Mars 'impossible" to terraform

[sevenperforce]

18 minutes ago, ARS said:

If martian gravity is weaker than earth, it is bad for human health. But does that also makes crops grow bigger? Since they had to fight less against gravity to grow?

Plants grow toward the light, not away from the ground, so gravity won't make much of a difference there.

Planted in lower gravity, crops which grow larger and produce more will quickly be selected for, so even if it is not an immediate outcome it will be the eventual outcome.

[kerbiloid]

2 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

will quickly be selected for

On the Earth their productivty is limited not just by gravity, btw. If they can make it twice, they can do this on Earth.

Also, a twice bigger tomato with twice thicker fibers would not be a fine result.

 

[YNM]

59 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

its just a few places you can grow multiple crops a year.

It means a higher crop production in one area. Which means you need less land to get the same amount of harvest. Which means less resources used.

Combine that with slightly less consumption per capita plus other sources of food and you get the reason why Java can sustain a population density of 1000/sq km (3000/sq mi) easily. (this is on par with Bangladesh.)

EDIT : We also rely on rice, which hasn't changed too much from their wild counterparts AFAIK.

44 minutes ago, ARS said:

But does that also makes crops grow bigger? Since they had to fight less against gravity to grow?

Not really, it could be larger but emptier (idk but here we would call it kopong).

Edited August 10, 2018 by YNM

[magnemoe]

26 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

On the Earth their productivty is limited not just by gravity, btw. If they can make it twice, they can do this on Earth.

Also, a twice bigger tomato with twice thicker fibers would not be a fine result.

 

We have long selected grain with short stalks, we don't want the plant to use a lot of energy growing an long stalk then all the plants in the field are the same. 
Ancient wheat was almost man high. 

[YNM]

18 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

We have long selected grain with short stalks, we don't want the plant to use a lot of energy growing an long stalk then all the plants in the field are the same. 

... unless you're growing them in floodplains.

[kerbiloid]

Spoiler

An emblem of future Martian terraformers.

It represents their motto.
"A lot of wood and air with oxygen!"

Spoiler

Their insignia.
Crossed tools.

 

Spoiler

Sawing a corn stem

 

Edited August 10, 2018 by kerbiloid

[JERONIMO]

doesn't make sence to teraform it... let's just close our eyes on mars and give a minute of silence to venus. rip venus. no body lovd planet

[sevenperforce]

1 hour ago, JERONIMO said:

doesn't make sence to teraform it... let's just close our eyes on mars and give a minute of silence to venus. rip venus. no body lovd planet

For Venus, just bioengineer some sort of algal colony that takes in sunlight, metabolizes CO2 and produces O2 in a bladder that slowly inflates/grows, and reproduces by budding. Seed the Venusian atmosphere with the stuff.

[kerbiloid]

10 hours ago, sevenperforce said:

For Venus, just bioengineer some sort of algal colony that takes in sunlight, metabolizes CO2 and produces O2 in a bladder that slowly inflates/grows, and reproduces by budding. Seed the Venusian atmosphere with the stuff.

How thick are algae clouds in the Earth atmosphere?

[sevenperforce]

17 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

How thick are algae clouds in the Earth atmosphere?

About as thick as the buoyancy of O₂ in dry air.

Venus's dry air is a helluvalot denser than our dry air.

[kerbiloid]

30 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

About as thick as the buoyancy of O₂ in dry air.

Venus's dry air is a helluvalot denser than our dry air.

Algae are still much denser. 
And they have to float above clouds, where "air" density is much less than on surface.

[cubinator]

I think Mars can be made to support plants, an ocean, and humans without spacesuits. However, I think it would require some effort to keep it that way for millions of years, i.e. a giant magnet at Mars-Sun L1, constant atmosphere replenishing, or a combination of the two.

[sevenperforce]

16 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Algae are still much denser. 
And they have to float above clouds, where "air" density is much less than on surface.

It doesn't matter, because it's an issue of composition. Pure oxygen (or even ordinary dry Earth air) is less dense than Venus's carbon-dioxide atmosphere at any altitude, and so it will be more buoyant regardless of where it floats. 

The biggest challenge would be bioengineering an algae capable of metabolizing hydrogen disulfide in place of water; there are trace amounts of water vapor in the Venusian atmosphere, but it's not enough.

Edited August 12, 2018 by sevenperforce

[kerbiloid]

17 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

It doesn't matter, because it's an issue of composition.

Size matters. Smaller and lighter particles float better than big and heavy.

If spread in air a cloud of bacteria here on Earth, how long will it exist?
Even lightweight virus particles do not float in air, and neither green clouds I can remember outdoors. _{(Except of Pathologic game, of course)}

[sevenperforce]

26 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Size matters. Smaller and lighter particles float better than big and heavy.

Which is why both diatomic nitrogen and diatomic oxygen float in an atmosphere of carbon dioxide and sulfuric acid.

Each carbon dioxide molecule masses 44 amu. Diatomic nitrogen molecules mass 28 amu. Diatomic oxygen molecules mass 32 amu.

No matter where you are in the Venusian atmosphere, a balloon or bladder filled with oxygen will float, because oxygen is lighter than carbon dioxide.

26 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

If spread in air a cloud of bacteria here on Earth, how long will it exist?
Even lightweight virus particles do not float in air, and neither green clouds I can remember outdoors. _{(Except of Pathologic game, of course)}

Microbial colonies grow and thrive in Earth's clouds.

[Green Baron]

Yeah, earth's lower atmosphere is full of microbial life, that is known since the early 19th century. There has been recent work on this as well, including the stratosphere. There is little because big fat inversion below (tropopause, very little exchange), but still some, spit up by volcanoes or maybe lifted by extraordinary well developed frontal systems or storms.

Edited August 12, 2018 by Green Baron

[kerbiloid]

Yes, the atmosphere is full of life.

And how much life is there in atmosphere compared to the land life?
Where are photosynthesizing green clouds?
For sure, the evolution should make them if could.

Edited August 12, 2018 by kerbiloid

[sevenperforce]

2 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Where are photosynthesizing green clouds?
For sure, the evolution should make them if could.

Not enough time for evolution to work.

[ARS]

How to terraform Mars based from lowest to highest tech level:

-Spam nuclear bombs

-Build atmosphere generator facility

-Bioengineer plant or algae to live on Mars and generate atmosphere

-Tele-portals

 

[MDZhB]

So, I know this discussion is about terraforming Mars and all, but what's the deal with wanting to live on that rock anyway? Like Green Baron said on page 1, the soil is poisonous, there's nothing to eat, drink, or breathe, and on top of those things, there is none of the ozone that protects us here on Earth. All things the same, wouldn't it be safer to build space stations in orbit? That would mean no fuel needed for landing/takeoff, no landing legs, no parachutes, no sanitation rooms, etc. And, we could make our own gravity a la 2001. Not to mention that there would basically be no size restraint. I think the only hazard that we would be more likely to encounter in orbit as opposed to the surface would be micrometeorites, but we already have experience with that. Given enough time, we could even add radiation shielding (or even create some from dirt brought up from below)

Edited August 13, 2018 by MDZhB

[sevenperforce]

31 minutes ago, MDZhB said:

So, I know this discussion is about terraforming Mars and all, but what's the deal with wanting to live on that rock anyway? Like Green Baron said on page 1, the soil is poisonous, there's nothing to eat, drink, or breathe, and on top of those things, there is none of the ozone that protects us here on Earth. All things the same, wouldn't it be safer to build space stations in orbit? That would mean no fuel needed for landing/takeoff, no landing legs, no parachutes, no sanitation rooms, etc. And, we could make our own gravity a la 2001. Not to mention that there would basically be no size restraint. I think the only hazard that we would be more likely to encounter in orbit as opposed to the surface would be micrometeorites, but we already have experience with that. Given enough time, we could even add radiation shielding (or even create some from dirt brought up from below)

Well, Mars has water.

[Superfluous J]

9 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

Well, Mars has water.

So does Antarctica, but you don't see people clamoring to go.

[sevenperforce]

13 minutes ago, 5thHorseman said:

So does Antarctica, but you don't see people clamoring to go.

I'm sure a great many fine scientists would take exception to that.

[Superfluous J]

22 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

I'm sure a great many fine scientists would take exception to that.

Okay, fine. A couple thousand people out of 7 billion want to go somewhere that is infinitely more reachable and life-friendly than Mars. You got me.

[MDZhB]

2 hours ago, sevenperforce said:

Well, Mars has water.

Right, but there's no need to actually live there to get it. If I had the resources to create a Mars colony, I would put most of the infrastructure and people in low orbit, and have ferries to go up and down to get whatever is needed from the surface, such as water, soil, ores, etc.