Should Mars be Terraformed?

Odin · May 4, 2003, 18:50

This is an off-shoot of the Red Mars thread.

I thnk it should be terraformed. A habitable Mars will act as a futuristic America, a way to get away from the social stagnation and the heavy hand of Capitalism. People on Earth will see martian prosperity and demand no less for themselves, just like Europe in the 1800's. If humanity doesn't expand, we will stagnate; history shows this out very well. The US became as stagnant as Europe when it's frontier closed.

Discuss.

SlowwHand · May 4, 2003, 18:56

All the needs here, but sink money into terraforming Mars.
No.

Bereta_Eder · May 4, 2003, 18:57

There are plans to mine ore from Mars, completely automated and ready to put into implementation.

But it's not cost/output "correct" yet.

Too expensive.

But I was surprised that they have mande those plans and that they are ready.

Spiffor · May 4, 2003, 18:58

I am all for terraforming Mars, but I don't share your enthusiasm for it, Odin. Obviosuly, the terraforming of Mars will occur only if big Earthling institutions will have an interest in the place. And they will attempt to make a capitalist rule there as it exists here.

Ted Striker · May 4, 2003, 18:58

USA is only interested in Mars if we can hook up our Martian Oil Pipeline to Texas.

Inverse Icarus · May 4, 2003, 18:59

biodomes are cheaper and sooner than terraforming

Imran Siddiqui · May 4, 2003, 18:59

Odin, post in the 'Red Mars' thread with your opinions!

FrustratedPoet · May 4, 2003, 19:00

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowwHand
All the needs here, but sink money into terraforming Mars.
No.

Damn straight!

Why pour hundreds of billions of dollars into a sci-fi geek's wet dream for questionable gain when real progress could be made on real problems?

Bereta_Eder · May 4, 2003, 19:00

Besides, the asteroid zone is much more easy to exploit

Imran Siddiqui · May 4, 2003, 19:02

Oh, btw, I'm for partial terraforming. We should make the atmosphere think enough so we can breath the air and not die, but shouldn't change the basic character of the Martian terrain.

VJ · May 4, 2003, 19:02

It just takes too much time to be even near of cost-effective.

Ted Striker · May 4, 2003, 19:03

That's why we throw Khan and his gang of steroid superhumans on there and then let them do it.

SlowwHand · May 4, 2003, 19:14

Change the air on Mars??
Jeez, Imran. Let's change the air here.
Again, stuff to do here, and piping oil to Texas ain't one of them.

Zoid · May 4, 2003, 19:15

I say no. Not until we have reached equality and acceptable living standards for the people of Earth. Then I´m all for it; I am, after all, somewhat of a sci-fi geek.

Ned · May 4, 2003, 19:23

AFAIK, It would make no difference at all unless one can figure out how to restart Mars magnetic field. The Gamma radiation will kill anything living on the surface.

When one thinks about it for a second, the collapse of the magnetic field may have lead to the the dead world we see today. The radiation would have killed off life, which may have been necessary to maintain the atmosphere.

So, unless one can imagine radiation-resistant life, having an atmosphere will not get you very far.

Spiffor · May 4, 2003, 19:24

I don't know anything about astrophysics. Can you please explain me why radiation is affected by the magnetic field, and what is the problem with Mars' MF ? Thanks

Kidicious · May 4, 2003, 19:50

Yes, colonize mars. It will be cost effective because it will raise living standards here on earth.

Zoid · May 4, 2003, 19:54

How? It´s not like the wealth of Mars will be equally distributed among people on Earth. It will go into the pockets of big business, just like it does on this planet.

Willem · May 4, 2003, 19:55

Quote:

Originally posted by paiktis22
Besides, the asteroid zone is much more easy to exploit

No it's not. Mars definitely has water of it's own, which will save alot of $ trying to ship it out from Earth. That provides an energy source for any activities there, supplies fuel for the return trip home with the resources, and allows any colonists to grow their own food. All of which would be huge money savers compared to trying to establish a mining colony on some asteroid, which would have to be completely supplied from Earth.

In fact, I'd say that exploiting the asteroid field won't be feasible until we do establish a permanent settlement on Mars.

Odin · May 4, 2003, 19:58

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
I don't know anything about astrophysics. Can you please explain me why radiation is affected by the magnetic field, and what is the problem with Mars' MF ? Thanks

Mars has no magnetic field.

We should have the abillity to terraform Mars after the colonial population reaches several hundred thousand. Even without terraforming, Mars cam be completely self sufficient, it is also the only other planetary body that has an abundance of minerals, the moon is very mineral poor, Mars's crust is 15% Iron by weight, much more than Earth (that is why it is so RED). Aluminium is just as abundant on Mars as it is on Earth. Mars' own colonial government will pay for terraforming, not a terran government. The need for labor on Mars will increase wages and force an "American pioneer" type pragmatism, increasing immigration and making Mars even MORE self-sufficent. As for terraforming, here is how we do it:

Using solar mirrors, the temperature of the higher latatudes is warmed.

Warming of the regolith will cause carbonates to decompose into CO2, warming the planet more, starting a runaway greenhouse effect that will bring thr air pressure to 200 millibars, high enough to go out with only an air supply and warm clothing, in a few decades, and 500 millibars in 300 years.

At the same time you pump halocarbons, super-potent greenhouse gases, to the atmosphere.

Then you introduce Cyanobacteria and lichens to make oxygen and start turning nitrates in the soil into molecular nitrogen and oxygen.

The water will begin to melt out of the regolith and produce a great northern ocean and seas in the Hellas and Argyre impact basins. This distroys the peroxides in the soil (the stuff that gave the false life reading with Viking) and moisturizes the atmosphere.

Bring the level of CO2 down to non-poisinous levels (I didn't know CO2 was poisonous untill I red Red Mars.

) by growing vast forests in the tropical regions.

YIKES!! I'm begining to sound like Sax.

General Ludd · May 4, 2003, 20:03

Let's terraform Earth, first.

Willem · May 4, 2003, 20:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
I don't know anything about astrophysics. Can you please explain me why radiation is affected by the magnetic field, and what is the problem with Mars' MF ? Thanks

The magnetic field deflects most of the radiation that gets sent out by the Sun. It's kind of like a shield that forces the radiation around a planet, rather heading straight for the surface. I don't know if you've ever seen images of air flow inside a wind tunnel, but it works something like that. The wind goes around the object instead of striking it directly.

And the problem with Mar's MF is that it doesn't have one. Radiation levels on the surface are 200 times higher than they are even in orbit around Earth, according to the latest NASA estimates.

Odin · May 4, 2003, 20:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Willem

No it's not. Mars definitely has water of it's own, which will save alot of $ trying to ship it out from Earth. That provides an energy source for any activities there, supplies fuel for the return trip home with the resources, and allows any colonists to grow their own food. All of which would be huge money savers compared to trying to establish a mining colony on some asteroid, which would have to be completely supplied from Earth.

In fact, I'd say that exploiting the asteroid field won't be feasible until we do establish a permanent settlement on Mars.

If you guys want more colonizing and terraforming info read the book The Case for Mars, it also shows how to get to Mars for only 30 billion dolars with a ship the shape of a tuna can and the size of Skylab; and a rocket with the power of a Saturn V.

Spiffor · May 4, 2003, 20:09

Thx for the explanation, WIllem

Nubclear · May 4, 2003, 20:11

Of course we shouod terraform mars. We can send the terrorists there.

All 6 billion of them

Odin · May 4, 2003, 20:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Tassadar5000
Of course we shouod terraform mars. We can send the terrorists there.

All 6 billion of them

Dr Strangelove · May 4, 2003, 22:47

I'd take anyone's hypothetical plans to terraform mars with a grain of salt. Do we know if there really is enough oxygen in the soil to provide sufficient atmospheric oxygen? How about an inert gas to dilute the oxygen? You can't have a purely oxygen atmosphere, it would spontaneously combust. An inert gas like nitrogen would be ideal. Carbon dioxide won't do. Normally we excrete carbon dioxide, a byproduct of energy metabolism from our lungs. If the partial pressure of CO2 is too high in the atmosphere then CO2 will not passively diffuse out of our lungs.

Do we even know if Mars will hold a sufficient atmosphere? It is smaller than the earth, and therefore has a less powerful gravitational field. Surely the gravitational field has some role in determining how much gas a planet can trap as an atmosphere.

The reason that Mars doesn't have a magnetic field is that it doesn't have a dynamic liquid core. Earth's dynamic core generates a magnetic field. The percolation of molten rock through the crust over millions of years also has caused certain metals to become concentrated in mineable pockets. If Mars doesn't have a molten core then not only will it not generate a magnetic field which would repel charged radioactive particles, but also there may be no concentrated pockets of minerals to mine. It's generally not practical to mine minerals that are not concentrated. Certainly Mars will not have coal or oil. There isn't a shortage of mineable iron deposits on Earth. Currently it is often more economical to recycle ferrous alloys. Consequently some iron mines have gone out of business not because they have run out of ore, but because hey can't compete with recycling.

Willem · May 4, 2003, 23:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Do we even know if Mars will hold a sufficient atmosphere? It is smaller than the earth, and therefore has a less powerful gravitational field. Surely the gravitational field has some role in determining how much gas a planet can trap as an atmosphere.

Yes that's a big if, we really can't be certain at this point. Plus there's still the problem of the lack of magnetic field, and the increased radiation that results. Another issue is it's distance from the sun, it simply might not be possible to raise the temperature enough for life to flourish, except perhaps for a narrow region along it's equator. Which probably won't be enough.

Quote:

If Mars doesn't have a molten core then not only will it not generate a magnetic field which would repel charged radioactive particles, but also there may be no concentrated pockets of minerals to mine.

It's pretty much certain that it once did, but that over time it cooled down. So I don't think concentration of minerals will be an issue. The current lack of a magnetic field is though.

There also a good possibility that it might be rich in minerals and elements that are scarce here on Earth, because of the abundance of free water and other factors. An example of this is Helium-3, an isotope that is currently being explored as a source of fuel for fusion reactors. Because of conditions here it's very rare, but it is more abundant on other bodies, including the moon.

Frankly, I don't believe we'll be able to completely terraform Mars to the point that it begins to resemble Earth's environment. I think at best we'll only be able to raise the overall temperature enough that it will require less energy to keep our biodomes and underground complexes warm enough for us, and our plant life, to survive.

The only way I can see us doing so would be to somehow reactivate the core so that it can create a magnetic field to protect us from the radiation. Even then, the lower gravity and the distance from the sun still might not make it possible.

GePap · May 4, 2003, 23:40

BY the time we even attept this, I am sure most of the problems on earth will have been solved one way, or another....

So, once there (long after I am dead), why not? I say go for it.

chequita guevara · May 4, 2003, 23:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Do we even know if Mars will hold a sufficient atmosphere? It is smaller than the earth, and therefore has a less powerful gravitational field. Surely the gravitational field has some role in determining how much gas a planet can trap as an atmosphere.

Venus' atmosphere is 90 times thicker than Earth's, and it's closer to the Sun, so it's more likely to get blown away. Venus is also slightly smaller than Earth. Definately the mass of a planet has a lot of say in how much of an atmosphere a planet has, but it's clear that gravity alone isn't the whole o the equation.