How can you guys be against terriforming a planet with nothing on it? Is anyone against making Death Valley livable if we could? I agree with what someone posted though, global warming is not a proven science. I don't understand why we couldn't directly produce O3 through to manually build atmosphere. Maybe that is crazy though. Eric Wilson
this was on discovery channel a few years ago. the theory is you have to pump out these gases to warm the planet so the ice will melt. and no one knows warming a planet better than us humans.imagine factories on mars with the main purpose of pumping as much CO2 as possible.
Good Digg. this would be amazing to see in my live time, though very inprobable of happening. Sounds like an excellent attempt for human survival. They also did something similar to this in Red Planet. But thier AI machine killed them all.
Jicksta covered a good bit of everything I was going to say.There have been various projects going on in reference to Mars for quite some time, notably the well-known Biosphere project. The date for departure to Mars to initiate construction was set for 2017 quite some time ago, though I'm sure its changed and will continue to do so on up until it occurs. We are by no means messing over the planet. Mars is, as has been said, primarily just a hunk of rock floating in the void of space, likely a once thriving, habitable planet.I would like to touch on the 'being ready by the time earth is consumed by the sun' comment, though. The inner planets will be LONG GONE by the time the Sun goes supernova. When it's a Red Giant, it will extend to the asteroid belt. And we'll disintegrate a good bit before then.However, it won't (or shouldn't) become a supernova for another.. 4.3 trillion years or so. The earth has only been existence for what? 4.6 billion?Note the 'b', mate. There's another 995.4 billion years to go before we're even a trillion years old.
It makes me sad that everyone in here seems to be either a green, or totally uninformed. I'd describe myself as a moderate red, of the "we didn't come here to recreate canada" variety. I'm all for increasing the average surface temperature, making the atmosphere more hositable. It's the active water cycle that I would draw the line at. So much of martian topology is at this point, defined by the absence of liquid water. It wouldn't exist in with water. It would simply be destroyed and along with it not only the character of the place but also nearly any possible scientific data to be found on the surface regarding the nature of Mars and it's geological and topological history. And that, in my mind, is a terrible thing.I also think that, unfortunately, terraforming is inevitable. So maybe I should say I'm a defeatist moderate Red.
shamankingAug 12, 2005
sigh
tkdwilsonAug 12, 2005
How can you guys be against terriforming a planet with nothing on it? Is anyone against making Death Valley livable if we could? I agree with what someone posted though, global warming is not a proven science. I don't understand why we couldn't directly produce O3 through to manually build atmosphere. Maybe that is crazy though. Eric Wilson
bacon_skodaAug 12, 2005
this was on discovery channel a few years ago. the theory is you have to pump out these gases to warm the planet so the ice will melt. and no one knows warming a planet better than us humans.imagine factories on mars with the main purpose of pumping as much CO2 as possible.
elshaggyAug 12, 2005
Good Digg. this would be amazing to see in my live time, though very inprobable of happening. Sounds like an excellent attempt for human survival. They also did something similar to this in Red Planet. But thier AI machine killed them all.
monolithAug 12, 2005
Mars is a ruin now. Please get a clue people. I think we will find it ALOT harder to terraform then we think... but I'm all for trying.
nocreAug 13, 2005
Jicksta covered a good bit of everything I was going to say.There have been various projects going on in reference to Mars for quite some time, notably the well-known Biosphere project. The date for departure to Mars to initiate construction was set for 2017 quite some time ago, though I'm sure its changed and will continue to do so on up until it occurs. We are by no means messing over the planet. Mars is, as has been said, primarily just a hunk of rock floating in the void of space, likely a once thriving, habitable planet.I would like to touch on the 'being ready by the time earth is consumed by the sun' comment, though. The inner planets will be LONG GONE by the time the Sun goes supernova. When it's a Red Giant, it will extend to the asteroid belt. And we'll disintegrate a good bit before then.However, it won't (or shouldn't) become a supernova for another.. 4.3 trillion years or so. The earth has only been existence for what? 4.6 billion?Note the 'b', mate. There's another 995.4 billion years to go before we're even a trillion years old.
arturusAug 19, 2005
It makes me sad that everyone in here seems to be either a green, or totally uninformed. I'd describe myself as a moderate red, of the "we didn't come here to recreate canada" variety. I'm all for increasing the average surface temperature, making the atmosphere more hositable. It's the active water cycle that I would draw the line at. So much of martian topology is at this point, defined by the absence of liquid water. It wouldn't exist in with water. It would simply be destroyed and along with it not only the character of the place but also nearly any possible scientific data to be found on the surface regarding the nature of Mars and it's geological and topological history. And that, in my mind, is a terrible thing.I also think that, unfortunately, terraforming is inevitable. So maybe I should say I'm a defeatist moderate Red.