Jump to content

Talk:Colonization of Mars: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
Line 139: Line 139:
Section 4.2 says that Mars lacks enough gravity to hold on to any substantial atmosphere but I had the impression that it has more than enough gravity for that (it leaked the most from because it doesn't have a planetary magnetic field) and also it is well known that for example Titan has a thick atmosphere.[[User:Patriot1423|Patriot1423]] ([[User talk:Patriot1423|talk]]) 07:33, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Section 4.2 says that Mars lacks enough gravity to hold on to any substantial atmosphere but I had the impression that it has more than enough gravity for that (it leaked the most from because it doesn't have a planetary magnetic field) and also it is well known that for example Titan has a thick atmosphere.[[User:Patriot1423|Patriot1423]] ([[User talk:Patriot1423|talk]]) 07:33, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
:I think you are right. Mars did have a thick atmosphere in the past, while its gravity force has remained unchanged. I will review now the entry and the references. Cheers, [[User:Rowan Forest|Rowan Forest]] ([[User talk:Rowan Forest|talk]]) 16:09, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
:I think you are right. Mars did have a thick atmosphere in the past, while its gravity force has remained unchanged. I will review now the entry and the references. Cheers, [[User:Rowan Forest|Rowan Forest]] ([[User talk:Rowan Forest|talk]]) 16:09, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
::What are your sources for magnetic fields rather than gravity retaining gaseous atmospheres and what precisely is ferrous in Earth's atmosphere that makes it subject to the entirety of Earth's magnetic field from pole to pole. Nothing is attracted to both poles of a magnet. Do you also have a source for your thick atmosphere claim? How about an explanation for why all planets in our solar system with masses equal to or lesser than Mars as well as Earth's moon have no atmosphere while all planets and moon's more massive than Mars have atmospheres. And how exactly does a planet have but then "leak away" its atmosphere while planets much closer to the sun, hundreds of degrees F warmer "on average" and much more influenced by the sun and its various forms of radiated energy hold onto their? And precisely who determined Mars has no magnetic field and how? The "red planet", if it has indeed had an atmosphere containing liquid water vapor and has water ice on or in its crust, must have had oxygen and hydrogen in its atmosphere. Oxygen, water and what element produce "red" oxidation? Iron. Elemental symbol Fe. Literally the necessary, namesake ferrous metal necessary for magnetic field. There isn't much of anything in your WP:OR claims and discussion here that isn't diametrically-opposed to common sense and grade school science class fact. Discussing whether or not something that isn't there now and if it ever was seems fairly typical of the would-be "Martians" who ignore or are ignorant of the fact that sans atmosphere there is no way Mars has "weather" much less "storms" and other "common characteristics" with Earth and is far less "hospitable" than Earth's moon where humans have actually survived - briefly - on its surface. Of course with no atmosphere like Mars there really is no "ambient air temperature" due to a lack of ambient "air" period. But both airless, low-gravity balls of frozen rock and dust do have "surface temperatures". Or at least "estimates" and "possibilities" for Mars because nobody seems interested in "exploring" by "rover" the warmest and coldest areas. Maybe because even the most "optimistic" estimates are for surface temps at the "equator" maybe reaching a very convenient "room temperature" of 68-70 degrees F. At "noon" in "mid-summer". Mars even has seasons and hours and times of day where convenient for pro-colonization propaganda purposes. What it doesn't have is "shade surface temps" even remotely compatible with human life or "water ice" at -81 to -243 degrees F. The latter being roughly equivalent to "absolute zero" meaning there is literally no heat energy present. Unsurprising with no insulating atmosphere including water vapor to retain it. Water ice also sublimates away at even the warmer -81 F because as a chemical compound of two very different elements with a heat-induced "bond", once water is frozen and "metallic" when it continues to lose heat the bond weakens and it breaks down into hydrogen and oxygen. Much faster in a "vacuum" like space. Which literally begins at the surface of Mars. The moon is similarly "hospitable" in terms of temperature but unlike Mars, which has only 11% of Earth's mass and therefore gravity which means everything not at least 1101% more dense than necessary to have "weight" on Earth would simply float away on Mars, the moon has roughly 25% of Earth's mass and gravity. So there really is no danger of anything floating away on the moon. And "terraforming" or more simply "moon moving" with bulldozers and such to "landscape" and "level" a site for the first structures or perhaps burying them for "insulation" against super high-intensity UV, infrared and visible spectrum eye-melting sunlight as well as retain heat, would be 25% easier than "earthmoving" typical "topsoil". However, until would-be Martians and Moonbats step up to the plate and volunteer to be the "pioneers" on what will almost certainly be a one-way trip to Mars regardless and a very long first visit to the moon regardless, the colonization "discussions" are literally moot. Which doesn't make them less dishonest, biased, incorrect, ignorant or fraudulent when they skip the cold hard truths and/or make up new ones even if "sourced" from supposed "experts" who literally are more ignorant about what Mars is really "like" than scientists were about the moon until man set feet on it. Even if self-proclaimed "experts" on the geology of Mars claim otherwise, they know for a fact nothing not "manufactured" for the benefit of "scientists" willing to make a career out of being Martian "scholars" but unwilling to go conduct good old-fashioned "exploration". Even the "lack of a magnetic field" isn't proven if the magnetic poles of Mars are arranged such that an Earth compass can't or won't detect "magnetic north" however it happens to be first oriented on the surface.Like I said. Grade school science class stuff. Even Boy Scout handbook/merit badge "science". With countless reliable sources while "Mars" itself as a science subject of hands-on physical study and resulting knowledge has none.


:Good for you. If maybe you are the author then I congratulate you on the article. Also I tend to imagine that Martians would build up a big heap of garbage. Cheers, [[User:Patriot1423|Patriot1423]] ([[User talk:Patriot1423|talk]]) 13:13, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
:Good for you. If maybe you are the author then I congratulate you on the article. Also I tend to imagine that Martians would build up a big heap of garbage. Cheers, [[User:Patriot1423|Patriot1423]] ([[User talk:Patriot1423|talk]]) 13:13, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:47, 17 February 2019

Former featured article candidateColonization of Mars is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 13, 2006Articles for deletionKept
September 13, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Former featured article candidate

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mitchwhite5 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Dcollins39.

Paragraph on CO2 removed

I removed the paragraph:

"Martian air has a partial pressure of CO2 of 0.71 kPa, compared to 0.031 kPa on Earth. CO2 poisoning (hypercapnia) in humans begins at about 0.10 kPa. Even for plants, CO2 much above 0.15 kPa is toxic. This means Martian air is toxic to both plants and animals even at the reduced total pressure.[17]"

for the following reasons:

  • The cited source does not contain the information to back up this paragraph. It is effectively unsourced.
  • The cited source is unreliable ("Registered nurse and father of 5").
  • The claims of CO2 poisoning seem highly dubious.
  • The claims of CO2 poisoning do not seem to agree with the article on hypercapnia.
  • The partial pressure values seem incorrect.

I call upon experts to find better information and reliable sources. Asgrrr (talk) 19:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11540191 Asgrrr (talk) 03:57, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Partial pressure of a gas means "how much of total pressure is contributed by this gas", so if the average atmospheric pressure of Mars is 0.6 kPa, then a higher than that partial pressure of any gas is mathematically impossible. Also, the partial pressure of CO2 on earth is currently around 0,041 kPa. This paragraph should absolutely be removed.213.168.11.223 (talk) 07:49, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Incoming changes to effects on human health

I have changes planned for the effects on human health section that may be found in my sandbox at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mitchwhite5/sandbox. Mitchwhite5 (talk) 04:55, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

3d printer removed

‎Zplizzi (talk) Removed 3D printers as a "required equipment" on May 12, 2017

I'm curious what the consensus is on this topic, it has been proposed as a volume and weight saving alternative in several areas. I'm in favor of its inclusion. Dougmcdonell (talk) 18:34, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it's a great option in a lot of circumstances, but I don't think it's fair to call it "required". Take for example the movie "The Martian" - obviously not strictly factually correct, but it demonstrates a Mars mission without a 3d printer - showing it's not "required". ‎Zplizzi (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zplizzi (talk • contribs) 06:12, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Colonization of Mars. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:25, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Radiation section

Key information missing in the Radiation section is information on radiation & health. I added two header links but prose is needed badly. BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:19, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Colonization of Mars. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:31, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Colonization of Mars. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:55, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why including non-colonizing trips?

This is an article on colonization. I removed the two very brief sections on non-colonizing trips. Their very subtitles indicated that they did not belong in this article. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 17:43, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AFD Discussion

FYI there is a delete discussion Mars editors may be interested in at WP:Articles_for_deletion/Modern_Mars_habitability#Modern_Mars_habitability NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:37, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mars One

It’s widely accepted that Mars One is a joke at best and an out-and-out scam at worst. It shouldn’t receive prominence in this article. Unless anyone objects with cogent arguments I’m intending to remove this subsection soon. Andyjsmith (talk) 07:24, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your words are music to my ears. Yes, delete that joke, Please. I didn't want to anger the inclusionists, but Mars One is a scam not comparable to any other proposal. Rowan Forest (talk) 16:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I added Mars One to the See also section since many people looking for info about it (given its huge coverage years ago), will come to this page. Listing it is not endorsing it. And, no, I do not believe in it. Phantom in ca (talk) 22:13, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Terraforming of Mars

Section 4.2 says that Mars lacks enough gravity to hold on to any substantial atmosphere but I had the impression that it has more than enough gravity for that (it leaked the most from because it doesn't have a planetary magnetic field) and also it is well known that for example Titan has a thick atmosphere.Patriot1423 (talk) 07:33, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are right. Mars did have a thick atmosphere in the past, while its gravity force has remained unchanged. I will review now the entry and the references. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 16:09, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What are your sources for magnetic fields rather than gravity retaining gaseous atmospheres and what precisely is ferrous in Earth's atmosphere that makes it subject to the entirety of Earth's magnetic field from pole to pole. Nothing is attracted to both poles of a magnet. Do you also have a source for your thick atmosphere claim? How about an explanation for why all planets in our solar system with masses equal to or lesser than Mars as well as Earth's moon have no atmosphere while all planets and moon's more massive than Mars have atmospheres. And how exactly does a planet have but then "leak away" its atmosphere while planets much closer to the sun, hundreds of degrees F warmer "on average" and much more influenced by the sun and its various forms of radiated energy hold onto their? And precisely who determined Mars has no magnetic field and how? The "red planet", if it has indeed had an atmosphere containing liquid water vapor and has water ice on or in its crust, must have had oxygen and hydrogen in its atmosphere. Oxygen, water and what element produce "red" oxidation? Iron. Elemental symbol Fe. Literally the necessary, namesake ferrous metal necessary for magnetic field. There isn't much of anything in your WP:OR claims and discussion here that isn't diametrically-opposed to common sense and grade school science class fact. Discussing whether or not something that isn't there now and if it ever was seems fairly typical of the would-be "Martians" who ignore or are ignorant of the fact that sans atmosphere there is no way Mars has "weather" much less "storms" and other "common characteristics" with Earth and is far less "hospitable" than Earth's moon where humans have actually survived - briefly - on its surface. Of course with no atmosphere like Mars there really is no "ambient air temperature" due to a lack of ambient "air" period. But both airless, low-gravity balls of frozen rock and dust do have "surface temperatures". Or at least "estimates" and "possibilities" for Mars because nobody seems interested in "exploring" by "rover" the warmest and coldest areas. Maybe because even the most "optimistic" estimates are for surface temps at the "equator" maybe reaching a very convenient "room temperature" of 68-70 degrees F. At "noon" in "mid-summer". Mars even has seasons and hours and times of day where convenient for pro-colonization propaganda purposes. What it doesn't have is "shade surface temps" even remotely compatible with human life or "water ice" at -81 to -243 degrees F. The latter being roughly equivalent to "absolute zero" meaning there is literally no heat energy present. Unsurprising with no insulating atmosphere including water vapor to retain it. Water ice also sublimates away at even the warmer -81 F because as a chemical compound of two very different elements with a heat-induced "bond", once water is frozen and "metallic" when it continues to lose heat the bond weakens and it breaks down into hydrogen and oxygen. Much faster in a "vacuum" like space. Which literally begins at the surface of Mars. The moon is similarly "hospitable" in terms of temperature but unlike Mars, which has only 11% of Earth's mass and therefore gravity which means everything not at least 1101% more dense than necessary to have "weight" on Earth would simply float away on Mars, the moon has roughly 25% of Earth's mass and gravity. So there really is no danger of anything floating away on the moon. And "terraforming" or more simply "moon moving" with bulldozers and such to "landscape" and "level" a site for the first structures or perhaps burying them for "insulation" against super high-intensity UV, infrared and visible spectrum eye-melting sunlight as well as retain heat, would be 25% easier than "earthmoving" typical "topsoil". However, until would-be Martians and Moonbats step up to the plate and volunteer to be the "pioneers" on what will almost certainly be a one-way trip to Mars regardless and a very long first visit to the moon regardless, the colonization "discussions" are literally moot. Which doesn't make them less dishonest, biased, incorrect, ignorant or fraudulent when they skip the cold hard truths and/or make up new ones even if "sourced" from supposed "experts" who literally are more ignorant about what Mars is really "like" than scientists were about the moon until man set feet on it. Even if self-proclaimed "experts" on the geology of Mars claim otherwise, they know for a fact nothing not "manufactured" for the benefit of "scientists" willing to make a career out of being Martian "scholars" but unwilling to go conduct good old-fashioned "exploration". Even the "lack of a magnetic field" isn't proven if the magnetic poles of Mars are arranged such that an Earth compass can't or won't detect "magnetic north" however it happens to be first oriented on the surface.Like I said. Grade school science class stuff. Even Boy Scout handbook/merit badge "science". With countless reliable sources while "Mars" itself as a science subject of hands-on physical study and resulting knowledge has none.
Good for you. If maybe you are the author then I congratulate you on the article. Also I tend to imagine that Martians would build up a big heap of garbage. Cheers, Patriot1423 (talk) 13:13, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Colonization_of_Mars&oldid=883792969"