Tony Nance wrote:
Wow, talk about low hanging fruit.˙ But I suspect his rent was due.
An article I just ran across
https://bigthink.com/books/science-fiction-mars/
Titled
"Science fiction blinded us to the perils of settling Mars"
With an immediate by-line of:
"Science fiction romanticized Mars as a place of adventure and future
settlement; science tells a very different story."
In which the author and his main source tell us that Science Fiction
has Mars all wrong.
Even˙ the children's science books I read many decades ago made it clear that 99% of the science fiction versions of Mars were far too optimistic.
And even those books erred on the side of habitability.˙ There was some emphasis on the fact that equatorial temperatures could reach 80F, and
the atmospheric pressure given was well above the actual value.˙ The poisonous soil was of course not known.
In 1990 a writer in the British Interplanetary Society journal estimated that a decent atmosphere and hydrosphere could be produced with ten
thousand properly placed 10mt bombs.˙ I'm not entirely sure any longer
what he meant by decent.˙ A fifth of an atmosphere, at a guess.
If this is so, the atmosphere would indeed leak away into space, but on
a timescale that is very slow compared to the human one.˙ It would not
be necessary, as the article implies, to continue to bombard the planet
with nuclear weapons.˙ The atmosphere could be maintained with less
drastic but still enormously expensive means.˙ Which opens the way for a Leigh Brackett story about people dwelling on a cooling and drying post- technological Mars...
But getting the temperature up to the point that liquid water won't all condense in ice caps is also a difficult problem. The CO2 levels
required are very toxic.˙ We need a molecule which is strongly absorbing
in the IR, chemically neutral, and which does not disassociate into something damaging in the upper atmosphere when struck by UV radiation.
A gigatonne or so of that in the atmosphere, and all we have to worry
about is radioactive waste from the bombardment and˙ the poisonous soil.
All in all it would be easier to move Mars closer to the sun.˙ Then deal with the soil.˙ Might not be possible for a little while.
William Hyde
On 2/20/2026 3:53 PM, William Hyde wrote:
Tony Nance wrote:
Wow, talk about low hanging fruit.˙ But I suspect his rent was due.
An article I just ran across
https://bigthink.com/books/science-fiction-mars/
Titled
"Science fiction blinded us to the perils of settling Mars"
With an immediate by-line of:
"Science fiction romanticized Mars as a place of adventure and future
settlement; science tells a very different story."
In which the author and his main source tell us that Science Fiction
has Mars all wrong.
Even˙ the children's science books I read many decades ago made it
clear that 99% of the science fiction versions of Mars were far too
optimistic.
And even those books erred on the side of habitability.˙ There was
some emphasis on the fact that equatorial temperatures could reach
80F, and the atmospheric pressure given was well above the actual
value.˙ The poisonous soil was of course not known.
In 1990 a writer in the British Interplanetary Society journal
estimated that a decent atmosphere and hydrosphere could be produced
with ten thousand properly placed 10mt bombs.˙ I'm not entirely sure
any longer what he meant by decent.˙ A fifth of an atmosphere, at a
guess.
If this is so, the atmosphere would indeed leak away into space, but
on a timescale that is very slow compared to the human one.˙ It would
not be necessary, as the article implies, to continue to bombard the
planet with nuclear weapons.˙ The atmosphere could be maintained with
less drastic but still enormously expensive means.˙ Which opens the
way for a Leigh Brackett story about people dwelling on a cooling and
drying post- technological Mars...
But getting the temperature up to the point that liquid water won't
all condense in ice caps is also a difficult problem. The CO2 levels
required are very toxic.˙ We need a molecule which is strongly
absorbing in the IR, chemically neutral, and which does not
disassociate into something damaging in the upper atmosphere when
struck by UV radiation.
A gigatonne or so of that in the atmosphere, and all we have to worry
about is radioactive waste from the bombardment and˙ the poisonous soil.
All in all it would be easier to move Mars closer to the sun.˙ Then
deal with the soil.˙ Might not be possible for a little while.
William Hyde
KSR, Kim Stanley Robinson, wants to hit Mars with a comet or five to up
the water in the atmosphere.˙ That sounds much to me than a bunch of
nuclear bombs.
Lynn
On 2/24/2026 4:28 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
KSR, Kim Stanley Robinson, wants to hit Mars with a comet or five
to up the water in the atmosphere.˙ That sounds much to me than a
bunch of nuclear bombs.
Sigh. Just one missing word and the thought is gone.
On 2/20/2026 1:06 PM, Tony Nance wrote:
A lot of it isn't that "Science Fiction" got it wrong, it that the
An article I just ran across
https://bigthink.com/books/science-fiction-mars/
Titled
"Science fiction blinded us to the perils of settling Mars"
With an immediate by-line of:
"Science fiction romanticized Mars as a place of adventure and future
settlement; science tells a very different story."
In which the author and his main source tell us that Science Fiction
has Mars all wrong.
reality is just too boring for a good story.
On 2/20/2026 3:53 PM, William Hyde wrote:
Tony Nance wrote:
Wow, talk about low hanging fruit.˙ But I suspect his rent was due.
An article I just ran across
https://bigthink.com/books/science-fiction-mars/
Titled
"Science fiction blinded us to the perils of settling Mars"
With an immediate by-line of:
"Science fiction romanticized Mars as a place of adventure and future
settlement; science tells a very different story."
In which the author and his main source tell us that Science Fiction
has Mars all wrong.
Even˙ the children's science books I read many decades ago made it
clear that 99% of the science fiction versions of Mars were far too
optimistic.
And even those books erred on the side of habitability.˙ There was
some emphasis on the fact that equatorial temperatures could reach
80F, and the atmospheric pressure given was well above the actual
value.˙ The poisonous soil was of course not known.
In 1990 a writer in the British Interplanetary Society journal
estimated that a decent atmosphere and hydrosphere could be produced
with ten thousand properly placed 10mt bombs.˙ I'm not entirely sure
any longer what he meant by decent.˙ A fifth of an atmosphere, at a
guess.
If this is so, the atmosphere would indeed leak away into space, but
on a timescale that is very slow compared to the human one.˙ It would
not be necessary, as the article implies, to continue to bombard the
planet with nuclear weapons.˙ The atmosphere could be maintained with
less drastic but still enormously expensive means.˙ Which opens the
way for a Leigh Brackett story about people dwelling on a cooling and
drying post- technological Mars...
But getting the temperature up to the point that liquid water won't
all condense in ice caps is also a difficult problem. The CO2 levels
required are very toxic.˙ We need a molecule which is strongly
absorbing in the IR, chemically neutral, and which does not
disassociate into something damaging in the upper atmosphere when
struck by UV radiation.
A gigatonne or so of that in the atmosphere, and all we have to worry
about is radioactive waste from the bombardment and˙ the poisonous soil.
All in all it would be easier to move Mars closer to the sun.˙ Then
deal with the soil.˙ Might not be possible for a little while.
William Hyde
KSR, Kim Stanley Robinson, wants to hit Mars with a comet or five to up
the water in the atmosphere.˙ That sounds much to me than a bunch of
nuclear bombs.
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 17:10:17 -0500, William Hyde wrote:Lots of them, some war, some other. But the idea first came from Johannes Kepler,
Alas, the mass of the entire asteroid belt is not enough to
significantly increase the mass of Mars.
I can remember some SF stories suggesting that the Asteroid Belt is
the debris left over from a planet which was destroyed in an ancient
war.
On 21/02/2026 17.50, Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 17:10:17 -0500, William Hyde wrote:Lots of them, some war, some other. But the idea first came from
Alas, the mass of the entire asteroid belt is not enough to
significantly increase the mass of Mars.
I can remember some SF stories suggesting that the Asteroid Belt is
the debris left over from a planet which was destroyed in an ancient
war.
Johannes Kepler,
who, in 1596, said:
˙ "Inter Jovem et Martem Planetam Interposui"
On 2/27/26 3:20 PM, Michael F. Stemper wrote:like:
On 21/02/2026 17.50, Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 17:10:17 -0500, William Hyde wrote:Lots of them, some war, some other. But the idea first came from
Alas, the mass of the entire asteroid belt is not enough to
significantly increase the mass of Mars.
I can remember some SF stories suggesting that the Asteroid Belt is
the debris left over from a planet which was destroyed in an ancient
war.
Johannes Kepler,
who, in 1596, said:
? "Inter Jovem et Martem Planetam Interposui"
Ah, neat, Latin?I?m a little rusty, but that?s probably something
?In the meantime (or maybe interim), Jove and Mars planted posies
between them?
Which, given the historical origins/borrowing, is likely referring to an
episode involving Zeus and Ares in Greek mythology, maybe involving >someone?s wedding, or funeral.
| Sysop: | Jacob Catayoc |
|---|---|
| Location: | Pasay City, Metro Manila, Philippines |
| Users: | 5 |
| Nodes: | 4 (0 / 4) |
| Uptime: | 119:30:35 |
| Calls: | 125 |
| Calls today: | 125 |
| Files: | 489 |
| D/L today: |
859 files (365M bytes) |
| Messages: | 76,559 |
| Posted today: | 26 |