Mars Terraforming Thread

[Findthepin1]

Cheap way to the sea, anyone? Thoughts on this please. It might be the least expensive way of terraforming Mars. Keep in mind I define the goal of "terraforming" as having liquid water widespread on the surface with atmospheric pressure at levels where you could breathe comfortably using packaged oxygen/air.

[PakledHostage]

So you don't believe humans are causing climate change here on Earth but you believe we could teraform Mars? Am I the only one who finds this odd?

[Findthepin1]

Correct, and probably not.

But you misunderstood my question. I asked for people's thoughts on this method of terraforming Mars. It is much easier to cover the Martian polar caps with low-albedo dust than to burn enough fossil fuels to raise the temperature by even four degrees Celsius on a planet with four times the surface area in terms of how much money is spent in my opinion. I may be incorrect on the previous sentence. Does anyone have opinions on this method of terraforming Mars?

Also, PakledHostage, you misspelled terraform.

Edited May 18, 2015 by Findthepin1

[Dodgey]

Perhaps, and if we move all of the frozen CO2 to the equator it could melt and produce a substantial atmosphere, the bigger question is your methodology, how do you plan to cover the poles in this material.

[Wesreidau]

I don't see the use in terraforming Mars. By current theories, Mars became the way he is because of the atmosphere being eroded away by solar wind. Unless we can make the Mars atmosphere closed-cycle, relatively speaking, releasing the most valuable resources to be blown away seems foolish. Mars may simply have to be lead-glass bubbles and underground structures.

[peadar1987]

If we're at the technological level where we're looking at terraforming entire planets, we're probably going to be able to redirect fairly substantial astronomical bodies. Plough a few small ammonia-rich asteroids into the polar ice caps.

[Dodgey]

Yeah but if we can redirect asteroids why bother trying to just cover the poles when impacting asteroids into them would be simpler.

[PakledHostage]

But you misunderstood my question. I asked for people's thoughts on this method of terraforming Mars.

I don't think I misunderstood your question. I chose not to answer it and focus instead on what I consider to be an absurdity in your question.

Also, PakledHostage, you misspelled terraform.

Thanks for clearing that up.

[Findthepin1]

Good idea with the asteroids, Dodgey and Peadar1987, but the ones near Mars large enough to do the job are moving too fast for us to put them on a collision trajectory with a polar cap. Are we able to shift one of the moons into a polar orbit and bring it down? Phobos might work. Deimos won't get the whole cap, but it is very dark and will spread dark ejecta over the cap. According to http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~mfogg/zubrin.htm, we only need to raise polar temperatures by 4 degrees Kelvin to trigger a runaway greenhouse effect. We should be left with about a third of a bar of mostly CO2. If this is made entirely into oxygen, then it is more O2 partial pressure than oxygen on Earth (0.2 bar).

Also, in response to Wesreidau, atmosphere loss because of solar wind will probably be negligible during the process of terraforming. We only need Mars because Earth's not big enough for the future population assuming our numbers keep growing. Once we have the technology to live in deep space for decades or centuries Mars isn't needed other than materialistically, because if we can survive our lifetime without planets we no longer need planets at all. Once we can do that, we're free to go. Almost none will have been blown off by the solar wind in that time (probably centuries).

[Newt]

Are we able to shift one of the moons into a polar orbit and bring it down? Phobos might work. Deimos won't get the whole cap, but it is very dark and will spread dark ejecta over the cap.

They are already in good, equatorial orbits. Moving something that big to a ploar orbit, then crashing it, would be absurd to do. It might be simpler to get a program to search for Near Mars Asteroids, and knock one slightly, currently we are more looking for ones near Earth, but Mars must have its own collection to, I imagine.

We should be left with about a third of a bar of mostly CO2. If this is made entirely into oxygen, then it is more O2 partial pressure than oxygen on Earth (0.2 bar).

Turning CO2 into O2, is possible, but at this scale, also is pretty out there. Trying to do that would not be a simple job, and falls out of your original criteria for terraforming.

We only need Mars because Earth's not big enough for the future population assuming our numbers keep growing. Once we have the technology to live in deep space for decades or centuries Mars isn't needed other than materialistically, because if we can survive our lifetime without planets we no longer need planets at all. Once we can do that, we're free to go.

--Earth was going to be over run with people, leading to mass starvation, chaos, and the collapse of civilization at the start of the 20th century. It has also happened several times since then if I am not mistaken. Population growth happens, and expansion of infrastructure and farming happens, allowing growth to continue, as it has for the last more than seven billion people.

--Now, there are environmental problems that are associated with population growth that we need to be concerned about, but they are somewhat more complex than simply overcrowding. Probably, with an efficient plan and well layed out growth, the Earth could support hundreds of billions of people at the very least, but not following current means of sustenance.We do not need to expand to Mars, as a consequence. Sure, it would be neat; but there is much that you are assuming about why we should go there. Many issues have been raised before, questions of how humans and other animals would develop at low g levels, the actual value simply of being on planets in the first place, et cetera.

--Furthermore, terraforming of Mars (even if technically feasible) would be a difficult thing to convince people to do. Sure, many find the idea stimulating, and probably it would be possible at least on some levels, but we have tons left to figure out about the place. At the moment, Mars is the subject of incredible amounts of research, the focus of NASA's search for non-terrestrial life, an interesting analog for Earth's history and development, and in general a simply very interesting, and accessible planet. It will be a challenge to convince people to come in and start engineering the place, before we understand it properly. And perhaps, by that time, we will be past the stage of lusting after territory.

(Apologies for the wall of text. I had it arranged into paragraphs, and these are being obliterated by something that I have yet to understand)

Edited May 17, 2015 by Newt
Have I overcome this terrible feind?

[Dodgey]

Pretty much what Newt said, WRT deorbiting a moon, if you have the ability to deorbit a moon then you would most likely have the ability to use said moon to create a space elevator.

WRT turning the entire atmosphere into O2 have you not heard of Apollo 1?

I really don't have much more to add aside from we will never be able to use another planet to relieve population pressures here on Earth, the only thing they are good for is expanding the human race and solving the all eggs in one basket problem.

[peadar1987]

It actually takes less delta-V to move a Neptune Trojan onto a Mars collision orbit than a near-Mars asteroid. Further out in the solar system the bodies are more icy and less rocky, so you're killing two birds with one stone, and introducing water and nitrogen to Mars as well.

Mars is never going to be a solution to population problems though. No matter how bad things get, it's pretty much always going to be cheaper and easier to find an earth-based solution, rather than shipping billions of people offworld. Mars has less than 30% of the surface area of earth.

[baggers]

the only thing they are good for is expanding the human race and solving the all eggs in one basket problem.

Note that "terraforming" another planet to make a copy of the actual biological earth system is:

- Very costly (terraformation process)

- Not solving the "all eggs in one basket" in terms of biological diversity. ( a simple virus can destroy all humans planets if able to travel from one planet to another by trading spacecrafts for examples)

A less costly and more effiency way to "diversify" and not putting "all eggs in one basket" will probably be a division of the human race in more than one specie and biological system, each closely adpated and optimised to differents planets.

Doesn't it sound interressing? ^^

[Camacha]

Mars is never going to be a solution to population problems though. No matter how bad things get, it's pretty much always going to be cheaper and easier to find an earth-based solution, rather than shipping billions of people offworld.

Shipping people off-world is never going to be a solution. Let us imagine we build huge motherships that can take 350.000 people a day. That would be a pretty optimistic view and major engineering feat, right? Even that would just mean shipping the amount of people that are added to the world every single day to Mars. We would not get any closer to solving the problems on Earth, the problems would at best remain the same.

Mars has less than 30% of the surface area of earth.

Actually, Mars and Earth have about the same land surface area, so when it comes to how many people you can fit they should be reasonably close - assuming we do not create vast oceans when terraforming.

[Dodgey]

Note that "terraforming" another planet to make a copy of the actual biological earth system is:

- Very costly (terraformation process)

- Not solving the "all eggs in one basket" in terms of biological diversity. ( a simple virus can destroy all humans planets if able to travel from one planet to another by trading spacecrafts for examples)

A less costly and more effiency way to "diversify" and not putting "all eggs in one basket" will probably be a division of the human race in more than one specie and biological system, each closely adpated and optimised to differents planets.

Doesn't it sound interressing? ^^

I was talking more akin to planetary disasters such as asteroid, ecological disaster ect.

[Findthepin1]

About the oxygen, in my original criteria for terraforming, I meant it doesn't matter how the atmosphere is composed as long as we can breathe comfortably using packaged oxygen and there is widespread surface liquid water. There are no limits to oxygen in the atmosphere, people can breathe without packaged oxygen also if the atmosphere allows.

Apollo 1 was 1.13 ATM of pure oxygen. Mars at most will have 0.6 ATM of CO2 partial pressure (could be converted into oxygen, people seem to want it) by my guess. Since the regolith is already very rusted, there's not much to burn.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm going to start a thread where we can all debate the terraforming and colonization of Mars in general, since this thread was originally only to debate a specific method of this process. Said process has many alternative methods. I'll wait a day before I do so. If there is anyone here who can rename this thread, please set it as "The Big Grand Mars Thread" or another fitting name for a thread about Mars' colonization and terraforming. Thanks to everyone for the input.

[baggers]

We can dive with a redbreather and pure oxygen bottles, so maybe sustain a "relatively confortable" 0.6 bars atmosphere with that sort of gear.

But typical mars temperatures is still a problem: -89 to -31 °C. But maybe the CO2 atmosphere will raise these?

And for how long will last these artificial one-shot 0.6 bar atmosphere without a real cycle?

[Findthepin1]

Baggers, the CO2 will help the cold, yes. But probably not enough, we may need to add some CFCs to the air. I didn't understand what you meant by a real cycle. If you meant a weather cycle then one will probably form soon after there's sufficient pressure. I have no idea how it will implement itself, though.

Camacha, we will likely end up with an ocean on Mars. There's enough water to fill most of the northern hemisphere. People think Hellas Planitia will be the first thing to flood but its floor is relatively devoid of water and the Hellespontus blocks a downward slope from the south polar cap so I suspect Hellas will be left dry until late. Sorry I didn't address this in my last post.

[lajoswinkler]

So you don't believe humans are causing climate change here on Earth but you believe we could teraform Mars? Am I the only one who finds this odd?

No wonder he has a trollface avatar.

[Findthepin1]

No wonder he has a trollface avatar.

Lol .

[-Velocity-]

I don't see the use in terraforming Mars. By current theories, Mars became the way he is because of the atmosphere being eroded away by solar wind. Unless we can make the Mars atmosphere closed-cycle, relatively speaking, releasing the most valuable resources to be blown away seems foolish. Mars may simply have to be lead-glass bubbles and underground structures.

In addition to what has been said about re-directing comets to hit Mars and boost its atmospheric thickness, you fail to grasp that Mars did not lose its atmosphere overnight. What do you think would happen if we terraformed it- the atmosphere would just be blown away in a few thousand years?! No, it took BILLIONS of years for Mars to get to this state (probably, about 1.5-2 billion). So even if it were impossible to replenish Mars' atmosphere by redirecting comets, it might still be worthwhile to terraform Mars- we might spend 10,000 years terraforming it, and then have it remain habitable for tens or hundreds of millions of years- maybe even longer- before the solar wind stripped too much atmosphere away.

I'm not saying that the idea of glass domes and underground structures is a bad idea, or that terraforming Mars is a good idea. I'm just saying... an atmosphere does not blow away on thousand-year time spans, so the argument that terraforming Mars is impossible because it lost its atmosphere in the past (and would do so again) is silly.

Edited May 18, 2015 by |Velocity|

[Findthepin1]

Public support for terraforming is great and I've not seen more than five anti-terraforming people yet. Maybe someone can start a committee for this.

[magnemoe]

I don't see the use in terraforming Mars. By current theories, Mars became the way he is because of the atmosphere being eroded away by solar wind. Unless we can make the Mars atmosphere closed-cycle, relatively speaking, releasing the most valuable resources to be blown away seems foolish. Mars may simply have to be lead-glass bubbles and underground structures.

Timescale, say you get an breathable atmosphere on Mars for 100 million years its an eye blink in cosmological scale but an eternity for humans even evolutionary.

[magnemoe]

Note that "terraforming" another planet to make a copy of the actual biological earth system is:

- Very costly (terraformation process)

- Not solving the "all eggs in one basket" in terms of biological diversity. ( a simple virus can destroy all humans planets if able to travel from one planet to another by trading spacecrafts for examples)

A less costly and more effiency way to "diversify" and not putting "all eggs in one basket" will probably be a division of the human race in more than one specie and biological system, each closely adpated and optimised to differents planets.

Doesn't it sound interressing? ^^

Viruses rarely kill of species, name one excample, it might happens if the population is small, is under heavy pressure or have low genetic variation like cheetahs, none of this is true for humans.

We had some bad experiences with European explorers reaching America and Australia who had not been exposed to 20K years of Eurasia diseases. Result was an 80-90% fatality rate, not 100% and this will not happen today.

Splitting up up into multiple species will happen in 50-300 years, seeing how idiots handle races and religion this might be another extinction level event.

In this sort of settings another planet is nice.

it also help against the opps I created an black hole black swan events.

- - - Updated - - -

Shipping people off-world is never going to be a solution. Let us imagine we build huge motherships that can take 350.000 people a day. That would be a pretty optimistic view and major engineering feat, right? Even that would just mean shipping the amount of people that are added to the world every single day to Mars. We would not get any closer to solving the problems on Earth, the problems would at best remain the same.

The population explosion is canceled. In 2050-2080 we will have an lack of workers. If lucky robotics are good enough, else we probably get slave raiding back, on the griping hand it give human life an value

- - - Updated - - -

No wonder he has a trollface avatar.

Reminded me of uploading an avatar

[Nibb31]

Public support for terraforming is great and I've not seen more than five anti-terraforming people yet. Maybe someone can start a committee for this.

Wait until you show them the bill.