 |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
The Viceroy, you post implies that we could make Mars habitable again by adding just a little more mass. How much more do we need? |
I think hes talking on the order of over 10% the mass of the Earth (somebody could get exact figure easily).
Now the Earth may not seem so big when you are looking at a globe, but believe me, it is 
|
|
| |
|
|
Proteus_MST
|
|
Yep, if the Speed of the Asteroid is low enough as it enters Mars Atmosphere and the Asteroid is big enough to not completely burn up at reentry,
yet small enough to not hurl more material into space than it provides
then it may work IMHO
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rogan Josh
|
|
What is the point pf trying to teraform Mars when we have extensive deserts on Earth? What is the point of even exploring Mars when we haven't fully explored the deep sea?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tripledoc
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Viceroy
As for what happened to it, well, there are as many theories as people interested in the subject. I prefer the disaster scenario, where Mars was hit by meteorite (no coincidence that it lies right next to the asteroid belt), lost enough mass to reduce the planets gravity below the trickle point. |
Another theory would be that it was hit by an extremely conservative microbe in the early stages of the evolutionary process. I don't buy the panspermia theory which says that we are constantly being subjected to outer space microbes which somehow get through the atmosphere and then causes either pathogen epidemics or triggers evolution. Also the panspermia theory says life is existing all over the universe, but does not pinpoint the specific point of origin in the galaxy or in the universe.
What I am trying to say is that the reason advanced life is non-existent on Mars is a result of a very conservative microbe, anathema to any further advance of evolution.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tripledoc
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
TripleDoc, and what should we call this microbe? The Pat Robertson microbe? |
Sorry. The last sentence should read "anathema to any further advance IN evolution." Meaning that the microbe is not an objecitve spectator, but a subjective part in the evolutionary process.
It is entirely feasible that a specific kind of microbes would survive by feasting on what else basis of life existed on in the environment prior to planet fall.
It has been shown that when a batch of microbe, bacteria for instance, are starving; they mutate rapidly, by for instance shedding some of its advanced characteristics. It might very well be that starvation would lead to cannibalism, the other bacteria would be eaten, and subsequently only the very hungry would be able to propagate. The less hungry would fall by the wayside. Their specialization would ignore other survival skills, such as adaption to temperature shifts, in interplanetary travel through sunstorms or asteroids. Which is why they have as of yet never made it to earth.
Imagine if a cannibalistic microbe was carried to earth. This is of course a worst case scenario. It should be considered nonetheless. If all other bacteria are rendered dead, humans would no longer be able to digest food properly, for instance.
Mars is an extremely hostile environment by human standards, but this could mean that the microbes there are simply so much more tough.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Proteus_MST
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Mad Monk
Most asteroids do not remove more mass than they add -- otherwise, planetary accretion would not occur. In fact, mass removal is extremely rare once you get above a certain size, and Mars is well above that size -- hell, the moon is well above that size.
As for "burning up"...the mass is still added -- or do you think it converts 100% to energy? |
Nope, of course not,
but it deems me more likely that, if an Asteroid burns up
(and its mass therefore will be a part of the atmosphere)
there might be a higher probability that its materia might get into Space again
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chemical Ollie
|
 |
Bored of this board
Jan 2002
time: 06:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tripledoc
---
It has been shown that when a batch of microbe, bacteria for instance, are starving; they mutate rapidly, by for instance shedding some of its advanced characteristics. It might very well be that starvation would lead to cannibalism, the other bacteria would be eaten, and subsequently only the very hungry would be able to propagate. The less hungry would fall by the wayside. Their specialization would ignore other survival skills, such as adaption to temperature shifts, in interplanetary travel through sunstorms or asteroids. Which is why they have as of yet never made it to earth.
Imagine if a cannibalistic microbe was carried to earth. This is of course a worst case scenario. It should be considered nonetheless. If all other bacteria are rendered dead, humans would no longer be able to digest food properly, for instance. ---
|
Cannibalism is defined as eating other specimen of your own species. A pike eating a perch is not a cannibal, while a big perch eating a small perch is (both are species of fish, for those who didn't know).
A colony of microbes going cannibal would implode and the last survivor would starve to death, unless it can go to sleep until it finds more food. A predator microbe on the other hand...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The Viceroy
|
 |
tu mumbai se, mai Bombay se
Nov 2000
time: 05:33
|
|
Mars has no ozone layer .. so if you think you get a bad sunburn during the summer, think again about what that will do !
You can't remove the CO2 and replace it with O2, without plunging the planet into an even deep ice age, the CO2 is keeping what little heat is captured from the sun there. One idea was to substitute it with even more powerful greenhouse gases, then introduce oxygen.. afterall, you only need 20% .. problem is, the planet can't hold it .. so you'd need an ongoing process of adding oxygen to replace the lost oxygen.
No nitrogen whatsoever .. but not being a biologist, I couldn't really say what the effect of this would be .. any ideas ?? something tells me, it may not be too healthy.
Mars does have 2 moons, Phobos and Diemos and does have seasons like the earth .. Thats why it has poles which shift in size from north to south.
I think trying to terraform mars is a really on to a big loser .. best concentrate on using the resources you have for the sustainability of habitable zones, which would have oxygen taken from the CO2, ozone protection from the sun .. and a good central heating system Energy could be produced by directing sunlight onto the surface, which is collected and turned into electricity.
Another hazard is the dust storms .. they can cover the entire planet from time to time, and wouldn't make it at all pleasant for anybody.
The idea of moving asteroids is fanciful .. i think by the time we have technology to do that, we could probably handle mars without much problems.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33.
Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
04-03-2004 03:39
|