"GET YOUR ASS TO MARS!!!"
Posted on 07/02/2008 7:24:59 PM PDT by KevinDavis
global semi-permeable membrane encapsulation
1.Grow the asparagus in a hothouse. It will take CO2 from the air and convert it to O2. Separate the hydrogen from the O2 and you have fuel and air. Both can be mined and stored.
2. Genetically enhance the asparagus to grow in extremes. Other types of vegetation can be altered in this way to create an atmosphere, albeit encased in a habitation.
Nothing is really insurmountable, it's a matter of ideas and implementation. The people with those ideas and innovations may be in kindergarden now. You just never know.
The only reason I could think of for the scientist choosing “asparagus” as the crop is that the digging tool leaves a trench similar to that which I planted asparagus in long ago.
I'm not sure what kind of attitude you're ascribing to me.
I never said we shouldn't go to Mars, I never said we shouldn't colonize Mars, I never said we shouldn't build structures on Mars and grow food in them. In fact, I consider all these things both doable and worth doing.
All I did say was that actual terraforming of Mars was well beyond our current level of technology, so far beyond that the deficit can be measured in centuries.
Do I think we should put people on Mars? Absolutely.
A big baggie! Think of it as a planet-condom.
Why should it be semi-permeable? If it's permeable at all, the atmosphere will get away from you again.
My point was that we used to be a “can do” culture, that has accomplished what was perceived as impossible. Just because you think it can’t be done, doesn’t mean that there aren’t more ingenious minds out there that can “get ‘r done!” The technology exists to terraform Mars even if the will to do so doesn’t.
That's precisely my point... the technology does not exist to "terraform" anything. We do have the technology to colonize in controlled habitats on a limited scale, and I'm all for that. Bring on the domed cities.
But before we start terraforming, we will have to invent the technology, starting with a much denser source of controllable energy than anything we've ever come up with before. Fusion might be viable, and we'll probably figure that out within the next fifty years.
But then we have a succession of first-time-ever problems to solve in getting Mars to look and feel like Earth (which is what the term "terraforming" means).
The sheer scale is a problem. If the libtards are to be believed on the matter of "global warming" (and they're not, but that's another issue) it has taken all the pollutants from all the combustion we've been doing since the dawn of the industrial age to raise the temperature of our atmosphere about a half a degree.
Myself, I don't think we even have that much influence. You're talking about taking an entire planet and raising the temperature of its atmosphere about a hundred degrees F to get some habitable areas, presumably within a couple of generations. We not only do not know how to do that, we don't know how to try.
I am a firm believer in the can-do attitude, I really am... but you have no idea of the scope of the task you're contemplating.
You are acting just like the liberals regarding domestic oil exploration and refining. You are saying that it is too hard, will take too long, so why bother. You have raised the bar for successful terraforming to an unrealistic goal of an Earth environment equivalency. Another favorite ploy of the left.
Just because something is hard, takes a long time (decades) to show significant progress and is expensive doesn’t make it not worth doing. People with that negative attitude are called Europeans. They never thought we would turn out to be anything worthwhile either. We proved them wrong. And we will do it again and again.
If you don't mean "terraforming," don't use the word. If you say we have the tech to go to Mars, you're right; all we lack is the want-to. But don't accuse me of "...[raising] the bar for successful terraforming to an unrealistic goal of an Earth environment equivalency." You did that yourself, when you used the word "terraforming."
If you say we have to tech to make Mars over in the image of Earth (which is what "terraforming" means), you're simply incorrect... and no amount of calling me a liberal is going to change that.
If the call went out for Mars colonists, I'd be the first to shoot my hand up into the air, even though I'm a lousy choice for a colonist. I'm over 40, paunchy, and thanks to my urologist no longer fertile. But I was raised on Heinlein and Bradbury, I believe in the can-do attitude, and I'd volunteer even though I'd probably be turned down. I'd stow away if I could.
Please quit accusing me of liberal attitudes. That's really misplaced.
May I suggest that you read Dr. Robert (Bob) Zubrin’s “Case for Mars” book. It might show you that there are incremental accomplishable levels to terraforming of Mars. It doesn’t just mean waving a magic wand and instantly turning Mars into Earth. It does mean having an aggressive “live off the land” settlement approach to Mars.
Even our atmosphere leaks. Just make very tiny holes.
I say we start planting malt, hops, and yeast.
Converting a dead planet to live one is going to be a long tedious process..
Indeed..
Good way to get college kids interested.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.