File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Ok, so while google CAN return /hr/ quality images if prompted and tweaked enough to, are there any search engines that focus either entirely, or have as a feature, to find /hr/ sized images around the web? I know Wikipedia also sometimes has large images, but I was thinking more along the lines of artwork or porn.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
bump
>> Doc
I am slowely but surely assembling a hi res library (and some low res) of images from around the web. It's a little project of mine. http://www.photogrounds.com
I do my best to keep it updated.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Terraformed Mars FTW.

Terraforming the moon I hadn't ever really considered before for some reason though, so that's pretty awesome too. For image reasons I don't think the latter will ever really see fruition, though; we're too used to it looking the way it does now to change it so dramatically. Mars, however, while pretty as a the red planet it is now, has nowhere near the permanence in humanity's memory as the moon and so it will likely be our first terraforming project as a species.
>> 53
>>178315

Interesting point... but with the moon's puny gravity and lack of any kind of atmosphere, won't terraforming the moon be harder than it would for Mars, balancing out any advantages of its proximity? Just wondering, I'm not an expert.
>> Anonymous
>>178327
Well the lack of any significant gravity would certainly be a disadvantage to terraforming it since living there would require some sort of nanotech to compensate for the hit to your health as a result. Mars is still pretty bad in those terms but nothing you couldn't handle as far as I understand.

One benefit of not have much gravity yet being terraformed is that it could serve as a giant greenhouse; you can imagine that any place where trees grow five times as high as normal (and so on for other natural resources) they could be used as an export.

But in terms of livability - what we're really after with terraforming, after all - Mars seems our best candidate at the moment. Maybe after we do that and one or its moons we'll be comfortable enough with both the process and the idea of a non-terracentric (yes, I made that up) civilization that the moon could be converted as well.
>> Anonymous
Wow, you guys are really clueless, aren't you. Ah well, thanks for the nice images.
>> Anonymous
You could not terraform the moon without enclosing it, as it has no atmosphere, and therefore no air for the plants to work with.
>> Anonymous
didnt you see what happend in time'machine. doing things on moon bad... besides ibet most of you think we really did go on the mood that first time...
>> Anonymous
Part of "terraforming the moon" would be to give it an atmosphere... however, where the real problem lies is gravity. Moon doesn't have enough of that to hold down oxygen. In the unlikely scenario of moon being terraformed an atmosphere, it would need to be constantly resupplied at massive scale, as it literally would be escaping into space.
>> Anonymous
>>178572
Actually, this was addressed in an Analog article not too long ago -- if you somehow piped enough air onto the moon to bring it up to 1 atm, it'd bee 400 years before the pressure would drop by even half.
>> Anonymous
>>178713
400 years, "drop by even half"? Sounds not that sustainable to me.
>> Anonymous
You can filter your search by size on http://www.altavista.com/image/default

go to "Tamanhos" and choose your resolution
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
It's really an issue of building what is essentially a sphere around the moon to keep the atmosphere there. You could keep it place with massive pillars that are build into the very surface of the moon.

Although to be honest, the gains for such a system would have to very much outweigh the costs. Unless they could find a way to make it fairly self-sustaining on things like a water cycle and grow crops on a massive scale, there'd be no benefit to doing something like that.

In all honesty, I see no such need for it. Biodomes would be much more efficient, along with advances in space suits. Then again, underground bases would be far superior, given that without much of an atmosphere you have the constant danger of debris smacking into the moon. An underground base could also maintain air pressure a lot easier and (in the long run) cheaper than a biodome, with far reduced risk of space debris ruining your day.

Living on the moon on a large scale comes down to if they can find water on the moon, and how well moon dirt can grow plants. If not, it'll just be a few research colonies, a few luxury hotels for the super rich, and a refueling station on the way to Mars.
>> you know.. Anonymous
if we put too much crap on the moon, will it not alter its weight therefore changing its abort, and greatly affecting water tides (needed by much of nature)? The moon is a huge part of our orbit as well. we should probably just leave shit alone
>> Anonymous
>>179054
*faecplam*
>> Anonymous
You're all stupid. Go die.
>> Anonymous
Terraforming itself is very speculative now, but even if it is workable on some large timescale terraforming the moon seems like a waste of time compared to Mars, Titan or Venus. You'd be better off using lunar materials to create large orbiting habitats which would end up with many times the surface area of the moon compared to the amount of materials used. Living on a celestial body's surface may be natural, but like many things it is a much less efficient use of resources.

For the near term, living underground on the moon seems like the best plan. There's no reason to make a large space habitable if most of it isn't being used.
>> Anonymous
>>179134

pfft that would take way too much energy. There is plenty of space on earth for us, we just have to clean it up a little...remove the 'pests' from it if you get what I mean.
>> Anonymous
really this makes no sense if we could even remotely to what you people think, then our understanding of large scale mining and construction would have to be substantially increased. The moon is drifting away from the earth as we speak(type) so adding mass would stop that effect. Orbital structures that could hold a habitat are as of now pass our understanding and by the time we could do such we most likely could terraform the surface of the moon but have to change the surface will more stable substance as it "like a pounder".
The other part for Mars how do you make the EMP shield that the Earth has, we have a molten core the moon and Mars has sold metal cores.
Are you expecting us to heat them up for warming up the atmosphere and surface nothing will grow there with out protection of some sort from the UV-rays and Cosmic-rays Ozone will not stop all that alone.
The real part is if we can even mine it that is where the benefit is on outer planetary exploitation for resources. The better we can make Earth the more space we will have from building Super-Structures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shimizu_Mega-City_Pyramid
>> Anonymous
>>179149
>The other part for Mars how do you make the EMP shield that the Earth has, we have a molten core the moon and Mars has sold metal cores.

Obviously the unstated premise is that you need a molten core to have a habitable planet, yet you don't go any further. Care to explain?

>Are you expecting us to heat them up for warming up the atmosphere and surface nothing will grow there with out protection of some sort

And an atmosphere is that protection. One aspect of creating a terraformed atmosphere would be to pump CO2 into it; as for oxygen, the same process could be used but genetically modified underwater plants could speed up the rate at which they produce oxygen.

For all these steps just check out the wikipedia article on the subject.
>> Anonymous
EM filed on earth makes us live we are apart of it.

http://tinyurl.com/yqg6lx

http://www.pureenergysystems.com/news/2005/02/27/6900064_Magnet_Pole_Shift/

^search for the word KILL
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Isle of Elysium. Whoever neglects to make sure there are open fields there will bear eternal shame.