Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
Name
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the format Name#Password
Comment
[i]Italic Text[/i]
[b]Bold Text[/b]
[spoiler]Spoiler Text[/spoiler]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace Text[/pre]
[super]Superset Text[/super]
[sub]Subset Text[/sub]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists
File

Sandwich


the coal of space colonies

Reply
- Wed, 11 Feb 2015 00:11:33 EST 415JX8nG No.55023
File: 1423631493853.jpg -(63140B / 61.66KB, 600x428) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. the coal of space colonies
I recently came across a wikipedia article on carbonaceous chondrites, a particular kind of asteroid.
Www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonaceous_chondrite


But what makes these awesome is that they are up to 20% water, contain amino acids (which is very interesting), and sulfur compounds and other biologically useful compounds.

To me it seems readily apparent that these things could of fueled the formation of life during the earths construction. But if these things brought life to earth, shouldn't we bring them to planets and moons we colonize? I mean, work backwards man.

A cool thought is that the first asteroid we bring to mars will be the beginning of its inevitable terra formation
>>
Johan Galle - Thu, 12 Feb 2015 03:16:05 EST 39zO/X3u No.55024 Reply
>shouldn't we bring them to planets and moons we colonize?

Maybe. The only thing is it takes millions of years for life to evolve and mutate to become more than simple celled organisms. Unless we could somehow speed up the process, sure why not? haha

>A cool thought is that the first asteroid we bring to mars will be the beginning of its inevitable terra formation

If Mars can support life with its lack of atmosphere. You never know!
>>
Johan Galle - Thu, 12 Feb 2015 03:16:30 EST 39zO/X3u No.55025 Reply
>>55023
Very cool discovery to say the least though. Intriguing as well
>>
Arno Penzias - Thu, 12 Feb 2015 21:23:45 EST 415JX8nG No.55026 Reply
>>55024
Oops, I didn't mean to imply starting the evolution cycle, I just thought they would be useful to have on the moon, mars, and other places. I mean they sound almost edible for being rocks, and it's all compounds rare on those bodies, but critical for life in a nice package
>>
Tycho Brahe - Fri, 13 Feb 2015 14:43:26 EST EGjiNyWc No.55027 Reply
>>55023
I don't think it would be possible to spawn life from them, but I can see us harvesting them in the future to make fertilizers and et cetera, for agriculture.
>>
Jocelyn Bell - Fri, 13 Feb 2015 19:05:06 EST YHjXylC8 No.55028 Reply
>>55024
We don't yet know if mars could support an atmosphere on the scales we're talking about, but dropping a adding a million tons of sulfur, carbon compounds, and a decent amount of kinetic energy to the pole might make mars a little more pleasant after the dust settles.
>>
Margaret Burbidge - Fri, 13 Feb 2015 19:48:16 EST 4HbkLal6 No.55029 Reply
you lost me at could of
>>
William Lassell - Wed, 20 May 2015 05:26:34 EST i7X9bAU+ No.55329 Reply
1432113994246.jpg -(88101B / 86.04KB, 500x619) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>55028

For one thing, Mars has no magnetosphere due to the solid core. The magnetosphere as you know, protects the atmosphere from solar winds that strip the atmosphere away. Ramming massive asteroids into the planet might just cause some tectonic shifts which have the possibility of causing enough friction to begin melting the core, with the rotation of the planet and a liquefying core it would then begin to form a magnetosphere similar to that of Earth's and make it so that any atmosphere we create there will stay there.

Funny, that for all our advances it seems that we can solve some of the biggest modern issues by going back to one of our most primitive methods of dealing with problems; Hit them with a rock.
>>
William Fowler - Thu, 21 May 2015 00:22:47 EST YHjXylC8 No.55330 Reply
1432182167489.jpg -(180495B / 176.26KB, 1920x759) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>55329
It would take a megafuckton of energy to increase the average temperature of a planet. Falling moons only impart a few kilofucktons at the most.

We don't yet know how long mars could sustain an atmosphere if we did raise the albedo.
Or if it would be infeasible to create an artificial magnetic field out of magnetic sails.
>>
Christiaan Huygens - Thu, 21 May 2015 05:32:39 EST i7X9bAU+ No.55332 Reply
>>55330

Generating a magnetic field of that magnitude would be an overwhelmingly massive engineering feat. I'm not talking about hitting the planet with one asteroid. I'm thinking of many strikes involving large asteroids bombarding a specific area. Enough to crack tectonic shelves and get some geothermal activity going.
>>
Tycho Brahe - Thu, 21 May 2015 16:56:56 EST eJc7PJV5 No.55334 Reply
>>55329
So why not launch a few fission nukes at Mars then? Would a continuous barrage targeted at potential weak points create the necessary force to 'jump start' the tectonic activity of it?
>>
Christiaan Huygens - Thu, 21 May 2015 18:18:56 EST i7X9bAU+ No.55340 Reply
>>55334

The fission nukes would likely only cause surface damage. The impacts of sufficiently large bodies would cause much more stress to deeper layers of the planet. Likely something around a kilometer in size impacting an area of a few square kilometers several times in a row. Repeat the process at a different location, spreading the stress, eventually, across the entire planet. The heat from the tectonic cracking and asteroid impacts could begin to accumulate and eventually jump-start geothermal activity. As I said, it could be enough that the core begins to melt and "slosh" due to the planet's rotation which is what generates Earth's magnetosphere.

It might be possible to drill far enough down that a well-placed nuclear explosion could kick start geothermal activity, but there would need to be many such explosions and again, the engineering requirements for such a thing could be much more complex than towing large asteroids into a collision course.
>>
John Bahcall - Thu, 21 May 2015 20:28:21 EST YHjXylC8 No.55344 Reply
1432254501075.jpg -(29936B / 29.23KB, 277x412) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>55332
The issue isn't that the plates are stuck together or something; it's just the core isn't plastic enough. Tectonic activity is a symptom of a fluid core (rotation), not the other way around.
Mars was smaller (surface area:volume of a sphere decreases with size), and maybe had a different composition, so it cooled much faster.
>>
John Bahcall - Thu, 21 May 2015 20:32:34 EST YHjXylC8 No.55345 Reply
>>55344
*Tectonic activity is a symptom of a fluid core (+rotational difference)
>>
Robert Wilson - Thu, 21 May 2015 21:37:32 EST XJHlYsmW No.55346 Reply
Mars would need more water or some other lubricant for plate tectonics to become activate again, since that's what lubricates the plates on Earth.
>>
Chushiro Hayashi - Fri, 22 May 2015 21:11:00 EST 301QhKfM No.55354 Reply
1432343460446.gif -(742977B / 725.56KB, 256x198) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>55346
we could lob comets at it from the Kuiper belt for a few centuries. taking into account how much crazier technology will have to be for us to begin lobbing anything around in space let alone reaching the fucking Kuiper belt in a lifetime. Maybe we could shave ice off Europa and huck it at Mars. A shitload of icebergs falling through an atmosphere might have the nice side effect of making the place warmer, too.
course, we might not be able to live on Mars while we're deliberately bombarding it with glaciers.

you guys ever think about Venusian cloud cities? we could use those to scoop up gases to thicken up the Martian atmosphere too. We might be able to scoop shit up from Jupiter's atmosphere too, if we could figure away around the radiation thing.
>>
Friedrich Bessel - Sat, 23 May 2015 00:33:37 EST YHjXylC8 No.55356 Reply
1432355617205.gif -(905961B / 884.73KB, 200x200) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>55354
I'm no geologist, but I'm pretty sure he's full of shit.

A craft orbit Jupiter a few hundred kilometers above what wikipedia says the radius of Jupiter is, will be moving over ninety thousand miles per hour relative to the upper atmosphere of Jupiter.
Pic related, it's an Orion capsule hitting a less-dense atmosphere at less than seventeen thousand miles per hour.

Also, Jupiter's upper atmosphere is primarily hydrogen. Mars wouldn't really benefit from that.

We don't know how much oxygen, carbon, nitrogen, halogens, etc are sequestered in the martian regolith.
>>
Chushiro Hayashi - Sat, 23 May 2015 03:20:04 EST 301QhKfM No.55358 Reply
1432365604446.jpg -(8725B / 8.52KB, 256x171) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>55356
yeah i don't really know what i'm talking about
SLAYER
>>
Friedrich Bessel - Sat, 23 May 2015 03:44:09 EST YHjXylC8 No.55359 Reply
>>55358
Not you, the guy you were responding to, who claimed water lubricates plate tectonics to a significant degree.
>>
Alan Guth - Mon, 25 May 2015 02:59:25 EST 415JX8nG No.55367 Reply
Maybe we could build a giant lens in between mars and the sun. Tons of giant sheet like lenses layered over a huge distance, possibly all the way inside mercury's orbit, set up kind of like the death stars planet destroyer. The ones closer to the sun would be a mix of the future lenses and mirrors, concentrating the photons into a series of additional sheet lenses inbetween the sun and mars. The lenses in this part would play two primary functions, further concentrate the sun, and also block protons emanating from the sun, (assuming protons actually move in a straight line from the sun, I have a hunch they don't.)
Of course it would be a massive infrastructure project, be we're terraforming baby. The technology I'm talking about will also be here soon, if not on this scale.
>>
Bernhard Schmidt - Mon, 25 May 2015 03:36:19 EST YHjXylC8 No.55368 Reply
1432539379762.jpg -(130941B / 127.87KB, 768x512) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>55367
Objects closer to the thing they orbit have a shorter period, though slower velocity than objects further out.
The interaction between two object's orbits produces 5 areas where technically an object could sit relative to the planet. In practice, objects don't remain there for very long (Lagrange 1 and 2 are particularly unstable) until reactions with the other bodies and the solar wind pulls them out, except for Jupiter, because Jupiter is fucking massive.
Any large sheets put outside a magnetic field in space will function like a solar sail, being pushed back by the solar wind it catches/deflects.
Magnetic sails work the same way, except they use an imbalanced in charged particles captured in a magnetic field to deflect charged particles.
>>
Alan Guth - Mon, 25 May 2015 11:15:15 EST 415JX8nG No.55369 Reply
>>55368
Yeah I thought about that after I posted it, can't just stick whatever I want wherever I want, there are no arbitrary orbits

Report Post
Reason
Note
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.