Mars 'impossible" to terraform

[Cheif Operations Director]

6 hours ago, Spaceception said:

Whose talking about all of them? At most, I'm guessing it'll probably be Mars and Venus. Maybe the Moon if we're feeling cheeky. This is (simply, but not really simply) the more extreme side of geoengineering. If nature can do it, why can't we figure it out?

And what's insane about it? The time it'll take? The resources required? Sure, that's all pretty wild, but not a reason for why we shouldn't if we could. Because if we could terraform Mars, we probably will do it, or try it somewhere else.

 

Also, regarding your comment on taking a million years to terraform, and how an asteroid would hit before then; one proposed part of terraforming is redirecting asteroids to hit the intended planet to increase its water volume (Among other things). Redirecting a single asteroid away from Earth at that point would be laughable. Heck, we're close to being able to do it now. We would probably just send it to Mars instead.
And a few thousand years might be on the low side, but who knows what our industrial capabilities will be after a few hundred years of working in space. I'm not talking about "advanced technology is magic" either. If we span the solar system, have massive mining bases on most major bodies, and various colonies/habitats all over the solar system; nothing short of a nearby supernova or gamma-ray burst could stop us.

That asteroid part is a figure of speech

[sevenperforce]

22 hours ago, 5thHorseman said:

The Earth is doing just fine. We've only messed up the tiny portion of it we require to survive.

People don't realize how limited our resources are.

Earth only has enough arable land to produce crops to feed something like 3 billion people at average per capita consumption in developed nations.

In other words, to bring Earth's current population to the 21st century, we would need the resources of almost three Earths.

[Superfluous J]

1 hour ago, sevenperforce said:

People don't realize how limited our resources are.

Earth only has enough arable land to produce crops to feed something like 3 billion people at average per capita consumption in developed nations.

In other words, to bring Earth's current population to the 21st century, we would need the resources of almost three Earths.

I'm not saying the habitable portion of Earth is fine. That *is* our tiny portion of it.

[Bill Phil]

1 hour ago, sevenperforce said:

People don't realize how limited our resources are.

Earth only has enough arable land to produce crops to feed something like 3 billion people at average per capita consumption in developed nations.

In other words, to bring Earth's current population to the 21st century, we would need the resources of almost three Earths.

For now. But much of the land we use is for animals, and a decent chunk of the food output of our crops also go to our animals. With advances in cultured meat, much of this land can be used for crops instead, allowing us to feed many more people. With other adances (large scale aeroponics? Vertical farming?) even more people can be fed. Food isn't really the issue.

And with more people we get more ideas, and more potential methods of solving problems.

[ARS]

The problem is, we are currently have no reason to justify of devoting manpower and resources for terraforming. I don't feel skeptical about colonization of another planet, but seeing how ambitious the current effort of Mars colonization, especially using limited technology that we currently have, I just feel it's too far fetched. Especially if we also discussing about terraforming it when currently we haven't even managed to send a single person on Mars. Why we aim for Mars? The third closest object from the earth? (First is moon, second is Venus). Why we didn't try building the first colony on the Moon? This is an interesting question since humans haven’t even been making any practical colony on the Moon, which is right next door to Earth, in nearly half a century. Once we mastered how to build colony on the Moon (not terraform it, a reliable space facility is enough), which, I personally see a much more practical reason in building it: testing ground and as a launchers for colonization effort on other planet, I am pretty sure that we can build a practical colony (and for extension, terraforming facility) on Mars. Space is even more uncertain terrain than Aviation sector, where at the moment it’s better to exercise restraint & take incremental steps in technological progress rather than set an ambitious colonization deadline like 2020.

[sevenperforce]

12 hours ago, 5thHorseman said:

I'm not saying the habitable portion of Earth is fine. That *is* our tiny portion of it.

Right; I was agreeing.

12 hours ago, Bill Phil said:

For now. But much of the land we use is for animals, and a decent chunk of the food output of our crops also go to our animals.

The majority, in fact. At least in developed countries.

12 hours ago, Bill Phil said:

With advances in cultured meat, much of this land can be used for crops instead, allowing us to feed many more people. With other adances (large scale aeroponics? Vertical farming?) even more people can be fed. Food isn't really the issue.

Growing corn is pretty darn energy efficient.

12 hours ago, Bill Phil said:

And with more people we get more ideas, and more potential methods of solving problems.

We shouldn't punt to this, I don't think.

[ARS]

6 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

Growing corn is pretty darn energy efficient

What kind of crops would be suitable for colonization, other than corn?

[Green Baron]

12 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

We shouldn't punt to this, I don't think.

Definitely not i think too.

 

[sevenperforce]

24 minutes ago, ARS said:

What kind of crops would be suitable for colonization, other than corn?

Anything that turns sunlight, water, and CO2 into calories would be suitable for colonization, if we could find a way to grow it on Mars. 

Corn has been bred to be the highest-performing crop for our purposes on Earth. It's not actually good for us or our livestock, but it is hardy, weathers temperature variation well, and does a very good job of converting sunlight into calories, which is what we need in order to maximize the immediate profitability of arable land. 

[Green Baron]

30 minutes ago, ARS said:

What kind of crops would be suitable for colonization, other than corn?

None. They would have to grow under Marsian conditions (impossible) or in greenhouses. People are working on the latter, i read a many months long experiment on Antarctica went well.

Edit: overtaken by @sevenperforce. I mean, you can only grow anything if temperature/water/nutrients/soil permit. Or you must take a suitable environment with you. Assuming that we agree that building one is far beyond our possibilities, as suggested/proven/imagined by the Nature paper.

Edited August 9, 2018 by Green Baron

[sevenperforce]

21 minutes ago, Green Baron said:

None. They would have to grow under Marsian conditions (impossible) or in greenhouses. People are working on the latter, i read a many months long experiment on Antarctica went well.

Edit: overtaken by @sevenperforce. I mean, you can only grow anything if temperature/water/nutrients/soil permit. Or you must take a suitable environment with you. Assuming that we agree that building one is far beyond our possibilities, as suggested/proven/imagined by the Nature paper.

There may be some high-altitude lichens that could either be bred or genetically engineered to grow at sea level pressures on Mars. Or, I dunno...hydroponic spinach. They have done some research on the effects of low pressure plant growth. Transpiration (the rate at which the plant can exchange carbon dioxide and oxygen with the air) actually goes up, but growth rate goes down.

[Green Baron]

Oh, i wasn't aware. You mean this and this ? (Am trying to avoid tabloid links when searching "Xanthoria elegans")

Not sure if its edible, maybe the fungus part (with ham and eggs) :-)

Strategy seems to be "go to sleep and wait for better times". So they survive some time, but don't really live long & prosper, did i get that right in the seconds i had to scan it ?

 

Edited August 9, 2018 by Green Baron

[Bill Phil]

53 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

Growing corn is pretty darn energy efficient.

Sure. But it takes land to do that. And since it's out in the wild, it also takes pesticides, insecticides, and those are potentially harmful to the environment, and considering how it's a continuous problem, it'd be great if we could just get rid of it forever, right? Well, we can. There's also issues of certain resources being used inefficiently. But all of that can be dealt with if the environment we're growing the crops in is entirely artificial and is a closed system. Heck, we could probably design it so that if anything does mess with our crops, we can completely sterilize the farm, or small subsections if need be. The problem isn't energy efficiency, it's just more effective use of other resources. In this case, one big benefit of vertical farming would be the freeing up of vast areas of land for potential reforestation, or some other environment if we so desired. So it'd be even more efficient to grow it in a controlled environment. Year round growing season. Weather no longer influencing yields. Less of a need for pesticides. Smaller footprint on the ground. Probably a good deal. Couple this with cultured meat and we're looking at a good possibility of a large amount of farmland becoming something else like forests, while still enabling us to feed ourselves.

Quote

We shouldn't punt to this, I don't think.

There's a good chance we already have. For about 200 years predictions about massive famines and huge die-offs have been pretty much completely unfounded. Even now new methods of growing, processing, and consuming food are being developed, which will help massively. Other things like the sheer amount of water wasted on lawns in the US will likely come into the spotlight soon. We'll get better at using our resources and may even get access to more resources.

33 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

Anything that turns sunlight, water, and CO2 into calories would be suitable for colonization, if we could find a way to grow it on Mars. 

Corn has been bred to be the highest-performing crop for our purposes on Earth. It's not actually good for us or our livestock, but it is hardy, weathers temperature variation well, and does a very good job of converting sunlight into calories, which is what we need in order to maximize the immediate profitability of arable land. 

Pretty much any crop would do. What we want is something that is very amenable to aeroponics, since that'd probably be the only real choice for early colonies. Of course, there are many different nutrients in different crops, so a well balanced farm is ideal. Potatoes are actually quite high yield, and in certain areas average higher calories per unit area than corn does. Of course, with artificial environments, and a good dose of genetic modifications, anything is suitable, really.

[kerbiloid]

1 hour ago, ARS said:

What kind of crops would be suitable for colonization, other than corn?

Beans. First you eat them, then fuel your methalox rocket.

Also they extract nitrogen from the "air".

 

And algae. As a fertilizer for beans.

[Green Baron]

50 minutes ago, Bill Phil said:

There's a good chance we already have. For about 200 years predictions about massive famines and huge die-offs have been pretty much completely unfounded. Even now new methods of growing, processing, and consuming food are being developed, which will help massively. Other things like the sheer amount of water wasted on lawns in the US will likely come into the spotlight soon. We'll get better at using our resources and may even get access to more resources.

In contrary, the numbers were outmatched by magnitudes.

We are getting worse at using the resources, world overshoot day was 1. of August. People actually are dying in 10s of millions right now in Somalia, Yemen, East Africa, elsewhere. It's not in the western news,  ( yes, it is) so it is out of our minds. But it is happening.

Btw. last year islands were destroyed by hurricanes, official numbers of deaths are bogus. Just one out of many sources for that. 2017 monsoon season in India and Pakistan is believed to have killed 10.000s (single events already killed a thousand and more) and made millions homeless. It is all there, one only has to look.

Actually, relying on second hand news is a factor that does make people more careless and oblivious, which is a sad thing.

Edit: That is why i liked @sevenperforce's point. A large number running in the same direction doesn't mean that it is the right direction. Or, people all being content with "everything is just fine" don't realize a large part of reality.

I hope nobody feels offended :-)

 

Edited August 9, 2018 by Green Baron

[Green Baron]

22 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Beans. First you eat them, then fuel your methalox rocket.

Also they extract nitrogen from the "air".

 

And algae. As a fertilizer for beans.

Clear so far ... but where do i get the oxygen from ?

[kerbiloid]

3 minutes ago, Green Baron said:

Clear so far ... but where do i get the oxygen from ?

From algae which you are farming as a fertilizer for beans.

[Green Baron]

*slapsforehead* Sure ! How didn't i think of that !

:-))

[sevenperforce]

1 hour ago, Bill Phil said:

2 hours ago, sevenperforce said:

Growing corn is pretty darn energy efficient.

Sure. But it takes land to do that. And since it's out in the wild, it also takes pesticides, insecticides, and those are potentially harmful to the environment, and considering how it's a continuous problem, it'd be great if we could just get rid of it forever, right? Well, we can. There's also issues of certain resources being used inefficiently. But all of that can be dealt with if the environment we're growing the crops in is entirely artificial and is a closed system.

Sure. I just mean that as long as someone is trying to use their arable land to generate income, growing GMO corn is just about the best per-acre ROI. Mostly because corn is so efficient at converting light into food.

This is not necessarily a good thing. It is just a fact.

1 hour ago, Bill Phil said:

For about 200 years predictions about massive famines and huge die-offs have been pretty much completely unfounded. Even now new methods of growing, processing, and consuming food are being developed, which will help massively. Other things like the sheer amount of water wasted on lawns in the US will likely come into the spotlight soon. We'll get better at using our resources and may even get access to more resources.

Oh, yes, there are things that can be done. That's the whole point. If we progress with our current system, we will run out of food. If we lower our consumption and change our mechanisms of production, we won't.

Until new systems are economically more advantageous than the alternatives, however, they won't be done. If someone could make money off of a vertical farm floating a few miles offshore, then they would have already done so. This is the sort of thing we should be investing in. The consumption/production balance tipping point keeps getting pushed ahead with every advance, but the push-ahead is smaller and smaller each time. Eventually we will reach the point where we say, "We should have been investing in dramatically new systems a decade ago." Unless we start now, that is.

1 hour ago, Green Baron said:

In contrary, the numbers were outmatched by magnitudes.

Yep.

1 hour ago, Green Baron said:

We are getting worse at using the resources, world overshoot day was 1. of August. People actually are dying in 10s of millions right now in Somalia, Yemen, East Africa, elsewhere. It's not in the western news,  ( yes, it is) so it is out of our minds. But it is happening.

I just hope that the answer isn't, "Oh, hey, let's start growing corn on all the national parks too." Because A, that's horrible, and B, we're only pushing out the inevitable tipping point by a few decades at best, and the problem then will be worse.

46 minutes ago, Green Baron said:

Clear so far ... but where do i get the oxygen from ?

Beans take carbon dioxide and water, absorb sunlight, produce glucose chains and oxygen.

[tater]

3 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

If we progress with our current system, we will run out of food.

?

World pop is on track to flatten quite soon from everything I have read. I suppose it also depends on what the target diet is. The US dietary guidelines are nonsense, and in fact have likely caused the obesity problem here.

[sevenperforce]

14 minutes ago, tater said:

World pop is on track to flatten quite soon from everything I have read. 

World population will flatten because people will start dying. 

This is no different than how it used to be, of course. In the past, world population grew linearly because we were at the limits of our production capacities and so people on the edges starved to death, or died early due to disease and wars.

But we've collared the first and second horses of the apocalypse and slain the fourth. Without disease and wars killing people off, population growth has turned from linear to exponential, and so when the third horse catches up to us, it will be REALLY bad.

[tater]

14 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

World population will flatten because people will start dying. 

No, it's on track to flatten because of decreasing birth rates. The % of the population living in extreme poverty has literally decreased by an order of magnitude in the last 200 years (from ~90% to ~9%). Birth rates tend to follow affluence closely.

 

On topic, the actual paper is paywalled, and the OP news story it utter tripe, so it's not the basis of conversation, frankly. Nothing has been "proved" regarding the amount of sequestered CO₂ on Mars. I don't think anyone serious could claim to know that value with any certainty given how few measurements we actually have.

I say that as someone who is not a fan of Mars colonization in general, and terraforming it in particular.

Edited August 9, 2018 by tater

[Green Baron]

My favourite saying: predictions are difficult, especially those regarding the future :-)

I am not a specialist, but afaik overpopulation refers to a capacity in a certain environment. According to this, high industrialized countries including were i am from and were i live now could even carry more than they do right now. But this is at an expense, economically (debt for the future), ecologically (resource exploitation and destruction elsewhere) as well as politically (exporting wars, banana states, ...)

16 minutes ago, tater said:

No, it's on track to flatten because of decreasing birth rates. The % of the population living in extreme poverty has literally decreased by an order of magnitude in the last 200 years (from ~90% to ~9%). Birth rates tend to follow affluence closely.

 

Not sure if it is that clear, a measurement is just a few years (20 at most) old and i am eve not sure if the World Bank can be regarded a reliable source. Before 1980 or so it was based on mere asking, and everyone would say "i am poor" (exaggerating). Never trust a statistic you haven't made up yourself ;-) Also, 2 funds per day as the lower border to extreme poverty (regionally adapted worth of a dollar, or so ?) is enough to starve(*) here. 2 bucks are a coffee (with milk). In Germany not even that. What i want to say, i don't really trust it :-)

Waiting for correction ... :-)

(*) Edit: which nobody does. It is a highly civilized country !

Edited August 9, 2018 by Green Baron

[HebaruSan]

26 minutes ago, tater said:

the OP news story it utter tripe

Are you suggesting that "BFG" does not stand for "Bick F*&^ing Rocket" ??

[tater]

It's a metric that has been used for a long time. The 2 numbers used for different levels of extreme poverty (under $1/day and under $2/day) are certainly arbitrary, and it encompasses people who are poor, but OK (subsistence farmers, for example, could spend $0/day, and potentially be perfectly fine, I suppose).

I think the specifics are less important than the trend, however. I would argue the trend is a reduction in subsistence agriculture more than anything else.

Birth rates are also down, though. Anything less than 2.1/family reduces population. Higher numbers of children is also associated with subsistence agriculture, in that situation, more mouths to feed (with relatively high mortality, as well) can also mean more labor, so there is incentive to have more kids. My agrarian ancestors had loads of kids in each generation (8-10 as far back as I have done genealogy), when they left the farms and moved into town, they all had far fewer children.