Could We Terraform Mars???

[NSEP]

In my opinion, terraforming is a cool idea and could maybe be possible, i don't see the point of it, unless Earth dies and no life is ever going spring back up again, (wich according to history is not possible, there is always life that springs back up again).

Just one self sustaining colony that can expand by itself is enough for the human race i think.

[sevenperforce]

2 hours ago, Findthepin1 said:

Is there any possible way we could make it work without a lot of nitrogen? Even if there would only be small plants and lichen or something.

Most plants get their nitrogen from the soil, not from the air, so that's not the primary reason for needing nitrogen in the atmosphere. The primary reason for getting nitrogen into the atmosphere is to increase the atmospheric pressure above the Armstrong limit and decrease the partial pressure of CO2. Gaseous carbon dioxide is corrosive to exposed skin as well as equipment at high concentrations. The gross mass of the Martian atmosphere is 25 terratonnes, most of which is carbon dioxide. 

[adsii1970]

23 hours ago, Green Baron said:

What was the topic ... a terraforming Mars.No, we still won't :-)

[Obviously edited by adsii1970 in an attempt to reroute the thread back to the topic, as did @Green Baron]

To be honest, I doubt terraforming is ever going to be a reality with a celestial body the size of Mars - or any other celestial body for that matter. It is not just feasible.

But with that said, I can see genetic modification, a completely natural process, being the solution to the problem of long-term human life on Mars. The human genome is constantly adapting to its environment on Earth.¹ Skin pigmentation, fat deposits, eye color and many other factors vary from climate to climate (and within genetic communities). Whatever biology does not solve, humankind has a long history of overcoming with technology.

I believe the extent of terraforming will happen within settlements that resemble the old domed settlements of the 1950s science fiction movies, For a reference, here's what I am referring to... _{but please continue below the image...}

 

But even domed cities will require more advanced technology. Now I am no scientist (looks over at @Green Baron ) but I am not sure of the abilities of "bullet-proof" glass and fiberglass to be able to handle high impact micrometeorites. In the early stages, it may be that domes are only present on small buildings. As the technology continues to progress it might be possible to build larger domes. I seriously doubt we will ever see the level of domed cities that became the fodder of science fiction of the 1950s and 1960s. At this point, there are still so many obstacles and variables to even begin to consider terraforming under a dome as a feasible solution for long-term human colonization of Mars.

For this reason, providing radiation does not completely destroy the DNA from those who settle Mars, I believe that Humans will biologically adapt to complement the technological advances. It may be that after a few generations of humans being on Mars, we will begin to see the beginnings of biological adaptation that will allow the human genome to survive on Mars. I even suspect that as human colonization expands into other regions of our solar system, and again, providing that human DNA isn't completely destroyed by solar radiation, we will see even more diversity develop within the human genome to accommodate the various living conditions of the colonists.

I believe that technology plus biological adaptation will be what ultimately allows for the "taming" of Mars...

^{1 http://anthro.palomar.edu/adapt/adapt_1.htm}

[Green Baron]

If i knew about the future ... :-)

These all are apparently opinions. And so i can only repeat mine. "Terraforming" is a scifi concept. Processes take at least hundreds of millions of years and planetary rates of production / consumption of elements. For Mars it's too late anyway since the sun will in a billion or so years (maybe earlier) be too hot. Mars had it's chance and didn't take it (born to loose) ;-) I do not see any technology that could move or produce even a miniscule part of what is needed to build and maintain a stable state; to set up planet wide circuits to keep a biosphere alive. Besides a long breath and ludicrous amounts of energy one would not only need a deep understanding of all the processes but also the knowledge of which parameters control what (and there are more than the usual game setting :-)) and how to control these, with all side effects etc. We can't do this on earth, not even close.

A colony, maybe. In a few hundred years, if we carry on with our progress and don't beat each other up and spend more money on scientific progress. But right now we weren't even able to build an "autarchy" in a desert where there is groundwater (maybe 2000m deep) and air to breathe. Not without continuous support from outside for spare parts, healthcare, etc. And Mars is a little harsher.

[kerbiloid]

Next topic will be:
"Could We Terraform Earth???"

[Bill Phil]

Short answer: Yes, it's possible to terraform Mars.

Long answer: Yes, it's possible to terraform Mars. But you shouldn't. Assuming you want equal pressure as Earth sea level, you'd need about ten tonnes force of pressure per square meter. Problem is, that isn't ten tonnes on Mars. It's about 26. How much mass is that? Well, Mars has a surface area of 144,798,500 (sorry for my Americanisms) square kilometers. Multiply by 1 million to get square meters, and you get 1.448 * 10^14 square meters. Multiply that by about 26 for the terraformed Mars' atmosphere. That's about 3.765*10^15 tonnes. What's the problem, you ask? Well, firstly, that is a LOT of mass. Secondly, you'd have to move that mass. Thirdly, you can move far less mass and get the same area with a little something called orbital colonies. Why? Well, orbital colonies only need about ten tonnes per square meter for shielding, and that shielding basically dominates the mass. Sometimes by over 95%, sometimes even 99%. So it's safe to say that a colony's mass is essentially its shielding mass. For an O'neill Cylinder about 6.4 kilometers in diameter and 32 km in length, with half of its area being windows (not wholly necessary, but it's part of the design) we get an area of 321.7 square kilometers. That's 321.7 million square meters. So, the mass would be about 3.2 billion tonnes per cylinder (3.2*10^9). A counter rotating cylinder pair would mass around 6.4 billion tonnes, but I'd round up to 7 billion or maybe 8 because of the extra structures. Why don't we have to shield the windows? Well, the air between the land opposite the window will shield that land, and the radiation going in from the window at an angle will be quite small, and partially shielded thanks to the atmosphere. So, what's the total mass for 144,798,500 square kilometers of O'Neill cylinders? Assuming the 8 billion tonne figure, and 643.4 square kilometers per cylinder pair, we get about 1.8*10^15. About half the total mass. And that's ignoring the oceans we may want on Mars, which will reduce the total useable land area and increase the mass we have to move. But there's another advantage to the orbital colonies. A few, to be more exact. Time. One colony could, in theory, be built in a matter of years after all the R&D and infrastructure is in place. And then you get a complete colony that can house hundreds of thousands, potentially millions. In a thousand years, assuming production output grows enough, we could easily build the 200k+ colonies needed to get the equivalent land area. Potentially even faster. And since each colony isn't a part of a larger planet, it can be occupied while the project is ongoing. Another advantage is distance. These colonies can be just days away from Earth, not to mention much closer in terms of Delta-V. Another advantage is that mass production may enable the whole project, when all is said and done, to be cheaper than terraforming Mars, after that process finishes (if it ever does).

[Arugela]

I'm betting if anyone ever tries to terraform they find the planet always tries to go back. And they have to endlessly maintain it at massive expense. Or the only way to maintain the terraform involves moving the planet and ends up causing so many problems it's never feasible. Or by terraforming properly it means the planet moves itself causing the same issues.

Edited June 18, 2017 by Arugela