17
   

The meaning of getting to Mars? Your view?

 
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Feb, 2020 04:04 pm
Solar radiation, as F d'A has already pointed out, will increase by 10% in a billion years. As he also pointed out, the oceans will boil away. Even if one could reflect that radiation, that's the death of the biosphere, too. Plants need that sunlight, and animals need those plants. Duh . . .
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sat 22 Feb, 2020 05:14 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
Solar radiation ... will increase by 10% in a billion years.

So why not protect against that?


Setanta wrote:
the oceans will boil away.

Not if we prevent the excess light from reaching us.


Setanta wrote:
Even if one could reflect that radiation, that's the death of the biosphere, too. Plants need that sunlight, and animals need those plants.

We would not block all light from reaching Earth. We would only block enough light to keep the temperature under control. The Earth would still receive the normal daily allotment of light that is needed for life to thrive.
livinglava
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Feb, 2020 05:19 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

Setanta wrote:
Solar radiation ... will increase by 10% in a billion years.

So why not protect against that?


Setanta wrote:
the oceans will boil away.

Not if we prevent the excess light from reaching us.


Setanta wrote:
Even if one could reflect that radiation, that's the death of the biosphere, too. Plants need that sunlight, and animals need those plants.

We would not block all light from reaching Earth. We would only block enough light to keep the temperature under control. The Earth would still receive the normal daily allotment of light that is needed for life to thrive.

I posted a detailed explanation of how this project does not fit into a sustainable energy budget for Earth unless it is somehow seeded to draw energy from extraterrestrial sources.

You also didn't acknowledge how such a vast solar shield array would break down due to bombardment with radiation and particles, and how the debris would cause problems for Earth.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sat 22 Feb, 2020 06:21 pm
@livinglava,
Sorry. It's difficult to keep track of all the posts in all the threads sometimes.

I don't see what is unsustainable about doing this. It may be a large undertaking. But humanity is capable of large projects.

Not doing it, on the other hand, is highly unsustainable. Life comes to an end on Earth if we don't do it.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sat 22 Feb, 2020 06:22 pm
@livinglava,
livinglava wrote:
The problem is that you have to first grasp that Earth is a mechanical system that has an established feed of solar energy, which it has evolved in tandem with for as long as it has existed.

That's no problem. Consider it grasped.


livinglava wrote:
You also have to realize that you can't just put a bunch of solar shields in orbit around Earth and have them stay there permanently and not break down due to bombardment by xrays, cosmic rays, dust/debris, and other exposure to energy that's they're not shielded from the way they would be if they were closer to sea level.

OK.


livinglava wrote:
Chlorophyll has evolved to reflect energy abundantly. It does so to retard/slow the rate at which energy is absorbed by leaves/trunk/branches/soil because everything has to stay hydrated to survive.

Trees and plants also absorb latent heat from their surroundings and warmer cells transport nutrients and grow at a faster rate. So trees/plants are designed/evolved to use the latent waste heat of the environment to grow leaves/canopies that reflect sunlight.

So when you talk about building and launching solar shields around the planet, you are talking about huge quantities of energy that have to be somehow harvested/mined from Earth's energy budget and then used to make and deploy a huge number of artificial solar shields that would need to cover an area greater than that of the Earth at sea level (which is already enormous).

And you can't just build and deploy these shields once and forget about them; you'd have to maintain them the same as you'd maintain a roof or solar array that breaks down and needs repairs and replacement that costs lots of effort, energy, and materials.

I think you should put some effort into thinking about how a forest canopy, whether it's a rain forest or a deciduous forest or a northern boreal forest or an established agricultural orchard maintains itself by growing/dropping seeds, which automatically/naturally sprout and grow to replace their aging parents.

You can't engineer a system that automatically builds and deploys orbital solar shields by absorbing some of the solar energy they are reflecting, so that the net effect of systemic entropy doesn't affect Earth's energy budget.

For argument's sake, let's say you could design such a system and then just 'seed' an automated solar-shield-factory that flies itself around the solar system using only solar power, gathers materials it needs to reproduce itself, and then brings the solar shields back to Earth orbit so that the overall solar shield maintains itself indefinitely without polluting the Earth with unmanageable debris OR depleting the Earth of energy/resources needed to maintain various aspects of the system.

If we can develop the technology, fine.


livinglava wrote:
I find that about as likely as the prospect of building a fleet of self-driving cars and automated infrastructure machines that reproduce themselves while maintaining a sustainable infrastructure that keeps humans in harmony with restored/natural climate.

I'm not saying they both aren't interesting prospects to theorize and critically plan/assess; but I think you have to proceed from the restriction that you don't allot Earth's energy to achieving them; because the moment you invent a project/process that taps into Earth's energy budget, you're initiating a pattern of dependency that will be difficult if not impossible to reform over time.

Whenever an industrial/economic pattern is launched and established, eventual reform prospects get thwarted and/or suppressed in the interest of protecting the economic interests that would be interrupted by reforms.

If we don't take steps to save the planet, the planet is toast in 500 million years.


livinglava wrote:
Humans struggle to preserve status quo and avert change, so it doesn't make sense to begin projects that are unsustainable with the intent of reforming them later to become sustainable. New projects should already be sustainable when they are initiated, and otherwise it should be 'back to the drawing board' to make them permanently sustainable and non-harmful from the start.

What is unsustainable is not protecting the planet from the increase in sunlight. If we don't do that, life starts to come to an end in 500 million years.
livinglava
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Feb, 2020 02:37 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

Sorry. It's difficult to keep track of all the posts in all the threads sometimes.

Well, I took the time to explain how difficult it would be to build a system that does all the work outside of Earth's atmosphere, without requiring the use of Earth resources and energy, i.e. sending people, parts, and fuel up all the time. You would have to find some energy source outside Earth and then if you used that energy and resources to build so many solar shields and put there around Earth in orbit, you'd have a massive quantity of material that would be breaking down into space junk and falling to Earth. Maintaining a shield like that century after century would cause problems.

Basically it would boil down to using energy from the asteroids to move asteroid-mined material into Earth orbit and then weathering/erosion (yes, I know there's no rain in orbit, but there is solar wind and other energy that will cause those solar shields to break down into debris and then rain down to Earth with the force of gravity), that weathering an erosion over centuries and millennia of time are going to pollute the Earth with a lot more meteorite-type metals than would already be burning up in the atmosphere during that time.

Like most all geoengineering projects, the entropy of the artificial mechanical system breaking down and/or being maintained through time results in environmental consequences that aren't manageable.

You have to understand that organic life and ecosystems have evolved on Earth to manage their own entropy/waste and use it to maintain sustainable ecosystems. Trees, plants, and animals use latent heat from the environment to keep their cells warm, so that the nano-processes going on at the cellular level can perform useful labor with that energy.

When humans build machines that run on fossil fuel, nuclear fuel, or even renewable sources; the waste heat as well as the other types of waste generated have to be taken up and used by living organisms/ecosystems, which recycle them in a sustainable way, unlike human/artificial forms of recycling that just prolong the process of materials like plastic and paper breaking down by using artificial energy instead of latent heat from the environment.

So we really need to grasp and accept that natural/living systems have evolved to adapt most successfully to a balanced Earth-sun system, and while we can and should use industrial ingenuity to accomplish certain things that can't be accomplished using natural/living systems exclusively, we should really minimize that artificial kind of industry/engineering because it does not work very well with the natural/living ecosystems that have to clean up after it and keep the Earth sustainable for hundreds/thousands of millennia into the future before the sun really starts heating things up.

Quote:
I don't see what is unsustainable about doing this. It may be a large undertaking. But humanity is capable of large projects.

You have to look at what it would take to build it and then maintain it millennium upon millennium, and what the energy input would be; and what forms of waste/output would occur.

Quote:
Not doing it, on the other hand, is highly unsustainable. Life comes to an end on Earth if we don't do it.

Well, life could evolve to adapt to the changing environment, but if it did, it would be very different after such drastic changes occurred.

Ideas such as yours shouldn't be discarded without study. They just shouldn't be promoted in the way that so many ideas get promoted, i.e. because they would create loads of jobs, contracts, and stimulate economic growth. Humans tend to think less critically when there's hope of making money. They like to go with the flow and collect the cash.

All I'm trying to say is that whatever industrial projects we consider undertaking, either on Earth or outside of Earth, should all be scrutinized in terms of how they interact with a sustainable Earth where Earth's natural patterns are protected as much as possible. We should assume that Earth is healthy when left to its own nature, and thus deviate as little as possible from what Earth would be like without human ingenuity.

livinglava
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Feb, 2020 02:40 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

What is unsustainable is not protecting the planet from the increase in sunlight. If we don't do that, life starts to come to an end in 500 million years.

Once you calculate the energy and waste budget of maintaining whatever system you're proposing, and you forecast the effects on per-century/per-millennium basis, then you can estimate what 100,000 years of maintaining it will do to the Earth.

And that doesn't even begin to approach the 500 million you are talking about.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Feb, 2020 03:18 pm
It’s an indirect link to that video through reddit but let’s see if it works.

https://www.reddit.com/r/InoRSS/comments/f6u6q2/isaac_arthur_climate_change_mitigation_near_term/

Edit. Works ok
Leadfoot
 
  2  
Reply Sun 23 Feb, 2020 03:28 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
Oh my gosh you have a PS4 and you are a gamer!!! I would never ever think you would have one...prejudice and mea culpa! Wink

Well, I wanted to be a gamer but getting beat up by teenagers all the time is just depressing. Gran Turismo is more racing simulator than game. I still get beat by teenagers but at least they don’t mock you too bad after.

Actually, I may have just found my Game! I’ll take it to the game thread.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Feb, 2020 04:22 pm
@livinglava,
either we go fighting all the way, or we just throw up our hands and try to leave a handsome ash
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Sun 23 Feb, 2020 06:08 pm
I really don't understand why people waste time talking to LL.

One enormous advantage of a ring word, say out beyond the asteroids, near the orbit of Jupiter, would be as a place to preserve the wealth and diversity of our biosphere. As (if) humanity begins to spread to the stars, we will need such a resource.

This article from the BBC gives a summary explanation of the effect of the re-introduction of wolves to Yellowstone Park. There's a good, brief video. (Geezer Alert! Traditional white males may find the video disturbing--the people narrating are a brown-skinned man and two women. Geezers enter at your own risk.)

The lesson of wolves in Yellowstone Park is that we need to preserve as much of our biological diversity at possible. Another advantage of a vast ring world would be the ability to create environments that probes have found on distant planets, and introduce Terran life to see how it responds, and to facilitate genetic manipulation. Well out beyond Mars, almost as far as the orbit of Jupiter would be a good region because we could get resources from the asteroids, as well as from the moons of Jupiter and Saturn.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Feb, 2020 06:34 pm
@Setanta,
proof of concept for all these "mirrors and rings" would include a density shield like osmium or lead 207.2
Gamma rays, short peiod energy , has a bigger punch than photons or xrays so would plow through mirrors(no matter the angle, it wouldnt reflect just plow). We now enjoy gamma radiation maxima only during solar storms and we havent gotten toxic doses as far as I have read.
When we later experience the sun going through the beginnings of its unstable perio and leading to its brown out. gamma radiation will begin in earnest. Maybe ring things may get us afew hundred million years (I may be just blowing smoke on tha guesstimate), but I dont believe that any increase in gamma radiation is good for our longevity without major shielding. Based on its energy field, Pb needs to be a specific thickness or its of no value. Planets where rad minerals have reached several half lives would provide enough leas for our needs?? Mars or the moon (where bolides can lead us to a small list of the stuff Wed find Pb 210 a well as Pb 207.2.
All thats part of proofs of concept and concept engineering phases.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Feb, 2020 06:36 pm
@Setanta,
I think LL is enjoyable. I love his turns of phrases. Total gibby but fun.
Member Erwin Corey??
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Feb, 2020 06:44 pm
@Leadfoot,
I'm beaten up by teens every day but still, I keep gaming! And yes I have a preference for simulators too. Digital Combat Simulator is the best one I have atm. You really need to read 600 pages manual to fly a single fighter jet in that game.
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Feb, 2020 09:48 pm
0 Replies
 
livinglava
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Feb, 2020 05:29 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

I really don't understand why people waste time talking to LL.

Stop putting me down.

Quote:
One enormous advantage of a ring word, say out beyond the asteroids, near the orbit of Jupiter, would be as a place to preserve the wealth and diversity of our biosphere. As (if) humanity begins to spread to the stars, we will need such a resource.

You just say these things like they don't involve unimaginably vast quantities of energy and materials. It's like saying, "mountains are great so let's build a mountain range that goes around the entire Earth." It sounds great, and easy enough, when you put it that way; but it's a totally abstract aesthetic vision with no grounding in what kind of energy and other resources would be consumed doing it in practice.

Quote:

The lesson of wolves in Yellowstone Park is that we need to preserve as much of our biological diversity at possible. Another advantage of a vast ring world would be the ability to create environments that probes have found on distant planets, and introduce Terran life to see how it responds, and to facilitate genetic manipulation. Well out beyond Mars, almost as far as the orbit of Jupiter would be a good region because we could get resources from the asteroids, as well as from the moons of Jupiter and Saturn.

The way you preserve biodiversity is by allowing land on Earth to live instead of clearing it and paving over it and running machines over it in various ways that kill various life forms that would otherwise grow.

Humans can build structures in between and above the trees and ecosystems, but we should be designing/implementing ways of doing so that maximize ecosystem health and restore it to areas that have been (and continue to be) developed in ways that don't preserve as much biological ecosystem as they could.
0 Replies
 
livinglava
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Feb, 2020 05:37 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

proof of concept for all these "mirrors and rings" would include a density shield like osmium or lead 207.2
Gamma rays, short peiod energy , has a bigger punch than photons or xrays so would plow through mirrors(no matter the angle, it wouldnt reflect just plow). We now enjoy gamma radiation maxima only during solar storms and we havent gotten toxic doses as far as I have read.
When we later experience the sun going through the beginnings of its unstable perio and leading to its brown out. gamma radiation will begin in earnest. Maybe ring things may get us afew hundred million years (I may be just blowing smoke on tha guesstimate), but I dont believe that any increase in gamma radiation is good for our longevity without major shielding. Based on its energy field, Pb needs to be a specific thickness or its of no value. Planets where rad minerals have reached several half lives would provide enough leas for our needs?? Mars or the moon (where bolides can lead us to a small list of the stuff Wed find Pb 210 a well as Pb 207.2.
All thats part of proofs of concept and concept engineering phases.

Assuming you could find a sustainable way to build and maintain a thick lead shield around Earth, how much of that lead do you suppose is going to fall down to Earth through the millennia? Also, how much energy gets wasted until the point where we are able to accomplish outer-space industry without sending up rockets constantly with Earth energy/resources?

Don't get me wrong. I don't think people should stop thinking of ways to use automated space-machines to harvest materials and energy outside Earth and build/do things with it, but I also don't think it is wise to jump the gun and be stoking a space industry that's anchored in Earth-resources. Industrialism already consumes energy and resources at unsustainable rates, and you want to add to that by adding even more industries to the mix?

Irresponsible thinking; or at least it's irresponsible to assume it's feasible without considering the consequences.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Feb, 2020 06:30 am
@livinglava,
Quote:
Irresponsible thinking; or at least it's irresponsible to assume it's feasible without considering the consequences.
Thats what "proofs of concept" and "Concept engineering" is all about. My concern re , gamma rad is where Id start ?

Lead and other elements will rain on us but not in BIG CHUNKS . It may be best seen on planets where meteors have landed and contain expended nuke minerals.
livinglava
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Feb, 2020 05:37 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

Lead and other elements will rain on us but not in BIG CHUNKS . It may be best seen on planets where meteors have landed and contain expended nuke minerals.

You're talking about millions of years. How much lead would you estimate it takes to make a sun shield like the one you are thinking of? How much lead would break down and rain down on Earth each century and millennium and what would happen to lead concentration levels in soils, ocean water, etc.?

Would you even want to put a lead roof on a house you planned to live in for the next few decades? Would you even want to use lead paint if it was legal again?
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Feb, 2020 05:50 pm
@livinglava,
I have no idea why you want to compare a lead metal roof or even lead paint as compared to gamma shielding.
There's no basiis for comparison. As far as "How much lead we'd need" I have no idea in hell. Do you?

Gamma can really **** up your weekend, but lad paint was never designed to shield you from space "death rays"
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
DOES NOTHING EXIST??? - Question by mark noble
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
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
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/07/2020 at 08:23:24