It is possible to make it habitable... by nuking the poles.
because it lost it's atmosphere at some point of time.
EDIT: BTW while Venus has slightly lower mass and gravity compared to Earth, atmospheric pressure is 90 times higher than on Earth.
If humans managed to create a new atmosphere on mars, why wouldn't the sun blow it away again?
This sure is very sound and strong argument.stupid sci-fi pictureFrom someone just a while ago wrote VThe typical logical fallacy from your camp is usually in the form of: "they laughed at (insert famous historical figure here) too!". Unfortunately, they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. Being laughed at is no guarantee that you're actually right.
If humans managed to create a new atmosphere on mars, why wouldn't the sun blow it away again?https://phys.org/news/2017-03-nasa-magnetic-shield-mars-atmosphere.html
BTW while Venus has slightly lower mass and gravity compared to Earth, atmospheric pressure is 90 times higher than on Earth.
In effect, a balloon full of human-breathable air would sustain itself and extra weight (such as a colony) in midair. At an altitude of 50 kilometres above the Venerian surface, the environment is the most Earth-like in the Solar System – a pressure of approximately 1000 hPa and temperatures in the 0 to 50 °C range. Protection against cosmic radiation would be provided by the atmosphere above, with shielding mass equivalent to Earth's.
This sure is very sound and strong argument.stupid sci-fi pictureFrom someone just a while ago wrote VThe typical logical fallacy from your camp is usually in the form of: "they laughed at (insert famous historical figure here) too!". Unfortunately, they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. Being laughed at is no guarantee that you're actually right.
Psst: in this example, you are Bozo the Clown.
If humans managed to create a new atmosphere on mars, why wouldn't the sun blow it away again?https://phys.org/news/2017-03-nasa-magnetic-shield-mars-atmosphere.html
Yes, linking to sci-fi is very much the same as proof. Thank you, my mind is changed now. Maybe we can be neighbors on Mars and chat over the fence when we are mowing our space lawns with our space lawnmowers...
PS: No one is going anywhere. Not you, not me, not Elon Freaking Musk. Get over it.
FYI this is a name-calling and in given context ad hominem fallacy.
If humans managed to create a new atmosphere on mars, why wouldn't the sun blow it away again?https://phys.org/news/2017-03-nasa-magnetic-shield-mars-atmosphere.html
Yes, linking to sci-fi is very much the same as proof. Thank you, my mind is changed now. Maybe we can be neighbors on Mars and chat over the fence when we are mowing our space lawns with our space lawnmowers...
PS: No one is going anywhere. Not you, not me, not Elon Freaking Musk. Get over it.Seems you have no real argument just as always. That is not sci-fi but theory.
... while "reponding to tone" is two levels better in Graham's Hierarchy!
I'm certain you want to return to the state of science of those years. Just avoid inquisition frying your ass on a bonfire.
Ah yes, that old chestnut.So Giordano Bruno wasn't burned at the stake after all?
So you don't understand your logical fallacy after all?Says walking logical fallacy itself.
There is no logical fallacy on my part, the burden of proof is entirely on the people making the extraordinary claims. You are nothing but cloud-shoveling daydreamers with an odd techno-religion.
... while "reponding to tone" is two levels better in Graham's Hierarchy!Sorry but you need to read the definition of it again. Not to say, I'm not pointing out his logical fallacies just because. He claimed that others are full of logical fallacies but himself being holier than thou.
I was referring to the very post which I quoted, where you complained about the ad-hominem attack and name-calling. That is "responding to tone", right?
FYI this is a name-calling and in given context ad hominem fallacy.
... while "reponding to tone" is two levels better in Graham's Hierarchy!
Come on, guys, can't we cool it a bit? Wraper loves space stuff (although he does not state that everything which can be contemplated should also be done), others are more skeptical. So what?
Wraper loves space stuff
In a 2011 Pew Research survey, 58% of Americans said it is essential that the U.S. be a world leader in space exploration.
BTW while Venus has slightly lower mass and gravity compared to Earth, atmospheric pressure is 90 times higher than on Earth.Actually, colonising Venus would probably be easier, by living in floating cities in venus atmospere:QuoteIn effect, a balloon full of human-breathable air would sustain itself and extra weight (such as a colony) in midair. At an altitude of 50 kilometres above the Venerian surface, the environment is the most Earth-like in the Solar System – a pressure of approximately 1000 hPa and temperatures in the 0 to 50 °C range. Protection against cosmic radiation would be provided by the atmosphere above, with shielding mass equivalent to Earth's.Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_Venus
And even if you find people who would like to live under such extreme condition (I'm sure there are some who would like the challenge), there is still the question of why go through the trouble (i.e. who would be willing to pay for it and why, same as with a colony on Mars). Naah, at most there will be small research bases, but to me it still makes much more sense to just send "disposable" robotic rovers.
A moon base and larger space station with spin gravity seems a lot more realistic and potentially useful.
Mars to be habitable though, it's the closest other than Earth in our own solar system but that's not saying much.It is possible to make it habitable... by nuking the poles.
How would nuking the poles help make Mars habitable?It would release frozen CO2 trapped in the ice caps. That would start greenhouse effect. Due to temperature increasing the rest of frozen CO2 would vaporize as well increasing the greenhouse effect. Then you could use plants to release oxygen from CO2. It's not like it can be terraformed in one human generation but in theory it's possible.
or "Asteroid of DOOM!!".
So what is worse...
Aiming low and hitting your target
or
Aiming high and possibly missing - but hitting a mark higher than where you currently are?
All talk about modifying the climate of Mars is speculative, but it isn't as far fetched or futile as some are saying.
All of the science says that any atmosphere created will be "quickly" blown away by the solar wind. But that is "quickly" on geologic scales. The time would be measured in tens or even hundreds of thousand years. Which might be long enough in its own right, and certainly long enough to allow additional technology to be applied. Like shifting Oort belt objects to replace existing atmosphere. That would be energetically difficult if attempted in years or decades, but given the rate of solar wind erosion transit times of millenia could be adequate. Requires thinking differently than we have as a race, but who knows, maybe we will grow up someday.
So what is worse...
Aiming low and hitting your target
or
Aiming high and possibly missing - but hitting a mark higher than where you currently are?Always go for batting the ball out of the heliosphere.
So far NASA is the only one to have done it. Voyager 1 left the heliosphere back in 2012.