17
   

The meaning of getting to Mars? Your view?

 
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Feb, 2020 12:19 am
@oralloy,
Quote:
Putting a lot of heat/light blocking materials in orbit could keep the temperature down and allow the climate to stay habitable as the sun starts putting out more and more energy.


Sounds like a renowned geohydrologist who once said that"We should use these abandoned coal strip mines as artificial aquifers. We just fill em up with crushed rock and lt em fill up with water for storage."

Guy in the audience said" Where ya gonna get all that crushed rock from"

proof of concept is a usual engineering step that separates good ideas from bad ones.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Thu 20 Feb, 2020 12:33 am
@farmerman,
It seems like filling them with crushed rock would displace volume that could be used for pure water if they were just made into lakes.

Ideally scientists would take some time (we have millions of years after all) to consider what exactly we should put into orbit to block sunlight. I am not offering any thoughts on what exactly we should put in orbit to achieve this.

However, I think that it is pretty-well established that humanity is capable of building things and putting them in orbit.

EDIT: Although, thinking about it a bit more, I think mirrors might be the way to go. We wouldn't want our orbiting stuff to absorb endless heat and melt.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Feb, 2020 05:25 am
@oralloy,
actually, the entire point is that youd have to dig another big pit to extract the rock that youd use to fill an old strip mine. Youd just create another hole. He had no answer for that-"I really never thought of that" he said in summary.

"Proof of concept" is what often stops relly big ideas
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Feb, 2020 05:29 am
@oralloy,
also, strip mines are notorious sites of sulfide rich minerals and sulfur makes really crappy water without serious treatment. All of ppennsylvania coal country is loaaded with these streams where the iron sulfide layers have oxidized into iron sulfate and "Rust" SO about 1/3 of our once beautiful streams are a rusty brown , and are lifeless wrt fish.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Feb, 2020 09:47 am
You might find this interesting. Maybe you won't.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Thu 20 Feb, 2020 02:42 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
actually, the entire point is that youd have to dig another big pit to extract the rock that youd use to fill an old strip mine. Youd just create another hole. He had no answer for that-"I really never thought of that" he said in summary.

I don't see how your point would apply to an effort to save the Earth from annihilation.

The sun is going to get too hot for life on Earth well before the red giant phase begins. Even if we don't try to change our orbit to avoid the red giant phase, deflecting excessive sunlight away from the Earth will greatly prolong our stay here on this planet.


Note these entries on this timeline of future events:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_far_future

Quote:
500-600 million years in the future

The Sun's increasing luminosity begins to disrupt the carbonate-silicate cycle; higher luminosity increases weathering of surface rocks, which traps carbon dioxide in the ground as carbonate. As water evaporates from the Earth's surface, rocks harden, causing plate tectonics to slow and eventually stop once the oceans evaporate completely. With less volcanism to recycle carbon into the Earth's atmosphere, carbon dioxide levels begin to fall. By this time, carbon dioxide levels will fall to the point at which C3 photosynthesis is no longer possible. All plants that utilize C3 photosynthesis (≈99 percent of present-day species) will die.
Quote:
700-800 million years in the future

The death of most plant life will result in less oxygen in the atmosphere, allowing for more DNA-damaging ultraviolet radiation to reach the surface. The rising temperatures will increase chemical reactions in the atmosphere, further lowering oxygen levels. Flying animals would be better off because of their ability to travel large distances looking for cooler temperatures. Many animals may be driven to the poles or possibly underground. These creatures would become active during the polar night and hibernate during the polar day due to the intense heat and radiation. Much of the land would become a barren desert, and plants and animals would primarily be found in the oceans.
Quote:
800 million years in the future

Carbon dioxide levels fall to the point at which C4 photosynthesis is no longer possible. Without plant life to recycle oxygen in the atmosphere, free oxygen and the ozone layer will disappear from the atmosphere allowing for intense levels of deadly UV light to reach the surface. In the book The Life and Death of Planet Earth, authors Peter D. Ward and Donald Brownlee stated that some animal life may be able to survive in the oceans. Eventually, however, all multicellular life will die out. The only life left on the Earth after this will be single-celled organisms.
Quote:
1.1 billion years in the future

The Sun's luminosity has risen by 10%, causing Earth's surface temperatures to reach an average of 47 °C; 116 °F. The atmosphere will become a "moist greenhouse", resulting in a runaway evaporation of the oceans. This would cause plate tectonics to stop completely, if not already stopped before this time. Pockets of water may still be present at the poles, allowing abodes for simple life.
Quote:
2.8 billion years in the future

Earth's surface temperature reaches 147 °C; 296 °F, even at the poles. At this point, all life, now reduced to unicellular colonies in isolated, scattered microenvironments such as high-altitude lakes or caves, will go extinct.
Quote:
3.5-4.5 billion years in the future

All water currently present in oceans (if not lost earlier) evaporates. The greenhouse effect caused by the massive, water-rich atmosphere, combined with the Sun's luminosity reaching roughly 35-40% above its present value, will result in Earth's surface temperature rising to 1,130 °C; 2,060 °F, which is hot enough to melt some surface rock. This period in Earth's future is often compared to Venus today, but the temperature is actually around two times the temperature on Venus today, and at this temperature the surface will be partially molten, while Venus probably has a mostly solid surface at present.
Quote:
5.4 billion years in the future

With the hydrogen supply exhausted at its core, the Sun leaves the main sequence and begins to evolve into a red giant.
Quote:
7.59 billion years in the future

The Earth and Moon are very likely destroyed by falling into the Sun, just before the Sun reaches the tip of its red giant phase and its maximum radius of 256 times the present-day value. Before the final collision, the Moon possibly spirals below Earth's Roche limit, breaking into a ring of debris, most of which falls to the Earth's surface.
Quote:
7.9 billion years in the future

The Sun reaches the tip of the red-giant branch of the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram, achieving its maximum radius of 256 times the present-day value. In the process, Mercury, Venus, and very likely Earth are destroyed.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Thu 20 Feb, 2020 02:49 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
Barnard's star seems to be a stable red dwarf, and that's a possibility. It's about six light years away.

Red dwarfs are not necessarily ideal. The temperate zone is so close to the surface of a red dwarf that planets in the habitable zone will be tidally locked so that one side of the planet always faces the star and the other side is perpetually dark. Also, much of a red star's energy will be infrared instead of visible light.

Another problem will be that any planet that close to the surface of the star will have its atmosphere heavily damaged during the star's younger years when it spouts lots of solar flares. We'd probably have to terraform such a planet to make it habitable.

K-type orange stars are much more favorable as long as we can accept moving to a new star system every 30 billion years or so.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17084-orange-stars-are-just-right-for-life/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitability_of_red_dwarf_systems

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitability_of_K-type_main-sequence_star_systems
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Thu 20 Feb, 2020 02:54 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:
Personally as I am not the expansive type conquer the galaxy and be everywhere I would be fine with half a dozen of red dwarfs colonized.

Humanity might want to consider just inhabiting a single star system at a time. Presuming that we will not be able to exceed the speed of light, human populations in separate star systems will evolve into different species because of the gulf between them.

Maybe populating multiple systems is the best option despite my misgivings. But humanity should give it a lot of serious thought before we make any decisions.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Thu 20 Feb, 2020 02:55 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
"Using microwaves to transport energy to a planets surface". That could be very exciting to those living on the planets surface.

Laughing
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Thu 20 Feb, 2020 02:56 pm
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:
There is at the moment a total of zero (0) rational reason why humans should try and colonize other planets. This thread is a sci-fi porn fest.

Avoiding extinction is a good reason.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Feb, 2020 02:58 pm
@oralloy,
At the moment, the main threat to our survival is climate change. Let's deal with that first.
livinglava
 
  0  
Reply Thu 20 Feb, 2020 03:16 pm
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

At the moment, the main threat to our survival is climate change. Let's deal with that first.

That's correct. Everything done on Earth has to fit within a sustainability paradigm for Earth.

Earth has an established energy budget that has to be balanced.

Increasing Earth's energy 'income/yield' is not a good option because it would upset the water cycle and other cycles that respond to waste heat.

The old sailing-ship paradigm was actually a sustainable model for how humans should explore, but the problem was they wasted resources, including other humans, in the process of competing economically and fighting wars.

If they would have had the sense to limit their economic activities to non-harmful/non-exploitative sustainable industry, we might have world peace today instead of this mess of greenwashing, blaming, and trying to exploit even the interest in climate reform for gaining more economic power to waste/destroy resources.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Thu 20 Feb, 2020 03:43 pm
@Olivier5,
Blocking sunlight to deal with climate change today will get us into practice for when we need to block a whole lot more sunlight in the future.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Thu 20 Feb, 2020 03:46 pm
@livinglava,
There is no need to constrain our energy use.

If we drastically increase our energy use, the waste heat could be countered by blocking more sunlight.
livinglava
 
  0  
Reply Thu 20 Feb, 2020 03:53 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

There is no need to constrain our energy use.

If we drastically increase our energy use, the waste heat could be countered by blocking more sunlight.

That's insane. The solar system works fine. The Earth has sustainable biological ecosystems and atmospheric/geological cycles that keep its climate more or less stable.

Humans just have to grasp the concept of working around nature instead of replacing it.

If you want to live in a totally artificial environment, build space stations in the asteroid belt by mining asteroids for nuclear fuel and then using it to power what you build. Just don't waste Earth's energy getting there; and don't build any nukes to take over Earth so you can return to the blue skies and forests once you get tired of living in a space station.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Feb, 2020 04:03 pm
Hey, while we’re spitballing here, maybe whoever setup this terrarium will bail us out before red giant time.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Thu 20 Feb, 2020 04:09 pm
@Leadfoot,
I think we should try to help ourselves.

We know what we need to do. We just have to do it.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Thu 20 Feb, 2020 04:10 pm
@livinglava,
livinglava wrote:
The solar system works fine. The Earth has sustainable biological ecosystems and atmospheric/geological cycles that keep its climate more or less stable.

The solar system doesn't work fine. Take a look at the timeline of the future that I copied here:
https://able2know.org/topic/545162-12#post-6962955
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Feb, 2020 04:15 pm
@oralloy,
Oh of course. And we are. Jeez, it’s so obvious that we are living in the last golden days of the internal combustion engine.
Enjoy the show.
0 Replies
 
livinglava
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Feb, 2020 05:33 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

livinglava wrote:
The solar system works fine. The Earth has sustainable biological ecosystems and atmospheric/geological cycles that keep its climate more or less stable.

The solar system doesn't work fine. Take a look at the timeline of the future that I copied here:
https://able2know.org/topic/545162-12#post-6962955

The Earth doesn't get too much sunlight. If it did, trees and plants and the many species that live underneath their shady canopies wouldn't be able to survive. Drought and desertification would have long ago taken over the planet, before humans started moving all the underground carbon/energy to the atmosphere and deforesting the land.
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 1.33 seconds on 12/25/2024 at 11:28:40