Any plans for a Mars mission must be scrapped now.

[52ndStreet]

Any mission to Mars must be scrapped now. A Mars mission will be a suicide mission. Its just to far, and has to much radiation. To many areas for telemetry errors for the mission to and from Mars.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Any mission to Mars must be scrapped now. A Mars mission will be a suicide mission. Its just to far, and has to much radiation. To many areas for telemetry errors for the mission to and from Mars.

no one is forcing you to go.....

 

[TNHarley]

Fuck that. Id take the chance. What a way to die!

 

[Quasar44]

52ndStreet
That same provincial and myopic thinking was there before Columbus then the moon mission.
Humans will land on mars by 2040

 

[Quasar44]

Mars will in the next few centuries become a second Earth

Few centuries later: human colonies will exist on nearby Star systems

 

[fncceo]

Any mission to Mars must be scrapped now.

Well, if you say so.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

All we have to do is land a few dozen SUVs on Mars and let them spew the Climate Changing CO2 for a few hours. That will make Mars warm, safe and habitable.

My work here is done. I've sent the wiring instructions. Glad I could help

 

[52ndStreet]

Mars will in the next few centuries become a second Earth

Few centuries later: human colonies will exist on nearby Star systems

What kind of Crack have you been smoking?. Are you reading your post before you post them?

 

[Mushroom]

All we have to do is land a few dozen SUVs on Mars and let them spew the Climate Changing CO2 for a few hours. That will make Mars warm, safe and habitable.

Mars will never be really "habitable", as the magnetosphere died billions of years ago, and the atmospheric density is almost negligible.

To give an idea, here on Earth it is 1.2 kg/m3. On Mars, it is 0.02 kg/m3. That is roughly the same as being outside at an altitude of around 22 miles. That is over four times the height of Mt. Everest, and most who climb that need supplemental oxygen. And without the magnetosphere and protection of an ozone layer, those on Mars would be getting around 40 times higher radiation levels than they do on Earth.

TO put this in perspective, even in developing nations where many spend most of the day outside, they get an average dose of under 1 rad per year. And humans can withstand about 200 rads per year before they develop lasting effects like cancer and genetic damage. On Mars, levels are in the range of 800-2000 rads per year.

So even if the atmosphere was somehow magically changed to an O-N one and temperatures raised, they would still need their space suits to deal with the low atmospheric density and radiation.

 

[alang1216]

Mars will never be really "habitable", as the magnetosphere died billions of years ago, and the atmospheric density is almost negligible.

To give an idea, here on Earth it is 1.2 kg/m3. On Mars, it is 0.02 kg/m3. That is roughly the same as being outside at an altitude of around 22 miles. That is over four times the height of Mt. Everest, and most who climb that need supplemental oxygen. And without the magnetosphere and protection of an ozone layer, those on Mars would be getting around 40 times higher radiation levels than they do on Earth.

TO put this in perspective, even in developing nations where many spend most of the day outside, they get an average dose of under 1 rad per year. And humans can withstand about 200 rads per year before they develop lasting effects like cancer and genetic damage. On Mars, levels are in the range of 800-2000 rads per year.

So even if the atmosphere was somehow magically changed to an O-N one and temperatures raised, they would still need their space suits to deal with the low atmospheric density and radiation.

I agree, we'd do better just hollowing out an asteroid. I think Venus is the place to go. Some serious terraforming and it could be a paradise.

 

[Mushroom]

I agree, we'd do better just hollowing out an asteroid. I think Venus is the place to go. Some serious terraforming and it could be a paradise.

OMG, there it is the exact opposite in most ways.

Their atmospheric density is 67 kg/m3 (remember Earth is 1.2 kg/m3). That is over 60 times what it is on Earth, roughly the pressure at around 1,800 meters under the ocean. That is over 8 times the deepest a human has ever been outside of a pressurized vessel. A human would be squished flat.

And it also has no magnetosphere, the only thing protecting the surface now is a powerful ionosphere because of the incredibly dense atmosphere. Change that to Earth levels, and the levels of radiation would be many times that on Mars.

Once again, there does not seem to be any way to make it habitable by humans.

Unless one of the moons of a gas giant is found, it is unlikely that any body in our Solar System could be habitable.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Mars will never be really "habitable", as the magnetosphere died billions of years ago, and the atmospheric density is almost negligible.

To give an idea, here on Earth it is 1.2 kg/m3. On Mars, it is 0.02 kg/m3. That is roughly the same as being outside at an altitude of around 22 miles. That is over four times the height of Mt. Everest, and most who climb that need supplemental oxygen. And without the magnetosphere and protection of an ozone layer, those on Mars would be getting around 40 times higher radiation levels than they do on Earth.

TO put this in perspective, even in developing nations where many spend most of the day outside, they get an average dose of under 1 rad per year. And humans can withstand about 200 rads per year before they develop lasting effects like cancer and genetic damage. On Mars, levels are in the range of 800-2000 rads per year.

So even if the atmosphere was somehow magically changed to an O-N one and temperatures raised, they would still need their space suits to deal with the low atmospheric density and radiation.

See, you ask the wrong questions. It's not "Why did Mars lose its magnetic field?" but "Why does Earth still have its magnetic field?"

 

[Quasar44]

52ndStreet
Telling you the next 500 yrs

 

[Quasar44]

CrusaderFrank
Good question

Earth is a larger and warmer planet maybe the reason

 

[Quasar44]

Mars is a few decades away but the technology is almost there

 

[Mushroom]

See, you ask the wrong questions. It's not "Why did Mars lose its magnetic field?" but "Why does Earth still have its magnetic field?"

Oh, that is known.

Out of all the rocky inner planets, only Earth still has a magnetosphere. The ones in the other three inner planets died billions of years ago.

However, in this aspect Earth was lucky. Or should I say "Earth Mark II", as we are really standing on the second planet that has occupied this location.

"Earth Mark I" was the original planet in this orbit around the sun, but it had a trojan. A roughly Mars sized planet that orbited at one of our Lagrange Points, and would have been there for hundreds of millions of years. However, those are not stable in the long term and eventually gravitational influences caused it to crash into Earth. Hence, Earth Mark I was destroyed, and Earth Mark II was formed. A now larger planet with a large moon orbiting it in comparison to the moons of other inner planets.

But here is what has likely saved the Earth. Much of the crust of Earth and Thea was blown off, some returning to the planet to form our crust. While much remained in space and formed the moon. But the inner core of Thea sank to combine with the core of Earth Mark I to give us our current core. Ultimately, the core that is "super sized" in comparison to the other cores of the other rocky planets. This is only being realized fairly recently, as it is the key to something that had puzzled volcanologists and geologists for years.

For decades they had known of "Large low-shear-velocity provinces" (LLSVP), which are large molten extensions off of our main core, with no logical reason for being. Some of these were already known, like a large "magnetic dead zone" between Africa and South America. And by the 1980s scientists were already puzzling how big they were, and where they came from. But it is only in the last 3 years that they started to realize what they are seeing is the remains of the core of Thea. Broken up and resting on top of our own core. And we now know it is different, because this "foreign core" is even higher in iron content than our own core is.

Now, take an Earth sized planet and throw it at Mars about 4.5 bya, and it too would still have an active core and magnetosphere. And likely a thick atmosphere, surface water, and possibly (actually likely) to have some kind of life. But without that, at roughly the time that Thea and Earth collided the core of Mars was already cooling and the magnetosphere dying.

We have known for a long time that our planet was unusual, in that our core was far larger and more active than that of Mercury, Venus, or Mars. But that was the final piece of the puzzle that fully explained what was so unusual about it. But there are other things known about the two planets, that are even more puzzling. Like Thea was unusually high in iron, which is why the remnants on our own core are so strange magnetically even billions of years later. And our own core is unusually high in uranium, making it hotter than the core of any other rocky planet known.

We now know all these things, but as to why, we will have to ultimately discover where the Sun and our Solar System was "born". Because yet another mystery yet to be solved, is exactly what nebula our star was born in. After roughly 5 billion years we have long ago left it behind, so we do not know the composition of the elements that were used to make up our system. We only know about our own planet, and what we can observe from looking at the surface of the other planets (sometimes).

And many are now starting to connect these LLSVP with plate tectonics. This if proven through analysis can help explain why unlike all of the other planets we still have an active crust, and why it continues to move and shift to this day. The crust on all the other rocky planets solidified over 4 bya, and have remained relatively unchanged since then. Even mars was solidified by 4.5 bya, the volcanoes did puncture the crust, but the crust was already hard even by then so is actually older than the crust of the Earth. That is why geologists get so excited when they learn new things about the rocks of Mars. Or the Moon, as they at most only date to around 4.2 bya. But the rocks of Mars are much older, possibly 4.5 to 5 billion years. Between Thea and plate tectonics no rocks of that age still remain on our own planet.

 

[Mushroom]

Earth is a larger and warmer planet maybe the reason

Read my post above, that explains it all.

 

[Batcat]

What kind of Crack have you been smoking?. Are you reading your post before you post them?

I consider what Quasar 44 posted is quite possible assuming we don’t destroy our civilization in a nuclear war.

​

 

[Mushroom]

For a more "Reader's Digest" version of what I just talked about, here is a good video for those that have problems with understanding what was said without the moving images.



And that is not an attack, I actually have a lot of respect for Anton Petrov and frequently watch his videos. He does an excellent job in explaining in laymen's terms a lot of things that are just emerging in science or hard to explain without a deeper background. I suggest his channel as one to watch when possible.

And yes, I am aware that I use an older spelling of "Theia", as my thought and usage of this planet date to the earlier reports of the 1990's that finally explained the "impact hypothesis" more fully. That had long been believed to be the cause of our moon, but once with computers the theoretical orbit of that second planet and mass were confirmed, it was often reported as "Thea" not "Theia". The same with my references to "Earth Mark I" and "Earth Mark II". Also from a report on this I read about 25 years ago, and ones I find help make it easier to explain so I continue to use them.

Earth Mark I is before the impact, we are on Earth Mark II, after the impact. And interestingly, I know I am not alone because if you go to Wikipedia and search for "Thea" you get a disambiguity page that includes "Theia (planet)". This means that like me, a lot of those that read those reports a quarter of a century ago still remember them and the name reported at the time, not the new name that is more commonly used now.

I just wish I could remember who those older sources were now. It would be interesting to revisit them again and see what unanswered questions they had which have now been answered.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Mars will never be really "habitable", as the magnetosphere died billions of years ago, and the atmospheric density is almost negligible.

To give an idea, here on Earth it is 1.2 kg/m3. On Mars, it is 0.02 kg/m3. That is roughly the same as being outside at an altitude of around 22 miles. That is over four times the height of Mt. Everest, and most who climb that need supplemental oxygen. And without the magnetosphere and protection of an ozone layer, those on Mars would be getting around 40 times higher radiation levels than they do on Earth.

TO put this in perspective, even in developing nations where many spend most of the day outside, they get an average dose of under 1 rad per year. And humans can withstand about 200 rads per year before they develop lasting effects like cancer and genetic damage. On Mars, levels are in the range of 800-2000 rads per year.

So even if the atmosphere was somehow magically changed to an O-N one and temperatures raised, they would still need their space suits to deal with the low atmospheric density and radiation.

I should have ended my post with

/sarcasm