Any plans for a Mars mission must be scrapped now.

[alang1216]

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.

I think there are plenty of options on Venus: remove the CO2 gas, build floating cities, etc. Radiation would be an issue almost anywhere.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"We cannot help but come to the conclusion that the Moon by rights ought not to be there. The fact that it is, is one of the strokes of luck almost too good to accept… Small planets, such as Earth, with weak gravitational fields, might well lack satellites… … In general then, when a planet does have satellites, those satellites are much smaller than the planet itself. Therefore, even if the Earth has a satellite, there would be every reason to suspect… that at best it would be a tiny world, perhaps 30 miles in diameter. But that is not so. Earth not only has a satellite, but it is a giant satellite, 2160 miles in diameter. How is it then, that tiny Earth has one? Amazing." - Isaac Asimov

“The best possible explanation for the Moon is observational error – the Moon doesn’t exist. The Moon is bigger than it should be, apparently older than it should be and much lighter in mass than it should be. It occupies an unlikely orbit and is so extraordinary that all existing explanations for its presence are fraught with difficulties are none of them could be considered remotely watertight." - Irwin Shapiro, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics

 

[Stryder50]

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.

I believe this may tie in ...

There Are 2 Huge Mystery Blobs in Earth’s Mantle, and They're the Biggest Ones We've Seen So Far​

...

• Newly discovered blob-shaped structures are the biggest ones we’ve seen in Earth’s mantle so far.
• Located low in the mantle layer, the blobs influence the motions of the mantle and crust, and also fuel the making of mountains and volcanoes. One of the blobs is drifting up toward the crust.
• Researchers are investigating the blobs’ physical characteristics. They don’t yet know why—or when—such large structures have formed.

Two newly discovered blob-like structures deep in Earth’s mantle have sent scientists on a quest to understand their composition and influence on plate tectonics. One blob lies deep beneath the African continent, and the other is on the opposite side of the planet, beneath the Pacific Ocean.

Planetary scientists at Arizona State University (ASU) think that these structures—enmeshed about 400 to 1,600 miles below Earth’s crust—can influence both ongoing changes in the mantle and shifts in the deepest, core layers of the planet.
...

MSN

 

[Mushroom]

Newly discovered blob-shaped structures are the biggest ones we’ve seen in Earth’s mantle so far.

These are the same things.

They’re thought to be made of “thermochemical piles” of iron-rich material. LLSVPs are also known to influence volcanic and other thermal activity at the crust.

It must be remembered, that there were/are many papers going on at the same time, looking at them from various angles at the same time. Papers like these normally take 3-5 years each to complete, and each will be looking at them from their own unique angles as they apply to their own science specialty.

The earliest one is the one I quoted, which was mostly taken from the angle of "where did they come from"?, by astrophysicists. And looking at the mass, locations, density, and the like they came to the conclusion they were remnants of Thea (Theia). But if you remember, I also commented that others were looking into how they might also affect plate tectonics. And this seems to be the first paper to be published that has looked at LLSVP from the viewpoint of a geologist.

And in the brief you linked, it states the same thing I stated from earlier research into the source. So we have two different papers, and many of the facts are the same but they are looking into different aspects of LLSVP. I am also waiting, because these might also explain why there are some "hot spots" on the surface, like Yellowstone, Hawaii, and more. Where volcanic plumes constantly bore through the crust, creating the effect of a volcano "moving", when in reality it is stationary and the crust is moving above it.

Geology is probably my first love when it comes to science, but astronomy and the like comes in a close second. And I was fascinated when this started to come out (as I was when the "Theia Hypotheses" was first revealed around 25 years ago) because it is a simple explanation, and makes a lot of sense.

But one aspect of that article I do take exception to, the claim it is "Newly Discovered". LLSVPs have been known for around 30 years now, but it has taken a lot of time to fully map and explore what they actually are. Because the only way to really "see" them is to study the interactions of earthquake waves, the scientists have had to wait for a great many earthquakes to fully map out the size and area of them. It is not like they can be active in the search, all they can do is wait for such a quake, then see what else in unveils below the surface.

 

[Stryder50]

Article I linked likely has a bit of hyperbole in it.

 

[Mushroom]

Article I linked likely has a bit of hyperbole in it.

Of course, it was an MSN report of an article in Popular Mechanics. Essentially a dumbed-down report of a dumbed down report.

But I am sure that most that read it had never heard of LLSVP before, so it had to cover a lot of things in a short article. To be honest, I skimmed a lot of it as it was going back over material I was already familiar with.

 

[Stryder50]

Of course, it was an MSN report of an article in Popular Mechanics. Essentially a dumbed-down report of a dumbed down report.

But I am sure that most that read it had never heard of LLSVP before, so it had to cover a lot of things in a short article. To be honest, I skimmed a lot of it as it was going back over material I was already familiar with.

Right!

"You" might have been, but the larger and general public isn't.

Those are the voters and taxpayers we'd need to appeal to, to get a vote/consensus of support for extra-Terra~beyond Earth explorations and settlements.

 

[Mushroom]

"You" might have been, but the larger and general public isn't.

To be honest, it always surprises me how little most people know about a great many things. The number I talk to or interact with online that appear to have learned nothing once they graduated high school is staggering. I am one of those that is always reading up on new discoveries, and as much as I can about history.

 

[jwoodie]

To be honest, it always surprises me how little most people know about a great many things. The number I talk to or interact with online that appear to have learned nothing once they graduated high school is staggering. I am one of those that is always reading up on new discoveries, and as much as I can about history.

Your arrogance is a bit off putting, and your subsequent posts have little to do with the OP. Was that by design?

 

[Mushroom]

Your arrogance is a bit off putting, and your subsequent posts have little to do with the OP. Was that by design?

Wow, random attack without understanding anything.

Feel free to read back to what the actual topic is. And what led to the post you are attacking.

Yes, we can not inhabit Mars. The atmosphere is too thin, and it lacks a magnetosphere to protect any on the surface from solar radiation.

The reason why it is inhabitable is that the core cooled and solidified billions of years ago. Yet, Earth is still habitable because we have an exceptionally large core, thanks to a collision between Earth and Thea (Theia) about 4.5 billion years ago. And it is believed now that LLSVP is part of the core from Thea, and why our core will likely not cool until after the planet is consumed by a Red Giant Sun.

So yes, my post is very much about the OP. And why Mars will never be inhabited, ever.

But please, feel free to prove to me how I am incorrect. Everything I have stated in here as well as just stated is accepted fact. Care to prove how it is wrong?

Or do you just pop in to random threads and hurl insults?

 

[BothWings]

Let's let the Russians do it first and see how they do!

 

[westwall]

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.

Atmosphere is far too dense.

 

[22lcidw]

Wow, random attack without understanding anything.

Feel free to read back to what the actual topic is. And what led to the post you are attacking.

Yes, we can not inhabit Mars. The atmosphere is too thin, and it lacks a magnetosphere to protect any on the surface from solar radiation.

The reason why it is inhabitable is that the core cooled and solidified billions of years ago. Yet, Earth is still habitable because we have an exceptionally large core, thanks to a collision between Earth and Thea (Theia) about 4.5 billion years ago. And it is believed now that LLSVP is part of the core from Thea, and why our core will likely not cool until after the planet is consumed by a Red Giant Sun.

So yes, my post is very much about the OP. And why Mars will never be inhabited, ever.

But please, feel free to prove to me how I am incorrect. Everything I have stated in here as well as just stated is accepted fact. Care to prove how it is wrong?

Or do you just pop in to random threads and hurl insults?

It is costing over 4 billion dollars just to bring the NASA Space Launch System rocket to the launch pad with just a capsule. We are not going to Mars at these prices. The good news in this woke nation is that we have equity where all of us is included in a pure white elephant government project.

 

[Batcat]

Wow, random attack without understanding anything.

Feel free to read back to what the actual topic is. And what led to the post you are attacking.

Yes, we can not inhabit Mars. The atmosphere is too thin, and it lacks a magnetosphere to protect any on the surface from solar radiation.

The reason why it is inhabitable is that the core cooled and solidified billions of years ago. Yet, Earth is still habitable because we have an exceptionally large core, thanks to a collision between Earth and Thea (Theia) about 4.5 billion years ago. And it is believed now that LLSVP is part of the core from Thea, and why our core will likely not cool until after the planet is consumed by a Red Giant Sun.

So yes, my post is very much about the OP. And why Mars will never be inhabited, ever.

But please, feel free to prove to me how I am incorrect. Everything I have stated in here as well as just stated is accepted fact. Care to prove how it is wrong?

Or do you just pop in to random threads and hurl insults?

Your thinking is limiting the possibility of living on Mars to the surface. Living underground is also a choice.

These lava tubes could be the safest place for explorers to live on Mars

The Martian surface is a radiation hot zone. But these lava tubes might offer safety.

www.livescience.com

 

[alang1216]

Atmosphere is far too dense.

Today yes, tomorrow, maybe not. Most of it is CO2. It is possible we can create a plant that can float in the atmosphere and use the Sun to break up the CO2 into carbon to grow and reproduce and O2. In 100 years we might have an Earth-like atmosphere with a layer of organic matter on the surface.

 

[westwall]

Today yes, tomorrow, maybe not. Most of it is CO2. It is possible we can create a plant that can float in the atmosphere and use the Sun to break up the CO2 into carbon to grow and reproduce and O2. In 100 years we might have an Earth-like atmosphere with a layer of organic matter on the surface.

Ummmmm, nope. It would take tens of thousands of years. And that is with LOTS of machines.

 

[alang1216]

Ummmmm, nope. It would take tens of thousands of years. And that is with LOTS of machines.

Zero machines. Assuming we could manufacture a microbial plant that could live and reproduce, say once a day (microbe generations are measured in hours) in the atmosphere of Venus, the CO2 atmosphere would easily be consumed in tens of years, not tens of thousands. There would be no predators, the real danger is having the plant go extinct and not evolve.

 

[Vastator]

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?"

Because it absorbed the nickel-iron core of the planet that collided with earth eons ago giving earth its moon, and magnetosphere.

 

[westwall]

Zero machines. Assuming we could manufacture a microbial plant that could live and reproduce, say once a day (microbe generations are measured in hours) in the atmosphere of Venus, the CO2 atmosphere would easily be consumed in tens of years, not tens of thousands. There would be no predators, the real danger is having the plant go extinct and not evolve.

It took billions of years for the microbes on Earth to create enough oxygen for our atmosphere to support life.

You might want to take a science class or two.

 

[jbrownson0831]

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

Well, Democrats, not humans.