An article I just ran across
https://bigthink.com/books/science-fiction-mars/
In which the author and his main source tell us that Science Fiction has >Mars all wrong.
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.
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.
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.
On Fri, 20 Feb 2026 16:53:53 -0500, William Hyde wrote:
But getting the temperature up to the point that liquid water won'ttolerant of unEarthly conditions. For example, did you know that we
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.
Or alternatively, we need to reengineer the human species to be more
have difficulty breathing in an oxygen concentration below about 15%?
(I suspect birds can do better than that.) ThatrCOs not that far below
normal Earth-atmospheric amount of 20%.
Tony Nance wrote:
Wow, talk about low hanging fruit.-a 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-a 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.-a There was some emphasis on the fact that equatorial temperatures could reach 80F, and
the atmospheric pressure given was well above the actual value.-a 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.-a I'm not entirely sure any longer
what he meant by decent.-a 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.-a It would not
be necessary, as the article implies, to continue to bombard the planet
with nuclear weapons.-a The atmosphere could be maintained with less
drastic but still enormously expensive means.-a 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.-a 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-a the poisonous soil.
All in all it would be easier to move Mars closer to the sun.-a Then deal with the soil.-a Might not be possible for a little while.
William Hyde
An article I just ran acrossBack when James Bond movies actually /were/ James Bond movies (ie,
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.
On 2/20/26 13:53, William Hyde wrote:
Tony Nance wrote:
Wow, talk about low hanging fruit.-a 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-a 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.-a There was
some emphasis on the fact that equatorial temperatures could reach
80F, and the atmospheric pressure given was well above the actual
value.-a 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.-a I'm not entirely sure
any longer what he meant by decent.-a 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.-a It would
not be necessary, as the article implies, to continue to bombard the
planet with nuclear weapons.-a The atmosphere could be maintained with
less drastic but still enormously expensive means.-a 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.-a 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-a the poisonous soil.
All in all it would be easier to move Mars closer to the sun.-a Then
deal with the soil.-a Might not be possible for a little while.
William Hyde
-a-a-a-aIf we get to the point of moving asteroids and the like odds and ends we
might be able to get enough dense elements into Mars to give it decent core then water and Oxygen would not leave so fast.
take a lot more energy than we can consider presently.
Alas, the mass of the entire asteroid belt is not enough to
significantly increase the mass of Mars.
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 17:10:17 -0500, William Hyde wrote:/Stranger in a Strange Land/ ascribes this to the Martians.
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.
Fredric BrownAs oLetter To A Phoenixo (still sticks in my mind from my >earliest readings in SF):
I hope that never again is rediscovered the weapon Thragan used
against her colony on Skora, which was then the fifth planet until
the Thragans blew it into asteroids.
But yes, the actual mass of the asteroids is way too small to make up
a significant planet.
In fact, I have heard our Solar System described as consisting of othe
Sun, Jupiter, and assorted debriso. The entire mass of the rest of all
the bodies other than those first two put together doesnAt even come
to the mass of Jupiter.
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 23:50:42 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D=B4Oliveiro ><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 17:10:17 -0500, William Hyde wrote:from my
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.
Fredric Brown=92s =93Letter To A Phoenix=94 (still sticks in my mind =
earliest readings in SF):
I hope that never again is rediscovered the weapon Thragan used
against her colony on Skora, which was then the fifth planet until
the Thragans blew it into asteroids.
But yes, the actual mass of the asteroids is way too small to make up
a significant planet.
In fact, I have heard our Solar System described as consisting of =93the >>Sun, Jupiter, and assorted debris=94. The entire mass of the rest of all >>the bodies other than those first two put together doesn=92t even come
to the mass of Jupiter.
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 23:50:42 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D=B4Oliveiro ><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 17:10:17 -0500, William Hyde wrote:
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.
Fredric Brown=92s =93Letter To A Phoenix=94 (still sticks in my mind = >from my
earliest readings in SF):
I hope that never again is rediscovered the weapon Thragan used
against her colony on Skora, which was then the fifth planet until
the Thragans blew it into asteroids.
But yes, the actual mass of the asteroids is way too small to make up
a significant planet.
In fact, I have heard our Solar System described as consisting of =93the >>Sun, Jupiter, and assorted debris=94. The entire mass of the rest of all >>the bodies other than those first two put together doesn=92t even come
to the mass of Jupiter.
Hogan did postulate that the earth's moon was originally
part of the soi disant fifth planet that occupied an orbit
coincident with the asteroid belt prior to its destruction.
In article <EqHmR.24740$_bi8.22949@fx36.iad>,
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 23:50:42 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D=B4Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 17:10:17 -0500, William Hyde wrote:from my
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.
Fredric Brown=92s =93Letter To A Phoenix=94 (still sticks in my mind =
earliest readings in SF):
I hope that never again is rediscovered the weapon Thragan used
against her colony on Skora, which was then the fifth planet until
the Thragans blew it into asteroids.
But yes, the actual mass of the asteroids is way too small to make up
a significant planet.
In fact, I have heard our Solar System described as consisting of =93the >> >>Sun, Jupiter, and assorted debris=94. The entire mass of the rest of all >> >>the bodies other than those first two put together doesn=92t even come
to the mass of Jupiter.
Hogan did postulate that the earth's moon was originally
part of the soi disant fifth planet that occupied an orbit
coincident with the asteroid belt prior to its destruction.
IIRC (it has been decades since I read those books), our Moon was the
moon of that fifth planet.
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 17:10:17 -0500, William Hyde wrote:
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.
Fredric BrownrCOs rCLLetter To A PhoenixrCY (still sticks in my mind from my earliest readings in SF):
I hope that never again is rediscovered the weapon Thragan used
against her colony on Skora, which was then the fifth planet until
the Thragans blew it into asteroids.
But yes, the actual mass of the asteroids is way too small to make up
a significant planet.
In fact, I have heard our Solar System described as consisting of rCLthe
Sun, Jupiter, and assorted debrisrCY.
Tony Nance wrote:
Wow, talk about low hanging fruit.-a 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-a 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.-a There was some emphasis on the fact that equatorial temperatures could reach 80F, and
the atmospheric pressure given was well above the actual value.-a 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.-a I'm not entirely sure any longer
what he meant by decent.-a 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.-a It would not
be necessary, as the article implies, to continue to bombard the planet
with nuclear weapons.-a The atmosphere could be maintained with less
drastic but still enormously expensive means.-a 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.-a 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-a the poisonous soil.
All in all it would be easier to move Mars closer to the sun.-a Then deal with the soil.-a 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.-a 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-a 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.-a There was
some emphasis on the fact that equatorial temperatures could reach
80F, and the atmospheric pressure given was well above the actual
value.-a 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.-a I'm not entirely sure
any longer what he meant by decent.-a 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.-a It would
not be necessary, as the article implies, to continue to bombard the
planet with nuclear weapons.-a The atmosphere could be maintained with
less drastic but still enormously expensive means.-a 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.-a 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-a the poisonous soil.
All in all it would be easier to move Mars closer to the sun.-a Then
deal with the soil.-a 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.-a 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.-a 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.-a 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-a 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.-a There was
some emphasis on the fact that equatorial temperatures could reach
80F, and the atmospheric pressure given was well above the actual
value.-a 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.-a I'm not entirely sure
any longer what he meant by decent.-a 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.-a It would
not be necessary, as the article implies, to continue to bombard the
planet with nuclear weapons.-a The atmosphere could be maintained with
less drastic but still enormously expensive means.-a 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.-a 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-a the poisonous soil.
All in all it would be easier to move Mars closer to the sun.-a Then
deal with the soil.-a 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.-a 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 DrCOOliveiro 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:
-a "Inter Jovem et Martem Planetam Interposui"
On 2/27/26 3:20 PM, Michael F. Stemper wrote:You are more than a /little/ rusty, but that was fun to read.
On 21/02/2026 17.50, Lawrence DAOliveiro 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:
a "Inter Jovem et Martem Planetam Interposui"
Ah, neat, LatinaIAm a little rusty, but thatAs probably something like:
oIn the meantime (or maybe interim), Jove and Mars planted posies
between themo
Which, given the historical origins/borrowing, is likely referring to an >episode involving Zeus and Ares in Greek mythology, maybe involving >someoneAs wedding, or funeral.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 59 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 19:54:56 |
| Calls: | 812 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 1,287 |
| D/L today: |
20 files (23,248K bytes) |
| Messages: | 210,076 |