posted July 30, 1999 09:03            

Ok, Gordon asked, EnochF asked, so i might just as well explain.
Neutron radiation, but itself is no, ofcourse, alpha radiation. I was refering to a deutritium/tritium fusion cell.
Proton and neutron ARE two states of a particle called neuclon, which is comprised by quarks. This may be a rarily-known fact, but it IS a fact in the end.
The proton is the original state of the neuclon: when an electron is forced to merge with a proton it created a neutron.

Why does a deutritium/tritium cell creates mass amount of alpha radiation?
A pure fusion cell fusion hydrogen to helium, and by the process convert 1/270 portion of the matter mass to pure energy.
4 hydrogen atoms, 4 proton and 4 electron are compressed into one helium: 2 proton, 2 neutron and 2 electron. 2 electros are assimilted into the neuclos and convert the protons to neutrons.
Notice, if a neutron can be thought as a neuclaon+electro then:
4 neucleon + 4 electron = 4 neuclon + 4 electron.
Radiation is comprimsed by energy which is lost due to ineffinecy. The process itself is 100% perfect, but some energy is lost in alpha, beta and gamma radiation. This is how our sun works. This fusion reacton requires an internel heat of atleast 50 million C, and at optimum of 200 million C.

Fusion of deutritium/tritium mix. Those mix are found in modern fusion reactors, a mix of 50%/50% each.
A modern fusio reactor is a half-a-meter radius cylnider made of high-tempure polymers and surround by high-power elctro-magnets.
Those magnets create a pressure by "defelcting" ( as elctro-magnets can repel just as they pull ) in a pressure which, in simple words, can lift off the ground 10,000 tons.
The pressured hydrogen ions are heated up to the point of 4-5 million degrees, were the fusion process takes place. Since the atomic links of deutrium and tritium are much weaker then a hydrogen, the fusion process can be done in a much lowered tempture.

one atom of deutrium and one of tritium are comprimised of a total of: 2 proton, 3 neutron and 2 electrons. With the extra neutron expled, they can convert to helium.
However: what can 4 neutrons create? 4 neutrons are 4 neuclons with 4 electrons. When two electros leave the neuclos, it's a helium atom. 2 proton, 2 neutrons and 2 electrons outside. alpha radiation.

In order to perevent radiation, and gain energy, those lose neutrons are used, by friction to generate energy.
Since the energy cost to maintian the mangtic field is so huge, and the energy created inside the cell is only suffiecnt to sustain the process, the only way to make fusion reacton energy effiecent is to use the energy from the neutrons, which will heat up ( and then be used in a steam-combine ) are the helium created earlier in the fusion process, cooled to liqued helium and stored around the cell to cool it further.
This matter will be heated by the neutrons.

Currently, the only reason why modern fusion reactons don't work is the lack of a more "neutron-trasnspernt" matter for the cylnider cell. Too many hit the cell and heat it up to critical levels. Reaserch into a better polimer is under-way and due to end in 15-20 years. And then, finally, we would have a working fusion cell.

world popultion: for dino

First off, the UN figures are true. The world doesn't really have x-files: the UN isn't lying to anyone. Those figures are for real.

For the last 200 years, number of babies per couple is dropping steadily, in a straight line. Think off Y=10-x. As time passes by, prosperity is being kicked down. This arrow is going down, with no intterptuon, at every place at the world, without one exception.
The discovery of anti-biotic medicine in the 1950 jumped life-longlivty into an astronomical high value. In 1940, life period was around 40. Today it's around 75. When medicne jumped up so high, so fast, growth jumped with it: people that should have died are still kicking with andrenalin.
However, the rate in which medicne jumped up is slacking now, and the toll of the lower birth-right is again in place.
Like I said, germany allready has a -0.9% growth rate, and so those several other countries.

Let's think about the USA. Every body knows, the US had 2.4 childern per couple. There is even an american TV comdey show called 2.4 childern.
BUT, if a couple has 2.4 children and they dies, how many childern are profit?
0.4. 2.4 -2 is 0.4
Now, let's think that the number was 1.9, not 2.4. Not very far from one antoher.
If the USA had 1.9, then all the medicne in the world won't help: in the end, the popultion would decresse.

posted July 30, 1999 18:25            

You are right, Harel, a Fusion reaction puts out all sorts of god-awful radiation, Alpha, Beta, Gamma, you name it. I'd misunderstood and thought you were trying to say that Beta-decay could create Alpha-particles.

I'm sure you know everything I am about to say, Harel, I just want to know how this fits with a single particle called a "nucleon" with multiple states... And I am going to have to pull out a textbook because it's been years since I studied Beta decay, or QCD.

Beta decay is the name for any reaction going between protons and neutrons, which of neccessity also include Electrons and Positrons, because charge must be conserved. The possible reactions are:

1) p+ + e- -> n0
2) n0 -> p+ + e-
3) n0 + e+ -> n0

There is also a neutrino in cases 1, and an anti-neutrino in cases 2 and 3. By e+ I mean a positron, as I don't know the code for an e with a bar over it.

Now, this could be interpreted as one particle which can flip between a + and 0 state with emmission or absorbtion of other particles. However, it's not a particle to begin with, per se, as they're both made up of quarks.

The proton is made of 3 quarks, Up, Up, and Down, and the neutron is made of 3 quarks, Up, Down, and Down. Up quarks have +2/3 change, Down quarks have -1/3 charge, so the proton (like everybody knows) has +1 charge, and the neutron is electrically neutral. So why are these the same particle? An interaction with a lepton (in particular, an electron or positron) will convert one to the other, but that's true of lots of things. But the electron is NOT "inside" the neutron... When a proton absorbs an electron and becomes a neutron, that up quark didn't just decide to hang out with the electron... They combined to become a Down quark, which is a fundamental particle and as such has NO constituent particles (Unless something has changed while I wasn't looking. Quarks are still fundamental particles, right?) Is your argument that a neutron is an alternate form of the proton based upon the fact that the proton is stable and the neutron isn't? Are sigma and lambda particles then also different forms of a proton? After all, if a proton absorbs a pion, it can become either one of those. Is a meson so different from a lepton? Neither is a virtual particle, they're both real. Leptons are fundamental, true, and mesons are made out of quarks, but so? Proton absorbs lepton to become neutron, proton absorbs meson to become lambda... Either way, one quark changes (lambda is Up Down Strange, as I'm sure you know) , and the product isn't stable. So are ALL baryons actually just different states of the proton? I fail to see why. You may just be repeating what you have been taught, which is a different way of looking at particle Physics. The argument may be more philosophical than physical (does it really matter whether they're the same particle anyways? They act the same regardless) but I don't understand how considering a "Nucleon" to be anything other than the name you give to the particles that exist in an atomic nucleus. If you had an atomic nucleus with Lambdas instead of neutrons, then darn it, those Lambdas would be nucleons! Of course, such nuclei would last approximately 2.6 * 10^-10 seconds, but who's counting?

I promise promise promise that even if you do reply again, I won't respond unless it has something to do with Civ3, which I realize this absolutely did not and I apologize to everyone who has to read it.

posted July 30, 1999 20:17            

Ok I believe it's time to point something out to you girls/guys : if this is not going to be the thread with most replies, it is certainly going to be the longest and toughest one to read. It will be the most interesting one scientifically speaking BUT will aslo be the thread with the least valuable ideas for the upcoming civIII.

We will all understand how to build super-duper space engines, but we will not know how to incorporate it into the game.

So, please reread what you have written and give some opinions on how to get it into the game.

posted August 01, 1999 12:05            

New victory condition : colonizing and terraforming Mars. Therefore a second map is needed off course.

Colonizing is simple. You must have a certain amount of people on Mars. Wonders like the Space Elevator, buildings like Aerospace Complex or units like Space Transport could increase emigration to Mars.

Terraforming will take a bit longer.
1) You need to bring oxygen into the Mars atmosphere. This could be simulated by collecting 200 oxygen points.
Every forest produces 1 oxygen per turn.
2) You need to decrease the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Haven't got an idea how to do that. I am no scientist.
3) You need to warm Mars by 50 degrees. This is necessary to make Mars warm enough for life and also to make ice fluid.
This could be simulated by collecting 500 warmth points.
Every population unit produces 1 warmth point per turn.
*) There should be several city(on Mars called base) improvements speeding up the terraformation. That means Mars should have different unit and building types as earth.

posted August 01, 1999 15:24            

Not a single person here can say he didn't learn nothing: Don don post on nuclear engines told me some new things I didn't know, and who knows, maybe even I added a little to your information bank. Hell, maybe even EnochF learned something! ( I doubt it, thought ).

I don't think we should be critized and hushed. There are many long, unrelated debates over this forums: Maniac can tell you about our debates on the social modifactor channel, on the civilazation thread had so many arguments I have no idea what the sides are now, not to mention who is "winning".
We learn something here: this is community of people. We might be here to make a better civ III: but civilazation is, in the end, about us. We might as well learned something for ourself, and on ourselfs.

Besides, I think I told my opinion on BR request ( ways to implamnt the new ideas, like stirrup gives +1... ). If we are reduced to giving numbers and strict way in the civ II, nothing is going to change.

posted August 01, 1999 15:45            

1( Instead of using the ctp version of orbital maps, have a seperate map that you switch to, and that uses orbits for the various orbital colonies and space units.

Advantages: More realistic, less clutter on the regular map.

Disadvantages: Difficult to tell what's going on in space, more clutter on the space map.

2)I like the idea of using various maps for all the different planets.

Advantages: More room to grow, more difficult late-game conquering strategies, more interesting games.

Disadvantages: Takes up more memory space, difficulty of switching between maps.

posted August 01, 1999 16:27            

BTW, one of your interests is science. Don't you know a way to get rid of that nasty CO2?

posted August 02, 1999 17:29            

I never ment that the discussions are worthless for civIII, I said the way you discuss is not contributing to its fullest extend.
Add to what you write a proposal so that what you explained can actually be used in civIII. As you said yourself, I cannot (and will not) add physics theories to the summary. So without a clear proposal your discussions will be lost in space.

posted August 03, 1999 12:48            

Also, I once read somewhere that the best place for human settlements would actually be in near earth orbit, where it would be protected from radiation by Earth's magnetic field.

It would be cool if you could launch orbital cities like those but at a very, very high cost from earth (it's very expensive to launch anything from Earth because of it's gravitaion). If you wanted cheaper orbital cities you'd have to build mines on the Moon, or maybe on Mars.

This way the race to colonize space could be fleshed out a little bit, starting with small extra-terrestrial mines and orbital manufacturing plants, which later became huge cities in the sky.

posted August 03, 1999 15:22            

The problem with this path to victory is that... well, what happens when two competing civs are on Mars, terraforming it? They're not really competing, are they? How do we decide who just terraformed Mars? Was it the civ that completed the last "point" of atmosphere, or the civ that planted the most forests, or the civ with the most cities on Mars?

posted August 03, 1999 15:50            

Maybe that's why I dislike the CTP alien life victory ending -- not enough feeling of having accomplished something which fundamentally and irreversibly alters the world. Shrug.

posted August 03, 1999 16:19            

CO2 not really a problem!!!!!!???
95% of the atmosphere is CO2. The goal of terraformation is to make it possible to breathe without dieing.

Good tree idea! A forest breaks down one CO2 point each turn and produces one oxygen point.

You're right the atmosphere has to become thicker. I forgot that in my original post.
So now there are 4 necessities for a successful terraformation.

1) collect 200 oxygen points to simulate 20% oxygen in the atmosphere.
2) collect 500 warmth points to simulate the raise of temperature by 50 degrees.
3) destroy 500( I think this number is too much cause the atmosphere is thinner so there is not that much CO2, that is, compared to earth's atmosphere) or 100 CO2 points.
4) raise the tickness of the atmosphere to 600? hPa. I thought that was the pressure needed for oxygen to get in the blood.
Means collecting an additional ?(can somebody tell me thickness of the Mars atmosphere in hPa?) atmosphere points.

BTW, perhaps the terraformation processes of Venus and Mars could be the same. They both suffer an abundance of CO2.

EnochF :

Good idea for collecting atmosphere points!

Really good question about how is decided who wins.
Perhaps it should depend on two factors.
1) Who has the largest population?
2) Who has done the biggest job for terraforming Mars? = who has collected the most points?

Point 2 makes sure the player wants to get on Mars as quickly as possible to have a headstart on other competitors.
Point 1 is automatically needed cause humans produce warmth, adding warmt points.
Bases are also automatically needed if there are certain city/base improvements speeding up the terraformation process. That way you want as much bases as possible.

Perhaps this could lead to wars on Mars...

Don't worry. I still want the possibility to build a spaceship to go to AC, but it should be more futuristic than the Apollo Program.

posted August 03, 1999 16:52            

I even doubt if I would include having a certain population necessary for winning.
You'll need them anyway for warmth and bases.

Another reason for getting a part of your population to Mars is to avoid population pressure on earth.
Let me explain how I want to simulate population pressure. I already have explained it on the SE/Government v2.1 thread but I doubt people are reading it.

Just as in in CivX I want buildings that determine your population limit.
These are my proposals.
8 : Aquaduct
12 : Sewer System
20 : Apartment Block
30 : Arcology

I want cities to grow further beyond the 'pop limit' even if they don't have eg an aquaduct.
As a drawback the people beyond the pop limit would be all Revolutionaries = very unhappy citizens. This is to simulate that they are angry because they haven't clean water (Aquaduct, Sewer System) and living space (Apartment Block, Arcology).
If a city has too many Revolutionaries, it revolts and forms a new major or minor civ.

As you can see there is no building to grow over 40. So all citizens beyond that are Revolutionaries. = pop pressure. The only reason to get rid of them is to send them to Mars.

Second reason for going to Mars = pop pressure.
Thirth reason should be that there are many resources on Mars that can be transported to earth. So even if you don't want to win by terraforming, you still have a reason to be there.

I see you guys thinking : "Oh, just don't give those Revolutionaries food and they'll disappear."
I have a rather radical solution for that.
Cities should continue to grow even if there isn't enough food. Off course that people won't be happy and will also be Revolutionaries.
It's not because there isn't a food surplus that cities stop growing. Look at Iran. You could say they have a 'pop boom' although there isn't enough food. Same for whole Africa, India and China.

So two ways to simulate pop pressure :
1) Revolutionaries above pop limit.
2) Revolutionaries if no food.

First reson to go to Mars = winning.
Second reason for going to Mars = pop pressure.
Thirth reason should be that there are many resources on Mars that can be transported to earth. So even if you don't want to win by terraforming, you still have an economic and industrial reason to be there.

posted August 04, 1999 05:13            

In game terms you could have an SS structure cost 1000 shields when build on Earth, 200 shields when build on the moon, and 100 shields when build on an asteroid. If you had the space elevator wonder it would be much cheaper to build the parts on Earth too.

This wouldn't force you to build off-world colonies, but it would help a lot if you did.

I think the terraforming thing is a bit too futuristic. I mean, something like that probably won't happen before the end of the third millenium. And it's a bit too much like simearth.

But still, I really hope that they let us have colonies on other planets, even if they are very small.

I would be happy with some huge spacestations in near earth orbit, and a dozen off-world mines with only a small staff (one-population point or so) around the solar system, sending building materials to support the orbiting spacestations.

Somebody (ember I think) had an idea in the radical ideas thread, where you split production into man-hours and minerals. If you used this idea, the minerals could be sent from the off-world mines to the orbiting spacestations, where the workforce would produce something useful from the minerals.

So if you wanted spacestations you'd either have to build off-world mines or send minerals from earth at high cost (something like: every four minerals sent, only one arrive)

posted August 04, 1999 12:54            

Atmospheric Pressure, the #1 requirement (in terms of which you'd have to work on first). The planet has to HAVE an atmosphere. If you went to Mars or the Moon without a spacesuit on, you wouldn't have time to worry what the Oxygen content was or whether the atmosphere was toxic. You'd pop first. In our solar system, there are no rocky planets suffering from too much atmospheric pressure. Such a planet would have really heavy gravity, anyway, and so would be largely uninhabitable by humans.

Temperature, the #2 requirement. Venus is a toasty 400 degrees. C02 would freeze on the moon at night, and water would boil during the day. Mars is chilly, but within the realm of really cold places on earth. If you can get an atmosphere on the moon, it's temperature would be fixed pretty well... After all, it's the same distance from the sun as the Earth is. Adding CO2 to Mars would help, but it's going to have to be cold there. Always wear a jacket. Venus needs its awful, heat trapping clouds destroyed. For anything past Mars, you're just too far from the sun to get a planet with a habitable temperature, so you are limited to people in space suits, no matter what atmosphere you can build up. This makes a big minus to growth, of course, but if you develop the right techs, you can grow bacteria farms and such that will provide foor outside a Dome. Jupiter's moons are an od exception, because they are kept internally heated by tidal forces from Jupiter. Io is not a terraforming option anyways, being highly volcanic, but Europa _may_ have a liquid water core. This would allow some sort of colonization. Another problem with planets/moons past Mars is the lack of sunshine. Mars, even when fully terraformed, should get -1 to food in all squares for this (Venus gets +1?) Speaking of Heat trapping clouds on Venus...

Getting rid of toxic atmosphere is #3. I don't remember air pressure on Venus, but I think it's similar to Earth. It's made of all sorts of nasty things though. Have to get rid of all that before you do anything else. This is also a sort of problem on Saturn's moon Titan, which is covered in Methane sludge.

Lastly, once you have an atmosphere made of innocuous gasses like Nitrogen, Argon, Helium, CO2, and water vapor, you've got to put in some Oxygen. Not too much, of course, since Oxygen is also a toxic gas. More than 30% and you can't really live in it for extended periods of time... And I wouldn't reccomend driving your car, either. Require 10% oxygen for human life, with minuses to growth up to 20%, then give bonuses up to 25%, and minuses after that, with toxic levels at 40% or so. Also required, for outdoor farms, is CO2, in levels of at least 1%. Plants will grow much better in a low-oxygen environment, so under 20%, where there are growth penalties, make food bonuses.

So, there are the requirements; How are they attained in game terms?

Air pressure can be obtained by releasing gasses stored either in the rocks or deeper in the planet core. Build Gas Production TIs to release gasses. It can be assumed that no one is stupid enough to put toxic gasses into the air, which they will later have to get rid of, so these will put out oxygen, nitrogen, argon, helium, water vapor,and CO2.

Temperature is partly a factor of distance from the sun, and that can't be helped. It's also dependant on the Greenhouse effect. Put a denser atmosphere on Mars, with lots of CO2 (remember, Mars currently does NOT have lots of CO2, it just has more CO2 than anything else) and you'll warm the place up a bit. Get rid of all those pretty clouds on Venus, and you'll cool it down. Gasses can be removed by building "filters" which react undesired gasses with whatever, binding them into a solid. These act much more slowly than the gas releasers, and take a higher technology and more time to build.

Filters are also used to take out Toxic gasses.

If building up atmospheric pressure didn't give you enough Oxygen, you can convert CO2 to Oxygen by planting Forests, putting Algae in the oceans (If you've ended up with the right temperature and more than minimal water in the atmosphere, you'll get oceans), or moss all over, whatever will survive. Remember it took hundreds of millions of years to build up Earth's oxygen supply... This is a slow, slow process, that might need to be augmented with more big machines.

There's how to terraform planets in Civ3, or A way, in any case. Here's the next question: Why? Is it necessary? The question has been addressed before, by myself as well as others. End result: Unless the Moon or Mars have some massive, isolated store of frozen atmosphere, as the Moon at least may, this can't be done in one fell swoop, that could be done as a wonder and end the game. Terraforming would take HUNDREDS of turns, otherwise. Do we want to add hundreds of turns on to the end of the game?

Next: I think that, at least in our real world, if the Moon or Mars are terraformed, it will be a multinational project. No reason for it to be anything else in Civ3, if a non-wonder terraform were a victory condition. Work it as the real, peaceful way to win the game. You get points for each bit of good atmosphere you put in, or bad atmosphere you take out. That way, whoever did the lions share of the terraforming gets the lions share of the points. All that a successful terraform is is a cue to tally up points and end the game.

However, if I went through all the trouble of making the moon habitable, you can be DAMN sure I'd want to colonize it. Add another couple hundred years on to the game. At this point, sometime in the late 3rd millenium, interstellar trave might actually be feasible, so you can win by a more realistic spaceship to Alpha Centauri. However, it's broken the plotline to SMAC, which is based upon Civ2, not Civ3 (that's the problem with writing prequels.) In the end, terraforming planets, to me, would make a fun game, but it doesn't really go with Civ. Maybe do something like in Test of Time, where the game comes with multiple play modes which can be linked together. So you can play a terraforming game, where you start with one Colony Pod and one Terraforming Engineer on an inhospitable alien planet (like the Mars scenario in Fantastic Worlds) or you can play regular Civ3 or you can link the two together. Either game could be won by sending the ship to Alpha Centauri, but if using the Tech tree from the Terraforming game, either alone or as an add-on to the historical tree (make the starting techs on the terraforming tree the ending ones on the historical tree) the tech required to build the ship to Alpha Centauri would be much higher (realistic).

posted August 04, 1999 14:42            

I don't like the proposed terraform Mars ending because the victory conditions are too arbitrary. At what point do we draw the line? From one turn to the next, we may have raised the temperature by 1 Celsius degree, or increased the partial pressure of oxygen by 1% (of an earth atmosphere) -- how does that little change mean the difference between struggle and victory? If humans can survive at (say) 20 degrees C and 0.20 atm O2, then they'd probably do OK at 19 degrees and 0.19 atm O2, wouldn't they?

This is different from the spaceship options in Civ1/2. In those games, if your spaceship is missing a drive, it will go slower; if it's missing life support, some people won't make it. Each component you add to the spaceship serves some specific *purpose* -- it's not just a matter of collecting N spaceship points (for some *arbitrary* number N). The victory is accomplished by the actual arrival of the spaceship -- an instantaneous and indisputable event. When this event occurs, the game ends. But with the proposed terraforming ending, there's no single event -- no point on the timeline -- when you can say "Mars has now been terraformed by the Babylonians". It's just a sliding scale of percentages.

posted August 04, 1999 16:06            

I think within the next two hundred years terraforming Mars could be possible.
It isn't that futuristic. A spaceship to AC is much more futuristic.

I don't know simearth.

I am 37 degrees. You not? Humans do produce warmth. Also the human installations, bases and factories.
Perhaps with a thicker armosphere the warmth would stay.
BTW, I think Mars is too far away to cause a greenhouse-effect.

Gordon the Whale :

wearing a (winter) jacket (with electric warming)is off course enough to solve the warmth problem for humans, but the warmth is still necessary to melt the ice to water.
So warming is absolutely necessary for a successful terraformation.

Genetically engineered land algae can also reduce CO2 or add oxygen.

No, I suggest the game to end in 2200.
Then you should have terraformed Mars.

New way of bringing water to Mars.
Let crash small ice asteroids on Mars.

posted August 05, 1999 06:55            

What would happen if and unprotected human walked on Mars today?

Well first he would explode because of the lack of pressure. So the first priority would be to build up pressure in the martian atmosphere. The atmospheric pressure is currently very low, just over six millibars, which is less than one hundredth of that at Earth’s surface. There would have to a pressure of at least 140 mb for humans to survive and the closer to earths pressure the better.

Suppose he did survive and didn't explode he would quickly die of radiation sickness since there is no protective ozone layer to shield the planet from the ultraviolet radiation emitted by the sun.

This could also be solved by building up an atmosphere with an ozone layer and maybe using a good sunblocker.

Third he would freeze to death. The temperatures near the equator of Mars averages about 60 degrees below zero.

This would obviously have to be solved since, it is not just enough to put on a warm coat. The plants growing on mars would at least need to be above zero degress and preferably higher. The only way to solve this would be to let plenty of greenhouse gasses, such as CO2 and CFC gas out in the atmosphere. And no, M@ni@c, Mars is not too far away to use the greenhouse effect. In fact just a little of the more active greenhouse gasses such as CFC-gas, could rise temperatures a lot. These could either be produced or you could extract them from the rocks. It is believed that the surface of Mars holds huge amounts of CO2.

On the other hand I think that the presence of humans, and their bases, would do extremely little to heat up Mars. I mean what could a few million people with central-heating do to a whole planet? Earth isn't getting warmer because of it's billions of inhabitants, but because of a slight increase of greenhouse-gasses in the atmosphere.

And finally the poor human wandering on the surface of Mars would suffocate since there isn't any oxygen on Mars.

This is one of the hardest problems to solve, but also one of the least important. If you wanted to survive you could just bring your own oxygen supply, like some sort of SCUBA-gear.

It is possible to introduce the 120 mb of oxygen that is required to breathe, put it is such a huge task that I think that it shouldn't be neccesary. Even if the entire face of the planet was overgrown with plants, and even if you had genetically engineered those plants to produce a lot of oxygen (say at 1% efficiency, which is high but not unrealistic), it would take almost 900 years to build up the 21% oxygen atmosphere. It would take such huge amounts of energy that it is unrealistic to convert enough CO2 to O2, even if you did it in huge reactor tanks it would take centuries.

posted August 05, 1999 10:55            

I'm serious. I have never heart of Sim Earth before.

Westergaard :

"What would happen if and unprotected human walked on Mars today?

Well first he would explode because of the lack of pressure. So the first priority would be to build up pressure in the martian atmosphere. The atmospheric pressure is currently very low, just over six millibars, which is less than one hundredth of that at Earth’s surface. There would have to a pressure of at least 140 mb for humans to survive and the closer to earths pressure the better."

Before there is an atmosphere every human should wear a pressure suit outside, off course.

"Suppose he did survive and didn't explode he would quickly die of radiation sickness since there is no protective ozone layer to shield the planet from the ultraviolet radiation emitted by the sun."

I know that, but it's not like they are gonna die directly after they set foot on Mars.
Besides, there living spaces could have some protective layer, so they only get the radiation when they walk outside.

"Third he would freeze to death. The temperatures near the equator of Mars averages about 60 degrees below zero."

I know that too off course. Until Mars is terraformed, they would have to wear electrically warmed suit.

"And finally the poor human wandering on the surface of Mars would suffocate since there isn't any oxygen on Mars."

Ever heart of an oxygen supply?

posted August 06, 1999 05:32            

The main problem in mars is not co2 to heat up the planet ( enough is trapped in the rocks ), nor even the oxygen ( if the hyptosys about Mars under-ground ice oceans are true, we got enough oxygen also ). The problem is not enough "passive" gas. Earth atmopshere has 79% neon: even if you covert all of mars assumed neon to gas, you won't have even a fraction.
Some scientist also suggest using Argon: but still, not enough to go around. It's suggested to create an automated shuttle carrier fleet to bring argon from gynamide.

You can't, however, just dump all the co2 you can get and then wait for it to break-down with planets. First off, high portions of co2 are even toxic to plants. Besides, it would take MILLENIAS to break-down the co2.

No, you must build a solid, moderate atmosphere right from the start.

BTW, gordon, Mars is not the same distance from the sun as Earth! It's three times further!

Also suggested are giant mirros which will orbit Mars and center 25% more lift on the equator line.

In any case, terraforming mars completly would take no less then 500 years, regardless of what technology you use.
Beside, a FULL terraformation of mars is impossible: you won't never have enough neon, the tempture would always be lower ( cause of the distance ), and the G would just be wrong.

posted August 06, 1999 05:50            

I think it would be very sad if Sid wanted to follow the story line that hard, because I'd really like to try to colonize space. So how about we go for a compromise, and demand a few off-world colonies and spacestations, but focus more on the near future space exploitation.

Also I doubt Mars will be terraformed before we have a huge space infrastructure, with fuel-stations and manufacturing stations in orbit etc. It is much easier to build in near earth orbit where you can be radiation-shielded by Earth's magnetic field. As Gordon said, radiation is a serious problem, and you'd have to live in huge shelters.

So for now I think I would be better if we focused on making a realistic, yet fun, way of colonizing space on a small scale.

M@ni@c
Oh, by the way M@ni@c, What I wanted to point out with my previous post was that your terraforming system wasn't very realistic because:

posted August 09, 1999 21:33            

I asked, since welding supplies include oxygen, if intubation and flooding the lungs with oxygen wouldn't work. The answer is it hasn't worked in field conditions.

posted August 10, 1999 12:33            

How toxic is CO2 anyway? Could you have genetically engineered plants tolerate high levels of CO2? Could one survive it by bringing his own oxygen supply along (SCUBA-gear)? Do you know how much a dense CO2 atmosphere would rise temperatures? maybe these problems could be solved in one way or another. Bringing your own oxygen supply, modify your plants, protecting your buildnings, and things like that.

Because if you wanted to move an atmosphere from Jupiter and moons, it would take such huge amounts of time and energy, that it would be like moving the pacific ocean with a small bucket. But maybe in the far future we will develop more advanced buckets? We could develop fleets of ferries that could take huge amounts of gas, or other advanced ways of transportation.

All these posts just shows how big a task it is to terraform Mars. You say it'll take at least 500 years and i agree, maybe even a 1000 years. The question then, is how far in the future does people want Civ III to go? Maybe this could be a new poll on the website? Personally I'd probably vote about 2500. (I have already suggested this kind of poll in the "ideas for new polls" thread).

One of the things I really thought SMAC needed is more explotation of space instead of the way too simple sattelite system. I have never played CTP and I'm considering buying it just to try the future part. Does anybody know if CTP's system is well done? Realistic? Worth buying?

posted August 10, 1999 13:41            

Why not on the surface? why in orbit?
I think this was mentioned earlier, but one of the nicest place to live, besides on Earth, is orbiting Earth.

posted August 11, 1999 12:35            

However, too much co2 is, ofcourse, harmfull. Too much of a required minerals cause the anyzimes to break-down: the body needs food, but can die of over-weight, intoxicted by water and get metal-poision from elements you need in small amounts: like zync and iron. ( Iron is a key element in the elctron-passage of a broken-down ATP which release energy ).

True, plants can be enhanced by genetic to have increase resistence and bettero ouput in a co2-rich atmosphere. But how high can we raise it? to 0.3%? 1%? A full mars atmpsphere will consist of an absloutly large portion of co2 in the air.

posted August 11, 1999 14:01            

But how do you terraform Mars then?