Talk:Colonization of Mars/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Phoenix Lander results

Apart from confirming the presence of water (ice) on Mars, the Phoenix Lander seems to have found perchlorate in the Martian soil. Concentrations are unknown, but would it be theoretically possible to utilize perchlorate for colonization, e.g. as a source of fuel (and hence energy) and/or oxygen? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.89.0.118 (talk) 07:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Plant Life

The article describes "... possibly allowing Mars to support some plant life". If this is pure speculation, I should like to remove it from the article. -- The Cascade (talk) 19:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Since there have been no objections, I have removed that part. -- The Cascade (talk) 19:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Solar energy output at Mars

From the "Economics" section: "solar output at Mars is about the same as on Earth". In the first level, that's just plainly wrong. Mars is twice as far from the Sun as Earth, which means that Mars' solar constant (amount of solar power per unity of surface) is a quarter of Earths'. Maybe the author took in consideration things like weather (mean cloud cover) and the like, but in any case this statement should be explained (if not removed).

The above is wrong. Earth gets 1300 W/m^3 above the atmosphere. Mars on average gets 550 W/m^3. This is because Mars is NOT twice as far from the sun as Earth. However, the point that Mars gets less energy is of course correct.

--79.83.32.90 (talk) 12:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

You are forgetting that the lowered atmosphere on Mars provides a better transmission of light. So it is maybe equivalent to a cloudy day on earth Jenga3 (talk) 22:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Useful source

A recent New Scientist article might be relevant here. 83.104.127.225 (talk) 09:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• maybe a link to VASIMR? andy (talk) 09:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

is mars a hot or cold planet

Infact it is.It is well for starters it is the fourth planet from the sun so it would be hot.hi this is anfal jime hi to all my friends:) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.198.21 (talk) 00:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It is both hot and cold depending on which side is turned to the sun. Unlike Earth and Venus, the Martian atmosphere is not thick enough to provide any sort of energy capacitance so the temperature changes rather quickly. The reason some people consider it a cold planet is because the temperature barely goes above zero in some places and the average temperature is equivalent to a strong Siberian winter (-40 Celsius if I recall) Jenga3 (talk) 22:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Hot? More like: both cold and colder. According to Mars#Climate: "Martian surface temperatures vary from lows of about -87 °C during the polar winters to highs of up to -5 °C in summers." —Tamfang (talk) 15:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Robotic Precursors Section

So this section is loaded with speculation and contains no references what so ever. I suggest it be removed until it can be written properly. JabberWalkie (talk) 01:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• I've flagged it with {{Unreferenced section}}. References are certainly out there to be found. I've done a quick Google search but don't have the time to do the job properly just yet. andy (talk) 08:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

fiction selection

A few instances in fiction provide detailed descriptions of Mars colonization.

I take that to mean at least some realistic mention of the problems and technologies. I'd therefore exclude The Martian Chronicles, in which Mars is portrayed as mostly Earthlike; and Babylon 5, in which Mars colonization is relevant to a couple of episodes at most. —Tamfang (talk) 14:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I think Babylon 5 could be dropped with no loss of value to the article. The Martian Chronicles could be moved out of the group of instances providing detailed descriptions, or dropped. I do not worry much about the references to fictional portrayals. --Fartherred (talk) 09:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The newly inserted section on ASD

Ivan.sychev108 has inserted a passage on ideas on Accumulating Space Device (ASD) on Mars. The user has inserted a nearly identical passage into Colonization of Venus. I would say this is a case of redundancy that should be eliminated. The text could be adapted to a general view independent of the situation on / around the several celestial bodies and then be inserted into the article Accumulating Space Device (ASD), that Ivan.sychev108 has created today. This latter article does but so far not yet cite any references. Ivan.sychev108 has also created the article on the inventor referred to in the above mentioned passages, Alexander Mayboroda. This article is, so far, insufficiently sourced. --Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 23:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I favor whatever you can do to eliminate, or promote eliminating, the multiple redundancy. After correcting the user's problematic English usage (grammar, wording, etc.) and overlinking in two articles with nearly identical material (and faults), I am reluctant to tackle any more, nor should it be necessary. Hertz1888 (talk) 23:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

This is clear fringe pushing. As stated there, since there is no evidence of significant (or for that matter any) sources discussing "ASD" in relation to the subjects of the articles to which it has been added then it doesn't belong there. All articles that do not clearly display notability, including referencing, should be prodded for deletion. So that covers ASD and this persons article. ChiZeroOne (talk) 23:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

NPOV required

Roentgenium111's edit summary statement: "...all space colonization is uneconomical..." is an unsupported point of view. This contradicts the statement in the article: "As with early colonies in the New World, economics would be a crucial aspect to a colony's success. The reduced gravity well of Mars and its position in the solar system may facilitate Mars-Earth trade and provide the rationalization for continued settlement of the planet." The referenced statement that Roentgenium111 removed should be restored for balance in the article. Fartherred (talk) 10:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Since there is no opposition, I will revert Roentgenium111's edit of 22:12 hours on the 10th of October. Fartherred (talk) 15:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Roentgenium111's edit in question merely moved the material that claims little near term economic importance for Mars. I misread it and will not revert it. Fartherred (talk) 15:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)