vanish.

[Anonymous No.4424127]

Heard you wanted a Mars colony bro.

[Anonymous No.4424131]

>>4424117
Mars does not have a magnetosphere, because it has an inactive core. High energy particles ejected from the Sun (solar winds) would inevitably blow any atmosphere off of the planet, without the protection of a magnetic field.

[Anonymous No.4424133]

>>4424122
What? No...

[Anonymous No.4424138]

OP here. By economically feasible I meant for the resources. Not money involved. Also, would there be a way to re-activate the core? Or perhaps substitute a magnetic field of our own?

[Anonymous No.4424143]

>>4424133

Oh yes.

That's why I requested the second end of the picture, it was posted in Popular Mechanics a few years back and that was its ending. I just wanted it for confirmation. Humanity finally says: "Screw it" and it reverts back to its former state. Terra-forming Mars is pointless endeavor, build under the surface or on top of it, forget trying to conquer it.

[Anonymous No.4424146]

>>4424138

That too is also a negative, what resources might Mars have that the Moon didn't have? Or a passing asteroid? Mars will be there for the simple fact of expansion and leaping from one world to the next. A budding space port. Nothing more. If alternative and faster means of travel are discovered and we can pick and choose planets in which we land on, it will remain barren.

[Anonymous No.4424149]

>>4424138
>reactivating planetary cores
>constructing planetary magnetic fields

>economically feasible

[Anonymous No.4424150]

You have to define "economics".

Under current (popular and practiced) economics, no, it's utterly impossible. Which explains why we haven't done it yet, despite having all the technology to accomplish it.

But under another economics, where people stop being selfish BITCHES and start working for the actual betterment of Humanity, then yes, it will become possible.

Don't "hold your breath" waiting for the 2nd definition of economics to take hold. The 1st definition will destroy our technological civilization FIRST, long before it will let go of the average Violent Simian brain, and then we'll have lost all ability to even leave Earth's atmosphere, making Terrformation of Mars a moot point.

[Anonymous No.4424151]

>>4424149

So. Project: DESTINI anyone?

[Anonymous No.4424153]

>>4424149
srs. Think about it OP. It's an entire fucking PLANET.

What has humankind achieved that stands next to firing up a PLANET?

[Anonymous No.4424167]

>few hundred years
What?

While it is possible to terraform mars, by the time it's pheasable, technollogy will prob be advanced enough to speed up the process. Think synthetic plants. Economically? MAYBE. The assumption here is that we're still going to be running on capitalism when this project starts laying its roots. However, we most likely will be running off a different system at that point. Civilization types are used to measure energy output, but there are certain trade marks we can predict. Something like the Civ type 2 star trek is communist. Not the shit form we've seen around the world, but the actual theory of communism is a viable option at that point. Some would argue that it would be a must, and only logical at that point. What you should be looking at is type 1 economics. This is unknown to me, but I have a reason to believe it may not be communist. Rather huge trading blocks. There really is no way to gauge it just yet.

[Anonymous No.4424174]

I think it'd be easier to terraform venus

[Anonymous No.4424180]

>>4424167
>However, we most likely will be running off a different system at that point

You imagine FTL travel when its not needed.

But anyways, the real question is WHY terraform Mars. There is no real reason other than, "we can make it like Earth". The resources are still there, you can still grow plants in green houses, you can still tap the water in the caps. It's better to live in the domes, you don't waste money nor do you have to worry about a disaster hitting the planet and destroying your little science project.

[Anonymous No.4424185]

>>4424180
more places to be awesome in space bro

[Anonymous No.4424187]

ITT survival is not economically feasible
Also
ITT stupid people making stupid estimates like >>4424122

When your estimate is off by four orders of magnitude, everything else you will ever say will be suspect.

[Anonymous No.4424191]

>>4424174
How would we go about that?

[Anonymous No.4424194]

>>4424187

Just going off what I remember reading.

Deal with it
>mfw

>>4424185

But dude, the universe is already awesome.

[Anonymous No.4424200]

>>4424194
yeah but we're here

[Anonymous No.4424202]

the whole greenhouse effect is only a theory

the idea that co2 can magically "drive" everything else is nonsense.

mar's problem is LACK of atmosphere, not not having greenhouse gases anyways.

Would be better off just making floating cities on venus, or orbital constructions.

[Anonymous No.4424203]

As some people have said in here, Mars does not have much of a magnetosphere, and so would quickly lose any atmosphere to the solar wind. It would be very expensive to set up induction coils capable of sustaining a magnetic field comparable to the Earth's. This might be possible if we had a way to harness more of the Sun's energetic output, but I highly doubt we'll reach that point in less than a century, which is a damn optimistic wild guess.
Until then, we'd be better off setting up underground. A few meters of dense soil would protect against radiation, and a small subaresian facility could be powered by solar panels.

[Anonymous No.4424211]

>>4424194
Reading from where? Here? You shouldn't take your information from /sci/ without doing your own research unless you actually WANT to make blunders like that.

And no, I don't want to deal with people spouting bullshit if I can prevent that.

[Anonymous No.4424214]

>>4424180
Oh no. I was just pointing out that what he's gauging (resources shared, benefit of humanity, all that stuff that usually pops up in this subject) is in a form that's not achievable by modern society, and that it wouldn't be anytime soon. Capitalism as a system could not, and would not (for all reasons in modern day standing) support this project. However, a very elegant reason, other than 'like earth', is the survival factor. Should earth have something real fucked up happen to it, a terraformed mars would ensure the survival of life that once resided on the blue marble. Again, you're looking at this as if it's going to be capitalism that does the major work. As with most present economic systems, these eco-social-systems will be rather impractical within a century.

[Anonymous No.4424222]

>>4424214
Are you a goddamn retard?

You say "capitalism" as if it's something bad, but in reality PROFIT is moral and good.

The BAD would be some tyrannical government wastefully spending countless resources terraforming a shitheap of a planet like Mars when you can just perfectly live underground or in asteroids or whatever.

[Anonymous No.4424224]

>>4424202
Or creating a magnetic field strong enough to contain an atmosphere.

[Anonymous No.4424225]

>>4424224
a magnetic field would do nothing to an atmosphere

BECAUSE THE FUCKING ATMOSPHERE IS NOT CHARGED

[Anonymous No.4424226]

>>4424222
moral and good? but profit always comes at someone else's expense.

[Anonymous No.4424227]

>>4424222
>2012
>Thinks capitalism is good
>Calls people retarded

[Anonymous No.4424229]

>>4424225
I would think you're trolling, but I can tell by your other posts that your that retard allcaps guy. Good show, man.

[Anonymous No.4424230]

Even if all those plans would go without hitch, there is the problem that... there is no reason for us to do this, besides 'it's fucking awesome', which sadly isn't reason enough.

Humanity as a whole always goes with the path of least resistance. It's unlikely to change in today's world.

[Anonymous No.4424232]

>>4424226
are you a fucking tard?

Profit means that you are efficiently allocating scarce resources, this is inherently GOOD.
It doesn't "come at someones expense" you retarded commie, economics ain't zero sum.

[Anonymous No.4424233]

>>4424229
please explain how a magnetic field can contain an atmosphere

[Anonymous No.4424239]

>>4424230
Ofcourse. In todays world there is no reason for it. But we are not thinking about today. We are thinking about... THE FUTURE!

[Anonymous No.4424242]

>>4424233
By deflecting the constant barrage of charged particles the Sun is spitting out.

[Anonymous No.4424244]

>>4424214
> Capitalism as a system could not, and would not (for all reasons in modern day standing) support this project.

But it COULD. People used to act for future generations. This all a matter of cultural expectations about WHAT exactly is a profit, and HOW LONG it's appropriate to wait for that profit.

Nobody on Earth with capital to invest today, will sign on for a 1000-yr project. Fuck, the greedy little simians largely can't be bothered with anything over 10 years or so. That's called "being off by a factor of 100".

The chance of doing anything that takes longer than about a generation (25-33 years) is simply ZERO. Even stable governments have a hard time following generational plans. What's the problem here is that Humans became DRUNK on petro-profits, and only with the fall of King Oil, will Humans be forced to go back to the old ways of doing things, including the pursuit of profit. But by then, without petroleum to fuel our industries, reaching out to the planets will be a fantasy. Off-planet operations was ALWAYS a matter of having high-density energy sources, and for those purposes only ONE fuel fit: Petroleum.

What margin we might have gained from nuclear sources, will be wasted on killing each other over vanishing petroleum supplies. So that can't happen, either.

I've explained this stuff over and over to you other simians on this message board. I've closed every exit, yet you cling to your simian stupidities and keep ooking and jabbering and throwing your feces, as if any of that matters. Sad. Maybe in 10 million years, when Humans finally die off completely on the Earth, another species will rise up into sentience and finally be rid of that over-competitive drive that we have.

[Anonymous No.4424245]

>>4424233
Gravity holds it down, the magnetic field protects it.

[Anonymous No.4424246]

>>4424242
in that sense the magnetic field *protects* the upper layers of the atmosphere from being stripped away

it does not contain them

in any other setting, you could say it contains them, but this is a scientific setting, we need to be accurate

[Anonymous No.4424249]

>>4424244
Greed is GOOD
It would be WASTEFUL to an extreme extent to piss away SCARCE RESOURCES on projects which don't have a hope of completing

Of course the socialists would rather cripple all our economic and technological development by doing exactly that, but that's because socialism is evil.

[Anonymous No.4424253]

AT ANY RATE, the entire issue of Mars is totally moot. O'Neill definitely established that a planetary surface can't sustain an expanding, technological civilization. Hence there's no reason to go to Mars other than to admire it as some sort of geological museum. Economics and warfare would force spacefaring Humans to build HABITATS, making use of the vast resources of the Asteroid Belt. Comets would have to be mined for volatiles, as well as some of the smaller moons of the Jovian-class planets.

Mars is just a loser. And there's one thing that makes it so: Gravity. The gravity well of any planet makes commerce and travel to and from it, prohibitive.

[Anonymous No.4424254]

>>4424244
Why do you only look at the negatives? Can you not have a shred of optimism and look to the future? What about Michio Kakus "perfect capitilism" which I beleive will eventually erode into communism. It has to. Capitilism can not survive when the general populace is made aware.

[Anonymous No.4424255]

>>4424253
If you are using a more efficient style of drive system, climbing from gravity wells isn't prohibitively expensive.

But yes it's utterly pointless to go colonize mars, might as well just hollow out asteroids and spin them.

>>4424254
seriously, fuck off you commie, how goddamn brainwashed and stupid can you possibly be.

[Anonymous No.4424256]

>>4424249
> Greed is GOOD

No, greed is destructive. DESIRE is good. Desire leads to MOTIVATION. Motivation leads to ACTION. But greed acts to counter all that, largely by demanding that everyone else lose while you win; the classic zero-sum game.

The quickly approaching end of the Petroleum Age will make all these discussions moot, so it's not like your hare-brained assertions will even matter.

[Anonymous No.4424259]

>>4424255
>But ideal perfect uber-humans of 100 years from now will be free of greed! My ideas will work!

[Anonymous No.4424262]

>>4424256
>economics
>a zero sum game

>believes in peak oil

get the fuck out

[Anonymous No.4424264]

>>4424255
> If you are using a more efficient style of drive system, climbing from gravity wells isn't prohibitively expensive.

Sorry, Humans have more than enough information to seek such things, but remain stubbornly aligned to chemical rockets, which are the worst of the bunch. And you know why? Because chemical rockets have military applications. That's really the only reason why we do anything technical and aerospace, these days: Because we're searching for a better way of killing off billions by the time we need to do it, i.e. the end of the Petroleum Age.

[Anonymous No.4424268]

>>4424264
I think you ARE David Icke, not just his ilk, but ACTUALLY him.

[Anonymous No.4424269]

>>4424262
Peak oil is the point where the remaining reserves become more expensive to tap than can be made from what is retrieved.

Explain how that isn't a fact of a finite resource.

[Anonymous No.4424275]

>>4424150
>waste trillions of dollars on a worthless mars base
>Betterment of Man

[Anonymous No.4424277]

>>4424249
>Because socialism is evil.
10/10 if troll. Made me rage.

[Anonymous No.4424281]

>>4424222
>Assumes I think capitalism is bad
>Assumes definition of communist state by Marx, is that of insane Lenin "interpretations"
>Assumes that the basic forms of migration would be enough to sustain life indefinitely.

I apologize if you got the perception that I think capitalism is bad. I highly favor it. However, you misinterpret what the original ideas of communism were, or Marxism if you want to get technical. The end goal being a stateless society. Marx and his contemporaries argued that revolution would have to occur, of course being abstract in their details. I think Marx was majorly wrong in his assessment of how communism is attained. If and when this system really comes about, it'll come about because it is practical. You also have to take into account when writing the theory, he presupposed that the industrial revolution would be the apex of society. Not taking into account the fact that brought about the Indo-Revo was science.

Why do I say Type 2? Because it's a civ. that's so damned advanced, yes a system like the original Marxist Ideal would be born. Not because some power monger wanted his way ( I hope not) But rather because all resources are abundant and attainable easily. It would be practical and come about naturally, without the need for force.

[Anonymous No.4424283]

>>4424222
Now why the condescending attitude towards capitalism? Mainly because we're starting to see what it is. Economics, and an unsustainable one, just like every other system there was on earth. Markets rise, they crash, they rise, they crash.....Only they begin to do so more frequently. I have no hatred towards the system. As stated, I love it. But, in a society where we're starting to see the real factor in advancement is free thought, and not competitive markets, the system is bound to start a serious change within the next 150-200 years. No misrepresentation here either! I'm not saying it's going to be communism. I'm saying it's probably going to be a system like capitalism; it has the similarities of an open market. But it is not the text book definition of what capitalism is.

Now I don't want to take you out of context, but I think you have the idea that the system mention above leads to freedom. In which case I suggest you go read up on China, which has damn near perfected the new, "Authoritarian-Capitalist" system.

[Anonymous No.4424289]

>>4424275

Obviously also churning out more staving Black babies, isn't the betterment of Humanity either. Prosperity is one metric, but it has to be sustainable

The Mars base is worthless. So is that skeletal simian laying there on the ground. Neither should be produced, but just try to tell the average Black to stop using his dick. He'll try to skewer you with a spear or something, since he's the epitome of a Violent Simian, or just a more honest one.

[Anonymous No.4424293]

>>4424275

fucking this

space is not for the betterment of man, maybe 5 billion years from now when our Sun is about to die (implying we're still here and not dead). If we can't even take care of the 6 billion of us on the planet we're on now then there is no point in starting a new Earth.

Dream on, buzzlightyear.

[Anonymous No.4424295]

>>4424289
And the liberal would turn around and say you deserve it for insulting the hard working oppressed black man.

Of course its their sort who harp endlessly on "good of humanity", bunch of vermin and traitors.

[Anonymous No.4424298]

>>4424226
>but profit always comes at someone else's expense.

[Anonymous No.4424299]

>>4424269
> Explain how that isn't a fact of a finite resource.

Well, he can't, since Peaks are a reality for any such highly limited resource. In terms of tonnage, a geological deposit like petroleum is very rare. It's not like iron ore or water. It's more like veiny gold deposits.

Modern Westerners are Cornucopians. They religiously believe that all this "stuff" they have, will never stop flowing into their hands. But all research into petroleum well demonstrates that it's a fossil fuel with regeneration rates of millions of years. We'll blow through ALL economic deposits in about 200 years, which is 10000 times faster than the resource can recover.

By the year 2100 AD, manned spaceflight will be a memory. By 2200 AD, nothing man-made will ever lift out of Earth's atmosphere, ever again. Billions will die off well within our next century; they have to, since they are effectively and industrially EATING PETROLEUM TO SURVIVE.

[Anonymous No.4424302]

>>4424298
> >but profit always comes at someone else's expense.

Considering how much petro-profiteering shifts pollution costs and social-disruption costs away from the producer, then YES, petro-profiteering (the only type used today) DOES always come at the expense of somebody else... often EVERYONE else, in their social strains and increased medical costs.

[Anonymous No.4424305]

Why is everyone so fucking focused on the way things are now? Technology will change EVERYTHING. Tech as is has only been off the ground for 50 years. How long have we had computers? Better yet, how long have we had the internet? "Oh noez humanity is so fucking useless wahh wahhh wahh"
How about instead of sitting there whinning about it change your fucking diaper and do something. We are the people. We are the power. We are the future.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceEog1XS5OI&feature=related

[Anonymous No.4424306]

>>4424244
>and only with the fall of King Oil, will Humans be forced to go back to the old ways of doing things, including the pursuit of profit. But by then, without petroleum to fuel our industries, reaching out to the planets will be a fantasy. Off-planet operations was ALWAYS a matter of having high-density energy sources, and for those purposes only ONE fuel fit: Petroleum.
>
>What margin we might have gained from nuclear sources, will be wasted on killing each other over vanishing petroleum supplies. So that can't happen, either.
hahahaaha oh wow

We have mere zettajoules of fossil fuels(including methane hydrates), we have yottajoules worth of uranium USING ONCE-THROUGH REACTORS ALONE!

Hippie Rapture is never going to happen, little commie. Deal with it.

[Anonymous No.4424307]

>>4424293

Changes in solar output will pretty much make the Earth uninhabitable in about 1.5 billion years. So the destruction of the planet by sublimation in the red giant Sol will become in 5 billion years, will be pointless from Humanity's standpoint.

But Humanity isn't going to last 1.5 billion years. Humanity will be extinct by 15 million more years for sure. We're never going to leave this planet and become a space-faring species. Our simian natures will lock us into cycles of self-destruction, and then pin us to Earth's surface for all that time.

There is a slight chance, I admit, that geological shifting will renew oil deposits for Humans to re-exploit, then make use of to re-industrialize (which will require other geological shifts to expose the same sort of ore bodies that we've enjoyed so far). I suppose it's possible.

[Anonymous No.4424308]

>>4424299
First of all, oil is abiotic, there is an endless supply in the earth.

Secondly, there is no "reliance" on oil, it's just convenient, so we use it. Efficiently using scarce resources.

And further, reserves keep going up, there is no "peak".

[Anonymous No.4424311]

>>4424308
nothing is endless

[Anonymous No.4424313]

>>4424306

You are stunningly ignorant about energy realities, meaning you're probably a Westerner. Petroleum is the best we ever got. For energy density, cheapness and practicality, it beats every other energy source, EVER. And that includes clathrates and nuclear sources.

Once the petroleum runs truly dry, billions will have to die, and nuclear and other weird hydrocarbon deposits just can't replace those delivery infrastructures. They will collapse and produce war. War, war, war.

I seriously doubt that the world's militaries will engage in joint ventures to exploit clathrates while they are busy trying to tear the shit out of each other for the remaining petroleum deposits in the Arctic.

Stop posting here on 4chan and go and read a few books for a fucking change, moron.

[Anonymous No.4424317]

>>4424308

Nice troll. Now watch while I tear it to bits.

> First of all, oil is abiotic, there is an endless supply in the earth.

Petroleum isn't abiotic. Period. All the evidence supports that, not your view, you stupid fucking retard.

> Secondly, there is no "reliance" on oil, it's just convenient, so we use it. Efficiently using scarce resources.

It's economics. Its MASSIVE convenience produced MASSIVE dependency. Turn off the petroleum spigot today, and billions will starve. That's not just "convenience", you stupid fucking retard.

> And further, reserves keep going up, there is no "peak".

World oil discoveries peaked in the 1960s and have done nothing but decline since, you stupid fucking retard.

Troll Score: 1.2/10, a very poor showing.

[Anonymous No.4424323]

>>4424308
>First of all, oil is abiotic,
false
>there is an endless supply in the earth.
false
>Secondly, there is no "reliance" on oil,
false
>it's just convenient, so we use it.
true
>Efficiently using scarce resources.
very debatable


>And further, reserves keep going up, there is no "peak".
false

Also, captcha.

[Anonymous No.4424325]

>>4424306
Uranium will last for prbably 100-150 years, but, all pessimism aside, humans will last longer, and then we need something else.

Oil is atm the foundation of society and will be for quite some time. However, it doesn't hurt to advance different technologies to reduce the dependancy.

Methane is a potent greenhouse gas, it might be prudent to avoid using it on a mass-scale.

[Anonymous No.4424336]

>>4424302
Fucking watermelons

[Anonymous No.4424337]

Full image

[Anonymous No.4424352]

>>4424337
Now post the full resolution version

[Anonymous No.4424419]

>>4424313
>For energy density
hahahahahahhahahha. Yes, uranium is well known for its poor energy density.

>cheapness and practicality, it beats every other energy source, EVER. And that includes nuclear sources.
Coal can be used to produce liquid fuels cheaply, this is not in wide use as oil as been <$40 in the very recent past(2009). Longer term, hydrogen from fission power can be used to produce liquid fuels by a similar process. Further, battery tech has increased markable, practical electric cars(personal transportation being the majority user of oil) are close at hand.

>Once the petroleum runs truly dry, billions will have to die
Holy Christ you're dim. Oil plateaus, oil increases in price, people move away from oil. Shits not rocket science.

>nuclear and other weird hydrocarbon deposits just can't replace those delivery infrastructures
Any liquid or gaseous fuel could make use of existing fossil fuel infrastructure.

Cry moar, petite commie.

[Anonymous No.4424431]

>>4424352
Why? you can't read it?

[Anonymous No.4424435]

>>4424419
go get 'em

[Anonymous No.4424437]

>>4424431
earlier I was gonna respond like this, but then I thought: maybe he wants to print it out or something

[Anonymous No.4424441]

>>4424325
>Uranium will last for prbably 100-150 years
No. There's over 4 billion tonnes of cheap(<$1000/kg) uranium on Earth in low-grade ore & seawater. Even using shitty inefficient once-through reactors without reprocessing, that >4B tonnes would be capable of supplying 10 billion people with an American equivalent per-capita energy use for over a THOUSAND YEARS. Reprocess the fuel, add thorium to mix, and use breeders and this jumps to MILLIONS or BILLIONS of years.

>Oil is atm the foundation of society and will be for quite some time.
No and No. Diesel, gasoline and jet fuel are the preferred fuels of our transportation, and oil is how we currently synthesize them. But oil isn't REQUIRED to synthesize them, it has simply been the cheapest way to do so historically. All we need at the end of the day is energy, and the Earth has plentiful reserves to tap.

[Anonymous No.4424444]

>Fuck, the greedy little simians largely can't be bothered with anything over 10 years or so
Do yourself a favor and just kill yourself. All you ever do on this board is complain about humans

[Anonymous No.4424451]

Terraforming it would probably cost a lot more than just building a giant isolating dome to shield us from the UV rays and retarded temperatures. Not necessarily made out of glass, perhaps some crazy polymer or use it's natural resources

[Anonymous No.4424463]

>>4424202
>the whole greenhouse effect is only a theory
opinion=fact

>the idea that co2 can magically "drive" everything else is nonsense.
It raises the atmospheric pressure, traps more heat on the planet and will eventually be the fuel for plants and crops. What part of that is magical?

>mar's problem is LACK of atmosphere, not not having greenhouse gases anyways.
Refer to my last comment and please refrain from spouting bullshit when you don't even know what you are talking about.

>Would be better off just making floating cities on venus, or orbital constructions.
One by one.

[Anonymous No.4424472]

>>4424463
>opinion=fact
There is no evidence that co2 will produce a magical "feedback" effect on water vapor. It certainly has never worked that way before.

>It raises the atmospheric pressure, traps more heat on the planet and will eventually be the fuel for plants and crops.

Because the CO2 effect is negligible compared to everything else, the whole greenhouse effect relies on a "feedback" mechanism theory.

>Refer to my last comment
hurr this is an anonymous image board you know that right?

>One by one.
So spend 1000 years terraforming mars before doing anything else?
those greedy evil capitalists, why won't they spend all their money on this!

[Bernkastel !!jIcPNMSVBL3 No.4424470]

bump for interest

[Anonymous No.4424507]

>>4424472
>There is no evidence that co2 will produce a magical "feedback" effect on water vapor. It certainly has never worked that way before.

*sigh*
No, CO2 itself will not, but the additional temperature and air pressure it will provide will. You can't have a water cycle if your average temperature is -50C.

>Because the CO2 effect is negligible compared to everything else, the whole greenhouse effect relies on a "feedback" mechanism theory.
How exactly is CO2 effect negligible? Are you also arguing that SF6 has no effect on the trapping of the sun's heat?

>hurr this is an anonymous image board you know that right?
As you might've noticed, I placed 4 comments in my post. 'last one' would be the one right before the comment that refers to it. But to clarify...

>mar's problem is LACK of atmosphere, not not having greenhouse gases anyways.
CO2 provides both atmosphere and greenhouse effect, that is, increased temperatures. There are also shitloads of it.

>So spend 1000 years terraforming mars before doing anything else? those greedy evil capitalists, why won't they spend all their money on this!
Well, if you have hundreds of billions of dollars to spare, feel free to build whatever you want on Venus, Moon, Europa and Titan.

[Anonymous No.4424516]

>>4424507
>air pressure
wat
?

>but the additional temperature
This is an assumption with no/little supporting evidence. CO2 has always FOLLOWED temperature changes in the past.

>How exactly is CO2 effect negligible?
A fraction of a percentage isn't negligible?

>Well, if you have hundreds of billions of dollars to spare, feel free to build whatever you want on Venus, Moon, Europa and Titan.

As if the government would even let you?

[Anonymous No.4424525]

>>4424516
>This is an assumption with no/little supporting evidence. CO2 has always FOLLOWED temperature changes in the past.
[citation needed]
Greenhouse effect is well documented in both (gasp) greenhouses and on planetary scale.

>A fraction of a percentage isn't negligible?
What fraction of a percentage are you talking about?

>As if the government would even let you?
You are a big boy, sure they would.

[Anonymous No.4424538]

>>4424525
>Greenhouse effect is well documented in both (gasp) greenhouses and on planetary scale.

And the greenhouse effect is 99% from WATER VAPOR.

So then why do they COMPLETELY IGNORE IT ? The answer to that is some magical "feedback" mechanism whereby co2 will massively increase the amount of water water in the atmosphere.

Which for Mars would be IMPOSSIBLE, SINCE THERE IS NO WATER TO EVAPORATE!

[Anonymous No.4424555]

>>4424538
>And the greenhouse effect is 99% from WATER VAPOR.
>99%
Whut.

>So then why do they COMPLETELY IGNORE IT ? The answer to that is some magical "feedback" mechanism whereby co2 will massively increase the amount of water water in the atmosphere.

>Which for Mars would be IMPOSSIBLE, SINCE THERE IS NO WATER TO EVAPORATE!

It's kinda amusing that you keep avoiding giving a permanent statement that gives your opinion on the matters, which makes me thing you don't have a formed one.
There IS water on mars, what the fuck is wrong with you, what do you think the polar caps are made from? It's just more practical to evaporate CO2 from ice and permafrost first and let the greenhouse effect increase the temperature. You seem to be intentionally failing to think in logical steps.
Hey, let's forget about CO2, let's imagine we somehow have millions of tons of SF6, another greenhouse gas. Now we increase temperature with that shit. By increasing global temperature, we are also increasing temperature of all the frozen water. In couple of decades, you'll have liquid water on surface.

Nothing magical here, just science.

[Anonymous No.4424558]

>>4424555
>Now we increase temperature with that shit.

So it goes up 5 degrees

things are still all frozen and nothing has changed, except the atmosphere is now poisonous.

[Anonymous No.4424572]

>thread on terraforming turns into econ theory flamewar
every fucking time, I guess

[Anonymous No.4424576]

>>4424558
You are underestimating how much will it go up. Also, SF6, just like nitrogen, isn't poisonous.

[Anonymous No.4424579]

>>4424576
I don't think i am.

The greenhouse effect is not particularly strong, and it is also counteracted by the greenhouse gases blocking infrared from the sun.

Atmospheric density plays the most significant role.

You can tell this, because venus at sea level pressure in its atmosphere is roughly the same temperature as earth.
Even though its 99% CO2 which is supposed to be a "greenhouse gas"

[Anonymous No.4424584]

>>4424579
Oh what luck that CO2 provides both density and greenhouse effect...

[Anonymous No.4424586]

>>4424584
My point is the "greenhouse effect" doesn't exist.
So you would have to add countless billions of tons of atmosphere to bring ground level of mars up to 1 atm.

[Anonymous No.4424594]

ITT: In the future, nobody actually reads high school chem textbooks, so making hydrocarbons is impossible

[Anonymous No.4424596]

>>4424586
That isn't the greenhouse effect you flaming retard. The reason why it isn't applicable to Mars is because the planet doesn't have the magnetosphere to hold an atmosphere against solar winds. Do that shit on a planet like Earth and you'll turn it into Venus because that is what the greenhouse effect is.

[Anonymous No.4424608]

>>4424596
wat? The solar wind removes negligible amounts of atmosphere. The real problem is its small gravity and size.

ADD SHITLOADS OF CO2 TO THE ATMOSPHERE OF EARTH, IT WON'T HAVE AN EFFECT BECAUSE, ITS ATMOSPHERIC DENSITY WHICH REALLY MATTERS!

[Anonymous No.4424621]

>>4424596
http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/vel/1918vpt.htm

If CO2 is supposed to be a "greenhouse gas" which is supposed to heat up the atmosphere, why is venus which is 97% CO2 the same temperature at the same pressure, as earths atmosphere?

[Anonymous No.4424643]

OH BY THE WAY GUYS MARS CANT HOLD AN ATMOSPHERE OH NOESSS

STFU IT CANT HOLD AN ATMOSPHERE LONGER THEN MILLIONS OF YEARS

MILLIONS OF YEARS IS PLENTY OF TIME

so really, for all practicle purposes, it can hold an atmosphere, and if all our work is pissed away slowly over a million years whatever we'll just do it all again

[Anonymous No.4424679]

HER DERP WE'RE RUNNIN OUT OF PETROLEUM

>implying we can't create 100% petroleum in a lab using nothing but scraps of plant material and genetically modified ecoli bacteria

http://www.ls9.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LS9,_Inc

they've just gotten started but they have a test plant open already pumping out fresh ecoli produced petrloleum, diesel, and jet fuel.

end of the petroleum age my ass.

[Anonymous No.4424691]

although if we do terraform mars dont expect it to be as beautiful and rich as earth. the magnetosphere will always be weak, and any high form of life will cave under all that radiation. we will live underground and in caves and lava tubes and igloo things. coming outside only briefly lest we subject ourselves to too much radiation.

still, the important thing is can we create a mars colony that can survive on its own without supplies from earth. if we can do that then the odds of our species surviving the long term improve greatly

[Anonymous No.4424693]

>>4424691
the surface will contain only simple and short lived plants and organisms. think grasses and mice not trees and elephants

[GayEmoBetch !.pCLIFaWNg No.4424694]

Gay Emo's Plan

Use: Titan
Why: Fuck you

Mostly nitroen
Jupiter as a G Giant gives off some radiant heat
Jupiter Reflection of sunlight means no scary nights
Tidal Forces can be harnessed for power
Tidal Forces keeps its core molten

Mars, your' small time.

[Anonymous No.4424700]

Martian sunset by Spirit rover at Gusev crater, May 2005.

[Anonymous No.4424746]

Hey, a thread about mars terraforming, this looks interesting...
>political ignorance
>inane believe in the power of economy
>AGW denial
9/10 I was quite mad.

[Anonymous No.4424758]

>>4424700
why does there appear to be footprints?

[Anonymous No.4424760]

>>4424746
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNDmCiLT-wc

[Anonymous No.4424784]

>>4424760
I see your trollbait and raise you a bulletin

http://psp.sagepub.com/content/36/3/326.abstract

[GayEmoBetch !.pCLIFaWNg No.4424788]

>>4424758
Mars probably has 10,000+ dig marks due to the rovers.

[Anonymous No.4424808]

>>4424784
"climate change" is not the same as environmental destruction, so i'm not sure how they can lump it in as the same.

neither is "climate change" fucking caused by global warming due to increased CO2

[Anonymous No.4424814]

>>4424808
>neither is "climate change" fucking caused by global warming due to increased CO2

Can you back that claim?

[Anonymous No.4424815]

Well, since nobody "owns" a planet I think that the "the first one getting there gets it" principle will apply. The problem of what you say is that it would require too much time. So, even if a lucky bastard wants to do it and his son doesn't, when the father dies, the project dies too. So theoretically feasible, but in practice none will. Furthermore, by having the possibility to live in another planet, then I wouldn't chose mars. It's a task that requires a lot of effort, so if you have to do it, aim to something higher. Said so, mars could still be a test planet, to make sure that the tools you want to use are really effective. Once you know they are, you apply them to your main target.

[Anonymous No.4424819]

>>4424815
what other planet?

[Anonymous No.4424821]

Colonising the Asteroid Belt would be much cheaper and more efficient.
And it would have very few of the drawbacks that living on Mars would have.

[Anonymous No.4424822]

>>4424821
nice.
I want to live in an asteroid

[GayEmoBetch !.pCLIFaWNg No.4424826]

>>4424815
EEZ laws.

You need to touch the land. Once you pioneer a place with humans you get a 200m EEZ.

So right now the US has a pretty nice 200m circumference circles on the moon that could hold up legally from Apollo landings.

What your saying, just because the Hawaiians explored the Pacific, they own Asia and Americas. Or just because we send out Voyager I/II, we own the galaxy.

You go, you see, you step, you get your 200m EEZ circumference. If you want the planet you need to explore all of it.

[Anonymous No.4424827]

>>4424822
i want to drop an asteroid on africa, and maybe israel

[Anonymous No.4424828]

the only feasible way to live on a planet like mars would be living underground

[Anonymous No.4424833]

>>4424826
EEZs only apply to inhabitable land, on earth.
And the Outer Space treaty forbids governments from claiming objects in Outer space as their territory.

[Anonymous No.4424854]

>>4424103 Factories spewing potent greenhouse gases

You need a LOT of factories burning 'fossil' fuels to have a notable output of CO2. Other random gases from different processes are probably stuff you don't want in your atmosphere and will be better recycled.

I'm not sure where you will find enough product to make an atmosphere. Maybe if there is a shitload of water under the surface that could be boiled/heated and we could at least get some moisture going.

Bright ideas for sourcing billions of atmospheric gases?


>>4424246
Charged particles from solar storms aren't enough to blow away billions of tons of gases.


I would put money on there being minerals and deposits of useful material to be excavated. We have some on Earth, why not Mars?

That's assuming intelligent civilisation didn't exist there and use it all.

[Anonymous No.4424856]

>>4424693 the surface will contain

By using the word "will" you are saying it with certainty when in reality you are just making stuff up inside your head. Please try to control yourself.

[Anonymous No.4424858]

Pointless, except for sentimental reasons.

It's easier to build space habitats than to terraform planets, and you don't need a whole planet to start with.

[Anonymous No.4424861]

>>4424854
>Bright ideas for sourcing billions of atmospheric gases?
Catapulting asteroids at it?
A lot of them are rich in water, ammonia and methane.
>Charged particles from solar storms aren't enough to blow away billions of tons of gases.
If I remember correctly it is because the hydrogen and oxygen ions in the high atmosphere would be able to achieve escape velocity. They can't do that on Earth due to the magnetic field.

[Anonymous No.4424872]

>>4424858 Pointless, except for sentimental reasons.

Eventual necessity if we want to ensure the survival of our species for the next several million years.

Earth will suffer another extinction level even sometime in the future, be it an asteroid we can't deflect or a natural volcanic eruption. We need an Alpha site.

[Anonymous No.4424877]

>>4424872
Yeah, catastrophic extinction events are the ONLY reason I can see for building a self-sustaining Mars base in the next century. It won't be "worth it" on its own merits for much longer, unless the Singularity hits I guess. It's better to wait for some tech advances first, and spend the money on more productive efforts (like that research).

[Anonymous No.4424878]

>>4424872
As mentioned before, asteroids and giant space stations are far more economical and efficient and present far fewer chalenges than terraforming a whole fucking planet.

[Anonymous No.4424889]

>>4424878

The goal of the mission should not be terraforming but to build a self-sustainable permanent habitat.

If actions for the habitat can contribute to an eventual terraformation then it should be considered.

[Anonymous No.4424893]

>>4424878 As mentioned before, asteroids and giant space stations

Not permanent enough.

[Anonymous No.4424920]

>>4424893
They are as permanent as you want them to be.
Terraforming Mars would require a shit-tonne more maintenance than any space station.

[Anonymous No.4424928]

>>4424920

Where do you get supplies for a space station?

[Anonymous No.4424937]

>>4424928
Could you be more specific?
What supplies are we talking about here?

[Anonymous No.4424938]

>>4424103

So speaking of asteroids, what are the stats on how often mars gets hit by meteorites, which I should say earth gets hit by them on a daily basis, but oh yes earth has an atmosphere, a thick one at that, to burn them all up on entry.

Mars does not.

So what I'm saying is you sit there and you invest so much money to build your little colony and there's a pretty high chance that a meteorite will come along and put you back in square one.

Ergo, not feasible, not profitable.

[Anonymous No.4424957]

>>4424928
Where do you get supplies for a terraformed planet?

[Anonymous No.4424966]

>Possible? Economically feasible? Discuss.

No. No. Thread.

Talk about pipe dreams...

[Anonymous No.4424967]

Meteors...? I thought Jupiter/Saturn ate all the Meteors coming in from the Universe and kept the ones in the belt rather straight?

[Anonymous No.4424980]

>>4424103
are you really this retarded??
spend 1000 years making mars (temporarily) habitable, or just limit the amount of children people can have on earth...

[Anonymous No.4424990]

>>4424980

We don't need to limit SHIT you fucking autist. This is literally the worst idea ever. We need to EDUCATE people. Look at the birth rates from undeveloped and developed countries. People in Africa and other dilapidated areas have 8-10 children all the time because they want ONE of them to just survive and take care of them in their old age and to do something. People in America, UK, and civilized parts of Europe have only 1 kid or no kids on average around this time.

The issue is not restriction, it's education and improving of quality of life. The more we let these places fall farther and farther back, the more they hold us back and the more they are going to reproduce en masse. It's a statistical fact that these undeveloped countries have like 10 kids per family for old-age security and they don't know better.

Develop, educate, and modernize the world and population issues are solved. Simple.

[Anonymous No.4424997]

>>4424990
lol?

education and quality of life doesn't automatically mean low birth rates you fucking idiot.

We just have low birth rates because our society is degenerate and hedonistic, among other reasons.

They are undeveloped because they are genetically inferior anyways, no amount of education will change that.

[Anonymous No.4424999]

>>4424990

Furthermore, make it GOOD not to have as much children instead of a law against it. Give benefits to not having children, show the long term financial costs of having one and empower women. It's again, one of those pesky things called facts that women who are equalized with men in their society have far less children than those who are lesser than men in their society. Women's Rights are vital to stopping population.

Because where would you rather live, honestly. A world where everyone is forced by big brother not to have more than 1 child, or a place where everyone, by choice, decides to have either no children, or 1 or 2 children.

[Anonymous No.4425002]

>>4424997

The point of trolling is to be subtle, and to dig under my skin with semi-legitimate points over time and make me mad. Not to be a total retard from the get go.

At least you tried.

[Anonymous No.4425006]

everything is economically feasible if humankind wants. afterall, we invented economy.

[Anonymous No.4425007]

>>4424999
>Women's Rights are vital to stopping population.

Turn this around, womens "rights" are vital in DELIBERATELY KILLING A COUNTRY

I'd rather live in a place with big brother, then to live in a leftist run shithole where women have all the benefits and can basically castrate us, steal all our money, and run off with the kids.

>>4425002
It's a fact you idiot, just 60 years ago USA had 4 children per woman, now it's at 2 or so. Did the "education" change, yea a bit, it got worse.

Why would the non-whites have less children when the more children, the more welfare money?

[Anonymous No.4425010]

>>4424990
It's really not that simple.

If you're depending on self-restraint for population control, then there will inevitably arise a subpopulation with a strongly heritable predisposition to having many children, and they will undergo exponential population growth until they are the majority.

Malthus might have been fuzzy on the details, but in the long run, population will always have to be constrained by death and misery, or by tyranny.

[Anonymous No.4425011]

>>4425007
> live in a leftist run shithole where women have all the benefits and can basically castrate us, steal all our money, and run off with the kids.

Welcome to The United States of America, and, to be fair, pretty much all civilized nations that aren't third world shitholes

[Anonymous No.4425024]

>>4425007

>Women Rights, making them equal with men instead of below or over them
>HURR THEY ARE RUNNING THE COUNTRY CAN STEAL OUR MONEY AND CASTRATE US HURRR DURRR

You're not even trying. I gave you a 5/10 at first because I responded once, but now it's a 0/10. You REALLY need to apply yourself.

>>4425010

Not if you keep a sustainable population. If you educate people from a young age about the benefits and drawbacks of child-rearing and the costs of it, but the pure benefits of having a child in the first place -- people will not be inclined to have 10 child families. It's as simple as that.

Education, Modernization, Women Equalization. That's how you reduce birth rates and stabilize our population. Not throwing us into a backwards civilization of the government telling us how many children we are permitted to have.

And on one final note, I know most feminists today are not looking for equality and are looking to be above men. I know this full well and I hate them deeply for it. However, that doesn't mean Men and Women should not be equal. That does not mean they can't have different roles or different duties in society, but they should be equal.

[Anonymous No.4425028]

>>4425024
Women had equality, they wanted, and got, much more then equality.
It was about tearing down all restrictions on womens behavior and gearing everything in the favor of the women.
Further, womens suffrage is the death blow to any democracy.

What benefit comes from having a stable population you fagbot? The other people keep growing and then you get destroyed because you are a tenth of the size.

[Anonymous No.4425033]

>>4424937 What supplies are we talking about here?

Everything you need to survive indefinitely.


>>4424957 Where do you get supplies for a terraformed planet?

Remove the word terraformed, not entirely applicable

The planet potentially has all the supplies for manufacturing and fuel. Waiting on more detailed geological surveys to confirm.

[Anonymous No.4425037]

>>4425028
>>4425024
>>4425011
>>4425010
>>4425007
>>4424999
>>4424997
>>4424990

Stop your bullshit

[Anonymous No.4425043]

>>4425010
We're in the middle of a big natural selection event right now.

Convenient, reliable methods of birth control and the ready availability of comfort, security, and entertainment have made it far simpler and more attractive to choose not to have children.

People used to have lots of kids because they liked sex, or had little to enjoy in their lives but their family. Now, unless you're careless, you have to decide to have children, and it's seen as very expensive in time and money that could have been spent having fun or raising your status.

People who don't have a strong interest in having kids for the sake of having kids just aren't breeding, or are breeding under replacement. Active, conscious interest in reproduction is being bred into the population, through culling those who don't have it.

The current trend of stable or decreasing populations in rich countries is not one that's going to last for many generations.

[not that guy, but... No.4425044]

>>4425033
If the asteroid happens to be an extinct core of a comet, then you will have just about everything you could need in consumables. Add one nickel-iron asteroid and perhaps a carbonaceous chondrite and you'll be set for years.

[Anonymous No.4425045]

>>4424938

Not all meteorites are large enough to do serious damage. Who gives a shit if the occasional one smashes up something? It's a big place ergo the likelyhood of them landing on your base is low.

[Anonymous No.4425052]

>>4425043
>and it's seen as very expensive in time and money that could have been spent having fun or raising your status.

Yep like i said, we are degenerate and hedonistic

[Anonymous No.4425055]

>>4425033
Do you know what a rhetorical question is?

There's no reason a space habitat, once constructed, has to be any less self-sufficient than a planet, and there are good reasons to believe that constructing a space habitat with similar living space will be much cheaper than terraforming a planet.

[Anonymous No.4425056]

>>4425033
>Everything you need to survive indefinitely.
Food would be grown on site through the use of hydroponics and fertilisers produced from chemicals available on asteroids.
Oxygen would be produced by pland life, probably in the form of algae tanks.
Building materials such as metals would be be mined from asteroids.
Am I missing anything?

[Anonymous No.4425057]

>>4425044

Asteroids have very little gravity. Makes production harder and there's evidence to suggest long term micro gravity fucks us. Gravity, even lower than Earth, makes Mars much more desirable.

[Anonymous No.4425060]

>>4425024
Are you seriously going to pretend that this is a rational argument, rather than pure wishful thinking?

Education is not the social engineering panacea you make it out to be.

[Anonymous No.4425061]

>>4425056

Why can this not be done a lot easier on Mars?

[Anonymous No.4425062]

>>4425057
You can produce artificial gravity on an asteroid/space station by spinning it.
The low gravity on Mars would properly fuck you up.
That is another reason why they are more feasable.
Plus the fact that transporting things to and from it would use less energy.

[Anonymous No.4425067]

>>4425061
The gravity of Mars would fuck you up pretty bad.
Moving things to and from Mars would use more energy than asteroids.

[Anonymous No.4425069]

>>4425057
Never heard of centrifugal force?

I've never heard anyone talk about permanent space habitats without artificial gravity.

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.4425070]

>>4425062
>The low gravity on Mars would properly fuck you up.
Please explain.

[Anonymous No.4425072]

>>4425055 Do you know what a rhetorical question is?

No.

>>4425055 There's no reason a space habitat, once constructed, has to be any less self-sufficient than a planet, and there are good reasons to believe that constructing a space habitat with similar living space will be much cheaper than terraforming a planet.

Forget about terraforming.

Why do you think a space habitat is better than a planetary based habitat? What possible benefits are there when you need rockets every time you need to get supplies? Are you going to build these rockets in your space habitat?

[Anonymous No.4425074]

>>4424621
greenhouse effect warms the surface you unfathomable moron.

[Anonymous No.4425076]

Economically feasbile in the short term: no
In the long term: yes

The problem is that you wouldnt see the benefits for a long long time. The terraforming itself would take at the very least hundreds of years, as the picture shows. More likely though is thousands of years. By the time that happens the very notion of an economy could be non existant or changed so raddically as to be meaningless in todays terms.
Its unlikely to be done anytime soon, because people are fixated on short term goals, not the long long long run. To do something like this we would have restructure our society , economic systems and lifestyles radically. People just wouldnt be prepared to do that when they'd die before any sort of results could be seen.

[Anonymous No.4425078]

>>4425069
>>4425062
>Spinning

So much more unnecessary effort involved in doing this.

[Anonymous No.4425079]

>>4425074
it warms the atmosphere too you fagbot

[Anonymous No.4425082]

>>4425070
Bone and muscle decay, blood pressure...
Same as happens to the guys on the ISS.

[Anonymous No.4425085]

>>4425078
>So much more unnecessary effort involved in doing this.
As opposed to terraforming a fucking planet!

[not that guy, but... No.4425095]

>>4425078
>spinning up an asteroid in a few weeks is...
>...so much more unnecessary effort involved in doing than ...
>...terraforming a planet in several thousand years.
Do you even realize how stupid, let alone false, that post was?

I mean seriously?

[Anonymous No.4425098]

>>4425072
>Why do you think a space habitat is better than a planetary based habitat?
Easier to transport things between them due to lower delta-v. Easier access to the resources of the asteroid belt. More access to solar power.
>What possible benefits are there when you need rockets every time you need to get supplies?
You would need a far bigger rocket for Mars due to the high delta-v. Mars offers very few benefits as a potential colony.
>Are you going to build these rockets in your space habitat?
I don't see why not, they wouldn't need to be very big.

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.4425100]

>>4425082
Bones and muscle adapt to their surroundings. If one puts a lot of strain on one's bones and muscles then they will become more dense to cope. If one is puts very little strain on one's bones and muscles then they will become less dense. People living on Mars will have bones and muscles strong enough to cope with Mars.

I don't know enough about the effects of lower gravity on blood pressure to comment.

[Anonymous No.4425102]

>>4425067 Moving things to and from Mars would use more energy than asteroids.

When you have enough equipment there's no need for moving things to and from it.

You have the room to build any factories/rockets you need.

You need to mine something? You can use similar plant machinery to Earth to go dig it up and bring it to the processing plant.

Where will your space based processing and manufacturing plants be?
On the asteroid? Not a whole lot of room to work with here. Incredibly difficult to build a plant on a low gravity rock. Requires very very specialised undeveloped equipment.

On a space station? Every load of materials needs a rocket to lift from asteroid and dock to a spinning space station. Everything needs processed while it's floating all over the place. Requires very very specialised undeveloped equipment.

[Anonymous No.4425108]

>>4425100
People living on Mars would never be able to return to Earth.
And god knows the effects it would have on newborns on the plantet.

[Anonymous No.4425114]

>>4425098 I don't see why not, they wouldn't need to be very big.

I'm not sure you understand what you're talking about.

Do you realise the processes involved in manufacturing a rocket?
Do you understand why this is considerably harder to achieve in space?
Do you know how complicated a docking maneuver is?

[Anonymous No.4425124]

>>4425072
>Why do you think a space habitat is better than a planetary based habitat?
You can build one with a planet-sized living space for far less materials than are in a planet. You can move them closer to the sun for richer energy resources. You can load them up with nuclear fuel, give them a hard nudge and drift to another star system in a couple of generations, and use the materials there to build more habitats.

With terraforming, we might increase the available living space in our solar system by a factor of 2 or 3. With space habitats, we can increase it by a factor of thousands.

>What possible benefits are there when you need rockets every time you need to get supplies? Are you going to build these rockets in your space habitat?
Why would you assume you're ever going to need supplies after it's built?

A big enough room, with sunlight shining in it and a dirt floor, can support its own ecosystem. Structural maintenance doesn't require new materials, just energy for recycling.

[Anonymous No.4425132]

>>4425095 Do you even realize how stupid, let alone false, that post was?

Forget the word terraforming. Focus on permanent habitats. It's much easier to build a permanent habitat on Mars.

Doing anything floating in space is incredibly harder than on a solid planet and cannot be considered permanent.

Also spinning an asteroid to get gravity? What the fuck?

[Anonymous No.4425134]

>>4425102
Finding the resources on Mars and mining it would take considerably more energy than mining asteroids would.

>Where will your space based processing and manufacturing plants be?
>On the asteroid? Not a whole lot of room to work with here.
Asteroids aren't all that tiny, you know?
>Incredibly difficult to build a plant on a low gravity rock.
Anything to support this claim?
>Requires very very specialised undeveloped equipment.
Most of the equipment required is already developed and in ues on Earth.

[Anonymous No.4425135]

>>4425102
>>4425114
I can't believe you are making claims about insurmountable challenges being involved in space-based manufacture and asteroid mining in the context of claiming that TERRAFORMING MARS is feasible and practical.

[Anonymous No.4425138]

>>4425135

LIVABLE SUSTAINABLE HABITAT ON MARS FOR FUCK SAKE

[Anonymous No.4425142]

>>4425124 Why would you assume you're ever going to need supplies after it's built?

Seriously?

[Anonymous No.4425145]

>>4425142
Well why the fuck would it?

[Anonymous No.4425150]

>>4425134 Anything to support this claim?

Experience, common sense.

>>4425134 Most of the equipment required is already developed and in ues on Earth.

No it's not. Do you know anything about production? Doing anything in microgravity is very different and very difficult.

[Anonymous No.4425154]

>>4425145

Shit doesn't last forever. Resources get used. Populations expand.

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.4425155]

>>4425108
>People living on Mars would never be able to return to Earth.
That's an exaggeration. One's bones and muscles have the ability to strengthen with increased strain no matter how long one has led a comparatively sedentary lifestyle. That's why physical rehabilitation works and why humans can train their bodies for extreme physical feats. Martians visiting Earth would either "rehabilitate" themselves to Earth's gravity (perhaps by gradually increasing the gravity on board the ship taking them to Earth) or use some sort of powered, exoskeletal suit for added strength and support.

>newborns
There is no theoretical reason why birthing would be more difficult on Mars... then again, if gravity plays a role in strengthening a child's bones before being born (despite being protected against most strains) then there might be an increased likelihood of the baby's bones being broken to the unchanged strains of childbirth.

Of course, humans have always been especially troubled when it comes to childbirth. I expect c-sections to become the standard birthing procedure eventually, if drug resistant infectious diseases don't fuck our shit up first.

[Anonymous No.4425163]

>>4425154
>Resources get used.
In a closed system they would still be there.

[Anonymous No.4425165]

>>4425124 Interstellar planet sized spaceship

>More difficult than a permanent habitat on Mars

It's time for you to get back to reality.


>>4425124 Structural maintenance doesn't require new materials, just energy for recycling.

Have you ever maintained anything? Ever? Did it require new material?

[Anonymous No.4425176]

>>4425163 In a closed system they would still be there.

Is that why we have absolutely no resource problems on Earth?

[Anonymous No.4425179]

>>4425165
Do you seriously think that these are intelligent arguments rather than demonstrations of ignorance and stupidity?

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.4425191]

>>4425134
>Most of the equipment required is already developed and in ues on Earth.
Obviously we aren't starting from scratch, but micro-gravity is an entirely different animal. I think we would both be surprised at how many machines wouldn't work properly in micro-g. Not least of all the difficulties would be the fact that we are used to debris falling to the ground, making it easy to clean up. In space, debris such dust, metal shavings, and lubricant would float around and find their way into components an engineer used to Earth based engineering wouldn't have thought of.

Space based industrial machine designs would have to be checked over and over to make sure every tried and true Earth mechanism would work in space and even then it will still have faults as all new designs do, and replacing such machines or their parts would be very expensive early on (at least until the machines themselves are made entirely in space).

[Anonymous No.4425193]

>>4425165
Due to planets being spherical, they have the lowest possible living area to volume ratio.
You could build a space station with a living area the size of the Earth's and it would be a fraction of the size.
This is all hypothetical, of course, it would never be done on that scale but the argument does stand.

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.4425205]

>>4425179
>his arguments are stupid
You're right, so ignore him.

[Anonymous No.4425207]

>>4425176
>Is that why we have absolutely no resource problems on Earth?
That is different.
Industry on Earth was never designed to be sustainable.

[Anonymous No.4425212]

>>4425176
The biosphere doesn't, and structural materials are just about the easiest things to recycle.

Here on Earth, we have this thing called "weather", which keeps carrying material away from where we want it. Then we have to gather up more of that material to replace it. This isn't a problem in space.

We also have very limited energy resources, whereas one of the prime advantages of moving into space is the ease of building enormous solar collectors. With enough energy, anything can be separated into its component elements, so we don't need pure ores.

Space industry is going to be a big thing long before anyone will seriously consider moving to space to escape overcrowding on Earth. The untapped material and energy resources available are almost beyond imagining. There are fortunes to be made that will make everything on Earth put together look paltry.

[Anonymous No.4425216]

>>4425179

I was being polite to him, the ignorance is astounding.

[Anonymous No.4425228]

>>4425216
>the ignorance is astounding.
>let's terraform Mars

[Anonymous No.4425230]

>>4425124
>Structural maintenance doesn't require new materials, just energy for recycling.

This is what futurists actually believe.

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.4425247]

>>4424861
>[Oxygen and Hydrogen] can't [achieve escape velocity] on Earth due to the magnetic field.
They can and do. All gasses in Earth's atmosphere are blown away, the only difference between planets is the rate at which they are blown away. As for hydrogen, the reason Earth isn't a gas giant is because it can't hold hydrogen.

That said, Mars no longer has an atmosphere sufficiently at Mars' surface for liquid water because most of it was blown away. There is discussion on whether or not impacts played a large role in Mars' atmosphere's depletion, but a significant portion was lost due to Mars lower gravity and lack of a magnetosphere either way.

But it took hundreds of millions of years for Mars to lose its atmosphere. If humanity can add enough gases to Mars atmosphere to make it breathably dense at lower elevations then obviously there would be no problem keeping up with the tiny losses due to solar wind.

[fossilbro !13aSLEA.rw No.4425447]

>>4425247
>As for hydrogen, the reason Earth isn't a gas giant is because it can't hold hydrogen.

Okay, let me educate you a bit here. Not like that was a bad guess, but the real reason is a little more complicated.
The Earth is not a gas giant because it is relatively close to the Sun.
When a solar system is accreting out of a big cloud of gas and dust, there is a distinct temperature gradient (to the extent that temperature exists in such a rarefied medium), with the inner regions near the protostar being the hottest and the outer reaches being the coolest.
In order for a planetary body to form, whatever materials it is made of must condense out of a rarefied gaseous state into something a bit thicker. However, some materials condense at higher temperatures than others; this roughly correlates to melting or boiling points. Silicates and ferromagnesium materials in particular condense at high temperatures, and so the planets that formed close to the Sun (Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars) tend to be rocky with varying amounts of metal. Since hydrogen, helium, nitrogen, and other volatiles condense at lower temperatures, they could not accumulate in any real amounts except in the more distant parts of the Solar System, forming gas giants with barely any silicate or metal but massively enriched in volatiles.
And now you know!

[Anonymous No.4425645]

>>4425447

You get points for being knowledgeable about a field, sharing that knowledge and not being a 13 year old stuck in fantasy land.

[Anonymous No.4425812]

>>4425447
>The Earth is not a gas giant because it is relatively close to the Sun.
Many gas giants have been found close to stars, many of them much closer than Earth is to the Sun.

[fossilbro !13aSLEA.rw No.4425926]

>>4425812
Why yes, yes they have. But we can compute the distances at which various compounds should have condensed based on the spectrum of the star. And if a gas giant exists very close to its sun, it almost certainly formed further out but was moved inwards by some gravitational perturbation; say, a passing star. Such gas giants are known as "Hot Jupiters" or "Pegasids". Over millions of years, they may lose most of their atmosphere to the strong stellar wind of their star system's inner reaches, and become what are known as "chthonian planets", in which only the planet's rocky core remains.

[Anonymous No.4426582]

>>4425926

Stop with the informed conclusions based on experimental data and critical thinking. It doesn't fit in here.

[Anonymous No.4427217]

>>4425247
>>4425447
>>4425926
i learned

[Anonymous No.4427239]

Read some of Dr. Robert Zubrin's books

He lays out some really nice ideas regarding teraforming, living on mars in general, and why we would do it as opposed to going to the moon or some other body in the solar system.

[Anonymous No.4427255]

>>4425812
yes but they're evaporating and will eventually end up as rocky cores

[Anonymous No.4427290]

>>4427255

Before or after the sun eats them?

>2011
>Jupiter
>Evaporating
>ishigdtt

[Anonymous No.4427294]

>>4427290
>using voltorb
>2012
ISHYDDT

[Anonymous No.4427403]

We could use Pokemón to power the interstellar spaceships and terraform mars all at once

[Scientfic Atheist No.4427562]

>2012
>Doesn't know the difference between Voltorb and Electrode
ISHYGDDT

[Anonymous No.4427574]

>2012
>still talks about pokemon

ISHYGDDT

[Anonymous No.4427617]

>2012
>still using shitty memes

ISHYGIDDY DIGGIDY