32 New Planets Found

[Mr. Matt]

Originally Posted by Aerilon

Surely we'd adapt? Granted it may take time, but if you look at points across the globe, those people living in various locations have adapted.

Humans have evolved to live in Earth's gravity. Their bones, muscles, and their entire cardiovascular systems are specifically tuned to function at 1g. Mammals are fully capable of adapting to different climates, within reason. But no species on Earth has ever been forced to evolve an ability to live in environments with entirely different gravitational forces before. It's not something we are naturally supposed to be doing - it's an unprecedented transition for the animal kingdom.

Newborns, native to Mars, never leaving its surface, might find it easier than migrants to the world. It would take a few generations for them to fully adapt, however, and once that adaptation took hold, it would be even more difficult for the Martians to return to Earth than it would be for Earthlings to visit Mars.



As for radiation concerns, there are only two words that forever condemn any thoughts of terraforming Mars to the annals of stupid ideas - magnetic field. Or rather, the absence of one. The sun will expand into a red giant before humans are ever walking the surface of Mars without some form of protection.

[Anlushac11]

Originally Posted by Mr. Pedantic

Yes. Because you are not staying there for a few hundred days. You are staying there for decades on a planet with significantly lower/higher gravity than the Earth. You will get bone deformation because of the different stresses, muscle atrophy/hypertrophy, etc. Aside from the fact that being in a high gravity environment isn't that good for your organs anyway.

Who says they have to be there for decades? Why cant people be rotated every couple of years? I think we can assume for the next probably hundred years any manned missions to Mars will be by hand picked and thoroughly tested individuals.

And at least there would be almost 4/10th of earth gravity as opposed to zero gravity in space. IMHO having a gravity present would reduce headaches and the disorentation experienced in weightlessness. Adding exercise would IMHO further reduce that.

Cosmonaut Sergei Krikalev reduced bone loss by running on a treadmill and it is thought that the impact of the running helped keep the bones cells active.

And Matty is right about the immune system as well; the physiological triggers to regulate the immune system are not fully understood, and it is entirely possible that the difference in bone composition/mass brought about by the change in gravity could have a profound, long-term effect on your immune system.

And it is entirely possible it wont, we dont know which is why its still being researched.

How about the radiation in interplanetary space? The Sun shields us from most interstellar radiation, but the sun itself puts out a lot of radiation, and with no Van Allen belts to protect us, you'll probably have either died or become terminally ill by the time you get to Mars.

The Sun has its active periods and passive periods. NASA has been trying to develop a radiation proof compartment for its interstellar design projects that the crew could take shelter in if radiation storms get too bad. A base underground or shielded

Various probes sent to the inner and outer planets report back background and current radiation levels so NASA can get a idea of what goes on.

In effect the problems are being researched, its too early to say things cant be overcome.

As for radiation concerns, there are only two words that forever condemn any thoughts of terraforming Mars to the annals of stupid ideas - magnetic field. Or rather, the absence of one. The sun will expand into a red giant before humans are ever walking the surface of Mars without some form of protection.

Without a magnetic field I agree that there are slim to no chances Mars can ever hold in a atmosphere. What I picture happening on Mars are mostly mining colonies which would involve lots of underground activity. Any surface structures would be for scientific research, and greenhouses.

There has also been talks of terraforming Venus at some point in the future. Venus does have a magnetic field, does have closer to Earth normal gravity, and also has real acid rain (Sulfuric?) and IIRC 900deg heat. Obviously would not be habitable in our life time.

Also gravity at Mars surface is .38 percenty of earths. But what if we move closer to the core? Like at the bottom of Valles Marineris? Would be a good place to mine I would think.

[crisissuit3]

Originally Posted by Mr. Matt

With that attitude we probably should have never built rockets and gone to the moon, for that matter why even build satellites.

What he said.

Instead of looking at all the things that can go wrong, how about we look for the things that can go right and ways to turn the wrong to right.

wrong right wrong wrong right right right wrong. sorry.

Originally Posted by Mr. Matt

It's not an 'attitude', it's a fact - Mars' gravity is less than half that of Earth (closer to a third, in fact). Long-term human habitation would result in significant health problems.

this can go 2 ways. Man wises up and sees this problems and fixes it. or we wait for the hundreds of inhabitants die then discuss whether we should fix it or not.

Originally Posted by AlDaja

Agreed. Anyone living on Mars would have to go through aggressive strength training or they would suffer severe organ, muscle and bone damage upon return to Earth. NASA figured this out after the first few orbits into space when astronauts complained about muscle fatigue and other problems, hence why daily exercise is so important for astronauts on the ISP and Shuttle. I highly doubt any of us would qualify (save one or two) given we spend most of our time on our ass in front of a computer.

The only way to get around this is artificial gravity (which isn't too far off in real world application) that is set to Earth norms.

screw healthcare. Fitness bill ftw.

as for artificial gravity. its a great idea but would probably be costly in the long run.

[AlDaja]

Originally Posted by crisissuit3

as for artificial gravity. its a great idea but would probably be costly in the long run.

, So is going into space.

[Mr. Matt]

Originally Posted by Anlushac11

Who says they have to be there for decades? Why cant people be rotated every couple of years? I think we can assume for the next probably hundred years any manned missions to Mars will be by hand picked and thoroughly tested individuals.

Indeed. But this tangent was started by somebody saying that people will be living on Mars in a few decades. They won't, and they can't. Working on Mars for a few hundred days would be pushing it, considering the extensive trip both there and back.

And at least there would be almost 4/10th of earth gravity as opposed to zero gravity in space. IMHO having a gravity present would reduce headaches and the disorentation experienced in weightlessness. Adding exercise would IMHO further reduce that.

Your opinion doesn't matter. Permanent habitation of Mars would result in significant health problems. Bone decalcification can't be solved with exercise.

And it is entirely possible it wont, we dont know which is why its still being researched.

And the research is rather damning.

In effect the problems are being researched, its too early to say things cant be overcome.

Until you can alter the gravitational field of an entire planet, the problems are set in stone. There is no technology, either experimental or theoretical, which can do such a thing.

There has also been talks of terraforming Venus at some point in the future. Venus does have a magnetic field, does have closer to Earth normal gravity, and also has real acid rain (Sulfuric?) and IIRC 900deg heat. Obviously would not be habitable in our life time.

Venus doesn't have a magnetic field. The lack of such a thing is one of the theories behind why it no longer holds any water, in fact. Terraforming Venus would not only be extremely improbable, but extremely impractical - you would need to physically remove a significant portion of its atmosphere before even artificial colonies are possible, and such a thing would take so much energy as to prove infeasible. Though, some outlandish scientists have proposed 'floating cities' in the atmosphere, high enough so that the atmospheric pressure is roughly the same as our own.

Also gravity at Mars surface is .38 percenty of earths. But what if we move closer to the core? Like at the bottom of Valles Marineris? Would be a good place to mine I would think.

Are you able to perform 'moon jumps' at the tip of Everest?

Originally Posted by crisissuit3

What he said.

Instead of looking at all the things that can go wrong, how about we look for the things that can go right and ways to turn the wrong to right.

wrong right wrong wrong right right right wrong. sorry.


this can go 2 ways. Man wises up and sees this problems and fixes it. or we wait for the hundreds of inhabitants die then discuss whether we should fix it or not.

You have a theory to increase the gravitational field strength of an entire planet?

as for artificial gravity. its a great idea but would probably be costly in the long run.

It's also nonsensical outside of spaceflight.

[SuperSmeg]

Any of these new planets habitable? We've already screwed up one. Might aswell start working on ships to get us to a new planet so that we can screw that one up aswell, lol. :lol:

[Mr. Pedantic]

Who says they have to be there for decades? Why cant people be rotated every couple of years? I think we can assume for the next probably hundred years any manned missions to Mars will be by hand picked and thoroughly tested individuals.

That would be pretty costly. The way it goes now, you'd have to either have a ship run non-stop between Earth and Mars, or have 2 such craft. Either way, that costs with maintenance, training, etc. It would be much more cost-efficient to only require one or 2 manned missions every decade.

The Sun has its active periods and passive periods. NASA has been trying to develop a radiation proof compartment for its interstellar design projects that the crew could take shelter in if radiation storms get too bad. A base underground or shielded

Even in 'inactive' periods the radiation is quite dangerous.

Without a magnetic field I agree that there are slim to no chances Mars can ever hold in a atmosphere. What I picture happening on Mars are mostly mining colonies which would involve lots of underground activity. Any surface structures would be for scientific research, and greenhouses.

Holding an atmosphere has nothing to do with the magnetic field. Rather, the gravitational field...or lack thereof. You see there are objects with little/no magnetic activity (e.g. Venus) with very strong atmospheres. It purely depends on gravity...or lack thereof. And with Mars, there is a lack thereof.

There has also been talks of terraforming Venus at some point in the future. Venus does have a magnetic field, does have closer to Earth normal gravity, and also has real acid rain (Sulfuric?) and IIRC 900deg heat. Obviously would not be habitable in our life time.

Venus would not be a good place to start. Aside from the fact that the atmosphere is kind of hot (450C average), there's a lot of atmospheric pressure, which would basically crush anything sent there, and we can't forget good old sulphuric acid.

Also, you can't forget the fact that Venus days are 243 Earth days long. In the absence of the cloud layer (which makes Venus completely isothermal) daytime would get unbearably hot and nighttime unbearably cold.

Though, some outlandish scientists have proposed 'floating cities' in the atmosphere, high enough so that the atmospheric pressure is roughly the same as our own.

Of course, they would have taken into account the fact that at that altitude wind speeds are a roughly constant 200km/h?

Also gravity at Mars surface is .38 percenty of earths. But what if we move closer to the core? Like at the bottom of Valles Marineris? Would be a good place to mine I would think.

I've done some calculations. The differences between gravity on the surface of Mars, and 10km down (roughly the depth of the Marineris trench) would be about 0.02m/s^2. That's 0.2% of a gee, people.

[Nemmerle]

What I picture happening on Mars is almost entirely automated industry. The costs of shipping folks up there to mine and so on are ridiculous even if the health problems weren't relevant.

[Mr. Matt]

Originally Posted by Mr. Pedantic

Of course, they would have taken into account the fact that at that altitude wind speeds are a roughly constant 200km/h?

There's a reason they're considered 'outlandish'. The sorts of aerostat colonies they talk about would essentially be cities propped up in the sky with, essentially, balloons. Whether they are tethered to the ground via some kind of carbon nanotube cable, allowed to simply 'go with the flow', or equipped with some manner of propulsion, doesn't seem to matter so much considering the somewhat daft premise.

[NiteStryker]

8 times the size of Jupiter? Thats almost the size of the sun. Damn.