Posted on 08/11/2005 7:10:05 PM PDT by KevinDavis
No doubt red dirt you'll have a'plenty, but you won't have much of a view of Olympus Mons.
Maybe we should move there and leave Earth for the lefty moonbats to do with as they please...Mars could be the ultimate "Red State!"
Correct. It must be private if it is to happen at all. The Treaty stands in the way, unless there is late word from the White House.
No, gravity is proportional to mass, not to spin rate.
Actually, the Plodnetkov (sp?) effect indicates that spin does affect it to a very small degree. I don't know if that phenomenon has been duplicated however.
Yeah the guy is Plotnikov. However his theory, from the last I heard of it, relates to quantum mechanics on elementary particles and upward and downward spins of these particles. He projects that to another theory in the Solar system to whether the gravitational interaction of two bodies within a particular distance R between them is oscillating at some critical frequency and could pass through zero. The key is that the GRAVITATIONAL INTERACTION goes to zero, not the gravity of either body.
This Mars assertion is not the same.
Well, it was named the Red Planet a long time ago - we have dibs!
I can always build the ranch house about halfway up the side; the view of the surrounding terrain would be awsome.
Hell, I support using nukes to create a colony for humankind.
Per ardua ad astra!
Don't know if he was the first, but Calhoun referred to the Red Republicans before the Civil War in the context of opening the passage to the Pacific and trade with Asia via that route. Calhoun, of course, wanted trade with India to go through New Orleans and Panama.
As always, you add something to any conversation. Thanks!
Nah. Just the few where I have a clue, or sometimes no clue at all as some FReepers are gracious enough to point out.
But, doesn't the spin add negative "G" force?
So wouldn't me sitting at ~45 latitude have greater "G" than someone at 0 lat because of the difference in the radius
of rotation?
Umm Yeah... sure.....
I say that in order to save time from my commute here in Houston that we route all the lanes of I-10 from the west side of Houston out to Mars and then back in to Downtow Houston. That will save me time on my commute and all that CO2 surely will help warm up mars! Yeah thats my plan and I am sticking to it.
Put this on tradesports I think I can safely bet AINT GONNA HAPPEN!
And as far as I can see, if it can handle a thicker atmosphere than the one it has now, I don't see what limit there can be on its thickness (unless it starts to expand out to geosynchronous range, which is way beyond what's needed for an earth-like environment). Then again, I'm not an astrophysicist.
I have read NASA bulletins that speculate that much of the atmospheric oxygen was chemically absorbed into the soil. That is, the oxygen combined with elements in the soil. If true, then it re-oxygenating the atmosphere should be a matter of liberating oxygen from the soil.
Ahhhh, I think I understand your mistake. Gravitational force is purely a product of mass. The more "stuff" there is, the greater its pull (even without rotation). However, there has often been discussions on how to simulate gravity in space. One popular suggestion has been to rotate a spaceship around an axis. If the ship rotates fast enough, the centrifugal force will be equivalent to the force of gravity.
Here's the difference, though. Gravity pulls in the direction of the mass (the "stuff"). So we are pulled toward the center of the Earth. On a quickly rotating spaceship (assume we are talking about a torus-shaped ship... a hollow circular tube... rotating around the center of the circle) the centrifugal force is the force pulling objects away from the center of the ship (the opposite of gravity). So the force on the men in space would pull them away from the center of the ship... the ship's outer walls would be the "ceiling" to them and the inner walls would be the "floor." So the rotation method of simulating gravity actually reverses the direction of the "pull." Speeding up Mars' rotation would actually (very minutely) reduce the overall downward force (the "pull of gravity" ... even though the actual force of gravity wouldn't change) on objects on the surface...
Excellant books!
Doesn't Mars already have enough co2?
So...which public schools did you attend?
I'd bet they could find (or engineer) some bacteria that would be able to do that.
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.