Curiosity on Mars, secret announcement due?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Still treatable....

You are treatable too.

Aw damn I'm laughing. sorry

I think I'll let my hair grow.

Because I'm not headed for mars, and the hair won't get to 2' length anymore, and i can afford $10 now and then.

Long hair sucks if you clean the bathroom, am saying.

Originally posted by twhitehead...
What was the bad side? Spreading out through the solar system using resources to build ever better computer games sounds like fun to me.

Disingenuous. You are afraid of something.

I don't care enough to track it down.

.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Actually no.
It would be far far easier and cheaper to build asteroid surviving sustainable habitats right here on earth than on the moon or mars.
I actually think humans would survive even a dinosaur killing size asteroid. Just not very many of us.

Let's get off planet. You think that's a bad idea?

Originally posted by apathist
Let's get off planet. You think that's a bad idea?

I think that when it comes to survival, its better to be on a planet with at least most of the conditions right for us, and many resources built up by man.
An asteroid would not instantly kill everyone on the planet. If it were to say cause colder temperatures, then that would still be better than colder temperatures on Mars with no atmosphere, no resources, no other life form etc etc.
I do think it would be fun to teraform mars, but not to survive asteroid hits.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I think that when it comes to survival, its better to be on a planet with at least most of the conditions right for us, and many resources built up by man.
An asteroid would not instantly kill everyone on the planet. If it were to say cause colder temperatures, then that would still be better than colder temperatures on Mars with no atmosphere, no resour ...[text shortened]... fe form etc etc.
I do think it would be fun to teraform mars, but not to survive asteroid hits.

Well the last one played a big part in killing off dinosaurs and the only thing left of them are chickens and such. You do realize that hit put debris 200+ meters deep on BURMUDA, right? That might not off the human species but we for sure would have no further use of GPS, ISS, or any of that since there would be no further flights to space my guess, for a thousand years.

A toe hold is better than no hold, on Mars, the moon, whatever. The goal would be self sufficiency. You seem to doubt the ability of humans to survive and thrive in such environs.
The fact they found as much ice as there is water in lake Superior means they have the resources right there to establish colonies even without terraforming.

One thing that would really help would be to evoke a planet wide magnetic field and if they ever develop room temp superconductors, a couple of rings around the equator with about 50,000 amps flowing will make an artificial magnetic field which would for sure eliviate the radiation problems. Do the math, you will see my calc's are right, 50,000 amps in superconducors around Mars' equator produces about 1 gauss field, similar to Earth.
And if they are room temp, little maintenance is needed. I would expect a planet wide coil like that to be buried a few meters deep to avoid dust storms and the like.

Even if they only have LN2 temp ones, it could still be built but there would be a lot of maintanence issues.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Well the last one played a big part in killing off dinosaurs and the only thing left of them are chickens and such. You do realize that hit put debris 200+ meters deep on BURMUDA, right?

What does the size of holes on Bermuda have to do with anything? Putting it in ALL CAPS doesn't make a point.
The reality is that we don't know a whole lot about exactly how the dinosaurs were killed off.

That might not off the human species but we for sure would have no further use of GPS, ISS, or any of that since there would be no further flights to space my guess, for a thousand years.
Why?

You seem to doubt the ability of humans to survive and thrive in such environs.
What gave you that idea?
My point which you seem to have totally ignored, is that the environs on earth, even after an asteroid strike, would be easier to survive and thrive in than Mars or the Moon, therefore, if the plan is to protect against an asteroid strike, merely establishing a few colonies here on earth built to survive it, would suffice and be far cheaper than doing so on Mars or the Moon.

I do support the idea of colonising Mars. I do not support doing so for poorly thought out reasons.

One thing that would really help would be to evoke a planet wide magnetic field and if they ever develop room temp superconductors, a couple of rings around the equator with about 50,000 amps flowing will make an artificial magnetic field which would for sure eliviate the radiation problems. Do the math, you will see my calc's are right, 50,000 amps in superconducors around Mars' equator produces about 1 gauss field, similar to Earth.
No, you do the math.
1. Make a planet wide superconductor ring around the equator of Mars.
2. Build five self sustaining communities on earth capable of withstanding a non-direct meteor impact. Spread them around so at least one will survive any possible impact.
Which is cheaper?

Originally posted by twhitehead
What does the size of holes on Bermuda have to do with anything? Putting it in ALL CAPS doesn't make a point.
The reality is that we don't know a whole lot about exactly how the dinosaurs were killed off.

[b]That might not off the human species but we for sure would have no further use of GPS, ISS, or any of that since there would be no further flight ...[text shortened]... impact. Spread them around so at least one will survive any possible impact.
Which is cheaper?

You seem to misunderestimate the actual damage that asteroid caused. You do know it caused most of what we now call North America to have a continent wide firestorm, right?

When I say 200 meters of debris on Burmuda I am stressing how far away Burmuda is from the Yucatan. That is thousands of Km friend. It wasn't some kind of hole in the ground at Burmuda it was a pile of debris almost as high as the hills around the Pocono so-called mountains where I live in Pennsylvania (max around 300-400 meters high, I am from Southern California and we have real mountains there).

I don't think you quite understand the power of that hit which created a crater over 200 Km in diameter and they now think that hit penetrated the crust right down to raw magma and they think it also caused mega volcanic activity on the opposite side of the planet.

All of the together plus the fact that Dino's were on their way out anyway, all that, volcanos plus Chicxulub was the coup de gras that did them in and even that took a million years to off all of them.

But if it happened here now, do you know of any buried sites ready to recharge the eco system on Earth right now? I think Norway has the seed bank but that is only plant life. Anyone have frozen zygotes? Don't think so.

You also disregard the probable in fact certain advances in technology over the next couple of centuries, assuming we survive the coming planetary crises and keep the same explosive growth in science and technology as it is now.

Quantum physics applied to technology just keeps getting weirder and weirder, topological insulators showing quantum effects maybe useful in several different technologies, just the beginning of such developments.

I am of course just guessing, but I think room temp + superconductors will be a fact inside of another 100 years and also we WILL have colonies on Mars by then and the moon.

Mars is a lot easier to tame than the moon for sure but even the moon has known deposits of water, which you know is drinking, cleaning fluid plus splitting it up into H2 and O2 gives you fuel and breathing oxygen, even on the moon that is half the battle for a colony.

The point is, if a chicxulub hit anywhere on Earth tomorrow morning, even if there are survivers immediately, even if they are on submarines deep in the ocean 5000 km away, what exactly are you left with? You won't be growing crops anytime soon so exactly what do you expect to eat when 90% of all life is gone, no fish, no land animals bigger than mice and for sure no plants since they would be burned up in the world wide conflaguration that would result.

If it hit say in Teira Del Fuego maybe it would destroy stuff 'only' 5000 miles in diameter and maybe the rest of the planet would have a chance but there is this pesky detail of a world wide spread of dust and smoke that would block sunlight for years.
An event like that makes our most powerful fusion bombs look like firecrackers.

Even after 60 odd million years we still see the deposits on islands like Burmuda so that debris was not just confined to one spritz aimed at that island, it was a pile of debris in a circle with that radius from the Yucatan to Burmuda, debris probably reaching south all the way to Antarctica and north all the way to the Canadian border. That is just the main pile of debris, that does not count the countless, literally countless billions of tons of dust injected into that atmosphere which would take years to settle out so there would be years of a dust rain.

Come on, use your critical thinking about the immense size of such an event.

Humanity would be toast and it is a worth while effort to have a two pronged approach, one, develop asteroid deflection or destruction technologies and colonies anywhere else but Earth.

If there was a supercondutor around Mars equator, and it was room temp plus, that current would stay there, though I imagine interactions with the solar wind and CME's would play havoc with the field and absorb energy from the current which would lower the current and make for a smaller gauss reading which would require a way to induce replacement currents to keep up the shield, it would work. The lack of a field like Earth's is what is stripping the Mars atmosphere, ping, there goes another ion out into space, ping, ping, do that a trillion trillion trillion times any oops, not much atmosphere any more because the magnetic field ain't there folks.

Originally posted by sonhouse
You seem to misunderestimate the actual damage that asteroid caused.

Nothing I have said should give you that impression.

You do know it caused most of what we now call North America to have a continent wide firestorm, right?
Are you sure? Evidence?
But even so, who cares? No fire in Australia. A base on Australia would survive better than a base on Mars.

When I say 200 meters of debris on Burmuda I am stressing how far away Burmuda is from the Yucatan. That is thousands of Km friend.
And? So it was really big. And? Australia still better off than Mars.

I don't think you quite understand the power of that hit which created a crater over 200 Km in diameter and they now think that hit penetrated the crust right down to raw magma and they think it also caused mega volcanic activity on the opposite side of the planet.
And I don't think I have said anything that has given you reason to think that I don't understand it. You are imagining that I don't understand it without actually reading my posts.

All of the together plus the fact that Dino's were on their way out anyway, all that, volcanos plus Chicxulub was the coup de gras that did them in and even that took a million years to off all of them.
So basically not a planet wide extinction of everything event. Put the dinos on Mars however, an they will be gone in about 30 minutes. See the difference yet?

But if it happened here now, do you know of any buried sites ready to recharge the eco system on Earth right now? I think Norway has the seed bank but that is only plant life. Anyone have frozen zygotes? Don't think so.
I don't see any on Mars either. Not even a seed bank.

You also disregard the probable in fact certain advances in technology over the next couple of centuries, assuming we survive the coming planetary crises and keep the same explosive growth in science and technology as it is now.
What have I said that leads you to believe that I disregard scientific advances?

I am of course just guessing, but I think room temp + superconductors will be a fact inside of another 100 years and also we WILL have colonies on Mars by then and the moon.
Lets suppose room temp super conductors get cheaper than copper.
You do the math.
1. Make a planet wide superconductor ring around the equator of Mars.
2. Build five self sustaining communities on earth capable of withstanding a non-direct meteor impact. Spread them around so at least one will survive any possible impact.
Which is cheaper?

Mars is a lot easier to tame than the moon for sure but even the moon has known deposits of water, which you know is drinking, cleaning fluid plus splitting it up into H2 and O2 gives you fuel and breathing oxygen, even on the moon that is half the battle for a colony.
And earth, even after an asteroid impact, is far far far easier. Its not even close.

The point is, if a chicxulub hit anywhere on Earth tomorrow morning, even if there are survivers immediately, even if they are on submarines deep in the ocean 5000 km away, what exactly are you left with? You won't be growing crops anytime soon so exactly what do you expect to eat when 90% of all life is gone, no fish, no land animals bigger than mice and for sure no plants since they would be burned up in the world wide conflaguration that would result.
So now its 90% of all life gone + worldwide conflagration? Seems you are deliberately scaling up the disaster because you know you are wrong.

But lets accept all that.

You do the math.
1. Make a planet wide superconductor ring around the equator of Mars.
2. Build five self sustaining communities on earth capable of withstanding a non-direct meteor impact. Spread them around so at least one will survive any possible impact.
Which is cheaper?

Come on, use your critical thinking about the immense size of such an event.
It seems you are the one having trouble with critical thinking and are just so overwhelmed by the size of the event that you cant think any more.

Humanity would be toast and it is a worth while effort to have a two pronged approach, one, develop asteroid deflection or destruction technologies and colonies anywhere else but Earth.
Far far cheaper to put the colonies on earth. Its just a fact.

Originally posted by sonhouse
...Humanity would be toast and it is a worth while effort to have a two pronged approach, one, develop asteroid deflection or destruction technologies and colonies anywhere else but Earth. ....

even with a relatively large asteroid hitting the Earth, it would be something like ~10000 times cheaper and more practical to evacuate all people from a ~3000km radius from ground zero and build and put all people in underground shelters on high ground (or perhaps modify the tunnels for the underground trains for that) with enough food to last a year and enough provisions to then start up agriculture etc afterward. If you send people into space, it would be something like ~100000 times more expensive to set up food production up there and then there is the huge cost of the infrastructure needed for life support (filtering out CO2 and replenishing 02 unless you have vast greenhouses in space with enough photosynthesis -very expensive setup! ) and put sufficient stores of food up into space etc. I think we can safely rule this out as a practical option.

Originally posted by humy
even with a relatively large asteroid hitting the Earth, it would be something like ~10000 times cheaper and more practical to evacuate all people from a ~3000km radius from ground zero and build and put all people in underground shelters on high ground (or perhaps modify the tunnels for the underground trains for that) with enough food to last a year and enoug ...[text shortened]... ent stores of food up into space etc. I think we can safely rule this out as a practical option.

The thing is, as it stands now, we can do something about asteroids only if we have something like a ten year heads up. The problem is the fast ones that come in from disturbances in the Kuiper Belt which can send thousands of impacters heading to the inner solar system, some of which will have Earth's name on it. If we find an impacter with just a year to prepare, I don't think anyone's space program would be up to protecting Earth from it. There are a whole lot of designs and plans and such but right now if a big one came in fast with little warning, goodbye human civilization, no matter if we do survive in pockets around the world, that would be the end of high tech minimum and space travel for hundreds of years. That is assuming humans survive at all.

Look at the photo in this piece, showing the burning layers in MONTANA from that hit in Mexico:

http://www.livescience.com/26933-chicxulub-cosmic-impact-dinosaurs.html

That is more like 5000 km not 3000. So it would be a direct firestorm 5000 kilometer RADIUS.

And we would not need food in some underground shelter for a year, we would need food for more like 10 years before the atmosphere did anything like a cleanup. There would be no food grown anywhere on the surface for at least ten years. Underground of course you could have nuke supplies and underground farms but you would not be putting a million people in that lifeboat, a few thousand at most.

There are now tools to calculate the damage a given asteroid would cause:

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/heres-what-would-happen-if-an-earth-sized-asteroid-hit-earth

They analyzed one such event, a hypothetical 1/2 km size rock coming in at a 45 degree angle hitting Earth at about 12 km/second. It would be like a 5 GIGATON nuke. Also causing a 7 scale earthquake and an 800 Kph wind with damage hundreds of miles away.

That is a pipsqueek compared to the Chixculub impacter they think was more like 10 km in diameter.

Like I said, they now know that impacter went clean through the crust right down to raw magma and caused untold levels of earthquakes on the opposite side of Earth.

I still think you guys are totally underestimating the amount of damage such a hit would entail.

Maybe Australia would have avoided the firestorm but they sure as hell would not have avoided the loss of sunlight for years at a time. Goodbye agriculture at the very least.

Originally posted by sonhouse
The thing is, as it stands now, we can do something about asteroids only if we have something like a ten year heads up.

Nobody is disputing the fact that we may not be able to stop an asteroid. That is not the issue at all.
The issue is this:
Suppose we know an asteroid will hit North American in 1 year.
Which is easier:
1. Evacuate everyone to Mars.
2. Evacuate everyone to somewhere other than North America.

Suppose we wish to prepare for an asteroid that strikes without warning. Obviously everyone in its direct hit zone is toast anyway, regardless of whether or not we have an outpost on Mars.

Which is easier:
1. Create a self sustaining outpost on Mars to continue the human race.
2. Create multiple self sustaining outposts on Earth to continue the human race.

See if you can address this post without once again trying to emphasise just how big the impact was by using ALL CAPS and no logical argument.

Originally posted by sonhouse
I still think you guys are totally underestimating the amount of damage such a hit would entail.

And I think you have absolutely no reason to think that from anything I have said.
What have I said that leads you to believe this? Quote me.

Originally posted by twhitehead
And I think you have absolutely no reason to think that from anything I have said.
What have I said that leads you to believe this? Quote me.

You seem to think it is some kind of simple operation to evacuate say 500 million people, say all of north and south America to some other place, 500 million now in Canada, at best? Let's see, let's put them in Bangladesh, maybe Buhtan.

You coudn't even BEGIN to move that many people in one year, not with every airliner and every cruise liner on Earth in a massive undertaking.

You still don't understand the devastating effects on the atmosphere regardless of where it hits, what about the part where you say goodbye to agriculture for at least ten years?

Originally posted by sonhouse
You seem to think it is some kind of simple operation to evacuate say 500 million people, say all of north and south America to some other place, 500 million now in Canada, at best? Let's see, let's put them in Bangladesh, maybe Buhtan.

Quote me where I said anything that would remotely suggest that preposterous claim.

You coudn't even BEGIN to move that many people in one year, not with every airliner and every cruise liner on Earth in a massive undertaking.
Yet you propose shipping them to Mars? How exactly?

You still don't understand the devastating effects on the atmosphere regardless of where it hits, what about the part where you say goodbye to agriculture for at least ten years?
What have I said that lead you to believe that I do not understand that?