Getting venereal disease from the sun??? Vitamin D, on the other hand, can be supplemented the same way as any other missing vitamin.
I just yesterday learned something very interesting about areography. The northern hemisphere of Mars is markedly smoother than the southern, and apparently averages one kilometer lower in altitude. It's hypothesized that this may be due to a collision with something about the size of Earth's Moon - which also stripped away much of the atmosphere during the collision.
So crashing Ceres into Mars might in fact do exactly the opposite of what you hoped...
1k? Uh, that seems a bit much, where'd you hear that?
Getting venereal disease from the sun??? Vitamin D, on the other hand, can be supplemented the same way as any other missing vitamin.
I just yesterday learned something very interesting about areography. The northern hemisphere of Mars is markedly smoother than the southern, and apparently averages one kilometer lower in altitude. It's hypothesized that this may be due to a collision with something about the size of Earth's Moon - which also stripped away much of the atmosphere during the collision.
So crashing Ceres into Mars might in fact do exactly the opposite of what you hoped...
1k? Uh, that seems a bit much, where'd you hear that?
My first source would appear to have been in error - it's an average of 1.6 miles lower, or 2.5 km. (Source)
Ohhh, I laughed hard. I didn't realise V-D would come across as... thanks for the laugh.
I didn't know that about Mars. Interesting. so if we wanna smash things into Mars, we do that before making an atmosphere, gotcha... but hey at least we could turn the north into an ocean and the south into the land mass
Actually that page says 1.6 miles below the "mean radius". So it's actually more like 3.2. although it doesn't say how high the highlands are.
But... Let's check the USGS topo map. http://planetarynames.wr.usgs.gov/Page/MARS/target
Here's a nice elevation map: http://pubs.usgs.gov/sim/3292/
The lower left part is elevation. The darker the blue the lower the elevation. High ground is the dark brown.
The scale goes from a low point of -8208 meters to 21249 meters. So 0 would be the "mean"(average) altitude.
this doesn't really give the averages per hemisphere but it does show that the highest parts are actually near the equator, and the deepest part(Hellas Basin) is actually in the southern hemisphere. Also the mountain range that occurs near the equator extends north as far as 45°. Olympus Mons is actually around 20° north.
Anyways, that page seems like rank speculation. IF the northern region is a giant impact crater, why is it so smooth?
The smoothness would be related, similar to the smoothness of the lunar maria (which resulted from early massive impacts while Luna's core was still molten, causing massive lava flows across the areas involved). Rough impact craters tend to happen only when there is no magma present. (Winslow Crater in Arizona, for instance, didn't crack enough of Earth's surface to release any magma; on the other hand, Chixiclub Crater off the Yucatan peninsula is pretty flat across the bottom.) Massive lava flows would be about the only way to explain the smoothness of the Martian northern hemisphere.
Enh.. I'm not really convinced it'd be perfectly flat though. Anyways... while it might fit the facts, but I don't think it's the only possible explanation.
Enh.. I'm not really convinced it'd be perfectly flat though. Anyways... while it might fit the facts, but I don't think it's the only possible explanation.
Well, of course it's not the only possible explanation - maybe we'll find out there was a Martian microbe that used to eat rock, but had to go into suspension when the atmosphere grew too thin, and we only learn about it when the first mission returns from Mars and infects Earth.
However, the principle of least hypothesis leads us to the planetary-collision model, as Mars being bombarded by large chunks of rock simply isn't that uncommon in its history (nor in Earth's, but Mars is quite a lot closer to the average orbit of the asteroids).
true, mars is more likely at its current location to get beat more
Well, more than Earth; they've probably already swept up (or, in the case of Phobos, captured) most of the orbit-crossing asteroids. Million-to-one odds per year, over the course of five billion years, adds up to near-certainty. These days, the odds of anything really big hitting Mars during the next few thousand years are even longer than that. (Although that one comet gave the Curiosity guys a bit of a scare last year!)
whats with all the shooting down stuff?have you guys ever heard of the international space station? russia,china and the U.S use the thing.what makes you thing a mission to mars would not be the same way?
> @gulberat said:
> Obviously we'll have a LOT of issues to contend with if we ever hope to get a viable colony in place on Mars, but one of the questions I've been wondering about a lot is this: even if we can get supply issues solved and ensure that our colonists are properly shielded from radiation, etc., is human life inherently unsustainable due to the (approximate) .35G gravity environment? We know that zero-G is damaging to the body over time and we can see the effects on the ISS astronauts. But would Mars gravity still be too low for safe, long-term settlement?
>
> Of course in space we know theoretically how to remedy that (spinning the craft at the right speed), though our current spacecraft don't do that. But on the surface of another planet, in the absence of Star Trek's artificial gravity generators, what would we do to compensate for the low gravity? Or would it be flatly impossible to compensate for in any way whatsoever?
>
> (Note: The "compensation for low gravity" issue may be a separate, even more serious one when we consider fetal and infant development where an exercise regimen is not possible.)
It is difficult to know what is possible and when, as the current US administration is actively de-stabilizing and crippling all our nation's functions on an unprecedented scale and may be the final nail in the coffin of our superpower/space power status.
Add to this that the Chinese, North Koreans, Russians, Iranians and even some of our allies may soon begin using their space-borne warfare tech against us, and you have a doom-and-gloom foundation for any building of hope for the future of space exploration.
That said, the Mars mission was READY to begin in two phases prior to the Viet Nam war! The first phase was to establish industrial operations in orbit and on the lunar surface, extending to deep sub-surface lunar colonization. The arguments against going ahead with this phase were mostly based on the uncertainty of finding hydrogen sources (esp water) and the certainty that Russia would make good on its threats to destroy our installations.
The second phase was to build an orbital drydock/ "shipyard" to facilitate the construction of a Mars expedition vessel. During Reagan's presidency, he attempted to REVIVE (not initiate) this program with its scheduled private/public co-investment of $2T/yr for about 20 years to fully industrialize the moon for the project. Had he succeeded, we would have launched our first manned expedition 10-15 years ago.
The biggest problem is the bone degeneration astronauts experience in extended space deployment, as the expedition would take anywhere from 8-24 months to arrive at Mars, depending on time of launch and what platform ultimately would be selected for the mission.
Another serious problem is the difficulty of shielding the cabin from radiation for the trip there and back.
Then there are the same issues as the lunar colony project had . . . Water/hydrogen source and protection from our enemies (no, the cold war did not end).
The psychological endurance issues have been deeply explored through the use of underwater exploration and habitats, Submarine deployment and actual space-faring experience, so while they are a concern, we probably have a good handle on them.
Beyond that, it would probably literally take a rocket scientist to explain the other difficulties.
Remember that unless and until we have the means AND the will to terraform Mars, all habitats would have to be self-contained (possible but very expensive).
Yes, it is possible. The barriers are that they have always been, and, given the deteriorating political climate, I fear they always will be.
whats with all the shooting down stuff?have you guys ever heard of the international space station? russia,china and the U.S use the thing.what makes you think a mission to mars would not be the same way?
Anyone claiming that the Cold War didn't end isn't old enough to remember the Cold War. Putin would love to restart the Cold War, because that would mean that Russia would be as big a player on the international stage as his beloved USSR (Putin is a former KGB senior officer), but it's not happening, at least not yet. (Can you imagine Nixon or Reagan even contemplating hiring the Russian space agency to put our astronauts into orbit?)
No one is going to shoot down manned space missions. No one has even threatened to do so, because it would be phenomenally stupid. China might well shoot down any unmanned stations in geosynchronous orbit over their territory, as that would be quite likely to be an orbital weapon of some sort (or at least a spysat), but shooting down people is a whole different kettle of fish sauce.
Comments
My character Tsin'xing
I didn't know that about Mars. Interesting. so if we wanna smash things into Mars, we do that before making an atmosphere, gotcha... but hey at least we could turn the north into an ocean and the south into the land mass
But... Let's check the USGS topo map. http://planetarynames.wr.usgs.gov/Page/MARS/target
Here's a nice elevation map: http://pubs.usgs.gov/sim/3292/
The lower left part is elevation. The darker the blue the lower the elevation. High ground is the dark brown.
The scale goes from a low point of -8208 meters to 21249 meters. So 0 would be the "mean"(average) altitude.
this doesn't really give the averages per hemisphere but it does show that the highest parts are actually near the equator, and the deepest part(Hellas Basin) is actually in the southern hemisphere. Also the mountain range that occurs near the equator extends north as far as 45°. Olympus Mons is actually around 20° north.
Anyways, that page seems like rank speculation. IF the northern region is a giant impact crater, why is it so smooth?
My character Tsin'xing
My character Tsin'xing
However, the principle of least hypothesis leads us to the planetary-collision model, as Mars being bombarded by large chunks of rock simply isn't that uncommon in its history (nor in Earth's, but Mars is quite a lot closer to the average orbit of the asteroids).
No one is going to shoot down manned space missions. No one has even threatened to do so, because it would be phenomenally stupid. China might well shoot down any unmanned stations in geosynchronous orbit over their territory, as that would be quite likely to be an orbital weapon of some sort (or at least a spysat), but shooting down people is a whole different kettle of fish sauce.