Anonymous at Mon, 26 Aug 2024 18:50:06 UTC No. 16346291

Mars is overrated.
Always was.

Anonymous at Mon, 26 Aug 2024 18:53:59 UTC No. 16346300

>>16346291
What? It's the most viable second home for humanity that we're likely to reach during this millennium. How is that overrated?

Anonymous at Mon, 26 Aug 2024 19:06:34 UTC No. 16346349

>>16346300
Venus is superior in every way.

Anonymous at Mon, 26 Aug 2024 19:18:49 UTC No. 16346389

>>16346283
Of course life once existed on Mars or currently exists there.

Anonymous at Mon, 26 Aug 2024 20:07:57 UTC No. 16346481

>>16346349
Name some ways it's superior.

Anonymous at Mon, 26 Aug 2024 20:09:02 UTC No. 16346483

>>16346389
Why do you think that?

Anonymous at Mon, 26 Aug 2024 20:15:41 UTC No. 16346495

>>16346283
>use sattelites to deflect solar irradiation from sun at Lagrange points
>mine Titan for its hydrocarbons and nitrogen
>transport to mars to burn for water, CO2 and N2
>red planet is red because or tons of oxidized iron which can be used for O2
>use hydrocarbons to create massive installations to balance CO2 N2 and O2 to correct proportions
Planet complete
tons of water right atmosphere no solar irradiation

Anonymous at Mon, 26 Aug 2024 20:17:01 UTC No. 16346501

>>16346483
>send rover there
it's (r)over
there's at least a dozen bacteria that survived the trip
just once has to be able to survive and it might and it'll just infest the entire planet since it has zero competition
it's already (r)over

Anonymous at Mon, 26 Aug 2024 22:04:55 UTC No. 16346759

>>16346481
There is a sweet spot in the upper atmosphere where air pressure, temperature and gravity are similar to Earth. Oxygen and nitrogen would be lifting gasses. You could sit on the balcony of your floating habitat and drink a beer wearing only a respirator and a short sleeved shirt.

Anonymous at Mon, 26 Aug 2024 22:24:49 UTC No. 16346804

Why is Mars so cold? Given that Mars has over 3000% more CO2 per unit surface area than Earth does you'd think that Mars would have a fantastically large greenhouse effect and be warmer than Earth since Mars is only slightly further away from the sun. The 30x larger greenhouse effect from Mars' CO2 should compensate for the distance and then some, but the reality is that Mars has no measurable greenhouse effect whatsoever.

Anonymous at Mon, 26 Aug 2024 22:29:23 UTC No. 16346816

>>16346283
Mars has an interesting topography when compared to our moon. Our moon looks like it's been through some serious shit in comparison.

I do believe it's possible that life originated on Mars or at least existed that at one point in the ancient past. It wouldn't be too surprising if life on Earth was a result of panspermia in relation to the red planet. In fact, I believe panspermia of some form is the likely reason for life on Earth.

Anonymous at Mon, 26 Aug 2024 22:40:19 UTC No. 16346839

We have some Mars rocks so Mars likely has some Earth rocks. Unfortunately even if life made the journey, I think it would die immediately. This is different for Venus where there's a sweet spot where it could just hold on, like >>16346759 says. I bet we find some there, hardy, basic, not much more than another chemical reaction in the atmosphere.
>>16346804
Sunlight is about 60% and the atmosphere is about 0.6% of Earth's. It doesn't matter what gas you use, you're not holding in heat for billions of years

Anonymous at Mon, 26 Aug 2024 23:11:37 UTC No. 16346925

>>16346804
Mars is damn near a vacuum
You'll never pump enough gas into that place

🗑️ Anonymous at Mon, 26 Aug 2024 23:25:49 UTC No. 16346951

>>16346839
>mars cools off quickly because of low atmospheric pressure
its that why spacecraft design requires such enormous effort to be put into getting rid of waste heat?
you should try studying physics sometime, you might learn something. mars' night side cools off rapidly because co2 isn't a greenhouse gas. the greenhouse effect on earth is entirely due to the effect of water vapor in our atmosphere

Anonymous at Tue, 27 Aug 2024 00:35:57 UTC No. 16347043

>>16346951
>its that why spacecraft design requires such enormous effort to be put into getting rid of waste heat?
No
>mars' night side cools off rapidly because co2 isn't a greenhouse gas. the greenhouse effect on earth is entirely due to the effect of water vapor in our atmosphere
Oh alright

🗑️ Anonymous at Tue, 27 Aug 2024 02:02:42 UTC No. 16347173

>>16346283

Anonymous at Tue, 27 Aug 2024 07:15:10 UTC No. 16347409

Mars is such an interesting planet. Similar to how Venus is like Earth's evil twin, Mars is like Earth's dead cousin. I sometimes think about how different it would've been had it retained its magnetosphere. Would we have visited it by now, or even colonised it?
>>16347173
Why are you here if you don't like science?
>>16346951
Not that I'm disagreeing with you, but if that's the case then why is Venus so hot?

Anonymous at Tue, 27 Aug 2024 08:28:27 UTC No. 16347430

>>16346283
>existed
Possible since initially there was liquid water, we're certain about that.
>currently exists
More difficult but not impossible.
Apparently there is still liquid water deep underground.
Conditions not ideal but still possible.

Anonymous at Tue, 27 Aug 2024 09:14:53 UTC No. 16347453

>>16346501
Mars landers are meticulously decontaminated before launch. But even if a microbe somehow survived, there is no food for it on mars. There is no protection from UV radiation. There is no oxygen.

Anonymous at Tue, 27 Aug 2024 09:18:40 UTC No. 16347456

>>16347409
>Not that I'm disagreeing with you, but if that's the case then why is Venus so hot?
Venus' atmosphere is like 100x denser and much larger than Earth's.
Surface pressure on Venus is 90bar. At, 50km altitude, Venus has a pressure of 1bar.
Surface pressure on Earth is 1bar. At 50km, Earth pressure is 0.001bar.

Anonymous at Tue, 27 Aug 2024 10:49:41 UTC No. 16347500

>>16346349
>>16346481

Anonymous at Tue, 27 Aug 2024 11:39:50 UTC No. 16347534

>>16347456
>Venus is hot because the atmosphere is 100x thicker than Earth's
>>16346951
>Mars isn't cold because the atmosphere is 100x thinner than Earth's, it's because CO2 doesn't cause warming!!!
hm

Anonymous at Tue, 27 Aug 2024 12:03:30 UTC No. 16347547

>>16347534
Other post wasn't me

Anonymous at Tue, 27 Aug 2024 17:28:09 UTC No. 16347857

>>16347453
Like there was any of that on earth when life first started out
life finds a way like niggers find gibs

Anonymous at Tue, 27 Aug 2024 17:33:42 UTC No. 16347860

I was going to make a thread, but this topic seems to fit.
Is this actually possible?
We could position a giant mirror in space to cook the ice caps and cause an atmosphere creation?

Anonymous at Tue, 27 Aug 2024 17:42:58 UTC No. 16347866

>>16346481
Gravity similar to earth and closer to the sun are what comes to mind

Anonymous at Tue, 27 Aug 2024 17:46:15 UTC No. 16347872

>>16347860
It still wouldn't matter as the core of the planet has solidified.
If I remember correctly, the reason that Mars lost its atmosphere to begin with is because of the core, which caused the planet to lose its magnetosphere protection, allowing solar winds to strip the atmosphere from the red planet.

Maybe one day there will be some clever workarounds that they can figure out in the far future, but until then there won't be any terraforming initiatives that would work. It would have to be self-sufficient colonies, as the planet itself won't be made habitable without protection from solar rays.

Anonymous at Tue, 27 Aug 2024 17:55:05 UTC No. 16347882

>>16347857
Life on Earth almost certainly began in the oceans where it was protected from huge daily / seasonal temperature changes and UV radiation

Anonymous at Tue, 27 Aug 2024 18:17:14 UTC No. 16347910

>>16347882
Mars had similar conditions at one time. You're only thinking of Mars as it is now.

Anonymous at Tue, 27 Aug 2024 18:21:46 UTC No. 16347921

Why we can't just bomb Mars with rockets that carry oxygen producing bacterias?

Anonymous at Tue, 27 Aug 2024 18:27:45 UTC No. 16347928

>>16347921
For what purpose? Mars still doesn't have an atmosphere or a magnetic field protection.

Anonymous at Tue, 27 Aug 2024 19:25:45 UTC No. 16348029

>>16346501
>it'll just infest the entire planet since it has zero competition
OMGosh, look at all this food on Mars. Kek.

Anonymous at Tue, 27 Aug 2024 19:42:01 UTC No. 16348041

>>16347928
>Mars still doesn't have an atmosphere or a magnetic field protection.
Apparently it would be possible to substitute mars' magnetic field by dumping ferrite microrods above the surface, and from recollection the volume and timescale are pretty reasonable (9000 tons of material per year over 50 earth years) for mars to begin recapturing an atmosphere from gases in the crust

Anonymous at Tue, 27 Aug 2024 20:16:02 UTC No. 16348112

>>16348041
That still seems like an almost insurmountable obstacle, unfortunately. It would be a pinnacle expression of humanity's ambitions, though, wouldn't it?

I've seen another proposal that would be to use a large number orbiting nuclear satellites that are equipped with the ability to direct microwave energy onto the planet in massive amounts to potentially restart the core.
I don't know if such a thing would be possible, though. In order to successfully "revive" a dead planet would very likely take the combination of several huge undertakings happening simultaneously.

Then again, we're currently restricted by the limits of our technology, so there may well be solutions that are far easier that would help facilitate the process.
I doubt people two hundred years ago could even fathom the world we live in today; the same will be true of us with regard to the future. Kind of a shame because I'd still love to see it.

Anonymous at Tue, 27 Aug 2024 20:56:02 UTC No. 16348168

>>16347882
yeah but we're bringing in already made life
it doesn't need to begin
it just needs to be able to adapt and harvest sunlight

Anonymous at Wed, 28 Aug 2024 00:42:56 UTC No. 16348438

>>16346283
I think it's possible we may find evidence of life in the past.
At the very least, I think the possibility of microbes is high.

🗑️ Anonymous at Wed, 28 Aug 2024 00:54:51 UTC No. 16348446

>>16347928
Mars has and atmosphere and that atmosphere makes it impossible for any life to ever survive there. Because Mars' atmosphere is all CO2 we would need to get rid of over 90% of it or the greenhouse effect caused b y CO2 would make it impossible for any life to ever survive on Mars.
How are you going to remove 90% of an atmosphere? Giant space vacuums?

Anonymous at Wed, 28 Aug 2024 01:12:28 UTC No. 16348458

>>16348112
A magnetosphere for Mars is best obtained by a powered plasma torus in about the orbit of Phobos
https://arxiv.org/abs/2111.06887

Anonymous at Wed, 28 Aug 2024 01:14:22 UTC No. 16348461

>>16348446
You realize the overall conversation is around terraforming, right? I even asked him for what purpose. Are you following along?
The thin atmosphere remaining is irrelevant, because there's no protection offered from solar winds.

But playing the hypothetical game to answer your question, scientists can engineer microbes and plant life that could slowly convert that CO2 over great lengths of time.
The problem with Mars has never been the CO2, it's how thin the atmosphere has become and it's dead core.

Anonymous at Wed, 28 Aug 2024 01:18:47 UTC No. 16348467

>>16346283
I like to think that
>Life not only existed, but thrived on mars
>Humanity became so advanced and realized that Mars was dying
>Unable to develop technology sufficient enough to stop the inevitable decay of Mars' atmosphere, they resorted to the next best thing: sending a space pod to the closest planet, earth
>Humanity selects the best candidates they can, and sends them off in a cryostasis chamber
>Mars' atmosphere completely decays, leaving no trace of the previous civilization
>When the time is right, God himself adjusts the orbit of the pod, causing it to crash-land into earth.
>Two humans, one male, one female, emerge from the pod in the Garden of Eden
tfw Adam and Eve were technically in the first Noah's Arc

Anonymous at Wed, 28 Aug 2024 01:59:29 UTC No. 16348495

>>16348112
>insurmountable obstacle
It's just iron. You can mine and manufacture it on Mars. That's only 90 Starship launches over 50 years. Set against SpaceX's plans it's actually trivial

Anonymous at Wed, 28 Aug 2024 02:09:24 UTC No. 16348502

>>16348446
tons of hydrocarbons on titan
export it to mars
O2 from ferrous oxide on mars
CO2, H2O and N2 (there's some) from burning Titan's hydrocarbons
Use the energy from burning hydrocarbons to revert CO2 back to something else like pure carbon and store it
we can also burn it off planet considering we have more than enough fuel and dump the CO2 in space
Chemistry is easy when you have an entire moon consisting of oil.
We could simply ignore the magnetic field and deflect incoming solar winds and let the atmosphere slowly evaporate again considering we have an entire moon filled with oil to burn through

Anonymous at Wed, 28 Aug 2024 02:49:06 UTC No. 16348573

>>16348495
I don't deny it's possible, but I still believe it would inevitably run into huge difficulties. For instance, as the temperature rises and the frozen water begins to melt and rise into the atmosphere, there's a chance of it being swept away or, even worse, the water binding with the aerosol of ferrite and raining it back down to the surface, resulting in the same thing.
There's the old Chinese proverb, "what man proposes, God disposes" and I suspect that while it may seem easy, there would be a ton of unexpected scenarios that may occur.

Anonymous at Wed, 28 Aug 2024 04:54:29 UTC No. 16348687

>>16348467
Based off your post, I don't believe you like to think at all.

Anonymous at Wed, 28 Aug 2024 05:10:09 UTC No. 16348697

>>16348458
Thanks for sharing, man. I've never heard of this one before. It's an interesting concept. I could see them using a mix of the various things mentioned over the years.
Sometimes I get bummed out thinking about the things we may not get to see and make myself sad lol

Anonymous at Wed, 28 Aug 2024 05:16:32 UTC No. 16348699

>>16348467
I like it. It sounds fun.

Anonymous at Wed, 28 Aug 2024 05:51:47 UTC No. 16348746

>>16346283
Of course, that is why it got nuked twice.
Some glowie tried to deboonk it, but only made an assclown of himself.

Anonymous at Wed, 28 Aug 2024 05:54:07 UTC No. 16348748

>>16348746
Nuked what now? And what about a glowfag?
Anon, you realize we're not mind-readers and your non sequiturs don't make sense unless you decide to forgo the laziness and use your words, right?

Anonymous at Wed, 28 Aug 2024 07:22:53 UTC No. 16348831

>>16348112
>humanity
humanity doesn't exist in atheism, atheism is about diversity not univnersalism

Anonymous at Wed, 28 Aug 2024 07:35:32 UTC No. 16348837

>>16348831
what the hell are you even talking about? are you a bot?

Anonymous at Wed, 28 Aug 2024 14:33:02 UTC No. 16349332

>>16346300
>death planet
>viable second home
Nope.

Anonymous at Wed, 28 Aug 2024 16:55:18 UTC No. 16349511

>>16348687
Shut up loser you know he's right

Anonymous at Wed, 28 Aug 2024 19:08:14 UTC No. 16349699

>>16349332
With the proper ambition and modification, it can be turned into a planet of life.
It would most certainly be in our best interests to colonize other locations within the solar system and beyond. It's never a good idea to put all of your eggs into one basket.
If history has shown us anything, then we're in a race against time. A global catastrophic event is an eventual inevitability, regardless of the arrogance of humanity to think they can manage anything.

Anonymous at Wed, 28 Aug 2024 19:28:20 UTC No. 16349722

>>16348112
>>16348041
>>16347921
Humans will never leave this planet.
Dinosaurs existed for 165 million years. They didn't even manage to invent a simple flying machine.
Chris McKay estimates 100,000 years for a simple approach to reach a breathable atmosphere, Zubrin estimates it could be accomplished as quickly as 900 years in an optimistic scenario, more complex approach, with mega-engineering such as space mirrors to reflect more sunlight to Mars.
There is the danger of all the CO2 getting turned into limestone or other forms of calcite or similar minerals, and is permanently removed from the atmosphere and is extremely hard to release again, we don't even know how early Mars lost its atmosphere. Or a micro-organism or higher organism evolves on our transformed Mars which is either hazardous to humans, a disease or an allergen, or damaging to our crops or animals.
Because of the lower gravity it needs about 3 times as much mass for the same atmospheric pressure, similarly needs three times the mass of oxygen per square meter for a breathable atmosphere, this might also cause issues for humans if they live there permanently. Mars is further from the sun - so we just get about half the light we get here on Earth. It has also no continental drift, so long term it may lose all its atmosphere - on Earth the atmosphere is maintained long term by volcanic eruptions - which is also probably the main thing that got Earth out of its ice phases. The planet has much less nitrogen than Earth, which is important in our atmosphere as a buffer (77% of the atmosphere), as well as needed by many plants. A CO2 atmosphere with no buffer is poisonous for humans even when it has enough oxygen to breathe. An almost pure oxygen atmosphere (as in spacesuits) is breathable, but hard to achieve biologically, is also flammable, and you get oxygen toxicity on long timescales for humans. Some compromise might work, using smaller amounts of nitrogen than for Earth, but this is not certain.

Anonymous at Wed, 28 Aug 2024 19:29:31 UTC No. 16349727

>>16349722
Furthermore, the materials might need to be imported from elsewhere in the solar system, involving Star Trek pop sci megaengineering. The Mars surface is rich in percholorates, and poor in chlorides (such as common table salt). Perchlorates are poisonous to humans, and are present in the dust at levels far above the toxicity levels for humans. It also lacks a magnetic field so no protection from solar radiation. And no stabilizing Moon - long term the tilt changes are far greater than for the Earth. Mars sometimes tilts so far that it has an equatorial ice belt instead of polar ice caps and there are higher risks of a giant meteorite impact because it is closer to the asteroid belt. A main concern is also another main disadvantage of Mars - the resupply issue. It would take two years to resupply astronauts in Mars orbit from Earth, and we don't yet have any experience of running a space settlement without regular supplies from Earth.

🗑️ Anonymous at Wed, 28 Aug 2024 19:32:25 UTC No. 16349737

>>16348461
how come the co2 on mars isn't a problem but the far, far smaller amount of co2 is on earth? because you're completely ignorant of even basic freshman level physics topics that are taught in the first semester of thermo?

Anonymous at Wed, 28 Aug 2024 19:41:02 UTC No. 16349759

>>16349727
Mars sucks a big fat dick. Venus is where it's at

Anonymous at Wed, 28 Aug 2024 20:02:29 UTC No. 16349804

>>16349759
Why the fuck would Venus be any better?
The surface conditions on Venus are extremely hostile. Due to the greenhouse effect, temperatures near the equator are around 500°C, enough to melt lead. The atmospheric pressure on the ground averages 92 bar, which corresponds to the pressure at a depth of around 930 meters on Earth. These conditions led to the Venera 5 and Venera 6 space probes being crushed 18 and 10 kilometers above the ground respectively. Venera 7 and 8, which followed them, reached the surface, but both functioned for less than an hour. This means that transporting materials from the surface, such as raw materials, would not be just difficult, it would be impossible. Water is almost completely absent on the planet. The atmosphere has no oxygen, but consists of toxic concentrations of CO2 and clouds of sulphuric acid and sulphur dioxide vapors. Then there is the extremely slow rotation of Venus. A solar day on Venus is 117 terrestrial days long. Even if the atmosphere were thinned out after terraforming, the day side would heat up considerably and the night side would cool down considerably. Large quantities of water would evaporate on the day side and the clouds would be driven to the night side by gigantic, destructive hurricanes (even currently, the wind speeds in it's atmosphere are around 224 miles per hour) and rain down there.

Anonymous at Wed, 28 Aug 2024 20:18:19 UTC No. 16349830

>>16349722
Yeah, and in 1903 the New York Times wrote an article saying that mankind wouldn't be able to build a flying machine for another one to ten million years.
People don't need to fully terraform a planet in order to leave this one, they just need to create a space that habitable. The rest can follow in time.
Furthermore, all "estimates" are myopic nonsense with no grasp of technological advancement. Go ahead and try to explain the world we live in today to those same people from the New York Times in 1903 and they'd think you live in some magical sci-fi world.

I don't think people like yourself fully understand or appreciate the insane levels of power that will come with the advent of the quantum computer. Compared to computers now, it's like comparing a hand grenade to a nuke. The moment we have fully functional quantum computing our technology will hit yet another rapid acceleration process, where problems that would have once taken decades or centuries of computing to solve will take hours or days.
It's also for that reason that quantum computers pose such an insane risk for our species, equal to those aforementioned nukes. This part of that particular conversation is often overlooked, though.

But I digress, in the end, our species is really not that far away from attempting to colonize places throughout the solar system. The truth is that it will likely begin within the next one hundred to two hundred years at the latest. I suspect the early forms of that will be much earlier than that, too.

Anonymous at Thu, 29 Aug 2024 04:01:15 UTC No. 16350437

>>16349759
What's so great about Venus? It's just a hot hellhole that smells like farts.

Anonymous at Thu, 29 Aug 2024 04:18:18 UTC No. 16350457

>>16346283
i think the bramfatura still has the imprint of its archmyths

Anonymous at Thu, 29 Aug 2024 12:55:01 UTC No. 16350957

>>16350437
It's for star wars fags to imagine being Lando Calrissian in a cloud city floating fifty miles above Venus

Anonymous at Thu, 29 Aug 2024 15:10:16 UTC No. 16351111

>>16349830
>Yeah, and in 1903 the New York Times wrote an article saying that mankind wouldn't be able to build a flying machine for another one to ten million years.
Yeah and today the New York Times writes that the singularity is just 10 years away, when we know almost nothing about the biological workings of the mind.

>they just need to create a space that habitable.
Imagine living your whole life inside a tiny prison cell. That will never work. Terraforming needs such impossible amounts of energy that it rests in the realm of Star Trek pop sci.
>Go ahead and try to explain the world we live in today to those same people from the New York Times in 1903 and they'd think you live in some magical sci-fi world.
The technological progress during the last 100 years was unprecedented and it will most likely never be like this again. Read John Horgan's "The End of Science". I'm pretty sure in 2100 we could explain the current year 2100 world to someone from the 2020s and he would be like "meh".
>advent of the quantum computer.
That's a possibility, I give you that. But for now quantum computers are in the same realm as "fusion energy".
>The moment we have fully functional quantum computing our technology will hit yet another rapid acceleration process
Now you sound like the "the singularity is just 5 years away" people.
>equal to those aforementioned nukes.
Nukes are a meme. The total arsenal doesn't have the same power that the asteroid had that impacted in Greenland 12,000 years ago. In a nuclear war, the whole continent of Africa will be spared. How is this going to extinct mankind?
>The truth is that it will likely begin within the next one hundred to two hundred years at the latest.
lol just educate yourself, we don't have the technology nor the resources to even leave the solar system.

Anonymous at Fri, 30 Aug 2024 01:43:59 UTC No. 16351998

>>16349804
Well no shit you're never gonna walk around on the surface of Venus

Anonymous at Fri, 30 Aug 2024 14:11:34 UTC No. 16352647

>>16346283
Define life. This isn't so much a science question as a philosophical and religious question. Then you realize the whole debate is somewhat redundant.

>With the proper ambition and modification, it can be turned into a planet of life.
When will humans give up on this retarded fantasy that they can reshape entire planets deliberately for the better? Do Westoids have to colonzie everything? What is even worthwhile on Mars? Its a dustball with nothing on it. A geologically inactive dead planet. A floating ball of dirt. At least there was arable land and gold in the Americas for the Euros to steal. What are you gonna get on Mars? Dirt?

Maybe we should put more effort into taking care of the planet we live on right now instead of this retarded fantasy corpos push of colonizing Mars because they are so obsessed with money they don't even care if our home planet turns into a second Venus? Those morons want to teraform Mars while doing everything in their power to turn earth into the lifeless death world that Mars is today.

Anonymous at Fri, 30 Aug 2024 14:42:30 UTC No. 16352685

>>16352647
>Those morons want to teraform Mars while doing everything in their power to turn earth into the lifeless death world that Mars is today.
A feature, not a bug. Only the rich can afford to evacuate themselves when SHTF.

Anonymous at Fri, 30 Aug 2024 18:42:23 UTC No. 16352946

>>16351111
All those words and nothing of value. Just strawman arguments, false equivalencies, deflections and "nuh uh!!."
It's like talking to a child who's looking to argue for the sake of arguing.
It's abundantly clear you have no idea what you're talking about with regard to any of the things you mentioned.

Anonymous at Sat, 31 Aug 2024 01:59:10 UTC No. 16353460

>>16347866
>this is fine

Anonymous at Sat, 31 Aug 2024 04:01:48 UTC No. 16353584

>>16346283
>bacteria and water is proof of life on mars
meanwhile
>an unborn child isn't life because psychopaths want to murder their own kids and don't want to be accountable or face the consequences of their own actions

Anonymous at Sat, 31 Aug 2024 04:51:22 UTC No. 16353604

Probably a few military bases, they get their through "mars elevator" it's an elevator to mars that kind of apports them up to base 101. And to get back they wake up in bed, go figure.

Anonymous at Sat, 31 Aug 2024 06:19:51 UTC No. 16353664

>>16346283
No because it has no magnetosphere

Anonymous at Sat, 31 Aug 2024 06:24:25 UTC No. 16353667

>>16353664
It probably did at one point, hence why it was a planet similar to ours during that time.

Anonymous at Sat, 31 Aug 2024 08:41:30 UTC No. 16353795

>>16352946
nice argument

Anonymous at Sat, 31 Aug 2024 13:10:15 UTC No. 16354062

>>16347500
kek

Anonymous at Sat, 31 Aug 2024 13:25:35 UTC No. 16354076

>>16347453
Given how many errors there have been on other space related projects, I don't have great confidence in the ability to fully decontaminate anything we send to other bodies. It's still a good thing to do but mistakes happen and procedures sometimes have flawed designs.

Anonymous at Sat, 31 Aug 2024 13:48:39 UTC No. 16354110

>>16346283
There is no such thing as "life" as you understand and know it outside of Earth.

Anonymous at Sat, 31 Aug 2024 19:20:38 UTC No. 16354453

nope
theyve had rovers whizzing around up there for years and you bet that if they found anything other than dust they would be screaming it from the roof. instead we get the odd cope about muh liquid water or other such copes. The very fact so many people still cling to the belief of life up there, with no evidence, proves that modern science and society is much more religious than they realise.

Anonymous at Sat, 31 Aug 2024 19:53:14 UTC No. 16354493

>>16354453
I don't think you actually understand how massive a planet is, or how the passage of countless years would effect discovery.
We can't even be sure whether an intelligent species existed before humanity, which is the basis for the Silurian hypothesis, so attempting to discover if life once existed on a dead planet that once shared a large number of similarities to Earth would be exponentially more difficult.

It has nothing to do with "scientism" as you suggest and everything to do with the immense difficulty of locating areas where evidence may still exist, considering it's not exactly easy to dig a hundred feet down for a better look into the ancient past.
If they were able to retrieve very long core samples from the frozen regions (or anywhere for that matter) then it would make the process significantly easier.
Currently, we don't even know when the hell Mars died to begin with and it's suspect it may have happened over a billion years ago. That's a huge amount of time for the surface to completely change.

Anonymous at Sun, 1 Sep 2024 01:52:25 UTC No. 16354919

>>16346481
-gravity is nearly the same as earth's so no weakening of bones due to low gravity.
-50km above the surface the pressure is similar to earth's as well as the temperature at about 30°c. No need to wear a spacesuit outside only a breathing apparatus. It's the most earthlike place in the solar system.
-lots of sunlight for solar power.
-airship colonies with oxygen and nitrogen keep them floating. Easy to fix if there is damage to them.

Anonymous at Sun, 1 Sep 2024 20:40:51 UTC No. 16355721

>>16349830
>I don't think people like yourself fully understand or appreciate the insane levels of power that will come with the advent of the quantum computer
I don't think you understand what a quantum computer is, next time just say that computers tend to get better and you won't look like a clown.

Anonymous at Sun, 1 Sep 2024 20:58:52 UTC No. 16355745

>>16355721
I don't think you do. Next time, find a better way to get attention.

Anonymous at Mon, 2 Sep 2024 05:06:40 UTC No. 16356218

>>16346283
Yes and yes.

There is life in the subsurface oceans.

Anonymous at Mon, 2 Sep 2024 05:13:50 UTC No. 16356222

>>16349722
>Dinosaurs didn't invent a simple flying machine.
Lol, lmao. They did that and much more.

Anonymous at Mon, 2 Sep 2024 05:30:15 UTC No. 16356232

No, I think Venus is a much better prospect for having once held life

Anonymous at Mon, 2 Sep 2024 07:53:12 UTC No. 16356343

Yes the ayys who lived on mars moved to earth then they were killed by dinosaurs but not before summoning meteor
but earths lifestream saved the mammals

Anonymous at Mon, 2 Sep 2024 11:29:37 UTC No. 16356516

>>16348573
The atmosphere wouldn't leave that quick and your shavings could just be in a higher orbit. Also, just being iron, it would be easy to replenish.

Anonymous at Mon, 2 Sep 2024 11:46:50 UTC No. 16356526

>>16349722
>Humans will never leave this planet.
>Terraforming nonsense
Terraforming is not a prerequisite to comfortable living. The best candidate to terraforming would be the Martians themselves. An entire industrialized government devoted to the project. Centuries later, you just peel back your plastic sky.
>Nitrogen
Yeah you need levels of automation and industry that we don't have right now. There's nitrogen elsewhere in the solar system, but you would need to mine roughly one million times the iron ever mined by human beings by mass in nitrogen ice in hostile conditions and then launch it to a different planet. That does not constitute the basis for a realistic plan. It's the main reason I'm not a terraforming advocate. That's someone else's problem.
>>16349727
>Perchlorates are poisonous to humans, and are present in the dust at levels far above the toxicity levels for humans
For the most part they decompose when exposed to water or heat, but for the rest you can just treat them chemically acre by acre.
> It also lacks a magnetic field so no protection from solar radiation
A reasonably sized pressurized volume (height (air shielding between you and the sunlight) constrained by locally produced steel cable length), would actually get you to a low enough yearly radiation dose to be fine. Your houses could have additional shielding so it drops by another significant amount while you're sleeping or hanging out.
>resupply issue
Food per person per two year window is half a ton, and with the raptor 3, Starship is shaping up to be capable of 250 tons to Mars. Non issue. You can also send redundant everything, including life support.
The talk now is of industrializing Mars from the first mission. Machines that can churn the dirt, use electricity, water, chemistry, to separate it into useful elements, process those like we do on earth, and then eventually turn them into ever more complicated useful things.
We're going. It's just an engineering problem.

Anonymous at Mon, 2 Sep 2024 19:33:42 UTC No. 16357089

>>16348112
Why would they build satellites that direct microwave energy when they could build much larger ground stations that direct the energy straight through the ground to the core? Not to mention the number needed would probably be pretty immense. I dont even know if its possible to make a core melt again

Anonymous at Mon, 2 Sep 2024 19:36:40 UTC No. 16357095

>>16346283
We would have found it by now. Or else it's a totally different kind of life to that on Earth (which is possible), and we'll probably never find it.

Anonymous at Mon, 2 Sep 2024 20:09:09 UTC No. 16357162

>>16346283
Biochemist here, I'm fairly certain that microbial life is actually fairly common in the universe (possibly even in our solar system on Mars/Venus/Europa/Titan) we're just too retarded to detect it because we expect it to be too Earth-like
There's life on Earth in the most unfavourable conditions imaginable that a few decades ago any scientist would deny is possible
The Viking missions' metabolic experiments were a massive red herring and should be either disregarded or repeated with a better methodology

Anonymous at Mon, 2 Sep 2024 22:39:17 UTC No. 16357418

stare at the sun and ASK IT for an answer to your question science man!

Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 00:21:35 UTC No. 16357551

>>16357162
How complex is the simplest self replicating molecule? How many different proteins are needed to spontaneously emerge and self assemble? How likely is that to have happened within a billion light years?

Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 00:37:01 UTC No. 16357574

>>16357162
Hell, I was blown away when not long ago they found that small "sea" or whatever that was underneath a portion of Antarctica that had an entire ecosystem that seemed to be thriving.

Here's the article for any who forgot or missed it:
>https://www.livescience.com/hidden-ecosystem-under-antarctic-ice

As you point out, life is quite tenacious.

Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 02:02:33 UTC No. 16357734

>>16346300
Near earth asteroids and moon mining are more viable.

NEOs contain every resource the earth has in abundance.

It is highly likely lunar craters contain similar composition of resources to asteroids, just buried deep.

Mars is far away, you need nuclear propulsion and a massive fleet with massive redundancies to get there.

Elons goal of sending one Starship to Mars is BS.

The issue is getting rich people and the MIC to stop wasting money on earth wars and invest in space industry.

Massive advantages to space manufacturing including:

Microchips (can build bigger crystals in very low gravity)
Biolabs (no risk of contamination to earth).
Generally any heavy industry benefits from hard vaccum and low gravity (less energy to move objects, say you spin your factory to have .1g, just enough for regular processes, but way cheaper from an energy cost basis).

Welding also benefits from hard vaccuum, something expensive on earth but cheap in space.

The only issue is cheap access to space. If Starship pans out, or someone manages SSTO spaceplanes somehow (could be done with small nuclear reactors), space becomes next gold rush.

We could offload our industrial complexes to low orbit and reduce pollution. Let the earth become a garden planet and reforest it.

Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 02:08:07 UTC No. 16357740

>>16356526
You cant just send one Starship.

The issue is months of travel time, no resupply, and its inevitable shit breaks. You need massive redundancy or EVERYONE DIES. You also need spin based artificial gravity or your astronauts will not be able to walk on mars bc of muscle atrophy. You also need very good sheilding from space radiation. Apollo Astronauts had issues w space radiation and their trip times were very short.

Tl;dr need nuclear to go to mars. Not viable with chemical. Starship is primarily useful for mass lift to LEO and for landing on the Moon and Mars. LEO to deep space requires nuclear + good ion drives. There is also a very good proposal from a company to use concentrated solar power to use steam propulsion.

Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 02:09:18 UTC No. 16357742

>>16349830
Quantum computing is a dead end. The next phase is bio-chips. Possibly analog chips too.

Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 02:35:04 UTC No. 16357768

>>16357742
I sincerely doubt it. Both will play a role in the future. The temptation for such power is far too great.

Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 18:32:33 UTC No. 16358698

>>16357734
>Near earth asteroids
They come in with a high delta-v and leave quickly. Currently, it is totally unfeasible to capture one so that it stays in the earth - moon system. And you sure would not want to crash one on to earth.

Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 18:33:52 UTC No. 16358701

>>16358698
Yes and no.

Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 18:35:31 UTC No. 16358704

>>16358701
Is there a split on haloperidol, did I trade it for what I called my abstraction frame? I installed it accidentally when looking at pictures in columns on tumblr for days and I knew nothing about it. It gave me a drug high

Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 18:37:50 UTC No. 16358708

>>16349699
If you can survive Mars you can survive a global catastrophic event. So to speak global catastrophic event happens on Mars non stop.
Whatever you plan to do on Mars you can do on Earth at x1000000 less price tag.

Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 19:08:31 UTC No. 16358758

>>16357734
>Near earth asteroids and moon mining are more viable
WRONG. Mining for resources off Earth will not be profitable no matter where you do it. Mars colonization will not be a profitable endeavor, and no one doing it says it will be.
>Mars is far away, you need nuclear propulsion
No you don't
>massive fleet with massive redundancies to get there.
>Elons goal of sending one Starship to Mars is BS.
What the fuck are you talking about? Elon's goal is to send a massive fleet every launch window
>space manufacturing nonsense
Outdated, ripped straight from O'Neil. His fundamentals were proven completely wrong over the last fifty years.
>SSTO spaceplanes somehow (could be done with small nuclear reactors)
Did you write this post just to fuck with me?
>We could offload our industrial complexes to low orbit and reduce pollution. Let the earth become a garden planet and reforest it.
Doesn't work. O'Neil was wrong.
>>16357740
>You cant just send one Starship
Not what I said. ONE Starship out the hundreds you send could carry enough ETFE for fifty acres of pressurized volume.
>The issue is months of travel time, no resupply, and its inevitable shit breaks. You need massive redundancy or EVERYONE DIES.
This is baked into the current plan.
>You also need spin based artificial gravity or your astronauts will not be able to walk on mars bc of muscle atrophy.
We already figured out how to prevent this on the ISS.
>You also need very good sheilding from space radiation. Apollo Astronauts had issues w space radiation and their trip times were very short
Just put your water and sewage between the crew and the sun. Cosmic radiation is still an issue but it won't kill you.
>need nuclear to go to mars
wrong Wrong WRONG

Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 19:17:54 UTC No. 16358778

>>16346283
there is no life anywhere except earth. anyway if we were able to pull the "life came from the oceans, bro" out of our asses then we should have been able to detect it somewhere else. but no. our denial of reality is sending us on wild goose chases to worlds which have existed as they are now, empty wastelands, since their creation.

Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 19:18:55 UTC No. 16358780

>>16347866
>closer to the sun
you do know what made venus the way that it is, don't you?

Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 19:26:04 UTC No. 16358801

>>16358780
100 times denser atmosphere than Earth? An 8 month long day? No moon?

Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 19:52:50 UTC No. 16358849

>>16358708
I see the point flew so far over your head it's not even visible.
There are catastrophes that can't be survived or that have an exceedingly low probability, regardless of technology. The only point being made was to de-centralize our species for the purpose of continued existence.
The logic you apply is just silly and come across like you just want to argue.

Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 00:13:44 UTC No. 16359311

hello posting from Mars

AMA

Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 00:20:18 UTC No. 16359327

>>16359311
Will you come pick me up and we can hang out?
How's the weather this time of year?

Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 04:15:48 UTC No. 16359533

>>16346283
Maybe some retarted species lived there but I think it was always shithole.