Huge Glacier the Size of California and Texas Combined Found on Mars

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Another_Nut

So I am wrong, but can't counter anything I said. Thanks for sharing.

It has been countered

And by people smarter and more up to date than us both

Just because you wont read, listen to , or accept it doesnt make it vanish.

It's you who keeps his head in the sand for fear of being wrong and admitting your mistakes

Good day

a reply to: Another_Nut

So again you counter nothing. Making a claim doesn't make it true.

Atmosphere - Magnetosphere = Radiation problem

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Ok, without the hard numbers to work with, I can't give absolute figures, but here's a few points for consideration.
Solar radiation, as with all radiation, decreases according to the inverse square ratio. The addition of an atmosphere which is 100× thicker than the current Martian atmosphere would also help to absorb the radiation much more effectively. Especially when the hydrogen content of the atmosphere is greatly increased (water vapor in sufficient quantities for condensation and precipitation). If the terraforming techniques can also produce a high-altitude ozone layer this will also help to abate the UV irradiation at surface levels.
While a magnetosphere would certainly be the preferable option, the surface can still be livable without it.
Yes, the exposure levels will certainly be higher, but I believe they will be within tolerable levels. The polar flights mentioned earlier for got two important details when discussing the 12% annual exposure level. One, it was a high-altitude flight, which necessarily means less atmosphere between the plane and the sun to aid in radiation absorption.
Two, the magnetosphere funnels high-energy particles towards the poles, so not only are those the points of weakest shielding but the field line are acting like a conveyor to those areas. This would naturally increase the local radiation in these regions. This is why we get auroras. It's not simply that these are the weakest parts of the field.
The highest annual maximum exposure level for anyone, regardless of occupation, is 5000 mREM per year. I have worked around radioactive sources for a decade, and my lifetime exposure level isn't even half of that. Of course, it is lower for children and pregnant women, but it took 7 years for me to exceed even that exposure limit.
The biggest threats from radiation on the Martian surface today are from UV and Cosmic Rays. Both of which can be radically decreased by atmospheric engineering. In our own atmosphere, cosmic rays are attenuated when they strike the upper atmosphere. They don't reach the surface. What we see at the surface when we detect them is the cascade of particles resulting from it colliding with atoms in the atmosphere. The magnetosphere is not strong enough to deflect to funnel cosmic rays in any significant way.
As for the UV, as I mentioned earlier, an ozone layer similar to that of this planet would be very effective in absorbing the bulk of that. Our primary concern from solar sources would be a CME (Coronal Mass Ejection). This is what causes Solar Storms here on Earth, and are for the most part are what the magnetosphere is really protecting us from. But we have had electronics both in orbit and on the surface of Mars for decades. Electronics are especially sensitive to the massive amounts of charged particles released in a CME, but we have yet to lose any to one. Also, because a CME does not travel at light speed, we would have plenty of advanced warning to shelter if there was one headed for Mars. Even on Earth, we know hours to days in advance before one hits us.
So, yes, there would certainly be an increased exposure hazard but it would not be significant enough to preclude eventual surface habitation.

originally posted by: pfishy
While a magnetosphere would certainly be the preferable option, the surface can still be livable without it.
Yes, the exposure levels will certainly be higher, but I believe they will be within tolerable levels. The polar flights mentioned earlier for got two important details when discussing the 12% annual exposure level. One, it was a high-altitude flight, which necessarily means less atmosphere between the plane and the sun to aid in radiation absorption.
Two, the magnetosphere funnels high-energy particles towards the poles, so not only are those the points of weakest shielding but the field line are acting like a conveyor to those areas.

So, yes, there would certainly be an increased exposure hazard but it would not be significant enough to preclude eventual surface habitation.

So you offer no numbers just opinions. It being high altitude was accounted for, so you are wrong it was not. If the magnetosphere is funneling particles it means it's blocking them. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

You can't say the magnetosphere is not blocking much, and then say that flight was so bad because the magnetosphere is blocking so much.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

That's not what I said. I said it blocks charged particles from the sun rather well (CME's, regular solar winds) It does not block Cosmic Rays or UV. And my point about the altitude of the polar flight path results was that there was less atmosphere at the high altitude flown. This means that not only was it less effective at shielding the planes from normal solar radiation than it would have been on the ground, but it is also effectively in a magnetic funnel dumping a higher amount of charged particles than would be there if there were no magnetosphere at all.
And you are absolutely correct, I did not offer any math to back up my post. So, if you want to consider it merely opinion, you are certainly welcome to. As are your posts, as I have yet to see your equations either. But I have pretty extensive training in radiation safety and shielding methodology. So while you are certainly welcome to consider what I say as merely opinion, it is not based upon YouTube research and doom porn website of dubious credibility. I'm not saying that yours are either. But I just wanted you to know that I am not a layman making wild guesses based on limited or inaccurate information.

Edit: To by accurate, the magnetosphere does not block any photons at any wavelength. If that were possible, gamma and x-ray shielding for practical applications would be a very simple and easy process. And we all know it's not the case.

Nice... But, I'd be more concerned about the Manhattan-sized glaciers that are toppling into the ocean as a direct result of global warming.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: pfishy
While a magnetosphere would certainly be the preferable option, the surface can still be livable without it.
Yes, the exposure levels will certainly be higher, but I believe they will be within tolerable levels. The polar flights mentioned earlier for got two important details when discussing the 12% annual exposure level. One, it was a high-altitude flight, which necessarily means less atmosphere between the plane and the sun to aid in radiation absorption.
Two, the magnetosphere funnels high-energy particles towards the poles, so not only are those the points of weakest shielding but the field line are acting like a conveyor to those areas.

So, yes, there would certainly be an increased exposure hazard but it would not be significant enough to preclude eventual surface habitation.

So you offer no numbers just opinions. It being high altitude was accounted for, so you are wrong it was not. If the magnetosphere is funneling particles it means it's blocking them. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

You can't say the magnetosphere is not blocking much, and then say that flight was so bad because the magnetosphere is blocking so much.

When talking about "radiation" it would be helpful to be more specific.

UV is as different from Gamma Rays and Cosmic Rays as Alpha particles are different from Beta Particles or protons.

All are "radiation".

A magnetic field only effects some of them.

An atmosphere only effects some of them.

Which form of radiation are you talking about?

originally posted by: TheInhumanCentipede
Nice... But, I'd be more concerned about the Manhattan-sized glaciers that are toppling into the ocean as a direct result of global warming.

If we could move the stuff causing that to Mars we could solve two problems on two planets.

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: pfishy
While a magnetosphere would certainly be the preferable option, the surface can still be livable without it.
Yes, the exposure levels will certainly be higher, but I believe they will be within tolerable levels. The polar flights mentioned earlier for got two important details when discussing the 12% annual exposure level. One, it was a high-altitude flight, which necessarily means less atmosphere between the plane and the sun to aid in radiation absorption.
Two, the magnetosphere funnels high-energy particles towards the poles, so not only are those the points of weakest shielding but the field line are acting like a conveyor to those areas.

So, yes, there would certainly be an increased exposure hazard but it would not be significant enough to preclude eventual surface habitation.

So you offer no numbers just opinions. It being high altitude was accounted for, so you are wrong it was not. If the magnetosphere is funneling particles it means it's blocking them. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

You can't say the magnetosphere is not blocking much, and then say that flight was so bad because the magnetosphere is blocking so much.

When talking about "radiation" it would be helpful to be more specific.

UV is as different from Gamma Rays and Cosmic Rays as Alpha particles are different from Beta Particles or protons.

All are "radiation".

A magnetic field only effects some of them.

An atmosphere only effects some of them.

Which form of radiation are you talking about?

I don't need to specify because I am talking about all forms of radiation, which means all forms need to be negated. Mars' lower gravity would also make it harder to have as thick an atmosphere, and harder to prevent it from being stripped. Thinner atmosphere also means less radiation absorbed. (this is my assumption, but logically it seems sound to me)

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

You're absolutely correct that the lower gravity would make establishing an Earth-like atmospheric pressure more difficult. Though not impossible. Most likely, we would have to use electric furnaces to free trapped carbon from docks and soils, in addition to what's available in CO2 ices. We would also have to melt the water ice. The atmosphere would end up being noticeably higher in altitude than Earth's owing to the need to establish the extra pressure, and it would obviously be stripped away at the highest layers quicker. But it's not unachievable. It would take maintenance to keep it hospitable to life, however. Frequent replenishing of gasses lost to space. I say frequent in a geological sense, maybe a large gaseous emission effort every 10 to 20 generations or so.
I'll happily admit that atmospheric science is not within my area of expertise, so, like your previous post, this is just my opinion. But having looked into several proposed methods of Martian terraforming, this seems to be a reasonable consensus between most of them.
Also, the thicker (as in altitude) atmosphere should still be capable of the radiation shielding I mentioned earlier.

a reply to: JadeStar

To expand on the different types of radiation you mentioned, I thought I might offer definitions of each.
Alpha and Beta, as well as protons, are particle radiation. Meaning that they consist of one or more subatomic particles.
Alpha: this is essentially a Helium nucleus (2 protons, 2 neutrons) without the accompanying electron shell.
Beta: this is a high-energy electron or positron
Proton: a subatomic particle found in atomic nuclei

UV, X-ray and Gamma are all photonic radiation, meaning they are all forms of light. All 3 have frequency ranges above that of visible light.
UV (Ultraviolet): the frequency range immediately above the visible spectrum, with wavelengths from 400nm to 100nm.
X-ray: the frequency range above UV, with wavelengths from 10nm to 0.01nm.
Gamma: the frequency range above X-ray, and the highest currently known frequency range for photons, with wavelengths from 0.01nm to as small as 1pm or higher.
There is some overlap in these three spectrums, so these wavelengths are a general definition. Gamma and X-Ray in particular overlap, but are defined more clearly by emission source. X-rays are emitting by electron excitation, whereas Gamma is generally emitted by atomic nuclei during a decay event. There are also some astronomical events, such as supernovae, that can cause gamma emission from electron excitation, as well as electron-positron annihilation.

a reply to: pfishy

Here is to hoping I am wrong .. although I will never see it, CURSES.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: pfishy

Here is to hoping I am wrong .. although I will never see it, CURSES.

You may be able to do just that assuming you make it another 20 -30 years

Although some don't like life extension. Count me in though

One day in the distant future we could both be lounging on a canal of Mars sipping the newest drink and talking about this thread

Here is to hope

originally posted by: Another_Nut

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: pfishy

Here is to hoping I am wrong .. although I will never see it, CURSES.

You may be able to do just that assuming you make it another 20 -30 years

Although some don't like life extension. Count me in though

One day in the distant future we could both be lounging on a canal of Mars sipping the newest drink and talking about this thread

Here is to hope

I should last another 50 or so, I try to be healthy. Sign me up for another 1,000 if you can.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Yeah. That's the problem with being alive right now. We're all still stuck on this rock. Star Trek was such a tease.

a reply to: pfishy

Yep, it makes me sad. My children may leave this rock I never will.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: pfishy
While a magnetosphere would certainly be the preferable option, the surface can still be livable without it.
Yes, the exposure levels will certainly be higher, but I believe they will be within tolerable levels. The polar flights mentioned earlier for got two important details when discussing the 12% annual exposure level. One, it was a high-altitude flight, which necessarily means less atmosphere between the plane and the sun to aid in radiation absorption.
Two, the magnetosphere funnels high-energy particles towards the poles, so not only are those the points of weakest shielding but the field line are acting like a conveyor to those areas.

So, yes, there would certainly be an increased exposure hazard but it would not be significant enough to preclude eventual surface habitation.

So you offer no numbers just opinions. It being high altitude was accounted for, so you are wrong it was not. If the magnetosphere is funneling particles it means it's blocking them. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

You can't say the magnetosphere is not blocking much, and then say that flight was so bad because the magnetosphere is blocking so much.

When talking about "radiation" it would be helpful to be more specific.

UV is as different from Gamma Rays and Cosmic Rays as Alpha particles are different from Beta Particles or protons.

All are "radiation".

A magnetic field only effects some of them.

An atmosphere only effects some of them.

Which form of radiation are you talking about?

I don't need to specify because I am talking about all forms of radiation, which means all forms need to be negated. Mars' lower gravity would also make it harder to have as thick an atmosphere, and harder to prevent it from being stripped. Thinner atmosphere also means less radiation absorbed. (this is my assumption, but logically it seems sound to me)

Mars's size would not prevent it from having or retaining a thick atmosphere. It had one at one time in its past.

Titan is much smaller than Mars and it has a thick atmosphere (albeit very different from the Earthlike one were talking about).

It should be noted that a body about half of Mars size (depending on composition) is the smallest a planet or moon can be to retain an earthlike nitrogen+oxygen atmosphere.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: pfishy

Yep, it makes me sad. My children may leave this rock I never will.

If your children are my age (20) or younger then there is a good chance they'll have opportunities to do so.

If you were to strike it rich you could go now with the Russians or in the near future via space tourism companies.

originally posted by: pfishy
a reply to: JadeStar

To expand on the different types of radiation you mentioned, I thought I might offer definitions of each.
Alpha and Beta, as well as protons, are particle radiation. Meaning that they consist of one or more subatomic particles.
Alpha: this is essentially a Helium nucleus (2 protons, 2 neutrons) without the accompanying electron shell.
Beta: this is a high-energy electron or positron
Proton: a subatomic particle found in atomic nuclei

UV, X-ray and Gamma are all photonic radiation, meaning they are all forms of light. All 3 have frequency ranges above that of visible light.
UV (Ultraviolet): the frequency range immediately above the visible spectrum, with wavelengths from 400nm to 100nm.
X-ray: the frequency range above UV, with wavelengths from 10nm to 0.01nm.
Gamma: the frequency range above X-ray, and the highest currently known frequency range for photons, with wavelengths from 0.01nm to as small as 1pm or higher.
There is some overlap in these three spectrums, so these wavelengths are a general definition. Gamma and X-Ray in particular overlap, but are defined more clearly by emission source. X-rays are emitting by electron excitation, whereas Gamma is generally emitted by atomic nuclei during a decay event. There are also some astronomical events, such as supernovae, that can cause gamma emission from electron excitation, as well as electron-positron annihilation.

Exactly. And a thick atmosphere would mitigate against most of those being a danger.

Most but not all. Without a magnetic field beta particles and protons would be more of a hazard even in a terraformed Mars than they are on earth.

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: pfishy

Yep, it makes me sad. My children may leave this rock I never will.

If your children are my age (20) or younger then there is a good chance they'll have opportunities to do so.

If you were to strike it rich you could go now with the Russians or in the near future via space tourism companies.

They are not conceived yet. So we will go with younger than you