Immigration Mars: possibilities for international cooperation

[sunfarstar]

The 21st century is the century of the destruction of Earth, we urgently need international cooperation to carry out Mars migration programs. Perhaps is time to abandon all human resentments time. The end of the earth is also foreseeable. Human one day I would go up to emigrate to other planets. The possibility of cooperation in international politics, where? We need to appeal to look at.

[Dr Mindbender]

Belongs in S&E.

[genstrike]

I don't think mass human migration to Mars is even remotely feasible in the forseeable future. It took $135 billion in 2005 dollars to put a dozen men on the moon for a short period of time, which is a hell of a lot closer than Mars - imagine the energy and resources it would take to move even a million people to Mars.

We need to focus on not destroying Earth - abandoning it is simply not an option and not going to be one for a very long time, if ever.

[ckaihatsu]

We need to focus on not destroying Earth - abandoning it is simply not an option and not going to be one for a very long time, if ever.


This is the only chance capitalism has to save itself -- Colonize the population of Mars!


x D


Chris






--



--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u

[Q]

Moved to S&E.

As for the OP: I suggest to watch a little less hollywood end-of-the-Earth movies.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Mass migration to other bodies in the Solar System is simply not an option at this time. While I am a strident advocate of space colonisation, I am also of the firm opinion that a lot of problems on our planet can be solved without recourse to jumping Spaceship Earth.

This is not to say that extraterrestrial exploration and development should be held off until we have created Utopia, and indeed, I believe we have the resources and potential expertise to do both at the same time; but what you ask for is just not possible.

[Communist]

This reminds me of the classic USSR silent "Aelita The Queen Of Mars (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0014646/)"...
The Martian Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
:)

EDIT: This movie is on youtube, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qL6hG1erfFo) I just discovered.

[PC-Basher]

We need to focus on not destroying Earth - abandoning it is simply not an option and not going to be one for a very long time, if ever.

agree with genstrike here, we have the ability to use contraception and technology.

Right now we can transport half a dozen men or so to space, imagine a thousand or a couple thousand spaceship LOL to mars, a couple dozen thousand KMs away, :laugh:.

Stephan hawking did mention what the thread starter stated about colonisation of other planets, lol, this guy could have a point here.

[Dr Mindbender]

not that im buying into right wing paranoia that is usually used as a rationale for extravagant expenditure on space, it would be nice to have a 'lifeboat strategy' should the earth come under threat from a falling body (specifically a comet or meteor) should our defence systems be inadequate to stop.

Personally i think the immediate colonisation of space will be more likely to take the form of large orbital stations rather than outposts on Mars. Just getting a small excursion team to Mars let alone a full exodus will be a logistical challenge.

[sthomas1312]

there is a good show on Discovery Science called "Exodus Earth" where they explore how humans could colonize other planets. The Mars episode was very interesting, as there are already groups in the deserts in the west that mimic the conditions of people who would be stationed on Mars. They bring people in and change out crews every so often to keep it as realistic as possible.

[9]

Why is Mars preferable to the moon?
Although, admittedly, I do see the appeal in our Martian diaspora returning to the homeland :D

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Why is Mars preferable to the moon?

I can think of a few of reasons - higher gravity, more water, a more Earth-like day/night cycle, and it has an atmosphere that, while very thin compared to Earth's, nevertheless provides some measure of protection from cosmic and solar radiation, as well as providing a medium for the aerobraking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerobraking) of spacecraft.

Combine that with the realisation that once you're in orbit you're halfway to anywhere (at least in terms of energy), then Mars looks like an attractive proposition.

[Abc]

i read somewere that the water on mars is 1000x salter then the water on earth and is very very acidic not really the best water to drink

[9]

For some reason, I'd been under the impression that the surface of Mars demonstrated it was once rife with water, but that - aside from permafrost - it had been established that there was no longer any real source of water on the planet. I could take two minutes to look this up online, but I'm lazy atm.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

i read somewere that the water on mars is 1000x salter then the water on earth and is very very acidic not really the best water to drink

Water can be easily desalinated through evaporation on Mars - not sure if that would get rid of the acid as well, but if not then the addition of calcium carbonate to the water before evaporation should neutralise the acid. Besides, the water on the Moon isn't likely to be much cleaner.


For some reason, I'd been under the impression that the surface of Mars demonstrated it was once rife with water, but that - aside from permafrost - it had been established that there was no longer any real source of water on the planet. I could take two minutes to look this up online, but I'm lazy atm.

There's still plenty of water frozen into the poles, if I remember correctly. Nowhere near as much as Earth's but still in potentially useful amounts.

[Dr Mindbender]

Why is Mars preferable to the moon?


Several reasons, firstly it has an atmosphere already, which would make it significantly easier to terraform into a life supporting body. Secondly it's pull of gravity is stronger (about 2/3 earth g i believe) so Earth dwellers would have an easier time adjusting for longer stays. Besides which it likely has abundant stores of mineral resources and fuels including nuclear grade materials.

It would make a great stepping stone to further locations in the solar system, like the Jupiter and Saturn systems where there are no doubt more colonisation opportunities like Europa and Titan.

[thethinkingchimp]

There's still plenty of water frozen into the poles, if I remember correctly. Nowhere near as much as Earth's but still in potentially useful amounts.

The "ice caps" seen on images of mars poles are massive amounts of frozen carbon dioxide. A rover dug beneath the surface of an ice cap to find traces of water, but the total amount can only be speculated. Hopefully, and likley, a reasonable amount exists:)

[Orange Juche]

i read somewere that the water on mars is 1000x salter then the water on earth and is very very acidic not really the best water to drink

Most of the water on Earth isn't the best water to drink. Though you can give yourself a salt-water enema, if you're really thirsty.

[Manifesto]

You know I heard that Venus would be easier to live on than Mars because we could send algae to turn the carbon dioxide into oxygen or something. Is this true?

[FreeFocus]

You know I heard that Venus would be easier to live on than Mars because we could send algae to turn the carbon dioxide into oxygen or something. Is this true?

Venus is pretty much a hellfire planet. It might be possible to fly in its upper atmosphere, but I don't see the point in that.

[thethinkingchimp]

Venus can reach temperatures past 460C. There would need to be some well engineered growing area to get any kind life going on Venus. We have some life growing on earth in extreme conditions, but not anywhere near the conditions on Venus. Also, I don't think Venus has much of a magnetic field to protect the planet from solar radiation. Earth owes much of the existence of it's atmosphere and life to the protection from solar radiation provided by the very strong magnetic field. I don't see this happening soon, and couldn't imagine it happening in the future.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

You know I heard that Venus would be easier to live on than Mars because we could send algae to turn the carbon dioxide into oxygen or something. Is this true?

Genetically engineered microbes were suggested by Carl Sagan as a method for transforming Venus' atmosphere, but it wouldn't work due to a lack of atmospheric hydrogen.

However, reintroducing hydrogen into the atmosphere of Venus would result in the production of graphite and water via the Bosch reaction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosch_reaction). The resulting oceans could then be used as the basis for further terraforming.

The real problem with Venus is that it's axial rotation takes about 243 Earth days. The potential solutions include, but are not necessarily limited to:

1) Using the excess carbon dioxide as the reaction mass for a series of enormous rockets placed on the equator and angled to increase spin.

2) Using comet and/or asteroid impacts carefully timed and angled to impart more energy into the rotation of Venus.

3) Some sort of mirror and sunshade arrangement that creates a night and day pattern on the surface.

4) Light up the nightside sky using ground-based lamps aimed at the clouds.

Personally I think we should bite the bullet and go for either 1) or 2). Sure, the Venusian day will still be long, but it can be reduced to anywhere between 3 and 14 Earth days, which should be survivable for most Earthly organisms, with the added bonus of not continuously requiring large amounts of energy (lamp method) or any maintenance/orbital station-keeping (mirrors/sunshades).


Venus is pretty much a hellfire planet. It might be possible to fly in its upper atmosphere, but I don't see the point in that.

Most of the heat on Venus is down to the greenhouse effect caused by its thick atmosphere of mostly carbon dioxide - getting rid of that will significantly cool the planet.

Also, no need for powered flight on Venus - the thick atmosphere would be the ideal playground for swarms of balloons and airships, and the intense winds in the upper atmosphere would whip any floating colonies around the planet in a mere four days. Further, the balloons and airships need not be filled with flammable hydrogen or expensive helium - the atmospheric density of Venus means that a breathable oxygen-nitrogen mix acts as a lifting gas.


Venus can reach temperatures past 460C. There would need to be some well engineered growing area to get any kind life going on Venus. We have some life growing on earth in extreme conditions, but not anywhere near the conditions on Venus.

That's why we deal with the atmosphere issue abiotically, and do it first.


Also, I don't think Venus has much of a magnetic field to protect the planet from solar radiation.

It's the atmosphere that will do the protecting. Magnetic fields are a useless defence against anything but charged particle radiation, which is neutralised via ionisation when it comes when comes into contact with the upper atmosphere anyway.


Earth owes much of the existence of it's atmosphere and life to the protection from solar radiation provided by the very strong magnetic field.

While the lack of a strong magnetosphere would mean that the newly-terraformed Venusian atmosphere would be subject to erosion by the solar wind, it would take millions of years at the very least for it to significantly deplete the atmosphere - more than enough time to replenish it in the meantime.


I don't see this happening soon, and couldn't imagine it happening in the future.

I think someone suffers from a lack of imagination. :)

[Dimentio]

I don't think mass human migration to Mars is even remotely feasible in the forseeable future. It took $135 billion in 2005 dollars to put a dozen men on the moon for a short period of time, which is a hell of a lot closer than Mars - imagine the energy and resources it would take to move even a million people to Mars.

We need to focus on not destroying Earth - abandoning it is simply not an option and not going to be one for a very long time, if ever.

In the same time, pioneer operations are almost more expensive than routine expeditions. Before we could colonise Mars, we need a logistical system to be able to supply the colonies, and we would also need to manufacture the equipment and ships more cheaply. During such conditions, it would be possible.

Nevertheless, I would like those resources to be utilised to improve human life on Earth before diving into the subjugation of space.

[Ol' Dirty]

I wish people would learn to treat this planet well first rather than try to conquer outer space. We don't even control 80% of our planet... the oceans. that would be a good place to start.

[Dr Mindbender]

You know I heard that Venus would be easier to live on than Mars because we could send algae to turn the carbon dioxide into oxygen or something. Is this true?

i think venus could be terraformed if you dumped shitloads of alkaline into its' atmosphere to neutralise the acid clouds, causing it to rain. It's intense heat is caused by the greenhouse effect of the clouds insulating the planet (EDIT: like noxion said). As far as i know Venus is actually on the inner edge of the 'goldilocks zone' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitable_zone) so if it had an earthlike atmosphere the temperature would probably be similar to a tropical climate on Earth.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

i think venus could be terraformed if you dumped shitloads of alkaline into its' atmosphere to neutralise the acid clouds, causing it to rain. It's intense heat is caused by the greenhouse effect of the clouds insulating it's planet. As far as i know Venus is on the inner edge of the 'goldilocks zone' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitable_zone) so if it had an earthlike atmosphere the temperature would probably be similar to a tropical climate on Earth.

You know, I think I answered that better. :tt2:

[Dr Mindbender]

However, reintroducing hydrogen into the atmosphere of Venus would result in the production of graphite and water via the Bosch reaction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosch_reaction). The resulting oceans could then be used as the basis for further terraforming.

.

CO2(g (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas)) + 2 H2(g) → C(s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid)) + 2 H2O(l (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid))

he he maybe pencils will form a significant part of the future venusian economy.

:D

[Dr Mindbender]

You know, I think I answered that better. :tt2:

you said introducing microbes or hydrogen, not a alkaline substance.

I still think my idea is different.

[Manifesto]

Ok so which would be easier to colonize?

[genstrike]

I think someone suffers from a lack of imagination. :)

You're talking about speeding up the rotation of an entire planet. I think if anything, someone suffers from too much imagination...

(Don't get me wrong, some of this is interesting as thought experiments and would be good fodder for sci-fi, but as for serious policy, most of the stuff in this thread is insane)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Ok so which would be easier to colonize?

Mars, by far. It has a local day that is only about an hour longer than the Earth equivalent - that alone makes it a heck of a lot easier.


You're talking about speeding up the rotation of an entire planet. I think if anything, someone suffers from too much imagination...

(Don't get me wrong, some of this is interesting as thought experiments and would be good fodder for sci-fi, but as for serious policy, most of the stuff in this thread is insane)

Nothing that I have proposed breaks the laws of physics, so far as I know.

The only reason this stuff seems "insane" as serious policy is because precious few people actually seriously engage in long-term planning under this capitalist system, which is almost entirely focused on short-term profitability. All throughout our lives we are bombarded with the message that top-down, long-term planning and management of society doesn't work. This acts as self-fulfilling prophecy because the price system rewards short-sighted profit-grubbing and punishes attempts at long-term planning.

[genstrike]

Nothing that I have proposed breaks the laws of physics, so far as I know.

Maybe not the laws of physics, but some of it breaks all sorts of laws of practicality and engineering. For example, to speed up Venus' rotation to that of the Earth, I calculated it would take over 10^29 Joules of energy. That is an incredibly massive amount of energy. Even if we burned all the fossil fuels on the planet and stuffed all the U-238 on the planet into a fast neutron reactor, we wouldn't even come close.

Even if we get over the challenge of structurally supporting these massive rockets (I would guess that if they are inside the atmosphere, you wouldn't generate much more than a lot of wind), they are completely out of the question due to the sheer amount of energy required. A Saturn V is on the order of 10^11 Joules. You would need a quintillion of them. Tsar Bomba is only on the order of 10^17.

Same goes for asteroid impacts. Assuming we can actually manage to aim an asteroid and do it with such precision (which itself would take a fuckton of energy), the impact energy of the (theoretical?) asteroid which killed the dinosaurs is only on the order of 10^23. So, it would take at least a million of those to speed up the rotation of Venus, and given how often they seem to come around, I don't think we have the time before the sun enters red giant phase, in which case the inhabitants of Venus will have a lot more pressing concern than how many hours in a day.

Honestly, the lamp idea which you dismissed would probably be the most practical option, if limited to cities and inhabited areas (assuming we could actually get over the other incredibly massive hurdles of colonizing Venus), perhaps working with massive domes.



The only reason this stuff seems "insane" as serious policy is because precious few people actually seriously engage in long-term planning under this capitalist system, which is almost entirely focused on short-term profitability. All throughout our lives we are bombarded with the message that top-down, long-term planning and management of society doesn't work. This acts as self-fulfilling prophecy because the price system rewards short-sighted profit-grubbing and punishes attempts at long-term planning.

It's not about profits, it's about the massive amounts of energy that this sort of stuff will require. I don't care how far you plan ahead, and whether we are living in a capitalist, communist or anarchist society, speeding up the rotation of Venus isn't serious policy. It's something out of sci-fi or the mind of a mad scientist. And in our wonderful post-revolutionary society where capitalism is eradicated, if someone tells me to toil working on a rocket big enough to speed up Venus' rotation, I'm going to go tell him to go fuck himself.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Maybe not the laws of physics, but some of it breaks all sorts of laws of practicality and engineering. For example, to speed up Venus' rotation to that of the Earth, I calculated it would take over 10^29 Joules of energy. That is an incredibly massive amount of energy. Even if we burned all the fossil fuels on the planet and stuffed all the U-238 on the planet into a fast neutron reactor, we wouldn't even come close.

What on Earth makes you think we would use fossil fuels, or even nuclear fuels? For this sort of thing, we're talking about covering Mercury in solar energy farms, which we should be doing anyway.

I never said it would be easy.


Even if we get over the challenge of structurally supporting these massive rockets (I would guess that if they are inside the atmosphere, you wouldn't generate much more than a lot of wind), they are completely out of the question due to the sheer amount of energy required. A Saturn V is on the order of 10^11 Joules. You would need a quintillion of them. Tsar Bomba is only on the order of 10^17.

That's why you build the rocket engines as big as possible (Saturn V rockets aren't it, not by a long shot) and you build as many as you can fit on the equator - don't worry too much about materials, there's more than enough of them in the Solar System and you can recycle them anyway when you're finished.

In rocketry terms, thrust is more important than Isp (specific impulse) for this particular application, although high amounts of both would be nice for efficiency's sake. Use antimatter produced by the aforementioned facilities on Mercury as the fuel to heat the reaction mass. If it's hot enough to become a plasma and you have the spare antimatter, double up the rockets as mass drivers to electromagnetically accelerate the plasma even further.


Same goes for asteroid impacts. Assuming we can actually manage to aim an asteroid and do it with such precision (which itself would take a fuckton of energy), the impact energy of the (theoretical?) asteroid which killed the dinosaurs is only on the order of 10^23. So, it would take at least a million of those to speed up the rotation of Venus, and given how often they seem to come around, I don't think we have the time before the sun enters red giant phase, in which case the inhabitants of Venus will have a lot more pressing concern than how many hours in a day.

You seem to be forgetting about the power of relative velocity - by sending an asteroid on a retrograde orbital path matching Venus's prograde orbit, the two velocities add up to lot of kinetic energy at the point of impact.

Further, rather than (or perhaps as well as) hunting around for asteroids of the right size and mass, taking a much larger body and breaking it up into more or less equally sized bits will not only save on having to drag asteroids all over the place but will also make calculations easier.


Honestly, the lamp idea which you dismissed would probably be the most practical option, if limited to cities and inhabited areas (assuming we could actually get over the other incredibly massive hurdles of colonizing Venus), perhaps working with massive domes.

If we're really serious about terraforming, we've got to do it properly. This means that living on Venus should be at least survivable with pre-industrial technology, which is pretty much what people will be reduced to in the event of a planet-wide disaster.


It's not about profits, it's about the massive amounts of energy that this sort of stuff will require. I don't care how far you plan ahead, and whether we are living in a capitalist, communist or anarchist society, speeding up the rotation of Venus isn't serious policy. It's something out of sci-fi or the mind of a mad scientist.

I believe people once said similar things about going to the Moon. :lol:


And in our wonderful post-revolutionary society where capitalism is eradicated, if someone tells me to toil working on a rocket big enough to speed up Venus' rotation, I'm going to go tell him to go fuck himself.

You make it sound as if I want to start spinning up Venus before the dust has settled, so to speak. When I said long-term planning, I meant it.

[Dr Mindbender]

What on Earth makes you think we would use fossil fuels, or even nuclear fuels? For this sort of thing, we're talking about covering Mercury in solar energy farms, which we should be doing anyway.


I'm pretty sure the Mercurian surface gets super hot during the day time, so much so that lead would melt on its surface. So I'm not convinced covering the surface with solar panels would be practical, and anyway, how would you utilise the energy you collected?

You may as well put a network of solar panel satellites in orbit around the sun which could do the same job. Or even the lunar surface would make a much better solar energy farm.

[ToxicSoil]

I had a dream just the other night about life on Mars. Shit was tight as hell. We were all so communistic and happy. :D

[Dr Mindbender]

I had a dream just the other night about life on Mars. Shit was tight as hell. We were all so communistic and happy. :D

If its anything like Total Recall, it wont be communist at all, Cohagen will probably extort us for oxygen.

:lol:

[ToxicSoil]

If its anything like Total Recall, it wont be communist at all, Cohagen will probably extort us for oxygen.

:lol:
True. Thanks for wrecking my dreams there. :(

[genstrike]

That's why you build the rocket engines as big as possible (Saturn V rockets aren't it, not by a long shot) and you build as many as you can fit on the equator - don't worry too much about materials, there's more than enough of them in the Solar System and you can recycle them anyway when you're finished.

A quintillion Saturn V, or a rocket a quintillion times as big as a Saturn V. Same problem



You seem to be forgetting about the power of relative velocity - by sending an asteroid on a retrograde orbital path matching Venus's prograde orbit, the two velocities add up to lot of kinetic energy at the point of impact.

Asteroids already travel pretty fast - you would get at most, what, maybe twice as much power out of it? Not nearly enough to change the orders of magnitude we're talking about


Further, rather than (or perhaps as well as) hunting around for asteroids of the right size and mass, taking a much larger body and breaking it up into more or less equally sized bits will not only save on having to drag asteroids all over the place but will also make calculations easier.

We would still need to accelerate these asteroids, using probably the same amount of energy as it would take to apply the energy to venus directly, and this would probably be less efficient.



I believe people once said similar things about going to the Moon. :lol:

People also once said similar things about all sorts of stupid shit that violated the laws of physics.

[Dr Mindbender]

A quintillion Saturn V, or a rocket a quintillion times as big as a Saturn V. Same problem


a Saturn V sized rocket with a quintilliion times more thrust.

[Poppytry]

There's no place like home ! :laugh:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I'm pretty sure the Mercurian surface gets super hot during the day time, so much so that lead would melt on its surface. So I'm not convinced covering the surface with solar panels would be practical, and anyway, how would you utilise the energy you collected?

The energy collection system I envision for Mercury is solar thermal rather than photovoltaic, as the efficiency of a heat engine increases with the temperature of the heat source, making it ideal for a hot planet like Mercury. Solar thermal systems are also simpler in design (increasing reliability) and are readily made from materials found on Mercury. And they're not going to be made of lead, so no worry about them melting.

The energy thus gathered could then be used to power particle accelerators to produce antimatter which is then shipped to wherever it's needed, or it can be used to power a focused microwave emitter/laser array to project the energy in a more direct fashion to collectors elsewhere.


You may as well put a network of solar panel satellites in orbit around the sun which could do the same job. Or even the lunar surface would make a much better solar energy farm.

Why? Mercury has plenty of metals and heavy elements due to being the innermost planet, meaning there would be plenty of resources to draw on. The Moon doesn't recieve anywhere near as much insolation as Mercury as well as being smaller, meaning there's less energy available.


A quintillion Saturn V, or a rocket a quintillion times as big as a Saturn V. Same problem

False dilemma.


Asteroids already travel pretty fast - you would get at most, what, maybe twice as much power out of it? Not nearly enough to change the orders of magnitude we're talking about

That's why you use more than one, silly. :rolleyes:


We would still need to accelerate these asteroids, using probably the same amount of energy as it would take to apply the energy to venus directly, and this would probably be less efficient.

The Mercury power station I mentioned would be able to provide that power easily, by either providing antimatter fuel for the asteroid moving rockets, or directly using lasers or microwaves.


People also once said similar things about all sorts of stupid shit that violated the laws of physics.

Please point out where anything I have proposed violates the laws of physics as we currently understand them. As far as I understand, my proposal only requires impressive engineering and non-trivial but nonetheless attainable amounts of resources and energy.

[Dr Mindbender]

The energy collection system I envision for Mercury is solar thermal rather than photovoltaic, as the efficiency of a heat engine increases with the temperature of the heat source, making it ideal for a hot planet like Mercury. Solar thermal systems are also simpler in design (increasing reliability) and are readily made from materials found on Mercury. And they're not going to be made of lead, so no worry about them melting.

My point is that the metals used to construct space vehicles often have lower melting points than lead so unless your solar panel units are made of materials with amazingly durable chemical properties they will be reduced to liquid instantly in the open glare of the mercury daytime.



The energy thus gathered could then be used to power particle accelerators to produce antimatter which is then shipped to wherever it's needed, or it can be used to power a focused microwave emitter/laser array to project the energy in a more direct fashion to collectors elsewhere.



again you still have to combat the logistical problem of getting your energy supply out of there, and it makes little sense to attempt an energy collection process in a environment as hostile as the daytime mercury surface.

[Atrus]

I'm afraid that none of the main metals in space craft engineering having a lower melting point than Lead, and many heat-resisting methods can be used.
This isn't to say that the heat wouldn't significantly weaken the craft, though, but I think it would be possible to overcome. I'm fairly sure that the temperatures reached upon re-entry to Earth's atmosphere are higher than the temperature on Mecury's surface, so we already have the technology to withstand such temperatures.

[Dr Mindbender]

I'm afraid that none of the main metals in space craft engineering having a lower melting point than Lead, and many heat-resisting methods can be used.
This isn't to say that the heat wouldn't significantly weaken the craft, though, but I think it would be possible to overcome. I'm fairly sure that the temperatures reached upon re-entry to Earth's atmosphere are higher than the temperature on Mecury's surface, so we already have the technology to withstand such temperatures.

regardless of the melting points (on which i stand corrected) we're not talking about spacecraft in the first instance but solar panel stations that would be permanent fixtures enduring intense heat for long, long sustained periods (1 mercury day = 83 Earth days) Even elements with the highest melting points arent going to last an indefinite length of time in the mercurian sun.

[Atrus]

Titanium/Tungsten have melting points in excess of 1800K, but Mercury's max temperatures are around 700K, so I don't believe the temperature would substantially weaken the panels provided they were made correctly. However I agree that there are large problems with getting the energy out in a useful form, maintaining the solar panels, and the wild changes in temperature would probably weaken the metals a lot if any form of steel were to be used.

[Dr Mindbender]

Titanium/Tungsten have melting points in excess of 1800K, but Mercury's max temperatures are around 700K, so I don't believe the temperature would substantially weaken the panels provided they were made correctly. However I agree that there are large problems with getting the energy out in a useful form, maintaining the solar panels, and the wild changes in temperature would probably weaken the metals a lot if any form of steel were to be used.

The question is though would the panels in question be able to endure 83 earth days out in the heat? I am also greatly concerned by the effect of the temperature differential; Mercury at night gets as cold as it does hot during the day so i rather suspect the panels would shatter in much the same way a baked ceramic plate from an oven would when you run cold water on it. The continued efforts of having to send more vehicles to replace damaged panels would wholesalely consume resources and render the entire project impractical.

[Atrus]

It depends on the metal used. I *think* [although I wouldn't rely on my word] that titanium doesn't work-harden, which means the temperature change wouldn't affect it and it wouldn't become brittle. But Mercury also has a very radioactive atmosphere, and in such conditions Titanium can react with oxygen and corrode, so the idea does seem to have a great many flaws, and the price would be almost unimaginable.

What does interest me, however, is the idea of harnessing the energy of the magnetism within Mercury. Sadly, I'm a Chemist, not a physicist, so I'm not sure quite how possible this is. Does anyone know any more about it?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

My point is that the metals used to construct space vehicles often have lower melting points than lead so unless your solar panel units are made of materials with amazingly durable chemical properties they will be reduced to liquid instantly in the open glare of the mercury daytime.

Such as what? I've checked the material properties of iron, steel, copper, and chromium, their melting points are well above Mercury's maximum temperature of about 430 C. Even aluminium has a melting point of 660 C.


again you still have to combat the logistical problem of getting your energy supply out of there, and it makes little sense to attempt an energy collection process in a environment as hostile as the daytime mercury surface.

Some of the energy could be used to power mass drivers launching payloads of antimatter to reciever stations elsewhere, or the energy could be transferred using the laser arrays/focused microwave emitters I mentioned earlier.


The question is though would the panels in question be able to endure 83 earth days out in the heat? I am also greatly concerned by the effect of the temperature differential; Mercury at night gets as cold as it does hot during the day so i rather suspect the panels would shatter in much the same way a baked ceramic plate from an oven would when you run cold water on it.

It's not the temperature difference that causes the baked ceramic plate to shatter, it's the sudden change in temperature. Mercury rotates very slowly (having a local day of about 176 Earth days), meaning that the equipment on Mercury's surface won't suddenly go from the blistering heat of the dayside to the freezing cold of the nightside.


It depends on the metal used. I *think* [although I wouldn't rely on my word] that titanium doesn't work-harden, which means the temperature change wouldn't affect it and it wouldn't become brittle. But Mercury also has a very radioactive atmosphere, and in such conditions Titanium can react with oxygen and corrode, so the idea does seem to have a great many flaws, and the price would be almost unimaginable.

Except that Mercury hardly has an atmosphere worth speaking of in the first place.

[Atrus]

Except that Mercury hardly has an atmosphere worth speaking of in the first place.

I picked the wrong way of putting it. It isn't an atmosphere, but there's a significant amount of harmful radiation and radioactive molecules surrounding Mercury and given off by the planet.

[Dr Mindbender]

Such as what? I've checked the material properties of iron, steel, copper, and chromium, their melting points are well above Mercury's maximum temperature of about 430 C. Even aluminium has a melting point of 660 C.
Well i stand corrected on the lead mp. but the fact remains your solar arrays wont be made consistently of metal, there will have to be carbon based compounds in things like your chipboards and conductor insulation cables.



Some of the energy could be used to power mass drivers launching payloads of antimatter to reciever stations elsewhere, or the energy could be transferred using the laser arrays/focused microwave emitters I mentioned earlier.
What if the lasers or emitters fail due to a solar flare or intense heat? The power harvest will be stranded with no way of retrieving it.



It's not the temperature difference that causes the baked ceramic plate to shatter, it's the sudden change in temperature. Mercury rotates very slowly (having a local day of about 176 Earth days), meaning that the equipment on Mercury's surface won't suddenly go from the blistering heat of the dayside to the freezing cold of the nightside.
The question still remains though, how long will it take for the heat to dissipate? Id imagine that the length of time exposed in the blistering heat will mean that the latent heat lingers for a long time, well into the mercury sunset.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Well i stand corrected on the lead mp. but the fact remains your solar arrays wont be made consistently of metal, there will have to be carbon based compounds in things like your chipboards and conductor insulation cables.

I see you're still stuck in the photovoltaic paradigm. Did you know that a solar thermal setup can be almost entirely mechanical? Just focus sunlight onto pipes filled with a working fluid, which can then be used to drive dynamos/turbines which are themselves safely located underground.


What if the lasers or emitters fail due to a solar flare or intense heat? The power harvest will be stranded with no way of retrieving it.

I doubt that all of them would fail at the same time. That's the whole point in having multiple redundant systems. Really, solar flares are more of a concern for squishy fleshlings rather than machines.


The question still remains though, how long will it take for the heat to dissipate? Id imagine that the length of time exposed in the blistering heat will mean that the latent heat lingers for a long time, well into the mercury sunset.

That's actually a good thing, if true - otherwise the drastic temperature changes will induce thermal stress on the components. Don't forget as well that energy is being taken out of this system to be converted into electricity, so the heat won't build up that much.

[Atrus]

Well i stand corrected on the lead mp. but the fact remains your solar arrays wont be made consistently of metal, there will have to be carbon based compounds in things like your chipboards and conductor insulation cables.



Carbon compounds have the highest melting points of almost anything, abd besides, this is all minute so easily insulated.i

[Dr Mindbender]

I see you're still stuck in the photovoltaic paradigm. Did you know that a solar thermal setup can be almost entirely mechanical? Just focus sunlight onto pipes filled with a working fluid, which can then be used to drive dynamos/turbines which are themselves safely located underground.
lasers and microwave emitters can't be mechanical though.




I doubt that all of them would fail at the same time. That's the whole point in having multiple redundant systems. Really, solar flares are more of a concern for squishy fleshlings rather than machines.
I'm concerned that the emp of this activity might disrupt any inevitable electronics which will be necessary in a mechanical to electric energy set up.




That's actually a good thing, if true - otherwise the drastic temperature changes will induce thermal stress on the components. Don't forget as well that energy is being taken out of this system to be converted into electricity, so the heat won't build up that much.
but equally if the external temperature drops too quickly its liable to damage your equipment.

I think you'd need to do the maths before attempting this project.



Carbon compounds have the highest melting points of almost anything, abd besides, this is all minute so easily insulated.i

I was thinking of straight chain compounds, ie. plastics (not diamond, graphite, buckminsterfullerene etc). I'm fairly sure they wont last long in the open oven that is Mercury.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I think you'd need to do the maths before attempting this project.

That's the rub, isn't it really? I would really like to see a proper feasibility study be done on the subject.

[Raúl Duke]

Once we colonize the viable (and desirable; what if people don't want to live in Venus or Mercury even once we terraform it a bit?) planets in our system...

What is the most viable planet outside our system (although close to it)?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Once we colonize the viable (and desirable; what if people don't want to live in Venus or Mercury even once we terraform it a bit?) planets in our system...

What is the most viable planet outside our system (although close to it)?

Unknown. Epsilon Eridani is the closest known star (at 10.5 ly distance) with at least one planet, although it is estimated to be 1.5 times the mass of Jupiter.

The next closest known system, Gliese 876 (15.3 ly distance) has an innermost planet that may be terrestrial.

Yeah, I know that doesn't exactly sound promising, but the good news is that we've only relatively recently been able to look for planets around other stars - there's still plenty of time to find more interesting stuff.

[eyedrop]

Aren't the methods we have available now insufficient to detect small (earth-sized) planets anyway? (Blocking of light and gravitational movement of stars.)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Aren't the methods we have available now insufficient to detect small (earth-sized) planets anyway? (Blocking of light and gravitational movement of stars.)

There are actually a number of methods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methods_of_detecting_extrasolar_planets), although I'm not sure which if any are good for detecting Earth-sized planets.

[Dr Mindbender]

That's the rub, isn't it really? I would really like to see a proper feasibility study be done on the subject.

whats stopping you? I'm sure if you had a few spare hours you could find the appropriate formulae and knock out a few figures.

I'd do it myself but between work and my course i havent the energy.

[Dr Mindbender]

Once we colonize the viable (and desirable; what if people don't want to live in Venus or Mercury even once we terraform it a bit?) planets in our system...

What is the most viable planet outside our system (although close to it)?

the problem with interstellar flight is that our current propulsion means render it totally impractical. Even if we could fly at light speed (which is impossible according to currently accepted physics) a round trip to and from the nearest star would be 8 years (more assuming you want to spend time there), and theres no guarantee we'll find any earth-like planets.

I can't imagine mercury ever being terraformed because its too damn close to the sun. Venus and Mars are a lot more promising however.

[Atrus]

Apologies if this has been said before, but why are we considering emigration to other planets?
It's massively infeasible currently, and almost entirely unnecessary. We have plenty of living space on this planet, and as is being discussed, it would be much more efficient to simply use our neighbouring planets for our energy needs so that we don't destroy this one, and then there's no need to leave for hostile planets.

[Dr Mindbender]

Apologies if this has been said before, but why are we considering emigration to other planets?
It's massively infeasible currently, and almost entirely unnecessary. We have plenty of living space on this planet, and as is being discussed, it would be much more efficient to simply use our neighbouring planets for our energy needs so that we don't destroy this one, and then there's no need to leave for hostile planets.

While it's infeasible currently, i see no harm in at least talking about it, it broadens our scientific understanding to investigate the restraints and solutions we need to make it a reality.

I wouldnt call it unnecessary either, certainly not on an indefinite basis. Having the species occupy more than one planet decreases our risk of extinction.

[Raúl Duke]

the problem with interstellar flight is that our current propulsion means render it totally impractical. Even if we could fly at light speed (which is impossible according to currently accepted physics) a round trip to and from the nearest star would be 8 years (more assuming you want to spend time there), and theres no guarantee we'll find any earth-like planets.

I can't imagine mercury ever being terraformed because its too damn close to the sun. Venus and Mars are a lot more promising however.

damn...

I was already imagining a world like in Mass Effect and stuff.
If I ever see serious space colonization in my life-time I would try to get in on it....perhaps. Or at least into interstellar diplomacy.


Apologies if this has been said before, but why are we considering emigration to other planets?

forums are a place to talk...this is the science and environment forum. Space exploration, terraform, and such are issues of science. Although it is not very feasible at the moment it doesn't hurt exactly to speak about it and in fact it's not the only thing we talk about in the whole forum.

[Dr Mindbender]

damn...

I was already imagining a world like in Mass Effect and stuff.
If I ever see serious space colonization in my life-time I would try to get in on it....perhaps. Or at least into interstellar diplomacy.



I wouldnt get too depressed, theres a sporting chance that within our lifetime we'll see a permanent lunar colony and possibly even a martian one.

[mannetje]

[QUOTE=Atrus;1547943]Apologies if this has been said before, but why are we considering emigration to other planets?
It's massively infeasible currently, and almost entirely unnecessary. We have plenty of living space on this planet, and as is being discussed, it would be much more efficient to simply use our neighbouring planets for our energy needs so that we don't destroy this one, and then there's no need to leave for hostile planets.[QUOTE] Something like this has been said but i don't care. scientists put a lot of effort (excuse me if I spelled effort wrong) in creating better clean energy. I don't believe that the world is gonna end yet. i stay optimistic and I keep hoping for more environment friendly ways to obtain energy. :cool:

[Dr Mindbender]

I don't believe that the world is gonna end yet. i stay optimistic and I keep hoping for more environment friendly ways to obtain energy. :cool:

Well it isnt just global warming we have to be mindful of, when i posted advocating other world habitation i was thinking of hazards posed by falling bodies like meteors and comets.

Before you say its unlikely, i believe only in 1986 there was a near-miss.

[eyedrop]

There are actually a number of methods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methods_of_detecting_extrasolar_planets), although I'm not sure which if any are good for detecting Earth-sized planets.

It seems humankind have just the first ever small rocky planet. The press release is dated yesterday.


First Solid Evidence for a Rocky Exoplanet

Mass and density of smallest exoplanet finally measured

The longest set of HARPS measurements ever made has firmly established the nature of the smallest and fastest-orbiting exoplanet known, CoRoT-7b, revealing its mass as five times that of Earth's. Combined with CoRoT-7b's known radius, which is less than twice that of our terrestrial home, this tells us that the exoplanet's density is quite similar to the Earth's, suggesting a solid, rocky world. The extensive dataset also reveals the presence of another so-called super-Earth in this alien solar system.
European Organisation
for Astronomical
Research in the
Southern Hemisphere (http://www.eso.org/public/outreach/press-rel/pr-2009/pr-33-09.html)

Edit: Made a new thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/first-solid-evidence-t117756/index.html) since it was kinda off-topic

[Atrus]

While it's infeasible currently, i see no harm in at least talking about it, it broadens our scientific understanding to investigate the restraints and solutions we need to make it a reality.

I wouldnt call it unnecessary either, certainly not on an indefinite basis. Having the species occupy more than one planet decreases our risk of extinction.

Quite right, I must have been having a very narrow minded moment when I said that, I'm not really sure what I was thinking.
Sorry.
Generally I'm for discussion of anything with potential to further scientific understanding or improve life for humanity.

[Q]

On the topic of Mercury: I could very well imagine that to become a mining colony as soon as we have settled ourselves permanently on Luna. Although the high radiation from the Sun certainly pose technical difficulties. Even if a Mercury mine would be solely operated by robots, the technical circuits would burn out in no time.

[Dr Mindbender]

Even if a Mercury mine would be solely operated by robots, the technical circuits would burn out in no time.

this is the point i made to NoXion but he seems convinced that the energy could be harvested by mechanical means as opposed to electric.

[Q]

this is the point i made to NoXion but he seems convinced that the energy could be harvested by mechanical means as opposed to electric.
How would that happen?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

How would that happen?

I quickly whipped up a picture to help explain - it's not intended to be scientifically accurate but instead to convey the general idea more easily, since it seems nobody has really picked it up:

http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j99/NoXion604/MechanicalPowah.png

A piping system filled with a working fluid (light purple) passes above a mirror (black curve) which focuses sunlight (orange lines) on part of the pipe, heating and expanding it causing it to drive a dynamo/turbine which is located safely under the surface. Valves (not shown) ensure the working fluid maintains a consistent direction.

Depending on the working fluid that is used as well as other considerations, it may be possible for the working fluid to double as a subsurface coolant, drawing heat away from any sensitive components and coincidentally driving the working fluid back towards the focusing elements.

The electricity resulting from the turbine/dynamo would then be taken via wires (also buried) to wherever it is next needed.

[Q]

I was talking about mining though. I don't see the need for such a construction, especially since the dark side of Mercury stays dark forever. My concern was more about radiation from the Sun to shipments from and to Mercury and possibly (?) on the surface of Mercury itself. I'm not sure how a thermal dynamo is related to this question.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I was talking about mining though. I don't see the need for such a construction, especially since the dark side of Mercury stays dark forever.

No it doesn't - Mercury rotates once every 176 Earth days, and completes one orbit of the Sun every 88 Earth days, so the planet is not tidally locked as you describe.


My concern was more about radiation from the Sun to shipments from and to Mercury and possibly (?) on the surface of Mercury itself. I'm not sure how a thermal dynamo is related to this question.

Well, the rotation of Mercury is so slow that it may be worthwhile to use mobile mining facilities and launching/landing pads that stay within the twilight zones. Either that or the mining facilities could be located near or within the polar regions, or operate within deep craters the interiors of which recieve little if any sunlight.

As for shipments to and from the planet, I don't think that is a particularly huge issue, especially considering some of the ambitious engineering we have been talking about in this thread - after all, using today's technology we can outfit the MESSENGER (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MESSENGER) probe with sufficient shade to protect it for the duration of its mission.

[Q]

No it doesn't - Mercury rotates once every 176 Earth days, and completes one orbit of the Sun every 88 Earth days, so the planet is not tidally locked as you describe.
Oh, I didn't know that. Nice to know.


Well, the rotation of Mercury is so slow that it may be worthwhile to use mobile mining facilities and launching/landing pads that stay within the twilight zones. Either that or the mining facilities could be located near or within the polar regions, or operate within deep craters the interiors of which recieve little if any sunlight.

As for shipments to and from the planet, I don't think that is a particularly huge issue, especially considering some of the ambitious engineering we have been talking about in this thread - after all, using today's technology we can outfit the MESSENGER (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MESSENGER) probe with sufficient shade to protect it for the duration of its mission.
Good points there.

[Il Medico]

Well, I guess this would be the place to ask. Is it possible to collapse Jupiter (or any other gas giant for that matter) into a small star, possibly transforming one of their moons into a habitable body?

[Q]

Well, I guess this would be the place to ask. Is it possible to collapse Jupiter (or any other gas giant for that matter) into a small star, possibly transforming one of their moons into a habitable body?
Ah, the 2001-casus :D

If I remember correctly Jupiter has far too little mass to actually start a durable nuclear fusion process, which is incidentally the reason why Jupiter isn't a star right now. So unless we can expand the mass of Jupiter by some factors, I don't think this will ever happen.

[Revy]

Well, I guess this would be the place to ask. Is it possible to collapse Jupiter (or any other gas giant for that matter) into a small star, possibly transforming one of their moons into a habitable body?

Such a thing would not be possible unless there is some kind of super-advanced civilization thousands of years from now.

Terraforming of Mars is something that could be done even with current technology, getting there is the problem, it's too far away.

I think that there should be manned missions to the Moon, with robotic assistance, but the missions to Mars should be fully robotic. Robots can build the settlement long before humans get there, and also coordinate the terraforming process.

[Dr Mindbender]

Such a thing would not be possible unless there is some kind of super-advanced civilization thousands of years from now.

Terraforming of Mars is something that could be done even with current technology, getting there is the problem, it's too far away.
Its not too far away at all, the problem is our rocket technology is wasted by asinine capitalist ventures like ICBM's and the military. If instead we were bombarding Mars with our greenhouse gases and getting a modestly sized expedition team out there then the terraforming procedure could undertake as we speak.



I think that there should be manned missions to the Moon, with robotic assistance, but the missions to Mars should be fully robotic. Robots can build the settlement long before humans get there, and also coordinate the terraforming process.
That would be great, if we were talking about the moon but we're not.

the problem with sending robots to mars is the delay in sending a signal (about 10 minutes) so consequently theres very little return in terms of work. I don't think the spirit rover was able to leave more than a 2 metre radius before its batteries ran out. At least with people, there is a consistent intelligent prescence meaning greater scientific return.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Well, I guess this would be the place to ask. Is it possible to collapse Jupiter (or any other gas giant for that matter) into a small star, possibly transforming one of their moons into a habitable body?

No, but it may be possible to transform Jupiter into a star-like object by introducing a black hole with the mass of say, Ceres, into its interior. The black hole will eventually settle at the centre of Jupiter and cause it to shine via frictional heating. The temperature increase will also have the effect of causing Jupiter to noticeably swell up.

But how to get a black hole? There may be a primordial black hole (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primordial_black_hole) somewhere in the Solar System, or it might be possible to "grow" an artificial black hole using particle accelerators - any black holes created in contemporary labs are so lightweight they disappear well before scientists can get a good look at them, but at a certain point a black hole will have enough mass to last long enough for us to "feed" it with matter in order to increase its mass still further.

[Il Medico]

No, but it may be possible to transform Jupiter into a star-like object by introducing a black hole with the mass of say, Ceres, into its interior. The black hole will eventually settle at the centre of Jupiter and cause it to shine via frictional heating. The temperature increase will also have the effect of causing Jupiter to noticeably swell up.

But how to get a black hole? There may be a primordial black hole (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primordial_black_hole) somewhere in the Solar System, or it might be possible to "grow" an artificial black hole using particle accelerators - any black holes created in contemporary labs are so lightweight they disappear well before scientists can get a good look at them, but at a certain point a black hole will have enough mass to last long enough for us to "feed" it with matter in order to increase its mass still further.
Correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't a blackhole of any type eventually consume Jupiter? Then would also likely consume the nearby moons and asteroids. Wouldn't this increase it's mass until it became a threat to the inner solar system, first probably being the colony on mars? Also wouldn't it just be easier (in relative terms) and safer to increase the mass of Jupiter? Say harvest the mass of the other Gas gaints and pump it into Jupiter until nuclear fusion is possible?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't a blackhole of any type eventually consume Jupiter?

Eventually, yes. However it would take some time, on the order of millions of years if I remember correctly. I just wish I knew what calculations to do in order to be sure.


Then would also likely consume the nearby moons and asteroids.

Not really. The mass required of the black hole would be negligable compared to that of Jupiter, so the orbits of the moons wouldn't change that much. Outside of their event horizons, black holes behave like any other gravitational object - they aren't some kind of magical space vacuum cleaner as they seem to be commonly depicted in soft sci-fi.


Wouldn't this increase it's mass until it became a threat to the inner solar system, first probably being the colony on mars?

Where would the extra mass come from? Even if the stellificated Jupiter were to somehow suck in all its moons, the added mass wouldn't amount to much, relatively speaking.


Also wouldn't it just be easier (in relative terms) and safer to increase the mass of Jupiter?

I don't think so. In order for fusion to occur in Jupiter's core alone, its mass would have to be increased 75 times. Where are we going to find 75 Jupiter masses?


Say harvest the mass of the other Gas gaints and pump it into Jupiter until nuclear fusion is possible?

Jupiter is the most massive of all the planets - there simply isn't enough mass in the solar system (apart from the Sun) for what you describe to work. Not to mention that moving all that mass would likely exceed the energy required to simply make an artificial black hole.