Now, this is another one of my crazy schemes, but I figured I have to ask.

 

I saw a show not too long ago on how we plan to colonize Mars. They said that we'd have to thicken and heat the atmosphere. One of the main plans for how was to extract carbon from the soil and release it into the atmosphere, then, once it warmed enough, begin the process of bringing plants.

 

If this carbon plan is true, then can't we make it twice as fast?

 

I was searching before and I came across this site. It says:

Mars' atmosphere is composed mostly of carbon dioxide, which accounts for 96% of the total.

 

So, why can't we put machines on Mars that heat up the CO2 enough to seperate the carbon from the oxygen, and do two things at once? Not only do we heat the atmosphere, but we make it more hospitable!

 

I don't know, I'm probably just crazy (don't feel bad telling me that I am), but it seems like the easiest and quickest solution.

 

What say you?

Here's a little project for you:

 

Using the radius of Mars, and the depth and density of the atmosphere, calculate the volume of CO₂ that needs to be heated. Then work out how much energy it would take to heat that volume from its current temperature to that at which the CO₂ disassociates.

I thought the current thinking was that we CAN'T terraform mars, because the solar wind isn't deflected, so the atmosphere will be ripped off.

We could cover, say, Valle Marineris (sp?) and then build an ecosystem underneath. That ought to be big enough.

 

I assume it is unfeasible to deflect the solar wind ourselves.

I think that a colonization of mars that would entail changing the atmosphere is out of the question. I dont think they would take the chance of messing things up. The most you could ever hope for on mars would be a Space station and maybe other structures. There would be no going outdoors

i agree, not in our life time, unless we live to some extreme old age but thats would be a different thread

Here's a little project for you:

 

Using the radius of Mars' date=' and the depth and density of the atmosphere, calculate the volume of CO[sub']2[/sub] that needs to be heated. Then work out how much energy it would take to heat that volume from its current temperature to that at which the CO₂ disassociates.

 

My point was going to be based on this, but you said it a great deal better.

'']My point was going to be based on this, but you said it a great deal better.

It occurs to me he'd get a bigger result than he should with that calculation, because it doesn't account for any density gradient. Any ideas?

I agree about what you guys said with changing Mars' atmosphere. It doesn't sound too possible, but I have to say - we cannever know what's in for us at the future.

 

I agree that it would be a MISTAKE to change Mars' atmosphere, at least until we figure out what exactly is the natural balance on mars (and I'm not speaking about what the Marsian Rats have for breakfast..)

 

I do think that colonization in terms of a space station is possible, and I'd dare say that we might even see it in our life time still. We have some of the technology, and we definately have the will.. I think that those things actually will happen = and sooner than most of us think. But I think the Moon will be colonized sooner.

 

Though I wouldn't exactly call it colonization if it's actually a space station with researchers and computers on it...

 

~moo

It occurs to me he'd get a bigger result than he should with that calculation, because it doesn't account for any density gradient. Any ideas?

 

If you did it over the first 1 km then you get a rough idea of how hard it would be with only a small amount of atmosphere and an (approximately) constant density. Or use some kind of average density.

it would be important to know if Mars has magnetic poles too. as mentioned above, there would be no protection against solar winds without it!

and making one would be just ridiculous if not impossible.

 

Water Bears might survive on Mars though, but you`de need alot of them to actualy say it was "collonised" and even then, I`m fairly sure they would be in a dormant state.

So is it true that earth's magnetic field is weakning, to flip soon or something like that. Wonder if that will matter with the flares, or would we have others things to worry about Sorry for being off topic

There was a thing about the pole shifting in a recent Science magazine, I didn't read it properly though. Something about it being a gradual process that starts in the upper atmosphere and so there's less chance of everything getting cooked.

Maybe less chance of everything getting cooked, but it still screws up most, if not all, of our electronics...

when it flips i bet it would be just like "Day of the Triffids"

It flips GRADUALLY! Do a search around here, there's plenty of threads about it.

it doesnt matter how it flips. if it does then i bet it would be like "Day of Triffids"

LOL

Again, even if it is gradual, unless we do something about it, it will mess up our electronics, especially GPS kinds of things.

I read somewhere else that the strength will stay about the same during the flip, meaning we won't all die. It'll still be there to protect us, just like Allstate.

.... I'm still going to build a house with three-meter-thick walls of lead

Why not just go to NORAD? They have hundreds of feet of granite instead, with shock absorbers in the floors and Faraday cages in the walls to protect against an electromagnetic pulse.

Yeah, and they just let ANYONE in

Well, first you need to get a transmogrifier to turn in to James Bond, and then you can do it.

 

Where would you get enough lead to make a house like he said?

Uhm... lead-based orange paint. Yeah, that's it! Lead-based orange paint!

That and your signature make an interesting combination.